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

branie2

And he has a boyfriend as well

Somedaythefire

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Because you've only read second hand information. There's a massive difference between seeing the evidence, and reading information about the evidence. Thankfully the reasonable doubt of people who haven't seen all the evidence counts for naught.

Necro

nehemiah wrote: »

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

Normal???

One of the boys later revealed that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the shopping centre, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic

You call that normal?

They were both animals and belong in a cage for the rest of their natural lives.

nehemiah

nehemiah wrote: »

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

I looked over the report you linked me up with (thank you). The data is for prisoners from 17 years onwards though and the younger you are released, the higher the chance you will reoffend.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

spurious wrote: »

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.

Sometimes laughing off bullies is very hard to do. And I don’t know what high self-esteem will do to ward off physical attacks.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

When these boys are released I don’t want them to pose a further danger to society, insofar as this can be prevented. My Pollyanna dream would be that prison would offer them the following:

1. Reinforcement that what they did was at the extreme end of being wrong and that’s why they are there.

2. The possibility of being able to be a much better person in the future and that restitution can be made.

3. To learn the rights of all humans and living beings, including themselves, matched with responsibilities.

4. To gain insights into what it is like to walk in other people’s shoes.

5 To gain an education so that they might be self-supporting in the future, or at least have a more rounded view of the world and an aspiration to learn more.

6 To get whatever psychological or medical help that might help to prevent them reoffending, To learn to be able to desist and deflect from perversion to sexual violence.

All that is an enormous ask of prison, educational and social services. They would need to know of role models of people who have transformed their lives from sexual violence, and they are thin enough on the ground. I’m guessing the families might not have too many good role models amongst their males.

Otherwise one or both of these boys will be a further significant danger to society when they are released, and indeed be in danger of their own lives if anyone gives a fcuk about the latter.

There is little way they will escape attention when they are released, other inmates will leak it out when they too get out. Ireland is too small a country to change identity without somebody getting word, and Britain will probably be out with Brexit etc. If one or both are from other European countries maybe they could merge into those societies with maybe a head start on language from parents etc.

Personally believe they have gone so far over the bounds they never deserve a second chance.

They carried out premeditated murder and rape.
One of the boys battered her, strangled her and raped her.
The other aided him and may for all we know had more involvement.

And that boy was arrogant enough to think he was smart enough to lie his way out of it.
In fact he lied his way into the frame and a guilty verdict.

Of course the do gooders will believe his bullcr** and are already giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The jury thankfully saw his arrogance, saw his conniving manipulation and rightfully found him guilty.

These remind me of the type that in the US walk into a classroom and riddle it full of bullets.

A clinical psychologist claimed that boy B was suffering from PTSB and that he was traumatised.
Yep he was so traumatised that in multiple interviews over number of days he confidently lied through his ass, only changing his story when his lies were found out.

Any clinical psychologists I know always look for the good in people, maybe they need to sometimes start from the other end.

You deserve a second chance if you accidentaly kill or maim someone, if you steal something, if you were drunk or drugged out of your skull and did harm to someone and then really show remorse and regret.

You do not deserve second chance if you set out to rape and batter someone to death.
And especially so if it is a child.

It doesn't matter if the killer or rapist is also a child, they are guilty of premeditated thought out evil.

And no I am not religious, don't believe in God or heaven, but I do bloody well believe in evil.

nehemiah

Necro wrote: »

Normal???



You call that normal?

They were both animals and belong in a cage for the rest of their natural lives.

Went on to live a normal life. As in after he murdered someone and served his sentence.

Didn't really think that would need explaining but anyway.

Necro

nehemiah wrote: »

Went on to live a normal life. As in after he murdered someone and served his sentence.

Didn't really think that would need explaining but anyway.

Normal is stealing a few penny sweets from the counter and learning from it.

Torturing and murdering a three year old child is not normal at any age.

jimmycrackcorm

I was intrigued by boy Bs father outburst in court. He would have watched all the interview recordings and seen the repeated lies and story changes by B.
Perhaps he is reading this thread, so my question is why he didn't insist and advise that his son tell the absolute whole truth from the very start.
I suspect that he told him that youre innocent until proven guilty which requires the Gardai to find the evidence and the more you keep your mouth shut, the greater chance of getting off. He sounded pissed because they didn't present the evidence in its entirety so the boy had to change his story to keep up..

Had he instead told the whole truth from the start then I doubt that he'd be getting a sentence for murder. It would be something lesser. But his own evidence made him look the conniving murder conspirator.

If his father is reading this then he should know that he is a failure for not convincing his kid to tell the whole truth upfront.

Gimme A Pound

shutup wrote: »

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

They were in relation to two people who were found guilty of murder. People's outrage over those words in the context of everything else was pretty weird at best.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

spurious wrote: »

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.

By pressing the “high self esteem” button on the back of the children’s necks?

InTheShadows

GarIT wrote: »

More than classes on bullying we need classes on empathy and personal development. Telling a bully bullying is wrong won't stop them. Getting them to understand other people have feelings too and that being different is ok would be much more effective.

Just want to say i know your post is well intentioned but some of these kids are just plain bad and no amount of "feeling classes" or the like is going to help. The simple solution is with the principle of the school ultimately and the department to back them up. If a principle feels a kid is bullying and has the evidence make an example and expel them and stick to this with every single bully. It is the responsibility of the school to think of the good of the collective not some s h ithead who bullies innocent sweet kids.

boardise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

If B was not heavily implicated and was merely a witness to the actions of A -he would have told the told the truth.
By telling a slew of lies and incoherences he hampered the inquiries and therefore could presumably be charged with obstructing the course of justice.

