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

fergus1001

while he may have been found guilty and may well be, I do not see this conviction meeting the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt"

no crime scene

no weapon

only a motive which other people would have had too

so I would expect it to be overturned

Mary Lowry has a lot of questions to answer in my opinion

Spleerbun

If there's one thing this trial highlights for me it's the staggering levels of incompetence shown by the gardai throughout the investigation. Not even searching the house (where he was last seen) after he goes missing, breaking the slab of the tank where the body was found and damaging the body (and then trying to cover it up!!), police cameras with evidence inexplicably going missing, not taking notes.... and then the most astounding one for me: getting the tanker that Quirke claimed he was using to suck up water from the run off tank with the body and just dumping the contents onto the ground!!. Unbelievable! Potentially key evidence lost for absolutely no reason.

The media will pick and choose what information they report so we cant be sure what the jury knows that we don't, I just hope both sides (the 10 that voted guilty and the 2 that voted not guilty) were certain enough in their decision to know they wouldn't regret it.

And I also hope the guards get a good kick up the hole!!

RIP Bobby Ryan

Mrsmum

So he just decided, for the fun of it like, to have a go at lifting those incredibly heavy slabs immediately before his lease was up. A likely story.

Maybe he thought he's do Mary, who he was no longer in good terms with, a favour by tackling a job he thought might need doing after years of not being done ? Another likely story.

What we do know about him was that he did not take Mary's relationship with Bobby Ryan well. He told his doctor about it, he wrote to an agony aunt about it and just for revenge he contacted social services about her parenting. That's a fairly low thing to do by anyone's standards. Between that and the sex tapes etc, I actually think he was out of his mind for the need of getting Mary under his control. One woman wasn't enough for him. He had to go after the wife of his recently deceased brother in law.

But hey, let's blame Mary for dumping him and his subsequent jealousy,pain, distress, self pity and anger that led to the death of Mr Ryan. Everyone described Mr Ryan as a happy, jolly man and I'd say that happiness was an affront to Quirke. The very idea of Bobby Ryan laughing and singing while having 'his' woman or should I say his second woman, probably drove him crazy.

Spleerbun

realdanbreen wrote: »

I can't recall who Quirkes defence team were but it would have been better if he 'called Saul-ace attorney' !

One of them was one of the tops boys in the country as far as I know, I don't think the defence team was the problem!

realdanbreen

Spleerbun wrote: »

realdanbreen wrote: »

I can't recall who Quirkes defence team were but it would have been better if he 'called Saul-ace attorney' !

One of them was one of the tops boys in the country as far as I know, I don't think the defence team was the problem!

Based on the evidence that they had to defend against I wouldn't hire them to contest a parking fine!

kerry cow

while yes he may have done it , I think their is not enough solid evidence , In that case I would rather him be free than to lock up a innocent man ,
how in the name of God could he have a recording of flor and Mary on his hard drive ,?
if someone suggested in a random conversation about the decomposition of bobbys missing remain ,as he was still missing , and people were still looking for him , then it's not unbelievable to say you looked up internet searches as to what stage a body would be in ,be it 1 yr or 2 yrs after going missing ,
also many people read and have a interest in all murder cases and missing persons cases , many people do internet searches on joe Reilly ,jo jo dollard , deirdre Jacob etc , it not unusual , especially if some one you know is missing and if you suspected another person to have done it , yes you would search and write many things to help find the killer or body ,
maybe ,just maybe he was set up .
if so ,.....
just ask yourself ,if he has been wronged because of his stupid carry on ,of knickers ,peeping windows etc , does it really mean he killed bobby ryan ,?
there was a field car in the shed ,it was not examined , the house decorating ,phone not available , alot of gaps on the other side too , jealousy dancing with another woman , constant ringing to come over , daughter told bobby p45 Mary , last person to see bobby was Mary , 14 yrs not at home that night ,just the 11yr old who can nt remember , .too many unknowns to send a man to jail .
you could send someone else to jail if you turned the table ,
who did it ,
I don't know .
should quirke go to jail ,
no

Spleerbun

realdanbreen wrote: »

Based on the evidence that they had to defend against I wouldn't hire them to contest a parking fine!

We simply don't know what evidence they had to defend against. We know some of it.

monkeybutter

These kinds of stories always bring out the crazies.

It really does show you that a jury of random joe public is going to be made up of idiots and bigots, I'd hope peoples minds are focused by the seriousness of the task at hand

People just don't understand the process, even the state pathologist doesn't, after she came out and said she was surprised that o'Dwyer was convicted, because there was no physical evidence, but jaysus a tonne of circumstantial. She should have been fired for saying that.

The internet search is a red herring, it's not important at all.

If they find a body buried under your patio in Brookside and you say someone else put it there and you have been there 30 years, you are fooked. Did he search the perfect crime also? Cause that would be it, but it doesn't happen, and to believe it would be ridiculous.

That he had a motive on top of this, that was game set and match

The rest is just window dressing.

BarryD2

wiggle16 wrote: »

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.

That's fair enough but you had CCTV coverage of that murder and therefore the killer or killers. If there was a question of reasonable doubt, it must have been as to identity of the accused in the video. So the question to decide must have been whether they were or weren't the people in the video - fairly simple yes or no judgement. So a majority verdict has sense there.

That's a quite different kettle of fish to this Tipperary case. The convicted had a possible motive to do it and likely had opportunities but that doesn't make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why I wondered if such cases should require unanimous verdicts as there's a lot more factors to weigh up than what appears to be the more straightforward judgement call you refer to?

BarryD2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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.

Just out of curiosity, what's the dynamic like when some jurors are unconvinced but in a minority? After a while, does pressure come on for them to change their opinion just so everyone can get the thing over with and get on with their lives?

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

That's fair enough but you had CCTV coverage of that murder and therefore the killer or killers. If there was a question of reasonable doubt, it must have been as to identity of the accused in the video. So the question to decide must have been whether they were or weren't the people in the video - fairly simple yes or no judgement. So a majority verdict has sense there.

That's a quite different kettle of fish to this Tipperary case. The convicted had a possible motive to do it and likely had opportunities but that doesn't make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why I wondered if such cases should require unanimous verdicts as there's a lot more factors to weigh up than what appears to be the more straightforward judgement call you refer to?

All the evidence presented had put the case beyond reasonable doubt, in particular his notepad and internet searches.

For the umpteenth time, you don't need a smoking gun to prove guilt and your insistence on defending a murderer is quite worrying.

Circumstantial evidence placed Joe O'Reilly in the area where his wife was killed, but it didn't place him in the home or at the scene. Circumstantial evidence here has placed motive, opportunity and what to do in the aftermath.

How can you possibly judge the evidence presented to the jury when you weren't in court?

Jackman25

Faugheen wrote: »

All the evidence presented had put the case beyond reasonable doubt, in particular his notepad and internet searches.

For the umpteenth time, you don't need a smoking gun to prove guilt and your insistence on defending a murderer is quite worrying.

Circumstantial evidence placed Joe O'Reilly in the area where his wife was killed, but it didn't place him in the home or at the scene. Circumstantial evidence here has placed motive, opportunity and what to do in the aftermath.

How can you possibly judge the evidence presented to the jury when you weren't in court?

Were you in court?

Faugheen

Jackman25 wrote: »

Were you in court?

I'm not the one saying the evidence presented to the jury wasn't enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Spleerbun

Was it always a given that the judge will accept a majority, or does it depend on the case? Was it simply because deliberations were going on so long?

There could be something in the idea posted above about requiring unanimous verdicts on circumstantial cases - after 14 weeks worth of evidence perhaps one could expect the prosecution to have had enough to convince all 12? Or at least 11-1 maybe to account for the potential of 1 whacko who just hates the system or whatever and refuses to see reason

monkeybutter

Mary is that you?

Jackman25

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not the one saying the evidence presented to the jury wasn't enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt.

You said there was overwhelming evidence against him. Hardly.
I think he did it alright and would probably have voted to convict if I was on the jury, but the evidence is certainly not overwhelming. The difference between browsing in incognito mode and not is probably the difference between a life sentence and being a free man for Quirke today.

BarryD2

Faugheen wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, you don't need a smoking gun to prove guilt and your insistence on defending a murderer is quite worrying.

How can you possibly judge the evidence presented to the jury when you weren't in court?

You seem to have a difficulty Faugheen in differentiating between thinking someone did something and being sure they did it. I'm not defending any murderer, so please stop putting words in my mouth. All I have done on this thread is to question the safeness of this conviction. The process, that's all.......

sydthebeat

BarryD2 wrote: »

All I have done on this thread is to question the safeness of this conviction. The process, that's all.......

no need to do that.....

the experts will decide whether its safe or not... some blank nobody on an internet forum isnt.

Faugheen

Jackman25 wrote: »

You said there was overwhelming evidence against him. Hardly.
I think he did it alright and would probably have voted to convict if I was on the jury, but the evidence is certainly not overwhelming. The difference between browsing in incognito mode and not is probably the difference between a life sentence and being a free man for Quirke today.

So why are you arguing with me if you think there was enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt, instead of the poster who says there isn't?

I'd consider the internet searches and the notepad quite overwhelming, to be honest.

sydthebeat

Faugheen wrote: »

So why are you arguing with me if you think there was enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt, instead of the poster who says there isn't?

I'd consider the internet searches and the notepad quite overwhelming, to be honest.

the flies did him in, in the end

monkeybutter

Faugheen wrote: »

So why are you arguing with me if you think there was enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt, instead of the poster who says there isn't?

I'd consider the internet searches and the notepad quite overwhelming, to be honest.

what was in the notepad, i missed that? My Big Book of murdering Bobby Ryan?

Dont be getting caught up on the searches.

I'd be more concerned that he wore a flat cap, can't trust that kind

Faugheen

BarryD2 wrote: »

You seem to have a difficulty Faugheen in differentiating between thinking someone did something and being sure they did it. I'm not defending any murderer, so please stop putting words in my mouth. All I have done on this thread is to question the safeness of this conviction. The process, that's all.......

And you seem to have difficulty understanding that you don't need a smoking gun to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You're adamant that this guy shouldn't have been convicted despite numerous posters explaining why he was, so forgive me if I come to the conclusion that you're defending a murderer.

realdanbreen

Spleerbun wrote: »

We simply don't know what evidence they had to defend against. We know some of it.

I thought all evidence has to be presented in publc?

Faugheen

monkeybutter wrote: »

what was in the notepad, i missed that? My Big Book of murdering Bobby Ryan?

Dont be getting caught up on the searches.

I'd be more concerned that he wore a flat cap, can't trust that kind

"As part of their search gardai also found an A4 sheet which revealed a handwritten note with the words “what the guards will know”.

"It contained references, Bowman said, to what Quirke had told gardaí in interview following the discovery of the body including details about Mary Lowry and how it was strange that she couldn’t say how long it took for Bobby Ryan’s car to leave her drive that morning. Also written down were the words “murdered poss in house” and “dispose of clothes \ phone \ any other evidence.”

"Bowman said this note was written before 30 April which would mean that Quirke was preparing for his garda interviews before the discovery of the body."

https://www.thejournal.ie/patrick-quirke-evidence-4615606-May2019/

Why would he be preparing for Garda interviews before the body was even found?

monkeybutter

Faugheen wrote: »

"As part of their search gardai also found an A4 sheet which revealed a handwritten note with the words “what the guards will know”.

"It contained references, Bowman said, to what Quirke had told gardaí in interview following the discovery of the body including details about Mary Lowry and how it was strange that she couldn’t say how long it took for Bobby Ryan’s car to leave her drive that morning. Also written down were the words “murdered poss in house” and “dispose of clothes \ phone \ any other evidence.”

"Bowman said this note was written before 30 April which would mean that Quirke was preparing for his garda interviews before the discovery of the body."

https://www.thejournal.ie/patrick-quirke-evidence-4615606-May2019/

Why would he be preparing for Garda interviews before the body was even found?

yeah that's way worse than the search

a note to all, set your browser to clear you history when you close it

especially if you plan to murder someone

Spleerbun

realdanbreen wrote: »

I thought all evidence has to be presented in publc?

Where though? I assume most people are going by what the media reports are they not?. Absolutely no way they could detail all the evidence brought in a case like this, just the highlights. And likely with a bit of hyperbole thrown in for good measure too.

Not to mention the exhibits like phone records, full interviews and statements etc

Spleerbun

monkeybutter wrote: »

yeah that's way worse than the search

a note to all, set your browser to clear you history when you close it

especially if you plan to murder someone

That's not enough, the trace of searches and the like will still be there unless you are highly computer savvy and know how to wipe clean parts of the system and harddrive that 99% of people wouldn't have a clue even exist. Best bet is just to destroy the whole thing!!

Bob Harris

Faugheen wrote: »

Why would he be preparing for Garda interviews before the body was even found?

Because he knew he was going to find it and that he would be a suspect.

Jackman25

Bob Harris wrote: »

Because he knew he was going to find it and that he would be a suspect.

He might have found the body far earlier than he let on, but knew how it would look and that he would be the prime suspect so didn't want to alert the Gardai, but realized he was going to have to once he lost the lease of the farm and ended up just digging himself into hole.

** I don't think the above is any way likely to have been the case, but for me overwhelming evidence would be physical evidence linking him directly to the murder rather than just circumstantial.

monkeybutter

Spleerbun wrote: »

That's not enough, the trace of searches and the like will still be there unless you are highly computer savvy and know how to wipe clean parts of the system and harddrive that 99% of people wouldn't have a clue even exist. Best bet is just to destroy the whole thing!!

that's not correct at all, too much CSI Miami I feel

they literally went through the history on his laptop, that's it

The chances that any deleted files would not be overwritten in the years since the search are tiny