Mr Justice Barry White spent more than two and a half hours today charging the jury of nine men and two women in the trial of Joe O'Reilly for murder of his wife Rachel on October 4
th2004.
He told the jury they must consider the evidence "coldly and dispassionately". On a number of matters given in evidence for the prosecution, the judge said it was a matter for the jury but that he did not think them capable of being considered circumstantial evidence against Mr O'Reilly.
On Mr O'Reilly's statement to one witness that a "red car" seen near the O'Reilly home on the morning of his wife's murder had been eliminated from Garda inquiries, he said it might show Mr O'Reilly as "some kind of Walter Mitty character" but he did not see how it could "in any way" amount to circumstantial evidence.
On Mr O'Reilly's statement to another witness before the post mortem took place that his murdered wife had not been sexually assaulted, the judge said that was also a matter for the jury, but he did not think it was capable of amounting to circumstantial evidence and he didn't think it should be considered as such.
Mr Justice White said that when somebody such as a spouse dies in suspicious circumstances, the spotlight was likely to fall on the surviving spouse.He asked how often people pick up the newspaper and "immediately jump to conclusions".
On the letter that was placed by the defendant in Mrs O'Reilly's coffin and subsequently recovered when her remains were exhumed, the judge noted remarks by her husband apologising to her for something that was known only to the two of them.
The judge said it could be the case that Mr O'Reilly had disclosed the affair he was having to his wife and that this was the matter he referred to as being known only to them both.
The judge said it was the prosecution case that the jury could safely convict and that they had assembled the necessary strings and bound them or "woven them into a rope" that holds the weight of the case.
The defence made the case that Mr O'Reilly's conduct, such as in the language he used about his wife, did not make him guilty.
In summing up, the judge said the prosecution case was that the evidence pointed to Mr O'Reilly's guilt but that the defence said there was a lot of "puff and smoke".
Mr Justice White noted the oath he had taken as a judge to discharge his functions impartially and without bias and favouritism. He told the jury they had also taken an oath to give a true verdict according to the evidence and said they must approach the case "coldly and dispassionately" to see whether that evidence stacked up or did not.
If they accepted that Mr O'Reilly had told lies, there could be many reasons why a person would tell lies. But if a person told lies in relation to a material matter and did so in the knowledge that he was guilty of a particular matter and for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for his criminal actions, then they were entitled to have regard to the fact that he told lies in those circumstances, and those circumstances can amount to circumstantial evidence.
It was a matter for the jury how they viewed the statement he gave to the gardai about his movements on the day of his wife's murder, the judge said. He outlined day by day of the trial who had given evidence and the substance of it, including evidence of CCTV footage of the movement of vehicles in Dublin city centre and around the O'Reilly home in Naul on the day of the murder.
Mr Justice White told the jury their verdict must be unanimous. There might come a time when he would tell them they could bring in a majority verdict, but until that time, they were instructed to bring in a unanimous one.
The judge told the jury they could knock on the door to ask any questions they had. He also told them that if some of them wish to take smoking breaks, he would have to keep them together and arrange for a garda to bring them all outside where those who were smokers could "indulge" while the others watched.