O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

It wasn't me!

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

PeakOutput

Boggles wrote: »

In my opinion, this lad got off very lightly for what he did. You don't have to be Matlock to see that.

you see thats the only part of what your saying that I cant agree with you are fully entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to imply that people who dont share your opinion are somehow automatically less intelligent than you.

you make it sound like your point of view that he got a light sentence should be a given. some sort of standard at which every other point should originate and if you do not believe that then you are a fool.

while i dont necessarily believe you are doing it consiously it seems to be an inherent problem of dealing with matters like this subjectively and not objectively

Dudess

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

Careful now.

Boggles

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Nope, not really what I said at all. I'm sure there's somewhere in the Education category that'll direct you where to go to learn to read.

Haha!

Beelzebub

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, if you knocked a child down in a car accident, would you call yourself a child killer?

If the child died as a result, others namely the child's family probably would.

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

you see thats the only part of what your saying that I cant agree with you are fully entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to imply that people who dont share your opinion are somehow automatically less intelligent than you.

you make it sound like your point of view that he got a light sentence should be a given. some sort of standard at which every other point should originate and if you do not believe that then you are a fool.

while i dont necessarily believe you are doing it consiously it seems to be an inherent problem of dealing with matters like this subjectively and not objectively

Think you took the Matlock line up wrong, I wasn't the one saying you needed a law degree to have an opinion.

Okay Objectively, he got a light sentance.

Subjectively he got a light sentance.

Standing on my head, He got a light sentance!

PeakOutput

Boggles wrote: »

Okay Objectively, he got a light sentance.

show me why and saying anyone can see its a light sentence is not an objective argument

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

show me why and saying anyone can see its a light sentence is not an objective argument

Didn't say 'anyone', It''s my opinion, I'm not speaking for anyone else.

As far as show you, I don't think I need to do this, read my previouse posts for the past week.

PeakOutput

just because you didnt use the word anyone does not mean that is not what you were implying.


I have not seen one verifiable fact from the he got a light sentence side all iv seen is feelings. I am asking you to show me one verifiable fact that implies he got a light sentence or one verifiable and uncounterable fact that the judge in question is unfit to decide the sentence in the case(or any case for that matter).

for the record im bed bound till sunday that is why im still here debating away i cant stand to watch day time tv and iv already watched 4 films today.

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

just because you didnt use the word anyone does not mean that is not what you were implying.


I have not seen one verifiable fact from the he got a light sentence side all iv seen is feelings. I am asking you to show me one verifiable fact that implies he got a light sentence or one verifiable and uncounterable fact that the judge in question is unfit to decide the sentence in the case(or any case for that matter).

for the record im bed bound till sunday that is why im still here debating away i cant stand to watch day time tv and iv already watched 4 films today.

Sorry to hear of you illness.

How about the fact that he could have got life for what he did. From that fact alone 3 years is light.

PeakOutput

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry to hear of you illness.

How about the fact that he could have got life for what he did. From that fact alone 3 years is light.

you can get life for driving threw a stop sign and causing an accident that kills someone. in reality you generally would not even get convicted of manslaughter but it is possible, does that mean that any sentence(if any) is light as it is possible under statute to get life?

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

you can get life for driving threw a stop sign and causing an accident that kills someone. in reality you generally would not even get convicted of manslaughter but it is possible, does that mean that any sentence(if any) is light as it is possible under statute to get life?

Stop comparing the case to a traffic accident.

Facts.

1. He killed him with his bare hands, rising out of anger.
2. He hid and tried to burn the body.
3. He assured the childs mother the boy would be found alright.

In my opinion, 4 years is a joke, serving 3. Now whether that is coming from my heart or my head it doesn't matter. I'm not a robot.

Beelzebub

Speaking of light sentences and the 'wisdom' of a certain Justice:

"The Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that a Central Criminal Court judge erred in principle when he imposed a non-custodial sentence on a man found guilty of rape."

