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

tayto lover

Cryptopagan wrote: »

And presumably the parents could have brought the questioning to an end at any time by getting up and walking out of the station, preventing the guards from continuing to legally question the boy. If they realised that their son was guilty and talking himself into a hole, and if they wanted to prevent his conviction, that would have been the obvious course of action. They facilitated his conviction by sitting there, which makes me think they probably believed he was innocent, just an unwitting tool of boy A, etc.

What struck me was that anytime Boy B mentioned Ana in his interrogation it was to put her down. Even when he knew she was dead and in such a violent manner he was still inclined to insult her. He’s a proper little monster that one.

Aisling_Dublin

shesty wrote: »

They have been convicted....what is the point of all this?

No point at all. Over 200 pages of discussion on identities, school role, parents' role, details of the crime, the ifs and but, could haves and would haves, and we're still not talking about what we should do as society to prevent another Ana's life being lost.

mrjoneill

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

She had a fantastic mother & father they likes that kids dream about and granny. Her mother took a keen interest in her & was so in tune with the event she smelled all was unwell when Ana was missing with Boy B. We also know she had a fantastic teacher at her primary school that contacted her secondary for the need for a proactive approach dealing with Ana. We know she had no friends of her own age group which does not reflect kindly of the kids of the area, one of the posher suburbs of Ireland.

jimmycrackcorm

fryup wrote: »

can we lock it till then

Why? Nobody is surfing you to read it. Why do you want to impose your judgement on what people should or not say

mrjoneill

tayto lover wrote: »

What struck me was that anytime Boy B mentioned Ana in his interrogation it was to put her down. Even when he knew she was dead and in such a violent manner he was still inclined to insult her. He’s a proper little monster that one.

He was in manipulation mode to manipulate his interrogators. He was attempting to get the message across "she was a slut, weirdo, no one would be seen dead with" so whats to worry about. It was if he & his friend had done Ireland a big favor. One wonders how he had no value system. The more I study Boy B the more I see a little manipulative rat. His attempted manipulations during his interrogations is like something from a seasoned criminal. Only for alternative evidence to counter his he would have run riot. And there was no remorse.

Shemale

On the bullying point it really is time the Government sort this **** out so many kids lives ruined or lost due to pathetic assholes.

Suspensions and eventual expulsions are the only way, government have made it almost impossible for a school to expel a pupil as everyone should get an education.

If some kids are being pricks and destroying other kids lives and educations, give their parents warnings with suspensions and finally expulsion and let the ****ing parents teach them.

TheBoyConor

tuxy wrote: »

You're crazy. You know that Boy A claimed he was attacked and him and his Dad even went around the park trying to track down the two men his son claimed were responsible. The clothes were washed while Ana was still missing with no contact between him and the Guards yet.
What kind of mother would suspect her son of murder the instant a girl goes missing in the area?

The dad looking for the attackers become she was found dead, that I can accept. However he refused to accept that the soon was guilty as fook when the irrefutable evidence came to light.
Also, the mother found a bloodied hoodie. It would have been clear to her the boy was not injured or blessing himself and the blood was someone else's. If she believed the assault story/lie, then logically would she not have kept the hoodie as evidence against the men who supposedly attacked the boy? No?
In my opinion we cannot discount the possibility that once she came to suspect he did something bad, she attempted to destroy the evidence. That makes her an accomplice or accessory.

I cannot accept that and I think his parents, by failure to denounce the boys have condemned themselves. I believe that that should be punished severely. If not though imprisonment along with the boys then it should be by public denunciation and shunning which it would appear is already under way.

I find it more disturbing to have to share a country with you than with those boy’s parents TBH.

So you have a difficulty with condemning the actions of the boys and condemning their families who, either knowingly or unknowingly, destroyed evidence and attempted to get them off the hook even when confronted with the facts and evidence of the full horrors of what they had done?

If I had a family member who I was satisfied had committed such an act against a vulnerable young girl I would denounce them and disown them without hesitation. To support such a depraved person would be to condemn yourself.

Gadgetman496

mrjoneill wrote: »

She had a fantastic mother & father they likes that kids dream about and granny. Her mother took a keen interest in her & was so in tune with the event she smelled all was unwell when Ana was missing with Boy B. We also know she had a fantastic teacher at her primary school that contacted her secondary for the need for a proactive approach dealing with Ana. We know she had no friends of her own age group which does not reflect kindly of the kids of the area, one of the posher suburbs of Ireland.

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

Ash.J.Williams

mrjoneill wrote: »

He was in manipulation mode to manipulate his interrogators. He was attempting to get the message across "she was a slut, weirdo, no one would be seen dead with" so whats to worry about. It was if he & his friend had done Ireland a big favor. One wonders how he had no value system. The more I study Boy B the more I see a little manipulative rat. His attempted manipulations during his interrogations is like something from a seasoned criminal. Only for alternative evidence to counter his he would have run riot. And there was no remorse.

I think that's the opinion the jury had

Ash.J.Williams

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

Her bully's were in secondary school and that was primary school

tuxy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The dad looking for the attackers become she was found dead, that I can accept. However he refused to accept that the soon was guilty as fook when the irrefutable evidence came to light.
Also, the mother found a bloodied hoodie. It would have been clear to her the boy was not injured or blessing himself and the blood was someone else's. If she believed the assault story/lie, then logically would she not have kept the hoodie as evidence against the men who supposedly attacked the boy? No?
In my opinion we cannot discount the possibility that once she came to suspect he did something bad, she attempted to destroy the evidence. That makes her an accomplice or accessory.

The Garda who have been extremely diligent throughout would not have let the parents off if there was any evidence to bad up what you claim.

Eoin

Cryptopagan wrote: »

And presumably the parents could have brought the questioning to an end at any time by getting up and walking out of the station, preventing the guards from continuing to legally question the boy. If they realised that their son was guilty and talking himself into a hole, and if they wanted to prevent his conviction, that would have been the obvious course of action. They facilitated his conviction by sitting there, which makes me think they probably believed he was innocent, just an unwitting tool of boy A, etc.

The Gardai can nominate another adult to be present if the parent/guardian isn't. That means they could probably get someone like a social worker to stand in if they needed to.

Gadgetman496 wrote:

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

We know that her primary school teacher warned her parents that there was a high risk of her being bullied in secondary school.

Larbre34

Shemale wrote: »

On the bullying point it really is time the Government sort this **** out so many kids lives ruined or lost due to pathetic assholes.

Suspensions and eventual expulsions are the only way, government have made it almost impossible for a school to expel a pupil as everyone should get an education.

If some kids are being pricks and destroying other kids lives and educations, give their parents warnings with suspensions and finally expulsion and let the ****ing parents teach them.

What goes on at School itself is pretty much the least of the issue.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

I don't see Boy B gear that way. I see the mask as acting out some character he may have seen & Boy B told the investigating Gardai it was so cool. This is not the first case where a teenager has acted out a horror character to commit an abominable crime. His Timberland boots, knee pads & shinguard was for battle on his victim.

It was A who had the bag containing the mask and shin guards etc and most likely him that used them.

You really are clueless on every aspect of this case.

Fan of Netflix

https://www.thejournal.ie/boy-b-ana-kriegel-family-assault-4690675-Jun2019/

Relation of Boy B attacked last month in Dublin.

Gadgetman496

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Her bully's were in secondary school and that was primary school

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

Sardonicat

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

Sigh

The teacher you are referring to was her resource teacher at primary school. What she alerted the patents to was Ana"s vulnerability to bullying in secondary school due to her trusting nature, not that she was being bullied.

Dual wheels

Reading through the full story I can’t believe the amount of concessions the killers were given by the guards and the judge, if they were old enough to maim and destroy the body of a young girl then they are old enough to be named and shamed for their actions
Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

gctest50

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Her bully's were in secondary school and that was primary school

A scumbag in third year in <SNIP> grabbed her arse and propositioned her for sex

She was in primary school at the time

He got some sort of caution

Filthy little cesspit of paedos and now murderers

iguana

Does the law preventing the identification of the boys apply to their own families? What if at some point a parent or sibling of one of the boys wants to come forward and tell their story publicly? Are they gagged from sharing details about their own life in order to continue protecting a pair of murderers?

Force Carrier

Dual wheels wrote: »

Reading through the full story I can’t believe the amount of concessions the killers were given by the guards and the judge, if they were old enough to maim and destroy the body of a young girl then they are old enough to be named and shamed for their actions
Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

It is smart to make those concessions.

Then the lads have no come back. They can't claim bad treatment. Unfair or harsh interrogation. Breach of their rights. They are left with no come back.

B was convicted largely on admissions he made during garda questioning. His defense lawyers main route to get him off would have been to make those admissions inadmissible. Due to breaches in custody regulations. The Gardaí would know this and would go out of their way to be nice as pie to him. Give him lots of breaks. Be friendly. No threats or inducements.

tuxy

iguana wrote: »

Does the law preventing the identification of the boys apply to their own families? What if at some point a parent or sibling of one of the boys wants to come forward and tell their story publicly? Are they gagged from sharing details about their own life in order to continue protecting a pair of murderers?

There would be nothing stopping them from telling the story while withholding their real name and other factors that identifies the convicted.

Gadgetman496

Sardonicat wrote: »

Sigh

The teacher you are referring to was her resource teacher at primary school. What she alerted the patents to was Ana"s vulnerability to bullying in secondary school due to her trusting nature, not that she was being bullied.

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Gimme A Pound

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

It appears they were pretty much powerless - wouldn't be the only time. Quite simply ridiculous that children get to call the shots and not the adults supervising them. The school up the street from me where a boy I know transferred due to bullying has a zero tolerance policy. It's not impossible. Schools can't protect teenagers 100% of the time - I accept that - but they have a duty of care.

Dual wheels wrote: »

Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

Wondered that all right.

STB.

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.

Will the sentence imposed ever match the life they took ?

They will most likely receive a life sentence each, with a review clause in 10 years time. They may well be out in 10-12 years, at that stage in their mid 20s with their whole lives ahead of them.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

You think that the parents of these boys have no culpability whatsoever ? Not even a small bit ? I don't think there will be any vigilantism or any hint of it. The local people in this area know the perpetrators and have known for some time. Has there been an issue with vigilantism ?

Whats all this about other children being seized - I haven't read that here ? That's a matter for the child protective services of this country if anything, if it even was an issue.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

What other truths of this night are you rambling about ?

The family of Boy B have been forced into hiding because of the actions of their son. Yes, it may be in the public domain. And its most certainly in the local domain, so are we talking about genuine fear from locals or the fear of the shame that the child they raised was found guilty of murder ?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And for what?

The general public have been fed much of the harrowing and gruesome details of this case through court reports and the vast majority are genuinely shocked that two 13 year old boys could have done such a terrible act (the jury is this case are probably the worst affected!). The two found guilty are the youngest killers in the history of the state.

It may seem unprecedented that killers are not named and may never be (as they are protected by Child protective legislation and a judges decision). Many members of the public fear that their kids/siblings may unwittingly come in contact with them in 10-12 years time.

That is called public interest, and is one of the the areas that a judge can remove a gagging order on anonymity. But that may will be revisited when these boys apply to attend a review date of their sentence in the future, by which stage they will be adults.

You shouldn't need this spelt out for you or need to use all that OTT emotive language.

mrjoneill

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.

Boy B believed he would be got on some lesser charge of misrepresentation a few weeks in prison and he would be free. He really believed he was in control. I don't know what went on with his solicitors but it seems they were equally flummoxed with Boys B video evidence. We see in Boys B final statement he wanted his mother out of the room before he came clean he was present during the killing of Ana. So this may be a reason he did not come clean with his solicitor. Even though he is a minor I would if I was representing him seek an interview with him all on his own to run through the case with him this is prior to questioning began. Here again maybe the solicitor did that and Boy B did not cooperate with him. What I understand is the solicitors have not a right to be present during the questioning by law but because of the age they allow. The arrest for questioning for suspicion of murder would have all my alarm bells going and I would be seeking to get to the bottom of the charges before questioning began. Its such a serious charge and could only happen where the state had a formidable case prepared. I would see Boy A being advised by his solicitor to the "no comment " and "cant remember" are legalistic jargon's.

iguana

tuxy wrote: »

There would be nothing stopping them from telling the story while withholding their real name and other factors that identifies the convicted.

Which completely prevents them from being open and honest about it. I know some people who have very close relatives who committed awful crimes and for some, being able to say it and distance themselves from it is extremely important to their mental health. This prevents them from ever being able to do that and that's actually not ok. They may never want to but they should not have the option to taken away from them.

BloodBath

mrjoneill wrote: »

The jeannie is out of the bottle, once out it not going back in. The facts are that most 12 yrs old are being fed a stable diet of porn. Those kids without smart phones see their friends ones. Exch porn is the new way to exch as people did of stamps at one time. Making porn only avail to adults is peppered with assumptions. In Brit kids steal their parents credit cards to get access unknown to them as no charges arise. Time to consider teaching kids about the realities of porn & the effect it can have on them.

This has nothing to do with porn. Most likely not the parents either. People looking to demonise and punish them are sickening. This is the usual looking for external factors to blame this on.

The reality is around 1% of boys/men the world over are psychopaths. A smaller number of these go on to become dangerous killers but most of them are horrible bastards.

This has been the case before the internet, porn, movies, music, video games, possession, the parents or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.

While most of the above can contribute to the behaviour of this 1% it doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is genetic and there is no cure/rehabilitation other than a bullet to the head.

Many famous "great leaders" of the past like Alexander the great were psychopaths. Many leaders today are too.

Serious lack of understanding of this in society. Identifying this group of people should be a top priority for everybody as we all know some. The majority of pain and suffering the world over is caused by this demographic.

tuxy

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Sickening, it's been less than two hours since someone tried to place some blame on poor Ana's parents and here we are again.
They knew she would be a target for bullies in any environment with her peers. She had issues which her two very supporting parents were helping her with along with a councillor.
Progress was being made, she sound like the kind of person who would have flourished in college which makes this whole thing even more tragic.

mrjoneill

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Not true, we know a scenarios was allowed develop in Ana's secondary school of extreme bullying and they were not proactive enough is protecting her despite the forwardness from her primary school. As for he mum and dad and granny the best anyone could want.