Patrick Quirke -Guilty

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't attempt to tell someone what to think.

But to be quite honest, I am skeptical towards anyone who claims certainty; I fail to trust any person who denies even a small doubt of a rational nature.

I think Quirke killed Ryan. I am fairly sure of it. BUT, I don't think you can deny any reasonable, little doubt, however small.

It ain't nice to admit that someone we so strongly suspect of murder should walk away, but rules are rules.

you are wrong, a small doubt is not enough to let them off


it has to be reasonable


non of yours are

KikiLaRue

Vicarious Function wrote: »

We're not following a court case any more. Maybe the Indo is having fun too!

If they are, it's a huge ethical breach.

the.red.baron

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Actually, Tyrant is right on that point. The principle is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

what has that got to do with it


there's plenty of evidence


none that someone else did it, him writing something on a piece of paper doesn't change that


not that it even says that, people are inferring that

KikiLaRue

the.red.baron wrote: »

what has that got to do with it


there's plenty of evidence


none that someone else did it, him writing something on a piece of paper doesn't change that


not that it even says that, people are inferring that

Because you said this about Quirke

it would be unreasonable to believe him without any evidence

Quirke is not required to provide any proof that he's innocent. The prosecution has to prove he's guilty. That's how the system works.

I believe the prosecution proved their case, Tyrant doesn't.

Vicarious Function

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If they are, it's a huge ethical breach.

Maybe now is the time to take them (the newspapers) to court, KikiLaRue. Give the armchair barristers here something else to keep them going.

the.red.baron

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Because you said this about Quirke



Quirke is not required to provide any proof that he's innocent. The prosecution has to prove he's guilty. That's how the system works.

I believe the prosecution proved their case, Tyrant doesn't.

yes, without there being evidence that someone else did it not just his writings on a piece of paper


to counter all the evidence he did it


i never said he had to prove his innocence, therefore him saying he is innocent is already given, as he pleaded not guilty



Tyrants doubt is getting smaller and smaller every time they post

the.red.baron

Deleted User wrote: »

DNA is shed from gloves and overalls. A flake of skin is all thats needed. It is very difficult not to leave DNA. That's why those forensic boys wear spacesuit like outfits. It's a 40 minute walk to that wood and a 10 minute drive.

If you believe quirke had no dandruff or skin flakes on a pair of dirty overalls or gloves then I don't know what to say. His DNA should have been found.

a flake of skin is not all that's needed, this is not CSI


they only found evidence of one other persons DNA, that they hadn't samples to rule out, you think no one ever else got into his van


all he had to do was wear overalls gloves, its not foolproof, but it's getting there

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

you are wrong, a small doubt is not enough to let them off


it has to be reasonable


non of yours are

the doubt has to be reasonable in nature, but being so, it can also be small and niggling. It doesn't have to be, as the Prosecution said, something obvious like a smoking gun.

I mean, the clue is in the formula 'any reasonable doubt'. It doesn't mean big reasonable doubts only. Any doubt that is so-grounded is enough to demand an acquittal.

Calypso Realm

Out of interest folks how did Quirke account for the 'notes' found in house? Can't remember hearing anything about this.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Any doubt that is so-grounded is enough to demand an acquittal.

Can you describe what your specific doubt is?

Vicarious Function

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Out of interest folks how did Quirke account for the 'notes' found in house? Can't remember hearing anything about this.

I can't remember hearing of any response from Quirke regarding these.

After all, they were produced forensically by the Police, not in the presence of Quirke. I presume they would have come to light in some Police office in Dublin Head-office and produced in Court as evidence.

the.red.baron

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you describe what your specific doubt is?

no they cannot, it is so small it has disappeared into the ether

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I can't remember hearing of any response from Quirke regarding these.

After all, they were produced forensically by the Police, not in the presence of Quirke. I presume they would have come to light in some Police office in Dublin Head-office and produced in Court as evidence.

you think he wouldn't have seen or known they had the note until he was in court? his defense and he would of course been made aware or it

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the doubt has to be reasonable in nature, but being so, it can also be small and niggling. It doesn't have to be, as the Prosecution said, something obvious like a smoking gun.

