Jian Fang (Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack) - Businessperson, Murder Victim....and Welcher?

By: Shane Lambert

Original time of writing: January 18th, 2025

Today, I partook in an old hobby of mine. I watched some old episodes of Unsolved Mysteries, the hit television show from the 1980s and 1990s starring Robert Stack as the host. The episode I watched, in part, was from Season 6, Episode 11 (aired March 3rd, 1995) and it was available on YouTube at the original time of writing. I focused on the first topic of the episode, the 1993 murder of a San Francisco businessman named Jian Fang.

Fang's Murder: As Presented on the Unsolved Mysteries episode

Fang was the owner of a prominent noodle factory. As presented in the episode of Unsolved Mysteries, on December 18th, 1993, Fang left work with a supervisor in his factory. This supervisor (called a foreman in the media) was a woman whom he was giving a ride home. Presumptively, she has nothing to do with the crime. As presented in the TV show, Fang offered her a ride. If true, that would mean she was not a willing participant in this sordid affair but was a "wrong place at the wrong time" kind of actor in this scene.

Unbeknownst to either him or the woman, two assailants had entered Fang's vehicle where they lay in waiting. Shortly after Fang drove away, these assailants emerged from the backseat to rob Mr. Fang.

One of the assailants fashioned a knife, which was described as little more than a cheap kitchen knife. After arguing with Mr. Fang for some time, a commotion ensued. As presented in the Unsolved Mysteries episode, the assailant who fashioned the knife stabbed Mr. Fang in this commotion. The blade pierced his heart, leading to Mr. Fang's death.

The woman in the vehicle was threatened but she was spared. After two hours, she contacted help.

Amateur Sleuths Offer Their Opinions

In the episode, a group of amateurs are asked their thoughts on the case. Let's call them Pre-Internet Websleuths. 

I did one like one of the theories that was presented in the episode. Mainly, one of the students suggested that Mr. Fang was murdered as a result of his affiliation with sports gambling circles. His affiliation with such activities was mentioned in the episode.

Back in 1993, sports gambling was not generally legal in the USA. It was only during Donald Trump's first tenure as president that sports gambling enjoyed broader legalization. Before Trump, it was Las Vegas and casinos on Indian reservations where gambling was allowed. I think you could also gamble at some weird locations, like on a riverboat situated on a river that acted as a border between two states. 

Regardless, you couldn't gamble on sports as much as you can today in the USA. The article below is from San Francisco in 1993.

The San Francisco Examiner
September 24th, 1993.

That gambling was more than just frowned upon in 1993 -- it was illegal in many American locations -- is important to note for a couple of reasons for this case. Firstly, we learn something about the murder victim. It's important not to put a murder victim on a pedestal, which I think some amateurs do.

If he was into sports gambling circles in 1993 in California, then Mr. Fang wasn't the type of citizen who followed the law religiously. I don't think sports gambling is that bad of a crime. I would say it was more like smoking marijuana and maybe not quite as bad as participating in prostitution. But Mr. Fang must have been a willing member of some clandestine circles and that's important because it can call his character into question a bit.

Secondly, when an industry is illegal, then there is no legal forum to enforce non-payment of debts. This happens in drug trafficking. When someone owes a debt over drugs, that person cannot just litigate against the other party because it would be incriminating. It makes the drug industry inherently violent. 

In the world of clandestine sports betting, there was no way to enforce winning bets. When you gamble on sports legally through a casino or sportsbook, there are legal parameters that must be adhered to. When you gamble illegally, bets can be welched on much easier. That can make illegal sports betting rife with intimidation and violence.

The theorist that I liked in the episode stated that Mr. Fang might have won a bet against the assailants. They then were poor sports and, after paying the bet, tried to rob Mr. Fang to recover their losses. I think there's a bit of a bias here to see the murder victim as a saint in life. In contrast, I would simply suggest that the robbers were trying to collect a bet that Mr. Fang might have welched on.

From this perspective, that Mr. Fang was not the perfect citizen is important. He participated in clandestine activities when he made illicit sports bets. His character wasn't perfect and, accordingly, perhaps he was a welcher in unregulated sports gambling.

My scenario for this murder (opinion)

The San Francisco Examiner
September 29th, 1994.

The assailants stalked Mr. Fang, I'm sure of this. They knew his vehicle, and where it would be parked, and they seemed to know the route he would take from his workplace to his vehicle. That's clear because they broke a window to get into his vehicle. They must have picked a window that Mr. Fang wouldn't see on his approach as that's the only way they would go undetected after breaking into the vehicle.

The assailants broke the back window of Mr. Fang's car. There must have been a degree of confidence in their belief that Mr. Fang wouldn't approach that way nor go to the back of the car to load it. I think that would have required some stalking and planning.

The assailant who stabbed Mr. Fang probably did so in panic or accidentally. I do not think that these were hardened criminals the day that they planned to collect on what I believe was a genuine gambling debt. The assailant left the basic kitchen knife at the murder scene. Any mafioso-type killer probably would not do that. I think leaving the actual murder weapon at the scene of the crime is the mistake of a novice criminal. This was a robbery that escalated into a murder, in my opinion. The detective in the Unsolved Mysteries episode seemed to think the same thing.

Who did it? I think this theory would point toward someone that Mr. Fang owed money to after losing a bet. While that doesn't name a name, I think it makes more sense than the other theories presented in the episode.

Newspaper Clipping Details

• The suspects were thought to be younger than 30.
• There was a BB gun near the crime scene.
• He was killed on a Saturday night during the NFL season, which plays on Sunday (it was suggested in an article that Mr. Fang might have had a lot of money on him at that time because football is heavily bet on).
• The detective in the case thought that there might have been a third assailant, a getaway driver.

One thing that didn't add up was the timing. One newspaper source so it was almost midnight on December 18th, 1993 when Mr. Fang walked out to his vehicle. In the Unsolved Mysteries episode, the drama in the vehicle is described as taking almost half of an hour to unfold. When I play that timeline out, I have Mr. Fang being murdered very early on December 19th, 1993 as opposed to very late on the 18th. However, the point may be moot.

Jian Fang: What Happened After the Unsolved Mysteries Episode?

• I did not find any newspaper articles or online media that stated that this murder had been solved since 1993.