Once you put together the details of an important crime, namely motives, weapons (if any), timelines and the relations between the parties involved, you can almost get the whole picture of what happened, making it possible to hold the real perpetrator responsible. Every one of the elements mentioned above is of equal importance in establishing the whole truth. There can be no truth if questions in any one of those areas remain unanswered.
This is particularly true in terms of the election-eve shooting of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Committee Member Sean Lien (連勝文), a son of former KMT chairman and vice president Lien Chan (連戰), on Nov. 26.
A large amount of public disbelief remains concerning the details of the case after Banciao prosecutors failed to account for some important elements of the crime before they completed their probe into the shooting, indicted alleged shooter Lin Cheng-wei (林正偉) and sought the death penalty on Friday.
Prosecutors attributed the shooting to a financial dispute between New Taipei City Councilor Chen Hung-yuan’s (陳鴻源) father and Lin over a land deal in 1992 and added that Chen was Lin’s real target, not Sean Lien.
This argument was based largely on the suspect’s statement, but how credible is the word of a man who backtracked on his own statement shortly after he was indicted?
If the history between Chen’s father and the suspect went back nearly two decades, as Lin alleges, then why does Chen’s family deny any acquaintance with the man?
Moreover, why did the suspect mistake Lien for Chen if there was a history between Chen’s family and the suspect?
Did prosecutors look into the alleged relationship and the land deal, which, according to the suspect, was the root cause of the shooting, before concluding the investigation?
Prosecutors last month named Chen’s campaign headquarters director Tu Yi-kai (杜義凱) as a key witness because Lin called Tu three times just minutes before he allegedly pulled the trigger, but they did not account for Tu’s role in the case, nor did they explain what the suspect had intended to tell Tu if the calls had gone through.
What disappointed the public the most was the prosecutors ending their probe before identifying the source of the weapon — a SIG Sauer P220 pistol.
Prosecutors discovered the gun, manufactured in 1995, was originally registered under the name of a Filipino man living in California, but that the man said the firearm was stolen by his cousin after it was smuggled back to the Philippines sometime between 1999 and 2000. The suspect claimed that he acquired the gun from a late local gangster about 11 to 12 years ago.
It is puzzling to see prosecutors conclude their investigation into the source of the gun despite the fact that Lin failed to pass polygraph tests regarding the weapon on three occasions and was obviously protecting whoever put it in his hand.
Indeed, it may take months or even years to find out how an expensive pistol ended up in the hand of a man who has only NT$4,000 in his bank accounts.
However, this could well be the key both to breaking the case and to prosecutors presenting a much more compelling argument to prove that the shooting was a one-man job.
Prosecutors need to put together a solid case against Lin if they want to stop people from making wild guesses and to ensure the death penalty is not being used to cover up some as yet hidden truth.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS