Patrick Quirke -Guilty

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

So why are you prattling on about it

brooke 2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Anyone know if this is true?

Reported in the Mirror, if I recollect.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I'd consider someone's moral character to be pretty relevant to whether or not they are capable or murder.

As for the remains, there's a reason why we have a removal, a funeral, a month's mind, anniversaries... respect for the dead, and for those left behind. If what happened to remains mattered not a jot, we'd bury our dead in any old field with no markers, and we wouldn't care that the Tuam babies weren't given proper burials.

bobbyss

Apologies if this has been mentioned before.
Did Quirke drive Ryan's van to a wood and leave it there? Why?

There was some report that Quirke got up at 6am, 'made love' to Lowry and left. Where did the 'made love' information come from and what relevance is it ? Why make reference to it?

Vicarious Function

bobbyss wrote: »

Apologies if this has been mentioned before.
Did Quirke drive Ryan's van to a wood and leave it there? Why?

There was some report that Quirke got up at 6am, 'made love' to Lowry and left. Where did the 'made love' information come from and what relevance is it ? Why make reference to it?

You mean Ryan not Quirke made love! :pac:

I think that came from Mary Lowry's evidence.

bobbyss

bobbyss wrote: »

Apologies if this has been mentioned before.
Did Quirke drive Ryan's van to a wood and leave it there? Why?

There was some report that RYAN got up at 6am, 'made love' to Lowry and left. Where did the 'made love' information come from and what relevance is it ? Why make reference to it?

1. No-one knows, who drove the van- as in, there was no testimony definitely claiming any one person in particular. There was speculation that the drivers seat wasn't how the deceased would have left it, leading to the belief that someone else parked the car. But no definitive evidence or DNA etc that someone else drove the car there.

2. The reference was made as testament by Lowry around the circumstances of how the deceased left her house and the last time that he was seen alive- there is no significance per-se, relating to the love making. Only that that's the full account of the circumstances of his disappearance.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

eh, no. There's not.

Vicarious Function

Right now there are plans for an appeal, I believe. How long is it likely to take before an appeal is heard. Could it be up to three years?

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Right now there are plans for an appeal, I believe. How long is it likely to take before an appeal is heard. Could it be up to three years?

Ask Graham Dwyer- he's been waiting 4 years at this point.

No DNA:pac::pac:
No time and place of death :pac:
No CCTV:pac::pac:
No Witnesses :pac::pac:

Still in prison :D:D:D:D

There is justice in Ireland.

meeeeh

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'd consider someone's moral character to be pretty relevant to whether or not they are capable or murder.

Is there some research that shows adulterers are more likely to kill someone? And even if there is I'm pretty sure the connection would be weak. At the moment I'm willing to believe there was enough to find Quirke guilty but his lack of morality isn't evidence for anything except lack of morality.

4ensic15

PinotNero wrote: »

Kind of surprised.I believe he probably did it but the evidence was weak.

I imagine he'll appeal the sentence.

He can't appeal the sentence, only the conviction.

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

So why are you prattling on about it

I am prattling-on about my sincere worries about the credibility of the jury trial in the wake of this verdict.

I find the fixation with Patrick Quirke's personal morality, extra-marital affairs, and the dignity of the dead to be about as interesting as rugby football or the Private Lives of The Royals. And equally as irrelevant.

I'm not judging anyone for being interested in those topics. I enjoy soap operas from time to time. But local scandal and petty morality just isn't relevant to the bottom line, is it? That's a sincere question, btw.

4ensic15

ongarite wrote: »

Lots of evidence against him was ruled inadmissible by his defence team.
Details on RTE:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0501/1046863-what-the-quirke-trial-jury-didnt-hear/

The defence team doesn't rule any evidence inadmissible, the judge does.

Vicarious Function

Deleted User wrote: »

Ask Graham Dwyer- he's been waiting 4 years at this point.

No DNA:pac::pac:
No time and place of death :pac:
No CCTV:pac::pac:
No Witnesses :pac::pac:

Still in prison :D:D:D:D

There is justice in Ireland.

I thought Graham Dwyer has already had some sort of an appeal heard which did not go his way. Apparently he had been bragging to his prison mates that he had the restaurant booked where he was going to celebrate his win. Obviously, he ended up disappointed where that's concerned. That hearing took place after about three years, I think.

So it's looking like Quirke will have to settle in to jail for around three years before he gets his hearing?

