Graham Dwyer - latest

LMHC

"The cause of Elaine O'Hara's death was never established and neither foul play nor self-harm could be ruled out"

Legally this case was a stitch up. Woods got his pound of flesh in Graham. If we are lifing people off cause they are strange we are losing the run of ourselves.

o1s1n

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.

If someone gets off on killing someone I'd hardly call that assisted suicide...?

LMHC

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?

Hahahahahaha you're gonna be slaughtered

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?

I sometimes wonder if this site has normal people or not….

It’s technically murder and actually murder if you deliberately kill somebody. People also can’t consent to be hurt badly.

Quite the weird thread this.

LMHC

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I sometimes wonder if this site has normal people or not….

It’s technically murder and actually murder if you deliberately kill somebody. People also can’t consent to be hurt badly.

Quite the weird thread this.

How do you know she was killed. The state pathology couldn't even tell us if she was or not.

LMHC

LMHC wrote: »

How do you know she was killed. The state pathology couldn't even tell us if she was or not.

I didn’t mention her at all.

LillySV

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?

how u know this person actually volunteered to be murdered? And even if this mixed up person had said it...u think they would actually have expected a sick **** to do it!? f it was your sister or mother that was murdered, would you like to see such absolute childish bull**** published online about it.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

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.

LillySV

begbysback wrote: »

Like I said, my memory of the facts of the case may be fuzzy. Not quite sure why you are offended on behalf of the victims family, but this is a discussion forum, discussing openly the details and personal beliefs, maybe it’s too explicit for you? If it were my family I’d advise them against reading any online forums regarding the case.

offended on behalf of the victims family? details and beliefs? your talking nonsense and im callin you out on it. nothings explicit to me...i just cant read dribbly nonsense...

LillySV

begbysback wrote: »

But your arguments made here are “dribbly nonsense” and “childish bull****”, so be honest with yourself, you aren’t actually calling anyone out, your minimal sensitivity levels have been reached and you’ve retorted with the previously mentioned terms just because you disagree with a post.

If it wasn’t so feeble it would be considered back seat modding.

you are trying to normalize a madman, why? this man murdered a harmless girl, why are you trying to legitimise it ?this is an actual persons life we are discussing, not a playstation game...are you aware of the difference?

Eoin

begbysback wrote: »

I already stated it was technically murder, no qualms about that. Though even in a murder trial there can be partial defence for the reason for killing someone, was actually listening to this on the radio earlier, it’s not permitted to use reasoning as a defence for innocence, more that it can be used for sentencing,

We are talking about law here, where it’s actually against the law to kill yourself too, though this seems to be ethically accepted, and in some countries assisted suicide is legal too.

Personally I don’t see mr Dwyer as a monster like the media have portrayed him, plus I don’t believe he was doing that young lady a favour by killing her either, no doubt he is a bit of strange, but I genuinely know more people freely walking around in society today that would be considered more of a risk than him.

I understand weird to you may be someone like me who makes up their own mind without accepting blindly common opinion, but there ya go, maybe try it sometime, it’s quite liberating.

I have no legal background, but what you said seems wrong. Suicide was decriminalised a while ago, and I think that assisting a suicide is a different offence than murder. And I am not sure where you're going with the sentencing stuff - murder has a mandatory life sentence for adults.

It's unpleasant reading, but here are the texts between them immediately before. She expected to come home that evening. If you do a quick google, you'll see other women he talked about killing. Maybe it was just talk, but even still, it was more than a bit of strange.

tara73

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.

get the facts right before you spout out nonsense like this! she nerver asked him to kill her! she was actually hoping all the time he will get together with her and start a family with him.
at that evening he murdered her she begged him not to hurt her, physically.

LMHC

tara73 wrote: »

get the facts right before you spout out nonsense like this! she nerver asked him to kill her! she was actually hoping all the time he will get together with her and start a family with him.
at that evening he murdered her she begged him not to hurt her, physically.

How do you know she was murdered? Marie cassidy said she didn't know what the cause of death was.

Phoebas

LMHC wrote: »

How do you know she was murdered?

The murder conviction.

LMHC

Phoebas wrote: »

The murder conviction.

So in the "Murder" trial the state said they couldn't rule she was actually murdered the only evidence was text messages. Causation was never proven.

"The cause of Elaine O'Hara's death was never established and neither foul play nor self-harm could be ruled out"

Phoebas

LMHC wrote: »

So in the "Murder" trial the state said they couldn't rule she was actually murdered the only evidence was text messages. Causation was never proven.

"The cause of Elaine O'Hara's death was never established and neither foul play nor self-harm could be ruled out"

He was convicted of murder by a jury in a unanimous verdict.

That's just the fact of the matter.

LMHC

Phoebas wrote: »

He was convicted of murder by a jury in a unanimous verdict.

That's just the fact of the matter.

Yes I haven't disputed that. I've also said above I've no doubt in my mind he done it. But there wasn't legal ground to find him guilty. He will be home that is a guarantee.

bennyl10

Phoebas wrote: »

He was convicted of murder by a jury in a unanimous verdict.

That's just the fact of the matter.

With circumstantial evidence that europe could well
Overturn

John_Rambo

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.

Not sure if you're familiar with this case and how vulnerable the victim was, how O'Dwyer coerced and controlled her and eventually killed her for his own sexual satisfaction. There's more layers than you think. I'd read up a bit more before saying more silly things.

Phoebas

LMHC wrote: »

Yes I haven't disputed that. I've also said above I've no doubt in my mind he done it. But there wasn't legal ground to find him guilty. He will be home that is a guarantee.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.
You don't dispute that he is convicted of her murder.
You have no doubt yourself that he did it.

Yet you ask "How do you know she was murdered?"

Phoebas

bennyl10 wrote: »

With circumstantial evidence that europe could well
Overturn

That may well happen in the future.

Right now he is a convicted murderer.
Later, he may get away with murder on a technicality.

Eoin

The autopsy on its own didn't establish it was murder. But the evidence obviously did prove it for the jury, just like in the Bobby Ryan case IIRC.

BattleCorp

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're going with this.
You don't dispute that he is convicted of her murder.
You have no doubt yourself that he did it.

Yet you ask "How do you know she was murdered?"

We all know that Dwyer was convicted of the murder. Pretty much everyone thinks that he did kill her.

I think the point LMHC is trying to make, and I actually think this too, is that there wasn't a whole pile of good quality evidence against Dwyer and if Dwyer wins his case and the phone data is found to have been used illegally, it's hard to see the State having enough evidence to convict if a retrial is granted.

Jequ0n

Love the emotive language in this thread. O’Hara = harmless girl, Dwyer= monster.

She knew exactly what she was playing with.
There is a good chance this will be overturned because protocol wasn’t followed properly. If this related to a less sensational case everyone would be on the side of the wronged party but since it’s Dwyer everyone is suddenly a staunch supporter of dodgy police work. Bravo

BattleCorp

Jequ0n wrote: »

Love the emotive language in this thread. O’Hara = harmless girl, Dwyer= monster.

She knew exactly what she was playing with.
There is a good chance this will be overturned because protocol wasn’t followed properly. If this related to a less sensational case everyone would be on the side of the wronged party but since it’s Dwyer everyone is suddenly a staunch supporter of dodgy police work. Bravo

Ah, she was vulnerable to be fair.

LMHC

BattleCorp wrote: »

We all know that Dwyer was convicted of the murder. Pretty much everyone thinks that he did kill her.

I think the point LMHC is trying to make, and I actually think this too, is that there wasn't a whole pile of good quality evidence against Dwyer and if Dwyer wins his case and the phone data is found to have been used illegally, it's hard to see the State having enough evidence to convict if a retrial is granted.

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.

Jequ0n

Jequ0n wrote: »

There is a good chance this will be overturned because protocol wasn’t followed properly. If this related to a less sensational case everyone would be on the side of the wronged party but since it’s Dwyer everyone is suddenly a staunch supporter of dodgy police work. Bravo

Can you outline what protocol wasn't followed And what was the dodgy police work?

Eoin

How is it "dodgy police work"? Seems unfair to expect the Gardai to know that Ireland's laws may not be compatible with EU laws.

BattleCorp

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.

LMHC

bubblypop wrote: »

Can you outline what protocol wasn't followed And what was the dodgy police work?

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.