Graham Dwyer - latest

Yakov P. Golyadkin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the argument is that the phone records shouldn't have existed as they did therefore they can't be used as evidence then why can't one argue that an illegally-held firearm shouldn't be used as evidence? It exists, it shouldn't as it does, but it exists.

Your gun analogy doesn't work because in that case it is an individual using the 'illegally held' evidence, in the Dwyer case it is the state.

Also, it's not that the phone records shouldn't have existed; Irish law provided for their existence/retention, EU law (which trumps national law) found the Irish law on retention to be incompatible with EU law.
This is a failing of the Irish state, they have been aware for years that our data retention law is incompatible with EU law, they just never bothered updating/amending the Irish law.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

Your gun analogy doesn't work because in that case it is an individual using the 'illegally held' evidence, in the Dwyer case it is the state.

Well it would be the state using the evidence against the individual.

Also, it's not that the phone records shouldn't have existed; Irish law provided for their existence/retention, EU law (which trumps national law) found the Irish law on retention to be incompatible with EU law.
This is a failing of the Irish state, they have been aware for years that our data retention law is incompatible with EU law, they just never bothered updating/amending the Irish law.

Was it the state who held the records though?

monkeybutter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well it would be the state using the evidence against the individual.

Was it the state who held the records though?

The state directs the retention, the phone companies aren't doing it for a laugh

If evidence is illegally obtained it can't be used


It's pretty simple

The use of the gun is illegal, it is used as evidence, it is not illegal evidence

Again fairly simple

tara73

sorry but can I ask what exactly is the problem with this phone data? I followed the case but it's still not clear to me what is the problem they used this data?

Is it in general that mobile phone data can't be used to prosecute somebody or is it that it was kind of retained too late (stored data)? I mean, they fished it out of a huge water reservoir, it was like god given they found it. It's not that they had this phones for 2 years and then used the data later.

both scenarios are nuts as a reason. If there's any reason in this world to use private data, it's in criminal cases like this. I'm all for privacy and data protection but it's exactly such severe criminal cases where there should be exceptions/laws in case that it can be used no matter when or how it was obtained and if some dickheads in brussels decide in favour of such severe crimes / kind of let sickos like GD go free because the data was obtained or held 'in the wrong way', it's another proof this world is lead by braindead guys.

monkeybutter

tara73 wrote: »

sorry but can I ask what exactly is the problem with this phone data? I followed the case but it's still not clear to me what is the problem they used this data?

Is it in general that mobile phone data can't be used to prosecute somebody or is it that it was kind of retained too late (stored data)? I mean, they fished it out of a huge water reservoir, it was like god given they found it. It's not that they had this phones for 2 years and then used the data later.

both scenarios are nuts as a reason. If there's any reason in this world to use private data, it's in criminal cases like this. I'm all for privacy and data protection but it's exactly such severe criminal cases where there should be exceptions/laws in case that it can be used no matter when or how it was obtained and if some dickheads in brussels decide in favour of such severe crimes / kind of let sickos like GD go free because the data was obtained or held 'in the wrong way', it's another proof this world is lead by braindead guys.

its not the data stored on the phone


it is the all the records of what cells the phone connected to and what time, giving you a clear picture where anyone with a phone has been at all times over whatever time period the data exists for


The problem is you can't be for privacy and also against it at the same time


Its like a wire tap, they have get permission before they implement one



Would you like if they just listened to everyone all the time in the off chance they might hear something criminal?


This is essentially what this is

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.

tara73

monkeybutter wrote: »

its not the data stored on the phone


it is the all the records of what cells the phone connected to and what time, giving you a clear picture where anyone with a phone has been at all times over whatever time period the data exists for

The problem is you can't be for privacy and also against it at the same time


Its like a wire tap, they have get permission before they implement one


Would you like if they just listened to everyone all the time in the off chance they might hear something criminal?

This is essentially what this is

thanks for clarifying it. That reads for me they can use the actual content of the messages but not where it was sent??

So If there would have been found DNA somewhere on her remains or even the phones it would be most probably the biggest and water proof evidence he murdered her but his phone data can't be used. DNA is data too.

bonkers, absolutely nuts.

Everything else you wrote might be like that for you, I already gave my pov to it in my post above and stands for me as I wrote.

tara73

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.

good point. but I think it's not either or, both needs to be sued, the mobile companies and the state for working with this data.

(even writing this down feels really like BS.)

banie01

Mobile phone towers are owned by various companies not the state.

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.

realdanbreen

LMHC wrote: »

What should I call him and i ll address as such from now on.

He who must not be named.

Gradwy

Anything else you'd like Me to call him. He's still a human being, you don't have to like or agree with him. But I've been in prison and I feel I'm no position to judge.

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

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.

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?