Talk:Death of Corryn Rayney

Migration to Australia

Resolved

An online newspaper source asserts that Corryn Rayney migrated to Australia, from Uganda, in 1973, when she was nine years old.

Numerous other uncontradicted media references assert that Mrs Rayney was 44 years old when she died in 2007, and therefore born around 1973. It would therefore appear that the assertion that she was already 9 years old, in 1973, is mistaken or erroneous.

There are two obvious alternatives. The first is that she was BORN in 1973, and came to Australia ( around 1982 ), when she was nine years old. The second is that she was born in 1973, and came to Australia around the same year, when she was nine MONTHS old (not nine years old). I can find no information to resolve this dilemma, but would note that the widely-publicised expulsion of most Indian/Ugandans occured around 1973.Eregli bob (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

She was born in 1963 in Africa. I've fixed the article, with refs. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Current event

When this article was created about two weeks ago, it was tagged as a current event. And then someone deleted the current event tag. And now somebody has put it back. None of the very basic and factual information is actually "subject to change as the event progresses". The age, birthplace, job etc of the deceased subject are not going to change, regardless of the outcome of the trial.Eregli bob (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alleged murder

An editor has made changes, with the comment that it is "an alleged murder, until someone has been convicted by the court". I do not believe that this is the case. The coroner has already determined that Mrs Rayney was murdered - it is not a suicide, a freak accident, or a death from natural causes. The fact that she was murdered is established fact, not an "alleged" murder. The aspect that is still "alleged", is that it is alleged that she was killed by a particular person.Eregli bob (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(I am not a lawyer, but ...) I still assert that it is only "alleged" until someone is actually convicted of murder (eg the accused might be found not guilty by way of insanity, or self-defence, or might plea-bargain accidental manslaughter, ...), and that we should err on the side of caution. However, if you can produce a link to the coroner's report saying "murdered by person or person(s) unknown" (or words to that effect), I'll agree to dropping the "alleged" (unless/until the current court case convicts of manslaughter etc). (Assuming that the article doesn't get deleted first.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah ok, I'm not going to argue with you about that. We could put in some other word like 'homicide' or 'unlawful killing', or 'alleged murder' if that is what you prefer.

Notability

Consensus has not yet been achieved about the most appropriate title for this article. Regardless of the eventual title for this article, I would assert that the death of Mrs Rayney and the subsequent events including the trial of Lloyd Rayney, are more notable than other typical murders for multiple contributing factors including

• the high social status of the victim and alleged perpetrator
• the fact that both the victim and the accused were members of the west australian legal justice system.
• the fact that it took more than three years for charges to be laid
• the fact that the prosecution are pursuing the case, with only circumstantial evidence
• the need to import a judge from outside the jurisdiction
• the case being conducted without a jury (unusual in Australia, and somewhat controversial)
• allegations that police conduct has prejudiced a fair trial
• the fact that the actual cause of death of the alleged victim could not be ascertained
• the ongoing extensive media coverage of all aspects of the investigation and trial, indicative of wide public interest in Australia
• the existence of some media coverage outside Australia
• this appears to be the most notable upper-class intra-family alleged murder, since the Megan Kalajzich murder, a case which still attracts controversy and notoriety 30 years after it occurred, which is indicative of the rarity, unusualness, and notability of these upper-class murder cases in Australia.
• the prospect that, if acquitted, the defendant is likely to acquire a notoriety similar to OJ Simpson.
• the prospect that, if acquitted, the apparent killing of Mrs Rayney is likely to remain unsolved, as there are no other plausible suspects.
• the prospect that, if convicted, there are likely to be prolonged and newsworthy appeals over the weak and circumstantial nature of the evidence in the case.
• the large number of media articles and google hits on the name of the victim, all related to the circumstances of her death.

For these reasons, I would contend the notability of this event - regardless of the title.Eregli bob (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Investigation and trial - rewording required now trial has finished

Now that the trial has finished, we should probably reword the last paragraph of the "Investigation and trial" section. Eg:

• "the trial was predicated to last two month" - no longer important
• "final submissions concluded on 19 October" - no longer important
• "Justice Martin announced that he would deliver his verdict on 1 November 2012" should be "Justice Martin delivered his verdict on 1 November 2012" or similar
• "He would also publish his reasons for the verdict" - I believe he has published them (there's a link to them in http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-01/verdict-handed-down-in-rayney-trial/4346322, and it's currently in the article under External links)

The whole trial history (from "The trial began ...") needs to be reworded, and I don't think it makes sense to do it piecemeal. I've not got the time now - I'll do it later if nobody else gets in first. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Selective treatment of judgment comments

The section 'Investigation and trial' includes reference to Lloyd Rayney's "discreditable" actions in arranging a phone tap. On close scrutiny, I found selective wording emphasising evidence which the judge had declared inadmissible. Also the newspaper citation for use of the term "disreputable" is no longer available online (though is presumed still to be on record) and potentially derogatory content was included even though specifically redacted from the official judgment. My edit aims to remove the redacted content and to balance the judge's assessment by including his words prohibiting the prosecution's suggestions that Rayney's alleged "bad character" was a fair issue to raise in the murder hearing. Bjenks (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)