李昌鈺能信任嗎？

李昌鈺能信任嗎？

回覆 返回

阿茶　於　2004/03/30 23:50
李昌鈺能信任嗎？
從美國來的三位專家都是李昌鈺的助手，四月李昌鈺本人也可能會來到台灣。我很想信任他們的專業素養，也很想信任他們應該不會被國親影響、賠掉自己的信譽。然而，李昌鈺畢竟是連宋後援會的人，我們究竟能不能信任他呢？民進黨內似乎已有人提出要再邀請其他專家來台。不知道後來究竟會怎樣？請大家發表意見吧！

NO:1970_1

台龍　於　2004/03/31 00:00
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
沒有人是完完全全可以信任的。反正如果結果不如人意，就用國民黨的詏步，把他抹黑鬥垮就是了。大家等著看，如果李昌鈺說這都是真得，統媒馬上就會做我說的那些詏步。以後李昌鈺在台灣就混不下去了，同時他再也不會當什麼汎藍的後援會主席了。這種這麼清楚的事還要扯這麼多，那麼其他那些模擬兩可的事不是完全無解了?

NO:1970_2

恆愛台　於　2004/03/31 00:01
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
台灣鑑識科人員死光了嗎？。。。。。憑啥麼李橘黨榮譽主席昌鈺說了算數？還有美國人親統派【雷倩】是啥麼東西啊？。。。。。干預我國司法內政嗎？綠軍如我非常之不信賴這類G~B~光頭屠夫做法.............怎麼法務部都死光了？莫不吭聲就同意人家霸王硬上弓啊？.........萬一每人收了十萬美元以後屁放說【全是假的】！～台灣是準備街頭死多少人啊？.............十天內中共滅亡台灣～【這不是天大的好時機嗎？】

NO:1970_3

阿嚕　於　2004/03/31 00:25
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
剛剛三位美籍專家舉行離台記者會，看到由雷倩擔任翻譯，著實令人心裡發毛，雖說這三位專家聲稱沒有政治立場，但由雷倩全程陪同已讓這三位人士蒙上某種政治色彩。這三位專家說要把證物帶回美國化驗，也不知道他們帶走的是什麼樣的關鍵性證物，證物會不會被變造也不免給人某種懷疑的空間。

NO:1970_4

舞　於　2004/03/31 00:33
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我是覺得綠營請不要太大意對付小人不可用常理判斷不是沒有人可以用吧~非得牽就他們到這種地步嗎?

NO:1970_5

恆愛台　於　2004/03/31 00:35
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
喂｝喂｝｝喂｝｝｝。。。。。民進黨政府和台聯等政治人物醒來好不好啊？？？？？這件事非同小可啊？？？？？萬一【這三位老美受賄～而違背專業】說【【【一切都是造假的！】】】幹牠媽的～～～上街頭火拼！要死大家一起死！。。。。。反正台灣亡國也是絕子絕孫！大家來殺個痛快～～～沒光西！..............白癡！～讓一個親宋份子佈局【亡國的捷徑？】阿扁總統～～～您是找死嗎？..........不會立即否定【李昌鈺】和【雷倩】主導此事？

NO:1970_6

歌麗絲　於　2004/03/31 00:36
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我更擔心的是,他們拿到了阿扁身體上的組織物就算這次鑑定還給阿扁公道了以後中國或統派會不會弄個什麼死人案件嫁禍給阿扁所為呢? 希望是我多心了才好不過,看看統派敗選後的表現,他們還有什事不敢做呢

NO:1970_7

我見　於　2004/03/31 00:40
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
相信一個專業人才，是根據事實和良心來說話要不然不會有今天的地位～李博士又不靠國民黨過活，他的鑑定是受國際推崇的如果李博士說沒有，相信泛藍應該沒話說了吧？當然，若能再找幾個有公信力的國內外專家，讓疑慮減至最少是最好的。

NO:1970_8

y2joke 　於　2004/03/31 00:42
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我是聽到李昌鈺在媒體上聲稱身為一個中國人這句話讓我挺擔心的不過我還是相信證據會說話實在不希望看到我們擔心的是會發生

NO:1970_9

阿敦　於　2004/03/31 02:35
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
今天自由時報的介紹蠻讓人放心的(但不包括李昌鈺因為他未到台灣) 三位之中最出名的一位數年前也來過台灣檢驗陳文成命案的專家, 他也提到陳文成命案當年的政府要他判斷為自殺他仍然誠實的說是他殺, 要大家相信他無政治立場,目前美國甘迺迪槍擊案也是由主導調查小組的, 世界權威級的人物,值得信任但我忘記他的名字了. 台灣檢驗專家無法被信任還不就是國民黨自己這麼黑就不相信台灣, 一再證明國民黨果然很黑無法也無理可言.還愛栽贓給阿扁. 也可見當初民進黨爭取要國外人士驗黃信介及陳文成命案也是正確的, 因為證明如上...但可憐的是阿扁的槍傷是真的也要被折騰..

NO:1970_10

zz 　於　2004/03/31 02:57
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
OJ Simpson & Bernett 那個漂亮女童星被老爸姦污老媽幫忙掩飾或誤殺有錢人怕女兒抖出事實都是花大把鈔票僱用李亨利(李昌鈺)脫罪媽的狗屁公正的國際刑事鑑識專家

NO:1970_11

馬德咧　於　2004/03/31 03:24
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
連宋選前搞一個陳由豪來亂，選後該不會搞個李昌鈺來反吧

NO:1970_12

綠色芽　於　2004/03/31 03:40
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
以前看過個消息，說李昌鈺當年是中央警官學校送到美國受訓的公費生，學業完成後沒有回台服務跳機移民美國，有人能證實及提供詳細資料嗎？

NO:1970_13

酥餅　於　2004/03/31 04:15
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺的政治立場很明顯是偏藍，但是在我們有證據證明他的專業受其政治立場影響之前，我們應該要求自己不要揣測，不然不就跟泛藍一樣墮落嗎？我知道要不揣測很難，但是野蠻與文明的分際就在這裡。

NO:1970_14

Echo 　於　2004/03/31 06:45
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我倒是比較擔心另外一個可能性。現在槍擊案的証物都已經相當充分，依照泛藍的習性，說不定經過一番設計後，派個人出來自首，說是經過民進黨某「深綠大老」的指使來開槍，依照泛藍過去的栽贓習慣與骯髒手段，這是很有可能的。

NO:1970_15

TV330併欄　於　2004/03/31 07:04
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
J.R. 　於　2004/03/31 02:17 李昌鈺只是拿錢替人脫罪的證人. 所謂美國刑事鑑識權威李昌鈺,其實只是拿錢替有錢人脫罪的證人(Forensic Witness). 在美國,有錢人犯了刑事罪被起訴,可以花錢請來所謂刑事鑑識證人(Forensic Witness). 在刑事辯論庭上,作出對被告有利的證詞.替有錢人脫罪. 最有名的案件,就是嚴重涉嫌殺妻的黑人球星辛普森. 他以五萬美金,請來李亨利(李昌鈺)替他作證. 果然李亨利就幫辛普森脫罪; 現在台灣泛藍中國人,要用李亨利來鑑識阿扁總統槍擊案. 把一個拿錢替人消災的李亨利,捧成國際刑事鑑識權威李昌鈺博士. 李亨利(李昌鈺)是大紐約區連宋助選會的委員. 這樣的政治背景和拿錢作證的本質, 李昌鈺會是公正的國際刑事鑑識專家嗎? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO:1975_1zz 　於　2004/03/31 02:56 Re:李昌鈺只是拿錢替人脫罪的證人. 是啊 OJ Simpson & Bernett 那個漂亮女童星被老爸姦污老媽幫忙掩飾或誤殺有錢人怕女兒抖出事實都是花大把鈔票僱用李亨利(李昌鈺)脫罪媽的狗屁公正的國際刑事鑑識專家 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO:1975_2酥餅　於　2004/03/31 04:34 Re:李昌鈺只是拿錢替人脫罪的證人. 這種指控不公平，不能說他幫被告作證他的人格就有問題。這種指控太想當然爾，我們要期許自己，不要像泛藍一樣墮落。下面是李昌鈺幫OJ作證的全文。如果他說的沒道理，控方律師也會盡全力把毛病挑出來。李昌鈺的政治傾向當然很令我們擔心。他的政治傾向會不會影響他的專業也有待觀察。但是在我們還沒有證據證明他的專業受到影響之前，即使難免有一些揣測，也只能選擇相信他。 TESTIMONY OF DR. HENRY LEE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK: MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you tell us what present position you hold? DR. LEE: Currently, Im the chief criminalist for state of Connecticut. Also, Im the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory. However, today, I come here as a--act as an independent consultant, nothing to do with my official capacity. **** MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the side that youre usually on in criminal cases in terms of percentages, what percentage of the time are you called by the Prosecution and what percentage of the time are you called by the Defense? DR. LEE: Uh, approximately 95 percent is for the Prosecution, less than five percent for the Defense. ** MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the different areas that you have testified in as an expert for the Prosecution and Defense, just to get through it briefly, does that include hair examination? DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. SCHECK: Trace evidence? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Crime scene reconstruction? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And something thats called blood spatter or blood splatter interpretation? DR. LEE: Its blood pattern interpretation. MR. SCHECK: Okay. Doctor, I would like to turn for a second to your writings. How many books or monographs or chapters in textbooks have you written? DR. LEE: Including books or booklet, monographs or chapter, more than 20, more than 20 now. MR. SCHECK: Are some of these books used as textbooks in forensic science? DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. SCHECK: Now, lets talk briefly about the professional associations where youre a member. What professional associations are you a member of and that youre active in? DR. LEE: Approximately 20 some different professional organization. Most are dealing with forensic science. To name a few, Academy of--American Academy of Forensic Science, England Forensic Society, England Fingerprint Society, International Association of Identification, International Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Association, International Homicide Detectives Investigators Association and Northeastern Forensic Scientist Association, of course American Crime Laboratory Directors Association and some other organization. ** MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, how is it that you got involved in this case? DR. LEE: This case, in June 14, I receive a phone call from attorney Shapiro, Bob Shapiro, asking me to assist in this case. ** MR. SCHECK: Now, what were you asked to do in terms of this case for the Defense? What tasks were you asked to perform? What areas? DR. LEE: Uh, basically involving review some physical evidence and exam, study the crime scene and crime scene pictures, photographs, try to find the scientific fact, what involved in this case. So my role is rather limited, not really involving other aspect of investigation. In addition, when the time I was called in, the crime scene already almost nonexist. So my involvement just so-called a limit review of the crime scene photographs and crime scene inspection. Physical evidence, thats my strength. I exam quite a few pieces physical evidence. ** MR. SCHECK: There is a discipline of analysis known as bloodstain spatter or splatter interpretation? DR. LEE: Bloodstain pattern analysis, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you were making reference in your testimony so far to certain kind of bloodstain patterns? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. ** MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this time I would ask permission to, with a bottle of red ink and paper, have Dr. Lee demonstrate different kind of bloodstain patterns. ** MR. SCHECK: As a predicate for explaining bloodstain patterns, could you explain for us briefing something about the circulatory system as it relates to how blood comes out of the body? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. In this closed circulation system carry the oxygen nutrient through the body and that is why we can function. Once this system interrupt, the blood will come up. Depends which part of the body. If an artery, the blood will gush out, so-called arterial spurting, arterial gushing. If a vein was cut, the blood will rush out. If just a capillary cut, the blood dripping out. Once it has come out of our body, we cannot take back any more, we cannot control any more. The environment and the physics takes over. It is no longer--can be controlled by an individual. Once the blood come out, would deposit to a surface. The surface usually is the lowest surface, whatever lowest surface. For example, here, that is--if I dripping the blood or ink onto this surface, that is the lowest surface. If I drip here, (Indicating), the carpet going to be lowest surface. It stop on the surface according to the physics, the gravity. MR. SCHECK: Could you demonstrate for the jury, for example, you mentioned a drop, what is known as a low velocity drop? DR. LEE: Yes. If the blood come out without any force, just dripping, going to form certain patterns. This pattern, (Indicating), generally we consider a low velocity blood drop. MR. SCHECK: All right. The record should reflect that Dr. Lee has taken a bottle of--out of a bottle of red ink a dropper. THE COURT: Eyedropper. MR. SCHECK: Im sorry, an eyedropper, and dropped it directly down onto a piece of paper. ** MR. SCHECK: Now, on this low velocity drop, the way you did it, it was vertical? DR. LEE: It is directly perpendicular to the surface, ninety-degree drop. MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to measure the diameter of those drops, could this be correlated with the source of it to the target? DR. LEE: In general we can do an estimation. We have to know the substrata. Is this paper, carpet, pavement or wood? Each substrata surface will have different effect. You cannot use the paper to compare a carpet or use the carpet to compare the pavement; therefore, you have to know the drop size, how big a drop, and have to know the substrata. Sometime we can make some correlation. We cannot make, say, an exact determination how high. MR. SCHECK: But can one make a reasonable approximation, in certain instances, by measuring the diameter of a vertical drop such as this with respect to where the source was? DR. LEE: If we know every parameters, then we can make a reasonable interpretation. MR. SCHECK: Is it therefore important, when documenting, preserving evidence at a crime scene, to make an effort to document the size of drops? DR. LEE: Yes. We generally conduct such documentation. MR. SCHECK: And the photographs taken in this case of the bloodstain evidence at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes, did they contain rulers in them so that such measurements could be made? DR. LEE: I did not have opportunity to see every photograph. I cannot tell you. The photograph what I examined I did not see rulers. *** MR. SCHECK: So would it be fair to say that the impact angle can be determined to some extent by the width and length of the bloodstain pattern? DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. SCHECK: And is that something that ought to be done when properly processing a crime scene? DR. LEE: I usually--if a blood pattern become crucial, we document that. ** THE COURT: No. Have you ever been to a Gallagher show? MR. SCHECK: I have. Doesnt he use more props? *** MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, I call your attention now to the board that weve marked 1341 entitled Bloodstain from closed-in area of Bundy. With the courts permission may Dr. Lee-- THE COURT: Yes, he may. MR. SCHECK: --get off the witness stand and with the aid of a pointer or whatever else you want to use, Dr. Lee. ** MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, what does the center picture in this board depict? DR. LEE: The center picture second row second line--second column, second row, this depicts an overall view of a corner of a fenced in area at the Bundy scene. MR. SCHECK: And Dr. Lee, are there recognizable blood spatter patterns that are highlighted in the peripheral pictures on this board? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, whose pictures are these? DR. LEE: Those are the pictures supplied to me by attorney Shapiro. MR. SCHECK: So these are from, to the best of your knowledge, the Prosecution? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And with respect to these bloodstain patterns, there are no rulers in this--these pictures so that we can measure any of these deposits? DR. LEE: I did not see any. ** MR. SCHECK: I would like to now turn to a discussion of the socks, and Id ask that this board be marked Defendants next in order. ** MR. SCHECK: This first board marked 1352 entitled, History of socks, item 13, June 13th, 1994 at Rockingham, briefly, Dr. Lee, what is this? ** DR. LEE: This board consists three picture. This three picture was supplied to me by attorney Shapiro. THE COURT: Next question. MR. SCHECK: All right. Picture no. 1 is a--represents what in terms of the bedroom? DR. LEE: Depicts an overall view, shows this corner of the bedroom and a rug on the carpet, the bed and appear to be--in the center of this picture appear to be pair of socks (Indicating). MR. SCHECK: Direct your attention to the picture on the upper right-hand corner. DR. LEE: This picture is taken appear to be a different point of time. We see some changes in the picture. However, this pair of socks appear to be in the middle of this rug (Indicating). ** MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it? DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks. MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is it? DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I dont know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, its not flat. Its also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating). MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done? DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks-- MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted. ** MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock? DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time. MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves? DR. LEE: Yes, I did. MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind? DR. LEE: No question about it. MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think were--is there anything else of note on this board? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is that? DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope. MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure? DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. Its no longer its virgin state. MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net? DR. LEE: I wasnt provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesnt matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated. ** MR. SCHECK: All right. The board contains the phrase Wet blood transfers in relation to this picture. Could you please explain that? DR. LEE: When I exam this stain carefully, its a contact smear made of blood. This blood has to be in wet stage to get transfer. Once it dry, you cannot transfer anymore. So thats why I refer a close-up view of a wet blood transfer. MR. SCHECK: And let me see if I understand this. Youre saying that what has to be wet in order to cause this kind of transfer stain? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: The object that is making-- DR. LEE: The object, the surface of items on either a glove or any object have some wet blood touch this brown paper bag cause this transfer with the motion. MR. SCHECK: And what is the photograph on the upper right-hand corner of this board entitled, Bloodstains inside paper bag, item 78? What does that represent? DR. LEE: The paper bag when I look at the inside, I see wet transfer inside of the bag. The mechanism of this transfer remains the same. Has to be a wet surface, wet object with some wet blood--Im sorry--a surface object with some wet blood contact this brown paper bag cause such transfer. MR. SCHECK: And what is the picture, the lower right hand that says close-up wet blood transfers? DR. LEE: The close-up shows some of the blood has soaked through other side to the exterior surface. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, is it a good procedure to put an object such as a boot that is still wet with blood inside a paper bag? ** DR. LEE: I cannot say what LAPD procedure. I did not review it. Ive not come here to criticize anybody. My own procedure, if I collect, I dont put an object wet. MR. SCHECK: And why wouldnt you put a wet object into such a paper bag? DR. LEE: Because a transfer, you change the pattern. If an object have two or three different type of blood grouping, because this transfer, now you may resolve some false reading. MR. SCHECK: Is that--could create mixtures? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Where there werent originally mixtures? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Is that whats sometimes known as cross-contamination? DR. LEE: Yes. ** CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG ** MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, I wanted to just mention very briefly or ask you very briefly about one of the matters that you just alluded to a few moments ago. DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: Regarding identification of human remains in cases here in the continental United States. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Your most famous such case where you were personally involved at the crime scene, not at the time of the crime, but afterwards. DR. LEE: Thank you very much. MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.--was the People versus Crafts case; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was that a case, sir, where the victim in that case, Helen Crafts, was killed by her husband and she was--he disposed of her by putting her body through a wood chipper machine? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular case is it a fair summary of what happened that the biological evidence was spread over a very significant amount of territory, about 2500 square feet, in the snow by a river as a result of the body having gone through the wood clipper machine? DR. LEE: The majority this and probably wound up in the river. Only small fragment were found scattered around the river bank. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And just so it is clear, what was done in this case is large amounts of snow were put in buckets and then taken into tents and melted and the biological evidence would tend to fall or sink to the bottom of the bucket and all the debris would tend to rise to the top and you just throw the debris out and take the biological evidence out in the bottom? DR. LEE: Not exactly. Any recognizable material, for example, we found a fingernail, you can recognize, you dont have to throw in a bucket. You just taken it out. If it is bone chips, we can recognize, or a tooth. We have a team of scientists, team of investigator work together since we can see and recognizable right away, you remove it. For example, I can see a scissor, I collect a scissor. I dont have to throw the scissor in the bucket. Things we cannot visually recognize, we use the second procedure. MR. GOLDBERG: And that included some of the biological evidence in the case? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, when that occurred, when the items would fall to the bottom of the bucket, various different biological samples could get mixed together or were mixed together; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And it also mixed together human biological samples with others that were out there, like deer bones and the like; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes, correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And despite that, sir, it was proper and you did decide to attempt DNA technology on this evidence; is that correct? DR. LEE: Thats correct. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But this case was a little while ago, as I recall, it was in the mid-eighties? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: So with the state of the technology at that time, you were not actually able to do DNA, true? DR. LEE: No. We did some DNA work. MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you did? DR. LEE: We did some X, Y, determine male, female. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You were also able to do--when I say You Im also including your laboratory people-- DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you were able to get results that identified the human remains in that case even though all the biological evidence was mixed together at the time that it was collected? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Do you agree, sir, that one of the practical realities that criminalists face who are working for law enforcement, is budgetary problems and monetary shortfalls? DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. GOLDBERG: So would you agree, sir, that generally speaking, forensic resources are scarce in the sense that we cant do all the testing and all the study in every case that we would like to do? DR. LEE: That is absolute correct. Of course if you have the support of the leadership, for example, I have a good boss, my commissioner very supportive to forensic science, so we try to do what supposed to do. Of course impossible to do every possible test in this earth for a certain case. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnells article on the Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? DR. LEE: (No audible response.) MR. GOLDBERG: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? DR. LEE: Im a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence-- ** MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree generally with the findings of MacDonnell in this particular article? DR. LEE: In general, yes, but the specific example he give maybe not totally cover the whole situation. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in general do you agree with the proposition that we really cant infer that someone cannot participate in a crime involving a bloody event simply because they dont have blood on them, on their clothing or on their person? DR. LEE: Again, as I indicate before, depend on situation. One example said beat up a rabbit. Rabbit, human two different scene. You beat up a rabbit, did not get blood spatter on your clothing. Doesnt mean you beat up a human did not get blood on your body, and I guess depends on situation. If you standing a distance, firing a shot, gunshot, thirty feet away, kill somebody, I dont expect to find blood spatter on somebodys clothing. That is correct. However, if you put the gun next to somebodys head, fire a shot, nothing, no clothing, block the back spatter, I expect to find some blood spatter, so it varies. I cannot in certain senses, correct. In other situation maybe not. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Isnt there a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter that you cant really say that someone didnt participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. *** MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, sir, have you had some cases yourself in your own career as a forensic scientist where the crime scene was extremely bloody? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: Yet--yet the suspect did not have a lot of blood on his clothing? DR. LEE: Off my head I dont really remember every crime scene I went. In general more blood, I should expect to find some blood on the suspect. Again, depends on situation. You have a shooting at a distance, yes, the victim lying there, have a lot of blood. Suspect with a long gun, you dont expect to find that. Those are correct. If a closed compact situation, maybe different. ** REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK ** MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, finally, you were asked some questions about the closed-in area of the Bundy crime scene, the absence of evidence and bloodstain patterns on cross-examination. Do you recall those? DR. LEE: Yes. ** MR. SCHECK: Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Lee. In a closed environment, closed-in environment with hand-to-hand combat, with multiple stab wounds, with blood stains in different places indicating multiple contact smears with vertical droplets in the areas of the different multiple contact smears, with other blood spatter cast off in different directions, with the key in one area, beeper in another area, in that kind of struggle, do you have an opinion as to whether or not an assailant or assailants would be covered with blood from the struggle? MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is that opinion? DR. LEE: In theory, should have some blood. ** RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG ** MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, lets get to one of your comments about in theory, there should be some blood in response to Mr. Schecks line of questioning. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Remember that? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Would that also depend upon where the suspect was standing? DR. LEE: Uh, depends on whether or not a combat situation, hand-to-hand combat situation. You have distance, of course, the chances for getting blood on unless some material spurt or certain force, internal force or external force. You have injury on the hand, have a cast off, have other motion, that going to cast to greater distance. If in close contact, if large amount of blood come out, you going to have more blood. ** MR. GOLDBERG: Let me ask you this, doctor. Do you recall one of your fairly well known cases back in 1984 by the name of People versus Hoeplinger where a husband beat his wife to death by hitting her numerous times in the head with a brick, drug her body out to a fish pond, drug her back into the house and then claimed that someone else broke into the home and committed the murder? DR. LEE: 80 percent correct. Not drag to the fish pond. Never got to the fish pond. MR. GOLDBERG: Only part way? DR. LEE: Drug, carry to a location end of the driveway and drag into a pack of Sandril (Sic) to--near the neighbors house and carry the body, half drug, half carry, put back in family room on the sofa. MR. GOLDBERG: And isnt it true that that kind of an assault with the brick on the head by beating numerous times produces enormous amount of blood and it did so in the Hoeplinger case? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And isnt it true that on the suspects jeans, there were only two drops of blood? DR. LEE: Well, we assume thats the original jean. I dont have any record, but I do know he wash his T-shirt. I found a T-shirt washed in the pond. MR. GOLDBERG: Right. DR. LEE: But the blue jean, whether or not thats the original blue jean, I have no or information, record of it. MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you testified in court and those blue jeans were presented to a jury as being worn by the suspects--suspect, the husband at the time of the murder; is that correct? DR. LEE: I--thats long time ago. If you say correct, probably correct. I dont recall. Theres thousands cases I been working on. MR. GOLDBERG: Does that seem to be consistent with your memory? DR. LEE: Sure. Sure. MR. GOLDBERG: And only two blood drops? DR. LEE: I dont remember. If you say two drops, its two drop. MR. GOLDBERG: And the scene was covered in blood, correct? DR. LEE: Yes. **** MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, if a person were to wrap their hand around someones throat and slit that persons throat-- DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: --and the blood spurted forward, would you expect the assailant to be covered in blood? DR. LEE: Probably not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO:1975_3J.R. 　於　2004/03/31 06:17 Re:李昌鈺只是拿錢替人脫罪的證人. 以前中國人殺害台灣人陳文成, 當時的國民黨,包括連宋,百般阻撓美國法醫來台驗屍. 現在槍擊案,連宋請來美國職業證人李亨利(李昌鈺)及助手. 不但要警方全力配合,讓美國人到處查勘. 置台灣司法管轄權與法律威信于不顧; 還要讓美國職業證人驗阿扁總統肚子. 侮辱台灣元首,摧毀台灣民主聲譽! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO:1975_4J.R. 　於　2004/03/31 06:38 Re:李昌鈺只是拿錢替人脫罪的證人. 連宋把阿扁當作刑事被告, 單方面請職業證人李亨利來蒐集對阿扁的證據. 將來又不需經過法庭辯論的程序; 也沒有陪審團,也沒有法官. 李亨利也不需負在台灣的作偽證的法律責任. 這公平嗎?

NO:1970_16

Picky 　於　2004/03/31 08:06
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我認為李昌鈺會珍惜自己多年所建立的公證力(credit)。李昌鈺既然是國親推薦的，阿扁總統也相信他是權威人士，所以就暫時順著國親的意；大家都見過父母如何哄小孩的吧！國親這一群吵鬧的小孩要先哄一哄，等到李昌鈺的鑑定報告出來，再看看他們回顧自己「返老還童」的窘態。我也提醒大家，不要為了選舉而毀掉對人的基本信賴，這個社會需要有公證力(credit)的社會賢達，只要這些人不偏頗就不該過早地否定他。轉過來看看國親立委，只要是支持阿扁的社會賢達都逃不過他們鬥爭的目標，而他們鬥爭別人時，都是配合著媒體鋪天蓋地攻擊到別人體無完膚，也同時掩蓋(並非毀掉)公證力(credit)在這個社會上的重要性。單單是這一點國親立委就該被列為台灣這幾年社會亂象的十惡不赦之罪人。

NO:1970_17

Narpin 　於　2004/03/31 10:23
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺的身份敏感，在美國是公開挺連宋社團的主席，依任何一個民主國家的法律觀點，他就應該主動避嫌，但他可以推介其他中立的專家。李昌鈺卻說他是中國人，是陳水扁總統的朋友，也是江澤民的朋友，也是許多國家領袖的友人、、、等等，虧他也是法律上的專業人士，連這點避嫌的基本法律的觀點都缺乏，實在令人懷疑他的可信用度。現今三個美籍專家來臺搜集資料，又由雷茜陪同開記者會、送機，也是不恰當，法務部總檢察長有失職之處。

NO:1970_18

RoseMary 　於　2004/03/31 11:28
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺或許不會無中生有，但我懷疑他會故意特別強調「證據無法清楚說明」的部分例如當陳文成案的法醫說他無法斷定阿扁的槍傷到底精確有幾天？這點就被媒體特別加以強調

NO:1970_19

RoseMary 　於　2004/03/31 11:34
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
一分證據說一分話，九分證據說九分話李昌鈺如果說「你們要特別注意剩下的那一分，我什麼都沒說，但是你們要特別去注意哦....」這樣既不損害其形象，又可達到媒體陰險的目的所以這不光只是專業與否與信譽的問題

NO:1970_20

victor 　於　2004/03/31 11:41
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
阿扁說過歡迎李昌鈺博士來台灣協助,阿扁不可能不知道李昌鈺的政治立場,他們這麼說應該有他的全盤考量,大家要相信阿扁的智慧。

NO:1970_21

蘭陽醒獅團　於　2004/03/31 13:15
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我們總統的身體狀況是國家機密。已經被美國人帶著滿滿的資料，回去美國了。台灣人是有奴的心態，可以確定。

NO:1970_22

道卡斯族後裔　於　2004/03/31 13:17
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
很難相信中國人! 真的很難教我相信!

NO:1970_23

J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 01:09
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
以前中國人殺害台灣人陳文成, 當時的國民黨,包括連宋,百般阻撓美國法醫來台驗屍. 現在槍擊案,連宋請來美國職業證人李亨利(李昌鈺)及助手. 不但要警方全力配合,讓美國人到處查勘. 置台灣司法管轄權與法律威信于不顧;

NO:1970_24

zz 　於　2004/04/01 01:32
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
美國職業證人李亨利(李昌鈺) 在美國是屬於那種拿錢幫有錢有勢的大爺脫罪的專業可說是出賣靈魂美國輿論與民情很不恥這種貨色

NO:1970_25

mark 　於　2004/04/01 01:35
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
怎麻不請楊日松呢??法醫方面的...

NO:1970_26

酥餅　於　2004/04/01 02:08
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
zz兄，我實在很不能同意這種想當然爾的指控。如果你覺得李昌鈺幫OJ作證是出賣靈魂作偽證幫OJ脫罪，請你指出李昌鈺的證詞到底哪裡沒有道理。我同意PICKY兄說的，不能為了選舉而毀掉對人的基本信賴。李昌鈺能不能公正，有待觀察，但是在沒有證據證明他不公正前，我們應該選擇相信。

NO:1970_27

綠豆芽　於　2004/04/01 02:09
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
【我們總統的身體狀況是國家機密。已經被美國人帶著滿滿的資料，回去美國了。】說的一點都沒有錯，其實總統的身體和血液DNA都是國家機密，不應該讓外國人檢視甚至帶走。美國布希總統到中國參加亞太經合會離去時，其安全人員一併將總統套房裏所有用具毛巾全部包走，就是不要留下毛髮之類的DNA檢體，讓有威脅性國家取得。

NO:1970_28

seashore 　於　2004/04/01 07:53
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
《轉貼》冷眼看大選大騷亂 ◎彭明敏台灣總統大選，發生大騷亂，使素受國際讚譽的台灣民主，嚴重蒙羞，鼓動這類大規模長期胡鬧者，對台灣民主所犯的罪過，如有良心，應該知恥而無地自容。總統遭槍擊，還有人爭議輕傷還是重傷，完全失焦，問題不在於總統有無受傷或受傷輕重，有人向國家元首開槍企圖殺害之，這才是問題重點，即使總統沒有受傷，這一事實已經嚴重到構成全國動員戒備的充分理由。縱令因軍警動員致使部份人員當日無法投票，乃此重大變故所致，事非得已，怎能因此而謂「選舉不公」？任何民主國家任何選舉，都有許多選民因公或因私無法投票者，例如飛機船舶工作人員或乘客航行海外、軍人從事機要行動、醫護人員從事危急醫療（開刀手術等）、派駐海外外交或其他公職人員無法返國、因公私旅行海外、因留學或其他原由長期滯留國外者等，難道他們無法投票，選舉就「不公」？若果如此，沒有一個民主國家的選舉是「公正」的。有人又說槍擊總統事件「真相不明」，欲藉此推翻選舉結果。其實，槍擊事件的「真相」是明明白白、清清楚楚的，就是有人對元首開槍，欲把他殺害，這就是「真相」，明白得不得了。只是犯人未緝捕，故其「動機不明」而已。將「動機不明」與「真相不明」，故意混浠，企圖抹黑選舉本身，其心機之陰險，極卑鄙的。徒喊選舉「不公」、「非法」、「作弊」、「真相不明」，卻無法提出任何具體證據，而主張「選舉無效」，要求「重選」，已經不是正常心理者的作為。聘請所謂「外國專家」來台驗傷調查更是荒唐，這是對於台灣有關專職者之一大侮辱，（宋某在陳文成事件時曾稱之謂「辱國」），尤其聘請所謂「國際權威」華裔李某來台，極為不宜。稱其為「國際權威」純為國內媒體長期操作宣傳的傑作，此人在美國專業圈裡，是一爭議性人物，況且如陳定南部長所指摘，其在美國與「連宋後援會」有密切關連，絕非超然客觀的第三者（難怪連宋陣營一開始便要求聘他來台），他自己竟也要參與「調查」，既不知何謂「利益迴避」，其職業倫理何在，令人懷疑。總之，這次槍擊總統，乃突發的不測事件，令人痛心，但從大局看來，不過是在競選期間，一候選人遭槍擊，在國際上也非空前的稀罕事，可視為選舉當中極遺憾的一大插曲，只有全力去緝捕犯人，與選舉本身的進行和結果毫不相關，竟有人陰謀欲將此無限擴大渲染，呼天搶地，煽動愚民，長期騷亂，藉作奪權的手段，這才是台灣人民和民主的最大不幸。（本文作者為總統府資政） .....2004-04-01【台灣日報】 http://taiwandaily.com.tw/news.php?news_id=17723

NO:1970_29

Oversea Taiw 　於　2004/04/01 08:03
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
道卡斯族後裔　於　2004/03/31 13:17 Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？很難相信中國人! 真的很難教我相信! I agree! In their dictionary, there is no word, honest. They wont feel ashame to lie. This guy, 李昌鈺, is not an exception. He will lie for his pan-blue group!

NO:1970_30

J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 09:13
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺來台鑑識槍擊案的動機是:替泛藍找尋可推翻選舉結果的藉口. (馬英九第一個跟他連絡,要他來台) 正如李昌鈺拿五萬美金替涉嫌殺妻的辛普生找到脫罪的藉口! 都是有預設立場再來找證據. 何況李昌鈺如果作偽證,也不需在台灣負法律責任,因為他是美國人.

NO:1970_31

J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 09:32
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
關于李昌鈺拿五萬美金替涉嫌殺妻的辛普生脫罪一事. 大多數美國人都認為是李昌鈺幫辛普生脫罪. 李昌鈺的證詞的計謀是:作證指出警察的部份搜證過程有瑕疵. 美國刑法規定陪審團只要有一絲懷疑證據,就不得定罪.不管這些是否影響整個案情. 所以表面上李昌鈺只是就事論事,但實際上他受僱于辛普生,目的只是幫辛普生脫罪. 這就是職業證人李昌鈺的本質.

NO:1970_32

阿茶　於　2004/04/01 09:40
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
看來情況是不太樂觀。不是說有意要去懷疑李昌鈺，只是如前面幾位所寫的：「李昌鈺的政治傾向明顯，理應利益迴避」但他卻沒有，或是有人猜測「有錢能使鬼推磨」....而「證物」竟然被攜回美國，這更是令人擔憂。台灣鑑識人員的尊嚴已經被嚴重打擊，檢調單位也被懷疑，我們的法治單位如此不值得信任嗎？總覺得這件事情非常不合理，處處透著詭異。民進黨怎麼會接受呢？即使真要邀請國際專家，也不應該請李昌鈺....。

NO:1970_33

舞　於　2004/04/01 10:11
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
我把這欄的討論剪輯重點疑慮部分轉給陳總統信箱希望能夠提醒注意,真的是滿擔憂的吶~

NO:1970_34

ra99us 　於　2004/04/01 11:27
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
totally ridiculous, he is one of the best forensic in the world.

NO:1970_35

ra99us 　於　2004/04/01 11:29
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
by your guys standard, you cant trust 台灣鑑識人員 either, they are all 李昌鈺s students, at least the biggies.

NO:1970_36

ra99us 　於　2004/04/01 11:31
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 09:32 Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？關于李昌鈺拿五萬美金替涉嫌殺妻的辛普生脫罪一事. 大多數美國人都認為是李昌鈺幫辛普生脫罪. 李昌鈺的證詞的計謀是:作證指出警察的部份搜證過程有瑕疵. 美國刑法規定陪審團只要有一絲懷疑證據,就不得定罪.不管這些是否影響整個案情. 所以表面上李昌鈺只是就事論事,但實際上他受僱于辛普生,目的只是幫辛普生脫罪. 這就是職業證人李昌鈺的本質. innocent until proven guilty, thats the idea, my friend; and there is also something called due process that police have to follow (thats one of the area where Taiwans judicary system is still far away from being good enough).

NO:1970_37

小船　於　2004/04/01 12:27
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
五萬美金就被收買.大事不妙! 危險!危險! 非常危險! 希望是我多慮! 天佑阿扁! 天佑台灣!

NO:1970_38

J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 13:04
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺在美國的角色是替花得起錢僱用他的被告出庭作證. 他在庭上作證的特點: 第一,他是少數種族,容易說服黑人陪審員; 第二,他的表演動作及英文腔調具有戲劇性. 令美國人聯想起好萊塢四十年代鬼頭鬼腦的中國偵探福滿丘; 容易吸引陪審團注意力第三,他願意合作. 基本上李昌鈺是代表訴訟之一方. 他的證詞陪審團通常半信半疑. 檢方或令一方也有權反問證人來反擊. 如今職業證人李亨利被泛藍中國人捧為美國刑事鑑識權威李昌鈺博士就好像球員搖身一變成為至高無上的裁判. 泛綠則完全沒有相等反問證人來反擊的權力. 也沒有公正的法官當庭,也沒有具適當代表性的陪審團. 等著看這個現代福滿丘如何判台灣人輸球吧!

NO:1970_39

J.R. 　於　2004/04/01 13:29
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
To: Ra99us Who is more competent as a forensic investigator is not the question here. Which side does Henry Lee stands for is the question. Henry Lee may be a forensic expert but he is also a gun for hire. In the case of O.J. Simpsons trial, Henry Lee spent his forensic efforts on attacking the Los Angeles Police Departments handling of crime scence evidences. He obviously chose the side who paid for his service.

NO:1970_40

patient 　於　2004/04/01 14:31
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
【中天獨家專訪】93.4.1 針對總統槍擊案,李昌鈺說,子彈不是由車內射擊的,至於陳總統身上的傷,必須由証據講話;針對返台一事,李說,他認識陳水扁,而身為科學家,一生不涉入政治立場牽扯,如果認為他不適合,他可以不來台灣... --------------------------------------------------------- 這是剛剛從中時電子報載下來的，說他身為科學家,一生不涉入政治立場牽扯，但是他是大紐約地區連宋競選總會的人啊！希望他秉持一貫的「證據會講話」的信念，讓台灣人真正的尊敬他的專業，而不是懷疑他的公正。

NO:1970_41

ace 　於　2004/04/01 16:59
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
> 于李昌鈺拿五萬美金替涉嫌殺妻的辛普生脫罪一事. > 大多數美國人都認為是李昌鈺幫辛普生脫罪. 請參考他在O.J. Simpson Trial e對答記錄; Lees ominous testimony about something wrong in the police crime lab gave the defense its best ammunition to argue a frame-up. http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns137.htm http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/leetest.html http://www.ncku.edu.tw/~webfes/ojaug28.htm http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/aug/

NO:1970_42

J.R. 　於　2004/04/02 01:41
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺說,身為科學家,一生不涉入政治立場其實更正確的說法是:李昌鈺是職業證人,在法庭上他永遠免不了選邊站. 他的專業只是提供僱主服務,司法正義不關他的事. 馬英九叫來的大紐約區連宋助選員,自認為中國人的李昌鈺, 他的三個助手還由新黨的雷倩陪伴來台. 你猜他站在那邊?

NO:1970_43

Saga 　於　2004/04/02 02:26
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺是專門替出錢的一方出庭作證的專家。他只會提供對僱主有利的證詞﹐不可能會作對僱主不利的證詞﹐否則就是破壞「行規」。這便是為什麼在美國法院審判﹐檢辯雙方都會顧用自己的專家出庭作證﹐而雙方專家的證詞往往是相左的。但是他所請的三位專家之首﹐法醫Dr. Cyril Wecht卻是一位絕對可以信任的正義人士。他在檢視（國民黨當時不准他用驗屍這子眼）陳文成屍體後﹐曾不顧國民黨的壓力在國際醫學雜誌上發表陳文成是他殺的學術論述。他現在已經先在記者會上說出陳水扁受的是槍傷（請看下面報導）。雖然正式報告須要交給李昌鈺後由他發表。但是這已經減少李昌鈺可以張冠李戴的空間。 U.S. coroner Cyril Wecht, center, speaks at a news conference in Taipei accompanied by ballistics expert Michael Haag, right, and crime scene expert Timothy Palmbach yesterday. (REUTERS) Three U.S. forensics experts yesterday confirmed that based on the injury examination, pictures, and descriptions from the doctors, President Chen Shui-bians (陳水扁) wound on his abdomen was sustained from a gunshot. There is no question at all, in our minds, that the wound on President Chens abdomen is what we call a grazing type of gunshot wound, said forensic scientist Dr. Cyril Wecht. It did not penetrate his abdomen, Wecht continued, but went through the skin and down into what is called the subterraneous adipose tissue, or put simply, the fat beneath the skin that everyone has. Wecht made the remark accompanied by his two colleagues - ballistics expert Michael G. Haag and crime scene analyst Timothy Palmbach - last night after wrapping up a two-day trip in Taiwan to conduct a preliminary-level examination of the controversial shooting of President Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) while they were campaigning in southern Taiwan on March 19. Upon the request of Dr. Henry Lee, a U.S.-based Chinese forensic expert internationally known for his participation in the O.J. Simpson murder investigation in the U.S., the three foreign experts came to Taiwan on Monday to review the evidence and interview the doctors in charge of the medical treatment for the president and vice president. Wecht confirmed that they met with President Chen yesterday morning, and examined Chens wound at the Presidential Office. However, he refused to unveil any findings or details from the preliminary investigation last night, except the general consensus arrived at by the three experts confirming that Chen had suffered a gunshot injury. As forensic scientists, we have to bring all the evidence back to the U.S. before we can carry out a full analysis, the expert clarified. Our final thoughts will have to be transmitted to Dr. Lee, Wecht revealed, adding that the latter is scheduled to arrive in Taiwan around April 12 to 14. Wecht, who joined in the investigation of the fatal assassination to former U.S. President John Kennedy, confirmed the openness and transparency of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (刑事局) officials in sharing the evidence collected from March 19 to March 30. There are appropriate authorities and officials in this country to probe into the truth of the shooting case, commented Wecht, who clarified that the three forensics experts came here not to serve as detectives. It is not our sole responsibility to be here to determine the shooters... we are only here in our hope to help them (the authorities) determine who fired the gunshots, the U.S. forensic expert said. Although Wecht and his two colleagues already said on Monday that they would not jump to a hasty conclusion on the shooting case upon the two-day examination, the ballistic expert still clarified some doubtful points for skeptics who suspected the shooting was staged by the Democratic Progressive Party in the last minute in order to get sympathy votes. For some pan-blue supporters who question how the bullet could have ended up in Chens jacket without penetrating his body, Haag told a television interview, Its not unheard of for bullets to be just about to pump out of somebody whos been shot, or out of their skin, and to be found in somebodys clothing. Haag, meanwhile, explained, As soon as (the bullet) changes the medium that its in, from air to glass, air to wood, or air to water, then deflection occurs, and the bullets path can change. The opinion challenges skeptics claims that a bullet could not have pierced the Jeeps windshield before hitting the vice presidents knee. Until the three experts unveil their conclusion on Chens wound, some doubts continue to linger as other criticize that Chens injury doesnt resemble a gunshot wound, because a bullet would not leave such a long scar. The nature of the wound varies greatly depending on the kind of ammunition, the location and distance, and what part of the body was shot, commented Wecht yesterday afternoon.

NO:1970_44

Saga 　於　2004/04/02 04:03
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
ra99us: > by your guys standard, you cant trust 台灣鑑識人員 either, they are all 李昌鈺s students, at least the biggies. What a BS! Just showed that you know nothing about 台灣鑑識人員! (Quite typical of blue, I might add, speak without any in-depth knowledge.) 李昌鈺 didnt even stay in Taiwan long to have many (let alone all) students. Besides, 楊日松 suggested by Mark is a renowned expert who is much older than 李昌鈺, and probably had taught Lee what he knows when he was in training!

NO:1970_45

恆愛台　於　2004/04/02 04:23
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
【看吧？～啥麼狗屁東西！講ㄒㄧㄠ↗話,幹！一副台灣刑事鑑定總指揮官樣～卻講支那扭曲屁話！】陳呂遭槍擊／李昌鈺：研判不是暗殺　也不是自導自演 ~ 2004/04/02 02:46 　社會中心／台北報導在3名鑑識團隊返回美國之後，國際鑑識專家李昌鈺1日指出，陳總統肚子的脂肪比較厚，加上受傷部位的血管少，以致身上所穿的衣服上染血不多，他研判總統遭槍傷應該不是自導自演；針對槍手行兇動機，李昌鈺也不認為是暗殺。此外，3名鑑識專家在美國媒體表示，由於案發時現場夾雜鞭炮聲，要偵破此案，並不是一件容易的事。李昌鈺依據法醫專家韋契特(Cyril H.Wecht)所提供的資料表示，法醫韋契特推論認為陳總統的傷口是槍傷所致。依他的經驗，若是行兇動機是暗殺，槍手通常是對著頭部或是胸部心臟部位開槍，很少是對著下半身，而且應該使用較強火力的槍枝。李昌鈺表示，假如是近距離開槍應該有火藥暫餘物(GSR)，但刑事局鑑定的結果是沒有找到GSR，假如沒有找到GSR，那就是比較遠距離開槍。因為他沒有回台灣看過，究竟是沒有找到GSR，還是沒有任何GSR，這都要看結果以後才能論斷，現在獲得資訊並不多，不能隨便下結論。 29日下午，3位專家包括法醫專家韋契特(Cyril H.Wecht)、彈道專家哈格(Michael G. Haag)、現場鑑識專家龐巴(Timothy Palmbach)，由相關人員陪同，至南市金華路三段12號「高島健康生活廣場」前勘察，他們一一對附近環境拍照存證，並測量騎樓與車隊距離、發現子彈處與車隊距離及以紅外線測試各種彈道等。 3名美籍專家30日上午進入總統府，總統府公共事務室主任黃志芳證實3位鑑識專家的確進入總統府訪談陳總統，但未訪談呂副總統。韋契特(Cyril H.Wecht)表示，從刑事局給予的資料已相當完整，刑事局提供陳總統受傷的照片相當清楚，但他仍希望能親眼看到陳總統的傷口，盼刑事警察局能安排。將把醫療紀錄與實驗室所鑑定的結果進行比對，以確定傷口是不是由槍擊產生。彈道專家哈格(Michael G. Haag)表示，3人台灣之行，主要收集各種資料，包括至奇美醫院收集當天的醫療紀錄，並訪談當天參與手術的醫生、護士等資料。這些收集到資料帶回美國實驗室鑑定比對，會把醫療紀錄與實驗室所鑑定的結果進行比對，以確定傷口是不是由槍擊產生，結果將交由李昌鈺博士於4月中旬來台時發佈。

NO:1970_46

J.R. 　於　2004/04/03 02:30
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
李昌鈺：研判不是暗殺　不是自導自演透露出李昌鈺鑑定的初期目標是:替中國人找阿扁自導自演的證據. 找不到之後,卻留下一個尾巴說不是暗殺. 似乎暗示可能是他人導演,但不是真要殺阿扁. 槍擊目的可能還是要讓阿扁當選. 李昌鈺的鑑定,最多只是一方面的意見. 不應該被捧為高高在上,客觀公正的國際刑事鑑定權威的判決.

NO:1970_47

綠豆芽　於　2004/04/03 02:42
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
金恆煒先生寫的很好小心專家斗篷下的匕首 ◎金恆煒「槍擊案」本來是國內司法案件，鬧到現在，竟而成為「國際案件」，全都出於國親敗選「不甘」，拿「槍擊案」當「選舉不公」的藉口，最後委由美國刑事鑑定專家李昌鈺來檢驗，老實說，已經傷到了台灣的顏面以及台灣的體制。檢察總長盧仁發之所以同意李昌鈺指定的三位法醫到台灣來協助驗傷，當然是得到總統的同意，也當然是為紓解國親的壓力。李昌鈺是連宋在紐約競選總部的名譽主席，其政黨傾向偏向泛藍，是無可置疑的。所以，李昌鈺會不會因為「顏色」關係而違反專業？這個質疑其實是必要的。從理論上說，專家應當秉承科學方法與精神從事，不可以「泛政治化」。換句話說，此一論點是就「價值判斷」或「應然」層次著眼，而非從「經驗判斷」或「實然」層次發言。因為打著科學名號進行反科學之事的，史跡斑斑可考，更嚴重的是，在科學斗篷下藏著匕首，也不是那麼稀奇。最有名的例子是「李森科主義」（Lysenkoism），蘇聯科學家李森科打著「唯物論」，遂行生物恐怖主義，這是「偽科學」的範例，但不是孤例。19世紀末，20世紀初流行的「優生學」造成強烈的社會達爾文主義的流行，其論點為許多領域的學者應用到社會學、人類學、政治學及公共領域的統治上。援引《種族衛生》一書作者RobertN.Proctor的一句話，就可賅之：「科學並非只有啟蒙、生產，甚至於社會控制三種功能……，和社會控制緊密連結的是：〔替社會控制提供〕辯護。」所以，科學是一個辯護工具。質疑「槍擊案」的既是泛藍，李昌鈺介入「槍擊案」自然是為泛藍效力，重點是，李昌鈺會不會因為意識形態而有偏差？我們看到電子媒體訪問李昌鈺，他說他是「中國人」，當然願意幫忙云云。問題是，李昌鈺是美國人，不是中國人，為什麼要強調「中國人」？這是一問；連戰在美國自稱是「純種中國人」，絕對是政治宣示，李昌鈺是不是與之同調而故意言之？這是二問。更奇的是李昌鈺一再申說：「陳總統的傷口證實是槍傷，自己打自己的可能性很低，暗殺的可能性也很低」，但是，又說：「假如是暗殺，槍手會對準頭部、胸部、心臟，且用火力強大的槍枝，很少人會朝下部打。」此地也有三問。一是，既非「暗殺」，又非「自己打自己」，李昌鈺「斷言」之後的論證是什麼？讓人有「語帶玄機」之感；二是，「很少人會朝下部打」不代表「沒有」，李如此大膽下論斷，卻又不用「全稱」，合不合理？三是，李是法醫不是F.B.I.，為什麼可以超出法醫的權限，進入偵查實體的領域？科學精神之一就是懷疑，不但要懷疑科學本身，也要懷疑科學方法，更要懷疑科學家，何況像李昌鈺有如此多值得懷疑的地方。 .....2004-04-03【台灣日報】

NO:1970_48

seashore 　於　2004/04/03 09:58
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
>>> 李昌鈺：研判不是暗殺　不是自導自演. 不是暗殺 ? ? ?----- 哦, 沒錯！不是「暗」殺！而是公然的、在光天化日下的謀殺,刺殺！！

NO:1970_49

DHL 　於　2004/04/03 12:54
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
蘋果日報 40專家傻眼「這是槍擊案嗎」 2004年04月02日【李姝姮、陳宛萱╱台北報導】總統槍擊案讓正在澳洲參加「犯罪現場重建研討會」的四十餘名各國頂尖刑事鑑定專家看傻了眼！正在澳洲主持研討會的李昌鈺博士把震驚世界的陳水扁總統遭槍擊案當成活教材，當場播放影片給與會專家觀看，專家看了之後議論紛紛，不解陳總統到底怎麼中彈，並提出許多疑問，不過礙於李昌鈺還沒看到物證，也無法對大家的疑問提出解釋。扁遭槍擊案當活教材這場以「犯罪現場重建」為主題的國際研討會上，有四十餘名來自世界各國的鑑識專家及警察人員，不過與會專家對於台灣的總統槍擊案都相當好奇，由於李昌鈺手中有這起槍擊案的新聞影片，因此他也藉機在研討會中播放槍擊新聞給大家觀看，讓這個案子成為研討會的活教材。影片開始播放時，所有專家看著陳總統和呂副總統站在吉普車上，不斷向路旁民眾揮手，沒多久，車子轉彎後擋風玻璃突然出現一個彈孔，播放完畢後，李昌鈺問大家：「看懂了嗎？」許多專家還是一頭霧水，根本沒發現異狀，於是李昌鈺又播放了一次。「其他人怎麼沒發現」「這是槍擊案嗎？」「為什麼兩人中槍後沒有異樣？」「歹徒在人群中如何開槍？」「車上其他人怎麼沒發現？」研討會中，專家們紛紛提出心中的疑問。專家們質疑二人遭槍擊後，卻仍站立在車上，臉上不僅未出現痛苦的模樣，一旁的特勤人員也未有立即性的動作，這些疑問讓與會專家看得一頭霧水，每個人幾乎都是一臉茫然。李昌鈺說，雖然大家都相當好奇，想知道究竟是怎麼一回事，但是因為他還沒有看過相關物證，也還沒有親自到現場鑑識，因此無法妄下斷論，只能告訴與會專家：「等檢視過所有人證、物證後，再向大家公布結論！」

NO:1970_50

J.R. 　於　2004/04/03 14:32
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
今天電視上看到法醫韋契特(Cyril H.Wecht)在美接受記者訪問、回答關於阿扁槍傷的問題時說: 子彈只要往阿扁身體偏一吋半阿扁就有生命危險... 換句話說,韋契特認為槍擊案有可能致命. 既然會致命,當然是暗殺. 只是凶嫌瞄不準;或者阿扁幸運. 後來電視報導出現字幕說李昌鈺研判不是暗殺這才恍然大悟,不是暗殺這句話是李昌鈺自己一個人加上去的意見!

NO:1970_52

本因坊秀策　於　2004/04/09 14:04
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
一個白痴跑來罵一堆合理討論的人白痴到底誰白痴一堆人討論並且在研究重點提出不同的看法這就是言論自由的可貴樓上的卻沒有把握言論自由的可貴!!可惜可惜!! 生在福中卻完全不知惜福!!

NO:1970_53

綠豆芽　於　2004/04/09 14:07
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
看牠取的名字可能是中國人中國人不知道什麼是言論自由

NO:1970_54

Green Party 　於　2004/04/09 14:18
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
連宋與他們的支持者都已經精神不正常了。他覺得他這樣講很爽。就讓他去吧！　對精神有障礙的人，我們只能多包容。

NO:1970_55

jason 　於　2004/04/09 16:51
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
suck!!你們這群蠢蛋不知事情的真相就不要依附你是專家的樣子好不好.你們說他是連宋後援會的主席 shit,告訴一群在質疑他會被顏色所左右他的公正性的蠢蛋們,他只是連宋後援會的名譽主席,那只是掛名而沒有實際參與的,他在美國是民主黨的名譽主席,也是共和黨的名譽主席,懂不懂ㄚ,一群驢蛋哀!!有時還真是蠻佩服這些人的,明明就什麼都不懂,還敢出來裝專家....

NO:1970_56

阿茶　於　2004/04/09 20:21
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
樓上的先生，火氣何必這麼大！現在媒體上出來「裝專家」的人多的很，你怎不批判呢？所謂「利益迴避」是專業者應有的共識，不管他是不是「名譽主席」。如果你願意成為「名譽主席」，表示某種程度上理念的一致。請勿轉移焦點吧！

NO:1970_57

馬麥可　於　2004/04/10 13:43
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
你們這些島國無知的人，GGYY

NO:1970_58

綠豆芽　於　2004/04/10 13:54
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
自己無知就別出來哭爸李昌鈺什麼時候是民主黨的名譽主席也又在兼共和黨的名譽主席？驢子跑出來當然以為別人和牠同類

NO:1970_59

台灣好　於　2004/04/10 14:54
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
國親被害妄想又發作他們連李昌鈺都不信了因為李反駁他們這兩天一串笨蛋才有的懷疑現在說要請楊日松了總統又要掀肚子給楊日松看嗎

NO:1970_60

iris 　於　2004/04/11 19:30
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
只能說那些口口聲聲批判專業的人水準低的讓人吃驚辛普森案的實際情形你們知道多少? 直接証据跟間接証据的影響差多少? 直接証据可以馬上叛定兇手罪行間接証据不足以叛定兇手罪行沒有專業知識只會胡亂批判是笑話也是笑柄只能說如果今天李博士的鑑識對綠營有利你們這些大言不慚的人還敢繼續扯嗎一定惦惦嘛因為符合你們的想法啊相反的換藍營的人會大言不慚說要要另請專家而如果今天李博士的鑑識對藍營有利藍營的人一定馬上控告而綠營的人一定罵的更兇批的更兇總之只要結果不是你們預期的就都不接受不管是鑑識結果或是大選結果在專業鑑識尚未開始前就一昧的批判是非這就是台灣人的表現? 而竟然有人又挑起種族話題? 李博士說它是中國人並沒有錯它祖藉就是在中國但祖藉在哪又怎樣?專業有祖藉之分嗎? 會把政治跟種族扯進專業裡的人水準自然看的出來了

NO:1970_61

傳說小白　於　2004/04/12 03:02
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
以下我個人意見... 反正319後..就一堆專家...有彈道的.有學醫的.有測謊的.就像泛藍文宣.人人當柯南嘛.... 李昌鈺雖然沒錯..什麼連宋僑胞後援會主席....沒錯吧..差不多啦..勉強算泛藍的人.. 但是他的專業和能力真的是數一數二....(水門案和甘迺迪案都他查的..夠權威了其實) 再說只有他來查...連宋才懂得閉嘴吧..... 反正就連宋指名要的人嘛...這樣也好. ..... 因為事實我們都看到了..槍擊案根本99%是真的..... 只是我覺得很可悲的是... 統派媒體一天到晚都在作[彈道教學].[模擬現場演練]... 而且都是一樣的結論:疑點重重..有問題之類的結論... 可不可悲的媒體...請了一些[業餘]的專家來推翻[職業]的 ??? 沒什麼原因... 目的很簡單....誤導民眾. ..讓民眾心中多出一個[問號]....

NO:1970_62

若薇　於　2004/04/12 18:43
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
每個人都有優點和缺點世界上沒有十全十美的人我們應該欣賞別人的優點並加以學習相反的，我們就應該去包容別人的缺點我相信李昌鈺博士是個公正的人這也只是我的想法而已但我規勸大家不要因為別人的身世而去做出一些排擠的動作如果有人這樣對待你，想必你也會很生氣吧！所以我們要利用同理心別人有這種實力，你就要去贊同他，而不是在背地裡亂傳謠言如果你覺得他說的不對，那麼，請你說出你認為正確的想法！

NO:1970_63

台灣好　於　2004/04/12 19:12
Re:李昌鈺能信任嗎？
謝長廷說(?) 下一步國親會說李昌鈺不是本人是替身哈哈哈說得好

返回

本版已停止討論，以下輸入欄位僅供管理之用。 ■ 為一般的欄位 ■ 為必填的欄位
■資料輸入ID
■資料輸入密碼
■署名：	[♂♀]：男女
■☆☆：	本欄無作用
■其它選項：	HTML僅開放字體變化
■文章主題：
■文章內容：