杀害多人的谢联斌对其定罪提出上诉

CharlieZL

老奸巨猾利用媒体办案，每次爆料总是雷声大雨点小，没有确凿证据，如同利用物理试验定罪。

xiaobai

谢上诉庭其实是有微弱的机会的，但绝不是法官觉得现有证据更指向其他嫌疑人或者不同的犯罪事实，而是考虑到整个证据链并没有做到完整无缺。

如果不是有直接铁证，西方的法律精神无罪推定下，放过一个嫌疑人比定罪要更容易发生。

至于监听或安排线人，是民主国家再正常不过的办案手段，毕竟不能逼供，竟被描述为栽赃，还能想象出血迹是后期抹上的。 如果叫"警方"的是独立一个人，且是真正罪犯那是有可能去栽赃的， 可是这个案子牵涉到那么多人，也不涉及到国家安全层面，怎么可能集体栽赃?  几位叫冤的不也早早引入"种族歧视"之说么，那整个司法系统更不会为了几个华人的生死去集体犯罪了。  太多案件都是悬案，不是有比较大的把握，也不差这一件。

至于电箱指纹，儿童指甲里没有嫌疑人 DNA，明显凶手是提前做了防护，手套全身包裹的衣服是必须的。至于鞋印，证据交代的很清楚，不知道为何福尔摩斯们还翻来覆去。现场除了先前到达警察的，还有模糊不清的，清晰提取的鞋印只对应一个人作案。

近期在美国发生的章颖颖案和进展，各位可以对比林家案子，都是关于华人。 章案没有直接证据，连尸体都没有，警方同样是各种办案手段都用上，去拼凑整个证据链，不妨可以关注后续进展。

seaflash2000

你说有些证据不完美，可以理解。 你要说警察为啦破案集体栽赃，我就笑啦。

这案子是非常了解受害者住宅布局，生活习惯的熟人干的，有没有帮手不知道。 如果凶手中没有一个熟人，就算来再多人都不可能这么无声无息，相反，会搞的动静很大。

个人倾向于熟人一人作案。

hornsay

xiaobai 发表于 2018-12-11 16:41
谢上诉庭其实是有微弱的机会的，但绝不是法官觉得现有证据更指向其他嫌疑人或者不同的犯罪事实，而是考虑到 ...

电箱指纹是其他人的，说明作案人没有包裹得很好。

同样，小孩指甲里有其他人的毛发，也说明作案人没有包裹好。

所以你的表达想说明什么？

CharlieZL

seaflash2000 发表于 2018-12-11 16:53
你说有些证据不完美，可以理解。 你要说警察为啦破案集体栽赃，我就笑啦。

这案子是非常了解受害者住宅布 ...

杀五口人之前，必须要把他们控制起来。否则声响会惊动其他的人。说警方为了破案栽脏是原因的（有做案动机）。你要了解此案的全过程，多看看猫尔本此案分析报道。

xiaobai

本来不想回复关于细节的部分，因为太多太多细节。 电箱指纹没有嫌疑人的，但不能有抄表的，或者之前谁来过维修什么的？  口口说小孩指甲里有毛发，我没看到这个报道，除了这里流传。就算是证据部分有这个描述，请问是 多长一段毛发？是新鲜抓到的？  还是并没特指是毛发，只是说其他人DNA？  要知道两个男孩年龄，都是自己洗手洗澡，没那么仔细的，指甲里有少许污垢很常见。   至于之前提到的受害者的胃內容物报告，都是仅仅 几十毫升的胃液或残留物痕迹，没看到任何异常。

xiaobai

CharlieZL 发表于 2018-12-11 17:12
杀五口人之前，必须要把他们控制起来。否则声响会惊动其他的人。说警方为了破案栽脏是原因的（有做案动机 ...

