Wayne O'Donoghue gets 4 years!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I am referring to FACT that semen was found on roberts body
the reason this FACT was not permissable as evidence as there was not a 100% certainty that a DNA match to w o'd could be made. This has been confirmed on radio 1 by a representative of the DPP.
I feel vindicated because I raised the issue of someone of waynes age having a close friendship with an 11 yr old as suspicious and was practically laughed of the thread it now appears that -and i know its circumstancial evividence-I may well have been right

---

you are implying there was sexual contact between them, something even the DPP and fuzz didnt believe.
the amount of semen was inconsistant with sexual contact, more likely he used a towel that someone had dried off with after a shower and left residue on.
bear in mind he wasnt in WO'D's bedroom at 7.30am as was alledged (and again on the steps of the court by ms hoolihan) it was 7.30 pm as the kid had entered the time wrong into his new phone.
you are sensationalising with facts that were disproven/irrelevant.

I dont think the questions raised by majella holohan are irrelevent and they have never been proven or disproven as they were not strong enough for court, that doesn't mean that the evidence was not there to start with
when I said I felt vindicated it was because when I suggested this on a previous thread I was damn nearly ridiculed, and I think with majella's comments it shows that there is certainly a suspicion of abuse about the incident which was not apparent at the time the verdict was announced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

DPP and fuzz didnt believe.
the amount of semen was inconsistant with sexual contact, more likely he used a towel that someone had dried off with after a shower and left residue on

---

where did you get this information from? a spokesperson for the DPP speaking
on morning Ireland on rte radio 1 last week stated that the evidence was not admissable as they could only get a DNA match in the high 80% bracket with WOD. and to permit the evidence would have unfairly influenced the Jury,as with DNA evidence 80-95% matches are considered to be low

BGR, the only fact not in dispute in relation to semen was that there was some on his hand. However, whose it was and how it got there could not be conclusively proven one way or the other, hence it wasn't offered as evidence. I defy you to find a reference to "no smoke without fire" in the Rules of Evidence applied by our courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I dont think the questions raised by majella holohan are irrelevent and they have never been proven or disproven as they were not strong enough for court, that doesn't mean that the evidence was not there to start with
when I said I felt vindicated it was because when I suggested this on a previous thread I was damn nearly ridiculed, and I think with majella's comments it shows that there is certainly a suspicion of abuse about the incident which was not apparent at the time the verdict was announced

---

so you are saying its an acceptable tactic to try and enter evidence deemed too flimsy or irrelevant by the leagal pros via a victim impact statement and then call him a paedophile to the press?
you cant be serious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I feel vindicated because I raised the issue of someone of waynes age having a close friendship with an 11 yr old as suspicious and was practically laughed of the thread it now appears that -and i know its circumstancial evividence-I may well have been right

---

Strange logic there. Vindicated by circumstancial evidence... :confused:

There was absolutely no evidence of physical abuse on Rob's body. Enough said let it lie I say.

I am being seriously mis -interpreted. the point I was trying to make was that when I suggested -after following the case closely- that some of the issues raised in the trial made me feel uneasy about the relationship between robert and wayne as something didn't seem right about it I was laughed off this site.
now with the information that has been revealed in the victim impact statement it seems that I maybe wasn't quite so mad to think this thats all I'm trying to say. Of course the evidence should not have been admitted as the jury would have natrually been influenced by it whether or not the sample could be proved to have come from WOD or not the insinuation would have been there. I was just trying to make the point that maybe my gut feeling at the time wasn't so crazy after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional

You need to look at this from a wide angle as well.

If there is no respect for due process we run a dangerous risk of bringing down the whole judicial system.

The system is not just something that has been thrown together like a government-commissioned health report. It's proceedings are there to see justice is done using a carefully constructed forum.

The addendum to her VIS may only serve to undermine or possibly remove the same opportunity for future victims. If you think that a solicitor draws up the Statement -you're wrong a VIS is supposed to come from the victim(s) - that's why they have been introduced. In the future the court registrar will probably have to read these out as the victim's now cannot be trusted to stay within the confines of this privilige. This may mean that future victims will not be able to speak "from...the... heart" as you put it.

As a state we cannot have a situation where a case is tried with the DPP present (which some people seem to forget:confused: ), a full book of evidence, a jury and a fair trial overseen by a qualified judge and then have nonfactual stories/convictions published about the defendant in the public press. Now which part of due process are you not satisfied with???? If you ever find yourself on the defence side of a case I guarantee you will be the FIRST person who would want to see a fair trial and due process and then, for example, after a conviction have reems of rubbish printed about you!!!!

Open your eyes to the FULL FACTUAL story before making emotional statements that are not based on fact. Every victim will always have unanswered questions but due process must be at the top.

---

Excellent post T&E.

The system is not perfect but I think the system and the society that put it there is a better and more mature one for applying the principle that it's better to let a potentially guilty person go unpunished than risk punishing an innocent party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I am being seriously mis -interpreted. the point I was trying to make was that when I suggested -after following the case closely- that some of the issues raised in the trial made me feel uneasy about the relationship between robert and wayne as something didn't seem right about it I was laughed off this site.
now with the information that has been revealed in the victim impact statement it seems that I maybe wasn't quite so mad to think this thats all I'm trying to say. Of course the evidence should not have been admitted as the jury would have natrually been influenced by it whether or not the sample could be proved to have come from WOD or not the insinuation would have been there. I was just trying to make the point that maybe my gut feeling at the time wasn't so crazy after all

---

so you are saying you feel vindicated by in your insinuation of an innapropriate/sexual relationship by evidence that, in your own words "should not have been admitted " because it the "insinuation would have been there"!?!

the fact that its not accurate or relevant evidence proves you are right to believe its true?
you krazy

I simply raised the possibility on the previous thread and was treated with as much disdain as if id said the pope was really elvis pressley or something equally ridicilous all I'm saying now is that my gut feeling (and I'll admit I do think wayne abused robert, but thats just my opinion) doesn't appear to be quite so ludacrious as people thought at the time
nothing more nothing less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

so"should not have been admitted " because it the "insinuation would have been there"!?!

---

the evidence was not 100% conclusive and there by not admissable
in lay mans terms it was obviously WOD's but there was an infinitly remote chance that it wasn't and that was enough for reasonable doubt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

the evidence was not 100% conclusive and there by not admissable in lay mans terms it was obviously WOD's but there was an infinitly remote chance that it wasn't and that was enough for reasonable doubt

---

There was a hell of a lot more than that. The FBI described that particular test as hypersensitive and doesn't allow its use internally, and an Australian DNA testing expert called it suspect too. If it was as likely as you are suggesting, it would have been admissible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I'll admit I do think wayne abused robert, but thats just my opinion

---

That's still your opinion despite the State Pathologist (i.e. a PROSECUTION witness) stating in court that there was no evidence of sexual assault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

in lay mans terms it was obviously WOD's but there was an infinitly remote chance that it wasn't

---

No, in layman's terms, it was someone's and they couldn't prove one way or the other whose. You seem to be taking your suspicions as a starting point and then looking for evidence to back that up. The way the courts operate (or should, at least) is to examine the evidence objectively and then draw conclusions from it. There's a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

and that was enough for reasonable doubt

---

And reasonable doubt leads to a not guilty verdict, except in trial by media where you don't have to worry about such trifles as reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

And reasonable doubt leads to a not guilty verdict, except in trial by media where you don't have to worry about such trifles as reasonable doubt.

---

exactly why the prosecution decided not to use the evidence in pursuit of a guilty verdict. No?

DPP to appeal the leniancy of the sentance
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0220/odonoghuew.html

He should probably get the sentence reduced in light of the media coverage since the witness impact statement.

It is being appealed on the basis that his hiding of things and mis leading Gardai. Not as the sensationalists would hope, thankfully.

The appeal by the prosecution into the leniency of this case started yesterday, and has been put back for a few weeks for deliberation.

Majella Holohan has, I believe, done her case no favours with her victim impact statement, and the defence have used this to their advantage.

why dont the snouts just charge him with obstruction seperatley so we dont have to listen to block g raptors ramblings agan?