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

tuxy

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

Exactly what I think, too. I would move countries for my child in this situation.

I find passing some of the blame on to her parents an extremely disgusting move.
She had other issues that she was getting counselling on. Why move her when progress is being made in counselling? Moving could have caused other issues.

martingriff

Rogelio Purring Dresser wrote: »

My concern is that everyone knew she was bullied in the school. Why did her parents leave her there? Why not move her?

Unfortunately I knew of a person been bullies and did everything under the sun including to move school did no good and unfortunately did not end well not murder but you get where I am going. Years later and parents still shattered

Fall_Guy

Omackeral wrote: »

Sure the little knacks were excused from hearing evidence as it was deemed too graphic for them... even though it was them who bloody caused it. Farce.

The concept of presumption of innocence is crucial to the Irish legal system. At the time the evidence was being shown it had yet to be determined that they had caused it. Do you think it would be right for two innocent children to be exposed to that graphic evidence? I certainly don't, and as such I think it was a good call on the part of the judge.

Ash.J.Williams

Being different is such an amazing gift and she was bullied and killed for it

Hannibal_Smith

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

Exactly what I think, too. I would move countries for my child in this situation.

Her parents did all they could to protect their daughter. They have no questions to answer to anyone in this.

jobbridge4life

tuxy wrote: »

I find passing some of the blame on to her parents an extremely disgusting move.
She had other issues that she was getting counselling on. Why move her when progress is being made in counselling? Moving could have caused other issues.

This. A thousand percent this.

The armchair jury will never be satisfied. The parents of the boys, Ana the victim's parents, then the school, then on and on.

Today I saw tweets from a fairly well followed and respected tweeter screeching that the entire town of Leixlip be condemned? 15,000 people?

Gadgetman496

Fall_Guy wrote: »

The concept of presumption of innocence is crucial to the Irish legal system. At the time the evidence was being shown it had yet to be determined that they had caused it. Do you think it would be right for two innocent children to be exposed to that graphic evidence? I certainly don't, and as such I think it was a good call on the part of the judge.

But now that it has been determined they caused it, that evidence should be played over & over 24/7 in both of their rooms for the duration of their detention.

bessboroughboy

I feel that the state should intervene to publish their identities and appearances on their eventual release.

Otherwise the state may be liable for negligence when the inevitable happens and some unfortunate woman meets either one of them and is taken in by their, no doubt, jolly demeanour and, no doubt, flawless social skills.

There is plenty time to lobby the relevant politicians/civil servants and have a proper procedure in place for properly informing the public, you wouldn't be allowed put a dangerous car on the market for God's sake.

Fall_Guy

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

But now that it has been determined they caused it, that evidence should be played over & over 24/7 in both of their rooms for the duration of their detention.

To what end??

Force Carrier

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Being different is such an amazing gift and she was bullied and killed for it

This earlier post puts it quite well.

Roger Hassenforder

Fall_Guy wrote: »

The concept of presumption of innocence is crucial to the Irish legal system. At the time the evidence was being shown it had yet to be determined that they had caused it. Do you think it would be right for two innocent children to be exposed to that graphic evidence? I certainly don't, and as such I think it was a good call on the part of the judge.

TBF, thats a good point.

McCrack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Tonight the following is true:

Boy A and Boy B are detained and will be for many years. This is right and proper.

Wannabe vigilantes, keyboard hard men and people who get some weird, sad satisfaction from seeming more distressed/or outraged about the situation have been clamouring for the names... the pictures... for the parents to be imprisoned... for their other children to be seized and handed over to strangers.

I make absolutely no apology for knowing and saying that those in that camp are shameful, and those who share your feelings are responsible for the other truths of this night:

An innocent child has been named, shamed and shared as one of the perpetrators;

The family of Boy B, who include other young and totally innocent children have been forced into hiding.

And for what?

I echo the remarks of Justice Michael White, and hope that AGS “pursue with vigour” the “idiots” responsible for this. Including as many of the sad mob begging for it as possible.

I think youre being naive

Also the suggestion that an incorrect photograph has been circulated is a red herring and the suggestion that detectives around the county have begun some national investigation into sharing of names and photographs is quite a pathetic attempt to quell it and naive people like you swallow it

jobbridge4life

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

But now that it has been determined they caused it, that evidence should be played over & over 24/7 in both of their rooms for the duration of their detention.

Jesus.

Why not just kill them?

Hal3000

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I feel that the state should intervene to publish their identities and appearances on their eventual release.

Otherwise the state may be liable for negligence when the inevitable happens and some unfortunate woman meets either one of them and is taken in by their, no doubt, jolly demeanour and, no doubt, flawless social skills.

There is plenty time to lobby the relevant politicians/civil servants and have a proper procedure in place for properly informing the public, you wouldn't be allowed put a dangerous car on the market for God's sake.

Fair enough, but while we're at it can we ask them to review our sentencing laws and why bullying is allowed to continue in our schools with little consequences for the bullies?

Uncharted

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Her parents did all they could to protect their daughter. They have no questions to answer to anyone in this.

Her parents showed the utmost dignity. They did their daughter proud.

They have done no wrong. Just like Anastasia.

paddy jackson was found innocent like it or not and he can hardly get a job,the whole Diageo/london irish thing may blow over or up in his face but look at the time, money effort afforded to these actual two monsters, to protect them and yet their 100% guilty of a crime evil by middle ages comparison. I don't get it, the tax payer will pick up the tab for these two ***** too, in fact imagine the gardai/detective resources now pulled from cathing paedo's on line to knocking on doors asking, Hey watsup with your watsap!!

spurious

I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?

Roger Hassenforder

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Jesus.

Why not just kill them?

Hmmm
Lets tease that out a bit


*only joking.ish

Blinky Plebum

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Jesus.

Why not just kill them?

Not in favour of death penalty but honestly I have no issue with giving any cold blooded murderers as hard a time as humanly possible in prison.They don't deserve any sympathy.This was a crime of pure nastiness there is absolutely nothing in the world that can even attempt to justify it.

They should not be allowed out of prison again , life should mean life and ridiculously it doesn't. I really wish somebody would challenge this in the courts and have life sentences actually mean life in prison.

Murder is the worst crime a person can commit it is the only crime that you can't have the potential to recover from and it should mean you never get out of prison again.

Strazdas

SirChenjin wrote: »

Haven't watched the programme but it's a point I have made a couple of times in the thread. Ana was a beautiful child who was deeply loved. This is evident from everything that her parents said about her in the course of the trial. I cannot begin to imagine their horrendous loss, in the very worst of circumstances.

May she rest in peace, poor innocent child.

The local TD who knew Ana and the family well said Ana's mum was a fantastic mother to her. I don't doubt this for a moment.

tuxy

spurious wrote: »

I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

We will never know what legal advice he got, if he followed that legal advice or if he also lied to his legal advisers.

What we do know is that once the Garda started to call him out on his lies with witnesses and evidence to prove he was lying he tried to pass all blame onto Boy A but in doing so only incriminated himself. It is also known that Boy B was originally under the mistaken impression that he could only get in a small amount of trouble because it was not him that did the actual killing.

jus_tin4

spurious wrote: »

I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?

Think he had to talk tbh, cctv evidence of him at the location and with Ana. Then got caught in his own lies. Not sure of all the fact so stand to be corrected obviously, but anyone point out to me how he was directly involved in the murder? Did he know that was boys a plan? Just this area seems pretty unclear to me but maybe there was more evidence that I’m not aware of other that him saying he saw something happening

jimmycrackcorm

Omackeral wrote: »

Sure the little knacks were excused from hearing evidence as it was deemed too graphic for them... even though it was them who bloody caused it. Farce.

People have criticized this as it's natural to feel anger and want to grab those boys by the hair, stick their face in front of the screen and roar, look at what you did.

But the job of the judge was to make sure that the trial was conducted in a very fair manner that took into account that these boys are still children regardless of how the outcome would prove to be.

Force Carrier

spurious wrote: »

I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?

You can be fairly certain the solicitor's advice was to keep shtum. That's standard.

I think the dynamic of his parents presence here might have had an influence.
The lad was maintaining his innocence to them as much as to the garda and was saying I can answer everything it's all ok.

Also he was basically unknowledgeable and inexperienced at dealing with being accused of a crime, dealing with police and being in custody. His solicitor was probably going nuts on the inside but could do nothing.

The Specialist

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Jesus.

Why not just kill them?

In an ideal world they would both be put down like the animals they are.

Goodgoods

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

Exactly what I think, too. I would move countries for my child in this situation.

Maybe her parents realized that moving her might give her the message that SHE had done something wrong and damage her self esteem further

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Sure the little knacks were excused from hearing evidence as it was deemed too graphic for them... even though it was them who bloody caused it. Farce.

When I first heard the guilty verdict on the news, they also reported all the snippets about them being excused for the graphic evidence, about the barristers and judge not wearing their regular court attire, court emblems being covered up - basically a sanitised, warmer environment being created to make these two monsters feel more comfortable. I was a bit livid thinking about it.

However, then the penny dropped - No matter how sure the guards and prosecutors can be that they have the right suspect(s), no matter how heinous the crime which is being leveled at the accused, there is that presumption of innocence which lead to the likes of these murderers being excused from graphic evidence and the other court alterations.

Yeah, these absolute horrors had to be excused for graphic evidence and the adult court made a bit more child-friendly, seems crazy and farcical considering the verdict, but I now know and understand why it is that way and I'm glad that the presumption of innocence exists in our court system.

Gadgetman496

tuxy wrote: »

We will never know what legal advice he got, if he followed that legal advice or if he also lied to his legal advisers.

What we do know is that once the Garda started to call him out on his lies with witnesses and evidence to prove he was lying he tried to pass all blame onto Boy A but in doing so only incriminated himself. It is also known that Boy B was originally under the mistaken impression that he could only get in a small amount of trouble because it was not him that did the actual killing.

He may not have pulled the trigger but he loaded the gun.

bessboroughboy

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I feel that the state should intervene to publish their identities and appearances on their eventual release.

Otherwise the state may be liable for negligence when the inevitable happens and some unfortunate woman meets either one of them and is taken in by their, no doubt, jolly demeanour and, no doubt, flawless social skills.

There is plenty time to lobby the relevant politicians/civil servants and have a proper procedure in place for properly informing the public, you wouldn't be allowed put a dangerous car on the market for God's sake.

Further to my comment above, if a "proper procedure" isn't in place by the time either of them is released and, probably, strikes again, then the politicians will simply chant a mantra about how they're going to "redouble their efforts" and "learn from their mistakes going forward". This is why there needs to be a procedural change PRIOR to their release/releases.

spurious

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

People have criticized this as it's natural to feel anger and want to grab those boys by the hair, stick their face in front of the screen and roar, look at what you did.

But the job of the judge was to make sure that the trial was conducted in a very fair manner that took into account that these boys are still children regardless of how the outcome would prove to be.

At that stage legally they were two still innocent children who had been charged with a crime. In the (OK we know now the unlikely) event they had nothing to do with it, it would not be acceptable to expose children to such evidence.