Joe O'Reilly Found Guilty

Radio Mad.

Great news tonight!!! Joe O'Reilly's been convicted of murdering his wife, Rachael. I know the family and to say I am ecstatic is an understatement. My thoughts are with them tonight. I hope this brings them some comfort. They have been through absolute hell. I hope the smug f****r rots.

ateam

Yes great news...

pokerwidow

I can't see why you posted this in the legal forum. Surely there must be another thread about this topic. You obviously are very emotional about this case. Don't get me wrong, it is horrific what happened that woman and her children.

Maybe the legal experts can give us their opinion on why no appeal was allowed and other points of the case.

Edit to add that I reread your post and you say you know the family. Well then I understand why you are so angry.

seamus

Moved from Legal Discussion.

Stereophonic

Great news!! Sorry to the victims family and RIP to the victim Rachael.

Unfortunately his mobile phone was the final jigsaw piece to nail him to jail. The Mobile masts registered his phone going to work in the city centre, returning to the Naul and then returning back to work as if nothing happened. If he left his mobile in work, he may have been found not guilty.

I knew from his appearance on the Late Late show that the chances of it being him were high in my opinion.... He was too relaxed and it was so soon after the death to appear on television.

If anyone has a link to that Late Late show with Joe O'Reilly, could you post it here? thanks

flogen

pokerwidow wrote:

Maybe the legal experts can give us their opinion on why no appeal was allowed and other points of the case.

There can be appeals, I think the refusal of leave to appeal only refers to appealing the decision based on the evidence presented (they can appeal on the conduct of the judge or things like the way that the jury was only 11 people rather than the normal 12 etc.).

I'd just like to point out that there are other threads around the site on this topic - given that I don't see why this thread should be another "he's guilty, he does/doesn't deserve it" thread.

Rather than lock this thread, however, I'd like to direct it towards the media coverage of the murder and subsequent case, which the Judge made many references to and mentioned in his statement today.

Jo King

Leave to appeal is almost invariably refused in Central Criminal and Circuit Criminal trials. The convicted person then appeals the refusal of leave to appeal. This is almost invariably granted and the appeal then goes ahead in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal is not a re-hearing but is an examination of the conduct of the trial. Was the jury properly instructed? Was some of the evidence improperly admitted? Was relevant evidence withheld etc. the Court of Criminal appeal can uphold the decision of the lower court, quash the conviction and order a re-trial, quash the conviction and order that there be no re-trial or in some case uphold the conviction but vary the sentence.

mike65

I've not followed this case in any detail, my only observation regarding media is why the forth estate has been quite so taken with it.

Was it the hubby/wife angle? Hardly new. Was it the fact that Joe O'Reilly had appeared on the Late Late? (So another example of media feeding off itself), Newstalks Luchtime programme was positivly obsessed by the saga.

Mike.

flogen

I think the brutality of the murder was what piqued the public/media interest at first - the fact that the case quickly turned out to be like something from a dodgy crime thriller kept the interest alight.

On another note it's clear to me that places like The Herald saw O'Reilly as the guy to watch from day 1. Maybe that was because they knew something we didn't (even something that we still don't know, perhaps). Maybe it was based on something like the body language given off by Rachael's mother on the Late Late. Maybe it was just what they wanted to believe. The important question is whether this came across in their coverage (I think it did from the little I read of it) and whether their coverage could have (or indeed did) bias the trial as a result. I don't read the Herald very often so I won't comment on that.

ateam

Did RTE bring a news flash for the announcement?

mike65

mike65 wrote:

I've not followed this case in any detail, my only observation regarding media is why the forth estate has been quite so taken with it.

Was it the hubby/wife angle? Hardly new. Was it the fact that Joe O'Reilly had appeared on the Late Late? (So another example of media feeding off itself), Newstalks Luchtime programme was positivly obsessed by the saga.

Mike.

No, it was the fact that 'ordinary' folk could relate to the murder.

A 30-year-old white, Irish mother of two could be anyone's sister, friend, cousin. Her husband could be anyone's brother, friend, colleague.

The victim and her murderer weren't people with whom the majority of newspaper-reading people couldn't relate to. There were no drugs involved, no guns, no gangland motive.

The public lapped it up. This story sells, big time.

dubtom

Although personally delighted that he was found guilty and I do believe he commited the murder, I think the media coverage of this case has been disgracefull from the outset.Headlines speak volumns, and since this case began, I mean by that days after the murder, the press has splashed pictures of him whenever he was brought in for questioning with bold headlines as if he had finally been caught red handed, being questioned is not unusual when your the spouse of a murder victim afterall. Personally I'm surprised his defence didn't argue on grounds that he couldn't have a fair trial because of the coverage. Hands up anyone who believes they haven't been biased by what they have read in the papers the last 3 years concerning this case, I know persionally my mind was made up from the start, it's hard to believe any jury would not be affected by it. It is pure luck that a conviction was got on phone call evidence, I lose reception on westmoland st, the middle of town, I wouldn't believe a word a telecom person tells me. His alibi and witness were flimsy to say the least but so was the vast amount of evidence against him.

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote:

Leave to appeal is almost invariably refused in Central Criminal and Circuit Criminal trials. The convicted person then appeals the refusal of leave to appeal. This is almost invariably granted and the appeal then goes ahead in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

There are two ways to get leave to appeal a case - asking the court that made the decision (other than the district court) and applying to the appeal court itself. As leave to appeal must be asked of the original court first, must be made within a short time frame, and the judge will normally refuse leave, it is common practice to seek leave to appeal as a formality at the end of proceedings.

What happens then is that the leave to appeal stage in the CCA is, for all intents and purposes, the substantive hearing, and if they are going to grant the appeal then they treat the leave stage as the hearing and grant it, if they are not going to grant the appeal they refuse leave to appeal.

santosubito

dubtom wrote:

Although personally delighted that he was found guilty and I do believe he commited the murder, I think the media coverage of this case has been disgracefull from the outset.Headlines speak volumns, and since this case began, I mean by that days after the murder, the press has splashed pictures of him whenever he was brought in for questioning with bold headlines as if he had finally been caught red handed, being questioned is not unusual when your the spouse of a murder victim afterall. Personally I'm surprised his defence didn't argue on grounds that he couldn't have a fair trial because of the coverage. Hands up anyone who believes they haven't been biased by what they have read in the papers the last 3 years concerning this case, I know persionally my mind was made up from the start, it's hard to believe any jury would not be affected by it.

That's an interesting point, but I think you're wrong. The fact that, at no stage did the defence try to get the case thrown out because of the media speaks volumes. I sat through all 21 days and they didn't try it once*. There is a statement by Mr Justice Paul Carney, another High Court Judge in the Central Criminal Court about pre trial publicity.** He made his comments in relation the the murder of Kieran Keane a few years ago. From memory the defence tried the tactic of getting the case chucked out because of pre trial publicity. Mr Justice Carney threw it out and referred to how robust Irish jurors were. So I think the defence in this case knew not even to try.
There was lots (that's an understatement) of publicity during the investigation. But, once he was charged last October, it effectively dried up. The media could really only report he had been charged. And, on the whole, I think that's what they did.

*Interestingly, during the trial, the defence did raise concerns about media coverage during the trial. It was the day the papers published all the emails O'Reilly sent to his sister, Ann, abut his wife. They said they were particulalry concerned about colour writing, which is not a contemporaneous court report, rather a side piece focusing in on the atmosphere of the court and poeple's reactions, etc. I always find colour in court cases very dangerous, miuch better to stick to what is actually said. The biggest culprits for colour were the Mail and the Irish Times.

** I'll dig up a link.

santosubito

dubtom wrote:

It is pure luck that a conviction was got on phone call evidence, I lose reception on westmoland st, the middle of town, I wouldn't believe a word a telecom person tells me. His alibi and witness were flimsy to say the least but so was the vast amount of evidence against him.

I think you're wrong on this as well.
The mobile phone evidence was compelling in the extreme. Mr Justice Barry White was very clear on this. He told the jury if they believed the phone evidence, then that made O'Reilly a liar. He said, if that was the case, they could treat that as strong circumstantial evidence.
Again, the defence didn't challenge the phone evidence. They tried to have it blocked before it was put to the jury, but failed. But once the jury heard the evidence, the defence didn't challenge it.

