O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

arybvtcw0eolkf · 18-01-2008 08:37PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

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

Yes I think its very likely Robert was put out in seconds and thats why I say that there must have been continued presure to kill him.

Btw, there was absolutely no evidence that stones had been thrown at the car or if they did they didn't hit it. And there's not a snowballs chance in hell that I'll take the word of a child killers over a garda forensic scientist's.

Sorry guy, I'm off out for a nights eating and drinking..

Later people

Dudess · 18-01-2008 08:39PM

Mairt wrote: »

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.

But my point is, punishment should lead to remorse. I doubt it's possible for him to feel any more remorse than he already does. If he didn't show remorse I'd probably take a different view, but I believe he's truly sorry and truly tormented by what he did - and will have to live with it for the rest of his life.

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.

How do you define a liberal though? If you think I'm a naive, bleeding-heart idiot, well then you've got me totally wrong.

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?.

Yes, absolutely. He had done the worst thing imaginable - the absolute worst - when you're that much up sh*t creek you're bound to become very inventive. Just imagine how overwhelmed with fear and guilt you'd be - not that it's possible to imagine the unimaginable. I believe his mind went into "getting away with it" mode - that he was gonna do his utmost to cover it up because he just could not face the consequences, even more so he could not face up to what he'd done. I wouldn't be surprised if the shock even caused him to deny to himself he had done it.
But then reality hit him because he knew he wasn't going to get away with it. You just can't compare him to that bastard Ian Huntley or those monsters Fred and Rose West, or Ian Brady the Moors Murderer.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 08:41PM

Mairt wrote: »

Yes I think its very likely Robert was put out in seconds and thats why I say that there must have been continued presure to kill him.

thats not really what i asked though

And there's not a snowballs chance in hell that I'll take the word of a child killers over a garda forensic scientist's.

i agree with that alright

Sorry guy, I'm off out for a nights eating and drinking..

Later people

have a good wish my mates would stop going out thursdays instead of fridays so i could join them

AngryBadger · 18-01-2008 08:56PM

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.

Wow...I mean wow. The point I was making (which you managed to miss with stunning skill!) is that people in this thread are condemning O' Donoghue for (amongst other things) his cover-up of the death after the fact. These same people maintain that Padraic Nalley was jsutified in killing Ward, even though the death was not intended, certainly no more intended than O' Donoghue's killing of Holohan. From a legal perspective there's no difference in the two cases. That's my point.

For the record I'm not sympathizing with Wayne O' Donoghue, I'm stating the facts of the case and drawing my own conclusions as to what occured, (which I think in reality agrees with what has been presented to the baying masses at large). The fact remains that whether or not you agree with things he has served his allotted time, and all this conjecture, speculation and general baying for blood is only prolonging the torment for manypeople involved.

Seriously, explain to me how you derived either of those points from what I posted? Purely as an exercise in communicative faux-pas!

P.S. I never mentioned tracksuit-wearing scumbags, but that's obviously what YOU were thinking about.

senordingdong · 18-01-2008 09:10PM

This is shocking.
I can't understand how people think that O Donoghue recieved a legitamit sentance.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 09:15PM

senordingdong wrote: »

This is shocking.
I can't understand how people think that O Donoghue recieved a legitamit sentance.

there are 16/17 pages of reasons give them a read weather you agree in the end or not dosnt really matter

senordingdong · 18-01-2008 09:17PM

I have.
I've just wasted half of my day playing catch up.

In my opinion there should have been no discussion about the matter.
O Donoghue should be locked up untill the day he dies and Carney should be up for review.

JTPB · 18-01-2008 09:27PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

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.

Exactly. I read once that the semen was a closer match to a family member than to Wayne.

JTPB · 18-01-2008 09:32PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

The time on the mobile phone was set incorrectly.

