Graham Dwyer court case *READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING*

Stheno

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

Multiple texts from her slave phone indicated she had lost the desire to see blood spilled

CollyFlower

He was undone by the phone evidence!......same thing happened to Joe O'Reilly.

Dwarf.Shortage

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

“I’m going to chain you to a tree and rape you,” he says. There is discussion about what turns her on and she warns, “Don’t even try to stab me.”
“I am a sadist, I enjoy other’s pain. You should help me inflict pain on you,” he says. “Yes, sir,” Ms O’Hara responds. He tells her she is a “good girl” and if she helps him stab a girl she won’t get knifed.

On April 25th, the 083 user says he found a dead sheep yesterday. “Might go back after dark and see what it feels like to sink a knife into it,” he says. There is a discussion about him paying for a tattoo on her and another about killing someone. The 083 user says, “Everyone has to die sometime, it’s bad luck for whoever this is.” He would hit her across the head with a hammer, he says, so she doesn’t feel it and her heart is still working and he’d get “the full effect of the stabbing”.

On May 7th, Ms O’Hara texts that she has been to her psychiatrist but is “unfortunately not suicidal”. The 083 user responds that he is available to end it painlessly. “Just think, all your worries gone. I can fit you in on Thursday,” he says. He also says he knows she wants it; “Thirty seconds to put you into oblivion”. She asks him to “please stop”.

On May 24th, the sheep is discussed again and the 083 user says he was “laying low” in case the stabbing was investigated. He says he was “up flying” and took a peek and the animals had “picked the carcass clean”. “I want to do a woman next. It was a fantastic feeling, the knife going in and watching blood spurt out,” he says. They also discuss Ms O’Hara’s shortage of money and he suggests he will pay her €50 a stab. "Nice try, I’m not giving blood for anything,” she responds.

The 083 user later says he is thinking of visiting a prostitute to see how easy it is to kill. He also suggests they could find “a young female auctioneer”. He tells her he will kill someone only if he has a “perfect plan”. “Lots of people have stabbed and got away with it, why not me?” he asks.



Irish Times reports from the court, whatever consent Elaine O'Hara could be perceived to have given is completely debased by her diminished capacity to give it and the extent to which he manipulated her into giving it.

"Her and Dwyers relationship was for the most part consensual."

True, nobody is trying to charge him for "raping", stabbing or restraining her as that was all done with consent. The small part of their relationship that wasn't consensual was him deliberately killing her and this is what he has been convicted of. Her sexual preferences have little to do with that.

ViveLaVie

nullzero wrote: »

He should and most likely will spend his remaining years behind bars. The likelihood of him being released at any point is very slim considering his apparent psychological make up being that of a psychopath, which means rehabilitation to reintegrate into society is not something that can be realistically believed to be possible. I'm sure he will continuously profess his innocence due to his being a narcissistic psychopath but it would be unconscionable for anyone to make a decision to release such an individual back into society.

What about Larry Murphy?

CollyFlower

ViveLaVie wrote: »

What about Larry Murphy?

People like Larry Murphy will never be comfortable in life, (always be hiding) the same with GD! If GD ever gets out of prison he'd never be able to live a 'normal' life, unless he's given a change identify and plastic surgery.

Allyall

bigpink wrote: »

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

It's not relevant, but I'd be very very very surprised to be told his Wife didn't know he had some sort of f*cked up fetish.

CollyFlower wrote: »

He was undone by the phone evidence!......same thing happened to Joe O'Reilly.

And the Computer, and the witnesses and the stuff found in the resevoir, and the Garda that followed it up, and the Dog that uncovered her remains and...

bigpink

My point mire was she totally dropped him the morning if arrest so that shows she knew in her gut

Allyall

bigpink wrote: »

My point de mire was she totally dropped him the morning of arrest so that shows she knew in her gut

Maybe.
I only quoted you because it was something I had already thought about, but seems to be something that nobody wants to mention.

bigpink

Did he have access to the son?Read some where he stalked ex partner

Frigga_92

Allyall wrote: »

Maybe.
I only quoted you because it was something I had already thought about, but seems to be something that nobody wants to mention.

