The DPP have answers to give
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006Today saw the sentencing of Wayne O’Donoghue; the killer of 11-year old Robert Holohan. Handed down a sentence of 4 years for manslaughter, O’Donoghue can expect to be free by 2009, having already served a year in prison.
Sadly, this is not a fair verdict, nor was it a fair trial. In court today, Majella Holohan, Robert’s mother spoke about the circumstances of the death of her son. Why was Robert in Wayne’s room at 7:30 that morning when he was supposed to be at a friends house? Why did he make a 999 call shortly after? Why was semen found on his hand after the discovery of his body (which apparently is a 100% match with Wayne O’Donoghue), and why wasn’t this put to the jury? And why would someone kill a child just for throwing rocks at their car? These are questions that should have been asked during the trial, but Majella was forced by the possible legal ramifications to hold back until now.
During the search for the body, O’Donoghue assisted, knowing all the while where the body was and who put it there. It was an attempt to delay the inevitable. Perhaps he felt that if it was left long enough any forensic evidence would be inadmissable in court. Perhaps that’s why the alleged semen found didn’t make it to trial; although I doubt that. O’Donoghue has been seen all along as a man mis-understood; someone who went too far and regretted it ever since. There is a lot of evidence to suggest his actions are more sinister than we have been led to believe.
The fact is, from todays statement by Majella, one that she would certainly have made before now were it not for the DPP’s ignorance and the threat of sub judice, there are many questions that remain unanswered. The DPP have to explain their reasons for ignoring this evidence and given the huge effect it would have on any conviction, it had better be an air-tight one.
Blogs elsewhere
January 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
It would be wrong for the DPP to comment in anyway on the statement of Mrs. Holohan. It is not for you or I or even Mrs. Holohan to determine the validity of the evidence she claims was not introduced during the trial. While understandable, Mrs. Holohan was wrong to introduce new evidence. The defence is entitled to question the validity and relevance of such evidence but to do so would amount to a retrial. She was smart not to provide a complete text of her impact statement to the court beforehand. However I feel the judge should have dismissed the evidence and instructed the press not to report on that evidence. Had such comments been made outside the court the press would not have reported the detail.
The court process may not be perfect but it is far better than mob rule, where rumour and conjecture hold sway over actual evidence. On this point it is irresponsible for you to state that the semen was 100% match for Wayne O’Donoghue. This was not stated by anyone involved in the trial including Mrs. Holohan, and you should withdraw the comment. Stay with the facts.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I think it’s only fair that the DPP admit or deny that such evidence exists. They don’t have to give their reasons for withholding such evidence (which is a joke in itself).
Mrs. Holohan was taking her oppertunity to state what she believes was wrong with the case, she was under privilege to do so and these comments had no effect on the case or the sentence handed down. The papers would have reported on the comments if they were out of court, but they probably wouldn’t have been made because there would be a possibility of a slander charge brought against her. The judge can not instruct the press not to report something once it is not sub judice or in contempt.
As for my comments on the semen, I have at no point put them forward as fact and stated that it was apparently the case, not certainly. In fact this entire entry is based upon the claims of Mrs. Holohan and are in no way legally factual, they do, however, leave a lot of questions that the DPP should answer and that the public have a right to hear.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Wayne O’Donoghue has been sentenced to four years in jail for the manslaughter of his neighbour and friend, 11-year-old Robert Holohan, writes Barry Roche, Southern Correspondent, in Ennis
O’Donoghue (21), from Ballyedmond, Midleton, Co Cork who was acquitted of the boy’s murder, has already spent a year in custody and is expected to be released within two years.
Mr Justice Paul Carney, in sentencing O’Donoghue yesterday, said he believed the injuries suffered by Robert were “at the horseplay end of the scale”, although he strongly criticised him for dumping Robert’s body and covering up his crime. He said he took into account that O’Donoghue had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
During the hearing, Robert’s mother, Majella, said semen had been found on Robert’s body and she asked what her son was doing in O’Donoghue’s bedroom at 7.30am on December 29th, 2004, when he was supposed to be at a sleep-over elsewhere.
