At the end of yesterday's proceedings prosecution barrister Michelle Heeley KC started her cross examination of Mr Majek.

She challenged him over the evidence from forensic scientist Elizabeth Simpson, who said she found Ms Whyte's blood on the defendant's jacket, trousers, flip-flops and one of his rings.

Ms Heeley asked him how it got there and he replied: "I don't know why, because I'm sure my stuff had no blood on it."

He was also asked to look the jury in the eye and tell them the images of a man seen in CCTV footage that night were not him.

Mr Majek turned to the jury and said: "That's not me."

Image source, Elizabeth Cook/PA Wire

The trial is continuing of a man accused of murdering 27-year-old hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte in October last year.

Deng Majek denies killing Ms Whyte, who died in hospital after being stabbed 23 times at Walsall's Bescot Stadium railway station, with what police believe was a screwdriver.

Mr Majek, who has told the court he is aged 19, is an asylum seeker from Sudan who was housed at the Park Inn Hotel, in Walsall, where Ms Whyte worked.

Yesterday at Wolverhampton Crown Court, he repeatedly denied having any contact with her and said he did not leave the hotel after she finished work to follow her to the train station.

He said CCTV images of a man shown on the overbridge at Bescot station did not feature him.

The trial of an asylum seeker accused of murdering hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte resumes this morning.

Prosecuting barrister Michelle Heeley KC is due to resume her cross-examination of defendant Deng Majek,

We'll bring you all the updates as they happen.

We've reached the end of today's coverage from the trial of Deng Majek. Thanks for joining us.

We'll return tomorrow as the prosecution continues its cross-examination of the defendant.

Today, we have been hearing from the defendant Deng Majek, who denies Rhiannon Whyte's murder at Bescot Stadium railway station, near Walsall.

Mr Majek started by telling the court he was 19 years old and had left home in Sudan at the age of 16, arriving in the UK and the Park Inn hotel in July 2024, to wait while his asylum claim was processed.

His defence barrister, Gurdeep Garcha KC, then moved on to questions about his relationship with the victim, Ms Whyte, who worked at the hotel.

Mr Majek told the court he had never met her and had never spoken to her.

Image source, BTP

A lot of Mr Garcha's questions then focused on CCTV images, which the prosecution have said show the defendant following her to the train station, where she was attacked.

In response, Mr Majek said images of the man seen following her were not him.

Mr Majek did agree the man seen dancing to music at the hotel later was him, but said he did not know at the time Ms Whyte had been attacked.

He was asked about the evidence from forensic scientist Elizabeth Simpson, who said her blood was found on his clothes and that her DNA was under his fingernails.

"She's wrong," he told the court.

Image source, BTP

Before the court adjourned for the day, prosecutor Michelle Heeley KC began her cross-examination of the defendant.

Ms Heeley first asked Mr Majek about blood found on a jacket taken from his room, asking him how it had got on the garment, which he denied.

"My jacket had no blood on it," he said.

Finally, Ms Heeley presented Mr Majek with a CCTV image of a man, asking him to "look the jury in the eye and tell them it's not you".He then faced the jury and said: "That's not me."

Image source, BTP

We've reached the end of today's evidence in court and Ms Heeley concluded by reminding Mr Majek of the CCTV images showing a man wearing the same clothes he wore.

The prosecution say a man was seen following Ms Whyte to the station, before leaving it and stopping at a shop afterwards.

"Look this jury in the eye and tell them that’s not you," Ms Heeley said.

Mr Majek then faced the jury and said: "That’s not me."

Returning to the subject of the blood and DNA evidence, presented by scientist Elizabeth Simpson, Ms Heeley asked Mr Majek: "Ms Simpson is not lying about the forensics, is she?"

Mr Majek replied: "She’s wrong."

"Why is an independent forensic scientist wrong?," Ms Heeley asked him.

"I don’t know why, because I’m sure my stuff had no blood on it," he replied.

Ms Heeley then asked: "How was Rhiannon’s blood under your right hand fingernail. It was there because you attacked Rhiannon Whyte, didn’t you?"

"No," Mr Majek responded.

Image source, BTP

Ms Heeley has now referred to the evidence from a forensic scientist about blood found on the clothing taken from his room.

"Tell this jury how Rhiannon Whyte's blood got on your jacket," she said.

Mr Majek replied: "My jacket didn’t have any blood on it."

"Your jacket did have blood on it Mr Majek, tell the jury how it got there."

"My jacket had no blood on it." He said.

We have now moved on to the prosecution's cross-examination of Mr Majek.

Michelle Heeley KC asked the defendant to confirm the clothes he was wearing that night - including black cargo trousers, a grey jacket, square man bag and a number of rings - which he did.

She then asked him if he wore the same clothes all night.

"I didn't get changed, no." he said.

She asked him to confirm that the clothes later seized by the police were the same clothes, which he also confirmed.

Mr Majek has now been asked about the scientific evidence given in court yesterday.

Mr Garcha reminded him of the evidence from forensic scientist Elizabeth Simpson.

She had told the court blood, which was almost certainly from Rhiannon Whyte, was found on a jacket found in Mr Majek's room.

"Do you accept that evidence?," Mr Garcha asked.

"No," Mr Majek said.

The defendant also said he did not accept the evidence that her blood was found on his flip flops, trousers and one of his rings.

He also denied that his DNA was found under Ms Whyte's fingernails.

The defendant was asked for more details about which shops he went to during the evening.

Shown a still of a man buying OJ beer, taken at 23:48, Mr Majek said "it wasn't me".

He was shown more images of a person walking back to the hotel. Asked if any were of him, he said: "No."

Image source, BTP

The court was then shown an image from 00:13 from the hotel, and Mr Majek agreed that the figure in the dark trousers was him.

He said at that point he was "sitting outside, I was speaking on the phone, in the smoking area".

After an image showed him with a black carrier bag, he said couldn't remember what was in the bag, but it "probably" contained headphones.

Further footage showed him going into his room wearing flipflops and emerging wearing white trainers at 00:37.

Mr Majek said: "I was planning to go back outside and it was cold outside, so I decided to wear trainers."

Asked if he changed shoes because he was aware the flipflops had blood on them, Mr Majek said: "No."

Defence lawyer Gurdeep Garcha KC asked Mr Majek who he was with in the car park.

Describing the group as "some guys sitting outside", Mr Majek said: "There were a lot of us playing music, just sitting outside. I joined them."

His lawyer said it had been suggested, earlier in the trial, that Mr Majek was "happier" at that point, than he had been earlier in the evening.

Asked if he agreed with that, Mr Majek said: "No, I was in a normal mood."

The defendant said he had taken a speaker outside because "I always like to play music when I'm smoking, so I always take it downstairs".

Mr Garcha described how phone footage from the car park showed blue lights from ambulances and police cars at the nearby train station.

He asked if Mr Majek knew someone was being treated who had been seriously injured. The defendant replied: "No."

Mr Garcha asked about him dancing and said: "Is that because you are euphoric at what you'd done to Rhiannon Whyte a few minutes earlier?"

"I was playing music and dancing like normal," Mr Majek said in response.

Jurors have heard more detail about the mobile phone footage of Mr Majek, which shows him socialising in the car park and was filmed dancing, with a drink in his hand.

The defendant confirmed he had a drink in his hand and, asked where he got it from, he said it was a cup of coffee from the hotel.

Mr Garcha asked him if he had drunk any alcohol, to which Mr Majek replied, "yes".

Asked where he got the alcohol from, Mr Majek said he got it from a shop earlier in the evening, before it was dark. He said he could not remember which shop he went to.

Earlier in the trial a video clip, obtained by police, was shown to the jury and featured a group of men dancing and singing outside the Park Inn Hotel.

Mr Majek has continued to insist he was with a group of men in the hotel car park on the evening of the fatal attack.

"There was a lot of guys that I was chilling with," he told the court.

He said he was drinking coffee and that he went to a shop before it got dark, to buy some beer.

Mr Garcha then put it to him that the man the police had tracked through CCTV footage that night following Ms Whyte was him.

"No that’s not me," he said.

Mr Majek also denied the man later seen in CCTV images buying items from a shop were him.

Questioning has moved on to the clothing the man in the CCTV footage is seen wearing.

Mr Garcha asked Mr Majek: "What were you wearing?

Mr Majek replied: "Flip-flops."

"Is the footwear that the person in later photograph the same or different?" he was asked.

"It’s not the same," Mr Majek replied.

"Did you take possession of Rhiannon’s phone?," Mr Garcha asked.

"No it wasn’t me," Mr Majek said.

"Are you the person we see throw the phone into the River Tame?," Mr Garcha continued.

"No it’s not me." Mr Majek said.

The defendant then denied being at the station that evening, repeating his assertion he was "outside the hotel in the smoking area".

Further CCTV footage has been shown to the court, along with photographs that show a man at Bescot Stadium train station shortly before and not long after Ms Whyte was attacked.

For the defence, Mr Garcha said: "Look at the person’s left hand, raised towards their face. Can you see any jewellery or rings on this man’s hands?"

Mr Majek said: "It’s not clear. This is not me."

"Is that you on the overbridge covering your face as you walk across it?," Mr Garcha continued.

"This is not me," Mr Majek replied.

He also said he did not feature in four photos of a man later walking back across the overbridge.

Mr Garcha asked: "In those 90 seconds or so, did you attack Rhiannon Whyte?"

"No it wasn’t me," he replied.

Mr Garcha then asked: "Did you cause the injuries from which she later died in that time?"

"No," Mr Majek said.

Minutes later, a figure is seen on CCTV footage leaving the car park, but Mr Majek told the court he did not leave the area outside the hotel's reception.

The blurred image shown to the court was not clear, he said.

Similarly, he denied following her as she walked to the train station and that a person picked up on CCTV footage there was not him.

Defence barrister Gurdeep Garcha, put it to Mr Majek that the prosecution was saying he followed Ms Whyte from the hotel.

"That is wrong," the defendant replied.

Mr Majek agreed that in the footage Ms Whyte could be seen a few yards from him in the hotel's car park, but said he did not interact with her.

The CCTV camera's recording shown to the court then features Ms Whyte leaving the car park, but the defendant said he did not notice starting her walk to Bescot Stadium station.

Mr Majek, who has worn the same dark grey tracksuit top with light grey arms, and light grey tracksuit bottoms throughout the trial, said that as she left he was still busy smoking and looking at his phone.

The prosecution had earlier alleged Mr Majek had deliberately followed her as she left the hotel.

The trial has now resumed after the lunchtime recess.

Footage from cameras at the hotel's entrance featuring Ms Whyte leaving while Mr Majek was outside smoking, has been shown to the jury.

Mr Majek said he did not notice Rhiannon as she left, and also said he did not speak to any other men who were also smoking outside.

"I was busy on my phone," he told the court, through his interpreter.

Image source, Family photo

Shortly after her death, Ms Whyte's family issued a tribute through the police.

She was "the most loved daughter, compassionate sister, loving aunty, gracious granddaughter, beautiful niece, wonderful cousin and devoted friend", they said.

The family also said she was "the most selfless person - you were brave, quirky, funny, and always there for anyone who needed it".

"We will love and miss you for now, for always, and forever," they added.

Image source, BTP

The CCTV footage has so far been a key part of the cases made by both the prosecution and defence in this trial.

Prosecution barrister Michelle Heeley KC said last week the clothes seized by police at Mr Majek's hotel included "the jacket the attacker from the CCTV could be seen wearing".

Giving evidence, Det Sgt Rebecca Haywood, described the clothes worn by the suspect at the time as "a two-tone grey jacket, dark on the body and light on the arms, black cargo trousers and flip-flops".

During cross-examination, defence barrister Gurdeep Garcha KC highlighted the poor quality of footage from around the railway station.

He said a man on the video had "similar clothing" to Mr Majek's in the hotel.

Det Sgt Haywood responded: "I would say it’s the same."

The prosecution also played the jury CCTV from the hotel, which they said showed Mr Majek staring at female members of staff.

However, giving evidence today, the defendant said he was listening to music and denied having ever met Ms Whyte.