Isle of Wight Scott Cooper murder trial nears conclusion

• UPDATE: Isle of Wight man found not guilty of murdering Scott Cooper

Piers Brazier, of George Street, Ryde, is accused of murdering 33-year-old Scott Edward Cooper in a property on George Street.

His body was found by police on January 4, in a shower cubicle at Mr Brazier’s address.

He had suffered multiple stab wounds, including to the face and neck.

Scott Cooper. (Image: Scott Cooper family)

Yesterday (Tuesday), prosecutor Joanna Martin made her closing speech to the jury. 

Ms Martin told the court Mr Brazier made up lies both in police interview and during the trial, and his evidence was confusing and ever-changing.

Mr Brazier claimed he had been threatened with violence by two other men and feared retribution if he told police he saw one of them stab Scott Cooper.

Members of the jury were told detail was important, and it wasn’t a case to be decided upon broad brush arguments.

Ms Martin conceded some of the witnesses in the case were highly likely to come with agendas of their own and warned that pathological and forensic evidence didn’t give member of the jury ‘the magic bullet’ to determine who killed Scott Cooper.

Isle of Wight Crown Court.

She said Mr Brazier sought to blame another man for the murder, and the pair were the only ones with the character, motive and opportunity to carry out the act.

Ms Martin said this other man, hereafter referred to as Mr X, had an appalling history of violence, and was clearly the sort of person who could have been involved.

She said it was suggested that Mr X had a few possible motives – that Mr Cooper owed him money, that the pair were always fighting, and that Mr Cooper had broken into his girlfriend’s flat.

The fourth and final motive, Ms Martin said, was built on a cinematic backdrop of drug dealers, gangsters and Albanian drug overlords.

But the court heard the latter three were based on information which came solely from Mr Brazier, who had good reason to make out Mr X had a reason to kill the victim.

Mr Brazier claimed Mr Cooper had been a drug runner for Mr X and suggested Albanian drug overlords running the Island directed him to rein in his runner.

The court heard Mr X told police he saw Mr Brazier stab the victim, putting himself at the scene by his own admission.

Ms Martin said Mr X had an 89-second timeframe in which he could have killed Mr Cooper, and while a pathological expert did not rule out that possibility, there were four important elements when looking at the pathological evidence against the narrative.

She said the pathological evidence looked solely at the stab wounds, there were no signs of defensive injuries, suggested the injuries to his neck and eyes were caused when Mr Cooper was not moving, and the injuries to his torso must have been caused after his heart had stopped beating.

By Mr Brazier’s own evidence, Ms Martin said in the 89-second timeframe, Mr X had to make his way to the flat and knock on the door, enter, approach Mr Cooper and deliver an uppercut to his head, kick him in the face, pick up a knife, mount him and stab him multiple times, punch him in the stomach, rise to his feet, produce a second knife and point it at Mr Brazier, issue him a warning, and exit the address.

Ms Martin told members of the jury Mr Brazier’s account didn’t fit with the pathological evidence, which also suggested the wounds to Mr Cooper’s eye and neck were inflicted with a degree of precision.

The court heard the murder weapon, according to Mr Brazier, was a grey-handle knife; one he described in police interview as a fruit knife you wouldn’t hurt anyone with because it was so flimsy.

But conversely, by the time of the trial, Ms Martin said it had taken on considerable importance, and this knife – among many – could have been the murder weapon.

No blood was found on the knife, but DNA was matched to Mr X, Mr Cooper, and three other unknown individuals.

To be the murder weapon and fit into the time frame, Ms Martin said Mr X would have had to take the knife away with him, carefully washed off all visible and chemically perceptible blood, and returned the knife to the crime scene during a second visit – and yet somehow leave DNA for five people on the blade and handle.

She said it was an utterly implausible scenario, and a more realistic explanation was that the knife was not the murder weapon, the flat was used by many people as a drug den, and the knife could have picked up DNA from various people at various times.

The court heard another object Mr Brazier’s version of events relied upon was Mr X’s mobile phone.

In police interview, Mr X told officers he returned to Mr Brazier’s address after witnessing the murder, upon realising he had lost his phone.

She went through a call log with members of the jury, which she said supported Mr X’s version of events, and highlighted Mr Brazier’s lies.

Ms Martin said Mr Brazier showed absolutely no remorse for the death of Mr Cooper from the outset and was concerned only for himself.

She said he was a manipulative liar who concocted a false defence, knowing no one was going to believe he acted in self-defence with the number of stab wounds inflicted.

Ms Martin told members of the jury Mr Brazier sought to portray himself as a harmless drug addict to be pitied, doing everything he could to cover up and get away with the murder.

She said his relationship with his girlfriend was complicated, and it was suggested she could have even had an affair with Mr Cooper.

Ms Martin said Mr Brazier certainly believed she was having an affair with someone, and wondered if that had led to festering resentment for Mr Cooper.

She said there was no doubt Mr Brazier had the character, motive and opportunity to kill Mr Cooper.

The defence is due to conclude its case, as the trial continues.