Graham Dwyer court case *READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING*

I'm guessing it was a misquote, or taken completely out of context as an example of forensic evidence not always being needed.

Stheno wrote: »

I thought it was downright bizarre as an employee of the state but her premise is correct they had nothing on the evidence from the body

I also thought he would be acquitted

But he wasn't convicted on the pathologists evidence he was convicted on a host of other circumstancial evidence. I had no doubdt that he was guilty and would be convicted.

Graham Dwyer wasn't and couldnt have been found guilty based on medical evidence since the medical evidence was inconclusive.

There was only a skeleton left, and no evidence of wounds to the skeleton. We think she was stabbed to death, but there is no actual proof of that.

Don't see how anything Marie Cassidy says could affect any appeal.

As regards State Pathologist Marie Cassidy, she was giving a lecture "to staff medical students at the Post Graduate Centre at University Hospital Limerick, [and afterwards] Professor Cassidy described the case as "fascinating" when she was asked her medical opinion of the two month trial that gripped the nation.

The State pathologist recalled examining the remains of Elaine O'Hara's along with her other colleagues.

"We knew there was no pathology evidence to support anything so it came to what other evidence did they have, and it's up to them to make a case and to present this case, and if they think the case is going to stand up in court then the DPP will go ahead with it.

"In that case, I thought no, they will not go ahead with it... and then when we were waiting for the verdict coming in I said, it has to be not guilty, " she admitted."


Technically it was public, but it was in a rather specific set of circumstances, to students who might in the future be faced with similar situations. It was probably inappropriate to comment on a case that still had to go for appeal, but I can see how it happened. If she was asked "Did you think that he wouldn't be convicted given there wasn't enough evidence left to show cause of death?", probably the best thing to say would be something along the lines of "I can't comment on that", but then again, that would have been picked up too. "State Pathologist refuses to comment on whether her lack of evidence means Graham Dwyer was guilty" or words to that effect.

Eh. I don't see it making much difference in the long run.

An opinion expressed by anyone when they're not under cross-examination or Garda questioning would not be admissible as evidence.

Assuming Dr. Cassidy didn't write the article, then it's legally little more than hearsay.

At the end of the interview with Adrian Kennedy on 98 FM, she burst out crying saying that she is sad because her mom died of stomach cancer in 2007 - which was completely out of context of the whole convo. What a bizarre person altogether!