林家血案之六十六： 控方做结案陈词5，谢曾经和证人A详细交谈过林家灭门案

shanelee7984

可怜

猫儿不笨

d'oh 发表于 2015-9-22 16:06
疑点一：
谢，谢妻进入现场后：
1．        在看不到主卧情况下，谢从后抱住谢妻拦阻谢妻入内

没人回答？我来回答其中几点吧：

疑点三：案发在7月18日凌晨（注: 悉尼冬天最冷的月份）, 谢早起清洗了自家车库(去案发现场之前)

疑点之疑点 ：警方说是谢自己向一警察说了早上洗车库这件事。我觉得很难理解。很难想象精心蓄谋并执行了艰巨的5人谋害，不留痕迹，又赶在凌晨清洗车库，转头又向警察讲洗车库这件事。有人说会不会是被警察问了，不得不说。我觉得不可能，杀5人不是杀小鸡，又谁会冬天凌晨洗车库？凶手案后的极度紧张会持续一段时间，这时真有警察问凶手也不可能松口，一松口等于招供。


疑点六： 谢妻泄露警方在调查爱时刻死运动鞋后，谢被录到剪掉鞋盒马桶冲走。

疑点之疑点：如果警方在谢家搜查到的Assics鞋盒真的如警方所说的属于凶手在现场穿的同一类Assics鞋，照理应该是如获至宝，立即没收作为起诉谢至今最有力的证据。而不是留下任人破坏，靠运气拍下个录像。我觉得那鞋盒应该属于案发后不久应警察询问，谢上交了的那双不同于凶手所穿Assics鞋的另一双鞋子，警方才没加予没收。


疑点七： 谢家车库发现疑似血迹，经过多国检验，其中混有4名遇害者DNA。

疑点之疑点： 1. 2012年法官John Andrews 被告知血污迹里的女性DNA不是2女性受害者的后，认为那血污迹与凶杀关系很弱，据此他批准了谢的假释申请（谢妻或林妹的血污迹可以解释一切：不与2女性而与3男性受害者DNA相配）； 2。血污迹在4个国家做了检查，怀疑一直换国家是没有找到警察希望有的东西，但最后一站的美国专家在审讯庭上的解释也被封锁，怀疑还是因为证据解释对谢定罪不利 ；  3。记者对肯定的句子，数字或被报道者的确切言语的报道，往往加用双引号。费时找了，还没找到用双引号的类似“血污迹含4个受难者的DNA” 的报道。检察官Mark有几处用“血污迹含林家4个家庭成员的DNA”，这可以是3个男性受难者加上林妹的DNA; 4.至今没有专家证实那污迹是血。

jasyangau

猫儿不笨 发表于 2015-9-22 20:42
没人回答？我来回答其中几点吧：

疑点三：案发在7月18日凌晨（注: 悉尼冬天最冷的月份）, 谢早起清洗了 ...

哎呀，言多必失啊，警官和法官又搞混了

SoftSome

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/allega ... 0150922-gjs5dg.html

SoftSome

Allegations against accused Lin family murderer Robert Xie 'inconsistent with facts', court hears

Police investigating the 2009 Lin family murders decided soon after the crime that Robert Xie was the killer and built their case around him despite the allegations being "completely and utterly inconsistent with the evidence", a court has heard.

In his final address to Mr Xie's marathon trial over the murder of five members of the Lin family in their North Epping home, the accused's barrister, Graham Turnbull SC, said the basic facts from the crime scene suggested that his client could not have been the killer.

The Crown alleges that the 50-year-old - the brother-in-law of murder victim Min "Norman" Lin - had crept into the house in the early hours of July 18, 2009, and murdered five members of the Lin family with a hammer-like object as they lay in their beds.

But Mr Turnbull said it was impossible for one person to have committed the murders alone.
"One person did this?" Mr Turnbull asked rhetorically.
Robert Xie's barrister, Graham Turnbull, SC, leaving the Supreme Court.
Robert Xie's barrister, Graham Turnbull, SC, leaving the Supreme Court. Photo: Chris Pearce
"In the dark? One person in the dark and it's Robert Xie?"
"[Is he] a martial arts ninja?"
Mr Turnbull said that, like everyone else in the community, Mr Xie was entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Yet investigating police had made him the target of their investigation within a month of the victim's funerals.
"There was a decision taken at a very early stage [about Mr Xie]," he said.


"In September 2009 police obtained medical records regarding Robert Xie. The funerals [for the Lin family] were in August. In September they were trying to determine whether he had lied about going to see a doctor or not."
Police had been unable to find strong incriminating evidence against their chief suspect, Mr Turnbull said, and had instead built their case around Witness A - a fellow inmate of Mr Xie who had given evidence against him in return for a reduction in his sentence and other inducements.
He said Witness A's evidence had been part of a year-long investigation designed to trap Mr Xie in which the informant was engaged in a "two-way" negotiation with police.  
"This is a case which starts with Witness A and works backwards," he said.
"Let's face it - why on earth would the constabulary be using Witness A to prove their case [if they didn't have to]?"
He said only a fraction of Witness A's evidence had come in the form of recorded conversations with the accused killer, with the remainder being his version of what Mr Xie told him.
He said the informant had conveniently taken every piece of evidence suggesting Mr Xie's innocence and "flicked it to the boundary".
Earlier, Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, concluded his final address to the jury by listing a number points from the Crown case which he said represented "powerful evidence" against the accused.
These included that Mr Xie allegedly told Witness A that he had disposed of the murder weapon the day after the murders while going to pick up his mother and father-in-law, that he had told Witness A that his wife Kathy Lin had been sedated on the night of the murders, and that a small blood-like stain on the floor of Mr Xie's garage allegedly contained DNA from four of the victims.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we submit to you that in this trial the Crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered the five members of the Lin family," he said.
The trial continues.   

AFL123

试试他山之石吧。从谢妻的角度看看，共有情况：1. 谢是凶手，谢妻从一开始就知道。
    这种可能性很小，警方也不怀疑她；
2. 谢是凶手，谢妻后来知道了。
    当天晚上一点儿没有察觉够奇怪的，后来为什么还包庇他呢？实在诡异，常人难以理解；
3. 谢是凶手，谢妻一直到今蒙在鼓里
    你得佩服谢的聪明（突然想到Tony佩服日本军队的勇敢），警方几年了找不到强有力的证据。谢妻多半儿会怎么样呢：不遗余力为谢辩护正如现在所做的，而且应该控诉警方不去抓真凶！（好像没有）；
4. 谢不是凶手，谢妻完全相信。
    这种情况下，谢妻的反应应该与第三种类似，但是也没有，奇怪。
这四种可能性哪个最大？第二？

SoftSome

http://www.9news.com.au/national ... -but-flawed-defence

SoftSome

Xie proposition simple but flawed: defence

It is the crown's simple proposition that Robert Xie killed five members of his Sydney family, alone and in the dark.

But the defence says the crime scene evidence tells a different story.

In his closing address at the long-running trial, Xie's barrister Graham Turnbull SC, has reminded the jury "this man is in your charge".

"The decision you have to come to is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to convict him of five counts of murder."

Mr Turnbull said the crown case offers up a "simple proposition" - that "one person did this, in the dark and it is Robert Xie".

But Mr Turnbull said "facts from the crime scene we contend - and you might think with good reason - establish that it was not one person and it could not have been in the dark".

The crown argues Xie was filled with bitterness and hatred when he crept into the North Epping home of his brother in law Min Lin in the early hours of July 18, 2009.

Wielding a hammer, it is alleged he killed Min, Min's wife Lily, Lily's sister Irene and his nephews 11-year-old Henry and nine-year-old Terry.

Xie has pleaded not guilty.

In finishing the crown's closing submissions earlier on Tuesday, Mark Tedeschi QC pointed to a string of "remarkable features" of the case against Xie.

This included that there were no signs of forced entry at the home and that a blood stain found on Xie's garage floor matched the DNA of at least four of his alleged victims.

"It is remarkable that the two primary victims (Min and Lily) had their faces obliterated by the killer.

"And that for some time the accused bore considerable hostility towards Min," he added.

"We submit to you that the crown case has proven to beyond reasonable doubt that this accused, Robert Xie, murdered the five members of the Lin family," Mr Tedeschi said.

