杀害多人的谢联斌对其定罪提出上诉

hornsay

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-10 22:41
之前就想告诉你，你其实是落入了一个“不可知论陷阱”的思维误区，以为某些你自己认为的重要的事情未经论 ...

你说的一点都不错。

还要再加一条：

现实中也确实有冤案。

猫儿不笨

悉尼林家血案可能是冤案一个。。。 新疑点19 (旧版）

https://www.oursteps.com.au/bbs/ ... p;extra=&page=1

sanhbin

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-10 01:28
基本同意，但是凶手是在被害人睡熟后断电的，所以屋里不会有反应。但是凶手必须非常了解屋内各人的习性 ...

大胆猜测一下，谢当年在墨尔本开餐馆时肯定有不少相熟的人，甚至可能还有黑工，如果请1—2个信得过的人从墨尔本开车过来，完事后再带着作案工具返回，并在路上处理掉作案工具，这个是不是一种可能？

meteordust

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-10 22:48
你说的一点都不错。

还要再加一条：

我其实想到更可怕的一件事。

如果谢有同伙的话，现在除了想尽办法要捞人之外，最后如果实在没办法，可能会铤而走险用另一种方法，就是再做一次类似的案子，从而试图证明凶手另有其人。

因为反正也要鱼死网破了，被谢供出来也是无期，再杀几个如果被抓也是无期，最坏的结果也就是无期了。而一旦成功了，谢最终会无罪释放，获得大笔赔偿，同伙下半辈子也可以分享了。

而下次作案也要干净利索，而且要跟上次同等规模手段，否则会被警方当作模仿作案。

大家谁家里是大家庭的住在静街的要警惕最近2年新结交的朋友哦，有没有表面经常笑嘻嘻但实际挺偏激的刻意接近你的家庭而且想留宿的就是为了摸清你家的情况以及家人习性。这个人表面一定是人畜无害可能还挺有正义感给人安全感，就是因为其内心的邪恶才会用表面相反的表现来掩饰。这个人不一定是男的，甚至可能是个瘦瘦的女性，但发起疯来爆发出的能量绝对是惊人的。

总之只能帮大家到这里了，小心没大错，多长个心眼防范一下谢这样的变态总没错的，平时是好姑父好父亲好丈夫，回头晚上就杀你全家……

你说我说的有没有道理？

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-10 19:23
这又是警察惯用的伎俩
既然谢已经销毁了，警方就可以说被销毁鞋盒之中就有一个是凶场Asics鞋的鞋盒。谢也 ...

你说的对。检方承认他们其实知道谢有这双ASIC鞋，而且有鞋盒的照片，他们采取“敲笼震虎”Rattle the Cage的策略。

It was submitted that the strategy was to confront Kathy Lin with provocative questioning, and allegations concerning her husband’s involvement, in the hope of gathering evidence to incriminate the Accused. At the committal proceedings, Detective Sergeant Maree accepted that the police strategy was to “rattle their cage and see what happens” (T14-15, committal proceedings, 23 November 2012).

采取的还是法庭上不会允许的高压审问：

Counsel for the Accused submitted that events between February and May 2010 constituted a form of pressure upon the Accused and Kathy Lin, leading up to her examination before the NSW Crime Commission. It was submitted that Kathy Lin had been subjected to intemperate, unfair and belligerent questioning which would not have been allowed in a courtroom.


而且力度非常大，一下甩出来四项。

During the examination before the NSW Crime Commission on 6 May 2010, Kathy Lin was informed by counsel assisting that the police were of the view:

(a)   that there was a single killer; 只有一名杀手.还说你老公是警方的嫌疑人；

(b)   that the killer was wearing ASICS brand sneakers; 杀手穿的是你说你老公最爱穿的ASIC牌子的运动鞋；

(c)   that the killer at no stage went near Ms AB ‘s room; 杀手根本没有进邻家孤女的房间；

(d)   that the shoes worn by the killer were a men’s US-size 9.5, the same shoe size as that of the Accused. 故意误导说杀手的血脚印的鞋是美码9.5，就是中国的43，和你老公的鞋尺寸一模一样。

Items (a), (b) and (c) in the preceding paragraph were, in fact, accurate statements of the belief of the investigating police. However, Item (d) was inaccurate in that the evidence indicated that the killer’s shoe size was between men’s US-size 8.5 and 10.5, rather than 9.5.

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 00:23
你说的对。检方承认他们其实知道谢有这双ASIC鞋，而且有鞋盒的照片，他们采取“敲笼震虎”Rattle the Cag ...

这是一回事。但这样做不是为了逼谢坦白，不是为了逼谢妻配合
关键还在得到那录像，那样可以洗脑陪审团和大众，因为控方的真正敌人是陪审团，最终目的是使陪审团形成他们需要的印象

而这一次他们说多了才露了马脚。为什么需要说那个鞋盒就在被谢销毁的几个鞋盒之中？
警方知道鞋盒在之中会让谢破坏吗？那可是至今最直接最重要的证据，远远比录像意义重大得多了
他们既然会潜入谢家安置录像机，又惊动谢使得他就犯剪鞋盒，之前必定对谢家做了秘密搜查，得知鞋盒的存在才可能这样做。而鞋盒中是否有他们要找的那个鞋盒，也是必知的信息，有的话绝对不会让他剪毁

其实想想看，谢若是那精心设计并完美执行5人凶杀，不留下痕迹，不惊动邻居的独狼，他会那么容易掉入陷阱吗？在监狱里他会那么大意地对证人A吹牛吗？

所有细节都很不自然

eguan88

sanhbin 发表于 2018-12-10 22:19
大胆猜测一下，谢当年在墨尔本开餐馆时肯定有不少相熟的人，甚至可能还有黑工，如果请1—2个信得过的人从 ...

嗯，如果是黑民这么多年了不是回国了就是换了身份。

笑和尚

SAland 发表于 2018-12-10 13:38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown#In_the_courts

In criminal proceedings, the state is the p ...

笑话的就是嗓门叫的震天响的你。
[color=Red]Counsell for the Accused submitted that events between February and May 2010 constituted a form of pressure upon the Accused and Kathy Lin, leading up to her examination before the NSW Crime Commission. It was submitted that Kathy Lin had been subjected to intemperate, unfair and belligerent questioning which would not have been allowed in a courtroom.



During the examination before the NSW Crime Commission on 6 May 2010, Kathy Lin was informed by counsel assisting that the police were of the view:

(a)   that there was a single killer; 只有一名杀手.还说你老公是警方的嫌疑人；

(b)   that the killer was wearing ASICS brand sneakers; 杀手穿的是你说你老公最爱穿的ASIC牌子的运动鞋；

(c)   that the killer at no stage went near Ms AB ‘s room; 杀手根本没有进邻家孤女的房间；

(d)   that the shoes worn by the killer were a men’s US-size 9.5, the same shoe size as that of the Accused. 故意误导说杀手的血脚印的鞋是美码9.5，就是中国的43，和你老公的鞋尺寸一模一样。

Items (a), (b) and (c) in the preceding paragraph were, in fact, accurate statements of the belief of the investigating police. However, Item (d) was inaccurate in that the evidence indicated that the killer’s shoe size was between men’s US-size 8.5 and 10.5, rather than 9.5.

the crown,这儿就是刑庭，刑事法院的意思，因为这篇东西就是悉尼高庭刑庭发的交叉检查证据和程序的法律文件中的一段，法庭在文中一直以the crown 来自称，而在同文中检方一直以counsel 也就是 the crown counsel 来代指,检方在法官面前不能称自己是the crown,因为检方在法庭里的地位和辩护方平等，法官才是这个庭的the crown，王冠在一个地方只能一个人戴，不是人人可以自称crown的，虽然，检方面对警方时候也是自称the crown，但在法庭上检方敢这么胡来，就是藐视法庭，要被打出门去的.the accused 一般指的是被告，但，因为本文是法官召集控辩双方交叉检证的辩论记录，所以，the accused 在控辩交叉的时候，就是指的是对方。如果如你所说，这被指控者专只是说的是谢某，那么，法官已经在文件中认定谢某没有违法，谢某没有违法，那警方就是违法违背程序的一方，那法官就不能违背程序正义采用这不利于谢某的程序和证据，但法官偏偏认可采纳了这个圈套和监视手段，这难道不是法官滥用司法了吗？这还不被辩护律师抓住把柄，宣告本案胜诉？这辩护律师该多笨呢，这法官，这检方，警方该多笨呢？照你的说法控辩双方在勾结滥用法律，这还审个啥？直接就赢了。你不读整个文件，一知半解半桶水晃荡，简直就是笑话，你以后还能有生意？哈哈哈。

