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

McCrack · 22-10-2020 3:03pm

They are doing it to make an example of her - I expect she will get the Probation Act.

She did society a service in this case exposing these two.

knucklehead6 · 22-10-2020 3:27pm

McCrack wrote: »

She did society a service in this case exposing these two.

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

tayto lover · 22-10-2020 3:35pm

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Woman charged over social media images in Kriégel case

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1022/1173208-rebecca-ryan-court/

I’ve searched that RTÉ link and couldn’t find a mention of it.

McCrack · 22-10-2020 3:42pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

Is that the photo though that she circulated.

There was another photo A and B (A in white Nike top and B in black adidas top).

Gadgetman496 · 22-10-2020 3:45pm

She's charged with posting their pictures, no mention of her posting the wrong picture of anyone with the same name.

StackSteevens · 22-10-2020 3:48pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

In that case, can the 'wrong' lad not sue her for defamation?

I suspect that he can and may be awaiting the outcome of this case before initiating a civil case against her.

suicide_circus · 22-10-2020 3:50pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

If she posted a photo of a random lad who was no Boy A, what offence did she commit?

Effects · 22-10-2020 3:52pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

In that case, can the 'wrong' lad not sue her for defamation?

Probably wouldn't get much.

J.O. Farmer · 22-10-2020 4:50pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

If she posted a photo of a random lad who was no Boy A, what offence did she commit?

Would it not be the same offence as she's charged with. It's in connection circulating images and details of what is allegedly boy a and boy b. Does it matter legally if she identified the wrong people.

In reality it's worse as presumably the lad she identified is not a murderer or sex offender.

Suckit · 22-10-2020 5:06pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

I don't think her post was the one with the wrong boy identified.
https://waterford-news.ie/2020/10/22/waterford-woman-charged-with-identifying-boys-in-kriegel-case/

The image allegedly posted by Ms Ryan was one that appeared on a number of platforms and was a cropped photo with other youths, whose faces were scribbled over. The two boys were highlighted with red circles and the letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ identifying them.

Still was a daft thing to do.

suicide_circus wrote: »

If she posted a photo of a random lad who was no Boy A, what offence did she commit?

If she had claimed the wrong boy to be a murderer and incited hatred towards him, I would guess she broke a few laws.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-10-2020 5:07pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

If she posted a photo of a random lad who was no Boy A, what offence did she commit?

Seriously? You're implying that she can post a random picture of a 14 year old kid, say it's one ot he Kriegel killers and NOT face any consequences for it?

McCrack · 22-10-2020 5:15pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You're implying that she can post a random picture of a 14 year old kid, say it's one ot he Kriegel killers and NOT face any consequences for it?

Of course not - ever heard of defamation?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-10-2020 5:19pm

McCrack wrote: »

Of course not - ever heard of defamation?

I agree - but the poster I was responding to didn't seem to think that shuld be a problem.

StackSteevens · 22-10-2020 5:57pm

Effects wrote: »

Probably wouldn't get much.

He'd get an apology at least - and she'd probably have to publish it in the national papers at her own expense.

Rows Grower · 22-10-2020 5:59pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

He'd get an apology at least - and she'd probably have to publish it in the national papers at her own expense.

How did you come to that conclusion?

suicide_circus · 22-10-2020 6:02pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You're implying that she can post a random picture of a 14 year old kid, say it's one ot he Kriegel killers and NOT face any consequences for it?

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?

knucklehead6 · 22-10-2020 6:13pm

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?

The kid she apparently (I say apparently as there appears to be some confusion over whether or not this is the same case) identified has the same name as boy a. He was in the same year group in the same school.

So she published the name. That’s breaking the order, whether or not she had the correct photo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-10-2020 6:35pm

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?

Depends on whether she's right ot not.

If the boy is indeed boy a or boy b, then she's guilty of breaking a court order.
If the boy is "a random lad" as you put it and NOT one of them, then she's guilty of defamation - which is most certainly an offense, to answer your initial question.

JP Liz V1 · 22-10-2020 6:43pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

Is she posted the wrong boy, what's she charged with?

I do think those evil killers should be named and shamed

knucklehead6 · 22-10-2020 6:53pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is she posted the wrong boy, what's she charged with?

I do think those evil killers should be named and shamed

Read my reply at 18:13. Two lads in the same year with the same name. She had the right name, wrong photo

SPDUB · 22-10-2020 9:40pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If the boy is "a random lad" as you put it and NOT one of them, then she's guilty of defamation - which is most certainly an offense, to answer your initial question.

Defamation is not a criminal offence though so a criminal court wouldn't have jurisdiction over it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-10-2020 10:40pm

SPDUB wrote: »

Defamation is not a criminal offence though so a criminal court wouldn't have jurisdiction over it

Still an offense.

Heres Johnny · 22-10-2020 11:13pm

Just a question on this court order.... If I lived in another country and ran a website or even had a social media account and I named them, what would happen?
Or if I was Irish and I had a Web domain from a.
. Co.UK for example.

Always surprised me they were never publicly named where the Irish Court order didn't reach, which is the rest of the world to be honest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-10-2020 11:25pm

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Just a question on this court order.... If I lived in another country and ran a website or even had a social media account and I named them, what would happen?
Or if I was Irish and I had a Web domain from a.
. Co.UK for example.

Always surprised me they were never publicly named where the Irish Court order didn't reach, which is the rest of the world to be honest.

Technically, you'd still be in breach and an arrest warrant issued. How that would be served I don't know as I suspect it's not a serious enough offense to entrail extradition. Open to correction on that one. You certainly wouldn't be able to visit/return to Ireland for a while if your passport was to be scanned upon arrival.

FishOnABike · 23-10-2020 8:09am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Still an offense.

I think defamation would be a civil matter rather than an offense. The state has no role in prosecuting a civil matter.

It would be up to the person who believes they have been defamed to decide if they have a case and whether it is worth pursuing through the civil court system.

banie01 · 23-10-2020 8:18am

FishOnABike wrote: »

I think defamation would be a civil matter rather than an offense. The state has no role in prosecuting a civil matter.

You are 100% right in that defamation is a civil matter and is not prosecuted by the state.

That said, constitutionally at least given article 40.3 of the Constitution.
It is a matter between 2 parties, with state involvement limited to the judiciary.
An academic argument could be made that the state is in theory responsible for vindicating the defamed.

1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Now no article of the constitution should ever be read in isolation

But there is theoretically at least, grounds for the state to take such action.
That said, of course it must be remembered that any such action taken would of course still be civil.

old_aussie · 23-10-2020 8:28am

Defamation is normally thought of as an act which can attract civil liability.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-10-2020 10:26am

Fair point, but still on offense against another person, even if not against the State.

My stance being: it's not something that can be done without without consequences.

AndrewJRenko · 23-10-2020 4:36pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Good enough for her.

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

Dravokivich · 23-10-2020 4:39pm

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?

Intentions can be a part of, regardless of whether or not they were successful.

Suckit · 23-10-2020 10:45pm

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 · 23-10-2020 10:49pm

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 · 23-10-2020 10:59pm

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 · 24-10-2020 6:41am

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 · 24-10-2020 6:46am

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 · 24-10-2020 7:02am

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 · 24-10-2020 7:49am

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 · 28-10-2020 5:45pm

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 · 28-10-2020 10:01pm

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 · 28-10-2020 10:22pm

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

francois · 28-10-2020 10:49pm

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 · 28-10-2020 10:57pm

francois wrote: »

They did, they broke the law.

Have they been found guilty?

francois · 28-10-2020 11:16pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have they been found guilty?

Irrelevant.

28-10-2020 11:19pm

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 · 28-10-2020 11:30pm

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 · 28-10-2020 11:36pm

francois wrote: »

Irrelevant.

Good man

washman3 · 28-10-2020 11:47pm

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:

29-10-2020 12:01am

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 · 29-10-2020 12:01am

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/

29-10-2020 12:04am

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?

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

Comments