Who killed Corryn Rayney?

[BeTheGoddess]

A little murder mystery slant to this thread, cluedo even?.

Corrryn was a lawyer prominent in the Western Australian legal community.  She went missing after attending a bootscooting class, her body found dumped in Kings Park, which is mostly bushland.

Her husband Lloyd, also a Lawyer, with some pretty big clients like Gina Reinheart and her claim against her fathers estate... I digress...

The Rayneys lived in the Perth suburb of Como and had two daughters,[sup][6][/sup] Caitlyn (born 1994) and Sarah (born 1997).[sup][7][/sup][sup]: 60 [/sup] At the time, Lloyd Rayney was involved in a Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry into the misconduct of police officers in a murder investigation.[sup][6][/sup] Corryn Rayney was employed as a registrar at the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Corryn_Rayney

I was in law school at the time the trial was on and we were all told explicitly that we cant discuss the case by the law academics. not just because the case was being heard but it being "too close for comfort" to or tutors and lecturers in the law community.

Corryns husband Lloyd was the only named suspect and three years after her death he was charged with her murder.

However he was found not guilty after a lengthy judge only trial (no jury).

The judgement almost 400 pages...
https://web.archive.org/web/201309281630...SC0404.pdf

Prosecution appealed the decision but it was upheld.

So what do you think?. One of the reasons he got the judge only trial was because "media attention" might influence the jury--well you good folk are not "poisoned" by media influence.

[Maxmars]

I wish I was more well-read or familiar with the kind of law practiced in your country.  

I briefly scanned the judgement, and I understand that - from my layman's perspective, it was almost "stereotypically-framed" as a case of: angry or disaffected spouses, sudden death, and "must have been the spouse 'cause he has a believable motive" style murder charge.

It looked like they lacked convincing physical evidence of the murder itself... and even the judge was willing to forego a murder charge, if necessary, and entertain a manslaughter charge instead, to secure a conviction.

Presumably there is something socio-political in the considerations since they "opted" for a non-jury trial... which seems weird to me for a capital case... but I don't know how the law is in Australia, let alone how it is practiced.  Pretty much as the British do, yes?

What was considered exculpatory in this case?

[BeTheGoddess]

I wish I was more well-read or familiar with the kind of law practiced in your country.  

I briefly scanned the judgement, and I understand that - from my layman's perspective, it was almost "stereotypically-framed" as a case of: angry or disaffected spouses, sudden death, and "must have been the spouse 'cause he has a believable motive" style murder charge.

It looked like they lacked convincing physical evidence of the murder itself... and even the judge was willing to forego a murder charge, if necessary, and entertain a manslaughter charge instead, to secure a conviction.

Presumably there is something socio-political in the considerations since they "opted" for a non-jury trial... which seems weird to me for a capital case... but I don't know how the law is in Australia, let alone how it is practiced.  Pretty much as the British do, yes?

What was considered exculpatory in this case?

"What was considered exculpatory in this case?"

Basically because it was in the media for three years and his council did point to the way he was arrested at a public event as being "grandstanding" and spun that it relates to his work at the CCC...

I did mention his former client Gina for a reason.

There is no absolute answer to this whodunit, just healthy speculation. 

Apparently he wrote a book...

[Maxmars]

I am completely new to this case. 

But I do know that here in the States we suffer from "public" poisoning frequently with many such murder trials.

I could argue (sight unseen) that it may have been made into a spectacle to encourage viewership or readership... and the fact that law-enforcement behaved bombastically and thuggishly only "sweetened" the value of the "show." 

That does taint the imagery of the case, but I am inclined to accept the 'traditional' sense that judges are 'judicial,' and that legal forms and practices protect the process from 'publicity' tomfoolery (but really, it seems that is not always the case.)

Not meaning to challenge your take on this by any means.  I sense some discomfort in how this all went down.

[BeTheGoddess]

I am completely new to this case. 

But I do know that here in the States we suffer from "public" poisoning frequently with many such murder trials.

I could argue (sight unseen) that it may have been made into a spectacle to encourage viewership or readership... and the fact that law-enforcement behaved bombastically and thuggishly only "sweetened" the value of the "show." 

That does taint the imagery of the case, but I am inclined to accept the 'traditional' sense that judges are 'judicial,' and that legal forms and practices protect the process from 'publicity' tomfoolery (but really, it seems that is not always the case.)

Not meaning to challenge your take on this by any means.  I sense some discomfort in how this all went down.

No discomfort, it was a big deal here. I have heard he admitted he did it, I have heard he was setup. 

A wholy circumstantial homicide trial with a top end of town lawyer defendant.

Its a who dun it, as there are no other names suspects, all theries are valid.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/r...ud/4994280