I hadn't thought of that contrast but you are absolutely right.It certainly is strange just how little coverage it has been given. The similarly tragic story of Nora Quoirin got a huge amount of coverage here so why so little about this story?
I remember reading about it at the time but it didn't get huge notice.It certainly is strange just how little coverage it has been given.
I remember reading about it at the time but it didn't get huge notice.
It seems to have got some more media traction recently as politicians have got involved.
When I read the details recently of the case I was really puzzled. For the death to be accidental you would have to believe that an otherwise normal 13-year-old spontaneously discarded his clothes, cycled around naked, and then descended into an unlocked storm drain to drown. Highly unusual events do sometimes occur but I think there will inevitably be question marks around this awful death for a long time.
I have a hunch that is partly because media outlets seem to have dedicated reporters \ setup at courts.It did get a lot of coverage. Both sides of the border. The issue with this and all these stories is that people don't care enough for long enough. It's human nature. Three children died in a house this week in horrific circumstances. It was in the main news for one day with a couple of small follow up stories.
The idiot locked up for contempt of court got more sustained coverage over the past few days.....
I don't think it did Sunny. Given the nature of what happened, the number of unexplained things in this case and the fact that there is still not even a whiff of a suggestion that the police have a clue what happened here, the amount of coverage has been strangely sparse.It did get a lot of coverage. Both sides of the border.
That’s the really odd bit. Why should it be necessary to withhold information in this case in particular?Stranger and stranger... is this common?
Coroner approves PSNI attempt to withhold material from Noah Donohoe inquest
Justice Michael Humphreys said disclosing the information would create a real risk of harm to the public interest.www.thejournal.ie
Because the PSNI most likely spoke to a confidential informant in the course of the search and they don't want his name being read out in open court. There is an innocent explanation here. I can accept that it is difficult for the family in this case.Why should it be necessary to withhold information in this case in particular?
There are ways and processes around a confidential informant giving evidence, ranging from the inquest being held in camera to the coroner or judge granting a witness anonymity order. It's a well proven path so why would it be such an issue now?Because the PSNI most likely spoke to a confidential informant in the course of the search and they don't want his name being read out in open court. There is an innocent explanation here. I can accept that it is difficult for the family in this case.
I don't know and can only speculate. I can imagine many hypothetical scenarios however where security services would have legitimate reasons for not wanting information about a CI to be aired in any venue, even in camera. That has to be weighed up against the rights of the family to know and the general principle of this stuff being done in public.It's a well proven path so why would it be such an issue now?
Agreed, but it is, in effect, a state sponsered cover up with no clear reason being given why that is so, Given the questions about the PSNI's original behaviour around the search at the time as well and the fact that a report on their behaviour is amongst the documents being restricted then you have to wonder, who are they covering for and why?.I don't know and can only speculate. I can imagine many hypothetical scenarios however where security services would have legitimate reasons for not wanting information about a CI to be aired in any venue, even in camera. That has to be weighed up against the rights of the family to know and the general principle of this stuff being done in public.
The ultimate decision was taken at the level of the Secretary of State for NI so I would imagine there was pretty serious thought put into this.
But isn't that just because the storm drain access wasn't locked? It doesn't go any way towards clearing up what actually happened.The case gets murkier... possible charges of corporate manslaughter?
You might be right, but then how could you even consider bringing such charges unless you knew how he ended up there. There's something off about this case.But isn't that just because the storm drain access wasn't locked? It doesn't go any way towards clearing up what actually happened.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?