The Court was also of the opinion that the physical feats being ascribed to Rayney were simply beyond him, and that the prosecution's case rested on this being somehow premeditated AND spur of the moment.
The fact is that the entire case as near as I can revolved around the fact that the most common scenario when a woman is killed is a break-up is that a husband or boyfriend was the killer, and they simply nailed their colours to the mast far too early and then refused to back down.
I honestly don't think he did it. But even were it otherwise, as you've said, it is absolutely inappropriate to hand our 25+yr sentences for "probably did it". The old Benjamin Franklin "Better ten guilty go free than one innocent punished" is a crucial maxim that sometimes gets lost in today's courts of public appeal and jockeying for case figures by prosecutors
Sorry for quoting you again, but as you may have gathered I was really interested in this case when it was unfolding.
I agree that the prosecution theory never seemed quite right- personally, I think he was involved in her death, but not in a premeditated way, I think a far better theory is that her death that night was completely unplanned or involved some sort of third party, and he was left with a really messy situation.
Also just one general observation about your last comment which doesn't necessarily apply to this case, my experience had been prosecutors are usually pretty reluctant to take on the more iffy cases because they mess up their conviction rates- far easier just to do drug sale/supply cases all day and watch the convictions tick over. That might be different for police prosecutors (because at a risk of a gross generalization they sometimes have no clue what they are doing) but the crown is usually fairly conservative IMO.