谢连斌上诉林家灭门案时将指控一名证人撒谎。
新州最高法院被告知，谢连斌的上诉将在6月份持续最多7天，一些证人将在海外通过视频作证。
法官Robert Beech-Jones 说，鉴于本案涉及的材料数量巨大，本案其他方可能亲自上庭。
"我认为这要受COVID-19 疫情在未来八周进展的影响。" 法官说。
因为疫情封锁，新州很多庭审都通过视频进行，有些已经延期，新陪审团被冻结。
谢连斌以前是医生，从中国移居澳洲，他坚称自己无罪，说自己没有动机进行谋杀。
2009年7月份，谢连斌在妻兄林暋（Min Lin）位于North Epping的家中，用钝器打死了林暋，林太太林云丽，林太太的妹妹林云彬，林家两个儿子Henry（ 12岁）和Terry（ 9岁）。
他被判决五次终生监禁，不得假释。
当晚谢连斌自行进入这户人家。这家人是在卧室被类似锤子的物体打死的。
一名被害人被打击了18次，这家的房子布满血迹。
谢连斌的定罪是四次庭审之后才定下的，前两次庭审半途而废，第三次庭审没能达成裁定。
今天，法官 Beech-Jones说，上诉聆讯中包括对一名庭审证人不诚实、遮掩材料的指控。
法官说：“这是我所听到的对证人的最严重指控。”
谢连斌本次是在 Lithgow 监狱通过视频出庭的。
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020 ... ourt-hears/12192790
评论
事实确凿，还有啥好说的
评论
妻子包庇？
评论
666
评论
@猫儿不笨
评论
包庇谁？
评论
老谢拿了四个终身监禁，然后上诉老婆包庇自己？不是这么个逻辑吧？
看了下原文，是说“covered up material", 想不太明白是什么意思，反正应该是对老谢有利的。
希望到六月疫情基本结束，大家专心吃瓜
评论
最有可能是验DNA的工作人员和法医，警察可能性也有。
评论
猫好像好久没出现了 不过他对上诉是信心满满
评论
没完没了
评论
看新闻标题立马就想起这个大肥白猫了，哈哈，不是这白猫，没关心过真案件，太惨烈了。
评论
难道是狱友 那个污点证人诬陷？
评论
怀疑会被指控做假证的证人是警察血迹专家Detective Sergeant Harkin
他特意做了一个对抗另一警察手纹专家 Detective Sergeant Bush的证据。Bush的证据基本说明凶手另有他人，不可能是谢联斌
见V1证据
评论
V1证据指的是，现场在受害2男孩房间一把吉他上有在受害者溅开的血迹之上按上去的指纹
警察自己的指纹专家Detective Sergeant Bush的研究报告结论是，这指纹不属于5受害者。辩方据此认为这指纹应该属于凶手，而凶手不是谢连斌，因为谢连斌的DNA和指纹已经被完全排除在林家凶场之外
于是在第二审讯结束之后，检方邀请另一个警察专家Detective Sergeant Harkin，赶在第三审讯之前做出了对抗Bush 结论的一份报告。Harkin认为形成V1的来源“undermined”，或者不可靠（所以Bush证据也不可靠）。Harkin结论是V1排除不了2男孩之一的Henry或者Terry在与凶手搏斗时手指留下的
Harkin在这里至少有几个弱点
1.他只说形成V1的来源undermined 或不可靠，但没有解释他这样说的道理。他讲了一堆话，都没有与undermined有关的。字里行间我估摸他指的是，V1是在动态下形成的，还有受害者的指纹和手纹样本是在尸体而不是活体採取的。这很可笑，如果没有一套针对这些因素的成熟研究办法，还叫专家吗？有哪个指纹不是在动态中形成的？受害者的尸体检查是在当天下午就开始的，对于与时间关系大的部分的检查，应该是一开始就做了。那时是冬天，指纹手纹的採取质量应该没有问题，不然手纹专家早应该在报告中指出
2.他承认自己在训练和经验上有局限，也就是说他的证据可能不强，但拒绝承认关键的一点：他是血迹专家，不是指纹专家。跨越专业权限做伪证，可以糊弄陪审团，但相信骗不了上诉法庭的法官们
3.他不排除Henry 或Terry，但排除了另三受害者作为V1来源，是因为符合他关于2男孩是最后受害的理论。但既然V1来源不可靠，为什么Harkin就能把他指控的凶手谢连斌的指纹排除呢？明显逻辑不严谨。说明他内心并不认为V1来源不可靠
评论
谢案疑点之四：V1证据
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.
