Patrick Quirke -Guilty

mikeymouse

jmreire wrote: »

Well as it stands, he had 22 mths to fully dispose of the body...and I for one can't understand why he never did...maybe if Mary allowed him to continue the lease indefinitely, it would not have come to light.... It's really strange, because he seems to have had everything else planned down to the smallest detail. Of course, he may have felt that even though the Guard's were still officially treating it as a missing person case, privately they may have suspected it as being a murder case ( with out the body) and he was under suspicion, and so afraid to make any move disposing of the body.

I'd say he was quite happy with where the body was until he realised the lease was about to end.
Burying it anyplace would be dodgy , it could be found by dog walkers or the like,
and he would not have as much control .
Where it was it could be checked every day,and maybe there was a certain amount of 'trophyism' if there's such a word, or gloating if you like.
Then the panic set in and a new plan had to be formulated, which was not as well thought through as the actual murder plan.

4ensic15

mikeymouse wrote: »

Mary Lowry told ex Garda Costello when they met at the garage in Bansha, that the van was parked in "the back yard".
Probably out of sight of prying eyes.I took that to mean out in the farmyard behind the house.
Any noise from that area may not be heard in the house
He may not have had to move the body just then, just concealed till he was able to come back later to dispose of it

Lowry stated that she did not want her children knowing the Moonlight was overnighting. That would mean the van was parked out of view of the house overnight.

Andrea B.

upupup wrote: »

I heard a story last week that in the trial they spoke of the relationship between Pat Quirke and Mary Lowrys son.Quirke bought him a car to drive around the fields.
The story was that this car was mentioned in the trial because it was used to run over Bobby Ryan.

But i think ML woul have heard this.
I must check google maps for the layout of the farm

Moonlight bought them the car.

brendanwalsh

If quirke had never opened the tomb and just left someone else find the body at some stage, there's a good chance he'd have got off Scot free.

brendanwalsh

brendanwalsh wrote: »

If quirke had never opened the tomb and just left someone else find the body at some stage, there's a good chance he'd have got off Scot free.

Not so sure about that .... the damage to the body would show Bobby Ryan was murdered, so there would be the same investigation as before.

Still can't figure out why Quirke didn't move the body somewhere else - dump it in the sea or something.

freshpopcorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not so sure about that .... the damage to the body would show Bobby Ryan was murdered, so there would be the same investigation as before.

Still can't figure out why Quirke didn't move the body somewhere else - dump it in the sea or something.

Going by his Google searches on his home computer he probably wasn't the brightest.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not so sure about that .... the damage to the body would show Bobby Ryan was murdered, so there would be the same investigation as before.

Still can't figure out why Quirke didn't move the body somewhere else - dump it in the sea or something.

Two years in a watery grave means that normal aerobic break down is delayed - the matter of removing a very decomposed body would not be without some difficulties. Bar the overpowering smell of decomposition within the airtight tank - there would be a real risk of the body falling apart if removed. I believe something similar happened when the body was finally removed with an arm becoming dettached afaik during the process. Anyone removing the body would have risked this happening and forensic evidence being left behind. Then he would have had to transport and hide the body somewhere else. Not saying it was impossible - but it is something imo which would be very difficult.

Account of recovering the remains in an article here and some of the difficulties encountered

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0429/1046307-quirke-the-murder-trial-that-shocked-the-country/

I think perhaps he opted for the 'finding' of the body because he really believed he could pull it off.

mikeymouse

Deleted User wrote: »

Not so sure about that .... the damage to the body would show Bobby Ryan was murdered, so there would be the same investigation as before.

Still can't figure out why Quirke didn't move the body somewhere else - dump it in the sea or something.

Having put it in the tank, I think it would be nigh on impossible to take it out again,without help ,
or at least without having to rip the whole cover off the tank like the Gardai did.
The removable slabs appeared to be only about 18ins or at most 2ft square and the body would have been back under the fixed concrete cover.
Also ,if dumped elsewhere it would always be on his mind that someone might find it.
Maybe he just kept it close by as a kind of trophy, or to keep an eye on it.
It would have been difficult to dispose of the body elsewhere, outside the farm in the period immediately after Ryan was reported missing.
He was lucky the Gardai asked only him about the number of tanks on the farm.

BENDYBINN

gozunda wrote: »

Two years in a watery grave means that normal aerobic break down is delayed - the matter of removing a very decomposed body would not be without some difficulties. Bar the overpowering smell of decomposition within the airtight tank - there would be a real risk of the body falling apart if removed. I believe something similar happened when the body was finally removed with an arm becoming dettached afaik during the process. PQ removing the body would have risked this happening and forensic evidence being left behind. Then he would have had to transport and hide the body somewhere else. Not saying it was impossible - but it is something imo which would be very difficult.

I think he opted for the 'finding' of the body
because he really believed he could pull it off.

“Finding”the body in his own tank.....are you for real.....

mikeymouse

BENDYBINN wrote: »

“Finding”the body in his own tank.....are you for real.....

That was his story

gozunda

BENDYBINN wrote: »

“Finding”the body in his own tank.....are you for real.....

As above - that was his story. Do you have a point or ?

Muahahaha

mikeymouse wrote: »

Having put it in the tank, I think it would be nigh on impossible to take it out again,without help ,
or at least without having to rip the whole cover off the tank like the Gardai did.
The removable slabs appeared to be only about 18ins or at most 2ft square and the body would have been back under the fixed concrete cover.
Also ,if dumped elsewhere it would always be on his mind that someone might find it.
Maybe he just kept it close by as a kind of trophy, or to keep an eye on it.
It would have been difficult to dispose of the body elsewhere, outside the farm in the period immediately after Ryan was reported missing.
He was lucky the Gardai asked only him about the number of tanks on the farm.

Moving the body would not have been a nice job but not an impossible one either. He wouldnt have had to forensically clean the tank or anything as no one knew Ryan was ever in there bar Quirke. After two years of decomposition I would imagine it was mainly bones (Im not going to Google this btw )

Just move the body and pack it into fertiliser sacks and then bury them on the farm, cover it over and the grass grows back within a few weeks in the summer. Given he had access to a tractor to dig a grave it is astonishing that he didnt just do that rather than choosing to lead Gardai direct to his door. I can only think he was either deluded that he had gotten away with it or that he was in a panic about what to do and wasnt thinking straight, which is what resulted in him calling the Gardai. Whatever way it went down there was no way he was thinking straight imo.

Or dig out a section of the tank and put some cement over it and cover over. He could easily have covered the body in the meantime. After all he was working there every day. Never would have been found.

the_pen_turner

Deleted User wrote: »

Or dig out a section of the tank and put some cement over it and cover over. He could easily have covered the body in the meantime. After all he was working there every day. Never would have been found.

i cannot undertand why he didnt do that. thats what i would have done if i couldnt move it. do a job on his on farm that needed some concrete work and go get a load or 2 of lean mix.
fill the tank up by 12-16 inchs and after a while noone would know any different.
throw in some clay to discolour it . then break down the lids and backfill .

the_pen_turner

Muahahaha wrote: »

Moving the body would not have been a nice job but not an impossible one either. He wouldnt have had to forensically clean the tank or anything as no one knew Ryan was ever in there bar Quirke. After two years of decomposition I would imagine it was mainly bones (Im not going to Google this btw )

Just move the body and pack it into fertiliser sacks and then bury them on the farm, cover it over and the grass grows back within a few weeks in the summer. Given he had access to a tractor to dig a grave it is astonishing that he didnt just do that rather than choosing to lead Gardai direct to his door. I can only think he was either deluded that he had gotten away with it or that he was in a panic about what to do and wasnt thinking straight, which is what resulted in him calling the Gardai. Whatever way it went down there was no way he was thinking straight imo.

easy enough to do.
drop down a barel with a sealable lid
float the body inside and stand it up with a rope and tracter . then lift out and away to somewhere else.

gozunda

the_pen_turner wrote: »

easy enough to do.
drop down a barel with a sealable lid
float the body inside and stand it up with a rope and tracter . then lift out and away to somewhere else.

Not convinced tbh. From various crime reports over the years- I've never heard that bodies were that accommodating.

An aount io the recovery of the body here

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0429/1046307-quirke-the-murder-trial-that-shocked-the-country/

For a comparative case read the account of the English author Helen Bailey who was disposed by her partner in an old septic tank in the garden of the house they shared.

nice_guy80

The farm was rented

I'd say the lease was up or close to it

gozunda

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i cannot undertand why he didnt do that. thats what i would have done if i couldnt move it. do a job on his on farm that needed some concrete work and go get a load or 2 of lean mix.
fill the tank up by 12-16 inchs and after a while noone would know any different.
throw in some clay to discolour it . then break down the lids and backfill .

Although he was leasing the farm- he did not own it. Bringing in a lorry driver with a load of concrete and breaking open the seal of the tank would possibly have meant that the foul odour of body decomposition would have been evident.

