Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Necro

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.

Huh? Are you saying that courts and juries should not convict based on circumstantial evidence?

I don't think it's flimsy at all, you do - our opinions both matter not a jot as neither of us served on the jury which heard the entire case and deemed the evidence worthy of a conviction.

Lionse

Without help how did he ditch Bobby's van in the forest and get back to his house without being seen?

Mena Mitty

I was wondering did the Lowry family have a dog at the time Bobby went missing and if they did, did they notice the dog acting out of sorts around that time.

If they had a dog in the yard he may have witnessed 'something'

I've read all the thread and many of the links and there was no mention of a dog or a dog barking at 6.30 am the morning Bobby was last seen.

Edgware

BarryD2 wrote: »

Very odd, he'll surely appeal. Whatever about the ins and outs of the case, there was no clear evidence that he murdered anybody. All they really demonstrated was possible motive.

"Ins and outs" Ooooh Vicar!

KikiLaRue

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

I think what we have to bear in mind is that we are reading an article or two every day summarising hours of evidence and legal argument.

I understand that people would feel more comfortable if there was physical evidence, but it's not a requirement - otherwise any murderer who does a decent job cleaning up after themselves would walk free.

I think Quirke was relying on the lack of DNA and assuming he wouldn't be convicted without it, because otherwise it would have made a lot more sense for him to plead guilty, tell his story as a crime of passion that he deeply regrets and spare himself and his family the humiliation of the trial (as well as a lesser sentence for cooperating). He might have even been able to bargain for a manslaughter charge if he could convince them it was an unplanned altercation rather than a callously planned murder.

Reading the coverage post-verdict from the journalists who sat through the trial, none of them seem to be in any doubt that it was the right verdict. I think we need to bear in mind we only have a fraction of the info the jury had.

OwlsZat

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

There is only an elephant in the room when people are unwilling to talk about something. This has been one of the most reported/discussed trials in Ireland so really no elephants here. Your point about proof is referencing the American system where the murder weapon is required. You live in Ireland where it isn't. Personally, I'm delighted that is the case. Our legal framework has meant that many obvious murderers are behind bars.

OwlsZat

Lionse wrote: »

Without help how did he ditch Bobby's van in the forest and get back to his house without being seen?

He was seen...

BarryD2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think what we have to bear in mind is that we are reading an article or two every day summarising hours of evidence and legal argument.

I understand that people would feel more comfortable if there was physical evidence, but it's not a requirement - otherwise any murderer who does a decent job cleaning up after themselves would walk free.

I think Quirke was relying on the lack of DNA and assuming he wouldn't be convicted without it, because otherwise it would have made a lot more sense for him to plead guilty, tell his story as a crime of passion that he deeply regrets and spare himself and his family the humiliation of the trial (as well as a lesser sentence for cooperating). He might have even been able to bargain for a manslaughter charge if he could convince them it was an unplanned altercation rather than a callously planned murder.

Reading the coverage post-verdict from the journalists who sat through the trial, none of them seem to be in any doubt that it was the right verdict. I think we need to bear in mind we only have a fraction of the info the jury had.

This is true but is it not also the case that the various journalists covering the case would hone in on the essential parts of the evidence and present these as summations of the evidence - the critical parts.

What we don't see and which the jury does are the actual witnesses, accused etc. in the flesh and their reactions on a minute by minute basis to what is asked and answers given. But surely that can add a level of subjectivity too (perhaps sometimes a useful one, othertimes less so) whereas the public get a more objective view (albeit through the prism of the journalist). So we can stand back a little and perhaps have a different view from afar.

NickD

Zeek12 wrote: »

Surprised he didn't move it though.

To think to yourself I couldn't possibly be suspected just because I "found" the body....seems fairly naive.
Especially when you look at the history and obvious motive.

Haven't seen an answer to this. If you are squeamish please don't read this.

I downloaded a book on forensic medicine, that went into great detail about decomposition. (I'm so ****ed if my Google searches are ever used against me) a body lying in fluid that long will bloat. A lot. More than you are thinking. And bits, come off. And the skin will deglove. So I'd imagine when he opened the tank that poor man's body wasn't entirely whole. And if he managed to move it, which would be difficult because of how fragile it was,he wouldn't get it all.

I'm open to correction by a doctor, I'm just a sick puppy. But from my limited reading that would be my guess.

BarryD2

OwlsZat wrote: »

He was seen...

Sure you're not thinking of this: https://www.tipperarylive.ie/news/courts/362507/tipperary-murder-trial-bus-driver-saw-mr-moonlight-van-the-morning-bobby-ryan-went-missing.html

Muahahaha

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.

I agree with you, what he should have done was moved the body and buried it elsewhere on the farm. With access to a tractor to dig it he could have done it in a few hours. But it sounds to me he was going out of his mind at this point in time and he wasnt thinking straight. How else did he come to the conclusion that alerting the Gardai was the best course of action. He had basically gotten away with murder for two years till he made the decision to call the Gardai.

Lionse wrote: »

Without help how did he ditch Bobby's van in the forest and get back to his house without being seen?

This still seems to be the million dollar question. There was a good suggestion back up the thread that in the dark of the night he drove his own car to the woods and then walked back. Next morning he kills Ryan outside Mary Lowrys house at 6.30am and then immediately hides the body somewhere on the farm. Then he drives Ryans van to the woods and swaps back into his own car and drives back to the farm to move the body from the hiding spot to the run off tank. He is then seen by the AI specialist at 9.30am and she gave evidence that she had never seen him milking cows so late in the morning having visited the farm for years. This would fit in too if he had spent the last few hours moving Ryans van to the woods, driving back and then moving the body to the run off tank and cleaning up any obvious blood stains on the land. He was late milking the cows because he had spent the entire morning scrambling around laying the van as a decoy for the Gardai and getting the body into the run off tank.

Its not a bad theory and makes sense with the timeline. Ryans sister said that his seat in the van at the woods was not in the position it normally was. Ryan looks a fair bit taller than Quirke so its likely Quirke moved the seat forward to drive it. The only problem with the entire theory is that none of Quirkes DNA was found in the van. They said there was DNA found but that it was "unidentifiable". That bit sounds strange to me but maybe Quirke was DNA aware and wearing a white sterlised suit and gloves.Even a skull cap to ensure none of his hairs got in the van.

Vicarious Function

I served on a jury last year and the verdicty was Guilty. Unanimous! I must say, it was a most interesting experience. The thing about juries is you'll never get two the same. Yet when it comes down to it, I have no doubt every jury ends up making every effort to "do the right thing", which is to bring about Justice.

You have 12 total strangers put together into a room. You have a mixture of 12 different "characters". All you're told is everybody on that jury is "equal", even down to the foreman, who has to be elected by the members before anything starts.

There is time spent out in the court listening to various evidence being given. There's various points of view put forward concerning the legal side of things by both the Barrister for the Prosecution and same for Defence. Also the Judge explains what would constitute a Guilty verdict. If the person can't be found Guilty then they are acquitted, obviously.

As for the jury, while they are locked away in their room deliberating, no one tells them how to do it. How they arrive at their decisions is totally up to each individual group of 12 jurors. You get 12 people who have to gel together to arrive at a final decision. That's despite how diverse in character and attitude they may be. They just have to get on with it. That's what they have to do.

You have some people that want a Guilty verdict right from the start and others who, for their own reasons, are afraid to pronounce Guilty. You have those who say Innocent, of course.

Especially, once all the evidence has been heard and the jury is sent off to deliberate, is when things get quite serious. There is more tension in the room, but yet there is quite a helpful attitude. There may be one or two that are having difficulty coming to a final decision. You find the rest of the members who are clear on their own decision will try and help the ones who are experiencing difficulty to iron out what's holding them back. It all works out in the end. That's how it was with us, anyway.

After it was all over and the verdict Guilty had been handed over to the judge and we were back in our room picking up our bits and pieces, the official assigned to us to take us fron A to B, called the Jury Minder, said we had made the right decision. That meant a lot, coming from him. LOL!

BENDYBINN

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I served on a jury last year and the verdicty was Guilty. Unanimous! I must say, it was a most interesting experience. The thing about juries is you'll never get two the same. Yet when it comes down to it, I have no doubt every jury ends up making every effort to "do the right thing", which is to bring about Justice.

