01.24.06
Robert Holohan murder case
Extraordinary stuff from the courts today. The first I heard was that Wayne O’Donoghue had been given 4 years and I thought, that’s ok. It was all a terrible mistake. THEN much later I finally tuned in to the contents of Majella Holohan’s victim impact statement and the allegations she made about certain details of the case.
Its all over the radio, although most peculiarly the Irish Times website won’t elaborate..I have no idea why the radio can discuss it and the Irish Times can’t.
 (Update; they’ve posted it now:
“She also questioned why Robert was in Wayne O’Donoghue’s bedroom at 7.20am on the morning of his death when he was supposedly at a sleepover with a friend.
Why had images had been deleted from his mobile phone; why were his finger-prints wiped clean; why did Robert ring 999 later that morning, she asked.
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.
“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.
Ms Holohan also claimed semen had been found on her dead son’s body.
Speaking on the steps of Ennis courthouse, O’Donoghue’s solicitor, Frank Buttimer, said his client totally denied that he was responsible for the semen found.
“Wayne denies any impropriety of any kind whatsoever with regard to that. I repeat, all relevant evidence was led by the prosecution in this particular trial. The trial was conducted quite properly.”
If what she says is true, then why wasn’t it introduced in evidence? If its not true, how can she be allowed to stand up in court after the case is over and say it when the defence can’t rebut? If it is true, how can she still be allowed to say it if for some reason it is inadmissable? I mean I know he’s just been convicted of manslaughter but since accidental manslaughter is a far cry from sexual assault and murder, then is it libel? O’Donoghue had a fair amount of sympathy but now everyone will think he’s a sex offender.
I also have a sneaking suspicion I wrote some posts last years complaining bitterly about people who assumed that Holohan’s murder was the work of a sex offender. If her allegations are true, then I have some humble pie to eat.
I don’t get it.
Paddy Matthews said,
January 24, 2006 at 9:17 pm
A comment about the semen found on the politics.ie website. I have no more knowledge than anyone else about the truth of the statement, but it provides an innocent explanation for its presence:
http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9882
” I heard about that before Christmas, from someone in the legal profession. Apparently the semen traces were found on Robert’s neck, where Wayne’s hands had been. It seems it was agreed between the legal teams that this would not be introduced as evidence, as it would be an unjustified smear on O’Donoghue’s character – basically it seems that not too long beforehand, he’d been, as they said in the old days, ‘indulging in the sin of self-abuse’. So to introduce that as evidence, when it clearly didn’t contribute to the case, would’ve been very unfair on the defendant.”
I can’t imagine that the DPP would have refused to present evidence which was that strong (either about the semen or much of the other evidence that Mrs. Holohan alleged) if there was any hope of it being made to stand up in court.
Paddy said,
January 25, 2006 at 10:13 am
Morning Ireland gave a more detailed account this morning and it made for grim listening. Apparently when the boy’s body was found his fist was clenched. When they performed the post moterm they opened the first and found minute traces of semen on his palm. Apparently they had to send of to a lab in Wetherby in Yorkshire to perform a DNA test as the traces were so minute. The tests established that there was a 75m -1 chance that Mr O’Donnoghue wasnt the killer. Now Mr O’Donnoghue’s team performed a similar DNA test and found contrary results. According to Morning Ireland this is why the evidence could not be used.
Ray said,
January 25, 2006 at 10:36 am
‘Minute traces’ of O’Donoghue’s semen on Holohan’s hands are consistent with the unfortunate coincidence story. If that’s all there is, it’s not very strong evidence for sexual assault. .
Mary said,
January 25, 2006 at 10:43 am
I think the question to be answered and the one that Majella wants answered is where did the “indulging in the sin of self abuse” take place?The feeling I get from her statements is that she is concerned this took place in Wayne’s bedroom with Robert in attendence. Given the age difference this would concern me greatly.
Sarah said,
January 25, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Well I am increasingly outraged by the whole thing – by which I mean the fact that Majella Holohan said these things in the first place.
Frank Buttimer, O’Donoghue’s lawyer was on Gerry Ryan and made some interesting comments.
1. The Victim Impact Statements have to be written out and approved by the DPP and the Defence. Holohan’s statement which was approved did not include her final paragraph with the questions she wanted answered. She knew damn well she wasn’t supposed to say those things and did so anyway. She read them out at the end of her statement before the defence had a chance to object. Quite frankly I think her behaviour – whilst understandable – was inexcusable. She may have put in jeapardy the whole system of Victim Impact Statements. What if my house was robbed, the burglar was convicted and then I stood up in court and claimed he was a rapist too? It’s insupportable. The fact that she said it in court is far different and gives much more weight to her statements had they been made to the press in an interview.
2. We absolutely have to keep in mind that the evidence was so weak that it wasn’t raised. Photographs deleted? So what? What photographs? A phone call at 6.30am? How do we know that was the time? Someone said the boy didn’t even get the phone til several hours later. He called 999? A prank. Semen on the body? Was it conclusively O’Donoghue’s and plenty of explanations for how it could have gotten there – bath mat etc. The whole point is that these things were not raised in court because they were either irrelevant or unprovable. The DPP had no motive to conceal anything. And now everyone thinks it was a sex crime and not an accident. And just in case we were in no doubt The Sun puts “nothing but a paedophile” on its front page. It’s outrageous.
3. I have to put a special note of complaint for Orla Barry’s Show on Newstalk this morning. Just to make sure it got completely emotive she brought on the father of a child who had been killed some years ago ( I think he was the child killed when the goalpost fell on him – not sure). So she had the father on totally upset and complaining about the terrible courts system and 4 years is nothing for a child’s life and the police are mean to the families. Appalling stuff. Completely unbalanced and exploitative. And totally irrelevant.
Mark Dowling said,
January 26, 2006 at 2:34 am
Interesting that the judgement pointed out that the court is not for the family, it’s for the State. Also that Judge Carney mentioned he had been slapped around by the Court of Criminal Appeal on sentencing and they wouldn’t pass up doing it again.
Meanwhile a 16 year old kid has been nicked for killing a 19 year old girl. WTF is going on??
Anne said,
January 26, 2006 at 11:59 am
Did you see the front page headline in the Evening Hearld yesterday – saying O’Donoghue had “groomed Robert”. And comparing it with the Soham murders. Jesus, talk about irresponsible.
The Holohan family are clearly demented with grief but these newspapers are cynically exploiting the entire thing. I hope O’Donoghue sues them for defamation.
Pete said,
January 27, 2006 at 10:59 am
Of course, I don’t know if he’s a sex offender or not, and neither do the newspapers (but that hasn’t stopped them saying he is. Truly appalling “journalism”).
Assuming he isn’t, I disagree with those who say that the sentence is too short. The central question is, is he a danger to others? If not, what purpose would be served by locking him up for 10 or 15 years? He would come out brutalised, criminalised and institutionalised, with no hope of ever being anything but a problem for society. Pointless. I understand that the child’s family want revenge, but that’s only a minor part of prison is for. It’s mainly for protecting those on the outside from those on the inside.
Obviously, if he is a danger to others, particularly children, I say lock him up and throw away the key.
Coward said,
January 27, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Look the boy was throwing stones at O’Donoghue’s car.
HIS CAR.
STONES.
HE WAS THROWING STONES AT HIS CAR.
Sarah said,
January 29, 2006 at 3:30 pm
The tide seems to be turning back. I like Vincent Browne’s column in today’s SBP http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=VINCENT%20BROWNE-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=11372-qqqx=1.asp
Doesn’t it just show you that public opinion is completely irrelevant to the correctness of any given act? Just because everyone thinks something is terrible doesn’t mean that it is. I can remain proud of my original viewpoint at the time of the murder that the national hysteria that a paedophile killer was on the loose was total bullshit.
carol said,
January 30, 2006 at 12:16 am
Throwing stones big deal
No one has the right to take anyones life even for throwing stones.
No marks on the car so it couldnt have been thrown very hard or even big stones. There is more to it than throwing stones and the big ordeal to discard of the body. He had no regard for this boy at all you dont do that to someone you care for. All the searching he did and concern he had for the parents while all the time he knew where that little boy was.
Im sorry 4 yrs for what he did its a shame it could be anyone else’s child next time and what will they get for an accident cause they were throwing stones at the car.
4 YEARS A JOKE
If it was an accident he should have got help you dont panic and hide the body and burn the body thats not panic is it ???????? and stop for a luccozed on the way….oh maybe he was thirsty….. god help him…
John said,
February 18, 2006 at 7:58 pm
to carol
u dont know how u might have reacted. with the likes of u mary magdelen would have been stoned to death. u are 1 of those who never sinned or even made a mistake.
John said,
February 25, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Hello All
There was very minimal evidence of sex abuse. even if there was evidence of a minimal amount Wayne’s semen on Robert’s palm it might mean little. he was in and out of the Donoghue household regular and could have contaced this by casual contact…if all our hands were subjected to microscopic examination we might be very surprised at the result. conviction on the basis of forensic evidence is ‘dicey’ as The Birminham 6 and Guiford 4 cases proved before. Anyway international experts cast doubts on the method used in this case
as regards the 999 call how come Rob never told his Parents and continued going back to WODs house if it was genuine anyway why didnt the emergency services follow up the calls. Based on an article in The Sunday Independant rob slept on the sleeep over where he was supposed to have and did not leave until 9 am and there is evidence the said picture was taken at 7 pm so that the ‘6am call’ is also wrong. i agree the coverage was scurrilous. yesterday a man who hit his father 65 times with and a hammer was sentenced to life for his murder. this most heinous got front page coverage in no national newspaper (tabloid or 0therwise)
Lorraine Warren said,
August 11, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I moved to England before the trial and am now just catching up.
4 years is a disgrace for anyone who has killed. We all do things in the heat of the moment but ask yourselves honestly what would it take for you to actually kill someone? How far would they have to push you before you strangled them?
Let’s not cast aspertions on what was going on at the time of the killing- we will never know, the point is this killer went to far and jail is where he should stay for longer than 4 years.
lisa said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:14 pm
i think its an obsolute Disgrace that he got only 4 years. FOR heavens sake Robert was a child.. and he is an adult (a very stupid one) he should be hung.. Who the hell does he think he is takin a young boys life, THROWING STONES AT A CAR AND THEIR WAS NO DAMAGE ON IT COME THE HELL ON, there is worse stuff that youngsters are doing these days. id spit in his face if i ever saw that pervert.
pauline said,
January 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm
i think that the death of robert was terrible and that wayne o donough should be put away forever because its not right doing things like that to young children. you never know when he gets out in four years time that he wont do it again but you hear of loads of people doing it again. and thats a terrible thing for roberts parents to be going through and to be thinking that in four years time that their sons murder will be out in only fours time
Nameless said,
February 12, 2007 at 12:24 am
I knew Robert. I hung around with him occaisionly in an estate nearby. We were not close but i knew him and he was some laugh. A really nice kid.
I also knew Majella to some certain extent. She is a kindhearted women who loves all her children very much.
Note that the following isn’t proven by source but is clearly my point of veiw based on my “relationship” with Robert:-
To all who think Majella is lying, you’re wrong. She wouldn’t make something like that up JUST to make sure HE gets a longer jail sentence.
Majella knows what it is like to lose a child and she would NOT put another family through the same. All she wants is justice for her son. We all do, and we’ll get it.
Yes, i pity Waynes family….i’m sure Majella does too which is why this is all the harder on the grieving Mother.
You may all think i’m crazy because of what i am saying but trust me, i knew him, his brother and sister, and Majella for 6years.
This is not why i am standing up for Majella however, although some of you may think that is the reason. I’m am standing up for her because it is what i believe is right. If i thought Wayne O’ Donoghue was in the right, i’d be speaking now on HIS behalf.
I am 16 years of age and I know the difference between moral and immoral say.
I just wanted to have my say.
Thank You.
Sarah said,
February 12, 2007 at 2:13 pm
How these things linger…to Nameless, I don’t think anyone here has accused Majella of lying – she didn’t make up the pieces of “evidence” – she just clearly fails to accept the innocent explanations for them.
To Pauline, Lisa etc, the whole point is that Wayne is not a pervert. There is no evidence whatsoever for there being any sexual aspect to Robert’s death. He killed a child and that is a terrible thing, but let’s save our condemnation for what he did not for what people suspect he might have done.
Dan said,
June 26, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I’m roberts 3rd cousin. I just happen to come accross this page when I was showing someone a link to the case. Well let me start by saying that I don’t like sara’s comments. Or at least the words she uses. She seems closed minded. For one, you forget to mention that there was no evidence at all that Robert was outside, throwing stones at his car. That everything that wayne said, was taken into account. Your failure, in yourself, is your belief that he isn’t a pervert. I’m not saying he isn’t or he is, as I don’t see enough evidence to suggest either way. Also you condem the papers, which to be fair your right to. They can be very one sided at the best of times and their headlines can range from Outrageous to a outlandish lie. Unfortuntly your doing the exact same thing. Your just pinpointing it as if your defending for him. As you said “the whole point is that Wayne is not a pervert”. What a close minded sentence that is. You might think now, because i’m his cousin, that I’m going to be on the opposite with a pitch fork demanding justice, which would be the first opinion of most people. Wrong. I’m an intelligent open minded person, and although I do hate Wayne for what he did, i hate the justice system just as much and the way this case was handled. What gives a judge the right to hand down a 4 year sentence (1 year got suspended if i recall) because he thought that he sincerely didn’t mean it… His opinion based on current evidence it seems, which is why this system fails as judges have too much power. And as I said, i hate wayne simply because he took a young life away, because he participated in a search for robert, because he tryed to dump the body and burn it and he tryed to get away. And this is what makes me so sad, that people don’t realise what would’v happend if Wayne O’Donoghue did get away with it. Would we ever find out about robert? And even now, will we ever know what really happend? And incase someone comments to say that i’m one sided because I hate Donoghue because he took the life out of someone, accident or no accident. Family or no family. Doesn’t matter. What matters is that i’m strong enough to remain opened minded to the case. But i’m not strong enough, to have any more faith in the justice in this country and many other places. I’m not strong enough to hear anymore storys of non-existent evidence. Theres a current trend in place right now, and that trend is still in place. What is it? It’s not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter.
Alan said,
January 19, 2008 at 12:25 am
He killed a child. Any normal person who did that would break down immediately to their own parents for family. He displayed a CHILLING aspect to his character to take a week to admit it and show his face to Robert’s parents during that period.
Something isn’t right with this story. But in any case, 3 years for taking the life of a child is a disgrace. Let’s assume for once second there was something sinister in this death, what message does it send out to others in Ireland who might kill children? Get a good lawyer and, even though it’s proven you killed a child, you get out in 3 years? It’s a joke.
Justice for Robert’s parents meant this guy should pay for his sin with at least 10 years in jail. Is a child’s life so meaningless to our judicial system.