Graham Dwyer Verdict..

[captaincork]

The judge has brought the jury back to court because he said he glossed over items yesterday and wants to go back to them.

 

[Green Rebel]

I think he'll walk away from this a wiser man.

Which will make him even more dangerous...

 

[Green Rebel]

Apparently the foreperson of the jury asked 'what charge must they find Dwyer guilty of'. Not sure what that means besides that there is at least one tard on the panel, but it may be a precursor to the delivery of a guilty verdict if read one way.

This could be grounds for an appeal in the event of a conviction I'd say.. The very fact that at least one, if not more, of the jurors didn't actually know what he was being tried for surely means that he didn't get a fair trial...

 

[Matlock]

So, the foreman wasn't sure what the charge was?

This cannot be true.

Surely....

I would rather the foreman ask the question than proceed on the basis of not quite understanding something.

I would imagine that s/he was trying to get confirmation as to whether they could convict on a lesser charge like manslaughter.

 

[Mick Lyons]

That possibility occurred to me as well. Even supposing Dwyer did kill her, has it been proved he intended to?
If the jury are not convinced that this has been proved, would he have to be found not guilty, since he was specifically charged with murder?

He seemed to really want to kill her though.

 

[Killyoursons]

He seemed to really want to kill her though.

Maybe. Or it was a sexual fantasy which he wanted to act out without actually intending to kill anyone.

 

[Pontipine]

Maybe. Or it was a sexual fantasy which he wanted to act out without actually intending to kill anyone.

But she did end up dead all the same. Coincidence?

 

[SoundMan]

There's no doubt he had wierd fantasies, and there are some out there that fantasise some wierd sh*t but that of itself isn't a crime. Even if it's proved (all looks circumstantial so far) that he was the other person involved, then his defence might suggest that he'd done this kind of thing on numerous occasions with consent before, and that it all just went wrong on this occasion so charging with murder mightn't be appropriate. Then again it might be exactly the right thing.

Not defending him but just don't think it's quite as clear cut as some seem to think

 

[Henri LeHat]

There's no doubt he had wierd fantasies, and there are some out there that fantasise some wierd sh*t but that of itself isn't a crime. Even if it's proved (all looks circumstantial so far) that he was the other person involved, then his defence might suggest that he'd done this kind of thing on numerous occasions with consent before, and that it all just went wrong on this occasion so charging with murder mightn't be appropriate. Then again it might be exactly the right thing.

Not defending him but just don't think it's quite as clear cut as some seem to think

His defence has made their case, lad.
It's up to the jury now. Charge: murder. Guilty or not guilty. Nothing more to it.

 

[Killyoursons]

But she did end up dead all the same. Coincidence?

Perhaps. He might have not intended to kill her but done so by accident, panicked and tried to cover it up.
That's not what his defence have said happened, but my question was that if the prosecution couldn't rule it out, would that mean that he would be found not guilty of murder, even though he would have been guilty of manslaughter?