Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Patrick Quirke -Guilty

Options
1…5758606263…67

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CollyFlower wrote: »
    Maybe the murderer wasn't thinking of the risk of being caught at the time, spur of the moment attack?..
    Definitely maybe. Probably, even.

    But I struggle to understand how the jury was sure of that beyond reasonable doubt, without evidence.


  • Options
    #1773
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,358 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    There's more about the Polish man rumors here.(When I say more I mean nothing really)

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mr-moonlight-polish-killer-rumour-and-van-in-woods-were-red-herrings-by-quirke-38101057.html?fbclid=IwAR2cxxD4S4wYaGS3uuvU1Zmwsq-HjXZRpPPmR5V47Ocp4D5jtKkaGhelS_8


  • Options
    #1774
    bobbyss
    Registered Users Posts: 5,202 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    If you are claiming innocence then why in the name of God would you have a history of the stuff he had on his computer? JJ Dollard, Kearney, decomposition time. Wouldn't you be reluctant to Google stuff like that knowing there was a possibility that he gardai might investigate you? Is it possible to delete your search history 100% or can the experts find out?


  • Options
    #1775
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,358 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    bobbyss wrote: »
    If you are claiming innocence then why in the name of God would you have a history of the stuff he had on his computer? JJ Dollard, Kearney, decomposition time. Wouldn't you be reluctant to Google stuff like that knowing there was a possibility that he gardai might investigate you? Is it possible to delete your search history 100% or can the experts find out?

    If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed.
    I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it.
    It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.


  • Options
    #1776
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,469 ✭✭✭Field east


    Calypso Realm wrote: »
    I'd had thought that was highly unlikely because June 3rd was his wife's birthday and he was taking her away on the Friday for the day/weekend. At any rate all he need have done was ask her if he wanted to verify what he was doing!

    Given the specific nature of the dates, and the request for incoming calls and texts, I'm more inclined to believe it has to do with the case! Sounds to me he may have been anticipating some questions about the calls/texts with a view to providing an 'explanation' to police if required or alternatively using the record to provide a back-up for something he had/intended telling them!
    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    That doesn’t make sense. How would any individual Garda know what any other Garda told a newspaper?

    If this was true, Patrick Quirke’s defence would have brought it up in court as it’s the closest thing they have to another suspect.

    Particularly since the guy is now dead. If there was any possibility of him being involved it would have made way more sense for Quirke to pin it on him than Mary Lowry.
    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    His lease was u on the farm and Mary Lowry asked him to drain any tanks.
    He may have thought he would have being considered the unlucky man who found the body.
    I'm not sure maybe they were afraid of the smell.

    Two points re the tanks.
    (1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty
    (2) if the milking parlour or/ and the yard connected to it to hold the cows pre
    milking was washed down daily , the the run off tank would be filled very quickly and would have to be emptied very frequently
    Since it’s mainly water going into it , the Late Mr Lowry, I assume, did not want the extra cost /time involved in spreading that water if it was diverted to the slurry tanks.
    I assume , therefor , that a good level of porosity was built into the runoff tank. Was it designed to act like a domestic septic tank - empty the sediment building up in it every , say, 4 to 5 years?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    bobbyss
    Registered Users Posts: 5,202 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    freshpopcorn wrote:
    If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed. I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it. It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.


    Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
    Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
    Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

    Surely this is a masterful suggestion?


  • Options
    #1778
    Field east
    Registered Users Posts: 2,469 ✭✭✭Field east


    If the main seepage from the holding tank was happening at a few inches from the tank bottom, then given time e tank would constantly empty down to that level - especially if the tank was constructed in soil with a good soakage capacity plus if it was built on high ground. I would therefor expect to find very little water in the tank - over time there should be more sludge than water. Not a tank I would be going to for water to dilute slurry in a slurry tank


  • Options
    #1779
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,358 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Field east wrote: »
    Two points re the tanks.
    (1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty
    (2) if the milking parlour or/ and the yard connected to it to hold the cows pre
    milking was washed down daily , the the run off tank would be filled very quickly and would have to be emptied very frequently
    Since it’s mainly water going into it , the Late Mr Lowry, I assume, did not want the extra cost /time involved in spreading that water if it was diverted to the slurry tanks.
    I assume , therefor , that a good level of porosity was built into the runoff tank. Was it designed to act like a domestic septic tank - empty the sediment building up in it every , say, 4 to 5 years?

    Just to note the tank was old and leaking in a lot of places


  • Options
    #1780
    jmreire
    Registered Users Posts: 8,353 ✭✭✭jmreire


    If he was truly innocent, then it's a bit strange that the best the defense could come up with was "innocent until proven guilty", and "any doubt's must lead to an aquittal " all well within the law of course. In as much as the prosecution was weak, so was the defense. If innocent, he would have had no objection to going on the stand himself, and even at that, taking his chance's with the prosecution's case re. internet searches, the lies about the 3rd tank etc. But of course, if he were innocent.....there would not have been any need to lie...about anything. It was because of this combination of event's Lies, internet serches etc that the jury found him guilty.


  • Options
    #1781
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    If I ever find myself in his position I'd be screwed.
    I've looked up cases and watched real crime stuff online. I've also posted in various threads here. Could you imagine how it would sound in court and how the media would write it.
    It's fairly hard to completely wipe it but why on earth did he do it on his home computer.

    You’re pretty safe unless you’re also engaging in some very dodgy/ scary behaviour offline.

    Half the country has watched Making a Murderer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bobbyss wrote: »
    Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

    Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

    "Murder suspect had bizarre sexual fetish around flowers and rainbows "


  • Options
    #1783
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bobbyss wrote: »
    Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
    Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
    Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.    .

    Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

    Methinks you've thought that whole scenario out a little bit too well and that suggestion if found - definitely would be a red flag in any investigation! ;)


  • Options
    #1784
    farmertipp
    Registered Users Posts: 642 ✭✭✭farmertipp


    gozunda wrote: »
    Methinks you've thought that whole scenario out a little bit too well and that suggestion if found - definitely would be a red flag in any investigation! ;)

    I think quirke s notepad was a case in point


  • Options
    #1785
    Alrigghtythen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭Alrigghtythen


    farmertipp wrote: »
    I think quirke s notepad was a case in point

    The garda notepad was interesting

    https://www.thejournal.ie/mary-lowry-had-his-head-melted-garda-notebook-patrick-quirke-mr-moonlight-trial-4579144-Apr2019/
    Garda made note saying 'Mary Lowry had his head melted', court told
    The garda made a note of it in his notebook but does not remember who said it.


  • Options
    #1786
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    farmertipp wrote: »
    I think quirke s notepad was a case in point

    The good thing about my writing is that it is even indecipherable to me. Egyptian hieroglyphics would be easier to read tbh ;)


  • Options
    #1787
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    [QUOTE=jmreire;110155709]If he was truly innocent, then it's a bit strange that the best the defense could come up with was "innocent until proven guilty", and "any doubt's must lead to an aquittal " all well within the law of course. In as much as the prosecution was weak, so was the defense. If innocent, he would have had no objection to going on the stand himself, and even at that, taking his chance's with the prosecution's case re. internet searches, the lies about the 3rd tank etc. But of course, if he were innocent.....there would not have been any need to lie...about anything. It was because of this combination of event's Lies, internet serches etc that the jury found him guilty.[/QUOTE]

    Had they just done that it’s possible more than 2 jurors would have found him not guilty. Instead the approach seemed to be more about innuendo- that someone other than Quirke was responsible. I think the jury saw through that approach.


  • Options
    #1788
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    There's more about the Polish man rumors here.(When I say more I mean nothing really)

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mr-moonlight-polish-killer-rumour-and-van-in-woods-were-red-herrings-by-quirke-38101057.html?fbclid=IwAR2cxxD4S4wYaGS3uuvU1Zmwsq-HjXZRpPPmR5V47Ocp4D5jtKkaGhelS_8

    Isn’t reporting post trial desperate in terms of this poor Polish person. There was implication all week in many of the reports that he was suspected of being involved in some way. At least this report appears to put an end to such terrible hearsay. May he Rest In Peace.


  • Options
    #1789
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    I listened to the Indo’s podcast by Paul Williams and according to that he had very prestigious lawyers defending him and they represented him very well - didn’t let anything through without contesting it.

    One of them represented Seanie Fitzpatrick in his trial.


  • Options
    #1790
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,331 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    I bet if the death penalty was the punishment for this crime not too many of the jury and certainly not too many posters on here would be as convinced of his guilt as they say they are.

    It's the jury's job to consider guilt based on the evidence, not to consider the possible sentencing


  • Options
    #1791
    BENDYBINN
    Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭BENDYBINN


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Isn’t reporting post trial desperate in terms of this poor Polish person. There was implication all week in many of the reports that he was suspected of being involved in some way. At least this report appears to put an end to such terrible hearsay. May he Rest In Peace.

    Agree, according to the Mirrors Garda source he was an accomplice and todays Indo’s garda source he had nothing whatsoever to do with it.......laughable!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    upupup
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭upupup


    A Garda source says Polish man was not involved...case closed,everyone go home....Gardai did a good job

    A Garda source says Polish man is a suspect...sensible but looks like a dead end.

    The accused says Polish man/men involved..Truth or deception?

    The victims daughter says Polish man not involved but Quirke had help.

    Local talk is Polish man not dead.
    Local talk about Quirke's other possible helper is a witness in the trial


  • Options
    #1793
    Spleerbun
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭Spleerbun


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    I listened to the Indo’s podcast by Paul Williams and according to that he had very prestigious lawyers defending him and they represented him very well - didn’t let anything through without contesting it.

    One of them represented Seanie Fitzpatrick in his trial.

    Indeed, everything I read throughout the trial and since (apart from on discussion forums such as this) has indicated that they are extremely good at what they do and are very highly regarded, so I do think those pointing the finger at them for the guilty verdict are a bit wide of the mark.
    I actually saw their main guy live in court before and I would love to have him defending me were I to ever be on trial for something!


  • Options
    #1794
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Field east wrote: »
    (1) since PQ was not milking cows on ML farm, therefor he was not ‘using’ the run off tank. I assume he was using the cattle sheds connected to the two slurry tanks. I therefor assume that it was these two thank that ML wanted PQ to empty
    There is only one cattle shed, which had a slurry tank, but that tank was empty.

    The only tanks on the farm which were not empty were one external slurry tank/pit and the run-off tank.


  • Options
    #1795
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    bobbyss wrote: »
    Yeah many people would be looking at stuff that might be unsavoury. However if someone is killed at a certain date surely that would signal to you ( if you were involved) NOT to Google stuff around that time as the cops might come looking for evidence.
    Now how to get rid of computer evidence? My solution. Damage it yourself e.g. pour a bit of water inside so that it won't work at all. Then bring it to repair shop. They would say I'm afraid it's broken. Take it home and then recycle it. But damage it more to make sure it's completely broken. Get a receipt to prove that you brought it to shop also.
    Get new computer. Start googling flowers or rainbows and don't go near anything like death or murder etc.

    Surely this is a masterful suggestion?

    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.
    i dont think it would raise suspicion if the laptop was replaced. they break alll the time. spill water on it or drop it whould be easy ways .
    why would it be questioned unless it happened just before he found the body.


  • Options
    #1796
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    i dont think it would raise suspicion if the laptop was replaced. they break alll the time. spill water on it or drop it whould be easy ways .
    why would it be questioned unless it happened just before he found the body.
    He probably thought it was sufficient to delete his search history.

    I'm sure there are a minority of people reading the last few posts thinking, "wait, it isn't?" :pac:


  • Options
    #1797
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,509 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    He probably thought it was sufficient to delete his search history.

    I'm sure there are a minority of people reading the last few posts thinking, "wait, it isn't?" :pac:

    yes but he regulartly watched crime programmes. taking eveidence from a hardrive, even one that has been destryed. he should have known.

    but why take that risk


  • Options
    #1798
    BENDYBINN
    Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭BENDYBINN


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    yes but he regulartly watched crime programmes. taking eveidence from a hardrive, even one that has been destryed. he should have known.

    but why take that risk

    He would have known that finding the body on his farm would be damming .....


  • Options
    #1799
    tipptom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

    They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

    Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

    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?


  • Options
    #1800
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,358 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    tipptom wrote: »
    Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

    They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

    Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

    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?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    mikeymouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭mikeymouse


    tipptom wrote: »
    Few questions from watching the programmes on RTE and Virgin.

    They said that the garda asked PQ what tanks there was on the land to search during the garda search and he showed them two tanks but not the one that BR was found in or have I picked that up wrong?

    Why did the Garda not allow the search and rescue crew to search the farm because they say that they would have found the tank even if it was not disclosed to them?

    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?

    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement