Mr. Bui Viet Hieu witnessed that Mr. Le Dinh Kinh was shot to death with a gun with a silencer (“gun barrel as big as wrist“) and “gunner stood in front of Mr. Kinh about 1m, with the gun barrel pointing directly at his chest.” But according to the conclusion of the investigation and the indictment, Mrs. Kinh was shot two times from behind by the police, about 2 to 2.5 meters away.
On September 3, 2020, the defense attorneys for 21 out of 29 defendants in the Dong Tam case sent a Petition to the court, specifically stating some of the testimony of Mr. Bui Viet Hieu making during meetings with his lawyers in the detention center.
Mr. Bui Viet Hieu told his lawyer that Mr. Le Dinh Kinh was shot right in front of him. “The shooter stood in front of Mrs. Kinh about 1 meter, the gun barrel was as big as his wrist, pointing directly at Mrs. Kinh’s chest. Mrs. Kinh fell down, died in front of me, and then a police professional dog pulled his body away.”
According to Mr. Bui Viet Hieu’s testimony, after shooting to death Mr. Le Dinh Kinh, people lit a light and shot him 2 times: 1 shot in the leg and the other in the chest. The fact that Mr. Hieu escaped death was out of expectation of the shooters because they aimed to shoot at his heart, but the bullets slipped down the side and exploded, causing Mr. Hieu to have holes in 3 duodenum and 2 colon holes. At 11 noon on January 9, 2020, after waiting for death, he did not die, but fell into a coma, his heart stopped, before he was taken to the emergency room.
Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, now 77 years old, used to join the army, was a man with meritorious services to the revolution, regularly participating in meetings of the Veterans Association of Dong Tam Commune. He is also a member of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) under the Party Committee of Dong Tam commune.
In addition to the above testimony of Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, in the petition to the lawyers also pointed out the irrational points in the Indictment and the Investigation Conclusion:
About Mr. Kinh’s behavior
Page 13 The indictment stated: Mrs. Kinh repeatedly attacked a functional force: using an iron tube attached with a sharp knife to attack and scratch the skin of an unidentified soldier (the first time), using an iron tube with sharp knife attacked another soldier but failed to injure him (2nd time), maybe the one who threw a grenade from his room but it did not explode (3rd time) … so the police forces had to shoot to kill him. When he died, Mrs. Kinh still held an unexploded grenade in his right hand.
Considering the data given by the Hanoi People’s Procuracy, the killing Mrs. Kinh was necessary and in accordance with the law. However, it is necessary to reconsider the fact that, since he was beaten and his leg was broken in 2017, Mrs. Kinh has mainly been in a wheelchair gifted by Mr. Nguyen Duc Chung. Later (some months before the raid on Jan 9), Mrs. Kinh may not need to use a wheelchair but had to walk with a rod, therefore, it is unrealistic to think that Mrs. Kinh can hold an iron rod with one hand for balance and a knife in one hand to attack police officers.
The affirmation of Mrs. Kinh holding a knife to attack police can only be the basis to confirm that shooting him was in accordance with the law, but proving the reality he could or not can be made by scientific basis and experimental at the scene.
About the death of Mrs. Kinh
According to the Investigation Conclusion No. 210 / KLĐT-PC01 (Đ3) dated June 5, 2020 of the Police Investigation Agency-Hanoi Police and the Indictment No. 241 / CT-VKS-P2 dated June 24, 2020 of the Hanoi People’s Procuracy, Mrs. Kinh was shot two times from the back, about 2-2.5m away, but autopsy showed that two frontal wounds were small round, there was no rubbing but two the back wound is larger, the edge of the wound is ragged, showing that bullets were fired from a direct direction, from front to back and the bullet type was explosive, so the bullet wound through the back will be larger than the entry.
This deduction also coincides with the above testimony of defendant Bui Viet Hieu. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether Mrs. Kinh really committed the act of fighting against the police forces and whether or not shooting and killing Mr. Kinh were in accordance with the law or not.
About the wound of defendant Bui Viet Hieu
In the petition sent to the court, the lawyers stated that “in the Investigation Conclusion, there is a mention of defendant Bui Viet Hieu’s injury but did not say why he was injured, while the Indictment does not mention of this fact,” so “it is necessary to clearly define that not mentioning the injuries of accused Bui Viet Hieu is an intentional ignorance or just a subjective problem or error in terms of professional affairs. And no matter what it comes from, it needs to be amended and supplemented in time.”
Comment of activist Trinh Ba Phuong
The testimony of Mr. Bui Viet Hieu when meeting his lawyers in the detention center is also consistent with the remarks of Mr. Trinh Ba Phuong, who has the conditions to contact with Le Dinh Kinh’s widow, Mrs. Du Thi Thanh and inspected the scene (their house).
Mr. Trinh Ba Phuong said that the indictment was written very elaborately and in detail, but with the following serious wrongful details:
1. Page 15 describes the first crash into Kinh’s room, the police fired a warning shot only from the main door, tried to break into the room from the rear iron door, but he resisted with a knife through the door gap so policemen were unable to open the door and did not fire another shot.
2. Page 16 describes Mrs. Kinh standing with his back to the attacking policemen, holding a grenade, being shot 2 times to death and being bitten by a sniffing dog on his knee.
3. Page 29, concluding forensicism says Mrs. Kinh was killed by 2 straight bullets, died from blood loss.
With these 3 details in the Indictment, the Police Investigation Agency tried to say that Mrs. Kinh was shot dead before any policeman entered his bedroom, only the police professional dog came in and bited his left knee and pulled out to the living room.
But widow Du Thi Thanh said that when the police entered the room, covered her mouth, locked her hand and dragged her out, at that time she witnessed her husband still alive in their room. Before that she saw Mrs. Kinh having difficulty in breathing due to police’s tear gas, so she had to take a woolen hat to soak in water and give it to Mrs. Kinh. Until she was taken to Mieu Mon station, she still did not think that her husband was dead.
Thus, it can be confirmed that killing Mrs. Kinh took place after taking Mrs. Thanh out, rather than shooting and dying right after police breaking the door of the kitchen, at that time the policemen had not yet broken into the room to take Mrs. Thành away
The Investigation Conclusion has the following paragraph:
“When breaking the door lock of the niche (the entrance to the kitchen), the Task Force found that Le Dinh Kinh was holding a grenade in his right hand, standing next to the door of the inner bedroom, his back facing the Working Group. The gun aimed at the subject, about 2-2.5m away from Kinh’s position and opened fire twice, injuring him in the back area and he fell into the room, head inwards, feet facing the room door. Right after that, a professional dog rushed into the room to bite on his left knee and drag his body out to the living room on the first floor of the house. When the police force approached him, Le Dinh Kinh was found dead in his back lying position, with his right hand still holding a grenade“
Mr. Trinh Ba Phuong commented that Mr. Kinh’s bedroom was in the red box (see photo), where is the shooter standing? At a distance of 2 – 2.5 meters, the shooter in the working group can only stand behind the house wall or close to the kitchen door with enough distance from 2 to 2.5 meters, but if standing behind the wall, he cannot shoot through the wall and hit Mr. Kinh’s back. If standing close to the kitchen door to have enough distance as the conclusion of investigation says, it is necessary to clarify the following details:
If Mr. Kinh stood close to the bedroom door inside (Mr. Hieu together stood nestled against the wall with Mr. Kinh) as according to the Investigation Conclusion, the angle of fire could not hit Mr. Kinh’s back, but with that angle the bullets would only can shoot at the edge of the room door.
If Mrs. Kinh stood close to the door outside and turned his back to the attacking policemen, when he hit 2 shots, Mrs. Kinh could not fall in the direction as the Investigation Conclusion which says he fell his head in the direction of the room, his feet facing the door but naturally when affected by the force of the shot (the angle of shot must be a diagonal shot from the door of the kitchen to have enough distance from 2 to 2.5 meters), Mrs. Kinh must fall down the corridor.
While the trace at the scene was a lot of blood in the bedroom (see photo), not outside the door in the hallway. His family also found in the bedroom a sack stuffed under the bed, in a load filled with blood wiped by available clothes in the room.
This proves that the conclusion of this investigation was a fabrication and the killing of Mrs. Kinh was planned and pre-arranged.
Traces in old Kinh’s bedroom
Mrs. Kinh’s posture to fall to the ground after being shot dead
According to the author’s inference of this article, if Mrs. Kinh was actually shot 2 bullets from behind, whether standing next to the bedroom door inside or outside the bedroom, Mrs. Kinh must fall face down to the ground (due to the impact of force fired from behind), ie in a prone position on the ground. But the Conclusion of Investigation states:
“Right then, a police professional dog rushed into the room to bite on his left knee and drag it out to the living room on the first floor of the house. When the police force approached him, Le Dinh Kinh was found dead in his back lying position, with his right hand still holding a grenade.”
The dog that bit on the knee of Mrs. Kinh and dragged his body away could not change the posture of Mrs. Kinh lying on his stomach on the ground to lying on his back. Apparently the Investigation Agency has fabricated.
Furthermore, a bite to the knee (see photo) shows that the police dog dragged Mr. Kinh away with his back lying position on the ground. That means that Mrs. Kinh was shot from the front (front), so he fell on his back, exactly as Mr. Bui Viet Hieu told his lawyer.