O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

finlma

Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Seems like a fair decision to me.

impr0v

unsurprised.

gimmick

Glad of this verdict. I honestly dont think there was any malice intended on O Donoghues part. Certainly he could have come forward quicker, and not wasted everyones time, but how does one act in a crisis? I dont think, and i hope, no one here ever has to make such a decision.

Stephen

Sounds like a rational decision to me too. Any word on sentencing?

Dellgirl

Have the family of the boy commented yet?

I agree with the verdict. I would hope he will get a stiff sentense for trying to mislead everyone and attempting to burn the poor kids body.

fischerspooner

I'm also glad he's not being done for murder. I wonder why? I think it's because I like the look of the guy, he doesn't look evil. If it were some scumbag looking bloke who did it we'd be up in arms that he wasn't done for murder. Like imagine if that bloke who got 9 years the other day did this crime, he had such a horrible head on him that we'd all want him executed. It's amazing what a good appearance, being a student, and having a pretty girlfriend can do for you.

Royale with Cheese

fischerspooner wrote:

I'm also glad he's not being done for murder. I wonder why? I think it's because I like the look of the guy, he doesn't look evil. If it were some scumbag looking bloke who did it we'd be up in arms that he wasn't done for murder. Like imagine if that bloke who got 9 years the other day did this crime, he had such a horrible head on him that we'd all want him executed. It's amazing what a good appearance, being a student, and having a pretty girlfriend can do for you.

To be honest I'd say it's the other way round. It's amazing what looking like a complete scumbag will do for you.

hullaballoo

Verdict is spot on as far as I'm concerned.

Font22

i'm glad with the decision. like some of you said it doesnt appear that there was any malice involved, just a freak set of circumstances that sadly ended in the little boys death

delly

I felt the murder charge would have been the right one tbh. I'm aware that in order to be convicted of murder there needs to be intent, and there was none in this case, but i also don't see this as an accident. Seems to me that some form of rage took over him, but i don't see the death as being accidental, more of an impulsive action.

Just an opinion, not an expert etc.

yermandan

Its a horrible situation that is nearly impossible to imagine being in IMO.I agree that the verdict is a responsible one.

As regards his appearance and the fact that he is a student going in his favour,these things are always taken into account whether(sp) we like it or not.I mean it is a jury of his peers that is deciding and his past record and also his present state of affairs are very important when building a picture of his character.

So I hope he learns from his mistake and I am sure that he will be made suffer many times while serving his time in prison...

Elmo

Yes this was the right verdict.

Two families have been destroyed by this.

While in the first instance he did the wrong thing by trying to cover up the boys death.

His admission guilt was nice to see.

He will never get rid of that kind of Guilt.

i also don't this as an accident

I think guys forget how strong they are, I know I do. We can do alot of damage without thinking we can. And I think that is what happened in this case.

Mr Jinx

Stephen wrote:

Sounds like a rational decision to me too. Any word on sentencing?

Will not be sentenced until january,

Atrocity

fair decision, hopefully everyone concerned can get on with their lives. well, after the sentencing.

nesf

fischerspooner wrote:

I'm also glad he's not being done for murder. I wonder why? I think it's because I like the look of the guy, he doesn't look evil. If it were some scumbag looking bloke who did it we'd be up in arms that he wasn't done for murder. Like imagine if that bloke who got 9 years the other day did this crime, he had such a horrible head on him that we'd all want him executed. It's amazing what a good appearance, being a student, and having a pretty girlfriend can do for you.

It's also amazing the difference between an accident and a drug fuelled crime spree tbh.

Elmo

It's also amazing the difference between an accident and a drug fuelled crime spree tbh.

Not really.

The sentance will he handed down. What is the maximum he can get?

it really did seem like a fair sentence.

embee

delly wrote:

I felt the murder charge would have been the right one tbh. I'm aware that in order to be convicted of murder there needs to be intent, and there was none in this case, but i also don't see this as an accident. Seems to me that some form of rage took over him, but i don't see the death as being accidental, more of an impulsive action.

Just an opinion, not an expert etc.

That is why he was convicted of manslaughter, and not murder. There was no intent, pure and simple. Nothing about this was pre-meditated. Okay, some sort of rage flew over him and he wasn't thinking rationally, but it wasn't murder.

