Judge massively out of touch on this one. He needs to come back down to earth and understand the highly emotionally charged nature of this case.
The boy’s names are public information for all practical purposes, if you want to know them you can. Technically those people did break the law, but actually doing anything beyond a stern warning would be really silly. Nothing to be gained from convicting these people, especially because the boys absolutely deserve whatever comes to them.
The 3 people accused of breaching publication restrictions – a provision of The Children’s Act – for sharing images and details of “Boy A” and “Boy B” are appealing the charge, along with appealing the court in which the hearing be held.
The three people are named in relation to the public offences.
Whilst I understand that children have a right to privacy, I simply can’t get my head around the fact that these teen murderers avail of anonymity. Jamie Bulger’s murderers were identified and have gone on to live their adult lives anonymously (well, until Jon Venables re-offended).
I think the right to anonymity should be waived given the severity of the crimes. I would hate to think my child could some day become involved with one of them and we not know who they really are.
I think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money prosecuting people who shared details/content on Facebook/social media. A penalty or fine, community service working with young offenders or something would be more appropriate.
They may be braking the law.
Morally? They are doing nothing wrong.
Of course they broke the law. This thread just shows that most people are incapable of making objective decisions because they are too easily swayed by the “emotionally charged” nature of the crime.
Ironic how the (convicted) murdering cunts cannot legally be named but the people accused (and not convicted) of naming them can have their own names published all over the media.
Mad people seem to be expecting judges to just disregard the law. Like I’d have no issue with them being named but the law is the law.
Now I’d imagine in terms of sentences it’ll be minor enough or thrown out if a clever enough defence can be made. Like no sane judge will be going to bat for 2 child murderers
Think they re 20 now. They ll probably be out when they re 30 . I’m not sure whether these people should have done what they done on social media given the amount of wankers who thrive on giving out false information. But I do think it’s absolutely in the public interest that we know who Man A and Man B are .
Why is it that the adults who rob bikes, cause chaos on public transport, rob shops etc get slaps on the wrist but someone who leaked the name, which seems like a minor offense in comparison get punished more seriously?
Man, I followed this case from start to finish. It was just wall-to-wall misery reading about the updates each time. It made me feel sad on the inside each time. I often think about what she must have went through along with the anguish of her parents.
All of the lies and allegations told by the accused during the trial also – I hope they all rot in hell.
I don’t agree with the ‘name and shame’ issue. You know full well, that these guys’ families will be hounded by the usual suspects.
ah, AM from Leixlip?
Boy A is a monster and should never see the light of day. Won’t be popular here but Boy B may get his sentence overturned. He deserved severe punishment for lying to the investigators however the general public (and reddit, judging from comments here) seem to think he was as involved with the assault and murder as Boy A was. This is very clearly not the case and the murder charge may be ruled excessive if a more competent defence case is put forward.
Boy B was a witness to the assault/murder and he was the one who asked Anna to meet Boy A, but there are serious doubts as to whether he knew what Boy A had planned. Boy A had mentioned committing the murder to Boy B a month before he did it, however from the transcript of that conversation, it seems that Boy B thinks Boy A is making a stupid sick joke. Boy B says the idea is “retarded”. Again, Boy B lied repeatedly and intentionally hampered the investigation but when he came clean, his story seemed to add up.
Now it’s impossible to know for sure but say for the sake of argument, Boy B’s statement when he “came clean” is truthful… if that were the case he would’ve witnessed an extremely traumatic event and likely would’ve been exhibiting trauma response himself. I think it’s not unreasonable that a 13-year-old boy who’s in freeze trauma response would lie to try make the situation go away. And indeed, he was diagnosed by a forensic psychologist as suffering from PTSD as a result of witnessing the murder. That same Psychologist wrote a letter and testified in court that he did not think Boy B knew what Boy A’s plans but this doctor’s evidence was excluded. Including such evidence on appeal could make a difference in the conviction. Ultimately, it was his lies that got Boy B convicted as unlike Boy A, there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene. He likely would never have been charged if he’d kept quiet.
An innocent young girl was brutally murdered by vile, evil POS … Anna was not given a moments privacy & very little respect since her brutal death and yet these evil little scumbags are claiming every right to not have their names; family details; etc be posted online so as not to wreck their lives. Why aren’t their parents being held responsible? Why isn’t the judge being named and shamed?
13 comments
Judge massively out of touch on this one. He needs to come back down to earth and understand the highly emotionally charged nature of this case.
The boy’s names are public information for all practical purposes, if you want to know them you can. Technically those people did break the law, but actually doing anything beyond a stern warning would be really silly. Nothing to be gained from convicting these people, especially because the boys absolutely deserve whatever comes to them.
The 3 people accused of breaching publication restrictions – a provision of The Children’s Act – for sharing images and details of “Boy A” and “Boy B” are appealing the charge, along with appealing the court in which the hearing be held.
The three people are named in relation to the public offences.
Whilst I understand that children have a right to privacy, I simply can’t get my head around the fact that these teen murderers avail of anonymity. Jamie Bulger’s murderers were identified and have gone on to live their adult lives anonymously (well, until Jon Venables re-offended).
I think the right to anonymity should be waived given the severity of the crimes. I would hate to think my child could some day become involved with one of them and we not know who they really are.
I think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money prosecuting people who shared details/content on Facebook/social media. A penalty or fine, community service working with young offenders or something would be more appropriate.
They may be braking the law.
Morally? They are doing nothing wrong.
Of course they broke the law. This thread just shows that most people are incapable of making objective decisions because they are too easily swayed by the “emotionally charged” nature of the crime.
Ironic how the (convicted) murdering cunts cannot legally be named but the people accused (and not convicted) of naming them can have their own names published all over the media.
Mad people seem to be expecting judges to just disregard the law. Like I’d have no issue with them being named but the law is the law.
Now I’d imagine in terms of sentences it’ll be minor enough or thrown out if a clever enough defence can be made. Like no sane judge will be going to bat for 2 child murderers
Think they re 20 now. They ll probably be out when they re 30 . I’m not sure whether these people should have done what they done on social media given the amount of wankers who thrive on giving out false information. But I do think it’s absolutely in the public interest that we know who Man A and Man B are .
Why is it that the adults who rob bikes, cause chaos on public transport, rob shops etc get slaps on the wrist but someone who leaked the name, which seems like a minor offense in comparison get punished more seriously?
Man, I followed this case from start to finish. It was just wall-to-wall misery reading about the updates each time. It made me feel sad on the inside each time. I often think about what she must have went through along with the anguish of her parents.
All of the lies and allegations told by the accused during the trial also – I hope they all rot in hell.
I don’t agree with the ‘name and shame’ issue. You know full well, that these guys’ families will be hounded by the usual suspects.
ah, AM from Leixlip?
Boy A is a monster and should never see the light of day. Won’t be popular here but Boy B may get his sentence overturned. He deserved severe punishment for lying to the investigators however the general public (and reddit, judging from comments here) seem to think he was as involved with the assault and murder as Boy A was. This is very clearly not the case and the murder charge may be ruled excessive if a more competent defence case is put forward.
Boy B was a witness to the assault/murder and he was the one who asked Anna to meet Boy A, but there are serious doubts as to whether he knew what Boy A had planned. Boy A had mentioned committing the murder to Boy B a month before he did it, however from the transcript of that conversation, it seems that Boy B thinks Boy A is making a stupid sick joke. Boy B says the idea is “retarded”. Again, Boy B lied repeatedly and intentionally hampered the investigation but when he came clean, his story seemed to add up.
Now it’s impossible to know for sure but say for the sake of argument, Boy B’s statement when he “came clean” is truthful… if that were the case he would’ve witnessed an extremely traumatic event and likely would’ve been exhibiting trauma response himself. I think it’s not unreasonable that a 13-year-old boy who’s in freeze trauma response would lie to try make the situation go away. And indeed, he was diagnosed by a forensic psychologist as suffering from PTSD as a result of witnessing the murder. That same Psychologist wrote a letter and testified in court that he did not think Boy B knew what Boy A’s plans but this doctor’s evidence was excluded. Including such evidence on appeal could make a difference in the conviction. Ultimately, it was his lies that got Boy B convicted as unlike Boy A, there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene. He likely would never have been charged if he’d kept quiet.
An innocent young girl was brutally murdered by vile, evil POS … Anna was not given a moments privacy & very little respect since her brutal death and yet these evil little scumbags are claiming every right to not have their names; family details; etc be posted online so as not to wreck their lives. Why aren’t their parents being held responsible? Why isn’t the judge being named and shamed?