O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 03:43PM

Boggles wrote: »

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

ok so what in your opinion was wrong with the trial? i am actually genuinely curious its not a loaded question or anything. i know you have probably been saying it for the last 10 pages like i have but summarised version

also if i was so inclined were could i get court transcripts for any case?

Padraig Mor · 19-01-2008 05:31PM

Mairt wrote: »

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

The state pathologist had no problem agreeing that it was an accidental 'horseplay' event. Unless you are more qualified than her, we'll take her word for it I think.

AckwelFoley · 19-01-2008 05:41PM

An interesting read of statments made, and some of the events.

‘The evidence suggests Wayne O’Donoghue was in control’

THE prosecution summed up its case against Wayne O’Donoghue yesterday, day nine of the trial. Shane Murphy SC addressed the jury. The following are extracts from this.MR Murphy reminded the jury they had to answer a certain question - was Wayne O’Donoghue guilty of murder, or was he guilty of manslaughter?

“The prosecution invites you to believe on the evidence that he is guilty of murder,” he said.

He said a verdict of murder requires intent to kill or seriously injure the victim, and that the “natural or probable consequence” of the killer’s actions would have been death.

“You must consider at the time when Wayne O’Donoghue applied force to the throat of Robert Holohan, did he intend to kill or cause him serious injury?”

He added: “The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The accused does not have to prove anything. The prosecution must satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.”

He said O’Donoughue’s intent was the key.

“Robert was a lively boy with his life ahead of him, who had that life snuffed out from him.

“You have to look at the evidence dispassionately. Ask the central question: what did Wayne O’Donoghue think he was doing and what were the consequences of his violent assault on Robert?

“All the evidence suggests that for Robert, January 4 was another day of his holidays.”

On O’Donoghue’s statements to gardaí, Mr Murphy said: “You must assess if what the accused said to gardaí might be true or reasonably true, or some of it might be true, or was it self-serving and untrue.”

He said it was up to the jury to decide if the fact that Robert’s body was found not be wearing shoes was significant, as O’Donoghue said the incident happened outside.

“We know from evidence that Robert was expected to remove his shoes when he was in the O’Donoghue house.

“We know when his shoe was found in the black plastic bag (wrapped around Robert’s body), a plastic bag was stuffed inside it. Wayne O’Donoghue has said that Robert threw pebbles at his car. You have heard evidence there was no sign of damage to the car.”

Mr Murphy then outlined what O’Donoghue said about what happened on January 4, the day Robert was killed.

“Firstly, O’Donoghue said he pushed Robert from the house and turned to go back inside the house. Secondly, he then moved back to Robert because he was throwing pebbles and grabbed him in a headlock.

“Third, that he then dragged Robert from the bike and the bike fell away. Fourth, that he moved him away from the bike and up against the car... Fifth, that he released the headlock and grabbed Robert by the throat.”

Mr Murphy said O’Donoghue “was also talking to Robert Holohan” while he did this, but in his garda statement couldn’t recall how long the incident lasted.

“Wayne O’Donoghue told Robert to stop throwing stones several times... Think of the time it took to say those words not once, but several times. Time passed. I would submit to you that during this time Robert’s neck was subjected to compression.”

He asked the jury to consider the effects of a sudden attack on a child.

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.”

The prosecutor then referred to O’Donoghue’s attempts “to ‘keep up the pretence’, as he put it.”

He wondered “why, if it was an accident, why did he not call an ambulance, contact gardaí or get help from a third party”?

“Wayne O’Donoghue’s response was to lay Robert on the floor, throw water on his face, wipe his face with tissue and throw it down the toilet. He says he was in a panic.”

He outlined what he called O’Donoghue’s “pattern of concealment.”

“This began with placing the tissue in the toilet bowl, by placing Robert in the plastic bag, by placing the shoe in the bag and placing Robert’s body in the car, the placing of the bike in the car.

“This was the removal by Wayne O’Donoghue from his house all traces of Robert Holohan.”

He left the body in “a desolate area” to which he later returned.

Other examples of O’Donoghue’s activity included “making calls to Robert’s phone in the presence of his mother” and “participating in the search”, Mr Murphy said.

He later said: “If he was in a panic, why was there a pretence? I would suggest to you that it was because Wayne O’Donoghue did not want the body to be found and subjected to a post mortem.”

Mr Murphy moved on to the aftermath of Robert’s death. “We know the last sighting of Robert was at about 2.30pm. Wayne O’Donoghue said in his statement that Robert left (the O’Donoghue house) at 2.45pm and returned at 3.30pm. There’s no evidence to suggest where Robert was in that time.

“But if you look at Wayne O’Donoghue’s statement, he killed Robert at about 3.30pm and phoned Rebecca Dennehy at 4.15pm. During that call he seemed to be normal.

“We also have evidence that not only did he place the bike in the car but he had the presence of mind to place it in a ditch.

“He had the presence of mind to get rid of all relics of Robert’s presence in his house.”

Mr Murphy said O’Donoghue told gardaí he searched for Robert’s body for 20-25 minutes that night, at about 7.55pm. He said the timeline O’Donoghue gave indicated he would have only had about 35 minutes to look for the body and then drive 16km back to Midleton, as he was in his girlfriend’s house at 8.30pm.

He also said the area of burned briars was 10 feet from where the body was found, but “scorch marks” were discovered on some of Robert’s clothing. These were shown to the jury during the trial.

“Although he said he wanted the body to be found, he never made a call, even anonymously, so it would be discovered.”

The prosecutor claimed O’Donoghue left the body “in a wilderness area” so the natural processes of decay would destroy it.

Mr Murphy said there was only one occasion on which O’Donoghue was “distressed.” That was when gardaí called to his house after he told his father he had killed Robert.

“But at the interview in his house (which took seven hours later than night) Wayne O’Donoghue was able to give a calm statement.”

“I suggest an alternative... (O’Donoghue) was a person well able to control his emotions and able to ‘keep up the pretence’ - his words, not mine.

“We know it was January 15 when he knew gardaí were closing in, but it was the next day he came forward.

“Wayne O’Donoghue suggested he dug a hole... if he dug a hole on January 4, the next eight days he spent filling it in.”

Mr Murphy told the jury they may find some things of no relevance, and suggested one of these as Robert suffering from ADHD. “There’s no evidence to suggest ADHD contributed to his death.”

Mr Murphy told the jury there could be no defence of provocation, as legally this required someone to act “without a tinge of calculation”.

He said in an interview with gardaí on January 17, O’Donoghue was asked if he had “flipped the lid”.

Mr Murphy read out O’Donoghue’s response: “I wasn’t calm, as I said I was annoyed, there is a difference. I was not calm, I did not flip the lid, I was annoyed.”

Mr Murphy said this was evidence O’Donoghue didn’t “go bananas”, as envisaged by the legal defence of provocation.

“In fact, the evidence suggests Wayne O’Donoghue was in control.”

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 05:55PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The state pathologist had no problem agreeing that it was an accidental 'horseplay' event. Unless you are more qualified than her, we'll take her word for it I think.

Remember, he is an expert in choking people.

Padraig Mor · 19-01-2008 06:03PM

daithifleming wrote: »

Remember, he is an expert in choking people.

So he claims. I somehow doubt that his knowledge of the effects of violent trauma on the human body reaches quite as far as hers.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 06:03PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The state pathologist had no problem agreeing that it was an accidental 'horseplay' event. Unless you are more qualified than her, we'll take her word for it I think.

In this situation I believe I'm more than qualified to give my opinion re. strangling someone, and more qualified than the state pathologist.

I'm not more qualified on the cause's of death, in this case it was strangulation and speaking with the benefit of experience I'm telling you now that presure had to have been maintained for a long time to cause death.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 06:04PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

So he claims. I somehow doubt that his knowledge of the effects of violent trauma on the human body reaches quite as far as hers.

And what expertise or experience do you bring to the debate?.

Ekancone · 19-01-2008 06:13PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

So he claims. I somehow doubt that his knowledge of the effects of violent trauma on the human body reaches quite as far as hers.

To be honest that claim impresses me as much as someone saying they are an expert in picking toenails.

AngryBadger · 19-01-2008 06:18PM

Mairt wrote: »

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.

Doesn't that mean a child would probably succumb to a choke hold much faster? And doesn't the fact that Wayne O'Donoghue wasn't any kind of "choking" expert mean his "choke-hold" would not have been a correct hold and therefore the conditions you keep insisting on wouldn't apply.

Mairt wrote: »

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.

Isn't it at least POSSIBLE that Wayne O'Donoghue didn't realise Robert had passed out?

Mairt wrote: »

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.

The semen was not introduced because it didn't have any relevance to the case i.e. it did not indictae sexual abuse of any kind, why is it so hard for people to grasp this???

AngryBadger · 19-01-2008 06:22PM

Mairt wrote: »

In this situation I believe I'm more than qualified to give my opinion re. strangling someone, and more qualified than the state pathologist.

That just defies comment man, you're more qualified than the state pathologist to issue edicts on choke-holds? And exactly how many people have you seen KILLED by choking??? How many years did you spend studying anatomy, physiology and any number of related scientific fields whcih equip the state pathologist to analyse a death and commet on it.

Unless you're now going to tell us that you've seen people KILLED by choking then you're in now way even looking in the direction of the state pathologist in terms of death by strangulation.

King of Kings · 19-01-2008 08:07PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

That just defies comment man, you're more qualified than the state pathologist to issue edicts on choke-holds?

i think you miss his point.
he is certainly more qualified that her in knowing

1. how apply a choke
2. the force required to apply one to render somebody unconscious (and beyond)

And I was unaware that the state pathologist is automatically the authority on chokes or the application of death - by virtue of their appointment? I also thought they were expert on the cause of death which is different.

PeakOutput · 19-01-2008 08:14PM

King of Kings wrote: »

I also thought they were expert on the cause of death which is different.

the state pathologist will regularly give her opinion on how the cause of death occured or what type of attack for example frenzied / controlled / random etc so it is definitely part of her expertise.

also mairt is applying adult principles to a case involving a child

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 08:16PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

The semen was not introduced because it didn't have any relevance to the case i.e. it did not indictae sexual abuse of any kind, why is it so hard for people to grasp this???

Now your agreeing with me, and you can't see it. Your just spewing BS for the sake of argument.

Guys, if Robert had died because of a broken neck I'd have said without doubt it was an accident.

But to die of strangulation is an entirely different matter. And I appricate that most of you here have no experience of chokes and strangles so its hard to understand completely what I'm saying.

To kill someone by strangling/choking them takes continued applied presure, its really that simple.

Anyway I've beaten this one to death, some people are just talking rubbish for the sake of it.

AngryBadger · 19-01-2008 08:50PM

King of Kings wrote: »

i think you miss his point.
he is certainly more qualified that her in knowing

1. how apply a choke
2. the force required to apply one to render somebody unconscious (and beyond)

I'll accept that Mairt may be able to cmment with some authority on choking someone to the extent that they apss out, but said expertise is (by his own admission) limited to other adults, or children above the age of 16, as well as being limited to choke-holds applied by people trained TO perform them. The case in point involves an 11-year old child in a choke-hold maintained by someone with no experience in choking someone. Therefore any timespans quoted as necessary to cause a blackout and/or death don't apply, particularly when you consider that the choke-hold in this instance was most definitely not a "proper" choke-hold. With martial arts experience it's fair to say that the maner in which any move is applied will produce different results based on pressure, point of application and so on. Therefore I'm simply pointing out that nothing mairt proposes can be accepted as applicable to this situation.

King of Kings wrote: »

And I was unaware that the state pathologist is automatically the authority on chokes or the application of death - by virtue of their appointment? I also thought they were expert on the cause of death which is different.

The state pathologist is a medical professional charged to determine the cause of death. DEATH is the key here, once again I point out that I'm assuming Mairt has no experience with death in this context, the state pathologist is well equipped with experience in this area, as well as her medical background, making her far more qualified than Mairt to comment on this situation., and therefore making her points far more relevant and credible

P.S. The above is largely a response to Mairts wild assertion that he was better qualified than the state pathologist to comment on this situation.

Mairt wrote:

Now your agreeing with me, and you can't see it. Your just spewing BS for the sake of argument.

How am I agreeing with you? I'm completely disagreeing with you, and the "BS" I'm spewing is based on facts, unlike your comments which are extensions of your own wild fantasies about the case.

Mairt wrote:

Guys, if Robert had died because of a broken neck I'd have said without doubt it was an accident....most of you here have no experience of chokes and strangles so its hard to understand completely what I'm saying.

I fail to see the difference a broken neck would make to this situation, but I would genuinely appreciate you explaining it to me.
If the reason I don't agree with your points is my lack of experience with choke-holds then the onus is on you to frame your points/experience in a way i can understand them.

Don't make out this is somehow a limitation in me or anyone else because we're not seasoned chokers

It wasn't me! · 19-01-2008 08:56PM

He meant that if the child had been killed by a broken neck as a result of the headlock, then it would be more coherent than strangulation, where, yes, consistent pressure has to be applied. It is really the weak link of the whole story. Not changing my story as regards whether things should be different now, but I feel he may have gotten away with not telling the whole truth. Unfortunately, that is now irrelevant, as the justice system has processed him, and we have to accept that.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 09:09PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

I fail to see the difference a broken neck would make to this situation, but I would genuinely appreciate you explaining it to me.
If the reason I don't agree with your points is my lack of experience with choke-holds then the onus is on you to frame your points/experience in a way i can understand them.

Simple, a broken neck can mean instant death.

To cause death through a strangle takes applied and continuous presure over a longer period.

When Robert went unconcience and HAD WoD noticed (and trust me, its very obvious) then releasing the hold would have most likely saved Roberts life.

Now lets assume then that WoD didn't notice Roberts unconcience state that mean's he dragged (in a head lock) a childs limp body over a good distance, long enough to kill him through strangulation.

I've a feeling your just going to dispute any point I make just for a debate. I'm not interested in that.

I truely don't believe Robert was strangled by accident. A broken neck & instant death would have been an accident, strangled (or choked) wasn't.

Btw, you mentioned something about my not being experienced in applying strangles to children, your right. I wouldn't dream of it because I'm strong enough to break a neck, there's not a chance in hell would I even contemplate trying it.

Anyway we're getting now where with this and I'm bored & hungover

JTPB · 19-01-2008 10:03PM

Mairt wrote: »

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

Very few reports that I saw mentioned that the time on Robert's mobile phone was wrong, and any that did, did not give the correct time that it would have been on Robert's mobile. I wonder how you remember that so well, and why you did not give the correct time as being 5:10AM earlier in this thread when the wrong time was given.

The phone, recently bought at the time, may well have been not just hours, but additional days, or even over a year incorrect, if it had not been set correctly - or, if for any reason, the battery had been removed and re-inserted. Presumably Robert had a watch and would not have been heavily dependent on the mobile to tell the time.

JTPB · 19-01-2008 10:24PM

Mairt wrote: »

Guys, if Robert had died because of a broken neck I'd have said without doubt it was an accident.

But to die of strangulation is an entirely different matter. And I appricate that most of you here have no experience of chokes and strangles so its hard to understand completely what I'm saying.

To kill someone by strangling/choking them takes continued applied presure, its really that simple.

Well, I see your point about strangulation needing continuous pressure for some time. But I imagine that the length of time taken to strangle can vary widely depending on whether the victim has been at rest and has oxygen reserves, or whether they have been active and are already out of breath.

Boggles · 19-01-2008 10:49PM

JTPB wrote: »

Well, I see your point about strangulation needing continuous pressure for some time. But I imagine that the length of time taken to strangle can vary widely depending on whether the victim has been at rest and has oxygen reserves, or whether they have been active and are already out of breath.

There would be lots of variables, pressure applied, where it was applied, etc.

Strangulation is normally a crime of passion and very personal.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 11:15PM

JTPB wrote: »

Well, I see your point about strangulation needing continuous pressure for some time. But I imagine that the length of time taken to strangle can vary widely depending on whether the victim has been at rest and has oxygen reserves, or whether they have been active and are already out of breath.

Oxygen reserves have nothing to do with it since your cutting off blood and oxygen at the neck and not smoothering the lungs.

As regards activity. I can only draw on personal experience here.

In training or competition I'd be fighting someone with defensive skills and it can be hard to get the choke in, plus with practice some people can resist the choke for a long time. I know guys who are almost impossible to choke out. So its hard to compare these guys with the man on the street.

I've applied chokes on bar fights, and it takes seconds for someone to pass out and only once did I hold a choke long enough that someone had to release it, but it was a pretty nasty fighting and I was in the thick of it. But once released the lad came around quick enough. But people are disorientated for a few minutes.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 19-01-2008 11:18PM

Boggles wrote: »

Strangulation is normally a crime of passion and very personal.

I thought of that earlier, but there's no evidence to suggest something like that happened. But I can imagine a scenario where it might, like me choking my mother-in-law to death, the bitch :mad:

johnnyskeleton · 19-01-2008 11:36PM

Mairt wrote: »

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.

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.

I'm not sure whether you just ignored my post or didn't read it, but it is medically possible for someone to die from pressure applied to the neck for a relatively brief period of time:

Taken from Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice By David Dolinak, Evan W. Matshes, Emma O. Lew
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. Given the questionable level of detail that Irish pathologists (this comment is not aimed at any person in particular) go into, and that in any event the cause of death is often very difficult to determine, it seems medically credible that a momentary headlock did cause the death.

Mairt wrote:

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.

It was admitted because it was a red herring, misleading and unreliable. As can be seen from this thread and from the media catch calls, some people hear that there was semen on his hand and refuse to engage in rational debate - they just assume that there was sexual abuse. While most juries are sensible and capable of sorting through these things, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, so if it is possible that there could be even one "semen on hand=definite evidence of sexual abuse" person in the jury, then justice is not done. So to avoid even the appearance of injustice, irrelevant or misleading evidence is excluded from a trial. The prosecution want this as much as the defence, because they want a conviction that they can defend on appeal.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 20-01-2008 12:11AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you just ignored my post or didn't read it, but it is medically possible for someone to die from pressure applied to the neck for a relatively brief period of time:

Taken from Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice By David Dolinak, Evan W. Matshes, Emma O. Lew
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. Given the questionable level of detail that Irish pathologists (this comment is not aimed at any person in particular) go into, and that in any event the cause of death is often very difficult to determine, it seems medically credible that a momentary headlock did cause the death.

I didn't see your earlier post.

I'll reply to this one and not the second because like I said earlier I understand why the spunk evidence was omitted from the trial.

Again speaking from personal experience and what I know about strangles that doesn't raise reasonable doubt with me., although I accept that it can happen but "rarely".

This is a funny thread, to read some people here (not directed at you Johnny) you'd swear Robert wasn't dead at all and was running around grassy knolls making up stories to get WoD into trouble.

The child is dead, with the life choked out of him by a grown man. Perosnally I don't believe WoD set out to murder Robert, I really don't. But also I don't believe that he told the full truth at his trial about the circumstances of Roberts death.

I think because of whatever he chose not to reveal, and thats his right, and the prosecutions failure to prove murder WoD got off lightly.

And hopefully thats my last word in this thread... (please god make it so)

johnnyskeleton · 20-01-2008 12:11AM

Boggles wrote: »

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.
...
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.

The jury did look at it logically and soberly, and they also took account of his attempts to revive Robert and his explanation to the gardai of why he acted in that manner. They were not satisfied that the above points indicated an intention or malice sufficient for murder.

From what I heard, he decided to confess at the funeral, not when he realised that he was going to be caught. I guess this just highlights the manner in which the facts become distorted through the various media reports and spin. It would be helpful if transcripts were publically available for these big trials.

johnnyskeleton · 20-01-2008 12:22AM

Mairt wrote: »

Again speaking from personal experience and what I know about strangles that doesn't raise reasonable doubt with me., although I accept that it can happen but "rarely".

At the risk of dragging you back to the debate, a jury is supposed to base their decision on the specific facts of the case. I think that although you may hold the belief that it is not possible for someone to be strangled after momentary pressure, that does not entitle you to conclude that the pressure was longer than momentary. That is, unless the prosecution can adduce evidence which would allow you to infer that the pressure was longer than momentary, you must accept the evidence that the pressure was momentary. By the by, after reading the quoted passage, I hope you might be a bit more hesitant infuture about applying a strangle hold to someone in a fight, that is unless it's really necessary.

Mairt wrote:

Perosnally I don't believe WoD set out to murder Robert, I really don't...

I think because of whatever he chose not to reveal, and thats his right, and the prosecutions failure to prove murder WoD got off lightly.

I think that the prosecution's failure to prove murder was because the jury also believed that he didn't set out to murder him.

johnnyskeleton · 20-01-2008 12:42AM

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.

But he did take it into account. What he said was:

Carney J wrote:

After the death, the cover-up was appalling. There can be no excusing what was done. There can be no mitigating of what was done. The cover-up caused incredible grief and distress to the Holohan family. It permitted of the body being mutilated by animals, it tied up the emergency services of the State over a protracted period and caused the people of Ireland as a whole to join in the Holohans' grief. It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic, by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved.

I am not punishing the accused expressly in respect of the cover-up, although it comes into play as part of the impact on the victims and I take it into account in that regard. I must bear in mind, however, that it could have formed the basis of substantive charges and they were not laid.[emphasis added]

Here's a link, it would be no harm to read what he actually said as opposed to the bits that the media chose to print.

dame · 20-01-2008 12:51AM

It would be very interesting to hear from Wayne and Robert's little friend (Hazel(?), 13 year old neighbour who used to go for spins with them), if she ever decides to speak about their relationship at some stage when she's older.

EDIT: The girl's name is Heather.

I doubt her parents will be letting her pop round for chats and trips to the chippy with Wayne now.

Did the guards interview that young girl? Why wasn't her account of their interaction (Wayne and Robert with no adults around) given as evidence, one way or another?

It was at her house Robert was supposed to be on the sleep-over when his phone showed he had taken in Wayne's bedroom early in the morning. When the wrong time setting was taken into account, it still showed he had taken the picture in the very early morning.

I remember reading that Wayne's computer showed he had researched strangle-holds before the "accident" happened.

Why did Wayne get "angry" enough that day (when there was nobody else at home in the O'Donoghue household) to put Robert in a headlock? Surely the child would have annoyed him on other occassions in the past? I mean he was supposedly a difficult child (according to the blog somebody linked a couple of pages back) so why didn't Wayne get angry and physically violent with him before?

The research, the cover-up, the calm conversations with the family throughout the search and leading up to the funeral.....it doesn't look like an accident to me.

PeakOutput · 20-01-2008 01:21AM

dame wrote: »

I remember reading that Wayne's computer showed he had researched strangle-holds before the "accident" happened.

i would really really love to see a link for that as i highly doubt that is something the tabloids etc have let slip by in their search for dirt on wod if it was true

PeakOutput · 20-01-2008 01:28AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

link,

thats very interesting

dame · 20-01-2008 01:44AM

His girlfriend was younger than him too (oh shock horror I hear you all say). She was still in school and making her CAO choices that Christmas, while he was a 2nd year student at CMIT. How many 20 year old, 2nd year students have 11 year old and 13 year old friends and leaving cert girlfriends? It appears he'd been seeing her since the year before and had treated her like a queen for as long as she'd known him (since she was 12 or 13). http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/12/03/story692487955.asp

Now, maybe there are lots of young college men out there with school-girl girlfriends a couple of years younger than themselves, but I certainly don't know too many who would be such good friends with people very much younger than themselves. When I was in school older boys definitely did not treat 12/13 year old girls like queens. They stayed well away from them and if anything, the only heed they paid to them would be a throw-away remark.

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments