As much as I have always thought that Joe O’Reilly was guilty of murdering his wife, Rachel O’Reilly, I can’t help but feel that the conviction was a little strange.
Every shred of evidence was circumstantial and there doesn’t seem to have been any physical evidence at all linking him to the crime. Is this setting a precendent for future cases? All the prosecutors need to do now is create a situation that will look as though the suspect was involved. How the jury found “beyond all resonable doubt” that Joe O’Reilly was guilty, is beyond me. The judge at one stage asked the jury at one stage, ”ask yourself how you would feel if you were found guilty on the evidence put before you”. He too obviously felt the evidence was a little too circumstantial for a conviction.
In saying all that, it seemed obvious to me that this guy was the killer and I’m glad the system was able to put him away.