Graham Dwyer loses appeal

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622431#Comment_121622431

If I recall, there was a bit of a breakthrough in the case, when AGS cross-referenced Galway toll payment records with movements tracked on his burner phone to link the burner phone to his car and therefore to him.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622828#Comment_121622828

also a lot of personal context conversations, he was an avid model airplane flyer and refer to this a lot in the messages, which AGS were able to cross reference to competitions he took part in... along with their hookups in Stepaside which they were able to place Dwyer in the locality at the time via other methods.

Dwyer denied all of this until he was presented with this evidence, then he admitted to unfolding levels of the story, as much as he thought could get away with, as he thought AGS had nothing on him, but when they caught him out, his story would change....

So, he went from, not knowing Elaine, to, admitting having a long time affair and cutting fetish with her.

While I agree in the world of probabilities, there is infinite scenarios, but, in Ireland, in the time frame we focus on, you have someone who:

-admits having a cutting fetish with someone

-has been tied to phones through various pieces of contextual evidence

-in these phones it discusses stabbing and murder

-DNA evidence to support the affair was found prior to the murder (he denied even knowing Elaine until this evidence was presented)

-had actively spoken about finding a secluded spot to do some humiliation cutting (even though they would do it usually in the apartment in Stepaside)

-Dwyer would meet Elaine in a known manner to both of them, but, on the day in question before her murder, changed that routing in a manner so nothing could be tied to him

I'm gonna bet my house Dwyer had the intention of murder

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121621888#Comment_121621888

Can you clarify if you actually want him to get off? Cause it really sounds like you do.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622828#Comment_121622828

Yeah- along with information he provided when purchasing the phone in the first place in the shop - he answered a lot of questions put to him by Gardai which appeared all very innocuous to him at the time - things like did he have an interest in flying model planes etc etc - all his answers corroborated with the ping masts of his phone for a variety of situations - now whether it’s this evidence that will be in doubt I guess it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide .

While it would be tragic if he were freed, justice is justice - I would just hope that whatever evidence is left as admissible in a retrial is enough to convict him again

vswr

If Graham Dwyer gets out, someone who AGS had even more evidence on, then Joe O'Reilly will be out by default.

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623255#Comment_121623255

Can you be tried for the same crime twice in Ireland? I know some places have double jeopardy laws.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623015#Comment_121623015

I'm gonna bet my house Dwyer had the intention of murder

Not to relitigate the case but no cause of death was established.

I imagine if Dwyer were to get his retrial his legal team would be hard pressing for a complete change in tactics.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623048#Comment_121623048

I don’t see why I would have to justify my interest in this case to you.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623414#Comment_121623414

You're in a discussion and seem to be hoping he gets off. It's reasonable for posters to be curious on what you believe.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623304#Comment_121623304

O'Reilly's case pre-dates the EU legislation around retention of mobile phone data.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623015#Comment_121623015

The core of the data protection issue relates to meta data they got from the phone company(s) about phone usage - where the phone was, and how it was used (voice call, text message, data). This is the data that comes under the EU legislation which Ireland effectively ignored. We had no controls around how long the data was kept and how it could be accessed by AGS or others.

Data about the content of the text messages would have come from the phones gathered as evidence in the normal ways, and isn't in dispute afaik.

The point about cross referencing the Galway toll bridge usage with mobile phone tracking was a key breakthrough in linking him with the burner phone iirc. This could be undermined if they make their case about our cavalier attitude to data protection laws.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623333#Comment_121623333

I honestly don’t know but if memory serves weren’t double jeopardy laws updated anyway some years ago to allow for a retrial where there was substantial evidence ? I could be wrong though

If the conviction is over turned he’s obviously deemed “innocent” in the eyes of the law but what then I don’t know - does new evidence have to be found like DNA or something in order for a new trial to go ahead?

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623363#Comment_121623363

correct... But, as it is a circumstantial evidence conviction, we can safely say this outdoor picnic was going to be a one way affair for everyone but Dwyer.

I know we're going to have the overly pedantic law interpreters here, but, lets call a spade a spade here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623464#Comment_121623464

Ah interesting, I thought it did go back that far, because AGS had actually used it in other cases, but never brought it to court, to 1) not show they had the capability and 2) because the laws around lawful intercept were very much in their infancy.

The legislation wasn't ignored, but, it wasn't as watertight as it is now.... AGS were definitely in the grey area with it, as with a lot of this case, there was a lot of evidence that didn't make it to court due to the grey area element of a lot of it (utilising tactics which were used to track paramilitaries etc....).

I don;t see how it can be appealed successfully, but, if it does, a lot of cases (particularly gang related) will come into dispute.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121622299#Comment_121622299

Did they not deal with the issue of unlawfully obtained evidence in JC?

something about it not being conscious and deliberate? I may be getting mixed up

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623048#Comment_121623048

the poster has a history of supporting men who commit violence against women. make of that what you will.

