Patrick Quirke -Guilty

KikiLaRue

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

As in the instructions she gave them?

I thought she was very fair in going through the care with which circumstantial evidence had to be considered.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

that's a debate on a point of law.

It will presumably be the case of the Defence that the Trial Judge committed an error of law.

The appellate court will have no interest in observing the trial transcript and simply changing the verdict. That would be a dramatic departure from the proper administration of justice.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh, you mean an error?!

An error of law?!

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

You should take a look at your cringe-worthy need to be right.

Spanish Eyes

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

Indeed. I was a jury member for three trials, one of which involved murder. The judge was very clear in his direction to the jury regarding reasonable doubt.

Was an interesting and quite stressful jury room though, for a number of days. Would not like to repeat that experience.

Some people might think being on a jury is a doddle. It is far from it, you have every personality type there along with their baggage. And you have a duty to weigh up the evidence also. It is not easy at all believe me.

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh, you mean an error?!

An error of law?!

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

You derive your legal knowledge from googling. I don't. An error of law has a different meaning but the subtlety would be lost on you.

mikeymouse

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

Thankyou Kiki , I'm off to watch "Twelve Angry Men" now ,the Henry Fonda one.

Necro

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

Does it? That certainly seems to be where the defence focused. Didn't get them very far though did it?

And anyways, aside from Lowry's testimony there's all these 'massive coincidences' we are supposed to believe.

Poor old Quirky boy, a victim of unfortunate circumstance, on multiple occasions.

Spanish Eyes

Just for those who know, how does DAR work? Is it a recording of everything that goes on in Court or just the witnesses and so on. Thanks.

How does that translate into a transcript for the juries?

My jury duties were done a good few years ago, and a stenographer was in place at that time. We got transcripts in paper form then. Pages and pages of it.

Not easy to pin down without reading it all. But that was our duty. Was tough.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

You derive your legal knowledge from googling. I don't. An error of law has a different meaning but the subtlety would be lost on you.

I love the vagueness of this.

Look, I'm not interested in personally insulting anyone. Personal insults from strangers mean nothing to me, and I assume they mean nothing to others.

You made a ridiculous statement to the effect that an appellate court simply observes a transcript and gives a decision without any new finding of law or of fact. This is wrong.

I'm happy to leave it there unless you want to dig your heels in? With some citations, I hope.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just for those who know, how does DAR work? Is it a recording of everything that goes on in Court or just the witnesses and so on. Thanks.

It's a recording of everything that is said on mic, but it is edited, where needed, by human input. It is available to jurors in edited form only, to the best of my knowledge, much as the stenographer's transcript in your experience.

McCrack

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

There are in High Court personal injury cases

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

There are in High Court personal injury cases

Every day is a learning day. I've seen those, I thought they were hired by the parties though.

Any idea why this is?

freshpopcorn

According to The Sun he had a marquee booked for his homecoming!

gozunda

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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.

That's the thing - you can go for days in rural areas without meeting anyone. Not saying that's the same for everyone. There's people near me - that lead very very private lives. People can also become very isolated. But yeah fair enough about her man and the the controlling bit. But what I was saying was taking up the threads of their lives ain't going to be easy one way or the other.

Spanish Eyes

freshpopcorn wrote: »

According to The Sun he had a marquee booked for his homecoming!

Wonder who would have been invited

freshpopcorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Wonder who would have been invited

Probaly loads.
The media would probably have put a spin on it saying he was the innocent man who was put through hell and he deserved a good homecoming!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No offence, but most of your post is in error. .

No offense but most of your posts are in error.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No offense but most of your posts are in error.

Point out a mistake, if you're so sure. Making bland statements like that are of no use to anybody.

I try to think about a response before I post it, but I've no doubt I've made some clangers. Still, nobody is likely to accept such vague claims without some specific reference.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Point out a mistake, if you're so sure. Making bland statements like that are of no use to anybody.

You’ve been making “bland” statements all evening pushing whatever agenda you have and I’m bored of it now. Prove your innocence if you wish, this isn’t a court of law and I couldn’t be arsed going back over your posts to prove your guilt but I’ve quoted you enough all evening and you’ve ignored the facts I’ve presented so spout whatever rubbish you wish at this point - I’m not listening.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You’ve been making “bland” statements all evening pushing whatever agenda you have and I’m bored of it now. Prove your innocence if you wish, this isn’t a court of law and I couldn’t be arsed going back over your posts to prove your guilt but I’ve quoted you enough all evening and you’ve ignored the facts I’ve presented so spout whatever rubbish you wish at this point - I’m not listening.

I actually don't remember speaking to you earlier, I don't think I've ever interacted with you. but thanks for reading babes.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

Exhibit A:pac:

Quirkes response to the reason he googled these searches is well documented. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the case a bit more than you have done before commenting in this thread- your comments are just derailing this discussion with your inaccuracies.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exhibit A:pac:

Quirkes response to the reason he googled these searches is well documented. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the case a bit more than you have done before commenting in this thread- your comments are just derailing this discussion with your inaccuracies.

Its not clear what the problem is with my post. My only suggestion, for the sake of people reading this thread is that we ignore one another. I'm not trying to be rude here, but clearly there is some problem between us that even I am struggling to understand. Have a good weekend.

Wtf ?

Someone else was riding his sister in law ?The rival smelt of Armani..He smelt of his cowshed, Something had to give....

nineteen66

He did it,he thought he was so smart that he would get away with it,he didn't. It was one man taking on a team of detectives, forensic's,lawyers,barristers etc....and a jury....... and he lost. He wasn't that smart.He wanted it all and lost everything. So many people's lives ruined...........RIP. MR Moonlight ( as he liked to be known )

Nobelium

I'm sure this won't be a popular post, but I think the state was very lucky to get a conviction on this one, and it's questionable if its a safe conviction. I believe Quirke did kill Mr Moonlight, and Quirke comes across as a greedy little controlling slimeball . . but I don't believe the state's evidence was strong enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt (the threshold for a proper legal conviction) that Quirke killed him, never mind murder.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm sure this won't be a popular post, but I think the state was very lucky to get a conviction on this one, and it's questionable if its a safe conviction. I believe Quirke did kill Mr Moonlight, and Quirke comes across as a greedy little controlling slimeball . . but I don't believe the state's evidence was strong enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt (the threshold for a proper legal conviction) that Quirke killed him, never mind murder.

One of the most interesting things about this thread has been that many people share your suspicion, but feel slightly queasy about the notion that Quirke's guilt was (or so we are assured) proved to the criminal standard.

Some people have made spurious claims about the required standard, but even the Trial Judge quite rightly asked the jurors to be "sure" of Quirke's guilt.

It seems popular to join a chorus of people in admiring the bravery (etc ad nauseum) of the jury in this case, but I feel no compunction whatever in wondering what on earth they were thinking? The only reason for retaining much confidence in the Jury Trial is that two of its members refused to concede to the popular opinion.

Nobelium

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One of the most interesting things about this thread has been that many people share your suspicion, but feel slightly queasy about the notion that Quirke's guilt was (or so we are assured) proved to the criminal standard.

Some people have made spurious claims about the required standard, but even the Trial Judge quite rightly asked the jurors to be "sure" of Quirke's guilt.

It seems popular to join a chorus of people in admiring the bravery (etc ad nauseum) of the jury in this case, but I feel no compunction whatever in wondering what on earth they were thinking? The only reason for retaining much confidence in the Jury Trial is that two of its members refused to concede to the popular opinion.

I don't like Quirke, and I think he done it, but with the actual state evidence presented, if I was on that jury there is no way I could honestly stand up and swear I believe the state safely proved Quirk was guilty of killing Ryan (never mind murdering him) beyond all reasonable doubt. I think any jury member declaring that would in fact be a lot braver than just doing the publicly popular "ah sure who cares about the standard of evidence, what difference, I think he's guilty, so end of story"

Road-Hog

Nobelium wrote: »

I'm sure this won't be a popular post, but I think the state was very lucky to get a conviction on this one, and it's questionable if its a safe conviction. I believe Quirke did kill Mr Moonlight, and Quirke comes across as a greedy little controlling slimeball . . but I don't believe the state's evidence was strong enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt (the threshold for a proper legal conviction) that Quirke killed him, never mind murder.

Why do you speculate that it may not have been murder.....? Did mr moonlight start a fight with him when he left for work that morning when he came across him at the farm and quirke killed him in self defense.....? Let The courts of appear will determine if it was a ‘safe conviction’.

This ‘I wouldn’t have convicted him based on the evidence’ is such a weak argument........how many of you sat through the full 7/8 weeks of the trial in court heard all the evidence, arguments of the ‘ones in wigs’ and the instructions of the judge......answer is zero....it’s been said plenty of times already that all the general public and those here on boards are basing their view on the summaries of the evidence that the media presented.....is this sufficient......? Don’t think so.

honeybear

Anyone think that Quirke could be reading this thread from his cell? (shivers)

sydthebeat

Surely the QED that the state could prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury (which so many people are questioning here) is the fact that the state DID prove murder behind a reasonable doubt.

Any other opinion apart from those jurors doesn't factor or matter in the least.

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You made a ridiculous statement to the effect that an appellate court simply observes a transcript and gives a decision without any new finding of law or of fact. This is wrong.

.

I did not make any such statement. There is however no need for any new finding of fact or law.

monkeybutter

sydthebeat wrote: »

Surely the QED that the state could prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury (which so many people are questioning here) is the fact that the state DID prove murder behind a reasonable doubt.

Any other opinion apart from those jurors doesn't factor or matter in the least.

Look , you can't convince some people that the earth's not flat, you are talking to the minority out of the majority

The reason there is a majority verdict

The system works

monkeybutter

Not one person has put a credible argument for an alternative to Quirke having killed him


Or even an incredible one

Clown shoes

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One of the most interesting things about this thread has been that many people share your suspicion, but feel slightly queasy about the notion that Quirke's guilt was (or so we are assured) proved to the criminal standard.

Some people have made spurious claims about the required standard, but even the Trial Judge quite rightly asked the jurors to be "sure" of Quirke's guilt.

It seems popular to join a chorus of people in admiring the bravery (etc ad nauseum) of the jury in this case, but I feel no compunction whatever in wondering what on earth they were thinking? The only reason for retaining much confidence in the Jury Trial is that two of its members refused to concede to the popular opinion.

Is it your opinion that a jury should never convict in the absence of hard evidence, no matter how much circumstantial evidence?

KikiLaRue

monkeybutter wrote: »

Not one person has put a credible argument for an alternative to Quirke having killed him


Or even an incredible one

Clown shoes

This is a very good point. All the defence would have had to do is create any viable alternative to create reasonable doubt. It doesn’t look like they even tried because there was no realistic other story.

realdanbreen

Quirke is a very successful farmer and was held in high regard by his peers, so he is no fool. He decides to kill BR but instead of doing it on a dark night in a remote place he decides to do it on a bright still summer morning within hearing distance of several people. He also decides to (as the guards have suggested ) use an implement like an iron bar! BR was a big man, much bigger quirke so it's being suggested that quirke thought taking him on with an iron bar was the best way of getting rid of him! He then decides to drive the van -emblazoned with Mr moonlight - several miles again on a bright summers morning and hope nobody will notice either him or the van.It just doesn't make sense and if anyone should be locked up it's his defence team for failing to get him off.

Hoboo

I think the one thing this case has proved is assigning a jury from a mishmash of random individuals who quite often haven't the intellectual capacity to understand, analyse and process large tranches of detailed evidence is a system that is outdated and vulnerable to flaws and failure.

There should be a minimum level of education, experience, and use of psychometric testing.

cannotlogin

He got what he paid for!! Free legal aid.

So sure he was that he wouldn't be convicted and so greedy with money that he didn't pay for one of the country's top barristers, who I believe had opportunity to create far more reasonable doubt.

I'm so glad he didn't.

Homer

Hoboo wrote: »

I think the one thing this case has proved is assigning a jury from a mishmash of random individuals who quite often haven't the intellectual capacity to understand, analyse and process large tranches of detailed evidence is a system that is outdated and vulnerable to flaws and failure.

There should be a minimum level of education, experience, and use of psychometric testing.

Are you for real? There’d be nobody left after your stringent requirements are met.. away with the fairies

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Surely the QED that the state could prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury (which so many people are questioning here) is the fact that the state DID prove murder behind a reasonable doubt.

Any other opinion apart from those jurors doesn't factor or matter in the least.

Yes but some eigits in this thread are claiming “the jury are wrong” - like what a pathetic statement to make.

If they are not happy with the verdict it’s the defense case they need to scrutinize not the jury decision.

Minnie Snuggles

realdanbreen wrote: »

Quirke is a very successful farmer and was held in high regard by his peers, so he is no fool. He decides to kill BR but instead of doing it on a dark night in a remote place he decides to do it on a bright still summer morning within hearing distance of several people. He also decides to (as the guards have suggested ) use an implement like an iron bar! BR was a big man, much bigger quirke so it's being suggested that quirke thought taking him on with an iron bar was the best way of getting rid of him! He then decides to drive the van -emblazoned with Mr moonlight - several miles again on a bright summers morning and hope nobody will notice either him or the van.It just doesn't make sense and if anyone should be locked up it's his defence team for failing to get him off.

It was not several miles it was 2km. As you say it was a bright morning all he had to do was drop the sun vizor and adjust the seat.

realdanbreen

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

realdanbreen wrote: »

Quirke is a very successful farmer and was held in high regard by his peers, so he is no fool. He decides to kill BR but instead of doing it on a dark night in a remote place he decides to do it on a bright still summer morning within hearing distance of several people. He also decides to (as the guards have suggested ) use an implement like an iron bar! BR was a big man, much bigger quirke so it's being suggested that quirke thought taking him on with an iron bar was the best way of getting rid of him! He then decides to drive the van -emblazoned with Mr moonlight - several miles again on a bright summers morning and hope nobody will notice either him or the van.It just doesn't make sense and if anyone should be locked up it's his defence team for failing to get him off.

It was not several miles it was 2km. As you say it was a bright morning all he had to do was drop the sun vizor and adjust the seat.

And maybe paint over the 'Mr Moonlight ' logo while he was at it!

Nobelium

Road-Hog wrote: »

Why do you speculate that it may not have been murder.....? Did mr moonlight start a fight with him when he left for work that morning when he came across him at the farm and quirke killed him in self defense.....? Let The courts of appear will determine if it was a ‘safe conviction’. .

What evidence did the state produce that it was murder instead of a killing ?
The justice system doesn't work on the basis "prove it was not a murder", the justice system work on the basis prove it was.

Road-Hog wrote: »

Let The courts of appear will determine if it was a ‘safe conviction’. .

Exactly, not you either.

Road-Hog wrote: »

This ‘I wouldn’t have convicted him based on the evidence’ is such a weak argument........how many of you sat through the full 7/8 weeks of the trial in court heard all the evidence, arguments of the ‘ones in wigs’ and the instructions of the judge......answer is zero....it’s been said plenty of times already that all the general public and those here on boards are basing their view on the summaries of the evidence that the media presented.....is this sufficient......? Don’t think so.

The same point applies to you, you did not sit through the full 7/8 weeks of the trial, and the juries decision was not unanimous.

I think Quirke likely killed/murdered him, and is a slimeball, but I've seen nothing of substance being posted here that changes my mind about the quality of the state evidence not being sufficient to prove for me a verdict beyond all reasonable doubt.

Nobelium

monkeybutter wrote: »

Not one person has put a credible argument for an alternative to Quirke having killed him


Or even an incredible one

Clown shoes

It's the state's job to legally prove murder (not just killing) beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove innocence.

fryup

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??

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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

still doesn't make sense to me.....if he kept stum no one would have known, that septic tank was never used

was it a bunny in the headlights moment?

Hoboo

Homer wrote: »

Are you for real? There’d be nobody left after your stringent requirements are met.. away with the fairies

Nobody left? Really? Nobody?

I'd prefer to have my trial heard by 3 judges who can interpret evidence than 12 morons from Leitrim who can barely string a sentence without spitting.

Nobelium

cannotlogin wrote: »

He got what he paid for!! Free legal aid.

So sure he was that he wouldn't be convicted and so greedy with money that he didn't pay for one of the country's top barristers, who I believe had opportunity to create far more reasonable doubt.

I'm so glad he didn't.

It does seem his legal aid strategy backfired all right. A good defence team would have driven a coach and four through the prosecution's lack of evidence. Money does talk in Irish legal cases unfortunately. Quirke has a substantial chance I'd say of winning an appeal.

Nobelium

Hoboo wrote: »

Nobody left? Really? Nobody?

I'd prefer to have my trial heard by 3 judges who can interpret evidence than 12 morons from Leitrim who can barely string a sentence without spitting.

Plenty judges can be from Leitrim, what has where someone is from got to do with anything ?

Homer

Hoboo wrote: »

Nobody left? Really? Nobody?

I'd prefer to have my trial heard by 3 judges who can interpret evidence than 12 morons from Leitrim who can barely string a sentence without spitting.

Are you insinuating that the jury in this trial were all from Leitrim and in some way of below average intellect? Might want to look a little closer to home for those attributes

Beechwoodspark

Mary in the papers again today going on about finding new love.