Patrick Quirke -Guilty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not all of the information you mention was put the to the jury. The sex tapes and the underwear stealing in particular were excluded from evidence by the judge.

Granted what you say, ohnonotgmail. I agree certain elements of above were withheld from the jury, on the grounds that sharing them would be prejuducial to the defendant without adding to the build-up of evidence. I think that was explained on the Prime Time programme. (words to that effect) But IMO, even without the evidence that was withheld, they had enough to come to the verdict of Guilty of Murder. The prosecution still had built up a character which left the jury in "no reasonable doubt" as to their verdict.

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Re the tanks, Patrick Quirke could easily have had 2-3 bales over it and rolled them out of the way and put them back perfectly. Considering only a couple of people knew of its existance (and definitely not the Gardai), and not every milking parlour would have such a tank (they often run off into a slurry tank, etc), it wouldn't be that unusual that nobody knew of its existance.

I'd say he killed Bobby Ryan at the farm (and maybe the accomplice provided a decoy saying "Bobby, come out here for a minute and give me a hand lifting a tank lid", which wouldnt be that unusual a request by a farm labourer), Quirke killed him and the accomplice drove the van to Bansha woods while Quirke sorted out the bales over the tank.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Re the tanks, Patrick Quirke could easily have had 2-3 bales over it and rolled them out of the way and put them back perfectly. Considering only a couple of people knew of its existance (and definitely not the Gardai), and not every milking parlour would have such a tank (they often run off into a slurry tank, etc), it wouldn't be that unusual that nobody knew of its existance.

I'd say he killed Bobby Ryan at the farm (and maybe the accomplice provided a decoy saying "Bobby, come out here for a minute and give me a hand lifting a tank lid", which wouldnt be that unusual a request by a farm labourer), Quirke killed him and the accomplice drove the van to Bansha woods while Quirke sorted out the bales over the tank.

Was just thinking same. There must have been an accomplice. I'm sure such a devious man could have found someone to fill that role - at a price.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He'd be a brave man to cycle back from Bansha Woods on the day Bobby Ryan went missing!! Surely a local might see him, considering the level of effort and thought he went to, he'd be a very stupid man to be seen doing something different on the day. Especially when even the AI man noticing his different time of milking was considered evidence.

Not if altered some aspects of his appearance (wore a hat etc) and took a more roundabout route through back-roads back to the farm. Chances of him being thus recognized are far, far higher if he was seen by others in his OWN car, a vehicle the locals would be familiar with! All that's required then is a few positive sightings at various points which would put him at the scene(s) and could prove his location/ whereabouts at a given time.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Its not so much whether he was Guilty or not, its the fact he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and the chief witness was unreliable in the extreme. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sets a dangerous precedence in our Judicial system Imo & we all know that the guards can manipulate and paint a picture of someones guilt if they want to. People are all capable of wild internet searches, just because a man was unfaithful doesn't mean he a murderer, etc, etc. Take the Maurice McCabe case for example. When we go down this road, what next or who next for that matter.

You have made some valid points, jimwallace197. In this case, though, we must bear in mind that not all of the evidence, from various people, came from the Police. After all, hearing the evidence took three months, a record lenght of time for a case in this country.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Its not so much whether he was Guilty or not, its the fact he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and the chief witness was unreliable in the extreme. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless his guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sets a dangerous precedence in our Judicial system Imo & we all know that the guards can manipulate and paint a picture of someones guilt if they want to. People are all capable of wild internet searches, just because a man was unfaithful doesn't mean he a murderer, etc, etc. Take the Maurice McCabe case for example. When we go down this road, what next or who next for that matter.

We could debate this - both sides - till the cows come home. No pun intended!

rwaldron21 wrote: »

Does anybody know if Bobby Ryan's car was ever checked for Quirke's DNA ? Bobby Ryan's daughter stated that her dads car was parked in the woods , was in gear , with the seat way back, hinting to someone else leaving the car there. ie: the killer.

I think it was mentioned somewhere that "unknown DNA" was found in it.

Has anyone heard anything about him having a DJ name? Mr Moonlight I believe, don't think it was mentioned before.

monkeybutter wrote: »

what would he do anyway, he'd have to admit it to snare he also and there's no particular reason to believe his word



and what possible motive would she have


and now that hes convicted, he can't say diddly as it wouldn't be believed

No but I think its possible she could have witnessed it, heard the scuffle in the yard, ran down and found Ryan dead on the ground. Quirke then convinced her to keep quiet and say he'll take care of the body. Through either fear or shock she complies and says nothing, worried she'll be somehow implicated

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Agree it's a possible scenario, Stacksofwacks. Personally, I don't think she would have the mental capability of living with that for two years. No offence meant to Mary L! I think it would be a very rare person, apart from P. Quirke, who would have the mental capability of living with that for two years.

You'd be surprised what self preservation could do for ones mental capacity.

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

You'd be surprised what self preservation could do for ones mental capacity.

LOL! You're right, Stacksofwacks. Nevertheless, I think the stress of all of that would cause her to have a mental breakdown within that time-frame. Giving evidence, she seemed quite self-possessed. If she was hiding such a huge "secret", I think it would show physically on her delivery of evidence. Breaking down, shaking, trembling or the like. IMO, She managed to keep her composure very well under the circumstances.

so she witnessed the murder and or was invloved and then decided to terminate the lease on the farm with the body hidden on it


lads


if called for jury duty don't go please

monkeybutter wrote: »

so she witnessed the murder and or was invloved and then decided to terminate the lease on the farm with the body hidden on it


lads


if called for jury duty don't go please

LOL!