QuoteHopefully he gets locked up today.
was on youtube trying to seek out the appearence of joe or reilly on the late late show. couldnt find it on it.
anyone know of anywhere else on the net that has this???
Hopefully he gets locked up today.
I have no doubt personally as to his guilt in this case, but all of the evidence is circumstantial, and it will be a pretty hard case to prove. His mobile phone records have seriously damaged his alibi and credibility with the jury, but remember; he does not have to prove his innocence, the prosecution must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is no murder weapon, just proof of an unhappy marriage and an adult having an affair...hardly unique in today's world.
I reckon he will walk, but has to live with this for the rest of his life.
It's a funny state of affairs, and indicative of the bottomless detestability of the Irish gutter press, that I sort of want him to get off with an OJ and for the media's reporting of the case to be directly held responsible by the judge.
Even though, as your woman disbarred from the jury said, "he's as guilty as sin".
Because if Gabriel doesn't rollerblade to the Chelsea Piers then the terrorists have truly won.
What I'd like to know is what's the case doing on ALL the front pages?It's not exactly a cliffhanger of an outcome. He slept with his pinky on the night of his LLS appearance, wow!! Who the hell could have forecast that, I wonder??
Surely there are more important matters going on in the country, such as the looming Eircom strike, or the unemployment rate reaching a 4 year high, rocketing inflation, and job cuts, than a whodunnit, or in this case, a whydidhedoit murder trial?
Last edited by mypost; 14/07/2007 at 9:44 AM.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
Anyone else think his mistress could have known that he was the killer at the time
Who Cares?!
Hmmm ....has she "turned against him" now? She was a prosecution witness this week but she could've been subpoenaed (sp?).Originally Posted by Raheny Red
Anyone else think his mistress could have known that he was the killer at the time
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Thankfully you are not on the jury. How could you make such a decided based on the media reports?
TBH I have not followed this & don't see the reason for media obsession. I know its a quiet time for politics but it still hardly makes this front page news...?
Agree the coverage has been way OTT.
Today's CCTV evidence when tied in with the mobile phone info puts him in a difficult spot.
To put it mildly.
Coverage of the emails was ridiculous. Newstalk had actors reading them out ffs. It's a wonder there hasn't been applications for a mistrial based on the coverage. Actually it's a surprise it went to trial at all given the amount of leaks/briefings by the cops to the media since the murder, in particular the herald.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I think he'll be convicted but it'll be overturned on appeal.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Yeah totally agree Lionel.
In Trap we trust
Absolutely amazed this hasnt happened. Its all over the place.
Apparently random punters (ie not family and friends of accused or victim) are queuing up for hours every morning to get into the public gallery (and inadvertently mingling with jurors, creating another potential reason for a mistrial).
Get a job/hobby/life people!
Most are retired I'd say.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
I think it is a very interesting case.
AFAIA, there is no smoking gun, no forensic evidence, no direct witness evidence, so the prosecution have put an enormous amount of investigative work concentrating on picking holes in the alibi of the accused.
re the car on cctv
British expert in CCTV analysis said there was only "a moderate level of support" for the same make and model as the acccused.
Then there is the phone evidence.
I'd expect any decent defense lawyer to attempt to take the prosecutor's case apart piece by piece and discredit the reliability of depending on such evidence.
Am I not entitled to my opinion? I have developed my opinion partly on media reports, but also by what I have ascertained by evidence given at the trial, particularly as to the use of his mobile phone and supposed movements on the morning in question, which have proven already at this stage that he is lying through his teeth, and despised his wife.
The evidence against him is only circumstantial and this is why I believe he will be found not guilty, but Pete, this is only my opinion. The defence case will be largely based on the fact that there is no murder weapon, that his car could not be positively identified and basically there is no hard evidence to put him away.
Based on the evidence so far I'd agree that he won't be found guilty because IMO the case against him has not been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" of course if you are to base your decision on the basis of "probability" I think 99% of us would find him guilty.
The whole case is similar to the Jack White's pub case. There was no real hard evidence that the accused done it and the papers were full of it. I have no doubt O'Reilly done it but could I prove it, I doubt it.
Always look on the bright side of life
I thought in that case they were able to prove that the wife had paid a third party ?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks