Police videos at the scene

(Global Times)    Public trial for man charged in killing of village chief    Ge Lili   January 5, 2010.

Local authorities in Yueqing, Zhejiang Province, said journalists, lawyers and ordinary people will be allowed to observe the trial concerning the controversial Christmas Day killing of Qian Yunhui, a village chief who petitioned authorities about land acquisition. Many villagers believe Qian was intentionally murdered because of his activism but authorities say he died during a traffic accident.

The local government said in a notice posted on its official microblog that members of the public could exercise their right to monitor the government. Fei Liangyu, the driver who struck Qian, will face trial for a traffic accident crime, a charge that was approved by the local procuratorate, China News Service reported Tuesday. News of the arrest and charge came Tuesday after hundreds of villagers clashed with authorities at a major intersection between the towns of Hongqiao and Puqi Saturday. Police earlier said Qian's death was merely the result of a tragic traffic accident, but some villagers suggested that Qian was murdered because his petitions angered authorities.

Several groups comprised of lawyers, scholars and activists went to Yueqing to look into the facts of Qian's death. Two groups headed respectively by Xu Zhiyong, a rights advocate and Wang Xiaoshan, an Internet user, traveled to Yueqing on December 30. Another group is headed by Yu Jianrong, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Xu claimed that Qian's death was indeed the result of a normal traffic accident. Wang Xiaoshan also claimed Saturday that he did not find any evidence that proved Qian was murdered and he has already departed Yueqing. "I'm just an onlooker instead of an investigator," Wang told the Global Times Tuesday. Many Internet users expressed dissatisfaction over the claims of both Xu and Wang. Yu left Yueqing Monday and said in his microblog that he could not make a judgment about whether Qian was murdered without any key evidence or witnesses.

Calls to the Wenzhou government went unanswered.

Zhang Yongpan's questions about the case of Qian Yunhui.  January 5, 2011.

1.  Declaration

I disagree with the conclusions reached by Doctor Xu Yongzi under the name of Gongmeng.  I do not think that there is sufficient proof that this was an ordinary traffic incident.  I personally do not think that Doctor Xu Yongzi should issue this investigative report under the name of Gongmeng.  In addition, I am not satisfied with the attitude and methods in Doctor Xu Yongzi's work.  I hope that Doctor Xu can be more rigorous and careful in future investigations.  I hope that this open statement will make you realize that you should not insist on your ways!  I don't want the reputation of Gongmeng be damaged because of the mistakes made by individuals!

2. The following are the questions that I have after spending several days in Yueqing.

1. Is the driver a drug abuser?  Was he recently released from jail?  Why was his wife missing after the incident?  Did the driver behave weirdly before the incident?  Could he be lying?

2. The video showed that the truck was driving at normal speed.  But how long did it take to go from Huayi village to the scene of the incident?  Is it possible that the murder was pre-arranged to take place at a certain spot at a certain time?

3. Why did the passenger Huang Biao see?

4. When was the video camera at the village entrance installed?  Was it able to save data previously?  Was any data stored?  Why was the similar video camera in neighboring Huayi village able to store data?

5. Is there an autopsy report?  What did the autopsy report say?  Were there broken bones or skin abrasions on the body of the deceased?

6. Is it possible to simulate the incident in order to reproduce the technical details such as the braking of the truck, the position of the body of the deceased, etc?  Is it possible for the things in the photos/videos to occur?

7. Who was the first eyewitness?  The security guard?  Qian Liangyu?  Or someone else?  Who was the first to call the police?

8. According to the description of an eyewitness at the scene, the mobile telephone and cigarette of the deceased were in the back of the truck?  Did they really show up there?  If so, why did they show up there?  How come these things cannot be seen in the video?  Where are these things now?

9. Why did the deceased go to the village entrance?  Who did he meet at the village entrance?  How long did he stay at the village entrance?

10. According to information, villagers had refused to let China Mobile install fiber optic cables in their village and they had clashed with security guards hired by China Mobile.  Did these clashes occur?  If so, did Qian Yunhui participate?  Could the security guards be retaliating?

11. Some villagers said that Qian Yunhui was saying that his life was in danger because he refused to take a bribe from a certain town leader.  Did this happen?  Who was that leader?

12. Some villagers said that certain leaders have tried to bribe Qian Yunhui many times with money and sex, but he refused.  Did that happen?

13. Some villagers said that there were two or three abnormal deaths in the village before.  Were these abnormal deaths?

14. Could the two eyewitnesses be changing their stories because they were scared?

15. Why did the Yueqing public security bureau secretly arrest Wang Liquan who was close to Qian Yunhui?

16. Did the driver honk his klaxon when he saw Qian Yunhui?  Did anyone hear the klaxon?  If he did, how far was Qian Yunhui from the truck at the time?

To declare this to be a traffic incident before these questions are cleared up is too brash?

[Comment: The majority of the information needed for these questions is already known (you can find them in the reports and comments above).]

(Beijing News)  January 7, 2011.

On December 25, 2010, Zhejiang province Wenzhou city Yueqing city Zhaiqiao village former director Qian Yunhui died after being ran over by a construction truck.  Netizens suspect that Qian was murdered but the police investigated and concluded that it was a traffic incident.

Recently a lawyer who handled the Zhaiqiao land requistion case and took 400,000 RMB in legal fees from the village committee was criticized by netizens as a "swindler."  The netizens say that 400,000 RMB was too high.  At the time, the then village director Qian Yunhui had to sell village land in order to raise the money.  But the lawyer took the money and did nothing.  The lawyer Zhu Xianli is now saying that he had resigned as legal representative for the village, returned some of the money already and was unaware of any land sale.

According to a popular Internet post, Qian Yunhui went to petition in Beijing before his death and signed a 400,000 RMB contract with a lawyer to represent the village in the matter of the land requisition.  In order to raise the money, Qian Yunhui and most villagers signed an agreement to sell public land.  They raised 710,000 RMB.  Qian Yunhui was sent to prison for illegal land transfer.  After Qian got out of prison, he accused the lawyer of taking the money but not doing anything.

Because of public sympathy, netizens used "human flesh search" to find the lawyer.  He is Zhu Xianli with the Lianggao Law Office in Beijing.

On the day before yesterday, the netizen "Super Vulgar Butcher" claimed that he called Zhu several times about the whereabouts of the money, but Zhu refused to answer.  On the last call, Zhu hung up the phone.  This netizen posted Zhu's business card and the recorded telephone conversation on the Internet.  He said that "the behavior of this lawyer should be deplored."

Netizens said that the lawyer ought to explain why the fee should be 400,000 RMB.  Other netizens directly denounced this lawyer as having no conscience and they demanded the relevant departments to investigate him.

Yesterday, an informed Zhaiqiao villager said that Zhu Xianli came under pressure after signing the agreement and got worried that the case was not going to make any progress.  After Qian Yunhui was sent to jail, some villagers told Zhu Xianli that they want to hire another lawyer and wanted him to return 300,000 yuan legal fees.  Zhu said that 80,000 RMB had been turned over to the tax department already, but he could return 200,000 yuan.

This villager said Zhui Xianli returned 120,000 RMB while Qian Yunhui was in jail.  So far Zhu Xianli has returned 150,000 RMB.  "He called us yesterday and said that he will return another 70,000 RMB before the Chinese New Year."

Yesterday afternoon, Zhu Xianli posted on his blog.  He said that someone introduced Qian Yunhui and some other village cadres to him in late 2007.  They wanted him to solve their land requisition problem.  He signed an agreement to represent the Zhaiqiao village committee which paid him 400,000 RMB in fees.

Zhu Xianli said that the 400,000 RMB figure was reached and agreed upon by both parties in accordance with industry practice.  He said that he was unaware that the villagers had sold public land.

Here is the interview with "Super Vulgar Butcher."

Q: How did you get involved in this case?
A: I am running a volunteer organization to help people.  After the Qian Yunhui incident, I went to Yueqing too.  Later I read that Qian Yunhui paid 400,000 RMB in fees to a Beijing.  I heard that this lawyer took the 400,000 RMB and did nothing.

Q: Why did you call the lawyer?
A: 400,000 RMB is a lot of money for farmers.  I heard them say that the money was raised by the village director selling public land.  I think that is scary.  How can he swindle the blood-and-sweat money of the farmers?  I checked with many people before I got the business card of this lawyer.

Q: Did you get what you want from the phone calls?
A: When I called him, he was very resistant and he did not want to say anything.  Then I angrily scolded him.  Before I even finished, he hung up the phone.  This made me even angrier.  Later I posted the telephone recording onto the Internet.

Q: Did you plan to post the recording before you made the call?
A: No.  When I handle a case, I have the habit of retaining the evidence.  I never imagined that he would have such a bad attitude.  He said that he was no longer involved once the relationship was dissolved.  Since he was no longer connected to that case, why should he care?  I think that such a conscienceless lawyer ought to be exposed.  So I even posted his business card on the Internet.

Q: Do you think that you were somewhat brash?
A: Brashness is my normal style.  I feel that everything ought to be out in broad daylight.  Private communication was impossible.  At that moment, rationality is blind.  When I called him, I was giving him the opportunity.  His cold indifference should be deplored.

Q: Laywer Zhu said that he contacted you but you ignored him?
A: I saw his text messages later.  But I have been busy so I did not respond to him.

Q: Have you seen Lawyer Zhu's statement in his blog?
A: Oh yeah?  I didn't know.

Q: Are you worried about any consequences?
A: I am not afraid.  I feel that I have been quite open.  If he thinks that I said something wrong, or I libeled him, he can use the evidence to sue me.  I welcome that.  If I was wrong, I will apologize in public.  I am responsible for what I say.  If I said something wrong, I will be responsible.

Here is the interview with lawyer Zhu Xianli:

Q: Did you receive a call from a netizen the day before yesterday?
A: On the day before yesterday at sometime after 5pm, I was driving home and I called a call from a stranger with a Fujian accent.  The telephone came from Guangxi province.  This party said that he was a "butcher" and a volunteer.  I thought that he was a swindler.  He asked me about the agreement.  I said that the agreement has been rescinded.  Then he spoke to me in a threatening tone.  I got very angry and I hung up the telephone.

Q: Did you imagine that the recorded phone conversation would be posted on the Internet?
A: I didn't imagine.  When I got up in the morning, I had several text messages from netizens cursing me.  I got on the Internet and searched for my own name.  I found my business card and the telephone recording.  Many netizens were cursing me out.

Q: How did you feel?
A: I feel bad.  I am innocent.  But I can understand that those netizens who don't know the truth are merely reacting normally.  I know that I didn't do anything wrong so I personally feel at ease and justified.

Q: How much of the 400,000 RMB was returned?
A: 200,000 RMB had been returned.  The village has to return the receipt and we have to apply for a tax refund before we can return the money to them.  The village has not returned the receipt so far.

Q: Why was the agreement canceled verbally (note: and not in writing)?
A: Several of the village cadres were in prison and the village committee seal was removed.  The seal is required to cancel the agreement.  The village committee's bank account is frozen and they need money urgently.  They have asked us many times for money.

Q: Did you contact the villagers?
A: I spoke to the villagers by phone.  I want to explain something clearly.  When I return the money, only several village cadres know about it.  Most villagers are not aware.

Q: How are you facing the questions from the netizens?
A: I haven't had dinner yet.  I am writing a statement to post on the Internet.  I didn't have a blog before, but I have registered a blog just for this.  I will immediately post the bank wire transfers on the Internet.

Q: Did you contact the "butcher"?
A: I sent him three text messages to tell him about the status of the refunds.  I also directed him to my blog.

Q: How has this affected you?
A: Internet public opinion can crush you.  If you don't explain yourself, you will be crushed to death by the Internet.

一虎一席谈

Dou Hanzhang: There is no evidence to support Qian Yunhui being pushed under the truck

Xia Yaliang: For instance, the umbrella

Dou Hanzhang: Where did the umbrella go?

Dou Hanzhang: Perhaps different people use different channels to get information

Dou Hanzhang: The umbrella was at the scene

Hu Yihu: Did you see that umbrella?

Dou Hanzhang: The fact was that the umbrella ...

Dou Hanzhang: ... was announced by the police.  Therefore I say ...

Xia Yaliang: May I ask Mr. Dou whether you speak for the police?

Dou Hanzhang: I do not speak for the police.

Dou Hanzhang: You are unaware of the public information that we know.

Dou Hanzhang: Yet you believe that the information does not exist.

What is that public information that Professor Xia Yaliang is unaware of?  Even the New York Times has a copy of the photo of the umbrella (from the 66wz.com Wenzhou BBS) in their story.

(South China Morning Post)  Suspicion and anger grow over activist's death   By Priscilla Jiao.  January 11, 2011.

The pair knelt shoulder to shoulder on the cold cement in front of about 30 fellow villagers in the Puqi county market square in Yueqing city , Zhejiang .

"We're begging you to help us retrieve our father's body so we can bury him in peace," shouted 31-year-old Qian Chengxu , tears trickling down his face, as his younger sister Qian Xuling sobbed beside him

Their father was Qian Yunhui , the 53-year-old chief of Zhaiqiao village, whose six-year struggle against land requisitions ended in his suspicious death under the wheels of a heavy truck on Christmas Day.

Qian Yunhui's body was still in the hands of the local government, and no one knew when he would be released to his children. "As a son, how can I feel at ease until my father is buried?" Qian Chengxu cried.

The cause that Qian Yunhui was fighting, the circumstances surrounding his death and the government's involvement come together in one of the most vivid examples of corruption and collusion seen all too often on the mainland.

Police insist that Qian's death was nothing more than a traffic accident, a claim rejected by the few villagers willing to speak on the matter and journalists covering the case. In the words of one villager who did not want to be named, fearing reprisals, it looked like "murder and a massive cover-up".

Gruesome photos of Qian's crushed body beneath the wheel of a construction truck were posted online within 20 minutes of his death and have circulated widely on the mainland.

His death has triggered pent-up anger among villagers and internet users not only over authorities' handling of the land dispute, but also the investigation into the village chief's death. There has been no independent autopsy; Qian's family and friends and other villagers have been detained at various times, and officials have not addressed questions raised online.

Yu Jianrong , a social sciences professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the incident was part of a pattern of disputes involving land and conflicts of interests between peasants and the government, whose credibility has reached a new low.

Qian Yunhui had been in jail for 3-1/2 of the past six years for leading villagers in petitioning for proper compensation from the Yueqing city government for land on which the Zheneng Yueqing power plant was built. After serving a two-year sentence, he was released in July - the same month the power plant began operations after seven years of land acquisition and construction. Only a few days before he died, Qian received anonymous death threats for organising groups to block trucks going to the Lingang Industrial Area since December 17, according to a villager too frightened to be named.

Villagers who agreed to talk described Qian as a determined, single-minded and quick-tempered man who was not the sort to back down.

But in the same breath they described Qian as a man of principle. "He refused a two million (HK$2.34 million) yuan bribe and pretty girls offered by authorities who wanted him to stop petitioning," said another villager.

Qian's 81-year-old father, Qian Shunnan , said his son had moved his family to Zhoushan , also in Zhejiang, to breed blood clams to sell to restaurants and then to Fujian . But when he heard about the compensation issue in 2004, he returned to Zhaiqiao to help his neighbours in their fight, even though it cost him his business.

During those compensation negotiations, eight village committee members were placed under house arrest in the Yandangshan Hotel for five days in 2004 before signing a contract accepting a one-off payment of 38 million yuan, or about 10,000 yuan per villager. The land parcel totalled 146 hectares, or about 70 per cent of all their farmland, and the residents were given no say in the matter.

Lu Shaohua , director of Yueqing Land Requisition Management Centre, said the land requisition was authorised through legal channels, Sanlian Life Weekly  reported.

There reportedly had been a document from the Zhejiang Provincial Development and Reform Commission saying that the villagers, in the wake of the deal, were seeking 1.89 billion yuan, but a villager close to Qian Yunhui called it "a ridiculously high figure entirely made up by the government". It was Qian's reputation and determination to seek better compensation that won him more than 2,100 out of 2,500 votes in the village chief's election in 2005.

Qian Chengxu, the son who knelt appealing to the villagers, said the family didn't understand why his father was so persistent despite being jailed three times, twice while he was serving as village chief.

"I asked my father to quit as chief because no matter what he did, he would still be blamed," the younger Qian said. "But he said people in the village had suffered massive losses."

Villagers say it was that passion for justice that ultimately cost Qian Yunhui his life.

Qian Chengxu saw the aftermath of the truck incident. "When I saw my dad I knelt down. I couldn't think. My mind went blank for a few seconds, and then I began crying aloud," he said. He last saw his father alive on December 23.

Qian Yunhui's father said he believed two witnesses who claimed they had seen three masked men in white gloves throwing his son head-first beneath the wheel of the truck.

Police say they questioned the two witnesses and that one had confessed that he had only heard the story secondhand, while the other admitted to inventing the story in the hope of making money.

There are other suspicions over how the investigation was handled. Although a roadside surveillance camera had been installed only 20 metres from the accident scene, police said it had only been there on a trial basis and had not recorded any images.

It's possible other images are available, though. Qian's fellow petitioner, Wang Liquan , was among the first to arrive at the scene and, villagers said, picked up his dead friend's mobile phone and a watch that could secretly record video. Ten hours later, Wang was detained on his way to meet a Shanghai journalist. He is still in custody.

Independent civil investigators say they have been unable to collect any evidence to challenge the official version of events.

The driver of the truck, Fei Liangyu , has been charged with a traffic accident offence, and officials have given assurances that journalists, lawyers and the public will be allowed to observe the trial.

In the meantime, only 10.6 million yuan in compensation has been turned over to Zhaiqiao village accounts. The villagers say they have not taken a penny as they regard the settlement as both illegal and undemocratic.

According to one villager, officials have frozen that money to prevent villagers funding a journey to Beijing to continue their petitioning. The Puqi town government has impounded the remaining 27.4 million yuan, claiming the villagers refused to provide a receipt.

With Qian's death, the future of any further petitioning efforts is in doubt. Qian Chengxu said there would be "no second Qian Yunhui" petitioning for more compensation.

"There is nothing more we can do," he said.

Most of the journalists who went to the village have since left. Residents say they fear being detained if they speak to the press, claiming that some who had already done so had been taken away and had not returned. "Unless you can ensure our safety, we won't tell you anything," said one villager, refusing to give his name. "We're scared to death."

Other journalists cancelled trips after authorities ordered news outlets not to cover the story, according to one mainland reporter.

On New Year's Day, seven days after Qian's death, thousands of residents of surrounding villages gathered to mourn but were stopped by hundreds of police.

According to two witnesses, some of the crowd threw stones and police detained at least 10 people.

A notice against "spreading rumours" was also put up that day, and local radio and TV have repeated the warning ever since.

Wang Zhaoyan , 51, Qian's wife of 31 years, gave interviews for two days after her husband's death, but fell and has remained silent since. She now lies in bed, talking and eating little,

Qian's family have declined donations from internet users. "My dad wouldn't like this, and we don't want to damage his reputation, either," Qian Chengxu said.

"We're poor, but we can make money as we are still young. We don't want money. We just want to know what really happened."

Authorities still have not said when they will hand over Qian Yunhui's body to his family for burial.

Chen Mingquan , a friend of Qian's and the chief of nearby Shatou village who has also been petitioning for six years over an unrelated land dispute, said the truth about Qian's death would emerge eventually, as there must be many guilty consciences.

"This scandal," he said, "is too big to cover up."

(Caing)    Grisly Road Death Leaves Village in Disbelief    January 10, 2011

Official reports say former Zhaiqiao village chief Qian Yunhui died accidentally while crossing a road. But villagers say he died December 25 after being forced by five police officers to lie in front of a rolling truck.

Photos allegedly from the scene that have been circulating on the Internet show a man's torso positioned beneath a truck wheel and beside a severed head.

Qian, leader of the Zhejiang Province village until 2004, once drew controversy for spearheading a campaign against government officials who allegedly expropriated land from farmers illegally. He served three jail terms for leading petition drives against the takeover of more than 140 hectares of farmland.

Witnesses say more than 50 armed police officers were deployed at the Qian death scene and clashed with villagers. Hundreds of people gathered within 10 minutes of the death, prompting the police deployment, they said.

"Where is the God?" cried one villager. "Qian was murdered by someone," said another, while a third villager waved a stick and shouted, "Let's get revenge for our village chief!"

Qian's son Qian Chengxu said he was among those gathered at the chaotic scene. He told Caixin he saw his father's body, knelt on the ground and cried. Also at the scene was the widow, Wang Zhaoyan, who cried until she fainted.

The public security bureau for the city of Wenzhou said villagers chased and attacked police who had arrived to the scene to investigate Qian's death. Relatives of the victim and some villagers tried to obstruct the investigation, a bureau statement said.

Qian's friends indeed tried to block the scene to prevent the body's removal, the son said. "Villagers surrounded my father's corpse and didn't let police move it."

But police moved in. "Police with batons beat people everywhere," said a witness.

Among those arrested were Qian's relatives. The corpse was taken to a city funeral home by police and cremated immediately.

An uproar in the village ensued. Rumors, exaggerations and near panic gripped the villagers. Some fled the community.

The dead man's son hid with his wife and children at a relative's house the night after the death. Qian's daughter and son-in-law were detained for questioning by police and returned home three days later.
　

No one dared approach Qian's house after the incident, and every night at 8 p.m. sharp villagers switched off their lights and went to bed.

"Our phone was monitored," said one villager. "And we could not surf the Internet or watch TV."

Credibility Questions

The official account that Qian died in a traffic accident was questioned even in the media. The China Youth Daily, for example, on December 27 reprinted questions posted on the Internet by skeptics such as, "Why was the truck travelling on the wrong side?" and "Why didn't the video camera at the intersection work?" and "Why did the truck not brake?" and "Who took away the truck driver?"  

Amid suspicions, the Wenzhou Communist Party's local propaganda director, Zhang Chunxiao, tried to explain the official response at a December 29 news conference attended by more than 30 reporters.

"This is precisely a time for testing the government's ability to rule," he said. "We must evaluate ourselves because the communication channels and connections between government and public opinion are really too backward."  

Officials said truck driver Fei Liangyu had accepted most of the responsibility for the traffic accident, but that Qian also bore responsibility because he crossed the road without making sure it was safe.

The Wenzhou government said it will help probe the death along with three, independent citizen investigation teams. The teams are seen as the best hope for relieving tension in the village.

Meanwhile, a government official who declined to be named said the "messed up situation" began with "a land dispute Zhaiqiao village did not resolve very well."

"Government departments are too sensitive, and their treatment is too simple and rough in response to the villagers' efforts to defend the corpse," the official said.

Another local official said he was surprised by the local reaction. "I never thought the government's credibility could be challenged and doubted so much."

The investigation teams are being led by the head of the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yu Jianrong, as well as lawyer Xiang Hongfeng and activist Wang Xiaoshan. They've asked Yueqing officials to examine the case more carefully.

But public doubts linger. Many villagers still don't believe the story that Qian died in an ordinary traffic accident. And more than 400 villagers gathered in front of Qian's home December 30 to demand a thorough investigation.

（Wufatian's blog)  January 11, 2011.

A few days ago, I was a guest on the <Yi Hu Yi Xi Tan> program on Phoenix TV during which I discussed the evidentiary issues in the case of Qian Yunhui.  My viewpoint at the time was that the evidence from all sides (including the police) supports this being a traffic incident and not murder.  There may be minor details which need to be verified as the process goes on.  During this period, the microblog comments raged with netizens classifying the two sides as "the wall" and "the egg."  I know that this analogy comes from a famous saying of Haruki Murakami: "Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."  This is a highly inflammatory statement, because people are forced to take sides when all they want is to find out the truth about the case of Qian Yunhui.

In his microblog, Li Chengpeng claimed to be an "emotional egg."  He did not think that this was a simple traffic incident.  His logic is based upon "perchance."  There were so many coincidences that you have got to think that it was a murder.  By coincidence, the television report of the crushing death in Zhumadian (Henan) appeared around this time, so he wrote "the evidence is everywhere in common knowledge."  Li Chengpeng was supposed to go to Yueqing with Wang Xiaoshan and Dou Hanzhang, but he changed his mind on the night before.  His reason: "Going there will only prove that the police conclusion was correct."  Therefore he did not go.  From start to end, he never scrutinized the evidence carefully.  He merely stood on the side of the eggs and fanned the fire.  You must say that he is smart.  I like his writings, because he can be very touching.  But I am somewhat disappointed with him in this case.  If one takes sides because one wants to cater to current popular Internet opinions or because one has preferences, then we are better off without these kinds of eggs.

I have maintained contact with all the civilian/scholar investigation teams, reporters and netizens that traveled to Yueqing.  Some of those who went there (including Wang Xiaoshan) actually lean towards the murder theory.  Xu Zhiyong's team went there with plenty of doubts in their minds.  I know that Teng Biao, Xu Zhiyong and others are unlikely to be on the side of the government.  They are "eggs."  Their trip involved very little contact with the government.  They began with interviewing the Zhaiqiao villagers.  Even so, some netizens thought that they must have followed the government-specified route and therefore they ended up with the same conclusion as the government.  Xu Zhiyong and them were actually vexed by their conclusion because it was different from what they thought beforehand.  This time, they agreed with the government.  Certain team members proposed suppressing their findings.  But as a lawyer, Xu Zhiyong ultimately announced that they have concluded that it was a traffic incident.  They ended up being attacked by netizens, with someone even accusing them of taking 2 million yuan gag fee each.  Conspiracy theories have their markets.  The Gongmeng group has always spoke up for the eggs.  This time they are attacked by the eggs.  One really has to be speechless. 

Tufu was different from the other groups that went to Yueqing.  I approve of the courage of this "Super Vulgar Butcher."  He has a strong sense of justice and he is very pro-active.  But if these two elements are mixed in with ignorance, there can be major damage.  I have met Tufu in person.  He is even more simple, honest, good-natured and fearless.  He wrote a conclusion about the Qian Yunhui case which he said that he went to Yueqing with a pre-established position and therefore he has to responsible to the netizens who donated money so that his team could go.  It is said that he had almost 20,000 yuan in donations by the time that he got to Yueqing and he continued to solicit for more donations.  His was the only sponsored group.  Tufu who claims to have studied only to second grade in elementary school wrote about his dissatisfaction, brought up some doubts (some of whom are due to his own misunderstanding of the facts) and then he proposed a twisting, bizarre version of the incident "based upon information provided by informed sources."  This conclusion has almost no connection to what he wrote before this.  He scolded those investigation teams who conclusions agreed with the official version as "anti-humanitarian."  This style is definitely going to popular among the grassroots.  With this style, I dare say that Tufu who became famous in the Deng Yuqiao case will continue to be popular.

At the <Yi Hy Yi Xi Tan> production studio, I met another even more powerful "egg."  This audience member impressed me greatly with this speech.  He said, "I won't believe it ... I don't believe in anything."  Since he doesn't believe in anything, who can convince him?  He ought to go live in his own world.

Peking Univesity's Professor Xia Yaliang is a strong stalwart among the doubters.  As a regular Phoenix TV guest, he told us about what to pay attention to during the taping of the show.  He said that everybody ought to be brief, that the atmosphere ought to be free and we can even interrupt others after we have our say.  But once the debate began, he disagreed with Dou Hanzhang and he immediately asked Dou whether he represented the police.  When Dou Hanzhang interrupted him, he pulled his face and lectured Dou.  Even after the taping was over, he kept harping.  Two days later, I read his microblog post in which he said: "After seeing Dou Hanzhang's performance, I finally knew what a disgusting 'fifty-cent ganger' is."  Such is the bearing of a Peking University professor who claims to advocate freedom and democracy.

On January 10, I read the letter <Application for government information disclosure> from lawyer Li Jingsong to the Wenzhou city government.  He raised "108 questions related to the death of Qian Yunhui."  His courage deserves to be lauded.  But as a lawyer he ought to know that the <Regulations about the disclosure of government information> does not cover facts in an investigation as listed in <State Secrecry Law> Article 8 Clause 6.  Maintaining confidentiality is a basic principle in crime investigations in all countries around the world.  Before the trial, such information is not released in order to make sure that the investigation can proceed smoothly.  Upon careful reading, many of the 108 questions fall under the <State Secrecy Law>, including some that won't even be answered during the trial.  As a lawyer with a high degree of media exposure, he is definitely going to be part of the case.  His essay described himself as "an expert in the relevant state laws and a senior crime/relocation/eviction lawyer who was involved in the tragic Tang Fuzhen self-immolation case and the beating death of Meng Fugui in Taiyuan (Shanxi)."  He even mentioned his lawyer's office.  This sort of product placement advertisement seems to be self-serving.

When a case becomes a public affair, emotions, subjectivity and symbolism inevitably enter.  On the microblogs, we are all grassroots elements.  But being on the side of the eggs definitely confers moral superiority.  When the Yueqing investigation teams returned, those who said that it was a traffic incident were called "fifty-cent gangers" and "bought off."  Conspiracy theories abound.  On that day of the television program, an audience member angrily denounced forced evictions.  But the case of Qian Yunhui was at most a dispute over land requisition/compensation and not forced evictions.  The central point of contention is the beachhead which had nothing to do with any forced evictions.

If your prefer to call this as you think, you really don't need to look at any evidence.  If you choose to distrust the evidence, it won't matter to you even if the facts are disclosed.  Sima Dong said that even though the Wenzhou police took over the case, he still doesn't trust them.  If the Shanghai police took over the case, he still doesn't trust them.  In the end, the Ministry of Public Security takes over the case.  Do you trust them?  Even if INTERPOL takes over the case, you are still going to say that they were bought off.  Someone suggests using third parties.  The civilian/scholar teams went and most people still don't believe in their published conclusions.  It is easy to raise doubts.  Everybody knows how to do it.  But these is only one truth.  You have to rid yourself of those emotions and then you may be able to analyze the evidence in a sober manner.

On the microblogs, people accused me of being a "fifty-cent ganger."  I am not angry, because they don't know me.  Those who are familiar with me know that I spent more than a year defending Zhang Yuanxiang for free.  Even after the judiciary department came to speak to me, I persisted because the evidence showed that Zhang Yuanxiang was innocent.  I denounced the fraudulent activities of Yu Jinyong because the evidence showed that he not only posed as a Peking University professor but he also lied about the amount of his registered capital.  I used my real name to make the denunciation and I was not afraid of his threats.  I denounced Jin Na for lying about the "sky-high priced microblog" not because I want to support China Unicom against consumers, but because Jin Na was lying about certain key facts and the "sky-high priced microblog" did not exist.  Most of the time, I seemed to be on the sides of the eggs because I seemed to be running up against the wall.  But I will not choose sides.  If I have to choose a side, it will be on the side of the evidence.  When all the eggs say that this is a murder case, then the truck driver Fei Liangyu is an egg running up a wall consisting of the people.  I am not saying that one cannot question the evidence, but if these questions can be explained by facts, then they are not real problems.  At most, they can gather some more eyeballs.

During the <Yi Hu Yi Xi Tan> program, Professor Xia Yaliang asked: Qian Yunhui was carrying an umbrella at the time, so how come the umbrella was not found at the scene?  The answer to this question is very simple: the photos from the scene showed the umbrella and the police released those photos, but Professor Xia did not notice it.  Some people asked: Why are there no brake marks at the scene?  The police had stated that the brake marks measured 5.4 meters long.  But the eggs said that this mark was made by the body being dragged on the ground and not by the braking tires.  The eggs said that the surveillance camera was selectively not working.  The China Mobile person said that the surveillance camera was still being tested that day.  The eggs therefore said that China Mobile is colluding with the police.  The eggs asked why the witnesses were arrested without cause.  The police said that Qian Chengyu and Wang Liquan were arrested for causing a disturbance.  The police allowed Lawyer Peng Jian to meet with Qian Chengyu but the eggs still think that Qian had been "nabbed."  The eggs asked why the police came to a conclusion so quickly?  But people familiar with crime investigations know that the preliminary opinion of the police does not represent the final conclusion.  At present, the investigation is still ongoing.  Coming ahead will be the indictment and then the trial.  To deliberately distort what the government is saying and then attacking them is not what the eggs should be doing.  Those methods are exactly what they say the government does.  Are the eggs choosing to be selectively blind, or are the so-called "behind-the-scene black hands" selectively blind?  Apart from the wall and the eggs, who can calmly stand on the side of the facts?

No matter whether it is Li Chengpeng, Wang Xiaoshan, Xu Zhiyong, Xiaoshu or Tufu (they may or may not consider me to be a friend, but I think of them as debate partners and therefore I can speak directly about them.  I have conversed with Wang Xiaoshan, Xu Zhiyong, Xiaoshu, Dou Hanzhang and Tufu in person.  I don't talk behind people's back.  If I have issues, I will bring them up under my real name for discussion.  They know that I am open and they won't get mad at me.  Professor Xia is the exception.  Because of a difference in opinion, he called Dou Hanzhang a "fifty-cent" ganger and me "lawless".  He also said that the two of us share the same rotten smell and therefore we are attracted to each other.), no matter whether they traveled to Yueqing or not, if these eggs have sufficient evidence to overturn the police conclusions, they would not have held back.  They can courageously disclose their investigation results like Xu Zhiyong did.  Or they can offer some evasive answers like Wang Xiaoshan and Xiaoshu for people to guess what they are thinking.  At most, they can offer some doubts for which they demand further disclosure of evidence as Tufu did. 

Such being the case, please permit me to pose two questions: Has anyone provided any evidence to establish that this was murder?  Not yet.  The eggs say that we don't have the right to investigate, because only the police can.  Are the police required to disclose the details of all the evidence before the trial?  Yes, or no?

Don't be impatient.  Just wait until the trial.  It will be an open trial.

If people will always stand with the eggs "no matter how right the wall is or how wrong the eggs are" irregardless of the truth, then the road to "rule of law" in China is a dead-end alley.

Addendum:

Tufu's conclusion:

How did village head Qian Yunhui die?  According to the information provided to me by an informed source (including certain previously unknown information -- although I have always advocated that everything should be revealed, I still have to observe certain rules in practice) in combination with the actual scene plus the local historical background, the driver did not intentionally drive the truck there to murder Qian Yunhui.  But he lied about what happened.  The police told him to lie.  The reason for lying is that they want to cover up the truth that the driver saw before the village head died.  Here is the information provided by an informed source, and it is quite close to what happened at the time: In January 2011, there will be a new village election in Qianzhai village.  The villagers will definitely elect Qian Yunhui as their village head.  In 2004, Qian was involved in the land requisition for the electricity power plant.  If elected this time, he will lead the villagers to oppose the requisition of the beach head for the Lingang industrial development and causing embarrassment.  The leaders may also pay attention to the 2004 land requisition for the power plant.

Therefore the government leadr named Xu called and "invited" Qian to speak.  On the morning of December 25, the town leader Xu found the villager Wang (it is unknown whether this was by bribe or coercion) to call Qian and tell him to meet at the village entrance (why not go inside the village?  Ho, ho, this does not have to be explained because Xu will be assaulted by the villagers if he goes in).  Xu ordered his underlings to nab Qian.

At the time, Xu drove to the Zhaiqiao village entrance in the direction towards Nanyue (that is, the right hand side of the road towards Nanyue) and waited for Qian Yunhui.  When Qian came over, he saw that the people in the car wanted to nab him.  Therefore he ran back towards the village.  He clashed with Xu and his underlings, causing his umbrella to snap (based upon the Wenzhou police investigation photo -- I am certain that the umbrella was not crushed by the construction truck).  Qian fled toward the village.  At that instant, the construction truck happened to be driving from Qiaozhao towards Nanyue.  Since Xu's car was parked on the right side of the road, the truck had to slow down and go in the other lane.  At that moment, Qian was running and slipped on the ground either because the road was slippery due to the rain or because someone shoved him from behind.  So he ended up underneath the truck and got crushed by the wheel.  When Xu saw what happened, he was worried about what the driver might say.  So he ordered the driver and the passenger to get out and flee with him.  They arrived at the Puqi city government building (which was moved to the expressway exit -- the road from Qiaozhao village was straight and easy to drive on).  Xu was worried that Qian might be still alive, so he went back with the police (the Puqi border patrol station was only 500 meters from the government office).  Xu arrived at the scene, got out of the car and was assaulted by the villagers.  Everything after that occurred as normal.  He ran away and let the police handle the matter.  In the end, it led to ...

This is what the informed source told me.  I agree, because there many things can cross-verify each other.  ... Therefore my personal opinion is that Qian Yunhui died by manslaughter.  The local government bears responsibility and therefore they want to cover it up ...

This is what I am personally leaning towards.  Among my team of paparazzi, two of them disagree with the manslaughter conclusion because they think murder is even more likely since the police had been unable to provide reasonable explanations to my doubts!  We understand and respect differences in opinion!  But I think that based upon the information from Xu Zhiyong, Wang Xianshan and Yu Jianyong, we can exclude the possibility that Qian Yunhui was held down or beaten unconscious before being run over.  But if something new shows up, it could be different!

(Southern Metropolis Weekly)  Watching the "Yueqing Observer Teams"  January 12, 2011.

At around 2:30pm on December 31, 2010, Yu Jianyong showed up with a book bag on his back at the home of Qian Yunhui in Zhaiqiao village, Yueqing city, Wenzhou city.  His companion Fu Guoyong was carrying a video camera in his hands.  Yu's fan Wang Qiang pulled a luggage case behind him.

"This was just like the Yenan observer group back then."  In retrospect, Yu Jianyong could not refrain from laughing as he recalled the scene.

The villagers who were gathered in front of the Qian Yunhui home did not know who these people were.  More than 60 female residents of the village knelt on the ground and complained in the local dialect while crying.  On the day before, these female residents knelt for almost one hour in front of the CCTV camra.

The Zhejiang lawyer Chen Youxi who had been following the case of Qian Yunhui said: "They were far too willing to kneel without having to travel the long distance to Beijing."

Looking at Fu Guoyong's camera, Qian Yunhui's son Qian Chengxu spoke of his distrust of the government: If this is an ordinary traffic incident, why did they want to seize the body?  My sister and brother-in-law were clearly detained for more than 50 hours, but they said at the press conference that it was only 23 hours ...

Qian Yunhui's second daughter Qian Xuling and her husband Zhao Xu told about their detention.  Qian Xuling claimed that she was nabbed even though she was only crying by the roadside; Zhao Xu rolled up his trouser leg and showed a dark greenish bruise which he said was evidence that he was assaulted.

There were three layers of spectators inside and another three layers of spectators outside.  Most of them are residents of other villages.  Voices were full of expectation: "Will these videos go out?"

While those women rolled crying on the ground while tugging at Fu Guoyong's trouser legs, Fu received a telephone call from Yu Jianyong: "The situation is critical.  Withdraw immediately.  Based upon my experience, the villagers are pouring their emotions out.  A mass incident can happen at any moment."

Xiao Shu also received the telephone call to withdraw.  Their "Scholar/Civilian Yueqing Observation Team" were divided into two groups that were supposed to meet in Wenzhou that evening.  By chance, these two teams came across each other at the home of Qian Yunhui.

Yu Jingyong as already sitting inside a farmer's house called Xiao Shu back as the latter headed towards the parking lot.  "Tell them to withdraw immediately.  If things go wrong, we can be judged the instigators of a mass incident.  Do not let yourselves be trapped."

On December 28, <Southern Weekend> commentator Xiao Shu had called Yu Jingyong and asked him to lead a team of observers to Yueqing to investigate the case of Qian Yunhui.  Xiao Shu thought that the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences academician Yu Jingyong was the best suited person among microbloggers because of his sense of justice, his political connections and his skill in handling politics.

Yu Jingyong said that nothing can be done without government cooperation.  So Xiao Shu went through media reporters to reach out to the local authorities.  At the official Wenzhou government press conference on December 29 at the Jinding Hotel in Yueqing, <Beijing News> reporter Chen Ningyi raised a question: "What is your opinion about the scholar observation team headed by professor Yu Jianyong?"

The Wenzhou External Publicity Office director Zhang Chunxiao replied instantaneously: "We welcome Professor Yu Jianyong and others, including netizens, to conduct independent investigations to assist us!"

In order to "respond to the enthusiastic attitude of the Wenzhou government," Xiao Shu nominated the final "Scholar/Civilian Yueqing Observation Team": Xiao Shu; Yu Jianyong; Zhongshan Univesity Political Science/Public Administration School professor Guo Weiqing, Zhongshan University Litigation Research Institute professor Yang Jianguang; Guangdong School of Business Administration associate professor Ma Shen, history scholar Fu Guoyong (place of origin Yueqing), Shanghai National Defense Strategic Research Institute deputy director Zhao Chu, Shanghai lawyer Shi Weijiang, intellectual property rights expert Lu Wenju (who worked in criminal investigation for twenty-four years) and the media workers Chen Jieren, Pu Baoyi and Yang Haipeng.

In Xiao Shu's view, social conflicts in China always happen because the two parties stand on opposite sides and completely distrust each other.  There was no third party serving as a neutral zone.  In a commentary titled <It is a good thing that Wenzhou lets civilians participate in crisis management>, he wrote: "With the formation of the civilian observation team formed by Yu Jianyong and other elite, we can expect better performances in professionalism and procedural readiness."

Xiao Shu hoped to set a new model for handling public crises.  He thought that this was "writing history."  The history scholar Fu Guoyong also thought that he was "recording history."

The scholars were not the only ones who were "recording history."

At the same time, the completely different Wang Xiaoshan and Dou Hanzhang formed the "low-level netizen observer team."  These two are renowned Sina.com microbloggers.  Wang Xiaoshan is a columnist while Dou Hanzhang is a finance commentator.  Before going to Yueqing, the two agreed: they will respect the facts, they will explore the truth and they will each have their own say.

By coincidence, on the December 30, 2010 flight from Beijing to Wenzhou, Wang Xiaoshan encountered an acquaintance Xu Zhiyong.  Lawyer Xu was leading his own team of obvservers.  On that day, the netizen Wu Gan (nickname "Tufu" or "The Butcher") also planned to go to Yueqing.

The first team to show up at the village entrance was Xu Zhiyong's team.

In the afternoon of December 30 last year, Xu Zhiyong spoke to an old man at random.  After probing that the Beijing-dialect speaker Xu Zhiyong was not with the government, the old man directed Xu Zhiyong, his team member Liu Shasha, lawyer Peng Jian and Zhang Yongpan to a second floor room where he produced a sack full of petition materials that Qian Yunhui prepared before his death.

Over the next several hours, other villagers came and went through the back door of this house.  They brought along Qian Chengyu's mother.  Qian Chengyu was an eyewitness and he was taken away the next day and detained on suspicion of "causing a public disturbance."

Qian Chengyu's house was barren.  The child is attending first year elementary school.  He lives with his 76-year-old mother.

Qian Chengyu's mother quickly signed a client agreement with lawyer Peng Jian.  This wrinkled old lady held the hand of each person and used her incomprehensible local dialect to thank everyone.

While Xu Zhiyong was working in the village, the scholars were still contacting the government.  On the morning of December 31, 2010, Xiao Shu contacted Wenzhou External Publicity Office director Zhang Chunxiao.  Zhang let them approach the Yueqing public security bureau directly.

Next, Shi Weijiang called the Wenzhou City Public Security Bureau spokesperson Huang Xiaozhong, the Public Security Bureau director Ye Hanbing, Wenzhou City vice mayor Peng Jiaxue who is in charge of public security, Wenzhou City Party Secretary Chen Deyong and others.  All those telephones were either turned off or automatically forwarded.  Nobody could be reached.

So they came up with the next proposal: When they enter the village, Xiao Shu would go to the home of Qian Yunhui while Shi Weijiang would go to the families of Qian Chengyu and Wang Liquan to offer legal assistance.  Wang Liquan was another key villager who was arrested and convicted with village director Qian Yunhui.  Wang did not participate in the clash with the police over the seizure of the body and he was not an eyewitness.  He was nabbed on the night of December 25 and his family has received no notice.  According to his family and villagers, Wang was nabbed when he arranged to meet with reporters that night.

Shi Weijiang told the family of Wang Liquan that he wants to provide legal assistance to them.  Shi Weijing introduced himself and he told them that they can look up his name on the Internet.

The Wang family was very anxious about lawyers.  Previously the villagers had been swindled by lawyers during the petitioning process.  A letter of accusation left behind by Qian Yunhui claimed that a lawyer named Zhu with the Beijing City Lianggao Law Office took 400,000 yuan in legal fees while saying that he guaranteed that he will win the case because he has friends inside the State Land Resources Bureau.  In 2008, Qian Yunhui was arrested for petitioning and he called Zhu repeatedly.  Zhu refused to help.

Our reporter contacted the Lianggao Law Office.  The director there said that he had heard about this, but he would not provide the contact information for lawyer Zhu.

Shanghai intellectual property right lawyer and Jing'an District People's Congress representative Shi Weijiang calls his blog "Changing China through action."  He said that he joined this observation team because he had "hope."  He agrees with Xiao Shu that they are inventing a new model for civilians to independent participate in a public crisis for later reference.

He drafted a set of rules for the observation team.  After revisions by Xiao Shu, these rules were known in brief as the "Eight Yueqing promises": Independently and objectively providing a third-party investigative report; not representing any interest groups; examining the fairness of the process and exploring for the truth, but not promising to deliver the truth; not pursuing media exposure, but not refusing to be open; reporting the opinions of all members in the report, including dissenting views; not declaring personal or views to the outside without authorization; paying own way; making internal decisions in accordance with democratic principles and conducting meetings using Robert's rules.

Around noon on December 31 last year, these rules were sent out to some of the team membres.  That afternoon after the scholars left the village to return to the hotel, Shi Weijiang brought up the "Eight Yueqing promises" again.  He hoped that the proposal can be approved by everyone.  But Yu Jianyong objected.

Yu Jianyong's principle is that he never signs any rules and he never joins any organization.  "Brother, you are just boxing yourself in."

Yu Jianyong's propposal was opposed by Shi Weijiang's faction.  Yu thought that "the situation is highly critical" and they can sensibly retreat with each receiving a set of materials about the land case to study back home.  The next day would be the seventh day after the death of Qian Yunhui and Yueqing is going to be in the eye of a storm.  The team ought to go to Yandang Mountain and hold a meeting to discuss the land issue.

The professors agreed to postpone the investigation on the traffic incident.  Yu repeatedly emphasized his viewpoint: As an observation team, they do not have investigative capabilities.  The background behind the case of Qian Yunhui is a land problem and he wanted to focus on that.

The debate continued until past 8 o'clock.  In the end, everybody voted yes on the motion to have dinner.

On that evening, Shi Weijiang, Xiao Shu, Chen Jieren and Pu Baoyi discussed setting two smaller investigative teams.  The first team would investigate the truth about the traffic death, with Xiao Shu as the contact person.  The second team would investigate the truth about the land requisition, with Yu Jiangyong as the contact person.  They also amended the rules and gave an estimate of 3 days to complete the original goals.  If not, they would state just what was not completed and what the obstacles were.

At around 3pm the next day, Pu Baoyi and Chen Jieren returned to the New Century Hotel from Zhaiqiao village to meet with the professors.  Pu Baoyi said that he wanted to inspect the truck involved in the incident.  Fu Guoyong provided the contact with the publicity department saying that it was his private connection.  He asked Pu Baoyi to proceed there as a reporter and not as part of the observation team.  There was an argument.

Ma Shen said that they ought to seek the largest common denominator of all the demands.  "Mainly we have to consider safety and to not leave room for criticism."  Guo Weiqing who had maintained silence so far agreed with Ma Shen and said that everyone should say the same things.

Two students accompanied Guo Weiqing on this trip.  This Public Administration expert wanted to observe the government action at close range and raise questions in order to reduce the conflict.  But he was later concerned: "I don't care what happens to me, but I cannot let it affect the future of my two children."

Fu Guoyong said that he has learned from many channels that "We are in the eye of a historical storm.  Each of our choices will be accountable in history.  It will require a high degree of wisdom.  This is the first time that civilians have participated as a third party in a public incident.  The handling of this case will provide a new model for peaceful transition.  If we fail, we won't be able to bear the historical burden.  If we cannot even agree on this point, then Chinese intellectuals won't be able to achieve anything in one hundred years."

Pu Baoyi said that the two sides had different assessments of the situation.  As an investigative reporter, he can see one after another storm eye.

Chen Youxi believed that the local Yueqing authorities gave the observation teams a lot of psychological pressure.  "Fu Guoyong is originally from Yueqing.  He has good social ties and he can learn the truth.  But it would be better for him not to participate because he has to consider the conditions of himself and his local friends and relatives afterwards."

Fu Guoyong's view was that "the risks are particularly great, more than anything that I have ever experienced."  Therefore, he had already taken on a certain burden just be being there.  "Everything should be based upon Teacher Yu's observations."

On the evening of December 30, 2010, Wang Xiaoshan got debriefed by reporters about the local situation.  Wang Xiaoshan invited the reporters to dinner.  The enthusiastic Yueqing City Publicity Department director Yang Youcai showed up and rushed to pay the bill.  But Yang Youcai was unable to respond to the four demands of the two-person team: (1) to watch the surveillance video tapes taken all along the route; (2) to meet with the security guards at the scene; (3) to view the photos that the police took at the scene; (4) to let Dou Hanzhang meet with the police captain who was injured by the villagers.

The next morning, Wang and Dou went to the power plant and the Linfang Industrial Zone to ask about the security guards without any success.  They felt helpless.  Wang Xiaoshan let Dou Hanzhang call Yang Youcai and say "the villagers are all calling this a murder.  If you don't arrange for us to meet with the witnesses, we can only report what the villagers are saying."

Director Yang quickly responded and gave the telephone number of the Political Department deputy director named Lin.  Deputy director Lin said that they can watch the video and interview the security guards.  But he had to get clearance if they want to take the police photos.

Compared to the directness of Wang Xiaoshan, the scholar team was more subtle.  On the evening of December 31, the scholar team discussed an open letter of recommendations that would be 100 to 200 words long to ask the government to pay attention to public opinion as well as to hold a dialog with their team.  "We can be humble in our wording, but this is a moral act."

After discussing the wording of the recommendation letter, someone suggested distributing it via microblogs.  But the dissenting opinion was, Are you going to "upset" the government if you don't even tell them?

At this point, Xiaoshu said: "The government has acknowledged our status.  The police don't want to meet with us, but the Yueqing publicity department deputy director couldn't wait to see us."

That evening, the Yueqing city publicity department director came over to visit.  At the same time that the scholar team handed the open letter with recommendations to the government, they also posted it on their official microblog.  They urged the Yueqing city party/government to begin dialogue with the family of the deceased and the villagers as soon as possible before the case deteriorates even further.

On the next day, the seventh day after the death of Qian Yunhui, the scholars avoided the eye of the storm.  Xiao Shu stayed in Wenzhou while professor Yu Jianyong and others stayed at the New Century Hotel.

Though far away from the eye of the storm, the scholar team was playing games with the police's official "Peaceful Yueqing" microblog.  "Peaceful Yueqing" claimed, "Based upon the information on hand as well as the recommendations of a third party investigation team, the police will impose traffic control on certain road sections with regard to commemorative activities.  The police will be mobilizing to maintain order at the scene."  The official blog of the scholar team replied: "The so-called third party investigation team has nothing to do with this team."

But the were unable to initiate a dialog with the government.  On December 31, 2010, the scholar teams said that the government will speak with the scholar teams the next day.  On the next day, they said that the dialog would be postponed until the third day.  On the third day, the scholar team left.

Chen Youxi believed that it was understandable that "no independent investigation can work solely on the basis of civil rights."  There had to be support by the public authority.

As early as 5pm on December 31, 2010, Xu Zhiyong had already typed out his basic conclusions on the computer: This was an ordinary traffic incident.  Due to the emotions involved in the government versus the people and because the lack of trust in the government, it became a public incident.  After this report was released, a team member Zhang Yongpan public accused Xu Zhiyong of being "hasty" and offered 16 doubts.  Certain members of the scholar team also thought that the conclusions by the Xu Zhiyong team were hasty.

On the same day, the two-person team of Wang Xiaoshan said that they did not find any evidence that would say that this was a murder case or a simple traffic incident.  Wang Xiaoshan said frankly on his microblog: "Personally, I lean towards the latter."  So he became a "high-class fifty-cent ganger" in the words of netizens.

On the night of January 1, the dinner arrangement among the scholar team was very delicate.  Those with media background sat around one table while the professors were missing.  After the dinner, Xiao Shu got a call from the professors to ask him to go alone to the New Century Hotel.

More than one hour later, Xiao Shu returned and announced: "The first phase of the Scholar/Citizen Yueqing Observation team consisted of field work.  This is currently over.  The members will be receiving materials about the land issue in the case of Qian case and they will return to study separately."

On the morning of the next day, the scholar team got ready to leave.  They gave the Yueqing city publicity department deputy director who was waiting outside a copy of <Certain recommendations concerning the case of the death of Yueqing city Puqi town Zhaiqiao village director Qian Yunhui and the land disputes>.  In front of the media, Yu Jianyong praised the smooth communication with the authorities on this occasion.  He also said that the Yueqing trip will be a major topic for the land system research at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that he, Ma Shen, Guo Weiqing and Yang Jianguang lead.

"I am only interested in the land issue."  On returning to Beijing on January 2, Yu Jianyong finished reading the land-related materials that the Yueqing farmers provided him.  He had originally come on this trip to observe a mass incident.

In retrospect, Yu Jianyong who is used to operating solod said: "I have observed several mass incidents in person.  I know how to use photography equipment and to introduce myself.  Many of those observers present there did not have the experience of dealing with these types of incidents."

On January 1, the police were dispersing the crowd in Zhaiqiao village.  They found Liu Shasha, a member of Xu Zhiyong's observer team, filming with her mobile phone.  The mobile phone card was snapped in half.  Shortly afterwards, two Yueqing policemen invited Liu Shasha for a chat.  They asked her repeatedly why she still wants to investigate the land issue.  Previous, "Tufu" Wu Gan had been turned back.  Late at night on January 2, Zheng Chuangtian, a member of Tufu's team of volunteers, was forced to undergo a drug test in Yueqing because the police suspected him of taking drugs.  The test turned out to be negative.

In the view of Shi Weijiang, the Yueqing police was nice to certain media and certain observer teams, but they were unfriendly to other media, villagers and certain civilian observers.  There was some sort of selective law enforcement.  The local government also appeared to be selective in producing evidence.

Shi Weijiang is still trying to provide legal assistance to Wang Liquan and the truck driver Fei Lianyu.  The family of Wang Liquan is anxious about hiring a lawyer from the outside.  On January 3, a lawyer from Shi Weijiang's office asked the family of Wang Liquan to ask the Wenzhou Public Security Bureau about hiring a lawyer.  Although the Senior Citizens Association in Zhaiqiao village met, discussed and approved the action, nobody dared to send this request over to the public security bureau in person.  In the end, it was sent out by mail.

On January 3, Xiao Shu met Chen Youxi in Hangzhou.  Chen said: "It is understandable.  It was the first time."

For Chen Youxi, the observation of the Yueqing incident was destined not to go smoothly right from the beginning.  "A real investigation must reply on public authority.  But this does not mean that this type of participation and passion were completely meaningless.  The Yueqing action showed that Chinese public intellectuals have their conscience awakened as well as a crisis for public authority. It showed that the Chinese social value has shifted from authority to truth, and power can no longer manipulate social judgment."

(Wang Keqin's blog)  The investigation records of China Economic Times reporter Liu Jianfeng.  January 13, 2010.

At 9am or so on December 25, 2010 at the entrance to Zhaiqiao village, Puqi town, Yueqing city, Zhejiang province, 53-year-old old former village diredtor Qian Yunhui was found dead under the left front wheel of a heavy Jiefang brand loader-truck with license plate Anhui K5B323.

Since the deceased Qin Yunhui had been petitioning for many years, and his body was in what villagers regard as a peculiar position, and since the eyewitness Qian Liangyu insisted that it was murder, the villagers wanted to preserve the scene and set up a criminal investigation.  But the police determined that this was a traffic incident and wanted to clear the scene.  So there was a clash between the police and the villagers that day.  This was what the villagers called "the seizing of the body" incident which drew the attention of the whole world.

On December 29, this China Economic Times reporter arrived in Zhaiqiao village.  Over eight days, he obtained exclusive interviews with several eyewitnesses who were at the scene.  This article contains mainly the investigative records with those witnesses at the scene.

1. The scene (based upon the information released by the police and the photos provided by the family of the deceased)

The truck driver Fei Liangyu, male, born on August 29, 1979, resident of the Donghai brigade, Zhangzhuang village, Huangqiao town, Yingshang county, Anhui province.  The police found that he was driving without a permit.  The Jiefang brand construction truck with license number Anhui K5B323 is a loader truck registered to the Changshun Motor Transportation Limited Company in Yingshang county, Anhui province.  The actual owner is Fei Liangyu.  The truck is insured.

In the photos, the deceased is found to be have his chest pressed against the ground.  His neck was under the left front wheel.  His internal organ tissues have spilled out to his neck and shoulders.  His left shoulder is thrust out.  His rear end is slightly raised underneath the bottom of the vehicle.  His lower limb is bent.  His right knee and the top of his lower right leg touched the ground.  The tip of his right foot also touched the ground.

The section of the road is 16 meters wide, of which 1/4 on the right was occupied by some assorted materials.  The road surface was wet due to rain.  The photos and the videos from the scene showed that the deceased lying  underneath the left front wheel which had gone out of the hardened portion of the road.  The left front wheel had left a mark on the soil.  There was some loose soil about 15 mm high plowed up by the wheel underneath the neck of the deceased.  There were no other obvious marks left by the other wheels.

According to the photos from the scene, the top half body of the truck was painted in orange/red.  There were no scrape marks on the front orange/red part of the truck.

According to the information released by the police, there was a scrape mark on the black safety bumper in front of the truck.  There was also a scrape mark near the front axle underneath the truck.  The rib of the umbrella used by the deceased was partially flattened.  According to the police analysis, the left side of the body of the deceased collided with the front bumper of the truck, so that the body fell down on the right side and was dragged forward by the truck whereupon death occurred.

On December 26, the Yueqing traffic police division asked the Wenzhou Changxun Motor Judicial Appraisal Business Office to examine the truck involved in the incident.  On the afternoon of December 29, the appraisal results were sent to the family of the deceased Qian Yunhui.  There were four points:

1. The testing of the loaded truck showed that the braking capabilities were poor; the testing of the empty truck showed that the braking capabilities were normal.

2. The steering system operated normally.

3. The weight of the loaded truck was 60,020 kilograms (that is, 60.02 tonnes)

4. Due to insufficient information for appraisal, the speed of the truck at the time of the incident cannot be calculated.

There was a round-shaped street video surveillance camera right across the road from the spot of the incident.  On that day, the police told the villagers that this camera was still being tested and did not have the capability to record any videos.

2. The deceased Qian Yunhui

Qian Yunhui, born on October 24, 1957.  Elementary school education.

On April 12, 2004, Qianzhai villagers became unhappy with how the village committee handled the land requisition for the Zhenjiang Energy Electric Power Plant and held a meeting to call back the village committee.  Qian Yunhui began de facto to direct village affairs.

On April 26, Qian Yunhui and villagers Wang Liquan and Qian Chengqian went to petition in Beijing to defend their rights.  They were intercepted and brought home.  On April 28,the villagers blocked the government office building and demanded to release their people.  There was a bloody clash with the police with many villagers being injured.

On March 10, 2005, Qian Yunhui was sentenced to 18 months in prison for assembling a crowd to create a disturbance.  The sentence was suspended for a two-year probation period.

In April 2005, Qian Yunhui was elected village director.

In July 2008, Qian Yunhui went to Beijing to petition.  He was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison.

In 2008, the villagers boycotted the new village director election.  The Zhaiqiao village committee did not change as scheduled.

In April 2010, Qian Yunhui was still serving time in prison.  The Puqi town government tried to get the villagers to elect representatives and production brigade leaders, but the villagers boycotted those elections.

[December 29, 2010 morning; at Qian family house; villager Qian Fei (pseudonym)]

"The government wanted to hold the elections in April because they were afraid that the villagers would elect Qian Yunhui as village director again when he gets out of prison.  After getting out of prison in July 2010, Qian Yunhui continued to lead the way to defend our rights."

"On December 17, 2010, Qian Yunhui led the villagers to demand satisfactory compensation when 38 mu of land was requisitioned in order to expand the road from 8 meters wide to 16 meters wide.  Since they got no results, the villagers went to prevent the laying of cables by the roadside.  They blocked the construction trucks loaded with soil/rocks from passing through.  This affected the interests of multiple parties.  On December 21, they clashed with the auxiliary police and two villagers were arrested.  Beginning December 21, more than one hundred security guards wearing auxiliary police uniforms patrolled near the village entrance day and night."

[January 1, 2011; at Qian family house; Qian Yunhui's wife Wang Zhaoyan]

"A week before his death, he got a document which he said was evidence that a cadre broke the law.  The document had the seal of the cadre who was stationed in the village.  He went to see the vice town mayor who was stationed in the village.  I grabbed his hand and told him not to go, not to let them see the document.  But he went anyway."

"In the past, the relationship between the two was not very bad.  But on that day, Qian Yunhui slammed the document in front of vice mayor Xu and the two quarreled."

"Several months ago, Xu Xiangzhong came to see me and offered to take care of the family debts that were incurred as a result of the petition activities, plus all my medical bills as well as wage subsidies for Qian Yunhui.  I said, 'What about the matter of villagers being beaten?'  He said, 'You stay away from that.'  When Qian Yunhui heard that, he said to me: 'You better be clear in your head!'"

"Some time ago, someone say that the higher-ups wanted to give him a sum of money so that he won't do anything anymore.  Qian Yunhui refused.  But Qian Yunhui did not tell me about this himself."

"He was very stubborn.  He also knew that he was in danger.  During the week before his death, he did not leave the village on his own because he was afraid of being killed.  He did not sleep at home during the days before he died.  He did not take telephone calls from anyone except for two persons.  One is Wang Lequan with whom he petitioned together.  The other is vice mayor Xu."

"At around 9am on the morning of the 25th, Qian Yunhui got a phone call.  He walked out of the door while still speaking ..."

[December 29, 2010 press conference; the official information given to reporters]

Qian Yunhui was elected as village director in 2005.  Previously he had served 8 months of prison in 1992 for intentionally injuring another person.  In 2005, he was sentenced to 18 months for disrupting social order with a two year suspension.  In 2008, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison for illegal land transfer.  He was released on July 22, 2010.

3. The handling of the scene and the detention of the witnesses

[December 29, 2010 morning; Zhaiqiao village, the Qian family house; Qian Yunhui's youngest daughter Qian Xuling]

"I got to the scene before 11am.  There were a lot of people, there were traffic police."

"The villagers surrounded the scene.  They preserved the scene and demanded to set up a criminal case."

"My mother kept crying.  My mother has always been in poor health.  In the afternoon, I went to the hospital to get some intravenous drip for my mother.  A lot of police officers had the scene surrounded.  I was on the outside.  I asked the police to make way for me to enter.  I said that I am a family member.  They arrested me."

"At the police station, they said that the street surveillance camera recorded villagers assaulting people.  I said, 'You couldn't record how my father died in the morning.  But a little while after he died, you were able to record villagers assaulting people?'"

[December 29, 2010 afternoon; Zhaiqiao village, the Qian family house; Qian Yunhui's son-in-law Zhao Xu]

"The villagers were trying to prevent the scene from being disrupted.  Someone said to wait for reporters to come and take photos.  At 4pm, I was grabbed behind my neck.  If I moved, I got hit by a police baton.  After my statement was taken, I was locked up in the detention center.  I was beaten in the restroom.  I went to the restroom three times and I was beaten twice.  I asked to call my family and I was taken to the restroom and beaten again."

[December 29, 2010 morning; Zhaiqiao village, the Qian family house; Qian Yunhui's cousin]

"By the time that I arrived on the morning of December 25, the traffic police had already arrived at the scene.  They arrived around 9:50am.  After 10am, the traffic police said that this was a traffic incident.  Therefore the police would take the truck away while the family would take the body.  I disagreed.  The villagers said that this was murder -- Qian Chengyu told the traffic police at the scene that he personally witnessed several persons tussling each other on the road.  He thought that they were just horsing around.  The truck came over slowly and one person was crushed underneath the truck.  He approached and he saw that it was Qian Yunhui -- I demanded to see the street surveillance video.  I went with the traffic police to the police station.  They refused.  They wouldn't even let the traffic police go in."

"The people at the police station said that some of their officers were assaulted by villagers.  The street surveillance camera recorded it."

"Back at the scene, the captain said to go to the traffic police office to watch the video.  After I got to the city, it took several hours to take my statement.  I finally got permission.  But when the computer was started, there was no video information.  They said that that street video was not hooked up."

"Back to the scene again.  It was after 2pm.  The body and the truck were still in the original location.  More than 80 special police officers armed with batons and shields were nearby.  Everybody from the village was there.  The villagers surrounded the scene and did not budge.  The security division head Hou Jinhai came in plainclothes.  He was recognized.  Villagers attacked him and injured him.  At around 4pm, more than 1,000 police officers came with together with 11 police dogs.  More than a dozen villagers were seized."

"The scene was dismantled.  The truck and the body were taken away."

"Qian Chengyu was an eyewitness at the scene.  He was taken away the next day."

[December 29, 2010 afternoon; Wanzhai village, Puqi town; home of Qian Chengfeng; Qian Chengfeng]

"I am the sister of Qian Chengyu.  On that day, Qian Chengyu told me that he was somewhat faraway.  He saw four men tussling with one man, throwing him on the ground.  He thought that they were horsing around.  Then he saw a truck came over very slowly, very slowly to crush that person to death."

"He went over to take a look and saw that it was Qian Yunhui who was dead.  He was so scared that he went weak in his legs.  He did not notice how the four persons ran off.  Then he saw the driver and another person got out of the truck and ran away.  He yelled, "Help!  The villager director has been crushed to death!"  He gave chase after the driver but did not catch him."

"He did not dare sleep at home that night.  He came to my home.  Around 4pm on December 26, he came to my shop to help put up a sign.  Then he went back.  I went home at 5pm and I made dinner.  I went upstairs to get him.  I found that the television set in his room was on but he was not there.  All night his mobile telephone was off.  The mobile telephone was on again between 9am and 11am on December 27, but nobody answered."

"On the afternoon of December 27, someone told me that he saw Qian Chengyu at the town government office.  He had handcuffs and leg shackles on him."

[6pm, December 29, 2010; Qian Chengyu's home; Qian Chengyu's mother Wang Suihua]

"Qian Chengyu is 46 years old.  He has never liked to lie from a young age."

"On that day he did not tell me directly.  He told the police at the scene.  He said that he saw several persons fighting with one person, knocking him down until a car came over to crush the person to death.  He went over and then saw that it was Qian Yunhui."

"That day Qian Chengyu was very scared.  He kept going uneasily between the road and the home."

"He did not dare sleep at home that night.  He went over to his sister's home.  The next day he disappeared.  On December 27, someone told me that Qian Yunhui was arrested.  He was at the town government office, in handcuffs and leg shackles."

[December 31, 2010.  The family of Qian Chengyu was notified that he had been detained at 9am on the morning of December 27 on suspicion of assembling a crowd to cause a disturbance]

[22:55 December 29, 2010 Wenzhou police press conference]

The Wenzhou public security bureau reported that the two police officers who were dispatched to the scene to investigate the incident were assaulted by the villagers and sustained multiple injuries.  The family of the deceased and other villagers set up a mourning hall at the scene, erected illegal road blocks and interfered with the police in their investigation.

"The first witness Qian Chengyu did not see anyone deliberately running over someone to cause him to die and he did not spread any rumors.  The reason why the first witness Qian Chengyu has been detained was that when certain villagers who did not know the truth assaulted the police officers, he was one of the participants."

4.  Investigation records of the eyewitnesses at the scene

[Recording by Qian Chengyu]

On December 30, 2010, this China Economic Times reporter obtained a tape recording from a villager named Wang.  This recording was made at 10:42 on December 25 and runs for 1 minute 47 seconds.  Many different voices can be heard, all speaking the local dialect.  According to the villagers, the indistinct basso male voice belongs to Qian Chengyu.

The villager named Xu translated some of the audible sentences: "I was standing on the left side of the vehicle.  He was on the right side.  The vehicle is so big.  I couldn't see ... there was nothing that I can do.  The security guards took away.  The security guards blocked me so that I could not get ..."

On December 31, a civilian investigation team also obtained this recording.  On this tape, what they heard Qian Chengyu said was: "I stood there.  Yunhui was already turned over.  He tripped.  I don't know if anyone is inside the vehicle."

The villager named Wang who supplied the recording said that it was made while talking to the traffic police.  The conversation lasted a lot longer than two minutes, but he only recorded 1 minute 47 seconds of it.  He was afraid of drawing attention so he did not record too much of it.  He did not imagine that Qian Chengyu would be nabbed.

[Qian Chengyu was interviewed in the detention center by Legal News Daily and CCTV]

On December 29, Qian Chengyu was interviewed by CCTV and said: "The road was more than 16 meters wide.  I observed from four to five meters away that the vehicle had moved 60 to 70 centimeters ..."

He was also interviewed in the detention center by Legal News Daily.  On December 30, Legal News Daily reported: "Qian Chengyu said: '... the government took the land away and gave back so little money.  We disagreed.  The village director led the opposition.  He was murdered because of this.'  The reporter asked whether he was just speculating and what was the evidence.  Qian Chengyu said: 'The vehicle was driven to the other side of the road without braking.  Isn't this murder?  It is 100% murder.'"

[Huayi village resident Huang Diyan testifies publicly]

According to a December 29 Dongfang Zaobao report, Huang Diyan came at 4pm on December 28 to the spot at the Zhaiqiao village entrance where Qian Yunhui died.  She told everybody that she was returning from the buddhist temple at around 930am.  She personally saw three persons wearing black surgical masks and white gloves holding Qian Yunhui down on the ground.  Two of them were twisting his arms behind his back.  When she went over to try to stop them, one of them pushed her aside.  A construction truck parked on the side came over slowly and ran over the body of Qian Yunhui.  The driver, the passenger and the murderers got into a van and fled.

At 9am on December 29, Qian Yunhui's cousin said: "The husband of Huang Diyan said that she is not right in her head so people shouldn't believe her.  But the villagers at the scene said that she showed clear logic and quite alert.  She did not seem to have mental problems."

At noon on December 30, the husband of Huang Diyan told the China Economic Times reporter that a relative of Huang Diyan got a call from the police at 6pm on December 28.  At 9am on December 29, he and Huang Diyan were taken down to the public security bureau.  They were released to go home at 1:30 on December 30.

[December 29 evening, CCTV interviewed Huang Diyan at the public security bureau]

"Someone told me to perform a good deed so that my daughter could get better and me too.  I asked what kind of good deed?  He said that someone was murdered.  His hands were held back, his neck was grabbed, he kept yelling Help! Help!  I did not see it.  But these men told me to say that I saw it, to testify to it.  If the testimony leads to a victory, my daugher will get better.  So I testified."

[12:00 December 30, Huayi village Huang Diyan's home]

Huang Diyan's husband Wang Shigao said that they were released at 1:30am.  Before being released, they were interviewed on television.  Since she had already said that she did not see it, there was nothing more to say.  He refused to let the China Economic Times reporter enter.  The reporter promised not to ask any questions.  He only wanted to see the physical condition of Huang Diyan.  He was allowed to enter.

Noon, Huang Diyan's home, second floor, Huang Diyan was lying in bed on her side, Wang Shigao raised the two blankets on her shivering body.  Huang Diyan is fully clothed, shivering with her whole body with both hands on her mouth.

As Wang Shigao escorted the reporter out, he said that he cannot talk anymore about this incident because his entire family can be dead.

["New eyewitness #1" claimed to have witnessed the entire incident.  He has signed a confidentiality agreement with our reporter.  He guarantees that he will testify with a central government investigation team to the effect that he personally witnessed how Qian Yunhui was murdered.]

On December 30, the China Economic Times reporter located "New eyewitness #1".  The reporter offered a confidentiality agreement in which he promised not to disclose the identity, occupation and name in newspapers, Internet and other public venues.  In turn, he signed a letter of guarantee to the China Economic Times reporter that he will testify for the central government investigation team (under the assumption that his personal safety will be guaranteed) that he personally witnessed how Qian Yunhui was murdered.

"New eyewitness #1" said that he came to Zhaiqiao village to visit a friend.  He entered the village from the direction of the snack shop and headed in the direction of Nanyue town in parallel with the road (separated by a row of houses).  When he got near the village entrance, he witnessed the murder of Qian Yunhui.

"At 9:25pm, a construction truck was parked about 5 meters away from where Qian Yunhui died.  There was no one in the truck at the time."

"The murder took just two minutes or so."

"9:30-9:33 was when it occurred."

"Four men wearing helmets and blue SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics team) police uniforms with no badge numbers knocked Qian Yunhui down with their police batons.  They held him down and then waved the truck to come over slowly.  The two persons on one side quickly dashed away from the vehicle, while while the other two persons held down the other side of the body.  There were more than 20 other persons wearing SWAT police uniforms behind the truck.  The truck ran over the body.  Two men came from behind the truck to see if death occurred.  By this time, Qian Chengyu had arrived at the front of the truck.  Qian Chengyu yelled, Who is this?  Who is this?"

"The driver got out of the vehicle, took out his mobile phone and called the police."

"The driver was taken away."

"The other people in police uniform stopped Qian Chengyu from giving chase to the driver."

"I saw four eyewitnesses who arrived at the scene.  Qian Liangyu was not the first eyewitness.  The first one was a woman.  She interjected but one of the persons wearing special police uniform pushed her away.  Twenty seconds after she appeared, Qian Liangyu showed up.  About twenty-five seconds after Qian Liangyu arrived, a third eyewitness appeared.  Another fifteen seconds later, a fourth eyewitness appeared."

"New eyewitness #1" was unwilling to state how many persons were inside the construction truck or who they were.  He said that he did not see the faces of the four persons wearing special police uniforms clearly, and he did not notice whether they were wearing surgical masks and gloves.

The reason why he had not come out yet to provide evidence was that he happened:

"When an eyewitness testified publicly that it was murder, the police did not immediately set up an investigation.  Instead, they sent in a lot of police to mess up the scene.  The eyewitness Qian Lianyu was arrested and the family of Huang Diyan is facing death threats.  I do not trust the Yueqing, Wenzhou and Zhejiang police.  Only if a central government investigation team comes down and the personal safety of my whole family is guaranteed will I testify to this team."

[January 1, 2011 afternoon; Nanyue town; "New eyewitness #2"]

"New eyewitness #2" is a Nanyue town resident.

"On that day, I was returning home from outside and I was passing through Zhaiqiao."

"I saw the scene.  There were men wearing blue uniforms in the front and back of the vehicle.  Someone was screaming 'Help' while giving chase in the direction of the back of the vehicle.  I went close to take a look and saw that Qian Yunhui's leg was still twitching.  I said, 'Why aren't you helping him?'  The men in blue uniform retreated towards the back of the vehicle.  An elderly woman was crying on the side: 'There is no justice under heaven  You have killed a living person.'  Another woman told her to stop crying and leave.  A man wearing slippers came by, took a look and left."

[January 2, 2011 morning; Zhaiqiao town; "New eyewitness #3"]

"It was just past 9:30am.  I heard Qian Chengyu yelling.  So I ran over to the road."

"I saw Qian Chengyu giving chase for several dozen meters and then turning back.  I went over to the vehicle.  Our village mayor Qian Yunhui had been crushed to death.  There were two women on the side.  They said that they had just gone to worship at the temple.  I did not notice whether anyone else was around.  I only learned Huang Diyan's name after she came out to testify."

"All the villagers came out.  I did not notice when the two women left.  Qian Liangyu told everybody that he personally witnessed several people knock Qian Yunhui down.  The vehicle came over very slowly very slowly and crushed the village mayor to death.  He said that two persons came out of the vehicle.  One was the driver, the other was the town vice mayor Xu Xiangzhong.  I said, 'Qian Chengyu, are you sure?  Do not lie.'  Qian Chengyu said, 'I personally saw it.  I don't care if I die!'"

[January 3, 2011 morning; Licun village; "New eyewitness #4"]

On the morning of January 3, 2011 at Huaqiu village, "New eyewitness #4" told the China Economic Times reporter:

"The vehicle was not going there.  It was parked there before the incident."

"I was by the roadside that day.  The vehicle did not pass by the road in front of me after 930pm."

"I saw it.  It was parked there until it happened."

"Right now nobody dares to speak out.  If you tell the truth, they accuse you of manufacturing rumors and they arrest you.  I have to wait until the central government team comes before I testify."

[December 30, 2010 noon; Qian family home; "New eyewitness #5"]

"It was Christmas that day.  The church rented a bus to go from Hongqiao to Nanyue for the followers to go for free.  I headed toward the road to take the free bus."

"As I got near, I heard Qian Chengyu calling for help and saying that the village chief had been run over.  I hurried over.  I saw several dozen security guards backing away.  Qian Chengyu was giving chase but the security guards were blocking him.  I saw with my own eyes that town vice mayor Xu Xiangzhong was at the scene."

[January 3, 2011; Tiancheng town; "New eyewitness #6"]

"I had to do something in Yueqing city that day.  I arranged with a friend to go to the Church of Christ in Nayue."

"The vehicle left Yueqing before 9:05am.  By 9:40, the vehicle got near the scene.  Many vehicles were blocked ahead.  They said that there was an incident and vehicles cannot move."

"I got out of the car and looked.  There were two women.  One was crying: 'There is no justice under heaven.  They crushed a living person to death'."

"I thought that the vehicle was very weird.  It went off the road to crush someone to death."

"I was watching and listening.  I heard that the deceased was murdered.  Two women returning from the temple saw it."

[The security guards that the police helped netizens to find]

On January 4, I asked the Yueqing Public Security Bureau Political Department to provide information on evidence and witnesses.  But they refused on the grounds that a press conference had already been held.  I quote the statements from the security guards that Wang Xiaoshan interviewed with the assistance of the police:

"The work clothes of the Yueqing Security Service Company have the words 'People's Republic of China Police' sewed on arm bands."

"Beginning the December 21, the construction company hired security guards to watch over the cable project on a 24-hours-a-day basis.  80 to 100 security guards were present at any time by the Zhaiqiao road.  The security guard company requires their workers to say inside their five big buses unless they have to go outside and relieve themselves ... Zheng's bus was about 40 to 50 meters away from the spot of the incident.  This was the closest of the buses.  He got out of the bus to urinate.  He heard the sound of emergency braking.  He turned around and thought that something must have happened.  He did not even urinate.  He got back into the bus and told his companions: 'Someone might have been hit.'  Wu called captain Shi who was on patrol one kilometer away.  Captain Shi got the call and issued the order: Nobody is allowed to get off the bus.  Cai called 110 to make a police report.  Zhang disobeyed the order and got out of the bus to check.  He went to the front of the bus and saw the deceased.  He bent over to take a closer look.  He said that he saw that the vehicle door was ajar.  There was no driver inside.  Zhang saw a tall villager behind him.  Zhang returned to the bus."

"Manager Sun and Captain Shi came over in an eight-person van.  Their mission had been to patrol the cable project.  They got the call and they told the driver to take them to the scene.  They got out of the van and saw a tall villager.  Captain Shi called 110 to make a police report.  The police call center said that they had already received a call and they were making arrangements.  The tall villager pointed at Manager Sun and Captain Shi and said, "They are too, they are too."  Several dozen villagers began to attack Manager Sun and Captain Shi.  Captain Shi was hit in the right forehead, Manager Sun was scratched in his neck and his gold neck chain was ripped off.  The security guards used their shields to retrieve Sun and Shi.  The security guards got back into their bus and left.  All five buses left.  Sun and Shi got into their 8-person van, turned around and left in the opposite direction.  The buses left around 10:01 or 10:02.  The police had not arrived yet."

5. Vehicle speed and video recording investigation

Based upon the information provided by the police, the incident took place at 9:45 on December 25, 2010.

On the afternoon of January 4, 2011, the China Economic Times reporter went to the Yueqing Public Security Bureau Political Department to request to see the 110 telephone logs, the communications between the police and the traffic police, the police log and the raw investigation reports of the traffic police at the scene.  The request was denied on the grounds that a press conference had already been held.

[Video recording and car speed]

On January 30, the China Economic Times reporter requested through a friend to see the surveillance video recordings along the route.  The following cites what netizen Wang Xiaoshan had to say about the two videos that he saw on December 31:

"The camera at the exit of the stone quarry showed that a truck that looked exactly the same as the one in the incident passing in front of the camera at 9:38.  The license number and the driver could not be seen.  on the right side of the truck, there is a large number '23' painted.  In the video, the vehicle was coming down the hill on a dirt road at relatively slow speed.  20 to 30 kilometers per hour. It was raining, but not heavily.  Some pedestrians opened their umbrellas, others didn't."

"The camera in front of Huayi village showed that a vehicle that looked exactly like the one in the incident passed by 9:42:09 on December 25.  It was traveling faster."

"The truck that passed in front of the Huayi village was estimated by us to be traveling at 40 to 50 kilometers per hour.  Deputy director Lin said that anywhere between 40 to 60 is possible.  It also passed a small vehicle.  The license number cannot be seen clearly."

"A field trial showed that it took 4 minutes 12 seconds to go from the stone quarry to the entrance of Huayi village."

In his microblog, he expressed his personal viewpoint: He thought that "it was very unlikely that these two video segments were forged.  If they forged it, they would have made the videos clearer so that you can at least see the license number.  They would also make sure that the two videos look the same. As to why they didn't publish it, my personal viewpoint is that the police are stupid."

On the evening of December 31, Wang Xiaoshan told the China Economic Times reporter that he cannot confirm that the vehicle in the videos is really the one involved in the incident.

On January 4, a certain anonymous person near the stone quarry told the China Economic Times reporter: "I can only tell you that the camera at the exit of the stone quarry has been under constant repair recently."  A Zhaiqiao villager was suspicious about why the Huayi village entrance camera was working.  He said that the cameras in the surrounding villages were installed around the same time.  So how come one can store video but the other cannot?

At noon on January 4, the China Economic Times reporter rented a car to go from the Wandi stone quarry to the scene of the accident.  The results of three repeated trials are basically consistent with what Wang Xiaoshan found.

The car went past the scene of the incident at 42 kilometers per hour.  According to the driver, there should be brake marks when someone brakes after seeing someone ahead.  The brake marks should be sufficient to estimate the vehicle speed.  But the Wenzhou Changxun Motor Vehicle Judicial Appaisal Business Office noted that "there is insufficient information to estimate the speed at the time of the incident."

[The whereabouts of the stone quarry workers are unknown, the original records are missing]

According to the administrative regulations at the stone quarry, a human recorder is supposed to note down when a truck exits.

On that day, it was reported that only one truck left the stone quarry.  Therefore, this reporter went to the Wandi stone quarry to seek the original records for December 25.

But the reporter was told that all the current stone quarry workers were hired after December 27.  The whereabouts of the former workers are unknown, and no one can tell where the original records are.

6. Investigation of the time of the incident

The police stated publicly that the incident took place at 9:45.

Several eyewitnesses told the China Economic Times reporter very clearly that the incident took place at around 9:30.  The eyewitness who signed the letter of guarantee to the reporter stated very clearly that the incident occurred between 9:30 and 9:33.

From January 1 to January 4, the China Economic Times reporter conducted an investigation about the two buses routes that pass by the scene of the incident.  The results of the investigation were consistent with what the eyewitnesses told the China Economic Times about the incident taking place around 9:30.

[Hongqiao to Nanyue route]

December 25 was Christmas.  The church provided a free bus to go from Hongqian town to the Church of Christ in Nanyue town.

The fleet captain named Hou refused to provide the detailed times of the buses around the time of the incident.  However, he and other drivers told the reporter that it takes about 20 minutes to go from Hongiao to Nanyue, and at most 30 minutes to get to the Church of Christ in Nanyue.  On January 4, the reporter personally confirmed this.  The buses left every five minutes.

On that day, the church rented five free buses for the followers.  These five buses ran on a rolling schedule.  Our reporter found two young Christians who provided service on the bus.  They said that the travel time was quicker than the normal paid bus service that day.  There was no traffic jam on the road until the death of Qin Yunhui occurred.

One of the Christians stayed on one particular bus.  The bus set out at 7:20 near the Church of Christ in Nanyue.  Here is the estimated schedule: at most thirty minutes to Hongqiao at 7:50; return from Hongqiao at 7:55 to arrive at the Church of Christ at 8:25; turn back at 8:30 to Hongqiao, return at 9:05.  There was no congestion around the scene of the incident before.  But now they were stopped because people were blocking the road.  Under normal circumstances it would take at most 30 minutes.  So the road was blocked beginning 9:35-9:40.  The scene of the incident was 3 to 4 minutes away from the Church of Christ in Nanyue.

[Yueqing to Nanyue route]

The China Economic Times reporter found a passenger in Tiancheng town who takes the Yueqing-Nanyue bus regularly to the Church of Christ in Nanyue.

"The bus took off before 9:05.  I am familiar with this route.  They usually dispatch a bus every 10 minutes.  This section of the road should take just over 20 minutes by car.  Since people get on and off buses, the bus trip is just under 40 minutes.  If the traffic is heavy, it may take 50 minutes."

"There was no traffic jam on that occasion.  It was very smooth.  We got blocked when we got near the scene."

"We got blocked around 9:40pm.  There were many vehicles ahead.  I estimate that the traffic jam must have started several minutes ago."

The China Economic Times reporter took the bus from Nanyue to Yueqing.  The trip took 38 minutes.  It took two minutes to go from the Nanyue bus station to the scene of the accident.

The investigation of the two public bus routes showed that traffic was blocked before 9:40pm.  In order to verify the basis of the police claim that the incident took place around 9:45, the China Economic Times reporter asked the Yueqing City Public Security Bureau Political Department to see the police activity log.  His request was turned down.

7.  The recording of the death and the last telephone call

[January 3, 2011 morning; the Qian Yunhui home; the second description by Qian's wife Wang Zhaoyan]

"He does not usually take calls from anyone except for two persons.  One is Wang Liquan with whom he petitioned together.  The other is vice mayor Xu ."

"At around 9am or so on December 25, Qian Yunhui got a telephone call.  He walked out of the door as he spoke ..."

[January 3, 2011 morning;  the owner of the roadside shopowner]

"It was just past 9am.  Qian Yunhui came and bought three packs of 14 yuan Lijuan cigarettes.  I just happened to be sold out.  So he went to the shop in Huaqiu village to buy it.  I did not pay any attention to him afterwards.

[December 29, 2010 morning; Zhaiqiao village; the Qian family home; Qian Yunhui's brother]

"Shortly after the incident that day, a relative found Qian Yunhui's mobile telephone lying on the dirt.  The phone was turned off and it had gotten wet.  The relative handed it to Qian Dazi (pseudonym) who handed it to Qian Zhigang (pseudonym).  Qian Zhigang and several others began to look up the call records."

[December 12, 2010 afternoon; Zhaiqiao village; Huang Zhigang (pseudonym) on the last telephone call]

"On that day, I and Qian Zhigang (pseudonym) and several others got a hold of the phone and we found a secluded place to study it.  We turned on the mobile phone but the number of the last call was missing."

"He was on the phone when he walked out of the door at 9am or so.   But the closest call in the record was the one made by Wang Liquan to him at 8:30-8:31."

"During this period, he was very cautious.  He would not cross a road by himself.  When he left the village, he was always with two or three other people.  He only took calls from Wang Liquan and the town vice mayor.  So who called him?"

[January 3, 2011 morning; the Qian home; Qian's daughter-in-law said that Qian Yunhui's ID had been stolen]

"Before 4pm on December 25, our whole family were on the road.  When we came back, we found that my father-in-law's briefcase on the second floor had been cleaned out."

"He put a lot of things in his briefcase.  His ID and other important documents.  We checked carefully.  We found out that each pocket of the briefcase was empty."

"On December 27, a reporter asked us whether we have the ID.  He said that we can use the ID to check the telephone call records at the telephone company.  I said that his ID and other documents were stolen from his briefcase.  I brought the briefcase over.  I found the ID on the outer pocket which wasn't even buttoned up."

[December 31, 2010 afternoon; Zhaiqiao village, the Qian home; Qian Yunhui's younger brother]

"A couple of days ago, a reporter told me down to the telephone company to check the call records.  The telephone company asked me to list the ten telephone numbers that Qian Yunhui called or received most recently.  I couldn't list them so they won't let me see the records.]

[December 29, 2010 night; Wenzhou police press conference]

According to the published reports, the police claimed that they have obtained the telephone call records.  The call was made to "the villager named Wang" sometime "before 8am" on December 25.

The Wenzhou police: "We identified Qian Yunhui's last telephone call.  The villager named Wang called him about certain village matters.  It was not a call from the town vice mayor as rumored."

[January 4, 2011 afternoon; Yueqing; Zhang Qiang (pseudonym) on a video recording of Qian Yunhui's death]

"The mobile telephone is presently hidden in a secret location.  It is believed that the last telephone call can be restored technically."

"A micro-camera was also removed along with the mobile telephone.  Qian Yunhui obtained this equipment for himself.  There is a 50% chance that he activated this camera.  The time is not right yet.  We cannot tell you whether Qian Yunhui recorded his own death on camera."

[January 7, 2011; the villager who knew about the micro-camera was nabbed]

Qian Chengqian knew that Qian Yunhui was carrying a micro-camera when he died.  He did not know where the camera is.  He was nabbed on the night of January 7, 2011.  Villagers provided this information to the China Economic Times reporter on the afternoon of the next day.

[January 11, 2011; Yueqing detention center]

Two Shanghai lawyers met with Wang Liquan.  He said: (1) he did not gather a crowd to disturb public order; he is innoncent.  (2) On that day, Qian Yunhui came to see him to prepare petition materials; (3) he did not make the call that made Qian Yunhui come out and die.

8.  Was the town vice mayor at the scene?

On January 3, a peer told the China Economic Times reporter that Xu Xiangzhong claimed that he was sleeping before 9:45 that day.  He provided four town government workers who could prove that he was not at the scene.

Because these four workers have direct interest with Xu, the China Economic Times reporter went on January 3 and 4 as a citizen to the Puqi town government and asked to meet with town vice mayor Xu Xiangzhong (who had just been promoted as deputy secretary) in the hope that he can reveal where he was on December 25.

On January 4, Xu Xiangzhong replied that the reporter ought to see the town publicity committee member Qian if he wanted to know.

Committee member Qian said in response to the citizen request to find about about the whereabouts of Xu Xiangzhong on December 25 that if Xu Xiangzhong is under suspicion, then the matter ought to be brought up with the public security apparatus.

On the afternoon of January 4, China Economic Times reporter went through the Yueqing City Party Committee publicity department to contact the Yueqing City Public Security Bureau Political Department.

The Political Department director named Lin told the China Economic Times reporter that the public security apparatus has surely investigated anything suspicious.  But he rejected the request by the reporter to show the relevant reports.  He said that the case has been declared to be a traffic incident and there has already been a press conference in which has released whatever they wanted to .

As to whether the Yueqing and Wenzhou public security organizations have done whatever is necessary for a crime investigation, he said that all that had been covered in the press conference.

[December 29, 2010 Wenzhou police press conference on the case of Qian Yunhui]

The Wenzhou police bulletin: "The reasons why 'murder' was eliminated were that during our investigation, (1) we rigorously scrutinized the truthfulness of the testimony of the suspect, conflict of interest between the suspect and the deceased, the likelihood that the suspect was hired for the job, etc.  We also investigated the history, work situation, social connections, etc of the suspect.  We eliminate the possibility that he deliberately committed this act.  (2)  We carefully and meticulously conducted an investigation of the scene.  We re-interviewed all the witnesses and investigated their claims.  We interrogated the eyewitness Qian Liangyu and the "second eyewitness" Huang Diyan who was suggested by netizens.  We determined that they did not witness any "murder" directly.  (3) The scene showed clear signs in which the vehicle braked suddenly, the body was dragged along the ground and the body collided with the vehicle.  These signs are inconsistent with someone being held down and ran over."

The Wenzhou police bulletin did not clearly state whether they interviewed all the residents in the surrounding area.

At the press conference, the police said: "They will not let a single point of doubt go pass ..."

(McClatchy Newspapers)  Death in China: Crushing dissent or tragic accident?    Tom Lasseter    January 12, 2011

Qian Yunhui would not be silenced. A local leader in a community of farmers, Qian devoted much of his time to protesting a power plant being built on his village's ancestral land.

In a country where public dissent against the government is rare — and quickly silenced when it appears — Qian continued to lead demonstrations and submit petitions despite having been sent to prison twice in three years. He wrote letters to provincial and national leaders naming the government officials and companies he accused of stealing land — something most Chinese would consider extremely dangerous.

His provocative campaign ended Christmas morning. That's when after receiving a phone call, Qian's family said, he walked out of his modest concrete home to meet someone, though it's not known whom. Villagers found his body a short while later, mangled under the front wheel of a construction truck. The fat tire had crushed Qian's chest and neck, coming to a rest at the back of his head — the pressure sent blood and flesh spurting from his mouth. Qian's face lay in the cold mud, eyes shut.

Every villager interviewed by McClatchy in Zhaiqiao said they thought Qian, 53, was murdered as a warning to locals that it was time to stop talking about the power plant. Witnesses, they said, had seen men holding Qian down as the truck pulverized his body.

Government officials maintain that Qian died in a simple traffic accident, an unfortunate bit of bad luck on a wet patch of road.

The difficulty of drawing a conclusion about what happened that morning says a lot about the system in which China's authoritarian government operates.

As the world focuses on Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington next week, and his country's growing economic clout and military ambitions, at home the Chinese Communist Party is often far more preoccupied with maintaining domestic order — "harmonious" is the adjective preferred by leaders like Hu.

The death of Qian Yunhui is in many ways a startling reminder of how high the cost can be for those who won't fall in line, a reality that the government tries hard to suppress.

China's Zhejiang Province, where Zhaiqiao sits, is an epicenter of factories that make clothes, shoes, lighters and other cheap goods for export to the West. The billions of dollars that flow each year from that manufacturing boom have filled the roads south of Shanghai with Mercedes sedans and sprinkled towering homes in the middle of impoverished villages.

The flood of cash, however, hasn't brought a corresponding rise in civil liberties. While the state allows the election of local village heads, like Qian Yunhui, it does not tolerate challenges to its political or financial decisions.

In Qian's case, his efforts only got him arrested, imprisoned twice and, locals say, murdered.

"He went to Beijing (to lodge formal complaints) only after he petitioned at every local level," said his 31-year-old son, Qian Chengxu. "It was all useless."

Whatever the cause of Qian Yunhui's demise, this much is clear — he was not afraid to stir up trouble. He said publicly that village leaders had signed over their mountain plot for a power plant in 2004 only after police detained them at a hotel for a week until they agreed.

That same year, Qian helped lead hundreds of villagers to protest the property deal in the nearby town of Yueqing, which oversees Zhaiqiao. That earned him an 18-month prison term after a Yueqing court convicted him of intent to "make disturbances and provoke incidents."

The sentence was suspended, apparently on the condition that he keep quiet. Instead, Qian ran for and was elected village leader in 2005 and kept complaining about what he described as an illegal land grab. The local security bureau appealed for help to the court, which dusted off the 2004 conviction and sent Qian to prison for eight months in 2006, according to a case summary provided by Yueqing officials.

By 2008, his role as village leader was no longer officially recognized, but Qian was re-elected anyway. Court records show he was sent back to prison in 2008 on a new charge of land fraud, though government documents given to McClatchy didn't fully explain the charges.

Qian was released in July, the same month that the provincial government announced the power plant officially had been put into operation. Qian was not deterred — he continued writing letters to officials alleging corruption and organizing locals.

The leadership in Yueqing maintains that villagers in Zhaiqiao were simply trying to renege on their agreement to sell the mountain plot and other pieces of land. The villagers, according to a release from Yueqing's government, were given about $5.7 million but kept demanding more and more cash.

While residents of Zhaiqiao say they never received the $5.7 million, the Yueqing government contends the money was put in a special account and that village leaders decided not to disburse it.

In the days after Qian's death, grisly photographs and videos showing his bloody remains spread across the Internet. His name became a national symbol for frustration with the country's widespread corruption.

On Jan. 1, hundreds of demonstrators clashed with police down the road from Zhaiqiao. Video footage from the standoff shows protesters lobbing rocks and the police charging into the crowd behind riot shields.

A few days before, police commanders from the nearby metropolis of Wenzhou had attended a news conference to confirm that Qian's death was an accident. Their explanation: The truck was 35 tons overweight with broken rock, its driver was unlicensed and "Pedestrian Qian Yunhui crossed the road before confirming that it was safe to cross."

Video shot not long after Qian's death showed the truck in a nearly straight line on the shoulder of the wrong side of the street, with Qian's body lying under the front tire with scant evidence that he'd been thrown by any impact. There was little sign of skid marks on the road that one might expect from such a large truck slamming to a halt.

The police acknowledged that four other men were at the scene shortly after the incident — raising suspicions locally that it was they who killed Qian — but officials said the group consisted of a passenger from the truck and three guards from a nearby construction site who'd run over to see what happened.

The government said it would allow a combination of lawyers, Internet activists and rural experts to investigate the matter. By the time those gestures were made, the state had snipped away any loose ends that might contradict the official narrative.

Qian's body was taken away before an autopsy could be performed. Officials reported that a security camera at the spot where Qian died wasn't working.

The two people who villagers say saw men press Qian down as the truck ground his life away disappeared briefly. When they surfaced on state television in separate interviews four days later, they denied seeing anything suspicious.

One of them, Qian Chengyu, was in handcuffs and behind bars during the television interview.

The other, Huang Diyan, said she'd been coached by unnamed collaborators to say she'd witnessed a killing. Careful viewers could see a man dressed in what looked like a police uniform reflected in the window behind her.

A friend, who asked for anonymity for fear of being arrested, told McClatchy that police had taken Huang's husband to a hotel for a night and told him that it would be best for her family if she recanted her tale of murder.

Even Qian's family is reluctant to talk. His 81-year-old father, Qian Shunnan, was recently standing near his dead son's house as relatives sat in front of a small shrine and burned paper meant to serve as money in the afterlife.

"I can't tell you anything except what the government wants me to say," he said, wearing dusty cotton pants. Then he looked toward the altar with a picture of his son and blurted out, "He was murdered!"

Qian Yunhui's younger brother was listening nearby and offered an explanation for why his father seemed torn about what to say.

"None of the villagers want to talk about it. If the government finds out they spoke with you, they'll be arrested," said Qian Yunyong, 45, a rice farmer with rough hands.

Like everyone else in town, he'd seen the men in a black Volkswagen with no license plates on a nearby road filming passersby and taking photographs.

A visiting Western journalist was approached several times by more than a dozen villagers who hurriedly whispered that Qian Yunhui had been killed because he'd openly challenged area powerbrokers and officials.

The accounts were followed by pleas not to report the speakers' identities.

"Don't take our pictures; don't write down our names," said one middle-aged woman in jeans and a dark coat. "They will beat us."

A younger man in a brown jacket with the hood pulled down said that some in the area had made the unfortunate decision to talk candidly with Chinese state media; they were later arrested.

"I'm very scared," he said.

The young man, like many others, said he was speaking up only because Qian Yunhui had sacrificed his life for them.

That, said the villagers, should count for something.

(Global Times)  Doubts escalate over grisly death    Li Xiaoshu    December 19, 2011

Let's start with the more certain part.

The Zhaiqiao village chief lay mangled underneath the left front wheel of a vermilion truck with eyes shut, blood streaming from his half-open mouth.

Qian Yunhui's internal organs had splattered outward across the shoulder, one arm reaching from under the tire, his head detached from a crushed body near the Puqi county village in the suburbs of Yueqing, a city under the prefecture of the city of Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province.

Qian, 53, had led a six-year campaign defending villagers' rights against land seizure by the Yueqing government. He had spent three and half of the last five years behind bars for demonstrations in Yueqing and petitioning in Beijing.

That battle ended on Christmas morning when - after eating a bowl of instant noodles and receiving an unknown phone call, according to Qian's wife Wang Zhaoyan - Qian walked out of his concrete home with an umbrella to meet a person still unknown.

What is known is that Qian died on the road he and others had previously blocked to prevent construction of a power plant and development of the local industrial zone.

Unlicensed driver Fei Liangyu called police and was immediately detained.

After Qian's suspicious death, tension between villagers and the government officials of Yueqing inevitably intensified.

Outraged families and villagers who believed that government officials had assassinated Qian to silence his powerful voice in their bitter land dispute refused to provide his corpse for forensic assessment until more than 1,000 riot police forcefully took the body away on December 25, reported the Shanghai-based Oriental Television.

Some 3,000 villagers clashed with police, injuring two officers with bricks and stones on January 1. How many villagers were injured in the clash has not been reported.

Police detain key witnesses

The man many believed held key answers - Yuan Digui, a villager who had accompanied Qian Yunhui on petitioning trips to the capital since 2007 - went missing on January 7 near the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice, his family confirmed on January 10. Yuan is known for keeping the crucial materials and contacts about the Zhaiqiao village land dispute.

It is well past time that Yuan should be released, declared Yu Jianrong, a professor of rural development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who had held his own three-day independent investigation.

"It's meaningless to detain him," wrote Yu on his sina microblog. "Yuan has provided me with all his materials and I already copied them to a number of experts."

Police did not offer any legal documentation for her father's detention, Yuan's daughter Yuan Xiaoqiu disclosed.

"I had no idea about who actually took him away," she said. "He could have been kidnapped."

Yuan's mobile phone went unanswered and was eventually dead yesterday when the Global Times tried to reach him.

Gruesome photos of Qian's corpse have plagued Chinese mainland websites, blogs and bulletin boards since December 25 where public sensation, derisive criticism, rumors and skepticism have raged beyond authoritative control.

The speculation and outrage escalated after results of the official investigation by Wenzhou public security bureau and led by the bureau's deputy director Shen Qiang were announced at a December 29 press conference: Qian had died in an ordinary traffic accident.

The convenient result failed to address obvious evidential flaws or convince a doubtful public. At least five independent investigation teams led by prestigious experts and opinion leaders on the Internet set off for Zhaiqiao to study the case.

Contradictory conclusions and suspicious U-turns by witnesses and grassroots investigators turned Qian's death into a labyrinthine series of riddles, resembling the classic "Rashomon effect" named after Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's 1950 crime mystery.

It was not so mysterious for the police. They closed the case and the publicity office announced on January 14 they will hand over their evidence against the driver to Wenzhou prosecutors.

Left: Qian is not wearing a watch as he lies dead under a truck wheel. Photo: Courtesy of Wenzhou Public Security Bureau
Right: Qian is wearing a watch as he lies dead under a truck wheel. Photo: Courtesy of Liu Jianfeng

Groundbreaking journalism

All these official conclusions were challenged by a stunning eight-day investigative report written by China Economic Times reporter Liu Jianfeng that supplied new evidence including a witness-in-hiding that seemingly confirmed Qian's death was murder.

Liu said his newspaper could not publish the article as the event was increasingly "touchy" and "disturbing some people's nerves."

Liu's investigation found four men in helmets and dark blue riot police uniforms without badges used police batons to beat Qian to the ground.

The red truck was parked about five meters away, according to Liu's anonymous new witness.

"After they pinned him down, they waved and shouted to the truck to come over," he quoted the wit-ness as saying.

"The truck slowly drove over and two of the men jumped aside while the other two held Qian down. There were about 20 men in riot police uniforms behind the truck."

Liu said he had signed a confidentiality agreement with his source who vowed to come out and speak only if the central government sent out special investigators.

Liu's founding echoed with a predominant public guess refuted by local authorities as "groundless".

Wenzhou public security watchdogs stressed on December 31 that anyone who intentionally made up rumors about the case would be punished in accordance with the law.

Social Visibility, an investigative Phoenix Television show on January 13 also shed light on crucial physical evidence ignored by both the police and the public: in a photo taken by unknown villagers, Qian was wearing a wristwatch with a secret audio and video recording gadget which possibly recorded the process of his death. No such watch is in the photo provided by the police.

"To protect first-hand evidence, we already took the spy watch to a safe place," a villager who requested anonymity was quoted as saying.

The man suspected of knowing where the watch is hidden has been detained by police, the source revealed. Qian's best friend villager Wang Liquan and seven other villagers were rounded up by police at about 8 pm on December 25.

Wang had been trying to meet a reporter by minibus in Hongqiao county. Police released seven other villagers except Wang, the report said.

Wang's wife and daughter were also detained on January 13 soon after the Phoenix TV show was broadcast and released the next noon, said lawyer Si Weijiang.

"Their house was searched," Si told the Global Times. "The target could be the watch."

The show also claimed Yueqing authorities had established temporary blocks and checkups to stop re-porters and independent investigators from meddling in the case.

This was denied by Yang Youcai, a spokesman for the Communist Party in Yueqing, the city that oversees Zhaiqiao.

Yang would not comment other than to say police had already announced the results of their investigation.

Qian's eldest son Qian Chengxu said yesterday during Global Times' phone interview that the new head of Puqi county went to their home last week to try and persuade families to sign a paper admitting Qian died from a traffic accident and promised compensation estimated at 500,000 yuan ($73,529).

"We don't know what to do," Qian said cautiously and then abruptly hung up.

'Pro egg' vs 'pro wall'

"If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg I will stand on the side of the egg," said Japanese writer Murakami Haruki in his Jerusalem Prize acceptance speech at the 24th Jerusalem International Book Fair on February 15, 2009.

Citing this widespread quote, Chinese Internet users have divided themselves into two factions: "pro egg" and "pro wall." The first group argues that Qian's death is a murder while the latter regards it as a traffic accident.

Pro egg: Qian was murdered

Liu Jianfeng, reporter

"My witness kept himself isolated and didn't receive any interview with other media or independent investigators. We talked privately without any third party present. We didn't revisit Zhaiqiao village to protect his personal safety.

"It's impossible for any other person to have known who he or she is. A responsible government should listen to all witnesses instead of ignoring some.

"If the central government carries out a thorough investigation, they will surely find out something new."

Wang Keqin, reporter, blogger

Wang posted his colleague Liu Jianfeng's latest investigative report on his own blog on January 13.

"The key source Liu Jianfeng has is exclusive and valuable. Villagers said their personal safety was under threat and that no one dares to speak or live in the village.

"Why did local police detain [Qian's friend] Wang Liquan's families and search their house? What were they looking for?"

Ai Weiwei, activist and artist

Ai organized staff at his studio to rework a 107-second audio clip recorded by a villager surnamed Wang on his mobile phone. The clip reveals what Qian Chengyu, a witness to Qian Yunhui's death, said to traffic police immediately after the incident. The team will publish a report next week and a documentary about citizens' investigations into the Qian death in February.

"We found all previous investigations somewhat rash and lacking evidence. It's almost impossible to approach the ultimate reality in the established system.

"However, my judgment is based on common sense: Why didn't the local police release a forensic assessment report? Why would a troublemaker accidentally die under the wheel of a truck? Why did police arrive so soon to handle the emergency?

"All these factors point to Qian's predestined death: a fact that ruined our faith in justice."

Wu Gan, online activist who nicknamed himself 'butcher'

Wu went to Yueqing on December 30 for an independent investigation but was repatriated back to his hometown in Fujian Province the next day.

"The single surveillance camera that could have filmed the incident was out of service for 'technical reasons' at the time, but why was it not out of service to document when the villagers rioted against local government on the same day? The Yueqing branch of China mobile should offer a detailed file with convincing statistics to support the statement."

Pro wall: Qian died in a traffic accident

Villager Qian Chengyu, witness

Qian was reported to have said he saw four masked men in black beating Qian Yunhui to the ground but later when interviewed by police retracted his statement, saying he only saw the victim crushed under the wheel. His on-the-spot account was recorded in a 107-second audio clip on the mobile phone of a villager surnamed Wang.

"My eyesight was blocked by the truck's hood. I didn't see exactly what happened."

Villager Huang Diyan, witness

Huang first said she was kicked away by one of the murderers when she tried to stop him from killing Qian. She completely reversed her testimony when interviewed by China's official state television on December 29. Her husband claimed she suffered from a mental disorder. Wang Keqin said he saw Huang shivering, crouching and covering her mouth after she was released by police on December 30. Police had detained her overnight.

"The daughter of Qian Yunhui asked me to give false testimony by saying I saw Qian killed. In fact, I didn't witness his death and have no idea what happened."

Xu Zhiyong, human rights lawyer, founder of the Beijing-based Open Constitution Initiative

Xu released the first independent investigation report on December 31, saying his preliminary four-day research showed Qian died in a traffic accident. He arrived in Yueqing on Sunday again to carry out a second investigation.

"I interviewed the so-called 'deep throat' Li Jianfeng quoted in his report and found loopholes in his retelling."

"There's inadequate evidence to support murder. The testimonies of witnesses are less reliable than physical evidence."

Dou Hanzhang, business commentator

Dou checked the video showing the route of the truck provided by local police and met six security guards arranged by local authorities during his two-day investigation in Yueqing.

"We followed the truck's route and found everything's exactly the same as shown in the video. One of the six security guards heard the truck brake."

Huang Xiaozhong, Wenzhou Public Security Bureau spokesman

"A murder requires a motive. The driver and the truck owner didn't know Qian Yunhui before. They ran a transport business elsewhere before November and they've been working in Yueqing for only a month.

"It's against common sense that someone hired the drivers to murder Qian. A logical adult should have plenty of ways to rub his or her enemy out. Why bother to rely on two inexperienced killers in a construction truck with the plate number on in broad daylight?"

(Wen Wei Po)  January 20, 2011.

The <Dongfang Zaobao> reporter spoke to Qian Chengxu, the son of Qian Yunhui, by telephone.  At around 9pm on December 17, Qian Chengxu was notified to proceed to the Puqi town government office to discuss the compensation over the death of Qian Yunhui in a traffic incident.  Qian Chengxu went down with his wife, his brother-in-law and his uncle.  As for the negotiators on the other side, Qian said that he only knew the newly arrived Puqi town mayor.  The discussions went on until 4am.  Since Qian Chengxu was illiterate, he took the agreement document back home for his family members to read to him.  He returned to the town office several hours later.

Qian Chengxu said that the initial offer was for 1 million yuan.  But because the family wanted the funeral expenses to be covered, the amount was increased to 1.05 million yuan.  "They said that Fei Liangyu paid more than 300,000 yuan in accordance with the standards for a traffic incident.  The stone quarry and the mine quarry (being the point of origin and the final destination of the construction truck in the case) gave 'a little something' to take care of my ailing mother."  Qian Chengxu said that he was uncertain about the breakdown of the 1.05 million yuan.  "Anyway, there is one part here and there is another part there."  Our reporter called the Yueqing city publicity department director Yang Youcai and the Puqi town publicity official Qian Xiangyong, but neither picked up.

Does the signing of the agreement mean that this case is being accepted as a traffic incident?  Qian Chengxu's wife said: "What can be done?  So what if we don't accept it?"  One week ago, Qian Chengxu was asked to talk at the town government.  At the time, the traffic police were there too.  "We spoke for two to three hours.  We discussed the matter of the traffic incident.  They wanted to find out about the family situation.  But we did not discuss compensation.  This was the first time that they talked to us after that meeting."  Qian Chengxu said.

Qian Chengxu said that his father's body will be cremated in a couple of days, and then they will select a date for the funeral.  "Let him rest in peace first."  As for the next step, Qian Chengxu said, "I am very confused right now.  I am not sure about anything."  Will he hire a lawyer?  Qian Chengxu seemed somewhat wary: "There are good people and bad people.  We don't know."

(Wufatian's blog)  January 21, 2011.

The majority of the netizens deduced that the murder happened in the following manner: A construction truck was parked 5 meters in front of where Qian Yunhui was killed beforehand; someone called Qian Yunhui to lure him to come out; four persons held Qian Yunhui down; a vice mayor was present and commanding the action; more than 20 SWAT police officers were behind.  Another 80 to 100 SWAT police officers were waiting in vehicles; after the incident, the police immediately mobilized 1,000 SWAT police officers to arrest people and seize the body of Qian Yunhui.

So in order to accomplish this murder mission, the relevant authorities procured one construction truck from outside Yueqing city (it had to be overloaded and it did not have all the necessary papers).  There were two persons on the truck, with the driver not possessing an operator's license which is a major traffic law violation.  Four persons participated directly in the murder, along with a town vice mayor.  One person called Qian Yunhui to lure him to come out.  The surveillance camera system was sabotaged beforehand, requiring at least one manager and one duty worker.  About 100 SWAT police officers participated at first.  About 1,000 SWAT police officers participated in the mop-up operations afterwards.

So here is the tally: 8 persons who participated directly in the murder; 100 SWAT police officers; 2 persons who managed/operated the surveillance system; at least three China Mobile workers because their company installed, tested and operated the surveillance system; at least ten traffic police officers (who gathered and analyzed evidence at the scene and provided the assessment); at least twenty police crime investigative detectives (at least ten from Yueqing city at first; at least another ten from Wenzhou city); at least 20 persons who conducted Internet monitoring and supervision; at least 10 armed policemen (commanders at the scene and decision-makers); 10 persons with the Yueqing and Wenzhou city political/legal committees; at least 50 reporters who investigated the case; at least 10 persons who were members of observer groups (either organizers or report writers); another 2,000 persons on the periphery (for example, the police officers who nabbed and interrogated villagers knew what was going on).

In conclusion: The local authorities marshaled human and material resources with direct costs estimated conservatively at 200 million yuan in order to murder a petitioning village director.  With such tremendous resources in hand, they nevertheless chose this unbelievable manner to carry out the murder.  The person who came up with this plan must be the murderer with the most imagination in the history of humankind.

(Gongmeng's Investigation Report, Second Version, January 26, 2011)

... We conducted our investigation between January 1 and January 16 to fill out and confirm certain details of the case ...  Lawyer Peng Jian met with Qian Chengyu to ask about what he witnessed at the scene.  Qian Liangyu basically confirmed what he found out from other sources -- that is, he did not personally witness any security guards holding Qian Yunhui down for the truck to run him over.  By the time that Qian Liangyu arrived at the scene, the incident had already occurred.  The lawyers for Wang Liquan asked their client about the telephone call between Wang and Qian Yunhui.  Wang said that they spoke that morning about whether to send petition materials.  The telephone call had no direct relation to why Qian Yunhui went out later.  We investigated what Qian Yunhui did that morning, and whether town vice-mayor Xu Xiangzhong was present at the scene that morning.  We checked the testimony of a self-proclaimed eyewitness and determined that it was inaccurate.  We heard the police explain their forensic evidence.  We traveled to Yingshang county, Anhui province to learn about the characters and histories of the driver Fei Liangyu and his partner Huang Biao.

...

The analysis of the 1:47 audio recording.  This recording was provided by a villager as likely evidence of murder.  The recording was made shortly after the incident as the traffic police were asking for information.

This recording was controversial, mainly because there were different transcriptions.  When Witness E gave us this recording, he told us that it proved that Qian Chengyu told the police that he saw Qian Yunhui being held down underneath the truck.  The key part is what Qian Chengyu told the traffic police.  At first, Witness E translated for us: Qian Chengyu said that he saw Qian Yunhui being held down on the ground.  We asked Witness E to repeat the translation exercise many times for us.  Finally, we asked him to translate one word at a time.  The result was: "Yunhui was down on the ground."

This audio recording is about villagers telling the traffic police what they saw and heard.  Qian Chengyu did not tell the traffic police that he saw Qian Yunhui being held down by the security guards.  The villagers were stating their suspicion about Qian Yunhui being murdered.  They were not making accusations or testimonies about murder.

The testimony of Witness A.  Witness A is Qian Chengyu.  Some people suspect that Qian Chengyu may have changed his initial testimony under duress.  As such, his testimony needs to be corroborated with other evidence.  On the afternoon of December 30, we spoke to Qian Chengyu's sister and mother.  The sister told us that Qian Chengyu told her on the night of the incident that he was in front of the truck and saw several persons standing behind the truck.  The village director was underneath the truck.  At the time, she did not pay too much attention to what her brother was saying.  According to the 1:47 audio recording, Qian Chengyu did not tell the traffic police that he saw Qian Yunhui being held down by security guards.  Netizen Wang Xiaoshan and others questioned the security guards who said that they "saw a tall villager screaming about someone being dead."  Witness D said: "I was cooking at home that day.  I heard someone yelling outside.  I opened the door and I saw a man jumping up and down while yelling that someone is dead.  Several security guards were 30 to 40 meters away."

The testimony of Qian Chengyu's sister is hearsay.  If Qian Chengyu witnessed a murder, he should tell his sister about this shocking fact but he didn't.  In the 1:47 audio recording, Qian Chengyu did not tell the traffic police that he witnessed a murder.  The recording had a villager saying that he heard four persons holding the village director down.  The traffic policeman ask, "What four persons?  What four persons?"  This was how the rumor got started and it is not proof of murder.

The testimony of Witness C.  On January 16, 2011, Witness C told us that he personally witnessed "two security guards held Qian Yunhui down on the ground, one in the front of the wheel holding onto Qian's neck and mouth.  The other was in the back of the wheel, pressing on Qian's buttocks and twisting his arm behind his back.  Both security guards wore helmets so that their faces were invisible.  The truck moved forward slowly for over one meter.  The security guard in the back of the wheel got out from behind that front wheel.  Both security gaurds stood up.  They left together with the commander."  He said that he had just come out after using the restroom.  Qian Chengyu arrived four or five seconds later and began yelling "Yunhui has been crushed to death!"  Witness C did not walk up, but went inside the village instead.  Witness C said that he had signed a confidentiality agreement with a certain reporter to the effect that he will testify only if a central government leader comes.

We took Witness C's testimony very seriously.  If true, it would be a major piece of evidence.  But we have our doubts about his testimony.  According to the wife of Witness C, she had never heard her husband talk about seeing security guards holding Qian Yunhui down.  On the day of the incident, her husband told her: "I went to use the restroom.  I met an acquaintance along the way and we stopped to discuss home decoration.  By the time I returned, the traffic incident had taken place."

In order to verify Witness C's testimony, we simulated the scene with a loader truck that is identical to the one involved in the incident.  Our truck driver came from the same village as Fei Liangyu and they worked at the same stone quarry.  The bottom of the front of the truck was over 50 centimeters above ground.  The front axle was over 30 centimeters above ground.  An adult over 1.6 meters in height could not be holding another adult in a semi-squatting position underneath the truck.  This person could not have crawled out from behind the front wheel either.  Therefore, Witness C's testimony is not credible.

The mysterious telephone call.  According to the testimonies made at various times by Qian Yunhui's wife and daughter, Qian came home after 7am on December 25 (he stayed away from home that night).  He watched television on the second floor.  Then he went downstairs to cook some noodles.  He went out just past 9am taking an umbrella with him and saying "I am afraid that it might rain on the way back."  According to the lawyers of Wang Liquan as well as the police, Qian Yunhui spoke to Wang Liquan three times by telephone that morning.  In the third and last call, Wang called Qian to discuss about sending out petition materials.  This call took place from 8:30 to 8:31.  The relatives of Qian Yunhui found Qian Yunhui's phone at the scene.  They checked the log and found that the most recent call was from Wang Liquan at 8:30-8:31.  The story about the telephone call at 9am was neither confirmed by Qian Yunhui's family nor logged in the communication history.

The itinerary of Qian Yunhui.  At just past 9am, Qian Yunhui went out to buy cigarettes.  He went past the home of Witness G.  Upon seeing the small child, he even made some teasing remarks.  Witness G and his wife confirmed that this took place around 9:05.  At the snack store by the roadside in Hua'er village 320 meters away from Zhaiqiao village, he asked the store owner (Witness H): "Do you have Liqun cigarettes?"  The answer was no, with the suggestion to go to the west side and check.  The time was estimated to be between 9:15 and 9:20.  Witness G remembered finishing his viewing of television news at 9:05.  Then he chatted with some villagers before Qian Yunhui came in to buy cigarettes.  There is a small supermarket another 300 meters down the road and they have blue Liqun cigarettes.  The supermarket cashier does not recall seeing Qian Yunhui whom she does not know.  But this is the only supermarket that sells the blue Liqun cigarettes in this area ...  It takes about 15 minutes to go from the snack store to the supermarket and back.  So Qian Yunhui would be passing the snack store again at 9:35.  Witness I had just stepped out of the door to wash her mop when Qian Yunhui walked by.  She washed her mop in the ditch by the road, went back to mop the floor and then back to the road side again.  She heard some woman yelling and saw a crowd.  This process was simulated again and it took about 8 minutes to complete.  So it is estimated that the incident took place about 5 minutes after Qian Yunhui walked past the snack store.

The multifunctional watch.  At the time of the incident, Qian Yunhui was wearing a micro-camera watch.  According to villagers, the watch was in operation at the time.  When Wang Liquan got to the scene, he quickly removed the watch.  But even though the villagers released some other recordings and photos as evidence of murder, they did not publish the contents of the micro-camera watch.  We told many villagers that we want to see this evidence, but we got no response.  We lean towards the view that the evidence (if any) supports the theory of an ordinary traffic incident and not murder.  If the evidence showed murder, the villagers should have released it already.

(CCTV News Probe)  The Death of Qian Yunhui.  January 26, 2011.

In Puqi town, Yueqing city, Wenzhou city, Zhejiang province, there is a seaside village by the name of Zhaiqiao.  The Hongnan Highway passes in front of the village entrance.  On the morning of December 25, 2010, 53-year-old village director Qian Yunhui was crushed to death by a construction truck at the intersection of Hongnan Highway and the village entrance.  The villagers did not believe that this was an ordinary traffic incident.  They circulated an allegation: someone saw Qian Yunhui being forced down on the ground by four persons for the truck to run him over.  This drew intense public attentin.  On the day of the incident, the media relayed five major questions from netizens: Why was the truck going down the wrong way?  Why was the body of the deceased in such an unusual position?  Why did the surveillance camera not work?  Why did the truck not brake?  How was the driver taken away from the scene?  These questions lead to suspicion that Qian Yunhui might have been murdered.  As time went on, more and more doubts and speculations arose on the Internet and media reports.  Since the deceased was a former village director who had involved in petitioning over land requisitioning for years, those doubts increased.

On December 27, the Yueqing government held a press conference.  They said that their investigation showed that Qian Yunhui died in an ordinary traffic accident.  However, the skeptic voices did not die off.  On that day, the Wenzhou city government announced that the incident will be investigated by a special squad from the Wenzhou city public security bureau.

Shen Qiang (Wenzhou public security bureau deputy director): Let me make a report on the progress of the investigation of the December 25 Zhaiqiao (Yueqing) incident.

VOICE OVER: On the night of December 29, the Wenzhou city government held a press conference to announce the results of the investigation.

Shen Qiang: The case has been investigated with a clear conclusion based upon firm evidence.  The possibility that the Zhaiqiao (Yueqing) 12.25 incident is a murder can be excluded.  The matter is determined to be a traffic incident.

Reporter: How do you know that he was run over by a truck?  How do you know that he wasn't dead before and his body was placed there?

Reporter: Who made that last call to Qian Yunhui?

VO: People have many unexplained doubts about the death of Qian Yunhui?  We traveled to Zhaiqiao village and interviewed the family members of Qian Yunhui.  The villagers directed us to Qian Yunhui's home.  The son Qian Chengxu accepted our interview, but he asked us not to show his face.

Qian Chengxu: I don't think that my father was murdered.  It was a traffic incident.  Our family is safe.  If it was a murder case and the murderers are still at large, we are not safe.

Reporter: The public security bureau concluded that it was a traffic incident.  Do you believe that conclusion now?

Qian Chengxu: I can't say.

Reporter: Why can't you say?

Qian Chengxu: Everybody is saying that Qian Chengyu said that several persons murdered him.  Four persons held him down.  There is this saying.

VO: Many villagers say that a villager named Qian Chengyu witnessed the process.  "Four persons held Qian Yunhui down for the truck to crush him to death."  They said that they heard it from Qian Chengyu first.  On the day of the incident, Qian Chengyu was detained on suspicion of disrupting public order with others.  He has been under detention since.  People wondered if he really witnessed what people are saying that he did.

The police claimed that Qian Chengyu did not witness the moment when the incident took place and he did not say anything like that either.  The police provided us with the video-taped interview with Qian Chengyu.

Police: What did you tell them?

Qian Chengyu: I said some things.

Police: What were those things?

Qian Chengyu: I said that this person was definitely murdered.  I alleged (note: bragged/boasted).

Police: Alleged?

Qian Chengyu: No, I gave my opinion to people.

Police: Speculate?

Qian Chengyu: I speculated.

Police: What specifically?

Qian Chengyu: Specifically, I said that this person was murdered.  I said that he was murdered.  This couldn't be a traffic incident.  I said that.  I said that by the roadside.

Police: Did you say that he was held down by some uniformed persons who summoned a truck to run over him.  Did you say that?

Qian Chengyu: No.  I didn't say that.  They said it.

Police: Who said it?

Qian Chengyu: The farmers said it.  I didn't say it.  I only said that there were four persons back there.  I didn't say it.

VO: As the earlier eyewitness to arrive at the scene, what exactly did Qian Liangyu see?  What were those four persons?  Why are the villagers saying that they heard it from him?  We interviewed Qian Chengyu at the Yueqing detention center.

Reporter: Were you the first villager to arrive at the scene?

Qian Chengyu: Yes.  I was the first.

Reporter: What were you doing at the time?

Qian Chengyu: I didn't have anything to do after breakfast.  I was crossing the road and I wondered why this vehicle was parked there.

Reporter: That is to say, why was it on the wrong side of the road?

Qian Chengyu: The wrong side.  It was in the opposite direction.

Reporter: How far away were you from that vehicle?

Qian Chengyu: About fourteen to fifteen meters.  I went over to look.  I saw someone underneath the vehicle.  I went to take a close look.  It was our village director.  My mind went blank.  I ran seven or eight meters and I screamed: "Heavens!" for help.

Reporter: How long did it take?

Qian Chengyu: It was just over two minutes from the moment that I first spotted the vehicle.

Reporter: Why did it take one or two minutes to cover fourteen or fifteen meters?

Qian Chengyu: There were many cars coming back and forth.  When a car passed by, I had to stop.

Reporter: Were there other vehicles passing by at the time?

Qian Chengyu: It was Christmas.  There were many cars.  There was also construction going on.

Reporter; Did you see the driver at the scene of the incident?

Qian Chengyu: I didn't see him.  It would be better if I did.

VO: Qian Chengyu said that he did not see four persons holding Qian Yunhui under the wheel.  But he saw four persons at the scene and he was suspicious about them.

Qian Chengyu: There were four persons behind the truck as I approached.  The front of the truck was here.  About one meter away.  The four persons behind the truck came over like this.

Reporter: Did you see those four persons before or after you started yelling in the middle of the road?

Qian Chengyu: Before.  I saw that before.

Reporter: So you saw four persons as you crossed the road.  When you got to the front of the vehicle, you saw the village director.  Then you went into the middle of the road to call for help?

Qian Chengyu: More or less?

Reporter: Why did those four persons look like?  What did they wear?

Qian Chengyu: They wore security guard uniforms.  I was somewhat suspicious about this.  If they are security guards, they ought to be over there.  Why did they come over to the back of the truck?  I was perplexed by this.

Reporter: Many villagers say that you personally told them that you saw the village director being carried off by four persons and put under the vehicle?

Qian Chengyu: No.  That didn't happen.  To speak the truth, it didn't happen.  I didn't say that he was carried over.  You carry me over -- I am not a dead person, right or not?  If I were the village director, would I let you carry me over?  Couldn't I protect my village director (if I saw that)?

Reporter: So why did so many people say that you said it?

Qian Chengyu: I said that there were four persons in the back.  They heard wrong.  They said that four persons carried him over.

VO: Several days after the incident, another "eyewitness" surfaced in a media report.  This report said that on the evening of December 28, neighboring Hua'er villager Huang Diyan showed up in Zhaiqiao village and claimed that she witnessed what happened.  According to her description, "three men wearing white gloves and black surgical masks held Qian Yunhui by the arms and neck."  She went up to intercede but she was shoved aside.  "As she looked back, a truck parked by the side approached slowly.  The three persons seized the arms of Qian Yunhui from behind and pushed his neck underneath the wheel."  The police said that when they read the media report, they found Huang Diyan and questioned her.  She said that she was not actually present, but a young man instructed her to make the claim.

Huang Diyan: I heard someone else say it.  I don't know.  That person told me not to say that I didn't see it.  It was a tall young man.  I don't know who he is.  He told me to say that I saw it.  I don't know.  So I said I saw it.  Some people came and asked me, and I said it.  Then I went home.  My husband said, "Why did you mouth off?  Why don't you go and die?  You fool, you fool!  He kicked me in the leg.  My husband said, "You fool!  You fool!"  I said, "You fool!  You fool!  When I didn't, who is going to take care of our mentally incapacitated daughter?  Every day, I bathe her, I feed her and I sleep with her."

VO: Huang Diyan said that she was personally ailing and her daughter was mentally incapacitated.  That young man told her that if she testified that she witnessed the incident, they will both get better.

Huang Diyan: That person told me to perform a good deed.  Afterwards, my daughter will become smart and I will get better.  I didn't know how to perform a good deed.  He told me to say that I aw the murder.

VO: Both of the alleged eyewitnesses are saying that they did not witness the incident.  According to Qian Chengyu, there were four security guards at the scene.  Who were they?  Why were they there?  The police said that they found the security guards to be with the Yueqing Security Service Company.  At the time, they were working near the scene of the incident.  There is no evidence to show that they were involved in the death of Qian Yunhui.  We went to the Yueqing Security Service Company and interviewed the persons who were at the scene.  They said that they were hired to guard the construction project involving laying electric cables along Hongnan Highway since December 21.

Sun Jinzhu (Yueqing Security Service Company security guards captain): The villagers interfered with the laying of the cable along this section.  If the villagers cause trouble or whatever, we will try to stop them so that the construction can proceed.

Reporter: How did you work each day?

Sun Jinzhu: There were about 100 or so of us.  Each vehicle carried ten to twenty persons.  When work was going on, we sent a few people to look around, to patrol.

VO: Qian Chengxu, the son of Qian Yunhui, also mentioned that there were quite a few security guards along the road during that time.

Qian Chengxu: Before the incident ... about six days before ... we had three road intersections ... each intersection had at least one or two vehicles to protect the scene.  They were on the road for those six days.

VO: The security guards said that construction was halted on the day of the incident due to rain.  The team members sat in their buses and waited for orders.  One bus was parked in the direction behind the scene of the incident, about forty to fifty meters away.  A security guard named Zheng Yuanzhang was out of the bus at the time of the incident.

Zheng Yuanzhang: At the time, I got out of the vehicle to go to urinate on the other side.

Reporter: You happened to get off the bus.

Zheng Yuanzhang: Yes.  I took a couple of steps and I heard the sound of braking.  I turned around and looked.  That person was already underneath the truck.

VO: Zheng Yuanzhang ran back to the bus and told the others.  One security guard got out of the bus and ran over to look.

Zhang Hui (Yueqing Security Service Company security guard): I thought that he was joking.  I said that it was not possible.  I went over to look.  That person was underneath the wheel.

Cai Debao (Yueqing Security Service Company security guard): At the time, two of our team members got off the bus.  So I called them back.  At the time, I also got off the bus.

Reporter: Why did you want to call them back?

Cai Debao: We were not to get out of the bus without the captain's orders.

VO: Captain Sun Jinzhu was patrolling nearby.  He got a call from his team and arrived quickly at the scene.

Sun Jinzhu: I went over to the front of the vehicle and looked.  The two doors to the driver's cabin was open.  The engine was still running.  There was no driver present.

VO: At the time, they all saw a villager running into the middle of the road and yelling.

Sun Jinzhu: I saw this person.  He was definitely dead.  I turned around and called 110.  When I turned around after finishing the call, the tall man said, "That's him.  This one.  The one making the telephone call."  I don't know what the specific reasons were.  I was surrounded by four to five villagers and assaulted by them.

Reporter: What did they mistake you were?

Sun Jinzhu: I don't know.  He just said that it was the one making the telephone call.

Reporter: How was the misunderstanding cleared up afterwards?

Sun Jinzhu: There was not explanation.  They surrounded me and attacked me.  They ripped my gold chain off.  Several team members saw me being attacked.  They came down from the bus and pulled me off.  I began to run.  The tall guy had something in his hand.  I couldn't see what it was.  I kept running and he kept chasing me.  After running for more than 100 meters, they caught me again and gave me another violent beating.

VO: These security guards wore uniforms that had the words POLICE on them.  This is against the <Law for People's Police>.  According to one rumor, many SWAT police officers showed up at the scene immediately and clashed with the police.  Based upon the timing, these rumored SWAT police officers could be those security guards.

Sun Jinzhu: Bricks and other stuff were flying over at us.  We used our shields to protect ourselves as we retreated.

Reporter: Then what?

Sun Jinzhu: Then we fled.  I withdrew the entire team.

VO: Afterwards, the family of Qian Yunhui raised a question  They said that Qian Yunhui left home hastily after receiving a call.  They wondered whether this had something to do with his death.

Qian Chengxu: He made some noodles downstairs.  As my mother ate, some old folks came and chatted with my father.  He made the noodles.  He ate the noodles.  It took at least half an hour.  As my mother was eating the noodles, my father's phone rang.  This was at least after 8:30.

Reporter: Your father got a phone call.

Qian Chengxu: He got a telephone call.  My father went out the door.  This was someone he knew who may be asking to meet with my father.

VO: Many people speculate that the telephone call was used to lure Qian Yunhui to the village entrance.  Thus, the death of Qian Yunhui may not be a simple traffic incident.  At the press conference, the police made this explanation about the telephone call.

Huang Xiaozhong (Wenzhou City Public Security Bureau spokesperson): We investigated the matter.  We found that the caller was the fellow villager named Wang.  According to Wang, he called mainly to discuss certain village business and it was unrelated to the traffic incident itself.

VO: This villager is Wang Liquan.  He is presently under detention on suspicion of disrupting public order.

Reporter: Did you call Qian Yunhui on the day of the incident?

Wang Liquan: Yes.

Reporter: About what time?

Wang Liquan: Just past 8am.

VO: Wang Liquan had been petitioning with Qian Yunhui for years over the land requisition issue.  He said that he was on a public bus to Hongqiao village that morning when he got a call from Qian Yunhui.

Wang Liquan: Obviously, it was hard to talk on a bus.  So I terminated the call while I was in the bus.  When I got off, I called him back.  He asked me whether I had any more of the petition materials.  He did not say where he wants to sent them.  He asked me if I had any.  I said that there was no more.

Reporter: Did you ask him to meet at the village entrance?

Wang Liquan: No.  Why would I want to meet him?

Reporter: Someone suspected that there was a call to lure the village director to the village entrance to kill him.

Wang Liquan: Why would I murder him?  It is the same if he dies or I die, right?

Reporter: It's the same if he dies or you die?

Wang Liquan: We have been petitioning for so long.  We spend several millions of yuan.  If one of the two dies, someone will say that I spent the money and others will say that Qian Yunhui spent the money.  How do we settle that?  Some of the spending came with receipts, others don't.

VO: According to the Wenzhou police, they found that the last call that Qian Yunhui received was at 8:31.  The call lasted 47 seconds and the calling number was Wang Liquan's mobile phone.  Wang Liquan said that his call had nothing to do with the incident.  Nevertheless he still wondered whether Qian Yunhui was murdered.

Wang Liquan: Someone directed the construction truck to come over.  The ambush was set up.  This is possible.

Reporter: Do you think that it was a specially arranged traffic incident to hit someone?

Wang Liquan: Yes.

VO: There was a camera at the intersection where Qian Yunhui was hit.  Afterwards, people learned that the camera did not record the incident.  A report said that the camera "mysteriously failed to work."  The police said that the camera did not disappear and it did not fail to work suddenly.  The camera had been newly installed four days before the incident and its storage function had not been activated.  The camera installation work had been given to China Mobile's Yueqing office.  We interviewed the relevant workers there.

Jiang Asui (Wenzhou Communications Service Company Engineering Department manager) This project was in construction phase and was not officially operational.  Construction began on December 21.

Reporter: Shouldn't the equipment work immediately?

Jiang Asui: After we installed it, we found that the screen was shaking.  We had been installing standard definition cameras previously.  This one was a high definition camera.  We suspected that there broadband frequency problems  On December 22, 23 and 24, we were replacing the camera.

Reporter: What was it like on December 25?  This camera?

Jiang Asui: We can watch it on real time.  But we were still adjusting and we had not officially finished, we couldn't store anything.

VO: The China Mobile Yueqing workers said that they received a call from the police at noon that day, and they immediately started to store the surveillance data.

Chen Chaoteng (Yueqing Mobile Network Department deputy manager): We began to store data at around 12:52.

Reporter: It is possible that the camera was already recording but the last video was not released?

Chen Chaoteng: If there are any doubts, we are willing to show the operational log.  The record exists.

Reporter: Can we see it?  How can you prove that there was no video storage at the time?

Yang Linjian (Yueqing Mobile Network Department technician): We can open this.  We do screen captures.  We can also provide the printed information.

Reporter: It is printed out here?

Yang Linjian: Yes.

Reporter: What can be seen here?

Yang Linjian: The time was 12:52:21, December 25 when storage was successfully set up.  The three numbers 2744, 45 and 46 referred to the three spots in Zhaiqian village.

Reporter: Were there any records about these cameras before this time?

Yang Linjian: You can print it out here.  There is nothing.  There is no record whatsoever.  Everything that you do is recorded there.  All the instructions.  If you delete something, it will be noted here too.

Reporter: You can even see the deletions?

Yang Linjian: The deletions are recorded.

VO: The camera should have been the most reliable witness.  Regrettably, it was unable to provide the evidence.  As of now, only the two persons on the truck could describe what happened at that moment: Fei Liangyu and Huang Biao.  Fei Liangyu was the vehicle owner.  Huang Biao came from the same hometown and he was hired by Fei Liangyu as a driver.  At the time, Fei Liangyu was the driver.  But he did not own an operator's license.

Reporter: You still don't have a driver's license?

Fei Liangyu: I still have the last of the three exams to pass.

Reporter: Had you any thought about not driving when you don't have a license?

Fei Liangyu: I had been driving the vehicle for some time already.  I went to get gas, add water or take the place of the driver while he ate.  I did it before.

Reporter:  Did you remind him that it was better that you drive?

Huang Biao: We usually take turns at driving.

VO: After the incident, Fei Liangyu was arrested for involvement in a traffic incident.  Huang Biao tried to take the blame for Fei Liangyu and claimed falsely that he was the driver.  He was sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention plus a 200 yuan fine.  We interviewed the two about the moment of the incident.

Fei Liangyu: When I got to that spot, there was a pedestrian right in front of me.  He was going quickly from my right to my left.  My immediate reaction was to sound the klaxon.  He glanced at me, raised his hand a bit and continued ahead.

Reporter: What was the meaning of the raising of the hand?

Fei Liangyu: I don't understand.  He raised his hand, glanced at me and continued walking.

Reporter: How far was he from you when you first saw him?

Fei Liangyu: Five to six meters, six to seven meters, something like that.  He came over from the blocked half of the road.  By the time that I saw him, he was in the middle of the road.  I sounded the klaxon and I expected him to stop.  The normal thinking is that he would pause a bit and I could get by.  He did not stop.  He continued walking.  I braked immediately and veered left to avoid him.  But I wasn't able to avoid him.

Reporter: How fast was the truck going at the time?

Fei Liangyu: Not more than 40 kilometers per hour.  It is very hard to brake an overloaded vehicle.

VO: Huang Biao said he saw the pedestrian even later than Fei Liangyu.

Huang Biao: I was in the passenger seat.  I had adjusted my seat lower, so I spotted him even later.  I saw the person after the klaxon sounded.  Fei steered the vehicle to the left while braking at the same time.  But the person kept going to the left.  This was what I saw.

VO: After the incident, an Internet post said that "there was no sign of braking at all" which meant that the driver intentionally hit the pedestrian.  The police posted photos from the scene, and explained that the left front wheel left 5.4 meters of brake marks.  The marks showed no car tire patterns so that it was made by a skidding wheel (as opposed to a rolling wheel).  The police said that this was enough to show that the driver braked the vehicle.

Fei Liangyu: I got out before I even turned off the engine.  I wanted to see how he was.  Above all, I hoped that he was still alive.  But I saw that he was probably dead under my left front wheel.  I immediately took out my telephone and called 110 for the police.

VO: We went to the Yueqing city 110 command center to examine the police activity log.  The person on duty told us that they received five 110 calls about the incident.  The first call was found to have come from Fei Liangyu at 9:46.

Reporter: Can I listen to the audio recording?  The first one.

Police officer on duty: Here is the recording.

Fei Liangyu: How are you?  There has been a traffic incident.

Police officer: Where did this traffic incident take place?

Fei Liangyu: In Huayi village, Hongqiao town.

Police officer: Huayi village?

Fei Liangyu: Yes.  On Hongnan Road, Puqi town.

Police officer: Two vehicles collided with each other?

Fei Liangyu: No.  It was a person.  A person.  A person was hit.  A construction truck hit a person.

Police officer: A construction truck?  Did anyone get hurt?  Is it serious?

Fei Liangyu: He may be dead.

Police officer: Oh?

Fei Liangyu: He may be dead.

Police officer: So, where is the person?  Sent to the hospital?  Or what?

Fei Liangyu: No, no.  Under the truck.

Police officer: Fine.  I will tell the division personnel to come over and look.

VO: Fei Liangyu said that Huang Biao went home after the incident.  He himself stayed and watched from a spot that didn't draw attention.  He saw Qian Chengyu and he also witnessed the clash between the villagers and the security guards.

Fei Liangyu: There were several vehicles parked there.  One person -- I don't know if he was police officer or security buard -- came over to the vehicle and looked.  That villager went up to stop him.  More and more people came.  Afterwards the bricks and whatever began to fly in the air.

Reporter: Where were you?

Fei Liangyu: I was on the right side of the road.  The side that was blocked off.

VO: After the incident, three officers from the Puqi town border patrol arrived first at the scene.  Since their post was only several kilometers away, they got to the scene in seven minutes.  The traffic police from the Hongqiao Division also got there.  Fei Liangyu quietly identified the traffic police that he was the vehicle owner and the traffic police took him away from the scene. 

Fei Liangyu: The police vehicle belonged to the Hongqiao traffic police division.  I rode back in that police car.  I got there more than ten minutes later. 

[Note: Fei Liangyu said that he was the vehicle owner but that the driver was not at the scene.  However, he told the traffic police that he could locate the driver.  The traffic police let him leave to find the driver.  Fei went back to his rented home and found Huang Biao.  They came up with the cover story that Huang was driving at the time.  They did so because Fei was unlicensed.  However, the traffic police were able to see through the lie, and the two confessed.  Huang was sentenced to administrative detention for lying to the police while Fei was detained as a suspected criminal.  Fei is awaiting trial.]

VO: After the incident, many of the questions centered around the driver.  What proof was there that he did not set up an ambush there?  How can it be sure that he didn't deliberately ram Qian Yunhui?  Fei Liangyu siad that he drove back and forth between the Hongqiao town Wandi vilalge stone quarry and the Lingang Development Zone Landfill Project every day, and Zhaiqiao village was right in the middle of the route.  He got into a traffic incident during a routine delivery assignment.

Reporter: What did you do from the moment that you got out of bed that morning?

Fei Liangyu: Nothing.  I got out of bed that morning and I went to the hospital to visit my wife.

Reporter: then waht?

Fei Liangyu: After getting back from the hospital, I wasn't sure if I wanted to go.  It was raining and I wasn't sure if there were any work.  My driver called me to say that there was an assignment.

Reporter: You said that you went to see your wife the first thing in the morning.  How is she?

Fei Liangyu: She is sick.

Reporter: She came from your hometown to be with you?

Fei Liangyu: Yes.

Reporter: When did you come to Yueqing?

Fei Liangyu: In September.  A hometown resident recommended a job for me.

Reporter: Who else is in your family besides your wife?

Fei Liangyu: My parents.  My child.

Reporter: How old is your child?

Fei Liangyu: Nine years old.

Reporter: Boy or girl?

Fei Liangyu: Boy.

VO: Was Fei Liangyu telling the truth?  We went to the Wandi Village stone quarry and found the construction truck sub-contractor Lao Gao.  He is from the same hometown as Fei Liangyu.  He said that Fei Liangyu recently purchased that truck and came from Anhui to Yueqing to work.

Lao Gao: Before he bought the truck, he called me and asked whether he should buy the truck and come over here.  I said that he needed to come over and see for himself.  Fei Liangyu came over and looked around.  Then he went home and bought the truck.

Reporter: How long has he been here?

Lao Gao: For more than two months.

Reporter:  I heard that Fei Liangyu still has his parents and a child at home.

Lao Gao: His parents are still around. I don't know if he has a child.  I haven't been home for many years.

Reporter: You came out to work a long time ago.

Lao Gao: I worked in Ningbo city for 15 years.

Reporter: Fei Liangyu told us that his wife is staying in hospital.  What is the situation?

Lao Gao: His wife was in hospital.  The doctor said that her condition was serious.  They gave her a shot, and then told my driver to take her back home.  She has no money to pay for more treatment.  This is how it is.

Reporter: There have been many rumors since the incident.  I am sure that you have heard many of them.

Lao Gao: I think that it has been unfair.  All he ever did was to add water or wash the truck every day.  I saw all that.  Deliberate murder?  Who would borrow money to buy a truck worth several hundreds of thousand yuan and then do something like this?

Reporter: Did he take the same route every day to deliver rock materials?

Lao Gao: This is the only way.  There is only one way.  There is no other way.

Reporter: How far is the distance from the stone quarry to the location of the incident?

Lao Gao: I estimate it to be 3 kilometers.  More than 3 kilometers.

VO: There were some surveillance cameras between the stone quarry and the location of the incident.  The police obtained those surveillance videos for that day.  Two of the videos recorded Fei Liangyu's vehicle.  The first one taken at the stone quarry exit.  At around 9:38, a vehicle came out.  The showed the right side of the vehicle which had the number 23 on the side.  In the videos from the scene of the incident, the right side of the truck also had the number 23 in the same spot.  The second video was taken at the entrance of Huayi village around 9:42.  A construction truck came by and the video showed its left side.  The video was not of sufficient resolution so as to read the license plate numbers.  But the details matched Fei Liangyu's truck.  Zhaiqiao village is just ahead of the Huayi village entrance.  The police believed that the timing on the surveillance videos is consistent with the basic process by which Fei Liangyu ran over Qian Yuhui.  That is, the construction truck did come from the stone quarry and was not parked in ambush at the Zhaiqiao village entrance.

Reporter: There is a rumor that you were directed or hired by someone?

Fei Liangyu: No.  I have no relatives or acquaintances in Yueqing apart from some hometown folks.

Reporter: Some people wondered if you needed money?

Fei Liangyu: I lack money.  I have lacked money since I was a child.  But I earned all my money through legal methods.  I don't need that kind of money.

Reporter: Do you know the deceased?

Fei Liangyu: I don't know him.  I now know that his name is Qian Yunhui.  I didn't know him before.  If the family of the deceased can see this, I want to ask for their forgiveness.  Really.

Reporter: Can you forgive yourself?

Fei Liangyu: I cannot forgive myself.  I am very sorry now.  Really.  I am very very sorry.  I feel that I have let down the family of the deceased person as well as my own family.  Both families.

VO: The position of Qian Yuhui's dead body was one of the causes of public skepticism.  He was leaning down, his face pointed downwards in the manner of being pressed into the ground as rumored.  Someone said that if he was really hit by the truck, his body should be in the same direction as the vehicle.  But his death position was perpendicular to the direction of the truck.  How was this possible in a traffic incident?  We interviewed the police expert on analyzing marks at the scene.

Gao Wenyuan (Wenzhou Forensic Science and Technology Research Center Mark Analysis Laboratory director): We collected a lot of information on marks at the scene and we constructed what happened.

VO: According to police officer Gao Wenyuan, there were three fresh scrape marks on the construction truck.  The first one was on the left side of the front bumper of the truck.  There were clear signs that this was the result of scraping and friction.  The second mark was at the bottom of the water tank, where one piece of dirt had clearly been scraped off.  The third mark was at the bottom of the axle which exhibited the same appearance.

Gao Weunyuan: One here, one there, and another at the axle.  One two three.  These positions.  Based upon their paths and scrape directions, they are consistent with a series of consecutive actions.

VO: According to the order to these three spots, they occurred during one sequence of actions.  Qian Yunhui collided with the vehicle and was then swept underneath.  This assessment was supported by the visual inspection of the body of the deceased.

Gao Wenyuan: A very important sign on the left side of the thigh.  At about 84 centimeters from the bottom of the ffot, there was a purplish bruise mark.  This is the spot which collided with the bumper on the vehicle.

VO: There were bruise marks on Qin Yunhui's left inner thigh about 84 centimeters from the bottom of the foot.  The scrape mark on the left side of the bumper was 74 centimeters above ground.  The heights are consistent.  The police determined that this was the initial point of impact between Qian Yunhui and the vehicle.  Qian Yunhui was standing at the time and the left side of his body collided with the vehicle.

Gao Wenyuan: The visual examination of the body showed that his right side was muddied but his back was relatively clean.  His left side was also relatively clean.  What does this tell us?  He fell down on the ground on his right side.

Reporter: The body of the deceased was at 90 degrees perpendicular to the direction which the truck was moving alone.  People think that this is unreasonable.

Gao Wenyuan: A person is not like an iron pipe -- id you are hit, you fall straight down.  His body may be leaning forwards, so that when he got hit and feel down on the ground, his neck/head made contact with the left front wheel.  The body was propelled forward.  His body and his feet formed a certain angle as a result.  This is not inconsistent with the situation at the time.

VO: The police believe that based upon Fei Liangyu's testimony and the signs at the scene, they can reconstruct the original incident.  At the time, there was electric cable construction on the right side of Hongnan Road, so that vehicles can only travel on the two left lanes.  Fei Liangyu's construction truck was going from west to east on Hongnan Road.  When the truck neared the Zhaiqiao village entrance, Qian Yunhui crossed the road from south to north while holding an opened umbrella in hand.  Fei Liangyu saw Qian Yunhui who was five or six meters in front.  Fei sounded the klaxon, veered left and braked quickly.  But Qian Yuhui continued to walk ahead.  A collision occurred on the left side of the front of the truck.  The right side of Qian's body hit the ground.  Qian's neck and chest were propelled forward by the car tire.  Death occurred instantaneously.

In the many doubts about the death of Qian Yunhui, the way that the police handled the situation was one constant issue.  There were clashes between police and villagers that day.  The villagers said that the police tried to "seize the body" several times that day as well as arresting many villagers.  The Yueqing police bulletin said that "the family of the deceased and other villagers set up a mourning hall at the scene, formed illegal road blocks and interfered with police investigation at the scene."  "Certain villagers were incited to attack the police such that the police had to take appropriate measures."

Reporter: When the police wanted to remove with body, there was a clash with the villagers.  Someone used the term "seizing the body."

Huang Xiaozhong: The family's consent is not required in order to move the body to the funeral parlor.  Many reporters mixed up the concepts of whether family consent is needed to take the body to the funeral parlor and whether family consent is needed for an autopsy.  Right?  In truth, the body was moved to the funeral parlor and no autopsy was conducted.  There was no need for us to conduct an autopsy in a simple traffic incident case.  Therefore it is necessary to emphasize that the body was moved to the funeral parlor to preserve the evidence in case certain people take actions that can interfere with the investigation.  Also, we needed to restore normal traffic.  Even as they stopped us from moving the body, they were erecting a mourning hall in the road.  If you say that we cannot move the body without their agreement, then how can we insure that traffic moves along normally?  We had to take forceful action against these types of activities.

Reporter: Is there no better way to handle this?

Huang Xiaozhong: When our border patrol officers go there, they saw one of our intern police officer who was wearing camouflage.  They said that this was the driver and they attacked him.  The public security division came and they attacked the division captain.  As more and more gathered there, we had to bring out the SWAT police.  Whether it was quelling the situation or evacuated the injured personnel, we had to use force.  That is to say, we employed force in proportion to what we were encountering.

VO: The police said that certain villages violently interfered with police work.  Five police officers were injured.  The police provided us with some of the videos from the scene.

VO: While we were interviewing around Yueqing city, six villagers were detained including the major eyewitness Qian Chengyu and the villager Wang Liquan who made the last call to Qian Yunhui.  To the public, these were important persons related to the truth of the case, and they are skeptical as to why the police are detaining them.

Reporter: Qian Chengyu is the reputed eyewitness.  This eyewitness is under detention.  Why is he being detained?

Huang Xiaozhong: This is very clear.  He was interfering with official business.  At the time, he was a major participant.

Reporter: Is there any clear evidence?

Huang Xiaozhong: Of course there is clear evidence.  Apart from his own admission, there were many other evidence including video information.

Reporter: Wang Liquan is a villager who has petitioned alongside Qian Yunhui for many years.  Why is Wang Liquan being detained?

Huang Xiaozhong: Like Qian Chengyu, he was interfering with official business.  He interfered with, and even violently attacked our police officers.

Reporter: When we interviewed Wang Liquan, he denied that he did so.

Huang Xiaozhong: We let our investigative results speak for themselves.  The evidence has been provided to the procuratorate.

Reporter: What evidence?  Can it be revealed publicly?

Huang Xiaozhong: Of course.  We have revealed them to some degree during the last two press conferences.  But the entire body of evidence can only be revealed at the public trial.

Reporter: When the public trial takes place, the evidence that you mentioned will be revealed?

Huang Xiaozhong: At the court trial, the most important mission is to scrutinize the evidence from the investigations.  And then the arguments can begin.

Reporter:  Did the police investigation lead to the conclusion that the facts and evidence could not possibly suggest murder?

Huang Xiaozhong: Absolutely.

Reporter: Absolutely?

Huang Xiaozhong: Yes.

Reporter: But this is vastly different from what many people feel.  Many people are saying that they have not seen facts and evidence that can convince them.  They don't feel that it is adequate.  How did the gap arise?

Huang Xiaozhong: Certain coincidental factors pushed things that way.  For example, the surveillance video system was newly installed.  The villagers should know when installation was taking place.  But nobody explained that, or was willing to explain that.  In addition, Qian Yunhui had special emotional bonds with the villagers.  As a result, the villagers got emotional and came up with these associations and speculations.

Reporter: How could a simple traffic incident raise so many questions and create such a huge social impact?  What do you think are the reasons?

Huang Xiaozhong: As one netizen says well ... he said that the truth you want may be the one that you pre-determined beforehand.  You compare this against the police version.  If they match, you accept it; if they don't match, you reject it.  Our conclusions have to be based upon the facts.  We cannot base it upon some pre-established position.  The public security apparatus needs to have reasonable basis for its conclusions.  We need our media to fairly and objectively report.  That is important too, and it is not about doing sensationalistic reporting.

Reporter: Aren't reporters supposed to raise certain questions based upon their own investigations about a matter that is of great public interest?

Huang Xiaozhong: That is an age-old saying.  There should be no bars hold on the basis of truth and objectivity.  Let me give you an example.  A reporter raised a question at the press conference that a netizen had taken a photo of the bumper on the truck and compared it against the one that we posted on the Internet.  The netizen's photo showed no scrape mark but ours did.  See, the police faked the photo because my photo showed no scrape mark!  But the fact is that both photos showed bumpers with four drilled holes.  Except our photo showed four round holes and the netizen's showed three round ones and one square .  As as serious and rigorous reporter, you should be able to tell that the photos came from two different trucks.  Right?  Reporters can raise questions, but they need to do their homework first.

Reporter:  Are there points that can be discussed about how transparent and open the information has been?

Huang Xiaozhong: Frankly, if this case weren't so special, many of the evidence should not have been revealed so early on.  The reason for confidentiality is to guarantee that the case will be handled fairly.  If you reveal your evidence too early, it will affect the testimony of others who haven't been interviewed yet.  The state laws, especially as they relate to procedural matters, are based accumulated experiences.  Therefore, we don't think that we revealed too little, but we revealed quite a bit.

VO: On January 4, the Wenzhou city procuratorate approved the formal arrest of the driver Fei Liangyu in a traffic incident.  The case has gone into the judicial phase.  The Wenzhou police said that all the case evidence will be revealed in the court trial.

(Associated Press)  China convicts driver who ran over lobbying farmer   Gillian Wong   February 1, 2011.

A Chinese court on Tuesday convicted and sentenced a driver to jail for running over a village leader in a case that raised suspicions the victim was murdered to stop his efforts to seek compensation for seized land.

Farmer Qian Yunhui was crushed under the wheel of a large red truck on Dec. 25 outside his Zhaiqiao village in eastern China's Zhejiang province, where he and others had earlier blocked the road to prevent the construction of a power plant.

His death underscored a growing lack of trust in China's government as rampant corruption and official abuse erode public confidence. Rumors spread quickly online that Qian had been killed to stop his persistent attempts to lobby the government on behalf of his village. Angry essays circulated on the Internet, and academics, activists and journalists organized independent probes.

Police ruled Qian's death a traffic accident and the Yueqing People's Court on Tuesday found the driver of truck, Fei Liangyu, guilty of causing the accident by driving without a license and overloading his truck.

Fei was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment, said Si Weijiang, a lawyer representing Qian's father, Qian Shunnan. "The trial was conducted in a hasty fashion and many doubts about the case remain," Si said. He declined to elaborate.

At least two witnesses initially said they saw four men beat the tall and sturdy 53-year-old Qian to the ground and hold him while the truck crushed him to death. Police said they later recanted their accounts of the death.

In a sign the government is trying to appear transparent in its handling of a case that has garnered widespread attention, authorities said the trial was open to the public and state television carried highlights of the proceedings on its national midday bulletin. Among them was the emergence of new evidence: video footage from a recording device on Qian's watch, which he was wearing when he died.

Family members reported that they continued to face pressure from the authorities not to speak publicly about Qian's death.

Qian Shuangping, the village leader's daughter-in-law, said most of the family did not attend the trial: "There's no use in going anyway. They are not interested in what we have to say." She declined to comment further, saying her phone line was tapped and she could not speak freely.

Qian's death is the latest violent incident to touch a nerve among the Chinese public, angry over official corruption and abuse of power, including unfair seizure of farmers' land for development.

Qian, a poorly educated but entrepreneurial farmer, became a hero to the villagers he served by lobbying the government for fair compensation after it seized village land six years ago to build the large power plant. He was arrested three times, his daughter-in-law said, and each time returned to the fray with popular support.

(AFP)  Anger over 'accidental' death of Chinese activist    February 1, 2011.

A Chinese court ruled Tuesday that the death of a village chief crushed by a truck in December was accidental, sparking outrage from those who insist he was murdered for his campaigning over land seizures.

The gruesome December 25 death of 53-year-old Qian Yunhui has rattled authorities at a time when the government is trying to damp down public anger over a range of hot-button issues including official abuses and rising prices.

Qian had demanded compensation for farmers whose land was seized to make way for a power station and his death stirred passions after doubt was cast on the official version of events.

Gruesome photos posted online appeared to show Qian, who had been leader of Zhaiqiao village in the eastern province of Zhejiang, crushed under the wheels of a truck.

A court sentenced the unlicenced driver, Fei Liangyu, to three-and-a-half years in prison on Tuesday for "accidentally" running over Qian, China Central Television (CCTV) said in an in-depth live report.

Police and the courts said it was a simple hit-and-run, basing their conclusions in part on video footage supposedly recorded by Qian's wristwatch during the accident -- images dismissed by some as a total fabrication.

"Looking at this videotape, I think you must say that it is not a traffic accident -- this is murder," said one chatroom posting on the popular web portal Netease.com.  "Why is he the only one to wear a wristwatch video camera -- why does he need to videotape? Do judges wear wristwatch video cameras?"

CCTV on Tuesday repeatedly broadcast the shaky footage -- shot by a figure walking down a road and which ends with the image being severely jarred and, finally, a shot of a truck's wheel.

The reports appeared aimed at underlining the official version it was a simple traffic accident.

Another comment posted under the name cdch1983 said, "We've seen these inferior (government) tactics before and it is unclear whether they think the people are dumb, easily fooled or downright stupid.  This is a tragedy, an out-and-out naked lie."

Chatrooms on the case on some other major Chinese portals were shut after the verdict, apparently to stifle anti-government comments.

Court officials refused comment when contacted by AFP.

Qian had been detained three times since 2005 for repeatedly demanding compensation for farmers after nearly 150 hectares (370 acres) of land was seized, earlier reports said.

Government-backed land requisitions, often in collusion with real estate developers, remain one of China's most controversial issues, with authorities routinely accused of enriching themselves through arbitrary land grabs.

The government has recently indicated mounting concern over that and other key controversial issues such as corruption that are blamed for thousands of frequent angry public protests.

Rights groups said the government last month ordered the media to restrict coverage of such controversial issues this year.

(WSJ China Real Time Report)  Sentence In Villager’s Suspicious Death Doesn’t Satisfy Skeptics   February 1, 2011.

Two days after a relatively light sentence handed down in the infamous “My Dad is Li Gang” case sparked outpourings of cynicism and anger online, China’s justice system has returned another decision in a separate, controversial case that is drawing fresh questions.

The case this time revolves around the death of Qian Yunhui, a rural activist in the Zhejiang province city of Yueqing who was crushed under the wheels of a truck last month. Police proclaimed the death an accident, but many of Qian’s supporters said they suspected murder, noting among other issues that he had died on the same road he and others had earlier blocked in protest of the building of a power plant. Fury over the incident spread across China’s Internet, fueled by horrifically gruesome photos and video of Mr. Qian’s corpse.

A court in Yueqing city on Tuesday sentenced the driver of the truck, Fei Yuliang, to three-and-a-half years in prison, according to a report in the state-run Xinhua news agency that was confirmed by Mr. Fei’s lawyer. The sentence is consistent with local authorities’ contention that Mr. Qian’s death was an accident, but it left many observers in China unconvinced.

Adding to the controversy is video footage—aired on state-run CCTV Tuesday—that is purported to have been recovered from a mini camera in Mr. Qian’s wristwatch, and that local police say proves the activist was not murdered.

It’s not exactly clear how Mr. Qian came to own a wristwatch that records video, nor why he would have set it to record what appears to be an otherwise unremarkable stroll. The point of the local officials in showing it is that it demonstrates that the incident was an accident, thus refuting accounts of Mr. Qian’s death that have circulated on the Internet in which he was purportedly held by a group of thugs as the truck ran him over.

But the footage doesn’t seem to be the end of the issue. For one thing, even if authentic, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that whoever struck Mr. Qian did so intentionally. And judging by the flurry of commentary that quickly appeared online after the footage was aired, at least some people don’t believe that the video is authentic. McClatchy’s Tom Lasseter summarized the reasons for some of that skepticism in a blog post:

The footage in question carried the correct time stamp, just before 9:50 on Christmas morning, and was obviously shot on the road where Qian died in the coastal province of Zhejiang. The video shows an accident–or the tumbling blur of what seems to be one–as the person walks in the middle of the road, and then after the wreck shows a truck sitting in front of the presumed body of Qian Yunhui.

However, Qian’s body was found under the front tire of a truck–not behind a truck that had run him over–that was sitting on the wrong side of the road.

It is possible, of course, that the truck that hit Qian dragged him across the road before stopping. And it’s also possible that one truck ran over him and his body came to rest under the front tire of a second truck that was close behind. As any highway patrol officer will tell you, anything can happen when it comes to the physics of car crashes. (Images of Qian’s body after the incident, though, suggest that he was crushed by just the one tire, and don’t show the sort of skid marks one would expect from a large truck slamming on its brakes and swerving violently across a road.)

Mr. Lasseter noted that much of the initial commentary on the Web questioning the video’s validity were soon deleted.

Asked about the skeptical reaction from some viewer’s of the video, Mr. Fei’s lawyer, Zhou Gang, told The Wall Street Journal: “There is nothing to doubt… We can’t suspect everything. These suspicions are not justified.”

Employees at the Yueqing court said no one was available to comment on the video. Multiple attempts to contact the Wenzhou police department by phone Tuesday were unsuccessful.

According to Chinese media reports, Mr. Qian’s family was paid more than a million yuan, or roughly $150,000, in compensation for his death.

–Josh Chin, with contributions from Kersten Zhang

(South China Morning Post)  Doubts remain as driver who killed village chief jailed    February 2, 2011.

The driver of a truck which killed a village chief in Zhejiang province who had led a fight for compensation for a government-backed land seizure was jailed yesterday for 3-1/2 years.

But questions remain about a video clip, purportedly of the victim's final moments and recorded on his wristwatch, and its use as evidence.

Although police have said repeatedly since a first press conference about the incident on December 27 that Qian Yunhui's 's was an accident and nothing more, many still believe he was murdered to stop his petitioning.

Fei Liangyu , the driver, was charged by Yueqing prosecutors with a traffic crime after he ran over Qian , 53, the chief of Zhaiqiao village, on Christmas Day. Qian had petitioned for the past six years over the land seizure - an issue which causes much conflict on the mainland.

The Yueqing People's Court convicted Fei, an unlicensed driver of a truck overloaded with stones allegedly on its way to a nearby industrial area.

Fei faced up to seven years' jail, but the sentence was reduced because he and related companies reached a compensation agreement with Qian's family.

Fei said in court he did not accept the verdict.

Si Weijiang , a lawyer from Shanghai DeBund Law Offices representing Qian's 81-year-old father, Qian Shunnan , said the trial and conviction were very hastily done. He had applied to have the trial postponed, but the court had refused.

The elder Qian said he still had grave doubts about the video presented as evidence in the trial.

"The road shown in the video doesn't have roadworks, which doesn't match the driver's testimony," said Si. "And the video should have been verified by an independent organisation as unedited."

The victim allegedly switched on the watch's recording function before he was crushed by the truck. The watch was in the possession of the family of Wang Liquan , Qian Yunhui's petitioning partner, when police seized it.

The video, lasting for more than two minutes, showed shaky footage shot by a walking person on the road outside Zhaiqiao village. It then stopped suddenly after two honks, and the next video is a still picture of a wheel, according to a report yesterday by China Central Television, which showed the clip. It is only part of 13 clips allegedly obtained from Qian's watch.

Speaking to the South China Morning Post  on Saturday, Qian's son Qian Chengxu expressed doubts about the authenticity of the clip but confirmed his father had a watch with a recording function.

Qian's family did not attend the four-hour trial. Phone calls to Qian Chengxu, and Qian's daughter-in-law, Qian Shuangping, yesterday went unanswered.

Gruesome photos were posted online of him crushed under the truck's wheels and suspicions about his death a growing lack of trust in the government. At least four groups of citizens, scholars and activists are independently probing the incident.

Two witnesses said they originally told police that four men held Qian while the truck was driven over him, but police said they had recanted that testimony during interrogation.

Si refused to comment on the sentence. He said he would continue to help Qian's father seek compensation and push the court to reveal to the public the full contents of the 13 video clips.

One of the four grass-roots investigations is led by Wu Gan , a well-known Fujian-based activist known by his internet name, Butcher. He said the authorities' selective responses to doubts and the fact only parts of the video were shown had stoked suspicions.

One internet user asked why the chief would switch on the watch if he didn't think he was in danger.

Another said the video showed Qian walking in the middle of the road, which didn't match Fei's testimony that Qian was crossing the road.

Other internet users pointed out that the video didn't include any cries from Qian when he was hit.

(Beijing News)  February 2, 2011.

The chief judge Fang Kongqiang answered our reporter's questions by writing:

Q: Many people on the Internet think that Fei Liangyu intentionally committed murder.  Why did the court ultimately rule that this was a traffic incident.

A: The procuratorate charged Fei Liangyu with involvement in a traffic incident.  During the trial, the defendant and his lawyer did not dissent.  But certain public opinions say that this was a case of deliberate murder.

Based upon the testimonies and cross-examinations of the defendant and the witness Huang Biao (who was sitting next to Fei at the time of the incident), the visual inspection of the body of the deceased, the skid marks on the road, the impact marks on the vehicle, the video in the watch of the deceased, etc, and these pieces of evidence support each other to form a complete chain of evidence, it can be shown that Fei Liangyu subjectively made a mistake.

The specific reasons are as follows: Firstly, when Fei Liangyu spotted the pedestrian crossing on the road, the objective fact was that he sounded the klaxon.  This showed the Fei Liangyu was trying to alert the pedestrian to the oncoming vehicle and hence to take evasive action to avoid a traffic incident.

Secondly, when Fei Liangyu saw that the pedestrian continued to walk even after the klaxon was sounded, he immediately veered his steering wheel and stepped on the brakes.  This showed that he was trying to avoid the pedestrian.  So he did not subjectively want to hit the pedestrian with his vehicle.

Thirdly, Fei Liangyu got out of the vehicle immediately afterwards to check.  After he saw what happened, he called the police and he preserved the integrity of the scene.  This showed that Fei Liangyu did not try to cover up what happened.

The video inside the watch that Qian Liangyu was wearing (note: the watch had the capability of making video records) allowed us to reconstruct the incident.  At around 9:45, Qian Yunhui was walking down the road with an umbrella in hand.  At 9:48:20 or so, Qian Yunhui crossed from the right side of the road to the left.  A klaxon and the sound of braking were heard.  He was knocked down by a vehicle.  Afterwards, someone got out of the vehicle to see what happened.  This video truthfully recorded what happened before and after the collision.  It is also consistent with the testimonies of Fei Liangyu and Huang Biao.  This showed that the case was a traffic incident.

Therefore, the defendant Fei Liangyu was found to have violated traffic laws.  Specifically he was an overloaded construction truck without a driver's license, and he caused the death of a pedestrian when he failed to take proper measures.  As such, he bore principal responsibility in this incident.

Q: Fei Liangyu did not think that he left the scene afterwards.  Why did the court ultimately decided that he fled from the scene?

A: Fleeing from the scene of a traffic incident refers to actions which attempt to evade legal accountability."  "Fleeing" refers not just to the physical act of departure, but also to various means (not limited by time and space) to avoid legal accountability.

After the incident, Fei Liangyu asked Huang Biao to state that he was the driver.  When the traffic police arrived, he told them that he was the truck owner but he did not say that he was driving at the time.  He and others took Huang Biao down to the traffic police divisional quarters, and then he went home and changed his clothes.  Later Huang Biao said that Fei Liangyu was the actual driver.  At first, Fei Liangyu denied it.  He confessed later.  Therefore, even if the defendant did not physically "flee" from the scene, he was objectively trying to avoid legal accountability and conceal his true role in the incident.  This fits the definition of "flight."  As a result, we believed that Fei Liangyu's actions constituted flight after a traffic incident.

Q: Fei Liangyu was sentenced to three years and six months in jail.  What is the basis for the length of the prison term?

A: According to Article 133 of the <Criminal Law Code> and items 1 and 3 of clause 1, article 2 of <Supreme People's Court's explanation of certain problems related to the laws that apply to traffic violations>, the sentence for fleeing the scene of a traffic incident is 3 to 7 years of time.  The defendant Fei Liangyu violated the traffic law by driving an overloaded vehicle without a driver's license and caused the death of a person.  He also fled the scene afterwards.  His actions therefore meet the aforementioned conditions.  Thus, he should be getting three to seven years in prison.

By driving an overloaded vehicle without a driver's license, Fei Liangyu should be getting closer to seven years.  But he did not mess with the crime scene, he called the police immediately, he pled guilty in court and acted contrite, and the family of the victim was compensated for 1.05 million yuan.  So those conditions work in favor of a lighter sentence.

The above video was taken between 9:53 and 10:01.  It showed the truck and the deceased (note especially the hand).  It can be seen that someone had already set up barricades on the road to stop traffic.

浙江省乐清市人民法院
刑事判决书
（2011）温乐刑初字第152号 公诉机关浙江省乐清市人民检察院。 　　

被告人费良玉，男，1979年8月29日出生于安徽省颍上县，身份证号码XXXX，汉族，个体运输，初中文化，住安徽省颍上县黄桥镇张庄村东海队xx号。因涉嫌犯交通肇事罪于2010年12月25日被刑事拘留，于2011年1月4日被逮捕。现羁押于乐清市看守所。 　　

辩护人周光、吴之欧，浙江光正大律师事务所律师。 　　

乐清市人民检察院以乐检刑诉（2011）73号起诉书指控被告人费良玉犯交通肇事罪，于2011年1月21日向本院提起公诉。本院受理后依法组成合议庭，公开开庭审理了本案。乐清市人民检察院指派检查员林宏炽、余乐燕出庭支持公诉，被害人父亲的诉讼代理人斯伟江，被告人费良玉及其辩护人周光、吴之欧，证人黄标到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。 　　

乐清市人民检察院指控，2010年12月25日上午，被告人费良玉在未取得机动车驾驶资格的情况下，驾驶装载石料的皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车（核载12405KG，超载35020KG，超载率282%）从湾底村开往临港开发区围垦工地。当日9时45分许，车辆途经虹南大道蒲岐寨桥村路段时，遇行人钱云会在车前方道路右侧向左横穿，被告人费良玉刹车，但仍避让不及，车头左侧将钱云会碰倒，左前轮碾压其胸颈部，致钱云会当场死亡。肇事后，被告人费良玉指使他人顶替，企图逃避法律追究。经温州市公安局交警支队认定，该交通事故中，被告人费良玉负主要责任；经法医鉴定，被害人钱云会符合遭机动车辆碰撞、碾压致颈部、胸部重度毁损伤而死亡。对于以上指控的事实，公诉机关向本院提供了被告人费良玉的供述，证人黄标、高广跃、王立权、薛品芬、陈赛英、黄雪芬等人的证言，交通事故认定书，法医学尸体检验意见书，司法鉴定意见书，电子物证检验报告，法医物证鉴定书，道路交通事故现场勘查笔录，110接警单，扣押物品清单，机动车驾驶证查询结果，称重单，机动车行驶证信息，调解书，视听资料，户籍证明等证据。公司机关认为，被告人费良玉的行为已触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百三十三条之规定，且肇事后逃逸，应以交通肇事罪追其刑事责任。 　　被害人父亲的诉讼代理人认为，本案程序有不当之处，虽然被害人的父亲提出附带民事诉讼，追加了其他被告单位，但不影响刑事附带民事合并审理，要求法庭延期开庭合并审理。本案证据有瑕疵和疑点，录像没有鉴定也没有进行辨认，法庭应该按照法定程序进行，希望择日再审。 　　

被告人费良玉对起诉书指控的主要犯罪事实无异议，并辩称其不属于逃逸。其辩护人辩称起诉书指控被告人费良玉交通肇事后逃逸不能成立，被告人交通肇事情节较轻，且被告人费良玉已经赔偿被害人家属105万元，被告人无前科劣迹，犯罪前一贯表现良好，系初犯，本案犯罪是在偶然时间、偶然地点撞上偶然横穿马路的钱云会，事故发生纯属偶然，被告人是偶犯，归案后认罪态度较好，本案社会影响不能成为被告人从重处罚的情节，被告人费良玉的行为虽然构成交通肇事罪，但考虑被告人的以上酌定从亲处罚情节，对被告人适用缓刑不致再危害社会，恳请对被告人费良玉从轻处罚并适用缓刑。 　　

经审理查明，2010年12月 25日上午9时30分许，被告人费良玉在未取得机动车驾驶资格的情况下，驾驶装载石料的皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车（核载12405KG，超载 35020KG，超载率282%）从乐清市虹桥镇湾底村开往乐清市临港开发区围垦工地。当日9时45分许，车辆途经虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村路段时，遇行人钱云会在车前方突然从道路右侧向左横穿，被告人费良玉鸣喇叭，向左打方向并紧急刹车，但仍避让不及，车头左侧将钱云会碰倒，左前轮碾压其胸颈部，致钱云会当场死亡。肇事后，被告人费良玉指使他人顶替，企图逃避法律追究。经温州市公安局交警支队认定，该交通事故中，被告人费良玉负主要责任；经法医鉴定，被害人钱云会符合遭机动车辆碰撞、碾压致颈部、胸部重度毁损伤而死亡。 　　另查明，案发后被告人费良玉的委托代理人与被害人亲属就民事赔偿部分达成调解协议，被害人亲属获赔105万元，并已履行。 　　

上述事实，有检查机关提交并经法庭质证、认证的下列证据予以证明： 　　

1、 被告人费良玉当庭供述，证实2010年12月25日上午9时许，自己从虹桥医院看过老婆后回到虹南大道转盘附近的矿山工地，自己是皖K5B323号大货车的车主，黄标是自己雇来开车的司机，因黄标未吃早餐而让自己驾驶皖K5B323号大货车，装好石料后，黄标坐副驾驶室，由自己驾驶车辆，到蒲岐镇寨桥村路段时，道路的右道封闭施工，车子只能在路左侧行驶，这时自己看见一男子从道路右边快速往左边横穿，行人与车辆的距离约5—6米，自己就拼命按喇叭，左打方向避让并且刹车，但已经避让不及与行人发生碰撞，行人倒地后车子左前轮碾压了他的身体。事故发生后自己下车用手机18655852668打110报警，然后在等待交警时打电话给黄标，因自己没有驾驶证怕坐牢，又怕保险公司不赔，就叫黄标承认是驾驶车辆的人，但黄标没说同意也没说不同意，自己就以为黄标同意了。交警到现场后就问驾驶员在哪里，自己就带交警到大转盘附近的工地找黄标，找到黄标后，自己和黄标一起坐高广跃的车到交警队，到交警队后黄标接受谈话，称他自己是肇事司机，自己在交警队的楼下等到中午，之后就回家了。在回家的路上交警又打电话过来要自己到交警队配合调查，于是自己换了衣服再次到交警队，接着交警与自己谈话，第一次谈话时自己有说谎，说车市黄标开的，后来在谈话过程中认识到自己的错误，就承认车是自己驾驶的。事故发生时自己穿红色的羽绒服上衣，中午12时许回到工地暂住处换成了黑色的衣服，然后就接到交警打来的电话，这样自己就又去了交警队。因为自己到交警队穿的是黑色衣服，到案时交警队给自己拍的照片是黑色衣服，所以就说自己穿黑色衣服，后来一直就供述自己肇事的时候穿的是黑色衣服。当时自己穿着羽绒服在车里感觉比较热，所以在接到交警电话后，还是先回家换了衣服再去交警队，没有什么想法。事故发生前，该行人在道路右侧与车同向正常行走，在车子靠近时突然往左侧横穿道路，事先没有任何预兆，以致避让不及发生事故。以前交代都说行人有拦车动作，其实没有拦车动作，肇事后自己和黄标商量好，说行人拦车被撞肇事司机责任可能会轻些，所以一直说行人有拦车动作。事故发生后自己是跨过黄标的身体从车门右侧下车，绕道车后方然后再到车辆前头观察时打110电话报警。 　　

2、 证人黄标当庭的证言，证实2010年12月25日上午，费良玉驾驶皖K5B323号大货车，自己坐副驾驶头靠在椅背上，没有注意前方的情况，当车子行驶到虹南大道寨桥村路段时，听到费良玉按喇叭声音自己才意识到前方有行人，当时行人正从马路中间往左边横穿过去，费良玉再按喇叭，但那人没有任何反应，费良玉往左急打方向盘并踩刹车，由于车惯性太大没刹住就撞上行人。当自己发现行人时，车和行人只有5、6米的距离，当时行人没有招手动作，以前笔录中说行人有招手是自己在公安机关说了假话，因为费良玉无证驾驶车辆撞到行人，他害怕打电话给自己，让自己替他顶一下，说车辆当时是自己驾驶的，并且让自己和警察说出事故是因为那行人拦车引起的而不是行人横穿马路，所以自己按费良玉的意思向公安机关说那行人在马路上招手，意思说行人在挡车。事故发生后，自己下车先到车头右侧之后马上跑到车头位置，费良玉应是往车后位置去看了，当时以为人刮到车底了，自己到车头位置第一眼看到费良玉刚好在车尾左侧位置。出事故后自己看了现场，当时村民还没过来，就跑到寨桥村巷子里打电话给高广跃，没有打通，然后打给高广跃儿子高彬，让高彬转达费良玉的车在寨桥村出事故，接着自己打给叔叔黄学庆，告诉费良玉的车出事故把人压了，挂了电话后，费良玉电话就打进来，并且说让自己帮他顶一下，说车是自己驾驶的，当时自己没有马上答应，之后自己给在广州打工的堂弟黄军打电话，告诉费良玉的车出事故，并且费良玉让自己替他顶一下，黄军听了后让自己不要替费良玉顶包，之后费良玉又多次打电话来，后来黄军又打电话来让自己不要顶包。接着自己跟着老乡的车到湾底村转盘，在广东打工的老婆兰明利也打来电话，她大概听黄军说的，让自己不要替费良玉顶包。在路上碰到高广跃的车，自己坐高广跃的车又回到大转盘，和高广跃站在路边，一会儿看到费良玉从交警的警车上下来，费良玉让自己去交警队，于是自己坐高广跃的车，费良玉也上了车蹲在车后面，到虹桥交警中队后自己默认是驾驶员，后被带到乐清交警大队谈话。当天自己外面穿件咖啡色的长袖袄子，费良玉穿件红色外套，但费良玉后来送行驶证到交警队时穿黑色衣服，事故发生那天自己使用的电话是15825696837。 　　

3、 证人高广跃的证言，证实 2010年12月25日9时40分许，费良玉打电话给自己，说他的车子把人压坏了叫自己快点到事故现场，自己就驾驶面包车到现场。在现场已经围着很多老百姓，自己跑到费良玉的车子前面发现车子左前轮压着个人，后来自己开车回转盘路上碰到黄标，就带上黄标去工地，在工地大转盘处，费良玉从交警的车上下来后也上了自己的车，自己就开车送费良玉和黄标去警队。同时证实费良玉是经自己介绍于2010年9月份到乐清从事运输行业。车子是费良玉自己的。工地总共有12 辆车在运输，自己是车队临时负责人，从石料场运到工地约有6.8公里，拉石料大车（如费良玉这种车辆）按规定装石料要求在汽车隔板20公分以下，费良玉事发当天装得多了点，大概在隔板10公分以下，从采石厂到事故地点大概4公里不到，平时车辆装了石料跑不快，车速40码不到。另外费良玉和他老婆一起在乐清，在乐清除了自己就没有熟人了，近段时间费良玉的老婆因为怀孕住在虹桥医院。黄标在乐清也没有社会关系，是费良玉原先的司机走了后才雇用黄标。 　　

4、 证人郝长吾的证言，证实 2010年12月25日，自己的车辆跟在皖K5B323车后面一公里远，当天9时50分左右，自己驾车到寨桥村路段时看到皖K5B323车出事故，停在道路左侧，左前轮下压着一个人，当时有一个50来岁的男子往自己车扔石头，自己就在离皖K5B323车20多米距离时停车并开始倒车，在一百米左右的叉路口掉头往工地开，在下一个叉路口被黄标拦下，自己就把黄标带回工地。倒车前没有看到保安，在倒车的过程中看到车上的保安下来，当时保安坐的中巴车离事故现场 40到50米左右，自己只看到一辆，也没看到保安跑向事故车附近。自己一般往返两个工地在25分钟左右，同时右侧道路封道大约3—4天了。 　　

5、 证人程龙洋的证言，证实 2010年12月25日，自己和费良玉通了二个电话。第一个电话是8点40分左右，费良玉问自己拉了几趟。第二个是10点左右，在寨桥村路段车子开不过去了，工地的好几辆空车都停在路边，听路人说前面出交通事故就打电话问费良玉，费良玉称其在警车上就挂了电话。 　　

6、 证人孙自芬的证言，证实自己是费良玉的妻子，费良玉是2010年9月份买的车，于2010年10月份到浙江乐清，12月25日前几天自己因为先兆性流产一直住院，平时是费良玉在医院护理自己，生活来源靠运输收入，以前雇佣的司机因为出了交通事故被费良玉辞退，现又雇佣黄标。自己和费良玉到温州才3个月，没什么熟人，与被撞的人也没有冤仇，自己买车也是为了过生活，根本不可能会故意撞人，费良玉虽然没有取得驾驶证，但已参加培训。 　　

7、 证人黄学庆的证言，证实自己侄子黄标是费良玉雇佣的驾驶员，事故发生时在费良玉的车上。2010年12月25日9点多，黄标曾打过电话给自己，所以自己知道费良玉驾驶车辆发生交通事故，自己没有问事故发生的具体情况，黄标也没有跟自己说替费良玉顶包的事情。 　　

8、 证人黄军的证言，证实 2010年12月25日上午，黄标打电话给自己，说费良玉开车压了人，因费良玉没有驾驶证，要他替费良玉顶罪，自己告诉黄标绝对不能顶。黄标使用 15825696837打给自己的电话13717487290。自己怕黄标不听劝阻，所以又马上打电话给黄标的老婆，让黄标老婆也劝黄标千万不能帮别人顶罪。 　　

9、 证人兰明利（黄标的妻子）的证言，证实2010年12月25日，黄军打电话给自己说费良玉驾车压到人叫黄标顶一下，黄军劝黄标不要顶罪，不知道黄标听不听，叫自己再打电话给黄标，叫黄标不要顶罪。自己使用手机13168570255的号码和黄标手机15825696837联系，黄标说费良玉的车把人压死了，自己说人死了，你还顶罪，黄标说费良玉没有驾驶证保险不能赔偿，自己就叫黄标不要顶，后来自己又打电话给黄标，黄标同意不顶罪。 　　

10、证人侯洪云的证言，证实自己是从网络、新闻媒体上得知2010年12月25日费良玉驾驶皖K5B323车发生交通事故。2010年9月份，费良玉到蒙城买车，因为要贷款，需要找一个挂靠单位，于2010年9月17日到自己公司签订了挂靠协议书。自己公司向车主催还银行贷款，代办年审，保险等，皖K5B323车的货源、营利盈亏均与自己公司没有关系。自己公司与费良玉签订了驾驶员安全生产责任书。在签订协议时，费良玉还没有取得驾驶资格。 　　

11、证人王立权的证言，证实 2010年12月25日早上6点多，自己打电话给钱云会，他说在吃饭，自己就没说什么。7点左右钱云会来到自己家，问村里寄浙江省人大和浙江省反贪污局的信什么时候会有回音，自己说寄的信使快件，星期一应该会到，寄到后会有回信的，接着自己就把可以怕录像的手表拿出来教钱云会使用，然后自己跟钱云会说自己经常要去虹桥办事，不在寨桥村里，把可以拍录像的手表交给钱云会保管。自己去虹桥，钱云会把手表戴在手上回家去了。大概8点左右，自己接到钱云会的电话，因在车上就把电话挂了，到了虹桥之后，大约8点多，自己回个电话给钱云会，钱云会问自己上访材料还有没有，自己说上访材料已经没有了，钱云会说没有就算了，之后就再也没有联系了。大概9点多自己从杨典水家出来，到邮局寄样品时，接到钱成钱的电话，说钱云会被车子撞死了，要自己马上赶回去。随后自己就打电话给袁迪贵告诉他这件事，并立即坐公交车回寨桥村。袁迪贵在电话里要着急把肇事车辆的轮胎气放掉，再去多拍一些钱云会事故现场的录像和照片，把拍成的录像和照片放到网上去，把政府的“面子”倒掉（指让政府丢脸）。因为政府说钱云会是因为交通事故被压死的，这么做表明钱云会是被谋害的，从而引起媒体关注，让政府丢“面子”。自己听了袁迪贵叫自己去拍录像的话之后，于10时许就到事故现场，从钱云会伸到车轮外的那只手上摘下手表，戴在自己的手上，把事故现场的情况拍了下来。拍好后便把手表交给小儿子，让他把录像拷出来，放在一个白色的U盘上，然后把手表交给了老婆黄雪芬。2010年12月25日下午4点多，自己再钱清松家里，把袁迪贵的话告诉了钱云会的两个堂兄，钱清松、钱成钱、钱云勇都在场。自己被抓时悄悄把U盘放在坐车副驾驶座的后背袋里。用手表拍摄的录像，自己夫妇及两个儿子王旭旭、王旭乐和钱成钱都看过。因袁迪贵让自己把拍成的录像放在网上，自己不会上网就把这件事嘱咐小儿子王旭乐先不要把录像放在网上，等记者过来了解采访了再说，具体小儿子有没有把录像传到网上就不清楚了。自己平时使用13968782708的号码与袁迪贵13641150649的号码联系。 　　

12、证人薛品芬的证言，证实 2011年1月14日上午，同村的陈赛英有事情找自己，于是到寨桥村陈赛英家里，陪同陈赛英到蒲岐边防派出所，将之前黄雪芬放在她家里一些东西主动上交给公安机关。黄雪芬放在陈赛英家里的两袋物品，经当面清点，有一只手表，八个光盘，还有一些上访的材料，手表是不锈钢的表带，白色表盘，表面12点方向有磨损。 　　

13、证人陈赛英的证言，证实自己家和黄雪芬家属前后门的隔壁邻居，2010年12月25日左右，黄雪芬（王立权的妻子）将两大袋东西放在自己家里，自己也没多问，把东西接过来放在楼梯下。后听说有公安局的人到家里找东西，于是就打电话给蒲岐镇妇女主任薛品芬，让她陪同自己一起到蒲岐边防派出所把这些东西上交给公安机关。该两大袋东西经民警现场清点，发现里面有一只手表、八个光盘，还有一些上访材料。手表是不锈钢的表带，白色表盘、表盘内有英文字母，表面12点方向有磨损。 　　

14、证人黄雪芬的证言，证实 2010年12月25日王立权从外面回来带回来一块手表和一只钱云会的手机（手表装在红色袋子里，手机放在白色袋子里），王立权将手表交给小儿子王旭乐。后自己到楼上时看见王立权和两个儿子在电脑前看录像，就在旁边看了一会儿，看见的视频内容为：钱云会躺在车轮下面，已经死了，被旁边一些人围住。而后自己将手表连同袋子一起放在了前排屋子邻居陈赛英家里。 　　

15、证人王旭旭的证言，证实 2010年12月25日10点多，自己下班后经过寨桥村村口时得知钱云会被车撞死了，母亲告知父亲王立权已经赶到蒲岐镇寨桥村的事故现场。中午12点时许，父亲王立权和钱成钱一起回到家里。下午3-4点父亲王立权拿着钱云会的一部手机和一只手表回了趟家，并让弟弟王旭乐把手表里面的文件拷到父亲王立权的一个U盘里面，在自己的电脑上播放U盘里的视频文件，看到其中有一段是钱云会被车撞死的现场视频，后来自己把钱云会被车撞死的现场视频保存在电脑里，播放视频时弟弟王旭乐、父亲王立权、母亲黄雪芬都在场。刚开始视频出现的钱云会的面部特写画面，估计是钱云会自己带着拍摄的，后来视频开始摇摇晃晃的，拍的是路上一些画面（就是钱云会被车撞死的那个现场附近的情景画面），另外还听到有汽车喇叭的声音，最后那段视频就固定在一个画面上，这时候估计钱云会应该是被车撞死了倒在地上，后来看到很多人围观，然后镜头就停止在那里。看完视频后，父亲王立权告知自己不要出去说钱云会是被汽车撞死的，也不要说是谋杀的，什么都不能说。 　　

16、证人王旭乐的证言，证实 2010年12月25日下午，父亲王立权给一只手表、一条数据连接线及一只U盘，说手表是从钱云会的手上偷偷摘下来的，这只手表有摄影、录像的功能，让自己把手表内文件拷出放到U盘里，后自己用数据线把手表连到电脑上，点击进入手表内的存储盘，发现有多个视频文件，但自己的电脑里没有播放软件，无法打开观看，哥哥（王旭旭）的电脑里装有“快播”播放软件，后在王旭旭电脑上进行操作，把手表存储盘里的资料复制到电脑桌面，复制完成后将手表已经数据线还给父亲王立权。后父亲王立权称袁迪贵让他再拍些现场的资料，就带着手表出去了，期间，王旭旭也跟了出去，后王旭旭带着相机先回来，再次将手表和数据线给自己，并让自己将新拍的故事现场的视频也复制到电脑里。 　　17、证人孔献良的证言，证实2010年12月23日左右的一天中午，林金儿和王立权一起向自己借表，王立权称因村里选举要用，向自己借了一只有摄像拍照功能，全钢制、银白色并配有专门数据线的手表。 　　

18、证人林金儿的证言，证实2010年12月23日左右，自己与王立权闲聊时告诉自己的一个朋友有个手表很好用，有拍照和摄像功能，王立权要求去自己朋友家看手表，自己朋友孔献良将一只银白色的，具有摄像功能的手表给了王立权。 　　

19、证人钱成宇的证言，证实 2010年12月25日左右上午9时40分许，自己撑着雨伞从家里出来准备横过虹南大道往村里走，当走到叉路与虹南路交叉的路口，也就是事故现场前方南侧的路口时，发现左侧方向一辆工程车逆向从蒲岐方向往南岳方向慢慢开来，过一会就停下来，当时不知道发生事故，慢慢横过道路往村里走，当走到道路北侧的路口发现车下面压着一个人，走近看是村长，自己就在车头前叫起来，说车子压死人了，过二三分钟看到工程车的后面走出四个着保安衣服的人，他们往车后的方向走了，后来村里就出来很多村民。自己站的位置离事故现场有十五六米远，事故前没有看到也没听到工程车周围有争吵，工程车停下来时周围没有人。当时自己撑着雨伞也不知道发生了交通事故，所以没有注意看有人从工程车驾驶室下来，没有听到刹车声音，只听到发动机声音。工程车停下之前没有看到保安，保安当时在事故西首的道路上，距事故现场有二三十米远。自己当时跟村民说村长被车子压了，还说了车后走出四个人的情况，当时感觉村长死得比较奇怪，死者是寨桥村村长钱云会与自己没有关系，工程车驾驶员自己也不认识。 　　

20、证人蔡云龙的证言，证实自己是乐清湾港区开发建设管理委员会工作人员，在寨桥村交通事故发生之前，2010年12月18日中午1点半，寨桥村部分村民，利用毛竹在虹南路通往港区的路口设置路障，阻挡通行的车辆，并派人看守，19日上午一帮人又拉电线杆横住路口，阻挡所有通往港区车辆通行，造成工程停工，给港区的工程建设造成很大损失。蒲岐镇党委政府及时商议事件处置工作，决定于21日上午组织力量进行清除路障，同时开展电力线路施工，为保障电力线路安装工程的顺利开展，对寨桥村地段施工现场实行保护性施工。12月25日上午，因雨天施工停止，现场只留一百名保安在施工现场实行保护。 　　

21、证人施永钢的证言，证实 2010年3月24日，乐清市供电局与乐清市清湾港区投资发展有限公司签订一份电力电网线路施工协议书，工期原定为2010年4月1日至2010年6月 10日，原来设计为架空线路设置的，后因政策问题，从港区开始架空施工至寨桥村虹南大道路口的工程被暂停。2010年12月20日，自己公司（乐清市电力实业有限公司）与乐清市供电局订立施工合同，施工段从虹南大道寨桥村路口沿虹南大道共1.6公里的电力管道埋设。12月21日自己单位进场施工，12月 25日上午，虹南大道寨桥村段发生交通事故到现在都没有施工。因为施工有一些材料及机器摆放在路面上，占用约1/4的路面，有放机器的地方可能会多一些，也不会超过路面1/2，施工长度即占用路面长1.6公里。对占用路面堆放物外侧都放置红色反光锥，路面的机器及堆放的材料边缘还挂警示彩带，堆放的泥土都放在田里，现场保安人员说蒲岐镇政府与乐清市清湾港区投资发展有限公司请来保护施工，防止村民阻挠施工，保安人员的工资也不是跟自己单位结算的。12月 25日上午下雨，天气冷，自己公司没有施工。从12月21日施工到24日，从寨桥村路口（通往港区的路口）开始施工往西已完成900多米施工任务，这 900多米占用道路已经很少了，反光锥也基本上撤掉了，只有十几台机器还在路上，机器边缘上都放了反光锥。事故地点约在已完成施工路段中间位置即寨桥村路口（通往港区的路口）往西约450米处。 　　

22、证人杨林建的证言，证实自己是移动公司的工作人员，寨桥村于2010年12月20日安装的路面监控是“平安乐清工程”中的一项工作，由移动公司收蒲岐镇政府委托进行安装。12月 20日，自己接到蒲岐镇政府通知到寨桥村安装监控，12月21日上午8时许，开始对3个点进行安装监控，12月22日，开始对安装的监控进行视频调试，结果视频出现很大抖动，通过对摄像头的电缆进行更改，12月24日晚上将三个新装的监控视频调试到正常状态。12月25日12点53分之后，完成视频监控的录像功能，因此，寨桥村该三个监控点都是在12月25日12点52分开始进行录像，在这之前监控是即时看的，没有录像功能。 　　

23、证人郑元章的证言，证实 2010年12月25日，自己和约100名保安在蒲岐镇寨桥村保障电力施工安全，因中队负责的那路段没有施工，且天气比较寒冷，外面还下着雨，大家都在公交车上休息，自己下车小便时正横穿马路到道路对面去，听到左侧的道路上传来刹车的声音，转头向左侧方向看，看到一辆工程车在道路北侧的路边往南岳方向行驶，正在刹车，很快便停下来了。车停后自己看到该车左前轮下压着一个人，但只看到被压的人的头部，躯干部在车身下面没有看到，事故发生后那辆车子稍微有点斜着停在道路的北侧边上。当时自己距离事故现场约四五十米远，事故发生前该工程车及被害人的情况自己都不清楚，事故发生时工程车的两侧及后面都没有其他人，前面情况不清楚。 　　

24、证人蔡得宝的证言，证实2010年12月25日发生交通事故时自己也在现场，但没有看到事故发生的经过，是在上午9点多，有人过来喊着说前面路上发生交通事故有人被压死了，才知道发生该起事故，自己下车站在公交车旁边打电话给队长施林云并告知他发生事故。 　　

25、证人孙金绪的证言，证实 2010年12月21日开始，自己带保安公司100个人在虹南大道地段保护“光缆”施工。2010年12月25日，自己和施林云在路上巡逻，早上9点多二人巡逻到南岳电厂地段时，有人打电话给施林云说寨桥村村口发生交通事故，有个人被压在车底下，于是二人就往现场赶。到现场发现有辆工程车停在路上，工程车的左前轮还压着一个人。当时寨桥村口有个人朝村里挥手，并叫喊着“人被车压死了”，自己就打电话报警，打好电话后，村里出来很多村民。 　　

26、证人施林云的证言，证实自己没有看到事故发生的经过，事故发生当天自己和孙金绪乘坐由驾驶员马伟松驾驶的浙CEF597车在虹南大道寨桥村地段巡逻，大概9点40分多，巡逻到南岳电厂地段时，接到班长蔡得宝电话，说寨桥村口发生一起工程车把村民压死的交通事故，于是就调头赶往事故现场，到现场后孙金绪经理报了警，看到一辆工程车停在道路左侧（以工程车行驶方向为准）路边，车底下趴着一个人被工程车左前轮压着，自己看到有二个男的在现场了，后来陆陆续续过来很多村民来打孙金绪和自己。 　　

27、证人吴浅浅证言，证实 2010年12月25日上午，自己和同事在虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村电缆施工现场执勤，因当天下雨，施工暂停，保安人员分坐五辆公交车上，停在施工地段路边，每辆车坐了二十来位，约一百位保安，施工地段道路两侧分别停两辆和三辆车，自己坐在施工现场这一侧的车里，上午9点多（具体时间自己没看手表），同事张回跑来说前面一辆车子压死一个人，于是自己就下车观看，下车看到四、五十米远的路上，停了一辆大货车，自己站在大货车右后轮正后方位置低头往车底下看，发现大货车左前轮下面压了一个人，当时只看到那人的下半身在左前轮内侧位置，看了这情况马上往回跑。 　　

28、证人张回的证言，证实 2010年12月25日，自己和大约100位保安一起在虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村电缆施工现场保障施工安全，事故发生时自己坐在公交车里，公交车距离事故现场大约三四十米远，自己没有看到事故发生的经过，是郑元章下车到公路对面小便时，看到事故发生的经过后回到车上告诉自己的，自己就下去看，看到了事故车的车头前方位置，发现一个人的头颈部及胸部被工程车的左前轮压住，并且内脏都露在了外面，人已经死了，自己就报了警。 　　

29、证人赵峰的证言，证实发生事故当天自己听到有人喊前面出事故了，于是打开车门跑下车准备去事故现场看，但刚跑到车头位置就被蔡得宝叫回来了，另外还有一个人姜协珞珞也下车了，也被蔡得宝叫回来了，对面车辆有几个人也下车了，但都在车边位置就被班长叫回来了，因自己没跑出车头位置，所以事故现场情况没看到，后来队长施林云和经理孙金绪被人围攻，自己才拿了装备下车去解救。 　　

30、证人姜协珞珞的证言，证实发生事故当天自己和赵峰同班坐同一辆中巴车在施工现场附近待命，车辆停放位置距离事故现场以西70米左右，赵峰先下车，自己也紧跟着想下车，但跑到车门位置就被班长蔡得宝叫住。 　　

31、110接警单，证实报警电话18655852668，接警2010年12月25日9时46分45秒，案发地址蒲岐镇华一村，报警类型交通事故，报警内容：虹南大道，工程车（皖 K5B323车）压到人，人可能已死亡。到达现场，请立即向指挥中心报告。后报警电话：15825686129、13588951682、 13706776091、13706776091、13506522410、13736372032、13819766958.
　　

32、到案经过说明，证实 2010年12月25日09时48分许，乐清市交警大队虹桥中队接110指令称：虹南大道，工程车（皖K5B323车）压到人，人可能已死亡。接警后，虹桥交警中队民警周斌、协警马斌杰马上赶赴现场，在现场附近有一男子（费良玉）跟着周斌说自己是车主，称自己知道驾驶员的下落，愿意带民警去寻找，后到达虹桥镇虹南大道大转盘附近时，费良玉驾驶员通电话后称驾驶员在现场，又返回到现场寻找，但没有找到，费良玉与驾驶员通电话后又称驾驶员在虹桥镇虹南路大转盘附近，当日10时许30分许，费良玉随后离开虹桥交警中队，当日12时许，民警队黄标进行询问，黄标交代了费良玉驾驶皖K5B323号重型自卸货车发生交通事故，事故发生后费良玉叫黄标顶替的事实，民警即电话通知费良玉到乐清交警大队接受调查及核实相关情况，费良玉于当日14时多到达乐清交警大队，在民警询问时费良玉开始不承认，后来交代了自己驾驶皖K5B323号重型自卸货车发生交通事故叫黄标顶替的事实。 　　

33、手机通话详细清单，证实费良玉所使用手机18655852668在发生事故后与黄标所使用手机15825696837于2010年12月25日9:46:27至10:17:31 有多次通话记录。黄标所使用手机15825696837于2010年12月25日在发生事故后与黄军所使用手机13717487290有通话记录，之后，黄军又有打电话给黄标，以及黄标老婆兰明利所使用手机13168570255多次给黄标手机联系的记录。2010年12月25日12:59开始至 14:01:11民警余兵新、赵顺余用黄标所使用手机15825696837与费良玉持用手机5次通话，要求（督促）费良玉到交警队接受调查及核实相关情况。 　　

34、搜查笔录、扣押物品清单、扣押物品的照片，证实2011年1月13日侦查人员对2010年12月25日王立权被传唤过程中所乘坐的浙CUJ322别克商务车进行搜查，发现车中间排右座位的后背椅套袋内，有壹黑色SONY牌的U盘袋子，内有一只不锈钢颜色的SONY牌的U盘。该U盘已经庭审出示。 　　

35、上交物品笔录、清点物品笔录、扣押物品清单、扣押物品的照片，证实2011年1月14日上午，陈赛英在蒲岐镇妇女主任薛品芬的陪同下，主动到乐清市公安局蒲岐边防派出所，将两大袋物品上交公安机关。民警当场对这些物品进行了清点，其中有手表一只、光盘八个及一些上访材料上交给蒲岐边防派出所。 　　

36、温州市公安局物证鉴定所温公（物）鉴（电）字[2011]3号电子物证检验报告（光盘2张），证实采用只读检验设备提取手表摄像机、SONY U 盘中的视频数据并检出手表型摄像机中视频文件13个，SONY U 盘中视频文件13个，并刻录成光盘。 　　

37、物证手表和播放手表型摄像机中的录像视频及情况说明（对视频内容加以解说），证实2010年12月25日9时45分41秒左右（经时间校正，该手表默认的摄录时间比北京时间快3 分23秒以上，一下表述的时间均为手表视频记录时间），钱云会开启手表摄录功能，并撑着一把粉红色带卡通图案的雨伞由蒲岐往南岳方向在虹南大道上一路行走，9时48分18秒，钱云会快到寨桥村路口时从右向左转身前行，此时听到两声巨大的汽车喇叭声音，9时48分20秒钱云会被车子撞到，9时48分28秒被压在前轮下。 　　

事故发生后，因佩戴手表的左手伸在车身外面，该手表继续保持摄录，记录了事故后的现场情况。该视频证明：被害人钱云会事故发生时佩戴摄像功能手表，并开启了摄录功能，手表所摄录的视频资料详细记录了案发当天钱云会的活动轨迹以及在事故现场附近行走直至发生交通事故的整个过程，包括案发时间、死者单独行走、所撑雨伞、沿途路况、车辆警告喇叭声、司机下车情景以及后来围观的目击者等情况。 　　

38、物证雨伞一把，证实公安机关侦查人员在交通事故现场钱云会尸体旁提取，伞面带有卡通图案。 　　

39、山塘山建筑材料矿门口视频监控和视频图像采集记录（事故当天皖K5B323工程车行驶路线），证实湾底村到寨桥村测距3.6km，在视频名为“山塘山门口”视频中显示皖 K5B323重型自卸货车与2010年12月25日9时37分59秒经过山塘山建材料矿门口（因监控时间比实际慢22秒，实际时间应为38分21秒）。在视频名为“华一村路口”的视频中显示皖K5B323号重型自卸货车于2010年12月25日42分09秒经过华一村路口（因监控时间比实际慢38秒，实际时间应为43分20秒）。 　　

40、过磅单三张，证实2010年12月25日7时58分、8时50分、9时37分，皖K5B323车出入情况（朱银辉过磅单三张）。 　　

41、道路交通事故现场勘查笔录，证实事故地点乐清市红南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村地段，天气雨，勘察时间2010年12月25日10时10分至12月25日10时50分，现场勘察道路走向东西，道路行政等级县道（二级），道路南侧有建筑施工堆积物，道路交通标志有标志、标线，限速60公里/小时，道路隔离设施有中心黄色单虚线，道路东通乐清市南岳镇方向，西通虹桥镇方向，北侧为蒲岐镇寨桥村民房，南为农田，双向行车路宽为16.0米，道路南侧有建筑堆积物，距道路南侧为5.6米，长度为 34.0米。现场找到证人钱成宇，居民身份证号330382196503064714，联系电话15314801967；现场提取尸体旁雨伞一把，皖 K5B323号重型自卸货车正前有碰撞痕迹，距地高0.68至0.76米，距车左前角0.52至0.60米，此痕迹在保险杠上。正前车底散热器铁架上有碰撞痕迹，距地高0.54至0.57米，距车左前角为0.98至1.10米，正前左角灯整体向后旋转，角灯防护罩铁丝上有碰撞痕迹，距地高0.58至 0.62米，距左前角为0.45至0.50米，都是擦印。皖K5B323号重型自卸货车头东尾西停在道路北侧的道路上，左前轮在道路北外侧1.30米，距寨桥村村牌26.0米（右前轮），左前轮在道路外侧泥土地上留下（与死体一起）5.5米长拖印，始点距道路北内侧0.3米，终点在左前轮下，左后前轮在道路上，距道路北内侧为0.2米，在道路上留下4.7米长压印，终点在轮下，始点距道路北内侧为0.8米，左后后轮距道路北内侧为0.4米，尸体头北脚南俯在道路上，头在左前轮前0.5米，双脚分开，半跪在道路上，脚距道路北内侧0.2米。 　　

42、道路交通事故照片及说明、道路交通事故现场图、交通事故现场图，证实2010年12月25日上午，费良玉驾驶皖K5B323号重型自卸货车从虹桥镇湾底村运送石料前往临港开发区围垦工地。当日9时45分许，车辆途经虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村路段时，遇行人钱云会在车前方道路右侧向左横穿，费良玉左打方向并刹车避让不及，车头左侧碰倒钱云会，左前轮碾压其胸颈部，致其当场死亡。 　　

43、温州市公安局物证鉴定所温公（物）鉴（尸）字[2010]228G号法医学尸体检验意见书，证实死者钱云会尸表检查所见，其损伤主要为颈部毁损伤、大部离断，胸部毁损伤，下颌骨骨折伴多颗牙齿脱落，左肱骨骨折，右前臂、右手背及双下肢软组织挫伤，其损伤形态特征符合遭机动车辆碰撞、碾压所致，终因颈部胸部重度毁损伤而死亡。 　　

44、温州市公安局物证鉴定所温公（物）鉴（DNA）字[2011]147号法医物证鉴定书，证实在送检的手表上血迹中检出人血迹，经15个STR分型未排除死者钱云会，支持该人血迹未死者钱云会所留，不支持为其他随机个体所留。 　　

45、温州长顺机动车司法鉴定事务所温长顺[2010]车检字第4179号司法鉴定意见书，证实因事故现场为潮湿的水泥路面，且部分路面积有泥土，事故路面附着系数无法准确测定，因此，鉴定条件不足，无法测算发生事故时该车的行驶速度。皖K5B323号解放牌重型自卸货车行车制动原装载测试制动性能差，空载测试制动性能正常；转向系统技术状况正常，符合GB7258-2004《机动车运行安全技术条件》的有关技术要求；整车含货物总质量为60020kg。 　　

46、温州市公安局交通警察支队温公交认字（2010）第001号交通事故认定书，证实费良玉未依法取得机动车驾驶证驾驶严重超载的机动车辆，在发现行人的动态后采取措施不力，其行为违反《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第十九条“驾驶机动车，应当依法取得机动车驾驶证”和第四十八条“机动车载物应当符合核定的载质量，严禁超载”之规定和《浙江省实施<中华人民共和国道路交通安全法>办法》第三十七条“在没有交通信号控制的道路应当在确保有序、安全、畅通的前提下通行”之规定，对发生事故起着主要作用，其过错程度比较重。钱云会在机动车辆驶近、未确保安全的情况下横穿道路，其行为违反《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第七十五条“行人横过机动车道应当从过街设施通过；没有行人过街设施的，应当从人行横道通过；没有人行横道的，应当观察来往车辆的情况。确认安全后直行通过，不得在车辆临近时突然加速横穿或者中途倒退、折返。”之规定，对发生事故起着次要作用，其过错误度相对较轻。根据《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第九十一条之规定费良玉应负事故的狐妖责任，钱云会应负事故的次要责任。 　　

47、皖K5B323车行驶证和皖K5B323称重单及保险单，证实皖K5B323车所有人颍上县长春汽车运输有限公司，外廓尺寸8843×2500×3280mm，检验有效期至 2011年9月，强制报废期止2025年9月14日。2010年12月25日17时17分26秒，皖K5B323车总质量为25000KG，核定载质量为 12405KG，皮重为600020kg，超载35020kg，超载率282%。保险期限自2010年9月14日零时起至2011年9月13日24时止。 　　

48、费良玉、皖K5B323 车的交管信息系统查询情况，分别证实费良玉居民身份证号码342128197908294410，驾驶证核查结果为无，打印于全国交管信息系统；大型汽车皖K5B323车辆信息，皖K5B323车所有人为颍上县长春汽车运输有限公司，住址安徽省阜阳市颍上县慎城镇404线，检验有效期至2011年9月30 日。 　　

49、车辆信息、挂靠协议书、证实皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车登记所有人为颍上县长春汽车运输有限公司，实际车主为费良玉，为挂靠。 　　

50、阜阳市公安局交警支队机动车驾驶技能准考证明，机动车驾驶证申请表等，证实费良玉报考车型B2，于2010年5月27日科目一初考成绩97（交通理论和相关知识），2010年7 月29日科目二桩考试成绩补考不合格（汽车电子桩），2010年10月28日科目二桩考成绩初考合格（则方位、上坡路、连续障碍、单边桥、百米挡），科目三（汽车道路考试未考）。 　　

51、身份证明（常住人口基本信息）及无犯罪记录证明，证实费良玉于1979年8月29日出生于安徽省颍上县，在实施犯罪时已达完全刑事责任能力人，案发前无犯罪记录。 　　

52、蒲岐镇人民调解委员会调解书及收据，证实死者钱云会近亲属王招燕、钱旭玲、钱旭丹全权委托钱成旭（钱云会之子）与被告人费良玉的委托代理人张勇在蒲岐镇人民调解委员会对本案民事部分达成协议，费良玉赔（补）偿死亡赔偿金、丧葬费、被扶（赡）养人生活费、精神抚慰金以及受害人亲属办理丧葬事宜支出的交通费、误工损失及其他一切经济损失，合计人民币壹佰零伍万元（人民币1050000元），本案一次性了结，今后不得再向费良玉及山塘山矿山项目部提出任何赔偿要求，也不得以任何理由妨碍矿山工程建设，否则承担应有责任。上述款项于本调解书签字之日付人民币贰拾万元（人民币200000元），尸体火化安葬后付人民币捌拾伍万元（人民币 850000元），且该款项已如期收讫。 　　

本院认为，被告人费良玉违反交通运输管理法规，未取得驾驶资格驾驶机动车，严重超载驾驶，造成交通事故致一人死亡，肇事后逃逸，且负该事故的主要责任，其行为已构成交通肇事罪，公诉机关指控的罪名成立，适用法律正确。关于附带民事诉讼，由于需要追加相关当事人等原因，故依法不予合并审理，在刑事案件审判后，由同一审判组织继续审理附带民事诉讼。因此，诉讼代理人要求延期开庭合并审理的理由不足，不予采纳。此外，本案证据试听资料（视频光盘）调取程序合法、证实的内容客观，具有关联性，真实反映事故现场情况，与其他证据等能相互印证，应当予以认定，故诉讼代理人对该证据的质疑，不予支持。被告人及其辩护人辩称被告人费良玉没有逃离现场，不构成逃逸，要求对被告人及其辩护费良玉适用缓刑。经查，被告人费良玉在肇事后要求黄标顶替，并在交警到达事故现场时自称系肇事车主，隐瞒自己为肇事者，并和他人将黄标送至虹桥交警中队，其本人则回家换了肇事时所穿的衣服。黄标归案后指认费良玉系真正肇事者，费良玉归案起初拒不承认，后才予以承认。被告人虽无“逃离现场”的行为，但其找人顶替，主观目的显然是为了逃避法律追究，客观方面表现为隐匿自己为肇事者，其行为符合逃逸的实质要件。由此可认定被告人费良玉的行为构成交通肇事后逃逸。因此，被告人及辩护人关于不构成逃逸的辩护意见，不予采纳。被告人的辩护人辩称被告人费良玉仅负交通事故的主要责任，归案后认罪态度较好，系初犯、偶犯，并且被告人委托代理人与被害人亲属达成赔偿协议，被害人亲属获取赔偿款人民币105万元，要求对被告人费良玉从轻处罚的辩护意见与查明的事实及相关法律相符，予以采纳。综合被告人犯罪事实、情节、危害后果及其认罪、悔罪表现，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百三十三条、第六十一条，及《最高人民法院关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条之规定，判决如下： 　　被告人费良玉犯交通肇事罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月。 　　（刑期从判决执行之日起计算，判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日折抵刑期一日，即自2010年12月25日起至2014年6月24日止）。 　　

如不服本判决，可在接到判决书的第二日起十日内，通过本院或者直接向浙江省温州市中级人民法院提出上诉。书面上诉的应当提交上诉状正本一份，副本二份。
　　审 判 长 方 孔 强 　　审 判 员 赵 少 华 　　人民陪审员 南 慧 蔚
　　二〇一一年二月一日

　　书 记 员 高 文 丹 　　书 记 员 周 鹏 宇

费良玉“交通肇事案”庭审记录

特别感谢21世纪经济报道记者王思璟在2月1日庭审以及在此前后采访中的卓越努力，由于王思璟的的努力才使得王思璟、刘建锋等能排除干扰顺利进入法庭听审。

此记录根据庭审时的多份记录和庭审现场旁听者的记忆整理而成，最主要根据刘建锋、王思璟等的笔记等庭审记录，由于采自现场记录，整理者竭力对庭审原样记录，但实不可能，因此略有脱漏望见谅。

感谢中国经济时报记者欧阳艳琴不辞辛劳将该记录整理成文。

庭审时间：2011年2月1日上午8：30——午间13：15左右

地点：浙江省乐清市人民法院第五法庭

审判长：方孔强

审判员：赵少华

人民陪审员：南慧蔚

书记员：高文丹 周鹏宇

公诉人：乐清市人民检察院林宏炽、余乐燕

诉讼代理人：上海大邦律师事务所合伙人 斯伟江

被告辩护人：浙江光正大律师事务所律师  周光、吴之欧

被告人：费良玉

证人，全案仅黄标一位证人到庭参加庭审。

诉讼代理人斯伟江接受死者钱云会之父钱顺南的委托参加庭审。

死者钱运会的亲属无一人出现在庭审现场。

费良玉家属二人旁听了审理全程。

一、调查阶段

公诉人宣读起诉书

《乐清市人民检察院起诉书（乐检刑诉[2011]73号）》

被告人费良玉，男，1979年8月29日出生，身份证号码XXXX，汉族，文化程度初中，住安徽省颍上县黄桥镇张庄村东海队58号，因本案2010年12月25日被乐清市公安局刑事拘留，经本院批准同意，2011年1月4日被依法逮捕，本案由乐清市公安局侦查终结，因被告人费良玉涉嫌交通肇事罪于2011年1月18日向本院移送审查起诉。本院受理后，依法告知被告人有权委托辩护人，告知被害人近亲属有权委托诉讼代理人，并依法讯问了被告人，审查有关案卷材料。

