Joe O'Reilly (1 Viewer)

[Unicron]

Obviously I've not heard all the evidence but I've been listening to the reports on the news most nights.

Seems a really flimsy case, I reckon he'll be acquitted.

 

[Umfufu]

Hard to know.

The defence seemed fairly unconvincing too.
The guy who was his alibi seemed very unwilling to commit to the exact time that he was with him.
I'm not sure how conclusive the phone mast location thing is but if the jury accept that then I reckon he'll get done for it.

All evidence & fact aside though,
....he totally fuckin' did it!

 

[IFF]

tough to say

and like you said, we don't know all the evidence

but i think maybe found not guilty

 

[Unicron]

Hard to know.

The defence seemed fairly unconvincing too.
The guy who was his alibi seemed very unwilling to commit to the exact time that he was with him.
I'm not sure how conclusive the phone mast location thing is but if the jury accept that then I reckon he'll get done for it.

All evidence & fact aside though,
....he totally fuckin' did it!

I agree that the defence is unconvincing but it doesn't need to be, they just need to pick enough holes in the prosecution case. The most damning thing seems to be the phone mast thing but even if the jury buys that much of the rest is contemptably weak, so much so that I think it weakens the case in general.

Did the defence even mount a case or did they rest after the prosecution finished there? If they didn't I think that's a serious comment on how weak the prosecution was if they felt that they didn't need to / maybe the only possible witness they might have called was O'Reilly himself and they didn't want to leave him open to cross examination.

 

[Umfufu]

The defence called 2 witnesses, as far as I know.
Both testified that they had seen him, where he said he was, on the day but couldn't be sure of the time.

Don't think they gave any explanation for the apology note he placed in the coffin but then again he could have been apologising for the affair.

Basically there's circumstantial evidence & he did have a motive but I think a reasonable doubt probably still remains.




Even though he fuckin' did it...........

 

[muffin]

yeah weren't the witnesses the guy who worked with him who admitted covering for him when he was off with yer wan and a guy who was in school with him who knew he had seen him one morning that week but didnt know which day it was?

i think the defence was so weak but i reckon he'll get away with it..although why he lied about his whereabouts on the morning of the murder would surely raise some red flags..he's still walk away from it though..

 

[Janer]

He 99.999999999% done it but I've a feeling he has a 50-50 chance to get off.

If he is found guilty though the good thing is he won't get outta his life sentence early because of the brutality of the attack.

 

[Umfufu]

He 99.999999999% done it but I've a feeling he has a 50-50 chance to get off.

.....but there's only a 10% chance of that.

 

[KokaneeCowgirl]

I bet his mistress is absolutely mortified, everyone knowing she's a homewrecker. Serves her right. I can't believe the awful things he was saying about his wife in his emails to his sister though, and his mother calling child protection on her. Even if she was rough with his kids, she didn't deserve to die.

 

[cephalopod]

The case made against him is very circumstancial. He will be convicted, only because a randomly selected Irish jury will have been convinced by the media for the last few years that it was definitely him what done it, I mean the Heggald must have run a good 20 front-pagers on him, not to mention the other tabloids. So they'll fear a lifetime in hell if they made the only logical decision available from the evidence, being that there is nothing actually linking him directly and evidentially to the murder. He probably did do it, but probably is not good enough

 

[Anthony]

I wonder if the jury were shown his interview on the late late a few weeks after the murder. I saw that and within 1 minute said "he did it". It was so obvious.

 

[mark]

I wonder if the jury were shown his interview on the late late a few weeks after the murder. I saw that and within 1 minute said "he did it". It was so obvious.

jaysus! he was on the late late? wonder if thats on you tube?

 

[cephalopod]

He said some weird stuff that night alright. I had the same hunch straight off as well.

 

[magicbastarder]

it's a fucking circus. they have no smoking gun, no forensic evidence that i can see.
if he's found guilty, i'd be very surprised if it's a unannimous verdict.
and he's got a clear case for appeal.

 

[RSJ]

On the news a while ago - "the jury are being asked to convict on the basis of a load of circumstantial evidence and a whiff of scientific evidence." I'd say he'll get off.

EDIT: Is there any site that gives a good overview of the whole case? There's no wikipedia on it and there's nothing much showing up in google.

 

[Anthony]

jaysus! he was on the late late? wonder if thats on you tube?

it was outrageous.

 

[cephalopod]

On the news a while ago - "the jury are being asked to convict on the basis of a load of circumstantial evidence and a whiff of scientific evidence." I'd say he'll get off.

EDIT: Is there any site that gives a good overview of the whole case? There's no wikipedia on it and there's nothing much showing up in google.

Some of the main 'evidence' is pure circumstansial, ridiculously so, so he refered to his wife as a 'cunt' in an email a few weeks before??? And the papers call it chilling, but its not related to the murder. He was having an affair, he rang his wifes message minder, he put a note in her coffin...nothing that can be linked to the murder, only thing being that a phone mast put him in the area, but did it put him in the house??? There is absolutely nothing that can link him properly to the murder, yet I reckon he will be found guilty, and I don't think it will take them long to convict either, on the basis that yer average joe (no pun intended) is convinced of his guilt, the case became a touchstone the way dozens of other similar murders haven't...catherine nevin and sophie du plantiear being the only others that had the same overblown tabloid attention. He will be convicted on people's suspicion..which is not what courts are for, no matter how convinced we are of his guilt.

 

[ratmonkey]

Why exactly is this particular case getting so much more coverage than any other murder anyway?

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

He will be convicted on people's suspicion..which is not what courts are for, no matter how convinced we are of his guilt.

The whole thing really reminds me of the OJ trial. If Joe O'Reilly didn't do it - who did?

 

[Umfufu]

The whole thing really reminds me of the OJ trial.

Cos they're both guilty?