Joe O'Reilly (1 Viewer)

[Goff]

Shut up Goff

Ah, there's ITalkShite again. Wanker.

Adding to the wealth of human knowledge.

 

[magicbastarder]

are appeals heard in front of juries?

 

[Goff]

are appeals heard in front of juries?

No.

And he'd have to have a pretty decent bit of new evidence that proves his innocence for it to be successful.

And a media circus doesn't count.

Wonder if he'll be a hard man in prison or will he just squeal like a hog?

 

[magicbastarder]

that's what i would have thought - that you'd need something more than 'the jury wuz wrong, guv'.

 

[Unicron]

that's what i wondered. my colleague said he was astonished that the guy didn't plead guilty, the case was utterly watertight - he got a harsher sentence than if he'd just have owned up.

my brother was sequestered once, i think in the spa hotel in leixlip. a more complex case than the one above.

They get brought there a lot when it happens according to my Dad's mate the guard who does jury security a lot.

 

[Goff]

that's what i would have thought - that you'd need something more than 'the jury wuz wrong, guv'.

Jury of your peers.

 

[Umfufu]

Majority verdict.
Not unanimous.

That's me talking shit again.

When I checked the story on RTE's website, it had just happened so there was no details out yet & the previous update on the story was that the jury had advised the jury that they no longer had to reach a unanimous verdict.

To paraphrase Joe O'Reilly himself, I "put 1 & 1 together & got 7."

 

[Umfufu]

Wonder if he'll be a hard man in prison or will he just squeal like a hog?

Fresh fish, fresh fish,fresh fish........

 

[RSJ]

When I checked the story on RTE's website, it had just happened so there was no details out yet & the previous update on the story was that the jury had advised the jury that they no longer had to reach a unanimous verdict.

Wow. It's like Twelve Angry Men never happened.

 

[Umfufu]

Obviously, I meant to say "the judge had advised the jury".

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i remember talking to someone who was on a jury where they filed into the room for deliberations, and the foreman said "right, everyone, he's guilty?"
everyone nodded assent, and he told them to sit tight for three hours chatting, cos the last thing they should be seen doing is reaching a conclusion within five minutes.

I know someone who was on the jury of a moderately high profile case. There was very very clear surveillance camera evidience. Everybody on the jury was 100% convinced except for one old biddy. It took them all 2 days to make her see sense.

Apparently its pretty common that there is one person on the pannel who just won't convict anyone ever regardless.

 

[magicbastarder]

my brother was saying that the case he was sequestered on was a clear case for keeping your mouth shut and saying nothing till your solicitor arrived. the conviction would not have happened were it not for the fact that the guy got a bit blabby when he was arrested - if he hadn't, there probably wouldn't have been a trial, let alone a conviction.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

my brother was saying that the case he was sequestered on was a clear case for keeping your mouth shut and saying nothing till your solicitor arrived. the conviction would not have happened were it not for the fact that the guy got a bit blabby when he was arrested - if he hadn't, there probably wouldn't have been a trial, let alone a conviction.

front page of one of the tabloids yesterday was a pic of o'reiley and the caption 'rot in jail you bastard'. good responsible journalism!

 

[cephalopod]

front page of one of the tabloids yesterday was a pic of o'reiley and the caption 'rot in jail you bastard'. good responsible journalism!

that sort of stuff always make me uneasy. the motives behind such headlines are very cynical.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

that sort of stuff always make me uneasy. the motives behind such headlines are very cynical.

id say the papers are relieved he was found guilty; means he cant sue them, or they cant
get into hassle for a trial collapsing as they pretty much ensuring he couldnt get an entirely impartial jury.

 

[mark]

front page of one of the tabloids yesterday was a pic of o'reiley and the caption 'rot in jail you bastard'. good responsible journalism!

yeah, that made me angry.

 

[cephalopod]

yeah, that made me angry.

yeah, its the sickening mob mentality, the gloating....

 

[nlgbbbblth]

tabloids love to moralise about verdicts.

bloodthirsty, cynical bastards.

 

[Goff]

id say the papers are relieved he was found guilty; means he cant sue them, or they cant
get into hassle for a trial collapsing as they pretty much ensuring he couldnt get an entirely impartial jury.

They couldn't give a fuck. They just want the headlines.

As for the media making this a show trial and therefore guaranteeing he couldn't get an impartial jury....who was the one who courted the media from the start? Who was the one who went on the Late Late?

Maybe he was hoping that with so much publicity, he would be sure he couldn't get an impartial jury. Well maybe he didn't.

Strange fact of life. People will say they don't read the papers just to get on a good case. Just because they want to convict, regardless of evidence.

Serves him fucking right.

 

[ITalkShite]

Shut up Goff