Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

The point is, if you’re on a jury you’re not supposed to have made up your mind until you’ve heard all the evidence.
A juror who expressed that they are ‘convinced’ one way or the other before all the evidence is presented would find themselves promptly excused from said jury.
The defence is not supposed to be changing your mind - they, in theory, should be presenting evidence to an unbiased open minded jury.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

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.

To say that Quirke 'lied' about internet searches is to make two grand assumptions.

Firstly, that he was the only person who used the computer, and
That he knew, without having to check, the dates upon which he conducted the internet searches.

Only by assuming both of these things can you credibly claim that Quirke lied. But such an assumption cannot spring from thin air, or a general notion of suspicion. What is it based on? It is based on nothing except blatant conjecture.

I don't know if you can recall the dates of all of the gory or weird things you've ever googled. Quirke said he thought it must have been after his own son died, but only some of them were. He might have known he was misleading the Gardai, but he might not. Most people don't have a mental timeline of their google searches.

Necro

Candamir wrote: »

The point is, if you’re on a jury you’re not supposed to have made up your mind until you’ve heard all the evidence.
A juror who expressed that they are ‘convinced’ one way or the other before all the evidence is presented would find themselves promptly excused from said jury.
The defence is not supposed to be changing your mind - they, in theory, should be presenting evidence to an unbiased open minded jury.

But we're not on the jury so none of that even matters.

brooke 2

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!

Aw, come on! Not on its own, but combined with all the other circumstantial evidence. Only one inevitable verdict..the correct one...at wnich the jury arrived.

Candamir

Necro wrote: »

But we're not on the jury so none of that even matters.

No sh1t! I see the point has gone over your head.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

Actually I was just watching Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile on Sky Movies yesterday and Bundy's actions ...

PS, I hope a body is never found in your general vicinity. Your seeking-out of such material may help secure a conviction against you!

freshpopcorn

Do I think he did it? Yes.
Did I expect the jury to find a guilty verdict? I swayed the whole time but I was hoping they would.
Do I think he may have had help? I couldn't rule it out to be honest.

KikiLaRue

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's not a question of finding a murder weapon. If the prosecution could 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.

I think we can all agree that it would be great if there was some hard evidence, but there isn't because the body was very well hidden for a very long time somewhere only a handful of people had knowledge of and ready access to.

Of those people only one had motive. Beyond motive, we know this man had taken malicious action against the couple in the past (false report to Tulsa), we know he trespassed on Lowry's land and stole her underwear -there's a patter of escalating levels of instability and extremely suspicious behaviour. Does that alone prove murder? No.

We know that the murder took place on the only day of the week when Mary Lowry is out of the house all morning - information known only to a few including the accused, we know he was hassling Lowry for money, we know he made notes about questions the gardai might ask him, we know that he searched the internet for body decomposition and *crucially* we know he lied about the reason why he searched for that. Do any of these threads alone prove murder? No

We know he 'found' the body just as his lease was running out. We know he could have taken the stand to defend himself and chose not to, which in fairness is his right.

Knowing all that, can we look at the evidence and say "I doubt he committed this murder". If that doubt exists, he should be found not guilty. If there is no reasonable doubt that he did it, he should be found guilty.

There will always be crimes that lack forensic evidence - it would be dangerous to set the precedent that murderers who do a good job of cleaning up after themselves must walk free.

Necro

Candamir wrote: »

No sh1t! I see the point has gone over your head.

What point? That jury members are meant to be unbiased? How does that equate to random internet person 2.0 being convinced of his guilt before hearing all the evidence?

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

PS, I hope a body is never found in your general vicinity. Your seeking-out of such material may help secure a conviction against you!

Luckily I'll have the good people of Boards to rush to my defence then should it ever happen :pac:

KikiLaRue

Necro wrote: »

Luckily I'll have the good people of Boards to rush to my defence then should it ever happen :pac:

"His username was Necro your honour, you just know he was into the weird sh1t"

Necro

Necro wrote: »

What point? That jury members are meant to be unbiased? How does that equate to random internet person 2.0 being convinced of his guilt before hearing all the evidence?

It is pretty relevant if people are basing their opinions on things that would be rejected by a Court.

I can say the star-signs told me that Quirke is guilty, or that I think he's guilty because I don't like the cut of his jib, but I'd be wasting everyone's time by typing such things, because it's fairly pointless to approach the question in a way that isn't recognised by the legal process. Such approaches would only discredit me.

Saying you were convinced from the beginning, before the Defence even got to its feet (metaphorically speaking, but probably literally, to an extent) does somewhat discredit you.

McCrack

It's laughable some people on here dissecting the media reports and saying they would come to a different conclusion than the jury who sat through 13 weeks of evidence, observed the witnesses, heard counsels submissions etc

Necro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is pretty relevant if people are basing their opinions on things that would be rejected by a Court.

I can say the star-signs told me that Quirke is guilty, or that I think he's guilty because I don't like the cut of his jib, but I'd be wasting everyone's time by typing such things, because it's fairly pointless to approach the question in a way that isn't recognised by the legal process. Such approaches would only discredit me.

Saying you were convinced from the beginning, before the Defence even got to its feet (metaphorically speaking, but probably literally, to an extent) does somewhat discredit you.

Discredit me from what though, my own opinion? I'll admit to having a bias in relation to feeling he was guilty. But that bias is borne by the evidence presented at trial.

Odelay

Candamir wrote: »

The point is, if you’re on a jury you’re not supposed to have made up your mind until you’ve heard all the evidence.
A juror who expressed that they are ‘convinced’ one way or the other before all the evidence is presented would find themselves promptly excused from said jury.
The defence is not supposed to be changing your mind - they, in theory, should be presenting evidence to an unbiased open minded jury.

What??? Where does it say this?

cmac2009

69 pages and counting. Insatiable desire for true crime knows no bounds. Is this a recent phenomenon or has it always been such? . Books, podcasts, documentaries, movies...it's never ending.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A
I am wasting my time here, aren't I? Because nobody will ever admit to being wrong on the internet. .....

no less your good self

Patrick Quirke is guilty. What part of that do you not understand?

Necro

cmac2009 wrote: »

69 pages and counting. Insatiable desire for true crime knows no bounds. Is this a recent phenomenon or has it always been such? . Books, podcasts, documentaries, movies...it's never ending.

Odelay

Odelay wrote: »

What??? Where does it say this?

Candamir is correct.

Any indication that a juror has made up their mind without hearing the evidence would be a complete non-starter. Such jurors are asked to excuse themselves at an early stage of the process.

I'm not sure if you were questioning this, or Candamir's explanation about the role of the Prosecution. The Prosecution's fundamental aim is not even to secure a conviction, but to secure a fair outcome.

That's why the Prosecution, in a case where the Accused is not represented, is obliged by law to speak at times almost in mitigation for the Accused, both at trial and at sentencing.

Odelay

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Candamir is correct.

Any indication that a juror has made up their mind without hearing the evidence would be a complete non-starter. Such jurors are asked to excuse themselves at an early stage of the process.

I'm not sure if you were questioning this, or Candamir's explanation about the role of the Prosecution. The Prosecution's fundamental aim is not even to secure a conviction, but to secure a fair outcome.

That's why the Prosecution, in a case where the Accused is not represented, is obliged by law to speak at times almost in mitigation for the Accused, both at trial and at sentencing.

Ok some Jim denies killing frank. The prosecution show a video of Jim and Jim can be heard saying hi frank, I’m gonna kill you. Then bang bang. Then Jim takes out a knife and goes stabby stably, head chopped off poor frank.
So you’re telling me, if a jury members is convinced at that stage Jim killed frank, that jury member could be in trouble and thrown off the jury??

Wrongway1985

Nekarsulm wrote: »

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

In fairness Quirke should have also known to wear suitable gear when drawing slurry he was wearing regular clothes when he made the "discovery" in the tank.

Odelay

Odelay wrote: »

Ok some Jim denies killing frank. The prosecution show a video of Jim and Jim can be heard saying hi frank, I’m gonna kill you. Then bang bang. Then Jim takes out a knife and goes stabby stably, head chopped off poor frank.
So you’re telling me, if a jury members is convinced at that stage Jim killed frank, that jury member could be in trotuble and thrown off the jury??

The legal process is full of unrealistic beliefs in the sublime power of juries as independent, unbiased judges of fact. A juror would be entitled to degrees of suspicion and doubt during a trial, but not being 'convinced from the beginning'.

