O'Brien found not guilty murder

KevIRL

O'Brien found not guilty murder
Friday, 9 May 2008 13:00

John O'Brien has been found not guilty of the murder of his wife Meg Walsh in 2006.

A jury of seven men and five women spent five hours and 20 minutes of deliberating at the Central Criminal Court.

More than 120 witnesses gave evidence during the trial that lasted for almost four weeks.

RxQueen

OMG :eek:

Cabaal

I'm curious if he'll move back to Waterford, I doubt it...mainly because people view him as guilty here

Now while I personally think he might be its upto the courts to make that decision and they have now

Mossy Monk

emo!! wrote: »

OMG :eek:

What? He was found innocent. Why so shocked? Because most people had him down as guilty before proven innocent?

RxQueen

Mossy Monk wrote: »

What? He was found innocent. Why so shocked? Because most people had him down as guilty before proven innocent?

cause i just am,
people are entitled to there own opinion.

Sully

Considering the piles of evidence against him, I am also supprised he was not convicted. I think him being questioned did it for him tbh. Can the state appeal the decision I wonder?

Anyway, looks like the jury believed he did not kill her. Therefore, regardless of our personal opinion - we cant judge him as a murderer. He is now an innocent man and we have to respect that. Such comments will be deleted as they would be false allegations and slanderous.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Considering the piles of evidence against him, I am also supprised he was not convicted. I think him being questioned did it for him tbh. Can the state appeal the decision I wonder?

Anyway, looks like the jury believed he did not kill her. Therefore, regardless of our personal opinion - we cant judge him as a murderer. He is now an innocent man and we have to respect that. Such comments will be deleted as they would be false allegations and slanderous.

there was not a shred of hard evidence against him. it was all circumstantial. If someone could be convicted on hearesay then it would of been a bad day for the Irish justice system. The DPP should not have proceeded with the case.

no murder weapon was found, they don't have a crime scene, while he was being questioned in the Garda station witnesses for the defence saw what they believed to be Megs car being driven around the ardkeen area - therefore this evidence of the prosecution had to be thrown out, as there was a conflict of evidence

The Birmingham six were convicted on circumstantial evidence like this and look what happened to them

Cabaal

Bards wrote: »

The Birmingham six were convicted on circumstantial evidence like this and look what happened to them

ah I could be wrong but I believe they were convicted after a false confession was affectively beaten out of them also false evidence such as Griess test

decies

Bards wrote: »

there was not a shred of hard evidence against him. it was all circumstantial. If someone could be convicted on hearesay then it would of been a bad day for the Irish justice system. The DPP should not have proceeded with the case.

no murder weapon was found, they don't have a crime scene, while he was being questioned in the Garda station witnesses for the defence saw what they believed to be Megs car being driven around the ardkeen area - therefore this evidence of the prosecution had to be thrown out, as there was a conflict of evidence

The Birmingham six were convicted on circumstantial evidence like this and look what happened to them

To be honest if i was on the jury i would have to find him not quilty on the evidence given,we have seen a few of these type of cases where the evidence was certainly not 100% conclusive.
Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome,to be honest on the evidence given i think it was the correct verdict to be given.

Not The Real Scarecrow

just curious about something in Ireland. In other countries I believe that there is some law that states that you can't be tried for the same crime twice.Was wondering if this is the same in Ireland, that is, that say some one who was found innocent of a crime , could they possibly get brought to trial again for the same crime if new evidence emerged?

CantGetNoSleep

Firstly John O'Brien was not proven innocent. He was found not guilty. There is a significant distinction between the two of those. However he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, and at the end of the day that is how he should be looked upon rregardless of opinion here in Waterford

I would say that there was very little evidence against him, so comments like the one above from Sully are mind boggling to say the least. There was no way someone should be convicted on the evidence put forward by the prosecution here. If he had been convicted on that evidence I feel we would have had to look seriously at the viability of the jury system as the basis for criminal trials in this country.

There is now a method of the prosecution appealing an aquittal in some circumstances, I will post up the specifics later

Sully

Sorry if my comments are mind boggling. I honestly thought that the evidence was pretty good even though it was circumstantial. It painted a clear picture. The lying to the guards, his abusive history, blood in the car, keys, passport, mobile, standing by the spot she was later found etc. I dont think the Guards have any other person they thought may have done it - O'Brien was always under the spotlight. Fair enough it wasn't concrete evidence but it does make it out that he might be guilty.

