Andrew L. Urban

Robert Xie’s infamous convictions for the five murders of the Lin family in 2009 relied on the jury being convinced Beyond Reasonable Doubt of his guilt. But not even the prosecution or the trial judge were so convinced, new book + shows.

In the ignominious history of the case of Robert Xie, there are many flaws in the Crown case, but none so egregious as the attempt to negate his alibi: in bed by his wife’s side, as she confirmed to police and under oath.

Her Honour Elizabeth Fullerton, the trial judge, in her sentencing remarks at first states that ‘Consistent with the verdicts of the jury,’ the Crown has disproved alibi, but then states – in apparent contradiction – that she is not satisfied Beyond Reasonable Doubt that Robert did sedate his wife. If Her Honour doubted the Crown’s sedation scenario, wasn’t she obligated to raise that matter with the jury?

If there is doubt about the sedation, and it is the only obstacle to the alibi, the alibi must stand. If the alibi stands, the guilty verdict must be quashed.

1     Crown accepts the accused could leave the bed unnoticed without sedating wife

T4968.35

CROWN PROSECUTOR SMITH: Your Honour, in relation to the character direction that your Honour handed down last week, The only issue that the Crown raises is that your Honour will be aware that the evidence of Brenda Lin is not relied upon only for the purposes of motive #, but also in terms of disproving the purported alibi by Kathy Lin.

HER HONOUR: Quite so. Yes. And I say in that direction, yes – I have unnecessarily, or wrongly limited the use of her evidence. The Crown submission is this is it Ms Crown, that if the jury were satisfied that the accused left his bed on repeated occasions between August 2009 and May 2011 to enter the children’s bedroom, with the intent of assaulting Brenda, then they would more comfortably be satisfied that the alibi is not made out on the evidence?

CROWN PROSECUTOR SMITH: They (jury) could use it as another piece of evidence that the Crown relies upon for disproving the alibi in terms of Mrs Lin not being aware that that was occurring.

2     But Her Honour not satisfied BRD about sedation

Sentencing remarks

Par 28 Consistent with the verdicts of the jury, the Crown disproved the alibi relied upon by the offender at his trial to the criminal standard.

Par 31 The jury were directed that they were entitled to have regard to all of the evidence led at trial when considering whether the Crown had negatived alibi Beyond Reasonable Doubt. While I consider it very likely that the offender sedated his wife, I am unable to be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. There remains, in my view, a possibility that Kathy Lin simply did not wake when the offender left the house sometime after 2am on 18 July 2009, returning later that morning. In coming to that view, I have taken into account Kathy Lin’s evidence that she had never woken to find the offender not beside her in bed and would always wake if he left the bed for any reason. Since I accept Ms AB’s evidence that the offender entered the bedroom she shared with the offender’s son and sexually assaulted her on repeated occasions between August 2009, when she became a member of the offender’s household, and when he was arrested in May 2011, Kathy Lin’s evidence that she would always wake if the offender left the bed, and that he had never done so and gone into Ms AB’s bedroom at night, cannot be accepted as reliable.

Comment: Even so, if Kathy Lin’s evidence is regarded as unreliable, despite the failure of the sedation allegation, it follows that it may or may not be true…hence it cannot support negation of alibi beyond reasonable doubt.

It is clear that the failure to negate sedation mitigates against the guilty verdict, which thus represents a gross miscarriage of justice. The Crown case in this extraordinary multiple murder of close family members by the accused is based on flimsy (& contradictory) snitch evidence, speculation about sedation, speculation about an imaginary weapon and a motive that defies reason.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…” Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) – and, we could add, a jury acting rationally.

Because the appeal courts are not judges of the facts, their role must be to check the law and logic of the trial process. When proposition A and proposition B are combined, does that lead to conclusion C ? For the Appeal Court it is not a question of whether A,B and C are correct, it is only a question of whether the reasoning is correct. It is arguable that the Appeal Court failed.

# “purposes of motive” refers to the Crown’s assertion that Robert Xie brutally murdered his wife’s relations, including the two youngsters, to remove them as obstacles to his sexual abuse of their daughter, Brenda. This unsupported and preposterous proposition was taken seriously – even by the judge.

+ Andrew L. Urban’s new book, FRAMED – how the legal system framed Robert Xie for the Lin family murders is now available in kindle and paperback.

Robert Xie spent four years and seven months incarcerated without a conviction. He was finally convicted after a hung jury in his third trial triggered a fourth trial in 2016/17. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the savage murder of five members of his wife’s family in July 2009, including his two beloved young nephews under 13. Really. Continue reading →

In a case orchestrated by NSW police and then Senior Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi AM KC,  Robert Xie was convicted of murdering five members of his wife’s family, the Lins. Andrew L. Urban’s new book demolishes this wrongful conviction.  Continue reading →

Andrew L. Urban unravels the Crown’s circular argument that Robert Xie must be guilty because the murders ‘must have been’ committed at a time the Crown claims, without evidence.  In fact, he had an alibi: he was in his bed asleep by his wife, as she confirmed. The prosecution, determined to negate the alibi, asserted without evidence that he drugged his wife.  Continue reading →