A family of four died of poisoning, and the female neighbor Ren Yanhong was locked up as a major suspect by the police, detained for 7 years, and twice sentenced to a suspended death. However, two of the five alleged poisoning facts did not have time for Ren Yanhong to commit the crime at all, and the rest of the "criminal facts" had no physical evidence, and the testimony contradicted each other, and only one of the 11 interrogations was audio and videotaped, and the whole case was convicted on the basis of confessions, and the case was also called the "Shandong Nu Nianbin Case."
After an in-depth investigation and interview, Cui Xiankang, a reporter from Caixin Weekly at the time, took the lead in issuing an ice-breaking report and disclosing the case to the public. After that, many domestic authoritative media such as Beijing News, Beijing Youth Daily, and The Paper followed up with reports. After that, the Linyi Municipal Procuratorate decided not to prosecute on the grounds that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and Ren Yanhong was compensated by the state.
1
Media disclosure: The police are suspected of using fortune telling to lock up the suspect
(Ren Yanhong walks out of the detention center)
From 2010 to July 2011, Li Zhongshan's family of four in Linyi, Shandong Province, was poisoned to death, and her neighbor Ren Yanhong was locked up as a major suspect.
In 2013, Ren Yanhong was sentenced to a suspended death sentence by the Linyi Intermediate People's Court for the crime of releasing dangerous substances, Ren Yanhong appealed, and in 2015, the Shandong Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial. In 2017, the Linyi Intermediate People's Court sentenced Ren Yanhong to a suspended death, Ren Yanhong appealed again, and the Shandong High Court tried it for the second time.
Caixin reporter Cui Xiankang learned about the case and went to Linyi for on-the-spot interviews.
Ren Yanhong's second-instance defense lawyer, Xi Xiangdong, told reporters that there are many doubts in this major criminal case: "Of the five poisoning cases alleged by the prosecution, two of Ren Yanhong have alibi, and there are also many doubts and contradictions in the rest of the charges." Moreover, all the basis for conviction came from confessions, and there were no relevant witnesses or physical evidence pointing to Ren Yanhong committing the crime."
Ren Yanhong, who poisoned four lives, was twice sentenced to a suspended death sentence, and lawyer Xi Xiangdong believes that this is a typical "trial room for doubtful cases", indicating that the judicial organs also have doubts.
A person from the judicial circles told reporters Cui Xiankang: "Ren Yanhong's poisoning case is very similar to the 2006 Nian Bin poisoning case, both of which were killed by rat poisoning by neighbors, and they all relied on confessions obtained during the pre-trial and investigation stages. ”
Regarding the defense lawyer's suggestion that there was no time to commit the crime, reporter Cui Xiankang verified in detail with the villagers in the area where the crime occurred.
Prosecutors allege that the first poisoning was at about 10 a.m. on August 9, 2010, when Ma Shouru, a villager from Santong Village, told Caixin that at around 7 a.m., Wu Shiguo, Ren Yanhong, and other workers who were driving the crane had breakfast at his house. At about 10 o'clock the workers began to beat the roof, and by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, he was willing to testify in court. Ma Shouru's wife also said that building a house and hitting the roof in the countryside is a major event, and she remembers the day of June 29 very clearly, and it is still a day specially selected by the elderly in the village.
Wu Jirang, the foreman who led the team at that time, confirmed to the Caixin reporter that he was working at Ma Shouru's house in Santong Village that day, and at 7 o'clock in the morning, the crane and the workers were basically there, and Wu Shiguo and Ren Yanhong drove the crane and stirred ash respectively.
The fourth poisoning was confirmed by the court to be June 6, 2011, which was the Dragon Boat Festival. Ren Guangyi, a villager who made the record, told the reporter that the time was made up by the inquirer, and I said at the time that I couldn't remember it clearly, but they said that it was just a formality and that we would arrange a fifth day for you. I am willing to testify in court.
The defense lawyer told reporters that Ren Yanhong had said that the interrogators had already written the interrogation record, and after asking her to press her fingerprint and refused, the interrogators forcibly pressed her handprint.
The Caixin reporter contacted the Fei County Public Security Bureau for verification of Ren Yanhong's claims that she was coerced and induced to confess. The bureau said it could not be interviewed.
The defense lawyer told reporters that during the investigation phase of this case, there were 9 interrogations, 1 interrogation approved by the Fei County Procuratorate, and 1 interrogation for review for prosecution, and no simultaneous audio or video recordings were provided, but the transcripts of these 11 interrogations were all accepted as the basis for the verdict. The Caixin reporter asked the Linyi Municipal Procuratorate for confirmation on this, but was refused.
In August 2018, Caixin reporter Cui Xiankang issued a report titled "The Court "Leaves Leeway" and Two Suspended Death Sentences: Ren Yanhong's Poisoning Case is Suspicious".
After the report was issued, it attracted widespread attention from public opinion, and many media made in-depth follow-up reports——
Beijing News reporter Zhao Pengle issued a report "Suspicious Clouds of the Linyi Murder Case: A Family of Four Died of Poisoning One After Another, and the Confessions and Confessions of the Neighbors Involved in the Case" (click on the title to read the original article).
Beijing Youth Daily reporter Tong Xiaoyu issued a report "Female version of Nianbin case: The police are suspected of relying on fortune telling to lock up the suspect and accuse him of poisoning a neighbor's family of four". The report disclosed a detail: "What adds a bit of absurdity to the case is that Ren Yanhong's relatives said: A well-known local fortune teller revealed to them that the public security could not solve the case for a long time after the incident, and the police asked the fortune teller to solve the case, and then the people from the criminal police team also came to the door to give gifts and thank you." ”
https://news.sina.com.cn/s/2019-01-03/doc-ihqhqcis2856202.shtml
In July 2019, the Linyi Municipal Procuratorate applied to withdraw the prosecution, and then made a decision not to prosecute on the grounds that the facts of the crime were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. In the end, Ren Yanhong received 1.78 million yuan in state compensation.
2
News coverage brings the case into the public eye
Recently, "Change the Power of DE" contacted Cui Xiankang, a reporter for Caixin Weekly at the time, and exchanged his reporting experience at that time.
(Cui Xiankang's recent photo)
Change the power of DE: After coming into contact with the facts of the case, do you already feel that this case may be unjust?
Cui Xiankang: There are many things that are unusual. In five poisoning incidents, four victims, including young children, were also poisoned to death, but for such a heinous poisoning case, only a suspended death sentence was given. It is a more typical practice that leaves a certain amount of leeway in the judgment of the suspect when the case is in doubt.
Second, Ren Yanhong began to retract her previous confession of guilt during the public security investigation stage during the procuratorate's review and prosecution stage, saying that she had been tortured to extract a confession. Moreover, in her confession of guilt, the statement is also unstable, and there are large discrepancies in the details.
The last aspect is that in the evidence in the case, there is no human evidence pointing to Ren Yanhong's poisoning, fingerprints, footprints, hair and other physical evidence. The public security organs searched her home and seized some personal belongings, but did not find the rat poison alleged to have been poisoned, nor did it detect the strong components of the rat poison, and the relevant evidence for the conviction was mainly Ren Yanhong's confession. Therefore, a preliminary judgment can be drawn that this is a case full of doubts.
Change the power of DE: It can be seen from the report that your interview is very detailed, and even a little "harsh".
Cui Xiankang: This is still required by the nature of a criminal case, this is a case of four people who died of poisoning and the defendant was sentenced to death with a suspended sentence. Accuracy and no mistakes in unjust, false and wrongly decided cases are the basic requirements for reporting.
Changing the power of DE: What are some of the most impressive details in the process of reporting?
Cui Xiankang: Before I went to Dongling Village, Shangye Town, Fei County, in June 2011, I originally imagined that the family of such a well-known local poisoning suspect should be the target of the village's avoidance, but I didn't expect that this was not the case, and the villagers still often visited his house. Ren Yanhong's husband Wu Shiguo has been campaigning for her for many years with Ren Yanhong's brother Ren Qingchuan. And Li Zhongshan's family and the place where they once lived have become overgrown with weeds, which is embarrassing. It's a pity that after Ren Yanhong was freed, the real culprit has not been caught.
The Power of Change: What role did media coverage play in this case?
Cui Xiankang: What the media can do is to let more people see it through interviews and reports, and this is the role of the media. After Caixin reported on it, many domestic media continued to follow up and report, making the case more popular.
First of all, this is a case of "congenital deficiencies", and the Shandong High Court's two remands for retrial must also be due to the fact that there are big problems in the case itself. However, after many years of delay, it is a pity that the legal principle of "no guilt in doubt" has not been truly implemented, and perhaps there is some kind of pressure behind the adjudicators. The second is that Ren Yanhong's family and defense lawyer Xi Xiangdong have been paying silently for many years, and without their persistence, the media would not have seen the clues of this case.
Second, many previous unjust, false and wrongly decided cases, such as the Nie Shubin case and the Huge case, have completed the second-instance trial procedure and are in a more difficult stage of appeal. Ren Yanhong's case is still in the process of the court's second trial, and it is more convenient to correct the error. The subsequent feedback from the judicial department was also more timely.
Source: Change de Force
Reviewer: Luo Chang