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

McDermotX

Apologizing to murderers now.

Good grief.

iamwhoiam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

So why did you mention Anas father then in a disrespectful manner ? Do your rules not apply to yourself ?

Kidchameleon

McDermotX wrote: »

Apologizing to murderers now.

Good grief.

Wut? Who is apologizing to murderers?

McDermotX

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Wut? Who is apologizing to murderers?

The radio journalist and station up before the beak for reading out Murderer A's name.

Apologise to the judge for breaking the judge's ruling (fair enough), some might even say say fair enough for apologizing to the murderer's family (though plenty will question they're role in this drawn out case) , but the line is drawn there.

Kidchameleon

McDermotX wrote: »

The radio journalist and station up before the beak for reading out Murderer A's name.

Apologise to the judge for breaking the judge's ruling (fair enough), some might even say say fair enough for apologizing to the murderer's family (though plenty will question they're role in this drawn out case) , but the line is drawn there.

They are children and in danger of vigilante attack and should not have been named, a complete brain fart by the journalist and they should rightly be apologized to for that reason and that reason alone.

LiamoSail

McDermotX wrote: »

The radio journalist and station up before the beak for reading out Murderer A's name.

Apologise to the judge for breaking the judge's ruling (fair enough), some might even say say fair enough for apologizing to the murderer's family (though plenty will question they're role in this drawn out case) , but the line is drawn there.

Maybe he should avoid interacting with the guards, plead not guilty despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not bother apologising and clap/roar sarcastically when found guilty. Apparently that's the dignified approach

Gadgetman496

Journalist, radio station fined for naming boy in Kriégel case

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0701/1059512-niall-oconnor-court/

Franz Von Peppercorn II

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So why did you mention Anas father then in a disrespectful manner ? Do your rules not apply to yourself ?

Yes, from the very first post he made here when he used quotes for their parental roles he’s been hostile to the Kriégels.

As if to say they weren’t real mothers and fathers.

Gadgetman496

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Journalist, radio station fined for naming boy in Kril case

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0701/1059512-niall-oconnor-court/

Jesus, €2500 for saying their name accidentally on radio, and it has to be paid within 3 months. That is a costly error. I hope he sets up a gofundme or something.

BarryD2

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Journalist, radio station fined for naming boy in Kriégel case

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0701/1059512-niall-oconnor-court/

Can't help but feel that the justice system has become a bit warped in the context of this particular case.

Kidchameleon

I have nothing but respect for the Kriegels. If anyone is being disrespectful it is the people wishing incarceration and physical harm on the innocent parents & immediate family of the convicted.

ohnonotgmail

BarryD2 wrote: »

Can't help but feel that the justice system has become a bit warped in the context of this particular case.

The judge ruled that the boys names were not to be revealed. The journalist revealed them, if inadvertently. the judge cant ignore that. if it has been done deliberately it would have bee jail time.

iamwhoiam

BarryD2 wrote: »

Can't help but feel that the justice system has become a bit warped in the context of this particular case.

In all fairness the journalists were warned on numerous occasions not to name them . I was on the panel for jury service on a rape case . We were told everyday not to name her , we were warned not to discuss the case even at home . This was stressed every single day

corpusvile

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They are children and in danger of vigilante attack and should not have been named, a complete brain fart by the journalist and they should rightly be apologized to for that reason and that reason alone.

How are they in danger of vigilante attack when they're in Oberstown? Up to the state now to protect them & any other prisoners within the system from attacks in general & if they are attacked in prison it's no different than any other prisoner being attacked, as I'm quite sure prisons are potentially violent places in general. But both boys are hardly in danger of vigilante attacks when they're in custody.

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have nothing but respect for the Kriegels. If anyone is being disrespectful it is the people wishing incarceration and physical harm on the innocent parents & immediate family of the convicted.

I think you've been more than disrespectful to the Kreigels with some of the things you've posted, particularly about Ana's dad

Kidchameleon

corpusvile wrote: »

How are they in danger of vigilante attack when they're in Oberstown? Up to the state now to protect them & any other prisoners within the system from attacks in general & if they are attacked in prison it's no different than any other prisoner being attacked, as I'm quite sure prisons are potentially violent places in general. But both boys are hardly in danger of vigilante attacks when they're in custody.

Having them named increases the likelihood they will be attacked & puts their innocent family at risk.

iamwhoiam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have nothing but respect for the Kriegels.

You seem to have no self awareness as to how you are coming across .

8-10

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In all fairness the journalists were warned on numerous occasions not to name them . I was on the panel for jury service on a rape case . We were told everyday not to name her , we were warned not to discuss the case even at home . This was stressed every single day

Yep same for me on one of the juries I was on, lower profile of a case than this one but all the media reported just the defendant's age and town he was living in. Nothing identifying like occupation or name.

Even after conviction it wasn't to be revealed and the judge (Paul Carney who was pretty intimidating) was crystal clear that he'd have anyone of us who mentioned his name dragged up in front of him in contempt

Suckit

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mental-health-professionals-may-interview-parents-of-ana-kriegels-murderers-court-hears-934031.html

Mental health professionals may interview parents of Ana Kriegel's murderers, court hears

Mental health professionals assessing the two boys convicted of murdering 14-year-old schoolgirl Ana Kriegel may interview the boys' parents, the Central Criminal Court heard today.
The boys, referred to as Boy A and Boy B because they are minors, were convicted of Ana's murder last month following a trial at the Central Criminal Court.
Ana's body was found in an abandoned house at Laraghcon, Clonee Road, Lucan on May 17, 2018. She had been murdered three days earlier.
Boy A was also convicted of Ana's aggravated sexual assault in a manner that involved serious violence to her.
Following conviction Mr Justice Paul McDermott ordered probation reports and psychiatric reports by child forensic psychiatrists for both boys.
Brendan Grehan SC on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions today told Mr Justice McDermott that Professor Harry Kennedy of the National Forensic Mental Health Service had written to the court with three suggestions that would help in complying with the court orders.

Professor Kennedy suggested joint assessments for each boy by consultant child psychiatrists and consultant forensic psychiatrists. He also suggested assessments to be carried out by clinical psychologists with appropriate expertise.
Thirdly, he said it would be "helpful" if the clinicians involved could interview the boys' parents and have access to relevant prior reports and any reports or assessments carried out since their detention began.

Patrick Gageby SC on behalf of Boy A said it is not clear whether the Central Mental Hospital or the Health Service Executive have a consultant forensic psychiatrist specialising in child and adolescent matters on their books.
He said he is aware of such a specialist in the UK and would be happy to put his name forward to Professor Kennedy. Damien Colgan SC, representing Boy B, said his client has "no difficulty with what is suggested".
Mr Justice McDermott said he accepts the recommendations made by Professor Kennedy, "because he is the expert".

Justice McDermott also asked for a report outlining what educational facilities are available to the boys while they are detained.

corpusvile

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Having them named increases the likelihood they will be attacked & puts their innocent family at risk.

You don't know that or what protocols are put in place for prisoners in general or for particularly high profile ones such as these. Again it's up to the prison authorities to prevent attacks on all prisoners.
You don't know that it puts them at risk either, plenty of murderers families suffered no vigilante attacks.

Kidchameleon

corpusvile wrote: »

You don't know that or what protocols are put in place for prisoners in general or for particularly high profile ones such as these. Again it's up to the prison authorities to prevent attacks on all prisoners.
You don't know that it puts them at risk either, plenty of murderers families suffered no vigilante attacks.

And it is up to the legal system to work in conjunction with the prison authorities to make sure their job runs as smoothly as possible. Not many murder cases are as high profile and triggering as this one. Look at some of the posts here in this thread for examples of the risks these boys and their family's are faced with. B's family have already been attacked and had to move from their family home. The judge in this case seems to agree with my opinion that they should not be named and I will take his expert side if you don't mind.

Beechwoodspark

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.

Ok well I’ve heard it countless times I would say at least weekly for the past 20 years referring to drug intoxication.

According to the article the officer said “he’s too high”. Not “loud”

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have nothing but respect for the Kriegels. If anyone is being disrespectful it is the people wishing incarceration and physical harm on the innocent parents & immediate family of the convicted.

We are on page 402 of this thread and 2 or 3 posters at most made at the most 10 posts wishing harm on the families of the two wicked murderers. The rest of the posters and the posts have been speculative as to the murders and the murderers.
For some reason you’ve decided that even as Ana is lying in her grave, her life ended by two exceptionally depraved little boys, that not only does the father of boy b not bear any responsibility for his minor child’s depravity, despite being the alpha male role model in his short life, but that he’s somehow at least, if not more, deserving of sympathy then Ana’s “dad” (your inverted commas).
According to you, Ana’s dad has to take some responsibility for Anas brutal death because as her alpha male he let her down by allowing her out to play on a bright summers afternoon.
But somehow boy bs dad doesn’t bear any responsibility at all for his child?!?
How does that work exactly

BarryD2

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In all fairness the journalists were warned on numerous occasions not to name them . I was on the panel for jury service on a rape case . We were told everyday not to name her , we were warned not to discuss the case even at home . This was stressed every single day

That maybe the case above and in that case presumably this was to protect the identity of the victim, which is pretty reasonable.

The case in hand though is quite the outlier. These young citizens convicted of murder have been given anonymity. I would think that when the legislation surrounding the protection of minors was brought in, that the transgressions envisaged were to be generally of a lesser nature. No ordinary case this, thank goodness.

iamwhoiam

BarryD2 wrote: »

That maybe the case above and in that case presumably this was to protect the identity of the victim, which is pretty reasonable.

The case in hand though is quite the outlier. These young citizens convicted of murder have been given anonymity. I would think that when the legislation surrounding the protection of minors was brought in, that the transgressions envisaged were to be generally of a lesser nature. No ordinary case this, thank goodness.

Agreed . Though the journalists was careless with the law regardless if we agree with it or not
My issue with the anonymity for two underage boys was that Ana , an underage girl , was not afforded the same . Her life and its struggles and her horrendous death was on every paper and media around the world

RIP Ana

Cryptopagan

BarryD2 wrote: »

That maybe the case above and in that case presumably this was to protect the identity of the victim, which is pretty reasonable.

The case in hand though is quite the outlier. These young citizens convicted of murder have been given anonymity. I would think that when the legislation surrounding the protection of minors was brought in, that the transgressions envisaged were to be generally of a lesser nature. No ordinary case this, thank goodness.

Not at all. The legislation states clearly that the only circumstances in which anonymity can be removed is either to prevent injustice to the child in question, or when it’s necessary to apprehend the child (if they are at large). They included provisions when the Court could set aside anonymity, and the seriousness of any offense involved is not one of them.

Stop moaning ffs

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Agreed . Though the journalists was careless with the law regardless if we agree with it or not
My issue with the anonymity for two underage boys was that Ana , an underage girl , was not afforded the same . Her life and its struggles and her horrendous death was on every paper and media around the world

RIP Ana

The anonymity is for their families protection in the immediate. Not theirs.

Mob mentality is a real thing and according to several in fact many posters here, everyone in the area and surrounds knows the boys names and families and where they live.

It doesn’t take a mob. It just takes one deranged idiot to attack them on the street or in their homes.

We can’t let that happen.

I’m all for publishing their names once they’re released. They’ll probably be given new identities and moved out of the state anyways and people for the most part won’t remember the case. But let’s see.

Right now though the families protection and anonymity is paramount.

iamwhoiam

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The anonymity is for their families protection in the immediate. Not theirs.

Mob mentality is a real thing and according to several in fact many posters here, everyone in the area and surrounds knows the boys names and families and where they live.

It doesn’t take a mob. It just takes one deranged idiot to attack them on the street or in their homes.

We can’t let that happen.

I’m all for publishing their names once they’re released. They’ll probably be given new identities and moved out of the state anyways and people for the most part won’t remember the case. But let’s see.

Right now though the families protection and anonymity is paramount.

My point made was not about the boys anonymity but about Anas . She was not afforded the same right as the boys were
Though it can be argued that the boys anonymity is not just for their families it is also for them and their protection in the future
Personally I think they should be named at age 18 so we can all protect our daughters and loved ones from their barbarity .

Cryptopagan

iamwhoiam wrote: »

My point made was not about the boys anonymity but about Anas . She was not afforded the same right as the boys were
Though it can be argued that the boys anonymity is not just for their families it is also for them and their protection in the future
Personally I think they should be named at age 18 so we can all protect our daughters and loved ones from their barbarity .

She was a missing person at one point, so she was identified then. And you can’t really preserve someone’s anonymity after they are gone, since acknowledging a person’s passing is a public thing, the funeral, notices, all that. From what I’ve read and seen the media has struck a decent balance between reporting the details of her last hours, and giving time and space to acknowledge that she was a person and not just a victim.

Suckit

The Boys anonymity is not for the protection of their family. It is because they are children.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html#sec252
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

I hadn't realised the judge could sentence them to life imprisonment.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/children-charged-with-serious-crimes-face-different-criminal-justice-process-to-adults-1.3508849

Mandatory sentences

Some offences carry mandatory sentences. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, while possession of large amounts of drugs is punishable by a presumptive mandatory minimum of 10 years.

The Children’s Act is silent on mandatory sentences, but the legal consensus is they don’t apply to children even in cases of murder.

Judges can sentence a child to life imprisonment but it is not required. For example, in 2005 Mr Justice Barry White sentenced a 15-year-old boy to life imprisonment for murder, but ordered the sentence be brought before him again in a decade for review. In 2014 he reviewed the sentence, and set a release date for 2016.

This approach to sentencing was appealed by both the child and the DPP, but the Appeal Court ruled it was appropriate.