Graham Dwyer - latest

LMHC

BattleCorp wrote: »

I thought the police work was excellent to be honest. Some good detecting to identify Dwyer as a suspect and then pin him to locations etc.

The Gardai probably weren't to know that the use of the data was illegal. It was allowed under Irish law but not under EU law and EU law takes precedence.

Alan wilsons murder trial of mariora was a few months before this was first case of phone records excluded. They knew.

realdanbreen

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

I’m once again baffled as to why someone would refer to this monster by first name.......it’s almost like giving the guy or rather sub-human ‘respect’.

Which part of the case made you regard this guy as sub-human?
Was it the murder itself or the whole preamble leading up to it. You should realise that there is an active BDSM scene in every county in Ireland (probably with the exception of Clare where they would be mainly into sheep).

LMHC

LMHC wrote: »

State pathologist Marie cassidy directed a report of non evidential cause of death. The garda went ahead anyway and put bones on a skeleton to secure a conviction.

They stopped 2 high court applications on grounds of his phone pointing to guilt( To be later ruled out)

Jonathan dunphy his solicitor and Remy his barrister pointed out Alan Wilson's case and how the murder trial dropped due to phones being ruled out in same time Graham was in custody.

Oh yeah stifling police work.

what protocol wasn't followed?
Anything before the courts is for the courts to rule on.
I'm not sure when you mean, when you say Graham was in custody? During his arrest and detention or during his remand?

Jequ0n

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ah, she was vulnerable to be fair.

Delicately phrased.
She was self destructive too and would have found another way to damage herself.

realdanbreen

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

I don't think there's any implications; they had CCTV footage of his car in the area as well as the mobile phone location evidence.

Also, he was a suspect from early on, I'd imagine any such data used in evidence would have been legal and above board.

I doubt(hope) you can't convict someone because "he was a suspect from early on" . Also the whole point of his query is the use of the "mobile phone location evidence".

Phoebas

LMHC wrote: »

Did the state prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
No

Thats simply incorrect.
The test for this is for the jury to decide and they came to a unanimous verdict based on the evidence provided.

The outstanding issue of the phone records is a technical one about the legality around obtaining and presenting them. What they show is not in doubt.

As for what Marie Cassidy said, the judge/jury have already considered that in the court case.

LMHC

Phoebas wrote: »

Thats simply incorrect.
The test for this is for the jury to decide and they came to a unanimous verdict based on the evidence provided.

The outstanding issue of the phone records is a technical one about the legality around obtaining and presenting them. What they show is not in doubt.

As for what Marie Cassidy said, the judge/jury have already considered that in the court case.

So the judge and jury can decide cause of death over a pathologist. You have ruled your first point out.

If they can't prove cause of death how can they leave no doubt in juries mind. How do we know she didn't commit suicide, be attacked by some species, knocked down by a car even.

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

I doubt(hope) you can't convict someone because "he was a suspect from early on" . Also the whole point of his query is the use of the "mobile phone location evidence".

I think the point is that at the time the state was accessing and using Dwyer's phone data, the legislation under which they did this had not been found to be invalid. So they weren't knowingly using unlawful means to assemble evidence.

Does this matter? Yes, I think it does. The point about the rule excluding unlawfully-obtained evidence is that it would be perverse to have a rule in place that incentivised the state to act unlawfully in order to build a case. But that rationale only applies in situations where the state knows that collecting evidence in this way would be unlawful.

So, one possible outcome is that the courts could rule that evidence collected in this way since the legislation concerned was struck down is inadmissible, but evidence collected in this way before that is admissible. And I think that would put the kibosh on Dwyer's prospects of having his conviction overturned.

Ash.J.Williams

Jequ0n wrote: »

Delicately phrased.
She was self destructive too and would have found another way to damage herself.

i think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the facts

Eoin

Sigh. She didn't say that O'Hara wasn't murdered. She said that it can't be proven from the autopsy, just like in the other case I referenced a few minutes ago. They didn't contradict her, they used evidence that had nothing to do with her findings.

Obviously there were alternative explanations, but the jury unanimously decided that murder was proven.

Ash.J.Williams

begbysback wrote: »

Nothing wrong with me pal, if I asked someone to kill me and they did then it’s more assisted suicide than murder isn’t it.

In the eyes of the law it’s still murder, I get that, but it isn’t really murder though is it.

there's a big difference between assisted suicide and pushing and bullying someone until they feel so worthless they think they would be better off dead.

Jequ0n

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the facts

Oh yes I forgot, she was forced, helpless and didn’t have a chance to get out of the relation. My bad

monkeybutter

begbysback wrote: »

Well if they ask, or agree to be killed, then that’s the assisted part, anything after that is kind of irrelevant.

I don’t get how this guy is made out as some monster, ok my memory of what exactly happened is based off a documentary watched a long time ago so my facts may be fuzzy here, I understand he’s not the kinda man that most women would take home to their mother. But from what I remember the victim kinda volunteered to be killed, and this Dwyer guy was into all sorts of kinky stuff that I would have no interest in myself, who am I to judge him for that, but it’s not like he killed anyone who didn’t put themselves forward, so I don’t think he’s much of a danger to society really, is he?

that has to be post of the year


you are a sick sick person

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

that has to be post of the year


you are a sick sick person

Nothing sick about it.
Sad day when people are attacked for having a different opinion.

monkeybutter

LMHC wrote: »

People are confusing me being practical as in support. If this clears it all up for everyone.

IMHO Did Graham murder Elaine?
Yes

Does he deserve life if he murdered her?
Yes

Did he get a fair and balanced judgement?
No

Was circumstantial evidence corroborated as is legally required?
No

Did the state prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
No

So all in all , I believe Graham to be guilty but believe the states case wasn't enough to convict, making it an unsafe conviction.

yet he was convicted based on a load of circumstantial evidence


it was proven beyond reasonable doubt


1. Texts meet so i can kill you
2. someone drove her to the mountains
3. dead body in mountains
4. keys etc in water too far away for it to be suicide


No one could come up with a reasonable alternative scenario



you are just wrong, you arent reasonable

monkeybutter

LMHC wrote: »

State pathologist Marie cassidy directed a report of non evidential cause of death. The garda went ahead anyway and put bones on a skeleton to secure a conviction.

They stopped 2 high court applications on grounds of his phone pointing to guilt( To be later ruled out)

Jonathan dunphy his solicitor and Remy his barrister pointed out Alan Wilson's case and how the murder trial dropped due to phones being ruled out in same time Graham was in custody.

Oh yeah stifling police work.

thats her job, she is a pathologist, thats all, she shouldn't be commenting on any cases, unless asked by the court, she is not qualified to do so

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

Nothing sick about it.
Sad day when people are attacked for having a different opinion.

He badgered a sick woman into letting him stab her to death


He stabbed her while having sex and videoed it

a monster




That's not a difference of opinion

Phoebas

LMHC wrote: »

So the judge and jury can decide cause of death over a pathologist. You have ruled your first point out.

If they can't prove cause of death how can they leave no doubt in juries mind. How do we know she didn't commit suicide, be attacked by some species, knocked down by a car even.

The state pathologist is one witness in the case. The jury will consider her evidence and give it the weight they consider reasonable.

What you're doing here is attempting to retry a case on social media that has already been tried in a court.

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

He badgered a sick woman into letting him stab her to death


He stabbed her while having sex and videoed it

a monster




That's not a difference of opinion

She had consented to it. Would you not call her a monster too then?
For all we know it could have been simply a bdsm game gone wrong.

I accept your opinion but I disagree with your attempt to silence posters who hold a different view.

nullzero

Jequ0n wrote: »

She had consented to it. Would you not call her a monster too then?
For all we know it could have been simply a bdsm game gone wrong.

I accept your opinion but I disagree with your attempt to silence posters who hold a different view.

Critiquing an opinion is not the same as silencing it.

You can't expect to post a controversial opinion and have people say nothing about it, this is a discussion board, people will discuss topics and argue over their validity.

The smell of burning martyr isn't a welcome one here as I'm sure you're aware.

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

She had consented to it. Would you not call her a monster too then?
For all we know it could have been simply a bdsm game gone wrong.

I accept your opinion but I disagree with your attempt to silence posters who hold a different view.

