Derick John Sands, 40, lost a defamation case against television networks Seven and ABC after they named him in 2004 as a suspect in the murder of Corinna Marr.

Sands, a former photographer for the Messenger newspaper, stated that his career, personal life and reputation was ruing by the broadcasts.

In their defence, Seven and ABC put together a case as to why they named Sands as a suspect, stating that substantial information relating Sands to the case meant that his ties to Marr could not be ignored, justifying them in naming him as the main suspect for the still un-solved murder.

On July 4th, 1997, a twenty-five year old woman by the name of Corinna Marr was murdered in the Collinswood unit she shared with her husband, Robert. According to police, she was shot at close range with a small calibre, semi-automatic pistol.

The murder has remained un-solved for the last twelve years, all though the police have stated they have a clear suspect in the murder.

To try and understand what happened to Marr on that day, the police have interviewed all those who knew the former real estate agent and part-time model. Soon afterwards, Corinna's husband Robert, and several other friends and relatives were cleared as suspects.

On the day in question, Corinna finished work early to go home and prepare for a modelling job she had that evening at the Woodville hotel. It has been revealed that only a handful of people knew she had left work early, which means either she was murdered by someone she knew, or her murder was a case of mistaken identity, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, evidence gained from the unit, has stated that this is not likely, and that Corinna knew her attacker.

Police have stated that at 3pm Corinna had a shower and at 3.15pm neighbours heard the sound of a hairdryer coming from the unit. At 3.45pm, Corinna's husband Robert, returned home to find her on the floor in their bedroom. He tried to resuscitate her and phoned the ambulance. They arrived at 4pm and declared her to be dead.

Giving evidence at the defamation case, Ms Carr's former boss, Colin Todd, told the court how on that day in question, he was due to accompany Corinna to the Woodville hotel as her husband would be working and couldn't go with her.

Todd was supposed to pick up Ms Carr between 3.30pm and 3.45pm. At 4pm, he called the unit to notify her he was running, obviously, late. He told the court he was 'shocked' when her husband Robert answered the phone.

'Robert said "Corinna's dead, what the fuck have you done?"' Todd revealed.

Mr Todd told the court that he was one of the first people interviewed at the murder scene, and police immediately performed a test on his clothing for gunshot residue.

He was cleared as a suspect.

Mr Todd was asked to give evidence in the defamation case as he had evidence concurring with police information that Derick Sands knew Corinna Marr, and that she had allegedly been having a relationship with him.

According to Mr Todd, Ms Marr told him on the day she was murdered that she had spoken to Sands on the phone, and that she was having an affair with him.

In December 1997 Todd rang Mr Sands and they agreed to meet for lunch at the Tea Tree Gully hotel. Mr Todd told the court he asked Sands straight-out if he had killed Corinna, to which Sands replied 'no'. Mr Todd then stated that he had told Sands to tell the police the truth about his relationship with Corinna. Sands had stated that yes, he and Corinna had ended up naked in bed together but that 'nothing happened.' Mr Todd stated that he did not believe this to be the case.

As for Derick Sands, he has given three versions of his whereabouts on the day of Corinna's murder.

He first stated that on the afternoon of the 4th of July 1997 he was in the dark room all afternoon at the Salisbury office. When aasked to explain, therefore, why his boss had not been able to contact him on the afternoon in question, Sands replied that he must have left the office 'to buy a drink'.

Then, in 2004, Sands produced job sheets that proved he was working in areas no where near Collinswood on the afternoon.

However, it was revealed that Sands had lied on these job sheets, as work he claimed to have carried out himself, were carried out by another.

Justice Bleby, presiding over the defamation case, said: 'One of them (the job sheets) related to a job carried out by him (Sands) during the afternoon, which as the plaintiff well knew, was not carried out by him.

'Yet it was presented, along with other job sheets of the day, as evidence which might suggest that he was engaged on that assignment at the time of the murder.'

During cross-examination at the trial, Sands then stated he was actually in Elizabeth during that afternoon, and had visited a bank and took his girlfriend's computer for repair before having lunch and returning to the office. However, Sands' former girlfriend told the court that at the time she did not own a computer, and would use Sands' instead.

Said Justice Bleby: 'The plaintiff's evidence as to these events smacks of recent invention with further attempts to buttress it in rebuttal when it did not quite fit in with other evidence given after his initial cross-examination... the fact of the matter is that (Sands) has given, or has suggested, three different accounts of his movements on the afternoon of 4th of July, 1997.'

Justice Bleby also stated that as early as August 1997, Sands knew the police where interested in his whereabouts on the afternoon of the 4th of July 1997, and that: 'if there was somethign exculpatory in his diary for that day he would have noted that and would have mentioned it to police.'

Collegues were called to the stand during the trial to give evidence against Sands. One stated that Sands had allegedly told her during a conversation that he (Sands) had spoken to Marr on the day she was murdered. Another stated that Sands had written the following words on a farewell card: 'Good luck for the future - keep out of trouble - Ra Ra Ra, and I didn't do it."

Sands stated to the court that he could not remember what his message 'refers to exactly.'

Around the same time as Sands was named by Seven as a suspect in the Marr murder, it was also revealed on the Today Tonight show that he had been in a relationship with politician Trish Draper. Draper, the liberals so-called 'Golden Girl' had landed in hot water after she named Sands as her spouse and took him on a tax-payer funded trip overseas. Sands had been involved in a relationship with another woman at this point, and on hearing the story, the woman left him.

Draper, meanwhile, told Federal Parliment in 2004 that she 'was not awre when she was in a relationship with her former partner that he had been involved in a police investigation into a matter that occured eight years ago.' Draper revealed at the time that she had only learnt of 'certain matters' relating to her ex partner 'in the last few months.'

Though Sands claims in his defamation case that his career was ruined by the allegations made by seven and ABC, his bosses revealed that he (Sands) lost his job after being given repeated warnings about his conduct.

In his findings Justice Bleby stated: 'It is not for me to say why the plaintiff has lied. Although they may not be evidence of guilt, his lies may properly be included as grounds on which to be base a reasonable suspicion.

In my opinion all the circumstances I have described constitute reasonable grouns on which the plaintiff, as at May, 2004, could properly have been suspected of the murder of Corinna Marr.

I stress that these findings are made on the balance of probabilities and that they are not findings that, even on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff in fact murdered Corinna Marr.'

Having lost the case, it is expected that Sands will be called to pay the legal costs of Channel 7 and the ABC, which could very well could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

G-Opinion

How foolish of Mr Sands. Back in 2004 only two networks (7 and ABC) named him as a suspect, and we as the public were not fully aware of the circumstances surrounding his involvment with Ms Marr. Yet thanks to the defamation case, the detailed reasoning as to why 7 and ABC named him as a suspect have been given, which, I must admit, does not plant Mr Sands in a good light.

There are obvious questions that need to be asked, including: What was the true nature of your relationship with Corinna Marr, and also, why did you change your story three times as to your whereabouts on the 4th of July 1997?

Granted; if someone asked me what I was doing on that date I couldn't tell you after twelve long years. I know I was in my final year of high school, but that is about it.

Yet had I been asked a month after the 4th of July what I had been doing I would have been able to tell you. If not from memory, if consulting my diary, which I have always been good at doing.

Had Mr Sands not been able to remember his movements a month on from the 4th of July 1997 (which is extremely plausible) than why did he not tell them he simply could not remember, instead of changing his story to three completely different scenarios?

Now, it seems, Mrs Sands has been painted in a far worse light than when the defamation case began. Not because it has been ruled that 7 and ABC had every right to name him as a suspect, but because it seems now that Sands is not a truthful person.

And, because he lost the defamation case, we all now know his name. It has also meant that many media outlets, previously unable to mention Sands' name in connection to the murder of Corinna Marr, are now able to.