The ex-wife of Stuart Crawford appeared at the Old Bailey today to tell the jury he had a history of violence.

The final prosecution witness was brought forward after the defendant last week claimed to have "never hurt anyone" in his murder trial last week.

Stuart Crawford denies murdering his friend and landlord Michael Ryan in Sutton in September 2008, before stealing £6,500 from his bank account and flying to Thailand.

Michelle Neil, who was married to Mr Crawford for five years between 2003 and 2007, said that Mr Crawford had 'flipped' in the past.

Mrs Neil, who has a daughter with Mr Crawford, told the jury how her ex-husband had attacked her in 2001.

In tears Mrs Neil said: "He came at me and pushed me to the floor, he was on top of me with his hands on my shoulders and neck."

The Old Bailey heard how during another fight in 2005, Crawford had threatened to kill her.

She said: "I just thought this was it, I wasn't going to get away this time. He had his hands around my neck and he was saying he was going to kill me. He came up the stairs in a crazed kind of way."

Under cross-examination from defence lawyer Chris Henley, Mrs Neil was asked why she had not mentioned Crawford threatening to kill her when she gave a statement in 2009.

In summing up, prosecutor Phil Bennetts, said that Crawford's account of events leading up to and after Michael Ryan's death was all lies.

Mr Bennetts said the defendant must have thought the ladies and gentlemen of the jury "were stupid", if he expected them to believe his version of events.

Chris Henley, defence lawyer attempted to paint a different picture of the events and of Mr Crawford. He told the jury they had to put aside what happened immediately after Michael Ryan's death.

He said: "If court trials were decided on who the jury preferred, Stuart Crawford would stand precious little chance."

Mr Henley told the court how his client acted selfish, and with self pity but that was not relevant. He claimed the defendant had not carefully planned out the killing.

Mr Henley maintained his client's story matched up with that of the scientific evidence and the prosecution had not proved Mr Crawford was guilty "to a satisfactory standard."