O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 02:14PM

daithifleming wrote: »

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.

So you're saying it's not as bad to kill a child (or anyone else for that matter) if it's done in a less gruesome way?
Anyway, in your second scenario, you use the word 'accident'.
Perhaps you need to sit down and think before you criticize other peoples opinions/feelings.

Dudess · 19-01-2008 02:16PM

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.

The first line of your quote mentioned a crime of which Wayne O'Donoghue was not found guilty. Please don't post that again.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 02:18PM

senordingdong wrote: »

So you're saying it's not as bad to kill a child (or anyone else for that matter) if it's done in a less gruesome way?

that is not what he said at all, it was quite easy to understand im suprised you missed it.

Anyway, in your second scenario, you use the word 'accident'.

exactly and what difference does that make if you dont mind me asking?

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 02:23PM

senordingdong wrote: »

So you're saying it's not as bad to kill a child (or anyone else for that matter) if it's done in a less gruesome way?
Anyway, in your second scenario, you use the word 'accident'.
Perhaps you need to sit down and think before you criticize other peoples opinions/feelings.

Well you are the one suggesting that homogenous sentences should be handed out if someone is merely killed are you not? How do you propose to deal with the inequities this would inevitably bring?

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 02:26PM

Dudess wrote: »

The first line of your quote mentioned a crime of which Wayne O'Donoghue was not found guilty. Please don't post that again.

And becasue a jury of people found him not guilty does not make the matter infallable. In alot of cases, guilty people can be found not guilty just because of the way a particular law is worded.

PeakOutput wrote:

that is not what he said at all, it was quite easy to understand im suprised you missed it.

No, he asked me should a gruesome child murderer and someone who accidentally kills a child recieve the same sentance.
I never suggested that.

The difference is, a murder is performed by a murderer who is a threat to the rest of us etc...
An accident is exactly that.

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 02:28PM

daithifleming wrote: »

Well you are the one suggesting that homogenous sentences should be handed out if someone is merely killed are you not? How do you propose to deal with the inequities this would inevitably bring?

I'm saying that murder is unforgivable and I disagree that some murderers find there way back into society quicker than others because of small stupid details like admitting that they did it. Infact, I'm bothered that they find their way back onto the streets at all.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 02:31PM

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm saying that murder is unforgivable and I disagree that some murderers find there way back into society quicker than others because of small stupid details like admitting that they did it. Infact, I'm bothered that they find their way back onto the streets at all.

No, you didn't say murderer. You said someone who takes anothers life. If someone knocks a person down by accident and if a person tortures someone to death, they can both be put under that umbrella statement, can't they? Perhaps you need to rephrase.

Sam Vimes · 19-01-2008 02:37PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So he 'lost the rag' yet killed him 'accidentally'? How does that work? If he was taken with a fit with of anger then it was murder and in my opinion that's exactly what this was.

you're entitled to your opinion but the people who know the most about the case, ie the judge, decided otherwise

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 02:42PM

daithifleming wrote: »

No, you didn't say murderer. You said someone who takes anothers life. If someone knocks a person down by accident and if a person tortures someone to death, they can both be put under that umbrella statement, can't they? Perhaps you need to rephrase.

No, you're right. Thats was my fault.
I should have said taken someones right to life, intentionally or knowingly.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 02:43PM

senordingdong wrote: »

The difference is, a murder is performed by a murderer who is a threat to the rest of us etc...
An accident is exactly that.

ok excellent we are on the same page then. so now its only a small leap to apply that to this case due to the fact he was prosecuted for accidently killing the child.

so i find it wierd that your views appear to be contradictory you accept that murder and an accident should be treated differently but you think that wod should be treated as a murderer?

edit; posted the same time as post above nvm

senordingdong · 19-01-2008 02:51PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok excellent we are on the same page then. so now its only a small leap to apply that to this case due to the fact he was prosecuted for accidently killing the child.

And I'm on the side of the fence that does not believe the 'accident' story.
And that how I feel, my opinon etc... etc...

Boggles · 19-01-2008 02:53PM

The defence and half the people on this forum have attributed Waynes actions after killing Robert as Panic.

I think what he did afterwards was text book, how to get rid of a body and distance yourself from any involvement.

1. He Cleaned the Body.
2. He disguised the body in plastic.
3. He got rid of all evidence of Robert being there (taking the bike with him)
4. He dumped the bike in a different place to the body (knowing police would focus time and resources searching the surrounding area)
5. He stopped for a drink. (You are in panic, you have a body in the boot, I don't care how thirsty you are, you don't stop for lucazade).
6. He dumped the body in an isolated area.
7. He cleaned his car.
8. He rang Roberts phone (Very intelligent thing to do)
9. He watched telly and played video games.
10. He returned to Robert with the intention of moving him to the beach so he would be more easily discovered - But he spent time filling a bottle with petrol and bringing that with him too. (Why if he wanted Robert to be found, did he bring the petrol?)
11. He poured petrol on the body and lit it? (He gave no explanation)
12. He decided not to move the body as it was too far in the ditch.
13. He arrived home and volenteered to look for Robert and did so for 5 hours.
14. He acted normally for days until one day he picked up the paper and found the police had found a fingerprint on the plastic.
15. Knowing he was going to be caught, he confessed.

All the above is fact. Points 10 -12, suggest to me that he did not go back to lay Robert on the beach so he could be found more easily, he went back to burn the evidence and make sure the body was well hidden.

Someone said prevously look at it logically, well there it is above. Make up your own mind using logic on nothing but the facts.

If you ever kill someone, you could do alot worse than following the above blueprint on how to get away with it.

Dudess · 19-01-2008 02:54PM

Wayne O'Donoghue was NOT found guilty of murder, the concerns that he sexually abused Robert were COMPLETELY discredited, anyone who posts one more thing stating he is guilty of either will be banned.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 02:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

If you ever kill someone, you could do alot worse than following the above blueprint on how to get away with it.

still dosnt show the killing was not an accident

your interpretation of panic seems to be hes going oh **** oh **** oh ****. im lookng at it as bad decisions caused in the heat of the moment. when listed those points look like they took alot of thought but they are really all the same action ie trying to get away with what happened

King of Kings · 19-01-2008 02:59PM

daithifleming wrote: »

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

i'm with mairt on this. I've done MA (jujustu) for years and worked at as doorman - i know a little on choking.
i find it difficult to fathom an 11 year old being such "buddies" with a 20 year old to the point that first thing in the morning they are in a bedroom together.

It's equally hard to fathom Wod's not realising he was choking RH to death.

Such excessive rage for throwing stones (were they stones or pepples???) at his
car. This man has issues that 3 years inside is not going to deal with.

I don't accept the semen as evidence of sexual crime but something fishy is afoot and certainly the full story is not out there.

I also find it hard to stomach people claiming that it was accidental. a car crash is accidental - losing the rag and getting somebody in a headlock is not. no matter how far removed the outcome is with your intentions.

* btw it's amazing that killing a child however "accidental" can get you less time than somebody selling drugs.
King of Kings shakes head at the state of this nation

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 03:01PM

senordingdong wrote: »

And I'm on the side of the fence that does not believe the 'accident' story.

Its hard to know either way, thats why i dont get involved in the speculation side of things.

Crazy Christ · 19-01-2008 03:04PM

Boggles wrote: »

If you ever kill someone, you could do alot worse than following the above blueprint on how to get away with it.

Keeping in mind a conclusion that O'Donoghue carefully planned to dispose of the body and escape responsibility for the killing does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the killing was planned. This was examined.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:05PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

when listed those points look like they took alot of thought but they are really all the same action ie trying to get away with what happened

I don't really understand what you mean.

I am looking at it logically and it seems well planned and very calm. Something you would not relate to panic.

Airline poilets have panic drilled out of them, because in times of emergency if they panic mistakes are made. Wayne did not make one mistake.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 03:08PM

Boggles wrote: »

Wayne did not make one mistake.

well obviously he did if they found his fingerprint on the plastic but that would be a small one.

once he had made the decision in panic to not call an ambulance all his decisions after that are simply an escalation of that one decision he made in a panic

bunny shooter · 19-01-2008 03:09PM

I was involved in the search for Robert. Not something I ever want to repeat ! This matter thread should be closed and the whole matter left alone. The two families involved have suffered and are suffering enough

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:11PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

well obviously he did if they found his fingerprint on the plastic but that would be a small one.

once he had made the decision in panic to not call an ambulance all his decisions after that are simply an escalation of that one decision he made in a panic

I just gave you 15 points of non panic, what is it to say it was panic that made Wayne not call for help. We don't know him, so we have to base our opinions on his actions, he did not seem like a guy that would panic.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:12PM

bunny shooter wrote: »

I was involved in the search for Robert. Not something I ever want to repeat ! This matter thread should be closed and the whole matter left alone. The two families involved have suffered and are suffering enough

Why?

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 03:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

I just gave you 15 points of non panic, what is it to say it was panic that made Wayne not call for help. We don't know him, so we have to base our opinions on his actions, he did not seem like a guy that would panic.

to me it is the simplest solution to believe and also it was the only "proveable" one. obviously it is possible that it happened some other way i just dont think its likely

i also see no reason for the thread to be closed, after hours debates are the least of the families worries id imagine

Dudess · 19-01-2008 03:16PM

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm saying that murder is unforgivable and I disagree that some murderers find there way back into society quicker than others because of small stupid details like admitting that they did it. Infact, I'm bothered that they find their way back onto the streets at all.

But you're not referring to any case specifically, just in general... right? Right.

As for those who don't buy the accidental verdict, why, oh why, would there be this great "cover-up"? The jury wants justice to be done - particularly in a child-killing case.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:19PM

King of Kings wrote: »

.

* btw it's amazing that killing a child however "accidental" can get you less time than somebody selling drugs.
King of Kings shakes head at the state of this nation

Good point. A drug mule was jailed for 4 years this week, for importing 3 kilos of smoke, he had no previous, and his was told he would be killed if he didn't do it because of depts owed.

This sentance was lenient as the maximum is 10 years.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:20PM

Dudess wrote: »

But you're not referring to any case specifically, just in general... right? Right.
As for those who don't buy the accidental verdict, why, oh why, would there be this great "cover-up"? The jury wants justice to be done - particularly in a child-killing case.

For me the prosecution were toothless, throw in an erratic judge in to the mix. Not cover-up, but balls-up!

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 03:28PM

Boggles wrote: »

throw in an erratic judge in to the mix. Not cover-up

even though i thought it was fairly well covered and summed up here already i asked one of my said 3 friends doing fe1s about their colleagues and peers feelings on justice carney.

he said that without exception he is viewed as an exceptional judge by legal professionals. he added that he is constantly having his sentences undermined(ie reduced) by the court of criminal appeal so now in certain circumstances just issues the sentence they will reduce it to anyway to begin with.

he also said that laymen trying to discuss this sort of detail about the legal system is a joke as they are clueless about the actual details that matter( i agree with him although i do enjoy discussion all the same)

now im sorry boggles but he is infinitely more qualified than you to judge the man (were legal matters are concerned) and there are people infinitely more qualified than him who feel the same so i make no apologies for completely disregarding any suggestion that justice carney is an "erratic" or soft or anything other than a good judge.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:34PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

even though i thought it was fairly well covered and summed up here already i asked one of my said 3 friends doing fe1s about their colleagues and peers feelings on justice carney.

he said that without exception he is viewed as an exceptional judge by legal professionals. he added that he is constantly having his sentences undermined(ie reduced) by the court of criminal appeal so now in certain circumstances just issues the sentence they will reduce it to anyway to begin with.

he also said that laymen trying to discuss this sort of detail about the legal system is a joke as they are clueless about the actual details that matter( i agree with him although i do enjoy discussion all the same)

now im sorry boggles but he is infinitely more qualified than you to judge the man (were legal matters are concerned) and there are people infinitely more qualified than him who feel the same so i make no apologies for completely disregarding any suggestion that justice carney is an "erratic" or soft or anything other than a good judge.

I don't give 2 hoots if your friend is Ally Mcbeal, A judge that does not take into account what happened after Roberts death is erratic.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 03:38PM

Boggles wrote: »

I don't give 2 hoots if your friend is Ally Mcbeal, A judge that does not take into account what happened after Roberts death is erratic.

the judge can only sentence on what the person as be found guilty of. he was found guilty of manslaughter not obstruction of justice or lieing to the police or anything like that so as far as i am aware if he made it clear that was what he was handing down the sentence for then it could easily be appealed.

my point was that you have not got a clue about what actually went on in the whole process accept what the media have told you.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 03:41PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

the judge can only sentence on what the person as be found guilty of. he was found guilty of manslaughter not obstruction of justice or lieing to the police or anything like that so as far as i am aware if he made it clear that was what he was handing down the sentence for then it could easily be appealed.

my point was that you have not got a clue about what actually went on in the whole process accept what the media have told you.

Don't read the newspapers, watched a bit on RTE alright. I have read the Court Transcripts, the media have told me nothing.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments