Graham Dwyer court case *READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING*

stickybookmark

sully2010 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what Graham Dwyers defense was? That it was an accidental stabbing or she stabbed herself? Haven't heard much about what his defense was.

His defence took up one afternoon. It was the 2 sheep farmers saying they had no record/recollection of any dead sheep around the flying club during the time in question and a frankly quite heartbreaking account given by a lady that saw EOH in the graveyard shortly before she went to meet GD and EOH was doubled over sobbing near a grave
I assume the latter was to indicate suicide. Just highlighted to me how evil it was for GD to take advantage of someone so vulnerable. And must have been awful for her family to know that in her final moments she was so upset.

Dolbert

coL wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why it was necessary for the prosecution to spend so much time and effort (weeks of testimony) going into such detail about the sexual aspects of this case? Genuine question.

I get that they may have needed to show what he was like and establish his character/depravity, but surely the level of evidence and the time spent presenting it was not required to show what type of person he was and what he was into? Why could they not just establish that they were into some kinky stuff and leave it at that, was the quantity of evidence they presented really required?

Listening to the details of the case each day on the radio it seemed to me that a lot of what was presented was not directly relevant to the actual material facts of the case. I couldn't believe it when the defence finished so quickly by comparison.

It was the State's case that Dwyer stabbed O'Hara to death for his own sexual gratification. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that he killed her in that way, for those reasons. It was extremely relevant to the prosecution.

Ash.J.Williams

coL wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why it was necessary for the prosecution to spend so much time and effort (weeks of testimony) going into such detail about the sexual aspects of this case? Genuine question.

I get that they may have needed to show what he was like and establish his character/depravity, but surely the level of evidence and the time spent presenting it was not required to show what type of person he was and what he was into? Why could they not just establish that they were into some kinky stuff and leave it at that, was the quantity of evidence they presented really required?

Listening to the details of the case each day on the radio it seemed to me that a lot of what was presented was not directly relevant to the actual material facts of the case. I couldn't believe it when the defence finished so quickly by comparison.

Well matlock, i guess where you have a case based 100% on circumstantial evidence, very single thread of that evidence needs to be before the jury or a future serial walks free

haveringchick

coL wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why it was necessary for the prosecution to spend so much time and effort (weeks of testimony) going into such detail about the sexual aspects of this case? Genuine question.

I get that they may have needed to show what he was like and establish his character/depravity, but surely the level of evidence and the time spent presenting it was not required to show what type of person he was and what he was into? Why could they not just establish that they were into some kinky stuff and leave it at that, was the quantity of evidence they presented really required?

Listening to the details of the case each day on the radio it seemed to me that a lot of what was presented was not directly relevant to the actual material facts of the case. I couldn't believe it when the defence finished so quickly by comparison.

The prosecution had no forensics, no cause of death. They had to prove that GODwyer was a sadistic monster addicted to BDSM . They had to exhaust every last piece of circumstantial evidence available to them.
If the content offended your sensibilities you should have moved the dial to LyricFM

Larbre34

Its a big misconception about trials. The defence is conducted throughout the trial, defence evidence may just be one or two witnesses that the prosecutor has no particular interest in, hence it can be very short.

discodiva92

When can he appeal?

Ash.J.Williams

discodiva92 wrote: »

When can he appeal?

he probably is now

BattleCorp

I'm saying it now. I think he will be freed upon appeal.

I hope I'm wrong because I think he did it but there is no smoking gun in this case.

To be honest, there's no real evidence that anybody killed her.

There is evidence that he wanted to stab her and maybe kill her, but that doesn't prove 100% that he actually did kill her.

Hopefully I am wrong and he rots in jail.

JillyQ

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm saying it now. I think he will be freed upon appeal.

I hope I'm wrong because I think he did it but there is no smoking gun in this case.

To be honest, there's no real evidence that anybody killed her.

There is evidence that he wanted to stab her and maybe kill her, but that doesn't prove 100% that he actually did kill her.

Hopefully I am wrong and he rots in jail.[/quote

I hope you are wrong but unfortunately i dont think you are.]

snoopy12

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

he probably is now

is it something like a window of 21 days after sentencing in which he can appeal?

realdanbreen

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its a big misconception about trials. The defence is conducted throughout the trial, defence evidence may just be one or two witnesses that the prosecutor has no particular interest in, hence it can be very short.

I know that legally speaking a jury is not meant to read anything into it, but I always feel that if a defendant is not prepared to take the stand then he is doing himself no favours with the jury.

stickybookmark

realdanbreen wrote: »

I know that legally speaking a jury is not meant to read anything into it, but I always feel that if a defendant is not prepared to take the stand then he is doing himself no favours with the jury.

that's true. Like Oscar Pistorious took the stand was cleared of murder and got a reduced manslaughter charge

murpho999

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm saying it now. I think he will be freed upon appeal.

I hope I'm wrong because I think he did it but there is no smoking gun in this case.

To be honest, there's no real evidence that anybody killed her.

There is evidence that he wanted to stab her and maybe kill her, but that doesn't prove 100% that he actually did kill her.

Hopefully I am wrong and he rots in jail.

People always think that a 'smoking gun' is needed to be found guilty but that is not necessary at all.
The circumstantial evidence in this was extremely strong.

Joe Reilly and Brian Kearney were also both convicted on circumstantial evidence and are still in jail.

Also, I thought I read somewhere that he can only appeal on certain points.

Allyall

Some info about his appeal here

TheJournal.ie wrote:

How does an appeal work?
Dwyer is also expected to lodge an appeal against his conviction. So, how does that work?
Barrister of law, Venetia Taylor, explained that as Dwyer has been found guilty of murder, attracting a mandatory sentence, his appeal can only be on his conviction.
The appeal will not hear oral evidence and at the end of the appeal the judge may direct that there be a re-trial.
There has been speculation that the appeal could be heard a lot sooner than other cases that come before the courts. Taylor said that while the new Court of Appeal has been clearing a substantial backlog, there is still some delay in cases being heard.
However, an application for the appeal to be expedited could be made.
The new Court of Appeal gives an automatic right of appeal, where previously one had to apply for leave. This requirement has now been removed, said Taylor.
Under the new rules a Notice of Appeal must be filed by Dwyer’s legal team with the Registrar.
Dwyer cannot simply file an appeal for no reason. The Notice of Appeal must set out the grounds in which the applicant proposes to base his appeal.

Grounds for appeal
The grounds will be very much up to his legal team. There were numerous legal arguments raised throughout the trial. In an appeal, arguments cannot be raised that were not raised in the trial.
Taylor explained that as the case was based on circumstantial evidence, any piece of evidence, if broken away or dismissed, will lose its integrity or probative value.
She explains that circumstantial evidence has weight when it is taken together, and if one piece is to be lost then a judge could order a retrial as the verdict decision would be viewed as unsafe.
“I would expect them to contest the admissibility of the video footage of him having sex,” said Taylor, adding it could be seen as prejudicial to Dwyer and its prejudice may have outweighed its probative value.

The case was circumstantial and each element was inter-dependent, for example, the video footage showed he lied to gardaí when he said Elaine O’Hara was more into the stabbing then he was, so if either the footage or the interviews were ruled out, the significance of the remaining evidence would be much weaker.

That might be a problem on appeal as the DPP would have to hold a lot of the rulings.

There are speculations that the charge of the jurors and the phone mast data may also be grounds to appeal, however, this is very much up to Dwyer’s legal team.

Evidence
A recent judgment by Clarke J in DPP v J.C in the Supreme Court last week, 15 April, could also impact the case, says Taylor.
The evidence that gardaí secured from Dwyer’s bin and the leaks to media may be impacted on by the judgments in DPP v J.C.
The judgment for the new test on the exclusion of evidence states:

Where objection is taken to the admissibility of evidence on the grounds that it was taken in circumstances of unconstitutionality, the onus remains on the prosecution to establish either:-(a) that the evidence was not gathered in circumstances of unconstitutionality; or (b) that, if it was, it remains appropriate for the Court to nonetheless admit the evidence.

The onus in seeking to justify the admission of evidence taken in unconstitutional circumstances places on the prosecution an obligation to explain the basis on which it is said that the evidence should, nonetheless, be admitted AND ALSO to establish any facts necessary to justify such a basis.Where evidence is taken in deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights then the evidence should be excluded save in those exceptional circumstances considered in the existing jurisprudence. In this context deliberate and conscious refers to knowledge of the unconstitutionality of the taking of the relevant evidence rather than applying to the acts concerned…

The judgement goes on to state:

Evidence which is obtained or gathered in circumstances where same could not have been constitutionally obtained or gathered should not be admitted even if those involved in the relevant evidence gathering were unaware due to inadvertence of the absence of authority.

So, what can the outcome of an appeal be?
The Court of Criminal Appeal could:

• Dismiss the appeal
• Quash the conviction and release the defendant or,
• Quash the conviction and order a re-trial or,
• Quash the conviction and, if the person appealing their conviction or sentence is considered to be guilty of some other offence, substitute a verdict and impose a sentence which is not more severe than the original one.

coL

Nice to know that the spirit of the Internet is alive and well in this thread and a simple question can elicit such sarcastic and vitriolic responses from people who can't tolrate anyone having a point of view which doesn't align exactly with their own. I was hoping for a serious answer from adults and a possible discussion but I see that most adults have left this thread a while ago and it's mainly just the trolls left.

If any of you smart assets had bothered to read my post and try to understand what I was asking they would see that my question was whether that volume of evidence was actually required to show that he was such a monster.

It should have been very obvious from a very early stage that this was one very sick individual and once the motive of sexual gratification was established things could move on to more relevant aspects of the case.

The prosecution seemed to make it all about the sex and "lifestyle" which took everyone's attention away from the fact that an innocent and vulnerable person was killed in cold blood. All this focus didn't help the family's involved or the victims memory.

TL;DR could the same end result not have been achieved with less evidence rather than have tons of evidence covering essentially the same ground over and over again

JuliusCaesar

Just wondering, and I don't know if it was possible at the time, if the messages had been sent via the internet (iMessage, Viber, etc) would they have been on the phone if deleted? SMS messages can still be found after deletion, can't they?

aphex™

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

TL;DR could the same end result not have been achieved with less evidence rather than have tons of evidence covering essentially the same ground over and over again

I disagree it was too much, and that it was the same ground. It clearly showed he had shown increasing levels of violence against the victim, which led up to the final act. I think your suggestion that the defence should throw an ounce of evidence away when they have it is slightly specious, as it was clearly all building up to her death.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Just wondering, and I don't know if it was possible at the time, if the messages had been sent via the internet (iMessage, Viber, etc) would they have been on the phone if deleted? SMS messages can still be found after deletion, can't they?

Yes, most apps store data on phones so it can be recovered, SMS and viber.

stickybookmark

coL wrote: »

Nice to know that the spirit of the Internet is alive and well in this thread and a simple question can elicit such sarcastic and vitriolic responses from people who can't tolrate anyone having a point of view which doesn't align exactly with their own. I was hoping for a serious answer from adults and a possible discussion but I see that most adults have left this thread a while ago and it's mainly just the trolls left.

If any of you smart assets had bothered to read my post and try to understand what I was asking they would see that my question was whether that volume of evidence was actually required to show that he was such a monster.

It should have been very obvious from a very early stage that this was one very sick individual and once the motive of sexual gratification was established things could move on to more relevant aspects of the case.

The prosecution seemed to make it all about the sex and "lifestyle" which took everyone's attention away from the fact that an innocent and vulnerable person was killed in cold blood. All this focus didn't help the family's involved or the victims memory.

TL;DR could the same end result not have been achieved with less evidence rather than have tons of evidence covering essentially the same ground over and over again

I know where you're coming from and it did seem a bit OTT at times but I think this is one of these situations where the end justified the means.

stickybookmark

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Just wondering, and I don't know if it was possible at the time, if the messages had been sent via the internet (iMessage, Viber, etc) would they have been on the phone if deleted? SMS messages can still be found after deletion, can't they?

I wondered that too! Remember the trouble the prosecution had getting whatsapp messages off Oscar Pistorius's phone after he 'forgot' the password for it (and they didn't know the password for Reeva's phone) they had to travel to Apple in the USA and go through all kinds of obstacles to try and get the info. I guess there was no password on the phones found in the reservoir?

aphex™

stickybookmark wrote: »

I wondered that too! Remember the trouble the prosecution had getting whatsapp messages off Oscar Pistorius's phone after he 'forgot' the password for it (and they didn't know the password for Reeva's phone) they had to travel to Apple in the USA and go through all kinds of obstacles to try and get the info. I guess there was no password on the phones found in the reservoir?

The phones found in reservoir were old style nokias, and you can get the data off them easily. The iphone data was backed up to her computer, and as such was retrieved easily.

realdanbreen

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Just wondering, and I don't know if it was possible at the time, if the messages had been sent via the internet (iMessage, Viber, etc) would they have been on the phone if deleted? SMS messages can still be found after deletion, can't they?

AFAIK they all leave a trace. As I said before GD would be out and about flying his little planes this weekend if only he had DESTROYED the phones, keys etc.
Thank God he had a stupid moment after all his years of manipulating and tormenting that woman.

Riskymove

murpho999 wrote: »

Joe Reilly and Brian Kearney were also both convicted on circumstantial evidence and are still in jail.

I suppose a difference in those cases is that the cause of death of the victim was known

coL

I wasn't suggesting that they leave anything out but more that the point that he was a very sick individual was made (very early on in my opinion) and restating the same kind of stuff in evidence over and over again served no real purpose and maybe even took the emphasis away from her as a victim and shifted it to the "lifestyle" which was all the radio/newspapers seemed to focus on.

The prosecution went on for a long time by comparison to his defence which was very short. My understanding of the rules of evidence is that the prosecution would have been aware of what witnesses were being called and should have known how thin his defence was. With this in mind was the constant emphasising of how sick an individual he was productive use of the prosecutions time or just overkill?

And before anyone says anything I will accept that overkill may not be such a bad thing in this instance as they wanted to make sure they made their point. It may we'll be that the end did justify the means but would be interested to get people's opinions on this.

LadyAthame

The prosecution went on for a long time by comparison to his defence which was very short. My understanding of the rules of evidence is that the prosecution would have been aware of what witnesses were being called and should have known how thin his defence was. With this in mind was the constant emphasising of how sick an individual he was productive use of the prosecutions time or just overkill?

I think his ability to reason stopped short to certain things in his life. He could work as an architect but was completely detached from reality and logic when it came to how others saw him and this dark part of his life. He put a blindspot on his intelligence for it.

Stheno

Just read that the legal fees exceeded half a million euro !

the world wonders

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is evidence that he wanted to stab her and maybe kill her, but that doesn't prove 100% that he actually did kill her.

Correct but irrelevant.
The standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "100% proof".

(In fact, the definition of murder is based on the state of mind of the accused, which is impossible to "prove 100%" without inventing a mind reader.)

LadyAthame

snoopy12 wrote: »

is it something like a window of 21 days after sentencing in which he can appeal?

Yes...it has to be lodged within 21 days

This kinda makes me sick though

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/graham-dwyer-granted-legal-aid-certificate-in-event-of-an-appeal-1.2182832

I know it's there for a reason and obviously some people might need or even deserve it..but seriously in this case ..ugh

nc6000

If it was raining like this a couple of summers ago he wouldn't have been caught.

Boom_Bap

I've deleted the last few posts that speculate about some graffiti.

bjork

haveringchick wrote: »

Im interested in your post. Tell me. How do you explain all the circumstantial evidence which convicted Dwyer? By Amy chance do uou suspect tha. There has been a huge conspiracy to frame a mild mannered architect for a gruesome murder that was actually the dastardly responsibility of a coven of Satanists that includes figures from the very heart of the upper echelons of the Irish establishment?
If you do believe this then can you explain how they failed to plant any forensics?

No, I can't because I didn't say he was innocent. I believe he did it.

Did I, say he was innocent? > Please quote me
Are you just making stuff up?

haveringchick

bjork wrote: »

No, I can't because I didn't say he was innocent. I believe he did it.

Did I, say he was innocent? > Please quote me
Are you just making stuff up?

Your yhe one who quoted a notorious tabloid rag that has exploited this tragic story mercilessly gor 4 months while ignoring the added misery it was heaping on at least 2 devastated families.
When another poster pointed this out you implied that there must he some merit in the graffiti by saying that it shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.

tara73

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I've deleted the last few posts that speculate about some graffiti.

is it possible to get to know why this posts were deleted? thanks.

Boom_Bap

tara73 wrote: »

is it possible to get to know why this posts were deleted? thanks.

because it's fairly speculative. There are many warnings on the threat to stick to facts only.

realdanbreen

I was chatting with a few people las night and GD's name came up. Of the 5 of us,4 said that if they were in his shoes,in jail and unlikely to ever get out,they would be seriously considering ways to end it all. What do ye think? Could ye bear the thoughts of being locked in a small cell every night at 8.30 for the rest of ye're lives and having to look over your shoulder for the hours that you are not locked in.

tayto lover

realdanbreen wrote: »

I was chatting with a few people las night and GD's name came up. Of the 5 of us,4 said that if they were in his shoes,in jail and unlikely to ever get out,they would be seriously considering ways to end it all. What do ye think? Could ye bear the thoughts of being locked in a small cell every night at 8.30 for the rest of ye're lives and having to look over your shoulder for the hours that you are not locked in.

Yes a "suspended" sentence would fit ideally.

Stheno

realdanbreen wrote: »

I was chatting with a few people las night and GD's name came up. Of the 5 of us,4 said that if they were in his shoes,in jail and unlikely to ever get out,they would be seriously considering ways to end it all. What do ye think? Could ye bear the thoughts of being locked in a small cell every night at 8.30 for the rest of ye're lives and having to look over your shoulder for the hours that you are not locked in.

Well he has until tomorrow to file an appeal

John_Rambo

Stheno wrote: »

Well he has until tomorrow to file an appeal

I'm pretty sure he will, he was convinced he'd be found innocent in the first place. He has completely destroyed his life (and others), it was fairly idyllic compared to what it is now. Taking what he did out of this post, he must be fairly devastated, loosing his nice house, cute wife and above all, loosing his two (or three) kids. He had a nice nice nice life, holidays, hobbies, family, kids, great job, disposable income etc... and now he literally has nothing. He won't see his young kids growing up. Probably won't if he gets out anyway.

By saying this, I'm just focusing on him and his situation, not excusing him, not feeling sorry for him and meaning no disrespect to the life he took and the lives he destroyed. I know he deserves it, but I guarantee you, he doesn't think so.

eigrod

Court Service have confirmed this morning that Graham Dwyer has lodged an appeal. Not surprising. He has nothing to lose really.

Simon2015

eigrod wrote: »

Court Service have confirmed this morning that Graham Dwyer has lodged an appeal. Not surprising. He has nothing to lose really.

He should pay for the appeal out of his own pocket.

silverfeather

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he will, he was convinced he'd be found innocent in the first place. He has completely destroyed his life (and others), it was fairly idyllic compared to what it is now. Taking what he did out of this post, he must be fairly devastated, loosing his nice house, cute wife and above all, loosing his two (or three) kids. He had a nice nice nice life, holidays, hobbies, family, kids, great job, disposable income etc... and now he literally has nothing. He won't see his young kids growing up. Probably won't if he gets out anyway.

By saying this, I'm just focusing on him and his situation, not excusing him, not feeling sorry for him and meaning no disrespect to the life he took and the lives he destroyed. I know he deserves it, but I guarantee you, he doesn't think so.

Actually I doubt he ever really appreciated them. Sociopaths only think of immediate needs and their perverse desires. They were items to him. Stars or notches on his belt. He could care less about his kids. They were his trophies. They were apart of the film of which he was the star. They were not separate beings with their own feelings and rights to him. They were a sign that he was 'normal' that he was a success. That's all.

You cannot love your children and be a murderer you just can't.

They were the white picket fence he showed to the world. That's all.

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

I was chatting with a few people las night and GD's name came up. Of the 5 of us,4 said that if they were in his shoes,in jail and unlikely to ever get out,they would be seriously considering ways to end it all. What do ye think? Could ye bear the thoughts of being locked in a small cell every night at 8.30 for the rest of ye're lives and having to look over your shoulder for the hours that you are not locked in.

So? Would you accept spending the rest of your life in a cell or would you end it now?

mocha please!

Some strange people out there ... this woman claims to be "in love" with Graham Dwyer and is visiting him in prison. :eek:

Lisha

mocha please! wrote: »

Some strange people out there ... this woman claims to be "in love" with Graham Dwyer and is visiting him in prison. :eek:

Words fail me. There really is no shortage of idiots in this world:(

JillyQ

Lisha wrote: »

Words fail me. There really is no shortage of idiots in this world:(

She must be seriously delusional.

godtabh

JillyQ wrote: »

She must be seriously delusional.

Or have her own mental health issues

mocha please!

mocha please! wrote: »

Some strange people out there ... this woman claims to be "in love" with Graham Dwyer and is visiting him in prison. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuXwcc6M1D0

Underground

Well the media have now given her some of the attention she so obviously craves.

whatismyname

godtabh wrote: »

Or have her own mental health issues

Being seriously delusional IS a mental health issue.

Grayson

Lisha wrote: »

Words fail me. There really is no shortage of idiots in this world:(

I did a quick google of her and it brought up her facebook page.

One friend in common

Aineoil

Grayson wrote: »

I did a quick google of her and it brought up her facebook page.

One friend in common

Don't worry Mr Grayson, it's only one friend in common.