Lo Ming-ts'un's Statement: There is No White Terror in the Judiciary, Only Something Much More Terrifying

The court judgment in this case relied primarily on investigative transcripts as the basis for conviction, and held that the interrogation audio recordings (which were largely unintelligible due to a large amount of background noise subsequently spliced in, such as market vendor cries, school children giggling, and Taiwanese opera sounds) were admissible as evidence. However, after engaging a tech company to remove the noise and fully restore the original audio, a comparison with the original interrogation content revealed that the investigative agencies had entirely fabricated false evidence through false accusations and framing. Judicial justice has been utterly destroyed!

The court completely failed to investigate the facts regarding the alleged criminal acts:

subject (1) This case has been ongoing for over twenty years. Although the court determined that phone calls were made to arrange a meeting, it never investigated when and via what exact phone numbers both parties contacted each other (telecommunication records could have been subpoenaed afterward to prove whether contact actually occurred).(2) During the alleged meeting time, I was attending a special task force meeting at the police precinct and possess an alibi:
1. All personnel attending the special task force meeting were summoned to testify in court. I participated in the meetings from start to finish (there were two special task force meetings every night) and did not leave halfway. Why did a judge who did not attend the meetings merely speculate that I must have seized the opportunity to leave?
2. There is no record of me leaving during the times in question.
3. On the night in question, following the special task force meeting, I also presided over an expanded police inspection and duty instruction, and there is an official record of me signing out and drawing my firearm.
4. The court asserted that a meeting between the two parties at a restaurant would inevitably have been captured on surveillance footage, yet it failed to retrieve any.
5. With over twenty people attending the special task force meeting, presided over by the police precinct chief and directed by the prosecutor, could a single criminal investigation squad leader possibly cover the sky with one hand?
subject (3) Regarding the alleged NT$500,000 in bribe money, part of which was purportedly withdrawn from a post office, requesting withdrawal records immediately from the post office would have clarified whether it matched the stated facts.

The polygraph procedure did not conform to the facts, and both the Control Yuan and the Supreme Court have acknowledged flaws:

subject (1) The polygraph examiner arbitrarily forged the subject's name on the polygraph charts. subject (2) The polygraph record explanation stated there were no signs of deception, yet the appraisal report claimed the polygraph was failed. subject (3) Certain matters were not tested during the polygraph, yet the appraisal report stated those matters failed the polygraph. subject (4) In a separate case involving the same polygraph examiner, after the subject had already signed the polygraph chart and departed, the examiner arbitrarily attached a blank chart and forged the subject's name to falsely claim the subject failed the polygraph examination. Could anything be more absurd?

At the Investigation Bureau, the identification procedure involved showing the subject's image first before returning to the interrogation room to identify photographs, yet the identification was still incorrect. However, the transcript recorded the identification as flawless. Is this reasonable, rational, or lawful?

The co-defendant confessed to being induced, lured, and intimidated by the Investigation Bureau and prosecutors, and that fabricating facts to frame others weighed heavily on their conscience. Consequently, while in the detention center, they wrote a letter of confession to the prosecutor. Yet the court turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to this!

Under the principle of the unity of the prosecution service, the Prosecutor-General is intimately familiar with all operations and procedures executed by subordinate prosecutors. Following a detailed investigation, citing evidence that the prosecutor indeed missed the appeal deadline, the Prosecutor-General filed an extraordinary appeal. Yet, the current Supreme Court judgment requires the defendant to present objective facts showing that when the bailiff served the judgment, the prosecutor actually saw the judgment and failed to act. Not only does this contradict numerous past precedents, does it also overstep the principle of the separation of the judiciary and the prosecution?