Claims Wisbech death suspect preyed on vulnerable women 'rubbish', court hears
David Newton's defence team have given their closing comments
Last updated 6th Feb 2025
Claims made by prosecutors that a man accused of murdering an 86-year-old widow in Wisbech "preyed on vulnerable old women" are "rubbish", a court has heard.
David Newton's defence barrister Henry Grunwald KC made the comment in his closing speech today (Wednesday).
Newton denies murdering Una Crown at her home in Magazine Lane in January 2013.
Mr Grunwald told jurors at Cambridge Crown Court that Newton was "married for quite some time" and would regularly take his dog for walks.
He said that at around 8.30pm on January 12, 2013 - the night prosecutors believe Mrs Crown was murdered - Newton "had a dog with him" close to where Mrs Crown lived.
Prosecution claims 'rubbish'
Mr Grunwald said a woman recalled the time she saw Newton at this time when she returned home from shopping.
"The Crown say their case is Una was murdered, not in the early hours of the next morning, but on that Saturday probably before 9pm," he told jurors.
"If at the time the Crown say Newton had an opportunity and took it to do whatever he did (in Mrs Crown's house), where's the dog?"
Mr Grunwald argued there was "no evidence of any dog hairs" found inside Mrs Crown's house and no evidence Newton left the dog and returned to her home.
He said prosecutors claimed that Newton "preys on vulnerable old women - rubbish."
Newton 'didn't persist in anything'
Jurors were reminded of a statement from Carol Hall - who was married to one of Mrs Crown's cousins - about an incident that happened at her home in December 2000.
Mrs Hall said that she was going to bingo when she answered the door to Newton, who was selling raffle tickets.
After telling Newton to leave to get dressed, Mrs Hall saw that he stayed while she was unchanged and said to her that "I've always loved you" before leaving.
Mrs Hall said she was "really frightened on that occasion".
In response, Mr Grunwald said Mrs Hall was eight years older than Newton, who was 46-years-old at the time of the incident.
"(There was) no violence and when he (Newton) was asked to, he left; he didn't persist in anything," he told the court.
DNA questions
Mr Grunwald questioned the value of the DNA linking Newton to Mrs Crown's death.
The court has heard how DNA samples were taken from Mrs Crown's nail clippings in 2013.
But after they were re-examined in 2023, male DNA was found which prosecutors say likely came from Newton as no male relatives lived nearby.
Mr Grunwald told jurors that nail clippings taken for examination in 2013 were "missing, go missing they did and completely without any explanation as how that happened".
Earlier in the trial, prosecutor John Price KC told the court that it was around 28,000 times more likely that the DNA profile originated from Newton or a close paternal-line male relative of his than an unknown male individual.
Some of Newton's close male relatives were excluded from being a match through DNA testing.
In response, Mr Grunwald said "we're dealing with a database that consists of 28,000 profiles and that database is anonymous,", and that it was unclear "where the database came from."
Addressing jurors, he said that forensic teams "cannot say with any confidence you can be satisfied it is his (Newton's DNA)" and that there is "no research" on where the match may have come from.
The trial continues.