I'm sure others there would have asked questions as to exactly he was doing. I'm sure he could of came up with some excuse - but it would have meant he was bringing attention to himself and the location where the body was dumped.

the_pen_turner

gozunda wrote: »

Although he was leasing the farm- he did not own it. Bringing in a lorry driver with a load of concrete and breaking open the seal of the tank would possibly have meant that the foul odour of body decomposition would have been evident.

I'm sure others there would have asked questions as to exactly he was doing. I'm sure he could of came up with some excuse - but it would have meant he was bringing attention to himself and the location where the body was dumped.

yes if you got the concrete delivered. i am sugeesting going in his tracter and trailer to collect the lean mix himself.

McCrack

Yes theres always going to be people that think they would do a better job

Even murder

gozunda

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes if you got the concrete delivered. i am sugeesting going in his tracter and trailer to collect the lean mix himself.

Yeah I was thinking of that tbh. From the article listed above to tank reportedly was 12 feet long 6 feet wide and five feet deep. That size of a tank would require approx 10 cubic metres of concrete to fill to the top or say 5 cubic metres half way. A decent sized concrete truck in my experience would be carrying a full load at 10 cubic metres. Even half that amount is a lot of concrete.

So taking that he got a half load delivered to his own place and asked the lorry driver to put it in his own trailer or he went to the concrete company himself to pick it up. There are a number of logistical problems which come to mind. The first being that not many farmers in my experience have the type of trailer which can carry large volumes of liquid concrete. The concrete once exposed to the air starts to go off quite quickly. Also would this whole shenanigans not also raise more questions and highlight what he was up to?

No concrete answers btw - just mulling the idea over ....

the_pen_turner

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking of that tbh. From the article listed above to tank reportedly was 12 feet long 6 feet wide and five feet deep. That size of a tank would require approx 10 cubic metres of concrete to fill to the top or say 5 cubic metres half way. A decent sized concrete truck in my experience would be carrying a full load at 10 cubic metres. Even half that amount is a lot of concrete.

So taking that he got a half load delivered to his own place and asked the lorry driver to put it in his own trailer or he went to the concrete company himself to pick it up. There are a number of logistical problems which come to mind. The first being that not many farmers in my experience have the type of trailer which can carry large volumes of liquid concrete. The concrete once exposed to the air starts to go off quite quickly. Also would this whole shenanigans not also raise more questions and highlight what he was up to?

No concrete answers btw - just mulling the idea over ....

thats why you use lean mix. very little water in it. any decent trailer could bring it . its more like millwaste than normal concrete.

Muahahaha

Concrete not a bad idea but surely not as easy as just digging a grave with the tractor and moving it there, in a sealed barrell as the pen turner suggested. He only needs to dig a hole big enough to take a barrel so would presume a tractor would make light work of that.

Unless maybe he thought he could be seen digging the grave from the road or that Mary Lowry might see him from the house and he ruled it out because of that. He would have been better off taking that risk the following Friday morning when he knew she would not be there for several hours. Whatever his options were on what to do he definitely choose the single worst one, it was a complete own goal.

Does anybody who followed the trial in great detail know whether the Defence tried to convince the Jury how unlikely it seems that Quirke would have deliberately "found" his victim, when he could have moved the victim or done a concrete job on him, as mentioned above?

I read a lot about the trial in the papers, and I may have missed this. But surely such logical possibilities would create sufficient doubt about Quirke's guilt.

(Bearing in mind that the Defence need not prove anything, merely sow the seeds of doubt and hope for something reasonable)

Larbre34

One of two things do for murder suspects at trial. DNA and/or the digital footprint. The latter did for Graham Dwyer and Joe O'Reilly and they thought they were clued in on such things but they were still nailed. Quirke was far more naive.

I myself sat on a murder trial jury 4 years ago and it was his digital trace; phone, texts, facebook, CCTV, purchases etc that built up a largely circumstantial picture, but when all put together over 2 days deliberation created a jigsaw that wasnt just beyond a reasonable doubt, but practically impossible in my mind that it could have been anyone else. I never lost a wink of sleep for sending the fella down as we unanimously did and whats more he recently lost his appeal.

Unless its found the judge erred in law in some way, Quirke is gonna loose his too.

mikeymouse

The 22 months between going missing and being "found" may seem a long time, but the search was still very active , with missing posters still around.
This report from the examiner is 15 months after Bobby Ryan was reported missing.
Everyone had their own opinion about what happened to him.
Of those, some ,including his brother felt he had been murdered.
Some would have suspected Patrick Quirke had something to do with it,
including some of the local gardai.
Messing with the tank,bringing in loads of concrete,tractors and diggers ,transporting the body in fertiliser bags or a barrel to a grave dug somewhere.
would have raised some suspicion to say the least.
It's a rural area , but not exactly remote, and not much goes on without being noticed in those areas.

watn_a_van

Has there been any good documentaries or articles about what might have happened?

I heard about he might have hit him with a quad or something.

I wonder where he did it if so? Why was his van found in the woods?

gozunda

mikeymouse wrote: »

The 22 months between going missing and being "found" may seem a long time, but the search was still very active , with missing posters still around.
This report from the examiner is 15 months after Bobby Ryan was reported missing.
Everyone had their own opinion about what happened to him.
Of those, some ,including his brother felt he had been murdered.
Some would have suspected Patrick Quirke had something to do with it,
including some of the local gardai.
Messing with the tank,bringing in loads of concrete,tractors and diggers ,transporting the body in fertiliser bags or a barrel to a grave dug somewhere.
would have raised some suspicion to say the least.
It's a rural area , but not exactly remote, and not much goes on without being noticed in those areas.

^^ This and the fact the there were other people in and around MLs house etc on a fairly regular basis. There would have been a document tail had concrete been purchased and any subsequent discovery would have been a slam dunk. The way the body was 'discoverd' created a scenario of doubt ... deliberatly so imo.

The details of how the body was laid out in the tank are fairly bizarre tbh. It would also seem there was a minimal amount of water in the tank from the description given that the tank was built with cavity blocks and was highly porus.

See:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0429/1046307-quirke-the-murder-trial-that-shocked-the-country/

...In the incident room at Tipperary Garda Station, officers also examined why Patrick Quirke had opened the tank. He said he had done so to get water to agitate slurry. But detectives came to believe the porous underground tank would not have contained enough water to mix with hardened slurry, and did not accept that an experienced farmer would have thought that it could have.

Again doubt as to what was said by PQ. This is the type of evidence (in addition to the the known facts of a case) which imo can tip a case towards (beyond) reasonable doubt and secure a conviction.

4ensic15

watn_a_van wrote: »

Why was his van found in the woods?

It was found in the woods because it was lost there. In a country area like that nobody can do anything with concrete without neighbours knowing what is going on. If someone is seen getting a delivery everyone will want to know what it is for. If anyone is working with concrete people will walk up and ask about the job.

Field east

4ensic15 wrote: »

It was found in the woods because it was lost there. In a country area like that nobody can do anything with concrete without neighbours knowing what is going on. If someone is seen getting a delivery everyone will want to know what it is for. If anyone is working with concrete people will walk up and ask about the job.

North PQ is ‘ very well known’ by the locals and wider afield, ever,over he makes, actions entered into etc, etc, have the potential to be closely watched and maybe even reported to the guards . It could be something as inocuous as buying a bag of cement, a spade, XZZXXXzzz
Solutions, chemicals,etc, zzetc, sowing saplinzZZgxs, MANUALLY DIZZGGIZNXG an area to sow few vegseeds. PEOpLZxEzzZ ZwXzill try and put two and two together

johnjacob

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Does anybody who followed the trial in great detail know whether the Defence tried to convince the Jury how unlikely it seems that Quirke would have deliberately "found" his victim, when he could have moved the victim or done a concrete job on him, as mentioned above?

I read a lot about the trial in the papers, and I may have missed this. But surely such logical possibilities would create sufficient doubt about Quirke's guilt.

(Bearing in mind that the Defence need not prove anything, merely sow the seeds of doubt and hope for something reasonable)

so all you have to do be really stupid and the jury won't believe that.

Bury a body in your back garden? Sure no one would be stupid enough to do that, it must have been someone else

realdanbreen

There are currently three murderer's that I can think of that are locked up mainly because of their own stupidity. Joe O'Reilly for saying that he had his phone with him all day on the day of the murder. Graham Dwyer for not destroying his phones etc instead of throwing them in a reservoir and Quirke for 'discovering ' the body and not destroying his laptop.

johnjacob

realdanbreen wrote: »

There are currently three murderer's that I can think of that are locked up mainly because of their own stupidity. Joe O'Reilly for saying that he had his phone with him all day on the day of the murder. Graham Dwyer for not destroying his phones etc instead of throwing them in a reservoir and Quirke for 'discovering ' the body and not destroying his laptop.

Well I'm not sure the rather suspicious findings of the phones was quite as stupid as leaving a body hanging around to be found.

I mean at least Pat hid his for 2 plus years

Sure why didn't he bury the body? Maybe there is a pattern here.

the_pen_turner

4ensic15 wrote: »

It was found in the woods because it was lost there. In a country area like that nobody can do anything with concrete without neighbours knowing what is going on. If someone is seen getting a delivery everyone will want to know what it is for. If anyone is working with concrete people will walk up and ask about the job.

yes. but your not going to be stupid enough to get it delivered to the tank. get it delivered to his farm for a job he was doing. or go get the lean mix hiself for a job on his farm. noone would suspect anything.

then bring over a meter of it in a few barrrels or an IBC in a car trailer or cattle box . put a few bales outside the area to stop you been seen easily and work away

jmreire

But what about the entomologist who got some larvae from the body, and judging by its stage of development, estimated that the body had been infected between 10 and 21 days previously..as the tank was considered sealed prior to this, how did it get infected? Was the body only placed in the tank as recently as that?

gozunda

jmreire wrote: »

But what about the entomologist who got some larvae from the body, and judging by its stage of development, estimated that the body had been infected between 10 and 21 days previously..as the tank was considered sealed prior to this, how did it get infected? Was the body only placed in the tank as recently as that?

I think this was the deal breaker tbh. The findings came from a forensic entomologist who had proved that the seal of the tank had been broken a short time prior to the day of the 'discovery'. The chances of the two happening and coinciding with PQs later internet searches on body decomposition etc was what tipped the balance imo.

Tbh even the story of the discovery itself didn't stand up to scrutiny with regard to the fact it was a seepage tank that held very little water. And even that according to the Gardai - PQ was dressed in good clothes whilst allegedly handling slurry on the day in question. On their own none of these issues are particularly remarkable - together they are fairly damning tbh.

tipptom

gozunda wrote: »

I think this was the deal breaker tbh. The findings came from a forensic entomologist who had proved that the seal of the tank had been broken a short time prior to the day of the 'discovery'. The chances of the two happening and coinciding with PQs later internet searches on body decomposition etc was what tipped the balance imo.

Tbh even the story of the discovery itself didn't stand up to scrutiny with regard to the fact it was a seepage tank that held very little water. And even that according to the Gardai - PQ was dressed in good clothes whilst allegedly handling slurry on the day in question. On their own none of these issues are particularly remarkable - together they are fairly damning tbh.

Plus this would have been the last tank of the three on the farm that you would bother going to for water if you knew it was there.

Previously PQ could only point to the two other tanks that he knew of on the farm in the search for BRs body,yet years later he could find this tank that he didn't know existed for a minimum amount of water.

4ensic15

the_pen_turner wrote: »

yes. but your not going to be stupid enough to get it delivered to the tank. get it delivered to his farm for a job he was doing. or go get the lean mix hiself for a job on his farm. noone would suspect anything.

then bring over a meter of it in a few barrrels or an IBC in a car trailer or cattle box . put a few bales outside the area to stop you been seen easily and work away

If he got it delivered to he farm the neighbours would know how much was delivered and would wonder waht he was doing with it. Trying to move it after deliver would cause problems as there would be a very tight timeframe and he could easily be seen. Even buying lean mix would be known to the neighbours and everyone else in the area and they would all wonder what he was doing with it. In rural ireland everyone is aware of anyone improving a farm nad usually begrudges it.

upupup

jmreire wrote: »

But what about the entomologist who got some larvae from the body, and judging by its stage of development, estimated that the body had been infected between 10 and 21 days previously..as the tank was considered sealed prior to this, how did it get infected? Was the body only placed in the tank as recently as that?

The defense said that 2 weeks before PQ found the body,the tank was flooded which created a gap that allowed the fly to enter the tank
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/love-rival-trial-tank-was-opened-at-least-11-days-before-body-found-37829890.html

jmreire

tipptom wrote: »

Plus this would have been the last tank of the three on the farm that you would bother going to for water if you knew it was there.

Previously PQ could only point to the two other tanks that he knew of on the farm in the search for BRs body,yet years later he could find this tank that he didn't know existed for a minimum amount of water.

There was an issue with a calf injuring his leg at the tank, and Quirke mentioned about fencing it off.

Muahahaha

gozunda wrote: »

I think this was the deal breaker tbh. The findings came from a forensic entomologist who had proved that the seal of the tank had been broken a short time prior to the day of the 'discovery'. The chances of the two happening and coinciding with PQs later internet searches on body decomposition etc was what tipped the balance imo.

I've wondered about this evidence. Yes the entomologist proved flies got access to the tank some 10-21 days before Quirke discovered it. But would the seal on the tank really have been fly proof? I never heard the defence say anything about it but flies can and will get into any tiny gap. Not an expert but it wouldnt have been that hard for the defence to tell the jury that unless the prosecution could prove the tank was sealed to the extent of being fly proof for that whole 22 month period then the entomologists evidence wasn't really worth anything. The tank was opened when Gardai arrived so there was never any way they could ever prove what the seal was like, could have been a 1cm gap or a 1mm one and a fly would still make it through.

Odelay

Muahahaha wrote: »

I've wondered about this evidence. Yes the entomologist proved flies got access to the tank some 10-21 days before Quirke discovered it. But would the seal on the tank really have been fly proof? I never heard the defence say anything about it but flies can and will get into any tiny gap. Not an expert but it wouldnt have been that hard for the defence to tell the jury that unless the prosecution could prove the tank was sealed to the extent of being fly proof for that whole 22 month period then the entomologists evidence wasn't really worth anything. The tank was opened when Gardai arrived so there was never any way they could ever prove what the seal was like, could have been a 1cm gap or a 1mm one and a fly would still make it through.

If it had let flies in before, there would be evidence of older flies and larve.
Not sure why people are having such a hard time believing he was responsible for the death.

the_pen_turner

Muahahaha wrote: »

I've wondered about this evidence. Yes the entomologist proved flies got access to the tank some 10-21 days before Quirke discovered it. But would the seal on the tank really have been fly proof? I never heard the defence say anything about it but flies can and will get into any tiny gap. Not an expert but it wouldnt have been that hard for the defence to tell the jury that unless the prosecution could prove the tank was sealed to the extent of being fly proof for that whole 22 month period then the entomologists evidence wasn't really worth anything. The tank was opened when Gardai arrived so there was never any way they could ever prove what the seal was like, could have been a 1cm gap or a 1mm one and a fly would still make it through.

Surely the Pope feeding the tank is open as well.

Maybe there was only fliesn of that age in the tank and no others

pinkyeye

Very little being said about the Late Late show? Can I take it that it was a fairly boring appearance?

Muahahaha

Odelay wrote: »

If it had let flies in before, there would be evidence of older flies and larve.
Not sure why people are having such a hard time believing he was responsible for the death.

Get you. And no one here is believing he is innocent, just fleshing out the evidence on a discussion forum

Edgware

pinkyeye wrote: »

Very little being said about the Late Late show? Can I take it that it was a fairly boring appearance?

About standard ****e for the LLS. A bit of talk about "Daddy"

sligojoek

pinkyeye wrote: »

Very little being said about the Late Late show? Can I take it that it was a fairly boring appearance?

It was your typical RTE "How did you feel?" type interview. There was no teasing out of the evidence.

gozunda

upupup wrote: »

The defense said that 2 weeks before PQ found the body,the tank was flooded which created a gap that allowed the fly to enter the tank
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/love-rival-trial-tank-was-opened-at-least-11-days-before-body-found-37829890.html

The same article further gives details of an engineer giving evidence to the court on how he conducted tests to replicate the tank being flooded. However because the tank was so porous - it failed to fill with the implication I think that no gap would have been created ...

Wrongway1985

Aye poor interviewer the lad is anyhow, too much how did ya feel when {insert bad news} somehow you know the response isn't going to be that cartwheels around the kitchen were done.

They came across well gave insight into not knowing the man at all and as trial progressed having a few awkward days where they ended up on the same train journeys as him.

Questions delivered were of little substance nothing that wasn't obvious for those following trial, it was prerecorded and oddly tagged on at the end. I tuned in about 10 and had to endure a spud peeling competition, a discussion with leaving cert students, Kodaline, some other music guest may aswell have been Kodaline again average drivel, a girl who had problems saying no to everything and a mannequin giving birth...then the Ryan's were on.

upupup

gozunda wrote: »

The same article further gives details of an engineer giving evidence to the court on how he conducted tests to replicate the tank being flooded. However because the tank was so porous - it failed to fill with the implication I think that no gap would have been created ...

Yes,I think the defense argument doesn't hold water:D

If the flies got in from day 1,I wonder if things would be different...maybe easier for PQ to deal with