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

Hannibal_Smith

NewClareman wrote: »

Well for a start:

Gregg McCrary, a behavioural criminologist and former FBI criminal profiler, has worked on many such investigations. “Typically there is a dominant offender and then a secondary offender who is subservient and follows their lead. They take direction from the dominant offender,” he says.

“Evidence indicates that Boy B was subservient to Boy A....
There is also evidence Boy B was and remains in fear of his co-accused.”

Quoting above from the same IT article I quoted earlier.

The judge stated that there was no evidence that he was involved in the attack, or knew in advance she was to be sexually assaulted. Of course the fact that he did nothing to help her was reprehensible. However, he was a child and might well have been panicked and in fear.

Thanks for that.

Just to say Boy B didn't receive a sentence for the sexual attack. He's also never said what happened. Does that suggest he's still in fear of Boy A?

splinter65

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Are you capable of reading your own posts?

Just point out to me please where I said all young people were like this. It’s not difficult. Thank you.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Go back and read over your own posts.

Quoting isn’t difficult. Please quote my post where I said all young people were like this. If you can’t then I’ll accept your apology.

iamwhoiam

splinter65 wrote: »

Quoting isn’t difficult. Please quote my post where I said all young people were like this. If you can’t then I’ll accept your apology.

This was your post . Did you mean all of society ? Some of society ? Your post mentions “ this is now a society “ which is a massive over generalisation . Because you and I are part of society and so are the many wonderful and kind young people and you lumped us all into “ this society “

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t think a lot of people can grasp the whole picture here.
I can’t anyway.
This is now a society where humans don’t have any value or worth just by dint of being humans.
In order to have a worth now you have to have the mass approval of your peers.
re.

Spanish Eyes

Truth is, apart from the incoming appeal, this will be totally forgotten by most in a week or two.

Victims need so much support, so sorry for the parents and family of Ana. Their pain will never end, but it’s all about the perpetrators and their potential success in an appeal now.

Free Legal Aid too I suspect. But anyway.

BattleCorp

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Truth is, apart from the incoming appeal, this will be totally forgotten by most in a week or two.

Victims need so much support, so sorry for the parents and family of Ana. Their pain will never end, but it’s all about the perpetrators and their potential success in an appeal now.

Free Legal Aid too I suspect. But anyway.

You needn't suspect at all. It will be free legal aid.

careless sherpa

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Truth is, apart from the incoming appeal, this will be totally forgotten by most in a week or two.

Victims need so much support, so sorry for the parents and family of Ana. Their pain will never end, but it’s all about the perpetrators and their potential success in an appeal now.

Free Legal Aid too I suspect. But anyway.

In the year between the murder and the trial were the two boys still residing in the town? Could her parents have had to meet them out and about?

iamwhoiam

Here is a poem read by Anas parents at her funeral . What a lovely family they are
RIP Ana


https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1106/1089053-ana-kriegel-tribute/

skallywag

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Truth is, apart from the incoming appeal, this will be totally forgotten by most in a week or two.

I certainly would not think so.

I can still remember the Jamie Bolger case quite vividly, and I did not even have kids myself at that time. Most folk I know are of the same persuasion. Children killing other children is extremely rare in our part of the world and tends to remain in one's memory.

P.Walnuts

splinter65 wrote: »

Not to them. Not in the world of a lot of modern Irish teenagers. Nobody liked her. She had to go.

splinter65 wrote: »

No it’s not. There’s quite a sizeable amount of very very very shallow young people who cannot appraise others in any other way other then social media levels

splinter65 wrote: »

Just point out to me please where I said all young people were like this. It’s not difficult. Thank you.

You said "a lot" and "quite a sizeable amount". That's a generalization, you don't need to say all to generalize.

If I said a sizeable amount of Irish people are drunks, that would be rightly considered a generalization. And a lazy one. Just like your posts.

tayto lover

NewClareman wrote: »

Well for a start:

Gregg McCrary, a behavioural criminologist and former FBI criminal profiler, has worked on many such investigations. “Typically there is a dominant offender and then a secondary offender who is subservient and follows their lead. They take direction from the dominant offender,” he says.

“Evidence indicates that Boy B was subservient to Boy A....
There is also evidence Boy B was and remains in fear of his co-accused.”

Quoting above from the same IT article I quoted earlier.

The judge stated that there was no evidence that he was involved in the attack, or knew in advance she was to be sexually assaulted. Of course the fact that he did nothing to help her was reprehensible. However, he was a child and might well have been panicked and in fear.

You could also believe that Boy B was a lot more intelligent and was manipulative thus cajoling Boy A all the way to commit the foul deed.

iamwhoiam

tayto lover wrote: »

You could also believe that Boy B was a lot more intelligent and was manipulative thus cajoling Boy A all the way to commit the foul deed.

I have often thought that B was the master puppeteer . A cute , intelligent manipulator perhaps

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

Quoting isn’t difficult. Please quote my post where I said all young people were like this. If you can’t then I’ll accept your apology.

