Unsafe And Unfair

So the jury found Joe O'Reilly guilty of murdering his wife Rachel. So they were unanimous. It's all so unfair, according to Joe himself.

Hard to argue with Mr. O'Reilly's point, that his trial was unsatisfactory. Well, sure, he was found guilty, wasn't he, and that's not particularly pleasing to the convicted. Should the judge examine that particular point from Rachel O'Reilly's perspective, he or she would have to believe that the trial was thoroughly satisfactory. In which case, Mr. O'Reilly must take the egotistical tack and make it all about him. No trouble there.

Reportedly, there are eleven points of contention that Mr. O'Reilly's legal counsel is certain will render the verdict unsafe. For example, the mobile phone records that showed himself in the vicinity of the house when Mrs. O'Reilly was murdered should not have been shown to the jury.

There you have it. By presenting evidence, the court was unfair to Joe O'Reilly. How could any reasonable judge have allowed such things in the courtroom as proof that a man was at the scene of a crime when the crime was committed? What about all the other bits and pieces, the testimony of witnesses who said they weren't with Joe when he said they were, and they couldn't account for his whereabouts while the murder went down?

In summation, we must conclude that no evidence should have been presented at the trial, and no witnesses called for the prosecution. Eliminate all that, and how could a jury have tendered a unanimous verdict of guilty? The prosecution's evidence tainted the trial, and Joe O'Reilly won't be satisfied until he's gotten away with murder.