I think the whole case is shady. He may well be guilty, but there is zero hard evidence. None.
Yeah, no murder weapon, no DNA linking him to murder. All circumstantial evidence.
That he was proven to be a creep/UUCOAM from his texts to the victim and his phone placed him in the area she was last seen alive was enough to convict him.
If the phone stuff is to be disregarded in any possible retrial the rest of the case looks flimsy enough, as far as I can see.
It was the mobile phone data that put Joe O’Reilly away too. Not an ounce of physical evidence linking him to that murder either.
Is Joe O’Reliiy from Cork?
No, but he is also a weirdo.
1 Like
Ah shtap
And that he had sent her thousands of messages outlining how he fantasized about murdering her in the exact way she died
Yeah, but as I said there is no hard evidence linking him to the murder. Just a load of texts threatening stuff.
No witness, no confession, no DNA linking him to a crime scene or weapon, nothing. Guilty as sin IMO but it’s all circumstantial.
1 Like
He was only coddin I’d say.
The jury had it in for Carkies
It’s not all phone stuff that could possibly be discounted. It’s just the metadata stuff relating to phone locations, call times etc. The text messages would still be admisable I’d say.
in what context are phone locations and call times metadata?
a phone location is presumably coordinates - which is data
a call time is date/time - which is data.
metadata describes information about data
What does metadata of an email contain?
data about the email.
Yes, the same with mobile phone metadata, it’s data about the call. I don’t get your point.
why is it not admissable?
EU law
why though?
because it’s processed?
Read the article
1 Like
It’s nothing to do with GDPR, it’s specific EU law around the retention of mobile phone metadata
it relates to how the data was attained