Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Baggly

the.red.baron wrote: »

you clearly don't have the bottle for it

Mod

Dont post in this thread again. Thanks

Attack the post, not the poster, folks.

BarryD2

the.red.baron wrote: »

a van matching the description of Ryans van was spotted at 8am at the woods


so it would be highly likely it was his van that left at 6:30-6:45

What is the possible connection between these? Two random events?

I was seen in the local town at 11.30 this morning and my neighbour left for work in their car at 10.00, so......

KikiLaRue

BarryD2 wrote: »

What is the possible connection between these? Two random events?

I was seen in the local town at 11.30 this morning and my neighbour left for work in their car at 10.00, so......

In the absence of any evidence that any other vehicle was in the area, common sense says it was Bobby Ryan's van.

freshpopcorn

He's being given a job in the prison kitchen!
Independent are calling him Pat the Baker!


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pat-the-baker-quirke-given-job-working-in-prison-kitchen-38090673.html

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

What is the possible connection between these? Two random events?

I was seen in the local town at 11.30 this morning and my neighbour left for work in their car at 10.00, so......

They're not exactly random events; I think this is the kind of nitpicking Judge Creedon was referencing when she assured the jury that mathematical certainty was not required of them.

Besides, nothing much turns on whether it was Ryan's van that was heard passing over the grid shortly after he left Mary Lowry's. In fact, casting doubt on that would only seem to enhance the case against Patrick Quirke. It would imply he didn't need to act so hurriedly.

The apparent rapid and quiet nature of the very violent murder is one of the central causes for doubt.

BarryD2

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In the absence of any evidence that any other vehicle was in the area, common sense says it was Bobby Ryan's van.

The van was said to have been seen in Bansha Woods around 8am where it was found later but I find it hard to comprehend how that in any definite way implies that the vehicle heard crossing the cattle grid around 0630 was the same van?

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

The van was said to have been seen in Bansha Woods around 8am where it was found later but I find it hard to comprehend how that in any definite way implies that the vehicle crossing the cattle grid around 0630 was the same van?

What are you getting at here.

Let's assume for a moment Ryan's van didn't cross the grid at 0630, now what? The case against Quirke just gets easier.

BarryD2

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you getting at here.

Let's assume for a moment Ryan's van didn't cross the grid at 0630, now what? The case against Quirke just gets easier.

I have two doubts over the safety of the verdict:

1) the lack of any hard evidence that links Quirke to the actual physical murder of Bobby Ryan.

2) the reliance on the testimony of the chief witness, who was caught up in and involved in this whole sorry affair. It seems less than ideal.

Vicarious Function

BarryD2 wrote: »

I have two doubts over the safety of the verdict:

1) the lack of any hard evidence that links Quirke to the actual physical murder of Bobby Ryan.

2) the reliance on the testimony of the chief witness, who was caught up in and involved in this whole sorry affair. It seems less than ideal.

There may be any number of flaws in parts of the evidence, but it's what it all adds up to in the end that matters.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

I have two doubts over the safety of the verdict:

1) the lack of any hard evidence that links Quirke to the actual physical murder of Bobby Ryan.

2) the reliance on the testimony of the chief witness, who was caught up in and involved in this whole sorry affair. It seems less than ideal.

OK but back to the cattle grid

Where are you going with that? I mean, what's the take-away message?

Muahahaha

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes, they said he helped search the woods!

Thats mad. Reminds me of when that lad who murdered Robert Houilihan in Cork also joined in the searches for his body. Or Joe O'Reilly appearing on the Late Late show looking for the publics help in tracing Rachels killer.

Is it known if Quirke went to Ryans funeral after the body was returned to try to keep his veneer of innocence?

Ive often thought with murders in small communities the murderer probably spends all their time planning it and completely forget about how the aftermath of it is going to play out. They don't realise that they have to keep their secret from friends/neighbours/family up in public forever and that alone must bring a lot of pressure on someone over time. For Joe o'Reilly I doubt he ever thought he would end up on the Late Late show a week after he murdered his wife and all that came out from that during his performance for the tv cameras.

Wrongway1985

BarryD2 wrote: »

I have two doubts over the safety of the verdict:

1) the lack of any hard evidence that links Quirke to the actual physical murder of Bobby Ryan.

2) the reliance on the testimony of the chief witness, who was caught up in and involved in this whole sorry affair. It seems less than ideal.

1) If that's the case let's release the likes of Graham Dywer now shall we?

