O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

PeakOutput

Lemming wrote: »

It'd be hysterically moot only for the fact that somebody died as a result.

not really if you really think about it.

which is more of a tradgedy.

what we are talking about, the accidental killing of an eleven year old or two fully grown "gang bangers" planning to shoot each other.

personally i feel great sympathy for the eleven year old and none for the gang member who was killed. one had the ability and will to defend themselves and was equally as dispicable as the one who killed him. the other was defenceless

porn_star

I don't see how he couldn't of called for help either, yeah you can say someone would panic and not know what to do, so in a moment of insanity cover it up and hope to get away with it. But I'm kinda with the person who said he wasn't to know if he was really dead or not at that stage, I would of thought if you're messing around with someone and they fall unconscious then that's all you'd think it is? that they've passed out or something. I would of thought that it must of been pretty rough and more then messing around for your initial reaction to be "oh my god, i've killed him, what do i do?" i know he took him into the bathroom or whatever and splashed water on his face, but wouldn't you try and revive him outside first rather then bringing him inside out of sight and waste time?! And if not call for help, then a nearby neighbour? I'm not saying he murdered him and I'm not on the whole "down with wayne" mob, I'm not really on any mob, but I did see what that town went through because of his cover up.
And even if it was an accident and it was purely by chance, still what he did afterwards is very hard to forgive. That was one of the biggest searches in the history of the state and he, after killing him (accident or other) went out looking for him, trying to help police and lead them in different directions. Anything he did afterwards wasn't playing it by ear and panicking anymore,but full of deceit and lies and trying to save his own skin. Sure he was scared and he didn't know what to do, but to go and actually comfort robert's mother and tell her that they'd find them... how does someone actually have the cheek to do that, surely you'd at least stay away from her and not say things like that, even out of guilt. And then there's the fact that the police were onto wayne before he admitted it and was gathering more evidence and it was only when this was released to the press that wayne actually came clean, so would he of kept lying and try to get away with it.
And as for anyone saying Robert's mother was wrong in her victim impact statement and the information she let out.. well she was told that evidence, it's not like she made the semen and whatever evidence up. And there mightn't be enough solid evidence there to prove something might of happened, but surely it's understandable the questions that would be raised in her mind and how that would effect both parents and lead to them never really being sure of the truth. So while people can say that nobody knows what they'd do in wayne's situation, how about Majella's? what would other people do in hers? If a child of yours was killed and covered up so deceitfully then would you not fight for justice and want all evidence out there, no matter how small, would you not want it to be presented during the trial? And would you not want the person who comforted you and told you it would be ok, but yet actually killed your son to go down for as long as possible? pretty understandable imo.

Anyways, that's just my two cents on it. Whether it was an accident or not, I don't think a lot of people can really get over what he did afterwards and thats what leads a lot of people to question the judgement, cos it was a truly horrible thing to do and he let it go on for far too long. But I think that two families have been really torn apart by the whole thing and whats done is done and he served what he was given and now it's time for people to leave it alone and let both families rebuild their lives and find a way to live with what has happened. It's not really anybody elses business anymore.

Amazotheamazing

About 2 years ago in a hurling game in County Limerick, one player accidentally struck another in the chest just as the guy suffered an irregular heartbeat. The player who was hit dies at the scene. Purely accidental and no charges were brought.

Imo, the death of Robert Holohan falls into that area. A tragic accident that happens for no reason.

What happened afterwards is why O'Donoghue went to prison, if he'd called an ambulance most people would understand that sometimes tragic accidents occur.

What happened next was sick and wrong, but I've never been under that pressure, I'm not going to decide if I would have acted differently to Wayne O'Donoghue just becuase it suits me to say I would have acted differently.

Sam Vimes

Lemming wrote: »

Why the f*ck do you think there are so many absolute scum-of-the-earth types involved in x, y, or z dodgy crap (drugs, guns, etc.) and kill people constantly get only manslaughter? Because the DPP aren't sure if they can successfully prosecute a murder charge since we have no primary or secondary murder classifications in this country (i.e. all murder has to be shown to be pre-meditated beyond reasonable doubt)

in america, is second degree murder not man slaughter or equivalent?

Boggles wrote: »

I would hope that Waynes reaction was on the far side of what people would do. Instinct would be to get help. Which you could also call panic. With Wayne, self preservation kicked in, which would suggest non panic.

self preservation is the most basic of human instincts. its pretty much the only instinct that's shared by all life right down to bacteria. think of the fight or flight response. an animal is startled and in a split second makes the decision. O'Donoghue chose flight. getting help suggests a much higher thought process than running away. when did you last see a herd of deer get help when a lion attacked one of them?