KikiLaRue

meeeeh wrote: »

Is there some research that shows adulterers are more likely to kill someone? And even if there is I'm pretty sure the connection would be weak. At the moment I'm willing to believe there was enough to find Quirke guilty but his lack of morality isn't evidence for anything except lack of morality.

The fact that he's an adulterer would be the least of my worries.

I'd be much more concerned with:
- stealing knickers off her line
- trying to get her brother to 'talk sense into her'
- making a false report to Tulsa
- trespassing on her land
- pestering her for money
- allegedly stealing her passport

And there's more that came up in the trial, I can't remember it all off the top of my head. This is not normal behaviour, and it does speak to the kind of man he was: jealous, vindictive, angry.

That doesn't mean he murdered him, but I'd consider it very relevant.

4ensic15

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Gobsmacked at verdict, am I right in saying however that in order to overturn a verdict, you must produce new findings?

You are wrong. No need to produce new findings.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are wrong. No need to produce new findings.

That poster is entirely correct. Not only must there be a new finding (on a point of fact, or a point of law), but such findings must be judged by an Appellate court to be sufficiently relevant.

An appeal is not simply a re-telling of the evidence for a different court. It is a case of one side imploring an appellate court to state that some finding (of law or of fact) was wrong from the outset.

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am prattling-on about my sincere worries about the credibility of the jury trial in the wake of this verdict.

I find the fixation with Patrick Quirke's personal morality, extra-marital affairs, and the dignity of the dead to be about as interesting as rugby football or the Private Lives of The Royals. And equally as irrelevant.

I'm not judging anyone for being interested in those topics. I enjoy soap operas from time to time. But local scandal and petty morality just isn't relevant to the bottom line, is it? That's a sincere question, btw.

But no one else is only you

No one else considered it at all

There's nothing else to say

Morality had nothing to do with the decision, so you are just making it up

You are the very reason you don't need unanimous jury decisions these days

1. He wrote down about hiding the body and destroying evidence
2. He had a motive
3. The body was found on land controlled by him

When a defence is trying to establish reasonable doubt they need to propose a scenario that brings the prosecution case into doubt

Which they couldn't, at all

Can you? Of course not

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

When a defence is trying to establish reasonable doubt they need to propose a scenario that brings the prosecution case into doubt

No offence, but most of your post is in error. This, however, is a clanger.

You have just contradicted The Golden Thread: The Prosecution must prove everything, the Defence need prove nothing.

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That poster is entirely correct. Not only must there be a new finding (on a point of fact, or a point of law), but such findings must be judged by an Appellate court to be sufficiently relevant.

An appeal is not simply a re-telling of the evidence for a different court. It is a case of one side imploring an appellate court to state that some finding (of law or of fact) was wrong from the outset.

Rubbish. There is no need for a new finding. The appellate court read the transcript and decide whether the conviction should stand, based on what they expect should have happened. A jury decision can be quashed because a jury heard something they shouldn't.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Rubbish. There is no need for a new finding. The appellate court read the transcript and decide whether the conviction should stand, based on what they expect should have happened.

Wow.

People really just make up random sh1t on the internet and assume nobody will notice.

The way you did this -- cocksure, but completely wrong -- I'm actually impressed.

eric hoone

What is the least margin for majority verdict for prosecuting a murder? 2 of the jurors here weren't convinced anyway

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wow.

People really just make up random sh1t on the internet and assume nobody will notice.

The way you did this -- cocksure, but completely wrong -- I'm actually impressed.

I'm not wrong. You are making things up, not me.

mikeymouse

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That poster is entirely correct. Not only must there be a new finding (on a point of fact, or a point of law), but such findings must be judged by an Appellate court to be sufficiently relevant.

An appeal is not simply a re-telling of the evidence for a different court. It is a case of one side imploring an appellate court to state that some finding (of law or of fact) was wrong from the outset.

An appeal is not another trial. Instead, it is a review of the original decision entered by the lower level court. That means that appeals decisions cannot be made based on new factors, although an appellate court can sometimes decide that the trial court failed to consider critical evidence.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

I'm not wrong. You are making things up, not me.

I can only assume you're not being sincere here.

An appellate court does not simply read the transcript of a trial and decide what the verdict ought to have been. They have to be convinced by one side that there was some error in law or fact which renders the verdict unsafe.

For your own sake, I suggest you stop digging.

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I can only assume you're not being sincere here.

