潤濤閻的小天地
政治麵目：瓜子臉。要招人恨，恨得咬牙切齒；要惹人愛，愛得死去活來；要讓人服，服得五體投地。
辛普森一晚上殺了他的前妻與前妻的朋友，整個證據鏈完整，從他在哪裏買的德國刀到他留在現場的腳印（他穿的鞋是特製的，全世界隻有二百多雙）現場留下的他的血液到DNA鑒定，可以說證據完整到了無懈可擊地步，隻能用鐵證如山來表達。然而，收集這些證據的負責人是洛杉磯警察局的警官福爾曼。辛普森的辯護律師團隊就搜集這個福爾曼的曆史資料，發現他曾經在多年前的采訪過程中稱黑人為“你哥”，待福爾曼把所有的證據在法庭上陳述給陪審團後，辯護律師當即說福爾曼此人對黑人歧視，表現在他稱黑人為“你哥”（黑鬼），福爾曼當即反駁說他從來都不會如此稱呼黑人，這是對他的栽贓。辯護律師當即拿出錄音帶播放，他竟然四十多次稱呼黑人為黑鬼。辯護律師問陪審團：這麽個騙子謊話連篇在法庭上當即撒謊，那他搜集的所謂的證據哪裏有可信度？別說其它的方方麵麵的辯解，比如DNA鑒定有一億分之一的錯誤概率，不是絕對準確，那個血手套由於血液幹燥後發生收縮而辛普森一直吃藥最近停藥後關節處增大的副作用導致手套戴進去時比較費勁等旁枝末節，就是福爾曼當庭撒謊這一條就無法令陪審團認同騙子搜集的證據是可靠的。
在法庭上辯論時任何一方隻要有說謊的證據被抓到，那就徹底完蛋。
接下來說梁警官與檢方到底是誰說了謊。一位陪審團成員審案對梁警官判決有罪後公開說,梁警官的可信度受到質疑(沒說他是騙子). 我把陪審團和紐約時報的報道關於陪審團為何給梁警官定罪的幾個原因概括一下.
總起來講有兩方麵:一是梁警官的事後解釋不可信.二是他見死不救.主要還是因為他的解釋受到了陪審團的質疑.
梁警官的說法是否可信主要在於以下幾點:
1. 梁警官自認他的槍走火時他沒有遇到任何恐懼,不是朝向目標而射殺，所以在子彈打出來的那一刻是槍走火了,他不知道為何就走火了.
對於這一點,陪審團認為梁警官的說法不能令他們認可.扳機那麽緊需要超過11磅才能打響,法庭認為梁警官開槍時是指向目標的.
2. 關於梁警官隻顧保護自己不被炒魷魚而對受害者見死不救.關於被殺黑人的女友說她一直在大喊救命,梁警官說沒聽到. 如果說槍聲把梁警官的耳朵給震到臨時聽不見的地步,可槍響後他的同事立刻斥責他”你開他媽的什麽槍時”他當即回答說是走火了.然後他倆就如何給上級匯報而對話4分鍾.顯然梁警官的耳朵是能聽到聲音的.
這裏,華人應該考慮幫梁警官找大律師狀告梁警官的同事和警察局:他倆到底聽沒聽到樓下的喊叫聲.如果聽到了,他同事為何也不去搭救?警察局是怎麽培訓警察的?培訓出的兩個警察都是見死不救的人,警察局讓這樣的倆人上崗,這不是草菅人命嗎?如果倆人都真的沒聽到,那說明女孩的證詞不可信.不可信的證詞在法庭上來說就是偽證,其它所有此人的證詞都不可采信.
3. 在五樓前去搭救的居民鄰居作為法庭證人說梁警官與他同事二人在被害人旁邊對傷者不聞不問毫不關心的指控.說梁警官“在旁邊走並下樓了”,並說此時梁警官並未情緒失控到“大哭,站立不住”地步.
對此指控是否屬實,梁警官的律師應該抓住這個證人是否是可信之人.如果證人曾經是個說謊之人,那此證據就不足信.而且假如梁警官的同事也沒搭救,也袖手旁觀,那他也是跟梁警官一樣瀆職.
4. 關於梁警官的律師布朗說”事實上梁警官曾打電話給受害者求助了”.根據報道,法庭把電訊記錄查了出來,梁警官打電話報案時未提到要救護車給受傷者救助.那麽,這就引出是梁警官欺騙了他自己的律師,還是警察局造假隱瞞了電話內容?
根據電訊記錄,警察局的確收到了梁警官的報案電話,但沒提要救護車.對此,我沒找到詳細介紹,以後可能會有詳盡的錄音報道出來?如果梁警官給警察局打電話目的是給受傷者求助而非隻是向上級報告自己的失誤,那麽這個電話是在傷者旁邊打的,這跟他此時情緒失控到無法給傷者施救無法關心傷者的說法相違背.
梁警官的同事也說過梁警官打電話時要救護車,後來改口說梁警官電話裏沒提救護車.那麽,為何他本人也沒打電話要救護車?是不是他倆此時都知道救護車就要到了才沒重新打電話要救護車?梁警官的律師沒提此時梁警官已經知道救護車快到了他才沒提救護車的事,而說是自己打電話要了救護車.梁警官的同事也沒說他此時知道救護車就快到了他才沒打電話叫救護車.這倆警察都太差勁了,明明知道還沒人打電話要救護車他倆竟然麵對血流不止的傷者不打電話呼叫救護車,也不過問傷者,都是典型的見死不救.如果梁警官和他同事二人都知道救護車快來了，那他說過梁警官在給911的電話裏講了要救護車的說法是不可靠的，救護車就快到了，還要救護車幹什麽？
辛普森案裏連主持收集證據的人說了與案件毫無關係的謊言（說不定他早已忘記了過去的采訪），都令陪審團無法不懷疑他收集的證據可靠性.如果梁警官連跟自己的律師都不講真話，陪審團如何能信得過梁警官是誠實之人？如果他在電話裏真的講了要救護車過來,那麽,就是警察局的錄音被修改或被剪輯過才拿到法庭.這就是欺騙法庭行為.
在法庭上，謊言一旦被揭穿，其它所有的證據都無法被采納了。英文有個單詞叫 “perjury”，就是說在法庭上欺騙法官/陪審團的罪行,中文稱為“偽證罪”,雙方都不能欺騙法庭作偽證。在法庭上說謊的後果要比案件本身還重要。辛普森殺了二人，但在陪審團眼裏，原告說謊則是對陪審團人員的羞辱，就更不能被容忍。這是程序公正高於事實公正的例子。從另一方麵講，人人心裏都有一杆秤，人人都知道是辛普森殺了二人（除了隻看旁枝末節被無良律師忽悠了的毫無判斷能力的傻子之外，而這類傻子其智商還處在人與動物之間，依判斷力水平來看，他們還不能被稱之為人。），他才在後來的去旅館拿東西那點小事上被判刑33年，從年齡上看等於死在監獄裏的終生監禁，跟殺人犯的待遇差不多。這屬於出來混總是要還的原理，使美國曆史上不多的“事實不公正”案件在“程序公正”之後最終得到了“事實公正”。一般情況下，“程序公正”與“事實公正”是一致的，而“程序公正”是實現“事實公正”的唯一基石。當二者有矛盾時，“事實公正”必須給“程序公正”讓路，否則，以後人人在法庭上謊話連篇，司法就成了笑話。在“程序公正”實現後，“事實公正”可以找另外機會彌補。如果失去了“程序公正”，那整個法律體係將麵臨坍塌。那些拿辛普森案事實不公正說事的，是不了解司法獨立的真諦。誠然，“程序公正”的目的還是為了“事實公正”。導致辛普森案“程序公正”與“事實公正”相矛盾的是檢方在用人時調查不徹底，用了個說謊的人主持司法調查。
梁警官的律師應該抓住對方證人在法庭上是否說謊尤其是是否刪改了電話錄音證據才是重中之重.
我沒查到美國警察有因走火而殺了無辜的例子，如果依照美國軍法，任何軍人擦槍走了火而殺死了戰友都必須坐牢.如果梁警官一開始就說聽到了樓裏有聲音為了自衛而把手指放在了扳機上而走火，那他反而可以得到陪審團的認可，畢竟黑燈瞎火的在那不安全的地方聽到聲音而自衛把槍指向前方是可以理解的。但他還是需要槍響後先考慮是否會傷了人,最基本的做法是到了五樓發現傷者後當即給傷者施救,打電話呼叫救護車.這些事都沒做,那也絕不能說謊。聽到了聲音後恐懼了就把手指不該放在扳機上時放在了扳機上而走了火,這樣的走火是可信的說法,做錯了事與說謊,後者更嚴重.陪審團12個人裏能有一個人同情他,他就贏了官司.
所以,目前法庭上到底是誰說了慌,尚需追究.尤其要抓住梁警官的同事對梁警官是否在打電話時提到救護車的關鍵問題上前後矛盾這一條。前提是：1.梁警官二人都不知道此時救護車已經快來了；2.梁警官的確在電話裏說了要救護車。
也說明梁警官的辯護律師水平有限，無法在陪審團麵前抓住對手的破綻不放。除非他本人都懷疑梁警官是否騙了他。
下麵是摘自美國媒體的報道.大家看看,案情還沒有搞清楚到底是誰說了慌:
On Monday, the trial of Officer Liang began before Justice Danny K. Chun, and Ms. Lopez was called as the second witness. Officer Liang, 28, is charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Mr. Gurley, 28, who was walking unarmed with Ms. Butler in the stairwell of the housing project in Brooklyn.
The prosecution argues that Officer Liang was reckless and violated his training by having his gun out, pulling the trigger with no reason, and neglecting to help Mr. Gurley once he realized the man had been shot. The officer was “worried only about himself,” Mr. Fliedner said, adding, “Instead of calling for help he just stood there, whined and moaned about how he would get fired.”
The defense says that Officer Liang was working in a dangerous housing project, and that he was already upset when he accidentally fired his gun. When he realized he had hit someone, he was so shocked that he had to be taken to the hospital.
It is, however, standard procedure for New York City officers to be taken to the hospital after they fire their guns.
梁警官的律師下一步需要搞明白的是在叫救護車一事上到底是誰在說謊:
“[Liang] thought he was going to be fired. I said no you're not, it's just an accidental discharge,” Landau said. “I told him to call, and he told me to call. He says 'you call.' I said 'you call',” Landau testified in court on Feb. 3. Liang eventually radioed the incident in after seeing Gurley’s bloody body lying on the fourth floor staircase. But Liang only reported their location, “Pink House One” and did not specify what had happened, Landau told the court.
In his cross examination, Liang’s defense attorney, Robert Brown, called Landau's account into question. He noted that Landau had previously told NYPD investigators that Liang gave a more detailed account of what happened on the radio, including that there had been an accidental discharge, a male had been shot and that an ambulance was needed.
以上梁警官的律師認為是梁警官的同事曾經說過梁警官提到要救護車來,而法庭審理後(紐約時報的報道),法庭錄音證據梁警官在電話裏沒提救護車:
His lawyer, Mr. Brown, said in his closing arguments that Officer Liang had in fact radioed for help the night of the shooting. A recording of a police radio call introduced into evidence by the prosecution shows that while Officer Liang did transmit a radio report of the shooting, he did not ask for an ambulance.
現場證人指出的說法報道(摘自紐約時報)說梁警官並沒有情緒失控到無法對傷者施救的地步:
She saw two police officers arrive on the landing; one was Asian, she said. (Officer Liang is Chinese-American.)
Mr. Fliedner asked if Officer Liang was crying or having difficulty standing. Ms. Lopez said, “No.”
Mr. Fliedner played a recording of the 911 call, where Ms. Butler can be heard screaming in the background, “He’s not breathing!”
“Was the Asian officer there when she said that?” Mr. Fliedner asked.
Yes, Ms. Lopez said.
“What did he do?” Mr. Fliedner asked.
“Nothing. He didn’t do nothing the whole time,” Ms. Lopez said. “I didn’t see neither one of them do anything.” (In opening statements, Mr. Fliedner said that New York police officers are trained in CPR and required to offer it when necessary.)
Asked if Officer Liang spoke to or touched either Ms. Butler or Mr. Gurley, she again said, “No.”
“He walked around them and came down the stairs,” she said.
