Murder trial in Mauritius

seamus

And people go on about the Gardai being incompetent and unprofessional. We really don't know how good we've got it.

This whole thing sounds like a bloody Police Academy movie, only without any comedy. The Mauritian authorities should be ashamed of themselves.

ibarelycare

LittleBook wrote: »

Reporter on Newstalk this morning described how John McAreavey testified that after he discovered Michaela's body he was devastated and hysterical. He was put in a jeep with four policemen and taken from the hotel.

The policemen stopped and bought fast food.

He distinctly remembers one of them saying to him "Why are you crying? You're only 26, you can find another wife!"

When they eventually arrived at the police station he was handcuffed and left alone on a bench for @ 6 hours.

More here from the Indo.

I'm actually crying reading that. Jesus

Varied

John is a good lad, the way they've treated him is a disgrace.

Noone can imagine how hard it is knowing your wife was murdered while you were only a few minutes away. Poor fella.

Laois_Man

I'm struggling a little bit to see why it was necessary to put John through this testomony.

He doesn't actually have any real evidence to contribute !

andrewg82

very sad story all together.....poor family members

bronte

How horrible for him.

Bacchus

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'm struggling a little bit to see why it was necessary to put John through this testomony.

He doesn't actually have any real evidence to contribute !

Well, he did discover the body.

Still awful thing to be putting him through though. If nothing else highlights what a sham the Mauritian police really are.

Slightly off topic but... a couple at the desk next to my fiancée and I in Trailfinders were trying to book a honeymoon in Mauritius. I guess this case isn't getting much publicity here but (money aside) no way would I go near the place. Not so much because of the murder (that can happen in any country) but more to do with the total lack of respect and flippant attitude the Mauritian authorities have towards the victims of the crime. They don't seem genuine in the pursuit of justice and for some, it seems like they're just grabbing their 15 minutes of fame.

mikom

This court case is the best advertising for a staycation that bord failte never bought.

Agricola

mikom wrote: »

This court case is the best advertising for a staycation that bord failte never bought.

And we think we live in a corrupt / gombeen / shambolic society!

aidan24326

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'm struggling a little bit to see why it was necessary to put John through this testomony.

He doesn't actually have any real evidence to contribute !

He found the body, and was the first person on the scene after the murder took place so of course he had to be called as a witness.

kfallon

Bacchus wrote: »

Slightly off topic but... a couple at the desk next to my fiancée and I in Trailfinders were trying to book a honeymoon in Mauritius. I guess this case isn't getting much publicity here but (money aside) no way would I go near the place. Not so much because of the murder (that can happen in any country) but more to do with the total lack of respect and flippant attitude the Mauritian authorities have towards the victims of the crime. They don't seem genuine in the pursuit of justice and for some, it seems like they're just grabbing their 15 minutes of fame.

I know of 2 couples who went there as part of their honeymoon and they said it was an absolute kip, you think you are going somewhere exotic but it's just a dump. Never again would they go back.

And I was told that before this terrible and horrific tragedy occurred.

later12

In fairness, plenty of people enjoy Mauritius. Lets not get carried away in denigrating the entire island and its people.

Having said that, the reports of the murder trial are mind boggling. I put my head in my hands thinking about the scenes John McAreevey reported of being down on his knees & praying in the hotel corridoor that his wife would come back to life, or flipping out like a child in the room. The level of despair he felt is clear to anybody who looks at his testimony.

It is both inhumane and incomprehensible that the defence cousel are pursuing such an aggressive line of questioning against a man who is very clearly still grieving for the loss of his wife.

aidan24326

The defence lawyer does seem to be absolutely shameless though, enjoying his 15 minutes of fame without the slightest thought for what people are going through in this awful case.

According to the news report on it tonight, he was again raising issues about 'questionable' items found in the room, even though the list of items is pretty mundane and of no relevance to the case.

So what the fcuk has that got to do with anything? The prosecution objected and the judge sustained it. But you have to wonder where he's going with this nonsense. It's making a mockery of a serious criminal trial.

Smidge

Does anyone remember the timeframe between her going to the room and being found?
I'm sure I have read it but cant remember at the moment.

JupiterKid

I was angry when I read about those cruel and callous comments that the Mauritius policemen made to John McAreavey about the loss of his young wife.:mad:

emo72

after what theyve gone through i will never go to Mauritius. horrific enough the poor girl being murdered. but then to put the family through that shambolic trial? are they on a mission to destroy their tourism economy?

Bullseye1

Can someone explain to me why RTE is spending so much time and money on this case?

emo72

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why RTE is spending so much time and money on this case?

what? because its important to us.

Bullseye1

emo72 wrote: »

what? because its important to us.

Why? Did you know the unfortunate woman? Or her family? Report on the verdict should be enough.

emo72

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why? Did you know the unfortunate woman? Or her family? Report on the verdict should be enough.

i have empathy for them. they are suffering, i feel for them.

Bullseye1

So you need to hear the details to have empathy? I don't recall the same coverage given to other Irish murdered abroad. We just get the final days court and verdict. There is a real voyarism around this case which I find distasteful.

Fishooks12

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So you need to hear the details to have empathy? I don't recall the same coverage given to other Irish murdered abroad. We just get the final days court and verdict. There is a real voyarism around this case which I find distasteful.

? You do realise how popular both the husband and father of the poor woman are?

It deserves coverage

Bullseye1

Fishooks12 wrote: »

? You do realise how popular both the husband and father of the poor woman are?

It deserves coverage

They maybe popular in their home town or village and maybe the greater county. The fact that her father was a county manager has no small part to play in the coverage this trial is getting. I had not heard of her or her husband until the news broke of her murder. Personally I believe the family should be given privacy and just report the verdict when announced.

emo72

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So you need to hear the details to have empathy? I don't recall the same coverage given to other Irish murdered abroad. We just get the final days court and verdict. There is a real voyarism around this case which I find distasteful.

dont go looking for the details. find it hard to avoid the news at some part of the day im gonna hear it. its not ****ing voyeurism. when i heard what was being said in the trial i was disgusted. its a natural reaction for me. what do you suggest for me? a media blackout? lock myself away for a month in an isolation unit?

what do you want to happen? the media to stop reporting? that generally doesnt happen.

aidan24326

Bullseye1 wrote: »

They maybe popular in their home town or village and maybe the greater county. The fact that her father was a county manager has no small part to play in the coverage this trial is getting. I had not heard of her or her husband until the news broke of her murder. Personally I believe the family should be given privacy and just report the verdict when announced.

That's true but also totally inevitable.

And it's only partly true though. This case would have drawn a fair bit of media attention even if she wasn't Micky Harte's daughter. The unusual circumstances of how it happened, in a popular holiday and honeymoon destination. Bear in mind that the murder was widely reported all around the world at the time, as far afield as Canada and Australia. It isn't only Irish people that go to Mauritius. Because of where it happened and the nature of it, it was always going to draw attention.

IRISHREDSTAR

1 because it is Mauritius and the boys could do with a hoilday and because there is a gaa link to the story and rte LOVES gaa

mum22girls

I work in the Middle East and one of my new colleagues is from Mauritius. He told me this is a massive high profile court case over there, covered constantly.

He told me that everyone in Mauritius believes the husband is the one who did it !

I couldn't believe my ears when he told me this, so I checked out the local english speaking newspaper online, sure enough the way they presented John McAreavy's evidence yesterday is clearly continuing to throw doubt on his innocence.

I am sure both families must be aware of what is being said, especially if they read yesterday's local newspaper, I feel so bad for them having to contend with that on top of all the rest. They are trying to make out he is a liar.

It is clear the cops there are useless, the lawyers are not much better !

http://theindependent.mu/2012/06/07/john-mcareavey-breaks-down-while-testifying/

drumm23

mum22girls wrote: »

They are trying to make out he is a liar.

But, uh, what if he is? That's their job - to identify some doubt over the guilt of the two accused. And if there's anything there's plenty of in this case - it's doubt!

mikemac1

mum22girls wrote: »

John McAreavy's evidence yesterday is clearly continuing to throw doubt on his innocence.

They are trying to make out he is a liar.

That's what defense lawyers do

Pat Kenny show do a daily podcast and the defense lawyers picked out an issue in his testimony and he then had to correct it and said it was a mistake

Incorrect dates were given

rodgered

In fairness its not just RTE, I picked up The Times in London this morning and there is a decent size piece on it. Was in the Metro as well on the tube this morning.

SkatesOn

Defence counsel Rama Valayden requested the police on Wednesday to bar the husband of Michaela Harte, John McAreavey from leaving the island.
(based on CCTV which supposedly shows Michaela and John in reception after the supposed time of the murder)

http://theindependent.mu/2012/06/14/defence-counsels-bank-on-contrary-cctv-footage/

Whether it's a ploy or not, this is pretty explosive stuff.

snubbleste

http://theindependent.mu/2012/06/14/defence-counsels-bank-on-contrary-cctv-footage/ McAreavey’s lawyer Dick Ng Sui Wa

goat2

just read that piece, shocked,
and i suppose there was no cctv to the corridors and rooms to show who entered the room before her husband,
the mccannes come to mind

stupidusername

I'm not getting the implications here. CCTV footage shows her at 3pm, but it'd previously been determined that she died at 2.40pm. Meaning what, the coroner got something wrong?

seamus

Not to mention the fact that many such systems are configured incorrectly and the time on the recording could easily be off by hours.

hondasam

''Overnight media reports referred to the contents of the footage and in response today the Harte and McAreavey families issued a statement saying the couple featured in the images are not John and Micheala.''

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mcareavey%20murder&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2012%2F0614%2Fhotel-cctv-footage-to-be-played-at-mcareavey-trial.html&ei=lN7ZT6y7AtO1hAfx-MXIAw&usg=AFQjCNEkvejodevEEGQeOveFgGCyqkCPMw

Time of death is 2.30pm to 3pm, it's can't be them in the cctv.

stupidusername

Yeah, as seamus said the CCTV time could very easily be off, and well, I don't get why, if it's not definitely them in the footage, why are the jurors being shown this? seems crazy to me.

hondasam

I dunno, is it just a tactic to delay the trial or to make him look guilty. How come it took this long to discover it? it must be very bad quality if the image is not clear.

SkatesOn

stupidusername wrote: »

I'm not getting the implications here. CCTV footage shows her at 3pm, but it'd previously been determined that she died at 2.40pm. Meaning what, the coroner got something wrong?

I believe 2:40-2:45 was the approximate time the cleaners were in the room (as per their swipe cards), and the doctor estimated that death took place between 2.30pm and 3pm. However, if she was still alive @ 3pm, then the story that the accused killed her @ 2:40-2:45 clearly does not add up.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0614/hotel-cctv-footage-to-be-played-at-mcareavey-trial.html

seamus

hondasam wrote: »

I dunno, is it just a tactic to delay the trial or to make him look guilty. How come it took this long to discover it? it must be very bad quality if the image is not clear.

The defence will know that popular opinion (which the jury are part of) in Mauritius is that John killed her himself, so I guess they will do whatever they can to reinforce that notion, even if it involves dodgy footage of another couple.

hondasam

seamus wrote: »

The defence will know that popular opinion (which the jury are part of) in Mauritius is that John killed her himself, so I guess they will do whatever they can to reinforce that notion, even if it involves dodgy footage of another couple.

They are going to show the footage and I assume it will be shown to the media. If it is them what does it mean for him?

seamus

Who knows? As I mention, the time on these systems is often way off. In this country, the video alone wouldn't be any kind of useful evidence unless it could be shown that the timestamp is accurate (i.e. by checking the system within a couple of hours of the murder).

Certainly for a video to suddenly appear 18 months later would be completely useless because 18 months is plenty of time to falsify the entire footage, never mind tamper with the timestamp.

But in Mauritius's kangaroo court, who knows what it means?

drumm23

If they don't even have an accurate time of death for her then this trial can wind up now. You can't convict anybody.
What a shambles.

stupidusername

drumm23 wrote: »

If they don't even have an accurate time of death for her then this trial can wind up now. You can't convict anybody.
What a shambles.

But you can't get more accurate than within a half hour/hour.

liamhana

If JmcC hasnt been ordered to stay in the country, I'd be advising him go now as he's being stitched up rightly. The day the jury comes back and inevitably says not guilty or cant make a decision he's going to be arrested & charged.

DeeMitch

What a nightmare. Does anyone know what time John McAreavey found his wife? Both families (Hartes and McAreaveys) are saying it's not the couple. We tend to recognise our own even on CCTV.

hondasam

I don't know what time he found her but she was gone for 45 minutes. I don't know why he left it so long to see where she was.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=john%20mcareavey%20testimony&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CE8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishecho.com.au%2F2012%2F06%2F07%2Fjohn-mcareavey-tells-trial-life-ended-when-wife-died%2F18944&ei=hPzZT5T9BtK7hAeinYThAw&usg=AFQjCNHdRUYn_j2UrTthrt_Al24-4zIAuA

seamus

hondasam wrote: »

I don't know what time he found her but she was gone for 45 minutes. I don't know why he left it so long to see where she was.

I can kind of see what would be going through his head - maybe she went to the toilet, maybe she went for a walk, maybe she decided to have a shower, or have a nap.
In his position, I would probably think it odd, but I wouldn't in a million years assume that anything bad had happened and would probably stay put for about 45 minutes before going to check it out. Sounds reasonable to me.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

I can kind of see what would be going through his head - maybe she went to the toilet, maybe she went for a walk, maybe she decided to have a shower, or have a nap.
In his position, I would probably think it odd, but I wouldn't in a million years assume that anything bad had happened and would probably stay put for about 45 minutes before going to check it out. Sounds reasonable to me.

I have to say I would. Wasn't the whole dealio that she ordered tea and then went to get a snack. Doesn't sound like she'd then head off for a walk, take a nap, shower or anything without at least letting him know. If it was me I'd be gone to check well before 45 mins.

stupidusername

Yeah, I kinda agree that 45 minutes was a long time to leave it. i mean 20-30minutes would've been the max for me.