Michaela McAreavy Murder Trial-Will Justice be Done?

[Milltown Row2]

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?

[Milltown Row2]

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

[Milltown Row2]

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

[stew]

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.

[Hardy]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[nrico2006]

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. 

[stew]

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?

[Hardy]

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.)

[stew]

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!

[Hardy]

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.

[stew]

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[Hardy]

I should not have called you a t**t, for that I apologize.

Thanks. No problem.

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.

[Milltown Row2]

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