It was the right verdict, but everyone's a loser in this situation. I feel sorry for him, tbh. He's got to live with what he's done for the rest of his life, and that won't be easy at all.

Mr.Nice Guy

embee wrote:

That is why he was convicted of manslaughter, and not murder. There was no intent, pure and simple. Nothing about this was pre-meditated. Okay, some sort of rage flew over him and he wasn't thinking rationally, but it wasn't murder.

He was surprisingly calm afterwards though for someone who had 'some sort of rage' fly over him.

Wayne O’Donoghue took an active part in the search for Robert Holohan after his disappearance – and even reacted angrily to gardaí about delays.

It was only 12 days after Robert’s death that he confessed to killing the boy. Hours after the death, Wayne O’Donoghue was phoning a friend and asking could he think of anywhere Robert could be.

Today at the Central Criminal Court, the prosecution pieced together the words and actions of Wayne O’Donoghue from January 4 to his confession on January 16.

They did this through fragments of conversations and observations recalled by friends, neighbours and gardaí, and a number of early statements that the accused made to the gardaí.

O’Donoghue, aged 21, of Ballyedmond, Midleton, County Cork, admits manslaughter but denies murder of the eleven-year-old.

Detective Sergeant Brian Goulding recalled being approached by the accused at a search control point in the East Cork golf club. “He stated to me in an aggressive manner that an hour’s daylight was being lost by the time everyone was briefed and deployed. I explained we had to brief gardaí and army before we briefed others. He was not happy with my reply. He turned and walked away.”

The detective said the accused returned to the control point a number of times and looked at the map to see what areas had been searched and were pencilled in for further searching.

Inspector Martin Dorney also described an occasion where Wayne O’Donoghue and his brother approached him on another occasion when the search had to be called off because of harsh weather. Wayne O’Donoghue complained that the search should continue elsewhere.

Responding to a door to door questionnaire, the accused said that Robert called to his house at 2.15pm that day, and he filled in further details in a formal garda statement on January 5.

“At 2.15, I was returning home. Just after getting in the door home, Robert Holohan knocked at the front door. He asked me would I bring him to McDonald’s to get a chocolate milkshake. I said no. He said why. I said because traffic was too heavy.

"He got narky with me and said ‘Don’t be such an asshole’. I was in a bit of a mood myself and I told him to **** off. He said fine and went off on his bike,” Wayne O’Donoghue said in his first formal statement.

Andrew O’Callaghan and a friend were involved in the search and they met Wayne O’Donoghue in a field. Mr O’Callaghan recalled that O’Donoghue asked if they thought Robert was dead or abducted. They replied that they thought he was abducted.

“He (Wayne O’Donoghue) said he had a fight with him the night he went missing. He said he was a neighbour. He said Robert came over and asked to bring him to McDonald’s. He said he couldn’t, he was studying. He said Robert was throwing stones at the window… I clicked on to what he was saying. I said, ‘Did you kill him?’ He didn’t open his mouth after that,” Mr O’Callaghan said.

Tim Leahy was in his van during the search on January 12 a short time before Robert’s body was found. He said O’Donoghue was asking questions about the search.

“I thought if he was that interested he should have been on the search. It made me a bit uneasy, a bit uncomfortable,” Mr Leahy said. It was only afterwards he realised it was Wayne O’Donoghue.

http://www.thepost.ie/breakingnews/breaking_story.asp?j=70349692&p=7x349994&n=70350072&x=

It seems very dodgy to me.

BoozyBabe

Elmo wrote:

What is the maximum he can get?

Apparently it was said yesterday that the sentence can range anywhere from a suspended sentence to a maximum of life.

It will depend on how the judge weighs it up after taking all aspects of the case into account

delly

embee wrote:

That is why he was convicted of manslaughter, and not murder. There was no intent, pure and simple. Nothing about this was pre-meditated. Okay, some sort of rage flew over him and he wasn't thinking rationally, but it wasn't murder.

It was the right verdict, but everyone's a loser in this situation. I feel sorry for him, tbh. He's got to live with what he's done for the rest of his life, and that won't be easy at all.

While i agree that there is no intent, i also feel calling it an accident is wrong as well. Once you cross the line of getting physical with someone, you are knowingly causing them harm, and must suffer the conseqences.

Imagine that he didn't kill him, but caused him serious harm. I'm sure that the charge would be serious assault as oppossed to accidential assault. Ok i know that this type of charge doesn't exist, but its just to illustrate a point.

Maybe we should have a sytem different degrees of murder similar to America:

In general, murder in the first degree involves a deliberate, premeditated design to cause the death of the person; murder in the second degree involves the intent to cause death, but without premeditation and deliberation. Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree

arac

A fair verdict, the best that could have been hoped for. He was not a murderer,and think everyone at the back of it all knew that.. I sat in in alot of that case, and to see the two families, both the Hoolahans and the O' Donoghues, and how destroyed they both were was just so heart breaking..I know the Hoolahan's little boy is never coming back but the O Donughue's have also lost their son..

lukin

fischerspooner wrote:

It's amazing what a good appearance, being a student, and having a pretty girlfriend can do for you.

I think that's a bit insulting to the jury to be honest. I know my opinion wouldn't be swung by something like that anyway.
I'd say it was the state pathologists evidence that had the biggest bearing. She basically said there was no evidence of a struggle and it was an accidental death. But I think he should get the full manslaughter term (however long that is) because he didn't come forward sooner.

arac

I would imagine that he will get somewhere between 4-6 years. Carney the judge who heard the case, also heard the Nally case and gave him six years for manslaughter;a case which demonstrated alot more intent in my opinion..ie. the farmer going back into the house and reloading the shot gun etc..
The thing that will probably go against Wayne the most will be his cover up and it will remain to be seen how much the judge will take this into account when passing sentence

jor el

Am I the only one who thinks that 4-6 years for killing a child is just not enough? How is this fair. The guy covered up what he had done for days. He even consoled the parents of the boy and assured them he'd be found, when he knew damn well that he was dead.

There may not have been any intent on O'Donoghue's part but he still strangled a boy and then covered up what he did, hoping to get away with murder as it were.

I personally don't see this as a fair verdict.

Sully

delly wrote:

I felt the murder charge would have been the right one tbh. I'm aware that in order to be convicted of murder there needs to be intent, and there was none in this case, but i also don't see this as an accident. Seems to me that some form of rage took over him, but i don't see the death as being accidental, more of an impulsive action.

And may I point out what you just said does not imply that it was intent? Im not sure what your trying to point out, you said it wasnt an accident but your argument for that point makes it out to be just that - an accident. This rage wasnt the normal "him" - hence it being an accident.

I dont think he intended to kill him. I dont think he woke up saying "Im going to kill that boy today" or when he started throwing stones I dont think he said "Im going out and im going to murder that child and burn his body" etc. The child started throwing stones at his house, and he was probably rude and annoying the feck out of your man, so he went out and got him in a head lock and hurt him so badly it killed him. It was a bloody accident! Im not saying what he did was right, but I can see (and we all should) why it happened.

Ill never really understand why he gave out about the search and was asking people I wonder where he is etc. I just think he wasnt him full self. Looked it, but then he just broke down. What would you do in that situation? It makes it look bad, espicaly trying to burn his body. Im supprised the verdict wasnt a tough one to reach - but I guess they had to judge on the events that happened to his death and not focus on what happened after it. I think what happened after it will be taken into consideration for his sentence.

A jail sentence would do much good to him. He needs anger management or some form of councelling.

delly

Sully04 wrote:

And may I point out what you just said does not imply that it was intent? Im not sure what your trying to point out, you said it wasnt an accident but your argument for that point makes it out to be just that - an accident. This rage wasnt the normal "him" - hence it being an accident.

As i said, i know there was no intent, but this is what our law requires. I'm simply saying that i don't see it as an accident ethier, in the same way if a drunk driver kills somebody while knowingly being over the limit. If you put yourself in a position knowing that your actions could have a negative effect on another person, then i don't see the end results as accidental, but that you are responsible. Again i know this is not the legal view, but just a laymans opinion.

hullaballoo

Sully04 wrote:

A jail sentence would do much good to him. He needs anger management or some form of councelling.

Nah, I'm not so sure. I mean, I reckon it's the type of thing that could happen to anyone. I'd imagine he was resonably annoyed by the boy throwing stones at his car etc so he probably just went out intending to get the message across that it wasn't on.

As someone already said, he probably didn't know his own strength and , unfortunately a boy lost his life.

His barrister said that the subsequent reaction was a result of the "special relationship he had with Robert", it was as if he just freaked out when he realised what he had done, which is fair enough. If any of you people killed one of your good friends, I hope that you'd freak out a bit too.

I'd say he'll need counselling, but only to deal with the guilt that will follow him for the rest of his life.

http://www.campus.ie/user?cmd=item-detail&itemid=100003

As the van drove off, a well-dressed pensioner rapped the side of the van, crying out: "Wayne, we pray for you, boy."

To be perfectly honest, if pensioners in a small country town like Middleton are willing to accept this as a tragedy, and an accident, then that's good testament to O' Connor's character to my mind.

jimmycrackcorm

jor el wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that 4-6 years for killing a child is just not enough? How is this fair. The guy covered up what he had done for days. He even consoled the parents of the boy and assured them he'd be found, when he knew damn well that he was dead.

There may not have been any intent on O'Donoghue's part but he still strangled a boy and then covered up what he did, hoping to get away with murder as it were.

I personally don't see this as a fair verdict.

I think you must be the only one...

What I don't understand is why it was tried as a murder case as very clearly from the outset this was a case of manslaughter rather than murder. After all these were two very good friends. I think that what appears to be most upsetting is the cover-up after the killing and that is what was used to justify the charge of murder.

Had he phoned for an ambulance straight away - would you still feel that the verdict was incorrect?

this verdict arises directly from how Robert was killed, not from what happened afterwards.

Who knows how any of us might react after such an event - once you take the first wrong action then it naturally leads to a worsening set of events.

I'd imagine his sentence should be the same as if he was a drunk driver who knocked someone down. He should also receive an additional sentence for the cover up.

Angels

He wasted alot of peoples time. All these people from midleton & other villages around the area joined in the search for the boy even O'Donoghue joined in aswell. He was even on a clip from RTE news helping to search for the poor boy and all along he knew where he was now that to me is not only sick but murder. He let all those people search for the boy & all along he knew where he was, he should also have been brought up for wasting time of the people around these areas that spent long days searching for the boy.

It's only fair.

Andy-Pandy

Angels wrote:

He was even on a clip from RTE news helping to search for the poor boy and all along he knew where he was now that to me is not only sick but murder.

.

Murder,surely, is the act of killing someone, not the act of searching for the body. I agree with the verdict, it was just something that just seemed to happen, very sad, very tragic, but not premeditated. As for his trying to cover up the body, who can say how they would react in such a situation.

Angels

Andy-Pandy wrote:

Murder,surely, is the act of killing someone, not the act of searching for the body. I agree with the verdict, it was just something that just seemed to happen, very sad, very tragic, but not premeditated. As for his trying to cover up the body, who can say how they would react in such a situation.

I agree with some of wat you said, but im not saying that how he killed Robert was murder, that was manslaughter clearly. Im stating that after the accident he reacted very calmly & searched for him aswell, maybe murder is the wrong word to use but im sure some people here will know what i mean.

seamus

Andy-Pandy wrote:

As for his trying to cover up the body, who can say how they would react in such a situation.

Indeed.
From the different quotations given over the course of the search it would seem that O'Donoghue initially wanted the body to be found, as soon as possible - perhaps so that he may either be caught, or perhaps in his mind that would give closure, it would all be over. As the days wore on, and he had more time to think about what he'd done, he became increasingly worried a) that they wouldn't find the body and b) about what was going to happen to him when they did. I'm sure he was also seeing the community's grief growing, and it was having a profound effect on him.

This would all seem to fit into his testimony that his final plan was to recover the body and commit suicide - clearly he'd realised what effect he'd had on the family and the community, but couldn't see any way out of it, so that was the only way of giving closure to everyone.

