The former boards.ie member will be remaining in jail https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2023/0324/1366017-graham-dwyer/
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?
O'Reilly's case pre-dates the EU legislation around retention of mobile phone data.
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.
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.
I don’t see why I would have to justify my interest in this case to you.
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.
Can you be tried for the same crime twice in Ireland? I know some places have double jeopardy laws.
If Graham Dwyer gets out, someone who AGS had even more evidence on, then Joe O'Reilly will be out by default.
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
Can you clarify if you actually want him to get off? Cause it really sounds like you do.
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
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.
was all a terrible accident... he completely changed his method of meeting her from the usual, trackable, method. To a scenario where he told her to leave her car, phone and valuables in one place, so he could me her inconspicuously in another location. Definitely just a terrible accident.
While the court of appeal found there was other evidence independent of the call data records that was "arguably more compelling", including text messages found on two phones recovered from Vartry Reservoir,
I wonder might the Supreme Court decide that it’s not for the court of appeal to decide if such evidence is compelling or not- and that only a jury can decide that? A possible retrial?
Personally I think that’s a very long shot, but in the interests of justice who knows what they may decide. It would be most unfortunate and very distressing for Elaine’s family if this was to happen.
“There was other evidence to link Dwyer to two phones that formed part of the prosecution case, the CoA also found.”-
-not least his own responses to questions in Garda interviews.
“the data was obtained in compliance with the provisions of the 2011 Communications (Retention of Data) Act but where the Act itself was subsequently found to be inconsistent with EU law.”
Is the key question here for the Supreme Court to answer , if you have a “faulty” law, then convictions under that law should be quashed?
Or is it, if the law is found to be “faulty” (a well known legal term 😀) , is it the role of the Supreme Court then to determine if a miscarriage of justice occurred by assessing the other evidence or is their role simply to state that a retrial is necessary based on a “faulty” law being in place at the time of conviction with no assessment of the other evidence?
As I understand it, it's not that there's a whole slew of prisoners waiting for the outcome of this case to see if it provides a basis for their own release.
Indeed, but that would not mean that some would not apply to get their conviction vacated, especially in cases which were more reliant on mobile phone data.
As I understand it, it's not that there's a whole slew of prisoners waiting for the outcome of this case to see if it provides a basis for their own release. The facts of the Dwyer case surrounding the collection of the phone data and the use that was made of it are fairly unusual; there won't be many convictions depending on similar facts. If there are, they must all predate 2015, because Dwyer's appeal rests on a course of action which, he argues, was improper but whose impropriety was only established in a Supreme Court judgment handed down in 2015. So, unless those cases related to fairly serious crimes attracting long sentences, the people convicted would quite possibly already have been released from prison.
The Dwyer case raises important issues about the admissibility of evidence that has been obtained unlawfully, but where the unlawfulness was not known or recognised at the time. It's of general public importance not so much because there's a slew of convictions waiting to be overturned as because it has implications for the conduct of future investigations and the conduct of future trials. There are questions to which we need clear answers but, whatever the answers, I don't think they are seen as likely to lead to the release of many, or quite possibly any, current prisoners.
So the Supreme Court have granted the appeal on the basis of public interest.
Which means they are suitably concerned enough.
It was the law itself deemed incompatible and not the application of it. Which is very interesting.
If the COA are to believed, Dwyer hasn't a chance of getting his conviction vacated.
But others may, any idea how many cases this could potentially apply to?
As if by magic the same poster pops in to support a man who has committed violence against women.
Rightly so.
The Supreme court will hear his appeal this morning.
I think in the context of parole, rehabilitated means that he won't do the crime again, i.e. murder.
I'm not sure what that entails, if it's a pinky swear on his behalf or if prison psychiatrists/psychologists etc. all get to chime in on his 'rehabilitation'.
I've said it before, I'm surprised he was convicted. A cause of death couldn't be established so I would have thought that left room for reasonable doubt. Don't get me wrong, I 100% think he 'dunnit' but I thought without the cause of death a conviction would be difficult.
20 years is the average life sentence here in Ireland. Dwyer will probably do 25 in total. That's my prediction.
Shaw will probably die in prison which is a rarity.
He is unable to solve simple problems and has absolutely no apathy for others.
Serial killer 101.
There are no monsters, but I agree with you that she was unlucky
Given the turn in tone it's reasonable to suggest you cannot back up your claim.
Again none of this is just my opinion.
In fact families of victims have complained for years that preparators of serious crimes should acknowledge guilt and show remorse before they can be eligible for parole.
Most recently
Is she talking through her hoop?
Rest of his days?
I don't see it. I see Malcolm McArthur around Dun Laoghaire the odd time since his release and that was one lad I honestly thought would not see the light of day beyond a high wall ever again. Yet there he is.
There is more to the parole process than just legislation. Quite honestly you are talking through your hoop.
It's not up to a prisoner to claim they have been rehabilitated.
The loss of liberty is part of the rehabilitation, as is the passage of time, length of time served and as specified in the act the prisoners conduct throughout that period.
But since I have tried to explain it to you now several times with a link to the actual law, it's now your turn.
Where does it state in the law that a convict has to show remorse in order to gain parole as you claimed?
Again the parole board assess risk not guilt, that has been done.
Yes, they're certainly more vulnerable to abuse.
But to say something was "bound to happen to her" is still a very odd comment. She was unlucky to run into a monster, they are relatively rare in society.
Well he did either tie her up or handcuff her out there in the Dublin/Wicklow bush, she was alive at the time. And he went back the following morning I think. It’s not that bizarre to think it was just another type of punishment, he just got it wrong thinking she would survive the night. Only he knows and he’s not one for talking.
Yeah, he was as creepy as they come.
Not to mention very cruel and sadistic. That poor woman was already suffering with her own problems, only to be then preyed on by this sick monster. He turns my stomach tbh. I find it hard to look at his face... people like this should just be put down. Not wasting tax payer money and oxygen in a prison cell.
I'll ask you again because you ignored the question the last time: how can a prisoner claim to be rehabilitated if they do not show remorse for the crime they committed?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
