Victim Impact Statements

cson

With the recent kerfuffle involving these, particularly Majella Holohans which is in the news, I was wondering what opinion the boards.ie fraternity are of? Mr Justice Carney's comments about her statement are all over the papers. Personally I agree it should be pre-read and agreed with the trial Judge and read out before the trial instead of after to let the jury have a chance to take into account the effect on the victims family. I don't like the idea of a person using new evidence (as in the holohan case) as that could ruin the case altogether.

kevmy

I don't think it really matters when it is presented ie. before or after the main body of the trial. As it doesn't matter when the most incriminating (or de-incriminating) part of evidence is brought forward.

However I do think he's right in what he said. It should be agreed with the Judge beforehand (or at least shown to him so he can scan it for anything untoward). I also think it is very wrong to say something in a victim impact statement that is not being allowed in court beforehand. If it's not admissible, then it's not admissible.

I thought at the time of her impact statement that it was wrong of her to say what she did (even if it was understandable in a way)

The jury was not present when Majella Holohan's Victim Impact statement was read out, and had already returned a verdict so there's no fear of it ever ruining a trial.
The whole point of Victim Impact statements is to convey to the sentencing judge the impact the crime has had on the victim's family, so he/she can take that into account when sentencing.
A judge has the right to decide not to allow a Victim Impact statement if they so wish.

In this case, the judge did see and approve Majella Holohan's statement, but she diverted from it on the day to add in information which had not been heard during the trial.
And I think she was dead right.
I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be for her to sit through a trial knowing what she knew, and knowing the jury would never hear it.

Our legal system is so heavily weighted in favour of the accused it makes me sick. The victim has no voice, has to depend on the DPP for a case and an impact statement is as much as they can get... after then the verdict has been passed.

Wacker

While I deeply sympathise with Majella, I think the statement she made should possibly see her being done for contempt of court.

I am massively against victim impact statements. Law should be "reason independant of passion" according to Aristotle, and that seems about right to me. I don't really see how anything good can really come of them, and I can see plenty of ways that something bad can come from them.

Wacker

Deleted User wrote: »

The jury was not present when Majella Holohan's Victim Impact statement was read out, and had already returned a verdict so there's no fear of it ever ruining a trial.

The problem in this instance wasn't that it might influence the jury. It was that it made everyone (especially Wayne's future inmates) think that Wayne was a sex offender, which he wasn't. What he had done was bad enough without there being any need to bring mistruths into it.

Rhonda9000

I genuinely feel very sorry for the lady and it's understandable why someone would do what she did etc etc etc - those things go without saying.

The criminal trial aims to establish from a set of solid evidential facts if the defendant committed an offence. It's clinical and removed from human grief and suffering and perhaps not the most pleasant, compassionate way of dealing with things but it is still the most effective system for the job it sets out to do - determinination of guilt.

VI statements are a nice idea but in practice introduce the emotional part into the trial and this confuses things - claims of victims not being part of the system etc. The system is there to catch and deal with the offender, helping the victim is not the central issue. I feel victims should be supported fully, compassionately and properly in private by an external state-backed Victims Service to help them through their difficulties. But this doesnt exist so the only 'satisfaction' a victim feels is the VI statement.

I agree with the Carney speech mostly - there is no doubting she scandalized the entire affair for whatever reason. The fallout of this [her actions] could potentially shut future victims out further. The procedure for VI statements into the future may be altered or diluted down, and with nothing else out there right now for victims, this would be very sad indeed.

Dave!

cson wrote: »

With the recent kerfuffle involving these, particularly Majella Holohans which is in the news, I was wondering what opinion the boards.ie fraternity are of? Mr Justice Carney's comments about her statement are all over the papers. Personally I agree it should be pre-read and agreed with the trial Judge and read out before the trial instead of after to let the jury have a chance to take into account the effect on the victims family. I don't like the idea of a person using new evidence (as in the holohan case) as that could ruin the case altogether.

They shouldn't be read out in front of the jury at all. The jury is there to decide, based on the facts and the evidence, whether someone is guilty or innocent. An emotive statement like that could sway them in some way. Not to mention the fact that it's the judge who hands down the sentence, so if anyone needs to take the impact on the family into account, it's him.

I think that what Majella Holohan did was completely unjustified and puts into everyone's mind the idea that the bloke in some way sexually assaulted Robert. If there is evidence that he did, then present it to the court for consideration. Since the prosecution did not, it's safe to think that it was not sufficient to indicate any wrong-doing.

But despite not being found guilty of that, now alot of people will think that he is a paedophile. Big difference between that and manslaughter, especially in prison.

Wacker

Wacker wrote: »

The problem in this instance wasn't that it might influence the jury. It was that it made everyone (especially Wayne's future inmates) think that Wayne was a sex offender, which he wasn't. What he had done was bad enough without there being any need to bring mistruths into it.

There was no mistruth.
What Majella Holohan said was fact. It was ruled inadmissable in the same way evidence is ruled inadmissable in plenty of murder trials. And it was ruled inadmissable because there was that one in a million chance the evidence could have come from someone else. It's not like CSI guys, evidence is not always in perfect condition when found.

Do you have any experience of the courts system in Ireland?

Unfortunately a lot of people believe the law is the law is the law and it's all very straightforward and proper and the jury hears everything it needs to.

It doesn't work that way. Sit in on legal argument in the absence of a jury some day and your eyes will be opened as to what the jury doesn't hear.

DaveMcG, as I said, Victim Impact statement are not read in front of a jury. They are solely for reading before sentencing by a judge.

KdjaCL

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no mistruth.
What Majella Holohan said was fact. It was ruled inadmissable in the same way evidence is ruled inadmissable in plenty of murder trials. And it was ruled inadmissable because there was that one in a million chance the evidence could have come from someone else. It's not like CSI guys, evidence is not always in perfect condition when found.

Do you have any experience of the courts system in Ireland?

Unfortunately a lot of people believe the law is the law is the law and it's all very straightforward and proper and the jury hears everything it needs to.

It doesn't work that way. Sit in on legal argument in the absence of a jury some day and your eyes will be opened as to what the jury doesn't hear.

DaveMcG, as I said, Victim Impact statement are not read in front of a jury. They are solely for reading before sentencing by a judge.

How was it fact, can you prove it was fact?

The fact he was found guilty of a crime not the crimes that family put forward.

The courts system in ireland found him guilty of manslaughter, was that wrong?


kdjac

KdjaCL

KdjaCL wrote: »

How was it fact, can you prove it was fact?

The fact he was found guilty of a crime not the crimes that family put forward.

The courts system in ireland found him guilty of manslaughter, was that wrong?


kdjac

Just because evidence is ruled inadmissable doesn't mean it's not real. The evidence was there but via a whole host of legal twists and turns it was ruled inadmissable.
Inadmissable just means it can't be brought up during the trial.

As you say, he was found guilty of manslaughter. Perhaps the manslaughter verdict was what the DPP wanted to concentrate on.

Kinda like the evidence that Joe O'Reilly had 're-enacted' his wife's murder in front of her family. That was real and true but was also ruled inadmissable, and did not emerge during the trial but came out afterwards.

I have no problem with a jury's verdict. I do have problems with the way in which evidence is selected and disregarded.
A jury can only reach a verdict on what it is given.

Anyway, to be honest I don't have the time to explain the courts process here. Stick your head into the courts some day to see how trials progress.

godtabh

cson wrote: »

With the recent kerfuffle involving these, particularly Majella Holohans which is in the news, I was wondering what opinion the boards.ie fraternity are of? Mr Justice Carney's comments about her statement are all over the papers. Personally I agree it should be pre-read and agreed with the trial Judge and read out before the trial instead of after to let the jury have a chance to take into account the effect on the victims family. I don't like the idea of a person using new evidence (as in the holohan case) as that could ruin the case altogether.

If you read it out before the trial are you not unfairly affecting the chances of a fair trial?

Dave!

