紙盒藏屍案主角歐陽炳強因病過身　再度呼冤堅稱從冇殺人

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E8%B7%91%E9%A6%AC%E5%9C%B0%E7%B4%99%E7%9B%92%E8%97%8F%E5%B1%8D%E6%A1%88
屌你條撚樣一d Basic資料都無睇過?!
女死者晚上6點半打比佢朋友話佢正身處電車站附近, 叫朋友落黎交還錄音帶...
你先去睇晒"紙盒藏屍"個維基page, 有左基本底之後再黎回post喇!

話冇見過=好似講大話
話有見過=仲唔係你？

因為當時佢哋認定
學生妹生前最後到過嘅地方
係雪糕店

而歐陽係當晚唯一職員
佢話“無見過個女仔”
就即係講大話
講大話就即係兇手

但如果
條女最後唔係去咗雪糕店呢？

點解你地好似咁"盲塞", 講極都唔明咁既...
"屍體會說話" by 某法醫
係個藏屍紙箱同埋條屍咪搵到好多證據, 證明左佢生前/死後去過工場!
警方係知道雪糕店閣樓有工場之前, 已經搵過附近既50個工場, 都唔Match女死者身上殘留既環境證據!
直到發現雪糕店入面個工場, 再化驗先Match左!

咁仲癲
點解一開始就認定咗雪糕店附近係兇案第一現場

唔係應該起碼筲箕灣至銅鑼灣咩

冇人認定係雪糕店，係屍體發現銅線，辣雞傷口等等，認為屍體係＂電器工場＂處理過

張圖真係睇到眼都盲...
原來係條屍仲發現左燒焊剩低個d黑色細焊屎...

50年前張就吓啦

有二三百件證物

有冇人知當年歐陽炳強寫聖誕卡認罪道歉
係出獄前寫定係出獄後寫？
有冇人有資料可以分享吓

橫掂小醉俠同翁靜晶依家都係KOL
不如佢哋喺節目度開返個歐陽炳強辯論
每人可以揀三個各自立場嘅連登仔幫拖

應該幾精彩

係咪首先要clarifly TT

我反而想知有無d細節係無講，當年陪審團一致裁定一定有原因，我地諗到既疑點，唔覺得佢地無提出過

應該係出獄前，佢出獄後試過搵湯渣話無做過，所以我覺得好奇怪點解一路佢都唔試轉誤殺，搏到既話坐少20年

有法律程序
審判監督權下 你過咗一段有效期就冇得申請再審

呢個當年上訴已經有爭議過，話法官點解引導陪審團時只有謀殺呢個選項而無誤殺，上訴庭就話根據法醫報告話suspect對受害人從後勒頸時用左中等到嚴重的武力，而且持續左3至4分鐘，所以唔可以話無殺人或者對他人有嚴重傷害的意圖。

呢個post pin 左個上訴書有講

Good point
嚴重傷害他人身體導致他人死亡，係唔需要任何嘅計劃去進行

勒頸致死係一段過程嚟，持續3至4分鐘，任何人基本認知上唔會認為箍頸持續3至4分鐘只會令一個人受低程度傷害咁簡單，就算唔係有殺人意圖，都已經係一項嚴重傷害他人身體嘅意圖。

即係佢認誤殺都未必打得甩謀殺

//16. The final ground of appeal was that the judge wrongly withdrew the verdict of manslaughter from the jury. The judge told the jury that the verdicts open to them were guilty or not guilty. The medical evidence was to the effect that the girl had been offering a considerable amount of resistance and that in those circumstances asphyxia would take three to four minutes whereas it would take four to five minutes if there was no resistance. The evidence of the forensic pathologist was that it was unlikely that the assailant had attacked the deceased from in front and in his opinion the constricting element had been the right forearm of the assailant applied from behind the deceased; the scratch marks on the deceased's neck had been caused, in this witness's opinion by the girl trying to pull herself free and were defence scratch marks from her nails. The constriction caused by the arm had displaced the voice box backwards and to the left compressing it onto the spine and resulting in bruising of the voice box. The application of constricting force over the front of the neck had resulted in blood being trapped within the upper part of the neck and also the face, causing the congestion which is a feature of asphyxia and ultimately causing the rupture of the small blood vessels resulting in numerous pin-point bleeding spots over the eye lids and the iris of the eye. In this expert's opinion moderate to severe force was necessary to effect the obstruction to the blood flow and also the air entry. In our view this evidence of strangulation lasting from three to four minutes is only explicable on the basis of an intention either to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.//


根據法醫專家證供死者被扼頸起碼3,4分鐘先至窒息致死，原審法官根據呢個原因引導陪審團只需考慮被告謀殺罪是否成立，直接否定咗佢哋需要考慮埋誤殺罪。
去到上訴庭三個法官一致認為，從後扼頸3,4分鐘令死者窒息而死已經構成蓄意殺人或令他人嚴重受傷不符誤殺嘅定義，所以認同原審法官引導陪審團否定誤殺嘅可能係穩妥。即係就算佢肯認誤殺都唔見得當時有份審嘅各級法官會接納佢嘅認罪。

咁港大教授單案可以898，本身仲要係夫妻，長期關係又唔好，睇完果單無屍兇案轉到誤殺以為唔算太難轉

呢一刻唔敢下定論，要睇吓辯方用咩招，
呢件事個背景好多人同情佢 對佢嚟講係一個優勢
可能用激怒去打 陪審團就要諗被告語言激怒下是否完全喪失自制能力

換轉角度諗，其實歐陽炳強上訴嘅時候個社會環境應該都係好多人覺得佢無辜 但係佢最後都係輸 仲要係一致裁定

所以我覺得應該有d野陪審團係睇到先至咁肯定，我地討論咗幾日既野人地邊有可能無提出

同淘大無屍嗰單差唔多，應該有好多細證據證明到同安美有關

陪審團覺得歐陽炳強有份，係咁多條件下嘅唯一合理可能性
如果唔係佢，但係又咁巧合，就唔合理

未見有人可以從所有證人證供同客觀證據下，講出另一個講得通嘅合理可能性出嚟。

咁多巧合

警察造假咪符合abcdefg
所有唔合理的地方都解釋到

張祺忠原審時先搵咗堆有社會地位嘅朋友證明老婆長期精神上虐待佢，再搵咗精神科專科醫生同臨床心理學家做專家證人作證佢案時有嚴重抑鬱導致失常同埋案發一刻係有可能俾老婆言語激怒而動殺機，佢係用齊diminished responsibility同provocation嚟搏將謀殺打到變誤殺。

咁都要搵到嘢去support警察做假先有得討論落去