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

humberklog

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

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?

No reason they would be seperated.

Seathrun66

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I could well imagine (based on his continuous lies) that Boy B is a sick little **** that enjoyed sitting back and watching it all.

Psychologist's testimony for Boy B was excluded. That'll form the basis of an appeal. Doctor had stated that he had PTSD as a result of witnessing the attack and was trying to cover himself with lies. Had he known she was about to be killed then why collect her from the house then walk through a park with lots of CCTV. He didn't represent himself well but he may have been a stupid kid manipulated by a more evil one. We may never know. But I think he'll be freed on appeal.

McCrack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

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?

I would think so, they will be a target in there

Gimme A Pound

Small Wonder wrote: »

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

To punish them further. And that's understandable

GT_TDI_150

mariaalice wrote: »

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.

Im not saying they dont need privacy, but for those parent that do check phones there is was aroind it... I firmly believe tho that if boy a was caught 2,3,4 years ago with porn on his phone and repremanded that that would not have been the end of it, he would have bought a second phone or have gotten a password protected folder on the phone.... if they want it bad enough they will find a way...

squawker

Zeek12 wrote: »

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

nope, its the parents responsibility

if you give your child a phone at 13 years of age with free access to the Internet you better police it rigorously

petrolcan

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

We can only hope he gets taken care of in prison.

Seriously?

optogirl

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

Surely this was more likely to have been defensive wounds from Ana?

GT_TDI_150

Zeek12 wrote: »

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

Agree 100% but parents are getting left behind with all the tech.... I do the checking, locking down apps devices etc as my wife can barely drive the coffee machine, and she will freely admit this. But there are couples where both parents are tech illiterate

El_Bee

The handwaving of the effects of hardcore pornography on the minds of 12 year old boys and "sure there's nothing we can do just forget about it" attitude that I'm seeing popping up in this thread is depressing as it is disturbing.

shesty

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 ?

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.

I actually think Boy A is the really dangerous one.He did it,consciously knew he did it, didn't try to deny it.

I am not for one second trying to clear Boy B.He saw what was happening, he ran away and he said nothing.He lied and lied and lied.To me that is the sign of someone who is a seriously weak and maybe terribly immature child.Not realising or accepting that there were going to be consequences out of what had happened?Not realising how stupid he sounded trying to lie his way through a number of Garda interviews?Running away and not teling someone what was going on, or trying to stop it?? (I can't get over that bit, how he saw it, could have stopped it, yet turned and ran??).It says an awful lot about his character and sorry, about how he has been brought up, if that is what he thinks is the way to deal with bad things.He is dangerous in a different way to me because he is weak, easily led and clearly doesn't think all that deeply (despite the intricate lying).I still think he deserves what he got, even just to open his eyes to the reality of the world and realise there are consequences for your behaviour.But boy A is the one I would consider to have fairly serious psychological problems.

El_Bee

El_Bee wrote: »

The handwaving of the effects of hardcore pornography on the minds of 12 year old boys and "sure there's nothing we can do just forget about it" attitude that I'm seeing popping up in this thread is depressing as it is disturbing.

the constant linking of it to this horrific crime is ridiculous

Boggles

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Psychologist's testimony for Boy B was excluded. That'll form the basis of an appeal. Doctor had stated that he had PTSD as a result of witnessing the attack and was trying to cover himself with lies. Had he known she was about to be killed then why collect her from the house then walk through a park with lots of CCTV. He didn't represent himself well but he may have been a stupid kid manipulated by a more evil one. We may never know. But I think he'll be freed on appeal.

The judge certainly erred in not allowing the testimony IMO. His reasons for not allowing it are also pretty weak.

Basically he said all the jurors at some point were teenagers so they should so they should understand teenagers.

Also this my caught my eye.

The doctor said the boy's first experience of confinement was when he was detained after being arrested for murder. He was the only child ever to request Lego in the detention centre.

tupenny

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Psychologist's testimony for Boy B was excluded. That'll form the basis of an appeal. Doctor had stated that he had PTSD as a result of witnessing the attack and was trying to cover himself with lies. Had he known she was about to be killed then why collect her from the house then walk through a park with lots of CCTV. He didn't represent himself well but he may have been a stupid kid manipulated by a more evil one. We may never know. But I think he'll be freed on appeal.

Ffs

Edgware

The pupils in her school didn't make her life easy either. They have a lot to answer for

El_Bee

Edgware wrote: »

The pupils in her school didn't make her life easy either. They have a lot to answer for

I think the fact she was so isolated and victimized contributed to her being singled out by the two.

Suckit

shesty wrote: »

I actually think Boy A is the really dangerous one.He did it,consciously knew he did it, didn't try to deny it.

I am not for one second trying to clear Boy B.He saw what was happening, he ran away and he said nothing.He lied and lied and lied.To me that is the sign of someone who is a seriously weak and maybe terribly immature child.Not realising or accepting that there were going to be consequences out of what had happened?Not realising how stupid he sounded trying to lie his way through a number of Garda interviews?Running away and not teling someone what was going on, or trying to stop it?? (I can't get over that bit, how he saw it, could have stopped it, yet turned and ran??).It says an awful lot about his character and sorry, about how he has been brought up, if that is what he thinks is the way to deal with bad things.He is dangerous in a different way to me because he is weak, easily led and clearly doesn't think all that deeply (despite the intricate lying).I still think he deserves what he got, even just to open his eyes to the reality of the world and realise there are consequences for your behaviour.But boy A is the one I would consider to have fairly serious psychological problems.

I don't think Boy B did run away. I think that was one of his lies.

To me that makes a huge difference. I think Boy B gave boy A the masking tape for a reason.
I think Boy B got off on it, and I think the Garda investigating think that too.

petrolcan

Edgware wrote: »

The pupils in her school didn't make her life easy either. They have a lot to answer for

Not just them but the school itself after reading that RTE report.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the constant linking of it to this horrific crime is ridiculous

It isn't ridiculous.

Hundreds of thousands of young people see porn from fairly harmless to extreme perversion and they have the mental capacity to deal with it, compartmentalise it and not let it become an obsession and a negative actor in their lives.

But these two and some others you hear about in the news around the world cannot and do not deal with it in the right way and it contributes to crimes like this.

Tell Ana's parents the link is ridiculous. No? Thought not.

El_Bee

Deleted User wrote: »

the constant linking of it to this horrific crime is ridiculous

Why?

Bobeagleburger

There's porn and then there's child and animal porn. Bit of a difference tbf.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

It isn't ridiculous.

Hundreds of thousands of young people see porn from fairly harmless to extreme perversion and they have the mental capacity to deal with it, compartmentalise it and not let it become an obsession and a negative actor in their lives.

But these two and some others you hear about in the news around the world cannot and do not deal with it in the right way and it contributes to crimes like this.

Tell Ana's parents the link is ridiculous. No? Thought not.

you think them being in a .00001% strengthens your argument

and that last line is also ridiculous.

pornography has existed a long long time and sadistic murder has existed a long long time and hanging an agenda on these instances will never not be lamentable behaviour.

Hal3000

Edgware wrote: »

The pupils in her school didn't make her life easy either. They have a lot to answer for

Nothing will happen and nothing will change. Our leaders have no balls to change anything and as a nation neither do we. We've become nutured by Netflix and ruled by snowflakes who are afraid to do anything that may infringe someone's civil liberties. Best you can do is be internet savvy and teach your kid human values and hope they stick. Don't expect anything else from anyone anymore especially schools or Governments.

El_Bee

El_Bee wrote: »

The handwaving of the effects of hardcore pornography on the minds of 12 year old boys and "sure there's nothing we can do just forget about it" attitude that I'm seeing popping up in this thread is depressing as it is disturbing.

I reckon that somewhere in the future our society will look back at the free internet access afforded to children of today with the same disdain that we look back on the past “culture” of mother & baby homes etc etc. Prople will be asking “How did they let that happen? Why did they give full internet search devices to children?” The future may bring restricted and supervised child-friendly information division(s) and networks on the web which cannot be linked into broader internet searches, and it may become a crime to knowingly allow a child to acquire a full internet search device. There was a time children were sent up chimneys... child protection is a work in progress.

Fan of Netflix

Deleted User wrote: »

the constant linking of it to this horrific crime is ridiculous

Its absurd to claim there is no link. Boy A was watching extreme pornography and other things very similar to the actual crime

Stop moaning ffs

McCrack wrote: »

I would think so, they will be a target in there

Just saw a picture of it. It looks like a small enough facility. Guess it woukd Be east enough to separate them from each other just stagger their meal times and excercise time. I was told these kids in there are free to walk around though and it’s more like a youth hall than a prison.

How in the name of god will they do this?

Hal3000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I reckon that somewhere in the future our society will look back at the free internet access afforded to children of today with the same disdain that we look back on the past “culture” of mother & baby homes etc etc. Prople will be asking “How did they let that happen? Why did they give full internet search devices to children?” The future may bring restricted and supervised child-friendly information division(s) and networks on the web which cannot be linked into broader internet searches, and it may become a crime to knowingly allow a child to acquire a full internet search device. There was a time children were sent up chimneys... child protection is a work in progress.

Until big Corp have earned their moneys worth from advertising it will remain free to everyone.

mariaalice

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Agree 100% but parents are getting left behind with all the tech.... I do the checking, locking down apps devices etc as my wife can barely drive the coffee machine, and she will freely admit this. But there are couples where both parents are tech illiterate

The mere fact that you are making an attempt to monitor it is part of it even if you do no succeed you are signaling to them the type of behavior you would like form them while I presume talking to them about it and being realistic that they may be hiding some things from you.

Its the parents who are not making any attempt to monitor it and dont seem to care that are the issue.

knucklehead6

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107086571&postcount=690

While we may not be able to identify publicly the two boys involved in this case here’s someone we can identify.

The absolute thanks whore who posted this, acting like he’s all in the know.

The only thing is that it was posted a few days before
her actual funeral where her family requested colour and sparkle.

Nerdlingr

Read that Irish Times article and found it interesting how when it was a missing persons case at the start, gardai used PULSE to find out Boy B's address.