FavouriteSlave, do you not think it's a bit unfair that, despite not being charged with it, alot of people now think that Wayne O Donoghue (think that's his name) is a paedophile? And this is based on semen that was not included in the case. Should Majella be allowed to just say anything she likes about Wayne? That he likes to smoke a joint every now and then... inferring that he doesn't think straight perhaps. That he broke the speed limit a few times... he's reckless. That he was caught having sex by his parents... he's sexually promiscuous.

Maybe they're all facts, but introducing them into the trial does not affect the current charge, but it does serve to sully WOD's name further.

BTW, has anybody got a bit more info about the semen? Was it actually Wayne's?

edit:

Just found this quote, not sure how true it is..........

” I heard about that before Christmas, from someone in the legal profession. Apparently the semen traces were found on Robert’s neck, where Wayne’s hands had been. It seems it was agreed between the legal teams that this would not be introduced as evidence, as it would be an unjustified smear on O’Donoghue’s character - basically it seems that not too long beforehand, he’d been, as they said in the old days, ‘indulging in the sin of self-abuse’. So to introduce that as evidence, when it clearly didn’t contribute to the case, would’ve been very unfair on the defendant.”
http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9882

kevmy

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no mistruth.
What Majella Holohan said was fact. It was ruled inadmissable in the same way evidence is ruled inadmissable in plenty of murder trials. And it was ruled inadmissable because there was that one in a million chance the evidence could have come from someone else. It's not like CSI guys, evidence is not always in perfect condition when found.

DaveMcG wrote: »

FavouriteSlave, do you not think it's a bit unfair that, despite not being charged with it, alot of people now think that Wayne O Donoghue (think that's his name) is a paedophile? And this is based on semen that was not included in the case. Should Majella be allowed to just say anything she likes about Wayne? That he likes to smoke a joint every now and then... inferring that he doesn't think straight perhaps. That he broke the speed limit a few times... he's reckless. That he was caught having sex by his parents... he's sexually promiscuous.

Maybe they're all facts, but introducing them into the trial does not affect the current charge, but it does serve to sully WOD's name further.

BTW, has anybody got a bit more info about the semen? Was it actually Wayne's?

edit:

Just found this quote, not sure how true it is..........

” I heard about that before Christmas, from someone in the legal profession. Apparently the semen traces were found on Robert’s neck, where Wayne’s hands had been. It seems it was agreed between the legal teams that this would not be introduced as evidence, as it would be an unjustified smear on O’Donoghue’s character - basically it seems that not too long beforehand, he’d been, as they said in the old days, ‘indulging in the sin of self-abuse’. So to introduce that as evidence, when it clearly didn’t contribute to the case, would’ve been very unfair on the defendant.”
http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9882

Yeah DaveMcG this is the way I remember it being reported. That there was a very high probability that the semen found was Wayne's (although not 100% since Robert was in the bathroom of the O'Donoghue home -it found has been from Wayne's father). But it was in minute traces and as I think it was reported "not found in an area instructive of sexual abuse".
Basically it was difficult to prove that it came from Wayne.
It was difficult to prove how it came in contact with Robert (ie. directly from Wayne, from his hands or from traces in the bathroom)
Even if it was proved to come directly from Wayne, there was still nothing else on the body or from the condition of the body to indicate sexual assault.

For all these reasons it was proved inadmissible. I understand what FavouriteSlave is saying in that some facts are true and proved inadmissible in court. But usually there is a good reason. Most forensic evidence is ruled inadmissible due to inconsistencies in how it is gathered, how it is tested etc. This was not the case here.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nlgbbbblth

This issue has been well covered in the Irish Times yesterday, today and at the time of MJ making the statement.

Anyone who read these reports should realise that the semen was a non-issue and not an indicator of anything sinister. This was clearly indicated at the time by The Irish Times.

The sad fact is that a lot of people will not read intelligent journalism and instead will rely on the red-top tabloids to guide them.

That's why you have idiots like my workmates who think along the lines of

Idiot: 'Oh that WOD was very dodgy...' [and speculate in the worst possible way]

Me: 'Er, no. That wasn't relevant. There was a reason why it was inadmissable and this was clearly covered at the time. Unfortunately the tabloids blew it out of proportion with their usual lies.'