Cheddar Bob

Dwyer is arguably more dangerous if he was released now than he was then.

What prevented him doing a Larry Murpjhy every few months was what he had to lose- his wife, kids, well paying status job, home in one of Ireland's most exclusive locales.

He would today be released to a world of no family, living with his parents or else being ran from town to town by vigilantes, life on the dole (unless the Saudis are mad enough to give him work on a project perhaps but I seriously doubt they're that hard up).

With nothing to lose he's a bigger risk than he ever was.

Pauliedragon

Is Dwyer getting legal aid for these appeals. The bill must be huge by now and talk of heading to European courts.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121624923#Comment_121624923

there were suggestions from his fetlife profile that he attempted to escalate other meetings in a manner of how he did with Elaine, scaring some off, but, others were never accounted for (not suggesting they're dead, they just never found out who there were and the extent of the relationship).

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121625981#Comment_121625981

This is always to be expected, and supports the suggestion that O’Hara, unlike others, had agreed to go further.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121626578#Comment_121626578

Doesn't mean she agreed to be put in danger of death: she may have been a bit more naive, or a bit more vulnerable to forceful persuasion than those other women, or the previous refusals from other women may mean that Dwyer could just have got better at learning what to say to make his demands sound reasonable.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121626609#Comment_121626609

Yes of course, but at the end of the day we can only assume either way.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121626712#Comment_121626712

We don't normally assume that anyone has consented to being killed by someone else without VERY strong evidence. The killer assuring us that they did isn't usually considered relevant.

We also don't normally assume that someone who is killed accidentally by someone else consented to being put at risk of death. That's why the charge of homicide exists.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121623605#Comment_121623605

Yes, they did, but Dwyer's trial predated the JC judgment. An issue raised in the appeal was whether Dwyer's conviction was unsafe because his trial wasn't conducted in the way that the Supreme Court held, in JC, trials like that ought to be conducted.

But that goes to my point. No trials have been conducted in that way since 2015. So even if (which I don't expect) the Supreme Court finds Dwyer's conviction to be unsafe on this ground, the only people who could say that this has implications for their own convictions and they ought to be released would be people tried before 2015, but still in prison (which is not a huge group of people) — and, even then, only those of them whose convictions rested in part on evidence that raised JC-type issues, which would be a small fraction of that group.

marilynrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121625981#Comment_121625981

There was videos taken from his hard drive shown to the jury during the trial of him stabbing women during sex.

marilynrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399936#Comment_120399936

If Graham Dwyer had a woman tied up suffering then he wasn't leaving her overnight where he couldn't watch. He would have stayed and relished every moment. He clearly killed her and watched her die. It was clear from the text messages how much his excitement was building that he was finally going to get to kill a woman.

If there was even a tiny chance he didn't intend to kill her. I don't believe that for a second but let's say there was a 1 in a billion chance, I guarantee his only thought when he would have came back to find her dead wouldn't have been "oh **** she died" it would have been "I can't believe she died and I didn't get to watch".

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121626761#Comment_121626761

I only said she agreed to “go further”, which she did as is evident from the text messages. None of us know what exactly she thought was going to happen. But it was a consensual fetish play involving cutting and stabbing after all.

knucklehead6

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627193#Comment_121627193

I’m all for playing devils advocate, but you cannot seriously believe that she consented to being killed just to bring him some pleasure.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627235#Comment_121627235

I didn’t say that. She agreed to get stabbed though. There is a chance that this was an elaborate blood kink play that got out of hand and he tried to cover it up.

Anyway, the interesting part is the Supreme Court ruling now.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627193#Comment_121627193

You can't consent to your own murder.

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121626578#Comment_121626578

You haven't read the evidence have you? There was numerous cases of O'Hara stating she thought he went too far on previous occurrences and was afraid he would seriously hurt her.

Not kink shaming at all, and not saying at some point there was consensual actions (even if this is open to interpretation due to O'Hara's known mental state).

But, if someone expresses fear for their safety in sexual play, and the perpetrator continues to ignore this in a coercive manner, which then results in that persons death, that is murder.

Day Lewin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627311#Comment_121627311

Her fetish was not cutting, but chains. Which he indulged just as far as it allowed him to claim cutting in return. Elaine complained to her friend at the clinic she was attending that a male friend was insisting on cuts that she did not enjoy, and that he went too far. She also complained the same to Graham in some of the phone messages and fetlife messages that were quoted in evidence. She "broke it off" with him for this reason. But he seduced her back into the relationship with soft words and promises, and she was flattered.

Yes, she was easy to exploit and coerce. The poor girl was pressured relentlessly, and she was in a vulnerable mental state. He treated her with the most heartless disregard for her dignity or safety, he used her like an object. It was WICKED.

And there's no doubt at all that he did it. He deserves to be jailed for the rest of his life and never, ever be let near respectable people again.