O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Muff_Daddy · 18-01-2008 04:19PM

People in this thread seem to have unquestioned faith in the legal system, when the plain fact is, the legal system is made up of human-beings, who by very nature are failable. Just because a judge has sat for x amount of years and heard x amount of cases, doesn't mean he's immune to criticism, from legal expert or a lay man. Remember Justice Denim?

Mr. Nice Guy is right to bring up those cases, some of the decisions made by Justice Carney have been borderline insane. The maximum penalty, according to "statute", for slashing your baby to death (S.4 Criminal Justice Act, as amended attracts a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder) and stabbing your partner (Attempted murder, plus S.4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act attracts life imprisonment for causing serious harm) is 4 years now? "Jail will serve no purpose"...What the f*** does that mean? Madness. Doesn't take a legal eagle to see that. According to the law of averages, thse are more cases like this.

With regard WoD, I don't know the evidence so I can't say for sure, but on the evidence given, I don't see where there is case for murder as there is not enough evidence that he intended, and that is the key word here, to end the life of Robert. Whatever about the sentence, the verdict was correct IMO.

AngryBadger · 18-01-2008 06:17PM

Even within this one (15 page) thread we've had multiple definitions of what constitutes manslaughter, and various definitions of murder. A few people have come on and bolstered their "facts" by saying that they, or comrades of theirs have studied law. Unless you're a practicing barrister of some kind you're not in a position to provide any "expert" opinions on the sentence handed out.

Regarding the semen. Common sense will tell you that semen could very easily be picked up in a totally innocent manner. Disgusting though it is, some guys don't wash up after masterbating, and even for those of us that do, that's a projectile release folks, and you don't know where it's going to land. So a simple case of masterbation-led-contamination would explain the trace amounts of semen found. Then when you factor in the fact that the body was wrapped in a mat from O Donoghue's bathroom (shower?), no-one can deny you now have a ready supply for any semen found. So even if the semen found was matched to O Donoghue (and it wasn't) all that would prove was that he masterbated.

A lot of people seem to be turning on his behaviour after the accident as justification for a harsher penalty. A few people have even compared him to Ian Huntley. That's an idiotic comparison, Huntley had a history of sexual offences (having been accused prior to his final conviction for murdering Jessica Chapman, and Holly Wells), his actions were not spontaneous, they were pre-meditated. Completely different situation.

The Padraic Nalley case has also been referred to. The consensus there seems to be that Nalley was right and all his actions after the killing were justified because the victim "had it coming". Nalley had been terrorised, and victimised by John Ward. So somehow his killing, and the subsequent attempted cover-up by Padraic Nalley were excusable.

Anyone proposing that argument is exercising a double standard. Most people accept that Wayne O' Donoghue didn't pre-meditate the murder of Robert Holohan, so several posters have taken the line that he should have been jailed for a longer period because of the subsequent cover-up, and yet some of those same people maintain that Padraic Nalley is a hero and should never have been sentenced.

As for those speculating that he was a paedophile and so on. That has been discounted by the courts. It has been discredited by scientific evidence. On what grounds are you basing the assertion that O' Donoghue had an inappropraite relationship with Robert Holohan? All I'm reading here is a whole bunch of "ah well now you know yourself, no smoke without fire and all that" which amounts to a whole load of nothing. There is no basis for that assertion. When you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation all you do is expose your own ignorance.

O' Donoghue did an incredibly stupid thing, I can't find the words for it, and while I don't believe he in any way intended for what happened I have difficulty accepting that he managed to end Rober Holohans life in that way. Howsoever, none of us can state that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which we might do things we would otherwise believe ourselves incapable of. Anyone stating anything other is kidding themselves.

What happened was an absolute tragedy, it ended one life, ruined another, and destroyed two families. All this speculation serves only to draw out the suffering of all the people involved.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2008 06:27PM

Regardless what Huntley done before murdering Holly and Jessica a direct comparision can still be made between the two case's.

Both WoD used 'accidently' death in their defences.

Both said they panicked afterwards and that led them to take the actions they did, ie hide the bodies.

Both SEARCHED for the bodies FOR DAYS knowing full well what faith had befallen the children.

Huntley had his girlfriend ring the two girls mobil phones in the pretence that they were hoping for a reply.

WoD rang Roberts phone knowing he was dead.

And guys, I still maintain that its not that easy to accidently strangle/choke someone to death using a head lock. Someone well practiced in chokes & strangles (I'm very well practiced in them) can render someone unconscious within seconds but the presure has to be maintained for a prolonged period before killing someone & I don't believe that is an accident.

I don't think WoD set out to murder Robert, but once the wheels were set in motion Roberts faith was sealed.

Agamemnon · 18-01-2008 06:47PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

The Padraic Nalley case has also been referred to. The consensus there seems to be that Nalley was right and all his actions after the killing were justified because the victim "had it coming". Nalley had been terrorised, and victimised by John Ward. So somehow his killing, and the subsequent attempted cover-up by Padraic Nalley were excusable.

Anyone proposing that argument is exercising a double standard. Most people accept that Wayne O' Donoghue didn't pre-meditate the murder of Robert Holohan, so several posters have taken the line that he should have been jailed for a longer period because of the subsequent cover-up, and yet some of those same people maintain that Padraic Nalley is a hero and should never have been sentenced.

There's no double standard at all - they are two very different cases. Are you seriously telling us that you see no difference between John Ward and Robert Holohan?

It's bizarre that so many people in this thread are bending over backwards to sympathise with O'Donoghue and make excuses for his covering up what he did. If, instead of being a student, O'Donoghue was a tracksuit-wearing scumbag, this would be a very different thread.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 06:57PM

Mairt wrote: »

Traveller?.

i actually completely forgot it was a traveller involved i wouldnt of used that word otherwise. when i say knacker im generally refering to some scumbag not necessarily a traveller although that guy happened to be both.

also mairt you seem to suggest here

So if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!.. (OJ Simpson)..

that you would be happy to have wod sentenced for a crime that the EVIDENCE says he didnt commit just because someone else in a different country with different laws probably got away with murder. what you quoted did not say it could not be determined who owned the semen it said "the semen was NOT wods"

How horrible is live going to be for the Holohan family now there son is dead and his killer is free

weather he served 3years or 10 years the family will feel the same way when he is released.

this thread has kept me entertained all threw work loads of "heartfelt"(and i cant think of a way to improve on this) taxi driver justice crap from people who know are either completely ignorant of the facts or who have read an extra paragraph or two and think of themselves qualified to comment on anything.

a little information can be very dangerous and i think the fact that some people have branded him a paedo and a complete danger to society over and over prove that over and over.

someone else here said that the simplest answer is almost always the right one. there is nothing simple about a regular young man sexually abusing a child (possibly continuosly(sp)) and then premeditating murder on that child and trying to cover it up. what is simple is an accident occured someone panicked and made **** decisions.

Mr.Nice Guy · 18-01-2008 07:00PM

Crazy Christ wrote: »

You seem to be confused. I don't understand where you have absolute evidence that he lost the rag and then made a conscious decision to kill the child. You don't seem to grasp the definition of intent. Did I say that it was an excuse for killing someone? There is a vast difference in killing someone with intent and without intent. It really is simple.

I'm not the one confused here. According to O'Donoghue...

He said that it was an accident after a row erupted when Robert threw stones at his car.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0124/holohanr.html

So then, "a row erupted", a child was killed by someone bigger and stronger than him and O'Donoghue then proceeded to move the boy’s bicycle from his home, wrap his body in plastic and dump it in a ditch at Inch Strand before helping Gardai search for a body he had disposed of.

According to you there's no intent to harm here. Yeah pal and I'm the bleeding tooth fairy. Will you wake up, man.

Crazy Christ wrote:

And again, I don't know where you have absolute evidence that he is a sexual predator. I would not be worried for my child's safety if O'Donoghue lived next door. That nonsense about Michael Jackson just goes to show that you are obsessed and preoccupied with the hint of a sexual element despite the lack of any real evidence.

I never said he was a sexual predator, I asked you if you would leave a loved one near him. You say you wouldn't be worried if he lived next door but if he was spending time around your child I bet you'd be concerned.

I'm hardly "obsessed and preoccupied with the hint of a sexual element" but I will point out that Robert was in Wayne O'Donoghue's bedroom at 7.20am one day when he was supposed to have been on a sleepover with a friend and that semen was found on the boy's body.

I'm willing to accept this is not evidence of sexual involvement however it is "real evidence".

Crazy Christ wrote:

As for your opinion on Carney, I would be inclined to take it with a pinch of salt as you quite clearly can't manage to grasp simple legal concepts like intent. An example of taxi-driver court standards.

Translation - I made points that you can't answer but because it disturbs your cutesy-pie view of the world you'll choose to ignore it. Fair enough.

