Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, and Advocate James Bell, defending, both delivered their closing statements in the Royal Court yesterday. Commissioner Sir William Bailhache was then due to begin summing up before the jury can begin their deliberation.
Jamie Lee Warn (57) is accused of murdering 37-year-old Zsuzsanna Besenyei in 2018 and later disposing of her body at Le Pulec Bay, colloquially known as Stinky Bay. He denies one count of murder and two counts of perverting the course of justice.
Closing the prosecution case, Crown Advocate Thomas said all the evidence pointed to Mr Warn.
He said: ‘If you conclude that he was there [at Stinky Bay] it follows that he knew where her body was and what had happened to it.’
Mr Thomas also alleged that when Mr Warn phoned the police, he did so claiming that he had ‘just found out’ that Miss Besenyei was missing.
He also told the court that Mr Warn had attempted to cover his tracks, adding: ‘Someone doesn’t act in that way unless he is covering something up. The fact is that he had murdered his secret lover.
‘You can’t decide this case by compartmentalising the evidence. It’s essential you stand back and look at the evidence as a whole. Look at the different evidence in chronological order and put the evidence in a timeline. The starting point we know is that the defendant and Miss Besenyei had known each other for some time. By 2018 there was a sexual aspect to their relationship. Why else would someone send them intimate pictures of themselves? The days prior to the murder, money was an issue between them.
‘He [Mr Warn] was calm, collected, measured. There was no panic on his part at all. This wasn’t a moment of madness.’
Advocate Bell questioned whether someone had killed Ms Besenyei or whether her death had been accidental or had another explanation.
He told the court that the neck injury Miss Besenyei had sustained could be consistent with a sexual act. He pointed to her having been on dating sites, sexting or sending sexual messages and to that fact that some sex toys had been found at her home. Advocate Bell stated that Miss Besenyei had not complained about the injury in any of her messages, which could mean that it was self-inflicted or caused during sexual activity.
He said: ‘It leaves open the possibility that serious injury can be caused by sexual activity when no harm was intended. In fact, the intention would be pleasure.’
He questioned where the evidence was of the mechanics that caused her death, asking: ‘Can natural causes be excluded? Was there significant injury not consistent with a prolonged altercation? Was there a clear crime scene? There is no evidence he would want to harm her. There are no messages to suggest he was aggressive or violent.’
Mr Warn denies the charges and the trial continues.