Silence posters? He has made his point, its in writing, I'm pointing out the error of his ways


I mean he should be ashamed


did she do anyone harm? blameless no. But abused by a sicko yes

begbysback

begbysback wrote:

Well if they ask, or agree to be killed, then that’s the assisted part, anything after that is kind of irrelevant.

I don’t get how this guy is made out as some monster, ok my memory of what exactly happened is based off a documentary watched a long time ago so my facts may be fuzzy here, I understand he’s not the kinda man that most women would take home to their mother. But from what I remember the victim kinda volunteered to be killed, and this Dwyer guy was into all sorts of kinky stuff that I would have no interest in myself, who am I to judge him for that, but it’s not like he killed anyone who didn’t put themselves forward, so I don’t think he’s much of a danger to society really, is he?

Please do yourself a favour and go and read the facts of the case, and then make an informed judgement. You are just making yourself look stupid online. You even say yourself your memory of the events are fuzzy.

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

Silence posters? He has made his point, its in writing, I'm pointing out the error of his ways


I mean he should be ashamed


did she do anyone harm? blameless no. But abused by a sicko yes

Calling posters “sick” because you don’t like their opinion? Yes classy

Well some people want to be abused
Part of the game

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

Calling posters “sick” because you don’t like their opinion? Yes classy

Well some people want to be abused

it is a rather apt description, given the post


some want to be abused, you still can't murder them


I mean some people fetish on being eaten, but to eat them is still murder


I don't like someone trivializing murder to someone you wouldn't bring home to maw and paw

Eoin

I think the texts make it clear that she didn't expect or want to die that day. This assisted suicide vs murder thing does not seem relevant.

nullzero

Jequ0n wrote: »

Calling posters “sick” because you don’t like their opinion? Yes classy

Well some people want to be abused
Part of the game

So because she was involved in bdsm activity she should have expected to possibly lose her life at the hands of whomever she was engaged in said activity with?

There's a leap from engaging in strange sexual behaviour to killing another person, accidentally or not, Dwyer expressed his desire to kill and Elaine O'hara is dead after her final meeting with him, her belongings purposefully disposed of miles from her body which was missing it's head when discovered.

There is little to suggest any innocence on his Dwyers part so those taking the position of his potential innocence should be prepared to be challenged.

monkeybutter

Eoin wrote: »

I think the texts make it clear that she didn't expect or want to die that day. This assisted suicide vs murder thing does not seem relevant.

some people are to lazy to bother with details

I hope the Gardai are reading this thread. Some of the posters here need to be put on a watchlist.

astrofool

Bambi wrote: »

I like that you think it needs to be proven that he didnt hand himself. It's fairly safe to say that believing Epstein didnt top himself is an entirely reasonable position given the circumstances surrounding his death

fvp4 wrote: »

It’s for another thread, but I personally don’t.

Sure, but it's fair to say that there isn't enough evidence either way to prove one story over another which is why I put the contrary answer in quotes, I don't know, you don't know, which means it's over the top to be dismissive of someone going with the official story.

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

I’m once again baffled as to why someone would refer to this monster by first name.......it’s almost like giving the guy or rather sub-human ‘respect’.

I'm not sure on this, graham dwyer isn't a monster, he's not that scary, he's a little sh!t who got his jollies by abusing someone who was already in difficulties and he took advantage of them. He has rightfully lost everything and even if he manages to get released, he's going to have a sh!t life because everyone will know what a little sh!t he is. Given how he was caught, he's also pretty dumb and his own limp excitement negated the reason for not using his own phone and led to him getting put in jail.

The evidence was gathered according to the legislation that was in place at the time, the guards/detectives did nothing wrong there.

After the EU ruling, is it possible to introduce legislation to cover these scenarios? It seems a pretty easy loophole in EU law for criminals to take advantage of.

monkeybutter

nullzero wrote: »

These posters remind me of a group of posters on this site who were defending former footballer Adam Johnson when he was convicted for abusing a teenage girl a few years ago.

Their contention was that his actions were understandable because the girl was a teenager and "hey we all enjoy sexy teenage girls".

There are weird people out there who will defend any type of behaviour, so we shouldn't be surprised there's people here defending Graham Dwyer.

keyboard warrior types