A MURDER trial into the death of Scott Cooper is approaching its conclusion.

The defence has opened its case today (Wednesday).

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.

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

She spoke of Albanian drug overlords, an 89-second timeframe in which another man could have killed Mr Cooper, and accused Mr Brazier of being a manipulative liar who concocted a false defence.

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

Opening the defence, Ignatius Hughes, for Mr Brazier, said it was not the defence’s case that the murder involved Albanian overlords ordering the execution of Mr Cooper.

He said many of the witnesses didn’t tell the truth, or were unwilling to, including this other male - referred to as Mr X — who, he said, murdered Mr Cooper in a characteristic outburst of explosive violence.

Mr Hughes said there were of course bit-players in this tale, but it was a two-horse race between Mr Brazier and Mr X, and the latter won hands down on motive and character.

Members of the jury were told allegations of the prosecution were not reflected by the evidence heard, and pathological evidence revealed the wounds could have been inflicted in 90 seconds or less.

Mr Hughes said by his count, there were 17 sharp injuries, and 20 seconds would have easily been enough time to inflict them.

He said members of the jury didn’t need an expert to tell them a frenzied attack could take less than a second per stab, and logic told them Mr X killed Mr Cooper — not Mr Brazier.

Mr Hughes said the prosecution’s case was that the green-eyed monster of jealousy and rage killed Mr Cooper in his own home with an immense loss of self-control.

He asked members of the jury why a man in such irresistible rage, acting out of character, made phone calls to Mr X and waited for the arrival of a witness before murdering the victim.

He asked what he was waiting for, and how he managed to contain himself in the 40 minutes between Mr Cooper and Mr X arriving at his flat.

Mr Hughes said it defied logic, and that was why the prosecution wanted members of the jury to become mired in detail.

He said no one died until Mr X arrived, and as soon as he did arrive, Mr Cooper was killed.

Members of the jury were told Mr X was a drug dealer with a long list of conviction involving violence, who was exactly the sort of person to stab someone in an explosive fit of rage.

He said he wouldn’t even need a reason, but had plenty of reasons on that night, and it took a lot to kill a man with such brutality.

He said members of the jury needed to be sure Mr Brazier was the killer to convict him, and there was serious doubt. 

He described Mr Brazier as a common, broken-down drug addict who barely ate or slept — not a vicious killer like Mr X.

Mr Hughes said during the day, drug users and dealers spent time in Mr Brazier’s flat – among them, Mr X.

He said Mr Brazier and one witness regarded Mr Cooper as a harmless buffoon, while another witness said Mr X had pre-existing beef with Mr Cooper, who owed him money.

He said if Mr X wasn’t the killer, and all he did was walk in, was shushed, saw a vicious stabbing and left – which would have been a terrible thing to witness – why saunter out and back in again?

Mr Hughes said Mr X would have needed a compelling reason to return to the address, not once, but twice.

He asked how he could have thought he had dropped his phone in the flat if his account was true, and why he got rid of his clothes, and why they had never been recovered.

The jury were told Mr X refused to tell the truth about what really brought him to the premises.

The trial continues.