In December 2014 (that is, after the second trial was discontinued but before the trial commenced before me), Detective Sergeant Harkins was invited by the Crown to give further consideration to the circumstances in which the friction ridge details identified as V1 (and also V2 and V3, which are not relevant for presented purposes) were deposited. Detective Sergeant Harkins’ further statement signed in January 2015 sets out the scope of the opinion sought, the assumptions he made and the limitations he imposed on his reasoning to any concluded view on the likely deposition scenario, including that it was based upon or limited to his knowledge, experience or training in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis. He also nominated the material he had access to in forming his opinions, including, in particular, the statements of Detective Sergeant Bush, dated July 2011, June 2012 and February 2014. In that regard, Detective Sergeant Harkins confirmed his understanding that the source of the friction ridge detail in V1 (and V2 and V3) is undetermined, although the blood through which, or across which, the transfer pattern in V1 was applied, is a mixture, and that neither Henry Lin nor Terry Lin could be excluded as contributors. He also noted that the deceased have not been excluded as being the source of those marks in the view of Detective Sergeant Bush, however, in Detective Sergeant Harkins’ view, he could safely exclude Min Lin, Lily Lin and Irene Lin as the course of the mark based upon his previously expressed opinion that they were deceased or dying before the assaults on Terry Lin and Henry Lin were launched.
On that assumption, Detective Sergeant Harkins hypothesised three scenarios as to who might be responsible for causing the friction ridge details on the guitar, namely Terry Lin, Henry Lin or the assailant or assailants. He then sets out his reasoning in ultimately expressing the view that he could not exclude the possibility that the assailant(s) or Henry Lin contributed to the making of the mark, but that the most likely deposition scenario was that the transfer mark was caused during the assault on Terry Lin by reason of his hands or feet, or a combination of them, having come into contact with the guitar and causing it to fall to the ground.
https://jade.io/article/522893 -16～20
评论
https://www..com.au/bbs/ ... page%3D4&page=1
评论
我就不信他一个人能杀三个大人加上两个小孩，五个里面跑掉一个，他的计划就彻底完蛋。这么大的风险，他没考虑过？
评论
其实光一个V1证据，就可以断定谢联斌不是林家血案凶手
进一步还可以牵出一连串的假证据和阴谋
如果不是在每个环节上都黑白颠倒和特意做出来的一些证据，能做成这个冤案吗？
评论
哈哈，用不着你呼唤的。。。
评论
什么时候判的无期徒行啊
评论
很久没听到谢案上诉的音讯，出来声援一下。
评论
不诚实，遮掩材料那应该跟警方有关？
评论
扑朔迷离
评论
相信法律，坐等结果
评论
还有可能是别的掩盖
评论
会不会是检查车库血迹的技术刑警？很可疑的是说现场用所怀疑的污迹材料做了2个潜血试验，都是阳性。却没有做实验室的确定试验（辩解说怕材料不足），也没有做对照试验。（对照试验根本不耗样本材料，用的是现场血迹附近随便采的样本，看是不是也呈阳性反应，是的话污迹阳性意义也不大了。不可能不做，没有理由会忘了）。所以那两个潜血试验之一就应该是对照试验，但被说成两个都是污迹的试验了
评论
这个案子应该全民公审，考验一下基本智商
评论
我就不信他一个人能杀三个大人加上两个小，回家后那么镇静。
评论
难道这个真是史上最大华人冤案？
澳洲中文论坛热点
- 悉尼部份城铁将封闭一年，华人区受影响！只能乘巴士（组图）
- 据《逐日电讯报》报导，从明年年中开始，因为从Bankstown和Sydenham的城铁将因Metro South West革新名目而
- 联邦政客们具有多少房产？
- 据本月早些时分报导，绿党副首领、参议员Mehreen Faruqi已获准在Port Macquarie联系其房产并建造三栋投资联