This is an attempt to list and then possibly explain some of the contradictory evidence in the Robert Holohan case. While most of this account just details the anomalies in the case the end conclusion mighn't be to everybody's liking!
The bare facts are known by everybody I'm sure but just to recap. On 4th Jan 2005 11 year old Robert Holohan went missing from his home at Ballyedmond, a rural area near Middleton Co.Cork, giving rise to huge local and even nationwide interest in his disappearance. Inevitably in the days to follow there was much speculation about paedophile rings in the area, which even gave rise to questions in the Dail (1), until Robert's next door neighbour, Wayne O'Donoghue, was arrested and charged with his murder. O'Donoghue was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter and has recently been released after serving a comparatively short time in jail. His conviction effectively rested on his statements to the Gardaí admitting the crime of killing Robert Holohan by strangling him accidentally during 'horseplay'.
The perplexing thing about this case (as has been pointed out by a number of people e.g. by Stephen Rae, the Evening Herald editor, on Questions and Answers on the occasion of O'Donoghue's release) is that Wayne O'Donoghue's statement does not seem to tally properly with the facts outlined in court and in the media, in fact the version of events in his statement seems to be physically impossible based on the forensic and other evidence. The anomalies of the case, and how it conflicts with O'Donoghue's statement, go something like this:
1) He said that Robert had thrown stones at his car which began an argument between them but Det Garda Thomas Carey gave detailed forensic evidence to the court ruling out the possibility of the car being recently hit by stones like that.(2)
2) Robert Holohan is said to have made a 999 call either on the day he died, or late the previous night. (Which it is depends on the timing of Robert's phone, a subject in high dispute). Obviously this is completely contrary to O'Donoghue's account and the official explanation of this is apparently that Robert was seen once messing with his phone and accidentally rang 999 and that maybe the same thing happened this time. Mighty coincidental though isn't it? (3)
3) Images were deliberately deleted from Robert's mobile phone when it was found and examined, again contrary to O'Donoghue's statement.(4)
4) The whole question of the semen. For those who haven't been following this the official explanation is that semen was found on Robert's hand, was sent off by the prosecution to the lab of Dr Jonathan Whitaker in England and he reported back, with a certainty of 1 in 70 million, that the semen was Wayne O'Donoghue's. Then the Gardaí send over for testing semen from the family's bathroom mat and in response Whitaker changes his report to say that he is no longer certain it was Wayne's. The defence get these reports, do their own testing, and conclude it definitely wasn't Wayne's and so the whole story of the semen is not put before the jury at the trial. Then Robert's mother dramatically raises the issue in her victim impact statement, when the trial is effectively over, in a way that incidentally kick starts a huge tabloid frenzy that, for a time anyway, badly demonised O'Donoghue.
Maybe the curious thing here is the strange way that Whitaker's statement changes so markedly after only a few months. Effectively we are being asked to believe that a geneticist would change his story so dramatically when confronted by the evidence that people living in the same house as Wayne O'Donoghue had similar DNA and hence could have been the source of the semen. But of course geneticists know that relatives have similar DNA - thats pretty much the whole point of genetic science ! - and presumably virtually every crime scene has the potential for this kind of crossover, because relatives with similar DNA normally live with one another, e.g. parents with their children etc. Therefore how could Whitaker go from being so confident to so unsure in such a space of time? Btw this same scientist was a leading figure in the Omagh prosecution case in Belfast which collapsed recently, alongwith the reputations of many of those government figures connected with it. That trial has become notorious for its "forensically altered" evidence and the judge himself was not at all happy with Dr Whitaker.(5) The suspicion is that if the powers that be wanted to stitch up somebody, using dodgy DNA goings on, then Whitaker was the man to contact and was that why he was brought into the Holohan case ?
