王小童控双鸭山市人民医院延误救治致重伤：四次报案后，公安拒绝鉴定与证人取证、终止调查，检察与纪委渠道亦未获支持Wang Xiaotong accuses Shuangyashan People's Hospital of delayed treatment and grave injury: after four reports, police closed her case without an injury appraisal or witness statements; procuratorate and discipline channels gave no support

投稿人与投稿经过：王小童（英文名 Claire），黑龙江省双鸭山市人。她于 2026 年 10 月 26 日向本站投稿邮箱发来首信，10 月 27 日凌晨又两次回信补齐经过与材料清单；其后她把自己保存的完整证据包——四次住院的病历复印件、约 90 段通话录音、全部文书与申请材料——下载转交本站。按本站投稿政策，投稿即表示同意本站在核实后发表；她可随时要求修改或撤下。10 月 28 日，她再次来信——案件时间已久、凭记忆讲述难免有偏差——对记录中三处作出更正与精确化，本站已按她的说明逐处修改（详见下文核实说明）。[1]

就诊经过：2025 年 11 月 24 日下午，王小童因肠梗阻发作到双鸭山市人民医院急诊，16 时 41 分收入普外二科，血压只有 85/64。她这次来信更正了入院时的一个细节：她真正的肠梗阻腹痛只有一天，此前三天是痛经加上经期的胃肠紊乱，那种痛与肠梗阻的痛症状不同、强度也不同——肠梗阻的痛若持续五天，她根本无法忍受。她有结核性腹膜炎病史十余年，肠梗阻反复发作：2024 年 12 月、2025 年 7 月，她两次在同一家医院的普外一科住院，都以胃肠减压等保守治疗治愈出院，病历在卷。她原本以为这一次也会像以前那么治。可是这一次完全不同：11 月 25 日凌晨，她疼得受不了、打电话向医院求救，录音在卷；25 日，家人买来胃管后，医院给她下了管，但管子始终处于无效状态，她多次请求调整，都被忽略。25 日早上，代查房的徐医生已在病历里记下她出现部分腹膜刺激征——肠液渗出刺激腹膜，才会出现这样的体征，这也印证了她那一整夜疼痛难忍是真实的。25 日中午起，她开始出现寒颤、震颤、视物模糊、心率升高，体温一度降到 35 度；其中一部分症状被徐哲记进了病历，35 度的体温则无人记录。当晚家人带她赶到佳木斯，夏主任主动询问并处置——减压这才初步见效，此时距她入院已超过 24 小时。因医保结算问题当晚又折返双鸭山；到 11 月 26 日，她的腹部压痛、腹肌紧张与反跳痛更加明确，她说主治医生查体后对她说「比昨天严重了，根本问题没有解决」。当天 11 时 10 分，她正式入住佳木斯大学附属第一医院，入院查体记有「腹肌紧张，左腹部压痛及反跳痛阳性」，当日行内镜下置管，住院 8 天。她指控：医院明知她的病情与自身条件，仍把她收下、拖着不治、也不及早转院，是近 40 小时的延误把她拖进了腹膜炎与休克前兆。而两家医院的病历诊断栏里，自始至终只写了「肠梗阻」四个字。[1]

关于伤情「重伤二级」：王小童依据病历与《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》认定：弥漫性腹膜炎对应的正是重伤二级。这一认定她写进了给纪委的投诉材料，也曾发表在微博。这个认定在法律上本应由司法鉴定来盖章，而鉴定程序的大门从一开始就被关上了：公安受案后从未委托鉴定，检察院的人在电话里让她「自行委托」——可她这次特地把这一点说清：人体损伤程度鉴定只有公检法有权委托，个人自己根本委托不了。所以今天没有一份鉴定书，不是因为她的伤不够格，而是因为没有一个有权启动鉴定的机关肯为她启动。本站把她的病历、她的论证与录音全部摆出来：她伤得有多重，材料自己会说话；缺的那道程序，是有关方面欠她的。[1]

