A post mortem examination revealed multiple blunt force trauma injuries, including extensive multiple facial fractures, widespread bruising and a brain injury.
Forensic pathologist Simon Stables said these injuries were consistent with Hilton being assaulted and he could have been punched or possibly kicked and stomped on.
The main cause of death was an acute chest infection linked to his head injury, he said.
During his closing address to the jury on Friday, defence lawyer Roger Gowing argued the key to Hilton's assault was a laptop stolen from his home either on July 7 or 8, 2016.
Gowing said there was no Crown evidence that Matchitt had assaulted Hilton despite his DNA being found on a beer bottle at the deceased's home during a police search.
He argued there was "an alternative scenario" in relation to another suspect which the jury needed to carefully consider when weighing up all the evidence they heard.
"Nothing has been put before you by the Crown directly linking Mr Matchitt with the assault. There were no fingerprints nor evidence of any forced entry to the property.
"We also know from [Hilton's caregiver] Alan Putt's evidence that X [a man's whose identity is suppressed] had quite a history of conflicts with Mr Hilton," Gowing said.
This included evidence from Putt of a conflict incident that Hilton told him about a few weeks before his death, he said.
"The defence says Brian Hilton's death was the result of a burglary gone wrong and the key to the assault was the deceased's stolen laptop."
Gowing argued it was this other person who had managed to steal a house key, then "disturbed the deceased in the dark and assaulted him".
He said what supported this scenario was another Crown witness who told the police she saw this man with a laptop, some wine and shoes stolen from Hilton's home.
"All this supporting evidence adds to the circumstances of the fact that the other person is more likely to have assaulted Mr Hilton during a burglary gone wrong."
Gowing said the other man was also known as a recidivist burglar.
"It did not make sense that Matchitt would assault Mr Hilton, a friend of some eight years.
"There is no reason why he would suddenly start hoeing into an old man while visiting him, and there is no DNA evidence linking Mr Matchitt to the assault whatsoever.
"All you can say from the bottle DNA evidence was that he was there and drinking."
Gowing also argued two written police statements presented to the jury were "unreliable" in terms of how the interviews were conducted and Matchitt's recorded answers.
"The evidence Mr Matchitt gave today [July 9] and what he is said to have told the police recorded in the statements cannot sit alongside each other," he told the jury.
"You just have to look at how Matchitt struggled to answer questions from his own legal counsel to know these statements are unreliable."
Gowing said even if the jury accepted that Matchitt told the police that he probably assaulted Hilton that night, "probably guilty was not good enough" under the law.
"You must be sure beyond reasonable doubt of Mr Matchitt's guilt and any reasonable doubt means you must acquit him," he said.
During his closing address, Crown prosecutor Richard Jenson said the jury could be "entirely satisfied" that the accused was guilty of Hilton's murder.
Jenson argued evidence of Matchitt's movements and his behaviour that night, along with various witness statements, including from Viviers Hutchins, "led to only one conclusion".
Hutchins, the former partner of Matchitt's daughter, made a statement to Detective James Renwick in May 2017 about the accused's behaviour on July 7, 2016.
Hutchins told Renwick that Matchitt had an argument with his then-partner that night and also broke a window, and "drunk and angry" he headed to Hilton's home.
Hutchins also told the detective that he recalled telling his then-partner that it could have been the accused who assaulted Hilton when he learned of the assault.
Jenson said Renwick carefully took the statement from Hutchins, which was "credible and reliable" evidence, despite the witness now trying to say he might have been mistaken.
CCTV footage showed Matchitt leaving his former partner's address at the relevant time, entering Hilton's home a short time later, and leaving again about an hour later, he said.
Jenson said it was clear from Matchitt's statements to police in December 2018 that he was "pissed and probably assaulted Hilton", he was coming clean about what he actually did.
Matchitt's former partner told the police that it was "very likely" he visited her overnight on July 7 or 8, despite the accused's claim he had stayed elsewhere, he said.
Jenson said other CCTV footage was also "important evidence" that Hilton was well and moving freely earlier that day.
There was no history of the deceased having significant falls, and the only DNA found at Hilton's house was Matchitt's, he said.
"It's easy to point the finger at someone else, but you need to look at all the evidence."
Jenson told the jury they could safely conclude there was "ample evidence" that the accused violently assaulted Hilton despite his denials.
"And it is not difficult to envisage blows raining down on Mr Hilton and some of the injuries were likely to have been caused during his futile attempt to defend himself.
"The age and frailty of Mr Hilton were well-known to Mr Matchitt, and after he assaulted him he left him for dead, bloodied and bruised lying on the ground."
Jenson said the jury should return a guilty verdict.
The trial continues on Monday with Justice Kit Toogood summing up the Crown and defence cases, before the jury retire to consider their verdict.
