Recent murder/manslaughter cases

BrianD

I'm fascinated by the recent coverage and public attitudes to two cases the involved the death of a person - the McNally case (guilty of manslaughter) and the (charged with manslaughter, upgraded to murder and the trial is ongoing).

The McNally case has been much debated and there are calls for his release from certain groups. There certainly seemed to be grounds for a murder charge but he was found guilty of manslaughter. I would be of the opinion that there mitigating circumstances for the first shot but he fefinitely stepped over the line when he shot the victim a second time. During his trial he appeared to be out on bail (at least not in jail) and gave a number of interviews. There was plenty of debate about this case in the media - for both sides.

Then we have the Wayne O'Donoghue case (ongoing) where the victim was an 11 year old boy. At the time, I recall, there was all sorts of speculation that this was a sex crime. It now seems, from media reports of the court case, that this was some sort of horse play that went wrong. Certainly his behaviour after the deed was not to his credit and wrong doing is not in doubt. However the court will judge that but my opinion is that manslaughter is an appropriate charge. Why is he being charged with murder? Public opinion because a minor was the victim? Why has the media been pretty mute and unilateral in its coverage of the ongoing case? Siding with public opinion?

I understand that O'Donohue has been in jail since charged. Why is this? In another case where a Donegal man researched, murdered and cremated his ex-wife very deliberately was then allowed to drive trucks while awaiting trial. His employer was unaware of his background and his job could have taken him around the country and potentially breach his bail conditions.

There seems to be a very uneven approach taken to these cases and I am begining to believe that too much is driven by second guessing public opinion. A public opinion that the media should more frequently question.

whiskeyman

Have to agree with you on the O'Donoghue case.
Its such a tragic case.
Btw, has anyone heard the victims families views torwards the accused?
Have they forgiven him? Are they hostile towards him and his family?
I guess I just havent heard this part.

santosubito

Maybe people should wait until all the evidence is heard before they say it was a tragic case.

whiskeyman

santosubito wrote:

Maybe people should wait until all the evidence is heard before they say it was a tragic case.

A young boys life is cut short and a young mans life is ruined with both families (who were neighbours) devastated by whats happened.
Thats enough to know this is a tragic case.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

santosubito

whiskeyman wrote:

A young boys life is cut short and a young mans life is ruined with both families (who were neighbours) devastated by whats happened.
Thats enough to know this is a tragic case.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

It's sub judice, so I'm saying nothing, except for the fact that people should wait until all the evidence is heard before they ascribe terms such as tragic to this.

If I did know something, I would certainly not post it here, especially while the trial is on.

BrianD

This 'sub judice' term is often mis-used. There is nothing to stop anybody commenting on the trial (as they media are right now).

What I am commenting on is media coverage and the treatment of those charged up to the point of their trial. There are clear and unexplained differences in all three cases I have detailed above. Any comments?

santosubito

BrianD wrote:

This 'sub judice' term is often mis-used. There is nothing to stop anybody commenting on the trial (as they media are right now).

What I am commenting on is media coverage and the treatment of those charged up to the point of their trial. There are clear and unexplained differences in all three cases I have detailed above. Any comments?

I'm afraid you are seriously wrong. Once the judge starts hearing the case, he has ownership of it, until the very end, whether it be an acquittal, or a sentencing. If newspapers veer from contenmoraneous reporting of a case, they risk being found in contempt of court, with very strong financial penaties, and even the threat of imprisonment. So there is something very big stopping te media commenting on the trial - which they aren't doing.

There has been no commetary on the Holohan case, merely articles reporting the previous day's evidence - or in the case of the Sundays, a wrap up of the week's events.

You should not be commenting on an ongoing court case. You are taking a serious risk.

BrianD

If you read the posting ... I am not. I am commenting on the treatment of those charged up to the point of trial and the media coverage of the trials.

santosubito

BrianD wrote:

If you read the posting ... I am not. I am commenting on the treatment of those charged up to the point of trial and the media coverage of the trials.

Really?

What about this, then?

"However the court will judge that but my opinion is that manslaughter is an appropriate charge."

How can you possibly know that? Not all the evidence has been heard and you are commenting on an ongoing trial.

And this:

"Why has the media been pretty mute and unilateral in its coverage of the ongoing case? Siding with public opinion?"

That's a disgraceful thing to write - the media have been mute because the case is sub judice, even though you think that is a mis-used term.

If I, or any other reporter, wrote what you did in a paper we'd be in front of the judge pronto. It just seems people can write any old rubbish on the web, sadly.

Eoin

santosubito wrote:

It's sub judice, so I'm saying nothing, except for the fact that people should wait until all the evidence is heard before they ascribe terms such as tragic to this.

If I did know something, I would certainly not post it here, especially while the trial is on.

Why not? The court is not going to rule that the death was not tragic, so there is no harm in using the word now. "Tragic" means sad, it does not infer "accidental".

Wayne O'Donoghue has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, so the only thing that will come out of the trial is whether or not the death was pre-meditated or not. I would think that most people consider the child's death a tragedy whether or not it was an accident, so it makes no difference if the word is used now.

santosubito

Well, the man has been charged with murder. I've never heard a murder described as tragic before.

Eoin

santosubito wrote:

Well, the man has been charged with murder. I've never heard a murder described as tragic before.

But "tragic" is not a legal term - and also it is not restricted to accidents. Would 9/11 not be described as a tragedy?

whiskeyman

santosubito wrote:

I've never heard a murder described as tragic before.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22tragic+murder%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIE
and that's just an Irish search...

santosubito

Of course not. But if someone says "It's such a tragic case", there is a clear insinuation there that the death was somehow accidental when, in fact, Mr O'Donoghue has been charged with murder, whic has an implicit absence of anything accidental.

All I'm saying is this case is sub judice and people should not be commenting, or speculating, on it before the trial has concluded. That is very dangerous.

BrianD

santosubito wrote:

Really?

What about this, then?

"However the court will judge that but my opinion is that manslaughter is an appropriate charge."

How can you possibly know that? Not all the evidence has been heard and you are commenting on an ongoing trial.

And this:

"Why has the media been pretty mute and unilateral in its coverage of the ongoing case? Siding with public opinion?"

That's a disgraceful thing to write - the media have been mute because the case is sub judice, even though you think that is a mis-used term.

If I, or any other reporter, wrote what you did in a paper we'd be in front of the judge pronto. It just seems people can write any old rubbish on the web, sadly.

Not any old rubbish my friend. There is a clear difference between the way this case has been covered and, for example, the Nally case. Remember Mr. Nally walking up to the court each day with his supporters as opposed to Donohue arriving in the company of Gardai? There is nothing sub-judice about this AT ALL. This is a discussion forum after all. Quit the nonsense.

santosubito

You simply cannot comment on a criminal court case while it is ongoing. That is the very definition of sub judice. I bet you've never covered a court case and I am of the opinion that you are in no way qualified to say what is or isn't sub judice. But you should be aware that the sub judice rule is there so that the jury can only see or hear evidence given directly to them. For example, when there is legal argument without a jury, reporters have to put
their pens down and cannot write what is said. I do indeed remember Mr Nally walking into court with his supprters, in fact, I was there. The reason he could do that is that he was on bail, Mr O'Donoghue is not. Simple really.
I won't quit the nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself. I repeat, you can't COMMENT IN ANY WAY on an ongoing jury trial.
Just in case you missed my earlier post, I'll also repeat this: who are you to say if the manslaughter charge is appropriate? What if one of the jurors read this discussion? Of course this is a discussion board, but does it operate within the law or not?

BrianD

According to Kieron Woods:

"Sub judice: (Latin: under trial) Matter still under consideration by a court. Any action which may interfere with the proper administration of justice while a matter is sub judice may be a contempt of court.

Pretty sweeping but according to the law reform commission who give an appropriate example as follows: "... breaches of the sub judice rule (as where a newspaper gives details about a defendant's previous convictions while a trial is in progress) ...".

I have not commented on the progress of the trial. I am merely comparing the media coverage and treatment of those individuals pre-trial and wether the charges and media coverage are influenced by public opinion. I don't know the person charged nor the circumstances of his case other than what I have learned from the media. This is fair comment. The court itself will find whether the individual is guilt or not guilty of the charges.

The term sub-judice is widely abused in this country and a convenient shelter for many. The definitions vary from 'say nothing', as you suggest, to fair comment in the public interest about the administration of justice. To be quite honest, I think any citizen should have a view whether a charge is appropriate or not. They may not have the capacity to make that judgement or maybe wildly wrong in their assumptions. If we were to follow your approach then all trial reporting would be banned! the media might report the facts but the 'nuance' can be biased for or against the defendent.

And what of a hypothetical case, where the charges and trial are, say, politically motivated? Should we shut up then?

What if one of the jurors read this post? So what if they do!

Eoin

santosubito wrote:

You simply cannot comment on a criminal court case while it is ongoing. That is the very definition of sub judice. I bet you've never covered a court case and I am of the opinion that you are in no way qualified to say what is or isn't sub judice. But you should be aware that the sub judice rule is there so that the jury can only see or hear evidence given directly to them. For example, when there is legal argument without a jury, reporters have to put
their pens down and cannot write what is said. I do indeed remember Mr Nally walking into court with his supprters, in fact, I was there. The reason he could do that is that he was on bail, Mr O'Donoghue is not. Simple really.
I won't quit the nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself. I repeat, you can't COMMENT IN ANY WAY on an ongoing jury trial.
Just in case you missed my earlier post, I'll also repeat this: who are you to say if the manslaughter charge is appropriate? What if one of the jurors read this discussion? Of course this is a discussion board, but does it operate within the law or not?

Who is the "you" that can't comment on the case? Can a court really (even if it is unlikely) stop this sort of discussion?

santosubito wrote:

But if someone says "It's such a tragic case", there is a clear insinuation there that the death was somehow accidental when, in fact, Mr O'Donoghue has been charged with murder, whic has an implicit absence of anything accidental.

I disagree, and anyway, that is a semantic argument, not a legal one. "Tragic" and "Accidental" are not synonymous, that is your interpretation. Like I said earlier, I would consider 9/11 a tragedy, and that was very much intentional. Will the court find that the death was not in fact "tragic"? No - they will find whether the death was intentional or not. IMO, the death will be a tragedy either way.

This is not like the case where Bertie (I think) called Garda McCabe's killers "murderers". That was clearly incorrect as the men had been found guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

flogen

I'm afraid you cannot comment on an ongoing trial.
As far as I know, the definition of sub jucide is a case or issue that is under trial, it isn't anything to do with talking about the trial.
If a journalist is commenting on an ongoing trial they can bias the jury, be in contempt of court and possibly destroy the case, that's why they can't do it.

As for this forum, there has been no legal precident regarding online forums (I'm not even sure if online news sites have been used in a contempt case), however I don't see why an Irish site with a bias comment on it couldn't bias a trial, althought I doubt a poster could be held in contempt of court.
A blog, on the other hand... now that would be an interesting case.

Perhaps a new thread on this might be in order to discuss the legal possibilities of comment online, It really is new ground for such issues.

also, the words tragic etc. are emotive and while a type of comment I could never see them as something that could ever bias a trial.

santosubito

"I have not commented on the progress of the trial." You've actually done something worse than that. You've said what he should be charged, and by extension, convicted of, ie manslaughter. That is a disgrace.

Comment is NEVER fair during a jury trial.#

"The definitions vary from 'say nothing', as you suggest, to fair comment in the public interest about the administration of justice."

Please provide evidence for this. I've seena comment on trials in a few cases: the people and media who made these comments ended up with a three letter problem - DPP. For example, the Indo got in serious doodoo during the Catherine Nevin trial for commenting on her dress sense. If that sort of comment can get you in trouble, just think what your commentary on the trial can do.

"I think any citizen should have a view whether a charge is appropriate or not." Why? We have judges and juries to decide that. Not you.

"If we were to follow your approach then all trial reporting would be banned!" Now you should quit the nonsense, friend. Proper, contemporaneous reporting is something I am advocating here, not idle comment.

It is also highly dangerous of you to compare the O'Donoghue case to Nally. Nally has been dealt with, O'Donoghue is ongoing.

BrianD

Eh, if you had read the newspapers and not misquoted my posting you will have noted that a) He was originally charged with manslaugter (fact), b) charges later upgraded to murder (fact) and that c) the guy admits that he is guilty of manslaughter.

So far I have no commented on the trial - evidence presented, character of the defendent, witnesses etc. etc. - itself merely the treatment of a number of individuals prior to the trial.

I think you'll have to start examining your notion of sub judice. Look at the three pre-trial scenarios of the three examples I have given. Different circumstances but all involving the loss of a persons life. These are certainly worthy of public debate.

Idle comment? You have now an opportunity to withdraw that comment.

flogen

BrianD has questioned the media's coverage of the case, that isn't commenting on the case and so can't be seen to bias it in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you think when you hear the word tragic, but a death can be tragic in any circumstance, accidental or cold blooded murder.
Ok, for BrianD to say he thinks Manslaughter is the right charge is commenting on the trial and yes it would be unacceptable in a newspaper, but the internet is an untested medium as far as contempt laws go, and I would be amazed if anyone did try and hold Brian in contempt.

