Michaela McAreavey trial accused 'not guilty'

not guilty does not actually mean/ or equal innocent.
just means there wasnt enough evidence to convict.

could be guilty, could be innocent. just saying not guilty does not = innocent.

wonderfullife

re: DNA, this is a hotel room we're speaking of, if you have 4 couples staying a week each in the same room, you'd realistically be able to find trace evidence of 8 peoples DNA in the room over a month. Amplify that over a larger period..... simple hotel cleaning, changing bedsheets, washing etc won't remove trace elements around the room (on the tv remote control, small hairs near skirting boards, on the curtains/windows etc). Fact is we can't really guess the meaning of extra DNA being found in the room, unless you want to recall every guest from the room back to the country to rule it out.

peewee_44

I understand the feelings of the family but better that than in 10 years time the family find out that 2 innocent people were locked away for something they never did. I honestly hope hand on heart that the true killer/s will someday face trial and if the true killers have just got off then I hope Karma comes back to get them.

DEFTLEFTHAND

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty does not actually mean/ or equal innocent.
just means there wasnt enough evidence to convict.

could be guilty, could be innocent. just saying not guilty does not = innocent.

But it does mean that those men cannot be tried again under the Double Jeopardy rule. The follow up will obviously focus largely on McAreavey and any other potential perpetrators.

Wacker The Attacker

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty does not actually mean/ or equal innocent.
just means there wasnt enough evidence to convict.

could be guilty, could be innocent. just saying not guilty does not = innocent.

Not Guilty is not guilty. Plain and simple.

Wacker The Attacker

This isnt a particularly nice thing to mention but what kind of costs will the family be hit with and do they have any further recourse (appeal etc)

peewee_44

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

This isnt a particularly nice thing to mention but what kind of costs will the family be hit with and do they have any further recourse (appeal etc)

Its a sad fact but true, however if it was me I would do anything to ensure the killers faced justice

DEFTLEFTHAND

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

This isnt a particularly nice thing to mention but what kind of costs will the family be hit with and do they have any further recourse (appeal etc)

There will be a follow up investigation starting now. The Harte family will incur no legal costs from this trial.

scorpioishere

christmas2012 wrote: »

Justice system in marituis is a joke..

Before you start judging i will suggest you go back to school and start learning English Language, especially the spelling of words.

King of Kings

Nodin wrote: »

Muck throwing. Standard practice.

tbh it was fairly outrageous **** , none which should have been accepted.

The parallel to sophie tucson du plantier has been made but I think this is not the case.
sure the cops ballsed up both investigations but that's where the links end.

In the Micheala case mauritius was further stained by the antics in court of
1. the judge allowing outrageous intrusion into the life of John and Micheala while john wasn't on trial
2. The judge allowing bonkers theories from the defence.
3. the behavoiur of the public in the gallery, it beggarsbelief that the victims family had to tell them to pipe down.
4. The celebration s after and carrying the lawyars out etc... you wouldn't see that at a Fianna Fail cumann.


To be frank this crap would never have been allowed in an irish court so to say there are links with sophie tucson du plantier is inaccurate.

mauritius is stained by this and it goes further than the police being idiots.

mikemac1

bedirect wrote: »

Dont forget we had a similar result here when a Mayo farmer was founf not guilty of killing a traveller a few years ago

Similar?

Yeah similar if she was breaking into hotel rooms robbing, putting people in fear and then one of the residents did something about it

How did you manage to bring Frog Ward into this thread?

And fyi there was a conviction in the first trial

Rasheed

bedirect wrote: »

very easy to say shambles of an investigation, just shows how everybody believes what the lawers wanted them to believe. How could there be DNA on her body when they put her in a bath of water, everybody is watching too much CSi.
I see one of those lawery wants John Mc Areavy questioned before he leaves the country. Dont forget we had a similar result here when a Mayo farmer was founf not guilty of killing a traveller a few years ago

I no idea what an elderly man that was being robbed by travellers has to do with Micheala Harte.

lightspeed

Surely the question left to ask is who else could have access to the room?
Was it not the case that only the husband and those cleaners were the only ones who had access?

Also was there not also an independant witness that saw them leave at the around the same time the incident is thought to have occured?

I also heard that the times they gave for when they entered each room where disputed and proven to be incorrect by the electronic card system for each room.

I cant see how they could be innocent based on the above.

They were successfully painted as scapegoats and not the actual people responsible for this horrible crime.

This idea that the final verdict should be respected when its clearly wrong is ridiculous. OJ Simpson was clearly guilty and so are these guys.
There should be a full investigation and they should be able to appeal this verdict to get a retrial.

midlandsmissus

Interesting to find out more stuff.

The only DNA found on Michaela other than John's was the hotel's security guard, on her head.

The security guard claimed this was from when he put a towel under her head.

It seems really hard to fiind any good facts or findings on the case, anyone any links to any websites?

midlandsmissus

lightspeed wrote: »

Surely the question left to ask is who else could have access to the room?
Was it not the case that only the husband and those cleaners were the only ones who had access?

Also was there not also an independant witness that saw them leave at the around the same time the incident is thought to have occured?

I also heard that the times they gave for when they entered each room where disputed and proven to be incorrect by the electronic card system for each room.

I cant see how they could be innocent based on the above.

They were successfully painted as scapegoats and not the actual people responsible for this horrible crime.

This idea that the final verdict should be respected when its clearly wrong is ridiculous. OJ Simpson was clearly guilty and so are these guys.
There should be a full investigation and they should be able to appeal this verdict to get a retrial.

Question: did the card system identify it as Avinash's and Sandip's individual cards that accessed the room, or was it a dummy card - no identity. I'm confused on this point.

iguana

lightspeed wrote: »

Surely the question left to ask is who else could have access to the room?

Lots of people could have had access to the room.

lightspeed wrote: »

Was it not the case that only the husband and those cleaners were the only ones who had access?

No.

lightspeed wrote: »

Also was there not also an independant witness that saw them leave at the around the same time the incident is thought to have occured?

No. The "independent witness" was a man who had been arrested himself and was released without charges in exchange for his testimony.

lightspeed wrote: »

I also heard that the times they gave for when they entered each room where disputed and proven to be incorrect by the electronic card system for each room.

Nothing substantial was proven by the electronic card system.

However what was proven was that at the alleged time of her death one of the men was having a chat on his phone with his sister. Not something usually done whilst strangling someone and throwing the body in the bath.

lightspeed

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0713/1224319967127.html

Have a read of the above, particuarlly at the end where it mentions something about the key card being stolen by one of the accused.
Im quite certain i heard on RTE news that the times of entry they gave for the room where not the same as what was shown on the electronic entry system. Ill try find something to verify that though.

iguana

King of Kings wrote: »

In the Micheala case mauritius was further stained by the antics in court of
1. the judge allowing outrageous intrusion into the life of John and Micheala while john wasn't on trial

Standard practice in criminal cases. The role of the defence is to provide reasonable doubt for the jury. This is regularly done by portraying the victim negatively. Why do you think the skirt size of a rape victim is ever mentioned?

King of Kings wrote: »

2. The judge allowing bonkers theories from the defence.

Happens all the time if it's a genuine attempt to provide reasonable doubt.

King of Kings wrote: »

3. the behavoiur of the public in the gallery, it beggarsbelief that the victims family had to tell them to pipe down.

Yeah nothing like that would ever happen in Ireland.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/people-queued-to-shake-this-sex-attackers-hand-108061.html

King of Kings wrote: »

4. The celebration s after and carrying the lawyars out etc... you wouldn't see that at a Fianna Fail cumann.

No why would you? But it's commonly seen when someone who the crowd believes is innocent is acquitted. These were two fairly newly married men with wives and friends and families who believed in their innocence. They had spent 18 months in jail, apart from those wives, friends and families. One had spoken of beatings and torture while in police custody. They were terrified of the consequences they would face if found guilty, especially due to the international interest. Their prime minister had spoken of reintroducing the death penalty and having them executed. For their families and friends to not react the way they did would have been utterly extraordinary.

iguana

lightspeed wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0713/1224319967127.html

Have a read of the above, particuarlly at the end where it mentions something about the key card being stolen by one of the accused.
Im quite certain i heard on RTE news that the times of entry they gave for the room where not the same as what was shown on the electronic entry system. Ill try find something to verify that though.

No it doesn't. That article is about two different men. The man accused of stealing the keycard was not one of the accused.

It's possible that they did do it but the police force messed up the initial investigation so there was no proof. It's also very possible that the police were under pressure to find someone to prosecute and that they picked on these two innocent men. But they did so without providing any real evidence that these two men were guilty. Whilst there was plenty of evidence to provide reasonable doubt that they were. There is no way that they could have or should have been found guilty based on the evidence.

midlandsmissus

With regards to DNA, she was strangled, would there have been alot of DNA transferred? Just skin cell DNA, would that not have washed off then when she was put in the bath.

gagiteebo

scorpioishere wrote: »

Before you start judging i will suggest you go back to school and start learning English Language, especially the spelling of words.

Ah would you stop, look down at the keyboard, the 'i' and 'u' are right next to each other, an easy mistake to make; a really sad, emotion filled thread and you choose to zone in on spelling.

I haven't followed the trial closely enough to comment on the verdict but my heart goes out to the families and friends, absolutely heartbreaking.

steddyeddy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

With regards to DNA, she was strangled, would there have been alot of DNA transferred? Just skin cell DNA, would that not have washed off then when she was put in the bath.

It could have been transfered. The heat of the water would be crucial in determining if the dna survived. Even so the skin cells could/would have washed away. DNA can survive in water though as long as the water is not heated.

snafuk35

Motorist wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not. I disagree with you though - one thing that is not clear to me is that they were innocent. Shame that the police botched this so badly, and shame to see defense shamelessly misleading the jury - the CCTV, sex guide, etc, accusing John, etc.

They are innocent until proven guilty so they are innocent.

gara

There will always be bad people in the world, who will recklessly destroy everybody else's without casting a second thought. We call those people criminals. Police are regarded as the opposite of these people.

Therefore, police should never contribute to destroying anybody's world -in any way, shape or form. And when they do, like they did in Mauritius, it's not just a breach of their profession but the intrinsic trust that people place in law-enforcers to keep our world safe and to deliver justice when it's not.

To do the opposite let's people down at the most basic, profound level and I can only imagine the despair that Michaela's family must be feeling all over again.

She lost her life whilst the police aren't even bothered enough to do their job and that is a sickening disregard for another human being from people who are paid to protect

St.Spodo

Reading through this thread, some of the groundless speculation is a bit glib. It's not a soap opera ffs.

steelcityblues

Sean Kelly MEP is now advising us Irish not to go to Mauritius. I don't want holiday recommendations from politicians, thank you very much.

steddyeddy

steelcityblues wrote: »

Sean Kelly MEP is now advising us Irish not to go to Mauritius. I don't want holiday recommendations from politicians, thank you very much.

Thats an idiotic thing for him to say.

Loyalty1187

-Both defence council reject all Catholic jurors from start
-Voluntary confession made in front of lawyer
- Apologies to his father and told him to 'forget me, I've made a mistake'
-Said lawyer then gives radio interview in Mauritius apologising on behalf of his client. ( Do your research)
- Confession details exact way murder takes place, including pushing Michaela to the ground and method of strangulation, before coroner's report was available - how could the police have fabricated this. Confession tallies precisely with injuries found.
- One murderer then claims police brutality throughout.
- 3 independent doctors examine murderer thoroughly and all reported no injuries. 1 doctor confirmed that having asked murderer was he harmed, replied 'No'
- EYE witness sees two murderers leave room
- Given immunity 77 days AFTER he told police what he seen (So he could not be charged with conspiracy to commit theft)
-9 jurors made up of 8 Hindus and 1 Muslim unanimously acquit 2 murderers 

Welcome to Murderitius

goat2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats an idiotic thing for him to say.

i dont think that it is foolish of him to say, one of our citizens was murdered there, and nobody has been brought to book, i agree,

and can people tell me, what way the women are viewed and treated in that part of the world,

InchicoreDude

-9 jurors made up of 8 Hindus and 1 Muslim unanimously acquit 2 murderers

Thats an interesting point that I havent heard before. What religion were the two accused?

Is Mauritius known for religous bigotry?