Expert's view on grainy CCTV blobs taxes court

It may have been the term "superimposing on auto suggestion" that did it. More likely it was "pseudo stereoscopic"

It may have been the term "superimposing on auto suggestion" that did it. More likely it was "pseudo stereoscopic". It was at that point that for the first time in the trial, Mr Justice Barry White removed his wig, writes Kathy Sheridan.

Joe O'Reilly loosened his collar and tie.

Andrew Laws, former military aerial reconnaissance specialist, was on the stand, charged with interpreting the grainy blobs on the CCTV footage already seen by the jury. Were those blurry outlines cruising past Blake's Cross and Murphy's quarry of a make and model similar to the Fiat Marea estate belonging to Joe O'Reilly?

Patrick Gageby SC, for the defence, suggested that Mr Laws's expertise lay in distinguishing one type of ground-to-air missile, or tank or radar from another, or a tractor pulling a trailer of people

READ MORE

as opposed to pulling in the harvest.

Distinguishing one vehicle from another "happens in all lines of work we undertake", said Mr Laws, but the military man was acutely aware of the technical limitations.

"CCTV is generally poorer than the public perception of it", he said, quashing any notions of CSI Miami come to the Central Criminal Court.

For anyone fond of neat conclusions, his valiant determination to be transparent about the "restrictions" of his material made for a trying few hours. "Tentative" was a recurring word.

He chose "moderate support" - about halfway up his measurement scale ranging from "No support" up to "powerful support" - to characterise the strength of his thesis that two vehicles were the same make and model.

Then he startled his audience by openly acknowledging the fact that other experts might think differently. "Another expert might place this at 'limited support' . . . might even have gone one beneath".

Possibly a first for the Four Courts.

Concerns about the queues building in the Round Hall growing larger and earlier each day have not escaped the court. People are arriving into the Round Hall "as early as 9 am looking for front-row seats so to speak", said the judge.

The closure of the public balcony (which connects to the jury room via an unsound- proofed door) until the jury is in the courtroom means that people are still queuing when the jurors arrive in the Round Hall.

"There isn't any fear that anybody is going to seek to approach you or seek to discuss the case with you", he reassured them.

"There is concern that somebody might inadvertently seek to discuss matters with one of your number, not realising that you are the jury in this case, and it is only because of that, that I have been asked to remind you of the situation.

"There is no need for fear or unease or anxiety."