[Series Report (2)] The Truth Behind the Second Conviction of Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin: Police Fabricated an Injury Claim “Medically Ruled Out as Caused by Blows” to Frame Him

On May 25, 2017, the Huishan District Court of Wuxi issued Criminal Judgment No. (2016) Su 0206 Xing Chu 514, sentencing Shen Aibin to two years and six months in prison for picking quarrels and provoking trouble. After Shen Aibin appealed, the Wuxi Intermediate Court issued Criminal Ruling No. (2017) Su 02 Xing Zhong 202 on July 17, 2017, ruling to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

This occurred after the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the municipal Public Security Bureau colluded with former petitioner Ding Moufen and, after their attempt to set a trap to frame Wuxi rights defenders failed, ordered Deng Yongfeng, a police officer with the Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s domestic security detachment, to fabricate medical records and falsely accuse and frame him. After their persecution on charges of intentional injury, based on an abuse of power to create a “consultation opinion” and pin the injuries on him, also failed, they then instructed the Zhejiang D’An Forensic Identification Center to issue a false expert opinion, and finally changed the charge to picking quarrels and provoking trouble and secured a conviction.

This case was ordered by the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the municipal Public Security Bureau, led by the Domestic Security Detachment of the municipal Public Security Bureau and carried out by the Huishan Public Security Sub-Bureau. It was a false-accusation and framing case and a case of favoritism and miscarriage of justice carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements, premised on Deng Yongfeng’s false accusation and framing, based on the abuse of power and violation of the law by the public security, procuratorate and courts acting as a single chain, and ultimately realized through “harmonized” defense lawyers and the court’s blatant judgment in violation of the law. It is a typical case of judicial corruption and abusive persecution.

After the first-instance verdict was announced at the Wuxi Detention Center, defense lawyer Chang Boyang of Henan Rail Lawyers immediately met with Shen Aibin and took the initiative to offer to write Shen Aibin’s second-instance appeal, telling Shen Aibin not to write an appeal himself, warmly expressing concern for Shen Aibin’s health, telling him to get more rest, and promising to submit the appeal to the Wuxi Intermediate Court within 10 days. After returning to his cell, Shen Aibin found the trial extremely strange, so he immediately asked the prison police officer in charge for paper and a pen and began writing his appeal. He did not finish it until the morning of the last day and submitted it only after the police urged him that afternoon. However, to this day (May 2026), Shen Aibin has never seen the appeal written by lawyer Chang Boyang, much less seen the lawyer himself.

The greatest absurdity in this case is not that Deng Yongfeng fabricated medical records, nor that the investigating authorities manufactured the illegal evidentiary material “consultation opinion” to pin the injuries on him, nor that the Zhejiang D’An Forensic Identification Center issued a false expert opinion. It is that Deng Yongfeng’s compression fracture in the form of a “T7 wedge-shaped deformity” could, according to medical axioms, simply not have been caused by the external-trauma methods identified by the investigating authorities—“punching, kicking and beating with a stick”! Wuxi’s judicial criminals carefully plotted and manufactured a blatant case of framing! 

I. The circumstances of the case:

On January 28, 2016, the former Chong’an Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau unlawfully imposed a seven-day administrative detention punishment on Shen Aibin. On January 29, former Wuxi petitioner Ding Hongfen visited Shen Aibin at the detention center and said she wanted to make a banner for him, so that when Shen Aibin was released on February 4 he could “hold up the banner and shout slogans” in front of the detention center. Shen Aibin thought for a moment and politely declined Ding Hongfen’s “kind offer.”

At about 9 a.m. on February 4, 2016, Shen Aibin was released from the Wuxi Detention Center. Officers from the Domestic Security Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau had already set up a camera on the roof of the Identification Center building south of the detention center, preparing to collect evidence of Shen Aibin “holding up a banner and shouting slogans” and then arrest everyone. That day, Ding Hongfen called many people to welcome Shen Aibin and also called friends from Suzhou. When the domestic security officers discovered that Shen Aibin had not “held up a banner and shouted slogans,” they were deeply disappointed. As the people who had come to welcome Shen Aibin took a group photograph in front of the detention center, they instructed Deng Yongfeng, an officer with the Domestic Security Detachment, to stand opposite the group dressed like a masked member of a terrorist organization or criminal gang—with an entirely black outfit and a fully enclosed black hood—and to provocatively film the group with his phone (see Attachment 1: photograph).

Everyone was terrified after discovering the strange-looking masked man who had appeared in broad daylight, because on an evening in September 2015, when Wuxi petitioner You Jianying was leaving Shen Aibin’s home, a masked man downstairs had struck You Jianying’s leg with an iron rod wrapped in cloth, trying to break it. The matter was reported to police, but no action has been taken to this day. The incident caused a major reaction in Wuxi’s rights-defense community. Now, faced with a masked man filming them, everyone’s instinctive response was that their personal safety was being threatened, and they all shouted in unison: “There is a masked man filming us! There is a masked man filming us!” Ding Hongfen, Zhou Xiaofeng, Shen Aibin and others successively went to confront the masked man, asking him to show identification (they suspected at the time that he was a public official), stop filming, and delete what he had recorded. All these requests were refused. As the masked man slowly walked away, everyone agreed: “We can’t let him leave like this. He may be a gangster who came to scout the location and may be preparing to attack us.” Someone therefore chased after him and, walking behind him, continued asking him to show identification and delete the recordings. The masked man remained silent and ignored all their demands.

Someone then suggested: “Pull off his black hood, photograph his face and expose his identity. That will reduce the possibility of our being further harmed in the future.” Everyone agreed. Many people followed and tried to stop the masked man, but he was tall, strongly built and very powerful, and they could not stop him even after surrounding him. Several people reached out to pull off his black hood, but he pulled it back up each time. It was a hood attached to his clothing.

Shen Aibin was walking behind the group. Seeing what happened, he overtook them on the right, walked in front of the masked man, stopped him with his left hand, which was holding flowers, jumped up and pulled down the black hood with his right hand, and, after confirming that the man’s face had been photographed, immediately let go. Everyone then left separately. During the incident, someone obtained the masked man’s phone and tried to delete the recordings, but could not operate it because it was protected by a screen-lock password. The phone was eventually placed with the detention center’s gate guard. There was physical contact with the masked man during this process. 

II. The handling of the case:

On April 13, 2016, the Criminal Investigation Brigade of the Huishan Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau arrested all the Wuxi residents who had gone to the detention center on February 4 to welcome Shen Aibin, on suspicion of intentional injury. They were all criminally detained on April 14. The focus of the interrogations was: “Did Shen Aibin carry a weapon on February 4?” Nothing else was discussed. Thirty days later, Shen Aibin, Zhou Xiaofeng, Zhu Bingquan and Cheng Tianjie were submitted for approval of arrest. Since no one had actually beaten the masked man, the investigating authorities certainly could not identify a perpetrator. Accordingly, on May 20, the Huishan District Procuratorate released Shen Aibin and Cheng Tianjie after refusing to approve their arrest on the grounds that the “facts were unclear and the evidence insufficient.” That same day, they were instead placed under residential surveillance as suspects in the offense of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, while Zhou Xiaofeng and Zhu Bingquan were directly arrested with approval on suspicion of the same offense.

On September 2, 2016, the Huishan District Procuratorate approved the arrest of Shen Aibin and Cheng Tianjie on suspicion of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Shen Aibin was subsequently sentenced by the Huishan Court to two years and six months in prison and was released after completing his sentence from Tongzhou Prison in Jiangsu Province on January 23, 2019.

Through the trial proceedings and examination of the case files, Shen Aibin discovered that this was an obvious case of abuse and persecution carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements. Yet during the review for prosecution and trial stages, his defense lawyer failed to lawfully expose the obvious persecution conspiracy of Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements. Shen Aibin discovered the inside story of the case as follows:

    (1) Distorting the facts and making a false accusation and framing report

On March 2, 2016, Deng Yongfeng (the masked man and a police officer with the Domestic Security Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau) went to the Qianqiao Police Station of the Huishan Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau to report that he had been beaten by people on February 4, 2016, causing a “compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra.” He also submitted to the Qianqiao Police Station medical records from his visit to Wuxi Tongren International Rehabilitation Hospital on February 4, 2016 (hereinafter “Wuxi Tongren Hospital”) (see Attachment 2). The CT examination report in the records stated: “No obvious abnormality.” He also submitted medical records from visits to Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine on February 18 and 23, 2016 (see Attachment 3). The February 18 X-ray report stated: “The T7 vertebral body shows wedge-shaped compression changes,” and the February 23 MRI examination report stated: “Fresh compression fracture of the T7 vertebral body,” also described as a “wedge-shaped deformity of the T7 vertebral body.” The Qianqiao Police Station issued Deng Yongfeng a List of Received Evidence Materials, and the Huishan Public Security Branch immediately opened a case for intentional injury. 

(2) Abusing power to create a “consultation opinion” and pin the injuries on him

Because the CT result in the medical records Deng Yongfeng submitted from his visit to Wuxi Tongren Hospital on February 4, 2016, was “no abnormality,” with no finding of a fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra, the Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s Huishan Branch, in a blatant abuse of power, created an illegal evidentiary material, the “consultation opinion,” in order to attribute the “fresh compression fracture of T7” found in his examinations at Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine on February 18 and 23 to injuries caused by Shen Aibin and the others on February 4. The detailed process was as follows:

At 3:30 p.m. on March 4, 2016, the Qianqiao Police Station of the Huishan Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau invited Wang Xiquan, a forensic physician of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court; Wu Zhun, a forensic physician of the Wuxi Procuratorate; Liu Yi and Wu Liyuan, two doctors from Wuxi People’s Hospital; Yang Yusheng, a doctor from Wuxi Second People’s Hospital; and Dong Xinchun, Shen Chunlong and Li Yu?, three forensic physicians from the Criminal Investigation Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau, to the Qianqiao Police Station. They formed an “expert group” and asked it to review the images produced by CT bone-window multilayer reconstruction and post-processing of the original chest CT plain-scan images from Deng Yongfeng’s visit to Wuxi Tongren Hospital on February 4, 2016 (these images have never appeared anywhere in the case file). The “expert group” concluded: “Suggestive of a fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebral body,” and produced a “consultation opinion” signed by the experts (see Attachment 4; the reverse side is the “consultation attendance sheet”). This process can be understood from the Explanation Regarding the Chest CT Plain-Scan Report of Outpatient Patient Deng Yongfeng issued by Wuxi Tongren Hospital to the Huishan Public Security Branch on May 20, 2016 (see Attachment 5). In this way, the Huishan Branch successfully attributed the injuries found at Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine on February 18 and 23 to February 4. 

(3) Obtaining an expert opinion of a second-degree minor injury based on the “consultation opinion”

After obtaining the “consultation opinion,” the Qianqiao Police Station immediately commissioned the Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s Physical Evidence Identification Institute to assess Deng Yongfeng’s injuries. The signatures on the reverse side of the “consultation opinion” show that Shen Chunlong of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s Physical Evidence Identification Institute was present as a member of the expert group. On March 7, 2016, the institute issued an expert opinion stating that Deng Yongfeng’s injuries constituted a second-degree minor injury. This evil expert opinion distorted the “consultation opinion” produced by the “expert group” at the Qianqiao Police Station into “the consultation opinion on the CT by Wuxi People’s Hospital on March 4, 2016,” while deliberately omitting the words “the T7 vertebral body shows a wedge-shaped deformity” and “wedge-shaped deformity of the T7 vertebral body” from the X-ray and MRI reports in the hospital-of-traditional-Chinese-medicine records. This was because the experts knew that a compression fracture in the form of a “wedge-shaped deformity of the T7 vertebral body” could not have been caused by external trauma, that is, by the “punching, beating with a stick or kicking” identified by the investigating authorities!

 

(4) After persecution for intentional injury failed, changing the charge to picking quarrels and provoking trouble

Because an intentional-injury case requires the perpetrator and weapon to be identified, and in fact no one had beaten Deng Yongfeng’s back, after the Huishan District Procuratorate refused to approve the arrests, Wuxi’s judicial criminals began a new method of abusive persecution. When Shen Aibin was released on May 20, 2016, they simultaneously placed him under residential surveillance on suspicion of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. On the same day, the Huishan Public Security Branch commissioned the Zhejiang D’An Forensic Identification Center to examine part of the video footage captured by a camera installed by the Domestic Security Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau on the roof of the Identification Center south of the Wuxi Detention Center at about 9 a.m. on February 4, 2016, showing physical contact between Shen Aibin and the others and the masked man, Deng Yongfeng. On August 30, 2016, the expert issued an obviously false assessment, falsely claiming that Shen Aibin had made movements striking Deng Yongfeng’s back. On this basis, the Huishan Procuratorate approved Shen Aibin’s arrest on September 2 on suspicion of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, after which the case was transferred for review and prosecution, prosecuted and tried.

The above is the process by which the case was handled—the criminal methods of favoritism and miscarriage of justice employed by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements! 

III. This case is one of favoritism and miscarriage of justice and abusive persecution carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements.

First, the case was wrongly characterized. Shen Aibin and all those who came to welcome him had no subjective intent to pick quarrels and provoke trouble. Their subjective reason for stopping the masked man and pulling off his black hood was that the masked man had filmed everyone, and they feared that he might later unlawfully harm their persons or property. They therefore wanted to reduce the possibility of further attacks on their lives and property by a terrorist organization or criminal gang by exposing the masked man’s face, rather than causing trouble for no reason in order to seek excitement, vent their emotions, show off their strength or act arrogantly. 

Second, Wuxi’s judicial criminals manufactured this persecution case through the following illegal methods: 

(1)Fabricating medical records and making a false accusation and framing:The medical records from Deng Yongfeng’s February 4, 2016 visit to Wuxi Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital that he submitted to the investigating authorities were fabricated through a conspiracy between him and Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital.

The medical records contain “illegality in the procedure and form of acquisition” and “contradictions within their own recorded content and dates, as well as contradictions with other evidence that cannot be ruled out and questions that cannot be explained.” The reasons are as follows:

1.The procedure and form in which the medical records were obtained were illegal.

Articles 8, 13 and 28 of the Basic Standards for Medical Record Writing (Wei Yi Zheng Fa [2010] No. 11) provide that printed outpatient medical records must bear the handwritten signature of medical personnel.

Article 22 of the Provisions on the Administration of Medical Records of Medical Institutions (Guo Wei Yi Fa [2013] No. 31) provides that diagnostic certificates and other medical-record materials issued by medical institutions must bear the seal of the medical institution.

The medical records Deng Yongfeng provided from his visit to Wuxi Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital on February 4, 2016, contain only the doctor’s printed name, with no handwritten signature and no seal of the medical institution. They therefore fail to meet the statutory formal requirements for medical records and constitute invalid documents. Moreover, although the court summoned the doctor to appear, the doctor refused to appear without a legitimate reason. The authenticity and legality of the records cannot be verified; they should be excluded in accordance with the law and must not be used as evidence. 

