Kearney jury told to be cold and analytical

THE jurors in the trial of a Dublin man accused of murdering his wife two years ago were yesterday told to be cold, analytical and dispassionate when reaching a verdict.

As the eight women and four men at the Brian Kearney case retired to a hotel overnight, the trial judge warned them the accused must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The 51-year-old electrical contractor denies murdering his wife Siobhán at their family home two years ago.

Mr Justice Barry White told the jury their decision was absolute and would be on their conscience.

“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 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.

He also told the men and women to engage in a role reversal and ask themselves: “If I were Brian Kearney, how would I feel if I was convicted on the basis of the evidence before the court?”

Summarising the evidence given during the 10-day trial, the judge outlined the prosecution’s case that 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 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 28, 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 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.”