【新唐人2011年2月7日訊】中國浙江樂清維權村長錢雲會案件，一審判決「交通肇事罪」罪名成立，肇事司機被判有期徒刑三年六個月。雖然官方再次宣佈這是一起普通的交通事故，可是，在庭審中第一次出示的關鍵證據——錢雲會死前所戴的具有微錄功能的手錶，引發了官方和民間的巨大爭議。
在2月1號的庭審中，樂清市法院公訴方出示了關鍵證據——錢雲會死前所戴具有微錄功能的手錶，並播放了其中一段時間碼為〔2010年12月25號上午9點45分46秒到49分23秒〕間的視頻。不過律師提出對錄影進行權威鑑定的要求，沒有獲得法庭支持。
隨著這段視頻被公布到網絡上，大量網友展開偵探式的質問。為甚麼錄影只有兩分鐘不到時間？為甚麼錢雲會正好在被撞之前，開啟了錄影功能？為何錢雲會被輾死時沒有慘叫？為何他死後手錶被人拿走，警方又在1月10號之後才尋獲？網民強烈懷疑有人偽造假證據。網友調侃說，「頒個奧斯卡最佳剪輯獎吧！」
此後，新浪網又爆出所謂的30分鐘沒有剪輯的錄影，但被找出了更多的疑點。
大陸著名足球評論員李承鵬在他的博文《出事表》中，詳細分析了這段視頻。他發現了以下疑點：這段視頻中間被剪裁了1分20秒，不是完整的原始視頻﹔全視頻聽不到重載車急剎時應有的剎車聲！視頻最後結束時不是黑畫面而是靜止，說明視頻並非到此結束。此外，錢雲會被撞後人飛到路邊，傘卻沒有飛，以及供詞前後矛盾等等疑點。李承鵬認為，這個視頻反而讓疑問更多。
2月5號，中共官方《新華網》發表題為《警惕網絡推手誤導網上輿論》的文章。文章聲稱，錢雲會案件是由網絡推手製造、推動、擴散謠言而讓網民因此難辨真假、信假為真。
博客作家石三生撰文表示，到底誰才是中國區域網中最大的網絡黑手？如果網絡不是動輒遮罩監管甚至逮捕勞教，網民們有必要隱姓埋名才敢說句話嗎？新華社想一言一統天下，為甚麼不乾脆提議修改憲法，將那好看不中用的「言論自由」四個字直接刪除了不是更好？
在這之前，《新華網》1月29 號曾透露，已經找到可以證明此案為單純交通事故的關鍵新證據——就是錢雲會的手錶。報導還聲稱，這進一步佐證了公安部門，認定這起案件為一起普通交通事故的結論。
1月30號，新加坡《聯合早報》針對《新華網》的報導發表評論說，這是繼《中央電視臺》上週三播出的相關調查報告之後，中共官方媒體一週內第二次高調澄清這起備受輿論關注的事件，其有意維護日漸低落的政府公信力，以及引導輿論導向的意圖十分明顯。
新唐人記者李靜、李璐綜合報導。
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 evidence, 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 detective-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
