谢连斌上诉案：谢的律师们将指控原审中一名证人撒谎

hornsay

很久没听到谢案上诉的音讯，出来声援一下。

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-4-28 17:00
V1证据指的是，现场在受害2男孩房间一把吉他上有在受害者溅开的血迹之上按上去的指纹

警察自己的指纹专家D ...

不诚实，遮掩材料那应该跟警方有关？

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-4-29 15:51
林家灭门案无休无止：谢连斌携两名DNA专家提出上诉
www.chinese.net.au     2020年4月29日 星期三

Gill医生是上诉律师找的？

hornsay

从新再贴一次：


a)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Bin Lin is 4,410 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

b)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Li Lin is 27.1 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

(c)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Min Lin is 379,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

(d)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Henry Lin is 1,330,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person; and （应该有Henry的DNA）

(e)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Terry Lin is 1,030,000,000,000,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person. （一定有Terry的DNA）

P.S: 1 quintillion = 1,000 quadrillion;
        1 quadrillion = 1,000 trillion;
        1 trillion = 1,000 billion;
         1 billion = 1,000 million.

再重温以上True Allele 对stain 91 DNA的分析结果
Yun Bin Lin 是 Irene，也即林暋的妻妹
Yun Li Lin 是 Lily，也即林暋的妻子


与不相关亚洲人/unrelated Asian person 相比，Irene和Lily DNA与stain91DNA 的相似度分别高了4410 倍和27.1倍

但Irene 和Lily是不相关亚洲人/unrelated Asian person吗？ 不是的：

1）她们是相关性比一般“不相关亚洲人”更强的中国人
2）都姓林，远祖上有关联的可能性高
3）林老人是广东潮汕人，而Irene和Lily父母是福建闽南人，潮汕和闽南地理上相邻，语言相通，文化习俗也类似，远祖上都由同一地区迁移而来，据说1949年差点把广东潮汕和福建闽南合并作一个省

如果考虑以上这几个因素，很明显，如果说不相关亚洲人的DNA有1个allele与stain91DNA相似，Lily的DNA有27个allele与stain 91DNA相似，Irene的DNA有4410个allele与stain91DNA相似，即使她们的DNA不在stain91，毫不奇怪

而3男受害者的379000；1330000000和1030000000000000000数值，明显把他们与2女受害者分开，完全在一个不同的级别

hornsay

Robert Xie – an evidence-free conviction

Andrew L. Urban.

There was no direct evidence that Robert Xie viciously murdered five members of his wife’s family in 2009, nor any credible circumstantial evidence. The appeal against his 2017 conviction has been delayed by the Crown, most recently in October this year (2019). This briefing is published to provide the public with information about the case which may be at odds with media-generated perceptions about the man and the murders.

The timeline below draws attention to the fact that for almost two years after the brutal murders in an Epping (Sydney) home, police had nothing to go on, no clues, no evidence, no weapon, no witnesses … We can infer that there was pressure from senior police and perhaps others, to get a result. Such a major crime could not be allowed to become a cold case when law and order was a central plank of modern politics.

hornsay

July 18, 2009: Newsagent Min Lin, 45, Mr Lin’s wife Yun Li “Lily” Lin, 44, their sons Henry, 12, and Terry, 9, and Mrs Lin’s sister, Yun Bin “Irene” Lin, 39, are found dead in their North Epping home.

Min Lin’s sister Kathy and her husband Lian Bin “Robert” Xie had gone to the Lin house (just 200 metres from their own) around 9:50am, after receiving a phone call to say the family newsagency had still not opened. They discovered the bodies, which had been bashed so badly their faces were unrecognisable.

Police investigations over the next six months fail to find clues or culprits. The case of a brutal massacre in suburban Sydney is going cold. In January 2010, police set up surveillance on Robert Xie: cameras and listening devices installed in his house and car. Still nothing.

hornsay

May 5, 2011: Robert Xie is arrested and charged with five counts of murder. Police tell the media that he emerged as their prime suspect about six months after the killings. Xie is held on remand. It’s almost two years since the murders.

