Wayne O Donoghue Released Today

Mrs Roy Keane

O'Donoghue freed after serving three years

Wayne O'Donoghue has been released from prison after serving three years of a four-year sentence for the manslaughter of his 11-year-old neighbour, Robert Holohan.

The 23-year-old former engineering student from Midleton was released a year early, after qualifying for 25% remission from his sentence.

His immediate plans are not clear and may not have been decided yet.

But it is thought possible he may move home to live with his parents in east Cork not far from Mark and Majella Holohan and their two other children.

11-year-old Robert Holohan disappeared from his home in Ballyedmond near Midleton in Co Cork on 4 January 2005.

His body was discovered eight days later wrapped in black refuse sacks and dumped in a ditch at Inch Strand, about 20km from his home.

Four days later, on 16 January 2005, Wayne O'Donoghue confessed to killing Robert Holohan.

He was subsequently charged with Robert Holohan's murder but was acquitted by a jury following a ten-day trial.

He had, however, admitted manslaughter and, for that, he was sentenced to four years in jail by Mr Justice Paul Carney.


O'Donoghue Apology

Speaking outside the prison, Wayne O'Donoghue said 'I wish to express my profound apologies and deep regret to Mark and Majella Holohan and to their family for causing to them the loss of their beloved Robert.

'I fully accept responsibility not only for that loss but also for the additional grief and distress which I have caused to them owing to my actions following Robert's death.

'I realise and accept that nothing which I may do or say will ever ease their suffering. I feel and carry the burden of guilt for my actions each day.

'I also profoundly regret the hurt and distress which I have caused to the wider community.

'To all whom I have caused such grief and distress I can only repeat my sorrow and ask for forgiveness.

'To my own family, relations and friends I also wish to say to repeat my expression of sorrow for the pain and suffering which I have caused you. I deeply appreciate the support you have given me over the past three years and I will always be grateful for this.

'I also wish to express my gratitude to all of those people in the wider community who have made contact with me directly and indirectly since my imprisonment. I am eternally grateful to you for your kindness, support and understanding.

'I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the governor and staff of the Midlands Prison for the very fair and reasonable manner in which I have been treated during the term of my imprisonment.

'I fully accept personal responsibility for all of my actions in this matter.

'I have always stated that I would as a consequence accept the penalty imposed by the court for my wrong-doing.

'I have served a penalty which has been imposed upon me by the courts to the best of my ability.

'I intend this to be my only statement in relation to this matter and I would hope for your understanding in that regard.'

dresden8

I would hope for your understanding in that regard

Three years for killing a child seems fair. Let's all wish Wayne the best!

unregd147

As far as I'm aware he didn’t mean to kill the child, in that regard I have pity for him. I feel the 4years sentence is fair in this case. The fact however is that he covered up the manslaughter and hid the body. He even helped with the search? This I feel is much more calice and deserved in itself a larger sentance than the 4years.

finlma

He made an honest mistake which he owned up to but unfortunately resulted in the death of a child. The cover up was a natural reaction and didn't effect the outcome either way. He has done the time he was ordered to do and is entitled to life his life.

Best of luck to him with whatever he decides to do. Seems like a decent bloke to me.

seamus

unregd147 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware he didn’t mean to kill the child, in that regard I have pity for him. I feel the 4years sentence is fair in this case. The fact however is that he covered up the manslaughter and hid the body. He even helped with the search? This I feel is much more calice and deserved in itself a larger sentance than the 4years.

This would probably be a separate charge and as best I understand it, the court imposes a sentence based on the actual offence and its specific impact, rather than any other factors.

a-k-47

finlma wrote: »

Best of luck to him with whatever he decides to do. Seems like a decent bloke to me.

Are u mentally challenged by any chance?. Would you say that ridiculous statement if it was your son?. Robert doesnt have a 2nd chance at life why should he. You dont accidentally choke someone to death, he would of used excessive force and robert would of fought till his last breath, sure why dont we help get all prisoners who are in for manslaughter get there lives back on track once they are apologetic. Nice blokes dont wrap a childs dead body up in plastic fcuk him in the boot of your car and dump him in a remote area, if it was an accident, to ring an ambulance would be the first thing a decent bloke would do!... idiot!:mad:

seamus

a-k-47, there's a less civilised discussion here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054862935&page=3

This thread is for legal discussion, not moral debates. I won't hesitate to delete any similar rants in future.

hullaballoo

a-k-47 wrote: »

Are u mentally challenged by any chance?. Would you say that ridiculous statement if it was your son?. Robert doesnt have a 2nd chance at life why should he. You dont accidentally choke someone to death, he would of used excessive force and robert would of fought till his last breath, sure why dont we help get all prisoners who are in for manslaughter get there lives back on track once they are apologetic. Nice blokes dont wrap a childs dead body up in plastic fcuk him in the boot of your car and dump him in a remote area, if it was an accident, to ring an ambulance would be the first thing a decent bloke would do!... idiot!:mad:

Oi! Everyone's entitled to their opinion - but there's no need for personal abuse. It's a site-wide rule. Ordinarily, I'd ban you here but since this is an emotive issue, I'll let it go this time only.

This warning applies to anyone who posts in this thread from here on in.

Edit: heh, to think we're looking for new mods! We're stepping over each other as it is!

sickpuppy

Totally agree with ak 47 the sentencing in this country is ajoke.
....snipped.
How he could live with himself after what he done i dont know.
H e will be probably attacked as soon a shes away from the media glare.

hullaballoo

Mrs Roy Keane, can you cite the source of that article(?), please?

denashpot

this is not a rant but if it was my son i would not be happy. his actions after the
killing was a disgrace and alone should warrant life in prison! the irish justice system is a joke! the prime time show last night proved that regarding the dna testing used in the case. just my opinion (not a rant) if it was my son i would track him down and accidentally end his life.

hullaballoo

Actually, I thought the Primetime section on this last night was incredibly invidious and malicious. I think the bias shown in the programme against Mr O'Donoghue was to the extent that it substantially lowered my opinion of the show's journalism. The fact that it was shown on the eve of Mr O'Donoghue's release was further adding insult to injury.

I personally do not know enough about the case and the factual scenario around it to comment on whether I think there was a more malignant undertone. I think Majella Holohan would have us all believe there was some sort of sexual motive. However, for want of any actual evidence in that regard. It has been forcefully put forward that Low Copy Number DNA analysis is unreliable and to the best of my limited knowledge, that is the case.

However, it is the DNA analysis that appears to be current in this jurisdiction and its reliability must be taken seriously by those who try to use it as evidence. The very mention of "DNA evidence" gives rise to CSI syndrome. People have been misinformed by popular sci-fi programmes like CSI as to the infallibility of forensic evidence. It must always be borne in mind.

If you think of the fact of the presence of semen along the lines of how disease spreads (cross-contamination of food etc.), then you can see innumerable possibilities to explain any such presence.

Mr O'Donoghue has had his trial and has served his sentence. We are none of us in a position to say what he deserves or not; personally, I hope he can turn out to be a productive member of society; however, mud sticks.

The_Minister

I actually thought that Prime Time was quite good, and I thought it vindicated (on the seman), Mr O'Donaghue.

denashpot

the prime time show did clear his name in some respects towards him been branded a sex killer. as much as i know and want to believe it was an accident i think people will always judge him on what he did afterwards. i do think the judge could of gave a longer sentence in this case. was he charged with anything other than manslaughter regarding what he done after the child died???

Mrs Roy Keane

Source

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0116/holohanr

I think 3 years for manslaughter is not a justified sentence.

Eire 4Ever

I feel for all the parties involved but 3 years for the manslaughter/murder of an 11 year old boy is a joke

The Irish Justice System is a joke

NoQuarter

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

Source

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0116/holohanr

I think 3 years for manslaughter is not a justified sentence.

manslaughter is the killing of a human without malice or premeditiation, he didnt mean to do it, no mens rea, and im sure 3 years in prison would be a lot longer a time than 3 years out here would be so i personally think its reasonable, of course if it was my own son feelings would be different but thats why our judges use objective tests rather than using there own subjective views.

Thank got for the "reasonable man" or we'd all be locked up!

Amazotheamazing

As someone who is roughly the same size and build as Wayne O'Donoghue I can have a certain amount of sympathy for what happened. Fact is, it is incredibly easy for someone our size to injury a child of Robert Holohan's size, I don't think people appreciate that to any extent. It takes roughly 5kg of pressure to break someones neck, a person of O'Donoghue's size could easily apply that force without realising it. This might sound trite but sadly it's true. The Prime Time report (imo) pretty much cleared O'Donoghue's name as regards the traces found on Robert Holohan's hand.

To me, the death of Robert Holohan is a tragic accident which could have happened in any amount of inaction between an adult of O'Donoghue's build and a child of Holohan's build.

What O'Donoghue did afterward is incomprehensible to all right thinking people, had O'Donoghue called an ambulance imo, no charges would even have been pressed. However, I think it is unrealistic to expect O'Donoghue to act in a correct state of mind after such an accident.

O'Donoghue has served his sentence and should be allowed attempt to rebuild his life.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

This [the hiding of the body etc]would probably be a separate charge and as best I understand it, the court imposes a sentence based on the actual offence and its specific impact, rather than any other factors.

It lessens his ability to claim co-operation and remorse in mitigation, and it could be interpreted as an aggravating factor in that he tried to conceal his crime.

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

I think 3 years for manslaughter is not a justified sentence.

Why?

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

I feel for all the parties involved but 3 years for the manslaughter/murder of an 11 year old boy is a joke

The Irish Justice System is a joke

Why do you think the sentence and the Irish Justice System is a joke? I know it's very popular in the media to make blithe comments about this, but what exactly do you mean? It's a difficult argument to make because:
(a) very few people fully understand the implications of spending even a year in prison and as such to say that a sentence is a joke is a very abstract argument - it might seem like a joke to you, but to someone who actually has to serve such a sentence it's probably not a laughing matter
(b) many people have an idea that a certain crime has a certain tarrif that must be paid as though the court were a toll booth - E2 for a car, E5 for a van etc. The sentence must take account of the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
(c) the case was about an accidental killing, but it is portrayed in the media almost as the murder of a child by a paedophile.

So on what grounds do you beleive that the sentence, and by extension the entire justice system is a joke?

Tom Young

I agree with johnnyskeleton's question and indeed Hullaballu in respect of the position.

The media in this country is nothing short of a scourge.

To add a comment, I also technically agree with the comments made by Justice Carney at UCC some months ago and the fairness and justice of the matter. Despite thinking perhaps that the timing might have been a bit better.

Tom

bigbobbya

Johnnyskeleton is absolutely right in challenging groundless, throwaway remarks which impugn the integrity of the criminal justice system. The punishement must indeed fit the crime and the particular offender. WO'D didn't have so much as a parking fine before this tragic incident and we can be almost certain that he won't ever come to Garda attention again. He poses no danger to the public and should be allowed to get on with his life having served his sentence with the utmost dignity and remorse. Don't forget that in addition to 3 years of his life, he has also lost his education, his friends and any employment prospect in this country.

I haven't had a chance to look at the red-top rags yet today but I can only imagine the kind of tripe they have published, disingenuously purporting to champion the cause of Robert's parents, when in fact all they are doing is adding to their grief in a callous attempt to boost sales. Their coverage of the story to date has been nothing short of a disgrace, appealing to the very worst in their readership by stimulating an ill-informed & erratic mob mentality. I wish WO'D the very best of luck in his libel actions against them.

There are some absolutely ridiculous remarks on this thread but I think that sickpuppy's post encouraging WO'D to take his own life is the pick of the bunch. How, in any way whatsoever, would that be of any benefit to anyone? Two tragic deaths as opposed to one? An eye for an eye? For the sake of the much-maligned criminal process, I hope to God you never get called for jury service.

PonyP

Served his sentence, deemed appropriate by a High Court judge, leave him alone to rebuild his life.
I am sure he regrets everything that happened and I know that Robert's family will never forgive him but he should be allowed a chance to live a normal life now he has been released.
No other recently released prisoners have received so much media attention in recent times

Rhonda9000

I deplore "The Sun" grade opinions that you see vommited out by every Tom, Dick, Crystal, Sharon and Jason in relation to these types of matters at these times. It's always simply "a disgrace" and never a well thought out / reasoned comment giving reasons or any shred of insightful intelligence.