BrianD

Not only that the sub-judice 'rule' allows for fair discussion of a case.

flogen

BrianD wrote:

Not only that the sub-judice 'rule' allows for fair discussion of a case.

Sub Judice rule? Sub Judice is a state, as in it is a case that is in the middle of court process, or an on going trial.
Contempt of court is the law which covers comment on ongoing cases, and while it allows fair comment to be made it doesn't really allow for personal opinion to be given in articles etc., so a Journalist can't report on the court proceedings and then say "I think the judge is wrong", "I think he's guilty", "I think the charge is stupid" etc., doing so could bias the jury and make a mockery of the case, thus destroying it.
So you saying that you think the charge of manslaughter is an appropriate chare is not fair comment, because it's based on your own assumption following the facts of the case and not the jury. Of course, on an internet forum you can get away with it, of course that could change in time, who knows? It does raise many issues.
As for questioning the media coverage, that's fair enough, it's what this forum is all about. Of course you know the media can only go so far in court reporting, and you should give examples of where you feel the media is failing its remit.

BrianD

Ok, let's take the manslaughter upgraded to murder factor out of this debate then even though these charges were upgraded prior to the trial. It's not specifically relevant to the issues I was raising.

flogen

well what was the issue you were raising? It seems to have gotten bogged down in semantics and details, because it seems as though the only issue raised here was your dismay at the press and then whether or not you could comment on the trial as you did.

BrianD

I was commenting on the treatment and media coverage of those charged prior to the trial. How much of this was governed by public opinion and media coverage.

santosubito

BrianD wrote:

I was commenting on the treatment and media coverage of those charged prior to the trial. How much of this was governed by public opinion and media coverage.

I'm withdrawing nothing, thanks. You said it was appropriate that Mr O'Donoguue should be charged with murder. You simply have no right to say this during a trial. It WAS idle comment on your part. Unless I'm very mush mistaken, you're not one of the Gardai who put together the file for the DPP, nor are you a member of the DPP's office who had input on what charges should be laid. That's idle comment because you haven't any real basis for positing your view.

"I think you'll have to start examining your notion of sub judice."

My notion of sub judice is taken from 12 years as a court reporter.

"Look at the three pre-trial scenarios of the three examples I have given. Different circumstances but all involving the loss of a persons life. These are certainly worthy of public debate."

Yes they are, but not during a trial.
And, pray tell, where did I misquote your post?

I'll quote it again if you want: "It now seems, from media reports of the court case, that this was some sort of horse play that went wrong. Certainly his behaviour after the deed was not to his credit and wrong doing is not in doubt. However the court will judge that but my opinion is that manslaughter is an appropriate charge."

"So far I have no commented on the trial - evidence presented, character of the defendent, witnesses etc. etc. - itself merely the treatment of a number of individuals prior to the trial.

You have. You said it was appropriate he should be charged with manslaughter, when he is facing a murder charge. If that's not comment I don't know what is.

Also, here's another interesting piece from your original post: "I understand that O'Donohue has been in jail since charged. Why is this? In another case where a Donegal man researched, murdered and cremated his ex-wife very deliberately was then allowed to drive trucks while awaiting trial. His employer was unaware of his background and his job could have taken him around the country and potentially breach his bail conditions."

Two things: You can't compare one trial to another when the trial is on going, believe me that really is sub judice.
Secondly, how can you ask why Mr O'Donoghue is not on bail when that is evidence given in the absence of a jury. Contempt.

santosubito

BrianD wrote:

Not only that the sub-judice 'rule' allows for fair discussion of a case.

Back that up.

Eoin

flogen wrote:

I'm afraid you cannot comment on an ongoing trial.
As far as I know, the definition of sub jucide is a case or issue that is under trial, it isn't anything to do with talking about the trial.
If a journalist is commenting on an ongoing trial they can bias the jury, be in contempt of court and possibly destroy the case, that's why they can't do it.

As for this forum, there has been no legal precident regarding online forums (I'm not even sure if online news sites have been used in a contempt case), however I don't see why an Irish site with a bias comment on it couldn't bias a trial, althought I doubt a poster could be held in contempt of court.
A blog, on the other hand... now that would be an interesting case.

Perhaps a new thread on this might be in order to discuss the legal possibilities of comment online, It really is new ground for such issues.

also, the words tragic etc. are emotive and while a type of comment I could never see them as something that could ever bias a trial.

I am a bit confused over who is able to say what.

If I were to speak to BrianD in the street and ask him what his opinion of the charge was, would that be contempt? Or is it because a juror could possibly read this thread and be influenced?

I understand that nobody here knows all the facts etc, but is it actually illegal to discuss them here, or just not sensible?

flogen

Ok, santosbito, this thread is no longer about contempt laws and sub judice, we have already established that BrianD has made comments that he wouldn't get away with in the "traditional" media (tv, radio, print or even established online publications with links to "traditional" media such as ireland.com or unison.ie).

The discussion is about the media coverage of the trials, taking into account the legal limitations placed on them.
In other words are the media reporting just on what they think the public want to hear rather than what they should hear?

whiskeyman

eoin_s wrote:

I am a bit confused over who is able to say what.

If I were to speak to BrianD in the street and ask him what his opinion of the charge was, would that be contempt? Or is it because a juror could possibly read this thread and be influenced?

I understand that nobody here knows all the facts etc, but is it actually illegal to discuss them here, or just not sensible?

I second that. No doubt this issue is serious with the huge explosion of blogs and online forums like this.
(Great discussion by all btw).

Eoin

flogen wrote:

Ok, santosbito, this thread is no longer about contempt laws and sub judice, we have already established that BrianD has made comments that he wouldn't get away with in the "traditional" media (tv, radio, print or even established online publications with links to "traditional" media such as ireland.com or unison.ie).

Actually, as per my response above, I'm still not clear on the whole thing and was hoping for clarification.

flogen

Interestingly enough, while these laws are mainly there to stop journalists making comments on the case, they can be applied to comments made person to person.
For example, as far as libel/slander laws go, if you say something slanderous about Mr. X to a friend and someone over hears it and prints it with the quote attributed to you, you can get in trouble for it despite the fact that you gave no permission for it to be printed or printed it yourself. The fact is you still made a slanderous remark that got into the public domain and damaged that persons character.
However, you cannot destroy a case by being overheard, but you could be in personal trouble for trying to bias a jury member if you were found to be commenting on the trial with them (which is why they cannot speak about the trial)
Basically with a court case the media cannot make any comments on an ongoing case, they can only state the facts. Next time a case is being reported in RTE or in a paper you can see how it's just the facts, the judge said this, the defence said this, the prosecution said this. They could destroy a case if they even said that someone looked nervous, god forbid saying that someone looked innocent/guilty. Journalists also cannot print articles relating to the trial if it could bias the jury, so even if I had undeniable proof that a man on trial for murder was guilty, I couldn't print the article, I'd just have to hope that the evidence I have is shown to the court and the jury are indeed of able mind.
Basically, if a media outlet makes an assumption, jumps to a conclusion or makes a comment the opposing lawyer can say the case must be thrown out because any juror who saw the comments could be influenced by them rather than the evidence on show.
It's like with Nevin, she feels she couldn't get a fair trial because the tabloids painted her as the black widow, spoke about how she dressed and generally painted her as a wicked maneater.

santosubito

eoin_s wrote:

Actually, as per my response above, I'm still not clear on the whole thing and was hoping for clarification.

I'm happy to explain this, without causing anyone annoyance.

You can of course talk to your mate in the pub no problem, that's a one on one conversation and I'm sure you'd know your mate is not a juror, for example. I do it with my mates, and we're all reporters.

But when you publish something widely that may be read by a juror - yes, even here - then you need to be very, very careful, or else you run the risk of being held in contempt and even collapsing the trial.
The rule is simple: The media can only publish what a jury hears. Nothing else, no legal argument, no previous convictions, no comment, no speculation. Mr Justice Carney, the trial judge in the O'Donoghue case, has already warned the jury about inaccurate reports.

This has happened before.I've seen trials collapse because of media coverage. It sends a shiver down my spine which is why I get animated about this issue.

BrianD

santosubito wrote:

Back that up.

Do a bit of research! Or do all journos practice press release journalism these days? Just read and ask no questions.

Your interpretation of the sub judice rule is extremely narrow. Is that how you intrepret it or is that how it actually is?

BTW I don't believe I have stepped over the line in the original post given the reported facts of the case.

flogen

There you go, Sans can sum it up better than myself.
That is true about the overhearing thing though, isn't it? I remember it being one of the things we were told in College, and the lecturer joked about how pubs known to house Journalists are full of people speaking in hushed tones and whispers.

BrianD

That's fine. My posting referred to the treatment of the charged before the trial. I see profound and unexplained differences between the pre-trial treatment of each case. In the case of the case that is sub judice the charges were upped from one charge to a more serious charge before the trial commenced (obviously). All of this is known and in the public domain. Furthermore, they are 'separate' to the crimes that are alleged to have been committed. I see no reason why they can not be openly discussed and in fact there should be no restriction.

The law reform commission are reviewing the sub-judice reporting issue, though not by much. Agreed the 'media' is expanding beyond the traditional scope of newspapers and broadcast to blogs and podcasts and what ever is next. The type of conversation taht you would have down the pub between two people can not deseminated worldwide via a medium such as boards.ie. Perhaps I should politely toe the line and ask any questions. We have journalists who will do that for us. Then again ...

flogen

BrianD wrote:

Do a bit of research! Or do all journos practice press release journalism these days? Just read and ask no questions.

I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable to make a claim or statement and then expect other people to do the research to back it up. If you make a statement and it is challenged be prepared to prove your point and not just throw it back with the implication of unprofessionalism attached.

Now, for the final time, this thread is not about sub judice, contempt laws, libel laws or slander. If anyone has any issues they wish to raise or address, they can start a new thread. Brian, you've stated what your original intention was, can you please go into detail, with references to what differences the media showed to each case pre-trial?

I think it's fair to say this thread has raised an excellent and important issue, and that is the effect of "new" media on Irish and international law, especially regarding libel and contempt, it's something that will hopefully lead to a very interesting debate on another thread soon.

Eoin

flogen wrote:

Now, for the final time, this thread is not about sub judice, contempt laws, libel laws or slander. If anyone has any issues they wish to raise or address, they can start a new thread.
....
I think it's fair to say this thread has raised an excellent and important issue, and that is the effect of "new" media on Irish and international law, especially regarding libel and contempt, it's something that will hopefully lead to a very interesting debate on another thread soon.

Definitely - this thread isn't the place for it (not any more, anyway), but it would be an interesting topic.

whiskeyman

Breaking news today: O'Donoughue cleared of murder, but found guilty of manslaughter.
Will be interesting to see now how media react between now and sentencing.
I just cant see the media setting out to vilify O'Donoughue and will take the "tragic case" approach.

BrianD

Should be interesting alright.

BTW ... the correct verdict in my opinion.

whiskeyman

BrianD wrote:

BTW ... the correct verdict in my opinion.

I agree with you there.
That said, I feel his actions after the killing will not help towards the sentancing.
I still have never heard any soundbytes / interviews from Roberts parents. Anyone heard anything?

BrianD

Now that the trial is over, one has to wonder why the murder charge was ever preferred. There has to be questions about the way our justice system worked in this case.

Why was O'Donohue detained and not released on bail?
Why was the charge of manslaugher upped to murder?
Why were the prosecution placing so much emphasis on what happened after the death of the child?

As somebody else mentioned this is a tragic case. But questions must be asked.

BTW the headline in the indo is disgraceful. Then again there are other stories that they don't want on the front page.

Eoin

BrianD wrote:

Why was the charge of manslaugher upped to murder?

Why were the prosecution placing so much emphasis on what happened after the death of the child?

I would imagine that the prosecution wanted the murder charge because of his actions after the death. They probably could not establish any motive whatsoever, so this is all they could argue. Their way of thinking may have been that O'Donohues extensive efforts to cover up his involvement were not consistent with an accidental death.

santosubito

I think it was absolutely the wrong decions. I'll explain why after January 24, when it's no longer sub judice. All should become clear the following day.

Eoin

santosubito wrote:

I think it was absolutely the wrong decions. I'll explain why after January 24, when it's no longer sub judice. All should become clear the following day.

I realise that technically the case is not concluded as the sentence has not been handed down now, but as the verdict has been given do you still feel that the case should not be discussed?

BrianD

Well the Star and the Indo have no problems of discussing it at length. "TWo faced Killer", "Killer next door" etc etc.

His actions after the wrongful killing are not the basis for making a charge of murder.

santosubito

I do. Strongly.

whiskeyman

santosubito wrote:

I think it was absolutely the wrong decions. I'll explain why after January 24, when it's no longer sub judice. All should become clear the following day.

Well, the day has come...

whiskeyman

Just heard a few points Majella Holohan has made.
Some very serious points and accusations that never made the trial.
Santosub is right... the papers will have a field day with some of the points made here.

However, none of this will not effect the final sentencing.

The real question is, why didn't these points make it into the trial?