O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

johnnyskeleton · 20-01-2008 02:12AM

dame wrote: »

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?

I don't think there is anything sinister for a 20 year old going out with a 17/18 year old. If anything, a lot of couples have a couple of years between them, more often than not the man is the elder.

dame wrote: »

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

Are you trying to suggest there is something wrong with him knowing her as a friend or casual acquaintance since she was 12 or 13 (he being at the time 2-3 years older)?

dame wrote: »

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.

Are you trying to build a case that he is a child molester? A criticsm already levelled in this thread is that a lot of people seem to want to believe this is true, I guess because it's easier to digest the idea that he was a sicko paedo who kills his victims rather than a normal person who made a grave mistake. That way, it happened to a group of persons that can be exiled and hunted, rather than the possibility that they could be anybody, and that incidents like this cannot always be avoided.

Dudess · 20-01-2008 05:08AM

dame wrote: »

How many 20 year old, 2nd year students have... leaving cert girlfriends?

Juding by posts to this website alone, plenty.

AngryBadger · 20-01-2008 12:48PM

Mairt wrote: »

Simple, a broken neck can mean instant death.

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

You're correct about that, but the time you believe it would take would have been much shorter for robert holohan because he was 11 years old, on top of which we can be sure that O' Donoghue wasn't using a "correct" choke-hold, erego we don't know how or where or what kind of pressure was being applied to Holohans throat/neck. Therefore all I'm saying is that it's at least conceivable that O Donoghue held him long enough to kill him without realising what he was doing. I'm not proposing that as a fact just as a possibility. And I don't see anything you've posted as discounting THAT possibility while supporting the notion that he meant to kill Holohan.

Mairt wrote: »

When Robert went unconcience and HAD WoD noticed (and trust me, its very obvious)

Again this is pure speculation on your part. We've been told that O' Donoghue had Robert Holohan in a headlock. To me that means that his arm was wrapped around Holohans neck in such a way that Roberts head was under Wayne's arm. Now Wayne was probably leaning over slightly, even more likely when you allow for Robert being so much shorter than Wayne. That being the case some of Robert's weight may have already been on the ground. In those circumstances, again it's CONCEIVABLE that Wayne may not have noticed the additional weight on him due to an 11-year old boy passing out, especially if some of the lads weights was already on the ground.

Mairt wrote:

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.

How does that prove he dragged Robert's body while still holding it in a headlock?

Mairt wrote:

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

I'll keep responding as long as you keep producing speculation and proposing it as THE ONLY credible explanation of events.

Dame wrote:

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...y692487955.asp

Where are you coming up with this? If his girlfriend was filling in the CAO at the time that means she was probably 17 or 18. Plenty of people get involved in relationships with that kind of age disparity at that time in their lives. That in no way supports any kind of inappropriateness on O'Donoghues part. And ffs plenty of people have relationships with children of close family friends and relatives. Are you now implying that all of those people are engaged in some sort of questionable activity too?

I think it's fair to say that the reason a lot of people are defending the sentence and the conditions of the trial (which in no way constitutes a defence of Wayne O'Donoghue) is because there's so much baying for blood by people with no real appreciations of the facts. A lot of these people are quite happy to base nothing arguments on anything they can even remotely posit as a mockery of "evidence" or "fact". None of the arguments regarding semen, his girlfriend, or his relationship with RObert Holohan prior to his death are in any way indictments of any kind of sexual or inappropriate relationship between Wayne O'Donoghue and any other persons.

Suggesting his girlfriend was an example of some kind of abuse is sick. This kind of baseless speculation along with plenty of other kinds of baseless speculation appearing in this thread are disastrous. O'Donoghue was tried and convicted and served his sentence. It seems to me, and to anyone willing to base their opinion on the FACTS AVAILABLE AND NOT WHAT THEY THEMSELVES OR THEIR BUDDY DOWN THE PUB THINKS accepts that justice was done here.

And frankly this ongoing speculation only serves to prolong a horrifically tragic incident which destroyed two families and ended a life.

Padraig Mor · 20-01-2008 02:34PM

Mairt wrote: »

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

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

:D:D

Padraig Mor · 20-01-2008 02:35PM

Mairt wrote: »

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

Rather more common sense than some of the posters here it would seem.

senordingdong · 20-01-2008 04:19PM

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.

Absolutly.
I don't understand. What cover up are you referring to?

dame · 20-01-2008 04:21PM

O'Donoghue had been going out with his girlfriend since mid-way through her 5th year in school, when he was mid-way through 1st year in college. Why wasn't he off making new friends in college and getting together with girls he'd meet out in college bar, nightclubs etc? This girl was only 16/17 and obviously could not be (legally) going out to the same places as he would have been expected to be going.

AngryBadger · 20-01-2008 04:31PM

dame wrote: »

O'Donoghue had been going out with his girlfriend since mid-way through her 5th year in school, when he was mid-way through 1st year in college. Why wasn't he off making new friends in college and getting together with girls he'd meet out in college bar, nightclubs etc? This girl was only 16/17 and obviously could not be (legally) going out to the same places as he would have been expected to be going.

How do you know she was 16/17? If she was in her sixth year of secondary school then it's far more likely she was in the 17/18 bracket, and in fact it's entirely possible she was in the 18/19 bracket. Once again what your posting up here is pure fantasy speculation based on your need to believe O'Donoghue was guilty of something he wasn't guilty of; being a paedophile.

Seriously, are you telling me that if you knew someone who was 19 themselves and going out with another person who was 17/18 you would consider that inappropriate?

Sam Vimes · 20-01-2008 05:13PM

two of my friends have gone out with girls 3 years younger than them, in fact it was the same girl. one was going out with her while she was in 6th year (age 17) and he was in his third year in college (age 20). does that make him a pedo?

dame · 20-01-2008 06:00PM

Commander Vimes wrote: »

does that make him a pedo?

No. Neither does it mean he's not a paedophile.

Does he also hang around with 10/11 and 12/13 year olds?

AngryBadger · 20-01-2008 06:18PM

dame wrote: »

No. Neither does it mean he's not a paedophile.

So it means nothing that's what you're saying? Thus discrediting your opening point re: Wayne O'Donoghue's girlfriend. That's very gracious of you.

dame wrote:

Does he also hang around with 10/11 and 12/13 year olds?

What 12/13 year olds did O'Donoghue hang aorund with? And regarding his association with Holohan it has ben stated many times from numerous sources that O'Donoghue often helped Roberts parents with Robert himself as he was suffering from ADD And apparently a toublesome child.

dame · 20-01-2008 06:25PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

What 12/13 year olds did O'Donoghue hang aorund with?

Their little friend Heather. You should have read the posts above.

I'm saying it doesn't prove anything. Neither does the fact that he wasn't tried as a paedophile prove anything. Just because there was no evidence found when they eventually found the poor boy's body, doesn't mean it never existed at any other time.

There are plenty of cases where it is one person's word against another's and where evidence no longer exists. How many adults have brought cases against those who abused them as children? How many of them had preserved perfect DNA samples as evidence?

AngryBadger · 20-01-2008 06:30PM

By your reasoning absolutely any person anywhere might and probably should be tried as a paedophile if they've ever had any kind of exchange with a pre-teen.

dame · 20-01-2008 06:42PM

No, only those who've admitted killing a pre-teen or those who actually are paedophiles.

dame · 20-01-2008 06:45PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

By your reasoning absolutely any person anywhere might and probably should be tried as a paedophile if they've ever had any kind of exchange with a pre-teen.

He didn't just happen to have an exchange with these young kids once in a while, with lots of other people present. He regularly took them for spins, alone, in his car. Prehaps he was just a very nice, friendly guy. Most normal 20 year olds I've ever come across have too much going on in their lives to be bringing young neighbours for spins alone regularly.

AngryBadger · 20-01-2008 06:46PM

dame wrote: »

No, only those who've admitted killing a pre-teen or those who actually are paedophiles.

How does killing a pre-teen warrant a paedophilia charge? And there's no one being mentioned in thsi thread who IS/WAS a paedophile...

Shazbot · 20-01-2008 07:53PM

Dame, everything in your last 5-6 posts is absolute rubish. Completely irrelevant. By your theory, anyone could be a paedophile, they just haven't been caught, including you. You keep bringing up the fact that he spent time alone with younger people. It's a pretty small community and everyone is very friendly with the neighbours. Of course he's going to be nice to his neighbours regardless of age.

What your doing is typical tabloid bullsh*t. Although maybe you've found your calling as a "journalist". Stop labouring the notion that he's a paedophile, it's absolutely disgracefull. The man committed a crime, was punished accordingly by the law, and served his time. Let him get on with his life without slanderous people like you with wild speculations.

PeakOutput · 20-01-2008 08:31PM

ye dame your talking crap tbh

there was a post in pi recently about a man who was watching his sister in law changing her newly born daughters nappy and she snapped at him to stop looking at her daughters private parts and getting sexual pleasure from it. the world is at a stage of ridicolous paranoia over sexual predators.

their existence is worrying obviously but their prevelance is nowhere near what it is made out to be in the media

edit; when i was 16/17 i was babysitting for 12/13 yr olds now it didnt work out in the long run as the last thing i wanted to be doing was babysit 12/13yr olds but if i was in wod's shoes now i bet you the tabloids would find a way to twist it to make me sound like an absolute sadistic predator when in reality i was watching tv after they had gone to bed. simplest answer is usually the right one

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2008 01:08AM

dame wrote: »

No. Neither does it mean he's not a paedophile.

Does he also hang around with 10/11 and 12/13 year olds?

Ah, the old presumption of paedophilia that is so well enshrined in our constitution.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to prove to you that Mr. O'Donoghue was not a paedophile. In our criminal justice system, the accused has the presumption of paedophila. This means that he must prove that he does not fiddle with children. He must prove this beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must prove nothing. They can simply sit there and say "prove it" and if I fail to prove it, if you have any reason to doubt that he had a normal sexual orinentation, well then, you must convict."

lizann · 21-01-2008 03:18PM

I feel for the Holohan family and also the O Donoghue family as both families have been destroyed by this.

I have no sympathy what so ever for Wayne.

While the killing may have been ruled accidential "horseplay" and he was charged with manslaughter and served 3 years his actions after the killing the cover up and disposal of the body other charges should have been brought against him.

BTW is it the longer a body is not discovered certain evidence decays or is more harder to find

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]CC0019/05
The High Court
The Central Criminal Court
Mr Justice Carney
Tuesday, 24 January 2006
DPP v WAYNE O'DONOGHUE

MR JUSTICE CARNEY: I want to say unequivocally at the outset that I am dealing with a manslaughter and not with a cover-up. A manslaughter has been described as the most elastic of crimes because the penalty can range from a suspended sentence to one of life imprisonment. It is now my function to select a punishment at or between these extremes and explain my reasons to the nation and to the Holohan family as best I can. I will be doing so on the basis of the evidence presented in open court and no other consideration.

In this case, evidence was given by pathologists on each side. For the prosecution evidence was given by the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, and for the defence evidence was given by the Chief Pathologist of Northern Ireland, Professor Crane. They were in broad agreement with some difference in emphasis. The evidence of both pathologists was to the effect that the injuries on Robert's body were light.

I find of particular significance that Professor Crane went on to say that the injuries were consistent with those which resulted from a restraining technique employed by several police forces in the United States. When it became apparent that this technique was causing unexpected deaths, its authorised use was terminated. This evidence suggests to me that the injuries we are concerned with here were at the horseplay end of the scale.

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.[/FONT]

alrightbob · 21-01-2008 05:32PM

He strangled the child to death. Thats not manslaughter, the creep should have been given 20 years. If I run into him, I will end up getting 20 years if I can't prove that I only strangled him to death.

Dudess · 21-01-2008 05:37PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ah, the old presumption of paedophilia that is so well enshrined in our constitution.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to prove to you that Mr. O'Donoghue was not a paedophile. In our criminal justice system, the accused has the presumption of paedophila. This means that he must prove that he does not fiddle with children. He must prove this beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must prove nothing. They can simply sit there and say "prove it" and if I fail to prove it, if you have any reason to doubt that he had a normal sexual orinentation, well then, you must convict."

If the victim and the perpetrator were both female, the question of sexual abuse wouldn't even enter people's heads.

Eire 4Ever · 21-01-2008 06:03PM

Court adjourns application in libel case
16 January 2008

By Vivion Kilfeather
THE High Court yesterday adjourned for three weeks an application for discovery of documents in an action for libel brought by Wayne O’Donoghue, the 23-year-old engineering student who was convicted of the manslaughter of Midleton schoolboy Robert Holohan.
Mr O’Donoghue is due to be released from the Midlands Prison today after serving three years of a four-year sentence for killing the 11-year-old boy on January 4, 2005, in Midleton, Co Cork.

As a result of some of the media coverage of the sentencing hearing, Mr O’Donoghue issued proceedings for libel against a number of outlets, including TV3.

Yesterday, TV3 Television Network Ltd made an application before Master of the High Court Edmund Honohan SC for discovery of documents from Mr O’Donoghue in advance of the libel trial. The documents are to be used in the TV company’s defence.

The application was adjourned after Mr Honohan was told Mr O’Donoghue’s legal advisers were likely to be in a position to agree discovery within weeks.

Mr Honohan adjourned the application to February 5.

Mr O’Donoghue’s libel action arises out of questions raised by Robert’s mother Majella during her victim-impact statement at the sentencing hearing when she queried why semen was found on her son’s body.

There had been no reference at any stage to DNA forensic material during the 10-day trial and Mr O’Donoghue’s lawyers have repeatedly insisted that the DNA involved was not his.

Mr O’Donoghue, who claims his reputation was damaged by media coverage suggesting sexual impropriety on his part towards Robert, also has defamation actions pending against the Sun, the Sunday World, Ireland on Sunday and the Evening Herald.

If they proceed, it could mean that Mr O’Donoghue will have to give evidence and be open to cross-examination. It is also possible however that he would not take the stand and rely on other witnesses to give evidence of any alleged libel.

His solicitor, Frank Buttimer, is determined that the libel actions should not be turned into a re-run of the murder trial.

He said the five High Court actions are “aimed at vindicating Wayne O’Donoghue’s good name which has been damaged by false allegations and the onus of proof will be on the media outlets to prove these allegations”.

Mr O’Donoghue is expected to call a number of experts to give evidence disputing the reliability of the forensic tests that initially formed part of the Garda case

PeakOutput · 21-01-2008 06:22PM

alrightbob wrote: »

He strangled the child to death. Thats not manslaughter, the creep should have been given 20 years. If I run into him, I will end up getting 20 years if I can't prove that I only strangled him to death.

even though im pretty sure this is a troll if its not the fact you dont feel you would deserve 20years for cold blooded murder(preplanned and non accidental) says alot about your mentality, its that exact mentality that is creepy tbh not wod's

AngryBadger · 21-01-2008 06:36PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

even though im pretty sure this is a troll if its not the fact you dont feel you would deserve 20years for cold blooded murder(preplanned and non accidental) says alot about your mentality, its that exact mentality that is creepy tbh not wod's

+1

Also that's real tough talk from a guy on his 3rd post :rolleyes:

Agamemnon · 21-01-2008 07:13PM

AngryBadger wrote: »

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.

How is there no difference in the two cases, legally? Apart from the charge of manslaughter and Judge Carney presiding, the two cases are very different. It's long been recognised from a legal perspective that two cases with the same charge can be very different. Why else do you think that judges have discretionary sentencing powers?

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.

Take a deep breath and calm down. My second point was separate and wasn't directed at you specifically. That's why I put it in a new paragraph and said "so many people in this thread" rather than you.

PeakOutput · 21-01-2008 11:08PM

a medical expert has just been speaking on rte on the documentary about the state pathologist (besides herself) and he said in very clear terms that you wouldnt have to hold the choke very long for it to have fatal consequences. i didnt catch his name but it could of been the northern ireland state pathologist.

mary cassidy did say there were bruises on the neck that are not explainable by a headlock type hold but that the cause of death was a headlock type hold. the northern ireland state pathologist does not think those bruises are particularly important

Mrs Roy Keane · 22-01-2008 01:29PM

Will other charges be brought against Wayne for his actions after the killing?

Also why is he bringing a libel case against certain members of the media? For calling him a child killer but thats true

Dudess · 22-01-2008 01:36PM

For the implications that he sexually abused Robert.

Ekancone · 22-01-2008 03:21PM

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Will other charges be brought against Wayne for his actions after the killing?

Also why is he bringing a libel case against certain members of the media? For calling him a child killer but thats true

Well, if you knocked a child down in a car accident, would you call yourself a child killer?

O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Comments