Patrick Quirke -Guilty

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

A good barrister could argue anything.

People can argue anything they want, but they only get so far when there is a notoriously low statutory cap on damages, if an award for damages under civil liability is even applicable here, which I doubt.

cannotlogin

Finally an article which thinks of the two women connected with the trial, both suffering, in different ways, due to Patrick Quirke

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/larissa-nolan-comment-where-support-14997547.amp

The Talking Bread

Vicarious Function wrote: »

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

Have a look at his/her posts on the thread, some of them very strong and personal and damning and now she suddenly has the Eureka moment that it is all none of our business and we shouldn't discuss it!

They even advocated that a potential Oscar worthy movie about it would be great viewing!

kerry cow

I had my opinions like every body else but feel that with respect to the families I no long would like to comment any further and appolige if I caused any offence to any one reading or otherwise .

rip bobby
best wishes to the 3 families involved ,
and if pat quirke is 100% guilty ,then throw away the key .

Vicarious Function

kerry cow wrote: »

I had my opinions like every body else but feel that with respect to the families I no long would like to comment any further and appolige if I caused any offence to any one reading or otherwise .

rip bobby
best wishes to the 3 families involved ,
and if pat quirke is 100% guilty ,then throw away the key .

What made you suddenly change your mind?

And BTW, it's RIP or R.I.P. or Rest In Peace, Bobby - not "rip bobby". The families are probably not going to be very impressed by that.

brooke 2

Minnie Snuggles wrote: »

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

And wear the c(y)ap he wore into court every day which did alter his appearance. One of the journalists remarked that she almost did not recognise him in court as she had only seen pictures of him with the cap previously.

brooke 2

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

Good for her!! Some of the comments made about her were really tasteless. Remarks such as 'what was she thinking of, as she had three young children to look after?!! :mad: Nothing said about the married man with three children cheating on his wife!!

The Talking Bread

kerry cow wrote: »

I had my opinions like every body else but feel that with respect to the families I no long would like to comment any further and appolige if I caused any offence to any one reading or otherwise .

rip bobby
best wishes to the 3 families involved ,
and if pat quirke is 100% guilty ,then throw away the key .

What a load of nonsense. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. Your opinions were very strong and personally damning, referring to them all by first names as if you are acquainted, and making judgements about how the parties involved should act henceforth and what they should and shouldn't do in their private lives, while most other posters here are discussing the actual case, the jury's logic, the evidence, the victim and the accused/sentenced etc.

Stuff like should the family visit him in jail, what should Imelda Quirke do next in her private life, get a new fella, divorce him, and take him to the cleaners",
You say there is no hard evidence yet you still think he should rot in jail, noone should stand by him and he should be financially ruined,

You are as interested , if not moreso about being intrusive in discussing the case than the next person. And very personally damning.

kerry cow

I made my apology and respect the jury's decision ,and no long wish to engage on this thread ,
please stop trolling me .

brooke 2

kerry cow wrote: »

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

According to the Sindo today, Pepper Finance has a charge over the farm which is registered in the names of Pat and Imelda Quirke.

'Quirke's €1million losses in a tale 'more of money than love''. Page 15.

'Pat Quirke racked up losses of more than €1m gambling on stocks and shares and ploughing money into property investments in eastern Europe, a former friend has claimed.'

freshpopcorn

brooke 2 wrote: »

Good for her!! Some of the comments made about her were really tasteless. Remarks such as 'what was she thinking of, as she had three young children to look after?!! :mad: Nothing said about the married man with three children cheating on his wife!!

My only issue with Mary was when she sort of denied going to hotel with him. I did wonder would it make her not look creditable.
Bobby Ryan's daughter also painted Mary in a bad light which helped people portray her in a bad light.

gozunda

freshpopcorn wrote: »

My only issue with Mary was when she sort of denied going to hotel with him. I did wonder would it make her not look creditable.
Bobby Ryan's daughter also painted Mary in a bad light which helped people portray her in a bad light.

Under intense scrutiny most people dont tend to come up smelling of Rose's imo. In fact I cant think of many in my circle of friends, family and acquaintances including myself who would tbh :pac:

brooke 2

judeboy101 wrote: »

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

It is reported that he set up a farm company, Breasha Farms Ltd., in 2014, with himself and Imelda as directors.

freshpopcorn

brooke 2 wrote: »

It is reported that he set up a farm company, Breasha Farms Ltd., in 2014, with himself and Imelda as directors.

I think I posted something similar earlier. From my understanding this means they wont be able to get any money.

freshpopcorn

gozunda wrote: »

Under intense scrutiny most people dont tend to come up smelling of Rose's imo. In fact I cant think of many in my circle of friends, family and acquaintances including myself who would tbh :pac:

Yes, I understand this if she was just straight about the visit to the hotel they'd have being less for them to latch onto.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

My only issue with Mary was when she sort of denied going to hotel with him. I did wonder would it make her not look creditable.
Bobby Ryan's daughter also painted Mary in a bad light which helped people portray her in a bad light.

That hotel debacle was bizarre.

For anyone who isn't fully familiar with the case, Mary Lowry claimed she had become afraid of Patrick Quirke/ ended the relationship. It was then shown that her credit card was used to book a hotel room with him, invoiced to her personal email, but she 'could not recollect' staying in this five-star hotel when she was supposedly terrified of him.

To stay it stretches credibility is an understatement. I can only assume it provoked some very bewildered reaction among the jurors, to say the least.

brooke 2

cannotlogin wrote: »

Finally an article which thinks of the two women connected with the trial, both suffering, in different ways, due to Patrick Quirke

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/larissa-nolan-comment-where-support-14997547.amp

Jeez, look at how he treated his own mother! My first time hearing that Joe Duffy clip. :eek:

Just on a related note, I'm reminded that people are accusing others of not advancing an alternative theory...

Just want to mention that firstly, we are proscribed by the laws of defamation, and that it's unfair to ask people to advance alternative evidence which has not been put into the public domain, but also want to remark that there is no doubt whatever about the total innocence of Mary Lowry.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just on a related note, I'm reminded that people are accusing others of not advancing an alternative theory...

Just want to mention that firstly, we are proscribed by the laws of defamation, and that it's unfair to ask people to advance alternative evidence which has not been put into the public domain, but also want to remark that there is no doubt whatever about the total innocence of Mary Lowry.

The point isn’t that *we* can’t come up with an alternative theory, the point is that the defence couldn’t.

The easiest way to create reasonable doubt would have been to point to another credible suspect.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The point isn’t that *we* can’t come up with an alternative theory, the point is that the defence couldn’t.

The easiest way to create reasonable doubt would have been to point to another credible suspect.

That's equally fallacious. The first observation to make is that, in law the Defence need prove nothing. All of the burden lies on the Prosecution side.

But secondly, the Defence had no access to any forensic or empirical testing, only the Gardaí had that and to be fair, they bungled a lot of it.

I'm not convinced that there was a great injustice done in this trial, even if I wouldn't have convicted Quirke with certainty.

Nevertheless what this trial did uncover was a gross incompetence within An Garda when investigating some criminal cases.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The point isn’t that *we* can’t come up with an alternative theory, the point is that the defence couldn’t.

The easiest way to create reasonable doubt would have been to point to another credible suspect.

Nonsense, anybody can kill anybody at any particular time......
What if there was a break in to the farm yard and Bobby disturbed them....it’s not up to the Defence to prove this.

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's equally fallacious. The first observation to make is that, in law the Defence need prove nothing. All of the burden lies on the Prosecution side.

I understand that completely, it doesn’t contradict what I said though. Those two modules of law you did ten years ago aren’t really standing to you on this thread.

The Defence doesn’t *have* to prove anything. However, if they want to create reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jurors, one of the easiest ways to do that would have been to say “Mr X also had motive to kill Ryan”, “Mr Y also had access to the place the body was found”.

The fact that there are no other suspects works against Quirke massively.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Nonsense, anybody can kill anybody at any particular time......
What if there was a break in to the farm yard and Bobby disturbed them....it’s not up to the Defence to prove this.

I could write six or seven paragraphs on why this theory is stupid but I don’t have time.

Instead, I’ll simply ask why Quirke’s defence didn’t advance it?

monkeybutter

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think I posted something similar earlier. From my understanding this means they wont be able to get any money.

Why would that stop them suing him? The papers mentioned it but put no reason forward for it

Muahahaha

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Do I think he did it? Yes.
Did I expect the jury to find a guilty verdict? I swayed the whole time but I was hoping they would.
Do I think he may have had help? I couldn't rule it out to be honest.

I had been thinking that the lack of DNA in the van was problematic and also that he had help in either moving it there or getting back from there. But The Talking Bread below says that the van was not even checked for fingerprints until 7.5 years after the murder. Its also been stated that DNA was found in the van but that it was "unidentifiable". Does DNA evidence degrade over time? If so it would explain why Quirkes DNA was never found there.

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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.

It sounds like massive incompetence on behalf the local Gardai down there. To put him down as a missing person seems bizarre given what local Gardai already knew before he went missing and afterwards in their invesitgation, namely-
1.They knew Quirke had both burgled and assaulted Mary Lowry
2. They knew Quirke was having an affair with Lowry
3. They knew Bobby Ryan was also in a relationship with Lowry
4. They knew that Bobby Ryans daughter had told them that Quirke had threatened Ryan, they knew he had called him from Lowrys phone telling him "I'm the man" and telling him to stay away from Mary
5. They knew Marys brother had told them that Quirke was trying get him to warn Mary off Bobby by calling him a womaniser

So much the Gardai knew as part of their investigations yet they never thought of the possibilty that this could be more than a missing persons case? They never once thought to test the van of Bobby Ryan for fingerprints and DNA till 7.5 years after the event? They never searched Mary Lowrys house, the last place we know Ryan was for certain. Seems like madness, what were they thinking?

IMO the local Gardai fcuked up here massively. We've also got to remember that they dropped one of the concrete slabs on Ryans body too, thus corrupting the crime scene. The guilty verdict was delivered because of three main pieces of evidence which were found by trojan work of other Gardai from outside the area. Without the specialist Gardai finding the internet searches, the larvae expert and the forensic notepad analysis there would have been no conviction. Those Gardai should be given a medal, the local Gardai should be given a reprimand.

freshpopcorn

monkeybutter wrote: »

Why would that stop them suing him? The papers mentioned it but put no reason forward for it

I'm unsure to be honest maybe a legal person could clear it up for us but he probably had some logic in doing it or them saying it.
They probably could sue him but it might mean they'd get a lot less.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I could write six or seven paragraphs on why this theory is stupid but I don’t have time.

Instead, I’ll simply ask why Quirke’s defence didn’t advance it?

Anybody can be killed for any reason surely you understand that?

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Anybody can be killed for any reason surely you understand that?

Only a handful of people knew about the tank where the body was found... seriously do some reading on this if you want to have a conversation about it.

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just on a related note, I'm reminded that people are accusing others of not advancing an alternative theory...

Just want to mention that firstly, we are proscribed by the laws of defamation, and that it's unfair to ask people to advance alternative evidence which has not been put into the public domain, but also want to remark that there is no doubt whatever about the total innocence of Mary Lowry.

No you need to put one forward based on the evidence, not some random made up nonsense

Seeing as you have some sort of doubt, unreasonable as it is

Who else did it, given some randomer couldn't have put him in a tank they had no way of knowing was there, given it wasn't spotted by the police

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The point isn’t that *we* can’t come up with an alternative theory, the point is that the defence couldn’t.

The easiest way to create reasonable doubt would have been to point to another credible suspect.

as the Jury will have been instructed, there is no onus on the Defence to advance any alternative theory. That is not the job of a Defence. It would be unreasonable to expect the Defence to advance any alternative theory, particularly when it has no chance of resorting to its own investigation. It simply does not have such resources available to it.

Do an Internet search for 'The Golden Thread' in law. There are centuries of reasoning which explain this basic principle.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Only a handful of people knew about the tank where the body was found... seriously do some reading on this if you want to have a conversation about it.

Really, locals would have known....where I live they know what you had for breakfast!

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

No you need to put one forward based on the evidence, not some random made up nonsense

Seeing as you have some sort of doubt, unreasonable as it is

Who else did it, given some randomer couldn't have put him in a tank they had no way of knowing was there, given it wasn't spotted by the police

Dear Miss Marple,

Your reasoning seems to be one of 'Finders Keepers', but such an approach is wholly rejected by every Court in this land. I don't know who killed Bobby Ryan, and I sincerely doubt that you are certain of the identity of his killer either.

monkeybutter

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Anybody can be killed for any reason surely you understand that?

Ronald McDonald killed for eating at burger king?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

as the Jury will have been instructed, there is no onus on the Defence to advance any alternative theory. That is not the job of a Defence. It would be unreasonable to expect the Defence to advance any alternative theory, particularly when it has no chance of resorting to its own investigation. It simply does not have such resources available to it.

Do an Internet search for 'The Golden Thread' in law. There are centuries of reasoning which explain this basic principle.

You're not paying attention.

I have already clarified that I fully understand there is no *onus* or obligation on the Defence to advance an alternative theory.

My point isn't that they had an obligation to do so. My point is that to do their job, and create enough reasonable doubt to get their client off, coming up with a shred of evidence that Ryan had another enemy would have strengthened their case immensely.

They had access to all the same witnesses the Prosecution had, and could have cross-examined them as regards any other enemies Ryan might have had, anyone with a grudge.

Please don't make me repeat myself again

Necro

Muahahaha wrote: »

I had been thinking that the lack of DNA in the van was problematic and also that he had help in either moving it there or getting back from there. But The Talking Bread below says that the van was not even checked for fingerprints until 7.5 years after the murder. Its also been stated that DNA was found in the van but that it was "unidentifiable". Does DNA evidence degrade over time? If so it would explain why Quirkes DNA was never found there.



It sounds like massive incompetence on behalf the local Gardai down there. To put him down as a missing person seems bizarre given what local Gardai already knew before he went missing and afterwards in their invesitgation, namely-
1.They knew Quirke had both burgled and assaulted Mary Lowry
2. They knew Quirke was having an affair with Lowry
3. They knew Bobby Ryan was also in a relationship with Lowry
4. They knew that Bobby Ryans daughter had told them that Quirke had threatened Ryan, they knew he had called him from Lowrys phone telling him "I'm the man" and telling him to stay away from Mary
5. They knew Marys brother had told them that Quirke was trying get him to warn Mary off Bobby by calling him a womaniser

So much the Gardai knew as part of their investigations yet they never thought of the possibilty that this could be more than a missing persons case? They never once thought to test the van of Bobby Ryan for fingerprints and DNA till 7.5 years after the event? They never searched Mary Lowrys house, the last place we know Ryan was for certain. Seems like madness, what were they thinking?

IMO the local Gardai fcuked up here massively. We've also got to remember that they dropped one of the concrete slabs on Ryans body too, thus corrupting the crime scene. The guilty verdict was delivered because of three main pieces of evidence which were found by trojan work of other Gardai from outside the area. Without the specialist Gardai finding the internet searches, the larvae expert and the forensic notepad analysis there would have been no conviction. Those Gardai should be given a medal, the local Gardai should be given a reprimand.

Therein lies your contradiction. Local rural stations don't have specialist Gardai, they don't even have a detective branch (or sometimes stations equipped to handle evidence).

There's a lot there that we all know now, but exactly how much did they know at the time of Ryan's disappearance? No one can say with any certainty.

As for the slab, the way it was handled with the pathologist refusing to attend the scene was absolutely bizarre, that's also on him imo.

Mistakes were made but local Gardai in rural areas are used to doing checkpoints and a couple of drink drivers on a Saturday night, not complex murder cases.

I'm not saying this is the right way to run a police force, but it's a simple fact. It's too simplistic just to blame local Gardai imo.

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Really, locals would have known....where I live they know what you had for breakfast!

It was clearly established in court that only a handful of people knew that tank was there. Your wild speculation is a grand way to pass a Sunday afternoon I suppose, but it's nothing more than that.

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Dear Miss Marple,

Your reasoning seems to be one of 'Finders Keepers', but such an approach is wholly rejected by every Court in this land. I don't know who killed Bobby Ryan, and I sincerely doubt that you are certain of the identity of his killer either.

Of course I do, Pat Quirke

I mean who else?

Wrongway1985

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Nonsense, anybody can kill anybody at any particular time......
What if there was a break in to the farm yard and Bobby disturbed them....it’s not up to the Defence to prove this.

No that's nonsense it couldn't have been "anybody" somebody conviently placed bales of silage and whatnot where the tank was prior to the initial search on the farm. This was quite clearly someone with close contact with the farm. Was it ever clarified who put them there actually? If it was "anybody" why would this go unnoticed and in turn accidently diminish Garda investigations?

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You're not paying attention.

I have already clarified that I fully understand there is no *onus* or obligation on the Defence to advance an alternative theory.

My point isn't that they had an obligation to do so.

Your point, insofar as you have any, is that there was no onus, but there was an obligation.

Right. You're now drawing a semantic distinction between onus and obligation, and hoping that the people of AH will agree with you? I always felt you were making your case unnecessarily difficult, but now I am quite convinced. Best of luck!

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Your point, insofar as you have any, is that there was no onus, but there was an obligation.

Right. You're now drawing a semantic distinction between onus and obligation, and hoping that the people of AH will agree with you? Best of luck.

No, I'm not. You're misunderstanding me, on purpose I think.

I'll try and walk you through it once more.

The Defence does not have any onus or obligation to present an alternative scenario. They don't have to. They don't need to.

Their job is to create reasonable doubt that their client did it.

One of the easiest ways to put doubt into the minds of the jurors would have been to present a viable alternative suspect. Simply by presenting someone else with a motive, they would have poked a massive hole in the prosecution's case.

So they didn't have to, there was no onus, they weren't obliged to, they didn't need to... but it would have served their client well if they had.

