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

spurious

Gatling wrote: »

Could all be a ploy to get away with what he did ,play the immature child who doesn't believe he did anything wrong

Or it could be just what it looks/sounds like, that he was not the main player.

super_furry

That poor girl and her parents. Absolutely heart-breaking what was done to her.

If nothing else this whole case shows just how crucial it is for parents to be aware of their children's online habits, what they watch and who they follow. Not saying it was the cause of any of this but there were some big red flags there that were missed.

spurious

spurious wrote: »

Or it could be just what it looks/sounds like, that he was not the main player.

yeah the sleuthing is pretty much the worst thing about these threads

i can understand just wanting to register a desire to put two quick bullets in the lads

but donning the aul columbo outfit and presuming that boy b is a criminal mastermind who knows every step to take at every juncture....lads cmon

PokeHerKing

Imhof Tank wrote:

B had a solicitor present, didn't do him much good

He had a no good solicitor by the sounds of it then.

This is it

spurious wrote: »

Or it could be just what it looks/sounds like, that he was not the main player.

Exactly, the most obvious answer is usually correct. One thing is for sure, no one on this forum knows the actual answer, even if they put 'definitely' in caps lock.

A Summer In Provence

Zeek12 wrote: »

Bullying is such a horrible thing I totally agree.

But from what I've read of this case, wasn't the bullying primarily taking place on social media, rather than on school grounds as such?
Unfortunately this makes the policing element much more difficult for school management

Have you ever noticed how some schools jump on every achievement a student might have outside school and they plaster the good news all over their website and social media. I know a couple of schools in my locality that regularly do it even though it might have nothing to do with them (ie sporting achievements or something in the arts etc).

The same schools won’t entertain complaints from local businesses about the inappropriate behavior of their students when they’re in town during lunchtime.

As for bullying over social media, one school in my area only started to expell students engaged in this behaviour when they targeted teachers. Schools have to start weeding out bullies.

conorhal

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Boy A had child and animal porn searches on his computer. Not heard at the trial.

Kids aren't born like this.

I donno, some people are born like this, there's reasonably compelling evidence that psychopaths and sociopaths are very much born 'wrong'.


Either way, there's plenty of compelling evidence that giving children unfettered access to the internet is, even for regular kids, a very bad idea.

Gatling

spurious wrote: »

Or it could be just what it looks/sounds like, that he was not the main player.

Probably , but again like the porn searches the psychology report wasn't admissible as evidence .

I wonder if b is a manipulator rather than alpha male ,he certainly couldn't stand ana and was quite vocal with his discriptions of her and the way she dressed

Nerdlingr

It's a strange one , in a way, with Boy B and his garda interviews. The gardai keep on asking him to tell the truth, keep on imploring him to tell a bit more. Bit by bit he leads them closer and closer to the abandoned house. Still they ask him to tell them more. Then the solicitor, Boy B and his mother take a break from questioning for about half an hour, they come back and he tells the story of being in the room, seeing the assault etc etc. Wonder what happened in that half hour? If he'd kept schtum he probably would have got away with it.

bobbyss

Poor Ana. So upsetting. RIP

Can jury members be interviewed at this stage?

The White Wolf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i can understand just wanting to register a desire to put two quick bullets in the lads

I can't.

The more I've read about this story the more it becomes clear that what these boys did was a crescendo in a horrific case of abuse and bullying by various kids.

Stop moaning ffs

Ah here. That da was definitely involved. This during the Garda searching the area for Anna

Gimme A Pound

The White Wolf wrote: »

The more I've read about this story the more it becomes clear that what these boys did was a crescendo in a horrific case of abuse and bullying by various kids.

Definitely, imo. But it was still only those two boys who assaulted and killed Ana.

I would be very wary of shifting responsibility from them.

dubdaymo

IMHO, the boys' parents do share some of the blame.

Where were they when all these thousands of vile images were being downloaded and viewed and other scum websites visited? The conclusion has to be that no supervision whatsoever of their childrens' Internet use took place.

I have no sympathy for them at all.

You can't trust children not to look up dodgy websites etc. Sadly, many other parents take no steps to monitor their children's Web activities.

py2006

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

I wouldn't endorse murdering the boys but to say a revenge murder for the butchering of an innocent victim is the same thing... is patently ridiculous.

How so? Murder is murder.

You can't kill evil with evil.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

How so? Murder is murder.

You can't kill evil with evil.

words have actual meanings fyi

HalloweenJack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Complete run down of the trial. It’s well written but such a hard read at points.

Ana Kriegel murder trial: The complete story
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

Just read that piece, it is well worth it.

My impression was that Boy B thinks he's far smarter than everyone else as he's seen signs of that being the case among his peers but he is extremely naive. In primary, he did really well but seems to struggle with the extra workload at secondary. He went to Obertown and asked for Lego which was something they'd never been asked for before.

His Gardai interviews were his undoing. He seemed to think he could explain everything away and he'd be free. Every time he was confronted with new evidence, he changed his story enough to include it but nothing more. He changed his story eight times, iirc. It changed quite dramatically. He was very sure to blame Boy A, including raising suspicions about Boy A's story that he was attacked. Meanwhile, Boy A called him his best friend. Something odd going on in that dynamic.

Boy A, from my reading, knows what he did and knows he can't explain away the evidence so took the silent approach. I think what was in his backpack was more than enough to suggest some kind of pre-meditated assault, along with what the Guards got from his mobile. It did surprise me that he didn't give more information away about Boy B, especially considering that he knew Boy B was giving plenty away on him. It surprised me that this betrayal from the person he considered his best friend didn't lead him to blame Boy B, which is something that happens when kids and teenagers are in trouble as a group, i.e. they all blame someone else.

The key point that needed to be proven for Boy B's conviction was that he knew what was going to happen to Ana when he led her to meet Boy A. This all hinged on Boy B telling the Guards he'd had a conversation where Boy A said something along the lines of him thinking about killing Ana. I imagine Boy B gave this info to the Guards to draw even more attention to Boy A but it seems to have backfired as it is implied, because of the conversation, he had a reasonable idea of what might happen to Ana if he left her alone with Boy A.

I see plenty of people thinking Boy B is the brains of the operation but I'm not so sure. I got the feeling that Boy B is something of an outcast himself and that by palling about with Boy A, he got more cred from it. While I don't think he's tellig the whole story, with the evidence that has been presented, I believe he has grounds for appeal.

As for people wondering why they didn't plead guilty, they had nothing to lose. Admit guilt and they get a sentence. Go to trial and they might get off, especially in the case of Boy B who has a weaker case against him. I'm sure the number of people who plead guilty in cases like this is close to 0.

tayto lover

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Just reading the two were excused from the court room when the details of the attack and beating etc were being read to the jury.

They should have been made to ait through it.

I’d safely say they’d have enjoyed it, especially Boy B.

pjohnson

dubdaymo wrote: »

IMHO, the boys' parents do share some of the blame.

Where were they when all these thousands of vile images were being downloaded and viewed and other scum websites visited? The conclusion has to be that no supervision whatsoever of their childrens' Internet use took place.

I have no sympathy for them at all.

You can't trust children not to look up dodgy websites etc. Sadly, many other parents take no steps to monitor their children's Web activities.

Just have to hope they have no other spawn.

The fact they happily stood beside them says a lot about them.

Imhof Tank

The sentencing hearing is going to be some circus.

Going by this thread plenty want them taken out and shot/hung.

No automatic life bid for minors of course, and the judge has said he will hear from their parents so you expect them to be pleading for leniency - and they will have an ARMY of psychologists, psychiatrists and whatnot lining up to back them. Their colleagues doing their exclusive "expert" opinion pieces in the Sindo and Sunday World.

And then you have Ana's parents having to give their victim impact statements in that atmosphere.

Gimme A Pound

py2006 wrote: »

How so? Murder is murder.

You can't kill evil with evil.

Because they are completely different scenarios.

Had James Bulger's relatives killed the two turds who butchered their boy, it may not have been the right thing to do, but hardly the same as what was done to James, an innocent. And based on anger and deep sadness, as opposed to no reason.

Stop moaning ffs

tupenny wrote: »

Not just As dad

Looks like boy a told his da what happened. And the da beat the sh!t out of him.
How haven’t gardai looked into this if he did actually know? He should be up on charges too

The White Wolf

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Definitely, imo. But it was still only those two boys who assaulted and killed Ana.

I would be very wary of shifting responsibility from them.

I'm not trying shift the blame but we've a chance here to ask a few hard questions. I hope the government take that opportunity to ask them.

Bobeagleburger

conorhal wrote: »

I donno, some people are born like this, there's reasonably compelling evidence that psychopaths and sociopaths are very much born 'wrong'.


Either way, there's plenty of compelling evidence that giving children unfettered access to the internet is, even for regular kids, a very bad idea.

Id be interested to hear about Boy A upbringing. Probably never be revealed but a normal child doesn't go out and do what he did. Parents have failed badly so definitely need to carry some blame.

Hope they never see the light of day and are punished heavily. No doubt their identities will be leaked too.

Dante7

I wonder could we see different sentences for each boy? The Judge has discretion in sentencing as they are minors, so the mandatory life sentence need not apply. This could mean different sentences.

Bobeagleburger

super_furry wrote: »

That poor girl and her parents. Absolutely heart-breaking what was done to her.

If nothing else this whole case shows just how crucial it is for parents to be aware of their children's online habits, what they watch and who they follow. Not saying it was the cause of any of this but there were some big red flags there that were missed.

Bang on

Boggles

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus, relax.

There was no evidence of his at the scene because he was clever enough not to leave any there. The only thing that had him at the scene were the words out of his own mouth (after lying multiple times).

What evidence would you expect him to leave at the scene?

He wasn't involved in the physical murder.

Are you saying he was clever enough not to get involved in the physical murder because he would leave evidence?

Faugheen wrote: »

If Boy A was the ring leader, then why did Boy B do everything in his power to throw Boy A under the bus?

That was their legal strategy for a finish.

Faugheen wrote: »

Why would Boy A make it blatantly obvious what happened if he was the one to orchestrate all of this?
.

I have no idea, but they were / are kids not seasoned hitmen, and not next to near as intelligent as people are making out.

It was Boy A who got the gratification of the sexual assault and murder, to reduce him as a bit part player and someone who was manipulated is a massive stretch.

I interrupt Boy B as been rather simple TBH, that's not to say he didn't fully know what he was doing. But I would say with some certainty we are not dealing with a mastermind.

Gimme A Pound

The White Wolf wrote: »

I'm not trying shift the blame but we've a chance here to ask a few hard questions. I hope the government take that opportunity to ask them.

Definitely. I know a boy who was tormented for first and second year and the school did sweet f all. It's crazy that they could be so powerless. And it isn't a rough area where they would have been intimidated.

He moved to a school with zero tolerance for bullying, so to say the school can do nothing is bollox.

Galwayguy35

spurious wrote: »

Or it could be just what it looks/sounds like, that he was not the main player.

Or it could be that he was just as devious as the other guy and was trying to give the impression that he didn't realise was was going to happen.

Flippyfloppy

Dante7 wrote: »

I wonder could we see different sentences for each boy? The Judge has discretion in sentencing as they are minors, so the mandatory life sentence need not apply. This could mean different sentences.

Anyone know what is the difference between being tried as adults yet unable to receive mandatory life sentences?