Printable View
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 ??
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by the 12 th man
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
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 ,Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
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.
Anyone able to confirm this?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
yeah
its on the front cover but it is attributed to mrs hoolahan.
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.
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.
She said it outside the court after the sentence was passed when questioned by reporters...Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Risteard
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...
That's speculative and if the prosecution cannot prove it then it's not relevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by papa-j
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...
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 weeksQuote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by papa-j
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...
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.
Good start Nightdub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a sample of semen was tested by a DNS lab in the UK (most likely Cellmark; 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.Quote:
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.
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. Obey them or both you and the thread will be kicked out. That goes for all of you.
adam
If feelings are running high on The Sun, just boycott the paper.