Pympian II Sou Fung, Su Xiao Fung, not guilty, demand immediate rehabilitation

I have been in court for many days, and I have been involved in the trial, as the defence for the case, with Susu Seri and Su Minh. We have a comprehensive picture of the facts and evidence of the case. This defence is, in fact, a statement that can be said to be repeated and accomplished by the three of us. The statement was made public today to make the truth of this grievance clear to a wider audience.

Acquitt me now.

— Defence of the innocence of Su Qi Feng and Su Xiao Feng

Intermediate People ' s Court of Penyi

Intermediate People ' s Court of Penyi City

The case was set aside and remanded to the second decision of the Shandong Provincial High Court on 2 December 2025, having been heard in first instance, second instance, second instance, second instance, second instance, and second instance, and is currently undergoing the third trial. The very complexity of the proceedings itself is amply demonstrated by the existence of significant issues of fact and evidence in the present case.

(a) The Shandong Provincial High Court took the case seriously, having formed two chambers and two committees; The Shandong Provincial Prosecutor ' s Office also took the case very seriously and, in the second trial, replaced Xu Xuxiu, the former prosecutor, with Chen Sun, Wang Fong, the prosecutor.

As the defence in this case, I firmly believe that Suqingfung and Su Xiaofung did not commit the killing of Su Qingchun, who was killed by others, and that the case was a total and complete grievance: the two accused ' s statements of guilt were extracted under torture and that the evidence was not only illegal but also false; The investigators and prosecutors in the case together concealed evidence sufficient to exonerate the two accused; The evidence available in the case is also sufficient to conclude that the two accused were not guilty and were certainly innocent. The Court should immediately set them back after nine years of imprisonment and the years of service had passed.

Part One. Procedural arguments

I am concerned about the procedural irregularities that have arisen in the course of the proceedings before the Full Court. These are procedurally hard to ignore.

. The list of the members of the Committee was not communicated to the Full Court, which violated the defence ' s right to request recusal

The case had previously been tried at first instance by the Lygia Intermediate Court, and both first instance judgements were discussed and decided by the trial committee of the Lygia Intermediate Court. The conduct of the members of the trial court, who discussed the case and decided on it, was a trial act. Our law prohibits the trial of the same case from being repeated by the trial judge in the original trial, who includes both the former members of the Full Court and the members of the trial commission who participated in the deliberations and decisions of the trial committee in the original trial proceedings.

Article 29 of the Supreme Court Interpretation of the Application of the Criminal Procedure Code does not in any way give the Trial Committee the right to double-trial the same case, but rather expressly provides in article 37 that the members of the Trial Committee are subject to a statutory disqualification. The members of the trial committee who participated in the two previous discussions at first instance are therefore no longer able to participate in this discussion at first instance.

We, the defence, have asked the Full Court to inform the trial committee members of the Intermediate Court of Penyi that at least the members of the trial committee who have participated in the two previous trial decisions should be prohibited from participating in the discussion at this first instance. The Full Court did not respond positively to this, to the extent that our right to apply for disqualification from the members of the trial court was not exercised.

. * * * Qualité * * * Questionat * * * Question of Palestine.

Article 16 of the People ' s Jurors Act provides that the courts shall try the following first instance cases, which shall be conducted by a panel of seven judges composed of people ' s assessors and judges: (i) a possible sentence of imprisonment of more than 10 years, life imprisonment, death penalty, and a criminal case with significant social implications; ... (iv) Other socially significant cases. In view of the fact that the case had twice resulted in the death penalty of the accused Su Qi Feng and its social implications, the defence submits that the case should be tried in a seven-member panel. However, the opinion was unlawfully rejected by the Full Court, which in fact is the law of the empty country.

. The Full Court directly rejected the defence ' s motion for disqualification of the prosecutor, contrary to the law

The image of the Linyi judiciary is also adversely affected by the fact that Public Prosecutor Zhu Ji Jin is the prosecutor in Zhang Zhixi's case and that Zhang Zhiqi's criminal liability was wrongly pursued by the deliberate concealment of evidence of innocence in Zhang Zhiqi's case. Her actions were already suspected of having committed a crime and the Penal Code was clear and justified by the offence of ultimatum. But she remains here today as a prosecutor.

At present, Chu Jiajin is also a prosecutor in the Linyi City Public Prosecutor ' s Office and a prosecutor in the Yiu City District Public Prosecutor ' s Office, in serious violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor ' s Act, and she is no longer eligible to serve as a prosecutor.

In the present case, she continued to be the victim of a large number of concealments and falsifications of evidence, and she has been helping investigators to conceal confessions obtained under torture. She is not just handling the case. The fact that we requested the disqualification of the Zhu Ji Jin Public Prosecutor is clear and well-founded, and it would have been up to the Prosecutor General of the Piyi City Public Prosecutor ' s Office to decide. However, the Full Court exercised the functions of the Prosecutor General directly, which was a clear abuse of authority and an infringement of the rights of the defence.

Questioned Questionalden.

For eight years, you have been reporting under the Pui Public Prosecutions Act that the two accused were beaten to death by a single scoff on the back of the head. How do you explain the many injuries to the victim's head? No explanation. Two forensic doctors from Beijing and Shanghai were hired by our defence, who examined the forensic opinion of the two medical doctors from the city of Yi, behind their backs, and completely overturned it. We then applied for a re-evaluation of the cause of death of the victim, which was rejected directly by the Full Court.

v. Wrongly denied defence applications for the appearance of witnesses and investigators

The first second trial in this case, which was held for five and a half days, was a little closer to the substance of the trial, with the presence of the prison investigators and investigators, and we feel that Shandong High Court wanted to find out the case. The case is now back to the first instance in the lower court in Penyi. In the case of witnesses and investigators, the full court should be more substantive in the face of a capital case than a second instance court.

vi. Unlawful infringement of the right to a defence of close relatives of the accused

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused may, in addition to exercising his right to defence, appoint his family and friends to act as a defence. Before the hearing, the accused, Suq Fung ' s son, Su Ming and I filed a defence order in court. Under articles 39 and 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, close relatives ' advocates may, with the permission of the court, consult, extract and reproduce the case file, as well as meet and communicate with the accused in custody. However, the Full Court denied the defence, Sumi Ming and I, applications to copy the dossiers and to meet with the accused. Moreover, the reasons for the refusal to grant permission were denied. This is an arrogance of power, which in fact constitutes an empty defence of the close relatives provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because we cannot study cases and exercise the right to defence without copying the dossier; The denial of access prevents direct communication with the accused on the merits, which greatly compromises the right to defence.

Part Two. The facts as charged in the indictment are completely false

I. No precise time for the crime and no time for the two accused at all

The indictment describes the temporal element in only two instances: Suki-Foo, Su Xiao-Fung, and Sou Xiao-Fung, fishing off-line on 1 November 2017; The second was the arrival of the accused at the site at 1900 hours on 1 November

1. Here, there is a very important problem — the lack of time for the two accused to end their attacks that night. The indictment accused two accused of killing Su Qing Chun while failing to indicate the exact time at which the accused killed Su Qing Chun. This in itself can show that the facts of his allegations are false. Since the two accused did not commit the murder at all, it is impossible for the indictment to state the exact time of its commission.

Based on the existing partial surveillance of the video, two objective points of time can be identified: the two accused went to the Internet in the afternoon of the same day, for an hour and 36 minutes; The accused went to the net the same night, for an hour and 58 minutes. The latter is 22 minutes more than the former. This is sufficient to establish that the accused have no time at all to commit an offence:

On the one hand, it is perfectly normal that the two accused have been off the net at night for 22 minutes more than during the day. Because people are normal in their daytime vision and are moving normally; And people are slow to move at night because of their vision. Also, the two accused are old and need to be watched when they rise at night to see if fish is available on the Internet. If fish are available, it needs to be carefully removed so that the fins do not break the nets.

On the other hand, assuming that the two accused had been off the net at night for the same time as the day, an hour and 36 minutes, the two accused could not have completed the complex series of proceedings charged with the indictment with the 22 additional minutes: 200 metres to steal fish after the end of the netting; and 5 minutes; (a) Scolding the victim, tumbling over the water and killing the victim for five minutes; The body of the deceased and the iron boat were dragged to the West Bank and found in the woods a large concrete brick weighing dozens of pounds for five minutes; (b) Reaching over the water to another boat to tie the victim ' s body to two wrists, two ankles, necks for five minutes; (b) The sinking of bodies to the deep water area on the east bank, 300 metres across the River Nail, for five minutes; (b) Reverse to current, up 370 metres to another location for 5 minutes to sink; A further 600 metres from the wrecks to leave the ship at a landing, five minutes... It has been 35 minutes. If we add the time to the three Vertigos, it will take another 60 minutes.

It is also important to note that the time spent on each of the acts listed above, some of which are subject to uncertainty, may lead to longer periods: for example, when Succhu is on a boat in water, he must have one shot, and never more than two times, when he kills the victim on another ship; When Su Xiaofun is on shore, for example, it must run straight to the location of the concrete bricks in the dark woods, and the concrete bricks must be precisely a round hole to be used to cross the rope and tie to the body...

It is clear that the lack of an accurate time for the case in the indictment is essentially due to the fact that the indictment charges were false and that the two accused did not kill Su Qing Chun that night. The objective fact is that the two defendants never saw Su Qing Chun throughout the day of the launch, and that they went back to their homes directly after the start of the campaign. Su Qingchun was killed by others, at other times and by other means.

. ii. No known location of the crime and the two accused never reached the alleged location of the crime

The alleged location of the crime in the indictment is “the waters of the River Nau River, north of the Goku Bridge”. The so-called crime site is an area of over 12,000 square metres (about 600 metres long in the north and south by approximately 200 metres wide by east and west), an area of over 12 hectares or 150 acres, an area of very large and open areas, including river surfaces and banks, along which there are trees, fields and riverways. Neither of the two accused has been explicitly stated in the indictment as to which of the specific locations in the 1,200 acres area was the alleged killing.

The objective fact is that the two accused were offline and offline on the same day at the old bridge in the River River Gou, more than 200 metres from the riverside hut in Suqing Chun. Moreover, the area where the accused had been caught at night was fully consistent and fully reunified with the area under the daytime netting, and the two accused had never reached the so-called fish-scaveding, killing, landing for bricks, riverine sank and re-flowing shipwrecking that night.

It is clear that the indictment does not state the specific “place of crime” because the two accused did not commit the murder of Su Qing Chun, who was killed by others in a location that we do not know at present.

III. The so-called case was launched for false reasons, and the two defendants never stole fish at all.

The “low number of fish caught” in the indictment is a false fact that was fabricated jointly by investigators and prosecutors.

This factual circumstance, which was first recorded in the third interrogation of Suqiao by investigator Qihong Qi-Bong, on 20 November 2017, was the improper inducement and false record of the investigator Qi Feng Zi-Bong. The video of the interrogation showed that Su Chi Feng first said “about five or six pounds of fish were caught”, and then the mahjong was hurried, repeatedly seduced and scolded by Su Chi Feng, “not many.” So, the mahjian had recorded it as a fake “narrow fish caught that night, and we caught only five or six pounds of fish”. The prosecution then directly misrepresented the contents of the statement in the indictment as “a small number of fish caught”. However, in the video footage of Su Xiaofeng being questioned, he clearly stated that “the catch of 50 or 6 pounds is actually a lot of fish”. This is objective evidence that can directly overturn the facts alleged in the indictment.

It is also false that the indictment “the two accused have come to fish in the net of Suqingchun”.

First, in each of Suqingfung ' s statements, it was mentioned that the two accused had not reached the Sukingchun ' s net box directly, but had only gone to the Sukingh, Suqingh, and Suqinghongh, after having passed over three Vertigos; And Su Xiaofeng ' s confession never mentioned that there was a clear contradiction between the contents of his statements, which were made in the box of Su Qing Chun, which was used to visit the FPI. Second, Su Qingchun's net box is a large net box at least 10 metres long, 10 metres wide, 5 metres deep and 500 cubic metres big. Su Qi Feng uses a hand-stamped net to fish in the net.

In the indictment, “the two accused, after having been found and verbally abused by Su Qing Chun, have discussed the teaching of Su Qing Chun and the transfer of the ship to the ship of Su Qing Chun”, which is false.

First, the specific time when the two accused were found fishing was not clearly stated in the indictment, since each point was contradictory and erroneous, whether 21.15, or 21.30 or 21.40, the time of the discovery of the two accused was not over; If 21:30 or 21:40, the two accused will not have time to complete a complex series of subsequent modus operandi.

Secondly, “discussion of lessons” is not “kill”, and the indictment does not state a specific “lessons learned”, the oral lesson is a lesson, the slaps of the hand of the hand of the other, and the ass of the stick is a lesson... But neither of these lessons is the means of intentional killing, and the indictment has no reason to say that the “lessons learned” here is the purpose of killing.