The closing submissions continue.

© AAP 2015


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national ... zV11WJzBwURwTZOC.99

SoftSome

辩方律师说犯罪现场证据显示不是一人所为。不知道是什么样的具体证据，弱不弱。

tianne

读完了上面的英文报道怎么感觉辩护律师的辩护好好弱啊看来嫌犯处境不妙。比如1.辩护说谢不可能1个人做掉5个,但是这个真是很主观很没有说服力---世界上自古至今类似案例相信不少、律师怎么样才能去证明嫌犯不可能1人锤杀5人呢？感觉这一点上辩方不给力。2.关于A的证言及录音,不出大家所料律师的抗辩依然是咬定嫌犯给set up a trap了。其实是不是set up 根本无所谓,关键是嫌犯透露了啥信息出来。可惜目前根据报道内容无论诉方还是辩方都不占优势。但是从仅有的录音内容看即使是给setup 了,嫌犯的反应也是不同常人的。试想如果你我普通人平白无故蒙冤入狱并且似乎出狱遥遥无期终于逮到一个像A那样的话痨你会怎么做？应该是指天骂地叫苦喊冤诅咒发誓各种curse吧可是这些一样都没有！哪怕有一次录音里有一次歇斯底里谢就很可能自救了但是很奇怪--没有！所以答案应该不证自明了吧！拭目以待。

tianne

并且关于被录音偶还有一个念想真替嫌犯捉急啊====不论嫌犯是否真凶,假如嫌犯不那么超乎常人的冷静而是时不时哭天抢地喊冤叫屈一番该有多好！不然今时今日当是另一番景象！古语云言多必失是不错,可是冷静过头也会害人不浅啊！
无论如何目前为止感觉控辩双方都不占优势。看来陪审团成员们要死一大片脑细胞了！深切同情ing.......

cangaru

tianne 发表于 2015-9-22 23:39
读完了上面的英文报道怎么感觉辩护律师的辩护好好弱啊看来嫌犯处境不妙。比如1.辩护说谢不可能1个人做掉5个 ...

从最近新闻看，辩方律师确实很主观，辩护无力。一种可能是新闻里没透露更多细节，再有就是辩方的陈词还没完

你说的录音里为什么不放谢对自己冤枉的哭天喊地，一种可能是在监狱里所有人都会说自己冤枉，所以所有人说了也没用干脆不说，另种可能是即使谢真说了，但录音是控方拿出的证据，他们有权利只放对控诉有力的证据，而过滤掉这些喊冤的情节

aprilpoon

cangaru 发表于 2015-9-23 09:57
从最近新闻看，辩方律师确实很主观，辩护无力。一种可能是新闻里没透露更多细节，再有就是辩方的陈词还没 ...

如果真像你说的 谢喊冤了可是没有录下来或者被滤掉了，谢完全有权利走上证人席说出他这面的故事：我天天喊冤，天天让他滚开，从来没有讨论过凶器等等。他却放弃了这个权利。你觉得是为什么呢？

cangaru

aprilpoon 发表于 2015-9-23 10:09
如果真像你说的 谢喊冤了可是没有录下来或者被滤掉了，谢完全有权利走上证人席说出他这面的故事：我天天 ...

没看懂你说的啥意思

证人A和谢的接触有一年多，要录音的话能录个几吨重吧，在法庭上放录音时间有限，控方当然是要捡对控诉有力的证据来放，怎么可能把一年的话都放一遍，你有时间浪费，陪审团和法官不一定有这个耐心

tianne

aprilpoon 发表于 2015-9-23 10:09
如果真像你说的 谢喊冤了可是没有录下来或者被滤掉了，谢完全有权利走上证人席说出他这面的故事：我天天 ...

说的好！

tianne

cangaru 发表于 2015-9-23 10:18
没看懂你说的啥意思

证人A和谢的接触有一年多，要录音的话能录个几吨重吧，在法庭上放录音时间有限，控 ...

好像您真的是没有看明白他的意思！

Huiwen

ItsThere 发表于 2015-9-22 10:38
未必，这两口子神经多强啊，为了孩子搬家那就另说了。

对，孩子无辜。