Dermot Laide was led into court in handcuffs as the appeal against his conviction began yesterday. Frank McNally reports.
That apart, he looked little the worse for his nine months in jail. A smart grey suit had replaced the woolly jumpers he wore throughout the six-week trial, and were it not for the chain linking him to a prison officer, he could have passed for a solicitor.
There was none of the emotion that followed the trial's climax last March. In the context of this appeal, the drunken madness that ended Brian Murphy's life in August 2001 is only the backdrop to a very sober and minutely detailed legal argument.
Laide's counsel apologised at one point for appearing "prickly", but nobody had noticed.
And when he complained of how the trial judge's arrangements had caused "embarrassment" for his client, even this proved to be a legal term.
The dead man's parents were again in court, sitting on a side bench directly across from Laide and his fellow appellant, Desmond Ryan, who remains on bail pending his appeal against a conviction for violent disorder.
During a long day, however, the eyes of the parents and the young men opposite rarely if ever met. Laide in particular gave his complete attention to lawyer Mr Michael O'Higgins, except during the occasional moments when one of the appeal judges interrupted with a question.
The only adversarial element in the proceedings was provided by a man who wasn't there: Seán Mackey, who remains in jail for his part in the Anabel row, having already lost his appeal.
As Mr O'Higgins told it, Mackey's statement on the night's events - an edited version of which was read to the trial jury - was a self-serving one that seriously damaged Laide's standing in the eyes of the jury, even though he had no opportunity to defend himself against it.
The judge faced a big challenge in balancing the interests of the accused, Mr O'Higgins admitted. But if he could not strike this balance, the "QED" was that there should have been separate trials.