Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

rrpc · 25-07-2007 12:22PM

Ayla Sharp Redneck wrote:

I don't doubt that the man is guilty, but there seems to be very little to have convicted him. Just because you are a total bastard, cheat on your wife several times and mouth her off to all and sundry, does not mean you murdered her.
From what I can see there was no real evidence in the case. It was circumstantial and there is 'reasonable doubt' in all of it. I can see him getting the right to appeal and being found innocent on appeal. Unfortunately.

Circumstancial evidence is 'real' evidence. Hard evidence such as witnesses and forensic evidence are very rare in domestic murder cases because there is usually only two witnesses (the murderer and the victim) and forensic evidence is unsafe as the murderer usually lives with the victim.

What convicted O'Reilly was the fact that his phone showed he was at the murder scene at the time of the murder, and his alibi witness only had a phone conversation with him at the same time in which he claimed he was at the back of the Broadstone depot. He didn't actually see him there until later. That phone conversation was shown to place him in the vicinity of his home.

On top of that his car (or one very like it) was picked up on CCTV travelling between his work and his home for the entire route again when he said he was somewhere else. No CCTV evidence was available anywhere to back up his story as to where he was.

If he had said that he had returned home to pick up something he had forgotten, then the case against him could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he had lied was the most telling piece of evidence against him.

seamus · 25-07-2007 12:42PM

rrpc wrote:

The fact that he had lied was the most telling piece of evidence against him.

Personally, I don't think that someone lying about their whereabouts is sufficient to convict in any case. Let's say, for example that you're in said shoes. Your wife has been murdered, you know you didn't do it, but you know that you've been mouthing off to coworkers about having affairs, you've been sending emails to people badmouthing her, and to top it all off, you returned home on that day and saw her barely an hour or two before she was murdered.

Few people in that situation would put their hands up and say, "Yep, I was there but I didn't do it." As we've seen, being there, or even being in the vicinity at the time, causes people to click, and think "Guilty". In this case though, you're right - he should have come clean beforehand. The fact that he maintained he hadn't been there is an addendum to the circumstantial evidence.

Any jury would understand a person lying about their whereabouts initially, but then coming clean later on, before the trial. Even telling his coworker that he was at the depot may have just been him hiding the fact that he snuck home to grab a quick coffee or whatever.
It's the fact that he maintained his lies that caused him trouble.

In Joe O'Reilly's case though, I believe the jury would have found him guilty regardless of how much he "fessed up" prior to the case.

rrpc · 25-07-2007 01:07PM

seamus wrote:

Personally, I don't think that someone lying about their whereabouts is sufficient to convict in any case. Let's say, for example that you're in said shoes. Your wife has been murdered, you know you didn't do it, but you know that you've been mouthing off to coworkers about having affairs, you've been sending emails to people badmouthing her, and to top it all off, you returned home on that day and saw her barely an hour or two before she was murdered.

Agreed, but it's the continued lying that realy does it. Most people when faced with the phone and CCTV evidence would have come clean about their whereabouts. In addition, if it was really someone else, there would have been at least some evidence that they were there however small, be it witnesses seeing a car, signs of a break-in, CCTV images of another vehicle (I'm assuming that every vehicle passing by that camera was followed up) or some other forensic evidence.

seamus wrote:

Any jury would understand a person lying about their whereabouts initially, but then coming clean later on, before the trial. Even telling his coworker that he was at the depot may have just been him hiding the fact that he snuck home to grab a quick coffee or whatever.

Except that the guy admitted that they had covered for each other before.

seamus wrote:

In Joe O'Reilly's case though, I believe the jury would have found him guilty regardless of how much he "fessed up" prior to the case.

I think the DPP wouldn't have proceeded with the case though.

Gator · 25-07-2007 01:28PM

I think he will eventually be let off. I had a problem with this case. I dont think the jury gave the right decision. I know he did he did, everything in my gut tells me, and im sure the jury had the same belief aswell, but you need to PROVE it with solid evidence.

How can you make a decision based on circumstancel evidence. This of the amount of cases throughout history (death row in particular) where the guilty person has actually been innocent.

You really have to prove he did it with solid evidence.

If the defence appeals under some techinal issue (whtever it may be) and im posiive they will, this guy will walk free as there will not be aperson in this country who will be able to service jury who has not been influnced by the media.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses in the coming months, the last I heard is that they were appealing early 2008

meglome · 25-07-2007 01:36PM

seamus wrote:

Personally, I don't think that someone lying about their whereabouts is sufficient to convict in any case. Let's say, for example that you're in said shoes. Your wife has been murdered, you know you didn't do it, but you know that you've been mouthing off to coworkers about having affairs, you've been sending emails to people badmouthing her, and to top it all off, you returned home on that day and saw her barely an hour or two before she was murdered.

Few people in that situation would put their hands up and say, "Yep, I was there but I didn't do it." As we've seen, being there, or even being in the vicinity at the time, causes people to click, and think "Guilty". In this case though, you're right - he should have come clean beforehand. The fact that he maintained he hadn't been there is an addendum to the circumstantial evidence.

Any jury would understand a person lying about their whereabouts initially, but then coming clean later on, before the trial. Even telling his coworker that he was at the depot may have just been him hiding the fact that he snuck home to grab a quick coffee or whatever.
It's the fact that he maintained his lies that caused him trouble.

In Joe O'Reilly's case though, I believe the jury would have found him guilty regardless of how much he "fessed up" prior to the case.

Apart from his demeanour what was all wrong. The craziest thing about this case is that he didn't take the stand himself. It seems to me with all the circumstantial evidence there was the only hope he had was to look the jury in the eye and tell them he didn't do it, even if he lied about his whereabouts.

The fact is there was so much circumstantial evidence that he didn't try to refute there was only one likely verdict.

rrpc · 25-07-2007 01:48PM

Gator wrote:

I think he will eventually be let off. I had a problem with this case. I dont think the jury gave the right decision. I know he did he did, everything in my gut tells me, and im sure the jury had the same belief aswell, but you need to PROVE it with solid evidence.

How can you make a decision based on circumstancel evidence. This of the amount of cases throughout history (death row in particular) where the guilty person has actually been innocent.

You really have to prove he did it with solid evidence.

What are the problems with circumstantial evidence? Catherine Nevin was convicted on circumstancial evidence and is still in prison. Some people don't understand how circumstantial evidence works. One piece is not enough to get a conviction, but many pieces added together provide sufficient weight to convict someone.

In fact fingerprint evidence is considered as circumstantial evidence. The only hard evidence would be a witness to the crime, or something that would equally testify to the fact of the crime.

In this case the weight of the following convinced the jury:
He demonstrated an intense dislike of the victim
He acted in a strange and bizarre fashion after the offence
He lied about his whereabouts and his alibi did not stand up.
He was in the area at the time of the offence
He demonstrated a clear motive for the offence

All those added together were and are enough to secure a conviction. In Catherin Nevins case, the very same type of evidence was used.

lukin · 25-07-2007 07:31PM

rrpc wrote:

Circumstancial evidence is 'real' evidence. Hard evidence such as witnesses and forensic evidence are very rare in domestic murder cases because there is usually only two witnesses (the murderer and the victim) and forensic evidence is unsafe as the murderer usually lives with the victim.

What convicted O'Reilly was the fact that his phone showed he was at the murder scene at the time of the murder, and his alibi witness only had a phone conversation with him at the same time in which he claimed he was at the back of the Broadstone depot. He didn't actually see him there until later. That phone conversation was shown to place him in the vicinity of his home.

On top of that his car (or one very like it) was picked up on CCTV travelling between his work and his home for the entire route again when he said he was somewhere else. No CCTV evidence was available anywhere to back up his story as to where he was.

If he had said that he had returned home to pick up something he had forgotten, then the case against him could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he had lied was the most telling piece of evidence against him.

That's all anyone on that jury needed to know really. Personally I cannot understand how it took them nine hours to come to a decision. I mean how thick are these people? If it was me in there it would have taken me about two minutes to make up my mind. The fact it took them so long to come to a decision means he was probably close to being acquitted, which is preposterous.
And about all these people saying "Oh isn't it terrible that now someone can now be convicted on circumstantial evidence"
Actually it isn't terrible at all, it's great. Because now there is less chance of some murdering scumbag walking free 'cause the judge will allow circumstantial evidence whereas previously he wouldn't have.
The 'phone evidence was the reason his lawyers wouldn't let him take the stand. Why? Because they knew that when the prosecution would ask him about it there was absolutley no way he could make a plausible explanation.
Also, his smugness on the Late Late and other interviews came back to haunt him as some if not all of the jurors would probably have seen them.
As for the poster who said "he will eventually be let off"; if he is, it will be the biggest single scandal in the history of the state.

rrpc · 25-07-2007 08:25PM

lukin wrote:

That's all anyone on that jury needed to know really. Personally I cannot understand how it took them nine hours to come to a decision. I mean how thick are these people? If it was me in there it would have taken me about two minutes to make up my mind. The fact it took them so long to come to a decision means he was probably close to being acquitted, which is preposterous.

I'd say it was one or two jurors who weren't too sure. Don't be too hard on them, there's been a few on here who've said things like "I know he did it, but I'm not sure I'd have convicted him on the evidence"

lukin wrote:

And about all these people saying "Oh isn't it terrible that now someone can now be convicted on circumstantial evidence"
Actually it isn't terrible at all, it's great. Because now there is less chance of some murdering scumbag walking free 'cause the judge will allow circumstantial evidence whereas previously he wouldn't have.

Circumstantial evidence has been allowed in cases for a very long time. Of course if you are tabloid newspaper reporter, it's probably the first time you've ever heard of it.

lukin wrote:

As for the poster who said "he will eventually be let off"; if he is, it will be the biggest single scandal in the history of the state.

I doubt very much if that will happen. The judge was very careful to make sure that there would be very little grounds, excluding a lot of evidence and in his very careful and deliberate instruction to the jury.

patrickolee · 25-07-2007 11:04PM

Generally people who think about things a little deeper take longer to decide. A quick decision, would indicate lack of thought, rather than clear thinking. There's a mans life on the line, surely you can understand that a group of 11 people would take 2 or 3 days to decide? I applaud them.

ziggy · 25-07-2007 11:53PM

This post has been deleted.

Dudess · 26-07-2007 12:39AM

patrickolee wrote:

Generally people who think about things a little deeper take longer to decide. A quick decision, would indicate lack of thought, rather than clear thinking. There's a mans life on the line, surely you can understand that a group of 11 people would take 2 or 3 days to decide? I applaud them.

Yeah, I'm surprised it only took them nine hours.

rrpc · 26-07-2007 09:36AM

ziggy67 wrote:

Which one is it rrpc?? Because they are both entirely different

Well according to the jury it was both. The phone said he was in the area and they said he was at the scene (being the murderer y'see)

They are not entirely different btw, one is just more specific than the other.

ixoy · 26-07-2007 10:34AM

rrpc wrote:

That's quite normal. Jury selection has become an art form in the States with people actually working full time as jury experts. In the O'Reilly case, there were only three women initially picked on the jury, with one excused because she admitted to a prediposition of guilt

They can't pick the jury - the jury's picked at random, like a mini lottery. The defence and prosecution have three dismissals each, which they can use when they see the potential juror walking up to sit down in the jury box. They know nothing about the juror other than what they see as the juror walks by them - very different to the process in the States. Hence, the advice to wear a business suit and carry 'The Irish Times'.

The potential juror can then prevent a reason they shouldn't be picked (should be valid) but there's nothing to stop the potential draw resulting in an all women jury and the prosecution/defence can't do anything about it.

ziggy · 26-07-2007 08:41PM

This post has been deleted.

rrpc · 26-07-2007 10:32PM

ziggy67 wrote:

Now itsEarlier

Keep digging yourself into that hole rrpc :rolleyes:

Well if it makes you happy Ziggy I'll change it. Doesn't change the verdict though.

Jury finds O'Reilly guilty of murder

Comments