5) The prosecution initially claimed that Robert had taken a photograph on his phone in Wayne's bedroom at 7.30 am one morning, apparently therefore showing a more sinister side to the friendship between these two people. But the defence was able to show that the phone was not even purchased by Robert at that time, and therefore that this was impossible. There is also apparently a statement made by a third party, Heather Harte, which corroborates Wayne's statement that the picture was taken in the afternoon or late in the evening. How is this discrepancy to be explained, except that maybe somebody had deliberately tampered with the phone settings on Robert's phone to discredit O'Donoghue, or maybe to disguise the real timing of the 999 call ? (6)
6) The forensic examination of the body was not consistent with Wayne's account, according to the State pathologist at the trial. In particular there were marks on Robert's buttocks, mouth and back that remain unexplained. Also there is evidence that somebody tried to burn Robert's body, or at least that some fire was involved in his death, but Wayne is adamant that that is not the case. He admitted only to a small feeble effort to burn the plastic bags not to touch the body at all :
"Yet the forensic expert Det Garda Thomas Carey told how he found charred twigs under Robert's buttocks some 10 feet from the burnt plastic, while there were burn marks on the hem of his T-shirt and the waist of his pants."(7)
7) Other forensic evidence is seemingly incompatitible with Wayne's statement eg. there is no mention there of Wayne wearing gloves but when Robert's bicycle was found, which Wayne had planted, a number of sets of finger prints were found but not Wayne's. As regards the 2 black plastic bags which he said he used to transport the body no prints were found on them either, only on a seperate small white plastic bag found near the body. Also at the trial Det Garda Carey explained that he found mudstains on Robert's clothing which matched neither where he was found nor where he was killed. Furthermore, according to Barry Roche in the Irish Times, "perhaps the most puzzling aspects of O'Donoghue's version of events relate to" the time it took to go back to the scene and relocate Robert's body at Inch. Apparently its impossible to do that in the short space of time between 7.55pm, when he was seen on CCTV in Foley's garage in Middleton, and 8.30, when he was watching TV with his girlfriend. Also Ivan O'Flynn, a telecommunications expert, at the trial contradicted his statements on the route he took to Inch, apparently O'Donohue's mobile phone shows that he went a different route from the one in his statement.(8) Btw when he was transporting the body in the trunk of his car, in a blind panic we are told, he called into Foley's garage and bought a lucozade.
8) Finally, and intriguingly, we have the whole bizarre story of Robert's phone being tracked to Inch and exposing the body's location many days after he went missing. We are told that by some complete magic the phone company was able to boost the phone's signal, charging its battery via the phone masts, and locating it long after most had assumed the battery had gone dead (because why else could they not have tracked it earlier?) Afaik this is a completely new, and you'd have to wonder, utterly made up capability for mobile phones and hence maybe casts doubt on the Garda explanation as to how it targeted that location to retreive the body.(9)
But if his statement is so incorrect then what exactly happened? Wayne O'Donoghue is of course totally adament that he did kill Robert Holohan, as well as his statement given to Gardaí, including a video statement shown during the court case, he basically confirmed this in his speech to the press when he got out of jail some time ago. Furthermore, if you think about it, it doesn't seem that O'Donoghue has any good reason to lie about these matters. Once he admitted the killing then the chances were he was going to go to jail for quite a while, it really would be, and was, unexpected that he would get such a light sentence. I suspect in a lot of these cases if people are going to admit their guilt, because their conscience dictated they should, then the chances are they will just outline the true version of events. To sort of come clean with only half the story would strike you as unlikely and not really in O'Donoghue's interests. Another thing that would strike you about the case is the character of Wayne O'Donoghue. He comes across a very nice guy, running errands all the time on behalf of his brother, his girlfriend and even Robert Holohan. Press accounts frequently refer to this with his teachers for example prepared to go character witness on his behalf, and his own statement to the media seemed to be a modest account of how sorry he was to have caused trouble for everybody etc. No doubt this also impressed the judge which is why he did gave that lenient sentence. But if you look at the official version of the case, not to mention the controversial parts like burning the body, it is hardly the actions of somebody like that? Also a lot of the anomolies in the case could hardly be placed at Wayne O'Donoghue's door, like the mobile phone mast thing or the whole semen imbroglio which happened while he was in jail.
At this point I cheerfully admit I now enter the realms of speculation, and no doubt, in the eyes of some, into conspiracy theorising, not to mention science fiction ! This is just this writers opinion for what its worth, one attempt to connect the dots across what seems a completely contradictory landscape. My guess is that what happened is similar to the explanation given by the late Joe Vialls into the Soham murders in England. In a number of articles this famous Australian researcher claimed that the evidence showed that Huntley was incarcerated in a mental hospital in the run up to his trial and there, using a combination of hypnosis and drugs, a false memory was implanted into him that he had killed the two girls when actually he was innocent.(10) That the powers that be have the capacity to implant false memories into people is I think beyond doubt as you can see in some quotes from a Guardian article:
"Alan Alda had nothing against hard-boiled eggs until last spring. Then the actor, better known as Hawkeye from M*A*S*H, paid a visit to the University of California, Irvine. In his new guise as host of a science series on American TV, he was exploring the subject of memory. The researchers showed him round, and afterwards took him for a picnic in the park. By the time he came to leave, he had developed a dislike of hard-boiled eggs based on a memory of having made himself sick on them as a child - something that never happened.For more details on that researcher, Dr Elizabeth Loftus who is a leading expert in this area, we have this from the Orange City Register:
.... "If the formation of false memories depends on beta-adrenergic activation, then it would seem very possible that propranolol [a drug that 'interferes with the neurochemical pathway' in the brain ] administration could affect them," says the UCI neuro- biologist Larry Cahill, who has also investigated the effects of the drug in PTSD patients. But Ray Dolan of UCL, a co-author with Bryan Strange of the study on memory for emotional words, points out that not all false memories have a common basis. If they are interpolations into gaps in memory, such as the gap that opened up before the presentation of an emotionally arousing word, or possibly the gap into which Alan Alda inserted a memory of having over-indulged in eggs, then it is conceivable the drug would work. But, says Dolan, "Other classes of false memory, for example, where the memories are fantasies or out-and-out fabrications, would be immune to propranolol."
