The identity of a couple apparently rowing in the hotel where honeymooner Michaela McAreavey was strangled is no longer an issue in the trial of two men accused of her murder, the judge has told jurors.
Defence lawyers had claimed the man and woman captured on grainy CCTV images at the reception of the luxury Legends hotel in Mauritius were the Co Tyrone teacher and her husband John.
But barristers for defendants Avinash Treebhoowoon and Sandip Moneea today informed the Supreme Court in Port Louis they would not be pursuing that line of questioning.
Their move came after a request from the prosecution for the defence counsel to make clear the couple were not the McAreaveys.
The lawyers stopped short of making a definitive statement on who was in the CCTV footage but said they would not be "pressing" on the matter.
In response, Judge Mr Justice Prithviraj Fecknah told the jury the identity of the couple was not an issue for their deliberation.
"As far as you are concerned as members of the jury you need not delve any further into this aspect of the evidence," he said.
Last week, assistant police commissioner Yoosoof Soopun told the court the couple captured by the security camera the day Mrs McAreavey died were actually German holidaymakers Harald Hoyer and Savarese Graziella.
The footage was filmed just after 3pm on 10 January last year, about 15 minutes after the prosecution claim the 27-year-old daughter of Tyrone Gaelic football boss Mickey Harte was murdered by two hotel employees.
Former room attendant Mr Treebhoowoon, 31, and floor supervisor Mr Moneea, 42, deny her murder.
Mrs McAreavey's widower, her brother Mark Harte and father-in-law Brendan McAreavey were all in court as the judge made his statement.
The 20th day of the high profile case saw Mr Soopun return to the stand and face rigorous questioning on his handling of the investigation.
But he rejected as "totally unfounded" a claim from Rama Valayden, representing Mr Moneea, that the probe had not been thorough enough.
The case adjourned for the day before lunch with the judge, jury and lawyers set to visit the Legends hotel tomorrow to view the crime scene and associated locations.
The couple in the contentious CCTV clip appeared to be engaged in a heated discussion, with the woman gesticulating, holding her head in her hands and at one point looking as if she was wiping her eyes.
The court had been due to view further footage from the hotel in a bid to confirm who they actually were.
Mr Soopun had been requested to bring four sections of footage from both the day of the murder and two days later when the German couple checked out.
But the officer said he could only source two of the requested clips.
He said one view was not covered by a camera at that time and the images from reception when the Germans left the hotel had not been saved by management.
When he told the court that the two clips he had brought to court did not picture the German couple, Mr Valayden said he would move on and cross examine the officer on other matters.
But before court rose for the day, the nine jurors were sent out for a period to allow lawyers to have a discussion in their absence.
When they returned, Judge Fecknah told them: "I have to inform you of a development that has occurred."
He referred them to the CCTV footage seen in court on Friday and in particular the disputed clip.
"It was the contention of the defence that the couple that was seen on the footage was the McAreaveys," he said.
"On the other hand the prosecution contends this was a German couple and you have heard the testimony of police witness Mr Soopun who had said it was a German couple according to his inquiry.
"I have now to inform you that counsel for accused number one Mr (Sanjeev) Teeluckdharry and for accused number two Mr Valayden have stated they are not pressing on this issue concerning the identity of this couple."
At that juncture, chief prosecutor Mehdi Manrakhan asked could a clearer statement be given, indicating that the couple was definitely not the McAreaveys.
The judge said he could only indicate what the defence's stance was.
"I can't go further unless counsel are prepared to give a further statement," he said.
Mr Teeluckdharry said he had tried to view enhanced footage of the clip but could not identify for sure who the couple was.
"I think your direction covers this issue," he told the judge.
Mr Valayden said his decision had been influenced by new information.
"We have received additional information on that issue, we're not pressing on this issue," he said.
Mr Justice Fecknah said the court understood what "not pressing" on an issue meant.
"We will leave it here," he said. "It's not an issue any more."
