Sihai network

25 years ago, Li Jin was not present at the time of the robbery and murder

Original title: 25 years ago, the robbery and murder 'murderer' shouted injustice: at the time of the crime, I was 700 kilometers away

'no matter where I served my sentence, I never admitted that I killed someone. When Yuanmou's murder occurred, I worked in Yingjiang, 700 kilometers away. How could I appear at the scene of the crime? " Recently, Li Jin, a 54 year old Yuanmou person in Yunnan, told the upstream news reporter that he had entrusted a lawyer to apply for retrial to the higher people's Court of Sichuan Province.

Li Jin's grievance was related to a robbery and homicide in Yuanmou, a small town in northern Yunnan, in the early morning of October 14, 1994.

On December 26, 2002, the higher people's Court of Sichuan Province made a final ruling (1999) CZZ No. 444, upholding the judgment of Chengdu Railway Transportation Intermediate Court (hereinafter referred to as the railway intermediate court) that Li Jin committed robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment, "(Li Jin) entered the house with others and hit and assassinated Yao Suhua and Bai Helin sleeping by the window and adjacent beds on the head and chest with crowbars and daggers", Eventually led to the death of two victims.

After Li Jin was jailed, he served his sentence in three prisons. On July 7, 2017, Li Jin, 52, walked out of prison 22 years after losing his freedom.

PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng brothers, who were indicted in the same case as Li Jin, were acquitted by the Chengdu Railway Intermediate Court with "insufficient evidence". Chengdu Railway Transportation Branch of Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate (Chengdu Railway procuratorial branch) filed a protest to Sichuan Provincial High Court, which suspended the trial because the defendant "failed to appear on time". 11 years later, the Proctor brothers came to the case, the Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate withdrew the protest, and the Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's court made state compensation to the Proctor brothers.

Yang mingkuai and Zhang Youdui, Li Jin's lawyers, investigated and found that Li Jin worked in Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province in 1994, and it was impossible for him to return to the scene of the plot 700 kilometers away; The direct evidence of conviction in the effective judgment is only Li Jin's guilty confession, without any objective evidence; The acquittal of the Platts brothers makes it a mystery who Li Jin's accomplice is.

Yuanmou in northern Yunnan: the murder of two people in the guest house in the early morning

In the early morning of October 14, 1994, a robbery and murder case called "1013 major case" occurred in Yuanmou County, Yunnan Province, beside the Chengdu Kunming Railway: passengers Bai Helin and Yao Suhua got off the train and checked into room 208 of the hostel of Yuanmou Public Works section. They were found robbed and killed in the room in the early morning of the next day.

The '1013' case caused great repercussions among the local people after it occurred in Yuanmou, a small town. Since the guest house of Yuanmou Public Works section, where the case occurred, was still under the jurisdiction of Chengdu Railway Bureau, the political and legal units of Chengdu railway system were responsible for the investigation, public prosecution and trial of the whole case.

The higher people's Court of Sichuan Province (1999) cfzz No. 444 criminal ruling found that at about 15:30 on October 13, 1994, Li jinhou and others tracked the passengers Bai Helin and Yao Suhua from the 548 train at Yuanmou railway station, and found that they lived in room 208 of the guest house of Yuanmou public works depot. At about 1 a.m. on October 14, Li Jin and others carried crowbars, daggers and other tools, turned over the gate and entered the guest house. Li Jin broke into room 208 and entered the room with others. He beat and assassinated Yao Suhua and Bai Helin on the head and chest while they were sleeping by the window and adjacent beds with crowbars and daggers, resulting in Bai Helin's immediate death and Yao Suhua's serious injury. Li Jin grabbed Yao Suhua's handbag and ran to the back wall with others to climb the wall and escape. At 5:50 a.m., the outsider found that Yao Suhua and Bai Helin were killed and immediately reported the case. After the public security personnel arrived at the scene, they found that Yao Suhua had not died, but he died of serious injury on the way to the hospital.

