Sun, Jul 23, 2000 page2

• Hope diminishing for pardon of Hsichih Trio

  The campaign to convince the president to grant clemency to the three, who were convicted almost nine years ago and sentenced to death in 1995, appears to have been swamped by public indifference

  • By Irene Lin / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  As the campaign to grant clemency to the "Hsichih Trio" enters its 100th day today, campaigners have expressed their frustration with what they say is public indifference and the new president's failure to respond to their calls.

  When Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was elected president on March 18, the campaigners who have long sought clemency for Su Chien-ho (蘇建和), Liu Bin-lang (劉秉郎), and Chuang Lin-hsun (莊林勳) -- -- three death row inmates convicted of the 1991 murder of a couple living in Hsichih -- were very excited.

  Their hope was that the new president, who had said he wanted to use his knowledge of the law for the public good, would be more sympathetic with the situation of the trio and consider pardoning them.

  

  A protester walks around the Chinan church yesterday to show his support for the Hsihchih Trio. The protest enters its 100th day today.

  PHOTO: CHEN CHENG-CHANG, TAIPEI TIMES

  However, as the campaign for a pardon enters its 100th day today, campaigners have started to consider ending their daily vigils, just as they have been forced to halt several similar campaigns in the past.

  The campaign, featuring prayer vigils outside a Taipei church, was launched on April 15 by a human rights alliance with a petition to President Chen to grant a special pardon to the Hsichih Trio after his inauguration.

  The campaign started in a buoyant mood. Many people showed their support for the three death row inmates, and every day between 5pm and 6pm, a group of people could be seen walking around the church, one of the planned rituals of the vigils.

  

  Pierre Robert, left, and Paul Hoffman, right, both members of Amnesty International's executive committee, speak at a press conference at the Chinan church on May 26. In the middle is a translator.

  PHOTO: TAIPEI TIMES FILE PHOTO

  The campaign was put into the media limelight during the 100 days when the Taiwan High Court granted a retrial of the high-profile case, which was followed by a prosecution appeal against it.

  The parents of the three convicted men have tried to participate in the daily vigils as much as possible, despite the length of the journey from their homes in Keelung city and Taipei county.

  Two executive officers from the headquarters of Amnesty International (AI) also joined a prayer vigil during their short stay in Taiwan in late May.

  That marked the height of the campaign so far, but ardor was dampened by the campaigners' growing frustration with diminishing public concern and President Chen's apparent unwillingness to grant a pardon.

  The president was said to have tried to gather information on the case via a senior lawyer, but he does not seem prepared to consider issuing a pardon or commuting the death sentence handed down to the three, campaigners have told the Taipei Times.

  Hopes based on rumors have risen repeatedly only to be dashed by reality. For example, it was recently reported that the president, under great pressure from AI and other international human rights organizations, was very likely to commute their death sentences and resolve the controversial case.

  These reports were based on the fact that the president recently ordered the Ministry of Justice to examine the possible consequences of a clemency.

  Yen Ta-ho (顏大和), vice minister of justice, however, dismissed the reports as fabricated and explained that the president has ordered the examination only as a response to an initiative proposed by the legislature, which recommends the president grant clemency.

  "So far, we haven't seen anything to suggest that the president himself is thinking of granting a pardon," Yen said.

  On the morning of March 24, 1991, Wu Ming-han (吳銘漢) and his wife were murdered in their home in Hsichih between 2am and 4am, stabbed 79 times.

  On the evening of March 23, the presumed killer, Wang Wen-hsiao (王文孝), his younger brother, Wang Wen-chung (王文忠), and two of the trio had gone out on the town together. Chuang, although invited to join the others, claimed he had stayed at home on that night.

  Stories presented by the judiciary and by the defendants start to differ at this point regarding what the defendants did later that night.

  The police, prosecutors and the courts claimed that the older Wang, Su, Liu, and Chuang, had broken into the Wus' home, killed the couple and stole NT$6,000 in cash and some other valuables. The younger Wang was left outside the Wus' house to act as lookout.

  However, the defendants say that Wang Wen-hsiao left the others earlier, and that Wang Wen-chung, Liu, and Su returned home separately, at roughly the time the murders were committed.

  It was essentially a fingerprint match that led police to Wang Wen-hsiao, who was then serving in the army. After his arrest, he gave two statements in which he confessed to the crime.

  Later, it was decided that it was implausible that the crime was committed by one man due largely to the number of stab marks on the victims' bodies.

  The police began questioning Wang about accomplices, and he finally named his brother and his brother's friends.

  His brother, brought in for questioning, was forced into making a statement naming those with whom he went out. His identification of the trio was soon followed by their arrest.

  The prime evidence leading to the defendants' convictions was their own confessions. However, all the defendants, except the older Wang, claimed that their confessions were extracted from them under torture and that each was told that the others had already confessed.

  The judicial proceedings of this case span almost five years. Wang Wen-hsiao was quickly sentenced by a military court and executed in January 1992.

  Wang Wen-chung, then also serving in the army, was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail for being an accessory to the murder.

  The three men now on death row were found guilty of the murder by the district court, Taiwan High Court and finally the Supreme Court in February 1995. In every judgement, the courts handed down strongly-worded condemnations of the defendants, calling them relentless murderers who deserve no sympathy.

  Following the final decision of the Supreme Court, three Special Appeals were subsequently filed on behalf of the three by none other than the state public prosecutor general -- the nation's chief criminal prosecutor -- himself.

  Despite the trio's high level of representation, all three appeals were rejected.

  In addition, the Control Yuan, the nation's official watchdog organ, issued a report in June of the same year indicating that errors were made by the police, the district court, and the High Court in the handling of the case.

  It was only after all possible courses of action had been exhausted that human rights groups began to call for a presidential pardon of the trio.

  Social groups and a number of legal scholars have long believed that the trio has been wrongfully accused and convicted as they argue the evidence used was never beyond reasonable doubt.

  Lee Mao-sheng (李茂生), a criminal law professor at National Taiwan University, once reviewed all of the documents in the case and commented: "Even though the law provides that one cannot be sentenced solely on the basis of confessions, that is precisely what happened in the [Hsichih Trio] case, as no physical evidence had ever been presented to link the trio to the crime."

  "Sadly, the judicial system has spent far more energy on refuting the defense of the defendants, than on investigating and discovering the facts. In other words, they [the judiciary] had presumed the defendants were guilty from the very start," Lee concluded.

  The campaign continues, but the momentum is declining. Campaigners have begun to worry their efforts for the three death row inmates will be proven fruitless once again.

  "Some of us are actually thinking of giving up ... that seems unavoidable if you knew how limited the manpower and resources of the campaigning groups are," said Ku Yu-jane (顧玉珍), secretary-general of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights and a main organizer of the campaign.

  "But the last thing we want to see is these three people once again let down, which has happened in every every other previous campaign," Ku said.

  Although the case has attracted a lot of media attention overseas, it does not cause much of a stir anymore in Taiwan. It is all too common for people to challenge the clemency campaign by asking "how could over 40 judges all have erred in convicting the three defendants?"

  "It is, without a doubt, the biggest obstacle in our campaign. People can hardly believe that intelligent, highly-respected judges would make the same mistake," Ku said.

  "But it's very likely they would change their minds if they look at the decidions handed down by the judges, which tell a story of presumption of guilt, as opposed to presumption of innocence," Ku said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 2

    Taiwanese tourists go viral in video during Japan quake

  • 3

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 4

    Taiwan, Poland to codevelop drones

  • 5

    YouBike to require insurance for all riders from Jan. 1