Venod Skantha (32), in the High Court at Dunedin, is accused of killing the 16-year-old as she lay on her bed at her Corsrtorphine home on February 2 last year.
He is also charged with threatening to kill a teenager, the prosecution's key witness who drove him to and from the scene, and three of that boy's family members, in a bid to stop him telling police.
Justice Gerald Nation summed up the various elements of the trial this morning after the 10 men and two women of the jury heard closing addresses from both Crown and defence yesterday.
As he did at the trial's outset more than three weeks ago, the judge stressed jurors should continue to disregard anything they had previously heard about the case or any reports they had read, particularly “sensationalist” headlines.
He warned them they may have sympathy for those affected by the alleged murder but it must be put to one side when they considered the evidence.
Similarly, Justice Nation said any prejudice was inappropriate.
“You may not have liked or approved of the way a 30-year-old doctor associated with people much younger than himself, or the way they made use of him – his home, his car, his money,” he said.
She had threatened to make disclosures about him “touching up” girls, offering them money for sex and plying minors with alcohol.
The fragility of his medical career at Dunedin Hospital, where he was on a final warning, drove him to murder, Crown prosecutor Robin Bates said.
Defence counsel Jonathan Eaton QC said such an extreme reaction made no sense.
He was highly critical of the Crown's star witness, the teen who told the court Skantha had gone into Amber-Rose's home and come out with a bloodied knife, her phone and driver's licence.
He told the jury in closing that if they believed that witness had lied and actually been involved in the killing in some way, they must find his client not guilty.
Justice Nation today said that was wrong.
As long as the jury found Skantha killed Amber-Rose, they should find him guilty, he said, regardless of whether the teen may have lied about the prelude or aftermath.
The defence suggested it was “ridiculous” someone who had efficiently committed such a killing would then make such admissions to a 16-year-old.
It was the Crown case, the judge said, that Skantha had such confidence of his control over the teen that felt comfortable enough to tell him.
If the jury accepted that submission and that such a conversation took place, it would be direct evidence likely to case the doctor as the murderer, Justice Nation said.
The judge said if they decided a witness had told lies, it did not mean they should completely discard the rest of that person's evidence.
A question trail was presented to the jury to assist them in reaching their verdicts.
However, Justice Nation said, ultimately the issue was clear.
“The person who stabbed Amber-Rose . . . must have intended to kill her,” he said.
But was it Skantha who had wielded the knife?
