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

McCrack

Zeek12 wrote: »

Surprised he didn't move it though.

To think to yourself I couldn't possibly be suspected just because I "found" the body....seems fairly naive.
Especially when you look at the history and obvious motive.

How would you propose a body lying in situ some 22 months in a slurry tank 1.6 metres deep and a quarter opening of concrete could be removed without specialist help?

Zeek12

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Surprised he didn't move it though.

To think to yourself I couldn't possibly be suspected just because I "found" the body....seems fairly naive.
Especially when you look at the history and obvious motive.

AllForIt

The first I heard of this case I though he was guilty straight away without a doubt.

Anyway as far as evidence is concerned is it not the case that irrefutable evidence is not required as in the same way a rape case when usually there is no evidence but a decision has to be made on the testimony of the victim and the accused. And is that not the case for all trials. If there was irrefutable evidence why would you bother having a trial at all.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Plus his creepy recordings. Disgusting behavior.

His behaviour for me was that of a dangerous stalker with serious control issues
His blank reaction to his guilty sentence is the behaviour of a sociopath
I would Bet if found not guiltily he would still have had the same blank expression

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

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?

Well what about the prosecutions evidence wasn’t damning in your view?

Don’t give me this ‘there was no hard evidence’, there was no need for it and it’s not the first time someone has been convicted through circumstantial evidence.

1. He was found by Quirke in a tank that was covered by grass and a concrete slab.
2. Quirke had been having an affair with his girlfriend before she broke it off.
3. Quirke hadn’t shown desires to rekindie the affair while Mary Lowry was with Bobby Ryan.
4. He had written on a notepad ‘what the guards will know’ and various things about Bobby, Mary and the circumstances from Bobby’s body being found.
5. He had searched for human body decomposition timelines in the months after Bobby went missing.
6. He ‘discovered’ the body in that very well hidden tank just weeks before his lease on the farm was up.

That’s only things off the top of my head. It’s absolutely blatant and if you think that the verdict is the wrong one and that’s there was ‘no clear evidence’ then you and I have different definitions as to what qualifies as clear evidence.

brooke 2

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 was Michelle Ryan who suggested to Mary Lowry to drive to Bansha Woods where the van was found. She gave evidence that she had an inexplicable premonition that it might be there. But, Patrick Quirke was not to know that when he was trying to make something suspicious out of how quickly Mary Lowry 'found the van'.

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.

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?

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.

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

[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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

kneemos

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

Nope.

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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.