PDA

View Full Version : Wayne O'Donoghue gets 4 years!



Pages : [1] 2

Eire06
24/01/2006, 1:46 PM
:mad:

He only has 3 years more to serve..
A disgrace
quote from http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/01/24/story241324.html


O'Donoghue jailed for four years
24/01/2006 - 13:42:57

A 21-year-old student was today sentenced to four years in jail for the manslaughter of Cork schoolboy Robert Holohan.

Wayne O’Donogue, from Ballyedmond in Midleton, was found guilty last month of unlawfully killing his 11-year-old neighbour.

The youngster disappeared near his home last January.

Eight days later, his body was found dumped 12 miles away following an intensive search of the area.

O’Donoghue had been charged with the murder of Robert Holohan but a jury found him not guilty of that charge, but guilty of manslaughter.

the 12 th man
24/01/2006, 2:25 PM
What was the Judge thinking about?!!!.Way too soft a sentence for a horrible crime.

beautifulrock
24/01/2006, 2:27 PM
Thats shocking, did Robert's mother make a statement to the court or was that just paper talk.

Eire06
24/01/2006, 2:33 PM
Robert Holohan's mother Majella gave evidence today in court!!
She raised a few matters that weren't officially known to the public

Quote from http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/01/24/story241308.html

Mother raises fresh questions about Holohan killing
24/01/2006 - 13:09:29

Robert Holohan's mother has raised several new questions about the circumstances surrounding the killing of her young son in January of last year.

Majella Holohan made the queries while giving evidence today ahead of the sentencing of the 22-year-old man convicted of killing the 11-year-old near Midleton in Co Cork.

She asked why semen was found on Robert's hand after his body was found last January, why he had been in his killer's bedroom at 7.30am in the morning and why her son made a 999 call later that morning.

Wayne O'Donoghue, a neighbour of the Holohans from Ballyedmond in Midleton, was cleared of murdering the 11-year-old last year, but was convicted of manslaughter and is due to be sentenced later today.



He has admitted killing the schoolboy by grabbing him around the neck after he threw stones at his car, but insists the killing was accidental.

Giving evidence to today's sentencing hearing, Ms Holohan said she had trusted Mr O'Donoghue completely before her son's death.

However, she said he had been cunning and devious in the days between the youngster's disappearance and when his body was found 12 miles away at Inch Strand eight days later.

Mr O'Donoghue actually took part in the search for the missing 11-year-old and rang his telephone in Ms Holohan's presence on the day he killed the boy.

joeSoap
24/01/2006, 2:38 PM
The judge said that he took direction from superior courts to his, and found that with similar cases of manslaughter conviction the sentences were all of around that duration. He felt any other sentence would be successfully appealed at the Court of Appeal.

The statement Mrs Hoolahan made was apparently very moving, and disturbing. She spoke of her love for Robert and of how things never were used as part of the prosecution case such as semen found on Roberts clothes, his mobile phone being wiped clean of prints and images, and why Robert dialled 999 one morning at 7.30 appearently from Wayne O'Donoghues bedroom when he was supposed to be at a sleepover elsewhere.

If these facts are true, then it brings a new twist to the case. And why weren't they used in evidence. If they are not accurate, O'Donoghue is now falsely branded as a paedophile as well as a child killer.

Its all quite tragic really. No winners-all losers.:( :(

Macy
24/01/2006, 3:16 PM
If these facts are true, then it brings a new twist to the case. And why weren't they used in evidence. If they are not accurate, O'Donoghue is now falsely branded as a paedophile as well as a child killer.
This is trial by media now. If the prosecution wasn't confident to present them to the court, they shouldn't be now. Or on any forthcoming Late Late Show appearances.

joeSoap
24/01/2006, 3:33 PM
This is trial by media now. If the prosecution wasn't confident to present them to the court, they shouldn't be now. Or on any forthcoming Late Late Show appearances.
Agreed.

Risteard
24/01/2006, 3:36 PM
If these facts are true, then it brings a new twist to the case. And why weren't they used in evidence. If they are not accurate, O'Donoghue is now falsely branded as a paedophile as well as a child killer.

Spot on. I actually thought he'd be released today and i wouldn't have been too outraged either.
You'd suspect that there's solid reasons why this evidence wasn't admitted (think for a while about both instances, there's easily other explanations and thats if the allegations are true.)
If not, turns the whole case on its head and heads will roll.

anto1208
24/01/2006, 3:39 PM
this is a hard one if it was an acciedent then the sentence is about right it think for his actions in the following days ,

we cant take any of the other evidence that was nt admitted to the trial as fact , there is a reason why it was nt alloud in the trial ,

but if ye think WOD is getting off lightly he isnt he will have to live with this for his whole life , it will follow him no matter where he goes .

also we dont know anything about the kid killed he could have been a nasty little ***** but because he is dead no one will say that , it was in the case that he wanted WOD to take him to mcdonalds when he said no he started throwing stones at his car . this does nt sound like the action of a nice little kid .

pete
24/01/2006, 3:41 PM
The statement Mrs Hoolahan made was apparently very moving, and disturbing. She spoke of her love for Robert and of how things never were used as part of the prosecution case such as semen found on Roberts clothes, his mobile phone being wiped clean of prints and images, and why Robert dialled 999 one morning at 7.30 appearently from Wayne O'Donoghues bedroom when he was supposed to be at a sleepover elsewhere.


Those issues are just hearsay as were not used as evidence so unfair to use them. I didn't follow the facts of the case in detail so don't know whats fair. Seemed like just an accident...?

finlma
24/01/2006, 3:43 PM
I think its a fair sentence.

If what Mrs. Houlihan said had any credence it would have come up as evidence during the trial.

Roverstillidie
24/01/2006, 5:02 PM
7 years is average for manslaughter, so its a resonable sentence in terms of precedence.

the real scandals here are why the gardai/dpp insisted on a murder prosecution they clearly couldnt win and the horrific reporting in the tabloids around the time of the search, paedophile this and that. all lies.

it was a tragedy and O'Donaghue seems genuinly contrite and his life is in ruins.

centre mid
24/01/2006, 5:37 PM
Brings into view whether victim impact reports should be admisable as evidence, I think in highly emotive cases such as this then quite possibly they should be kept out of the court room, after all should we not be judged solely on hard evidence, i know in some states in the U.S. that victim impact reports are taken into consideration when sentencing

Anto McC
24/01/2006, 6:15 PM
I think it's a fair sentence and Mrs Houlihan had better be careful of what she says on Television,if it's the wrong thing,Wayne O'Donaghue could walk on a technicality(sp?)

Thunderblaster
24/01/2006, 6:58 PM
During the trial, it did emerge about Robert Holohan taking pictures in Wayne Donoghue's bedroom at 7:32 in the morning. Surely that doesn't come across as normal. The semen on the hand story; was there not enough eveidence to produce that at the trial? There are some questions that needs to be answered to put Majella Holohan's mind to rest.

pete
24/01/2006, 7:43 PM
Its hard to know what use a victim impact statement is because we have courts so justice is impartial. No matter the outcome there would be misery on all sides anyway. Interesting to see former Garda get i think 5 years for knocking down pedestrian while drink driving so that could also not be said to be fair...?

anto1208
25/01/2006, 10:36 AM
During the trial, it did emerge about Robert Holohan taking pictures in Wayne Donoghue's bedroom at 7:32 in the morning. Surely that doesn't come across as normal. The semen on the hand story; was there not enough eveidence to produce that at the trial? There are some questions that needs to be answered to put Majella Holohan's mind to rest.

the semen was nt his thats why it was nt in the case ,
how did it get there , as horrible as it sounds it may be as simple as a used jonny in the ditch where the body was left .

even though papers are going with headlines such as ,
"semen was WOD's" says expert then in small writing a second test proved it was nt ,and i have nt seen it yet but aparently the sun have gone with "nothing but a peadophile " !!!!



how in gods name can they do this , this kids life is ruined and now they want to ruin it even further by branding him something he isnt . they wont be happy untill he tops himself . utter scum .

WOD solicitor was on the radio all morning defendeing him and he is taking the sun to court straight away he said .

the 12 th man
25/01/2006, 10:43 AM
I've a Son roughly the age of the deceased.
I tell you if another person killed him for alledgedly throwing stones at their car and got 4 years for it I'd be looking for retribution.

Leave out the "Semen evidence", 4 years is not enough for what he did.

Macy
25/01/2006, 10:45 AM
They have to end victim impact statements - or make them written or in camera after this. How this is acceptable when the evidence isn't there is beyond me?

The media are as bad for the way they're covering it, and RTE should be sanctioned if this is repeated on the rumoured Late Late appearance.

btw Michael Clifford said on the Dunphy this morning that the Gard's have been spreading all this stuff from way back when WOD admitted it. They've also been spreading that he has shown no remorse, which is contary to the courts opinion. Yet more evidence of how corrupt the force is imo - rely on the media to be judge and jury rather than the courts of the state.

pete
25/01/2006, 10:59 AM
I heard that the mother submitted her staement in advance to the courts for approval but then added extra bits to it. Bad form really but sure who would prosecute a grieving mother.

anto1208
25/01/2006, 11:06 AM
yea no one knew she was goign to say this , but it is important to note she did nt accuss WOD of anything else she wanted to ask the question of why this was nt in the case along with the phone call etc .

i can only take from this the cops told here nothing about why it was nt included , if they said it was nt WOD semen and explained to her where it came from do you think she would still be wondering ??

pete
25/01/2006, 11:08 AM
The only way she could have found out about these items was if the guards told her so surely they'd also have told her why they were not included?

anto1208
25/01/2006, 11:11 AM
I've a Son roughly the age of the deceased.
I tell you if another person killed him for alledgedly throwing stones at their car and got 4 years for it I'd be looking for retribution.

Leave out the "Semen evidence", 4 years is not enough for what he did.


he was trowing stones at his car because he would nt take him to mcdonalds , he caught him in a head lock as im sure every person here has done to some one at some stage in there lives and less than 30 seconds later he was dead !!
the case showed this was a freak accident his injuries where practically non existent there was no signs of any abuse or any foul play .

this is what he was charged on not the following days actions . how can you say 4 years is nt ennough for an accident that could just as easily been any of us

anto1208
25/01/2006, 11:13 AM
The only way she could have found out about these items was if the guards told her so surely they'd also have told her why they were not included?

they should have !! the reports are there i was reading them this morning it was very clear to me why it was nt included ,it should have been clear to her but it was nt ,

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 11:54 AM
I think Mrs Houlihan overstepped the mark in relation to the purpose of the Witness Impact Statement and this brings into question the use of same. Their use has been undermined and this could now harm future cases where they are used in the correct context: to convey the victims hurt, pain, loss etc. prior to passing of sentence.

In this instance the judge should have instructed that this Statement should not have left the courtroom because once in the hands of irresponsible papers like the Sun ("Nothing but a paedophile") the case would be, and is, being retried in the media. This is wrong, wrong, wrong and undermines the judicial system.

As for the evidence, according to the solicitor acting for WO'D on Newstalk 106 this morning, the mobile belonging to Robert Houlihan was not bought until after his alledged presence in WO'D's bedroom - there was an issue with the phone that the time/date was not properly set and therein lied the confusion. Apparently RH was at the sleepover in a friends house at that time This was dealt with during the trial and the issue was closed.

Secondly, the picture that was said to have been taken in the bedroom at a later time, was of a Man U poster on WO'D bedroom wall. Again this issue was dealt with in court.

The semen found on the body was not proven to be that of WO'D's and therefore was not admitted to the book of evidence. All parties are privy to all of the evidence before it is presented to the court. The body was exposed for so long that it apparently had been mutilated by animals as well as the process of natural decay and that of the elements in the depths of an Irish winter.

For all this to be used and then twisted by sick editors and published is disgraceful but for this to be all questioned in a Witness Impact Statement, post conviction is equally wrong. While I completely understand the emotion attached to the questions that Mrs. Houlihan asked, it was not right to do so and perhaps reflects a blindness to the judicial process which should have been dealt with in conjunction with the Prosecution.

In future WIS's should be kept in-court. There is no need for anyone out side the courtroom to know these details. It is for the judge before he passes sentence, and that's it. The prisiding judge received a copy of it but it did not contain the questions that have lead to some of this morning's outrageous headlines.

I cannot comprehend losing a child in this manner (that was tried in court) but for the defendant to be convicted and then see wild accusations being thrown about in the press means WOD's life has been irreparable damaged to another level. If he stood any chance of getting his life back together again after serving his sentence (as convicted in a court of law, in front of a jury of his peers) for manslaughter, he doesn't anymore.

Some of today's headlines are nothing short of a disgrace.

pete
25/01/2006, 1:09 PM
Some of today's headlines are nothing short of a disgrace.

I agree. Clearly the semen evidence was left out of the case because it wouldn't have held up & then would cast doubts on the rest of the evidence.

Apparently its common for the judge to instruct the reporters not to report on the victim impact statement outside court which makes this all the stranger.

Risteard
25/01/2006, 2:37 PM
aparently the sun have gone with "nothing but a peadophile " !!!!
Anyone able to confirm this?

klein4
25/01/2006, 3:17 PM
yeah
its on the front cover but it is attributed to mrs hoolahan.

Risteard
25/01/2006, 3:30 PM
So she's meant to have said it to the Sun?
Don't think i've read anywhere else that it was said in her statement.

klein4
25/01/2006, 3:40 PM
apparently(and if this is headin to dangerous territory feel free to delete.) it was said to reporters after the sentance and not in her victim impact statement. also in the herald she compares him to Ian Huntley. maybe reporters shouldnt be following someone who has just had a very traumatic experience around looking for quotes.the herald "exclusive" looked like it was conducted at the gates of her house.

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 3:40 PM
So she's meant to have said it to the Sun?
Don't think i've read anywhere else that it was said in her statement.

She said it outside the court after the sentence was passed when questioned by reporters...

papa-j
25/01/2006, 3:45 PM
So she's meant to have said it to the Sun?
Don't think i've read anywhere else that it was said in her statement.

As per Irish times, both Mr & Mrs Holohan called o'Donaghue a paedophile as he was been taken from court after sentenceing. IMO this guy was callous enough to cover up the crime & cold blooded enough to offer to help search for the boy, that he is capable of covering up further crimes. The fact is that there was evidence of seaman on the boys body and that someone is responsible for it.

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 3:46 PM
Just heard on the radio Mrs. Houlihan is writing a letter to the DPP to complain about the sentenced passed....don't see the point in that; the judge passes the sentence...
She'll be on the Late Late apparently as well with more of this...

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 3:48 PM
he is capable of covering up further crimes

That's speculative and if the prosecution cannot prove it then it's not relevent.

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 4:10 PM
WO'D's solicitor responds to Holohan statement:


http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0125/holohanr.html


The solicitor for Wayne O'Donoghue, who was jailed for four years for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan, has responded to questions from the victim's mother, Majella, including why semen had been found on her son's body.

Frank Buttimer said a number of issues raised by Mrs Holohan were considered by the court.

He said the forensic issue raised yesterday was not considered by the trial because it was not considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions to be evidential to the case.

Mr Buttimer said he did not have to explain the existence of the semen because, after an extensive garda investigation and trial, the matter was not evidentially connected with Wayne O'Donoghue.

He said O'Donoghue's reputation had been seriously damaged by speculation, allegations and labels that were unfair and not based on fact.


The last 4 words of this report are the basis for his response...

papa-j
25/01/2006, 4:17 PM
That's speculative and if the prosecution cannot prove it then it's not relevent.

true its speculation that a crime other than manslaughter was commited but its fact that he hid his crime & actively helped in the search for a body that he had hidden.But I'd support the views of an innocent family who are the real victims here over a guy who is responsible for the death of that young boy and who hid the truth from everyone for the best part of 2 weeks
before admitting his crime.

Tired&Emotional
25/01/2006, 4:34 PM
true its speculation that a crime other than manslaughter was commited but its fact that he hid his crime & actively helped in the search for a body that he had hidden.But I'd support the views of an innocent family who are the real victims here over a guy who is responsible for the death of that young boy and who hid the truth from everyone for the best part of 2 weeks
before admitting his crime.

Yes I totally agree with all you have said except supporting their views when WO'D has already been tried and convicted. That is what the court is there for. The headlines in some papers are NOT facts as recorded in the case. this is where the problem is. I put a court of law before red tops, personally.

This cannot be allowed to set a precendent. The whole judicial system is based on a fair trial with sentence passed by the judge where a guity verdict has been arrived at by a jury. And that is the way it should be. WO'D's solicitor stated yesterday that no appeal would be made. He accepted the sentence and will serve it. The press SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to then say, effectively - "no, court (prosecution really) was completely wrong, this is what the victims mother thinks and we're gonna run with that and say whatever the hell we want to". Who do they think they are???!!

This one is not over by a long shot...

Dr.Nightdub
25/01/2006, 10:55 PM
According to WOD's lawyer on the Dunphy show this morning, the reason the semen wasn't offered in evidence is that the DPP couldn't prove how it got to be on Robert Holohan's hand.

Apparently, there's a 77million to one chance aginst it being anyone else's other than WOD's so there's no real argument that it's not his. However, it matched another sample that was found on the bath mat in WOD's house, so it could just as easily have transferred accidentally from the mat while the body was being moved. In that case, it makes sense to me not to introduce it as evidence.

As the State Pathologst said in the trial, there was no evidence of sexual assault.

This is pure muck-raking by The Sun, and as this is a football forum, let's not forget what that particular rag came out with in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy.

dahamsta
26/01/2006, 1:19 AM
According to WOD's lawyerGood start Nightdub.


Apparently, there's a 77million to one chance aginst it being anyone else's other than WOD's so there's no real argument that it's not his.Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0125/1442788221HM1WAYNELEAD.html) is that a sample of semen was tested by a DNS lab in the UK (most likely Cellmark (http://www.cellmark.co.uk/); there's none in Ireland and I'm pretty sure Cellmark is the only one in the UK that deals with these cases) and the results pointed to O'Donoghue; and then another sample was tested and the results were different. This discrepancy, although explainable in some circumstances, was felt by the DPP to be prejudicial to the case.

Whether you agree with that or not should be the argument, not the kind of he-said-she-said crap I'm seeing thrown around here.

This forum has rules (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=32644). Obey them or both you and the thread will be kicked out. That goes for all of you.

adam

Thunderblaster
26/01/2006, 1:26 AM
If feelings are running high on The Sun, just boycott the paper.

Soko
29/01/2006, 7:08 AM
The Sun is a joke.




I think they also ran a story saying that WOD was having gay sex in a shed in Portlaoise prison with some 26 year old convicted sex offender. I mean ffs, they should be put out of business for that filth.

Anto McC
29/01/2006, 10:38 AM
The Sun is a joke.

I think they also ran a story saying that WOD was having gay sex in a shed in Portlaoise prison with some 26 year old convicted sex offender. I mean ffs, they should be put out of business for that filth.

Yeah,i saw that too,how they can get away with it,is what amazes me

Thunderblaster
30/01/2006, 12:17 AM
Stories like that helps to sell newspapers.

joeSoap
30/01/2006, 10:53 AM
The Sun can run whatever stories they like about Wayne O'Donoghue thanks to th laws of libel. Libel laws state that you cannot discredit or publish stories that may harm the repuation of an induvudual, or individuals. In O'Donoghues case, being convicted of manslaughter protects the sun from libel charges because the lad's reputation is already seen as irreparably damaged according to a court of law.

It's why they write rubbish about Myra Hindley, Ian Huntley, Fred West, and other notorious killers.

John83
30/01/2006, 1:49 PM
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0125/1442788221HM1WAYNELEAD.html) is that a sample of semen was tested by a DNS lab in the UK (most likely Cellmark (http://www.cellmark.co.uk/); there's none in Ireland and I'm pretty sure Cellmark is the only one in the UK that deals with these cases) and the results pointed to O'Donoghue; and then another sample was tested and the results were different. This discrepancy, although explainable in some circumstances, was felt by the DPP to be prejudicial to the case.
The Tribune had some stuff about how the test used in this instance has been called hyper-sensitive (i.e. prone to false positives) and as quite unreliable by an expert in an Australian case. I didn't read the details yet though.

Macy
30/01/2006, 2:37 PM
In O'Donoghues case, being convicted of manslaughter protects the sun from libel charges because the lad's reputation is already seen as irreparably damaged according to a court of law.
It'll be interesting to see whether the case is taken. Big difference between killing a child through what the judge described as "horseplay" and being accused of being a paedophile.

Roverstillidie
30/01/2006, 4:31 PM
the way i see it, mrs hoolihan abused the spirit of the victim impact statement to put evidence, that rightly or wrongly, was not deemed relevant and/or appropriate in front of the jury. she got short shrift from the courts over this, so resorted to a ham fisted effort to leak details of the case to the press.
i understand she is grieving, but its unnacceptable behaviour, and thats coming from someone who has little faith in the criminal justice system. it might be slightly different if he walked on the chages., but the reality is he was jailed for the longest time realistically possible.

pete
30/01/2006, 7:07 PM
i understand she is grieving, but its unnacceptable behaviour, and thats coming from someone who has little faith in the criminal justice system. it might be slightly different if he walked on the chages., but the reality is he was jailed for the longest time realistically possible.

Its also a long time since the incident occured so she can't claim heat of the moment. Tabloids will always sensationalise so don't expect much facts there.

anto1208
30/01/2006, 11:59 PM
all they have to say is a source said and in this country you dont have to reveal your sources , its to protect jornalists but is just abused by the rags .


there sorce could be a crazy drunk bum on the street if he says WOD is having gay sex in a shack in jail then they can print it as ....a source says ...............


since when do jails have gay shacks ????

Block G Raptor
31/01/2006, 7:39 PM
I Said on here at the time of the verdict that something didn't seem right about the relationship between robert and wayne and was shot down by the majority of posters I think I've been vindicated you know what they say no smoke without fire