On August 4, the case of Yao Qingwei, father of Yao Jiaxin, suing Zhang Xian, the proxy of the victim's family and associate professor at Xi'an University of Electronic Science and Technology, for "infringement of reputation" was officially filed, with evidence exchange scheduled for September 13.
Some say that Yao Jiaxin’s family wants to overturn the verdict, while others lament that public opinion has hijacked the judiciary.
On August 25, 2011, in Yao Jiaxin’s home in Xi'an, Shaanxi, Yao Qingwei told a reporter from China Youth Daily that the Yao family is an ordinary household. He doesn’t know why the first-instance court would have issued a questionnaire, nor does he understand how the media could obtain videos of Yao Jiaxin singing in detention without his parents' knowledge. However, he stated that he doesn't want to overturn the verdict but rather live peacefully, hoping that the "Yao Jiaxin case" will not happen again. He also emphasized that initiating public opinion should not be seen as a form of rights protection.
"I am ultimately poor or rich? Many people have asked me this. I told them: I come from an average family."
China Youth Daily: Before and after the trial of the Yao Jiaxin case, there were rumors suggesting that the Yao family was wealthy and had special background. In early August, CCTV journalist Chai Jing mentioned in her program that your monthly income in 2003 was more than 2100 yuan. But on August 24, Zhang Xian questioned on Weibo: "On December 15, 2010, your neighbor and colleague Zhang Dingliang told 'Today's Law' that: 'The main source of family income still depends on Yao Qingwei. In 2006, before retiring, he managed to secure the benefits of a deputy division-level position, receiving nearly 300,000 yuan at once, along with nearly 6000 yuan monthly pension.' Both are from CCTV; originally they spoke about the current situation, but now Chai Jing talks about the past. Why such a big difference?"
Yao Qingwei: They interviewed Zhang Dingliang, but Zhang Dingliang doesn’t even know me. We worked together back in the eighties, then he retired due to illness and went to the military retirement home, while I chose a different career path. His statement that 'I retired in 2006' is incorrect. I transferred careers in March 2003, and I can show you my 'Transfer Certificate'. There’s nothing hidden here; the year of transfer is the year of the actual transition.
Zhang Dingliang’s claim that 'one could receive 300,000 yuan upon transferring in 2006' is correct. If I had transferred in 2006, I would have received 300,000 yuan, but I didn't. Back then, salaries weren’t high, and the one-time payment was based on the monthly salary multiplied by the number of years served. I received slightly less than 200,000 yuan at once, so his claim of 300,000 yuan is inaccurate.
Regarding the salary upon transfer, it was indeed around 2100 yuan per month, clearly stated on official documents, and there’s no reason to hide it.
China Youth Daily: On August 8, your lawyer Lan He mentioned on Weibo that your family currently relies solely on your wife’s monthly pension of more than 900 yuan for living expenses. In Chai Jing's program, it was only mentioned that in 2003, you earned over 2100 yuan per month. This led Zhang Xian and many netizens to question whether these statements were intentionally portraying you as poor.
Yao Qingwei: What Lan He said is completely wrong. It’s not ‘mainly relying on my wife’. My wife's pension is indeed that much, but I also have a transfer pension.
Currently, my salary, after annual increments and recent military pay raises, reaches over 5000 yuan per month. Adding my wife’s 900 yuan pension, that's all we have, and I’ve already informed CCTV of this. After transferring, the increments in 2004 and 2005 were clearly recorded on official documents. Later, due to irregular pay raises between 2006 and 2010, it wasn’t recorded anymore, but there are archives available. If necessary, you can check them at my original unit.
Am I ultimately poor or rich? Many people have asked me this. I've told them: I’m just an average family. It’s not like we’re so poor that we need government assistance, nor do we have substantial savings.
For any doubts, I can only prove with what the state has given me. No matter what I say now, he (referring to Zhang Xian - note by the reporter) will always doubt it. Ideally, this shouldn't affect the case. If necessary, I can provide proof using my official documents.
During the first trial, the Xi’an Intermediate People's Court had already instructed my lawyer to get a detailed explanation from my former employer regarding my previous positions and status — including my wife’s position and status before retirement. Although this information is irrelevant to the case, since the court required it, I returned to my original employer and submitted the materials through my lawyer to the first-instance court. I don’t know if these materials were shown to Zhang Xian, but I believe these documents aren’t something the court keeps out of curiosity.
China Youth Daily: In Zhang Xian's Weibo posts, he also questioned whether you own four properties.
Yao Qingwei: Our family only owns this one house, where we've been living. For this house, I paid part of the cost to the unit, which counts as me buying it, but I haven't yet received the property certificate, and I'm unsure how to confirm ownership.
Regarding the 'four properties', during my meeting with Zhang Xian, I clarified this point. At that time, he told me that he has relatives in the real estate bureau, and someone from the defense department was present (to verify). I said, 'That's great. Go check if I own any other properties, and you can expose it on Weibo. Just say which neighborhood, which building, and which number belongs to me.' So far, there’s been no result.
'About the questionnaire, I couldn't possibly have known beforehand. If necessary, this lawsuit can invite the intermediate court (Xi’an Intermediate People's Court - note by the reporter) to clarify who sought my opinion and who informed me. If the court had consulted me initially, I would have hoped this case would be handled like any other.'
China Youth Daily: The trial process of the 'Yao Jiaxin case' attracted a lot of attention, including some unconventional aspects, such as the Xi’an Intermediate People's Court issuing a questionnaire on sentencing opinions during the trial. Some speculate whether this was arranged by you.
Yao Qingwei: I came from a rural area. After transferring in 2003, I lost all connections with the government and military. I worked sporadically. If I had arranged it, where would my power come from?
Regarding the questionnaire, I couldn't have known beforehand. If necessary, this lawsuit can invite the intermediate court to clarify who sought my opinion and who informed me. How could I have made them issue the questionnaire if they wanted to? If the court had consulted me initially, I would have hoped this case would be treated like any other, judged according to legal clauses.
China Youth Daily: Why did you go to the Xi’an Intermediate People's Court to raise questions?
Yao Qingwei: Going there to question wouldn't have helped. I've always trusted them. Whatever they do is their business. Questioning why they reviewed the case wouldn't make sense because I couldn't find any legal basis against reviewing it.
China Youth Daily: Did you see the content of the questionnaire later? Did any students bring it out?
Yao Qingwei: I didn’t see it, and I didn’t attend the trial. Students bringing it out probably wouldn’t happen, and I assume the court would collect it.
Another public concern is that the first-instance court gave 25 audience passes to the Zhang family but 400 to university students, which seems unbalanced.
Yao Qingwei: Whether it’s balanced or not, only the court can answer. I don’t know what they were doing. The court’s arrangements wouldn’t seek my opinion. With my status, how could I control the court and government?
In a Weibo post on April 4, Zhang Xian said, 'Later, I learned from the publicity department of the provincial education commission that the four universities participating in the hearing were: Tibet Nationalities College, Shaanxi University of Science and Technology, Northwest University of Political Science and Law, and the Conservatory of Music. I said, wasn’t it just the Conservatory of Music that was arranged? A staff member told me: The Conservatory of Music accepted the opinion of Yao Jiaxin’s parents, thinking it was inappropriate to arrange only the Conservatory of Music.'
I copied these words down; you can look at them. Who is the 'staff member' who told him that the Conservatory of Music accepted our opinion? Please identify this 'staff member' and let them explain. During the lawsuit against Zhang Xian, I will question this issue. If I had that much influence, why would the first and second trials sentence my son to death? If I had that kind of power, how could this be the result?
Professor Li Meijin mentioned the 'piano murder theory' on TV, raising suspicions about whether Yao Jiaxin’s family hired a 'spokesperson'.
Yao Qingwei: Li Meijin's comments are even stranger. If Zhang Xian questions my actions, then some remarks by Professor Kong Qingdong also seem unacceptable to me. Does that mean Zhang Xian found someone? You can't say that.
The Yao Jiaxin case has been hyped up by the media. Who gets to comment, I can't stop, and neither can you. Professors like Li Meijin and Kong Qingdong commenting on this case isn't something I can control. There are too many well-known people discussing this case from various perspectives with differing opinions, and I didn't selectively choose who should comment. I don't have that much influence. You can interview Li Meijin and ask if she knows who I am.
Public opinion varies widely, and many opinions contradict each other. You can't say that whatever benefits you is 'public sentiment,' and anything favoring me means 'I hired someone.' That doesn't make sense.
If I had money and power to go to Beijing and find experts to comment, I would first compensate Zhang Miao's family and try to gain their forgiveness.
China Youth Daily: The public also questions how the video of Yao Jiaxin singing 'Legend' in custody got out. Is it normal for a suspect's video to leak from a detention center?
Yao Qingwei: Frankly, I question this more. Even earlier than this video, I remember it was after November 28 last year when the first video came out, the one where Yao Jiaxin said 'Rural people are very difficult to deal with.' I saw it, but at that time, it was still in the investigation stage, everything was confidential, even my lawyer couldn't meet Yao Jiaxin alone. There had to be two police officers present, and they could only ask basic questions like 'Are you okay?' or 'Do you need anything?' So how did that video get out? How could the media interview Yao Jiaxin during the investigation stage? Who approved it? I still don't understand.
'What Yao Jiaxin did, he must bear responsibility, but I don't wish this incident to become a model for rights protection, nor do I wish other parents to experience what we've gone through.'
China Youth Daily: Looking back, how do you evaluate the court's verdict? Do you think it was fair?
Yao Qingwei: I won't comment on this. Until now, I still trust the government and the law. As long as the case is decided, I will follow the judgment, delivering my child to you because I trust you. As long as the legal clauses are satisfied, what he did, he must bear responsibility, and there's nothing to argue about.
Recently, some netizens asked me to comment on the Li Changkui case. I said I wouldn't comment on it. Regardless of who it is, I don't wish to use the Yao Jiaxin case as a benchmark to compare other cases. The government has specialized institutions and professional personnel with legal knowledge. Why should I compare them?
I studied quality inspection. If you ask me about quality inspection issues, I can offer some opinions. But I don't study law, so once the case is handed over to the judicial authorities, it's up to them to judge according to the law.
China Youth Daily: Some say that the predictive comments posted and forwarded by Zhang Xian influenced the verdict in the Yao Jiaxin case. What do you think?
Yao Qingwei: Without professional knowledge, I can't judge. But at least, some things Zhang Xian reposted and spread caused harm to me and my wife. I really feel besieged both inside and outside, abandoned by everyone, and unable to defend myself. Saying things like 'manipulating power' or 'corruption in the military' requires evidence. Beyond showing my national credentials, I have no other way. If this isn't believed, I don't know what else to do.
China Youth Daily: What prompted you to stand up and sue Zhang Xian now? What outcome do you hope to achieve through this lawsuit?
Yao Qingwei: On one hand, I hope this lawsuit can restore normal life for me and my wife. He (referring to Zhang Xian) accused me online of 'interfering with justice' and 'corruption.' Those who truly know me understand these accusations are baseless, but how many people fully understand my work? Now, when I go out, some acquaintances look at me strangely, and others don't trust me. I can't explain to everyone. So I hope to cut off the source and stop spreading things that don't align with reality.
On the other hand, honestly, whether this lawsuit wins or loses, it doesn't matter much to me. I don't wish for similar incidents to happen again or for this to become a model for rights protection. Everyone shouldn't mimic this approach, stirring up public opinion to achieve personal goals.
Different opinions on an event should be allowed. If 100% of the voices are the same, that's abnormal. If this lawsuit can make everyone reflect on something, that's enough.
Also, I don't wish for other parents to experience what we've gone through. Last year at this time, we were just an ordinary family with a child in school, leading a very normal and comfortable life. But now, I never imagined I would become the family of a criminal, subjected to human flesh searches, feeling like 'punishing nine clans.'
Which family would want their child to commit crimes or illegal acts? After the incident, if the family is related to the case, no one can shirk responsibility, but there's no need to label all the relatives of the child.
For example, Yao Jiaxin's grandfather is almost 80 years old. During that time, he was also targeted by human flesh searches, unable to lead a normal life. He shouldn't have to bear this.
China Youth Daily: Since you pointed out many examples of Zhang Xian reposting and spreading false statements before and after the trial, why did you wait until now to clarify? Why didn't you respond promptly during the first and second trials?
Yao Qingwei: I admit that the pressure of public opinion was too great at the time, and another reason was that I always hoped to create a good atmosphere for reconciliation. After all, my child made a mistake first. If I had spoken up at that time, it would seem like I was arguing for something, neglecting Yao Jiaxin, and focusing only on myself. I couldn't do that.
China Youth Daily: There's also a voice saying that your lawsuit against Zhang Xian for infringing on your reputation is aimed at overturning the verdict. Some netizens even outlined a 'roadmap for overturning the verdict': 'Step one: hire a spokesperson to consolidate internet trolls and some media figures, focus firepower on attacking Zhang Xian, and seize discourse power. Step two: accuse Zhang Xian of spreading false statements and inciting public opinion to interfere with justice. If successful, it would be equivalent to the court admitting that the Yao Jiaxin case was a public opinion trial; then have a 'grave' expert take the opportunity to criticize Chinese justice for being swayed by public opinion, pointing out procedural injustice or illegality in the Yao Jiaxin case.' How do you respond to this statement?
