It has been said that Kaikai’s injuries were at their worst in December, when no one else was in contact with him.
The exchange shown is drawn from a LINE conversation recorded in the judgment, after social worker Chen Shangjie learned in December that Kaikai had lost a fourth tooth.
JUDGMENT-RECORDED LINE EXCHANGE
What did the conversation track during those 17 days?
Read the judgment-recorded exchange chronologically: from the fourth lost tooth, through repeated requests for the dental receipt, to the December 24 emergency notification.
These images visually organize exchanges recorded in the judgment for chronological reading. Formal findings of fact and responsibility remain governed by the judgment and court record.
TESTIMONY-BASED RECONSTRUCTION
What may have happened during those seventeen days?
This is not a dramatized day-by-day account. It connects court findings, dated communications, firsthand observations, and expert opinions. “May” marks a supported direction—not proof of a particular act, date, or actor.
A fourth tooth was reported lost; severe malnutrition was already visible
Confirmed: Liu Caixuan reported the fourth lost tooth on December 7. Dr. Lu Li said the December 8 image already showed malnutrition, a smaller face, and marked wasting.
Supported inference: The tooth loss should have been assessed together with the earlier three teeth, weight loss, and accumulated injuries—not as an isolated symptom.
Dr. Lu Li: The December 8 image showed a diaper-clad child staring away and markedly wasted. He described this as chronic malnutrition developing over months, not in a single day.
No outside professional directly saw the child; the exchange turned to paperwork
Confirmed: The dentist had recommended medical-center assessment on November 23. From December 12 to 15, messages repeatedly sought the dental receipt and its photo. The published record does not show a completed accompanied visit, direct clinic verification, or a renewed in-person visit during this period.
Limit: The silence of a LINE exchange cannot establish what happened on each individual day.
Dentist Tsai Han-yu: Her November 23 contact lasted about fifteen minutes and she did not know the child’s full care background. Three lost primary teeth did not fit simple grinding, so she recommended medical-center assessment.
A receipt photo arrived—not a real-time safety check
Confirmed: The receipt photo arrived December 19. Dentist Tsai Han-yu testified that grinding did not adequately explain three primary teeth falling out and that she had recommended further examination.
Unresolved: Public material does not establish whether the referral occurred or what it found. Nor does it prove that the receipt was for a particular funding claim by Liu Caixuan.
Cross-check: Tsai and emergency physician Huang both rejected grinding as an adequate explanation. Dr. Lu later described three fractured lower incisors and one tooth lost with its root on postmortem imaging.
The direct-observation gap remained open
Lin Xinci: A planned December visit did not occur after the caregiver said someone in the household had COVID; the child died before she returned. Lin had no complete health file, received much of her information through the caregiver, and had no direct channel to the CWLF social worker.
Unresolved: The public record cannot assign specific events to December 20, 21, or 22.
Low activity after noon; the court found the offense period continued until about 10 p.m.
Defendant’s answer: Asked whether she had told counsel the child showed low activity after noon, Liu Caixuan answered yes. This is an admission that she made the statement, not continuous medical monitoring.
Court finding: The trial-court release places the joint offense period through about 10 p.m. on December 23. That is the endpoint of a period, not a finding that one specific act occurred at exactly 10.
The timeline abruptly changed from receipt follow-up to resuscitation and death
Dr. Huang Shengxin: Kaikai arrived without breathing or heartbeat, with a 24°C body temperature, visible wasting, and multiple abnormal injuries; the mouth did not support the caregiver’s milk-regurgitation account. Huang also explained that the emergency department did not make the final cause-of-death determination at that moment.
Court finding: The court connected death to prolonged malnutrition, physical weakness, at least 42 abusive injuries, and hypovolemic shock—not a single feeding accident.
Unresolved: The final meal, last injury, onset of cardiac arrest, and each person’s actions during the final hours cannot be filled in from the public record.
What can be reconstructed is a risk trajectory, not a daily script: the fourth lost tooth and chronic wasting were visible; referral and safety verification never formed a closed loop; direct outside contact ceased; court-established harm continued; and the emergency department finally saw the child’s last physical condition.
Keep each witness within the window they can prove
Cross-reading fills out the risk trajectory; it does not turn any one witness into a witness to the whole scene.
Lu Li | child-protection medicine
Can establish: Photos, records, imaging, and multidisciplinary review supported chronic malnutrition, dental injury, and at least 42 confirmed injuries.
Cannot establish: The precise date or actor for every injury.Key testimony
Visible injuries
“The child had at least 42 confirmed injuries. Some would no longer be visible after healing; what is shown is only what remained visible at death.”
2025/04/29 · DAY5 record-08｜Number and visible scope of injuries
The limits of the grinding account
“I have never heard of tooth grinding causing teeth to fall out. That is inconsistent with medical evidence.”
2025/04/29 · DAY5 record-08｜Mechanism of the dental injuries
Imaging of broken teeth and roots
依死後電腦斷層（PMCT），A童下排門牙有三顆斷裂（編號：71、72、81）、一顆門牙脫落（編號82），為完全不見，連牙根都不見。
另三顆是牙齦有斷痕，斷一半，不是死前馬上的，牙齦還長上去。
呂立｜PMCT牙齒判讀（DAY5，record-08）Growth and chronic malnutrition
A的生長曲線身高、體重有掉下來到不同區間，原在50-85%區間但掉下來，體重會先掉，再掉身高。
營養不良時，營養會先留給頭腦，其為慢性營養不良。
呂立｜12月8日照片與慢性營養不良（DAY5，record-08）Tsai Han-yu | pediatric dentist
Can establish: A brief November 23 visit; three lost primary teeth did not fit grinding, and medical-center assessment was recommended.
Cannot establish: The full care background; one visit cannot replace longitudinal case review.Key testimony
A caregiver’s account is not a diagnosis
“Medical diagnosis requires evidence. Tooth grinding was caregiver Liu Caixuan’s chief complaint; it was not my diagnosis.”
2026/01/22 · 蔡函妤｜Reported complaint versus medical diagnosis
One visit versus long-term follow-up
【檢察官】你當時知道劉童是來自脆弱家庭，受媒介出養，並且從9月就開始被劉彩萱已經照顧3個月了，而且是全日收托，與原生家庭脫離、9/25額頭有大片瘀青、10/23精神不佳，且社工要訪視時保母用停電、家中小孩生病等理由推托訪視。如果你知道上述狀況，你會懷疑這是兒虐？你會通報嗎？
【證人-蔡函妤】我覺得牙醫師跟社工的職責範圍與取得資訊量不同。我只有單次約15至30分鐘的醫療接觸，看不到生活環境，也不能把衣服掀開做全身檢查；社工負責長期個案管理與訪視，接觸面向、時間及資訊量無法直接類比。
蔡函妤｜2026/01/22 · 073–074Referral and diagnostic uncertainty
【辯護人】您為何建議去做全身檢查？
【證人】孩童若不到換牙年齡就有牙齒脫落，一次脫落3顆，我懷疑可能有全身性問題。在牙醫診所內沒有辦法做血液檢查，所以推薦到醫學中心去檢查。
【證人】掉牙不太可能是磨牙造成的，但是因為劉童他來時，口內的傷口已經癒合，我沒看到受傷的狀況，所以無法確認掉牙的原因。
蔡函妤｜轉診理由（2026/01/22，034–037）Changing accounts and missing information
【檢察官】當天劉彩萱帶劉童就診的主訴是什麼？
【證人】她掛號時說劉童磨牙造成牙齒脫落。我們說這不太可能，她後續說小朋友會時常跌倒、撞牆自摔。
【檢察官】劉彩萱有說劉童一晚掉了3顆牙嗎？
【證人】沒有。
蔡函妤｜說詞轉換與資訊缺口（2026/01/22，053–056）Cooperation during the visit and later recollection
【受命法官】劉童當下看牙醫時，和一般小孩有何不同？
【證人-蔡函妤】他都在配合，一般小孩會哭鬧。
【受命法官】你的筆錄提到「異常安靜」，你還記得他看診的情形嗎？
【證人-蔡函妤】我是看到新聞，事後回想才覺得他異常安靜。看診當下我擔心他是全身性的問題。
【受命法官】看診過程從頭到尾，劉童有展現任何反抗的反應嗎？
【證人-蔡函妤】沒有。
蔡函妤｜2026/01/22 · 103–108Differences between the police account and recollection in court
【受命法官】本案發至今已經兩年多，你可能已經有些記憶模糊。你當時在筆錄裡說「有，我有看到頭部有傷、頭髮裡有瘀傷、皮膚還有皮膚病」。但是你今天說你沒有提及。依據經驗法則，當時的記憶應該比較清楚。所以，法官沒有要追究證人責任的意思，因為這部分與你先前筆錄不同卻又涉及重要事實，所以要和你確認。
【證人-蔡函妤】可能以當時警詢筆錄為準；時間已經過了比較久，我現在記不太清楚。
蔡函妤｜2026/01/22 · 113–114Lin Xinci | home-care visitor
Can establish: The December revisit did not occur. She lacked a complete health file, relied heavily on caregiver information, and had no direct link to CWLF’s social worker.
Cannot establish: What specifically happened on each day within the direct-observation gap.Key testimony
The missed December visit
“The caregiver said someone in the household had tested positive … when I was going to revisit, the child had already …”
2026/01/22 · 林心慈｜December revisit not completed; the observer note remains incomplete
Who supplied the health information?
“No. Everything came from the caregiver’s account.”
2026/01/22 · 林心慈｜Asked whether she held information about the child
Contact and health records
【檢察官】那你和兒福聯盟的陳社工有任何聯繫方式嗎？
【證人】沒有。
【檢察官】你們有任何劉童的健康狀況的資料嗎？
【證人】只有一個勾選表，由劉保母所填寫。
林心慈｜聯繫與健康資料（2026/01/22，117–120）Unshared photographs and indirect information
【受命法官】被告有傳訪視照片給你嗎？
【證人】沒有，案發前都沒有聯絡過。
【受命法官】你的資訊都是二手的嗎？由社工告訴保母，保母再告訴你？
【證人】是的。
林心慈｜照片未互通、資訊來源（2026/01/22，185–194，節錄）Huang Shengxin | emergency physician
Can establish: Personally observed pre-arrival cardiac arrest, 24°C, marked wasting, and multiple abnormal injuries; the examination did not support milk regurgitation.
Cannot establish: The final cause of death; that requires the forensic, medical-record, and court evidence together.Key testimony
Arrival condition and caregiver account
“We confirmed with the caregiver that the child had no breathing or heartbeat before arrival. The caregiver said she had just discovered milk regurgitation and brought him in.”
2025/12/11 · witness-04｜Pre-arrival state; “milk regurgitation” is the caregiver’s account
Oral findings and temperature
“Yes. The child’s body temperature was only 24 degrees. There was no sign of milk regurgitation when we opened the mouth, so it did not fit the caregiver’s account.”
2025/12/11 · witness-04｜Emergency physician’s firsthand observation
Limits of emergency cause-of-death assessment
【檢察官】那你們有去確認死因嗎？
【證人】當下有拍照，因為是到院前死亡，急診不會做死因判定。
【檢察官】在筆錄中有和保母說病情嚴重、傷勢不尋常，符合典型兒虐特徵要通報。你們急診團隊中有人認為像是溢奶嗎？
【證人】沒有。
黃聖心｜急診的判定範圍（2025/12/11，027–031）The 2:25 a.m. family discussion
【檢察官】按照紀錄在案發當日12月24日凌晨2:25有與外婆解釋傷勢？
【證人】我們和外婆說明因急救時長過長，效果不佳，建議放棄急救。
【檢察官】你們解釋傷勢時被告在旁邊嗎？
【證人】我已沒有印象。
【檢察官】你們有像外婆或社工解釋可能是溢奶嗎？
【證人】沒有這樣說。
黃聖心｜凌晨2:25與家屬說明（2025/12/11，033–038）Arrival times and the limits of the nursing record
[提示萬芳醫院護理紀錄單]
【辯護人】凌晨00:43是保母陪同就醫，社工是01:49來，但是萬芳醫院護理紀錄單01:09的社工紀錄上寫聯絡社會局社工，為何會與事實不一致？
【證人-黃聖心】護理紀錄單不是我寫的，我不知道。
黃聖心｜2025/12/11 · 051–053The 10 p.m. account, follow-up questions and who was present
【受命法官】急救過程有和社工或保母接觸嗎？
【證人-黃聖心】有。
【受命法官】那有感覺他們想推卸責任嗎？
【證人-黃聖心】有。保母說當晚10點有喝奶，還有呼吸，後來才越來越喘。但病童12點來早已經到院前死亡。
【受命法官】你們有對她的說法質疑嗎？
【證人-黃聖心】我印象有。有再和他確認，但保母一直強調10點喝奶還有呼吸，後來才越來越喘。似想引導死因為嗆咳。
【受命法官】保母交代死因時社工在場嗎？
【證人-黃聖心】沒有，這是一開始來的時候。
黃聖心｜2025/12/11 · 083–090Hsu Cho-hsien | forensic physician
Can establish: Explained how deep bleeding, edema, restraint, prolonged standing, and nutritional status fit the hypovolemic-shock mechanism.
Cannot establish: Duration of restraint or exact injury timing; he reserved these for fact-finding or said they could not be determined.Key testimony
Restraint duration cannot be determined
“It would, but I do not know how long the restraint lasted. You cannot tell; this photograph does not even show the bruising.”
2025/04/29 · DAY5 record-03｜A single photograph cannot establish duration
Mechanism of hypovolemic shock
“Prolonged standing causes fluid to leave the blood vessels; restraint causes blood to seep over a broad area. The fluid inside the child’s vessels was already insufficient.”
2025/04/29 · DAY5 record-03｜Mechanism discussed in relation to hypovolemic shock
Surface appearance and deep injuries
【證人】要跟大家說明，傷的大小僅供參考，傷害要從裡面來看
【證人】這個個案不會著重在大大小小的傷口
許倬憲｜外觀與深部傷勢（DAY5，record-03）Nutrition and edema
【檢察官】死亡時營養不良和低血容性休克的關係？
【證人】代表肝臟製造蛋白質能力低，滲透壓不足，水分不能保存。肺炎有時是個人免疫力降低
【檢察官】久站會出血嗎？
【證人】容易造成水腫，會造成淤積更嚴重。不會造成出血，會造成水腫，血管沒有破裂，所以看到是透明的，壓力會造成破裂
許倬憲｜營養狀態與水腫（DAY5，record-03，節錄）Shi Ying-ru | vulnerable-family service
Can establish: She raised doubts about the caregiver’s account in October, after which Chen tracked the child while Shi tracked the birth family.
Cannot establish: The purpose of the December dental receipt; examination reimbursement and care fees are separate funding contexts.Key testimony
October concerns and division of work
“I told Chen I had doubts. Chen said that because the child had problems, she was considering stopping the adoption matching. So Chen and I divided the work, and I asked Chen to continue following the child’s condition.”
2025/11/27 · witness-02｜October concerns and the practical division of follow-up
Funding for pre-adoption examinations
“Because the child was not placed by the government, his pre-adoption examination could not be reimbursed from government placement funds, so social-donation funds from the social affairs bureau were used.”
2025/11/27 · witness-02｜Pre-adoption examination funding; not the December dental receipt
Financial assistance and limits of recall
【檢察官】本案出養前有陪劉童去做健檢嗎？
【證人】第2次轉介出養前有協助劉童健檢，但不是我實際陪伴，因為兒盟有一些項目需要孩子的體檢報告，但是檢查的費用滿高的，兒盟那邊表示無法處理此筆款項，因此我有和家屬討論協助費用。
【檢察官】這筆費用是用什麼項目核銷？
【證人】我就送出給會計辦理核銷，時間久我已不記得當初核銷細節。
施盈如｜健檢款項的用途與記憶界線（2025/11/27，016–019）No caregiver details; follow-up through Chen
【檢察官】劉童委託給兒盟後，你有辦法去訪視他嗎？
【證人】我根本沒有後續照顧者的資訊，甚至不知其全名，只知道姓劉。
【受命法官】在這個脆家未結案前，是否有包含劉童出養前身心狀況的追蹤？
【證人】我當時是透過陳社工了解。
【證人】對，所以那次（電話聯繫）才會分工，當時分工，由他去追蹤孩子（劉童），我去追蹤原生家庭的狀況。
施盈如｜無照顧者資訊、透過陳追蹤（2025/11/27，048–049、099–102，節錄）Childcare costs: recollection is not an approved amount
【辯護人】你評估劉童出養，為何當時沒有選擇給資源讓劉童繼續留在周保母照顧？
【證人-施盈如】在我和外婆討論時，社會局只能維持目前提供的資源，但這對外婆的負擔沒有幫助，所以才有兒盟的安置方案。如果孩子一個月保母費用，可能是4 萬好了，詳細金額我已記不清，政府補助大概只能出一半，外婆還是要自己出剩下的一半，但是兒盟可以負擔全部的保母費用... （略）。
施盈如｜2025/11/27 · 069–070Responsibility, trust and records after dividing the work
【受命法官】所以你認為他是追蹤孩子的主要負責人？
【證人-施盈如】因為那次討論。
【受命法官】那次討論之後，你認為你就沒有責任去追蹤這個孩子嗎？
【證人-施盈如】[哽咽] 我不想說這個事件中我完全沒有責任。
【受命法官】你和陳討論之後，你有去獲取有關是誰在何處照顧劉童的資訊嗎？還是就相信陳會去追蹤？
【證人-施盈如】對，陳社工是一個專業人員，依照對社工職業的信任，我很自然地認為她會去追蹤。
【受命法官】你說你們有討論到分工，有沒有什麼證據，例如line訊息，可以確認當時有此分工？
【證人-施盈如】當天的對話是透過辦公室電話，樹鶯社福中心的辦公室電話都有相關資料，但是目前已經很久了，我不知道還有沒有保存。
施盈如｜2025/11/27 · 103–110Wang Kai-hung｜Household member
Can establish: what he personally saw or heard during his limited time at home, and what Liu Tsai-hsuan told him.
Cannot establish alone: the child’s daily food and water intake, the origin of injuries, or the full course of care. He testified that he was almost never home for a full day and did not see the child eat or drink.Key testimony excerpts
The limits of his time at home
【審判長】在112年（2023年）的9月到12月，你一個月裡面可以都待在家裡（指不用出門工作或上課）的時間有幾天？
【證人】幾乎沒有。
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日He did not see the child eat or drink
【審判長】你在住處有看見A童怎麼吃飯的嗎？
【證人】沒有看過他吃飯。
【審判長】有看過怎麼喝水嗎？
【證人】我沒看過他喝水。
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日Whether injuries received medical care: he did not know
【審判長】A童手上有結痂的洞，就這件事情有去看醫生嗎？
【證人】不知道，我只知道有牙醫、帶去打預防針，還有社工說可能會有醫療團隊來。過年後可能就可以不用帶（A童）了！
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日Why he knew there was a social worker
【檢察官】起初不知道A童是社福機構托養，為何知道有社工？
【證人】我是知道她一定會有人可以去反映，我沒有說謊，我下意識覺得是社工。
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日Whether the cloth wrapping seemed strange
【辯護人】劉彩萱把小孩用布巾包裹成那樣，你難道不覺得奇怪？
【證人】我不覺得，因為A童半夜會撞來撞去的，怕他受傷，尿得全身都是，又弄大便。我覺得那個東西是為了保護他，我不覺得奇怪。
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日Testing the collision explanation against his own childhood
【法官洪甯雅】你小時候學走路或跌跌撞撞的時候，劉彩萱會不會用布巾或水果網套，綁住你的手腳，讓你不要碰撞？
【證人】不會啊，我不會撞來撞去。
王凱弘｜《報導者》第一週庭審整理 · 第三日工作作息與照顧參與
【問】2023年9月至12月住處與工作作息？是否參與照顧？
【王○弘】住6號3樓與母親同住；每月出差兩、三次，南北送貨，晚間約11、12點回家。不參與照顧，多為拿貨或晚餐時經過托育空間。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06跌倒地點的兩種說法
【問】看過跌倒嗎？
【王○弘】稱11月底或12月初出門穿鞋時，聽到聲音並以餘光看到人影倒下；晚間又聽母親說是在公園跌倒。
【比對提醒】同段同時出現家中所見與公園轉述，須核對是否為兩次事件、轉述差異或記錄誤植。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06浴巾包裹的觀察條件
【問】知道綑綁或用毛巾固定嗎？
【王○弘】稱不知道綑綁；曾在半夜約2點看見孩子被浴巾包著，並說因父親睡在客廳而不敢開燈。
【比對提醒】證人同時比較浴巾顏色，且敘述涉及浴室、電腦房與不同姿勢；光線、動線與先後仍需原始證據核對。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06頭套時間前後差異
【王○弘】一處稱11月底或12月初跌倒後受母親請託訂頭套；另一處稱約9、10月間因孩子半夜撞頭而搜尋訂購。
【比對提醒】須確認是兩次搜尋或訂購，還是同一事件的時間陳述不同。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06–07語言陳述的前後張力
【王○弘】先稱第一次見面時聽見孩子慢慢說出五字髒話，之後稱語調不清楚但聽得出來；原記錄末段另載「沒聽過A童講話」。
【比對提醒】末句是否漏字及各段是否指同一時點，均須核對正式筆錄；未核對前不能自行判定真偽。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節07–08住處空間代號不一致
【記錄A】前文定義6號3樓為乙地、4號3樓為丙地。
【記錄B】跌倒段落卻記作「回到6號3樓（丙地）」。
【比對提醒】可能是原記錄誤植，也可能是陳述混淆；未核對正式筆錄前不自行更正。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘來源核對點04是否看過頭套的說法差異
【記錄A】前文稱曾在電腦房看過朋友送的藍色頭套。
【記錄B】檢方反詰段落原記錄另載「沒有看過頭套，大小不太知道，是兒童用的」。
【比對提醒】尚待釐清「沒看過」是指沒看過頭套物件，或沒看過孩子佩戴；不能替原文補入限制。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06–07庭訊時間記載本身前後不合
【記錄A】王○弘章節開頭記載14時24分入庭。
【記錄B】同章稍後又記「14時17分休庭，14時25分入庭」。
【來源界限】這是原始旁聽記錄的時間順序問題，不是王凱弘證詞內容；本站不自行改為15時17分或其他時間。
第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06另案偽證調查：只呈現當時程序狀態
【檢方】庭上表示要以另案偽證案件彈劾證言。
【王○弘】在審判長提醒可能影響另案後仍表示願意說明，並稱當時仍在偵辦、尚未起訴。
【證據界限】「尚未起訴」只描述2025年4月25日當時狀態；不能據此推論另案最終結果，也不表示本案法院已判定證詞真偽。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節07The final day: he learned of it only after returning home
【問】何時知道A童死亡？
【王○弘】案發當天回家，父親在走廊說「出事了」，並轉述孩子噎奶死亡；他擔心在警局的母親，翌日才見到她。
【證據界限】「噎奶死亡」是父親告知內容的再次轉述，只能證明證人曾如此回答，不能證明實際死因；「案發當天」也不等同媒體另載的12月25日凌晨3時。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06Source: hearing observer notes; dates and record locations accompany each excerpt. Chinese passages retain the source wording.
THE FINAL DAY · EVIDENCE LAYERS
The final day: after noon on December 23 to early December 24
No dramatic narration is added here. Court findings, a defendant’s answer, firsthand testimony, and a caregiver’s reported account are labelled separately.
Witness material is summarized from authorized public-observer notes, not an official verbatim transcript. Formal minutes and the full judgment control if wording differs.
Defendant’s answer “Low activity” had already been reported
On Day 9, Liu Caixuan answered yes when asked whether she had told counsel that the child showed low activity after noon. This establishes her answer—not contemporaneous clinical measurements.
kaikai-day9-20250506/#qa-c51Court finding The joint offense period continued to this point
The Taipei District Court release places the joint injury, restraint, and abuse period through about 10 p.m. on December 23. That is the endpoint of a period, not proof of one specific act at exactly 10.
Official court release ↗Court-presented record The record had reached “no heartbeat” and rescue
The public Day 1 hearing notes include Liu Caixuan saying “no heartbeat” and Liu Ruolin replying “keep trying.” Undisputed matters also recorded Liu Caixuan’s spouse performing CPR and calling 119. These establish rescue after the crisis, not the preceding minute-by-minute sequence.
kaikai-day1-20250422/#full-recordDr. Huang’s observation No breathing or heartbeat; no finding supporting milk regurgitation
Huang testified that the caregiver said the child drank milk and was breathing at 10 p.m., then became increasingly short of breath. Huang personally observed pre-arrival cardiac arrest, 24°C, and no oral sign of milk regurgitation; no emergency-team member thought regurgitation explained the presentation. The first account was the caregiver’s statement; the second was the physician’s observation.
kaikai-final-chapter/witnesses/#witness-04Discussion of resuscitation with the family
The prosecutor’s question cited 2:25 a.m. for the discussion with the grandmother. Huang said prolonged, ineffective resuscitation led the team to recommend stopping. She could not recall whether the defendant was present. This is the time cited in the question, not a resolved time of death.
2025/12/11 · 黃聖心 · 033–038
Five evidence types, five different questions
What the caregiver told the ER
Milk at 10 p.m., still breathing, then worsening; milk regurgitation was also asserted.
Evidence that the statement was made, not that it was objectively true.What Dr. Huang observed
Pre-arrival cardiac arrest, 24°C, no oral milk sign, marked wasting, and multiple visible injuries.
Arrival condition, not the final forensic cause of death.What Hsu and Lu explained
Deep bleeding, edema, restraint, prolonged standing, and chronic malnutrition within the shock mechanism.
Mechanism and accumulation, not a minute-by-minute last-day account.What the judgment established
The offense period continued to about 10 p.m.; death followed accumulated injury, malnutrition, weakness, and hypovolemic shock.
The official release defers to the full judgment if wording differs.Wang Kai-hung: “learned after returning home”
The site’s Day 3 courtroom notes say that he returned home on the day of the incident, when his father told him that “something happened” and relayed that the child had died from choking on milk; he saw his mother the following day. This is a second-hand account of what his father said, not proof of the cause of death.
It establishes that he made this statement—not the final hours or the asserted cause. The milk account also conflicts with the ER observation of no milk-regurgitation signs; the date requires the official transcript.Excerpt reported from his testimony
【問】何時知道A童死亡？
【王○弘】案發當天回家，父親在走廊說「出事了」，並轉述孩子噎奶死亡；他擔心在警局的母親，翌日才見到她。
【證據界限】這是父親告知內容的再次轉述，只能證明證人曾如此回答，不能證明實際死因；「案發當天」也不等同媒體另載的12月25日凌晨3時。
【黃聖心醫師庭上證詞】打開口腔沒有溢奶跡象；急診團隊沒有人認為像是溢奶。
【比對結果】「吐奶噎死」是王凱弘轉述父親的說法，與急診醫師親見不一致，不能當作已證實死因。
王凱弘｜本站第三日旁聽整理 · 王○弘章節06What the evidence supports
- This was not a healthy child who suddenly deteriorated only on arrival.
- Low activity was reported after noon, followed later by cardiac arrest and resuscitation.
- The ER examination did not support milk regurgitation; later evidence determined cause of death.
What remains unknown publicly
- The last meal and its exact time.
- The last injury, acute trigger, and onset of cardiac arrest.
- Each person’s location and acts during the final hours, and who caused each injury.
The most precise answer to “what may have happened on the final day” is this: a toddler already made highly vulnerable by chronic malnutrition and repeated injury showed a marked decline after noon and later entered cardiac arrest. The event chain between those points remains a critical gap in the public evidence. It should be labelled, not filled with imagination.
Why was December the worst?
After learning about the fourth tooth, what did the follow-up actually track?
Perhaps the question already points to the answer.
Paperwork—or the child?
Paperwork
- What documents were requested?
- When were they received and checked?
- Did the record remain an administrative process?
The child
- Was the cause of the fourth lost tooth verified?
- Were treatment, referral, and the child’s condition actually confirmed?
- Were a new visit and mandatory-reporting assessment considered?
This post does not replace the court’s findings or turn questions into a verdict. It places the judgment-recorded exchange back on the timeline and asks where child-protection attention was directed during the critical seventeen days.
EVIDENCE CROSS-CHECK
Three separate trails: teeth, funding, and responsibility
Pre-adoption medical reimbursement, childcare funding, and the December dental receipt are not the same transaction. The public material does not prove that the December receipt request concerned a specific subsidy application by Liu Caixuan.
Three teeth, then a fourth
Both dentist Tsai and emergency physician Huang rejected grinding as an adequate explanation for multiple primary teeth falling out.
Different purposes require different evidence
Witness Shi Ying-ru described pre-adoption examination reimbursement and childcare-cost arrangements. Those should not be conflated with the later dental receipt.
Funding and receipts: separate checks
| Item | What the material supports | Still to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Dental receipt | Repeated requests in December; a photograph received on December 19. | Applicant, purpose, any claim and payment records. |
| Pre-adoption examination | Shi’s account of financial assistance and reimbursement from social donations. | Reimbursement category, amount, date and original receipts. |
| Childcare fees | Testimony about subsidies and the alliance’s funding arrangement. | Actual applications, approvals and payments. |
Formal labels do not erase actual access to information
Shi testified that Chen would follow the child while she followed the birth family. The legal question is what those with access did when warnings accumulated.
This page organizes testimony and disputed issues; it does not replace judicial findings. Individual responsibility is determined by the courts.
SHARE KIT
Traditional and Simplified Chinese posters
4:5 assets for Threads and mobile feeds, without a child’s photograph or injury imagery.
COURT DATE · UPDATED
September 16｜Chen Shangjie appeal preparatory proceeding
#September16ChenShangjieAppealHearing
View case status →The case remains under adjudication. Please respect due process and the presumption of innocence. The court’s same-day notice governs attendance arrangements.