O'Donogue only gets 4 years

Mr.Nice Guy

So much for Irish justice. Wayne O'Donoghue has been sentenced to 4 years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan.

From RTE:

Wayne O'Donoghue has been sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan.

Last month O'Donoghue, a 21-year-old engineering student from Ballyedmond near Midleton in Co Cork, was acquitted of murder but convicted of the manslaughter of 11-year-old Robert in January 2005.

O'Donoghue admitted killing his next-door neighbour. He said that it was an accident after a row erupted when Robert threw stones at his car.

Earlier today Robert Holohan's mother, Majella, addressed the court. She claimed that semen was found on Robert's body when it was discovered dumped in a ditch at Inch strand in east Cork last January.

Mrs Holohan said that her family's suffering following Robert's death was heartbreaking and indescribable.

She asked why would he have been killed for throwing stones; why were images deleted from his mobile phone; and what was Robert doing in Wayne O'Donoghue's bedroom at 7.20am on one occasion when he was supposed to have been on a sleepover with a friend.

Prior to imposing sentence, Mr Justice Paul Carney warned Majella Holohan to prepare herself.

He told her that the sentence he was going to impose would be upsetting; he said that he would endeavour to explain what he was doing but there was no getting away from the fact that it would upset the mother.

Mr Justice Carney then set out the aggravating and mitigating factors and imposed a sentence of four years.

This is a disgrace. My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs Holohan.

This is a sad day for the justice system in Ireland.

simu

I must disagree with you there - 4 years is more than enough tbh.

connundrum

Man kills kid - gets 4 years
Ex Guard kills man & injures 3 - gets 5 years

Sorry for not feeling a huge amount of confidence in the justice system.

Edit - Time does not = the crime

BoozyBabe

I kind of think it's enough too.

I mean, I really feel for the family, but I do believe he never meant to kill the boy.

One young life has already been wasted due to this, what's the point of allowing another one to be wasted.

chern0byl

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

This is a disgrace.

You sound so surprised. Absolutely, he should have gotten 20 years but even the most vile and evil murderer's[yeah theres levels of] dont get more then 10 years for one murder.

Our justice system is too lenient. My friend was down the country a couple of years ago...just for the weekend to see his cousin. He was jumped by 3 guys in a totally unprovoked attack. He spent weeks in hospital recovering and still has not today. They caught those responsible only for them to get the probation act...what can you do?

Mr.Nice Guy

simu wrote:

I must disagree with you there - 4 years is more than enough tbh.

Really?

Earlier today Robert Holohan's mother, Majella, addressed the court. She claimed that semen was found on Robert's body when it was discovered dumped in a ditch at Inch strand in east Cork last January.

She asked why would he have been killed for throwing stones; why were images deleted from his mobile phone; and what was Robert doing in Wayne O'Donoghue's bedroom at 7.20am on one occasion when he was supposed to have been on a sleepover with a friend.

4 years?

Mr.Nice Guy

chern0byl wrote:

You sound so surprised. Absolutely, he should have gotten 20 years but even the most vile and evil murderer's[yeah theres levels of] dont get more then 10 years for one murder.

Our justice system is too lenient. My friend was down the country a couple of years ago...just for the weekend to see his cousin. He was jumped by 3 guys in a totally unprovoked attack. He spent weeks in hospital recovering and still has not today. They caught those responsible only for them to get the probation act...what can you do?

I guess you're right. I shouldn't be so surprised. I didn't think things were this bad though.

Amazotheamazing

He has been found guilty of manslaughter due to a tragic accident, not murder. It's tragic, but if it was accidental, 4 years is fair (relative to other sentences in Irish courts)

BoozyBabe

But Mr Nice Guy:- She 'claimed'

I'm not saying there wasn't!
But surely in such a case, all evidence would have been submitted to the case, & if there was semen on him, surely more people would be doing more than 'claiming' it was there

Mr.Nice Guy

BoozyBabe wrote:

But Mr Nice Guy:- She 'claimed'

I'm not saying there wasn't!
But surely in such a case, all evidence would have been submitted to the case, & if there was semen on him, surely more people would be doing more than 'claiming' it was there

Eh?

I think the mother is well aware of the case.

She's been let down by the system.

