Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Minnie Snuggles

BENDYBINN wrote: »

The fact that he was bangin another woman gave her every reason not to back him......strange behavior on her part.

Given how he treated his mother not signing her house over to her, basically keeping her dependant on him and the way he treated ML stalking her, reporting her to Tusla and all the other things he did to her. One would wonder what he could have put his wife through.

hairyprincess

I know of a man who was in court, for depraved act, shall we say. And his wife stood by him. The family were told by his legal team that it would look better to show a united front. His children, who were adults, also attended each day.

Kirby

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think his fear was that a new farmer taking over the lease might well start up the milking parlour again. If that happened then he would be using the run off tank and would have discovered the body.

Okay but surely the possibility of it being found is still better than the certainty of "finding" it yourself? It just seems like a terrible plan. If he was afraid of it being found, why not (a) Try to move the body or destroy the tank completely or (b) just fly to a foreign country and hide.

Both seem better options tbh.

KikiLaRue

Kirby wrote: »

Okay but surely the possibility of it being found is still better than the certainty of "finding" it yourself? It just seems like a terrible plan. If he was afraid of it being found, why not (a) Try to move the body or destroy the tank completely or (b) just fly to a foreign country and hide.

Both seem better options tbh.

Perhaps the guilt was getting to him?

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm amazed by the number of people who:

- think they know the facts of the case better than the jurors who spent 10 weeks listening and 20 hours deliberating, based on a few articles in the Indo?

- think they understand what circumstantial evidence is better than the jurors who had it explained to them in detail by a trial judge.

This was a well planned murder, and that's why there is no physical evidence.

- The Google searches could - taken alone - be an unfortunate coincidence
- His obsession with Bobby's girlfriend, his ex-lover, could be an unfortunate coincidence
- The face that he was one of a handful of people who knew about that tank could be an unfortunate coincidence
- That he 'found' the body just as his lease was up could be an unfortunate coincidence
- That he was late to milk the cows that day could be an unfortunate coincidence

That's just off the top of my head, no doubt there's loads more. You could explain away any of them taken alone. But at a certain point, you say 'that's too many coincidences'. And there you have reasonable doubt.

Not enough there to convict anyone of murder I’m afraid........if Mary Lowry did it and asked him for help to get rid of the body then all of the above would still be true

freshpopcorn

I don't know what quirke had doing for him apart from his money but maybe he was a charmer if you knew him.
He achieved a lot and threw it all away.

hairyprincess

Kirby wrote: »

Okay but surely the possibility of it being found is still better than the certainty of "finding" it yourself? It just seems like a terrible plan. If he was afraid of it being found, why not (a) Try to move the body or destroy the tank completely or (b) just fly to a foreign country and hide.

Both seem better options tbh.

Because of his ego. He didn’t for a moment believe he’d be a suspect.

Edgware

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not enough there to convict anyone of murder I’m afraid........if Mary Lowry did it and asked him for help to get rid of the body then all of the above would still be true

The jury who listened to all the witnesses thought different so your opinion doesn't really matter

BENDYBINN

Edgware wrote: »

The jury who listened to all the witnesses thought different so your opinion doesn't really matter

So did the jury on the Birmingham six the guilford four and Nicky Kelly to name but a few............Free pateen Quirke campaign starts here now!

Necro

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not enough there to convict anyone of murder I’m afraid........if Mary Lowry did it and asked him for help to get rid of the body then all of the above would still be true

And yet.... they somehow did :eek:

It's almost like they had more knowledge of the case than some random internet person.

Imagine that.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not enough there to convict anyone of murder I’m afraid........if Mary Lowry did it and asked him for help to get rid of the body then all of the above would still be true

You're right, but I didn't sum up the entire trial in a few bullet points, did I?

If the case was this flimsy it would have been thrown out, or found not guilty. After 10 weeks listening and 20 hours deliberating, only 2 of the 12 jurors remained unconvinced.

They had access to Garda statements, pathologists, witness statements etc that you only got a brief summary of in the papers.

The attempt to somehow pin it on Mary Lowry when no one including Quirke himself has suggested there is any evidence she did it/ enticed him to do it is very distasteful.

'Pateen' got caught. He'll have to serve his time.

Edgware

BENDYBINN wrote: »

So did the jury on the Birmingham six the guilford four and Nicky Kelly to name but a few............Free pateen Quirke campaign starts here now!

Campaign sponsored by Ann Summers

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You're right, but I didn't sum up the entire trial in a few bullet points, did I?

If the case was this flimsy it would have been thrown out, or found not guilty. After 10 weeks listening and 20 hours deliberating, only 2 of the 12 jurors remained unconvinced.

They had access to Garda statements, pathologists, witness statements etc that you only got a brief summary of in the papers.

The attempt to somehow pin it on Mary Lowry when no one including Quirke himself has suggested there is any evidence she did it/ enticed him to do it is very distasteful.

'Pateen' got caught. He'll have to serve his time.

Not trying to pin it on anybody...just sayin there are other possibilities
As for the jury havin access to all the evidence.....as mentioned already other juries in the past have got it horribly wrong
Free Pateen now

its_steve116

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not trying to pin it on anybody...just sayin there are other possibilities
As for the jury havin access to all the evidence.....as mentioned already other juries in the past have got it horribly wrong
Free Pateen now

He ended a life, he got what he deserves.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not trying to pin it on anybody...just sayin there are other possibilities
As for the jury havin access to all the evidence.....as mentioned already other juries in the past have got it horribly wrong
Free Pateen now

What makes you think he didn't do it?

He had an intense obsession with Lowry that was well documented - stealing her knickers (caught on camera), making a false accusation to Tulsa, the letter to the Sunday Indo. Very clear he wasn't stable. Mary Lowry by all accounts loved Bobby and was happy with him.

There are no other possibilities that have the same amount of evidence. He had a strong motive, the means and the opportunity. He left a damning trail of circumstantial evidence behind him that was convincing enough to persuade 10 of 12 jurors of his guilt.

brooke 2

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Not if altered some aspects of his appearance (wore a hat etc) and took a more roundabout route through back-roads back to the farm. Chances of him being thus recognized are far, far higher if he was seen by others in his OWN car, a vehicle the locals would be familiar with! All that's required then is a few positive sightings at various points which would put him at the scene(s) and could prove his location/ whereabouts at a given time.

What struck me last night on Prime Time was the difference in appearance between the Patrick Quirke who was seen strutting into court and the Patrick Quirke who was filmed walking into the local garda station when he was originally arrested. The guy heading into court looked like a typical farmer you'd see at the mart, wearing his heavy coat and his inevitable c(y)ap, while the guy who was originally arrested was rather smartly dressed and appeared completely different without the cap.

By all accounts, Quirke was a bit of a financial wizard and is one of the top dairy farmers in the country. He presented a paper at one stage to a farmer's group re leveraging his assets. He told them that he and his wife, Imelda, had leveraged a lot of their assets and had bought stocks, shares and many properties, including some in Eastern Europe. Sounds familiar! I'm guessing this may have been before the crash!! The timing of his beginning the affair with Mary Lowry was early 2008......some time after that he was asking her for €20,000 to pay off a debt. :rolleyes: Guess he was looking forward to 'leveraging' some of Mary Lowry's assets!! Poor Bobby Ryan was not to know how desperate he seemed to want to do so.

brooke 2

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

Imelda Quirke is the person who most deserves sympathy here.
In the space of a few years, she lost her son and her brother, discovered her husband was having an affair with her sister in law, and now, regardless of how she feels about him, she has pretty much lost her husband since he's now in prison.

Personally I don't know how that lady keeps going and she deserves a hell of a lot of credit.

She was also the person who had to ring the gardaí - admittedly, a friend. Quirke did not have the guts to do it himself.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What makes you think he didn't do it?

He had an intense obsession with Lowry that was well documented - stealing her knickers (caught on camera), making a false accusation to Tulsa, the letter to the Sunday Indo. Very clear he wasn't stable. Mary Lowry by all accounts loved Bobby and was happy with him.

