The man accused of killing Sarah Payne did his case more harm than good by appearing in the witness box, his barrister told a jury today.

In her closing speech at Lewes Crown Court, Sally O'Neill QC said Roy Whiting had effectively strengthened the case against him, which she said was: "Not the action of a guilty man."

Miss O'Neill said witnesses had "skewed" their recollections when questioned by police after realising the nature of the charges the 42-year-old part-time builder was facing.

She said Sarah's kidnap and murder was a tragedy of "unimaginable dimensions" but it was not committed by Roy Whiting, who denies kidnap and murder.

Asking the jurors to cast their minds back to Whiting's five-hour appearance giving evidence, she said: "What did you make of him? Did he come over to you as shifty and evasive? There is no point going into the witness box and saying things you know are not going to help you but stand a good chance of making things worse."

She reminded the jury how Whiting had revealed he washed out his Fiat Ducato van with a pressure cleaner on July 2 last year, the day after Sarah vanished from a country lane in Kingston Gorse, Littlehampton.

Miss O'Neill said: "Do you think it is possible he went into the witness box to do his inadequate best because he has nothing to hide?"

Miss O'Neill went on to question each part of the forensic jigsaw which the prosecution claims provides a compelling link between Whiting and the eight-year-old whose body was found in a shallow grave off the A29 near Pulborough.

Whiting removed the wooden lining from the back of his van to try to remove all traces of Sarah's presence: Miss O'Neill said: "It sounds impressive but it's not actually evidence. Mr Whiting told John Kentish he was going to remove the wood the Friday before Sarah went missing."

Whiting replaced the rear doors of his van, again to remove traces of Sarah's presence: She said: "The replacement of rusty doors comes as no surprise."

Whiting cleaned himself up after abducting Sarah: She said: "This evidence came from Terry Heath who is completely wrong. It demonstrates how much people were prepared to skew their evidence."

Whiting lied about his movements on the night Sarah disappeared: Miss O'Neill said: "It was Roy Whiting who told them about his van. It wasn't even registered in his name at that stage because he had bought it so recently."

Items found in Whiting's van included a spade, rope, masking tape, baby oil, gardening ties and a knife: Miss O'Neill said: "Not a scrap of scientific evidence can provide a single link between those articles and these events."

In the closing minutes of his prosecution speech yesterday, Timothy Langdale said the forensic and witness evidence, combined with Whiting's own "lies" in the witness box, provided compelling proof of his guilt.

Mr Langdale ended his summing-up by returning to what he described as the single most important piece of evidence - a strand of Sarah's blonde hair found on a sweatshirt seized from Whiting's van. He said it was "damning proof".

Throughout the 15 days of Whiting's trial, the jury has been told it would be "absolutely astonishing" if direct proof of Whiting's alleged acts - snatching, strangling and burying the schoolgirl - had been found.

Mr Langdale said: "Nobody is going to allow themselves to be filmed when they bury a body at the dead of night in a field."

Mr Langdale reminded the jury of Whiting's account of his activities on July 1 last year, the evening Sarah vanished, in which the defendant said he had been at a fair in Hove before deciding to visit his father in Crawley, changing his mind half way and returning to his flat in St Augustine Road, Littlehampton.

Mr Langdale said that version of events differed from the account given to police on July 2, the night he was arrested.

Mr Langdale reminded the jury of the 22 fibres found on clothing, a curtain and seat-covers from Whiting's van, which had later been matched to fibres found in clumps of Sarah's hair and on her shoe.

He said: "Mr Whiting would have you believe he was the victim of an unfortunate coincidence. But it's an awful lot of coincidences when you look at just the fibre evidence."

He concluded: "The prosecution has put before you compelling evidence the defendant is the man responsible for these crimes."

The case continues.

The trial in full: thisworthing.co.uk