Personally I think the less talk about Dwyer's wife the better. She has done nothing wrong. Do people not think she is questioning herself enough as it is? Chastising herself for not noticing, raking over all their years together trying to think of signs she missed, full of shame knowing that a large portion of the population is questioning her marriage etc etc.
She assisted the Gardai, gave evidence, she did everything in her power to help the investigation, the prosecution etc and that should be enough.
I hope that she can rebuild her life and move on from this in privacy.

Allyall

Frigga_92 wrote: »

Personally I think the less talk about Dwyer's wife the better. She has done nothing wrong. Do people not think she is questioning herself enough as it is? Chastising herself for not noticing, raking over all their years together trying to think of signs she missed, full of shame knowing that a large portion of the population is questioning her marriage etc etc.
She assisted the Gardai, gave evidence, she did everything in her power to help the investigation, the prosecution etc and that should be enough.
I hope that she can rebuild her life and move on from this in privacy.

A few too many drinks last night.
I agree, but mind wandered.

She may even have been the anonymous tip off...

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

there was an anonymous tip off???

Kidchameleon

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

"Her and Dwyers relationship was for the most part consensual."

True, nobody is trying to charge him for "raping", stabbing or restraining her as that was all done with consent. The small part of their relationship that wasn't consensual was him deliberately killing her is what he has been convicted of and her sexual preferences have little to do with that.

So we agree that she consented to being stabbed and of course she didn't agree to be killed.

Mallagio

Pity the wife, TV3 putting up photos of her was grotesque & left a very bad taste in my mouth. Shameful.

realdanbreen

Allyall wrote: »

It's not relevant, but I'd be very very very surprised to be told his Wife didn't know he had some sort of f*cked up fetish.


And the Computer, and the witnesses and the stuff found in the resevoir, and the Garda that followed it up, and the Dog that uncovered her remains and...

No just the two phones. Had he destroyed them then they could find as many bodies and witnesses and guards and dogs as they wished and they wouldn't have a shred of hard evidence against him. I'm afraid 'It wos the phones wot done 'im M'Lord'

Allyall

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

there was an anonymous tip off???

Detective Chief Superintendent Diarmuid O'Sullivan received confidential information on Graham Dwyer, then searched his bins and found the turtlewax.
********

RE the Wife. I 100% agree she should be left out. I was at a leaving do, had a few more than I intended, and mind wandered. These sort of cases tend to have that affect.

take everything

Frigga_92 wrote: »

Personally I think the less talk about Dwyer's wife the better. She has done nothing wrong. Do people not think she is questioning herself enough as it is? Chastising herself for not noticing, raking over all their years together trying to think of signs she missed, full of shame knowing that a large portion of the population is questioning her marriage etc etc.
She assisted the Gardai, gave evidence, she did everything in her power to help the investigation, the prosecution etc and that should be enough.
I hope that she can rebuild her life and move on from this in privacy.

Absolutely.
That poor woman.
Wherever she goes hopefully she'll be helped get on with her life with dignity.

Ash.J.Williams

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So we agree that she consented to being stabbed and of course she didn't agree to be killed.

that's a very simplistic view of the situation, read the texts from start to finish and your view will change.

Neyite

Allyall wrote: »

A few too many drinks last night.
I agree, but mind wandered.

She may even have been the anonymous tip off...

I doubt it for two reasons - I'd say that GD compartmentalised his life to the extent that his wife was totally unaware of his urges. He made that mistake once with his ex and she lived in fear of him. If there had been any similarities within his marriage to his true self the prosecution would have used that to strengthen their circumstantial evidence - sensitivities of a wife aside.

My guess is that it was his other sub, The high-ranking professional working in the civil service. Why else would a superintendent rake through a bin of a suspect? She may have known about EOH going missing but assumed that she killed herself, like everyone else did. When the stuff was found in the reservoir and her remains in location 20km away from her car, it was the beginnings of a suspicious death investigation, not a missing persons report.

Laois_Man

ViveLaVie wrote: »

What about Larry Murphy?

While it gals many that Murphy got an early release, fact is, if he had severed every single day of his 15 year sentence, they'd have had to release him last February with no power to hold him any longer.

take everything

I think the details in Dwarf. Shortage's post are important.
They lay bare what exactly was going on.
They put to bed any lingering "ah shur it takes two to tango" sentiment that there may still be.

That's why I thought reporting on this was important.

The manipulation and coercion are plain to see.
Was this in any news reports.

seamus

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.

Certainly at the beginning of the case, a lot of people I spoke to were on the fence about it. Some people of the opinion that "sexual devient == definite murderer", but most others were more open, believing that being into BDSM and enjoying stabbing people doesn't prove you killed anyone.

It was really only as more details began to emerge that the benefit of the doubt began to be lost. You do have to remember though that the papers only report a fraction of the evidence and can easily swing public opinion in totally the opposite direction to the final verdict.

I think most people were somewhat surprised by how quickly the jury returned their unanimous verdict. This is most likely because the strongest evidence was either never reported or never seen by the media.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

I think he's referring more to the general "rules" within the BDSM community where it's seen as highly inappropriate to engage in this kind of play with someone who is clearly not in a sound frame of mind.
Dwyer not only did this, but he continually attacked the stability of her frame of mind and tried to push her into dark places.

bigpink wrote: »

My point mire was she totally dropped him the morning if arrest so that shows she knew in her gut

As others say, it's very unfair to make any assumptions about what his wife did know or suspect.
Given her co-operation with the investigation I think it's fair to say that if she had known more, she would have offered it. She'll spend the rest of her life reviewing the past ten years, remembering all the little signs and triggers that she thought nothing of at the time and blaming herself for not spotting it sooner.
I don't think speculating on her knowledge is either fair nor necessary at this stage. With any luck, they'll move somewhere completely different and disappear into the background for the rest of their lives.

realdanbreen wrote: »

No just the two phones. Had he destroyed them then they could find as many bodies and witnesses and guards and dogs as they wished and they wouldn't have a shred of hard evidence against him. I'm afraid 'It wos the phones wot done 'im M'Lord'

Pretty much. As meticulous as he was about covering his tracks during and leading up to the act, his method of disposal was sloppy. BDSM gear disposed in the reservoir on its own would have been a curio and a comedy point for those who found it.
But throw a couple of knives in there and a set of car keys and suddenly it becomes a lot more sinister.
Fire will pretty much destroy all electronics, and if the knives and keys had been disposed of separately, he was home free.

That said, he was probably doing his best to not be in possession of anything for longer than he needed, so he probably bagged everything up and dumped it in the reservoir immediately after committing the act.

stickybookmark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

I was talking to my OH about this. The significance of Dwyer's wife indicating the photo of the spade found on the hill where EOH's body was found and saying 'that is the spade from our garden which went missing that summer, I recognise it from the paint spatters' was in effect her saying that she believes he's guilty. The fact that the paint was subsequently found to not be a match for the paint in Dwyer's garden was actually of far less consequence than the fact his own wife was willing to stand up and testify that she believed him to be guilty so I agree that must have influenced the jury.

Ash.J.Williams

stickybookmark wrote: »

I was talking to my OH about this. The significance of Dwyer's wife indicating the photo of the spade found on the hill where EOH's body was found and saying 'that is the spade from our garden which went missing that summer, I recognise it from the paint spatters' was in effect her saying that she believes he's guilty. The fact that the paint was subsequently found to not be a match for the paint in Dwyer's garden was actually of far less consequence than the fact his own wife was willing to stand up and testify that she believed him to be guilty so I agree that must have influenced the jury.

the shed had been repainted since the shovel went missing

Laois_Man

stickybookmark wrote: »

I was talking to my OH about this. The significance of Dwyer's wife indicating the photo of the spade found on the hill where EOH's body was found and saying 'that is the spade from our garden which went missing that summer, I recognise it from the paint spatters' was in effect her saying that she believes he's guilty. The fact that the paint was subsequently found to not be a match for the paint in Dwyer's garden was actually of far less consequence than the fact his own wife was willing to stand up and testify that she believed him to be guilty so I agree that must have influenced the jury.

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

Ash.J.Williams

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

why would they ...they had a winning plan

stickybookmark

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

Think about it though.

A wife is called as witness for a murder trial for her husband in which a body was found in a remote location and a spade was found nearby.
That wife stands up in court and testifies that she recognises said spade as being from their shed and tells the court that it went missing from their garden that summer. That is hugely significant!! It was subtle but it speaks volumes, and that must have influenced the jury.

Flippyfloppy

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

Sure the jury could have just thought she was a woman scorned in that case. After finding out about all this extra-marital activity.

seamus

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"?

Easily destroyed by the defence though. Her belief or not about whether he's capable of it, isn't evidence that he did.
At best it could be argued that the prosecution are appealing to emotion rather than sticking to any facts.

Character witnesses are typically not permitted to be used by the prosecution in criminal trials, except in very select circumstances.

stickybookmark

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Sure the jury could have just thought she was a woman scorned in that case. After finding out about all this extra-marital activity.

Exactly! I was just going to post that. She would have just come across as a bitter wife over his affair. The way they did it preserved her dignity as she didn't have to speak about her husband's affairs or any of the unpleasant stuff but she still testified against him.

stickybookmark

Allyall wrote: »

Detective Chief Superintendent Diarmuid O'Sullivan received confidential information on Graham Dwyer, then searched his bins and found the turtlewax.
********
.

What is that something used on cars? How would you get DNA from it?

Stheno

stickybookmark wrote: »

What is that something used on cars? How would you get DNA from it?

From his handling it and leaving traces

stickybookmark

That reminds me of another mistake by Dwyer - the mattress in EOH's apartment. After her body was found a guard went and had a look around her apartment, which had been vacant since she went missing and he looked under the sheet and found puncture cuts and blood stains on the mattress. Dwyer's semen was subsequently found on it. Hard to believe that was left there for a year and not removed by Dwyer considering he had a key to her apartment.

realdanbreen

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

You can't ask a witness to give an opinion on whether someone is capable of comitting a crime, we could all end up in the pokey if that were the case.

Stench Blossoms

stickybookmark wrote: »

That reminds me of another mistake by Dwyer - the mattress in EOH's apartment. After her body was found a guard went and had a look around her apartment, which had been vacant since she went missing and he looked under the sheet and found puncture cuts and blood stains on the mattress. Dwyer's semen was subsequently found on it. Hard to believe that was left there for a year and not removed by Dwyer considering he had a key to her apartment.

He never denied having a sexual relationship with her though did he?

CollyFlower

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

He never denied having a sexual relationship with her though did he?

Yes, he did when he was first interviewed by Gardai.

"Graham Dwyer told gardaí he could understand how
his DNA came to be in Elaine O’Hara’s apartment at
Belarmine Plaza in Stepaside, but he said it was
nothing of a “sexual nature”. He later admitted that
they did have a sexual relationship."

brooke 2

Frigga_92 wrote: »

Personally I think the less talk about Dwyer's wife the better. She has done nothing wrong. Do people not think she is questioning herself enough as it is? Chastising herself for not noticing, raking over all their years together trying to think of signs she missed, full of shame knowing that a large portion of the population is questioning her marriage etc etc.
She assisted the Gardai, gave evidence, she did everything in her power to help the investigation, the prosecution etc and that should be enough.
I hope that she can rebuild her life and move on from this in privacy.

AFAIK, as his wife, she did not have to give evidence but wanted to do so.
She has suffered horrendously and, according to reports, the proof of that
excruciating pain was obvious in her 'pathetic' demeanour when she appeared
in court. The pictures of her in the media were taken in happier times. She was
guided to the stand in such a way (behind it, I believe) that she did not have to
face Dwyer. As she gave evidence, she seated herself with her back completely
turned against him. The whole experience was clearly an ordeal for her - she
showed tremendous courage in her determination to come to court to give
evidence against that odious animal to whom she had the misfortune to have
been married.

brooke 2

Neyite wrote: »

I doubt it for two reasons - I'd say that GD compartmentalised his life to the extent that his wife was totally unaware of his urges. He made that mistake once with his ex and she lived in fear of him. If there had been any similarities within his marriage to his true self the prosecution would have used that to strengthen their circumstantial evidence - sensitivities of a wife aside.

My guess is that it was his other sub, The high-ranking professional working in the civil service. Why else would a superintendent rake through a bin of a suspect? She may have known about EOH going missing but assumed that she killed herself, like everyone else did. When the stuff was found in the reservoir and her remains in location 20km away from her car, it was the beginnings of a suspicious death investigation, not a missing persons report.

Iirc, the anonymous tip off came from someone he attacked about twenty years ago
but who had not reported it at the time.

murpho999

Would really love to know how people are getting all this confidential information.

Stheno

Pretty much everything posted here was reported in the media

stickybookmark

brooke 2 wrote: »

Iirc, the anonymous tip off came from someone he attacked about twenty years ago
but who had not reported it at the time.

How would they know he was ANYTHING to do with EOH though???

brooke 2

stickybookmark wrote: »

What is that something used on cars? How would you get DNA from it?

Turtle wax is used to shine model aeroplanes. I may be wrong on this, but, iirc,
one of the detectives remembered seeing an acquaintance who flew these
planes as a hobby using turtle wax on them. Until then, they had been looking
for a pilot as the suspect.

brooke 2

stickybookmark wrote: »

That reminds me of another mistake by Dwyer - the mattress in EOH's apartment. After her body was found a guard went and had a look around her apartment, which had been vacant since she went missing and he looked under the sheet and found puncture cuts and blood stains on the mattress. Dwyer's semen was subsequently found on it. Hard to believe that was left there for a year and not removed by Dwyer considering he had a key to her apartment.

Also hard to believe forensics had not examined the mattress.

CollyFlower

brooke 2 wrote: »

Iirc, the anonymous tip off came from someone he attacked about twenty years ago
but who had not reported it at the time.

Did this person give evidence in the court case?

Lollipops23

brooke 2 wrote: »

Also hard to believe forensics had not examined the mattress.

Unfortunately everyone believed she had taken her own life, so why would they? Given her mental health history and the location her car was found, nobody had reason to suspect foul play until the house of cards came tumbling down.

brooke 2

stickybookmark wrote: »

How would they know he was ANYTHING to do with EOH though???

They did not know at the time! The tip off directed the gardai towards a Graham
Dwyer who worked in the Baggot Street area. When they discovered his address
in Foxrock, Chief Superintendent O'Sullivan and a colleague decided to raid the
bins when they were placed out on the path for collection one night!!

The diligence and the intelligence of the detectives from Blackrock were
amazing. It was fascinating to read how the case came together.

The original work done by that wonderful Garda O'Donoghue in Roundwood
cannot be praised enough, IMHO!!!

brooke 2

CollyFlower wrote: »

Did this person give evidence in the court case?

I suspect she may have, but not about that incident.

tayto lover

Laois_Man wrote: »

Why didn't the prosecution ask her straight out....."Do you believe your husband is capable of doing this"? That would have provided a much bigger impact than any subtle hints did. After all, she was by far their most valuable character witness. The fact that they didn't ask it perhaps hints that they weren't going to get exactly the answer they wanted.

What you think is not evidence though (Judge Judy).
No facts in what you think or believe.

stickybookmark

brooke 2 wrote: »

They did not know at the time! The tip off directed the gardai towards a Graham
Dwyer who worked in the Baggot Street area. When they discovered his address
in Foxrock,

No you don't get me. Let's call the person who made the anonymous tip off Person A. How did Person A know that GD was anything to do with EOH?
Why, when Person A heard that EOH body had been found, would they even link EOH to GD??

CollyFlower

stickybookmark wrote: »

No you don't get me. Let's call the person who made the anonymous tip off Person A. How did Person A know that GD was anything to do with EOH?
Why, when Person A heard that EOH body had been found, would they even link EOH to GD??

I may be wrong but I'm sure Elaine herself had told others about her relationship with GD and that she was scared of him. I'm sure that was mentioned in the trial by one of the girls she worked with... (person A)