There are no other possibilities that have the same amount of evidence. He had a strong motive, the means and the opportunity. He left a damning trail of circumstantial evidence behind him that was convincing enough to persuade 10 of 12 jurors of his guilt.

He may well have done it.......the fact that it not proven beyond doubt bothers me .

brooke 2

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Agree it's a possible scenario, Stacksofwacks. Personally, I don't think she would have the mental capability of living with that for two years. No offence meant to Mary L! I think it would be a very rare person, apart from P. Quirke, who would have the mental capability of living with that for two years.

Thought I read somewhere that she had been ringing him for three months afterwards.....she'd have hardly done so if she knew he was dead.

humberklog

Just saw a post saying Quirke's wife was Mary Lowry's sister in law? Is that right?

brooke 2

monkeybutter wrote: »

he had a hold over her, but she still terminated the lease?


wah?


you are terminating the lease Mary? the bodys on the land, that would be the time to tell her for sure



the crazy thing is she was renting the farm out for 1600 a year, i mean wtf

My understanding was that she was paid €12,500 but Quirke had to pay her only €1,500 out of his own pocket as the remaining €11,000 was a subsidy he received from the government.

Spanish Eyes

humberklog wrote: »

Just saw a post saying Quirke's wife was Mary Lowry's sister in law? Is that right?

Mrs. Quirke was the sister of Mary Lowry's late husband.

Odelay

humberklog wrote: »

Just saw a post saying Quirke's wife was Mary Lowry's sister in law? Is that right?

Yep, his wife’s brother was Mary’s husband and pats best friend.... their kids are cousins.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

He may well have done it.......the fact that it not proven beyond doubt bothers me .

You must have misunderstood the verdict.

He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You must have misunderstood the verdict.

He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it must be true then!

brooke 2

Deleted User wrote: »

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



The bolded part is damning for me. The fact Bobby Ryan was naked I found to be bizarre. Quirke clearly knew he was before he "discovered" the body.

This did it for me too....that, and all the internet searches re body decomposition.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

So it must be true then!

There is a very, very small possibility that it's a miscarriage of justice, but I don't see any evidence of that.

Tell me, how well do you know 'Pateen'?

Vicarious Function

BENDYBINN wrote: »

So it must be true then!

Obviously, you have some doubt, BENDYBINN. As problably many others have too. But the fact is, you are not a member of the jury. You were not in court every day to hear and see the evidence. You were not in the jury room deliberating for three days. According to the verdict it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that P. Quirke is guilty of Murder. As a result he is now in Mountjoy Jail. That's the way the law works - like it or not!

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There is a very, very small possibility that it's a miscarriage of justice, but I don't see any evidence of that.

A wrongful conviction is totally different in law to a miscarriage of justice.

I think a lot of people feel as though this conviction, based on the burden of proof and the standard of evidence that should have been required, was wrong. Indeed, you might even credibly say it's frightening to think how such flimsy evidence could lead to a life-sentence.

It's quite premature for anyone to refer it as a miscarriage of justice, though; there hasn't even been an appeal yet.

McCrack

BENDYBINN wrote: »

He may well have done it.......the fact that it not proven beyond doubt bothers me .

*did do it

He has had a trial in due course of law and a jury has found him guilty after hearing the evidence for 13 weeks

Edgware

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A wrongful conviction is totally different in law to a miscarriage of justice.

I think a lot of people feel as though this conviction, based on the burden of proof and the standard of evidence that should have been required, was wrong. Indeed, you might even credibly say it's frightening to think how such flimsy evidence could lead to a life-sentence.

It's quite premature for anyone to refer it as a miscarriage of justice, though; there hasn't even been an appeal yet.

You think. I wonder do you

Spleerbun

Anybody know how often appeals in cases like this are successful? Is it just p*ssing in the wind or would there be a reasonable chance of success?

Edgware

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not trying to pin it on anybody...just sayin there are other possibilities
As for the jury havin access to all the evidence.....as mentioned already other juries in the past have got it horribly wrong
Free Pateen now

Will you be the first to make a good contribution to his defence fund seeing you are so convinced of his innocence?

brooke 2

BENDYBINN wrote: »

The fact that he was bangin another woman gave her every reason not to back him......strange behavior on her part.

Not really. Many wives of rich men stand by them. Quirke was an arch manipulator. When Mary Lowry made attempts to break off their relationship, he told her that no one else would have her, as she had three children. He also dug in by telling her that if she told her friends, they would not talk to her and her family would not stand by her. Along with that, he tried to get her brother to order Mary Lowry to stop seeing Bobby Ryan, as he was a 'womaniser'. The irony!! He was a devious pos. Don't you think he was just as capable of manipulating his wife? He is already on record as saying that they have joint dealings in property, stocks and shares.....he, apparently, being a 'financial wizard' and, I'm guessing, the one in control of those dealings. A threat over her and her family's security, would keep a woman 'in her place'. After all, who was to know whether or not he would be found guilty. There was certainly no warmth between them as they went in and out to the court every day. No doubt, she has suffered plenty because of his actions.....maybe he has some redeeming qualities and she really does love him and can forgive him. :rolleyes:

Stacksofwacks

Spleerbun wrote: »

Anybody know how often appeals in cases like this are successful? Is it just p*ssing in the wind or would there be a reasonable chance of success?

I dont know but I'd assume there would have to be a strong counter narrative clearing the suspect. In this case there isn't one, all the evidence points in one direction

brooke 2

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Was it was that simple? he was the father of their kids, he had shown to be manipulative and one of strange behaviour, was this the type of man safe to turn on should he be acquitted?

Exactly. By this stage, his wife would have known he was capable of anything to get his way. From what was aired on Joe Duffy, he also behaved in a disgraceful way towards his own mother, denying her ownership of the family home when his father died. Who knows what threats he might have used to get his wife to 'stand by him'?

brooke 2

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

Given how he treated his mother not signing her house over to her, basically keeping her dependant on him and the way he treated ML stalking her, reporting her to Tusla and all the other things he did to her. One would wonder what he could have put his wife through.

+100

Spleerbun

Spleerbun wrote: »

Anybody know how often appeals in cases like this are successful? Is it just p*ssing in the wind or would there be a reasonable chance of success?

I haven't seen any statistics, although they are gathered and published in aggregate (all CCC appeals) in the Courts Service reports. But this is a case like no other, and so will be the appeal.

Apparently the appeal is to focus on decisions of the Trial Judge in allowing certain evidence before the Jury.

Nobody is allowed to lift the veil of jury secrecy, so the Appeal Court will have to hazard a guess, if such evidence should not have been admitted, whether it interfered with the verdict.

Given the heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence, if the Appeal Court decides that certain evidence should not have been admitted, then it's difficult to see that Court standing over a conviction.

Stacksofwacks

he's clearly a sociopath and if the wife continues to "stand by" him then she's just as bad

Edgware

Spleerbun wrote: »

Anybody know how often appeals in cases like this are successful? Is it just p*ssing in the wind or would there be a reasonable chance of success?

Occassionally they are successful. The appeal court will look at whatever points the defence want to use as grounds for appeal. Youcould have a retrial or a complete vindication but in the absence of a strong ground of appeal it will be difficult. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and it all cant be disregarded. It would be easier if there was a problem with a search warrant or statement. The Judge in summing up made no criticism of the Garda action. Also the Judge excluded a lot of hearsay and ****e talk.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Indeed, you might even credibly say it's frightening to think how such flimsy evidence could lead to a life-sentence.

What makes you think the evidence was flimsy?

It was a long trial, all the evidence was very thoroughly examined. The fact that a majority jury saw fit to convict despite the lack of physical evidence suggests that far from flimsy, the circumstantial evidence was very strong.

People watch too much American TV, where a lawyer in a courtroom drama will say "That's circumstantial!" and the judge rules it out. Circumstantial evidence is evidence; and there was an absolute boatload of it. It may not be as compelling as DNA, but this jury listened to weeks of evidence from experts including Gardai and two pathologists.

If the evidence was a flimsy as you say, surely 3 of the 12 would have remained unconvinced, and there would have been a hung jury.

john9876

Would the appeal be held in front of a jury?
Would you find 12 people who haven't read and watched a lot of opinions about the case?

Boggles

john9876 wrote: »

Would the appeal be held in front of a jury?
Would you find 12 people who haven't read and watched a lot of opinions about the case?

Appeal would be decided by usually 3 Judges.

A retrial will have to have a new jury.

meeeeh

brooke 2 wrote: »

Not really. Many wives of rich men stand by them. Quirke was an arch manipulator.

Many wives of poor men also stand by them. Ypu have some desperate examples when wife stood by her husband against their children he abused. It's very hard to come to therms with the fact someone you loved for decades is a murderer or a rapist.

I know a woman who stood by her husband convicted of statutory rape of his niece. There was not a shred of doubt in her mind that she was a little bitch out to destroy them. She regularly visited husband in prison until he was released. I worked with her and in those years there was not a shred of doubt that he was innocent. There was another girl his nieces age who also testified of some inappropriate behaviour. (I can't remember what exactly).

Anyway I feel sorry fir just about anyone who had to deal with this mess excluding murderer. Ge also put Mary Lowry through hell and I think suspicion that she was somehow involved is more product of people's imagination. Femme fatale is a very sexy concept.

freshpopcorn

Quick question.
Was there much discussion about phones pinging off masts during the trial?
I didn't fear much compared to others. All I heard was Bobby's phone pinged at Bansha woods!

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What makes you think the evidence was flimsy?

It was a long trial, all the evidence was very thoroughly examined. The fact that a majority jury saw fit to convict despite the lack of physical evidence suggests that far from flimsy, the circumstantial evidence was very strong.

People watch too much American TV, where a lawyer in a courtroom drama will say "That's circumstantial!" and the judge rules it out. Circumstantial evidence is evidence;

I studied law as part of my education, I don't base what I'm saying on American courtroom dramas, but thanks for the explanation.

I wasn't there for all the evidence, I'm sure I missed something huge. To me, the evidence sounded flimsy, or what I've read of it in the newspapers over the past few months.

If it weren't so serious for all involved, it would have be instructive to run a little experiment via a parallel trial of another person known to Bobby Ryan. The parallel trial would try to piece together circumstantial evidence hinting at their involvement, to see if the case were any stronger. I suspect you could run that experiment with numerous parallel trials, and come out with multiple 'convictions'.

Edit: I'm not suggesting at all that someone else should have been tried for the murder -- just thinking out loud about an interesting social experiment.

Nikki Sixx

Is this what would happen without laws, or consequences? Somebody steals your girlfriend and you kill them?

Nikki Sixx

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

Is this what would happen without laws, or consequences? Somebody steals your girlfriend and you kill them?

In a world that was truly without consequences, you wouldn't care if someone stole your grilfriend in the first place. It would be of no consequence.

But you're right, and human beings were probably like this in primitive times. Which is probably partially why western society seems only now to be unlearning a need to keep women modest and all day in the domestic abode, away from competitors.

Edgware

Pity these trials arent televised. They beat Homes under the hammer or Daithi and Maura any day

BarryD2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What makes you think the evidence was flimsy?


If the evidence was a flimsy as you say, surely 3 of the 12 would have remained unconvinced, and there would have been a hung jury.

The evidence as presented could all be true and still the convicted man could yet be innocent of the murder. There's a bit of an element of group think or confirmation bias in the way the case is strung together and peoples reactions to it. The elephant in the room is that Quirke was never proven to have actually been involved in the murder of Bobby Ryan - no crime scene, no weapon, no witnesses, no forensic or DNA evidence that would tie him to it. And that is what concerns people. The man was clearly murdered or killed accidentally but where, when, by whom and with what is not clearly proven IMHO.

There was some interesting input earlier in this thread from people who have sat on juries where serious charges like murder were tried. Their comments on the pressures on jurors, the influence of more opinionated jurors and the role of the foreman/ woman make for interesting reading. The fact that 2 jurors in this case were wont to find the case unproven and they took a good while to deliberate could well hint towards wider division and that eventually the majority pressure prevailed, even just to get out of there and make a decision. Given the lack of real substance in the evidence, alarm bells should be going off.