As said, who knows what they'd do in the situation - you briefly lose the rag, and next thing you're standing over the dead body of a young friend...what do you do?

LegacyUser

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

this verdict arises directly from how Robert was killed, not from what happened afterwards.

Exactamundo....

IMO this is one of the few, recent examples of a jury, the legal profession, and (it remains to be seen with the sentencing) the judiciary, using some common sense...

Sully

delly wrote:

As i said, i know there was no intent, but this is what our law requires. I'm simply saying that i don't see it as an accident ethier, in the same way if a drunk driver kills somebody while knowingly being over the limit. If you put yourself in a position knowing that your actions could have a negative effect on another person, then i don't see the end results as accidental, but that you are responsible. Again i know this is not the legal view, but just a laymans opinion.

Completley different.

People who drink-drive know before hand the risks. Its not a "snap" decission. They went to the pub knowing they were gonna drink and then drive home. They didnt go to the pub and suddenly change / snap and start turning into a big alcho and drive home etc.

With this guy, the kid was throwing stones and his window and wouldnt leave him alone - he didnt think "Will I get him in a headlock and warn him of" or "Will I just leave him be". I think he snapped and just went for him not realising or thinking. He couldnt of considered it, it just happened.

Two completley different points. Not related

Sully

Angels wrote:

He wasted alot of peoples time. All these people from midleton & other villages around the area joined in the search for the boy even O'Donoghue joined in aswell. He was even on a clip from RTE news helping to search for the poor boy and all along he knew where he was now that to me is not only sick but murder. He let all those people search for the boy & all along he knew where he was, he should also have been brought up for wasting time of the people around these areas that spent long days searching for the boy.

It's only fair.

and I suppose if you killed a good friend in a freak accident you would be good and run and call 999 and admit u killed him straight away?

Fair play to you, must be a strong person!

Sully

seamus wrote:

Indeed.
From the different quotations given over the course of the search it would seem that O'Donoghue initially wanted the body to be found, as soon as possible - perhaps so that he may either be caught, or perhaps in his mind that would give closure, it would all be over. As the days wore on, and he had more time to think about what he'd done, he became increasingly worried a) that they wouldn't find the body and b) about what was going to happen to him when they did. I'm sure he was also seeing the community's grief growing, and it was having a profound effect on him.

This would all seem to fit into his testimony that his final plan was to recover the body and commit suicide - clearly he'd realised what effect he'd had on the family and the community, but couldn't see any way out of it, so that was the only way of giving closure to everyone.

As said, who knows what they'd do in the situation - you briefly lose the rag, and next thing you're standing over the dead body of a young friend...what do you do?

Very good point. Are you involved as a laywer in this case? :P

hullaballoo

Angels wrote:

He wasted alot of peoples time...now that to me is not only sick but murder...It's only fair.

Wtf?

Teller

ronoc wrote:

I agree with the verdict. I would hope he will get a stiff sentense for trying to mislead everyone and attempting to burn the poor kids body.

I agree with that.

delly

Sully04 wrote:

With this guy, the kid was throwing stones and his window and wouldnt leave him alone - he didnt think "Will I get him in a headlock and warn him of" or "Will I just leave him be". I think he snapped and just went for him not realising or thinking. He couldnt of considered it, it just happened.

We all make decisions in this world, so maybe he did decide he would sort him out by roughing him up. He could have also let it be and stayed indoors.

A drink driver does so with the knowledge that his actions may result in somebodies injury or death. O'Donoghue made a decision conscious or rage filled to physically attack this boy. Are you saying that there was no decision made? do you think that a temporary insanity plea would make more sense if it was 'rage filled'?

I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but the whole Anabel's killing was another case that i feel should have been a murder case instead of manslaughter. I repeat the fact that i know its not the law, just my opinion, but if you put yourself in a position like that where you make a snap reaction or decision that results in somebodies death, then your responsible 100%.

I respect your opinion Sully, and it seems to be in the majority, but i just see things as black and white.

whiskeyman

ronoc wrote:

I would hope he will get a stiff sentense for trying to mislead everyone and attempting to burn the poor kids body.

I'm pretty sure evidence in this case was that he never tried to burn the body.
Can you please give evidence / links to back your point?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sgB56iGMynE-ksglO-LCk0lQvU.asp

Examiner article wrote:

Although Dr Cassidy found evidence during her post-mortem examination of fire damage to Robert's clothing, she found no evidence of burn marks to the body

Sully

delly wrote:

We all make decisions in this world, so maybe he did decide he would sort him out by roughing him up. He could have also let it be and stayed indoors.

A drink driver does so with the knowledge that his actions may result in somebodies injury or death. O'Donoghue made a decision conscious or rage filled to physically attack this boy. Are you saying that there was no decision made? do you think that a temporary insanity plea would make more sense if it was 'rage filled'?

I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but the whole Anabel's killing was another case that i feel should have been a murder case instead of manslaughter. I repeat the fact that i know its not the law, just my opinion, but if you put yourself in a position like that where you make a snap reaction or decision that results in somebodies death, then your responsible 100%.

I respect your opinion Sully, and it seems to be in the majority, but i just see things as black and white.

I think he kind of went a bit "odd" which made him loose his mind temporarily. Hence, he had no control over his actions.

A drink driver is FULLY aware of his/her decision to go drinking and drive home. They dont loose their mind and then drive.

Thats the difference if your arguing from the majoritys point - ODon was temporraily insane pretty much and had no clue what he was doing.

From your point of view - He was fully sane and new full well what he was going to do.

I just dont think your view seems right, based on the facts of the case.

Sully

whiskeyman wrote:

I'm pretty sure evidence in this case was that he never tried to burn the body.
Can you please give evidence / links to back your point?

There was an attempt to burn the bag he was wrapped in, apparently.

jimmycrackcorm

Sully04 wrote:

People who drink-drive know before hand the risks. Its not a "snap" decission. They went to the pub knowing they were gonna drink and then drive home. They didnt go to the pub and suddenly change / snap and start turning into a big alcho and drive home etc.

Not necessarily - you can go to the pub with the intention of leaving your car there - get drunk , look for a taxi, wait, then because your are drunk decide to drive home. Something you would never dream of doing when sober.

BuffyBot

As said, who knows what they'd do in the situation - you briefly lose the rag, and next thing you're standing over the dead body of a young friend...what do you do?

Indeed. It's all very well to be logical and sensible from our distant viewpoint (both temporal and physical) - but when there, at that moment in time things would be vastly different.

delly

Sully04 wrote:

Thats the difference if your arguing from the majoritys point - ODon was temporraily insane pretty much and had no clue what he was doing.

Obviously he didn't know that he was killing the boy, but i believe he knew that he was causing him physical harm. On the basis of temporary insanity being a reason, in that case maybe he shouldn't have stood trial at all then?

delly

BuffyBot wrote:

Indeed. It's all very well to be logical and sensible from our distant viewpoint (both temporal and physical) - but when there, at that moment in time things would be vastly different.

But would this not be the case in all murder/manslaughter trials? The heat of the moment is something that cannot be recreated in any courtroom. Even in premedetated murders you would still have to form your opinions from a distance.

BuffyBot

But would this not be the case in all murder/manslaughter trials? The heat of the moment is something that cannot be recreated in any courtroom. Even in premedetated murders you would still have to form your opinions from a distance.

Which is where defence/prosecution legal professionals come in to it - they do their best to extrapolate and explain what happened for the benefit of the jury, building up a complex web of back-story and fact. However, on here we have a few armchair pundits going "burn the witch"..

Oral Slang

I agree with the decision too - I remember years ago, my brothers having dreadful fights - one would have been around 13, the other 18.. In the heat of the moment, who knows what could have happened with them or with many other teenage fights.
Also, after watching a fair few programmes on kids with ADHD, I can only imagine the temper tantrums that Robert was prone to!

delly

BuffyBot wrote:

Which is where defence/prosecution legal professionals come in to it - they do their best to extrapolate and explain what happened for the benefit of the jury, building up a complex web of back-story and fact. However, on here we have a few armchair pundits going "burn the witch"..

Well this isn't a legal forum, so i think its a bit rash to describe the people who disagree with the verdict, in the way that you have done so. I never claimed to be an expert, and have said that my view would not be in keeping with the legal view.