I mean, the clue is in the formula 'any reasonable doubt'. It doesn't mean big reasonable doubts only. Any doubt that is so-grounded is enough to demand an acquittal.

you don't even understand, big or little, what do they mean exactly?


the fact that you are using these words indicate these are trivial doubts, no grounding in reality


they can't be made up hunches

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Can you describe what your specific doubt is?

I have lota of small doubts. That note that was written by Quirke, for example. Probably a roadmap for getting himself off, but why lie to yourself on a note to self which you plan on disposing of? I think there's a reasonable, although small, chance, that his questions about Mary Lowry were sincere.

There's a small, reasonable chance that the Prosecution's case was too risky a pursuit for a man as intelligent as Quirke, for example murdering a man in plain sight and within earshot. Why take that risk? It hasn't even been claimed to be a crime of sudden rage, because there's no evidence to support that, not even circumstantial. Burying him at your workplace, and not even in land you own yourself? Odd behaviour. Doesn't mean Quirke didn't do it, but there is a small reasonable doubt there.

I could go on, but don't want to rehash the whole case. That's the point - these little doubt resurface at dozens of points in the narrative, the doubts are almost as much a running theme as the coincidences that tend to prove Quirke guilty.

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

you don't even understand, big or little, what do they mean exactly?


the fact that you are using these words indicate these are trivial doubts, no grounding in reality


they can't be made up hunches

I honestly think you only want to swap insults. I can't imagine anything more boring and wasteful of time, so let's leave it there.

Vicarious Function

the.red.baron wrote: »

you think he wouldn't have seen or known they had the note until he was in court? his defense and he would of course been made aware or it

Of course! His Defence would not have wanted them to surface, naturally. They were fairly damning.

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Of course! His Defence would not have wanted them to surface, naturally. They were fairly damning.

i know, so he knew of it

Mr. CooL ICE

Vicarious Function wrote: »

The trial is over, and Quirkie is in jail and we're having fun on a chat forum, KikiLaRue.

I just asked a question:

What would you do if you were in his shoes, travelling on the train up to Court, charged with murder?

Vicarious Function wrote: »

We're not following a court case any more. Maybe the Indo is having fun too!

Mod: Are you aware of how many peoples lives have affected by all of this? And you think it's ok to "have fun"?

Remember that Ireland is a small country and the reach that boards.ie has means that friends and family could easily read this thread. By all means, discuss the case, but have some cop on.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have lota of small doubts. That note that was written by Quirke, for example. Probably a roadmap for getting himself off, but why lie to yourself on a note to self which you plan on disposing of? I think there's a reasonable, although small, chance, that his questions about Mary Lowry were sincere.

There's a small, reasonable chance that the Prosecution's case was too risky a pursuit for a man as intelligent as Quirke, for example murdering a man in plain sight and within earshot. Why take that risk? It hasn't even been claimed to be a crime of sudden rage, because there's no evidence to support that, not even circumstantial. Burying him at your workplace, and not even in land you own yourself? Odd behaviour. Doesn't mean Quirke didn't do it, but there is a small reasonable doubt there.

I could go on, but don't want to rehash the whole case. That's the point - these little doubt resurface at dozens of points in the narrative, the doubts are almost as much a running theme as the coincidences that tend to prove Quirke guilty.

plain sight?


what does this mean


All I gotta do so is write a note to myself saying that batman did it and that's a reasonable doubt.. riiiight



again the use of the word small


what does that mean?


the prosecutions case was too risky? what are you on about


how many chances do you think he would have to kill him better than a quite farmyard at 6:30 where he had not one to disturb him and the element of surprise


that is not plain sight, whatever that is


killing someone is risky, ask all the people currently in jail for it

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I honestly think you only want to swap insults. I can't imagine anything more boring and wasteful of time, so let's leave it there.

nothing I said was an insult

Vicarious Function

the.red.baron wrote: »

i know, so he knew of it

I'm no expert, but I imagine these "notes" would have surfaced after the Police had done a search of his house and taken away everything such as his notepads, computers, phones etc. Did they have to let him know what they had found and produced forensically before the Court case started. I don't know. Certainly, the Prosecution would have been told of them. But as for the Defense knowing of these findings beforehand, I don't know. I imagine, in order to build up their defense, they would have to be told.

