O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

KaG1888 wrote: »

Manual strangulation (called throttling in the UK) refers to strangling with the hands, fingers, or other extremities

Other extremities like.....oh I dunno.....your arm? Unless you think they're referring to strangling someone by gripping them with your toes or your ears?

LadyJ wrote: »

Clearly you did.

I have read my post a few times, can't see where I said that serial killers should be pardoned???

HavoK wrote: »

You really have no tolerance for any suggestion or points that go beyond your own, do you?

Someone makes a good analogy, a purely hypothetical one, what's wrong with that? Panic attacks are quite a common occurance you know. It's well known that self preservation is a common human trait when faced with danger and more frequently, life threatening behaviour - it's called instinct as well, and it differs from human to human - just because you feel a certain way (and your opinion is just that - opinion, that fact, unless you know something concrete that we don't) it does not mean you have a right to decide who is and isn't right on this thread - everyone here is (largely, and at least, the people who are referring specifically to) speculating as to what they would and would not do - yet you seem determined to undermine any of that speculation with what you're trying to present as a sort of fact, based on what is essentially your own speculation - which is most likely amateur speculation to boot. Do you think they looked at the evidence, and decided in 30 seconds - right lads, this was a total accident? The process is a litter deeper then that.

Wow.

Where have I pointed out who was right and wrong on the thread?

I am entitled to my opinion. As is everyone else. It's a forum and thread mate, it wouldn't exist without opinion.

The poster in question, said I was talking crap. I qouted the posters user of the word "crap" that is all.