2.The medical records contain contradictions in their own content and dates, as well as contradictions with other evidence that cannot be ruled out and questions that cannot be explained.

(1) Contradictions in the dates recorded in the medical records

The medical records state that the initial consultation began at 4:06 p.m. on February 4, 2016, but that a preliminary diagnosis was made at 4:15 p.m., only nine minutes later. Within those nine minutes, 11 items would have had to be completed: recording the chief complaint; recording the medical history; conducting and recording a physical examination; issuing a CT examination request; Deng Yongfeng paying with the request; undergoing the CT examination; waiting for the CT report; obtaining the CT film; taking the CT report and film to the initial doctor for diagnosis; the initial doctor making a preliminary diagnosis and entering it into the computer; and the initial doctor printing the medical record. This would have been absolutely impossible in China.

(2) Contradiction between the medical records and the date on the CT examination report

The report date on the CT report is 4:10:53 p.m. on February 4, 2016—only four minutes and 53 seconds after 4:06 p.m. and four minutes and seven seconds before 4:15 p.m. Both scenarios are impossible, because payment, the CT examination, production of the CT film, image reading, issuance of the report, and collection of the film and report could not possibly have been completed in that time.

(3) Contradiction between the time on the CT examination report and the time the CT images were produced: the CT examination report was issued before the CT examination took place. The CT examination began at 16:12:44, with scanning lasting eight seconds and ending at 53 seconds.

3.Contradiction between the medical records and the time Deng Yongfeng’s identification record was produced at the Qianqiao Police Station

Deng Yongfeng’s identification record at the Qianqiao Police Station ended at 4:05 p.m., while the initial consultation time in the medical records was 4:06 p.m., only one minute later. The Qianqiao Police Station and Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital are at least two to three kilometers apart, and there would also have been time needed for parking, registration and payment, making this completely impossible. Furthermore, a subsequent response to a government information disclosure request issued by the Wuxi Municipal Health Supervision Institute (to be published later) shows that Deng Yongfeng registered at 3:57:46 p.m. on February 4, 2016. 

4.Internal contradictions in the recorded content of the medical records

(1) The “laboratory tests and examinations” section of the medical records says “none for now,” while the “treatment” section says “chest CT: no obvious abnormality.”

(2) The “physical examination” section records only: “a small amount of blood at the outer corner of the right eye; no skin abrasions, bruising or bleeding points on the back; slight pain on pressure at thoracic vertebra 12.” No other injuries are recorded, yet the “preliminary diagnosis” section says “multiple soft-tissue injuries.” Where are the multiple injuries?

5.The medical records contradict the following content in the hospital-of-traditional-Chinese-medicine records:

(1) Contradiction concerning the manner of injury alleged in the chief complaint: The Tongren Hospital records state in the chief complaint: “back struck by a wooden stick,” and “seven hours earlier, felt back pain and discomfort, accompanied by slight chest tightness, after another person struck the back with a wooden stick.” The hospital-of-traditional-Chinese-medicine records state in the chief complaint: “back kicked by someone, movement restricted; currently acceptable during the day, back soreness at night, accompanied by a feeling of chest tightness”;

(2) Contradiction concerning the time of injury: The Tongren Hospital chief complaint says he was struck with a wooden stick on February 4, while the hospital-of-traditional-Chinese-medicine chief complaint says his back was kicked on February 5.

(3) Contradiction concerning the location of the “pain point” on pressure: The Tongren Hospital records state “slight pain on pressure at thoracic vertebra 12,” while the hospital-of-traditional-Chinese-medicine records state “positive tenderness and percussion pain at T7–8.”

 

6.The medical records contradict the photographs of Deng Yongfeng’s back injury

The “physical examination” section of the medical records states: “No abrasions, bruising or bleeding points on the skin of the back.” Yet Deng Yongfeng provided the investigating authorities with a photograph showing a very obvious and long scratch injury on his back.

The above contradictions and questions cannot be ruled out or explained.

Furthermore, before trial, the defense lawyer and all the defendants asked the court to require the doctors from Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital and the hospital of traditional Chinese medicine to appear. However, during the trial, when Shen Aibin asked about this, presiding judge Zhu Jieyan replied: “I notified them all, but none of them came.” Accordingly, under the Criminal Procedure Law, the documentary evidence produced by these doctors may not lawfully be used as a basis for determining the case.

(2) Abusing official authority to create a “consultation opinion” and pin the injuries on him

The “consultation opinion” is an “illegal evidentiary material” and non-statutory evidence; that is, it is not one of the legally prescribed types of evidence. In law, it is simply a piece of waste paper—an “illegal product” produced in serious violation of the prescribed procedures. It never possessed evidentiary status and may not lawfully be used as the basis for determining the case.

Through the careful organization and arrangements of Wuxi’s judicial criminals, the “consultation opinion” successfully attributed the “wedge-shaped deformity” fresh T7 compression fracture found in Deng Yongfeng’s examinations at Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine on February 18 and 23, 2016, to injuries caused by Shen Aibin and those who came to welcome him on February 4, 2016. The Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s Physical Evidence Identification Institute then issued an expert opinion of a second-degree minor injury based on the “consultation opinion.” It can be said that the “consultation opinion” played a core role in this case.