More often than not, the famous and equally baseless "if it was my child..." scenario gets thrown into the mix which frankly makes me sick to the pit of my stomach every time. Luckily for the opinionated demi-god imbeciles making their 'point' [with the usual sense of entitlement], they will never truly know how exactly they would feel and cope with the level of grief and tragedy borne out by the misfortunate families of victims. As for the inevitable "it's a disgrace" comments on the criminal justice system coming again from the brains educated by Coronation Street and Heat magazine, at least these do not have the same thoughtless, insensitive flair as the "If it was my child....." manure.

Mrs Roy Keane

Source Evening Echo

'O'Donoghue apology was a stunt,' says Robert's father

17/01/2008 - 1:05:28 PM

Robert Holohan's father has rejected the apology made by his son's killer outside the Midlands Prison in Portlaoise yesterday.

Wayne O'Donoghue, 23, read a statement apologising for his actions and accepting responsibility for the grief they caused.

He was speaking after completing three years of a four-year sentence for the manslaughter of his 11-year-old neighbour in January 2005.

In a newspaper interview today, Mark Holohan described Mr O'Donoghue's statement as "a stunt" and said he had "some neck on him apologising like that".

He also said the former engineering student "got off with a lenient sentence".

Mrs Roy Keane

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why?

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent. The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter. It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

I don't know what actually happened between Wayne and Robert which resulted in Robert's death only they know so we have only have Wayne's testimony and the evidence but Wayne actions after the killing of Robert were premeditated he knew what he was doing. I cant comprehend what i would do in that situation and hope i would never be in that situation but i think you would call an ambulance. In my opinion 3 years is way to short a term for this crime. Wayne is young and he can still get on with his life while Robert is death.

legs11

If he did this in the states he would be on death row, whatever peoples views are on this, it is a sorrid case and it all falls back on our pathetic justice system, no matter what way you look at it.

but having said that, he doesnt look mentally challenged in any way and who knows what will happen or become of him, i mean its not like he is going to end up like jack the ripper......

denashpot

i mean its not like he is going to end up like jack the ripper......

lets hope not!

he let the body rot in a coal bag for 8 days and people have sympathy for him. love to see those people in the Holohan's position and see would they be posting some of the muck on this forum. his father today rejected the statement wayne made after been released. rightly so!! in many countries wayne would of been hung for what he done and its a pity it did'nt happen here!:mad::mad:

Maximilian

denashpot wrote: »

i mean its not like he is going to end up like jack the ripper......

lets hope not!

he let the body rot in a coal bag for 8 days and people have sympathy for him. love to see those people in the Holohan's position and see would they be posting some of the muck on this forum. his father today rejected the statement wayne made after been released. rightly so!! in many countries wayne would of been hung for what he done and its a pity it did'nt happen here!:mad::mad:

What countries had you in mind, Saudi Arabia? I can understand its a heated topic at the moment but for God's sake listen to what you are saying. He should be hung? This is lynch mob mentality.

Eire 4Ever

All we have to go on is O Donoghue's story about what happened the day he killed Robert so we don't know it happened that way or not.

All i know is an 11 year old boy is dead and his killer is now a free man after only serving 3 years is this fair in my opinion no

Maximilian

Eire 4Ever wrote: »

All we have to go on is O Donoghue's story about what happened the day he killed Robert so we don't know it happened that way or not.

All i know is an 11 year old boy is dead and his killer is now a free man after only serving 3 years is this fair in my opinion no

No, you have the evidence upon which he was convicted to go on. Unless you were actually there, you can never be certain but people shouldn't be damned on the basis of conjecture or speculation. Hell, maybe the kid actually strangled himself and framed O'Donoghue. Can anyone here definitively prove the CIA wasn't behind it? etc.

Carolus Magnus

Glad to see the 'paediatricians?!11 nonces!' brigade has found the thread.

If he did this in the states he would be on death row

People don't go on death row for manslaughter. Would you care to elaborate to all of us how the sum of the evidence in the Holohan case would translate to a first degree murder charge for O'Donoghue in the United States? You can try, I'd like to see you construct the legal argument for it.

denashpot wrote: »

i mean its not like he is going to end up like jack the ripper......

lets hope not!

he let the body rot in a coal bag for 8 days and people have sympathy for him. love to see those people in the Holohan's position and see would they be posting some of the muck on this forum. his father today rejected the statement wayne made after been released. rightly so!! in many countries wayne would of been hung for what he done and its a pity it did'nt happen here!:mad::mad:

Get thee to Iran.

Anyway, I think Justice Paul Carney's statements on the entire sorry case were perhaps the most acute and insightful (not to mention learned, something a lot of the commentators most certainly aren't. He also has the greatest acquaintence with the case of anyone bar the solicitors.) Majella Holohan abused the mechanism of the victim impact statement and has (dare we say knowingly?) provoked a rush to judgement by the tabloid press who know that sleaze sells and aren't afraid to inflict it on the reading public.

The Examiner of course degrades its status as a broadsheet newspaper by publishing the most outrageously ignorant vitriol passing for journalism today. We were treated to no less than half a page on how O'Donoghue intoned his apology. Not enough feeling or weeping. The monster can't even show proper histrionic remorse and regret! Must try harder. D-

Such pureile assessments have no place in serious discussion of the news.

Equally, Mr. Holohan's statement of today is trash. I only excuse it on account of him being the victim's father, but objectively speaking it is total rubbish. How dare the boy apologise! The high emotion that surrounds precious tots cut down in their floruit couldn't have been parodied better.

The DNA sample in this case constituted a single cell. A minimum of 200 are required for any definitive sample. A sample that small could have gotten there by a variety of means, and there's no way to know that it was even O'Donoghue's semen for that matter. If it is to be taken as evidence of some kind of sexual contact then frankly that a single cell was the only amount left on the body is what is incredible. There should be much more present if we're to believe what is insinuated by various parties.

Maximilian

Look folks, can we limit this particular thread to the legal aspects of the matter.

If you have personal views on the rights or wrongs, if you want to organise a vigilante posse, marry Wayne or indeed if you have any other inclinations which lean on the Rabble-Rabble side of things, can you post on the AH thread instead. Lazy people can find it here.

Also we can't have people posting the same comments in both threads. I'm pointing at you, Eire 4-Eve.

Carolus Magnus

The case unfortunately isn't conducive to much legal wrangling as the sentence was completely above board and Carney has done nothing legally wrong, exercising as he did his judicial powers of discretion in sentencing. Not much more is left to drag out of this beastly (i.e. overblown and sensationalised) case except emotive pulling of heart strings. It is also a fact that Majella Holohan went off the record in her victim impact statement and mentioned findings not admitted to the book of evidence.

What might be of interest is the angle the forthcoming libel suits will be pursued from. I for one would like to read learned opinions on that.

hullaballoo

Carolus Magnus wrote: »

The case unfortunately isn't conducive to much legal wrangling as the sentence was completely above board and Carney has done nothing legally wrong, exercising as he did his judicial powers of discretion in sentencing. Not much more is left to drag out of this beastly case except emotive pulling of heart strings. It is also a fact that Majella Holohan went off the record in her victim impact statement and mentioned findings not admitted to the book of evidence.

What might be of interest is the angle the forthcoming libel suits will be pursued from. I for one would like to read learned opinions on that.

Just make sure they're your legal heart-strings, in that case.

Carolus Magnus

That indeed, was/is my point. Tugging of heartsrings is beside the point in a thread like this, in a folder like this, and I would welcome some legal eagles (or chicks for that matter ¬_¬) enlightening us about what happens next.

Legally speaking, the case has been and gone, the sentence served and that's that. I'd prefer honestly if Justice Paul Carney had the last word on that. The leniency of the sentence; re:yes/no/castrate the bugger is a purely emotional debate and is the only one being engaged in at present.

lbourkey

sickpuppy wrote: »

Totally agree with ak 47 the sentencing in this country is ajoke.
I hope that man does the only decent thing now which is suicide.
How he could live with himself after what he done i dont know.
H e will be probably attacked as soon a shes away from the media glare.

What kind of a child are you? How dare you berate this young man - who has served his sentence, given to him by a judge and jury who had much more information than you on the case, and then use terms like suicide in such a cavalier way. You are as bad as the scum-ridden tabloid press, intent on ruining yet more lives in this tragic case. I agree that that the Houlihans will never accept any outcome as being a valid answer to the pain they have suffered but we are human beings and we must surely try to understand that unfortunate events occur - have you thought about how you would feel if Wayne was your teenage son, had made a huge error whilst fighting/playing with his younger friend and then reacted, naturally enough for a man of his age with pure panic? Give it a rest all of you right wing idiots and remember that life is not black and white.

johnnyskeleton

Mrs Roy Keane wrote: »

MANSLAUGHTER - ...

I don't know what actually happened between Wayne and Robert which resulted in Robert's death only they know so we have only have Wayne's testimony and the evidence but Wayne actions after the killing of Robert were premeditated he knew what he was doing. I cant comprehend what i would do in that situation and hope i would never be in that situation but i think you would call an ambulance. In my opinion 3 years is way to short a term for this crime. Wayne is young and he can still get on with his life while Robert is death.

Thanks for the definition of manslaughter but I want to know why you think 4 years is not justified for this offence.

The evidence as decided by the jury amounts to this:
(a) he unlawfully caused the death of Robert Holohan
(b) he did not intend to cause the death of Robert Holohan
(c) it is essentially a culpable accident.

The nearest comparisons, in my view, would be dangerous driving causing death, or cases where parents/childminders accidentally cause a child's death. Sentences for those offences also vary greatly depending on the circumstances, but in general the sentence would be nowhere near the sentence that would be imposed in the more serious manslaughter cases.

What aggravtes this case is that he attempted to dispose of the body, to "get away with it" and to avoid capture.

In mitigation he has no previous convictions, is unlikely to reoffend, he ultimately co-operated with the gardai and he has expressed remorse which, notwithstanding the Holohan's refusal to accept it, would appear to most objective observers to be genuine. As regards his immediate reaction to the death, it appears that he initially tried to revive Robert Holohan, but when this didn't work he panicked.

It would seem that the jury accepted (implicitly at least) that he did genuinely panic afterwards and that this, and not malice was the reason for the coverup.

So looking at the reasons behind sentencing, there is the need to punish the offender, and a 4 year prison sentence is a severe punishment no matter what way you look at it. To say otherwise is, in my view, to ignore the reality of prison and instead look at it in an abstract and unrealistic way (like saying "I want him to rot in hell for ever and ever" etc).

As regards deterrence, there is a lesser need to mark the offence as it is a once off (as opposed to, for example, drugs offences, where there is the need to deter the offender from re-offending and the need to send a message that others should not get involved in drugs).

There is no great preventative need to give a higher sentence as he is seriously unlikely to commit further offences.

Again, there is little need to rehabilitate him as this seems to be a once off offence.

Which leaves Retribution - the idea of an eye for an eye. This is more of a passionate response, but in some cases it forms part of the sentence policy. For example, in violent / sexual assault cases, where the victim's life has been destroyed or seriously damaged by the offender, the court will often (and quite rightly) take the views of the victim into consideration. However, the difficulty here, and it appears to be the heart of the problem with a lot of people's criticisms of the sentence, is that there was no malice or intention to kill on Wayne O'Donoghue's part.

With the greatest respect, it seems to be easier for people to believe that he is an evil killer, monster or child abuser, when the reality (as was found by the jury) is that it was an accident, and there but for fortune go you and I.

It would be nice to have someone to blame, it would be great to say that the evidence that wasn't admitted was a travesty of justice, but the reality is that the sentence marks the level of blameworthiness on Wayne O'Donoghue's part, coupled with the other factors in the case, and the evidence wasn't admitted because it was, in all liklihood, wrong and highly misleading.

Finally, I don't think there is any reality to him just getting on with his life. This will undoubtedly haunt him forever, and he can probably never have a normal life in Ireland (or indeed anywhere) ever again. But that aside, what would you have him do? Sit in a prison cell forever? What would that achieve, what possible reason is there to do that (and waste another person's life and millions of euro in taxpayers money)?

dramaqueen

I have to say I'm a little horrified at the way people have been talking in this thread.

- He should be killed, commit suicide executed etc.

Personally I think the courts did their job and that's why we have a legal system. They make the unemotional call, justice and all that. It was a horrible case that captured the nations attention like no other in recent times. The guy made a mistake and dealt with it stupidly. The boys parents will never forgive him and never get over it and that's their right. But I can only imagine how bad prison was for Wayne, with the publicity the case received and the sexual angle that the mother and the press hinted at.
I feel sorry for all involved and hope that the press and others stop sensationalising the situation. The guy did the time that the courts required of him. His right is now to try to rebuild his life.

AckwelFoley

Wayne does not fit the profile of somone that will kill again.

People don't go on death row for manslaughter. Would you care to elaborate to all of us how the sum of the evidence in the Holohan case would translate to a first degree murder charge for O'Donoghue in the United States? You can try, I'd like to see you construct the legal argument for it.

Correct

However his sentence was ludacrisly light.

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

johnnyskeleton

snyper wrote: »

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

A quick search in google revealed many sentences under 15 years for manslaughter, so I'm going to have to call shenanigans on you.

Here's 100 days for manslaution arising out of a road traffic accident. The reason I think this is a better analogy than what you might call the "not quite murder" type manslaughter cases is that both were accidents.

Lemming

snyper wrote: »

However his sentence was ludacrisly light.

In the US depending on which state you were sentenced, you can receive from 15 - 65 years for this type crime

Why are people harping on about what you could or could not possibly be handed as a sentence in another country? This is a legal discussion of an offense and subsequent trial that occurred in Ireland.

Is there anybody on boards.ie who actually has a working knowledge of both US law at both State & Federal levels? Bit of a moot point anyway ....

Trojan911

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

I am curious as to why further sentencing was not imposed for the waste of police time in the search afterwards & I believe an offence of preventing a christian burial is also an offence (open to correction).

Whatever the case is O'Donaghue will have to live with this terrible deed he did.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

Lemming

Trojan911 wrote: »

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

This might sound cold and clinical, but sentencing is not provided to appease the feelings of a victim or their family. In any case, making statements about 4 years fo the taking of a life in any case makes for stupidly dangerous precedent.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

Well, he was judged by a jury of his peers. So your opinion or my opinion amount to precisely squat as to what they as a collective group should or should not have thought. That's kind of the whole point of trial by jury; judgement by peer on the evidence presented.

Trojan911

Lemming wrote: »

Well, he was judged by a jury of his peers. So your opinion or my opinion amount to precisely squat as to what they as a collective group should or should not have thought. That's kind of the whole point of trial by jury; judgement by peer on the evidence presented.

Like I said.

Trojan911 wrote:

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

lizann

I feel for the Holohan family and also the O Donoghue family as both families have been destroyed by this.

I have no sympathy what so ever for Wayne.

While the killing may have been ruled accidential "horseplay" and he was charged with manslaughter and served 3 years his actions after the killing the cover up and disposal of the body other charges should have been brought against him.

BTW is it the longer a body is not discovered certain evidence decays or is more harder to find

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]CC0019/05
The High Court
The Central Criminal Court
Mr Justice Carney
Tuesday, 24 January 2006
DPP v WAYNE O'DONOGHUE

MR JUSTICE CARNEY: I want to say unequivocally at the outset that I am dealing with a manslaughter and not with a cover-up. A manslaughter has been described as the most elastic of crimes because the penalty can range from a suspended sentence to one of life imprisonment. It is now my function to select a punishment at or between these extremes and explain my reasons to the nation and to the Holohan family as best I can. I will be doing so on the basis of the evidence presented in open court and no other consideration.

In this case, evidence was given by pathologists on each side. For the prosecution evidence was given by the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, and for the defence evidence was given by the Chief Pathologist of Northern Ireland, Professor Crane. They were in broad agreement with some difference in emphasis. The evidence of both pathologists was to the effect that the injuries on Robert's body were light.

I find of particular significance that Professor Crane went on to say that the injuries were consistent with those which resulted from a restraining technique employed by several police forces in the United States. When it became apparent that this technique was causing unexpected deaths, its authorised use was terminated. This evidence suggests to me that the injuries we are concerned with here were at the horseplay end of the scale.

After the death, the cover-up was appalling. There can be no excusing what was done. There can be no mitigating of what was done. The cover-up caused incredible grief and distress to the Holohan family. It permitted of the body being mutilated by animals, it tied up the emergency services of the State over a protracted period and caused the people of Ireland as a whole to join in the Holohans' grief. It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic, by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved.

I am not punishing the accused expressly in respect of the cover-up, although it comes into play as part of the impact on the victims and I take it into account in that regard. I must bear in mind, however, that it could have formed the basis of substantive charges and they were not laid.[/FONT]

Eire 4Ever

Court adjourns application in libel case
16 January 2008

By Vivion Kilfeather
THE High Court yesterday adjourned for three weeks an application for discovery of documents in an action for libel brought by Wayne O’Donoghue, the 23-year-old engineering student who was convicted of the manslaughter of Midleton schoolboy Robert Holohan.
Mr O’Donoghue is due to be released from the Midlands Prison today after serving three years of a four-year sentence for killing the 11-year-old boy on January 4, 2005, in Midleton, Co Cork.

As a result of some of the media coverage of the sentencing hearing, Mr O’Donoghue issued proceedings for libel against a number of outlets, including TV3.

Yesterday, TV3 Television Network Ltd made an application before Master of the High Court Edmund Honohan SC for discovery of documents from Mr O’Donoghue in advance of the libel trial. The documents are to be used in the TV company’s defence.

The application was adjourned after Mr Honohan was told Mr O’Donoghue’s legal advisers were likely to be in a position to agree discovery within weeks.

Mr Honohan adjourned the application to February 5.

Mr O’Donoghue’s libel action arises out of questions raised by Robert’s mother Majella during her victim-impact statement at the sentencing hearing when she queried why semen was found on her son’s body.

There had been no reference at any stage to DNA forensic material during the 10-day trial and Mr O’Donoghue’s lawyers have repeatedly insisted that the DNA involved was not his.

Mr O’Donoghue, who claims his reputation was damaged by media coverage suggesting sexual impropriety on his part towards Robert, also has defamation actions pending against the Sun, the Sunday World, Ireland on Sunday and the Evening Herald.

If they proceed, it could mean that Mr O’Donoghue will have to give evidence and be open to cross-examination. It is also possible however that he would not take the stand and rely on other witnesses to give evidence of any alleged libel.

His solicitor, Frank Buttimer, is determined that the libel actions should not be turned into a re-run of the murder trial.

He said the five High Court actions are “aimed at vindicating Wayne O’Donoghue’s good name which has been damaged by false allegations and the onus of proof will be on the media outlets to prove these allegations”.

Mr O’Donoghue is expected to call a number of experts to give evidence disputing the reliability of the forensic tests that initially formed part of the Garda case

johnnyskeleton

Wow. A discovery motion in front of the master of the High Court. That's real front page news.

hullaballoo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Wow. A discovery motion in front of the master of the High Court. That's real front page news.

I feel disgusting that I actually laughed at that.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

I feel disgusting that I actually laughed at that.

I have that effect on people.

Tom Young

Funnily enough, so do I.

Eire 4Ever

Trojan911 wrote: »

My thoughts & opinions are,

Four years is not an adequate sentance for the taking of a life in any case not just this one. Having it knocked down to three is a bigger insult to the victims family. (I don't agree with remission for good behaviour). My thoughts would be ten years imprisonment.

I am curious as to why further sentencing was not imposed for the waste of police time in the search afterwards & I believe an offence of preventing a christian burial is also an offence (open to correction).

Whatever the case is O'Donaghue will have to live with this terrible deed he did.

Having worked in this type of environment myself I have huge reservations on the whole case & believe the DPP was correct to go for a murder upgrade. The verdict the jury returned was the wrong guilty verdict in my opinion.

However the courts have ruled & we have no choice but to go along with its ruling.

Can other charges be brought against Wayne now for his actions after the manslaughter of Robert?