Hi everyone. I have been following cases on here for years with interest but rarely comment. However, there is something I noticed that I don't think anyone has mentioned. I studied criminal law in the UK and I don't know how similar NZ criminal law is but what I noticed is to do with previous convictions. In the UK, there is a lot of law around 'bad character' evidence as it is called. It is determined before a trial whether or not previous convictions can be admitted as evidence but once the trial commences, there are 7 ways they can be introduced. One of the ways is if the defendant or any of his/her representatives speaks negatively about the victim or any witnesses. In plain English, if they slag off anyone else, they become free game.
I noticed when the Defence began presenting their case, he started going to great lengths to make it clear Grace had done nothing wrong.
"I want to be 100 per cent clear there is no blame attributed to Grace, and there should be no shame."
Why not blame Grace? The defendant was fighting for his life and nobody else was in the room. He could have totally blamed her. This makes me strongly believe he has previous convictions. Incidentally, I noticed the same thing in the Vincent Tabak (Joanna Yeates) case when the Defence was very careful about not blaming Joanna for inviting VT in for a drink and it transpired that VT had pictures of women being strangled on his laptop.
Anyway, just my thoughts!