PeakOutput

Boggles wrote: »

In my opinion, 4 years is a joke, serving 3. Now whether that is coming from my heart or my head it doesn't matter. I'm not a robot.

grand we have to agree to disagree then which was always the inevitable outcome of the thread anyway


edit; im suprised you kept responding as long as you did tbh

Beelzebub

Whether Robert Holohan was accidently killed or murdered intentionally by Wayne O'Donoghue, we will never know, we can never know because we weren't there.
We have to accept the verdict of the jury who found Wayne O'Donoghue guilty of manslaughter. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for his family to accept this.

What is difficult to accept for a lot of people and myself included is the leniency of the sentencing.

It doesn't seem just, even if it is the law ,that is to say the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

It wasn't me!

Boggles wrote: »

How about the fact that he could have got life for what he did. From that fact alone 3 years is light.

It's also possible to get a suspended sentence for manslaughter, and from that point of view, four years (not three, he was sentenced to four) is a long time, so what's your point?

Boggles

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's also possible to get a suspended sentence for manslaughter, and from that point of view, four years (not three, he was sentenced to four) is a long time, so what's your point?

It wasn't long enough.

It wasn't me!

So what do you think is a suitable sentence for manslaughter? And why?

Boggles

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So what do you think is a suitable sentence for manslaughter? And why?

This case, the maximum, Why? It's been discussed to death already.

Boggles

Where's PeakOutput Gone, the quiter!

PeakOutput

ah dont drag me back in we agreed to disagree

i actually went to watch a few good men which was in the unusual bracket of great films i havnt seen. i'll warn you though after watching that i am actually qualified in law and therefore legally allowed to pass irrefutable judgement on this debate.

as that is the case i submit that i am in fact correct, why? because thats what i believe

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

ah dont drag me back in we agreed to disagree

i actually went to watch a few good men which was in the unusual bracket of great films i havnt seen. i'll warn you though after watching that i am actually qualified in law and therefore legally allowed to pass irrefutable judgement on this debate.

as that is the case i submit that i am in fact correct, why? because thats what i believe

You Can't Handle the Truth!!

It wasn't me!

Actually, here's a better question: What do you consider a fair sentence, in light of the charges he had made against him, and of the crime of which he was convicted, and of the information that was accepted in court? I mean, if you're trying to say you don't accept the information in the trial, then just stop arguing, open your private detective business and make up the law that way. Otherwise, use the information as it was given in court, and the crimes he was in fact convicted of, and separate them from your conjecture, then decide, and give a decent explanation why it shouldn't be lower.

PeakOutput

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Actually, here's a better question: What do you consider a fair sentence, in light of the charges he had made against him, and of the crime of which he was convicted, and of the information that was accepted in court? I mean, if you're trying to say you don't accept the information in the trial, then just stop arguing, open your private detective business and make up the law that way. Otherwise, use the information as it was given in court, and the crimes he was in fact convicted of, and separate them from your conjecture, then decide, and give a decent explanation why it shouldn't be lower.

your not going to convince him/her and thats ok. the world does need people who think with their hearts and personalise things to balance out the other side of things.


luckily we dont let them run countries just like we dont let socialists / anarchists / communists run countries either

Boggles

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Actually, here's a better question: What do you consider a fair sentence, in light of the charges he had made against him, and of the crime of which he was convicted, and of the information that was accepted in court? I mean, if you're trying to say you don't accept the information in the trial, then just stop arguing, open your private detective business and make up the law that way. Otherwise, use the information as it was given in court, and the crimes he was in fact convicted of, and separate them from your conjecture, then decide, and give a decent explanation why it shouldn't be lower.

Okay I will stop talking to you now, because I'm dizzy going around in circles with you.

From purely the trial, the only thing I have been basing my opinion on, He should have got the maximum sentence. Okay? Got that

It wasn't me!

He should get the maximum for what was accepted by a court as an entirely accidental killing? Best of luck with that. That would mean there should be no degrees of sentencing for manslaughter. Nice to know it incurs a mandatory life sentence when you're in charge. Here's a thought: If you feel so damn strongly, are you going to write a letter to your local Dail and Seanad representatives to try and have the legislature change it? If not, you should really hold your tongue here as well.

