Is it just me being a xenophobe? I find the antics of the lawyers, jury and public at the trial of the two men accused of Michaela's murder disgusting. Surely no right thinking society can allow its judicial system to be degraded in this way? The sniggering and laughter in court must be soul destroying for Mark Harte and Claire McAreavy not to mention downright distressing. Holiday destination my arse all right thinking people should avoid Mauritius like the plague. I can't see the Harte and McAreavy families getting justice judging by the way this trial is being conducted and the behaviour of the Defence, Police and Prosecution. It's a parody of due process and sad to see.
I half-heard a bit on the radio this morning saying that there was laughing in the court room which must have been disturbing for the family.
What were they laughing or sniggering about? It's a murder trial ffs, hardly light-hearted. I read that John McAreavy had to battle through crowds just to get into the courthouse the first day as well. Seems like it's a bit of a media 'event' in Maurituis.
One of the defence lawyers was playing to the gallery, making fun of policemen etc... The judge apparently saw nothing wrong with it. My heart goes out to the Family.
That's disgraceful carry on. I wish them all the strength to get through this.
If I were them I would be on the first plane out of there. Complete waste of time.
Can't be sure the right men are in the dock and can't be sure if any real justice is being done. Nothing will bring her back now so f**k Mauritius and it's 'Justice' system. >:(
Not as simple as that though I'd agree with the sentiments. I'd imagine John McAreavey has to be there as a witness.
God bless them all. This "trial" can't be helping matters.
The whole thing just seems very suss, from the get go. The investigations has been a shambles by the sounds of it and the laughing in the court, leaves a very bad taste in my house.
I seen Mauritians been interviewed by the BBC, the day before the trail. They didn't seem to bothered by the murder, other by the damage they felt it might do to tourism, which is minimum they believe. They were all smiles and laughing.
Disgusted.
Unfortunately for the family it looks like this is going to be a bit of an ordeal...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18202919
Harrowing :(
The BBC aren't doing themselves or the family any favours with the salacious slant to their reporting. Compare and contrast with the PA report which all other out outlets are running with.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A)
That's awful for the family.
I was surprised to hear that the PSNI also attended the hearings. Was that out of some jurisdiction requirement or simply to help the family understand what was going on?
Quote from: Orior on May 25, 2012, 11:54:58 AM
That's awful for the family.
I was surprised to hear that the PSNI also attended the hearings. Was that out of some jurisdiction requirement or simply to help the family understand what was going on?
PSNI are acting as Family Liason, the Irish Embassy are also there.
I saw a local retired journalist send a tweet to a news reporter out in Mauritus, saying she's lucky to get a wee holiday in the sun.
Quote from: AQMP on May 25, 2012, 11:28:28 AM
Unfortunately for the family it looks like this is going to be a bit of an ordeal...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18202919
disgusting. is there no level some people wont stoop to...
Turning into a real farce unfortunately. It's bound to be the worst feeling in the world being at a trial for the murder of your wife/sister/relative and there's bastards laughing in the public gallery.
When the public of Mauritius seem more concerned about their tourist industry than a murder of an innocent visitor to one of their hotels there is something badly wrong. Hopefully it puts people off visiting places like this in the future, I certainly wouldn't entertain the idea. Too many characters not to be trusted in these places which generally draw their employees from poorer areas of the island who are subsequently surrounded by people on holiday with money and possessions which they obviously see as easy pickings.
This is absolutely horrific, to allow all this nonsense to happen. It looks to be "Shame on the Mauritians, they dont deserve tourists," and i hope those who report it over here act with respect and dignity for the dead and those left behind. Imagine living through this nightmare.
Quote from: Ulick on May 25, 2012, 11:47:19 AM
The BBC aren't doing themselves or the family any favours with the salacious slant to their reporting. Compare and contrast with the PA report which all other out outlets are running with.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A)
Exactly as disgusting as the Mauritias behaviour is the complete lack of class from the Beeb is sickening. Seems if you can work a cheap and shocking headline from a traumatic and personal loss then that's all that matters.
Is it that journalist Natasha Sayee who is conducting all this reporting or are these stories coming through other avenues as well.
I don't think there are any words to describe the shambles this trial is fast becoming. There is one thing for certain, the dignity and grace of the Harte and McAreavey families as they go through this trial will be a shining beacon. They are foremost in my thoughts, along with Michaela who so tragically died on this Island just a short time ago.
The whole thing would make you sick to the stomach to be honest. I have tried not to read about it but with various people talking about it in work hard to avoid.
It's hard to know if there ever will be justice at all.
Really is shocking and makes you lose a lot of faith in human nature as if you wouldn't have lost enough from the whole thing already.
Heart goes out to the families involved.
i think an official complaint to the bbc about their headlines would be appropriate - scandalous-
I see from the google report that the hotel changed it's name, obviously it's all about presenting an image for the tourists. The BBC headline / report is a disgrace.
Feedback your comments on the BBC story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm
It does seem like the family is having a horrendous time - it's a complete circus.
Unfortunately all the shit of the day, with little relevance to the court case, will come out, especially in a high profile case. I remember during the Milly Dowler case there was mention of her fathers keen interest in porn, and the family had to sit through this in court. The defence will throw every bit of shit they can.
The defence are claiming this book, or whatever, is the crux of the defence case. Hard for any Judge to refuse i think. If that's all the defence they have they don't have much hope. Of course the prosecution have to prove their case.
according to rte the book refers to 'sex'. sounds like an attempt to sully john. how low can you go? complete shower...
Quote from: stalwart on May 25, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
i think an official complaint to the bbc about their headlines would be appropriate - scandalous-
Wtf? What have they done wrong? Its not even salacious, theres nothing wrong with the headline, it clearly was an important event in the case!!! It summarises what the entire defence is apparently based on!!
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: stalwart on May 25, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
i think an official complaint to the bbc about their headlines would be appropriate - scandalous-
Wtf? What have they done wrong? Its not even salacious, theres nothing wrong with the headline, it clearly was an important event in the case!!! It summarises what the entire defence is apparently based on!!
to news hungry vultures, the bbc have down nothing wrong. To those with an once of decency towards their fellow men, plenty.
you think this sex manual in their honeymoon suite, this morsel of nothing that the defence are using to blacken John and Michaela's names is an 'important event in the case'? sweet jesus
god love the families, cannot begin to imagine what they are going through
You imbecile, the adjournment because of the prosecution objecting to the sex book being focussed on is the important event. Not every headline that mentions sex is salacious ffs - it summarises the key issue of the day, and theres very little difference between the bbc article and the article that was used as a comparative!
Do you really think its necessary to complain to the bbc becuase they mentioned sex in their headline? Do you think they shouldnt have reported any of the goings on relating to the book in the courtroom? It was introuduced by the defence. Clearly its ridiculous in their part, but how do you report on a case without reporting whats happening??
Catch a grip ffs!!
No matter what comes out in this trial it won't make a difference to how we feel about the tragic death of Michaela. Especially among G.A.A. fans. We all thought the best of her.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 07:52:51 PM
You imbecile, the adjournment because of the prosecution objecting to the sex book being focussed on is the important event. Not every headline that mentions sex is salacious ffs - it summarises the key issue of the day, and theres very little difference between the bbc article and the article that was used as a comparative!
Do you really think its necessary to complain to the bbc becuase they mentioned sex in their headline? Do you think they shouldnt have reported any of the goings on relating to the book in the courtroom? It was introuduced by the defence. Clearly its ridiculous in their part, but how do you report on a case without reporting whats happening??
Catch a grip ffs!!
you can ffs and name call all you want. This is a very sensitive issue, and and I'd a lot of folk on her would feel protective of the couple and their families. Could you not have just bit your tongue, maybe showed a bit of sensitivity?
Quote from: J OGorman on May 25, 2012, 07:59:33 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 07:52:51 PM
You imbecile, the adjournment because of the prosecution objecting to the sex book being focussed on is the important event. Not every headline that mentions sex is salacious ffs - it summarises the key issue of the day, and theres very little difference between the bbc article and the article that was used as a comparative!
Do you really think its necessary to complain to the bbc becuase they mentioned sex in their headline? Do you think they shouldnt have reported any of the goings on relating to the book in the courtroom? It was introuduced by the defence. Clearly its ridiculous in their part, but how do you report on a case without reporting whats happening??
Catch a grip ffs!!
you can ffs and name call all you want. This is a very sensitive issue, and and I'd a lot of folk on her would feel protective of the couple and their families. Could you not have just bit your tongue, maybe showed a bit of sensitivity?
I fail to see why the BBC should adjust their policy of reporting the facts because the Harte family involvement in this.
The BBC could have reported the events with a less salacious headline.
Headlines can distort interpretation an article.
The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey bastards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.
Quote from: trileacman on May 25, 2012, 09:37:03 PM
The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.
good post
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:36:51 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 25, 2012, 09:37:03 PM
The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.
good post
Dont be ridiculous, how is it??
It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!
As for 'biting my tongue and showing sensitivity' - how am I not? Just by disagreeing that the BBC report was salacious? Ffs indeed. Sensitivity, or indeed pretty much anything, without objectivity, is very much diluted - theres a real danger of coming across as insincere.
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
What the f**k are you talking about?
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
Yes - everyone should hold up posters saying LAWNSEED, GET RID OF YOUR COMPUTER
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
Yes - everyone should hold up posters saying LAWNSEED, GET RID OF YOUR COMPUTER
are you saying i,m talking shite its not patience your lacking its the ability to think logically
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
Yes - everyone should hold up posters saying LAWNSEED, GET RID OF YOUR COMPUTER
;D Well played sir!
haranguerer: what exactly do you work as at the BBC
Quote from: bloodybreakball on May 25, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
haranguerer: what exactly do you work as at the BBC
Someone rush haranguerer to the burn unit.
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
absolutely
Quote from: bloodybreakball on May 25, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
haranguerer: what exactly do you work as at the BBC
Got me Sherlock ::)
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:46:44 PM
Dont be ridiculous, how is it??
It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!
As for 'biting my tongue and showing sensitivity' - how am I not? Just by disagreeing that the BBC report was salacious? Ffs indeed. Sensitivity, or indeed pretty much anything, without objectivity, is very much diluted - theres a real danger of coming across as insincere.
haranguerer, nobody knows what the defense case is yet, that is why 99 out of every 100 news agencies reporting this case choose not make any mention of a "sex guide".
These are extracts from the PA report you asked to be 'compared and contrasted' with the 'salacious' BBC report, and which you say above is one of the ones which make no mention of a sex guide
[from earlier in the thread:]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A:
'A defence lawyer's bid to question a police officer about a sex guide ...'
'Principal state counsel Mehdi Manrakhan reacted angrily when Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, representing accused Avinash Treebhoowoon, asked the officer if the book - The Ultimate Sex Guide - contained material of a violent nature.'
The crime was horrendous, the stories of sniggering and jocularity in the courtroom heartrending, and the defence pathetic and hurtful, but reporting accurately on a courtcase isn't salacious, even if sex is mentioned.
It is not right that intimate aspects of a young couple's married life should be made public. It is especially wrong in these circumstances.
Therefore I think the BBC were wrong to report it.
Quote from: Orior on May 25, 2012, 11:44:31 PM
It is not right that intimate aspects of a young couple's married life should be made public. It is especially wrong in these circumstances.
Therefore I think the BBC were wrong to report it.
I agree wholeheartedly that this entire line of defence seems thoroughly disgusting and I can't even begin to comprehend what the poor, bereaved families must be going through.
But in the end, should this "defence" somehow prove successful in seeing the accused acquitted, how should the BBC explain that to the wider public who have a legitimate interest in the case, but are not present in Court?
Of course reporters should show sensitivity, but to decline even to mention something which a Judge has accepted should be presented in open court constitutes censorship, and censorship of the Press is no more acceptable than salaciousness by it (imo).
Therefore if there is criticism to be made, then essentially it must be of the Defence team, or possibly the Judge, not of people who are only reporting what is going on.
Anyhow, my heart goes out to the families involved and I just hope they have the strength to hold out to see justice done for their loved ones.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 11:33:23 PM
These are extracts from the PA report you asked to be 'compared and contrasted' with the 'salacious' BBC report, and which you say above is one of the ones which make no mention of a sex guide
[from earlier in the thread:]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A:
'A defence lawyer's bid to question a police officer about a sex guide ...'
'Principal state counsel Mehdi Manrakhan reacted angrily when Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, representing accused Avinash Treebhoowoon, asked the officer if the book - The Ultimate Sex Guide - contained material of a violent nature.'
The crime was horrendous, the stories of sniggering and jocularity in the courtroom heartrending, and the defence pathetic and hurtful, but reporting accurately on a courtcase isn't salacious, even if sex is mentioned.
That is not the report I posted this morning. The original PA report made no mention of a "sex guide" only a 'book' and at that stage the only mention of a "sex guide" was on the BBC site. PA have subsequently updated their wire story which has automatically updated on every site which is syndicating it. I had thought the sites carrying the original PA story may have had a modicum of integrity about them but obviously they pay for a feed and publish whatever comes out of it. Shame on them for doing so. This is what they had this morning before the update:
Lawyers clash at McAreavey trial
Posted: May 25, 2012
Lawyers clashed at the trial of two men accused of murdering Michaela McAreavey after defence counsel attempted to delve into the private lives of her and her husband.
A legal representative of one of the accused – Avinash Treebhoowoon – repeatedly questioned a police officer about items found in the room where the honeymooner was found in Mauritius.
Sanjeev Teeluckdharry pressed the officer about a laptop, book and personal items belonging to Mrs McAreavey and her husband John.
But prosecution counsel at Port Louis's criminal court Mehdi Manrakhan objected strongly to the line of questioning, prompting the judge to adjourn proceedings for a period.
Treebhoowoon, 30, and Sandip Moneea, 42, deny the premeditated murder of the 27-year-old teacher from Co Tyrone.
Mrs McAreavey was found dead in her hotel room shortly after lunching with her husband John by the pool.
The prosecution claim she returned to her room to fetch biscuits for her tea and caught the accused stealing in her room.
A jury of nine – six men and three women – is hearing the case and judge Mr Justice Prithviraj Fecknah is presiding.
Almost 50 witnesses are listed to give evidence.
Though most Mauritians speak French Creole as their first tongue, court proceedings are being heard in English.
The case against Treebhoowoon, from Plaine des Roches, and Moneea, from Petit Raffray, was scheduled to last two weeks but is set to go on for much longer with Judge Fecknah yesterday warning that a "lengthy trial" was ahead.
It is already one the most high-profile criminal cases held on the island.
Mrs McAreavey, from Ballygawley, Co Tyrone, was the only daughter of Mickey Harte, the GAA boss who steered his native county to three All Ireland championships.
The Legends Hotel, which has since been renamed the Lux Hotel, is in the fishing village of Grand Gaube, close to Mauritius's Grand Bay.
Mrs McAreavey taught religious education and the Irish language at St Patrick's Academy in Dungannon, Co Tyrone.
Her Requiem Mass was held close to her family home at St Malachy's chapel in Ballymacilroy – the same church in which she had married a fortnight before she was killed.
Then-Irish president Mary McAleese was among dignitaries at a funeral attended by more than 3,000 people, as the newlywed was buried in her wedding dress.Edit: for verification of what I said click on the link below and then click on the actual stories to see the text has been changed since the last Google cache i.e. the text is no longer present in the stories.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sanjeev+Teeluckdharry+pressed+the+officer+about+a+laptop%2C+book+and+personal+items+belonging+to+Mrs+McAreavey+and+her+husband+John.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sanjeev+Teeluckdharry+pressed+the+officer+about+a+laptop%2C+book+and+personal+items+belonging+to+Mrs+McAreavey+and+her+husband+John.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:46:44 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:36:51 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 25, 2012, 09:37:03 PM
The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.
good post
Dont be ridiculous, how is it??
It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!
Where did I say they shouldn't mention it? My gripe is that it is insensitive and salacious to draw attention to one piece of the court proceedings in the headline. They could have had a headline featuring any number of today's events in Mauritius; the adjournment, the questioning of the photographer, the return of particular items, but they focused on one particular item. Why? Because sex sells and the Beeb thought they'd get more mileage out of a story that pointed out a sex guide was one of the personal belongings returned to Mr McAreavey. Would they have included the fact he was returned a laptop in the headline do you think?
Anyway I have nothing more to add to this thread and, to a point, Seafoid is right, it only acts to draw attention to the case and fuel the discussion on this affair. Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 25, 2012, 10:41:29 PM
Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?
should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?
absolutely
I thought you didn't want to bring attention to salacious BBC headlines ?
Quote from: trileacman on May 26, 2012, 12:45:58 AM
Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?
I shouldnt even reply to this point becuase its as irrelevant and stupid a point as I've seen in a while,(well, a few hours anyway) but:
Whos applauding anything?? I'm just saying the BBCs report wasnt salacious. How were they to report the adjournment properly without mentioning the book?? Why would they mention a laptop in the headline when the defence were focussing on the book, so much so that they described it as 'the crux of their defence'??
The defence are being pricks, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be reported. Imo the report which was in rte, which focuses and mentions on a few occasions, a book which isnt named, adds much moire ambiguity to the whole thing - the fact that its revealed to be nothing more than a sex guide in the BBC serves to reveal just how low the defence are going.
Ulick, well then that just shows the BBC was the most accurate and comprehensive of the reports. If the later PA reports are also naming the book etc, then every one of the news organisations reporting the case is being salacious. Do you think that, or do you accept that to give a clear picture of the kind of shite thats going on, its necessary to mention the book? Because if that opinion about the bbc was based on comparisons and contrasts which no longer hold, then it would obviously have to be revised.
Sex Guide 'crux of Michaela case' is the headline. No attempt to elaborate just a crass reproduction of a remark in the case. The thing that annoys me about this headline is what it implies. This is not the first headline that has been misleading on the BBC in regard to this case. I have no issue to the sex manual being named in the report however I do object to the headline which to me implies that this may have been a sex crime. Unless there is an outstanding piece of evidence the manual is nowhere near the crux of the case as this headline suggests.
Quote from: trileacman on May 26, 2012, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:46:44 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on May 25, 2012, 10:36:51 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 25, 2012, 09:37:03 PM
The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.
good post
Dont be ridiculous, how is it??
It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!
Where did I say they shouldn't mention it? My gripe is that it is insensitive and salacious to draw attention to one piece of the court proceedings in the headline. They could have had a headline featuring any number of today's events in Mauritius; the adjournment, the questioning of the photographer, the return of particular items, but they focused on one particular item. Why? Because sex sells and the Beeb thought they'd get more mileage out of a story that pointed out a sex guide was one of the personal belongings returned to Mr McAreavey. Would they have included the fact he was returned a laptop in the headline do you think?
Anyway I have nothing more to add to this thread and, to a point, Seafoid is right, it only acts to draw attention to the case and fuel the discussion on this affair. Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?
I'd say if it was a Rangers footballer or DUP politician in the same situation your intentions wouldnt be so noble.
Ach in fairness to Trileacman he has never come across as a bigot.
Quote from: Minder on May 26, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Ach in fairness to Trileacman he has never come across as a bigot.
You dont have to be a bigot to hate Rangers or the DUP ;)
So it turns out that the Sex Guide Book was in fact a supplement inside one of the Glossy magazines bought by Michaela. Very distressing for the families to have to listen to it all.
Quote from: Ulick on May 25, 2012, 11:13:58 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 25, 2012, 10:46:44 PM
Dont be ridiculous, how is it??
It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!
As for 'biting my tongue and showing sensitivity' - how am I not? Just by disagreeing that the BBC report was salacious? Ffs indeed. Sensitivity, or indeed pretty much anything, without objectivity, is very much diluted - theres a real danger of coming across as insincere.
haranguerer, nobody knows what the defense case is yet, that is why 99 out of every 100 news agencies reporting this case choose not make any mention of a "sex guide".
I do read mention of a 'sex guide' in every report I've seen.
In any event, the so called 'sex guide' was not claimed to be the crux of the defence case by the defence, according to the line of questioning as recorded by the Indo.
I suspect the crux of the defence is to create a reasonable doubt and part of that is to manufacture an alternative possibility.
To be honest, the article in the Daily Mirror is even worse, mentioning other items which were also in their suitcases. This hasn't been mentioned by the BBC in their reporting of the detail.
The English Mirror, too, are trying to put a different slant on things as there is no call to go into such details when it is clear for all to see what happened in Mauritius.
Quote from: Line Ball on May 26, 2012, 03:16:04 PM
To be honest, the article in the Daily Mirror is even worse, mentioning other items which were also in their suitcases. This hasn't been mentioned by the BBC in their reporting of the detail.
The English Mirror, too, are trying to put a different slant on things as there is no call to go into such details when it is clear for all to see what happened in Mauritius.
I had the misfortune to glance at the Daily Mirror in the in laws today...just as bad as the Sun...total rag with low life reporters.
Quote from: Sandino on May 26, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
Sex Guide 'crux of Michaela case' is the headline. No attempt to elaborate just a crass reproduction of a remark in the case.
No it wasnt! It was that the sex guide was the crux of michaela trial defence - utterly different!! Can you not read, or are you just deliberately misquoting? And its a headline, the 'attempt to elaborate' comes in the article which follows....
Anyway, for salacious see the paper headlines today - absolute gutter shite from pretty much every one of them
I don't read the British tabloids and the increasing number of Irish papers following their example. Judging by the reaction of posters here, to their reporting of the court case in today's publications, it further vindicates my decision to not.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 26, 2012, 09:26:10 PM
I don't read the British tabloids and the increasing number of Irish papers following their example. Judging by the reaction of posters here, to their reporting of the court case in today's publications, it further vindicates my decision to not.
More people should take this stance. You know what you are getting with a tabloid, so if your sensibilities are easily offended don't buy the papers.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 26, 2012, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 26, 2012, 09:26:10 PM
I don't read the British tabloids and the increasing number of Irish papers following their example. Judging by the reaction of posters here, to their reporting of the court case in today's publications, it further vindicates my decision to not.
More people should take this stance. You know what you are getting with a tabloid, so if your sensibilities are easily offended don't the papers.
Nobody reads the English rags, if you listened to people. Yet their circulation is in the millions.
Was talkings to some-one who spent quite a time working in Maruitisius in a reglious order, who is is digustested with the trial, their theory is that it is a Hindu trial with a Hindu judge, Hindu Defence, Hindu defence baristerce's, they also were very of the defence barrister for the second defennce applicant
Very intresting few days
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 26, 2012, 01:27:37 PM
So it turns out that the Sex Guide Book was in fact a supplement inside one of the Glossy magazines bought by Michaela. Very distressing for the families to have to listen to it all.
I read that in the Irish News - front page & 4 pages inside on this - kick them up the aisle with the BBC shall we?
A reporter's job is to report. The BBC did no more than report the issue which led to the drama in the courtroom and the reason for the adjournment. To do otherwise is censorship. Distressing for the family but not a creation of the media this time so pack up that agenda.
The headline has been changed on the BBC website. I did not misqoute it. It is still the former headline further down the page. It is also well into the article before the origional headline was clarified. The headline in its current form is not as bad to be honest.
So the 'Sex guide' was just an insert from a copy of Cosmopolitan magazine that Micheala bought in the airport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18229590
Doesn't matter if it was a gay porn magazine, what relevance has it to the case? None.
I'd say it's very relevant, as it would seem that the Defence's case is looking likely to go down a fairly ridiculous route - unless i'm badly misreading the situation.
Let me put it like this. Her husband is downstairs and she is murdered in her room. How is the literature in that room relevant to the case. Its not and in any sensible country the judge would ban this from even being reported on.
Would you go back and read what he said, he is saying they are going to try and make it relevant.
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
Quote from: Leo on May 27, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
+1
Quote from: Keepthefaith93 on May 28, 2012, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: Leo on May 27, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
+1
I'm sure that's all the families need now.... anonymous internet forum posters telling everybody how they are wrong in the way they are dealing with the trial and implying that they are letting John down. For all you lads know, they could completely trust their current legal team and family members who are at the trial. More time praying for the families like they have asked for, and less time sitting at a keyboard judging them for how they are handling a situation you have zero knowledge of would be better suited to you.
Quote from: dillinger on May 25, 2012, 06:15:47 PM
The defence are claiming this book, or whatever, is the crux of the defence case. Hard for any Judge to refuse i think. If that's all the defence they have they don't have much hope. Of course the prosecution have to prove their case.
Turns out it was a supplement from Cosmopolitan Magazine purchased at the airport. Defence lawyers are besmirching the memory of the deceased and trampling over the feelings of the Harte and McAreavy families, absolutely disgusting.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 28, 2012, 09:05:52 AM
Quote from: Keepthefaith93 on May 28, 2012, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: Leo on May 27, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
[/b][/b]
+1
I'm sure that's all the families need now.... anonymous internet forum posters telling everybody how they are wrong in the way they are dealing with the trial and implying that they are letting John down. For all you lads know, they could completely trust their current legal team and family members who are at the trial. More time praying for the families like they have asked for, and less time sitting at a keyboard judging them for how they are handling a situation you have zero knowledge of would be better suited to you.
I am definitely not judging the way that the Harte and McAreevy families are dealing with this and have nothing but respect and admiration for them in how they have handled themselves since this terrible tragedy happened, its just i feel that they are trying to set the lad up and it makes me sick to the stomach to think what he must be going through and they are in my prayers.
I have been following this story on the BBC radio and Natasha Sayee has been central to this, I wouldn't say she has been sensationalist. In fact she has come across in her reports as sympathetic to the families. I started this thread because of the concerns I had, listening to her reports that justice is not being done and the totally disrespectful conduct of the jury, public and defence who thought the whole thing was a source of fun. And the Judge didn't call them to book.
Your last few words are key here. I dont think a judge in Ireland would have let this caper develop. He would have called the defence team out received their angle and let it go or not.
Could I put this in a very simplistic alternative way, you go to Mauritius and you get murdered. And they try to blame you and your partner because they found a Hitchcock murder mystery book in the room. Sounds ridiculous dosent it? This is even less far fetched than the defence's connection here, and the sex angle is nothing more than an attempt at discrediting the innocent victims, sensationalising the trial, and subsequently increasing the ordeal of their family and friends. They are throwing muck...
Quote from: Leo on May 27, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
What would the legal team be for? What role could it play?
No DNA found on the accused. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18231863
The trial of two men charged with the murder of Michaela McAreavey has heard that no DNA from either of the accused was found in her hotel room in Mauritius or on her body.
Mrs McAreavey, a 27-year-old teacher, was found dead during her honeymoon at the Legends Hotel in January 2011.
Hotel workers Avinash Treebhoowoon, 30, and Sandip Moneea, 42, deny murder.
On Monday, the court heard evidence from an Oxfordshire-based forensic scientist.
Susan Woodroffe examined samples from Mrs McAreavey's body, as well as swabs taken from the hotel room.
The scientist, who is a prosecution witness, said that the results of her tests revealed "no specific indication" of DNA from either of the accused.
An additional key card for the couple's room was also examined and was found to contain the DNA of Dassen Naraynen, a security guard at the Legend's Hotel who was charged with conspiracy to murder in the days after the killing.
Naraynen is facing a larceny charge in connection with the case in separate court proceedings on Tuesday.
Earlier, a police officer who arrested Avinash Treebhoowoon was reprimanded by the Supreme Court judge.
Under cross-examination, the officer said he "didn't know" why it took nearly three hours to take the accused to a police station.
A defence barrister said the journey from the Legends Hotel should only have taken half an hour.
The officer was questioned for about one and a half hours by a defence barrister.
Asked what police were doing for two and a half hours, between leaving the hotel and arriving at the police station, the officer folded his arms, said he could not remember, adding: "I had no notes."
He was fiercely reprimanded by the judge but folded his arms again, and looked down at his notes.
Defence counsel Ravi Rutnah and Sanjeev Teeluckdharry
The judge said: "Let the records show that this witness remains silent."
Mrs McAreavey's widower, John, was due to give evidence at the Supreme Court on Monday but that has now been delayed due to a backlog of witnesses.
Meanwhile, it has emerged that a booklet relating to sexual matters found in Mrs McAreavey's hotel room was an insert from a women's magazine, according to her family.
Michaela, who was the daughter of Tyrone Gaelic football manager Mickey Harte, had bought the Cosmopolitan magazine at the airport.
The court in Mauritius was adjourned for a short time on Friday after heated exchanges between lawyers when the defence team robustly questioned a police officer about the material.
A spokesperson for the McAreavey and Harte families said on Sunday: "Obviously both families are very distressed and dismayed at any attempt to denigrate the memory of Michaela."
They added: "However, they would like to thank the many family, friends and the wider public for their continued support and prayers as they endure this ordeal."
The statement continued to ask for prayers so that John "may be granted the necessary strength" to get through the "difficult and painful days ahead".
While I was as appalled as everyone else here at events, having read a few articles I don't think the line of questioning is particularly designed to discredit the McAreaveys, they are merely caught in the crossfire. The line of questioning is designed to show the police in a bad light, as bumblers who could not conduct a proper investigation. So questioning about what was in the book or how many condoms there were or whatever is designed to illustrate that the police don't know, rather than get at the victims (although of course this is heedless of the victims). The defence is that the police were not thorough.
THE HARTE AND McAreavey families have issued a statement asking people to pray for John McAreavey as the trial of two men accused of murdering his wife in Mauritius continues.
The trial of 30-year-old Avinash Treebhoowoon and 42-year-old Sandip Moneea is entering its fifth day, after heated exhanges in the courtroom on Friday.
Lawyers for the defence questioned police about the discovery of a sex guide in the couple's room and asked if it contained violent material. Counsel for the prosecution objected strongly to the line of questioning.
In a joint statement the families said that they were "very distressed and dismayed at any attempt to denigrate the memory of Michaela".
John McAreavey was not present in the courtroom for last week's hearings as he has been included in a list of witnesses for the prosecution. Members of both families have been present though.
They have thanked "the many family, friends and the wider public" for their support and have asked that "people continue to pray so that John may be granted the necessary strength to get through the very difficult and painful days ahead".
Michaela McAreavey was killed in her Mauritian hotel room in January 2011 while on her honeymoon with her new husband.
There is another young Irish woman after being murdered overseas in a hotel in similar circumstances. Nichola Furlong from Wexford. The Herald have implicated the wrong man in the murder on the front of the paper today.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 28, 2012, 09:05:52 AM
Quote from: Keepthefaith93 on May 28, 2012, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: Leo on May 27, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Look this is fairly sensitive and potentilly destructive stuff as a result of defence lawyers' dirty tricks. But this is foreign territory where maybe the rules are different, and, if so, and I do want to be understaning, but I cannot understand why Mickey Harte and the bishop uncle are not out there with a robust legal & team? Surely they could have forseen the trap that is being laid for the poor lad?
+1
I'm sure that's all the families need now.... anonymous internet forum posters telling everybody how they are wrong in the way they are dealing with the trial and implying that they are letting John down. For all you lads know, they could completely trust their current legal team and family members who are at the trial. More time praying for the families like they have asked for, and less time sitting at a keyboard judging them for how they are handling a situation you have zero knowledge of would be better suited to you.
Nally I am sure you are a loyal Tyrone Gael and fair play to you, but you do not go swimming in unknown waters without every life-saving accessory available, and of course you pray that it will never be needed. But this was forseeable and it has developed badly. It shouldn't have.
Quotebut you do not go swimming in unknown waters without every life-saving accessory available, and of course you pray that it will never be needed. But this was forseeable and it has developed badly. It shouldn't have.
It shouldn't have. But neither Mickey Harte, the Bishop of Dromore or any legal person would have had any effect whatsoever on anything that has happened so far.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2012, 09:12:18 PM
Quotebut you do not go swimming in unknown waters without every life-saving accessory available, and of course you pray that it will never be needed. But this was forseeable and it has developed badly. It shouldn't have.
It shouldn't have. But neither Mickey Harte, the Bishop of Dromore or any legal person would have had any effect whatsoever on anything that has happened so far.
My aramgh firend you might be right.
And you might not be right.
All I am saying is - why leave that to chance?
I do think a properly composed team of advisers would have been of assistance to these families in this awful situation in a foreign jurisdiction and I canot understand why it is not in place, given the great societal influence weilded by these two families.
It is also a puzzle as to why they are not out there lending support, whatever about having proper professional help.
Naiive!!!
Would the families legal team have been allowed any input into the trail? Can't really see it my-self.
This court case again proves how much (most) solicitors and barristers are complete and utter scum bags
This trial (with the quirks of a legal system not our own) is really no different to if the trial was being heard in Belfast. It is a process to test the strength of the evidence against the accused. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. It has nothing to do with the families of the victim other that in this case John McAreavey is appearing as a witness for the prosecution. As such I would expect/hope he is being advised by the prosecuting barristers and solicitors. Whatever you think about this particular crime and the accused, they are entitled to mount a robust defence. Part of any defence is the attempt to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury.
Good post
I have been following this case across a range of media outlets. Each outlet seems to be reporting slightly different pieces of information. I hate to say this but I fear the trial may be turned into a good local against a decadent westerner type of case by the defence lawyers. Also hearing the different pieces of information it is beginning to look like both the accused will be found not guilty. While this may be very painful for Michaela's family and friends if the accused are innocent they must not be sacrificed to protect the local tourist industry. I think we will see much more evidence which may surprise us all; this trial could have many turns yet. Let justice be done whatever way this turns out.
What the families are suffering after all they have come through is unimaginable.
Quote from: AQMP on May 29, 2012, 10:57:48 AM
This trial (with the quirks of a legal system not our own) is really no different to if the trial was being heard in Belfast. It is a process to test the strength of the evidence against the accused. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. It has nothing to do with the families of the victim other that in this case John McAreavey is appearing as a witness for the prosecution. As such I would expect/hope he is being advised by the prosecuting barristers and solicitors. Whatever you think about this particular crime and the accused, they are entitled to mount a robust defence. Part of any defence is the attempt to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury.
Well put.
Quote from: Sandino on May 29, 2012, 12:12:54 PM
I have been following this case across a range of media outlets. Each outlet seems to be reporting slightly different pieces of information. I hate to say this but I fear the trial may be turned into a good local against a decadent westerner type of case by the defence lawyers. Also hearing the different pieces of information it is beginning to look like both the accused will be found not guilty. While this may be very painful for Michaela's family and friends if the accused are innocent they must not be sacrificed to protect the local tourist industry. I think we will see much more evidence which may surprise us all; this trial could have many turns yet. Let justice be done whatever way this turns out.
What the families are suffering after all they have come through is unimaginable.
I am not sure they are really chasing the decadent westerner type as much as the bumbling KeyStone cops. Unless there is further evidence as you say they have done enough already to get acquittals. From reports it seems they have shown:
1. Scene not preserved and possibly tampered with by Police (moving biscuits around)
2. Cop refusing to deny beating suspect and the judges comments
3. Witness changing statements (after charges dropped...)
4. Police not exercising all leads (from the spurious: laptop and book, to the critical: not interviewing German couple because of language barrier)
5. No positive DNA results.
6. Inexperience Police photographer
7. Accused withdrawing confession
8. Gaps in police reporting (2 hours missing...) of events
To be honest they would seem to have already done enough. I think it's inevitable that this will get thrown out.
It's a shame for the families to have to go through with this charade. It will shed little light on what actually happened.
/Jim.
Well put Jim, I had decided not to put any details about why I think the case will be lost but you have hit most of the points in your post. There are however more examples of mistakes made by the police in the public domain. The reason I made the remark a cultural aspect was that the defence said that the book was at the crux of the defence case and that more information would show why.
