Guilty.
Very surprised. How could they possibly have reached a unanimous verdict on the basis of the evidence before them? They had the most tenuous evidence imaginable to link him to the murder. The best the prosecution could come up with was that mobile phone masts told us that he was in the area at the time. When questioned about whether the mobile phone masts could tell who called or texted OâReilly we were told they couldnât. What sort of technology is that so?
I didnât think the âreasonable doubtâ test was satisfied in the case either. And I thought the judgeâs summation was leaning the jury in that direction also.
To recap - what was the main focus of the prosecution case?
Was there anything else?
I reckon the jury got too caught up in the emotion of the case - young mother brutally beaten to death - and joined up the dots themselves.
Itâs probably ironic in that I think he did it but I wouldnât have convicted him based on the evidence brought before the Court.
Any of our esteemed legal correspondents care to comment on this verdict?
Just been thinking about it again and if a jury of our peers can find OâReilly guilty based on the evidence presented to them after a mere 9 hours of deliberation then I sure as fook hope Iâm never charged with a serious crime.
The mobile phone records seem to be the key but it only puts him near the house - itâs still a leap of faith to conclude that this means he then went to the house and killed her. Itâs probably fair to say if he left his phone in a bush on silent out at the bus depot then they wouldnât have had a case against him.
Iâm also surprised he didnât change his story once the phone records came into play. He could have said something like, âI was on my way into work and realised I forgot a folder I needed so I decided to back home to get it but then I thought Iâd be pushed for time so turned back around again and went back into town.â
There was also the cctv footage that they got an expert in to say that they couldnât prove that the 2 cars were different. Surely you have to prove that the two cars are the same. (which they also couldnt do)
I think though when you add up all of the circumstanial evidence and the fact that nobody else had a motive, then you could pass a guilty verdict.
Do you think it will get quashed on appeal?
Agree with all the above. Think he was guilty but didnât think there was sufficient evidence. And also thought the judge led them by going on about not letting speculation and stuff sway their judgement.
Interesting point Clarkey.
Iâm not sure if this is what youâre saying but I think I agree that there was an element of âDonât be finding him guilty because of the media.â i.e. find him guilty alright but make sure itâs for legitimate reasons.
Gerry: judge refused leave to appeal so unless they can come up with some new grounds to challenge the verdict then thatâs it - I think.
Iâm not too fond of all this reliance on mobile phone evidence either. How do we know how accurate the evidence is? Itâs not like a pathologist - where we know their qualification - or itâs not like the word of an eye-witness. Itâs trusting somebody who claims to be an expert in this field, without understanding any of the technology ourselves.
I must admit that I was surprised at the verdict but I was delighted also. It took a lot of persuasion from the Garda to get the DPP to bring a case in the first place so I think some credit is due there. Most emotional scenes witnessed at the four courts since the arms trials.
I am no expert on criminal law but I think in refusing him leave to appeal, the only course available to him is to appeal on the basis that there has been an error on a point of law. He is going to serve a huge sentence for this. McArthur, Shaw and Evans are the longest serving prisoners in Ireland and OâReilly must expect to serve something similar.
I thought the defence was pathetic. They could have gone to town on some of the evidence. They merely produced two witnesses one of whom said he saw OâReilly at the depot at the time of the murderâŚbut he wasnât sure of the day he saw him!
Iâd say the prosecution were very happy with the judgeâs summing up. I thought he would have given strict directions to the jury. Remember there is absolutely no accounting for what a jury will do. You may think that this was a jury of OâReillyâs peers but it has been well documented what kind of people end up doing jury duty in this country.
The mobile phone mast evidence was crucial because it meant that his alibi didnât stack up.
Trial by media?
Check out an interesting article by Mick McCaffery in the Tribune. He was the man who ran all those stories in the Evening Herald about OâReilly. I remember heading home from work one day and the headline on the front of the Herald was to the effect that OâReilly got a promotion in work.
I was going to ask about the leave of appeal point alright.
Iâve often seen cases where the judge has refused leave of appeal only to then see an appeal coming before the courts a year or two later and it baffled me.
So humbug, re the point of law statement you made there - does that mean he wonât be allowed to appeal based on âhaving undergone a trial by media in advance of the caseâ for example?
As far as I know it is too late for those types of arguments to be made. I donât think any defamation cases were taken as a result of the media coverage in advance of the trial and no media outlet was held in contempt of court for its coverage. Criminal law is not my thing so I stand to be corrected.
Iâd be happy to take Humbugâs word for it. Reading between the lines on those posts I think heâs some sort of expert on criminal law.
I didnât read Mick McCaffrey Humbug but I heard the review of the papers on the radio - am I right in saying he claims to know the lass based on the fact he was a barman and used to serve her or something?
Who are Shaw and Evans by the way Humbug and what sort of sentence is Mark Nash serving? Heâs an evil bastard.
I read Mick McCaffery in The Tribune today. He used to be a bar man in St Maryâs when he was in college and the softball team that Rachel was on had a couple of events every year in their clubhouse and he claims he knew her (well) from that. I remember all those Herald cover stories when McCaffrey was with them. Theyâd an absolute avalanche of front page stories about the murder - it was like The Daily Express in England with Diana Spencerâs death.
Shaw and Evans were two English psychopaths who came over to Ireland in the 1970s or 1980s - think it was the 1970s - and their plan was to kill 1 person a day. They killed a sunbather in Brittas Bay and the next day a woman somewhere in the west of Ireland but were quickly caught. I read about them a good few years back - must refresh my memory.
The Shaw and Evans murder of the girl out west was truly shocking. They were also sentenced for raping her and for falsely imprisoning her. They tied her to a tree in a remote area with the intention of going back over the following days to rape her again. I think she died of exposure.
Nash is pure scum. He confessed to the killing of those two women in Grangegorman but then retracted the confession. You may remember that yer man Dean Lyons originally confessed to this as well. Nash killed a couple in Roscommon that he and his girlfriend were staying with. He tried to kill his girlfriend as well but she survived by playing dead. The Grangegorman murders actually feature in Dessie Farrellâs biography as he worked in Grangegorman at the time.
Nash got two life sentences for the murders. The investigation into the Grangegorman murders is ongoing. Due to the fact that he is English and due to the nature of his crimes, he may never be released.
therock67 wrote:
Interesting point Clarkey.
Iâm not sure if this is what youâre saying but I think I agree that there was an element of âDonât be finding him guilty because of the media.â i.e. find him guilty alright but make sure itâs for legitimate reasons.
Gerry: judge refused leave to appeal so unless they can come up with some new grounds to challenge the verdict then thatâs it - I think.
Iâm not too fond of all this reliance on mobile phone evidence either. How do we know how accurate the evidence is? Itâs not like a pathologist - where we know their qualification - or itâs not like the word of an eye-witness. Itâs trusting somebody who claims to be an expert in this field, without understanding any of the technology ourselves.
Bandage kinda made the point above. I was just echoing it. But your interpretation is what I was getting at alright. The stuff thatâs come out now about him re-enacting the murder for friends/family is pretty sick and twisted.
What do people think of the evidence that wasnât admitted?
They were awfuly quick to rule suicide out.
Aer Arann sorted me out with a free Irish Independant this morning, and Iâm not joking I fecked it in the bin the second I stepped foot in Dublin Airport, 22 of the most biast pages Iâve seen in my life.
I agree with the points above saying that he shouldnât have been found guilty, I believed that this was one of the most currupt trials Iâve ever followed. For christâs sake the book of evidence was left in the Jury room for members of the jury to see before the case, why was there not another jury selected??
That jury must have consisted of mainly members of the âMotley Crew Fanclubâ to have found the man guilty given the evidence, whatever happened to reasonable doubt!!
My views on this:
The difference in the Gilligan case (I think) is that it was the Special Criminal Court so there was no jury. If I was on the jury I donât think Iâd have convicted him, unless something else was disclosed in court that I didnât read properly about in the newspaper coverage which is unlikely. There is no requirement or right for juries to go above and beyond the law when deciding the outcome of a trial. If you donât think the evidence satisfies âbeyond reasonable doubtâ then you have no right to convict him.
I think Quearney did it.
Whoâs Quearney? A cop?
What do you make of the media coverage point? Of course it was terrible but no more so than any other murder