Thats what I was basing my opinion on but the jury disagree and did not convict him. I understand why, I just thought the evidence could be used and was surprised they didnt use it. I respect their decision and will always treat him as a normal person regardless.

BazBox

Sully wrote: »

Sorry if my comments are mind boggling. I honestly thought that the evidence was pretty good even though it was circumstantial. It painted a clear picture. The lying to the guards, his abusive history, blood in the car, keys, passport, mobile, standing by the spot she was later found etc. I dont think the Guards have any other person they thought may have done it - O'Brien was always under the spotlight. Fair enough it wasn't concrete evidence but it does make it out that he might be guilty.

Thats what I was basing my opinion on but the jury disagree and did not convict him. I understand why, I just thought the evidence could be used and was surprised they didnt use it. I respect their decision and will always treat him as a normal person regardless.

I agree with what you said Sully, that he was an obvious suspect for the police due to the circumstantial evidence you mentioned above, but does anyone else here think that people have a stigma that once a person is in the spotlight for cases like this that he is automatically assumed guilty??Even if down the line someone else was found guilty of the murder John O Brien will always be seen as the main suspect, even though he was found not guilty.Anyone agree?

dlofnep

We have to understand that the jury is far more knowledgeable about this than we are. We read the tabloids and that is our primary source of information on this.

Now in saying that, through the circumstantial evidence - I personally thought he would be found guilty, but he wasn't. Now I was banned from politics about a year ago for saying that farmer up yonder murdered that traveller due to him shooting him in the back as he tried to get away.. So I think the same thing should be enforced here.

According to the courts (which often can get it wrong) - He is legally not held responsible for her murder. Personally in cases like this, I'd like to see a lie detector test to be taken (i know they can be wrong, but are generally 99% correct).. And not to even convict him, but just for public sake to know what the real truth is.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

We have to understand that the jury is far more knowledgeable about this than we are. We read the tabloids and that is our primary source of information on this.

No, we all dont.

I certinally didnt. I read the Irish Times or The Indo. I listened to the news on the Radio (Beat or 2FM). I think the coverage was very poor compared to the last murder case, so I dont think that our knowledge was much. Local papers gave a good description of each day and what was presented in court.

Sully

BazBox wrote: »

I agree with what you said Sully, that he was an obvious suspect for the police due to the circumstantial evidence you mentioned above, but does anyone else here think that people have a stigma that once a person is in the spotlight for cases like this that he is automatically assumed guilty??Even if down the line someone else was found guilty of the murder John O Brien will always be seen as the main suspect, even though he was found not guilty.Anyone agree?

I thought he would be found guilty by the evidence presented. I mean, he abused his wife, lied to the cops, blood was found in the car as well as hers, notes ripped up etc. He was always the prime suspect and I dont even know if they even considered someone else for the case? Despite rumors.

But clearly they all didnt agree. I support that decision.

CantGetNoSleep

In a criminal case the jury has to be sure that the accused is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Clearly John O'Brien wasn't. I did think that the jury would convict him anyway though regardless of whether there was any reasonable doubt or not, but alas they didnt

The balance of probabilities does point to John O'Brien, however the strongest part of the evidence was the car. It was established that the car was driven while John O Brien was in Garda questioning. This establishes a reasonable doubt which has to be taken into account

Sully

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

The balance of probabilities does point to John O'Brien, however the strongest part of the evidence was the car. It was established that the car was driven while John O Brien was in Garda questioning. This establishes a reasonable doubt which has to be taken into account

Well wasnt that comment made by a friend of Johns? Would that not be considered biased witness statement? I dont suspect for a second he would lie, but I would have thought the court wouldnt allow a friend of the victim give evidence for fear of bias?

Also, I think what the judge said was a blow for the state. He lied, it was used as evidence and the judge decides then not to let them use it. I think that was out of order imo.

Woodgate

Sully wrote: »

I thought he would be found guilty by the evidence presented. I mean, he abused his wife, lied to the cops, blood was found in the car as well as hers, notes ripped up etc.

Again as said by other posters, what you are saying is circumstantial evidence. There was no rock solid proof for the actual crime he was charged with.

Sully

Woodgate wrote: »

Again as said by other posters, what you are saying is circumstantial evidence. There was no rock solid proof for the actual crime he was charged with.

Yes but wasnt Joe ORielly convicted on that? He lied about his whereabouts, and that seemed to convict him.

Dudess

Bards wrote: »

The Birmingham six were convicted on circumstantial evidence like this and look what happened to them

Dodgy forensic "evidence" I thought?

CantGetNoSleep

I personally think Joe O Reilly will get off on appeal, but even so they showed that he was in the area his wife was killed at the time she was killed. With John O Brien they have nothing remotely as conclusive as that.

Did they not have the car on CCTV at one of the times he was being interviewed too?

And the judge never said lies couldn't be used as evidence or taken into account by the jury, he said there are many reasons why people tell lies and that they should consider whether the lies or inconsistencies had an innocent explanation or served to concealing Mr O’Brien’s guilt


http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/?c=IRELAND&jp=mhgbkfkfojgb&d=2008-05-08

Sully

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I personally think Joe O Reilly will get off on appeal, but even so they showed that he was in the area his wife was killed at the time she was killed. With John O Brien they have nothing remotely as conclusive as that.

Did they not have the car on CCTV at one of the times he was being interviewed too?

Ah, I thought the CCTV was just the car being parked. They didn't recognise the figure (which I am surprised they don't have the technology to give a clear picture) but the two keys were found. There was no evidence she got a third key, and if she did, they had to have both keys present and John admitted he had one all the time (I think?).

Tbh, I have my doubts he did it. I think he clearly has a temper but if he has a temper to murder - I have my doubts. But who else would? There was no suggestion in the slightest it might have been somewhere else? (Besides rumours that it was senior guards and crap). If he did, could he stand up in court and give evidence denying it? In court pressure bare in mind.

And the judge never said lies couldn't be used as evidence or taken into account by the jury, he said there are many reasons why people tell lies and that they should consider whether the lies or inconsistencies had an innocent explanation or served to concealing Mr O’Brien’s guilt


http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/?c=IRELAND&jp=mhgbkfkfojgb&d=2008-05-08

I think that had a big affect. But yes, I suppose if I was on the jury I could not say I was 100% sure. He was found not guilty, I respect that and I think everyone else just has to now.

Musashi

On the evidence I heard I would have had to give a verdict of "Not Guilty" as well.

I think Scotland has the option of a verdict of "Not Proven", which is a fair bit different.

Either way this man has been found not guilty and is entitled to not be harassed or dogged by the media (or private citizens) following the court case. He should now be allowed to mourn his father and try to get his life back together.

BlaasForRafa

OJ Simpson was also found "not guilty"......

kryogen

OJ was found not guilty, very true......Ruben Carter was found guilty....... George Bush is still a free man......

The world isnt perfect. the facts are if this man was convicted on that evidence it would be a sad day for the judicial system and just because everyone thinks he commited the crime doesnt make it so and doesnt mean he deserves to be persecuted for it

do we live in a society of law and order or not? we must adhere to the courts decision.

i have a slight personal connection to the story,and from what i know,he wasnt a pleasant man. im still undecided as to whether he actually did it or not, but the truth is it doesnt matter whether i think he did it or anyone else for that matter, he will more then likely leave the city anyway.

cant see him wanting to stick around and be hassled or worse still, attacked and harmed by those who refuse to adhere to the laws they profess to uphold with vigilante style "justice", not that im saying anything like that will happen, just that it is a small percentage possiblity

i know if i was in his position i would want to get away from here and try to build a new life where nobody knew my name

Sully

As far as I am aware, he will be back working in Waterford next week. I think he had said he would return this week to CIE, IIRC?

Ya probably not the most plesent man, but I do have a doubt that he did it myself. Im really unsure. If I killed someone, could I really stand up in front of a court room and deny it? Tough call for this jury tbh.

EDIT: Yup, he called work last week and told them he would be returning to work. Indo has a good few pages on the story. Wonder how he knew he would get away with the murder charge?

Boggles

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

OJ Simpson was also found "not guilty"......

That was TV, not real life!

longshanks

Sully wrote: »

As far as I am aware, he will be back working in Waterford next week. I think he had said he would return this week to CIE, IIRC?

wouldn't say there'll be too much messing on that bus

Sully

longshanks wrote: »

wouldn't say there'll be too much messing on that bus

Very good lol

Paddy@CIRL

Sully wrote: »

Wonder how he knew he would get away with the murder charge?

Probably because he knew he done nothing wrong ?