blackcard wrote: » So he is guilty of being a rotten cad
Mrsmum wrote: » 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.
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!
Mrsmum wrote: » 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.
Georgia Shapely Yogurt wrote: » 2. He wanted to destroy Mary Lowry
freshpopcorn wrote: » Did she have an affair with a man she knew was married tough?
knucklehead6 wrote: » Seems to me the ex had something to do with this too
Nikki Sixx wrote: » I wonder will she get a new fella/ has she one already. She can pull them that’s for sure.
Deleted User wrote: » What’s prudish about being disgusted by someone recorded himself and his lover doing the business? Especially when she neither knew nor agreed to this recording? Nor did she or her new boyfriend know that they were being taped! It may not prove murderous impulses but it sure shows moral depravity.
Mrsmum wrote: » Did he know he was married though ? You're proving my point re peoples attitude to women and their reputation.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Going by what was reported she knew he was married. I'd have the same opinion of any man/woman who had an affair with somebody and they knew they were married. So, don't pull the attitude to women card with me.
Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: » His internet searches seemed to have sealed his faith I think. Bizarre the searches were able to be recovered after that long. We're they stored on the computer in its history, recovered by the ISP, or did google co-operate with the Gardai with an IP address and give them a bread crumb trail to follow his thoughts and find a pattern.
Faugheen wrote: » You were asked if 'he (as in Quirke)' knew he was married. I get your point, but there's more being made about her part in the affair than his, even though he was the married man.
Jeff2 wrote: » If the searches are in the history there is no need for ISP or even the working computer/laptop. With just the hard drive from it then it can be found.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I might have misunderstood that poster. From what I know everybody involved knew the set up. I just think she was focused on because she was one of the main witnesses in the trial and people will will question her credibility with everything that happened. Take for instance there was the thing with her credit card being used in a hotel and she seemed oblivious to it.
Atoms for Peace wrote: » I'm seeing a weird trend in threads of late, if in doubt blame women.
Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: » Yeah I figured that. But surely he wouldn't be stupid enough to leave very incriminating searches on his computer. Even the most basic of users can delete history. (wipeout going into drive wipes or shredders)
Faugheen wrote: » She was one of the main witnesses, but she was treated as if she was the one on trail. And if her credibility is being questioned because of an affair, so should Quirke's but, apart from a few people who can see sense, it's not. He shouldn't have been found guilty if you believe he experts here. The very first post (and a number following) immediately pointed the finger at her, which is what the aim of the defence team was.
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?
gk5000 wrote: » Have to trust the jury who listened to all the evidence presented. It is amazing how many people who were NOT in the courtroom disagree.
wassie wrote: » Agreed - a lot of opinions are based on what the media feeds us. If you want a truly informed opinion, spend a year reading the court transcript and all of the evidence.
afkasurfjunkie wrote: 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.
kneemos wrote: » Not a shread of evidence.
ElBastardo1 wrote: » This was grating on me every time it was mentioned. Rte reporters were constantly calling him by that name. I'd expect it from The Sun, not from our national broadcaster. His name was Bobby Ryan. I think even though much of the evidence was circumstantial, there was enough of it to prove his guilt. Glad the family have closure. I'd love to know why Patrick Quirkes wife stood by him. He was riding the sis in law and carried on like a ****ing love sick puppy.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
