nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Patrick Quirke -Guilty

knucklehead6

Seems to me the ex had something to do with this too

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Edgware

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, therefore when a verdict is given it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. When people are surprised it tends to suggest that it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, in fact it's more of a lottery. Effectively you'd be willing to bet the farm on him having done it, it's an extremely onerous standard.

From what I read in the media, I couldn't see how any reasonable person could consider that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

This is likely to be overturned on appeal.

On what grounds?

The jury spent weeks listening to evidence and several days considering their verdict.
Most of the experts here are making opinions on the contents of a column in The Star.
It may be circumstantial evidence but it is still evidence and the jury has considered it carefully

realdanbreen

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It was found on the farm he was leasing. So he had the motive, opportunity, the body was hidden on his *leased* farm, in a place only he and a few others knew about; somebody was using his computer to search the web for information on human decomposition and the effectiveness of dna evidence; and the body was conveniently “discovered” by him, given that he was going to have to leave at the end of the lease.

But also there’s no evidence against him and how did this ever get to trial according to some on here.

But if he did kill him and put him in the tank why did he not either dissolve the body or cover the body in concrete, he had two years to do so.

ChippingSodbury

I'm really surprised with the guilty verdict. Do I think he did it from the evidence in the media? Probably (as in a bit more likely than not) but definitely not beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn't it possible he had an enemy who set him up? Possibly Mary Lowry, possibly someone not even covered in the investigation? There are just too many possibilities of things that could explain the circumstantial evidence as either coincidental or something else.

I think I recognise one of those sites on decomposition in Texas: if I remember correctly, it was on TV in some Real Murders program or something like that. It's not inconceivable to think he saw it on tv and looked it up at the time/ afterwards. How many people watch the Brennan Brothers on a Sunday and look up the guest house/ hotel/ holiday home while the program is on??

Cryptopagan

topnotch wrote: »

Surely an appeal is on the cards. I can’t see how they can convict someone when there is no hard evidence.

I’m not a forensic pathologist, but I think a dead body might be classed as hard evidence in a murder case.

Cryptopagan

realdanbreen wrote: »

Opportunity? Loads of people had the opportunity as is the case in most murder trials. The body was not found on his farm. Nobody can say how he died, when he died, nobody witnessed a struggle. I don't know whether Quirke did it or not, no more than you do, but the guilty verdict is nonsensical.

It was found on the farm he was leasing. So he had the motive, opportunity, the body was hidden on his *leased* farm, in a place only he and a few others knew about; somebody was using his computer to search the web for information on human decomposition and the effectiveness of dna evidence; and the body was conveniently “discovered” by him, given that he was going to have to leave at the end of the lease.

But also there’s no evidence against him and how did this ever get to trial according to some on here.

Charles Ingles

Think there was a pair of them in it.

freshpopcorn

castletownman wrote: »

Lowry seems a bit loolah. How she was getting so much action is beyond me.

I remember I was on a night out some time in 2012 with people close enough from the area.
I got the impression that the himself and the people who lived in the house around where he was last seen were characters.

knucklehead6

Arghus wrote: »

People saying they're surprised he was convicted must have been listening to different reports to me.

Either he was guilty or he was very, very unlucky with coincidences.

I'd say that they mean the reports they heard were not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt to them.

I felt he was guilty but i also felt the case was built on slightly shaky ground too

topnotch

Surely an appeal is on the cards. I can’t see how they can convict someone when there is no hard evidence. Thinking someone is guilty is very different to knowing someone has committed a crime. The jury have misunderstood “beyond a reasonable doubt” in my opinion.

Also the part with the notepad was a joke. It was like someone using a oujia board to get a message from the other side.

realdanbreen

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Yeah, all they had on him was the motive and the opportunity...and the actual body of the murder victim hidden in a concealed water tank on his farm that only he and a few others knew about.

Opportunity? Loads of people had the opportunity as is the case in most murder trials. The body was not found on his farm. Nobody can say how he died, when he died, nobody witnessed a struggle. I don't know whether Quirke did it or not, no more than you do, but the guilty verdict is nonsensical.

castletownman

Lowry seems a bit loolah. How she was getting so much action is beyond me.

Arghus

People saying they're surprised he was convicted must have been listening to different reports to me.

Either he was guilty or he was very, very unlucky with coincidences.

Faugheen

kerry cow wrote: »

no dna in the van ? was the seat forward or back ?, where is his phone and clothes ? no murder scene , house redecorated after the murder , the kids away that night , the van found really quickly by I think Mary , pulling down posters , lying about hotel bookings , I really feel sorry for quirke as evidence is weak ,and I am a good man to convict ,but so sad for his wife who has also lost a son , betrayed by her husband and sister in law ,
sorry for imelda ,

Just ignore the overwhelming evidence against Quirke then.

I love the way some people are calling the Quirke evidence ‘weak’ then point fingers at the equally circumstantial evidence against Mary Lowry.

MrMusician18

BarryD2 wrote: »

Said with scary conviction! Just hope that if any misfortune befalls you and you end up on trial, that the jurors will be open minded

It's meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, therefore when a verdict is given it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. When people are surprised it tends to suggest that it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, in fact it's more of a lottery. Effectively you'd be willing to bet the farm on him having done it, it's an extremely onerous standard.

From what I read in the media, I couldn't see how any reasonable person could consider that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

This is likely to be overturned on appeal.

kerry cow

no dna in the van ? was the seat forward or back ?, where is his phone and clothes ? no murder scene , house redecorated after the murder , the kids away that night , the van found really quickly by I think Mary , pulling down posters , lying about hotel bookings , I really feel sorry for quirke as evidence is weak ,and I am a good man to convict ,but so sad for his wife who has also lost a son , betrayed by her husband and sister in law ,
sorry for imelda ,

Cryptopagan

Laois_Man wrote: »

The link I have already given gives the exact searches that were used and the exact articles that were read, which were not about decomposition in water

And it gives the dates of the second searches - a year and a half after the murder with the first searches at least two years before the murder.

They weren't 2 years before the murder.

KaneToad

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Its important to note that the guards did a shambles of a job in this case, real amateur stuff.

I didn't seem that way to me. The defence certainly tried to portray that way but I don't think any of their points were of much consequence. My reading of the media reports was that the guards did pretty much what you would expect of them. One might argue that they did exceptionally well, given that the evidence they gathered has secured a murder conviction.

Faugheen

Laois_Man wrote: »

Try this one then

Ryan was murdered in 2014

Searches about body decomposition took place before his son died

But his son died in August 2012

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boy-killed-in-trailer-accident-on-family-dairy-farm-26885315.html

Did he plan pre-August 2012 to murder someone and not get around to it until a couple of years later?

Bobby Ryan went missing in 2011...

Gaillimh1976

Faugheen wrote: »

You really need to read up on how the media can report court cases if you think this is a possibility.

Spin may be the wrong word

More emphasis on certain parts than others is really what I mean

Rest of the point still stands

Laois_Man

Faugheen wrote: »

Granted I got my dates wrong, but reading that article you linked doesn’t make me any less convinced.

Try this one then

Ryan was murdered in 2014

Searches about body decomposition took place before his son died

But his son died in August 2012

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/boy-killed-in-trailer-accident-on-family-dairy-farm-26885315.html

Did he plan pre-August 2012 to murder someone and not get around to it until a couple of years later?

Faugheen

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

Unless you were in the courtroom & heard all of the evidence, you can't really comment on whether this verdict is correct.

Media may not have reported everything / may have been instructed not to report everything / put their own spin on things to sell papers

If they spent 20 hours deliberating the jurors have clearly given this sufficient thought & not rushed into a verdict

You really need to read up on how the media can report court cases if you think this is a possibility.

Utter Consternation

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you have done differently?
Gardai arrested the suspect & clearly put enough evidence together for the DPP to decide that suspect should be charged.
Looks like they did exactly what they are supposed to do.

From the Gardai evidence in the trial it sounded like the crime scene investigation was like something out of the Naked Gun. Frank Drebbin wouldn't be bloody in it with their carry on.

The State Pathologist didn't even bother his hole going down to it.

Gaillimh1976

Unless you were in the courtroom & heard all of the evidence, you can't really comment on whether this verdict is correct.

Media may not have reported everything / may have been instructed not to report everything / put their own spin on things to sell papers

If they spent 20 hours deliberating the jurors have clearly given this sufficient thought & not rushed into a verdict

Laois_Man

Cryptopagan wrote: »

“Gardalso found evidence that a home computer had been used to search for the rate of decomposition of human remains in water.”

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0501/1046814-patrick-quirke-trial/

The link I have already given gives the exact searches that were used and the exact articles that were read, which were not about decomposition in water

And it gives the dates of the second searches - a year and a half after the murder with the first searches at least two years before the murder.

Faugheen

Laois_Man wrote: »

Wrong. The search took place more than once.

The only one that took place after Bobby Ryan disappeared was a year and a half after

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/human-body-decomposition-search-carried-out-on-a-computer-seized-in-quirke-house-court-told-1.3833977

The other, the one before his son died, also took place two years before Bobby Ryan died. That alone makes the searches meaningless

Granted I got my dates wrong, but reading that article you linked doesn’t make me any less convinced.

realdanbreen

I do think that an innocent defendant should always take the stand regardless of what their defence team advises them.

[Deleted User]

Based on what the media told us, I would have had a hard time finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

What was the judges directive this morning?

Oh, and I was full sure he’d shout from the docks “she was in on it too”

freshpopcorn

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you have done differently?
Gardai arrested the suspect & clearly put enough evidence together for the DPP to decide that suspect should be charged.
Looks like they did exactly what they are supposed to do.

That his body wasn't found sooner was one of the main things I've heard mentioned!

[Deleted User]

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Its important to note that the guards did a shambles of a job in this case, real amateur stuff.

What would you have done differently?
Gardai arrested the suspect & clearly put enough evidence together for the DPP to decide that suspect should be charged.
Looks like they did exactly what they are supposed to do.

freshpopcorn

BarryD2 wrote: »

Said with scary conviction! Just hope that if any misfortune befalls you and you end up on trial, that the jurors will be open minded

I used always have great confidence in jurys up until the Belfast trial last year.
It's was scary to think that some of the one's on Twotter could end up on a jury!