The case of Ho Duy Hai is not overly stirring, but today, May 13, 2020, his lawyer Tran Hong Phong has just added a new fact that can prove Ho Duy Hai’s innocence.
According to the lawyer, the cut on the victim’s neck indicates that the perpetrator must be left-handed, while Ho Duy Hai is right-handed …
On the afternoon of May 13, lawyer Tran Hong Phong, who was invited by the family of death row Ho Duy Hai for legal aid, said he submitted the application and provided the latest evidence to the country’s president and the head of the parliment’s Justice Committee, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, the Supreme People’s Court and press agencies.
According to lawyer Phong, right after the cassation hearing, he and his colleagues reviewed the case file and discovered an extra alibi of Ho Duy Hai. “It was through the mechanism of guiding the cuts on the necks of the two victims, showing that the killer who murdered the two female employees must be left-handed. Meanwhile, death row inmate Ho Duy Hai affirmed that Hai is right-handed,” Phong said.
According to the lawyer, in the testimonies, when conducting the investigation and in the investigation conclusions, indictments and judgments (first instance, appellate) all show Hai from the front position, using the right hand to cut the necks of the two victims – definitely won’t be able to make the cut direction as noted on the bodies of the two victims.
“If the perpetrator is left-handed and verified (it can be done quickly and easily), this is an important alibi of death row inmate Ho Duy Hai. From examining the direction of the cut on the neck of the two victims, it was completely possible to identify a left-handed perpetrator,” Phong said.
Referring to the forensic literature that has been educationalized and has almost become a universally accepted and agreed principle, applied in the fields of health, and criminal science, the lawyer cited: If the perpetrator is left-handed and cut off the neck from the front (opposite) of the victim, it will cause a left-to-right cut. Conversely, right-handed perpetrators will cause cuts in the direction from right to left.
If the perpetrator is left-handed and cuts off the neck from behind (standing behind) the victim, it will cause a right-to-left cut. And vice versa, if right-handed perpetrator will cause cuts in the direction from left to right.
“In this case, the murderer who murdered the two victims must almost certainly be very close to the two female victims (especially with Hong), and the murdering must be in late hours after they had a meal. This gives us a sense of inference regarding the two people who were lovers of the victims of Hong, Nguyen Mi Sol, and Nguyen Van Nghi. However, it is a pity that there is no information identifying the circumstances of these two individuals’ details,” the lawyer said.
Dr. Le Thanh Van, a lawmaker from Ca Mau province, made a direct petition to National Assembly Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, Dan Tri newspaper reported on Monday.
“When the case has so many proceedings violated, it is very necessary to be re-investigated,” Dan Tri quoted Mr. Van.
The legislator proposed to consider and apply the provisions of Article 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code on requests, petitions and proposals to review decisions of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court.
On May 12, a member of the senior management of the Supreme People’s Court was quoted by the state press in a press briefing the same day, further confirming the Court’s position on the Supreme People’s Court’s decision of the cassation, saying that despite the “mistakes,” the “nature” of the crime in the case is unchanged.
“The procedural agencies have errors, we all see. For example, not timely recovering the cutting board, the knife as evidence is a mistake,” Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, Mr. Le Tri Tue, is reported by the VOV network.
“The fact that we could not promptly recover the cutting board, the knife … all of the procedural agencies recorded errors. However, compared with the testimonies and evidence to strengthen the accusation, the council saw no unfairless.
The nature of the case is the murder of Ho Duy Hai and the Judge Council has determined that there is a mistake but does not affect the nature of the case, so there is no reasón to cancel the sentence,” said Tue.
Besides, the public opinion said that Mr. Nguyen Hoa Binh, who is the chief justice of the Supreme People’s Court and the person rejected Hai’ appeal in 2011 when he was the head of the Supreme People’s Procuracy, was illegally to head the cassation hearing last week.
However, Mr. Tue said that cassation procedure is a special stage. The chief judge and director have the right to protest or not to protest but still be allowed to participate in the Panel of the Judges of the Judges’ Council, not having to conduct one-time proceedings but may conduct the procedure many times without violating it.
Tue also said that after the cassation hearing of Ho Duy Hai case, many members of the Judges’ Council received messages of threats of terrorism and insults.
Also according to Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, social networks are appearing many fabricated information about the case, calling for the destruction of the judicial system, and procedure-conducting agencies from the central to local levels.
He stressed that: “More dangerous is that some legislators misrepresent the contents of the case, giving subjective opinions based on information on social networks to make the problem more complicated.”
Perhaps, Tue implied that the three legislators of the National Assembly had made public statements: Luu Binh Nhuong, Le Thanh Van and Truong Trong Nghia.
On May 12, 2020, on Luu Binh Nhuong’s Facebook page, a status line appeared in boldface: “I am the National Assembly Member Luu Binh Nhuong, I am very afraid of being threatened by the deputy chief of justice.”
Master Hoang Viet, a lecturer at the University of Law, commented on his personal Facebook page on May 13: “The threat of the Deputy Chief Justice to the National Assembly legislators showed that many legal officials did not understand the law.”
Legislator Le Thanh Van also spoke on his Facebook: “I look in the Constitution and the laws on the organization and operation of our National Assembly, to find out if there are any provisions that allow the Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court to” condemn “National Assembly legislators of having “dangerous” statement, when the legislators exercise their oversight, but cannot find it. Is it possible that Mr. Nguyen Tri Tue gave himself the right in the name of the judicial body to judge the opinions of the National Assembly legislators – whom the Constitution gives the mission to represent the people’s will, aspirations, and ownership?”
Also about opposing opinions in public opinion, the People’s Court Magazine quoted Colonel Nguyen Minh Tam from the People’s Public Security Academy, saying: “I see that the situation” is serious in the area” as it is now. It is certainly hostile forces outside taking advantage of it. Even, both legislators and two freelance journalists were taken advantage of to provide information in a superficial way.”
“The most typical case is Tr.C.H.D (ie Truong Chau Huu Danh) – who followed this case right from the beginning when the incident happened. On social media, this person wrote a lot of negative things, he considered himself a freelance journalist and spread fabricated information in a way that would benefit the defendant,” Colonel Tam said.
He also said that “there are some legislators not specialized in law, not sure about the case file but still voicing the assessment, not to mention the judgments made completely wrong compared to reality, this is very dangerous.”
Colonel Tam also proposed to report directly to General Secretary cum President Nguyen Phu Trong and the Politburo on the case and the current media issue.
On May 7, Thanh Tra (Inspection) newspaper reported the views of legislator Truong Trong Nghia on the case:
“There are mistakes that must be corrected because if they are wrong but not corrected, it is the distortion of the justice system … the most critical issue in Ho Duy Hai’s case is the issue of evidence.”
“A very basic principle of the criminal law of every civilized nation is to have enough evidence to accuse it. Our Constitution, Criminal Code, are too.”
The newspaper quoted legislator Luu Binh Nhuong, who said that there were cases of “covering” that the court could not detect.
“The process of investigation, the process of making records, authorized officials had committed wrongdoings
“When I was a lawyer, I saw the sentences were written like by kids. Very bad. Interests were violated, crimes were abandoned, of course, people continue to have to complain“, Mr. Nhuong was quoted as by Thanh Tra.
On May 12, legislator Truong Trong Nghia was also reported by the Vietnamese press saying “it will bring Ho Duy Hai case to the National Assembly Standing Committee.”
“By law, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly may consult with the Supreme People’s Court or may propose the National Assembly to oversee the supreme the trial of the case of Ho Duy Hai and the subject will be decided by the National Assembly,” Nghia was quoted as saying by Tien Phong Online newspaper.