An asylum seeker accused of stabbing to death a hotel worker has put forward a “laughable” defence in the face of CCTV evidence which could not be clearer, a murder trial has heard.
In her closing speech to the jury at Wolverhampton Crown Court, prosecutor Michelle Heeley KC alleged that Deng Chol Majek had been “utterly callous” when he was seen dancing in a car park after Rhiannon Whyte had been stabbed more than 20 times.
Majek, originally from Sudan, is alleged to have followed the 27-year-old victim from Walsall’s Park Inn hotel, where she worked and he was living, to Bescot Stadium station, where she was attacked and left for dead.
The court has heard she died three days later in hospital, having suffered a fatal brain injury.
The defendant, who is being assisted in court by an Arabic interpreter, denies murder, claiming a figure caught on CCTV at the station and then visiting local shops to buy beer is not him, and that DNA evidence incriminating him is wrong.
Addressing jurors on Thursday, Ms Heeley said: “Ladies and gentlemen, you have a stark choice. Do you accept the evidence of an independent forensic scientist, or do you believe the defendant who sat silently in interview, with no answers to police questions?
“Do you accept the detailed, colour CCTV footage of the attacker in identical clothing to the defendant, or do you believe the defendant when he says ‘it’s not me’.
“You may think it’s not really a difficult question. I suggest his answers to you are laughable. He is trying to meet the overwhelming evidence, and he has failed.”
Ms Heeley added: “He had no answer in interview, he knew he was guilty and that is why he sat silently.”
Majek claims to be 19 but is aged 27 if a date of birth used by German authorities is accurate, the court has heard.
Asking jurors to consider what issues Majek was prepared to lie about, Ms Heeley said: “You do not need to resolve how old the defendant was, but I suggest it is telling that the Italian and German authorities had his date of birth as the same date and month that he gave to you, the 1st of January.
“If he is prepared to lie about that to you, what else is he prepared to lie about?”
The Crown counsel said of the CCTV evidence presented to the jury: “This defendant can be seen clearly, wearing that jacket with the different colour arms, black combats, a man bag and sandals.”
Some of the CCTV cameras did not provide the clearest picture, Ms Heeley said, but parts of the footage were “in perfect technicolour” and could not be clearer, particularly in a shop alleged to have been visited by Majek.
“The suggestion that it is anyone other than this defendant is just ridiculous,” Ms Heeley said, adding of the defendant’s return to the hotel after the stabbing: “He changes his shoes, from the bloodstained sandals to white trainers, and then he goes outside with his speaker and dances.
“He is celebrating, his mood has changed from that prolonged scowl in the cafe before the murder to dancing and joy after the murder. It is utterly callous.”
Defence barrister Gurdeep Garcha KC addressed the jury following Ms Heeley’s speech.
He began by describing Ms Whyte’s loss as a tragedy and a “waste of a young life”.
“A female walking from work to a railway station being attacked in a frenzied assault is every parent’s worst nightmare,” Mr Garcha told the court.
The KC added that the trial was “as sad a case as it’s possible to imagine” as he urged jurors not to treat it as “some sort of referendum” on issues surrounding the issue of asylum.
“Mr Majek is not on trial and he has not been charged based on the fact he is an asylum seeker,” he said. “The only issue is has the prosecution made you sure that he’s the person that followed Rhiannon Whyte and inflicted those injuries upon her.”
At the conclusion of his remarks to the jury, Mr Garcha submitted that Majek’s account to the court had been comprehensive and consistent.
He also argued that there was a clear and unassailable body of evidence pointing away from Majek being the attacker.
“There are very significant gaps in the prosecution evidence and given those gaps, the question for you is and remains can you be sure that he is the attacker in view of all the gaps and all the evidence that they don’t have,” he said.
Majek also denies possessing a screwdriver as an offensive weapon.
The trial continues.
