Graham Dwyer - latest

take everything

take everything wrote: »

I acknowledged to the other poster (ohnonotgmail IIRC) that the guy said he was in prison with Dwyer.

Apologies, you said "obviously" they were in prison with him, instead of "seems like" but that's nearly worse. It's not an acknowledgement, in my mind, but more of a deduction. It just seems like a bizarre sentence, completely superfluous to the conversation. If someone said "I was in the military." and then someone replied saying "obviously you were in the military", you'd think "yeah, he just said it, how much more obvious could it be"

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they caught you diddling someone passed out on the toilet?

Same scenario. The video evidence would be inadmissable.

tara73

banie01 wrote: »

The issue at hand is the retention and aggregation of personal data without lawful cause, in the expectation that "should" someone commit a crime that the data can be aggregated via a personal identifier that will allow individually identifiable movement data as well as other info to be ascertained.

Where this gets very technical is that the Telco's store the metadata in such a manner for it to be retained as anonymous data, and only reconstituted and made identifiable upon a request accompanied by appropriate authorization for provision to law enforcement.

The current standard is that a rolling 2yr period is enforced on any data request received.
So it's 2yrs from the date of receiving the warrant back, no further look back is available.

The Telco's have been to court to fight both the retention aspect and to challenge specific warrants.
As far as I am aware, warrant requests made in recent times not only see the eyes of in House counsel, there is almost always now a barrister opinion sought before data is handed over.
The warrants are actioned, the data is gathered but Telco's are in light of the Dwyer case wary of handing over data immediately.

On the question of liability? None really lies with the Telco's, they are acting in compliance with the law as it currently stands and are acting with appropriate oversight to ensure that no inadvertent or excessive disclosures are made.
The use of the evidence and it's legality in criminal court lies with the state.

thanks but it is really confusing I think. the other poster said it's the 'pinging' to the masts, means to trace where the suspect was at the time of the murder which isn't legal.
you say it's the time of storage of the data. I guess this is the case.

so how long is it allowed to retain data for mobile phone companies (and therefore hand them out to law enforcemnet) ? 2years, did I get that right?

was there more than 2 years inbetween the murder and gathering the data from the mobile phone company? I don't think so, I think the murder took place 2012 and the phones were detected 2013 iirc. 1 year inbetween, so where is the problem?

recyclops

realdanbreen wrote: »

OK, I know you're waiting for someone to ask...why were you in jail?

For some odd reason I read it as the person worked in prisons, maybe teacher or trainer etc.

Dont know why it could be as they said they worked with him, the way trainers work with prisoners

I could be completely off

What Username Guidelines

tara73 wrote: »

thanks but it is really confusing I think. the other poster said it's the 'pinging' to the masts, means to trace where the suspect was at the time of the murder which isn't legal.
you say it's the time of storage of the data. I guess this is the case.

so how long is it allowed to retain data for mobile phone companies (and therefore hand them out to law enforcemnet) ? 2years, did I get that right?

was there more than 2 years inbetween the murder and gathering the data from the mobile phone company? I don't think so, I think the murder took place 2012 and the phones were detected 2013 iirc. 1 year inbetween, so where is the problem?

The data is in two 'sets'

1. Stored data - such as mast locations where the phones were traced to, etc
2. on-device data - text messages recovered from the phones themselves and backups to laptop found in the victim's home.

The first is the issue. The evidence intertwined the two sets to build a case. The second set doesn't 'expire' but on it's own does not carry as much weight in terms of evidence.

It matters when the evidence was collected/sought out by Gardai -vs- when the data was recorded. Some from 2012, but they had an ongoing relationship for long before this. I presume some data may fall within the limited time and can still be used, but for the most part, the majority of the stored data may be rendered unusable and the evidence starts to crumble. Picture the detectives' wall with tons of evidence and string linking one thing to another, then just cut a load of the strings and the case can fall apart pretty quick.

astrofool

Wasn't it the linking of his phone to the "master" phone that is the issue? They basically used his personal phone location details to show that the master phone being used to send messages to the slave phone (which Elaine held) were at the same locations and thus the master phone belonged to graham.

Without the location evidence then they can't link the two phones (graham's phone and the master phone) together.

Can legislation be introduced to allow such location evidence in the future? (i.e. are they waiting on the European Court to rule first, or would the European Court make all such evidence in all EU countries illegal, but now the UK could decide independently that they want to allow it to be used).

What Username Guidelines

astrofool wrote: »

Wasn't it the linking of his phone to the "master" phone that is the issue? They basically used his personal phone location details to show that the master phone being used to send messages to the slave phone (which Elaine held) were at the same locations and thus the master phone belonged to graham.

Without the location evidence then they can't link the two phones (graham's phone and the master phone) together.

Can legislation be introduced to allow such location evidence in the future? (i.e. are they waiting on the European Court to rule first, or would the European Court make all such evidence in all EU countries illegal, but now the UK could decide independently that they want to allow it to be used).

There were a number of 'admissions' from the master phone as well that tie the identity. During questioning, he was asked about the birth of his child, a flying competition, etc., which he freely admitted/corroborated by him. Details of these were sent from the master phone. The location data of the master and personal phone of Dwyer that proved they were together just solidified the other evidence.

tara73

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

The data is in two 'sets'

1. Stored data - such as mast locations where the phones were traced to, etc
2. on-device data - text messages recovered from the phones themselves and backups to laptop found in the victim's home.

The first is the issue. The evidence intertwined the two sets to build a case. The second set doesn't 'expire' but on it's own does not carry as much weight in terms of evidence.

It matters when the evidence was collected/sought out by Gardai -vs- when the data was recorded. Some from 2012, but they had an ongoing relationship for long before this. I presume some data may fall within the limited time and can still be used, but for the most part, the majority of the stored data may be rendered unusable and the evidence starts to crumble. Picture the detectives' wall with tons of evidence and string linking one thing to another, then just cut a load of the strings and the case can fall apart pretty quick.

thanks for that, makes it much clearer now.

And I can see now where I had a 'flaw' in my thinking and what I think monkeybutter meant (sorry:)).
if there's a law to delete data after two years or whatever period, that's it. It's not possible to 'foresee' who will commit a crime and save that data seperately. so if there's data after two years, it's a breach of law.

that's really sh** in a way...there must be a solution to this, to still get data from long times before regarding serious crimes without potential misuse of all other data me thinks...

that said, surely the NSA has all data in the world as long as they want it with their nice 'little' programs...

realdanbreen

Himnydownunder wrote: »

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

If all else fails I'm sure it will be arranged for Graham to have a Jeffrey Epstein moment in his cell.

realdanbreen

recyclops wrote: »

For some odd reason I read it as the person worked in prisons, maybe teacher or trainer etc.

Dont know why it could be as they said they worked with him, the way trainers work with prisoners

I could be completely off

I don't think so. In fact I'd say he has never been within an asses roar of a prison!

tara73

realdanbreen wrote: »

If all else fails I'm sure it will be arranged for Graham to have a Jeffrey Epstein moment in his cell.

I'm sure he's the last person who will do 'an Epstein'.

For him, he's one great person on this world and he's entitled to do what he wants to do with whoever he decides is scum. And he's really looking forward to walk out of prison, enjoying 'the attention'. disgusting creep.

realdanbreen

tara73 wrote: »

I'm sure he's the last person who will do 'an Epstein'.

You don't seriously believe that Epstein killed himself do you?

Muahahaha

I wonder might this case have implications for Joe o'Reillys conviction which was also based on his mobile phone pinging a local mast at the time of the murder

tara73

realdanbreen wrote: »

You don't seriously believe that Epstein killed himself do you?

woa, I considered this could be the real meaning of the post. I'm shocked, but that's a subject for a different thread...

take everything

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apologies, you said "obviously" they were in prison with him, instead of "seems like" but that's nearly worse. It's not an acknowledgement, in my mind, but more of a deduction. It just seems like a bizarre sentence, completely superfluous to the conversation. If someone said "I was in the military." and then someone replied saying "obviously you were in the military", you'd think "yeah, he just said it, how much more obvious could it be"

I literally don't know what you are on about at this stage.
You misquoted me again in any case.
"Clearly" not "obviously" FWIW.

I acknowledged to ohnonotgmail that yes indeed I know the guy posted stuff saying he was in prison with him.

I replied to the guy himself saying clearly he was in prison with him.

I don't understand what your issue is.
I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you're going on about. What you're going on about feels completely irrelevant to the thread (indeed irrelevant to anything and I'm annoyed that I'm wasting time responding to it).

monkeybutter

This thread would make you wonder about what kind of jury you would get in a trail, one full of people who can't grasp simple concepts and are too lazy to even inform themselves or read some of the thread.


Could they really follow a trial and come to a logical conclusion?

astrofool

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

There were a number of 'admissions' from the master phone as well that tie the identity. During questioning, he was asked about the birth of his child, a flying competition, etc., which he freely admitted/corroborated by him. Details of these were sent from the master phone. The location data of the master and personal phone of Dwyer that proved they were together just solidified the other evidence.

Interesting that he basically messed up the reason for having a separate phone (or just got overconfident). It sounds like the personal details evidence was quite weak by itself (especially for a murder conviction) so the location data meant it became strong evidence to be considered.

astrofool

realdanbreen wrote: »

You don't seriously believe that Epstein killed himself do you?

I do like the veracity at which people will say something like this, as if it's proven, the Epstein case/suicide/murder will likely never be proved either way so it's not something to get hyperbolic about.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

I do like the veracity at which people will say something like this, as if it's proven, the Epstein case/suicide/murder will likely never be proved either way so it's not something to get hyperbolic about.

Agree, waste of time and energy.

realdanbreen

astrofool wrote: »

I do like the veracity at which people will say something like this, as if it's proven, the Epstein case/suicide/murder will likely never be proved either way so it's not something to get hyperbolic about.

Where did I say it was proven?
I really couldn't be bothered googling what " hyperbolic" means but I do know that a guy who organised one of the biggest sex rings for the rich and powerful was never going to be left in a position in prison where he could implicate them in sex orgys - not to mention underage sex.

astrofool

realdanbreen wrote: »

Where did I say it was proven?
I really couldn't be bothered googling what " hyperbolic" means but I do know that a guy who organised one of the biggest sex rings for the rich and powerful was never going to be left in a position in prison where he could implicate them in sex orgys - not to mention underage sex.

"You don't seriously believe that Epstein, who was facing multiple life sentences and stripping away of all of his finances and reputation in court, didn't commit suicide, when he had the opportunity, rather than face all that?"

CantGetNoSleep

PespiChallenge wrote: »

Who actually owns the cell towers the state or private corporations? If it the mobile companies then surely Dwyer should be suing them for keeping the data not the state, If he wins then the state should fine the mobile companies for keeping that data.

He would be admitting it is his personal data then though no?

Asdfgh2020

astrofool wrote: »

Wasn't it the linking of his phone to the "master" phone that is the issue? They basically used his personal phone location details to show that the master phone being used to send messages to the slave phone (which Elaine held) were at the same locations and thus the master phone belonged to graham.

Without the location evidence then they can't link the two phones (graham's phone and the master phone) together.

Can legislation be introduced to allow such location evidence in the future? (i.e. are they waiting on the European Court to rule first, or would the European Court make all such evidence in all EU countries illegal, but now the UK could decide independently that they want to allow it to be used).

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’.

Asdfgh2020

realdanbreen wrote: »

If all else fails I'm sure it will be arranged for Graham to have a Jeffrey Epstein moment in his cell.

Are you using ‘graham’ here in a sarcastic sense...?

Dyr

astrofool wrote: »

I do like the veracity at which people will say something like this, as if it's proven, the Epstein case/suicide/murder will likely never be proved either way so it's not something to get hyperbolic about.

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

The Mighty Quinn

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 see what you're saying, and I wouldn't refer to people in news (or sports) stories by their first name myself, but get over it. Stop honing in on somebody referring to a man whose name is Graham Dwyer as "Graham" as if it's faux pas of the century.

Asdfgh2020

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

I see what you're saying, and I wouldn't refer to people in news (or sports) stories by their first name myself, but get over it. Stop honing in on somebody referring to a man whose name is Graham Dwyer as "Graham" as if it's faux pas of the century.[/quote

Ok sir, I will bow to your superior intellect and judgement

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

"You don't seriously believe that Epstein, who was facing multiple life sentences and stripping away of all of his finances and reputation in court, didn't commit suicide, when he had the opportunity, rather than face all that?"

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

John_Rambo

Back to the realities of the possibility of perverted murderer Dwyer bring released on this technicallity.

What are his options? Will he have a right to see his kids? Will someone like him actually try to rekindle a relationship with his kids? Will he be able to get a job, if he fails to do so will he claim some sort or discriminatory appeal?

He strikes me as the type of cocky character that will try and get straight back in to society, be it in a weird celebrity way with his "rock band" or in an "I was always innocent" way. Or... will he slink back to his folks in Cork and lay low for the rest of his life.

I think he'll find it hard to do this.

John_Rambo

begbysback wrote: »

Is he actually truly a murderer though?

Yes.

begbysback wrote: »

Did the victim believe she was going to die?

It's irrelevant what the victim believed. She was killed. What's wrong with you?

LMHC

Can we all answer one question here. The charge of murder is defined by causation and Means rea?

What was the cause of death : The legally returned cause of death?

Graham wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt to of murdered. I've no doubt in my mind he did. But did prosecution prove it beyond reasonable doubt. As was once said if the glove doesn't fit you must aquit.