Boggles wrote: »

I would be terrified of what would be happening to the child and immediately seek help, I think and hope that is what the majority of people would do.

it probably is what most people would do and i'd like to think its what i'd do but until you'vew been in that situation you can't say for sure what you'd do


edit:yes second degree murder includes man slaughter. from wikipedia:
1. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, or (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, and (8) while committing intimidation. [30]
2. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nlgbbbblth

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well said

the amount of emotive posts and ill-informed kneejerk opinions regarding this case is staggering.

I am a parent of two young children and if somebody accidentally killed my son or daughter I would be devestated beyond belief. But I wouldn't want the other person's life ruined in the way the tabloids and other assorted sanctimonious muppets seem to desire.

EOK

Lemming wrote: »

Why the f*ck do you think there are so many absolute scum-of-the-earth types involved in x, y, or z dodgy crap (drugs, guns, etc.) and kill people constantly get only manslaughter? Because the DPP aren't sure if they can successfully prosecute a murder charge since we have no primary or secondary murder classifications in this country (i.e. all murder has to be shown to be pre-meditated beyond reasonable doubt)

Are you taking the piss? It is ignorant, lazy comments like that which serve to further perpetuate the growing feeling of disenchantment with the legal system in our country.

Your above assertion is absolutely false; there is, in fact, no requirement that the DPP prove pre-meditation in order to secure a murder conviction. The law relating to murder in this jurisdiction is actually remarkably straightforward. In order to be found guilty of muder, the prosecution must satisfy a jury that you intended to kill or cause serious injury to your victim. That is all. Pre-meditation is, therefore, conspicuous in its absence.

Perhaps in your haste to jump on the bandwagon with all the other mis-informed charlatans who clog up the airwaves (aided in no small degree by their King, Joe Duffy), you simply neglected to engage your brain and peruse s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1964?

Wacker

Peared wrote: »

I am neither a man nor working class

Hence 'Peared', eh?:D

PeakOutput

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i can see the mitigating circumstances in the odonoghue case but i also think thats a ridicolous sentence. i believe that anyone who "gets off" due to insanity should be kept in a secure mental asylum for the rest of their lives. if they "get off" due to temporary insanity they should spend their prison sentence in a secure mental asylum. im not sure how it works but if she is allowed to simply walk out of the courtroom that is a disgrace.

also i would be very dubious about a psychiatrist claiming to be insane. surely of all people they would be able to fool the system

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seamus

PeakOutput wrote: »

also i would be very dubious about a psychiatrist claiming to be insane. surely of all people they would be able to fool the system

There's a very high incidence in the mental care sector of people with mental issues themselves. Psychiatrists and social workers themselves are half the time more cracked than the people they are trying to help. People with mental issues are drawn to these professions, probably in an attempt to understand their own condition or thinking they can help others who are like them.

PeakOutput

seamus wrote: »

There's a very high incidence in the mental care sector of people with mental issues themselves. Psychiatrists and social workers themselves are half the time more cracked than the people they are trying to help. People with mental issues are drawn to these professions, probably in an attempt to understand their own condition or thinking they can help others who are like them.

honestly i didnt know that BUT i would assume you cant be deemed insane for just any mental "issue" to me a mental issue sounds very minor to being INSANE and being able to link the two would be were her years of expertise would take place.

dont get me wrong she has to be somewhat insane to kill her own daughter but then serial killers are somewhat insane aswell and they still get sent to prison

as i said though i dont know alot about it so im just thinking out loud im sure clinical and legal definitions are different along with a million other variables

Terry

seamus wrote: »

There's a very high incidence in the mental care sector of people with mental issues themselves. Psychiatrists and social workers themselves are half the time more cracked than the people they are trying to help. People with mental issues are drawn to these professions, probably in an attempt to understand their own condition or thinking they can help others who are like them.

