2025/5/20

目錄

 

 

 

張貼者： 於

U.K. Watchdog Report 7-5：證明信函

※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGCs_KN3x8。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。

 

 

7-5 letters of certification


0:17→To prove her PhD degree, Ing-Wen Tsai had repeatedly relied on letters of certification.
為了證明自己的博士學位，蔡英文曾多次依賴認證信函。
0:25→Shortly after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10th, 1982, Tsai decided to complete an overseas students job application registration form and apply for a teaching position in Taiwan.
蔡在1982年11月10日退學後不久，她決定填寫留學生就業登記表，申請回台灣教書。（編按：蔡首先於1982年12月取得美國兩年碩士班的成績單，而後在次年2月要求曾在英國指導一年多的老師說明她的近況，隨即在3月填寫就業登記表。）
0:40→According to the form, Tsai's PhD degree was to be awarded in May 1983, and she planned to return to Taiwan after receiving her PhD degree in May 1983.
根據表格，蔡的博士學位將在1983年5月授予，而她計劃1983年5月取得博士學位後返回台灣。
0:54→On May 23rd, 1983, the National Youth Commission recommended Tsai to the National Chengchi University for a position to teach laws.
1983年5月23日，行政院青年輔導委員會推薦她到國立政治大學教授法律。
1:03→The recommendation letter also stated that Tsai's PhD was awarded in May 1983.
推薦信也指出蔡的博士學位是在1983年5月授予。
1:12→At the time, Tsai had no PhD diploma to prove her PhD degree awarded in May 1983.
當時蔡並沒有博士文憑來證明她在1983年5月獲得博士學位。
1:21→She relied on a letter of certification she requested from Michael Elliott on February 17th, 1983.
她依賴的是1983年2月17日向Michael Elliott索取來的一封證明信。
1:26→Elliott's letter certified Tsai was shortly to submit her doctoral thesis soon and her viva exam would be held in the spring of 1983.
Elliott的信件證明蔡很快就要提交她的博士論文，而她的口試將於1983年春季舉行。
1:39→Elliott's letter was subpoenaed from the National Chengchi University by the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
Elliott的信件是國立政治大學依令交給台灣台北地方檢察署的。
1:46→Tsai, her office, and her attorneys never responded to the questions raised regarding Elliott's letter of certification.
蔡、她的辦公室和她的律師從未回應過有關Elliott證明信的問題。
1:56→On May 30th, 1983, Chengchi University declined to offer a teaching position to Tsai.
1983年5月30日，政治大學拒絕聘用蔡為教員。
2:06→In June 1983, "the National Chengchi University Law Review" published Tsai's journal article and presented Tsai as a legal scholar with a PhD degree in international economic law from LSE.
1983年6月，《政大法學評論》刊登了蔡的期刊文章，並介紹蔡為擁有LSE國際經濟法博士學位的法律學者。
2:26→On June 30th, 1983, Tsai returned from San Francisco to Taiwan.
1983年6月30日，蔡從舊金山返回台灣。
2:35→2 months later, on September 1st, 1983, Tsai began to teach at Soochow University.
兩個月後，1983年9月1日，蔡開始在東吳大學任教。
2:45→Her teaching position was as an adjunct lecturer, indicating that Soochow University did not accept Tsai's PhD degree awarded in May 1983.
她的教職是兼職講師，這表明東吳大學並未接受蔡於1983年5月獲得博士學位的說法。
2:58→On February 16th, 1984, Tsai was promoted from adjunct lecturer to adjunct associate professor at Soochow University.
1984年2月16日，蔡由東吳大學兼職講師升為兼職副教授。
3:10→Tsai's original PhD diploma was issued on March 14th, 1984, only 27 days after Tsai's promotion.
蔡的原始博士文憑是在1984年3月14日頒發的，距離蔡的升遷僅27天。
3:21→Instead of waiting for about a month, Tsai relied on her viva result notification letter issued on February 8th, 1984, to prove her PhD degree.
蔡無需等待大約一個月的時間，而是依靠1984年2月8日發出的口試成績通知函來證明她的博士學位。
3:34→Furthermore, Tsai had another letter of certification issued on January 23rd, 1984.
此外，蔡還有另一封於1984年1月23日簽發的證明信。
3:43→It was issued only 16 days before Tsai's viva result notification letter was issued on February 8th, 1984.
該證明是1984年2月8日發出蔡的口試成績通知函之前16天發出的。
3:54→Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, issued the letter of certification certifying that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis in June 1983, and her viva exam was held in mid October 1983.
LSE研究生院秘書Ian Stephenson出具了證明信，證明蔡於1983年6月提交博士論文，而且她的口試於1983年10月中旬舉行。
4:11→The letter also certified that the examiners had been satisfied with Tsai's thesis and Tsai's performance in the oral exam and had recommended to the UoL that the degree of PhD be awarded.
信中也證明考官對蔡的論文和口試表現感到滿意，並建議倫敦大學授予其博士學位。
4:25→The thesis submission date and the viva exam date were for details of Tsai's viva exam, based on the ICO decision notice dated November 26th, 2020:
論文提交日期和口試考試日期是根據2020年11月26日ICO裁定通知中有關蔡的口試詳細資訊：
4:33→Tsai's LSE student file did not include details of her viva exam.
蔡的LSE學生檔案中沒有她的口試詳細資料。
4:43→Stephenson was Secretary of The LSE Graduate School.
Stephenson曾任LSE研究生院秘書。
4:50→Based on Tsai's LSE student file, he had no way of knowing when Tsai's thesis submission date and viva exam date were.
根據蔡的LSE學生檔案，他無法知道蔡的論文提交日期和口試日期。
5:01→For the information of Tsai's viva examiners, LSE admitted that LSE had no way of cross-checking it, and LSE considered it unlikely that they would have done so.
對於蔡的口試考官資訊，LSE承認校方沒有辦法進行相互校驗，而且LSE認為他們不太可能會這樣做。
5:13→By the same token, Stephenson had no way of cross-checking Tsai's thesis submission date and viva exam date, and it was unlikely that Stephenson would have done so.
同樣，Stephenson無法相互校驗蔡的論文提交日期和口試日期，而且他也不太可能會這樣做。
5:26→Regarding Tsai's viva exam result, when Stephenson wrote the letter, UoL had not yet issued the viva result notification letter.
關於蔡的口試成績，當Stephenson寫這封信時，倫敦大學尚未發出口試成績通知函。
5:37→In the early 1980s, the UoL was the degree awarding body.
1980年代初，倫敦大學是學位授予機構。
5:41→Only the UoL could certify Tsai's thesis submission date, viva exam date and viva exam result.
只有倫敦大學可以證明蔡的論文提交日期、口試日期和口試成績。
5:51→Tsai was aware of that on September 19th, 2019, Tsai attorneys submitted Stephenson's letter to the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office as evidence to prove Tsai's PhD degree and described it as a letter from UoL.
蔡知曉她的律師於2019年9月19日將Stephenson的信件提交給台灣台北地方檢察署，作為證明她擁有博士學位的證據，而且還將其描述為來自倫敦大學的信件。
6:08→On September 23rd, 2019, Tsai's office prepared a timeline of Tsai's PhD journey in the UK and described Stephenson's letter as a letter issued by UoL to notify that Tsai had passed the viva exam.
2019年9月23日，蔡的辦公室準備了她在英國攻讀博士流程的時間表，並將Stephenson的信描述為倫敦大學發出來通知蔡通過口試的信件。
6:24→How did Stephenson get all the information about Tsai's viva exam?
Stephenson是如何獲得蔡的口試所有資訊？
6:33→On December 5th, 1983, about a month and a half before Stephenson issued the letter of certification, Tsai contacted Stephenson, informing Stephenson about the identity of her external viva examiner.
1983年12月5日，即Stephenson簽發證明信約一個半月前，蔡聯繫了Stephenson，告知對方其外部口試考官的身份。
6:48→It was more likely than not that Tsai was the source of the information about her viva exam.
很有可能蔡就是她的口試資訊來源。
6:56→"Two copies to Taiwan "on the top margin indicates that Stephenson's letter was most likely issued in response to Tsai's letter dated December 5th, 1983.
頂部邊緣「兩份寄到台灣」的文字表明，Stephenson的信很可能是對蔡1983年12月5日信件的回應。
7:09→To prove her PhD degree, Tsai had her viva result notification letter issued on February 8th, 1984, and the original PhD diploma issued on March 14th, 1984.
為了證明她的博士學位，蔡的口試成績通知函是在1984年2月8日發出的，而原始的博士文憑則是在1984年3月14日發出的。
7:25→Why did Tsai go through the hassle of requesting Stephenson's letter to certify her thesis submission date, viva exam date and viva exam result on December 5th, 1983?
為何蔡在1983年12月5日要大費周章地要求Stephenson提供信件來證明她的論文提交日期、口試日期和口試成績呢？
7:39→It is worth noting that Stephenson's letter went beyond the thesis submission date viva exam day and viva exam result.
值得注意的是，Stephenson的信件超出了論文提交日期、口試日期和口試成績。
7:47→In the letter, Stephenson identified Tsai's viva result notification letter as an official letter of award and certified that it would be available in February 1984.
在信中，Stephenson確定蔡的口試成績通知函才是正式的獲獎信，並證實該信將於1984年2月提供。
8:00→It appears that Tsai had no intention of using her original PhD diploma to prove her PhD degree.
看來蔡並無意用她的原始博士文憑來證明她的博士學位。
8:09→In the summer of 1984, Tsai reapplied for a teaching position at the Chengchi University.
1984年夏天，蔡再次申請政大教職。
8:19→The PhD diploma submitted by Tsai approve her 1984 PhD degree was blurry and barely legible.
蔡提交的1984年博士文憑模糊難辨。
8:31→The Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office subpoenaed another letter of certification from Soochow University, which the academic registar issued at UoL on April 9th, 1990.
台灣台北地方檢察署又向東吳大學要求交出另一份證明信，那是1990年4月9日在倫敦大學由註冊官簽發的。
8:45→At the time, Tsai's original PhD diploma had been in her possession for over six years.
當時，蔡持有原始博士文憑已經六年多了。
8:54→But Tsai chose to rely on this letter of certification to prove her PhD degree, instead of her PhD diploma.
但是蔡選擇依賴這份證明信來證明她的博士學位，而非她的博士文憑。
9:05→Fast forward to September 23rd, 2019, Tsai's office announced that the National Central Library in Taiwan would make a digital copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis downloadable on its official website.
快進至2019年9月23日，蔡的辦公室宣布，台灣國家中央圖書館將製作蔡的博士論文數位版，可在其官方網站下載。
9:20→According to the National Central Library's protocol, before it could happen, Tsai had to prove her PhD degree.
根據國家中央圖書館的規定，在此之前，蔡必須證明她的博士學位。
9:31→After the National Central Library made the digital copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis downloadable online a public hearing was held in the Legislative Yuan on November 28th, 2019.
國立中央圖書館將蔡的博士論文數位版提供線上下載後，立法院於2019年11月28日舉行了公聽會。
9:45→At the time, Tsai had no PhD diploma to prove her PhD degree awarded in May 1983.
當時，蔡沒有博士文憑來證明她的博士學位是在1983年5月獲得的。
9:55→The deputy director general of the National Central Library confirmed that Tsai did not submit any of her PhD diplomas to prove her PhD degree.
國家中央圖書館副館長證實，蔡沒有提交任何博士學位證書來證明她的博士學位。
10:02→Instead, the library relied on two letters of certification included in Tsai's thesis to confirm Tsai's PhD degree:
反之，圖書館依靠蔡論文中所附的兩封證明信來確認她的博士學位：
10:15→（另見 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjEKtwTwGg）
「好，了解。因為蔡總統的這份學位論文電子檔裡面附了兩份證明文件，一份是他的口試通過證明書，另外一份是博士學位論文的通知書，所以附了兩份證明文件。」
10:38→For Tsai's viva result notification letter appeared on the fourth page of the digital copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
蔡的博士論文電子版的第4頁上出現了蔡的口試成績通知函。
10:43→Tsai submitted it to the library not as a viva result notification letter, but a PhD degree notification letter to prove her PhD degree.
蔡把它提交給圖書館，不是作為一份口試成績通知函，而是博士學位通知書，以證明她的博士學位。
10:56→The timeline of Tsai's PhD Journey in the UK described it as an examination notification letter of qualification of PhD degree issued by UoL.
蔡在英國攻讀博士流程的時間軸把它描述成倫敦大學發出的一份博士學位考試合格通知書。
11:08→Stephenson's letter appeared on the third page of the digital copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
Stephenson的信出現在蔡博士論文數位版的第3頁。
11:13→Tsai relied on it to change her viva result notification letter into a PhD degree notification letter by certifying that:
依仗著它，蔡把她的口試成績通知函改為博士學位通知書，並證明：
11:20→"It is expected that the official letter of award will be available in February 1984."
「正式的授予函件預計將於1984年2月發出。」
11:31→Since the viva result notification letter was submitted as an official letter of award, Stephenson's letter was submitted as Tsai's viva result notification letter.
既然口試成績通知函是作為正式的獲獎信而提交，Stephenson的信函就當成蔡的口試成績通知函來提交。
11:42→In September 2019, in order to make the National Central Library accept her thesis as a PhD thesis, Tsai proved her PhD not with any of her PhD diplomas, but a viva result notification letter issued by Stephenson and an official letter of award.
2019年9月，為了讓國家中央圖書館接受她的論文作為博士論文，蔡利用Stephenson簽發的口試成績通知函和正式的獲獎信來證明她的博士學位，而非她任何一份博士學位證書。
12:03→Stephenson wrote the letter, 16 days before UoL issued Tsai's viva result notification letter.
Stephenson在倫敦大學發出蔡的口試成績通知函之前16天寫了這封信。
12:07→He had no way of knowing when UoL would issue Tsai's viva result notification letter.
他無法知道倫敦大學何時會發出蔡的口試成績通知函。
12:16→On December 5th, 1983, Tsai had the information about her thesis submission date, her viva exam date, and the name of her external viva examiner.
1983年12月5日，蔡掌握了有關她的論文提交日期、口試日期、以及外部口試考官姓名的信息。
12:29→But how could Tsai know when UoL would issue her viva result notification letter two months before?
但是蔡怎麼能在兩個月前就知道倫敦大學什麼時候會發出她的口試成績通知函呢？
12:37→On July 23rd, 2020, Kevin Haynes found Stephenson's letter on page 70 of Tsai's LSE student file and verified it as authentic.
2020年7月23日，Kevin Haynes在蔡的LSE學生檔案第70頁上找到了Stephenson的信，並證明其真實性。
12:49→How and when did Stephenson's letter dated January 23rd, 1984, accidentally land in Tsai's LSE student file?
Stephenson在1984年1月23日的信是如何以及何時意外進入蔡的LSE學生檔案的？


張貼者： 於

U.K. Watchdog Report 7-4：學位證書

※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDP1UiEOjLc。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。 

 

 

7-4 PhD diplomas


0:18→On September 2nd, 2019, Ing-Wen Tsai decided to take legal action to defend her academic Integrity.
2019年9月2日，蔡英文決定採取法律行動來捍衛自己的學術誠信。
0:23→Her office emailed Clive Wilson, inquiry services manager at the LSE Library, requesting Tsai's student records, including the beginning and ending dates of Tsai's study, and the names of Tsai's supervisor and viva examiners.
她的辦公室給LSE圖書館的諮詢服務經理Clive Wilson發送電子郵件，要求提供蔡的學生記錄，包括她學習的開始和結束日期、以及指導老師和口試考官的姓名。
0:40→Wilson promised to provide a copy, and copied the request to Sue Donnelly, LSE archist at the time.
Wilson答應提供一份副本，並將該請求的副本抄送給當時的LSE檔案員Sue Donnelly。
0:50→Tsai's office also expected to receive the records of Tsai's viva exam date, the viva result notification date, the date of PhD award, and the dates of Tsai's applications for two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015 respectively.
蔡的辦公室也有望收到蔡的口試日期、口試成績通知日期、博士學位授予日期，以及蔡分別於2010年和2015年兩次申請補發博士學位證書的日期等記錄。
1:08→This indicates that Tsai had two PhD diplomas which were reissued in 2010 and 2015.
這表明蔡擁有兩張博士學位證書，分別於2010年和2015年重新頒發。
1:17→In addition, Tsai knew that the UoL was the degree awarding body in the early 1980s.
此外，蔡還知道，倫敦大學是1980年代初的學位授予機構。
1:23→In order to prove her 1984 PhD, she needed to rely on the records of her viva exam and PhD award from UoL, not LSE.
為了證明她在1984年獲得的博士學位，她需要依靠來自倫敦大學、而非LSE的口試和博士學位授予的記錄。
1:35→On September 3rd, 2019, at 10:18, Donnelly emailed a copy of Tsai's LSE student file to Tsai's office.
2019年9月3日10:18，Donnelly透過電子郵件將蔡的LSE學生檔案副本發送至蔡的辦公室。
1:45→At 11:06, Wilson reminded Tsai's office that they should also contact the UoL for Tsai's Student Records.
11:06，Wilson提醒蔡的辦公室，他們也應該聯絡倫敦大學，以取得蔡的學生記錄。
1:55→On September 4th, 2019, Tsai filed a criminal defamation complaint with the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
2019年9月4日，蔡向台灣台北地方檢察署提起刑事誹謗訴訟。
2:06→Though Tsai's office received Tsai's LSE student file the day before, Tsai's attorneys knew they could not rely on them to prove Tsai's PhD degree.
儘管蔡的辦公室在前一天收到了蔡的LSE學生檔案，蔡的律師知道他們不能依靠這些文件來證明蔡的博士學位。
2:13→They submitted two UoL documents, not in Tsai's LSE student file, to the Prosecutors Office to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD.
他們向檢察官辦公室提交了兩份不在蔡LSE學生檔案中的倫敦大學文件，以證明蔡於1984年獲得博士學位。
2:26→One was Tsai's PhD diploma, reissued in 2015, when Tsai ran for president and academic fraud was alleged against her.
一份是2015年蔡競選總統時，被指學術造假而補發的博士學位證書。
2:37→The other was a letter certifying the reissuance of the PhD diploma dated September 22nd, 2015, and issued by Craig O'Callaghan, Chief Operating Officer at UoL.
另一份是倫敦大學首席營運長Craig O'Callaghan於2015年9月22日簽發的博士學位證書之證明信。
2:49→According to the fine print at the bottom, O'Callaghan's letter is not official because it does not bear his embossed seal.
根據信件下方的細則，O'Callaghan的信件不是官方信件，因為信件上沒有他的凸印。（編按：證明信上似有蓋印！）
2:57→One email on September 11th, 2019, indicates that Tsai's office contacted UoL, but UoL did not respond.
2019年9月11日的一封電子郵件顯示，蔡的辦公室聯繫了倫敦大學，但倫敦大學沒有回應。
3:08→In other words, UoL did not provide the dates of Tsai's applications for those two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015 for Tsai to prove the authenticity of these two reissued PhD diplomas and Tsai's PhD degree.
換句話說，倫敦大學並未提供蔡於2010年及2015年申請補發兩張博士學位證書的日期，來證明這兩張補發證書及蔡博士學位的真實性。
3:26→On September 19th, 2019, Tsai's attorneys began submitting the records found in Tsai's LSE student file to the Prosecutors Office, as evidence to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD degree.
2019年9月19日起，蔡的律師開始向檢察署提交蔡在LSE學生檔案中發現的記錄，作為證明蔡於1984年獲得博士學位的證據。
3:41→Including Tsai's viva result notification letter issued on February 8th, 1984, and Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14th, 1984.
其中包括蔡於1984年2月8日發出的口試成績通知函，以及蔡於1984年3月14日獲頒的原始博士文憑。（編按：不論表述為diploma或certificate，此處分別以1984年「博士文憑」、2010/2015年補發的「博士學位證書」來翻譯。自1984年以來，所謂的「原始博士文憑」只是不明真偽的影本，至今都未獲得倫大的正式勘驗！至於2010年的「學位證書」，也沒有提供正本讓英國外館驗證！而台灣法院在勘驗2015年的「學位證書」時，也沒有發現正本背面的序號！）
3:54→On March 10th, 2020, Tsai's attorneys prepared a list of 12 documents to be sent to LSE for authentication.
蔡的律師在2020年3月10日準備了一份包含12份文件的清單，準備送交LSE進行認證。
4:05→According to Tsai's attorneys, these 12 documents were copied from Tsai's LSE student file, and they specifically requested LSE to verify whether or not these 12 documents match the records and Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
根據蔡的律師所稱，這12份文件是從蔡的LSE學生檔案中複製的，而他們特別要求LSE核實這12份文件是否與LSE檔案室中儲存的記錄和蔡的LSE學生檔案相符。
4:23→It is worth noting that Tsai's attorneys never submitted Tsai's PhD diploma, reissued in 2010 by UoL, to the Prosecutors Office.
值得注意的是，蔡的律師從未向檢察署提交倫敦大學2010年補發的博士學位證書。
4:34→Furthermore, the documents issued by UoL, including Tsai's PhD diplomas reissued in 2015, O'Callaghan's letter, and Tsai's original PhD diploma, were not on the list of those 12 documents sent to LSE for authentication.
此外，倫敦大學頒發的文件包括了蔡於2015年重新頒發的博士學位證書、O'Callaghan的信、以及蔡的原始博士文憑，這些都不在送交LSE認證的12份文件清單中。
4:53→These documents are UoL documents that could only be authenticated by UoL, not LSE.
這些文件是倫敦大學的文件，只能由倫敦大學、而非LSE來進行認證。
5:02→However, on March 10th, 2020, when requesting the list of 12 documents to be sent to LSE for authentication, Tsai's attorney submitted one UoL document exhibit 43 to support Tsai's 1984 PhD degree, and included this UoL document which was identified as document 2 in the list of 12 documents to be sent to LSE for authentication.
然而2020年3月10日請求將12份文件清單送交LSE進行認證時，蔡的律師提交了一份倫敦大學的文件：告證43，用來支持蔡於1984年獲得博士學位，並將這份倫敦大學文件列入需要發送至LSE進行真實性審查的12份文件清單中的編號2。
5:32→A document 2 consisted of three records: a letter from the Free Chinese Center on September 23rd, 1987, a letter from P C Kennedy at UoL on September 30th, 1987, and a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14th, 1984.
編號2的文件由三份紀錄組成：1987年9月23日自由中國中心的信、1987年9月30日倫敦大學P C Kennedy的信、以及一份蔡於1984年3月14日獲頒的原始博士文憑。
5:53→Tsai's attorneys included document 2 in the list of 12 documents sent to LSE for authentication because they could find it in Tsai's LSE student file.
蔡的律師將編號2的文件列入了發送給LSE進行認證的12份文件清單中，因為他們可以在蔡的LSE學生檔案中找到這份文件。
6:04→Furthermore, in the last paragraph, Kennedy stated, "I have passed your letter to the London School of economics and political science in the hope they may be able to help you further."
此外，Kennedy在最後一段說，我已將您的信件轉交給LSE，希望他們能夠為您提供進一步的幫助。
6:15→By including document 2 in the list, Tsai's attorneys were able to send Tsai's original PhD diploma issued by UoL to LSE for Authentication.
透過將編號2的文件納入清單，蔡的律師能夠將倫敦大學頒發給蔡的原始博士文憑送到LSE進行認證。
6:28→On June 18th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK emailed the list of Records to Donnelly for authentication, but Donnelly never responded to the email.
2020年6月18日，英國台北代表處透過電郵將記錄清單發送給Donnelly進行認證，但Donnelly從未回覆該電郵。
6:41→4 days later, on June 22nd, Kevin Haynes, head of the LSE legal team, responded instead, due to the covid-19 pandemic.
4天後的6月22日，LSE法律團隊負責人Kevin Haynes基於新冠疫情而做出回應。
6:50→Haynes asked the Taipei Representative Office to provide a description or ideally scanned copies of the documents that the Taipei Representative Office was seeking to authenticate.
Haynes要求台北代表處對他們尋求認證的文件加以描述，或者最好是提供掃描件。
7:03→On June 24th, 2020, Haynes received a list of 13 documents and scanned copies, instead of a list of 12 documents.
2020年6月24日，Haynes收到了一份包含13份文件的清單和掃描件，而非12份。
7:14→Document 1 was added to the list of 12 documents, prepared by Tsai's attorneys on March 10th, 2020, making it a total of 13 documents to be authenticated by LSE.
2020年3月10日由蔡的律師準備的12份文件清單中加入了文件1，使LSE需要認證的文件總數達到13份。
7:28→Document 1 consisted of two records: one was Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14th, 1984, and the other was Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2015.
文件1包含兩筆記錄：一份是蔡在1984年3月14日獲頒的原始博士文憑，另一份是蔡在2015年補發的博士學位證書。
7:43→After document 1 was added, document 2 was renumbered as document 3.
新增了文件1之後，編號2的文件被重新編號為文件3。
7:50→Both documents 1 and 3 contained a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma issued in 1984.
文件1和文件3均包含一份蔡於1984年所獲得的原始博士文憑。
8:01→Document 5 was Tsai's viva result notification letter issued on February 9th, 1984.
文件5是蔡1984年2月9日的口試成績通知函。
8:10→Documents 1, 3 and 5 were UoL documents that could only be authenticated by UoL.
文件1、3和5是倫敦大學的文件，只能由倫敦大學進行驗證。
8:19→On July 7th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office followed up, and Haynes responded for documents 1, 3 and 5.
2020年7月7日，台北代表處採取後續行動，而Haynes對文件1、3和5作出了回應。
8:28→Haynes suspected the UoL was best placed to verify them.
Haynes認為倫敦大學最適合核實這些證據。
8:35→The next day, on July 8th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK contacted Binda Rai, head of communications at the UoL, to authenticate documents 1, 3 and 5.
第二天，也就是2020年7月8日，英國台北代表處聯繫了倫敦大學通訊部主管Binda Rai，對文件1、3和5進行驗證。
8:47→The subject of the email was a request to authenticate copies of certificates and letters from the education division.
電子郵件的主題是請求驗證來自教育部的文憑、信件的副本。
8:57→On July 22nd, 2020, Rai was contacted again, but never responded.
2020年7月22日，再次聯繫了Rai，但一直沒有回應。
9:05→On July 28th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK forwarded the request to Craig O'Callaghan to authenticate Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2015.
2020年7月28日，駐英國台北代表處將認證蔡2015年補發博士學位證書的請求轉給Craig O'Callaghan。
9:15→O'Callaghan never responded.
O'Callaghan從未回應。
9:21→Instead, Jackson Mbilinyi, head of Transcripts and Student Records, responded the next day.
反而是成績和學生記錄部門負責人Jackson Mbilinyi在第二天做出了回應。
9:27→He declined to authenticate the documents without Tsai's written consent invoking the data protection act.
他以資料保護法為由，拒絕在未經蔡書面同意的情況下驗證這些文件的真實性。
9:36→Rachael Maguire is the information and Records manager at LSE.
Rachael Maguire是LSE的資訊和記錄經理。
9:39→According to her email on June 27th, 2019, at 14:04, fairness is the main data protection principle:
根據她2019年6月27日14:04的電郵，主要的資料保護原則乃是公平：
9:48→"Regarding the degree, this is fair to release as it is usually in the student's interest to confirm they received the degree they are saying they received."
「關於學位，發布這些資訊是公平的，因為確認他們獲得其所說的學位通常符合學生的利益。
9:56→"There will be negative consequences for them if we don't."
如果我們不這麼做的話，他們就會面臨負面後果。」
10:02→Tsai's attorneys requested that the evidence be authenticated to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD degree.
蔡的律師要求對證據進行認證，以證明蔡於1984年獲得博士學位。
10:08→It is in Tsai's best interest.
這才符合蔡的最大利益。
10:11→But UoL refused to authenticate the evidence without Tsai's consent.
但是倫敦大學拒絕在沒有蔡同意的情況下進行驗證。
10:14→No records show Tsai's PhD diplomas, Kennedy's letter, and Tsai's viva result notification letter have ever been authenticated by UoL, with or without Tsai's consent.
沒有記錄顯示蔡的博士文憑、Kennedy的信件、以及蔡的口試成績通知函曾經透過倫敦大學認證，無論是否得到蔡的同意。
10:28→For authenticating the evidence, Haynes' email on July 7th, 2020, is puzzling for two reasons:
對於驗證，Haynes在2020年7月7日的電郵令人費解，原因有二：
10:37→First, Haynes and Donnelly worked together under the school secretary division at the time.
首先，Haynes和Donnelly當時在學校秘書部門一起工作。
10:41→Haynes could have quickly learned that Donnelly sent Tsai's LSE student file to Tsai's office on September 3rd, 2019.
Haynes很快就能了解到，Donnelly於2019年9月3日將蔡的LSE學生檔案發送到了蔡的辦公室。
10:52→Second, as head of the LSE legal team, Haynes knows how to authenticate evidence.
第二，身為LSE法律團隊的負責人，Haynes懂得如何驗證證據。
11:01→But in the email, Hayne stated that I have contacted a number of colleagues to try to find out whether we might have copies of the information you have kindly provided or indeed any other way of verifying it.
但Haynes在電郵中表示；我已經聯繫了一些同事，試圖找出我們是否有您提供的資訊副本，或者是否有任何其他方式來驗證它。
11:14→The Taipei Representative Office immediately advised Haynes to contact Donnelly for the documents.
台北代表處立即建議Haynes聯絡Donnelly來取得文件。
11:23→On July 23rd, 2020, except for document 1 Haynes verified all 12 documents as authentic, including Kennedy's letter and Tsai's original diploma contained in document 3.
2020年7月23日，Haynes核實除了文件1以外，所有12份文件皆為真，包括文件3所包含的Kennedy信件和蔡的原始文憑。
11:38→In other words, Haynes refused to authenticate Tsai's original diploma sent to LSE, contained in document 1, but verified Tsai's original PhD diploma, contained in document 3, is authentic.
換句話說，Haynes拒絕針對寄給LSE的文件1中蔡的原始文憑進行認證，但已核實文件3所包含的原始博士文憑。
11:53→Haynes prepared a list of the documents he verified as authentic and added the page number numbers on which he found them in Tsai's LSE student file.
Haynes列出了他已證實為真的文件清單，並添加了他在蔡的LSE學生檔案中找到的這些文件頁碼。
12:04→The request to authenticate evidence submitted by Tsai's attorneys to the Prosecutors Office was to verify whether or not the list of 12 documents match the records in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
蔡的律師向檢察署提交的認證請求，是為了核實這12份文件是否與LSE檔案室中保存的蔡LSE學生檔案記錄相符。
12:19→Haynes was and still is head of the LSE legal team.
Haynes曾任LSE法律團隊負責人，目前仍擔任此職。
12:22→He verified not only LSE documents, but also UoL documents as authentic, simply because he was able to find them in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
他不僅證實了LSE文件的真實性，還證實了倫敦大學文件的真實性，只因為他能夠在LSE檔案中保存的蔡LSE學生檔案中找到這些文件。
12:33→His unique way of authenticating evidence was consistent with Tsai's attorney's request to authenticate the evidence.
他獨特的認證方式，與蔡的律師認證要求一致。
12:43→Haynes found document3 on pages 42 and 43.
Haynes在第42和43頁找到了文件3。
12:50→His finding is consistent with Donnelly's email dated June 17th, 2019, showing that Tsai's PhD diploma issued on March 14th, 1984, was found between page 43 and Page 46 of Tsai's LSE student file.
他的發現與Donnelly於2019年6月17日發送的電郵一致，顯示蔡於1984年3月14日獲頒的博士文憑在蔡的LSE學生檔案第43- 46頁之間被發現。
13:08→Haynes most likely excluded the Free Chinese Centers letter sent to UoL on September 23rd, 1987.
Haynes很可能排除了自由中國中心於1987年9月23日寄給倫敦大學的信件。
13:18→Kennedy's letter is also a document from the UoL.
Kennedy的信也是倫敦大學的文件。
13:21→But he verified it as authentic simply because he found a copy of the letter on page 42 or 43 in Tsai's LSE student file.
但他證實這封信是真的，因為他在蔡的LSE學生檔案第42或43頁找到了這封信的副本。
13:33→LSE is a prestigious higher education institution.
LSE是一所著名的高等教育機構。
13:36→By verifying Kennedy's letter as authentic, LSE confirmed that Tsai's PhD was awarded after submitting a thesis title, as certified by Kennedy's letter.
透過核實Kennedy信件的真實性，LSE確認蔡的博士學位是在提交了Kennedy信中所證實的論文題目後授予的。
13:48→Paragraph 59 of the ICO decision notice issued on September 3rd, 2021, stated that UoL did not retain hard copies of student certificates.
2021年9月3日發布的ICO裁決通知第59段指出，倫敦大學沒有保留學生的紙本文憑。
14:02→The information posted on the official website of the UoL's transcript office confirms that the UoL does not keep hard copies of students diplomas.
倫敦大學成績單辦公室官方網站發布的資訊證實，倫敦大學並未保存學生的紙本文憑。
14:13→Therefore, Tsai is the only person who has a copy of her original PhD diploma and the only source of all photo copies of her original PhD diploma.
因此，蔡是唯一擁有一份原始博士文憑的人，也是她原始博士文憑所有影本的唯一來源。
14:26→This is Tsai's original PhD diploma, found by Haynes in Tsai's LSE student file and provided to the Taipei Representative Office in the UK on December 18th, 2020.
這是Haynes在蔡的LSE學生檔案中找到的原始博士文憑，並於2020年12月18日提供給英國台北代表處。
14:35→It was blurry and barely legible.
它很模糊，幾乎無法辨認。
14:41→Haynes described it as an albeit poor quality copy of President Tsai's certificate that is contained on her student file.
Haynes把它描述為保存在蔡總統學生檔案中的文憑，儘管品質較差。
14:51→On June 3rd, 2021, the Ministry of Education provided a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma submitted to the Ministry of Education in 1984.
2021年6月3日，教育部提供了蔡於1984年向教育部提交的一份原始博士文憑。
15:02→It was also blurry and barely legible.
它也很模糊，幾乎無法辨認。
15:07→It indicates that the copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma sent to the academic registar at UoL by the Free Chinese Center on September 23rd, 1987, and kept in Tsai's LSE student file was most likely a copy of the one submitted to the Ministry of Education in 1984.
這顯示蔡的原始博士文憑已於1987年9月23日由自由中國中心寄給倫敦大學教務長，而且保存在蔡LSE學生檔案中的很可能是1984年提交給教育部的一份影本。
15:24→It was a copy that was blurry and barely legible.
這是一份模糊且幾乎難以辨認的版本。
15:32→Sue Donnelly emailed a copy of Tsai's LSE student file to Tsai's office on September 3rd, 2019.
2019年9月3日，Sue Donnelly透過電郵將蔡的LSE學生檔案副本發送到蔡的辦公室。
15:41→The next day, September 4th, 2019, Tsai's office disclosed Tsai's original PhD diploma on Facebook.
第二天，2019年9月4日，蔡的辦公室在臉書上公開了她的原始博士文憑。
15:48→It was clear and legible.
它清晰易讀。
15:54→On September 19th, 2019, Tsai's attorney profer a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma to the Prosecutors Office.
2019年9月19日，蔡的律師向檢察署提交了一份蔡的原始博士文憑。
16:03→It was also clear and legible.
它也清晰易讀。
16:07→On June 24th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK sent a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma to Haynes for authenticating the evidence.
2020年6月24日，駐英國台北代表處將一份蔡的原始博士文憑寄給Haynes認證。
16:18→It was also clear and legible.
它也清晰易讀。
16:22→It defies logic that Tsai was able to make a clear and legible copy out of a blurry and barely legible copy, and indicates that Tsai had a clear and legible copy of her original diploma which differed from the one in her LSE student file.
蔡能夠將模糊且難以辨認的版本製作成清晰易讀的版本，乃是不合邏輯的，這顯示蔡所持有一份清晰易讀的原始文憑，與她在LSE學生檔案中的不同。
16:39→Tsai's attorneys submitted document 3 to the Prosecutors Office and requested authentication of evidence on the same day, March 10th, 2020.
蔡的律師於2020年3月10日向檢察署提交了文件3，並在同一天要求認證。
16:50→Did Tsai's attorney know in advance that Haynes would authenticate Tsai's original PhD diploma when it was submitted as part of document 3 on March 10th, 2020?
當蔡的原始博士文憑於2020年3月10日作為文件3的一部分提交時，蔡的律師是否事先知道Haynes將對蔡的原始博士文憑進行認證？
17:03→Furthermore, Haynes verified the clear and legible copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma as authentic, based on the blurry and barely legible copy he found in Tsai's LSE student file.
此外，Haynes還根據他在蔡的LSE學生檔案中發現的模糊難辨之版本，來證明其清晰易讀的原始博士文憑是真的。
17:17→Haynes verified Tsai's original PhD diploma as authentic on July 23rd, 2020.
2020年7月23日，Haynes證明蔡的原始博士文憑為真。
17:26→5 days later, on July 28th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK sent an official letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Taipei, reporting that Tsai's original PhD diploma on page 5 of document 3 was consistent with Tsai's LSE student files stored in the LSE archives.
五天後的2020年7月28日，駐英國台北代表處向台北外交部發送了一封正式信函，報告稱文件3第5頁上的原始博士文憑與LSE檔案室中保存的LSE學生檔案一致。
17:49→Haynes knew that the request for authenticating evidence was made for Tsai's criminal defamation complaint by the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
Haynes知道，認證的請求是台灣台北地方法院針對蔡的刑事誹謗指控而提出的。
18:02→His conduct raised ethical issues and suspicions about his qualifications as a legal professional and head of the LSE legal team.
他的行為引發了道德問題，並讓人們對他作為法律專業人士和LSE法律團隊負責人的資格產生懷疑。
18:08→Michael Richardson submitted a FOIA request to verify Haynes qualifications.
理查森提交了一份有關資訊公開的請求，以驗證Haynes的資格。
18:13→Haynes is not licensed to practice law in the UK.
Haynes沒有取得英國的律師執業資格。
18:19→He is not bound by the solicitors regulation Authority code of conduct nor the bar Standards Board handbook code of conduct for barristers.
他不受律師監理局行為準則或律師標準委員會手冊中律師行為準則的約束。
18:31→Tsai also had a PhD diploma reissued in 2010, when she ran for the New Taipei City mayor.
蔡在2010年競選新北市長時，也補發了博士學位證書。
18:37→She was required to submit an official document to prove her 1984 PhD.
她被要求提交一份官方文件來證明她於1984年獲得博士學位。
18:45→On December 16th, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK presented it to Haynes.
2020年12月16日英國台北代表處把它提交給Haynes。
18:54→Haynes advised to contact the Senate House at UoL.
Haynes建議聯繫倫敦大學的行政中心。
18:57→No record shows that UoL has ever authenticated Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2010.
沒有任何記錄顯示倫敦大學曾經認證過蔡在2010年補發的博士學位證書。
19:07→Tsai had three PhD diplomas.
蔡擁有三張博士學位證書。
19:07→UoL did not authenticate any of them.
倫敦大學沒有對其中任何一個進行認證。
19:12→Haynes as head of the LSE legal team authenticated Tsai's original PhD diploma.
對蔡的原始博士文憑進行認證的是LSE法律團隊負責人Haynes。



張貼者： 於

U.K. Watchdog Report 7-3：口試成績通知函

※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L26zlxQ_h-Y。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。

 

 

7-3 viva result notification letter


0:17→Ing-Wen Tsai's viva result notification letter was issued on February 8th, 1984, which was disclosed by Tsai's office for the first time on September 4th, 2019, when Tsai filed the criminal defamation complaint.
蔡英文的口試成績通知函是1984年2月8日發出的，蔡的辦公室於2019年9月4日在她提出刑事誹謗訴訟時首次披露該通知函。
0:32→Tsai's viva exam was held on October 16th, 1983.
蔡的口試於1983年10月16日舉行。
0:39→According to Tun-Han Chang, one of Tsai's spokespersons, Tsai's thesis passed the examination on the day of her viva exam without content correction.
根據蔡發言人之一張惇涵的說法，蔡的論文在口試當天無需修改內容就通過了考試。
0:47→Only misspellings and missing words were required to be corrected.
僅需修正拼字錯誤和缺少的單字。
0:56→（另見 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6IrrR2toII）
「當年蔡總統的博士論文口試當場通過，教授並沒有要求蔡總統修改內容，而是將博士論文內有部分的錯漏字來進行修改。」
1:14→For such minor Corrections Tsai's viva result notification letter was not issued until February 8th, 1984, almost four months after Tsai's viva exam.
對於這些微小的更正，蔡的口試成績通知函直到1984年2月8日才發出，距離蔡的口試已經過去了將近四個月。
1:26→Was it extraordinarily long?
是不是特別長？
1:33→VV's viva result notification letter was issued on October 5th, 1983.
VV的口試成績通知函於1983年10月5日發出。
1:40→When submitting the examination entry form, VV planned to submit the doctoral thesis in July 1983.
在提交考試報名表時，VV計劃於1983年7月提交博士論文。
1:49→In the early 1980s, the examiners needed at least 6 to 8 weeks to read the thesis before the exam could take place.
在1980年代初期，考官至少需要6到8週的時間閱讀論文才能進行考試。
2:01→Therefore, VV's viva exam was most likely held between mid-August and mid-September 1983.
因此，VV的口試最有可能在1983年8月中旬至9月中旬舉行。
2:10→Compared to VV's PhD Journey, it was extraordinarily long for the academic registar at UoL to issue Tsai's viva result notification letter almost four months after the viva exam.
與VV攻讀博士的流程相比，倫敦大學的教務長在蔡的口試結束近四個月後才發出口試成績通知函，這花費了非常長的時間。
2:25→Tsai's Soochow University faculty employment certificate revealed that Tsai began her tenure at Soochow University on September 1st, 1983.
蔡的東吳大學教職員任職證明顯示，蔡於1983年9月1日開始在東吳大學任職。
2:37→On April 30th, 2021, a public hearing was held in the Executive Yuan.
2021年4月30日，行政院舉行公聽會。
2:41→The head of the higher education division of the Ministry of Education admitted that Tsai's tenure at Soochow University began in September 1983 as an adjunct lecturer.
教育部高等教育司司長承認，蔡於1983年9月開始在東吳大學擔任兼任講師。
2:55→He tried to justify Tsai's tenure at Soochow University by arguing that Tsai was hired as an adjunct lecturer and then promoted to adjunct associate professor in February 1984 after receiving a letter confirming the PhD degree.
他試圖為蔡在東吳大學的任職資格辯護，稱蔡被聘為兼職講師，而在1984年2月收到博士學位確認函後晉升為兼職副教授。
3:14→（另見 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIttRLZdw_o）
「總統是在72年的9月獲聘為兼職講師，是講師，然後在73年的2月聘為兼任的副教授。所以就時間序來講，總統是在73年的2月收到了博士學位的合格通知書之後，再通過東吳大學這邊聘任為兼任的副教授。實際上，基本上，看起來並沒有疑問。」
3:43→Tsai's Soochow University faculty employment certificate confirms that Tsai was promoted to adjunct associate professor on February 16th, 1984, only eight days after Tsai's viva result notification letter was issued.
蔡的東吳大學教職員聘書證實，蔡於1984年2月16日晉升為兼任副教授，而當時蔡的口試成績通知函才發出八天。
4:02→At the time, Tsai's original PhD diploma had not yet been issued.
當時蔡的原始博士文憑尚未頒發。
4:09→Tsai relied on her viva result notification letter to prove her PhD in February 1984 for her teaching position at Soochow University.
為了東吳大學的教職，蔡憑藉口試成績通知函證明她於1984年2月獲得博士學位。
4:21→But a different version:
但版本不同：
4:27→The one disclosed by Tsai's office on September 4th, 2019, was not signed and Tsai's address in Taipei was provided in the lower left-hand corner.
2019年9月4日蔡離任後披露的這份報告沒有署名，左下角給出了蔡在台北的地址。
4:39→The one subpoenaed from Soochow University by the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office, was signed by the academic registar at UoL, G. F. Roberts.
東吳大學依令向台灣台北地方檢察署交出的，則有倫敦大學教務長 G F Roberts 的簽名。
4:46→Tsai's Taipei mailing address in the lower left-hand corner was erased.
左下角蔡的郵寄地址被抹去。
4:56→It is worth noting that Tsai's viva result notification letter is a document of UoL, not LSE.
值得注意的是，蔡的口試成績通知函是倫敦大學的文件，不是LSE的。
5:02→LSE has no power to authenticate either version of Tsai's viva result notification letters.
LSE無權認證蔡的口試成績通知函的任何版本。
5:12→However, on March 10th, 2020, Tsai's attorneys requested the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office to send Tsai's viva result notification to LSE for authentication.
然而，2020年3月10日，蔡的代理律師向台灣台北地方檢察署申請，將蔡的口試成績通知函送交LSE認證。
5:26→It was the one, not signed by Roberts, and had Tsai's Taipei address in the lower left-hand corner.
那是一份沒有Roberts簽名的信件，左下角有蔡的地址。
5:34→On July 23rd, 2020, Kevin Haynes, head of the LSE legal team, found it on page 69 of Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives and verified it as authentic.
2020年7月23日，LSE法律團隊負責人Kevin Haynes在LSE檔案室中保存的蔡LSE學生檔案第69頁發現了這份文件，並證明其真實性。
5:49→Was Tsai's viva result notification letter, not signed by Roberts, another document that accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives?
蔡的口試成績通知函沒有Roberts簽名，這是否為另一份意外落入LSE檔案室中蔡的LSE學生檔案的文件？
6:03→According to paragraph 59 of the ICO decision notice issued on September 3rd, 2021, it was in the early 1980s UoL routinely issued viva result notification letters and sent them to LSE confirming that a particular student had been awarded a PhD degree.
根據2021年9月3日發布的ICO裁決通知第59段，在1980年代初，倫敦大學定期發布口試成績通知函，並將其發送給LSE，確認某位學生已獲得博士學位。
6:27→However, Tsai's viva result notification letter had never been retained in Tsai's UoL student file.
然而，蔡的口試成績通知函從未保留在蔡的倫敦大學學生檔案中。
6:37→UoL confirmed that it had carried out searches of both its paper and electronic files.
倫敦大學確認已對其紙本和電子文件進行了搜查。
6:42→It was not aware of any relevant documents that had been destroyed.
並未獲悉有任何相關文件已被銷毀。
6:50→How and when did Tsai's viva result notification letter, not signed by Roberts, accidentally land in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives?
未由Roberts簽名的蔡口試成績通知函是如何以及何時意外出現在LSE檔案室中存儲的蔡LSE學生檔案中？
7:02→Who signed Tsai's viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University?
東吳大學依令交出的蔡口試成績通知函是誰簽署的？
7:10→Who erased Tsai's Taipei mailing address in the lower left-hand corner? Why?
誰把左下角蔡的台北郵寄地址抹去了？為什麼？
7:22→If Tsai received her viva result notification letter, subpoena from Soochow University at her Taipei address on February 16th, 1984, and delivered it to Soochow University on the same day, and Soochow University completed the administrative procedure also on the same day, the mail time from UoL in London to Tsai's address and Taipei was eight calendar days, six working days.
如果蔡於1984年2月16日在台北的地址收到東吳大學（後來）交出的那份口試成績通知函，並於當天將其送達東吳大學，而且東吳大學也於同一天完成行政程序，則從倫敦的倫大寄到蔡在台北的地址所需的時間為八天，六個工作日。
7:49→If Tsai received it at her Taipei address on February 14th, 1984, and delivered it to Soochow University on February 15th, 1984, and Soochow University completed the administrative procedure on February 16th, 1984, the mail time from UoL in London to Tsai's address in Taipei was six calendar days, four working days.
如果蔡於1984年2月14日在台北的地址收到該信件，並於1984年2月15日將其送達東吳大學，而東吳大學於1984年2月16日完成行政手續，則從倫敦的倫大寄到蔡在台北的地址的郵寄時間為六天，四個工作日。
8:15→In 2023, it takes at least 5 to 7 working days for Royal Mail, the British Postal Service, and Courier to deliver Tsai's viva result notification letter from UoL to Tsai's address in Taipei.
2023年，英國皇家郵政及快遞需要至少5到7個工作日才能將蔡的口試成績通知函從倫敦大學寄到蔡在台北的地址。
8:32→30 years ago, in 1984, how long did it take for Royal Mail to deliver it to Tsai's address in Taipei?
30年前，也就是1984年，英國皇家郵政要花多久時間才能送到蔡在台北的地址？
8:41→How and when did Tsai deliver it to Soochow University before February 16th, 1984?
蔡是如何及何時在1984年2月16日之前將其送達東吳大學的？
8:51→How long did it take for Soochow University to complete the administrative procedure for promoting Tsai to adjunct associate professor?
東吳大學替蔡晉升副教授的行政程序花了多久時間？
9:03→Was Tsai's viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University issued in London? or Taipei? by whom?
東吳大學依令交出的那份蔡口試成績通知函是從倫敦發出的嗎？或是台北？是誰發出的？

 
 

張貼者： 於

U.K. Watchdog Report 7-2：論文指導老師

※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5rFvhQcVOE。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。

 

 

7-2 thesis supervisor
 

0:17→The VV file is an LSE student file from the 1980s, which only dealt with activities at LSE.
VV文件是1980年代的LSE學生文件，僅涉及LSE的活動。
0:26→According to the VV file, before VV was officially registered with LSE in October 1980, on September 30th, 1980.
根據VV的文件，VV於1980年10月在LSE正式註冊，註冊日期為1980年9月30日。
0:32→The department of international relations appointed two supervisors to supervise VV.
國際關係部任命了兩名指導老師，負責監督VV。
0:40→The supervisor appointment form was returned to the LSE Graduate School Office and kept in the VV file.
指導老師任命表已交回LSE研究生院辦公室，並保存在VV檔案中。
0:49→It indicates that the appointment of supervisors was an activity at LSE.
這表明任命指導老師是在LSE進行的一項活動。
0:57→Ing-Wen Tsai's LSE student file was different.
蔡英文的LSE學生檔案不同。
1:01→LSE's response to a FOIA request on August 7th, 2020, indicated that LSE had no records about the appointment of Tsai's supervisor.
LSE於2020年8月7日對資訊公開請求的回應表明，LSE沒有關於任命蔡指導老師的記錄。
1:12→Based on VV's LSE student record, VV had at least one supervisor for each session: 1980/1981, 1981/1982, and 1982/1983.
根據VV的LSE學籍卡，VV在1980/1981、1981/1982和1982/1983學期至少有一名指導老師。
1:28→However, based on Tsai's LSE student record, no supervisor was assigned for 1982/1983.
但根據蔡的LSE學籍卡，1982/1983 學年並未指定指導老師。
1:39→Since the supervisor played an important role at the LSE stage, the VV file is peppered with VV supervisors names.
由於指導老師在LSE階段發揮了重要作用，VV文件充斥著VV指導老師的名字。
1:49→On January 21st, 1981, the Graduate School Office notified VV about her registration with UoL.
1981年1月21日，研究生院辦公室通知VV已在倫敦大學註冊。
1:56→The names of two supervisors were printed on the notice.
通知上印有兩名指導老師的名字。
2:04→Each session VV's supervisor was required to sign a report on VV's Research work and recommend re-registration for the next session.
每次會議，VV的指導老師都需要簽署一份關於VV研究成果的報告，並建議重新註冊參加下一次會議。
2:15→On June 19th, 1981, before VV was re-registered for the 1981/1982 session, one of VV's supervisors notified the school that VV was no longer his student.
1981年6月19日，在VV重新註冊 1981/1982 學期之前，VV的一位指導老師通知學校，VV不再是他的學生。
2:31→On October 11th, 1982, VV's supervisor recommended VV's registration transfer from M.Phil to PhD degree.
1982年10月11日，VV的指導老師建議VV的註冊從攻讀碩士轉為攻讀博士學位。
2:41→On October 18th, 1982, VV's supervisor was notified about the approval of VV's registration transfer.
1982年10月18日，VV的指導老師收到關於VV註冊轉讓獲批准的通知。
2:52→On November 26th, 1982, VV's supervisor signed the thesis title approval form.
1982年11月26日，VV的指導老師簽署了論文題目批准表。
3:03→On March 7th, 1983, the Graduate School Office sent VV's examination entry form to VV's supervisor for Signature and recommendation of viva examiners.
1983年3月7日，研究生院辦公室將VV的考試報名表發送給VV的指導老師，請其簽名，並推薦口試考官。
3:16→On March 18th, 1983, VV's supervisor returned the examination entry form to the Graduate School Office and promised to propose external viva examiners in April.
1983年3月18日，VV的指導老師將考試報名表還給研究生院辦公室，並承諾在4月提名外部口試考官。
3:31→To find out who VV's supervisor was, all it requires is the VV file.
要找出VV的指導老師是誰，只需要VV檔案。
3:38→Unlike the VV file in Tsai's LSE student file only two reports indicated who Tsai's supervisor was.
與VV文件不同，蔡的LSE學生檔案中只有兩份報告顯示了蔡的指導老師是誰。
3:49→In June or July 2015, three decades after Tsai claimed her PhD degree in 1983 and 1984, LSE received a number of inquiries regarding Tsai's missing doctoral thesis and the authenticity of Tsai's PhD degree.
2015年6月或7月，在蔡於1983、1984年間獲得博士學位的三十年後，LSE收到了大量關於蔡缺失博士論文和蔡博士學位真實性的詢問。
4:07→The Department of Law at LSE began chasing up Tsai's supervisor on November 13th, 2015.
LSE法律系於2015年11月13日開始尋找蔡的指導老師。
4:13→No record show that LSE was able to confirm the identity of Tsai's supervisor in 2015.
沒有記錄顯示LSE能夠在2015年確認蔡指導老師的身分。
4:23→Almost 4 years later, on June 11th, 2019, at 10:23, in respon response to the inquiries submitted by Hwan Lin, professor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Marcus Cerny, deputy director of the LSE PhD Academy, emailed the Department of Law asking the department to confirm who Tsai's supervisor was.
差不多四年後，即2019年6月11日10點23分，為了回應北卡羅來納大學夏洛特馬庫斯分校林環牆教授提出的詢問，LSE博士學院副主任Marcus Cerny給法律系發送電子郵件，要求該系確認誰是蔡的指導老師。
4:47→At 11:24, Cerny found a name he sent an email stating that he was chasing up with the home institution of the supervisor with whom it turned out he worked before he came to LSE.
11點24分，Cerny找到了一個名字，並發送了一封電子郵件，說明他正在聯繫該指導老師的所在機構；其實，Cerny來到LSE之前曾在那兒工作過。
5:03→Then the Department of Law responded at 11:41: "I believe the supervisor was XXX."
然後法律系在11:41回覆：「我相信指導老師是XXX。」
5:11→On June 17th, 2019, at 9:59, Clive Wilson, inquiry services manager at the LSE Library, received an electronic copy of the title page and the acknowledgements page of Tsai's personal copy of the doctoral thesis.
2019年6月17日上午9點59分，LSE圖書館諮詢服務經理Clive Wilson收到了蔡的博士論文個人版之標題頁和致謝頁的電子版。
5:28→In the acknowledgements page, Tsai thanked her supervisor Michael Elliott.
在致謝頁中，蔡感謝了她的指導老師 Michael Elliott。
5:35→At 11:18, Wilson informed his colleagues, including Cerny, that the acknowledgements page sent by Tsai's office confirmed that Michael J Elliott was Tsai's supervisor.
11點18分，Wilson通知包括Cerny在內的同事，蔡辦公室發送的致謝頁證實Michael J Elliott是蔡的指導老師。
5:49→About 40 minutes later, at 11:59, Cerny wrote to the Department of Law informing them that the supervisor was Michael Elliott rather than XXX.
大約40分鐘後，即11點59分，Cerny寫信給法律系，告知他們指導老師是Michael Elliott，而不是 XXX。
6:02→For almost 4 years, from November 13th, 2015, to June 17th, 2019, LSE could not identify Tsai's thesis supervisor based on Tsai's LSE student file.
從2015年11月13日至2019年6月17日近4年的時間，LSE無法根據蔡的LSE學生檔案的識別出蔡的論文指導教授。
6:17→LSE finally relied on Tsai's acknowledgements page to ascertain who Tsai's thesis supervisor was.
LSE最終依靠蔡的致謝頁來確定蔡的論文指導老師是誰。
6:27→Elliott, who passed away in 2016, could no longer say yay or nay.
2016年去世的艾略特再也無法說「是」或「不是」。
6:36→Was Tsai a reliable source of information about her supervisor?
蔡是有關她指導老師的可靠資訊來源嗎？
6:43→Tsai talked about her supervisors for the first time in a public speech on March 17th, 2011.
2011年3月17日，蔡在一次公開演講中首次談到了她的指導老師：
6:52→（另見 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRdVG8YAEao）
「有一天，學校——我的老毛病又來了——學校突然打電話給我說：『Miss 蔡，妳到office來一下。』我就去一下。他說妳的supervisor告妳的狀，說妳人都不見了，不知道在寫什麼，他對妳很不滿意喔！那我說：『我已經都寫好了，你要不要看一看呢？』我就把它拿給學校看。我們這個學校的系主任看完以後就講：『Bloody hell！』就一個英國人講Bloody hell。他說：『這個大綱寫得很好啊！為什麼她老師要告她的狀呢？』就把我換了一個指導老師。看完以後，他就拍拍我的肩膀說：『別人要擔心他們的PhD，You don't have to.（妳不用擔心）』，我就知道說我的日子大概可以過得不錯了。」
7:52→It is worth noting that Tsai talked about her supervisors, but the names of her supervisors were not disclosed.
值得注意的是，蔡談到了她的指導老師，但沒有透露姓名。
7:57→No verification could be made.
無法驗證。
8:03→In her autobiography, published on October 25th, 2011, 7 months later, Tsai told a drastically different story: "my supervisor was a renowned scholar. He had offered a series of articles on International economic law, which is still the most complete Exposition in the field. However, the school replaced him with a younger supervisor to supervise me because he was old.
7個月後，2011年10月25日，蔡在自傳中講述了一個截然不同的故事：我的導師是一位著名學者，他發表了一系列關於國際經濟法的文章，至今仍是該領域最完整的闡述。但因為他年紀大了，學校就換了一個年輕的主管來指導我。
8:30→Again the names of her two supervisors were not disclosed.
她的兩名指導老師的姓名同樣沒有被揭露。
8:32→No verification could be made.
無法驗證。
8:38→In her acknowledgements, Tsai also made thanked John J Barcelo of Cornell University and Brian Hindley of LSE for their invaluable comments on the final part of the thesis.
在致謝中，蔡也感謝康乃爾大學的John J Barcelo和LSE的Brian Hindley對論文最後部分的寶貴意見。
8:52→Hindley was no longer available to corroborate because he passed away in 2012.
由於hindley於 2012 年去世，因此無法再提供證實。
9:01→Was Barcelo still alive and available to corroborate when his name was disclosed in 2019?
當Barcelo的名字於2019年被披露時，他是否仍活著、並且可被證實？
9:06→Tsai believed he was not.
蔡相信他不在人世。
9:11→About two weeks after Tsai filed the criminal defamation complaint on September 4th, 2019, a campaign rally was held on September 20th, 2019, Tsai told a story about her conversation with the dean of the Cornell Law School when she just arrived in 1978.
2019年9月4日，蔡提起刑事誹謗投訴約兩週後，2019年9月20日舉行了一場競選集會，蔡講述了她1978年剛到康奈爾法學院時與學院院長的談話故事。
9:40→（另見https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoYB0_b7uE&feature=youtu.be&t=294&fbclid=IwAR2G_vMfsgxKBzwno59vN2hnt9-rYpeYAzmZVTdw2nE51vGhBA-7sT_aoo→3:33）
「（我到了美國以後，我就到康乃爾大學的法學院.....這個系主任就告訴我、就見我們......他就問她說：「妳是台灣來的？」我說：「是台灣來的。」）他下一個問題很政治噢！他說：「那你們以後跟中國怎麼辦呢？」我想了一想，我說：「我們政府說我們要統一呀！」這個老師看著我說：「妳真的要來唸康乃爾大學的法學院嗎？」他說：「這樣的問題，先要有民主，才能做成民主的決定。這就是一個法學院的學生應該有的素養。」這個老師叫什麼名字呢？因為他已經過世了，我可以跟各位講他的名字叫Barceló。Barceló，你知道西班牙有個地方叫Barcelona，所以他的名字Barceló，可見他是來自於西班牙。」
10:28→Barcelo is not from Spain and he is still at Cornell Law School well and sound.
Barcelo不是西班牙人，但他仍然在康乃爾法學院安然無恙。
10:33→He has never been the dean of the Cornell Law School.
他從未擔任過康乃爾法學院的院長。（編按：根據康乃爾的網站資訊，Barceló曾經擔任過主任之職！）
10:39→Roger C. Cramton was the dean of the Cornell Law School from 1973 to 1980.
Roger C. Cramton於1973年至1980年擔任康乃爾大學法學院院長。
10:48→Peter W. Martin was the dean of the Cornell Law School from 1980 to 1988.
Peter W. Martin於1980年至1988年擔任康乃爾大學法學院院長。
10:57→Was Elliott Tsai's thesis supervisor?
Elliott是論文指導老師嗎？
11:04→In response to the FOIA request about Tsai's thesis supervisor for 1982/1983 and 1983/1984, LSE stated that 1983/1984 Tsai was not registered for 1983/1984, so there was no official supervisor for that year.
在回應有關1982/1983和1983/1984學年蔡的論文指導老師之資訊公開請求時，LSE表示1983/1984學年的蔡沒有註冊，因此那一年沒有正式的導師。
11:25→The email dated July 13th, 2011, confirms that Tsai's registration only lasted until June 1982.
2011年7月13日的電子郵件確認蔡的註冊僅持續到1982年6月。
11:36→Since she was not re-registered for 1982 /1983, Elliott was not assigned as Tsai's supervisor for 1982 /1983 either.
由於她沒有重新註冊1982/1983年，所以Elliott也沒有被任命為蔡1982/1983年的指導老師。
11:50→Furthermore, as established, Elliott was away from LSE in the last year of Tsai's PhD and subsequently left LSE in 1984 to join The Economist.
此外，正如所料，艾略特在蔡攻讀博士學位的最後一年離開了LSE，並於1984年離開LSE，加入《經濟學人》。
11:58→The last year of Tsai's PhD was 1982-1983.
蔡博士學程的最後一年是1982-1983年。
12:08→The Economist responded to an inquiry on April 4th, 2022, confirming that Elliott joined the economist approximately in February 1984.
《經濟學人》於2022年4月4日回覆了詢問，證實艾略特大約在1984年2月加入《經濟學人》。
12:20→The appointment of supervisors for PhD candidates was an activity at LSE in the early 1980s.
任命博士生指導老師是1980年代初在LSE進行的一項活動。
12:32→Based on the records disclosed by UoL on what do they know.com on February 23rd, 2022, UoL began investigating Tsai's missing doctoral thesis and PhD degree in July 2011.
根據倫敦大學於2022年2月23日在what do they know.com上披露的記錄，倫敦大學於2011年7月開始調查蔡的缺失博士論文和博士學位。（編按：請見 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/about_ico_commissioners_decision#incoming-1980587）
12:47→How did UoL find out that Tsai's supervisor was Michael Elliott in 2011?
倫敦大學是如何於2011年發現蔡的指導老師為Michael Elliott？
12:53→This piece of information was not held either by the department of law at LSE or the LSE Graduate School Office in the 1980s or 2015.
無論是1980年代還是2015年，LSE法學系或LSE研究生院辦公室都沒有掌握這項資訊。


張貼者： 於

U.K. Watchdog Report 7-1：口試考官

※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvqXIgL9sw。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。

 

 

7-1 viva examiners
 

0:17→On October 2nd, 2019, Michael Richardson submitted his first FOIA request to LSE.
2019年10月2日，理查森向LSE提交了他第一個有關資訊公開的請求。
0:23→One of his four questions was: What are the names of the thesis examiners?
他提出的四個問題之一是：論文審查者的名字為何？
0:31→Rachel Maguire's position on October 3rd, 2019, was:
Rachel Maguire在2019年10月3日的立場是：
0:33→"We normally do not release examiner names under any circumstances. However, considering the situation, it's whether there would be any harm to the examiners from releasing this information."
「我們通常在任何情況下都不會公佈審查員姓名。然而考慮到這種情況，發布這些資訊是否會對考官造成任何傷害。」
0:45→If they are deceased, their names can be disclosed.
如果他們去世了，可以披露他們的名字。
0:47→"If they are retired, there is unlikely to be any harm to their careers, but intense media interest could come their way. If they are still working, there could be potential harm to their careers due to intense media interest."
「如果他們退休了，他們的職業生涯不太可能受到任何損害，但媒體可能會對他們產生濃厚興趣。如果他們仍在工作，媒體的強烈關注可能會對他們的職業生涯造成損害。」
1:04→The records in the public domain prove otherwise.
公共領域的記錄證明事實並非如此。
1:06→The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, IALS, is one of 17 member institutions of the UoL.
高級法律研究學院IALS是倫敦大學17個成員機構之一。
1:17→IALS routinely discloses viva examiners on its official website.
IALS定期在其官方網站上揭露口試考官。
1:43→Simon Hix, an internationally renowned scholar, was LSE pro-director for research, vice president, and pro-vice chancellor between 2018 and 2021.
Simon Hix是一位國際知名學者，曾於2018年至2021年期間擔任LSE研究所長暨副校長。
1:55→In his CV, Hix included a long list of PhD students whose doctoral theses were examined by Hix as an internal or external viva examiner.
Hix在履歷中列出了一長串博士生的名單，這些學生的博士論文均由Hix作為內部或外部口頭考官進行審查。
2:08→On October 21st, 2019, Rachel Maguire responded to the request, stating that the information was held in full by the University of London and directed Richardson to UoL for the names of Tsai's viva examiners.
2019年10月21日，Rachel Maguire 回覆了該請求，表示倫敦大學已掌握完整信息，並指示理查森向倫敦大學索取蔡的口試考官姓名。
2:25→On October 29th, 2019, Richardson submitted his request to UoL.
2019年10月29日，理查森向倫敦大學提交了他的請求。
2:34→Ignoring IALS routine practice, on December 2nd, 2019, UoL refused to disclose the names of Tsai's viva examiners, invoking the Data Protection Act.
2019年12月2日，倫敦大學無視IALS的常規做法，拒絕透露蔡的口試考官姓名，並引用了資料保護法。
2:48→While Richardson was fighting for the names, on December 18th, 2020, Kevin Haynes, head of the LSE legal team, disclosed the names of Tsai's viva examiners to the Taipei Representative Office in the UK.
2020年12月18日，當理查森為這些名字而戰時，LSE法律團隊負責人Kevin Haynes向英國台北代表處披露了蔡的口試考官名字。
3:01→According to Haynes, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh examined Tsai's thesis in October 1983.
根據Haynes的說法，Michael Elliott和Leonard Leigh於1983年10月審查蔡的論文。
3:06→Haynes found the information on pages 74 and 75 of Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
Haynes在LSE檔案館儲存的一份蔡的LSE學生檔案裡，於第74頁和第75頁中找到了這些資訊。
3:20→On May 2nd, 2021, Richardson filed his second FOIA request to LSE for the names of Tsai's viva examiners.
2021年5月2日，理查森第二次向LSE提交了有關資訊公開的請求，要求提供蔡的口試考官姓名。
3:26→LSE refused the request claiming that it did not hold the information.
LSE拒絕了該請求，稱其並不掌握該資訊。
3:35→On November 26th, 2021, ICO issued a decision notice finding that LSE did not hold the information.
2021年11月26日，ICO發布了一份裁決通知，認定LSE沒有持有該資訊。
3:46→Richardson was unsatisfied with the decision notice and appealed to the first tier tribunal which delivered a decision on June 21st, 2022.
理查森對裁決通知不滿意，並向一級法庭提出上訴，該法庭於2022年6月21日作出裁決。
3:58→To convince the tribunal that LSE did not hold Tsai's viva examiners names, LSE admitted that "...the information we hold on file is only there accidentally...".
為了使法庭相信LSE沒有持有蔡的口試考官姓名，LSE承認：我們保存的資訊只是偶然存在的。
4:11→It raises suspicions on the Integrity of Tsai's LSE student file and the LSE archives in which Tsai's LSE student file was stored.
這引起了人們對蔡的LSE學生文件完整性以及儲存LSE學生文件的LSE檔案室產生懷疑。
4:18→However, the first tier tribunal said nothing.
然而，一級法庭並沒有發表任何言論 。
4:26→LSE even submitted an internal email dated March 1st, 2021, to convince the tribunal that the information in the documents accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file might not be correct.
LSE甚至提交了一封日期為2021年3月1日的內部電子郵件，以說服法庭，意外進入蔡的LSE學生檔案之文件資訊可能不正確。
4:41→Haynes was and still is head of the LSE legal team which is under the school secretary's division.
Haynes曾是LSE法律團隊的負責人，該團隊隸屬於學校秘書部門。
4:50→The internal email dated March 31st, 2021, was most likely authored by Louise Nadal, LSE school secretary, who manages all legal compliance and governance activities on behalf of LSE.
這封日期為2021年3月31日的內部電子郵件很可能是由LSE學校秘書Louise Nadal撰寫的，她代表LSE管理所有法律合規和治理活動。
5:06→Nadal authored most if not all of the internal reviews of LSE's responses to FOIA requests relating to Tsai's missing doctoral thesis and 1984 PhD degree.
如果不是全部，Nadal也撰寫了大部分有關蔡缺少博士論文和1984年博士學位的資訊公開請求之回應的LSE內部評論。
5:19→The internal email was about Haynes' email dated December 18th, 2020, not December 16th, 2020, as found by the Tribunal.
該內部電子郵件涉及Haynes的郵件，日期為2020年12月18日，而非法院認定的 2020年12月16日。
5:32→In his email dated December 18th, 2020, Haynes only confirmed two viva examiners, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh.
在2020年12月18日的電子郵件中，Haynes僅確認了兩名口試考官：Michael Elliott和Leonard Leigh。
5:42→But the internal email questioned the accuracy of Haynes' confirmation of three viva examiners.
但內部郵件對Haynes確認的三名口試考官的準確性提出了質疑。
5:47→The first tier tribunal failed to catch the mistake.
初審法庭未能發現這項錯誤。
5:54→Based on Haynes ' confirmation on December 18th, 2020, XX was Michael Elliott and YY was Leonard Leigh.
根據Haynes於2020年12月18日的確認，XX是Michael Elliott，YY是Leonard Leigh。
6:04→According to the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, ZZ was Richard Dale.
根據台灣台北地方法院的法庭檔案，ZZ 是Richard Dale。
6:13→Regarding Tsai's three viva examiners, the internal email reads as follows: Richard Dale named as external examiner in a letter from president Tsai to Secretary of Graduate School at LSE the 5th of December, 1983.
關於蔡的3位口試考官，內部電子郵件內容如下：1983年12月5日，蔡總統在給LSE研究生院秘書的一封信中將Richard Dale列為外部考官。
6:27→Michael Elliott who refers to "my co-examiner and myself" in a memo dated the 16th of January, 1983.
Michael Elliott在1983年1月16日的一份備忘錄中提到了「我和我的共事者」。
6:38→This also suggests there were only two examiners, Michael Elliott and one other.
這顯示只有兩名考官，分別是Michael Elliott和另一人。
6:43→"I see〔Leonard Leigh〕is mentioned in the file but couldn't find him specifically named as an examiner."
「我看到文件中提到了（Leonard Leigh），但沒發現他具體作為審查員。」
6:52→Based on the internal email and in view of the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, three viva examiners were Michael Elliott, Leonard Leigh, and Richard Dale.
根據內部電子郵件和台灣台北地方法院的法庭檔案，三名口試考官分別是 Michael Elliott、Leonard Leigh和Richard Dale。
7:05→Though the internal email questioned the accuracy of the information about Tsai's three viva examiners, the questioned information is consistent with Tsai's description of her viva examiners.
雖然內部郵件對蔡三位口試考官資訊的準確性提出了質疑，但被質疑的資訊與蔡對其口試考官的描述一致。
7:15→（另見https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxDEisWkTUk）
「最荒謬的事情是什麼？我有三個examiner，是三個口試委員，因為我的論文是法律跟經濟的混合體，所以一個是我的指導老師，一個是經濟學家，一個是學法律的。那個律師就說妳的經濟部分寫得不錯，那個經濟學家說我法律的部分寫得不錯。這個大概是有史以來倫敦政經學院最令人驚奇的博士論文考試。」
7:58→Um in September 2021, Tsai's attorneys submitted Haynes' email, dated December 18th, 2020, to the Taiwan Taipei District Court as evidence to prove that Elliott and Leigh were Tsai's viva examiners.
2021年9月，蔡的律師向台灣台北地方法院提交了Haynes於2020年12月18日發送的電子郵件作為證據，證明Elliott和Leigh是口試考官。
8:13→Tsai's thesis was about International Trade law or International economic law, but Leigh was a criminal law professor at LSE in the early 1980s.
蔡的論文是關於國際貿易法或國際經濟法，但Leigh在1980年代初期是LSE的刑法教授。
8:22→He was not qualified as an internal examiner.
他不具備內部審查員的資格。
8:28→Dennis Peng challenged the qualification of Leonard Leigh as an internal examiner and a lack of external examiner.
彭文正對Leonard Leigh作為內部審查員的資格、以及缺乏外部審查員提出質疑。
8:38→In response to Peng's challenge in 2022, Tsai's attorneys reported to the court that the external viva examiner was Richard Dale, a scholar and attorney specializing in anti-dumping laws.
為了回應彭在2022年提出的挑戰，蔡的律師向法院報告稱，外部口試審查員是Richard Dale，他是一位專門研究反傾銷法的學者和律師。
8:48→The evidence was Tsai's impression, not Tsai's letter to the Secretary of the Graduate School at LSE on December 5th, 1983, mentioned in the internal email dated March 31st, 2021.
證據是：蔡的印象，而不是2021年3月31日內部電子郵件中提到的1983年12月5日致LSE研究生院秘書的信。
9:08→In February 2022, UoL released a statement confirming that Tsai was awarded a PhD in March 1984, following the submission and examination of her thesis by two examiners.
2022年2月，倫敦大學發布聲明，確認蔡於1984年3月在提交論文並由兩名考官審查後獲得博士學位。
9:23→The confirmation of two viva examiners in the UoL statement is inconsistent with Tsai's account.
倫敦大學聲明中對兩名口試考官的確認與蔡的說法不一致。
9:32→It is also inconsistent with the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court.
也與台灣台北地方法院的庭審卷宗不一致。
9:37→According to which, Tsai had three viva examiners.
據此，蔡有三名口試考官。
9:42→According to the internal email, at least three documents containing the information about Tsai's viva examiners accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
根據內部電子郵件，至少有三份包含有關蔡口試考官資訊的文件意外落入了LSE檔案室中儲存的蔡LSE學生檔案中。
9:56→The first one was a letter written by Tsai to Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, on December 5th, 1983.
第一封是1983年12月5日蔡寫給LSE研究生院秘書Ian Stephenson的信。
10:07→LSE did not provide, and the tribunal failed to ask the reason why Tsai wrote the letter to Stephenson informing him the identity of Tsai's external examiner.
LSE沒有提供、仲裁庭也沒有詢問蔡寫信給Stephenson並告知其外部審查員身份之原因。
10:20→The second one was a memo dated January 16th, 1983, in which Elliott referred to "my co-examiner and myself".
第二份是1983年1月16日的備忘錄，其中Elliott提到了「我和我的共事者」。
10:31→There are good reasons to question the authenticity of the memo.
有充分的理由質疑這份備忘錄的真實性。
10:37→According to the 1983/1984 UoL regulations, the thesis title had to be approved by LSE before PhD candidates were permitted to submit an examination entry form to enter the examination stage at UoL.
根據1983/1984年倫敦大學規定，博士生論文標題必須經過LSE批准，然後才可以提交考試報名表，進入倫敦大學的考試階段。
10:54→Tsai's thesis title was approved by LSE on January 19th, 1983, 3 days after the memo was written on January 16th, 1983.
蔡的論文題目於1983年1月16日備忘錄撰寫三天后，即1983年1月19日獲得LSE批准。
11:07→In the letter notifying Tsai's thesis approval, Tsai was reminded that the next thing she should do was to complete an examination entry form, and the UoL had to appoint examiners when it received an entry form.
在通知蔡論文批准的信中，蔡被提醒接下來要做的是填寫考試報名表，而倫敦大學在收到報名表後必須任命考官。
11:22→When the memo was written on January 16th, 1983, LSE did not approve Tsai's thesis title.
當備忘錄於1983年1月16日撰寫時，LSE尚未批准蔡的論文標題。
11:29→Tsai was not permitted to submit an examination entry form and no viva examiners were appointed by UoL.
蔡未被允許提交考試報名表，而且倫敦大學也沒有任命任何口試考官。
11:38→Elliott could not possibly refer himself as one of Tsai's viva examiners on January 16th, 1983.
Elliott不可能在1983年1月16日稱自己是蔡的口試考官之一。
11:46→Furthermore, the memo was written only one month before Elliott wrote the letter on February 17th, 1983, certifying Tsai's PhD exam to be held in the spring 1983, not October 1983.
此外，這份備忘錄是在Elliott於1983年2月17日寫這封信之前一個月寫的，認證蔡的博士考試將於1983年春季，而不是1983年10月舉行。
12:03→The third one is one document in Tsai's LSE student file that mentioned Leonard Leigh.
第三個是一份蔡LSE學生檔案中的文件，其中提到了Leonard Leigh。
12:11→All these three documents accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file.
這三份文件意外地落入了蔡的LSE學生檔案中。
12:19→But none of them was submitted to the Taiwan Taipei District Court to prove Tsai's viva examiners.
但是都未提交給台灣台北地方法院來證明蔡的口試考官。
12:28→Since Haynes only confirmed the internal examiners, he only found Elliott's memo dated January 16th, 1983, and the document mentioning Leonard Leigh on pages 74 and 75 of Tsai's LSE student file.
由於Haynes只確認內部審查員，因此他只找到Elliott在1983年1月16日的備忘錄，以及蔡的LSE學生檔案第74頁和第75頁提到Leonard Leigh的文件。
12:45→The page number of Tsai's letter to Ian Stephenson on December 5th, 1983, is unknown.
1983年12月5日蔡寫給Ian Stephenson的信件頁碼不詳。
12:54→These three documents are obviously not the only three documents that accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
顯然，這三份文件並不是意外落入LSE檔案室中儲存的蔡LSE學生檔案中僅有的三份文件。
13:07→Haynes also found Tsai's LSE student record on page four of Tsai's LSE student file.
Haynes也在蔡的LSE學生檔案第4頁發現了蔡的LSE學籍卡。
13:13→It contains information after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10th, 1982, and a date of Entry that no viva examiners could be appointed for Tsai's PhD exam held in October 1983.
它包含了蔡於1982年11月10日退出課程後的信息、以及一個登錄日期；這對於1983年10月舉行蔡的博士考試而言，是無法任命口試考官的。（編按：Date of entry：June 83。）
13:30→Ian Stephenson's letter, dated February 11th, 1982, on page 120 of Tsai's LSE student file indicates that Tsai's registration transfer was not approved by the LSE Graduate School Committee.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第120頁中，Ian Stephenson於1982年2月11日寫的信件表明，蔡的變更註冊未得到LSE研究生院委員會的批准。（編按：「not/未」字似應刪除！）
13:45→Stephenson's letter dated January 19th, 1983, on page 95 of Tsai's LSE student file indicates that LSE informed Tsai about her approved final thesis title on the same date the LSE Graduate School Committee met to approve her final thesis title.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第95頁上，Stephenson於1983年1月19日的信函表明，LSE在LSE研究生院委員會開會批准其最終論文標題的同一天通知蔡，她的最終論文標題已獲批准。
14:05→Stephenson's letters on page 89 and Page 101 of Tsai's LSE student file were issued for Tsai to extend her student visas.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第89頁和第101頁上，Stephenson的信件是為蔡簽發的，用於延長她的學生簽證。
14:14→But these two letters were inconsistent with the UK Immigration Act 1971.
但這兩封信不符合英國1971年的移民法。
14:22→At least one document contains Tsai's PhD exam date, based on which Rachel Maguire was able to confirm Tsai's PhD exam date October 16th, 1983.
至少要有一份文件包含博士考試日期，Rachel Maguire才可以據此確認蔡的博士考試日期為1983年10月16日。
14:33→It was Sunday.
那是個星期天。
14:36→Who wrote them?
誰寫的？
14:41→How and when did they accidentally land in Tsai's LSE student file?
它們是如何以及何時意外進入蔡的LSE學生檔案？
14:49→These documents raise suspicions on the Integrity of Tsai's LSE student file and the Integrity of the LSE archives in which Tsai's LSE student file is stored.
這些文件引起了人們對蔡的LSE學生檔案完整性以及儲存這些的LSE檔案室完整性產生懷疑。


張貼者： 於
訂閱： 意見 (Atom)