Defence counsel in the murder trial of Joe O'Reilly warned the jury against being swayed by media attention to the case.
Mr O'Reilly (35) of Lambay View, Baldarragh, Naul, Co Dublin has pleaded not guilty to murdering his 30 year-old wife and mother of two, Rachel O'Reilly, at the family home on October 4th 2004.
In his closing speech, defence counsel, Mr Patrick Gageby SC, urged the jury not to court popularity by finding Mr O'Reilly guilty.
He said he wasn't going to try to convince them Mr O'Reilly was innocent, but said all he had to do was to 'satisfy' them that a reasonable doubt existed.
He said the only requirement for them to reach a verdict of 'not guilty' is that they should have a 'reasonable doubt' about Mr O'Reilly's guilt and if so, they must acquit him.
He compared a reasonable doubt to one which might prevent someone from buying a particular house or sending their child to a certain school.
He also reminded the jury that the verdict they reach is "irreversible." "You can't phone up afterwards and say, 'nah, I shouldn't have gone along with that.' And what you do stays for all time. No one can say you were wrong."
He told the jury that Mr O'Reilly's likeability shouldn't influence their decision and that "it's easy to do justice for someone if you like."
He asked them to ask themselves "if the accused in this case was not a man who was having an affair," and hadn't used bad language when describing her, whether it "would be a lot easier to given him the benefit of the doubt?"
"One thing is clear in this case, is that the prosecution has sought to bring in as much discrediting conduct as it can, and as is relevant but much of what they did bring in, we say is irrelevant."
He added: "We're not looking in moral judgement in this case." "This is not a court of morality, this is a court of Law," he said.
Referring to the amount of publicity the case has attracted, he said: "the one thing you can see is that since the death of Rachel O'Reilly, a torrent of media attention has been focused on this case."
He said that for 40 or 50 years, the number of reporters and spectators in the courtroom has been "unparalleled." He said we are all "utterly" aware of it and that it "puts undue pressure" the trial.
He told them the sheer number of people in court puts pressure on them as they might start to think about what other people hope the verdict to be.
"You might ask what verdict does the press want in this case. Are what will sell more papers?" He added: "I think you know what that answer to that is."
He said that although the publicity hasn't been saying Mr O'Reilly is guilty, the coverage has been "insidious, covert and hidden." He added: "it's entirely suggestive."
"You know the verdict the press desire," he said. And he urged the jury not to court popularity by finding Mr O'Reilly guilty. "Do you know that the most difficult thing to do in the world is to be
unpopular?" he said.
He added: "Judges make unpopular decisions. You are 11 judges in this case." Referring to the e-mails between Mr O'Reilly and his sister Ann, he said while the language in them was abusive, "he's not the first person, and he's not the last," to use such language when talking about their spouse from whom they want to separate.
Similarly, referring to the loving language Mr O'Reilly used in texts to his lover Nikki Pelley, he said: "what do you expect him to say? 'I'd like you for sex or something like that?"
He said Mr O'Reilly "is a man who has never been in trouble before," and that he was having an affair. "We're not talking about wife beating," he said.
Moving on to talk about the "opportunity" Mr O'Reilly would have had to kill his wife, Mr Gageby said that there was only an 18 minute period in which he could have done it.
"It's still only 18 minutes. Everything has to be done in that," he said. He said the prosecution are suggesting: "this man darted home, killed his wife, and darted back."
"There's not one sausage of evidence from anybody in the forensic science lab. This is mere speculation by the prosecution," he said.
He also reminded the jury of forensic scientist, Dr Diane Daly's evidence which said Rachel O'Reilly suffered a "sustained" attack. He said: " 'sustained' to me suggests a passage of time."
He said there was no blood found on Mr O'Reilly's clothes or his car, and that the only bit of blood found was on his boot. However, he said this is not surprising considering he was at the murder scene with other people after her body was found. He also reminded the jury that blood was found on the shoe of Rachel's mother, Mrs Rose Callaly.
Similarly, he said there was blood on Rachel's friend, Jackie O'Connor, a nurse, who tried to resuscitate her.
Referring to the evidence of Sgt Aaron Gormley who said Mr O'Reilly told him he was "sorry" because he was "probably after messing it [the evidence at the murder scene]", he said this was also taken out of context.
"Everybody was only to happy to take everything out of context," he said.