Graham Dwyer loses appeal

Well that's true, I don't know that poster, at all really. You mean he's just a contrarian for the sale of being contrary?

Maybe. Seems a bit OTT to choose this sort of thing to be contrary over though. What does he want to prove? And why is it so obvious to me that's he's male, even though as I say I know nothing about him? I'd still put money on that though.

(If it turns out that Jeq0un has previously posted that they are female - rather than making such a claim now - then I'll agree that my speculation was unwarranted.)

I'd say that for every person who progresses to actually acting on their fantasies, there are probably multiples of that who have such fantasies but never dare do anything about it in their real life. I think the hits rates on violent porn sites tend to show that to be the case.

As to how many people choose instead to adopt a contrarian persona on the internet for entirely different reasons about playing Devil's advocate because well, I don't know why, because you haven't explained, but it has nothing to do with them possibly having such fantasies themselves about women - well, I have no idea how common that is. Do you really think that's a lot more frequent than people - let's be frank here, we're talking about men really - who choose to defend Graham Dwyer because deep down they feel they really understand him?

(It's a genuine question: I can't understand why someone would defend him so doggedly and unvaryingly if they didn't have some sympathy for him. It's a lot more than just pointing out errors in people's understanding of the legalities for instance.)

So when there's no body, there can't be a murder case??

Of course you can.

This case would be a pertinent example.

Anyway.

6.  In any indictment for murder or manslaughter, or for being an accessory to any murder or manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death of the deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient in any indictment for murder to charge that the defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought kill and murder the deceased; and it shall be sufficient in any indictment for manslaughter to charge that the defendant did feloniously kill and slay the deceased; and it shall be sufficient in any indictment against any accessory to any murder or manslaughter to charge the principal with the murder or manslaughter (as the case may be) in the manner herein-before specified, and then to charge the defendant as an accessory in the manner heretofore used and accustomed.

Now it may of course strengthen your defence if the claim was the person was killed by "accident" or in defence, etc.

Only for the hot summer and the pond in Roundwood being low he would have got away with it, that’s were the main evidence was got when the young Garda pulled out the bags. How many Garda would have not given it a second look.

Definitely - and worth pointing out that the Garda concerned did fantastic work. They get criticised when they get things wrong so I hope he gets some acknowledgment for what he did there.

So are you - just saying

Her asking for reassurance and him giving it to her was part of the negotiations of the scenes they were planning, the asking and giving of reassurance wasn't part of the roles that they were playing. Perhaps he was getting a kick out of her asking for reassurance because he knew he was going to kill her, but she wasn't asking for that reassurance as part of her 'role', which is what you seem to be implying.

That wouldn't be in in line with the fantasies that he discussed or wrote stories about. He either wanted to snatch, rape and kill women or he wanted women who were willing to let him kill them, in that sick story he wrote about the American he literally had her orgasming after she'd been stabbed as she was dying 🤮 He didn't want a 'bratty' kind of submissive who called the shots and had rules about what she allowed and didn't allow who wanted reassurance from him that he wouldn't go too far.

In fact after he gave her all of the reassurance in the messages just before he killed her he said to her "“It’s important to me that you feel it’s my right to take my slave’s life if I want to, Every time I stab or strangle you, I want you to think this is it and every time I let you live, you owe me your life and are grateful and worship me,”.

The reassurance was part of the negotiations for what would happen, but that message was about the 'part/role' he wanted her to play during.

Saying you can never understand why people assume that someone who killed once will automatically kill again seems pretty disingenuous in the context of sexually motivated murders.

You have a history of it.

It’s obvious you’re trying to create an excuse for Pr1ck Graham Dwyer murdering his victim - you really have no shame

I didn’t “misunderstand” your posts in any way 🙂