Prosecutors have argued "every skerrick" of evidence suggested a husband accused of murder fatally stabbed his wife before blaming her father and brother for her death.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Lawyers for Maged Mohommed Ahmed Al-Harazi, 36, said the Crown's argument his desire to return to Yemen created a motive for him to kill Sabah Al-Mdwali, 28, was "a very long bow to draw" as jurors prepared to weigh his guilt or innocence.
Mr Al-Harazi is fighting allegations he stabbed Ms Al-Mdwali to death inside their Gordon home in March 2015.
The Crown said a heated five-hour argument between the couple culminated in Mr Al-Harazi, who was desperate to move and under financial pressure, plunging a knife into his wife 57 times in a "frenzied" attack as she breastfed their infant son.
The accused maintained Ms Al-Mdwali's father and brother killed her after they showed up at the couple's home and asked him to leave.
Mr Al-Harazi's ACT Supreme Court trial, now in its fifth week, heard evidence from about 100 witnesses.
Prosecutor Shane Drumgold finished his closing submission to the jury on Tuesday, when he said overwhelming forensic and mobile phone tower evidence showed the two men hadn't gone to the house that night.
The couple's daughter told the trial she saw her father standing over Ms Al-Mdwali and blood on his white shirt that night, while their son admitted Mr Al-Harazi told him to tell police his grandfather killed his mother, he said.
"We say [Mr Al-Harazi] killed Sabah Al-Mdwali in the early hours of March 17, 2015, and tried to blame [her father and brother], and that every skerrick of evidence in this very thorough investigation supports that theory.
"If you agree, you must return a verdict of guilty."
Defence barrister Ken Archer said he would begin with several "challenging" observations at the start of his "warts and all address" to the jury.
He said it was obvious Mr Al-Harazi, who used an Arabic interpreter throughout proceedings, was raised in a different culture and brought the values and outlook of another community.
"From the evidence my client presents as somewhat of an outsider.
"He brings a very patriarchal view of the world, that is very apparent.
"He is dealing with the processes of the criminal justice system as someone who doesn't understand English, that's important to understand."
Mr Archer said the jury might have seen his client praying throughout proceedings, which could seem unusual, but that wasn't a reason to take an adverse view of Mr Al-Harazi or give his evidence less weight.
"It's clear, my client did not step back from this, his preference was to live in Yemen. There's no doubt about that.
"To draw from that desire a motive to kill is, in my submission, drawing a very long bow."
Mr Archer said there was no direct evidence Mr Al-Harazi killed his wife and argued the jury should view evidence of the couple's children as quite unreliable.
He said it was important to view in context an agreement struck between Mr Al-Harazi and his father-in-law, which required the accused to replace damaged furniture and buy jewellery if Ms Al-Mdwali were to return home after an argument.
"This was a male world, it was a Yemeni world, it was a material world."
He questioned why Mr Al-Harazi would have reported his wife's death to police if he committed the crime. Parts of the investigation indicated detectives had "made up their minds early" about who killed Ms Al-Mdwali, he said.
"The evidence is wide, vast, technical and different. The circumstances, values and behaviour of individuals are not routine."
Justice Richard Refshauge is set to address the jury on Wednesday.