报案与公安处理：王小童先后于 2026 年 1 月 23 日、1 月 29 日、2 月 6 日、2 月 26 日四次向公安机关报案，其中两次留有派出所的文书原件。2026 年 1 月 26 日 9 时 02 分，她电话报警称医院延误治疗造成弥漫性腹膜炎和一系列重伤症状、要求刑事立案，卧虹桥派出所出具接报警回执：回执记下她对治疗方案（「胃肠减压」「胃饲石蜡油」）等问题的存疑，民警告知她，医疗专业问题可向卫生健康委员会、医学会申请专家委员会复核鉴定，认为个别医生违规治疗可向纪委监察部门投诉。2026 年 2 月 26 日，她报称的「王小童被故意伤害一案」被正式受理，受案登记表文号双尖公（卧）受案字〔2026〕45 号，案件编号 A2305025200002026020014（回执上的查询密码与办案民警手机号，本站不予公开）。受理之后，她等来的不是调查，而是一再拖延：她提出的两名证人——佳木斯同病房的病友与接诊她的夏医生——公安始终没有去取证；她要求的伤情鉴定，公安始终没有委托。2026 年 3 月 23 日，卧虹桥派出所出具《终止案件调查决定书》（双尖公（卧）行终止决字〔2026〕77 号），以该案「具有没有违法事实的情形」为由终止调查。就在终止的当天上午，她还在电话里向办案的翟警官追问证人到底找了没有（录音核对见下文）。终止之后，她凭查询密码到黑龙江省公安机关执法公开平台上查自己的案子：3 月 31 日与 4 月 4 日两次查询录屏显示，案件信息再也查不出来——4 月 4 日那次，页面在提交后弹出「请填写参数」，编号与密码被清空。她认为自己的案子在平台上被人删掉了；平台为什么查不到，公安至今没有给她一个说法。[1][3]

检察监督、督察与纪委：终止调查后，王小童向检察机关申请立案监督。2026 年 5 月 22 日，尖山区人民检察院出具《立案监督审查通知书》（双尖检立监控申审通〔2026〕4 号）：尖山分局已向该院说明不立案理由，该院认为依《刑事诉讼法》第一百一十三条，公安不立案决定「符合法律规定」。通篇没有回应她从头到尾最核心的请求——先给她做伤情鉴定，再谈立不立案。她问的是鉴定，答复绕开了鉴定。其后她继续给检察院打电话：5 月 25 日，双鸭山市检察院的工作人员在电话里向她说明，立案监督在基层「只能进行一次」，并说了一句「这个人民医院现在我知道的医疗事故就有很多，我也很同情」；6 月 12 日，尖山区检察院的工作人员告诉她，其系统里没有查到她的案件。公安督察方面，尖山分局警务督察大队的付姓警官曾于 2 月 27 日来电向她确认案件已受理（录音在卷）；她手机里的通话记录显示，2 月 27 日至 3 月 30 日间双方有多次通话往来。纪委渠道：2025 年 12 月 15 日，她打电话向纪检监察渠道举报医院管理问题，被告知不属受理范围、应去找卫健委或走司法程序；她又正式向双鸭山市纪委提交书面投诉，追究市信访局与市卫健委在办理她信访事项中的推诿，投诉材料在卷。她在 X 上持续发帖讲述此事经过。[1][2][3]

核实说明（2026 年 10 月 28 日更新）：本站取得投稿人提交的完整证据包：文书与申请材料十余件、四次住院病历复印件（双鸭山三次、佳木斯一次）、通话录音约 90 段及查询平台录屏。全部材料本站逐件核对：四份官方文书逐字读过，四份病历的关键页通读，关键节点的录音逐段听过，核对结果都写在正文里。10 月 28 日，投稿人再次来信更正三处——她说案件时间已久、凭记忆讲述难免有偏差：一是腹痛的实际天数与性质，二是胃管下管后始终无效及症状出现的准确时间，三是两种司法鉴定的区别。本站已按她的说明逐处修改摘要与正文。