The prosecution claims that Robert Xie murdered his extended family some time after 2am on Saturday July 18. The time is critical to the Crown’s case because Robert had gone to bed sometime after 2am, a fact corroborated by computer records, which showed activity until then. This is not disputed. Kathy didn’t notice when he came to bed because she was already asleep. There is no forensic evidence linking Xie to the crime scene.

hornsay

Earlier that evening, the whole family had been together, except Lily and Irene, at the Merrylands home of Kathy’s parents for the regular Friday night dinner; Mrs Zhu’s pork and sticky rice the favourites. They had all left to go home before 10pm. (Lily and Irene were often absent, usually working at the Lin family owned newsagency in Epping.) The Lin family lived at 55a Boundary Road, just 200 metres around the corner from Robert and Kathy Xie in Beck Street.

The autopsy reports state that the victims died “between 17 July 2009 and 18 July 2009”. The murders could have taken place anytime between 10.30pm (when the two Lin boys were dropped home by Robert and Kathy Xie after the family dinner) and 2am, for example, while Robert was still at his computer.

Although four trials were started, the first two (2013-14 & 2014) were both abandoned; in the first trial, new evidence was introduced and thus the trial was aborted. The second trial was aborted when the judge fell ill.

The third trial (2015) went for nine months before Justice Elizabeth Fullerton, and was prosecuted by Mark Tedeschi QC, then senior counsel for the NSW DPP; this trial ended with a hung jury.

hornsay

At the end of the fourth trial (with a new defence team), on Thursday, February 13, 2017, Justice Fullerton sentenced Lian Bin (Robert) Xie to life imprisonment without parole for the brutal, savage murder of five members of his wife Kathy’s family, in their North Epping home on July 18, 2009. Hearing the sentence, Xie rose to his feet and called out: “I did not murder the Lin family, I am innocent.” His wife Kathy, weeping, echoed his claim of innocence and has never wavered in her support.

An appeal was launched immediately. The grounds of appeal were tendered in court on December 14, 2018. The court was to begin to hear arguments in October 2019 but the Crown has (again) sought a delay.

hornsay

ANALYSIS

Robert Xie’s prosecutor was seriously misguided when suggesting that ‘saving face’ was a motive for the murders and the very idea makes Ron* annoyed; Ron is Chinese.

He questions the validity of a Westerner telling the court that Robert Xie would be motivated to savagely murder five of his extended family because he ‘lost face’ over his brother in law’s success and money. It was said by the prosecutor to have caused him ‘intense bitterness and hatred’ against his victim. Ron’s Chinese friends laughed derisorily when he told them about the claim.

That is so absurd, says Ron, his voice rising. It’s as if the prosecutor had heard something about ‘loss of face’ in a TV documentary, about a culture he doesn’t know and attached it to the accused. And the jury knew no better. They, too, had heard the phrase, and had no idea how ridiculous the prosecution’s claim was; Ron shakes his head. It was like someone had thought they understood China from eating Chinese food and seeing travel posters.

It’s inner city Sydney and we’re sitting in the enclosed back yard of a typical Newtown two-storey, Ron, his friend Phillip and me, around a small table on which an empty mug stands as silent witness to Phillip’s afternoon cuppa. We’re under a flight path, but they’ve got used to the soaring interruptions in the now overcast sky. Ron is reading a book, until we start talking about the case of Robert Xie.

When he first heard about the case, Ron had no opinions “or even thoughts” about Xie’s guilt or innocence. He comes from mainland China – like Xie. Xie had been an ear, nose and throat specialist in China before moving to Australia and his speech reflected his education. His English at the time was fairly good, too, and is even better these many years later.

The media, following the police line, readily turned the false ‘loss of face’ motive into the symbolic reason for the murder victims to have had massive damage to their faces. This makes Ron even angrier. It stretches the insult-by-ignorance beyond breaking point.

In Chinese culture, losing face is bad, says Ron, but not so bad as to generate so much hate that you’d kill somebody – never mind five members of your family. Losing face generates feelings of inadequacy and embarrassment; not hatred.

hornsay

If only the jury knew …

The prosecution also put it to the jury that Xie wanted to get his hands on the Lin family ‘wealth’ – which didn’t exist. The third (far fetched) motive proposed was that Xie wanted to sexually abuse their 15 year old daughter, Brenda, without her family being around to protect her. This aspect gained much publicity and regardless of its veracity or relevance to the murders would certainly influence anyone’s thinking about Xie, even though he was not charged with any such offence.

Ron’s friend Phillip, has also been a keen observer of this case, attending the trials and making notes. He compiled the following summary of compelling circumstances around the case that deserve a lot more attention than the verdict suggests.

