风中的木头

真实纪录已经发生和正在发生的和朱令有关的事情

Archive for May 6th, 2013

[2013-05-06] Censorship Feeds Criticism of Chinese Poisoning Case

Posted by woodinwind on May 6, 2013

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/censorship-feeds-criticism-of-chinese-poisoning-case.html

Censorship Feeds Criticism of Chinese Poisoning Case

By Adam Minter May 6, 2013 6:21 PM ET

(Corrects description of Sun Wei’s grandfather in third paragraph.)

Why did China’s leading social-media platform recently ban users from performing searches for a woman poisoned in 1995? Attempts to answer that question — and to censor the answers — have sparked some of the most politically potent online commentary on Chinese leadership, privilege and corruption in recent memory.

The details of the almost two-decade-old case are sordid and murky. In 1995, Zhu Ling was a promising undergraduate at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University when she came down with a mysterious illness that was thought to be poisoning via thallium, a toxic element once used as rat poison. This finding soon led to a suspect: Sun Wei, a roommate of Zhu’s who happened to be one of the few undergraduates at Tsinghua to have access to thallium in a laboratory.

Most important for the politically minded Chinese netizen, Sun Wei was the granddaughter of a high-ranking official who was thought to be close to then-President Jiang Zemin. In 1997, Sun was detained by police for questioning for eight hours but not arrested. Soon after, the case was closed, and Sun reportedly fled to the U.S., where it’s rumored she’s married with kids (enterprising microbloggers have tried to keep tabs).

Meanwhile, Zhu, permanently disabled, lives with two elderly parents ill-suited to care for someone that Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post described as “a 200-pound, paralyzed, diabetic, almost-blind woman with the mental capacity of a six- year-old.”

Over the last month, the tale has re-emerged as a populist cause celebre. The trigger was the early April fatal poisoning of a student at Shanghai’s Fudan University by another student, which evoked memories of the 1995 incident. Over the course of April, Zhu’s name became an increasingly popular topic of conversation and a proxy for anger at official privilege. Few offenses inspire Chinese online ire like the use of privilege — especially by children of those in power— to avoid the consequences of criminal behavior.

It’s not clear that anyone intervened in Zhu’s case, but that hardly matters in aChina accustomed to rumor. Zhu’s angry and media-savvy supporters — long-stymied in their efforts to have the investigation reopened — quickly rallied online support.

On April 29, Zhang Jie, lawyer to Zhu and her family, posted this tweet to Sina Weibo (it has subsequently been deleted):

“In traditional Chinese culture we not only say ‘the same rules apply to everyone even if he is a prince,’ but we also say ‘senior officials have the privilege of avoiding criminal penalties.’ This kind of contradiction appears in the Zhu Ling case. We want to capture the murderer and convict her (or him) of the crime, but the key fact of this case is that when oral testimony is needed, senior officials have the privilege to avoid it; after the prince breaks the law, the fact is there isn’t enough evidence to prove that he violated the law. These unspoken rules for protecting officials have existed in China for thousands of years, and we are challenging them.”

That challenge was soon met by Sina Weibo’s censors, who — over the past 10 days — became progressively more aggressive in managing, and censoring, the conversation about Zhu Ling. It’s impossible to know for certain whether this was proactive censorship that anticipated government orders or whether it was implemented at the explicit direction of the authorities. But from the standpoint of Sina Weibo’s users, the government appeared to be involved.

Among the earliest actions was a highly unusual censorship decision directed atPeople’s Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party. On April 26, the paper’s official Sina Weibo microblogging account tweeted, as translatedby the blog Offbeat China: “Zhu Ling is 40 years old now, completely paralyzed, almost blind and with the intelligence of a 6-year- old. What exactly happened 19 years ago? Who was behind the poisoning?”

Many of China’s microbloggers took this as an explicit endorsement by the party of a new investigation, reposting the tweet 70,000 times and generating 30,000 comments, according to microbloggers who saw the comments and reposts.

Then the tweet was deleted by Sina’s censors, along with tweets that quoted it, posted screen grabs or reposted it outright. About the same time, People’s Daily deleted its special online page devoted to Zhu Ling coverage. So, either People’s Daily or somebody above it decided that the paper didn’t need to devote any additional coverage to an issue that was becoming increasingly critical of the party.

On April 29, a microblogger in Jiangsu province summarized the sense of foreboding the censorship of People’s Daily had brought:

“A powerful force has decided that microblogging related to Zhu Ling has become worthy of censoring and controlling, including those tweets written by celebrities and the People’s Daily. The force is so powerful it can withstand millions of microbloggers in pursuit of justice.”

Still, the momentum behind a reopening of the investigation persisted, and the pace of posts on Sina Weibo increased. On April 30, Zhu Ling was the top trending topic on the service for much of the morning and afternoon; then, at some point midafternoon, the name simply disappeared from the list. Searches still picked up posts including Zhu’s name, but someone seemingly decided it would be best for the name to appear a little less popular (though Sun Wei’s name continued to trend). Perhaps the hope was that such a move would slow the pace of posts. It didn’t.

Nothing the censors did worked. By late last week, users were posting tweets every few seconds, demanding justice and a reopened investigation. On Friday, Sina Weibo began deleting Zhu posts in earnest and preventing users from obtaining search results when they put “Zhu Ling,” “Sun Wei” and “thallium” into the service’s search bar. Sina Weibo’s users, accustomed to this kind of censorship, quickly invented English language hashtags and other means to circumvent the search ban.

More critically, several of the site’s celebrity users began posting on Zhu as well, thereby raising the profile of the case even further. Saturday night, Wang Ran, the chief executive officer of China eCapital, posted an extraordinary tweet telling his almost 3 million followers that the increased level of censorship proved the rumors of high-level intervention on behalf of the poisoner of Zhu Ling (his modification of her name allowed his tweet to get through the censors): “At first, the speculation surrounding Zhu L was just speculation. We kept emphasizing the need for evidence, kept emphasizing the criminal investigative process, kept emphasizing the legal principle of presumed innocence. We only appealed for an investigation, so that delayed justice would be found for the victim and family members. But then as of yesterday it was no longer possible to search for her. The victim has become a sensitive topic. As a result we can finally confirm that the basic rumors were true.”

For a Chinese government determined to corral public opinion in its favor, the failed attempt to shut down the Zhu debate is nothing short of a spectacular public-relations failure. On Friday, an enterprising netizen turned to the U.S. government and posted a petition to the White House website. It asks that the U.S. government “investigate and deport” Sun and pointedly takes note of her “family’s powerful political connections.” As of Monday afternoon in China, the petition exceeded the 100,000 signatures necessary for an official response from the White House. In all likelihood, that response will be diplomatic and noncommittal.

But even if there’s no response at all, the effort appears to have made an impression on somebody in authority in China. Late Monday afternoon, not long after the petition crossed the 100,000 signature threshold, Sina Weibo lifted its ban on related searches. Almost instantly, “Zhu Ling” was the top trending topic on Sina Weibo, followed by “White House.” This is a stunning, face-losing turnabout that’s unlikely to restore confidence in Chinese rule of law any time soon. But it just may result both in justice for Zhu and in providing China’s government with a powerful lesson in how effective its citizens have become at circumventing institutions that were designed to be infallible.

(Adam Minter, the Shanghai correspondent for the World View blog, is writing “Junkyard Planet,” a book on the global recycling industry. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the author of this article: Adam Minter at ShanghaiScrap@gmail.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Zara Kessler at zkessler@bloomberg.net.

Advertisements

Posted in 媒体报道 | Comments Off on [2013-05-06] Censorship Feeds Criticism of Chinese Poisoning Case

[2013-05-06] 一个真正老刑警对朱令案的看法–事出反常便为妖

Posted by woodinwind on May 6, 2013

8点20分一起发的帖子之一

楼主:九六年的正义 时间:2013-05-06 18:09:00

http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-free-3277652-1.shtml

前言
先自我介绍一下,本人七十年代生人,九六年开始从事刑侦工作,后来因故下海从商,
在网上围观朱令案已经很久了,前几周偶尔在某个老朋友群里和朋友讨论说起这个案子时,一时老职业病发作,忍不住技痒就在群里说了一串,朋友劝我:“你应该把你说的发到天涯”。我当时只回他们说:“已经晚了。”
再看了几周,发现此案在网上已经逐渐失控,大量水军使用重复的暴力语言,喊着特定的口号攻击一切还企图继续理性探讨的人。我就再叹一句“确实晚了”
但即使晚了,还是决心开始写这篇文章,就当为我国普法,刑侦手段普及做点贡献吧。

在本文中,许多提到的刑侦手段,刑侦思路,在九十年代,都属于不传之秘。因为当年各种科技,医学都不发达,或者发达而不普及,警察基本上就靠这些手段和思路来破案,但在今时今日,应该已经不属于什么秘密,所以也就敞开谈一谈。
本文中提到的线索,均来自网络。本人不保证其真实性。仅供思路探讨。

在开始正文之前,先正本清源,谈一些常识。
在之前有篇文章里的假警察(原谅我直接判断你是假警察),用极其轻佻的口吻来述说一些刑讯逼供,窃听等技巧,以暗示他是内行人。但正恰好如此,才说明他是外行。

第一个是假警察轻描淡写说的窃听器的问题。
警方通常使用的窃听手段,是电话窃听。动用到窃听器进行生活窃听,这一般是跨国案件(就是俗话说的境外势力介入),或者重大经济案件。对嫌疑人生活窃听是要申请高层审批的。一般刑事案件是批不下来的。
九十年代的窃听器有多大呢?有核桃大小。到了如今科技发达,电子元件越做越精密,无线窃听器依然有龙眼大小。因为有一个坎是迈不过去的,那就是供电问题。
龙眼大小的窃听器所能使用的电池,按目前科技,用最好的锂电材料+最小的电路板来做,一般不能超过200 mAh,单纯用作录音,能录6个小时顶天了。如果加上无线发射,能用1个小时顶天了。(这只是实验室理论值,实际上会根据环境各种缩短)如果想要继续缩小窃听器的体积,就要减少电池的体积和容量,但这就得不偿失了,谁都不希望辛苦装个窃听器,最后只能录音几分钟,十几分钟。
如果真像那位色眯眯的假警察所说的,他能把窃听器放到嫌疑人的衣服上,甚至贴身文胸里还不被发现。对不起,先生你科幻007片看多了吧。微型核能电池还没发明呢。

刑讯逼供的问题
又比如说那位假警察提到刑讯逼供,公然说不招就直接打死,还有人以公安局长的口吻发布“直接打死孙维丢江里”的说法,这种其实是用老百姓的思路去看警察,就像农夫幻想皇帝每天下地都用金锄头一样。
在九十年代,刑讯逼供的确广泛存在,但是刑讯逼供在当年也制造了不少冤假错案。
刑讯逼供的逐渐废除,其实是因为其带来的负面作用已经胜过了其正面作用。因为刑讯逼供实际上对惯犯,心理素质强大的罪犯,是基本没有作用的。会在刑讯逼供下招供的,通常都是新手或者无辜。两者几率是50%比50%。

而且老刑警都知道两个禁忌,
第一个禁忌是:你可以动手,但是不能过度,打到一个程度不会招供的,打死也不会招供,快打死才招供的,招供也是屈打成招,事实上在九十年代因为刑讯过度打死嫌疑人的,基本都是管不住自己暴力欲望的新警察。大案要案在大城市,没有人会交给新警察负责的。

第二个禁忌是,你可以做,但是不能说,像“打死”这种词不能出口,出口的话,万一出了事,就是蓄意谋杀。即使对方没死,你也是蓄意伤人,性质就不是刑讯手段过度这么简单了。能在京城当上公安局长的人,没有控制不住自己情绪,管不住自己嘴巴的,否则早就丢官了。除非他故意这么说,但他为什么故意这么说呢?在什么场景下这么说呢?

如果真要刑讯逼供,作为刑警,会优先考虑逼供哪些人呢?
后文会细说,这里继续打假

首先是其他人已经提到的“犯罪嫌疑人”的问题。在97年之前,一般不使用“犯罪嫌疑人”这个说法
对于调查对象,只有2种称呼,一种是“嫌疑对象”(各种明暗排查中),一种是“犯罪分子”(抓起来先关着再说)
八九十年代时,法制并不健全,公安对一个人关押询问,就算没有定罪,对外一般也就说是“犯罪分子”。这个“罪犯”的称呼,给无数只是有嫌疑的人,带来了无穷的烦恼。就算被查出是无辜放出来,罪犯这个词至少已经跟过你一段时间了。被别有用心的人揪住,会说你一辈子。
你有可能从此找不到工作,有可能因此妻离子散,这都是真实发生过的许多惨剧。
随着法制逐渐健全,现在才统一把未经法院定罪的调查对象都称为“犯罪嫌疑人”。避免了许多悲剧的诞生。(基本上是2000年之后才逐渐到位的)
贝志成先生曾经提到,孙维是案中的“唯一犯罪嫌疑人”,并且特别注明清华大学因此扣发了孙维的毕业证。
但事实上,如果孙维已经到达被扣押询问的阶段,那么其实按照当年的定义,她已经会被称为“犯罪分子”。
在贝的回忆中也提到,警方也曾经对他进行过一次询问。按照当年的定义,他毫无疑问也会被视为“犯罪嫌疑人”,但是为什么在贝的定义里,孙是唯一犯罪嫌疑人,贝不是呢?
要知道,北大也因为朱令案劝退了贝志成,我们可以知道北大为此劝退贝,但北大劝退贝志成的具体原因,贝至今缄口不语。甚至装作从未发生。

贝为什么要隐瞒自己被北大劝退这件事情呢?如果孙维被清华扣发毕业证,算是孙维是“唯一嫌疑人”的理由,那么这个理由完全可以用在因此被北大劝退的贝志成身上。贝志成到底隐瞒了什么更重要的信息?

我们回顾当年国外对朱令案的描述,当年的描述是归结为“求爱未遂的男子下毒”的,为什么到了2002年开始,才开始有人暗示是孙维下毒,到了2006年,贝志成才开始公然指责是孙维?

为什么在1996年时,国外媒体会报道该案为求爱情杀?而这个观点,如今为何完全没人提起?
刑警通常的思路是——事出反常便为妖。

Posted in 歪理邪说 | Comments Off on [2013-05-06] 一个真正老刑警对朱令案的看法–事出反常便为妖