Andrew L. Urban’s forthcoming book, FRAMED, about the wrongful conviction of Robert Xie, shines a light on several serious flaws undermining the conviction. Here are a couple of examples that show questionable behaviour by police, prosecution, judge and jury.
The Crown case is that after discovering the brutalised bodies of the five Lins, his wife’s family, Robert Xie left the scene on Saturday morning to collect the Lin seniors from Merrylands so he could dispose of the murder weapon.
FLAW 1) Self contradictory argument: the prosecution explains how Xie first asked the grandparents to take public transport, but later the (forgetful?) prosecution claims that Xie went to pick them up by car because he wanted an excuse to leave the scene to dispose of the murder weapon.
FLAW 2) No murder weapon was ever found.
FLAW 3) The Crown never explained how Xie had managed to foresee the morning’s sequence of events, waiting to dispose of the weapon on a main road in broad daylight when he could have used the cover of darkness in nearby bushes the night before….were he guilty.
Logic was not the strong suit of either police or prosecution. As for Her Honour Fullerton J, the judge …. See for yourself:
Her Honour Justice Elizabeth Fullerton
Late in the fourth trial, the following exchange took place with the jury absent (during the defence closing); it reflects Her Honour’s reticence to make it clear to the jury that even if they were simply undecided about Kathy Lin’s sworn alibi evidence that supported her husband’s claim being reliable, they should acquit Xie.
WEBB (defence counsel): So if it may be submitted, your Honour, would your Honour permit and – would it be permissible for your Honour to say to the jury “if you thought in respect of the evidence of Kathy Lin that there was a reasonable possibility that Kathy Lin was not mistaken and gave honest evidence, that you’d be duty bound to acquit”?
HER HONOUR: I’m not sure that I’d go that far, Mr Webb.
That far? The point here was that the jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of Xie’s guilt if it were to deliver a guilty verdict.
And that’s why they ask the meaning every bloody time!
Jurors have no bloody idea what beyond reasonable doubt means, they are never instructed what it means all they have is the ability to guess what it means! After 36 years in the game I still do not know its full and true meaning?