However, the “consultation opinion” is merely a piece of waste paper with no legally recognized evidentiary effect, for the following reasons:

1.The form of the evidence was illegal

The “consultation opinion” does not belong to any legally prescribed category of evidence and has no evidentiary status.

Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law lists eight legally prescribed forms of evidence in a closed list. The “consultation opinion” in this case does not meet any of them:

(1) It is not an “expert opinion,” because it was not issued by a lawful forensic identification institution and was not produced through the legally prescribed forensic-identification procedure;

(2) It is not “documentary evidence,” because it was not objectively formed before or at the time of the incident, but was produced during the proceedings for a specific evidentiary purpose;

(3) It is even less “witness testimony.” A witness is a natural person who perceives facts relevant to a case, and witness testimony is a witness’s direct perception of something personally experienced or objectively occurring. It is governed by the two iron rules of “personal experience” and “irreplaceability,” and is completely different from the “consultation opinion” in both content and manner of formation.

2.The identities of the participants were unlawful: the consultation had no legal authorization, and the participants had no legally prescribed duties.

(1) The forensic physicians of the Wuxi Intermediate Court and the Wuxi Procuratorate accepted the police station’s invitation to participate in producing the “consultation opinion.” This constituted unlawful intervention in the investigative activities of the public security authorities, and even “exceeding authority” and “abusing authority.” It was the “referee” creating an offensive weapon (evidence) in advance for one side of the “players”; the “supervisors” became “participants,” fundamentally destroying procedural neutrality. It constituted role confusion and a mistaken identity, and further violated the principle of separation among the three powers of “adjudication, prosecution and investigation.”

(2) Doctors are clinical physicians whose role is to treat illness and save lives, but they do not possess forensic-identification qualifications. The standards and legal responsibilities applicable to clinical diagnostic reports and forensic expert opinions are completely different. A diagnostic report may be used as material for an expert assessment, but an individual doctor cannot issue a forensic expert opinion. A doctor’s place of practice is the registered location of the medical institution, and the scope of practice is the scope of qualification and authorization lawfully obtained. Doctors’

(3) The “consultation opinion” contains only signatures and no documents certifying the qualifications of the “expert group,” so it cannot establish whether the participants were qualified to “read” the images.

(4) The law did not authorize them to accept a police station’s invitation to go to the station to “read” images and produce a “consultation opinion.”

3.Its authenticity is in doubt: the “consultation opinion” is not authentic.

(1) A “consultation” conducted under the control of the case-handling authorities lacks independence and neutrality and is highly susceptible to interference by investigators (through suggestion or instruction);

(2) The authenticity of the records is in doubt; there is no objective evidence proving that the CT images used during the “consultation” were genuine original images;

(3) The images produced through “CT bone-window multilayer reconstruction and post-processing,” on which the “consultation opinion” was based, have never appeared in the case files or at trial. This makes the “consultation opinion” a “drink without rice” and “water without a source.”

4.Its evil purpose: The purpose of the investigating authorities’ abuse of power in producing the “consultation opinion” was to use it in place of an “expert opinion” to pin the injuries on Shen Aibin and persecute the four people through abuse of power. If the forensic-identification procedure had been followed, the identification institution would inevitably have concluded, based on the facts of the case, that a “wedge-shaped deformity” compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra could not have been caused by “punching, beating with a stick or kicking.”

After obtaining the “consultation opinion” through blatant abuse of power and successfully pinning the injuries on him, the investigating authorities directly accepted it and used it to obtain the expert opinion of a second-degree minor injury.

Under the law, investigating authorities have the power only to commission forensic-identification institutions to conduct expert assessments. They have not been granted the power to invite experts to read images and use the results directly as evidence. The “consultation opinion” was merely an internal reference material and procedural document that could be used as the basis for initiating a forensic-identification procedure.

(3) Depriving Shen Aibin of his right to seek a supplementary or new assessment

On April 14, 2016, the Huishan Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau served Shen Aibin with a Notice of Expert Opinion stating that his injuries constituted a second-degree minor injury. Shen Aibin immediately said: “I want a new assessment. This is fabricated,” and “I want to apply for a new assessment.” However, the investigating authorities refused to acknowledge his statutory rights. 

(4) Altering case-file materials

During the presentation and examination of evidence at trial, Shen Aibin discovered that the CT examination report from Wuxi Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital in the case file had been altered. Both its content and date had been changed and were completely different from the copy the defense had obtained from the procuratorate during the review-for-prosecution stage.

IV. The new evidence obtained by Shen Aibin is sufficient to prove that the Tongren Hospital medical records were fabricated

The new evidence obtained by Shen Aibin proves that Deng Yongfeng did not visit Wuxi Tongren International Rehabilitation Hospital on February 4, 2016, and that the medical records he submitted were fabricated.

New evidence 1: two copies of the Notice of Response to the Government Information Disclosure Application (Xi Cai Yi Shen Qing Gong Kai [2018] Nos. 6 and 12)

Under the Measures for the Administration of Fiscal Invoices and the Measures for the Use and Administration of Medical Fee Invoices, public hospitals must issue fiscal invoices for outpatient and examination payments and upload and enter them into the fiscal-invoice system in real time, with the data preserved permanently.

The Wuxi Municipal Finance Bureau stated in its response that the fiscal-invoice management system contained no payment record for Deng Yongfeng at Tongren Hospital on February 4, 2016. This is sufficient to prove that there was no genuine payment, genuine visit or genuine CT examination that day—in other words, no visit took place and the medical records were fabricated. It proves that Wuxi Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital did not collect Deng Yongfeng’s outpatient registration fee or CT examination fee on February 4, 2016, and that there was no medical visit or payment, meaning the medical records were fabricated. Source of evidence: the evidence was provided to Shen Aibin by the Wuxi Municipal Finance Bureau.

New evidence 2: Response to the Government Information Disclosure Application (7)

The Wuxi Municipal Health Supervision Institute expressly informed Shen Aibin in its response that Deng Yongfeng made only one payment at Wuxi Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital on February 4, 2016, namely a payment record at 16:04:52. Although this payment itself remains questionable, it still proves that the medical records were fabricated, because there should have been at least two payments: one for registration and one for the CT examination, and the two payments had to be made separately. Judging from the time, the payment at 16:04:52 should have been the registration payment, meaning there was no payment record for the CT examination.

New evidence 3: two copies of the Response to the Government Information Disclosure Application (Xi Wei Xin Xi Gong Kai [2018] Nos. 19 and 21)

This evidence proves:

(1) Deng Yongfeng made only one payment on February 4, 2016, namely the payment recorded at 16:04:52.

(2) The payment record at 16:04:52 and the electronic medical-record entry were generated simultaneously, at the same moment, and before the “initial consultation time” of 16:06 recorded in the medical records.

(3) The CT report and CT film Deng Yongfeng provided to the investigating authorities do not match the information retrieved by the municipal Health Commission from the computer back end of the information department at Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital.

(4) The CT report was generated before the CT images were taken—foresight before the fact.

(5) The investigators accepted the absurd testimony of attending doctor Zhang Jianfei, which completely violated the treatment process and common sense and logic, claiming that he made a “preliminary diagnosis” based only on the medical history and physical examination before the CT report had been generated.

(6) The investigators accepted the testimony of someone surnamed Zhan from Tongren Hospital’s information-management department, which was completely inconsistent with common sense and logic, claiming that on February 4, 2016, the hospital’s registration and payment system, physicians’ outpatient-record system, Toshiba four-row multidetector spiral CT system and Ruisike PACS reporting system each displayed independent times that did not match one another.

New evidence 4: Response to the Government Information Disclosure Application (1)

This evidence is the same as New Evidence 3 and proves that the Tongren Hospital medical records provided by Deng Yongfeng were fabricated.

Reason for proof: the same as New Evidence 3.

V. Standard medical diagnosis and treatment practices prove that Deng Yongfeng’s “wedge-shaped deformity” T7 compression fracture could not have been caused by “external trauma.”

Although medical axioms conclude that the injury carefully fabricated and attributed by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements could not have been caused by external trauma such as “punching, beating with a stick or kicking,” this was a circumstance they never anticipated, and it is also a fact they cannot conceal or change.

Both the X-ray and MRI examination reports from Deng Yongfeng’s visits to Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine on February 18 and 23, 2016, which he provided to the Qianqiao Police Station, state that there was a “wedge-shaped deformity” compression change of the T7 vertebral body and a fresh “wedge-shaped deformity of the T7 vertebral body” compression fracture. Both expressly state that the seventh thoracic vertebra had a compression fracture in the form of a “wedge-shaped deformity.” 

Standard medical diagnosis and treatment practices (clinical diagnosis and treatment guidelines and standards) confirm that Deng Yongfeng’s “wedge-shaped deformity” “compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra” shown in the X-ray and MRI reports from Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine could not have been caused by external-trauma methods such as “punching, beating with a stick or kicking,” confirming that this case was an artificially plotted and manufactured case of “fabricated medical records” and “false accusation and framing.”

The injury on which the conviction in this case was based was the “compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra in the form of a ‘wedge-shaped deformity’” shown by X-ray and MRI examinations at Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The investigating authorities concluded that it had been caused by Shen Aibin and the others “punching, beating with a stick or kicking” Deng Yongfeng’s back. Medical axioms, however, conclude that a “wedge-shaped deformity” compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra could not have been caused by direct force. Details follow: 

(1) Core view of the authoritative textbooks Surgery and Orthopedics: wedge compression fractures are caused by “indirect force” and are unrelated to “direct blows.”

Nationally standardized medical textbooks, such as Surgery and Orthopedics published by the People’s Medical Publishing House, clearly define the causes of compression fractures of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae:

The overwhelming majority of thoracic compression fractures are caused by indirect force, in which force is applied to another part of the body and transmitted to the thoracic spine. There are (1) “transmitted force,” such as a fall from a height landing on the feet or buttocks, or a heavy object falling from above and striking the head, with the ground’s reaction force transmitted upward along the spine. Because the thoracic spine has limited mobility, the force produces a huge longitudinal compressive load in the thoracic spine, causing violent forward flexion and compression and collapse of the front edge of the vertebral body. (2) “Flexion-compression force,” which is the typical mechanism of compression fractures. For example, when a heavy object strikes the shoulder or back, or when a person violently bends while lifting a heavy object, the front of the spine experiences enormous compressive stress and the rear experiences tensile stress, causing the front edge of the vertebral body to be “flattened” into a wedge shape.

Conflict with the facts: According to the above authoritative views, the mechanism producing a compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra must involve axial force. These textbooks never list “punching, beating with a stick or kicking” as mechanisms of injury for a compression fracture. They clearly state that direct force, such as a blow from a stick, can normally cause only soft-tissue injury or a fracture of the spinous or transverse processes, not compression of the vertebral body, confirming that Deng Yongfeng’s injury in this case was not caused by Shen Aibin and the others beating him. 

(2) Core view of forensic medicine’s “three-column theory”: a wedge-shaped deformity injures only the “anterior column,” while “punching, beating with a stick or kicking” cannot bypass the “posterior column” to directly injure the “anterior column.”

This is the gold standard for identifying spinal injuries. It was proposed by Francis Denis in 1983 and is regarded as a classic by forensic physicians and orthopedic doctors around the world.

The “three-column theory” divides the spine into anterior, middle and posterior columns. The posterior column includes the spinous processes and laminae (the bones and soft tissue that can be felt on the back). The anterior column includes the front half of the vertebral body (where the fracture occurred).

Mechanical logic: To cause a compression fracture of the anterior column, enormous energy must pass through or bypass the posterior column.

 

(3) Mechanism by which a “wedge-shaped deformity” forms: It can only be caused by violent forward flexion or longitudinal compression of the spine.

1. Fulcrum effect: When the body violently bends forward (flexion), the posterior structures of the spine (the spinous and articular processes) are compressed together like a hinge and become a “fulcrum”;

2. Anterior-column compression: Enormous external force is concentrated at the front of the spine (the anterior column). In the case of the T7 vertebral body, its front edge (the abdominal side) bears most of the stress.

3. Trabecular collapse: The inside of a human vertebral body consists of cancellous bone (a trabecular structure). When external force exceeds the load-bearing limit of the trabeculae, the trabeculae at the front edge of the vertebral body undergo microscopic fractures and collapse like a compressed sponge.

4. Result: The rear edge of the vertebral body (the side close to the spinal cord), protected by the posterior longitudinal ligament and pedicles, normally remains intact, while the front edge is flattened and shortened. This produces a shape that is lower in front and higher in back, like a wedge—a wedge-shaped deformity (linear deformity).

Conflict with the facts: If the back had been struck with “punches, a stick or kicks,” the posterior column (the spinous processes and laminae) would necessarily have borne the initial impact and been damaged, such as by fracture or severe contusion. If imaging shows that the posterior column is intact while the anterior column is compressed, this proves that the injury was not caused by a direct blow from behind. This is an iron rule in forensic medicine for determining whether an injury matches the alleged instrument of injury.

The examination report from Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in this case showed a “T7 wedge-shaped deformity,” while the posterior column was completely undamaged. This proves that the cause of Deng Yongfeng’s T7 wedge-shaped deformity was not a blow to the back. The medical records also show no injury at T7 on the back, and the photograph of the injury to Deng Yongfeng’s back that he provided also shows no injury at T7. These facts corroborate one another and confirm that Deng Yongfeng’s injury was not caused by blows to his back.

(4) Biomechanical principles—“stress transmission” and “conservation of energy”

Core view: There was insufficient energy to penetrate the muscles and shatter the deep bone.

 Basic principles of biomechanics:

1. Soft-tissue protection mechanism: The chest and back have substantial muscles (the latissimus dorsi and erector spinae). According to biomechanical research, these soft tissues can absorb and disperse more than 70 percent of direct impact energy.

2. Energy threshold: The energy required to cause a compression fracture of a vertebral body (normally more than 1,000–2,000 joules, depending on bone density) far exceeds the energy remaining after force from human muscles is transmitted through a punch, club or kick to the deep bones.

3. “Hard-on-hard” energy: To break or crush a deep bone, external force must first break through the skin, muscles and fascia.

4. The spinous processes are a “shield”: The most prominent structures at the back of the spine are the spinous processes (the pointed bones that protrude one by one when the back is touched). If the force were strong enough to pass through several centimeters of muscle and flatten the vertebral body deep inside, the spinous processes would absolutely be the first to suffer comminuted fractures or severe breaks. At the same time, the soft tissue of the back would certainly be badly damaged, with severe contusions and hematomas, and possibly ruptured skin.

Conflict with the facts: The examination reports and medical records from both hospitals in this case show no visible external injury at T7 on Deng Yongfeng’s back. “Punching, beating with a stick or kicking” are forms of direct force. If the injury had been caused by blows to the back, the MRI should have shown obvious soft-tissue hematoma or pinpoint bone contusions on the back. 

(5) Anatomical protection of the specific segment—the special position of T7 (the seventh thoracic vertebra has natural armor)

The seventh thoracic vertebra is located in the middle of the thoracic spine. Ribs on both sides connect to the sternum, forming a solid “thoracic cage.” This structure is extremely stable, and localized external blows simply cannot break through the protection of the ribs to compress the vertebral body deep inside.

(6) The “logical contradiction” of morphology—the direction of force transmission is “wrong”

A wedge-shaped deformity is caused by “flexion plus compression” of the thoracic spine—in other words, the body has been “folded,” or has undergone longitudinal compression. The front edge of the spine is compressed and the rear edge stretched.

“Punching, beating with a stick or kicking” the back applies force horizontally or superficially. At most, it causes soft-tissue injury at the point of impact or an extremely minor fracture of the spinous process (the pointed tip of the bone, like a branch). It absolutely cannot produce the “origami” effect (moment) that causes the front edge of the vertebral body to collapse into a “lower in front, higher in back” shape.

Protection by flesh and bone: Deng Yongfeng was strong and powerfully built, with well-developed back muscles, like wearing thick bulletproof armor. External force would be dispersed by the muscles and could not reach the spine. 

The above six points show that, according to the logic of forensic medicine and clinical orthopedics, the “means” and the “injury result” must match. The analysis above, compared with the examination reports and medical records from the two hospitals and Deng Yongfeng’s actual injuries, is sufficient to prove that Deng Yongfeng’s “fresh compression fracture of the T7 vertebral body” was not caused by the “punching, beating with a stick or kicking” identified by the investigating authorities in this case. 

In summary, this case was an abusive-persecution case carefully plotted and manufactured by Wuxi’s criminal judicial elements. They exhausted their ingenuity, stopped at nothing and acted with deliberate intent, primarily using the following illegal methods:

1. Fabricating the medical records and injuries and making a false accusation and framing

2. Abusing power to manufacture the “consultation opinion” and pin the injuries on him

3. Abusing power to manufacture the “Expert Opinion on the Degree of Injury to the Human Body” for a second-degree minor injury

4. Instructing the Zhejiang D’An Forensic Identification Center to issue an obviously false assessment

5. Judgment in violation of the law

The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Provisions on the Procedures for Public Security Organs to Handle Criminal Cases, the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates, and the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the <Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China> all impose strict requirements on the review of evidence by the public security organs, procuratorates and courts during criminal proceedings. The riddled and deeply contradictory “medical records,” the blatantly invalid “consultation opinion,” the “Expert Opinion on the Degree of Injury to the Human Body” that deliberately concealed the “wedge-shaped deformity,” and the completely obvious false expert opinion issued by the Zhejiang D’An Forensic Identification Center all involve problems that any public security, procuratorate or court case-handler could have identified through the most basic professional competence. Yet they all pretended not to see them and jointly plotted and manufactured this case of judicial corruption and favoritism and miscarriage of justice. This is blatant persecution! 

Wuxi’s judicial criminals knew that the injury they had carefully fabricated and attributed—a “wedge-shaped deformity” compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra—could not have been caused by “punching, beating with a stick or kicking.” They therefore deliberately and unlawfully accepted the “consultation opinion” to evade forensic identification. The expert opinion of a second-degree minor injury further shows that they deliberately omitted the words “wedge-shaped deformity,” and even described the “consultation opinion” as a diagnosis by “Wuxi People’s Hospital.” This is sufficient evidence of the extremely evil intent behind their actions and proves that the case was carefully plotted by Wuxi’s judicial criminals.

To successfully carry out the framing and persecution, Wuxi’s judicial criminals “harmonized” all the defense lawyers! 

VI. The list of wrongdoers in this case:

(1) The leaders of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Wuxi Municipal Committee and the Domestic Security Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau;

(2) Deng Yongfeng, a police officer with the Domestic Security Detachment of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau, who fabricated medical records and made a false accusation and framed him;

(3) Investigating authorities:

Xu Shengxiang, former director of the Huishan Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau;

Wang Da and other case-handling officers of the Criminal Investigation Brigade;

(4) Prosecution authority:

Wang Dong, prosecutor of the Huishan District Procuratorate and public prosecutor at trial.

(5) Adjudicating authority:

 Zhu Jieyan, Gu Rongrong and Zhang Ming, members of the first-instance collegial panel of the Huishan District Court;

Jiang Jing, Xu Haihong and Zhou Hua, members of the second-instance collegial panel of the Wuxi Intermediate Court;

Next report: [Series Report (3)] The Truth Behind the Third Conviction of Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin: Knowingly Sentencing Him in Violation of the Law Despite the Complete Absence of the Statutory Elements of the Offense 

Attachment 1: On-site photographs of Deng Yongfeng (2 photographs in total)

 

Deng Yongfeng’s former work business card at the Luxiang Police Station

Attachment 2: Medical records from Wuxi Tongren International Rehabilitation Hospital

Attachment 3: Medical records from Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Attachment 4: Consultation opinion; reverse side: consultation attendance sheet

Attachment 5: Explanation from Tongren Rehabilitation Hospital to the investigating authorities