专业罪犯多用利刃或者火器。 普通罪犯 最有利的凶器则是重锤，尤其是对方在睡眠中，直接砸向头部。  谢是医生，应清楚这一点。

我通常尽量把人多少往好处想一点，谢的计划中也许只是两位主人，黑暗中几记铁锤一命呜呼。其他三位受害者如果没被吵醒，也许没有生命之灾。

猫儿不笨

SAland 发表于 2018-12-11 12:59
谢谢分享。

。。。Ms Campbell stated that the information she received from Ms LeCompte on the dri ...

当时还配备了摄影师。如果再考虑第一次车库检查时紫外线灯找不到污迹91，继续推理下去会是什么?

Hetbert

实际上，要不是林家孤女指证谢多次猥亵她。谢妻Cathy提供的不在场证明Alibi，是不会被检方攻破的。

法官说她的思路是这样：

一是检方安插的狱友钓鱼问谢，你那晚是不是给老婆喂了安眠药，谢哼了一声，没有否认；

二是法官相信邻家孤女的证词，明显2009年谢多次猥亵林家孤女的时候Cathy没有醒，那么Cathy说每次谢起床，她都会醒就是不可靠的，延伸出去就是案发当天的谢妻给出不在场证明也是不可靠的。


Consistent with the verdicts of the jury, the Crown disproved the alibi relied upon by the offender at his trial to the criminal standard. Although the offender did not give evidence at his trial, evidence in support of the alibi was adduced from his wife who said the offender was in bed with her when the murders were committed, an account the offender had given to police when he was interviewed within days of the murders and the account he maintained when he was interviewed by police the following year.

It was the Crown case that the jury would be satisfied that the alibi was false and that the offender had sedated his wife to facilitate leaving his home in the early hours of 18 July 2009, without his wife’s knowledge, in pursuance of his plan to go to 55A Boundary Road and kill at least Min Lin and Lily Lin. It was the Crown case on sentence that this was another feature of the offender’s premeditated plan to kill at least Min Lin and Lily Lin and that I would find that feature established beyond reasonable doubt.

At trial the Crown adduced two forms of direct evidence in proof of the fact that the offender sedated his wife. The first, the evidence of Witness A, a prison informer, who said that in the course of a conversation in the prison yard the offender volunteered that he had sedated his wife and the second, a conversation recorded on a listening device when Witness A raised with the offender that earlier conversation in response to which, in the Crown’s submission, the offender is heard to murmur his assent to the proposition that he had sedated his wife or at least did not to demur from it. There was no other evidence adduced at trial bearing upon the issue of sedation per se.

The jury were directed that they were entitled to have regard to all of the evidence led at trial when considering whether the Crown had negatived alibi beyond reasonable doubt. While I consider it very likely that the offender sedated his wife, I am unable to be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. There remains, in my view, a possibility that Kathy Lin simply did not wake when the offender left the house sometime after 2am on 18 July 2009, returning later that morning. In coming to that view, I have taken into account Kathy Lin’s evidence that she had never woken to find the offender not beside her in bed and would always wake if he left the bed for any reason. Since I accept Ms AB’s evidence that the offender entered the bedroom she shared with the offender’s son and sexually assaulted her on repeated occasions between August 2009, when she became a member of the offender’s household, and when he was arrested in May 2011, Kathy Lin’s evidence that she would always wake if the offender left the bed, and that he had never done so and gone into Ms AB’s bedroom at night, cannot be accepted as reliable.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58a0d8c2e4b058596cba3ea9

猫儿不笨

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 17:34
当时还配备了摄影师。如果再考虑第一次车库检查时紫外线灯找不到污迹91，继续推理下去会是什么?

污迹91大小20×6×1毫米，能轻易被专门检测微量生物物质的紫外线灯忽略吗?

hornsay

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 17:37
实际上，要不是林家孤女指证谢多次猥亵她。谢妻Cathy提供的不在场证明Alibi，是不会被检方攻破的。

法官说 ...

这个议题又是控方的高明。

即便谢妻没有说谎，控方最后也会说妻子保护丈夫，我们没法相信。

所以这个议题就是被控方吊着打。

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 17:41
污迹91大小20×6×1毫米，能轻易被专门检测微量生物物质的紫外线灯忽略吗?
...