Yao Qingwei: I've already stated that I respect the law. The case has already been settled, and I accept the verdict. Now, saying that I want to 'overturn the verdict,' what's the point? Even if overturned, could Yao Jiaxin come back to life?
'I admit, judicial corruption exists in our country. But according to Zhang Xian's logic, must legal cases be handled in the 'Yao Jiaxin case' mode to be considered fair? If most other cases aren't in the 'Yao Jiaxin case' mode, are they necessarily unfair? You can't say that.'
China Youth Daily: Returning to the 'Yao Jiaxin case,' Zhang Xian claimed in his Weibo posts that your stance changed frequently: Initially adopting a firm and hardline position of 'no meetings, no apologies, waiting for the court,' not appearing in the first or second trials, and only meeting Wang Hui, Zhang Miao's family member, for the first time during the Supreme People's Court review phase to request forgiveness. Is that true?
Yao Qingwei: Not true. The statement 'no meetings, no apologies, waiting for the court' was never said by me; it was probably summarized by Zhang Xian.
From the time Yao Jiaxin turned himself in until before the first trial, I was constantly seeking apologies from Zhang Miao's family and arranging contact through my lawyer, hoping to compensate them and reach a settlement. Initially, they asked for 1 million yuan, which later decreased. Life is priceless, and I can't say that 1 million is too much. I can't determine how much money is appropriate. I can only inform Zhang Miao's family of my financial situation through my lawyer, explaining how much I can gather and my actual capabilities. Acceptance or refusal, forgiveness or not, is entirely up to the family. I have no right to force them to forgive me, nor would I do that.
During mediation before the first trial, under the arrangement of the court (Xi’an Intermediate People's Court - note by the reporter), my lawyer met with Zhang Miao's family—her husband Wang Hui and father Zhang Pingxuan. At that time, Wang Hui verbally agreed to the condition of 'compensating 300,000 yuan plus a car.' Later, Wang Hui called Zhang Xian, and after the call, he rejected it, causing the agreement to fail. Before the first trial, I several times brought 300,000 yuan in cash to the intermediate court, hoping to compensate Zhang Miao's family, but at that time, public opinion felt that 'whoever mediates is corrupt,' so no one dared to mediate.
During the death penalty review, I also submitted a mediation application. Later, Zhang Xian announced that he would not accept mediation, so the Supreme Court stopped working on it.
On June 4, Zhang Xian posted on Weibo: 'This case involves Yao Jiaxin committing a crime and killing someone. If his parents apologize, does it relate to the Yao Jiaxin case itself? Can it reduce Yao Jiaxin's sins? There's no relation, so everyone should ignore it. Some people want to stir up trouble and divert everyone's attention to Yao Jiaxin's parents. Everyone should be vigilant and not fall for it; unrelated matters should be ignored.'
After reading this, I was confused. Does Zhang Xian want us to apologize or not? I feel like no matter what we do, it's wrong.
China Youth Daily: Regarding your lawsuit, Zhang Xian responded that due to time constraints, he didn't have time to verify some of the predictive comments he reposted. How do you evaluate Zhang Xian's response?
Yao Qingwei: For discussions on cases, you can present facts and list legal provisions; but labeling me as 'interfering with justice' or 'a military parasite' requires at least one or two pieces of evidence. Labeling without evidence exceeds the bounds of freedom of speech.
Even if reposting, I think one should not act irresponsibly. Reposting favorable opinions and ignoring unfavorable ones is a form of incomplete information guidance. After starting my Weibo account, there were some voices online criticizing Zhang Xian. It's not that I can't find such material, but I have a principle: I haven't reposted a single criticism against him.
Moreover, it's not that personalized opinions about individuals cannot be reposted, but if they're not verified personally, at least the source should be clearly indicated. Some of the information Zhang Xian reposted and spread had vague sources, like 'staff members said' or 'according to media reports,' which are elusive.
China Youth Daily: When interviewing Zhang Xian, we asked him to respond to the criticism that he only focuses on substantive justice while completely ignoring procedural justice. Zhang Xian argued that procedural justice doesn't fit the national conditions for grassroots people, as they worry about lacking strength and having no voice. Initiating public opinion supervision was his only option at the time. How do you evaluate this argument?
Yao Qingwei: He worried that I interfered with justice, but throughout, apart from coming out to apologize, I never spoke to any judicial authority. If Zhang Xian thinks otherwise, please provide evidence.
Zhang Xian claims to be grassroots, and my influence is greater than his. But in reality, after transferring careers, I had no fixed job, no connection to the