In the end, it all boiled down to three simple words — "prime", "only" and "suspect".

Was Major Crime Squad Inspector Jack Lee justified in naming barrister Lloyd Rayney as the "prime" and "only" suspect in the high-profile murder of his wife Corryn?

Or should the state have to pay millions of dollars in damages to Mr Rayney for ruining his reputation?

Another chapter in one of WA's most controversial, intriguing and unsolved criminal cases closed this week, and those three little words were central to what has unfolded over the past few months in the Supreme Court, where Mrs Rayney worked as a registrar.

When she died in August 2007, no one could have predicted that almost a decade on her killer would still be at large, her family would be torn apart, and her husband would claim he was entitled to millions of dollars from WA taxpayers for the destruction of his reputation.

It is this last issue that has seen the Supreme Court revisit in great detail events surrounding Mrs Rayney's death, which Mr Rayney has always denied having anything to do with, and how police handled their investigation.

The now-infamous words were uttered by the then-head of the Major Crime Squad, Inspector Jack Lee, at a packed media conference in September 2007, about six weeks after Mrs Rayney's murder.

"Prime", "only" and "suspect" — not strung together in one phrase, but all used to describe at various points — was how police regarded Mr Rayney in the investigation into his wife's death.

'Public ridicule and abuse'

Mr Rayney said from the moment those words were uttered his reputation as a highly successful barrister was ruined and he, along with his immediate family, became the subject of "public ridicule and abuse" that continues to this day.

He wants more than $11 million in lost earnings and is also seeking compensation for "aggravated damages" for the "distress and anxiety" he and his family have suffered.

The state disagreed.

Liquidambar pods were found in Mrs Rayney's hair. ( Supplied by the Supreme Court )

It said the comments would not have led an "ordinary listener" to come to the conclusion Mr Rayney was guilty.

It also sought to prove that it was Mr Rayney's own behaviour in the weeks after his wife's death that led police to consider him a suspect.

This argument relies on a detailed list of 33 circumstances and 27 instances of Mr Rayney's conduct that it claims made the "prime" and "only" suspect comments reasonable and justified.

They include:

The "acrimonious" breakdown in the Rayney marriage

The "acrimonious" breakdown in the Rayney marriage Evidence of Mr Rayney arranging for calls from the home telephone to be recorded

Evidence of Mr Rayney arranging for calls from the home telephone to be recorded Mr Rayney's "lack of cooperation", including not allowing police to conduct a second interview with him and his daughters

Mr Rayney's "lack of cooperation", including not allowing police to conduct a second interview with him and his daughters The belief the crime occurred at the Rayney's Como home

The belief the crime occurred at the Rayney's Como home Physical evidence, including the discovery of liquidambar seed pods in Mrs Rayney's hair and a liquidambar tree growing in the Rayneys' front yard

Physical evidence, including the discovery of liquidambar seed pods in Mrs Rayney's hair and a liquidambar tree growing in the Rayneys' front yard The statistical likelihood of a woman being killed by her spouse.

Lloyd Rayney 'still most significant suspect'

Called to the stand one by one, a succession of police officers defended their beliefs, testifying that while there were other "persons of interest", Mr Rayney at that time, was "the most significant suspect".

Some, including Inspector Lee, said they still held that belief.

The head of the investigation, Det. Snr Sgt Carlos Correia, said Mr Rayney could not be excluded "to this day".

There was evidence from witnesses police had interviewed in 2007, including Julie Porter, a neighbour and good friend of Mrs Rayney, who testified she "realised he (Mr Rayney) killed her" during a meeting they had in the days before Mrs Rayney's funeral.

Family torn apart

Members of Mrs Rayney's family were also called to the stand, laying bare the bitter rift that has divided the family.

Her sister Sharon Coutinho testified she had a "gut feeling" that her brother-in-law "had something to do with" her sister's disappearance. Her husband Rohan told the court he still believed Mr Rayney killed her.

Caitlyn (left) and Sarah Rayney remain staunchly supportive of their father. ( ABC News: Courtney Bembridge )

Corryn and Lloyd Rayney's daughters Caitlyn and Sarah were only 13 and 10 when their mother died.

Both now in their 20s and living overseas, they remain staunchly supportive of their father and equally dismissive of their once-close aunt, uncle and grandfather.

Sarah Rayney said she no longer called her maternal grandfather Ernest Da Silva "Pappy."

"Because of the actions they have undertaken, and the way they have treated my father, my sister and me, I no longer refer to him as anything so familiar. He is Ernest to me," she testified.

Mr Rayney also took the stand — only the second time he has publicly testified under oath about events surrounding his wife's death.

He described "the unimaginable stress and pressure" he had suffered since being publicly named the prime and only suspect, including the loss of career prospects and fears police were trying to frame him for the murder, which could result in him spending the rest of his life in prison.

Wife murder 'fantastically improbable'

His lawyers highlighted evidence about two other violent sex offenders who lived near the Rayney home and whom they claimed had not been investigated properly.

One of them, Allon Lacco, was alleged to have boasted to an acquaintance before her death that a body was going to be dumped in Kings Park.

Lacco has always denied having anything to do with Mrs Rayney's death.

It would have taken up to three hours for Mr Rayney to have walked home, his lawyers say. ( Graeme Powell: ABC )

Mr Rayney's side also focussed on the "fantastically improbable" and "inconceivable" theory that he could have physically committed the crime.

This would have involved him incapacitating his wife, waiting for his daughter Caitlyn to return home from a concert, waiting for her to go to sleep, driving to Kings Park, digging a deep grave and burying her, then walking home (a two or three-hour journey) without being seen, before being up early to get his daughters ready for school.

He then went to work to represent a senior police officer at a Corruption and Crime Commission hearing into the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard, according to witnesses, showing no signs of what police alleged he had done the night before.

Yet the defamation case was not about determining whether Lloyd Rayney murdered his wife. He has always maintained his innocence and in 2012 after a lengthy criminal trial, was found not guilty — a verdict upheld on appeal.

Instead it was about determining whether police were justified and reasonable in making the comments they did, and if they were not, determining how much compensation Mr Rayney should receive.

After the hearing ended Mr Rayney spoke briefly to express his relief it was over.

"All I've ever wanted was a fair hearing and I achieved that," he said.

Justice John Chaney is expected to take months to deliver a judgement, but when that does happen, it's unlikely to mean an end to the case which after a decade seems no closer to being solved.