Rayner guilty of 1st-degree murder in death of young mother

John David Rayner has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the brutal killing of a 23-year-old mother of two in July 2002.

The verdict was handed down Friday morning by Justice Wayne Cheverie in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.

Chrystal Beairsto's body was found in a wooded area off the Confederation Trail, north of Charlottetown. She had been strangled and stabbed. Rayner was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in December 2005, and has been in custody ever since.

Rayner maintained his innocence right to the end.

After finding him guilty, Cheverie asked Rayner if he had anything to say.

Rayner stood, turned to Crown attorney John Diamond, and said, "I hope I haunt you until the day you die because you got the wrong guy, and you know it."

Rayner also claimed Diamond had evidence he didn't present that would have helped prove his innocence.

Outside court, Diamond denied that claim.

"I didn't withhold evidence. The option is always there for the defence to call evidence, and we had made complete and full disclosure. So his counsel also had an opportunity to review the file. So I don't know what he's talking about," Diamond said.

Rayner's lawyer, Chris Manning, decided not to present any evidence during the three-week trial.

Sixty-eight witnesses testified, and 76 pieces of evidence were submitted to the court.

After weighing all the evidence,Cheverie concluded there was enough evidence to convict Rayner of killing Beairsto.

Many unanswered questions

Cheverie admitted the evidence was mostly circumstantial, considering no one saw Rayner commit the crime, no weapon was ever found, and a motive for the killing is still a mystery.

Diamond accepts that even though he got a conviction, there are still many unanswered questions about the murder.

"There are pieces of the puzzle that are still out there. But, from that standpoint, really, the two people who know the answers— one's dead and the other is now in custody for the 25-year period of life."

Rayner's lawyersaid a decision hasn't been made yet on whether to appeal.

During the trial, the Crown's key evidence was a DNA sample found on Beairsto's body. Experts testified it was not an absolute match with Rayner's DNA, but there were "strong indications" it was his.

Diamond admitted to the court in May that the case against Rayner was circumstantial but, he said, it was enough for a conviction.

But Manning, said police were blinded by the DNA evidence. Manning said some evidence points to other suspects, including Beairsto's partner, Al MacKenzie. "The police had tunnel vision for Rayner," said Manning.

Referring to the witnesses who saw Rayner on the trail that day, Manning conceded his client may have looked out of place, but noted he didn't confront, assault or threaten any of the witnesses.

Two witnesses said they saw Rayner on the Confederation Trail the afternoon of the killing. A third testified that, the day before, Rayner was watching and following Beairsto while she was working out.

The Crown said Rayner's own statements confirm he was near the scene of the crime that day.

During the trial, Diamond painted Rayner as a skilled liar, changing his answers to explain away certain evidence.

Rayner's story changed: Crown

Police interviewed Rayner four times. At first, Diamond said, Rayner told police he and Beairsto were friends, that they walked together, biked together, play-wrestled together and that he even bit her toe once.

Rayner also told police he walked the trails almost every day and may have seen Beairsto the day she was killed.

But, as time went on, Diamond contended, Rayner's story changed. The accused man told police he and Beairsto were just casual acquaintances. He insisted he wasn't on the trail that day, he didn't see Beairsto, and may not have seen her for weeks or even months before she died.

Diamond pointed out that when police offered Rayner an opportunity to explain where he was the day of the murder, or who he was with, he refused. The only information Rayner did offer, Diamond says, was an attempt to explain away the DNA evidence he thought police had against him.

Manning said Rayner was being asked to explain the inexplicable— how his DNA could have been found at the scene when he wasn't there. Manning said Rayner adamantly and consistently maintained his innocence through hours and hours of police questioning.