Although the People's Daily quickly deleted the above report and the Kunming police denied issuing a new circular, it is generally believed that the People's Daily report disclosed a large number of unknown details of the case, and the relevant content should come from police personnel who know the case, perhaps not groundless. However, in view of the fact that the autopsy has not yet ended and the autopsy conclusion has not yet come out, it is indeed too early to assert that this case "does not constitute a criminal offence". People's Daily should have found the relevant statement inappropriate, so it quickly deleted the relevant report.
There are indeed many doubts in this case that have not been ascertained, and there are still many mysteries that have not been solved from the complete truth. For example, why did Li Xincao drink three glasses of wine in a row that night? Does the wine you drink contain stimulants or other prohibited ingredients? Are there any other physical or psychological diseases in Li Xincao? Can drunkenness induce or aggravate these diseases in Li Xincao? Is slapping a face a normal way to sober up? Why did Li Xincao decide not to go back to the dormitory that night and choose to go directly to the classroom the next day? Is Li Xincao's drowning suicide or accidental drowning? Why did the taxi driver testify that Li Xincao was stopped from going home by two men? Where does the expression "suicide by meeting" come from? Is it true that two men once threatened the police? These are closely related to clarifying the legal responsibilities of all parties and need further verification by the police.
However, whether Li Xincao was a homicide ultimately depends on the evidence. Ren is a college classmate, and there is no evidence that there is any contradiction or resentment between them. On the day of the incident, I was invited to go shopping together, which also proved that there was no big problem in their relationship. As for the other two people, they are good friends with Ren, but they may not be familiar with each other, so they may just meet by accident. Earlier, People's Daily reported that the surveillance video of that night showed that Li Xincao had no unpleasantness with others during drinking. Based on the above situation, if there is neither past grievances nor temporary contradictions, then the motive for killing will be an unavoidable problem in this case. And if it's intentional homicide, the bar door doesn't seem to be the ideal place to commit the crime.
The final investigation conclusion is nothing more than two: homicide or non-homicide. After the People's Daily's earlier report came out, a wave of doubts about previous public opinion immediately appeared on the Internet. Some people use "slapping" and "beating the rhythm" to describe the questioning reports of some media, and some even point the finger at Li Xincao's mother. Not to mention that there is no final investigation conclusion yet, even if Li Xin's draft finally ruled out the possibility of homicide, the question of public opinion is still valuable. Without these doubts, the investigation of the relevant departments would not be as in-depth as it is now. Don't forget, it's been more than a month since Li Xincao died, and the police working group has only been established for a few days. Although many doubts are not the truth, many truths are inseparable from doubts. Questioning is necessary, not because it is always correct, but because it can promote the truth and be closest to it.
To be fair, a college student and a teenage girl suddenly drowned without any warning, and most parents can't accept this reality. What's more, if Li Xincao's mother's statement about "meeting to commit suicide" really comes from the police, then combined with many details in the surveillance video, the questions raised by family members, netizens and the media are normal and not excessive. Obviously, before the public opinion fermented, the police did not give Li Xincao's family enough details of the case, nor did they eliminate the layers of doubts of Li Xincao's family. We have reason to believe that without the posting of Li Xincao and Weibo, the collective voice of many netizens and the follow-up reports of the media, the truth may still be asleep. In the Internet age, the silent truth is sometimes not the truth at all.
Some people think that questioning will damage the authority of relevant departments. This statement is not valid. In some cases, the police may have done nothing wrong. After all the doubts, maybe the truth will return to the original point. At this point, questioning will not weaken the authority of the police. Because the facts that can still be established after full questioning are more recognized by the public than the facts announced without questioning. In other cases, questioning allows for the initiation or deepening of more authoritative investigations and the correction of previous mistakes. Questioning at this time will not weaken the authority of the police. Because an institution that can respond to questions, admit mistakes and correct itself is far more credible than an institution that pretends never to make mistakes.
Others believe that people who question are often preconceived and wear colored glasses. This view is very harmful. Of course, opposition for the sake of opposition should be abandoned, but the logical starting point of supervision is doubt, and the main means of supervision is questioning. You can't doubt, you can't question, you can't supervise. The public can doubt the motivation of public power, but from the perspective of motivation theory, public power should not face the public. In modern society, questioning and responding is a normal way of interaction between the public and public rights. Public authorities should treat public doubts with an open mind and respond with positive actions. Only in this constant interaction can mutual trust accumulate.
The Li Xincao incident is undoubtedly a tragedy, and I believe the relevant departments will put an end to the whole incident as soon as possible within legal procedures. If it is found that it was a homicide, or if someone else is legally responsible, then it should be investigated according to law. If homicide or criminal offence is finally ruled out, it can also alleviate the pain of family members. Regardless of the outcome, public opinion supervision has played a positive role in restoring the truth. In the final analysis, it is impossible for relevant departments to "attach great importance" all the time after the fermentation of public opinion. Because if such a reaction mechanism becomes a path dependence, it will greatly increase the load of the Internet and push up the governance cost of the whole society.