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

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'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

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

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.

Clearly we do!! When I caught reports of the opening week of the trial, I thought this lad was as guilty as hell. But as it went on, it became clear that there was no 'smoking gun'. When, where and with what did the accused murder the victim with? I think it's likely he was involved some way but you can't convict people on the basis of supposition. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt and that reasonable doubt exists. I can appreciate why you might be convinced but there will be many who look at it from the other side. At end of the day, unless directed by the judge, it's only the jurors opinions that matter. Which is why there's bound to be an appeal, leaving aside the danger of such a conviction, a different jury could well come up with a different answer. And that's about it.

blackcard

Georgia Shapely Yogurt wrote: »

[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

Yet there is no evidence that he ever lifted a finger against anyone else in his life.

Spanish Eyes

Am waiting for the book about salacious goings in in deepest Tipp. Imagine, in holy Catholic Ireland. Honestly I am totally scandalised. :P

Allinall

BarryD2 wrote: »

Clearly we do!! When I caught reports of the opening week of the trial, I thought this lad was as guilty as hell. But as it went on, it became clear that there was no 'smoking gun'. When, where and with what did the accused murder the victim with? I think it's likely he was involved some way but you can't convict people on the basis of supposition. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt and that reasonable doubt exists. I can appreciate why you might be convinced but there will be many who look at it from the other side. At end of the day, unless directed by the judge, it's only the jurors opinions that matter. Which is why there's bound to be an appeal, leaving aside the danger of such a conviction, a different jury could well come up with a different answer. And that's about it.

Fairly sure an appeal wouldn’t be heard with a jury?

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

Clearly we do!! When I caught reports of the opening week of the trial, I thought this lad was as guilty as hell. But as it went on, it became clear that there was no 'smoking gun'. When, where and with what did the accused murder the victim with? I think it's likely he was involved some way but you can't convict people on the basis of supposition. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt and that reasonable doubt exists. I can appreciate why you might be convinced but there will be many who look at it from the other side. At end of the day, unless directed by the judge, it's only the jurors opinions that matter. Which is why there's bound to be an appeal, leaving aside the danger of such a conviction, a different jury could well come up with a different answer. And that's about it.

What part of ‘circumstantial evidence’ are you having difficulty with?

You don’t need a smoking gun providing you have the evidence to convict without it. We’ve seen numerous times that the evidence wasn’t strong enough, but we’ve also seen occasions where it is strong enough.

This was one of the cases where it is strong enough, which you have said so yourself.

Why would the Gardai refer the case to the DPP and why would the DPP bring proceedings if it’s as simple as you made it out to be?

Faugheen

blackcard wrote: »

Yet there is no evidence that he ever lifted a finger against anyone else in his life.

And?

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

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.

What you makes sense but think of it like this
He murders someone and puts the body in a run off septic tank which means it was planned
And then continues to operate that farm and even rekindles his relationship with Mary Lowry
We can agree that if true these are the actions of a dangerous sociopath

And then he argues with Mary Lowry who tells him the land lease is now void and he is to get off the farm permanently
If even half normal thinking Quirke Would move the body or even fill the tank with concrete before leaving
But no he finds the body which I think he did for 2 reasons
1. his egotism meant he believed he would not be prosecuted - thought he was too clever and
2. He wanted to destroy Mary Lowry

[Deleted User]

blackcard wrote: »

Yet there is no evidence that he ever lifted a finger against anyone else in his life.

There are more ways to hurt someone than physically. Recording himself and his girlfriend in bed without her knowledge or permission was not the behavior of a lover.

Spanish Eyes

IMV the defence lawyers were a bit wet and weak.

Wonder if he got FLA? anyone know. If not it will have cost him for sure.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

There are more ways to hurt someone than physically. Recording himself and his girlfriend in bed without her knowledge or permission was not the behavior of a lover.

And his wife.

Spanish Eyes

The accused's/convicted man's wife is some woman to support her philandering husband all the way.

Whether he is truly guilty or not in this murder, he was playing away like billyo anyway.

Can't get my head around that. But then again, who am I to judge, I just find it fascinating and a bit unreal.

kneemos

McCrack wrote: »

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?

Like tying it a tractor,car,or Jeep,a rope and pully would be similarly effective.

freshpopcorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The accused's/convicted man's wife is some woman to support her philandering husband all the way.

Whether he is truly guilty or not in this murder, he was playing away like billyo anyway.

Can't get my head around that. But then again, who am I to judge, I just find it fascinating and a bit unreal.

Some women/men are good to stand by their partners no matter what.
All I know about this case from locals is they were all characters and it didn't shock people.

BarryD2

Allinall wrote: »

Fairly sure an appeal wouldn’t be heard with a jury?

Sure, it's not a case that this case collapsed and it's a retrial.

Faugheen wrote: »

This was one of the cases where it is strong enough, which you have said so yourself.

Why would the Gardai refer the case to the DPP and why would the DPP bring proceedings if it’s as simple as you made it out to be?

What I said or intended to convey was that the opening by the prosecution seemed cut & dried. But when it came to actual evidence that the accused murdered the victim, the case looked very thin. To be truthful, I and I suspect many others were wondering why it was brought at all.

Beechwoodspark

Am I right in saying Mary lowry and his wife are sisters ?

Spanish Eyes

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Some women/men are good to stand by their partners no matter what.
All I know about this case from locals is they were all characters and it didn't shock people.

I find it a bit unreal, probably because of the lack of anonymity that some can get away with in a bigger town/ city. But in a rural area where everyone knows everyone's business, it just made me cringe.

But maybe there is a backstory, as you hint :P

Faugheen

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Am I right in saying Mary lowry and his wife are sisters ?

I think Mary Lowry’s late husband was the brother of Quirke’s wife.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

There are more ways to hurt someone than physically. Recording himself and his girlfriend in bed without her knowledge or permission was not the behavior of a lover.

Faugheen wrote: »

And his wife.

God help us, you're being very prudish. It's none of our business as to what goes on in the bedrooms of Ireland. Gone are the days when the powers that be tried to exercise control over such matters. And you certainly can't adjudge murderous impulses on that basis!

the_pen_turner

McCrack wrote: »

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?

im sure there are loads of ways if you put your mind to it.
a mini digger
tracter and loader
take it out in pieces

Spanish Eyes

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Am I right in saying Mary lowry and his wife are sisters ?

I could not say for sure, someone else might know, but I did read somewhere that Mary L was having an affair with her brother in law. And in fairness Quirke's wife and ML look very similar.

Ye gods, it is just something made for TV isn't it. If true of course.

Edit, seems ML's late husband was a brother of Q's wife. That is thanks to Faugheen above. Will all come out in the wash eventually anyway. Lots of keys in the ashtrays it seems.

Mrsmum

Georgia Shapely Yogurt wrote: »

2. He wanted to destroy Mary Lowry

Totally agree with this. I think he couldn't win her over or get the better of her despite trying everything and in his twisted mind the 'discovery' would result in her either going down for the murder herself or him taking her down with him by at the very least destroying her reputation. Even though he was the married one, society is always harsher on a woman's reputation. In fact I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the fact that her reputation is in tatters is a great comfort to him as he sits in jail. Kindof a case of if I can't have her, nobody else will either.

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

God help us, you're being very prudish. It's none of our business as to what goes on in the bedrooms of Ireland. Gone are the days when the powers that be tried to exercise control over such matters. And you certainly can't adjudge murderous impulses on that basis!

And you seem very intent to defend a man who has been found guilty of murder, which is very worrying.

I can make judgements on you too.

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

Yet there is no evidence that he ever lifted a finger against anyone else in his life.

There are more ways to hurt someone than physically. Recording himself and his girlfriend in bed without her knowledge or permission was not the behavior of a lover.

So he is guilty of being a rotten cad

Minnie Snuggles

Didn't the jury visit the site where Bobby was found. Maybe it would have been impossible to tell if there was a body there as Quirke had claimed.