Emma Caldwell: Lawyer said accused should not be 'bogeyman'

Defence KC Ronnie Renucci said Iain Packer “may be a lot of things”, but that it did not follow he killed the 27-year-old.

Mr Renucci also suggested the police could have done more to prove where the 51-year-old was in the hours before the crime.

Packer denies a total of 36 charges of physical and sexual violence involving 25 women including the murder of Miss Caldwell at the remote Limefield Woods in Biggar, South Lanarkshire on April 5, 2005.

Mr Renucci was addressing jurors at the High Court in Glasgow for a second day as he completed his closing speech.

The women in the case mainly consist of 17 sex workers and those Packer was living with at the time as well as a then-teenage girl he allegedly raped.

The trial has heard evidence from them as well as police statements from those who have since passed away.

Mr Renucci stated: “Iain Packer may be a lot of things, but even if you thought he was guilty of every other charge, it does not follow that if he did that then he is capable of another thing…much, much more serious.”

The defence advocate went on to suggest that if Packer - known as a regular user of prostitutes - was responsible for the offences he was “hiding in plain sight almost”.

Mr Renucci said to jurors: “It is easy to make Iain Packer the ‘bogeyman’ in this, that he has assaulted these women all those years.

“He is an easy target. If he has (committed the offences), how did he get away with it all these years?

“The truth I suggest is that it is not him.

“This is not television. This is real life. You have one chance to make the right decision.

“You cannot come back next week and have another go.”

The advocate said there was "not one piece of evidence" to put Packer in the area of Glasgow where Miss Caldwell was last seen.

Mr Renucci: "Iain Packer was not there that night. He did not pick up Emma Caldwell and did not murder her.

"The Crown simply want you to overlook that.

"There is not a trace of DNA evidence linking him to Emma Caldwell."

He added there was "nothing to place" the young woman in the blue van Packer is said to have driven to Limefield Woods.

Mr Renucci further stated there was "no blood, fingerprints or bodily fluids" found.

He spoke of no CCTV evidence or vehicle recognition technology that night detecting his works van which he described as "hardly inconspicuous" and not "a nondescript saloon".

The lawyer said jurors were being asked to accept the accounts of some witnesses who had not always told the truth.

He accepted Packer had also told "lies" - but he stated that because he did "does not make the opposite true".

Mr Renucci further referred to a statement Packer gave to detectives in 2005 in which he said he may have been at home or working away on the night of the murder.

Regarding any job records for Packer, The KC said: "Police could have easily checked back then, but they do not seem to have been bothered.

"If they did not follow up then that is their problem.

"It is not for him to prove where he was. How did he know in 2005 that he would be charged 15 or 16 years later?

"Had police followed up then we might not be here today."

He also mentioned evidence about soil found in Packer's van said to be a 97% match for samples taken from close to the area in the woods where Miss Caldwell's naked body was found on May 8, 2005.

But, Mr Renucci said, "science was not always definitive".

The KC concluded by claiming that putting all the evidence together would leave jurors with "some doubt".

He stated: "I ask you to give him that benefit of doubt and acquit him."

Lord Beckett went on to begin his legal directions to the jury.

He initially spoke about sexual offences and the delays in alleged victims reporting them, which has happened in this trial.

The judge said: "You must not assume because it came later, that it is untrue."

Lord Beckett stated for some it can be a "long time" before they come forward, others may not speak about it at all.

He will continue his directions tomorrow.