In his summing up on the 10th day of Ian Bailey's libel case against eight newspapers at Cork Circuit Court, counsel for Mr Bailey, Mr James Duggan, said any ordinary person would be left with the impression of his client's involvement in the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, having read the articles in question.
Mr Duggan said Mr Bailey was "no saint", but it defied logic to suggest that he had not been libelled by the newspapers.
"These articles said to the man who read them that this was the man who murdered Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The charge here is of murder most foul," Mr Duggan said.
He accepted that his client had been involved in domestic violence, but this was no justification for suggesting Mr Bailey was a murderer.
"He is aware that a lot of people dislike him, perhaps dislike him intensely. Nobody has any regard for someone who beats their wife. But it does happen. And it happened in the Bailey liaison three times over 13 years," Mr Duggan said.
"It happened, they got over it, they're getting on with their lives. But there are people out there who won't let them."
Mr Bailey is taking seven actions against eight newspapers: the Irish Sun, the Irish Mirror, the Star, the Sunday Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Times, the Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Duggan said an article in the Irish Mirror, under the headline "Sophie quiz man says I beat up my girlfriend", was highly defamatory as it said Mr Bailey had been spotted early on the morning of the murder washing his boots in a stream close to the scene of the crime.
Counsel said there was no evidence to suggest his client had done such a thing, except for the evidence of one witness, Ms Marie Farrell, who claimed to have seen him walking past a bridge at that time.
"It is highly defamatory. It places my client close to the body of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, says that he was contaminated by it, and washed away whatever evidence there might have been to eliminate that," Mr Duggan said.
"The man sitting in the pub in Ballydehob or wherever, he is the person we must consider [when looking at the articles]."
Mr Duggan said Ms Farrell did not appear to be sure of her evidence, although Judge Patrick J. Moran interjected to say that he had been "impressed" by some of the 20 or so neighbours and acquaintances who gave evidence in recent days.
Mr Duggan also said it would defy logic if it were found that an article in the Sunday Independent, under the headline "Investigating with the prime suspect", was not libellous.
He said there had already been a settlement of around £20,000 arising from a false claim regarding the parentage of the daughter of Mr Bailey's partner, Ms Jules Thomas.
Mr Duggan said other claims in the articles, which stated that Mr Bailey had burned clothes shortly after the murder and had scratches on his face, were false and unsubstantiated.
He also said an article in the Independent on Sunday, under the headline "Devil in the hills", had "lambasted" and "demonised" his client.
Separate from the content of the articles, Mr Duggan also said there had been an unhealthy closeness between counsel for the newspapers and gardaí during the 10-day libel case.
Mr Duggan said he was "flabbergasted" by the defence's decision not to hear evidence from any of the journalists who had written the articles. While he had no experience in cases of this sort, to his knowledge it was highly unusual for journalists not to give evidence where they were involved in a libel cases.
In his closing submission, Mr Duggan quoted from a passage attributed to both Rudyard Kipling and Stanley Baldwin regarding the London press in the 1930s. "The proposition of these papers [Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere] is that of aiming at power, power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages."
In response to Mr Duggan's closing submissions, Mr Holland SC, for the newspapers, said little would have been gained by hearing from the journalists and instead they had focused on neighbours who would have had "first evidence of the facts".
He said there were many cases where journalists did not feature in libel cases and pointed to the Murphy v The Times cases in the 1980s as an example.
Mr Holland also referred to Mr Duggan's earlier comment that if counsel for the newspapers was arguing the defence of fair comment, they could not cite information which came to light after the articles were published.
Mr Holland said they were not using the defence of fair comment, and this kind of information could be used when arguing the case of justification.
