Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

ziggy · 21-07-2007 11:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Dudess · 21-07-2007 11:26PM

nesf wrote:

If you listened closely he pretty much said that you needed to pile up so much evidence to make escape impossible. Circumstantial evidence only works when there's so much of it that it cuts off any potentially plausable alibi or excuse.

Yeah I heard him say that too. I think it applies in this case.

cichlid child wrote:

hope all in yhe joy watching the news on their plasma screens beat the **** out of him

I've no doubt that will happen. Find the idea horribly disturbing. Like those "pillars of the community" in the 'Joy really give a **** about Rachel. Gotta love when people convicted of similarly horrible crimes take the moral high ground... or maybe they're just itching to beat the **** out of someone.

Yeah, to be fair, the Herald convicted him long ago. I think it was told to shut the **** up.

GhostInTheRuins · 21-07-2007 11:28PM

Glad to see justice has been done. Even though the evidence was circumstantial ,imo there was just too much of it for him not to have done it. And as someone else said earlier little things like his demeanor in interviews after the murder definitely gave away clues to his guilt.

copacetic · 21-07-2007 11:30PM

nesf wrote:

If you listened closely he pretty much said that you needed to pile up so much evidence to make escape impossible. Circumstantial evidence only works when there's so much of it that it cuts off any potentially plausable alibi or excuse. Though, whether you could convict "beyond reasonable doubt" here troubles me. I'm really not that sure, even after hearing the litany of evidence. I definitely think he did it, but I don't know if you could prove it.

He was denied leave to appeal also which is interesting.

+1, it's all very well saying circumstantial evidence could be enough, but here it was all circumstantial AND pretty weak. Certainly I'm very surprised they convicted him from what I have heard of the trial.

Like a lot of others I believe he probably did it, but there appears to be little proof, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

God forbid, but by this evidence getting convinctions they could basically convict whoever they decide is guilty by proving/implying a motive and opportunity and little else.

It's very worrying imo for future cases and for appeal (there will be one, judge can only slow it down), couldn't care less about this guy, but what are we saying, you don't need proof anymore?

dame · 21-07-2007 11:48PM

I'm glad he was convicted. I definitely think there was too much there that couldn't be explained innocently.

He was one evil man to have been bringing his son in to see the murder scene (until a neighbour intervened and took the son away). If he was doing that, using the poor child so cruelly, in order to make his denials look more convincing, then that was an inexcusable thing to do in my book. I think he had the whole thing planned for months and chose that day because he wouldn't be missed from the bus depot. Re-enacting the murder seven times for Rachel's family and friends too. Evil man.

spurious · 21-07-2007 11:51PM

When a woman is murdered, unless she is some sort of 'Ma Baker' type, the vast majority are at the hands of husband/boyfriend/partner. It should be (and AFAIK is) the first place police look.

Piste · 21-07-2007 11:51PM

I think one of JOR's major mistakes was refusing to take the stand. Surely if he were innocent he'd want to fight tooth and nail. Perhaps he thought it was a lost cause and that he couldn't keep up the innocent charade on stand?

copacetic · 21-07-2007 11:55PM

dame wrote:

I'm glad he was convicted. I definitely think there was too much there that couldn't be explained innocently.

He was one evil man to have been bringing his son in to see the murder scene (until a neighbour intervened and took the son away). If he was doing that, using the poor child so cruelly, in order to make his denials look more convincing, then that was an inexcusable thing to do in my book. I think he had the whole thing planned for months and chose that day because he wouldn't be missed from the bus depot. Re-enacting the murder seven times for Rachel's family and friends too. Evil man.

I'm not arguing with this.

I'm just not entirely happy that he should have been convicted based on the evidence. I'm always reminded of a man for all seasons on cases like this:

ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

not that it worked out for More.

Red Alert · 21-07-2007 11:57PM

Just think when you're on a bus that Joe O'Reilly probably checked the ads on the back of it at some stage. The man is evil personified.

21-07-2007 11:58PM

The one thing which was going through my head was something I heard in the middle of the week, and it was to do with something the Gardaí said - how he would have had 18 minutes to do the deed, wash himself and the area somewhat, and get out of there. This was said to be slightly contradictory to what the state pathologist said, going on memory, since Rachel was deemed to have been killed over a lengthened period of time. That was one shot of doubt in my mind.

But of course, I wasn't at the trial or anything like that.

copacetic · 21-07-2007 11:59PM

spurious wrote:

When a woman is murdered, unless she is some sort of 'Ma Baker' type, the vast majority are at the hands of husband/boyfriend/partner. It should be (and AFAIK is) the first place police look.

exactly, god forbid your wife/partner is even killed, based on this case unless you had a cast iron alibi you could be convicted.

piste wrote:

I think one of JOR's major mistakes was refusing to take the stand. Surely if he were innocent he'd want to fight tooth and nail. Perhaps he thought it was a lost cause and that he couldn't keep up the innocent charade on stand?

or maybe he thought that they had so little evidence that he couldn't be convicted?

Dudess · 22-07-2007 12:02AM

copacetic: Holy sh1t! I was just discussing that film with someone a few minutes ago!

dame · 22-07-2007 12:03AM

copacetic wrote:

or maybe he thought that they had so little evidence that he couldn't be convicted?

Then why not take the stand? He did have the option after all. If he was innocent surely he'd have wanted to do everything in his power (like taking the stand) to make sure he impressed on the jury how utterly innocent he was? When you're on trial for murder is not the time to be complacent or apathetic.

Piste · 22-07-2007 12:03AM

copacetic wrote:

or maybe he thought that they had so little evidence that he couldn't be convicted?

That is a dangerous, dangerous assumption for him to make. He should have taken the stand just to be safe.

nesf · 22-07-2007 12:05AM

gilroyb wrote:

People keep saying "I'm sure he did it", but don't think the evidence was strong enough. If the evidence is strong enough to make you sure he did it, then it's strong enough. CSI is not real life.

I'd draw a very strong distinction between the level of proof I require to "be sure" about something or "think that something happened" and the level of proof needed to convict someone.

It's absolutely identical in science. The level of proof needed to verify something in economics is far far lower than the level of proof needed to verify something in physics or chemistry. But you could claim to be sure about something in either instance.

There are many many different levels of "being sure about something". Civil and criminal courts draw that distinction iirc.

copacetic · 22-07-2007 12:06AM

Dudess wrote:

copacetic: Holy sh1t! I was just discussing that film with someone a few minutes ago!

it's a fave of mine since school days, I always remember that quote (not off by heart - got it off the web)

I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, joe o'reilly = murdering scumbag, I'm on board with that. Justice was done, but was it seen to be done? Not so sure. This a slippery slope is my worry.

Also there have been similar murders in the last few years that never went to court, the husband normally being the main suspect. Does this result mean that we may see more of them go to trial?

dame · 22-07-2007 12:06AM

I wonder what his family think? I'm sure they'll probably publicly stand by him but I wonder if they secretly think that yes, he did it?

copacetic · 22-07-2007 12:08AM

Piste wrote:

That is a dangerous, dangerous assumption for him to make. He should have taken the stand just to be safe.

I'm just saying that the jury should have taken no note of the fact he didn't testify (well thats my understanding).

@dame but, he doesn't have to show or prove anything, it's supposed to be the other way around.

Dudess · 22-07-2007 12:10AM

I studied sociology of crime and the media and learned that the popular misconception when it comes to particularly attacks on women, is that some random stranger might be responsible (probably due to too much crime drama on TV) when in actual fact, it's far more likely to be a partner/spouse or ex-partner/spouse.

Piste · 22-07-2007 12:10AM

copacetic wrote:

I'm just saying that the jury should have taken no note of the fact he didn't testify (well thats my understanding).

Yeah I agree, should have, but I'm sure they noticed it and it influenced them a bit.

Dudess wrote:

I studied sociology of crime and the media and learned that the popular misconception when it comes to particularly attacks on women, is that some random stranger might be responsible (probably due to too much crime drama on TV) when in actual fact, it's far more likely to be a partner/spouse or ex-partner/spouse.

I thought that was common knowledge?

copacetic · 22-07-2007 12:13AM

Dudess wrote:

I studied sociology of crime and the media and learned that the popular misconception when it comes to particularly attacks on women, is that some random stranger might be responsible (probably due to too much crime drama on TV) when in actual fact, it's far more likely to be a partner/spouse or ex-partner/spouse.

I think thats true, but I'd hate to be in the position where you just lost your partner and then everyone assumes you killed her. Basically as I said above you are fecked unless you had a cast iron alibi.

jimmycrackcorm · 22-07-2007 12:13AM

There'll now be another murder trial for a husband suspected of murdering his wife at home in south Dublin. This also will only come to court on circumstantial evidence and in particular the husbands alibi is wiped out based on the same mobile phone evidence.

The husbands of three women murdered in Ireland in the last few years were and are the prime suspects and only circumstantial evidence is available in each. After I read about the third it struck me that the Gardai were going to have to take a the JOR case to court otherwise it looks like it would be easy to murder your wife and get away with it. With only circumstantial evidence to go on it was going to have to be worth the cost to pursue it even if had a significant chance of failure.

I don't know how anyone posting can think that the conviction was weak. It was pretty clear that O'Reillys alibi was false based on the scientific mobile evidence. Had he instead said he was inspecting billboards in north Dublin at the time then there would have been no conviction.

Anyway, some advice for those thinking of murdering an unloved one, stick your mobile phone under a seat on a dublin bus and set it to silent auto answer. Ring it a few times during the business and then pick it up later...

One mans conviction is another mans saviour.

dame · 22-07-2007 12:15AM

@ copacetic: Oh I know, innocent until proven guilty and all of that, but if I was on trial for something so serious I'd want to do everything I could to help the jury (and general public) see that I was innocent. Even if he had been found not guilty there would always have been a few people who would have thought he did it and wondering why he didn't take the stand. Obviously that wouldn't have mattered if he had been cleared and was free, but still, not nice to have that suspicion forever more.

nesf · 22-07-2007 12:15AM

Dudess wrote:

I studied sociology of crime and the media and learned that the popular misconception when it comes to particularly attacks on women, is that some random stranger might be responsible (probably due to too much crime drama on TV) when in actual fact, it's far more likely to be a partner/spouse or ex-partner/spouse.

Or friend, or family member or an aquaintance. A complete stranger is rare enough from every set of statistics I've seen. It's similar with child abuse, except that it's far more likely to be a direct family relation in that case apparently.

county · 22-07-2007 12:18AM

cichlid child wrote:

no the judge said no grounds for appeal

surely anyone has the right to appeal,if not its a seriously fcuked up legal system this country has

Piste · 22-07-2007 12:18AM

That statistic thing is quite comforting to me as I don't *think* anyone I know wants to kill me

(I am never getting married....)

dame · 22-07-2007 12:20AM

Dudess wrote:

I studied sociology of crime and the media and learned that the popular misconception when it comes to particularly attacks on women, is that some random stranger might be responsible (probably due to too much crime drama on TV) when in actual fact, it's far more likely to be a partner/spouse or ex-partner/spouse.

BA is useful for all sorts of situations! Everyone knows it's usually a partner/husband/boyfriend/ex though.

nesf · 22-07-2007 12:20AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I don't know how anyone posting can think that the conviction was weak. It was pretty clear that O'Reillys alibi was false based on the scientific mobile evidence. Had he instead said he was inspecting billboards in north Dublin at the time then there would have been no conviction.

Mobile evidence isn't infallable and can only really show that it's very likely that someone lied about their movements which isn't in itself enough to convict someone which is the problem. It was the additional CCTV footage that made it so strong in this case combined with the fact that there didn't seem to be any other possible explanation for his movements. As the guy on the news said, a web must be built and that can be tricky to do. Just showing that it's likely that someone did something isn't the same as showing that there isn't a plausable explanation showing that they didn't.

dame · 22-07-2007 12:23AM

This is only my own theory but I think carrying out all those re-enactments of the murder was his way of getting it off his chest.

Piste · 22-07-2007 12:25AM

Or his way of being an idiot and practically announcing "I knew exactly what I was doing and how to get away with it!"

He should at least have waited until he was aquitted and wrote a book about "how I *would* have killed my wife *if* I had been her killer".

Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

Comments