|
|
此文章由 Hetbert 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Hetbert 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
有口难言 发表于 2018-12-20 23:39 
stain 91绝对不是林二老，他们没这本事，实事求是。
假口供是随手之劳
嗯，是林老爷子告诉警方谢是凶手，警方才重点调查谢的。
https://jade.io/article/522895?at.hl=R+v+Xie+surveillance
The next excerpt in the body of the surveillance device transcripts tendered by the Crown records a conversation between the accused and his wife on 16 March 2010. That transcript runs to six pages.
There can be no doubt that the accused is aware from what he says to his wife that he believes he is now suspected of killing the deceased. He openly discusses with his wife the need to prove (to police) that he was at home with her at the time of the murders. He also makes express reference to what, it must be assumed, his wife told him after police spoke to her on 2 March 2010, to the effect that the police considered that murders of this kind were usually committed by family members. The following excerpt makes this clear :
R: Initially I didn’t mind what the police said: for all the murder … (Ind) in Australia the leading reason was money. And I agreed to it. Recently they are gradually changing their point of view and saying no, … (Ind), Saying these crimes were usually committed by family members….Anyway, this is point of view they have come to now. So from what was said today, I could sense … (Ind) that meaning, uh: besides, besides money there are still some other unimaginable motives. There are even such things.
They then discuss their shared belief that Kathy Lin’s parents are the source of the renewed police interest in the accused as a suspect. They both speak in this extracted conversation, as in many others the subject of the Crown tender, in very critical and sometimes hateful terms about her parents for that reason. In most exchanges on this subject, Kathy Lin is driving the conversation. It is well established by the evidence already led by the Crown that there was enmity between the accused and his wife on the one hand, and her parents on the other hand at this time. The Crown relied upon the family conflict, not to ground a submission to the jury that the suspicions of the accused’s parents-in-law that the accused was the murderer were well founded, but in support of what the Crown alleges to be the accused’s desire to secure control over Brenda Lin and his need to secure his wife’s cooperation in being appointed her legal guardian at the expense of her grandparents for that reason.
The Crown did not submit that the accused’s belief that his parents-in–law had reignited the police interest in him as a suspect or his criticism of them was relevant as a discrete issue. As I see it, the mere fact that he discussed with his wife the interference of his parents-in-law is not, without more, probative of his guilt.
The accused and his wife also speak about the police “framing” them (or him) in this excerpt, a repeated theme in other conversations the subject of the Crown tender. I take their joint use of this term (translated from either Cantonese or Mandarin) to mean a concern that the police have been wrongly inflamed by the intervention of Kathy Lin’s parents and that this has given rise to a misplaced suspicion on the part of police that the accused is the murderer, if for no other reason than they have not found the real culprit.
What the accused says to his wife in the following excerpt on 16 March 2010 must necessarily be read in that context:
R: but this thing is the truth. This thing, I can say it and you can also say it. But about the other things whatever other people would say, we can do nothing. Ran into us on the road. What can you do about it? Isn’t that right?.
K: Mm.
R: Our car was seen in that place at the night time of 12 o’clock, it emerged, appeared there. For this I really can say nothing, in this case.
K: Exactly.
R: that is, if the police want to frame me up. I’m just saying.
K: Yes, stayed with you, with you that night.
R: This Absolutely . . . What else is there to say? Son, where did he sleep? I said, the two slept in the middle. What else is there to say? (Sighs)…to say?
[Emphasis added]
It seems to me that the following exchange might be fairly considered to be the high watermark of what the probative value of the accused’s conversations with his wife on 16 March 2010. The extract commences at some undefined point in time on that day with the following words:
R: To prove it? I’m really unable to do so. I’m really unable to prove it.
K: I prove on that night I was with you.
R: I can only prove that we two stayed together. What else could be proved? I said I didn’t go out. You say that I did, and with witness. Then I can do nothing about it. You have witness, okay.
K: Mm.
R: Yes, about this I really can do nothing.
K: Mm.
R: I’m just saying. You, you can even say, Oh, on that night you were seen walk out at 11, 12 o’clock. You, you were seen by two people.” [sic] I really can do nothing about it if the witnesses are found. It’s only that, I can only, (Laughs) I can only say that we two stayed together. As for other (things), I really can say nothing. Do you understand what I mean?
K: I know.
R: The bottom line is this. Anything else, I cannot control.
K: … (Ind), if I was not staying with you, who was I staying with, then? (Laughs).
实际上，我之所以认为谢是被冤枉的，很大程度上就是窃听器记录的Kathy上面笑着说的这句话，“那天晚上我不是和你在一起，那我还能和谁在一起？” 这说明Kathy心里没有一丝一毫的疑惑，谢一直和她在一起。
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
水果干磅蛋糕 (2010-2-14) cctang 
楼主:satellite0
发表于 2018-12-20 22:20