I'd agree with that.
I've come across quite a few unstable mental health care workers in my time.
I have also considered working in that field myself in order to, as you say, try to help others. Christ, it was even suggested to me shortly before I was discharged from the funny farm by some of the nurses because of the way I spoke with my fellow patients and the compliments they gave about me.
Wouldn't do it though. I only have a certain amount of patience.

sam34

PeakOutput wrote: »

.

dont get me wrong she has to be somewhat insane to kill her own daughter but then serial killers are somewhat insane aswell and they still get sent to prison

as i said though i dont know alot about it so im just thinking out loud im sure clinical and legal definitions are different along with a million other variables

briefly, the difference between lynn gibbs and a serial killer is taht she had/has a depressive disorder - this is a "state" condition -ie can be treated (with varying degrees of success, some people recover after one episode and never look back, others ahve recurrent episodes). serial killers tend to have personality disorders, usually psychopathic, which is a "trait" ie unamenable to treatment, no pills are going to change their underlying personality. in short, she was mad, serial killers are bad.

sam34

seamus wrote: »

There's a very high incidence in the mental care sector of people with mental issues themselves. Psychiatrists and social workers themselves are half the time more cracked than the people they are trying to help. People with mental issues are drawn to these professions, probably in an attempt to understand their own condition or thinking they can help others who are like them.

"issues" is quite vague and covers a multitude. most, if not all, people have "issues".theres a world of difference between issues and illness

Sully

I do not think the kid was killed on purpose. Hence, I agree with the manslaughter ruling given to him. I do believe the ODonoghue was probably messing around with the kid and he didnt realise it was to tight. What happens after is not a situation we are all equiped to deal with and know how to respond to. What we should do and what we actually do is a different thing.

If it happened to me, the first thing id do is call for help. But, this never did happen to me so I cant actually say for sure that id do it. Id be shocked, panick, try to do something to get him to wake, then wonder what to do next.

Some call for help, some hide the body and pretend nothing happened. Heck, we all do this at some stage in our lives - break something, or do something and lie about it and make matters worse just cause your scared to tell the truth.

O'Donoghue it is clear did not intend to kill Robert. It was an accident. This is manslaugther. I hate the term "Murderer" papers like the Daily Mail constantly refer to him as. It was accidental, and I know its still murder but it paints the lad in a picture that isnt right.

Personally.. id have given about 3 years for manslaughter. He is not a threat to society. We have let far worse get away with a lot more. Not to sure if he should get away with it after covering it up, but I suppose its felt that it was an accident and he panicked. He is not a danger to others, and thus he got a lighter sentance. Justice was served in many ways.

1) He will always be known as a murderer
2) He will find it difficult to move on with his life
3) Robert and family will never leave his mind. This will haunt him for life.
4) God only knows what happened to him in jail.
5) He has inflected pain on those close to him, and to Roberts family
6) He was alone, in a horrible place for 3 years
7) He probably fears for his life
8) The media hate him and wont leave him go. Nor his family.

Think outside the box. The judical system put him away for 3 years. He is gone through hell and will continue to. He did not get of lightly.

Roberts mother was angry, but she really went to town to completely destroy ODonoghues image. She over exgerated it. God only knows what this evidence was, and I doubt it was decided to "leave it be" to avoid a harder sentance. If it was felt it should be used, im sure it would have been used. Its just something that was found but can not be pinpointed to anyone. So, dont use it.

Leave the chap get on with his life. Leave his family and friends alone. Justice has been served, and will continue to be served. He has not gotten away lightly. He will continue to suffer. Not saying thats wrong either.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

self preservation is the most basic of human instincts. its pretty much the only instinct that's shared by all life right down to bacteria. .

I like to think of myself of having free will, something that thankfully I don't share with bacteria.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

getting help suggests a much higher thought process than running away. .

So picking up the phone and dialing 999 or getting him to hospital suggests a much higher thought process than what he eventually ended up doing???

Commander Vimes wrote: »

when did you last see a herd of deer get help when a lion attacked one of them?

Right Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Boggles

Dudess wrote: »

Anyway, while there are similarities between how O'Donoghue behaved after the boy died, and how Huntley behaved after the girls died, one had committed a terrible accident, one had committed murder, so their minds were in very different places. It's unreasonable to compare the two men with each other.
.

In your opinion. There is only one person that knows what truely happened to the young fella.

Dudess

PeakOutput wrote: »

if she is allowed to simply walk out of the courtroom that is a disgrace.

She is to be a patient at the Central Mental Hospital, where she has been for the past while (not sure how long exactly), until she is deemed well enough.

Her own mother actually committed suicide. Maybe that's something that drew her to the profession - for more of an insight into why her mother took her own life. Who knows.

Heartbreaking case.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Dudess wrote: »

No it isn't. I genuinely don't know the answer to that. Anyway, while there are similarities between how O'Donoghue behaved after the boy died, and how Huntley behaved after the girls died, one had committed a terrible accident, one had committed murder, so their minds were in very different places. It's unreasonable to compare the two men with each other.

Both used the defence that the deaths were accidents and both used the defence that following the deaths both (Huntley and O'Donoghue) panicked.

The rest is history and thats just the way the scales of justice balance sometimes.

Btw, its not that easy to accidently choke someone to death. Applied properly a choke/strangle will render someone unconscious within seconds, but most people can't apply a choke that quickly.

Once someone is unconscious only continued presure will kill. And it quickly becomes obvious when someone is unconscious, you don't panic and continue the presure in the hope they wake up again.

TerrorFirmer

While I'm sure no-one - at least, hopefully very little - here have actually killed someone, can you not at least relate to any one time in your life when you did something in error and tried to cover it up? You panic. You get flustered. And when things start to fall apart, you still can't bring yourself to tell the truth, because you desperately hang into that hope that everything will work out.

He was a 20 year old engineering student who accidentally killed someone - not a crazed serial killer. It is so easy to condemn his actions, sitting in the comfort of your chair and typing on your keyboard - talking about 'justice', prison beatings, and whatever else. He was a normal guy, leading a normal life - and one with a very bright future. Now, what does he have? What chance does he have? Do you think he didn't sit in that cell every ****ing day of his stay wishing everything could be different? Wishing that he'd done the 'right' thing initially? People make mistakes. It's sad that this one resulted in the death of a young boy, but it was a mistake all the same - as far as we know, but what can we go on other then what the courts have decided is fact?

Sometimes, the difference between a minor and major incident can be so slight. Someone gets punched, falls down and recovers. Someone gets punched, falls down, cracks their head and dies. All of a sudden, the perpetrator goes from being your average person involved in one of 100 routine fights in any given city in the county to a 'killer'. It really can be that simple. I remember one time I was attacked randomly, and suffered some pretty bad damage. Because my friends were there, we managed to knock him down and beat the **** into him. I was obviously red with rage. He managed to escape eventually. He attacks me, randomly, and he's instantly the thug here, but, if I had accidentally killed him with one bad kick? Suddenly, I'd be the thug and he'd be, naturally a victim who never had a chance or whatever other bull**** the media might concoct.

If you know what I mean.

Boggles

Mairt wrote: »

Both used the defence that the deaths were accidents and both used the defence that following the deaths both (Huntley and O'Donoghue) panicked.

The rest is history and thats just the way the scales of justice balance sometimes.

Btw, its not that easy to accidently choke someone to death. Applied properly a choke/strangle will render someone unconscious within seconds, but most people can't apply a choke that quickly.

Once someone is unconscious only continued presure will kill. And it quickly becomes obvious when someone is unconscious, you don't panic and continue the presure in the hope they wake up again.

In the Huntley case they actually had no physical evidence of how the girls died as they were burnt too badly.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Boggles wrote: »

In the Huntley case they actually had no physical evidence of how the girls died as they were burnt too badly.

Doesn't make much difference IMO, both Huntley and O'D used the excuse of accidental death & panick in their defence.

And either way, no one here is ever going to find out what happened in either case.

Is Huntley dead yet?... If he is, good ridence.

O'D, well he's still a young man and I think getting out of prison early like this has done him no favours and he'll never enjoy whatever freedom he think's awaits.

His crime will follow him for the rest of his life, thats one sentence he'll never get free from.

Boggles

HavoK wrote: »

While I'm sure no-one - at least, hopefully very little - here have actually killed someone, can you not at least relate to any one time in your life when you did something in error and tried to cover it up? You panic. You get flustered. And when things start to fall apart, you still can't bring yourself to tell the truth, because you desperately hang into that hope that everything will work out.

He was a 20 year old engineering student who accidentally killed someone - not a crazed serial killer. It is so easy to condemn his actions, sitting in the comfort of your chair and typing on your keyboard - talking about 'justice', prison beatings, and whatever else. He was a normal guy, leading a normal life - and one with a very bright future. Now, what does he have? What chance does he have? Do you think he didn't sit in that cell every ****ing day of his stay wishing everything could be different? Wishing that he'd done the 'right' thing initially? People make mistakes. It's sad that this one resulted in the death of a young boy, but it was a mistake all the same - as far as we know, but what can we go on other then what the courts have decided is fact?

Sometimes, the difference between a minor and major incident can be so slight. Someone gets punched, falls down and recovers. Someone gets punched, falls down, cracks their head and dies. All of a sudden, the perpetrator goes from being your average person involved in one of 100 routine fights in any given city in the county to a 'killer'. It really can be that simple. I remember one time I was attacked randomly, and suffered some pretty bad damage. Because my friends were there, we managed to knock him down and beat the **** into him. I was obviously red with rage. He managed to escape eventually. He attacks me, randomly, and he's instantly the thug here, but, if I had accidentally killed him with one bad kick? Suddenly, I'd be the thug and he'd be, naturally a victim who never had a chance or whatever other bull**** the media might concoct.

