Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

mobby

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfsnsnsnsn/

MooseJam

justice prevails

baztard

Good to hear.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fvcking murdering ba$tard.

Brilliant news.

GrumPy

ppffft. They took their time?

Huggles

Great news, im so happy for the family.

What a bastard he was, normal men just leave there wife not bludgeon her to death.

Boggles

Mobile phone got him.

old boy

well what you give out comes back, jury take a bow

Creamy Goodness

Irish GrumPy wrote:

ppffft. They took their time?

i heard the table from the hotel room got stuck whilst being lowered out the window.

Wertz

Great, now we don't have to hear about it morning, noon and night.
All due respect to the family of the bereaved but I don't see why this case attracted attention far and above what is given to many murder cases tried in the State.
The media circus surrounding it has been relentless, RTE news have had it as their headline on almost every bulletin for the past fortnight, tabloids have been making radio ads citing the trial as their headline; I think the only thing that rivalled it for attention this week was Harry &*^%in' Potter...
How many other murder cases have been going on around the country at the same time? How much coverage did you hear of them?

wyndham

His colleague should be inside with him for providing a false alibi, even though he retracted it somewhat on the stand.
Given the extent of communication between O'Reilly and his bit on the side on the day of the murder, it surprises me that no conspiracy charge was forthcoming.

mikemac

Justice was served.

Conviction for murder in Ireland a mandatory sentance for jail for life but how long is a life sentance?

Does life mean life or will he be out in maybe ten years for good behaviour?

Sonnenblumen

Boggles wrote:

Mobile phone got him.

Why do murderers insist on using their own phones, it is as stupid as leaving finger prints at the scene!

Phone proved he was telling lies, but otherwise all other 'evidence' is circumstantial. IMO a brave but risky jury outcome, and I hope it is the truth and we'll not discover a miscarriage of justice .........Perhaps he might one day admit the crime and our conscience can be spared.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Wertz wrote:

Great, now we don't have to hear about it morning, noon and night.
All due respect to the family of the bereaved but I don't see why this case attracted attention far and above what is given to many murder cases tried in the State.
The media circus surrounding it has been relentless, RTE news have had it as their headline on almost every bulletin for the past fortnight, tabloids have been making radio ads citing the trial as their headline; I think the only thing that rivalled it for attention this week was Harry &*^%in' Potter...
How many other murder cases have been going on around the country at the same time? How much coverage did you hear of them?

Shaddup, you were the same in the Maddy thread too. If you don't like the news, don't watch it

As for me, I'm looking forward to hearing about the finer points of the trial. And I bet there's a book or two in the offing too!.

What an absolute bollix (O'Reilly, not you Wertz.)

arybvtcw0eolkf

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Why do murderers insist on using their own phones, it is as stupid as leaving finger prints at the scene!

Phone proved he was telling lies, but otherwise all other 'evidence' is circumstantial. IMO a brave but risky jury outcome, and I hope it is the truth and we'll not discover a miscarriage of justice .........Perhaps he might one day admit the crime and our conscience can be spared.

"OUR" concience?.. I don't think so buddy. I think the vast majority of the population will celebrate this verdict with a perfectly clear concience.

Sonnenblumen

Wertz wrote:

Great, now we don't have to hear about it morning, noon and night.
All due respect to the family of the bereaved but I don't see why this case attracted attention far and above what is given to many murder cases tried in the State.
The media circus surrounding it has been relentless, RTE news have had it as their headline on almost every bulletin for the past fortnight, tabloids have been making radio ads citing the trial as their headline; I think the only thing that rivalled it for attention this week was Harry &*^%in' Potter...
How many other murder cases have been going on around the country at the same time? How much coverage did you hear of them?

Perhaps if you paid more attention you might realise why this particular trial received so much media attention. But before you ask, don't bother I've no interest to explain it to you.

aequinoctium

he was quite the idiot

Duiske

Great news. Have to say, the Gardai did an excellent job on this case. And well done to Vilicom for the call trace work. Brilliant stuff !!.

Tigrrrr

He was indeed an idiot, but for what it's worth, circumstantial evidence was his stupidity. Apparently juries can convict on it now. It would have been better for justice if he was implicated directly on clear evidence as opposed to popular concencus and the evidence that was presented.

Nevertheless, obviously that means nothing to the family and friends of Rachel O'Reilly. I wouldn't put any money on the conviction standing up in the event of an appeal though.

is_that_so

Wertz wrote:

Great, now we don't have to hear about it morning, noon and night.
All due respect to the family of the bereaved but I don't see why this case attracted attention far and above what is given to many murder cases tried in the State.
The media circus surrounding it has been relentless, RTE news have had it as their headline on almost every bulletin for the past fortnight, tabloids have been making radio ads citing the trial as their headline; I think the only thing that rivalled it for attention this week was Harry &*^%in' Potter...
How many other murder cases have been going on around the country at the same time? How much coverage did you hear of them?

The Brendan Smith and Malcolm McArthur cases in their day also gave us wall to wall coverage. It is the nature of cases like this.

The time of year had some influence on it plus the 24 hour news world we live in. But most importantly was the question of the outcome and how he appeared to have gone about the whole thing and whether it could be made stick. Better than TV for many people; echoes of the OJ case. Remember this is not the first attempt to get the man to court.

But one can ignore headlines, TV and radio ads, not read newspaper stories and turn off TVs.

As for the verdict I believe it's the right one all things taken into account.

Pythia

Glad to hear it.
I hope he goes away for a long long time for what he did.

ateam

Did RTE bring any special coverage of it? TV3 brought a news report just after 7.

timmywex

good to hear, just saw this on breaking news when it was put up, fair juice to all the news and media for getting the result out so fast, it was up 2 minutes after the judgement was given!!

Wertz

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Perhaps if you paid more attention you might realise why this particular trial received so much media attention. But before you ask, don't bother I've no interest to explain it to you.

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not naieve enough not to see why this trial holds all the classic Hollywood ingredients for it to become a media feeding frenzy....it's just this type of sensationalism pisses me off.
It pisses me off because it turns me into an indifferent spectator on what is an important event to the victim, the perpetrator and their respective family and friends. It's really no-one else's business what goes on in the court (yes, yes I know it's in the public domain, trialed by your peers, etc), if it bothers you that much to know then by all means find out....but this forcefeeding from all sides of the Irish print/TV/radio news at the expense of reportage of other trials going on at present is wearing.
The public shouldn't be bombarded with every minute detail every hour of the day for almost 3 weeks....and like I said, where was the coverage of any other ongoing murder trial(s) in the country?

Mairt: maddy thread?

Sonnenblumen

Wertz wrote:

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not naieve enough not to see why this trial holds all the classic Hollywood ingredients for it to become a media feeding frenzy....it's just this type of sensationalism pisses me off.
It pisses me off because it turns me into an indifferent spectator on what is an important event to the victim, the perpetrator and their respective family and friends. It's really no-one else's business what goes on in the court (yes, yes I know it's in the public domain, trialed by your peers, etc), if it bothers you that much to know then by all means find out....but this forcefeeding from all sides of the Irish print/TV/radio news at the expense of reportage of other trials going on at present is wearing.
The public shouldn't be bombarded with every minute detail every hour of the day for almost 3 weeks....and like I said, where was the coverage of any other ongoing murder trial(s) in the country?

Mairt: maddy thread?

Please keep digging and soon we'll not see you.

Terry

Please keep it on topic.
Take your flirting to PM.

Wertz

WTF? How is that flirting and how am I OT?

[edit] Ah wait, I see... "justice is served", "I knew he did it", "throw away the key" etc.
Now am I on topic?

Dudess

Hmmm. I too often wondered why this, of all cases, attracted such massive attention. I suppose his cockiness throughout. Possibly his Late Late appearance shortly after the murder. He was so calm - not shocked calm, but completely blasé.
Glad he went down, but every shred of evidence was circumstantial - I wonder will this set a precedent for future cases. I mean, it was pretty darn obvious that O'Reilly did it, but what about other cases riding on purely circumstantial evidence? An appeal, or several, is on the cards, no doubt.
And I wonder will there be some sort of support from men's groups on the strength of his emails criticising his wife and her alleged treatment of their sons? As well as his concern about custody once they broke up? I wonder if John Waters, Roger Eldridge et al will voice their concern - not in support for a convicted murderer, but maybe making a "look what men can be driven to"-type argument. I remember similar points were made the time that guy in Cork abducted his little girl and went into hiding for about 18 months, only to shoot her and himself when the net closed in.

