盧正案科學證據之評析

民國87年1月，退役保安警察盧正被控擄人勒贖並以鞋帶勒死人質，再用膠帶綑綁人質手腳與全臉，將遺體丟棄山谷。判決認定由於鞋帶絞勒僅造成頸部「皮革樣化」痕跡，致使鞋帶無血跡、無DNA；又因雙手戴襪行兇，亦使膠帶無指紋。在無血跡、無DNA、無指紋下，盧正仍被判死刑並伏法。然檢驗本案之「科學證據」時，發現法醫並未記錄被害人頸部之所有傷痕、並未比對頸部傷痕與索痕特徵之相似處，且有將二傷併為一傷、誤判頸部傷痕為索痕之疑義，以及無鞋帶索痕特徵及未解釋鞋帶應如何絞勒才能產生本案傷痕，卻武斷鞋帶為凶器之疑義。法務部法醫研究所兩次回覆法院函詢確認凶器時，亦未分析比對被害人頸部傷痕與鞋帶索痕之相似處，即直接為法醫背書，並以肉眼觀察鞋帶上是否沾有血跡與認定索溝並未出血，顯有疑義。本案被害人頸部出現6道傷痕均與索痕特徵不相符，並非索痕，更非鞋帶索痕，鞋帶並非凶器。此充滿疑義之鑑定證據極可能誤導審判，應予正視，以保障人權、公正司法。

關鍵字

擄人勒贖；科學證據；鞋帶；索痕；法醫鑑定

並列摘要

In January of 1998, the retired policeman Lu Chen was accused of kidnapping for ransom and strangulated hostage by shoelaces, tying hostage's hands, feet and whole face with tape, then abandoned the body. The conviction ruled that the victim was strangulated by shoelaces only caused parchment-like mark on the neck, there was no blood or DNA found on the shoelaces. In addition, since the murder was carried out with both hands wearing socks, no fingerprints were recovered from the tape. With no bloodstains, no DNA, and no fingerprints, Lu Chen was still sentenced to death and then executed. However, after examining the “scientific evidence” in this case, many shocking mistakes were discovered that the forensic doctor did not document all the wounds on the neck, no comparison data to show the similarities between the neck wounds and the ligature marks, two independent wounds were falsely determined as single wound and mistaken neck wounds as ligature marks with no specific characteristic of shoelace given and no explanation of how the shoelaces should be combined to produce the wounds on the neck, yet the shoelaces are arbitrarily determined to be the murder weapon. Reviews responses provided by the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice obviously did not meet the requirements of scientific evidence. Six wounds were found on the victim's neck in this case. However, none of them were consistent with the characteristics of ligature marks or shoelace's ligature marks. Shoelace was not the murder weapon. The highly suspicious evidence in this case might mislead the court and should be taken seriously to protect human rights and impartial justice.