|
|
此文章由 hornsay 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 hornsay 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
The visual surveillance device was continuously monitored from 8 February 2010 until 10 May 2010 when it was discovered by the accused and deactivated. The audio surveillance device in the accused’s bedroom continued in operation until some later date.
从2010.02.08-2010.05.10，警方对谢家进行了长达3个多月的录像监控以及声音监控。
The accused and his wife, Kathy Lin, were interviewed by police at various intervals during the period both surveillance devices were operative in the expectation that they would discuss the questions asked of them, and that in their conversations they would reveal more of the events of 17 and 18 July 2009 than what they had initially disclosed to police.
在这期间，警方对谢和Kathy进行了多次审问。
但是仍然没有发现任何可疑迹象。
于是警方进行了心理战：
On 3 May 2010 she appeared and was questioned under compulsion. In the course of her examination she was told, in effect, that the police believed that her husband was the murderer as the shoe print impressions in blood at Boundary Road corresponded with the style and size of sports shoes he was known to wear. That was also done in the expectation that she would reveal this information to the accused.
2010.05.03，在经过差不多3个月的监视后，警方故意告诉Kathy谢是杀人犯，因为他的鞋印和size跟现场的一样。
Objection was taken to the evidence in its entirety save for the audiovisual recording of the accused and his wife on 6 May 2010 where the accused is shown destroying shoe boxes in his wife’s presence.
于是就有了谢剪鞋盒的事实。
如果谢是杀人犯，为什么不把在现场穿的鞋盒处理掉？
而警方为什么要等3个月才开始打心理战？很明显，这三个月里，任凭警方如何监控，发现不了任何的东西，本身就说明谢根本不是一个杀人犯。
因为剪鞋盒，让警方如获至宝，终于可以拿得出一点东西来诬陷谢了。
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
2014”饱倒“之旅正在进行时，更新完毕，第五天，中正纪念馆，西门红楼 (2014-9-14) ylbeethoven 
你的广岛 (2005-6-14) leeshine 
楼主:satellite0
发表于 2018-12-28 00:06