You have 12 total strangers put together into a room. You have a mixture of 12 different "characters". All you're told is everybody on that jury is "equal", even down to the foreman, who has to be elected by the members before anything starts.

There is time spent out in the court listening to various evidence being given. There's various points of view put forward concerning the legal side of things by both the Barrister for the Prosecution and same for Defence. Also the Judge explains what would constitute a Guilty verdict. If the person can't be found Guilty then they are acquitted, obviously.

As for the jury, while they are locked away in their room deliberating, no one tells them how to do it. How they arrive at their decisions is totally up to each individual group of 12 jurors. You get 12 people who have to gel together to arrive at a final decision. That's despite how diverse in character and attitude they may be. They just have to get on with it. That's what they have to do.

You have some people that want a Guilty verdict right from the start and others who, for their own reasons, are afraid to pronounce Guilty. You have those who say Innocent, of course.

Especially, once all the evidence has been heard and the jury is sent off to deliberate, is when things get quite serious. There is more tension in the room, but yet there is quite a helpful attitude. There may be one or two that are having difficulty coming to a final decision. You find the rest of the members who are clear on their own decision will try and help the ones who are experiencing difficulty to iron out what's holding them back. It all works out in the end. That's how it was with us, anyway.

After it was all over and the verdict Guilty had been handed over to the judge and we were back in our room picking up our bits and pieces, the official assigned to us to take us fron A to B, called the Jury Minder, said we had made the right decision. That meant a lot, coming from him. LOL!

Our history proves unfortunately juries don’t always get it right

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Our history proves unfortunately juries don’t always get it right

That's true. But more often than not, they do get it right.

Your whole argument is "sometimes juries get things wrong" and that's so weak in the absence of any other suspects or lack of due process.

Wrongway1985

Muahahaha wrote: »

That bit sounds strange to me but maybe Quirke was DNA aware and wearing a white sterlised suit and gloves.Even a skull cap to ensure none of his hairs got in the van.

Or wearing Mr. Ryan's clothes

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That's true. But more often than not, they do get it right.

Your whole argument is "sometimes juries get things wrong" and that's so weak in the absence of any other suspects or lack of due process.

No, I’m just not happy with the flimsy evidence that convicted a man of murder.
It’s just not right in my view.

Vicarious Function

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Our history proves unfortunately juries don’t always get it right

At the end of the day, we're still only human. I think the great majority of times, they do get it right.

As I say, the atmosphere becomes quite serious when it comes time to deliberate. Before starting deliberations, I'm sure each jury would take a second or two to say a prayer, be still or whatever. I can only speak from my one experience. But I do think a sense of our Humanity at its deepest/highest level builds up and the Will is there to bring about Justice, no matter what our personal opinon, at the start.

We were deliberating three days. People did mention having prayed, lit candles etc each night at home in order to get the Inspiration and Wisdom necessary to be able to do the Right Thing. The "Group Thing" builds up and it is quite a sensation. I suppose it could be called an Energy. Maybe it could be termed Guidance. I'd like to believe that, anyway.

PhilOssophy

I laughed at the way Quirke was made out to be some financial whizz, in 2005!!!!

I doubt very much he left his car in Bansha woods, somebody would have noticed it there. It would have been a very stupid move

Anyone who thinks Imelda was somehow stuck with Patrick Quirke clearly doesn't understand the separation and divorce judicial process. A spouse has to be fully looked after in any such process, she could have left him no bother

Calypso Realm

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Or wearing Mr. Ryan's clothes

Which could explain why the body was stripped naked, I've sometimes wondered why this was the case or why someone would do this.

Actually, do we know for sure they tested for Quirke's DNA?

BENDYBINN

Vicarious Function wrote: »

At the end of the day, we're still only human. I think the great majority of times, they do get it right.

As I say, the atmosphere becomes quite serious when it comes time to deliberate. Before starting deliberations, I'm sure each jury would take a second or two to say a prayer, be still or whatever. I can only speak from my one experience. But I do think a sense of our Humanity at its deepest/highest level builds up and the Will is there to bring about Justice, no matter what our personal opinon, at the start.

We were deliberating three days. People did mention having prayed, lit candles etc each night at home in order to get the Inspiration and Wisdom necessary to be able to do the Right Thing. The "Group Thing" builds up and it is quite a sensation. I suppose it could be called an Energy. Maybe it could be termed Guidance. I'd like to believe that, anyway.

Sweet sweet Jesus...
Please tell me your just havin a laugh...

golfball37

He did it. I’ve no doubt based on the evidence even if it’s circumstantial. Not taking the stand if innocent is a given usually also.
I doubt he moved the body alone however, the poor victim was a big man.
Sloppy from the Gardai not to examine the Lowry house when it was the last place he was seen alive.

Vicarious Function

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Sweet sweet Jesus...
Please tell me your just havin a laugh...

I was there. Were you? What is your problem?

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

No, I’m just not happy with the flimsy evidence that convicted a man of murder.
It’s just not right in my view.

Yes, because you know/ are friends with the man who was convicted.

You may regard the evidence as flimsy, but that's just your opinion. No one who actually heard all the evidence, from the jurors (well 10/12) to the journalists to the people who sat in the public gallery seem to be in any doubt.

KikiLaRue

Worth a read: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/circumstantial_evidence.html

Vicarious Function

golfball37 wrote: »

He did it. I’ve no doubt based on the evidence even if it’s circumstantial.

Not taking the stand if innocent is a given usually also.

I doubt he moved the body alone however, the poor victim was a big man.
Sloppy from the Gardai not to examine the Lowry house when it was the last place he was seen alive.

I would be inclined to agree with you. It's onfy natural to think you would take the stand if innocent. I can't remember was it in the course of this case or some other that I heard a Judge say we should not allow that to influence us as the person has to be presumed Innocent whether he takes the stand or not.

BENDYBINN

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I was there. Were you? What is your problem?

Lighting candles and prayers are my problem.......

blackcard

golfball37 wrote: »

He did it. I’ve no doubt based on the evidence even if it’s circumstantial. Not taking the stand if innocent is a given usually also.
I doubt he moved the body alone however, the poor victim was a big man.
Sloppy from the Gardai not to examine the Lowry house when it was the last place he was seen alive.

So we don't know exactly when he died, how he died or where he died. We don't know when or how he was placed in the tank. We don't know was it a one or two man operation. We don't know how he/they travelled to the Lowry place. No one heard any noise associated with the murder. Someone apparently drove the victim's car but left no DNA. No blood was found nor no weapons. One expert says a vehicle was used as the murder weapon but no damaged vehicle was found nor did anyone hear it. No one saw Quirke anywhere near the murder scene. His phone can't be traced to the scene of the crime. The accused finds the dead body and his wife notifies the police. Mary Lowry briefly rekindled her affair with the accused. I believe Quirke is guilty but I am not sure he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt

BENDYBINN

blackcard wrote: »

So we don't know exactly when he died, how he died or where he died. We don't know when or how he was placed in the tank. We don't know was it a one or two man operation. We don't know how he/they travelled to the Lowry place. No one heard any noise associated with the murder. Someone apparently drove the victim's car but left no DNA. No blood was found nor no weapons. One expert says a vehicle was used as the murder weapon but no damaged vehicle was found nor did anyone hear it. No one saw Quirke anywhere near the murder scene. His phone can't be traced to the scene of the crime. The accused finds the dead body and his wife notifies the police. Mary Lowry briefly rekindled her affair with the accused. I believe Quirke is guilty but I am not sure he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt

Well spoken

McCrack

BENDYBINN wrote: »

No, I’m just not happy with the flimsy evidence that convicted a man of murder.
It’s just not right in my view.

Your basing that assessment on what you have read in the media

The jury arrived at their decision after sitting through 13 weeks of evidence, counsels submissions, judges directions and advice, observing the witnesses and careful deliberation found the defendant guilty

It's the right decision and justice has been delivered

Vicarious Function

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Lighting candles and prayers are my problem.......

Funny you started your post with "Sweet Jesus". Personally I did not light candles, but everybody to their own! If it helped some people calm their minds, then what's to worry?

kerry cow

if he was in Texas we would be on death row and hung in ireland a 100yrs ago .
he'd be history by now

BENDYBINN

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Funny you started your post with "Sweet Jesus". Personally I did not light candles, but everybody to their own! If it helped some people calm their minds, then what's to worry?

They are lighting candles and prayin to calm their minds......justice will definitely be served so............

Vicarious Function

BENDYBINN wrote: »

They are lighting candles and prayin to calm their minds......justice will definitely be served so............

Ah now! I think you're just looking for an argument, BENDYBINN. Let's agree to leave it at that.

BENDYBINN

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Ah now! I think you're just looking for an argument, BENDYBINN. Let's agree to leave it at that.

Ok fine.

Wrongway1985

blackcard wrote: »

No one saw Quirke anywhere near the murder scene

You know where the murder scene was?

cursai

realdanbreen wrote: »

I thought all evidence has to be presented in publc?

But the papers pick and choose what to report back.

Edgware

blackcard wrote: »

So we don't know exactly when he died, how he died or where he died. We don't know when or how he was placed in the tank. We don't know was it a one or two man operation. We don't know how he/they travelled to the Lowry place. No one heard any noise associated with the murder. Someone apparently drove the victim's car but left no DNA. No blood was found nor no weapons. One expert says a vehicle was used as the murder weapon but no damaged vehicle was found nor did anyone hear it. No one saw Quirke anywhere near the murder scene. His phone can't be traced to the scene of the crime. The accused finds the dead body and his wife notifies the police. Mary Lowry briefly rekindled her affair with the accused. I believe Quirke is guilty but I am not sure he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt

The standard is beyond "reasonable doubt" not beyond "all reasonable doubt"

There is a big difference

Edgware

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Our history proves unfortunately juries don’t always get it right

Ask O.J. Simpson

Edgware

Mena Mitty wrote: »

I was wondering did the Lowry family have a dog at the time Bobby went missing and if they did, did they notice the dog acting out of sorts around that time.

If they had a dog in the yard he may have witnessed 'something'

I've read all the thread and many of the links and there was no mention of a dog or a dog barking at 6.30 am the morning Bobby was last seen.

Or maybe if they had a kangaroo,
"Strewth I think Skippy is trying to tell us something. What's that Skippy? Mr. Moonlight is down the slurry tank"

Vicarious Function

There was a case where a dog did indicate that his owner was down a well that had been filled in. A policeman put two and two together as to why the dog was sitting by the well every day and wouldn't move away. Obvious when you think about it!

It was in Kerry, I think - a few years ago. Two men had buried the brother/uncle of one of them in the well and filled it in. They hadn't bargained on the man's dog indicating where the man was. And the smartness of one policeman to cop on to it. That's how the case was solved.

Checkmate19

This guy was guilty 100%. His only fukk up was his computer. A man who has a family was murdered by a scumbag. And i hope he rots in hell. Problem with this country he'll probably appeal and win. Or be out in 15-20 years.

Checkmate19

If the donkey prik hadn't searched his computer he'd have got off. Say he'LL regret that. Bet he regret not watching cis and making a murder than robbing knickers off washing lines. PLUM.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It was a weird case.There wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt on a Murder Charge, I think we'd all agree on that. The Jury were wrong.



But on the other hand it's obvious that he probably had something to do with it. However without clear evidence it's a dangerous road to go down. Many innocent men were sent away or worse on circumstantial evidence .

gozunda

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It was a weird case.There wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt on a Murder Charge, I think we'd all agree on that. The Jury were wrong.



But on the other hand it's obvious that he probably had something to do with it. However without clear evidence it's a dangerous road to go down. Many innocent men were sent away or worse on circumstantial evidence .

A case in England where the murderer dumped the body of his partner in the septic tank.

The body wasn't found for some time. The partner was also convicted on what was largely circumstantial evidence afaik.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Bailey

Necro

Necro wrote: »

Huh? Are you saying that courts and juries should not convict based on circumstantial evidence?

I don't think it's flimsy at all, you do - our opinions both matter not a jot as neither of us served on the jury which heard the entire case and deemed the evidence worthy of a conviction.

This is so tiresome.

Someday I would love to take a very long holiday -- perhaps into a room made of iron, with no sunlight, newspapers or local gossip -- to discover the mythical world it is is believed that juries exist in. Here, we choose to believe, jurors are sequestered from all external ideas, and it is from here that their great & unwieldy juridical powers are shielded from us mere mortals.

Because I would like to understand better the origins of the ignorant maxim (which I am not blaming you for -- nor is this aimed at you) that "If you didn't sit through the trial, you can't really comment"

Have these people any awareness of how the media operates, whose very existence is founded upon the dissemination of facts -- many of which some jurors may have dozed through?

Let us put an end to this stupid assumption that only a juror is entitled to an opinion on the facts of a criminal trial. It is one of the most bewildering canards of contemporary discourse on criminal trials, and seems to be a curious pronouncement of Internet discussions.

Who started this? Why do people repeat it so unthinkingly?

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Let us put an end to this stupid assumption that only a juror is entitled to an opinion on the facts of a criminal trial. It is one of the most bewildering canards of contemporary discourse on criminal trials, and seems to be a curious pronouncement of Internet discussions.

People are of course entitled to an opinion, I never argued differently. However realistically the only ones that actually matter are the 12 that hear the case and make a decision on one's guilt, or lack of.

So we can discuss it till the cows come home if you like, and probably disagree on a number of points

In this case they determined the evidence was enough for Quirke to be guilty of murder. I agree with that assessment.

That's what I was trying to say, not holding any jury or member of one up to some higher standard but that's just how it is.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

People are of course entitled to an opinion, I never argued differently. However realistically the only ones that actually matter are the 12 that hear the case and make a decision on one's guilt, or lack of.

what exactly do you mean by this, though?

Are you telling us that our opinions or concerns do not change the verdict? Because that is simply a statement of the obvious. One might as well recite the alphabet.

I'm sorry if that sounds unduly acrimonious, it isn't my intention. But we shouldn't waste energy in pointing out things that everybody knows.

The jury sat through all of the evidence, yet nobody can reveal any information which the jury heard and we did not. In fact, it is sometimes the jury which is the last to hear all of the evidence, as perhaps in this case.

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

what exactly do you mean by this, though?

Are you telling us that our opinions or concerns do not change the verdict? Because that is simply a statement of the obvious. One might as well recite the alphabet.

I'm sorry if that sounds unduly acrimonious, it isn't my intention. But we shouldn't waste energy in pointing out things that everybody knows.

The jury sat through all of the evidence, yet nobody can reveal any information which the jury heard and we did not. In fact, it is sometimes the jury which is the last to hear all of the evidence, as perhaps in this case.

Well it wasn't my intention to be facetious but that's what I meant by my original comment, yes.

On my own opinion, I feel there is enough circumstancial evidence to convict. I mentioned before it's in ways similar to the O Reilly case where he was pinpointed via mobile phone.

I feel the internet searches, coupled with the finding of the body on land his lease was shortly coming to an end on is just far too strong to ignore and wave away.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

I feel the internet searches, coupled with the finding of the body on land his lease was shortly coming to an end on is just far too strong to ignore and wave away.

I have searched far more morbid curiosities about the dead than that searched by Patrick Quirke or a member of his family.

Leased land is a strange place to hide a body when you're as extensive a farmer as Patrick Quirke was.

I find it worrying that any person, on the jury or not, finds this "too strong" to avoid convicting someone of a crime which incurs a penalty of life imprisonment. And to do so whilst claiming there is no reasonable prospect of mistake, is genuinely unsettling.

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have searched far more morbid curiosities about the dead than that searched by Patrick Quirke or a member of his family.

Leased land is a strange place to hide a body when you're as extensive a farmer as Patrick Quirke was.

I find it worrying that any person, on the jury or not, finds this "too strong" to avoid convicting someone of a crime which incurs a penalty of life imprisonment.

In a tank that serviced a disused milking parlour? That very few would have knowledge of.

I think it would be a very clever place to hide a body, particularly if I was of the mindset that I could control my landlord, and thought of the land as my own.

In fact, had Quirke not located the body it may very well still not have been discovered after all.

Convenient he would discover it when his lease was expiring. Coupled with body decomposition searches, I find it very convincing.