As each one of these errors comes to light the pain will get worse for the families of both the victims and the accused.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 29, 2012, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: Sandino on May 29, 2012, 12:12:54 PM
I have been following this case across a range of media outlets. Each outlet seems to be reporting slightly different pieces of information. I hate to say this but I fear the trial may be turned into a good local against a decadent westerner type of case by the defence lawyers. Also hearing the different pieces of information it is beginning to look like both the accused will be found not guilty. While this may be very painful for Michaela's family and friends if the accused are innocent they must not be sacrificed to protect the local tourist industry. I think we will see much more evidence which may surprise us all; this trial could have many turns yet. Let justice be done whatever way this turns out.
What the families are suffering after all they have come through is unimaginable.
I am not sure they are really chasing the decadent westerner type as much as the bumbling KeyStone cops. Unless there is further evidence as you say they have done enough already to get acquittals. From reports it seems they have shown:
1. Scene not preserved and possibly tampered with by Police (moving biscuits around)
2. Cop refusing to deny beating suspect and the judges comments
3. Witness changing statements (after charges dropped...)
4. Police not exercising all leads (from the spurious: laptop and book, to the critical: not interviewing German couple because of language barrier)
5. No positive DNA results.
6. Inexperience Police photographer
7. Accused withdrawing confession
8. Gaps in police reporting (2 hours missing...) of events
To be honest they would seem to have already done enough. I think it's inevitable that this will get thrown out.
It's a shame for the families to have to go through with this charade. It will shed little light on what actually happened.
/Jim.
From a personal point of view, sadly, I think you might be right Jim.
More developments that will add to the hurt and pain of the families. The chances of justice being done are deminishing with each passing day I fear.
http://www.u.tv/News/Lawyer-for-Michaela-accused-walks-out/fbb07bda-8d1c-4e80-adc4-65bc9ee80f33
They're going down - theres no way an island as reliant on foreigners as mauritius is going to rig a court case against them.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 30, 2012, 01:35:23 PM
They're going down - theres no way an island as reliant on foreigners as mauritius is going to rig a court case against them.
I agree, but perhaps the local police have done an O J Simpson and messed this up bigtime. I would also fear that the cultural differences will be played up later. As someone stated earlier its the job of the defence to create doubt any way they can. I hope I am wrong, but I think John is in for a torrid time in court.
Like on the occasion of the death of Micheala, I'm really struggling with this story about the 21 year old from Wexford, brutally murdered in a place far away from home.
I just can't get my head round this one either and it's just so, so very sad and heartbreaking. I find it difficult to read the newspapers today about her funeral yesterday and I didn't know anything about the wee girl.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0603/funeral-of-nicola-furlong-takes-place-in-wexford.html
Quote from: haranguerer on May 30, 2012, 01:35:23 PM
They're going down - theres no way an island as reliant on foreigners as mauritius is going to rig a court case against them.
Jim is 100% correct I fear, given the loose way the court is being run, the shoddy police work and the alleged beating of the accused that was never denied.............................I fail to see how they will go down, i hope to god you are right though.
How is it that they do not have any DNA evidence from the accused on Michaela's body?
How much reliance can anyone place on this joke of a trial? Suspects allegedly beaten to confess, 'star witness' was a co-accused who has turned tout for immunity etc. The powers that in Mauritius will want a conviction, but in light of the evidence you would imagine that in any respectable vourt of law that based on the evidence they would be deemed innocent. Yet given the complete balls up of a handling from start to finish and the importance of trying to limit any further damage to the islands reputation, it would not be surprising if the judge/jury have been instructed to deliver a guilt verdict and that this verdict has been agreed on long before the trial finished.
They would not necessarily be deemed innocent but it would appear there are grounds for reasonable doubt. In relation to the DNA, thats's why they filled the bath with water, which would indicate criminal intentions at the very least.
Quote from: nrico2006 on June 05, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
How is it that they do not have any DNA evidence from the accused on Michaela's body?
How much reliance can anyone place on this joke of a trial? Suspects allegedly beaten to confess, 'star witness' was a co-accused who has turned tout for immunity etc. The powers that in Mauritius will want a conviction, but in light of the evidence you would imagine that in any respectable vourt of law that based on the evidence they would be deemed innocent. Yet given the complete balls up of a handling from start to finish and the importance of trying to limit any further damage to the islands reputation, it would not be surprising if the judge/jury have been instructed to deliver a guilt verdict and that this verdict has been agreed on long before the trial finished.
Are you of the opinion that these guys are innocent?
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2012, 02:11:39 PM
Milltown, I have no fcukin idea but most people are assuming they did it. Why is that?
Are the police looking someone else? I think if you are a relative of someone who was killed in such a fashion you wouldn't really give a stuff if the cops beat the shit out of someone during the interview.
Yes we should be wary of this, giving the history of these tactics here in N.I but if you know someone did it and couldn't get a conviction due to no DNA you'd be pretty pissed off
Again I don't know if these guys did it or not but there doesn't seem to be anyone else in the line up
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2012, 02:24:25 PM
So because there is nobody else in the line up, these lads will do?
Fcukin hell.
I don't know if they are guilty or innocent, it's been a farce so far and this is only going to help the defence. I never mentioned anything that you have posted
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2012, 02:24:25 PM
So because there is nobody else in the line up, these lads will do?
Fcukin hell.
Thats not what he said, you are twisting.
The peelers deemed enough evidence was in play to the point they charged them with the murder.
These boys had the means, the motive and the opportunity and it is now up to the court to decide their fate which is the way it should be.
Jesus Christ. Why bother having a trial at all? Let Stew just deliver his verdict from the USA that "these boys had the means, the motive and the opportunity" and don't have the court wasting people's time trying to determine exactly that.
Quote from: nrico2006 on June 05, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
How is it that they do not have any DNA evidence from the accused on Michaela's body?
It was reported that any DNA evidence there might have been was washed off in the bath afterwards.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 05, 2012, 02:01:43 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on June 05, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
How is it that they do not have any DNA evidence from the accused on Michaela's body?
How much reliance can anyone place on this joke of a trial? Suspects allegedly beaten to confess, 'star witness' was a co-accused who has turned tout for immunity etc. The powers that in Mauritius will want a conviction, but in light of the evidence you would imagine that in any respectable vourt of law that based on the evidence they would be deemed innocent. Yet given the complete balls up of a handling from start to finish and the importance of trying to limit any further damage to the islands reputation, it would not be surprising if the judge/jury have been instructed to deliver a guilt verdict and that this verdict has been agreed on long before the trial finished.
Are you of the opinion that these guys are innocent?
That's my point, any verdict is going to be tarnished due to the errors and handling with this investigation.
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2012, 03:25:55 PM
Let's not twist what you said, stew. Do you still hope to God they go down?
Yes.
If it looks like a duck..........walks like a duck and all that.
I think they are guilty and I think the families are being set up to fail in terms of receiving justice, personally I think these boys are going to get off due to shoddy police work, ineffective counsel and an unwillingness on behalf of the Government to cause any harm to the Islands name, tourism is king and a guilty verdict would hurt that revenue stream.
lose the righteous indignation directed at me, I am not the judge, have no power over the verdict whatsoever and what the fcuk has me living in the states got to do with anything?
If the means, motive and opportunity mean nothing how the fcuk does anyone ever get to do jail time, is everybody innocent according to you lads?
Unbelievable. As I said, why bother with a trial since you have analysed the evidence with such a forensic mind and saved the learned judge the trouble? And now, of course, there's no point at all in hearing the defence witnesses.
Do you remember your pre-trial verdict on the Birmingham Six? What was your decision on the Guildford Four, Your Honour? (Before the trial or halfway through it - it doesn't really matter.)
Quote from: Hardy on June 05, 2012, 03:45:48 PM
Unbelievable. As I said, why bother with a trial since you have analysed the evidence with such a forensic mind and saved the learned judge the trouble? And now, of course, there's no point at all in hearing the defence witnesses.
Do you remember your pre-trial verdict on the Birmingham Six? What was your decision on the Guildford Four, Your Honour? (Before the trial or halfway through it - it doesn't really matter.)
It's called opinion you sanctimonious twat, it is just my opinion, and an opinion on a GAA forum at that!
You have me as judge, jury and executioner on this and all because I happen to offer my own two cents worth, isnt that what you are supposed to do on here?
If you are not bright to figure out I am entitled to my opinion on this then there is no point arguing with you, believe it or not you have the right to have an opinion also!
You assume by your arrogant rant that you think I would not be for due process, of course I am, I want all the evidence heard and the verdict read but I don't trust the processes over there and have the right to be sceptical given what has transpired in the courtroom, in the police station and in the McAreavey hotel room!
My "arrogant rant" was just my opinion, too. An opinion that your opinion is unbelievable. I'm entitled to express that opinion, just as you're entitled to express yours. One difference - I'll do it without calling you names.
Why is your opinion unbelievable? Because it's uninformed or at least not fully informed. How can you have an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendants that we should take seriously when not even half the evidence has been heard yet? Never mind the fact that, unless you've been reading the full transcripts, you're unlikely personally to have heard even one percent of it.
You are correct, you can have the opinion that I am the judge, it is unbelievable of course to have such an opinion but whatever floats your boat.
I should not have called you a twat, for that I apologize.
DNA is a recent innovation, people were sentenced for hundreds of years before it came along, the bath explains why it may not be possible to use it here.
People who recant confessions often imply police brutality, it is down to the detail here also.
I think the comparisons with the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four are fanciful, and unhelpful. There was no evidence that these people were near those crimes at all and there was dodgy forensic evidence used to convict them. There is no suggestion of faked forensic evidence here, just doubt over the quality of evidence collection by the police.
Quote from: stew on June 05, 2012, 06:12:40 PM
I should not have called you a t**t, for that I apologize.
Thanks. No problem.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 05, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
DNA is a recent innovation, people were sentenced for hundreds of years before it came along, the bath explains why it may not be possible to use it here.
People who recant confessions often imply police brutality, it is down to the detail here also.
I think the comparisons with the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four are fanciful, and unhelpful. There was no evidence that these people were near those crimes at all and there was dodgy forensic evidence used to convict them. There is no suggestion of faked forensic evidence here, just doubt over the quality of evidence collection by the police.
You're right that there's no comparison between the respective cases. I was trying to point up the dangers of a rush to judgement in the context that people here seemed to be assuming the guilt of the defendants simply on the basis that they're the people the police have chosen to charge and Birmingham/Guildford make me wonder how Irish people, of all people, could forget that.
We can't, unless we have all the transcripts of the case, have a informed correct view of the events in the case. We are basing our views on stuff the media have reported on, so in that respect it's difficult to judge things.
Clearly the beating (if that happened) out a confession is wrong
Poor police work in the aftermath of the death has also played into the defences hands.
The 'star witness' being a joint accused can never be a good thing and could be doing this to cover his own actions in this. But if he's confessing to the goings (his own involvement to) on then why should he lie?
Again we don't clearly know
John is giving evidence tomorrow. God help him. It will not be easy.
This trial is little different than what happens here or in Britain. Like here the Mauritian legal system is basically British. It s not like we do things better.
This thread is titled Michaela McAreavy Trial - Will Justice be Done? Getting a conviction is not necessarily justice. A murder trial is about the accused - however callous that may sound to those close to the person murdered. The proscecutution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and if they don t ..........
I said I wouldn't remark on this issue again but I would just like to point one thing out. We are receiving second-hand information here and so claiming the police work is inherently flawed or that the accused are using all possible excuses to avoid a guilty verdict is very much being based upon some 2 1/2 minute news clip or a newspaper report from someone with only a passing knowledge of the Mauritian justice system.
You would hope that the jury who are drawn from Mauritian society would be better placed than probably all of us to determine the likelihood of police brutality or incompetent forensics. Likewise they are better positioned to pass judgement on the character and reliability of the witnesses and the defendants.
To go around drawing comparisons to the Guildford four or calling someone a twat because they disagree with you is arrogant in the extreme, considering you have probably never been to Mauritius in your life and, up until two weeks ago, you hadn't a clue about the Mauritian justice system or the background/integrity of some of the witnesses.
Watching a 4 minute clip on the news or the headline piece in a newspaper doesn't make you an expert, especially considering your opinion is based on the reporting of an absolute stranger. What guarantee have you that his reporting is accurate? Remember the truth can be twisted 10 f**king ways to suit certain agendas.
Quote from: trileacman on June 06, 2012, 01:05:17 AM
I said I wouldn't remark on this issue again but I would just like to point one thing out. We are receiving second-hand information here and so claiming the police work is inherently flawed or that the accused are using all possible excuses to avoid a guilty verdict is very much being based upon some 2 1/2 minute news clip or a newspaper report from someone with only a passing knowledge of the Mauritian justice system.
You would hope that the jury who are drawn from Mauritian society would be better placed than probably all of us to determine the likelihood of police brutality or incompetent forensics. Likewise they are better positioned to pass judgement on the character and reliability of the witnesses and the defendants.
To go around drawing comparisons to the Guildford four or calling someone a t**t because they disagree with you is arrogant in the extreme, considering you have probably never been to Mauritius in your life and, up until two weeks ago, you hadn't a clue about the Mauritian justice system or the background/integrity of some of the witnesses.
Watching a 4 minute clip on the news or the headline piece in a newspaper doesn't make you an expert, especially considering your opinion is based on the reporting of an absolute stranger. What guarantee have you that his reporting is accurate? Remember the truth can be twisted 10 f**king ways to suit certain agendas.
Cant believe people still believe everything that they read.
Hard oul day for John McAreavy. From accounts though, it is clear that the combative lawyer is struggling for traction, since he seems to be trying to make something of John describing himself as a tourist, a footballer and an accountant, when you can be all of these things!
Interesting the different perspectives here. From the accounts I have read and heard and nothing else I believe the police have the right men, but I also believe that the accuser who has immunity was also more involved than is being indicated by the prosecution. In my opinion of course.
A widower who found his new bride strangled on their honeymoon in Mauritius was asked by police why he was crying and then told "you're young, you'll get another wife", a court heard.
:o
The above is shocking if true
That's horrendous. I know little of Mauritian society but I wonder are women still 2nd class citizens or "property" over there.
I wish all the strength and perseverance for John throughout this.
To play devils advocate, at that stage I assume he was the prime suspect, something like the above could well be said to guage reaction
Quote from: Take Your Points on June 13, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html)
Page seems to have been pulled!
Quote from: LeoMc on June 14, 2012, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on June 13, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html)
Page seems to have been pulled!
Maybe because there has been a statement from the McAreavey family stating that the couple that the lawyers try to identify as John and Micheala are not actually them.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 14, 2012, 12:57:30 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 14, 2012, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on June 13, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html)
Page seems to have been pulled!
Maybe because there has been a statement from the McAreavey family stating that the couple that the lawyers try to identify as John and Micheala are not actually them.
Jesus, Wtf is going on out there? Where the family are getting the strength to deal with this I can't imagine.
Quote from: ziggy90 on June 14, 2012, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 14, 2012, 12:57:30 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 14, 2012, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on June 13, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mauritius/9330218/Mauritius-honeymoon-murder-lawyers-seek-to-detain-husband.html)
Page seems to have been pulled!
Maybe because there has been a statement from the McAreavey family stating that the couple that the lawyers try to identify as John and Micheala are not actually them.
Jesus, Wtf is going on out there? Where the family are getting the strength to deal with this I can't imagine.
A very dirty trial and the defence have been trying to "Plan B" John McAreavey for early on I think.
Yep, it's obvious from the tidbits we are getting that the main line of defence is to plant a seed in the jury's collective mind that it may have been a domestic argument or situation that got out of hand.
Very, very hard to listen to, or read about, even as an unconnected observer, but I cannot imagine how his family is holding themselves back from attacking the lawyers. Having said that, I suppose that's what 'justice' is all about, giving them the opportunity to present an alternative account of the murder.
I think it is telling though, that instead of alibis, dna, CCTV or whatever of the accused themselves, the approach is to cast slights on the marraige or on John himself.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 14, 2012, 01:54:35 PM
Yep, it's obvious from the tidbits we are getting that the main line of defence is to plant a seed in the jury's collective mind that it may have been a domestic argument or situation that got out of hand.
Very, very hard to listen to, or read about, even as an unconnected observer, but I cannot imagine how his family is holding themselves back from attacking the lawyers. Having said that, I suppose that's what 'justice' is all about, giving them the opportunity to present an alternative account of the murder.
I think it is telling though, that instead of alibis, dna, CCTV or whatever of the accused themselves, the approach is to cast slights on the marraige or on John himself.
Haven't been following it as much recently, but is there no CCTV at the hotel? Has there been no DNA evidence obtained from the deceased (fingernails etc?) - was it all washed off when she was put in the bath?
If there is CCTV in the bars, surely there is CCTV in the hallways hence seeing who came in and out of them room etc?
In terms of DNA etc. by putting the body in the bath this might have compromised a lot of it. Also the reality is that the levels of police investigation seem to be very shambolic to say the least so the porbitive value of any forensic evidence would be very low. It has to be recognised that you are dealing with a 2nd or 3rd world level administration here and a police force who wouldn't have had the knowledge or experience on dealing with an event like this.
Quote from: Joxer on June 14, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
If there is CCTV in the bars, surely there is CCTV in the hallways hence seeing who came in and out of them room etc?
The trial has adjourned for the day but will continue on Friday, when it is expected the jury will be shown CCTV footage which was recorded at the Legends Hotel on the day of the murder and footage from the day before.
i wonder are these lads actually guilty ?
was there any evidence of theft by hotel staff before this incident?
we have all been in good hotels and left cash lying about which the staff never touched.
were the other quests all interrogated ? i believe there were germans who were not questioned as they didnt speak english , i find it hard to believe they didnt speak english or that the cops could not have found a translator.
i read that there is a guest still unaccounted for who left the hotel that night , is this true ?
its all an utter mess , criminals actually being helped with their crimes due to incompetance and willfull hinderance by hotel staff , cops , lawyers etc. etc.
Quote from: Joxer on June 14, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
If there is CCTV in the bars, surely there is CCTV in the hallways hence seeing who came in and out of them room etc?
Joxer, hopefully there is sir. We had our room broken into last year during the night while we were sleeping (Hilton hotel, decent spot), reck of stuff taken. The speed @ which the hotel staff closed ranks was unreal. CCTV footage disappeared (there was a camera pointed down our hallway outside the lift). The police were next to useless, in fact they worse than useless (happened in England)
Hopefully to buck they all get through this unreal ordeal as best as they can..god love them
The two men acquitted of Michaela's murder - breaking news on BBC news now.
Doesn't surprise me. What a Clusterfuck of a trial.
Absolutely. In all fairness, based on the reports from the trial, if 'reasonable doubt' is a factor in Mauritian law then there was so many c**k ups by the police that you couldn't convict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18703365
God help the Hartes/McAreaveys.
It has been said on here before that the police were shoddy in a lot of ways following the incident, how so?
Quote from: southdown on July 12, 2012, 04:09:12 PM
God help the Hartes/McAreaveys.
It has been said on here before that the police were shoddy in a lot of ways following the incident, how so?
Well for one thing they didn't collect a shred of evidence against the 2 lads, other than beating an admission out of one of them. And they gave immunity from prosecution to their key witness, who it seems is just as likely to have been the guilty party.
Sickening. According to reports, there were huge scenes of jubilation at the end with the defence lawyers carried out shoulder high by the crowd.
Quote from: hardstation on July 12, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
I'll ask again. Why are we all so sure they did it?
+1
Quote from: Hound on July 12, 2012, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: southdown on July 12, 2012, 04:09:12 PM
God help the Hartes/McAreaveys.
It has been said on here before that the police were shoddy in a lot of ways following the incident, how so?
Well for one thing they didn't collect a shred of evidence against the 2 lads, other than beating an admission out of one of them. And they gave immunity from prosecution to their key witness, who it seems is just as likely to have been the guilty party.
Sickening. According to reports, there were huge scenes of jubilation at the end with the defence lawyers carried out shoulder high by the crowd.
What eveidence was missed?
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 29, 2012, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: Sandino on May 29, 2012, 12:12:54 PM
I have been following this case across a range of media outlets. Each outlet seems to be reporting slightly different pieces of information. I hate to say this but I fear the trial may be turned into a good local against a decadent westerner type of case by the defence lawyers. Also hearing the different pieces of information it is beginning to look like both the accused will be found not guilty. While this may be very painful for Michaela's family and friends if the accused are innocent they must not be sacrificed to protect the local tourist industry. I think we will see much more evidence which may surprise us all; this trial could have many turns yet. Let justice be done whatever way this turns out.
What the families are suffering after all they have come through is unimaginable.
I am not sure they are really chasing the decadent westerner type as much as the bumbling KeyStone cops. Unless there is further evidence as you say they have done enough already to get acquittals. From reports it seems they have shown:
1. Scene not preserved and possibly tampered with by Police (moving biscuits around)
2. Cop refusing to deny beating suspect and the judges comments
3. Witness changing statements (after charges dropped...)
4. Police not exercising all leads (from the spurious: laptop and book, to the critical: not interviewing German couple because of language barrier)
5. No positive DNA results.
6. Inexperience Police photographer
7. Accused withdrawing confession
8. Gaps in police reporting (2 hours missing...) of events
To be honest they would seem to have already done enough. I think it's inevitable that this will get thrown out.
It's a shame for the families to have to go through with this charade. It will shed little light on what actually happened.
/Jim.
I wrote this 6 weeks ago and sadly it was true. I feel sorry for the families who put up with 2 months of this show and know no more about the sad death of their loved one. What really galls is that with so many holes in the prosecution case it is hard to understand the mudslinging antics of the defence..
A shame for all involved.
/Jim.
Jim, absolutely.. to put everyone through such a pathetic charade is disgusting. Imagine how John McAreavy felt as that unfolded, and to hear that today as well.
If the lads are innocent, I'm glad they were acquitted, but I think the law and the justice system over there should be ashamed.
that whole court case has been nothing but a media circus and is a shocking thing for the two families to have to have been put through, you could see where this was going weeks ago... sad day
I personally feel they were guilty (just my own view, especially after one of the accused told his mother to forget about him and the fact that they were seen coming from the room around the time) but with so many factors to consider as outlined by Jim, it would be hard for the jury to say they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Must have been very tough on the family to hear cheers and carrying the legal team out of the court shoulder high.
A sad affair all round.
Very sad indeed, the Police didn't seem to have a clue what they were doing, the hotel was more interested in protecting its business rather than helping with the enquiry and you got the feeling that the Mauritian political system was more worried about its tourism industry than justice.
Thoughts and prayers are with the McAreavey and Harte families at this difficult time.
The Mauritian tourist industry cannot benefit if people can be murdered and nobody is held to account.
I didn't follow this closely, but the fact that the purse was not tested seems a shocking lapse, even for a police force unaccustomed to dealing with murder. The withdrawal of confession and allegations of police brutality are par for the course in such things.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 12, 2012, 04:34:17 PM
Jim, absolutely.. to put everyone through such a pathetic charade is disgusting. Imagine how John McAreavy felt as that unfolded, and to hear that today as well.
If the lads are innocent, I'm glad they were acquitted, but I think the law and the justice system over there should be ashamed.
I remember talking to a Mauritian woman working in catering in our workplace at the time when the two guys were first arrested and there were allegations made by their lawyers about their being beaten up in custody. Her husband had been a policeman in Mauritius and she was quite blasé about the allegations; beating up suspects was just what you did to get a confession.
From laughing in court to police cockups that make the RUC/PSNI look competent right through to a celebrity barrister for the defence who seems to have everyone eating out of his hand.No way was justice ever going to be done, nor its pursuit taken seriously even. Surely all Irish travel agents must now take Mauritius off their itineraries and if the shithole has an Ambassador in Dublin he should be sent packing forthwith.
I would fully agree with this. In my view Irish people ,at least, should boycott this place.
They have ruined lives and after that turn it into a media circus, laugh at it and now what happens- they get off. Disgusting and sickening.
At the very least out of bad things lessons must be learnt and examples must be set to make sure it never happens again. Nothing will ever bring her back but this would at least give some closure- that appears like it will never happen and the same scenario could repeat itself again.
It's hard to believe that the authorities couldn't deliver whoever the culprits were to justice when you consider there was the electronic record of the staff members entering the room.
That alone should have really narrowed it down.
It's awful for the families to be subjected to the charade of a trial and have nothing to show for it.
They had electronic evidence, they had a tout who turned on his homies to save his own skin and you had an eye witness identify them and told the court what they saw.
These cnuts got away with murder, pure and simple and i hope they rot in hell.
Quote from: stew on July 12, 2012, 09:12:16 PM
They had electronic evidence, they had a tout who turned on his homies to save his own skin and you had an eye witness identify them and told the court what they saw.
These cnuts got away with murder, pure and simple and i hope they rot in hell.
How will you know if they do?
Desperate news. I feel so sorry for the McAreavey and Harte families. They must be in bits.
Quote from: stew on July 12, 2012, 09:12:16 PM
They had electronic evidence, they had a tout who turned on his homies to save his own skin and you had an eye witness identify them and told the court what they saw.
These cnuts got away with murder, pure and simple and i hope they rot in hell.
The jury thought otherwise. Don't think it's a place anyone from Ireland should be rushing to visit.
will justice be done..? in a word NO
Disgraceful. RTE had a programme about it tonight. The mauritian cops make our guards look like the CIA.
Yer man, the one in the white shirt interviewed on the news is the guilty one. He had that look of guilt about him and couldn't look the interviewer in the eye.
Quote from: highorlow on July 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
Disgraceful. RTE had a programme about it tonight. The mauritian cops make our guards look like the CIA.
Yer man, the one in the white shirt interviewed on the news is the guilty one. He had that look of guilt about him and couldn't look the interviewer in the eye.
Solomon speaketh II
Quote from: lawnseed on July 12, 2012, 10:57:09 PM
will justice be done..? in a word NO
The accused got justice and a murder trial is about the accused. Whatever about our gut feelings and stuff, those guys had to walk. Maybe those 2 were the ones but who knows for sure? Would the loved ones of the victim want 2 patsies in gaol? The police there blew it of course and we may never know the truth.
Quote from: hardstation on July 13, 2012, 12:03:22 AM
Quote from: highorlow on July 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
Disgraceful. RTE had a programme about it tonight. The mauritian cops make our guards look like the CIA.
Yer man, the one in the white shirt interviewed on the news is the guilty one. He had that look of guilt about him and couldn't look the interviewer in the eye.
Only this whole episode is such a sad one, I'd laugh.
Lads, have a wee think before ye post.
Dr Grigori Perelman speaks ?? You don't have to be the smartest man in the world to see that it is an absolute disgrace the cops could not get a conviction in this case. The treatment of both the McAreavy and Harte families in court tells you what the justice system is like with open sneering and laughing being allowed to be repeated by the judge.
I'm sure the family are walking away from this case pretty shellshocked. Maybe we should be too. The less comment at this time the better.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on July 13, 2012, 09:15:47 AM
I'm sure the family are walking away from this case pretty shellshocked. Maybe we should be too. The less comment at this time the better.
X2. People directly effected by this could well be readers on this forum. Use your heads.
Thoughts and prayers with the families.
What happens now, does the police hunt for the murderers continue?
Quote from: hardstation on July 13, 2012, 12:03:22 AM
Quote from: highorlow on July 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
Disgraceful. RTE had a programme about it tonight. The mauritian cops make our guards look like the CIA.
Yer man, the one in the white shirt interviewed on the news is the guilty one. He had that look of guilt about him and couldn't look the interviewer in the eye.
Only this whole episode is such a sad one, I'd laugh.
Lads, have a wee think before ye post.
Ye are so wisw hardstation, I hope we can all strive to be as sage as you are oh high and mighty hs.
The evidence was there, the eye witness was there, one turned on the other but you would have them innocent, guilty as fcuk and you know it.
Quote from: stew on July 13, 2012, 11:52:54 AM
The evidence was there, the eye witness was there, one turned on the other but you would have them innocent, guilty as fcuk and you know it.
But
YOU weren't there, Stew.
I think that being Hardstations point.
Did the TV program explain why the eyewitness asked for, and received immunity from prosecution?
If his statement was correct, then he wouldnt need immunitiy because he wasn't involved in any crime.
If he had been in there with them, and gave a statement saying he was involved in the robbery but not the murder, then that would have been very strong.
But the fact that he was initially charged, then received immunity, means that anything he says has to be questioned, and perhaps he's just as likely to be the guilty one as the two lads who were on trial.
Quote from: stew on July 13, 2012, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: hardstation on July 13, 2012, 12:03:22 AM
Quote from: highorlow on July 12, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
Disgraceful. RTE had a programme about it tonight. The mauritian cops make our guards look like the CIA.
Yer man, the one in the white shirt interviewed on the news is the guilty one. He had that look of guilt about him and couldn't look the interviewer in the eye.
Only this whole episode is such a sad one, I'd laugh.
Lads, have a wee think before ye post.
Ye are so wisw hardstation, I hope we can all strive to be as sage as you are oh high and mighty hs.
The evidence was there, the eye witness was there, one turned on the other but you would have them innocent, guilty as fcuk and you know it.
Stew
I think you just want someone to be found guilty. It would be a double tragedy if those boys were innocent and had been found guilty. The police fucked up, no doubt, but the wrong men should not go to jail for police f**k ups. I cant see how you can bo so certain these boys were guilty.
Quotes from some papers
As he had done during the trial, Mr Valayden highlighted that four fingerprints belonging neither to the two accused nor the McAreaveys were found in the room where the Irish woman was strangled. He also noted that unknown DNA traces had been recovered on her body.
Police found no forensic evidence linking the two accused to the crime.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on July 13, 2012, 12:28:25 PM
Quotes from some papers
As he had done during the trial, Mr Valayden highlighted that four fingerprints belonging neither to the two accused nor the McAreaveys were found in the room where the Irish woman was strangled. He also noted that unknown DNA traces had been recovered on her body.
Police found no forensic evidence linking the two accused to the crime.
I think the lawyers are twisting things a bit in their media statements.
In the Times today, it said the fingerprints belonged to a security guard. The police originally charged him too, but then believed his story that the prints were left when he went to assist John McAreavey in the hotel room in the aftermath.
The police had the right men but they made a mess of the case against them.
The tragedy for the McAreavey and Harte families cannot be underestimated. There was always a fear in this case that there would be a not guilty verdict due to the inadequate police investigation. Mauritius is very much a 2nd world country and therefore it is difficult to judge their system against ours. It is not long ago that a lot of Irishmen were jailed on the word of a corrupt and inadequate police force, with confessions based on beatings and threats. The wrong against the McAreavey and Harte families is terrible, it would be compounded if innocent men were sent to jail. We do not know if these men were innocent or guilty but under the eyes of the law in Mauritius they have been found not guilty and that is that. Unless the police have other evidence, and I would suspect they don't, then we have to close this very tragic affair with a very sad and painful conclusion.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on July 13, 2012, 01:05:42 PM
The tragedy for the McAreavey and Harte families cannot be underestimated. There was always a fear in this case that there would be a not guilty verdict due to the inadequate police investigation. Mauritius is very much a 2nd world country and therefore it is difficult to judge their system against ours. It is not long ago that a lot of Irishmen were jailed on the word of a corrupt and inadequate police force, with confessions based on beatings and threats. The wrong against the McAreavey and Harte families is terrible, it would be compounded if innocent men were sent to jail. We do not know if these men were innocent or guilty but under the eyes of the law in Mauritius they have been found not guilty and that is that. Unless the police have other evidence, and I would suspect they don't, then we have to close this very tragic affair with a very sad and painful conclusion.
Correct, I well remember those dark days. Ask anyone who lived in Birmingham at the time of the bombings if they thought the police had the right men and if they were truthful they would answer yes. For this reason I would have to be 100% convinced of the prosecution case and I'm afraid on this occasion I'm not.
You have to feel for the families. When I started this thread with the question...will justice be done, I suspected that the two guys would get off. From the outset the whole of Mauritian authority did it's best to impede a successful prosecution. The Head of Security at the Hotel slowed the release of video evidence, he failed to secure the scene as did the police, an incomplete forensic investigation as done. Personally I always had my doubts about the Guilt of the older guy, I think the one who confessed and the one who got immunity were the most likely culprits...just my opinion but who can say for sure. The behaviour of all concerned in Mauritius from defence to prosecution the police and even the Judge was less than professional. From the headlines in the papers over there, one of which stated "Justice Triumphs" just about somes up the whole point of this mess, lets be seen to have a trial and protect our tourist economy at all costs even to the point of sullying the good name of the deceased and dragging her husband through the torture and pain of the murder once again. Mauritius should look at the dignity and humility of Mickey Harte and John McAreavy and hang their heads in shame. Emotions are running high but as previously pointed out we in Ireland no what happens when police steam roll their way to prosecutions, it is better that these men are free than wrongly convicted. Don't expect another trial. To end I would concur with those who say that Irish people should vote with their wallets and avoid Mauritius as a tourist destination.
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 14, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
You have to feel for the families. When I started this thread with the question...will justice be done, I suspected that the two guys would get off. From the outset the whole of Mauritian authority did it's best to impede a successful prosecution. The Head of Security at the Hotel slowed the release of video evidence, he failed to secure the scene as did the police, an incomplete forensic investigation as done. Personally I always had my doubts about the Guilt of the older guy, I think the one who confessed and the one who got immunity were the most likely culprits...just my opinion but who can say for sure. The behaviour of all concerned in Mauritius from defence to prosecution the police and even the Judge was less than professional. From the headlines in the papers over there, one of which stated "Justice Triumphs" just about somes up the whole point of this mess, lets be seen to have a trial and protect our tourist economy at all costs even to the point of sullying the good name of the deceased and dragging her husband through the torture and pain of the murder once again. Mauritius should look at the dignity and humility of Mickey Harte and John McAreavy and hang their heads in shame. Emotions are running high but as previously pointed out we in Ireland no what happens when police steam roll their way to prosecutions, it is better that these men are free than wrongly convicted. Don't expect another trial. To end I would concur with those who say that Irish people should vote with their wallets and avoid Mauritius as a tourist destination.
well said apples - maybe you can lock this post soon too and put it all to bed. There was never going to be justice. RIP Michaela and lets hope the the McAreaveys and Hartes can get closure someday.
Agreed that perhaps the thread should be locked. My thoughts are indeed with the families and friends of the late Michaela. There is however perhaps a need for another forum if someone wants to start one and I think what has happened in relation to this case is something that is a national issue much less something that should be put to bed.
I wish to God I had the dignity of the McAreavey and Harte families but unfortunately I haven't and I am not on my own because where they got the strength from is beyond me. I felt obliged to write to the High Commissioner, not because either families would wish anyone to do so but because I feel these clowns should have some idea of how some of us in this country feel about their so called justice system. I have edited out some of the letter.
High Commissioner
7th Floor, Les Cascades Building
Edith Cavell Street
Port Louis
Dear Mr Murton,
I have just visited your country's website where I am invited to enjoy the experience of Mauritius.
Can you please advise how I could expect to do so if my wife can be murdered in the middle of the day in her own bedroom of her hotel.
Then, not alone is a crime that could have been solved by children who would only need to be old enough to play 'hide and seek' messed up and your justice system fail completely but your country turn the trial of those accused into a laugh allowing the family of Michaela to be subjected to distasteful comments and outlandish suggestions in court.
(EDIT OUT)
I suppose some of the millions of income you were getting from vulnerable tourists like us will go to the two accused for wrongful arrest instead of to Mr McAreavy for the defamatory statements made in your supposed court of law ?
Not one cent of the millions you get for tourism will come from me, of that you can be guaranteed.
(Name)
If you wish to make your feelings known about the justice system or your concerns about visiting their country then you can email the commissioner at 'bhc@intnet.mu' (http://'bhc@intnet.mu')
I have received no reply as yet - but I will,