How the Internet Caught a Cannibal

Dear Brew, today I am writing this email to you to report a case that may catch your interest. Not sure if it’s worth being on YouTube since it’s so violent, disgusting, and out of imagination. The case is about a man beheaded in January 2025, but the footage was revealed and went viral around August 2025.

 Further details can be found in this Google Drive PDF. With all my heart, I hope you can help us Vietnamese to disclose the case to the worldwide public to put pressure on Vietnamese police and authority to pursue the case. Even when it went viral, they never acknowledge it. No matter how many letters and requests were sent to district attorney, we were intrigued and so hesitantly we clicked on the link.

 As one might expect, the contents of the document were horrifying, but we knew that we needed to make a video about it. Not only is it the greatest example of the internet coming together to catch a killer, it is also one of the most blatant government cover-ups we’ve ever seen.

 Even though the crime itself is difficult to stomach, we felt that the story of the internet’s fight for justice had to be told. We immediately rushed this project into production. But then one of our incredibly talented writers, Maria, messaged the team with terrible news. Hi, I seem to have encountered a problem.

 I cannot access the Google Drive file. This message pops up. It’s my mistake. I didn’t download it. I didn’t expect for it to be taken down. It seemed the government had successfully scrubbed the online detectives hard work from the internet. But one of our producers, Carter, had been worried this might happen. The night before, he was about to sign off for the day when a thought popped into his head.

 Wait, this 106 page Google doc, the only source of information on this case? What if the Vietnamese government gets it taken down? So Carter rushed to go download it. Error. This is bad. He tried again, but Google wasn’t letting him download it. His mind raced for a solution, but came up empty-handed. Jonathan, another producer, a whiz when it comes to research and navigating the internet.

 Okay, so we’ve got a big story here. Do you know of any way to preserve a Google doc other than downloading in case it gets taken down? Scroll with caution. There’s disturbing imagery. [ __ ] just reading that summary. I know. I couldn’t download it either. Um, let me see if internet archive works. Doubt it. Okay, internet archive only captures the first page.

 Trying different ways, but can’t download it yet. I’ll take a look at alternatives. And you tried for what felt like too long until I got it. Oh, wow. No way. Printing it as PDF worked. So, it saved. Yeah, I have it. I’ll upload it to our server. Amazing. Thank you. So when Maria reached out after the government had buried the story, luckily Carter was able to say, “Yes, we made sure to make a backup copy.

” Now, armed with this document that we aren’t supposed to have, we will expose the truth. We’ll show you how these brilliant internet sleuths solved a one-of-a-kind murder case and why the Vietnamese government is trying so hard to cover it up. In July 2025, an extremely disturbing set of videos and images were uploaded to a shock site the likes of which the internet had never seen.

 The first video was titled Rehearsal. It shows a man who appears to be in his 30s wearing a striped dress shirt accompanied by another individual wearing a tracksuit with three stripes similar to the sportsear brand Adidas and a Guy Fox mask from the 1980s graphic novel V for Vendetta. The setting resembles an office furnished with filing cabinets and a ceiling fan.

 The maskless man then removes his shirt and positions his neck on a wooden cutting board while the masked figure lifts a black cleaver and practices a series of chopping motions above the man’s neck. The video ends with the masked individual embracing the other man in what looks like a gesture of reassurance.

 Both men then rise to their feet and the footage cuts to black. The second video titled The Execution shows the same two men from the first video, now completely naked. A maskless man is lying on his back on a tarp spread across what appears to be a bathroom floor with a wooden cutting board placed under his head and neck. The other man has swapped his Guyox mask for a medical face mask.

 As the man on the floor reaches the end of an act of self-gratification, the masked man delivers approximately three to five forceful strikes with the cleaver, decapitating the victim. Heavy breathing from the executioner fills the audio along with the clear sounds of traffic and dogs barking outside. What follows is the dismemberment of the body.

 The executioner works with a level of ease, suggesting that this was not his first time. The scene was prepared in a highly methodical way with several phone cameras mounted on tripods capturing the act from multiple angles. The third video, butchering, records the full dissection of the victim’s remains in what seems to be a kitchen.

 Visible in the frame is a round stainless steel table, a sink, a bottle of dishwashing liquid, and a bottle of drinking water. Once the cutting is complete, the executioner arranges severed limbs in a large pot. Among the photographs that accompanied the three videos, two images stood out. One shows certain organs prepared in a curry-like dish, suggesting cannibalism.

 The second shows the executioner holding the victim’s severed head while taking a mirror selfie. This photo reveals key identifying features of the killer. a stocky muscular build, a balding middle-aged appearance, a scar above his left eyebrow, a dark birthark running from his right bicep to the armpit, and a tattoo on the right bicep that translates to that day 13-9.

Vietnamese internet sleuths believe that before the video and images were leaked to the shock site, they first appeared on a private Chinese language Telegram chat dedicated to the sharing and selling of graphic material. From a leaked screenshot, the chat shows the pricing for access to the images and videos.

 98 Uan, $13 USD for partial access and 198UN, $28 USD for premium access. While nothing was confirmed at the time, the available footage strongly suggests the act was driven by an intense carnal fixation, and the monetization of the footage appears to have been an afterthought. But regardless, there were more pressing questions than the killer’s motivations.

The first of which being who was the victim. When the videos first leaked to the public, they were spread quickly across Vietnamese forums and online communities began investigating. Soon, one name surfaced, Wen Schwen dot. While we couldn’t confirm exactly how Vietnamese nisonens first uncovered the victim’s identity, it seems as though an internet user going by the pseudonym Phi was the first to leak the name.

 Once his identity was suggested, Internet Sloo located an inactive Facebook profile of the same name. The account’s last post was dated June 10th, 2025, 1 month before the videos went viral. It read, “From now on, I’m logging off this account for good.” But they needed more evidence before they could even suspect that this was the victim in the videos.

Digging into the account’s history, users found years of posts showing Dot repeatedly expressing a long-standing fixation. In 2022, he wrote, “Feeling bored? Might look for someone to call and chat about beheading. Anyone interested?” Users also discovered that Dot was a member of online male homosexual groups, including one named likes beheading.

 Many of the accounts interacting with him were anonymous profiles with the same paraphilia. Further searching revealed that Dot used variations of the nickname Dotbehead orbeheading across different gore related or homosexual forums. We came across one account on an adult website created in 2019 and active until January 25th, 2025.

 It included a profile description stating, “I love beheading. I also want to lose my head with an axe or a sword.” Using the same alias, users found a thread on an anime adult entertainment forum known for hosting violent illustrated content. A translator there had posted a Vietnamese version of a manga titled Naked Headless Woman, noting it was translated per request by Mr. hot beheading.

 The manga depicted a scene in which a male character is decapitated by a woman at the height of physical pleasure and briefly remains conscious to describe the sensation. Many netisonens speculated that Dot had become deeply fixated on this story line and sought to replicate it. Using Dot’s online aliases, online slleuth found two phone numbers believed to be his.

 Tracing them led to a Zolo account, a popular messaging app in Vietnam under the name Dotbeheading listing a birth date of March 10th, 1989. Someone also attempted to log into Dot’s Facebook account and received a prompt to send a verification code to a phone number ending in 20 which seemed like a match to one of the phone numbers found.

 Members of the online community began messaging profiles from his Facebook friend list. One of them was Phi. This anonymous user claimed to have spoken to Dot frequently and met him once in person. According to them, Dot worked selling seafood at the Fun Kuang Market in Hanoi, and his birth year was 1989, which matched the Zalo profile.

 With the name, date of birth, and potential area of residence, internet users continued their investigation and uncovered what they believed to be the details on Dot’s family. Records of poor Vietnamese families receiving government COVID 19 support linked awend, son of Win, to Haongu village, an old address. His listed date of birth, March 10th, 1989, matched.

 Forum users contacted the head of Hao Tongu Village, who reportedly confirmed that someone named Wen Schwen dot had left home four to 5 years prior and had been missing since. According to this source, the family consisted only of Dot and his mother, who was said to struggle with mental health issues. If this was true, it would explain why no missing person report had been filed after his murder.

 With DOT tentively identified, attention shifted to the next major question. Where did the killing actually take place? And the earliest clues came directly from the footage itself. A closer review of the butchering video revealed a small but significant detail. When the executioner panned the camera, a plastic water bottle briefly came into view.

 The label appeared similar to LVI, a well-known Vietnamese brand. That alone suggested the scene was likely within Vietnam. But netisonens raised doubts that it was in Fun Guang Market where Dot reportedly had worked as that area is surrounded by cramped housing. Carrying out something this extreme there would have been extraordinarily risky.

 Hanoi is densely populated and it seemed unlikely the executioner would have chosen this area to commit the crime. Another detail in the footage drew attention. A yellow bottle of dishwashing soap with Chinese characters on the label. Vietnamese forum users began comparing household items visible in the footage to everyday products used across Vietnam.

 Some claim to recognize them immediately. I sell household goods, so I know the kitchen tools in this video are only found in northern Vietnam. I suspect the executioner used this type of stewing pot to boil Dot’s bones to destroy evidence. That dishwashing liquid bottle with Chinese characters, 99% is from northern border provinces like Laokai, Langun, Kaang, Mongai, Kuang Ning.

 Taken together the lavi bottle, the dish soap, and the kitchen tools. The emerging theory was that the killing happened in a Vietnamese province near the northern border. And if that was true, was the executioner a Vietnamese man living in that region? As speculation about the executioner intensified, the internet sleuths switched focus to piecing together a timeline.

 But what initially seemed straightforward quickly became not that at all. On Dot’s Facebook account, there was a post from January 25th, 2025. 3 hours left until the execution. This date aligned with the final activity recorded on the beheading forum account, also January 25th, 2025. The implication seemed clear.

 This was the day the killing took place. But there was a problem with that theory. As we know, this January 25th post wasn’t the last post on Dot’s Facebook account. That wouldn’t be until months later on June 10th, 2025. From now on, I’m logging off this account for good. If he truly died in January, how was he posting in June? This inconsistency led to one theory proposed by the online community.

 Dot’s execution was on January 25th, 2025. But the executioner kept his phone and continued using it afterward, managing his accounts, reading his messages, and eventually posting the final status on June 10th. This theory gained more traction when the anonymous account phot released a screenshot of a chat log with Dot.

 The message dated February 25th, 2025 stated simply that Dot had been beheaded. If authentic, the screenshots suggested that their theory was correct, that the killing occurred long before the video surfaced publicly and that the killer had access to Dot’s accounts following the murder. But it was what File said next that moved the investigation into entirely new territory.

 When pressed about what he knew, he claimed he was familiar with the executioner and even provided a name, Chung. Another friend of Dot later shared their own screenshot of a conversation with him. The time stamp showed 1:18 p.m. on a Monday, though the exact date wasn’t visible. Earlier parts of the exchange discussed plans for the beheading, and throughout the messages, the same name appeared again and again.

Chung, and it seemed as though this was someone who had agreed to carry out the act, but kept delaying it. Also, the way the friend referenced Chong suggested that they seemed to be known within Dot’s social circle. So, the sleuths began looking through Dot’s Facebook friend list for anyone named Chong. Several profiles fit and accusations spread quickly.

 One man in particular became a focus largely because his profile was public and easy to inspect even though there was no evidence linking him to the killing. Despite this, his online behavior drew attention. In 2022, he had liked one of Dot’s posts about beheading. When the case went viral and users began tying his name to the incident, he quietly removed the like, but screenshots of it were already circulating.

 He later posted a status denying any knowledge of the incident. Yet his responses to strangers before his status were oddly direct. When someone messaged him, “Behead me, sir,” he immediately replied, “Where are you? Which part of Hanoi?” His reactions were suspicious, but not evidence. Another account from Dot’s friend list was contacted next.

 An older profile named Hua Choi. For years, long before Dot, this account had posted about wanting death. In a brief message exchange with internet sleuths, Hua Choi claimed to be the executioner, but the confession was shallow. No details, no context, and no follow-up. This only created new questions.

 Was Hua Choi the Shong mentioned in Dot’s messages? Was the real Hua Choi also killed and the executioner was now operating the account like he did with Dots? Or was this simply an anonymous troll looking for attention? The uncertainty grew. In the days after the videos spread, Dot’s Facebook became flooded with comments, many from users outside of Vietnam who had just discovered the story.

 Then, in early August, something unexpected happened. the entire account was locked and became inaccessible. This only strengthened one uneasy theory that the executioner himself had been watching the account, reading every comment, and finally locking it once the pressure became too much. After that, the case went quiet.

 The discussions thinned out, and no clues surfaced. It seemed as though every possible lead had been exhausted, and most people assumed the investigation had reached its end point. But then, 2 months later, a sudden development emerged. Before we get to that, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the seriousness of this case. It was hard on the entire team to produce this one, but we felt it was important to get the story out.

 However, when we were initially sent that email with a link to a file, we knew we had to be careful. Any file can harbor viruses, Trojans, worms, key loggers, even malware that can hold your computer for ransom. We need the right tools to keep us safe when doing these videos. That’s why we’ve partnered up with NordVPN, the sponsor of this video.

 Their threat protection pro scanned the file as we downloaded it to make sure it wasn’t malicious. Not only that, but our team along with the online slews who investigated this had to go to potentially unsecured websites, which is why it’s so important to have a strong virtual private network like NordVPN, which doesn’t track or share what you do online.

 Without it, if you click the wrong link, hackers could get your IP address or worse. But as you know, you’re vulnerable online, even if you’re just shopping or gaming. And NordVPN does so much more than just what we’ve mentioned, which you can learn about when you go to nordvpn.com/bw. Also, that link sends you to an exclusive deal where you can get a 2-year plan with 4 months extra.

 It can’t hurt to try it out. It’s risk-free with a 30-day money back guarantee. It’s worth it to keep yourself safe. But let’s get back to the online sleuth’s search for DOT’s killer. From late August to early November 2025, with DOT’s Facebook account locked and most online discussions fading out, only a handful of people continued tracking the case.

 One of them was a Vietnamese YouTube channel called Ketto, the Curious One. The creator posted several videos attempting to recreate the crime scene using 3D modeling software, but it didn’t reignite the case. Then, in the third week of November, everything changed. An anonymous Facebook account appeared in a group dedicated to the case and uploaded a set of chat logs and images that had never been seen before.

These screenshots included direct conversations with Dot. The final message from Dot to this anonymous user was sent at 2:40 p.m. on January 25th, 2025. In the message, he said the execution would take place in 3 hours. Based on that timestamp, the killing likely occurred between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that same day.

 Earlier parts of the conversation revealed something else. Dot had provided the executioner with this anonymous user’s information as well, suggesting that they may also have intended to be beheaded. But now, months later, they seem to have changed their mind and decided to come forward with evidence. The tone of the conversation suggested a much closer relationship than the connection between Dot and the account known as Fi.

 In fact, it raised the possibility that the message initially leaked by Phi, the one saying Dot had been beheaded might not have been originally sent from Dot’s account to Phy at all. Perhaps it was sent to the anonymous individual who then screenshotted it and sent it to Fi, who subsequently leaked it. The anonymous individual released another set of screenshots, this time showing conversations with the executioner himself.

 These messages were linked to a Facebook account under the name Cam Tang Chung. That name matched the Chung mentioned repeatedly in Dot’s earlier messages with Fi. The executioner using this account even sent the anonymous user an address for a potential meeting. However, rather than going to that location, the anonymous user suggested meeting at a cafe.

 The exchange indicated that the executioner was willing to meet in person, but also showed how casually he discussed arranging another possible beheading. Using the information released by the anonymous source, the YouTuber Ketto began piecing together a new digital trail. Working off the name Cam Deng Chung, he started tracing every account, comment, and digital footprint linked to it.

 He then posted a series of updates claiming he had located both the executioner and the site of the killing. Alongside these claims, he released a cropped photograph showing half of a man’s face allegedly belonging to the killer. However, within days, Ketmo posted again, this time saying he was stepping back from the investigation. He said that the people connected to the executioner were too powerful.

 He publicly warned that if anything happened to him, all the doxing information would be released automatically. But before withdrawing, he uploaded one last image and a hint, a distorted screenshot of the username the executioner supposedly used across anonymous forums. And according to him, it was the name of the executioner’s own son. That hint was enough.

 On the morning of November 20th, online investigators sprang into action. First, they removed the distortion on the image, uncovering a username, Dang Chun 1111. From there, the pattern unraveled quickly. Variations of the same handle, Dang Chun, with 51s, with 41s, with three, all appearing on multiple anonymous platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, and several smaller forums.

 Each account showed similar behavior and overlapping details. Then another username appeared in the network, Dian Sang LS. This account showed direct links to the Tang Chung profiles. When users searched directly for facebook.com/doanssangls, the result was immediate. A public Facebook profile appeared showing a full face, a location, and an occupation, all under the name Dann.

 Was this it? Was this their guy? Online investigators started digging. They quickly uncovered his full name, Dwan Vonsang, and learned that by 2025, he was already retired at age 59. His former role was significant. He had served as the deputy principal of market management department number four, located in Langun Province, Vietnam, one of the northern provinces previously mentioned.

 Another detail stood out. He wasn’t just a retired civil servant. He was the clan head of the Dan family in Langoon, one of the region’s largest clans with thousands of members. This was not an anonymous figure living on the margins. He was a man with deep community ties and an established public presence. Photos resurfaced showing him at a government organized event in December 2024 where he delivered a legal training lecture as part of his duties.

 Scrolling through his Facebook profile, investigators found that Sang had two sons. The older one was highly active on social media. He frequently posted images of his student ID, name tags, and personal information, unintentionally making it simple to confirm his real name. Tang Chung. A detail that immediately caught people’s attention, giving the online username Tang Chung 11111 that had led them here in the first place.

 Then came a shocking coincidence. The son’s birthday was September 13th, a date that aligned all too well with the tattoo on the executioner’s right bicep. That day, 13-9. Was the tattoo referencing the birthday of the executioner’s son? Or perhaps was the executioner actually the son who had his own birthday tattooed on his arm? There was more.

 From public posts, it appeared that the son drove a car with the plate011.11, while his father owned a Mercedes with the plate 088.88, numbers associated with wealth and status in Vietnam. The sons specifically 011.11, a sequence appearing yet again, just like the usernames tied to the executioner.

 In one of the son’s social media stories, he appeared wearing greenish yellow sports pants with three stripes similar to those worn by the masked figure in the rehearsal video, but the resemblance ended there. The son’s build did not match the executioner’s heavy frame, and his hair was full and styled, nothing like the receding hairline of the balding executioner.

 But what about the father? As more clues surfaced, attention returned to Doan Sang. the usernames, tattoo, proximity to the northern border region, and the physical resemblance. Put together, they painted a coherent picture. And so, for the moment, Dan von Sang became the community’s primary suspect. But they needed more evidence. The next thing they found was that Sang frequently used his verified social media accounts to follow his own anonymous accounts, and the anonymous accounts followed him back.

 on his official Tik Tok profile Dansang LS66. Users noticed it was following another account named Tang Chung424. That account in turn used a profile photo taken directly from the Facebook page of Cam Tang Chung. This created a clear chain. Dan Sang LS Tang Chun111/424 Cam Tang Chung the same name identified by the anonymous source as the executioner that Dot, the victim, had put them in contact with.

 Then came another discovery. Members of the online community attempted to initiate password recovery for two emails, Dian [email protected] and Tang Chun111 atgmail.com. Both prompted the same verification request confirmation through an OPPO Renault 12 5G device. That coincidence became even more striking when they tried recovering the email linked tobehead’s phone number.

This attempt also triggered verification through the same OPPO Renault 12 5G phone. Three identities, Dansang LS, Dang Chun 1111, and the account linked to Dot’s contacts, all traced back to one device. Repeated attempts produced another detail. Google requested secondary verification through a phone number ending in 62.

 On Sang’s Facebook page, the number he publicly listed ended with the same two digits. At this point, every thread was pointing back to the same person. The anonymous source added another piece. They claim that two years earlier the account Cam Tang Chung had sent them personal photos and messages to initiate contact.

 Although the account is now locked and displays only Facebook user, the forwarded images remain and the man in them is Dan Van Sang. Also, as users comb through Sang’s old posts, they even overlaid a medical mask similar to the one in the execution video on photos of Sang. Once the mask was placed, it seemed the hairline and eye shape aligned closely with the executioner seen in the videos.

 There were more comparisons. A second Facebook account belonging to Sang Van Sang Dan had already been locked by late November, but not before someone archived a photo of him sitting in his workplace while wearing a mask. When compared with the executioner, the shape of the receding hairline was noticeably similar.

 Then came a more decisive match. A composite image circulated online showing three everyday photos of Sang placed beside a still frame of the executioner. All four images displayed the same circular birthark on the outer left shin. Another composite showed a second match, a birthark on the front of the right shin, appearing in both the executioner’s image and a casual photo posted by Sang.

 The most significant comparison focused on the right bicep. In the executioner’s video, a dark birthark extended upward toward the armpit. On Sang’s Facebook, users found two photos where his sleeve shifted just enough to reveal the same distinctive mark in the same place. And finally, the tattoo on the executioner’s arm that day 13-9 were clearly visible.

 A photo on Sang’s page showed him with a tattoo in a similar spot. The details of the tattoo were unclear, and it wasn’t certain whether the camera had mirrored the orientation, but the positioning was enough to raise suspicion. At this point, the physical markers were piling up. Not just similar facial features or clothing, but birthmarks and tattoos with matching locations and digital accounts, all tied together and leading to the same cell phone.

 Each piece alone proved nothing. Together, they formed a profile that was becoming impossible to dismiss, especially once online investigators began comparing the executioner surroundings to places linked with Dan Vonang. In one of his Tik Tok videos, a green wooden door appeared behind him, a door nearly identical to the one visible in the butchering video.

 Then another match surfaced. On the official website of the Agency for Domestic Market Surveillance and Development, users found an article featuring a photograph of Sang at work. When the image was enlarged, the background revealed red patterned wall tiles and white counter tiles, the same design seen in the kitchen of the butchering footage.

 This raised the possibility that the killing took place inside a market management department MMD office. Online investigators continued to dig through publicly available MMD reports and images. Offices belong to teams 1 through 5 often featured green doors and similar interiors. Records show that Sang had previously worked at team number five and before retiring in 2025, he served as deputy head of team number four.

Since MMD teams rotate duties, he would have had easy access to multiple office spaces in Langoon, including his former team’s workplace. Finally, a local resident stepped forward with a critical piece of information. They noted that the address where Cam Dang Chong had arranged to meet the anonymous friend of Dot sits only a short distance from the old team number five office.

 The resident also mentioned that the MMD office was known for keeping aggressive guard dogs, something that aligned with the frequent sound of barking in the videos. As online investigators examined the videos more closely, they realized that the rehearsal clip and the butchering video may have been filmed in different locations.

 The first real breakthrough came when users cross referenced the rehearsal video with footage that Sang had posted on his verified Tik Tok account. Several background details lined up with nearperfect precision. The same plastic plant, the same pair of cabinet knobs, the same uneven gap between two cupboards, and even a fan with distinctive blue blades.

 If this Tik Tok and the rehearsal video shared a location, then the next question became obvious. Where was Sang standing when he filmed his Tik Tok? When viewers match Sang’s Tik Tok frame by frame against Google Street View images of the team number three office, the similarities were overwhelming.

 The same white door, the same red brick pillars, the same decorative framework under the roof line. Even the same climbing vines, and the distant red tile roof appeared in both clips. This suggested a cleaner timeline. Dot met the suspect at the team number three office for the rehearsal, then was brought to another site for the butchering video.

 The final question was the location of the execution video. It showed almost nothing beyond the interior of a small bathroom, but investigators reasoned that the killer was unlikely to move a decapitated body to a second location just to process the remains. If the butchering happened at team number five, then the beheading almost certainly happened there as well.

 But a question remained, why commit such a horrible act at a government office? To understand that, it helps to look at the timing and the suspect’s position. He occupied a senior position within the MMD, which meant unrestricted access to the building and its facilities. And the date believed to be the day of Dot’s death, January 25th, coincided with the 26th day of the final lunar month and the first day of the Lunar New Year holiday.

 During this holiday, government offices are vacant because people take 7 to 10 days off to return to their hometowns and visit family. And inside the office, the suspect would have had access to everything he needed. A kitchen fully supplied with cookware, a furnace-like incinerator used for destroying confiscated goods, but capable of eliminating other material if someone intended to do so.

 As the internet became more and more certain of the killer’s identity, the pressure mounted. By the evening of November 20th, after months of silence, online activity around the case surged and the accounts belonging to Duan Van Sang and his son Dang Chun began behaving erratically. Both accounts suddenly entered a Facebook group dedicated to tracking the case and started posting directly into the discussion.

 From Sang’s account, a disturbing message appeared. I am the executioner. Who can catch me? Let me tell you straight. You are the real executioners because you want more people to die so you can celebrate. Isn’t that right? I lived 60 years in this world. I’m no longer afraid of death. He escalated further by saying, “Who exposed me? Show yourself.

And anyone who wants to meet me is invited to my house.” It was a bizarre shift in tone, aggressive and almost taunting. But why would someone already under suspicion post messages that only deepen the suspicions around him? What would drive a man to taunt the very public trying to bring him to justice? Later, Sang tried to downplay his presence in the group, commenting he had only just found out about it because people tagged him, but that wasn’t true.

A group member had already saved screenshots of his activity, showing that his account had been in the group earlier and had interacted with posts before November 20th. In one example from early November, when someone complained about the lack of progress in finding the executioner, Sang reacted to the post with a laughing emoji.

 But it wasn’t only Sang losing control. His son, Dang Chung, posted a picture with the status, taunting the online community. Come on, it’s just a few pieces of human meat. Within the hour, the father and son deleted all of these posts. But of course, screenshots of them were already circulating. Had it finally dawned on them how much evidence the internet really had on them? How safe did Sang believe he was? Was he convinced that even if the internet exposed him, nothing would happen? That he was untouchable? For a while, it

looked as though he might be right. But events progressed far more quickly than anyone expected. All of the information you’ve just heard was assembled by members of the Vietnamese Facebook group onset, a community that has taken it upon themselves to document what authorities refused to acknowledge. On November 23rd, after weeks of collecting images, posts, chat logs, and geoloccation clues, the group compiled their findings into an 88page report on Google Drive, and released it to the public. 4 days later, on November 27th,

they released an expanded English translated version, a 106-page file laying out every step of the investigation. As we began digging deeper into the case, the situation in Vietnam started shifting fast. On November 28th, the Tien Hong Commune police issued an urgent public notice. The warning addressed a document circulating online referring to the community’s original 88page Vietnamese investigation file.

 According to police, malicious individuals are deliberately amplifying information, inciting violence, and causing extremely harmful psychological effects on viewers. They went as far as to insinuate that the 88page document contained pre-installed malware that steals accounts, steals money, and commits fraud. Citizens were ordered not to share such content under any circumstances, and if they did, they would be breaking the law.

 Anyone who received the file was instructed to delete it immediately and quietly report the sender. The public was also instructed to only receive information from official sources and to report accounts or pages spreading fake news to help maintain a healthy online environment and assist police in detecting and preventing the spread of misinformation.

 Within hours, state newspapers echoed the same warning. Some Vietnamese content creators even amplified it themselves, urging their viewers to avoid the document at all costs. A graphic poster spread online claiming that anyone who clicked the file risked losing control of their social media accounts, having their data stolen, their devices encrypted for ransomware, or being used to scam friends and family.

 The message was clear. Authorities did not want the public accessing the community’s investigation. On Reddit, a user named Least Carpenter 8750 described what came next. Old posts disappearing, accounts wiped without explanation, and state newspapers threatening that anyone sharing the documents link could face fines up to 5 million dong.

 Inside the onset group, the same message circulated, stop sharing the files or risk consequences. For many following the case, the government’s response was a clear attempt to control the situation. Vietnam remains under a one-party communist system where news outlets are state aligned and often frame information in ways to support official narratives.

 Even so, the attempt to suppress the community’s investigation ultimately had the opposite effect. Instead of containing the story, it highlighted just how much information had already been uncovered without official involvement. The public had already conducted its own investigation and built a comprehensive crowdsourced archive of information that contradicted the government’s silence.

According to a Reddit user posting under the name user/hoisey convine, Vietnam’s online community had been trying to get police to investigate Dot’s murder since July 2025, contacting officers, local authorities, and even Dot’s surviving family. At the time, he said authorities showed no interest in handling the case despite multiple warnings.

 It wasn’t until November when online investigators exposed that the murderer was a member of the Communist Party that the police acknowledged the case at all. This sequence of events left many observers questioning the government’s priorities. By November 28th, the investigation had moved to a very public display of state action. Local reporters confirmed that the police forces had arrived at the former headquarters of market management team number four.

 The building, abandoned after the agency’s reorganization earlier in the year, was suddenly sealed off. Its front gate was locked. The perimeter reinforced with barb wire. And at least one structure inside the compound, believed to be the canteen with the distinctive green door, had been paper sealed. All the while, officials refused to reveal the reason for the police presence in the area.

Word spread quickly. A large crowd gathered outside the gate, dense enough to slow traffic through the narrow residential area. Reporters described the scene as congested, with residents pressing forward to get a look. The following evening on November 29th, the police presence intensified. Dozens of officers and multiple government-plated vehicles arrived as mobile police units were deployed to maintain order.

Barricades and cord on tape were set up to block the road leading into the area. And by then, roughly a 100 onlookers had gathered. Amid the heightened security, the chairman of the Hulu Long Commune People’s Committee issued the first official acknowledgement tying the law enforcement activity to the murder case.

He confirmed that officers were present in connection with information circulating on social media about Mr. DVS, the initials of Dwan van Sang. That same day, another set of news described police efforts to locate Wen Schwen Dot. On November 27th, officers visited his family home, though they offered no explanation for why they were looking for him or what triggered the inquiry.

Dot’s mother said her son had been missing for a decade. After his father passed away, he left home, never contacted her again, and no one in the village had seen him since. According to the commune authorities, that was the extent of their involvement. They were simply following a request to confirm whether their local resident could even be located.

 As of November 29th, they stressed that Dot had been absent for many years and that they had no information about where he might be now. But while police maintained this narrow bureaucratic framing, they simultaneously continued warning the public about the 88-page file and that owning it was against the law. As police attempted to steer the narrative, the limits of that approach became visible.

So, they released just enough information to satisfy the growing pressure. On November 30th, a screenshot began circulating online of a leaked report believed to be an internal police summary of their involvement in the case. According to that report, authorities first detected the videos and photographs on November 25th.

Notably, two days after the internet sleuths had released their 88-page document. Aside from the videos and images, police apparently discovered online groups who had identified the victim as Wen Schwen dot and the perpetrator as Dan Von Sang. On November 27th, forensic examiners reviewed the footage and found no signs of AI generation.

 Then on November 28th, police received a statement from Dot’s village chief and collected a hair sample from Dot’s mother for DNA comparison. That same day, investigators conducted an on-site examination at the workplace of market management team number four, a location different from the sites the online community had believed to be the crime scene.

 Inside team number four offices, police apparently found a kitchen and restroom matching the layout seen in the beheading video. Beneath the sinks and inside the drains, they recovered three suspected human teeth and multiple bone fragments. All were sent for forensic analysis. Later that day, police searched Sang’s residence and seized two jackets resembling the one worn in the footage prior to the killing along with a heater identical to the one visible in the earlier portion of the beheading video. Investigators also recovered

Dot’s phone from Sang’s sister. She reportedly told police Sang had given it to her. The leaked report also stated that during initial questioning by police, Sang confessed. He allegedly told investigators he met Dot online around 2020 through a website dedicated to extreme content involving people seeking staged deaths.

 Dot repeatedly expressed his wish to be beheaded and even offered money to rent a location for it. By mid 2024, Sang agreed to carry out Dot’s request. On January 25th, 2025, he called Dot to the MMD team number four office where Dot arrived with two knives. That evening, Sang killed him, dismembering the body, boiled portions to delay composition, smashed the bones, and distributed the remains into roughly 10 bags.

 Some, he said, he fed to his dogs. The rest he discarded across temporary garbage sites. 2 days later, he claimed to have thrown the knives onto a tow truck parked along the roadside. A Reddit user, user/hoyconine, claimed the leaked document wasn’t an accident at all. He said that authorities themselves released it not to inform the public but to quiet them.

In his words, “The leak was meant to show that the police had taken action while carefully suppressing every other detail of the investigation. Police did not confirm whether the leaked screenshots came from inside the department, although they did not dispute it either. 3 days later, the government released its first official statement.

 On December 3rd, 2025, the Ministry of Public Security published an official statement. The article included a single photograph. Dan von Sang in handcuffs between two officers. The ministry confirmed what the internet community had been reporting for months that Sang had murdered Wen Swen Dot and after the killing attempted to erase every trace of the crime through cleaning, disposal, and general destruction of evidence.

 According to the document, investigators issued a decision to prosecute and an arrest warrant for Sang on November 29th, 2025 on charges of murder. But even as they confirmed the suspect and the crime, the ministry maintained one part of an earlier narrative. The community circulated case file they said was still harmful, still dangerous, still not to be shared.

 This case is only now beginning to gain international recognition. But beneath the surface, it is far more complicated than it first appears. When Schwend was a deeply vulnerable man in need of help, and somewhere along the way, the system failed him. in that same system then seemed ready to protect the man who killed him.

 Without the relentless work of Vietnam’s online community, it is unclear when or even if Dwan vans would ever have been brought to justice. Despite repeated warnings and threats, Vietnamese nisonens refused to be silenced. Even now, they continue to investigate the remaining unanswered questions of this case, such as had Sang claimed other victims besides Dot and did Sang act alone in Dot’s murder? Their plea for help to bring this case to the attention of the outside world has done more than expose a horrific crime. It has revealed how the people of

Vietnam are forced to fight not only for truth but for their right to speak it. However, we would be naive to think that this is a problem isolated to just one country. There have always been those in wealth and power who suppress information and skew narratives to their advantage.

 So, we must be critical of what we are told before accepting it as fact. After all, there is always more than one side to any story, and the truth is out there. Sometimes it just takes some digging to find it. Thank you for watching. If you’d like to support the work that went into this video, please consider hitting the like button and subscribing to our channel.

It’s the best thing you can do to help us keep making videos like this one about a psychopath who made an evil invention to keep his buried victim alive. And thanks to NordVPN for sponsoring this video. Go to nordvpn.com/bw to get the exclusive deal of a 2-year plan with four months extra.