It doesn’t matter what anyone accuses me of, or you. Neither of us has to back up his story. Our accuser must prove his case.

Do you not get that?

I think that if you add all the evidence (that was allowed) together the jury had no option but to convict him.

Yes all the evidece was circumstantial but if I’m not mistaken a person was changed and convicted of murder in this county without a body ever been found.

The evidence gave motive and put him with 1/2 a mile of the scene at the time of the murder. When he says that he was 13 miles away on the other side of the city.

The fact that there was not one piece of evidence to back up his story as to where he was that morning is more damning than anything else.

Secondly, while all that you say might be true, it’s no more than grounds for gross suspicion. In this country, we don’t convict people on the basis of gross suspicion; we have to prove the case rigorously, and I personally don’t believe the prosecution achieved that standard of rigour.

Lets looks at this again for a moment shall we.

1. Phone evidence - In relation to the defence using this eveytime a “scumbag” wants a defence to say that he was using it in Dublin while in Limerick. It would have to proven he had it in his possesion. Joe O’Reilly made phone calls on the bloody thing while in the car going to and from the murder scene!!
O’Reilly had the cahnce to say he didn’thave the phone with him but he couldn’t could he why? because he made phone calls on it.

Yes the phone eveidece does not put him in the house but come on!!!! lets not be stupid here where the hell was he when the phone was tracked less than half a mile from the house??? Picking Flowers??????
The phonce has him not where he says he was if he was doing anything else do you not think they would have used it.

Go to have been the worse defence ever.

2. DNA none found in his car? why Because he washed it all off in the shower after the killing and obviously changed his clothes. he then comtaminated the scene to cover up the possibility of any bllod being found on him - Very clever in fact.

3. The Press - it was O’Reilly himself that courted the press early on in the investigation and all of a sudden becasue it went against him the Defence wanted the case thrown out????

Actually, there was tonnes of his DNA on the victim and he was covered in her blood when the police arrived. But they couldn’t use that as evidence because he said he’d moved the body when he’d arrived and had tried to revive her. He’d also disturbed the murder scene by moving objects around the house.

Also, because it was his house, the fact that his DNA was everywhere wouldn’t prove anything.

They also found a drop of blood on one shoe and proved that the blood hit the shoe while air born (i.e., it hit his shoe as he was beating her) but that was ruled inadmissible for some legal reason and the jury never heard it.

(by the way - I hate CSI. Its a load of Bollox.

Mr Sneeze: He was asked a few questions, but nobody challenged the reliability of their systems.

Eolaí: There are precedents, but you have to remember taht this case was characterised by wholsesale smearing by the police long before the trial started. No juror could have been unaffected by the pre-trial puiblicity and innuendo put out by the cops. That’s one of the reasons I think the result is unfsafe.

Wrinkly Joe: True. He was convicted not only of murder, but also of having an affair and saying bad things about his wife.

Mairéad: Many people talk about their spouses that way, however objectionable it might appear. It isn’t grounds to believe anybody committed murder. I keep returning to the point that guilt has to be proven, not by weight of facts but by a chain of logic. It isn’t enough to say he’s a bollocks.

Cap’n: Oops! Silly me!