The autopsy report confirmed that Bai Helin was stabbed by others with dagger like sharp tools in the heart and died of hemorrhagic shock in large blood vessels, and Yao Suhua was hit by others with single blade sharp tools and blunt tools on the head for many times, resulting in brain contusion and death of hemorrhagic shock.

The effective ruling found that there was a footprint with a total length of 28cm, a forefoot width of 9.8cm and a heel width of 9.8cm at the crime scene, and there were two fingerprints on the inside of the door frame of the room and on one of the three beds in the room, but it could not be confirmed that it was left by Li Jin.

With regard to the use of confession as the only evidence of conviction in the relevant judgments of Sichuan Provincial High Court, Li Jin, who was released from prison after commutation, said that the relevant confession was made involuntarily, 'the police handling the case at that time asked me to admit the facts. If I retracted my confession in court and returned to the detention center, I would & lsquo; Clean me up \ ', I have never admitted these things since I went to prison. All the applications for commutation are written by prison friends for me.'

The employer proved that Li Jin was 700 kilometers away at the time of the crime

Li Jin told the upstream news reporter that on September 30, 1995, he was taken in for examination because of his involvement in the case, so he proposed to the railway police investigators in charge of investigation: when the case occurred on October 13, 1994, I was still working in Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province, and didn't return to the time and conditions for Yuanmou to commit the crime at all. 'I proposed this to the police at that time, but no one paid attention to me at all.'

After Li Jin got out of prison, he ran around in many ways and found Kunming lawyers Yang mingkuai and Zhang Youdui as attorney to appeal.

After receiving the case, lawyers Yang mingkuai and Zhang Youdui made a preliminary check on the fact that Li Jin was not present. "We found Fang, Li Jin's employer at that time. He also confirmed that Li Jin was still in Yingjiang, nearly 700 kilometers away from Yuanmou, when the robbery and murder occurred in Yuanmou in 1994. It was impossible for Li Jin to have a chance to commit a crime."

In his complaint, Li Jin said that September 20, 1994 was the Mid Autumn Festival. He spent the festival at Fang's home, his employer in Yingjiang County. After the festival, he went to a place called hongpo River on the China Myanmar border with Fang and several other workers to cut and transport timber. " At that time, it cost ten yuan to carry a log, and two people could earn fifty or sixty yuan a day. " Li Jin recalled that he stayed in hongpohe for nearly a month after the Mid Autumn Festival, and then returned to Yingjiang County. He stayed at Fang's house in Yingjiang County for a few days before leaving for his hometown in Yuanmou County.

Yang mingkuai and Zhang zhidui found Fang, Li Jin's employer in that year, made a lawyer's inquiry record with him, and submitted it to the Sichuan Provincial High Court as evidence for retrial.

Fang said in the lawyer's inquiry record that Li Jin helped manage the sugarcane forest at Fang's home in Yingjiang County from early 1994 to June 1994. When the local Songhe power station was built in July 1994, Li Jin was arranged to help build the house until the Mid Autumn Festival on September 20, 1994. After the Mid Autumn Festival, Fang took Li Jin and other workers to the hongpo River on the China Myanmar border to carry the cut timber. After working for more than 20 days, he returned to Yingjiang. Li Jin did not leave Yingjiang to return to Yuanmou until the end of September of the lunar calendar.

On November 8 this year, the employer Fang confirmed to the upstream news reporter that Li Jin worked there in 1994 and confirmed that Li Jin left Yingjiang and returned to Yuanmou at the end of September of the lunar calendar in 1994.

The upstream news reporter found that the last day of September in the 1994 lunar calendar corresponds to November 3. The robbery and murder case of Yuanmou Public Works section guest house involved by Li Jin occurred on October 14, which is the tenth day of September in the lunar calendar.

Do you still keep the payroll, attendance records and other written evidence of the current year? Fang said that there were salary records and other materials in that year, but it has been 25 years since 1994 and has long disappeared. 'if he (referring to Li Jin) wrote a letter or took a message to me in that year, I would certainly keep the relevant evidence.' Fang also said that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation of the judicial authorities and be responsible for what he said.

Co defendant: Pu brothers were acquitted and paid more than 200000 yuan

On June 14, 1988, Li Jin was sentenced to three years' imprisonment by Yuanmou County Court for theft. In prison, he met PUFA Cheng.

Li Jin said that after he was released from prison in 1990, the two had no contact, but they became defendants together because of the '1013' case of the guest house of Yuanmou Public Works section, but the final result was very different.

On September 30, 1995, Li Jin was accepted by Kunming Railway Public Security Department for examination. Li Jin told the upstream news reporter that when questioned by the police, he was repeatedly asked to identify his accomplices in the crime in the early morning of October 14, 1994. Li Jin's former cellmate, PUFA Cheng, who was also a member of Yuanmou, was involved in the murder case.

According to relevant legal documents, on April 25, 1996, PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng were taken away by the police of the railway police station of Nengyu railway station in Yuanmou County for reception and examination, and were arrested on October 8 of that year.

On November 7 this year, PUFA Cheng told the upstream news reporter that he and his brother PUFA could be taken away by the police for no reason. It was not until he was asked about their whereabouts on October 13, 1994 that he knew that there was a big event, 'we haven't done it, we don't know what to say, and the police who arrested US began to interrogate us repeatedly.'

PUFA Cheng recalled that after many illegal interrogations by the police, he was forced to admit his participation in the case. Then the police took him to the crime scene for identification, 'my brother PUFA Neng didn't admit the crime in the whole investigation process.'

Upstream news reporters learned that PUFA Cheng overturned his confession in the court trial, saying that the guilty confession was the result of inducing and extorting a confession, while PUFA Neng did not admit his involvement in the whole judicial process. Pu Fa Cheng said, "we were later able to be acquitted, and we owe a lot to our insistence on not pleading guilty."

PUFA Cheng is still a little angry at the prosecution's accusation that his two brothers were involved in the case after many years.

After the Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's Court (1998) ruled that PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng were innocent, the Chengdu Railway procuratorial branch protested the case and insisted that Li Jin, PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng premeditated and committed the crime with tools. PUFA Cheng believes that this is illogical: 'how do we plan when we are unclear about the situation around the victim's accommodation? How can we plan carefully if the victim doesn't know how much property he has? Where did the murder weapon come from? Where and how did Li Jin contact me? The procuratorate and the court have not answered these questions. "

With regard to Li Jin's confession that he committed the crime with PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng brothers, PUFA Cheng said, 'the procuratorate said that Li Jin did not do the case alone, but our brothers did it together with Li Jin, but the evidence accusing us of participating in the case has no evidence support except Li Jin's confession. Even if the victim Bai Helin's wallet was robbed, he dared not say who did it. "

On April 30, 1999, Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's court ruled that PUFA and Cheng brothers had not participated in the robbery and murder in room 208 of the guest house of Yuanmou Public Works section in the early morning of October 14, 1994, and they were innocent. On June 11, 1999, Chengdu Railway procuratorial branch lodged a protest with Sichuan Provincial High Court the next time PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng were released.

During the second instance of Sichuan Provincial High Court, the trial of the case was suspended on the grounds that the two brothers of PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng could not appear on time, and only the part involved in Li Jin was heard in a separate court session.

PUFA told upstream journalists that it did not agree with the court's statement that it could not be contacted. After he was acquitted in the first instance in 1999 and released from prison, he and pufaneng have been seeking compensation from the railway public security department and the court. The contact information between himself and his family has not changed. 'when we were in Kunming, we had to go to the court almost once a week and the public security wanted compensation. How could we not contact us?'

On September 6, 2010, after nearly a decade of continuous communication between the two brothers, PUFA Cheng and PUFA Neng, the Sichuan Provincial High Court considered that "the reason for the suspension of the trial disappeared" and resumed the trial of the two brothers involved in the case. In this trial, which was nearly 11 years late, the Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate held that the Chengdu Railway procuratorial branch held that in June 1999, the Chengdu Railway procuratorial branch