Joe O'Reilly

[Sandy Hill]

Why was the coffin of Rachel O'Reilly exhumed; I'm sure the husband didn't tell the Gardaí that there was a note from him in it?

[Dinny Breen]

read this in the SBP yesterday, interesting take

Dangerous precedents were set in O'Reilly murder trial

Sunday, July 29, 2007 By Tom McGurk
Joe O'Reilly's conviction despite a lack of concrete evidence gives cause for concern.

There is a growing sense that the Rachel O'Reilly murder case has implications in Irish society far beyond that of a normal case of domestic murder.

Joe O'Reilly is not the first husband to be jailed for the murder of his wife, but somehow one has the feeling that this case will be in the Irish public conscience for a long time.

In the first instance, there was the context of a post-divorce Ireland, where the breakdown of marriage and the ensuing dispute about child custody have become familiar ingredients of daily life. Like so many other couples not many years into their marriage and with young children, Joe and Rachel O'Reilly were facing separation and divorce.

His e-mails, when revealed to the court, illustrated just how quickly in modern Ireland the distance between the moment of marriage and the moment of separation seems to grow shorter and shorter.

When prosecution lawyer Dominic McGinn suggested to the jury that Joseph O'Reilly had a motive to kill his wife - their marriage was over and he was already having an affair with another woman - it wasn't the only time in this trial that many felt sceptical.

If bad-mouthing your partner in the midst of a separation and having an affair with another woman was proof of motivation to kill your wife, then the queue would be forming around the Four Courts.

While the levels of treachery and disloyalty to his wife were evident from O'Reilly's e-mails - and while his behaviour also suggested someone utterly devoid of dignity and decency – was murder really the only option open to him?

What distinguished this whole case from the outset was the media interest. A number of young Irish mothers like Rachel O'Reilly have been killed in recent years, but from the beginning the popular press seized upon this story.

Joe O'Reilly's appearance on The Late Late Show lit the fuse and thereafter the story of Rachel's murder became a three-year staple. During the 30-odd months since Rachel was murdered in October 2004, the arrests and re-arrests fuelled endless speculation.

By virtue of the fact that, from the outset, Joe O'Reilly was considered to be the chief suspect, much of the media coverage became not a wider assessment of all the facts, but rather a pursuit of O'Reilly.

By the time it came to trial, there was no denying the subtext to what was underway - it was whether O'Reilly would ''get away with it'' or not.

For example, in the process of reaching this point, there was no media examination of how the Garda had undertaken its initial investigation. How had they arrived at O'Reilly as the chief suspect?

How did they rule out the possibility of an assailant unknown to Rachel? How could one be so sure - it was ''impossible'' according to the prosecuting council – that Rachel was not killed by a random burglar?

According to the prosecution's closing statement, the evidence ''showed it to be impossible that Rachel was killed by a random burglar, that whoever attacked her would be covered in blood''. Then why wasn't O'Reilly covered in blood?

For all the thousands of words the media spent on this case, very few were used to subject the prosecution's version of the murder to closer scrutiny. Apparently, O'Reilly left his workplace, went home, killed his wife and 18 minutes later was back on the road to work, minus any sign of what he had just been up to.

No blood on his clothes, in his car, under his nails. No forensic evidence anywhere to link him to the murder scene.

Nothing whatsoever, except technical triangulation readings that placed his mobile phone in the vicinity of the crime scene during the time he had left his workplace.

If you subject this modus operandi to closer scrutiny, it raises further questions. For example, if you were planning to kill your wife, can you think of a worse time to try and establish an alibi than by claiming to be leaving your office and going to another place to work - somewhere where you were not present at the time you claimed? Does that not hugely limit your freedom of actions?

Equally, consider the chances of being seen and recognised around your home area or of being recorded on CCTV travelling to and from the scene of the crime in such circumstances? And you take all of these risks in broad daylight and then successfully carry out the killing in only 18 minutes?

It would only take one neighbour, or one of Rachel's friends, to see O'Reilly near and about his home at the time in question to destroy his alibi. Was this a reasonable risk?

But most worrying of all in its longer term implications is the fact that, ultimately, O'Reilly was convicted largely on the basis of circumstantial evidence that placed his mobile phone close to his home.

Does evidence of O'Reilly's phone being close to the crime scene inevitably lead to the conclusion of murder? Could he not have innocently come home and left again and then lied about it, afraid of the consequences? Equally, could he not have brought someone to the house to kill his wife?

He may well have been guilty of this terrible crime, but was sufficient evidence presented to convict him?

We were presented with scientific evidence, in many ways incontestable given the specific and unique technical nature of the test. How could any other scientist contest the evidence of the O2 scientist - who, after all, had invented this technology in the first place?

Infamously in the 1970s, John Jallop's TLC test for the presence of explosives led to massive wrongful convictions in the Irish bombing cases in Britain.

It was years before anyone discovered that Jallop's TLC - again invented by himself – was merely proof of the presence of everyday nitrates and not just that of explosives.

O'Reilly may well have murdered his wife, but the forensic vacuum between his mobile phone at the scene of the crime and anything else that links him to this terrible crime as was presented in court is deeply unsettling.

In an age where a mobile phone operates as a personal pathfinder with a legal requirement to maintain its records, the whole concept of circumstantial evidence suddenly assumes a new and deeply worrying significance.

[magickingdom]

very dangerous precedent set in this case but did he do it? absolutely. he was denied leave to appeal so unless he goes to the court of criminal appeal on a point of law he's done with. no loss that.

[Dinny Breen]

he was denied leave to appeal so unless he goes to the court of criminal appeal on a point of law he's done with. no loss that.

guaranteed he'll appeal, this will drag on and on....

[Handball Ace]

Wrong decision by the jury by all accounts

Expand on this.

[guy crouchback]

Re: Joe O'Reilly
« Reply #36 on: Today at 01:01:39 PM »
   Reply with quote
How can anyone be denied leave to appeal? Surely he has a great chance of winning his appeal, he was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. In saying that I still think he is guilty.

even if he does appeal it can have nothing to do with the evidence as presented. any appeal will have to be based on a point of law or direction from the judge

[dublinfella]

He has already been moved from The Joy to the Midlands, which is a bit strange.

the Joy is remand prisoners and short term sentences only - all long term prisoners go to portlaoise or arbour hill.

he can only appeal on a technicality or point of law. even if like most of us you believe he is as guilty as sin, the issue of convicting someone exclusivly on circumstantial evidence is worrying.

interesting the prosecution packed the jury with birds and played on his adultry like it was relevent.

[Hardy]

Two women is some pack, alright! But sure that's typical of the level of insight and knowledge you generally display here.

(I presume 'birds' is Shamrock Rovers Ultra-speak for women).

[magpie seanie]

interesting the prosecution packed the jury with birds

2 out of 11 jurors were women.

That is typical of the lies you present as facts on this board.

[bcarrier]

The note in coffin is bizarre in the extreme but this mobile phone thing is nonsense.  Its not some chip planted under his skin.

If for instance he had left his phone in a locker or desk at work would we accept this as evidence that he was at work all day and couldnt have been near scene of crime ?

[dublinfella]

interesting the prosecution packed the jury with birds

2 out of 11 jurors were women.

That is typical of the lies you present as facts on this board.

you sure it wasnt 9 of 11? fairly sure I read that and that explained the prosecutions obsession with the mistresses.

[AZOffaly]

Nope. 9 men 2 women, and a 3rd woman was discharged because she was already convinced he was guilty.

[brokencrossbar1]

I didn't follow it as closely as some have but I have very little doubt that O'Reilly was guilty.  I do believe however, on my admitted limited knowledge that if he appeals he will win his appeal and a re-trial will be ordered.  Outside of the telephone evidence, which is flimsy in itself, the judge made a great deal in his charge to the jury of the fact that a random burglar would not commit a murder like this ie beat he repeatedly to death, and also that he would not have cleaned up the place or himself. This may be the case but without evidence to the contrary, the prosecution have entered a lack of evidence as being a fact in itself.  The fact that there was no blood etc was indicative of someone who had time to do this and therefore, the chain of evidence leads to someone close to the deceased.  To convict someone in these circumstances, coupled with other circumstantial evidence granted, is opening an edge of the law of evidence which the courts may find hard to close.

A likely scenario is that a re-trial will be ordered and a deal offered to the defendant for the manslaughter plea.

[brokencrossbar1]

The Criminal Appeals would only be dealing with a point of law and not a factual issue.  This in turn would mean that if there was a finding of mistrial due to point of law the matter would be referred back for trial.  Whether or not one actually occured would be up to thr prosecution, and I think they would push for a re-trial.

[Gnevin]

I I do believe however, on my admitted limited knowledge that if he appeals he will win his appeal and a re-trial will be ordered.  Outside of the telephone evidence, which is flimsy in itself,

How is it flimsy, he admitted having his phone with him all day.
His phone was not where he was claiming to be ?
Where was he?
Why is he lying?