O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

PeakOutput · 16-01-2008 08:11PM

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 · 16-01-2008 08:34PM

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 · 16-01-2008 08:37PM

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 · 16-01-2008 08:38PM

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 · 16-01-2008 08:43PM

This post has been deleted.

nlgbbbblth · 16-01-2008 09:01PM

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 · 16-01-2008 09:57PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:01PM

Peared wrote: »

I am neither a man nor working class

Hence 'Peared', eh?:D

PeakOutput · 16-01-2008 10:13PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:19PM

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 16-01-2008 10:22PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:31PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:33PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:40PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:43PM

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 · 16-01-2008 10:54PM

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 · 17-01-2008 12:47AM

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 · 17-01-2008 12:50AM

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 · 17-01-2008 12:53AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:00AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:03AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:04AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:09AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:10AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:14AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:17AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:20AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:23AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:34AM

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 · 17-01-2008 01:45AM

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?

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments