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

Senature

A memorial might seem a nice idea, but that building and site is at the side of a fairly narrow but busy road, probably 10 minutes walk from Lucan village, and about the same from the closest car park in St Catherine's. In other words, not likely to get many genuine visitors. I think the current owners have tried to get planning permission for a nursing home in the last few years, so it will possibly be redeveloped in the not too distant future.

The memorial in her estate is a lovely gesture by the community.

skallywag

Force Carrier wrote: »

As I said already the state doesn't need to be involved. It can be done privately.

You said that The state should buy that land and property?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111694983&postcount=6443

pjohnson

JPF82 wrote: »

From what I have heard vigilante attacks have occurred. Older brother of one of of the boys regularly gets beaten up. A gang of lads where the culprits just last week. Feel so sorry for the brother having to put up with that. I know one of his friends but not him so that's where my info is from.

Suprised they havent moved away IF this is true.

Hannibal_Smith

LillySV wrote: »

These little pricks didn’t show any emotion or remorse throughout the trial....they don’t give a damn other Than the affect it has on them.... they shouldn’t be considered for release ever!

Who is considering them for release?

Lefty Bicek

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Who is considering them for release?

:rolleyes:

splinter65

Faugheen wrote: »

You identify them, you identify the school and with it people who were in their class who had nothing to do with this but are put under the microscope anyway.

Not rocket science.

.....and siblings and cousins etc all of whom some on this thread genuinely feel are fair game for abuse, just because they are connected.

The Black Oil

retro:electro wrote: »

Good report on the six one news just now. The Gardai really did follow procedure with remarkable precision in order to minimise any chance of unfair treatment accusations by the defence. While you might have felt like they were getting “preferential” treatment before and during the trial, it really was all done in order to secure an honest and just conviction. An amazing job considering children murdering children is a rarity in Ireland and so it would be such new ground.

Reading about it all again today, horrendous. Let's also acknowledge the work of the forensic services. They had a very difficult job given the nature of the crime scene and what happened to Ana.

mick malones mauser

retro:electro wrote: »

Good report on the six one news just now. The Gardai really did follow procedure with remarkable precision in order to minimise any chance of unfair treatment accusations by the defence. While you might have felt like they were getting “preferential” treatment before and during the trial, it really was all done in order to secure an honest and just conviction. An amazing job considering children murdering children is a rarity in Ireland and so it would be such new ground.

Surely Gardai should ALWAYS follow correct procedure !!!!

retro:electro

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Surely Gardai should ALWAYS follow correct procedure !!!!

Well yes, ideally you would hope so. My point is that they performed to exceptional standards and by doing so prevented the defence from poking holes/ appealing/ whatever what have you. For such an atypical case they were flawless.

RandomName2

Lara Breezy Groceries wrote: »

I don’t agree with the anonymity. Perhaps the most punitive action is to name such offenders

They chose a particularly vulnerable girl and the judiciary deciding to protect offenders from vulnerability seems wrong.

Well yes, but capital punishment would be more straight forward if you're going down that route, and capital punishment would at least prevent attacks on the perpetrators' families from occurring.

I don't see what benefit removing anonymity would have. Discussing the length of the sentences is a different matter though. Remember that reviews can increase the length, if deemed necessary.

SEPT 23 1989

splinter65 wrote: »

.....and siblings and cousins etc all of whom some on this thread genuinely feel are fair game for abuse, just because they are connected.

My daughter knows Boy B’s brother a really nice quiet boy according to her

He received a terrible hiding a few weeks ago for the sins of his brother

It made me feel sick when she told me

BarryD2

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't see what benefit removing anonymity would have.

It's a question of transparency. The state prosecutes criminal cases on behalf of the people and the norm is that the identities of people convicted are public. That's what happens every day up and down the state, just read the court cases. If you get done for drink driving, rape, or public disorder.. whatever, you may expect your name to be possibly published in the local and/or national press.

Minors get anonymity but once they reach the age of 18, I can see no reason why they should be protected beyond that. It would appear perverse that the judgement in this case will protect them from public identification when they are adults. Has the good judge overstepped?

The public should have it's pound of flesh at the end of the day. That's why we have a judiciary rather than lynch mobs.

Hannibal_Smith

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You alright?

DelBoy Trotter

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's a question of transparency. The state prosecutes criminal cases on behalf of the people and the norm is that the identities of people convicted are public. That's what happens every day up and down the state, just read the court cases. If you get done for drink driving, rape, or public disorder.. whatever, you may expect your name to be possibly published in the local and/or national press.