Again, the specific position of Su Qing Chun when it was discovered that the two accused were fishing was not clearly stated in the indictment. Su Qing Chun was on land on the shore or on a boat in the river. If he was on land on the shore, it would not have been possible to “draw the ship to the side of the ship of Suqingchun”; If he was on a boat in the river, what was he doing on a boat without going off or off? Nor could Su Qing Chun have boarded a ship from shore to pursue the accused, since Su Qing Chun's hand-held mine light was still on shore and it was impossible for him to leave the ship in the dark, when he was chasing the thief, deliberately tossing it on the shore, and to carry himself in the dark and rowing off the coast.

iv. The so-called double-accused killing is absolutely false

The “Su Qi Feng is not ready for Su Qing Chun” in the indictment is false.

The indictment first set out a pre-eminence of the Sukking Spring insults the accused, so that Sukking Chun could not have been unprepared when he had approached himself when he had been verbally abused, and he should have been highly focused. Even those false confessions of guilt included the fact that Su Qing Chun had stood up and bent over, and that Su Qi Feng had put his head on mine lights to shine upon Su Qing Chun. How could he have been unsuspecting since the victims had already stood up and had already been exposed? The factual circumstances of the indictment are certainly false.

The indictment contained a “bite on the Soqing Chun pillow with a wooden stick”, which is false.

First, the so-called wooden stick was not present and the ordinary wooden stick was not a lethal weapon, especially one that could kill a person by a single blow;

Second, Suqing's stick is unclear, is he left or right; One hand or two hands? The fact that the guilty statements of the two accused were that Suqingo, 70-year-old, stood on the bow, bended, touched a wooden stick, raised his head, waved a wooden stick, was clearly a very slow move, and that the Suqing Chun, the target of the assault, had sufficient and ample time to act in a way that would avoid, prevent or even counter, could never have happened when a single rod had been killed.

Again, the high-profile Su Qing Chun should be directed towards Su Qi-Foo. At that point, even if it aimed at the head, Su Qi Feng could have hit only one side of its head, and not its pillow.

Most importantly, the two accused's wooden vessels and the iron ship of Suqingchun are all warp-sized, with a minimum distance of 1 metre or more between the two vessels, and Suqingchun, which is located in the front of the wooden ship, is at least 2 metres from the central iron ship, so that the 1.5 metre-long wooden stick on Suqqingchun can hardly reach the Suqingchun when it is swinging. The factual circumstances of the indictment are therefore false.

The indictment contained a mistake to “causing death of a heavy skull damage”.

According to the Criteria for the Identification of Human Damage, the denture of the pillow is a severe fracture, complete brain, a minor, non-lethal injury. There are serious questions about the real cause of the victim ' s death.

V. Other factual circumstances in the indictment are all false

The so-called “two accused tied the body of Su Qingchun to a hollow brick” is false.

First, in Su Qi Feng's guilty confession (opinion), the circumstances of how he tied the body, at the instigation of the investigators, described three different situations in which “the body was dragged to his own ship” “the ship of the body” “strew its hand on its own ship”. The investigator has a choice of what he needs.

Second, the two vessels were both rowed and rowed, with two rows separated, resulting in a distance of more than 1.5 metres between the two vessels, and the two accused, who reached out on their own wooden vessels, must have been unable to reach the bodies of Soqingchun on the iron vessel and could not complete the binding.

Again, the so-called two accused tied the body of Soqingchun, was it in a straight or crooked position? Up on the top or down on the floor? Or the side? These are not clear. In the transcript of his interrogation, Su Xiaofeng said that Su Chifeng had placed the concrete bricks on the belly of Su Qing Chun, and then, following the investigators ' guidance and instructions, he was replaced by Su Qingh Feng, who placed the cement bricks on the hips of Su Qing Chun, which was a lie.

Also, the cement bricks tied to the body of Suqingchun were on board the two accused, or the iron boat where the body was? If it was on the iron ship where the body was, who moved the cement brick from the wooden ship to the iron ship? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to move a large, tens of pounds of concrete brick from the wood to the iron ship on the river, both of which are small.

We also found that in Su Qi Feng's guilty confession (same transcript), Su Qi Feng first tied his feet and bricks, then changed his position with Su Qinghing, and then he tied his neck, and then he and Su Qingh Feng moved back to their respective positions. However, the boat was small and Su Xiaofeng feared water, and it was impossible for them to change their positions on the boat.

The so-called “sinking of deep water near the gutter-drink area on the eastern side of the River Leyre” is false.

First, there is a misunderstanding here, and the “area” of the “drain” in the indictment is a clerical error, and the correct word should be “the canal”. This clerical error of the indictment corresponds to the clerical error of the indictment, as can be seen from the fact that the prosecutor repeated the investigators ' mistakes and was neglecting to perform legal oversight duties.

Second, the “deep water near the gutter area” is intended to accommodate the position of “about 30 metres south-west of the canal gate” as stated in Suqqing's confession, but Su Xiaofeng's stated position is 120 metres from the east bank, which is clearly not a position. Moreover, the position of both positions and the location of the bodies that had surfaced at the eastern end of the Gouway Bridge, approximately 100 metres north, were contradictory, and the difference between the two was nearly 100 metres.

Thirdly, the indictment apparently ignored the details of the heavy bricks. If the cement bricks are on a wooden boat, the body is on an iron boat, then will the cement bricks be deposited first, or the body be sunk first? How did the cement bricks get into the water? If the concrete bricks are on the iron ship, then who, when and how did they move them to the iron ship? This particular fact, which is not stated in the indictment, is not excusable; The fact that the two accused did not mention that particular in their guilty statements was extenuating, since they had no knowledge of it. However, investigators, prosecutors and trial judges should not ignore this objective factual detail, which is suspected of misconduct.

The so-called “damination of the small iron vessels used in Suqingchun by rowing north” is false.

First, since the two accused ' s statements of guilt include the facts of the killing, the sinking and the sinking of the ship, there is no need for them to create other wreck sites. However, the location of the wrecks in the statements of the accused was only 20 or 40 metres from the site of the sunk bodies; The investigators are “retributed” to the location of the wreck, but 300 metres from the upper direction of the body's location. The position of the two accused in their statements is clearly at odds with the position in the indictment.