Wertz: you didn't post a comment on the 43-page Maddy thread? Good on you - you obviously don't waste as much time on Boards as some of us do!!

muletide

Great news - murdering scumbag. What a cowardly Baxtard beating his wife with a dumbbell. Hope he gets hell in prison

Tha Gopher

I recall an article from the time describing the wife as, actual words I cant recall, but in recollection a bit, i dunno, tough in regards to certain areas., someone who, as they say, didnt tolerate fools kindly. Combined with the mother in laws complaint to the social, I dunno, yes, i believe he killed her, but i think to completely plead not guilty despite the evidance is insane. Shouldve went for manslaughter. I dunno, I think i need to hear all sides before deciding.

Terry

Wertz wrote:

WTF? How is that flirting and how am I OT?

[edit] Ah wait, I see... "justice is served", "I knew he did it", "throw away the key" etc.
Now am I on topic?

The flirting comment was sarcasm.
The OT comment was directed at Sonnenblumen.

Wertz

Dudess; no leave to appeal in this case according to RTE.

Ah the Madeline Mc Cann thread? How soon we forget eh? I thought mairt was talking about something else entirely. Yeah I think I posted in a similar vein to my attitudes to the media in that thread as well.

[edit]Julep: sorry, just on the defensive most of today. long story

Dudess

I definitely agree with your view on the McCann case.

Christ, I'd hate to be working for a Sunday newspaper right now! Bye bye Saturday night I'd say!

pokerwidow

God I must be the only person who was not 100% sure if he was guilty. I did read the papers everyday of the trial but I just could not be absolutely certain that he was the one. The point I am making is that I am very glad that I was not on the jury. And I have no knowledge of any of the family, either side.

I just hope justice was done and the two boys can somehow come to terms with their father being found guilty of killing their mother.

Tha Gopher

^^^^^

Pokerwidow, your not the only one unsure. As said, I think he killed her, but regarding motive there is more to be said, such that if he admitted killing her (I cant imagine anyone with sense told him to deny all involvement) why didnt he claim it was a rsult of unreasonable behaviour.

philstar

well let that be a lesson to all potential murderers out there....DO NOT USE YOUR MOBILE PHONES.

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote:

The flirting comment was sarcasm.
The OT comment was directed at Sonnenblumen.

I'm pretty much OT, he's moaning and makes stupid points to support his moan. What nonsense to say it's nobody's business but the victim (who is dead!!), the accused and extended family. This case poses significant precedents for future trials not just murder etc.

You on the otherhand are complaining and perhaps your suggestion about 'flirting' should be reconsidered. Seems to me you have more to share with Wertz than I'll ever have.

Back on topic, now that we've cleared the side show. I'd commend the Gardai for diligent detective work, I sincerely hope that the right decision was reached, he did look guilty despite the tenuous nature of much of the evidence. Manner can give rise to prejudice, and we've seen some here already. If justice was done, let justice be served.

If someone want's to start a moaning sideshow about media coverage well that's a different thread and not pertinent to a discussion on the trial or the result.

Huggles

Tha Gopher wrote:

^^^^^

Pokerwidow, your not the only one unsure. As said, I think he killed her, but regarding motive there is more to be said, such that if he admitted killing her (I cant imagine anyone with sense told him to deny all involvement) why didnt he claim it was a rsult of unreasonable behaviour.

I personally believe he was one of these headbangers that thought if he denied it strongly enough he'd believe it himself which he did. Therefore he had a real tough time understanding why noone else believed him, perhaps even his own legal team. The calling of only two witnesses, indicated the less said the better.

Rowley Birkin QC

Clear as day that he did it but all the evidence was purely circumstantial. A dangerous conviction IMO.

crosstownk

I think the jury came to the right conclusion and brought to a close another media 'soap opera'. Maybe it got a lot of media attention, but that's the sort of thing that sells newspapers. It seemed to attract the interest of a lot of people.

Anyone any ideas when he will be sentenced?

Tigrrrr

Dudess wrote:

Glad he went down, but every shred of evidence was circumstantial - I wonder will this set a precedent for future cases. I mean, it was pretty darn obvious that O'Reilly did it, but what about other cases riding on purely circumstantial evidence? An appeal, or several, is on the cards, no doubt.

I don't think that can have any bearing on future cases tbh, but I think you're right in your concern. Justice should be done to the letter of the law, not skirting our way around it willy nilly to get to a desired end conclusion (I'm not necessarily saying "omg that happened" because none of us were in the position of juror, but it could be interpreted as having gone that way).

I didn't like the judge's speech to the jury where he said that while one strand of circumstantial evidence was not enough, put enough strands together and one could make a rope (as if to hang JOR with perhaps:) ). To me, that's like saying "lots of rugby players can make up for no ball, have enough players and even without a ball, you can have a game of rugby". That just doesn't make any sense.
By the way, I'm not saying I know any more than Mr Justice Barry White, I don't. I just don't understand what he meant by that speech.

Huggles

crosstownk wrote:

I think the jury came to the right conclusion and brought to a close another media 'soap opera'. Maybe it got a lot of media attention, but that's the sort of thing that sells newspapers. It seemed to attract the interest of a lot of people.

Anyone any ideas when he will be sentenced?

Already gone to mountjoy to serve life

gilroyb

Tha Gopher wrote:

why didnt he claim it was a rsult of unreasonable behaviour.

He left work to come home and kill her. That's murder in Irish law, not manslaughter. There aren't the variations of murder here that they have in the US. Also the motive that the case outlined showed it was long term rather than just a fit of rage.

People seem to think that circumstancial evidence is not good enough to convict on. If the evidence available makes a jury of your peers find beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty, then they are clear to find you guilty. There was absolutely no other explanation that made sense given the various evidence available. Sometimes you don't need CSI to find a murderer.

Terry

Sonnenblumen wrote:

I'm pretty much OT, he's moaning and makes stupid points to support his moan. What nonsense to say it's nobody's business but the victim (who is dead!!), the accused and extended family. This case poses significant precedents for future trials not just murder etc.

You on the otherhand are complaining and perhaps your suggestion about 'flirting' should be reconsidered. Seems to me you have more to share with Wertz than I'll ever have.

Back on topic, now that we've cleared the side show. I'd commend the Gardai for diligent detective work, I sincerely hope that the right decision was reached, he did look guilty despite the tenuous nature of much of the evidence. Manner can give rise to prejudice, and we've seen some here already. If justice was done, let justice be served.

If someone want's to start a moaning sideshow about media coverage well that's a different thread and not pertinent to a discussion on the trial or the result.

Post #25.

Dudess

gilroyb wrote:

People seem to think that circumstancial evidence is not good enough to convict on. If the evidence available makes a jury of your peers find beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty, then they are clear to find you guilty. There was absolutely no other explanation that made sense given the various evidence available. Sometimes you don't need CSI to find a murderer.

I agree. Who else could it have been? But the evidence was still circumstantial. But yeah, the jury did have enough to go on. But it was circumstantial! Ahhh, it's causing my head to do somersaults!

Capt'n Midnight

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Phone proved he was telling lies, but otherwise all other 'evidence' is circumstantial. IMO a brave but risky jury outcome, and I hope it is the truth and we'll not discover a miscarriage of justice .........Perhaps he might one day admit the crime and our conscience can be spared.

Oh boy..

with most crimes the victim is a witness and can give direct evidence

in murder cases the victim can't be a witness for obvious reasons and murderers geneally don't kill in plain sight so murder cases depend more on forensic evidence and circumstantial than many others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent.
....
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

yeah the guy who gave the alibi should be looked into , really depends on how quickly he changed his story and how much pressure was needed. Just like the law on stolen goods applying to the buyer is to stop there being a demand for steeling, there should be incentive for people to not provide unverifiable alibies.

Do the mobile operators record all calls like the Brits do with Echelon ?

BostonB

bigkev49 wrote:

Clear as day that he did it but all the evidence was purely circumstantial. A dangerous conviction IMO.

Thats my thinking too.

buzzard

The verdict of guilty is dodgy given that it was only circumstancial evidence.
That doesn't sound good for furture cases when the defendent is actually innocent of the crime.

I think that judgement will change once he appeals given that it is only circumstancial

I am not defending him but just pointing out facts. If he hated his wife he should have just left her.

patrickolee

buzzard wrote:

The verdict of guilty is dodgy given that it was only circumstancial evidence.
That doesn't sound good for furture cases when the defendent is actually innocent of the crime.

I think that judgement will change once he appeals given that it is only circumstancial

I am not defending him but just pointing out facts. If he hated his wife he should have just left her.

Would have lost the kids, house and ended up paying maintenance. With her dead he'd get the mortgage paid off and the kids would be in his custody. Particularly the case in Ireland, where no matter what the kids end up with the female. Our family laws gave him a fairly substantial motive.

Kids are no longer in the republic, so it'll be interesting to see what will happen to them.

Huggles

patrickolee wrote:

Kids are no longer in the republic, so it'll be interesting to see what will happen to them.

Where are they? Are you family?

libbyly

Personally - Im more of the belief that he paid someone to kill her rather than do it himself. Anyone agree?