Case ended today - prosecution summary is below.
The part of the argument I find particularly weak is “He [Kearney] also told garda he found it impossible to believe Siobhan would kill herself.” If you think he murdered his wife and lied about it then he’s hardly a credible prosecution witness.
Also the flex thing intrigues me a bit. I heard a bit about this how the flex was broken but not by a stretching action but by a sudden snap. I find it hard to understand how the investigators couldn’t work out BK would have cut it. He obviously didn’t use a tool or there would have been evidence of saw marks or whatever. It doesn’t really prove anything in his favour but I’m surprised that the prosecution are completely convinced about the manner in which the flex broke but can’t work out how he did it.
It’s a very weak case all told. It smacks of “well, what else could it be?” I thought they’d need a bit more than that to convict. The lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever is striking.
Kearney had motive and opportunity, court told
03/03/2008 - 16:14:37
Brian Kearney had the motive and the opportunity to kill his wife Siobhan, a jury in the Central Criminal Court at Dublin has heard, as prosecution and defence counsel closed their cases today.
Mr Dominic McGinn, BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions told the jury of eight women and four men they were now “centre stage” and had to decide if Kearney was guilty or not guilty of his wife’s murder.
Brian Kearney (aged 51), with an address at Carnroe, Knocknashee, Goatstown, Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife Siobhan (aged 38), on February 28, 2006 - his 49th birthday.
Mr McGinn told the jury he was seeking to persuade them of only one “inescapable conclusion” in the case, he said, and asked them to put aside any sympathy they felt for either family.
Kearney had the motive, he had the opportunity and scientific evidence proved it was not suicide, he told the court.
Mr McGinn said Kearney had motive to kill Siobhan because he was not in favour of the couple’s planned separation and while the defence did not necessarily say planning went into the killing that morning after it happened Kearney had tried to “dress it up” as suicide, the court heard.
Mr McGuinn said Kearney admitted it was only himself Siobhan and their three-year-old son in the house at the time.
He also told garda he found it impossible to believe Siobhan would kill herself, Mr McGinn said.
Evidence showed Siobhan was making long term plans and Kearney himself had said while Siobhan was stressed she was positive.
Most important of all he said was the scientific evidence which showed Siobhan did not take her own life.
“If it wasn’t suicide the only reasonable explanation that fits in with all the evidence is that Mr Kearney killed Siobhan,” Mr McGuinn said.
He told Mr Justice Barry White and the jury unchallenged evidence in the case was a logical starting point.
Forensic accountant Toni Massey had outlined the Kearney’s financial situation.
“The bottom line with that I suggest is although Mr Kearney had a considerable number of assets and on paper he was worth a substantial amount of money, he was in a difficult position in that he was overstretched on borrowing.”
The court heard he had received a letter from the bank telling him, his borrowings needed to be reduced.
Hotel Salvia in Spain had been on the market but not sold and the logical position was to move the family into the garden home they had built and sell the family home or at least rent out the garden house, Mr McGinn said.
“The difficulty was the separation wouldn’t fit in,” Mr McGinn said.
He said letters from Siobhan’s lawyer suggested it was her plan to move into the garden house next door to the family home.
“That wouldn’t lift the financial pressure on Mr Kearney because he wouldn’t be able to sell the house. He wouldn’t be able to let it out.”
“The separation would not suit him financially in fact it would increase the pressure on him.”
He said analysis of the security alarm on the home and DNA evidence was also unchallenged by the defence.
While DNA evidence presented to the court showed the major DNA on the purple hoover flex found with Siobhan’s body matched that of Siobhan the minor DNA match found, which was male, could not be pinned to anyone.
Mr McGinn said this did not prove anything other than some male touched it at sometime but for the jury to go further would be “guess work”.
The home’s security alarm told them more he said. It was activated the night before and deactivated at 7.40am the morning Siobhan’s body was found by her father.
“There was no sign what-so-ever of any break in, no forced entry.”
“The inference from that is that no body from outside the household was involved in Siobhan Kearney’s death because nobody else got in,” Mr McGinn said.
The jury had two options to explore he said. Siobhan took her own life or she was murdered by Kearney.
Mr McGinn said evidence showed Siobhan was making long and short term plans.
She was planning her separation, making plans to hand over management of the hotel in Spain, organising to enrol their son in school, inviting a friend over to watch a rugby match and was in good spirits when she had dinner with her friend the night before her body was found.
She had written a chatty email to her brother’s partner the night before she was found dead.
“Not something someone would write if they were going to kill themselves,” Mr McGinn said.
Siobhan’s room was locked when her sister Niamh arrived at the home that morning and when the door was forced open the key was found on the floor.
Mr McGinn said there was ample room under the door for it to have been locked from the outside and the key slipped under.
“Why would Siobhan Kearney if she was going to commit suicide lock the door and take the key out throwing it on the floor?” Mr McGinn asked.
If she had attempted to hang herself with the hoover flex suspending her full body weight over the ensuite door, testing showed the flex would have cleanly broken within five to seven seconds allowing Siobhan enough time to recover and “get up and walk away,” Mr McGuinn said.
If it had been a low level suspension, where only part of her body weight was suspended, Mr McGinn said testing showed the weight was insufficient for it to cause a clean break in the flex and the court had heard marking would have been visible on Siobhan’s face which it was not.
“The flex found at the scene was a clean break, it was not a stretching break,” Mr McGinn said.
“It must have been and the inference you can draw from the evidence an attempt to make it appear like a high level suspension hanging,” Mr McGinn said.
State pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy had said there was evidence of manual strangulation and the three breaks in Siobhan’s neck were consistent with this.
Mr McGinn said it suggested Kearney had manually strangled his wife and then at some stage started to use the hoover flex as a ligature around her neck.
Kearney then must have decided to try and hoist her over the ensuite door but discovered the second knot in the flex would not reach the door handle on the other side to anchor the flex. Then the flex broke and knowing Siobhan’s sister was arriving Kearney knew he could not be found with the body, Mr McGinn said.
“So this can’t be a high level suspension hanging, it can’t have been a low level suspension hanging, it can’t have been a suicide,” Mr McGinn said.
“If Siobhan Kearney didn’t take her own life there is only one option and that is Brian Kearney killed her.”