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

sydthebeat

Bob Harris wrote: »

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

he was already the number 1 suspect even before the body was found

Spleerbun

monkeybutter wrote: »

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

I thought I read that to find the information on it they Garda tech guys had to do all sorts of high level programme test things, but you're right I don't know much about that stuff so maybe I'm wrong

Bob Harris

Jackman25 wrote: »

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.

Everything points to him being the murderer even if their is no single piece of irrefutable evidence to condemn him.

The motive is firmly established - he wrote a letter and told his doctor, access and knowledge of the tanks, opportunity, online searches, notes he made.
However there is no physical evidence, forensic evidence, witnesses or a confession. He ticks all of the boxes as a suspect yet it's all circumstantial as far as convicting him goes.

monkeybutter

Jackman25 wrote: »

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.

That's not how it works though, in the real world

Would you be ruling out witnesses to murder also? you'd have to be caught there knife in hand plunged into the victims heart?

Jackman25

Bob Harris wrote: »

Everything points to him being the murderer even if their is no single piece of irrefutable evidence to condemn him.

The motive is firmly established - he wrote a letter and told his doctor, access and knowledge of the tanks, opportunity, online searches, notes he made.
However there is no physical evidence, forensic evidence, witnesses or a confession. He ticks all of the boxes as a suspect yet it's all circumstantial as far as convicting him goes.

He told his doctor he did it in a letter? Didn't hear that.

Jackman25

monkeybutter wrote: »

That's not how it works though, in the real world

Would you be ruling out witnesses to murder also? you'd have to be caught there knife in hand plunged into the victims heart?

I may not be using the correct terminology, but I would regard a witness as physical evidence also.

I'm not questioning the verdict, just that I think that while it does cross the threshold of reasonable doubt, it is pretty close and 2 dissenting jurors would indicate that also.

Bob Harris

Jackman25 wrote: »

He told his doctor he did it in a letter? Didn't hear that.

The motive - he wrote a letter to an agony aunt about how he felt having being ditched by Mary. He also told his doctor he was stressed because of the situation with her and was prescribed anti-depressants.

givyjoe

Bob Harris wrote: »

The motive - he wrote a letter to an agony aunt about how he felt having being ditched by Mary. He also told his doctor he was stressed because of the situation with her and was prescribed anti-depressants.

To be fair, your previous post pretty much implied that as you completely left out the above.

monkeybutter

Jackman25 wrote: »

I may not be using the correct terminology, but I would regard a witness as physical evidence also.

I'm not questioning the verdict, just that I think that while it does cross the threshold of reasonable doubt, it is pretty close and 2 dissenting jurors would indicate that also.

look out a certain number of people you will always get the oddball here and there

I presume the judge pushes for unanimous as that looks better, but majority is all that's required to cover the above

Ask yourself, how did the body end up in the tank on his farm? Just that alone

And then he magically only discovers it just as he's about to lose control of the tank as his lease is up

How can you explain that? And that's what you need for the doubt part, it has to be reasonable

Was it somewhere he could have just fallen in? Doesn't seem to be, would he smashed his head in an accidentally fall in? Is it somewhere someone would even been looking to accidentally find the body?

who know?

sligojoek

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.

Incognito mode is useless. It'll cover your tracks if you don't want your wife to know you were watching porn or looking for a present for her online. Any IT person worth their salt can track what you were doing in no time at all.

Edgware

We dont know the mind of the dissenting jurors. They might have thought "I think he did it but I'm not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt" We should be happy that jurors take their duties seriously.

monkeybutter

sligojoek wrote: »

Incognito mode is useless. It'll cover your tracks if you don't want your wife to know you were watching porn or looking for a present for her online. Any IT person worth their salt can track what you were doing in no time at all.

total horse manure

PhilOssophy

It seems coincidental that "somebody" (of the hundreds of people who knew of its existence) had to open the tank 2 weeks earlier than Pat Quirke found the body....

I'm from a farm and it'd want to be a bloody dry and warm March/April before you'd need to add more water to slurry. Probably months akin to last summer which I don't recall March/April 2013 being.

The reason he found the body was because he thought Mary Lowry might lease it to a dairy farmer, in which case there would be much more water flowing through this tank - with a body in there, how long before the pipe became blocked up, and the farmer had to figure out why his milking parlour wasn't draining of water?

I bet he couldn't bring himself to get the body out himself without bringing suspicion on himself (and the god awful job that would be) so he decided to "find" the body. He thought he had his ducks in a row to defect the attention, but his alibi slowly unfolded and ultimately the case (including crucially the Google searches, the AI woman, etc) built against him.

I'd love to know what he did with the body immmediately after the murder - if he had disturbed the tank then, surely even a basic scan of the area would have aroused suspicion. He must have hid it somewhere else for a few days at least until the attention died down.

The right verdict was reached here and it would have been a travesty of justice to Bobby Ryan (an innocent man don't forget who had done nothing wrong) and his family had he got away with it.

I also feel sorry for the rest of the Quirke and Lowry families who have to deal with the aftermath of this as well, given the age of the children involved especially.

jbt123

Had this trial occurred in Scotland, then the jury would have returned a verdict of 'not proven'....

Jackman25

sligojoek wrote: »

Incognito mode is useless. It'll cover your tracks if you don't want your wife to know you were watching porn or looking for a present for her online. Any IT person worth their salt can track what you were doing in no time at all.

Really - even after a couple of years when whatever remnants of your searches had been stored on the hard drive would have been overwritten?

PhilOssophy

jbt123 wrote: »

Had this trial occurred in Scotland, then the jury would have returned a verdict of 'not proven'....

But it didn't occur in Scotland, it occurred in Ireland. Where the murder happened.

Jackman25

Would ISP's have the information on what pages are being requested by whom or at least be able to link Internet page downloads to a customer?

Edgware

jbt123 wrote: »

Had this trial occurred in Scotland, then the jury would have returned a verdict of 'not proven'....

So you think

jbt123

PhilOssophy wrote: »

But it didn't occur in Scotland, it occurred in Ireland. Where the murder happened.

Murdered by who is the important point here. In my opinion, the prosecution hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder.

monkeybutter

jack you are getting more and more suspicious, what are you trying to cover up?

jbt123

Edgware wrote: »

So you think

Well yes. I'm offering my opinion here. Isn't that what we are all doing here.

ElBastardo1

PhilOssophy wrote: »

But it didn't occur in Scotland, it occurred in Ireland. Where the murder happened.

Exactly, each jurisdiction is different.

Look at the Spanish justice system, remember recently the Irish guy convicted of murdering Gary Hutch? He started the trial as the gun man, then halfway through they prosecution claimed he was the lookout man and found guilty.

Beyond reasonable doubt, when you put together all the evidence is he guilty? I think just alone on the Notepad, the motive, finding the body on his last day of his lease, internet searches for decomposition, the lid being lifted from the tank 2 weeks before the discovery, and also how he could recognise a body through a small crack which Gardai said was impossible. each piece of evidence on its own isn't enough, but together you can say there is too much evidence to find him guilty.

Say my name

So was this notepad with "What the guards will know" notes filled out after Quirke moved the concrete slab to check the tank and the flies did their thing on the remains?

Sounds like he saw the remains were still there and was getting his story straight before he "actually" discovered them with the slurry tanker weeks later.

monkeybutter

Say my name wrote: »

So was this notepad with "What the guards will know" notes filled out after Quirke moved the concrete slab to check the tank and the flies did their thing on the remains?

Sounds like he saw the remains were still there and was getting his story straight before he "actually" discovered them with the slurry tanker weeks later.

why did he not just take the body to someones else farm and put it in a tank there

problem solved

ohnonotgmail

monkeybutter wrote: »

why did he not just take the body to someones else farm and put it in a tank there

problem solved

Do you not think another farmer might get suspicious if they seen him near their slurry tank? and if they did see him he is caught redhanded.

Spleerbun

Say my name wrote: »

So was this notepad with "What the guards will know" notes filled out after Quirke moved the concrete slab to check the tank and the flies did their thing on the remains?

Sounds like he saw the remains were still there and was getting his story straight before he "actually" discovered them with the slurry tanker weeks later.

We don't know when it was written. Prosecution says before, defence says after.

Edit: before/after the body discovery and first interview that is

Faugheen

jbt123 wrote: »

Had this trial occurred in Scotland, then the jury would have returned a verdict of 'not proven'....

Any proof to back up this fact?

In all of its irrelevance.

[Deleted User]

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It was found on the farm he was leasing. So he had the motive, opportunity, the body was hidden on his *leased* farm, in a place only he and a few others knew about; somebody was using his computer to search the web for information on human decomposition and the effectiveness of dna evidence; and the body was conveniently “discovered” by him, given that he was going to have to leave at the end of the lease.

But also there’s no evidence against him and how did this ever get to trial according to some on here.

Sounds like the ideal setup to frame someone. It would seem to be the stupidest place ever to hide a body if you were Quirke ... and he didn't strike me as stupid. He could have moved it at any time afterwards too and no one would be any the wiser.

Jackman25

monkeybutter wrote: »

jack you are getting more and more suspicious, what are you trying to cover up?

:) Nothing...... yet.

Just interested. I guess with GDPR, the ISPs probably wouldn't be allowed store that sort of information linked to a customer?

monkeybutter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you not think another farmer might get suspicious if they seen him near their slurry tank? and if they did see him he is caught redhanded.

obviously man, I didn't he should get caught doing it

I mean don't wait until the farmers looking at the slurry tank, cause that's all theyd be doin all day and all night

definitely do it at night

People are suggesting that's what could have happened in this case

This is years after the killing, no ones even looking at him.