Issues Analysis of the Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang Case

Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang surrendered to authorities voluntarily

Because kidnapping for ransom carried the sole mandatory death penalty, compared to co-defendants Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Ch'en I-lung who were both apprehended by the police, if Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang had participated in this case, why would he not flee and instead dare to surrender voluntarily?

Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang has an alibi for the time of the crime

According to the findings in the judgment, the victim was murdered at around 11:00 AM on September 1, 1995, in the mountainous area of Hsichih's Hsivan Road, whereas Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang was withdrawing funds at the 5th Post Office of Taoyuan at that time, which is verifiable by the video recording attached to the case file dated September 1, 1995, at 10:47 AM. This shows that it was impossible for Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang to have participated in the offense of this case.

Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang never made a single ransom phone call

This is a fact undisputed by the judgment and the other defendants. Since Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang neither participated in the kidnapping, murder, and corpse abandonment committed by the other defendants, nor made any ransom phone calls, what criminal act on earth did Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang commit in relation to this case?

Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang indeed never left the Taoyuan area on the day of the incident

This can be evidenced by Chang Hsi-mei (mother-in-law) and Cho Chia-hui (wife). Additionally, witness Hung P'ei-shan witnessed with her own eyes that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang was at his mother's home the entire afternoon, yet previous instances of trial all failed to summon her as a witness.

Co-defendant Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ming-ch'üan, the older brother of Huang Ch'un-ch'i, both owed debts to Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang

Ch'en I-lung does not deny owing NT$200,000 to Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang, and Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang also held a promissory note for NT$40,000 issued for a loan by Huang Ming-ch'üan. Furthermore, Ch'en I-lung stated in his interrogation record of February 16, 1998... that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang beeped him over eight times consecutively on September 8, 1995, without him returning the calls, because he knew Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang was pressing him to repay the money.

We ask: If Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang, as alleged by previous trial instances and co-defendants Ch'en and Huang, had participated in the criminal offense of this case, they would surely have met every day and closely communicated to discuss the process of how to collect the ransom. How would it be possible and necessary, during the ransom collection period, to page Ch'en I-lung eight times consecutively in a single day, while Ch'en I-lung was unwilling to respond? Moreover, if Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang had participated in the kidnapping for ransom of this case, with the ransom amounting to tens of millions of dollars, what necessity was there to repeatedly pressure Ch'en I-lung over a paltry sum of NT$20,000 during the cooperative ransom collection period? Furthermore, with Ch'en I-lung even dodging and avoiding him, how could both parties coordinate and divide the labor to collect the ransom from the victim's family?

Regarding the confessions of co-defendants Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i

1. Confessions disadvantageous to Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang all lack any corroborative evidence

2. After being sentenced to death with finality, Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i both confessed that, in fact, Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang never participated in this case; they only intentionally implicated the unrelated Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang and made false confessions for the purpose of delaying the judicial proceedings to seek a glimmer of survival, hoping that due to the lack of solid evidence regarding Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's part, the judicial proceedings could be prolonged indefinitely.

3. Their confessions do not accord with the facts

   1. Regarding why Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang did not make ransom phone calls, and whether he was acquainted with the victim's family

      Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i both claimed... that because the appellant was acquainted with the victim's family, fearing his voice would be recognized, the two of them instead stepped forward to make telephone extortion calls to the victim's family, in order to explain why Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang never came forward to conduct extortion by phone. However, upon examination, the victim's father, Huang Chien-yün, repeatedly and explicitly testified during court hearings across various trial instances that neither he nor his wife knew Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang, and the victim's wife, Huang Yü-yen, also repeatedly testified during court hearings across various trial instances that she only knew the victim had been acquainted with Huang Ming-ch'üan for many years, but did not know Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang, etc. From this, it can be seen that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang was completely unacquainted with the victim's family and had no concern whatsoever about his voice being recognized, which sufficiently proves that the confessions of Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i are not true.

   2. Regarding the episodes of the crime, including the crime scene, who committed the murder, and the vehicle used in the crime

      When Huang Ch'un-ch'i was apprehended by the police on September 25, 1995, he first denied all criminal acts, and only subsequently stated in the police interrogation record of September 27 of the same year that he committed the crime, claiming that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang and Ch'en I-lung both held bush knives to escort the victim to the seaside of Luchu Township to be murdered; the next day, when the police brought Huang Ch'un-ch'i to search for the victim's corpse, Huang finally confessed that the corpse was buried in the mountainous area of Hsichih rather than the Luchu seaside, but still alleged that Ch'en and Ch'en escorted the victim to the burial site where Ch'en I-lung held the knife to murder the victim (refer to the police interrogation record of September 28, 1995). During the prosecutor's interrogation on the same day, Huang Ch'un-ch'i made the same statements once again. Until the interrogation by Prosecutor Li Yü-ch'ing on September 29, Huang Ch'un-ch'i once again claimed that the victim was murdered by Ch'en and Ch'en. Even after Ch'en I-lung was caught on October 26, Huang Ch'un-ch'i still told the prosecutor that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang was present at the crime scene and witnessed Huang Ming-ch'üan murder the victim. When the prosecutor informed him that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang had an alibi, Huang Ch'un-ch'i still replied "I don't know" without understanding why at the time, yet at that time he did not state that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang left early or went to wipe away fingerprints, etc. Moreover, when the prosecutor asked how many cars there were when kidnapping the deceased, Huang Ch'un-ch'i still stubbornly claimed: "I drove, my older brother sat in the right front seat, Ch'en I-lung sat in the right rear seat, Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang sat in the left rear seat, and the deceased sat in the middle." (Refer to the prosecutor's interrogation record of October 26 of the same year.) Furthermore, after Ch'en I-lung was caught and learned that the appellant's family had submitted Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's alibi at the time the victim was murdered, he immediately stated to the police that the appellant Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang returned to the scene first to wipe away fingerprints, and that the four people (including the victim, Ch'en I-lung, Huang Ch'un-ch'i, and Huang Ming-ch'üan) split up and took two cars to the mountainous area of Hsichih, which differs from the situation claimed by Huang Ch'un-ch'i where five people were in a single car. From this, it can be known that their statements are fundamentally untrue; otherwise, how could Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Ch'en I-lung, who together were present at the kidnapping, have completely different descriptions regarding Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's presence, the process of the crime, and the vehicle used in the crime?

   3. Regarding how Ch'en I-lung came to be acquainted with Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Huang Ming-ch'üan

      Now, Ch'en I-lung repeatedly prevaricated that he was introduced by Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang to participate in this case and thus came to know the Huang brothers, but witness Li Hsing-hua, who was Huang Ch'un-ch'i's girlfriend, had explicitly pointed out to the police that the voices of Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Ch'en I-lung were in the ransom calls, and testified...

      "...Ch'en I-lung is a good friend of Huang Ch'un-ch'i. Whenever I am about to go to Taipei for work, I often catch a ride in Ch'en I-lung's car. He drives a black Fiat car. I am acquainted with him, so I can distinguish his voice." (Refer to the second police interrogation record of September 26, 1995.) "He communicates on the phone with him (referring to Ch'en I-lung) every time he goes out, and is driven around by Ch'en I-lung." "(Question... Does Ch'en I-lung often come to pick him (referring to Huang Ch'un-ch'i) up to go out?) Almost every day...", yet Li Hsing-hua did not know Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang at all (refer to the police interrogation record of September 26, 1995).

      From the above, it can be seen that Huang and Ch'en had been acquainted for a long time and associated closely, while being relatively distant from the appellant. Therefore, Li Hsing-hua was only familiar with Ch'en I-lung and did not know Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang. Ch'en I-lung's claim that he was introduced by Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang to participate in this case is evidently untrue once again.

   4. Regarding the statements that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang participated in the kidnapping act on that day

      Now, Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang never left the Taoyuan area on that day to participate in the offenses committed by Ch'en I-lung and others, which is supported not only by the videotape of the alibi but also by witnesses, as detailed above. This is sufficient to show that the statements by Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i regarding Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's participation in the kidnapping on the day of the incident are also not facts.

   5. Ch'en I-lung once confessed that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang did not participate in this case

      Additionally, Ch'en I-lung also stated to the appellant's mother on October 7, 1995, that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang did not participate in this case (refer to Evidence Item 1 submitted in the first instance, the audio tape and its transcript). At that time, Ch'en I-lung was under his own free will with personal liberty, and his statements at that time should be true.

4. The confessions of Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i are internally contradictory

   1. Regarding the prior conspiracy part

      Ch'en I-lung's confession in the police interrogation indeed once claimed that Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang and they engaged in a prior conspiracy for this case at their rented residence, but Ch'en I-lung denied having a prior conspiracy to kidnap for ransom during the court hearing prior to the retrial, stating instead that he was temporarily invited to drive to collect a debt. Meanwhile, Huang Ch'un-ch'i stated "I don't know" during the court hearing prior to the retrial regarding whether Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang participated in the conspiracy beforehand. Later in the same month on the 30th, when the judge asked what opinion he had regarding Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's denial of involvement, Huang Ch'un-ch'i replied... "I told him to go collect a debt; my older brother asked him to go." Put this way, Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang turned out to be unaware beforehand, and was involved through Huang Ch'un-ch'i's notice to go together to collect a debt, rather than participating in extortion? Subsequently, during the trial on September 23, 1997, in the former instance, Huang Ch'un-ch'i once again explicitly denied planning the crime process at the appellant's place, stating that he only began participating in this case on the day of the incident, September 1, 1995. Thus, it was absolutely impossible for them to have planned how to commit the crime at Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's place prior to the incident. As for Ch'en I-lung repeatedly claiming that he did not know it was a kidnapping for ransom at the beginning of his participation, and only found out after Huang Ming-ch'üan committed murder, it is likewise evident that it was completely impossible to have planned the crime details of kidnapping for ransom at Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang's place beforehand (refer above to the interrogation record of September 23, 1997, prior to the retrial), and all subsequent court hearings were the same. The above statements in the trial court all contradict Ch'en I-lung's confession in the police interrogation.

   2. Regarding whether the sulfuric acid, gloves, and adhesive tape were purchased by Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang

      The judgment relied on Ch'en I-lung's confession in the police interrogation to determine that three bottles of sulfuric acid, one roll of wide yellow adhesive tape, and five pairs of cotton gloves were all purchased by Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang. However, Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i repeatedly stated in the first instance, the former instance, and all successive remands for retrial that they did not know who purchased the sulfuric acid, gloves, and tape, knowing only that they were brought by Huang Ming-ch'üan. Furthermore, Ch'en I-lung explicitly testified that his confession in the police interrogation was actually coached by the police: "Since Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang lives there, just say it was Ch'en Tzu-ch'iang." This shows that Ch'en I-lung's confession in the police interrogation was induced by the police and is not true, and it significantly differs from his subsequent statements on several occasions, which is not a matter of poor memory as stated in the judgment.