Patrick Quirke -Guilty

freshpopcorn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Was there ever any reports on what Quirke did after Ryans dissappearance? I presume tons of locals volunteered to search the woods with Gardai, did Quirke help in the search?

Yes, they said he helped search the woods!

freshpopcorn

blackcard wrote: »

I would imagine that you might have to get a search warrant if you were refused access

Yes, the Gardai did the searches of the farm tough and probably felt there was no need for these guys!
It's easy enough for them to say they'd have found the body in hindsight tough.

In future cases they'll all be more careful around tanks/etc.

blackcard

Electric Sheep wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

I read an account in the newspapers where Bobby Ryan's daughter stated that she was with him the night before he disappeared. She stated that he was bombarded with texts from Mary Lowry and said that he had better go over to see what the story was. I think that they had a bit of a tiff a few days previously. Would Bobby Ryan have stayed at Mary Lowry's without getting these texts?

As I posted earlier, the evidence presented at the trial contradicted That story. Only two texts from Mary Lowry were received by Bobby Ryan that night. No bombardment. I suspect that Michelle Ryan's dislike of Mary Lowry distorted her recollection of that night.

Fair enough. But would he have stayed at Mary Lowry's house without receiving the 2 texts? Or had he a weekly routine?

KikiLaRue

blackcard wrote: »

Fair enough. But would he have stayed at Mary Lowry's house without receiving the 2 texts? Or had he a weekly routine?

Are we going to regard him staying over at his girlfriend's house as suspicious now?

freshpopcorn

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Are we going to regard him staying over at his girlfriend's house as suspicious now?

If we were to be very technical about it maybe.
Well would he normally decided to go and stay after a few texts or was he somebody who'd normally planned things would be one question.
Was it normal for Mary to text him to come over that night or what set up did they have,etc.

blackcard

KikiLaRue wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

Fair enough. But would he have stayed at Mary Lowry's house without receiving the 2 texts? Or had he a weekly routine?

Are we going to regard him staying over at his girlfriend's house as suspicious now?

No. I am just trying to figure out in terms of planning when it would be known that Ryan was staying there that night

Calypso Realm

blackcard wrote: »

The other curious thing is that a member of the search party for Bobby Ryan after his disappearance stated that they would have found him if they had been allowed to search the farm. Why were they not allowed?

I read an article where it stated they didn't because they were told it had already been searched by the gardai.

jmreire

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I don't know if it came up before the jury, but it was mentioned a couple of times last night on the VM1 Documentary that, when asked by police during the search of the farm, Quirke was asked if there were more than two underground tanks. He said "No!", when there were actually three. That must be extremely damning.

So sad that the specialist search team were not asked to search the farm, but were sent only to the woods. They are convinced they would have found the body, had they been sent to the farm. What were the GS thinking of? The Ryan family would have been saved all of that heartbreak.

Regarding the Nr of tanks question...Quirke said only 2. But he maintained that the Guard only asked him about the slurry tank's, and there were only two. The Guard coul not recall if he said just "Tanks" or Slurry Tanks.

4ensic15

jmreire wrote: »

Regarding the Nr of tanks question...Quirke said only 2. But he maintained that the Guard only asked him about the slurry tank's, and there were only two. The Guard coul not recall if he said just "Tanks" or Slurry Tanks.

That is ridiculous. Why wasn't the interview videoed? Hasn't the guard got a notebook?

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

Regarding the Nr of tanks question...Quirke said only 2. But he maintained that the Guard only asked him about the slurry tank's, and there were only two. The Guard coul not recall if he said just "Tanks" or Slurry Tanks.

In fairness if you asked me how many tanks we had in the house I grew up in I'd say "one" but in fact there are two, a septic tank and a runoff tank beside it. A runoff tank isn't really a tank as such.

The kind of thing the guards should know of any of them grew up on a dairy farm.

The tank issue seems to be of very dubious relevance. Whoever put the body there, probably Quirke, would have done so precisely because it was a feature that you'd easily overlook or forget about.

If there's any chance that Quirke didn't put the body there, it's very easy to understand how he might overlook it or forget it. That was the whole point of the location.

the_pen_turner

what i find strange and ratehr alarming is that they took the word of the prime suspect as fact and didnt thnk to ask someone else

the.red.baron

blackcard wrote: »

Fair enough. But would he have stayed at Mary Lowry's house without receiving the 2 texts? Or had he a weekly routine?

Why?

the.red.baron

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what i find strange and ratehr alarming is that they took the word of the prime suspect as fact and didnt thnk to ask someone else

What word? About the tanks?

the_pen_turner

the.red.baron wrote: »

What word? About the tanks?

yes

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what i find strange and ratehr alarming is that they took the word of the prime suspect as fact and didnt thnk to ask someone else

They probably did. Mary Lowry says she didn't know it existed.

