杀害多人的谢联斌对其定罪提出上诉

hotornot

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 21:40
一眨眼都十年过去了。

以前我家不锁门的。

看过法庭的记录吗？林家老爷子觉得不安全，专门买了铁链锁回来，被谢拒绝了，他说很安全，没必要。

为啥谢的反应总和常人不同呢

Hetbert

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 21:51
看过法庭的记录吗？林家老爷子觉得不安全，专门买了铁链锁回来，被谢拒绝了，他说很安全，没必要。

为啥 ...

法庭记录上还没看到林老爷子那一份。

记得看报道说，警察说让谢家去住安全屋，谢也不肯的。

猫儿不笨

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 20:50
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。

...

你这个例子正是妖言惑众。孤女再庭上说谢让她总是讲实话。这件事大家应该都知道

hotornot

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 22:13
法庭记录上还没看到林老爷子那一份。

记得看报道说，警察说让谢家去住安全屋，谢也不肯的。 ...

就在你前面发的链接上，“Mr Lin bought some extra security devices (safety chains) for installation to the doors at the Beck Street premises after the murders, as he was frightened for the family and their safety. The Accused declined and said that it was not necessary as it was very safe.”

兄弟你是聪明人，只要看到60%的证据，就会知道是不是谢干的。

hotornot

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 22:18
你这个例子正是妖言惑众。孤女再庭上说谢总是让她讲实话。这件事大家应该都知道 ...

我和你不一样。

你说啥，基本都是“听说”，“据报道”，“大家都知道”，“以前帖子里有”，给你要证据，你从来不出示

我说啥，都是言之有据的，你看好了，这个可以有警方录像为证的：

the Accused was recorded coaching Kathy Lin and Ms AB about what they should say to police when they are interviewed, and what questions they should or should not answer. The Accused is recorded telling Ms AB that, being the only surviving family member, she is a police suspect and advising her to attend further police interviews in the presence of a solicitor only. （译：监控录像显示，谢某告诉Ms AB，作为家里唯一的幸存者，她也是警方的怀疑对象，并建议她只有在律师在场的时候才接受警方问讯。）

guitarra

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 21:08
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 ...

这个谢妻面对侄女对谢的性侵指控，有没有什么表示？

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 20:52
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 ...

有喷Luminol的, 血渍91没反应。



The basis for a Shepherd direction in these terms was not argued at length or by reference to authority. Mr Webb did accept that in addition to the visual appearance of Stain 91 as an aged blood stain, and that it reacted positively to two applications of the o-Tolidine screening test for blood (and negatively to the Luminol screening test), the jury could also take into account that what was sampled was necessarily human biological material since human DNA was detected in it. Although Mr Webb did not make any reference to the results of DNA profiling, or whether those results could also be taken into account by the jury in determining whether Stain 91 was blood, or whether the likelihood ratios that were generated by the TrueAllele computer program could also be used for that purpose, I consider that evidence may also be an available source of evidence bearing on the question as to whether Stain 91 was blood. I will reserve judgment on that issue pending further argument.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58aa88d8e4b058596cba4328


检方证明是血渍91是血的方式也很奇怪。检方说，因为血渍91含有至少3名，甚至5名受害者的DNA，他们的体液，唾液或者上皮细胞不可能混合在一起出现在谢家车库里，所以血渍91必然是血。


It is the Crown case that a combination of these facts, coupled with the improbability of a secondary transfer of a mixture of the DNA of any three or more of the five deceased to the floor of the garage (with the DNA of the deceased in semen, saliva, skin cells or any combination of these as a means of transfer, being highly improbable, if not inexplicable) allows the jury to find that Stain 91 is blood.

猫儿不笨

hotornot 发表于 2018-12-11 22:24
我和你不一样。

你说啥，基本都是“听说”，“据报道”，“大家都知道”，“以前帖子里有”，给你要证据 ...

谢说那些话有错吗?经过林家血案，谁还敢不按他说的那样做。谢妻的几次不经意答话，被警察整得多惨

hotornot

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-11 22:36
谢说那些话有错吗?经过林家血案，谁还敢不按他说的那样做。谢妻的几次不经意答话，被警察整得多惨 ...