Amazotheamazing

She could be taking advantage of privelige (?) that means she can't be sued for anything she says in court, so she can say anything she wants about O'Donoghue, true or not. (I'm not saying she is, but she could be)

finlma

It seems fair to me.

Why did all the stuff that Mrs Houlihan said only come up today and not in the court case?

Mr Magnolia

He ended the life of an 11yr old boy, I'd leave him rot in jail.

If it was my little brother he killed, or any other poster's for that matter, I reckon the opinion's would change. Failure's in the Irish justice system should not be used as an excuse but as a stick to beat the Government with.

Scraggs

connundrum wrote:

Man kills kid - gets 4 years
Ex Guard kills man & injures 3 - gets 5 years

Sorry for not feeling a huge amount of confidence in the justice system.

Edit - Time does not = the crime

totally agree...

four years is a walk in the park, he should be in for at least 10:mad: :mad:

joejoem

I never heard the bit about the semen, or the images in the mobile, or Robert being in his room at 7:20am one morning????

whiskeyman

4 years was correct, and expected imo, in this trial based on the evidence heard.

What Majella Holohan said in her victim impact statement had no relevance to the sentencing.

The real debate is if this evidence she claims existed, and why it was not used in the trial.

If you think it's too little, I think you should have a look at other manslaughter cases and see this sentance pretty much fits the crime... as per the trial.

Chong

I will have to say its enough , the guy never meant to kill the kid.

Ardent

finlma wrote:

It seems fair to me.

Why did all the stuff that Mrs Houlihan said only come up today and not in the court case?

This is the question.

The justice system in this country has been a joke for decades.

BoozyBabe

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I think the mother is well aware of the case.

I'm sure the mother IS well aware of the case, but my point was:- if there WAS semen on his body, then why weren't everyone else involved in the case aware of this.

Why does she just say it today at sentencing & for it to be 'news' to all involved.

Like I said, it's tragic, I haven't been following it closely, there may very well be cover ups or something, I'm not saying she's lying or anything.

I'm just saying that for ACTUAL evidence & convictions, I think the sentence is fair.

I don't think any sentence would relieve the mothers pain tbh

solskjaer20

He probably won't even have to serve the full four years .:mad:

Ardent

BoozyBabe wrote:

I'm sure the mother IS well aware of the case, but my point was:- if there WAS semen on his body, then why weren't everyone else involved in the case aware of this.

Why does she just say it today at sentencing & for it to be 'news' to all involved.

Cannot you not put 2 and 2 together? Obviously the defense somehow argued for all the evidence to be deemed inadmissable and succeeded.

Chong

All seems to convienent in bringing up the whole case of the semen on the guys day of sentencing. Seems like she was clutching at straws in order to get a longer prison sentence.

simu

BoozyBabe wrote:

I'm sure the mother IS well aware of the case, but my point was:- if there WAS semen on his body, then why weren't everyone else involved in the case aware of this.

Why does she just say it today at sentencing & for it to be 'news' to all involved.

Exactly - this would have been revealed during the triall if it were true. It seems as if she has lost control of her reason or that she is trying to milk the story for all it's worth (the former, I hope).

Ardent

solskjaer20 wrote:

He probably won't even have to serve the full four years .:mad:

4 years from last January I think. Will probably get the last year suspended. Crazy isn't it?

SoupyNorman

joejoem wrote:

I never heard the bit about the semen, or the images in the mobile, or Robert being in his room at 7:20am one morning????

Never heard a word about that either,


Fact of the matter is a jury decided on the verdict based on the evidence......the judge simply imposes sentence based on the verdict, dont quote me but I dont think you can get 10years for manslaughter.

Sualtam

The guy's story doesn't add up at all. Hopefully the four years are in with the general population & he gets to be on the receiving end of some horseplay.

He killed the child and left him in the ditch to be eaten by rats & he gets people to feel sorry for him. How did he manage that?

whiskeyman

simu wrote:

It seems as if she has lost control of her reason or that she is trying to milk the story for all it's worth (the former, I hope).

Not necessarily.
This evidence may have been gathered pre-trial, but mightn't have been fully admissible (as Ardent pointed out).
Realising this, the prosecution had to change tact and go with what they could secure a solid case to go on... which was what we saw.

Unreliable evidence is one of the biggest factors of a case falling apart.

Ardent

Sualtam wrote:

The guy's story doesn't add up at all.