I agree with you, it's absurd, as are a lot of the assumptions courts make about juries.

blackcard

Necro wrote: »

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.

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

blackcard

Necro wrote: »

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.

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

Necro

blackcard wrote: »

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

Similar cases, perhaps.

But body decomposition? That's very. very specific.

KikiLaRue

blackcard wrote: »

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

Perhaps. But why would you even assume the missing person was dead? I thought the story was he was meant to have run off to Spain?

Anyway, if that was the only thread of evidence against him the case would never have been brought. It's one of many.

Candamir

Odelay wrote: »

What??? Where does it say this?



Ok some Jim denies killing frank. The prosecution show a video of Jim and Jim can be heard saying hi frank, I’m gonna kill you. Then bang bang. Then Jim takes out a knife and goes stabby stably, head chopped off poor frank.
So you’re telling me, if a jury members is convinced at that stage Jim killed frank, that jury member could be in trouble and thrown off the jury??

(And when Jim provides evidence of the existence of an identical twin brother, Bob but the jury is already ‘convinced’? )

It’s pretty standard fare in our justice system.

KikiLaRue

It's not possible to hold a bunch of information in your head and not form an opinion on it.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

You're forgetting the excuse Quirke provided for that little search. It wasn't the search that was significant, it was his reason he provided for the search that was a key piece of evidence.

brooke 2

Odelay wrote: »

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.

I know it might seem to be in bad taste to refer to it....but the chances of someone killing his own child accidentally a few months after he had purposefully taken the life of another person.....:( Almost like the powers that be were trying to teach him what it was like to lose a loved one. According to reports....the only time Quirke showed a flicker of emotion during the trial was when reference was made to Alan's death.

blackcard

KikiLaRue wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

Perhaps. But why would you even assume the missing person was dead? I thought the story was he was meant to have run off to Spain?

Anyway, if that was the only thread of evidence against him the case would never have been brought. It's one of many.

Well, he hadn't been seen around for a long time, he had disappeared. There was no obvious reason why he would disappear suddenly. There was a decent chance that he was dead, accidentally or not. A curious person might wonder how long his body might last and might look up similar cases on the internet.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

Well, he hadn't been seen around for a long time, he had disappeared. There was no obvious reason why he would disappear suddenly. There was a decent chance that he was dead, accidentally or not. A curious person might wonder how long his body might last and might look up similar cases on the internet.

And the excuse he gave around his son passing away, even though he hadn't at the time of that search? What say you to that?

KikiLaRue

blackcard wrote: »

Well, he hadn't been seen around for a long time, he had disappeared. There was no obvious reason why he would disappear suddenly. There was a decent chance that he was dead, accidentally or not. A curious person might wonder how long his body might last and might look up similar cases on the internet.

One of several very, very unfortunate coincidences for Quirke...

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

But is it not reasonable that when someone you know is missing and possibly murdered/dead, you might do a search on the internet for similar cases where a body was missing or how long it might take a body to decompose (I wouldn't do it myself, mind you)

You're forgetting the excuse Quirke provided for that little search. It wasn't the search that was significant, it was his reason he provided for the search that was a key piece of evidence.

Maybe he thought it would look suspicious to the police and told a stupid lie?

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

Maybe he thought it would look suspicious to the police and told a stupid lie?

So, he lied. At least once. What else did he lie about? Also, he had plenty of opportunity to retract that statement and provide an alternative. He didn't.

pjohnson

Yeah the damning part was Quirke lying about it concerning his son. Rather than the search itself.

Necro

pjohnson wrote: »

Yeah the damning part was Quirke lying about it concerning his son. Rather than the search itself.

Search was pretty bad too imo, but yes the lie was the more damning piece of evidence.

brooke 2

brooke 2 wrote: »

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:

I'd like to add that if I were she, I'd have jumped up from my seat at that pointb and gone for him bald headed.....no pun intended!! What an absolute jerk Quirke is.....Hope he never sees the light of day again.....guess he'll be out in a few years....��

Necro

Necro wrote: »

Search was pretty bad too imo, but yes the lie was the more damning piece of evidence.

There's a huge amount of TV programmes on these days around historical killers, "catch a killer", "killers in the family" "real life CSI" "my neighbour was an axe murderer" "pets who witness murders" blah blah blah etc etc etc

I've probably googled a dozen killer names over the years, both Irish and foreign looking at the cases, as have probably 1/2 the country- all because the killers were in the news or on the TV as part of a documentary.

The search probably wouldn't have got to court IMHO, for the above reason- it's the response that he got caught out on.

blackcard

I think that he is guilty and I am playing devil's advocate. But a lot of people are saying that his searches on the internet are the most damming pieces of evidence. But if he did the searches out of curiosity after the disappearance of a person that he knew personally, he might have panicked when he was being interviewed by the police. We know that he is guilty of telling a lie but a lot of people might do that under pressure

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

But a lot of people are saying that his searches on the internet are the most damming pieces of evidence.

no they're not.

Spanish Eyes

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.

Strange then, that he was able to kill a person, move the body, drop it in the tank etc. without anyone of the country variety who know everyone's movements noticing anything.

Poor man Bobby Ryan. May he rest in peace, no matter who was responsible.

KikiLaRue

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Strange then, that he was able to kill a person, move the body, drop it in the tank etc. without anyone of the country variety who know everyone's movements noticing anything.

Poor man Bobby Ryan. May he rest in peace, no matter who was responsible.

It's almost like he planned it for a day no one would be around to see.....

Vicarious Function

I don't know if it's been mentioned already - the lack of respect for the dignity of a body, undressing it and leaving it naked in that run-off tank. Surely it could have been wrapped in a sheet of polythene or the like. The callousness of that is horrifying.

Maybe it was left naked in the hope that decomposition would be speeded up and discocvery made less likely.

I know there was the consideration of not leaving DNA on the clothes.

When was the note about disposal of the clothes made on Quirke's computer? Was that before or after dicovery of the body?

Odelay

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Strange then, that he was able to kill a person, move the body, drop it in the tank etc. without anyone of the country variety who know everyone's movements noticing anything.

Poor man Bobby Ryan. May he rest in peace, no matter who was responsible.

Ffs, they didn’t think pat was the killer before bobby went missing, it was after it and then is when they would have been commenting if he dug a hole of any size.

brooke 2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

I believe Quirke got free legal aid. Some months after the discovery of the remains of Bobby Ryan he arranged for the setting up of a company in order to divest himself of ownership of his farm. He subsequently became an employee of that company earning between €10,000 and €15,000......thus entitling him to free legal aid......isn't karma such a lighting bitch!!!!!

KikiLaRue

brooke 2 wrote: »

I believe Quirke got free legal aid. Some months after the discovery of the remains of Bobby Ryan he arranged for the setting up of a company in order to divest himself of ownership of his farm. He subsequently became an employee of that company earning between €10,000 and €15,000......thus entitling him to free legal aid......isn't karma such a lighting bitch!!!!!

Anyone know if this is true?

Spanish Eyes

Odelay wrote: »

Ffs, they didn’t think pat was the killer before bobby went missing, it was after it and then is when they would have been commenting if he dug a hole of any size.

How do you know? No one knows anything, apart from a guilty verdict based on purely circumstancial evidence as far as I can see.

Fascinating case all the same. So there are lots of posts (including my own) in relation to it, now that we can speak freely about it.

brooke 2

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Do I think he did it? Yes.
Did I expect the jury to find a guilty verdict? I swayed the whole time but I was hoping they would.
Do I think he may have had help? I couldn't rule it out to be honest.

Someone who drove the car to the woods? The Polish guy mentioned a few times??

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I don't know if it's been mentioned already - the lack of respect for the dignity of a body, undressing it and leaving it naked in that run-off tank. Surely it could have been wrapped in a sheet of polythene or the like. The callousness of that is horrifying.

It's not particularly horrifying relative to the violent eradication of a human life by another human being. In fact, any fixation on the treatment of the remains seems almost trivial. The dead couldn't care less.

I am amazed how so much of the commentary surrounding this trial has focused on morality: the perceived moral character of Patrick Quirke, the sympathy for his supposedly angelic and long-suffering wife at the hands of this certain brute, the disposal of the body, etc.

There's a lot of tattle and intrigue, not unlike an episode of Coronation Street or a paperback thriller. None of it makes a whit of difference to the question of guilt or innocence, yet seems central to the deliberations of the Court of Public Opinion.