Wu Danhong said many times: "If Lao Rongzhi didn't say anything during the public security interrogation, then she would not be sentenced to death." Moreover, Wu Danhong has repeatedly used this to show off his level. However, it was this sentence that doomed Lao Rongzhi to death, and also exposed Wu Danhong's sinister intentions.
First of all, we assume that Wu Danhong is right, that is, if Lao Rongzhi remains silent and does not say anything after being arrested, he will not be sentenced to death. Remember, this is the "if", not the actual happening. Next, we continue to reason according to the logic of this sentence, since if you don't say anything, you can't be sentenced to death, so if Lao Rongzhi says everything, of course he can be sentenced to death. This is completely logical. And the fact is that Lao Rongzhi really confessed everything, so there is no problem in sentencing her to death. This is all the inevitable result of Wu Danhong's own logic, and what reason do Wu Danhong and the Bao Lao faction have to complain about Lao Rongzhi's grievances?
In any country, a confession is evidence. However, there are certain restrictions on the use of confessions as evidence, and if there is only a confession and no other evidence to corroborate it, the confession must not be used as the basis for a verdict. In this case, in addition to Lao Rongzhi's confession, there are also the body of the deceased, the on-site inquest, the bank withdrawal certificate, the statement of the surviving victim, the iron cage purchased by Lao Rongzhi, and a large amount of human and physical evidence extracted by the public security organs, all of which can corroborate each other with Lao Rongzhi's confession, and the evidence chain is very complete and the evidence is very sufficient. Wu Danhong, as the defender, has read all the materials in the dossier. Perhaps, according to his cognition, if there is no confession from Lao Rongzhi, it would be difficult for other evidence to put Lao Rongzhi to death. That's why he inadvertently said, "If Lao Rongzhi doesn't say anything, he can't be sentenced to death." But since Lao Rongzhi has said everything, and there is no longer the premise of "say nothing", what room for justification is there in this case?Wu Danhong is not a fool, can you not see it?
Wu Danhong has a certain level of professionalism, and he has long known that Lao Rongzhi will be sentenced to death. But he also preached that "Lao Rongzhi is wronged enough", took the initiative to find the Lao family, and asked to serve as Lao Rongzhi's defender. What kind of heart does he have?It's nothing more than fame and fortune, not for any fairness and justice. The facts now are very clear, the Lao Rongzhi case is not famous because of Wu Danhong, but because of the Lao Rongzhi case. Before the Lao Rongzhi case, how many people knew who Wu Danhong was?Even if Wu Danhong didn't take much money from the Lao family, if he could rely on this case to gain popularity and become famous, he would not worry about making money in the future. Who can you hide from this little bit of caution?
It's just that Wu Danhong went a little too far, messed up, and ended up infamous, and it is likely that he will be punished by the Lawyers Association and lose his career. The failure of his career is not the main thing, the important thing is to completely expose his bad qualities of duplicity, hypocrisy and cunning, and I am afraid that no one will believe the words that come out of his mouth in the future. Failure in doing things is not necessarily a real failure, but failure in life is a complete failure. The agency was too clever and mistook Qingqing's life. Wu Danhong should have a good understanding of this sentence.