Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 10:12PM

The jury deliberates with just the twelve. No one else. They can decide to ask for clarification on points with the judge, but otherwise it is just those twelve.

It is not an easy task, I can tell you. Some members are more vocal than others, but some are also less involved in the "beyond reasonable doubt" issue. The judge always directs the jury in that regard and it is important to listen to the judge.

I do not envy jurors. I know the score. Some members can be swayed by the usual bullies, you get them everywhere. Have to be strong and observe and go with the evidence.

Glad I will not have to do it again. But I did it three times, that's more than enough for me!

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 10:17PM

koutoubia wrote: »

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.

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

02-05-2019 10:20PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Did anybody hear Liveline Today?
I saw a Tweet saying that Quirke's mother rang in to say he got prosession of the family home against her will in 2005.
It sounded messy.

Charming fellow. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mother-of-patrick-quirke-called-liveline-in-2005-to-complain-about-son-921628.html

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 10:23PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

Being holed up in hotels doesn't happen anymore. But lunches and breaks do alright.

The quiet ones will often analyse the evidence, the vocal ones can be bullies and just shout out loud.

It is not a nice place that jury room, believe me.

paleoperson · 02-05-2019 10:27PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

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.

It's funny how they ban the media from speaking about it or from the juror consulting with non-jurors about it, but it's open season for speaking with people who have every motive to want to influence their decision.

Since I was young I have always been skeptical about this process but I was pretty cautious about my conclusions - for the same reasons I'd be very cautious about believing I knew better than the experts at literature, music or biology at something fundamental to their systems of doing stuff, surely I must be missing something. However if anything the older I get the more preposterous it seems to be - why allow people to get influenced and/or manipulated? Bullying and harassment, people allowing their opinion to be silenced just so they can get out early as well.

My system would be like this: Have 24 people. Every individual in turn gives their preliminary vote and attempts to justify it - so if someone thinks of something another person didn't they can hear it. No more deliberations after that. Their end vote is anonymous.

Some people say that deliberations are necessary to make sure everyone remembers and understands/connects all the evidence - well how about all jury members must also undergo a non-trivial quiz at the end of the trial making sure they understood it all? This would ensure that people are compis mentis for the incredibly serious job.

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 10:27PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The jury deliberates with just the twelve. No one else. They can decide to ask for clarification on points with the judge, but otherwise it is just those twelve.

Thats interesting. I find it strange that the conversations arent at least recorded, I mean all sorts could be said in there. You could even have one of those bully types whose been got to by associates of the suspect and bribed to produce a not guilty verdict. Over a number of weeks he then gets friendly with a few other jurors in an effort to influence them into a not guilty verdict. Without a record of what is said in that room it makes corrupting the process a lot easier. I wonder how they do it in other countries.

Also post trial you are not allowed to speak to the media. What did the judge say to your group in relation to this, was there a threat of prison time if you did break the silence?

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 10:34PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats interesting. I find it strange that the conversations arent at least recorded, I mean all sorts could be said in there. You could even have one of those bully types whose been got to by associates of the suspect and bribed to produce a not guilty verdict. Over a number of weeks he then gets friendly with a few other jurors in an effort to influence them into a not guilty verdict. Without a record of what is said in that room it makes corrupting the process a lot easier. I wonder how they do it in other countries.

Also post trial you are not allowed to speak to the media. What did the judge say to your group in relation to this, was there a threat of prison time if you did break the silence?

When a juror is selected s/he is obliged to recuse themselves if they have any connection at all with the accused or the victim etc.

If deliberations were recorded there would be few verdicts, most likely hung jury. Not happening, nor will it.

Jurors cannot speak about trials they were involved in. Rightly so.

paleoperson · 02-05-2019 10:35PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial.

Could there be an inkling of the CSI effect about this, I wonder. Or is the idea of the CSI effect a bunch of hokum made up by dodgy prosecutors?

cute geoge · 02-05-2019 10:37PM

john9876 wrote: »

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!

It seems when gardai searched the farm after bobby Ryan went missing the tank was covered with round bales of silage and as well not many even knew that the tank even existed

Aska · 02-05-2019 10:40PM

Deleted User wrote:

The defense tried their damndest to lay the blame on Mary Lowry and failed.

They did and the media did their bit too with the whole 'Mr. Moonlight' angle on all reports as if poor Bobby was a sex pest while he did the DJing as a hobby and the trucking job was his main daily job.

Quirke seems to be a very controlling person be it the compo he wanted when some of his animals according to him got sick and then there was the provisions of money he wanted made in Mary's will so he could build his extension to care for her kids should she pass away, personally I hope he rots but Bernard Condon is paid well to discredit everyone other than his client and so far this didn't work this time.

Also they are praising Imelda for standing by her husband, seriously i think she had to stand by her man cause if she hadn't of then why signal would that have made? And surely the defense would not have wanted that image out there.

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 10:40PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Being holed up in hotels doesn't happen anymore. But lunches and breaks do alright.

The quiet ones will often analyse the evidence, the vocal ones can be bullies and just shout out loud.

It is not a nice place that jury room, believe me.

Aw right, for some reason I had thought that when a trial is to last several weeks/months that all jurors staying in the same hotel to prevent them going home and discussing the trial/evidence with family and friends who are also following it in the media. Not putting them in a hotel makes the process even worse IMO, like what juror isnt going to go home and have a natter about the details of what they spent the day hearing? We're all human, you couldnt not talk about it to your partner who then also has an opinion, one that very much might influence you.

In your own case were your three trials in a specific county with all jurors living in that county and commuting from home to the courts every day? Were there any measures taken to ensure that jurors couldnt be 'got' to by assoiciates of the suspect? Id be very reluictant to serve on a jury for fear of something like that happening. Criminals are violent people and they'll do anything to get their way.

Spleerbun · 02-05-2019 10:40PM

On the jury point, this was clearly a very close one and one vote the other way could have changed everything. The fact that 2 voted not guilty suggests to me that at least one or two others were probably close to 50-50.

I was on a jury before and what one poster speculated a few posts ago rang true: the foreman was a bit of an influencer and was an articulate speaker, I got the feeling once he had his mind made up he was very likely followed by a few sheep in the group. (As we all know, there are far more sheep out there than shepherds!). Some people, and we've all met them, need reassurance from others before making decisions themselves.

It may be flawed but the problem is that I don't see any better way of doing these things. Apart from maybe just letting the judge decide, but I don't think anyone is particularly happy these days with judges in this country tbh

PhilOssophy · 02-05-2019 10:42PM

john9876 wrote: »

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!

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.
It wasn't the boys in blue's finest hour by any means but they were quick enough to get the larvae expert on the job which proved to be vital in the case of proving the tank was open in the lead up to the staged discovery

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 10:47PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Aw right, for some reason I had thought that when a trial is to last several weeks/months that all jurors staying in the same hotel to prevent them going home and discussing the trial/evidence with family and friends who are also following it in the media. Not putting them in a hotel makes the process even worse IMO, like what juror isnt going to go home and have a natter about the details of what they spent the day hearing? We're all human, you couldnt not talk about it to your partner who then also has an opinion, one that very much might influence you.

In your own case were your three trials in a specific county with all jurors living in that county and commuting from home to the courts every day? Were there any measures taken to ensure that jurors couldnt be 'got' to by assoiciates of the suspect? Id be very reluictant to serve on a jury for fear of something like that happening. Criminals are violent people and they'll do anything to get their way.

All trials were in the Central Criminal Court in Dublin where I live. I didn't feel intimidated, more rollie eyes at the boss i.e. the jury foreman. But I said my piece and am happy that I did. The verdict did not comply with my view, but I am happy enough that I got my point across. Was a 10/2 verdict in the first case to convict. The other two were unanimous in the end, but it took a while.

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 10:49PM

Aska wrote: »

They did and the media did their bit too with the whole 'Mr. Moonlight' angle on all reports as if poor Bobby was a sex pest while he did the DJing as a hobby and the trucking job was his main daily job.

Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight".

To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.

Faugheen · 02-05-2019 10:51PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight".

To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.

Was there a covert sniggering when his missing posters had ‘Mr Moonlight’ on them? Or when his daughter referred to him as ‘Moonlight’ in the victim impact statement?

I really don’t understand the Mr Moonlight issue at all. It’s what the man was known as.

mycro2013 · 02-05-2019 10:55PM

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.
It wasn't the boys in blue's finest hour by any means but they were quick enough to get the larvae expert on the job which proved to be vital in the case of proving the tank was open in the lead up to the staged discovery

There must have been other involvement. Did he walk back from bansha wood to collect his own vehicle. How did he move the body. Alot of unknowns.

koutoubia · 02-05-2019 10:56PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

On the first point : ...And it is of course just going on what I experienced....
Yes I can imagine that one 'vocal outspoken' person can have an influence. In my case there were 3 or 4 so they nullified each other.

The jury room is just that. A room for the jury only. No one except the jury, the jury minder and a cleaner who has strict intrusctions as to what they can touch and look at.
Essentially it a free for all but with unlimited supply of coffee, tea and bikkies.

There is a certain similarity between this trial and the one I was involved in and its that the jury I was on believed someone else was pulling the strings BUT we had to remind ourselves that they were not on trial and we coiuld only make a decision about the person on trial. It was difficult but had to be done.

sligojoek · 02-05-2019 11:06PM

Now that the "run off tank" has been explained above, it's got me thinking.

A lot of guards come from a farming background. Given the amount of them that searched the farm, did none of them see the milking parlour and say, "Where's the run off tank?"?

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 11:08PM

koutoubia wrote: »

On the first point : ...And it is of course just going on what I experienced....
Yes I can imagine that one 'vocal outspoken' person can have an influence. In my case there were 3 or 4 so they nullified each other.

The jury room is just that. A room for the jury only. No one except the jury, the jury minder and a cleaner who has strict intrusctions as to what they can touch and look at.
Essentially it a free for all but with unlimited supply of coffee, tea and bikkies.

There is a certain similarity between this trial and the one I was involved in and its that the jury I was on believed someone else was pulling the strings BUT we had to remind ourselves that they were not on trial and we coiuld only make a decision about the person on trial. It was difficult but had to be done.

Exactly and fair dues to you and your jury members.

Being a juror requires a lot of self belief and a lot of analysis of the evidence.

I often think that the 10/2 verdicts are the opt out verdict. Never happy with that.

But anyway. Not wishing for a ban or anything!

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2019 11:18PM

I think the jury foreman should only be appointed when there is a verdict.

All s/he has to to do in reality is convey the decision to the court.

Discuss!

Joe Daly · 02-05-2019 11:19PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they had nothing like that on Glenroe.

Well holy god.

koutoubia · 02-05-2019 11:20PM

paleoperson wrote: »

My system would be like this: Have 24 people. Every individual in turn gives their preliminary vote and attempts to justify it - so if someone thinks of something another person didn't they can hear it. No more deliberations after that.

Some people say that deliberations are necessary to make sure everyone remembers and understands/connects all the evidence - well how about all jury members must also undergo a non-trivial quiz at the end of the trial making sure they understood it all? This would ensure that people are for the incredibly serious job.

The BOLD type above.... Why no more deliberations? That would almost defeat the purpose of having a jury.
For mine when we went in to start deliberating we did a quick around the table of 'Guilty or Not Guilty' before we started to deliberate. I sat on the fence as I simply didnt know....which meant that I had a doubt which meant not guilty!
From memory at least 2 others changed their mind. The deliberations kept going until we got to a stage where everyone was comfortable that they had come to a decision.

For the italics above...a large part of that would fall down to the barristers in court to make it plain and clear to the jury what their question is and what it means . They waffle on in legal parlance all they want and sound important BUT if they dont convinc the jury then they are losing the battle.

Muahahaha · 02-05-2019 11:26PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Could there be an inkling of the CSI effect about this, I wonder. Or is the idea of the CSI effect a bunch of hokum made up by dodgy prosecutors?

With the explosion in popularity of the true crime genre and Netflix etc I would say the CSI effect does exist. For instance Ive a friend who swears that without a doubt Steven Avery of Making a Murderer fame is innocent. Its a good doc for sure but if you objectively analyse it you can see how the makers are playing on the emotions of the audience. Instead of presenting a potential killer the leading narrative of it is that he has been framed and is innocent. Then they fill in plenty of time with emotional phone calls of him from prison to his elderly parents. They skirt over the fact that the cops were called to his home numerous times for assaults on women. And many people watching believe he is innocent but dont realise that the makers have been tugging on their heart strings and delibritely not laying out the full story.

Spleerbun wrote: »

It may be flawed but the problem is that I don't see any better way of doing these things. Apart from maybe just letting the judge decide, but I don't think anyone is particularly happy these days with judges in this country tbh

Someone earlier suggessted a secret ballot where by the other jurors dont know your position might be a better way. With a secret ballot a juror could choose to outline their reasons for guilty and their reasons for not guilty, a kind of sit on the fence position. And then go and secretly vote for what they think is the most likely. It just seems to me that if everyone knows how everyone else is voting then you are going to have shepherds and sheep following them.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.

This part is the real head scratcher for me. Open to correction but my understanding is that Quirke kills him right outside Mary Lowrys house sometime after 6.30am. What does he do next? Drive the van and body to his farm, dump the body in the slurry tank and then drive the van to the woods? If he did all this then why no DNA or blood in the van? And how did he get back from the woods, on foot or did he bring a bicycle and cycle back? Surely he would have been seen? It all seems too hard for one person to carry out alone without being seen by someone. Earlier on thread someone mentioned a Polish farm labourer employed there who went back to Poland shortly thereafter, is there any more details about this bit?

Stacksofwacks · 02-05-2019 11:39PM

Just seen the Prime Time and there's defintely questions regarding Mary Lowry. No doubt Quirke did it but is he covering for her in some way.. Why did she wait such along time after Ryan went missing to disclose the affair with Quirke? She must have known that Quirke would have had something to do with it and yet she let half the country searching the woods for weeks. How did he murder Ryan and bury the body on her property without her knowing anything? And why did she resume the affair with Quirke after Ryan went missing when she must have known he was behind the dissapearance. She's either very weak and naive or we're not hearing the full story.

paleoperson · 02-05-2019 11:44PM

koutoubia wrote: »

The BOLD type above.... Why no more deliberations? That would almost defeat the purpose of having a jury.
For mine when we went in to start deliberating we did a quick around the table of 'Guilty or Not Guilty' before we started to deliberate. I sat on the fence as I simply didnt know....which meant that I had a doubt which meant not guilty!
From memory at least 2 others changed their mind. The deliberations kept going until we got to a stage where everyone was comfortable that they had come to a decision.

No more deliberations so it doesn't turn into the soap opera described earlier. The jury is the group of peers there to give their verdict - they're obviously important when they're the ones deciding guilty or innocent.

As you yourself point out next, it should be mainly up to the legal professionals to convince the jurors, not them to convince each other. I'm not really sure why you posted this but thanks as it really helps me in answering your post:

koutoubia wrote: »

For the italics above...a large part of that would fall down to the barristers in court to make it plain and clear to the jury what their question is and what it means . They waffle on in legal parlance all they want and sound important BUT if they dont convinc the jury then they are losing the battle.

If after hearing all sides thoroughly one person believes a) and another person believes b), is it right that one should be able to try to convince the other to take their side instead? The first question will be a variation of "why do you think that?" and from then on it's a targeted breaking down of their statements, it may well come down to who is good at manipulation or persuasion - and it's not like they think they're the bad guy or anything, they just see it as their duty to convince the others.

This is why I suggest that instead of being able to target people individually, each juror could give their justification for a preliminary vote. This way if one juror has a perspective or idea that may not have been put out by the legal professionals, they are laying it flat on the table for all to see. Other than that I see no reason to prolong the process.

Vicarious Function · 02-05-2019 11:51PM

I don't think the body was ever in the van. I believe Bobby R. (R.I.P.) was killed as he came out of Mary Lowry's house at approx 6.30 ba.m. by Quirke who was waiting for him. The slurry tank is on M. Lowry's farm, so the body would not have to be transported anywhere. I imagine Quirke would have had a selection of machinery, for instance somethng like a forklift. Using something like that, it wold be simple enough to move the body into the run-off tank. He must have had access to fairly good machinery as he would have had to lift the concrete covers off the tank in order to get the body in there. After all, he had access to a suction machine and slurry spreader, which are fairly heavy machinery. IMO, he could even have used one of those machines in committing the murder.

Vicarious Function · 02-05-2019 11:59PM

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

My speculation is there was a violent confrontation in the yard that morning which Lowry wasnt oblivious to. Ryan ends up on the ground dead. The two then decide to dispose the body and keep it quiet.

You could be right, Stacksofwacks. It's another way of looking at it. Who's to know?

Spanish Eyes · 03-05-2019 12:22AM

Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view.

Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.

freshpopcorn · 03-05-2019 12:28AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view.

Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.

It's a possibility but people are strange.
It's amazing the people that will stick by family members. Sometimes they are naive or abused and others they are well matched.

One thing is that there eleven year old son died in 2012 and this may have brought them closer together.

Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Comments