The judge in the trial of Richard Satchwell, who denies murdering his wife more than eight years ago, will resume his charge to the jury tomorrow.
Mr Satchwell has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Tina Satchwell at their home in Youghal in Co Cork between 19 March and 20 March 2017.
He told gardaí his wife was missing on 24 March 2017. Her body was found buried under the stairs in their sitting room more than six and a half years later.
After her body was found, he told gardaí she died as he tried to hold her off with a belt while she attacked him with a chisel.
The prosecution told the jurors his version of events was farcical and had more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.
The defence told the jury that Ms Satchwell had been violent to her husband in the past and there was no evidence of any intent on his part to kill her or cause serious injury to her.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott told the seven women and five men that they were the judges of fact in the case and they had to approach it with an open, independent mind, without emotion or prejudice.
He said there were aspects of this case which were unseemly and perhaps shocking, but he said if their indignation, feelings or emotions had been aroused, they had to put those outside the door.
The jury were also urged to approach the case in a very careful, clinical way and look at where the evidence led them.
Mr Justice McDermott said they had sworn to give a true verdict in accordance with the evidence, not in accordance with emotion, sympathy or empathy.
He reminded the jurors that the onus of proof was on the prosecution and they had to prove their case to the highest standard available in the administration of justice. There was no burden on an accused person to prove they were innocent, he added.
He also pointed out that Mr Satchwell had not given evidence in the trial.
The judge said that was his right and it was not relevant to the jury's verdict. He had no obligation to prove anything and the jurors should not read anything into it or think any less of him as a result.
Judge McDermott told the jurors that if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Mr Satchwell they must convict.
However, if they thought there was a reasonable possibility of innocence, he said they must acquit.
He said it was a matter for them to decide what elements of Mr Satchwell's interviews with gardaí they were satisfied to rely on and accept as credible or truthful.
But he said even if they did not believe a word of the gardaí interviews, they still had to look at all the other evidence in the case.
Mr Justice McDermott said truth had a value in this trial and he said the lies told by Mr Satchwell were being relied on by the prosecution as proof of his intention to kill or cause serious injury to his wife.
He said the prosecution had to establish that what was said was a lie, that it was deliberate, relevant and told because of guilt.
He pointed out that lies can be told by people in the course of an investigation for many reasons, not necessarily because of guilt.
The defence had suggested lies were told because of panic and shame.
The judge said the jury had to consider and reflect on the reasons for the lies.
The judge also urged the jury to examine the evidence as a whole.
While they did not have direct evidence of the killing of Ms Satchwell, he said there was circumstantial evidence they could consider and he told them they must examine the cumulative weight of the various pieces of circumstantial evidence.
He said Mr Satchwell's response of "guilty, not guilty, guilty", when he was charged with murder was said by the prosecution to be an admission of guilt.
The judge told the jurors this was a matter for them.
He told them that when considering whether or not Mr Satchwell intended to kill or cause serious injury to his wife, they could consider all the surrounding matters.
He said intention did not have to involve months of elaborate preparation and could arise in months, days or minutes.
The judge said that they had been invited to consider the issue of self-defence in the case in a scenario where Mr Satchwell said he was attacked by his wife and tried to defend himself.
He said if they found that the time of the killing Mr Satchwell honestly believed that he was permitted to use force to defend himself from injury or assault and if the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them, then they must find him not guilty.
If they found that the degree of force was disproportionate, then they could find him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
The judge pointed out that the defences of self defence were not available to people to carry out killings because of revenge, deep resentment or hatred due to some perceived wrong by one’s partner.
And he said the onus was on the prosecution to prove that Mr Satchwell was not acting in self defence.
The judge will continue his charge to the jury tomorrow morning.
