O'Donogue only gets 4 years

killeoin · 24-01-2006 08:15PM

Wacker wrote:

Neither are a thousand years. You can't possibly replace the child's life with a sentence; it is hopeless to even try.

But if you go down that road 4 years was good compared to what Brian Murphys Killers got.

killeoin · 24-01-2006 08:17PM

CiaranC wrote:

Didnt the state pathologist specifically state that this wasnt a sexual attack? Whats with the semen claim?

*edit* someone needs to delete killeons post, its clearly libellous.

And the semen claim isn't?

aidan_walsh · 24-01-2006 08:19PM

killeoin wrote:

Robert wasn't dead at the time he died after so if O'Donoghue had called for help at that time he wouldn't have died.

nedoo wrote:

Would you find it normal for an adult to be in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you not know if an adult was in your childs room first thing in the morning?

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.

BuffyBot · 24-01-2006 08:20PM

He admitted killing the child and leaving him in the ditch & trying to burn the body later.

Ermm yes, which was mentioned in court. No one is denying that, are they...

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-01-2006 08:23PM

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

“It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved." - Judge Carney

nedoo · 24-01-2006 08:24PM

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Sorry.Still something funky about that!

flogen · 24-01-2006 08:24PM

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

I never said I wouldn't, but I can't make the connection between panic and looking the mother in the eye, lying to her and consoling her. You'd want to avoid even looking at her if you were guilty, and felt any guilt IMO.

Robert was in a room with Wayne when he was supposed to be at a friends for a sleepover. Shortly after that he made a 999 call. He also had pictures deleted from his phone, and his body was found with (reportedly) Waynes' semen in his clenched hand. All of this was deemed useless by the DPP. What the hell is wrong with them?

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 24-01-2006 08:26PM

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

CiaranC · 24-01-2006 08:31PM

killeon wrote:

And the semen claim isn't?

No, Its not libellous. It was said under protection in the victim impact report.

killeoin · 24-01-2006 08:38PM

Roundtower2 wrote:

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

If you're referring to what I said about the father then he admitted it in court so it's much more than a "claim", its a fact.

killeoin · 24-01-2006 08:42PM

CiaranC wrote:

No, Its not libellous. It was said under protection in the victim impact report.

Ok, this semen claim and phone picture thing is actually confusing me at this stage....(not that hard to I suppose:)

Is it fact or just one womens word?

boardy · 24-01-2006 08:42PM

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I now understand the strange jury verdicts of some recent court cases.

Semen belonging to O’ Donogue was found on the victim. The Guards knew this but the DPP did not present it, as they believed his statement that it accidentally came from a towel.

O’ Donogue also tried to set fire to the kid after the accident, and it seems that the body was quite badly mauled by animals.

By the way, just in case some of you become jurists in the future:
Just because a perpetrator of a crime claims that the act was an accident, it does not necessarily mean that it is true.

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 24-01-2006 08:45PM

boardy wrote:

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

Most of us don't need deterrence...

CiaranC · 24-01-2006 08:45PM

boardy wrote:

Semen belonging to O’ Donogue was found on the victim. The Guards knew this but the DPP did not present it, as they believed his statement that it accidentally came from a towel.

Where are you getting this from?

killeoin · 24-01-2006 08:46PM

boardy wrote:

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

oh get over yourself, a lot worse injustices happen every day and no one mutters a word.

Doctor Benway · 24-01-2006 08:57PM

boardy wrote:

By the way, just in case some of you become jurists in the future:
Just because a perpetrator of a crime claims that the act was an accident, it does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Wow, thanks Rumpole.

Now if only there was some way of adjucating in cases like these ... perhaps if various pieces of information were put before a group of independent men and women (we could call them a 'jury') and let them decide which version of events they find the most plausible. How would that be?

On the 'accident' issue. No one is suggesting that the death was a complete accident (comparable to a road traffic accident) - if it was, O'Donoghue shouldn't have been found guilty of anything. Clearly, and by his own admission, O'Donoghue was culpable in the death in that deliberate actions of his that led to it. It's the death itself that appears (based on the evidence presented in court) that was accidental.

Similarly, based on the evidence that was actually presented, 4 years seems pretty much in line with other manslaughter verdicts. Remember, he wasn't being tried for lying, or for trying to dispose of the body; it was just the manslaughter. And while the death of a child might be tragic, I don't see why it should be treated more harshly by the courts than the death of an adult.

Mikros · 24-01-2006 08:57PM

Now I know I might get attacked for this but I thought I’d put it out there. I think it was inappropriate for these latest rumours/accusations to be allowed go public after the trial and sentencing was concluded. In my opinion it makes a mockery of the whole process. The question is why they weren’t brought before the court if there was any basis in them. I understand the fact that the trial couldn’t be prejudiced by the media, but why was it not presented in court?

The loss of a child is always tragic, but in people desire to see justice you can’t let emotion cloud your judgement. Wayne O'Donoghue was brought before a jury and found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced in line with other manslaughter cases. Now whether that is too lenient in general is another question, the point is that he was given due process. Roberts mother was given the opportunity to address the court today, she wasn’t testifying as some people have said. It’s a decision a judge can make. Is it possible then that what a grieving mother might say about the man who killed her son might be more emotional than a rational view of the facts?

As to whether O'Donoghue meant to kill Robert, based on the facts ruled admissible in court and the presumption of innocence, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter, not murder. In other words there was not malicious aforethought. It was an accident. While plenty of people will make their minds up based on hearsay and what’s in the Evening Herald, they don’t understand how the legal system works, and more importantly why it is that way.

In this case everyone lost. Uniformed speculation is only going to make it hurt more for people involved.

Doctor Benway · 24-01-2006 09:04PM

Mikros wrote:

Now I know I might get attacked for this but I thought I’d put it out there. I think it was inappropriate for these latest rumours/accusations to be allowed go public after the trial and sentencing was concluded. In my opinion it makes a mockery of the whole process. The question is why they weren’t brought before the court if there was any basis in them. I understand the fact that the trial couldn’t be prejudiced by the media, but why was it not presented in court?

No, I think you're right. It was a blatant abuse of the system of victim impact statements.

It will be interesting to see if the parents do appear on the Late Late Show (as is rumoured), given their plea to be allowed to grieve in private.

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-01-2006 09:07PM

Doctor Benway wrote:

No, I think you're right. It was a blatant abuse of the system of victim impact statements.

Yeah how dare the mother be angry about the fact that semen found on her son's body was not deemed fit to be taken into consideration...

People seem more concerned about libel laws, the sentence and similar bullsh*t instead of actually finding out what REALLY HAPPENED.

Doctor Benway · 24-01-2006 09:09PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yeah how dare the mother be angry about the fact that semen found on her son's body was not deemed fit to be taken into consideration...

Yeah, imagine thinking that victim impact statements should be about the impact of a crime on victims, and not used to make substantiated claims under privilege. How stupid of me.

Vince135792003 · 24-01-2006 09:13PM

I've found the case hard to get around and I've changed my mind a few times as time has gone on . To the point where I really dont know what to believe anymore or where to fall on the issue.

But 4 years only? Its not right in my opinion. You can make claims counter claims about a whole range of issues about this case.

A man admitted killing a young boy out of rage becuase he threw a rock at his car. Strangling him by accident. That is Wayee O'Donoghues story in 2 sentences. As everyone knows theres more, lots more. Even if I am to beleive it 100%, a mere 4 year sentence is hard to justify in my mind.

Doctor Benway · 24-01-2006 09:18PM

Vince135792003 wrote:

A man admitted killing a young boy out of rage becuase he threw a rock at his car. Strangling him by accident. That is Wayee O'Donoghues story in 2 sentences.

It's also the story accepted by the court, which is kind of the point.

Vince135792003 · 24-01-2006 09:20PM

I know it is. My point is I find it hard to accept.

Mikros · 24-01-2006 09:20PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yeah how dare the mother be angry about the fact that semen found on her son's body was not deemed fit to be taken into consideration...

People seem more concerned about libel laws, the sentence and similar bullsh*t instead of actually finding out what REALLY HAPPENED.

Except there are only two people who know what really happened, and one of them isn’t here. Seen as though we don’t have the ability to read someone’s mind we have to settle for more human methods. And in that sense it has been decided that O'Donoghue is guilty of manslaughter based on the *facts* admissible. We can never know fully what happened. So now that the legal process is complete shouldn’t people accept that as opposed to endless speculation which undermines the whole process in the first place?

Vince135792003 · 24-01-2006 09:24PM

Mikros wrote:

Except there are only two people who know what really happened, and one of them isn’t here. Seen as though we don’t have the ability to read someone’s mind we have to settle for more human methods. And in that sense it has been decided that O'Donoghue is guilty of manslaughter based on the *facts* admissible. We can never know fully what happened. So now that the legal process is complete shouldn’t people accept that as opposed to endless speculation which undermines the whole process in the first place?

I'd agree maybe people should accept it. Move on. I can understand why relatives of Robert Holohan can't and won't though.

killeoin · 24-01-2006 09:31PM

Ok, coming from the area myself I would like to point out that there is a lot of sympathy for Wayne O'Donoghue.

Second it is my belief (and only my belief) that Robert Holohan's parents are simply vendictive.
I mean his father was shown in court to be beating him, now his turning around and playing God as if he cared about the child!
If they go on the Late Late Show and SELL their story to the papers then this will surely show a more sinister side to them will it not?

Fast_Mover · 24-01-2006 09:33PM

killeoin wrote:

Ok, coming from the area myself I would like to point out that there is a lot of sympathy for Wayne O'Donoghue.

Second it is my belief (and only my belief) that Robert Holohan's parents are simply vendictive.
I mean his father was shown in court to be beating him, now his turning around and playing God as if he cared about the child!
If they go on the Late Late Show and SELL their story to the papers then this will surely show a more sinister side to them will it not?

yep im the area aswell and agree with everything Killeoin just said!!

nesf · 24-01-2006 09:35PM

This thread is straying far far too close to libel.

If people don't start reining back their stating of "facts" there will be lockings and bannings happening. This is an emotive issue and you should approach it with calm and caution, or you can keep your opinion to yourself.

Thanks.

Oh and:

Fact does not equal a claim. Unless proof is brought forward, or an authority (such as the courts or similar) comes forward to validate the claim, it is not a fact and cannot be stated as such. This is a simple but important thing to remember.

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-01-2006 09:38PM

killeoin wrote:

Second it is my belief (and only my belief) that Robert Holohan's parents are simply vendictive (sic).

Vindictive? What a disgusting comment.

killeoin wrote:

I mean his father was shown in court to be beating him, now his turning around and playing God as if he cared about the child!

Where was that stated?

killeoin wrote:

If they go on the Late Late Show and SELL their story to the papers then this will surely show a more sinister side to them will it not?

I would urge them to ty and get as much exposure for this injustice as possible.

Also, why was O'Donoghue's claim that semen was the result of being from a towel accepted?

The DPP have alot of questions to answer.

santosubito · 24-01-2006 09:39PM

Their child has been killed, yet you call them vindictive. Of course they're vindictive, wouldn't you be? But if she lied in court (she didn't by the way) she can be done for perjury. Also, do you not think Frank Buttimer, O'Donoghue's solicitor who gave a statement outside the court afterwards, would have been screaming blue murder if the semen thing was false?
You'll hear him onm the RTE news later on.
If you guys are from Midleton, or the surrounding area, can you hand on heart say you didn't hear the rumours about there being a sexual element to this killing before the trial?

O'Donogue only gets 4 years

Comments