PeakOutput · 18-01-2008 09:37PM

JTPB wrote: »

The time on the mobile phone was set incorrectly.

also, per the other thread and per the prime time investigation as far as i know. there was apparently only one cell(yes one single cell) of semen found on the body. if something sexual happened do you not think there would be a staggering amount more than one cell. would the fact there was so little not back up the fact it was picked up by contact with something(other than the obvious) that had semen on it already. also the semen was not wod's and there WAS 2 different types of semen found on the matt wod said the body was wrapped in.

senordingdong wrote: »

In my opinion there should have been no discussion about the matter.

excellent i can disregard your opinion as baseless in that case

johnnyskeleton · 18-01-2008 09:45PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not so. I did a simple Google search and found that his name can be found connected to some of the most controversial cases of recent times. I've probably left many cases out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hand out a worthy sentence. My belief is that this man is not fit for the position he holds.

Your "simple Google search" left out a number of hefty sentences imposed by Judge Carney
11 years for aggravated sexual assault, life for manslaughter seven years for rape 8 years for rape 7 years for manslaughter 10 years for rape 10 years for sexual abuse

I suppose I am equally cherry picking, but what is different is that the above seven sentences are all above 7 years and have been passed in the last 3 months. Here's another article about Carney (quite balanced for the indo) where Alan Ruddock makes the point that:

"When Carney hands down long sentences -- as he does -- they tend to be overlooked. We are primed to hunt out weakness, not to laud strength. Understandably, then, Carney appears to nurse a sense of grievance."

So my point is that your simple google search is perhaps aimed at controversially lenient sentences, it is based on media reports which tend to focus on the controversial and sometimes simply don't print the hefty sentences (although I realise the irony of countering your argument with more media reports) and it by no means gives an accurate account of Judge Carney's sentencing record - for the most part he is a very severe sentencer.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You must have missed this bit...Yeah because you need to recognise a guilty plea when dealing with a baby-killer don't you?

No I didn't, the judge was obliged to give consideration to a guilty plea. In fact, in the Leigh Crowe case (the second case linked above) the sentence is highly likely to be reduced on appeal because he didn't take it into account.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

He commented that it had "a unique, inexplicable and extraordinary effect" on John Reilly and "he had no control over his body or his actions" and was functioning like an epileptic or diabetic in a bad state of a hypo or hyper.

So because it was deemed 'unique' and 'extraordinary' he gives the benefit of doubt to the individual and states a prison term would "serve no purpose". Farcical stuff. What happened to punishing criminals hmm?

Because it was unique and inexplicable it is in a different league to other offences where, for example, there is intention and / or malice.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow you must be a lawyer because I'm detecting a distinct lack of morals here. Leaving aside the Johnny Cochrane-like first sentence, how can you defend the perpetrator - 15 - saying he's a 'child'? Take ten years off his life and you have a child. At 15 this disgusting cretin knew exactly what he was doing and got a slap on the wrist by Herr Carney.

I don't think you need to lack morals to be able to distinguish between rape and sexual assault. They are two completely separate offences. He was not given a slap on the wrist, he was given a second chance because while you can sit in your armchair and say he knew what he was doing, it seems to me that children that young do not always know what they are doing, especially when it comes to sex. Incidentally, do you have a link for these articles because when I searched for the title in google all i got were links to gay cork.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The individual attacked an officer, orally raped a woman and threatened to murder her and Carney himself said the incident was "quite frightful". Result - six years. This is justice? No, this is bullsh*t.

Why isn't it justice? Why is it bullsh*t? Do you understand what it's like to serve 6 years in jail? Do you think a longer sentence would make the world a better place?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

And you missed the one about Carney giving a suspended sentence to a guy who caused the death of a boxing champion via a stab to the abdomen. Can't lock someone up for a minor crime like that can we?! This is Ireland after all. You just have to look at Carney's reasoning...

In handing down the suspended sentence, Mr Justice Carney said he did not feel any purpose would be served by jailing Burke.

He wouldn't would he?

Sorry I missed that, but what was Carney's reasoning? It only states that he felt no purpose would be served by jailing the accused, I assume there was more to it but it was edited out of the article.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The whole country knew that sentence was a farce so your attempt to defend this one is really desperate.

I'm not trying to defend the sentence, I am pointing out that Judge Carney was following the decision of the court of criminal appeal.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I cherry picked nothing. These articles are merely some of the most controversial cases the State has seen and I wager I've probbaly missed out on a few more. The evidence speaks for itself.

I think that the evidence is to the contrary, that Judge Carney is by and large a heavy sentencer. He does however, impose suspended sentences from time to time, as all judges do.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You neglected to comment on the O'Donoghue articles because the second one shows legal professionals actively questioning Carney's sentences.

I neglected to comment on the O'Donoghue articles because this whole thread has been about them and the arguments there are well canvassed. In the second one, one legal professional actively questioned the sentence, that was his job. By contrast, 3 senior judges in the Court of Criminal appeal dismissed these questions and upheld Carney's sentence.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So those within the judicial system, The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and families affected by the crimes themselves have all come out and queried his sentences so while you want to portray him as a bastion of integrity, there is a body of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Judges will always make decisions that will be queried by other judges, that's the nature of our system of appeals. The Rape Crisis Centre are, with the greatest respect for what they do, not exactly impartial commentators, and as for the families of the victims, obviously some of them will feel aggrieved when the maximum possible sentence is not imposed, but they will also feel aggrieved when a jury returns a not guilty verdict. For them, it is a matter of passion, but for a judge, there are many other considerations. I'm not trying to portray him as a bastion of integrity, I'm trying to portray him as he is - a senior judge in the Central Criminal Court, who has to make very difficult decisions every day. He is not a hack journalist trying to flog a few papers, nor is he a social worker trying to heal wounds that can never be healed by urealistic means.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Here is a link to an excellent article in the Sunday Business Post five years ago by Kieron Wood on Justice Carney. A time when many of his most controversial setences had not yet come about.

I suggest you read the full piece but this bit interested me in particular...

My reading of this, and I would suggest that you are misinterpreting it, is that judge Carney is outspoken when it comes to suggesting changes in the law. It is not evidence to support your rather fanciful suggestion that he imposes wildly lenient sentences to flatter his vanity and need for publicity.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The Padraig Nally case, the Holohan/O'Donoghue case, the Adam Keane case - all controversial cases in Ireland due to the nature of the sentences imposed.

The Adam Keane case was, but the other two werent. Nally was controversial because of its facts, and the O'Donoghue case was controversial because of its facts and because of all the public and misleading statements made about it.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The man responsible for these sentences - Justice Paul Carney.

The man responsible for many more, quite severe but within normal parameters sentences that simply go under your radar - Justice Paul Carney.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The same man with a history of dubious sentences and a reported love for publicity and for stirring things up.

I think you've failed to make out that he has a history of dubious sentences, for the reasons I have already outlined, and his outspokenness is usually regarding legal or proceedural issues, rather than imposing lenient sentences.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Notice the pattern that is emerging here?

There's no pattern, just a few cases where the sentences could be considered too lenient.

JTPB · 18-01-2008 09:46PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

Clearly, if Wayne O'Donoghue feared that some people wouldn't believe it was an accident that he had killed Robert Holohan, he was right. You'd be one of them.

JTPB · 18-01-2008 09:54PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

also, per the other thread and per the prime time investigation as far as i know. there was apparently only one cell(yes one single cell) of semen found on the body. if something sexual happened do you not think there would be a staggering amount more than one cell. would the fact there was so little not back up the fact it was picked up by contact with something(other than the obvious) that had semen on it already. also the semen was not wod's and there WAS 2 different types of semen found on the matt wod said the body was wrapped in.

Absolutely, yes, and the location of the semen, too, on the back of Robert's hand, and nowhere else on his body, seems to suggest that the contact was accidental.

In the Madeliene McCann case, too, there was very low quantites of Maddy's DNA found in the hire car which the McCanns say could have been transferred from Maddy's toys, incuding Cuddle Cat.

johnnyskeleton · 18-01-2008 10:26PM

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.

I've always had difficulty with this argument - I mean whats so bad about walking around? Where there is a risk of the person committing further offences against them I can see why they would want the person kept in prison, but what is unsatisfactory about a person walking around free? He would be walking around in prison too.

I also believe that the majority of victim's families don't find any solace in lengthier sentences, and knowing that the offender is in jail does little to ease their suffering. It seems to me that the victims are a sort of media football that get kicked around to sell papers and tug on people's heartstrings. If anything, the media are doing damage to people by saying "the guy who killed your son only got 4 years. That's a disgrace. how can you live with that?" almost saying "If it were my child, I would have gotten at least 6".

johnnyskeleton · 18-01-2008 11:02PM

Mairt wrote: »

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'.

Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice By David Dolinak, Evan W. Matshes, Emma O. Lew wrote:

Whenever significant neck compression occurs, there may be compression and stimulation of the carotid sinus, which is situated just cephalad to the bifurcation of the common carotid arteries. Stimulation of this structure may lead to vagal effects such as bradycardia and hypotension or may lead to other types of dysrhythmia. The vagal effects may rarely be overwhelming and possibly lead to a rapid onset of cardiac standstill and sudden death. Hence, one may not need to necessarily occlude the airway or vasculature in order to cause death by neck compression. This may be the mechanism of sudden death in individuals who collapse immediately during the application of a neck hold or an impact to the neck, and in whom no significant pathologic findings are identified at autopsy…

This is quite rare, but it does sometimes happen. I don't know if it was the cause of death in the O'Donoghue case, but it has been known that some people die from momentary pressure applied to the neck. Here's the source, p.223 [note contains graphic (and disgusting) images]

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 12:36AM

JTPB wrote: »

The time on the mobile phone was set incorrectly.

Your right. The correct time was 05:10am.

Dudess · 19-01-2008 01:08AM

So Robert was in Wayne's room overnight - how would this have gone on unbeknownst to either set of parents?

senordingdong wrote:

O Donoghue should be locked up untill the day he dies

Did you pull that sentence out of a hat or have you had some legal training?
Locked up for the rest of his life? Holy fuk, that really is like comparing him to Ian Brady, Ian Huntley or Fred West.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 09:37AM

Dudess wrote: »

So Robert was in Wayne's room overnight - how would this have gone on unbeknownst to either set of parents?

Did you pull that sentence out of a hat or have you had some legal training?
Locked up for the rest of his life? Holy fuk, that really is like comparing him to Ian Brady, Ian Huntley or Fred West.

All child killers.

AckwelFoley · 19-01-2008 10:19AM

One thing that was unusual at the least was a 20 somthing year old being such "close friends" with an 11 year old boy.

passive · 19-01-2008 11:46AM

snyper One thing that was unusual at the least was a 20 somthing year old being such "close friends" with an 11 year old boy.

Why do you WANT the child to have been raped, rather than accidentally choked?

Mairt; Your right. The correct time was 05:10am.

And you're very certain. Link please or did you read the child killer's phone yourself?

Boggles · 19-01-2008 12:01PM

passive wrote: »

Why do you WANT the child to have been raped, rather than accidentally choked?

I don't think he does mate.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 12:26PM

Mairt wrote: »

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'.

He was a child.

Dudess · 19-01-2008 12:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think he does mate.

Plenty of people WANT Wayne O'Donoghue to have sexually abused Robert, just like they WANT the McCanns to have killed Madeleine - it brings a bit of soap opera-ish drama to their dull existences.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 12:41PM

Dudess wrote: »

Plenty of people WANT Wayne O'Donoghue to have sexually abused Robert, just like they WANT the McCanns to have killed Madeleine - it brings a bit of soap opera-ish drama to their dull existences.

Exactly. People like Mairt aren't even thinking rationally. Putting WOD and Freddie West in the same category. Showing an example of a grown adult man being applied with a choke hold and surviving, and then applying this logic to a young boy. Just sit down and think for a few moments as to why this is illogical.

AckwelFoley · 19-01-2008 01:48PM

passive wrote: »

Why do you WANT the child to have been raped, rather than accidentally choked?

I dont believe that was the intention of my statment.
Besides if he was raped, the Post mortem would have indicated so.

As for Maddie, i can bet you any money you wish to bet, that they know more about the disappearance than they let know.

I normally win on these real life "who dunnit" situations. There are certain facts of the case that are too bothering to be passed off as not important, and while its all circumstantial, its enough to have strong suspicions.

However, they're a long distance away from solid proof.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 01:49PM

daithifleming wrote: »

He was a child.

Oh so you have experience of chokes and children?.

Well I do!.

In Judo chokes are not allowed on children under 16 on safety grounds. Mostly children won't 'tap out' of a choke and so the attacker will maintain enough presure long enough to kill or cause brain damage.

Plus WoD wasn't an expert on strangles/chokes like Joe Rogan (in the clip) [or me!] so its unlikely that Robert passed out quickly.

If this was accidental and Robert passed out during a head lock, WoD's natural reaction would be to panic and drop Robert. Not hold onto the choke until robert died.

As to sexual abuse. I don't like to think about that either way. I'd hate to hear it confirmed & I can understand why the semen evidence wasn't introduced in to the trial.

For the life of me I can't see how Robert was accidently strangled to death.

There's just too many pieces of this jig saw that doesn't fit.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 01:57PM

Mairt wrote: »

Oh so you have experience of chokes and children?.

Well I do!.

In Judo chokes are not allowed on children under 16 on safety grounds. Mostly children won't 'tap out' of a choke and so the attacker will maintain enough presure long enough to kill or cause brain damage.

Plus WoD wasn't an expert on strangles/chokes like Joe Rogan (in the clip) [or me!] so its unlikely that Robert passed out quickly.

If this was accidental and Robert passed out during a head lock, WoD's natural reaction would be to panic and drop Robert. Not hold onto the choke until robert died.

As to sexual abuse. I don't like to think about that either way. I'd hate to hear it confirmed & I can understand why the semen evidence wasn't introduced in to the trial.

For the life of me I can't see how Robert was accidently strangled to death.

There's just too many pieces of this jig saw that doesn't fit.

So with your 'expertise' in choking people, you can't see how a fully grown man could kill a young boy by these means?

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 01:59PM

Dudess wrote: »

So Robert was in Wayne's room overnight - how would this have gone on unbeknownst to either set of parents?

Did you pull that sentence out of a hat or have you had some legal training?
Locked up for the rest of his life? Holy fuk, that really is like comparing him to Ian Brady, Ian Huntley or Fred West.

He took away that childs most basic of human rights, the right to life.
Why should he be allowed these rights himself?

What the hell is with so many people here, you can just label every indiscretion to the law with a set number of years, have them served and that's that?
It's supposed to be justice, not a maths problem.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 02:01PM

senordingdong wrote: »

He took away that childs most basic of human rights, the right to life.
Why should he be allowed these rights himself?

What the hell is with so many people here, you can just label every indiscretion to the law with a set number of years, have them served and that's that?
It's supposed to be justice, not a maths problem.

So if i set out to kill a child, and do so in the most tortuous, gruesome way possible, and another guy kills a child by accident, they should recieve the same sentence? I repeat myself, illogical thought is dominating peoples views on this matter. Sit down and think before you come on here blurting this nonsense.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 02:02PM

i cant find a you tube video that correctly shows how we are going around in circles besides the merry go round of death

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments