Patrick Quirke -Guilty

jmreire

If the other internet searches had been allowed into evidence, the one's that looked at how other convicted murder's were caught, how long do you think that the jury would have been out? Taken in conjunction with the other searches and analysis of writing on a A4 paper pad?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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'

You’re just wrong. There’s a reason why it has its own term. Reasonable doubt is not certainty. I’d challenge you to find me any trustworthy source that says it is. Feel free to check out the two links I posted.

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

If the other internet searches had been allowed into evidence, the one's that looked at how other convicted murder's were caught, how long do you think that the jury would have been out? Taken in conjunction with the other searches and analysis of writing on a A4 paper pad?

Let's hope nobody posting here is ever on trial for murder. I mean your honour the defendant was active on a forum about a murder trial!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

.
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.

Jesus some people's egos won't ever let them admit they were wrong (Odelay, not you!) .

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

Explain the van then. Also explain the solicitors letter from Mary Lowry instructing Quirke to clean out the tanks. Explain Mary Lowry looking like she'd been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared. Explain the AI woman finding and then losing key evidence the Gardai had asked her for. The redecoration of the house. Doesn't add up. I'm not saying Quirke is innocent but it's not how the prosecution or the media are presenting it.

If you ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs then that isn't a trial.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You’re just wrong. There’s a reason why it has its own term. Reasonable doubt is not certainty. I’d challenge you to find me any trustworthy source that says it is. Feel free to check out the two links I posted.

How about MIchael O'Higgins, probably the most eminent senior counsel working in criminal law in this country?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jury-in-baby-trial-must-be-certain-of-guilt-36731235.html

Micheál P O'Higgins SC, for the defence, completed his speech, telling the jurors they cannot convict based on suspicion or likelihood, but that the prosecution's case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. "In short, you must be certain of his guilt," he told them. Otherwise, they must acquit.

By the way, the formula used (above) is repeated in many, perhaps most, closing arguments in contested criminal trials.

jmreire

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's hope nobody posting here is ever on trial for murder. I mean your honour the defendant was active on a forum about a murder trial!

Well, the Judge would not allow those particular searches into evidence, but he did allow others, and it was these other searches that helped convict him. But to me, if you want to combine ALL of the searches plus a dead body.....This is not the same thing as watching every one of the NCIS series.... So how would it have affected the Juror's in making up their mind's had they seen them?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

How about MIchael O'Higgins, probably the most eminent senior counsel working in criminal law in this country?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jury-in-baby-trial-must-be-certain-of-guilt-36731235.html


By the way, the formula used (above) is repeated in many, perhaps most, closing arguments in contested criminal trials.

Defence attorneys whose specific job it is to convince a jury to acquit are not what I would consider a trustworthy source.

Can you give me a link to an unbiased source: the DPP, justice Department, a judge?

jmreire

One thing about all this that I can't figure out ( there are more than one thing that I can't figure out, but this will do for starter's !!! )
The body was hidden for 22 mths..so as time went on, and the case dropped out of the spotlight. Why was the body not moved and put someplace where it would not have been discovered? Even in the time frame where he know that the lease was up, and would not be renewed
a JCB with a bucket would have dug a very deep hole some where else on the land, and in a week or two would it would have been overgrown. Even quite near the tank itself?
Strange....but may he was under Garda surveillance all the time and was afraid to take the chance???

Odelay

jmreire wrote: »

One thing about all this that I can't figure out ( there are more than one thing that I can't figure out, but this will do for starter's !!! )
The body was hidden for 22 mths..so as time went on, and the case dropped out of the spotlight. Why was the body not moved and put someplace where it would not have been discovered? Even in the time frame where he know that the lease was up, and would not be renewed
a JCB with a bucket would have dug a very deep hole some where else on the land, and in a week or two would it would have been overgrown. Even quite near the tank itself?
Strange....but may he was under Garda surveillance all the time and was afraid to take the chance???

He didn’t own a JCB. Also plenty locally thought he was responsible for the missing man, so if he was seen digging a hole, it would have been noticed and commented on.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Defence attorneys whose specific job it is to convince a jury to acquit are not what I would consider a trustworthy source.

Can you give me a link to an unbiased source: the DPP, justice Department, a judge?

A judge doesn't allow a lawyer to mislead the Jury on a point of law. Of course Michael Higgins SC is correct here, a conviction in a criminal trial demands certainty.

I am tempted to mention any number of undergraduate criminal law textbooks -- this is a cornerstone of the criminal process; it is, in fact, plain English.

Failing going to the trouble of visiting a library, the only thing I can suggest to you is putting 'must be certain' and 'reasonable doubt' into a Google search, as I have just done and this was the first hit (of many)

https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Death_at_Blue_Hills.pdf
How strong does the evidence have to be to prove a case? This is called the standard of proof. In a criminal case the prosecution has to convince the jury that the accused is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' [...] The jury must be certain in their minds, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.

The judge in the Patrick Quirke case used very similar language, saying the jury had to be 'sure' of Quirke's guilt.

https://taaye.com/ireland/trial-of-rival-love-the-jury-begins-deliberation-and-asked-her-to-think-about-circumstantial-evidence-carefully/
Said that if the jury thought the accused guilty but not sure, it would not be enough to convict.
If they think he is "probably guilty" again, that will not be enough.
The judge said they must be sure, satisfied and have no reasonable doubt. "Only then can you condemn," she said.

I am wasting my time here, aren't I? Because nobody will ever admit to being wrong on the internet. I now await a semantic epistle on the distinction between 'sureness' and 'certainty'.....

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A judge doesn't allow a lawyer to mislead the Jury on a point of law. Of course Michael Higgins SC is correct here, a conviction in a criminal trial demands certainty.

I am tempted to mention any number of undergraduate criminal law textbooks -- this is a cornerstone of the criminal process; it is, in fact, plain English.

Failing going to the trouble of visiting a library, the only thing I can suggest to you is putting 'must be certain' and 'reasonable doubt' into a Google search, as I have just done and this was the first hit (of many)

https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Death_at_Blue_Hills.pdf
How strong does the evidence have to be to prove a case? This is called the standard of proof. In a criminal case the prosecution has to convince the jury that the accused is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' [...] The jury must be certain in their minds, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.

The judge in the Patrick Quirke case used very similar language, saying the jury had to be 'sure' of Quirke's guilt.

https://taaye.com/ireland/trial-of-rival-love-the-jury-begins-deliberation-and-asked-her-to-think-about-circumstantial-evidence-carefully/
Said that if the jury thought the accused guilty but not sure, it would not be enough to convict.
If they think he is "probably guilty" again, that will not be enough.
The judge said they must be sure, satisfied and have no reasonable doubt. "Only then can you condemn," she said.

I am wasting my time here, aren't I? Because nobody will ever admit to being wrong on the internet. I now await a semantic epistle on the distinction between 'sureness' and 'certainty'.....

Can you see the difference between “I’m certain” and “I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It’s like the difference between “I’m sure” and “I’m reasonably sure”. They mean different things.

Lol at “no one can admit they’re wrong on the internet” - tell me pot, what colour is that kettle over there?

Odelay

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you see the difference between “I’m certain” and “I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It’s like the difference between “I’m sure” and “I’m reasonably sure”. They mean different things.

Lol at “no one can admit they’re wrong on the internet” - tell me pot, what colour is that kettle over there?

It’ll be an uphill struggle with that lady.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you see the difference between “I’m certain” and “I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It’s like the difference between “I’m sure” and “I’m reasonably sure”. They mean different things.

Lol at “no one can admit they’re wrong on the internet” - tell me pot, what colour is that kettle over there?

I knew it.

You're right actually, Michael O'Higgins SC is wrong. You should write him a letter and tell him, too.

CC Judge Creedon re 'you must be sure'.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I knew it.

You're right actually, Michael O'Higgins SC is wrong. You should write him a letter and tell him, too. CC Judge Creedon.

It’s your interpretation that’s wrong. But you just don’t want to see that.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I knew it.

You're right actually, Michael O'Higgins SC is wrong. You should write him a letter and tell him, too.

CC Judge Creedon re 'you must be sure'.

Michael O’Higgins only has one job, getting juries to acquit. You’re quoting someone who’s living literally depends on it. So it’s natural that he would choose to frame reasonable doubt in those terms. I would be far more convinced if you could find a judge or another unbiased source framing it like this. Any luck with that?

Odelay

Odelay wrote: »

It’s your interpretation that’s wrong. But you just don’t want to see that.

What did Judge Creedon mean when she said, in this exact case, that the jury "must be sure, satisfied, and have no reasonable doubt"?

I suppose you'd also like to tell me that sureness and certainty are completely different things, or that judges allow barristers to invent false definitions of law when summing-up, to which Prosecution lawyers also do not object.

This is in textbooks, lads, it's available at your fingertips on Google. I'm going to stop trying to convince people of something that they choose not to see for the sake of everyone else's reading of this thread.

BarryD2

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.

No reason to believe that Mary Lowry wasn't aware of the disused tank. She was on a farm with her deceased husband Martin, so every likelihood that it was discussed from time to time.

A lot of the prosecution case rests on her evidence, even down to the basics of (I think) Bobby Ryan staying the night and certainly the time of departure around 0630 and so on. Given her relationship with her brother in law, it's an unhealthy reliance when you look at it critically.

Faugheen wrote: »

He's guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

You can keep repeating something, but it doesn't necessarily make it true!

cannotlogin

Looks like Pat Quirke had no interest in anything other than Mary Lowry's land.

I don't think he had any true interest in the woman and was motivated by greed and anger when the land was slipping away from him. The fact he also wouldn't hand his own mother back her house is further evidence of a greedy, controlling, land grabing man with little respect for women.

Imelda Quirke lost her brother, and her son in a short space of time. Her husband (who is no loss to her based on the way he treated the other woman in his life & his betrayal of her) and also her sister in law with whom she was once close with.

PS - Michael O'Higgins cannot be considered independent - his job is to get the right result for his client.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What did Judge Creedon mean when she said, in this exact case, that the jury "must be sure, satisfied, and have no reasonable doubt"?

We don't have to guess at what she meant, because it's right there in the link you provided:

You have to be convinced that not guilty will be an insult to common sense.

The burden of proving the case was on the Public Prosecutor's Office, and it was not necessary for the defense to prove anything.

The evidence was required for an unquestionable standard.

The judge said this was a higher standard than the standard applied in a civil case where matters are determined on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

But she added that "it is not an impossible criterion" and that the issue does not need to prove "mathematical certainty" because nothing can be proven in humanitarian affairs to such an extent.

If the jury had doubts, they should be based on reason and could not be fictional.

The judge told them that reasonable doubt was a kind of doubt that might give someone pause to think when they made a big decision.

Said that if the jury thought the accused guilty but not sure, it would not be enough to convict.

If they think he is "probably guilty" again, that will not be enough.

The judge said they must be sure, satisfied and have no reasonable doubt. "Only then can you condemn," she said.

Justice Creedon said that if there was doubt about evidence, the benefit of doubt should be directed to the accused.

Somehow you seem to think this confirms your point and it really, really doesn't.

You reduced that thorough explanation to one line which, when you exclude all the rest of what she said, kind of proves your point, but in the the context of her full statement clearly does not.

Necro

BarryD2 wrote: »

You can keep repeating something, but it doesn't necessarily make it true!

But I mean, the poster is correct regardless of your opinion.

Quirke has been found guilty in a court of law.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What did Judge Creedon mean when she said, in this exact case, that the jury "must be sure, satisfied, and have no reasonable doubt"?

I suppose you'd also like to tell me that sureness and certainty are completely different things, or that judges allow barristers to invent false definitions of law when summing-up, to which Prosecution lawyers also do not object.

This is in textbooks, lads, it's available at your fingertips on Google. I'm going to stop trying to convince people of something that they choose not to see for the sake of everyone else's reading of this thread.

Nope, it just needs to be in context like the poster above quoted.

BarryD2

Necro wrote: »

But I mean, the poster is correct regardless of your opinion.

Quirke has been found guilty in a court of law.

He has indeed been found guilty, but it's the issue of 'reasonable doubt' and the type the evidence that has been discussed here. It was put well on the very first page of this thread: "Scary that you could get a life sentence based on that evidence."

jmreire

Odelay wrote: »

He didn’t own a JCB. Also plenty locally thought he was responsible for the missing man, so if he was seen digging a hole, it would have been noticed and commented on.

