Neyite wrote: » I don't think he did bottle it. I think his intention was to discover the body of HER missing boyfriend buried on HER land and hopefully the gardai would consider her the prime suspect given she was the last person to have seen him. Then when she's safely in prison for murder that pesky issue of her not renewing the lease to him becomes a non-issue and her children have their dear uncle kindly step in to run the farm for them until they come of age. It was about land, not love.
Neyite wrote: » I agree he didn't know she wouldn't renew the lease in the future. He thought the body was safe there and would never be discovered. He leased the land, he controlled Mrs Lowry so he was in the clear. Until she was no longer under his control and she consulted with a solicitor on terminating the lease with him.Then the body on land he has no right to access becomes a big problem. The only thing he could do was either leave it alone and hope that she didn't get a survey done in order to sell, or lease it to someone who would open it. Or discover it as an innocent bystander -which he did- and he obviously gave it enough thought to wonder who the Gardai would consider the prime suspect and had a strong sense that it would not be him.
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?
givyjoe wrote: » That's a theory on his actions after the murder, not why the murder was committed in the first place. None of the evidence from the doctor, the agony aunt, the underwear thieving underwear etc points to the murder being motivated by land.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Is simple jealousy not enough of a reason?
Neyite wrote: » If he lost control of her compliance, he risked losing the farm that he got at a pittance from her. Her farm is supposedly double the size of his. She had a new boyfriend, she was moving on and her ex was fast becoming a serious nuisance. More to the point, Bobby Ryan was single, so was she. There was no obstacle to them getting married if they wanted and at that point, the farm would become a marital asset that they as a couple could do anything with - from selling it to Ryan farming it himself on their behalf. So Ryan was a threat to the cushy lease Quirke had. Quirke acquired the land by manipulating a vulnerable grieving widow. She was getting stronger by the time of the murder and increasingly able to say no to him. She had someone else who appeared to genuinely care for her. It stands to reason that eventually Ryan would tell his girlfriend that her BIL was fleecing her if he hadn't done so already and Quirkes cushy lease would end. So Quirke got rid of the threat, and attempted to rekindle the affair but by that stage she was seeing Quirke for who he was.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » they had nothing like that on Glenroe.
givyjoe wrote: » I'd have thought that was the most likely one based on the reporting of the trial/evidence. Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his motivation was no related to control of land.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » According to the front page of today's Irish Daily Mail, one of the 'sordid secrets' about Pat Quirke that the trial jury did not get to hear was his fascination with the gruesome details of other famous murder cases such as that of Rachel Reilly. The cover also notes that the paper features a 16-page pullout on the murder trial that shocked Ireland...
horseofstone wrote: » What prison has pat quirke being sent to I wonder? Anyone know ?
recyclebin wrote: » One thing that has me confused is the van. How did it get to the woods and how come no DNA evidence foind that quirke moved it there.
Odelay wrote: » It will probably be made into a film soon. Sex, lies and slurry tanks. It has it all.
Edgware wrote: » Poor old Joe Reilly. Another innocent man convicted on circumstantial evidence
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » Transfixed by the nation says RTE Compared to other trials nobody I know talked or cared about this case
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?
[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.
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.
