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

Charles Ingles

Think there was a pair of them in it.

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.

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.

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??

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.

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

Spanish Eyes

What I found fascinating about this case was the ease with which these people who lived in a close knit community were cavorting with each other rather openly. I know that is not a crime, but still!

And the accused, (now convicted murderer) was supported by his wife the whole time. Weird, but I suppose she thought him innocent. But he wasn't innocent of playing away though.

The evidence in my view was purely circumstantial, and although the suspicion was out there, the evidence did not back it up beyond reasonable doubt. I think I would have been one of the two negative votes on the jury. There just wasn't enough to convict really no matter what.

realdanbreen

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

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??

Well if he was a fan of the Brennan brothers then he is capable of anything!

kneemos

topnotch wrote: »

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.

It comes down to how they feel rather than making a decision on hard evidence.

This surely can't be right.

crossman47

Arghus wrote: »

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

That is true but being unlucky with coincidences does not equate to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

I presented a huge piece of evidence in this thread which pointed towards his guilt and you’ve completely ignored it.

Faugheen wrote: »

Just ignore the overwhelming evidence against Quirke then.

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because of a theory you have.

freshpopcorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What I found fascinating about this case was the ease with which these people who lived in a close knit community were cavorting with each other rather openly. I know that is not a crime, but still!

I don't think they were overly popular in the area from what I heard and this was before the body was found.

Charles Ingles

BarryD2 wrote: »

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because you think they did it.

Tell that to Graham Dwyer

Arghus

crossman47 wrote: »

That is true but being unlucky with coincidences does not equate to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Up to a point, but beyond that point is beyond reasonable doubt.

Candamir

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Isnt that the point people are making? Mary Lowry wasn’t convicted on the ‘equally’ circumstantial evidence. She wasn’t even charged. Yet Quirke will be serving a life sentence.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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

A dead body is hard evidence of a death. Unless there’s other evidence found on/in it.

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because of a theory you have.

It's not a theory.

He admitted to searching about body decomposition timelines 18 months after Bobby Ryan went missing.

What's theoretical about that?

What's theoretical is the idea that he was set up, which many people are implying here. There's no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

The body was found by him, on the land he was leasing from the woman he had an affair with who had been in a relationship with the deceased.

That's cold, hard, facts. There's no 'theory' whatsoever.

beertons

Odelay wrote: »

The staging of finding the body was a bit of a give away.

This.

Cryptopagan

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

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??

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not a theory.

He admitted to searching about body decomposition timelines 18 months after Bobby Ryan went missing.

What's 'theoretical' about that?

Ah come off it - you cannot seriously equate searching the internet with proof of culpability of murder. That's just daft.

Odelay

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 ,

It’s Imelda and the sons from both sides I feel sorry for. All in their teens or early twenties. Lord help them.

Faugheen

Genuinely can't believe someone just suggested that I was coming up with a theory as to why guilty was the right verdict when I was using evidence in the trial.

Jesus Christ, some people here just want to believe what they want and won't listen to anything that's been said.

Funnily enough Laois_Man has gone missing since his theory of the internet searches taking place before Bobby Ryan went missing was quickly debunked.

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - you cannot seriously equate searching the internet with proof of culpability of murder. That's just daft.

I'm using evidence from the trial.

How on Earth is it a theory? The verdict was guilty, and I provided you with evidence from the trial which pointed the finger overwhelmingly at him.

Do you even know what a theory is?

BarryD2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

It looks bad but it doesn't imply that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And that's what's required.

Floppybits

What puzzles me is why did he tell the Gardai he found the body 2 years after the murder? The Gardai searched the place twice and found nothing, surely if he had said nothing the body would never have been found.

freshpopcorn

Faugheen wrote: »

Funnily enough Laois_Man has gone missing since his theory of the internet searches taking place before Bobby Ryan went missing was quickly debunked.

Or perhaps he has something to do.
It looks like your easy to jump to conclusions from that post.

freshpopcorn

Floppybits wrote: »

What puzzles me is why did he tell the Gardai he found the body 2 years after the murder? The Gardai searched the place twice and found nothing, surely if he had said nothing the body would never have been found.

I think his lease was up on the farm!

realdanbreen

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Really? And what do you reckon is that 'something' ?

Faugheen

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Or perhaps he has something to do.
It looks like your easy to jump to conclusions from that post.

So he posts a complete inaccuracy, and then is gone when he's corrected?

I'll make whatever assumption I please, thank you.

Great contribution, though.

ChippingSodbury

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

Well, think of a possible explanation:
1. He watched a crime program on tv
2. He looked up the details/ related details on internet (decomposition and DNA)
3. He made an enemy who killed Bobby Ryan and placed him somewhere that would throw suspicion on Quirke

The point is that reasonable doubt is a fairly high threshold to meet. I don't know what the probability should be but I'd guess it would be > 95%
Were all other relatively possible outcomes investigated and presented to the court? Again, I don't know but it certainly wasn't reported in the media. The fact that Lowry held him in contempt would have surely been a possible motive that she could have set him up but no evidence of this was presented: if it was, it would have ruled out a possible explanation for Quirke.

I'll say it again, I'd guess that he's guilty but I don't understand how it reaches the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.

[Deleted User]

kneemos wrote: »

It comes down to how they feel rather than making a decision on hard evidence.

This surely can't be right.

I feel that he’s involved in the death alright. But my feels should not mean that a man will serve a life sentence. Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.

How did Mary Lowry know where the van was so quickly? If we’re talking circumstantial, surely there’s enough to charge her aswell.