Boggles

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Had he instead told the whole truth from the start then I doubt that he'd be getting a sentence for murder.

I don't see how that could be.

The "truth" is he conspired to kill the girl and is now guilty of murder according to 12 people.

That's the only truth that matters really.

Gimme A Pound

Yeah people can certainly be shaped by a terrible childhood of abuse, neglect, deprivation, addiction. Not so these lads. Some people are just sh1t.

MrMusician18

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.

Well there was no physical evidence only Boy B's words put him there. Not the mark of the high intellect criminal master mind that some posters are trying to make him out to be.

If he had stonewalled the detectives he wouldn't have even been tried, let alone convicted.

Skylinehead

Necro wrote: »

Normal is stealing a few penny sweets from the counter and learning from it.

Torturing and murdering a three year old child is not normal at any age.

Can you read? Please stop misrepresenting arguments, it's entirely disingenuous.

nehemiah

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I looked over the report you linked me up with (thank you). The data is for prisoners from 17 years onwards though and the younger you are released, the higher the chance you will reoffend.

No problem. The report does say that, but doesn't indicate whether that is applicable across the board. For example, most younger prisoners will be released after short sentences and many will be actively involved in the drugs trade.

For these reasons the report should be taken with a pinch of salt to an extent. These boys will not be 'normal' prisoners, they will serve an extended period of time in jail and won't be that young by the time they are released.

The report also doesn't highlight what offences the 26% were convicted. But as I said in my earlier post it would appear that only a very small percentage of convicted murderers kill again upon their release. I am not aware of any in Ireland and I would imagine if there are any they would be drug/paramilitary related.

However, I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Somedaythefire

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well there was no physical evidence only Boy B's words put him there. Not the mark of the high intellect criminal master mind that some posters are trying to make him out to be.

If he had stonewalled the detectives he wouldn't have even been tried, let alone convicted.

As I said earlier in the thread, the kid might have fancied himself as a high intellect criminal. Kids overestimate their own intelligence, especially if they're good in primary school.

Lackadaisical

It seems that the judge has hauled Facebook and Twitter's representatives into court over publications that identified the two minors convicted in this case and has pointed out that the court has "unlimited powers" of detention and fine for anyone found in contempt of court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/facebook-and-twitter-ordered-to-court-over-identification-of-boys-1.3930913?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So, if you do get any messages identifying either of them, even reposting could potentially carry fairly serious legal consequences.

It sounds like one of those kinds of things that works in theory rather than practise, but it still carries potentially very real penalties.

Necro

Skylinehead wrote: »

Can you read? Please stop misrepresenting arguments, it's entirely disingenuous.

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Skylinehead

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Oh my god. Do you know what the word after means? Why do I have to explain this?

You're not arguing in good faith here at all.

freshpopcorn

Bullying is a very complex(if that's the correct word in school, work, online, etc.
*Take in schools for example. It's one persons word against another and it can be hard to prove unless they are witnesses/etc.(Of course they are useless teachers/etc)
*Another issue is how schools are resourced. I know locally one school A would be more suited to kids who may have had various types of needs or behavior issues. This schools has more councilors/activities/etc whilst the other schools don't have them. Now the government could provide these resources in schools but there is sort of a prudish attitude and some parent feel school A isn't academic enough for there kids.
*When I was at school there was a lad with learning difficulties. Most people were nice to him. He had a group of friends and they were into playstation/etc. However he tried to befriend another groups of guys who was cooler and they were fine with him at first but they found him tough going. They had nothing in common and they always had to be looking after him. He sort of ended up isolated at times.
*When I was in primary school we got on fairly well as a class but we knew they were some people we didn't mix well with and we just stayed out of their way. Now there's this type of everybody has to be friends/get on and I wonder is that the right attitude to have at times.
*Whilst Ireland and other countries has come along way with thing such as sexuality in the last few years. There is a lot of nastiness out there and online. You see it on here if somebody asks a question that might be silly or somebody makes a mistake people love berating them with emojis or smart comments.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

What's you definition of "after"?

Obviously nobody's saying the fcuking murder was normal, it was pointed out that AFTER their release, one boy reoffended and one boy AFTER release went on to live a normal life.

It's like the opposite of before. You know how the way the weather comes on after the news.

Necro

Skylinehead wrote: »

Oh my god. Do you know what the word after means? Why do I have to explain this?

You're not arguing in good faith here at all.

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

nehemiah

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Just stop. You're either completely misunderstanding or on the WUM.

Either way you look like an fool.

Always Tired

spurious wrote: »

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.

Yeah wow, why don't all the parents of kids being bullied just do that, problem solved?

I'd like to see how well adjusted you would be if you were adopted, taken to a foreign country where they spoke a different language, were deaf in one ear due to having a tumor removed, were completely ostracized by your peers. Sexually harrassed as well (the halloween incident)

Yeah just laugh it all off.

strathspey

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Yeah people can certainly be shaped by a terrible childhood of abuse, neglect, deprivation, addiction. Not so these lads. Some people are just sh1t.

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

GarIT

Somedaythefire wrote: »

Because you've only read second hand information. There's a massive difference between seeing the evidence, and reading information about the evidence. Thankfully the reasonable doubt of people who haven't seen all the evidence counts for naught.

Which is why I literally said I may not have the full story.

GarIT

strathspey wrote: »

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

What did the parents do or not do that caused this then?