Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

She’s done nothing wrong. Leave her alone.

gozunda

Nobelium wrote: »

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.

The standard in criminal cases is the prosecution has prove beyond reasonable doubt

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

Nobelium

gozunda wrote: »

No the standard in criminal cases is the prosecution has prove beyond reasonable doubt

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

I said reasonable, not any doubt. And its a murder charge, not a charge of killing someone.

And the defence does not have to prove innocence.

"The concept of presumption of innocence is
fundamental to the Irish legal system and is internationally recognised as an essential
safeguard. It is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. An accused person is
presumed innocent until proved guilty. "

"The burden of proving this guilt is on the prosecution and it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.ibat.ie/downloads/Sample_notes/Legal%20Studies/Criminal%20Law%20-%20Cliodna%20McAlee.pdf

Or

"To find you guilty, they must believe that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty."

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/criminal_trial.html

jmreire

Nobelium wrote: »

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.

Interesting viewpoint.....how long before an appeal will be brought before the court's? Is there a minimum time, or can an appeal be brought say within 3 or 6 mths?

gozunda

Nobelium wrote: »

That's the problem with thinking newspapers are accurate.

The defence does not have to prove innocence.

"The concept of presumption of innocence is
fundamental to the Irish legal system and is internationally recognised as an essential
safeguard. It is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. An accused person is
presumed innocent until proved guilty. "

"The burden of proving this guilt is on the prosecution and it must be proved beyond areasonable doubt"

https://www.ibat.ie/downloads/Sample_notes/Legal%20Studies/Criminal%20Law%20-%20Cliodna%20McAlee.pdf

Or

"To find you guilty, they must believe that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty."

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/criminal_trial.html

where did I say it did. I gave the article as detail because it explains the concept. :rolleyes:

Nobelium

gozunda wrote: »

where did I say it did. I gave the article as detail because it explains the concept. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should actually read it then

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She’s done nothing wrong. Leave her alone.

She is the one on the front of the papers going on about her love life

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

She is the one on the front of the papers going on about her love life

Really?

gozunda

Nobelium wrote: »

Maybe you should actually read it then

I dont believe you did. What you said

Nobelium wrote:

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.

What the State states is

The evidence needs to be strong enough so that a jury could decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty of the offence they are charged with. To be able to prove a case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a very high standard to achieve.

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

4ensic15

gozunda wrote: »

I dont believe you did. You said



What the State states is



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

It also doesn't mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyway, Quirke only got a life sentence. In the same area, 80 years ago, Harry Gleeson got a stretched neck for murder, only to be pardoned years later.

Nobelium

gozunda wrote: »

I dont believe you did. You said



What the State states is



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

The word 'a' means singular. Therefore it is not prove beyond several unreasonable doubts, but a reasonable doubt, and I've already shown you the citiizen information page that talks about any reasonable doubt.

Your link also says "To be able to prove a case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a very high standard to achieve."

The states evidence does not prove for me beyond a reasonable doubt that Quirke murdered Ryan (never mind killed), that's my opinion, whether you like it or not, and I've not seen anything of substance posted here to change it. I think Quirke likely did kill Ryan, and that he's a slimeball, but that's not what the legal standard is for achieving a sound legal conviction in a murder case.

blackcard

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

Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers and saw the opportunity of getting rid of him and pinning the blame on the weirdo Quirke who she now disliked intensely. He had also cost her money by giving her bad financial advice. So we have motive. She also had the best opportunity to arrange the murder. She gets Polish workers to kill Ryan the previous night leaving plenty of time to dump his body in the tank and to park the van in the woods. She had previously insinuated to the police he had assaulted her but even the DPP found no evidence for this and withdrew the charge. Unfortunately for her, the police did not do a thorough search for the body so it was not located. She asks Quirke to empty the tank knowing he would find the body and report it to the police. A coincidence? She had also done internet searches for missing persons. A coincidence? No blood was found nor any DNA evidence against Quirke. A coincidence? There was nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. A coincidence?
Quirke was unlucky with 2 coincidences. He was running late that morning and an AI inspector who occasionally visited his farm noted this (I have beendelayed myself occasionally but it doesn't mean that I am planning a murder) Also, out of curiosity following an abnormal event, he had done internet searches.
He was also unlucky in having an incompetent defence team who couldn't defend a flimsy prosecution case. He also was unlucky that one more juror didn't change his mind and he would be a free man this morning

gozunda

Nobelium wrote: »

The word 'a' means singular. Therefore it is not prove beyond several unreasonable doubts, but a reasonable doubt, and I've already shown you the citiizen information page that talks about any reasonable doubt.

