Patrick Quirke -Guilty

monkeybutter · 02-05-2019 04:49PM

Neyite wrote: »

I don't think he did bottle it.

I think his intention was to discover the body of HER missing boyfriend buried on HER land and hopefully the gardai would consider her the prime suspect given she was the last person to have seen him.

Then when she's safely in prison for murder that pesky issue of her not renewing the lease to him becomes a non-issue and her children have their dear uncle kindly step in to run the farm for them until they come of age.

It was about land, not love.

Is that why he was submitting tearing stories to agony Aunts was it?

The farm would still in her name, the lease would have still run out, you think she'd have not made sure that he never got a look at it again and her children certainly would have

jaysus wept

He didn't have the bottle to move the body as it would have been in some state and he panicked

That's why people get caught, they make mistakes, when they don't, well they get away with it

monkeybutter · 02-05-2019 04:53PM

Neyite wrote: »

I agree he didn't know she wouldn't renew the lease in the future. He thought the body was safe there and would never be discovered. He leased the land, he controlled Mrs Lowry so he was in the clear.

Until she was no longer under his control and she consulted with a solicitor on terminating the lease with him.

Then the body on land he has no right to access becomes a big problem.

The only thing he could do was either leave it alone and hope that she didn't get a survey done in order to sell, or lease it to someone who would open it.
Or discover it as an innocent bystander -which he did- and he obviously gave it enough thought to wonder who the Gardai would consider the prime suspect and had a strong sense that it would not be him.

or move the body

telling the Police was downright mental, unless he wanted to get caught, and sure why not admit it if that was the case

trying to frame her is non starter

Vicarious Function · 02-05-2019 04:53PM

Moving the body, considering the state of decomposition it was in, would have been difficult for him to do single-handedly, would it not?

freshpopcorn · 02-05-2019 04:53PM

I heard from somebody in Tipp that they were loads of people meeting up for a coffee to have a gossip about this Today.

monkeybutter · 02-05-2019 04:54PM

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Moving the body, considering the state of decomposition it was in, would have been difficult for him to do single-handedly, would it not?

i suggest you plug the decomposition of human bodies in water into the auld google there to see what you think

Odelay · 02-05-2019 04:55PM

It will probably be made into a film soon. Sex, lies and slurry tanks. It has it all.

ohnonotgmail · 02-05-2019 04:55PM

givyjoe wrote: »

That's a theory on his actions after the murder, not why the murder was committed in the first place. None of the evidence from the doctor, the agony aunt, the underwear thieving underwear etc points to the murder being motivated by land.

Is simple jealousy not enough of a reason?

givyjoe · 02-05-2019 04:56PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is simple jealousy not enough of a reason?

I'd have thought that was the most likely one based on the reporting of the trial/evidence.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his motivation was no related to control of land.

Loafing Oaf · 02-05-2019 05:02PM

According to the front page of today's Irish Daily Mail, one of the 'sordid secrets' about Pat Quirke that the trial jury did not get to hear was his fascination with the gruesome details of other famous murder cases such as that of Rachel Reilly. The cover also notes that the paper features a 16-page pullout on the murder trial that shocked Ireland...

freshpopcorn · 02-05-2019 05:05PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is simple jealousy not enough of a reason?

The impression I got from the locals back in 2012 was they were all cracked and it didn't suprose them one bit.
They all knew that the guy was killed but they weren't sure was the body on the farm or in the woods. They ruled out the farm originally when the Gardai searched it.

Neyite · 02-05-2019 05:05PM

givyjoe wrote: »

That's a theory on his actions after the murder, not why the murder was committed in the first place. None of the evidence from the doctor, the agony aunt, the underwear thieving underwear etc points to the murder being motivated by land.

If he lost control of her compliance, he risked losing the farm that he got at a pittance from her. Her farm is supposedly double the size of his. She had a new boyfriend, she was moving on and her ex was fast becoming a serious nuisance.

More to the point, Bobby Ryan was single, so was she. There was no obstacle to them getting married if they wanted and at that point, the farm would become a marital asset that they as a couple could do anything with - from selling it to Ryan farming it himself on their behalf. So Ryan was a threat to the cushy lease Quirke had.

