杀害多人的谢联斌对其定罪提出上诉

Hetbert

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-17 00:08
两匪徒若真的如我所料用假面具假护照，实际上就是有了不在场记录的，绝对安全
这种匪徒的心理与你我不同 ...

这只是假想，没有证据可以证明的，对上诉没有任何用处。

类似的，我可以假想，林家满门是杀错人了，本来要杀周围八户邻居中的一户，但是夜里找错了目标；

或者某一户邻居对林家有积怨，这晚喝酒吸毒后，幻觉中就去林家杀人；

再或者追债毒贩来灭门；

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 00:16
这只是猜测，没有证据可以证明的，对上诉没有任何用处。

类似的，我可以猜测，林家满门是杀错人了，本来 ...

嗯，是的，没什么意义

猫儿不笨

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 00:16
这只是猜测，没有证据可以证明的，对上诉没有任何用处。

类似的，我可以猜测，林家满门是杀错人了，本来 ...

毒贩杀人也是另一个可能

stellawan

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-16 23:47
难度完全不一样好么。

马加爵是视线良好的白天，趁其不备一次锤死一个，而且马加爵浑身都是肌肉。

榔头是个杀人越货的好工具，随便上网搜搜案例一大把，我随便搜了第一页截图，凶手上至74岁老妪，下有10来岁未成年，榔头不比刀刃，对行凶者的体力要求不高.

eguan88

猫儿不笨 发表于 2018-12-16 22:51
既然谈起动机，那说说看为啥谢联斌会杀人呢？
不管谁杀了林暋，只要凶手抓不到，谢必是首疑
而他有儿子老 ...

有两间不欠银行贷款的房子，银行里还有4百万。

话说这么巨额的财产很可疑啊，不是一个普通中国新移民，而且还是个失业者能拥有的。

猫儿不笨

eguan88 发表于 2018-12-17 00:25
有两间不欠银行贷款的房子，银行里还有4百万。

话说这么巨额的财产很可疑啊，不是一个普通中国新移民， ...

但这是真实的呀，警方调查出来的信息
但警方一开始不提他的4百万，因为指控他失业穷困潦倒而谋财害命。等到后来三审结束时谢申请假释，检方反对时就提起他的银行4百万了

Hetbert

stellawan 发表于 2018-12-17 00:25
榔头是个杀人越货的好工具，随便上网搜搜案例一大把，我随便搜了第一页截图，凶手上至74岁老妪，下有10来 ...

不一样的。

我看了一下这些案例，小榔头的大都有帮手，还都是白天，有的凶手初次杀人还敲了几十下才杀死一个人。

“汪某明用榔头猛击闵某某头面部数十下致其死亡”，这还是两名凶手合力。

http://legal.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0731/c42510-30179314.html

hornsay

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-16 00:36
谢谢你找来这么多资料。

不过显然你的英语不行。

哪里有证据证明歹徒回到主卧？

每个房间分别有多少鞋印，有没有报道？

stellawan

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 00:37
不一样的。

我看了一下这些案例，小榔头的大都有帮手，还都是白天，有的凶手初次杀人还敲了几十下才杀死 ...

给你看个近代著名悍匪的实战经验总结

https://m.lieqidao.com/qiwen/1160.html

Hetbert

stellawan 发表于 2018-12-17 00:45
给你看个近代著名悍匪的实战经验总结

https://m.lieqidao.com/qiwen/1160.html

没错！

人家十多年杀人经验总结出来的。

谢第一次就这么强，我不大信。

stellawan

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 00:50
没错！

人家十多年杀人经验总结出来的。

https://www.foxnews.com/us/illeg ... n-san-francisco.amp

这个我之前贴过，也是锤子，杀了一家五口，都是成年人.

Hetbert

stellawan 发表于 2018-12-17 00:56
https://www.foxnews.com/us/illeg ... f-five-in-san-franc ...

这个也是专业的。杀人抢劫十几年了，还在监狱大学深造过。

Luc spent a decade in prison for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon for the 1996 armed robbery of a Chinese restaurant.

Hetbert

林涵和林涛卧室木吉他上的血指纹V1，指纹专家对比两人的指纹和掌纹后，认为V1不属于谢，所以谢当年得以保释。

但是后来检方的法医专家设想了几种可能的场景，说这个指纹要么是混合的，要么死后取的指纹无法准确对比，所以不能作为辨方的证据。

https://jade.io/article/522893?at.hl=R+v+Xie

In the course of giving evidence of the blood patterns and bloodstains in Bedroom 3, the bedroom in which the children were found, objection was taken to evidence concerning what has been described as a partial friction ridge detail, located in blood on a timber acoustic guitar in the bedroom and the circumstances in which that mark was applied to the guitar and the likely identity of the person who made the mark. The controversial friction ridge detail has been identified in the evidence by Ms Te as carrying the designation “V1”. She has given evidence in the trial, without objection, concerning her treatment of the mark and her observations as to the likely provenance of the mark.

The area in which the guitar was located in Bedroom 3 attracted a designation of “Area 17B” in Detective Sergeant Harkins’ July 2012 statement. In summary, his evidence, led without objection before the jury, is to the effect that the guitar was, at least for a period of time during the course of the attack on the children, upright in the corner of the bedroom, since a “void” was discernible on the wall between two areas where blood was deposited in the course of the attack. He also gave evidence of the direction and flow of patterns of blood on the guitar, which, in his opinion, demonstrated that the blood travelled from body of the guitar toward the base of the guitar whilst it was upright. The diagonal flow of other blood deposits on the guitar further reinforced his opinion that the guitar was leaning upright against the corner of the bedroom for some period of time during the attack in the course of which one or both of the boys struggled with the person or people attacking them, which further reinforced his opinion that the transfer pattern in blood, designated as V1, had been deposited after the flow pattern described by him. He was ultimately permitted, without objection, to offer the opinion expressed in the July 2012 statement that the most likely deposition scenario was that the guitar was upright and leaning when blood came into contact with it, causing it to “flow”, and that the transfer mark at V1 was applied after that event.

The Crown intends to call a qualified fingerprint expert, Detective Sergeant Bush, who I understand will give evidence that that transfer pattern or mark, identified as V1, had identifiable friction ridge details but was not otherwise able to be identified as belonging to any of the deceased by comparison with fingerprints and palm prints taken post-mortem.

Detective Sergeant Bush’s evidence has been relied upon by the accused in a bail application or applications prior to the commencement of his trial in May 2012 as supporting his case that he was not the killer.

stellawan

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 01:07
这个也是专业的。杀人抢劫十几年了，还在监狱大学深造过。

Luc spent a decade in prison for robbery a ...

武装抢劫，怎么变成杀人了？

Hetbert

stellawan 发表于 2018-12-17 01:21
武装抢劫，怎么变成杀人了？

有杀人意愿，杀人工具，但受害者没死。

Assault With a Deadly Weapon is the commission of an assault upon another person using a deadly weapon, another instrument, or by means of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another.

Examples:

Pointing a gun at someone to shoot them
Swinging a guitar at someone’s head
Trying to stab someone with a long, sharp broken piece of glass
Driving your car into someone, whether they are also in a car or on foot

Hetbert

https://jade.io/article/522628?at.hl=R+v+Xie

法庭记录中林家血案前谢对Brenda的三次性骚扰：

Ms Lin’s evidence about the accused’s sexualised conduct prior to the murders can be summarised as follows:

(i) 牵手 The first specific incident of sexualised conduct was when the accused took Ms Lin home from Chinese School in Merrylands and she was alone in the car with him. They drove to McDonalds in Parramatta and had some lunch. She said that whilst they were in the car the accused was “just sort of holding my hand or – yeah. I just felt a little bit awkward”. Ms Lin said this happened when she was in high school and before her family were killed.

(ii) 摸腰和大腿 Another incident was when the accused drove Ms Lin to his home at 4 Beck Street. She sat on the couch in the living room and the accused sat next to her. She said the accused then “started sort of rubbing his hand up my thigh a little bit and I felt quite uncomfortable, so I ended up standing up and then he had both of his hands around my sort of torso/waist area and was rubbing it up and down”. She said when he was rubbing his hand up her thigh it was “more towards the upper part [of her thigh]”. She thought the accused was breathing heavily as he rubbed her. He then suggested he take her home.

(iii) 熊抱 A third incident was when the accused and his wife came to 55A Boundary Road to take the children to the grandparents for dinner. Ms Lin said that the accused came upstairs on his own and at the top of stairwell he “hugged me really tightly and it was sort of awkward because I could feel his body against me and I could also feel his groin area against me as well”, which she described as, “a little bit like bulging out, I guess. So it was hard”. She said this occurred “within six months of the murders, at least, or maybe a couple of months”.

搬进谢家之后，谢变本加厉：

Turning now to the evidence of complaint as it relates to the sexual assaults Ms Lin describes as occurring in the accused’s home after she became a member of the household following the murder of her family.

Ms Lin gave evidence at the trial in 2015 that within a couple of weeks after she moved into the accused’s home after the murders the accused indecently assaulted her. She alleged that while she was asleep in the bedroom she was sharing with the accused’s son, the accused came into the room during the night and, without saying anything, put his hand under the blanket, under her underwear and on her skin above her vagina. She pretended to be asleep. She said the accused hesitated a bit and then he took his hand out and walked out of the room.

