Robert Xie appeal to hear “dishonest” witness allegation

Andrew L. Urban.

At a directions hearing in Sydney yesterday (28/4/2020) in advance of the appeal against his five murder convictions*, Robert Xie’s representative Belinda Rigg SC told the court the appeal hearing would include allegations that an expert witness had given “dishonest” evidence, “one of the most serious accusations of an expert witness,” as Justice Beech-Jones remarked. 

Evidence from two foreign doctors, Dr Peter Gill and Dr Mark Perlin, is expected to be heard during the appeal. Both men had given evidence at the trial regarding a DNA sample that the prosecution claimed was crucial in proving Xie’s guilt. The sample was found on the garage floor of Xie’s house, 200 metres from the crime scene. A credible explanation for stain 91 (tiny as it was) may be found in the fact that the two families often played games together (eg badminton) in this garage. The DNA could have been deposited at any time prior to the murders. The Crown asserted that stain91 was evidence of the murder weapon having rested on the garage floor, awaiting disposal later in the day. No murder weapon was produced in evidence. See our report on the Xie case.

Justice Beech-Jones directed Belinda Rigg SC to notify the Crown on the parts of Professor Gill’s report they intended to rely on in the appeal by 5pm May 11.

He also asked Crown prosecutor Anna Mitchelmore SC to file and serve any written report of Dr Perlin proposed to be adduced by 5pm May 20.

Dr. Mark Perlin is Chief Scientific and Executive Officer at Cybergenetics, in Pittsburgh, USA. Dr Peter Gill is Professor of Forensic Genetics at Oslo University, Norway.

The appeal is scheduled to begin on Monday, June 22, 2020.

* In brief:
July 18, 2009 – Newsagent Min Lin, 45, Mr Lin’s wife Yun Li “Lily” Lin, 44, their sons Henry, 12, and Terry, 9, and Mrs Lin’s sister, Yun Bin “Irene” Lin, 39, are found dead in their North Epping home.

Min Lin’s sister Kathy and her husband Lian Bin “Robert” Xie had gone to the Lin house (just 200 metres from their own) around 9:50am, after receiving a phone call to say the family newsagency had still not opened. They discovered the bodies, which had been bashed so badly their faces were unrecognisable.

May 5, 2011 – Robert Xie is arrested and charged with five counts of murder.

Robert Xie

At the end of the fourth trial (with a new defence team), on Thursday, February 13, 2017, Justice Fullerton sentenced Lian Bin (Robert) Xie to life imprisonment without parole.

This entry was posted in Case 11 Robert Xie. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Robert Xie appeal to hear “dishonest” witness allegation

  1. Name supplied says:

    i was on that jury i wasnt there till the end of the verdict but i was not convinced he did it

  2. roland zhang says:

    Have a look DNA match.

    a) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Bin Lin is 4,410 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

    b) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Yun Li Lin is 27.1 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

    (c) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Min Lin is 379,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

    (d) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Henry Lin is 1,330,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person;

    (e) a match between a contributor to Stain 91 and Terry Lin is 1,030,000,000,000,000,000 times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated Asian person.

    P.S: 1 quintillion = 1,000 quadrillion;
    1 quadrillion = 1,000 trillion;
    1 trillion = 1,000 billion;
    1 billion = 1,000 million.

    Remember there should be Branda’s DNA but her DNA was not presented either by Perlin or prosecutor. This is the critical part, we think Branda’s DNA should have some value either meaningful or not meaningful.

    We don’t think two female’s DNA are meaningful comparing huge different times to boys though we are not this area’s expert.
    MODERATOR’S NOTE: Zhang has a background in neurosurgery and is part of a group of interested observers of this case.

    • Phillip Chapman says:

      These figures come from the early part of Trial 1. They are based on the assumption that there were only 3 contributors to Stain 91. Changing the assumption to 5 contributors produced a different set of figures. The men’s results decreased and the women’s results increased to about 170000 and 4000. Brenda was tested this time, her result was about 80000. Any result exceeding 1000 indicates that the person is a contributor to the stain. If we think there are 5 contributors, we choose the top 5 results.

      Each number is like the height of a cliff. We know that cliffs are dangerous. 1m high is not too dangerous, but 10m high, watch out! 100m high, still dangerous. It doesn’t matter how many zeros you write on the end of the number, cliffs are still dangerous. The extra zeros are not telling us anything that we didn’t already know.

      The endless legal argument about Stain 91 is whether Brenda’s DNA is there or not. If it is, then Stain 91 cannot possibly be blood from the crime scene because Brenda was away at the time. With no link between Mr Xie and the crime scene the Crown case would likely fail. Dr Perlin was able to convince the jury in Trial 4 that Brenda’s DNA was missing even though her score of 80000 very strongly indicated that her DNA was there. Considering that his explanations, and the cross-examination by Mr Webb went on for days and days it is easy to suggest that the jury just gave up trying to follow what was going on and accepted the Crown’s summing up.

  3. Chris says:

    This is Appeal is going to be very interesting. Who is the expert alleged to have given dishonest evidence? A DNA expert?

Leave a Reply to Phillip Chapman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.