特定鞋码的信息是警方故意通过辩护律师辛向谢妻单独透露的，这是警方的圈套，就是要看谢妻是否事后会和谢某通气，勾结。如果辩护律师直接告诉同时在座的谢，那这个程序就是不正确了，警方敲山震虎的目的就达不到了。没有任何其他证据表明警方直接向谢告诉了特定鞋码的信息，如果是这样，这就是程序不正义，本案的立案点和证据链不成立，本案就会在此驳回重新勘察对比交叉鉴证，恰恰相反，the crown肯定了警方程序是正确，证据链经得起交叉检验，才签发了这篇采纳书。

这是整个法庭司法交叉鉴证报告中抽取出来的，如果你的解释成立，请转交给上诉庭，谢某可以以此司法程序不正义告死赢定翻案了，谢某会感谢你们一辈子的，你力挽狂澜，捉到了关键。

笑和尚

说太深太多你们也不懂也不想懂。简单打个比喻：

你和同学吵架说老子就要教训你这孙子，但是不巧被老师看到，老师很火大：敢在老子面前斗。然后你说：是傻逼先动的手，对方也说，对，就是傻逼动的手，老师更火大：傻逼给老子滚出去。
请问这里的三老子，是一个人吗？这里的三傻逼是指谁？
a:一个人，
b:三个人
c:不知道
d:傻逼是你，老子是我
e：以上都不是，反正不是老衲

这就是语言和语境。托福考试，雅思，都有。

SAland

笑和尚 发表于 2018-12-11 04:54
笑话的就是嗓门叫的震天响的你。
]Counsell for the Accused submitted that events between February an ...

我真的开始怀疑你是不是像另一个网友说的根本不懂英语，你引用的文字其实来自 #695，请问通篇有出现一个 “ the crown” 吗？通篇哪里显示出你所谓的 “the crown,这儿就是刑庭，刑事法院的意思” ？

我再给你一个关于  “ the crown” 和 “the accused" 的例证，这个是百分百来自 NSW 的官方文字了。   

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/pu ... ndard_of_proof.html

As this is a criminal trial the burden or obligation of proof of the guilt of the accused is placed squarely on the Crown. That burden rests upon the Crown in respect of every element or essential fact that makes up the offence with which the accused has been charged. That burden never shifts to the accused. There is no obligation whatsoever on the accused to prove any fact or issue that is in dispute before you. It is of course not for the accused to prove his/her innocence but for the Crown to establish his/her guilt.

A critical part of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. What it means is that a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed to be innocent unless and until the Crown persuades a jury that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

你不妨按你所谓的 “the crown,这儿就是刑庭，刑事法院的意思”代进去翻译一下，看看会不会笑掉大家的大牙

胡说八道也要有个谱，本来不想再给你废话，就再指出之前一个错误吧，你反复把 “the crown submitted" 翻译为 ”法院认为“，你可知道，submit 这个词在司法中有特定含义，就是 "(控或辩方)向法庭提出/提请" 的意思，所以  “the crown submitted" 就是 ”控方 （向法庭）提出“ 的意思。如果按你所说 “ the crown” 是法庭，那不成了法庭自己向自己提出什么？整个前后文的语义完全是不通的。简单说，你根本就没有基本的司法词汇常识。

pan123au

笑和尚 发表于 2018-12-11 06:50
说太深太多你们也不懂也不想懂。简单打个比喻：

你和同学吵架说老子就要教训你这孙子，但是不巧被老师看到 ...

Google 翻译好是好，就是词不达意，专业术语还是别用Google翻译的好

澳子

大牛哥 发表于 2018-12-9 13:38
谢是不是真凶，这并不重要，不是讨论的重点。

大家讨论的是，现有证据是否能足以给谢定罪！

还是大牛哥看得远啊！
我到现在都觉得这里面带有种族歧视的味道了……

澳子

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-9 15:45
所有的证据在邻居证词里，以及法医报告里。

你知识渊博，应该看得懂，分析的出。

你说的这个才是重点！

greatfire

疑点多，应该上诉

SAland

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-10 22:41
之前就想告诉你，你其实是落入了一个“不可知论陷阱”的思维误区，以为某些你自己认为的重要的事情未经论 ...

不是我 “落入了一个“不可知论陷阱”的思维误区”，而是你（包括很多国人）不了解不熟悉西方刑辩中的一条金科玉律，就是我前面反复提到的 “prove beyond reasonable doubts"，这里每个词都有讲究的：

doubt：疑点/疑问，既可以是针对检方证据的，亦可以是针对检方论证过程的，还可以是辩方自己提出的假设 （Hypothesis）

reasonable：合理，就是一个普通心智的正常人会想到的。随着科技发展，对 reasonable 也引入了概率论的定义，这也是 DNA 测试被认可的理论基础。你前面的帖子就是围绕这个来的，显然，我之前的帖子和观点从来没有提出小概率的、 unreasonable 的主张，你不妨再细看。

beyond：超越，也就是检方证据和论证过程必须让法官和陪审团足够信服并超越合理的疑问。

prove：证明。首先，证明的义务在检方，这个大家都熟知。但还有一点，证明不单指正向证明，还包括对疑点的反向证明（disprove)，在前段时间的阿德大妈咬人案，大妈提出她是自卫，法庭最终的判决就是检方 fail to disprove beyond reasonable doubts ***。

当然，前面有个网友还是说到点子上了，说到底，是陪审团决定是否 prove beyond reasonable doubts，所以这就是为什么我前面说，庭辩技巧很重要，如何引导陪审团向有利于自己一方去想是制胜关键。

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 00:55
这是一回事。但这样做不是为了逼谢坦白，不是为了逼谢妻配合
关键还在得到那录像，那样可以洗脑陪审团和 ...

对的。检方证据不足，所以要出奇兵。

辨方律师认为：检方告诉Kathy血脚印和谢的尺码一模一样。

the killer’s shoe size was “the same as your husband” (T63, NSW Crime Commission, 6 May 2010)

希望达到的目的有两个：一是希望Kathy能够透露这个保密信息给谢，从而违反New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985。

The Accused submitted that Kathy Lin was questioned in a deliberate and provocative way before the NSW Crime Commission, with the expectation that she would breach the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 by telling the Accused what was put to her at the hearing.

第二个就是打草惊蛇，监视谢的反应。

Detective Sergeant Maree accepted that the police strategy was to “rattle their cage and see what happens” (T14-15, committal proceedings, 23 November 2012) The strategy was to confront Kathy Lin with provocative questioning, and allegations concerning her husband’s involvement, in the hope of gathering evidence to incriminate the Accused.

pan123au

其实谢案中关键的证据就是那点车库中可疑的“血迹”，第一，这个血迹来源性，为什么在第二次才发现，还是别人举报和林家的家具搬来后几个月。第二，可靠性，是不是血 ，没有肯定说法 第三 可靠性，DNA的组合，是不是只包含林家男人没有包含母亲和阿姨，是不是也包含林家活着的亲属

pan123au

其他谢案的证据都是间接的证据，都是围绕这滴可疑的“血迹”展开的，可是“血迹” 有很多疑问和不确定性。谢家上诉也是可以理解的。

Hetbert

有四名受害者DNA的血渍91也有很多的疑点：

第一个疑点是：法医在去搜查的路上和那天早晨的通气会上，得到的明确指示是，这天专门在谢家车库找血渍。

“Forensic examinations in relation to Stain 91 during the execution of the search warrant at 4 Beck Street, Epping on 11 May 2010

3.   On 11 May 2010, police executed a Crime Scene Warrant at the accused's home at 4 Beck Street and a detailed forensic examination and search of the premises was conducted. The search continued until 15 May 2010. On 13 May 2010, the forensic examination included the garage, where a number of swabs and samples were obtained of stains and markings believed to be blood. Underneath furniture in the garage, police located a small amount of what appeared to be blood which was sampled and sent for DNA analysis.