Ms Lin gave evidence that the following night the accused came into her bedroom again and inserted a finger inside her vagina. After a period of time he withdrew his finger out and walked out of room. She pretended to be asleep.

Ms Lin gave evidence of three other specific occasions of sexual or indecent assault which included the accused ejaculating between her breasts, using a torch to shine at her genitals, sniffing his fingers after digitally penetrating her vagina, and a further occasion when the accused was in her bedroom sexually assaulting her and left hurriedly because her grandfather was going to the bathroom and the accused went out and spoke to him. (Mr Lin Snr gave evidence of corroborative of encountering the accused in the hallway outside the bathroom which is very close to the room Ms Lin was sharing with the accused’s son). Ms Lin also said there was an occasion when she was having a shower and the accused was outside looking in at her through the slightly open bathroom window.

More generally, Ms Lin said sexualised conduct generally and sexual assaults specifically occurred with varying frequency up until the accused’s arrest. She said the sexual assaults occurred sometimes every night for a week and then it would stop for a couple of days or a week or so and then start up again. She said it became “more intrusive” over time, with the accused putting his finger in and out of her vagina more frequently and “faster” and it became “really uncomfortable” and sometimes it hurt. Initially she pretended it was not happening and pretended to be asleep. As the sexual assaults became more intrusive she said she would move or struggle by kicking out at the accused or that she tried to move away from him.

Ms Lin gave evidence that the first person to whom she disclosed the fact that the accused had been sexually assaulting was her friend Ms CD a week after the accused’s 2014 trial commenced on 8 May 2014. She said she decided she wanted to speak with her friend about the quandary she found herself in with the prospect of giving evidence on oath about the accused at his trial. She said:

If I didn’t disclose the sexual abuse, I’d only be telling half the truth because how I saw [the accused], there were two sides to him: one side that was during the day which was really fun that I really loved; and one side that was sexually abusing me.

She said in her evidence:

I remember I kept on saying to her [Ms CD], ‘There’s something I want to tell you, but I just don’t feel comfortable telling you’ or ‘I just don’t know how to tell you’.

笑和尚

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-16 16:17
难度完全不一样好么。

马加爵是视线良好的白天，趁其不备一次锤死一个，而且马加爵浑身都是肌肉。

为啥难度不一样？谢对的是熟睡的人，妇女，幼弱，马加爵对的清醒的成人，谢1.70m，60多公斤和马加爵1.715m，同样60多公斤体格，马加爵哪里有浑身肌肉？马加爵还是第一次杀人见血，谢，是有经验的五官科外科医生，五官科外科手术哪个不用医生用外科骨锤？哪个颌面鼻腔面手术不用锤子捶骨削骨去骨血腥淋漓？就拿最普通的鼻中隔扭曲手术，鼻中隔就是一片薄薄的软骨，但一旦破裂，骨刺非常容易刺入下面的大动脉，造成大出血死亡，鼻部的危险三角区，太阳穴要穴都是大血管薄骨，拳击运动员为啥要抽掉鼻部软骨？就是怕被打击的时候鼻骨破碎刺入血管致命，谢某锤击的基本都集中在头部鼻部，只要有破裂骨刺刺入大血管，就是致命，这是五官科外科的常识，他还是羽毛球高手，羽毛球的劈击用力手法就是模拟战锤劈击，用的就是巧劲，讲究的精确，他才是经验杀手，学以致用。

还musilin宗教意义，笑话吧，musilin也是个纺织名词，就是平纹细纱薄布。在这，就是纱布，五官科医生动鼻中隔扭曲手术后就是把一团医用纱布塞进去止血，谢是熟门熟路，到你们天团的嘴里都成无辜的holy baby了。

笑和尚

笑和尚

笑和尚

不用和挺谢天团们纠缠啥细枝末节，因为这都已经是法庭和专业认证过的，其中的技术细节完全是超出我们这些普罗大众的，天团们就是喜欢用听说，据说，可能，也许等臆想来这蛊惑人心，来达到他们的目的.

为人服务，与人消灾，光捣糨糊，那就是不讲江湖道义了。

只能为妇人之见呵呵了，该用的钱不用，不该用的地方瞎用，关键的四审就呵呵了，你要上诉，只能从程序正义上做翻案文章，devilsea非常厉害，@devilsear 已经找到了关键的警察故意不作为，不查毒贩利用林愍书报店贩毒和林愍突然暴富在那个连续报微利亏损的时候能拿出100多万澳元还清贷款的问题，警察居然放过不查，这就是巨大问题，这才该深究，而不是纠缠确证的证据了。

yuxuanlin

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 02:00
https://jade.io/article/522628?at.hl=R+v+Xie

法庭记录中林家血案前谢对Brenda的三次性骚扰：

看完了的结论

谢某某真的是大人渣

stellawan

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 01:31
有杀人意愿，杀人工具，但受害者没死。

Assault With a Deadly Weapon is the commission of an assault ...

