The head of the criminal investigation team, Anhui, sent a letter to the National Monitoring Board challenging the falsification of evidence and calling for a thorough investigation of the “disappeared” audio-visual recordings.

Recently, a letter of indictment from the Sundyna was sent to Beijing from Anhui.

The author of the letter, Tang Wei Li, was a former member of the party committee and chief of the criminal investigation department of the Ishideo County Public Security Bureau of Anhui Province. During his 28-year career as a criminal investigator, he has been awarded numerous cases, with the medal of the best people ' s police in the province, a model labour in Jizhou City. However, in 2019, the gears of fate had a strange twist. As a result of the report by his colleague Xu Gui, who reported corruption on the part of the Vice-President, Wang Jia Seung-soo, Tang Wei Li was identified as the “black social protection umbrella” and was sentenced for criminal offences. To date, he has been suffering for six years.

We have detailed the incredible details of this case: the broken evidence of a $4,000 shopping card, the temporal paradox of “telephone conversations” in the prison, the notes of the work of revealing the truth, and the six-year-long “procedural emptiness” of complaints.Downwire, Anhui Ji, a criminal investigation captain for 28 years and 2 years: Donquot; (a) Parachute & quot; To be a tool for the crime of Roh.

But Don Willis didn't give up. This time, he chose to send a direct letter to the leadership of the National Monitoring Board. In this letter of 31 October 2026, Tang Wei Li no longer merely complained of the incident, but rather pointed to the fatal loopholes in the chain of evidence of the prosecution service with a very calm logic and dropped a central claim: the National Supervisory Commission was requested to urge the Anhui Provincial Supervisory Board to perform its law enforcement supervisory role, verify two key simultaneous audio-visual recordings and reveal the truth about the forged evidence.

What exactly is in this letter? Why are those recordings that should have been restored so late?

A complaint by a “player” is identical to the disappearance

Tang Wei Lian, at the beginning of the letter, invoked article 41 of the Constitution and article 10 of the Ombudsman Act, requesting the intervention of the National Monitoring Board. He stated that he had complained to the supervisory boards on several occasions, but that the Chizhou City Supervisory Board had “repressed the case” on the alleged falsification of evidence.

In an effort to break the deadlock, on 2 January 2025, Tang Wei Li personally visited the Disciplinary Commission of Anhui province, specifically requesting two vital simultaneous audio recordings: one of the video that the Chouzhou City Supervisor questioned him on the afternoon of 23 July 2019 and the other of Tsui Xiaosheng questioned him on the night of 1 December

1. He firmly believes that the fact that these two videos were made public will prove how the author forged evidence that he “takes a $4,000 shopping card” and how Tsubukisheng made him confess.

However, the complaint was approved for verification by the Ishida County disciplinary commission and then sunk into the sea. The Ishida County Disciplinary Commission and the Gui Jia District Supervisory Board have no authority to correct the problems of their superior bodies. Until March and July 2026, Chen Guoxiang, Secretary of the Chongzhou City Department of Disciplinary Affairs, visited Tang Wei Li twice and replied in person “to arrange verification”.

By 9 July, a staff member of the Chizhou City Supervisor ' s Office, Wu Yi, had informed Tang Wei Li only by telephone that the same transcript had been checked and that no irregularities had been detected.

There was no written decision to process the complaint, no detailed verification report, and nothing else but a telephone call. In his letter, Tang Wei Li, with outrage, quoted article 69 of the Ombudsman Act, asking why no written documents have been produced so far, since the Ombudsman ' s decision to deal with the complaint should be taken within one month.

Even more suffocating is the fact that, in response to the same inquiry of 23 July 2019, the CIC gave a “face-changing” response: in January 2026, when the Anhui Provincial Prosecutor's Office received a request for review of a criminal complaint, the CIC first falsely stated that “only one year was kept, and no record was available”; The phrase was then changed to “to keep the whole, and the inspection did not reveal any irregularities”.

A video, "lost" or "hidden"? In his letter, Tong Wei Li had given his own inference that, by looking at the same records, it would be possible to objectively return to the original author of the case how he had used the testimony of Xudong as a “standard answer” and had been subjected to a “counter-mouth” falsification of evidence during the questioning.

"It's not a secret anymore, you know. It's a good thing to write? The government has been working on the issue of the human rights of women.

If the “disappearance” of evidence is a procedural mystery, the details of the confessions revealed in the letter reveal the arrogance of power in the closed space.