2) You could rule out her testimony sure but that wouldn't make a difference to the build up of evidence that's done him.

freshpopcorn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is it known if Quirke went to Ryans funeral after the body was returned to try to keep his veneer of innocence?

.

I have no idea. If he went to the funeral. If he did I'd say they might have mentioned it

blackcard

If the guards had hauled in Quirke the day before Ryan's disappearance and knew everything about Quirke that we now know, would they have said that he was possibly intended to murder Quirke? Say that they they knew he had stolen lingerie, had recorded sex tapes and had trespassed. He had complained to a social worker about Mary Lowry looking after her kids. The guards would probably have had a word with him, telling him to keep his distance from Mary Lowry but that would have been the extent of it. However they did not haul him in and Bobby Ryan disappeared. Is there any more reason than the day before to suspect Quirke? A lot of people seem to be saying that was no-one else with a motive. But there are a lot of unsolved murders where no one has been found to have a motive.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

If the guards had hauled in Quirke the day before Ryan's disappearance and knew everything about Quirke that we now know, would they have said that he was possibly intended to murder Quirke? Say that they they knew he had stolen lingerie, had recorded sex tapes and had trespassed. He had complained to a social worker about Mary Lowry looking after her kids. The guards would probably have had a word with him, telling him to keep his distance from Mary Lowry but that would have been the extent of it. However they did not haul him in and Bobby Ryan disappeared. Is there any more reason than the day before to suspect Quirke? A lot of people seem to be saying that was no-one else with a motive. But there are a lot of unsolved murders where no one has been found to have a motive.

That's a fair point but has its limitations, since there was also important evidence in court which tended to incriminate Quirk, not least the discovery of a body of a love rival in a tank that Quirke occupied.

Nevertheless, you make a fair point. It's important for us to recognise that we have only heard the evidence against Quirke. I'm sure Gardaí gathered evidence about other individuals which tended to cast them in a negative light, but none of this evidence met the threshold for a prosecution. It's just that some people think this Prosecution, also, may not have met that threshold required.

Has anyone here changed their minds? I'm more convinced of Quirke's guilt now than I was at the beginning, but still wouldn't convict. It would be interesting to know if anyone has had a change of mind, or perhaps is more certain than ever?

blackcard

There are 2 possibilities. One of these is true and one is false and you have to decide for yourself which is true and which is false. Can you state beyond a reasonable doubt which is true and which is false.
1. A man carries out a murder and hides the body in a tank on land he has leased that seemingly very few people know about. The case was treated as a missing persons case but after 2 years was not a live case. No one had inspected the tank and in all likelihood no one was likely to inspect the tank in the future even though his lease was almost up. The murderer was aware that he could be a murder suspect if the body was found. I don't know that I have ever heard of a murderer notify police telling them where the murdered body is but in this case this is what happened.
2. In scenario two, an innocent man is aware of a former love rival who has been missing for some time. Out of interest or curiosity, he searches on the internet regarding the decomposition of bodies. The innocent man discovers the body of the missing man. The police question him about the possible murder and out of fear he lies about the reason for his internet search.
Which one of these is true beyond a reasonable doubt

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

because he had previously given evidence which didn't include an alibi.

If I were accused of a crime, the last thing I'd do is answer Garda questions whether innocent or not. There's no good reason to do so, at least you've spoken to a lawyer and only then cautiously answering questions. Probably not all questions, either.

There's nothing preventing a person from entering the box and only then revealing their alibi, although it would be a great waste of time in many cases. Very entertaining, mind you.

Every Defendant sent forward from the District Court is given an alibi warning whether they have given evidence or not. They have to notify the prosecution within 14 days if they wish to rely on an alibi. The whole point of it is that the prosecution have an opportunity to check out the alibi. They can't be surprised with it at trial. You have once again demonstrated your considerable ignorance of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence.

Edgware

blackcard wrote: »

If the guards had hauled in Quirke the day before Ryan's disappearance and knew everything about Quirke that we now know, would they have said that he was possibly intended to murder Quirke? Say that they they knew he had stolen lingerie, had recorded sex tapes and had trespassed. He had complained to a social worker about Mary Lowry looking after her kids. The guards would probably have had a word with him, telling him to keep his distance from Mary Lowry but that would have been the extent of it. However they did not haul him in and Bobby Ryan disappeared. Is there any more reason than the day before to suspect Quirke? A lot of people seem to be saying that was no-one else with a motive. But there are a lot of unsolved murders where no one has been found to have a motive.

Thank you Sherlock

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Every Defendant sent forward from the District Court is given an alibi warning whether they have given evidence or not. They have to notify the prosecution within 14 days if they wish to rely on an alibi. The whole point of it is that the prosecution have an opportunity to check out the alibi. They can't be surprised with it at trial. You have once again demonstrated your considerable ignorance of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence.

Didn't know that. Makes sense.

Apologies to everyone for my considerable ignorance!

Calypso Realm

I wasn't aware of this piece of evidence-search results yes, but not this!

'On May 12th, the witness said, Mr Quirke requested from Vodafone an invoice for June 2011. The following day there was a request from Mr Quirke for a log of all incoming calls and texts to his phone from June 2nd to June 5th, 2011.'

Excerpt from Irish Times article above re evidence of Detective Garda Paul Fitzpatrick of the Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau.

Road-Hog

Calypso Realm wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this piece of evidence-search results yes, but not this!

'On May 12th, the witness said, Mr Quirke requested from Vodafone an invoice for June 2011. The following day there was a request from Mr Quirke for a log of all incoming calls and texts to his phone from June 2nd to June 5th, 2011.'

Excerpt from Irish Times article above re evidence of Detective Garda Paul Fitzpatrick of the Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau.

Can you elaborate on the significance of this....?

Calypso Realm

Road-Hog wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the significance of this....?

The request to Vodaphone was made a few weeks after Bobby Ryan's body was discovered and specifies certain days in June 11 ie the day just before he went missing up to and including a few days after.

Why would anyone/he want to check this information?

brooke 2

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

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

Aren't we depending on Quirke's word that Imelda saw the remains? :rolleyes:

That whole scenario of his ringing his wife, instead of the gardaí, when he found something resembling a body in the tank, was bizarre. He had to ring her a few times before she answered and when she did arrive, ostensibly to collect him, iirc, he got her to ring a pal who was an inspector. If he was so horrified at what he had found, where was his urgency to contact the cops? It took several minutes before he got through to his wife. Also, what kind of husband would ask his wife to witness a body decomposing in a tank? :eek: Bad as he was, I don't believe he did ask her to do that. I'm guessing she just took him at his word, and went along with his instructions to ring her garda friend. He didn't have the balls to ring them himself.

4ensic15

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Didn't know that. Makes sense.

Apologies to everyone for my considerable ignorance!

Anyone can be ignorant but not everyone purports to know things they are ignorant of.

freshpopcorn

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Why would anyone/he want to check this information?

He might have being trying to jog his memory to see could he remember what he was doing that day!

I know in the past I wads trying to remember what I was doing and looking back on my text's/calls helped!

BarryD2

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where are you going with that? I mean, what's the take-away message?

Well no more than that there's a strong element of one person's word against another's in this case, assuming that Quirke might well dispute many points of evidence made against him. Obviously he didn't take the stand and therefore the opportunity to refute these if desired. But nonetheless, you'd always have to stand back and observe that we're only hearing one side to a story here. A story that both were invested in, so if I had been on that jury, I'd have been pondering on the relative reliability of the testimony given.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Well no more than that there's a strong element of one person's word against another's in this case,

But the issue of the cattle grid was emphasised by the Defence, as a way of implying the short period of time it took for Ryan's van to leave the property.

I just don't see what you're getting at here, specifically.

Alrigghtythen

brooke 2 wrote: »

Aren't we depending on Quirke's word that Imelda saw the remains? :rolleyes:

That whole scenario of his ringing his wife, instead of the gardaí, when he found something resembling a body in the tank, was bizarre. He had to ring her a few times before she answered and when she did arrive, ostensibly to collect him, iirc, he got her to ring a pal who was an inspector. If he was so horrified at what he had found, where was his urgency to contact the cops? It took several minutes before he got through to his wife. Also, what kind of husband would ask his wife to witness a body decomposing in a tank? :eek: Bad as he was, I don't believe he did ask her to do that. I'm guessing she just took him at his word, and went along with his instructions to ring her garda friend. He didn't have the balls to ring them himself.

He tried ringing the vet and checked his voice mails in between the 3 calls to his wife.


Why did she have to collect him, how did he get out there?

He had removed the second slab before she got there. This may explain how she could see in. I think the argument was if only one slab was removed to draw the water, how could he see.

Calypso Realm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

He might have being trying to jog his memory to see could he remember what he was doing that day!

I know in the past I wads trying to remember what I was doing and looking back on my text's/calls helped!

I'd had thought that was highly unlikely because June 3rd was his wife's birthday and he was taking her away on the Friday for the day/weekend. At any rate all he need have done was ask her if he wanted to verify what he was doing!

Given the specific nature of the dates, and the request for incoming calls and texts, I'm more inclined to believe it has to do with the case! Sounds to me he may have been anticipating some questions about the calls/texts with a view to providing an 'explanation' to police if required or alternatively using the record to provide a back-up for something he had/intended telling them!

brooke 2

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

He tried ringing the vet and checked his voice mails in between the 3 calls to his wife.


Why did she have to collect him, how did he get out there?

He had removed the second slab before she got there. This may explain how she could see in. I think the argument was if only one slab was removed to draw the water, how could he see.

I wonder why he was trying to ring the vet instead of the gardaí, if he thought there was a body in the tank. I haven't read anywhere that he tried to contact the gardaí himself.

I don't believe she actually had to collect him - I was under the impression it was more that she thought she had to. IIRC, she was not aware of the reason he needed her there until she actually arrived on the scene and he asked her to look into the tank. :eek: That's if he really did ask her to do so.

Can't remember the details re the one or two removed slabs - thought the gardaí were trying to make the point that it was difficult to see anything in there.

freshpopcorn

brooke 2 wrote: »

I wonder why he was trying to ring the vet instead of the gardaí, if he thought there was a body in the tank. I haven't read anywhere that he tried to contact the gardaí himself.

I don't believe she actually had to collect him - I was under the impression it was more that she thought she had to. IIRC, she was not aware of the reason he needed her there until she actually arrived on the scene and he asked her to look into the tank. :eek: That's if he really did ask her to do so.

Can't remember the details re the one or two removed slabs - thought the gardaí were trying to make the point that it was difficult to see anything in there.

The impression I got was.
He decided to use the tank on that day.
He moved one of the slabs.
He then said he looked in and saw a body.
He rang his wife a few times.(I think it was more than once).
She agreed when she looked inside.
She contacted the Gardai in some roundabout way.
The Gardai arrived on the scene and saw nothing.
One of them bent down and with a torch they believe they saw something.
Patrick and Imelda were sitting on a wall.
Patrick was very well dressed.
When the Gardai moved another one of the slabs some debris fell in on the body.

Vicarious Function

Patrick Quirke found guilty: The key players in the 'Mr Moonlight' trial

Interesting insights in this article putting things as they happened in perspective as regards the main participants, especially Imelda Quirke.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/truecrime/patrick-quirke-found-guilty-the-key-players-in-the-mr-moonlight-trial/ar-AAAMM1Q?li=BBr5KbJ&c=12013655996804221216&mkt=en-us#page=2

Andrea B.

A farmer would have more means than many to permanently dispose of a body. Forever.
Assume he had become delusional to point where he never thought he could be a suspect and that he was smarter than most.
Hence he did not cover his internet footprints well enough.
Forensically, nothing except a naked body in pit........and a woman's hair clip. Sloppy?
With his land greed, did he assume that naked body and hair clip would lead to garda assumption of a bedroom murder by Mary L?
A next chain of events (with MIL already there ) might lead to him owning/running, at a cheap price, her farm?

freshpopcorn

The mirror are picking up on the Polish man now!

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/bobby-ryan-mr-moonlight-murder-15018500?fbclid=IwAR0niSXP__1AUvbQRDxWIUI1OOOkYv2H9v-C1f8dUh89SV4fsmVWjmADnLo

KikiLaRue

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The mirror are picking up on the Polish man now!

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/bobby-ryan-mr-moonlight-murder-15018500?fbclid=IwAR0niSXP__1AUvbQRDxWIUI1OOOkYv2H9v-C1f8dUh89SV4fsmVWjmADnLo

Very skeptical of any story with one unnamed source and no new info.

Edgware

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The mirror are picking up on the Polish man now!

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/bobby-ryan-mr-moonlight-murder-15018500?fbclid=IwAR0niSXP__1AUvbQRDxWIUI1OOOkYv2H9v-C1f8dUh89SV4fsmVWjmADnLo

They'll try to see if any of his girlfriends work in a Warsaw brothel first to liven up their story

freshpopcorn

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Very skeptical of any story with one unnamed source and no new info.

I think I read about the Polish worker on Facebook years ago under one of his missing persons ads!
I wonder where did the rumour start.

BENDYBINN

Very handy to blame a polish worker who has since died......insulting to the polish people to be honest
We haven’t a clue how he died so let’s makeup a good story.......

the_pen_turner

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Very handy to blame a polish worker who has since died......insulting to the polish people to be honest
We haven’t a clue how he died so let’s makeup a good story.......

how is it insulting to polish people. had he been from anywhere else the story would be the same. no one is saying his nationality has anything to do with it.

it is a bit of a coincidence that he worked for pat quirke at the time. bobby ryan was murdered on or near his workplace by his boss in a way that having help would have been likely and help explain some of the unexplained part of the story

then he leaves and commits suicide. . its a coinidence and one that should not be ignored and investigated if posible

BENDYBINN

the_pen_turner wrote: »

how is it insulting to polish people. had he been from anywhere else the story would be the same. no one is saying his nationality has anything to do with it.

it is a bit of a coincidence that he worked for pat quirke at the time. bobby ryan was murdered on or near his workplace by his boss in a way that having help would have been likely and help explain some of the unexplained part of the story

then he leaves and commits suicide. . its a coinidence and one that should not be ignored and investigated if posible

It’s implying that polish people who come here to work have no problem doing a bit of murdering in between cuttin the silage and feedin the calves...

the_pen_turner

BENDYBINN wrote: »

It’s implying that polish people who come here to work have no problem doing a bit of murdering in between cuttin the silage and feedin the calves...

no it doesnt

BENDYBINN

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no it doesnt

You are sayin because he helped out on the farm and pat needed help with the murder sure it had to be him........

the_pen_turner

BENDYBINN wrote: »

You are sayin because he helped out on the farm and pat needed help with the murder sure it had to be him........

no im not.

i am saying that it is one posibility.

BENDYBINN

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no im not.

i am saying that it is one posibility.

Of a possible million!

the_pen_turner

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Of a possible million!

yes but they would be ruled out fairly easily with alibies and lack of conection to the accused or deceased etc.


a worker on the farm or on pat quirkes farm would be faily high on the list of posible accomplices

BENDYBINN

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes but they would be ruled out fairly easily with alibies and lack of conection to the accused or deceased etc.


a worker on the farm or on pat quirkes farm would be faily high on the list of posible accomplices

A man that comes to work on a farm and make a honest living for himself would be very low on that list in my opinion

the_pen_turner

BENDYBINN wrote: »

A man that comes to work on a farm and make a honest living for himself would be very low on that list in my opinion

im not questioning his character .
anyone that would have been that close to the the victim or accused should be looked at.
combine that with a high posibility of stumbling across parts of the crime would make him high on that list

gozunda

One question - it has been reported that Mr Ryan left the house at 6.30 am on the morning of the murder.

Was it disclosed what was the usual time time for Mr Quirke to be there?

pgj2015

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4056769/patrick-quirke-trial-latest-brutally-beat-neighbours-dog/


just reading this now. delighted he got life, says a lot about a person when they do that to an animal.

Muahahaha

pgj2015 wrote: »

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4056769/patrick-quirke-trial-latest-brutally-beat-neighbours-dog/


just reading this now. delighted he got life, says a lot about a person when they do that to an animal.

Thats awful. Dont criminal psychiatrists say that murderers often show cruelty to animals before they murder, I think it is part of the de-humanisation process that allows a killer to inflict pain and not feel bad about it.

Anyway from the Mirror article

A garda source told The Limerick Leader: "It was believed that a Polish national was involved in the murder with him and his conscience may have got the better of him and he took his own life.

“The gardai didn’t get to interview the man. He had taken his own life at the time the possible link was made so it couldn’t be substantiated any further."

So it seems Gardai were certainly open to the possibility of Quirke having help in committing this crime. I dont think it can be ruled out either given the conundrum of the van and how it got to the woods and how the driver got back without being seen.

While most people would never dream of committing murder if you were to offer them €50,000 then suddenly they stop and think if it is worth the risk. Once they accept and commit the crime they are now an accomplice in a murder and completely compromised. They have to keep schtum because if the main suspect goes down then they go down too. Im not saying that this is what happened with the Polish guy but as the Gardai were open to it then that says they at least thought that he had both opportunity and motive and wanted to speak to him to rule him out.

Also the quote from the Garda source is interesting in itself. He said ""It was believed that a Polish national was involved in the murder with him and his conscience may have got the better of him and he took his own life"

So the Garda source is saying they have a belief he committed suicide because of something on his mind. As part of their investigations they would have spoken to the mans wife/partner/family who might have told them he was in a bad way leading up to his suicide because of something that happened in Ireland.

We'll never know for sure but I dont think you can categorically rule the possibility out.