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.
As he stood to hear the jury’s verdict, he proclaimed his innocence to the court in his Chinese accented English. “I did not murder the Lin family. I am innocent.”
This book sets out to prove he was telling the truth. He was framed by the state.
“…there was no psychopharmacological evidence that she was drugged,” – Professor Ian R. Coyle, Fellow of the College of Forensic Psychology of the Australian Psychological Society
“I am overwhelmed by the conclusion that Robert Xie’s convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory and my doubt is more than reasonable; it is substantial.” – Stuart Tipple, former lawyer for Lindy Chamberlain
“Clearly the onus of proof has been reversed in this case and speculation has been presented as if it were ‘evidence’ … Nothing short of a Royal Commission will get this badly damaged ship back on course.” – Dr Bob Moles, Flinders University legal academic
OUT SOON
I watched the Spotlight documentary. The evidence it claimed were four things: 1. One stain containing dna mix of some victims 2. he once wore shoes who could have had a footprint similar to one at the murder seen (the way they cut to a photo of him wearing them seems to indicate this was determined from prior photo or video of him wearing shoes) 3. the perpetrator did not enter the absent survivor’s room 4. his niece in-law, the absent survivor, accused him years after the fact of sexually abusing her prior to the murders.
To my mind, none of this is evidence of anything and should not have been admitted other than the stain with the dna sample. What was this exactly, was it mixed blood? An unmixed blood stain from any single close family member isn’t proof of anything in my view, eg. I frequently cut my finger cutting food, stub my toe, etc. A mixed blood stain is much harder to explain. Thing is, I, personally, based on my knowledge, observation and experience would not put it past police to plant such a blood stain. I absolutely believe they could and would. When I was in an elite section of the army reserve, a female policewoman admitted a computer error had put information from one case into her statement for another case that was being prosecuted – because she “knew” the man was “certainly guilty” she didn’t correct this, didn’t tell the court much of her statement was in error, the man was convicted, and she seemed to feel fine about this, telling it as a joke about the pitfalls of technology.
What do I think of the sexual abuse claim? If Xie had been her actual uncle I’d tend to believe her, since it’s not a part of wealthy Chinese practice to falsely accuse actual relatives of such things, she might reluctantly admit a true allegation but unlikely shame her family with a false one – but given Xie was not a blood relative, and given by the time she disclosed the purported abuse she’d presumably been worked on for years by a machine convinced of his guilt, I think most likely she came to believe he was guilty of the murder, and made up her testimony would ensure conviction. I wouldn’t for a second put it past a policeperson to discretely give her the heads up the value in such an allegation (again and again if she was slow on the uptake, which she doesn’t seem) in ensuring conviction . She claims he had been doing it for years, and including before the murder – this really makes it look overwhelmingly like it’s been framed to strengthen prosecution motive. I found it bizarre she claimed simultaneously she felt safe with her uncle and wanted to live with him after her family’s massacre, at the age of 15 plus, but at the same time had been sexually molested by him for an extended period, in any event, but especially considering the uncle was old, unattractive, balding and short rather than some 29 yr old hearthrob or something, and she was a rich girl attending a private school. It is also bizarre to represent this as evidence of motivation, as if he needed to engage in a massacre that would give him very high risk of term of life imprisonment to continue to have his way with her. The more I think about it the more it seems like she just got convinced of his guilt by her later teens, and individually, or more likely through her lawyer or police letting her know this, decided that she could avenge her family against the man she was convinced killed them by making the story up.
As for what I believe? I believe clearly his innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore should not be in jail. I think even on the balance of probability, it is an unlikely scenario to suggest one man can kill four people in three different rooms with a hammer without one person escaping or rousing the alarm. It is possible. What I actually think is most likely is that he and the his wife, the actual blood relative, were involved, pre-planned it, and did it together for the money, and then, when police finally came knocking he took the whole rap for her. The evidence for this is scant, but the main one I go off is the fact the killer knew the survivor was absent. Sure, a stalker surveiling from a car could or somewhere else could know this – but applying Occam’s razor, that is unlikely.
