William Tyquiengco's murder trial ended Thursday afternoon with the prosecution's demand to dismiss his story, while the defense attorney made a tearful plea for justice.

Managing Deputy District Attorney Ed Hazel called Tyquiengco an amateur killer who invented his alleged affair with travel agent Starr Mooren, who was found stabbed to death in her Monterey home Dec. 12, 1996.

The prosecutor asked the jury to piece together "common-sense inferences" that he says points to Tyquiengco's guilt. Tyquiengco is charged with the rape and murder of Mooren.

Deputy Public Defender Juliet Peck was just as dismissive of the prosecution's theory, and said the murder investigation was guided by flawed deduction.

"Whoever did this was a monster and was skilled at killing in a certain way, and that isn't William Tyquiengco," she said before her voice choked up as she held back tears. She told the jury to presume Tyquiengco's innocence while examining evidence that she says points toward Mooren's ex-boyfriend, Carl Jacobs.

Thursday's closing arguments were no different than Tyquiengco's five-week trial: a long and complicated explanation of a gruesome slaying. Arguments lasted around five and a half hours.

The last day of the trial attracted more than a dozen attorneys from the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office and private practice. Witnesses, including Mooren's boyfriend, Tommy Charafauros, sat with students, court staff and spectators. Mooren's mother also sat in the crowded courtroom.

For the first time, without interruption -- and without witnesses to corroborate his theory -- Hazel laid out his case: Tyquiengco arrived at Mooren's home at 6:10 p.m. intent on satisfying his libido and having sex with his sister-in-law. He entered through the kitchen, grabbed a knife and threatened Mooren, who fought back. Tyquiengco grabbed Mooren and ripped her clothing in the process, ultimately holding her down with his weight -- nearly three times the young woman's size.

"True to his controlling self, he doesn't stop until he satisfies himself," Hazel said, explaining that Tyquiengco's semen was found on Mooren's body and clothing.

By that point, Hazel surmised, Tyquiengco was faced with the option of leaving Mooren and risking being caught or killing her to hide the truth.

When it was Peck's turn, she mocked Hazel's theory, asking the jury to ponder how a knife-wielding assailant caught in the heat of passion could pause to calmly answer the phone and take a message.

Instead, she said, DNA testing of the semen showed that Mooren dressed after the pair had sex that night. The DNA evidence, Peck said, is proof of a time lapse between Mooren and Tyquiengco's last sexual liaison of their alleged six-month affair and her death.

Peck asked the jury to take note of the crime scene photos that showed Mooren wearing shoes and recalled that Mooren's sister Jodi, who is Tyquiengco's estranged wife, and Charafauros, both testified that shoes weren't allowed inside Mooren's house.

The shoes, Peck said, are a sign that Mooren was likely on her way out when she was confronted by her ex-boyfriend, Carl Jacobs, though no witness saw Jacobs on Via Buena Vista the night of Mooren's death.

Peck said Mooren's death bore the signature of Jacobs' approach to killing wild pigs, and Monterey detectives and a St. Louis pathologist believed the same.

She said Mooren's death was not a sloppy stabbing by an amateur killer, as Hazel characterized it, but a "cold, calculated, skilled killing by somebody who knew how to kill in a specific way."

Peck reminded the jury that police even opened a case against Jacobs initially, but dropped it because his DNA didn't match that found at the crime scene, a faulty premise that has driven the investigation and Tyquiengco's prosecution, she said.

When Peck began her closing argument, she told the jury: "You are not the detective. It is not your job to solve a mystery that still has so many questions to be answered."

Hazel told the jury that Tyquiengco's testimony could not be trusted and that they would have to come to their decision based on "common-sense totality of the circumstances."

This is cache, read story here