‘Actions of this killer were far from someone in panic’
Dominic McGinn BL was closing the case for the prosecution on the 19th day of the trial of O’Reilly, aged 35, of Lambay View, Baldarragh, The Naul, Co Dublin, who has pleaded not guilty to murdering his 30-year-old wife and mother of two, Rachel O’Reilly, at the family home on October 4, 2004.
Mr McGinn told the jury: “Up until now you have had a passive observing role. Now your role rises to the top. Your role is the most important role, to decide whether Joe O’Reilly is guilty or not guilty. The evidence is in your domain, your province.”
He told them while he was going to try to persuade them there was “only one inescapable conclusion” to the case, they didn’t have to agree with the comments he was going to make and they would take the rules of law from the judge.
“If you come to a conclusion on the evidence, that is final,” he said.
He said: “The duty of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
But, he told them if they had any reasonable doubt, then they must find him not guilty.
He explained the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” has perhaps lost some of its value because of its presence in films and TV, but said it was a rule of law which they had to abide by.
He said a niggle or something at the back of your mind is not reasonable doubt. He added: “My suggestion is that there is none.”
He reminded them they were to try the case only on the evidence they heard in court, and not what they might have heard or read elsewhere.
He said while it can’t have been easy for Ms O’Reilly’s family to sit here and listen to the evidence or for Joe O’Reilly and his family, they shouldn’t decide the case on emotion, sympathy or prejudice.
“You have to assess the evidence in that cold, analytical manner,” he said.
He told them Ms O’Reilly was found dead by her mother at their home in the Naul and that she was last seen driving children to school.
“The assumption is that she must have come straight home,” he said.
He said CCTV footage at Murphy’s Quarry shows her silver/grey Renault Scenic leaving at 9.03am and coming back to the house again at 9.41am.
He said there was “no dispute” as to the cause of her death.
He asked them to look at the photo of the O’Reilly home which showed a large amount of blood there.
“The first thing you can be sure of is Rachel O’Reilly was murdered,” he said.
And he reminded them of the words of Rachel’s mother, Rose Callaly, who said: “As soon as I saw her I knew she was dead and I knew she had been murdered.”
But, he said, there were other undeniable facts, including the time of the attack.
He said while Prof Cassidy couldn’t pinpoint the time of death, as death may not have been instantaneous, the time of the attack had to have been fairly soon after Rachel came home.
He said this must be so because the car keys were underneath her body indicating she had just arrived home.
“The real question is who did it,” he said.
He said because there were drawers pulled out and several DVDs strewn across the floor, the first assumption was that it was a random killing by a burglar. However, he urged them to consider whether this “seems likely or possible”.
“The evidence shows it to be impossible,” he said.
He said Dr Daly told them there was so much blood she couldn’t see the injuries.
She did a blood pattern analysis, which showed she was beaten while lying on the ground.
He said given the amount of blood, whoever attacked her would be covered in blood.
“If her attacker had got up and walked out through the hallway to the decking surely you’d expect traces of it to be elsewhere,” he added.
Referring to the blood that was on the washing machine which was found to belong to that of her brother, Thomas Lowe, he said there was an assumption on the part of the defence he must be the killer.
However, he added: “This is pure speculation that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.”
He explained if her brother had been the attacker, then why was there none of his blood at the scene of attack? He said the blood on the washing machine indicates if he had been the killer, that he didn’t try to clean up after himself.
“This is speculation and it is not allowed,” he said. Furthermore, he added Mr Lowe admitted to gardaí that it was his blood and said Mr O’Reilly himself also told gardaí that Mr Lowe often did work around the house.
“The only way for the killer to get out of the house without leaving a trail of blood would be to have a wash,” he said.
Mr McGinn then asked the jury to consider what a ‘typical burglar’ does when he breaks into his house.
He said: “He doesn’t wait to encounter someone and if they do they panic. The actions of this killer were far from someone in panic. He stopped and had a wash so as to have no drips. It wasn’t someone who happened to be there by chance.”
He added: “The thing to do would be to get out. He wouldn’t hang around and have a wash. Perhaps he was a calm burglar. But this doesn’t fit in either.”
He explained: “Why wouldn’t he finish the burglary? There was a handbag with €450 in cash and there was a plastic container in the kitchen with €860 in it.”
He went on: “Instead the burglar leaves with a camera and some of Rachel’s jewellery. There was no blood on this.”
He also asked them to consider why the burglar would then leave the stolen goods in a ditch 200 yards from the house.
“The reality is it wasn’t a burglary or random attack,” he said.
He added: “The evidence points to someone who knew they wouldn’t be disturbed. It was someone who tried to make it look like a burglary.”
He reminded the jury that O’Reilly told a friend that he was convinced the killer knew Ms O’Reilly.
Mr McGinn said that if so, the killer must have had a reason and asked them to consider who had a motive or reason to kill her.
In summing up, Mr McGinn said pieces of evidence alone are not conclusive but together they form a pattern of guilt.