Crazy Christ wrote:

He seems to.. really? He must do so.
He's quite partial to seeing his name in the papers? Did he tell you this? More of the same sensationalist nonsense.

LOL you really are struggling. Yeah he seems to, ie that is what the report I linked to claimed so you can make your own mind up on it. The evidence is there but you want to bury your head in the sand.

Crazy Christ wrote:

Some of his sentences made for good copy and the papers ran with them. So that means he is fond of seeing himself in the limelight? As usual you are just speculating. How the hell do you know what his motivations are? You don't. You just believe he is fond of the limelight. So you spout it around the place as if you have special knowledge of the man.

I 'spout' my opinions based upon the record of the man in question. Nothing wrong with that. One wonders why this bothers you so much.

God forbid someone present evidence and form an opinion on them!

(Edit - I read below and I see now why it bothers you so much.

)

Crazy Christ wrote:

Which is why we have judges and a legal system, to prevent people like you from sentencing and convicting people according to your own skewed view of the facts. People who are entirely sure of a person's guilt or innocence in their head, who are completely unswayed by facts and circumstances of the case.

LOL oh to live in your perfect world where judges and legal systems can do no wrong! I bet you would have applauded the decision by the judge to imprison the Guildford Four too wouldn't you?

Wake up and realise that it is actually possible for a person with huge influence, responsibility and most importantly POWER, to abuse it. You need only look at those who have governed this state to see that.

Crazy Christ wrote:

I wouldn't read too much into your opinions on law; whatever you think of Carney, I would advise you to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't assemble a flat-pack and as a result, I don't advise builders how to do their job.

Well I don't hold a seat in a constituency but I'll gladly give my advice on how they do their job.

I can't look at the evidence on Carney and give him the benefit of the doubt as there are too many perplexing sentences and his attitude I find very worrying.

Crazy Christ wrote:

With personal experience of his teachings, the man knows more about the law than the majority of his peers.

Oh well then! Here we go! Your bitter and personal comments towards me suddenly make a lot of sense! Personal experience of his teachings you say? Funny how you earlier talked about being dispassionate and unbiased and yet now you reveal you were actually taught by the guy. Hello irony. Nice to see you.

I don't need to tell you that your opinions hold little substance now you've revealed you've been drinking his kool-aid. Sorry but you're not in a neutral position to judge the man like myself and others are.

Crazy Christ wrote:

You could write headlines for the Evening Herald, I'll give you that

And you could judge major court cases in this State judging by your views.

Mairt wrote:

And guys, I still maintain that its not that easy to accidently strangle/choke someone to death using a head lock. Someone well practiced in chokes & strangles (I'm very well practiced in them) can render someone unconscious within seconds but the presure has to be maintained for a prolonged period before killing someone & I don't believe that is an accident.

Agree 100%. I've taken Brazilian Jiu Jitsu classes and on the first day they taught us about choke holds with one being applied on me. I was a bit worried but the instructor informed me that while it would take seconds to make me pass out, it would actually takes minutes of sustained pressure to actually choke a person to death.

The idea that the boy was put in a headlock and seconds later dropped dead much to O'Donoghue's dismay seems fanciful stuff to me.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 07:01PM

agamemnon wrote: »

There's no double standard at all - they are two very different cases. Are you seriously telling us that you see no difference between John Ward and Robert Holohan?

It's bizarre that so many people in this thread are bending over backwards to sympathise with O'Donoghue and make excuses for his covering up what he did. If, instead of being a student, O'Donoghue was a tracksuit-wearing scumbag, this would be a very different thread.

no it wouldnt because the people who are arguing that wod has served his time are using reason and facts to base their arguments on. if the facts of a case were exactly the same as this but the person who did the killing was a tracksuit wearing scumbag the arguments would be exactly the same as they are based on facts. it is the wayne is a murdering paedo crowd who are basing their arguments on feelings. this means they are not being objective and therefore are far more likely to be influenced by details like where people are from what they look like etc etc

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 07:12PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not the one confused here. According to O'Donoghue...

So then, "a row erupted", a child was killed by someone bigger and stronger than him and O'Donoghue then proceeded to move the boy’s bicycle from his home, wrap his body in plastic and dump it in a ditch at Inch Strand before helping Gardai search for a body he had disposed of.

you either completely missed his point / still dont understand what the word intent means or are deliberately playing dumb.

provide one shred of evidence that wod DELIBERATELY KILLED robert. then present it to the dpp and look forward to your new career in investigations as they must have missed it

Agamemnon · 18-01-2008 07:16PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

if the facts of a case were exactly the same as this but the person who did the killing was a tracksuit wearing scumbag the arguments would be exactly the same

LOL, do you read After Hours threads much?

I'm not saying O'Donoghue is a paedophile - I think he killed Robert Holohan accidentally. I'm not wishing for O'Donoghue to be torn apart by an angry mob but he should have gotten a longer sentence for the lengths he went to in covering up what he did. He lied to the Gardaí and drew out the agony of the Holohans for 12 days before confessing.

Mr.Nice Guy · 18-01-2008 07:22PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

you either completely missed his point / still dont understand what the word intent means or are deliberately playing dumb.

provide one shred of evidence that wod DELIBERATELY KILLED robert. then present it to the dpp and look forward to your new career in investigations as they must have missed it

Were you taught by Carney too? Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

Evidence that he deliberately killed Robert Holohan you ask? As mentioned, the fact that it takes a significant effort to choke a human being to death and the fact that there was an altercation over stones hitting O'Donoghue's car prior to the incident.

That is why I believe there to be intent there.

Your blind faith in those operating in our legal system is amazing to me. I bet you believed oul' Charlie Haughey was a good guy as well.

doonothing · 18-01-2008 07:30PM

Did he not try to burn the body to hide the crime? Jesus, manslaughter is awful but one can see how in the heat of the moment they could lose control (well, not personally, but you know what I mean), but to carry the child's body away and try to burn it, and then to help with the search? I still think he should have gotten a little bit more than 2 and a half years for that...

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 07:32PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Were you taught by Carney too?

iv made it clear iv no legal training of any kind.and as for my attitude i wont apologise for basing my opinions on such important matters on facts and not speculation

As mentioned, the fact that it takes a significant effort to choke a human being to death

it has been mentioned by adult forum posters who have experience in martial arts choking other adults. i have not heard anything from the state pathologist that says it was not possible for the cause of death to be accidental. i would also suggest it would be alot easier to choke a child to death particularly when the child is potentially out of breath after some sort of struggle or running around in jest or whatever

That is why I believe there to be intent there.

intent to kill a friend over some stones thrown at a car?

Your blind faith in those operating in our legal system is amazing to me. I bet you believed oul' Charlie Haughey was a good guy as well.

im too young for haughey but if my present political view is much to go by i doubt i would have been a big fan.

i dont have blind faith in anything but in general i believe these people do a very good job (everyone further up the chain then the gardai anyway) there are bound to be mistakes sometimes but , for the nth time, the facts of this case do not suggest that it was one of the mistakes

see edit

Dudess · 18-01-2008 07:42PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

knacker

Don't use that term here when referring to travellers. "Oh you're so PC, bla bla bla" - that's the rule here, I'm just the messenger.

As for WOD's sentence: we're only baying for a longer sentence to satisfy US - not to punish HIM. No matter how long he serves - three years, five years, 20 years - it won't bring Robert back, it won't ease his parents' pain and it won't make O'Donoghue feel any worse than he already does, which must be pretty damn bad. He's gonna spend the rest of his life in hiding, at the risk of harassment and worst of all, knowing that he ended a small boy's life and destroyed his family. Folks, for those of you he feel he isn't being punished enough, I really don't think he could be made to feel worse.
He's definitely being punished enough - have no fear about that.

Boggles · 18-01-2008 07:45PM

Dudess wrote: »

it won't ease his parents' pain and it won't make O'Donoghue feel any worse than he already does

I disagree with you on that point, the parents would be alot more satisified if their childs killer was not walking around free to get on with the rest of his life. I know if it was my child I would be much more happier if the killer got 20 years, thus in affect ease my suffering.

As for how Wayne feels, you or I can't possilbly comment on that.

seamus · 18-01-2008 07:49PM

Boggles wrote: »

I disagree with you on that point, the parents would be alot more satisified if their childs killer was not walking around free to get on with the rest of his life. I know if it was my child I would be much more happier if the killer got 20 years, thus in affect ease my suffering.

And this is precisely why the victim is the worst possible person to decide the punishment. Because they'll inevitably try to choose something which satisfies them as opposed to to something which fits the crime.

A judge with years of experience is ultimately much better able to decide on a sentence than anyone here.

Boggles · 18-01-2008 07:50PM

seamus wrote: »

And this is precisely why the victim is the worst possible person to decide the punishment. Because they'll inevitably try to choose something which satisfies them as opposed to to something which fits the crime.

A judge with years of experience is ultimately much better able to decide on a sentence than anyone here.

Not me, I have read two of Judge Judy's books.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 07:51PM

Dudess wrote: »

Don't use that term here when referring to travellers. "Oh you're so PC, bla bla bla" - that's the rule here, I'm just the messenger.

i already explained my use here

i actually completely forgot it was a traveller involved i wouldnt of used that word otherwise. when i say knacker im generally refering to some scumbag not necessarily a traveller although that guy happened to be both.

I really don't think he could be made to feel worse.

i agree with you completely although i doubt the people baying for his blood will as they dont see it as an unfortunate accident they see it as pre meditated murder

I disagree with you on that point, the parents would be alot more satisified if their childs killer was not walking around free to get on with the rest of his life. I know if it was my child I would be much more happier if the killer got 20 years, thus in affect ease my suffering.

the legal system is not there to ease their suffering, it is simply a welcome side affect that it sometimes does.

Dudess · 18-01-2008 07:53PM

Sorry Peak, my mistake

*whispers* WhiteWashMan makes us read every single post word for word - I thought I'd get away with skipping over just one! I'm so dead!

Boggles · 18-01-2008 08:01PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

the legal system is not there to ease their suffering, it is simply a welcome side affect that it sometimes does.

Then why do judges take victim impact statements into consideration when sentancing?

To Appease the Victim?

Crazy Christ · 18-01-2008 08:03PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

According to you there's no intent to harm here. Yeah pal and I'm the bleeding tooth fairy. Will you wake up, man.

In your earlier post, you believed this case to have been murder. Which means you believe he intended to kill the boy, or cause grievous bodily harm. The conclusion was, and is, that he did not intend to kill him. Which is what I have already said.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Translation - I made points that you can't answer but because it disturbs your cutesy-pie view of the world you'll choose to ignore it. Fair enough.

I have disagreed with your ridiculous view that it was murder simply because an adult and a child were involved. As if the presence of a child in the equation automatically classifies it as murder, regardless of whether or not the intent was there, which it was found not to be. I don't see any points to be answered.

As for Carney, you should stick to an analysis of his legal reasoning, not crap like 'he loves to be in the limelight' or how he likes to be in the papers, which is pretty meaningless gossip, worthy of Liveline.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I 'spout' my opinions based upon the record of the man in question. Nothing wrong with that. One wonders why this bothers you so much.

You don't really know his record though do you? You read an article or two about five or six cases and the public opinion on each. It hardly makes you an expert on him.

It doesn't bother me, I couldn't give a fiddler's f**k about the man. Just responding to your criticism of him, because I disagree. In my opinion, he is one of the better judges we have.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

LOL oh to live in your perfect world where judges and legal systems can do no wrong! I bet you would have applauded the decision by the judge to imprison the Guildford Four too wouldn't you?

As for that, that's the kind of stuff you hear on Liveline as well. Just nonsense. It doesn't really belong in a discussion.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Wake up and realise that it is actually possible for a person with huge influence, responsibility and most importantly POWER, to abuse it. You need only look at those who have governed this state to see that.

I agree with that, don't know where you assume I have a happy-go-lucky view of the world. What do you know about my views of the Legal System or people in power? Nothing. We're talking about one case here.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well I don't hold a seat in a constituency but I'll gladly give my advice on how they do their job.

You're entitled to an opinion on how they do their job, but you see, you're not really qualified to give a High Court Judge advice. Nobody here is.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Personal experience of his teachings you say? Funny how you earlier talked about being dispassionate and unbiased and yet now you reveal you were actually taught by the guy. Hello irony. Nice to see you.

I can be in strong disagreement with your views of his competence, what has that got to do with my comment that a judge needs to be unbiased and dispassionate when judging a case? You don't make any sense.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Sorry but you're not in a neutral position to judge the man like myself and others are.

That's the biggest horse-sh*t I've ever heard. So we all have to be completely neutral here? I can't defend him because he was an important part of my course, even though that means I know a bit about him and the way he works?

And you could judge major court cases in this State judging by your views.

Not really, because you see I would never have the patience or commitment to be a judge, and I respect those who do.

As for Carney, I wasn't taught by him as such, he gives guest lectures in the Law Faculty in UCC. If you do law you have no choice but to be aware of him and to have a knowledge of his history and reasoning. Surely somebody who knows a tiny bit about him is entitled to have an opinion on his work without that 'I can see why you are defending him' rubbish, as if I am going out with him or something.

Sonnenblumen · 18-01-2008 08:07PM

There's so much expert opinion here, you'd almost mistake it for the Law Library, except in the Library the expertise is based on knowledge not prejudice.

nlgbbbblth · 18-01-2008 08:08PM

whatever about O'Donoghue's cover-up and deception after the boy's death, it's fair to assume that:

no stones thrown at car = no row and retaliation = no killing.

Boggles · 18-01-2008 08:08PM

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

There's so much expert opinion here, you'd almost mistake it for the Law Library, except in the Library the expertise is based on knowledge not prejudice.

Sterling post. Thank you Matlock.

Crazy Christ · 18-01-2008 08:10PM

There's no serious legal discussion here, it's only basic concepts that everyone is aware of.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 08:19PM

Boggles wrote: »

Then why do judges take victim impact statements into consideration when sentancing?

To Appease the Victim?

no not to appease the victim but so he can understand the impact the act had on the victim and take it into account in his sentencing. it is not so he can then say well i listened to you and i gave him an extra ten years are you happy with that?

edit; and i think carney specifically said majella houlihan "abused" the victim impact statement so i would imagine this probably played in wod's favour in one way or another

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2008 08:20PM

Dudess wrote: »

As for WOD's sentence: we're only baying for a longer sentence to satisfy US - not to punish HIM. No matter how long he serves - three years, five years, 20 years - it won't bring Robert back, it won't ease his parents' pain and it won't make O'Donoghue feel any worse than he already does, which must be pretty damn bad..

If thats the case why send anyone to prison?.

Dudess wrote: »

He's definitely being punished enough - have no fear about that.

Seriously, he hasn't.

What happened in the three year's?.

Although I know paper won't refuse ink, but its been reported that he continued his studies in prison. He had a private cell (for his own protection). He had creature comforts like a TV, radio and playstation.

So in three year's he lost .... His girlfriend, thats it.

Miss D, I know your a liberal (I'm not) and I do think that behind most liberals are good intentions. But child killers, criminals and bad people use your values to punish us all.

Plus you seem to be over looking the deeds done after the killing.

Let just except that it was an accident how do you justify his actions afterwards?.

You have to believe his panic lasted for days?.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 08:26PM

Mairt wrote: »

You have to believe his panic lasted for days?.

i would imagine his panic and mental torment got worse and worse actually especially as he regained ability to think(assuming he lost it, which i know is an assumption some of you wont make) he would of realised the true ramifications of what he had done

i wouldnt consider myself a liberal by any stretch of the imagination not in the sense your implying anyway

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2008 08:27PM

Here's how quick a choke can put you out..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMQ4h-nsJc

Now I know it was applied by an expert (it took 9 secs) but look how quickly the guy recover's!!... THATS how quick it is to realise someone has passed out and release the strangle. Continued presure would have killed the guy, but not in less than two minutes.

Both in training and in the heat of the moment (working nightclub security) I've choked out more people than I could possibly remember and the moment they're 'sleep', presure is released and although dazed the person is fine with in minutes.

Honestly, and I'm not just saying this to bloaster my argument. But talking with the benefit of experience I can't honestly see how Robert was killed 'by accident'.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 08:33PM

ok but mairt do you not think it would be alot easier(even 50%) to choke out someone so much smaller than you.

as (i think thats joe rogan) said you can go out in 3 seconds. imagine thats what happened so after only 3 secs robert is out and wayne is probably walking around still giving out to him under his arm not concentrating on if he is getting a responce or not. possibly bringing him to his car in a head lock and saying you better never throw rocks at this thing again or whatever. then after 40-60 seconds he realises eh robert??? hello. i dont think one minute is to big a time frame for all this to happen and if an adult takes 2 mins then a child must be faster.

obviously the above is hypothetical but not impossible imo

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2008 08:33PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

i would imagine his panic and mental torment got worse and worse actually especially as he regained ability to think(assuming he lost it, which i know is an assumption some of you wont make) he would of realised the true ramifications of what he had done

i wouldnt consider myself a liberal by any stretch of the imagination not in the sense your implying anyway

I don't think panic lasted for days.

I think someone calculated might weigh off his option's & act the part of good neighbour while hoping for the best.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments