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

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

judeboy101

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

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.

kneemos

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

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.

Mad_maxx

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

Sajid Javid

King of Kings wrote: »

Based on what was in the media its a shocking verdict. Very little evidence to send somebody down for a life sentence.

In fact more suspicion on the lowry woman imo than quirke.

On an aside..there seems to be some fierce amount of middle aged riding going on. I'll never believe my single mates telling me its hard to date in your 40s.

Obviously you never lived on a farm.

kneemos

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

You can appeal to a higher court.

alchemist33

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

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??

If that was the case wouldn't he have said so in his defence?

blackcard

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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!

He would want to be stup

blackcard

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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?

He panicked when being interviewed by the Gardai?

Mad_maxx

kneemos wrote: »

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

Stupidity perhaps

A slurry tank is not a good hiding place, anyone who emptied it would soon discover the body, you mix the slurry first and everything swirls around

Mad_maxx

kneemos wrote: »

You can appeal to a higher court.

I'm aware of that, I'm asking if new material is required to counter original finding?

kneemos

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I'm aware of that, I'm asking if new material is required to counter original finding?

Nope.

blackcard

Odelay wrote: »

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?

A lot of people would be petrified of taking the stand and being interrogated by a hostile wily barrister trying to confuse him

Cryptopagan

cannotlogin wrote: »

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."

That wouldn’t make any sense. It was her farm he was renting. If she was in on it in some way, she’d want him to remain on the farm, as anyone else taking it over risks them uncovering the body.

BarryD2

chicorytip wrote: »

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.

But you can't convict someone of murder just because the Gardai can't come up with another possible suspect. Otherwise all sorts of people would get done for crimes when they could be entirely innocent.

The whole case was very odd and there are huge gaps in the evidence, maybe more will come out in the wash. If the Gardai could produce one definite piece of evidence that linked the accused to the actual physical murder of the victim, I'd be convinced. But otherwise, you'd have to think it's an unsafe conviction.

Galwayguy35

I always thought guilt had to be proved beyond doubt in a murder case, I'd say he did it all right but if I was on that jury I don't know if I could have gone for the guilty verdict when there was no solid evidence he did it.

They probably sent a guilty man to prison this time but it's a dangerous road to go down going forward IMO if guilty verdicts are delivered based on circumstancial evidence.

Faugheen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I always thought guilt had to be proved beyond doubt in a murder case, I'd say he did it all right but if I was on that jury I don't know if I could have gone for the guilty verdict when there was no solid evidence he did it.

They probably sent a guilty man to prison this time but it's a dangerous road to go down going forward IMO if guilty verdicts are delivered based on circumstancial evidence.

It’s not the first nor will it be the last.

Joe O’Reilly got done on circumstantial evidence, likewise Graham Dwyer.

The evidence, although circumstantial, was damning.

blackcard

chicorytip wrote: »

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.

So we don't know exactly when he died, where he died or how he died. No witnesses, no smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no traces of blood. No pinpointing of his location by tracing his phone. But the gardai couldn't find evidence against anyone else so we will charge him. Hundreds of thousands of of people have affairs in Ireland but I would not say they are motivated to murder because an affair ended. I think it is unlikely he is innocent but I think it was unlikely that Leicester would win the premiership or that an individual would win the lotto but these happened

Faugheen

blackcard wrote: »

So we don't know exactly when he died, where he died or how he died. No witnesses, no smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no traces of blood. No pinpointing of his location by tracing his phone. But the gardai couldn't find evidence against anyone else so we will charge him. Hundreds of thousands of of people have affairs in Ireland but I would not say they are motivated to murder because an affair ended. I think it is unlikely he is innocent but I think it was unlikely that Leicester would win the premiership or that an individual would win the lotto but these happened

Let’s release Joe O’Reilly on that logic then.

brooke 2

Odelay wrote: »

Only he managed to search if before his son died...

Despicable that he used his son's death as a reason for the search. I don't know how his wife didn't throttle him when she heard that! :mad:

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Cryptopagan wrote: »

That wouldn’t make any sense. It was her farm he was renting. If she was in on it in some way, she’d want him to remain on the farm, as anyone else taking it over risks them uncovering the body.

Exactly also what are the odds she goes to void his farm rental contract and presto he finds the body
also the body was found in a run off tank that had a concrete cap
To get the body in you would need a digger or tractor to remove cap and who had use of those on the farm but Quirke
Add in his complaint to social services about Mary Lowry as a parent
His internet searches on decomposing bodies

The only reason he has avoided jail before now was because of the absolutely disgraceful performance of Certain key individuals
The fact the farm was never checked properly is bizarre.
If this case was handled from the beginning by professionals there would be no claims of weak or circumstantial evidence.

McCrack

I'm pleased with the jury's decision and happy for the family of the deceased who knew the truth all along

The jury listened to the evidence and observed the witnesses and came to their decision after careful consideration

Throw away the key now

Spanish Eyes

Unsafe IMV. I am sure it will be appealed. Sorry for the deceased man and his family.

What exactly ties the convicted man to murder? Not much that I can see anyway, but maybe we are not privy to every nuance here.

Amusing how fruity and frisky these folk are in deepest rural Tipp. Ah sure just throw your keys in the ashtray there, be grand. I must lead a very sheltered life.

[Deleted User]

Georgia Shapely Yogurt wrote: »

Exactly also what are the odds she goes to void his farm rental contract and presto he finds the body
also the body was found in a run off tank that had a concrete cap
To get the body in you would need a digger or tractor to remove cap and who had use of those on the farm but Quirke
Add in his complaint to social services about Mary Lowry as a parent
His internet searches on decomposing bodies

The only reason he has avoided jail before now was because of the absolutely disgraceful performance of Certain key individuals
The fact the farm was never checked properly is bizarre.
If this case was handled from the beginning by professionals there would be no claims of weak or circumstantial evidence.

Plus his creepy recordings. Disgusting behavior.

blackcard

Faugheen wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

So we don't know exactly when he died, where he died or how he died. No witnesses, no smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no traces of blood. No pinpointing of his location by tracing his phone. But the gardai couldn't find evidence against anyone else so we will charge him. Hundreds of thousands of of people have affairs in Ireland but I would not say they are motivated to murder because an affair ended. I think it is unlikely he is innocent but I think it was unlikely that Leicester would win the premiership or that an individual would win the lotto but these happened

Let’s release Joe O’Reilly on that logic then.

They were able to pinpoint O'Reilly's location by triangulation to the scene of the crime

brooke 2

Odelay wrote: »

I think it would have been terrible if he wasn’t found guilty. Glad he isn't getting away with it.

It was the only possible verdict.

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

The evidence, although circumstantial, was damning.

The problem is that 'damning' is a very subjective word. You might think that evidence is damning, others might not. Clearly two jury members were sufficiently concerned as to not agree. Little alarm bells should be going off, perhaps unanimous verdicts should be required in situations like this where there is no direct hard evidence that the accused murdered the victim?

Mrsmum

Farms are not the public places some people on here seem to think they are. Random people cannot just rock on up into farmyards without, never mind with heaving dead bodies around in their arms. When is a randomer going to haul a big heavy dead body into a farmyard ? In the middle of the night ? Dogs bark and you can never be sure what family members are checking livestock or whatever. Good way to get caught that. Not to mention the fact that how many farmers even know where the likes of a second drain off slurry pit would be on another farm. Pretty few imo. And to top that how many randomers kill a totally innocent person that they have absolutely nothing against just to pin it on someone else. Totally far-fetched. So the only people on the hook here were Quirke and Mary Lowrey. Build up a story about both of them and he comes to the top. For me it's entirely telling he 'discovered' the body just before his lease was up. Yeah right. Mary Lowrey was a free agent and her only crime seems to be that she likes or needed male attention. The jury heard all the evidence in the longest running murder case ever in Ireland and found him guilty. I totally agree with them. By a process of elimination he's as guilty as sin.