What are peoples opinions on his release? It’s my belief that he served the time that the state handed down to him without complaint and that he should now be left in peace. I seriously doubt he’ll kill again, as I said to Flano I’d rather share my bus to town with Wayne O’Donoghue as opposed to a pack of scum bag junkies!
On the whole, he’s a fuck who killed a kid, prolonged the horror for the parents by not owning up(he even helped in the search) and is out after four years or so. However he was tried and convicted and has served his sentence so there’s not much you can give out about. I think he should disappear for his own sake.
On a personal note he’s in my celebrity death squad so…
Would love to disagree with Darren Anderton but I share exactly the same viewpoint
I think calling him a “fuck who killed a kid” is harsh. He clearly didn’t mean to do it, he was just messing around and it went horribly wrong. What he did very wrong was prolong the horror but he’s been adequately punished for that and it’s now done and dusted. I expect him to get hounded, can’t believe he got away so easily from the media so far, but in time it will pass.
[quote=“Juhniallio”]On the whole, he’s a fuck who killed a kid, prolonged the horror for the parents by not owning up(he even helped in the search) and is out after four years or so. However he was tried and convicted and has served his sentence so there’s not much you can give out about. I think he should disappear for his own sake.
On a personal note he’s in my celebrity death squad so…[/quote]
I wonder if I’m reading the Evening Herald or a post by Juhniallo here…
Don’t think you can say that for sure. You only have his word which, given his subsequent actions, I would be wary of. Also I found it incredible that he didn’t have to take the stand in his own murder trial. But that’s what happened and he was found guilty of manslaughter and served his sentence so let him be.
Harsh? Why? Cos he didn’t kill a kid? Or cos I called him a fuck? I’d call you a fuck if you spilt my pint or start some sort of faceslapping contest at the bar in McDaids before abusing strangers. I’m not super hardcore about this or anything, but if I did kill someone(even if I didn’t mean to) to be called a fuck is something I couldn’t argue against. Meaning to do it is also pretty subjective. He didn’t knock him over in his car by accident, he got angry, strangled the kid, watched him die, took the body into his house, later bundled it into his car and then left him miles away. Then he said nothing for days.
If I was a Holohan I would be seriously pissed off that 4 years later he is out. As I said in my first post, he was convicted and served the sentence so you can’t give out about it.
Apologies Ben but the other thread is well worn and oft posted by most of us so you shouldn’t be too aghast. Anyway it was meant as a joke, a little black maybe, but a gag all the same.
Darren Anderton Farmer? Nice. Although with my goalscoring record for tfk I should be Ruud Van Nistlerooy when he did the knee. Anyway, I should be back monday.
What can I not say for sure? That he didn’t mean it. I can because that’s what all the evidence (prosecution and defence) at the trial amounted to. There’s no evidence to the contrary because nothing to the contrary happened. Obviously I wasn’t there so I can only go on what’s in the public domain but that’s the same as you.
Why would he have to take the stand? Because he’s Wanye O’Donoghue or because you think everyone should always have to take the stand?
Ok I agree that the only evidence out there is that he didn’t mean to do it. The only evidence they had was his confession where he said that he didn’t mean to do it so they weighted it up and decided that he was probably telling the truth.
From your post I thought you were expressing a personal opinion - as in I, therock67, believe that he didn’t mean to do it. You went so far as to say that ‘clearly’ he didn’t mean to do it. I, personally, don’t agree. I think that anyone who would dump a child in a ditch, someone you were very close to, is not the type of person whose word I would trust. Something just doesn’t add up for me in the whole thing but O’Donoghue went through the justice system and has nothing else to answer.
Surely the most relevant person at Wayne O’Donoghue’s murder trial is Wayne O’Donoghue and he should have been cross examined.
[quote=“farmerinthecity”]Ok I agree that the only evidence out there is that he didn’t mean to do it. The only evidence they had was his confession where he said that he didn’t mean to do it so they weighted it up and decided that he was probably telling the truth.
From your post I thought you were expressing a personal opinion - as in I, therock67, believe that he didn’t mean to do it. You went so far as to say that ‘clearly’ he didn’t mean to do it. I, personally, don’t agree. I think that anyone who would dump a child in a ditch, someone you were very close to, is not the type of person whose word I would trust. Something just doesn’t add up for me in the whole thing but O’Donoghue went through the justice system and has nothing else to answer.
Surely the most relevant person at Wayne O’Donoghue’s murder trial is Wayne O’Donoghue and he should have been cross examined.[/quote]
Something ‘doesn’t add up for you’???
- Thanks be to fuck you’re not a guard then…although you probably should be.
- They solved this case. And tried him.
Still think I was harsh Rock?
[quote=“farmerinthecity”]Ok I agree that the only evidence out there is that he didn’t mean to do it. The only evidence they had was his confession where he said that he didn’t mean to do it so they weighted it up and decided that he was probably telling the truth.
From your post I thought you were expressing a personal opinion - as in I, therock67, believe that he didn’t mean to do it. You went so far as to say that ‘clearly’ he didn’t mean to do it. I, personally, don’t agree. I think that anyone who would dump a child in a ditch, someone you were very close to, is not the type of person whose word I would trust. Something just doesn’t add up for me in the whole thing but O’Donoghue went through the justice system and has nothing else to answer.
Surely the most relevant person at Wayne O’Donoghue’s murder trial is Wayne O’Donoghue and he should have been cross examined.[/quote]
You have absolutely nothing to suggest other than it was an accident. You’re not familiar with all the evidence, you aren’t an expert in pathology but still you’ve a niggling suspicion that you know better than the judge, the State Pathologist, the 6 Counties Pathologist, the jury and the legal teams. It’s easy to compare yourself to Wayne O’Donoghue and not trust him, but you’re also casting doubt on the competencies, integrities and judgements of the above institutions. And frankly you don’t know better than them.
I don’t think Wayne’s a model citizen at all but I thought it was a very fair verdict. I thought there’d be an inclination to punish him severely for the emotions involved in the crime but they didn’t. In fact if he hadn’t hidden the body and lied about it at first then I doubt he’d have been given a custodian sentence at all. Because the crime itself was bad but unintentional. It’s the callous cover-up that was rightly punished.
In light of subsequent statements from Juhniallio I no longer think he was harsh.
So what you are effectively saying is that I have no right to think that O’Donughue may be guilty of murder becuase he was found not guilty.
So can I ask you if you think that John Gilligan was involved in the murder of Veronica Guerin? Were The Birmingham Six/Guillford Four guilty up to the point where their conviction was overturned?
[quote=“farmerinthecity”]So what you are effectively saying is that I have no right to think that O’Donughue may be guilty of murder becuase he was found not guilty.
So can I ask you if you think that John Gilligan was involved in the murder of Veronica Guerin? Were The Birmingham Six/Guillford Four guilty up to the point where their conviction was overturned?[/quote]
Are those murderous bastards out??
[quote=“farmerinthecity”]So what you are effectively saying is that I have no right to think that O’Donughue may be guilty of murder becuase he was found not guilty.
So can I ask you if you think that John Gilligan was involved in the murder of Veronica Guerin? Were The Birmingham Six/Guillford Four guilty up to the point where their conviction was overturned?[/quote]
I don’t know enough about John Gilligan to know whether he was involved or not. I’ll be careful where I take my info from though and won’t rely on Garda leaks to the press.
There was plenty of evidence to cast doubt on the convictions of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 - enough to get them released in fact. Have you a similar smoking gun for Wayne O’Donoghue or is the extent of your comparison just that both have been before the courts?
My essential point is that I do not believe that we should accept a court’s decision as being correct in all instances. Because a court found O’Donoghue not guilty of murder does not mean that I can’t still have my doubts as to whether or not he is guilty of murder. The court can get it wrong and have done with The Birmingham Six etc. This is not necessarily just about O’Donoghue. It has to do with any court case.
I know what you saying about why would I have reason to doubt on the court in this particular instance. There is no evidence out there to suggest that it was anything other than an accident. But I just feel that anyone who dumped a body of someone that was meant to be like a brother to them in a ditch and then went searching for him whilst reassuring the parents is someone whose word I would not believe (only evidence to suggest it was an accident). I don’t think it was the actions of someone who did it as an accident. I am not saying that I am sure he did it deliberately. As I said before something just doesn’t add up.
Leave Wayne alone. The kid was a little bollox who acted the fuck and ended up dying because of it
Good debate gents.
An interesting point which came out today was the fact that Wayne couldn’t be prosecuted (and therefore sentenced for a longer period than the 4 years (3 served)) for hiding the body as he was never charged for it.
Surely that is a fuck-up by someone in the DPP or Guards.
On another matter, it is a fucking disgrace that Eddie Halvey (former Irish & Munster rugby player) is still being charged with drink-driving, but the DPP are not charging him with dangerous driving which killed a kid.
How can someone be presumed innocent of one crime yet still be charged with drink driving when they hapened at the same time?
The DPP do not have to explain their decisions either.
[quote=“farmerinthecity”]My essential point is that I do not believe that we should accept a court’s decision as being correct in all instances. Because a court found O’Donoghue not guilty of murder does not mean that I can’t still have my doubts as to whether or not he is guilty of murder. The court can get it wrong and have done with The Birmingham Six etc. This is not necessarily just about O’Donoghue. It has to do with any court case.
I know what you saying about why would I have reason to doubt on the court in this particular instance. There is no evidence out there to suggest that it was anything other than an accident. But I just feel that anyone who dumped a body of someone that was meant to be like a brother to them in a ditch and then went searching for him whilst reassuring the parents is someone whose word I would not believe (only evidence to suggest it was an accident). I don’t think it was the actions of someone who did it as an accident. I am not saying that I am sure he did it deliberately. As I said before something just doesn’t add up.[/quote]
There is plenty of forensic evidence to support O’Donoghue’s story and to confirm it was an accident. You have no evidence to the contrary except not taking O’Donoghue’s word for it. Again, I’m not asking you to. Listen to the experts instead.
It’s simple to throw out previous cases of injustice (in other countries it has to be said) as examples of the court getting it wrong but in reality there are zero commonalities between the Birmingham 6 and Wayne O’Donoghue.
[quote=“WhyOhWhy”]Good debate gents.
An interesting point which came out today was the fact that Wayne couldn’t be prosecuted (and therefore sentenced for a longer period than the 4 years (3 served)) for hiding the body as he was never charged for it.
Surely that is a fuck-up by someone in the DPP or Guards.
On another matter, it is a fucking disgrace that Eddie Halvey (former Irish & Munster rugby player) is still being charged with drink-driving, but the DPP are not charging him with dangerous driving which killed a kid.
How can someone be presumed innocent of one crime yet still be charged with drink driving when they hapened at the same time?
The DPP do not have to explain their decisions either.[/quote]
Not sure about the first point WoW - some sort of “obstructing the course of justice” charge or something like that? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some sort of deal done where O’Donoghue told them everything in return for being seen to be cooperative.
The Halvey point is a good one though. Read that in the paper the other day and meant to post it here. It beggars belief that he can be charged with drunk driving, kill someone on that drunk driving journey, and not be charged with dangerous driving causing death. Maybe more will come to light later but it seems unfathomable at this stage.
Tom McGurk has a decent article on this in today’s Business Post
Journalism sinks to new lows with hounding of O’Donoghue
20 January 2008
By Tom McGurk
The circus surrounding the release of Wayne O’Donoghue from prison has highlighted the often savage behaviour of the ‘new Irish media’.
It has not been a good week for journalism in Ireland. For a variety of reasons, the reception committee that some had planned for Wayne O’Donoghue on his release from prison last Wednesday - on the completion of his manslaughter sentence for killing 11-year-old Robert Holohan - bombed.
Things started to go wrong early last week. Some newspaper editors were on radio and television, telling us that they would be there because ‘‘Wayne O’Donoghue has some questions to answer’’. What questions, one wondered, and on whose behalf were they asking them? For stalwart and doughty defenders of Irish society, such as Rupert Murdoch or Tony O’Reilly, perhaps?
Of course, it was essentially an exercise in prurience, a disguise for an intended media ‘lynching’ of O’Donoghue. One wonders whether it is necessary to send these editors back to civics class to understand that the only body in this Republic legally entitled to demand answers of its citizens (and only in certain circumstances) is the courts.
Having completed the entire judicial process, and having answered (or not) all the questions asked of him to the satisfaction of the courts, O’Donoghue was under no obligation to answer any questions to anybody - least of all to a media kangaroo court designed, not for the betterment of society, but for the sale of newspapers.
Nor can one find any reasonable journalistic explanation for the sight of reporters wandering the streets of O’Donoghue’s local town, enquiring as to whether his neighbours wanted him back in the area. What on earth were they hoping to find? In the event, the compassion and decency of the people of Midleton shown to both families caught up in this terrible tragedy were truly compelling in the face of such ghoulish journalistic excess. It was the one highlight of a grim week.
Importantly, it was also part of a growing public reaction against the tactics and practices of many of our newspapers. Not for the first time, the ‘new Irish media’ totally misunderstood the public mood. The Questions & Answers audience on Monday night and the various callers to radio and television programmes over the week clearly indicated that there was no mood for a public ‘execution’.
Given the huge changes in ownership of the Irish media in the last decade, should this miscalculation come as a surprise? The Celtic tiger’s advertising potential has brought the yellow end of Fleet Street here, and they still labour under the mistaken impression that Ireland is just another part of the wider British culture, albeit one where the natives speak in a funny accent.
For all their furious headlines and circulation wars, fundamentally understanding the heartbeat of ‘Paddy-land’ is still beyond their cultural horizons. They consistently -and mistakenly - assume that the sales of their tabloids here are for something other than what they are actually for: Premiership coverage and celebrity gossip.
At the centre of the O’Donoghue/Holohan tragedy, there was an immensely significant journalistic inquiry. However, our brave boys and girls from the fourth estate, bravely sleeping out overnight at the prison gates, seemed to have missed it completely. Since the evidential involvement of low count DNA (known as LCN), as opposed to normal DNA, began in Britain in 1999, the controversy about its usage has grown to international proportions.
At the time, the Irish media missed the enormous significance of the British forensic laboratory’s decision to withdraw as evidence, at a late stage, an analysis of a semen sample found on Robert Holohan’s body. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time such a bizarre sequence of forensic events had occurred, with a completed LCN test being withdrawn subsequent to a decision to prosecute for murder being taken.
Majella Holohan, in her victim impact statement, told how she was led to believe that the semen was O’Donoghue’s. However, what is now obvious is that the laboratory -in the face of uncertainties about the reliability of the test and the possibility of a court rejecting an ‘infallible’ LCN test -withdrew its analysis.
Whatever about O’Donoghue answering questions, why was our media seemingly not interested in asking questions of the laboratory involved? Moreover, when just before Christmas, the Sean Hoey Omagh bomb trial - involving the largest mass murder in Irish criminal history - collapsed, the media did not appear to notice that this case, too, was mounted largely on the basis of similar LCN technology from the same British laboratory.
In contrast to chasing Wayne O’Donoghue around the country - given the plans to introduce a DNA databank in Ireland - here was an authentic journalistic inquiry of immense public importance, which RTE’s Prime Time finally picked up on this week.
Since LCNuses such tiny amounts of DNA, and DNA can be transferred from one person to another by simply shaking hands, the exact circumstances of its forensic collection are critical.
Such was Lord Justice Weir’s condemnation of the methods of collection used in the Omagh case that the Crown Prosecution Service in Britain subsequently declared an immediate moratorium on its usage.
As Allan Jamieson of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, who testified in the Omagh trial, said: ‘‘LCN stretches the reliability of DNA evidence. The standard DNA technique is very reliable, but we’ve now pushed the technology to the absolute limit, and we’re still using the same certainty. Unfortunately, what we don’t know from the experimental work is how reliable this technique is.”
For another generation, the ghost of the appalling vista of forensic scientist John Yallop, his TCL testing and the infamous Irish miscarriage of justice cases in the 1970s, has reemerged.
There will be more journalistic questions to be asked if Ireland -a s the EU expects - signs the new Prum Treaty (2005), which intends to allow Europewide usage of national DNA databases by all police forces. Factor in Europe-wide arrest and extradition warrants, and the questions intensify. Will we sign the Prum Treat? Now there’s another useful question our media might ask Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan.
There’s one further significant question the media themselves will now have to answer: do those convicted of serious crime enjoy any rights or reputation at all under our constitution, or are they just reduced to mere human flotsam on the front pages? That will be the context of the forthcoming O’Donogue libel cases, when, for a change, we may see how good the media are at answering questions.