logo
No proof Puska's sisters-in-law knew he murdered Ashling Murphy when they burnt clothes, court hears

No proof Puska's sisters-in-law knew he murdered Ashling Murphy when they burnt clothes, court hears

Jozef Puska's sisters-in-law could not have known, and did not believe, that he murdered Ashling Murphy when they burned the clothes he was wearing at the time he stabbed 23-year-old schoolteacher to death, defence lawyers have told the Central Criminal Court.
Lawyers for Jozefina Grundzova (32) and Viera Gaziova (40) delivered their closing speeches to a jury this afternoon. The two women are on trial with their husbands, Marek Puska (36) and Lubomir Puska Jnr (38).
Advertisement
Jozef Puska, a brother of Marek and Lubomir Jnr, murdered Ashling Murphy on January 12th, 2022, by stabbing her in the neck on the canal towpath outside Tullamore, Co Offaly.
Marek and Lubomir Jnr are on trial, accused of withholding information relating to the murder, while Ms Grundzova and Ms Gaziova are accused of impeding Jozef's apprehension or prosecution by burning his clothes.
All the accused were living with Jozef Puska, his wife Lucia, and 14 children at Lynally Grove, Mucklagh, Co Offaly when the offences are alleged to have occurred in January 2022.
All accused have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Advertisement
Paul Murray SC, for Ms Grundzova, told the jury on Tuesday that for his client to be guilty, the jury must be satisfied that she knew what Jozef had done when she helped Ms Gaziova to burn the clothes.
Counsel told the jury that "hindsight is a wonderful thing", but they must look at the circumstances in the Puska household in the immediate aftermath of the murder.
When his client burned Puska's clothes, she did not have any of the evidence that would later prove Jozef's guilt, Mr Murray said.
At that time, about 24 hours after the murder, gardaí also didn't know because they had arrested and were questioning the wrong man, Mr Murray said.
Advertisement
All Ms Grundzova knew, counsel said, was second-hand information that had been relayed to her regarding conversations between Jozef Puska and others in the household. Jozef had said numerous things which were "obvious nonsense" and "garbled lies", along with the truth - that he had stabbed or killed a girl.
Ms Grundzova could not have known that the true part was that Jozef had murdered Ashling Murphy and that the rest was nonsense, counsel said. She, like the others in the household, didn't believe that Jozef could be capable of such a thing.
The nub of the prosecution case, counsel said, is that Ms Grundzova knew or believed Jozef Puska to be guilty of the murder of Ashling Murphy at a time when gardaí themselves had arrested an entirely different person. Mr Murray asked the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
Prosecutor Anne Marie Lawlor SC has previously told the jury that all the accused knew what Jozef had done shortly after 9.30pm on the night of the murder.
Advertisement
She said Jozef told Lubomir Jnr and Marek, who then relayed it to the others in the house.
Ms Lawlor said the only reason for the withholding of evidence or burning of clothes was that they didn't want Jozef to be apprehended or prosecuted for murder.
Damien Colgan SC, for Ms Gaziova, told the jury that the "crux of the case" is whether his client knew that Jozef Puska had stabbed Ms Murphy. Her view at that time, Mr Colgan said, was that Jozef had been the victim of an assault. When she was told what Jozef had said he did, she didn't believe it because she "didn't believe Jozef was capable of killing anybody".
Kathleen Leader SC, for Lubomir Jnr, said her client delayed but did not withhold information. She said he had a reasonable excuse for the delay and asked the jury to consider the "natural sense of protection for his younger brother". She said it is understandable that Lubomir Jnr was reluctant to accept that his brother had "committed a truly horrific murder".
Advertisement
The family was "particularly close", she said, living together as six adults and 14 children in a four-bed home. Lubomir told gardaí that their relationship was "full of love".
When Jozef left the house early on the 12th and returned that night with visible injuries, the initial concern among the close knit family was, Ms Leader said, "not that Jozef had behaved in a criminal manner, much less that he had murdered someone, but that Jozef himself had been hurt in some way."
Lubomir Jnr spoke to gardaí on January 14th, 16th and 18th. Ms Leader said the statements reveal the progression of a man "coming to terms with something awful that was not of his doing."
She added: "He is working his way to a place where he is able to leave the bonds of family and brotherhood and love and all that entails, to where he discharges his other obligation to society as a whole, which is what he did."
Ms Leader said that by January 18th, Lubomir was "squarely supporting the prosecution", telling them everything he knew. She reminded the jury that he said, "If you find out it was him, well, let him. He is going to pay for what he did."
Ireland
Jozef Puska's brother withheld information to prot...
Read More
Ms Leader asked the jury to think of someone they love.
She added: "Think of that person coming home, out of the blue, and telling you they had done something so truly awful, something you hadn't imagined in your wildest dreams. Was it reasonable in those circumstances to disclose the information in stages?"
Ms Leader said the law does not require people to be "superhuman" as she asked the jury to acquit her client.
Ms Justice Caroline Biggs has begun her charge to the jury and will continue on Wednesday.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sheku Bayoh Inquiry to consider application for recusal of chairman
Sheku Bayoh Inquiry to consider application for recusal of chairman

The Independent

time17 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Sheku Bayoh Inquiry to consider application for recusal of chairman

The Sheku Bayoh Inquiry is set to consider issues around fairness from the chairman, in a procedural hearing, after it emerged he met the grieving family several times. Sheku Bayoh, 31, a father-of-two, died after he was restrained by around six police officers who were called to Hayfield Road in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on May 3, 2015. The Crown Office decided not to take legal action against the police involved following an investigation, but the circumstances are being examined at the inquiry. The procedural hearing on Thursday and Friday was ordered by chairman Lord Bracadale to consider an application for his own recusal. It will take place at Capital House in Edinburgh. It comes after Lord Bracadale revealed he has met with the family of Mr Bayoh on at least five occasions since the inquiry began. The family's lawyer, Aamer Anwar, suggested the procedural hearing alone could 'cost the public purse in excess of £1 million'. The hearing follows an application for recusal of the chairman and an assessor on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, Pc Craig Walker and Nicole Short. Recusal is the legal process by which a judge or other adjudicator steps aside from participating in a case due to potential bias, conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality. Mr Anwar said on behalf of the family: 'The procedural hearing follows an application for recusal of the chair and an assessor on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, Pc Craig Walker and Nicole Short. 'The hearing will focus on the fairness of the conduct and procedure adopted by the chair in meeting the families of Sheku Bayoh. 'For the record, it is Lord Bracadale who has ordered this hearing. The inquiry will hear oral submissions from core participants. 'All core participants must publicly state their position as to whether they wish the chair to step down – it will be noted by the family as to what position all the public bodies such as Crown Office and the chief constable will adopt, as they have made a great deal over the years about being fully supportive of the public inquiry. 'The Bayoh family believe the federation and those hanging on to their coat-tails do so at the 11th hour, in a pathetic and desperate attempt to sabotage the inquiry. 'The family have watched so many parties who have literally sat on their hands for over 122 days of evidence, never publicly asking a question at a huge legal cost of £20 million to the public, yet this hearing in terms of police lawyers could cost the public in excess of £1 million.' He said the family are 'not giving up' and that 10 years on from Mr Bayoh's death they will 'once more call-out the dangerous arrogance of a criminal justice system that does not like accountability'. The Scottish Police Federation, Crown Office and Police Scotland have been asked for comment.

Weinstein jury still has 1 charge to go after partial verdict in sex crimes retrial
Weinstein jury still has 1 charge to go after partial verdict in sex crimes retrial

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Weinstein jury still has 1 charge to go after partial verdict in sex crimes retrial

After a partial verdict in a chaotic day at Harvey Weinstein 's sex crimes retrial, jurors are due Thursday to return to deliberations on a remaining charge — if the foreperson will join in. The jury delivered its partial verdict Wednesday, convicting the ex-studio boss of one of the top charges but acquitting him of another. Both charges concern accusations of forcing oral sex on women in 2006. The jury of seven women and five men unanimously reached those decisions last Friday, the foreperson later told the judge. The verdict was delivered Wednesday only because Judge Curtis Farber asked whether there was agreement on any of the charges. The group was stuck on the third charge: a rape accusation involving a woman who also said she had a consensual relationship with the Oscar-winning producer. Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the other two counts. Weinstein denies all the charges. In an unusual exchange with the judge during some legal arguments before the partial verdict was disclosed Wednesday, he insisted it was unfair to continue the trial after two jurors came forward with concerns about the proceedings. 'I can't be judged by a situation that's going on like this,' said Weinstein, 73, saying the judge was 'endangering' him. Jury-room strains started leaking into public view Friday, when a juror asked to be excused because he felt another was being treated unfairly. Then Monday, the foreperson complained that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges. The man raised concerns again Wednesday. In a closed-door discussion with prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge, the foreperson said another juror was yelling at him for sticking to his opinion and at one point vowed, 'You going to see me outside.' 'I feel afraid inside there,' the foreperson told the judge and attorneys, according to a transcript. The judge sent the jury home for the day after the partial verdict, but the foreperson later asked to come back and recapped his concerns to Farber in court. The foreperson said he was willing to return Thursday, with Farber saying the man wouldn't be forced to go into the jury room if he didn't want to. It's unclear how deliberations could proceed if that happens, and it's equally uncertain what the court would then do. Weinstein's initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood's most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse. Weinstein's accusers said he exploited his Tinseltown influence to dangle career help, get them alone and then trap and force them into sexual encounters. His defense portrayed his accusers as Hollywood wannabes and hangers-on who willingly hooked up with him to court opportunity, then later said they were victimized to collect settlement funds and #MeToo approbation. Miriam Haley, the producer and production assistant whom Weinstein was convicted — twice, now — of sexually assaulting, said outside court Wednesday that the new verdict 'gives me hope.' Accuser Kaja Sokola also called it 'a big win for everyone,' even though Weinstein was acquitted of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was a 19-year-old fashion model. Her allegation was added to the case after the retrial was ordered. The third accuser, Jessica Mann, was still waiting for an outcome. The hairstylist and actor testified for days — as she did in 2020 — about the rape she said she endured in a Manhattan hotel room and about why she continued to see and have consensual encounters with Weinstein afterward. 'Rape can happen in relationships — and in dynamics where power and manipulation control the narrative," Mann said in a statement Wednesday. Weinstein also was convicted of raping another woman in California. He's appealing that conviction. The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they agree to be identified. Haley, Mann and Sokola did so.

Erin Patterson: Australian accused in mushroom murders finishes giving evidence
Erin Patterson: Australian accused in mushroom murders finishes giving evidence

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Erin Patterson: Australian accused in mushroom murders finishes giving evidence

SYDNEY, June 12 (Reuters) - An Australian woman accused of murder denied on Thursday she deliberately included poisonous mushrooms in a lunch she served to three elderly relatives of her estranged husband, as the prosecution wrapped up five days of cross-examination. Erin Patterson is charged with the murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, in July 2023. The prosecution accuses her of foraging for the death caps, before drying them and knowingly serving them in individual portions of Beef Wellington at her home in Leongatha, a town of about 6,000 people some 135 km (84 miles) from Melbourne. Patterson denies the charges, which carry a life sentence, with her defence calling the deaths a "terrible accident". On Thursday, prosecution barrister Nanette Rogers ended her cross-examination by accusing Patterson of deliberately sourcing the mushrooms for the lunch. "I suggest you deliberately included them in the Beef Wellington you served (the guests)... you did so intending to kill them." "Disagree," the accused replied. The lengthy cross-examination followed three days of questioning from the 50-year-old's own barrister, Colin Mandy. Erin Patterson was the only witness called by her defence, and her decision to take the stand reignited interest in the trial, now in its seventh week. Media have descended on the town of Morwell where the trial is being held, about two hours east of Melbourne. State broadcaster ABC's daily podcast on the trial is currently Australia's most popular, while many domestic newspapers have run live blogs. The jury is next expected to hear closing arguments from the prosecution and defence, before presiding judge Justice Christopher Beale gives his instructions to the jury. The trial is expected to conclude later this month.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store