As Quirke never took the Witness Stand, I presume we'll never know the answer to that. His interviews with Police did address his "searches" on his computer, but I don't think we heard any evidence to his responses, if any, regarding the "notes".

A lot too would have been down to what has been reported in the News Media. Who knows!

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I imagine these "notes" would have" surfaced after the Police had done a search of his house and taken away everything such as his notepads, computers, phones etc. Did they have to let him know what they had found and produced forensically before the Court case started. I don't know. Certainly, the Prosecution would have been told of them. But as for the Defense knowing of these findings beforehand, I don't know.

As Quirke never took the Witness Stand, I presume we'll never know the answer to that. His interviews with Police did address his "searches" on his computer, but I don't think we heard any evidence to his responses, if any, regarding the "notes".

A lot too would have been down to what has been reported in the News Media. Who knows!

yes, the defense gets to see it all, how fair would it be otherwise? to prepare a defense and not know what the case actually was


all evidence, all statements everything

Vicarious Function

the.red.baron wrote: »

yes, the defense gets to see it all, how fair would it be otherwise? to prepare a defense and not know what the case actually was


all evidence, all statements everything

Thanks, the.red.baron. Of course that makes sense. As to whether any of that, re a response from Quirke, came out in Court, I don't know.

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I imagine these "notes" would have surfaced after the Police had done a search of his house and taken away everything such as his notepads, computers, phones etc. Did they have to let him know what they had found and produced forensically before the Court case started. I don't know. Certainly, the Prosecution would have been told of them. But as for the Defense knowing of these findings beforehand, I don't know. I imagine, in order to build up their defense, they would have to be told.

All of the material, including physical evidence and Garda interviews, have to be disclosed to the Defence in a criminal trial. There's no Gotcha moment, no big surprises in (a criminal) court. Which is a pity, but fair.

Vicarious Function

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

All of the material, including physical evidence and Garda interviews, have to be disclosed to the Defence in a criminal trial. There's no Gotcha moment, no big surprises in (a criminal) court. Which is a pity, but fair.

Understood!

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Understood!

Nevertheless, despite everything having been presented to the Defense beforehand, it's still a bit of a mystery as to what exactly is going to come out of the Prosecution / Defences' mouths while in Court.

realdanbreen

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.

Still nobody has come up with a reason why a smart enough guy like Quirke would carry out a murder in this fashion.

KikiLaRue

realdanbreen wrote: »

Still nobody has come up with a reason why a smart enough guy like Quirke would carry out a murder in this fashion.

When was it established that he's smart?

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

When was it established that he's smart?

I guess devious is a more apt word than smart. On the balance of probabilities, Quirke being the murderer and all of that whole narrative being true, what he did and how whe did it was brutally devious.

Its difficult to reconcile such deviousness with the bouts of reckless stupidity.

Vicarious Function

It has come out in numerous comments which we've heard in News Media, Documentaries etc, that he is smart. Question is - was he smart enough?!

the.red.baron

realdanbreen wrote: »

Still nobody has come up with a reason why a smart enough guy like Quirke would carry out a murder in this fashion.

what makes you think he was smart?


would a smart man be caught stealing knickers off someones line?



would he not see CCTV while lurking around someones house?


explain the agony aunt letter? those are the writings of a self obsessed loon


he committed the perfect murder really in fairness, just forgot to deal with the body


it's take many a person down


the reality of what to do with a dead body

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I guess devious is a more apt word than smart. On the balance of probabilities, Quirke being the murderer and all of that whole narrative being true, what he did and how whe did it was brutally devious.

I'm not sure I agree. Assuming he did it, and I believe he did, it was actually not a very clever murder at all, and if it had been treated as murder rather than missing person from the outset, I think there would have been a ton of physical evidence against him and the body would have been found much sooner.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I guess devious is a more apt word than smart. On the balance of probabilities, Quirke being the murderer and all of that whole narrative being true, what he did and how whe did it was brutally devious.

Its difficult to reconcile such deviousness with the bouts of reckless stupidity.

but he was behaving recklessly all the time, he was sleeping with Mary Lowry.. asking to be caught


all he did was beat a man to death a monkey could do that, but it's at the very least reckless



these are crimes of passion, the blood rises, people do stupid things




very few kill in the cold light of day with dispassion

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Understood!

the.red.baron wrote: »

what makes you think he was smart?


would a smart man be caught stealing knickers off someones line?



would he not see CCTV while lurking around someones house?


explain the agony aunt letter? those are the writings of a self obsessed loon


he committed the perfect murder really in fairness, just forgot to deal with the body


it's take many a person down


the reality of what to do with a dead body

Aparently, he started out as a fairly smart man, but seemed to lose the run of himself emotionally as time passed. The emotional side seemed to take controll of his ability to think. There was his visit to the GP, seeking advice, not to mention his letter to the Newspaper agony aunt Patricia Redlich. By this time he seemed to have lost his ability to see and think clearly re his problems. This is a result of being under a lot of Stress, IMO.

Wrongway1985

Just watched the Virgin Media doc, knew when the body was found he rang his wife I assumed to contact guard she knew however what I didn't know was she went to pick him up! She was supposedly shown the body before the guards called/arrived. If the demonstration suggests a body is unlikely to be seen from the type of opening Imelda couldn't have seen it either?

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

It has come out in numerous comments which we've heard in News Media, Documentaries etc, that he is smart. Question is - was he smart enough?!

give us an example of how smart he is? He was given his farm



swindling his mother out of her house? that's smart right?


Sleeping with your Brother in Laws wife, that's very smart, that never comes back to bite you

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

When was it established that he's smart?

For a murderer to find the body of his victim two yrs after the murder would be incredibly stupid.....to find it on his own workplace would be bringing stupid to a new level altogether..........something just doesn’t add up

the.red.baron

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Just watched the Virgin Media doc, knew when the body was found he rang his wife I assumed to contact guard she knew however what I didn't know was she went to pick him up! She was supposedly shown the body before the guards called/arrived. If the demonstration suggests a body is unlikely to be seen from the type of opening Imelda couldn't have seen it either?

it's not something you would just notice, if you were looking for it, it might be a different matter

the.red.baron

BENDYBINN wrote: »

For a murderer to find the body of his victim two yrs after the murder would be incredibly stupid.....to find it on his own workplace would be bringing stupid to a new level altogether..........something just doesn’t add up

what would you suggest he do with the body after now losing access to this workplace and having the possibility of someone else finding the body and you being up sh1t creek

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree. Assuming he did it, and I believe he did, it was actually not a very clever murder at all, and if it had been treated as murder rather than missing person from the outset, I think there would have been a ton of physical evidence against him and the body would have been found much sooner.

I think I agree. If he really did this, then he made some really foolish choices. But the actions are quite at odd with his occasional bouts of deviousness, such as being so quick-thinking in moving Ryan's van, suspecting Mrs Lowry would be listening for the sound of the cattle-grid, or even tricking his own mother out of her property.

That's quite at odds with the foolishness of hiding a body at your workplace, when you have a 100-acre farm in which to bury him discreetly. We probably needn't go through all of the foolish errors again, but they're inconsistent with the man being a devious, calculating person, which he know he was capable of being.

The person who hid Bobby Ryan in that tank was a bit of an idiot, unless they wanted him found.

BENDYBINN

the.red.baron wrote: »

what would you suggest he do with the body after now losing access to this workplace and having the possibility of someone else finding the body and you being up sh1t creek

Move it?

Vicarious Function

the.red.baron wrote: »

give us an example of how smart he is? He was given his farm



swindling his mother out of her house? that's smart right?