Quirke acquired the land by manipulating a vulnerable grieving widow. She was getting stronger by the time of the murder and increasingly able to say no to him. She had someone else who appeared to genuinely care for her. It stands to reason that eventually Ryan would tell his girlfriend that her BIL was fleecing her if he hadn't done so already and Quirkes cushy lease would end. So Quirke got rid of the threat, and attempted to rekindle the affair but by that stage she was seeing Quirke for who he was.

ohnonotgmail · 02-05-2019 05:07PM

Neyite wrote: »

If he lost control of her compliance, he risked losing the farm that he got at a pittance from her. Her farm is supposedly double the size of his. She had a new boyfriend, she was moving on and her ex was fast becoming a serious nuisance.

More to the point, Bobby Ryan was single, so was she. There was no obstacle to them getting married if they wanted and at that point, the farm would become a marital asset that they as a couple could do anything with - from selling it to Ryan farming it himself on their behalf. So Ryan was a threat to the cushy lease Quirke had.

Quirke acquired the land by manipulating a vulnerable grieving widow. She was getting stronger by the time of the murder and increasingly able to say no to him. She had someone else who appeared to genuinely care for her. It stands to reason that eventually Ryan would tell his girlfriend that her BIL was fleecing her if he hadn't done so already and Quirkes cushy lease would end. So Quirke got rid of the threat, and attempted to rekindle the affair but by that stage she was seeing Quirke for who he was.

they had nothing like that on Glenroe.

Edgware · 02-05-2019 05:12PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they had nothing like that on Glenroe.

Miley was too busy giving one to Fidelma

Neyite · 02-05-2019 05:16PM

givyjoe wrote: »

I'd have thought that was the most likely one based on the reporting of the trial/evidence.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his motivation was no related to control of land.

I think that he claimed to love her because of the benefit to him of her believing she was loved. I know what you are saying and on the surface it does look like it was a jealous love thing, but have you seen how he benefited financially from the relationship? She was his gravy train.

Vicarious Function · 02-05-2019 05:23PM

This thing of blaming her cattle for having spread a disease to his and then claiming compensation sounds a bit much. He got 20,000 Eu from her based on that, as she didn't have a clue regarding compensation and just handed over what he demanded. So it seems.

Spleerbun · 02-05-2019 05:35PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

According to the front page of today's Irish Daily Mail, one of the 'sordid secrets' about Pat Quirke that the trial jury did not get to hear was his fascination with the gruesome details of other famous murder cases such as that of Rachel Reilly. The cover also notes that the paper features a 16-page pullout on the murder trial that shocked Ireland...

ridiculous aren't they?

Some of the reporting to be fair has been diabolical, your wan Anderson in the independent in particular.

McCrack · 02-05-2019 07:26PM

horseofstone wrote: »

What prison has pat quirke being sent to I wonder? Anyone know ?

Committal in Mountjoy last night but he will be moved to I would think either the Midlands, limerick or Cork

Edgware · 02-05-2019 07:43PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

According to the front page of today's Irish Daily Mail, one of the 'sordid secrets' about Pat Quirke that the trial jury did not get to hear was his fascination with the gruesome details of other famous murder cases such as that of Rachel Reilly. The cover also notes that the paper features a 16-page pullout on the murder trial that shocked Ireland...

Poor old Joe Reilly. Another innocent man convicted on circumstantial evidence

PhilOssophy · 02-05-2019 08:29PM

The only reason he killed him was she was knocking off his bit on the side, or so he hoped.....
I think he cared more about what his pants was telling him to do than his brain.

BarryD2 · 02-05-2019 08:33PM

recyclebin wrote: »

One thing that has me confused is the van. How did it get to the woods and how come no DNA evidence foind that quirke moved it there.

Who knows? Maybe some of the posters here who claim that the evidence is overwhelming??

Loafing Oaf · 02-05-2019 08:40PM

Odelay wrote: »

It will probably be made into a film soon. Sex, lies and slurry tanks. It has it all.

Maybe a shot at a leading role for a 'character actor'? Can't see them casting Cillian Murphy or Colin Farrell anyway...

Charles Ingles · 02-05-2019 08:47PM

Edgware wrote: »

Poor old Joe Reilly. Another innocent man convicted on circumstantial evidence

Mrs ingles is convinced Joe is innocent

SEPT 23 1989 · 02-05-2019 09:04PM

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

kerry cow · 02-05-2019 09:06PM

The field is was a hit but there's endless Oscars in this movie ,
you couldnt dream it up .

freshpopcorn · 02-05-2019 09:10PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

Couldn't agree more. I think the media are just trying to sell it.
I live in North Cork and close to South Tipperary and I heard very little about it apart from a few from the Tipp/Cashel area.
They were loads of talk about Elaine O'Hara and Joe O'Reilly. Even the post count is low in this thread.

dastardly00 · 02-05-2019 09:35PM

Prime Time is starting in a minute and they are focusing on the case

john9876 · 02-05-2019 09:39PM

Another thing I don't understand is whether he put the body in the slurry tank immediately after killing him or whether he put it there very recently?
If he put the body there immediately after killing him surely the gardai would have noticed the disturbed ground and searched the tank ... or am I giving too much credit to the boys in blue!

blackcard · 02-05-2019 09:47PM

Faugheen wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

You don't need any of that as long as your circumstantial evidence is strong enough, as we have seen multiple times before.

Why do people have such a problem grasping this?

I was walking down a street in Toronto when I met a girl I went to school with in Ireland, we had dated for a while. What are the chances? I had married a girl with the same Christian name as her. This is where it gets freaky. She had married a guy with the same name as me. We both had 2 kids. With the same names!!!
There is obviously circumstantial evidence that she was stalking me, had sought someone with the same name as me to marry, had set me up with a girl her name and had found out my kids names. God knows what you might have found on her computer. Or the whole thing might have been a series of coincidences. But I think we should lock her up for stalking

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 09:58PM

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.

Ive often thought about the dynamic in jury delibrations. As you say a certain type of person is likely to put themselves forward to be the foreman. Its likely this person is good at public speaking, good at convincing others of their argument. They might be a manager in their job, have leadership attributes, etc. All of which begs the question that if the foreman believes a suspect is not guilty do they have the opportunity to influence just two other jurors of the same in the jury room. Is there a court clerk in the jury room taking notes of everything that is said by each person? And if so do the barristers for each side get to see those notes and argue if it was a 'fair' deliberation or point out that one juror had an undue influence on other jurors. So many questions

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Moving the body, considering the state of decomposition it was in, would have been difficult for him to do single-handedly, would it not?

Not an easy job but still do-able I think. If the tank was full of slurry then pump it out and spread the slurry. Then go down and get your hands dirty, perhaps chopping the body into five or six parts and then burying it elsewhere on the farm using the tractor as a digger. Cover with grass seed and when thats grown then its unlikely it would ever be found by the next farmer to take over the lease. When you think of it Quirke had basically gotten away with murder for almost two years despite being the main suspect. He was obviously not in the right frame of mind when he decided to call Gardai rather than move the body himself. He took a look at the body 11 days before the 'discovery' so it must of been at that point he decided he didnt have the stomach to move it. Bizarre decision, I can only imagine he was losing his sanity on what to do and he wasnt thinking straight.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

Agree with this, it was nowhere near as explosive as the Graham Dwyer trial, that had it all, every day of that trial something new came out and every day you were in shock of what went on. I mean even the most sexually liberal of us had never heard of a fetish where you have sex with someone and stab them at the same time. If a fiction writer wrote it you wouldnt believe it.

koutoubia · 02-05-2019 10:01PM

I havent read all the replies here ..yet but will say this.

I was a juror on a murder trial some years back which also made 'The Papers' with select information from the trial.
When the information was that made public in said papers was refuted and was proved to be untrue that somehow didnt manage to make it into 'The Papers'.
If anyone is making any assumptions about what appears print then dont!
What jurors pick up on and hear on a daily basis can be different to what an ordinary joe in the public gallery that doesnt sit there everyday gets.

An important point now:
It was pointed out to us that in Irish Law that only the intention to kill followed by the death can be deemed as murder.
EG
If subject A says to Subject B "I am going to kill Subject C with this knife" and Subject C ends up dead from a knife wound BUT no one witness's it the subject A can be convicted murder.

We took 3 and a half days to come to a verdict.The jury room went from being a sound place with sound people to a very tense place with some heated exchanges taking place.

Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Comments