Graham Dwyer court case *READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING*

sabat wrote: »

Being uber-cynical (and I don't believe this to be true) he should have said that they were just "playing their normal game" but it went wrong and she died and he panicked and covered it up to protect his reputation. Plead guilty to manslaughter and associated charges and he'd be out in 5 years or less. After all, he did have the perfect defence in videos of Ms O'Hara willingly partaking in these activities with him. Like you said, he was such an arrogant disassociated prick that he failed to see the reality of the situation in front of him.

He would almost certainly be facing a lot less time if he had went that route. Glad he wasn't as smart as he thinks he is. It's hard to imagine it now but I'm sure public sentiment towards him would be very different too... A wierd fetish that two people were partaking in that went horribly wrong.

Glad he didn't decide to go down that route but it's scary to think that he could have gotten away with it (in a sense obviously) be pleading manslaughther and shaping a case around that.

MouseTail wrote: »

Justice not only needs to be done in public, it needs to be seen to be done. Had this case been conducted behind closed doors, the public would have been dissatisfied the conviction was safe. It was all the small details that added up which led the jury to convict.

I'm not saying it should be behind closed doors, I'm just saying there is no need for salicious daily bulletins of selected evidence while the trial is still ongoing. All the details could still have been reported upon conclusion of the trial and justice would still be seen to be done.

Just in terms of all the questions about how long it took and evidence and such, from reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that Dwyer was high on the Gardai's list after Elaine's disappearance, but without a body or any substantial evidence, there was no murder investigation and therefore bringing in Dwyer for questioning would have been very flimsy and could have caused him to take further steps to cover his tracks.

Sometimes not alerting a suspect is the best thing to do as they will become complacent as the case gets colder.

When the phones were found, things pretty much took off. Pretty quickly, the Gardai were at Dwyer's bins collecting DNA evidence even though they hadn't yet analysed the data on the phones. It seems clear to me that a number of Gardai strongly suspected Dwyer had killed her but lacked the evidence to go any further. Elaine's body and the phones gave the investigation the shot in the arm it needed.

It's also worth mentioning that while data had been synced from Elaine's phone, it wasn't a complete timeline and wouldn't have had the last few texts sent. The two phones were dedicated for that purpose - it wasn't Elaine's main phone. So without the actual phones the Gardai were at something of a loss. They had part of the texts, but no phone and therefore no way to trace her movements (or indeed, his)
And from the perspective of investigating a suicide, the texts could be seen as looking bad but not necessarily pointing towards murder.

I remember seeing questions at the time (and asking similar ones myself) about why the Gardai were re-examining Elaine's computer when her body was found, but in hindsight it's pretty clear why.

Stheno wrote: »

Seamus there was a lot of reporting that Dwyer was only even identified after the phones were found through texts that referred to him competing in a flying club and coming fifth

Where are you getting the info that gardai knew of him at the time of Elaine s disappearance?

was he not shown on the CCTV in elaines apartment block regularly entering and exiting?

murpho999 wrote: »

People enter apartment blocks all the time.

Gardai can't make their move until they have evidence.

CCTV showed him with a bag that was later found in the reservoir. That was evidence.

I don't know why the gardai are being scrutinised here when they have did an outstanding job and got a conviction.

All true but they knew he didnt live there so that would make him a person of interest.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

All true but they knew he didnt live there so that would make him a person of interest.

But they probably didn't knew who he was until the bag and phones were found.

Sometimes they have to bide their time too.

Arresting him too early can blow a case too or give a suspect time to hide evidence or flee if released without charge.

take everything wrote: »

It does make you wonder though about how much the internet facilitates perversion.

Yeah it's not fashionable to question the roles of porn in shaping thought/behaviour but I found myself not reflexively dismissing my mother's "the internet has them all ruined” mantra when discussing this over the Sunday papers

Time will tell I guess.
Over the next 20 years, I just hope guys growing up with crazier and crazier (read violent, misogynistic stuff) porn will be OK.

The Marquis de Sade was doing this kind of stuff 200 years before the internet.

I don't know why, but I also thought the Gardaí knew of him long before her remains were found.
It appears not.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0327/690272-garda-case-against-graham-dwyer/

They knew from Elaine's computer that his name was Graham.
They also knew he was an architect who was married with children who was disgusted by smoking and interested in expensive cars and flying.
They checked all the airlines and pilots but could not find a match until on the evening of 27 September, Detective Colm Cregan suggested to Detective Jim Mulligan that maybe they should look at people flying model aeroplanes.
Det Cregan thought of this because he had previously seen enthusiasts flying their planes in the Wicklow mountains.

When detectives Mulligan and Cregan checked the website for the Aeronautic Council of Ireland, pieces of the information they had already gathered began to match information on the website.
They found an architect, who was married with two children with a great interest in model planes whose name was Graham.
They called in their sergeant, Peter Woods, who, when he saw what they had found, said: "You might just have something there lads!" They had found Graham Dwyer.
The investigation team first found Graham Dwyer on 27 September, the same day as the officer leading the investigation, their boss, unknown to them all, went with another detective to Dwyer’s home.
It was 5am and the Dwyer family had put their bins out on the footpath to be emptied that day. The two detectives searched Dwyer's bins and found a can of turtlewax. They took it away and sent it for DNA analysis.
A week earlier on 20 September and just three days after the incident room had been set up in Blackrock, Detective Chief Superintendent Diarmuid O'Sullivan received confidential information on Graham Dwyer.

I must have convinced myself that I read somewhere, that they were aware of his existence, but had to wait to find a body..

seamus wrote: »

Really because of this:
Now, it might just be that someone knew Dwyer & O'Hara were having a relationship, but didn't come forward until her remains were identified on 17th September.

But I've had a suspicion that there was more there than Gardai want to let on, for operational reasons.

Iirc, Chief Superintendent O'Sullivan said they had received an anonymous tip off
directing them to GD 'who worked in the Baggot Street area'. Apparently, he had attacked a woman twenty years previously but the incident had not been reported
to the gardaí. As a result of the tip off, O'Sullivan conducted the search of GD's bins
in which they found turtle wax.

sabat wrote: »

Being uber-cynical (and I don't believe this to be true) he should have said that they were just "playing their normal game" but it went wrong and she died and he panicked and covered it up to protect his reputation. Plead guilty to manslaughter and associated charges and he'd be out in 5 years or less. After all, he did have the perfect defence in videos of Ms O'Hara willingly partaking in these activities with him. Like you said, he was such an arrogant disassociated prick that he failed to see the reality of the situation in front of him.

I think that's very simplistic.

I know when the jury were out, there was a lot of doubt in my mind and in the minds of the people I spoke to about the case, as to what the verdict was going to be.

So it wasn't out of the question at all that he was going to get away with it completely.

Laois_Man wrote: »

I think that's very simplistic.

I know when the jury were out, there was a lot of doubt in my mind and in the minds of the people I spoke to about the case, as to what the verdict was going to be.

So it wasn't out of the question at all that he was going to get away with it completely.

I think most people had a gut feeling that he was guilty, but the doubt was to whether or not the case had been proven by the state.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think most people had a gut feeling that he was guilty, but the doubt was to whether or not the case had been proven by the state.

For sure! I was totally convinced he was guilty until some ex-gardai of my acquaintance
were saying that he would walk as most of the evidence was circumstantial! The
thought that such a vile creature as GD might be free to do the same to other women
horrified me. The instructions which the excellent Justice Tony Hunt gave the
jury re circumstantial evidence gave me some hope, but, until the jury came in with
the guilty verdict, I had feared it might have gone either way. In this case, the law
served the people very well!!