An appellate court does not simply read the transcript of a trial and decide what the verdict ought to have been. They have to be convinced by one side that there was some error in law or fact which renders the verdict unsafe.

For your own sake, I suggest you stop digging.

They hear submissions from both sides in addition to reading the transcript but there is no need for any new finding.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I can only assume you're not being sincere here.

An appellate court does not simply read the transcript of a trial and decide what the verdict ought to have been. They have to be convinced by one side that there was some error in law or fact which renders the verdict unsafe.

For your own sake, I suggest you stop digging.

Instead of trading barbs, how about one of ye googles it and links a source that backs up your position?

mikeymouse

mikeymouse wrote: »

That means that appeals decisions cannot be made based on new factors

what exactly do you mean by "new factors"?

If you're referring to new evidence, then this also is wrong. Of course an appellate court can quash a conviction if new evidence is brought to light, just as if they find against a point of law in the original trial.

I feel like I've entered the twilight zone of legal discussion. Ask the good people over in the actual Legal Discussion forum here to clarify the law of appeals, if you don't trust me or Google or even books.

freshpopcorn

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I thought Graham Dwyer has already had some sort of an appeal heard which did not go his way. Apparently he had been bragging to his prison mates that he had the restaurant booked where he was going to celebrate his win. Obviously, he ended up disappointed where that's concerned. That hearing took place after about three years, I think.

So it's looking like Quirke will have to settle in to jail for around three years before he gets his hearing?

They generally keep on trying to appeal on various grounds and hope it goes there way.

I think Grham Dwyer got granted an appeal but the state were trying to appeal it!

Spanish Eyes

I would wonder if his wife Imelda is breathing a sigh of relief now that he is in jail. Controlling can be a thing.

I think Mary Lowry will also be letting out a few breaths too.

gk5000

Again, I fully trust the jury in this trial as they heard all the evidence in person.
However, what system of justice do those who do not agree with the jury propose?

Also, bear in mind that evidence from the killing itself was long gone 22 months later, so no weapon etc
Does this mean that if someone can manage to hide the weapon or if it is not found then nobody can be convicted?

McCrack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I can only assume you're not being sincere here.

An appellate court does not simply read the transcript of a trial and decide what the verdict ought to have been. They have to be convinced by one side that there was some error in law or fact which renders the verdict unsafe.

For your own sake, I suggest you stop digging.

You are both correct in some sense

The court of Appeal depending on the grounds of appeal lodged will have reference to the trial transcript

(and I'm not suggesting there are any grounds of appeal in this case)

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Instead of trading barbs, how about one of ye googles it and links a source that backs up your position?

I honestly wouldn't even know where to start. It's like someone on the Internet trying to tell you the earth is an isoceles triangle.

Its such an irrational and blatantly false statement that you're taken aback and struggle to know how to disprove them.

I don't believe it's a serious claim, but a pisstake.

gozunda

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I would wonder if his wife Imelda is breathing a sigh of relief now that he is in jail. Controlling can be a thing.

I think Mary Lowry will also be letting out a few breaths too.

Difficult to live all that down and return to a normal life tbh.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

what exactly do you mean by "new factors"?

If you're referring to new evidence, then this also is wrong. Of course an appellate court can quash a conviction if new evidence is brought to light, just as if they find against a point of law in the original trial.

I feel like I've entered the twilight zone of legal discussion. Ask the good people over in the actual Legal Discussion forum here to clarify the law of appeals, if you don't trust me or Google or even books.

I’m not an expert on this at all but I thought the appeal court simply decides if the original verdict stands... and if not, there’s a new trial.

If anyone can shed light on this I’d be interested in reading up.

From the newspaper reports, the appeal is likely to centre on decisions the trial judge made as to what evidence was and was not admissible. If he was convicted on evidence a higher court rules inadmissible, he will be retried.

Wrongway1985

eric hoone wrote: »

What is the least margin for majority verdict for prosecuting a murder? 2 of the jurors here weren't convinced anyway

10-2

Spanish Eyes

gozunda wrote: »

Difficult to live all that down and return to a normal life tbh.

Didn't sound normal before.

And in a country area it is so much more difficult because everyone knows everything about you.

But my point was, that maybe Pat Quirke was controlling his wife and now she can relax. And I think Mary Lowry's life was also under scrutiny in the Valley of the Squinting Windows.

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

You are both correct in some sense

The court of Appeal depending on the grounds of appeal lodged will have reference to the trial transcript

(and I'm not suggesting there are any grounds of appeal in this case)

All courts now have DAR, the question is not about access to the transcript, which is a given.

Someone is apparently claiming that an appeal means that an appellate court simply quashes a jury decision based on that court's impression of the case.

No appellate court would be so eager to tamper with the jury trial without finding a significant error of law or of fact in the original trial.

BarryD2

Has it not been reported that Quirke's appeal will be based on alleged deficiencies in how the case was conducted: late disclosure of evidence, direction from the judge etc.?

I'd reckon books are being/ will be written about this case, exploring whatever evidence is there from the different angles.

Another aspect of the case which was unsatisfactory was the state's reliance on the testimony of Mary Lowry. Given the nature of her relationship with Quirke, the stop/ start nature of it combined with some inconsistencies in her testimony. Also the sense of a frosty relationship between her and the Ryan family. If you start to question her account of events, the whole case takes on a very different look. Complicated business and Bobby Ryan was unfortunate to get caught up somehow in it. Did you hear his daughter Michelle speaking this morning - she seemed convinced that they'd broken up and was surprised that he'd been back to the house that night.

Spanish Eyes

How did Joe O'Reilly's appeals go for the murder of his wife.

Apart from pinging of the phones there wasn't much other evidence. Was there?

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

All courts now have DAR, the question is not about access to the transcript, which is a given.

Someone is apparently claiming that an appeal means that an appellate court simply quashes a jury decision based on that court's impression of the case.

No appellate court would be so eager to tamper with the jury trial without finding a significant error of law or of fact in the original trial.

There does not have to be any significant error of law of fact in the original trial. Have you ever read a decision of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeal?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

There does not have to be any significant error of law of fact in the original trial. Have you ever read a decision of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeal?

show me a single, modern successful appeal in this country where the appellate court simply differed in its opinion to a jury, without establishing some error of law or fact in the original trial.

Just one.

Spanish Eyes

What is DAR please. Might be the next generation stenographer, is that right?

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What is DAR please. Might be the next generation stenographer, is that right?

Digital Audio Recording. No stenographers work in the courts anymore unless they're hired privately by parties.

fryup

apologies if this question has been asked before...

but why did Quirke reveal the whereabouts of the body to the Gaurds?? did he want to pin the murder on Mary Lowry??

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

show me a single, modern successful appeal in this country where the appellate court simply differed in its opinion to a jury, without establishing some error of law or fact in the original trial.

Just one.

It does not substitute its own view for the view of the jury. It may decide that a jury might not have been given a proper warning in relation to evidence or an explanation given to the jury as to the meaning of some phrase was not correct.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

All courts now have DAR, the question is not about access to the transcript, which is a given.

Someone is apparently claiming that an appeal means that an appellate court simply quashes a jury decision based on that court's impression of the case.

No appellate court would be so eager to tamper with the jury trial without finding a significant error of law or of fact in the original trial.

The appeal is likely to centre on whether the trial judge made the right choices in what evidence was admissable

An appeal is likely to focus on decisions made by Ms Justice Eileen Creedon in response to legal arguments made during what was the longest murder trial in the history of the State.

These arguments in the Central Criminal Court occurred in the absence of the jury, and on occasion, included calls that the trial should be abandoned.

These legal arguments and the rulings that were made are among the matters Quirke is likely to emphasise in the appeal, according to sources.

So, no new evidence will be heard. They'll simply be assessing if the trial judge made the right calls. If she did, the verdict stands, if she didn't, it'll go for re-trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/patrick-quirke-expected-to-appeal-conviction-for-murder-1.3880052

freshpopcorn

fryup wrote: »

apologies if this question has been asked before...

but why did Quirke reveal the whereabouts of the body to the Gaurds?? did he want to pin the murder on Mary Lowry??

His llease was up on the farm and the theory is he wanted to be the helpful person who found it.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

It does not substitute its own view for the view of the jury. It may decide that a jury might not have been given a proper warning...

Oh, you mean an error?!

An error of law?!

Grease your back pedals, I assume you've just been googling.

4ensic15

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The appeal is likely to centre on whether the trial judge made the right choices in what evidence was admissable



So, no new evidence will be heard. They'll simply be assessing if the trial judge made the right calls. If she did, the verdict stands, if she didn't, it'll go for re-trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/patrick-quirke-expected-to-appeal-conviction-for-murder-1.3880052

There will be a heavy emphasis on the charge to the jury as well.