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

Dontfadeaway

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

arkle1 wrote: »

I will be slated for this but I feel Boy B may not be guilty...is he guilty of planning to kill her. I cant stop thinking he lied as

1. Afraid of being set up as he said
2. Afraid of Boy A
3. Was traumatised by what happened?

I think he was an evil prick for persistently not telling the truth and am shocked at how long he managed to keep that going ... but I'm not sure he was guilty of murder.

I am wondering how you are so sure on him

This case has me really bothered

TOO MANY LIES.

He was never in the house. He was in the house. He saw her walking away. He heard her scream. He went into the house before Ana and Boy A. He looked in the door and ran away.

Boy B told so many lies we still don't know what exactly happened!

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

SirGerryAdams

I wonder if the distances of the two locations the two boys were spotted on CCTV after the crime would be roughly the same distance? There's about a 15 minute difference from when Boy A was spotted on CCTV after Boy B. I wonder would this indicate Boy B left before Boy A? If so, why?

Anyone with knowledge of the area be able to read into the timings? I'm guessing by the suspected murder times that it would take about 10 minutes for Boy B to walk from the house to the location he was caught on CCTV.

Boggles

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Once boy A was found with Ana's blood all over his shoes, bag, etc he was going to be charged. What did boy B have to be afraid of?

Both boys got bail, they haven't been in detention the whole time since the murder.

Also there is no indication that both boys talked to each other in the days after the murder.

Now if one approaches the case with the preconception that Boy B was like John Doe in Seven and not a 13 year old child (even a fúcked up one) - which the judge kept reminding the jury, then all ones conclusions will only go down one alley.

ohnonotgmail

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

he was an accomplice. he is as guilty of murder as the boy who killed her.

Hoboo

retro:electro wrote: »

The judge said that intention to kill does not require elaborate pre-planning. You see, even if we believe his version of events where his aim was to paint himself in the best possible light, he still painted a picture of a remarkably cruel, negligent and dangerous liar. He received a text message from boy A a month before the act informing him that he intends to kill Ana. Boy B responded “in your dreams”, and laughed it off as a joke. If we are to believe that he led Ana to boy A because he was going to tell her he didn’t fancy her then he is a remarkably cruel person. If we are to believe he saw Ana being thrown to the ground and assaulted and he left as she screamed for her life and told no one for days only lied and deflected then he is a remarkably cruel and dangerous person. I believe he is a lot more involved than he is letting on, his only saving grace is there is no evidence to prove he directly assaulted her but he assisted in the murder by leading her there.

They saw her as sub- human. They saw her as disposable and less than. They showed her absolutely no respect before, during or after and his comments about her being “slutty” give an insight into how he viewed her. When I was his age, being questioned in such a serious manner would have me on my knees in bits but he continually played a game of cat and mouse with the guards, sussing them on what they knew until they eventually peeled away the lies one by one.

It makes me sick to think I even breathe the same air as these cretins.

Didn't require elaborate pre planning infers it required planning of some degree. Can't see where the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt this occured.

boardise

Grayson wrote: »

Probably never. Despite what they did they are children.

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Securing murder and manslaughter convictions don’t just rely on DNA evidence. Cases were solved pre DNA testing.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

Both boys got bail, they haven't been in detention the whole time since the murder.

Also there is no indication that both boys talked to each other in the days after the murder.

Now if one approaches the case with the preconception that Boy B was like John Doe in Seven and not a 13 year old child (even a fúcked up one) - which the judge kept reminding the jury, then all ones conclusions will only go down one alley.

Do you think people had those preconceptions or rather didn’t but made up their minds after the trial, when most people read about this in detail for the first time. I assumed boy b would get a lower charge until recently.

AudreyHepburn

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Once again there doesn’t need to be DNA in this case - he put himself there. He incriminated himself and that along with his repeated lies and lack of empathy for Ana in life and death are enough to show what kind of boy he is and give a good indication of exactly what his involvement was.

He’s as bad as A and deserves the same punishment.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

They were but were given new identities on release from prison.

jmayo

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Online bullies did not kill the girl nor cause the girl to be killed. In fact the online bullying was completely unrelated to the actual main facts of the case.
It was just mentioned by her parents to show what type of girl Ana was, and how she was more vulnerable than most

Actually the bullies, both online and in real life made Ana appear as worthless, a non entity to be lambasted, to be taunted, to be avoided.

These guys saw her, as Gimp A (the one who some gobdaws seem to think of as the poor bullied easily led one and innocent) described as slutty and a weirdo that everyone avoided.

They saw her as so worthless that they could rape and kill her and nobody would probably care.

How many serial killers the world over have targeted the homeless (the real ones not the modern Irish definition), the runaways, the drug addicts, the prostitutes because they thought no one would notice they were gone, because they were worthless.

So yes in my opinion all the bast***s that went to school with her or were in social club with her that treated her like dirt should look take a long hard at themselves.
Personally I don't hold out much hope for a lot of them.
Hell I bet some of them still laugh about her.

ted1

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

They were giving new identities on their release

Dontfadeaway

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Once again there doesn’t need to be DNA in this case - he put himself there. He incriminated himself and that along with his repeated lies and lack of empathy for Ana in life and death are enough to show what kind of boy he is and give a good indication of exactly what his involvement was.

He’s as bad as A and deserves the same punishment.

I know that but I didn't know it was the same charge.

If he did take part in the attack itself, wouldn't they have found DNA like they did with Boy A?

Grayson

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

Different countries, different laws.

And one of those guys actually went on to live a normal life. (the other didn't).

ohnonotgmail

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I know that but I didn't know it was the same charge.

If he did take part in the attack itself, wouldn't they have found DNA like they did with Boy A?

He doesn't have to take part in the attack itself to be guilty of murder.

beejee

The whole thing is just miserable.

Reading about it over lunch earlier, I noted that one of the boys phones was found to contain thousands of pornographic images and videos, including bestiality, bdsm and other lovely things.

Imagine being a 13 year old and being exposed to the utter slime of humanity at every second of every day. Bound to give rise to healthy, well-adjusted normal people, right?

The internet should be 100% restricted to adults, and only allowed in strictly controlled educational institutions for children. F99k your oh-so-precious "internet freedom"

There are always psychos, but anyone who attempts to argue that the inhumanity of the internet has no impact on children can just shut their mouth before they start.

Boggles

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Do you think people had those preconceptions or rather didn’t but made up their minds after the trial, when most people read about this in detail for the first time.

I was responding to a question.

I have no idea how people on here garnered their preconception.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I assumed boy b would get a lower charge until recently.

What did you think he would get charged with?

Manslaughter probably.

Grayson

There was an article I read ages ago and I've been trying to find it all day.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers

On the afternoon of 15 October 1994, three young children, a girl aged five, and two six-year-old boys, were playing on a football field covered in freshly fallen snow. Their parents were neighbours who did not know each other, but the children had played together before. The three had been making "snow castles", until the fun stopped. Nobody knows why. A childish disagreement? A tantrum, perhaps? Whatever it was it triggered a reaction in the boys that devastated a family and the community. At some point while playing, the boys turned on the little girl, punching and kicking her and beating her with stones before stripping off her clothes. Then they ran away, leaving her to die in the snow.

I'd recommend reading the whole article. It's an interesting take on what to do with children who commit crimes

And note, I'm not saying it's the same. the kids here were 6, not 13 and there's a lot of difference in those ages, but they are similar in other ways.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Manslaughter probably.

he brought her to meet another boy who had expressed a desire to murder her. manslaughter does not apply.

jmayo

Grayson wrote: »

There was an article I read ages ago and I've been trying to find it all day.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers





I'd recommend reading the whole article. It's an interesting take on what to do with children who commit crimes

And note, I'm not saying it's the same. the kids here were 6, not 13 and there's a lot of difference in those ages, but they are similar in other ways.

Actually remember coming across that before.
Very scary.

Sometimes the Lord of the Flies is actually closer to the surface than anyone dares say.

And some kids can be pure evil from the get go.
Now upbringing can help either make those tendencies come out or remain hidden.

Ash.J.Williams

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I know that but I didn't know it was the same charge.

If he did take part in the attack itself, wouldn't they have found DNA like they did with Boy A?

i think the CCTV showed he (boyB)didn't just run home for his tea and may have been there 30mins or so

Necro

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

They were given new identities and released on a lifelong licence that Venables breached twice since then. Most recently for having images of child porn on his PC :rolleyes:

Neither should ever have been let out.

80sChild

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he brought her to meet another boy who had expressed a desire to murder her. manslaughter does not apply.

There is no denying this simple fact.

Also, he provided the duct tape, but we will likely never know how much he knew about its intended use.

spurious

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Department of Education will argue that they don't have time in the day to have these types of classes.

Scrap all the pointless Religion lessons, significantly reduce time spent on Irish and have a few mandatory classes a week on consent, bullying, mental health, life skills.

Or get parents to do their job and rear a child with high self-esteem that laughs off bullying from the spawn of parents who rear theirs to bully.

Faugheen

People still chatting ****e about Boy B’s conviction?

You can tell those who have actually read the case thoroughly rather than those who read what they want to read.

And the usual ‘there’s no physical evidence’ brigade who have no idea how the law works.

GarIT

Faugheen wrote: »

People still chatting ****e about Boy B’s conviction?

You can tell those who have actually read the case thoroughly rather than those who read what they want to read.

And the usual ‘there’s no physical evidence’ brigade who have no idea how the law works.

The way the law works is that it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Based on what I have read which may not be the full story I would have reasonable doubts.

What’s the story with the stick that Boy B picked up? I only recall reading that he picked a stick up but did the guards question him further about it?

shutup

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Ah you are, but still...

It's only words on the internet. In the greater scheme of things it's meaningless. I don't agree with it either, but there are more important, real things to be bothered by in relation to this case, rather than message board posts by people understandably angered by this atrocity.

“Words on the internet”.
How many times of you written those words on the internet?

nehemiah

Necro wrote: »

They were given new identities and released on a lifelong licence that Venables breached twice since then. Most recently for having images of child porn on his PC :rolleyes:

Neither should ever have been let out.

Meanwhile Thompson has apparently never reoffended and went on to live a normal life.