07.21.07
Joe
Guilty.
The longer they stayed out the more I thought they might do a not guilty. I have to say, they seemed to be a good jury. They could’ve been lazy and done it in half an hour but they went through the evidence soberly.
I think the judge’s instruction was a good one: the important piece of evidence was the mobile phone and the they had to ask themselves was there any innocent explanation as to why that evidence did not match the alibi. If there was no innocent explanation then they had to find him guilty.
Having said I would have forgiven them a not guilty verdict. The evidence was really circumstantial.
Still I’ll never forget that Late Late Sho interview he did. I rang my sister straight afterwards and we agreed it was him. Fair dues to the cops for being so determined.
Amazing that he forgot the mobile phone would place him there and what a shit to let her own mother find the body.
Those poor children. How do they adjust to this?
Yorkie said,
July 21, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I suspect there is a lot of unsavoury stuff going to come out in the press now that the trial is over. Too late for the Sunday papers, but Monday’s press should be interesting.
V said,
July 22, 2007 at 10:55 am
This may seem like an obvious question to everyone posting comments here so forgive my lack of knowledge on this but, why is this a big story? The Nevin case caught a similar run of attention in the collective psyche but, why these ones and not the all the other murder cases? A guy killed his wife because he thought he could get away with it and it will probably happen a few more times before the end of the year. If it is about the whole ‘violation of the happy family’ fixation then why has there not been much follow-up to the recent suicides of people who have topped themselves and taken some or all of their family with them. The Wexford case comes to mind.
Thanks in advance etc.
Sarah said,
July 22, 2007 at 11:42 am
V, I think its because it every other respect this family were totally ordinary. In most other murders/suicides there is a degree of detachment because we can attribute the story to some factor beyond our comprehension or experience. In cases like the O’Reilly’s there is a far too much to identify with. The thrill of the story then – who dunnit and will he get away with it takes on a much bigger role.
Also of course its easy. No one other than the evil husband is to blame. In the suicide stories there is the communal guilt to deal with it WE could’ve done something. So its much better to move quickly on from those stories. Also there is no one left to focus blame on, like a suspect.
The Joe thing is a real life who dunnit with the added spice of reality thrown in.
I am sure pyschoanalysts might have plenty to say as well on the popular fantasies of killing ones spouse .
joseph said,
July 23, 2007 at 8:07 am
I had the same feeling after I saw him on the late late. I rang my brother straight away and we both agreed he killed her. It was so obvious just from the late late appearance.
An evil bastard, a cold hearted calculating piece of trash.
Then again, and please forgive me for saying this, but there is a part of me which always thinks to myself, what is it with women? They have a knack of picking complete shits as partners. Its just so annoying to see so many women murdered by their “loved one” or maybe it is just that men contain more of the beast in our natures than women do? As the rate of murder and truly evil deeds seems to be so much more apparent in men than women.
JOR was/is a profoundly dull looking ugly man with what seems to be an intellect and personality of such little value or interest. What a fucing shame he came to be involved with that poor woman Rachel and with the consequence of him acting out his crazy, stupid and evil fantasy to kill his wife in cold blood.
What people forget is that this piece of human waste is gong to be on our streets again in a little over ten years! He will then be less than 50 or there abouts. Plus he has had his freedom for the last 3 years.
Well done to the Garda for their excellent work and diligence.
irishpancake said,
July 23, 2007 at 8:57 am
“Then again, and please forgive me for saying this, but there is a part of me which always thinks to myself, what is it with women?”
joseph
I know your question is genuine and you are probably not aware that this comes dangerously close to blaming the victim, Sarah(RIP) for the appalling crime perpetrated on her by this cold, calculating murderer.
I also feel that some sympathy must also now be directed toward Sarah’s birth-mother and siblings.
Can you imagine how this poor woman must feel, having found the daughter she gave up for adoption 30 odd years ago, only to have her cruelly and vilely taken away again by this despicable creature.
Paul said,
July 23, 2007 at 9:02 am
i expect we will see an appeal but, not being a legal expert, i’m not sure what the defence can muster up — I wonder does he have good grounds for appeal given the hysteric media coverage that might have influenced the jury verdict,particularly in a case which wa sall about circumstantial evidence? . .
sarah said,
July 23, 2007 at 9:10 am
(irish pancake meant Rachel there I presume)
On why we pick people to fall in love with? I think that’s really all to do with the little psychosis we pick up in childhood. I’ve often said before that personality is formed at birth and that’s true. But we learn about relationships in all kinds of illogical and irrational ways as we grow up. If they are self-destructive then it takes a lot of learning the hard way and making mistakes before we cop-on. To be honest I think everyone should be mandatorily psychoanalysed at 21 before they start making disastrous decisions.
irishpancake said,
July 23, 2007 at 9:49 am
(irish pancake meant Rachel there I presume)
Absolutely, Sarah. My genuine apologies.
Paul Newton said,
July 23, 2007 at 9:59 am
“I’ve often said before that personality is formed at birth and that’s true”
Feck Sarah, sometimes you make the most sweeping ones….. can i have a few references to justify this one please? if you can we can consign the whole process of socialisation to the bin.
Why was the sopranos so popular? cos it showed people as multi dimensional and let us see the good and evil in people.
Why was this case such a big deal – cos it can be portrayed as the big brutish evil wolf and the beautiful innocent angelic victim –
as Hans Christian Anderson figured out years ago, and SKY and FOX news have figured out – people want it in black and white baby –
I could go on for hours – but i’d only bore everyone including myself.
Tom N said,
July 23, 2007 at 10:57 am
As regards the case? JOR found guilty. Looks like it but surprised that they got a conviction relying mainly on circumstantial evidence.
As regards women being involved with bastards – just don’t get it. Know so many lovely women who get involved with cheating husbands, crooks, etc. These are not stary eyed teens, they are often very bright, successful, attractive women. In my single days, these women would not give me a look in. Like most guys in my predicament many women would say “you are such a nice guy”. This phrase is the biggest kick in the balls any man can get. Many of my friends, some wealthy and attractive, got the same treatment. These women would then go off with rascals and complain that there were no nice men around. So I would conclude that a certain percentage of women are pathelogically attracted to bastards. But it’s not their fault.
CG said,
July 23, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Although, Paul, it’s not being played as she’s an angelic victim, seeing as judging by the comments plenty of people feel she’s to blame in some way for marrying the shit.
I really don’t get the victim-blaming (and the worrying readiness of people to criticise women’s choices in who they date – it’s a bit patronising to declare ‘it’s not their fault’, they’re just ‘pathelogically attracted the bastards’. To be honest red flags go up when someone declares they’re a Nice Guy and why are women so stupid they can’t see it? Just whenever I’m out and meet someone who goes on about how women always pick the Bad Guys (ie not them) they usually have a massive chip on their shoulder and who wants to get involved with someone like that?). JOR was obviously a sociopath. That’s why he thought he could get away with doing something so terrible when it was obvious it could only have been him.
And what about the male friend who gave him an alibi almost to the end? Where’s the criticism of him and HIS poor relationship choices? If Rachel was so foolish for marrying him, this fella was a complete moron for sticking by him in the face of a murder investigation.
I think the attraction of the case is the gruesome circumstances, and the way JOR courted publicity. After his LLS appearance, obviously everyone wanted him put away.
Claire said,
July 23, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Does anyone know whose idea it was for him to appear on the LLS – was it his (high risk strategy!), the family, RTE, the GardaÃ……???
From Bath to Cork with Baby Grace :: Rachel O’Reilly’s murder: Joe O’Reilly convicted :: July :: 2007 said,
July 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm
[...] I see Sarah Carey’s written her view [...]
irishpancake said,
July 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Tom N
where the hell are you gettin the evidence to back up any of the points you have made, like:
“I would conclude that a certain percentage of women are pathelogically attracted to bastards.”
where is the actual evidence for this statement? what sociological studies have been done to support this outrageous contention?
I agree with all the points made by CG.
Petula said,
July 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Apparently the Gardai wanted him to do it in the hope that he might trip himself up.
I, too, can’t stand it when I’m out and some guy professes himself to be a ‘nice guy’. Oh woe is me, all the girls want bastards. In my experience, you can read passive aggressive whinger for this.
I love strong, generous, optimistic, devil-may-care men myself. Only – as Carmela discovered – they’re often far from devil-may-care in reality. But at least they’re not boring. Then again I’m still single and wish I had been psychoanalysed at 21!
I think the fact that Rachel O’Reilly was so young when she met Joe may have been a factor in her poor judgment. And then she had two children and was stuck. One of the things that surprised me was his mother reporting Rachel for being rough with the children instead of trying to help. Sound to me like a bad lot.
V said,
July 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I will refrain from throwing Lacan and Freud into this debate about relationships and why SOME women desire humiliation, save to say it swings both ways, SOME men also desire women who will destroy them. As you can see from the first sentence, I have a Narcissistic self-image a bit like Joe, maybe I could be a danger to the wife? What I really wanted to say was, what the hell was up with the photo on the Sunday Times, totally overkill there ed? The headline could have read ‘Hooray, Revenge!’.
CG said,
July 23, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Claire – I read that the Gardai encouraged him to talk to the media. They were hoping he’d say something that might incriminate him. So probably the LLS approached him and he said yes?
And I definitely agree that some people, men and women, repeatedly enter into bad relationships. I just don’t think it’s in any way unique to women and it’s not on to bring it up in this case.
I mean, that fella who killed his parents – noone’s going about saying well, what did they expect, they raised him after all. But it’s ok to bring up victim actions when they’re a woman and they got married to a madman? There was a case in America a month or two ago a lot like this – the young woman had two children by a married man who killed her in a rage. There was lots of ‘well, what did she expect?’ (exacerbated by the fact that she was white and he was black – nasty racist undertones as well as sexist).
CG said,
July 23, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Oh, sorry Petula I just saw you answered Claire too!
‘Passive aggressive whinger’ is exactly right!
The Crewser said,
July 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm
There was one totally undesirable element in this case and that was the leaking of information to the media in the early stages of the investigation.
Unless the jurors in the case were living on Mars its unlikely they would not have been influenced in some way by the coverage. This fact was not used by the defence team to any significant degree.
Who was doing this we will never know and the fact that the right result emerged at the end will mean that this will never be properly investigated.
Joe O’ Reilly has two weeks from date of conviction to appeal this case and one feels certain he will. He will have to produce something really special to overturn the verdict however.
Tom N said,
July 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm
In no way did ROR deserve her fate. Let me state that loud and clear.
It was apocryphal research but it was based on my experience and that of my female friends.”A certain percentage” might sound dubious but I know plenty of women who admit to being attracted to bastards. My research is just normal conversation. Plus even those who aren’t attracted to them will tell you that some of their friends are. In no way am I saying that any women deserves the treatment she got.
jane said,
July 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm
love is blind……and facing the truth is heartbreaking………
simon said,
July 23, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Is this country turning into America now with all these show trials. Bloody hell next we will have judge judy. This is not about justice it is about Drama no different then watching big brother
Petula said,
July 23, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Yes, definitely someone in the Garda leaking info to the Evening Herald. On the one hand you could argue the media kept the pressure on, kept the case in the public spotlight – a la Madeleine McCann’s disappearance – but really, it was just sensationalism, a cynical and irresponsible bid to sell newspapers.
Overall I think the gardai did a good job but this was disturbing. I wonder how Brian Kearney is feeling right now.
Joe H. said,
July 23, 2007 at 8:16 pm
The RTE website has the interview he did on the Late Late.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0723/oreilly.html
They helpfully provide this quote from the show.
‘This person, if we can even call them a person, needs help and needs to be taken out of society’
-Joe O’Reilly in reference to his wife’s murderer
He proposed in Paris “up the Eiffel Tower” …
Petula said,
July 23, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Anyone who proposes on the Eiffel Tower deserves to be locked up really.
His mother is quoted in today’s Times as saying: “I actually know he didn’t do it.” Well speak up woman because the only way you can know this is if you know who did do it and that person aint him.
FieldWork said,
July 23, 2007 at 9:37 pm
The Late Late show episode was disturbing viewing alright. Nobody who’s truly grieving would mention having to ‘clean up the blood’ so much.
sarah said,
July 24, 2007 at 8:55 am
yeah gardai were giving everything to the Herald who made is so obvious from day one he was the suspect. I really did think an unfair trial attempt could’ve been made by the defence.
anyway, on the personality at birth thing…I just look at my two children. They have utterly and completely different personalities and were that way since they arrived. Now of course, the environment they will be reared in will count a huge amount as to what they learn about life and relationships and how they adjust their personalities to deal with life (one is well behaved but highly emotional the other is destructive but contented in spirit). I think most mothers would agree.
However neurologists will tell you that the order of influence on a person’s personality is:
1. DNA
2. Order of birth
3. Peer influence
4. Parental guidance
jane said,
July 24, 2007 at 11:57 am
if the mother know’s for sure he didn’t do it then why oh why didn’t she speak up at the trial!!!!!! and what about the girlfriend how much does she know, she wouln’t say anything about the phone call the night before and the one the next morning
Paul Newton said,
July 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I don’t disagree that genetics is an important part of personality, there are some people who believe that personality is determined by the sign the sun was in the day you were born….I’m just a skeptic by nature…and dislike statements which purport to be true without some scientific opinion.. (i am a newton after all)
My two children have widely varying personalities too, but saying the personality is formed at birth (and that’s true) because of my personal experience is a bit like saying.
I was starer at by a nigerian person once – all nigerians are starers.
I prayed that jane would get over the flu and she did – God must be real.
I wore the same pair of underpants to all of the Roscommon minor games last year and they won – They must be lucky underpants.
(only the last statement is a fact)
Personality is an interesting thing and no one know’s for sure what the balance of the factors are… a neurologist will of course say the DNA, a psychologist will talk about socialisation and a father of teenagers like me will be wondering about peer influence.
As a society we keep looking for meaning because we want to analyise and control things….and we just can’t…. look there are people in England blaming the Government for the rain… we just want someone to blame….period.
Niall said,
July 24, 2007 at 1:57 pm
However neurologists will tell you that the order of influence on a person’s personality is:
1. DNA
2. Order of birth
3. Peer influence
4. Parental guidance
That’s a pretty weird list. Whatever about neurologists (who really have no business commenting on peer influence unless they’re freelancing) psychologists can’t agree on the relative importance of those factors.
That said, the evidence supports the notion that genetics are generally the most important factor. However, we only inherit genes. The phenotype is determined by the environment into which we are born. Genetics may be the piano but experience is the pianist.
Petula said,
July 24, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“what about the girlfriend how much does she know”
I’d say deep down *she knows* but is in denial. Doubt she was lying in bed beside him thinking ‘better watch my step’. More likely, it was a case of ‘poor ole Joe, how could they’… He was probably plausible. Had to laugh at the ‘photo’ of him in the Sun today peeling spuds in the prison kitchen wearing a stripey apron. Bet he didn’t do that at home. Also, anyone else wonder how a guy who works out so much managed to look so doughy?
John of Dublin said,
July 24, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Good debate by all.
My suspicion of his potential guilt goes back further than the Late Late Show. It was a public TV press conference shown on RTE News within a day or two of the crime. From recollection there was a table of people including detectives and Rachel’s mother. A man at the table was talking in newsreader fashion about the blood at the scene etc. I assumed he was a detective but the more he spoke I started to wonder… from detailed descriptions he gave he sounded like he could be her husband. What made me doubt this was his calm demeanor describing Rachel’s discovery. When I realised that the man talking was her husband I was stunned. Nobody but a cunning murderer could have spoken the way he did in front of TV cameras within a day of his wife’s brutal and violent death.
It reminded me a bit of the nutter who killed the two little girls in Soham in UK a few years earlier – also calm in front of TV cameras.
Moll said,
July 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I really have to wonder what sort of a relationship Rachel had with her family. I will probably get slaughtered for saying this, but not one member of Rachel’s family had any idea of what she as going through. Her mother said so during the interview with RTE 1 on Sunday. Her marraige was in all essence over. They were sleeping in seperate bedrooms according to him (that may or may not be true) but the tension in that house must have been un real.
I don’t know about anyone else commenting on this blog, but I know if I was ever in a bad relationship, married, kids, the lot, I know I could go home and tell some one. For me it boils down to self confidence & self esteem and knowing what type of behaviour is aceptable & what type is not. You cannot control other people’s action, but you can control your own. Rachel didn’t and paid the ultimate price.
Moll.
Sarah said,
July 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Well I would say two things
1. Just to elaborate on personality at birth etc. I think while the person’s personality is there when they are born (outgoing, shy, naturally content, sensitive etc) self-esteem is taught and that can dictate the nature of the relationships we choose. If someone believes they are worth loving they will insist on a higher standard in their chosen relationships.
2.On Moll’s point about telling the family- I wouldn’t necessarily judge that. People don’t tell their family things for all sorts of reasons unconnected with the health of their day to day relationship. Her family may well have been very loving but she may have felt a sense of shame over the failure of her marriage. Maybe she thought they could work it out. We just don’t know about that side of things, so I wouldn’t rush in there.
Susan Hated Literature » The O'Reilly case said,
July 26, 2007 at 10:06 am
[...] in all its detail from the very start, I never saw the Late Late when he was on it which seemed to persuade more than a few of his [...]
Petula said,
July 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Moll, I though the same thing until a friend pointed out that if her marriage were in trouble, she wouldn’t want to worry her elderly parents. Nor would she tell her siblings because she felt it would then get back to her parents. Unless and until they arrived at splitsville, she said she’d say nothing. If it were me I’d be blah blah every step of the way but different strokes… Maybe this was another aspect of her self-less good nature.
Moll said,
July 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Sarah I find the fact that you name the emotion of “shame” with regard to going to one’s family and saying my marriage is over, an interesting one. I would associate “relief” with this scenario.
Moll