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

IontachSpraoi

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

dickangel

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

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

Relation of Boy B attacked last month in Dublin.

I always feel like these vigilante types are the dregs of society and murderers or pedophiles are the only type of person they hold the moral highground over. The fact that they assaulted a relative just because he's a relative goes to show their level of intellect. Not to mention that a verdict hadn't been reached at the time of the assault.

Gimme A Pound

tuxy wrote: »

Sickening, it's been less than two hours since someone tried to place some blame on poor Ana's parents.
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.

I think he was referring to the school in its guise as guardians.

I agree too. Schools are in loco parentis and it's totally farcical that a child can be tormented and terrorised there.

Force Carrier

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Will they be in isolation in Oberstown? I reckon they could be killed in there if not.

I don't think Oberstown has a facility to isolate prisoners.
Each kid has an individual bedroom and then there are communal areas for dining , recreation etc.
If I recollect right staff there got in trouble previously for isolating a misbehaving youth in his bedroom for too long.

tuxy

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

What do you believe the mistake was?
Was there any unique features to the back of their heads that could be used to identify them?

mrjoneill

BloodBath wrote: »

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.

The sexual nature to the crime on their young age implies internet learning and Boy A had a fine collection of porn and was searching for animal and child porn. I would not be surprised if Boy B his friend was getting a good look at this too if he had not his own collection. Something like 10% of sex crimes are now committed by young teenagers on younger.

Fan of Netflix

dickangel wrote: »

I always feel like these vigilante types are the dregs of society and murderers or pedophiles are the only type of person they hold the moral highground over. The fact that they assaulted a relative just because he's a relative goes to show their level of intellect. Not to mention that a verdict hadn't been reached at the time of the assault.

Sounds like someone with local knowledge assaulted one of the fathers.

IontachSpraoi

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

It also showed either their parents or barristers, I believe. Seemed a bit odd that identifying them has been strictly forbidden, and then a fairly detailed sketch appears of them (albeit the back of their heads). Even if it identified things like skin colour / hair colour - which it did - it could lead to further identification.

tuxy

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

It also showed either their parents or barristers, I believe. Seemed a bit odd that identifying them has been strictly forbidden, and then a fairly detailed sketch appears of them (albeit the back of their heads). Even if it identified things like skin colour / hair colour - which it did - it could lead to further identification.

Fairly mild compared to the mistake made on Red FM then.
The sketch probably should have been black and white.

IontachSpraoi

tuxy wrote: »

What do you believe the mistake was?
Was there any unique features to the back of their heads that could be used to identify them?

Sorry, I didn't see this before my last post. It just seemed odd that nothing had ever been shown before, and here we were being presented with fairly blatant details of the boys' appearance.

STB.

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't see this before my last post. It just seemed odd that nothing had ever been shown before, and here we were being presented with fairly blatant details of the boys' appearance.

An artist impression of a courtroom scene identifies nobody from the back of their heads. I would imagine the artist impression only achieved one thing, to add to the disbelief that yes they were very young etc.

When you get your first passport you will experience the reality of facial recognition.

Mellor

Fall_Guy wrote: »

...and they may well be (or at least boy a) psychopaths.... But if that's the case, they are 1. Beyond rehabilitation and 2. Not truly in control of their actions....What you are viewing as a person's choice to commit evil acts is really far less of an act of free will than you are painting it.

Boy A could very well be a clinical psychopath.
I've no idea why you are making the leap from there to not being in control of their actions? A lack of guilt, empathy, and emotional attachments are traits of psychopathy. There's nothing about being a psychopath that relates to not being in control.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

The sexual nature to the crime on their young age implies internet learning and Boy A had a fine collection of porn and was searching for animal and child porn. I would not be surprised if Boy B his friend was getting a good look at this too if he had not his own collection. Something like 10% of sex crimes are now committed by young teenagers on younger.

That doesn't mean he was normal to begin with. And porn changed him into a psychopath.

If he was a psychopath to begin with, predisposed to violence and sexual violence to begin with, then he would seek out such porn if available to him. Just like he would seek out victims to attack and abuse when the time was right. Non availability of porn wouldn't mean he would not rape or kill people.

Some people are born with an incapacity to feel empathy and a propensity to harm others.

mrjoneill

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.

Ana had no peer friend which sounds awful. As for bullying the school was in a posh suburb that they thought there was no need for a bullying policy. What we see from the surrounding circumstances Ana was in crisis before it was identified as a problem. Boy A & Boy B were in her class, both saw her as being vulnerable and played on it. It really astonishes me in 2019 that kids could be so mean, though we had overcome all this of old.

IontachSpraoi

STB. wrote: »

An artist impression of a courtroom scene identify nobody from the back of their heads. I would imagine the artist impression only achieved one thing, to add to the disbelief that yes they were 13 etc.

When you get your first passport you will experience the reality of facial recognition.

Fair, but it did distinguish that they were white. I remember seeing a post on Reddit ages ago implying that at least one of the boys was of colour, and that they could be more heavily targeted because of this. Not that they don't deserve to be heavily targeted, in fairness...

STB.

mrjoneill wrote: »

Ana had no peer friend which sounds awful. As for bullying the school was in a posh suburb that they thought there was no need for a bullying policy. What we see from the surrounding circumstances Ana was in crisis before it was identified as a problem. Boy A & Boy B were in her class, both saw her as being vulnerable and played on it. It really astonishes me in 2019 that kids could be so mean, though we had overcome all this of old.

Is this actually true ? I thought new procedures requires all schools to formally adopt and implement an anti-bullying policy ? Came in about 5 years ago ?

Funnily enough I read claims (albeit from a very low reg account) that there were bullying issues at this school. It was sometime earlier.

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Fair, but it did distinguish that they were white. I remember seeing a post on Reddit ages ago implying that at least one of the boys was of colour, and that they could be more heavily targeted because of this. Not that they don't deserve to be heavily targeted, in fairness...

I don't think race or colour comes into it. And Reddit, well don't believe everything you read there. No matter what colour they were, the shock value was achieved by the adult vs child size, and the subject matter of the proceedings.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

That doesn't mean he was normal to begin with. And porn changed him into a psychopath.

If he was a psychopath to begin with, predisposed to violence and sexual violence to begin with, then he would seek out such porn if available to him. Just like he would seek out victims to attack and abuse when the time was right. Non availability of porn wouldn't mean he would not rape or kill people.

Some people are born with an incapacity to feel empathy and a propensity to harm others.

The definition of sociopath and Psychopath don't need external sources to trigger their desires as they have no empathy. But at such a young age with the sex attack being part of it one cant but deduce it had a internet porn angle to it. And Boy B did not see anything wrong with it either as he did not express any revulsion and kept quiet. If he had not the access to porn his sexual predilections u propose were so innate to him wold not have being fulfilled as he would be totally ignorant of them at such a young age. He was prob just a yr into puberty. U assume so much is so innate without a flicker of proof to the facts. We do know from the facts that many sexual criminals have been triggered by events of their early teenage yrs.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

The definition of sociopath and Psychopath don't need external sources to trigger their desires as they have no empathy. But at such a young age with the sex attack being part of it one cant but deduce it had a internet porn angle to it. And Boy B did not see anything wrong with it either as he did not express any revulsion and kept quiet.

You have no idea what the source of their pathology is.
You're not medically qualified and you've never met them much less treated them.
Therefore you're assertion that porn caused their behavior is like all your other musings on this case complete horse sh1t and without basis in fact.

mrjoneill

tuxy wrote: »

At one stage they were black, then polish, then the son of a guard and many other things.

They were our own home grown and the sons of middle class families. That what makes it so in-explainable. Both had not come to the notice of authorities previously.

IontachSpraoi

I'd disagree that the school is in a posh suburb, it's a fairly normal area. Big mixture of well-off and working class families. Lots of kids. I can't begin to imagine how awful it must have been for Ana being surrounded by cliques the whole time. Being excluded as an adult is horrible, let alone as a young teen.

Suckit

mrjoneill wrote: »

They were our own home grown and the sons of middle class families. That what makes it so in-explainable. Both had not come to the notice of authorities previously.

They were only 13.
But I thought Boy B had come to their attention, that's how they got his name from the Pulse system?

BloodBath

mrjoneill wrote: »

The definition of sociopath and Psychopath don't need external sources to trigger their desires as they have no empathy. But at such a young age with the sex attack being part of it one cant but deduce it had a internet porn angle to it. And Boy B did not see anything wrong with it either as he did not express any revulsion and kept quiet.

You should remember what the hormones of a 13-14 year old boy is like if you are man. It's pretty bloody insane.

Now put those hormones into a psychopath. Porn is not needed for their sick mind and sexual fantasies to mix.

Sure it can contribute but it is not the cause.

Gadgetman496

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

I'd disagree that the school is in a posh suburb, it's a fairly normal area. Big mixture of well-off and working class families. Lots of kids. I can't begin to imagine how awful it must have been for Ana being surrounded by cliques the whole time. Being excluded as an adult is horrible, let alone as a young teen.

I wonder what if any percentage of the flowers and Teddy's left at the scene were from students at her school?

Mellor

mrjoneill wrote: »

But at such a young age with the sex attack being part of it one cant but deduce it had a internet porn angle to it.

You can't deduce that. You just made it up.
Sex crimes and Psychopaths have existing long before internet porn.

You logic is akin to saying I know a gay man who watches gay porn, so one can deduce that the gay porn played a role in turning him gay.

mrjoneill wrote: »

They were our own home grown and the sons of middle class families. That what makes it so in-explainable. Both had not come to the notice of authorities previously.

It would be more explainable if they weren't home-grown. wtf????

tuxy

Suckit wrote: »

They were only 13.
But I thought Boy B had come to their attention, that's how they got his name from the Pulse system?

No the Guards used the pulse system to find out where he lived as they just had a surname at that stage.

There is no info at all as to which member of the household was on pulse or why they were on it. There are many totally innocent reasons why someones details may be in the pulse system.

brendanwalsh

I pray for bad things to happen to boy a and boy b.

I think chemical castration would be appropriate

IontachSpraoi

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I wonder what if any percentage of the flowers and Teddy's left at the scene were from students at her school?

My sentiments exactly. Perhaps a few from older years who wouldn't have known her as an outsider, but by the sounds of it no-one from her year in school gave a damn. I hope this tragedy is a huge wake up call for those kids - and her teachers.

Thinking about it now, did her year even attend her funeral? It was her dancing school that formed a guard of honour for her.

STB.

Force Carrier wrote: »

You have no idea what the source of their pathology is..

I know this is not directed at me, but access to such content at this age in this new digital age does need to be tackled. Sexual assault (aas well as murder) was an element of this case.

In the case of one of the two children whose two phones was recovered had a staggering amount of porn on it, and not soft porn either.

That anyone at such an age can easily access this sort of material on a hand held device does need to be tackled. Its something we have been behind the curve on.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

You have no idea what the source of their pathology is.
You're not medically qualified and you've never met them much less treated them.
Therefore you're assertion that porn caused their behavior is like all your other musings on this case complete horse sh1t and without basis in fact.

And ur the expert and ur passing comments on me as if u had some superior knowledge and u have a superior opinion. Perhaps its ur eating the horse manure. We know that Boy A had a large collection of porn, we know he committed a sex attack on his victim and he was only 13. Where would he get the knowledge at such a young age to engage in sex acts if he had not seen them on the internet. We do know he was also searching for other abnormal sex acts on the internet such as child and animal porn. Without the internet his sexual fantasies may not have arisen so young if not at all.

tuxy

STB. wrote: »

I know this is not directed at me, but access to such content at this age in this new digital age does need to be tackled. Sexual assault (aas well as murder) was an element of this case.

In the case of one of the two children whose two phones was recovered had a staggering amount of porn on it, and not soft porn either.

That anyone at such an age can easily access this sort of material on a hand held device does need to be tackled. Its something we have been behind the curve on.

It was believed there was a sexual element to the Jamie Bulger case and that predates the internet being available in homes and on phones.
Movies had to take the blame that time, no other way of explaining it right?
What has been done to prevent minors from viewing violent moves? Couldn't we use the exact same thing with the internet now?