Australia: The murder of Corryn Rayney

[TweetyPie]

Ha ! Lloyd Rayney flanked by Johnny Montani and an other 'bouncer' when exiting the court. Corryn's family surrounded by police. What a contrast!
See PerthNow-Verdict =trial pictures

[Nads]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/lloy...-1226509857550

[TweetyPie]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...stabbing-case/

[marlywings]

Prosecutors will appeal Lloyd Rayney acquittal

November 22, 2012

PROSECUTORS will appeal the acquittal of prominent Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney, who was found not guilty this month of murdering his estranged wife, Corryn.
The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Lloyd Babb directed the appeal today - the deadline for an appeal to be lodged.

Documents were lodged with the Court of Appeal in WA this afternoon.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nat...-1226521400906

[marlywings]

November 22, 2012 - 5:20PM

Another senior legal figure in Perth, John Hammond, said he could see no gaps in Justice Martin’s legal reasoning.

But it seems the DPP believes there are grounds for an appeal, though it has not revealed what they are.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rayney-ver...#ixzz2CwOJfjMt

[hoshizora]

Hi I'm from Perth so I have followed this case.

I thought Lloyd Rayney was guilty up until the verdict, and now I've looked at it, some things really don't sit right with me (despite there being a lot of evidence that points towards him).

1) Kings Park is not Gnangara. I find it really hard to believe nobody was around. I know it was in the early morning, but I think someone would've seen something, especially since he would've been there for at least 30 minutes if the hole was already dug. There are still cars around. Like, Kings Park would be the absolute last place I'd bury someone due to the surrounding streets and popularity, someone was bound to find the body when it was light. So lack of witnesses I find weird considering the location.

2) According to the judge's summary, he did not show any signs the next day of stress, tiredness, etc. His colleagues said he acted normal. No matter how emotionless he would've seemed, he would've showed definite signs of tiredness if he only slept 3 hours. A family friend also spoke to him that night and said he was absolutely in character and didn't seem anxious or stressed.

3) He is a barrister. I find it so weird that a barrister would leave so much behind at the scene. With the evidence there, it just seems so... planned. Dinner card, handkerchief in the grave, car trail, more I'm probably not thinking of, etc. It all points to him, but it's almost "too" obvious.

4) If he had hired a hitman, he wouldn't have made him leave so much evidence at the scene. You want a clean murder that doesn't indicate the hitman nor the hirer. Plus how would a hitman come into contact with these items? Unless he hired the clumsiest hitman in Perth.

5) I'm not sure if it's a defense so I'm not saying this with absolute proof, but the claims by his lawyers that the seeds from his garden were not in her hair during the examination of her body, and that the examiner did not take note of it seems weird and as if there was planted evidence. The fact that the dinner place card does not seem water damaged despite there being rainfall also suggests it was planted after. (It seems to have been found in the open from the photos of it)

6) Did they carry out any DNA tests on her clothing, her car, etc? If she had been to a dancing class, maybe she had people touching her clothes but surely there was a link between the DNA on her clothes, in her car, on the handkerchief, etc. Seems a bit weird they never did any testing. (I apologise if they did. I can't remember anything about this). I understand Mr. Rayney would have touched all these items, but you would either find 1) only his DNA, indicating that he did the crime or 2) his DNA and someone else's across the board. It's not definite but at least you'd have another POI.

I don't think it was a random crime because she most likely would have been sexually assaulted, and her body did not seem in that state. (Clothing was still there), Or at the very least she would've been found in a worse state. I'm not sure what happened to her, but I really find it hard to believe he did it so I'm glad he was found not guilty.

[TweetyPie]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...egal-practice/

Good move "If the heat is too hot- get out of the kitchen"

[KG1]

Latest news - Crown appeal set for August 2013.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/b...-1226600786844

[Flinders]

Originally Posted by hoshizora

Hi I'm from Perth so I have followed this case.

I thought Lloyd Rayney was guilty up until the verdict, and now I've looked at it, some things really don't sit right with me (despite there being a lot of evidence that points towards him).

1) Kings Park is not Gnangara. I find it really hard to believe nobody was around. I know it was in the early morning, but I think someone would've seen something, especially since he would've been there for at least 30 minutes if the hole was already dug. There are still cars around. Like, Kings Park would be the absolute last place I'd bury someone due to the surrounding streets and popularity, someone was bound to find the body when it was light. So lack of witnesses I find weird considering the location.

2) According to the judge's summary, he did not show any signs the next day of stress, tiredness, etc. His colleagues said he acted normal. No matter how emotionless he would've seemed, he would've showed definite signs of tiredness if he only slept 3 hours. A family friend also spoke to him that night and said he was absolutely in character and didn't seem anxious or stressed.

3) He is a barrister. I find it so weird that a barrister would leave so much behind at the scene. With the evidence there, it just seems so... planned. Dinner card, handkerchief in the grave, car trail, more I'm probably not thinking of, etc. It all points to him, but it's almost "too" obvious.

4) If he had hired a hitman, he wouldn't have made him leave so much evidence at the scene. You want a clean murder that doesn't indicate the hitman nor the hirer. Plus how would a hitman come into contact with these items? Unless he hired the clumsiest hitman in Perth.

5) I'm not sure if it's a defense so I'm not saying this with absolute proof, but the claims by his lawyers that the seeds from his garden were not in her hair during the examination of her body, and that the examiner did not take note of it seems weird and as if there was planted evidence. The fact that the dinner place card does not seem water damaged despite there being rainfall also suggests it was planted after. (It seems to have been found in the open from the photos of it)

6) Did they carry out any DNA tests on her clothing, her car, etc? If she had been to a dancing class, maybe she had people touching her clothes but surely there was a link between the DNA on her clothes, in her car, on the handkerchief, etc. Seems a bit weird they never did any testing. (I apologise if they did. I can't remember anything about this). I understand Mr. Rayney would have touched all these items, but you would either find 1) only his DNA, indicating that he did the crime or 2) his DNA and someone else's across the board. It's not definite but at least you'd have another POI.

I don't think it was a random crime because she most likely would have been sexually assaulted, and her body did not seem in that state. (Clothing was still there), Or at the very least she would've been found in a worse state. I'm not sure what happened to her, but I really find it hard to believe he did it so I'm glad he was found not guilty.

My only comment to add to your thoughtful post is this.

Firstly, why would any government department beat a dead horse. Appeals cost money.

Secondly, to keep your hands clean of a crime and if you have a high income, logic says you would find someone to do it for you. May I suggest, if you want something done properly do it yourself.

This is my opinion only.