In his letter, Tang Wei Li gave a detailed return to the scene where he was questioned on the night of 1 December

1. At that time, he asked him about his phone call with Chen Qiwu, and Don Wei Li replied “I can't remember”.

In the face of the suspect's “noticing” and instead of continuing to ask questions, Suh-i threw out a creepy “direction”: “You have spoken so long, you must have said, it was no secret that the case was closed that morning, and it was a normal case to talk about on the phone, and you can write it? The blogger adds:

Immediately thereafter, Suh made a statement himself, according to his own words: “Because the case was closed at a meeting of the Bureau that morning, the case was no secret, and we spoke of it on the phone, as he had asked earlier. The blogger adds:

“As long as the simultaneous audio and video recordings of the record are drawn, it is sufficient to prove that this statement is made out of Xu Xiaoqiao's mouth. In his letter, Tang Wei Li wrote. It's not just an interrogation, it's more like a self-directed “play creation”. The case officer does not need to speak to the suspect, but simply nods the suspect and even writes the lines for the suspect.

Unable to dial the "compass phone" and the paradox on the time line

Among the evidence against Tang Wei Li for self-impropriation is a seemingly “clause” of evidence: Cha Xudong, who is held in detention, and Chen Tung Yi, who is not aware of the circumstances, has called Tong Wei Li to intercede on several occasions.

But in the view of Don Willy, this evidence is logically untenable. In his letter, he cites Chen Qiwu ' s own testimony that Chen Qiwu was unaware of the investigation by the Public Security Directorate at first, and did not know until Cha Xudong took leave to speak.

Timelines don't lie. Cha Xudong first left the premises on 29 January 2016 at 1500 hours. Until then, he remained in detention. Since Chen Qiwu knew only after Cha Xudong had been released, how could a “unknowing” person who had been in Xudong's custody have made multiple calls to intercede? How can he call again and again?

Even more ironic, the case notes that the case officer, Tung Libin, on the afternoon of 29 January 2016, on his return from the convalescent investigation, arranged for Wang to write a report on the investigation, which proved that the preliminary opinion that had emerged at that time was “economic dispute” was not influenced by Tong Wei Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li Li.

Moreover, Tang Wei Li pointed to another deadly temporal paradox. The Director General ' s Office meeting decided that the time for not filing the case would be the morning of 6 February 2016, and Chen Kyu Wu called that night.

That is, when Chen Kwu took up the telephone, the case had been decided procedurally not to open and closed. How does Tang Wei Li enforce the Law of Ingratitude in a case that has been closed? The Dibing job notes of Tung were written as early as 25 December 2015 “after first detection, extortion and extortion”, and “understanding labour cooperation agreements, a series of standards” on 14 January

1. This is amply evidence that the Unit has long ruled out the suspicion of extortion and that Don Wiederly was not the first to make a negative opinion.

"Paper can't be wrapped"

At the end of this letter, which is a long page long, Tang Wei Li did not use harsh words, but returned to the reason and commitment of an old criminal police officer.

He requested the NMC to urge the Anhui Provincial Supervisory Board to perform its law enforcement oversight responsibilities, with two core points: the first being to verify the two key simultaneous audio and video recordings; Secondly, the law establishes that there is an inexorable contradiction between the available evidence and cannot be used as a basis for a definitive case.

He quoted the Secretary-General of the Academy, who said: “Justice is the lifeline of the rule of law. Instead of saying that we are in the wrong, what harm and shock we will have if we correct the wrong now, and what harm and impact we have already done to others... We do the wrong job, and we do the dead to make up for it. The blogger adds:

The last sentence of the letter, "The paper cannot be wrapped in fire." I am responsible for the facts of the above-mentioned charges and, if falsely accused, I am willing to assume all legal liability. The blogger adds:

From 2020 to 2026, when he wrote again, six years would be enough to make a man of age white. The path of Tang Wei Li ' s complaint was extremely difficult. He was not confronted with a common case dispute, but with a "sharpen state" of the simultaneous audio-visual recording, a "playbook" of the confession, a "procedural emptiness" of the horizontal verification.

We call on the authorities to be able to face up to the letter of indictment from the prison. The dignity of the rule of law lies not only in the punishment of crime, but also in the indomitable. When a working note, a timeline, a line of questioning points to the same truth, how long will those “disappeared” audio-visual recordings go on?

It may be painful, but not wrong, to do so at the very root of the rule of law and at the faith of every ordinary person in justice. In his letter, Tang Wei Li stated that he was willing to assume all legal responsibility, so should those suspected of forging evidence or making confessions also stand up and be held legally responsible for their actions?

The paper is not gonna fit. We look forward to the National Monitoring Board's response and to the day when the truth will come to light.