病历核对：本站取得她各次住院的病历复印件并逐页核对。双鸭山市人民医院病案首页与入院记录载明，她于 2025 年 11 月 24 日 16 时 41 分经急诊收入普外二科，主诉为恶心呕吐伴腹痛五天，入院血压 85/64mmHg、无发热寒战（对「五天」这一处，投稿人已来信更正：她真正的肠梗阻腹痛只有一天，此前三天是痛经与经期胃肠紊乱，痛的性质与强度都不同——病历的原记载与她本人的更正，本站一并留在这里）；2025 年 11 月 26 日 7 时 50 分出院，病案首页「离院方式」登记为「非医嘱离院」，实际住院 2 天，出院诊断仅列「肠梗阻」，无手术记录。需要说明的是，她离院不是放弃治疗——当天 11 时 10 分她即入住佳木斯大学附属第一医院继续抢救；「非医嘱离院」是院方的登记口径，把为转院救命而离开写成病人自己的责任，正是她要讨的说法之一。此前她确曾在同一家医院住院两次：2024 年 12 月 25 日至 2025 年 1 月 1 日、2025 年 7 月 13 日至 18 日，均为普外一科、肠梗阻、治愈出院——与她「曾在同一家医院以保守治疗治愈过两次」的说法相符。

转院后病历（佳木斯）：佳木斯大学附属第一医院病历载明，她于 2025 年 11 月 26 日 11 时 10 分入院，住院 8 天，12 月 4 日出院。该院入院查体记录「腹肌紧张，左腹部压痛及反跳痛阳性」（即腹膜刺激征），腹部影像提示不全肠梗阻，入院当日行内镜下置管，出院时二便通畅、一般状况良好。查体已明确出现腹膜刺激征、说明腹腔内已有严重炎症反应，该院出院诊断却仍只写「肠梗阻」，没有把腹膜炎写进去——为什么，院方从未向她解释。佳木斯的出院记录另转引称，她在双鸭山住院期间的血常规白细胞为 12.69×10⁹/L、下腹部 CT 提示盆腔积液。

胃肠减压到底做成了什么样——投稿人这次把这一段说得更准确了，本站按她的更正改写：11 月 25 日，家人买来胃管后，双鸭山市人民医院给她下了管，但管子始终处于无效状态，她多次请求调整均被忽略；到 25 日晚在佳木斯，夏主任主动询问并处置，才初步解压。佳木斯出院记录转述双鸭山经过时写道，院方曾「给予禁食、胃肠减压及补液等对症治疗，并盐水灌肠 2 次，灌肠后可排少量大便，腹痛症状减轻」——下过管，这一点如今能对上；对不上的，是管子下了之后到底有没有起作用、病人一再请求调整为什么无人理会。下管与调整的医嘱单和执行记录都握在医院手里，从来没有向她出示过；如果管子下得对、调得及时，记录上必有时间——把她拖到出现腹膜刺激征、寒颤的这近 40 小时里，减压到底做成了什么样，不该由躺在病床上的人自证，该由双鸭山市人民医院拿出医嘱来回答。

录音核对：她提供的通话录音约 90 段，本站抽听了与关键节点对应的数段。2026 年 3 月 23 日与办案民警（翟姓警官）的通话中，她追问公安是否已向她提出的两名证人（同病房病友与佳木斯的接诊医生）取证，民警未确认已取证、称调查主要以医院为对象，并告知当天下午出具书面决定——当日公安即作出终止调查决定。2026 年 5 月 25 日双鸭山市检察院工作人员在通话中向她说明，立案监督在基层只能进行一次、她可自行委托司法鉴定，并个人表示「这个人民医院现在我知道的医疗事故就有很多」。2026 年 6 月 12 日尖山区检察院工作人员在通话中称，其系统内没有查到她的案件。2026 年 2 月 27 日，尖山分局警务督察人员曾来电向她确认案件已经受理。另，2025 年 12 月 15 日她向纪检监察渠道电话举报医院管理问题时，被告知该事项不属其受理范围、应向卫生健康部门反映或走司法程序。

还差的从来不是她的材料，而是有关方面的程序与回应：其一，伤情等级至今没有结论，不是因为她拿不出东西，而是公安受理之后没有委托鉴定、就以「没有违法事实」终止了调查——鉴定书她因此不可能有；检察院工作人员让她「自行委托」，可按她这次的说明，人体损伤程度鉴定关系轻重伤与判刑、只有公检法有权委托，个人根本委托不了，那道门从一开始就不向她开。她说，自己当初积极推进刑事程序，一大半原因正在这里——公检法有权委托本案所有相关的鉴定；另一半原因，是证人证言不及时提取就会被忘记。可她把刑事程序推到底，鉴定没有人委托，证人也没有人去问。她问：拒绝提取证人证言导致的证据灭失，和消灭证据有什么区别？本站把这个问题原样记在这里，等有关方面回答。其二，治疗到底有没有延误、与病情加重有没有因果——她这次更正本站原来的说法：这要通过民事司法鉴定，即医疗损害司法鉴定来确定；公检法有权委托，卫生部门也有权委托，这是民事程序，司法鉴定机构给出的委托条件并不苛刻。这正是接报警回执里民警指给她的那条路的实质——能启动的机关不止一家；可按她的陈述，她一路走过去，各处互相推诿，至今没有一家真正为她启动。其三，医院、公安、检察机关除已出具的几份文书外，从未公开回应过她的任何一项具体指控。本站会继续跟进，也欢迎有关方面作出回应。四份官方文书原件已刊于本页「关键证据」区（受案回执的查询密码与办案民警电话已遮蔽）；她提交的书面材料与病历关键页，遮蔽身份证号、住址与电话后，附于本页末尾的「证据下载」区，供读者下载核对。

编后记：这份记录里的每一样东西，都是王小童自己一样一样攒下来的——四次住院的病历、近九十段通话录音、一摞文书。她把它们交到本站，是希望自己的遭遇能被完整地留下来、被更多人看见。本页的文书原件与核对结果将长期保存；她有新的进展，本站随时补记。愿意提供帮助的律师、媒体与读者，可通过本站投稿邮箱与我们联系；被提及的有关方面如有回应，本站全文刊出。

The contributor: Wang Xiaotong (English name Claire), of Shuangyashan, Heilongjiang. She wrote to this site's submissions inbox on October 26, 2026, and twice more in the early hours of October 27 with the full chronology and a list of materials; she then downloaded and handed over her complete evidence package - copies of four hospital case files, about 90 call recordings, and all of her documents and applications. Under this site's submissions policy, submitting means consenting to publication after checking; she may ask for changes or removal at any time. On October 28 she wrote again - a case this old, told from memory, is bound to have slips, she said - correcting and sharpening three points in the record; this site has revised the text to match, as noted in the verification note below. [1]

The hospital course: On the afternoon of November 24, 2025, Wang reached Shuangyashan People's Hospital's emergency department with an obstruction attack and was admitted to General Surgery Ward 2 at 16:41, her blood pressure just 85/64. In her latest letter she corrects one detail from admission: her actual intestinal-obstruction pain lasted one day; the three days before that were menstrual pain together with menstrual gastrointestinal upset, a different kind and intensity of pain - obstruction pain lasting five days, she says, would have been more than she could bear. She has lived with tuberculous peritonitis for over a decade and suffers recurrent obstruction: in December 2024 and July 2025 she was twice admitted to the same hospital's Ward 1 and both times recovered with conservative treatment including gastrointestinal decompression; those case files are in the package. She expected the same treatment this time. This time everything went differently. In the early hours of November 25 she phoned the hospital for help in unbearable pain - the recording is in the package. On November 25, after her family bought a gastric tube, the hospital placed it, but the tube never worked; she asked again and again for it to be adjusted and was ignored. That morning, a covering doctor, Dr Xu, had already recorded in her notes that she showed partial peritoneal irritation signs - intestinal fluid leaking out and irritating the peritoneum is what produces those signs, and they confirm that her night of unbearable pain was real. From noon that day she developed chills, trembling, blurred vision and a racing heart, and her temperature fell to 35 degrees; some of these symptoms were recorded in her notes by Dr Xu Zhe, while the 35-degree temperature was recorded by no one. That evening her family took her to Jiamusi, where Director Xia asked about the tube himself and dealt with it - decompression finally began to take effect, more than 24 hours after admission. An insurance-settlement problem forced a return to Shuangyashan that night; by November 26 her abdominal tenderness, rigidity and rebound pain were unmistakable, and she says her attending told her after examining her: 'Worse than yesterday - the root problem hasn't been solved.' At 11:10 that day she was admitted to Jiamusi University's First Affiliated Hospital, whose admission examination records 'abdominal rigidity, left abdominal tenderness and rebound tenderness positive'; a tube was placed endoscopically the same day and she stayed eight days. Her charge: the hospital, knowing her condition and its own limits, admitted her, left her untreated and did not transfer her in time - nearly 40 hours of delay that dragged her into peritonitis and the edge of shock. And in both hospitals' diagnosis columns, from first to last, stand only the words 'intestinal obstruction'. [1]

On 'second-degree serious injury': From her case files and the national Standard for Assessing the Degree of Bodily Injury, Wang concludes that diffuse peritonitis is exactly what second-degree serious injury covers; she set this out in her discipline-inspection complaint and published it on Weibo. In law, such a determination is supposed to be stamped by a forensic appraisal - and the door to that procedure was shut from the start: the police never commissioned one after accepting her case, and the procuratorate told her by phone to 'commission one herself' - though, as she now spells out, an appraisal of the degree of bodily injury can be commissioned only by the police, the procuratorate or a court; an individual cannot commission one at all. There is no appraisal report today not because her injuries are not grave enough, but because no authority with the power to start the procedure would start it for her. This site lays out her case files, her argument and the recordings in full: how badly she was hurt, the materials speak for themselves; the missing procedure is what the authorities owe her. [1]

The police reports: Wang reported four times - January 23, January 29, February 6 and February 26, 2026 - and two of those reports left paper originals from the station. At 09:02 on January 26 she phoned in that delayed treatment had caused diffuse peritonitis and a series of serious symptoms and demanded a criminal case; Wohongqiao station issued a report receipt recording her questions about the treatment plan ('gastrointestinal decompression', 'paraffin oil by tube') and advising that medical questions could go to the health commission or medical association for expert review, and complaints about individual doctors to discipline-inspection bodies. On February 26, her case 'Wang Xiaotong, intentional injury' was formally accepted (registration no. [2026] 45; case no. A2305025200002026020014; the query password and the officer's mobile on the receipt are not published by this site). What followed acceptance was not investigation but delay: the two witnesses she named - a fellow patient in the Jiamusi ward and Dr Xia who received her - were never approached; the injury appraisal she requested was never commissioned. On March 23, 2026, Wohongqiao station issued its Decision Terminating the Investigation ([2026] No. 77), closing the case because it 'presented circumstances of no unlawful facts'. That same morning she was still asking Officer Zhai by phone whether the witnesses had been approached (see the recordings check below). After the closure she queried her case on the Heilongjiang police public-enforcement portal with her password: her screen recordings of March 31 and April 4 show the case information could no longer be retrieved - on April 4 the page answered 'please fill in the parameters' and cleared the fields. She believes her case was deleted from the platform; why it cannot be found, the police have never told her. [1][3]

