Graham Dwyer - latest

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

If it was illegal to hold onto that data, then the evidence is gone

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

Well with circumstantial evidence as the main evidence nobody knows much about any the final moments of any murder.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

If it was illegal to hold onto that data, then the evidence is gone

Who was holding onto the data?
If someone has an illegally held firearm and shoots someone is it ok to use that gun as evidence? After all, it was illegally held.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who was holding onto the data?
If someone has an illegally held firearm and shoots someone is it ok to use that gun as evidence? After all, it was illegally held.

I'm not sure why you think that's remotely similar!!
If someone shoots someone with an illegally held firearm, then they will probably get two charges. At least!

BattleCorp

Muahahaha wrote: »

Without those text messages being allowed in a re-trial another conviction is a fair bit more difficult.

The phone data not only contains text messages but also locations etc. Without that evidence I fail to see how the State could get a conviction if there was a retrial.

BattleCorp

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

There's not many who think he didn't murder her, but when you look at the hard evidence, there isn't even 100% proof that she was murdered as the cause of death couldn't be determined due to the condition of the body.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cause-of-elaine-o-hara-s-death-never-established-1.2077878

Ash.J.Williams

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's not many who think he didn't murder her, but when you look at the hard evidence, there isn't even 100% proof that she was murdered as the cause of death couldn't be determined due to the condition of the body.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cause-of-elaine-o-hara-s-death-never-established-1.2077878

Exactly but because of him she’s dead

Mango Joe

I hope he keeps on appealing this in various forms indefinitely until he's around 97 years of age and that each and every time there's a little glimmer of hope in his tiny black heart that then gets snatched away and stamped on at the 11th hour.

BattleCorp

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Exactly but because of him she’s dead

I think he did it but unfortunately in court it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

BattleCorp

Mango Joe wrote: »

I hope he keeps on appealing this in various forms indefinitely until he's around 97 years of age and that each and every time there's a little glimmer of hope in his tiny black heart that then gets snatched away and stamped on at the 11th hour.

The average life sentence in Ireland is 17.5 years so it's unlikely he'll still be appealing his conviction when he is 97. He might even be eligible for parole in less than 10 years.

monkeybutter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

If you can entirely exclude the mobiles, then no


But people seem confused, the mobiles had texts on them with dates etc, that is fine, it was found with her keys, so linked to her



It is some of the evidence showing the phone was in his possession that is the issue in this case


There was evidence that he purchased both phones, but hard to remember how solid that is


There is a lot of info in the messages which could identify him just from them



I would reckon that overall there is still enough evidence, but he would be prejudiced in any retrial by his actual guilt


It was the info on the phones that did the real damage

HBC08

listermint wrote: »

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

I've read the whole thread and know that what you're saying isn't true,I suspect you know that yourself.
Anyhoo...This is easily resolved, post some examples.

take everything

LMHC, you've clearly been in prison with him from your posts.

I just notice you calling him Graham a lot and called the crime unsavoury which seems to understate things.

I'd call what he did abominable.
The guy is not fit for society in any way and there's nothing redeeming about him.

Were you friendly with him.

Not saying you have, but i can never understand how anyone could have a sneaking regard or admiration for someone like this.

That mindset of women writing letters and marrying serial killers always makes me laugh and despair that there are people like this out there. It's way way beyond pathetic.

This guy is a dangerous pathetic loser (but probably with a knack of charming weaker people) who can't see how pathetic and wrong he is.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

No I wasn't making it up. Don't listen to monkeybutter , poster is sitting in west Dublin peering down from their ivory tower.

I was on E wing in Clover hill in 2014, it was a workers landing I'd came over from A wing he came of D wing. He worked in the kitchen I worked on the bins. He was super devious he used to play head games with prisoners in on first sentences.

He is very intelligent and was telling everyone from the get go he'd be appealing to Europe if he was found guilty. He was adamant he was walking. We weren't sure of the details just he was in for murder as it only all came out in trial.

When it went to trial he was moved up to D2 (which would be an observation landing) he'd of been watched for suicide attempts as most that are on trial for murder are.

He used to mix with 6 other prisoners Wayne Kennedy from shankill and Trevor Noone and the rest Chinese lads he'd play cards with.

take everything wrote: »

LMHC, you've clearly been in prison with him from your posts.

I just notice you calling him Graham a lot and called the crime unsavoury which seems to understate things.

I'd call what he did abominable.
The guy is not fit for society in any way and there's nothing redeeming about him.

Were you friendly with him.

Not saying you have, but i can never understand how anyone could have a sneaking regard or admiration for someone like this.

That mindset of women writing letters and marrying serial killers always makes me laugh and despair that there are people like this out there. It's way way beyond pathetic.

This guy is a dangerous pathetic loser (but probably with a knack of charming weaker people) who can't see how pathetic and wrong he is.

they said yesterday that they were in prison with him.

monkeybutter

take everything wrote: »

LMHC, you've clearly been in prison with him from your posts.

I just notice you calling him Graham a lot and called the crime unsavoury which seems to understate things.

I'd call what he did abominable.
The guy is not fit for society in any way and there's nothing redeeming about him.

Were you friendly with him.

Not saying you have, but i can never understand how anyone could have a sneaking regard or admiration for someone like this.

That mindset of women writing letters and marrying serial killers always makes me laugh and despair that there are people like this out there. It's way way beyond pathetic.

This guy is a dangerous pathetic loser (but probably with a knack of charming weaker people) who can't see how pathetic and wrong he is.

Papers like the sunday world will print any old ****e, any bag of lies to sell a few papers



Victoria Andreenkova was either a nutcase or she was put up to it to try and get yet another story out of it


Id say LHMC had more chance of being his girlfriend seeing as they were so close

take everything

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they said yesterday that they were in prison with him.

Yeah I know.

take everything

take everything wrote: »

Yeah I know.

If you know, then why did you say that it "seems like" he did? That's just bizarre.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who was holding onto the data?
If someone has an illegally held firearm and shoots someone is it ok to use that gun as evidence? After all, it was illegally held.

That analogy is terrible. Try this one.......Imagine your local nightclub puts a CCTV camera in the toilets and that camera happens to catch you snorting coke.

If there's no other evidence that you were doing coke then the prosecution would fail, because cameras in toilets are illegal.

take everything

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you know, then why did you say that it "seems like" he did? That's just bizarre

"Seems like".
I don't know what you're actually referring to in my post but I never said "seems like" in my post about anything. I said "unsavoury" seems understated. Is this what you're referring to.

Otherwise I've no idea what you're on about.

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

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think that's remotely similar!!
If someone shoots someone with an illegally held firearm, then they will probably get two charges. At least!

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.

Or if you steal a computer and find child porn on it. You have no right to possession of or access to that computer and yet (as has happened in the UK) the person you stole it from can have that evidence used against them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That analogy is terrible. Try this one.......Imagine your local nightclub puts a CCTV camera in the toilets and that camera happens to catch you snorting coke.

If there's no other evidence that you were doing coke then the prosecution would fail, because cameras in toilets are illegal.

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

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?