Jury advised to be cautious over forensic evidence

A JURY hearing the trial of Brian Kearney were told by his defence counsel to be particularly cautious of scientific and forensic evidence when deciding if his client is guilty.

Brian Kearney, 51, Carnroe, Knocknashee, Goatstown, Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife Siobhán, 38, on February 28, 2006 — his 49th birthday.

In closing his case at the Central Criminal Court in Dublin Patrick Gageby SC told the jury to be particularly cautious of forensic and scientific evidence and suggested omissions in the prosecution case were more telling then what had been presented.

“This is a prosperous couple, a hard-working couple who had come into marriage difficulties,” Mr Gageby said.

However, he said there was no evidence of a history of violence or threats, drunkenness, jealousy or a bitter custody battle.

He asked the jury of eight women and four men to think very carefully about the motive presented by the prosecution.

“The prosecution says Mr Kearney killed his wife because it would make his life difficult if she moved into the house next door.

“Ask yourself this. Does the evidence prove that he would be so broke by that, that it would put so much pressure on him that he would decide it would make the difference between ‘I shall kill my wife’ or ‘I shall not kill my wife’?” Mr Gageby asked.

He said Kearney had access to ample funds. His family business had €1 million in the bank and as it liquidated he stood to earn a substantial sum.

While he agreed Kearney may have had the opportunity to kill his wife, he asked why he had not pushed the possibility of her suicide in interviews with the gardaí.

He urged the jury to be cautious also with evidence from Siobhán’s family, who had “come to the view that Brian had murdered their daughter”.

“If the suggestion is that he faked her suicide having killed her why did he not make the case himself?” asked Mr Gageby.

He said the one thing that may be unusual was there was nothing in the history of the home’s security alarm to suggest a break in.

Mr Gagebey said DNA evidence stood in stark contrast to the rest of the evidence in the case.

A test carried out by forensic scientist Dr Dorothy Ramsbottom showed DNA on the hoover flex was not Kearney’s.

He said evidence from retired forensic scientist Dr Michael Norton said the flex was cut to expose the wires, which suggested it had been done by “somebody like an electrician”.

He said State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy had only said there was a suggestion Siobhán had been manually strangled.

“We say that her findings are not inconsistent with low-level hanging, followed by a break [in the flex] caused by the full weight of the body coming on the actual rope or flex.”

He said the hidden passport and €500 note was not out of the ordinary.

He said the jury should be concerned with reasonable doubt: “Will you say beyond reasonable doubt, you will reach over the DNA, you will put aside Dr Norton’s evidence or will you take it all on board and say this case just doesn’t have the kind of certainty needed to convict that man.”

Mr Justice Barry White will start his charge to the jury this morning. He expects to finish about 3pm, when the jury will retire to consider their verdict.