The jury in the trial of Jozef Puska, who denies the murder of 23-year-old Ashling Murphy last year, has been sent home and will resume deliberating tomorrow.
It started deliberating on the case this afternoon.
Mr Puska, 33 and from Mucklagh in Co Offaly, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Ms Murphy at Grand Canal Way in Tullamore, Co Offaly, on 12 January 2022.
Before sending the jury out, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said that Mr Puska did not help himself by some of his behaviour in the aftermath of Ms Murphy's death.
But if after clearly and coldly and forensically analysing the evidence they think that on his version of the case, there was reasonable possibility he was a misunderstood Good Samaritan and no more than a victim of circumstances, then they need go no further as no crime was committed.
However, if they believe that what he said does not stand up and the prosecution has removed all those reasonable possibilities then they have to say what do those facts disclose.
He said the charge in this case was one of murder, an unlawful killing.
To convict of murder the jury must be satisfied that Mr Puska inflicted the wounds and the mental element of the crime, that he had one of two intentions, to kill or cause serious harm.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Hunt addressed the jury on the various legal principles which must apply to its deliberations.
This morning, he said he would take the jury through parts of the evidence including an alleged confession, DNA found under Ms Murphy's fingernails, inference evidence and eye witness evidence.
He said if he was a jury member he would decide on the facts first and then apply the law.
In relation to the alleged confession, Mr Justice Hunt said the jury must decide if the words were spoken, and there did not seem to be any disagreement that they were, and if the words spoken amount to an admission or confession to murder.
He said the defence had raised a number of issues about the reliability of what was said and they must examine those issues.
It was up to the jury to decide on the propriety of the steps taken by gardaí on the day of the alleged confession and the product of those steps and if they had any reasonable doubt about it.
If they did they must set the statement aside but must go on to consider all the other evidence.
He said they had to approach the evidence on this issue carefully as confessions have been a thorny issue in the courts.
On the DNA evidence, the judge told the jury there was some suggestion that the DNA found under Ms Murphy's fingernails was very small.
He said no matter how big or small you do not know the quantity of material found. He said DNA evidence was talking about something at a molecular level. He said that was the case in all cases, that was the science.
He said if the jury accepts it was the defendant’s DNA they must decide if it was there by reason of an assault or because he was helping her on the day.
The judge told the jury the prosecution was inviting them to draw adverse inference from the defendant's failure or refusal to account for certain things when interviewed by gardaí.
This provision of the law interfered with the right to silence but that right was not absolute.
Mr Justice Hunt said if the jury drew such adverse inferences it could not convict on that alone and was only corroborative of other evidence.
The judge said the prosecution was relying on the fact that Mr Puska had told lies.
The first thing the jury must do is identify where the lies were told. He said Mr Puska had made certain admissions about lying to gardaí and had given certain explanations about some of those lies.
The judge said he had lied about being attacked by men in Blanchardstown and stabbed in the stomach and there was a "resonance" between this lie and his in-court account of what happened at the canal in Tullamore when he said in the witness box he had been attacked by a man and stabbed in the stomach.
Mr Justice Hunt said the jury should look at that very closely.
The judge said the mere fact that someone had told a lie was not proof of guilt.
He said people may lie for a variety of reasons and the jury had to decide that a lie was not told for an innocent reason and that it supports the prosecution case before taking it into account.
He said if they were satisfied that lies were told to cover up guilt they could take it into account.
The judge also took the jury through the evidence of eyewitness Jenna Stack, who he described as a very significant witness.
He said the testimony of each witness should be tested against the rest of the evidence and said the jury would have to "drill down" into it in the same way as the rest of the evidence.
He said the prosecution bears the burden of proof while the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence.
He took the jury through the testimony and cross examination of Mr Puska and said his evidence would have to be stress tested along with all the other witness testimony.
He said the jury was entitled to test Mr Puska's evidence against the CCTV.
The judge referred to the burning of Mr Puska’s clothes and said the jury would have to consider whether or not there was a reasonably possible innocent explanation for this.
The jury could also consider the CCTV of him entering his parents house in Crumlin and the fact that he had had a change of clothes and shaved off his beard.
The judge said Mr Puska’s stated reason for shaving was that he wanted to see if he had cuts on his face.
The jury would have to analyse that explanation, he said.
