In recent years, there has been an important development in the Zhu Ling case. In 2018, an article published in Forensic International attracted a lot of attention. The first author was a researcher in the Department of Geology at the University of Maryland, who used the university's instruments to test the thallium content of Zhu Ling's hair. The lead author is a Chinese surnamed He who contacted Zhu Linghui and obtained a hair sample.
The test results showed that Zhu Ling had been poisoned several times within four months. The appearance of the 25 thallium peaks was seen by some as evidence to accuse Sun Wei of being the best.
However, there are some problems with this view. In fact, Zhu Ling was poisoned 25 times does not necessarily mean that he was poisoned 25 times, it may be a multiple poisoning caused by a single poisoning. In addition, even if frequent poisoning is required, the suspect cannot simply be limited to those in the girls' dormitory.
On the contrary, if the ** result is established, Sun Wei's suspicion can be ruled out. The main reason for Sun Wei's suspicion is that the research group she participated in used thallium nitrate reagent, but if the thallium that caused Zhu Ling's poisoning did not come from the research group, then her suspicion can be clarified.
However, there are some problems with the conclusion about the time of Zhu Ling's first poisoning. By measuring the amount of thallium in the hair, only a relative time frame can be determined, and a specific date cannot be determined. **The authors use October as a reference point and assume that Zhu Ling is blind in that month, thus establishing the first thallium peak as mid-August. However, in reality, the exact date of Zhu Ling's blindness is not clear, and the author assumes that it is the end of October, so this estimation may be incorrect.
In addition, according to the known facts, Zhu Ling's hair had fallen out when he was admitted to Tongren Hospital on December 23, 1994. Therefore, the inferred time of hair loss in ** (mid-January 1995) does not match the actual situation. This shows that there is irrationality in the author's time calculation.
To sum up, this ** article provides some controversy and reflection on the evidence in Zhu Ling's case. However, more research and analysis is needed to uncover the truth of the case. In the Zhu Ling case, we should remain objective and rational, avoid excessive speculation and accusations, and at the same time look forward to more conclusive evidence in the future to bring this case to an end.