Evidence from forensic officers searching the garage

4.    At the Committal, evidence was called from biologists Melanie LeCompte and Nicole Campbell, who were then attached to the Forensic Biology Section. Ms LeCompte attended 4 Beck Street between 12 to 14 May 2010. Ms Campbell attended the premises on 13 and 14 May 2010. Ms Gerhard, who was also then a reporting officer in the Forensic Biology Unit, attended on 12 May 2010.

5.    Ms LeCompte gave evidence on 29 August and 30 August 2012. Ms Campbell was called as a witness on 13 November 2012. Ms Gerhard, together with the defence expert Dr Paula Hallam, gave evidence during the voir dire proceedings on 21 and 22 November 2013.

6.    The biologists that were present at the time gave evidence in relation to a briefing that was provided to the forensic officers prior to the start of the search on each of the mornings, the areas that were examined at 4 Beck St, and the details and procedure of the forensic examinations, in particular, with regard to the garage floor and Stain 91.

7.    The defence expert Dr Hallam did not have the advantage of any direct observation of the screening, detection, examination and swabbing of Stain 91. …

Briefing

8.    The forensic biologists were explicitly tasked with conducting an examination at 4 Beck Street that was focussed on detecting blood evidence. Ms LeCompte gave evidence that the forensic officers who conducted the search of the garage were briefed in the morning of 13 May 2010 to ‘look for blood and therefore anything that we possibly could believe that was blood we would test to see if there is the possibility that the stain is a blood stain'.

9.    Ms Campbell stated that the information she received from Ms LeCompte on the drive to the premises of 4 Beck Street on 13 May 2010 was that they were going to concentrate the search on this particular day on the garage. She was further informed that, ‘they believed that the occupant of the house had been in the garage and they wanted to see if there was any blood staining in it’. Ms Campbell stated that, ‘a plan was formed that we would concentrate on the garage that day that we would be looking for any sort of blood staining on any of the furniture, on the floor or on any of the tools. Basically, all the contents of the garage was to be searched’. Ms Gerhard confirmed that the biologists were given particular instructions to screen the premises for blood.

第二个疑点是： 血迹91始终没有做人血的确认测试。

法医在现场的"presumptive" tests，由于过度灵敏，对金属和动植物都有反应，一般用于排除，即不是血渍，而不是用于确认是血渍。
澳洲曾经有过冤案，就是现在全澳空气最差的矿业小镇Mount Isa，空气中含有金属的粉尘太多，presumptive" tests都会变色。

The catalytic tests are extremely sensitive (blood can be detected to dilutions of about 1 in
100,000), but are subject to a number of interferences and are therefore not totally specific
for blood. Substances which can interfere include enzymes such as catalase and peroxidases
(which can occur in both plant and animal materials), oxidising chemicals and metals - in
particular copper and iron. There has to be an awareness of this when results are interpreted,
particularly when testing outdoors, where many types of plant material can be present, or
testing in vehicles, where metal surfaces can interfere. The general principle is that if the test
is negative, blood is absent, but that if the test is positive, blood is probably, not definitely
present. For this reason the tests are often described as "presumptive" tests.

An interesting example of possible interferences occurred with the testing of the car
belonging to Michael and Lindy Chamberlain after the disappearance of their daughter
Azaria at Ayer's Rock, Australia, in 1980. The Chamberlains lived in Mt Isa, a copper
mining town, with a high concentration of copper-containing dust in the atmosphere. The car
was later tested for the presence of blood with ortho-tolidine. Some positive results found
were subsequently attributed to the presence of copper.3

https://nzic.org.nz/app/uploads/2017/10/12A.pdf

第三个疑点是：用TrueAllele给出血渍含有四名受害者的DNA报告的法医专家的报告里显示血渍91也包含林家孤女的DNA。 （这就是为什么检方说血渍91至少含有四名受害者的DNA）

Dr Perlin’s report dated 26 March 2014 as providing evidence of Ms AB’s DNA being contained in Item 550

TrueAllele是有局限性的，是提出一个假设，然后根据给定DNA样本，计算出这个假设的可能性。

法医给出的假设就是血渍91里面含有三到五个人的DNA。

即使假设成立，血迹91含有四名受害者DNA的解释从统计学上看也不是很有力。

给出结果的方式对陪审团也很有误导性。 比如是随机概率的27.1倍  27.1 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person.