For some considerable time around the Lin murders, an international drug syndicate was using a convenient system to smuggle contraband into Sydney. Many newsagents had installed sets of post office boxes in their front windows. Customers could obtain their mail at any time of the day or night and were not under surveillance. The Lins’ Epping newsagency provided such a service. The post boxes at their Rawson St newsagency had been used by an international drug cartel to smuggle cocaine, MDMA and heroin through the mail from Thailand, Indonesia, Spain, Bolivia, Columbia, Pakistan, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

Drug dealers managed to use fake documentation to obtain a number of these boxes. Document checking was left to the proprietor. Letters and parcels of contraband were sent to particular box numbers and collected by the dealers. One dealer had been caught about a year earlier and possessed keys to various boxes all over Sydney.

Border control was aware of what was going on because they would periodically intercept articles and confiscate them. They created lists of box numbers which came under suspicion. It is unknown whether they took into account the difficulty they were creating for the newsagents when an expected article did not arrive.

Several customers of the newsagency testified that they saw heated exchanges between Min Lin and other customers from time to time. One may conclude that an expected parcel (or several) had failed to arrive. Evidence provided by the Australian Federal Police indicated that the amount of contraband confiscated by Border Control was measured in kilograms, so one would expect that Min needed to handle disgruntled customers on a regular basis. One can only guess the amount of contraband that was passing through the boxes.

Clearly not all contraband was seized, or even detected. It was a known fact that some parcels were so big that they could not be squeezed into the post box. They were stored in the back room of the newsagency and handed over to the recipient in due course after a notice was placed in the box. Over time, both Min and Irene would come to recognise regular collectors of such parcels.

It is not difficult to imagine that the dealers harboured suspicions that Min is intercepting some of the packages for his own benefit. They can hardly contact Border Control and make enquires. If the situation persists for long enough, they may decide to take drastic action, especially if they discover that the AFP have convinced Min to contact them when a suspicious package arrives. Min can recognise the regular recipients and is a threat to their operations.

The drastic action of killing the entire Lin family occurs one Friday night. The extreme violence and barbarity makes headlines around the world. What a clear warning to anyone thinking of getting in the way of the syndicate. What a clear motive for the killings.

The judge’s sentencing remarks provide a matching overlay to such a scenario – a perfect fit for a gang of vicious criminals exacting the price for what they saw as disloyalty and theft.

hornsay

CROWN’S DNA EVIDENCE – UNPROVEN

In the absence of any durable evidence that pointed to Robert Xie, the prosecution made much of a DNA sample (‘stain 91’) taken from the Xie family home garage floor.

JUDGE’S REMARKS ON SENTENCE (extract)

In the course of executing a search warrant over the offender’s residence in May 2010, a small transfer blood stain was located on the garage floor. It was the Crown case at trial that this was the blood of at least four of the deceased inadvertently transferred by the offender onto the garage floor after the murders.

“… after the murders.” ? There is no evidence to that effect. Finding the DNA in 2010 does not provide a time stamp of when it was deposited. At best, all that the DNA smear in Xie’s garage shows is that someone – Xie or his wife or both – was at the crime scene at some stage during or after the crime, either discovering the bodies or committing the crime. The DNA smear does not differentiate between whether they discovered the bodies or whether they committed the crime. We already know they discovered the bodies, so the presence of the smear is meaningless, even if deposited after the murders and even if it is reliable evidence.

Which it is not. The forensic evidence about the DNA – the prosecution’s ‘smoking gun’ – is profoundly unreliable. Despite the judge’s sentencing remarks, it is not at all certain that it is blood. (The test conducted with luminol on the entire floor showed no likelihood of blood being present.)

Expert witnesses provided conflicting testimony, and in the end, none of them could exclude young Brenda Lin from the DNA sample; but Brenda was overseas on a school excursion at the time of the murders.

Stain 91 was “probably the most complex DNA sample ever introduced to a criminal trial in Australia,” the prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi QC was quoted saying in one article. My ‘researcher/observer’ Phillip has this to say: “That stain 91 was blood was the standout fact that the Crown was unable to prove. I recall the evidence vividly and have double-checked with the transcript. They absolutely failed.” He concludes: “If stain 91 is blood, the DNA evidence shows that it didn’t come from the crime scene; we can ignore it. If it is not blood, it didn’t come from the crime scene; we can ignore it.”

A credible explanation for stain 91 (tiny as it was) may be found in the fact that the two families lived within 200 metres of each other and often played games together (eg badminton) in this garage.

