Guilty or Not

[SNOB]

[quote:
Originally Posted by Alison
I'd love to read it too WRF - is it online somewhere??
http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_f...ary_Rayney.pdf

I see he's back to work and taken on two murder trials already.

I find point 56 still the hardest one to get my head around.

QUOTE=SNOB;334258]I still think that if he is allowed to practice, and why not if he has been proven innocent he will be the most sought after lawyer in Perth if not Au because many villains believe he's guilty.[/quote]

"I told you so"
This guy has played the corrupt cops and beaten them. The cops in wa haven't changed since the 70's. Pathetic and all the newbies (cops) being bought in from over seas leave as soon as they can stay permanently.
Who knows wether he's guilty or not but he shore as hell knows how to play the system.

[shasta]

I have not changed my mind after reading that summary. I'm more sure that the judge made a good decision because of the lack of incriminating evidence. Seems very unlikely he could have done all the police alledge that night without someone seeing him somewhere in all that time.

Still haven't voted in this poll either. Wrong options included.

[taylor]

Shits me that a pile of my tax money is going to go into his pocket becaue of the incompetance of a load of coffee drinking doughnut eaters though

[welshrugbyfan]

Shits me that a pile of my tax money is going to go into his pocket becaue of the incompetance of a load of coffee drinking doughnut eaters though

He won't get compensation and has to pay for his legal bills himself.

Let's lay of the Police a bit, their my brothers and sisters you're talking about. 90% of us are busting our arses out there and doing it against a very crap system.
Posted via Mobile Device

[welshrugbyfan]

I still think that if he is allowed to practice, and why not if he has been proven innocent he will be the most sought after lawyer in Perth if not Au because many villains believe he's guilty.

"I told you so"
This guy has played the corrupt cops and beaten them. The cops in wa haven't changed since the 70's. Pathetic and all the newbies (cops) being bought in from over seas leave as soon as they can stay permanently.
Who knows wether he's guilty or not but he shore as hell knows how to play the system.[/QUOTE]

Geez where does this info on the Police come from?

A little misguided to say the least mate.
Posted via Mobile Device

[westies man]

He won't get compensation and has to pay for his legal bills himself.

Let's lay of the Police a bit, their my brothers and sisters you're talking about. 90% of us are busting our arses out there and doing it against a very crap system.
Posted via Mobile Device

No one disagrees with you,It's the other 10 percent we worry about

[welshrugbyfan]

No one disagrees with you,It's the other 10 percent we worry about

The other 10% aren't corrupt just a bit lazy maybe.

I've never seen any corruption in all my time.

Pick any occupation and get 6500 of them together, there's going to be bad/useless/lazy eggs amongst em.
Posted via Mobile Device

[brokendown gunfighter]

so the stitching up of Mallard wasn't a corrupt practice?

[sittingbison]

The other 10% aren't corrupt just a bit lazy maybe. I've never seen any corruption in all my time...]

so the stitching up of Mallard wasn't a corrupt practice?

...or Button, or Beamish, or ...

Judges usually choose their words very carefully, especially when in writing the decision to the biggest murder case in our history. The problem is the Judge Martin describing the police investigation as:

...unacceptable conduct “ranging from inappropriate to reprehensible”.

ie a deplorable, highly unacceptable action, deserving severe rebuke, censure, blame and strong criticism.

I cannot recall a Judge ever criticizing an investigation in such terms.

[brokendown gunfighter]

& of course do not forget the mother of all stitch ups,the lovely Mickleburg brothers

[welshrugbyfan]

Geez most of the cases mentioned were 30 years ago. Policing isn't done like that anymore (no more phone books in the interview room).

The case officers must have thought along with the DPP that they had enough to charge Rainey. In the Judges eyes they didn't have enough to convict him.

It happens, not the first time and it wont be the last time.
Posted via Mobile Device

[brokendown gunfighter]

going off half cocked is the expression, i think---

meanwhile,did Lloyd play rugby?

[zed]

Geez most of the cases mentioned were 30 years ago. Policing isn't done like that anymore (no more phone books in the interview room).

The case officers must have thought along with the DPP that they had enough to charge Rainey. In the Judges eyes they didn't have enough to convict him.

It happens, not the first time and it wont be the last time.
Posted via Mobile Device

I never really understood why they issued a statement saying he was the prime and only suspect, especially when the evidence they had was pretty circumstantial. And I guess that's why the fozzers are copping (pardon the pun) a bit of flak - people are questioning why he was charged in the first place when there was such scant evidence. Perhaps there was some smoking gun that was inadmissible or something, but just reading in the media about the evidence it seemed pretty obvious that they were clutching at straws.

[sittingbison]

the case rested on Rayney being the only person with motive and opportunity.

The moment it was revealed Mrs Rayney was having an affair all that goes out the window (as far as reasonable doubt is concerned).

Anyway, no matter how much things might have improved since the Mickleburgs, it still does not explain the Judge describing the police investigation in such derogatory terms. He made an issue of it when he could have ignored it completely. He is sending a very clear message (in code).

[zed]

And as he was publicly named as the prime suspect he can now file a defamation suit. Did they really need to publicly declare him prime suspect? Surely someone who at the very least has watched some Judge Judy could have suggested they ran the risk of being sued for defamation of character? Perhaps if they had rocked up to his house and he was standing there covered in blood, holding a chainsaw and his wifes head in the other hand yelling "I just cut my wifes head off!!" then yeah go to town, but a few twigs in her hair and a business card at the crime scene don't equal an open & shut case. I'm really not one to jump on the bandwagon and obviously Joe Public aren't getting all the info, but from what I have read it sounds like a proper cluster f*ck of an investigation.