The states evidence does not prove for me beyond a reasonable doubt that Quirke murdered Ryan (never mind killed), that's my opinion, whether you like it or not, and I've seen anything of substance posted here to change it.

What it doesn't say is "all". That's the distinction. But no matter. I was on a jury of a criminal trial and I quickly learned that the evidence and direction the jury recieves is never properly related by the media or even on places like boards.

gozunda

blackcard wrote: »

Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers and saw the opportunity of getting rid of him and pinning the blame on the weirdo Quirke who she now disliked intensely. He had also cost her money by giving her bad financial advice. So we have motive. She also had the best opportunity to arrange the murder. She gets Polish workers to kill Ryan the previous night leaving plenty of time to dump his body in the tank and to park the van in the woods. She had previously insinuated to the police he had assaulted her but even the DPP found no evidence for this and withdrew the charge. Unfortunately for her, the police did not do a thorough search for the body so it was not located. She asks Quirke to empty the tank knowing he would find the body and report it to the police. A coincidence? She had also done internet searches for missing persons. A coincidence? No blood was found nor any DNA evidence against Quirke. A coincidence? There was nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. A coincidence?
Quirke was unlucky with 2 coincidences. He was running late that morning and an AI inspector who occasionally visited his farm noted this (I have beendelayed myself occasionally but it doesn't mean that I am planning a murder) Also, out of curiosity following an abnormal event, he had done internet searches.
He was also unlucky in having an incompetent defence team who couldn't defend a flimsy prosecution case. He also was unlucky that one more juror didn't change his mind and he would be a free man this morning

Reading what was detailed about the case - the defence imo tried to strongly suggest that Ms Lowry had something / everything to do with it - rather than concentrating on showing what circumstantial evidence there was didn't stand up. I believe that approach misfired tbh. Along the lines of "Twas wasn't me miss - twas her"

Nobelium

gozunda wrote: »

What it doesn't say is "all". That's the distinction. But no matter. I was on a jury of a criminal trial and I quickly learned that the evidence and direction the jury recieves is never properly related by the media or even on places like boards.

and that works both ways, including your posts

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers and saw the opportunity of getting rid of him and pinning the blame on the weirdo Quirke who she now disliked intensely. He had also cost her money by giving her bad financial advice. So we have motive. She also had the best opportunity to arrange the murder. She gets Polish workers to kill Ryan the previous night leaving plenty of time to dump his body in the tank and to park the van in the woods. She had previously insinuated to the police he had assaulted her but even the DPP found no evidence for this and withdrew the charge. Unfortunately for her, the police did not do a thorough search for the body so it was not located. She asks Quirke to empty the tank knowing he would find the body and report it to the police. A coincidence? She had also done internet searches for missing persons. A coincidence? No blood was found nor any DNA evidence against Quirke. A coincidence? There was nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. A coincidence?
Quirke was unlucky with 2 coincidences. He was running late that morning and an AI inspector who occasionally visited his farm noted this (I have beendelayed myself occasionally but it doesn't mean that I am planning a murder) Also, out of curiosity following an abnormal event, he had done internet searches.
He was also unlucky in having an incompetent defence team who couldn't defend a flimsy prosecution case. He also was unlucky that one more juror didn't change his mind and he would be a free man this morning

Where did you get that she’d had a number of lovers?

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

The word 'a' means singular. Therefore it is not prove beyond several unreasonable doubts, but a reasonable doubt, and I've already shown you the citiizen information page that talks about any reasonable doubt.

Your link also says "To be able to prove a case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a very high standard to achieve."

The states evidence does not prove for me beyond a reasonable doubt that Quirke murdered Ryan (never mind killed), that's my opinion, whether you like it or not, and I've not seen anything of substance posted here to change it. I think Quirke likely did kill Ryan, and that he's a slimeball, but that's not what the legal standard is for achieving a sound legal conviction in a murder case.

But by inference what you’re saying here is that the jury didn’t abide by the judges directions relating to “ beyond reasonable doubt”

Vicarious Function

Remarks have been made above that Ryan was a big, tall man - bigger than Quirke. Where does this info originate from? All we see, mostly is head-shots of the two men. Seeing Quirke walk into court, he doesn't seem a particularly small man.

Nobelium

Deleted User wrote: »

But by inference what you’re saying here is that the jury didn’t abide by the judges directions relating to “ beyond reasonable doubt”

"so what your saying is" . . . classic straw man

blackcard

Where did you get that she’d had a number of lovers?[/quote]
Thought there was 3 mentioned in the papers? Not that you can believe everything in the papers.

Nobelium

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Remarks have been made above that Ryan was a big, tall man - bigger than Quirke. Where does this info originate from? All we see, mostly is head-shots of the two men. Seeing Quirke walk into court, he doesn't seem a particularly small man.

Size difference between two men does't matter too much if you surprise someone and violently persist with a heavy blunt object to their skull.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

"so what your saying is" . . . classic straw man

No it’s not. You’re saying the states evidence doesn’t prove ..........

It did prove. And how we know that is the jury said so. Not by a unanimous vote but by 10:2 majority.
Your opinion doesn’t matter. These are facts.

gozunda

Nobelium wrote: »

and that works both ways, including your posts

And that really makes no sense. But yeah whatever.

Nobelium

Deleted User wrote: »

No it’s not. You’re saying the states evidence doesn’t prove ..........

It did prove. And how we know that is the jury said so. Not by a unanimous vote but by 10:2 majority.
Your opinion doesn’t matter. These are facts.

No I stated earlier that it's my opinion. And my opinion, your opinion, and everyone else's on boards, equally doesn't matter either. That's an actual fact. But not much use in a discussion forum.

In my opinion Quirke likely did kill Ryan, and h'es a scumbag, but in my opinion the state did not present enough evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Quirke murdered Ryan. A whole different ballgame.

Nobelium

gozunda wrote: »

Reading what was detailed about the case - the defence imo tried to strongly suggest that Ms Lowry had something / everything to do with it - rather than concentrating on showing what circumstantial evidence there was didn't stand up. I believe that approach misfired tbh. Along the lines of "Twas wasn't me miss - twas her"

The defence did indeed make a balls of it. In the legal system, money talks, and Quirkes maneuvering to ensure he got legal aid backfired on him.
The state were very lucky indeed to secure a conviction for murder based on the evidence they presented.

realdanbreen

Hoboo wrote: »

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

Yeah we should be judged by our 'betters',educated guys like David Drumm and Seanie Fitzpatrick!

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

In my opinion Quirke likely did kill Ryan, and h'es a scumbag, but in my opinion the state did not present enough evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Quirke murdered Ryan. A whole different ballgame.

But it did. The jury thought so. You haven’t heard every piece of testimony every nuance of the trial. You’ve heard “reports” which is something different.

A trial outcome is based on
A. The evidence
B. The rebuttal of that evidence by the defense
C. The jury decision making process

If we’re talking opinions so, in my opinion, it was the defense that didn’t perform well against the evidence- they went on a campaign of conspiracy theory against the states key witness, Lowry. And the jury saw through that because they’re not dumb. Everyone could see the underhanded tactics the defense were taking and it backfired on them.
I thought myself that the evidence wasn’t overwhelming but instead of the defense having faith in the jury to make that decision, they instead tried to muddy the waters - I’d say that swayed a lot of jury members- that, and of course the evidence.

