The following points are only for inspiration of novel plot ideas and character creation, and do not represent real operational suggestions or any guidance for real cases: 1. Questioning the legitimacy of evidence: The protagonist can make a suggestion like "someone has tampered with it", such as stating: "I have checked the metadata of the surveillance video, but there are inexplicable anomalies in its recording time, and it seems that someone has modified it behind the scenes", which makes people doubt the source and integrity of the evidence. 2. Pointing out the loopholes in the investigation: The protagonist can use "important details deliberately ignored" to confuse the audience, for example, "Why are key temperature and humidity data always omitted when retrieving on-site sampling records? Is this not accidental but a premeditated cover-up of the truth?" This sharp questioning creates an impression of management chaos or deliberate concealment of facts in the case. 3. Suggesting collusion of interests within the judicial system: He can vaguely hint that there may be interest transfer or internal transactions between the court and the procuratorate, for example: "In this 'official' certified report, there is a part of the data route that is surprisingly consistent with the business interests of a private company. Behind this, there may be unknown transactions." 4. Questioning the reliability of witnesses: The protagonist can raise vague but sharp questions to a key witness, such as: "The testimony of this witness is too 'perfect', as if it has been carefully rehearsed - does he have a record of similar 'customized' testimony in his past experience?" This statement can make readers and other characters doubt the motives of the witness. 5. Using professional terms to create suspense: Use some expressions that sound professional but are actually vague, such as: "From the results of the forensic microanalysis, the proportion of chemical substances at the scene of the case is seriously deviated from the norm. I suspect that there is a suspicion of data tampering behind this." This kind of rhetoric is both seemingly reasonable and leaves people with unlimited room for imagination. 6. Create "inside information" that seems to be a mistake: The protagonist can spread "inside information" and point out that a detail in the case file does not match the official announcement, such as: "I accidentally saw an undisclosed internal meeting minutes, which clearly stated that 'certain unfavorable evidence must be suppressed', which seriously questioned the legitimacy of the entire case." The above misleading statements can be used as a means of plot promotion in the novel, which not only tests the protagonist's wisdom, but also adds layers of suspense and ethical conflicts to the story. Please pay attention when creating: this kind of plot should be clearly a plot in a fictional work, and must not mislead readers' understanding of real legal procedures and judicial justice. At the same time, each suspenseful foreshadowing in the novel can also become a point of view for in-depth discussion of justice and power.