Rachel’s family still left with unanswered questions

FIVE-and-a-half years after Rachel Kiely was killed by a neighbour while out walking the dogs, it is quite remarkable how the family has managed to rein in any feelings of anger and bitterness felt towards her killer.

The killing of Rachel was followed by not one murder trial, but two.

The original conviction for murder in 2002 was quashed in December 2004 when the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled it was unsafe and ordered a retrial.

In the original trial, Horgan had been given a life sentence for Rachel’s murder and 10 years for her rape. Last week, the 22-year-old was sentenced to eight years, six of which were suspended, after he was found guilty of the rape and manslaughter of the beautician at Ballincollig Regional Park.

Horgan is likely to walk free in 18 months due to the time already served.

“Rachel’s mum and dad, Rose and John, have not forgiven Ian Horgan for what he did, but they have realised they couldn’t continue with hatred burning in their hearts. You will never get over a death like that. The sense of devastation is tremendous and the sorrow will always be there,” says David Dunlea, Rachel’s brother-in-law.

Rachel’s involvement with the Jehovah’s Witness community was well documented. Her family believe faith has given them hope.

“We don’t understand last week’s judgment, but if that was all that Mr Justice Barry White felt he could do, then fair enough,” said Mr Dunlea.

He and Rachel’s other family members are still asking questions. “It was very hard for us that the second case was the only one taken into account, not the earlier hearing where the former State Pathologist had given excellent evidence on our behalf.

Dr Harbison, who conducted the autopsy on Rachel’s body, could not give evidence in the second trial, due to ill health. As a result, legal history was created when his successor, Dr Cassidy, was cross-examined on the pathological evidence by using photos taken at the original post mortem.

The Kiely family also believe the judge had the potential to opt for more severe sentencing. “There is legislation there to give a life sentence for rape, and he didn’t do that. He could also have taken the option to ensure that the rape and manslaughter sentences ran consecutively, rather than concurrently.

“Another thing that really bothered us was how the judge could question Ian Horgan’s ability to ever be fully rehabilitated, yet then give him a sentence that will allow him to re-enter society in less than 18 months. That does not make sense,” he said.