Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Zirconia

I think he will appeal and get off to be honest. He probably did it - based on what I heard I think he did it, but what we had in the case is a preponderance of evidence (i.e. it is more probable than not), but this isn't really enough in a criminal case, it has to be proven without a doubt. I think he'll be out in the not too distant future.

monkeybutter

Zirconia wrote: »

I think he will appeal and get off to be honest. He probably did it - based on what I heard I think he did it, but what we had in the case is a preponderance of evidence (i.e. it is more probable than not), but this isn't really enough in a criminal case, it has to be proven without a doubt. I think he'll be out in the not too distant future.

what grounds for the appeal?


it's not without a doubt


it's without a reasonable one


I mean aliens could have abducted him and then returned the body to the tank for him to then innocently find just as he was moving out , off the milking parlour he wasn't even using

Captain_Crash

Its been a while since I studied criminal law so forgive my rustiness, but aren't you only able to appeal a conviction on a point of law?

So if the DPP had all the I's dotted and T's crossed, there isn't anything to appeal?

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I'd love to know what he did with the body immmediately after the murder - if he had disturbed the tank then, surely even a basic scan of the area would have aroused suspicion. He must have hid it somewhere else for a few days at least until the attention died down.

Accordiing to the fly larva expert, he (or whoever did it) must have immediately put it in the tank and sealed it,, as the flies had only started their work 11 days before discovery. Unless of course he put the body in a freezer or something and then transferred it to the tank I suppose ...

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

You don't need any of that as long as your circumstantial evidence is strong enough, as we have seen multiple times before.

Why do people have such a problem grasping this?

Loafing Oaf

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. .

If the state is building a case around Quirke's motive of sexual obsession and jealousy, I think this stuff was entirely relevant, distasteful and all as it to be airing it in court.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

was any of that introduced as evidence in court? I know the sex tapes were ruled out of evidence.

monkeybutter

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

the fact the wife looks just like Mary Lowry but with a wig on. Are they really the same person all along?



tell us what info do you have?

sligojoek

Joe Duffy playing an old clip of when Quirke's mother rang liveline in 2005.

Beechwoodspark

sligojoek wrote: »

Joe Duffy playing an old clip of when Quirke's mother rang liveline in 2005.

This def his mother?

sligojoek

Joe said it was at the start.

PhilOssophy

If he had attempted to put it in a tank on somebody else's farm he would have been on an episode of World's Dumbest Criminals.

monkeybutter

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If he had attempted to put it in a tank on somebody else's farm he would have been on an episode of World's Dumbest Criminals.

no he might, i mean might have gotten away with it




what he did was pure dumb




it was years later, the coast was clear, nobody was looking for him at that stage really


jesus bury him on the farm


in a bog


anywhere


he was in the clear and he bottled it

PhilOssophy

monkeybutter wrote: »

no he might, i mean might have gotten away with it




what he did was pure dumb




it was years later, the coast was clear, nobody was looking for him at that stage really


jesus bury him on the farm


in a bog


anywhere


he was in the clear and he bottled it

Agree, bury it somewhere and he had it sorted! The Google searches and the subsequent discovery nailed him! But hey, Karma!

frenchpoodle

This is my opinion , and Im new on here, but feel that he should come clean and admit what happened .if he did it, he has nothing to lose now, {I wrote a longer post ,but deleted it }

the truth is good for the soul and helps all involved heal from the grief, especially the Ryan family. I have seen the greed for land and money first hand, and know how far some will go to cover up their lies, and corruption and get away with it from unsuspecting victims.

horseofstone

What prison has pat quirke being sent to I wonder? Anyone know ?

freshpopcorn

horseofstone wrote: »

What prison has pat quirke being sent to I wonder? Anyone know ?

Mountjoy!

realdanbreen

horseofstone wrote: »

What prison has pat quirke being sent to I wonder? Anyone know ?

Are you thinking of going to see him?

freshpopcorn

realdanbreen wrote: »

Are you thinking of going to see him?

He'll probably have a load of people writing to him now!

branie2

Justice for the family

Neyite

monkeybutter wrote: »

no he might, i mean might have gotten away with it
what he did was pure dumb
it was years later, the coast was clear, nobody was looking for him at that stage really
jesus bury him on the farm
in a bog
anywhere
he was in the clear and he bottled it

I don't think he did bottle it.

I think his intention was to discover the body of HER missing boyfriend buried on HER land and hopefully the gardai would consider her the prime suspect given she was the last person to have seen him.

Then when she's safely in prison for murder that pesky issue of her not renewing the lease to him becomes a non-issue and her children have their dear uncle kindly step in to run the farm for them until they come of age.

It was about land, not love.

freshpopcorn

Did anybody hear Liveline Today?
I saw a Tweet saying that Quirke's mother rang in to say he got prosession of the family home against her will in 2005.
It sounded messy.

Boggles

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

IMV the defence lawyers were a bit wet and weak.

Wonder if he got FLA? anyone know. If not it will have cost him for sure.

Most people unless they are minted will be awarded aid on charges with such a "severe" sentence.

givyjoe

Neyite wrote: »

I don't think he did bottle it.

I think his intention was to discover the body of HER missing boyfriend buried on HER land and hopefully the gardai would consider her the prime suspect given she was the last person to have seen him.

Then when she's safely in prison for murder that pesky issue of her not renewing the lease to him becomes a non-issue and her children have their dear uncle kindly step in to run the farm for them until they come of age.

It was about land, not love.

Extremely far fetched. He didn't know she was going to eventually not renew the lease at the time of murder. None of the evidence points to that theory.

Edgware

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was any of that introduced as evidence in court? I know the sex tapes were ruled out of evidence.

Any time I see womens knickers on a clothes line I always check to see what brand they are. Just out of curiosity

Neyite

givyjoe wrote: »

Extremely far fetched. He didn't know she was going to eventually not renew the lease at the time of murder. None of the evidence points to that theory.

I agree he didn't know she wouldn't renew the lease in the future. He thought the body was safe there and would never be discovered. He leased the land, he controlled Mrs Lowry so he was in the clear.

Until she was no longer under his control and she consulted with a solicitor on terminating the lease with him.

Then the body on land he has no right to access becomes a big problem.

The only thing he could do was either leave it alone and hope that she didn't get a survey done in order to sell, or lease it to someone who would open it.
Or discover it as an innocent bystander -which he did- and he obviously gave it enough thought to wonder who the Gardai would consider the prime suspect and had a strong sense that it would not be him.

Call me Al

I completely agree with you Neyite.

I think this man is a complete control-freak. He wanted to control this widow and her land.
He had lost one and now he was losing the other as a consequence.
And he was expecting the finger of guilt to be pointed straight at her.
I'm not a bit surprised at the story that has emerged regarding his own mother and how he took the title of her home out from under her. The family farm wasn't enough for him by all accounts.

recyclebin

One thing that has me confused is the van. How did it get to the woods and how come no DNA evidence foind that quirke moved it there.

givyjoe

Neyite wrote: »

I agree he didn't know she wouldn't renew the lease in the future. He thought the body was safe there and would never be discovered. He leased the land, he controlled Mrs Lowry so he was in the clear.

Until she was no longer under his control and she consulted with a solicitor on terminating the lease with him.

Then the body on land he has no right to access becomes a big problem.

The only thing he could do was either leave it alone and hope that she didn't get a survey done in order to sell, or lease it to someone who would open it.
Or discover it as an innocent bystander -which he did- and he obviously gave it enough thought to wonder who the Gardai would consider the prime suspect and had a strong sense that it would not be him.

That's a theory on his actions after the murder, not why the murder was committed in the first place. None of the evidence from the doctor, the agony aunt, the underwear thieving underwear etc points to the murder being motivated by land.