I agree.

1) You don't kill a child for throwing stones at your car.
2) It's hard to 'accidentally' kill someone.
3) If it was an accident, why not call an ambulance? Why try to dump the body?

Manslaughter my arse.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Seems fair. I think he might have gotten a bit p*ssed off with the stone throwing, decided to scare the sh!t out of the kid and maybe give him a kick up the arse, and things went too far. A world of difference to Charles Manson, terrorist bombings etc.

The mother's claims seems to be hard to believe. How could the gardai have missed semen stains for gods sake. Samples would have been taken. After all they are well capable of dealing with semen samples in rape cases.

Mr Magnolia

Willem D wrote:

All seems to convienent in bringing up the whole case of the semen on the guys day of sentencing. Seems like she was clutching at straws in order to get a longer prison sentence.

and

simu wrote:

Exactly - this would have been revealed during the triall if it were true. It seems as if she has lost control of her reason or that she is trying to milk the story for all it's worth (the former, I hope) .

How do ye know??

bravestarr082 wrote:

dont quote me but I dont think you can get 10years for manslaughter.

A life sentance I think is possible, I'm sure some of the guy's doing law will tell us

BoozyBabe

Ardent wrote:

Cannot you not put 2 and 2 together? Obviously the defense somehow argued for all the evidence to be deemed inadmissable and succeeded.

Because I don't want to come up with 5, like what you 'MIGHT' be doing.

None of us were there, none of us know.
We are ruled by our justice system whether we believe in it or not.

I think we HAVE to take the ACTUAL evidence of the trial & the conviction into account ONLY when deciding whether we think it's fair or not, & I think it is.

Only my opinion, I'm NOT trying to say everyone else here who says it's not fair is wrong




ASIDE:- I also think semen on a little boys body would be a BIG find & it would be investigated to the last & if it was O'Donoghues it would definitely have been submitted as evidence & he'd have been charged for indecent acts with a child too, or something like that.

It's just strange to me that the mother only comes out with these statements now, that's all.

Sorry if I offend anyone by my posts (just my opinion)

connundrum

whiskeyman wrote:

If you think it's too little, I think you should have a look at other manslaughter cases and see this sentance pretty much fits the crime... as per the trial.

I would agree with this, as in it fits other manslaughter sentences. The propblem is that the overall time served by manslaughter victims is far far too little.

IMO a manslaughter sentence > 4 years should only happen when the 'crime' was purely accidental. Someone who strangles a boy and then claims 'it was an accident'.. should be < 4 years. An ex guard who gets drunk and mills into a lot of people should be getting 20+ years.

Chong

I will agree on that.

meditraitor

Madilyn Steep Barium wrote:

The mother's claims seems to be hard to believe. How could the gardai have missed semen stains for gods sake. Samples would have been taken. After all they are well capable of dealing with semen samples in rape cases.

This type of accusation could make his jail time very hard(the other lags might start dropping boiling kettles on him and stuff), and rightly so....

Mr.Nice Guy

I must say I think some of the comments towards Mrs Holohan are bang out of order like she was 'clutching at straws'. Try to show a little bit more sensitivity in a case that is obviously controversial.

People on here who jump to the defense of O'Donoghue seem to forget the fact that he initially covered up the crime and even went so far as to ask a Garda officer how things were going in the hunt for the body.

The 4 year sentence is criminal in itself.

Amazotheamazing

Sorry Mr.Nice Guy, but accidents happen. O'Donoghue has only been found guilty of being involved in a horrible accident. You don't seem to believe this?

Kojak

solskjaer20 wrote:

He probably won't even have to serve the full four years .:mad:

With it back-dated to when he was arrested he will only serve around 3 years more - he might even be out earlier than that if he gets good behaviour.

crazymonkey

I think it is unfair to the family that he got only 4 years, this man assisted in the search for ten days and prolonged the famlies misery, Is it not a similiar situation to Ian Huntly in Soham?

connundrum

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Sorry Mr.Nice Guy, but accidents happen. O'Donoghue has only been found guilty of being involved in a horrible accident. You don't seem to believe this?

An accident would be if O'Donoghue had been driving, and knocked the kid off his bike - killing him. Accidental.

He strangled the kid, and left him in a ditch for days. He pretended to aid in the search operation. Not Accidental.

Mr.Nice Guy

Here is what Mrs Holohan said from the stand.

From Breaking News.ie:

The mother of schoolboy Robert Holohan today claimed semen had been found on her dead son’s body.

The 11-year-old was killed by Wayne O’Donoghue on January 4 last year and his body was dumped by the engineering student near Inch Strand.

At the sentencing hearing for O’Donohue in the Central Criminal Court, Majella Holohan took to the stand and said there were many unanswered questions about her son’s death.

She said she knew that semen had been found on her son’s body.

She referred to O’Donoghue’s explanation for the start of their confrontation which led to the death of her son, in which he said Robert had been throwing stones at his car.

“Would you kill someone for throwing stones at their car?” she said.

She said there had been no forensic evidence that stones had hit the car and questioned why there were no fingerprints found on her son’s mobile phone.

“Who wiped it clean and deleted a number of images from it?” she said.

She told a packed courtroom that Robert’s phone had shown that Wayne had contacted him at 6am.

“What was Robert doing in Wayne’s bedroom at 7.30am when he was supposed to have been on a sleepover?” she asked.

Mrs Holohan also asked why her little boy had rang 999 that morning as his phoned showed he did and why were his two runners were off when his body was discovered.

“Whatever happens here today, even if we do move home, even if we do leave the country, there is no place to hide from this nightmare. This is the situation we face every day,” she said.

O’Donohue, 21, from Ballyedmond, Midleton, in County Cork, was found not guilty of the murder of Robert Holohan but guilty of his manslaughter by a jury in Cork last month.

Dressed in a black suit, white shirt with a criss-cross navy tie, he kept his eyes fixed on the floor as Mrs Holohan delivered her victim.

4 years for poor Mr O'Donoghue eh?

redspider

finlma wrote:

Why did all the stuff that Mrs Houlihan said only come up today and not in the court case?

I'm wondering the same thing.

There were rumours in recent days leading up to this sentencing that there would be some bit of furore. Now we know what it is about.

It remains to be seen if there is truth in what Mrs Holohan is saying, but if so, why wasnt evidence presented for it by the DPP during the case to back what she is claiming now. Also, if she has evidence will the DPP request a re-trial?

But what she said today doesnt tie in with what she said in court during the trial, where she said that O'Donoghue was a friend of the family, did nothing untoward in those days and she was using language that would indicate it was an accident. If anything, she was one of his strongest witnesses, apart from the fact of him trying to conceal the body, etc. So something seems to have changed since. Whether what she said is based on actual facts or local rumour remains to be seen, but sometimes local rumours have some basis.

In terms of semen, that would have been noted or not in the state pathologists report and also by the forensic team and the former stated categorically that there was none, that it wasnt a sexual attack.

Either these are rants of an emotionally-stretched woman, and that may be the case, or else there is something to them. The Judge made it quite clear that the sentencing was based on the court case, not the Victim Impact Statement.

Whether 4 years is enough for an accidental manslaughter is a different question. To me, it depends on how accidental, there are varying degrees. From the evidence given in court, he got mad with the victim and attempted to choke him, but only he himself knows if he wanted to apply the force that killed him or wanted to kill him at that time.

If I was in the judge's position, I would have handed out a stiffer sentence, maybe 8 years, as he would probably get oput on less.

I agree totally that the judicial system needs to be changed in this country. Prison needs to be a deterrent, not a holiday camp or crime university. Granted we need to get people back into society if possible, but there are many "bad eggs" out there that wont change. Solitary confinement is what I would advocate, give them TV and radio but no mobiles or way to communicate. Prison should be tough and made more cost effective. As much eductional material as they want, which can be delivered via books and via their TV's and visiting tutors, etc.

redspider

Kojak

crazymonkey wrote:

Is it not a similiar situation to Ian Huntly in Soham?

I dont think this is remotely like Ian Huntly. Huntly was a 'disturbed' individual who had a history of going after young children and also of excessive violence - he beat his then pregnant girlfriend (who was 16 at the time).

This was more a case of manslaughter and then O'Donoghue panicking and trying to cover his tracks.

I'm not defending him - I'm only giving my opinion on the matter.

aidan_walsh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Here is what Mrs Holohan said from the stand.

From Breaking News.ie:



4 years for poor Mr O'Donoghue eh?

If any of that is true, all that can be said is that the Gardai and DPP really dropped the ball on this one. I can't possibly see how any of this could successfully have been argued as inadmisable, however.

SoupyNorman

Sparks400 wrote:

and


How do ye know??



A life sentance I think is possible, I'm sure some of the guy's doing law will tell us

"Judge Paul Carney said he was dealing with manslaughter and not the subsequent cover-up.

He said manslaughter had been described as the most elastic of crimes, with penalties ranging from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment."


answers that anyway.

Mr Magnolia

bravestarr082 wrote:

"He said manslaughter had been described as the most elastic of crimes, with penalties ranging from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment."
answers that anyway.

Thought so, thanks.

redspider

Not sure if this was included above:

The Judge said the pathology evidence was that the injuries to Robert Holohan's body were light and he said the evidence before him was that the injuries were at the horseplay end of the scale.

He described the cover up that followed the killing as appalling and added that there could be no excusing what was done and no mitigating it.

He said he was not punishing O'Donoghue expressly in respect of the cover up, although it came into play as part of the impact on the victims and it was in that regard he took it into account.

But he said that from the point that Wayne O'Donoghue confessed his crime to his father, genuine remorse came into play.

Basically the Judge doesnt think he meant it at all, hence 4 years is harsh enough.

The bit about remorse though is not a true picture as O'Donoghue only did was AFTER the body was found and it became obvious to many that it was him. Being sorry when you are caught is not remorseful in my book.

redspider

Mr.Nice Guy

Surely if a person accidentally kills somebody (God forbid), their first thought would be to call for help and to try and explain the situation?

Someone who dumps the body, pretends like he knows nothing and then acts concerned telling Garda officers to speed up the search is not someone who I regard as the victim of accidental circumstance.

Clearly the DPP didn't allow all the evidence and information to be made available in the case.

redspider

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Surely if a person accidentally kills somebody (God forbid), their first thought would be to call for help and to try and explain the situation?

No, not necessarily. A lot of human decisions can be distilled down to "fight or flight". Its natural for people to use one of the other when under duress or when challenged. For example, you see kids do it naturally eg. when they spill something at aged 4 or something, they may try to cover it up and when asked about it will state with a clear conscience that it wasnt them.

It would have been better for him to have called for an ambulance straight away, but he was driven by something at the back of his mind to go for the option that he did and attempt a cover-up. There are many people in this country who have been in a similar situation and who have done the same thing as he did and have not been caught. And it will happen again.

redspider

Mr.Nice Guy

redspider wrote:

No, not necessarily. A lot of human decisions can be distilled down to "fight or flight". Its natural for people to use one of the other when under duress or when challenged.

Maybe in the heat of the moment but not for days and days and certainly it doesn't explain why he acted to garda officers like he was concerned about the search.

redspider wrote:

For example, you see kids do it naturally eg. when they spill something at aged 4 or something, they may try to cover it up and when asked about it will state with a clear conscience that it wasnt them.

O'Donoghue is not a kid. He's a grown man.

redspider wrote:

It would have been better for him to have called for an ambulance straight away, but he was driven by something at the back of his mind to go for the option that he did and attempt a cover-up. There are many people in this country who have been in a similar situation and who have done the same thing as he did and have not been caught. And it will happen again.

redspider

Considering that it's quite possible that semen was on the poor kid's body, perhaps we shoudn't speculate about what was at the back of O'Donoghue's mind...

BuffyBot

He killed the child and left him in the ditch to be eaten by rats & he gets people to feel sorry for him. How did he manage that?

Perhaps because people listened to the facts which were presented to the court, and based their opinions on that rather than hearsay, unsubtantiated claims and emotional knee-jerk reactions?

Ph3n0m

fact: no one here knows exactly what happened that day, except that a boy lost his life

fact: no one can rightly say with 100% absolute conviction that they would do different in the same situation (cover-up the crime or admit to it straight away)

fact: based on the evidence presented and allowed into trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 4 years

fact: despite what the boy's mother said - it doesnt make a difference to the case - it is over and done with

fact: if people can accidentally break bones while horsing around, then killing someone like that would be no more difficult (what about the case with the father who accidentally smothered his young child, by rolling on top of her while they both slept on the sofa?)