【新唐人2011年2月7日讯】中国浙江乐清维权村长钱云会案件，一审判决“交通肇事罪”罪名成立，肇事司机被判有期徒刑三年六个月。虽然官方再次宣布这是一起普通的交通事故，可是，在庭审中第一次出示的关键证据——钱云会死前所戴的具有微录功能的手表，引发了官方和民间的巨大争议。
在2月1号的庭审中，乐清市法院公诉方出示了关键证据——钱云会死前所戴具有微录功能的手表，并播放了其中一段时间码为〔2010年12月25号上午9点45分46秒到49分23秒〕间的视频。不过律师提出对录影进行权威鉴定的要求，没有获得法庭支持。
随着这段视频被公布到网络上，大量网友展开侦探式的质问。为什么录影只有两分钟不到时间？为什么钱云会正好在被撞之前，开启了录影功能？为何钱云会被辗死时没有惨叫？为何他死后手表被人拿走，警方又在1月10号之后才寻获？网民强烈怀疑有人伪造假证据。网友调侃说，“颁个奥斯卡最佳剪辑奖吧！”
此后，新浪网又爆出所谓的30分钟没有剪辑的录影，但被找出了更多的疑点。
大陆著名足球评论员李承鹏在他的博文《出事表》中，详细分析了这段视频。他发现了以下疑点：这段视频中间被剪裁了1分20秒，不是完整的原始视频﹔全视频听不到重载车急刹时应有的刹车声！视频最后结束时不是黑画面而是静止，说明视频并非到此结束。此外，钱云会被撞后人飞到路边，伞却没有飞，以及供词前后矛盾等等疑点。李承鹏认为，这个视频反而让疑问更多。
2月5号，中共官方《新华网》发表题为《警惕网络推手误导网上舆论》的文章。文章声称，钱云会案件是由网络推手制造、推动、扩散谣言而让网民因此难辨真假、信假为真。
博客作家石三生撰文表示，到底谁才是中国区域网中最大的网络黑手？如果网络不是动辄遮罩监管甚至逮捕劳教，网民们有必要隐姓埋名才敢说句话吗？新华社想一言一统天下，为什么不干脆提议修改宪法，将那好看不中用的“言论自由”四个字直接删除了不是更好？
在这之前，《新华网》1月29 号曾透露，已经找到可以证明此案为单纯交通事故的关键新证据——就是钱云会的手表。报导还声称，这进一步佐证了公安部门，认定这起案件为一起普通交通事故的结论。
1月30号，新加坡《联合早报》针对《新华网》的报导发表评论说，这是继《中央电视台》上周三播出的相关调查报告之后，中共官方媒体一周内第二次高调澄清这起备受舆论关注的事件，其有意维护日渐低落的政府公信力，以及引导舆论导向的意图十分明显。
新唐人记者李静、李璐综合报导。
The death of rights activist village head Qian Yunhui in Yueqing, Zhejiang, was judged to be an accident. The driver was sentenced to three and half years in prison. Although the authorities again announced it to be a usual car accident, a key evidence shown for the 1st time at court, Qian’s recordable watch, worn by him before his death, sparked a huge controversy.
On Feb. 1, the prosecutors from Yueqing Municipal Court presented the key vidence, Qian’s watch, and played a video recorded by it with time code “from 9:45:46 a.m. to 9:49:23 a.m., Dec. 25, 2010." The lawyers requested to examine the authenticity of the footage, but the court refused.
After the video was released online, a large number of netizens started their etective-style interrogation. Why is the video only less than 2 minutes long?
Why did Qian start recording before he was killed? Why didn’t Qian scream before he was killed? Why was the watch taken away after Qian died, only to be found by the police after Jan. 10, 2011? Netizens strongly suspect the evidence to be a fake. Some joked, “Give it Academy Award for best editing!"
Afterwards, Sina.com released a so-called uncut 30-minute video clip, but more doubts were raised.
Famed Chinese soccer commentator Li Chengpeng analyzed the longer video clip on his blog. He found that about 1’20” was cut in the middle. It is not the complete original video clip. There is no heavy vehicle braking sound in the video.
At the end, the screen is not black but still, meaning that the video doesn’t end there. In addition, Qian was thrown to the roadside after the crash, but the umbrella wasn’t thrown out. Also, the statements read at court are contradictory.
Li thinks this video raises more doubts and questions.
On Feb. 5, the official Xinhua.net published an article titled “Beware of Misleading Online Public Opinion." It claimed that the rumors about Qian case were
fabricated, promoted and spread by online agitators to make it difficult for the netizens to distinguish between the truth and the lies.
Blog writer Shi Sansheng wrote, who is China’s largest online black hand? If not threatened by online supervision and labor camps,
would netizens dare speak only in anonymity? If Xinhua News wants to dominate the speech, why not amend China’s constitution to delete the good-looking but useless “free speech"?
Previously, Xinhua.net revealed on Jan. 29, the key new evidence that can prove it is an accident – Qian’s recordable watch – was found. The article also claimed that this evidence further assisted the police to reach this conclusion.
On Jan. 30, Singapore’s newspaper Lianhe Zaobao commented on Xinhua’s report. It said, following CCTV’s broadcast on last Wednesday, this is the 2nd time in a week the official media made a high-profile clarification of this infamous incident. Its intention is very clear, to guide the public opinion and maintain the government’s deteriorating credibility.
NTD reporter Li Jing and LiLu.