Supervision, inspectorate, discipline channels: After the closure, Wang applied to the procuratorate for case-filing supervision. On May 22, 2026, the Jianshan District Procuratorate issued its notice ([2026] No. 4): the Jianshan police had explained their reasons, and under Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Law the refusal to open a case was 'in accordance with the law'. Not one word answers the request at the heart of everything she had filed - appraise her injuries first, then talk about a case. She asked about an appraisal; the answer went around it. She kept calling: on May 25 a Shuangyashan municipal procuratorate staff member explained that supervision 'can only run once' at the grassroots level, and added, 'this People's Hospital - the medical accidents there that I know of are many; I do sympathise'; on June 12 a Jianshan procuratorate staff member told her her case could not be found in their system. On the police-inspectorate side, an officer surnamed Fu of the Jianshan inspectorate called her on February 27 to confirm acceptance (the recording is in the package), and her call log shows repeated calls between February 27 and March 30. The discipline channel: on December 15, 2025 she phoned to report the hospital's management and was told it was outside the remit - go to the health authorities or the courts; she also filed a written complaint with the Shuangyashan discipline commission against the city petition bureau and health commission for passing her case around; the complaint is in the package. She continues to tell the story on X. [1][2][3]

Verification note (updated October 28, 2026): This site has obtained the contributor's complete evidence package: more than ten documents and applications, copies of four hospital case files (three from Shuangyashan, one from Jiamusi), about 90 call recordings and the portal-query screen recordings. Every item has been checked: the four official documents read word by word, the key pages of all four case files read through, the recordings at the key points listened to one by one, and the results are written into the report above. On October 28 the contributor wrote again to correct three points - a case this old, told from memory, is bound to have slips, she said: the true length and nature of her abdominal pain; the fact that the gastric tube, once placed, never worked, and the exact timing of her symptoms; and the distinction between the two kinds of judicial appraisal. This site has revised the summary and the text accordingly; where her correction applies, it governs.

Medical records check: This site obtained copies of her hospital case files and read them page by page. Shuangyashan People's Hospital's front sheet and admission note record that she was admitted via emergency to General Surgery Ward 2 at 16:41 on November 24, 2025, with five days of nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain; admission blood pressure was 85/64 mmHg, with no fever or chills. (On the 'five days', the contributor has written to correct it: her actual obstruction pain lasted one day, and the three days before were menstrual pain and menstrual gastrointestinal upset, different in nature and intensity - this site keeps both the case file's wording and her correction here.) She was discharged at 07:50 on November 26, 2025; the front sheet records the discharge mode as 'left against medical advice', an actual stay of two days, a sole discharge diagnosis of 'intestinal obstruction' and no surgery. It should be said plainly: she did not leave to give up treatment - at 11:10 the same day she was admitted to Jiamusi University's hospital to continue emergency care. 'Against medical advice' is the hospital's bookkeeping label, turning a departure to save her own life into the patient's fault - one of the very things she is contesting. She had indeed been admitted to the same hospital twice before: December 25, 2024 to January 1, 2025, and July 13-18, 2025, both in General Surgery Ward 1 for intestinal obstruction, both discharged cured - matching her account of having twice been cured there with conservative treatment.

The Jiamusi records: The First Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University admitted her at 11:10 on November 26, 2025, for eight days, discharging her on December 4. Its admission examination records 'abdominal muscle rigidity, left abdominal tenderness and rebound tenderness positive' (peritoneal irritation signs); imaging suggested incomplete intestinal obstruction; an endoscopic tube was placed the same day; at discharge her bowel function was normal and her general condition good. Yet although the examination already showed clear peritoneal irritation - serious inflammation inside the abdomen - the discharge diagnosis still lists only 'intestinal obstruction', with peritonitis nowhere in it. Why, no one has ever explained to her. Jiamusi's discharge summary also quotes her Shuangyashan blood count (WBC 12.69 x 10^9/L) and a lower-abdominal CT showing pelvic fluid.