Idiot: [Glazed look in eyes] 'Oh yeah' [and goes back to reading The Sun]

tech77

Given all that what do ye think the mother's aim is so.
Why does she want to portray him as a paedophile.
Does she really believe there was a sexual motive or is she just very bitter and wants to sully his name further.

I wouldn't think it's purely vindictiveness..can't see how saying it was sexually-motivated (if she believed it wasn't) would serve her dead son TBH. She must strongly believe there was a sexual motive in the face of alternative explanations.

Tha Gopher

Sorry, but i think it was stating a fact that couldnt be proven. The prosecution may have thought it was part of the motive, but thought it was so flimsy it shoudltnt be used as evidence seeing as the defence could tear the entire case apart with it.

In fairness, his behaviour throughout (hiding the body, joining in with the search) hardly means he can be ruled out as having carried out such a low down act.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

wowy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

In fairness, his behaviour throughout (hiding the body, joining in with the search) hardly means he can be ruled out as having carried out such a low down act.

Oh, you mean panicking and not knowing what to do? Yes, that definitely makes him a paedophile.

Muff_Daddy

tech77 wrote: »

Given all that what do ye think the mother's aim is so.
Why does she want to portray him as a paedophile.
Does she really believe there was a sexual motive or is she just very bitter and wants to sully his name further.

I wouldn't think it's purely vindictiveness..can't see how saying it was sexually-motivated (if she believed it wasn't) would serve her dead son TBH. She must strongly believe there was a sexual motive in the face of alternative explanations.

Maybe she just felt she wanted justice for her son's death. She knew that the DPP were plodding for a manslaughter conviction, and felt (and I could actually see her point) that she could sway the judge by making it out that it was more than manslaughter. Let's face it.....4 years for the death of your child? If you're a mother, do you believe that is justice being served?

On the same token, I do bleieve Justice Carney is right, for the wrong reasons. Even saying the P word is enough to envoke a wave of vitrol against an accused from all angles, and the simple fact is, there is a good chance that it is not true. Innocent until proven guilty afterall.

beanyb

nlgbbbblth - agree with you 100% on the tabloids and The Irish Times. I've had that exact conversation with numerous people who have gotten all their information from the tabloids. I've given up trying to reason with most of them.

I dont believe Majella Holohan was coming from a malicious or vindictive place at all. She was grieving. I dont think that she should have said it, but rationality pretty much goes out the window when something as awful as what happened happens to you.

cson

I've read most of the coverage of this in the broadsheets and it has somewhat changed my opinion. I actually think now that the system is fine the way it is (read out before sentencing afaik) but that it must be proof read and agreed with the trial judge and any variation on this will recieve sanctions.

Regardless of the leniency of his sentence, Wayne O'Donoghue will be serving a life sentence in this country. Due to the tabloid coverage anywhere he shows his face the word paedophile will start ringing in most peoples heads. Thats not to say that the Holohan family don't have a life sentence themselves in living with what happened for the rest of their lives. There were no winners in this case.

Red Alert

Well semen can only really come from one source. Young boy spending a lot of time with someone a lot older than him. Pretty clear explanation I think.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Red Alert wrote: »

Well semen can only really come from one source. Young boy spending a lot of time with someone a lot older than him. Pretty clear explanation I think.

How was that a pretty clear explanation? Did you read any of the previous posters, where they explained the issue? (or, perhaps i've misunderstood what you are saying)

Dave!

I also was thinking I misunderstood his post...

Or else Red Alert knows something that the DPP doesn't! :eek:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dame

I thought the semen was found in Robert's hand?

I agree with Favourite Slave's posts on this.

kodute

Anyone who agrees with the semen "evidence" theory misses the point.

WOD was convicted by a jury of his peers of manslaughter.
The Victim Impact Statement that Majella O'Houlahan delivered introduced evidence (which it should not, regardless of context) and that statement led to Wayne being labeled as a sex offender with no conviction as such.

Does anyone else agree that the media will try, convict and hang anyone labeled as a sex offender?

@Red Alert: You have no idea what happened and you speculation is sickening and baseless. Go back to reading The Sun... :rolleyes: