Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

Suckit

suicide_circus wrote: »

So she is being charged with defamation of this random kid rather than breaking a court order not to identify Boys A/B? Or does even incorrectly identifying Boy A/B count as breaking the court order?

She posted the correct picture of the two boys. She is being charged with identifying both boys.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hope someone posts her photo on all their favourite WhatsApp groups.

Her photograph and full address has appeared in a few newspapers.

suicide_circus

Suckit wrote: »

She posted the correct picture of the two boys. She is being charged with identifying both boys.

Ok that makes a lot more sense

smellyoldboot

A fcukin hero tbh. What rights do either of those sick little bastards have to protection. And their families? The same families that defended the twisted animals they reared? They deserve everything that comes to them too.

joeguevara

If ever there was reason for prosecution of people putting photos of alleged accuseds prior to a trial is the last 50 posts.

Let’s say in a hypothetical scenario the photo was incorrect(It transpired that it was correct).

For such a heinous crime and something as high profile, I don’t think discussing defamation would be worthwhile in the situation that a vigilante group sought justice on incorrectly identified people.

In the event that it was the wrong photo, publishing her photo would in now way be any way the same of an innocent boy wrongfully accusused of one of the most heinous crimes in the country.

I’m always reminded of the case of the paediatrician who was forced from their home because a vigilante mob misunderstood their job title

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote:

A fcukin hero tbh. What rights do either of those sick little bastards have to protection. And their families? The same families that defended the twisted animals they reared? They deserve everything that comes to them too.

We try live in a democracy, many wrongs were done, the legal system has done the right thing, yet again in regards this tragic case, it's a valuable leason for her, hopefully society doesn't go full retard, and start posting her details

joeguevara

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

There is nothing preventing her details being posted unless there is a court order to this effect.

Does the presumption of innocence make any difference?

Yyhhuuu

joeguevara wrote: »

Does the presumption of innocence make any difference?

An accused person's identity can be published when arrested except in limited circumstances. A mere presumption of innocence under the Criminal Justice System does not prevent publication of an accused person's Identity

gozunda

Ten due in court over sharing of images claiming to identify Ana Kriégel killer

Court cases to continue


https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40071968.html?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

lillycakes2

Boy A and BOY B 's identities should not be a secret.The victims identity is common knowledge.

Those 10 people did nothing wrong..................

bazermc

Ironic that those accused of posting photos of boy A and boy B going into court today we’re hiding their own faces.

francois

lillycakes2 wrote: »

Boy A and BOY B 's identities should not be a secret.The victims identity is common knowledge.

Those 10 people did nothing wrong..................

They did, they broke the law.

suicide_circus

francois wrote: »

They did, they broke the law.

Have they been found guilty?

francois

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have they been found guilty?

Irrelevant.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have they been found guilty?

They have been brought before the court to answer the charge.
The poster said they did nothing wrong, clearly that is false.

tempnam

It does seem a little unfair however that the 2 rapists/killers have had their identity protected throughout while the woman who identified them has had her name and address published in the media...

What's the purpose of the court order protecting the identity of the killers?

suicide_circus

francois wrote: »

Irrelevant.

Good man

washman3

What about the other group of little vile snots in her class who made Anna's life a misery, through constant bullying in school, thus giving these 2 evil cnuts what they believed was a licence to rape,torture and kill this poor innocent little girl.
The same little snots that took part in a candle-light vigil and shed crocodile tears at her funeral.:mad:
Everyone in the locality knows their identity. When will the Gardai go knocking on their doors. They've got blood on their hands too. Total scum.:mad:

tempnam

tempnam wrote: »

It does seem a little unfair however that the 2 rapists/killers have had their identity protected throughout while the woman who identified them has had her name and address published in the media...

What's the purpose of the court order protecting the identity of the killers?

They are juveniles. Juveniles are never named. That's the law.

The woman who identified them is a grown adult. Allegedly

Suckit

All ten named in the journal. Maybe others too, but I'm only skimming the headlines on newsfeed now.

https://www.thejournal.ie/10-people-due-in-court-over-probe-into-details-shared-online-claiming-to-identify-boy-convicted-of-ana-kriegel-murder-5246733-Oct2020/

washman3

washman3 wrote: »

What about the other group of little vile snots in her class who made Anna's life a misery, through constant bullying in school, thus giving these 2 evil cnuts what they believed was a licence to rape,torture and kill this poor innocent little girl.
The same little snots that took part in a candle-light vigil and shed crocodile tears at her funeral.:mad:
Everyone in the locality knows their identity. When will the Gardai go knocking on their doors. They've got blood on their hands too. Total scum.:mad:

Was it known locally that she was being bullied before her murder?

Beasty

If another case is being brought before the courts, this thread can only be potentially prejudicial

I'm therefore closing it