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

wiggle16

dd973 wrote: »

Eye of the beholder and all that but I'm not sure I'd be committing 'crimes of passion' over that old Midlands Bridget either.

I remember seeing Mary Lowry on TV at the start of the trial while watching it with my ma while the voice over was explaining the love rival aspect.
We both looked at each other and my ma just said "ah here, for f*ck's sake...." :pac:

Purple Mountain

dd973 wrote: »

He looked like the last bloke who you'd associate with anyone called 'Mr Moonlight'.

Eye of the beholder and all that but I'm not sure I'd be committing 'crimes of passion' over that old Midlands Bridget either.

I'm sorry that yours is the post I'm quoting, but it's because it's the last one here.
While people are on here making jovial remarks about the infidelity associated in this trial, keys in ashtrays, crimes of passion etc. let's just for one minute remember that Bobby Ryan was an innocent man, killed in cold blood and his naked remains left in the most undignified manner for two years.
He clearly was adored by his 2 children, he seemed to be still on good terms with his ex wife and any friends who were interviewed spoke highly of him.
All I want to say is, sympathy to his loved ones and may the man rest in peace.

dd973

He looked like the last bloke who you'd associate with anyone called 'Mr Moonlight'.

Eye of the beholder and all that but I'm not sure I'd be committing 'crimes of passion' over that old Midlands Bridget either.

farmerval

The strange thing about his conviction was that Mary Lowry was surely a viable suspect also.
Bobby Ryan spent the night at her house and appears to hav never left her farm. I would have thought that having another credible person that could hve comitted the murder would have reduced the "value" of the evidence against Quirke.
What was available in teh media during the trial suggested that there was no other possible/likely guilt party outside of Pat Quirke or Mary Lowry or a combination of both.

Loafing Oaf

King of Kings wrote: »

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.

In a hardcore rural/agricultural area. And the community apparently doesn't bat an eyelid. Changed times indeed...

Jeff2

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

You'd be surprised what can be recovered from hard disks that have been supposedly "wiped". Or for that matter, computer history that your average user thinks they've erased.

That's the thing. If the space that was deleted is not over reating then it is still recoverable.

wiggle16

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)

I dunno. He was a dairy farmer in his fifties from rural Tipp. He probably thought he had wiped it by deleting his search history and that that's all he had to do.

Ursus Horribilis

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)

You'd be surprised what can be recovered from hard disks that have been supposedly "wiped". Or for that matter, computer history that your average user thinks they've erased.

speckled_park

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.

I liked the fact they referred to him as Mr.Moonlight, more of a personal touch as opposed to any old name you or i have. It gives the impression (to me anyway) that he must have been an amicable character too. I think the children said good mr moonlight earlier today so they obviously had no problem with it.

Sierra Oscar

kneemos wrote: »

Not a shread of evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. An awful lot of it can be used to secure a conviction, as was the case here. There comes a point where a large amount of circumstantial evidence becomes pretty damning in the eyes of the jury.

ElBastardo1

afkasurfjunkie wrote:

I detested the way the media constantly referred to the victimâ€™s DJ name every time they mentioned him. It had nothing to do with the case.

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.

Spanish Eyes

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.

Where would one get the court transcript? Is it available to the public?

wassie

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.

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.

Spanish Eyes

Served on a jury three times. Was called recently but was excused (Hallelujah) due to my recent hearing difficulties.

The foreman/woman on a jury can be an issue. Just saying. You can read into that what you wish, but anyone who puts themselves forward as foreman/woman is of a certain personality type, let me put it that way. And it can be very difficult to sway things sometimes.

Just my observation and my experience.

gk5000

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.
Think it can only be appealed on a point of law. It's not like our second chance referendums here when you dont like the results.

wiggle16

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?

I was a juror for a murder trial a couple of years ago. It had to do with a man who was stabbed to death in the middle of the street during a row that got out of hand, with onlookers. We watched him get stabbed to death on CCTV.

I won't get into the details for a few different reasons, some of which are obvious, but it was pretty clear cut what had taken place and that his not guilty plea was nonsense. And yet we deliberated for three days, with two jurors reluctant to find him guilty. We eventually asked the judge for an interpretation of a particular aspect of the law. He did and then said he would accept a majority verdict. We debated for another couple of hours and our next vote was unanimous that he be found guilty. Like the Quirke trial the sentence was mandatory life imprisonment.

The fact that two jurors dissented in a circumstantial evidence case like Quirke's doesn't surprise me at all, it shouldn't ring any alarm bells to be honest. Most people are decent and part of that decency is a cautiousness in making a decision like that - people are afraid of getting it wrong, no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. That was the problem for our jury.

When we realised we had a verdict, three of the women jurors burst into tears. Over jailing someone who murdered another human being over nothing. I wouldn't do it again in a hurry but it's probably the most interesting thing I have ever done.

freshpopcorn

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.

I understand where your coming from but people will question how credible she can be with the affair and her credit card also.
I have no issue with questioning his creditably either.
I'd want nothing to do with any of them.(If I knew any of them)

Jeff2

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)

Could be he got a new one and left the old one aside.

We are talking about someone who thought finding the body was a good thing for his case after all.

freshpopcorn

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I'm seeing a weird trend in threads of late, if in doubt blame women.

The only person to blame in the case is Patrick Quirke who the jury found guilty.

Faugheen

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.

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.

Atoms for Peace

I'm seeing a weird trend in threads of late, if in doubt blame women.

TheValeyard

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.

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)

freshpopcorn

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.

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.

Jeff2

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.

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.

Faugheen

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.

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.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Did he know he was married though ?

You're proving my point re peoples attitude to women and their reputation.

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.

Mrsmum

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.

Jesus, I didn't even know he did this. That's disgusting. Sicko.

Spanish Eyes

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

I wonder will she get a new fella/ has she one already. She can pull them that’s for sure.

She has a big farm with road frontage :rolleyes:

Nikki Sixx

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Seems to me the ex had something to do with this too

I wonder will she get a new fella/ has she one already. She can pull them that’s for sure.

TheValeyard

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.