Murder accused acted in a 'horrible' way, but not guilty, claims defence
PUBLISHED: 14:49 17 July 2013 | UPDATED: 14:54 17 July 2013
A MURDER defendant acted in a "horrible" way when he buried his former girlfriend's body in Hatfield woodland - but that does not make him guilty of murder, his defence has told jurors.
"What he did to Amelia after he killed her was horrible, but that doesn’t make him guilty of murder"
Jack Wall, 22, was described by prosecutors as “a liar” and “completely calculating” this morning (Wednesday).
The prosecution and defence cases were summed up to jurors at Blackfriars Crown Court, London, ahead of their deliberations.
Wall’s solicitor, who branded the killing “a terrible tragedy” urged the jury to clear his client of murder.
Wall admits manslaughter.
"The first line of his defence was that he didn’t mean to kill her or cause her serious harm has no sustainable or realistic basis to it"
Mohammed Khamisa QC, defending, told the court: “What he did to Amelia after he killed her was horrible, but that doesn’t make him guilty of murder.”
He claimed his client suffered a “loss of control” but did not intend to kill Miss Arnold.
He told jurors: “We’ve got the luxury of time to pause to think, but we weren’t there, we weren’t in the position my client faced.”
Mr Khamisa said Wall had killed Miss Arnold after losing control during a heated argument at her Stevenage home.
And he stated there was not enough evidence to convict Wall of murder.
Jane Bickerstaff QC, prosecuting, had earlier rubbished this assertion.
She said Wall’s actions after he had repeatedly hit Miss Arnold with a dumbbell bar and attempted to strangle her demonstrated Wall’s guilt.
It is thought former Sir Frederic Osborn pupil Miss Arnold could have been in a coma for 30 minutes before she died.
Ms Bickerstaff said: “Did he help? No.
“He stuffed a sock into her mouth to shut her up and make sure she couldn’t breathe.
“The first line of his defence was that he didn’t mean to kill her or cause her serious harm has no sustainable or realistic basis to it.”
She said there was no basis in law for a defence of temporary loss of control, before stating: “He (Wall) is trying to get away with it by lying to you.”
Ms Bickerstaff said the defendant had shown a “clarity of mind” in disposing of evidence, stating: “He was calculating and exhibiting a clarity of mind and an ability to plan.”
Miss Arnold’s body was bound up, before Wall enlisted the help of his uncle, Joseph Potter, to dispose of her.
It was found by police in Travellers Lane, Hatfield, in November last year.
It is thought Miss Arnold died some time between November 7 and 8.
Explaining why Mr Potter had taken to the stand as a prosecution witness, Ms Bickerstaff said: “He may be worth all the criticism levelled at him.
“He’s a seasoned and prolific criminal, but there are some crimes that even the criminals won’t tolerate.”
She urged jurors to find Wall guilty of murder.
Jurors are expected to retire after a judge’s summing up this afternoon.