Let Joe O’Reilly die in prison
JOE O’Reilly should die in jail unless he confesses to murdering his wife Rachel, her mother has said.
As wife-killer O’Reilly, 42, was led back to prison yesterday after losing his latest appeal, Rose Callaly made an emotional plea for him to finally come clean.
Speaking after the appeal verdict, she said: ‘I wonder does he think of Rachel and is he secretly ever sorry? But I don’t think he has a conscience. He probably wouldn’t feel the pain.’
Mrs Callaly said O’Reilly – who bludgeoned his wife to death at the north Co. Dublin home they shared in October 2004 – has insisted he is innocent ever since.
O’Reilly was convicted by a jury in July 2007 and jailed for life. But he has spent eight years mounting a series of appeals.
Yesterday, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed O’Reilly’s bid to bring his case before the Supreme Court judges. He has now exhausted all his options.
Afterwards, Mrs Callaly said: ‘I’m very relieved. This should be the end of it now, although you don’t know what’s going to happen. We’ve been on edge the whole time. It has caused us huge anxiety.
‘It would be a great thing if he admitted it. For us, the awful thing about it is that he keeps denying it. I just feel I’d love him to admit what he’s done. I feel it would set him free as well. He’s living a lie.’
Her husband Jim said: ‘When he was found guilty and sentenced, we thought that was the end of it all. But only a few months after, he appealed.’
Asked if she felt that O’Reilly should stay in jail until he dies, Mrs Callaly said: ‘If I could make the order, I’d say leave him in until then. Generally, the sentences don’t fit the crime. It was a horrific crime. I feel that if someone plans it, life should mean life. I feel he has lost the right to have freedom.’
In his appeal, O’Reilly claimed his conviction was a ‘ miscarriage of justice’ as a book of evidence was accidentally left in the jury room during his 20-day trial in 2007.
O’Reilly claimed the misplacing of the State file was such an important issue it merited a Supreme Court hearing into his conviction.
But the Appeal Court disagreed and said the conviction was safe. The court ruled that O’Reilly had been kept ‘fully informed of what was happening’ during his original Central Criminal Court.
O’Reilly had ‘fully engaged in the decision made’ by the trial judge to continue with proceedings.