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

mariaalice

LLMMLL wrote: »

I agree. But the responses on this thread seem to be like "he looked up animal porn, he was obviously going to be a sexually deviant killer".

No its not, curiosity is one thing. There are protective factors that can stop the development of deviant behavior and they are usuly to do with the family. The ususly stuff warmth, boundaries and so on.

Imhof Tank

Boggles wrote: »

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.

That will be his appeal ground No 1

py2006

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

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.

And would they have done time for it?

major bill

Says a lot about Boys B surroundings that his father decided to abuse Gardaí cos didn’t agree with the verdict a real classy man regardless of the emotion he may have felt!! Not a chance their names won’t go viral on WhatsApp!

Scumbags the lot of them

Gorgeousgeorge

Great news.

tupenny

Imhof Tank wrote: »

That will be his appeal ground No 1

Probably. And it's far from the truth

Gatling

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

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

As it stands a judge whether dealing with children has to keep a detention order to as short as possible something like 3 years ,
I half expect something around 7 -10 years depending on various reports

mdol

Hermy wrote: »

And after them two bastards have been dragged out of the court and hanged from the nearest tree what should be done with the perpetrators of this additional crime?

A pat on the back.

LLMMLL

Imhof Tank wrote: »

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.

Most commenters on this thread wouldn't have it any other way. Where else will they get their entertainment? Love island?

GT_TDI_150

Wombatman wrote: »

.... and that's enough for a murder conviction?

Are you boy bs's dad or what?

Zeek12

A Summer In Provence wrote: »

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.

Honest question....
When the bullying takes place on social media, why would the school bear full responsibility for stopping it?
It's not the same as the bullying on the playground that my generation grew up with.
Many kids are sneaky and resourceful enough not to do anything on school grounds - they know they can do all their bullying online without fear of discipline or reproach.

Parents of the bully don't supervise their children's activity on these platforms. And get a free pass. Just blame the school and the teachers.

Parents allowing 13 yr olds to use social media at all and unsupervised? Is this really in the child's best interests?

We've also read Boy A had extensive porn on his phone. It's astonishing how little supervision parents give.

Social media platforms can facilitate the bullying process and are never accountable.

You can say the school should do more but honestly I think there are some big obstacles for them to do this.

HalloweenJack

RoboKlopp wrote: »

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.

There's a lot of info about Boy A that made me think he would have been a danger without Boy B.

I also get the feeling that he may have roped Boy B into it somewhat as he was the one that went to call for Ana and he would have been seen walking with her before Boy A took over. He might have been trying to set him up to some extent but that all fell apart when the forensics came to light.

Ursus Horribilis

This is one of the saddest court cases I've ever followed. It goes without saying that those two boys who murdered her are hideous human beings and that she paid a terrible price for being a bit different. I really hope lessons can be learned from this tragedy. I got angry listening to the other things that happened to poor Ana though. All those people who bullied her, isolated her and made her life a misery. In their own way they too have blood on their hands.

Being a teenager has always been a bit sh*t but I think it has got worse because of modern technology. Teenagers can be cruel bastards but now that they have access to the internet and social media, it's like putting grenades in their hands. Bullying people becomes so much easier when you can do it from the safety of a smartphone. I also worry about what easy access to porn and sick content is doing to young brains. Teenage sexuality and how youngers relate to each other have changed enormously since my day and I'm not sure it's all for the best. I'm out of the loop when it comes to what they're teaching kids in schools these days (I don't have kids) but I like to think that there's something there. Most of us get better at empathy, being tolerant and being nice to others as we mature. It's not really there in teenagers - they're growing up so very quickly in other ways but they're still immature in these ways. Maybe kids need a "Be nice for Dummies" type of classes? That they need spelled out to them in plain English/practical workshops that cruelty has consequences. That those faceless people they abuse online hurt too. As do the "weirdos" they isolate and bully offline. RIP Ana. I hope your tragic life and death goes on to do some good in this world. Even if it only helps one other child.

This is it

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

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

Most likely caused by Ana fighting back.

py2006

major bill wrote: »

Says a lot about Boys B surroundings that his father decided to abuse Gardaí cos didn’t agree with the verdict a real classy man regardless of the emotion he may have felt!! Not a chance their names won’t go viral on WhatsApp!

Scumbags the lot of them

In fairness I presume this was a knee jerk emotional reaction. A denial of the truth and the overwhelming urge to protect your child.

It must be a very difficult thing to accept about your own child.

Gimme A Pound

py2006 wrote: »

And would they have done time for it?

They'd have to.

Blazer

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

I'd there'll be a few more parents checking up their childrens internet use after this case. There are very young children watching extreme material online, even younger than these, across this country and having their heads warped. There should be a serious debate about this but it will just be ignored and the issue side stepped.

There's been sociopaths in existence long before the internet ever existed.
When 2 ten year old boys kidnapped 2 year old Jamie Bulger the internet didn't really exist back then.
As for Boy B being only a small part of it the same was said about John Venables at the time...that it was the older boy who put it upto him. When in fact as it now turns out it was him all along.
Boy B's legal team played a blinder really...poor lad corrupted by boy A when both are equally to blame.
Guaranteed that little prick will be out in a few years.

Hal3000

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

I'd there'll be a few more parents checking up their childrens internet use after this case. There are very young children watching extreme material online, even younger than these, across this country and having their heads warped. There should be a serious debate about this but it will just be ignored and the issue side stepped.

Agree. It will be pushed aside ignored and will occur again soon. Typical Irish response. We've become so weak as a nation. How this bullying was allowed to occur is typical of every school that does absolutely NOTHING to deal with bullies in school. Immediate explusion or expect this to continue.

GT_TDI_150

Zeek12 wrote: »

Honest question....
When the bullying takes place on social media, why would the school bear full responsibility for stopping it?
It's not the same as the bullying on the playground that my generation grew up with.
Many kids are sneaky and resourceful enough not to do anything on school grounds - they know they can do all their bullying online without fear of discipline or reproach.

Parents don't supervise their children's activity on these platforms. And get a free pass. Just blame the school and the teachers.

Parents allowing 13 yr olds to use social media at all and unsupervised? Is this really in the child's best interests?

We've also read Boy A had extensive porn on his phone. It's astonishing how little supervision parents give.

Social media platforms can facilitate the bullying process and are never accountable.

You can say the school should do more but honestly I think there are really big obstacles for them to do this.

Are you familiar with the concept of the second profile on some huawei phones, depending on what finger u use a different profile will open up, so it is very conceivable that even if you monitor your kids phone usage, they may just be feeding you the 'clean' profile

Im not saying boy a's parent did monitor him, but run of the mill, non tech savy parent would easily be led to believe that little johnny is an angel.

jmayo

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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.

I somewhat agree.
Maybe it is too many late nights watching Criminal Minds, but why didn't Boy A turn on Boy B ?

Some say Boy B was a bit simple, but I agree with others and think the opposite.
If he was supposedly simple he would have collapsed at the start and admitted everything.

He was calculating in his lies, and only included things when he had no other choice.
The statement from Boy A where he said Boy B had wanted to kill Ana was a calculated move to try drop him in it, but it dropped himself in it in that he previous knowledge ahead of the event.

He tried to spin his way out of it and this isn't spinning to a teacher you know or a parent.
This is spinning in multiple garda interview.

I think he was confident he could spin himself out of blame and dump A in it.

A on the other hand was bang to rights and just said nothing.
Why never say anything about B?
Why the loyalty or could he be the mastermind after all?

Why didn't or can't his parents convince their son to tell all to maybe absolve him of some of the blame ?

There is a weird dynamic at play here and the Dads, maybe mums have some questions to answer as well.

Dante7

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

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

Being tried as adults just meant that they weren't tried in the children's court. But regarding sentencing, the 2001 Children's Act applies and the Judge has discretion. However he can still impose a life sentence. I suspect Boy A will get life, but Boy B may get less. I hope not.

Imhof Tank

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Where did the lad with the Satanic books and material get his hands on that? Totally irrelevant to the case so I get why it was excluded but really sets alarm bells off more so than the internet stuff.

No the Satanic homework club was part of the evidence all right. Teen classmates who signed the "pledge" or whatever were up in the box being cross examined in what will go down as the most notorious murder case in the history of the state. Crazy trying to process that even as an onlooker.

Strazdas

HalloweenJack wrote: »

There's a lot of info about Boy A that made me think he would have been a danger without Boy B.

I also get the feeling that he may have roped Boy B into it somewhat as he was the one that went to call for Ana and he would have been seen walking with her before Boy A took over. He might have been trying to set him up to some extent but that all fell apart when the forensics came to light.

Boy B could easily have intervened and stopped A in his tracks from assaulting Ana (at that point, it would have been two people against one). Even if he was to claim no advance knowledge, there was plenty of time to stop the assault / murder.

Imhof Tank

Blazer wrote: »

There's been sociopaths in existence long before the internet ever existed.
When 2 ten year old boys kidnapped 2 year old Jamie Bulger the internet didn't really exist back then.
As for Boy B being only a small part of it the same was said about John Venables at the time...that it was the older boy who put it upto him. When in fact as it now turns out it was him all along.
Boy B's legal team played a blinder really...poor lad corrupted by boy A when both are equally to blame.
Guaranteed that little prick will be out in a few years.

Cannot agree with this. They did their best for him at trial after he had completely hung himself in the interviews.

screamer

This trial was awful, to give that poor girl that violent, premeditated death, and then make her parents re-live the horror of that in the trial. No remorse, no manners to even admit what they did.
So, they cried today for themselves, and I’m so happy for them to realize they’re ****ed, and I’m destroying Anna’s life have destroyed their own and their families too. Cry all they want I have zero sympathy, they are not children they are monsters and monsters have no place in society.

I won’t say rip for Anna, how any soul could Rest In Peace after suffering such an horrific death at such a young age is beyond me. I hope her parents have some solace with the conviction and those 2 evil ****s can rot in hell.

Stop moaning ffs

Will and how will these two be separated in Oberstown?
Surely the other inmates are goihg to hear about this and they’ll have to be isolated For their own protection

They wouldn’t be allowed fraternise with each other though I’d imagine no?

mariaalice

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Are you familiar with the concept of the second profile on some huawei phones, depending on what finger u use a different profile will open up, so it is very conceivable that even if you monitor your kids phone usage, they may just be feeding you the 'clean' profile

Im not saying boy a's parent did monitor him, but run of the mill, non tech savy parent would easily be led to believe that little johnny is an angel.

Teenagers do need privacy from their parents and a certin amout of risk taking and stupid behavior so in a way trying to hide what their are up too is part of that but its not about shaming them it's about talking about it to them about it and trusting them to a bit.

Zeek12

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Are you familiar with the concept of the second profile on some huawei phones, depending on what finger u use a different profile will open up, so it is very conceivable that even if you monitor your kids phone usage, they may just be feeding you the 'clean' profile

Im not saying boy a's parent did monitor him, but run of the mill, non tech savy parent would easily be led to believe that little johnny is an angel.

I'm not disputing the kids can be very resourceful (actually I just made that exact point in my post).

But does this technology still make the school primarily responsible for stopping bullying on social media platforms?

Imo parents have a responsibility to educate themselves on what tech their kids are using and what they get up to.
It can't be all down to the school

petrolcan

Small Wonder wrote: »

Why do people want then named? What good will it do?

Pitchforks.

Boggles

jmayo wrote: »

I somewhat agree.
Maybe it is too many late nights watching Criminal Minds, but why didn't Boy A turn on Boy B ?

Honestly how do you even begin to flip it, in reality?

He made me brutally murder her, sexual assault her and ejaculate on her doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The poor girl did put up a fight though, judging by the amount of injuries on Boy A that was revealed in court, he was apparently a big lad "who could take care of himself", so she didn't have much of a chance in reality.