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

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.

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......

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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

There are no winners in this sad saga.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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

suicide_circus

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

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!

Sajid Javid

Guilty by Google!

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.

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.

awaywithyou

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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!

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.

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.