Yu Menglong.
[People News] The situation surrounding the Yu Menglong case is becoming increasingly confusing. For over two months, netizens have been calling for action, yet there has been no case filed, and the police have not responded at all. Some netizens, referencing legal regulations, have identified several abnormal factors related to the incident of Yu Menglong's fall, including irregularities in physical evidence, environmental conditions, traces, behaviour prior to the incident, and the reactions of companions. They have thoroughly summarised eight major doubts that necessitate a formal investigation. Additionally, after visiting the scene of the incident, one netizen prepared an investigative report, logically concluding that the incident occurred on September 9, which contradicts the police's stated date of September 11. This represents a significant reversal that directly challenges the police's account.
Major Doubt One:
According to a video presented by the owners of Yangguang Shangdong, the edge of the windowsill is at chest height for a man and is above his centre of gravity, making it inherently difficult to fall due to proximity or instability. One must question how, in a state of intoxication, a person could lock the door while remaining sober, figure out how to open an unfamiliar screen window, and actively raise their centre of gravity to create the conditions for a fall. This suggests the presence of abnormal environmental factors and unusual behavioural capabilities prior to death, indicating the potential for criminal activity. Under Article 16 of the 'Regulations on the Procedures for Public Security Organs to Handle Criminal Cases', cases with unclear causes of death or significant doubts should be registered, or criminal investigation procedures should be initiated. Furthermore, according to Article 110 of the 'Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China', public security organs are required to file a case for investigation upon receiving reports, accusations, or discovering possible criminal facts.
Significant Doubt Two:
There are scratch marks on the wall beneath the window from which the fall occurred, and similar marks are found on the next layer of the screen window, indicating abnormal traces. In accordance with Articles 8 and 10 of the 'Criminal Procedure Law' and Article 16 of the procedural regulations from the Ministry of Public Security, public security organs are obligated to file a case and conduct a thorough investigation.
Significant Doubt Three:
The initial information from the informant included a critical detail: the deceased had a Rolex watch in their pocket. According to Article 66 of the 'Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs', the presence of items not belonging to the individual is classified as 'abnormal physical evidence' and must legally be included in the evidence chain; it cannot be overlooked. If the individual who fell had items that did not belong to them and could not provide a reasonable explanation, the public security authorities are required by law to open an investigation, rather than simply categorizing it as suicide or an accident, nor can they dismiss the possibility of homicide based on this; failing to file a case would be illegal, and a request for oversight from the procuratorate could be made. This raises an important question: Is this truly a rumour? If it is a rumour, why haven’t those responsible been arrested? If it is not a rumour, then a case must be opened.
Major Doubt Four:
The Dongyang Xianmeng Film and Television Culture Studio, registered under Yu Menglong, was deregistered in July 2025. In the practices of public security and psychological assessment, handling significant matters in life (such as deregistering a company, distributing assets, clearing accounts, etc.) is considered a typical 'significant matter handling behaviour' or 'abnormal behaviour'. According to Article 16 of the 'Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs', if public security authorities discover abnormal behaviour, they should initiate a case or conduct an in-depth investigation.
Major Doubt Five:
At the time of the fall, there were drinking companions still present at the scene. The presence of these companions during the fall cannot rule out the possibility of 'death caused by the actions of others', which falls within the scope that must be investigated.
Major Doubt Six:
The behaviour of the companions was abnormal; their reasoning was flawed, they did not hear or report the incident, nor did they provide assistance, which raises significant doubts. According to Article 16 of the 'Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs', cases with unclear causes of death or significant doubts should be filed.
1. Normally, the sound of a fall from the 5th or 6th floor is extremely loud. If many people did not hear it,' this raises a logical inconsistency. The police must investigate the authenticity of this claim.
2. According to the initial discoverer in the community, the companions did not check to see if the person was dead after the fall, did not call the police, and simply covered the body with clothing, which is clearly abnormal behaviour.
Major Doubt Seven:
Is there any surveillance footage that proves the fall was accidental? Given the current flood of various audio and video materials, autopsy reports, and other information circulating online, which have significantly impacted public perception and sparked widespread attention, Article 6 of the 'Regulations on News Release Work by Public Security Organs' states that in cases of high social concern involving significant public interest, public security organs should legally and promptly release authoritative information to address societal concerns.
Major Doubt Eight:
The cancelled studio has illegally issued announcements on multiple occasions. According to Article 188 of the 'Company Law of the People's Republic of China,' a company that has been canceled no longer has legal person status and cannot engage in any activities under the company name, including issuing announcements.
In addition to these major doubts, netizens have raised strong questions regarding the date of the incident.
On November 12, an overseas blogger known as 'News Investigation' published an investigative report concerning the Yu Menglong case. This report was created by a group of female netizens from other regions who resigned from their jobs to travel to Beijing for an on-site investigation of the Sunshine Shangdong, Bulgari Hotel, and Qihua Art Museum. Utilizing environmental conditions, meteorological data, video, audio, behavioural analysis, and police logic, they compiled a professional investigative report. This is likely the most comprehensive, logically coherent, and objective report released since the Yu Menglong incident occurred two months ago. The report is divided into three sections: the Moonlight Section, the Qihua Section, and the Postscript. It directly challenges the police, asserting that the actual date of the incident was September 9.
The 'Moonlight Section' focuses on the core area confirmed as the crime scene, which holds the highest significance. Following on-site investigations and data comparisons, several crucial pieces of evidence that could potentially overturn the official timeline were uncovered, placing this section at the forefront of the report.
Table of Contents (screenshot)
Moonlight Section 1 (screenshot)
In the 'Moonlight Section,' one of the key conclusions drawn is that through on-site investigations, environmental photography, existing clues, meteorological data, and cross-verification of video and audio, along with logical analysis, it was determined that the widely circulated rainy night video was likely filmed on September 9, 2025. This conclusion strongly contradicts the widely accepted incident date of September 11.
The locations referenced in the 'Qihao Chapter' are areas that the suspect visited before and after the incident. While there is currently no direct evidence establishing a clear connection to the case, our investigation has uncovered several recent changes in the area that seem to be suspicious 'cover-ups,' leading us to categorise this as the second part of our report.
Qihao Chapter 1 (screenshot)
The report also emphasises that all content presented in the full text consists of verifiable facts, with no exaggerations, speculations, or unverified rumours. All conclusions are based on factual evidence and are articulated in a cautious, uncertain tone.
The reasoning throughout the report is highly professional and logically sound, and it is quite extensive. The analysis suggests that if the incident did not occur on September 11 but rather on September 9, then what was Yu Menglong's condition on September 10 throughout the day, and where was he? Were the screams captured in the videos actually from Yu Menglong himself? Thus, regardless of who the true perpetrator may be, the primary suspect in this case appears to be the police, who have been concealing the truth. This also explains why the police have yet to release any details regarding the case.
In the "Postscript," the author states: "Since the day Yu Menglong passed away, I have not had a good night's sleep since.
The author explains that she does not have a high level of education; she is simply an ordinary female worker born after 2000. Lacking a legal background, she spends sleepless nights organising and verifying legal texts. Although she does not understand the national administrative system, she finds herself reading complex political books through tear-filled eyes on difficult nights. She may not grasp the police case handling process, but she carefully analyses and examines every conclusion.
Many people ask, "You have no connection to him, so why do you care?"
The author responds, "I cannot answer this question because I am not 'managing' the situation; I am 'responding.' I am responding to the suffering of a life, to the indifference of society, and to my own yearning for justice. I cry not out of weakness, but because I cannot accept that a person may die in extreme pain, only to be hastily labelled as an accident.
Some say, "We are just ants at the bottom, unable to shake the great tree."
However, the author counters that ants can also leave their mark. The truth is not achieved through power, but through perseverance, even if it is just to ensure that one day, people will know that there were those who refused to remain silent.
The author emphasises that they are just ordinary individuals willing to speak out for the truth because the truth deserves to be questioned, and life deserves respect, regardless of whether he was just an ordinary person, and regardless of whether we are just ordinary citizens.
The author's final statement is: I am not crazy; I am painfully awake.
This author genuinely inspires both emotion and admiration. In reality, netizens advocating for good people are doing so in the name of fairness and justice. Everyone's objective has consistently been aligned. What we need to focus on now is to write letters and make phone calls from within the confines, while those on the outside strive to amplify their voices and sign petitions. This time, we are not concerned with nationality; we are only seeking the truth.
△
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!