Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Loafing Oaf

Odelay wrote: »

It will probably be made into a film soon. Sex, lies and slurry tanks. It has it all.

Maybe a shot at a leading role for a 'character actor'? Can't see them casting Cillian Murphy or Colin Farrell anyway...

Charles Ingles

Edgware wrote: »

Poor old Joe Reilly. Another innocent man convicted on circumstantial evidence

Mrs ingles is convinced Joe is innocent

SEPT 23 1989

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

kerry cow

The field is was a hit but there's endless Oscars in this movie ,
you couldnt dream it up .

freshpopcorn

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

Couldn't agree more. I think the media are just trying to sell it.
I live in North Cork and close to South Tipperary and I heard very little about it apart from a few from the Tipp/Cashel area.
They were loads of talk about Elaine O'Hara and Joe O'Reilly. Even the post count is low in this thread.

dastardly00

Prime Time is starting in a minute and they are focusing on the case

john9876

Another thing I don't understand is whether he put the body in the slurry tank immediately after killing him or whether he put it there very recently?
If he put the body there immediately after killing him surely the gardai would have noticed the disturbed ground and searched the tank ... or am I giving too much credit to the boys in blue!

blackcard

Faugheen wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it a bit shocking that a lot of people would convict someone based on other behaviors they find distasteful. Many of those same people were probably screaming blue murder about a recent rape trial where a knickers - again disgracefully in my view - was presented as evidence.

Just because he likes collecting women's knickers, likes making sex tapes or is a bit of a creep in general has no bearing on his guilt or otherwise for murder. Just as him being a "decent fellow" has no bearing on it.

Looking at the evidence there is quite a bit of coincidental and circumstantial evidence. But there is no murder weapon, no DNA, no blood, no witnesses, and some of the evidence had stories full of holes themselves, (Mary Lowry, the AI woman ...) plus the sheer incompetence of Mr Jaber and some of the Gardai - who I have a lot of sympathy for on the day of discovery as the pathologist didn't come ...)

The fact the farmhouse was conveniently totally redecorated before any search took place ....

The fact Mary Lowry looked like she had been in a car crash the morning Bobby Ryan disappeared ...

It DOES look like he did it .... but there is no smoking gun - and a LOT more to this story than meets the eye.

You don't need any of that as long as your circumstantial evidence is strong enough, as we have seen multiple times before.

Why do people have such a problem grasping this?

I was walking down a street in Toronto when I met a girl I went to school with in Ireland, we had dated for a while. What are the chances? I had married a girl with the same Christian name as her. This is where it gets freaky. She had married a guy with the same name as me. We both had 2 kids. With the same names!!!
There is obviously circumstantial evidence that she was stalking me, had sought someone with the same name as me to marry, had set me up with a girl her name and had found out my kids names. God knows what you might have found on her computer. Or the whole thing might have been a series of coincidences. But I think we should lock her up for stalking

Muahahaha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Served on a jury three times. Was called recently but was excused (Hallelujah) due to my recent hearing difficulties.

The foreman/woman on a jury can be an issue. Just saying. You can read into that what you wish, but anyone who puts themselves forward as foreman/woman is of a certain personality type, let me put it that way. And it can be very difficult to sway things sometimes.

Just my observation and my experience.

Ive often thought about the dynamic in jury delibrations. As you say a certain type of person is likely to put themselves forward to be the foreman. Its likely this person is good at public speaking, good at convincing others of their argument. They might be a manager in their job, have leadership attributes, etc. All of which begs the question that if the foreman believes a suspect is not guilty do they have the opportunity to influence just two other jurors of the same in the jury room. Is there a court clerk in the jury room taking notes of everything that is said by each person? And if so do the barristers for each side get to see those notes and argue if it was a 'fair' deliberation or point out that one juror had an undue influence on other jurors. So many questions

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Moving the body, considering the state of decomposition it was in, would have been difficult for him to do single-handedly, would it not?

