John O Brien not guilty?

joejoem · 09-05-2008 12:47pm #1

What???? - Nothing found linking him to the crime, a free man today.

Naos · 09-05-2008 12:48pm

Linkys

joejoem · 09-05-2008 12:50pm

Verdict out 3 mins, just on radio now. He was accused of murdering his wife Meg Walsh

keen · 09-05-2008 12:51pm

Naos wrote: »

Linkys

http://www.rte.ie/news/

Bookmark that they have all the daily news.

Limerick91 · 09-05-2008 12:51pm

Of the three recent high profile wife murderering cases (Meg Walsh, Siobhan Kearney & Rachel O'Reilly)I would have thought that the prosecution case was strongest here.

I guess taking the risk of taking to the stand paid off

Femelade · 09-05-2008 12:52pm

Jaysus!! i was full sure he was going down..

whiskeyman · 09-05-2008 12:54pm

As expected IMO.
Well done that jury to applying what the judge told them.
It was just too hard to make a hard link to him.
The main issue is that the state did not make a proper case to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

kaizersoze1980 · 09-05-2008 12:58pm

what a farce. total disgrace.

Limerick91 · 09-05-2008 12:59pm

Whiskeyman, would you think that the state proved their cases in the other two trials, O'Reilly & Kearney?

_blank_ · 09-05-2008 1:01pm

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

what a farce. total disgrace.

There was fúck all evidence tbh, well none that was presented in court.

The Irish Justice System has spoken, a jury of his peers has found him not guilty.

Maybe he should have just been summarily executed when the wife was killed?

Fúck sake like, every wife that gets murdered, the husband is automatically in the frame.

If the guards got up of their holes and did a proper investigation instead of just hauling the husbands into court, we might have got a proper conviction.

Instead, there is a murderer walking the streets (I'm not saying this guy is guilty, but whoever kilt her is still out there now).

mookishboy · 09-05-2008 1:02pm

A disgrace because it didn't go the way you wanted!
The jury did the job they were supposed to do.
Luckily you weren't on it coz it would be the rope for sure then

is_that_so · 09-05-2008 1:06pm

Haven't followed a lot of it and just going on the RTE coverage, a lot of it was "circumstantial". From what I understand there are a lot of unknowns which again suggests to me that you can't apply beyond reasonable doubt. IMO he can only be not guilty.

DesF wrote: »

Instead, there is a murderer walking the streets (I'm not saying this guy is guilty, but whoever kilt her is still out there now).

+1

kmart6 · 09-05-2008 1:06pm

limerickros wrote: »

Of the three recent high profile wife murderering cases (Meg Walsh, Siobhan Kearney & Rachel O'Reilly)I would have thought that the prosecution case was strongest here.

I guess taking the risk of taking to the stand paid off

Not really a strong case when it was all circumstantcial(sp?) and based on him changing his statements!

mike65 · 09-05-2008 1:07pm

Careful whats said here, its not unknown for new evidence to come to light.

Of course if he didn't do it then the police will have to start again, interesting to see how much effort they put in.

Mike.

kmart6 · 09-05-2008 1:10pm

There wasn't much evidence in the Rachel O'Reilly case either,like the main point there was his whereabouts were different to what he said! No proof that he actually did it!

I think that really it depends on what kind of people you get on your jury!

Imhof Tank · 09-05-2008 1:20pm

kmart6 wrote: »

There wasn't much evidence in the Rachel O'Reilly case either,like the main point there was his whereabouts were different to what he said! No proof that he actually did it!

I think that really it depends on what kind of people you get on your jury!

Well, the pojnt in the Joe O'Reilly case wasnt that his whereabout were different to what he first said, it was that he was shown to have been at the murder scene at the relevant time.

Regarding the jury, in this case, I believe its 7 men and 5 women; whereas in the McLoughlin case,there was a huge female majority on the jury

What would be so difficult about introducing a rule requiring 6 men and 6 women for juries in this type of case?

seamus · 09-05-2008 1:26pm

I hadn't been following the whole thing really, it was only his admission that he used to beat her that had me thinking that he'd go down.
It was only yesterday when they made their arguments and the prosecution more-or-less admitted that, "We have no actual evidence, only a few bits of suggestions that make it look like he probably did it", that I thought their case was probably quite weak.

kaizersoze1980 · 09-05-2008 1:28pm

Was there not evidence of her blood in the boot of the family car?

Caoimhín · 09-05-2008 1:30pm

kmart6 wrote: »

There wasn't much evidence in the Rachel O'Reilly case either,like the main point there was his whereabouts were different to what he said! No proof that he actually did it!

I think that really it depends on what kind of people you get on your jury!

Yeah, see i didn't think one could be convicted on circumstantial evidence but that shows what i know.

DoubleJoe7 · 09-05-2008 1:38pm

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

Was there not evidence of her blood in the boot of the family car?