If you know what I mean.

So if you killed this "thug" by accident. Would you wrap his body in plastic, take him to a barren area and try and destroy any evidence?

We have free will, we are responsible for our actions.

TerrorFirmer

Boggles wrote: »

So if you killed this "thug" by accident. Would you wrap his body in plastic, take him to a barren area and try and destroy any evidence?

We have free will, we are responsible for our actions.

No, I'm quite sure I wouldn't, but then again, who can honestly give an exact account of what would most definitely transpire should they kill them? I'm not saying that we should look at Wayne, shake his hand and welcome him back to society with a handshake and a smile. But I do think he deserves a chance. I I passed him in the street I would genuinely not feel any type of revulsion or anger. I'd just feel sorry for him to be honest - he's done his time in Jail but his life is essentially over before it even had a chance to begin, too. Good people do bad things, bad things that haunt them in later years. I've never killed anyone perhaps, but I have done some things that I look back on with shame - despite the fact that it's almost as if a different person did them, a person totally different to who I am now - but just knowing it WAS you is enough.

arybvtcw0eolkf

HavoK wrote: »

He was a normal guy, leading a normal life -

'Normal' twenty year old guys with 'normal' lives don't play with eleven year old children in bedrooms.

TerrorFirmer

Mairt wrote: »

'Normal' guys with 'normal' lives don't play with eleven year old children in bedrooms.

It is easy in hindsight to transform potentially innocent information into scandal. My sister used to play with a much younger girl when she was younger herself, should we be worried over her sexuality and the integrity of that young girl's honor or is it OK because it's not as much of a social stigma to have girls of different ages interacting?

arybvtcw0eolkf

HavoK wrote: »

It is easy in hindsight to transform potentially innocent information into scandal. My sister used to play with a much younger girl when she was younger herself, should we be worried over her sexuality and the integrity of that young girl's honor or is it OK because it's not as much of a social stigma to have girls of different ages interacting?

Oh so you find grown men playing with children in bedroom's normal?.

Come on, you don't and don't pretend for the thread you do.

Sully

Mairt wrote: »

'Normal' twenty year old guys with 'normal' lives don't play with eleven year old children in bedrooms.

Its not uncommon for a young child to look up and be friendly to someone older then them. Heck, I used to visit my mothers friends son when I was young - he would have been about that age - because he loved computers. I do recall being in the computer room or even in his room listening to the police scanner or him showing some tech stuff he was doing in college.

Its not that uncommon and I dont think there is anything wrong with it.

Look at Michael Jackson, he sleeps with kids all the time in his room and gets away with it and here we are bitching about an accident with ODonoghue clearly regrets and something that with torture him for the rest of his life. He panicked and hid the body, a reaction we say we wouldnt do but we have no guarntee how we would react. Im sure if he was asked the question before it happened he would say "Call for help". We all act differently when **** like this happens.

Boggles

Sully wrote: »

Its not uncommon for a young child to look up and be friendly to someone older then them. Heck, I used to visit my mothers friends son when I was young - he would have been about that age - because he loved computers. I do recall being in the computer room or even in his room listening to the police scanner or him showing some tech stuff he was doing in college.

Its not that uncommon and I dont think there is anything wrong with it.

Look at Michael Jackson, he sleeps with kids all the time in his room and gets away with it and here we are bitching about an accident with ODonoghue clearly regrets and something that with torture him for the rest of his life. He panicked and hid the body, a reaction we say we wouldnt do but we have no guarntee how we would react. Im sure if he was asked the question before it happened he would say "Call for help". We all act differently when **** like this happens.

You can't be serious, I would think and hope that the vast majority of people would call for help?

porn_star

Mairt wrote: »

Oh so you find grown men playing with children in bedroom's normal?.

Come on, you don't and don't pretend for the thread you do.

you don't know exactly what happened though, no one does except Wayne. he is the only person that will ever truly know what he did. I'm not sticking up for him and saying he didn't do those things cos I don't know and I've actually always thought for what he done he should of got a longer sentence. but he served the sentence he got and no matter whether it was a right or wrong one, i dont think he was gonna hold up his hands himself and say "oh please give me more". so anyone holding a grudge at him over the sentence he served, well that wasn't his call.
I'm actually really surprised at how much attention this is getting. I know how much it got when it actually took place, but I didn't think so much would be attracted just cos he was getting out. I think people should just let it be and mind their own business at this stage, live your own lives. Both families have suffered enough heartache over the last three years and deserve to be left alone. Wayne has to live with it for the rest of his life, whatever it was he did and that's for him to deal with. It's not for random people to try and play detective until something bigger comes along, what was dealt was dealt and now it's over.

Sully

Boggles wrote: »

You can't be serious, I would think and hope that the vast majority of people would call for help?

I would hope that to. However, everybody reacts differently. So, not everyone will do the right things. Its sad, and wrong, but a fact of life.

We can all claim "Id call for help" but until this actually happens you cant say for sure. When you panick, you dont know what the hell could happen. Myself? I would honestly hope id call for help. I really think I would. But.. its never happened and never will (touch wood) so I cant say for absolute certinaty. Get me?

Crazy Christ

Put down your pitchforks everybody, the man has done his time and can continue his life. Hypocritical readers of the Evening Herald won't be happy until he is dead as well; that satisfies their primitive quest for Liveline Justice

Boggles

HavoK wrote: »

No, I'm quite sure I wouldn't, but then again, who can honestly give an exact account of what would most definitely transpire should they kill them? I'm not saying that we should look at Wayne, shake his hand and welcome him back to society with a handshake and a smile. But I do think he deserves a chance. I I passed him in the street I would genuinely not feel any type of revulsion or anger. I'd just feel sorry for him to be honest - he's done his time in Jail but his life is essentially over before it even had a chance to begin, too. Good people do bad things, bad things that haunt them in later years. I've never killed anyone perhaps, but I have done some things that I look back on with shame - despite the fact that it's almost as if a different person did them, a person totally different to who I am now - but just knowing it WAS you is enough.

You feel sorry for him, how would you feel anything?

It's speculation what happened to the young fella and how he met his demise, I can speculate that the young fella wasn't dead and he spent his last few moments gasping for breath in a plastic bag in the back of a van.

I can't prove this no more than you can prove it was an accident. It probably didn't happen, but maybe it did. Maybe it wasn't an accident, maybe it was.

The courts have taken Waynes word on this and only Wayne knows what really did happen. It wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibilty that maybe he lied to cover up what really happened.

A boy died, there is no evidence of whether it was a crime no more than there is evidence that it was an accident.

What we do know is, he mutilated and dumped a young child and participated in the search of that child.

There is only one person you should feel sorry for I'm afriad.

Terry

Mairt wrote: »

Oh so you find grown men playing with children in bedroom's normal?.

Come on, you don't and don't pretend for the thread you do.

Las week I was babysitting for my cousin.
Her son is autistic.

I was wrecked tired and decided to go into his room and lie down for a while.
He followed me up.

There are two single beds pushed together.

I lay on the inside bed, above the covers.
He got into the bed next to me and just sat there.


Does that make me a peader ass?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Boggles

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did you see that it was "Highly Likely" an accident?

Take the case of the 5 women in Ipswich, they have no idea how 3 of them died.

You have been watching too much CSI.

LadyJ

I know that this isn't really the best comparison but maybe it might get across a point. I suffer very badly from panic attacks. When I am having one I get so freaked out that I think I'm going to die or go insane. Sometimes I get chest pains, arm pains, diziness, shortness of breath.

Now I have had hundreds of panic attacks and when I think about them now (ie. while not having one) I know that I was not having a heart attack or going insane or about to die as soon as I let my guard down. However, each time I have one (although in my right state of mind I know better) I will completely freak out and tell people I think I'm dying and that "No, no, this isn't a panic attack, it's different, something's wrong!" In fact I've gone to the doctor, the ddoc and A&E a number of times with the genuine belief that I'm dying.

Now while I'm in my right state of mind I am aware of how completely nuts I must sound during a panic attack but the thing is while I'm having one I am not thinking straight. My point is that your mind is a hard thing to control fully. You never know how it will turn on you or if you'll even know that what you're doing is mental. I can only imagine the sort of things that might occur to me if I was actually as panicked as Wayne must have been that day. I hope that I would call an ambulance and do the right thing but I really don't know because I know I can't trust myself when I panic.

Intothesea

What kind of adult accidentally kills a child
and hides the evidence in the way O'Donoghue
has? Someone of profoundly weak and selfish
character, IMO. His actions afterward have got
to stick in the throat of people who strongly
feel that adults have a general obligation to
protect children, and oblige the law and
community.

We can't know how accidental the killing was,
but three years doesn't seem to fit the bill
either way, to me. Could the common acceptance
here be the result of the uncommon, unusally
violent crimes committed by unknown parties
in Ireland today (thanks to our excellent
vetting system)? Is it easier to feel like
you know where this guy is coming from,
because he's one of us? I can't imagine a
sentence like this being dispensed even ten
years ago.

/0.02

Ok look. I brought this thread back from 2005 because I was annoyed about this guy's release & I didn't want to go making a new one.

Firstly, his sentence for killing an eleven year old boy with his bare hands was a joke & no suprise with our current legal system. So can people stop saying he ''did his time'' because he didn't get near enough time for what he done(He killed a person for **** sake). Secondly, Wayne's story has been checked out & there are so many holes. Why!? Surely if it was a mistake he could tell the story with the FACTS. It was proven from tests on his car that no rocks were thrown at his car & the headlock he said he got the child in doesn't match the cause of death. BUT sure why dont we believe him...? Common sense should prevail here... If some kid is throwing stones/rocks at your car you dont come out in the middle of the street and get him in a headlock do you? Even if you did do something so stupid you surely wouldn't do it to the point that the child cant breath. The ****ing story doesn't make sense!

It is a fact that there was semen found on Robert's body. Where did this come from? Wayne's girlfriend at the time has been quoted saying Wayne spent alot of time with Robert. I think Wayne's story is just too unbelievable to take into consideration . I dont know what happened BUT I can be nearly 100% sure that Wayne's story isn't the truth.

Boggles

LadyJ wrote: »

My point is that your mind is a hard thing to control fully.

No it isn't, the vast majority of people are fully in control of themselves and their mind. Serial Killers have reported they have no memory of their multiple murders, should we say, poor thing had a panic attack, he couldn't help himself.

LadyJ

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't, the vast majority of people are fully in control of themselves and their mind.

The majority of the time. But just because you haven't experienced a panic attack doesn't mean you won't get one ever and react in a weird way that you have no control over.

My point is valid. You are being naive if you think you have full control over your thoughts and that you will never lose it.

Serial Killers have reported they have no memory of their multiple murders, should we say, poor thing had a panic attack, he couldn't help himself.

Boggles you seem to misunderstand me. I am talking about Wayne's actions after what happened, not during.

I am not saying that when people have panic attacks that they should get away with murder either. You are inferring an awful lot of crap tbh. I am saying that a panic attack is an every day loss of control and it's minor enough. However, in extreme situations people can act in outrageous ways and of course they should take responsibility for their actions, I was not saying that they shouldn't. I was merely saying that it is absurd for anyone to say that they know exactly how they would react in a situation like that. It's impossible to know. That is my only point here.

seamus

KaG1888 wrote: »

the headlock he said he got the child in doesn't match the cause of death.

So what was the cause of death again? Didn't the state pathologist say that Robert's injuries were consistent with a headlock or other similar hold?

Even if you did do something so stupid you surely wouldn't do it to the point that the child cant breath.

Children are small, adults are big. Critical factor here. Even with my girlfriend I've managed to accidentally hurt her because I don't know my own strength (innocent slaps on the arse people! ).

It is a fact that there was semen found on Robert's body. Where did this come from?

Oh, I don't know - the floor, the walls, the door handles, his clothes. Men often masturbate and don't wash their hands afterwards. Fact. This means that traces of semen can probably be found on almost any surface you care to check, that people would normally touch with their hands. Robert could have held a door handle, used a toilet, touched floor and easily gotten those traces on his hand.

No it isn't, the vast majority of people are fully in control of themselves and their mind.

Yes, when they're in a normal state of mind. There's a big difference between coming across a scary situation and the adrenaline pumping (such as seeing a car accident) and making a big ****ing mistake yourself and having the adrenaline pumping. In emergency situations, we all tend to lose control and we all tend to do it in different ways. Some people go into freak-out mode, others go into action mode. While we like to believe that we have the ability to overcome our natural instincts, when that adrenaline kicks in you pretty much surrender to what your brain wants to do. The instinct to preserve onesself is one of the most powerful we have and you can't really predict how you'll react when faced with your own demise. To say that you'd go and call the emergency services is pure guesswork.

Remember when you were a kid and you did something really, really stupid and immediately did your best to try hide it from your parents and pretend that it never happened? Remember the fear? Remember the irrational scenarios you invented where you imagined yourself getting away with it? Think of that, but multiply the emotions involved by a thousand.

Boggles

LadyJ wrote: »

The majority of the time. But just because you haven't experienced a panic attack doesn't mean you won't get one ever and react in a weird way that you have no control over.

My point is valid. You are being naive if you think you have full control over your thoughts and that you will never lose it.


Boggles you seem to misunderstand me. I am talking about Wayne's actions after what happened, not during.

I am not saying that when people have panic attacks that they should get away with murder either. You are inferring an awful lot of crap tbh. I am saying that a panic attack is an every day loss of control and it's minor enough. However, in extreme situations people can act in outrageous ways and of course they should take responsibility for their actions, I was not saying that they shouldn't. I was merely saying that it is absurd for anyone to say that they know exactly how they would react in a situation like that. It's impossible to know. That is my only point here.

Could you point out in my post what "crap" I was inferring?

Boggles

seamus wrote: »

So what was the cause of death again? Didn't the state pathologist say that Robert's injuries were consistent with a headlock or other similar hold?

Mr Murphy later spoke of the post mortem carried out by State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy.

“She referred to features which she described as a pattern of trauma.”

These included pinpoint haemorrhages on parts of the skin, bruising and haemorrhaging in the mouth, marks on the neck, bruises near the ribs and bruising on the shoulder and buttocks.

“Dr Cassidy conducted the post mortem (unlike defence witness Professor Jack Crane). She and Prof Crane agree on many issues about how death occurred. He agrees this was an asphyxial death, and the prosecution submits this was by neck compression.”

He said that having examined Robert’s neck, she concluded the deep bruising she found there “was consistent with strangulation, particularly manual strangulation”.

He later added: “The pathologists say there was no evidence Robert struggled, which suggests Robert may have been incapacitated in some way.”

He said the prosecution believed Robert “had been subjected to a violent assault and had been overpowered.”

LadyJ

Boggles wrote: »

Could you point out in my post what "crap" I was inferring?

Sure thing!

You inferred that I was saying serial killers should be pardoned for panic attacks. That was nowhere near what I was saying.

I was merely pointing out that a person can never know how they will react in a horrific situation.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Mr Murphy later spoke of the post mortem carried out by State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy.

“She referred to features which she described as a pattern of trauma.”

These included pinpoint haemorrhages on parts of the skin, bruising and haemorrhaging in the mouth, marks on the neck, bruises near the ribs and bruising on the shoulder and buttocks.

“Dr Cassidy conducted the post mortem (unlike defence witness Professor Jack Crane). She and Prof Crane agree on many issues about how death occurred. He agrees this was an asphyxial death, and the prosecution submits this was by neck compression.”

He said that having examined Robert’s neck, she concluded the deep bruising she found there “was consistent with strangulation, particularly manual strangulation”.

He later added: “The pathologists say there was no evidence Robert struggled, which suggests Robert may have been incapacitated in some way.”

He said the prosecution believed Robert “had been subjected to a violent assault and had been overpowered.”

Thanks,
Was just about to reply in my own words but this helps. Now Seamus with no disrespect to you, does this opinion from an EXPERT alter your short sighted opinion to what happened?

seamus

Thanks Boggles, Marie Cassidy's words back up my assertion that the "injuries were consistent with a headlock or other similar hold". Anything with regards to "assault" or "incapacitation" is speculation by the prosecutor. Whose job it is of course to paint everything in the worst light possible.

Now Seamus with no disrespect to you, does this opinion from an EXPERT alter your short sighted opinion to what happened?

Nope. As I say, that all seems consistent with a big lad quickly grabbing a small lad and killing him quickly but accidentally. Without the full report from the pathologist, I don't see anything to change my mind.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Thanks Boggles, Marie Cassidy's words back up my assertion that the "injuries were consistent with a headlock or other similar hold". Anything with regards to "assault" or "incapacitation" is speculation by the prosecutor. Whose job it is of course to paint everything in the worst light possible.

No it doesn't....

Manual strangulation
Manual strangulation (called throttling in the UK) refers to strangling with the hands, fingers, or other extremities (sometimes also with blunt objects such as batons). In violence, this type of strangling is mostly done by men against women rather than against another man, because it generally requires a large disparity in physical strength between the assailant and the victim and also because men can be over twice as big as a woman in general.[3] Depending on how the strangling is performed, it may compress the airway, interfere with the flow of blood in the neck, or work as a combination of the two. Consequently, manual strangulation may damage the larynx,[3], and fracture the hyoid or other bones in the neck.[4] In cases of airway compression, manual strangling leads to the frightening sensation of air hunger and may induce violent struggling.[3] More technical variants of manual strangulation are referred to as chokeholds, and are extensively practised and used in various martial arts, combat sports, self-defense systems, and in military hand-to-hand combat application.

It is a mistake to refer to strangulation as "choke" or "choking". Choke means having the windpipe blocked entirely or partly by some foreign object like food.