Mystery source to stay a secret in murder case
Date August 14, 2012THE identity of a ''secret source'' who allegedly led police investigating the 2009 Lin family murders to make Robert Xie their main suspect is set to remain a mystery, after a judge ruled that the source must remain confidential.
Police allege Mr Xie, 48, strangled and beat to death his brother-in-law Min ''Norman'' Lin and four members of Mr Lin's family in their North Epping home in the early hours of July 18, 2009.
They arrested him in May last year following one of the largest homicide investigations in the state's history.
Last month, during legal argument in Downing Centre Local Court ahead of Mr Xie's committal hearing, his lawyers said there was evidence to suggest he had been the victim of a ''malicious complaint'' that had ''biased'' the police investigation against him.
Mr Xie's lawyer, Lester Fernandez, told the court that four months after the murders, when police were still looking for suspects, a secret source told detectives there was ''conflict'' and ''tension'' between Mr Xie and his father-in-law and mother-in-law.
Mr Fernandez said this had led detectives to ''craft a case'' based on the theory that Mr Xie had murdered his brother-in-law's family because he felt they were being unfairly favoured by his mother-in-law and father-in-law.
Mr Fernandez applied for an order that would force NSW Police to reveal the identity of the source and any information he or she had given them.
But NSW Police opposed the application, arguing it was a ''fishing trip'' that had ''no legitimate forensic purpose''.
They also argued that it was in the public interest for confidential police sources to remain secret so that others felt confident that they would be protected if they came forward.
Yesterday, Magistrate John Andrews found that, while the identity of the informant was potentially important to the defence case, this was outweighed by the public interest in protecting confidential sources.
The hearing will begin on August 24. (Sydney Morning Herald)
8月1日有讀者在徒勞無功：Epping滅門案的檢控 一文留言，問我對辯方申請披露告密者身分的看法，我的答覆是不會批准。除了裁判官昨天所講"while the identity of the informant was potentially important to the defence case, this was outweighed by the public interest in protecting confidential sources."的理由之外，最重要的是不披露告密者身分對被告是否造成不公(prejudice)。把告密者身分保密，對刑事情報搜集十分重要，無論怎樣民主自由的地方，都不會胡亂披露這些資料，除非這些人本身是控方證人，類似所謂「二五仔」(snitch)，否則在法理上看不到披露的需要。在刑事案審訊中，有時警察會講收到情報而採取行動，但不能講收到情報的內容，原因並不單止關乎機密與否，主要是涉及違反法則的傳聞證供及可能對被告構成偏見(hearsay and prejudicial effect)。故此，這次辯方的申請是明知不可為而為故意採用的虛招，營造一種有人誣陷被告，而警方又不肯披露消息，對辯方不公的印象。就算有人出於惡意提供虛假消息給警方，使其調查失誤，講到尾都是有沒有毫無合理疑點的證據足以把被告定罪的問題。告密內容反而屬於：prejudicial effect outweighs probative value的inadmissible evidence。
In the Downing Centre Local Court this afternoon, magistrate John Andrews found that, while the identity of the source was potentially important to the defence case, this was outweighed by the broader need to protect confidential sources.
回覆刪除"I'm of the view that, although it is likely to be material evidence for the defence, the damage done to the public interest outweighs their need," Mr Andrews said.
After Mr Andrews handed down his decision, Mr Fernandez told the court Mr Xie's lawyers would be seeking to have him discharged at the upcoming committal hearing.
"This committal will be a contested committal," Mr Fernandez said.
"All witnesses will be witnesses of substance."
The hearing will commence next Monday.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lin-deaths-sources-identity-to-stay-secret-20120813-244az.html#ixzz23VyGIgH3
上面从摘至悉尼晨锋报网站，你如何看这件案，控方有很强的证据暂时收起不用，还是辨方虚招博同情。
Your excerpt was from yesterday afternoon's SMH. In today's edition, the report was more concise. However, the gist is the same. There is no chance for the public to know the exact evidence the Crown has got hold of in the committal because it should be a hearing in camera (the public is excluded). The defence will employ all sorts of tactics as pre-trial propaganda. I do not know the strength of the prosecution case. I do not know how weak it is. There is no direct evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant. I feel that the evidence is weak because in the bail proceeding, when the prosecution described the evidence against the defendant in opposing his application for bail, it appeared to be scanty. Please wait until the end of the committal proceeding to see if the magistrate hearing the case will commit the defendant to High Court for trial. If the magistrate commits the defendant to High Court for trial, it does not mean the defendant must be guilty. It will then in the hands of the jury to decide. If the magistrate refuses to commit the case to High Court, then on the face of it, the case is so weak that a prima facie case cannot be established. However, even so, it is not the end of the matter. The prosecution still can gather further evidence and charge the defendant again or, the prosecution can make use of a voluntary bill to directly by-pass the magistrate and commit the defendant to High Court for trial. In the committal hearing, there is no way the prosecution can withhold their secret weapon and make use of it in the trial. There is a duty for the prosecution to disclose each piece of evidence to the defence. It is called pre-trial disclosure. Secret weapon only happens in movies.
刪除Police investigating the 2009 Lin family killings engaged in a single-minded pursuit of their chief suspect, Robert Xie, subjecting him to psychological warfare and ignoring evidence suggesting an alternative theory, a Sydney court has heard.
回覆刪除The claims were made by the lawyer for Mr Xie, 47, during an application for bail in the NSW Supreme Court today.
Mr Xie was charged in May last year with five counts of murder for the killings, following one of the largest homicide investigations in NSW history.
In submissions made to the court today, Graham Turnbull, SC, said the police investigation "has the hallmark of a single-minded pursuit of the accused to the exclusion of all others", and that it ignored evidence that did not fit with their predetermined explanation.
Police claim that Mr Xie switched off the power in the Lin family's North Epping home before killing them, but DNA found on the power switch could not be identified as his.
There were also a significant number of hairs found at the crime scene but - other than those belonging to the victims - these could not be identified either.
"There was in fact no DNA from the applicant [Mr Xie] found on any items taken by police from the crime scene ... nor any of the victims' DNA found on any of his items or his property," Mr Turnbull said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-used-psychological-warfare-on-lin-killings-accused-court-hears-20120329-1w0a0.html#ixzz23WHgSZFi
上面摘至三月二十九日, 这里有提到大量毛发, 指模和DNA同谢生无关. 你是如何看这单案件? 有没有可能他是被冤枉的?
I cannot guess. Give me the prosecution file. I will tell you what I think.
刪除你一向都会用批判的态度, 难道你就相信警方和检控方所说的. 控方如何解释这些毛发, 指模和DNA. 这些不就是Identification evidence吗?
回覆刪除When there is insufficient facts for me to make comment, I would rather save it. When I make comment, there should be something for me to rely on. For example, after reading an appeal judgement, I can rely on what I have read to comment. In the Epping murder case, the trial has not started. It will be premature to comment before the evidence is reported. Sheer guessing is not my style. Forensic evidence is one way to link and infer guilt. The lack of it does not equal to innocence. What is the point to ask me if I believe or disbelieve when I don't know the exact facts.
刪除在目前所知道的信息, 愿意帮谢生吗?
回覆刪除I don't think I can help him. What am I? I am only a commentator. Don't be kidding. On the other hand, I am pro-prosecution by nature. Even if he is acquitted in the end, it does not mean justice is done. Acquittal does not equate to innocence. Please stop asking time wasting questions. I have to bluntly say the line of questions you ask is wasting my time. I learn about the case from the newspaper. I do not know more than anyone else.
刪除Do you believe there is some innocent people in the jail?
回覆刪除Do you believe police are always right?
http://www.smh.com.au/national/two-likely-to-have-killed-the-lin-family-20090818-ep3o.html
Did you read this article before? Media made up or some information released from source?
My comments show the thinking process and angle rather than judging who is innocent and who is guilty like hell. You must have just read little of my blog. My general attitude is very clear if you care to read them all.
刪除I read the article you referred me to read. It was just a theory rather than the truth of the matter. Sometimes the media is tipped off in the propaganda war.
You may have immense interest to know about me but I am not interested in making friends. I have to reiterate that what I believe is unimportant. If you like my comments, then continue to read. If you have different views, you are welcome to leave a note. I do not help anyone alleged to have commit a crime unless the person is a friend. After all, I am nobody.
All people are innocent until proven guilty. What do you think?
回覆刪除It is only a criminal law cliche. Treating it as a precept will be unwise. Acquitted defendants can be guilty like hell.
刪除我讀【古蘭經】之筆記： 第十章—猶努司
回覆刪除https://chinesemuslims.blogspot.com/2020/06/blog-post_8.html