Murder trial in Mauritius

SkatesOn · 14-06-2012 01:34PM

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 · 14-06-2012 01:39PM

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

goat2 · 14-06-2012 01:43PM

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 · 14-06-2012 01:49PM

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 · 14-06-2012 01:53PM

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 · 14-06-2012 01:55PM

''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 · 14-06-2012 01:59PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:05PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:05PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:17PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:20PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:23PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:34PM

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 · 14-06-2012 02:38PM

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 · 14-06-2012 03:20PM

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 · 14-06-2012 03:49PM

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 · 14-06-2012 04:09PM

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 · 14-06-2012 04:13PM

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 · 14-06-2012 04:19PM

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 · 14-06-2012 04:23PM

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.

hondasam · 14-06-2012 04:25PM

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.

He went to get the biscuits the night before, why not bring them with them in the first place.
I think 45 minutes is way too long considering she just went to get something to have with her tea.
If it was me I would be going daft waiting and losing patience as well.

Seamus, you don't have a shower, nap or go for a walk while your husband/wife is waiting at the table for you. You would come back and tell them your plans. imo

seamus · 14-06-2012 04:29PM

It depends on what they were doing I suppose. I got the impression that they were chilling out beside the pool, presumably reading or whatever, she ordered some tea and then went up to get biscuits.

So it's not like he was waiting for her, he may even have dozed off himself or simply lost track of time if he was engrossed in a book.

I have in the past sat beside a pool for 30 minutes while my wife "nipped upstairs", and while I was wondering what she was doing, I felt no need to go searching for her. Another 15 minutes, perhaps I would have.

Lollipops23 · 14-06-2012 04:31PM

hondasam wrote: »

He went to get the biscuits the night before, why not bring them with them in the first place.
I think 45 minutes is way too long considering she just went to get something to have with her tea.
If it was me I would be going daft waiting and losing patience as well.

Seamus, you don't have a shower, nap or go for a walk while your husband/wife is waiting at the table for you. You would come back and tell them your plans. imo

Maybe they were keeping the kitkats in the room fridge? I've done that in hot countries- if you keep them in your beach bag they'll melt.

Maybe he was engrossed in a book by the pool, maybe he assumed she was taking a call from home etc It's easily done. I followed my OH into a bar in London in Feb after spending half an hour on the phone to my mother telling her all the stuff we'd seen that day. Nothing major about it.

hondasam · 14-06-2012 04:34PM

I thought they were having lunch and he was still at the table.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=john%20mcareavey%20testimony&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheindependent.mu%2F2012%2F06%2F07%2Fjohn-mcareavey-breaks-down-while-testifying%2F&ei=hPzZT5T9BtK7hAeinYThAw&usg=AFQjCNHBz1bzeUKjN_2JdoczRlRt6QfBDg

This is the first time I have read this.

seamus · 14-06-2012 04:35PM

hondasam wrote: »

I thought they were having lunch and he was still at the table.

A lot of online sources say that, some other sources say they were "poolside". So it's hard to say unless there are any more accurate sources. Anyone?

Lollipops23 · 14-06-2012 04:41PM

hondasam wrote: »

I thought they were having lunch and he was still at the table.

Initially that's what I thought too, but it seemed more like they were lying poolside and ordering tea. Fairly normal circumstances like.

I don't know why, normally when you hear of someone being murdered everyone suspects the spouse (rightly or wrongly) initially. However, there's never been any talk at all about John McCreavey. From what I've heard of him, it doesn't fit in with his character even remotely.

The revelation of the CCTV is meaningless- A it doesn't look like it's the couple in question and B if it is them, so bloody what?!! all couples row, ESPECIALLY on holiday.

hondasam · 14-06-2012 04:51PM

seamus wrote: »

A lot of online sources say that, some other sources say they were "poolside". So it's hard to say unless there are any more accurate sources. Anyone?

''Mr McAreavey described how he and his wife had lunch by a pool before she left him to make the short trip back to their room to get biscuits.
He said he had offered to go but, because he had done so for her the night before, she told him it was okay.
“I assume she didn’t want me running round the whole time but I obviously wish she had let me go to the room,” he said.
Around 45 minutes later, having asked a bellboy to let him into his room, he told the court how he walked in to see his wife floating in the bath as cold water poured from the tap.''

From the link I posted earlier. she should have been 5 minutes gone.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=murder%20trial%20mauritius%20john%20mccreavy%20on%20stand&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.broadsheet.ie%2F2012%2F06%2F14%2Ffootage-allowed-in-trial%2F&ei=WwraT7C5LYuLhQfu_eXKAw&usg=AFQjCNHXepUs9NW6MgwA13g0QpE0dLMzRQ

I think it is them in the cctv.

seamus · 14-06-2012 05:19PM

hondasam wrote: »

I think it is them in the cctv.

Impossible to tell from the still IMO. Mauritius is rammed with young European holidaymakers. It could quite literally be any couple in that shot.

Although I gather that the footage was somehow on Youtube up till a short while ago, did you see that?

ScumLord · 14-06-2012 05:26PM

SkatesOn wrote: »

I believe 2:40-2:45 was the approximate time the cleaners were in the room (as per their swipe cards),

Well if she's confirmed dead at 2:45 the cameras timestamp is wrong or it can't be them in the video.

hondasam · 14-06-2012 05:29PM

seamus wrote: »

Impossible to tell from the still IMO. Mauritius is rammed with young European holidaymakers. It could quite literally be any couple in that shot.

Although I gather that the footage was somehow on Youtube up till a short while ago, did you see that?

No never thought to look for it on Youtube.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-mcareavey-breaks-down-as-he-testifies-in-michaela-murder-trial-476893-Jun2012/

I dunno what to think tbh. They probably had an argument but it's not unusual. If he bought tampons where are they?

Murder trial in Mauritius

Comments