Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Calypso Realm

Calypso Realm wrote: »

She's certainly got a point in terms of the body being neatly positioned in the tank. As to whether or not this amounts to evidence of an accomplice, I've no idea, given my current knowledge of the actual crime scene. What depth of water was in the tank? I would have thought this could have influenced things; if was sufficiently deep body would have floated.

Under 2 meters depth if I recall correctly. If it was full of water at the time and the water leaked out over time then the remains would have settled “neatly” - then again, a machine assisted approach may also have achieved the same result or someone who jumped into an empty tank and completed this on their own. There’s nothing definitive here at all that could be said about that comment imo

mikeymouse

The coroner refused to attend.
Who then decided the body had to have been "placed" in the tank?
Why would the position of the arms indicate it was placed?

Wrongway1985

Calypso Realm wrote: »

In addition, someone (farm-worker?) gave evidence in court to say Quirke had told him he'd heard some Polish gang were involved. Think this convo took place a few days after the body was found.

Yes a Mr. Cunningham gave that evidence.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/farm-worker-tells-trial-quirke-said-polish-people-involved-in-murder-of-bobby-ryan-37884036.html

jmreire

Calypso Realm wrote: »

She's certainly got a point in terms of the body being neatly positioned in the tank. As to whether or not this amounts to evidence of an accomplice, I've no idea, given my current knowledge of the actual crime scene. What depth of water was in the tank? I would have thought this could have influenced things; if was sufficiently deep body would have floated.

Acording to tests done on the tank, it was leaking like a sieve. And only held water in the bottom 18" or so. The water above that level was leaking out almost as fast as it was being filled.

Muahahaha

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It doesn't appear to have factored in to the overall picture a man who (say he did exist) could only have known Quirke for a minimal period would help him carry out the murder of someone, he doesn't confide his guilt to anyone and he just tops himself in another country no less ending this trail that nobody follows up?, forgive me but that without official confirmation should be written off as hearsay.

Oh I agree it is hearsay but that always happens with high profile murder trials. It was the same with Graham Dwyer, we know just as much about what he was up to from Garda leaks as we do with what happened from the court reporting. Im not for one minute saying this Polish lad was involved, all Im doing is pointing out that the Garda investigators saw it as a possibilty and wanted to rule him out. People further back the thread were saying there is absolutely no way Quirke had an accomplice but many events and timelines would logically fit much better if he did. The Gardai obviously felt the same. One thing I would say is that if Quirke acted alone then he pulled this off with almost military precision without getting seen or caught.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for what the Ryan family think, we’ll likely get some comments tonight but they’ll be warned in terms of what they can say on live TV- it may well be recorded in advance for legal reasons?

Yeah they wont be naming names thats for sure. But Ryans daughter is already on record as saying she believed there was an accomplice. She may very well allude to that again in the interview.

CollyFlower

I think it's strange that the only sound ML heard was the sound of BR car going over the cattle grid, she was listening, and she said it was a about 10 minutes before she heard his car go over the cattle grid... If there was an altercation outside I'm sure she would have heard that.

CollyFlower

CollyFlower wrote: »

I think it's strange that the only sound ML heard was the sound of BR car going over the cattle grid, she was listening, and she said it was a about 10 minutes before she heard his car go over the cattle grid... If there was an altercation outside I'm sure she would have heard that.

I agree, but as others have pointed out, you could knock someone out with one blow.

Would you really risk that, in the quiet morning, after he'd just left his (You assume awake) partner? God no.

But Quirke might have had. I guess.

CollyFlower

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree, but as others have pointed out, you could knock someone out with one blow.

Would you really risk that, in the quiet morning, after he'd just left his (You assume awake) partner? God no.

But Quirke might have had. I guess.

One blow would make a bit of a noise in the silence of the morning.

CollyFlower

CollyFlower wrote: »

One blow would make a bit of a noise in the silence of the morning.

Ah not necessarily. Im reluctant to compare the noise to something graphic but you wouldn't necessarily hear that from inside a house.