When did decompression actually work? The contributor has now described this stretch more precisely, and this site has rewritten this section to match her correction: on November 25, after her family bought a gastric tube, Shuangyashan People's Hospital placed it, but the tube remained ineffective; she asked repeatedly for it to be adjusted and was ignored. Only that evening in Jiamusi, when Director Xia asked about it himself and dealt with it, did decompression begin to take effect. Jiamusi's discharge summary, recounting the Shuangyashan course, states she was given 'fasting, gastrointestinal decompression and fluids, with two saline enemas, after which some stool passed and the pain eased' - that a tube was placed, the two accounts can now be reconciled; what they do not reconcile is whether the tube ever worked once placed, and why a patient begging for it to be adjusted was ignored. The order sheets and nursing records sit in the hospital's hands and have never been shown to her. If the tube was placed correctly and adjusted in time, the orders would carry the times. What decompression actually amounted to during the nearly 40 hours that ended with her showing peritoneal signs and chills should not have to be proven by the woman in the bed - Shuangyashan People's Hospital should answer with its own orders.

Recordings check: She provided about 90 call recordings; this site listened to those matching the key points. In a March 23, 2026 call with the handling officer (surname Zhai), she pressed whether police had taken statements from the two witnesses she had named - a fellow patient and the Jiamusi doctor who received her. The officer did not confirm any such statements, said the investigation centred on the hospital, and told her a written decision would issue that afternoon; the termination decision is dated that day. In a May 25, 2026 call, a Shuangyashan municipal procuratorate staff member explained that case-filing supervision can run only once at the grassroots level and that she could commission a forensic appraisal herself, adding personally that 'this People's Hospital - I know of many medical accidents there'. In a June 12, 2026 call, a Jianshan District procuratorate staff member said her case could not be found in their system. On February 27, 2026, a Jianshan police inspectorate officer had called to confirm her case was accepted. Separately, on December 15, 2025, when she phoned a discipline-inspection channel to report the hospital's management, she was told the matter was outside its remit and to go to the health authorities or the courts.

What is missing was never her evidence - it is procedure and answers from the authorities. First, there is still no injury grade, not because she lacks material, but because the police, having accepted her case, commissioned no appraisal and then closed it for 'no unlawful facts' - an appraisal report is something she therefore cannot possibly hold; the procuratorate's suggestion that she 'commission one herself' runs into what she spells out in her latest letter: an appraisal of the degree of bodily injury bears on the line between minor and serious injury and on sentencing, and only the police, the procuratorate and the courts may commission it - an individual cannot commission one at all, so that door was never open to her. She says she pushed the criminal process so hard in large part for exactly this reason - the public organs may commission every relevant appraisal in her case - and in part because witness statements not taken in time are forgotten. She pushed it to the end, and neither happened: no appraisal was commissioned, and no witness was ever approached. She asks: what is the difference between evidence lost because testimony was refused, and evidence destroyed? This site records her question as she put it, for the authorities to answer. Second, whether treatment was delayed, and whether delay worsened her condition - she corrects this site's earlier wording in her latest letter: that is determined through civil judicial appraisal, namely a medical-damage appraisal. The police, the procuratorate and the courts may commission it, and so may the health authorities; it is a civil procedure, and the conditions the judicial appraisal institutions set for accepting a commission are not onerous. That is the substance of the road the police receipt pointed her to, and more than one authority could have started it; by her account she walked it and was passed from office to office, and none ever did. Third, beyond the few documents already issued, the hospital, the police and the procuratorate have never publicly answered a single one of her specific allegations. This site will keep following the case and welcomes any response from the authorities named. The four official documents are published in the 'Key evidence' section on this page (the case-query password and the officer's mobile number on the acceptance receipt are redacted); her written submissions and the key pages of her case files, with ID numbers, addresses and phone numbers redacted, are attached in the 'Evidence downloads' section at the end of this page for readers to check.

Editor's note: Everything in this record was gathered piece by piece by Wang Xiaotong herself - four hospital case files, about ninety call recordings, and a stack of official documents. She placed them with this site so that what happened to her would be kept whole, and seen by more people. The documents and the checking results on this page will be kept permanently; any new development from her will be added. Lawyers, journalists and readers willing to help may write to our submissions inbox; any response from the authorities named will be published in full.