Get it?

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

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

Thought there was 3 mentioned in the papers? Not that you can believe everything in the papers.[/QUOTE]

What’s wrong with that? Yes, one was married but as far as I know the other two were free and single as she is.

the_pen_turner

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just on a related note, I'm reminded that people are accusing others of not advancing an alternative theory...

Just want to mention that firstly, we are proscribed by the laws of defamation, and that it's unfair to ask people to advance alternative evidence which has not been put into the public domain, but also want to remark that there is no doubt whatever about the total innocence of Mary Lowry.

we are limited in what we can say due to defamation so any theory we have cant realy be voiced here

how do we know mary is totally inocent. i cant say that neither can you. legally she is inocent until proven guilty . that doesnt mean she had nothing to do with it. there are too many un knowns with this case to rule her out. a lot of the circumstantioal evidence againts pat quirke would also be against her. such as knowing about the tank, last person to see bobby ryan, dna in van asking for tanks to be emptied, etc

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Their job is to create reasonable doubt that their client did it.?

I'm sorry but this is simply wrong.

The Defence need prove nothing.

Edit: I have just deleted a paragraph of explanation, but it would only detract from the principle of what I am saying. The Defence need not prove a thing. All of the burden of proof falls upon the Prosecution.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It was clearly established in court that only a handful of people knew that tank was there. Your wild speculation is a grand way to pass a Sunday afternoon I suppose, but it's nothing more than that.

Your the one coming on here telling us it was up to the Defence to come up with an alternative theory...........thanks for the laugh!!

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

we are limited in what we can say due to defamation so any theory we have cant realy be voiced here

how do we know mary is totally inocent. i cant say that neither can you. legally she is inocent until proven guilty . that doesnt mean she had nothing to do with it. there are too many un knowns with this case to rule her out. a lot of the circumstantioal evidence againts pat quirke would also be against her. such as knowing about the tank, last person to see bobby ryan, dna in van asking for tanks to be emptied, etc

The laws of defamation limit what we can say. Let me say this. There is no evidence that Mary Lowry was an accomplice in this case.

We are not allowed to say that. She is totally innocent and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and a fantasist.

McCrack

At the end of the day the only decision that matters is the jury's decision and not the pack of fishwives on this thread speculating on reading media reports of the trial and the bar stool lawyers

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

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

Thought there was 3 mentioned in the papers? Not that you can believe everything in the papers.

What’s wrong with that? Yes, one was married but as far as I know the other two were free and single as she is.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, never said there was

McCrack

McCrack wrote: »

At the end of the day the only decision that matters is the jury's decision and not the pack of fishwives on this thread speculating on reading media reports of the trial and the bar stool lawyers

Indulge me. Let us begin with the reference to fishwives. Why did you choose that term, which in the minds of most people, will refer to gossiping, "uncouth", uneducated women (but especially women) ?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is simply wrong.

The Defence need prove nothing.

Edit: I have just deleted a paragraph of explanation, but it would only detract from the principle of what I am saying. The Defence need not prove a thing. All of the burden of proof falls upon the Prosecution.

This is getting super boring.

I've already acknowledged what you said above is correct twice.

The Defence has a job... it's to defend their client. Can we agree that the job of the Defence is to defend their client? I presume so. How do you think they do that??

The way Defence attorneys defend their clients is by dismantling the case the Prosecution presents and challenging their evidence.

In this trial, the Prosecution spent a lot of time establishing Quirke's motive. The role of the Defence here would have been to either challenge the fact that Quirke had a motive (impossible as his motive was so clearly proven), or alternatively to point out that one or more other people also had a motive.

They are not required to prove anything, but if they were able to tear down this piece of the Prosecution's case, which again IS THEIR JOB, it would have been much more difficult to secure 10 guilty votes.

the_pen_turner

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It was clearly established in court that only a handful of people knew that tank was there. Your wild speculation is a grand way to pass a Sunday afternoon I suppose, but it's nothing more than that.

i dont know how they could say only a hand full knew of the tank. how would you do that.

mary lowry knew
her deceesed husband knew
presumably her family could easily have heard about it or seen it

pat quirke knew
his family could easily know

any previous tennants

polish worker (S) would have seen it

contracters in building it or emptying it
any workers in or around the milking parlor could have known it was there

truck drivers colecting milk etc

anyone in 'lamping rabbits'

anyone in doing anykind work on the farm like vets, contracters, mainance guys, etc etc.


could easily be 50-100 that would have seen it. how may would remember it .i cannot see how it would only be a handfull