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

ToBeFrank123

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Allegedly...

Just because the trial is over doesn't mean people can state something is fact about someone. Everyone deserves their good name until proven by a court jury otherwise.

tipptom

What evidence is there against Mary Lowry?
What motive had Mary Lowry to kill Bobby Ryan?
The defence spent half the trial trying to make a case that Mary Lowry had some motive to kill Bobby Ryan and failed miserably.

Quirke behaved like a psycho after Mary Lowry broke it off with him,throughout the time she was going out with Bobby Ryan up to his death and when she was seeing other men after the death.

The stalking,breaking in to her house,underwear stealing,logging in to her computer,searching perfect murders,searcing decomposing bodies,alerting social services about her children because she was seeing someone was just the half of what this looper got up to.

The man was out of his mind because she was seeing Bobby Ryan and was capable of absolutely anything including murder and was the only one with motive to do this crime.

The jig was up when she finally put the foot down and wouldn't renew the lease and he had to "discover" the body shortly afterwards to try and keep control of the "perfect"crime

His replies to garda questions has all the hallmarks of someone who thought he was way ahead of the investigators with readymade answers.

No mention in the trial of the farm labourer who went back to Poland shortly after the murder with a substantial sum of money.

Just because the jury did not have DNA evidence doesn't mean that they couldn't form an opinion from the reams of evidence that this looper committed the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Oops!

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

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.

I agree, can't understand that one at all.

Cryptopagan

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

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.

If there was a completely innocent explanation, then why didn’t he give it to the Gardai when asked about it, instead of stupidly lying about it, claiming it was about the death of his son, who wasn’t dead at the time of the search?

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

I never showed any joy of him being found guilty, just people are chatting ****e when they say there was no evidence.

It's clear you're only looking for a row.

Sigh.. no one said there was no evidence. Just that it came across as inconclusive as reported in the media.

And as for looking for a row......

freshpopcorn

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Well it's one theory but another is the poster had somewhere to be as they see several others.
There's no need to thank me.
Thanks for your great contribution and showing how you jump to conclusions.

[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.

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.

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.

realdanbreen

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

beertons

Odelay wrote: »

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

This.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.