Discussion in 'Cold Cases' started by Kimster, Jul 18, 2012.
Compilation of news report from 7
60 Minutes Australia
No need for police to say sorry to Lloyd Rayney: Attorney-General John Quigley
Tim Clarke, Legal Affairs EditorThe West Australian
Tuesday, 16 October 2018 2:01AM
Lloyd Rayney speaks out
0:31 | Twitter - 60Minutes
Lloyd Rayney has given an in-depth interview following his wife's murder 11 years ago.
WA Police have no reason to apologise to acquitted murder suspect Lloyd Rayney, Attorney-General John Quigley believes, despite the former prosecutor again attacking the investigation into him over potential involvement in the death of his wife Corryn.
In a 60 Minutes story on Sunday, the murder of Mrs Rayney, the police suspicions of her husband and the 11 years of allegation, accusations and acquittals that followed were revisited.
Mr Rayney and his supporters repeated their disquiet at the conduct of the WA Police during the murder investigation and called for a new murder hunt to begin.
WA Police refused to comment. But Mr Quigley said that in his view, no police apology was warranted.
“I’m not aware of any circumstance that would require the police to apologise to Mr Rayney,” he said.
“There was a case to be answered. It was answered. “I can certainly understand his concerns. But I think it’s appropriate the Coroner looks at it.
“They are independent and can review the whole investigation.”
The WA coroner has had the case file for two years, since a police cold case review concluded without a new breakthrough.
The coroner’s office said yesterday they were still “considering the matter and it maybe some time before a decision” on an inquest is made.
Questions were also being asked about the questions that were not asked of Mr Rayney by reporter Tara Brown — particularly about conduct in court by Mr Rayney that threatens to result in him being barred from practising law in WA.
In May, a Supreme Court judge sitting in the State Administrative Tribunal recommended Mr Rayney be kicked out of the legal profession for lying to a magistrate.
After a lengthy process, Mr Rayney was found guilty of professional misconduct by a panel headed by WA Supreme Court judge Peter Martino.
The findings revolved around allegations that before Mrs Rayney’s death, as the couple’s marriage crumbled, the former top prosecutor covertly recorded their heated conversations using a dictaphone. Although he was never charged or convicted of a criminal offence over the recordings, he was quizzed about them by magistrate Martin Flynn, in secret, in November 2009.
WA’s Legal Professional Complaints Committee claimed during that interrogation, Mr Rayney swore a false affidavit and then gave untrue evidence to the magistrate in person.
Justice Martino upheld those claims, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.
60 Minutes made no mention of Mr Rayney’s courtroom lies or the potential fallout from the subsequent decision, which he is appealing.
“Our story was about the murder and subsequent investigation into the death of Corryn Rayney,” a spokesman said.
“The SAT’s finding of professional misconduct has nothing to do with that investigation.”
They would not confirm if Mr Rayney had been paid for the story.
No conclusive fingerprints or DNA of LR was found in her car either though other than on a water bottle found in the boot & both were consistent with him drinking from it.
Can you say that Eades or Laccos DNA wasnt found in there when they recovered DNA from several places in her car where the source was unable to be determined exactly but contributable to a mixed profile including an unknown male. LR was able to be excluded from some of that.
How do you know they had no motive? Or that someone else didnt who hasn't been mentioned?
I think the main point was that they should have looked at alternatives other than LR and those people were worthy of having been looked at more closely considering the circumstantial evidence. They dont believe any other possibilities were investigated at all & it sure looks to me as though that assertion is correct.
Realistically, considering the evidence & the scenario they relied on to convince the judge that Lloyd was guilty of her murder, I think they'd have had more luck if they'd actually put Eades and Lacco in his place & presented the same case. No doubt in my mind the judge made the right decision considering the evidence.
I suggest opening the 1st two links and reading the stories about Allon Lacco, and then opening the third and contemplate what he said about "coincidence" in the interview with the Geelong Advertiser.
And, here is one on Dectective Carl Casilli. It is all a cluster F***
Jailed cop Carl Casilli released on bail pending appeal
There were three seed pods found in Corryn's hair, and one found later in the body bag. The judge only excluded that last one because it hadn't been recorded at the time of examination and autopsy. Lloyd's lawyers said it could have been planted by police, the prosecution said it was just crappy record-keeping.
But the other two seed pods were found stuck in her hair. There are no seed pods like it in Kings Park, heaps of them all over the Rayney's yard, and one tree that has them in a far corner of the Bentley community centre. The judge ruled that it was probable that Corryn made it to her front yard at the very least, although there's very little evidence she went inside.
Discussing only one seed pod out of three is pretty bloody misleading.
Trial judgement 1st November 2012
Sorry, just saw the mistake in my last post - there were two seed pods in Corryn's hair and one in the bag, for a total of three.
Other things that bugged me about that 60 Minutes interview besides ignoring 2 seed pods:
The ex-Scotland Yard guy complaining that within 2 days of Corryn's body being found, police thought of Lloyd as a suspect. What, they weren't supposed to check him out because he's too fancy to be a low-down criminal? As if men killing their wives during separations and divorces is some kind of rare occurrence. Or maybe they should have asked his permission first? The sense of entitlement is huge.
The interviewer, Tara Brown, said that the charges Lloyd was arrested on in 1997, of bugging the home phone, were found to be "baseless". That's not true. The guy who installed recording equipment on the home phone was completely vague and contradictory about the dates when the case went to trial. He couldn't reliably confirm if the recorder was in place while Corryn was at home or while she was away on holiday, and Lloyd claimed he wanted to record his conversations with her, not spy on her conversations with others. That's not baseless, that's *unproven* - ABC News link Lloyd Rayney cleared of phone tapping charges
The rest of the stuff, like the scream from Kings Park, the torn shirt etc, was just the standard "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" that defense lawyers do.