既然你认为谢说的没错，林家女儿如何能够成为警方的嫌疑对象，你来解释下

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 22:36
有喷Luminol的, 血渍91没反应。

不清楚警察那天晚上到底用了那种试剂
。问题在于控方坚持说那是血，而道理是警察应该
是在找血迹，应该用的是有效的工具，不然整个针对谢连斌的证据的可信性就崩溃了

meteordust

SAland 发表于 2018-12-11 10:00
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 ...

这就又是你的一个思维误区了。我是非常清楚什么是“prove beyond reasonable doubts”的。

1. 陪审团会反复接受“prove beyond reasonable doubts”的教育，这点你应该能想到吧。
2. 陪审团会看到很多我们外界看不到的证据，这点你也应该也能想到吧。
3. 在上述的条件下，陪审团以绝对多数认为谢有罪。

而你现在在做的是什么？是在仅仅接触到非常有限的公开证据的前提下，觉得并不能“prove beyond reasonable doubts”，从而觉得案件的审判有问题？那你说问题是出在陪审团？法官？警察？还是你身上？

SoftSome

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-11 22:47
这就又是你的一个思维误区了。我是非常清楚什么是“prove beyond reasonable doubts”的。

1. 陪审团会 ...

所有冤案都经过了你的1 2 3， 然后又是怎么平反的？

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 22:36
有喷Luminol的, 血渍91没反应。

上诉如果有这个题目，应该会有警方的报告
。但退一步讲，不追究警方的不专业，没有人可以排除污迹91当时并不在车库地面，对吗?

greatfire

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-11 22:47
这就又是你的一个思维误区了。我是非常清楚什么是“prove beyond reasonable doubts”的。

1. 陪审团会 ...

“2. 陪审团会看到很多我们外界看不到的证据，”

应该不会的，这是公开审理，证据都应该是公开的

dyzinsyd

无罪释放吧，大驴们也够了

meteordust

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 22:36
有喷Luminol的, 血渍91没反应。

我觉得很合理啊。

血迹91由于时间太久，所以对Luminol没有反应了，很奇怪吗？我们没有人是这方面的专家，但是血迹时间久了就不容易被检测仍然是个常识吧。除非有科学研究可以证明Luminol对于无论多久的血液，都会有反应，那么这是血迹的论断立刻会被推翻，但是事实上有吗？

对于排除法证明就更好理解了。如果我能证明某个人不是女人，也不是什么变性人啊，中间性别啊，奇特性别的人啊，那么他必定是男性。

具体到谢案，你能举个例子说明这混合了多人DNA的液体不是血液的可能性吗？注意得是“reasonal doubts”的哦。

比如我很久以前给出个例子，口腔内壁细胞也含有DNA，一般DNA测试都可以用棉签用力刷几下口腔内壁就可以了。那么那混合液体的一个可能性就是A可以刷口腔内壁然后拿水漱口，然后吐出来给B同样刷口腔内壁后漱口，再吐出来给C……，再给D……。这样的确能形成混合4人DNA的液体，但你觉得这可能吗？

Hetbert

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-11 23:16
我觉得很合理啊。

血迹91由于时间太久，所以对Luminol没有反应了，很奇怪吗？我们没有人是这方面的专家 ...

你想当然啦。

Luminol很灵敏的，越是陈旧的血迹，越是反应大，反倒是对新鲜的血液不容易有反应。

San Francisco pathologists Frederick Proescher and A. M. Moody made three important observations about luminol:[12][13]

1. although the test is presumptive, large areas of suspected material can be examined rapidly;

2. dried and decomposed blood gave a stronger and more lasting reaction than fresh blood;

3. if the luminescence disappears, it may be reproduced by the application of a fresh luminol-hydrogen peroxide solution; dried bloodstains may thus be made luminescent repeatedly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol

这个例子是野外的血迹，风吹雨打了四年，喷了Luminol以后还显示出来。



https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/ ... oto-Stene-Adair.pdf

Hetbert

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-11 23:16
我觉得很合理啊。

血迹91由于时间太久，所以对Luminol没有反应了，很奇怪吗？我们没有人是这方面的专家 ...

