Patrick Quirke -Guilty

KikiLaRue

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

It's underground, and hadn't been opened since 2008. So that rules out a lot of the people you mentioned above.

Are you suggesting Mary Lowry's husband came back from beyond the grave and killed him??

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

What have you got to say? You can alude to it without defaming anyone

monkeybutter

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

No, did you watch the prime time special?

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

What have you got to say? You can alude to it without defaming anyone

I have no interest in defaming anyone. When I say that Mary Lowry had nothing to do with Bobby Ryan's murder, I mean that completely. It simply does not arise. Any speculation to that effect makes no sense.

the_pen_turner

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

im not saying she is anything other than innocent .
there is circumstantioal evidence againt her just like there was against pat quirke allbe it a lot less.




'believes otherwise is a fool and a fantasist'. not so sure. there are a lot of holes in this case . anyone could be involved . nobody should be above suspition

monkeybutter

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's underground, and hadn't been opened since 2008. So that rules out a lot of the people you mentioned above.

Are you suggesting Mary Lowry's husband came back from beyond the grave and killed him??

At least he would have a motive ffs

Nobelium

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

Putting forward some amateur ham fisted theory about who else it could have been, without their own resource intense thorough investigation (on legal aid resources !) would have harmed the defence not helped it. The defence did make the mistake of trying to blacken Mary Lowry (as silly and unwise as she was, she committed no crime) and it backfired. They should have focused their attention on the prosecution's distinct lack of evidence for proving beyond doubt that Quirke not alone killed Ryan, but murdered him.

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no interest in defaming anyone. When I say that Mary Lowry had nothing to do with Bobby Ryan's murder, I mean that completely. It simply does not arise. Any speculation to that effect makes no sense.

What are you speculating? I know it's nonsesnse of course

monkeybutter

Nobelium wrote: »

Putting forward some amateur ham fisted theory about who else it could have been, without their own resource intense thorough investigation (on legal aid resources !) would have harmed the defence not helped it. The defence did make the mistake of trying to blacken Mary Lowry (as silly and unwise as she was, she committed no crime) and it backfired. They should have focused their attention on the prosecution's distinct lack of evidence for proving beyond doubt that Quirke not alone killed Ryan, but murdered him.

The polices job is not to ignore evidence, it just wasn't there

KikiLaRue

Nobelium wrote: »

Putting forward some amateur ham fisted theory about who else it could have been, without their own resource intense thorough investigation (on legal aid resources !) would have harmed the defence not helped it.

Well, it was Quirke's mistake to use legal aid given his significant resources.

I wouldn't advise an amateur hamfisted theory myself, I suggested finding another credible suspect. You're right, with legal aid resources that may have been difficult, if he funded his own defence and hired a decent team it would have been a much more viable option.

Calypso Realm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

mary lowry knew

I'm sure I read somewhere Mary hadn't known about the tank until the day the remains were discovered.

4ensic15

Nobelium wrote: »

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

Quirke had two senior counsel. All of the senior counsel who defend murder case do so on legal aid. It is very rarely the case that a murder case runs without legal aid. Given the length of time take for the case to run it would have cost well over €1m if privately funded. Quirk did not have that much available to him.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

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.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, never said there was[/QUOTE]

You claimed that Ms Lowry had a number of previous lovers. This is incorrect. I was just pointing out this to you.

“Originally Posted by blackcard View Post
Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers ”

BENDYBINN

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

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?

If you could prove that they were deliberately left there to conceal the tank and not just stored there then to me it would be beyond reasonable doubt. Why didn’t the guards investigate this further?

KikiLaRue

BENDYBINN wrote: »

If you could prove that they were deliberately left there to conceal the tank and not just stored there then to me it would be beyond reasonable doubt. Why didn’t the guards investigate this further?

Who says they didn't?

Its an enquiry that went on or years and a court case that went on for months, we're probably not aware of the full extent of the investigation.

BENDYBINN

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Who says they didn't?

Its an enquiry that went on or years and a court case that went on for months, we're probably not aware of the full extent of the investigation.

So they weren’t put there to conceal the tank?

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

What are you speculating? I know it's nonsesnse of course

I have no interest in speculating, that would be a pointless and fruitless exercise.

There are a small number of us who are interested in critically discussing the verdict of this case, and the credibility of the Jury trial. There is another cohort on this thread who seem more interested in the soap opera aspect.

I don't care why someone is interested in Bobby Ryan's murder, but I don't care about the soap opera aspect, either. Gossip and speculation is completely pointless.

upupup

Ryu Hayabusa wrote: »

Clearly would not be a world to use so soon, pat quirke will appeal due to lack of evidence and it will be a retrial.

There is more to what happened, that has not been brought to light.

The polish worker on the farm, why did he return to Poland so quick? Irish authorities contacted polish authorities but the guy had died by suicide.

Why did he Kill himself after returning to Poland, what did he see or know from his time in Tipperary? Was he also involved in the cover up

The suicide is unclear....What is known is that he cannot be found and maybe does not want to be found

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteI'm trying to leave everybody natter away here but the last few posts abut Mary Lowry's son went to far.

Necro

Yep, think I'm done with this thread after those last few comments.

Peace out folks.

Nobelium

monkeybutter wrote: »

The polices job is not to ignore evidence, it just wasn't there

I don't recall making either claim

Nobelium

4ensic15 wrote: »

Quirke had two senior counsel. All of the senior counsel who defend murder case do so on legal aid. It is very rarely the case that a murder case runs without legal aid. Given the length of time take for the case to run it would have cost well over €1m if privately funded. Quirk did not have that much available to him.

Quirke had 3 million in assets but transferred them to a ltd. co before the trial

Ryu Hayabusa

Necro wrote: »

Yep, think I'm done with this thread after those last few comments.

Peace out folks.

Thanks for your contribution

the_pen_turner

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's underground, and hadn't been opened since 2008. So that rules out a lot of the people you mentioned above.

Are you suggesting Mary Lowry's husband came back from beyond the grave and killed him??

2008 .so only 3 years before Bobby Ryan went missing.



Don't be daft, of course I'm not suggesting her husband did it

4ensic15

Nobelium wrote: »

Quirke had 3 million in assets but transferred them to a ltd. co before the trial

Where are you getting this 3m figure from. He had a small farm and had lost money on off farm investments.

Nobelium

4ensic15 wrote: »

Where are you getting this 3m figure from. He had a small farm and had lost money on off farm investments.

Looks like he fooled you as well then

He registered Breansha Farms Limited on March 26, 2014 to avoid losing his 50-acre farm if he was ­convicted of the Bobby Ryan's murder.

As part of his plot to hide his assets, Quirke listed himself as an employee of the firm, meaning his earnings of between €10,000 and €15,000 per year would be under the minimum wage.

But despite Quirke having ­property interests in Poland and in Tipperary — understood to be in the region of €3 million — he still received legal aid in his quest to avoid a life sentence.https://www.thesun.ie/news/4056197/mary-lowry-breaks-silence-patrick-quirke/

freshpopcorn

Here's an article from January 2005 where Quirke gave financial advice!

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/be-patient-but-dont-wait-too-long-26005662.html

Excellent article here explaining what Gardai believe happened.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/extraordinary-tale-of-bobby-ryans-murder-has-left-a-mark-on-rural-tipperary-which-will-last-generations-38079964.html

Also, this piece- I hadn’t realized he denied there being a third tank on the farm-another lie.

Gardai did search two of three tanks on the farm. But not the one that Bobby Ryan's body was in - because Pat Quirke was one of only four people who knew it existed. When a garda asked if there were other tanks, Quirke said there were not. This, too, became a strand of circumstantial evidence.

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent article here explaining what Gardai believe happened.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/extraordinary-tale-of-bobby-ryans-murder-has-left-a-mark-on-rural-tipperary-which-will-last-generations-38079964.html

Also, this piece- I hadn’t realized he denied there being a third tank on the farm-another lie.

Gardai did search two of three tanks on the farm. But not the one that Bobby Ryan's body was in - because Pat Quirke was one of only four people who knew it existed. When a garda asked if there were other tanks, Quirke said there were not. This, too, became a strand of circumstantial evidence.

Who were the other 3?

the_pen_turner

monkeybutter wrote: »

No, did you watch the prime time special?

No. What did it say

blackcard

Deleted User wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

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.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, never said there was

You claimed that Ms Lowry had a number of previous lovers. This is incorrect. I was just pointing out this to you.

“Originally Posted by blackcard View Post
Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers ”[/quote]
I stand corrected. Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with 2 previous lovers.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

Who were the other 3?

No idea but it’s claimed as fact- and I don’t recall the defense listing off names of people who knew about it- which would have looked a bit stupid anyway because you’re then trying to rope more people in as suspects- the jury would have laughed them out of court.
The fact is Quirke lied to Gardai about the tank- then found the body in the tank- that’s strong evidence in my book.

Odelay

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

There’s a similar tank on my parents farm. These things are not big. No contractors were involved when it was built, it was dug by hand in the 70s, similar to Lowrys tank.
Only person alive that now knows about it is me. I went looking for it a few weeks ago and couldn’t find it as it is overgrown with grass for the last 20 years and it is disused.
These things aren’t tourist attractions that are pointed out to everyone that visits the farm. These things are not obvious like a slurry tank.

McCrack

blackcard wrote: »

Who were the other 3?

We dont know yet

Tune in next week

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

You claimed that Ms Lowry had a number of previous lovers. This is incorrect. I was just pointing out this to you.

“Originally Posted by blackcard View Post
Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with a number of previous lovers ”

I stand corrected. Let's say that Mary Lowry was getting fed up with Ryan as she did with 2 previous lovers.[/QUOTE]

Who were her two previous lovers?

the_pen_turner

Odelay wrote: »

There’s a similar tank on my parents farm. These things are not big. No contractors were involved when it was built, it was dug by hand in the 70s, similar to Lowrys tank.
Only person alive that now knows about it is me. I went looking for it a few weeks ago and couldn’t find it as it is overgrown with grass for the last 20 years and it is disused.
These things aren’t tourist attractions that are pointed out to everyone that visits the farm. These things are not obvious like a slurry tank.

i disagree.

probably around 6feet by 10 . not that small .
my father built loads of these type thing years ago , i asked him how many tanks like that are around and he could name 4 farms he built similar set ups on.

this tank wasnt abandoned for 20 years.
i know its not a tourist attraction on a farm but it would be there for all to see anyone working there near the milking parlour could have walked around to there and seen it. i have been on loads of farms repairing and building stuff for farmers, i often end up looking around for something for the job (maybe some timber or a few slates etc)
i would know deatails of farms in my area like this . my own uncle had a similar tank off an old milking parlour . we all knew it was there, eventually a diferent uncle parked a bale trailer in it one day

monkeybutter

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no interest in speculating, that would be a pointless and fruitless exercise.

There are a small number of us who are interested in critically discussing the verdict of this case, and the credibility of the Jury trial. There is another cohort on this thread who seem more interested in the soap opera aspect.

I don't care why someone is interested in Bobby Ryan's murder, but I don't care about the soap opera aspect, either. Gossip and speculation is completely pointless.

You are already speculating

monkeybutter

the_pen_turner wrote: »

No. What did it say

It shows where the tank was, no one would know it was there, no vets or even the nosiest polish people

anthonyos

He could off filled the tank with slurry stuck the slurry agitator in to it and mixing it by the sounds of things the body was like jelly so it would of mixed with the slurry.then bring it to his own farm a spread it over a small area cjecking after there is no recognisable body parts that a cat might take back to it's owner ie a finger
. Remove bones from tanks smash with hammer and spread the out along the road.

monkeybutter

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i disagree.

probably around 6feet by 10 . not that small .
my father built loads of these type thing years ago , i asked him how many tanks like that are around and he could name 4 farms he built similar set ups on.

this tank wasnt abandoned for 20 years.
i know its not a tourist attraction on a farm but it would be there for all to see anyone working there near the milking parlour could have walked around to there and seen it. i have been on loads of farms repairing and building stuff for farmers, i often end up looking around for something for the job (maybe some timber or a few slates etc)
i would know deatails of farms in my area like this . my own uncle had a similar tank off an old milking parlour . we all knew it was there, eventually a diferent uncle parked a bale trailer in it one day

It sounds like you were one of the few who knew there was a tank on this farm, given all the tanks you know about, suspicious

I'm sure the person who built it knows it's there, mostly the parlour just drains into the slurry tank, so you wouldn't be expecting one to be there

It was in a field out the back of the parlour, very few people would have known it was there

Now all you need to do is find someone who knew it was there and who had a motive to kill Ryan, had opportunity to do it, had access to the farm to dump the body there and somehow amazing found the body just as you were to lose access to the farm

Then I think we have the killer

monkeybutter

anthonyos wrote: »

He could off filled the tank with slurry stuck the slurry agitator in to it and mixing it by the sounds of things the body was like jelly so it would of mixed with the slurry.then bring it to his own farm a spread it over a small area cjecking after there is no recognisable body parts that a cat might take back to it's owner ie a finger
. Remove bones from tanks smash with hammer and spread the out along the road.

Let's see, let's make the horrible task of dismembering a body dead for 2 plus years even more horrible by covering it in cow **** and blocking up your slurry spreader with bones etc

You should try it sometime

the_pen_turner

monkeybutter wrote: »

It shows where the tank was, no one would know it was there, no vets or even the nosiest polish people

looks to me that it is beside the farm and behind an old shed. but it is also besde a newish gate that leads out into the field that has a path worn to it. #
surely the polish worker that worked for pat quirke would have been around that area. why wouldnt a vet have potentially been in that field. farmers often put animals that are sick in fields close to the farm so they can keep a good eye on them.

Road-Hog

Nobelium wrote: »

What evidence did the state produce that it was murder instead of a killing ?
The justice system doesn't work on the basis "prove it was not a murder", the justice system work on the basis prove it was.



Exactly, not you either.



The same point applies to you, you did not sit through the full 7/8 weeks of the trial, and the juries decision was not unanimous.

I think Quirke likely killed/murdered him, and is a slimeball, but I've seen nothing of substance being posted here that changes my mind about the quality of the state evidence not being sufficient to prove for me a verdict beyond all reasonable doubt.

‘Nothing of substance posted here’.....says it all......one needs to attend the court in the public viewing section for the entire length of the trial to be any way credible in saying the jury got it wrong.....I doubt it some how if you were there each day....?

Odelay

anthonyos wrote: »

He could off filled the tank with slurry stuck the slurry agitator in to it and mixing it by the sounds of things the body was like jelly so it would of mixed with the slurry.then bring it to his own farm a spread it over a small area cjecking after there is no recognisable body parts that a cat might take back to it's owner ie a finger
. Remove bones from tanks smash with hammer and spread the out along the road.

Not possible and he didn’t have an agitator.

Nobelium

Road-Hog wrote: »

‘Nothing of substance posted here’.....says it all......one needs to attend the court in the public viewing section for the entire length of the trial to be any way credible in saying the jury got it wrong.....I doubt it some how if you were there each day....?

Did you attend ? then if not you opinion is the same as anyone else's here. As for the rest of the post stop lying and pretending what people have posted, I didn't claim the jury got it wrong because as I've already pointed out the jury 's verdict wasn't a unanimous decision for starters, and I've said in my opinion, Quirke likely killed Ryan, but I've still seen nothing yet that would persuade me the charge of Quirke murdering Ryan (never mind killing) was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which requires a very high standard of evidence) by the state. If you can't handle other peoples opinions differing from yours, perhaps a discussion thread is not for you.

monkeybutter

the_pen_turner wrote: »

looks to me that it is beside the farm and behind an old shed. but it is also besde a newish gate that leads out into the field that has a path worn to it. #
surely the polish worker that worked for pat quirke would have been around that area. why wouldnt a vet have potentially been in that field. farmers often put animals that are sick in fields close to the farm so they can keep a good eye on them.

They'd normally keep them in a shed for easy access to be honest, then the vet needs to be out looking around the field for tanks for no reason , it's say a 1 in 100 chance you'd stumble across this tank if you were just walking the field

On the off chance he founfd it, then it's clear the vet did it, again, this vet would be one of the few, so we are up to 3 people now

Now this supposed nosey polish lad that no one knows about, now he had access to the farm, supposedly, although no one has a clue really, again, he could have walked the land, he could have stumbled across the tank, same chance as the vet, now we are up to


2 adults, quirke and Lowry, maybe her kids, 10 year olds, I'd say we rule them out , and maybe 100 to one chance of 2 unknown others who could have know it was there

monkeybutter

McCrack wrote: »

For **** sake

This thread has to be one of the worst threads going

I hope Antony cleared his browser history after all that

McCrack

anthonyos wrote: »

He could off filled the tank with slurry stuck the slurry agitator in to it and mixing it by the sounds of things the body was like jelly so it would of mixed with the slurry.then bring it to his own farm a spread it over a small area cjecking after there is no recognisable body parts that a cat might take back to it's owner ie a finger
. Remove bones from tanks smash with hammer and spread the out along the road.

For **** sake

This thread has to be one of the worst threads going

And completely insensitive

If it's not the fishwives barking at one another, it's the policing experts or bar stool lawyers or people with overrun imaginations

Terrible thread

Nobelium

McCrack wrote: »

For **** sake

This thread has to be one of the worst threads going

And completely insensitive

If it's not the fishwives barking at one another, it's the policing experts or bar stool lawyers or people with overrun imaginations

Terrible thread

They will be feeding the body to the pigs next

Wtf ?

Lots of Bar stool detectives about tonight !:D