The idea of doctors having the power to wipe the memory clean sends shivers down many people's spines. False memories could safely be erased, perhaps, assuming there was a reliable way of differentiating them from true ones. Although brain-imaging techniques highlight some differences in patterns of brain activation when a person recalls a true as opposed to a false memory, these are statistical differences only. "We are so far away from being able to use these techniques to reliably classify a single memory as being real or not real," says Loftus, "Yet that is what the courts have to do."(11)
"I've spent three decades learning how to alter people's memories. I've even gone so far as planting entirely false memories into the minds of ordinary people - memories such as being lost in a shopping mall, cutting your hand on broken glass or even witnessing demonic possession as a child, all planted through the power of suggestion.
Psychological scientists have learned so much about planting false memories that some say we almost have recipes for doing so. But we haven't seen anything yet. Over the next 50 years we will further master the ability to create false memories. We will learn more about who is most susceptible and what works with what kind of people. The most potent recipes may involve pharmaceuticals that we are on the brink of discovering."(13)
And that is what I think happened to Wayne O'Donoghue, that he didn't do it at all but that somehow somebody has implanted into him a false memory of having killed Robert Holohan. I know I know of all the daft explanations you ever heard about.........lol.....the point is that the above accounts do make it clear that this is possible and should be considered no matter how outrageous it sounds. But of course it is a dangerous road to go down, clearly if you are going to start explaining away testimony that way you could neatly cast doubt on virtually every court case imaginable, I mean without any evidence for this surely it should just remain as idle and highly unlikely speculation.
There is just one itsy bitsy little clue that I am clinging onto that might point this way. To go back to the Soham murders in England one clue was picked up by Vialls that pointed to the fact that Huntley had been hypnotised into saying what he said. Its a well know feature of hypnosis that it is very difficult to get people to do something, or give people a false memory of having done something, which is contrary to their inbuilt morality. If for example stealing money from a church collection was something you would never ever do then in hypnosis it would be very difficult to get you to believe that you had done that. If you bear that in mind you could wonder at the explanation that Ian Huntley gave as to how the two girls died in Soham. Initially he denied of course that he did anything wrong (and in video evidence given to the police shortly afterwards he and his girlfriend can be seen completely relaxed giving this innocent version of events) then he later admitted that the girls had died because of some bizarre nose bleed that one of them had in his bathroom. In otherwords he never admitted to any really bad motivation on his part, only a kind of an accident but it was enough to convict him in most people's eyes because it was in total contrast to his earlier denials. Just like O'Donoghue's account this lie on Huntley's part (as Vialls and others stated the evidence shows it couldn't have happened that way) seems to have no logical motivation, he couldn't have expected to be treated leniently once he admitted they died in his presence. Obviously this kind of innocentish explanation, which both people have emerged with and which convicted both, seems to tally with somebody using hypnosis on them, these bizarre explanations might have emerged because the moral code of both Huntley and O'Donoghue might have meant that it was impossible to get them to admit to the full horrible murders.
In any case thats this writers tuppence worth on why O'Donoghue's statement and the surrounding facts seem to be so much in conflict. It seems in retrospect too that O'Donoghue might have known details about the real circumstances of the case which could have made him dangerous to the real perpetrators and which memory might also have become erased, and anyway as the last person to see Robert Holohan alive he, just like Huntley, becomes the obvious target if anybody is to be stitched up for it. It is known that in the few days before he admitted the killing to his father he had been in close contact with the gardai, apparently giving a number of statements including one that seemed to implicate Robert's family although very little is in the public domain about what he was saying in those statements.(14) Anyway if he was hypnotised it could have been done then, the point being that he was in touch with the powers that be before he made an admission to his father. Other than that we are told that he has been on anti-depressants but we get no other facts on whether or not he was in touch with psychiatric personnel or institutions (where a lot of this mind manipulation is done apparently.)
Thinking outside the box I admit but still it's an explanation that does explain why his statement and the surrounding facts are so much in conflict?
Footnotes