Sleeping with your Brother in Laws wife, that's very smart, that never comes back to bite you

Granted - what you say, the.red.baron! Nevertheless, according to the Prime Time Docu on RTE1, he seemed at one time to be doing very well as a farmer. He was regarded as a leader among his peers, giving talks re managing investments combined with farming, writing pamphlets etc educating other people in his area and being generally being looked up to as a great example of a top Dairy Farmer in his area. Considering he only has 60 ? acres, he certainly was smart enough to make a lot of money.

He became a victim of his emotions/passions/greed etc and that's what led to his downfall and took away his ability to think clearly.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think I agree. If he really did this, then he made some really foolish choices. But the actions are quite at odd with his occasional bouts of deviousness, such as being so quick-thinking in moving Ryan's van, suspecting Mrs Lowry would be listening for the sound of the cattle-grid, or even tricking his own mother out of her property.

That's quite at odds with the foolishness of hiding a body at your workplace, when you have a 100-acre farm in which to bury him discreetly. We probably needn't go through all of the foolish errors again, but they're inconsistent with the man being a devious, calculating person, which he know he was capable of being.

The person who hid Bobby Ryan in that tank was a bit of an idiot, unless they wanted him found.

these are exactly the errors that get people caught


humans are not machines


he probably had some idea of a plan, but acted on the spur of the moment, then **** what do i do now?


most people can't deal with the after, which is where they **** up


if they don't **** up, they get away with it


he wasn't looking for the cattle grid, he wanted rid of the van and the body hidden quickly, as it would look odd


over to the woods, dump the car, walk home, start the milking..... **** I forgot about the AI woman, ahh forget it


back, hide the body, leave

the.red.baron

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Move it?

you've done this yourself? moved a lot of 2 year old dead bodies?

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Granted - what you say, the.red.baron! Nevertheless, according to the Prime Time Docu on RTE1, he seemed at one time to be doing very well as a farmer. He was regarded as a leader among his peers, giving talks re managing investments combined with farming, writing pamphlets etc educating other people in his area and being generally being looked up to as a great example of a top Dairy Farmer in his area. Considering he only has 60 ? acres, he certainly was smart enough to make a lot of money.

He became a victim of his emotions/passions/greed etc and that's what led to his downfall and took away his ability to think clearly.

Apparently, he had a very good bloodline in his cattle, thats what made him a top farmer, apparently. Not sure how smart that makes him, I mean he just inherited the farm. Plonked in his lap



Maybe it does make him smart, lots of farmers are


But does that make them good at killing



He had investments in eastern Europe, I wonder how did that work out for him? There were a lot of smart boyos doing the same

Vicarious Function

He didn't bargain on Mary Lowry's deciding to take back her farm, by cancelling his lease. I imagine Quirke had it in the back of his mind that in the long run he would own Lowry's farm. So no one would ever know of that body. Just did not happen that way!

the.red.baron

Vicarious Function wrote: »

He didn't bargain on Mary Lowry's deciding to take back her farm, by cancelling his lease. I imagine Quirke had it in the back of his mind that in the long run he would own Lowry's farm. So no one would ever know of that body. Just did not happen that way!

how would he have ended up owning the farm?


Divorce his own wife?


he might have planned on disposing of the body properly and the reality of it was too much

Vicarious Function

Vicarious Function wrote: »

He didn't bargain on Mary Lowry's deciding to take back her farm, by cancelling his lease. I imagine Quirke had it in the back of his mind that in the long run he would own Lowry's farm. So no one would ever know of that body. Just did not happen that way!

that makes sense, leaving aside the pretty massive gamble that Gardaí wouldn't find out about the tank.

But take your mind back to Gardaí recovering the body of Bobby Ryan from the tank. What did they use? A front-loader and some plastic sheeting.

These were materials Quirke could easily have used, that he would have in his possession, when he knew the lease was ending. He had months to do this fairly simple task, but people are saying he chose instead after two years to open a massive Pandora's box, knowing he would be a suspect?

Maybe. But at least have some doubt. Because if you have some reasonable doubt about that, there's only one conclusion.

BENDYBINN

the.red.baron wrote: »

you've done this yourself? moved a lot of 2 year old dead bodies?

Believe me if it saved me twenty yrs in jail I would!