Secondly, the vessel that the investigators had recovered was not the vessel that the Suqing Chun family had lost. The evidence in the case shows that the two characteristics are clearly inconsistent in terms of length, steel bands, and the construction of the paddles. Indeed, the vessel lost by the Suqing Chun family may not have been sunk to the bottom of the River, because the family and investigators of Suqing Chun spent six months in the search for the only iron vessel lost by the Soqing Chun family, even if it had been used to minimize the water level by using the river ' s water shortage and rubber dams. So where is the Soqing Chuns' iron ship now? It's still a mystery. The investigator, the prosecutor, is currently perjuring himself on a fake ship. This is detailed in the evidence section below.

Third, it is clear that investigators and prosecutors conceal evidence. The identification transcript shows that the iron vessel that was recovered on 4 May 2018 was recorded when Sumingi was identified. However, the investigators were slow to submit the identification video and did not provide any explanation or explanation, which the prosecutor had been silent and unresponsive for many years. So we can only conclude that this so-called identification is completely illegal and false.

Part III. Evidence available in the case can only point to the innocence of the two accused

I. ILLICIT FILES TO BE EXCLUSED

(i) All statements of guilt, including interrogation notes, handwritten statements, presentations, identification notes, identification notes and corresponding audio and video recordings. The reasons for this are summarized below.

(i) All statements of guilt in Su Qui Feng, including interrogation notes, handwritten statements, presentations, identification notes, identification notes and corresponding audio and video recordings. The specific reasons are summarized below

1. Synchronized audio-visual recordings shall be made but not produced. Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2012: “In cases where life imprisonment, death penalty or other serious crimes are likely to be imposed, the interrogation process shall be audio- or video-recorded. “The absence of simultaneous audio-visual recordings of the first two interrogations of Su Qi Feng shall be excluded.

Su Qi Feng was severely tortured, disguised and violently beaten. Su Qi Feng was taken from his home on 16 November 2017 at around 0000 hours, held in a police station in Brick Harbor for hawking, without being allowed to sleep, during which he was beaten (slapping) by the team leader, Cao Hung. During the day of 17 November, Li Wenjie and Mahi Li took Su Chi Feng to the secret interrogation point (the black house) and gave him Quick Impact Heart Rescues and other drugs that night, and then beat him (striped his feet with shoes). He was still not allowed to sleep during the day of 18 November and was prohibited from eating. On the night of 18 November, Li Wenge and Mahi Li again took drugs such as quick-impact heart-saving pills for Su Qi Feng and then handcuffed him to his back and strangled his ribs with a hard-on; Put him on a tiger bench, tie his arms to a chair, put his feet on another chair, empty his body, stretch it out, and force him to make false statements.

Su Qi-chung prison continues to be subjected to disguised corporal punishment. The investigators colluded with the police in the detention centre to wear handcuffs and shackles on Su Qi Feng every day, which resulted in his being insolent and looking for someone else to unzip his pants, take off his pants, wipe his ass and lift his pants; When the treasure is folded during the day, the hand is worn out;

• I can't walk. No rest at night, no sleep without clothes, no turning over and no cover for themselves. These disguised corporal punishments have caused severe physical and psychological damage.

1. The agents threatened Su Qi Feng. In the dark room, an investigator threatened Su Qi Feng: "You're gonna lie, we're gonna get a shithead in your mouth. Another investigator said, "No, no, no, no, no. We're gonna have to dig a spoon of shit and give you a mouthful. The blogger adds:

On the way to the prison, the investigator Li Wenjee threatened Su Qi Feng: “I can put you in the prison, if you're lying, I'll put you in the prison and nail you to the board. This has caused great fear to Su Qi-Founding.

After Su Qi Feng entered the prison, the investigator Cao Hung used his position as Deputy Political Commission of the Investigation Agency to enter the prison and continue to threaten Su Qi Feng: “I have heard that you have been fully fed these days, and if you are not honest again, you will be told to get shot and shot. The blogger adds:

The investigators induced a confession to Su Qi Feng. In its third interview, for example, the investigator Qi-Fung seduced Su-Fung by saying that “the amount of fish caught was not sufficient”, the fact was that Su-Fung had not answered, but investigators had been asking for such a response and had thus fabricated the case of “the two accused who had stolen fish because of the small number of fish caught”. The statement contradicted Su Xiaofeng's confession, which from the beginning said “a lot of fish is available”, and categorically denied the fact of the fish being stolen.

1. The investigators failed to record the true or even forged notes. For example, when Succhu is allowed to identify the rope, the rope is not mixed with other similar ropes, in clear violation of the rules of identification; For example, when Suqingfung was allowed to identify (identify) the scene, Suq Fung told several times that “no mattered at night, no line was seen on the top”, but the corresponding part of the identification statement was “sank the body of Suqingchun near the sub-cable line that crossed the river north side of the Gou Jigwan Bridge”.

Su Qi Feng has made numerous repeated confessions after having been tortured to extract confessions. This should be excluded together, pursuant to article 1, paragraph 2, of the three-thirty Code of Criminal Procedure for the Removal of Unlawful Evidence. So, for example, Su Qi Feng's presentation and video are in that situation.

(ii) All statements of guilt, including interrogation notes, handwritten statements, presentations, identification notes, identification notes and corresponding audio and video recordings, as summarized below

(ii) All statements of guilt of Su Xiaofeng, including interrogation notes, handwritten statements, presentations, identification notes, identification notes and corresponding audio and video recordings, for the following reasons:

1. Synchronized audio-visual recordings shall be made but not produced. No simultaneous audio-visual recordings were made of the first two interrogations of Su Xiaofeng.

Su Xiaofeng was subjected to physical assault, corporal punishment and disguised corporal punishment at the Brickport Police Station. Su Qi Feng was beaten by the investigator Liu Xing at the brick port police station, and was kicked, slapped, pumped with shoes, chained to the sole of his underwear, kept him sitting on the cool floor, tied his arms to the back of the chair, put a towel on his mouth, etc.

Su Xiaofeng was also held in a small black house to extract confessions. He was beaten in the heart and asked to repeat false statements.

Su Xiaofeng was admitted to the prison and was subjected to disguised corporal punishment. After Su Xiaofeng had entered the prison, he was handcuffed and shackled every day, and his poop was unsolved and he needed to be wiped. We can't take off our clothes in the night and day, and we have to sit in black and white. It's not gonna hold up, sleeps up, stretches out, can't cover itself, needs help to cover it, and at night it's on its back. The blankets are free of cotton, they're all puss, a bag, two layers of cloth, and they're freezing to death. No pickles for dinner. These disguised corporal punishments have caused severe physical and psychological damage.

1. The agents of the investigation have threatened Su Xiaofeng. It is clear from the transcript of Su Xiaofeng's third interrogation that when Su Xiaofeng was too silent to ask for help and after saying that he had not killed, “I am the wrong case”, the investigator threatened and verbally abused Su Xiaofeng:

You can't run away... you're now at the prison door.

You're not good at it. We'll see.

You can try it... you can try it... you can try it!

We can't get the case wrong.

You want your old face?

You pull it if you want. You pull it or you break it.

At noon on the day that Su Xiaofeng was verbally abused and threatened by Sun Yu, the team leader of the case, the Vice-President of Cao Hwang of the Penang County Public Security Bureau, went to the prison to threaten Su Xiaofeng: “If you dare to turn over the case, you will be skinned and beaten; The forensic doctor is also a public security officer, and he says he died of a heart attack. The blogger adds:

1. Inducing a confession to Su Xiaofeng. In the case of the fourth interrogation transcript of Su Xiaofeng, investigators have been able to induce Su Xiaofun to use a large number of inducements, such as the black rope that led Su Xiaofeng to say that he was bound by Su Qing Chun. In fact, the corresponding part of the interrogation video was that Su Xiaofeng had said many times that “the rope is blue”; Su Xiaofeng never said, "The rope is black," and the following is the true story of Su Xiaofeng:

What color?

Sioux: Blue.

Z: What color is blue you mean, just like that?

Sioux: Yeah.

Z: Isn't this black?

S: Blue.

Z: Blue is this color. Blue and black separate. Can you tell?

S: I can't tell at night.

Z: Blue is the kind, isn't it black? Blue is quart blue.

S: I know, at night, it's not gonna work.

• It's dark, but it's dark, right?
• Black, right?

S: Blue night is black too.

Detect: Blue and black are all one color, and actually, I'm telling you, it's definitely one color. It's blue, different blue, huh. It's black, isn't it?

Sioux: Yeah.

1. The false and inaccurate statements made by investigators are widespread.

As Su Xiaofeng's third interrogation transcript, p. 3, line 12: “I understand, I said it. But in fact, Su Xiaofeng never said that;

And as the last second line of page 4 of the third interrogation transcript reads: “After we had all the nets, we didn't have any big fish, all small carp, little gills, about half a pound. In fact, Su Xiaofeng never said that.

Also, the identification notes of 6 March 2018, the location of the defeat of Suqingchun, the location of the ship when looking for the empty bricks and the place where the hollow bricks were parked, and so on, were not the same as the statements made by Su Xiaofeng himself.

1. The identification, demonstration and identical notes of Su Xiaofeng, which are identical to Su Chifeng, are repeated statements after torture.

(iii) Physical evidence, audio-visual material

The evidence of the iron ship, autopsy photographs, hollow bricks, surveillance video, audio-visual material collected through the search, site survey and investigative evidence in this case, including evidence of the nature of the evidence, and the lack of a simultaneous video, as well as the absence of procedural documents, all of which are illegal, leave considerable room for the investigators to falsify, conceal and screen evidence, and should be excluded by law. In the process of the so-called wrecking, for example, under article 4 of the Regulations on the Operation of Video Recording of On-Site Law Enforcement by Public Security Organs, “Public Security Organs shall conduct live video records of the enforcement of audio records”, but the prosecution has not provided the video, and its procedures for collecting the material are clearly illegal.

. The prosecution has concealed at least five objective evidences that would exonerate the accused.

1. Original records and video recordings of the autopsy. This is the evidence best able to know the original circumstances of the body, which the investigators should have provided but which they concealed. We found that the forensic medical examination certificate of the Public Security Department of Penang County, with 29 photographs, the forensic medical examination certificate of the Public Security Department of Piyi City with 43 photographs, and the forensic medical examination of the stomach contents, were provided to the court four years after the examination, which fully demonstrates that the forensic physician had properly documented and photographed the autopsy, but the investigators provided selective and deliberate concealment of the original autopsy records and video footage that could prove the two accused to be innocent.

For example, the first question to be asked is whether the body is in water before life or after death, i.e., the identification or exclusion of drowning by silican algae through the extraction of body organs and water samples from the water in the field. This is the identification of bodies in the water, but neither of the certificates issued by the public security authorities of the city of Penang County or the city of Penang has been validated or the examination or the identification procedure has been concealed.

The findings of the assessment are that the injuries of the deceased, Sukking Chun, were more than three (striple hemorrhage on the right, haemorrhage on the left sepsis, haemorrhage on the right side of the pillow, fracture of the pillow dent), and that the injuries above were not clearly a single one, without a corresponding, comprehensive and in-depth analysis, and that it was not clear how the injuries were sustained on the deceased and how they were formed. Moreover, the deceased Su Qingchun, who was “drively in the dural, without visible haemorrhage” outside the dural, and with a fractured skull of a low degree, was not fatal (lightly one level), was incredulated and justified as “deaths due to severe brain damage”.

1. Cellular communication data for Suqingchun and Suqiao. The range of activities of Su Qing Chun and Su Qi Fong can be determined by providing data on the communications of the Suk Qing Chun and Sou Qi Fong mobile phones after 2000 hours on 1 November 2017, and the analysis and validation of the base station information, longitude information and the range of activities of the Suk Qi Fong and Suk Qi Fong after 21 p.m. on the same day, and whether the two persons were accompanied and on the same side.

In turn, the analysis of longitude information leads to the conclusion of whether Su Zhengchun appeared on the water near the river river Qui at around 2100 hours on 1 November 2017 and on the east bank of the river Zhengchun at around 2117 hours on the same night. If the cell phone signal of Suqingchun had never appeared on the river river, that would directly subvert the murder and sanctification of the accused on the river.

However, investigators in the case claimed that Sukqingchun's mobile phone communication data was “unaccessible”. This is a lie and a concealment of evidence. (b) The same mobile phone communication data, which were also available four years after the case in the Ma Yulin case, which was heard at Gansu Provincial High Court; In this case, the investigators had no reason to “unable to access” Sukking Chun's mobile phone communication data.

1. Surveillance video of the Eastern End Management Station of the Rubber Dam on the afternoon of 1 November
2. The range of surveillance cameras from the management station is fully covered in the area where the accused were taken off the grid during the day and in the area where the night was taken off. Currently, the prosecution has provided only the video footage of the night of the day taken by the surveillance, and no video of the afternoon of the day. The defence has repeatedly requested this key evidence, but the investigators have refused to provide it without any explanation or explanation, apparently concealing it. Its dangerous aim was to make a malicious interpretation of the location of the light that had formed from the headlight of the Su cicident in the video the same night, and to fabricate the facts of the murder and the sinking of the two accused.

