Two Shoe Prints Strung Up A Chain Of Evidence.

There were no connections between the 4 burglaries that lasted for more than 10 days, but the "betrayal" of two shoe prints focused on a man named Chang Yong.

In the face of the denial of Chang Yong, how can we identify the facts of a crime by two shoe prints?

After careful investigation, the procuratorate of the Changning District procuratorate succeeded in forming a chain of evidence among the orphans and eventually pulled the suspect out of the water.

Last December 16th night, a black man was stealing from KIA company. He was arrested by the public security organ.

The man in black was called Zou Jun. He explained to the police that he had come together with him, Chang Yong, who had fled the scene.

Chang Yong, who was captured, admitted the fact that he failed to steal with Zou Jun. He also took the initiative to explain that he had stolen two KIA laptops and a HP desktop computer in November 29th last year, and sold the stolen computer to a computer store on the same day.

The case of November 29th is clear.

But the further investigation results surprised the investigators.

The shoe print of a pair of sneakers worn by Chang Yong has been identified by footprints, which is exactly the same as the shoe prints on the scene of a theft computer case in an air traffic control bureau of a civil aviation company in November 11th of the same year in November 22nd.

And the suspects used the way of breaking the window fence to enter the room, all of them left glove marks without leaving any fingerprints.

Then, is Chang Yong a criminal of the two robbery cases?

Let's first comb these 4 burglaries: in November 11th of last year, theft occurred in a canteen in a certain airline, and 4500 yuan of public money in the drawer was stolen, and footprints were found on the desk. In November 22nd last year, a theft occurred in an air traffic control bureau of civil aviation, 3 computers were stolen, and two complete footprints were found on the desk table. In November 29th last year, KIA company committed theft, 3 computers were stolen, windows on the north side of the company office were prized, and gloves were found on the fence. In December 16th of last year, Zou Jun and Chang Yong attempted theft in KIA company.

But Chang Yong denied the two cases in November 11th and 22nd last year.

The police decided to break through the stolen goods. Investigators found the target of Yong Yong's disposal of stolen goods, and the owner of the computer shop, Wu Xiao Tong.

Wu Xiaotong said that from November 25th to 29 last year, Chang Yong went to the computer store for the three time, holding a IBM laptop to be mortgaged to Wu Xiao Tong.

In the afternoon of November 29th, Chang Yong found Wu Xiao Tong and sold him a HP desktop.

For Wu Xiaotong's argument, Chang Yong claimed that he had never mortgaged IBM's notebook.

The case was pferred to the Changning procuratorate.

The prosecutor found Wu Xiaotong in depth to understand the case.

Wu Xiaotong said Chang Yong had been to the computer store three times before last November 29th and wanted to sell him a IBM notebook.

When Chang Yong went second times, he asked Wu Xiaotong to help with the charger. Wu Xiaotong took the notebook to another computer shop. The owner of the shop also saw the IBM.

Finally, the prosecutor found the breakthrough point of the case: often to lie!

After sorting out all the evidence, the prosecutor found that if we take the method of reverse order in the process of determining the facts of the crime, that is, prove the facts of the third cases first, and prove the criminal facts of the second cases, finally prove that the first is the best way to solve the case.

First of all, the identification of third cases in November 29th last year was the most easy. Chang Yong had taken the initiative to explain. The testimony of the witness Wu Xiaotong also proved that he had seen the stolen goods in the case.

In the second case of last November 22nd, Chang Yong denied that he had been to the scene after he showed his footprints. However, Wu Xiao Tong's testimony reflected that he wanted to sell him a IBM notebook before November 26th, and another owner of the computer shop could testify.

Witness testimony, scene investigation record and footprint identification book form a chain of evidence, which fully proves that Chang Yong has committed second criminal facts.

Finally, as explained above, the first case in November 11th last year can also be identified as "Yong Yong".

In this way, Wu Xiao Tong's testimony brings together third cases and second cases of criminal facts. The footprint identification book also brings together the criminal facts of the first two cases, and some of the scene of the scene investigation record can play a circumstantial role in all the facts of the crime.

The prosecutor finally identified all three criminal facts alleged by the public security organs.

(all characters are pseudonyms)