McAreavey accused acquitted.

[bernadette]

I feel sorry for the families, they, like all victims, deserve justice and they certainly have a right to expect competence from the police and judiciciary of Mauritious.

I can't see how a fair trial is possible in the future.

[riposte]

two IRA members have been accused of incest, rape

Link please bernadette?

[Baron von Biffo]

Is there any chance at all that we could avoid hijacking this thread with IRA related stuff?

[riposte]

Is there any chance at all that we could avoid hijacking this thread with IRA related stuff?

Good idea.....Thanks Baron

[bernadette]

Good idea.....Thanks Baron

The problem Baron is IRA stuff relates so easily to murder, mayehm and heartbreak, but just for you I will desist.

Riposte:

There's your answer.

[bernadette]

Good idea.....Thanks Baron

The problem Baron is IRA stuff relates so easily to murder, mayhem and heartbreak, but just for you I will desist.

Riposte:

There's your answer.

[C. Flower]

Other than Michaela and John MacAreavey's DNA, there was one other person's DNA identified through the sample and a sample from Michaela MacAreavey's head. I suppose there is nothing to stop the police asking for samples of other staff members DNA and checking them, and also nothing to stop them checking that it didn't belong to a hairdresser or masseuse visited by Michaela MacAreavey.

The investigation may have been poor, but it wasn't as totally remiss as some recent journalism would suggest.[/quote]


[quote]

If there was DNA from her attacker under her fingernails then its reasonable to expect that that person would have had scratch marks. The accused must not have had such marks or it would surely have emerged during the trial. That should have told the police that their version of events was seriously flawed.

DNA found on the victims head in circumstances where investigators weren't wearing full forensic suits and where staff and guests had been allowed into the crime scene would have little if any evidence value at this stage. And that's assuming that it could be established that the samples were properly taken in the first place.

The fact that there was no DNA from the accused cast a shadow over the whole prosecution case from the outset. The DNA was handled by a British consultancy, and so far as I know it was not criticised.

It should be possible for the police to exclude the DNA of any of their own people: they could hardly refuse to give samples.

Is there any suggestion that guests or staff were allowed /went anywhere near the body ?

http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/micheala-mcareavey

But I fear you are right, and at this stage, the failure to interview witnesses, the amount of publicity of details of the case, and the passage of time, would make reinvestigation very difficult.

[C. Flower]

Is there any chance at all that we could avoid hijacking this thread with IRA related stuff?

One of the Defence lawyers said he was a supporter of Sinn Fein, that he admired Ireland's anti-colonial struggles, and referred to a string of abuses of legal process against Irish people.

http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/micheala-mcareavey

But otherwise, yes.

[Baron von Biffo]

The fact that there was no DNA from the accused cast a shadow over the whole prosecution case from the outset. The DNA was handled by a British consultancy, and so far as I know it was not criticised.

It should be possible for the police to exclude the DNA of any of their own people: they could hardly refuse to give samples.

Is there any suggestion that guests or staff were allowed /went anywhere near the body ?

http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/micheala-mcareavey

But I fear you are right, and at this stage, the failure to interview witnesses, the amount of publicity of details of the case, and the passage of time, would make reinvestigation very difficult.

It was reported during the trial that staff and guests were in the room after the crime was discovered. That means that the scene was contaminated which severely undermines the value of any sample linking any of them to the murder.

The Defence had no interest in challenging DNA evidence that didn't implicate the accused.

[Andrew49]

The newspaper which published pictures of the crime scene (Sunday Times) in Port Louis were raided by police officers this morning.

A Mauritian police press spokesperson informed RTE.

Source ... RTE

[riposte]

The problem Baron is IRA stuff relates so easily to murder, mayehm and heartbreak, but just for you I will desist.

Riposte:

There's your answer.

So good ..... you posted it twice...lol!!

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...8&postcount=80

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpo...9&postcount=81

[musashi]

It was reported during the trial that staff and guests were in the room after the crime was discovered. That means that the scene was contaminated which severely undermines the value of any sample linking any of them to the murder.

The Defence had no interest in challenging DNA evidence that didn't implicate the accused.

Contaminated doesn't quite do it, the scene photographer arranged evidence for his images, keystone cops territory if you ask me. Publishing images of a corpse is bottom of the barrel type stuff. This whole sorry trial has painted Mauritius in a terrible light not to mention traumatized the families involved.

[bernadette]

It sounds as though the room was too badly contaminated for any surface DNA to be of use, but the DNA, if any, beneath her nails should still be valid and unless it has been contaminated in some other way may be the direct link to the murderer/s.

Publishing pictures of the corpse appears to be someting some countries do regardless of the cause of death or the feelings of the families.

[Holly]

Publishing pictures of the victim's corpse is not an invasion of privacy because the story was very high profile on account of the GAA and Catholic Church connections with the McAreavey family. Where there is a clear public interest, such pictures are normal and common in the press here as well as foreign countries. As far back a the Jack the Ripper murders in the Whitechapel of 1888, pictures of the victims filled the newspapers.

[Baron von Biffo]

Publishing pictures of the victim's corpse is not an invasion of privacy because the story was very high profile on account of the GAA and Catholic Church connections with the McAreavey family.

It wasn't an invasion of privacy because the dead don't have a right to privacy. It was however an affront to human decency and a gratuitously cruel hurt to her family and friends.

Where there is a clear public interest, such pictures are normal and common in the press here as well as foreign countries. As far back a the Jack the Ripper murders in the Whitechapel of 1888, pictures of the victims filled the newspapers.

There's a difference between the public interest and what the public finds interesting.