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
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS