The March 23 suicide of Lee Shuang-chuan (李雙全), suspected of sabotage in connection with the March 17 train derailment on the Southern Link Line, generated another wave of public debate about the incident.
Some people think Lee was hounded to death by the media -- which published details of the investigation -- while others believe that the real culprits are the prosecutors and insurance companies. As a result, the case continues to command public interest and has become a hot topic in the media. The problem is that while most of these theories lack concrete evidence, it seems everyone wants to be a Sherlock Holmes and continue to make comments and express opinions about the case. This state of affairs continues to confuse the public's understanding of the development of the case.
From the perspective of forensic science, every single statement must be supported by a corresponding piece of evidence. Press reports, the criminal justice system, as well as people involved in the case and their families, base their responses on "reasonable suspicion" and hearsay evidence, and even offer further "unreasonable" interpretations on this basis.
For example, when prosecutors say that there is "reasonable suspicion," they imply to the general public that they may be holding concrete evidence of some kind. As a result, the operations of the criminal justice system as a whole, media reporting, the attitudes of the insurance companies, and the reactions of the general public in the wake of the incident highlight the lack of understanding of basic forensic science concepts and common sense in Taiwan.
In fact, not only is there a difference between"reasonable suspicion" and "concrete evidence," but there is a vast distance. Investigators might think that they are simply airing reasonable doubt, but once that information reaches the general public, it is often distorted or interpreted as concrete evidence.
This is the reason for misunderstandings arising from many closed investigations, and it may be a result of investigators lacking experience in dealing with the media or lacking common sense about forensics. In this regard, maybe we have something to learn from Taiwanese-American forensics expert Henry Lee (李昌鈺).
The main reason why Lee is internationally well-known can be traced back to his truth-seeking and fact-finding scientific spirit and never venturing outside the scope of science in his interpretation of evidence. Lee's remarks in media interviews regarding the investigation of the March 19, 2004, shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) show that he only says things based on the forensic evidence on hand.
As to the questions on issues where evidence is insufficient, he always shows restraint by saying that it is beyond the scope of his expertise. This keeps reasonable doubt from getting mixed up with concrete evidence.
In order to strictly follow the "closed investigation" principle, investigators should refrain from publicizing information about their ongoing investigations to avoid confusion or misinterpretations.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor at the department of political science and the Graduate Institute of Political Economy at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS