讀李昂的《殺夫》, 起碼是三十年前的事, 不太記得仔細的故事情節, 基本上是妻子長期受虐待而動殺機, 把台灣故事的情節搬到香港審, 就會以激怒(provocation)來plead the lesser charge of manslaughter。丈夫是四十多歲屠豬的, 妻是二十多歲的寡母孤兒, 打散工為生, 日間流落街頭, 晚間在祠堂過夜, 終於將將就就嫁了給這屠豬戶。提起殺夫是因為香港正在審訊大學教授的殺妻案, 與此同時昨晚另一大學的教授又因殺妻被捕。
李昂所寫的夫妻, 畢竟是文化水平低的鄉土人物, 對受虐而反擊殺人, 卻不為社會體諒, 認定必有奸夫, 找不到奸夫, 也要匡正社會風氣而把殺夫者遊街示眾, 以挽日益低落的婦德。李昂對男性沙文主義提出控訴。我談起李昂, 皆因看到教授殺妻而有感而發。
文化水平低而不懂處理婚姻問題, 導致家庭暴力, 甚至斬人殺人, 我勉強尚可理解, 讀得書少嘛, 所以就有這種刑事結果。可是, 教授也殺妻, 然則只是殺的方法展示學識的分別嗎? 正在審訊的殺妻案, 控方的講法是premeditated的, 由預先製造一氧化炭氣體儲藏在瑜伽球中, 繼而放在妻子駕駛車輛的車尾廂內, 再拔掉氣塞。功虧一簣啊, 想得仔細就會知道警方驗車會在瑜伽球的殘留毒氣找到蛛絲馬跡, 所以應該預先裝上追踪器去追踪車輛, 在警方未到場之前毀屍滅迹, 先取走瑜伽球。若如此這件案就難偵破。若果我是陪審團的一員, 我只有一個裁決, 殺妻殺女, murder and manslaughter。不過, 在正審案件, 我不宜多講。
昨天才揭發的教授殺妻, 一定不是預謀的, 而且殺完之後還未有足夠時間處理屍體, 若有足夠時間處理屍體, 就會是另一宗無屍謀殺案了。雖然會以謀殺來落案, 最終定誤殺較易, 一則沒有處心積慮的證據, 再者教授在政治上是vocal角色, 打動陪審員接納他所講案發經過也容易(我猜測會是爭執期間錯手/激怒殺人, 而且可能死者有心理問題之類)。現在的天網, 不是虛幻的個人願望那種疏而不漏, 而是具體的監察系統, CCTV, digital trail...一舉一動, 天眼恢恢, 不易逃脫。在這世代要作奸犯科的人, 就盡量不留下數碼足印, 不用信用咭而用現金, 不用個人八達通(悉尼版是Opal Card)而用單程車票, 避開所有攝錄鏡頭, 不穿顯眼的衣著。
 |
| 在書架找出封塵的《殺夫》 |
李昂所寫的夫妻, 畢竟是文化水平低的鄉土人物, 對受虐而反擊殺人, 卻不為社會體諒, 認定必有奸夫, 找不到奸夫, 也要匡正社會風氣而把殺夫者遊街示眾, 以挽日益低落的婦德。李昂對男性沙文主義提出控訴。我談起李昂, 皆因看到教授殺妻而有感而發。
文化水平低而不懂處理婚姻問題, 導致家庭暴力, 甚至斬人殺人, 我勉強尚可理解, 讀得書少嘛, 所以就有這種刑事結果。可是, 教授也殺妻, 然則只是殺的方法展示學識的分別嗎? 正在審訊的殺妻案, 控方的講法是premeditated的, 由預先製造一氧化炭氣體儲藏在瑜伽球中, 繼而放在妻子駕駛車輛的車尾廂內, 再拔掉氣塞。功虧一簣啊, 想得仔細就會知道警方驗車會在瑜伽球的殘留毒氣找到蛛絲馬跡, 所以應該預先裝上追踪器去追踪車輛, 在警方未到場之前毀屍滅迹, 先取走瑜伽球。若如此這件案就難偵破。若果我是陪審團的一員, 我只有一個裁決, 殺妻殺女, murder and manslaughter。不過, 在正審案件, 我不宜多講。
昨天才揭發的教授殺妻, 一定不是預謀的, 而且殺完之後還未有足夠時間處理屍體, 若有足夠時間處理屍體, 就會是另一宗無屍謀殺案了。雖然會以謀殺來落案, 最終定誤殺較易, 一則沒有處心積慮的證據, 再者教授在政治上是vocal角色, 打動陪審員接納他所講案發經過也容易(我猜測會是爭執期間錯手/激怒殺人, 而且可能死者有心理問題之類)。現在的天網, 不是虛幻的個人願望那種疏而不漏, 而是具體的監察系統, CCTV, digital trail...一舉一動, 天眼恢恢, 不易逃脫。在這世代要作奸犯科的人, 就盡量不留下數碼足印, 不用信用咭而用現金, 不用個人八達通(悉尼版是Opal Card)而用單程車票, 避開所有攝錄鏡頭, 不穿顯眼的衣著。
夫妻相處是一門終身學問, 真的無法相處也有其他共存的方法, 殺人是最愚蠢的解決辦法, 只會把自己也一併解決了。寫完這篇, 看一眼國際新聞就看到這報導:
CNN: Hong Kong professor accused of killing wife and stuffing body in suitcase
Hong Kong (CNN)--A prominent Hong Kong Academic was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of murdering his wife and stuffing her body into a suitcase.
The case comes as the city is already gripped by the bizarre ongoing trial of another university professor, who is accused of killing his wife and daughter with a gas-filled yoga ball.
...
中大嗰單，仲可以理解，有新歡嘛。港大嗰單，真係��晒頭，為與女兒爭執唔幫口？「殺人是最愚蠢的解決辦法」，標少好似講到，殺人是解決辦法，只係愚蠢。
回覆刪除那是殺人者的選項, 事實如此。
刪除再等等看，女兒的嫌疑排除了麽？
刪除明報即時新聞；【港大校委涉殺妻】張祺忠暫控謀殺 明東區法院提堂 (20:50)
刪除「為與女兒爭執唔幫口」，年中死好多鑊。
回覆刪除有無咁大鑊, 我就無乜印象在我家中有這些衝突。
刪除我們對女兒也有要求, 就是要求她們對自己有要求。不做虎爸虎媽, 以免全家受苦。
刪除清官難審家庭事,唉！
刪除Bill hk
許教授一案應該不會有murder and manslaughter的結果，因為doctrine of transferred malice，一係兩單murder入晒，一係兩單甩晒。
回覆刪除Is there room for argument in the death of the daughter?
刪除https://thestandnews.com/society/謀殺案之謎-警方公開審前資訊有可能會影響無罪推定/
回覆刪除Hi, Bill,
I would appreciate it very much if you could share your views on this article. As always, hoping to learn from you.
Old BJ
我個人就歡迎及同意作者法夢的評述、及資訊,
刪除不過呢段我沒有參考"警方透露的資訊"下(歡迎提供), 覺得「可能」講多左...
//再者，觀乎警方透露的資訊，可見警方曾在被捕者身上取得事發詳情。警方在拘捕後，有沒有給予被告及家人尋找律師的權利？當時他們有否徵得合適法律意見？他們公佈了他一些對他不利（incriminating）的口供，是否已經由公眾之口把他定罪？//
BBTW
就算講多咗也沒什麼關係，重點是不會導致影響整體案情，將來正審時一切也會就庭上證據給陪審團裁決。不用擔心
刪除越來越多媒體喜歡華眾取寵,搬字過纸誤導讀者
刪除我歡迎及同意的原因是, 留意到一個事實：陪審團是脆弱的! (請參考心理學, etc)
刪除聽過、見過, 便回不了頭, cannot be unseen, undone.
若不小心"保護", SORRY, 的確會受影響!
不比專業法官.
BBTW
媒體標題邏輯出現問題,首先無罪推定是這樣理解的嗎？這媒體體現在是跟被告進行上訴嗎？ 必須指出,從觀察看出這媒體控訴警察或仇恨警察多真實報道。
刪除It is interesting to note that the authors of this article refer only to the civil case of Yeung Chung Ming v Commissioner of Police but completely omit the long line of cases where the courts refused applications for stay of criminal proceedings on the ground of adverse pre-trial publicity, e.g. Lee Ming Tee, Nancy Kissel. Honestly, do the authors really subscribe to Li CJ's remark at para. 52, i.e. "I see nothing to warrant any conclusion that the Hong Kong public as a whole, or even a majority of our people, generally favour the withholding of pay, whether totally or partially, during suspension"? How about the balance between presumption of innocence and other public interests such as freedom of the press, open justice, etc?
刪除Re. the above comment, I should correct myself by pointing out that para. 52 comes from Bokhary PJ's dissenting judgment. Para 22 of Li CJ's majority judgment is of relevance: "22. Mr McCoy SC submits that in Allenet de Ribemont and Minelli, the ECHR had held that the presumption of innocence would be violated if the authority concerned appeared to treat the person charged on the basis that he might be guilty. This is plainly incorrect. The ECHR had held that the presumption would only be breached if the authority had taken the view that the person charged is guilty."
刪除3:49 I agree without demur your point of view though I have not looked into the judgment you just referred.
刪除Old BJ
I don't know if the author you referred me to ever made observation about the pretrial publicity of Nancy Kissel (Milk Shake Murder), Tony Chan, Donald Tsang etc. In Nancy Kissel's case even a film was shot about the murder. Tony Chan (aka Peter Chan after being baptized in prison) was scandalized with a lot of nicknames and despised in the media. Donald Tsang suffered the similar plight especially in the report in Oriental Daily. He was always referred to as Greedy Tsang. All these are undesirable and amount to pretrial prejudice. The only remedy we can see is the typical warning the trial judge gives to the jury and tells them to ignore all the media attacks on the defendants. I cannot say the judge's warning can entirely negate the harm and damage done and the defendants are unscathed. If I remember correctly, only Nancy Kissel applied for permenant stay of proceeding because of the prejudice caused by the pretrial publicity.
Seeing this thing from another angle. When the prosecution opens its case, the opening address outlines the entire prosecution case which is subject to scrutiny. Does it also taint the mind of the jury and compromise the presumption of innocence?
I can also see the media also reports the forthright character of the professor.
Thanks to Bill and all for sharing your views.
刪除Old BJ
I will write another piece on the issue tonight, re pre-trial publicity.
刪除媒體為攻擊而攻擊錯誤引用''無罪推定''
回覆刪除真的要向這份媒體致敬，趕及在過堂前誤導讀者還在引經論點，想問該媒體如何證明被告在整個審訊過程中，那個環節不獲公平審訊？？又如何證明陪審團將會被警方所述而受干擾？阿哥呀！這個是刑事案件不是民事呀！陪審團必須跟從庭上證據及指引，才能作出裁決，若要引用無罪推定，都等裁決後上訴喇！以為在google search完就懂法例原意，最基本都要拿證據，證明警方所述已抵觸基本法人權法國際公約法。
刪除照果篇報道所講,前曾特咪永遠唔駛再審?
刪除立場新聞真係做得越來越差,同毒果無分別...
點用先岩?
刪除https://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/article/3414663-兩個大律師公會前主席罵戰-譚允芝怒斥余若薇十分/
回覆刪除余大狀做乜成個八婆咁？
政見不同借故開火。
刪除唔知呢, 以報導資料, 譚總牌面妥善回應, 個波傳回余總.
刪除若余總不能有效回應, 果然便是成個八婆咁. 可以等一下, 或你知內情嗎?
BBTW
這些factual的東西, 怎會搞成咁?
刪除我對巴士的報沒印象, 是報章還是blog? 各位有閱過的如何comment, 因為...
刪除// https://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/article/3414063-【港大藏屍】張祺忠涉殺妻藏屍提堂-庭上揭有自殺 //
標題是「涉殺妻藏屍張祺忠自爆想自殺 求懲教署特別看管」
兩句轉左subject便含誤導, 前句張祺忠自爆、後句原來是控方求不是張祺忠求,
然後,「報稱香港大學副教授」, 8點應訊11點出稿, 期間(或再之前)未能問得港大查證職位, 效率出現問題.
文字隨手都不能確定, 點搞啊~ (引述此報便不可靠)
BBTW
巴士的報是星島集團的
刪除https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/229571/%E8%AD%9A%E5%85%81%E8%8A%9D-%E4%BD%99%E8%8B%A5%E8%96%87%E8%AA%B0%E6%98%AF%E8%AA%B0%E9%9D%9E-%E6%88%B4%E5%95%9F%E6%80%9D%E8%A6%AA%E8%AD%89-%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B-%E9%9B%99%E8%83%9E%E8%83%8E%E8%AB%96-%E7%84%A1%E6%A0%B9%E6%93%9A
刪除https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/229168/%E8%A2%AB%E6%8C%87%E5%8F%A6%E8%BE%A6%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E8%88%87%E5%85%AC%E6%9C%83-%E9%AC%A7%E8%83%9E%E8%83%8E-%E8%AD%9A%E5%85%81%E8%8A%9D%E5%8F%8D%E9%A7%81%E4%BD%99%E8%8B%A5%E8%96%87-%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E5%A5%BD%E9%8C%AF
兩篇來自香港01,似乎余大狀真係好一個八婆...
https://www.hk01.com/政情/229571/譚允芝-余若薇誰是誰非-戴啟思親證-課程-雙胞胎論-無根據
刪除雖然我前天批評過戴總替其難過過, 但呢篇顯示戴總很有條理, 果然可以很專業.
BBTW
余總嚴重失分.
刪除BBTW
余若薇大狀同大口李慧玲好合拍, 成日一齊主持節目. 物以類聚. 真似孪生姊妹.
刪除余大狀跟得大口玲多，習慣咗信口開河。 將假嘅嘢，講到真嘅一樣。
刪除路人丁
It's better to feel relaxed than loved, if you can't have both.---KKC
回覆刪除兩公婆爭吵, 其中一個出去食小炒, 輕鬆下。
https://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/article/3417451-【曾蔭權案】發書面判決-上訴庭拒批終極上訴許可/
回覆刪除完了吧，如無意外。。。
Not yet. He can still apply to CFA directly.
刪除律師團散band? 可能先商議一下玩唔玩「不公」.
刪除另外, 上訴通知書, 可以被常規地拒絕, 不如改稱上訴申請書.
BBTW
《巴士的報》:「前行政長官曾蔭權上月底遭高等法院上訴庭駁回公職人員行為失當定罪的上訴，但獲減刑至1年監禁並減免訟費至100萬元。曾蔭權的律師團隊分別向上訴庭及終審法院呈交終極上訴通知書，上訴庭今早頒布書面裁決，拒絕就曾上訴至終院頒發許可證書，意味曾蔭權只能以案件涉嚴重不公為由直接到終院上訴。」
刪除以上講法錯誤, 曾蔭權如要上訴至終審法院, 涉及法律的, 就先要向上訴庭申請許可, 上訴庭拒絕就可以直接向終院申請許可, 不能跳過上訴庭這一關。涉及嚴重不公的, 只可以直接向終院申請許可。所以, 曾蔭權可以向終院申請both limbs, 要在28日內。我相信他會提出申請, 賭埋最後一鋪, 以小搏大, 贏到就贏番過千萬訟費、卸任特首福利不會被禠奪、以前政務司司長每月退休金不會被扣、撿回個人聲譽if any left, 一定會搏。
The crime that convicted Donald Tsang took place when he was the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, which is an accountable political official instead of a civil servant. So whatever the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should have no bearing on his pension as a civil servant?
回覆刪除I am not so sure because when he became the CE, his civil servant benefit was suspended.
刪除