* Ron is not his real name.

hornsay

Evidence from two foreign doctors, Dr Peter Gill and Dr Mark Perlin, is expected to be heard during the appeal. Both men had given evidence at the trial regarding a DNA sample that the prosecution claimed was crucial in proving Xie’s guilt. The sample was found on the garage floor of Xie’s house, 200 metres from the crime scene. A credible explanation for stain 91 (tiny as it was) may be found in the fact that the two families often played games together (eg badminton) in this garage. The DNA could have been deposited at any time prior to the murders. The Crown asserted that stain91 was evidence of the murder weapon having rested on the garage floor, awaiting disposal later in the day. No murder weapon was produced in evidence.

hornsay

Justice Beech-Jones directed Belinda Rigg SC to notify the Crown on the parts of Professor Gill’s report they intended to rely on in the appeal by 5pm May 11.

He also asked Crown prosecutor Anna Mitchelmore SC to file and serve any written report of Dr Perlin proposed to be adduced by 5pm May 20.

Dr. Mark Perlin is Chief Scientific and Executive Officer at Cybergenetics, in Pittsburgh, USA. Dr Peter Gill is Professor of Forensic Genetics at Oslo University, Norway.

The appeal is scheduled to begin on Monday, June 22, 2020.

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-5-1 20:25
但Mark Perlin会把球踢给Mark Tedeschi，是他给的sample，我只是照要求做分析
所以大阴谋师还是Mark Tedesc ...

最恶劣的是Perlin给的数据用了不同的unit, 如果用相同的unit, 当法官或者陪审团看到dna的几率相差十几个0时，结果可能就完全不一样。

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-5-1 21:20
上诉大律师Belinda Riggs 的这一招绝对高，一针见血，摧枯拉朽
应该还会为索赔埋下伏笔
...

感觉主审法官对谢案子以前的处理不满意。

因为要Perlin出来作证，法官觉得他们没有这方面的专业知识， 所以接受上诉方邀请 Dr Gill来对证。

这是去年主审法官的安排。他们表示可以接受延期，但一定要把这个环节做好。

hornsay

SoftSome 发表于 2020-5-1 22:44
我瞎说一句，没做研究，就是一个念头，搞不好这个Dr Gill是一个开源DNA分析软件的开发者，说不定将会是个 ...

Evidence from two foreign doctors, Dr Peter Gill and Dr Mark Perlin, is expected to be heard during the appeal. Both men had given evidence at the trial regarding a DNA sample that the prosecution claimed was crucial in proving Xie’s guilt.

应该在以前庭审时出现过的。

hornsay

关于林暋尸检报告，很可惜在四审时没有被拿出来，到底是法庭故意不再审理这些尸检报告，还是辩方根本没有意识到这些问题,有待以后厘清。

The bladder evidence was noted by Justice Fullerton as something that should be of great interest to the defence. The third trial, where it was raised, resulted in a hung jury. Tellingly, it was not addressed in the fourth and final trial (defended by a new team) in which Xie was found guilty.

In that fourth and final trial, no details of the autopsy reports concerning the stomach contents of the victims were addressed. Taken together, the bladder and stomach evidence is compelling – and exculpatory. Reasonable doubt would certainly be established in the minds of jury members…if they were made aware of it.

hornsay

Can we trust people if they ARE given the position of being Jurors. I personally doubt it. We can’t trust the Police, we cannot trust the Judges or Lawyers, so what can WE do. Bring them from another Country. People off the street may be the better of the two evils. I don’t think GIVEN the maggots in the press, that we should use Jurors from the same State, due to false accusations and speculation that goes into Newspapers.
I feel terrible for this man and ALL THAT HAVE NOT HAD JUSTICE for the death/s of their loved ones, instead, they are jailed for life, with NO PAROLE on Circumstantial evidence. Whatever happened to “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”?
Australia should hang their heads in shame. So freaking wrong! :-(

hornsay

In that fourth and final trial, no details of the autopsy reports concerning the stomach contents of the victims were addressed. Taken together, the bladder and stomach evidence is compelling – and exculpatory. Reasonable doubt would certainly be established in the minds of jury members…if they were made aware of it.


ANOTHER GUY REPLY:

very true i was on the last jury and this should have come out but we heard nothing ,I was the last one to leave before the 12 were selected to make there verdict i was not convinced he did it and still dont

hornsay

hornsay 发表于 2020-5-7 11:46
In that fourth and final trial, no details of the autopsy reports concerning the stomach contents of ...

四审完全没有讨论尸检报告，这是辩方律师的大失误。

控方知道尸检报告会显示作案时间在上半夜，也有许多证据证明多种工具作案而故意逃避尸检报告，可想而知，尸检报告对控方有多么的不利。

是什么原因让整个的庭审不再讨论尸检报告？是法庭？还是辩方也不愿意提及，认为价值不大？

hornsay

Da_Musiq 发表于 2020-5-7 12:53
7月18日天亮后，谢早早起床清洗车库，警探们在那里发现了6毫米的血迹。

这个洗车库是谁发现的 他老婆关 ...

谢是扫地而已，被翻译翻成clean,然后又被翻回中文变成了清洗。

车库扫地是案发后警方常规询问，谢主动交代他那段时间在做些什么。

车库所谓血迹，到现在都有争议，有部分专家认为根本就不是血迹。

而其中的DNA成分也有孤女的份，但是法庭上没有被呈现，检方认为孤女DNA成分意义不大，现在这个是上诉的焦点，目前法官认为这是有人故意隐瞒孤女这份证据。

Robert Xie's lawyers to make 'serious allegations' against 'dishonest' witness.

Justice Beech-Jones said the appeal hearing included allegations a trial witness was "dishonest" and "covered up material".

hornsay

Da_Musiq 发表于 2020-5-7 14:53
.谢复制了一把林家的钥匙，把这把钥匙留在一个无辜的人的家中（以误导警方）。
这个是新闻里面的 有没这 ...

谢老婆接到电话说她哥哥的店还没开门，然后她电话给他哥哥也没人接。

那天是周六早上，据说是他们准备带小孩去吃麦当劳，所以当他们进到哥哥家里时，小孩还坐在车里。

hornsay

Y叔 发表于 2020-5-7 16:10
如果证人被推翻，这个案子就翻了吧？

现在被指控证人撒谎的应该是DNA软件公司的老板，假如确实是他撒谎的话，这个案子应该会被推翻。

因为这个案子唯一就是靠DNA来决定的。

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-5-7 19:42
他可以说他没撒谎
是Mark Tedeschi 给了他5个受害人的标本做分析，他只是照做。他也从来没有说2女受害者 ...

对，有可能通过他了解当初DNA送检的全过程。

假如送检中有瑕疵，这个结果就是BIG QUESTION.

理论上PERLIN不应该知道任何被检样本中的人在这个案子中的背景。

hornsay

Da_Musiq 发表于 2020-5-7 17:46
到底凶手是怎么进去的 是pick lock 还是用钥匙 第二天妹妹是用钥匙进去的还是门没锁？
另外警察有无explore ...

钥匙只是控方的一个伎俩，误导大众认为只有谢才有可能进入林家。

事实上仨个大人在小孩回来时被杀的，根本不用钥匙。

hornsay

Da_Musiq 发表于 2020-5-7 21:03
什么意思 法定死亡时间是几点

没有法定时间。

死亡时间从林最后被看到在加油站到第二天被发现死亡。

法医拒绝讲出具体死亡时间，但是法医却断言小孩比大人晚死。

hornsay

Da_Musiq 发表于 2020-5-7 21:38
尸体有没被拖动 这个带着血是骗不了的 每人都是在房里死 那肯定得十一点后 查浏览器记录便知 ...

这个案子最大的特点是警方在做案子，他们提供的材料都是经过处理过的，除了早期的法医记录是实事求是的原始记录无法更改，但还是很可惜法医在庭审时期也是尽量的去配合警方和检方，最最诧异的是法医竟无法估算死亡时间。

而检控官更是臭名昭著的冤案制造者。

整个媒体一直在配合控方，你可以游览一下所有的媒体，几乎找不到任何怀疑这个案子的报道。

所有这些使得一个无辜的人被活生生的冤枉成杀人犯。

hornsay

a) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Bin Lin is 4,410 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

b) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Li Lin is 27.1 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

(c) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Min Lin is 379,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

(d) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Henry Lin is 1,330,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

(e) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Terry Lin is 1,030,000,000,000,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person.

hornsay

These figures come from the early part of Trial 1. They are based on the assumption that there were only 3 contributors to Stain 91. Changing the assumption to 5 contributors produced a different set of figures. The men’s results decreased and the women’s results increased to about 170000 and 4000. Brenda was tested this time, her result was about 80000. Any result exceeding 1000 indicates that the person is a contributor to the stain. If we think there are 5 contributors, we choose the top 5 results.