Not an easy job but still do-able I think. If the tank was full of slurry then pump it out and spread the slurry. Then go down and get your hands dirty, perhaps chopping the body into five or six parts and then burying it elsewhere on the farm using the tractor as a digger. Cover with grass seed and when thats grown then its unlikely it would ever be found by the next farmer to take over the lease. When you think of it Quirke had basically gotten away with murder for almost two years despite being the main suspect. He was obviously not in the right frame of mind when he decided to call Gardai rather than move the body himself. He took a look at the body 11 days before the 'discovery' so it must of been at that point he decided he didnt have the stomach to move it. Bizarre decision, I can only imagine he was losing his sanity on what to do and he wasnt thinking straight.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Transfixed by the nation says RTE

Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case

Agree with this, it was nowhere near as explosive as the Graham Dwyer trial, that had it all, every day of that trial something new came out and every day you were in shock of what went on. I mean even the most sexually liberal of us had never heard of a fetish where you have sex with someone and stab them at the same time. If a fiction writer wrote it you wouldnt believe it.

koutoubia

I havent read all the replies here ..yet but will say this.

I was a juror on a murder trial some years back which also made 'The Papers' with select information from the trial.
When the information was that made public in said papers was refuted and was proved to be untrue that somehow didnt manage to make it into 'The Papers'.
If anyone is making any assumptions about what appears print then dont!
What jurors pick up on and hear on a daily basis can be different to what an ordinary joe in the public gallery that doesnt sit there everyday gets.

An important point now:
It was pointed out to us that in Irish Law that only the intention to kill followed by the death can be deemed as murder.
EG
If subject A says to Subject B "I am going to kill Subject C with this knife" and Subject C ends up dead from a knife wound BUT no one witness's it the subject A can be convicted murder.


We took 3 and a half days to come to a verdict.The jury room went from being a sound place with sound people to a very tense place with some heated exchanges taking place.

Spanish Eyes

The jury deliberates with just the twelve. No one else. They can decide to ask for clarification on points with the judge, but otherwise it is just those twelve.

It is not an easy task, I can tell you. Some members are more vocal than others, but some are also less involved in the "beyond reasonable doubt" issue. The judge always directs the jury in that regard and it is important to listen to the judge.

I do not envy jurors. I know the score. Some members can be swayed by the usual bullies, you get them everywhere. Have to be strong and observe and go with the evidence.

Glad I will not have to do it again. But I did it three times, that's more than enough for me!

Muahahaha

koutoubia wrote: »

We took 3 and a half days to come to a verdict.The jury room went from being a sound place with sound people to a very tense place with some heated exchanges taking place.

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Did anybody hear Liveline Today?
I saw a Tweet saying that Quirke's mother rang in to say he got prosession of the family home against her will in 2005.
It sounded messy.

Charming fellow. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mother-of-patrick-quirke-called-liveline-in-2005-to-complain-about-son-921628.html

Spanish Eyes

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

Being holed up in hotels doesn't happen anymore. But lunches and breaks do alright.

The quiet ones will often analyse the evidence, the vocal ones can be bullies and just shout out loud.

It is not a nice place that jury room, believe me.

paleoperson

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ive often thought about the dynamic in jury delibrations. As you say a certain type of person is likely to put themselves forward to be the foreman. Its likely this person is good at public speaking, good at convincing others of their argument. They might be a manager in their job, have leadership attributes, etc. All of which begs the question that if the foreman believes a suspect is not guilty do they have the opportunity to influence just two other jurors of the same in the jury room. Is there a court clerk in the jury room taking notes of everything that is said by each person? And if so do the barristers for each side get to see those notes and argue if it was a 'fair' deliberation or point out that one juror had an undue influence on other jurors. So many questions.

It's funny how they ban the media from speaking about it or from the juror consulting with non-jurors about it, but it's open season for speaking with people who have every motive to want to influence their decision.

Since I was young I have always been skeptical about this process but I was pretty cautious about my conclusions - for the same reasons I'd be very cautious about believing I knew better than the experts at literature, music or biology at something fundamental to their systems of doing stuff, surely I must be missing something. However if anything the older I get the more preposterous it seems to be - why allow people to get influenced and/or manipulated? Bullying and harassment, people allowing their opinion to be silenced just so they can get out early as well.

My system would be like this: Have 24 people. Every individual in turn gives their preliminary vote and attempts to justify it - so if someone thinks of something another person didn't they can hear it. No more deliberations after that. Their end vote is anonymous.

Some people say that deliberations are necessary to make sure everyone remembers and understands/connects all the evidence - well how about all jury members must also undergo a non-trivial quiz at the end of the trial making sure they understood it all? This would ensure that people are compis mentis for the incredibly serious job.

Muahahaha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The jury deliberates with just the twelve. No one else. They can decide to ask for clarification on points with the judge, but otherwise it is just those twelve.

Thats interesting. I find it strange that the conversations arent at least recorded, I mean all sorts could be said in there. You could even have one of those bully types whose been got to by associates of the suspect and bribed to produce a not guilty verdict. Over a number of weeks he then gets friendly with a few other jurors in an effort to influence them into a not guilty verdict. Without a record of what is said in that room it makes corrupting the process a lot easier. I wonder how they do it in other countries.

Also post trial you are not allowed to speak to the media. What did the judge say to your group in relation to this, was there a threat of prison time if you did break the silence?

Spanish Eyes

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats interesting. I find it strange that the conversations arent at least recorded, I mean all sorts could be said in there. You could even have one of those bully types whose been got to by associates of the suspect and bribed to produce a not guilty verdict. Over a number of weeks he then gets friendly with a few other jurors in an effort to influence them into a not guilty verdict. Without a record of what is said in that room it makes corrupting the process a lot easier. I wonder how they do it in other countries.

Also post trial you are not allowed to speak to the media. What did the judge say to your group in relation to this, was there a threat of prison time if you did break the silence?

When a juror is selected s/he is obliged to recuse themselves if they have any connection at all with the accused or the victim etc.

If deliberations were recorded there would be few verdicts, most likely hung jury. Not happening, nor will it.

Jurors cannot speak about trials they were involved in. Rightly so.

paleoperson

Muahahaha wrote: »

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial.

Could there be an inkling of the CSI effect about this, I wonder. Or is the idea of the CSI effect a bunch of hokum made up by dodgy prosecutors?

cute geoge

john9876 wrote: »

Another thing I don't understand is whether he put the body in the slurry tank immediately after killing him or whether he put it there very recently?
If he put the body there immediately after killing him surely the gardai would have noticed the disturbed ground and searched the tank ... or am I giving too much credit to the boys in blue!

It seems when gardai searched the farm after bobby Ryan went missing the tank was covered with round bales of silage and as well not many even knew that the tank even existed

Aska

Deleted User wrote:

The defense tried their damndest to lay the blame on Mary Lowry and failed.

They did and the media did their bit too with the whole 'Mr. Moonlight' angle on all reports as if poor Bobby was a sex pest while he did the DJing as a hobby and the trucking job was his main daily job.

Quirke seems to be a very controlling person be it the compo he wanted when some of his animals according to him got sick and then there was the provisions of money he wanted made in Mary's will so he could build his extension to care for her kids should she pass away, personally I hope he rots but Bernard Condon is paid well to discredit everyone other than his client and so far this didn't work this time.

Also they are praising Imelda for standing by her husband, seriously i think she had to stand by her man cause if she hadn't of then why signal would that have made? And surely the defense would not have wanted that image out there.

Muahahaha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Being holed up in hotels doesn't happen anymore. But lunches and breaks do alright.

The quiet ones will often analyse the evidence, the vocal ones can be bullies and just shout out loud.

It is not a nice place that jury room, believe me.

Aw right, for some reason I had thought that when a trial is to last several weeks/months that all jurors staying in the same hotel to prevent them going home and discussing the trial/evidence with family and friends who are also following it in the media. Not putting them in a hotel makes the process even worse IMO, like what juror isnt going to go home and have a natter about the details of what they spent the day hearing? We're all human, you couldnt not talk about it to your partner who then also has an opinion, one that very much might influence you.

In your own case were your three trials in a specific county with all jurors living in that county and commuting from home to the courts every day? Were there any measures taken to ensure that jurors couldnt be 'got' to by assoiciates of the suspect? Id be very reluictant to serve on a jury for fear of something like that happening. Criminals are violent people and they'll do anything to get their way.

Spleerbun

On the jury point, this was clearly a very close one and one vote the other way could have changed everything. The fact that 2 voted not guilty suggests to me that at least one or two others were probably close to 50-50.

I was on a jury before and what one poster speculated a few posts ago rang true: the foreman was a bit of an influencer and was an articulate speaker, I got the feeling once he had his mind made up he was very likely followed by a few sheep in the group. (As we all know, there are far more sheep out there than shepherds!). Some people, and we've all met them, need reassurance from others before making decisions themselves.

It may be flawed but the problem is that I don't see any better way of doing these things. Apart from maybe just letting the judge decide, but I don't think anyone is particularly happy these days with judges in this country tbh

PhilOssophy

john9876 wrote: »

Another thing I don't understand is whether he put the body in the slurry tank immediately after killing him or whether he put it there very recently?
If he put the body there immediately after killing him surely the gardai would have noticed the disturbed ground and searched the tank ... or am I giving too much credit to the boys in blue!

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.
It wasn't the boys in blue's finest hour by any means but they were quick enough to get the larvae expert on the job which proved to be vital in the case of proving the tank was open in the lead up to the staged discovery

Spanish Eyes

Muahahaha wrote: »

Aw right, for some reason I had thought that when a trial is to last several weeks/months that all jurors staying in the same hotel to prevent them going home and discussing the trial/evidence with family and friends who are also following it in the media. Not putting them in a hotel makes the process even worse IMO, like what juror isnt going to go home and have a natter about the details of what they spent the day hearing? We're all human, you couldnt not talk about it to your partner who then also has an opinion, one that very much might influence you.

In your own case were your three trials in a specific county with all jurors living in that county and commuting from home to the courts every day? Were there any measures taken to ensure that jurors couldnt be 'got' to by assoiciates of the suspect? Id be very reluictant to serve on a jury for fear of something like that happening. Criminals are violent people and they'll do anything to get their way.

All trials were in the Central Criminal Court in Dublin where I live. I didn't feel intimidated, more rollie eyes at the boss i.e. the jury foreman. But I said my piece and am happy that I did. The verdict did not comply with my view, but I am happy enough that I got my point across. Was a 10/2 verdict in the first case to convict. The other two were unanimous in the end, but it took a while.

Muahahaha

Aska wrote: »

They did and the media did their bit too with the whole 'Mr. Moonlight' angle on all reports as if poor Bobby was a sex pest while he did the DJing as a hobby and the trucking job was his main daily job.

Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight".

To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.

Faugheen

Muahahaha wrote: »

Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight".

To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.

Was there a covert sniggering when his missing posters had ‘Mr Moonlight’ on them? Or when his daughter referred to him as ‘Moonlight’ in the victim impact statement?

I really don’t understand the Mr Moonlight issue at all. It’s what the man was known as.

mycro2013

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.
It wasn't the boys in blue's finest hour by any means but they were quick enough to get the larvae expert on the job which proved to be vital in the case of proving the tank was open in the lead up to the staged discovery

There must have been other involvement. Did he walk back from bansha wood to collect his own vehicle. How did he move the body. Alot of unknowns.

koutoubia

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all?

Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.

On the first point : ...And it is of course just going on what I experienced....
Yes I can imagine that one 'vocal outspoken' person can have an influence. In my case there were 3 or 4 so they nullified each other.

The jury room is just that. A room for the jury only. No one except the jury, the jury minder and a cleaner who has strict intrusctions as to what they can touch and look at.
Essentially it a free for all but with unlimited supply of coffee, tea and bikkies.

There is a certain similarity between this trial and the one I was involved in and its that the jury I was on believed someone else was pulling the strings BUT we had to remind ourselves that they were not on trial and we coiuld only make a decision about the person on trial. It was difficult but had to be done.

sligojoek

Now that the "run off tank" has been explained above, it's got me thinking.

A lot of guards come from a farming background. Given the amount of them that searched the farm, did none of them see the milking parlour and say, "Where's the run off tank?"?

Spanish Eyes

koutoubia wrote: »

On the first point : ...And it is of course just going on what I experienced....
Yes I can imagine that one 'vocal outspoken' person can have an influence. In my case there were 3 or 4 so they nullified each other.

The jury room is just that. A room for the jury only. No one except the jury, the jury minder and a cleaner who has strict intrusctions as to what they can touch and look at.
Essentially it a free for all but with unlimited supply of coffee, tea and bikkies.

There is a certain similarity between this trial and the one I was involved in and its that the jury I was on believed someone else was pulling the strings BUT we had to remind ourselves that they were not on trial and we coiuld only make a decision about the person on trial. It was difficult but had to be done.

Exactly and fair dues to you and your jury members.

Being a juror requires a lot of self belief and a lot of analysis of the evidence.

I often think that the 10/2 verdicts are the opt out verdict. Never happy with that.

But anyway. Not wishing for a ban or anything!

Spanish Eyes

I think the jury foreman should only be appointed when there is a verdict.

All s/he has to to do in reality is convey the decision to the court.

Discuss!

Joe Daly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they had nothing like that on Glenroe.

Well holy god.

koutoubia

paleoperson wrote: »

My system would be like this: Have 24 people. Every individual in turn gives their preliminary vote and attempts to justify it - so if someone thinks of something another person didn't they can hear it. No more deliberations after that.

Some people say that deliberations are necessary to make sure everyone remembers and understands/connects all the evidence - well how about all jury members must also undergo a non-trivial quiz at the end of the trial making sure they understood it all? This would ensure that people are for the incredibly serious job.

The BOLD type above.... Why no more deliberations? That would almost defeat the purpose of having a jury.
For mine when we went in to start deliberating we did a quick around the table of 'Guilty or Not Guilty' before we started to deliberate. I sat on the fence as I simply didnt know....which meant that I had a doubt which meant not guilty!
From memory at least 2 others changed their mind. The deliberations kept going until we got to a stage where everyone was comfortable that they had come to a decision.

For the italics above...a large part of that would fall down to the barristers in court to make it plain and clear to the jury what their question is and what it means . They waffle on in legal parlance all they want and sound important BUT if they dont convinc the jury then they are losing the battle.

Muahahaha

paleoperson wrote: »

Could there be an inkling of the CSI effect about this, I wonder. Or is the idea of the CSI effect a bunch of hokum made up by dodgy prosecutors?

With the explosion in popularity of the true crime genre and Netflix etc I would say the CSI effect does exist. For instance Ive a friend who swears that without a doubt Steven Avery of Making a Murderer fame is innocent. Its a good doc for sure but if you objectively analyse it you can see how the makers are playing on the emotions of the audience. Instead of presenting a potential killer the leading narrative of it is that he has been framed and is innocent. Then they fill in plenty of time with emotional phone calls of him from prison to his elderly parents. They skirt over the fact that the cops were called to his home numerous times for assaults on women. And many people watching believe he is innocent but dont realise that the makers have been tugging on their heart strings and delibritely not laying out the full story.

Spleerbun wrote: »

It may be flawed but the problem is that I don't see any better way of doing these things. Apart from maybe just letting the judge decide, but I don't think anyone is particularly happy these days with judges in this country tbh

Someone earlier suggessted a secret ballot where by the other jurors dont know your position might be a better way. With a secret ballot a juror could choose to outline their reasons for guilty and their reasons for not guilty, a kind of sit on the fence position. And then go and secretly vote for what they think is the most likely. It just seems to me that if everyone knows how everyone else is voting then you are going to have shepherds and sheep following them.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say.
I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.

This part is the real head scratcher for me. Open to correction but my understanding is that Quirke kills him right outside Mary Lowrys house sometime after 6.30am. What does he do next? Drive the van and body to his farm, dump the body in the slurry tank and then drive the van to the woods? If he did all this then why no DNA or blood in the van? And how did he get back from the woods, on foot or did he bring a bicycle and cycle back? Surely he would have been seen? It all seems too hard for one person to carry out alone without being seen by someone. Earlier on thread someone mentioned a Polish farm labourer employed there who went back to Poland shortly thereafter, is there any more details about this bit?

Stacksofwacks

Just seen the Prime Time and there's defintely questions regarding Mary Lowry. No doubt Quirke did it but is he covering for her in some way.. Why did she wait such along time after Ryan went missing to disclose the affair with Quirke? She must have known that Quirke would have had something to do with it and yet she let half the country searching the woods for weeks. How did he murder Ryan and bury the body on her property without her knowing anything? And why did she resume the affair with Quirke after Ryan went missing when she must have known he was behind the dissapearance. She's either very weak and naive or we're not hearing the full story.

paleoperson

koutoubia wrote: »

The BOLD type above.... Why no more deliberations? That would almost defeat the purpose of having a jury.
For mine when we went in to start deliberating we did a quick around the table of 'Guilty or Not Guilty' before we started to deliberate. I sat on the fence as I simply didnt know....which meant that I had a doubt which meant not guilty!
From memory at least 2 others changed their mind. The deliberations kept going until we got to a stage where everyone was comfortable that they had come to a decision.

No more deliberations so it doesn't turn into the soap opera described earlier. The jury is the group of peers there to give their verdict - they're obviously important when they're the ones deciding guilty or innocent.

As you yourself point out next, it should be mainly up to the legal professionals to convince the jurors, not them to convince each other. I'm not really sure why you posted this but thanks as it really helps me in answering your post:

koutoubia wrote: »

For the italics above...a large part of that would fall down to the barristers in court to make it plain and clear to the jury what their question is and what it means . They waffle on in legal parlance all they want and sound important BUT if they dont convinc the jury then they are losing the battle.

If after hearing all sides thoroughly one person believes a) and another person believes b), is it right that one should be able to try to convince the other to take their side instead? The first question will be a variation of "why do you think that?" and from then on it's a targeted breaking down of their statements, it may well come down to who is good at manipulation or persuasion - and it's not like they think they're the bad guy or anything, they just see it as their duty to convince the others.

This is why I suggest that instead of being able to target people individually, each juror could give their justification for a preliminary vote. This way if one juror has a perspective or idea that may not have been put out by the legal professionals, they are laying it flat on the table for all to see. Other than that I see no reason to prolong the process.

Vicarious Function

I don't think the body was ever in the van. I believe Bobby R. (R.I.P.) was killed as he came out of Mary Lowry's house at approx 6.30 ba.m. by Quirke who was waiting for him. The slurry tank is on M. Lowry's farm, so the body would not have to be transported anywhere. I imagine Quirke would have had a selection of machinery, for instance somethng like a forklift. Using something like that, it wold be simple enough to move the body into the run-off tank. He must have had access to fairly good machinery as he would have had to lift the concrete covers off the tank in order to get the body in there. After all, he had access to a suction machine and slurry spreader, which are fairly heavy machinery. IMO, he could even have used one of those machines in committing the murder.

Vicarious Function

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

My speculation is there was a violent confrontation in the yard that morning which Lowry wasnt oblivious to. Ryan ends up on the ground dead. The two then decide to dispose the body and keep it quiet.

You could be right, Stacksofwacks. It's another way of looking at it. Who's to know?

Spanish Eyes

Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view.

Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.

freshpopcorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view.

Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.

It's a possibility but people are strange.
It's amazing the people that will stick by family members. Sometimes they are naive or abused and others they are well matched.

One thing is that there eleven year old son died in 2012 and this may have brought them closer together.

Muahahaha

Faugheen wrote: »

I really don’t understand the Mr Moonlight issue at all. It’s what the man was known as.

He was known as Mr.Moonlight locally in Tipperary which is fine because he was well known and had posters about promoting his show. Locals say knew him as the life and soul of the party and a decent man. But he wasn't known nationally as Mr.Moonlight until the radio and the print media shoved it in our faces every day for the last three months. Part of the evidence was that Quirke said Bobby Ryan was "one for the women and for staying out late". Immediately you've got the innuendo that he became a DJ because he was a womaniser when the reality is very different, he had a love of music and enjoyed socialising. Media were trying to sensationlise the story into this narrative of "The Love Rival Trial". Him being a DJ accentuated their narrative which is why they used it in every single report, over and over and over again: "Bobby Ryan, a part time DJ also known as Mr.Moonlight". Now why was it they never said he was a full time truck driver? It is simple, because him being a truck driver didn't suit their narrative despite that being his main occupation. Also when else can you remember the occupation of a murder victim being used in every single report. I don't ever recall the media saying "Elaine o'Hara, a part time shop worker" ad nauseum in the way they called Bobby Ryan a part time DJ.

sligojoek wrote: »

Now that the "run off tank" has been explained above, it's got me thinking.

A lot of guards come from a farming background. Given the amount of them that searched the farm, did none of them see the milking parlour and say, "Where's the run off tank?"?

You'd have thunk so for sure. We dont seem to know if the Gardai inspected the run off tank during the first search of the farm. The van, no DNA, no blood yet a body was transported in it. The Lowry home, Ryan was bludgeoned to death right outside it but again no blood, DNA. If he was killed in the forest then why no blood or DNA there either? Then on the set up 'discovery' the Gardai dropped the concrete slab on top of the body, crime scene corrupted. Then they didnt call the specialist crime scene unit as should have been best practice, its seems there was an effort to cover up their cock up. The local cops down there definitely seem to be of the keystone variety. This case was not won by their work but instead by the trojan work of the members who forensically analysed the computer hard drive and the notepad. Without those contributions the case would have collapsed on what the local lads were up to.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the jury foreman should only be appointed when there is a verdict.

All s/he has to to do in reality is convey the decision to the court.

Discuss!

Would agree with this. Any person leading a meeting whether as a CEO, Chairman, Editor in Chief, etc gets to set the agenda. With that power if you are a good talker and a good manipulator then you can pre-determine the outcome and especially so when all you have to do is convince two people from the other 11.

paleoperson wrote: »

The first question will be a variation of "why do you think that?" and from then on it's a targeted breaking down of their statements, it may well come down to who is good at manipulation or persuasion - and it's not like they think they're the bad guy or anything, they just see it as their duty to convince the others.

There within lies the problems of juries. In a previous life I worked supporting a team of 20+salesmen. Flashy lads who would sell snow to the eskimos. I've no doubt that kind of personality could swing a jury whichever way they wanted.

Wrongway1985

Muahahaha wrote: »

Earlier on thread someone mentioned a Polish farm labourer employed there who went back to Poland shortly thereafter, is there any more details about this bit?

Think that may have been a red herring, some man working on Quirkes farm work experience I think around the time body was discovered gave evidence saying a discussion with Patrick Quirke about the discovery Quirke said he heard rumors a Polish gang may be involved.

I think there was a suggestion of a Polish worker on the farm at the time of disappearance who went back to Poland and committed suicide.Worker may not have existed.

Vicarious Function

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view.

Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.

I imagine it would have been essential in Imelda's mind to find out the full details of what happened, and the best way to do that wouild be to attend Court every day. Notice how they never touched or spoke to each other as they walked in and out of court.

Yes. There are many tragic aspects to this story. The biggest tragedy of all is Quirke himself. He had so much going for him, as we heard on Prime Time and yet due to flaws in his character, he blew it all. He's the real Greek tragedy.

jmreire

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I don't think the body was ever in the van. I believe Bobby R. (R.I.P.) was killed as he came out of Mary Lowry's house at approx 6.30 ba.m. by Quirke who was waiting for him. The slurry tank is on M. Lowry's farm, so the body would not have to be transported anywhere. I imagine Quirke would have had a selection of machinery, for instance somethng like a forklift. Using something like that, it wold be simple enough to move the body into the run-off tank. He must have had access to fairly good machinery as he would have had to lift the concrete covers off the tank in order to get the body in there. After all, he had access to a suction machine and slurry spreader, which are fairly heavy machinery. IMO, he could even have used one of those machines in committing the murder.

According to Mary, the van was about 10 mins late leaving that morning. So assume that everything was prepared,,,the slabs moved of the tank, and Quirke used a forklift to move the body to the tank,strip it and dump it in, replace the slabs etc.. all in 10 mins?? And remember, the body was not just dumped into the tank...it was carefully laid down. Plus Mary would have to hear the forklift ( or whatever it was )..they are pretty noisy. For that to work, she would have to be involved.
The other scenario is that he killed him, loaded him in the van, took the body somewhere else, hid it and then parked the van in the wood car park where it was later found. He then came back later on when he had the time to work at his leisure...picked up the body, stripped it and placed it in the tank...and then covered the tank with bales to hide it. Even that scenario would need an accomplice. Quirke given the nature of his job would be used to pulling and dragging,,, but even so,getting the body up off the ground and into the van dead weight, would take some effort.

Vicarious Function

The mind boggles. There are so many ways of looking at it. In the end it becomes a lot of speculation, which doesn't get us any nearer to the truth, unfortunately.

Nobelium

Muahahaha wrote: »

Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight".

To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.

The whole agenda of the media was as usual to present so called "rural" Ireland with as much sneering and condescending contempt as possible.

Nikki Sixx

I’m after matching with Mary Lowry on Tinder!

Loafing Oaf

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Yes. There are many tragic aspects to this story. The biggest tragedy of all is Quirke himself. He had so much going for him, as we heard on Prime Time and yet due to flaws in his character, he blew it all. He's the real Greek tragedy.

Yes he is clearly a more sensitive and intelligent man than his demeanour would suggest. But maybe that very depth of character was part of what drove him to commit a 'crime of passion' in circumstances where a simpler man might have said "Feck it, I'll find another woman."

Spanish Eyes

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's a possibility but people are strange.
It's amazing the people that will stick by family members. Sometimes they are naive or abused and others they are well matched.

One thing is that there eleven year old son died in 2012 and this may have brought them closer together.

Sorry now but it didn't stop Mr Q from playing away did it? with no concern for his wife. She supported him but why I wonder?

Stacksofwacks

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

I’m after matching with Mary Lowry on Tinder!

careful cos the last 2 ended up dead and the other is in Jail!