经依法审查查明，2010年12月25日上午，被告人费良玉在未取得机动车驾驶资格的情况下，驾驶装载石料的皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车，荷载12405公斤，超载35020公斤，超载率282%，从乐清市虹桥镇湾底村开往乐清市临港开发区围垦工地。当日9:45时，车辆途经虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村路段时，遇行人钱云会，在车前方道路右侧向左横穿，被告人费良玉刹车但仍避让不及，车头左侧将钱云会碰倒，左前轮碾压其胸颈部，致钱云会当场死亡，撞车后被告人费良玉指使他人顶替，企图逃避法律追究。经温州市公安局交警支队认定，该交通事故中，被告人费良玉负主要责任。经法医鉴定，被害人钱云会遭机动车辆碰撞、碾压致颈部、胸部重度毁损伤而死亡。

认定上述事实的证据如下：

一、物证书证：110接警单、扣押物品文件清单、机动车驾驶证查询结果、称重单、机动车行驶证信息、调解书、户籍证明等；二、证人证言：证人黄标、高广跃、王立权、薛品芬、陈赛英、黄雪芬等人的证言；三、被告人费良玉的供述和辩解；四、鉴定意见：交通事故认定书、法医学尸体检验意见书、司法鉴定意见书、电子物证检验报告、法医物证鉴定书；五、勘验检查笔录、道路交通事故现场勘查笔录；六、视听资料。

本院认为，被告人费良玉违反交通安全管理法律法规，无证驾驶超载车辆，因而发生重大事故致一人死亡，且肇事后逃逸，其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第133条，犯罪事实清楚，证据确实充分，依法应以交通肇事案追究其刑事责任，根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第141条之规定，提起公诉，请依法判处。

被告人费良玉对被指控事实进行陈述

费良玉：一个就是那个车辆，行驶至寨桥村路段时，行人钱云会从道路的右侧向左侧横穿，他是突然横穿，然后我是鸣笛，向左打方向避让并刹车，避让不及，并不是直接刹车。

还有就是，这个死亡者的家属，已经接受了我的损害赔偿，但是……

还有一个就是肇事逃逸，我认为是不成立的。

辩护人陈述：（无）

诉讼代理人陈述：（无）

公诉人对指控事实讯问被告人

公诉人：2010年12月25日，你有没有驾驶皖K5B323大货车？

费良玉：有。

公诉人：当时车上有没有其他人？

费良玉：有。

公诉人：谁？

费良玉：驾驶员黄标。

公诉人：黄标坐在哪里？

费良玉：副驾驶。

公诉人：车辆沿什么线路行驶的？

费良玉：虹南大道。

公诉人：从哪里开往哪里？

费良玉：从虹南大道到围垦工地。

公诉人：开往临港开发区围垦工地是吧？

费良玉：对。

法官：被告人声音响一点，回答公诉人声音响一点。

公诉人：车上装载有什么货物？有没有超载？

费良玉：矿渣，石料。

公诉人：嗯。有没有超载？

费良玉：超载，应该是超载了。

公诉人：你有没有驾驶机动车的资格？

公诉人：驾驶证有没有？

费良玉：驾驶证还没有取得。但已经考试过了三关。

公诉人：在什么时间发生了交通事故？

费良玉：九点多钟吧。

公诉人：具体时间，九点多少？

费良玉：具体要问报警单，上面有时间，发生事故我立刻报警了。

公诉人：发生事故的地点在哪里？

费良玉：在虹南大道路上，寨桥村路段。

公诉人：经过事故路段时，你的车辆在道路的哪一侧行驶？

费良玉：右道封闭，在左道行驶。左道的右侧。

公诉人：在左道，是否有其他车辆？

费良玉：其他车辆，我是尾随其他车辆行驶的，并不是我自己一个穿行的。

公诉人：发现行人时，行人距离车辆有多少米？

费良玉：这个，具体有多少米我搞不清楚，只有一个大概。

公诉人：大概多少米？

费良玉：大概有个五六米、六七米的样子吧。

公诉人：对方是一个什么样的状态？怎么行走的？

费良玉：与我的车辆同向而行，在车前方，靠道路右侧。

公诉人：有没有横穿马路的行为？

费良玉：本身是同向行驶，他在前我在后，然后到我车辆行进的时候，他突然向左侧横穿。

公诉人：你发现这个情况以后，有没有采取什么措施？

费良玉：我发现他，刚开始横穿的时候，就鸣笛，然后鸣笛他没有理会，他继续这么动，然后我接着是左打方向，并刹车，避让。

公诉人：有没有避让过去啊？

费良玉：没有。

公诉人：车辆的什么部位和行人发生了碰撞？

费良玉：车前方，驾驶室前方。

公诉人：事故发生以后，你是怎么下车的？

费良玉：推开车门下车了。

公诉人：是车的左侧车门还是右侧车门？

费良玉：右侧。

公诉人：右侧的话，黄标坐在驾驶室，你是怎么出去的？

费良玉：我从他身上跨过来。

公诉人：那个，行人被撞的情况怎么样？

费良玉：应该是当场死亡。

公诉人：行人在什么位置？

费良玉：在左侧前轮下面。

公诉人：轧死了是吧？

费良玉：对。

公诉人：你刚才说到，你是向左打方向避让，那行人为什么会轧在左前轮的位置？

费良玉：这个我不是专业，我无法回答你这个问题。

公诉人：那个死者你之前认识吗？

费良玉：不认识。

公诉人：你有没有报警？

费良玉：报了。

公诉人：你是怎么报的警？

费良玉：用我自己的手机拨打110。

公诉人：然后你有没有离开现场？

费良玉：没有。

公诉人：你在现场等交警过来是吧？

费良玉：对。

公诉人：那你在等交警的过车中，做了什么事？

费良玉：打了电话。

公诉人：打给谁了？

费良玉：打给我们车队负责的那个，我的老乡高广跃。

公诉人：还有呢？

费良玉：还有就是驾驶员黄标。

公诉人：你打电话给黄标说了什么内容？

费良玉：因为我下车以后就一个人嘛，我找不到他以后，想联系到他，另外想问这个驾驶员车辆保险的问题，想让他帮我顶替一下。

公诉人：你叫黄标顶替，黄标有没有答应为你顶替？

费良玉：他也没有同意，没有说同意，也没有说不同意。

公诉人：你认为他同意不同意？

费良玉：这个具体我也不太清楚，反正当时他没说同意也没说不同意。

公诉人：你是不是就当他同意了？

费良玉：我心里有这个侥幸的想法。

公诉人：交警到现场以后，你跟交警是怎么说的？

费良玉：交警到现场以后，我和他说，我是车主。

公诉人：交警有没有问你肇事司机在哪里？

费良玉：他问我的原话是，司机在哪里？我告诉他，司机现在不在现场，但我可以联络到他。

公诉人：你有没有带交警去找这个“肇事司机”？

费良玉：带了。

公诉人：后来这个黄标，是谁把他送到交警队的？

费良玉：高广跃。

公诉人：高广跃个人吗？

费良玉：高广跃和我一起。

公诉人：送到交警队了是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

公诉人：之后交警有没有打电话给你，让你到交警队配合调查？

费良玉：有。

公诉人：你有没有去交警队接受谈话？

费良玉：去了。

公诉人：到了交警队之后，你有没有说是黄标开车？

费良玉：最开始闲聊的时候我说了。

公诉人：后来有没有如实交代？

费良玉：后来做笔录的时候我就说是我自己开的。

公诉人：那个时候，是不是黄标已经说清楚了他是肇事司机的？

费良玉：我不知道。因为我没有和他见面。

公诉人：你刚才说，你已经给死者家属就民事部分达成了协议。是不是已经达成了？

费良玉：是。

辩护人补充性发问：（无）

诉讼代理人对被告人补充发问

诉讼代理人：被告，你看着我，我是钱云会父亲的诉讼代理人，有些问题问你一下，你有无宗教信仰，信不信什么佛教啊、基督教这些？

费良玉：怎么说呢，佛教我也信，基督教……

法官：诉讼代理人请注意，与本案无关的请不要发问。

诉讼代理人：法官，我认为跟本案有关系。你继续回答。

费良玉：回答完毕。

诉讼代理人：信是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

诉讼代理人：你有没有什么不良嗜好？比如说赌博啊，玩玩牌啊，有没有？

费良玉：这是我个人的问题，与本案无关。

法官：再次提醒，再次提醒，本庭再次提醒诉讼代理人，可以就本案的事实可以对被告人进行发问，补充性发问。

诉讼代理人：我认为这些跟犯罪动机也有可能有关系。所以。

法官：本庭再次提醒。

诉讼代理人：希望法庭宽容。第三个，我想问你，你说你是开车开过去，右半道是封闭的，怎么封闭的？

费良玉：这个现场应该有照片，你应该可以看得到。

诉讼代理人：因为你是驾驶员，你是看到了。

费良玉：你开车的话你也应该能看得到。

诉讼代理人：对，我问你是怎么封闭的？因为你刚告诉公诉人说右半道是封闭的，到底是怎么封闭的，到底是隔离带封闭的，车子封闭的，还是别的方式封闭的？

费良玉：有那种××用的警备装置。有一些反光物体。

诉讼代理人：有多少，大概？

费良玉：这个我没数。

诉讼代理人：多吗？

费良玉：不清楚。

诉讼代理人：那么你看到钱云会的时候，看到这个受害人，他有没有朝你，有没有动作？

费良玉：他在走路。

诉讼代理人：打伞吗？

费良玉：这个，具体我记不清楚了，但是下雨应该是打伞的。

诉讼代理人：那有没有朝你比如说扬扬手啊？

费良玉：没有。

诉讼代理人：那你最初回答警察讯问的时候你回答他朝你挥挥手，做出拦车的样子，这是你说的吗？

费良玉：因为当时，这也是我不懂法的体现啦，因为当时我在想，毕竟我是没证啊，如果说他拦车的话是不是会减轻我的责任。

诉讼代理人：那这个你有没有和黄标商量过的？

费良玉：这个，也跟他说过。

诉讼代理人：什么时候说的？

费良玉：案发以后。

诉讼代理人：案发以后的什么时候？见面的时候谈了吗？

费良玉：电话。

诉讼代理人：电话？大概几点钟？

费良玉：具体记不清了。

诉讼代理人：案发之后呢，还是黄标，第几个电话？还是第一个电话就说这些事情？

费良玉：第几个电话我也记不清楚，反正说了。

诉讼代理人：那你是跟他怎么说的呢？

费良玉：刚才我已经说过了。

诉讼代理人：黄标什么态度？

费良玉：也没有说可以，也没有说不可以。

诉讼代理人：那你，就是撞到钱云会之后，你刚刚回答公诉人是你从黄标身上爬过去，右边，你有没有打开过左边车门？

费良玉：具体记不清楚了，应该没打开。

诉讼代理人：那么你，从右边车门下车之后，你是在车头看的，还是车后面看的？

费良玉：这个，有点模糊。我在供述中也说过这种，还做过口供。

诉讼代理人：就根据你自己的情况。

费良玉：反正我下来看，看了。

诉讼代理人：下来看了之后，你看到了什么情况？

费良玉：看到撞倒钱云会死亡。

诉讼代理人：你大概离这个受害者有多少米距离？

费良玉：这个，没有清楚地计算。

诉讼代理人：那么，你说你打了110，你用的电话号码是，是不是尾号是5852668那个号码？

费良玉：你说前面。

诉讼代理人：前面这个，上面是看不清楚，复印材料看不清楚。是高广跃的你自己记得吧？

费良玉：这个我不太……但是我一直在使用。18655852668。

诉讼代理人：嗯，对。那么你打110的时候大概是几点钟？出了车祸马上就打吗？

费良玉：对。

诉讼代理人：出车祸大概什么时间？

费良玉：我刚才已经说过了。

法官：诉讼代理人，刚才已经问过了。

诉讼代理人：审判长，请尊重我。

法官：其他证据……

诉讼代理人：其他证据，跟其他证据是有印证不了的东西的。

法官：等一下，等一下在举证的时候你可以展开。

诉讼代理人：我觉得现在是需要提问，这是我的法定权利，请尊重我的法定权利。

法官：也要经过我审判长的许可。

诉讼代理人：对，但是也要合理，要公正。

法官：你认为审判长不合理、不公正吗？

诉讼代理人：对，因为我有其他证据证明，这个电话，在他电话单上是没有的。

法官：那你等一下在举证的时候。

诉讼代理人：那你为什么一定要控制我的发问的方向呢？如果我跟你完全一样的话那我还坐在这里干什么呢？

法官：你，法庭已经提醒你了，多次提醒你了，问没有问过的问题……

诉讼代理人：几点钟打过电话，还没问呢。

法官：他刚才已经回答公诉人了。

诉讼代理人：他回答公诉人几点钟？

费良玉：想不起来。

法官：你看你仔细听。所以不要跟审判长，再次提醒你，法庭补充性问题你再可以发问。

诉讼代理人：那么你除了给110打电话以外，还给黄标打电话，还给谁打电话？

费良玉：高广跃。

诉讼代理人：高广跃是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

诉讼代理人：高广跃和你是什么关系？

费良玉：老乡。

诉讼代理人：老乡是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

诉讼代理人：那么，事发的那个时候你穿的什么衣服？

费良玉：红色。

诉讼代理人：红色的是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

诉讼代理人：那么，你到了交警队之后，你穿的是什么颜色？

费良玉：黑色。

诉讼代理人：黑色？那你是什么时候回去换的衣服？

费良玉：从虹桥交警队到乐清交警队。

诉讼代理人：从虹桥交警队到乐清交警队？

费良玉：对。

诉讼代理人：这个半路上？

费良玉：对。

诉讼代理人：有没有人看到你去换衣服？

费良玉：这个我不太清楚。

诉讼代理人：你去换衣服的时候家里有没有人？

费良玉：没有。

诉讼代理人：那么为什么你一直跟警察交代的时候你说你一直穿的是黑色衣服？

费良玉：这个不是我自己说的，他们自己写的，说我去的时候是那个衣服。

诉讼代理人：是他们写的，不是你自己交代的？

费良玉：对。

诉讼代理人：那么你说你跟钱云会的家属签订了赔偿协议，能问下你的钱是从哪里来的吗？因为我听说你家里的经济状况不是很好？

费良玉：这个你应该去问我的诉讼代理人。因为是我委托他，让他去的。

诉讼代理人：好的。审判长，诉讼代理人发问完毕。

控辩双方进行举证质证

公诉方向法庭举证质证

公诉人向法庭出示本案的证据

公诉人：当庭出示的证据，经本院审查均由公安机关依法制作和取得，公诉人在出示证据过程中，对取证过程不再一一说明，如果法庭对某一份证据有疑问，公诉人再就该份证据加以说明。对言词证据部分，公诉人将对主要证据进行宣读，对次要证据概括说明证言内容，公诉人将采用分组举证的方式向法庭出示，全案证据为5组，请法庭准许。

法官：准许。

公诉人向法庭出示第一组证据

公诉人：公诉人将向法庭出示第一组证据，主要证明被告人费良玉，即肇事司机，其驾驶皖K5B323货车，于2010年12月25日上午9时45分许，途径蒲岐镇寨桥村路段发生事故，致1人死亡，事故后，费良玉让同车乘坐的黄标顶替，在民警对黄标进行询问，并掌握费良玉即实际肇事司机的情况下，通知费良玉到案。费良玉到案后，在第一次讯问过程中开始不承认自己是肇事司机，后承认自己是肇事司机并在肇事后喊黄标顶替的事实。

本组证据包括被告人费良玉的供述和辩解，证人黄标、黄军、兰明利、高广跃的证言，办案民警出具的办案经过、情况说明、接警单以及通话记录等。

第一项证据是被告人费良玉的供述和辩解。共11次供述，在卷宗第4卷第2条52页，因为被告人费良玉在本案侦查阶段和审查起诉阶段，对事故发生的多次供述内容基本一致，以及今天在法庭上的供述也一致，公诉人对其原供述内容不再宣读。

第二项证据是证人黄标的证言。由证人黄标当庭进行陈述。请法庭传证人黄标到庭。

法官：传证人黄标到庭。

法官：证人你叫什么名字？

黄标：黄标。

法官：什么时候出生？

黄标：75年，1975年1月26日。

法官：什么民族？

黄标：汉。

法官：什么文化程度？

黄标：小学。

法官：你跟费良玉是什么关系？

黄标：我们是同村。

法官：同村？

黄标：嗯。

法官：证人黄标，本院审理费良玉交通肇事一案，根据公诉机关的申请，通知你出庭作证，你应当向法庭如实提供证言。

（黄标在保证书上签字）

公诉人对证人进行询问

公诉人：证人黄标，2010年12月25日所发生的交通事故，你知道吗？

黄标：知道。

公诉人：你是怎么知道的？

黄标：因为我当时坐在车子的副驾驶的位置。

公诉人：你在乐清从事什么工作？

黄标：帮费良玉打工。

公诉人：打什么工啊？

黄标：给他开车。

公诉人：那发生事故的时候，那个皖K5B323这个大货车是谁开的？

黄标：费良玉。

公诉人：那个事故发生之前你有没有开过这个车？

黄标：我开过，开过两趟。

公诉人：你开了这个车干什么呢？

黄标：运那个石料。

公诉人：运了两趟是吧？

黄标：嗯，对对，运了两趟。

公诉人：那费良玉是什么时候接手开这个车？

黄标：他第三车的时候接手的。

公诉人：事故发生时候车上有几个人？分别坐在什么位置？

黄标：就是我和费良玉。费良玉。

公诉人：肇事的时候，你跟费良玉分别穿什么衣服？什么颜色的衣服？

黄标：我穿的是咖啡色×衣，费良玉穿的是紫红色的袄。

公诉人：你有没有看清楚交通事故发生的经过？

黄标：当时我看清事故发生时有一个人，在道路的中间往左侧横穿马路。

公诉人：然后呢？

黄标：然后就是，横穿马路，费良玉往这个左边打方向避让。

公诉人：有没有刹车？

黄标：刹车了。

公诉人：有没有鸣笛？

黄标：鸣笛了。

公诉人：这个人撞上了吗？

黄标：撞上了。

公诉人：撞的什么位置？

黄标：在他横穿马路的这个左侧，横穿马路的时候，这个车轮的左前方，把人碰倒在地。

公诉人：这个人走路横穿马路的时候，有没有向车辆招手、拦车的动作？

黄标：没有。

公诉人：在你以前的证言里面，曾经有说过，这个男的，这个行人，有招手拦车的动作，那今天说法为什么不一致？

黄标：因为当时费良玉跟我说，说他这个招手拦车，减轻车的这个，法律的这个……

公诉人：你的意思是说，这个拦车的动作会减轻什么东西？

黄标：会减轻这个……

公诉人：减轻你的事故责任是吧？

黄标：减轻事故责任。

公诉人：事故之后谁先下的车？

黄标：费良玉先下的车。

公诉人：他从车的哪一侧下的车？

黄标：从车的右侧。

公诉人：右边，跨过你的这里吧？

黄标：对。

公诉人：你有没有下车？

黄标：他下车以后我下了车。

公诉人：你看到什么情况？

黄标：当时我下车的时候，看到车子的左前轮轧着人，横穿马路那个。

公诉人：死了没有？

黄标：当场死亡。

公诉人：这个死者你是否认识？

黄标：不认识。

公诉人：你下车看到这个情况，费良玉在什么位置？

黄标：费良玉在车的后面。

公诉人：有没有到前面来？

黄标：后来到前面来了。

公诉人：你和他说什么？

黄标：我叫他赶紧报警。

公诉人：你是怎么离开现场的？

黄标：我是××叫他报警的时候，我说我打个电话……

公诉人：你跑到哪里打电话？

黄标：我是跑到那个事故现场后的小巷子。

公诉人：你离开的时候费良玉在哪里？

黄标：我离开的时候费良玉还在现场。

公诉人：那么你刚才说打电话了，打的哪些电话？

黄标：我第一个打给高广跃的儿子。他的电话关机，我打他的儿子。打给他儿子就是说……

公诉人：他的儿子是不是叫高彬啊？

黄标：高彬。我说你跟你爸爸说一下，费良玉出事了，开车撞了人。

公诉人：还有没有打给别人？

黄标：后来打给我弟弟，我叔叔。

公诉人：叔叔叫什么名字？

黄标：黄学庆。

公诉人：黄学庆是吧？

黄标：对。

公诉人：那费良玉有没有打电话给你？

黄标：打过。

公诉人：费良玉打电话给你说什么事？

黄标：他就是说交通事故，他无证驾驶，叫我顶替。

公诉人：叫你回到现场吗？

黄标：叫我回到现场。

公诉人：叫你回去干嘛？

黄标：他让我帮他顶替。

公诉人：叫你帮他顶替是吧？

黄标：对对对。

公诉人：你当时有没有马上答应？

黄标：没有。当时我没有马上答应。

公诉人：那你有没有跟别人商量是否给费良玉顶替这件事情？

黄标：我有说过这个事情。

公诉人：跟谁说？

黄标：后来我打电话给我堂弟说。

公诉人：你堂弟叫什么名字？

黄标：叫黄军。

公诉人：黄军有什么态度？

黄标：他叫我不要顶替。

公诉人：还有没有跟别人商量过？

黄标：别人，没有。

公诉人：你老婆有没有打电话过来？

黄标：我老婆是她自己打电话过来。

公诉人：她是怎么说？

黄标：她叫我不要顶替。

公诉人：也叫你不要替他顶？

黄标：对对对。

公诉人：那你后来有没有答应替费良玉顶啊？

黄标：我一直也没有明确地答复他。

公诉人：费良玉是给你打过一次，还是打过多次电话？

黄标：打过好几次。

公诉人：你没有明确答应，但是有没有明确拒绝啊？

黄标：……当时腿都吓软了。

公诉人：就是你没说答应给他顶替，也没不说不不答应给他顶替，就这个意思是吧？

黄标：对对。

公诉人：那你是怎么去的交警队？

黄标：我是坐一个老乡的车过来的。

公诉人：那你们是几个人去交警队？

黄标：三个人。

公诉人：还有谁？

黄标：费良玉。

公诉人：那在交警队的时候，费良玉是不是，有没有说你是开车的？

黄标：呃，说了。

公诉人：说了？

黄标：说了。

公诉人：你有没有否认？

黄标：当时我也没有……

公诉人：是默认了是吧？

黄标：对。当时……

公诉人：那后来在交警队里面，你有没有如实地讲清楚这个事情，是费良玉开车出的事故？

黄标：呃，在交警队说了，如实地说了。

公诉人：那，后来费良玉怎么归案，这个你知道不知道？

黄标：因为费良玉，我用的手机，是费良玉的卡，在交警队的时候，交警问我费良玉在哪……我说我这个手机有他的电话，交警拿起了电话打了费良玉的手机。

公诉人：就是叫费良玉过来配合调查是吧？

黄标：对。

公诉人：后来有没有看到费良玉过来？

黄标：呃，我看到了。

（公诉人对证人询问结束）

法庭质证

被告人质证：（无）

辩护人质证：（无）

诉讼代理人质证

诉讼代理人：有些问题问你，你要如实回答。呃，费良玉是你老板是吧？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：每个月给你发多少工资？

黄标：这个没有说。

诉讼代理人：没有说？

黄标：……

诉讼代理人：做了多长时间？

黄标：做了二十几天吧。

诉讼代理人：做了二十几天？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：那么事发当天你为什么没有开车，因为他雇的你当司机？

黄标：因为早上我开了两车，我开了两车过来他到虹桥有事，镇里，他回来说要我把车子开到沙湾去装石料下来，有雨，他在下面，我听着车的下面有沙沙沙的声音，我下来检查，费良玉他自己跑上去。

诉讼代理人：那他的驾驶技术怎么样？你有没有坐过他开的车？

黄标：之前也坐过。

诉讼代理人：驾驶技术怎么样？

黄标：这个反正……

诉讼代理人：那你坐在驾驶室有没有睡觉呢？尤其案发前？

黄标：案发前没有。

诉讼代理人：看到前面还是在睡觉？

黄标：反正迷迷糊糊的，我靠在那个靠背上，我靠在靠背上。

诉讼代理人：那你有没有看清楚当时这个道路状况啊，前面的行人啊，你有没有看清楚？

黄标：当时就看着有人横穿马路。

诉讼代理人：你有没有注意这个道路，他为什么会逆行？

黄标：因为这边这个路是封的。

诉讼代理人：用什么封的？

黄标：用那个……

诉讼代理人：塑料筒？

黄标：对对对，塑料筒。

诉讼代理人：整个半道都被封了？

黄标：对对对，整个半道全部都封了。

诉讼代理人：那么，就是你看到被轧被撞的那个人，他有没有打伞？

打的伞。

诉讼代理人：打的伞？

黄标：嗯。

诉讼代理人：有没有扬手、拦车的动作呢？

黄标：没有。

诉讼代理人：那为什么你在公安交代阶段好多次你说他扬着手要拦车？

黄标：因为当时费良玉他跟我说的。

诉讼代理人：他是什么时候跟你说的？

黄标：在打电话的时候说的。

诉讼代理人：是案发后的第一个电话，第二个电话，还是后面几个电话里面？

黄标：后面的几个。

诉讼代理人：后面的几个电话？

黄标：嗯。

诉讼代理人：那么，费良玉喇叭这个，他看到行人以后，喇叭是按了没有？

黄标：喇叭我听到按了。

诉讼代理人：听到按了？

黄标：对对对，我听到按了。

诉讼代理人：然后方向盘打了没有？

黄标：方向盘也打了。

诉讼代理人：也打了？

黄标：对对对，方向盘转了。

诉讼代理人：你有没有听到叫声，声音啊？

黄标：没有。

诉讼代理人：没有？

黄标：……

诉讼代理人：这个车，可以开多少档？总共是8档，最高时速是多少？

黄标：最高时速啊？我们跑的那个路跑得都不是很快，跑得最多的时候也是40多码。

诉讼代理人：你们一般6档可以开多少，一般？

黄标：这个……

诉讼代理人：因为你是驾驶员嘛，一般挂6档的时速是多少？

黄标：因为我，没有实验过。

诉讼代理人：你们撞了人之后，费良玉有没有打开过左边车门？

黄标：打过。

诉讼代理人：打过？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：那他左边打开的没有下去吗？

黄标：因为那天下雨，下雨，下雨，滑，从我这边下。

诉讼代理人：从你那边下去？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：那他撞到人之后有没有说什么话？

黄标：撞到人之后他就说，我们就说赶紧报警。

诉讼代理人：赶紧报警？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：你有没有看到他报警呢？

黄标：应该报警了，在车子下面，声音挺大。

诉讼代理人：那他下去之后，你是在车上吗？

黄标：他，他先下去以后，我才下去的。

诉讼代理人：你什么时候下去？

黄标：他什么时候下去我就下去了。

诉讼代理人：你下去了？

黄标：对。

诉讼代理人：那你看他是从前面走还是从后面走？

黄标：他是从后面走到前面。

诉讼代理人：那你下去的时候是从前面走还是从后面走？

黄标：我是站在车的前面。

诉讼代理人：你是站在？

黄标：对对，我站在车的前面。

诉讼代理人：那你有没有看到其他人在？

黄标：没有。

诉讼代理人：案发现场？

黄标：没有。

诉讼代理人：没有其他人？

黄标：对，没有其他人。

诉讼代理人：你刚给法庭就是说他穿的紫红色衣服？

黄标：对对对。

诉讼代理人：是什么样的衣服？

黄标：就是紫红色的羽绒袄。

（诉讼代理人发问完毕）

法官：被告人，你对证人证言有什么异议？

费良玉：证人证言，就是，我到案的时间里，到案之后，我没有见过他。

法官：你说你到交警队之后没见过他是吧？

费良玉：对对对。到乐清交警队我就没见过他。

法官：其余的都是事实是吧？

费良玉：对。都是事实。

法官：辩护人对证人证言有什么疑问？

辩护人：没有。

法官：诉讼代理人对证人证言有什么疑问？

诉讼代理人：有。因为公诉人没有宣读证人证言嘛，所以我是觉得需要宣读一下这个费良玉的证据。

法官：呃，证人已经当庭作证了，不需要宣读证言。

诉讼代理人：但是我对证言有疑议。

法官：有疑议等一下做辩论的时候再说。

诉讼代理人：我觉得这是质证阶段，你应该允许我发问，对证人证言的异议提出来。

法官：你异议可以提出，请不要宣读。

诉讼代理人：对，我现在就提啊。

法官：你有什么疑议你讲。

诉讼代理人：费良玉在2010年12月25日16时的时候，向公安说，第2页。

法官：这是费良玉的证言，我现在问你的是对证人的证言有什么疑议。

诉讼代理人：两个疑问。黄标在第一次回答，因为第一次询问的时候往往是最真实的，他在回答证言的时候，就讲到受害人那个人动态如何，说他左手撑伞，右手在扬手，这个黄标当时还解释了，这是。

法官：你有疑议就讲出来，不要宣读了，不要解释。

诉讼代理人：就是这个事情，他，不止一次对公安说，这是一点啊。第二点，他说是被告用手机报警，今天我问他说报警，他说没看到，这是第二个问题，第二个疑议。第三个疑议呢，请法庭注意哦，他今天的陈述，可能和后面的证据会有矛盾之处。

法官：等一下有矛盾之处你再提出来。

诉讼代理人：第四个呢，请法庭注意，他是和费良玉是雇佣关系，有一定利害关系。

（证人退庭）

公诉人：公诉人对诉讼代理人疑议作出回应。诉讼代理人刚刚提出，证人的第一次询问往往是最真实的，这只是诉讼代理人个人揣测，并无任何依据。另外，证人所陈述的一些细节，与原先做过的一些细节有所矛盾，那么证人在原先的陈述当中，都做了说明和补证，另外当庭也解释了理由。第三，诉讼代理人提出，利害关系的证人黄标与被告人费良玉有利害关系，但是我国刑诉法明确规定了，只要是了解案情的人，都有作证的资格，这并不影响证人黄标当庭作证。现公诉人继续举证。

诉讼代理人：对不起我想回应一下。

法官：现在不是辩论阶段。

诉讼代理人：那既然公诉人……

法官：现在，现在不是辩论阶段。

公诉人：第三项证据……

诉讼代理人：请帮我记录下来，我抗议这样剥夺我答辩的权利。

法官：等一下再讲。

诉讼代理人：请帮我记录在案。

公诉人：第三项证据是证人黄军的证言。在补充卷中第11至15页。证人黄军是黄标的堂弟，其证实2010年12月25日上午，黄标有打电话给黄军，说费良玉开车出了事故，让黄标顶替，黄军叫黄标不要顶替，害怕黄标不听，又打电话给黄标的老婆兰明利，黄标是用15825696837这个号码打黄军的电话13717487290的。

第四项证据是证人兰明利的证言。在补充卷的第16至19页。兰明利是黄标的妻子，其证实听黄军说费良玉开车出了事故，黄标可能会去帮忙顶替的时候，兰明利有打电话给黄标，阻止黄标去顶替。兰明利当时是用13168570255这个号码和黄标的15825696837这个号码联系的。

第五项证据是证人高广跃的证言。在侦查卷的第五卷第29至44页。高广跃是运输队的车队长。其证实2010年12月25日9时40分许，费良玉打来电话说车子把人轧坏了，高广跃就开着面包车到现场，发现费良玉的车前面车轮下压着个人，正好在自己回虹南大道的路上碰到了黄标，就带着黄标去工地。在工地的大转盘处，费良玉坐警车过来，费良玉下车上了高广跃的车，是高广跃开车送费良玉和黄标去交警队的。高广跃还证实，费良玉在乐清除了高广跃以外，就没有什么人了，他老婆呢，是一起到乐清来的，因为怀孕了，身体不好，住在虹桥医院。黄标在乐清也没有什么关系，是费良玉的原先的司机走了以后才雇的司机。

第六项证据是通话记录。在卷宗第二卷第52至61页。该通话记录证实，费良玉所使用的18655852668在发生事故后与黄标所使用的15825696837有多次联系。其中，9点46时27秒至10点17分31秒为主叫，反映出在事故后，多次要求黄标顶替而打电话给黄标的情况。与被告人费良玉、证人黄标的证言相印证。黄标所使的15825696837在发生事故后有打电话给黄军13717487290，之后，黄军又有打电话给黄标，以及黄标的老婆兰明利13168570255多次打电话给黄标，上述通话信息与黄标、兰明利、黄军三人的言词证据相印证。

第七项证据是乐清市交警大队民警赵顺余、余兵新出具的办案经过。在卷宗第二卷的第64至65页。证实在虹桥交警支队在事发之后到达现场时，费良玉说自己是车主，并提出找驾驶员黄标。后来，费良玉和黄标一起到交警队，因当时费良玉本人指称黄标是驾驶员，就先控制黄标进行询问。黄标交代了费良玉驾驶皖K5B323重型自卸货车发生交通事故，事故后叫黄标顶替的事实。余兵新电话通知费良玉到交警队接受调查。在民警询问时，费良玉开始不承认，后来交代了自己驾驶皖K5B323重型自卸货车发生交通事故并叫黄标顶替的事实。当日，费良玉被刑拘。

第八项证据是乐清市交警大队民警余兵新、赵顺余出具的情况说明。在卷宗第二卷的73页。证实，2010年12月25日12点59分开始至14点1分11秒，民警余兵新、赵顺余用黄标手机15825696837这个号码5次同费良玉通话，要求费良玉到交警队接受调查，及核实相关情况。

第九项证据是乐清市交警大队民警余兵新、赵顺余出具的情况说明。在卷宗第二卷的73页。证实，2010年12月25日12点59分开始至14点1分11秒，民警用黄标的手机多次同费良玉通话。

第十项证据是接警单。110接警单。在卷宗的第1至，呃，在卷宗的第一卷第1页。证明报警时间是2010年12月25日9点46分45秒，报警电话是18655852668，报警人没有说名字。

（第三项至第十项证据出示完毕）

法庭质证

被告人质证：（无）

辩护人质证：（无）

诉讼代理人质证

诉讼代理人：最主要的是对那个电话记录。请法庭翻到第二卷的第57页，费良玉的电话他自己当面也核实过的，那么这个电话，我没有看到9:46之后打到110的电话。然后，110接警单上写的说是费良玉电话报警。这个是核对不起来，所以这个请公诉人或者哪一位解释一下。

法官：你说他的电话，在他的电话记录里没有110打出的电话是吧？

诉讼代理人：对。

法官：公诉人对这一方面有什么解释？

公诉人：这个110接警单，这个明确记载着被告人费良玉曾经用这个手机，后面2668这个手机，时间是9点46分45秒，那么被告人当庭也承认，也是供述自己打了这个电话，黄标也证实被告人打电话。但是呢，在接警记录我们也使用了，也有显示。但是呢，公诉人认为应该采信被告人，有利被告人的原则，采信这个被告人报警这个情况。

诉讼代理人：审判长，我想补充一点。我的意思所有证言都不如机器可靠，机器的记录，既然公诉人用它来证明给黄标打过电话，给高广跃打过电话，那么为什么这机器上证明他没有给110打过电话，法院要采用证人？应该是物证更可靠。

法官：这个，法庭已经注意这方面的问题，就是这个问题法庭曾经询问过电信部门，因为他的电话号码是外地的电话号码，在往本地打110时显示不出来。请公诉人继续举证。

公诉人向法庭出示第二组证据

公诉人：公诉人现向法庭出示第二组证据，主要证明交通事故发生经过。本组证据由监控视频及视频图像采集记录、过磅单，证人王立权、薛品芬、陈赛英、黄雪芬、王旭旭、王旭乐、孔献良、林金儿的证言，法医物证鉴定意见书、上交笔录、清点记录、扣押物品文件清单及照片，电子物证检验报告，情况说明等。

第一项证据是监控视频及视频图像采集记录。在卷宗第二卷的28页。证明，2010年12月25日16时10分至45分，侦查人员在乐清市虹桥镇山塘山矿山提取到监控信息，在该监控信息中发现，发生事故前，肇事车辆皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车，于9时37分59秒经过山塘山矿门口，于2010年12月25日9时42分09秒经过华一村村口。

法官：请书记员把视频拿过来。照片。

公诉人：第二项证据是过磅单三张。在卷宗第二卷的41到43页。证明，2010年12月25日在发生事故前，皖K5B323解放牌自卸货车处于运输石料过程中，并已装运石料两趟，在第三趟运输过程中发生事故。

第三项证据是一组证人证言，包括证人王立权、薛品芬、陈赛英、黄雪芬、王旭旭、王旭乐、孔献良、林金儿等8位证人的证言。这一组证人证言证明，被害人钱云会发生事故时，手上戴有一只具摄录功能的手表，该手表为发生事故前一天，即2010年12月24日，王立权通过林金儿，从林金儿的朋友孔献良处取得。事故当天即2010年12月25日早上7点左右，王立权打电话叫钱云会到家中，在家中将手表交给了钱云会，并教其如何使用。两人分开后，王立权与钱云会还在8点多有过通话，9点多，王立权知道钱云会发生事故，10点多，王立权赶到事故现场，从钱云会手上取走手表，后王立权将手表交由其儿子王旭旭、王旭乐将事故发生的视频复制至U盘，并将其手表交给其妻子黄雪芬保管，黄雪芬再将手表交给邻居陈赛英代为保管。陈赛英于2011年1月14日要求薛品芬陪同其一起将手表交给蒲岐镇边防派出所，王立权、王旭旭、王旭乐一起供述钱云会交通事故发生过程视频内容，现当庭宣读这一组证人证言的内容摘要。

第一个是证人王立权的证言。在卷宗第三卷的第51至69页。“钱云会死后，袁迪贵叫我去现场多拍一些照片和录像发到网上，把政府的面子搞掉，我听后就到钱云会的尸体上摘下他的手表，戴在自己的手上，去拍事故现场的录像，拍好后，我把手表交给小儿子，让他把录像拷出来，放在一个白色的U盘上，然后把手表交给了我老婆。钱云会手上的手表能拍录像，是我于2010年12月24日上午通过××向我的朋友借来的。钱云会戴的手表能拍录像，在钱云会死之前就我们两个人知道，我被抓的时候悄悄把U盘放在我坐的那辆车的副驾驶座的后背袋里。12月25号早上6点多，我打电话给钱云会，7点左右他来到我家，我们先计算到省里的事，接着把能拍录像的手表给钱云会，当时我教他怎么用了，并且在我家试用了一会，之后，钱云会把手表戴手上，我们一起出去，大概8点钱云会打电话来问，上访的材料还有没有。9点多，钱成钱电话说钱云会被车撞死了，我就赶回村，我回到寨桥村，我来到钱云会事故现场，我从钱云会身上车轮外的那只手上摘下手表，并用手表把事故现场的情况拍下来。下午，我先让我儿子把手表里的影像拷贝到电脑里，我在现场拿走手表没人看见，在家里拷贝时，我和老婆以及两个儿子都在场看的，当时用手表拍的录像拷贝了一份存在了我的U盘里，还在我大儿子的电脑里做了备份。”

第二个是证人薛品芬的证言。在卷宗第三卷的第73至74页。薛品芬就证实这一个内容，是陈赛英把手表交给了蒲岐边防派出所。其证实2011年1月14日早上，当时呢，陪这个陈赛英把东西交到蒲岐派出所民警，并且呢，经过了当场清点，其中是有一只手表，不锈钢表带，白色表盘，有英文字母，professional image, watch video record，还有8个光盘，还有一些上访材料。

第三个是证人陈赛英的证言。在卷宗的第三卷第76、78页。其证实和黄雪芬是前后门的邻居，也就是王立权的老婆，大概十天前，黄雪芬提了两袋东西放到其家中，并且呢，自己后来是叫妇女主任薛品芬陪她一起到蒲岐派出所把东西上交的。当时呢，民警进行了当场清点。有一只手表，手表的描述跟这个薛品芬的描述是一样的。

第四个是证人黄雪芬的证言。在卷宗的第三卷第81到84。黄雪芬陈述了：“2010年12月25日那天呢天暗下来的时候，我老公王立权带回一只手表和一只手机，手表谁都没注意听，手机他说是钱云会的，过了一会儿，我上楼看见我老公和两个儿子正在我大儿子王旭旭的电脑上的电脑前看录像，我当时看见钱云会躺在车轮下，旁边有些人围着，手表王立权叫我保管。我呢，后来叫这个邻居赛英帮我保管。”

第五个是证人王旭旭的证言。在卷宗的第三卷86至98页。王旭旭陈述：“2010年12月25日下午大概三四点，我爸王立权回家来，拿了一部手机和一只手表，他说是钱云会的，他叫我弟弟王旭乐把手表里的东西拷到他自己的U盘里，拷出来后他在我的电脑里播放U盘，我看到有一段是钱云会被撞死过程的现场视频，后来我把钱云会被车撞死的过程的现场视频保存在我的电脑里。我爸爸把U盘拿走了。钱云会被撞死的视频，刚开始出现的是钱云会面部特写，估计是他自己戴着拍摄的，后来视频开始是摇摇晃晃的，拍的是路上一些画面，另外听到汽车喇叭，最后，视频就固定在一个画面上，这时候估计是钱云会被车撞死了倒在地上。再过了一会儿，就看到很多人围过来，就是过来围观的，然后镜头就停在那里了。播放视频时，我，我弟弟王旭乐，我爸王立权，我妈黄雪芬在场，我妈是后来才来的。看了视频后，我个人认为钱云会是死于交通肇事，我害怕如果将钱云会被车撞死的过程给有关部门，村民们会对我们进行报复。全家看过视频后，我爸吩咐我们都不要说。”

第六个是证人王旭乐的证言。在卷宗的第105至109页。“2010年12月25日中午12时27分，我在家里‘乐清上班族论坛’上发了不实的帖子，内容不真实的帖子。2010年12月25日那天下午，我爸王立权回家来，给我一只手表和一条数据线、一个U盘，说手表是从钱云会手上偷偷摘下来的，有摄影录像功能，让我把手表里的东西拷出来，放在U盘里。后来因为我的电脑没有快播软件，就拿到我哥的电脑上弄，钱云会手表里的内容，把这个手表里的内容复制出来。后来我爸我哥陆续取回来了一些现场资料，我后来都放在‘新建文件夹3’，并剪切到D盘的‘热血江湖伏魔幻影’游戏的子目录下面隐藏起来。看过手表里的视频资料以后，我认为这是一起交通事故。在网上发的帖子，是我爸说老袁要在网上发这样的帖子。”

第七个是证人孔献良的证言。在卷宗的第三卷的第115页，第三卷的124页。通过照片能辨认出，王立权就是跟着林金儿过来借这个手表的人。孔献良陈述：“2010年12月23日左右，林金儿和他朋友向我借了一只有拍照和录像功能的手表。当时呢，我教他们怎么用了。民警出示这只手表以后，即确定这是我借给林金儿的朋友的。这只手表我买了有几个月了，是在虹桥镇育红路的手机店里用300元买的，后来呢，我还送给林金儿一只。这只手表，送给林金儿的那只，也是在手机店里用300元买的。”

第八个是证人林金儿的证言。在卷宗第三卷的126至132页。林金儿陈述：“2010年12月23或24号，我和王立权说我的一个朋友有只手表有拍照录像功能，王立权说让我带他去看看，如果好使，也买一只，我就带了王立权去朋友家，即孔献良家。看了以后王立权要求孔献良转卖给他。当时呢，孔献良那只手表也蛮新的，就拿给他了，并且教了王立权怎么使用。后来呢，我也托孔献良给我也买一只一样的。”

第四项是物证书证，包括上交交警出警记录、扣押物品文件清单及照片、搜查笔录及搜查物品复件、扣押物品文件清单及照片。在卷宗的第三卷第14至第18页、第三卷的第2页、第三卷的3、4、5页。这一组书证证明，2011年1月14日，陈赛英在薛品芬的陪同下，将黄雪芬交给其保管的钱云会死亡时所带的手表，交给蒲岐边防派出所。民警经过当场清点后予以扣押。2011年1月13日21时20分至35分，侦查人员对王立权传唤过程中所乘坐的别克商务车进行了合法搜查，在车中间排座位的后背上，搜查到一个SONY U盘，也当场予以扣押。

第五项证据是温州市公安局物证鉴定所出具的法医物证鉴定书及温州市公安局刑事科学技术研究所出具的情况说明。在卷宗第三卷的第46至49页、补充卷的第30至31页。证明，2011年1月14日温州市刑事科学技术研究所DNA室收到乐清市公安局蔡勇、余兵新送来的带可疑血迹的手表，经拍照固定后，以纱线取适量的离子水擦拭提取可疑血迹进行DNA检验，送检的手表上血迹中检出人血迹，经DNA检验，支持该人血迹为钱云会所有。

第六项证据是温州市公安局物证鉴定所出具的电子物证检验报告。在卷宗第三卷的第34至44页。证明，检验时间是2011年1月14日，温州市物证鉴定所鉴定专家对电子物证检验工作站进行杀毒以后，启动只读检验设备，先是将检材备份为镜像文件，并记下了哈希值，再对镜像文件进行技术分析，对检验出的数据导出到检验专用移动硬盘，检出手表其摄像机中视频文件13个，SONY U盘中视频文件13个，并刻录成光盘。手表摄像机中检出的反映本案交通事故发生经过视频文件，其操作时间为2010年12月25日上午，最后访问时间也是2010年12月25日，并记下了哈希值。

第七项证据是乐清市公安局民警×××、×××出具的情况说明。在卷宗第二卷的67页。证明2011年1月14日提取的钱云会所佩戴的手表所摄下的钱云会被撞击的录像时间为2010年12月25日9时48分20秒，经校对该手表默认时间比北京时间快3分23秒以上。

出示手表

播放手表摄像机中的视频（播放第7段视频）

公诉人：这是钱云会的头像。打着伞。道路右侧有占道，画面比较清楚能看到。在一路上钱云会一个人单独行走。这一路，钱云会都是一个人，以正常的速度行走。两声喇叭，刹车声。这是发动机，一直开着。

诉讼代理人：我想请法院播放一下第三段。

法官：第三段视频？

诉讼代理人：对。

法官：是否同本案有什么关系？

诉讼代理人：有关系。

法官：什么关系？

诉讼代理人：因为在12月23号，拍了两个人，那么指认一下这两个人。

法官：可以。播放。

（播放视频）

诉讼代理人：这个人是谁？

公诉人：这个陈述一下，这个，这个视频是23号的视频，和本案是没有关系的。

诉讼代理人：我想问一下，如果这个人是钱云会的话，那所有的证言都不可靠了。

法官：等一下你到辩论的时候。

诉讼代理人：我不是在辩论的时候，但我在质证的时候，法官要……

法官：证据出示完毕了，还有什么要说明的？

公诉人：有些内容公诉人要加以说明。

法官：好。

公诉人：从这个视频当中，我们能看出这么几个内容：一、9点45分41秒左右，钱云会开启了手表的摄影功能，并撑着一把带红色卡通图案的雨伞，从蒲岐往南岳方向，在虹南大道上一路行走，周围环境中除过路车辆外并无他人；二、事故路段右侧有障碍物；第三项是9时48分18秒，钱云会快到寨桥村路口时，突然从右向左拐，此时听到两声巨大的汽车喇叭声，9时48分20秒，钱云会被车子撞到，9时48分28秒，被轧在左前轮下，事故发生以后，因佩戴手表的左手伸在车身外面，该手表继续保持摄录，记录了事故后的现场情况，肇事司机从车尾向车前方向，有保安到现场看。这段视频内容证明，被害人钱云会事故发生时佩戴的手表所摄录的视频资料，详细记录了案发当天钱云会的活动轨迹，以及在事故现场附近直至发生交通事故的整个过程，包括案发时间、死者单独行走和撑雨伞、沿途路况、车辆警告喇叭声、司机下车情景以及后来看的保安等情况。被害人钱云会是在2010年12月25日9时48分20秒至28秒间发生意外，事故仅在瞬间发生，当时能清楚地听到喇叭声和撞车声。

（第二组证据出示完毕）

法庭质证

法官：被告人对公诉人出示的系列证据是否有疑议。费良玉：没有。

辩护人：辩护人认为，公诉人当庭出示的证据，是公安机关依照法律的有关规定，它的内容确凿真实，与本案具有关联性……

法官：诉讼代理人有没有疑议？

诉讼代理人：有。我感觉辩护人的发言和公诉人一样的。质证，辩护人没有意见，反而赞同，我表示很遗憾。首先我对证据的宣读方法有严重疑议。这么多证据，只选择一定的读一下，最后，给我们的时间，给大家的时间，非常短暂，我认为是非常不负责任的、非常不合理的，那么，请法庭给我时间，我要一一质证。

首先，我想从视频开始质证。就是刚刚播放的几段。首先，对这个视频，没有通过任何权威部门、鉴定机构鉴定，到底这个视频有没有经过剪接，有没有修改？因为视频，视听资料，是很容易被修改、剪接的。那么，从所有案卷出示的东西来看，是没有这样的鉴定报告的，这是一点。

第二，为什么要做这样的剪接修改鉴定呢？因为这个视频放在王立权家里，已经有很长时间了，他儿子也拷贝过、删除过，那么到了公安机关手里，我觉得也有必要，公安也有必要，因为公安机关已经认定了是交通事故，结论已经做出了，那么他已经变成利害关系人了，如果这录像有什么不同的话，他也是利害关系人，所以我们也加以存疑。这是第二点我为什么说要鉴定。

第三点，请法庭播放那个12月23号那一段录像。如果这个人是钱云会的话，他的时间是2010年12月23号，所有的证人都表明，包括王立权，都表明是12月25号才交给钱云会手表的，而且中间也有12月25号早上7点多交接手表这么一个视频，和钱云会交接手表这么一个视频，那么23号这个视频又是从哪里来的呢？那么是不是视频手表作假了呢？这是第三个问题。

第四点，没有任何亲人来鉴定过、辨认过刚刚视频播放的那个人是钱云会，没有任何亲人来辨认、指认，公诉人说是就是，辩护人说也是，那么有没有人来指证过，家属来辨认过？包括第3段，呃，第2段视频，是不是？这是第四点。

第五点疑问，请法庭重新播放视频的时候你们看一下，按照费良玉、黄标的交代，当时的现场，当时的现场他说有很多隔离筒，那么你去看看视频，有一个隔离筒没有？一个都没有。那是现场作假吗？还是他们两个人都说谎了？

第六点，这个视频没有任何关于车辆、这个车辆的特征，没有任何，除了第一个伸出来的脸之外，没有任何其他人可以认清楚这个人是谁，认清这个脸型的，所以要伪造，也是很容易。所以针对这个视频，我想法庭还是认认真真地根据法律的规定，去找有关机构做鉴定，有没有剪接，去找他的亲人去，有没有指证过。

接下来我将会讲到，很多证言的内容和视频是不相符的。接下来我来质证刚刚公诉人提出的那么多证言。我先讲，不用全部讲，挑着讲啊，我讲主要是看过这视频的人。

王立权的讯问笔录当中，王立权讲到，我、我老婆、我两个儿子和钱成钱都看到过视频，那么我们接下来说，首先我要质证、质疑本次庭审当中，王立权、黄雪芬这些人，为什么不出庭作证？根据最高法院的规定，证人应当出庭，除了下列情形，法院准许可以不出庭：（一）未成年人；（二）庭审期间身患严重疾病或者行动极为不便的；（三）其证言对案件的审判不起直接决定作用的；（四）有其他原因的。那么，我想请公诉人解释一下，为什么王立权身体好好的关在看守所，完全可以出庭作证，王立权的家人也都在，为什么不出庭？否则其证言，根据最高法院规定应当出庭而不出庭的话，我认为证言是要打折扣的。这是一点。同时，根据最高法院规定，鉴定人也应该出庭，那么今天，鉴定人也没有出庭，都没有合理的理由。所以对这个程序，我是表示异议。

第二，即使按照王立权等所有人的笔录而言，王立权说他看到了，他老婆看到了，钱成钱看到了，钱成钱今天没有作为证人出庭，也没有证人笔录，那么王立权说他看到什么呢？王立权没有看到钱云会被撞死。而且王立权笔录当中还提到，钱云会的手机，一并跟手表在一起。那么手机里面有通话记录，为什么钱云会手机的通话清单没有作为证据出示在本案庭审当中？这是，我讲的是王立权在2011年1月13日8时交代的，说他老婆、他两个儿子、钱成钱都看过，但王立权没有说他看到了被撞的事。王立权看到的视频说，说我就看到了两段视频，一半是钱云会压在车下的场景，和围绕肇事车拍的视频和站一排警察的视频，警察的视频没有，他围绕车拍的视频也没有。但是请法庭注意，所出示的14段视频当中，没有一段说是钱云会被压在车下的场景。你不信公诉人再放回来。没有一个视频。因为手表是戴在钱云会的手上，他拍不到钱云会被压的情况，所以王立权的证言当中就没有这个。他说看过，他儿子也说他看过，但是他没有看过公诉人提交的这个第7个。

接下来我讲，薛品芬的证据，也就是公诉人说陪着这个，陪着这个陈赛英上交。请法庭注意一下时间，其实王立权的老婆，我们先讲王立权的老婆，黄雪芬的这个证言，王立权的老婆是2011年，根据讯问笔录，1月14日凌晨5点，被叫到公安机关接受讯问，那么根据我国刑诉法，证人一般来说应该是到她家里去讯问，也可以，实在不行也可以叫，但应该是在合理情况下，你每天早上5点钟把人带走，而且带走的不是凌晨5点，据我了解是凌晨1点，凌晨5点去问一个证人，她不是犯罪嫌疑人啊，犯罪嫌疑人你要抓，是证人啊，我们每个人都会变成证人，凌晨1点把你门撬开，抓走证人，这就是做笔录的证人，所以这段证言，她做的笔录是凌晨5点30分到凌晨7点多，这是王立权老婆做的证。王立权老婆也没有看到被撞的证据，她只说录像里我只看到钱云会躺在车轮下面，已经死了，有些人围着，没有这个录像。不信公诉人可以出示一下，有没有这段录像。王立权老婆的证言。然后王立权老婆在14号早上已经被问话之后，所谓陈赛英主动上交，才出现陈赛英。但是我们在“陪同陈赛英上交”的笔录当中，薛品芬的笔录当中，请法庭注意到2011年1月14日11点20时，能明显地在笔录当中，我感觉是不可能是她自己说的。说手表是什么样子的，答：是不锈钢的表带，白色表盘，表面上有“professional image, watch video record，2010……”一个妇女主任，能记下这么多东西吗……里面有一段英文，手表里面英文是什么样……所以这种讯问笔录，明显就是不是自己说的。

再看王立权儿子的笔录。所有证言当中，唯一承认看到钱云会被撞录像的是王立权的儿子，但是王立权的儿子是被以…王立权小儿子王旭乐是“虚构事实、扰乱公共秩序”被抓到派出所，这也是在凌晨，就是因为他在网上发了帖，公安局把他抓起来，在这种情况下，所作的证言，我们认为，也是有问题的。他中午看过视频，到晚上发的帖，还说钱云会被撞死，请看第三卷48页，他晚上9点钟，他弟弟还在天涯上发了一个钱云会的帖，被撞死的这个笔录。然后王旭乐，王立权的两个儿子都承认，都认为，他父亲，他爸爸和他妈妈都看过这个视频，但是问题在王立权和黄雪芬的证言，都没有这个视频，那么为什么他说我担心我参与到拍摄事件，而且我弟弟还在网上发了与事实不合的帖子，我害怕我和弟弟受到处罚，所以，他们处在一种极端恐惧的情况下作的这些证言。

那么这些证人为什么不出庭，接受辩护人、受害人的质询呢？那按最高法院规定你就应该出庭啊。所以，所有这些跟录像有关的证据都存在自相矛盾，而且存在和录像不符，那么，我就不知道，怎么来认定这个录像就是当时的录像，有没有人篡改，有没有人排演过？我不得而知。但是，我是质疑这个录像的，我也认为，公安机关这些检察机关出示的，公诉人出具的证据当中，取证程序存在瑕疵。所以法庭在考虑的时候，需要考虑他们的证明力是有限的。

还有对电子物证上面记录的这个手表的血渍是钱云会的，对这个电子证物检查工作记录，这个光盘，这个我觉得还是没法说明问题，因为这个之前，这个证物，按照王立权几个儿子说，他删掉，他的证言中说是删掉了，所以，已经污染的情况取得这些证据，那么这些证据再检查，我觉得，已经……

公诉人：我打断一下，审判长，诉讼代理人提出的内容当中呢，有很多歪曲事实的部分。

法官：继续往下说。

诉讼代理人：那么对于这个，怎么样把这个手表买来的，我想还要说一点，就是林金儿，林金儿和王立权都说到，他是12月23号把手表交给王立权的，王立权是12月25号把手表交给钱云会的。那么这个证言，恰恰是和这个视频是相矛盾的，12月23号钱云会，如果这个人是钱云会的话，他出现在这个视频上，作何解释？我没有其他疑问了，我希望法庭再播放一下这段录像，看这个人是不是钱云会。如果是的话，那么，请公诉人解释一下，为什么23号他又拿到了手表，为什么？我的发言完毕。

法官：法庭认为对证人身份的疑议，公诉人对证人不出庭可以讲一下。

公诉人：审判长，刚才诉讼代理人有几点是对事实的歪曲，公诉人认为有必要在庭上进行澄清。诉讼代理人刚才讲，这个王旭乐对手表内容进行删除，这明显是与其证言内容不相符的，是诉讼代理人对本案事实内容任意加以歪曲，王旭乐只是提到对手表内容进行复制以后，其只是对保存在自己电脑里的文件进行了删除。第二个歪曲是对王旭旭证言的歪曲，当中说王旭旭是在一种恐怖的状态下作证的，事实并非如此，王旭旭在作证言的过程当中是如实向侦查人员做了陈述的，其说的害怕心理，是担心的这样一个内容：是害怕村民对其将这个视频交给政府以后，村民对其报复，阐述的是这么一个理由，故此害怕，不将证据交给政府。对于诉讼代理人刚才提到的12月23号的这个视频，是不是钱云会这个头像，我们公诉人已经经过了审查，并经过了确认，这个人并非钱云会，刚才在法庭上播放的这段视频当中，这个头像才是钱云会。对于本案的证人是否应当，包括王立权等几个证人是否应当出庭的这个问题，公诉人认为，根据刑诉法的规定，公诉人在宣读证人证言的时候，既可以传唤证人，要求法庭传唤证人当庭作证，也可以当庭宣读其书面证言，刚才公诉人出示的书面证言，取证程序合法，内容上与公诉人出示的其他证据相印证，对犯罪事实已经能充分证实，并且王立权等人因为涉及其他刑事案件，仍处于侦查阶段，不宜出庭。

公诉人2：补充一下啊，关于辩护人提出的王立权的老婆黄雪芬在凌晨5点至7点，找她谈话，这是因为，这个案件的手表一个重要的物证，被王立权的老婆黄雪芬他们所隐匿，在这个时候，这个侦查人员，在这个时候找黄雪芬谈话完全是必要的。再一个，本案的这个电子物证，这个辩护人说的是没有技术部门的检验，这个是错误的，对这个视频资料的提取，是一个严密的、科学的过程，已经有专门的物证检验部门出具了报告，因此这个物证，它的取证，原先一直是在王立权的掌控之下，从这个被害人钱云会的手上摘下这个手表以后，一直是王立权在保管的，后来是藏到了邻居陈赛英的手上，一直到1月14号由公安机关依法予以提取，并进行了鉴定。这个……没有被污染或者剪接的情况存在，所以说，诉讼代理人所说是没有任何依据的。

诉讼代理人：法官我要答辩一下。

法官：等一下。对证据质证的过程法庭都记录下来。

诉讼代理人：我觉得对他刚才说了，我就要回应一下，这都是平等的。

法官：已经记录在案了。辩论的时候可以还就这个问题还……

诉讼代理人：这是质证阶段，他为什么有权利回应我，我也可以有权利。

法官：你不是质证了嘛。

诉讼代理人：对啊，他举证完毕了不应该再说话了，他如果再说话了我有权利进行答辩。请给我两分钟时间。

法官：好，可以。

诉讼代理人：第一，公诉人说12月23号这个头像不是钱云会，公诉人是证人吗？可以再放一下，这头像到底是不是钱云会？公诉人本人来证明这个人不是钱云会？

公诉人：审判长……

诉讼代理人：等我说完。公诉人说，刑诉法说证人可以不出庭，但最高法院，我们今天在法庭上审，总归是要根据最高法的司法解释，司法解释规定了四种情形，那你说你是哪一种情形不要出庭？你可以解释，有机会。证人出庭了我们就可以问清楚了，王旭乐删的是什么，他害怕的是什么……这是我讲的第一点，第二点我要讲，这个第一公诉人讲到，这些物证是经过检验的，我同意经过检验，但是你没有经过检验它有没有剪辑修改，不信你可以出示一下，公安的所有物证鉴定都只是提取，没有进行鉴定。我就是想问你，你凭什么说这个没有剪接过、没有修改过？我们还是要有事实来说话。完了，谢谢。

法官：公诉人和诉讼代理人质证都记录在案，就不要再纠缠在这个问题上辩论。

公诉人向法庭出示第三组证据

公诉人：审判长，公诉人将出示本案的第三组证据，主要证明被告人费良玉……

法官：打断一下，主要证言说详细一点，次要证言呢，就是说可以概述，短一点。

公诉人：现出示第三组证据，主要证明被告人费良玉交通肇事致一人死亡并负事故主要责任。

第一项证据，是勘验检查笔录，包括道路交通事故现场勘查笔录及道路交通事故照片、事故现场图。在卷宗第二卷的第1至13页。证明，事故地点是乐清市虹南大道蒲岐镇寨桥村地段，道路情况是东西走向，道路南侧有建筑施工堆积物，现场死亡1人，肇事车辆为皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车，有保险标志，货车正前有碰撞痕迹，此痕迹在保险杠上，正前车底散热器铁架上有碰撞痕迹……铁丝上有碰撞痕迹，有擦印。现场找到证人钱成宇，现场提取到尸体旁雨伞一把，货车头东尾西停在道路北侧，左前轮在道路外侧泥土地上，留下与尸体一起5.5米长拖印，尸体头北脚南伏在道路上，尸体前有泥土堆积。

第二项证据，是物证。雨伞一把，侦查人员在尸体旁提取的这把雨伞。伞面上是卡通图案，与视频上钱云会所撑的雨伞是一致的。

第三项证据是乐清市交通警察大队民警赵顺余、余兵新、陈华丰出具的情况说明，在卷宗第二卷的72页，证明在事故后民警在勘查中受到群众的干扰，10点50分结束勘查，现场冲突平息后，下午3点多再做补充拍照。肇事车押至虹桥停车场保管。

第四项证据是温州市交通警察大队出具的交通事故认定书，在卷宗的第一卷的第13页。证明，费良玉未取得机动车驾驶证驾驶严重超载的机动车辆，在发现行人动态采取措施不利，对事故发生起主要作用，负事故的主要责任。

第五项证据是温州市公安局物证鉴定所法医出具的法医学尸体鉴定意见书，在卷宗的第一卷14至18页，证明根据死者钱云会尸表检验，死者左侧大腿距离足跟84厘米处有皮下出血，分析为碰撞点，符合被害人身体呈站立状且面向北面并同时和工程车发生碰撞，其损伤主要为颈部骨损伤、大腿以上胸部骨损伤、下颚骨骨折伴多颗牙齿脱落、左肱骨骨折、右前臂、右手臂及双下肢软组织挫伤，其损伤形态特征符合遭机动车碰撞、碾轧所致，终因颈部、胸部重度毁损伤而死亡。

第六项证据是乐清市公路管理段冉××、叶××出具的证据，在卷宗第二卷的39页，证明虹南大道即限行道路。

（第三组证据出示完毕）

法庭质证

被告人质证：（无）

辩护人质证：（无）

诉讼代理人质证

诉讼代理人：按照最高法院关于《刑事诉讼法》规定，第144条，鉴定人应当出庭宣读鉴定结果，但经法庭准许不出庭的除外，鉴定人应当出庭接受相关的质询，因为本案当中公诉人出示的鉴定报告没有一个鉴定人出庭，这是第一点。第二点，对交通事故责任认定书，我代表家属，还是不予认可。但是根据规定，还是有权利提出……。鉴于时间关系，我们不便申请，但是对结论，我们还是不认可的。

公诉人向法庭出示第四组证据

公诉人：审判长，公诉人现向法庭出示第四组证据，主要证明交通事故发生后最先到达事故中心现场的人的情况，以及本案的相关情况，包括吴浅浅等八人的证言，村民钱成宇的证言，证人蔡云龙、施永钢、郝长吾、程龙洋、孙自芬、黄学庆、杨林建等人的证言以及相关情况说明。

第一项证据是一组证人证言，包括吴浅浅、张回、郑元章、孙金绪、施林云、蔡得宝、赵锋、姜协珞珞等八个证人的证言。其中吴浅浅的证言在卷宗第七卷的第1到16页，张回的证言在第七卷的18至26页，郑元章的证言第七卷的第28至42页，孙金绪的证言在第七卷的第44至66页，施林云的证言在第七卷的第69至80页，蔡得宝的证言在第七卷的第76至84页，赵锋的证言在第七卷的第86至89页，姜协珞珞的证言在第七卷的第91至94页。这八个证人均是交通事故后最先到达事故中心现场的保安，其中，孙金绪是保安部经理，施林云是保安队队长。这八位证人均证实，2010年12月25日，因建筑施工故聘这些保安进行现场保护，其2010年12月25日当天因为下雨便没有施工，吴浅浅、张回、郑元章、蔡得宝、赵锋、姜协珞珞与其他保安100余人距离事故现场30至50米外的中巴车上，在寨桥村路段待命，施林云、孙金绪坐巡逻车在虹南大道巡逻，在中巴车上待命的郑元章下车小便，发现有交通事故发生，就回车上去说，车上其他保安才知道发生了交通事故，再下车去看。上述八个证人证实，2010年12月25日9时多寨桥村路段有交通事故发生。

第二项证据是证人钱成宇的证言。钱成宇是寨桥村村民，其证言在卷宗的第四卷第5至14页，证实钱成宇从事故现场前方虹南大道南侧往北侧走的时候，发现其左侧有辆工程车逆行慢慢开过来停下了，当时呢，其不知道发生了事故，走到道路北侧的路口时候其发现车轮底下压着一个人，看见是钱云会之后就在车头前叫起来，过两三分钟，看到工程车后面走出四个着保安衣服的人，他们往车后的方向走了，后来村里就出来很多村民，保安当时在事故西侧的道路上，距离事故现场有二三十米远。其当时和村民说村长被车子轧了，还和村民说了车后走出四个人的情况，没有说过“村长被人抬起来被车轧死”这样的话。当时，其叫起来以后有两名妇女跑出来看。

第三项证据是蒲岐镇工作人员陈淑徽、民警林金×、南汉利、曹治兴出具的情况说明，在卷宗的第二卷的第74页。证实，钱成宇说到的在现场叫起来后出来看的两名妇女经调查系吴阿芬和邬常兰。这两人均拒绝接受调查。

第四项证据是一组证人证言。包括证人蔡云龙，这个人的身份是乐清市港湾区建设管理委员会的工作人员，蒲岐镇工作人员袁××出具了情况说明，还有证人施永钢，电力公司工程管理部负责人这种身份的证言。这三个证言在卷宗第六卷的第16至18页，第二卷的第70页，第六卷的第81至85页。证明寨桥村路段因施工占用道路南侧的四分之一，并有安排保安保护施工，2010年12月25日因下雨，现场留有100名保安看护施工设备。

第五项证据是证人郝长吾的证言。在卷宗的第五卷第46至49页。郝长吾也是矿区的运输车司机，证实，事故发生前，皖K5B323在正常运输途中，郝长吾的运输车跟在这辆车后面一公里远。

第六项证据是证人程龙洋的证言，在卷宗的第五卷第51至53页，陈龙阳也是矿区的运输司机，其证实在事故发生前一小时有主动打电话向其询问早上运输石料的次数，说明当天费良玉也没有任何异常表现。

第七项证据是证人孙自芬的证言，在卷宗的第五卷的87至94页，孙自芬是费良玉的妻子，其证实事故发生前费良玉与平时表现是一样的，和被撞的人也不认识。

第八项证据是黄学庆的证言，在卷宗第五卷的第92至94页，黄学庆即是黄标的叔叔，证实2010年12月25日上午9时多黄标有打电话来说，费良玉的车出了事故的这个事情。

第九项证据是证人杨林建的证言，及移动公司提供的监控安装记录。证人杨林建的身份是乐清移动公司的工作人员。其中这几个证据在卷宗的第六卷第29至34页、第二卷的68页、第二卷的30至37页，证明寨桥村路段监控事故发生时没有储存，是因为寨桥村路段监控安装属在建工程，移动公司受蒲岐镇政府委托，于12月21日开始安装，先是安装高清晰的摄像机，再因视频抖动问题无法解决，又换成了标清摄像机，12月25日开始对监控做存储工作，直到12月25日中午12点53分才完成，上述工作情况电脑中都有日志记载，该日志是不能删除和更改的，如有删除和更改，都会在电脑中留下记录。

（第四组证据出示完毕）

法庭质证

被告人质证：（无）

辩护人质证：（无）

诉讼代理人质证

诉讼代理人：主要是针对这些证人证言。

首先质证保安的证言。根据证言，吴浅浅的证言，2010年12月28日8时45分作的证言，现场有很多反光锥摆放在道路南侧第一条和第二条道之间，在施工路段都有摆放，有一二公里长的距离，在事故现场前后视线内都有摆放。

那么，请法庭看现场视频，我们看得到反光锥没有？那么，我要质疑这个视频是不是案发现场。

第二，这个吴浅浅的证言，2011年1月3号16点20分，讲到，“后来到上午8时来380名保安人员，乘坐四辆中巴车到现场执勤。”那么，从所有的证据当中都可以看到，现场当天其实没有什么事情发生，那为什么有380名保安到现场？到底想干什么？然后再吴浅浅的证言当中，他看到一个村民，个子高高的，打着伞，站在事故车头右侧位置，在那又蹦又叫。

那么，想必这个人是钱成宇，所以钱成宇作为目击证人是可以的……

证人张回2010年12月27日11时多的笔录：“我没有看到事故发生的经过，我车上的郑元章当时下车到公路对面小便，看到了事故发生的经过，他回到车上告诉我们前方一个人被撞死了。”

那么，请法庭可以播放第7段视频，后面被撞了之后，是有一个人跑过来的视频，但是，据我初步观察，这个人是不是这个？按照钱成宇的证言，他看到的保安都是戴头盔的，但是在这段录像当中我没有看到这个戴头盔的人。

郑元章，证人证言当中所谓的第一个目击证人，2010年12月28号上午11时40分左右，第4页：“大货车停住后，从左前方下来一个人，我当时很紧张，这个人的特征不注意。”

那么请注意，如果费良玉是从右边下来的，那么对他来说，那就不是左前方，是右前方，因为他们是车的屁股后面。那么请法庭可以放录像，如果这段录像是真的话，保安会是在车的车尾，人在走，那么他们看到的左前方，应该是车子的左侧，这又是这个录像和费良玉的陈述不一致。因为他是保安所说的第一个目击证人。

然后请法庭注意是是，他们提到的是4个保安，但是在这个录像当中可以看到，是黑压压的一群人，这是，这个法庭可以有限地播放，我可以提供仔细观看。

那么，我还请法庭记录一下，既然公诉人提出有利害关系的人可以出庭作证我可以认可，但是有利害关系的人的证言证明力是有限的，那么乐清保安公司，这些人都是乐清保安公司，乐清保安公司是谁聘用的呢？是蒲岐镇政府和港口管理委员会聘请的。那么，蒲岐镇政府和钱云会之间的关系恐怕不需要我多讲。所以这些保安，而且是，一度钱成宇指称可能是疑犯之一。

公诉人：反对。审判长，诉讼代理人刚才所指的这些保安与这个事故并无任何关系，保安，刚才公诉人所出示的这些证据均证实交通事故发生的这个，有交通事故发生，就证实这一项内容，其内容大部分与质证意见无关。

法官：反对有效。诉讼代理人，你对这方面，主要案件事实的方面。

诉讼代理人：对，我是评论这些证据是否有效，法庭的这个指示我听懂了。

我们看证人孙金绪的证言。孙金绪，2010年12月29日上午作的证，这是乐清保安公司保安的证据。问你们保安公司与蒲岐镇政府是否有劳务合同，“没有，我们只是有口头协议，等执行任务完毕算工资时，再补登一份合同，以往也是这么操作的。”“21日进场施工第一天，白天是200人，上班也100人，下半夜60人。”所以我们认为还是有一定利害关系的。

公诉人：审判长，公诉人再次反对。这个保安的事情，当天为什么有那么多保安到现场，与本案是没有关系的。这么多保安，完全是因为其他的事情到现场的，什么保护施工的事情，跟本案无关，与交通事故的证据，交通事故的发生、经过事实是没有关系的。作为诉讼代理人，反复讲这些与案件无关的质证，请法庭予以制止。

诉讼代理人：审判长，我说明一下啊。本案，为什么检察院公诉人提交给法庭的证据……

法官：诉讼代理人，诉讼代理人，再次提醒一下，本案的事实，就本案的事实发问。

法官：不要对本案进行评论。

诉讼代理人：让我把话说完。如果这些证据和案件无关的话，公诉人为什么要提交给法庭呢？为什么要复制给我？正是因为有关的，你作为证据提交，我当然也可以质证，你今天对你不利的你就要收回，说不是证据，与本案无关……

法官：不是、不是证据，不是不是证据，不是不是证据。

诉讼代理人：这不是证据吗？我念的不是证据吗？

法官：不是说不是证据。

法官：我告诉你就是说，对本案有关系的你可以发表评论，因为证据是有效力的，证明的问题是另外一个事情。

诉讼代理人：那警察为什么要问这些问题？警察问这些跟案件无关的问题干什么？警察问了我就……

法官：你就你就这几个质证的案情……

诉讼代理人：对，我就是讲……

法官：不要讲××的事情，再次提醒，诉讼代理人。

诉讼代理人：我不服。我抗议。首先，我为什么说抗议，这是质证……

法官：你再××，到时候把你记下去。

诉讼代理人：诶，你要帮我记下去为什么我要抗议的理由。这是警察问的问题，警察认为跟案件有关，我也认为跟案件有关，公诉人认为跟案件无关，难道一定要按照公诉人的说法来审案吗？就把全部不想听的话全部抹杀掉，在法庭上该说的话应该让我们说，畅所欲言。这才是和谐社会。

法官：你还有什么，对这些证据还有什么问题？

诉讼代理人：有。证人孙金绪的证言。1月2号12时，第5页讲到：“你们在现场穿的什么衣服？”答：“我穿黑色上衣便服，施林云是穿紫色的上衣便服，驾驶员穿作战服，特保队员穿作战服，戴半盔，拿盾牌，保安人员穿黑色作战服，戴钢盔。”请法庭再播放一下第7段录像，你去看看后面那一群人有一个戴头盔的吗？一个都没有。这不是保安队长说的吗？我没有说录像，我只是质疑这录像和你的证言对不上，证据拿到庭上本来就是给人来质证的……其他证言当中也存在和录像不符的情况。我希望法庭认真审核录像和证言，依法正确公正地认定证言。完毕。

公诉人向法庭出示第五组证据

公诉人：本组证据中包含了被告人费良玉的量刑根据。证明被告人费良玉是皖K5B323的车主，并具有逃逸、无证驾驶和驾驶车辆严重超载、案发后对民事部分提请赔偿，包括民警出示的办案经过、机动车驾驶证查询结果、超载单、行驶证、机动车保险证、温州市长顺机动车司法鉴定事务所出具的司法鉴定意见书、调解书、收据、报案记录、本案的相关户籍证明等。

第一项证据，是机动车驾驶证查询结果以及费良玉有学习驾驶车辆驾驶证的相关资料……证明费良玉没有办理过机动车驾驶证的历史记录，费良玉在事故前在学习驾驶，在申领驾驶证的阶段。

第二项证据是超载单、行驶证，在卷宗的第二卷的第20、还有第二卷的第22页。证明肇事车皖K5B323荷载12405公斤，超载是35020公斤，超载率282%。

第三项证据是温州市长顺机动车司法鉴定事务所出具的司法鉴定意见书。在卷宗第一卷的第19至27页，证明皖K5B323解放牌重型自卸货车，行车制动原装载测试制动性能差，超载测试制动性能更差，转向系统技术状况正常，整车含货物质量为60020公斤，因为鉴定条件不足，事故时行驶速度无法核算。

第四项证据是乐清市公安局民警周斌、陈斌、长顺机动车司法鉴定所人员××、×××出具的情况说明……。

第五项证据是机动车保险证……证明肇事车有保险。

第六项信息是车辆信息挂靠协议书、证人候洪云的证言，在……证明皖K5B323货车的登记所有人为颍上县长春汽车运输服务有限公司，实际车主为费良玉，费良玉和该公司之间是挂靠关系。

第七项证据是调解书和收据，被告人费良玉与被害人家属之间达成了民事赔偿协议，赔偿105万，被害人家属已经收到这笔款项。

第八项证据是颍上县公安局黄桥派出所出具的无违法犯罪记录证明……证明费良玉无前科。

第九项证据是报案记录，已在第一组证据中出示，不再出示。

第十项证据是本案的相关户籍证明，包括被告人费良玉，以及被害人钱云会，以及刚才所举的相关证人的户籍证明……（太多，说得快，用笔记不下）

本案的有关证据现已全部出示完毕。

以上证据足以证明起诉书所指控被告人费良玉交通肇事的犯罪事实和情节，请法庭充分考虑并依法审查。

法庭质证

被告人质证：（无）

辩护人质证：辩护人对刚才公诉人证据的本身没有异议，但是不同意公诉人关于有些证据能够证明被告人交通肇事后逃逸这种说法。

诉讼代理人质证

诉讼代理人：我补充前面一些，乐清电信公司的这个，乐清电信公司出了一个证明，他的DM8000数据管理系统只要修改过就有记录，问题是乐清移动，它不是生产商，他凭什么可以来做这个证？根本没法做这个证。而且，根据庭上出示的这些资料，也根本没办法证明说12月25号之前它就没法存储，12月25号12点50分之后就可以存储，那么，这些东西，并没有生产厂家来做这个证。那么你前面钱云会出事故了，是同类摄像头它没法存储，到12点51分之后，村民开始打警察了，就可以存储，而且按他的说法，是远程操控存储，这怎么能让我相信呢？而且它本身如果存储，假如，如果删除的话，他是利害关系，没有第三方进行检验检测有没有删除过，怎么能他们出具证明我们就采信，说这些日志没有删改过，如果删改过就会记录，那么根据技术专家认为，只要进入根目录，所有的记录都可以删改。所以，对于电信的记录，我有疑议。

对这个赔偿，我提一个小小的疑议啊，费良玉赔了多少钱，但是，钱云会的父亲钱顺南，我的委托人，他没有在赔偿书上签字。没了。

法官：被告人，你自己有什么新的证据向法庭展示？

费良玉：新的证据？

法官：嗯。

费良玉：我，事故发生以后我没有逃逸。

法官：没有是吧？

费良玉：嗯。

法官：辩护人，你有什么新的证据向法庭展示？

辩护人：没有。

法官：诉讼代理人，你有什么新的证据？

诉讼代理人：没有。

法官：法庭调查结束，下面进入辩论阶段。

二、辩论阶段

法官：首先，在辩论阶段，双方当事人就本案事实及量刑各自发言。首先由公诉人发表公诉词。

公诉人：审判长、审判员、人民陪审员，根据《刑诉法》第153条、第160条、第165条和第169条的规定，我们受乐清市人民检察院的指派，代表本院以国家公诉人的身份提请法庭并支持公诉，依法对刑事诉讼活动进行法律监督，现对本案证据和案件情况发表如下意见，请法庭注意：

第一点，本案事实清楚，证据确凿充分。通过刚才的法庭调查，询问了被告人，询问了证人黄标，宣读了被告及证人的证言，出示了部分书证、现场勘查笔录、交通鉴定意见和视听资料等证据。这些证据取证程序合法，证言的内容明确，证据之间天然相互印证，经过当庭质证，可以作为本案定罪量刑的依据。（一）证人黄标证实费良玉驾驶车辆发生事故的经过，并证实费良玉肇事后要其顶替，及自己打电话和家人、亲戚商量是否为费良玉顶替的过程，通话记录及证人黄军、兰明利的证言印证了黄标的说法。（二）现场勘查笔录及照片证实案发现场符合交通肇事的情形，尸体检验报告证实被害人身体损伤符合交通事故的情形；（三）交通事故认定书认定费良玉负事故的主要责任；（四）车辆检验报告证明车辆超载282%，为严重超载，驾驶资格证查询结果证实费良玉无驾驶机动车资格；（五）视听资料更是清楚地证实交通事故发生的经过；（六）被告人费良玉自己供述自己无证驾驶超载车辆肇事致一人死亡，及事后打110报警和打电话指示黄标顶替、公安机关通知其谈话时仍称黄标是肇事者，后来才交代自己是肇事司机，和其他证据相印证。以上证据充分证实了被告人费良玉无机动车驾驶资格、驾驶超载车辆肇事致一人死亡、负事故主要责任、事故发生后指使他人顶替的犯罪事实。

第二点，被告人费良玉的行为已构成交通肇事罪。被告人费良玉为身体发育正常的成年人，有着完全刑事责任能力，主观方面，被告人费良玉明知自己无驾驶资格仍驾驶严重超载的车辆，并抱有侥幸心理，自以为不会发生事故，主观上存在着投机；客观方面，被告人费良玉无证驾驶超载车辆，遇情况采取措施不当，一次肇事致一人死亡，负事故主要责任，其行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第133条，应当以交通肇事罪追究其刑事责任。

第三点，本案的量刑情节。被告人费良玉未取得机动车驾驶资格，驾驶严重超载车辆肇事，且发生交通事故后指使他人顶替，企图逃避法律追究，具有逃逸情节，但是考虑本案被告人费良玉虽有逃逸情节，但没有严重干扰公安机关的侦查活动，故该逃逸情节相对较轻。同时，被告人费良玉负事故主要责任，有悔罪表现，已做出民事赔偿，可合法从轻处置。

第四点，被告人费良玉犯罪情节的社会危害性。当前，机动车辆给我们带来交通便利的同时，交通事故也日益增多，无数家庭因为交通事故而毁灭，本案当中，交通事故是费良玉既未取得驾驶资格、又严重超载的情况下发生，而费良玉本人是在学习驾驶、申领驾驶证的阶段，对交通安全知识应当熟悉，却仍然心存侥幸，造成了事故。本案和其他交通肇事案一样，给人的启示就是要遵守交通法规，安全行车驾驶。

综上所述，起诉书认定被告人的犯罪事实清楚，证据确实充分，依法应当认定被告人有罪，请合议庭依照本案的事实、情节、性质、社会危害程度和被告人的认罪态度，依法做出公正的判决。公诉意见已当庭发表。

法官：下面由诉讼代理人就本案的定罪量刑当庭发表意见。

诉讼代理人：尊敬的审判长、审判员、人民陪审员，接受本案被害人钱云会的父亲委托，今天参加这个庭审，我想基于常人，基于人的理解，作为父亲，在儿子惨死之后，他所遭受到的打击，也能理解有这么多疑点的案子下，他所该提出的质疑。

将心比心，我们之所以有这些质疑，尽管可能有些人认为是被利用、不正常或者偏激的，但是你放在受害人的立场，你自己家的儿子也这样惨死，那么说，你作何感想？人心都是肉长的。

在本案的开庭当中，我觉得，在程序上，有一些不当，或者是，我认为是不合法的。

第一， 本案没有彻底地贯彻公开开庭，法律规定。

法官：诉讼代理人……

诉讼代理人：这是我对程序的质疑，你不要打断我，这你们没有理由打断我。

本案存在控制开庭的状况，不是真正的公开开庭，不是按照时间顺序发放、申领旁听证，没有，而存在控制发放旁听证的情况，所以程序上这点是有瑕疵的。

第二，诉讼代理人曾经申请，要求法庭延期开庭，诉讼代理人是在前天晚上才拿到所有的材料，8本案卷，13段视频，让我们用一天时间来准备出庭，显然是不合理的。

诉讼代理人曾经在昨天上午向合议庭申请，要求延期开庭。根据常理，我们作为相关当事人，只给我们两三天时间，合议庭没有给出任何理由，为什么不同意延期开庭？大家将心比心，如果你是受害人，给你的律师一天时间，8本案卷、13段视频，你核实不了就来开庭，这样的情况，公平吗？

第三点，附带民事诉讼，钱云会的父亲提出附带民事诉讼，费良玉单位已经支付了赔偿，我们又追加了乐清市供电局、乐清市电力公司、蒲歧镇政府、保安公司、海军华东工程处等为被告。根据最高法院规定，一般情况下，只有几种例外的情况，一般情况下，刑事附带民事，应当合并审理，只有在例外的情况下，而这例外的情况只有：一个是被害人遭受的物质损失或者被告人的赔偿能力一时难以确定，以及附带民事诉讼当事人因故不能到庭等案件，为了防止刑事案件审判的过分迟延，附带民事诉讼才可以在刑事案件审判后，由同一审判组织继续（审理附带民事诉讼）。而本案不存在这些情况，按理应该合并审理。

合议庭给我的答复是不可以。我认为，这一点也是不合理的，程序上是存在瑕疵的。

公诉人刚刚没有答复，为什么他的这几个关键证人应当出庭的却没有出庭，接受询问，而最高法院规定当中，证人有几个理由可以不出庭，王立权关在牢里面，钱成钱也关在牢里面，看录像的两个人关在牢里面，三个人放在外面不是自由的？为什么不出庭？

第五个问题，鉴定单位，都是公安机关的鉴定，为什么不出庭啊？按照最高法院规定也应当出庭，那为什么不出庭？

第六，在办案程序当中，刚刚也讲到说，王立权的老婆，是因为手表在她那里，所以我们就要半夜要把人搞来，证据在她家里，你的审问也可以在她家里，她已经知道，你们已经知道了这个情况，她已经不存在毁灭证据的情况了，证人半夜带走，然后给她儿子安一个罪名，说你发谣言扰乱社会秩序，不然的话要被抓进去，这种，你说是村民给她的恐惧，恐怕我是不相信的。

钱成宇、王立权，据我了解，都没有充分的证据证明他们寻衅滋事，所以把他们抓起来之后，改了一个罪名叫妨碍公务，有多少充分的证据证明妨碍公务？而这是这个案子第一个目击证人，是公安局供认，所以他的证言是要打折扣的，所以办案程序当中我们认为具有瑕疵，倒也不说是什么错误啊。这是第六点，在这个庭审当中。

第七点，本案庭审当中，公诉人举证速度太快，太快，太快，我们根本就反应不过来，我也是做二十年律师了，我听下来，我要把这么多的卷宗几个小时把它说完，根本来不及，何况你只给我一天的时间，所以我认为这个庭审举证方式也是不合理的。尽管你说合法，但是不合理。

这是我对法庭程序上的一些意见。在本案的事实上，我再讲几点。

第一点，最关键的物证，它没有做鉴定，这是最大的遗憾。这是我觉得不合法。

第二，没有做辨认，公诉人说，我认为第二段录像里的人不是钱云会，那我说我认为是钱云会，如果第二段视频上的人是钱云会，那手表里的视频就是12月23号，所有证人证言都不符合了。当然你可以说是另外一个人，但是你得找家属辨认啊。

第三个问题是时间，当然他们说做过校对，录像的时间是晚3分多钟时间，为什么会晚3分钟？那么这个手表精确的时间应该是多少？手表是不是正常？

这个手表，公安给它的定义是摄像机。但是这个摄像机没有型号，没有说明书。那你怎么知道这个时间是晚了3分钟呢？如果按照这个摄像机时间的话那就钱云会被撞死的时间不是9点45，而是9点48分，你怎么来证明？

这视频，录像当中的图像，和所有证据证言都有矛盾。大家庭上都听到了。

费良玉和保安说法不一致，和黄标说法也是不一致的。现场是有反光锥，几公里都有，那么这录像里什么都没有，你要我相信这个录像吗？

钱成宇说了这些保安是戴头盔，保安公司的人也说了自己戴头盔，录像里面一个头盔都没有。法庭可以放。可以放。你让我怎么相信？

所以这一点来说，我说，费良玉与黄标的证据不符合也可以理解，但是巧的是两个人的反复都是一致的，所谓扬手，但是如果一个反复，不是商量好的，那么任何录像都可以质疑。

这个录像也没有澄清到底钱云会是怎么出去的，本案也没有提交钱云会那条手机通话记录，也没有提供副镇长徐祥忠的不在场证据。

恰恰电话清单提交了费良玉的电话清单，当中就没有打110的记录，刚才法官也解释了外地手机打110没有记录，那这也只是审判长的解释，没有出具证明，法庭也没有任何调查取证的东西，审判长当然不是证人，所以，我想审判长刚才说的话，是不能作为证据使用的。说外地手机打110没有记录，我是第一次听说这种问题。

法官：请诉讼代理人注意啊，你要围绕本案的定罪量刑发表意见。

诉讼代理人：对，我当然在代受害人家属讲述我们的疑点，如果说，这些疑点都不能澄清的话，那还定什么罪呢？定的罪都不一样，那还量什么刑呢？

所以我觉得这个电话记录和证人的说法是有矛盾的。庭长刚才解释了，但这个解释我不接受。

那么，本案当中，如果说这个案子是交通事故，如果真的是交通事故的话，倒也不要给他判得太重，家里还有妻子，老婆还怀孕，自己也是买了工程车，借用别人的钱，和钱云会的家人，和钱云会一样，也是底层……也没有什么，也没有必要判得太重。

希望法庭，能够查明这起车祸的疑点，按照法律的程序，不要把这个案子作为一种特殊的案件，法律上面没有特殊，你就按照正常的程序，给我们充分的时间，保证庭上的充分的辩论，这样真相大白，费良玉该受什么处罚受什么处罚，不应该加在他身上不实的指证。

越是这样超常规的审理，越让我，让一些旁听的，会感觉怎么这个庭会变味儿了？

公诉人刚刚总结的经验教训，认为是驾驶，交通事故。

我认为要总结经验教训，是处理这种事情要严格依法，如果没有当天现场抢尸体，如果没有寨桥村，政府为了维稳，把所有那条路都装了探头，如果没有探头的话就不存在所谓的探头失灵的事情，让所有村民怀疑，你抓我可以作为证据，你撞人你就没证据，这都不是没有道理的事情。

如果这里要吸取教训的话，不要半夜抓人，不要把所有看过录像的人都抓到里面去问一下。

法官：请诉讼代理人，要围绕定罪量刑发言发表，不要扯远了。

诉讼代理人：嗯。

法官：已经再三提醒了。

诉讼代理人：好，我是在答复公诉人说的话。接下来我最后讲一句。

法庭应该按照最高法院和全国人大制定的有关规定来办事，我认为本案的庭审存在上述众多瑕疵，我希望法庭能择日再审，把这些证据，把这些疑点再到法庭上来质证一遍，而公正宣判。

法官：被告人，你对刚才公诉人发表的公诉词有什么辩解？

费良玉：那个，我感觉……

法官：如果你不行可以由你的辩护人替你讲。

费良玉：之前有，有……

法官：你自己有自我辩护的权利，你可以自己讲，讲了之后你的辩护人还会给你讲。

费良玉：那先由诉讼代理人讲吧。

法官：好。下面请辩护人发表意见。

辩护人：审判长、审判员、人民陪审员，我是作为被告人费良玉的辩护人，在对公诉机关指控被告人费良玉之行为构成交通肇事罪的基础上，为维护被告人的合法权益，就被告人量刑方面向法庭提出以下辩护意见：

第一，起诉书指控被告人费良玉交通肇事以后逃逸，我们认为交通肇事以后逃逸不能构成。理由于下：根据《最高院关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条规定，“交通运输肇事后逃逸”，是指行为人在发生交通事故后，为逃避法律追究而逃跑的行为。因此，“逃逸”不仅要求肇事者有逃离现场的客观行为，而且还要求肇事者存在逃避法律的主观心理。本案的被告人费良玉的行为，我认为并不构成逃逸，首先，被告人费良玉没有逃离现场的客观行为，2010年12月25号上午9时多的交通事故发生后，被告人供述其立即下车，查看车下情况，发现车轮压住被害人的胸部、颈部，并且被害人已经当场死亡，就用手机打110报警，这一事实有坐在副驾驶座位的今天到庭作证的证人黄标的证言、公安机关接警的记录、被告人手机通话记录等证据证实。由此可见，被告人在交通事故发生以后，便迅速履行停车并报告公安机关等义务，乐清市公安局交警大队出具的费良玉到案经过，证明被告人费良玉虽然没有在现场承认自己是肇事司机，但也一直没有离开事故现场，是他主动向交警说明自己是车主，直至跟交警去虹桥交警支队。其次，被告人费良玉在主观上不存在逃避法律追究的目的。虽然，被告人费良玉在报警以后、民警过来之前，出于自己没有驾驶、保险公司不会理赔的担心，企图说服黄标承认是黄标开的车，并对交警谎称黄标是肇事司机，但此时，他并不熟知一定要受到法律的追究，在当天下午，被传唤到交警大队直接讯问的时候，就如实地供述了这个大货车是由其本身驾驶并肇事，由此可以看出，费良玉最初的不实供述，主要是担心不能获得保险理赔，即考虑到经济的利益而并非意图逃避法律追究。第三，从立法本意来看，立法者设置交通肇事逃逸行为作为交通肇事罪的加重情节，主要是通过以较重的法律行来督促行为人在行驶违反规章的情况下采取补救的措施，减轻损害，也就是说，惩罚逃逸行为的目的，在于避免肇事司机的逃逸行为、进一步扩大事故的损害。而本案中，被告人既不存在逃离现场的逃跑行为，而且最初的不实供述也没有扩大事故的损害程度。被害人在事故发生之时已经当场死亡，也就是说费良玉开始没有承认自己是交通肇事司机的行为，并没有对交通事故发生以后的损害结果的大小产生影响。综上，被告人费良玉的行为不符合逃逸的法律××，因此，辩护人认为，被告人费良玉的行为符合《刑法》133条交通肇事罪的基本内容，而不符合交通肇事后逃逸或其他特别恶劣情节。

第二，被告人费良玉的交通肇事情节较轻。根据《最高法院关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第二条第一款第一项，死亡一人或者重伤三人以上，负事故全部或者主要责任的，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。而根据最高院量刑指导意见的相关规定，同样是交通事故死亡一人的，负事故全部责任的基准刑，要比负事故主要责任的基准刑，要高出半年。本案根据温州市交警支队交通事故问题书单中的当事人导致交通事故的过错及责任的问题，被告费良玉是应负事故的主要责任，但被害人钱云会应负事故的次要责任。因此，对被告人费良玉的量刑，辩护人认为，要基于负主要责任的交通肇事者的量刑。

第三，被告人费良玉已经赔偿被害人家属105万块钱。根据蒲岐镇人民调解委员会的调解书，被告人费良玉赔偿被害人钱云会亲属死亡赔偿金、丧葬费、被抚养生活费等一切损失人民币105万元。这个款项已经全额支付完毕。根据《最高人民法院关于刑事附带民事诉讼范围问题的规定》第四条“被告人已经赔偿被害人物质损失的，人民法院可以作为量刑情节予以考虑”的规定，提请法庭作为从轻的情节予以考虑。

第四，被告人费良玉没有前科、劣迹，说明其犯罪之前一贯的表现较好。他作为安徽的一个农民，为了劳动自用，借贷买车，从事运输，结果，事与愿违，交通肇事，触犯刑律，但，是初犯。而且，本人的犯罪可以说是，在偶然的时间、偶然的地点、偶然的原因、撞上偶然穿过道路的被害人，被告人的交通肇事具有偶然性，因此，被告人费良玉还是偶犯。被告人费良玉在交通肇事后虽然开始让人顶替，但在第一次谈话中就能认识到违法犯罪的严重性，承认自己是交通肇事的司机，此后，认真开口交代交通肇事的全部行为，没有翻供，也没有抗拒侦查审判，今天在法庭上对他交通肇事的全过程予以如实的供述，有真诚认罪的表现。那么这些，也提请法庭在量刑之时予以考虑。

第五，本案的社会影响不能成为被告人费良玉从重处罚之要素。众所周知，本案由于被害人身份的特殊意义，再加上一部分人有意地掩盖或者歪曲事实真相，以及普通民众的事实真相的强烈苛求，这多方面的因素促成了这起普通的交通肇事案件引起了超出异常的社会关注，媒体、网络上充斥着大量的真假莫辩的传闻和报道，使本案演变成了一个公共事件，如果说当中一些人在过去信渠道有限、不知道事情真相的情况下，对于本案发表了一些五大质疑也好，或十大疑问也好，一百个疑问也好，如果这些都可以理解的话，那么今天，开庭查明的事实已经不容置疑地解释了有关疑问，否定了有关疑问，合理地排除了本案所有的疑问。比如，钱云会当天使用的摄录手表、华一村和湾底采石场的视频资料，证明了本案系普通的交通肇事案件，排除了所谓的“四人按住”、“让车碾压”及其有关谋杀的疑问；证人王立权及其两个儿子，以及他的老婆，还有证人林金儿和孔献良的证言，证明了钱云会带有摄录功能手表的来源及其用途，当天早上谁打的电话，钱云会当天为什么要戴着这个手表，以及发生事故以后的手表的内容，解释了网络对此的所有质疑；四个保安的证言，证明了现场的情况，澄清了现场有四个可疑人员的身份质疑；钱云会的摄录手表的内容，使现场的探头为何没有存储功能的质疑失去了意义；现场的照片、有关鉴定的文书的证明的事实，和钱云会手表的摄录内容相吻合，否定了有关逆行、没有刹车的质疑；而证人钱成宇等人的证言，不但不能证明所谓谋杀的骇人听闻的事实，反而其证言中的舆论也被其他大量的证据所否定。本案无论同组证据之间，或者……

辩护人：本案无论同组证据之间，或者不同组证据之间，或者各组证据之间，能够相互印证，而且形成一个证据链，证明了本案的事实。因此，辩护人有理由认为，本案不是由于被告人费良玉的交通肇事行为的恶劣而引起社会的关注，而是大量不实的报道将本案明显放大。被告人费良玉虽然是交通肇事犯，却成了网络的“被杀人犯”，这对被告人是极其不公平和不公正的。因此，辩护人提请法庭能够遵循审判无罪的原理，本着实事求是的态度，还本案一个真实的面孔，对被告人费良玉进行一个公正的审判。不应也不该因本案受到不公正的舆论压力，对被告人的定罪量刑受到影响。

综上所述，被告人费良玉的行为虽然构成交通肇事罪，应受到《刑法》的处罚，但考虑被告人费良玉具有的以上酌情从轻的情节，辩护人认为，对被告人适用缓刑，不至对社会构成威胁，因此，被告人符合适用缓刑的要求，对被告人费良玉在定罪量刑的时候，辩护人提请法庭对他从轻处罚，并实行缓刑。我的发言到这里。

法官：下面请公诉人答辩。

公诉人：刚才认真地听取了被告人的辩护人的辩护意见，以及，认真听取了诉讼代理人的代理意见。下面分别答辩和说明理由如下：

第一，关于本案被告人的行为是否能够构成逃逸。被告人虽然没有逃离现场，但依然有指使他人顶罪，以此来混淆侦查机关的侦查视线，企图使自己逃避法律追究。那么，让人顶替这种行为和逃离现场来进行比较，其目的是一样的，都是为了逃避法律追究，其后果也是一样的，都是不想让侦查机关查到真正的肇事者。因此，交通肇事后指使他人顶替应当属于交通肇事后逃逸的行为。但是考虑到本案被告人指使他人顶替的行为未对公安机关侦查造成严重的影响，因此，该案考虑的情节是相对较轻的。

第二，关于对被告人量刑的问题。公诉人认为，被告人既有刚才辩护人所讲的酌情从轻的情节，也就是有认罪态度好，负事故的主要责任，民事部分已调解，但是，在本案中，被告人也有交通肇事后逃逸这一从重的法定情节，以及有无证驾驶严重超载车辆的酌情从重情节。结合本案的事实和证据，公诉人认为，对被告人呢，一个是，不适合缓刑，并且应对照他的事实性质来作出依法的判决。这是公诉人的意见。

对于诉讼代理人所发表的代理意见，公诉人做以下的梳理：

首先，费良玉有没有报警这个问题，那么刚才出示的这个费良玉的通话记录上面没有110通话记录的显示，这一点，是根据被告人的手机是从老乡那里借来的，是安徽的手机号码，那么按照当地电信部门的手法，110电话是免费的，不收费的，所以在通话清单上是没有显示的。其他证据都已经显示被告人费良玉是有打110报警这个情况，证明被告人有打110报警。

那么第二个说明，诉讼代理人提出，对本院，公诉人在举证方式上的这个质疑。这个方式，法庭也当庭予以允许，公诉人不再多做强调。

关于本案的疑点有没有，那么，诉讼代理人提出了本案还有其他疑点，那么公诉人认为，本案被告人构成交通肇事罪的事实清楚，证据确实充分，已经排除其他可能。第一，从现场勘查的尸表检查结果显示，现场留有明显的刹车拖痕，车辆碰撞痕迹，这个是符合交通事故死亡。第二，结合有关监控的等等证据，肇事车辆当天一直在道路上运载石料，而死者当天的活动轨迹是偶然的，所以本案来讲，是一个偶然的事件。第三，被告人费良玉跟证人黄标人际关系角度讲，是很简单的，也排除了受人指使的可能。费良玉是2010年9月经老乡高广跃介绍到乐清运输石料，因没有驾驶证，于12月中聘用老乡黄标开车，两人跟钱云会都不认识，而且其主要关系人就只有高广跃和这几个安徽的老乡，和现场的其他比方说保安、当地政府、电力公司，都没有直接的联系，在主观上，这个排除了其他可能。第四，费良玉的客观行为反应了其在交通事故发生后采取了鸣笛、刹车、左打方向等紧急的避让措施，以及后来的主动报警行为，表明了被告人并非故意地去撞人。第五，被害人钱云会在事故发生的时候，被带有摄录功能的手表摄录了事故发生前后的整个过程，也进一步直接地证实了本案的性质。因此，本案已经排除了其他的可能，这是一起普通的交通肇事案件。

第四，关于诉讼代理人对手表里的视频资料质疑。公诉人认为：第一，这只手表来源清楚。关于摄像机手表的来源，这个公诉人在当庭举证的时候予以举证，证人王立权反映，这只手表是从孔献良那里借的，孔献良则称这只手表是从虹桥一个店里买的，至于王立权和钱云会为什么要借这只手表，这个当时是有一个用途的，王立权称，这个证言里面说，是以后打算施工的时候，用来隔离带装电缆跟村民发生冲突的时候用来摄录像的，录像拍出来以后做上访用。那么，根据物证手表上所提取的血迹，和被害人的血样进行DNA鉴定，经过核对，是一致的，被害人血渍和手表上是一致的，这个就证实了这个手表是死者也就是被害人钱云会的手上留下来的。第二，这个手表的去向清楚。公诉人当庭举证的证据证明，2010年12月25号早上7点，王立权将这个手表交给钱云会，并且教给他如何使用，9点42分左右，钱云会开启了摄录的功能，事故发生以后，王立权到现场拿走了手表，并摄下了现场的情况，后来将手表交给儿子王旭乐将手表里的视频复制到电脑并拷贝到U盘，那么，这里需要说明一点的话，庭上的视频录像没有全部播放出来。那么诉讼代理人刚才提出来23号这个头像是不是钱云会，那么这里我们否定这里不是钱云会。这一点，证人王旭旭的证言予以证实。他看过这一个视频的资料，他当时看到了人为，这个视频里面看到的这个人就是钱云会，钱云会死亡的经过，并且在这之后，王立权摘走这只手表的时候，这个手表曾经拍到过这个钱云会倒在车轮底下这个画面，因此，可以确认，这个手表上最后看见的画面就是被害人、死者钱云会。第三，视频提取的程序合法、完善，有电子物证检验报告，证实手表里的13个视频是完整地提取出来的，提取的报告还有，这是和U盘里就是王旭乐拷贝出来的以及和电脑中的13个视频是完全一致的，这13段视频里面，除了钱云会摄录的他自己死亡之前的这个事故的经过，并且王立权摘下手表拍下的一系列的场景也在里面，包括在这13个视频里面，还有钱云会、王立权调试手表的录像视频。因此，这个视频，生前戴的这个视频，这个视频的内容连贯，所反映的事实真实，包括死者钱云会是开启手表之后，走路、撑雨伞、碰撞这些情况，真实地记录。那么这个视频不存在有剪接或者予以篡改这种情况。因此，这个视频是没有经过鉴定部门鉴定，是不存在其他的可能性。

法官：刚才法庭经过一轮的辩论，法庭已经把公诉人、诉讼代理人及辩护人三方的意见归纳如下：第一，公诉人认为本案事实清楚，证据充分，系肇事后逃逸，不适合判缓刑。第二，诉讼代理人认为本案的交通肇事罪存在着疑点，在审理过程中应当要严守程序。第三，辩护人不认定本案是逃逸，民事赔偿了105万，被告人是偶犯，其要求……被告人量刑从轻，并要求法院适用缓刑。上面第一轮的辩论法庭已经记录在案。接下来，诉讼代理人还有什么新的疑议？

诉讼代理人：有。

首先是对辩护人的一些说法做一些答辩。首先，我认为，我提出疑议，法院是多次打断我，说我讲的跟本案无关的事情，但是呢我觉得辩护人讲的好多也是与本案无关的东西，比如说讲谋杀啊，讲网络啊，讲一百多个质疑啊，法院为什么没有打断他？是不是帮政府说话就不要被打断，不帮政府说话就要打断？这是我提出来，我认为不公平的地方这是一个。

第二，关于辩护人说“掩盖事实真相”，开始我还认为他是说政府掩盖事实真相，后来又说是网络上掩盖真相，但是要注意网络上，政府也在网络上，所以我觉得老百姓提出一些质疑，只要不是有意传谣言，应该还是有宪法规定的权利吧？这些跟本案没有关系，提请法官你应该打断他。

第三，我们就还是要讲到这个录像问题。你说录像没有疑点，那么我就想问，其实公安机关在侦查阶段公布了很多照片，那么公安机关14号第一时间拿到录像，就看到了录像，14号就做了鉴定，为什么不公布？你只有跟诉讼代理人见过之后，第二天，才发布说拿到了这个录像。你说让他人怀疑不怀疑。

这是第一个疑点。

第二个疑点，钱云会这个在路上走得好好的，就把这个手表开机，开机然后开始照，照了自己最后被撞，非常之非常之奇怪，他为什么要吃饱饭没事干要在这里照呢？而且要先把自己照进来？就是像别人说的，他就是为了证明自己是交通事故，你说可能不可能？我觉得是不可能。

第三个疑点，这些现场，这些录像和现场记录全是不解释，我今天提出的任何疑点，公诉人解释清楚了吗？反光锥解释清楚了吗？保安的衣服解释清楚了吗？头盔解释清楚了吗？费良玉开始自己交代自己是黑衣服，后来录像出来又改口说是红衣服，你说可疑不可疑？

第四个疑点，王立权的儿子交代，U盘上，有些录像拷到U盘上，有十来个视频，其中不能播放的我都删除了。好，从公安机关从手表里下载下来的13段视频都还在，U盘上也是13个，那么他删掉的这些在哪里呢？公诉人说删掉的是U盘，那么好，手表上还有啊，那手表上应该不止13个啊，那你手表上第14个呢？检验出来也就13个啊。你说可疑不可疑？

民事证据我们不讲，民事证据最高法院明确规定证据规则，规定有疑点的视频要鉴定，本案疑点颇多，为什么不做鉴定呢？

公诉人说，我认为这个视频没有做过剪接，你是技术专家吗？你不是，我也不是，法官也不是，辩护人也不是，所以才需要专家。那公安机关做的鉴定只是我们从录像当中导出了13段视频，导出来之前有没有人编辑过呢？你当然需要鉴定，民事案件都需要做一个证明，都要去证明有没有剪出的东西，只要对方有疑议就要做鉴定，刑事案件的证据证明标准比民事案件要高，请问，为什么不做鉴定？

我从来没说费良玉是谋杀，我们没有证据说是谋杀，我只是质疑交通事故的疑点，这些质疑是不是有道理呢？你说，公诉人说王旭旭可以证明看到的视频是钱云会，王旭旭没有说12月23号那个视频是谁啊。他们都说12月25号钱云会才拿到视频，拿到手表，那23号手表上的视频是谁呢？没有解释清楚。

法官：还有？

诉讼代理人：有。

公诉人讲到，说证人不出庭，这是经法院允许。那么如果确实存在这样的情况，那么我就想问法院，我想质疑这个法庭，你根据最高法院的哪条规定，说证人不让出庭，公诉人申请不出庭的依据何在？

那么普通的交通事故为什么要做这么不普通的安排？为什么要这么急着开庭呢？为什么不年后开庭？你审限根本还没有过。普通的交通事故，但为什么要搞那么多不普通的安排？

你说，公诉人说的啊，有明显的刹车痕迹，但是，温州市鉴定机构鉴定却是不出车速是多少时，你说的刹车制动有多差，人证你省了，车速你为什么要给我省了？这个刹车痕迹，不能证明。

说费良玉报警，这是免费的号，所以电信记录不显示。我看这里还有10086，银行里面的电话，这方面也有记录啊，就算是免费的你不显示，那么证据呢？当地电信部门的证据呢？证据都没有你就说是，毕竟你不是证人，我也不是证人，我们在法庭上各有各的职责，各有各的角色，各有各的功能，但是是要靠证据说话。所以你没有证据我就要质疑你这个电话没有打过，因为你记录都没有。

公诉人说了，跟黄标的人际关系简单，我也没说黄标指使费良玉谋杀，我也没说费良玉谋杀，我只是说，这个案子那么多疑点。

你既然说很多事情是很巧合的，那么我要说很多的意外、非正常死亡也是有很多巧合，为什么要那么多特警？

你说动机，动机没有啊？就是因为寨桥村拦了那么多，拦过这条公路，那么，你不用每天紧张，当时380名保安……前两天还发生过保安与村民之间的冲突，没动机吗？

如果你要千方百计凑出东西来，我想一样的，但是没有证据我们也有权提出质疑，本案当中，最关键的视频，我觉得这个最关键的视频还是疑点重重，不要急于下结论。

要让我们心服口服，要让费良玉心服口服，也要让死者家属心服口服，不要急着把案子审完，走过堂，结束，判决。

如果说程序不完善，最后审判出来的结果，哪怕你是真的，也会引起质疑，如果一个法院的判决书，如果没人信，就没有效力了，我说的这个效力是对老百姓的效力，希望法庭公正，希望依法审判。完毕。

法官：被告人，你自己还有什么申辩的？

费良玉：我不知道这是不是……

法官：那就让辩护人代为发表意见。

辩护人：刚才公诉人认为被告人费良玉在交通肇事以后指使他人顶替，因此他的行为构成交通肇事后的逃逸，对这一个问题，本辩护人在第一轮发言当中，已经予以详细的阐述，相关的理由我就不再重复。但是，公诉人在这起案件里面，认为被告人费良玉有逃逸的量刑的从重情节，辩护人对此有不同看法。公诉人认为被告人无证驾驶，并且是严重超载，但是，辩护人认为，从我们交通事故认定书的有关认定情况来看，交通管理部门他把被告人的无证驾驶和超载的情节作为承担事故主要责任的内容，也就是说，这两个内容已经作为了交通事故的主要责任里面的内容，因此，它不能重复作为量刑情节。这一点，提请法庭注意。

那么，对于刚才诉讼代理人的一些说法，辩护人也想看几点看法。

我首先敬佩诉讼代理人的这种精神，但是，辩护人不赞同他的这种方法，我们同为律师，作为律师来讲，维护当事的正当权益，维护法律的正当实施，维护社会的公平正义，是我们的职责所在，但是我们应该以事实为证据，以法律为准绳，要让证据来说话，要用证明来的事实。

从本案的庭审过程，我们可以看出，视频的资料和其他证据，能够证明本案的基本事实，也就是说，被告人费良玉的这个案子是普通的交通肇事案，但是，我们遗憾的是诉讼代理人抱着怀疑一切的态度，否定这个，又否定那个，虽然，他提出了许多质疑，这些质疑我认为公诉人已经在第二轮发言当中做出了部分的说明，但是作为辩护人来讲，还是认为有必要回应。因为，虽然诉讼代理人认为他自己从来没有说过被告人费良玉有谋杀，但是他的质疑的潜台词就是让大家去遐想，去推测，因此对于这种态度，我是不赞同的。我们大家都知道，在一个刑事案子之中，基本事实查清，它的证据就做到了确实充分。

那么在这个刑事案件当中，它的证据之间可能有一些瑕疵，或者有一些问题。

但是如果这些问题能够得到答案和解释，很快就能得到排除，也就不能够成为问题。

那么，钱云会这只手表，诉讼代理人认为很奇怪，他为什么要戴这只手表。我认为不奇怪，因为钱云会是一个特殊的人物，他是你所知道的，已经多次地上访、一直在上访的人，而且你也知道，他和周围的单位是有矛盾，这只手表就是他在经历矛盾中摄取有关的资料作为上访的证据来使用，因此，他戴这个手表就比一般人戴这个手表就更容易让人理解。

那么，这段视频里面，第一个镜头是他的脸，他为什么拍自己的脸呢？诉讼代理人提出了这个问题，这是一个常识性的问题，因为他要开启，就把手表对着自己了打开开关，就会自然地把自己脸部的特写拍进去。所以我觉得，在这个视频当中，非常流畅，刚才公诉人已经讲了，我就不再重复。

那么对这样一个铁证如山的证据，也正如你诉讼代理人所说的，物证的效力是大于其他的效力，它的真实性是不容置疑的，那么一条物证你还说三道四，我认为没有道理。

那么视频里面出现的和其他证人之间的一些矛盾，我认为可以给予它一个合理的解释。你比方说，反光的这个塑料的这个锥，我没看清楚，那么说如果在这个视频里面没出现，那么可能是背景，是吧？你说这个视频里边没有出现保安人员戴钢盔，和钱成宇的证言发生矛盾，那可能是钱成宇的他的证言是错误的。因为按照你的那种说法我同意，就是物证的效力大于其他的效力。那么如果这个视频的资料和其他证据发生矛盾，特别是和当事的被告人和其他证人的证言发生矛盾，那么，应该按照这个视频的资料。

我也注意到，诉讼代理人抓住某些证人证言中的字句作为依据，我们应该知道，在刑事诉讼里面，由于证人回忆上的差错、记忆上的偏差和辞不达意的表达，都有可能造成证言当中的一些偏差，但是这些偏差现在已经不，我们认为，在本案当中已经不重要了，重要的是，已经有更多的证据证明了这就是一个普通的交通肇事案，所以，再抓住一些犄角的东西，我认为，这不是我们律师应该有的态度。我的话，完了。

法官：控辩双方及其诉讼代理人双方的意见，被告人还有什么说？

诉讼代理人：法庭，我还有话要说。

法官：如果，你的那些讲法，就上述庭上的讲法，如果，各方没有新的意见，法庭辩论将结束，另外，如果有新的意见，法庭还将继续把它讲，但是，不要涉及到前面已经讲过的问题，如果还会涉及到前面讲过的问题，法庭将会打断你。公诉人还有什么？

公诉人：审判长，公诉人还想强调几点。

刚才，诉讼代理人不断地对这个视频资料进行质疑，公诉人认为，这个视频，这个手表，这个视频来源于这个手表，这个手表的来源是可靠的，从证人王立权交给黄雪芬，黄雪芬再交给陈赛英，陈赛英再在薛品芬的陪同下交给警方，这说明手表的提取过程是一个连续的不间断的过程，每个环节都有相关证人加以证明，说明这个手表的来源是可靠的。

另外，对视频内容，证人王旭旭、王旭乐均证实看过这个视频内容，对交通事故发生的描述和视频显示的内容也是一致。第三个，鉴定机构对视频的提取也是一个科学的、严密的过程。刚才，在举证阶段，公诉人已经对视频的提取过程做了详细的说明。再强调一下，这个视频的操作时间是显示的2010年的12月25日，最后访问时间也是2010年的12月25日，并分别都记上了哈希值，说明，这个视频材料是不可能被篡改的，如果诉讼代理人对这个视频内容还继续质疑的话，只能说明诉讼代理人为了怀疑而怀疑一切。另外，刚才诉讼代理人提到警方对这个手表视频的提取时间是1月14号，说公安机关为什么不随时公布这个证据，那么，公安机关并无随时公布案情和证据的这个义务。

法官：诉讼代理人还有什么新的意见？

诉讼代理人：有。必须要做一些澄清啊。

法官：澄清就不要讲了。

诉讼代理人：我是要对案情做一些澄清，我有权利说，公诉人也有权利。刚才公诉人重复了吗，我也可以重复。

打比方啊，辩护人说，我看视频很流畅，你看电影吗？电影也是剪出来的。这是一个常识，我们不是专家，你也不是专家，视频有没有剪过，公诉人说哈希值，什么是哈希值？你是专家吗？你也不是。你说这视频没有剪过，谁来证明？法庭上质证就是来质疑的，而不是来相信的，而不是来拥护的，质疑就是有疑点，只要有合理意见就要提出来。

好，辩护人说，反光锥可能其他路段有，那么我问辩护人，你看过录像没有？你看完了没有？从头到尾都没有！作为律师，基本证据都没有看，其他证据可能有，其他部分可能有，其他在哪里呢？

说钢盔只有钱成宇说，那你有没有读过证据，孙金绪，保安在这里也是说戴钢盔的。看过证据没有？

你说记忆有偏差，反光锥只有一个人有偏差吗？费良玉也说了，黄标也说了，保安队长也说了，不止一个保安说了，都记忆有偏差，集体性失忆吗？一个偏差不说，四个偏差，接受得了吗？是可以怀疑吗？

有证据吗？是有证据啊，证言都有啊。我哪一句话没有证据？

戴手表我没有意见，但手表为什么在这个时候拍，这一段没什么事情就会拍，我也认为正常，钱云会，虽然坐过牢，但是他是条汉子，在乐清有这样的人为了维护集体权益，把自己家搞得破破烂烂……

法官：跟本案没有关系。

诉讼代理人：他可以说上访，我可以说他是条汉子。

法官：（击槌）诉讼代理人。

诉讼代理人：好，我最后说一句啊。

公诉人讲王旭乐、王旭旭说，显示内容，他们说他父母看到这个视频的时候，他父母说没有看到，第一次发问，最后我还是说，对这些关键性问题，有一个常识性的问题，就是找专家鉴定。

所以我希望法庭，在今天既然那么多证人不出庭的情况下，那你得把关键证据，鉴定人不出庭，证人不出庭，关键证据要送鉴定专家鉴定，否则，就算你做判决，就算你们所有人都认为事实已经查清了，天下太平，我认为不怎么太平。

希望起码法庭依法审判，维护国徽、维护法律的尊严。

法官：辩护人还有什么新的意见？

辩护人：没有了。诉讼代理人的意见……

法官：没有新的意见，法庭辩论阶段到此结束。根据法律规定，法庭辩论结束后，被告人有最后陈述的权利。被告人最后有什么要讲？

费良玉：审判长、审判员，今天，我作为被告开庭审理，其他的没有，只想说一下自己的感受。我，今天在这，老家在安徽，是一个偏远的农村，从小，就是怎么说呢，品学兼优的一个学生，后来因为家庭经济的影响，辍学，直到这个案发前为止，我还没有做过违法犯罪的事情。因为家庭的原因，多方借贷，买了这辆车子，到这里来跑运输，也只是想通过自己辛勤的劳动，让自己的家庭经济情况、物质生活更好一些。因为自己的违规，造成了这起事故，对死者以及家属带来了不可估量的伤害和痛苦，虽然说，民事部分已经委托我的诉讼代理人做了赔偿，且被害人家属已接受我的赔偿金，但在这里我仍然想对他们说一声对不起，希望你们……

至于本人，在9月份因车祸住过院，这些都可以在我当地县级医院调查。事故发生以后，我在看守所，每天都是在痛苦和悔恨中度过的。死者家属，以及我的家庭，虽然说，我已经赔付了被害人家属巨额的赔款，但那毕竟是一条人命。虽然说已经取得了他们对我的谅解，但我想请他们原谅我，因为我的家属，父母年迈体弱，孩子又小，妻子身体不好……这些，还请法庭，审判长、审判员，在对我量刑的时候，能够从轻处罚我。

法官：好了？

费良玉：嗯。

法官：根据法律规定，法庭已经审理经过及有关当事人对控辩的陈述，法庭将对本案进行合议。休庭。将被告人费良玉带出去。

休庭。

三、宣判

公诉人、辩护人、诉讼代理人入庭。

审判长、审判员、人民陪审员入庭。

被告人费良玉入庭。

法官：本案已经刚才法庭调查、法庭辩论、被告人最后陈述，合议庭认真听取了各方意见，认真、仔细、全面地对本案进行合议，首先对几个问题做说明。

第一个，法庭从立案到审理，遵循了刑诉法有关公开开庭审理的规定。

第二，关于不延期审理的问题，法庭在法定时期内通知了受害人家属及被告人，而诉讼代理人在1月28号递交了附带民事诉状，而诉状委托人没有签字，后诉讼代理人又在1月30号晚上递交了委托诉讼代理人的函，但委托书也没有签字，委托人自己将合格的委托书和委托函于2011年1月30号晚11点提交法院，此是被害人家属或者委托诉讼代理人造成，延期审理理由不成立，本庭如期开庭。

第三个，关于附带民事诉讼问题，不合并审理的原因。第一，法定的开庭时间已经确定，第二，合格的诉状于1月30号递交法院，第三，被告人费良玉需要一定的答辩时间，第四，根据委托诉讼代理人的诉状，还有可能要追加相关的当事人，就上述问题，法庭在庭前已全面告知于诉讼代理人。

现本庭，现合议庭在综合听取各方意见后，认真、仔细、全面地对本案进行评议认为：起诉书指控被告人费良玉犯交通肇事罪，对此，被告人费良玉并没有疑议，并有刚才当庭举证、质证，质证的物证、书证、被告人的陈述、证人证言、鉴定结论、现场勘查笔录和视频资料等证据予以证实，可以认定。

这里就视频问题就如下说明：第一个，视频取得的程序合法；第二个，王立权等人可以证明25号上午戴到钱云会手上的手表是怎么被王立权取得，并交给儿子刻录到视频文件上；第三个，王立权及儿子看过视频后并确认头像是钱云会；第四，实物雨伞经确认与视频一致；第五，诉讼代理人进行猜测，没有证据证实。以上证据足以证明视频可采信，不需要鉴定。

被告人费良玉无驾驶证（驾驶）超载车辆，违反交通法规，并致一人死亡，其负事故的主要责任，其行为符合《刑法》规定的交通肇事罪的构成要件，因此，公诉机关指控被告人费良玉犯交通肇事罪事实清楚，证据确凿充分，罪名成立，本合议庭予以认定。

起诉指控被告人构成交通肇事后逃逸，被告人及辩护人辩称，被告人没有逃离现场，不构成逃逸。

合议庭经评议认为，交通肇事后逃逸，是指行为人发生交通事故，在构成交通肇事罪的交通事故后，为逃避法律追究而逃跑行为。被告人费良玉在肇事后，要求黄标顶替，并在交警到达事故现场时，自称是肇事车主，隐瞒自己是肇事者，并叫他人将黄标送至虹桥交警中队，其本人则回家换了交通肇事所穿的衣服。黄标归案后，指认费良玉是真正的肇事者，费良玉归案之后拒不承认，后才予承认。被告人虽无逃离现场，但是行为找人顶替，主观目的显然是为了逃避法律追究，客观方面表现为隐匿自己为肇事者，其行为符合逃逸的实质要件。因此，可以认定被告人费良玉的行为构成交通肇事后逃逸。由此，被告人及被告人辩护人提出的意见，本合议庭不予采纳。

被告人费良玉无证驾驶车辆，且严重超载，违法情节严重，应当予以从重处罚。鉴于被告人在交通肇事事故后，负主要责任，在庭审中认罪态度较好，被害人家属代表与被告人委托诉讼代理人达成赔偿协议，其属偶犯，其协议的105万已履行完毕，可以酌情予以从轻处罚。关于辩护人提出不是逃逸、在三年以下量刑、并适用缓刑的意见，本合议庭不予采纳。

综合上述全部情节，本案事实清楚，证据充分，择日宣判不予采纳，根据量刑相适应原则，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第133条、《最高人民法院关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律的若干问题的解释》第三条之规定，判决如下：

被告人费良玉犯交通肇事罪，判处有期徒刑三年六个月，如不服本判决，可在接到判决书第二日起，在十日内，通过本院或浙江省温州市中级人民法院提起上诉，书面上诉的，应提交正本一份、副本两份。今天是口头宣判，判决书在五日内送达。

被告人，你服判吗？

费良玉：不服。

法官：退庭。

钱云会案手机与微摄视频调查记录

【王立权家属称全家被迫作伪证、手表视频造假】

【视频未做真伪鉴定，律师质疑其与多项证据冲突】

【关键证物钱云会手机被警方提取但未呈堂，涉嫌隐匿】

【呈堂处警单记载案发于9时30，与警方一贯说法9时45冲突，但与自称目击谋杀的证人口述吻合】

中国经济时报记者   刘建锋  欧阳艳琴

21世纪经济报道记者王思璟对本文亦有贡献

    2010年12月25日，曾有多年上访经历的浙江省乐清市蒲岐镇寨桥村前村主任钱云会被发现死于村口路边的工程车轮下，引发社会高度关注与争议。

    2011年2月1日上午，乐清市法院开庭审理“费良玉交通肇事案”并当庭宣判，认定钱云会死于交通肇事，排除其他可能。此判决再次引发争议。

    ——钱父的诉讼代理人斯伟江律师指出，检方多项呈堂证据相互矛盾，现有证据不能完全排除谋杀可能。

    ——检方当庭提交了警方提取到的手表和手表摄录视频，但未提交视频曾否被剪接、修改的鉴定报告。

    ——卷宗材料显示，警方已经提取到王立权手机，但未将这一关键证物呈堂，也未提交钱云会的手机通话清单。

    ——检方出示的多项证据称，案发时间为 9时45分。但卷宗中，乐清市虹桥交警中队交警单号201012250948040002000000000305的处警单上记载：“案件发生时间2010-12-25，9:30:04”。

    这一时间与中国经济时报记者《钱云会案证人调查记录》中证人“目新一”所述案发时间9：30-9：33吻合，他指证钱死于谋杀。

    ——当庭宣判时，审判长说：“视频可采信，不需要鉴定。”

    但在1月29日，王立权的妻子黄雪芬、大儿子王旭旭和小儿子王旭乐亲口对中国经济时报记者说，他们在1月13日后受到威胁，被迫作伪证，“视频已经作假了”。

    2010年12月底和2011年1月底，中国经济时报记者和21世纪经济报道记者两赴温州乐清调查，本文主要是对钱云会手机和手表视频的调查记录。

钱云会手机：关键证物未被呈堂

    钱云会手机被公众认为是钱案的核心证据之一，关于钱云会手机，记者的调查记录如下：

【2010年12月29日上午，钱云会家，钱云会堂弟讲述】

    “那天事发后不久，亲戚在泥地里找到钱云会的手机，当时是打湿了关机的，交到钱云会的叔叔钱清松手里，钱清松把它转交到王立权手里，由王立权、钱成钱他们几个人一起拿去查通话记录。”

【2010年12月29日下午，钱云会家，钱成钱讲述】

    “那天，我和王立权还有几个人一起拿到手机，马上找了一个隐蔽的地方，把手机打开一看，里面最后那个电话的号码记录没有了。”

【2010年12月31日下午，钱云会家，钱云会亲弟讲述】

    “前两天一个记者领着我去电话公司看通话记录，电话公司说，要我报出钱云会最近拨打或者接听的十个号码，我报不出来，就不肯给我看。”

【2011年1月1日上午，钱云会家，钱云会妻子王招燕第一次确认】

“25日上午9点左右，钱云会接了一个电话，说着电话出的门……”

【2011年1月3日上午，钱云会家，钱妻王招燕第二次确认】

    “除了两个人，一般人来电话他不接，一起上访的王立权来电话要接，再就是徐副镇长。”

    “25日上午9点左右，钱云会接了一个电话，说着电话时出的门……”

【2011年1月3日，《新世纪周刊》报道】

    钱云会的“最后一个电话”受到特别关注。警方声称，已调取通话记录，通话时间为12月25日上午“不到8点时”，“打给村民王某”。

【2011年1月4日，寨桥村，村民钱成钱核实】

    “从王立权爱人这里核实的是，8:30-8:31王立权给钱云会打的最后一个电话,9点左右给钱云会打电话的不是王立权。”

【2011年1月26日，央视《新闻调查》“钱云会之死” 解说】

    “据温州市公安局介绍，警方调查结果显示，12月25日上午，钱云会接到最后一个电话的准确时间是8点31分，通话时间长度为47秒，来电号码就是王立权的手机号码。”

【2011年1月27日夜，钱云会家，钱妻王招燕第三次确认】

    “他是接着电话出门的，是9点钟。”

    “死前一般人的电话他不接，王立权的电话要接，驻村副镇长的电话他要接的……”

    当夜，王招燕与女婿赵旭证实，钱云会平时自己抽的是5元一包的烟，敬人的时候才会买14元一包的烟，而1月3日上午，寨桥村口附近的小卖店主对中国经济时报记者证实，当天上午9时许钱云会找他买三包每包售价14元的“利群”烟，因店里卖完了便转而去华一村购买。

【2011年1月11日，学界公民乐清观察团发布消息】

    “本观察团帮助王立权家属联系聘请的两位上海律师今日会见王立权，王表示：……最后钱云会出来并死亡的电话并非他打的……”

【2011年1月14日，警方讯问王立权长子王旭旭笔录，第5页】

    问：“那个手机和手表现在何处？”

    答：“手机现在我的房间的窗台上，手表不知道在哪里了”

【2011年1月15日，警方讯问王立权笔录第4页，该页显示警方已经提取到钱云会手机并向王立权出示，并获确认】

    问：钱清松交你保管的钱云会死前所用的手机是不是这只？（出示）

    答：是的。

【2011年1月31日，钱云会家，钱云会亲弟讲述】