Neither is reading. It wasn't an apology I sent you

I've no interest in one of your inane bickering sessions

Nameless_2019

NewClareman wrote: »

“Evidence indicates that Boy B was subservient to Boy A....
There is also evidence Boy B was and remains in fear of his co-accused.”

Quoting above from the same IT article I quoted earlier.

This needs to be taken in context. The evidence referred to here in the IT article is the testimony of Boy B's own father.

scudzilla

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

Suckit

mrjoneill wrote: »

The school did very little if nothing at all. It would appear in the school canteen when Ana came to sit at her classmates table the whole class got up & left.

Where did you see/hear that?

skallywag

Nameless_2019 wrote: »

This needs to be taken in context. The evidence referred to here in the IT article is the testimony of Boy B's own father.

I really hate folk who make an alt just to make a comment that they are afraid to under their regular username.

Grow up.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Neither is reading. It wasn't an apology I sent you

I've no interest in one of your inane bickering sessions

You’ve no interest in backing up your claim that I generalised . Fine.

Hannibal_Smith

tayto lover wrote: »

You could also believe that Boy B was a lot more intelligent and was manipulative thus cajoling Boy A all the way to commit the foul deed.

Unfortunately we'll never know. Unless they decide to tell the truth, there's no way to know

Eric Cartman

NewClareman wrote: »

Well for a start:

Gregg McCrary, a behavioural criminologist and former FBI criminal profiler, has worked on many such investigations. “Typically there is a dominant offender and then a secondary offender who is subservient and follows their lead. They take direction from the dominant offender,” he says.

“Evidence indicates that Boy B was subservient to Boy A....
There is also evidence Boy B was and remains in fear of his co-accused.”

Quoting above from the same IT article I quoted earlier.

The judge stated that there was no evidence that he was involved in the attack, or knew in advance she was to be sexually assaulted. Of course the fact that he did nothing to help her was reprehensible. However, he was a child and might well have been panicked and in fear.

im so glad this has come to light, seeing the 'boy b mastermind' theory was shocking to say the least. He was a sidekick/admirer who picked the worst person to look up to.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve no interest in backing up your claim that I generalised . Fine.

Splinter, the fact that you're ignoring all the posts that have quoted your generalisations back to you speaks for itself. Now get back to all those posters, because it's just poor form bickering in this thread.

Hal3000

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of the justice system and the urgent reform of the dominant ideology which has created the sentencing and parole regime we have endured the discussion is moving on to other aspects of this. To me there are a few things that need to be looked at.
These children had all finished national school and were in second level. They all had experience of years of anti bullying programs. There seems to be a major system failure of such programs when the isolation experienced before the murder was so long and so widespread. The murder seems to be an out working of that isolation. Please read this carefully: I am talking about a national system wide program not a school or schools. There may be more terribly isolated suffering children out there.

Access to violent porn. I don’t know if everything I read is true but Boy A had this and Boy B didn’t. Boy B had lost two smartphones? Losing a phone wouldn’t necessarily mean sites visited couldn’t be checked. I believe smartphone usage by NS and early years teenagers is at the root of a lot of grief. Teens by definition do not have developed the empathy and inhibitions of adults. Online chat is contextless and personless and social media enables and amplifies whatever trend is there. You can’t blame children for this: you can see it anywhere. You can ask why have children such devices in the first place. They enable unsupervised access.

I’m not saying there aren’t other issues. These are what hit me. And that house should be CPOed and demolished.

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

tayto lover

Eric Cartman wrote: »

im so glad this has come to light, seeing the 'boy b mastermind' theory was shocking to say the least. He was a sidekick/admirer who picked the worst person to look up to.

Not so sure.
Not so sure at all.

tuxy

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now.

It would be easier to ban parents from giving children phones than banning porn for under 18s. Well you could ban it but only in law not in reality.

Hal3000

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

when a vanishingly small percentage of people react to porn or video games or tv in this fashion, it really doesnt work to focus on these things.

its come up again and again.

rock music did not kill those kids

McCrack

scudzilla wrote: »

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

Well then you should move to North Korea or somewhere

tuxy

Deleted User wrote: »

when a vanishingly small percentage of people react to porn or video games or tv in this fashion, it really doesnt work to focus on these things.

its come up again and again.

rock music did not kill those kids

Brave New World was banned in Ireland at one point perhaps it should have stayed that way. Do we know neither of those boys read that book?

tuxy

scudzilla wrote: »

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

What's stopping you? I doubt security in Oberstown is sufficient to stop someone who is that determined.

KWAG2019

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

I may be wrong but I think an attempt in the UK to do this has collapsed. You are right when you say phones are everywhere with kids; you are right when you point to a collective failure of parenting in this regard. I think this is a rare moment brought about by the death of one of the most innocent children when there is a need for someone to begin. Strange and probably my age but I think Gay Byrne would have had it on the air and started something. I hope someone does.

Suckit

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

It is lazy parenting. And even more lazy how few of them use a kids profile or childproof it.