Graham Dwyer - latest

Jequ0n

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.

How do we know she “consented” to it.

Nobody is silencing anybody here, by the way, calling an opinion sick is itself an opinion.

begbysback

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.

Of course it’s relevant in the context, one one hand people are saying the victim was in a fantasy when stating they agreed to be murdered, yet were expecting to still live. It could be argued that Dwyer really believed she wanted to die, therefore an agreement between the two parties to end the life of one had taken place, it’s still murder but if an agreement has already taken place, no matter how fcuked up it is, it’s still an agreement, therefore the familiarities to assisted suicide arise.

monkeybutter

For those too lazy to actually have any idea what happened, she didnt agree to die and he lied to her that it was just going to be pretend





https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/the-texts-between-graham-dwyer-and-elaine-ohara-on-day-of-murder-38984815.html

Jequ0n

nullzero wrote: »

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.

If you play with fire you can get burnt. It’s not the first time and won’t be the last.

Look there is no question that he killed her but this whole helpless victim/ monstrous killer thing is a narrative that everyone just embraced like gospel.

Nobody is saying that he is innocent but there is evidence that he did not get a fair trial.

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

If you play with fire you can get burnt. It’s not the first time and won’t be the last.

Look there is no question that he killed her but this whole helpless victim/ monstrous killer thing is a narrative that everyone just embraced like gospel.

Nobody is saying that he is innocent but there is evidence that he did not get a fair trial.

so are you thinking of doing this yourself, just a run of thing anyone might do on a Thursday sure, hacking someone who had just been released from a mental hospital to death, you could pickup some milk after

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

For those too lazy to actually have any idea what happened, she didnt agree to die and he lied to her that it was just going to be pretend





https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/the-texts-between-graham-dwyer-and-elaine-ohara-on-day-of-murder-38984815.html

How can anyone read those and come to the conclusion she wanted to be killed?

monkeybutter

begbysback wrote: »

Maybe we are both in different threads, but I haven’t seen anyone actually defending what Dwyer did on here. The unwillingness of people to discuss anything beyond he’s the bogeyman, and she’s completely innocent, is ignorant and frightening.

The modern day definition of insanity is posting on a discussion forum that people shouldn’t be discussing on a discussion forum.

you are the only one who is saying people shouldn't be posting


so are you insane?


I just pointed out the sickness in your posts


No one said she is entirely innocent in this


She didn't murder anyone though


He did


you can't even get your facts right


and tried to trivialize him down to the kinda person you wouldn't bring home to your ma

sydthebeat

begbysback wrote: »

Maybe we are both in different threads, but I haven’t seen anyone actually defending what Dwyer did on here. The unwillingness of people to discuss anything beyond he’s the bogeyman, and she’s completely innocent, is ignorant and frightening.

The modern day definition of insanity is posting on a discussion forum that people shouldn’t be discussing on a discussion forum.

this is a disgusting post

victim blaming a very vulnerable person who was killed

you should be ashamed

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

so are you thinking of doing this yourself, just a run of thing anyone might do on a Thursday sure, hacking someone who had just been released from a mental hospital to death, you could pickup some milk after

Wonderful response that uses insinuation to devalue others. A common trait amongst over emotional posters who can’t accept that others have a different opinion

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

Wonderful response that uses insinuation to devalue others. A common trait amongst over emotional posters who can’t accept that others have a different opinion

just pointing out the ridiculousness of what you said

osarusan

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?

What evidence do you have for any of this?


The texts clearly show that she did not expect to die that day - she expected to come home after meeting him, she talked about cleaning her home, and going to the upcoming Tall Ships event.

begbysback

That’s it, I’m done, I made the mistake of thinking such an interesting topic could be rationally discussed without the intervention of the over emotional or over sensitive, I was wrong, for that I will have to live with myself, good luck.

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

Maybe we are both in different threads, but I haven’t seen anyone actually defending what Dwyer did on here. The unwillingness of people to discuss anything beyond he’s the bogeyman, and she’s completely innocent, is ignorant and frightening.

The modern day definition of insanity is posting on a discussion forum that people shouldn’t be discussing on a discussion forum.

Here is a guy defending Dwyer and justifying the killing as a kink.

begbysback wrote:

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?

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

just pointing out the ridiculousness of what you said

Ok then.

recyclops

It appears the crux of this whole thing is nobody is defending Him

People are saying that he shouldn't have been convicted as there is no evidence he murdered her, there is evidence that he planned to stab her and cause pain which appeared to be the cause of death.

What happened in the room we will never ever know and that is some posters point, as we will never know they could have a difficulty in convicting as the state never proved beyond reasonable doubt what actually happened.

They did paint a very clear picture of what they believed happened leading up the point and the hours/ days after and that's what got him convicted and also why its so emotive today as its what was presented to us all.

That being said its all fairly childish in here with posters saying people should be but on watch lists etc and name calling over something that realistically we will never ever know exactly what happened because if what he said happened doesn't paint the picture that either sides of the legal argument want then it will never get agreed as to if its true or not.

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

That’s it, I’m done, I made the mistake of thinking such an interesting topic could be rationally discussed without the intervention of the over emotional or over sensitive, I was wrong, for that I will have to live with myself, good luck.

You justified a murder as a kink. You suggested the victim "wanted it". Its amongst the sickest things I have heard recently.

And you have two other defenders on the thread as well, clearly nobody is shutting you down.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

What evidence do you have for any of this?


The text clearly show that she did not expect to die that day - she expected to come home after meeting him, she talked about cleaning her home, and going to the upcoming Tall Ships event.

She also said she was scared of him, asked him not to hurt her, and yes, that she wanted to go to the Tall Ships.

Some posters here couldn't be bothered to read the texts and so are misinformed.

Ive added a couple of posters to my ignore list, but honestly, as I have said before, it's not an ignore list they should be on its a Garda Watchlist.

recyclops

recyclops wrote: »

It appears the crux of this whole thing is nobody is defending Him

People are saying that he shouldn't have been convicted as there is no evidence he murdered her, there is evidence that he planned to stab her and cause pain which appeared to be the cause of death.

At the start that is what people were saying. Some people are now saying that it was "consensual", or just part of a kink.

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You justified a murder as a kink. You suggested the victim "wanted it". Its amongst the sickest things I have heard recently.

And you have two other defenders on the thread as well, clearly nobody is shutting you down.

Because the mob has formed an opinion and choses to disregard the unknown factors in favour of filling in the gaps so they fit the narrative.
Nobody in this forum can be sure that he had planned to murder her or if it was a violent role play gone bad. No question about him having killed her but the above makes a crucial difference.

It seems that only the mainstream opinion is accepted by many people on the thread

And if police had followed protocol there would be no debate on the fairness of his trial. I find it difficult to believe people are willing to accept this malpractice just because they dislike this man. That’s not justice

Phoebas

recyclops wrote: »

It appears the crux of this whole thing is nobody is defending Him

People are saying that he shouldn't have been convicted as there is no evidence he murdered her, there is evidence that he planned to stab her and cause pain which appeared to be the cause of death.

A jury looked at the facts and decided differently - they convicted him of murder.

recyclops wrote: »

What happened in the room we will never ever know and that is some posters point, as we will never know they could have a difficulty in convicting as the state never proved beyond reasonable doubt what actually happened.

The jury determined that the state did prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Jequ0n

monkeybutter wrote: »

please don't register to vote, if you do you might be called for jury duty

Because it’s desirable to have a jury consisting of people who base their opinion on emotions instead of logic?
Fear not, I don’t think I am even eligible

recyclops

Phoebas wrote: »

A jury looked at the facts and decided differently - they convicted him of murder.


The jury determined that the state did prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Yeah that's true and again I do think he did it.

But if we are going to go down that road and to play devils advocate then we have to accept all jury results / election results and never question them regardless of what we think.

Unfortunately that will never happen, MJ has been found not guilty twice but ask anyone their opinion and a large majority will say he got away with it same with Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

BTW I only chose the above cases as they are ones which you see get alot of attention due to the verdicts, the same could be said for Sophie Toscain Du Plantier case or when Wayne O Donoghue was found guilty of manslaughter and not Murder

monkeybutter

recyclops wrote: »

Yeah that's true and again I do think he did it.

But if we are going to go down that road and to play devils advocate then we have to accept all jury results / election results and never question them regardless of what we think.

Unfortunately that will never happen, MJ has been found not guilty twice but ask anyone their opinion and a large majority will say he got away with it

what election results now?

recyclops

monkeybutter wrote: »

what election results now?

any results that people potentially feel didn't go their way or the way they wanted it was just a point saying if something is decided the way the law dictates then we have to just go ahead and accept it.

it was more just to emphasise the point that if something is done by the letter of the law then we should just accept it.

I cant see that happening

Phoebas

recyclops wrote: »

Yeah that's true and again I do think he did it.

But if we are going to go down that road and to play devils advocate then we have to accept all jury results / election results and never question them regardless of what we think.

Unfortunately that will never happen, MJ has been found not guilty twice but ask anyone their opinion and a large majority will say he got away with it same with Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

BTW I only chose the above cases as they are ones which you see get alot of attention due to the verdicts, the same could be said for Sophie Toscain Du Plantier case or when Wayne O Donoghue was found guilty of manslaughter and not Murder

There's a huge logical fallacy in your argument here that I'm sure you recognise.

monkeybutter

Jequ0n wrote: »

It’s clear from the messages that there was role play happening which makes it difficult to determine how to interpret individual messages.
Yes he said he’d kill her, but he also stated that she’d be sore for a few days. You can’t be sure what exactly happened that day, nor can I.

you don't have to be 100% sure, i think that's where you are getting confused


he said he killed her, he planned it, he picked her up she died, eh dumped the keys



what else is there


i mean that big cat that people people sometimes see might have killed her and he got scared and ran off

it could have happened right

monkeybutter

recyclops wrote: »

any results that people potentially feel didn't go their way or the way they wanted it was just a point saying if something is decided the way the law dictates then we have to just go ahead and accept it.

it was more just to emphasise the point that if something is done by the letter of the law then we should just accept it.

I cant see that happening

you can question it, but you have to do so in a reasonable way


rather than a donald trump way

PhilOssophy

Even if the mobile phone pinging off the various masts is discounted, there is still enough evidence on the phones he stupidly left in the reservoir to convict him. Even the fact that he bought them, and there are text messages in there which completely incriminate him. The Gardai were well on to him before they were found - they knew she was seeing a married architect who worked in D2 called Graham, so he was a suspect regardless. But the phones were manna from heaven and proved it all.
The pinging of the masts were just an add-on to prove they had who they wanted. They had enough without it. He is going nowhere thankfully.

He must sit in that jail cell every day stewing about how stupid he was to dump the phones in a fresh water reservoir where they could (and were) found, along with her Tesco club card and handcuffs. He almost pulled it off and must have thought he had! Thank god for that fine summer and the drop in water level in the reservoir - there is something spooky in the fact that her body was found the same weekend the bag was found.

monkeybutter

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Even if the mobile phone pinging off the various masts is discounted, there is still enough evidence on the phones he stupidly left in the reservoir to convict him. Even the fact that he bought them, and there are text messages in there which completely incriminate him. The Gardai were well on to him before they were found - they knew she was seeing a married architect who worked in D2 called Graham, so he was a suspect regardless. But the phones were manna from heaven and proved it all.
The pinging of the masts were just an add-on to prove they had who they wanted. They had enough without it. He is going nowhere thankfully.

He must sit in that jail cell every day stewing about how stupid he was to dump the phones in a fresh water reservoir where they could (and were) found, along with her Tesco club card and handcuffs. He almost pulled it off and must have thought he had! Thank god for that fine summer and the drop in water level in the reservoir - there is something spooky in the fact that her body was found the same weekend the bag was found.

its almost too good to be true


all things considered, for the day he had throwing the phones in the lake was probably the least stupid thing he did do

silverharp

PhilOssophy wrote: »

He must sit in that jail cell every day stewing about how stupid he was to dump the phones in a fresh water reservoir where they could (and were) found, along with her Tesco club card and handcuffs. He almost pulled it off and must have thought he had! Thank god for that fine summer and the drop in water level in the reservoir - there is something spooky in the fact that her body was found the same weekend the bag was found.

there is that, must annoy him no end, and all those hours to think about it.