Printable View
I've tried to stay away from this trial as the facts are never fulling outed - however - how can anyone possibly say that this was proven beyond reasonable doubt? It seems as though half the evidence being talked about was only thrown in in the last few days! As much as I detest the idea of a murderer walking free, an innocent man behind bars is a much slippier slope.
Just been found guilty as charged.
...and leave to appeal DENIED
The verdict may have been as expected, but it's a surprise it was announced on a Saturday, as there is usually no courts sitting on weekends. :eek: What did him was the e-mail and phone evidence, frivolous as some of it was, what was relevant was very damning, and hard to defend.
The press will now have to go off and write on something else.
Leave to appeal denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by SligoBrewer
Circumstancial evidence which wasn't rebutted by the defence plus motive and defendent not taking the stand to explain discrepancies in his alibi was enough imo to find him guilty. You could say that it was the sum of all the parts that found him guilty.
How long did he get?
Mandatory life sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raheny Red
15 yrs so..
On what basis can a judge deny leave to appeal?
Doesnt it kind of defeat the purpose of having an appeals court if a judge has the power to deny it?
According to a law lecturer in Newstalk He can appeal on points of law but not on the substantive issues of evidence.
Just heard an ad on the radio for sundays Star ...the bottom feeders have hit the ground running with a feature (most likely written well before the verdict came in) whoring the whole thing 'round the cabaret circuit while it's a hot topic and stopping just short of a commemorative All-Ireland style 12 page pull out.
Despicably they also boast they'll be examining "what future now for the children?". :rolleyes:
I think some of them have today. Obviously I haven't sat through the entire evidence, but from what has been on the television and radio, I'm not at all comfortable with the verdict on the evidence given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Also, I hear that journalists and Rachels friends are now revealing stuff that obviously didn't have enough to make it into the book of evidence, but the papers and radio are quite happy to publish/ broadcast. Even after conviction, the trial by media continues...
The media really have gone to town on this one. As someone said before, im 100% sure the welfare of the children is their primary concern!!!! I think the circumstances under which he was convicted were ridiculous and it is a disgrace that he does not have the right to appeal.
I am not so sure, I feel that with the absence of a witness to the murder and the actual murder weapon then all the Gardai could do was build the case around the errors in his statements. Generally with the absence of above the investigating team would rely on DNA and finger proof based evidence. However, as the accused lived at the property then this was never going to happen in this case. The text/calls issue could be construed as above average police work.Quote:
Originally Posted by reder
But that is the problem - they've proved he lied in statments, proved that he was in the same area as the house, not that he murdered anyone. I suppose the judge was never going to give leave to appeal after him saying lying in the statement would be enough to convict based on having something to hide :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
Friend of the eL, Mick McCafferty also popped up on newstalk explaining his relationship with O'Reilly, and how he cut off contact with the "psychopath" once it was obvious he was guilty. Independent News and Media - quality journalism...
Apparantly, one newspaper has devoted 25 PAGES to the case today.:eek: It's still the lead story on the radio news as well.
Let..it..go... :rolleyes:
The evidence you talk about did make it into the book of evidence, however the dedendents legal team argued that it should not be heard. What then happened was that the evidence was heard without the jury been present and the judge decided that it was not admissable. Joe O'Reilly tried the same tactic with the mobile phone mast but in that instance the Judge found against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
What did the judge say at the end when i heard it i was shocked something like you can presume his guilt because he lied , surely that cant be right .
Should a judge really say even though there is no evidence you can convict him based on a lie :eek:
Presumably he's well within his rights for so advising them, but it seems extremely counterintuitive to the whole "proven guilty" thing.
Maybe he meant to tell them that they could infer the guilt of someone charged with murder if that person has been shown to have been having an affair.
O'Reilly to appeal conviction-Independent.ie
Murderer Joe O’Reilly is to appeal his conviction. O’Reilly believes he can win an appeal on technical grounds.
It is expected the case to be lodged before the Court of Criminal Appeal will be fought purely on the circumstantial nature of the prosecution evidence.
O’Reilly has two weeks to lodge an appeal against the trial judge’s decision to refuse him leave to appeal.
Though Mr Justice Barry White had refused leave to appeal, O’Reilly’s defence lawyers have a fortnight from today to appeal against this ruling in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
If the appeal goes ahead, it is expected that a date for the appeal would be set before Christmas or early in 2008, legal sources said today.
That means that the judge would re-examine the evidence in the trial which gripped the nation but much of the appeal would probably concentrate on legal argument and submissions.
One of the planks of such an appeal is expected to be the amount of publicity generated about the case before it went to trial.
His lawyers are likely to argue the massive media exposure was prejudicial to his chances of a fair trial.
The trial judge said the case had attracted more media attention that any case he had ever been involved in.
The technical evidence which played a crucial part in the circumstantial evidence which led to his conviction, is also likely to come under scrutiny.
The appeal would not mean a re-run of witnesses and evidence heard during the four week trial.
It would mainly consist of detailed legal submissions by barristers for Joe O’Reilly and for the State. Mobile phone data, which helped convince the jury that Joe O’Reilly murdered his wife, was the subject of detailed legal argument during his trial in the Central Criminal Court.
There were four days of legal argument in the absence of the jury during the trial. Judge White refused to admit the“reconstructions” of the crime Joe O’Reilly carried out for Rachel’s family and friends.
But he did rule that O’Reilly’s mobile phone records had been legally obtained and deemed them admissable. In the end, the mobile phone records which showed he was near the murder scene at the time of the murder, proved his undoing.
They allowed the prosecutor, Mr Denis Vaughan-Buckley, to place Joe O’Reilly in the vicinity of his home on the day he murdered his wife.
The use of mobile phone records ushered in a new era of criminal trials which demonstrated how important such highly technical evidence has become for the State.
They helped convict Joe O’Reilly of a crime which he had steadfastly denied throughout his trial and during Garda questioning.
Appeal lawyers will not have to scrutinise trial transcripts.