Graham Dwyer court case *READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING*

seamus

Allyall wrote: »

I must have convinced myself that I read somewhere, that they were aware of his existence, but had to wait to find a body..

I would still believe it. There may be operational reasons why a "confidential informant" ends up being another member of the Gardai.

Laois_Man

sabat wrote: »

Being uber-cynical (and I don't believe this to be true) he should have said that they were just "playing their normal game" but it went wrong and she died and he panicked and covered it up to protect his reputation. Plead guilty to manslaughter and associated charges and he'd be out in 5 years or less. After all, he did have the perfect defence in videos of Ms O'Hara willingly partaking in these activities with him. Like you said, he was such an arrogant disassociated prick that he failed to see the reality of the situation in front of him.

I think that's very simplistic.

I know when the jury were out, there was a lot of doubt in my mind and in the minds of the people I spoke to about the case, as to what the verdict was going to be.

So it wasn't out of the question at all that he was going to get away with it completely.

brooke 2

seamus wrote: »

I would still believe it. There may be operational reasons why a "confidential informant" ends up being another member of the Gardai.

Perhaps, that is so. Don't know how relevant it may be that the sister of his first
partner is a garda who would have been aware of the reign of terror her sister had
suffered at the hands of Dwyer. His own mother had contacted the former partner
at one stage to warn her that he was on his way to her place in Sligo to kill himself.

knucklehead6

Laois_Man wrote: »

I think that's very simplistic.

I know when the jury were out, there was a lot of doubt in my mind and in the minds of the people I spoke to about the case, as to what the verdict was going to be.

So it wasn't out of the question at all that he was going to get away with it completely.

I think most people had a gut feeling that he was guilty, but the doubt was to whether or not the case had been proven by the state.

Laois_Man

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think most people had a gut feeling that he was guilty, but the doubt was to whether or not the case had been proven by the state.

That is what I said, the doubt was as to the verdict. A lot of people thought he was gonna get away with it. And when they say "get away with it", that implies they thought he was guilty

brooke 2

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think most people had a gut feeling that he was guilty, but the doubt was to whether or not the case had been proven by the state.

For sure! I was totally convinced he was guilty until some ex-gardai of my acquaintance
were saying that he would walk as most of the evidence was circumstantial! The
thought that such a vile creature as GD might be free to do the same to other women
horrified me. The instructions which the excellent Justice Tony Hunt gave the
jury re circumstantial evidence gave me some hope, but, until the jury came in with
the guilty verdict, I had feared it might have gone either way. In this case, the law
served the people very well!!

mariaalice

kylith wrote: »

The Marquis de Sade was doing this kind of stuff 200 years before the internet.

Yes and as it was pre internet it would not have reached a mass audience.
The internet didn't invent anything that wasn't there already, however the role of the internet in reinforcing behaviours is a big question.

sadie06

brooke 2 wrote: »

His own mother had contacted the former partner
at one stage to warn her that he was on his way to her place in Sligo to kill himself.

I think this partly explains the issue of his father visiting him, and standing by him. That he eventually became a murderer must be extremely shocking to his family, but the part of them that empathises with him is empathising with what in their eyes is a long-troubled soul. A parent will find any scrap of a reason to go on loving their child.

I don't agree with his father being scrutinised by the media for visiting him.

sabat

Laois_Man wrote: »

I think that's very simplistic.

I know when the jury were out, there was a lot of doubt in my mind and in the minds of the people I spoke to about the case, as to what the verdict was going to be.

When you're in certain situations you have to approach matters with a rational, almost mathematical strategy. Let's say there was about an 80-90% chance of him being found guilty of murder on the basis of the evidence in court-that's an 80-90% chance of getting 20+ years in prison with a very strong probability of never getting out, seeing as these are political decisions. If he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and gave a full account of what happened, he would have a 100% chance of getting out in just 2 or 3 years time, including time already served. I know what I'd do if I found myself in that spot, even if I was totally innocent.
He either got shockingly bad legal advice or was too far up his own hole to take good advice.

mariaalice

The thing I still cant fathom is how he could lead such a double life, how can anyone split them selves in two like that evil twin theory I suppose.

JP Liz V1

Sorry maybe a stupid question but how long is a mandatory life sentence, which is what he got yes

murpho999

brooke 2 wrote: »

For sure! I was totally convinced he was guilty until some ex-gardai of my acquaintance
were saying that he would walk as most of the evidence was circumstantial! The
thought that such a vile creature as GD might be free to do the same to other women
horrified me. The instructions which the excellent Justice Tony Hunt gave the
jury re circumstantial evidence gave me some hope, but, until the jury came in with
the guilty verdict, I had feared it might have gone either way. In this case, the law
served the people very well!!

The case was entirely circumstantial but it was very solid.

Why do people think that circumstantial evidence is weaker?

stickybookmark

I rem we were chatting to a (detective) garda friend of my OH's at a christening and he was full sure Dwyer was going to get off becasue there was absolutely nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. No DNA evidence, even that paint analysis of the spade found at the scene didn't match the paint on his garden fence/shed.

ohnonotgmail

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Sorry maybe a stupid question but how long is a mandatory life sentence, which is what he got yes

not eligible for parole for the first 7 years. after that the parole board can recommend to the minister for justice that they are released. the minister for justice can ignore the recommendations of the parole board.

JP Liz V1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not eligible for parole for the first 7 years. after that the parole board can recommend to the minister for justice that they are released. the minister for justice can ignore the recommendations of the parole board.

Thanks so what is the complete sentence period 25 years or all of his living life

Stheno

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Thanks so what is the complete sentence period 25 years or all of his living life

There is no set limit after the seven years are up

I wonder does the time he spent in prison before conviction count as part of his sentence time?

ohnonotgmail

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Thanks so what is the complete sentence period 25 years or all of his living life

after the first 7 years it is whatever the minister decides. there is no limit. the average is around 20 years at present but there are some that have served up to 40 years.

ohnonotgmail

Stheno wrote: »

There is no set limit after the seven years are up

I wonder does the time he spent in prison before conviction count as part of his sentence time?

it does.

Vex Willems

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Thanks so what is the complete sentence period 25 years or all of his living life

Life is life, if he gets out its on license

Stheno

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it does.

So he could be applying for parole in five and a half years?

Lollipops23

I've had to watch this case from afar, but my two cents is that, while the internet facilitated him to procure a vulnerable person to take full advantage of- this guy is a lunatic and would have found a way. Who's to say he hadn't already done horrific stuff to people not willing to come forward (prostitutes etc).

I don't believe he went from reading about that kind of stuff to brutally murdering someone in one fell swoop. I think it escalated.

Overall, I just feel so sad for Elaine O'Hara and her family- imagine thinking she'd killed herself, and going through the whole thought process one goes through when you lose a loved one to suicide, only to find she'd been murdered in cold blood.

I also feel sad for O'Dwyer's wife and kids. It has to be horrific to discover all this about someone you loved and lived with for many years.

ohnonotgmail

Stheno wrote: »

So he could be applying for parole in five and a half years?

he has been on remand for the last 18 months so imagine so.

bigpink

I wonder did the wife know his fetishes.
She didn't see him again after being arrested that morning in the house

Alanstrainor

stickybookmark wrote: »

I rem we were chatting to a (detective) garda friend of my OH's at a christening and he was full sure Dwyer was going to get off becasue there was absolutely nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. No DNA evidence, even that paint analysis of the spade found at the scene didn't match the paint on his garden fence/shed.

Had the man in white been on that jury he would have walked. (12 angry men reference....)

I was surprised by the verdict to be honest.

Stheno

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Had the man in white been on that jury he would have walked. (12 angry men reference....)

I was surprised by the verdict to be honest.

So was I the way the judge summed up I was sure they would struggle to find him guilty

Frigga_92

stickybookmark wrote: »

In fairness I'd leave that man alone. Who knows how any of us would react if our child did something like that. I don't think the Sunday world should be taking photos of him! I'd imagine as a parent he thinks GD is a suicide risk if absolutely no-one stands by him/visits him. GD will already be enduring possibly never seeing his 2 kids again etc....the father probably thinks someone has to stand by him, bad egg and all that he is

sadie06 wrote: »

I think this partly explains the issue of his father visiting him, and standing by him. That he eventually became a murderer must be extremely shocking to his family, but the part of them that empathises with him is empathising with what in their eyes is a long-troubled soul. A parent will find any scrap of a reason to go on loving their child.

I don't agree with his father being scrutinised by the media for visiting him.

I completely agree, leave Dwyer's family alone and try not to analyse the reasons why they are standing by him, it's something only someone in their position could explain.
I know some people may find this unbelievable but I firmly believe that if my brother murdered somebody, my mother would stand by him 100%. I know some people may think that that is a wild claim to make but I do truly believe that. He has done awful things in his life and she has always glossed over everything. It's hard to explain properly without going into excessive personal detail but I do truly believe that.

I suppose with rags like the Sunday World, we have months of photos of family visiting Dwyer in prison to look forward to when really, they should be just left alone.
I know they are not grieving in the same way as Elaine O'Hara's family but in a way they are grieving the loss of their son and brother in a very shocking manner.
The same can certainly be said for Dwyer's wife and children. I have never seen a photo of his wife or children and I hope I never do, they deserve peace and privacy to try to rebuild their lives.

fryup

apologises if this question has been asked already....

but why was there a gap between verdict and sentencing ??

why didn't the judge do it on the day of the verdict??

Stheno

fryup wrote: »

apologises if this question has been asked already....

but why was there a gap between verdict and sentencing ??

why didn't the judge do it on the day of the verdict??

Victim impact statement preparation

ohnonotgmail

fryup wrote: »

apologises if this question has been asked already....

but why was there a gap between verdict and sentencing ??

why didn't the judge do it on the day of the verdict??

they had to do victim impact statements before sentencing. the judge needs to write his sentencing decision as well.

Tordelback

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

In the interests of being clear "middle class professionals" was not a quote from my initial post either, I was not more shocked about this case because of this man's career our background.

Very sorry Whimsical, didn't mean to imply that you had ever said that - using the phrase was more of a general reaction to the endless rhetoric of class surrounding this case, which seems to suggest that 'middle class professionals' are thought to adhere to some higher standard of sexual behaviour than (presumably) whatever 'working class non-professionals' are popularly thought to get up to, and Dwyer now represents a revelation of 'their' true bestial nature.

A very few people, and in this case just one, go terribly nightmarishly wrong in their thinking and behaviour, and that should be the only real lesson of this whole sad story. Not class, not 'men', not 'sexual deviants', just one genuinely bad, twisted person.

Laois_Man

sabat wrote: »

When you're in certain situations you have to approach matters with a rational, almost mathematical strategy. Let's say there was about an 80-90% chance of him being found guilty of murder on the basis of the evidence in court-that's an 80-90% chance of getting 20+ years in prison with a very strong probability of never getting out, seeing as these are political decisions. If he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and gave a full account of what happened, he would have a 100% chance of getting out in just 2 or 3 years time, including time already served. I know what I'd do if I found myself in that spot, even if I was totally innocent.
He either got shockingly bad legal advice or was too far up his own hole to take good advice.

Again, I dont agree that the 80-90% probability of him being found guilty was an accurate representation of it without the benefit of hindsight. Many people I spoke to, and who followed the case closely, genuinely thought he was going to walk (even though pretty much everyone considered him guilty). Myself, I genuinely hadn't a clue what to expect given it was, and remains unknown whether or not Elaine O'Hara was stabbed.

Roquentin

Laois_Man wrote: »

Again, I dont agree that the 80-90% probability of him being found guilty was an accurate representation of it without the benefit of hindsight. Many people I spoke to, and who followed the case closely, genuinely thought he was going to walk (even though pretty much everyone considered him guilty). Myself, I genuinely hadn't a clue what to expect given it was, and remains unknown whether or not Elaine O'Hara was stabbed.

i think his wifes testimony was key. i think she said she recognized the shovel from the one in their garage. personally i thought he would have been acquitted up to that point. when i heard that i felt the tide turning.

Laois_Man

Roquentin wrote: »

i think his wifes testimony was key. i think she said she recognized the shovel from the one in their garage. personally i thought he would have been acquitted up to that point. when i heard that i felt the tide turning.

I thought that was damming too - until the "expert" came along and claimed after analysis, the paint on the shovel was a different paint to that at the Dwyer home.

Also I never understood why there was a shovel in the first place. I don't think the body was ever buried. And why would he have left the shovel there but dispose of everything else?

Roquentin

Laois_Man wrote: »

I thought that was damming too - until the "expert" came along and claimed after analysis, the paint on the shovel was a different paint to that at the Dwyer home.

Also I never understood why there was a shovel in the first place. I don't think the body was ever buried. And why would he have left the shovel there but dispose of everything else?

when i was young we used always be borrowing shovels from neighbours to do work. the paint could have come from another persons work.

ohnonotgmail

Roquentin wrote: »

when i was young we used always be borrowing shovels from neighbours to do work. the paint could have come from another persons work.

his wife gave evidence that the paint on the shovel was the same as the paint they had used themselves. Hence it was their shovel. the expert discredited this evidence.

Spanish Eyes

Some grounds for appeal emerging from information given in the thread!

Del.Monte

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Some grounds for appeal emerging from information given in the thread!

I didn't notice anything new in the thread? There's little doubt that there will be an appeal and I can still see him walking.

Dwarf.Shortage

Del.Monte wrote: »

I didn't notice anything new in the thread? There's little doubt that there will be an appeal and I can still see him walking.

I 100% believe he is guilty, I am not completely convinced there is enough evidence to find him so. I think a lot of people would say the same.

tayto lover

I believe that when he appeals he will lose his case. Just like Joe O'Reilly did.

Dwarf.Shortage

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe that when he appeals he will lose his case. Just like Joe O'Reilly did.

I'd be inclined to say that this case is far more nuanced and intricate so it's more likely his counsel will find something they can use. That may only be because I was 13 at the time of the O'Reilly murder so I can't remember it very well. 100% open to correction if O'Reilly did have a decent appeal.

John_Rambo

I don't feel the exposure Elaine O'Hara's personal and sex life got belittles her or builds a bad or terrible picture of her.

And this is important.

Yeah, she had alternative tastes, but so do millions of people. A bit of kink and pain isn't that unusual at all.

Dwyer was the weirdo. He used her vulnerability and her interest in an alternative sex life to his own means. There's no way it was consensual, it never is if there's a shred of doubt or if mental illness is involved. Her illness was separate to her interest in kink.

In the end Dwyer shattered lots of lives. Elaine's family, His Dads, his kids, his wife's and his sons. Shame on him.

His kids will know about this at some stage. It's not like years ago, unfortunately you can't just hide these things years down the line any more. Very sad.

CollyFlower

Totally agree with you Rambo... The people I feel most sorry for are his wife children, how can the mother explain to those two kids about their father? It's heartbreaking for them!

yeahimhere

Del.Monte wrote: »

I didn't notice anything new in the thread? There's little doubt that there will be an appeal and I can still see him walking.

I vaguely remember a point of appeal could be the illegal use of the mobile phone data. There was some ruling in Europe that he was trying to say they breached? Sorry can't remember it so I'm being vague.

For me, the fact that he lied about owning the phone and it was clearly proved he did own it proved the case. If that evidence has to be disregarded I feel the ruling would be over turned.

Anyone know more details on that or if is a possible angle? Or have I gotten it wrong and he attempted to dismiss the evidence before the trial?

Laois_Man

yeahimhere wrote: »

I vaguely remember a point of appeal could be the illegal use of the mobile phone data. There was some ruling in Europe that he was trying to say they breached? Sorry can't remember it so I'm being vague.

For me, the fact that he lied about owning the phone and it was clearly proved he did own it proved the case. If that evidence has to be disregarded I feel the ruling would be over turned.

Anyone know more details on that or if is a possible angle? Or have I gotten it wrong and he attempted to dismiss the evidence before the trial?

From 16 months ago

https://www.digitalrights.ie/european-court-ruling-condemns-mass-surveillance/

CollyFlower

Shame, they put people(low profile) who
Elaine encounter. Why is it the 'high profile' people were allowed to be except from the trial!?

brooke 2

murpho999 wrote: »

The case was entirely circumstantial but it was very solid.

Why do people think that circumstantial evidence is weaker?

The judge's instructions to the jury re the
circumstantial evidence were excellent. I was so convinced GD was guilty based on all of it that I was amazed anyone could think he would walk free!

brooke 2

stickybookmark wrote: »

I rem we were chatting to a (detective) garda friend of my OH's at a christening and he was full sure Dwyer was going to get off becasue there was absolutely nothing linking him to the scene of the crime. No DNA evidence, even that paint analysis of the spade found at the scene didn't match the paint on his garden fence/shed.

Same here. The only people who seemed to think he would walk free were
Gardai I know!

Dwarf.Shortage

brooke 2 wrote: »

Same here. The only people who seemed to think he would walk free were
Gardai I know!

No cause of death, no evidence of knife-like damage to the remains that were found, no murder weapon, no sightings of Dwyer near the scene that day, no clear cut proof he owned the "master" phone, no DNA or any other evidence linking him to the scene and an absolute certainty that Elaine O'Hara was mentally ill and self destructive.

There is very little doubt he was guilty but the case was 100% based on circumstance and conjecture, don't confuse circumstantial with unconvincing.

Kidchameleon

John_Rambo wrote: »

There's no way it was consensual, it never is if there's a shred of doubt or if mental illness is involved. Her illness was separate to her interest in kink.

Are you saying that anyone with a mental illness cant give consent?

Elaine actively sought someone for stabbing and bloodletting on that website, her profile listed these activities as something she enjoyed. One of her partners who was a witness said he couldn't keep up with her. Her and Dwyers relationship was for the most part consensual.

brooke 2

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

No cause of death, no evidence of knife-like damage to the remains that were found, no murder weapon, no sightings of Dwyer near the scene that day, no clear cut proof he owned the "master" phone, no DNA or any other evidence linking him to the scene and an absolute certainty that Elaine O'Hara was mentally ill and self destructive.

There is very little doubt he was guilty but the case was 100% based on circumstance and conjecture, don't confuse circumstantial with unconvincing.

The brilliant work of crime analyst, Sarah Skedd, was totally convincing for many,
most importantly for the jury.