O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Maximilian · 16-01-2008 06:24PM

Boggles wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, I have nephews and there friends I horse around with, and if I accidently caught them in the windpipe or whatever to make them start choking, I would call an ambulance. I would hope everyone would.

I would panic most definately, but it is a huge stretch from this to following the actions of Ian Huntley.

Sure but he didn't, that's largely why he got the sentence he did. He had ample opportunity to come clean but didn't.

Dragan · 16-01-2008 06:25PM

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.

Nice to see you would base such an important decision on your interpretation of someones appearance. Here's hoping you never get jury duty.

Boggles · 16-01-2008 06:28PM

seamus wrote: »

And if they were dead before you even noticed? It's one thing to go "Oh ****, he's choking, someone get help!", it's entirely another to be faced with, "Oh ****, I've just killed him. Me, I caused him to die. What am I going to do?".

I have no medical training, I was trying to take my girlfriends pulse last night, couldn't find it, I knew she was still alive cause she was giving out to me.

Unless Wayne was qualified to pronounce death. Was he?

"What am I going to do?"

I'm going to get this fecking kid to an emergency room.

Wacker · 16-01-2008 06:28PM

Peared wrote: »

But there is a difference between what is technically and legally right and what the man on the street sees as fair.

I'm never crazy about what I preceive as people giving out about how posters here are somehow in lofty ivory towers, and we're all removed from reality. Tell me please, who is this 'man on the street' that you speak of? Once I leave work in about ten minutes, won't I be a man on the street? Aren't the majority of the posters here, who feel justice was done? Yes, I think justice was done in this instance. So do a lot of 'regular people' (whatever that even means), probably the majority.

If you disagree with the ruling, well that's your opinion. Just don't act like you're some kind of working class hero, who knows what's right and wrong.

seamus · 16-01-2008 06:33PM

Boggles wrote: »

I have no medical training, I was trying to take my girlfriends pulse last night, couldn't find it, I knew she was still alive cause she was giving out to me.

I have no medical training, but I'm pretty confident that I could ascertain whether or not someone was dead. Checking pulse is one thing, you can check a few other things too.
In the situation, I wouldn't think, "Ah I'm not qualified to pronounce death, I can't rely on me." I would just be panicking like **** over the fact that I just killed the guy.

Red Hand · 16-01-2008 06:33PM

seamus wrote: »

And if they were dead before you even noticed? It's one thing to go "Oh ****, he's choking, someone get help!", it's entirely another to be faced with, "Oh ****, I've just killed him. Me, I caused him to die. What am I going to do?".

Well, if that happened, I don't think most people would dump and then try to burn the body. I think they would still try and get help. Don't give me any bull about panicking.

Agamemnon · 16-01-2008 06:35PM

Maximilian wrote: »

In fact I think a large part of his sentence was attributable to the cover-up element.

If that's the case, then it must be a new record for short sentences. Three years for manslaughter is too short; three years for manslaughter and covering it up is a joke.

I don't believe Wayne O'Donoghue is a paedophile and I think he killed Robert Holohan accidently. But his sentence should have been at least twice what he got. Granted, O'Donoghue is not a threat to society any more. I doubt he'll so much as drop litter for the rest of his life. But I do think some people are more worried about his feelings than those of the Holohan family.

Mrs Roy Keane · 16-01-2008 06:38PM

This is a sad situation for all involved but i can't see how him serving only 3 years and giving a speech this morning (that sounded like he won an Oscar or I'm A Celeb/Reality Show) will help Robert's family.

Whether it was an accident or not, his actions afterwards delaying the search was wrong

bill_ashmount · 16-01-2008 06:39PM

agamemnon wrote: »

Three years for manslaughter is too short; three years for manslaughter and covering it up is a joke.

Agreed.

Maximilian · 16-01-2008 06:41PM

agamemnon wrote: »

If that's the case, then it must be a new record for short sentences. Three years for manslaughter is too short; three years for manslaughter and covering it up is a joke.

I don't believe Wayne O'Donoghue is a paedophile and I think he killed Robert Holohan accidently. But his sentence should have been at least twice what he got. Granted, O'Donoghue is not a threat to society any more. I doubt he'll so much as drop litter for the rest of his life. But I do think some people are more worried about his feelings than those of the Holohan family.

Hardly a record. There are plenty of examples of people convicted of manslaughter but getting suspended sentences ie. no jail time.

The killing here was unintentional, although reckless or grossly negligent. That merits a manslaughter conviction but not necessarily prison. What did merit prison however, were his actions afterwards. As to what proportion of the sentence was for what, I don't know. Perhaps it was specified in the judgement.

Peared · 16-01-2008 06:41PM

Wacker wrote: »

I'm never crazy about what I preceive as people giving out about how posters here are somehow in lofty ivory towers, and we're all removed from reality. Tell me please, who is this 'man on the street' that you speak of? Once I leave work in about ten minutes, won't I be a man on the street? Aren't the majority of the posters here, who feel justice was done? Yes, I think justice was done in this instance. So do a lot of 'regular people' (whatever that even means), probably the majority.

If you disagree with the ruling, well that's your opinion. Just don't act like you're some kind of working class hero, who knows what's right and wrong.

I was speaking generally about public opinion. For example most people I have heard discussing this think 3 years was a disgrace. Remember the recent rapist on train case? That would be an example of the man on the street having a voice.

Also.. "working class hero" If I was the type to lol Id be lolling now. Never presume to know somebody from posts they make on a message board. And I know what is right and wrong as much as you or anybody else. It just happens that people have different views on what is right and wrong. Called opinions ya know?

Wacker · 16-01-2008 06:50PM

Peared wrote: »

Also.. "working class hero" If I was the type to lol Id be lolling now. Never presume to know somebody from posts they make on a message board. And I know what is right and wrong as much as you or anybody else. It just happens that people have different views on what is right and wrong. Called opinions ya know?

Okay, fair enough, I don't know you or anything about you. My post did reflect that we clearly have divergent opinions on this, which is no big deal.
However, your use of the phrase 'man on the street' does seem to have connotations though. I doubt you'd have said it otherwise. Am I wrong on this?

Peared · 16-01-2008 06:57PM

Wacker I can see where you are coming from with that but actually no, it was just a random choice of expression and possibly not the best one.

Also I am neither a man nor working class (whatever that is these days, I dont even like using it tbh) although I have been known to venture out onto the street occasionally. Nor am I a hero

Eire 4Ever · 16-01-2008 06:58PM

I feel for all the parties involved but 3 years for the manslaughter/murder of an 11 year old boy is a joke

The Irish Justice System is a joke

Boggles · 16-01-2008 07:01PM

seamus wrote: »

I have no medical training, but I'm pretty confident that I could ascertain whether or not someone was dead. Checking pulse is one thing, you can check a few other things too.
In the situation, I wouldn't think, "Ah I'm not qualified to pronounce death, I can't rely on me." I would just be panicking like **** over the fact that I just killed the guy.

So you take out a torch and see if there was eye movement? Doctors have wrongly diagnosed death.

stepbar · 16-01-2008 07:07PM

3 years was a disgrase. The first part of the sorry tale could have been construed as an accident. Fair enough. But the callous way in which O'Donoghue disposed of Robert Houlihan's body was what sickened most people including me. Imagine, he left his body on the beach for rats to gorge on. And then to top it all off, he proceeded to join the search for Robert knowing full well that the poor boy was dead already.

Lemming · 16-01-2008 07:17PM

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.

Erm ..... he wasn't done for murder because the DPP knew it wouldn't stick. it had sod all to do with 'looks' or any such trivial hysteria whipped up by the tabloids.

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)

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

I feel for all the parties involved but 3 years for the manslaughter/murder of an 11 year old boy is a joke

hang ona s econd ... why an 11 year old boy? Are you saying one life is more important than anotherl ife? What if it had been an 80 year old? What about a 17 year old just about to sit their L.C. and have their whole adult lives ahead of them? Why not a 40 year old, father of 4, etc. etc. etc.

Where do you draw the line?

Boggles · 16-01-2008 07:21PM

Dudess wrote: »

He was scared of what would happen to him (as anyone would be) and in desperation he dumped the body, then tried to burn it. Seems he was right to be scared of what would happen to him.
I'm intrigued by how so many people are such experts as to what they would have done if they were unlucky enough to be in his shoes.
Then he came to his senses, realised he wasn't going to be able to cover his tracks, and came forward.

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.

"He was scared of what would happen to him"

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.

Boggles · 16-01-2008 07:24PM

Lemming wrote: »

hang ona s econd ... why an 11 year old boy? Are you saying one life is more important than anotherl ife? What if it had been an 80 year old? What about a 17 year old just about to sit their L.C. and have their whole adult lives ahead of them? Why not a 40 year old, father of 4, etc. etc. etc.

Where do you draw the line?

I persume Ability to defend themselves.

PeakOutput · 16-01-2008 07:31PM

agamemnon wrote: »

Three years for manslaughter is too short; three years for manslaughter and covering it up is a joke.

people get suspended sentences for manslaughter all the time. i would be fairly confident that if he had of called an ambulance instead of panicking that it would of been death by misadventure or something along those lines and he would never of seen the inside of a courtroom.

what happened was an accident a fluke, circumstances that occur thousands of times a year and never end up tragically. in this case they did he deserves no punishment for that.

what he does deserve to be punished for is the cover up and as i said i believe thats what his sentence was for. this is my opinion based on the FACTS that were permissable as evidence and that were reported. it is not based on any inherent coldness of heart i have and if further facts come to light that say for example, he meticolously planned the murder then my opinion will change but until then he deserves every chance at a normal life.

i do concede however that the two opinions will never see eye to eye as one is thinking with their hearts and one with their heads, one uses feelings and one uses reason neither is necessarily wrong but the former is no way to run a country

Dudess · 16-01-2008 07:33PM

Dragan wrote: »

Nice to see you would base such an important decision on your interpretation of someones appearance. Here's hoping you never get jury duty.

Think that's the very mindset the now banned fischerspooner was having a go at (the post in question is actually over two years old!)

Dudess · 16-01-2008 07:38PM

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.

"He was scared of what would happen to him"

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.

You have absolutely NO idea how you would react. As someone already pointed out: you'd get help if you thought he was just out cold. But if you knew he was dead?

Boggles · 16-01-2008 07:40PM

Dudess wrote: »

You have absolutely NO idea how you would react. As someone already pointed out: you'd get help if you thought he was just out cold. But if you knew he was dead?

Yes I do, I would get help.

Dudess · 16-01-2008 07:41PM

I'm sorry but how could you possibly know? Have you experienced it or something?

Boggles · 16-01-2008 07:45PM

Dudess wrote: »

I'm sorry but how could you possibly know? Have you experienced it or something?

Experienced in killing a child, no.

Experienced in diagnosing death, no.

Experienced in knowing if someone is hurt, to get help, by my hand or another. Yes.

Would you accept if the identical thing happened to a 100 people, the very minority would result in Ian Huntley type actions?

Dudess · 16-01-2008 07:56PM

Look, I'm not going to argue with you because accidentally killing someone is just too unimaginable for any of us to know how we'd react.

Lemming · 16-01-2008 08:01PM

Boggles wrote: »

I persume Ability to defend themselves.

A manslaughter/murder victim obviously hasn't manage to defend themselves, so presuming ability to defend oneself is a moot point.

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

Boggles · 16-01-2008 08:05PM

Dudess wrote: »

Look, I'm not going to argue with you because accidentally killing someone is just too unimaginable for any of us to know how we'd react.

Thats a yes then.

Dudess · 16-01-2008 08:11PM

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.

And I meant I couldn't be bothered arguing with someone who just doesn't have a clue what they'd do if it happened to them. There's no point. And I'm not trying to be unpleasant to you, I just don't think you have sufficient grounds for saying you know what you'd do.

Boggles · 16-01-2008 08:11PM

Lemming wrote: »

A manslaughter/murder victim obviously hasn't manage to defend themselves, so presuming ability to defend oneself is a moot point.

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

Not moot at all.

A.Fight between 2 25 year olds that ends in death.

B.Same 25 year olds, one sneaks up behind the other and hits him with a hammer.

Ability to defend oneself, is certainly taken into account. And as children are seen as having less ability to defend themselves, they would be in the B category.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments