Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Cryptopagan · 01-05-2019 3:42pm

Laois_Man wrote: »

The link I have already given gives the exact searches that were used and the exact articles that were read, which were not about decomposition in water

And it gives the dates of the second searches - a year and a half after the murder with the first searches at least two years before the murder.

They weren't 2 years before the murder.

kerry cow · 01-05-2019 3:47pm

no dna in the van ? was the seat forward or back ?, where is his phone and clothes ? no murder scene , house redecorated after the murder , the kids away that night , the van found really quickly by I think Mary , pulling down posters , lying about hotel bookings , I really feel sorry for quirke as evidence is weak ,and I am a good man to convict ,but so sad for his wife who has also lost a son , betrayed by her husband and sister in law ,
sorry for imelda ,

MrMusician18 · 01-05-2019 3:49pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Said with scary conviction! Just hope that if any misfortune befalls you and you end up on trial, that the jurors will be open minded

It's meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, therefore when a verdict is given it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. When people are surprised it tends to suggest that it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, in fact it's more of a lottery. Effectively you'd be willing to bet the farm on him having done it, it's an extremely onerous standard.

From what I read in the media, I couldn't see how any reasonable person could consider that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

This is likely to be overturned on appeal.

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 3:49pm

kerry cow wrote: »

no dna in the van ? was the seat forward or back ?, where is his phone and clothes ? no murder scene , house redecorated after the murder , the kids away that night , the van found really quickly by I think Mary , pulling down posters , lying about hotel bookings , I really feel sorry for quirke as evidence is weak ,and I am a good man to convict ,but so sad for his wife who has also lost a son , betrayed by her husband and sister in law ,
sorry for imelda ,

Just ignore the overwhelming evidence against Quirke then.

I love the way some people are calling the Quirke evidence ‘weak’ then point fingers at the equally circumstantial evidence against Mary Lowry.

Arghus · 01-05-2019 3:50pm

People saying they're surprised he was convicted must have been listening to different reports to me.

Either he was guilty or he was very, very unlucky with coincidences.

castletownman · 01-05-2019 3:55pm

Lowry seems a bit loolah. How she was getting so much action is beyond me.

realdanbreen · 01-05-2019 3:59pm

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Yeah, all they had on him was the motive and the opportunity...and the actual body of the murder victim hidden in a concealed water tank on his farm that only he and a few others knew about.

Opportunity? Loads of people had the opportunity as is the case in most murder trials. The body was not found on his farm. Nobody can say how he died, when he died, nobody witnessed a struggle. I don't know whether Quirke did it or not, no more than you do, but the guilty verdict is nonsensical.

topnotch · 01-05-2019 4:00pm

Surely an appeal is on the cards. I can’t see how they can convict someone when there is no hard evidence. Thinking someone is guilty is very different to knowing someone has committed a crime. The jury have misunderstood “beyond a reasonable doubt” in my opinion.

Also the part with the notepad was a joke. It was like someone using a oujia board to get a message from the other side.

knucklehead6 · 01-05-2019 4:01pm

Arghus wrote: »

People saying they're surprised he was convicted must have been listening to different reports to me.

Either he was guilty or he was very, very unlucky with coincidences.

I'd say that they mean the reports they heard were not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt to them.

I felt he was guilty but i also felt the case was built on slightly shaky ground too

freshpopcorn · 01-05-2019 4:07pm

castletownman wrote: »

Lowry seems a bit loolah. How she was getting so much action is beyond me.

I remember I was on a night out some time in 2012 with people close enough from the area.
I got the impression that the himself and the people who lived in the house around where he was last seen were characters.

Charles Ingles · 01-05-2019 4:07pm

Think there was a pair of them in it.

Cryptopagan · 01-05-2019 4:10pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Opportunity? Loads of people had the opportunity as is the case in most murder trials. The body was not found on his farm. Nobody can say how he died, when he died, nobody witnessed a struggle. I don't know whether Quirke did it or not, no more than you do, but the guilty verdict is nonsensical.

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.

Cryptopagan · 01-05-2019 4:13pm

topnotch wrote: »

Surely an appeal is on the cards. I can’t see how they can convict someone when there is no hard evidence.

I’m not a forensic pathologist, but I think a dead body might be classed as hard evidence in a murder case.

ChippingSodbury · 01-05-2019 4:15pm

I'm really surprised with the guilty verdict. Do I think he did it from the evidence in the media? Probably (as in a bit more likely than not) but definitely not beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn't it possible he had an enemy who set him up? Possibly Mary Lowry, possibly someone not even covered in the investigation? There are just too many possibilities of things that could explain the circumstantial evidence as either coincidental or something else.

I think I recognise one of those sites on decomposition in Texas: if I remember correctly, it was on TV in some Real Murders program or something like that. It's not inconceivable to think he saw it on tv and looked it up at the time/ afterwards. How many people watch the Brennan Brothers on a Sunday and look up the guest house/ hotel/ holiday home while the program is on??

realdanbreen · 01-05-2019 4:15pm

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.

But if he did kill him and put him in the tank why did he not either dissolve the body or cover the body in concrete, he had two years to do so.

Edgware · 01-05-2019 4:16pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, therefore when a verdict is given it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. When people are surprised it tends to suggest that it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt, in fact it's more of a lottery. Effectively you'd be willing to bet the farm on him having done it, it's an extremely onerous standard.

From what I read in the media, I couldn't see how any reasonable person could consider that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

This is likely to be overturned on appeal.

On what grounds?

The jury spent weeks listening to evidence and several days considering their verdict.
Most of the experts here are making opinions on the contents of a column in The Star.
It may be circumstantial evidence but it is still evidence and the jury has considered it carefully

Spanish Eyes · 01-05-2019 4:17pm

What I found fascinating about this case was the ease with which these people who lived in a close knit community were cavorting with each other rather openly. I know that is not a crime, but still!

And the accused, (now convicted murderer) was supported by his wife the whole time. Weird, but I suppose she thought him innocent. But he wasn't innocent of playing away though.

The evidence in my view was purely circumstantial, and although the suspicion was out there, the evidence did not back it up beyond reasonable doubt. I think I would have been one of the two negative votes on the jury. There just wasn't enough to convict really no matter what.

realdanbreen · 01-05-2019 4:17pm

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

I'm really surprised with the guilty verdict. Do I think he did it from the evidence in the media? Probably (as in a bit more likely than not) but definitely not beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn't it possible he had an enemy who set him up? Possibly Mary Lowry, possibly someone not even covered in the investigation? There are just too many possibilities of things that could explain the circumstantial evidence as either coincidental or something else.

I think I recognise one of those sites on decomposition in Texas: if I remember correctly, it was on TV in some Real Murders program or something like that. It's not inconceivable to think he saw it on tv and looked it up at the time/ afterwards. How many people watch the Brennan Brothers on a Sunday and look up the guest house/ hotel/ holiday home while the program is on??

Well if he was a fan of the Brennan brothers then he is capable of anything!

kneemos · 01-05-2019 4:20pm

topnotch wrote: »

Surely an appeal is on the cards. I can’t see how they can convict someone when there is no hard evidence. Thinking someone is guilty is very different to knowing someone has committed a crime. The jury have misunderstood “beyond a reasonable doubt” in my opinion.

Also the part with the notepad was a joke. It was like someone using a oujia board to get a message from the other side.

It comes down to how they feel rather than making a decision on hard evidence.

This surely can't be right.

crossman47 · 01-05-2019 4:20pm

Arghus wrote: »

Either he was guilty or he was very, very unlucky with coincidences.

That is true but being unlucky with coincidences does not equate to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

BarryD2 · 01-05-2019 4:20pm

Faugheen wrote: »

I presented a huge piece of evidence in this thread which pointed towards his guilt and you’ve completely ignored it.

Faugheen wrote: »

Just ignore the overwhelming evidence against Quirke then.

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because of a theory you have.

freshpopcorn · 01-05-2019 4:21pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What I found fascinating about this case was the ease with which these people who lived in a close knit community were cavorting with each other rather openly. I know that is not a crime, but still!

I don't think they were overly popular in the area from what I heard and this was before the body was found.

Charles Ingles · 01-05-2019 4:21pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because you think they did it.

Tell that to Graham Dwyer

Arghus · 01-05-2019 4:22pm

crossman47 wrote: »

That is true but being unlucky with coincidences does not equate to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Up to a point, but beyond that point is beyond reasonable doubt.

Candamir · 01-05-2019 4:22pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Just ignore the overwhelming evidence against Quirke then.

I love the way some people are calling the Quirke evidence ‘weak’ then point fingers at the equally circumstantial evidence against Mary Lowry.

Isnt that the point people are making? Mary Lowry wasn’t convicted on the ‘equally’ circumstantial evidence. She wasn’t even charged. Yet Quirke will be serving a life sentence.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I’m not a forensic pathologist, but I think a dead body might be classed as hard evidence in a murder case.

A dead body is hard evidence of a death. Unless there’s other evidence found on/in it.

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 4:24pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

What huge or overwhelming piece of evidence do you refer to?? Please elucidate.

You can't convict someone of murder just because of a theory you have.

It's not a theory.

