華航CI611澎湖空難罹難者身分辨識之探討

Abstract

民國91年(2002)5月25日，中華航空公司CI611飛機於下午3時29分在澎湖附近上空發生空難，造成機上全體機員與乘客一共225位不幸罹難。雷達顯示該機在高度34,900呎時發生空中解體，飛機遺骸散落在相當大的海域。 一般而言，空難發生時，飛機因高速墜落、撞擊或爆炸，大量燃油瞬間燃燒的結果，罹難者遺體往往因外力撕裂而四分五裂，且因撞擊而扭曲變形，或因高溫燃燒，造成身體組織高度炭化而致面目全非。然而，本案例就已尋獲的部份而言，除了極少數的零星遺骸之外，幾乎都是完整的遺體，且無燃燒現象，死後二、三天還可目視辨認，第三、四天以後才因腐敗而難以目視辨認，第99日(8月31日)打撈上岸的第175具則已白骨化。這是本案例較為特殊之處。 關於身分辨識的三項法定方法---指紋、DNA與牙齒，按官方檔案，225名中89名有指紋卡檔案，而回收的175(77.7%)具遺體中，有33具經指紋確認。按此比例，理論上這175具中指紋比對應該可以確認69具，然而實際上只有33具，換言之，理論上有36具是因腐敗而無法比對指紋。 罹難者遺體的DNA比對，刑事警察局檢驗191件，調查局檢驗213件。之外有7個零星遺骸，在這7個遺骸中5個無法檢出其DNA型別 (71.4%)。但相關檔案中沒有說明，404個(191+213)DNA檢體中有幾個是有檢出或無檢出DNA型別，故無法評估本案中DNA鑑定比對的功能。 牙齒比對，根據檔案記載僅有：「牙醫師八十八人，每人平均出勤二至三日，經牙科記錄比對罹難者身分而獲得雙重確認者不在少數」。由於檔案中沒有牙齒比對確認身分之詳細數據，同樣無法顯示牙齒鑑定比對之功能。 地檢署規定，「嗣後經家屬初步確認之遺體，除非另有指紋鑑定結果可以佐證，均俟DNA比對結果出爐後，再行發還遺體」，這個規定顯示牙齒鑑定不被視為法定方法。其實，根據先進國家的經驗，牙齒鑑定是大災難罹難者身分辨識的重要方法，特別是對於火燒、腐敗與白骨化而無法目視確認之遺體。 空難，屬於密閉式災難，有罹難者的名單，一般而言藉由傳統的指紋及牙齒鑑定比對，可在最短時間內完成大部分身分辨識，DNA雖然是最重要科技，但通常是用來補充傳統方法之不足，而非全數仰賴DNA。 本論文根據個人過去參與國內空難案件之罹難者身分辨識及參考先進國家的實務經驗，提出以下本案例罹難者身分辯識之問題點與改善之道： 1. 遺體腐敗是指紋比對與DNA比對的最大罩門，雖然官方聲稱175名尋獲者皆完成DNA比對，惟尚有存疑。 2 本案例的DNA比對只使用家屬血液，這是所謂親子鑑定的方法，其實更 直接的是使用罹難者的生前DNA，例如病理切片與個人牙刷。, 3. 政府的相關單位與專家，多抱持偵查不公開的態度，多不願意將相關資料 整理、分析與發表，這對災難作業處理的持續改善相當不利。 4. DNA比對的結果與研究應有完整的檢討報告，作為未來的改善。 5. 指紋比對是身分辨識的重要工具，如能建立全國國民資料庫，始能發揮最大功能。 6. 本案例以DNA、指紋比對為主軸，牙齒比對只是輔助，罹難者的生前及死後的口內影像、X光片與照片等並沒有完整收集與建檔，不無有憾。另外，無電腦輔助牙齒比對軟體可使用，這一點應加以改善。 7. 牙醫師大多為開業醫師，時間有限，必須有行政人員全程參與配合，負責牙齒比對相關資料的收集、整理、分析與歸還。

May 25, 2002, 3:29 pm, China Airline Flight number CI611 disintegrated in midair over Penghu, all 225 passengers and staff were killed. Radar screen showed it happened 34900 ft. above ground, debris scattered around a vast area at sea. In general, when air tragedy occurs, as a result of plane high speed decent, impact or fire and explosion, the human body would deform, disintegrate, or burned beyond recognition. Yet, with this incident, most bodies were intact, no signs of burning, except few body parts, and can still be recognized after 2- 3 days. The 175th body recovered on the 99th day was just skeleton, all these made this case outstanding. There are three ways of identifying a person: First: Fingerprint According to officials there were 89 ante-mortem fingerprint records out of 225 victims, and from 175 bodies found there were 33 identified by fingerprint, base on the initial ratio of 89/225, there should be 69 bodies identified, the other 36 could not be identified due to decomposition. So, fingerprint method has a low rate of success. Second: DNA In DNA identification, CIB( Criminal Investigation Bureau, 刑事警察局 ) examined 191 cases and MJIB( Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, 法務部調查局 ) examined 213 cases (191 + 213 = 404). 5 out of 7 DNA results of some partial remains were not identified (71.4%). No official data showed the number of cases were identified by DNA in 404, therefore, there is no way of knowing how effective this method can be either Third: Odontology Per DVI (Disaster Victim Identification), it was suggested that Forensic Odontology is a better method for identifying a decomposed body. Officials noted “There were numerous cases identified by 88 dentists working 2-3 days per person”, yet no comprehensive data becomes public, as a result, this method is also debatable. Official rules: In order for a family to claim the victim, not only it needs to be identified by family by sight, it needs fingerprint’s confirmation, above all, DNA result Apparently Odontology is not legally recommended in our country, but it is the most widely used method of ID’ing a victim in many advanced nations, especially for decomposed body. The air disaster is usually classified as “Enclosed Disaster”, with victims’ name list we can accomplish a lot in a shortest time by using fingerprint and dental record. On the other hand, DNA is quite costly and time consuming, it can only be used as supplemental, not a major way. This thesis is base on the accumulated personal experiences on participation in the past domestic air disaster victim ID process, and learning from advanced nation’s actual handling, and submitting personal concerns regarding this specific air disaster’s ID process, and also suggestions on future improvements: 1. Fingerprint and DNA ID testing can be less effective on decomposed body, although a specialist announced that officials had ID’d all 175 victims by way of DNA, according to above mentioned, I have doubt. 2. They used family member’s blood for DNA testing in this case, this is “Paternity Test”, in fact, ante-mortem DNA of victim is more direct, like pathologic biopsy and personal toothbrush. 3. The governmental in charge units and specialist mostly do not and will not sort, analyze and make public the findings, this makes the advancement of disaster handling extremely difficult. 4. The result and study of DNA should be disclosed for the future improvement. 5. Fingerprint is an important tool for personal identification, If we can set up a naional fingerprint data base, then we can do it better. 6. DNA and fingerprint were emphasized in this investigation. Odontology was thought as a supplemental method.So far we do not have complete victems’ ante-mortem and post-mortem dental records, also no software for computer assisted dental data matching was available, all of these are urgently needed. 7. Dentist as volunteer is helpful in identifying victims when air disaster strikes, but they are private practitioners and their time involved are limited, so we need administrator’s participation in all processes to collect, sort, analyze and return of all dental data and documentations.