那么，问题是，作为对比的coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person的基数概率到底是多少？

这个基数是个很微小的值。FBI的数据是coincidental match to an unrelated person的概率是1 in 400 trillion. 1/400,000,000,000,000

http://freakonomics.com/2008/08/ ... -dna-matches-crazy/

我查了查TrueAllele其它定罪的数据作为对比，都是随机概率的2亿倍到8亿倍。

由于几者的亲属关系，Yun Bin Lin 27.1倍， Yun Li Lin 的4410倍，这两个从统计学上都可以说是不确定的。

1/400,000,000,000,000和27.1/400,000,000,000,000，4410/400,000,000,000,000 没有啥大差别, 地球上总共才不到80亿人。

能够确定的是，血渍91里面应该有两个男孩Henry和Terry的DNA。

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232615/

https://www.cybgen.com/informati ... l-the-time/talk.ppt

Dr Mark Perlin received the DNA data generated by DAL in New South Wales when processing the reference samples (for the Accused and five deceased persons) and a number of crime scene samples (Items 47, 223, 550 and 616). Dr Perlin processed the DNA data using the “TrueAllele Casework” system. TrueAllele Casework is a computerised DNA interpretation system that objectively infers genetic profiles (genotypes) from DNA samples. The inferred genotypes can then be compared to reference genotypes. The Crown contends that TrueAllele Casework has been validated on synthetic and casework data and results have been admitted into evidence in the United Kingdom.

The results for Stain 91 (Item 550) were processed on the assumption that it contained three, four or five contributors. Dr Perlin expressed the following opinions based upon the results of the TrueAllele processing:

(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 1.33 billion times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person; and

(e)   a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Terry Lin is 1.03 quintillion times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person.

Dr Perlin further conducted “evidence to evidence” comparison using TrueAllele and expressed the following opinions based on the results:

(a)   a contributor to Stain 91 (Item 550) matches a contributor to Item 47 with a likelihood ratio of 1.78 billion relative to an Asian population;

(b)   a contributor to Stain 91 (Item 550) matches a contributor to Item 223 with a likelihood ratio of 327,000 relative to an Asian population; and

(c)   a contributor to Stain 91 (Item 550) matches a contributor to Item 616 with a likelihood ratio of 9.56 quadrillion relative to an Asian population.

Dr Simon Walsh described the mixed profiles from Stain 91 (Item 550) and Item 616 (based upon PowerPlex 21 testing) as “consistent, with a large amount of overlapping information, present in similar proportions”. He expressed the opinion that there was a “very high degree of similarity for complex mixed profiles of this nature, particularly considering these observations under a proposition that the mixed profiles arose independently from each other”. He was not able to make a statistical assessment of the observed similarities.
  

pan123au

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 10:39
有四名受害者DNA的血渍91也有很多的疑点：

第一个疑点是：法医在去搜查的路上和那天早晨的通气会上，得到 ...

we would be looking for any sort of blood staining on any of the furniture(这时候林家的家具已经搬进来，而且是几个月后，这时的检查血迹还有唯一性 ?，可靠性 ?，), on the floor or on any of the tools.

第三个疑点是：用TrueAllele给出血渍含有四名受害者的DNA报告的法医专家的报告里显示血渍91也包含林家孤女的DNA。 （这就是为什么检方说血渍91至少含有四名受害者的DNA）

Dr Perlin’s report dated 26 March 2014 as providing evidence of Ms AB’s DNA being contained in Item 550

谢谢 Hetbert, 说明长久以来的疑问可以得到圆满的答案。谢杀不杀人已经不重要了，这个审判和收集证据过程已经说明有不公正性，

hornsay

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 10:39
有四名受害者DNA的血渍91也有很多的疑点：

第一个疑点是：法医在去搜查的路上和那天早晨的通气会上，得到 ...

我个人直觉这个stain就是警方种植上去的。

经过一段时间监视，警方还是没法拿到确凿的证据，最后只能去亲自种植。

从“血迹”的形态来看，一侧很硬，明显像用什么东西刮上去的，根本不符合像塑料袋渗漏之类的形态。

很可惜，警方的秘密行动没人知晓。

而且这个stain DNA检测本身就有缺陷：
1. 没法证明是血，

2.有多家lab已经排除了被害人的DNA. 最后只能去求助于商业机构。

3. DNA只能用来对比4个参照物，如果给与更多的参照物，或许可以得出更多的结论。

猫儿不笨

pan123au 发表于 2018-12-11 10:28
其实谢案中关键的证据就是那点车库中可疑的“血迹”，第一，这个血迹来源性，为什么在第二次才发现，还是别 ...

是的，NSW Lab 的所谓技术突破，说发现了比其以前发现的更多人的DNA，但结果法庭不接受其为上庭证据
这说明其不可靠，或者有猫腻
法官是没有能力单独做这个裁决的，因为她不一定懂技术。应该是在辩护律师的攻击下，这所谓新技术突破漏出了马脚

一般来说一个技术的敏感性提高，特异性就会降低。原来NSW Lab说污迹91只与3个男性DNA相关，去年说与至少4个受害人DNA相关，而实际上与还活着的另两个林家家人，Kathy 和 Brenda也相关，那说明污迹91作为凶杀证据的特异性就不大了，或根本就失去证据意义了。很明显NSW Lab 配合警方，只讲了实验结论的一半，不提与Kathy  和Brenda 也相关，后来被辩护律师戳穿了

hornsay

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 11:10
是的，NSW Lab 的所谓技术突破，说发现了比其以前发现的更多人的DNA，但结果法庭不接受其为上庭证据
这说 ...

NSW lab这种配合非常下流。

在哪一审被律师戳穿？

jasyangau

别的地方就别扯那么多了，非直接证据哪边喊得声音再大都是对方都是可以给出各种解释的。
直奔主题，看直接证据车库血迹，觉得检方栽赃陷害的该举报举报该捐款捐款，别在这里磨磨唧唧意图给不明真相群众洗脑

山大爷

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 11:09
我个人直觉这个stain就是警方种植上去的。

经过一段时间监视，警方还是没法拿到确凿的证据，最后只能去 ...

这警察也真是的，好不容易“种”上去，也不“种”得明确一点。还有别翻译得那么文雅，这里应该译为“栽赃”。

liyi29

笑和尚 发表于 2018-12-7 05:34
警察为啥冒着天下之大不韪去栽臓一个普通人？难道谢联彬是华为任正非的唯一继承人？还是习大大的私生子？ ...

重大杀人案件是否能破案，牵扯到警方荣誉，这还不是涉嫌栽赃的证据么？辛普森在日后都承认自己杀了人，但当时的证据是不足以支持他犯下杀人罪的，因此他仍然在法律程序上被判了无罪，这是法律的正义。而不是，一个人涉嫌性侵他人，就是坏人，就一定杀了别人一家，这不是正义，这是私愤。

pan123au

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 11:09
我个人直觉这个stain就是警方种植上去的。

经过一段时间监视，警方还是没法拿到确凿的证据，最后只能去 ...

植不植，没有证据。这个案子收集证据和检测证据都不具有可靠性，唯一性，排他性，应该是重审。有些不明真相的人会觉得这个案子判的对。真可怜，可悲

山大爷

你们这些摇旗呐喊的到底是说这个污渍是警察栽赃还是这根本不是血案的污渍？这不是自相矛盾吗！为了驳倒一切，结果把自己绊翻了，哈哈。

Hetbert

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 11:09
我个人直觉这个stain就是警方种植上去的。

经过一段时间监视，警方还是没法拿到确凿的证据，最后只能去 ...

无论怎么说，嫌疑最大的还是谢，只能说检方提供的证据不足以证明他是凶手，没有实现程序正义。

动机存疑，作案时间也存疑，作案工具所谓的“有爪有绳锤”找不到，证据也存疑，四审竟然能定罪！？

pan123au

jasyangau 发表于 2018-12-11 11:28
别的地方就别扯那么多了，非直接证据哪边喊得声音再大都是对方都是可以给出各种解释的。
直奔主题，看直接 ...

别人才进来，不知道为什么谢案有这么多疑问，可能你从一开始辩论就参加了，而且在当时DNA的讨论中占了上风，现在Hetbert都把检方的DNA原文贴出来，你还这么说。你真可怜，可悲。如果还意识不到这点，还是别发表自己的评论