We don't know his past. What do we know about him -
50 yr old
Loner (does he love?)
No friends or former partners (if they exist) have given evidence in defence of his character - he managed to mutilate GS's body in his flat for a week with no fear of friends or visitors popping by
Not living in the country of his birth - what did he leave behind?
Not able to hold down his job
No apparent wealth - not owning his flat, or a car, after having had a highly paid job & with no dependants - suggesting lack of goals & self-discipline
Drug addictions & dangerous behaviours
Disruptive at drugs anon meetings, breaking rules
Satanic worship - which goes to cruelty & hostility etc etc
Changing his story - evidence that it is fabricated. First he said it was Satan told him to kill, kill, kill. Did he think being under the influence of drugs would provide him with a defence? Now he claims it was an accident. The two are poles apart. Why would he not go with the 'no intent accident' version first, but choose the 'I intended it but I was being controlled by drugs' version? The thing is you can't go from claiming intent to claiming accident because the two versions bear no resemblance whatsoever, and you wouldn't invent intent where you had none. You would first of all say it was not intended, and if that didn't work and intent was proved then find a reason to claim diminished responsibility. Unless you thought at the time that the influence of drugs was a defence and later found out that it was not.
He had the presence of mind to answer the door to the other invitee and invent a story of illness. He also had the presence of mind to root through Gordon's belongings and discover he was a police officer. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is in a drugs stupor. His versions of what happened are conflicting. First it was Satan, then it was something to do with the leash slipping, and now it is he was sitting on his face and counting to 30 and not looking or being aware what happened. There is Gordon being restrained on the bed and not having his hands free to save himself, and Gordon hitting his own face on the bed legs (presumably before he was cuffed to the bed) to account for bruising and injury - only when asked.
I'm seeing lies and more lies, a story that is being made up and morphing, to account for what little evidence there is left. On top of a destruction of evidence to hide the extent of injuries. I think Gordon, being twice the size of this man, was restrained and could do nothing to save himself.
The bite mark on the ribs can't be refuted and neither can the DNA on the chopsticks. It doesn't prove murder but it shows he is lying to the jury.
As for victim blaming, his whole version now is that Gordon demanded everything that happened to him. He asked to have his life put in danger. Brizzi was scared and knew the danger but was just trying to please him. How is it not victim blaming?
And then there is the claim that he discovered afterwards that Gordon was a police officer. And something about him thinking the police were controlling Grindr. But when he was asked yesterday if he thought he was being trapped he said no. Where is the consistency in that? The changing stories make no sense. His skill is manipulation, and that is why I think you have doubts. He sobbed so loudly in the dock that the judge adjourned proceedings. That is manipulation. There was no need for that, people do not have to sob loudly, we learn as adults to cry quietly, he wanted to draw attention to the fact he was crying. I've seen more than enough to know that this guy is doing whatever he can to avoid responsibility for murdering Gordon, feels no remorse (remorse is defined by accepting responsibility) and is lying his pink y-fronts off. He ticks all the boxes for a lying sociopath.
Profile of the Sociopath -
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
I've swung back around on my opinion. Ha! I'm back to thinking he's just pure evil. 
