Killer showed Louise ‘no mercy’
Trial told ‘clear and compelling case of murder’ despite manslaughter plea
JURORS have been told evidence in the Louise Smith murder trial points to ‘clear and compelling case of murder’ carried out by her aunt’s husband Shane Mays.
Prosecutor James Newton-Price QC said the attack on 16-year-old Louise, pictured, at Havant Thicket on May 8 was beyond that of manslaughter.
Both he and Andrew Langdon QC, for 30-yearold Mays, gave their closing speeches to the 12-strong jury at Winchester Crown Court.
Earlier the judge, Mrs Justice Juliet May, told jurors they must set aside any emotion in reaching a verdict ‘dispassionately and fairly’ on the evidence heard.
Addressing the sociallydistant jury, Mr Newton-Price said ‘despite his plea’ of guilty to manslaughter, Mays ‘even now cannot actually bring himself to admit that he killed her’.
He said: ‘This is a man who cannot face up to what he has done. How many times do you remember he said he didn’t kill her when he gave evidence (on Friday)?
‘We say this attack goes beyond manslaughter and well beyond. This, we submit, is a clear and compelling case of murder.’
Mays denies murder. Louise’s body was found in Havant Thicket, north of the Mays’ flat she was living in with his wife Chazlynn in Ringwood House, Somborne Drive in Leigh Park. He admitted repeatedly punching Louise, and said he lost his temper after she hit him with a stick.
The prosecutor added: ‘He deliberately took Louise to that place, he chose that clearing in that woods. He could have stopped after the first punch. He did not.
‘He chose to abandon her in the woods and chose, really, to afford her no mercy.’
Mr Langdon, defending, said jurors should reject the prosecution case that Mays lured Louise to Havant Thicket with cannabis.
Mr Langdon said: ‘Can you ladies and gentlemen, knowing everything you know about him, exclude the possibility from your minds that he wasn’t just angry but that he lost his temper so completely with such ferocity with such appalling consequences without at any point thinking about what he was doing? And what he intended by it?’ (Proceeding)