The jury in the trial of Dublin man Brian Kearney, who is accused of murdering his wife, has been sent to a hotel for the night after more than two hours of broken deliberations.
The 51-year-old electrical contractor denies murdering his wife Siobhan at their family home on February 28th 2006.
The jury at the Dublin's Central Criminal Court was recalled on two occasions this evening during its deliberations to hear submissions from both prosecution and defence counsel.
Mr Justice Barry White recharged the eight women and four men on certain items of evidence which had already been outlined during the trial, including aspects concerning DNA, pathology evidence and expert analysis.
The jury also asked for some exhibits to be made available to them, including the door and door frame of the en-suite bathroom, the vacuum cleaner, and duplicate of its flex.
The judge warned the jurors not to discuss the case outside the hours of the court sitting before discharging them for night. "Take your break and come back fresh in the morning please," he added. The jury will continue its deliberations tomorrow.
Earlier Justice White told the jury to be cold, analytical, and dispassionate when reaching a verdict.
"In considering this case you must act coldly, analytically and dispassionately, leaving aside any feeling of sympathy you may have towards the McLaughlin family or the accused man," he said.
"Leave your emotions outside the door of the jury room." Mr Justice White reminded the jury that Mr Kearney was entitled to the presumption of innocence, adding that no adverse conclusion could be drawn from the fact he did not give evidence during his trial.
Summarising the evidence given during the ten-day trial, the judge outlined the prosecution's case that Mr Kearney strangled his 38-year-old wife with a vacuum cleaner flex and staged the scene to look like suicide, pushing the bedroom key back under the locked door.
The court has heard there was no sign of forced entry and the couple's then three-year-old son was found wandering around the family home in Carnroe, Knocknashee, Goatstown, alone.
An autopsy revealed Ms Kearney died from ligature strangulation, but suffered many injuries more consistent with manual strangulation, with tests on the Dyson flex found around her body showing it could not have supported her body weight for long enough to have killed her.
State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy said fractures of Ms Kearney's neck were more commonly caused by manual strangulation, less common in ligature strangulation and uncommon in hanging from a low level.
She said one hypothesis was that Ms Kearney had been assaulted in her bed, gripped around the neck and rendered semi-conscious, at which point a ligature could have been applied accelerating her death.
Barristers for Mr Kearney maintain that although the accused was in the house at the time of Ms Kearney's death on the morning of his birthday on February 28th, 2006, she took her own life.
Defence Counsel Patrick Gageby previously told the jury there was no history of violence, threats of violence, evidence of jealousy, no other man or woman, and no vicious custody battle in the offing.
Throughout the trial members of Ms Kearney's family, friends, and a family law solicitor, told the court the mother of one was in the process of leaving her husband at the time of her death, but stressed she was in good form and was making plans for the future.
The prosecution claimed that although the accused was "well-off" on paper, he was financially overstretched and that separation would have added to that burden.
Ms Kearney, a chef, and her self-employed husband bought a property in Spain in 2002/2003 and transformed the development into a boutique style hotel.
An accountant who works for the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation said Mr Kearney's assets were worth €4.6 million at the time, and he earned almost €10,000 per month, but borrowings on the hotel in Spain and the house the Kearneys were building next door came to more than €15,000 a month.
There was also a loan of around €850,000 against the family home. Mr Gageby maintained there was no shortfall in funds. The trial judge told the jurors the case had to be decided on circumstantial evidence, which may comprise a number of circumstances that lead to a particular conclusion.
Mr Justice White said his role was to be absolutely impartial, neutral, fair and unbiased, adding that his views were irrelevant. "Only the 12 of you can decide on this case," he said.
As the trial judge sent the jury to consider their facts he warned them that he wanted an unanimous verdict. "Your verdict must be one which all 12 of you agree on," he added. "You must be unanimous and all 12 of you must agree if he is guilty or not guilty."