Patrick Quirke -Guilty

realdanbreen

cocokabana wrote: »

I'm from a farming background not a million miles from Bancha & heard locally that there was a Polish farm labourer who went back to Poland after this and took his own life sadly. Whether there's any truth I don't know but I'm sure Guards would have investigated this line of inquiry.

If you are local it's strange that you would spell it 'Bancha' ? It's Bansha!

monkeybutter

cocokabana wrote: »

I'm from a farming background not a million miles from Bancha & heard locally that there was a Polish farm labourer who went back to Poland after this and took his own life sadly. Whether there's any truth I don't know but I'm sure Guards would have investigated this line of inquiry.

no they won't


pointless, how to corroborate this rubbish


why the fook would he trust someone like that with this? come on


here Johnny, I know you are a dab hand with milking, but have you ever tried a bitta murder?

dochara

Laois_Man wrote: »

I wasn't surprised it was taking the jury ages but knew they'd come back fairly quickly after this mornings directive from the judge

A majority verdict with no real evidence is unfair. The jury system is badly flawed - we have a very high opinion of ourselves as purveyors of the truth!

LETHAL LADY

monkeybutter wrote: »

far fetched, roping in outside help ends in tears, especially if you don't move in the right circles, and even getting someone reliable if you do is near impossible


If he had outside help, you think they would have left the body on the farm to be found?




The beating he gave him indicates a rage attack, he absolutely beat the head off him, cracked ribs etc


Then he had to deal with it, and he bottled it


most do

Well that's what people from the area are saying. Like I said it's a rumour.

Nekarsulm

He probably planned to move/bury the body after the initial hue and cry died down. But while farmers are well accustomed to dealing with death and dead bodies, its different when its a human.
His own son was rotting in tbe grave, and he may have been affected by the sight/thoughts of moving tbe victims body after a few weeks had passed.

monkeybutter

dochara wrote: »

A majority verdict with no real evidence is unfair. The jury system is badly flawed - we have a very high opinion of ourselves as purveyors of the truth!

dead body on land you control which you mysteriously find


sour relationship with the girlfriend on the victim


notebook writing saying what you did


imminent loss of control of the land where the body was found



flat cap....

monkeybutter

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Well that's what people from the area are saying. Like I said it's a rumour.

no it's not

Ush1

monkeybutter wrote: »

dead body on land you control which you mysteriously find


sour relationship with the girlfriend on the victim


notebook writing saying what you did


imminent loss of control of the land where the body was found



flat cap....

The Haely Raes did it?

cocokabana

monkeybutter wrote: »

no they won't


pointless, how to corroborate this rubbish


why the fook would he trust someone like that with this? come on


here Johnny, I know you are a dab hand with milking, but have you ever tried a bitta murder?

Who knows. Only Patrick Quirke knows exactly what happened. If he had a Polish labourer working with him and he went back to Poland after this happened, at what point he returned I don't know, but that is what was said to me by a farmer from that area. Maybe concidence he returned. Nothing in it and Patrick Quirke acted alone.

Bob Harris

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Well that's what people from the area are saying. Like I said it's a rumour.

monkeybutter wrote: »

no it's not

You mean it's not a rumour...and it's true?

monkeybutter

Bob Harris wrote: »

You mean it's not a rumour...and it's true?

no, it's fabricated

kerry cow

quirke didn't know ryan was going to be at marys house on the Thursday night , lowry kept ringing him to come over with which was a little flustered that she kept texting him or ringing .
maybe he went missing earlier than 630am ??
why did his phone ping at 1030 am ?

monkeybutter

cocokabana wrote: »

Who knows. Only Patrick Quirke knows exactly what happened. If he had a Polish labourer working with him and he went back to Poland after this happened, at what point he returned I don't know, but that is what was said to me by a farmer from that area. Maybe concidence he returned. Nothing in it and Patrick Quirke acted alone.

Did he, whats his name, when did he return home etc etc


Polish people go back to Poland sometimes, it's in their nature.

LETHAL LADY

monkeybutter wrote: »

no it's not

And how do you know? People I work with from the area have said it to me.

Bob Harris

monkeybutter wrote: »

no, it's fabricated

Well that's a bit of a let down.

monkeybutter

kerry cow wrote: »

quirke didn't know ryan was going to be at marys house on the Thursday night , lowry kept ringing him to come over with which was a little flustered that she kept texting him or ringing .
maybe he went missing earlier than 630am ??
why did his phone ping at 1030 am ?

his van was there obviously


sure he would hardly be off djing of a thursday


what do you mean phone ping? Ring?

cocokabana

realdanbreen wrote: »

If you are local it's strange that you would spell it 'Bancha' ? It's Bansha!

I didn't say I was local, I said I'm not a million miles away from there. From a farming background. I have spoken to farmers from Bansha. anyway what does it matter I spelled it wrong

monkeybutter

Ush1 wrote: »

The Haely Raes did it?

the Kerry Cow may be a Healy Rae... Danny by the looks of it

monkeybutter

cocokabana wrote: »

I didn't say I was local, I said I'm not a million miles away from there. From a farming background. I have spoken to farmers from Bansha. anyway what does it matter I spelled it wrong

it means you lied, what your are basically saying is you are sea bass farmer from Greece.

realdanbreen

cocokabana wrote: »

I didn't say I was local, I said I'm not a million miles away from there. From a farming background. I have spoken to farmers from Bansha. anyway what does it matter I spelled it wrong

Name a pub in Bansha.

monkeybutter

this case does put doubts that if you do go missing, the Gardaí wont be expending too much effort to find you

monkeybutter

realdanbreen wrote: »

Name a pub in Bansha.

there are none, trick question


the safe bet is always Ryans though, am i right?

Aska

cocokabana wrote:

Nothing in it and Patrick Quirke acted alone.

Personally can't see PQ taking one for the team here, someone mentioned Mary may have been involved, he doesn't seem like a guy who would take full blame and let someone else walk.

monkeybutter

Aska wrote: »

Personally can't see PQ taking one for the team here, someone mentioned Mary may have been involved, he doesn't seem like a guy who would take full blame and let someone else walk.

what would he do anyway, he'd have to admit it to snare he also and there's no particular reason to believe his word



and what possible motive would she have


and now that hes convicted, he can't say diddly as it wouldn't be believed

Calypso Realm

Neyite wrote: »

I don't think he did bottle it.

I think his intention was to discover the body of HER missing boyfriend buried on HER land and hopefully the gardai would consider her the prime suspect given she was the last person to have seen him. .

This is the exact conclusion I finally came to as well, when I learned he tried to pin it on ML-something I wasn't aware of- as I'd often wondered why on earth he didn't just move the remains elsewhere before he had to leave. He'd gotten away with it for a few years so why run the risk of being found out now?

At any rate he is going to appeal it, so we will see what happens

monkeybutter

Calypso Realm wrote: »

This is the exact conclusion I finally came to as well, when I learned he tried to pin it on ML-something I wasn't aware of- as I'd often wondered why on earth he didn't just move the remains elsewhere before he had to leave. He'd gotten away with it for a few years so why run the risk of being found out now?

cause he bottled it, simple as that


try it yourself, kill someone, leave their body in a pool for 2 years and then try to move it


let us know how you get on


Most people don't have the guts for any of it, once the madness subsides, thankfully

Vicarious Function

The Prosecution Team certainly pulled off a major feat getting that murder conviction. That is considering it was all based on circumstantial evidence and, as they said, there would be "no smoking gun". There would be no blood and no crime scene. Basically what they did, IMO, is build up a picture of the character which answers the question: "Would he be capable of doing this?" and, if so, "Is he possiby the only only one who would have done it?".

Hence they build up this character, who seemingly would stop at nothing to get what he wants. There's the behaviour where he acts like he owns M. Lowry's home (Lowry Junior's evidence). He reports Mary to Child Protective Services, when he realises she has someone else. Mary feels she has to report him to Police for Harrassment, leading to very telling interviews that Quirke gave voluntarily to Police. These interviews painted quite a picture of his character, even though he was not charged with anything at the time. There are the findings on his computer, phone recordings and handwritten notes, which show his kinkiness regarding sex and methodical planning. Also there's the evidence of his sneaking around Mary's house, looking through windows and pinching underwear from the clothes-line. His hoodwinking of Mary, which enabled him to make huge profits off her money, his stay-overs in 5-star hotels in order to hold onto and control his lover. His leasing of her land for a 7-year period. His neglect, unfaithfulness to and betrayal of his wife, while doing all of that.

Did all of this build up to a picture of someone who would stop at nothing to get what he wants and was well capable of this murder, leaving no reasonable doubt that it could have been anybody else who did it. If I had been on that jury, I would have been in "no doubt as to who did it and there would have no question that it could have been someone else who did it, considering the buildup of that character. Well done, Prosecution Team!

ohnonotgmail

Vicarious Function wrote: »

The Prosecution Team certainly pulled off a major feat getting that murder conviction. That is considering it was all based on circumstantial evidence and, as they said, there would be "no smoking gun". There would be no blood and no crime scene. Basically what they did, IMO, is build up a picture of the character which answers the question: "Would he be capable of doing this?" and, if so, "Is he possiby the only only one who would have done it?".

Hence they build up this character, who seemingly would stop at nothing to get what he wants. There's the behaviour where he acts like he owns M. Lowry's home (Lowry Junior's evidence). He reports Mary to Child Protective Services, when he realises she has someone else. Mary feels she has to report him to Police for Harrassment, leading to very telling inerviews that Quirke gave voluntarily to Police. These inerviews painted quite a picture of his character, even though he was not charged with anything at the time. There are the findings on his computer, phone recordings and handwritten notes, which show his kinkiness regarding sex and methodical planning. Also there's the evidence of his sneaking around Mary's house, looking through windows and pinching underwear from the clothes-line. His hoodwinking of Mary, which enabled him to make huge profits off her money, his stay-overs in 5-star hotels in order to hold onto and control his lover. His leasing of her land for a 7-year period. His neglect, unfaithfulness to and betrayal of his wife, while doing all of that.

Did all of this build up to a picture of someone who would stop at nothing to get what he wants and was well capable of this murder, leaving no reasonable doubt that it could have been anybody else who did it. If I had been on that jury, I would have been in "no doubt as to who did it and there would have no question that it could have been someone else who did it, considering the buildup of that character. Well done, Prosecution Team!

Not all of the information you mention was put the to the jury. The sex tapes and the underwear stealing in particular were excluded from evidence by the judge.

Calypso Realm

monkeybutter wrote: »

cause he bottled it, simple as that


try it yourself, kill someone, leave their body in a pool for 2 years and then try to move it


let us know how you get on


Most people don't have the guts for any of it, once the madness subsides, thankfully

Agree. That's what I thought at first all things considered but then changed my mind when the other details emerged.

monkeybutter

Vicarious Function wrote: »

The Prosecution Team certainly pulled off a major feat getting that murder conviction. That is considering it was all based on circumstantial evidence and, as they said, there would be "no smoking gun". There would be no blood and no crime scene. Basically what they did, IMO, is build up a picture of the character which answers the question: "Would he be capable of doing this?" and, if so, "Is he possiby the only only one who would have done it?".

Hence they build up this character, who seemingly would stop at nothing to get what he wants. There's the behaviour where he acts like he owns M. Lowry's home (Lowry Junior's evidence). He reports Mary to Child Protective Services, when he realises she has someone else. Mary feels she has to report him to Police for Harrassment, leading to very telling inerviews that Quirke gave voluntarily to Police. These inerviews painted quite a picture of his character, even though he was not charged with anything at the time. There are the findings on his computer, phone recordings and handwritten notes, which show his kinkiness regarding sex and methodical planning. Also there's the evidence of his sneaking around Mary's house, looking through windows and pinching underwear from the clothes-line. His hoodwinking of Mary, which enabled him to make huge profits off her money, his stay-overs in 5-star hotels in order to hold onto and control his lover. His leasing of her land for a 7-year period. His neglect, unfaithfulness to and betrayal of his wife, while doing all of that.

Did all of this build up to a picture of someone who would stop at nothing to get what he wants and was well capable of this murder, leaving no reasonable doubt that it could have been anybody else who did it. If I had been on that jury, I would have been in "no doubt as to who did it and there would have no question that it could have been someone else who did it, considering the buildup of that character. Well done, Prosecution Team!

Circumstantial evidence is evidence


Non jury trials from now on

Vicarious Function

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not all of the information you mention was put the to the jury. The sex tapes and the underwear stealing in particular were excluded from evidence by the judge.

Granted what you say, ohnonotgmail. I agree certain elements of above were withheld from the jury, on the grounds that sharing them would be prejuducial to the defendant without adding to the build-up of evidence. I think that was explained on the Prime Time programme. (words to that effect) But IMO, even without the evidence that was withheld, they had enough to come to the verdict of Guilty of Murder. The prosecution still had built up a character which left the jury in "no reasonable doubt" as to their verdict.

ohnonotgmail

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Granted what you say, ohnonotgmail. I agree certain elements of above were withheld from the jury, on the grounds that sharing them would be prejuducial to the defendant without adding to the build-up of evidence. I think that was explained on the Prime Time programme. (words to that effect) But IMO, even without the evidence that was withheld, they had enough to come to the verdict of Guilty of Murder. The prosecution still had built up a character which left the jury in "no reasonable doubt" as to their verdict.

I agree that the weight of circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction. If i was on the jury that is the way i would have voted.

PhilOssophy

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Re the tanks, Patrick Quirke could easily have had 2-3 bales over it and rolled them out of the way and put them back perfectly. Considering only a couple of people knew of its existance (and definitely not the Gardai), and not every milking parlour would have such a tank (they often run off into a slurry tank, etc), it wouldn't be that unusual that nobody knew of its existance.

I'd say he killed Bobby Ryan at the farm (and maybe the accomplice provided a decoy saying "Bobby, come out here for a minute and give me a hand lifting a tank lid", which wouldnt be that unusual a request by a farm labourer), Quirke killed him and the accomplice drove the van to Bansha woods while Quirke sorted out the bales over the tank.

PhilOssophy

Also, Patrick Quirke deserves sympathy from nobody (as suggested by people above). The people who deserve sympathy are Bobby Ryan, his family and Mary Lowry/Patrick Quirke's family.

Vicarious Function

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Re the tanks, Patrick Quirke could easily have had 2-3 bales over it and rolled them out of the way and put them back perfectly. Considering only a couple of people knew of its existance (and definitely not the Gardai), and not every milking parlour would have such a tank (they often run off into a slurry tank, etc), it wouldn't be that unusual that nobody knew of its existance.

I'd say he killed Bobby Ryan at the farm (and maybe the accomplice provided a decoy saying "Bobby, come out here for a minute and give me a hand lifting a tank lid", which wouldnt be that unusual a request by a farm labourer), Quirke killed him and the accomplice drove the van to Bansha woods while Quirke sorted out the bales over the tank.

Was just thinking same. There must have been an accomplice. I'm sure such a devious man could have found someone to fill that role - at a price.

jimwallace197

Its not so much whether he was Guilty or not, its the fact he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and the chief witness was unreliable in the extreme. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sets a dangerous precedence in our Judicial system Imo & we all know that the guards can manipulate and paint a picture of someones guilt if they want to. People are all capable of wild internet searches, just because a man was unfaithful doesn't mean he a murderer, etc, etc. Take the Maurice McCabe case for example. When we go down this road, what next or who next for that matter.

Calypso Realm

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Not if altered some aspects of his appearance (wore a hat etc) and took a more roundabout route through back-roads back to the farm. Chances of him being thus recognized are far, far higher if he was seen by others in his OWN car, a vehicle the locals would be familiar with! All that's required then is a few positive sightings at various points which would put him at the scene(s) and could prove his location/ whereabouts at a given time.

PhilOssophy

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Not if altered some aspects of his appearance (wore a hat etc) and took a more roundabout route through back-roads back to the farm. Chances of him being thus recognized are far, far higher if he was seen by others in his OWN car, a vehicle the locals would be familiar with! All that's required then is a few positive sightings at various points which would put him at the scene(s) and could prove his location/ whereabouts at a given time.

I'm sure he never left the farm and somebody else drove the van to the woods.

Vicarious Function

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Its not so much whether he was Guilty or not, its the fact he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and the chief witness was unreliable in the extreme. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sets a dangerous precedence in our Judicial system Imo & we all know that the guards can manipulate and paint a picture of someones guilt if they want to. People are all capable of wild internet searches, just because a man was unfaithful doesn't mean he a murderer, etc, etc. Take the Maurice McCabe case for example. When we go down this road, what next or who next for that matter.

You have made some valid points, jimwallace197. In this case, though, we must bear in mind that not all of the evidence, from various people, came from the Police. After all, hearing the evidence took three months, a record lenght of time for a case in this country.

RhubarbCrumble

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Also, Patrick Quirke deserves sympathy from nobody (as suggested by people above). The people who deserve sympathy are Bobby Ryan, his family and Mary Lowry/Patrick Quirke's family.

Imelda Quirke is the person who most deserves sympathy here.
In the space of a few years, she lost her son and her brother, discovered her husband was having an affair with her sister in law, and now, regardless of how she feels about him, she has pretty much lost her husband since he's now in prison.

Personally I don't know how that lady keeps going and she deserves a hell of a lot of credit.

jimwallace197

Vicarious Function wrote: »

You have made some valid points, jimwallace197. In this case, though, we must bear in mind that not all of the evidence, from various people, came from the Police. After all, hearing the evidence took three months, a record lenght of time for a case in this country.

Yes, I dont dispute this but he was not a popular man in the community whereas the victim seemed to be. Whatever the case may be, it sets a dangerous trend.

It follows very much an American model imo and how many men/women have been locked up there when they were innocent.

What about the series Making a murderer, here we have a situation where a man was not liked in the community, especially by the police, was not an angel but no body or any real evidence of his guilt was ever found & ended up being convicted twice for crimes he did not commit imo. Finishing his life and that of his family. Sound familiar?

Vicarious Function

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

Imelda Quirke is the person who most deserves sympathy here.
In the space of a few years, she lost her son and her brother, discovered her husband was having an affair with her sister in law, and now, regardless of how she feels about him, she has pretty much lost her husband since he's now in prison.

Personally I don't know how that lady keeps going and she deserves a hell of a lot of credit.

Absolutely! Sadly there are no winners in this case. A whole area in one Irish country parish is destroyed for a long time to come, and will never be the same again.

Vicarious Function

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Its not so much whether he was Guilty or not, its the fact he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and the chief witness was unreliable in the extreme. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sets a dangerous precedence in our Judicial system Imo & we all know that the guards can manipulate and paint a picture of someones guilt if they want to. People are all capable of wild internet searches, just because a man was unfaithful doesn't mean he a murderer, etc, etc. Take the Maurice McCabe case for example. When we go down this road, what next or who next for that matter.

We could debate this - both sides - till the cows come home. No pun intended!

rwaldron21

Does anybody know if Bobby Ryan's car was ever checked for Quirke's DNA ? Bobby Ryan's daughter stated that her dads car was parked in the woods , was in gear , with the seat way back, hinting to someone else leaving the car there. ie: the killer.

Vicarious Function

rwaldron21 wrote: »

Does anybody know if Bobby Ryan's car was ever checked for Quirke's DNA ? Bobby Ryan's daughter stated that her dads car was parked in the woods , was in gear , with the seat way back, hinting to someone else leaving the car there. ie: the killer.

I think it was mentioned somewhere that "unknown DNA" was found in it.

monkeybutter

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Re the tanks, Patrick Quirke could easily have had 2-3 bales over it and rolled them out of the way and put them back perfectly. Considering only a couple of people knew of its existance (and definitely not the Gardai), and not every milking parlour would have such a tank (they often run off into a slurry tank, etc), it wouldn't be that unusual that nobody knew of its existance.

I'd say he killed Bobby Ryan at the farm (and maybe the accomplice provided a decoy saying "Bobby, come out here for a minute and give me a hand lifting a tank lid", which wouldnt be that unusual a request by a farm labourer), Quirke killed him and the accomplice drove the van to Bansha woods while Quirke sorted out the bales over the tank.

there's an accomplice now is there? that's some revelation,



6:30 in the morning, liftin fookin heavy tank lids is it, on an unused dairy farm, it was a big heavy concrete yoke


lads how far is bansha woods? I'm sure a few miles across country he's a local, he walked home after he moved the van, best way to not get spotted



He acted alone

super_furry

Has anyone heard anything about him having a DJ name? Mr Moonlight I believe, don't think it was mentioned before.

monkeybutter

super_furry wrote: »

Has anyone heard anything about him having a DJ name? Mr Moonlight I believe, don't think it was mentioned before.

you are some card


how many times was that repeated in **** news articles to fluff out meaningless stores with no extra detail in it


it's always the same

Stacksofwacks

monkeybutter wrote: »

what would he do anyway, he'd have to admit it to snare he also and there's no particular reason to believe his word



and what possible motive would she have


and now that hes convicted, he can't say diddly as it wouldn't be believed

No but I think its possible she could have witnessed it, heard the scuffle in the yard, ran down and found Ryan dead on the ground. Quirke then convinced her to keep quiet and say he'll take care of the body. Through either fear or shock she complies and says nothing, worried she'll be somehow implicated

Vicarious Function

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

No but I think its possible she could have witnessed it, heard the scuffle in the yard, ran down and found Ryan dead on the ground. Quirke then convinced her to keep quiet and say he'll take care of the body. Through either fear or shock she complies and says nothing, worried she'll be somehow implicated

Agree it's a possible scenario, Stacksofwacks. Personally, I don't think she would have the mental capability of living with that for two years. No offence meant to Mary L! I think it would be a very rare person, apart from P. Quirke, who would have the mental capability of living with that for two years.