Nobelium

Deleted User wrote: »

But it did. The jury thought so. You haven’t heard every piece of testimony every nuance of the trial. You’ve heard “reports” which is something different.

A trial outcome is based on
A. The evidence
B. The rebuttal of that evidence by the defense
C. The jury decision making process

The juries verdict was not unanimous.
And equally, neither did you hear every piece of testimony every nuance of the trial. You’ve also heard “reports” which is something different.

Deleted User wrote: »

If we’re talking opinions so, in my opinion, it was the defense that didn’t perform well against the evidence- they went on a campaign of conspiracy theory against the states key witness, Lowry. And the jury saw through that because they’re not dumb. Everyone could see the underhanded tactics the defense were taking and it backfired on them.
I thought myself that the evidence wasn’t overwhelming but instead of the defense having faith in the jury to make that decision, they instead tried to muddy the waters - I’d say that swayed a lot of jury members- that, and of course the evidence.

I agree the defence were pitiful. Quirke's cute huir move to successfully secure legal aid, even though he had 3 million in assets backfired spectacularly. Money talks in the legal system. In my opinion, the prosecution were very lucky to achieve a legal conviction for murder based on the evidence they presented.

Vicarious Function

Yesterday at the hairderessers, I asked what the latest gossip going on was about. Knowing well what the answer would be, of course. I just wanted to see what angle was being taken by customers in general.

The answer was the fact that Imelda intended visiting her man in prison. I took from that that the general opinion was surprise and the belief that she should turn her back on him.

But lets look at the reality of the situation. The woman has a huge job ahead of her loooking after the running of their affairs both legally, financially, as regards the farm as well as taking care of her young family. She will need to be in constant communication with him.

I'm sure a day won't pass without huge bills coming in. Hopefully, she knows a bit more about managing all that than her famous sister-in-law.

gozunda

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Yesterday at the hairderessers, I asked what the latest gossip going on was about. Knowing well what the answer would be, of course. I just wanted to see what angle was being taken by customers in general.

The answer was the fact that Imelda intended visiting her man in prison. I took from that that the general opinion was surprise and the belief that she should turn her back on him.

But lets look at the reality of the situation. The woman has a huge job ahead of her loooking after the running of their affairs both legally, financially, as regards the farm as well as taking care of her young family. She will need to be in constant communication with him.

I'm sure a day won't pass without huge bills coming in. Hopefully, she knows a bit more about managing all that than her famous sister-in-law.

Regardless of whatever went on - I feel sorry for all of them tbh.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

I agree the defence were pitiful. Quirke's cute huir move to successfully secure legal aid, even though he had 3 million in assets backfired spectacularly. Money talks in the legal system. In my opinion, the prosecution were very lucky to achieve a legal conviction for murder based on the evidence they presented.

And in fairness I’d probably agree. What I didn’t like seeing on this thread were comments such as “the jury were wrong” - how could the jury be wrong unless the didn’t abide by the directions of the judge.

An interesting hypothetical exercise could be rerun of the trial with only the prosecution outlining their evidence- then the jury retires- I’m not sure you’d get a unanimous decision either way. But that’s not how court cases are run- maybe this was a case for the defense to lose, which they did, rather than for the prosecution to win.

Nobelium wrote: »

The juries verdict was not unanimous.
And equally, neither did you hear every piece of testimony every nuance of the trial. You’ve also heard “reports” which is something different.

Which was really my only point- it’s a bit academic all of us talking about our “opinions” of the evidence when we didn’t hear it all

Road-Hog

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’.

It is entirely appropriate, and necessary, for murder to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's one of the two main elements that the Prosecution have convinced the jury of (the other being that Patrick Quirke committed that murder).

Therefore, at the conclusion of the trial, it's completely appropriate for people to discuss the evidence (or lack of it) that Bobby Ryan was killed via murder as opposed to manslaughter, accident or otherwise.

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

no it isn't. For sure, media coverage is a weak replacement for being a fully attentive, note-taking juror with a huge capacity for retaining information (such impressive attributes are laughably assumed to exist in this and every other jury).

