The judge in the trial of Jeffrey Gilham, the man accused of killing his parents at their Woronora home, has told the jury that while the prosecution's case may be circumstantial, it does not mean it is not an overwhelming case.
Justice Roderick Howie was summing up at the Supreme Court trial on Thursday, April 3, before he sends the jury out to reach a verdict.
He expects to send them out on Friday or Monday.
Talking about the case, Justice Howie said there was no knockout blow from the prosecution.
"Simply because this is a circumstantial case, it doesn't mean that it's not an effective case or that it's a weak case or that in some ways it's not as good as a knockout case," Justice Howie said.
"The simple fact is that a circumstantial case can be an overwhelming case."
Gilham, 38, is accused of murdering his parents, Steven and Helen Gilham, and then stabbing his brother to death so that he could blame it on him and inherit his parents' money.
He has pleaded not guilty to murdering his parents in 1993.
He claims that he killed his brother Christopher after finding him standing over their parents' dead bodies, setting fire to their mother.
Gilham, who now works for the RTA,pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Christopher two years later, in 1995.
Justice Howie told the jury that their lives had been harder by the fact that the case was taking place 15 years after the killings, and much of the evidence, including the murder weapon, had been destroyed.
The prosecution has argued that Gilham washed himself and the knife after the killings, but Justice Howie said: "As to the knife, there seems to me to be no evidence or no sufficient evidence upon which you could conclude, even to the possibility that there was no visible
blood on this knife."
The shave coat that Christopher was wearing at the time of his death has been destroyed, too.
Testing on the shave coat at the time had found no traces of Helen or Steven's blood on it, which the Crown claimed had shown that he had not stabbed them.
But Justice Howie said the tests carried out in 1993, before DNA testing, were rudimentary.
"There are very little inferences that can be taken from the testing of the shave coat in 1993," Justice Howie said.
It would be dangerous to draw any conclusions on the shave coat without DNA evidence.
On Wednesday, the court heard that Jeffrey Gilham did not siphon petrol to burn his family's house down after killing his parents, according to his defense.
Phillip Boulten SC for the defence, in his closing speech, said the case against Gilham had been riddled with inconsistencies and fitted together with tortured logic.
He told the Supreme Court that the allegation that Gilham had killed Steven and Helen Gilham, and then stabbed his brother to death, so that he could blame it on him and inherit his parents' money was "plain nonsense".
The Crown claims Jeffrey's breath smelt of petrol after the killings because he had tried to siphon petrol to start the fire and destroy the evidence.
After the incident, Gilham ran to the house of his neighbour Ted Warner, who had told the court previously that he smelt the fuel on his breath.
But Mr Boulten said: "There's no compelling evidence that Jeffrey Gilham had petrol on his breath.
"What was smelt was the smell of turps that had been burnt, smoke infused with turps.
"This smell was apparent because Jeffrey had been exposed to the burning turps."
On Tuesday, Mr Boulten had said that Gilham had killed his older brother in an extreme reaction to gross provocation.
"No good reason exists to explain why Jeffrey Gilham killed his mother and father," Mr Boulten said.
"Jeffrey Gilham saw his parents on fire. He had been told that they had been murdered by his brother and he could only think of one thing."
Mr Boulten told the jury they had a difficult job as much of the evidence had been destroyed after Gilham pleaded guilty to killing his brother.
"It would be easier for you if there was a knockout punch," he said. "There's a circumstantial case here."
Mr Boulten said it did not make sense that Jeffrey had killed his parents because at the time, his life was going well while Christopher had problems.
The Crown had argued that all three people killed had been stabbed to death in the same way, but Mr Boulten argued against their evidence.
"There is no magic connection between the pattern of wounds on Christopher compared with the pattern of wounds on his parents, he said.
"I would ask you to be careful not to elevate this evidence to some kind of magical science."
The trial continues.