Patrick Quirke -Guilty

kerry cow

Necro wrote:

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

who drove the van then , is there another killer out there

gozunda

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. And to do so whilst claiming there is no reasonable prospect of mistake, is genuinely unsettling.

On that -

There's a decent possibility your searches were not succeeded by the disappearance and finding of a decomposing body of some one known to you sometime later?

Its unlikely imo that any murder would dispose of a body on their personal property - especially if there was a possible intention to implicate someone else at a later date? Additionally dead bodies by all accounts are not easy things to transport.

I've been a member of a criminal jury and the evidence and direction which they've presented with - is not at all compable to observing a court case via reported footage.

PhilOssophy

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.

No I don't think we'd all just agree on that. There wasn't enough concrete evidence, I'd agree. But there was enough circumstantial evidence.

So while we won't all agree, we'll agree that nobody is going to change anybodys opinion!

And you can't just say "the jury were wrong". That's your opinion again. I think the jury were right. But they saw a lot more than those of us following the media briefings. And their opinion is the only one that matters!

Calypso Realm

Necro wrote: »

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

Exactly. Completely overlooked by police when the property was searched by them! On the other hand a freshly dug section of land would most certainly have aroused suspicion during a missing person's search.

PhilOssophy

I also feel the online toxic attitude to our courts and in particular our jury system was highlighted most dreadfully in the Belfast rape trial.
No longer is it trial in front of a jury, if the online mafia don't get what they want what follows is the most poisonous toxic vitriol our society is capable of.
Most of us on here are respectful of the jury and the difficult job they had to do, and are speculating on what he did and how.
Others are on here saying the jury were wrong, unsafe conviction, etc. Just like in the Belfast rape trial, surely respecting the decision of people who sat for 15 full weeks and heard far more than us isn't that much of a stretch? And I'd have said the same if Quirke was found not guilty.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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?

If you compare the coverage done by the Irish Times to the Indo and again to the tabloids, it's very clear that it's possible to skew what was said in court to make it more salacious and sell more papers. It's utterly naive to think papers don't have their own agenda in how they report on murder trials (you will note one outlet has been banned from reporting on the Ana Kriegel trial)

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

As an example, in the articles I read, the evidence of the pathologists was reduced to a paragraph with a single key quote. Two pathologists gave evidence and each was cross-examined, so presumably that took at least a couple of hours. We have access to only the barest summary of what they said, while the jury has access to the whole lot.

I'd imagine if you heard the full evidence by the witness and their cross-examination, their testimony would carry more weight with you. It's easy to dismiss a paragraph or two in a paper as 'too flimsy', if you saw these very well educated and experienced professionals answering questions for an hour or two, you probably wouldn't be so quick to disregard them.

blackcard

Necro wrote: »

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.

If someone was trying to throw suspicion away from themselves, the perfect place would be on land leased by Quirke or owned by Lowry. The internet searches are suspicious but people search for weird things on the internet. I have a reasonable doubt that he is innocent but am not sure he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

sydthebeat

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I also feel the online toxic attitude to our courts and in particular our jury system was highlighted most dreadfully in the Belfast rape trial.
No longer is it trial in front of a jury, if the online mafia don't get what they want what follows is the most poisonous toxic vitriol our society is capable of.
Most of us on here are respectful of the jury and the difficult job they had to do, and are speculating on what he did and how.
Others are on here saying the jury were wrong, unsafe conviction, etc. Just like in the Belfast rape trial, surely respecting the decision of people who sat for 15 full weeks and heard far more than us isn't that much of a stretch? And I'd have said the same if Quirke was found not guilty.

While I fully agree with the Premise of your post....

The Belfast rape trial was not in "our courts"

We have a significantly different system here when dealing with what can and cannot be reported

Calypso Realm

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Exactly. Completely overlooked by police when the property was searched by them! On the other hand a freshly dug section of land would most certainly have aroused suspicion during a missing person's search.

The fact it was overlooked on the earlier searches just shows how unknown this tank was- only 4 people knew about this tank according to reports- that for me was a very strong fact in the case.

What will always be a mystery though, is where did the killing take place and how did he orchestrate the disposal of the remains. How did he walk back from the woods unnoticed after leaving the van there? On the prime time programme there was mention of a delay between the deceased leaving the house and going over the cattle bars- it doesn’t make sense that Quirke attacked him there as there was no sign of an attack and no DNA in the van.

I would have thought the defense could have defended the morning of the disappearance more than they did- how Quirke was unusually late at his work, looking flustered etc I.e they could have provided more “reasonable doubt” for a case that had no smoking gun.
I’m satisfied though that justice is served - I felt the crux of the defense case was around putting blame and suspicion on others detracting attention away from Quirke which is rarely a good approach.

Samsgirl

monkeybutter wrote: »

no it's not

It actually is, cos I'm from there too and have heard it

Samsgirl

monkeybutter wrote: »

there are none, trick question


the safe bet is always Ryans though, am i right?

There is one but it's closed

MrMusician18

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I also feel the online toxic attitude to our courts and in particular our jury system was highlighted most dreadfully in the Belfast rape trial.
No longer is it trial in front of a jury, if the online mafia don't get what they want what follows is the most poisonous toxic vitriol our society is capable of.
Most of us on here are respectful of the jury and the difficult job they had to do, and are speculating on what he did and how.
Others are on here saying the jury were wrong, unsafe conviction, etc. Just like in the Belfast rape trial, surely respecting the decision of people who sat for 15 full weeks and heard far more than us isn't that much of a stretch? And I'd have said the same if Quirke was found not guilty.

That's a fair comment to make if jury's didn't frequently get it wrong.

KikiLaRue

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's a fair comment to make if jury's didn't frequently get it wrong.

Do they? Can you back that up with evidence?

Although I will say for murder and rape trials where your average Joe is unlikely to fully understand the legal complexity or be swayed by ugly tactics like holding a victims underwear up in court, a panel of judges might work better.

Robert ninja

Faugheen wrote: »

Although the evidence was circumstantial, it certainly wasn’t ‘weak’.

The moment I heard he had been searching for how long it takes bodies to decompose on the internet in the days after Bobby Ryan went missing, I knew he was guilty as sin.

I think most people would rather admit to murder than have their internet history public :pac:

With no context there's a lot you could use to make someone look dangerous/creepy. Not defending the guy though - don't know much about the case. Just saying that looking up morbid facts shouldn't make someone a murderer.

BarryD2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

We have access to only the barest summary of what they said, while the jury has access to the whole lot.

I'd imagine if you heard the full evidence by the witness and their cross-examination, their testimony would carry more weight with you. It's easy to dismiss a paragraph or two in a paper as 'too flimsy', if you saw these very well educated and experienced professionals answering questions for an hour or two, you probably wouldn't be so quick to disregard them.

And what of the reports of these witnesses then? https://www.tipperarylive.ie/news/courts/362507/tipperary-murder-trial-bus-driver-saw-mr-moonlight-van-the-morning-bobby-ryan-went-missing.html

Two people who whilst not 100% certain, testified that they thought they saw Bobby Ryan on the morning he disappeared.

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

.

That's a bizarre thing to say. You weren't on the jury. You didn't hear all of the evidence. By saying that, you imply that you know what the correct decision should have been, which again is a bizarre comment.

10 jury members (who listened to all of the evidence)- found him guilty. You, who didn't attend the trail, would find him not guilty. Based on newspaper reports?

So, where is your "reasonable doubt" then? You can't just leave that comment hanging there- "the jury were wrong".

In the OJ Simpson case, the jury found him not-guilty, not because they believed he didn't do it, but because they felt the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury in this case were again guided by the judge around "reasonable doubt" and how to assess all of the evidence, as juries are instructed in all such cases. So you're saying, a jury of your peers, didn't take this into account and found him guilty on flimsy circumstantial evidence and ignored the judges instructions on the high bar they should reach when coming to their decision?

Robert ninja

Robert ninja wrote: »

Just saying that looking up morbid facts shouldn't make someone a murderer.

I totally agree. However, in this case he did provide a response to explain his actions- that his son had died.
However, these internet searches were conducted before his son died- that was the key part of this evidence.

Had he not provided that response, it's possible that this evidence may not have been presented in court, simply because it could easily be explained away, such as watching some CSI type documentary on TV and googling to find out more about the case.

It was his response and explanation about the searches, not the searches themselves, that was the key piece of evidence.

blackcard

Interesting to see the headline in the Independent today that Quirke threatened Bobby Ryan and that he assaulted Mary Lowry. Reading down through the article, Bobby Ryan's ex said he told her that Quirke had threatened him over the phone. This was not allowed to be introduced in the trial as it was hearsay but this didn't stop the Independent stating it in their headline. In relation to the assault, Quirke was charged with assault but the charge was withdrawn. Never mind, the truth doesn't seem to bother the Independent as long as it sells a few newspapers.

Faugheen

blackcard wrote: »

Interesting to see the headline in the Independent today that Quirke threatened Bobby Ryan and that he assaulted Mary Lowry. Reading down through the article, Bobby Ryan's ex said he told her that Quirke had threatened him over the phone. This was not allowed to be introduced in the trial as it was hearsay but this didn't stop the Independent stating it in their headline. In relation to the assault, Quirke was charged with assault but the charge was withdrawn. Never mind, the truth doesn't seem to bother the Independent as long as it sells a few newspapers.

It wasn't heard in the jury but it was obviously heard in court under legal argument, so the media are allowed to carry the line.

john9876

If he loses the appeal I hope he'll do the decent thing and confess but more importantly I hope he confesses the exact details of how he did it ... and put us out of our misery.

kerry cow

are the cops not interested In who drove the van , murder weapon or location of murder ,poor detective work imo, egg on the face stuff ,

KikiLaRue

kerry cow wrote: »

are the cops not interested In who drove the van , murder weapon or location of murder ,poor detective work imo, egg on the face stuff ,

When a body remains hidden for two years it's very difficult to determine the things you mentioned. It's not like the gardai just didn't think of it?

Faugheen

kerry cow wrote: »

are the cops not interested In who drove the van , murder weapon or location of murder ,poor detective work imo, egg on the face stuff ,

Poor detective work in getting a man convicted for murder.

Poor detective work in finding notes about 'what the guards will know'.

Poor detective work in piecing together the relevance of the internet searches.

Poor detective work in getting an insect expert to essentially confirm the tank had been opened days before the discovery.

You really, really need to get over it. You don't like the evidence that was given but you keep ignoring it like it doesn't matter.

He's guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

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.

As the Defence team pointed out, it was Mary Lowry who asked for the tanks to be cleared out before Quirke's lease ended. Very shortly after she made this request, Quirke discovered the body in the tank.

That seems to me to be a pretty enormous hole in any circumstantial evidence against Quirke.

Just to be clear, I suspect Quirke had something to do with the murder, possibly along with someone else. But there simply isn't sufficient evidence to say that Quirke killed Ryan beyond reasonable doubt.

"Probably" isn't good enough, it's a verdict requiring certainty.

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As the Defence team pointed out, it was Mary Lowry who asked for the tanks to be cleared out before Quirke's lease ended. Some weeks later, Quirke discovered the body.

That seems to me to be a pretty enormous hole in any circumstantial evidence against Quirke.

I got the impression at one stage that Mary Lorwy didn't even know the tank existed.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I got the impression at one stage that Mary Lorwy didn't even know the tank existed.

So did I. But her request for the tanks (plural) to be cleared-out before the lease expired out was made in writing.

The fact that she said tanks would suggest her awareness of more than one tank on the farm.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Poor detective work in getting a man convicted for murder.

Poor detective work in finding notes about 'what the guards will know'.

Poor detective work in piecing together the relevance of the internet searches.

Poor detective work in getting an insect expert to essentially confirm the tank had been opened days before the discovery.

You really, really need to get over it. You don't like the evidence that was given but you keep ignoring it like it doesn't matter.

He's guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

None of this, apart from the notebook, proves anything other than SOMEONE did these things. The notebook, mentioning disposal of clothes in particular, are pretty convincing.

Still waiting for someone to explain the van. Heres my theory on that. Bobby Ryan was murdered in the house in front of Mary Lowry. She was too afraid of Quirke to tell Gardai. She drove the van to the woods to throw the Guards off on Quirkes orders.
That's why the seat was moved for a relatively small person, which Quirke isn't - but she is. Also explains the DNA mystery, as she would have been in Bobby Ryan's van so her DNA would be ignored.

Bobby Ryan's son said she looked like she'd been in a car accident. Couple this with a thorough redecoration of the house before any forensics.

So she might not have known he was in the tank but she knew he'd been murdered.

the_pen_turner

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As the Defence team pointed out, it was Mary Lowry who asked for the tanks to be cleared out before Quirke's lease ended. Very shortly after she made this request, Quirke discovered the body in the tank.

That seems to me to be a pretty enormous hole in any circumstantial evidence against Quirke.

Just to be clear, I suspect Quirke had something to do with the murder, possibly along with someone else. But there simply isn't sufficient evidence to say that Quirke killed Ryan beyond reasonable doubt.

"Probably" isn't good enough, it's a verdict requiring certainty.

That's a very strange thing to ask to be done. It's a disused water tank. All that would be in it would be water and it would fill up again very quickly

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As the Defence team pointed out, it was Mary Lowry who asked for the tanks to be cleared out before Quirke's lease ended. Very shortly after she made this request, Quirke discovered the body in the tank.

That seems to me to be a pretty enormous hole in any circumstantial evidence against Quirke.

Just to be clear, I suspect Quirke had something to do with the murder, possibly along with someone else. But there simply isn't sufficient evidence to say that Quirke killed Ryan beyond reasonable doubt.

"Probably" isn't good enough, it's a verdict requiring certainty.

She made no such request. His story was he went to the tank to suck up water to mix with slurry.

Why do you think you’re such an expert on the verdict when you can’t get the simple details correct?

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

That's a very strange thing to ask to be done.

It makes sense in terms of a slurry tank. It's bewildering why anyone would also want a run-off tank to be cleared out, unless they needed the contents -- but people are strange, I suppose.

Nekarsulm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So did I. But her request for the tanks (plural) to be cleared-out before the lease expired out was made in writing.

The fact that she said tanks would suggest her awareness of more than one tank on the farm.

Do we know how many slatted sheds there were on the farm?
Most of those have two tanks for cattle slurry.
It would be normal to have them emptied and spread on the land.
If you were leasing out a farm, no one would want to be taking it with full tanks.
Especially coming near winter, when spreading is banned. In that case the new leasee wouldn't be able to put their own cattle into the sheds.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It makes sense in terms of a slurry tank. It's bewildering why anyone would also want a run-off tank to be cleared out, unless they needed the contents -- but people are strange, I suppose.

Where did she ask for the run off tank to be emptied?

Odelay

Odelay wrote: »

She made no such request. His story was he went to the tank to suck up water to mix with slurry.

Why do you think you’re such an expert on the verdict when you can’t get the simple details correct?

He did go to retrieve water from the tank to help in agitating slurry. But he did that in knowledge of her previous request to clear out the tanks on the farm -- whether that was on his mind at the time, I have no idea. He could easily have used water from a well.

Mary Lowry did make this request. It was contained in evidence given not by Mary Lowry, but by her former solicitor.

Maybe you should read about the evidence before accusing others of not having done so.

Butcher Boy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So did I. But her request for the tanks (plural) to be cleared-out before the lease expired out was made in writing.

The fact that she said tanks would suggest her awareness of more than one tank on the farm.

there is a slatted house there with 2 tanks in it.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He did go to retrieve water from the tank to help in agitating slurry. But he did that in knowledge of her previous request to clear out the tanks on the farm -- whether that was on his mind at the time, I have no idea. He could easily have used water from a well.

Mary Lowry did make this request. It was contained in evidence given not by Mary Lowry, but by her former solicitor.

Maybe you should read about the evidence before accusing others of not having done so.

Really looks more and more like she knew about the whole thing. Probably under duress from Quirke - after all he is a violent man. There is at least as much circumstantial evidence she knew about the murder as there is that Quirke actually did it.

Cleaning out the tanks (plural) in writing is a very odd request to make. Unless Quirke urged her to do it to appear innocent.

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So did I. But her request for the tanks (plural) to be cleared-out before the lease expired out was made in writing.

The fact that she said tanks would suggest her awareness of more than one tank on the farm.

Thanks!
I just was referring to when she said she didn't know the tank existed.


https://www.nova.ie/seedy-lover-questioned-over-prior-evidence-in-slurry-murder-case-122048/

Butcher Boy

Butcher Boy wrote: »

there is a slatted house there with 2 tanks in it.

No there is not.

This was part of the evidence. The slatted shed has only one tank, and that cattle shed wasn't in use. There was another tank outside, but the slatted shed's tank was always empty. Everybody on the farm would know that shed wasn't in use.

Nekarsulm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He did go to retrieve water from the tank to help in agitating slurry. But he did that in knowledge of her previous request to clear out the tanks on the farm -- whether that was on his mind at the time, I have no idea. He could easily have used water from a well.

Mary Lowry did make this request. It was contained in evidence given not by Mary Lowry, but by her former solicitor.

Maybe you should read about the evidence before accusing others of not having done so.

You wouldn't use water froma well.
That would involve putting the 9 inch (****ty) suction pipe into clean well water.
That would simply never happen.
(Most wells wouldn't hold much water anyway, certainly not enough to make any difference to a tank of "too thick" slurry.

The dairy washings tank had a very low capacity also.
Only 4000 litres, less than half a slurry tankerfull.

You'd be as well off pi55ing into the slurry tank yourself, for all the difference 4000 litres would make.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Really looks more and more like she knew about the whole thing. Probably under duress from Quirke - after all he is a violent man. There is at least as much circumstantial evidence she knew about the murder as there is that Quirke actually did it.

Cleaning out the tanks (plural) in writing is a very odd request to make. Unless Quirke urged her to do it to appear innocent.

Just to be clear, I don't think Mary Lowry had anything to do with the murder of Bobby Ryan.

I'm just saying there is enough doubt about who killed Ryan to diminish Quirke's "certain" guilt.

If I had the true, unassailable answer under my hat, written on a piece of paper handed to me by God himself, would anyone on the jury, or anyone here, bet 10,000 quid that Quirke killed Ryan?

That's the level of certainty required here. A prospect in which any doubt is unreasonable, not to be entertained.

THere shouldn't be any hunches or 'probably' about it, even if we think Quirke probably had something to do with the murder, by himself or with another.

Nekarsulm

Nekarsulm wrote: »

You wouldn't use water froma well.
That would involve putting the 9 inch (****ty) suction pipe into clean well water.
That would simply never happen..

I'm ashamed to admit I grew up on a farm. Will hand back my culchie-card at the next Macra meeting

Nekarsulm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm ashamed to admit I grew up on a farm. Will hand back my culchie-card at the next Macra meeting

Macra meetings are generally so focused on the social side of things, you'll never think of it .

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

If I had the true, unassailable answer under my hat, written on a piece of paper handed to me by God himself, would anyone on the jury, or anyone here, bet 10,000 quid that Quirke killed Ryan?

I'd take that bet personally, what would I win though :P

Necro

Necro wrote: »

I'd take that bet personally, what would I win though :P

10k, but you might also lose 10k

(also, I don't have 10k)

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just to be clear, I don't think Mary Lowry had anything to do with the murder of Bobby Ryan.

I'm just saying there is enough doubt about who killed Ryan to diminish Quirke's "certain" guilt.

If I had the true, unassailable answer under my hat, written on a piece of paper handed to me by God himself, would anyone on the jury, or anyone here, bet 10,000 quid that Quirke killed Ryan?

That's the level of certainty required here. A prospect in which any doubt is unreasonable, not to be entertained.

THere shouldn't be any hunches or 'probably' about it, even if we think Quirke probably had something to do with the murder, by himself or with another.

You are entirely mistaken in your interpretation of 'reasonable doubt'. The whole point of that term is that it doesn't have to be beyond a shadow of a doubt

In order words, if you think it's far more likely that he did do it than that he didn't, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and you can convict

https://www.thejournal.ie/graham-dwyer-verdict-2-2013927-Mar2015/

https://www.dppireland.ie/victims_and_witnesses/the-decision-to-prosecute/

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm ashamed to admit I grew up on a farm. Will hand back my culchie-card at the next Macra meeting

He’s right, it would be daft to stick a slurry pipe down a well.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He did go to retrieve water from the tank to help in agitating slurry. But he did that in knowledge of her previous request to clear out the tanks on the farm -- whether that was on his mind at the time, I have no idea. He could easily have used water from a well.

Mary Lowry did make this request. It was contained in evidence given not by Mary Lowry, but by her former solicitor.

Maybe you should read about the evidence before accusing others of not having done so.

She did not make that request. You need to pay more attention to the details.

kerry cow

maybe someone else lifted the lid 10 days earlier and not pat quirke , people presume he did it , there's no proof he opened it , but someone did .
it all a load of bullsht unless there's hard facts .

if he get this over turned then he's owed alot of apologies from a lot of people ,papers and media .

there not enough to put him In jail , and I think jail is too good for 100% murders .
imdela supports him .

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You are entirely mistaken in your interpretation of 'reasonable doubt'. The whole point of that term is that it doesn't have to be beyond a shadow of a doubt

I don't claim that reasonable doubt means 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'. It means certainty -- there may be shades of doubt, but those doubts are unreasonable conjecture or baseless hypothesis.

It is more stringent than 'probably', and less stringent than mathematical certainty. The analogy I used was a 10,000 euro bet. You might be anxious about laying down that kind of money, but your anxiety would be unreasonable because you'd know it to be a 'sure thing', where all doubts are unreasonable.

Odelay wrote: »

She did not make that request. You need to pay more attention to the details.

I assume there are some semantics at work here. What are you saying, that the solicitor wrote the request to clear-out the tanks when acting for Mary Lowry, so she didn't literally write it herself?

I doubt many people are very reassured by that, if that's your point.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't claim that reasonable doubt means 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'. It means certainty -- there may be shades of doubt, but those doubts are unreasonable conjecture or baseless hypothesis.

It is more stringent than 'probably', and less stringent than mathematical certainty. The analogy I used was a 10,000 euro bet. You might be anxious about laying down that kind of money, but your anxiety would be unreasonable because you'd know it to be a 'sure thing', where all doubts are unreasonable.

It's a poor analogy and not one I imagine many judges would agree with.

You need to be reasonable sure. You don't have to be completely sure. I believe that each of the threads of circumstantial evidence alone would be unconvincing, but taken together they paint a picture that would have me voting 'guilty'.

Some of the cockamamie stuff on here such as that Mary Lowry was involved or that Quirke had an accomplice has literally zero evidence to support it.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's a poor analogy and not one I imagine many judges would agree with.

I borrowed (stole) that analogy from a speech by John Mortimer, the barrister who wrote Rumpole of The Bailey, etc. There are many variations of it along the same lines.

Again, as barristers often tell juries, it doesn't have to be 'mathematical' certainty, but it must be a certainty and never a 'probably'