Didn't have to be a hole in the ground on the farm, could have been some where else....and not necessarily a hole in the ground either. Farmers burn bramble's and briers every year in the autumn, and its perfectly normal happening in the country side.And all that would be left would be the Ashe's.... blowing in the wind...but no body.
But really, the point I am trying to make / figure out is, having carefully planned and executed that plan, he did not have any plan to dispose of the body in a way that it could never be found. And he had 22 mths to do it... even after Mary had told him that she would not be renewing the lease, he still had a few months before handing the land back to her to do it.

Odelay

jmreire wrote: »

Didn't have to be a hole in the ground on the farm, could have been some where else....and not necessarily a hole in the ground either. Farmers burn bramble's and briers every year in the autumn, and its perfectly normal happening in the country side.And all that would be left would be the Ashe's.... blowing in the wind...but no body.
But really, the point I am trying to make / figure out is, having carefully planned and executed that plan, he did not have any plan to dispose of the body in a way that it could never be found. And he had 22 mths to do it... even after Mary had told him that she would not be renewing the lease, he still had a few months before handing the land back to her to do it.

A bonfire won’t burn bones. It’s not hot enough. That has caught murders out before.

I guess burying his own son distracted pat too. Another reason he didn’t go moving the body.

Necro

BarryD2 wrote: »

He has indeed been found guilty, but it's the issue of 'reasonable doubt' and the level/ nature of the evidence that has been discussed here. It was put well on the very first page of this thread: "Scary that you could get a life sentence based on that evidence."

Well that's opinion, of which we have differing ones in fairness.

I don't find it scary at all, I find it impressive that a jury had the character to convict without a 'smoking gun' per se.

It's not just one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence, it's multiple pieces.

All fitting together where there can really only be one murderer. The guy who was found guilty.

The funny thing is that most people aren't even disputing he had to have taken some part in the murder. And if that is largely agreed upon then should we not just be happy that Quirke is doing time for that?

If he had an accomplice now would be the time to fess up to that in the hope there might be some leniency when it comes to his release date in fact.

BarryD2

Necro wrote: »

Well that's opinion, of which we have differing ones in fairness.

I don't find it scary at all, I find it impressive that a jury had the character to convict without a 'smoking gun' per se.

It's not just one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence, it's multiple pieces.

All fitting together where there can really only be one murderer. The guy who was found guilty.

I understand where you're coming from but there's always a danger of fitting the facts to a given narrative. It's human nature and you've always to be on your guard to stand back and check that there aren't alternative ways that the known facts might fit. You could be working towards one solution but realise that in fact the solution is related but different.

jmreire

I understand that it wont reduce bone's to powder,,that is a crematorium job. But with what ever bone's remain after the bonfire, they can be gathered up in a plastic bag, thrown on to a shed concrete floor, and a few hours with a sledge hammer will reduce them to small fragment's, which can be black bagged ( in several small bag's even) and dumped in a wheelie bin for disposal.
Maybe ( and more than likely ) he never foresaw the day that he would lose the farm, and that the tank would become an issue.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

All fitting together where there can really only be one murderer. The guy who was found guilty.

That's some pretty massive speculation.

I'm one of the people who agree that Quirke probably had some role to play in the murder of Bobby Ryan, but any pronouncement that 'there can only be one murderer' is just off-the-wall.

Even the very fact of putting someone on trial creates, by definition, a stink of suspicion around a person. And then when you add circumstantial evidence to that bias, it may be the wire over which one's cognitive bias tumbles.

Hand on heart, would you bet your own money that Quirke is guilty, if such a fact could be divinely proven or disproven? Would you even bet fifty quid?

freshpopcorn

Necro wrote: »

If he had an accomplice now would be the time to fess up to that in the hope there might be some leniency when it comes to his release date in fact.

People like him never fess up.
Joe O' Reilly.
Catherine Nevin.
Graham Dwyer.

Tey just spend years trying to get off.

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's some pretty massive speculation.

I'm one of the people who agree that Quirke probably had some role to play in the murder of Bobby Ryan, but any pronouncement that 'there can only be one murderer' is just off-the-wall.

Even the very fact of putting someone on trial creates, by definition, a stink of suspicion around a person. And then when you add circumstantial evidence to that bias, it may be the wire over which one's cognitive bias tumbles.

Hand on heart, would you bet your own money that Quirke is guilty, if such a fact could be divinely proven or disproven? Would you even bet fifty quid?

I'm already quoted in the thread as saying I would. I've been convinced from early on in the trial tbh.

brooke 2

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 police would not have been familiar with the land. Iirc, they asked Quirke about possible hiding places on it. He omitted to mention the relevant hole in the ground to them. When subsequently asked why he did not mention it, he had no satisfactory answer. Saw some really disturbing headlines on some of the papers today. According to one, he had planned to eventually spread Bobby Ryan's remains as slurry. I heard Michelle Ryan on with Marian Finnucane today......she was very impressive. She clearly loved her father very much. My heart went out to her. Their lives will never be the same. Was delighted when Quirke was proclaimed guilty. It was the only logical conclusion the jury could have arrived at. Was in a restaurant in town (Dublin!) when I saw the verdict on my phone. I must admit that I silently cheered. A few seats away from me, a man was on the phone clearly speaking to someone about the verdict. Quirke was described by a local as being 'very brainy'. Obviously not as 'brainy' as he believed he was.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

I've been convinced from early on in the trial tbh.

You were convinced even before you heard all the evidence?

What does that suggest?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You were convinced even before you heard all the evidence?

What does that suggest?

That the evidence laid out at the beginning of the trial was compelling.

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You were convinced even before you heard all the evidence?

What does that suggest?

That the evidence presented at the beginning was enough for myself, a lay person with no bearing on the trial to be convinced of his guilt.

brooke 2

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

It needs to be said - the instructions from the judge were excellent.

Wrongway1985

Necro wrote: »

I don't find it scary at all, I find it impressive that a jury had the character to convict without a 'smoking gun' per se.

It's not just one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence, it's multiple pieces.

All fitting together where there can really only be one murderer. The guy who was found guilty.

Exactly if anything it's scary he could have walked,it would have been a travesty for the Ryan family if he had done so.

Ironic that posters name who concluded that is after Dan Breen a murderer from Tipperary.

The people who are stressing the wish for a scene/weapon for the conviction admit he was probably involved :rolleyes:

Said early in the thread by Arghus post is what I agree with the most...

Arghus wrote: »

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

Necro

Necro wrote: »

That the evidence presented at the beginning was enough for myself, a lay person with no bearing on the trial to be convinced of his guilt.

I assume by 'the beginning' you're referring to some duration that is considerably before the half-way point.

In other words, before the Defence began the substance of its reply to the Prosecution.

The more I read things like this online, the more difficult it is to have any faith in the jury system. The idea that someone can proudly announce that they were convinced of something without needing to hear the whole account (or even much of it) from the other side is astonishing.

brooke 2

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I can't imagine what it must have been like for his wife having to listen to the death of her son being used as a reason for her husband looking up sites re body decomposition......:mad:

Necro

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Exactly if anything it's scary he could have walked,it would have been a travesty for the Ryan family if he had done so.

Ironic that posters name who concluded that is after Dan Breen a murderer from Tipperary.

The people who are stressing the wish for a scene/weapon for the conviction admit he was probably involved :rolleyes:

Said early in the thread by Arghus post is what I agree with the most...

See this is the thing. I could accept a single piece of evidence presented by the prosecution as a coincidence designed by them to secure a conviction.

But to accept that every single piece is just an unfortunate misunderstanding and that Quirke is not guilty of murder but just incredibly bad luck and personal judgement would fly in the face of actual logic.

It's been quoted ad infinitum in the thread the mountain of circumstancial evidence presented that puts Quirke front and centre in relation to committing the act.

If people won't accept this without an actual murder weapon (after the body was hidden for almost two years) then that's their decision.

But I'm convinced he did it and justice has been served.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assume by 'the beginning' you're referring to some duration that is considerably before the half-way point.

In other words, before the Defence began the substance of its reply to the Prosecution.

The more I read things like this online, the more difficult it is to have any faith in the jury system. The idea that someone can proudly announce that they were convinced of something without needing to hear the whole account (or even much of it) from the other side is astonishing.

It’s possible to be convinced with the prosecution evidence at the start. Then listen to the defense side and either have your mind changed or not.

brooke 2

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.

+100

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assume by 'the beginning' you're referring to some duration that is considerably before the half-way point.

In other words, before the Defence began the substance of its reply to the Prosecution.

The more I read things like this online, the more difficult it is to have any faith in the jury system. The idea that someone can proudly announce that they were convinced of something without needing to hear the whole account (or even much of it) from the other side is astonishing.

What did you make of Quirke's defence though, let's be honest here.

His defence team's entire MO was to blame-shift onto Mary Lowry, ham-fisted attempts at creating this reasonable doubt some want to accept.

The defence was weak, and Quirke himself did not take the stand as he'd have been ripped to shreds by the prosecution - particularly given he lied when being questioned by Gardai in relation to the internet searches.

Does that really sound like the actions of an innocent man to you?

Nekarsulm

brooke 2 wrote: »

Saw some really disturbing headlines on some of the papers today. According to one, he had planned to eventually spread Bobby Ryan's remains as slurry

Whatever tabloid hack made up that headline/fairy tale has zero knowledge of slurry spreading equipment.

A ludicrous suggestion, that's simply not physically possible.

Something Quirke ( or any farmer in Ireland) would know.

brooke 2

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.

First time I heard of that. It seems to me that he knew the game was up and, being the controller he clearly was, he had to be in charge of the situation. However, he could not ring the gardaí himself....he kept ringing his unfortunate wife until she arrived on the scene and was compelled/forced/manipulated into contacting a garda acquaintance to report the finding of the body.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assume by 'the beginning' you're referring to some duration that is considerably before the half-way point.

In other words, before the Defence began the substance of its reply to the Prosecution.

The more I read things like this online, the more difficult it is to have any faith in the jury system. The idea that someone can proudly announce that they were convinced of something without needing to hear the whole account (or even much of it) from the other side is astonishing.

I thought the case laid out by the prosecution from the beginning was very convincing. The defence was poor, and failed to change my mind.

brooke 2

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?

Where did this report of this 'request come from?

BarryD2

Necro wrote: »

If people won't accept this without an actual murder weapon (after the body was hidden for almost two years) then that's their decision.

It's not a question of finding a murder weapon. If the prosecution could come up with any single piece of hard evidence that would tie Quirke to the murder, that would reassure. A piece of clothing, a sighting, a confession, fingerprints, DNA, something found with the body that was his - anything at all. Do you understand?

The reality seems to be that there are none of above. Just a demonstration that he had a motive and that he didn't like the victim. Plus evidence of searches random jotted notes that were probably by him, a man who would have known that he was under suspicion.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

What did you make of Quirke's defence though, let's be honest here.

His defence team's entire MO was to blame-shift onto Mary Lowry, ham-fisted attempts at creating this reasonable doubt some want to accept.

The defence was weak, and Quirke himself did not take the stand as he'd have been ripped to shreds by the prosecution - particularly given he lied when being questioned by Gardai in relation to the internet searches.

Does that really sound like the actions of an innocent man to you?

A few points here, I keep repeating that I think Quirke probably had some hand in the murder, or may even have been the sole person resposible for it. But I have nothing approaching the level of certainty required to insist on that, and I struggle to see how anybody can.

I don't know what the MO of the Defence was, at time their approach was certainly incoherent. But you'd have to be be particularly biased not to honestly accept that Mary Lowry's evidence was at times not credible. She claimed to have been afraid of Lowry at a time she was said to have booked him into a hotel with her. But Mrs Lowry couldn't "recall" staying at a five-star hotel, paid for with her credit card, and invoiced to her personal email address.

I don't believe there is any reason to say that Mary Lowry had any hand, act or part in the killing of Bobby Ryan, because although her actions were at times bizarre and incredible, it's too vague. Circumstantial, even.

brooke 2 wrote: »

First time I heard of that. It seems to me that he knew the game was up and, being the controller he clearly was, he had to be in charge of the situation.

Again, it was Mary Lowry who gave instructions to clear the tanks on the farm. It was shortly therafter that Quirke discovered the body in one of the two tanks that were in use.

Necro

Actually I was just watching Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile on Sky Movies yesterday and Bundy's actions in his defence against the initial murders he got charged with and eventually convicted is an interesting comparison.

The arrogance of Bundy in being so sure he wouldn't be caught until the one thing he could not dispute - the bite mark comparison - something he tried so hard to have thrown out of court is in a way similar to the Quirke evidence.

No DNA, primarily circumstancial evidence that helped to convict one of the most sadistic serial killers the world has ever known.

The internet searches were something that Quirke could simply not hide from once uncovered, coupled with his lies to Gardai regarding them and I feel it was a large part in securing the conviction.