如果是血迹，紫外灯就看不到。

紫外灯只能看出精液，尿液和唾液。

https://www.crime-scene-investig ... tsources-print.html

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 17:37
实际上，要不是林家孤女指证谢多次猥亵她。谢妻Cathy提供的不在场证明Alibi，是不会被检方攻破的。

法官说 ...

不是的，1审时根本还没有孤女因素，警方用监狱证人录音带说明谢妻被下药了

SAland

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 17:37
实际上，要不是林家孤女指证谢多次猥亵她。谢妻Cathy提供的不在场证明Alibi，是不会被检方攻破的。

法官说 ...

在 common law 的传统上，夫妻间的相互证供要么不采信，要么哪怕采信也只作为辅助参考的弱证据，anyway 都很难成为真正意义上的 Alibi。

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 18:01
不是的，1审时根本还没有孤女因素，警方用监狱证人录音带说明谢妻被下药了 ...

污点证人这种最不要脸了，对着谢自说自话一遍警察描述的剧本，然后谢哼哼一声，不否认就算证据了。

更不要脸的是，检方提供的录音带，很多部分根本听不见，让人对钓鱼证据的完整性和可靠性更加存疑。

SoftSome

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 13:08
仔细推敲的话，检方的证据真的是很多漏洞。

林家孤女没有站出来提供作案动机之前，检方除了派出囚犯去钓 ...

你帖子里最下面一行是我以前不知道的 Lily有一个秘密的手机？秘密手机被谢破坏了？哪位网友提供下出处细节还有检控方是怎么知道的？

update：是证人A说的

Hetbert

谢最终就是输在钱上，没有钱就没有足够的高质量法律保护，三审形势一片大好。

在谢保释的听证会上，警方说，谢很有钱，还有海外联系，有逃逸和威胁邻家孤女的风险。

说Austrac记录了谢从中国和香港转入了415万澳元，实际金额可能更高，因为Austrac只统计一万澳元以上的转账。

然后谢的律师作证，说谢为了缴律师费，用尽了所有海外存款，变卖了所有海外股票和房产，还从亲戚那里借了钱。
澳洲房产做了最后的保释金。谢的Brother和Sister也表示弹尽粮绝了，无法再资助四审的律师费，谢只能申请免费的Legal Aid。

In Detective Sergeant Maree’s statement of 4 December 2015 he reported that inquiries conducted through AUSTRAC between May 2011 (the date of the applicant’s arrest) and November 2015 (it would appear whilst the jury were in deliberations) have revealed that 128 international money transfers (including both incoming and outgoing transactions) have been recorded under names and/or addresses linked to the accused and his family in China, Hong Kong and/or Australia. Of the 128 transactions, 18 were outgoing money transfers in an amount totalling A$827,000. There is no evidence before me as to the provenance of those monies and there are no dates associated with any of the transfers. The remaining 110 transactions related to monies coming from China and/or Hong Kong to Australia in a total amount of A$4.15 million. The applicant’s name is recorded in 20 of those transactions totalling A$915,000. The applicant’s wife is not recorded in any of the transactions. The applicant’s sister is recorded in respect of three transactions.

The applicant relies upon an affidavit of his solicitor, Ms Greiner, affirmed on 7 December 2015, and an earlier affidavit affirmed by her on 7 October 2014 relied upon in the previous bail application. A current certificate of title was also annexed, together with a current valuation of the Beck Street premises held by the applicant and his wife as joint tenants, in the range of A$1.3-$1.5 million. That property is offered as security for a grant of conditional bail. According to Ms Greiner’s information, it is the only asset held by the applicant or his wife. In her most recent affidavit, Ms Greiner advises that the applicant has liquidated all his overseas assets, including shares, monies held in overseas bank accounts and offshore property, to fund his defence. She also advises that his legal fees were supplemented by monies (in an unspecified amount) from his sister and brother, both Chinese nationals living in China. She further advises that, upon meeting with them both in Australia in recent weeks, she has been advised that they will not be able to fund the applicant’s representation at his retrial and that an application for legal aid is in the process of being lodged for that reason.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/589f93c1e4b058596cba3ea0

hotornot

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 16:11
Henry Lin chatted online to a friend on MSN until the friend signed out at about 11.40 pm that nig ...

这个是HH:MM:SS格式，你说几点？

Hetbert

SoftSome 发表于 2018-12-11 18:23
你帖子里最下面一行是我以前不知道的 Lily有一个秘密的手机？秘密手机被谢破坏了？哪位网友提供下出处细 ...

对。就是警方给安插的污点证人的剧本里说的。

检方本来是准备以此证明犯罪动机：谢和林太有婚外情。

hornsay

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 18:36
这个是HH:MM:SS格式，你说几点？

HH:MM:SS格式：
00:01:38

你说是几点？
1点38分0秒？

hotornot

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 18:45
HH:MM:SS格式：
00:01:38

0H 1M 38S, 几点？

hornsay

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 19:04
0H 1M 38S, 几点？

零点一分38秒。

我就是小学生一个。你知识渊博，你认为几点？

澳子

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 11:49
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 ...

本来应该是疑罪从无但是检控方压力太大不得已而为之就是为找个替死鬼顶罪结案了事，所以才有在这么有争议下定罪的。
为什么非要咬住谢不放？还不就是从这类案件的共性出发，先定调然后做出证据来定罪，最后来个天外飞血画龙点睛，处处透着歧视的味道……
怪也只能怪谢长得太那个了，弄得陪审团的人都害怕了……

hotornot

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 19:07
零点一分38秒。

我就是小学生一个。你知识渊博，你认为几点？

咋可能是0点？你不是说案件发生在10点半吗？神探大妈？

hotornot

澳子 发表于 2018-12-11 20:27
本来应该是疑罪从无但是检控方压力太大不得已而为之就是为找个替死鬼顶罪结案了事，所以才有在这么有争议 ...

如果你认真看官方发布的细节，而不是听某些人妖言惑众的话，就会更容易理解，这个案子一定是谢干的了。

举个例子，监控发现，谢告诉林家女儿说，你也可能成为警察怀疑的对象，所以，警察问什么，你一律不回答，除非有律师在场。

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 17:55
如果是血迹，紫外灯就看不到。

紫外灯只能看出精液，尿液和唾液。

我记得当时警察是在傍晚到谢家检查，报纸有一幅夜色背景照片。警察的目的是寻找与凶场相关的血迹之类的生物染迹，相信会采用文章提到的化学试剂喷洒物体表面，使血迹在黑暗里显露。车库地面这种地方更不应该漏掉的

Hetbert

谢妻十年来始终如一坚持谢的清白，让我觉得谢有可能是被冤枉的。

Cathy的哥哥一家五口没了，和父母和幸存的侄女也不说话了，可见她是坚信谢是无辜的。

Everred68

澳洲警察栽赃的可能性基本为零，除非某警察是真正的凶手，为了自己脱身他只能栽赃于谢。帮谢洗刷罪名的也可能是帮凶同犯，因为他们害怕谢会把同伙供出来减刑。谢妻其实也有可疑之处。竟然对谢猥亵自己侄女的事实选择性失忆，还得支持这个无耻之徒。

hornsay

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 20:46
咋可能是0点？你不是说案件发生在10点半吗？神探大妈？

10点半左右歹徒断电引诱林下楼。

然后歹徒有机会抓住林，从新合上电源，而此时正好小孩回来，所以他们在最短的时间里，用最暴力的方法把三个大人杀死。所以法医鉴定里面最惨不忍睹的就是3个大人。

第二次谋杀就是在Henry chatting结束后进行的。

等所有谋杀完后，大概半夜12点，再切断电源逃走。

法医的证据符合两个时间段的谋杀。

Hetbert

一眨眼都十年过去了。

以前我家不锁门的。

林家血案之后,没有安全感了，每天都锁门，晚上还门上链子勾勾好。