The problem for me arises in the risk. Why would you risk it? Why would you risk not knocking someone out? Why would you risk a cry or yelp?

Maybe in a rage you would, but the Prosecution didn't claim that, and there's no evidence to justify that belief.

John_Rambo

CollyFlower wrote: »

One blow would make a bit of a noise in the silence of the morning.

John_Rambo wrote: »

All farmers I know are strong, have good control & decent hand eye coordination. They may be stout & have a belly, but years of day to day pulling, pushing, lifting, hitching trailers, dealing with livestock leaves them with slabs of muscle under that fat. The victim in this case had two major head traumas, one hard belt with a weapon from behind & one when he was down would have a relatively silent but devastating result.

I help out on a farm and the farmer is an overweight man the same age as Quirk. I'm very fit, but he's much stronger than me and can go all day and all night during the summer.

We've all seen MMA fighters knock out their opponents. There's no screaming or shouting from the person that's been KO'd. They slump down without a sound.

My previous post above ^^^
I've seen people KO'd face on with a good uppercut. No noise, no drama, no shouts. A good sucker hit or two from behind, particularly with a stout, strong weapon (bat, iron bar... etc) would make little or no noise.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

My previous post above ^^^
I've seen people KO'd face on with a good uppercut. No noise, no drama, no shouts. A good sucker hit or two from behind, particularly with a stout, strong weapon (bat, iron bar... etc) would make little or no noise.

I think that's missing the point a little.

There's a great stretch between saying something 'could' happen, and declaring that someone would do that, and be sure they could do that, beyond any reasonable doubt.

I'm sure you're a reasonable person, but even if you were a reasonable murderer you wouldn't take that risk surely?

brendanwalsh

Two questions

Why did quirke 'discover' the body that day. Would he have been better off doing nothing, surely he had got away with it at that point

Secondly, why did the state pathologist not come to the scene? And why did he not give evidence in court? Was he just being lazy.?

freshpopcorn

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Two questions

Why did quirke 'discover' the body that day. Would he have been better off doing nothing, surely he had got away with it at that point

Secondly, why did the state pathologist not come to the scene? And why did he not give evidence in court? Was he just being lazy.?

His lease was u on the farm and Mary Lowry asked him to drain any tanks.
He may have thought he would have being considered the unlucky man who found the body.
I'm not sure maybe they were afraid of the smell.

gozunda

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah not necessarily. Im reluctant to compare the noise to something graphic but you wouldn't necessarily hear that from inside a house.

The problem for me arises in the risk. Why would you risk it? Why would you risk not knocking someone out? Why would you risk a cry or yelp?

Maybe in a rage you would, but the Prosecution didn't claim that, and there's no evidence to justify that belief.

What was the claim as to the state of mind of the accused?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Whst was the claim as to the state of mind of the accused?

I don't think there was any.

But a jury can't just invent such a core motive as a sudden flight of rage, for which there is no evidence; that would totally fly in the face of the presumption of innocence!

Edgware

CollyFlower wrote: »

I think it's strange that the only sound ML heard was the sound of BR car going over the cattle grid, she was listening, and she said it was a about 10 minutes before she heard his car go over the cattle grid... If there was an altercation outside I'm sure she would have heard that.

Maybe she was busy making the bed

Edgware

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Two questions

Why did quirke 'discover' the body that day. Would he have been better off doing nothing, surely he had got away with it at that point

Secondly, why did the state pathologist not come to the scene? And why did he not give evidence in court? Was he just being lazy.?

Thirdly who put the fig in the fig roll

Ash.J.Williams

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Two questions

Why did quirke 'discover' the body that day. Would he have been better off doing nothing, surely he had got away with it at that point

Secondly, why did the state pathologist not come to the scene? And why did he not give evidence in court? Was he just being lazy.?

She wasn't renewing the lease

Ash.J.Williams

Psycho ex.... Delay starting van... She knew well

CollyFlower

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah not necessarily. Im reluctant to compare the noise to something graphic but you wouldn't necessarily hear that from inside a house.

The problem for me arises in the risk. Why would you risk it? Why would you risk not knocking someone out? Why would you risk a cry or yelp?

Maybe in a rage you would, but the Prosecution didn't claim that, and there's no evidence to justify that belief.

Maybe the murderer wasn't thinking of the risk of being caught at the time, spur of the moment attack?.. ML was lying in bed 'listening' for his car to leave, she said it took longer than usual... I really don't think that the prosecution/Garda took time to really investigate this case, nor did the defense team put up much of a fight.

CollyFlower

CollyFlower wrote: »

Maybe the murderer wasn't thinking of the risk of being caught at the time, spur of the moment attack?..

Definitely maybe. Probably, even.

But I struggle to understand how the jury was sure of that beyond reasonable doubt, without evidence.

freshpopcorn

There's more about the Polish man rumors here.(When I say more I mean nothing really)

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mr-moonlight-polish-killer-rumour-and-van-in-woods-were-red-herrings-by-quirke-38101057.html?fbclid=IwAR2cxxD4S4wYaGS3uuvU1Zmwsq-HjXZRpPPmR5V47Ocp4D5jtKkaGhelS_8

bobbyss

If you are claiming innocence then why in the name of God would you have a history of the stuff he had on his computer? JJ Dollard, Kearney, decomposition time. Wouldn't you be reluctant to Google stuff like that knowing there was a possibility that he gardai might investigate you? Is it possible to delete your search history 100% or can the experts find out?

freshpopcorn

bobbyss wrote: »

If you are claiming innocence then why in the name of God would you have a history of the stuff he had on his computer? JJ Dollard, Kearney, decomposition time. Wouldn't you be reluctant to Google stuff like that knowing there was a possibility that he gardai might investigate you? Is it possible to delete your search history 100% or can the experts find out?

If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed.
I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it.
It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.

Field east

Calypso Realm wrote: »

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!

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That doesn’t make sense. How would any individual Garda know what any other Garda told a newspaper?

If this was true, Patrick Quirke’s defence would have brought it up in court as it’s the closest thing they have to another suspect.

Particularly since the guy is now dead. If there was any possibility of him being involved it would have made way more sense for Quirke to pin it on him than Mary Lowry.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

His lease was u on the farm and Mary Lowry asked him to drain any tanks.
He may have thought he would have being considered the unlucky man who found the body.
I'm not sure maybe they were afraid of the smell.

Two points re the tanks.
(1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty
(2) if the milking parlour or/ and the yard connected to it to hold the cows pre
milking was washed down daily , the the run off tank would be filled very quickly and would have to be emptied very frequently
Since it’s mainly water going into it , the Late Mr Lowry, I assume, did not want the extra cost /time involved in spreading that water if it was diverted to the slurry tanks.
I assume , therefor , that a good level of porosity was built into the runoff tank. Was it designed to act like a domestic septic tank - empty the sediment building up in it every , say, 4 to 5 years?

bobbyss

freshpopcorn wrote:

If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed. I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it. It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.

Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

Field east

If the main seepage from the holding tank was happening at a few inches from the tank bottom, then given time e tank would constantly empty down to that level - especially if the tank was constructed in soil with a good soakage capacity plus if it was built on high ground. I would therefor expect to find very little water in the tank - over time there should be more sludge than water. Not a tank I would be going to for water to dilute slurry in a slurry tank

freshpopcorn

Field east wrote: »

Two points re the tanks.
(1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty
(2) if the milking parlour or/ and the yard connected to it to hold the cows pre
milking was washed down daily , the the run off tank would be filled very quickly and would have to be emptied very frequently
Since it’s mainly water going into it , the Late Mr Lowry, I assume, did not want the extra cost /time involved in spreading that water if it was diverted to the slurry tanks.
I assume , therefor , that a good level of porosity was built into the runoff tank. Was it designed to act like a domestic septic tank - empty the sediment building up in it every , say, 4 to 5 years?

Just to note the tank was old and leaking in a lot of places

jmreire

If he was truly innocent, then it's a bit strange that the best the defense could come up with was "innocent until proven guilty", and "any doubt's must lead to an aquittal " all well within the law of course. In as much as the prosecution was weak, so was the defense. If innocent, he would have had no objection to going on the stand himself, and even at that, taking his chance's with the prosecution's case re. internet searches, the lies about the 3rd tank etc. But of course, if he were innocent.....there would not have been any need to lie...about anything. It was because of this combination of event's Lies, internet serches etc that the jury found him guilty.

KikiLaRue

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed.
I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it.
It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.

You’re pretty safe unless you’re also engaging in some very dodgy/ scary behaviour offline.

Half the country has watched Making a Murderer.

bobbyss

bobbyss wrote: »

Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

"Murder suspect had bizarre sexual fetish around flowers and rainbows "

gozunda

bobbyss wrote: »

Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc..

Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

Methinks you've thought that whole scenario out a little bit too well and that suggestion if found - definitely would be a red flag in any investigation!

farmertipp

gozunda wrote: »

Methinks you've thought that whole scenario out a little bit too well and that suggestion if found - definitely would be a red flag in any investigation!

I think quirke s notepad was a case in point

Alrigghtythen

farmertipp wrote: »

I think quirke s notepad was a case in point

The garda notepad was interesting

https://www.thejournal.ie/mary-lowry-had-his-head-melted-garda-notebook-patrick-quirke-mr-moonlight-trial-4579144-Apr2019/
Garda made note saying 'Mary Lowry had his head melted', court told
The garda made a note of it in his notebook but does not remember who said it.

gozunda

farmertipp wrote: »

I think quirke s notepad was a case in point

The good thing about my writing is that it is even indecipherable to me. Egyptian hieroglyphics would be easier to read tbh

[QUOTE=jmreire;110155709]If he was truly innocent, then it's a bit strange that the best the defense could come up with was "innocent until proven guilty", and "any doubt's must lead to an aquittal " all well within the law of course. In as much as the prosecution was weak, so was the defense. If innocent, he would have had no objection to going on the stand himself, and even at that, taking his chance's with the prosecution's case re. internet searches, the lies about the 3rd tank etc. But of course, if he were innocent.....there would not have been any need to lie...about anything. It was because of this combination of event's Lies, internet serches etc that the jury found him guilty.[/QUOTE]

Had they just done that it’s possible more than 2 jurors would have found him not guilty. Instead the approach seemed to be more about innuendo- that someone other than Quirke was responsible. I think the jury saw through that approach.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

There's more about the Polish man rumors here.(When I say more I mean nothing really)

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mr-moonlight-polish-killer-rumour-and-van-in-woods-were-red-herrings-by-quirke-38101057.html?fbclid=IwAR2cxxD4S4wYaGS3uuvU1Zmwsq-HjXZRpPPmR5V47Ocp4D5jtKkaGhelS_8

Isn’t reporting post trial desperate in terms of this poor Polish person. There was implication all week in many of the reports that he was suspected of being involved in some way. At least this report appears to put an end to such terrible hearsay. May he Rest In Peace.

KikiLaRue

I listened to the Indo’s podcast by Paul Williams and according to that he had very prestigious lawyers defending him and they represented him very well - didn’t let anything through without contesting it.

One of them represented Seanie Fitzpatrick in his trial.

jimmycrackcorm

realdanbreen wrote: »

I bet if the death penalty was the punishment for this crime not too many of the jury and certainly not too many posters on here would be as convinced of his guilt as they say they are.

It's the jury's job to consider guilt based on the evidence, not to consider the possible sentencing

BENDYBINN

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn’t reporting post trial desperate in terms of this poor Polish person. There was implication all week in many of the reports that he was suspected of being involved in some way. At least this report appears to put an end to such terrible hearsay. May he Rest In Peace.

Agree, according to the Mirrors Garda source he was an accomplice and todays Indo’s garda source he had nothing whatsoever to do with it.......laughable!

upupup

A Garda source says Polish man was not involved...case closed,everyone go home....Gardai did a good job

A Garda source says Polish man is a suspect...sensible but looks like a dead end.

The accused says Polish man/men involved..Truth or deception?

The victims daughter says Polish man not involved but Quirke had help.

Local talk is Polish man not dead.
Local talk about Quirke's other possible helper is a witness in the trial

Spleerbun

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I listened to the Indo’s podcast by Paul Williams and according to that he had very prestigious lawyers defending him and they represented him very well - didn’t let anything through without contesting it.

One of them represented Seanie Fitzpatrick in his trial.

Indeed, everything I read throughout the trial and since (apart from on discussion forums such as this) has indicated that they are extremely good at what they do and are very highly regarded, so I do think those pointing the finger at them for the guilty verdict are a bit wide of the mark.
I actually saw their main guy live in court before and I would love to have him defending me were I to ever be on trial for something!

Field east

Field east wrote: »

(1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty

There is only one cattle shed, which had a slurry tank, but that tank was empty.

The only tanks on the farm which were not empty were one external slurry tank/pit and the run-off tank.

the_pen_turner

bobbyss wrote: »

Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

this is what i dont understand.
surely you would distroy the laptop just incase there was something on it. he knew he was looking up stuff.
i dont think it would raise suspicion if the laptop was replaced. they break alll the time. spill water on it or drop it whould be easy ways .
why would it be questioned unless it happened just before he found the body.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

this is what i dont understand.
surely you would distroy the laptop just incase there was something on it. he knew he was looking up stuff.
i dont think it would raise suspicion if the laptop was replaced. they break alll the time. spill water on it or drop it whould be easy ways .
why would it be questioned unless it happened just before he found the body.

He probably thought it was sufficient to delete his search history.

I'm sure there are a minority of people reading the last few posts thinking, "wait, it isn't?" :pac:

the_pen_turner

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He probably thought it was sufficient to delete his search history.

I'm sure there are a minority of people reading the last few posts thinking, "wait, it isn't?" :pac:

yes but he regulartly watched crime programmes. taking eveidence from a hardrive, even one that has been destryed. he should have known.

but why take that risk

BENDYBINN

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes but he regulartly watched crime programmes. taking eveidence from a hardrive, even one that has been destryed. he should have known.

but why take that risk

He would have known that finding the body on his farm would be damming .....

tipptom

Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

What is going on in the coroners office that a certain coroner refused to attend the crime scene upon discovery or in the time afterwards?

Are there some murder cases that need to be re-visited because of evidence given by a coroner from that office?

freshpopcorn

tipptom wrote: »

Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

What is going on in the coroners office that a certain coroner refused to attend the crime scene upon discovery or in the time afterwards?

Are there some murder cases that need to be re-visited because of evidence given by a coroner from that office?

Patrick Quirke showed them two tanks and not the third one.
Regarding the search team not being allowed to search. I think it was more the case they weren't asked. Bobby's sister told the Gardai that Bobby suffered from depression. The Gardai and search teams all probably presumed that he did something in the woods as is the vast majority of cases.
When all the rumours/etc started the search teams had nearly moved on and the Gardai thought they did a good enough job when they searched it themselves.
In a lot of cases the Gardai search for something at they find it or they don't.
I do think the search and rescue team may have being wearing rose tinted glasses.
I don't know why they refused to come out. The only reason I can think of is the smell.

mikeymouse

tipptom wrote: »

Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

What is going on in the coroners office that a certain coroner refused to attend the crime scene upon discovery or in the time afterwards?

Are there some murder cases that need to be re-visited because of evidence given by a coroner from that office?

I don't know why search and rescue didn't search the farm, I think the Gardai didn't get a warrant.
About the Coroner , This is the man who would not attend on the day body was found.