如果你一定要问我脑补的场景，那就是这几人在曾经在谢家车库里吐沫横飞的侃大山，或者挥汗如雨的锻炼。

pan123au

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 23:51
如果你一定要问我脑补的场景，那就是这几人在曾经在谢家车库里吐沫横飞的侃大山，或者挥汗如雨的锻炼。:l ...

林家的家具也搬进车库里，这个血迹也可能从林家带来的，

Hetbert

hornsay 发表于 2018-12-11 21:29
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 ...

你这个说法就是当初辨方给出的场景，小孩到家的时候，大人已经死了。

根据现场的图片，林家卧室在楼上，电脑在楼下，小孩子到家没人管就直奔电脑也不是没有可能。



The defence do not accept that Detective Harkins’ opinion as to the order and timing of the killings is the only conclusion open on an objective analysis of the crime scene evidence. As I understand the cross-examination of Detective Harkins, it is the defence case that not only is there a reasonable possibility of more than one assailant (contrary to the Crown case that the accused acted alone in committing the murders), but there is also a reasonable possibility that at least Henry Lin may have been asphyxiated in another part of the house and then assaulted in his bedroom. Further, again as I understand the defence case, it is open on the evidence for the jury to find that there was a considerable time interval between the killings, including the reasonable possibility that when the children were dropped at home at 10.30pm on 17 July 2009, their parents and aunt were already dead or dying, which exculpates the accused as the murderer.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58aa853ee4b058596cba4311


因为当时现场有一块对折了两次的方布，一头用一根红色橡皮筋扎住，上面有林家夫妻的DNA。
检方的法医专家说，这是扎在凶器上的；
辨方的法医专家说，这是塞在林家夫妻嘴巴里的；
独立的法医专家说，可能两人说的都不对。。。

Contrary to one of the submissions Mr Turnbull relied upon as supporting the alternate hypothesis that the cloth bound in rubber bands was taken to the scene by the murderer to be used as a gag, it was not Dr Raymond’s evidence that the cloth had to be moist or wet (presumably with saliva on the defence case) before it could absorb blood, but rather, that when it was moistened with water, whether before or after contact with blood, the blood patterning was more diffuse through the fabric as distinct from it being less diffuse when the item was not wet or moist. It is not clear from Dr Raymond’s evidence whether she used new cloth or used cloth in her experiments, whether they had different absorption capacities or whether blood, in sufficient quantities, would serve to moisten the fabric.

What Dr Raymond concluded from that regime of testing was that it was unlikely that the cloth was attached to a hammer in the way proposed (or at least to any hammer that she had access to for the purpose of the experiment) because the cloth, and I assume the rubber band, became detached, again, I assume, before any or sufficient blood penetrated the fabric. In the result, she was also unable to replicate the pattern on the cloth from rolling or dipping the cloth in its bound form into blood.

devilsear

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-11 22:36
有喷Luminol的, 血渍91没反应。

Henry经常到谢的车库打羽毛球，Terry 和Brenda 偶尔也会去看。打球出汗了就会把衣服放在地上，衣服上的DNA transfer到地上也不奇怪，一家人衣服是混在一起洗的，所以那块污迹上有最少三个人的DNA 不奇怪。况且警方去搜屋的时候林家的一些家具和物品都搬到谢的车库了，例如是跑步机。所以DNA 转移也不是不可能。Clayton Walton自己也不能排除有6人人或者更多，也不能排除Brenda 在里面。关于那个Trueallele, Mark Perlin 是Mark Tedeschi 亲自找回来了，并不是由新州警方找的。我认为检控这个举动超出了职责范围，调查案件是警方的认为，检控应该只是把证据呈出来让陪审团做决定。Mark Perlin 也做过Man Monis 女友辩护方的证人，他也说Man Monis女友的DNA不在现场，这场官司检控也是Mark Tedeschi。

