Graham Dwyer - latest

ohnonotgmail

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.

yes but without the mast data the only links between him and the "master" phone are coincidental. pretty big coincidences mind but a good defence counsel could pick holes in them and create enough doubt for an acquittal.

monkeybutter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes but without the mast data the only links between him and the "master" phone are coincidental. pretty big coincidences mind but a good defence counsel could pick holes in them and create enough doubt for an acquittal.

so the real issue is would there need to be a retrial

would there be one



there is a lot in the text message to show it was him, and tied in with CCTV o him arriving at the apartments, birth of children, being away at times that match witness accounts



The mast data is like minority report though and you can see why it sits uneasily with people

Phoebas

I'm not au fait with the detail of the case, but is there a problem that if the mast data is not allowed then evidence that was discovered consequent to it may also not be allowed - fruit of the poisoned tree I think it's referred to?

Ash.J.Williams

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.

You will need to read the full case notes, opinions are not required, you seem to have difficulty understanding the case

begbysback

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you have any decency, you will withdraw your scurrilous allegation that " the victim kinda volunteered to be killed" before you drop off.

She didn't, and she was clearly too vulnerable to be making any decision of such importance. This wasn't a relationship of equals.

We will disagree whether there was consent to the killing in any form at all, and I have deleted he posts, it was intended as a point of discussion for which the name calling and the back seat modding started, good luck with boards, in the very near future all that will be left here is middle aged over sensitive types for which discussion of anything questionable is out of the question, its easy for me to go elsewhere for an open discussion without being attacked for raising a point of question, which I now will, good luck.

Necro

Closed for review, thread has gone wildly off the rails into personal attacks here.

Necro

Right I'm reopening this so we might be able to get back on topic.

monkeybutter, do not post in this thread again - if you have an issue with another posters content then report it, do not attack them on thread in the manner you have done in the past few hours.

Keep it civil and discuss the topic, two simple requests going forward. Any issues feel free to PM me, do not respond to this on thread

Ted_YNWA

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.

Jequ0n wrote: »

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

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

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.

Mod

Drop the constant victim blaming here, or your access to thread will be revoked.

PhilOssophy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes but without the mast data the only links between him and the "master" phone are coincidental. pretty big coincidences mind but a good defence counsel could pick holes in them and create enough doubt for an acquittal.

True enough, but wasn't their evidence of him buying them? IIRC, he bought the 2 of them on Grafton Street or something. The evidence on it would put the evidence in the "circumstantial" arena - e.g. the 5th in a flying competition, the new child, pay cut, etc.

I get your point though that the mast data absolutely nailed him, but I think there was enough circumstantial evidence at the same time. And absolutely a defence counsel could create doubt, but could they create enough doubt? Maybe, maybe not.

Ash.J.Williams

graham reminds me of manson, he should be in jail and it doesn't matter how

ohnonotgmail

PhilOssophy wrote: »

True enough, but wasn't their evidence of him buying them? IIRC, he bought the 2 of them on Grafton Street or something. The evidence on it would put the evidence in the "circumstantial" arena - e.g. the 5th in a flying competition, the new child, pay cut, etc.

I get your point though that the mast data absolutely nailed him, but I think there was enough circumstantial evidence at the same time. And absolutely a defence counsel could create doubt, but could they create enough doubt? Maybe, maybe not.

thats the thing. It changes the case from a slam dunk to potentially iffy. if he does win his case and gets a retrial then the DPP may decide they are not sure enough about getting a conviction and decide not to proceed.

PhilOssophy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

thats the thing. It changes the case from a slam dunk to potentially iffy. if he does win his case and gets a retrial then the DPP may decide they are not sure enough about getting a conviction and decide not to proceed.

Can the DPP direct that the appeal to the supreme court discount the mobile phone pinging evidence, or does he have to order a retrial in such a case?

Its definitely getting in to "circumstantial" rather than cast-iron, but I think the text messages etc all fit the puzzle.

Gonna be interesting to watch what happens.

errlloyd

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not au fait with the detail of the case, but is there a problem that if the mast data is not allowed then evidence that was discovered consequent to it may also not be allowed - fruit of the poisoned tree I think it's referred to?

Would be interested to know this.

We don't have fruit of the poisoned tree precedent specifically in Ireland. And I don't know what other evidence is related to the illegal use of masts. Potentially none as they could well have been the last thing uncovered.

Ash.J.Williams

Is he still shlappin da bass ?

tara73

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is he still shlappin da bass ?

what does that mean? playing bass guitar?

MrMusician18

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

thats the thing. It changes the case from a slam dunk to potentially iffy. if he does win his case and gets a retrial then the DPP may decide they are not sure enough about getting a conviction and decide not to proceed.

If Dwyer gets a retrial he walks. The defence would simply say that it is not possible to empanel a jury that wasn't biased.

tara73

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If Dwyer gets a retrial he walks. The defence would simply say that it is not possible to empanel a jury that wasn't biased.

can't be that simple. it wouldn't be like they ask a new jury do you think he's guilty or not.

I'm not familiar with court procedures but I strongly believe a new jury will be presented with all the evidence and facts again and it's decidable from that.
It will be the same material (without the 'illegal' one), but that doesn't make it less convincing he's the one.

Ash.J.Williams

tara73 wrote: »

what does that mean? playing bass guitar?

Yeah he was given a bass, apologies you didn’t get the geddy Lee reference

John_Rambo

I'm still fascinated by what he'll do if he gets out. Surely he'll be hounded by press and curious weirdos, he'll never get peace. But... part of me feels he sort of likes the notoriety.

BattleCorp

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm still fascinated by what he'll do if he gets out. Surely he'll be hounded by press and curious weirdos, he'll never get peace. But... part of me feels he sort of likes the notoriety.

He won't like the notoriety when he's getting spat on or getting thumped outside his local pub or in his local Spar. He'll also be unemployable here too. No way he'd be able to live here if he gets out.

ohnonotgmail

tara73 wrote: »

can't be that simple. it wouldn't be like they ask a new jury do you think he's guilty or not.

I'm not familiar with court procedures but I strongly believe a new jury will be presented with all the evidence and facts again and it's decidable from that.
It will be the same material (without the 'illegal' one), but that doesn't make it less convincing he's the one.

It isn't that simple. His defence would certainly raise it but whether a judge would be swayed by it is another matter. One would hope not.

I don't believe that the evidence will be as persuasive without the phone location data (assuming it is found to be inadmissible). It is that evidence that definitively ties him to the "master" phone.

Seth Brundle

I reckon the Indo journos are following this thread...
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/home-of-convicted-murderer-graham-dwyer-sells-for-10pc-over-its-asking-price-40507872.html

chooseusername

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

graham reminds me of manson, he should be in jail and it doesn't matter how

Or the guy in "The Submarine Case",(I don't even know his name);
I've just finished re-watching "The Investigation".
If you didn't catch it first time around earlier in the year on BBC2 it is well worth a look.
It's about the Swedish journalist Kim Wall murdered by a Danish man who had built his own submarine.
The killer is never portrayed on screen , nor is his name ever mentioned.
The killer is arrested very early on, the remaining 5 episodes are just slow mostly office based police work.
It shows the effect the case had on the people involved without making the killer infamous .

Immortal Starlight

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Yeah he was given a bass, apologies you didn’t get the geddy Lee reference

He was given a bass. In jail for a horrific murder and he’s given a bass. There’s no way that should have happened.

nullzero

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

He was given a bass. In jail for a horrific murder and he’s given a bass. There’s no way that should have happened.

An accordion would have been more fitting.

notsoyoungwan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I reckon the Indo journos are following this thread...
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/home-of-convicted-murderer-graham-dwyer-sells-for-10pc-over-its-asking-price-40507872.html

I thought the very same when I saw that article.

donspeekinglesh

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

However I also expect the Supreme Court to rule that it doesn’t apply retroactively, thus killing his appeal.

Am I right in thinking the SC ruled in a similar way before? The evidence in that case was found to have been gathered in good faith, and following the law of the land at the time. The fact that the law used to gather the evidence was later ruled unconstitutional was enough to overturn the conviction.

Muahahaha

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm still fascinated by what he'll do if he gets out. Surely he'll be hounded by press and curious weirdos, he'll never get peace. But... part of me feels he sort of likes the notoriety.

I think he definitely likes the notoriety.

If he gets out Id say we will see mass hysteria amongst the Karens of Facebook with multiple reports of sightings of him in various places around the country. It will be like when Larry Murphy got released but amplified even bigger by social media.

PhilOssophy

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

Am I right in thinking the SC ruled in a similar way before? The evidence in that case was found to have been gathered in good faith, and following the law of the land at the time. The fact that the law used to gather the evidence was later ruled unconstitutional was enough to overturn the conviction.

That was my understanding too.

tara73

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think he definitely likes the notoriety.

If he gets out Id say we will see mass hysteria amongst the Karens of Facebook with multiple reports of sightings of him in various places around the country. It will be like when Larry Murphy got released but amplified even bigger by social media.

if you 're decent person, you don't care about the personal life of this low life.
I gathered this thread is about the potential outcoming of the case and the appeal.


f** this low life, only poeple with a simililar sick mind are interested if he's palying the bass or whatever!