Jury told Clare pensioner was murdered by nephew stamping on his head and 'calculated' kicks

A nephew murdered his 78-year-old uncle by stamping on his head with steel-capped boots and "calculatedly" delivering "well aimed" kicks as the widower lay helplessly on the ground at his home in Co. Clare, a prosecution barrister has told a jury.

Eilis Brennan SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, delivered her closing speech this Friday in the trial submitting that there was a "compelling picture of guilt" in the case with all the evidence pointing one way.

She said there could be no doubt that the defendant Thomas Lorigan's intention was to kill or cause serious injury to pensioner John O'Neill. 

Evidence has been given that Mr Lorigan was known by the nickname 'Mossy' in the Clare area and was the deceased's nephew.

The jury has heard that Mr O'Neill lived alone and previously ran a bed and breakfast at his home along with his wife, who passed away in the summer of 2021.

Thomas Lorigan, aged 34, of no fixed abode, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Mr O'Neill (78) at St Brendan’s Road, Lisdoonvarna, Co. Clare on a date unknown between January 6 and January 7, 2022.

Man ordered not to enter ex-wife’s bedroom at their Clare home following row over shower

Court told couple are separated but continue to live in the family home with their children

Addressing the jury this Friday, Ms Brennan said the State's case is that Mr Lorigan went into his uncle's house and murdered him in a "vicious assault" around 9.20pm on January 6, which could be seen on CCTV footage. 

Ms Brennan submitted to the jury that once they followed the evidence in the case they wouldn't have any doubt as to the accused's guilt. 

The trial has heard that gardaí recovered a pair of bloodied boots from Gleann Bhreandain in Lisdoonvarna, where Mr Lorigan had stayed the night before the body was found.

Witness Walter Burke has testified that Mr Lorigan left his house at one point on the night of January 6 and returned before midnight, telling him that he had a row with his uncle.

The witness said the accused went to bed but during the night mentioned to him that he felt the row "was more serious than he first told me" and that somebody could be hurt.

Ms Brennan said in her closing address that Mr Burke's evidence was that he had been drinking in his house with 'Mossy' during the day of January 6 and that the accused had gone to the local Spar a couple of times to buy alcohol. 

She said Mr Burke calling 999 on the morning of January 7 had set in train the gardai discovering Mr O'Neill dead in the B&B and then going to Gleann Bhreandain. 

Ms Brennan told the jurors it had been suggested to them by the defence that the conversations between the accused and Mr Burke never took place and that the witness was totally confused. The barrister submitted these suggestions didn't stack up. 

She said Mr Burke wasn't wrong that the accused had told him his name was 'Mossy' and 'sadly' he hadn't been wrong about his concern for Mr O'Neill's welfare that morning.

"It's a bit trite for me to say but how on earth could Mr Burke have known something happened to Mr O'Neill unless he had been told about it by the person involved in that altercation," she remarked. 

She added: "Mr Lorigan has put himself at the scene as having a row with his uncle. That evidence chimes with all the other evidence". She said Mr Burke was a good citizen with 'no skin in the game' and who had 'no axe to grind'. 

Counsel drew the jury’s attention to the steel capped 'Portwest' black boots in a size 46, which were found inside the patio door of Gleann Bhreandain. She said various people from the town had identified 'Mossy' wearing those boots. 

Ms Brennan said the boots and jeans were crucial to the case and that Mr Burke had testified that both of these items belonged to 'Mossy'. It was clear, she said, that the accused had taken off the boots and jeans and left them downstairs when he returned to Gleann Bhreandain from Mr O'Neill's house on the night of January 6. 

Furthermore, Ms Brennan asked the jury to follow the science in the case. She said forensic scientist Dr Alan McGee had found blood on the boots and jeans recovered from Gleann Bhreandain, which matched Mr O'Neill's DNA profile. 

Dr McGee had testified that a mixed DNA profile was taken from inside the pair of boots. He said the boots were heavily stained with Mr O'Neill's blood and that the mixed profile contained the DNA of Mr Lorigan.

"The DNA evidence essentially chimes and proves all the other evidence," she said.

"When the deceased was viciously assaulted, Mr O'Neill's blood was found on the jeans and boots of the man who said he had a row with him the previous night," said counsel. 

Dr McGee also gave evidence that the DNA profile obtained from the right knee and lower left leg of the pair of blood-stained jeans seized from Gleann Bhreandain matched Mr O'Neill's profile. The DNA profile taken from inside the waistband of the jeans matched the accused's profile.

Counsel also referred to the evidence from forensic scientist Ms Amanda Lennon who said that there was "strong support" for the view that the boots had made "impressions" on the floor of the deceased's home rather than other unknown footwear. "Again all the evidence is pointing one way," remarked Ms Brennan. 
 
The barrister pointed to the three broken picture frames found on top of a cabinet in the deceased's house and how Mr O'Neill's wallet was still on him along with some cash when his body was found. Counsel suggested to the jury that this should indicate to them that this was "something personal". 

Ms Brennan referred to "the key" CCTV footage which occurred at 8.49pm on January 6, when a person wearing "long pants" is observed walking to the front of O'Neill's B&B and going under the archway of his house.

She remarked that these pants looked like the baggy jeans found at Gleann Bhreandain. 

Counsel went on to tell the jury that 'the extent of the assault' had been captured on CCTV and that two people could be seen coming out from under the archway at 9.15pm. She noted that they had engaged in conversation and submitted it was clear that they knew each other. 

She added: "One person is more animated and the other more calm. You can see that the man punches Mr O'Neill to the ground, there is no resistance from Mr O'Neill, he doesn't have a chance, he is wrestled to the ground and kicked. He puts a few well aimed kicks to him and when Mr O'Neill is helpless on the ground, you see some measured random kicks, then you can see stamps on his head and neck". 

Ms Brennan said Mr O'Neill was left on the road for forty seconds before being dragged under the archway into his kitchen. She said the prosecution case is that this was Mr Lorigan and that impact staining on the archway indicated there had been another assault on the deceased. Those events, she said, showed a complete absence of empathy or regard for the deceased. 

Ms Brennan suggested that Mr Lorigan had "prowled" around the house for over half an hour after the assault. She said the person seen leaving the house in the footage was "definitely carrying something", which could have been a box of alcohol found in Mr Burke's house the next day. 

Ms Brennan submitted it was not known what the accused's motive was and why he did what he did. She said all that is known is that Mr O'Neill had supported and provided financial assistance to his sister Geraldine [the accused's mother] who had died from cancer and her family. 

Commenting further on the CCTV footage, the lawyer said the force and impact of the kicking was evident, as was the calculated manner in which it was done when the deceased was helpless on the ground. She said there could be no doubt that the intention was to kill or cause serious injury to Mr O'Neill. 

Ms Brennan referred to the accused saying "no comment" when asked to account for the presence of blood on his clothing during garda interviews, where he was told a jury may draw an inference from his failure or refusal to do so. Counsel said the jury could not convict the accused on the basis of inferences alone but when it was "put into the mix" with all the other evidence then they could.

She suggested the accused hadn't accounted for the blood on his clothing because the only possible account of how Mr Lorigan got blood on his boots and jeans was from assaulting the deceased. 

New appeal lodged over plans for 100-metre 'met mast' on Clare farm

Planning application from energy company attracted more than 100 objections

She concluded by saying there was a compelling picture of guilt in the case and that all the evidence pointed one way. She submitted that there was no alternative version of events and invited them to bring in a guilty verdict. 

Defence counsel Michael Bowman SC, for Mr Lorigan, said in his closing speech that the overwhelming evidence was that Mr O'Neill was "a good if not very good man", who had come to the aid of sister's young family when she died.

"Beyond doubt he was a fine and decent man and did not deserve to die in the manner he did," he said. 

He argued that the prosecution was keen to say to the jury that this incident was "personal", which he submitted there was no evidence of. 

Pointing to the evidence given by Mr Burke, Mr Bowman said he had his own difficulties with alcohol and was forthright about that. He said the State's contention was that Mr Burke had two or three engagements with Mr Lorigan that caused him to ring 999.

He said Mr Burke was on the back of an alcohol binge and that maybe he had got his dates and times confused as a consequence of the alcohol he consumed "in the currency of this binge". 

He indicated that the 'Bombay Sapphire gin' was one of the red herrings in the case, which the prosecution had warned the jury about but yet sought to rely on. "It does not fit comfortably with the evidence but fits comfortably with the narrative the prosecution seeks to present," he said.

He said the jury were left with the impression that the house was 'denuded' of alcohol, when there was a very considerable amount of alcohol left in the deceased's house. 

He reminded the jury that his client's face was never identifiable on any CCTV footage and that the identification in the case was flawed. He said the prosecution had fallen short on a close analysis of the case and asked the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. 

The trial continues on Monday before Mr Justice Paul McDermott and a jury of five men and seven women, when the judge will continue his charge.