Nevertheless, we are discussing the substance of the case as, it's probably reasonable to assume, was fairly reported by the media without the exclusion of anything significant.

What is really daft is this crazy notion that we are not entitled to reasonably express an opinion unless we are one of the twelve jurors. That we should really shut up.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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

Of course not. There are some cases which rely heavily on circumstantial evidence in which I think convictions were entirely appropriate. A pretty well-known one is the conviction of Joe O'Reilly for the murder of his late wife, although admittedly some of the circumstantial evidence in that case bordered on the forensic (mobile phone geolocation).

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

the vast majority of Accused persons in lengthy criminal trials qualify for criminal legal aid. I can't think of any Accused person who hasn't so qualified. And free legal aid pays for the services of Ireland's most eminent barristers in civil and criminal hearings, including the likes of Michael O'Higgins, John Rogers, and other barristers who are household names.

It's an admirable system, which other countries should consider adapting, frankly.

fepper

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Yesterday at the hairderessers, I asked what the latest gossip going on was about. Knowing well what the answer would be, of course. I just wanted to see what angle was being taken by customers in general.

The answer was the fact that Imelda intended visiting her man in prison. I took from that that the general opinion was surprise and the belief that she should turn her back on him.

But lets look at the reality of the situation. The woman has a huge job ahead of her loooking after the running of their affairs both legally, financially, as regards the farm as well as taking care of her young family. She will need to be in constant communication with him.

I'm sure a day won't pass without huge bills coming in. Hopefully, she knows a bit more about managing all that than her famous sister-in-law.

Wouldn't surprise anyone if the whole lot was put for sale at some stage in the future

kerry cow

imelda doesn't need quirke any more , her eldest sons and herself "will know what to do ".

where does quirke and his assets sit now that he's in jail ,
best thing she should do now is divorce him and take him to the cleaners ,
the job who rose his head up to preach what a good job he was doing to leverage his assets to grow his wealth and what a wonder whis he is ,
well its gone spectacularly wrong ,
jailed murder and hopefully his wife will have the sence to get a new life and a new man ,
she now is the attractive landlord with the wealth ,
good riddens ,.
Hero to Zero

kerry cow

fepper wrote:

Wouldn't surprise anyone if the whole lot was put for sale at some stage in the future

quikes have sons , and maybe imelda might be a good catch for some expanding farmer in tipperary , I sure she won't be go without her admirers ,
this could be the finish of pat quirkes dream,
spectactual back fire I'd call it .

judeboy101

kerry cow wrote: »

imelda doesn't meet quirke any more , her eldest sons and herself "will know what to do ".

where does quirke and his assets sit now that he's in jail ,
best thing she should do now is divorce him and take him to the cleaners ,
the job who rose his head up to preach what a good job he was doing to leverage his assets to grow his wealth and what a wonder whis he is ,
well its gone spectacularly wrong ,
jailed murder and hopefully his wife will have the sence to get a new life and a new man ,
she now is the attractive landlord with the wealth ,
good riddens ,.
Hero to Zero

Ryan's family can take him to cleaners for loss he should have put farm in kids name ages ago.

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ryan's family can take him to cleaners for loss he should have put farm in kids name ages ago.

Awards of damages for the death of a relative are incredibly low. I don't know the figure from the top of my head, but it would barely cover the cost of an ordinary family car.

There's some saying which goes something like, it's more profitable to lose an eye than a life.

judeboy101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Awards of damages for the death of a relative are incredibly low. I don't know the figure from the top of my head, but it would barely cover the cost of an ordinary family car.

Because not many rich men get sent down for murder, most are fellas with no assets.

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

Because not many rich men get sent down for murder, most are fellas with no assets.

No, awards of damages for civil liability (death) are capped in law.

There may be another approach to sue for more but I'm not aware of any other possible route in this case.

kerry cow

if imelda stand by her man and doesn't let him to rot in a jail somewhere then she would be very foolish ,as she still could have a good life to look forward to with out him .
look what he has done to her in front of the whole country ,
you only have one life to live , make the best of it and enjoy it ,
how dare someone treat a person like that .
dirt

I see we're on first-name terms with Imelda Quirke now, as well as projecting various traits on someone who is apparently a very private person. Cool cool.

Necro

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.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and idiotic posts I've ever seen on boards, and it gets better with the shots at people from Leitrim :rolleyes:

The whole point of a jury trial is that people come from all swathes of life so as to attempt to give as many different viewpoints when considering the evidence.

Both legal teams argue vicariously about juror appointments in the early stages of the trials, they can literally have Joe McGillicuddy or Sarah Connors or Muhammad recused a number of times.


The fact you make such an ignorant statement on the process shows how little knowledge you actually have of the legal system.

freshpopcorn

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ryan's family can take him to cleaners for loss he should have put farm in kids name ages ago.

I read somewhere that he put everything into some form of company in 2014 and this will prevent the Ryan children from being able to sue him!

The Talking Bread

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Its important to note that the guards did a shambles of a job in this case, real amateur stuff.

bubblypop wrote: »

What would you have done differently?
Gardai arrested the suspect & clearly put enough evidence together for the DPP to decide that suspect should be charged.
Looks like they did exactly what they are supposed to do.

It certainly should not have been more or less treated as a missing persons case for nearly 2 years. That was massive incompetence.

The Gardai only checked the car (which clearly Quirke drove into the woods) for fingerprints in January of this year, after the trial had already started and 7.5 years after the murder! They found nothing.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

This has to be one of the most arrogant and idiotic posts I've ever seen on boards, and it gets better with the shots at people from Leitrim :rolleyes:

The whole point of a jury trial is that people come from all swathes of life so as to attempt to give as many different viewpoints when considering the evidence.

Both legal teams argue vicariously about juror appointments in the early stages of the trials, they can literally have Joe McGillicuddy or Sarah Connors or Muhammad recused a number of times.


The fact you make such an ignorant statement on the process shows how little knowledge you actually have of the legal system.

You can't test for juror intelligence during the empanelling process. Lawyers only have a list of prospective jurors' names and addresses, and gender is usually obvious.

There is a strong argument for specialist juries, perhaps not in all criminal trials, but in trials involving accusations of financial misconduct, etc. The recent Anglo trials would be an obvious example.

judeboy101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, awards of damages for civil liability (death) are capped in law.

There may be another approach to sue for more but I'm not aware of any other possible route in this case.

Only capped for mental anguish not for loss of income if you are a dependant

kerry cow

I think the whole country feel the pain of the ryans , lowry and quirke families and wish that they can get on with their lives as best they can, considering the ordeal ,that pat quirke has inflicted on them and has been found guilty by a jury wheter people like it or not .

I wish all the families involved can get there live back on track ,how sad this whole saga is ,
for me a life sentence should be for life and not a period of time but instead for all time .

i think we should stop comment on here really , as it can be offensive to the involved families and the trial is over .

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

Only capped for mental anguish not for loss of income if you are a dependant

Bobby Ryan had dependant children?

Vicarious Function

kerry cow wrote: »

if imelda stand by her man and doesn't let him to rot in a jail somewhere then she would be very foolish ,as she still could have a good life to look forward to with out him .
look what he has done to her in front of the whole country ,
you only have one life to live , make the best of it and enjoy it ,
how dare someone treat a person like that .
dirt

kerry cow wrote: »

I think the whole country feel the pain of the ryans , lowry and quirke families and wish that they can get on with their lives as best they can, considering the ordeal ,that pat quirke has inflicted on them and has been found guilty by a jury wheter people like it or not .

I wish all the families involved can get there live back on track ,how sad this whole saga is ,
for me a life sentence should be for life and not a period of time but instead for all time .

i think we should stop comment on here really , as it can be offensive to the involved families and the trial is over .

Don't you think you're giving out mixed messages here, kerry cow, comparing above quotes?

judeboy101

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Bobby Ryan had dependant children?

A good barrister could argue anything.plus ms Lowry lost a partner and he could have been supporting her and her kids financially, the state recognises partners as well as wives/husbands