nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

finlma

Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Seems like a fair decision to me.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

padser

I would just like to make a point to those who dont agere with the verdict and bring up ancillary issues such as participating in searches etc. Everything Wayne did after the event, while it may have caused unnecessary hurt and prolongued the agony for Roberts in no way justifies a finding of murder for a couple of reasons, but mainly because there is a mandatory sentence for murder (life imprisoment).
In effect you would be sentencing a young man to spend the majority of his life behind bars for nothing more then withholding information from the guards and showing no empathy for the family of a young boy who had died. Sure these things are bad, and his sentence does need to be stiffer then it would have been had he rang 999 as soon as it happened, but do they in themselves compare to rape, or murder, or even the case that was discussed a few days ago regarding the 'drug fuelled crime spree'? I think not.

seamus

delly wrote:

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.

Of course, but even "heat of moment" things can find people guilty of murder. If someone punched you in a pub, you completely lost it, screamed, "I'm gonna kill ye!" at the guy, then stabbed him with a broken glass, you'd have a tough time proving that it was an accident that you killed him.
Each case is different, but from what I gathered, the forensic evidence concurred with O'Donoghue's testimony that he had the boy in a headlock for 15-30 seconds. That piece of evidence alone, for me, would be conclusive enough to determine that killing the boy was far from his mind.

nesf

Oral Slang wrote:

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.

That's almost exactly what went through my head when I heard the case.

embee

Some people have commented on how Wayne O'Donoghue appeared to be calm and composed after he had killed Robert. Perhaps he appeared so, but his testimony suggests otherwise. I think he rather kept up a front until it became too much for him. God.. if I had been in his situation, I don't know that I would have been able to keep a level head, or that I would have been thinking straight.

I honestly feel sorry for him. I don't think he thought for a second that getting a wee boy in a headlock was going to kill the child. I remember when I was a kid having physical rucks with older cousins that involved headlocks and all sorts... I would never have thought for a second that it could have killed me and I'm sure my cousins wouldn't have either.

galwaydude

whats all this sympathising with wayne o donoghue.He killed a young boy and now the boys parents will morne his loss for ever. Ok robert was thrown stones at wayne but for christ sake that doesnt mean you strangle the kid afterwards.

Just because wayne is educationed and comes from a well to do family doesnt mean we should be wearing thick glasses when looking at this case. He comitted a serious crime and will have to live with those actions for the rest of his life.

Then what does he do try and burn the body, are these the actions of a normal abiding citizen. He may have lost it but he killed someone and i hope the sentance is fair and just and he goes down for a good number of years.

What would everybody think if that was your little brother that was murdered.
Embee its roberts parents and family i feel sorry for not wayne.

This post may have been harsh but this killing shocked the nation.

nlgbbbblth

galwaydude wrote:

Ok robert was thrown stones at wayne but for christ sake that doesnt mean you strangle the kid afterwards.

Manslaughter was a fair verdict.

Throwing stones at someone is something that should never be condoned and it's important that the jury recognise this as being the sole cause of Wayne O'Donoghue's actions. Put another way - he didn't start this altercation and that needs to borne in mind.

Obviously his reaction after the young boy's death was wrong but it is not surprising that he tried to get away it with it/cover his tracks.

seamus

galwaydude wrote:

Then what does he do try and burn the body, are these the actions of a normal abiding citizen. He may have lost it but he killed someone and i hope the sentance is fair and just and he goes down for a good number of years.

Just to be clear - there's no proof that he tried to burn the body. Perhaps he considered it, but he didn't attempt it. That was something suggested by the prosecution to try and bring out their "cold and calculated" viewpoint.

galwaydude

Manslaughter was a fair verdict.

Throwing stones at someone is something that should never be condoned and it's important that the jury recognise this as being the sole cause of Wayne O'Donoghue's actions. Put another way - he didn't start this altercation and that needs to borne in mind.

Mainslaughter was the correct verdict in this case.

How can one explain when wayne was involved in the search for roberts body when he knew full well where the body was. In that time he could have come forward instead of putting roberts family through torture.

I know he didnt start this altercation but what does one do if a kid is thrown stones at you.you walk away. Robert didnt know any better because of his condition. He was murdered remember.

Maybe he didnt try and burn the body but he kept it well hidden that it took a good number of days for the guards to find robert.

nlgbbbblth

galwaydude wrote:

I know he didnt start this altercation but what does one do if a kid is thrown stones at you.you walk away. Robert didnt know any better because of his condition.

If everyone walked away from/said nothing to a kid throwing stones at them then the kid would quickly get the idea that this sort of behaviour was acceptable.

If everyone brought up their kids in this way there would anarchy.

galwaydude wrote:

He was murdered remember.

He was killed. Accidentally. Not the same thing

seamus

galwaydude wrote:

Maybe he didnt try and burn the body but he kept it well hidden that it took a good number of days for the guards to find robert.

Indeed. But that has very little do with the notion of murder -v- manslaughter.
It's extremely regrettable that the uncertainty had to be drawn out for 12 days, but could you say for certain that you wouldn't have done the same thing in Wayne O'Donoghue's shoes?
Afaik, he could also be charged with any of a number of offences relating to withholding evidence/obstructing justice/etc but they tend not to.