Chapter 38 fourth quarter

The only physical evidence in the case was a crowbar and wrench found at the scene believed to have been used in the derailment operation.As mentioned earlier, the Yuchuan police immediately ordered a search when they arrived and found it in the field.However, who discovered the wrench is still unclear. It turned out that the crowbar and wrench were stolen from the warehouse of the Songchuan road maintenance team, but after gradually investigating, this point became untenable.It is doubtful whether it is something from the Songchuan road maintenance team.The judgment made such an ambiguous conclusion: "It cannot be said that it is not something from the Songchuan Road Maintenance Team."

But leave that alone.As previously stated, the crowbar and wrench were the only murder weapons in this case.A witness at the scene said, “The evidence crowbar was made with gauge tie rods (iron bars used to fix the gauge).” It is said that the same statement was recorded in the accident report of the national railway.Moreover, both witnesses said: "The Songchuan road maintenance team also has crowbars similar to the physical evidence crowbars, presumably made of gauge tie rods. However, it cannot be concluded that the physical evidence crowbars belong to the Songchuan road maintenance team." One of the witnesses Regarding the thickness of the gauge tie rods, he stated: "Remember that the gauge tie rods used on the rails are thinner than the crowbars used as physical evidence in this case, and thicker than those used on the 37kg rails."

In other words, the rails of the State-owned Railway Company have two specifications of 30 kilograms and 37 kilograms, and the crowbar found at the scene does not belong to any of them.From this point of view, the physical evidence crowbar is not made of the gauge tie rods used by the National Railways. The tip of the crowbar used as evidence was also engraved with the letter Y.The front end of the elbow is engraved with the letter X, which is not as deep as the Y.There is also a saying that the side of the slash of the letter X stretched a little longer, forming irregularities, perhaps scratches.Leaving aside X, the letter Y is engraved very clearly.

In addition, there is one more thing to note about this crowbar, that is, the front end near the elbow of the crowbar is stained with grass green and vermilion paint. This way of dipping the paint makes people think that it was used for marking, or it was accidentally applied when painting other objects.However, witnesses from the National Railways said that they never used colored paint for marking, and they have the following testimony about the grass-green paint: "Signals, etc. are sometimes painted with sky blue paint, but grass green paint is rarely used." (witness Takahashi Nisuke)

The verdict used the word "rarely" to play tricks: "According to Takahashi Nisuke, who testified in this trial, grass-green paint is rarely used in road maintenance areas. Even so, it cannot be regarded as absolutely Not used, and it is not enough to conclude that this crowbar is not a spare tool of the National Railways.” However, Takahashi's testimony that "rarely used" has a negative meaning.Witnesses who said "very little" did not say it with any basis, but only inadvertently - as long as you read the court records, you will understand this.In other words, the meaning of this "rarely" is almost "never".In English, the judge interpreted little (almost none) as a little (a little).

The judge further added to this explanation: "It is not enough to conclude that this crowbar is not a spare tool of the National Railways"-he was emphasizing that the crowbar is "a spare tool of the National Railways." But, to put it simply, the grass green stained on this crowbar still has a problem of light and dark shades: there are differences in bright grass green, dark grass green and light grass green and so on. It is said that the grass green and vermilion paint has almost disappeared from the evidence crowbar nowadays.I have not seen physical evidence, and I have no choice but to ask people who have seen it with their own eyes.According to defender Gang Lin, that kind of grass green is "dark grass green".

As the witness Takahashi said: "Anyway, the road maintenance team doesn't use coloring material, so I can't remember it." Assuming that the crowbar in question was from the Matsukawa road maintenance team, the warehouse there didn't have such colored crowbars. paint.As mentioned above in the judgment, the term "rarely used" is extended to "it cannot be considered never to be used" to emphasize its possibility.In fact, this is just a far-fetched wording.Based on the testimony, we all know that the crowbar should not have grass green paint on it.Although sky blue is also used in signal machines and the like, anyone can tell the difference between sky blue and grass green when they see it.

This color problem is an important point that I will talk about later. Furthermore, this crowbar is engraved with the imprint of the English letters X·Y, which are not engraved on the tools of the National Railways.After this case happened, this issue caused disputes.Afterwards, the railway stipulated that Japanese-style marks such as "フクホ" be engraved on them.And this crowbar has a vertical stripe on it.Those who testified at the scene also confessed that when working with crowbars, they usually draw horizontal lines more often than vertical lines.I don't understand why only this crowbar has vertical stripes.

Second is the wrench issue.The physical evidence wrench found at the scene is a so-called live wrench, and the National Railways uses a larger long-handled single-mouth wrench in railroad operations.The appraisers Bashan, Musashi, Xiaoshan and Xianbo said something like this: It is almost impossible to remove the bolt cap of the fish plate with a small spanner with a length of only 24 centimeters, at least it is doubtful.A test was done with a live wrench with the same hardness as the physical evidence, and the wrench cracked immediately and could not be used, because it was not hard enough.However, the conclusion of the verdict is: "It is not unreasonable to think that the physical evidence bucket wrench and crowbar were used in committing this case." However, unfortunately, we can only talk so much about the bucket wrench, and we will talk about other things next. problem.

Let's talk about the fishplate problem again. According to Akama's confession, they "removed one fishplate and carried out operations that caused the overturn." Therefore, the prosecutors asserted from the beginning that only one fishplate was removed.However, the train cannot turn over just by removing one fishplate.The prosecutor's statement changed several times, and nearly a year and a half after the incident, it became "then it was determined that two places were demolished in this case." "Let's find out why the statement about the fishplate was changed three times. Our defense pointed to the fact that two fishplates were removed at the scene of the rollover in this case. The prosecutor faced this simple and clear fact , showing such vacillation and racking their brains, what is the reason? It is simply because this simple fact shows that the real culprits in this case are not the twenty defendants, but a completely different kind of people.” (Defender Gang Lin’s debate gist)

But when it came to the second trial, the prosecutor took out two fishplates again.They understood that it is impossible for a fishplate train to overturn just by removing one fishplate, so they changed it to remove two.They did not know where to produce the two pieces that had not been produced before as evidence.Therefore, the defender said that the prosecutor had hidden the two fishplates.In this way, the statement in Akama's confession that only one place was removed is untenable.They produced evidence that two places had been removed.Since it is impossible to overturn the car by removing one part, the procuratorial authorities had to testify for the other part (one with two fishplates).Prosecutors said that the new physical evidence had been stored in the warehouse until then, and due to carelessness, they were not seen. However, it is not clear whether this new physical evidence fishplate is from the scene; because the two fishplates that were taken out later were not straight, but curved.Judging from the situation on site, the fishplate must be straight, if it is bent, it is not right. If considered in terms of this fact, it seems to be the case that the other two fishplates in the case were lost somewhere, and in fact no longer exist.However, in that case, the prosecutorial authority would not be able to prove the defendant's crime, so they found two fishplates from the side in an attempt to prevaricate it.In short, the whereabouts of the two fishplates in the other place are unknown. So why are the other two fishplates missing?Where are they?And Mi, why can't I find it?I will also speculate on this question later.