Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
over comments made at a science forum (conference):

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974

An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
available here:

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html

--------------

It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at the
forum.

It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence. I
thought there were laws against using evidence from secret recordings.

Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording online,
aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
> over comments made at a science forum (conference):

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974

> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
> available here:

> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html

> --------------

> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at the
> forum.

Or it could be someone involved.

> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence. I
> thought there were laws against using evidence from secret recordings.

You are wrong, as always.

> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording online,
> aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?

Nope, dope.

On 21/09/2022 2:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>
>
>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>> available here:
>
>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>
>
>> --------------
>
>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>> the forum.
>
> Or it could be someone involved.
>

Unlikely. Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their
phone recorder.

>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence. I
>> thought there were laws against using evidence from secret recordings.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>

There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.

>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?
>
> Nope, dope.

Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:35:33 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 21/09/2022 2:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>>
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>
>>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>>> available here:
>>
>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>
>>> --------------
>>
>>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>>> the forum.

>> Or it could be someone involved.

> Unlikely.

Why ?

> Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their phone recorder.

Or someone else involved did.

>>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence. I
>>> thought there were laws against using evidence from secret recordings.

>> You are wrong, as always.

> There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.

Even Rayney would be well aware of the law, fuckwit child.

>>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?

>> Nope, dope.

> Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?

You are too stupid to understand, stupid.

On 21/09/2022 7:17 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:35:33 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2022 2:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>
>>>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>>>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>>>
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>>>
>>>
>>>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>>>> available here:
>>>
>>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>
>>>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>>>> the forum.
>
>>>  Or it could be someone involved.
>
>> Unlikely.
>
> Why ?
>
>> Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their phone recorder.
>
> Or someone else involved did.
>
>
>>>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence.
>>>> I thought there were laws against using evidence from secret
>>>> recordings.
>
>>>  You are wrong, as always.
>
>> There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.
>
> Even Rayney would be well aware of the law, fuckwit child.
>

So you don't actually know, you are just assuming because Rayney is
suing, fuckwit clown?

>>>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>>>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>> Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?
>
> You are too stupid to understand, stupid.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 01:39:05 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 21/09/2022 7:17 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:35:33 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/09/2022 2:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>>>>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>>>
>>>>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>>>>> available here:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>>>
>>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>>>>> the forum.
>>
>>>> Or it could be someone involved.
>>
>>> Unlikely.
>> Why ?
>>
>>> Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their phone
>>> recorder.
>> Or someone else involved did.
>>
>>>>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence.
>>>>> I thought there were laws against using evidence from secret
>>>>> recordings.
>>
>>>> You are wrong, as always.
>>
>>> There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.
>> Even Rayney would be well aware of the law, fuckwit child.

> So you don't actually know, you are just assuming because Rayney is suing

You are wrong, as always.

>>>>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>>>>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?
>>
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?
>> You are too stupid to understand, stupid.

On 21/09/2022 7:17 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:35:33 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2022 2:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>
>>>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>>>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>>>
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>>>
>>>
>>>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>>>> available here:
>>>
>>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>
>>>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>>>> the forum.
>
>>>  Or it could be someone involved.
>
>> Unlikely.
>
> Why ?
>

If you listen to the recording, it's obvious it was just someone
randomly recording, and not someone involved in the matter.

>> Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their phone recorder.
>
> Or someone else involved did.
>
>
>>>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence.
>>>> I thought there were laws against using evidence from secret
>>>> recordings.
>
>>>  You are wrong, as always.
>
>> There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.
>
> Even Rayney would be well aware of the law, fuckwit child.
>
>>>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>>>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>> Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?
>
> You are too stupid to understand, stupid.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Former Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is suing a forensic investigator
>>>>> over comments made at a science forum (conference):
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/investigator-sued-by-lloyd-rayney-fails-to-remove-judge-in-case/101458974
>>>>
>>>>> An audio recording of what the investigator said at that forum is
>>>>> available here:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/lloyd-rayney-sues-forensic-investigator-for-telling-seminar-he-got-away-with-murder-20200721-p55dyh.html
>>>>
>>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the recording was made by someone in the audience at
>>>>> the forum.
>>
>>>> Or it could be someone involved.
>>
>>> Unlikely.

>> Why ?

Because they are more likely to want a record of it.

> If you listen to the recording, it's obvious it was just someone
> randomly recording, and not someone involved in the matter.

BULLSHIT.

>>> Probably just someone in the audience who turned on their phone
>>> recorder.

>> Or someone else involved did.

>>>>> It seems strange that the audio recording could be used as evidence.
>>>>> I thought there were laws against using evidence from secret
>>>>> recordings.
>>
>>>> You are wrong, as always.
>>
>>> There are some laws about using secret recordings as evidence.
>> Even Rayney would be well aware of the law, fuckwit child.
>>
>>>>> Also, if the newspaper company goes on to publish the recording
>>>>> online, aren't they are also liable for any defamation action?
>>
>>>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>> Why isn't the newspaper company also liable?
>> You are too stupid to understand, stupid.