Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

Wertz · 21-07-2007 08:19PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:21PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:22PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:27PM

^^^^^

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 · 21-07-2007 08:29PM

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

Sonnenblumen · 21-07-2007 08:31PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:32PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:33PM

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

crosstownk · 21-07-2007 08:35PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:36PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:36PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:38PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:40PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:45PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:52PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:55PM

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 · 21-07-2007 08:56PM

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 · 21-07-2007 09:00PM

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 · 21-07-2007 09:04PM

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 · 21-07-2007 09:05PM

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

Aquos76 · 21-07-2007 09:13PM

bigkev49 wrote:

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

My sentiments exactly. The fact that there was no real evidence says a lot for our judicial system.

patrickolee · 21-07-2007 09:16PM

TheGooner wrote:

Where are they? Are you family?

No... I heard they're in the north with his brother. Not sure how reliable the source is.

lukin · 21-07-2007 09:17PM

Judge has "refused leave to appeal". Does that mean he can't appeal the sentence at all or not until a certain amount of time has elapsed?

Huggles · 21-07-2007 09:18PM

patrickolee wrote:

No... I heard they're in the north with his brother. Not sure how reliable the source is.

Ah ok, I hope her family get them. Poor mites

Dudess · 21-07-2007 09:18PM

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.

buzzard, read Capt'n Midnight's quote above your post. Although does that refer to circumstantial evidence in general, or just in the States?

Rowley Birkin QC · 21-07-2007 09:24PM

Christ just listening to the RTE news now about the victim impact statement, harrowing stuff, she described how O'Reilly brought them to the house and basically reconstructed the murder in front of them. Sick individual.

Huggles · 21-07-2007 09:25PM

bigkev49 wrote:

Christ just listening to the RTE news now about the victim impact statement, harrowing stuff, she described how O'Reilly brought them to the house and basically reconstructed the murder in front of them. Sick individual.

Jesus, can you elaborate for those that missed it.

EDIT: Just heard it, now I'm watching an interview with him two weeks later....cool as a cucumber...her mother couldnt even look at him.

gingerGiant · 21-07-2007 09:27PM

libbyly wrote:

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

Yes I think this is possible but why did he go up to his home that morning (his phone puts him there or thereabouts) was it to meet killer and show them the correct house, you can easily go to wrong house in a rural area like that. Also if that was his car on the CCTV he would not have had time to do the deed, get himself cleaned up and leave again, there was only a few minutes between the two images of the car on the cctv.

I don't know if he done it himself or not but if he didn't he got it done in my opinion, however the conviction is dodgy because it is based on circumstantial evidance, hopefully it stands up at appeal and he stays away for avery long time.

Amazotheamazing · 21-07-2007 09:28PM

So, who here would be happy if they were convicted on that evidence?

He almost certainly did it, but it's not a case I'd like to see tried again.

Rowley Birkin QC · 21-07-2007 09:31PM

TheGooner wrote:

Jesus, can you elaborate for those that missed it.

Brought her parents to the room where it happened, knelt on the ground as the killer would have, showed how the blows would have rained down on her, spoke about how much blood would have covered the killer, spoke of how the killer used towels to clean themselves. Worst bit was when she told how O'Reilly told them that his theory was that the killer was disturbed by a noise after bludgeoning her, walked down the hall to investigate, heard her gurgle and went back to finish her off. Really really disturbing stuff.

Apparently he did this reconstruction several times for the parents and his friends.

Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

Comments