The problem this case highlights is basically the ability for police now to convict anyone they finger for a crime notwithstanding the absence of evidence. A big part of this is abandoning a millenia of justice and removing the need for unanimous jury decision, and allowing the admission of highly prejudicial but irrelevant prosecutorial evidence (eg. a molestation allegation made years later, that, when you think about it, had no relevance to whether someone hammered 5 people to death in nonsexual murders). But don’t you get it – this is what they want – the government gets to decide who is guilty, who is innocent, and through the police they ensure protection for the guilty they deem to be innocent, but even more so anybody they decide to be guilty will almost certainly be convicted – if there’s nearly no evidence as in this case, admit a completely irrelevant but reputation destroying allegation of a sexual crime.
The politicised selection of judges is the cherry on the cake for all this – they haven’t been appointed for 30 years by this point if they haven’t unequivocally demonstrated their fealty to their political masters and the ideology of their political masters. Literally everyone from the old school where there was a presumption of innocence is dead or in a nursing home, the benches are basically packed out with parts of the conviction machine in judges attire.
By the way, I don’t blame the survivor in the slightest, although I think she is more likely than not making it up – she genuinely believes this man massacred her entire family. Which of us, if the machine told us all we had to say was x, y and z and that man would be convicted, wouldn’t jump on board?
Andrew. In answer to Wal Mills.
In many, many of these cases (that we read about in WCR), the “Fountains of Wisdom” have jumped on defence lawyers trying to interfere with the brilliant prosecution screenplay…and don’t interrupt when WE (thats the Royal We), the team , are reading that same screenplay to the carefully selected jury…
The patsy must be guilty – thats why they are down there in them prison clothes..
And we are up here, burping our cordon bleu..
I don’t want to compare my conviction to that of Xie. BUT ……. I came from a room that did not exist , TWICE !!!!! I also was accused of offending at a time and circumstance whereby my wife was present and the DPP responded with ….. Oh well , it must have happened another time , therefore admitting that i had an alibi and a second transgression must have occurred , !!
The complainant only raised one incident and not two as would have to be the case if DPP assertion is to be believed.
I discussed these anomalies with the policewoman who remains in contact with me . Her answer is , you must have had a terrible lawyer. my short reply was yes i did !! But that does not excuse the Police or DPP who both had , in the police brief , the evidence that cleared me . They ignored it!! and they had the evidence ….. that is far worse than the incompetence of my Counsel .
They had plans of the house and builders statement that proved the room from where i came did not exist till about 1990 but the offence was alleged in 1986, in a room that did not exist ..
Then there was a statement made to Police by my accuser , that i had made admissions . A statement which was also made to the Cousellor JA . JA gave evidence that My accuser told her i had made admissions to a previous counselor . Due to further contradiction , my accuser’s final statement to police was that i had made NO ADMISSIONS at all.
Clearly it is easy to hoodwink a jury by omission . I have to report to police for 15 years . …. 2028 !!!!
i am now 76 years old . I have blood cancer and have been in heart failure 3 times. I want my name cleared before I die. I want the Police and DPP to have my verdict changed to NOT GUILTY!
My wife, my accuser’s mother is still with me after 44 years of marriage .. she has suffered greatly. We have two children together. They were devastated by my conviction and incarceration . They are both damaged.
Don’t cover up your failures ! Correct Them !! it’s bout time . I have lost my voice . I deserve it back !!
Peter V.
It is shattering how many of you there are…innocents wrongfully convicted by a system only accountable to your accusers! And your accusers unaccountable to justice. You, Robert Xie, Noel Greenaway, Sue Neill-Fraser, Derek Bromley, Robert Farquharson, Marco Rusterholz … and others.
A man called blackstone said better 10 guilty men escape than one innocent man to suffer.
Benjamin Franklin later thought it disproportionate and said ‘better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail. Too high a standard? No, ! Not if it happened to your son , husband , brother or father. Do you remember the young Australian woman journalist who said it’s ok if a few innocent men are convicted in the interest of dismantling this dangerous patriarchal society.
How many men and women out there would be ashamed if their daughter had made such a nasty ill considered remark. Her father , sacrificed? I doubt it !
“Clearly the onus of proof has been reversed in this case and speculation has been presented as if it were ‘evidence’ … Nothing short of a Royal Commission will get this badly damaged ship back on course.” – Dr Bob Moles, Flinders University legal academic
The echo in Noelene and Cedric Jordan’s murder conviction.
Why is it in so many of these case that the defense lawyers don’t object to these speculative accusations or am I missing something.