检控只能让陪审团根据91号污迹含有至少3名受害人的DNA来做出这是血迹的结论，因为警方没有做Confirmatory test 来测这是不是真的是血。

还有从林家到谢家之间没有任何血迹，林家楼下也基本没有血迹，所以凶手应该是换了衣服，把血衣和占到血的凶器包的严实。如果谢已经把东西包的严实，那么他到了车库也没有必要再打开，导致有血滴了出来。还有警方已经把谢的车拿去化验，也没有发现有血。

另外陪审团能看到的证据可能比旁听的还要少，因为控辩双方在辩论某些证据能不能给陪审团看的时候陪审团是不能在场的，而旁听的可以留下来，陪审团只会拿到法官允许他们能看的证据。所以四审的陪审团看到的证据比三审要少，因为四审没有了谋财害命这个动机，所以林家财务的证据在四审都没了。

Hillwang

换个角度，心理学。如果常人被冤枉杀了5个人，还当庭罪名成立，会是什么反应？古代反正有咬破舌头沾着血在地上写冤字的。谢在庭上的反应如何解释

猫儿不笨

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 ...

你太有才了
若有时间也看看#525?

Hillwang

还有这个房子是一院两户那种，晚上这么大动静，另外一栋房子一点都没听见吗？

Hillwang

还有这个房子对面是个公园，不远处就进林子了，不知道警察有没有搜搜山

Hillwang

这个区是个口袋型，只有一条路进出，歹徒行凶也要考虑全身而退的计划，如此安静的街道半夜有车响很容易被察觉。
不信去实地观测一下

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-12 00:33
你太有才了
若有时间也看看#525?

你说的很有道理。

但是你指出的吃饭时间点都是推测的，没办法确认死亡时间吧。

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-12 00:47
你说的很有道理。

但是你指出的吃饭时间点都是推测的，没办法确认死亡时间吧。 ...

可以的。有录像记录林暋晚上7点离开书报店开车前往林老家，路程半小时。而9点半有录像记录到他出现在离林老家半小时路程的一加油站
那么他最晚应该在晚上9点之前吃完晚餐

Hetbert

色字头上一把刀啊。

猥亵林家孤女导致谢品行受到质疑，不在场证明土崩瓦解，又坐实了一个犯罪动机。

In the circumstances revealed in R v Xie (No 10), a statement of Ms AB dated 29 May 2014 and notes of Professor Parkinson dated 25 May 2014 were served by the Crown on the defence. Put shortly, Ms AB stated that the Accused had become physically affectionate to her in the period prior to the murders of her family members in July 2009. After the murders, Ms AB (then aged 15 years) came to live in the home of the Accused and his wife. Ms AB states that the Accused sexually assaulted her on many occasions in the period leading up to his arrest in 2011, when he was taken into custody.

A statement was also obtained from Ms BC, dated 17 June 2014. This statement is noteworthy, as Ms BC, a school friend of Ms AB, states that at a time prior to the murders in July 2009, in the course of a conversation with Ms AB in which Ms BC said that she herself had been sexually abused, Ms AB said words to the effect, "Well you know what happened with your uncle, a similar thing has happened to me". Thus, the Crown case contains material indicative of, at least, a general complaint by Ms AB of sexual abuse made before the murders.

The Crown submits that the evidence of Ms AB, as contained in the statement, is relevant to the proceedings. It is contended that it indicates sexual interest on the part of the Accused, towards Ms AB, both prior to and after the deaths.

It is submitted that it bears upon the issue of motive in circumstances where the deaths of the family members occurred when Ms AB was absent from the house. It is submitted as well that it is relevant in that it sheds light upon what are said to be the substantial efforts taken by the Accused to obtain legal guardianship of Ms AB in his wife's name after the deaths of the remainder of the family.

The Crown submits that it goes to the issue of the Accused's good character, character having been raised in the trial.

It is submitted that it goes, as well, to contradict evidence of Kathy Lin that she would have noticed if the Accused had been out of his bed on the night of the murders. The Crown submits that this alibi evidence is capable of being undermined by the statement of Ms AB that, at times, the Accused was sexually dealing with her at night.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5899004be4b058596cba3c87

xmj

打了不少官司了吧
他很有钱