David Webber

Their case was that she was attacked most likely in the family home and her body was disposed of in a way that's never been determined.

The evidence was more about the lies that he told over the years and the motive perhaps being, or as it was being put by the prosecution, was the life insurance policy had been taken out in her name.

But also before that, the marriage difficulties that I referred to before had led to her initiating a family court action or going to see a lawyer to perhaps

look at the possibility of breaking up with her husband and she would have the kids.

And as the prosecutor said, he stood to lose everything.

As a result of that, she wanted the house, she wanted the car, she wanted some money to be able to support her and the children.

She was a stay-at-home mum.

She didn't have the option to be going to work.

That's kind of typical of the time.

You wouldn't necessarily get all of those things.

But he was, I guess, from the prosecution's point of view, staring down the barrel of not just losing his wife and access to the kids, but the issue being that he was really going to lose everything.

In Ben Stanwyck saying that he stood to lose just about everything, he also made the point that he stood to gain significantly from her death.

There was a life insurance policy taken out in her name, around $120,000, a very significant amount of money in those.

I mean, it's still significant now, but back in 1986, a very significant amount of money, taken out weeks before she disappeared.

So that was sitting there.

There wasn't an attempt to claim on that immediately after her disappearance, but

I would suggest that that would have raised alarm bells.

It wasn't until some years later that he tried to claim.

And it's a little bit vexed, that issue.

It wasn't detailed in court, the extent to which he was paid out.