Beyond reasonable doubt: that's the test that protects you and me from being falsely imprisoned.

I think Joe O Reilly is guilty, but I don't think the State proved it.

(By the way, could you please not write comments in text speak next time? I have a policy of deleting them but I'll leave yours just this once since you put so much effort into it. If you're doing research, I imagine you're a student who should be able to write in English.)

Bock, yes fine you are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that Joe is either completely innocent of his wifes murder and too much of an idiot to give an alibi that hasnt got as many holes as swiss cheese, or hes as guilty as sin.

you think someone should only be convicted if it can fully verified that they done it without ANY doubt at all. do you not get how unreasonable that is, yes, we live in a democracy but if u were tried for a murder u didnt commit do u not think youd start tellin the complete truth. of course the jury will have some doubt their decision could ruin an innocent mans life or it could let a guilty man walk, and i no i wouldnt take that decision lightly regardless of public opinion.

whatever evidence of the murder was either contaminated (by him trying to revive her) or removed (him having the shower) or explained by the fact they were married and lived together.

you ask bout the fact that there was not one molecule of blood in the car well as Xenophon said he had a shower and even if there had been a molecule of blood in the car, as there probably was, but 1 its such a small amount that annalysis wouldnt be able to be done on it and 2 once again they were married and lived together, so im sure she had been in his car at some stage, do u not think he would have thought of a plausable excuse just incase?

and finally no matter how bad his and rachels relationship was do u really think all their friends, neighbours and finally her family would try would make up little stories about how he said "everyones a suspect your a suspect and im a suspect" or when talking about the murder smiling and saying "well, i know where i was" just to see him in prison, im sure at least one of them would have had a conscience or that they made up that he started reenacting the murder saying what "would" have happened when, because no matter how good forensic science is it cant tell the order of when injuries happened, the scientist themselves can only give their opinion.

and yes i no u have said u do believe dat hes guilty but that the evidence wasnt there to justify a guilty verdict. as plenty of people have said CSI etc have all become more popular and yes they are aload of shite but its because of CSI that murderers are starting to tink of the little things that might just fail to prove they did it so if the system was how u want it to be its these murderers that would walk amoung us. and maybe you wud be happier with that kinda system but i for 1 would not.

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.