谢连斌上诉案：谢的律师们将指控原审中一名证人撒谎

Hetbert

QC Tedeschi我是佩服的，认准了谢是犯人，就到处evidence shopping把案坐实：安插狱中毒贩作污点证人，去美国找Perlin作污渍91分析，谢家装好摄像机和窃听器再放虎归山再敲山震虎，等等。

猫儿不笨

如果只有3男受害者的DNA与车库污迹DNA有相关性，那么车库污迹就无法作为车库DNA来自凶场的证据，因为3男性是亲父子关系，DNA有一半是一样的，3人中任何1人生前在谢家车库留下极微量DNA物质，就可以解释结果

而如果2女受害者的DNA与车库DNA也有相关性，考虑到其中之一与3男性是没有血缘关系的，那么5人的DNA都出现在车库，指控DNA来自凶场，就很有说服力了

一分子

lovebabyhu 发表于 2020-4-29 18:11
你在关于谢的案件的观点太偏颇，以往的言论都点掉份，人伦道德都丢进去了。如果谁的见解和你不一样就开始 ...

请具体说明。我 觉得猫儿的 观点是 依据报道的 事实而来。

猫儿不笨

案发之后NSW自己的DNA专家对车库污迹DNA进行了分析，认定与3男死者相关，却不与2女受害者相关，但与林家还活着的一女性相关

检方把样本再送南澳，新西兰和英国，都得出一致的结论

初审时法官根据这结果，批准谢联斌假释申请，认为本来只依靠DNA证据的这案子更无力了。但NSW DPP当堂上诉并获批准，以特别重大案子的唯一嫌疑犯为由继续关押谢联斌，并在监狱里演出了另一囚犯证人A的丑剧

然后由检察官Mark Tedeschi亲自出马，找到了美国True Allele 的Mark Perlin，同是犹太人好办事，终于半哄半骗，诱导陪审团得出了有罪结论

lovebabyhu

一分子 发表于 2020-4-29 20:15
请具体说明。我 觉得猫儿的 观点是 依据报道的 事实而来。

陈年老帖了 如果你感兴趣 就从一审开始看吧。这里的老人很多，大家都知道这个故事。

猫儿不笨

闲人甲 发表于 2020-4-29 09:15
如果是黑帮作案的话，也可以采到dna样本的，对比一下现场留下的蛛丝马迹dna，应该可以断案吧。
这个案子最 ...

“这个案子最蹊跷的是小女孩房间的门没动。”

一点不蹊跷

想象一下，你是闲人甲，与闲人乙2人是林家血案的凶手。你们在林家没有内线，根本不知道Brenda不在家的事实。你们戴着手套摸上楼准备动手之前，发现Brenda的房间门打开着 - 这是最先到达现场的2名特警之一后来在法庭上作证时说的 - 你们敢不敢不走近看看就对别的房间动手？肯定不敢，你们走近一看，房间里没人，床上的被子没有打开（冬天），说明住这房间的出外了。不是吗？你们还会对这房间有丝毫兴趣吗？你们手上戴着手套，会在门上留下痕迹吗？

还觉得蹊跷吗？

检方列出的几个软证据，都是忽悠人的。根本都无法就这些证据定罪
更令人发指的是稍微一想，它们都不经一击

Huiwen

berlinda 房间是否上楼后第一个房间？

Huiwen

女儿房间有没有脚印？

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

猫儿不笨

Huiwen 发表于 2020-4-29 21:32
女儿房间有没有脚印？

Brenda房间在走廊最末端，与另三间凶场卧室相对面，与2男孩房间正对面，与浴室相邻
走廊上的一组血鞋印，从主人夫妇房间延伸到小姨房间门口就断了，从小姨房间到小孩房间的走廊没有肉眼可辨识的血鞋印

猫儿不笨

Huiwen 发表于 2020-4-29 21:32
女儿房间有没有脚印？

Brenda房间没有丝毫被人进入的痕迹 - 那就不会有鞋印了，根据检方的说法

Evo

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-4-29 21:45
Brenda房间没有丝毫被人进入的痕迹 - 那就不会有鞋印了，根据检方的说法

你是这个案子的民间专家了， 哪个公开的网址可以下载到这个案子的案卷或者起诉书？谢谢

gohappy

这种案子对被告很不利，相当于个人和政府打官司。个人财力那经得住这样没完没了的折腾，没钱了就输官司，西方这法律有什么值得炫耀的？有本事在人家还有钱时打赢被告！
病毒到是不看你有钱没钱，但是有钱人能得到更好的治疗。王子啊首相啊首相夫人啊染了病毒好像都能没问题。这病毒也不是无药可治！

Evo

gohappy 发表于 2020-4-29 22:13
这种案子对被告很不利，相当于个人和政府打官司。个人财力那经得住这样没完没了的折腾，没钱了就输官司，西 ...

前面有网友说了， 是Legalaid（法律援助）帮谢请的律师团队。 Legalaid的钱是政府的钱，纳税人出的

穆si林

这个案子的最大启示就是，需要建立司法问责体系。

如果最终证明了这是个冤案，那么从检察官到某些警察到法官到陪审团，每个人都应该接受审判。

猫儿不笨

Evo 发表于 2020-4-29 22:01
你是这个案子的民间专家了， 哪个公开的网址可以下载到这个案子的案卷或者起诉书？谢谢 ...

谈不上专家，只是有兴趣并一直跟下来了

起诉书和案卷似乎像我们一般人都接触不到
以下网址，是法官在考虑和决定由双方提出的部分有争执的证据上庭合适性的记录。留意所有的考量都与定罪无关

https://jade.io/article/363136

Evo

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-4-29 22:17
谈不上专家，只是有兴趣并一直跟下来了

起诉书和案卷似乎像我们一般人都接触不到

谢谢分享， 今天没分了， 改日补上。

gohappy

Evo 发表于 2020-4-29 22:15
前面有网友说了， 是Legalaid（法律援助）帮谢请的律师团队。 Legalaid的钱是政府的钱，纳税人出的  ...

那是没钱了以后才找的援助律师，所以官司输了。以前自己请律师的时候一直没输官司。

猫儿不笨

Evo 发表于 2020-4-29 22:19
谢谢分享， 今天没分了， 改日补上。

还可以参考法官Elizabeth Fullerton的判决书，Google得到

Evo

猫儿不笨 发表于 2020-4-29 22:29
还可以参考法官Elizabeth Fullerton的判决书，Google得到

谢谢。

刚从第一次庭审的记录看起：
Ms Lin（林家孤女） will give evidence (as she did in the second trial) that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the accused over a period of months after her parents and brothers were murdered in July 2009 and before his arrest in May 2011.

姓谢的有没有杀人先不讨论。

我不觉得一个孤女有动机诬告姓谢的性侵， 这种事情需要很大的勇气才能说出来。

如果姓谢的确实多次性侵孤女， 那他就是个禽兽

iLeac

Evo 发表于 2020-4-29 22:33
谢谢。

刚从第一次庭审的记录看起：

性侵这个案子判了吗？

ymf9901071

原来如此

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.