Minors get anonymity but once they reach the age of 18, I can see no reason why they should be protected beyond that. It would appear perverse that the judgement in this case will protect them from public identification when they are adults. Has the good judge overstepped?

The public should have it's pound of flesh at the end of the day. That's why we have a judiciary rather than lynch mobs.

The post right above yours shows exactly why they won’t be named

Gadgetman496

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

The post right above yours shows exactly why they won’t be named

Where is the protection for innocent people unwittingly becoming involved with these boys upon their release in the future?

Gringo180

How come the 2 lads that murdered James Bulger were named and these evil little bastards arent?

BarryD2

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

The post right above yours shows exactly why they won’t be named

Is that not a slippery slope? Will we routinely see families of people convicted of serious offences appealing for anonymity on the basis that the conviction reflects poorly on them?

And if so, is that in the public's best interests? I think not. These matters should be black & white and fair to all.

If these lads can retain anonymity into adulthood, why wouldn't it apply more broadly. Something stinks about this.

salmocab

Gringo180 wrote: »

How come the 2 lads that murdered James Bulger were named and these evil little bastards arent?

That happened in a different country

Thargor

Charles Leclerc wrote: »

They boys will do their time handed down by the judge on behalf of the state. Naming these two will cause public outrage and their innocent families will be targeted. They don't deserve that.

Boy Bs family seems to be getting it in the neck from locals since the whole thing started according to rumors.

Del Griffith

salmocab wrote: »

That happened in a different country

And they were given new identities

sasta le

Thargor wrote: »

Boy Bs family seems to be getting it in the neck since the whole thing started according to rumors.

What are the rumors and why just boy b

retro:electro

Gringo180 wrote: »

How come the 2 lads that murdered James Bulger were named and these evil little bastards arent?

Because the judge who sentenced them believed the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants. They were referred to as Boy A and Boy B during the trial but were named after conviction. On their release they were given new identities and continue to be protected by anonymity. Venables is on his second identity.

Limpy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

My daughter knows Boy B’s brother a really nice quiet boy according to her

He received a terrible hiding a few weeks ago for the sins of his brother

It made me feel sick when she told me

I think if the family disowned the boys instead of backing them they would get more sympathy.

If it was any of my family I would come out and say X is a scumbag murderer. Instead this family are all behind them.

So in this situation I have no sympathy for them.

Guy:Incognito

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

The post right above yours shows exactly why they won’t be named

What it shows is that people of a certain mindset will find out who people are, or already know.


The people that need to know are the rest of us, normal , rational people who may come in to contact with these when they are released as adults and may not be in the public mindset for a few years.

skallywag

Limpy wrote: »

Instead this family are all behind them

I guess I missed where the families said that they approved.

SEPT 23 1989

Limpy wrote: »

I think if the family disowned the boys instead of backing them they would get more sympathy.

If it was any of my family I would come out and say X is a scumbag murderer. Instead this family are all behind them.

So in this situation I have no sympathy for them.

Don't think his brother would have any say in it

I said to my daughter that morning when she told me

Tell him to just leave the country he won’t ever get peace here

That’s the cold hard reality of the fallout from this for innocent people involved

mick malones mauser

retro:electro wrote: »

Well yes, ideally you would hope so. My point is that they performed to exceptional standards and by doing so prevented the defence from poking holes/ appealing/ whatever what have you. For such an atypical case they were flawless.

Unlike The Regency Trial ,where they messed up....

abff

Bulger's killers were named, but then provided with alternative identities on release from prison. Naming Ana's killers would not provide any protection to society against these *******s, as a similar approach would probably have to be taken.

But Ireland is a small enough country that it may prove difficult for them to retain anonymity after release as anyone of the right age is likely to come under suspicion if they can't provide a plausible back history. This may lead them to look at emigrating post release, although their options in this regard may be somewhat limited with a murder conviction hanging over them.

splinter65

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

My daughter knows Boy B’s brother a really nice quiet boy according to her

He received a terrible hiding a few weeks ago for the sins of his brother

It made me feel sick when she told me

I’d go as far as to say that the state should help them to relocate to somewhere they won’t be known.

splinter65

skallywag wrote: »

I guess I missed where the families said that they approved.

Boy Bs father lost the plot in court the day the verdicts came in. He was “an innocent boy” apparently and heaped abuse on the whole prosecution team, Gardaí and jury. All while the Kriegels were still in the court being comforted