• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Gardai evidence in Love and Slurry Murder Trial




Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,470
He was found Guilty by a Jury that makes him a Murderer .
Does it ? So the Birmingham 6 were found guilty by a jury as well but they weren't murderers.

Juries do make mistakes. I don't know if they did or didn't in this case but I would have doubts about the level of evidence against other than people think he did it. That is not and should not be the bar for sending someone to prison for life .
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
6,615
Does it ? So the Birmingham 6 were found guilty by a jury as well but they weren't murderers.

Juries do make mistakes. I don't know if they did or didn't in this case but I would have doubts about the level of evidence against other than people think he did it. That is not and should not be the bar for sending someone to prison for life .
Does it ? So the Birmingham 6 were found guilty by a jury as well but they weren't murderers.

Juries do make mistakes. I don't know if they did or didn't in this case but I would have doubts about the level of evidence against other than people think he did it. That is not and should not be the bar for sending someone to prison for life .
The longest murder trial in the history of the state? And you think the trial was not fair? You are having a laugh.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,269
and that is quirke's final sting and testament to the work done by his defence to create this kind of supposition. the attacks on Ms lowry were designed to bring about reasonable doubt and if some yahoos after reading a few columns in a paper rather than sitting through all the evidence and watching all the body language and inconsistencies come to this conclusion then quirke has won to an extent by damaging her reputation, something he had failed to do with the CFA, locals and new boyfriends.

a nasty vindictive piece of sh1t who would've easily been at home in that slurry pit judging by his slimy sh!tty actions
Indeed. It was more like she was on trial than he was for quite a bit if it. He has form too. Did his own mother out of ever having financial piece of mind after 40 years of marriage and bringing him and his siblings up.


That article, like Williams article is partially incorrect.

She didn’t lose the house because her husband died. Quirke hired a solicitor to come to the family home 4 months after his father had a stroke. She had no independent legal advise. Was ‘promised’ the family home would go to her. But lock stock and barrel was transferred by her husband to Quirke. He’s quite the habit of taking money off women. He’s destroyed Mary Lowry’s life, his own mother wasn’t speaking to him, his siblings devastated due to his actions re their mother, he betrayed his dead best friend Martin Lowry nearly immediately his wife was made a widow. He’s destroyed the Ryan children. And he’s betrayed the woman who was in court every day to support him, his wife. Whatever ‘story’ he told her means he’s a master manipulator. And he paints himself the victim to the agony aunt.

It’s a woman wonder nobody else in his life called him out for the sh’it he is.
 

WayOutWest

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,510
I’ll admit I didn’t follow this case very closely but it was impossible to completely avoid it as it was part of all news reports since the beginning. I have always had problems with convictions based on circumstantial evidence but the jury decided he was guilty. There were many questions about the way Gardai handled this case, adding to statements years after and remembering new details at the start of the trial. The retrieval of the body and the collection of evidence at the scene seems to have been a bit chaotic and unprofessional.
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
6,978
The RTE programme last night offered a lot more on the case and most people would who seen it would i think that their is no doubt of his conviction,
why suddenly that day to decide to check that tank for water for the first time
how could he see the body
 

WayOutWest

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,510
If we are to rely on Paul Reynolds for proof we certainly have problems.
He gave it as fact that Quirke couldn’t have seen the the body in the tank. The Guards did a reconstruction to disprove that he could have seen the body but the defence took it apart, no engineer, no measurements , lighting conditions and time of year etc. The judge described the reconstruction as frail and it was never presented as evidence so the jury never heard this . You wonder why would Reynolds use something that the judge rejected and wasn’t heard by the jury as proof.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,470

Very interesting, the more that comes out since the verdict does not leave anyone in any doubt about the verdict
No the more you read the more you are convinced, whats in the papers and was on RTE was not admitted as evidence in court for good reason, the case has more holes than Swiss cheese. It was poorly investigated, they only checked to see if the fingerprints from the victims van were the accused during his trial.
The medical evidence said the victims injuries would have left a lot of blood, the Gardai found nothing when they searched the property after the victim went missing,
The states pathologists said the evidence suggested he had been struck by a vehicle so they brought in a pathologist from the North to say it could have been a baseball bat because they knew the obvious question, whose car ? where is the damage, who repaired it ? why are there no witnesses to the damaged vehicle ? So if the states experts don't back up the Garda theory they look for an expert outside the state who will.

No forensics, no crime scene, no weapon, no vehicle, contradictory witnesses that claim they saw the victim after 8:30 when another witness says Quirke was already in his milking parlor.

Mary Lowry says that she heard the victims van leaving 3 to 10 minutes after he left the house, so in 3 to 10 minutes, he either beat him to death with a baseball bat or hit him with a vehicle , unheard by anyone in the house, presumably hid the body somewhere and drove off in the van dumped it and then made his way back to the farm. How ? and still no one seen him walking back, driving back, cycling back ?

He is the most obvious suspect, the balance of probabilities he did it, but I would like actual evidence not " he searched for Joe O'Rielly or Jo Jo Dollard on his computer", if that is evidence then it probably incriminates half the country.
 

WayOutWest

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,510

Very interesting, the more that comes out since the verdict does not leave anyone in any doubt about the verdict
Any verdict that relies solely on circumstantial evidence can never be considered as being convincing.
Once someone is convicted you can say what you like. I’m sure more people will come forward with stories to get their name or even a photo in the newspaper but I for one as in all such cases will have a large drum of salt at the ready.
The threats that were attributed to Quirke were hearsay and not allowed as evidence.
Why were the other charges withdrawn if there was solid evidence he committed those crimes?
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
6,615
The general opinion is that Quirke was lying in wait outside when Ryan left Ms Lowery. Did he hit him from behind or did he face him. He clouted Ryan on the head and according to Gardai, probably dragged him to the disused milking parlour. Did Ms Lowery hear or see anything. I would guess she did but she was saying nothing. Quirke got into Moonlight's van and drove to nearby woods. And walked back. Then he stripped body naked, and took phone. And placed body in underground tank.
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
6,615
Lessons for Gardai:
1.They probably should have used trained dogs to search the area for Ryan. I have no doubt that properly trained sniffer dogs would have located any blood or body.
2. Fingerprinting of Ryan's vehicle. After Michelle Ryan said van was not driven by Bobby, they should have fingerprinted it.
Anyway well done Gardai on guilty verdict.
 

luggage

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
578
Lessons for Gardai:
1.They probably should have used trained dogs to search the area for Ryan. I have no doubt that properly trained sniffer dogs would have located any blood or body.
2. Fingerprinting of Ryan's vehicle. After Michelle Ryan said van was not driven by Bobby, they should have fingerprinted it.
Anyway well done Gardai on guilty verdict.
Well done DPP in spite of incompetence of Gardai. They only tried to match his finger prints to the van during the trial. As for the review of the septic tank, does the law need to be explained to these guys?
 

WayOutWest

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
1,510
Lessons for Gardai:
1.They probably should have used trained dogs to search the area for Ryan. I have no doubt that properly trained sniffer dogs would have located any blood or body.
2. Fingerprinting of Ryan's vehicle. After Michelle Ryan said van was not driven by Bobby, they should have fingerprinted it.
Anyway well done Gardai on guilty verdict.
No doubt trained dogs would have been a help but if we had properly trained Gardai it would be even more helpful.
It might be easier training the dogs than training the Gardai. We were told that the missing person/murder search was interrupted by rain. We’ve always known our police force are incompetent but we can add that they are a bunch of softies as well.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,269
No the more you read the more you are convinced, whats in the papers and was on RTE was not admitted as evidence in court for good reason, the case has more holes than Swiss cheese. It was poorly investigated, they only checked to see if the fingerprints from the victims van were the accused during his trial.
The medical evidence said the victims injuries would have left a lot of blood, the Gardai found nothing when they searched the property after the victim went missing,
The states pathologists said the evidence suggested he had been struck by a vehicle so they brought in a pathologist from the North to say it could have been a baseball bat because they knew the obvious question, whose car ? where is the damage, who repaired it ? why are there no witnesses to the damaged vehicle ? So if the states experts don't back up the Garda theory they look for an expert outside the state who will.

No forensics, no crime scene, no weapon, no vehicle, contradictory witnesses that claim they saw the victim after 8:30 when another witness says Quirke was already in his milking parlor.

Mary Lowry says that she heard the victims van leaving 3 to 10 minutes after he left the house, so in 3 to 10 minutes, he either beat him to death with a baseball bat or hit him with a vehicle , unheard by anyone in the house, presumably hid the body somewhere and drove off in the van dumped it and then made his way back to the farm. How ? and still no one seen him walking back, driving back, cycling back ?

He is the most obvious suspect, the balance of probabilities he did it, but I would like actual evidence not " he searched for Joe O'Rielly or Jo Jo Dollard on his computer", if that is evidence then it probably incriminates half the country.
I was like you initially thinking he couldn’t be careful convicted merely on circumstantial. But I’ve listened to a lot of legal commentary. The jury convicted because the preponderance of evidence was such that it left them in no doubt that he did it.

The Gardai were pretty bad it has to be said. Using a water diviner for heavens sake. And not searching Mary’s house.

The entire defense was two fold. Firstly. Stop the trial and send the jury out constantly. Secondly. Point the finger always in the direction of Mary. Such that even she said in court she felt like she was on trial.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,269
The general opinion is that Quirke was lying in wait outside when Ryan left Ms Lowery. Did he hit him from behind or did he face him. He clouted Ryan on the head and according to Gardai, probably dragged him to the disused milking parlour. Did Ms Lowery hear or see anything. I would guess she did but she was saying nothing. Quirke got into Moonlight's van and drove to nearby woods. And walked back. Then he stripped body naked, and took phone. And placed body in underground tank.
I read it is likely he lured him to the unused milking parlor, having planned all details. He killed him quickly. Left the body, drove the car knowing Mary would hear it. He then came back on foot I presume, unless he’d already left his own car in the woods. I presume he wore gloves. Mary saw him hot and bothered before she left with the children and her MIL. She did this every Friday, so the MIL could do her shopping. Quirke knew this as he knew everything about her. So left alone he stripped the body, put it in the tank, which I’m assuming he had already opened. Closed it up, cleaned down the milking parlor, which is a very good place to clean blood from. Then rushed back to his own farm to milk his cows, now it was late fir him doing this, which is why the AI lady remembered it. Quirke then, unusually, took his wife away for the weekend as an alabi. He used his wife. Once again. I hope whatever hold he has over her weakens now she’s got space and time for reflection, from a very wicked man.
 
Last edited:

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,269
Well done DPP in spite of incompetence of Gardai. They only tried to match his finger prints to the van during the trial. As for the review of the septic tank, does the law need to be explained to these guys?
I agree with you, plus the prosecution barristers did a great job.

Anyway this case is about Land. Not love. Everything leads back to that. Land/money.

And I hope Imelda isn’t as stupid as Quirke’s mother. That she doesn’t end up disinherited.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,470
I was like you initially thinking he couldn’t be careful convicted merely on circumstantial. But I’ve listened to a lot of legal commentary. The jury convicted because the preponderance of evidence was such that it left them in no doubt that he did it.

The Gardai were pretty bad it has to be said. Using a water diviner for heavens sake. And not searching Mary’s house.

The entire defense was two fold. Firstly. Stop the trial and send the jury out constantly. Secondly. Point the finger always in the direction of Mary. Such that even she said in court she felt like she was on trial.


I understand but i disagree, in the Graham Dywer case it was built on circumstantial evidence and I agree with the verdict there I think there was enough to convict him.
I just don't think there is enough here, there are bits and pieces that really add up to nothing but suspicion.

The Gardai were not bad they were terrible, it is hard to believe that they only checked his fingerprints when the trial was under way. Secondly they could find no trace of blood, blood spatter.

The two witnesses that claim to have seen the victim after 8 am

Of course they are going to point the finger at her, and the Gardai did nothing to rule her out, she was the last known person to see him alive, she was acting strange, she went to stay in hotels with a man she claims she suspected of killing her boyfriend, her house was not searched

The victims son stated she was shaking, she wanted him off the property as quickly as possible on the day his father disappeared. That Mary Lowry on that morning lied to him, trying to make it appear that Bobby Ryan may have killed himself, ( talking about going to the river)



She kept constantly texting him the night before he disappeared, the victim said to his son that he was going to see what was wrong with her.

When Lowry met up with the victims daughter on the day he disappeared she was upset and crying and said to the victims daughter I'am sorry, I' am so sorry. What was she sorry about ?

Both the victims daughter and son thought the relationship was over or something had happened when Mary Lowry and the victim had been away in Bundoran the Tuesday before he disappeared.


The field car, and the evidence of the state pathologists that they believed the victim was struck by a vehicle, was that car checked ?
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
6,615
I understand but i disagree, in the Graham Dywer case it was built on circumstantial evidence and I agree with the verdict there I think there was enough to convict him.
I just don't think there is enough here, there are bits and pieces that really add up to nothing but suspicion.

