Graham Dwyer - latest

Working class heroes

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

My guess is he is right on this point and his high court victory will be confirmed by the ECJ.

However I also expect the Supreme Court to rule that it doesn’t apply retroactively, thus killing his appeal. I’m sure some will feel that is unfair and many more will think ‘**** him’.

I don’t think it would be a case of applying a new law retrospectively but rather enforcing a law that existed at the time. Open to correction on that....

Hodors Appletart

Pussyhands wrote: »

Does anyone give a **** about human rights if the right outcome was determined?

This way madness lies.

listermint

One thing is for sure. There's almost a weird level of admiration in here for him from quite a few posters.


That is bloody weird very weird.

monkeybutter

listermint wrote: »

One thing is for sure. There's almost a weird level of admiration in here for him from quite a few posters.


That is bloody weird very weird.

That is totally untrue, the closest positive thing anyone has said is that he was super intelligent and to be honest that guy never met anyone

Everyone else has said he is a sick puppy

listermint

monkeybutter wrote: »

That is totally untrue, the closest positive thing anyone has said is that he was super intelligent and to be honest that guy never met anyone

Everyone else has said he is a sick puppy

It's not untrue. Read through the thread there's a few with an underlying smugness about a win in the EU courts


Odd.

Working class heroes

Working class heroes wrote: »

I don’t think it would be a case of applying a new law retrospectively but rather enforcing a law that existed at the time. Open to correction on that....

You're spot on.

monkeybutter

listermint wrote: »

It's not untrue. Read through the thread there's a few with an underlying smugness about a win in the EU courts


Odd.

i read it, starts by being called ireland most sick depraved citizen and never really lets up with the compliments


some think he might win this, nothing smug there


not one person would be happy if he walked free

listermint

listermint wrote: »

It's not untrue. Read through the thread there's a few with an underlying smugness about a win in the EU courts


Odd.

Not a single person in the thread has even slightly hinted that they want Dwyer to be release. People are simply pointing out how the law works.

BattleCorp

listermint wrote: »

One thing is for sure. There's almost a weird level of admiration in here for him from quite a few posters.


That is bloody weird very weird.

Who admires him? Any examples?

monkeybutter

BattleCorp wrote: »

Who admires him? Any examples?

maybe the person who though he was 5 foot 2, the greatest insult, being called a short arse

BattleCorp

listermint wrote: »

It's not untrue. Read through the thread there's a few with an underlying smugness about a win in the EU courts


Odd.

The comments are about the law and how the phone data that was used to nail him may have been gathered illegally. What's smug about saying that?

Dwyer is expected to win his EU case because EU judges have already ruled in other cases against the blanket capture and storage of the data without qualifying legislation in place.

Absolutely nothing smug about that whatsoever.

Ash.J.Williams

The accusations against actor armie hammer made me think he was a Dwyer in the making

listermint

Appears the people who obviously perceived their own comments may appear admiring have responded. Demonstrates my point.

monkeybutter

listermint wrote: »

Appears the people who obviously perceived their own comments may appear admiring have responded. Demonstrates my point.

You have still failed to actually demonstrate your point though

Himnydownunder

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

So if the euro ‘wigs and gowans’ rule in this perverted **** favour what happens next and what is the timeframe to see him released……?

If he is released then would he be so arrogant to think that he could ‘sup’ pints in his local back in cork…etc.?

The criminal justice system won’t allow a weed like him to get off on a technicality.

awec

Pussyhands wrote: »

Does anyone give a **** about human rights if the right outcome was determined?

It would be a shameful thing if Dwyer got off from murder just because mobile phone data was illegally obtained.

It would be like Josef Fritzl locking his door and if someone broke in thinking there was people held against their will, then it doesn't matter if Fritzl has kids locked up, the person who broke in is at fault.

I don't care too much about his rights, but if the case is based on illegal evidence then the current verdict cannot stand.

Our justice system is set up on the premise that it's better that someone guilty walk free than someone innocent end up in prison.

Gregor Samsa

JimmyVik wrote: »

He can just plead insanity.
You would have to be insane to do the sh1t he did.

To plead insanity, you have to admit that you did the thing you were accused of. There's no sign of him ever doing that.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Appears the people who obviously perceived their own comments may appear admiring have responded. Demonstrates my point.

I haven't seen a single post like you describe, I have seen people posting about the law. Using brains and not emotion.

Treppen

listermint wrote: »

It's not untrue. Read through the thread there's a few with an underlying smugness about a win in the EU courts


Odd.

He was a poster on boards before btw... allegedly.

ohnonotgmail

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

To plead insanity, you have to admit that you did the thing you were accused of. There's no sign of him ever doing that.

no, you don't. The defence of Insanity is relevant to a not guilty plea. Pleading guilty requires that you acknowledge what you did and understood what you were doing was wrong at the time. Pleading not guilty due to insanity is saying you had no idea what you were doing or had no idea it was wrong due to your mental state at the time.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I haven't seen a single post like you describe, I have seen people posting about the law. Using brains and not emotion.

Well justice can try and eliminate emotion but that’s not going to work.

The question is whether the EU law or directive is a sane one. Privacy is fine but there’s a balance. If Graham gets off, as seems likely, then most people will be understandably upset.

TP_CM

He has been fighting this for 7 years so maybe they'll just keep delaying it in some shape or form for another 13 years.

Muahahaha

You would wonder if it does end up in a re-trial how they would you ever find a 12 person jury who dont already know of the notoriety of his crimes and have an opinion on him. His trial had the nation gripped for two months and was headline news day in day out during that time. Maybe there are some people out there who are not aware of him and what he did but you'd think someone who has zero interest in the news & current affairs would also have zero interest in serving on a jury for a couple of months.

ohnonotgmail

Muahahaha wrote: »

You would wonder if it does end up in a re-trial how they would you ever find a 12 person jury who dont already know of the notoriety of his crimes and have an opinion on him. His trial had the nation gripped for two months and was headline news day in day out during that time. Maybe there are some people out there who are not aware of him and what he did but you'd think someone who has zero interest in the news & current affairs would also have zero interest in serving on a jury for a couple of months.

if you exclude the mobile phone evidence do they have enough evidence for a retrial?

Dyr

fvp4 wrote: »

Well justice can try and eliminate emotion but that’s not going to work.

The question is whether the EU law or directive is a sane one. Privacy is fine but there’s a balance. If Graham gets off, as seems likely, then most people will be understandably upset.

**** that tends to happen when you happen to pass the ability to impose laws to a extranational court beyond the democratic oversight of the electorate.

Muahahaha

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you exclude the mobile phone evidence do they have enough evidence for a retrial?

Good question. I remember at the time just after the trial the then state pathologist Dr.Marie Cassidy said she felt the pathology evidence was not strong enough for a conviction

THE State pathologist Marie Cassidy express surprise at the jury's guilty verdict in the Graham Dywer murder trial, based on the lack of pathological evidence.

Speaking after a presentation to staff and medical students at the Post Graduate Centre at University Hospital Limerick, Professor Cassidy described the case as "fascinating" when she was asked her medical opinion of the two month trial that gripped the nation.

The State pathologist recalled examining the remains of Elaine O'Hara's along with her other colleagues. "We knew there was no pathology evidence to support anything so it came to what other evidence did they have, and it's up to them to make a case and to present this case, and if they think the case is going to stand up in court then the DPP will go ahead with it.

"In that case, I thought no, they will not go ahead with it... and then when we were waiting for the verdict coming in I said, it has to be not guilty," she admitted.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/state-pathologist-dr-marie-cassidy-expressed-surprise-by-guilty-verdict-in-graham-dwyer-trial-31315110.html

So without the mobile data evidence and weak pathological evidence the State would be on the back foot. From memory a lot of the other evidence was circumstantial albeit it strongly so such as Dwyer making contact with that American girl who gave evidence that he wanted to stab her to death. But it was the text messages between the 'masterphone' and 'slavephone' that really convinced the jury once the State proved beyond doubt he possessed both phones before he disposed of them. The text messages spelt out in detail the level of control he had over Elaine o'Hara and spoke multiple times of Dwyers desire to stab her. Without those text messages being allowed in a re-trial another conviction is a fair bit more difficult.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

**** that tends to happen when you happen to pass the ability to impose laws to a extranational court beyond the democratic oversight of the electorate.

I’m pro EU but it needs better leadership.

What's the problem exactly? That the data shouldn't have been gathered and therefore shouldn't exist?
But it did exist. It was collected by the phone companies. They shouldn't have collected it but they did and it existed.
Similarly Dwyer shouldn't have killed a woman but he did.

Gregor Samsa

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, you don't. The defence of Insanity is relevant to a not guilty plea. Pleading guilty requires that you acknowledge what you did and understood what you were doing was wrong at the time. Pleading not guilty due to insanity is saying you had no idea what you were doing or had no idea it was wrong due to your mental state at the time.

You say it yourself: "Pleading not guilty due to insanity is saying you had no idea what you were doing or had no idea it was wrong".

If you didn't acknowledge that do did it, what "doing" would you be referring to? To plead "not guilty by reason of insanity" implies you admit did the act, but you were not sane at the time. Admitting to committing the act and admitting to committing a crime are two different things.

The Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 states:

(4) Where on a trial for murder the accused contends—

(a) that at the time of the alleged offence he or she was suffering from a mental disorder such that he or she ought to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, or

(b) that at that time he or she was suffering from a mental disorder specified in section 6 (1)(c),

To plead not guilty by reason of insanity, you would have to provide evidence of your mental state while the act was being committed. If you didn't acknowledge that the act was committed at all, then how could you do that?

Now, that said the Act also allows for a Jury (or Judge) to find someone not guilty by reason of insanity even if they didn't enter that plea, but there would still need to be evidence to support it. So there would still need to be actual evidence presented that the accused was not sane while the actual act was occurring.

Ash.J.Williams

My takings from the case was that nobody knows what happened in the poor girls last moments but Dwyer is responsible whether he murdered her or not