O'Donogue only gets 4 years

dbnavan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

money and a note from your local priest?

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

aidan_walsh

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?

Rockee

What a bloody disgrace, the cheeky bastard even helped in the search and asked his parents 'Is there any word on Robert' 4 years? 4 years!

6ix

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

I'll admit to not having an acute grasp of the legal process, but is there any valid reason why this would not have been submitted as evidence?

Rantorama

6ix wrote:

I'll admit to not having an acute grasp of the legal process, but is there any valid reason why this would not have been submitted as evidence?

When O'Donogue was questioned how it got on Robert's body,he said it was from a towel.

6ix

Rantorama wrote:

When O'Donogue was questioned how it got on Robert's body,he said it was from a towel.

Is this what TV3 say, or did this come up during the case?

TV3 did report the death of the pope a little prematurely after all, I tend not to trust them.

whiskeyman

6ix wrote:

I'll admit to not having an acute grasp of the legal process, but is there any valid reason why this would not have been submitted as evidence?

Evidence to what exactly?
It was a manslaughter trial.
The above evidence would have to have been taken further to suggest possible sexual attack (which the postmortem found was not the case) or something similar.
If the evidence is inadmissible, unreliable or unrelated, there's no point bringing it to the trial., otherwise the case could have collapsed.
This must have been the opinion of the DPP on this occasion.

6ix

whiskeyman wrote:

Evidence to what exactly?
It was a manslaughter trial.
The above evidence would have to have been taken further to suggest possible sexual attack (which the postmortem found was not the case) or something similar.
If the evidence is inadmissible, unreliable or unrelated, there's no point bringing it to the trial., otherwise the case could have collapsed.

Ah, that put me in my box. Thanks.

MarinoMark

Anyone have the link to the court transcript ? It is online but cant find on http://www.courts.ie./

Thanks

demanufactured

He should be pinned against a walll and burnt alive with a flame thrower for what he did....

fletch

If there was semen found on his body....SURELY it could have been sampled and compared to Wayne's! ????

fletch

Oh and I was watchin the 6-1 news on RTE and it was showing actual footage of the courtcase with photographers inside n all!? I was under the impression that no image capturing devices were allowed in Irish courts?

johnnyrotten

Manslaughter carries a maximum sentance of Life.
There is something sinister about O'Donaghue.
Kills boy
Hides body
Burns body
Deletes pic from phone
Semem found on body

4 years a disgrace!

flogen

whiskeyman wrote:

Evidence to what exactly?
It was a manslaughter trial.
The above evidence would have to have been taken further to suggest possible sexual attack (which the postmortem found was not the case) or something similar.
If the evidence is inadmissible, unreliable or unrelated, there's no point bringing it to the trial., otherwise the case could have collapsed.
This must have been the opinion of the DPP on this occasion.

Well, it was actually a murder trial once the charge had been upgraded.

lostexpectation

maybe there was a sexual misunderstanding which led to the too much force and not sexual violence in itself

killeoin

Sualtam wrote:

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?

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

johnnyrotten

lostexpectation wrote:

maybe there was a sexual misunderstanding which led to the too much force and not sexual violence in itself

A sexual misundersanding! WTF are you on about?

flogen

lostexpectation wrote:

maybe there was a sexual misunderstanding which led to the too much force and not sexual violence in itself

what are you getting at? I hate to be crude but do you suggest that O'Donohgue accidently ejaculated? And it was just coincidence that he accidently killed the child shortly afterwards?
The fact is that any sexual contant between the two is firstly illegal and secondly suggestive of a greater motive on O'Donohgues part.

killeoin

Sparks400 wrote:

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.

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

Wacker

Four years seems right on the money to me. What worries me is that the mother's statement might result in O'Donoghue getting worse treatment from inmates hen he would otherwise have received (although I am assuming that her statement was insubstantiated, based on what the State pathologist ruled).

johnnyrotten

killeoin wrote:

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

2. Where did the semem come from?

CiaranC

Didnt the state pathologist specifically state that this wasnt a sexual attack? Whats with the semen claim?

*edit* someone needs to delete killeons post, its clearly libellous.

Wacker

johnnyrotten wrote:

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

2. Where did the semem come from?

I think I can answer the first part of that anyway: The statements in the court case that were accepted by experts.

For part two, I have no idea, but I doubt there ever was any semen. The state pathologist never mentioned it, and the body was thoroughly checked for signs of sexual abuse. Remember, that was the presumptive motive at the time of the autopsy.

killeoin

johnnyrotten wrote:

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

Which ones?

johnnyrotten wrote:

2. Where did the semem come from?

I have no idea. Do we even know for certain that it was there?

flogen

killeoin wrote:

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

I've worked with children with ADHD before, and while it may not have been an extreme case of it my experience wouldn't justify his actions.

So he panics, fair enough. But why cover up so much? Why go on the searches, abuse Gardai because they aren't working hard enough and then console the mother, telling her he'll be found? If you were in that situation and you paniced, would you be able to face the family?
Why did Robert make a 999 call after being in Waynes room (when he should have been somewhere else)? Why were pictures deleted from Roberts phone and why did Wayne try to burn the body? Where did the semen come from?
No one is saying Robert was an angel, but nor was Wayne and the information the DPP had should have gone to trial, but it didn't.

killeoin

To be honest I think this whole semen thing is coming up as a result of the search for the body at the time.

killeoin

flogen wrote:

I've worked with children with ADHD before, and while it may not have been an extreme case of it my experience wouldn't justify his actions.

So he panics, fair enough. But why cover up so much? Why go on the searches, abuse Gardai because they aren't working hard enough and then console the mother, telling her he'll be found? If you were in that situation and you paniced, would you be able to face the family?
Why did Robert make a 999 call after being in Waynes room (when he should have been somewhere else)? Why were pictures deleted from Roberts phone and why did Wayne try to burn the body? Where did the semen come from?
No one is saying Robert was an angel, but nor was Wayne and the information the DPP had should have gone to trial, but it didn't.

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

mayhem#

I wonder what someone would get for evading taxes?

E.

Wacker

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

That isn't quite right, as the panic would have worn off and he still went through with the charade of looking for the body. That was a sign of terrible, criminal judgement. Which is why I think the sentence fits.

nedoo

I would love to know how many facts in this case that are stated here are true. Things I find strange are:
Would you find it normal for an adult to be in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you not know if an adult was in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you find it normal for an adult to be a best mate of your child?
Why is the mother appearing on The Late Late this Friday? What good will it do? Put your energy into justice, not talkshows!
I really feel for Robers parents, however both parties have a lot of black areas coming out.
At the end of the day, a child is dead by the hand of another and 4 years is not the value of a childs life.

Wacker

Neither are a thousand years. You can't possibly replace the child's life with a sentence; it is hopeless to even try.

killeoin

Wacker wrote:

That isn't quite right, as the panic would have worn off and he still went through with the charade of looking for the body. That was a sign of terrible, criminal judgement. Which is why I think the sentence fits.

I never said that the sentence didn't fit. I think he was quite lucky in that he maybe should have got more (6 yrs?).

And yes, reading the trial thats what the initial murder was based on, Robert wasn't dead at the time he died after so if O'Donoghue had called for help at that time he wouldn't have died.

I'm not defending him, I just that calling O'Donoghue a cold blooded killer and what not is unfair. He made a mistake and paniced and he was trapped into a corner at that stage and couldn't admit what happened. (Remember how much media coverage it got, wouldn't that put you off?

killeoin

Wacker wrote:

Neither are a thousand years. You can't possibly replace the child's life with a sentence; it is hopeless to even try.

But if you go down that road 4 years was good compared to what Brian Murphys Killers got.

killeoin

CiaranC wrote:

Didnt the state pathologist specifically state that this wasnt a sexual attack? Whats with the semen claim?

*edit* someone needs to delete killeons post, its clearly libellous.

And the semen claim isn't?

aidan_walsh

killeoin wrote:

Robert wasn't dead at the time he died after so if O'Donoghue had called for help at that time he wouldn't have died.

<scratches head>

nedoo wrote:

Would you find it normal for an adult to be in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you not know if an adult was in your childs room first thing in the morning?

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.

BuffyBot

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

Ermm yes, which was mentioned in court. No one is denying that, are they...

Mr.Nice Guy

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

“It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved." - Judge Carney

nedoo

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Sorry.Still something funky about that!

flogen

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

I never said I wouldn't, but I can't make the connection between panic and looking the mother in the eye, lying to her and consoling her. You'd want to avoid even looking at her if you were guilty, and felt any guilt IMO.

Robert was in a room with Wayne when he was supposed to be at a friends for a sleepover. Shortly after that he made a 999 call. He also had pictures deleted from his phone, and his body was found with (reportedly) Waynes' semen in his clenched hand. All of this was deemed useless by the DPP. What the hell is wrong with them?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

CiaranC

killeon wrote:

And the semen claim isn't?

No, Its not libellous. It was said under protection in the victim impact report.

killeoin

Roundtower2 wrote:

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

If you're referring to what I said about the father then he admitted it in court so it's much more than a "claim", its a fact.