Prosecution counsel in the Rachel O'Reilly murder trial told the jury that the only person with a motive was Joe O'Reilly.
Dominic McGinn was closing the case for the prosecution on the 19th day of the trial of Mr O'Reilly (35), Lambay View, Baldarragh, the Naul, Co Dublin, who has pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife and mother of two, Rachel O'Reilly (30), at the family home on October 4th, 2004.
He told the jury that while he was going to try to persuade them that there was "only one inescapable conclusion" to the case, they did not have to agree with the comments he was going to make and that they would take the rules of law from the judge.
"The duty of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt." But he told them that if they had any reasonable doubt then they must find him not guilty. "You don't have mathematical certainty in human affairs." A niggle or something at the back of their mind was not reasonable doubt.
"My suggestion is that there is none." They should not decide the case on emotion, sympathy or prejudice. "You have to assess the evidence in that cold, analytical manner," he said.
The evidence "shows it to be impossible" that Rachel was killed by a random burglar. Whoever attacked her would be covered in blood. "If the attacker had got up and walked out through the hallway to the decking then surely you'd expect traces of it to be elsewhere."
Referring to the blood that was on the washing machine which belonged to her brother, Thomas Lowe, he said there was an assumption on the part of the defence that he must be the killer. "This is pure speculation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny." If her brother had been the attacker, then why was there none of his blood at the scene of attack? He said the blood on the washing machine indicated that if he had been the killer, he did not try to clean up after himself. "This is speculation and it is not allowed," he said.
A typical burglar, he said, would not hang around and have a wash. "The reality is it wasn't a burglary or random attack. The evidence points to someone who knew they wouldn't be disturbed."
Mr McGinn reminded the jury about the O'Reilly's home insurance policy, from which Rachel's death meant Joe stood to gain financially. He said Mr O'Reilly was also in love with another woman and that he tried to minimise that in the evidence.
On the e-mails sent by Joe to his sister, he said they give a true account of his feelings towards Rachel and were not in keeping with the "white-washed" version he gave to gardaí.
He said Mr O'Reilly's alibi would have been "waterproof" were it not for the telephone evidence. "What is not possible is for Joe O'Reilly's calls to be routed through the Murphy's quarry mast if he was in Broadstone," he said. Mr O'Reilly was not caught on CCTV like Mr Quearney. "Even if you believe Derek Quearney is telling the truth, he says he's unsure about the times," he said.
Mr McGinn said each of these pieces of evidence alone were not conclusive but together they form a pattern of guilt. "You have to look at the whole picture." He said perhaps they could tolerate one or two coincidences "but in the whole picture your tolerance for coincidences might be stretched".