He admitted to searching about body decomposition timelines 18 months after Bobby Ryan went missing.

What's theoretical about that?

What's theoretical is the idea that he was set up, which many people are implying here. There's no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

The body was found by him, on the land he was leasing from the woman he had an affair with who had been in a relationship with the deceased.

That's cold, hard, facts. There's no 'theory' whatsoever.

beertons · 01-05-2019 4:24pm

Odelay wrote: »

The staging of finding the body was a bit of a give away.

This.

Cryptopagan · 01-05-2019 4:27pm

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

It's not inconceivable to think he saw it on tv and looked it up at the time/ afterwards. How many people watch the Brennan Brothers on a Sunday and look up the guest house/ hotel/ holiday home while the program is on??

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

BarryD2 · 01-05-2019 4:28pm

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not a theory.

He admitted to searching about body decomposition timelines 18 months after Bobby Ryan went missing.

What's 'theoretical' about that?

Ah come off it - you cannot seriously equate searching the internet with proof of culpability of murder. That's just daft.

Odelay · 01-05-2019 4:28pm

kerry cow wrote: »

no dna in the van ? was the seat forward or back ?, where is his phone and clothes ? no murder scene , house redecorated after the murder , the kids away that night , the van found really quickly by I think Mary , pulling down posters , lying about hotel bookings , I really feel sorry for quirke as evidence is weak ,and I am a good man to convict ,but so sad for his wife who has also lost a son , betrayed by her husband and sister in law ,
sorry for imelda ,

It’s Imelda and the sons from both sides I feel sorry for. All in their teens or early twenties. Lord help them.

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 4:29pm

Genuinely can't believe someone just suggested that I was coming up with a theory as to why guilty was the right verdict when I was using evidence in the trial.

Jesus Christ, some people here just want to believe what they want and won't listen to anything that's been said.

Funnily enough Laois_Man has gone missing since his theory of the internet searches taking place before Bobby Ryan went missing was quickly debunked.

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 4:31pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Ah come off it - you cannot seriously equate searching the internet with proof of culpability of murder. That's just daft.

I'm using evidence from the trial.

How on Earth is it a theory? The verdict was guilty, and I provided you with evidence from the trial which pointed the finger overwhelmingly at him.

Do you even know what a theory is?

BarryD2 · 01-05-2019 4:33pm

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

It looks bad but it doesn't imply that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And that's what's required.

Floppybits · 01-05-2019 4:34pm

What puzzles me is why did he tell the Gardai he found the body 2 years after the murder? The Gardai searched the place twice and found nothing, surely if he had said nothing the body would never have been found.

freshpopcorn · 01-05-2019 4:34pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Funnily enough Laois_Man has gone missing since his theory of the internet searches taking place before Bobby Ryan went missing was quickly debunked.

Or perhaps he has something to do.
It looks like your easy to jump to conclusions from that post.

freshpopcorn · 01-05-2019 4:35pm

Floppybits wrote: »

What puzzles me is why did he tell the Gardai he found the body 2 years after the murder? The Gardai searched the place twice and found nothing, surely if he had said nothing the body would never have been found.

I think his lease was up on the farm!

realdanbreen · 01-05-2019 4:35pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Really? And what do you reckon is that 'something' ?

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 4:38pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Or perhaps he has something to do.
It looks like your easy to jump to conclusions from that post.

So he posts a complete inaccuracy, and then is gone when he's corrected?

I'll make whatever assumption I please, thank you.

Great contribution, though.

ChippingSodbury · 01-05-2019 4:38pm

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so randomly looked up a load of stuff about human decomposition on his computer, having previously randomly looked up stuff about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, and it just so happened there was the body of a murdered man hidden in a tank on the farm he was leasing, a man he had a motive to kill. And this sounds plausible to you?

Well, think of a possible explanation:
1. He watched a crime program on tv
2. He looked up the details/ related details on internet (decomposition and DNA)
3. He made an enemy who killed Bobby Ryan and placed him somewhere that would throw suspicion on Quirke

The point is that reasonable doubt is a fairly high threshold to meet. I don't know what the probability should be but I'd guess it would be > 95%
Were all other relatively possible outcomes investigated and presented to the court? Again, I don't know but it certainly wasn't reported in the media. The fact that Lowry held him in contempt would have surely been a possible motive that she could have set him up but no evidence of this was presented: if it was, it would have ruled out a possible explanation for Quirke.

I'll say it again, I'd guess that he's guilty but I don't understand how it reaches the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.

01-05-2019 4:42pm

kneemos wrote: »

It comes down to how they feel rather than making a decision on hard evidence.

This surely can't be right.

I feel that he’s involved in the death alright. But my feels should not mean that a man will serve a life sentence. Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.

How did Mary Lowry know where the van was so quickly? If we’re talking circumstantial, surely there’s enough to charge her aswell.

freshpopcorn · 01-05-2019 4:44pm

Faugheen wrote: »

So he posts a complete inaccuracy, and then is gone when he's corrected?

I'll make whatever assumption I please, thank you.

Great contribution, though.

Well it's one theory but another is the poster had somewhere to be as they see several others.
There's no need to thank me.
Thanks for your great contribution and showing how you jump to conclusions.

BarryD2 · 01-05-2019 4:44pm

Faugheen wrote: »

I never showed any joy of him being found guilty, just people are chatting ****e when they say there was no evidence.

It's clear you're only looking for a row.

Sigh.. no one said there was no evidence. Just that it came across as inconclusive as reported in the media.

And as for looking for a row......

Cryptopagan · 01-05-2019 4:45pm

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

Well, think of a possible explanation:
1. He watched a crime program on tv
2. He looked up the details/ related details on internet (decomposition and DNA)
3. He made an enemy who killed Bobby Ryan and placed him somewhere that would throw suspicion on Quirke.

If there was a completely innocent explanation, then why didn’t he give it to the Gardai when asked about it, instead of stupidly lying about it, claiming it was about the death of his son, who wasn’t dead at the time of the search?

Oops! · 01-05-2019 4:47pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I feel that he’s involved in the death alright. But my feels should not mean that a man will serve a life sentence. Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.

How did Mary Lowry know where the van was so quickly? If we’re talking circumstantial, surely there’s enough to charge her aswell.

I agree, can't understand that one at all.

tipptom · 01-05-2019 4:48pm

What evidence is there against Mary Lowry?
What motive had Mary Lowry to kill Bobby Ryan?
The defence spent half the trial trying to make a case that Mary Lowry had some motive to kill Bobby Ryan and failed miserably.

Quirke behaved like a psycho after Mary Lowry broke it off with him,throughout the time she was going out with Bobby Ryan up to his death and when she was seeing other men after the death.

The stalking,breaking in to her house,underwear stealing,logging in to her computer,searching perfect murders,searcing decomposing bodies,alerting social services about her children because she was seeing someone was just the half of what this looper got up to.

The man was out of his mind because she was seeing Bobby Ryan and was capable of absolutely anything including murder and was the only one with motive to do this crime.

The jig was up when she finally put the foot down and wouldn't renew the lease and he had to "discover" the body shortly afterwards to try and keep control of the "perfect"crime

His replies to garda questions has all the hallmarks of someone who thought he was way ahead of the investigators with readymade answers.

No mention in the trial of the farm labourer who went back to Poland shortly after the murder with a substantial sum of money.

Just because the jury did not have DNA evidence doesn't mean that they couldn't form an opinion from the reams of evidence that this looper committed the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-05-2019 4:50pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Allegedly...

Just because the trial is over doesn't mean people can state something is fact about someone. Everyone deserves their good name until proven by a court jury otherwise.

01-05-2019 4:50pm

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

There are no winners in this sad saga.

pawdee · 01-05-2019 4:50pm

Not a shred of forensic evidence but, as the fella said, "When you go on trial you're putting your fate in the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty".

Faugheen · 01-05-2019 4:50pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Sigh.. no one said there was no evidence. Just that it came across as inconclusive as reported in the media.

Didn’t they?

kneemos wrote: »

Not a shread of evidence.

Bob Harris wrote: »

A lot of indications he was up to no good but no actual evidence.
Hardly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The bauld Mary Lowry was as dodgy as he was.

That’s just two posts within the first 10 posted in the thread.

And you can only judge by what was said in the media. You weren’t in court. That jury listened to evidence for 15 weeks. You read a summation every day.

Odelay · 01-05-2019 4:51pm

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

Well, think of a possible explanation:
1. He watched a crime program on tv
2. He looked up the details/ related details on internet (decomposition and DNA)
3. He made an enemy who killed Bobby Ryan and placed him somewhere that would throw suspicion on Quirke

The point is that reasonable doubt is a fairly high threshold to meet. I don't know what the probability should be but I'd guess it would be > 95%
Were all other relatively possible outcomes investigated and presented to the court? Again, I don't know but it certainly wasn't reported in the media. The fact that Lowry held him in contempt would have surely been a possible motive that she could have set him up but no evidence of this was presented: if it was, it would have ruled out a possible explanation for Quirke.

I'll say it again, I'd guess that he's guilty but I don't understand how it reaches the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.

So why didn’t he take the stand to explain that?

Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Comments