The presence of cauterization and burn injury on Chen's abdominal wound was extensively reported during the first week after the shooting. This piece of evidence was hailed as ``proof'' that Chen's wound was caused by gunshot, therefore not staged, by the President's office. Chen's attending physicians also quoted cauterization of the wound as a possible factor when questioned on the surprisingly small quantity of blood found on Chen's clothing.
For whatever reason, the presence of burn mark was not recorded in the CIB Report [CIB1], nor in the Lee Report [L1]. Similarly, the depth of Chen's abdominal wound, ``approximately two centimeters'', was extensively reported. Again this piece of evidence was missing in [CIB1] and [L1].
The presence of burn mark and the depth of the wound are the consensus of all known eyewitnesses of Chen's abdominal wound before it was treated and sewn together. These eyewitnesses include the three physicians in the President's medical team who traveled with Chen on March 19,
Below are samples of what these doctors said during official news conferences within the first twenty four hours after the shooting, as reported by major news media.
``There was burn injury of the skin at the rims of the President's wound. Antibiotics were given as a preventive measure ...''See page 4 of Liberty Times, March 20.
``The President received 32 stitches, ... There were black burn marks on both sides of the wound.''See page A1 of United Daily Times, March 20, reported by Guo Xiansheng. The exact words also appeared on page 1 of Liberty Times, March 31.
``There was a sharp wound on President Chen's abdomen, with burn marks on it.''Reported by Zhang Rongxiang, Central News Agency, March 20.
``I immediately went to the President's car, and examined the President's vital signs and also his wound. Our preliminary determination was that the wound did not reach the abdominal cavity. The epidermis felt charred.''Liberty Times, March 20, reported by Xu Shaoxuan.
``A horizontal lacerated wound was found, approximately 3 cm below the navel. The wound was approximately 2 cm wide, 11 cm long, and 2 cm deep, reaching the subcutaneous tissues24 ... The medical team25, appraised the abdominal wound, and determined that it was caused by the penetration by a foreign metal object, likely to be a bullet, which entered from the right and exited to the left, resulting in a graze wound with burn injury.''See the report by Wan Hueixing, page A5 of China Times, March 20, 2004.
``After President Chen and Vice President Lu were admitted to the Emergency Room of Chi Mei Medical Center, the deputy superintendent Dr. Li and the President's medical team examined the President's vital signs, which were stable. There was a horizontal lacerated wound on the abdomen, close to the navel, approximately 11 cm long, 2 cm wide. The wound was approximately 2 cm deep, but did not reach the abdominal muscles. In other words, only the epidermis, dermis, and the subcutaneous tissues were damaged.''
``There were obvious burn injury on the edges of the horizontal wound on President Chen's abdomen. The shape of the wound was completely different from that of a knife wound or a wound by firecrackers.''Liberty Times went on to report that
``The abdominal wound extended to the second layer of subcutaneous fat''and emphasized that it was a graze gunshot wound.
The most compelling evidence of the presence of burn injury on Chen's abdominal wound is perhaps the collective testimony of Dr. Xiao, Dr. Jian, Dr. Tan, Dr. Li, Dr. Lin, Dr. Zhang and Ms. Xiao during an interview in Dahua News of the cable TV station SETN26. Invited by the anchor Zheng Hongyi, these physicians went live on a special program of Dahua News on March 26, 2004, with express authorization from President Chen. It was a de facto deposition. In that program, they reaffirmed what had been reported by the media concerning the President's wound, including the depth and the length of the wound, and revealed additional details not previously reported. The presence of burn injury was confirmed by Dr. Jian, the plastic surgeon in the President's medical team, who said:
``The wound was irregular, not a knife wound, and there are burn injuries at the rims, ..., so was treated as a gunshot wound.There were no objection or modification raised concerning the burn injury, nor about the depth and length of the wound during the entire program. The testimony of these medical professionals were reported by Zhang Chunyu of the government-run wire service Central News Agency on March 26.
On September 2, 2004, Dr. Jian and Dr. Lin testified in court. Dr. Lin testified 27
``The rim of the President's wound was irregular. The edge was charred black, and looked like having being grazed by gun powder on the bullet, ...''and Dr. Jian testified28
``The edge [of the wound] manifested irregular states of burn, ... The was not much bleeding, but [I] do not know whether it is related to the [presence of] burn injury.''
On September 14, Dr. Xiao and Dr. Li testified in court. Dr. Xiao testified29
``It was a relatively straight wound. There were burn marks around the edge of the wound. ... There were many reasons why there was not much bleeding. One possible factor is [the presence of] burn injury.''Dr. Li testified30
``...Around the wound, there were irregular saw-tooth-like marks and burn marks.... Looking again at the irregular saw-tooth-like marks and the burn marks, my judgment was that it was most likely a gunshot wound.''31Notice that the physicians not only confirmed the presence of burn injury, two of them also cited it as a factor why there was not much bleeding in Chen's wound.32
How reliable are the testimonies of these doctors, who, as a group, were very consistent in their description of the wound? We take as a given that those doctors reported honestly and professionally. The length of the wound is not in dispute: we have all seen the photos, and Chen's abdomen was observed by several American forensic experts. The width of the wound is not considered important for forensic purposes: an abdominal wound such as Chen's would widen after its formation. It is a natural physiological phenomenon.
What about the depth of the wound? The doctors described the depth of the wound in anatomical terms: the wound went beyond the epidermis and the dermis, reaching into the subcutaneous tissue, the second layer of the subcutaneous fat to be precise. Dr. C. H., a burn specialist, estimated the depth of the wound to be 2.5 cm, based on the testimony that the wound ``reached the second layer of subcutaneous fat''. The official depth of 1.2 cm is at the low end of the possible range for a graze wound that reached the second layer of subcutaneous fat. If one believes the doctors anatomical description of the wound, then the depth of the graze wound would be at least 1.2 cm.
Next we address the presence of burn marks on the wound. Could it be that all those doctors, at least five surgeons among them, mistook some black substance on the wound as burn marks? Let us first consider what the black substance might be, if there was something black on the abdominal wound. Could it be soot? Here is some background information. In general the bullet may carry soot on its surface, and deposit the soot on the target. Page 119 of [DM] on bullet wipe contains the following passage on bullet wipe:
Bullet holes of entrance in the skin may have a gray coloration to the abrasion ring. This gray rim around the entrance is very common, and more prominent, in clothing, where it is called ``bullet wipe''. Bullet wipe consists principally of soot, deposited on the surface of the bullet as it moves down the barrel, which is rubbed off the bullet by the skin or clothing as it penetrates the body.Now the bullet must penetrate seven layers33 of clothing before it reached the abdominal skin, and soot was wiped off at each layer. Therefore not much soot could still remain on the bullet after it passed through seven layers of fabrics. Remember that Dr. Lin Hung-jung discussed black burn marks, and Dr. Xiao stated that the epidermis had a charred feel. The doctors saw something black, not grey. What the doctors considered as black burn mark could not have come from the bullet wipe.34
What if the black substance the doctors witnessed were actually congealed blood rather than burn marks? It is agreed among forensic pathologists that emergency room physicians often misinterpret gunshot wounds. This point is discussed on pages 256-257 of [DM]. It is clear from loc. cit. that, although emergency room doctors do often err in interpreting the number of projectiles, and also in differentiating exits and entrances, they are not prone to mistaking congealed blood for burn marks. The author has consulted with several senior physicians in Taiwan. The consensus, as expressed by the deputy superintendent of a teaching hospital of a national university in southern Taiwan, is that Taiwanese surgeons may not be familiar with gunshot wounds, but they are experienced with burn injury; the surgical lasers and electro-cautery systems routinely used in surgery give them intimate knowledge on coagulated or cauterized tissues. The surgeons recognize burn injuries from the characteristics of damaged tissues. These surgeons are experienced physicians in senior positions. They treated the wound, touched and felt it, and we are certain that they proceeded with great care and caution, considering that the patient was the President! It is, therefore, highly improbable that they could have all made the same elementary error, misidentifying congealed blood, or soot in bullet wipe, as burned tissues.