I reckon she probably didn't, and she's being honest. But I can't understand the certainty people have that Quirke lied about that but not her.

I really am not exaggerating when I say it's frightening how biased people can be when an official accusation is made by the DPP. Suddenly, every action the Accused has taken becomes imbued with guilt, ie a confirmation bias develops, and all roads seem to point towards their guilt.

the.red.baron

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes

Well when did they ask? At the time of the search? I mean he's not a suspect in anything at that point

Alrigghtythen

Lowry said yes, adding that she had found it very intimidating. "Every time I drove down the road I saw missing posters. It was like they were saying I had something to do about this man... missing."

Mr Condon said she had complained to the gardai on June 3 2012 which he noted was the anniversary of Mr Ryan's disappearance. "It was hardly surprising that on the one year anniversary that the family might want to jog people's memories in the area," he said.

It was hardly surprising that the family would want to put up posters, he continued, asking Ms Lowry if it had not struck her as being "astonishingly insensitive" of her.

Ms Lowry replied that she had no problem with the posters and that she herself had put up posters herself - but she said there had been a large amount of posters near her home and it was upsetting her children.

If it upsets my children, I have to sort it. There must've been three or four posters up there," she continued

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/love-rival-trial-witness-complained-about-missing-posters-outside-her-home-37773604.html


3 or 4 posters doesn't seem all that many

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They probably did. Mary Lowry says she didn't know it existed.

I reckon she probably didn't, and she's being honest. But I can't understand the certainty people have that Quirke lied about that but not her.

I really am not exaggerating when I say it's frightening how biased people can be when an official accusation is made by the DPP. Suddenly, every action the Accused has taken becomes imbued with guilt, ie a confirmation bias develops, and all roads seem to point towards their guilt.

She didn't know it existed, why would she

He did he's a dairy farmer, a good one apparently

What are you trying to say

Electric Sheep

the.red.baron wrote: »

Well when did they ask? At the time of the search? I mean he's not a suspect in anything at that point

There was nothing to be suspected of at that point, just a missing person report. Only Quirke new that Ryan had been murdered.

Electric Sheep

the.red.baron wrote: »

Well when did they ask? At the time of the search? I mean he's not a suspect in anything at that point

There was nothing to be suspected of at that point, just a missing person report. Only Quirke new that Ryan had been murdered.

4ensic15

Electric Sheep wrote: »

There was nothing to be suspected of at that point, just a missing person report. Only Quirke new that Ryan had been murdered.

Only if he did it.

the_pen_turner

the.red.baron wrote: »

Well when did they ask? At the time of the search? I mean he's not a suspect in anything at that point

your probably right.
i dont know at what did they start looking at suspects.


i remember there were rummers locally saying pat quirke was responsible the next day

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

She didn't know it existed, why would she

He did he's a dairy farmer, a good one apparently

What are you trying to say

I thought it was clear. I was talking about confirmation bias.

If you're asking am I trying to imply that Mary Lowry is guilty, I'll happily say again -- no. And that's in no way qualified, or said with a nudge and a wink. I'd be shocked if she were involved.

I'm just not certain that Quirke did it either, or did it alone.

the_pen_turner

the.red.baron wrote: »

She didn't know it existed, why would she

He did he's a dairy farmer, a good one apparently

What are you trying to say

why wouldnt she
she owned the farm at the time
she was married to her husband that ran that farm
during that time it would have probably been talked about, maybe even built during her time there

whelan2

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why wouldnt she
she owned the farm at the time
she was married to her husband that ran that farm
during that time it would have probably been talked about, maybe even built during her time there

There are lots of farmers wives who know nothing about the farmyard. Times have changed from years ago

the.red.baron

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why wouldnt she
she owned the farm at the time
she was married to her husband that ran that farm
during that time it would have probably been talked about, maybe even built during her time there

He ran the farm, he built the tank,given the age of kids, long before she was on the scene

jmreire

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why wouldnt she
she owned the farm at the time
she was married to her husband that ran that farm
during that time it would have probably been talked about, maybe even built during her time there[/QUOTE
One of her husbands brother's gave evicence that he was 13 years old when his Father built the tank.. he remember's helping. He described it's construction, It was dug out by hand, lined with 9" cavity block's , with a concrete based and the sides skimmed with plaster. Maybe Mary knew about it, but given the interest she had in the say to day running of the farm, I doubt it very much.

Calypso Realm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why wouldnt she
she owned the farm at the time
she was married to her husband that ran that farm
during that time it would have probably been talked about, maybe even built during her time there

I wouldn't be surprised if she genuinely didn't. I've friends who grew up on farms, who've told me they or their mothers wouldn't know where these tanks were!

According to Jimmy Lowry's evidence he said it was built in the '70 and as far as I remember, he didn't include Mary when asked about those who definitely knew about it.

jmreire

Whatever about who knew or did not know about the runoff tank...the Guards knew about the two slurry tanks...yet there is no mention of them after that... were they searched at any stage before the body was discovered ??

freshpopcorn

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Lowry said yes, adding that she had found it very intimidating. "Every time I drove down the road I saw missing posters. It was like they were saying I had something to do about this man... missing."

Mr Condon said she had complained to the gardai on June 3 2012 which he noted was the anniversary of Mr Ryan's disappearance. "It was hardly surprising that on the one year anniversary that the family might want to jog people's memories in the area," he said.

It was hardly surprising that the family would want to put up posters, he continued, asking Ms Lowry if it had not struck her as being "astonishingly insensitive" of her.

Ms Lowry replied that she had no problem with the posters and that she herself had put up posters herself - but she said there had been a large amount of posters near her home and it was upsetting her children.

If it upsets my children, I have to sort it. There must've been three or four posters up there," she continued

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/love-rival-trial-witness-complained-about-missing-posters-outside-her-home-37773604.html


3 or 4 posters doesn't seem all that many

Bobby's daughter said P45 Mary.
She also said when she went looking for Mary was all over the place that morning.
The two didn't get on I'd say to be honest.
I remember hearing about the posters being tore down at the time on a public Facebook post that was being shared around.

freshpopcorn

jmreire wrote: »

Whatever about who knew or did not know about the runoff tank...the Guards knew about the two slurry tanks...yet there is no mention of them after that... were they searched at any stage before the body was discovered ??

I'm not 100% sure but I got the impression they were searched/checked.

Electric Sheep

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Bobby's daughter said P45 Mary.
She also said when she went looking for Mary was all over the place that morning.
The two didn't get on I'd say to be honest.
I remember hearing about the posters being tore down at the time on a public Facebook post that was being shared around.

She said at least one thing about Mary Lowry that was proved to be untrue in court. I think she is unreliable with regard to statements she makes about Mary Lowry.

Calypso Realm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure but I got the impression they were searched/checked.

As far as I rem they were searched acc the guard's evidence.

Why were they searching tanks though if this was only a missing person's enquiry at this point? Bobby Ryan's van was found near woods elsewhere and he'd have been very unlikely to be found hiding in a slurry tank on the farm! I can see why they wanted to be thorough but I'm wondering if they'd already suspected foul-play?

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

She said at least one thing about Mary Lowry that was proved to be untrue in court. I think she is unreliable with regard to statements she makes about Mary Lowry.

Mary Lowry made some very questionable statements too. It doesn't render unreliable everything else she said, most if which was very balanced, reasonable, and credible.

People are applying quite ridiculous, indeed hypocritical, standards to suit their chosen narratives.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I thought it was clear. I was talking about confirmation bias.

If you're asking am I trying to imply that Mary Lowry is guilty, I'll happily say again -- no. And that's in no way qualified, or said with a nudge and a wink. I'd be shocked if she were involved.

I'm just not certain that Quirke did it either, or did it alone.

Why, he clearly acted alone, there's nothing to indicate otherwise

You need a reason for these mad claims

freshpopcorn

Electric Sheep wrote: »

She said at least one thing about Mary Lowry that was proved to be untrue in court. I think she is unreliable with regard to statements she makes about Mary Lowry.

Is this about the two texts?
Maybe two texts were a lot to receive off Mary.
How exactly were the texts worded maybe they sounded demanding.
Maybe Bobby lied about the amount of texts he received.
If we're disbelief her about this should we all disbelief where she said he was a lovely/jolly man/etc.

freshpopcorn

Calypso Realm wrote: »

As far as I rem they were searched acc the guard's evidence.

Why were they searching tanks though if this was only a missing person's enquiry at this point? Bobby Ryan's van was found near woods elsewhere and he'd have been very unlikely to be found hiding in a slurry tank on the farm! I can see why they wanted to be thorough but I'm wondering if they'd already suspected foul-play?

Just off the top of my head.
They searched the woods first and then moved back to the house/farm after they found out about Mary/Patrick affair and they suspected foul play may have being involved.

the.red.baron

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Is this about the two texts?
Maybe two texts were a lot to receive off Mary.
How exactly were the texts worded maybe they sounded demanding.
Maybe Bobby lied about the amount of texts he received.
If we're disbelief her about this should we all disbelief where she said he was a lovely/jolly man/etc.

It depends how she knew there were lots of messages, presumably she would have heard the phone going if there were

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

Why, he clearly acted alone, there's nothing to indicate otherwise

You need a reason for these mad claims

I don't believe I need a reason for doubts, where those doubts are grounded by a serious dearth of information and a complete lack of forensic evidence.

We don't have access to all of the information from the investigation -- thank goodness for that -- only for those aspects which tended to incriminate Patrick Quirke and the theory advanced by the DPP.

So it is unreasonable to ask anybody to posit an equally (or more) credible theory than that which the Prosecution has proved to the jury's satisfaction by a majority verdict.

But the doubts are sincere.

the.red.baron

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just off the top of my head.
They searched the woods first and then moved back to the house/farm after they found out about Mary/Patrick affair and they suspected foul play may have being involved.

There's nothing to say what they did with the tanks, there were no cows milked there by the sounds of it so would tanks be relatively empty, unless he wasn't running dairy cows out of there

freshpopcorn

the.red.baron wrote: »

It depends how she knew there were lots of messages, presumably she would have heard the phone going if there were

That's exactly it.
Did she hear the texts or did she take his word for it.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't believe I need a reason for doubts, where those doubts are grounded by a serious dearth of information and a complete lack of forensic evidence.

We don't have access to all of the information from the investigation -- thank goodness for that -- only for those aspects which tended to incriminate Patrick Quirke and the theory advanced by the DPP.

So it is unreasonable to ask anybody to posit an equally (or more) credible theory than that which the Prosecution has proved to the jury's satisfaction by a majority verdict.

But the doubts are sincere.

But they have to be based on reality, surely you can understand that, it's not unreasonable at all

You are not mystic meg?

Do you think they ignore evidence, exclude it from the trial? The defence sees everything, in fact they got some items excluded

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't believe I need a reason for doubts, where those doubts are grounded by a serious dearth of information and a complete lack of forensic evidence.

We don't have access to all of the information from the investigation -- thank goodness for that -- only for those aspects which tended to incriminate Patrick Quirke and the theory advanced by the DPP.

So it is unreasonable to ask anybody to posit an equally (or more) credible theory than that which the Prosecution has proved to the jury's satisfaction by a majority verdict.

But the doubts are sincere.

Do you think Graham Dwyer was guilty?

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I really am not exaggerating when I say it's frightening how biased people can be when an official accusation is made by the DPP. Suddenly, every action the Accused has taken becomes imbued with guilt, ie a confirmation bias develops, and all roads seem to point towards their guilt.

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

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

the.red.baron

the.red.baron wrote: »

But they have to be based on reality, surely you can understand that, it's not unreasonable at all

You are not mystic meg?

Do you think they ignore evidence, exclude it from the trial? The defence sees everything, in fact they got some items excluded

I am not Mystic Meg, and I fully accept that doubts have to be reasonable. I think the judge in this case did an excellent job in summing-up to the jury, assuring them that they needed to be sure of guilt, but didn't need to be sure with mathematical certainty. She reminded them that 'probably' is not sufficient.

Using that yardstick, I think I'm in the 'probably' camp, but not sure of his guilt. Neither were a minority of jurors. For a man that was suppedly a cold blooded master-planner, too much was left to chance, and some of his actions were unreasonably risky, such as the way he is supposed to have murdered Ryan and concealed his body almost in plain sight.

Hand on heart, I think Quirke did it. But a gut feeling isn't good enough.

the.red.baron

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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

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

I think a Tyrant is trying to tell us something

From a farming background

No doubt an expert on all things underground tank related

the_pen_turner

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am not Mystic Meg, and I fully accept that doubts have to be reasonable. I think the judge in this case did an excellent job in summing-up to the jury, assuring them that they needed to be sure of guilt, but didn't need to be sure with mathematical certainty. She reminded them that 'probably' is not sufficient.

Using that yardstick, I think I'm in the 'probably' camp, but not sure of his guilt. Neither were a minority of jurors. For a man that was suppedly a cold blooded master-planner, too much was left to chance, and some of his actions were unreasonably risky, such as the way he is supposed to have murdered Ryan and concealed his body almost in plain sight.

Hand on heart, I think Quirke did it. But a gut feeling isn't good enough.

im the same
i think he probably did do it but im not sure if he did it all on his own or had help

probably shouldnt get a conviction.

the.red.baron

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I am not Mystic Meg, and I fully accept that doubts have to be reasonable. I think the judge in this case did an excellent job in summing-up to the jury, assuring them that they needed to be sure of guilt, but didn't need to be sure with mathematical certainty. She reminded them that 'probably' is not sufficient.

Using that yardstick, I think I'm in the 'probably' camp, but not sure of his guilt. Neither were a minority of jurors. For a man that was suppedly a cold blooded master-planner, too much was left to chance, and some of his actions were unreasonably risky, such as the way he is supposed to have murdered Ryan and concealed his body almost in plain sight.

Hand on heart, I think Quirke did it. But a gut feeling isn't good enough.

No one said he was a cold blooded master planner

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

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

the.red.baron

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im the same
i think he probably did do it but im not sure if he did it all on his own or had help

probably shouldnt get a conviction.

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

Why do you think he had help