They were able to prove that she solicited a third party to do the job, but they refused. The men she approached testified against her, which pretty much damned her case.
Printable View
They were able to prove that she solicited a third party to do the job, but they refused. The men she approached testified against her, which pretty much damned her case.
You need Proof, not probability, in a court of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
Re: Media coverage; It has been quite disgraceful the vulgarity of it. A pile of original e-mails were listed off in the media last week, some of them of the most frivolous nature, e.g. "I'll call you later" :confused: and the fact that he slept with someone else is not exactly earth-shattering now is it?? But it was all over the papers, in "the public interest". Why?? :confused:
[QUOTE=mypost;727636]You need Proof, not probability, in a court of law.
That was my point, ie the prosecution has to prove their case " beyond reasonable doubt" not on the basis of probability. I'm sure the judge in his summing up and directing of the jury will make that very very clear to them , and that's why I think he'll go free.
Far be it from me to be so insulting to the twelve as to think them reflective of Irish society as a whole, but everything I've heard from almost everybody I've talked to about this would lead me to estimate that if they are representative, at least ten of those twelve jurors are in no doubt that O'Reilly is guilty; it must be an extremely strange position to be in if you think you 'know' that the person is guilty of something like murder and yet you're asked by the judge to get all technical about the reasonable doubt and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
That was my point, ie the prosecution has to prove their case " beyond reasonable doubt" not on the basis of probability. I'm sure the judge in his summing up and directing of the jury will make that very very clear to them , and that's why I think he'll go free.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
There's only 11 Jurors as one was disqualified early on in the trial. Gut feelings are one thing, but points of law are another. Based on the evidence I've heard my gut tells me that he's guilty as sin, but if I was on a jury, I'd have to acquit him because to me, the evidence is too circumstantial and there would always be a modicum of doubt in my mind.
Did they not replace her? That's my point, though. I'd be surprised if a few others on the jury didn't think exactly like her, but just weren't complete spanners and didn't go blabbing all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeSoap
I'd hope that I'd do likewise if I was on a jury, too (acquit, if the evidence technically warranted doubt, I mean).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz
She wasn't replaced... based on the jury comprising 9 men and 2 women and the direction given today by the judge, he focuessed heavily on the fact that there is no direct evidence linking O'Reilly and also asked the jury to consider how they would feel if they were on trial and were convicted on the basis of the evidence presented... I don't see him being convicted
The Irish Times was the only national paper not to put the woman he had the affair with on the front page the day after her evidence. But as somebody who works in a shop I can assure you all that the reason for the media hype is because the average punter is fascinated by the whole bloody thing (chicken and egg arguments aside). I've watched complete strangers having full conversations about it. :confused: And the world and it's mother thinks he did it.
There is no way he can be found guilty the mobile phone mast thing although reported to be damming evidence is actually very unreliable there are many reasons why the phone would route to those masts ( other masts not working properly etc ) and since that is there main evidence would they not have at least gotten a mobile driven the route and shown the results for that trip to the jury ???
Then add in that you have a witness that says he was with him when the murder was happening , He had according to the prosecution 18 mins to get home kill the wife clean up and get back !!! seems unlikely .
Now there is no way I can say if he did it or not but from the evidence provided he can’t be convicted I hope we don’t live in a country where people are convicted on gut feelings :eek:.If he doesn’t walk it’s a disgrace
I agree with you Anto. There is no way they can find him guilty on the evidence that has been presented to us.
It still doesn't prove without doubt she solicited someone else. OK in all probability she did. That is why I think there are similarities in the two cases. Don't think it is as cut and dry as some make outQuote:
Originally Posted by joeSoap
[QUOTE=anto1208;729147[/QUOTE]
.Quote:
Then add in that you have a witness that says he was with him when the murder was happening , He had according to the prosecution 18 mins to get home kill the wife clean up and get back !!! seems unlikely
It's interesting in this discussion that people offered definite opinions on the accused's guilt before the defense had even presented their case.
It does appear incredible that even if those aspects of the prosecution case are accepted then the deed including travel time was done in less than 18 minutes.
That would include a 100% clean up so effective as to leave no forensic trace of the deed on the accused or his car.
Personally I would have to see a frame by frame walk through recreation to see if even this was remotely possible within the timeframe.
If he walks should he change his name from Joe O'Reilly to OJ O'Reilly? :)
Was the 18 mins timeframe not the time the lookalike car took to go by Murphy's quarry either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Just checked and the 18mins refers to the time between Rachel O'Reillys car going towards her home past Murphys quarry and the car that is allegedly Joe O'Reillys going the opposite way. The quarry is almost beside the house.
I was called for jury duty once. Wasn't selected (person before me completed the last jury), but I was watching the people who were called up. It was the criminal court, and I think all the cases were rapes. You could follow the cases in the papers, and in particular the verdicts. Just by looking at the people, I got all the cases right. Now either (a) I'm a genius, or (b) juries do have a tendency to go with gut feeling as well as evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz
Oh, and I think 15 are called for a jury, so in case of drop outs, the person is simply replaced by someone who's been watching all along. (Not sure of the number called, but that's how it works anyways).
I also did jury service once on a very serious case.
It took ages to reach a verdict because 3 people on the jury could not grasp the principle that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the allegation against the defendant and that the defendant was not required to prove anything in criminal proceedings.
It was clear in the case that the prosecution case was weak and it had failed to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Even though they agreed this to be the case these 3 voted a for 'gulity' verdict because the defendant had not given evidence and therefore did not prove his innocence.
The judge had to give directions twice on this principle before eventually they reluctantly accepted the prosecution had failed.
Since then, I have always advocated that before anyone serves on a jury they should be able to demonstrate they understand this principle.
Agreed, except I'd say that they should demonstrate that comprehension beyond reasonable doubt :)Quote:
I have always advocated that before anyone serves on a jury they should be able to demonstrate they understand this principle.
Some in the jury in this case appear to be very confused.
The judge has had to painstakingly explain again what proof beyond reasonable doubt is, what benefit of doubt means and for the jury to assume the accused is innocence until proved otherwise.
But he still has to leave it to the individual consciences of the untrained jurors to decide on all these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceahoop
18 minutes is a bloody long time. Subtract the adverts and it's about the length of an episode of The Simpsons. Unless you're planning on beating someone to death with a tennis ball it's plenty of time to off someone-particularly if pre-meditated. Most of the time would be spent on clean up.
The judges intructions in relation to the phone records allow the jury to convict if they decide he has lied about his movements on the basis he has something to hide. I think they'll convict him and it'll be booted out on appeal as the evidence just isn't sufficient.
It's a little galling as I think he did it, but it's a measure of a mature society that we free people who, on balance of probability, more than likely commited heinous crimes rather than risk jailing an innocent person.
If he does walk that girls family should sue the hole off him in a civil court.
just heard he's been found guilty...
he'll get out after an appeal imo..no evidence there at all