Boggles

PeakOutput wrote: »

your not going to convince him/her and thats ok. the world does need people who think with their hearts and personalise things to balance out the other side of things.


luckily we dont let them run countries just like we dont let socialists / anarchists / communists run countries either

When a child gets strangled to death in the small country we live in, I think in a small way it should be personal to everybody.

It wasn't me!

Boggles wrote: »

When a child gets strangled to death in the small country we live in, I think in a small way it should be personal to everybody.

Not even slightly correct.

PeakOutput

Boggles wrote: »

When a child gets strangled to death in the small country we live in, I think in a small way it should be personal to everybody.

and because we fundamentally disagree we will never be able to convince eachother. I know iv said all i can on the matter. thats not to say i wont get dragged in by some other ridicolous comment in a day or so but for now im done arguing...........at least about this

johnnyskeleton

Boggles wrote: »

His decisions were still questioned, I wasn't debating the result.

Are you trying to suggest that the mere questioning of his decision is reason to suspect him of impropriety? Does everyone who has ever been accused of a criminal offence, even when they are proved to be innocent, have a question mark hanging over them? By contrast, does everyone who ever questions the prosecution's evidence by default raise a reasonable doubt?

Obviously his decisions are questioned - in every trial there must be a loosing side (if I can put it so bluntly) - and people are entitled to appeal these decisions.

johnnyskeleton

Beelzebub wrote: »

Whether Robert Holohan was accidently killed or murdered intentionally by Wayne O'Donoghue, we will never know, we can never know because we weren't there.
We have to accept the verdict of the jury who found Wayne O'Donoghue guilty of manslaughter. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for his family to accept this.

What is difficult to accept for a lot of people and myself included is the leniency of the sentencing.

It doesn't seem just, even if it is the law ,that is to say the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

One of the big problems that I have with this line of reasoning is this: it is based on how people view the punishment rather than the punishment itself.

Let's say, for example, that I wake up tomorrow and I'm in America. I try to buy some breakfast and I'm told that it costs $10. Because I'm not familiar with America, American money, or American prices, I don't know what the $10 represents in real terms, nor do I know whether I'm getting a good deal or if I'm being shafted as a tourist.

However, if I were to say to myself that $10 is about €7 (A), then I can start to understand how much the breakfast costs. If I have a job in America that pays $10 an hour(B), I have an even more real sense of value. Knowing what the breakfast is composed of, and how much time/effort/materials is put in also helps me understand why the resteraunt owner charges that price (C). And if I were to go around to all the various resteraunts etc and find out their prices(D), then I will have sufficient information to make a rational decision on whether the price fits the breakfast.

So to apply this to the argument that the punishment fits the crime, I believe you need to understand:
A) what the punishment (i.e. 4 years imprisonment) actually entails, not in an abstract way, but in relation to what you know;
the effect, or likely effect that the sentence will have on the offender
C) the reasons why the sentence imposed was as long / short as it was; and
D) the range of sentences imposed for similar offences.

The biggest problem here is that people seem to think that a few years in prison is not bad. The media have perpetuated two myths - that prisoners are treated very well with their own cells with flat screen TVs and all sorts of goodies courtsy of the state and that what would be considered to be a long stretch by anyone who has to actually serve it (i.e. 5 years or more) is seen as a slap on the wrist.

I'll put it this way, on what experience would you base your assertion that it was a lenient sentence? I think the casual observer can no more know what it's like to spend time in prison than a man can know what the pain of child birth is like. In the latter case, not knowing what pregnancy is like is no reason for a man to be dismissive of the pain involved, and so I find it difficult to see how a prison sentence can be considerd lenient in an absolute way.

Boggles

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

that prisoners are treated very well with their own cells with flat screen TVs and all sorts of goodies ......... so I find it difficult to see how a prison sentence can be considerd lenient in an absolute way.

You forgot Cell phones and Budgies.

It's Prison mate, it's supposed to be tough, they are being punished for christ sake.

Mrs Roy Keane

Maximilian wrote: »

What about switching off a life support machine? Does that make the switch turner a killer?

Its different but i guess it still makes you a killer

PeakOutput

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Its different but i guess it still makes you a killer

no talking to some people

Red Hand

If you catch the flu, and spread it to another person, who dies of it...does that make you a killer? Or merely a vector?:D

This thread is insane at this stage!

Maximilian

Maximilian wrote: »

What about switching off a life support machine? Does that make the switch turner a killer?

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Its different but i guess it still makes you a killer

PeakOutput wrote: »

no talking to some people

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

If you catch the flu, and spread it to another person, who dies of it...does that make you a killer? Or merely a vector?:D

This thread is insane at this stage!

Ok, all very fascinating but bear with me for a moment...

Now, what happens if we use a few hundred thousand dominoes and make a line from the switch out onto the street. We set a "honey-trap" - placing free Pedobear toys under a large plastic cushion that when picked up, starts the dominoes falling, leading all the way back to the life support machine. As the last domino falls, striking the switch, the life-support machine switches off.

Thus set, a passing Catholic Priest, spying the attractive Pedobear trips up over a can of worms glued to the pavement nearby, and lands on the Pedobear. Minutes later, somewhere nearby, bathed in the soft golden light of dusk, a child starts to cry...

So now, my question is, was Keung T'ai Kung the 12th century inventor of dominoes, a killer?

Red Hand

Were the worms in the can active or passive participants, though?

lizann

Wayne O Donoghue is a child killer accidential or not

Dennis the Stone

Well that is kind of obvious

Maximilian

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Were the worms in the can active or passive participants, though?

Active, let's say.

Davei141

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Its different but i guess it still makes you a killer

LOL.

Dudess

lizann wrote: »

Wayne O Donoghue is a child killer accidential or not

So you'd put him in the same bracket as Ian Brady? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Brady

arybvtcw0eolkf

I rarely return to a thread once I say I'm out of it.

However for this one I will.

We all thought WoD put robert in a 'headlock' which somehow caused Roberts death, and even I thought in depth about the mechanics of that.

But we were all wrong.

Read todays Daily Mail newspaper for WoD's statement to the guards.

The savage bastard didn't do it with a headlock.. Nope, he had Robert in front of him, up against the car(WoD's) standing in front of him with his left hand around the front of Roberts throat squeezing the life out of him.

Seriously, read todays Daily Mail if your really interested his what WoD had to say to the cops. It ain't like we've all imagined here.

The complete statement is printed on pages 18,19 & 20.

Red Hand

Nothing like the auld Daily Mail for accurate reporting.

Wacker

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Nothing like the auld Daily Mail for accurate reporting.

Well if it comes from his own statement then it can't really be that inaccurate.

If that is the case, then it does change my perception alright.

PeakOutput

in that state pathologist documentry i vaguely remember her saying that what she thought happened was that he has a hand around the neckfirst and then ut him in a headlock i cant be sure though and there is little to no chance of me getting the dailymail as im still in bed

arybvtcw0eolkf

PeakOutput wrote: »

in that state pathologist documentry i vaguely remember her saying that what she thought happened was that he has a hand around the neckfirst and then ut him in a headlock i cant be sure though and there is little to no chance of me getting the dailymail as im still in bed

Also in his statement he repeats many times of his panic but then goes into great detail on other things, like acting normal around people, returning to the body & planning his own suicide (which reads like BS).

Like I said, its a good read for anyone interested in hearing what WoD said to the cops.

Mrs Roy Keane

http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82385&SUBCAT=Tribune/News&SUBCATNAME=News

Wayne O'Donoghue is released, and the media is put in the dock


HIS sentence was served, the prison gates were flung open, and then the trial got under way.

But who exactly was in the dock?

Last week's release of Wayne O'Donoghue was expected to herald a media frenzy. For three years, the tabloid press waited to get him out in the open, where they could see the whites of his eyes, and pummel the living daylights out of him.

He was to go on trial for something, anything, that might sell a few papers. It was to be the case of the red-tops versus O'Donoghue, with the prosecution counsel pointing a long lens and declaring with venom: "It woz him wot done it".

In the end, the media went on trial. The tone was set on RTE television's Questions and Answers on Monday evening.

Evening Herald editor Stephen Rae came under attack from all quarters, as if he had invented gutter sniping and the demonisation of choice targets.

