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

splinter65

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.

For you to say with such confidence that he wasn’t under the influence of an intoxicant of some kind then you’ll accept that you needed to be either sitting very near him observing him with a professional substance abuse expert hat on, or have a very close personal relationship with him.
Other then that you don’t know any more then anyone else here, and you’ll have to accept that the prison officers remark could be easily interpreted as an allegation of substance abuse.

Stop moaning ffs

To be fair those parents had to sit there and listen to what their sons had done. In no way comparable to the pain Anas parents were no doubt in but it had to be shocking and a truly horrible feeling hearing what their boys had done. That had to have a seriously profound effect on them too.

Hannibal_Smith

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.

Yes you very much do need to be there if you're claiming you know.

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

An emotional outburst of grief at the final realization that his son is:
A. Wicked beyond belief
B. Not coming home anymore
might be excusable.
The abuse of the court was totally inexcusable and he should have been arrested. IMHO.

spurious

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.

The outburst was very much not the time or place, but if the father genuinely believed his child did not do it (and yes, he may be deluded there) it is understandable.

Or if the father believed, or had been led to believe, that there being no evidence that his child ever laid a hand on her and the only evidence linking his son to the crime was from the child himself, by all accounts a repeated liar, that the father believed this would mean his son was 'innocent' of murder (which was the only charge before the court), well then I could certainly understand the anger which seemed from reports I read to be directed at the guards, not the jury(?).

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 meantt?

Not only are you an authority on what Boy B’s father felt and his state of mind , now you are an authority on what the court official actually meant !!
Makes me laugh to read your complete knowledge of all matters . !!!

corpusvile

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

I took it to mean highly strung, I've never heard of anyone referring to people on drugs as being "high" in Ireland, actually.

Flippyfloppy

spurious wrote: »

The outburst was very much not the time or place, but if the father genuinely believed his child did not do it (and yes, he may be deluded there) it is understandable.

Or if the father believed, or had been led to believe, that there being no evidence that his child ever laid a hand on her and the only evidence linking his son to the crime was from the child himself, by all accounts a repeated liar, that the father believed this would mean his son was 'innocent' of murder (which was the only charge before the court), well then I could certainly understand the anger which seemed from reports I read to be directed at the guards, not the jury(?).

I imagine he had been on tenterhooks waiting on the verdict, and the outburst was a culmination of those emotions.

I’ve seen enough posts here that doubt boy Bs guilt, if the general public have their doubts you can be sure the parents would too.

Flippyfloppy

corpusvile wrote: »

I took it to mean highly strung, I've never heard of anyone referring to people on drugs as being "high" in Ireland, actually.

High isn’t used for being on drugs in Ireland, and it’s an equally strange term to use for high emotions but I have heard it used that way before, and can especially imagine it being used that way within a court setting.

volchitsa

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.

Indeed. Ana's parents were under as much strain or more, but they didn't behave like that, shouting at the boys that they were lying for instance.

Stop moaning ffs

This one still hurts so much. This poor girl. The awful way she was treated by her peers. I hope they feel a deep regret if not shame for their behaviour. And adjust it in future. They have far more to answer for than the fathers outburst in my view.

Hannibal_Smith

spurious wrote: »

The outburst was very much not the time or place, but if the father genuinely believed his child did not do it (and yes, he may be deluded there) it is understandable.

Or if the father believed, or had been led to believe, that there being no evidence that his child ever laid a hand on her and the only evidence linking his son to the crime was from the child himself, by all accounts a repeated liar, that the father believed this would mean his son was 'innocent' of murder (which was the only charge before the court), well then I could certainly understand the anger which seemed from reports I read to be directed at the guards, not the jury(?).

There is something missing though. The full truth hasn't been found. Boy B told the truth after he had been caught lying, according to Gardai. There is something not right.

Maybe he did think his son was innocent, but do you balance that with the Kreigels and how they conducted themselves in court?

I expect there will be an appeal by Boy B and who knows maybe something may reveal itself there.

Stop moaning ffs

Would anyone take the case though? Any appeal by either would fail. The case against both was watertight and procedures followed to the letter by gardai and the judge

corpusvile

abff wrote: »

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.

This will sound very simplistic but some people are just "freaks" if you will. Crimes of this nature perpetrated by such young offenders are proportionately mercifully rare but they do happen & can be from any era & the brutality is always extreme.

There's no rhyme or reason to it & no definitive answers. Jesse Pomeroy was a 14-year-old who tortured several children, using boards and knives. He eventually murdered at least two & possibly up to nine children. This was in 1874, long before porn or the internet or violent movies or any other handy scapegoat that people tend to look for simply to make some form of sense of such horrific brutal callous crimes.

Craig Price murdered four people by the time he was 15 in 1987.
In 1960s UK, 11-year-old Mary Bell murdered two children. In 2007 in India Armadeep Sada, an eight-year-old had the dubious distinction of becoming the world's youngest serial killer after he murdered three infants. Kid was from a poor rural family & probably didn't even have a tv, never mind an internet connection at the time so it's doubtful he had access to violent imagery & by all accounts simply appeared to be a sadist.

It's easy to blame violent porn for this, just as it was easy in the US to blame Marilyn Manson after Columbine & to clarify, I'm quite sure violent porn very probably did fuel Boy A's fantasies/pathology but he was clearly deeply disturbed to begin with.

Again there's no real answers, no definitive cause regarding cases like this. We don't even have a certain motive for why they did this, even if we strongly suspect it was a thrill kill by two budding psychopaths.

But those looking for easy answers or a sense of context won't find any imo because this type of crime while again rare, has been going on for 150 years at least.

And now it's happened here. All we can do collectively is pick up the pieces.

That's why I hope they get a life sentence due to the rare, extreme nature of their crime. Normal legislation doesn't apply here as this type of crime wasn't considered at the time. Sentencing should reflect society's abhorrence but more pertinently these need life licence as we all know they'll eventually be paroled.

spurious

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

There is something missing though. The full truth hasn't been found. Boy B told the truth after he had been caught lying, according to Gardai. There is something not right.

Maybe he did think his son was innocent, but do you balance that with the Kreigels and how they conducted themselves in court?

I expect there will be an appeal by Boy B and who knows maybe something may reveal itself there.

Oh the Kriegels conducted themselves with nothing but dignity throughout and since, considering the vile crime that had been done against their child.

I suppose some people have a clue in terms of how to behave in a court of law, whether that be to not arrive scratching yourself in a tracksuit bottoms, or to not roar and shout at witnesses/the judge. It wouldn't be the first time this father did something a bit unusual. I really think if the guards were at my door, for any reason, I would want to know what was going on, not head off to bed, no matter how tired I was.

Kidchameleon

Maybe he didn't want to impose himself on the situation. Perhaps he thought to himself "ill leave them to it, the missus can fill me in later" (as a matter of fact, there is a report that he spoke to his wife the next day about it). Perhaps the guards advised him to not be part of the discussion for fear of making the boy less inclined to talk. Who knows? The is a myriad of reasons why B's dad would not have been part of the conversation. Remember, there are quotes of the dad telling the son to "tell the truth".


People are clutching at straws about B's dad's behavior. Everything he has done (that we know of) has been nothing but dignified (other than his outburst, which was perfectly natural). Please remember that this mans life will never be the same again. The only people responsible are boy A and boy B, the state has found they acted with full intent and knowledge that their actions were wrong. Stop blaming B's dad.

gozunda

spurious wrote: »

Oh the Kriegels conducted themselves with nothing but dignity throughout and since, considering the vile crime that had been done against their child.

I suppose some people have a clue in terms of how to behave in a court of law, whether that be to not arrive scratching yourself in a tracksuit bottoms, or to not roar and shout at witnesses/the judge. It wouldn't be the first time this father did something a bit unusual. I really think if the guards were at my door, for any reason, I would want to know what was going on, not head off to bed, no matter how tired I was.

From various things during the investigation and the gardai calling at boy Bs house etc - I got the impression that the mother was the one who decided to with her son. I believe the father may have realised (or told) he was perhaps not the best person to make a good impression. From what happened - it looks like he may have some issues with his temper. The Gardai interviews could have been very different- if the father had accompanied his son imo.

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Maybe he didn't want to impose himself on the situation. Perhaps he thought to himself "ill leave them to it, the missus can fill me in later" (as a matter of fact, there is a report that he spoke to his wife the next day about it). Perhaps the guards advised him to not be part of the discussion for fear of making the boy less inclined to talk. Who knows? The is a myriad of reasons why B's dad would not have been part of the conversation. Remember, there are quotes of the dad telling the son to "tell the truth".


People are clutching at straws about B's dad's behavior. Everything he has done (that we know of) has been nothing but dignified (other than his outburst, which was perfectly natural). Please remember that this mans life will never be the same again. The only people responsible are boy A and boy B, the state has found they acted with full intent and knowledge that their actions were wrong. Stop blaming B's dad.

Stop. No. The Kreigels were nothing but dignified. They're the example of dignity that we should be looking for. They never once shouted, despite hearing the awful things said about and done to their daughter.

A guy was murdered near us last year and there were house to house enquiries. I was in the area before the person was found, so the gardai had questions for me. I brought her in and answered questions. My husband was putting the kids to bed, he came down and made tea for the Garda. I appreciate Ana wasn't found when they knocked at Boy B's house, but I couldn't expect to leave them at the door for an hour. Especially given a kid was missing.

When we get snippets of information in the media some can get magnified. But you have no more of an idea than anyone else which ones have become more magnified or which are relevant.

Kidchameleon

gozunda wrote: »

From various things during the investigation and the gardai calling at boy Bs house etc - I got the impression that the mother was the one who decided to with her son. I believe the father may have realised (or told) he was perhaps not the best person to make a good impression. From what happened - it looks like he may have some issues with his temper. The Gardai interviews could have been very different- if the father had accompanied his son imo.

Well I don't think having an emotional outburst when your son is convicted of murder is necessarily indicative of a short temper but it is very possible that there was some understanding somewhere along the line that perhaps the interviews and discussions were best conducted without the presence of the dad. That doesn't mean the dad had any sort of negative personality or parenting traits but perhaps it is a m.o. of the guards in situations like this.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Maybe he didn't want to impose himself on the situation. Perhaps he thought to himself "ill leave them to it, the missus can fill me in later" (as a matter of fact, there is a report that he spoke to his wife the next day about it). Perhaps the guards advised him to not be part of the discussion for fear of making the boy less inclined to talk. Who knows? The is a myriad of reasons why B's dad would not have been part of the conversation. Remember, there are quotes of the dad telling the son to "tell the truth".


People are clutching at straws about B's dad's behavior. Everything he has done (that we know of) has been nothing but dignified (other than his outburst, which was perfectly natural). Please remember that this mans life will never be the same again. The only people responsible are boy A and boy B, the state has found they acted with full intent and knowledge that their actions were wrong. Stop blaming B's dad.

So, nothing but dignified except for the time when he wasn't. Okay.

(And we don't really know much either way about any other times.)

gozunda

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well I don't think having an emotional outburst when your son is convicted of murder is necessarily indicative of a short temper but it is very possible that there was some understanding somewhere along the line that perhaps the interviews and discussions were best conducted without the presence of the dad. That doesn't mean the dad had any sort of negative personality or parenting traits but perhaps it is a m.o. of the guards in situations like this.

Fair enough. But avoiding the Garda and heading to bed, not attending any of the interviews and the final outburst doesnt look great tbh. I would agree that the mother was the person was perhaps best for attending the interviews. Though I reckon there is more to it than that. Just my own conjecture btw.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

So, nothing but dignified except for the time when he wasn't. Okay.

No, nothing but dignified without exception. We all lose the run ourselves from time to time, that does not make us lacking in dignity because we are all human and none of us are perfect.

volchitsa wrote: »

(And we don't really know much either way about any other times.)

Nope, none of us do. We could make up any number of scenarios in our head about B's dad or any other sacred cow for that matter, none of it could be claimed to be true without evidence.

Kidchameleon

gozunda wrote: »

Fair enough. But avoiding the Garda and heading to bed, not attending any of the interviews and the final outburst doesnt look great tbh. I would agree that the mother was the person was perhaps best for attending the interviews. Though I reckon there is more to it than that. Just my own conjecture btw.

I am not a guard but I'd like to know if B's dad was welcome at the interviews or advised to stay away before I made judgements on his parenting abilities. He has other family who adore him I am sure.

Stop moaning ffs

Do you know him or something KC?

It seems like it

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No, nothing but dignified without exception. We all lose the run ourselves from time to time, that does not make us lacking in dignity because we are all human and none of us are perfect.

There was an exception, so you've already contradicted yourself there.
We don't know whether there were others.

Nope, none of us do. We could make up any number of scenarios in our head about B's dad or any other sacred cow for that matter, none of it could be claimed to be true without evidence.

And yet you asserted as a fact that he wasn't high or drunk. You have no more evidence for that than anyone else has that he was.

Kidchameleon

Just leave him alone, I'm sure the crap being spouted about him is not helping him or his family.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just leave him alone, I'm sure the crap being spouted about him is not helping him or his family.

Why does respect for this father matter so much to you when you have been utterly disrespectful about Ana Kreigel's father?

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just leave him alone, I'm sure the crap being spouted about him is not helping him or his family.

I don't think we're here to try and help him or his family?

It's to discuss the murder of a 13 year old girl by two 13 year old boys.

Kidchameleon

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I don't think we're here to try and help him or his family?

It's to discuss the murder of a 13 year old girl by two 13 year old boys.

You said it, two 13 year old boys. What has it got to do with B's father?

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You said it, two 13 year old boys. What has it got to do with B's father?

We're not entirely sure.