Yu's Autopsy Report Fake? Suspicious Video Exposed! Jin Ze's Death Mirrors Yu's!

It has been nine months since Yu Menglong's mysterious death, yet the authorities continue releasing videos that supposedly prove he drunkenly fell from a building. Recently, however, an internet user exposed what appears to be a carefully staged media narrative, and was Yu Menglong's original autopsy report fabricated. Then, on June 4, 2026, Jinzei 33 died. The location changed. The timeline didn't add up. The deceased's account remained logged in. This time, was the same playbook simply copied and pasted from the Yu Menglong case? Did the suspect hire actors to fabricate evidence? In the early stages of the Yu Menglong case, particularly in September and October 2025, many people visited the Sunshine Shandong apartment complex to test the strength of the apartment's window safety screen. Some repeatedly punched the metal mesh with enough force to scrape their knuckles until they bled. Yet the screen remained intact. One man posted a video analyzing how implausible it was that an adult could accidentally fall through the window. He argued that, given the height of the window and the position of the safety screen, a person would have to deliberately climb up and apply significant force to break through the protective mesh before being able to get outside. Videos like these were reportedly removed from social media almost immediately after being uploaded. Soon afterward, a video appeared that supposedly debunked those arguments. However, internet users later claimed to have uncovered something surprising. The video demonstrating that the window screen was easy to remove and tear apart, and therefore not as sturdy as people believed, appeared to be a carefully orchestrated production. The identity of the man featured in the video was allegedly revealed. He was identified as Zhai Zemo, born on June 17, 1987, in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province. He is an actor, screenwriter, and television host who graduated from the Beijing Film Academy. If that is true, was the entire video nothing more than a blatant attempt to protect those responsible and divert public attention? In contrast, videos of other people conducting similar tests consistently showed that the window screen was extremely sturdy and difficult to remove or tear by hand because it was made of reinforced steel mesh. After all, the purpose of such a safety screen is to prevent people from falling out of the window. If it were not strong enough to serve that function, what would be the point of installing it in the first place? Furthermore, a heavily intoxicated person would not be expected to have the patience, coordination, or awareness required to dismantle a window frame and remove the protective screen. The window opening itself was also positioned relatively high above the floor, making an accidental slip-and-fall scenario highly unlikely. To pass through the opening, the victim would have had to intentionally climb up and maneuver himself outside. Based on these observations, supporters of this view argue that Yu Menglong did not die as a result of accidentally falling from the building while drunk. Was the first autopsy report a forgery? On March 16th, a Threads user published a post questioning whether the autopsy report attributed to Yu Menglong and circulated in the early days of the case was actually authentic. The post stated, To help fans better understand the issue, I have compiled the key details regarding Meng Meng's autopsy report. This summary is primarily based on the two earliest versions of the report that circulated online, Figures 1 and 2. For comparison, I used the autopsy report of Wu Youyuan from 2012, although it was actually published online in 2007 as a reference document, Figures 3-8. In Meng Meng's report, Figures 9-10, the sections highlighted in red indicate content that differs from Wu Youyuan's report, while the original content from Wu Youyuan's report, Figures 11-12, is highlighted in green. One striking finding emerged from the comparison. Aside from personal information, examination location, examiners, height, hair length, and certain injuries, most other data, including organ weights, were completely identical. Furthermore, the references cited in Meng Meng's report included a document dated 1995, which is even one year earlier than the reference cited in Wu Youyuan's report, 1996. There is also another major issue. No institution called the East-West Medical University Forensic Identification Center appears to exist anywhere in Jiangxi province. If we assume that Wu Youyuan's report was used as a template, and that certain real data were later modified before being leaked online, then how reliable can Meng Meng's autopsy report be if it was subsequently edited from that very document? Was this done to evade censorship, or to make the case better fit the rumors already circulating online? I hope everyone reaches their own conclusions. Personally, I will not offer a final judgment here. Finally, I have attached a list of the mandatory items required in forensic autopsy reports in mainland China, along with a standard reference template, Figures 12-13. A different user later responded, My view is that no autopsy was conducted at all. I've been following this case since the 11th. I did see an autopsy report circulating online, but it was riddled with inconsistencies and made very little sense. From beginning to end, the information I kept hearing was the same. Cremate the body quickly and close the case as quickly as possible. I also heard that a police officer who conducted an autopsy on Yu Menglong was later silenced and eliminated. Another user reportedly asked ChatGPT about the similarities between the two forensic reports and received the following response, Such overlap is actually very common in professional documents. Forensic reports are highly standardized. In cases of the same type, the wording is often nearly identical. Forensic standards are normative documents, so it is completely normal for cited language to match word for word. The order and descriptions used in autopsy examinations also follow established procedures, meaning reports written by different forensic examiners can appear remarkably similar. Therefore, the presence of similar or duplicated passages alone cannot be considered evidence that a document is fraudulent, nor can it be used to prove official manipulation. As for me, even if there are legitimate questions about the authenticity of the forensic reports circulating online, that alone does not necessarily prove that Yu Menglong did not suffer mistreatment before his death. The truth of the case remains difficult to verify, particularly given the lack of transparency surrounding it. What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. Actor Jin Zhe's sudden death, another Yu Menglong? On June 6, China's entertainment industry was shaken by the news that short drama actor Jin Zhe had died at the age of 33. The news was first highlighted by actor Li Tingzhe, who had previously spoken out about the Yu Menglong case. Although Jin Zhe was not a household name, news of his death quickly topped trending searches across mainland China. Public debate has centered on one question, what caused his death? Overwork and exhaustion have been among the most widely discussed possibilities, yet his management company has urged the public not to speculate. Confusion also surrounds the details of his passing. Some reports say he died on June 4, while others claim it was June 5. The reported location has also changed. Initial media reports stated that he was found in his rented apartment in Hengdian, where uneaten takeout food and an unfinished script were reportedly left behind. Neighbors said they had not seen any signs of activity for days. However, his management company later announced that he had died at his home in Hangzhou. Why did the location change, and why has there still been no official statement from police or the family? So who was Jin Zhe, and why has his death sparked such a strong reaction in Hengdian's entertainment community? Born Zhang Jiawei in Weihai, Shandong province, Jin Zhe was a former model who stood 1.88 meters tall and had walked runways in Milan and other major fashion events. He built his career through hard work, rising to become the lead actor in dozens of successful short dramas within just a few years. But that success came at a cost. A look at his schedule over the past two years reveals an almost superhuman workload. In 2025 alone, five of his productions were released, not including the months spent filming them. In 2026, he continued working non-stop while awaiting the release of Waiting for the Flowers to Bloom, Waiting for You to Return, which had already attracted more than 1.48 million pre-registrations. In China's booming short drama industry, actors often work on two or three productions simultaneously. One day, they finish filming for one project. The next day, they're already on another set. Many actors say they barely remember which production they're working on. They only know where they're headed next. The reality in Hengdian is simple. If you slow down, you're replaced. China's short drama market has exploded in recent years, but competition has become brutally intense. Take a month off, and someone younger, cheaper, and hungrier may take your place. For Jin Zhe, saying, I'm tired was never really an option. Between acting and fashion work, he accepted every opportunity that came his way. But no matter how driven a person may be, there is always a limit to what the human body can endure. Before his death, Jin Zhe was working on Waiting for the Flowers to Bloom, Waiting for You to Return, a popular minute-long short drama. Productions like these often film as many as 80 episodes in just 15 days. For actors, 18-hour workdays have become routine. A Hengdian producer revealed that streaming platforms pay based on view counts, leaving production teams under pressure to speed up filming schedules. Artist contracts often include clauses guaranteeing availability, which in reality can mean working for months without a break. According to industry insiders, Jin Zhe spent the last three months of his life moving between four different productions. His management company acknowledged that he was indeed overworked, but stressed that he had never personally asked for time off. One casting director even claimed that investors now often ask whether an actor can work through consecutive nights before asking about their acting ability. Talent, he said, has become secondary. That is why many people believe there are still too many unanswered questions surrounding Jin Zhe's death. The first concerns the conflicting reports about when and where he died. Early reports, including coverage from Hongxing News and accounts from people familiar with the situation in Hengdian, stated that he died in his rented apartment in Hengdian on June 5th. Yet on June 6th, his management company, Shengxi Guangmian Culture, released a statement claiming that he had actually passed away at his home in Hengzhou on June 4th. Hengdian and Hengzhou are only about 150 kilometers apart. Was the change in location simply an attempt to provide a clearer explanation to fans? Was it a communication error? Or was there another reason behind it? If Jin Zhe died in his rented apartment in Hengdian, it would suggest a tragedy that occurred within the production system itself. A direct consequence of the industry's structural exploitation of performers. But once the location is changed to a private residence in Hengzhou, the narrative shifts entirely. It is no longer an occupational tragedy tied to working conditions, but a personal health incident. The difference between those two narratives carries enormous implications for legal liability, compensation claims, and the industry's public image. Another question remains. Why has there still been no official statement from the police? In its announcement, Shengxi Guangmian Culture stated that Jin Zhe's family would focus on handling his funeral arrangements, and that the specific cause of death would not be disclosed at this time. The company urged the public to respect the family's privacy, avoid believing or spreading rumors, and refrain from speculating about the cause of death. It also said it would continue assisting the family with related matters. Some industry insiders and online commentators have noted that similar crisis management strategies have appeared in the entertainment industry before. As a result, this case has drawn comparisons to previous controversies, particularly the death of Yu Mengguang. According to this view, when a tragedy occurs, management companies and producers move quickly to intervene, negotiate with the family, and offer compensation. Such compensation may include funeral expenses and condolence payments, but critics speculate that it can sometimes be accompanied by an unwritten condition, a confidentiality agreement. If Jin Zhe's death were officially attributed to overwork, it could force a major reassessment of filming practices in Hengdian, as well as the contract terms widely used throughout the industry. For that reason, some have questioned whether the conflicting information surrounding the case has diverted public attention away from the industry's deeper problems. What many found even more unsettling was that after Jin Zhe's death, his Weibo account reportedly continued to show login activity. Netizens quickly recalled that similar claims had surfaced in the Yu Mengguang case. If someone has already passed away, why does their account continue to show signs of activity? Some online commentators have speculated that a professional public relations team may be operating behind the scenes to influence online discourse. However, these claims remain unverified. So what do you think was the real cause of Jin Zhe's death? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Thanks for watching, and see you next time.