“Our doctors have told us to try and get on with our lives but how can we, knowing that there was semen found on my son’s body?” she asked in her victim impact statement.
The Irish Times has learned that the semen, which was initially matched to Wayne O’Donoghue, was not introduced by the DPP after the scientist who carried out the tests expressed some doubts after testing a second sample.
The first sample was taken from the palm of Robert’s left hand by State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy at postmortem and, along with other samples from Robert’s body, was given priority by the gardaí and sent to Britain for analysis.
A team under Dr Jonathan Whitaker at the Forensic Science Service laboratory at Wetherby, Yorkshire, tested the sample using a new DNA-testing technique called low copy number (LCN), which allows matches to be found from very few sample cells.
Dr Whitaker tested the swab taken from Robert’s palm and compared it with a DNA sample taken from O’Donoghue when he was arrested by gardaí on January 16th, 2005.
Dr Whitaker concluded the likelihood of the semen sample coming from anyone else but O’Donoghue was one in 70 million and, on foot of his report in the spring, the DPP directed that O’Donoghue be charged with Robert’s murder.
However, gardaí had also taken a number of items from O’Donoghue’s house, including a mat from the bathroom where he said he had lain Robert, as he tried to revive him after strangling him outside the house on January 4th.
Samples of material taken from this bathroom mat were later sent to Wetherby where Dr Whitaker again carried out DNA LCN testing and concluded it also contained semen which was not identical to the semen from Robert’s hand.
This second sample led him to express some doubts about his first analysis and he revised his report, declining to give a statistical likelihood of the first sample belonging to anyone else but O’Donoghue.
Upon receipt of Dr Whitaker’s second amended report on the semen found on Robert’s hand, the DPP decided it would be unsafe to introduce the sample as evidence as it was not sufficiently certain and could prejudice the State’s case.
While interviewing O’Donoghue following his arrest, detectives asked him what he would say if it turned out semen was found on Robert’s body and he replied he was sure they would not find his semen on the body. Later in the course of a conversation with an officer during a remand hearing in Midleton, O’Donoghue was asked how could his semen have ended up on Robert. He replied that he must have picked it up from a towel.
In sentencing O’Donoghue, Mr Justice Carney stressed that he was basing his decision solely on the evidence opened before him during O’Donoghue’s trial at the Central Criminal Court sitting in December in Cork and on nothing else.
Questioned after yesterday’s sentencing about the semen allegation, O’Donoghue’s solicitor Frank Buttimer said his client “denies any impropriety of any kind whatsoever with regard to that”.
Asked if it was O’Donoghue’s semen that was found on Robert’s body, Mr Buttimer said “any implication of that type is flatly denied” and he insisted “all relevant evidence was led by the prosecution in this trial”.
Mr Buttimer said his client would not be appealing the sentence, while Mark and Majella Holohan appealed for privacy, thanking all those who helped in the search and “brought our little boy back to us”.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
The simple fact is the semen evidence could not stand up to scrutiny. other xperts have said the method is unrealiable (which initally implicated the convicted man). Since Mrs Holohan have made remarks suggesting that o’ Donoghue’s relationship to her son was ‘obbsessive’. COME ON PEOPLE! Wayne was a full-time university student, worked part time in a bar, played with a local junior soccer team, went frrequently for a’few pints with his own age group and courted one of the finest young ladies in Midleton Where did he get the time to be obbsessive with Robert? Despite all this Mrs Holohan was going to ask him to read a prayer at Robert’s mass. As regards the 6 am appearance in Waynes bedrooom I refer anyone interested in the truth to an article by Maeve Shannon in the ‘Sunday Independent’ the 30 January. It clearly establishes Clearly Robert slept where He was supposed to have (on the sleep over) and the call took place in the evening as well as the cell phone picture
February 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I don’t think O’Donoghue’s pass-times prove or disprove anything; and regardless I still feel the DPP have acted in an extremely poor manner.
I never heard about the prayer issue, and as I am not a Sindo reader I cannot comment on the article you mention; I’m not sure how that article proved anything, if it did why weren’t the points raised repeated by others?