O'Donogue only gets 4 years

connundrum · 24-01-2006 04:15PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:16PM

I will agree on that.

meditraitor · 24-01-2006 04:17PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:18PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:23PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:23PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:25PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:27PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:27PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:28PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:28PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:30PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:30PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:33PM

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 · 24-01-2006 04:57PM

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 · 24-01-2006 05:05PM

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 · 24-01-2006 05:12PM

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 · 24-01-2006 05:21PM

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 · 24-01-2006 05:36PM

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 · 24-01-2006 05:37PM

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?)

dbnavan · 24-01-2006 05:40PM

If I said what I thought O'Donogue deserved I would undoubtly get banned from boards for life....so....(thought there was a zipped smiley??) anyway u get the point 4 years a joke and a slap in the face to Mr & Mrs Houlahan

Sualtam · 24-01-2006 05:43PM

BuffyBot wrote:

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?

unsubtantiated? He admitted killing the child and leaving him in the ditch & trying to burn the body later.

connundrum · 24-01-2006 05:44PM

Ph3n0m wrote:

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

Ph3n0m wrote:

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?)

These are all facts yes, but I and many others are in disagreement with the length of sentence. Thank you for pointing out the facts though.

Ph3n0m wrote:

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)

No one here was on trial, and akaik, no one here has been in a 'cover up the crime or not' situation of this magnitude (I could be wrong though).

Ph3n0m wrote:

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?)

Broken bones do not equate with someone dying, it may be just as easy to break someone's leg as it is to kill em.. but its doesn't give the same final result does it?

Fast_Mover · 24-01-2006 05:55PM

Ph3n0m wrote:

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)

I totally agree..!!
im sure ye'r all like...'oh no id admit it straight away'..sure you'd think u'd do that..but ye dont know that ye would do!! everybodies reactions to situations are different..some choose the right one others the wrong!

Ph3n0m wrote:

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?)

I agree again..simple/freak accidents can happen!!

i was so delighted when i heard he only got 4years..!!
besides waynes life will never be the same again even if he got 1month in prison or a life sentence!! he'll pay the price for the rest of his life!

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-01-2006 06:04PM

Ph3n0m wrote:

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

The jury didn't seem to know the full story either...

Ph3n0m wrote:

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)

Many of us I'm sure could at least say that they would not go hunting for a body and put on an act when they knew where the body was.

Ph3n0m wrote:

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

Which is a disgrace.

Ph3n0m wrote:

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

The family plan on appealing. This ain't over yet and if there's a shred of justice left in this country, it won't be over.

Ph3n0m wrote:

fact: if people can accidentally break bones while horsing around, then killing someone like that would be no more difficult

It's diffciult to explain away some of the claims from Mrs Holohan which seemingly up until now she has been unable to talk about.

Fast_Mover wrote:

totally agree..!!
im sure ye'r all like...'oh no id admit it straight away'..sure you'd think u'd do that..but ye dont know that ye would do!! everybodies reactions to situations are different..some choose the right one others the wrong!

Those who react in a way that sees a person's life be taken from them need to face the consequences of their actions and they need to be punished.

Fast_Mover wrote:

I agree again..simple/freak accidents can happen!!

They can. Sometimes something more sinister is involved though...

Fast_Mover wrote:

i was so delighted when i heard he got 4years..!!
besides waynes life will never be the same again even if he got 1month in prison or a life sentence!! he'll pay the price for the rest of his life!

I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I wonder what your thoughts were on Mrs Holohan's testimony?

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.

6ix · 24-01-2006 06:06PM

dbnavan wrote:

If I said what I thought O'Donogue deserved I would undoubtly get banned from boards for life....so....(thought there was a zipped smiley??) anyway u get the point 4 years a joke and a slap in the face to Mr & Mrs Houlahan

In the context of sentencing policies in Ireland, it seemed to be about the right sentence. Rapists and many other repeat offenders are let lightly off the hook on a regular basis, we see and hear it all the time in the news - short/suspended sentences.

I'm not getting into what Mrs Holohan said, because her allegations completely change the situation, but on the facts delivered during the court case, four years seems right IMO.

Fast_Mover · 24-01-2006 06:12PM

im sorry but i think Mrs. Holohan is just grieving and clutching at straws..

Everybodies intitled to their opinion on what happened etc..but im delighted about the outcome!

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-01-2006 06:24PM

Fast_Mover wrote:

im sorry but i think Mrs. Holohan is just grieving and clutching at straws..

Everybodies intitled to their opinion on what happened etc..but im delighted about the outcome!

She's not clutching at straws. The Judge himself acknowledged that O'Donoghue's actions were deliberate and they were not a result of panic as you think.

“The cover-up caused incredible grief and distress to the Holohan family,” he said.

Judge Carney said it permitted the body of the schoolboy to be mutilated, tied up the services of the State and led to the involvement of the people of Ireland as a whole with the Holohan family.

“It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved,” he said.

Judge Carney said that, while he could not punish O’Donoghue directly for this, it did have an effect on the Holohan family and he would take it into account.

He said he was satisfied that, when O’Donoghue told his father on January 16 last year that he had killed Robert Holohan, that genuine remorse was in play.

He said it was common for families of victims to complain that the life of their family member was only valued in the final sentence given to the accused person.

“Obviously, young Robert’s life was so precious as to be incapable of measurement in such terms. It is absolutely the case that nothing I do in any way is capable of assuaging the Holohans’ grief.”

He announced he was taking into account the effect of the killing on the Holohan family but also the accused’s guilty plea and his previous good character.

Basically in this country, if you've never committed a crime and you are willing to show remorse after committing one (after you've been caught in O'Donoghue's case), then you can expect a few years in jail with the likelihood of not having to serve the sentence in full.

Apparently this passes for justice. I'm glad you're delighted with it.

Myself and many others are not.

lostexpectation · 24-01-2006 06:33PM

money and a note from your local priest?

and isn't the Diana effect taking hold of Ireland again

aidan_walsh · 24-01-2006 06:35PM

Rantorama wrote:

TV3 News has reported that semen found on Robert's body did belong to O'Donogue.

Have they cited who their source is?

O'Donogue only gets 4 years

Comments