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

avalidusername

tuxy wrote: »

100% his voice is too high, can't be anything else.

Unless you were in the court room, and were witness to what was said, then it's not 100%

For what it's worth for all those interested in names or initials. The cases were publicly listed on the courts.ie website at the time, it didn't take a whole lot of work to figure it out once you know which judge was presiding.

<SNIP - even if this is in the public domain, we are not sharing it openly. Posters can figure it out for themselves if they do wish. Your post is in poor spirit

dudara>

tuxy

avalidusername wrote: »

Unless you were in the court room, and were witness to what was said, then it's not 100%

True, he may have been mildly intoxicated earlier on in the day but as it progressed he got too high.

dickangel

It's clear that he meant the level of his voice, seeing as the comment was made when the man began shouting. Any other theory is gossipy nonsense.

Suckit

Boy B’s father began shouting. A prison officer told his wife: “He’s too high. He has to go out.” The father slammed the courtroom door as he left, before returning a few seconds later and embracing his wife and son. Boy A’s parents also wept and hugged their son but remained silent.

I interpreted it as being 'wired'/highly strung.

I wonder how much Boy B's father has gone over stuff. Because initially the only real evidence against B came from his own mouth.

I mean if Boy B had initially stayed quiet (luckily he spoke before they found Ana), they would likely be none the wiser, but he did speak and that is how he was prosecuted.
How (even with the 'he's my son, I must stand by him' nonsense that is being spewed) did he not see that his son was obviously lying and then lying some more.
There is now more evidence against B, because he spoke. But without referring to that and just the lies, surely the father must have (at this stage) sat down and said to himself 'he did it' or at the very least 'he watched it, he was there, he brought her there'.

It's a lot for the father to get his head around, but it must be something that he has realised by now. Otherwise he won't really be doing his son any favours when talking to him.

pablo128

avalidusername wrote: »

Unless you were in the court room, and were witness to what was said, then it's not 100%

For what it's worth for all those interested in names or initials. The cases were publicly listed on the courts.ie website at the time, it didn't take a whole lot of work to figure it out once you know which judge was presiding.

<SNIP>

You are breaking the law by trying to identify them online.

Gadgetman496

The poster only mirrored what the Government have already posted on-line

Suckit

It has todays (Monday) date with (sentence) after it for both of them too using the search.
I thought they were being sentenced on 15th of July?

Gadgetman496

avalidusername wrote: »

Unless you were in the court room, and were witness to what was said, then it's not 100%

For what it's worth for all those interested in names or initials. The cases were publicly listed on the courts.ie website at the time, it didn't take a whole lot of work to figure it out once you know which judge was presiding.

<SNIP>

If those are boy B's initials that's some coincidence?

Gadgetman496

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

The poster only mirrored what the Government have already posted on-line

You have to Love the Irish Justice System. Threatening legal action against anyone publishing identifying information online, while having the information published there themselves. I wondered will they prosecute their own department?

Road-Hog

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If those are boy B's initials that's some coincidence?

What is such a coincidence......? Initials are hardly much good....there would be 100’s of people with the same initials....?

splinter65

tuxy wrote: »

Can you link to the source of this quote from the court?
No one has any idea where you got it from as it's not been talked about on this thread yet.

No I read it too. And took it to mean too emotional.

dudara

Reminder - there are to be no efforts to name the individuals. This point has been made quite clearly in the past.

dudara

Beechwoodspark

dickangel wrote: »

It's clear that he meant the level of his voice, seeing as the comment was made when the man began shouting. Any other theory is gossipy nonsense.

That’s rubbish and you know it

I read it to mean the father was under the influence of some sort of intoxicant in court.

Kidchameleon

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I read it to mean the father was under the influence of some sort of intoxicant in court.

B's dad was not under the influence of anything.

Beechwoodspark

Kidchameleon wrote: »

B's dad was not under the influence of anything.

Then why was he described by a prison officer on duty as being high ?

Kidchameleon

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Then why was he described by a prison officer on duty as being high ?

The sounds coming from his mouth were too high in volume. A strange choice of words but its obvious that's what was meant.


Do you think B's dad rolled up a massive doob and knocked back a few JD's before his son was about to be charged most likely with murder? Are you actually seriously thinking that?

iamwhoiam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The sounds coming from his mouth were too high in volume. A strange choice of words but its obvious that's what was meant.


t?

Its not at all obvious what it means . The word used for sounds in high volume is loud

Kidchameleon

Ah yes the only possible explanation is that B's dad was high af :rolleyes:

iamwhoiam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ah yes the only possible explanation is that B's dad was high af :rolleyes:

No , its not the only explanation but neither is that he was loud the only explanation .

volchitsa

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If those are boy B's initials that's some coincidence?

A coincidence? Why?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

B's dad was not under the influence of anything.

I've no idea whether he was or not, but TBF unless you were there, nor do you.

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The sounds coming from his mouth were too high in volume. A strange choice of words but its obvious that's what was meant.


Do you think B's dad rolled up a massive doob and knocked back a few JD's before his son was about to be charged most likely with murder? Are you actually seriously thinking that?

Were you in the court room?

Kidchameleon

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Were you in the court room?

One does not need to be in the courtroom to know B's dad was not under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs for that matter.

Kidchameleon

People thinking A & B's parents tried to cover up their crime. People wanting A & B's parents locked up with them. People saying A & B should never be released. People glad B's family were attacked. People posting video's of themselves AT ANA's FUNERAL FFS. People going to the crime scene to "pray" for Ana. And now, because a hard working and stressed out prison officer misspoke, B's dad is a stoner. This thread really has it all.

It'll be aliens next I'm sure.

Suckit

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Then why was he described by a prison officer on duty as being high ?

Highly strung or wired.

I'd say he was referring to his high emotions after hearing the guilty verdict.

ohnonotgmail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

People thinking A & B's parents tried to cover up their crime. People wanting A & B's parents locked up with them. People saying A & B should never be released. People glad B's family were attacked. People posting video's of themselves AT ANA's FUNERAL FFS. People going to the crime scene to "pray" for Ana. And now, because a hard working and stressed out prison officer misspoke, B's dad is a stoner. This thread really has it all.

It'll be aliens next I'm sure.

I'm not sure you are really in a position to be casting aspersions at anybody given what you said about Ana's father.

dudara

@ohnonotgmail - I posted a mod warning in thread several days ago asking posters not to continue that line of discussion.

dudara

Gadgetman496

volchitsa wrote: »

A coincidence? Why?

Did you look at them? I thought it was very obvious...

abff

Kidchameleon wrote: »

One does not need to be in the courtroom to know B's dad was not under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs for that matter.

Actually, I don't think you can say for certain one way or the other.

There's a huge amount of speculation going on in this thread, often presented in an emphatic manner as if it's a proven fact. Like many others, I'm appalled at what happened and I'm trying to find some context that allows me to understand it better.

To what end? I'm not really sure. Maybe if we all understood why it happened, we might be able to do something to prevent something similar from happening again, or at least reduce the likelihood therof. Or maybe, we just want to have something to blame, whether it's social media, internet porn, bad parenting or whatever.

To be honest, I don't think we're going to find a reason, or combination of reasons, that we can say with certainty led to Ana's death. But I guess talking about it is a form of therapy.

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

B's dad was not under the influence of anything.

But we don’t know wether he was or not and It doesn’t matter if he was or he wasn’t, his outburst was inexcusable.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

But we don’t know wether he was or not and It doesn’t matter if he was or he wasn’t, his outburst was inexcusable.

He wasnt "high" on narcotics, he was only high on love for his son. I'm not going to go around in circles with you on this but I understand your opinion on his outburst but IMHO it is very excusable given the stress the poor man must have been under.