The car was disposed of, left in a car park. CCTV footage showed an undistinguishable figure who remote locked the car. The car was sold to Meg Walsh, who was provided with two keys.

Both keys were found in the couple's house in Waterford following a Garda search.

Caoimhín · 09-05-2008 1:39pm

Our justice system would be perfect but for the human element.

kmart6 · 09-05-2008 1:39pm

Imhof Tank wrote: »

it was that he was shown to have been at the murder scene at the relevant time

I know,but there was still no clear cut evidence....I didn't agree with that verdict

Imhof Tank wrote: »

What would be so difficult about introducing a rule requiring 6 men and 6 women for juries in this type of case?

God,imagine how long it would take them to deliberate then!

godtabh · 09-05-2008 1:47pm

I haven't followed the case much but based on what I heard I probably would have went the other way.

But that's how trail by jury works. You sum up the evidence that has been presented before you and make a decision.

Was it a majority verdict or a unanimous verdict?

My name is Mud · 09-05-2008 1:52pm

DesF wrote: »

Fúck sake like, every wife that gets murdered, the husband is automatically in the frame.

Thats because 50% of all female murder victims in Ireland are murdered by their husband, ex-husband, partner, ex-partner.

Its a high probability...nothing else.

DoubleJoe7 · 09-05-2008 1:52pm

It was unanimous

TheNog · 09-05-2008 1:55pm

DesF wrote: »

Fúck sake like, every wife that gets murdered, the husband is automatically in the frame.

If the guards got up of their holes and did a proper investigation instead of just hauling the husbands into court, we might have got a proper conviction.

Statistically speaking a family member is usually found to have committed most murders of a person for one reason or another. While the husband is automatically a suspect so is everyone else in the family and anyone who had a known dislike of the murdered person. It is simply down to a process of elimination then.

If you say that the guards didn't do a proper investigation then where is your proof? You could mail it to the GSOC. Maybe you are just guessing. I didn't see it reported anywhere in the media that the guards did a bad job. I reckon that your anger is misguided.

In this case the husband had the motive when Meg Ryan was caught kissing another man, she wanted to divorce John and he had the opportunity as he had close access to her and easy access to her car. This case was fairly circumstancial 'cos the actual curder scene couldn;t be found.

In all cases of murder it is the DPP who decides if a case is worthy of going before the courts. In this case the DPP believed there was enough evidence to prosecute.

mike65 wrote: »

Careful whats said here, its not unknown for new evidence to come to light.

Of course if he didn't do it then the police will have to start again, interesting to see how much effort they put in.

Mike.

godtabh · 09-05-2008 1:55pm

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

It was unanimous

Then it must have been fairly clear that the jurors that he didn't do it and the evidence presented did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

DoubleJoe7 · 09-05-2008 1:56pm

DesF wrote: »

Fúck sake like, every wife that gets murdered, the husband is automatically in the frame.

Not true. In this case the Gardaí didn't arrest O'Brien for months after the body was found. The clearly investigated the case and felt they had enough to charge him on it. Hardly "automatically in the frame."

_blank_ · 09-05-2008 1:57pm

My name is Mud wrote: »

Thats because 50% of all female murder victims in Ireland are murdered by their husband, ex-husband, partner, ex-partner.

Its a high probability...nothing else.

So, 50% aren't, is that what you are saying?

Dudess · 09-05-2008 1:57pm

Important notice: The man has been found not guilty - under no circumstances can anyone make any remarks implying he's guilty. That is libel and he would be well within his rights to sue.

_feedback_ · 09-05-2008 1:58pm

DesF wrote: »

Fúck sake like, every wife that gets murdered, the husband is automatically in the frame.

Unfortunately True ...

My name is Mud wrote: »

Thats because 50% of all female murder victims in Ireland are murdered by their husband, ex-husband, partner, ex-partner.

Its a high probability...nothing else.

Do you have anything to back up that 50% figure?! Are you saying that they are arrested on probability?!

The media have to hold some blame too, in recent years there have been a number of instances that involved a large number in a family being killed. The media automatically point the finger at the father/husband... Often, the results of investigations etc never come to light and the name of the father/husband and their family is blackened. Even if they were in no way at fault.

It's bullsh1t TBH...

Sherifu · 09-05-2008 1:58pm

First i've seen of this case. Lack of evidence ftl.

_blank_ · 09-05-2008 1:59pm

And in the family suicide cases, if the father did it he's a "monster" if the mother did it she's "mentally ill".

Double standards ftl.

Eoin · 09-05-2008 2:00pm

mike65 wrote: »

Careful whats said here, its not unknown for new evidence to come to light.

Of course if he didn't do it then the police will have to start again, interesting to see how much effort they put in.

Mike.

I wonder can/do the Gardai still consider such cases closed even if a guilty verdict wasn't returned against who they liked for it?

Marksie · 09-05-2008 2:03pm

Dudess wrote: »

Important notice: The man has been found not guilty - under no circumstances can anyone make any remarks implying he's guilty. That is libel and he would be well within his rights to sue.

We do not know the full facts as presented in court, we have been presented with essentially executive summaries. The jury in this case was presented with everything, the judge was also clear in his summing up.

Thus presented with the evidence, the jury has reached a unanimous verdict based on much more information than has been presented here: that verdict was not guilty.

Sometimes threads like these just go to show that if someone throws enough mud it will stick.

TheNog · 09-05-2008 2:04pm

eoin_s wrote: »

I wonder can/do the Gardai still consider such cases closed even if a guilty verdict wasn't returned against who they liked for it?

No it is back to work on it again in the hope of getting new information/evidence.

Caoimhín · 09-05-2008 2:05pm

TheNog wrote: »

No it is back to work on it again in the hope of getting new information/evidence.

Can someone be tried twice on the same charge?

mike65 · 09-05-2008 2:07pm

TheNog wrote: »

In this case the husband had the motive when Meg Ryan was caught kissing another man

I googled that name to

Mike.

Naos · 09-05-2008 2:08pm

keen wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/

Bookmark that they have all the daily news.

Oh really? You're a smart one, eh?

For future reference, some workplaces restrict access to certain sites. Therefore it's easier for all if the OP posts the article in a quote or at leasts provides a link so we know what we are working off.

godtabh · 09-05-2008 2:09pm

caoibhin wrote: »

Can someone be tried twice on the same charge?

I dont think so but i wouldnt know

seamus · 09-05-2008 2:09pm

caoibhin wrote: »

Can someone be tried twice on the same charge?

In this country, yes afaik, provided that the DPP can show some significant new evidence which changes the facts of the case that was previously presented.

godtabh · 09-05-2008 2:10pm

seamus wrote: »

In this country, yes afaik, provided that the DPP can show some significant new evidence which changes the facts of the case that was previously presented.

I thought you couldnt be charged for the same thing twice?

_feedback_ · 09-05-2008 2:10pm

that'd be a bit of a pain in the arse wouldn't it?!

kaizersoze1980 · 09-05-2008 2:12pm

kearnsr wrote: »

I thought you couldnt be charged for the same thing twice?

the law of double jeapardy .

as far as i know its a US law

you cant be done for a crime youve already been acquitted for

_blank_ · 09-05-2008 2:13pm

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

the law of double jeapordy

I'll take "US Laws not applicable in Ireland" for 400 please Alex.

Quigs Snr · 09-05-2008 2:15pm

Locals who would have known the couple, or even just the ex-wife will be fairly astonished and dissappointed with this verdict. But thats the legal system for you, when all of the evidence was put together it just looked very circumstantial. They needed more than they had. I feel sorry for the daughter, but what can you do. At the end of the day they were not able to proved anything beyond reasonable doubt, as a consequence the guy has pulled in OJ and thats the end of it for now.

One would hope for a different outcome at some stage in the future.

kaizersoze1980 · 09-05-2008 2:15pm

DesF wrote: »

I'll take "US Laws not applicable in Ireland" for 400 please Alex.

smart ass

thats what i meant :pac:

kaizersoze1980 · 09-05-2008 2:16pm

Quigs Snr wrote: »

the guy has pulled in OJ and thats the end of it for now.

careful now..innocent until proven guilty and all that.

What i will say is that, if he did it, then i hope he is done eventually

Villain · 09-05-2008 2:16pm

The jury can only find someone guilty if they are sure BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. If there is ANY doubt then the jury have to find the person not guilty, in this there appears to have been doubt on several pieces of evidence.

My name is Mud · 09-05-2008 2:18pm

elviscostello wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up that 50% figure?!

According to Womens Aid, 50% of women murdered in Ireland are murdered by husband/partner. Thats what the whole silent vigil outside the dail was about a couple of months ago on international womens day.

On the flipside it does mean that 50% of Irish women murdered, were killed by someone else, but I think the statistic is more relevant in terms of male murder victims vs female murder victims.

JackieO · 09-05-2008 2:18pm

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Well, the pojnt in the Joe O'Reilly case wasnt that his whereabout were different to what he first said, it was that he was shown to have been at the murder scene at the relevant time.

Regarding the jury, in this case, I believe its 7 men and 5 women; whereas in the McLoughlin case,there was a huge female majority on the jury

What would be so difficult about introducing a rule requiring 6 men and 6 women for juries in this type of case?

From what I remember of the O'Reilly trial - the whole point the case turned on was the fact that the phone records showed he was in the vaccinty of his home at the relevant time whereas he claimed to be somewhere completely different. Apparently if he had admitted to being in the area doing something else for example, they would never have convicted him. It was all down to the fact that he lied and the evidence placed him there.

John O Brien not guilty?

Comments