Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe O'Reilly Found Guilty

2»

Comments

  • #32
    macshadow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭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"


  • #33
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.)


  • #35
    dubtom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


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

    Walshb - post deleted as it was completely off topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.)


  • #38
    Eamo71
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭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?


  • #39
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.)


  • #40
    Eamo71
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭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...


  • #41
    Madge33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Markham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭Markham


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

    €850,000 a year. Worth every penny.


  • #43
    dubtom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


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


  • #45
    rickybutcher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭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.


  • #46
    intheknow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭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 ?


Advertisement