A jury at the Central Criminal Court will on Thursday resume considering its verdict in the trial of a man accused of the murder of Ashling Murphy along the Grand Canal in Co Offaly early last year.
Jozef Puska (33), a native of Slovakia who has lived with his wife and five children at Mucklagh, Co Offaly since 2015, has denied the murder of the 23-year-old school teacher at Cappincur, Co Offaly, on January 12th 2022.
The jury has heard Ms Murphy had gone exercising along the canal that afternoon and her apparently lifeless body was seen in a bramble covered ditch at Cappincur around 3.30pm.
Dr SallyAnne Collis, a pathologist, gave evidence that Ms Murphy had 11 stab wounds in the right side of her neck which caused acute blood loss and her heart to stop.
Jozef Puska granted legal aid to appeal conviction for murder of Ashling Murphy
Wife and two brothers of Jozef Puska to go on trial in 2025 accused of failing to disclose information to gardaí
Ashling Murphy: teacher remembered by her school on second anniversary of death
Hundreds attend memorial Mass ahead of Ashling Murphy’s second anniversary
The trial opened before the jury of nine men and three women on October 17th and they heard evidence from 62 witnesses and Mr Puska over 13 days.
Closing addresses were made on Tuesday on behalf of the prosecution and defence after which Mr Justice Tony Hunt began his charge.
When the judge completed his charge at 3.35pm on Wednesday, he sent the jury out to begin considering their verdict and told them they should take whatever time they require.
At 4pm, the judge adjourned the proceedings until Thursday tomorrow. Noting the jury had asked for transcripts of the evidence of Mr Puska and two witnesses, Jenna Stack and Aoife Marron, he said they would be provided with those.
Ms Stack and Ms Marron had given evidence that, while running along the canal on January 12th 2022, they heard a rustling in a hedgerow. Ms Stack said, among other things, she saw a man crouched over a girl who was kicking her legs as if “crying out for help”.
The judge noted the jury had sought a report of pathologist, Dr SallyAnne Collis, who carried out a post-mortem on Ms Murphy. He said that report had not been put in evidence but the jury would be given a transcript of Dr Collis’ evidence to the court.
Ms Murphy’s parents Ray and Kathleen, her sister Amy, brother Cathal, and long time boyfriend Ryan Casey, were again in court on Wednesday. Family members of Mr Puska, including his parents, were also in court.
During his charge, Mr Justice Hunt said both the prosecution and defence had drawn to his attention to references in his charge to defence counsel Michael Bowman SC outlining to the jury, in his closing address, there was no prior connection between Ms Murphy and Mr Puska.
Mr Bowman had specifically said that to alleviate any distress caused to Ms Murphy’s family by any suggestion of a prior connection, the judge said.
Nobody is making the case there was any such connection, Mr Bowman had addressed that and there was “absolutely no criticism of him in doing so, on the contrary, it was “a positive contribution”, the judge said.
In his charge, Mr Justice Hunt went in detail through aspects of the evidence put before the jury.
He said the evidence includes a confession to murder made by Mr Puska while in hospital on January 14th 2022; DNA; eye witness evidence, including Mr Puska’s own testimony; and inferences from Mr Puska’s failure to explain matters including his bicycle being near the crime scene and DNA matching his profile under Ms Murphy’s fingernails.
Addressing the confession evidence, the judge said he did not think anyone was saying that Mr Puska had not said what he said in hospital, where he had gone on January 13th after alleging he was stabbed in Blanchardstown, and the jury must decide whether what was said in that confession was true.
The judge outlined Mr Puska’s own evidence to the court, including he had been attacked and stabbed by a man, clad in dark clothing and wearing a face mask, while he was cycling along the canal on January 12th. Mr Puska had testified he saw the same man attack a woman who came on the scene, that the man left and that he, Mr Puska, had assisted the injured woman.
Mr Puska had said he feared the attacker would come back, he went across a field and stayed in a ditch for some hours because he was unwell, possibly unconscious, and later walked into Tullamore in darkness where he went to a friend’s house who drove him home.
The judge said the jury could examine that evidence against other evidence, including of Ms Stack, and CCTV clips of a man, whom the prosecution allege is Mr Puska, walking into Tullamore at 8.55pm that night.
The judge also told the jury it was for them to decide why Mr Puska told some out of court lies to gardai. Mr Puska had admitted he told some lies, including that he had lied while in hospital on January 14th 2022 about being stabbed in Blanchardstown on January 12th 2022, he said
Mr Puska had accepted in his evidence in the trial he had told lies about some matters and it was put to him by the prosecution he had concocted another set of lies in relation to his evidence he was attacked and stabbed by a man on the canal and that same man had gone to attack Ms Murphy, the judge noted. Mr Puska had replied he was saying what he remembered from January 12th.
The judge said “all sorts of reasons exist for lies” and the jury must consider “the whole panoply of reasons” why lies are told.
He told them they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the only tenable view in relation to a lie is a guilty view. If they believe there is a reasonably possible innocent explanation for a lie, they must take no notice of the lie and adopt that explanation.
All of the evidence in the case must be stress tested, he said.
Having taken the jury through the evidence, the judge directed the jury on how to approach their deliberations and concerning the law on murder before sending them to consider their verdict.
All 12 members of the jury should involve themselves in the deliberations, should not be influenced by emotion, should approach their deliberations in a clinical way akin to doctors, and should attempt to reach a unanimous verdict if possible, he said.
If at the end of the day, they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Mr Puska’s guilt, they are obliged to convict him, he said. If they decide the prosecution has not made out its case beyond reasonable doubt, they must acquit him.
Verdicts have nothing to do with likes or dislikes, he stressed.
