【新唐人2012年8月10日訊】備受外界矚目的薄谷開來涉嫌謀殺案，庭審一天後宣告結束，谷開來沒有對檢控方指控她的故意殺人罪提出反對，她的家人也沒有出現審判現場。外界指出，這個案子的審理像事先安排好了的，背後還有很多謎團需要揭開。
8月9號，安徽省合肥市中級法院一審公開開庭，審理了被告人薄谷開來、張曉軍故意殺害英國人尼爾•伍德一案。合肥市人民檢察院認為，被告人薄谷開來、張曉軍採取投毒手段殺人，應當以故意殺人罪追究其刑事責任，薄谷開來是主犯。
審判下午結束，法庭宣佈擇期宣判。
據媒體報導，谷開來沒有對檢控方指控她的故意殺人罪提出反對，她的辯護人為她辯護聲稱，薄谷開來在作案時控制能力弱於正常人，但她有檢舉他人的重大立功表現，請求法庭判決綜合考慮。
被告人薄谷開來、張曉軍及被害人尼爾•伍德的部分親友、英國駐華使領館官員、人大代表、政協委員及各界群眾140多人旁聽了庭審。但是，美聯社、BBC、合眾國際社、歐洲時報等數十家外媒記者，被擋在法院大門外而形成庭審時外面的圍觀者，一半是記者，一半是便衣。
大陸安徽人士：「實際對薄谷開來開庭審判我個人不是太感興趣，因為她是共產黨體制內狗咬狗的結果。我個人來說，殺人償命。無緣無故的剝奪別人的生命，應該是判死刑的。」
不過，香港《開放》雜誌總編輯金鐘表示，這種法律的審判和真正的司法獨立，以公平、公正、公開的原則審判是完全不一樣的，給人的感覺是「結果早就定好了，只是走過場。」只是對外面有一個交代。
金鐘：「從辯護律師可以看得出來，谷開來不會有死刑。當然他要走一走這個過程，把這個過程走得像那麼回事一樣，然後最後宣判。」
南京律師張贊寧也表示，這個案子只是表面按著法律規定的程序在走。只讓事先安排好的人參加，拒絕海外媒體旁聽，違反公開審理原則。
江蘇維權律師張贊寧：「因為審理像這樣一類重大案子，包括對四人幫的審批，都是事先安排好了的，調子都已經訂好了。這是我所知的。」
大陸民權律師唐吉田認為，從事前披露委託辯護人的情況，以及參加旁聽人員來看，只能說是部分公開審理。是當局從如何有利於掌控局面、引導輿論，這些角度去做的安排。
大陸民權律師唐吉田： 「不管它是一個所謂普通刑事案件也好，還是在案件之外有其他因素，但是最關鍵的一點，要滿足公眾的知情權。並且最大限度的讓法官、法院在法定的職權內發揮作用，才能夠確保這個案件真正發揮它的法律乃至於社會積極作用。」
美國「喬治梅森大學」教授章天亮認為，從媒體公布谷開來是殺人主犯來看，谷開來可能會被判死刑。但這背後還有很多問題需要澄清，比如，谷開來與英國人到底有什麼樣的經濟衝突，她當時殺人的動機是什麼？薄熙來與此案有什麼關係等等。這些問題不解開，只處理谷開來，大家很難滿意。
美「喬治梅森大學」教授章天亮：「薄熙來對谷開來這個事情是不是知情不報，當時王立軍為什麼跟薄熙來翻臉？為什麼他沒有向周永康去求救，而是跑到美國領事館。」
不過，有消息顯示，谷開來的罪行還涉及將被迫害致死的法輪功學員遺體非法販賣給外國公司，並從中牟利。而這些遺體被製作成人體標本，已在世界各地公開展出。
看來，谷開來案子的水到底有多深，還需要時間來揭開。
採訪/朱智善 編輯/宋風 後製/肖顏
Gu’s Murder Trial: The Doubts Remain
On her murder trial, Gu Kailai did not object
the charges of her intentional homicide.
None of her immediate family members
attended the hearing.
Commentators say the trial seemed to have been
well pre-arranged, leaving great many mysteries uncovered.
On August 9, Hefei Intermediate People’s Court tried
Gu Kailai and Zhang Xiaojun for killing UK’s Neil Heywood.
The court claimed the accused should be prosecuted
for criminal culpability in intentional homicide.
Gu Kailai was the principal offender
in this joint offence.
The trial ended in the afternoon.
The verdict will be delivered at a later date.
Media reported that Gu Kailai did not raise objections
to the accusations of intentional homicide.
Gu’s government-appointed lawyer claimed Gu’s capacity
for self-control was “weaker” when committing the crime.
And that Gu had made major contributions
by reporting offences of others.
Gu’s defender asked the court to take into account
all these factors for the formal verdict.
Over 140 people attended the hearing, including relatives
of Gu Kailai, Zhang Xiaojun and Neil Heywood.
The British Embassy’ and Consulate officials
were present too.
Journalists from over dozen foreign media, including
AP, BBC, UPI, was not allowed to enter the courthouse.
Citizen (Anhui Province): “I’m not interested in Gu’s trial.
It’s just like a dog being bitten by another dog within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
I personally believe in ‘life for a life.’ Arbitrary depriving
someone of his life should get the death sentence."
Jin Zhong, Hong Kong’s Open magazine’ chief editor,
didn’t see an independent judiciary in this hearing.
The result seemed to have been “decided well in advance,
but just going through the motions,” said Jin Zhong.
Jin Zhong: “Gu’s defense lawyer’s remarks showed
that Gu wouldn’t be given the death penalty.
Of course, they had to go through the motions,
and then wait for the court verdict."
Nanjing-based lawyer Zhang Zanning agreed
that the trial of Gu Kailai was a mere formality.
Only pre-arranged people were allowed to be present
at the hearing, which rejected foreign media to attend.
This is against the principle of public trial,
Zhang remarked.
Zhang Zanning: “All major cases similar to this, such as
the trial of the Gang of Four, were pre-arranged.
The official tone was all set in advance,
I know that.”
China’s human rights lawyer Tang Jitian said,
the trial could only be viewed as partially public.
The CCP authorities disclosed the defense lawyer,
and prearranged who will be in the public at the trial.
This was intentionally done by them to keep control
over the situation and guide the public opinion.
Tang Jitian: “It makes no difference whether it’s
an ordinary criminal case or a more complicated one.
The most important point is that the public
should have the right to know.
And maximum freedom should be given to the judges
and the court to play their statutory role in the case.
Only by doing this,
could the trial’s positive role be ensured.”
Zhang Tianliang, professor at George Mason University,
thinks that Gu Kailai may face a death sentence, as Gu was reportedly identified as the “main perpetrator.”
But a lot of problems behind-the-scene
need to be clarified, Zhang said.
For example, what kind of economic conflicts have aroused
between Gu Kailai and Briton Neil Heywood?
What were Gu’s motives for the murder?
How was Bo Xilai linked to this case?
Without addressing these suspicions, only giving verdict
to Gu Kailai will not possibly satisfy the public.
Zhang Tianliang:"Bo Xilai knew about Gu Kailai’s crime,
but didn’t report it.
Why did Wang Lijun fell out
of Bo Xilai’s good books at that time?
Why didn’t Wang Lijun go for help to Zhou Yongkang,
but choose to flee to the U.S. Consulate?"
Sources revealed that Gu was also implicated in illegal sale
of bodies of persecuted Falun Gong practitioners to foreign companies for profit.
These Falun Gong practitioners’ bodies were turned
into human specimens for public display around the world.
This is just the tip of Gu Kailai’s case.
How deep is this iceberg under the water?
The world is waiting for some time now
for more truths to be unveiled.