Thirty years after the thallium poisoning incident at Tsinghua University, Zhu Ling completed the last journey of her life, not so much due to the sequelae of poisoning, but to the delay in diagnosis.
On this issue, the most difficult to understand and the most unreasonable situation is that it was not the hospital or the teaching staff who understood the characteristics of thallium that promoted the diagnosis of Zhu Ling's thallium poisoning, but the "layman", Zhu Ling's middle school classmate, Pei Zhicheng, who was studying in the Department of Mechanics of Peking University at the time, who sent an email to ask for help through the Internet, and received a large number of professional replies, including 7992% of the analysts believe that Zhu Ling is thallium poisoning.
Subsequently, Zhu Ling's family took her cerebral effusion, blood, urine, nails and hair to the Beijing Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Institute for thallium poisoning tests, and came to the conclusion that "the thallium content in the body is more than 10,000 times higher than the normal value, and has reached the medically lethal content".
At this time, more than a month has passed since Zhu Ling's onset of the disease, delaying the best time, although the thallium poison in the body was removed after medication, but it left the sequelae that could not be ** - severe mental deterioration, blindness, paralysis of the lower limbs ......
The delay in the diagnosis of Zhu Ling's thallium poisoning was a low-level error, and the professional version is that this low-level error occurred with a certain degree of chance. The causes of thallium poisoning are many, and people who do not have a clear history of thallium exposure cannot arbitrarily rule out the possibility of thallium poisoning, and must be scientifically tested.
In principle, it is not possible to arbitrarily rule out thallium poisoning, but specifically in Zhu Ling's case, why is there an "accidental" "arbitrary exclusion"?This is one of the confusing questions.
This kind of "arbitrary exclusion" not only delayed Zhu Ling's **, but also missed the opportunity for the investigation of the case. ** Alleged, due to the loss of direct evidence, despite the exhaustion of various criminal investigation methods, the case was never solved.
What is included in the evidence of the loss is not mentioned in detail in the current reports. However, common sense tells us that some of the daily necessities of the victim in the poisoning case should be one of the carriers of valuable evidence, such as the victim's water cup.
What makes people anxious is that just a few days after Zhu Ling's thallium poisoning symptoms were diagnosed and his family reported the case through the school, a theft occurred in Zhu Ling's student dormitory, and his parents were told that some of Zhu Ling's personal belongings, including ** glasses box, lipstick, shampoo, bath gel, water glass, etc., were stolen. And this means that more physical evidence in this case has been lost again.
There is reasonable suspicion that the "thieves" should have come for the physical evidence of the thallium poisoning case: the glasses box, lipstick, shampoo and bath gel, and water cup are not worth much, and the thief should not steal the lipstick used by others and give it to his girlfriend or wife, right?You won't steal someone else's water cup and take it back to drink, right?
And this matter is so "anxious" because I have never heard that the thief has been caught. Of course, we should believe that it may have been difficult to detect a school theft and catch a thief at that time.
And when the "accidental" "random exclusion of thallium poisoning" and the accidental theft of the student's dormitory and the destruction of related physical evidence before it is collected - two things happen one after another, and some situations become more complicated.
Who stole the lipstick, glasses box, shampoo and bath gel, and water cup in Zhu Ling's bedroom?
Perhaps, we cannot say with certainty that if this thief had been caught at that time, he would have won the opportunity to solve the poisoning case;It cannot be said with absolute certainty that there is a link between the theft of the student's dormitory and the poisoning. But at least we can know what the thief's motive is for breaking into the house and stealing those worthless small objects. And this, for clarifying some doubts, is undoubtedly important.
Zhu Ling is gone, but the investigation of the poisoning case will not end with the death of the victim. Discussing this case from another angle, should it be said that the unsolved case may not be the worst outcome?
In the case of the loss of direct evidence and the fact that there are no "other opportunities" as mentioned by Detective Li Changyu, the case-handling organs have not identified a person as a suspect because he is "the most suspicious".After all, in 1995, when the Criminal Procedure Law had not yet established the principle of never suspecting a crime, the case-handling organs had already abandoned the concept of "doubtful guilt".