The fact that the two accused are not guilty is clear when compared with the video of the afternoon with the video of the evening — the area where the two accused are caught at night is exactly the same as the area where the nets were laid off during the day — and the two accused did not reach the point of fish theft in the indictment, the place of the murder, the location of the search for the concrete bricks, the location of the bodies sunk, the location of the iron-sinking ship that was found that night.

1. Video footage of Sumingi identifying small iron vessels. On 4 May 2018, Sumingi's identification transcript clearly stated that “the time line for identification was sufficient, the sight was good, and the video was recorded throughout the course of the proceedings”, and the defence had repeatedly requested the transfer of the simultaneous audio and video recordings during the previous proceedings, but the investigators refused to provide it, and neither the prosecution nor the trial judge provided any explanation or explanation.

If the simultaneous audio recordings of Sumingy's identification were drawn, it would prove that the iron ship that was recovered was not the same as the iron ship of Soqingchun and would also reverse the facts as established in the original trial.

1. Original copy of the EKV report from Su Chi-Fung and Su Xiaofeng. The electrocardiogram, a technique for recording the electroplasm from the body chart of the electroplasm of the electroplasm of the electroplasm of the heart of the cardiac cycle and for the production of graphics, is one of the most common clinical examinations. The Rules of Enforcement of Detention Facilities, which are drawn up by the Ministry of Public Security, clearly define the health examination programme, including EKG, for the admission of suspects.

When the two accused were detained in criminal custody at the Penang County Detention Centre, a medical examination was conducted at the Central Hospital in Yinan County, which included a EKG report, which was kept by the Yinan County Detention Centre. At present, the prosecution has produced only a copy of the case and has not produced the original; The copy, however, did not contain the signature of the holder of the evidence and clearly bore the mark of forgery.

. Six pieces of evidence available to support the acquittal of the two accused

1. The video footage of the east end of the Gouje Bridge was taken from east to west. The surveillance video showed that the accused boarded the ship during the day at 15:17 and left at 16:53, and that the time between the day and landing was 1 hour and 36 minutes; The accused boarded the ship at 19:47 on the same day, leaving at 21:45, and took an hour and 58 minutes from the night to the night, and only 22 minutes more at night than during the day.

The two accused accused in the indictment, on the other hand, are involved in a very complex process, including fishing north of the ship, verbal assault with the victim, landing bricks, traverse the river with the body, binding the bodies on multiple sides, and sinking northwards after sinking... (detailed in the previous version) On the basis of the surveillance video, we can only conclude that the two accused cannot complete the above-mentioned complex process within 22 minutes.

1. Positioning report by two associate professors at the University of Penné. For the time being, we will analyse the results of the calculations used by the two associate professors, whether they are correct or not, regardless of whether they have no qualifications. The track of the two accused ' s vessels, as reported in the location report, is located west of the central line of the River Neptunium and has not been found on the eastern bank of the River Neptunium. In particular, at 2117 hours on 1 November 2017, the location of the accused west of the central line of the River Neptun, near the West Bank of the River Neptunium, was located; It remained near the West Bank of the River Quilium between 2105 and 2130 hours. This is a barrage of evidence that the two accused have been offline in the West Bank of the River Qui, and that they have not been able to reach the eastern bank of the River Quill to tie their bodies, sink their bodies, and sink their ships.

Information note dated 27 September 2023 from the Technical Reconnaissance Division of the Pyprian Public Security Bureau. The description reads: “The mobile phone was connected to the last GPS connection, which lasted 996 seconds, and was lost after the phone had been connected on 1 November 2017 at 2059:41 seconds. “996 seconds, or approximately 16 minutes, the Suking Chun mobile phone lost contact at 2116:17 seconds.

The analysis of the location report described above, however, was at 2115 hours, south of the old bridge of Gourd, west of the river centre of the River Al-Kurr, where they could not have been killed at 2116 hours and 17 seconds near the entrance gate east of the river. The difference between the two positions is over 200 metres.

The trajectory dynamics of the LCN also show that after 21:08 p.m. the same night, the light point representing the two accused never went north of the old bridge in Gou.

1. Analysis by the Beijing forensic physician Li Xiaomin. The forensic physician found that the existing site of the survey and forensic medical examination in the first, Suqingchun case were defective; ii. The damage to the head of Suqingchun, caused by non-wood sticks, was not the result of a single blow; iii. The injury to the pillow of Suqingchun was caused by a blunt force which was large, hard in nature and partially squared;
2. The cause of death in Suqingchun cannot be considered as an immediate death of a brain injury and cannot be excluded from the occurrence of a post-traumatic coma or other form of harm; The murder of Suqingchun does not exclude the possibility of other crime scenes... This analysis directly reverses the existing findings in the case and directly points to the acquittal of the two accused.

1. Analysis by the Shanghai Forensic Medicine Officer, Li Bae-Chu. The forensic physician considered that one or two of the papers documented “demoglobulous” “stained in the right skeletal rock”, which was consistent with the internal organ signs of drowning; Under the pillow, hemorrhage, haemorrhaging of the sepsis is not fatal... The fall of the pillow, the broken fracture of the broken bone and the fracture of the skull, is not necessarily fatal and the injured person is able to survive... The cause of death is not necessarily the damage to the skull, the fall of the pillow, the broken fracture of the broken bone and the fracture of the skull;
2. In the available determinations, there are suspected cases of failure to meet standard tests for intestinal tubes, especially the mestizo, and lack of description of the intestinal content, which makes it impossible to know whether the gastrointestinal content has been transferred to the icin and the emptiness. The emptiness of the stomach content was not considered, except for the degree of ingestion, which was insufficient to assume the time of death. The analysis also reverses the existing findings in the case and directly points to the acquittal of the two accused.

Experiments conducted by Suming Bis and others. Su Chifeng ' s son So Ming-bai et al., experimented with the indictment, which showed that it was simply impossible to side by side on the river due to water pressure; It is difficult to tie the body from one ship to another; It is difficult to lift the “deceased” lying on the other boat into the water, which makes it very easy for the iron ship to sink.

. No other evidence available can be considered as having been committed by two accused

1. The fact that the physical examination in this case was not only procedurally unlawful, without the primary physical evidence being taken, but also in the case of a false site and a false investigation, does not, of course, prove that the two accused killed Soqing Chun. (b) The fact that the site surveyer, who did not possess the " On-site Survey of Criminal Cases ", did not videotape the site survey and had procedural injuries, created a significant obstacle to the determination of the facts of the case; The fact that the investigators on the scene were Chen Gang, both investigators in the case (then deputy chief of the criminal investigation unit of the investigating authorities) and forensic experts in the case, led to a subsequent “detection that led to identification and identification of the investigation”. For the moment, for example:

(b) No light was removed from the Zouqingchun light on the bank of the river and under the Yang tree, nor were any of the wooden poles, scraping boards (sluggers), bag nets, etc. previously found by Sumingji, and no chance of finding out if the true fingerprints were on the light;

(b) The lack of records of physical evidence such as ropes and hollow bricks bound on the body, which leads to irreversible obstacles to subsequent identification and determination;

In particular, the direct absence of the removal of the mobile phone from the victim ' s pocket has prevented the examination of the fingerprints of the perpetrators in subsequent proceedings, the mobile phone being used to turn off the power circuits passively, either by the active or by the water;

The so-called “empty bricks stain” is not photographed on multiple sides, no proportional breakdowns, no plaster-plug-plugs to extract models, and contrasts with the scene of the hollow bricks. This does not reflect the “crush marks” of the “empty bricks”, which are clearly subjective assumptions to fit the case. And Su Xiaofeng clearly described the location of the hollow bricks that he had identified as a pretentious place where investigators had taken him for a preview, a false location that investigators had forced him to identify.

1. The existence of serious or even manifest errors in the identification procedure, methods of identification, etc., in the case at hand, cannot be a basis for a definitive decision.

For example, silicate algae tests should be conducted for bodies found in water, especially in natural water systems, to help determine whether there is breathing when entering water. The mechanical asphyxiation test GA/T15011996, item 3.3.2, on drowning, requires HeE to dye to see if there are any foreign or large amounts of seepages in the pulmonary bulge cavity, to do silicate algae tests, to observe the silican algae morphology and to count under the mirror. The evaluation did not refer directly to silicate algal tests, in the context of internal organ signs of drowning, which were found in the natural water system.

Moreover, the fractured skull of the skull of Suqing Chun Chun Pill is a rectangular shape, not a canoe fracture resulting from a round rod injury, which differs significantly from the damage to the skin and soft tissue under the skin of Suqing Chun, which is clearly not in line with the contusion of the blow.

For example, the pillow injury in Suqingchun is a denture or a broken fracture of the skull, which is a minor injury of one degree, not fatal, according to sub-paragraph 5.1.3.c of the Criteria for the Determination of the Level of Human Injury; In the case of “crushed fractures of the pillow and skull” “dural membrane integrity, no visible haemorrhage outside the dural, under the dural membrane”, it is not possible to conclude that “dimensions of the blunt instrument of a stick and a strangulation of the pillow caused heavy brain damage to the body were thrown into water”.

Finally, the analysis of the cause of death and the mechanism of injury without counting or describing the number of injuries on the body is nothing but a dead end.

1. The material evidence in the present case can be divided into two categories: one is the one which is virtually irrelevant to the facts that are pending, and the other is the indirect link between the confession and the facts that are being made only by torture, such as hollow bricks, nylon ropes, knotted ropes, headlights, mobile phones, hats, bicycles, wooden vessels, etc.; One category is the perjury clearly made by investigators, such as the iron ship recovered, which is clearly not consistent with the description of the iron ship given by Suminger in his interview of 21 November 2017: Su Minhi states that the length of the former is about two and a half metres, but the length of the latter is about three metres; Suminji said that the former ' s boat gang had welded 15 to 16 centimetres of steel, but the latter ' s boat gang did not; Sominji claims that the former's oars were drilled and the concubines were installed, but the latter's oars did not have such a piping...

Moreover, as recorded in the notes of Sumingi ' s identification of the vessel, the investigators had made a full-scale audio recording of the identification process, but, at the strong request of the defence, the investigators and prosecutors had not yet provided the tape, or even made any statement.

1. The documentary evidence in this case, in part, is not a documentary document at all, but rather procedural documents developed by investigators during the investigation, such as search warrants, seizure decisions, seizure notes, seizure lists, etc.; (a) A part of the documentary is a description of the circumstances, a report, and should be a witness statement, although whether the person who produced the statement is qualified and competent to give evidence, as distinct from the other; The remaining documents, such as the entry medical examination forms of the two accused, the criminal verdict for the purpose of the inquest, have no connection with the facts before the court. That is, there is no documentary evidence at all in the case and there is no possibility of a documentary evidence that the accused killed Su Qing Chun.

As mentioned above, the B-supple, blood test, chest-to-heart examination forms of the two accused prior to their admission to the detention centre are perjury.

1. The audio-visual material in this case (moderated video footage from surveillance cameras) was taken by three separate cameras, which can be divided into two categories:

The first category is one that can directly prove the innocence of the two accused, including the north-south-south-south-west of the Gou River Bridge and the east-west of the Gou River Bridge, where audio-visual footage from these two cameras can directly prove that the accused did not commit the crime, as detailed above;

The second category, which was interpreted in bad faith by investigators and prosecutors, is the night-time video taken by the eastern camera of the Guevara rubber dam, which, after the investigators had deliberately hidden the video during the day, provided the prosecutor with room for distortion of the facts, with the light moving in the direction of the tilt and hundreds of metres away, and the two accused being found to be in such evidence as to steal fish, tie bodies, sink ships, sank bodies, and thus to be in vain, trap and wrong. Moreover, the prosecution ' s malicious interpretation of the video had been completely denied by its own locator report. Because of the directness of the location report, the accused were present west of the central line of the River Quire between 21:17 and 21:41 that night, near the West Bank of the River Quire, and did not go up to the West Bank to find bricks in the woods and to go down to the east bank of the River Quire.

1. In the present case, the witness statements were 10 in the original first instance judgement, and the number of first instance proceedings increased to 42, with an additional one following remand. However, this is not important, as there is no fact that the accused killed Su Qing Chun and there can be no witness testimony that could prove that the accused killed Su Qing Chun. The rehearing of 42 witness statements in the first instance can be divided into two main categories:

The first is evidence that only the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Suqingchun are relevant, and that there is little evidence of relevance to the facts before the trial. These include the living conditions before Suqingchun disappeared, the situation of the salvages following the disappearance, the location of the site and the facilities. These witnesses included relatives and friends of Suqingchun, persons involved in the search and other persons with knowledge of the situation. Such evidence can only prove that the bodies of Su Qingchun were found and that the two accused committed the murder of Su Qingchun.

The second broad category is the murder of Su Qing Chun by the two accused, which was found by the court of first instance to be linked to the facts before it. This category includes four subcategories:

The first was the testimony of the prison officers and doctors, who were shown by the prosecution to be unharmed when they entered the prison and who were not tortured to extract confessions. The problem is that the two accused were subjected to torture to the illegal evidence of being seated on a cold floor with bare legs, of being prevented from sleeping in the hawk, of being able to rub a cloth or slipper in their mouth, of being slapped to their teeth shaking, of being pulled to their bodies, of being drawn to their feet and of being pulled to their floors... The fact that the illegal evidence was not examined in the records examined, was hidden in the interrogation video by the investigating authorities or was refused to submit it. In the face of objective evidence, subjective evidence of words is weak.

The second was the testimony of a group of local villagers who the prosecution used to prove that they had not shared the circumstances of the Suking Chun murder with the two accused, whose guilty confession concerning the killing of Suking Chun was established and the subsequent retraction was not justified. The problem is that the two accused retracted their confessions on the grounds that they had been tortured to extract them, that they had not killed Su Qing Chun, and not others.

Third, the testimony of another group of local villagers proved that the two accused had completed their nets within 30 minutes of the night, and had sufficient time to steal fish, kill, find bricks, sink, sink, etc. The problem is that the time spent by the accused during the day off was 1 hour, 36 minutes, and the possibility of getting off the net was not completed at night in only 30 minutes. Such false witness testimony is not self-defeating.

Four are among the prosecution ' s acetology, the eye and ear of the prison, including four persons who were in the cell with the two accused, and one officer of the prison. These statements of the purpose of the interrogation were in fact false. For example, Suki Fung immediately sent a message to his family “not to call a lawyer in Rim, to ask for a lawyer in Jinan and Beijing” when he first met the defence lawyer in the prison, which was the rhythm of the defence of innocence. In that case, it was impossible for him to tell his fellow cellmates, upon his return to the cell, that he was the real killer of Su Qing Chun.

We have found that in the area of criminal justice in penitentiaries, the use of false testimony with the purpose of inquisitorial interrogation is a tool that has been used for many years and is present in major grievances that have been rehabilitated and should be remedied. For example, the Zhang Ji Hog case, which has been rehabilitated (the prosecutor in this case, Chu, is also the prosecutor in the case of the two accused). (b) Prison secrecy only occurs in cases where the facts are not clear and insufficient evidence is not available; It is clear that in a case where the evidence is real and sufficient, no prison eye or eye is required. As a result, cases of alleged crimes committed in prison are often the result of a miscarriage, and false testimony of alleged crimes committed in prison are often the hallmark of a case of wrongful acts.

1. The statements of guilt of the accused, including the statement of questioning, the handwritten statement, the statement of demonstration, the statement of identification, the statement of identification and the corresponding audio and video recording, shall be excluded from the exclusion of evidence that is unlawful and contain contradictory elements, which would be direct evidence of the innocence of the accused.

First, there was a contradiction, as in Su Qi Feng ' s confession, in which he struck the first half of Su Qing Chun in two or three strokes with a wooden oar, then in the head with a wooden stick; First, a hole was placed on a concrete brick, then it was originally there; He said he had drawn a bar to the ship and then he dragged the rope from the ship to the shore. For example, in Su Xiaofeng's confession, regarding the location of the removal of the hollow concrete bricks, first by the roadside behind the Su Qing Chun hut, then by the trees behind the Su Qing Chun hut, the two sites are several dozen metres apart...

The second is contradictory, as in the case of Suzumi, who, in his statement on the cause of the case, said that he was stealing fish, but that Suzie-Fung did not admit it; For example, with regard to the route of fish theft, Suqing Feng ' s confession stated that he had first crossed northwards and searched for three ecstasy scenes, then went to the Soqingchun box, while Su Xiaochun ' s confession never mentioned ecstasy but went straight to the Zukingchun box; For example, with regard to the details of the tie-up of Su Qing Chun, Su Qi Feng's confession that after he had finished his foot, he changed his position with Su Xiao Feng, tied his neck and then re-replaced his statement, while Su Qing Feng's statement stated that he had not changed his position...

Once again, there is a contradiction with other evidence. For example, with regard to the location of the wreck, Suq Fung ' s statements stated that he had been transferred from the sunk site to the north-west, that Su Xiaofeng ' s statements stated that he had travelled 20 to 30 metres from the sunk site to the west, and that investigators had been able to retrieve the sunk vessel more than 300 metres from the sunk site to the north (upstream of the river plume).

Part Four, release! Let go of him first! I'm not going anywhere.

And Su Xiaofeng said in the court: Surely, the full court, you shall be just in the matter, and either you will be in a state of death or you will be in a state of retesting for years.

As a defender, I respectfully request the Full Court to reject the erroneous perception and not to take into account the fact that the case has been dealt with by so many police officers, prosecutors, judges and members of the Commission. Since the current benches, Judges Zhao, Lu Jiaywe and Chen Jing Yi, have investigated the facts and evidence of the case, they have overestimated all the previous cases, and have given more knowledge of the case than the Zhenghua panel, the Chen Gang panel, the former members of the Commission, or even the U Kyung panel in the Provincial High Court, the Ping Chung panel, and the Provincial High Court. The Full Court should be confident and competent to reach a just decision in the case. In the course of the decision, priority is given to the modification of the measures of constraint for the two accused.

On the one hand, the case has been under proceedings for eight years since the events of November 2017, and the accused have been detained in innocent custody for more than eight years in the absence of a clear and insufficient evidence and a final judgement to establish guilt in the case. Both were suffering from a lack of mental and physical integrity, and were in a state of tremors, illness and uncertainty. On the other hand, the fact that the two accused are not guilty is clear, and that the two accused are not guilty of any real or sufficient evidence and should not be held in detention. Justice should be warm and it is unacceptable for anyone to let innocent people die in a prison.

This is a final battle, and the second accused have been in custody for nine years, the sixth proceedings, which have been debated for almost two months on facts, evidence, procedure, application of the law, etc.

This is probably the last battle between the two accused, 76 and 77 years old, who are in a state of deterioration that will probably not last much longer.

The prosecution may also have to add new evidence, which, to be precise, should be forged. But this is ultimately a case of a crumbling error, and the current proceedings are both a violation of the truth and a persecution and murder of innocent people. The result of this case can only be the acquittal of the two accused.

Before you do, please release them!

Advocate of Su Xiaofeng: Su Su Su Xiang

30 September 2026