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

Mad_maxx

Gobsmacked at verdict, am I right in saying however that in order to overturn a verdict, you must produce new findings?

cannotlogin

Based on media reports, I think it's the right verdict. It is not realistic to consider all of the circumstantial evidence as just a co-incidence. One or two incidents but the straggering amount of evidence makes me sure it was the right result.

That said, I feel a smarter man or a stronger defense team could have created far more reasonable doubt.

When the game was up, he should have simply stated that "she asked me to kill him following their break up. I considered it cos I love her, even looked up how but in the end she did it when she lost patience. I helped her move the body in panic but she did it."

I feel sorry for their kids.

kneemos

Can't figure why he didn't move the body,if he did put it in there.

Cryptopagan

blackcard wrote: »

If someone else had murdered Bobby Ryan, the perfect place to hide the body and to deflect attention would have been on the leased farm

It’s a terrible place for someone else to hide it. They’d have to get the body in there without the farmer noticing, and then hope he never looks in the tank.

It was a very effective hiding place for this guy to conceal his crime, so long as he remained on the farm. But once he knew he’d have to leave, it was no longer an acceptable one.

The idea that someone else would murder the victim, then plant the body somewhere in the hope it would be found and the crime pinned on somebody else is the stuff of bad crime fiction.

judeboy101

Underlines the importance of using a vpn with tor browser when searching how to dispose of a body.

blackcard

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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.

If someone else had murdered Bobby Ryan, the perfect place to hide the body and to deflect attention would have been on the leased farm

sydthebeat

john9876 wrote: »

I still don't understand why he 'discovered' the body ... even if the lease was up on the farm and yer wan wouldn't renew it?

because the gardai were closing in on him... him being the only suspect.... and with the amount of evidence building up on him...some of which the jury didnt get to see.... but which Quirke would have known the gardai had.

Odelay

john9876 wrote: »

I still don't understand why he 'discovered' the body ... even if the lease was up on the farm and yer wan wouldn't renew it?

If she was going to sell the land there could be a survey, that could include water retention checks on tanks.
My guess is he thought who spills suspect the man that found and reported the body.

[Deleted User]

john9876 wrote: »

I still don't understand why he 'discovered' the body ... even if the lease was up on the farm and yer wan wouldn't renew it?

Because maybe the next renter would find it & he would be Prime suspect.
How could he be suspected when he just 'finds it' himself!

freshpopcorn

john9876 wrote: »

I still don't understand why he 'discovered' the body ... even if the lease was up on the farm and yer wan wouldn't renew it?

I don't think he was able to renew it.

ToBeFrank123

Odd case to say the least and a couple of odd characters at the centre of it.

There's a lot of odd people in this country. And generally you only hear about them when a murder or similar case comes up.

john9876

I still don't understand why he 'discovered' the body ... even if the lease was up on the farm and yer wan wouldn't renew it?

gebbel

It's the right call. Justice is served. I believed he was guilty as sin from early on in the trial. Evidence was weak but the circumstantial stuff built up and eventually tilted the case against him. He will no doubt appeal but let him, that's his right. A good day for justice and the rule of law.

Necro

Faugheen wrote: »

Although the evidence was circumstantial, it certainly wasn’t ‘weak’.

The moment I heard he had been searching for how long it takes bodies to decompose on the internet in the days after Bobby Ryan went missing, I knew he was guilty as sin.

Yep, I agree with this tbh. The moment I heard that I felt he was guilty. Reminded me of the Joe O'Reilly case where they nailed him with the mobile phone triangulation.

People do look up mad stuff but that specific search given where the body was located seemed to me be the smoking gun.

Odelay

awaywithyou wrote: »

didnt follow case too closely... was wondering did investigators establish how Bobby Ryan died? head injuries/stabbed/poisoned etc..

Trauma. Similar to being hit by a car or beaten with a tool.

afkasurfjunkie

suicide_circus wrote: »

glad its over. the media have been flogging this relentlessly as a "sexy" courtroom drama for what feels like years.

I detested the way the media constantly referred to the victim’s DJ name every time they mentioned him. It had nothing to do with the case.

chicorytip

MrMusician18 wrote:

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.

Why not? Is there any other compelling evidence that suggest possible causes of death other than him being beaten to death by Quirke? A long and detailed Garda investigation has resulted in no other suspect or apparent motivation for this appalling crime. I think the jury have made a sane and sensible decision here and I also commend the judge for her handling of the trial.

ChippingSodbury

Odelay wrote: »

So why didn’t he take the stand to explain that?

The jury are specifically precluded on forming an opinion on the decision of the defendant to take the stand.

“The innocent person doesn’t know what happened, so sometimes it’ll look like they’re hiding something. The guilty person knows exactly what happened and can contrive an explanation.”

http://breakdown.myajc.com/law-school-101-should-the-defendant-take-the-stand/

awaywithyou

didnt follow case too closely... was wondering did investigators establish how Bobby Ryan died? head injuries/stabbed/poisoned etc..

bb12

didn't she say something about not remembering having spent a night or a weekend away at some hotel which was on her credit card? i found that very odd.

freshpopcorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

glad its over. the media have been flogging this relentlessly as a "sexy" courtroom drama for what feels like years.

Yes, they have the Prime Time Special ready and no doubt we'll see a book on it. They were doing there best to make it into Elaine O'Hara type hype.

Sajid Javid

Guilty by Google!

ToBeFrank123

suicide_circus wrote: »

glad its over. the media have been flogging this relentlessly as a "sexy" courtroom drama for what feels like years.

That's true. Next step though is a tabloid hack bringing out a book about it. They might even have it out as a Christmas stocking filler!

suicide_circus

glad its over. the media have been flogging this relentlessly as a "sexy" courtroom drama for what feels like years.

ChippingSodbury

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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?

It's not his job to do this: it's the gardai job to do this as part of the investigation. Interviews are meant to throw you off a prepared script and fill in holes in the evidence gathered. Interviewers do it all the time: it's not inconceivable that Quirke was flustered and told lies. Where DNA or corroborated evidence backs up the truth and exposes a lie, then it's good. Some people lie and confess in interviews believe it or not: it's (almost!) never taken as fact unless there is other non-circumstantial evidence to back it up.

If you've time, take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

It explains how you can be manipulated by questions from skilled interviewers

ToBeFrank123

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.

It wouldn't be the first investigation Gardai have messed up in this country and it won't be the last.

Odelay

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

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.

So why didn’t he take the stand to explain that?

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

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

Didn’t they?

kneemos wrote: »

Not a shread of evidence.

Bob Harris wrote: »

A lot of indications he was up to no good but no actual evidence.
Hardly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The bauld Mary Lowry was as dodgy as he was.

That’s just two posts within the first 10 posted in the thread.

And you can only judge by what was said in the media. You weren’t in court. That jury listened to evidence for 15 weeks. You read a summation every day.

pawdee

Not a shred of forensic evidence but, as the fella said, "When you go on trial you're putting your fate in the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty".

[Deleted User]

The defense tried their damndest to lay the blame on Mary Lowry and failed.

There are no winners in this sad saga.