Patrick Quirke -Guilty

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

No one said he was a cold blooded master planner

Everything would indicate this was the work of a man overcome with rage

No master planner would bury bodies in their own back garden which is essentially what he has done here, or tell the police they had buried it there

Why would Quirke have been overcome with rage on that particular day? Ryan had stayed at Lowry's before. Quirke obviously knew that. Nobody seems to have an explanation for a sudden explosion of violence.

Then you get into the logistics of it. Who moved the van, and if it was Quirke, how did he get home so quickly? Why was there none of his DNA found in the van, but there was DNA of others found, including unidentified DNA.

These are just some of the unanswered questions -- fair questions, nothing extraordinary -- which taken together create a doubt that is small, but reasonably held.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It doesn’t help that so many of his actions prior to the killing were creepy at best and criminal at worst (stealing his ex’s underwear, trespassing, making secret recordings of them having sex)

Now maybe Quirke is just a very unlucky stalker/ pervert and a different person decided to kill Ryan and dump the body in Quirke’s workplace, but to me that very much stretched the bounds of credulity.

If he killed Ryan and dumped him in his own workplace and then discovers him in his own workplace then that stretches the bounds of stupidity to me

the_pen_turner

the.red.baron wrote: »

So you don't think he should have been convicted because you though someone helped him

Why do you think he had help

im not saying he shouldnt have been convicted . im saying that we know so little about how this murder took place that maybe someone else was involved.


im not saying there was. im saying that its hard to see how he did it on his own.

who drove the van
how did he get the body to the tank without leaveing obvious tracks
how did he get back to his farm
etc
etc

CollyFlower

Reading the notes he wrote down, in parts, it looks to me like he's questioning what may have happened... Mentioned in them was reference to a Salesman. Did this come out in court?

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why would Quirke have been overcome with rage on that particular day? Ryan had stayed at Lowry's before. Quirke obviously knew that. Nobody seems to have an explanation for a sudden explosion of violence.

Then you get into the logistics of it. Who moved the van, and if it was Quirke, how did he get home so quickly? Why was there none of his DNA found in the van, but there was DNA of others found, including unidentified DNA.

These are just some of the unanswered questions -- fair questions, nothing extraordinary -- which taken together create a doubt that is small, but reasonably held.

He covered his tracks, not that hard

He drove the van and walked back to his place, not that far

As discussed easily done in the time frames

Rage build over time, maybe hed just taken all he could, then he snapped, he beat him very badly based on the info given, he obviously waited for him at the farm

Why, if he wasn't working alone would he leave the body on the farm and not have it driven out in the van

All you need is for Ryan to have given a lift to one person unknown to the police, which is basically the whole country for the DNA to be unknown, you do realise that

Nobelium

I think Quirke probably did it as well, but as the judge directed, it's not about "probably" and for me personally, I don't think the court legally proved beyond reasonable doubt that Quirke killed him, never mind murdered him. It's all to easy to portray a lot of people the way Quirke was portrayed. I think the state were lucky to secure a conviction in this one, that and Quirke's piss poor defence team sealed his fate. The Gardai have a lot to answer for in the ham fisted curtain twitching kerry babies style way this was investigated, I'd say an appeal would have a chance. The Gardai and State really need to up their game in future, and learn the lessons fast, or the next few Quirkes will walk free. Bottom line - this style of amateur key stone cops investigation and theorising isn't on in 21st century policing.

CollyFlower

CollyFlower wrote: »

Reading the notes he wrote down, in parts, it looks to me like he's questioning what may have happened... Mentioned in them was reference to a Salesman. Did this come out in court?

I haven't seen that before.

My first thought was "why is he focusing on Mary Lowry's possible guilt in a note to himself?", that looks like a sincere question. But of course it may just have been an alibi.

But again, even if that's only 50/50 it creates a doubt that would be reasonable to take on board.

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I haven't seen that before.

My first thought was "why is he focusing on Mary Lowry's possible guilt in a note to himself?", that looks like a sincere question. But of course it may just have been an alibi.

But again, even if that's only 50/50 it creates a doubt that would be reasonable to take on board.

That was shown on the Virgin Media program last night.
They say the note was planted to point the finger back at Mary!

the.red.baron

BENDYBINN wrote: »

If he killed Ryan and dumped him in his own workplace and then discovers him in his own workplace then that stretches the bounds of stupidity to me

I think you will find killing him was the most stupid thing he did

The rest, less so

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I haven't seen that before.

My first thought was "why is he focusing on Mary Lowry's possible guilt in a note to himself?", that looks like a sincere question. But of course it may just have been an alibi.

But again, even if that's only 50/50 it creates a doubt that would be reasonable to take on board.

Jesus no, it looks incredibly bad for him

KikiLaRue

If I was 51% Sure he did it, I wouldn’t convict. But I think it’s far, far more likely that he did do it than that he didn’t.

Are there questions left unanswered? Yes. Did he have an accomplice? Maybe.

But there is too much of a pattern of criminal behaviour to be ignored and too many strands of circumstantial evidence to explain away. On their own, none would be enough to convict - together they make a very compelling argument.

BENDYBINN

the.red.baron wrote: »

I think you will find killing him was the most stupid thing he did

The rest, less so

He had two yrs to move the body..

Nobelium

the.red.baron wrote: »

Jesus no, it looks incredibly bad for him

not really, anyone local playing amateur detective at home about what might have happened bobby ryan could write down something similar, its certainly no proof of guilt.

the.red.baron

BENDYBINN wrote: »

He had two yrs to move the body..

Are you saying killing him wasn't the most stupid thing he did

the.red.baron

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If I was 51% Sure he did it, I wouldn’t convict. But I think it’s far, far more likely that he did do it than that he didn’t.

Are there questions left unanswered? Yes. Did he have an accomplice? Maybe.

But there is too much of a pattern of criminal behaviour to be ignored and too many strands of circumstantial evidence to explain away. On their own, none would be enough to convict - together they make a very compelling argument.

Why oh why would the thought he had help make a shred of difference to his guilt

An unknown unlikely helper

the.red.baron

Nobelium wrote: »

not really, anyone local playing amateur detective at home about what might have happened bobby ryan could write down something similar, its certainly no proof of guilt.

But he wasn't just anyone now was he

Alone it's not proof of guilt

As neither is searching how long it might take a body to decompose in water would be proof of guilt

On its own, if you didn't have a body sitting in water for years on your farm

You see the difference

BENDYBINN

the.red.baron wrote: »

Are you saying killing him wasn't the most stupid thing he did

Go away out of that with your ould morals!!

KikiLaRue

the.red.baron wrote: »

Why oh why would the thought he had help make a shred of difference to his guilt

An unknown unlikely helper

It matters quite a lot, not because it changes his guilt but because that person should also be tried in front of a jury and face the consequences of their actions

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

That was shown on the Virgin Media program last night.
They say the note was planted to point the finger back at Mary!

I wouldn't be completely shocked if that note were planted. It focuses on her supposed role from the outset.

But as far as I understand it, that note has been traced from the paper underneath a disappeared original. I don't believe Quirke would have envisaged that kind of investigation. The only thing approaching 'forensics' that the Prosecution had.

But it can be read as an attempt to create a narrative. And while that's important, one might be slightly more inclined to read it as a note to self. It's also important to note that only one single doubt, even a small doubt -- reasonably held --is enough to acquit Quirke.

Even leaving aside everything else, that sheet of paper represents a reasonable doubt, whatever your gut feeling.

the.red.baron

To make it 100% clear, there is no evidence whatsoever of an accomplice

None

Zero

No one ever mentioned it, it never came up in the trial

sligojoek

One of the lines in the note reads "We need..."

What's this "we" business?

freshpopcorn

the.red.baron wrote: »

To make it 100% clear, there is no evidence whatsoever of an accomplice

None

Zero

No one ever mentioned it, it never came up in the trial

This is a discussions forum tough and people are here to discuss it and have there say within reason!

It wouldn't really be much of a thread of we didn't.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't be completely shocked if that note were planted. It focuses on her supposed role from the outset.

But as far as I understand it, that note has been traced from the paper underneath a disappeared original. I don't believe Quirke would have envisaged that kind of investigation. The only thing approaching 'forensics' that the Prosecution had.

But it can be read as an attempt to create a narrative. And while that's important, it's also important to note that only one single doubt, reasonably held, is enough to acquit Quirke.

Even leaving aside everything else, that sheet of paper represents a reasonable doubt, whatever your gut feeling.

What reasonable doubt

That someone planted a note in quirked then tore it off in the hopes the police would find it using technology none of us had heard of?

What are you on about

There is no doubt at all

They had a dead body, is that forensic enough for you

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't be completely shocked if that note were planted. It focuses on her supposed role from the outset.

But as far as I understand it, that note has been traced from the paper underneath a disappeared original. I don't believe Quirke would have envisaged that kind of investigation. The only thing approaching 'forensics' that the Prosecution had.

But it can be read as an attempt to create a narrative. And while that's important, one might be slightly more inclined to read it as a note to self. It's also important to note that only one single doubt, even a small doubt -- reasonably held --is enough to acquit Quirke.

Even leaving aside everything else, that sheet of paper represents a reasonable doubt, whatever your gut feeling.

Even if I think that makes him look guilty as sin? That sheet of paper makes me more convinced than ever that he did it.

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

To make it 100% clear, there is no evidence whatsoever of an accomplice

None

Zero

No one ever mentioned it, it never came up in the trial

the question isn't whether there is evidence of an accomplice.

No such evidence is needed.

All that is needed is a *small* doubt that Quirke could have acted alone, and that such a doubt be reasonably held.

I know people will say that's an unfair burden on the Prosecution, but that's what the law demands.

Nobelium

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Even if I think that makes him look guilty as sin? That sheet of paper makes me more convinced than ever that he did it.

legally guilty of what through ? killing or murder . . there's a big difference . .

the.red.baron

Nobelium wrote: »

guilty of what through ? killing or murder, big difference . .

Premeditated killing

He lay in wait for him

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

?

What are you on about

There is no doubt at all

are you seriously telling me that you cannot have even a small bit of doubt (assuming it is reasonable, and not based on some kind of mental illness or superstition), in this case?

A minority of the jurors had this doubt. I don't blame the majority for stating their belief with certainty, but it's quite another thing to claim that nobody is entitled to reasonable doubt.

Nobelium

the.red.baron wrote: »

Premeditated killing

He lay in wait for him

how does the note prove that ? when was it proven to be written ?
what actual evidence, as opposed to a theory, have you that he "laid in wait for him" ?

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the question isn't whether there is evidence of an accomplice.

No such evidence is needed.

All that is needed is a *small* doubt that Quirke could have acted alone, and that such a doubt be reasonably held.

I know people will say that's an unfair burden on the Prosecution, but that's what the law demands.

But you need evidence of this which there is none, you can't just make it up

You just don't understand it

I'm starting to fear English isn't your first language

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the question isn't whether there is evidence of an accomplice.

No such evidence is needed.

All that is needed is a *small* doubt that Quirke could have acted alone, and that such a doubt be reasonably held.

I know people will say that's an unfair burden on the Prosecution, but that's what the law demands.

If the jury believes Quirke had an accomplice they are still absolutely entitled to convict him of murder even if they don’t know who that was

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

They had a dead body, is that forensic enough for you

Is that a serious question?

They had a dead body. That doesn't prove guilt, no. It doesn't even prove murder.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

are you seriously telling me that you cannot have even a small bit of doubt (assuming it is reasonable, and not based on some kind of mental illness or superstition), in this case?

A minority of the jurors had this doubt. I don't blame the majority for stating their belief with certainty, but it's quite another thing to claim that nobody is entitled to reasonable doubt.

You don't have one idea what their doubts were

I mean if they are your doubts then those people are very irresponsible

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

are you seriously telling me that you cannot have even a small bit of doubt (assuming it is reasonable, and not based on some kind of mental illness or superstition), in this case?

A minority of the jurors had this doubt. I don't blame the majority for stating their belief with certainty, but it's quite another thing to claim that nobody is entitled to reasonable doubt.

It has to be based on something not an unfounded hunch

blackcard

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If I was 51% Sure he did it, I wouldn’t convict. But I think it’s far, far more likely that he did do it than that he didn’t.

Are there questions left unanswered? Yes. Did he have an accomplice? Maybe.

But there is too much of a pattern of criminal behaviour to be ignored and too many strands of circumstantial evidence to explain away. On their own, none would be enough to convict - together they make a very compelling argument.

You can't say that because someone is a pervert or jilted ex-lover that they are capable of murder. There are tens of thousands of people in this country that have been discarded as lovers but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill someone or even have a motive for killing someone. I don't think that it is required that the defence have to prove that someone else had a motive. Clearly other people had the opportunity to attack Ryan

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is that a serious question?

They had a dead body. That doesn't prove guilt, no. It doesn't even prove murder.

A dead body that only he could have known about and found as already established, this is his guilt

The rest proves intent

the.red.baron

blackcard wrote: »

You can't say that because someone is a pervert or jilted ex-lover that they are capable of murder. There are tens of thousands of people in this country that have been discarded as lovers but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill someone or even have a motive for killing someone. I don't think that it is required that the defence have to prove that someone else had a motive. Clearly other people had the opportunity to attack Ryan

Tell us who are they and how did they know to put the body in a tank only Pat Quirke knew about

The divils

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If the jury believes Quirke had an accomplice they are still absolutely entitled to convict him of murder even if they don’t know who that was

I'd have to think about that, to be honest.

I see your point, but I think (suggestions welcome...) that if a jury had even a small doubt about the Prosecution's claim, including the idea that Quirke acted alone, they would be entitled to acquit... I think they would be entitled to disagree with the Prosecution and yet convict without any doubts, but that's something of a grey area, it seems to me.

Mena Mitty

If he was listening at the open window to the love making it'd be enough to drive a lad over the edge and do something about it.

What if Bobby got into his van and was driving down to the cattle grid and the killer stopped him and asked for some sort of help, it might explain the 10 minute delay....the chatting.

And then Bobby parks up his van and heads off to help his killer in his killer's vehicle. Some sort of altercation and Bobby is dead.

Killer puts Bobby's body in the transport box and drives the tractor with front loader or forks back up to the Lowry farm and places Bobby's body in the run off tank and places a few bales on top to be sure to be sure and heads back down the road in the tractor to do the mornings milking.

BENDYBINN

Mena Mitty wrote: »

If he was listening at the open window to the love making it'd be enough to drive a lad over the edge and do something about it.

What if Bobby got into his van and was driving down to the cattle grid and the killer stopped him and asked for some sort of help, it might explain the 10 minute delay....the chatting.

And then Bobby parks up his van and heads off to help his killer in his killer's vehicle. Some sort of altercation and Bobby is dead.

Killer puts Bobby's body in the transport box and drives the tractor with front loader or forks back up to the Lowry farm and places Bobby's body in the run off tank and places a few bales on top to be sure to be sure and heads back down the road in the tractor to do the mornings milking.

And the tractor left no tyre tracks.......unbelievable!!!

KikiLaRue

blackcard wrote: »

You can't say that because someone is a pervert or jilted ex-lover that they are capable of murder. There are tens of thousands of people in this country that have been discarded as lovers but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill someone or even have a motive for killing someone. I don't think that it is required that the defence have to prove that someone else had a motive. Clearly other people had the opportunity to attack Ryan

Yes, there are thousands of discarded lovers - most of them don’t stalk their ex, trespass and steal their underwear... it absolutely speaks to Quirke’s state of mind.

Mena Mitty

BENDYBINN wrote: »

And the tractor left no tyre tracks.......unbelievable!!!

Where ?

Nobelium

the.red.baron wrote: »

Tell us who are they and how did they know to put the body in a tank only Pat Quirke knew about

when was it proven in the case that only Pat Quirke knew about this tank on a farm he didn't own ?

BENDYBINN

Mena Mitty wrote: »

Where ?

Around this “hidden “ tank known only to God and the chosen few!

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

when was it proven in the case that only Pat Quirke knew about this tank on a farm he didn't own ?

Indeed. The late Mr Lowry's brothers knew about the tank.

Mena Mitty

Mena Mitty wrote: »

If he was listening at the open window to the love making it'd be enough to drive a lad over the edge and do something about it.

What if Bobby got into his van and was driving down to the cattle grid and the killer stopped him and asked for some sort of help, it might explain the 10 minute delay....the chatting.

And then Bobby parks up his van and heads off to help his killer in his killer's vehicle. Some sort of altercation and Bobby is dead.

Killer puts Bobby's body in the transport box and drives the tractor with front loader or forks back up to the Lowry farm and places Bobby's body in the run off tank and places a few bales on top to be sure to be sure and heads back down the road in the tractor to do the mornings milking.

Perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but not one we can be sure of.

blackcard

the.red.baron wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

You can't say that because someone is a pervert or jilted ex-lover that they are capable of murder. There are tens of thousands of people in this country that have been discarded as lovers but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill someone or even have a motive for killing someone. I don't think that it is required that the defence have to prove that someone else had a motive. Clearly other people had the opportunity to attack Ryan

Tell us who are they and how did they know to put the body in a tank only Pat Quirke knew about

The divils

Any of the farm labourers might have known where the tank is and could have passed on the information.

Mena Mitty

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Around this “hidden “ tank known only to God and the chosen few!

Quirk would be on the land with a tractor every day foddering/herding would he not ? There'd be tractor tracks all over the place especially in soft spots at that gate near the run off tank where Bobby was found.

There was nobody looking for tyre tracks the day Bobby went missing was there.

BENDYBINN

Mena Mitty wrote: »

Quirk would be on the land with a tractor every day foddering/herding would he not ? There'd be tractor tracks all over the place especially in soft spots at that gate near the run off tank where Bobby was found.

There was nobody looking for tyre tracks the day Bobby went missing was there.

Fresh tyre marks are very obvious....unbelievable that it would have been missed

blackcard

KikiLaRue wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

You can't say that because someone is a pervert or jilted ex-lover that they are capable of murder. There are tens of thousands of people in this country that have been discarded as lovers but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill someone or even have a motive for killing someone. I don't think that it is required that the defence have to prove that someone else had a motive. Clearly other people had the opportunity to attack Ryan

Yes, there are thousands of discarded lovers - most of them don’t stalk their ex, trespass and steal their underwear... it absolutely speaks to Quirke’s state of mind.

Let's say that it is proven that someone stalked their ex, trespasses and stole their underwear, what would be the sentence for someone who did this? Life imprisonment because they are likely to commit murder?