Jiangsu provincial investigation team released the fifth investigation report on the chained woman incident on the 23rd, which was again strongly questioned by the public, and its investigation process and related data were also said to deviate from common sense, there are many doubts and loopholes.
On Wednesday (23), the Jiangsu Provincial Investigation Group issued a briefing on the investigation and handling of the “eight children born in Feng County woman” incident. The outside world found that the investigation report on the identification of the chained woman and other issues, there are still many doubts and loopholes, it is difficult to convince the public.
For example, the official notification identified the “eight-child birth woman in Feng County” as “Xiaohuamei” from Yagu Village, Fugong County, Yunnan Province, who was born on May 13, 1977. In other words, “Xiaohuamei” is now 44 years old. However, the network previously exposed Yang Qingman and Dong Zhimin’s marriage certificate, Yang Qingman’s age is 52 years old. The official briefing this time directly to the woman’s age from 52 years old down to 44 years old.
The official explanation is that this is the Huankou town civil affairs office staff in the registration of marriage, irregularities according to Dong Mumin self-reported information to fill in, and the “mistake” to write the woman’s name and date of birth wrong.
The official explanation was mocked by netizens: the “mistake” is too coincidental, just to cover up the real identity of the woman.
Another example: according to the notice issued by the Jiangsu Provincial Government, Yang Mouman and Dong Moumin had a total of eight children, the eldest son Dong Mugang was born in July 1999, the second son was born in March 2011, the third son was born in April 2012, the fourth daughter was born in November 2014, the fifth son was born in May 2016, the sixth son was born in May 2017, the seventh son was born in November 2018, the eighth son was born in January 2020.
In this regard, netizens questioned the previously exposed video, Dong male claimed that his eldest son was born in July 1997 during the “return of Hong Kong”, so named “Dong Hong Kong”. Now the officials have changed his age by two years, writing that he was born in 1999. Netizens believe that this is obviously because the time of the marriage certificate does not match the birth of the Dong family’s eldest son, and the officials have made up a new lie in order to make up for the loopholes in the previous official story.
Wu Lijuan, a Hubei-based rights activist concerned about women’s rights, told Radio Free Asia, “She gave birth to Dong Hong Kong in 1997 when Hong Kong returned to China, and now it has been changed to 1999. The more I read this briefing, the more holes there are. Their own words are inconsistent. I’ve been looking through my circle of friends posting all the questionable voices.”
Current affairs commentator Guanshan told Radio Free Asia that according to the information previously disclosed by the official, “Xiaohuamei” was still in Yunnan in 1997, so how could she have gone to Xuzhou to give birth to a child, so this time the official changed the age of the eldest son of the Dong family to more than one year younger, but this fifth notification is still full of loopholes.
Guanshan said: “Their fourth report is the fourth report after the Ministry of Public Security, Jiangsu Province, Xuzhou City Public Security Bureau agreed to come out, he can not overturn the conclusion. So he (the fifth report) must ensure that the fourth circular is correct.”
In response to the notification claiming that the investigation team spanned Henan and Yunnan provinces, visited more than 4,600 people and consulted thousands of documents, many netizens also questioned: Jiangsu provincial government announced the establishment of the investigation team from February 17 to the 23rd to announce the investigation, in this short 4 days, the investigation team if visited more than 4,600 people, according to the investigation team of eight people, which means they each need to visit 766 people per day, such as to consult more than 1,000 documents, 166 inquiries per day, “please ask the authorities how to do it”?
(Web screenshot composite image)
In addition, the investigation team of Jiangsu Province took over the case, immediately took more severe measures against the Internet and public opinion: quickly surrounded the “chain woman” Dongji village with a tin wall; the investigation team interviewed dozens of people about the “chain woman” marriage certificate leak; and some active people around the world are not only the “chain woman” marriage certificate leak. The investigation team interviewed dozens of people about the leaked marriage certificate of the “woman in chains”; some activists around the world received warning calls and were asked to delete all posts, pictures and videos about the woman in chains and withdraw from the solidarity signature campaign; two bookstores in Hangzhou and Xi’an had their “woman in chains”-themed counters removed; alumni of Chinese universities who had previously participated in the solidarity campaign were asked to withdraw from the campaign; and several In accordance with “instructions from above,” many universities have asked their staff and teachers to stop talking about and forwarding the Fengxian incident.
In response to the above-mentioned actions of the Jiangsu investigation team, netizens also expressed their strong dissatisfaction and condemned the CCP authorities for “not solving the problem, but first solving the people who raised the problem.
After the fifth official notice appeared, a mainland netizen left a message angrily denouncing “when the whole country is blind ——“
Another Twitter user said, “This is not just an insult to the intelligence of netizens, this is an insult to the world’s human intelligence!”
Another user posted, “This is neither a ‘big show’ nor can it be described as exciting. This is a total tragedy, it is about the eight children’s mother, Xiaohua Mei, Yang Mouman, but also about countless other women, those who can not voice, do not dare to voice, do not have the opportunity to voice them.”
There are also messages from netizens requesting, “want pictures, videos and other evidence to form a complete, informative and convincing investigation report. Not just a mouthful.”
Chinese media personality Gao Yu also questioned the Chinese Communist Party authorities on Twitter, “From the videos coming out of the self-published media and CCTV, the chained woman has not lost her ability to think, express herself verbally or judge, so why are the party committees and governments from Jiangsu Province, Xuzhou City to Feng County not allowing her to speak up on her own? What exactly are you afraid of the public knowing about the truth?”
Chen Guangcheng, a well-known human rights activist, also posted that the Chinese Communist Party knew who the chained woman was, but did not confirm it, and the fact that the chained woman, who has not lost her ability to speak, has not been allowed to speak out on her own for more than a month is the best proof.
Some netizens pointed out that the conclusion of the investigation team of Jiangsu Provincial Government that “the deer is the horse” has already caused strong dissatisfaction among the general public, and I am afraid that the matter will continue to ferment, and the credibility of the authorities will be further bankrupt.