1）firearm
2）second degree assault with a deadly weapon（With second-degree assault, a person intends to cause an injury and with the goal is to inflict serious injury.）
3）1996（age 20）
从哪里看出来他有用榔头杀人的实践经验？

hornsay

meteordust 发表于 2018-12-16 22:57
谢谢你又找来这些资料。我的推断跟侦探的分析大体吻合。

那块碎布是在孩子房间发现的，之前我以为在主 ...

别急别急，一步一步来。

先把布的踪迹搞清，然后我们再来讲这块布有没有损坏，怎样损坏。。

你说你的推断跟detective一致。

对不起，差太远了。

这块浸满林夫妇血的布最终落在了小孩的房间。

而你说这块布又回到了林夫妇的房间。

这块布到底是怎样的踪迹，搞清了没有？

SoftSome

纱布 橡皮筋 是凶手们故意留下的吧 ？ 有时间回到主卧把两具尸体摆弄一番，没时间把带血而且很可能带凶手DNA的纱布和橡皮筋带走？看来是凶手们根本不怕警方拿到凶手们的DNA

Hetbert

SoftSome 发表于 2018-12-17 08:39
纱布 橡皮筋 是凶手们故意留下的吧 ？ 有时间回到主卧把两具尸体摆弄一番，没时间把带血而且很可能带凶手DN ...

看不出是两个或者多个凶手吧？

检方也到现在也不明白凶手为啥大费周章把三个大人的尸体都挪动一番。

SoftSome

Hetbert 发表于 2018-12-17 09:18
看不出是两个或者多个凶手吧？

检方也到现在也不明白凶手为啥大费周章把三个大人的尸体都挪动一番。 ...

独狼？那这个独狼就更了得了 一人摆弄三个大尸体 故意留下很可能带凶手DNA的纱布和橡皮筋给警方

icelemontea

谢氏对孤女的行为倒真是符合他的猥琐形象。
但杀人不同，同马加爵三天杀四人，或白天激情砍众人或惯犯入室抢劫锤死人不同，独狼连杀5个具有血缘关系的亲人，静谧漆黑夜晚独自一人看到的是四溅的人血，闻到的满屋血腥味，听到的是捶打人头部的声音，感受一锤一锤的撞击力，还能够独自搬弄尸体，这份心理承受力，不说是冷血职业杀手，恐怕也要有杀人经验才可以吧。更诡异的是能够毫不留痕迹的步行走回家。
从心理层面分析，那位犯罪心理学家不无道理。

hornsay

SoftSome 发表于 2018-12-17 08:39
纱布 橡皮筋 是凶手们故意留下的吧 ？ 有时间回到主卧把两具尸体摆弄一番，没时间把带血而且很可能带凶手DN ...

警方说的所谓的榔头也是一种揣测。

这块布in bound state是2.5x4厘米，如果用橡皮筋把它绑在榔头前，我不知道怎么绑，榔头的头必须小于2cm？

我个人倾向于短的圆铁杆，可能是修车行里用的。

歹徒可能是穆斯林，然后把布绑在圆铁杆的一段，这样不会弄痛自己的手。

这个圆铁杆的另一头应该是扁的类似于screw driver. 这个可以在林妻的伤口报告里显示出来。

因为是一折四，所以证据显示这块布上有四个对称的圆环形。

布上沾满了林夫妻的DNA，最终落在了小孩的房间。

那既然独狼先杀Irene，换句话说Irene房间里应该有林夫妻的血迹，我还没有看到Irene房间里有没有林夫妻的血迹或者DNA的报道。而最终这块布在小孩房间里发现，所以这块布应该也有Irene的DNA，但是小孩房间里没有发现任何Irene的DNA。

所以这些证据显示这个案子不可能是独狼做的。

icelemontea

娈童多发在熟人亲戚中，但举证控诉非常难，如果看过根据真人真事改编的韩国电影素媛，美国电影聚焦就知道了，还有一部韩国聋哑学校校长老师性侵残疾学生的真实事件，其控告过程是相当艰辛。从孤女描述看来，似乎没有目击证人，又离谢被捕有时间间隔，无法取证，不知道这是不是无法控告谢的原因。
但我觉得控方在法庭上引用孤女证词引发陪审团和女法官对谢品格的质疑是正当的。不懂法，看犯罪电视剧看出来的结论。

2121

谢联斌绝对不是好人