Nicholas Campbell QC, prosecuting, reminded the jury at Leeds Crown Court of some of the evidence it has heard over the course of the five-week trial and said: "Given the evidence, the prosecution submit that you can be sure that David Hill murdered his mother-in-law."

Hill, 48, of Lakeside Meadows, claims he found Mrs Wright in a pool of blood at her bungalow on Redhill Gardens on September 27 2007.

He denies murder.

Mr Campbell told the jury Samantha Warna, a forensic scientist, said in evidence that the blood on clothing worn by David Hill was in keeping with him having "repeatedly struck" Mrs Wright.

But he said the clothing did not reveal the "heavy contact staining" that Ms Warna would have expected based on the account provided by Hill.

Mr Campbell said in police interviews as a witness and suspect, Hill used words including "cradling", "cuddling" and "nursing" as he described attending to the grandma-of-five after finding her on her kitchen floor.

He suggested the evidence of Ms Warna explained how Hill's account "changed" when he told the jury he held her "towards" his chest.

Mr Campbell asked if Hill had been about to say he had held her "against" his chest, but "stopped himself because the nature of the clothing doesn't bear this out".

He said: "Members of the jury, you will look at the experts yourself and you will see if this is one further example of the defendant changing his account to attempt to fit the prosecution's evidence."

He reminded the jury that Hill had provided three different accounts of his movements – one when interviewed as a witness, one when interviewed as a suspect and one in evidence at court.

He said: "The evidence of these journeys, by describing them, David Hill was seeking to provide himself with an alibi. He was elsewhere at the time of the murder."

He added: "See, what happens is all the time you're being brought nearer and closer to Redhill Gardens."

He said Hill admitted in evidence the first account – that he had travelled into Pontefract – was a lie.

Mr Campbell said: "It was his decision to mislead the police and his family about what had happened during that day."

In later accounts, Hill said he went to the Airedale Triangle to look for a customer who owed him money and had said he didn't want his wife to know he had let someone go without paying the full amount for goods.

Mr Campbell had previously reminded the jury about evidence they had heard from forensic scientist Sarah Ford, who had found two red pieces of paper found inside a blue and white carrier bag seized from Hill's car contained impressions of the word Hotpoint and a telephone number.

The prosecution claims Hill was altering and photocopying bank statements to hide that he was secretly taking money from a joint business account he shared with Mrs Wright for their greetings card and toy stall at Castleford indoor market.

Hill said his business partner knew he was taking the money and she had handed him the bag on the day she was killed, telling him: "This will bring us luck".

Mr Campbell said: "Her (Miss Ford's] opinion, which is not challenged, is that these two pieces of square red paper had lain underneath the piece of paper which someone in the Hill household - Mrs Hill is unsure who - had written the brand Hotpoint and that number."

He said the family had bought a Hotpoint tumble drier no earlier than Sunday September 24.

Mr Campbell said: "Could Molly Wight have done that work using the pieces of paper while she was visiting her daughter's home?

"Well, if it was a visit by Mrs Wright that neither (Hill's wife and her youngest daughter] Maxine Hill or her son-in-law, the defendant, was aware of because both of them told you that they believed Mrs Wright had last been to their home on Saturday September 23."

He said the prosecution did not need to prove a motive, but said the financial information provided "relevant background".

Mr Campbell said it was the prosecution case that Hill arrived at Mrs Wright's home "before he would have you believe".

He said: "Had she discovered what he had been doing? Did she confront him about him? Did she threaten him exposure? Did she repeat her intention to go the bank with the altered statements? Did she tell him perhaps that she had delayed probate?" He added: "Whatever happened, the prosecution submit was sufficient to cause David Hill to lose his temper, and having lost his temper he then reached out for a weapon that came to hand and then he struck her with it."

Closing the case for the defence, Robert Smith QC told the jury the prosecution's account has "changed" since Mr Campbell's opening speech and its evidence was "riddled with inconsistencies".

He reminded the jury evidence of from Mrs Wright's neighbours Jean Elkin – who claimed to see Hill arrive at the widow's bungalow and enter through the front door at around 2.45pm – and Susan and Geoff Mayes who said they saw him arrive at around 3pm.

He said in evidence, Barbara Heptonstall – who lives on Airedale Road – claimed to see Hill walk past her house at around 1pm.

He said the prosecution claimed a car similar to Hill's was seen driving away from Redhill Gardens at 2.58pm, but that footage from buses at the Airedale Triangle showed Hill's car parked at 2.55pm.

He said the prosecution had asked Mrs Hill about her asking police if Hill hurt her mother but did not draw the jury's attention to the end of her witness statement to police, in which she said: "I find it very difficult to believe that David would do anything to hurt my mum. He had been very caring and looked after my mum. I just don't believe that David is responsible for hurting my mother."

Mr Smith will continue his speech today.

Proceeding.

Keep checking www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk for daily updates from court.