Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Dr Strange

tipptom wrote: »

.

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?

You are confusing the American coroners and medical examiner system with ours. The coroners here in Ireland are the legal authority to investigate deaths and are legally trained, usually barristers/solicitors. They are not forensic pathologists who examine the bodies. That role is carried out by the State Pathologist and the Office of the State Pathologist. Two completely different systems.

So what happened was that a certain Deputy State Pathologist (a forensic pathologist) declined to attend the scene of discovery.

mikeymouse

mikeymouse wrote: »

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.

I don't think pathologists have specific training on forensic anthropology, the investigators who attend a scene and examine the surroundings.

Pathologists are 'only' doctors, they might usually externally examine a body in-situ, but there may not be much point in doing so if the remains are badly decomposed or skeletal. I assume the pathologist here felt that the Garda photography would be sufficient.

And is it not? What turns on this anyway?

The body will still have had the full autopsy in the morgue/lab.

Ash.J.Williams

It's the same in the IT world... You get serious incidents after 5pm and there's always one who refused to react... Like that pathologist

Calypso Realm

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.

Listen, this guy had gotten away with this for so long and I believe he was arrogant enough to think he'd committed the perfect crime, which he effectively had up until this point, so getting caught probably didn't even enter his head. Who else would he have staged that 'discovery' on June 3? Only someone who believed he'd wasn't a suspect. This was where he majorily slipped up.

His main if only concern now (since Mary had indicated she wanted him off the property and his first search was on the evening of the day she communicated this, having caught him snooping round her bungalow) was what he would do with the body, now he was about to lose control of the farm. So he was contemplating his next move before he had to leave in a few months.

vriesmays

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

Did he play Bauhaus?

the_pen_turner

Calypso Realm wrote: »

Listen, this guy had gotten away with this for so long and I believe he was arrogant enough to think he'd committed the perfect crime, which he effectively had up until this point, so getting caught probably didn't even enter his head. Who else would he have staged that 'discovery' on June 3? Only someone who believed he'd wasn't a suspect. This was where he majorily slipped up.

His main if only concern now (since Mary had indicated she wanted him off the property and his first search was on the evening of the day she communicated this, having caught him snooping round her bungalow) was what he would do with the body, now he was about to lose control of the farm. So he was contemplating his next move before he had to leave in a few months.

I understand that but he is a smart man. He should have taken every step to destroy any potential evidence


There are loads of things he could have done to remove the body or reduce the likelihood of someone finding it

tipptom

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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.

So PQ was presumably asked to show through his long knowledge of the farm to point out any underground tanks he was aware of and could only show them two tanks yet when he wanted to acess water for slurry he went straight to this run off tank(making sure to remove all the round bales that was placed on top of it) that he previously knew nothing about and "discovered" BRs body!!

RhubarbCrumble

mikeymouse wrote: »

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.

I'm absolutely disgusted with that pathologist after reading that.

He suggested that Prof Marie Cassidy 'was not sufficiently qualified for the role', and then 'offered to return to return to Ireland (from the Middle East) to give evidence in cases in which he had been involved as a pathologist in return for a fee of €30,000 per case'

He then 'insisted the quality of his work was so good it would be an easy job for any one pathologist or lawyer to use it for evidence and to follow up the case'

Absolutely unbelievable! :eek:

tipptom

mikeymouse wrote: »

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.

Yeah,i had known a little of the history of this guy and wondered when the garda requested him to come view the body did he just refuse more in fit of pique rather than he had taken the view that he had no need to be there or was to busy.

It was kind of glossed over at the trial.

RhubarbCrumble

tipptom wrote: »

Yeah,i had known a little of the history of this guy and wondered when the garda requested him to come view the body did he just refuse more in fit of pique rather than he had taken the view that he had no need to be there or was to busy.

It was kind of glossed over at the trial.

After reading that article, he sounds like a kind of guy who thought that job might be beneath him!

tipptom

Was PQ asked during the trial why he only pointed out two tanks to garda during the initial search but was able to source the third tank while looking for water?

Wrongway1985

tipptom wrote: »

Was PQ asked during the trial why he only pointed out two tanks to garda during the initial search but was able to source the third tank while looking for water?

His defense opted not to have him cross examined.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

Was PQ asked during the trial why he only pointed out two tanks to garda during the initial search but was able to source the third tank while looking for water?

He chose not to give evidence.

I think he may have told Gardaí at interview that he forgot to tell Gardaí about the third tank, or at least that's implied.

I'm sure he was asked that question by Gardaí, so it would be admitted into evidence, but the lawyers were unable to examine and cross-examine him on that.

jmreire

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He chose not to give evidence.

I think he may have told Gardaí at interview that he forgot to tell Gardaí about the third tank, or at least that's implied.

I'm sure he was asked that question by Gardaí, so it would be admitted into evidence, but the lawyers were unable to examine and cross-examine him on that.

Aparently, the question hinged on what was asked:-
"Are there any more slurry tanks? " To which the correct answer would be " No, only these two"
And:-
"Are there any more tanks"? To which the correct answer would be" Yes, there is another one"

The guard was unable to remember which way the question was asked

paleoperson

Are any of the proceedings or legal documents of the case available online?

its_steve116

Hey Paddy, this one's for you...

Edgware

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

His defense opted not to have him cross examined.

The decision that came back to hit him. We all know he has a right not to go into the box but surely a jury would say to themselves "what has he to hide?"
Its not that he was an uneducated man lacking in intelligence. He was a well off farmer who was involved in property speculation. He would be well able to handle himself under cross examination.

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

The decision that came back to hit him. We all know he has a right not to go into the box but surely a jury would say to themselves "what has he to hide?"
Its not that he was an uneducated man lacking in intelligence. He was a well off farmer who was involved in property speculation. He would be well able to handle himself under cross examination.

every day of the working week, people who decide not to give evidence are acquitted by juries. Jurors seem well able to take on board the judge's warning to leave that aside. But for sure, jurors are only human and some people obviously can't disregard an Accused person making that choice.

tipptom

Edgware wrote: »

The decision that came back to hit him. We all know he has a right not to go into the box but surely a jury would say to themselves "what has he to hide?"
Its not that he was an uneducated man lacking in intelligence. He was a well off farmer who was involved in property speculation. He would be well able to handle himself under cross examination.

He seems to me from what I have heard and read about him to come across as very arrogant,manipulative and angry little man and his defense would have been mad to let him up on the stand to let a clever prosecutor to prod this out of him for the jury.

I think he thought he was so clever that his ego would pushed him in to going toe to toe with Bowman which would have brought out his anger outbursts while getting schooled

Muahahaha

Seems Jim Sheridan attended a few days of the trial and is interested in making a documentary film on it, but only if the Ryan family approve
From the Indo

Oscar-nominated film director Jim Sheridan attended the Mr Moonlight murder trial and has expressed interest in turning the story into a documentary film.

The trial attracted unprecedented interest - with evidence dealing with sex, love, rivalry and land ownership - and now could make it to the big screen.

Speaking to the Sunday Independent, Mr Sheridan said: "I was there in the court a few times", citing "curiosity" as his main impulse. He said: "I didn't really want to pursue the family because I know everyone will be pursuing them but I think it would make a very interesting documentary."

Mr Sheridan directed the classic film The Field, which has been noted for its similarities. He said: "If the family approach me to see if I could do anything on it, then I would."

On the parallels with his own Oscar-nominated work he said: "I mean it is The Field. It reminded me of it. That's why, subconsciously, I went along to have a look. Land, the whole thing, it's all there. It is very like it."

sligojoek

I wonder who Pat Shortt will play. Mr Moonlight or PQ.

Beechwoodspark

sligojoek wrote: »

I wonder who Pat Shortt will play. Mr Moonlight or PQ.

Both and also Mary L. With Hilarious results...

the_pen_turner

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Both and also Mary L. With Hilarious results...

CSI kilinaskully

sligojoek

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Both and also Mary L. With Hilarious results...

Dat's riiiiiiiiiishh

John_Rambo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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?

I think reason was thrown out the window and was replaced with greed and jealousy in this case. I do know that someone can be incapacitated silently and quickly with blows to the head from a strong person approaching from behind with a hard, blunt edged weapon.

Muahahaha

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think reason was thrown out the window and was replaced with greed and jealousy in this case. I do know that someone can be incapacitated silently and quickly with blows to the head from a strong person approaching from behind with a hard, blunt edged weapon.

Yeah when I first heard the evidence I wondered how Mary Lowry did not hear anything given we know she was awake in bed at the time. It would be interesting to know how far the van was parked from her bedroom window, that is assuming Quirke attacked him from behind at he was near the van or getting into it.

But yes it is possible to knock someone out cold in one blow and from there there they wont make any noise. But also there was evidence that he hit him several times, there was other hits to the head and iirc he had broken ribs and a broken thigh bone too. Its still a bit strange that she didn't hear a thing, even a dead weight body being dragged across gravel for hiding it is going to make a noise.

gozunda

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yeah when I first heard the evidence I wondered how Mary Lowry did not hear anything given we know she was awake in bed at the time. It would be interesting to know how far the van was parked from her bedroom window, that is assuming Quirke attacked him from behind at he was near the van or getting into it.

But yes it is possible to knock someone out cold in one blow and from there there they wont make any noise. But also there was evidence that he hit him several times, there was other hits to the head and iirc he had broken ribs and a broken thigh bone too. Its still a bit strange that she didn't hear a thing, even a dead weight body being dragged across gravel for hiding it is going to make a noise.

I believe the coroner also stated that a vehicle could have been used. The injuries were consistent with either afaik. Is it possible that another farm vehicle was used to injure and kill. BR may well have been surprised by PQ veering at him with a vehicle and he wouldn't have known what hit him tbh.

jmreire

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think reason was thrown out the window and was replaced with greed and jealousy in this case. I do know that someone can be incapacitated silently and quickly with blows to the head from a strong person approaching from behind with a hard, blunt edged weapon.

Would not necessarily have to be very strong either..length of bar, and what it's made of would more than make up for a light or not particularly muscular individual. And hit in the right spot, one blow would be enough to kill him.In less than 30 seconds, he could have been hit multiple times, as he was.

Muahahaha

gozunda wrote: »

I believe the coroner also stated that a vehicle could have been used. The injuries were consistent with either afaik. Is it possible that another farm vehicle was used to injure and kill. BR may well have been surprised by PQ veering at him with a vehicle and he wouldn't have known what hit him tbh.

Yeah I remember the coroner saying a vehicle could have been used. But we know that there is a cattle grate about halfway down the drive way and Lowry always stayed awake until she heard Ryans van driving over it. So if Quirke showed up in his own car and knocked him over then he would have had to cross that grate twice whereas Lowry testified she only heard one vehicle cross it that morning. If Quirke broke into Ryans van and hot wired it you'd imagine that there would be a lot of noise as the engine revved towards him, the thud of his body hitting the bonnet ect. Its also less likely he would have been knocked out straight away (like a blow to the head with an iron bar) and would have been screaming in pain if he was knocked over.

Using a vehicle as a weapon could have happened but you'd just imagine it would be considerably noisier than approaching him from behind with an iron bar.

4ensic15

Muahahaha wrote: »

Using a vehicle as a weapon could have happened but you'd just imagine it would be considerably noisier than approaching him from behind with an iron bar.

Lowry said that the intyerval between Moonlight leaving and the noise of the drid was longer than usual. That would allow for Moonlight to be attacked and the attacker driving him out in Moonlight's own van.