Hard Larry

santosubito wrote:

I think you're wrong on this as well.
The mobile phone evidence was compelling in the extreme. Mr Justice Barry White was very clear on this. He told the jury if they believed the phone evidence, then that made O'Reilly a liar. He said, if that was the case, they could treat that as strong circumstantial evidence.
Again, the defence didn't challenge the phone evidence. They tried to have it blocked before it was put to the jury, but failed. But once the jury heard the evidence, the defence didn't challenge it.

I'd have to believe that the phone technology is 99.9% foolproof. I was away a couple of years ago and was working with some Finnish chaps 2 of which worked for Nokia. I had to learn how to use the encrypted phones they were using (just a heavier mobile phone/walkie talkie really) but these 2 lads told me that Nokia have the technology to track and even turn on your mobile phone anywhere in the world and see what your up to. There is a GPS in the phone so its pretty accurate for tracking. I'm pressuming its the same for other phone manufacturers.

The same technology was used to find Robert Houlihans body that time in Cork.

The only bad thing about this case is that now every 2 bit Gangster and hitman in the country knows that this technology exists now

Jackie laughlin

I realise that this has been moved from legal to Media and I'm therefore off the topic here. However, I have to say that, while I agree that he is the chief suspect, I'm profoundly shocked that he was found guilty. Not a shred of evidence was advanced against him. If one ignores the defence evidence, all that can be said was that he was quite near the murder scene around the time of the murder, that his marriage was over, that he had a new relationship, that he wanted custody of his kids, that he expressed regret in a note to his late wife. There's nothing there; I'm surprised he was even charged.

santosubito

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I realise that this has been moved from legal to Media and I'm therefore off the topic here. However, I have to say that, while I agree that he is the chief suspect, I'm profoundly shocked that he was found guilty. Not a shred of evidence was advanced against him. If one ignores the defence evidence, all that can be said was that he was quite near the murder scene around the time of the murder, that his marriage was over, that he had a new relationship, that he wanted custody of his kids, that he expressed regret in a note to his late wife. There's nothing there; I'm surprised he was even charged.

Well, you're missing the seriously big point of the mobile phone evidence. You're correct that all it does is place him in the area. However -and this, in my opinion was the biggie - he said he was somewhere else at the time. He lied to investigatig gardai. The jury had to see was there any innocent explanation for a: hime lying and, b: him being close to the family home when he said he wasn't. As Michael O'Higgins said on the 9pm news last night, if the jury accepted he lied (which it seems they did) then it was a small step for them to convict.

rickybutcher

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I realise that this has been moved from legal to Media and I'm therefore off the topic here. However, I have to say that, while I agree that he is the chief suspect, I'm profoundly shocked that he was found guilty. Not a shred of evidence was advanced against him. If one ignores the defence evidence, all that can be said was that he was quite near the murder scene around the time of the murder, that his marriage was over, that he had a new relationship, that he wanted custody of his kids, that he expressed regret in a note to his late wife. There's nothing there; I'm surprised he was even charged.

Are you serious? Read the judge's instructions to the jury carefully. Obviously, this is really stating the obvious, if circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict somebody the case wouldn't have been heard, as you yourself said. Clearly, it IS enough to convict, the judge himself pointed it out. And in relation to his whereabouts, if O'Reilly had any other reason for being near the family home he would have told the court about it, he didn't, the jury could take this and use it as a basis to convict him. As I've said above, the judge said as much in his instructions.

Jackie laughlin

I did read the judge's instructions to the jury and frankly I thought he was going as far as he could to obtain an acquittal.

This looks like O'Reilly had to prove himself innocent.

J.S. Pill

flogen wrote:

I think the brutality of the murder was what piqued the public/media interest at first - the fact that the case quickly turned out to be like something from a dodgy crime thriller kept the interest alight.

More like something from Dallas. Cold blodded Murder, multiple affairs, and now messages from beyond the grave.

lostexpectation

I wonder how many of the rte production staff already thought joe was guilty as they were putting him on the news and the late late?

Kaldorn

Anyone out there think they convicted an innocent man,probably not but i thought id put it out there.also is it right that he was found guilty with no concrete evidence???

Tom Dunne

Hard Larry wrote:

these 2 lads told me that Nokia have the technology to track and even turn on your mobile phone anywhere in the world and see what your up to. There is a GPS in the phone so its pretty accurate for tracking. I'm pressuming its the same for other phone manufacturers.

The same technology was used to find Robert Houlihans body that time in Cork.

This is actually incorrect. The mobile phone network keeps in contact with your phone. By measuring strength of signal from different phone masts, it is quite easy to determine where the phone is physically located, depending on the size of the cell. It has nothing whatsoever to do with GPS (of course phones are now coming with GPS built in, but that's another matter).

Hard Larry wrote:

The only bad thing about this case is that now every 2 bit Gangster and hitman in the country knows that this technology exists now

And they didn't know about it long before now? Of course they did.

Back on topic.

I think there was so much media interest in the case for many reasons. The tragedy of the death of a mother, the conniving, adulterer husband, the need to see justice done.

A lot of it has been over the top, what will they do now there isn't much to report?

Missus Pongo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I realise that this has been moved from legal to Media and I'm therefore off the topic here. However, I have to say that, while I agree that he is the chief suspect, I'm profoundly shocked that he was found guilty. Not a shred of evidence was advanced against him. If one ignores the defence evidence, all that can be said was that he was quite near the murder scene around the time of the murder, that his marriage was over, that he had a new relationship, that he wanted custody of his kids, that he expressed regret in a note to his late wife. There's nothing there; I'm surprised he was even charged.

Good point. It will certainly cut down on the investigative and forensic work in the future if you can rely solely on technological evidence to convict someone of premeditated murder. I think it is a worrying development. This case "seems" compelling, primarily because Mr O'Reilly's account of where he was around the time of the murder is not backed up by CCTV and mobile phone records. It will be interesting to see how it impacts future cases.

seamus

Hard Larry wrote:

I'd have to believe that the phone technology is 99.9% foolproof.

99.9% is a bit high. Certainly the technology works, but it's the guy who's reading the data who can make the mistake.

I was away a couple of years ago and was working with some Finnish chaps 2 of which worked for Nokia. I had to learn how to use the encrypted phones they were using (just a heavier mobile phone/walkie talkie really) but these 2 lads told me that Nokia have the technology to track and even turn on your mobile phone anywhere in the world and see what your up to.

It's not really a "switch" that they turn on a just pinpoint you on a big map like you'd see in James Bond though
I'm not so sure about switching the phone on, but anecdotal evidence suggests that your phone maintains a certain amount of transmission, even when turned off (the battery is still charged). By increasing the power to a transmitter close to where you may be, they can locate you, even with your phone switched off. As best I understand it, this is how they managed to get a rough idea of where Robert Houlihan was, though this could all easily be urban myth.

mike65

I see the law is being changed so that ALL mobiles phones must be registered.

Mike.

Eamo71

I have to say I'm in the camp of those who thought the verdict was a complete shocker.

The jury made an emotional decision not one based on the logic or the facts of the case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and their evidence was perhaps the flimsiest ever put forward in a high profile trial in modern times. The verdict should have been not guilty. And I agree with the poster who said that there probably wasn't enough evidence to arrest him on.
i mean who was on the jury the hacks from the Herald and the Mail??

I believe (or at least was told) that O'Reilly won't have leave to appeal. Does this mean he won't have any chance to overturn this joke of a decsion?
Anyone care to explain iof the verdict can be appealed and if not, why not?

Eamo71

Jo King wrote:

Leave to appeal is almost invariably refused in Central Criminal and Circuit Criminal trials. The convicted person then appeals the refusal of leave to appeal. This is almost invariably granted and the appeal then goes ahead in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal is not a re-hearing but is an examination of the conduct of the trial. Was the jury properly instructed? Was some of the evidence improperly admitted? Was relevant evidence withheld etc. the Court of Criminal appeal can uphold the decision of the lower court, quash the conviction and order a re-trial, quash the conviction and order that there be no re-trial or in some case uphold the conviction but vary the sentence.

Thanks for that I hadn't read some of the earlier threads....

seamus

No-one so far has been able to confirm what "refused leave to appeal" means. The reports are that he's going to appeal anyway - perhaps being refused leave to appeal just means that he can't appeal on the day of judgement, that is, he goes straight to jail without passing go.

Eamo71

flogen wrote:

I think the brutality of the murder was what piqued the public/media interest at first - the fact that the case quickly turned out to be like something from a dodgy crime thriller kept the interest alight.

On another note it's clear to me that places like The Herald saw O'Reilly as the guy to watch from day 1. Maybe that was because they knew something we didn't (even something that we still don't know, perhaps). Maybe it was based on something like the body language given off by Rachael's mother on the Late Late. Maybe it was just what they wanted to believe. The important question is whether this came across in their coverage (I think it did from the little I read of it) and whether their coverage could have (or indeed did) bias the trial as a result. I don't read the Herald very often so I won't comment on that.

My Dad buys the Herald every day so I get to read it when I get out to him. The Herald had JOR convicted a long time ago.
It was shameful reporting with the collusion of the Gardai of course...

macshadow

seamus wrote:

No-one so far has been able to confirm what "refused leave to appeal" means. The reports are that he's going to appeal anyway - perhaps being refused leave to appeal just means that he can't appeal on the day of judgement, that is, he goes straight to jail without passing go.

what it means is he will first have to appeal the "refused leave to appeal"

rrpc

Eamo71 wrote:

I have to say I'm in the camp of those who thought the verdict was a complete shocker.

The jury made an emotional decision not one based on the logic or the facts of the case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and their evidence was perhaps the flimsiest ever put forward in a high profile trial in modern times. The verdict should have been not guilty. And I agree with the poster who said that there probably wasn't enough evidence to arrest him on.
i mean who was on the jury the hacks from the Herald and the Mail??

The Catherine Nevin trial also rested on circumstancial evidence. There was no hard evidence at all and she was largely convicted on the testimony of individuals she approached attempting to buy a 'hit' on her husband.

It is not unusual for these cases to be tried on circumstancial evidence, it all comes down to motive, method and opportunity and O'Reilly had all three as the mobile phone, CCTV and his own words demonstrated.

There's no reason to get hysterical about this juries decision. Discount the newspapers reporting and consider the fact that the jury sat through all the evidence properly cross-examined by O'Reilly's council for almost four weeks. The defence was only able to put forward one days worth of evidence which appeared incredibly weak.

Tellingly, the jury came back and asked for the alibi witness statement and the Garda CCTV expert testimony to be read to them before they made their decision, so for them it was a question as to whether he could reasonably have been where he said he was or not.

They obviously decided not.

flogen

Eamo71 wrote:

My Dad buys the Herald every day so I get to read it when I get out to him. The Herald had JOR convicted a long time ago.
It was shameful reporting with the collusion of the Gardai of course...

Interestingly, their former crime correspondent Mick McCaffrey said as much in a comment piece in yesterday's Tribune the quote "The media was all but saying Joe had killed Rachel." stands out from it.

I'd just like to crack the mod whip for a second - I've been pretty relaxed about the way this discussion has gone in the immediate aftermath of the conviction, but I'd now like to remind people that this is a News/Media forum and there are general discussions on the case going on elsewhere.

Any more discussion that doesn't relate directly to the media coverage will be deleted - don't reply to any comments made so far that don't relate to this either (and any posts that are mainly general discussion with just a reference to media will be treated as Off Topic and deleted.)

dubtom

I read that piece yesterday, what stood out for me was the reporting of the affair, the inference was that O'reilly was fair game to have muck raked because he was a prime suspect,actually the only suspect. If O'Reilly had not been a suspect,lets say he was in Cork at the time and proven so, would there have been any point in printing such a story. Would the press print a story like that about a grieving Father and husband, well yes they probably would, but the point is it served no other purpose but to blacken his name, to get joe public to believe that he was a schemer and not to be trusted. McCaffrey say's 'Anybody who blames the media for dealing with Joe O'Reilly and giving the story blanket coverage is naive'Those words may come back and bite him, if anything, the media's coverage has been biased and unfair and it turned the whole country against the man. I suppose we will see in the future whether a murderer goes free because of them.

flogen

blackiebest - post deleted due to trolling comments and failure to engage in the discussion.

Walshb - post deleted as it was completely off topic.

flogen

Eoin_s - post deleted as it was off topic (I already said I'd delete comments that were mainly general with just a reference to the media aspect of things.)

Eamo71

flogen wrote:

Interestingly, their former crime correspondent Mick McCaffrey said as much in a comment piece in yesterday's Tribune the quote "The media was all but saying Joe had killed Rachel." stands out from it.

I'd just like to crack the mod whip for a second - I've been pretty relaxed about the way this discussion has gone in the immediate aftermath of the conviction, but I'd now like to remind people that this is a News/Media forum and there are general discussions on the case going on elsewhere.

Any more discussion that doesn't relate directly to the media coverage will be deleted - don't reply to any comments made so far that don't relate to this either (and any posts that are mainly general discussion with just a reference to media will be treated as Off Topic and deleted.)

I thought Mick was being very hypocritical yesterday when he said on Newstalk that he stopped talking to JOR when he realised he was probably the murderer. Yeah Mick, after your copy was used to sell millions of papers. Who are you fooling?

flogen

Eamo71 wrote:

I thought Mick was being very hypocritical yesterday when he said on Newstalk that he stopped talking to JOR when he realised he was probably the murderer. Yeah Mick, after your copy was used to sell millions of papers. Who are you fooling?

I didn't hear him on Newstalk but he basically said the same thing in his Tribune piece.

I don't think it's hypocritical if he stopped talking to O'Reilly as soon as he figured out he was the murderer, but there seems to be some ambiguity in this in the Trib piece... he had his suspicions from day 1, and then went back to O'Reilly for comment after he had come to the conclusion that he was the guy... it's just that O'Reilly didn't want to talk to him any more.

That said, he was honest enough to mention the dilemma he found himself in, as anyone honest enough to admit it would be in too.

(by the way, I deleted your previous post on the CCTV issue as it was off topic.)

Eamo71

flogen wrote:

I didn't hear him on Newstalk but he basically said the same thing in his Tribune piece.

I don't think it's hypocritical if he stopped talking to O'Reilly as soon as he figured out he was the murderer, but there seems to be some ambiguity in this in the Trib piece... he had his suspicions from day 1, and then went back to O'Reilly for comment after he had come to the conclusion that he was the guy... it's just that O'Reilly didn't want to talk to him any more.

That said, he was honest enough to mention the dilemma he found himself in, as anyone honest enough to admit it would be in too.

(by the way, I deleted your previous post on the CCTV issue as it was off topic.)

No probs on the deleted comment I only read your post after the fact.

RE Mick. What I was trying to say was i do think he was chancing his arm. He had his suspicions from day 1 and still continued. And in fact he said JOR stopped talking to him. What bets if JOR had contined to talk they would've soaked it up regardless.
To be honest I don;t have a problem with him talking to JOR but then to come out after the verdict and try to play the morals card ... well it's a bit fresh ain't it...

Madge33

Here is link for joe o'reilly on late late show just watched it he is very agitated lookin dont know whether its just because i know he murdered her
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0724/newsspecial_av.html?2272481,null,228

Markham

Wonder what Ireland's highest-paid broadcaster thinks when he looks at this now?

€850,000 a year. Worth every penny.

dubtom

Markham wrote:

Wonder what Ireland's highest-paid broadcaster thinks when he looks at this now?

€850,000 a year. Worth every penny.

In some rag on tuesday he claimed to have suspected on the night,or at least felt something wasn't right.He should get a rise for that at least.:D
I watched some of the links of o'reilly being interviewed that were deleted, sickenly cold.

flogen

Madge - you've posted the Late Late video already, stop posting it again or you'll be banned.

rickybutcher

Markham wrote:

Wonder what Ireland's highest-paid broadcaster thinks when he looks at this now?

€850,000 a year. Worth every penny.

By the time Joe O'Reilly made an appearance on The Late Late Show Gardaí had informed both the Callaly family and RTÉ producers that they suspected he was the murderer. They wanted him to go on just in case he said anything that could be used against him and to put him under pressue.

intheknow

jaysus at the end of the day he really has a neck like the proverbial jockys b@llix. Ever heard of divorce either joe ?