http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...g-in-rayney-home/story-e6frfku9-1227330055294
Rayney insisted phone tapes were legal
MAY 01, 2015 7:01PM
RAYNEY is on trial accused of enlisting IT specialist Tim Pearson to illegally intercept his wife's phone calls in July and August 2007 before her murder.
"Mr Pearson said Rayney never used the term "phone tapping", did not choose the location, never tested the equipment and did not help install it"... Mr Pearson transferred the "substantial" number of recorded audio files onto CDs for Rayney and showed him how to play them on a computer...Mr Pearson said Rayney never explained why he wanted to record calls.
IMO sound like the IT Specialist has been 'specialist' coached about how to word his responses before the court. Clever statements. However facts are that the CRU device was secreted above Corryn's wardrobe space to record her phone conversations. This was at Rayney's request. Corryn did not know she was being recorded. Her private conversations were downloaded to CD for Rayney to secretly (stalk?) listen to. Lloyd Rayney did not have Corryn's consent to listen into her private conversations. He had removed her right to freedom in this respect.
IMHO the court needs to look at the implications for Corryn, not just rely on clever 'coached' legal 'word' play, then look at Rayney's actions in this regard.
My speculation and opinion only.
Rayney insisted phone tapes were legal
MAY 01, 2015 7:01PM
RAYNEY is on trial accused of enlisting IT specialist Tim Pearson to illegally intercept his wife's phone calls in July and August 2007 before her murder.
"Mr Pearson said Rayney never used the term "phone tapping", did not choose the location, never tested the equipment and did not help install it"... Mr Pearson transferred the "substantial" number of recorded audio files onto CDs for Rayney and showed him how to play them on a computer...Mr Pearson said Rayney never explained why he wanted to record calls.
IMO sound like the IT Specialist has been 'specialist' coached about how to word his responses before the court. Clever statements. However facts are that the CRU device was secreted above Corryn's wardrobe space to record her phone conversations. This was at Rayney's request. Corryn did not know she was being recorded. Her private conversations were downloaded to CD for Rayney to secretly (stalk?) listen to. Lloyd Rayney did not have Corryn's consent to listen into her private conversations. He had removed her right to freedom in this respect.
IMHO the court needs to look at the implications for Corryn, not just rely on clever 'coached' legal 'word' play, then look at Rayney's actions in this regard.
My speculation and opinion only.