Lloyd has been professionally sanctioned because of secretly recording his wife (not the bugging, with a dictaphone) and then lying about it. That came out because of Corryn's murder, but it's unprofessional and illegal and he can whinge about it all he likes but the board was right to punish him for it. Lawyers have enough of an image problem without **** like that. - AustLII: Legal Profession Complaints Committee vs Rayney LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and RAYNEY [No 2]  WASAT 5 (14 May 2018)
WA Police are arrogant and over-confident, especially the Major Crimes unit. They've mucked up so many cases it's ridiculous. I don't think Rayney's team proved that police planted the 3rd seed pod, but it wouldn't surprise me. But there were two more stuck deep in her hair and the judge ruled that she'd made it home. I'd certainly like to know if Lacco and Eades had alibis or were ruled out for any legit reason, because if not that's crappy work. They left the prosecution to pull together a case out of bits and pieces, and I'm not surprised it failed. Corryn deserved better.
But police were right to investigate Lloyd Rayney. They shouldn't just take some guy's word for it that he didn't commit a crime.
And if it was Lacco or Eades or some other psycho, stalking Corryn to rape and kill her specifically, why wait until she gets home then go to so much trouble to hide the body? Why not get her in a dark car park or after bootscooting? It's not like you'd be able to keep the car even if it hadn't conked out.
That said, I will never understand people who harass suspects or their defense team. It achieves nothing. I guess if you feel like you're a terrible person, then finding someone you think is worse than you to yell at makes you feel better? Some therapy would probably work better though!
To me, the issue wasnt that "police thought of Lloyd as a suspect" within 2 days of the body being found, it was surrounding the comments by Inspector Bartels to the pathologists on 16/8/07, initially to Dr Buck & repeated to Dr Cadden before the preliminary investigation of her body that the defence thought indicative of the biased approach police took towards the investigation & particularly in relation to him.
The recollections of the incident from all who were present, either from testimony or sworn statements is discussed in the Judgement but to paraphrase the words of Dr Cadden, Bartels after being prompted by Buck to repeat what he just told him, said "they knew it was LR who had killed her either by himself or with the help of a gay lover & that matters would roll up soon".
Bartels testified he doesnt remember saying that or even having a conversation with the pathologists. Some other police there cant recall either.
Dr Buck testified it was a long exhausting day but now recalls "someone" saying LR was a "possible suspect" and had been assisted by a "boyfriend".
Detective Casilli remembered it & I think from what he said its obvious the conversation did occur and that it was probably said in the context told by Dr Cadden. He said in a statement that "he remembers Bartell telling Buck that we are looking at Lloyd Rayney for the murder & that he might have done it with his lover". He recalls Buck then telling Cadden "you wont believe this but Stuey (Bartels) just said they think Lloyd Rayney and his lover are responsible for Corryns death".
Theres further issues that arose from those comments all discussed in the judgement but it does appear to me from numerous things the police said and did that their opinion from the outset was that LR was guilty & they pursued him as such. Whether that was to the detriment of the case or not may lie with the fact no one has been found guilty of her murder, or it may not.
We can only speculate about what other enquiries police made or if the investigation was thorough, but considering the judges comments in relation to the case the prosecution put forth, it appears not. He said "in addition to failing to prove its scenarios, the state has failed to disprove any alternative explanation consistent with the accused being innocent".
‘Lloyd Rayney faces being struck off as a lawyer after WA's highest court upheld a decision to ban him for giving false evidence about secretly recording his estranged wife before her murder.
Lloyd Rayney taped conversations with his estranged wife amid a marriage breakdown
He knew evidence he gave in court about the recordings was untrue, a tribunal found
Mr Rayney immediately appealed against the 2017 ruling, leading to today's decision’
Lloyd Rayney faces being banned as a lawyer over secret recordings of murdered wife Corryn Rayney - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Do you know if the seed pods were DNA tested to see if they came from the tree at Corryn’s home? Seems a fairly obvious step. So much talk about could have been this tree or that tree. Just test them.
Amen. This whole episode had some very nasty overtones. Some people wanted to take Lloyd down, and I am encouraged that Justice has won out in the end.
Doesn't help Lloyd, Corryn or the girls, though.
So he was struck off as a lawyer
In February 2016, Rayney was cleared by the State Administrative Tribunal of the alleged "unlawful destruction of evidence and/or an attempt to pervert the course of justice" and his right to practise was reinstated.
Death of Corryn Rayney - Wikipedia
Lloyd Rayney struck off
21 April 2020 • By Emma Ryan
The barrister and former Crown prosecutor has been officially struck off as a lawyer following a legal battle, which attempted to keep him on the roll.
The full bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia made the decision
The court found that the Perth-based barrister should be struck off for secretly recording his late wife, Corryn Rayney’s, conversations and then knowingly giving false evidence about those recordings in court.
Lloyd Rayney struck off
“It is our view that Mr Rayney lacks the honesty and candour that are essential attributes for a legal practitioner," it said.
Lloyd Rayney struck off as a lawyer more than a decade after wife Corryn's unsolved murder
"Nor did his affidavit contain any statements upon which it could be found that he had any insight into, or was remorseful for, his professional misconduct."
The court said the decision to strike him off, "was essentially because of Mr Rayney's fundamental failure to adhere to his duties to the court to act honestly".
The court ruled that Mr Rayney's "dishonest behaviour" was so serious that "the only appropriate order for the court to make was an order to remove Mr Rayney's name from the roll of practitioners".