The Gardai were not bad they were terrible, it is hard to believe that they only checked his fingerprints when the trial was under way. Secondly they could find no trace of blood, blood spatter.

The two witnesses that claim to have seen the victim after 8 am

Of course they are going to point the finger at her, and the Gardai did nothing to rule her out, she was the last known person to see him alive, she was acting strange, she went to stay in hotels with a man she claims she suspected of killing her boyfriend, her house was not searched

The victims son stated she was shaking, she wanted him off the property as quickly as possible on the day his father disappeared. That Mary Lowry on that morning lied to him, trying to make it appear that Bobby Ryan may have killed himself, ( talking about going to the river)



She kept constantly texting him the night before he disappeared, the victim said to his son that he was going to see what was wrong with her.

When Lowry met up with the victims daughter on the day he disappeared she was upset and crying and said to the victims daughter I'am sorry, I' am so sorry. What was she sorry about ?

Both the victims daughter and son thought the relationship was over or something had happened when Mary Lowry and the victim had been away in Bundoran the Tuesday before he disappeared.


The field car, and the evidence of the state pathologists that they believed the victim was struck by a vehicle, was that car checked ?
Trained sniffer dogs could have located any blood trails or body odours. But they were not used. The Gardai did not do a thorough search, they just "rambled" through the farm and I don't think they even looked in the milking parlour. I could be wrong.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,269
The Gardai were not bad they were terrible, it is hard to believe that they only checked his fingerprints when the trial was under way. Secondly they could find no trace of blood, blood spatter.

The two witnesses that claim to have seen the victim after 8 am

Of course they are going to point the finger at her, and the Gardai did nothing to rule her out, she was the last known person to see him alive, she was acting strange, she went to stay in hotels with a man she claims she suspected of killing her boyfriend, her house was not searched

The victims son stated she was shaking, she wanted him off the property as quickly as possible on the day his father disappeared. That Mary Lowry on that morning lied to him, trying to make it appear that Bobby Ryan may have killed himself, ( talking about going to the river)

She kept constantly texting him the night before he disappeared, the victim said to his son that he was going to see what was wrong with her.

When Lowry met up with the victims daughter on the day he disappeared she was upset and crying and said to the victims daughter I'am sorry, I' am so sorry. What was she sorry about ?

Both the victims daughter and son thought the relationship was over or something had happened when Mary Lowry and the victim had been away in Bundoran the Tuesday before he disappeared.


The field car, and the evidence of the state pathologists that they believed the victim was struck by a vehicle, was that car checked ?
Yes the Gardai were pretty terrible. That's irrelevant. The jury found him guilty because however bad the Gardai were there was still enough to convict.

Blood

Have you ever been in a milking parlor? It's just about the easiest place to get rid of blood. And if the killing took place in a yard a hosepipe used pretty quickly would wash away blood. A farm is full of dirt, which is why it's also a place that has oodles of water and it would be perfectly normal to be hose downing a yard.

Mary Shaking

Bobby had confessed to her that he had had suicidal feelings on occassion. He felt bad that his marriage had broken down. It would be more likely Bobby felt he could say these things to his lover rather than to his children. You want to protect your children and you're not going to be telling them how low you feel or how you miss a loving relationship with their mother as parents we don't talk to our kids about such things. So I believe that Mary was frantic with worry that he had killed himself.

Going away with Quirke

Mary probably believed Bobby had taken his own life. She had zero reason to be suspicious of Quirke as a murderer. Who amongst us would imagine our ex lover killed our current lover. It's the stuff of movies. It does happen. Occassionally. But it's not the first idea that would spring to mind. The fact she left her home forever the day Bobby's body was found shows a woman in fear who couldn't believe her lover was murdered. She wanted to get as far away from it as possible.

Texts

The Ryan children are naturally distraught and angry. They don't know what happened. They clearly suspect Mary. They didn't like her it seems. Children, even adult children, don't normally take to their parents new lovers. So that's at play here. The phone was not 'hopping' it was stated in court but the actual evidence was there were two text messages from Mary. And two back to her.

Defense Tactics

They've clearly worked on you. And I see Bobby's daugher has now given an interview to a rag stating that Quirke did not act alone.

House

We were all incorrectly led to believe blood was found in the house and that Mary had covered it up by getting the place repainted. If you were a murderer you would have scrubbed that room and repainted immediately. Not a couple of years down the line.

Motive

What motive could you ascribe to Mary being involved?
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top