Columnist John Waters laid into Rae, declaring that the Evening Herald was not the Supreme Court. The bearded Waters cut a biblical figure, his hair cut to an apostolic length, as he smote Rae with righteous indignation, driving him from the temple of decency. At the end of it all, the poor editor had the cut of a man who would gladly do a stint in the Midlands Prison to escape this barrage.

Forensic evidence On Tuesday, Prime Time got down to serious business, treading forensic ground previously visited by the Sunday Tribune.

The programme examined the unreliability of Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling, the scientific process that was at the heart of the controversy around O'Donoghue's conviction for the manslaughter of 11-year-old Robert Holohan.

LCN DNA profiling was used to identify semen found on Robert's body. The initial result suggested there was a one in 70 million chance that the material was not O'Donoghue's. The result could have been the basis for a murder rather than manslaughter prosecution. Robert's family were informed of the results.

However, further tests dismissed the initial finding. No such evidence was introduced because it was deemed to be too weak and capable of prejudicing the trial. However, questions remained for Majella Holohan and, after her victim impact statement, for the press.

Prime Time showed how the process has been discredited, most recently in the collapsed trial of Sean Hoey for the Omagh bombing. The programme demonstrated that O'Donoghue was given a raw deal in the perception that there was any sexual element to Robert's death. On the eve of his release, the tide was turning in favour of O'Donoghue, away from those who would want to vilify him in the future.

On Wednesday, the Sun jumped the gun. The paper, on the streets sometime before 6am, declared that Wayne had been "spirited out of prison in the back of a van". At 7am, Wayne came through the gates in a car with his father and solicitor, Frank Buttimer. He stepped out and read a prepared statement, including an apology, to the assembled hacks. It was a master stroke by the canny Buttimer, designed to set the headline agenda. The broadcasters had their audio, the papers their pics and quotes and life had been drained from the expected chase. That evening, the Herald front page was dominated by the words: "I'm Sorry".

Thursday's headlines carried the baton. 'Act of Contrition' blazed The Irish Independent, summing up the thrust of the coverage.

O'Donoghue's statement also led The Star, where coverage was refreshingly neutral. The Sun, chastened from the previous day's booboo, held fire on its target with the headlines:

'Forgive Me' and 'He's Gone'.

British imports Only The Daily Mail and The Mirror stuck the boot in. Both fed off an attempt to set the Holohans' pain against the ending of O'Donoghue's incarceration.

'Sorry Won't Bring Robert Back' shouted The Mirror, while The Mail declared 'No End To Majella's Anguish'. Further up the market, The Irish Examiner held the middle ground, while the Irish Times held its nose with an editorial in which there was the only reference of the day to the new press council.

One media barometer was having none of this story. All through the week, RTE's Liveline stuck with the cystic fibrosis scandal, indicating perhaps that the tide had firmly turned on any residual animosity towards O'Donoghue.

By Friday, the story was given life by an interview Robert's father Mark gave to theEvening Echo the previous day. In it, he called O'Donoghue's apology "a stunt" and fed the British imports with the line they wanted. The Herald got wind of the story and ran with the relatively straight: 'Holohans Reject Wayne Apology'. The Brits weren't so forgiving.

'Stuff Your Apology' roared theCurrant Bun, back in fighting form just 48 hours after being caught with its trousers down. The Mail and Mirror hopped on board as well, but by that evening the Herald had relegated the story to its inside pages.

On the whole, the media bandwagon acquitted itself fairly well in relation to the story. The only real venom came from the Irish editions of British tabloids, which may say something about the cultural nuances between the two islands and something else about the lack of understanding in some quarters thereof.

The native press sniffed the air and concluded that it wouldn't take much for a rogue wind to blow up a storm of public outrage . . . directed not at O'Donoghue, but at the media itself.

lizann

Dudess wrote: »

So you'd put him in the same bracket as Ian Brady? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Brady

He may not be as cold and calculating as Ian Brady but whether he killed one child and more he is still a child killer

PeakOutput

lizann wrote: »

He may not be as cold and calculating as Ian Brady but whether he killed one child and more he is still a child killer

yawn.......symantics