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

bobbyss

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote:

The Irish times piece is long but great journalism. Boy A had said that he wanted to kill someone weeks ago to Boy B. That and all the lies were enough to justify the murder charge. Boy knew what he was doing when he brought Ana to that place. To me accessory before or after the fact (if Ireland has those) , and obstruction of justice would have been better charges.

Very comprehensive article. Gives great background. I ran out of steam towards the end but highly recommended.

Faugheen

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I'm only going on the news reports that they found zero evidence, so convicted him of murder on police interviews. But kids lie over the smallest of things, had it being a broken window he'd have lied. But eventually the truth comes out, so maybe just maybe the truth was his last reveal, all Boy A, and he ran away. Who knows.

Did you see the police interviews? I don't mean read about them, I mean actually visually see them like the jury did?

No, you didn't.

And you're comparing him lying about not seeing Ana Kriegel being murdered to the hypothetical situation of lying about a broken window. That's one giant leap towards stupidity there.

He was at the crime scene. He gave Boy A the tape. He's guilty. End of.

iamwhoiam

freak scence wrote: »

ah get a grip , you are talking ****e

And getting a lot of attention for it . I am guessing thats the aim

Hal3000

I think a few PQs to the Dept of Education are in order. I want to know what's the policy on dealing with bullying? This is crazy how people are saying the schools can do nothing. That's just not acceptable. If we keep pressure on politicians they will have to act. Start petitions ask Parliamentary questions. This issue is at the core of Irish values and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

yourdeadwright

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, someone did. Who knows if others refused.

You are saying that he took the case to lose? Yeah, ok.

No not take it to lose but it happens all the time where someone has to take a case they know they will not win

Its there duty to take cases so that justice one way or another can be served ,

There is. no point in people's going after the defence, without them the case can't happen , someone has to take it

freak scence

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And getting a lot of attention for it . I am guessing thats the aim

why highlight so ?

Dante7

seasidedub wrote: »

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

This is an interesting article on child psychopaths.

Most psychiatric experts believe it can simply happen, a Neuro glitch and not always the result of trauma, poor parents etc. Their brains, particularly the reward centres are wired differently.

Obviously backgrounds like Thompson and Venebles won't help, but it can happen in a totally normal family too

I was talking to a consultant psychiatrist recently about an unrelated matter and he said that all children can be little sociopathic assholes. It is our jobs as parents and educators to prevent these traits continuing.

iamwhoiam

freak scence wrote: »

why highlight so ?

Sorry ?

fritzelly

Hal3000 wrote: »

Hopefully someone politician or party lobby for a new law against bullying. Name it after Ana. We need to send a strong message to the vermin that think they can get away with bullying.

And I would add that any school found wanting is held accountable
Alas we have seen similar scenarios in other areas of child care where certain people were found wanting for any kind of action and would rather turn a blind eye
In my school days bullying was front and center, now it's a closeted secretive form of harassment that is not always self evident and as evidenced above by another poster "hearing" parents will instinctively protect their children if ever accused of such.

strandroad

yourdeadwright wrote: »

No not take it to lose but it happens all the time where someone has to take a case they know they will not win

Its there duty to take cases so that justice one way or another can be served ,

There is. no point in people's going after the defence, without them the case can't happen , someone has to take it

It's one thing to conduct a technically correct defence, and quite another to try to smear the victim though. Their strategy was shameful.

gormdubhgorm

El_Bee wrote: »

I keep stating this but it bears repeating, I believe her isolation and victimization made her a target, there's so much blame to go around, ****ing hell.

I said that in my post it demonstrated her vulnerability.
I am not going to get into one of these 'outrage' arguments so I will leave it at that.

spurious

Nerdlingr wrote: »

What's this "zero evidence" about? A few people have said it about Boy B now. There's loads of evidence! And most of it, if not all, is from the mouth of the perpetrator himself!

But yet others say all he does is lie. So he lies about some things but not others?
He isn't lying when he says he was involved, but sometimes he is lying?
(I'm playing devil's advocate here btw in case anyone goes mad).

I wasn't in court and I have no doubt he was involved, but I also agree with the poster who said a murder charge against Boy B was maybe not the way to go. I think he might win an appeal.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The Appeal Court may find him not guilty. Not allowing the psychiatrist witness was, I believe, a judicial error. No DNA. No forensic ties. His legal team will again allege Gardai bullying tactics.

DPP should have gone for Perverting the Course of Justice and Accomplice to Murder. That would have stuck. The murder charge won't.

The Irish times said the interviews were conducted to the letter of the law.

Accomplice to murder is the same as murder as far as I can ascertain in Irish and common law. An accomplice is present at the scene of the crime. An accessory isn’t.

Funny enough the fact the shrink thought the boy had PTSD depends on him being there for the murder.

Nerdlingr

strandroad wrote: »

It's one thing to conduct a technically correct defence, and quite another to try to smear the victim though. Their strategy was shameful.

To be honest, I don't think they tried to smear her. Boy A was up for aggrevated sexual assault as well. He was bound to ask the question if Ana was sexually active or not. It comes with the territory unfortunately.

screamer

Hal3000 wrote: »

I think a few PQs to the Dept of Education are in order. I want to know what's the policy on dealing with bullying? This is crazy how people are saying the schools can do nothing. That's just not acceptable. If we keep pressure on politicians they will have to act. Start petitions ask Parliamentary questions. This issue is at the core of Irish values and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

Once expelled, other schools can refuse to take them in, therefore they’d not get their education and I’m sure some rights of the bully would be infringed. But forget the victim, their rights are trumped by the rights of the bully..... isn’t that how Ireland works across the board.....

Sunflower 27

yourdeadwright wrote: »

No not take it to lose but it happens all the time where someone has to take a case they know they will not win

Its there duty to take cases so that justice one way or another can be served ,

There is. no point in people's going after the defence, without them the case can't happen , someone has to take it

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe he took the case for any other reason than to get his client off.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think he took it to try and lose and/or because no one else would so justice wouldn't be served.

Anyway, he lost. And I am delighted.

Mrsmum

El_Bee wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier, I overheard a neghbour and her friend build an alibi for their two little angels as they were called into a meeting in the school over bullying another girl, the vile creatures are still in school, clown world.

That's the thing. Over the years I have heard of many parents devastated and at the end of their tether but still after countless incidents over a long period of time trying to work with the school to get the bullying of their child stopped. Feck that I say, everyone should land down to the police station and a squad car to the door would put the frightners on a lot of these scuts.

yourdeadwright

strandroad wrote: »

It's one thing to conduct a technically correct defence, and quite another to try to smear the victim though. Their strategy was shameful.

They may not have made that choice ,
The person on trail or there parents in this case can push for them to go a certain way

Seathrun66

Calltocall wrote: »

Are you for real, no surprise they supported him FFS! They knew their son and would have had to of known there were serious inconsistencies in his story but didn’t want to accept that and instead dragged the victims family through a trial instead of grabbing the little **** by the scruff of the neck and make him tell the guards the truth from the outset and make him face the consequences of his actions maybe if they took that line when rearing him he wouldn’t be in the mess he’s in today, now he’s learning the hard way, their are consequences for your actions, they should have taught him that valuable lesson.

The evidence against Boy B is slight and an unsafe conviction I think. Particularly given the exclusion of the psychiatric witness. He'll likely be released by the Appeal Court. I would thus fully expect Boy B's parents to support him though they must have been flabbergasted by his ever-changing statements.

Boy A is an entirely matter.

Hal3000

If the schools can do nothing about bullying then essentially we are sending out kids into dangerous environments everyday. Only in Ireland. It's not that the schools can do nothing, it's that's they're backed by a toothless Department that obviously don't give them any authority or proper guidance. In typical Irish fashion we will keep passing the buck until another person is killed in the same fashion.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Dante7 wrote: »

I was talking to a consultant psychiatrist recently about an unrelated matter and he said that all children can be little sociopathic assholes. It is our jobs as parents and educators to prevent these traits continuing.

That’s right. Particularly at 12-14 for some reason.

BorneTobyWilde

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

No I'm not. I didn't mention the parents. Sometimes they are to blame but sometimes they are not. The school isn't totally to blame but it's not blameless if bullying is known to be carrying on on its premises.

What's this "society" thing about? It gets used to explain things in a high handed manner but it's meaningless. And it does shift responsibility from those who actually carry the deed out.

"Seems to" you? Despite the kit with the mask and kneepads etc? Surely you're taking the piss. And what's this "bee" bollox?

What are masks and knee pads for when planning a murder.

yourdeadwright

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe he took the case for any other reason than to get his client off.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think he took it to try and lose and/or because no one else would so justice wouldn't be served.

Anyway, he lost. And I am delighted.

I happy he lost just like you
All I'm saying is someone had to take case

strandroad

Nerdlingr wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think they tried to smear her. Boy A was up for aggrevated sexual assault as well. He was bound to ask the question if Ana was sexually active or not. It comes with the territory unfortunately.

Not only that, he suggested that it was a place for teenage trysts and that's why she met him there i.e. he did not plan it.
It was completely uncalled for.

n97 mini

bubblypop wrote: »

And that fact that he called for her & was seen with her.

Which he told gardai.

Faugheen

spurious wrote: »

But yet others say all he does is lie. So he lies about some things but not others?
He isn't lying when he says he was involved, but sometimes he is lying?
(I'm playing devil's advocate here btw in case anyone goes mad).

I wasn't in court and I have no doubt he was involved, but I also agree with the poster who said a murder charge against Boy B was maybe not the way to go. I think he might win an appeal.

As I've said. It's easy to read the evidence that was said in court, it's a different matter altogether to actually be in there and see it in action.

Anyone who is assuming he wins an appeal is in cloud cuckoo land. The jury watched his police interviews twice. He was calm as f*ck in that environment - after being arrested in relation to a murder investigation. Any normal child breaks down and buckles under the pressure.

This chap didn't. He lied, and lied and lied, and every time he lied he found a way to bring attention back to Boy A.

He said he left them at the park, when really he stood there and watched her die, and did nothing about it before, during or after the fact.

Boy B wasn't just complicit in this murder. He f*cking orchestrated it.

Nerdlingr

spurious wrote: »

But yet others say all he does is lie. So he lies about some things but not others?
He isn't lying when he says he was involved, but sometimes he is lying?
(I'm playing devil's advocate here btw in case anyone goes mad).

I wasn't in court and I have no doubt he was involved, but I also agree with the poster who said a murder charge against Boy B was maybe not the way to go. I think he might win an appeal.

Why would he lie about being at the scene and seeing Boy A with his pants open and flipping Ana and start to choke her? Why would he lie to put himself in that position and tie his own noose? You lie to exeronate yourself, you don't lie to implicate yourself.


In Irish law "Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender."

It's there in the Irish statute in black and white.
He is guilty of murder.

Ash.J.Williams

a lot of posts regarding boy B and his involvement, i can only assume that the jury had a better view than us and his demeanor in court might have told a different story.

freak scence

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

a lot of posts regarding boy B and his involvement, i can only assume that the jury had a better view than us and his demeanor in court might have told a different story.

why was he there?

gormdubhgorm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Maybe this is a stupid question but is there any crime called bullying even when it's at the extreme end ? Can you go to the garda station and report that your child is being bullied by X ? Because some of these bullies would badly want a squad car to the door or to be up in court.

There is a crime called harassment in the non-fatal offences of the person act 1997 s10.2

I am not sure if there is a cyber-bullying element in legislation although there have been calls for it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/new-laws-to-combat-online-abuse-such-as-cyberbullying-and-revenge-porn-422963.html