Defence lawyer, Paul Yovich, has argued the personal circumstances occurring in Mr Edwards’ life around the time of the alleged offences is “utterly irrelevant”.

He argues there is no evidence his client was emotionally upset or unhappy following the break-down of his marriage between 1994 and 1996.

“There is no evidence whatsoever about the accused's acute or ongoing mental state or emotional state,” he said.

“It cannot be assumed your happier in a relationship than when you’re out of one.

“It cannot be assumed when you’re in a relationship, unhappiness is necessarily rare.”

Ms Barbagallo is arguing Mr Edwards' offending occurred when he was going through "tumultuous times" in his relationships. 

She says for that reason, the Hollywood Hospital assault should be considered as propensity evidence for all the charges against him, as it occurred after he discovered his girlfriend had cheated on him.

"We say there is an escalation of violence," she said.

"He goes from attacking a woman at a hospital...and then going on, we say, abducting, with a sexual motive, and murdering three girls."

State lead prosecutor, Carmel Barbagallo is arguing why the state wants to submit propensity evidence in Mr Edwards' trial. 

She said the state's proposal is Mr Edwards' tendency to attack women "in a particular way" should be considered when determining his innocence or guilt for each of the charges.

She made a metaphor of Mr Edwards' alleged offending tendencies as being part of a "small pond" of potential offenders. 

"There are many men that attack women they know as opposed to those they don't. So the pond is significantly decreased," she said. 

Good morning readers, 

Heather McNeill and Phil Hickey here, reporting from the Supreme Court of Western Australia for day two of Bradley Robert Edwards' pre-trial directions hearing. 

The hearing is arguing the admissibility of some of the state's proposed evidence against the accused Claremont serial killer.