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

Larbre34

veryangryman wrote: »

Without looking for the pictures, can anyone who has seen them confirm whether they look rough?

Seriously?

iamwhoiam

tuxy wrote: »

Yes but what people keep misunderstanding is it had nothing to do with phones that may or may not have been present at the murder.
It was part of him giving a character w description of his son.
He attempted portray his son as careless and not very bright.

How do we know the fathers motive ? Maybe a smart phone existed and was gotten rid of . Maybe the Boy B didn’t lick his lieing off the stones .

the butcher

veryangryman wrote: »

Without looking for the pictures, can anyone who has seen them confirm whether they look rough?

FFS - What purpose does this post actually serve?!

Force Carrier

fryup wrote: »

well the infamous Ted Bundy came from a straight laced christian family had a very sheltered upbringing....and he later disclosed that it was porn that was the main driving factor in his numerous murders

*and bear in mind that was at a time before internet porn

He was hardly going to say the driving factor was that 'I was a cruel, sadistic, perverted scumbag.' Since he is a liar and the porn externalises the fault and blame.

Boggles

fryup wrote: »

well the infamous Ted Bundy came from a straight laced christian family had a very sheltered upbringing....and he later disclosed that it was porn that was the main driving factor in his numerous murders

*and bear in mind that was at a time before internet porn

No he didn't. As far as I remember. He said porn helped him shape what he would do to his victims.

Ted's musings were about as reliable as a chocolate kettle.

He told that to a well know anti porn campaigner and bible thumper, Ted was hoping at that stage for a stay of execution and he thought the church might help him, church gets what it wants in return porn = serial killer.

He would have said cats made him he do it if thought that would help him, Ted manipulated all his life right until the end.

SirGerryAdams

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if Boy A experienced some violence/sexual violence at home. He hardly licked it off the ground just by watching porn.

He's just a psycho. It's a lack of empathy. You are born that way, about 5% of the population is.

Also runs in families.

The way he said he felt mostly nothing is textbook.

If he was a dog you would put him down. Only solution IMO.

MaccaTacca

MOD: Enough of the referencing of a photo that's going around, and enough of discussing the contents of said photo.

Ace Attorney

CityRoad wrote: »

From what I have been told, the kids knew they were trouble, the school did not seem to care, they certainly do not have seemed to have cared about the child I know.

In fact there was footage filmed on the mobile phone of one incident involving the child I know, the school was more concerned that the footage be deleted than a serious assault occurred in school grounds. My friend found it very weird and made sure she saved it to a few places.

Jesus, if it was boy a or b involved in that serious assault, that school needs to answer some questions about its running

captbarnacles

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very likely that Ana was naive and innocent, despite looking older. A more streetwise girl would have smelled a rat when that yoke came looking for her and especially having to walk miles to a deserted location.

I guess sheer happiness at being called for by a peer and asked to come out with them overrode any concerns she had. Hard to take that bit.

Abba987

veryangryman wrote: »

Without looking for the pictures, can anyone who has seen them confirm whether they look rough?

No they don't

Penn

the butcher wrote: »

FFS - What purpose does this post actually serve?!

I remember years ago, either during or after the Raoul Moat manhunt, either The Sun or The Mirror had a story about Moat which included a photo of him at about 6 months old. The photo of this 6-month old smiling child included the caption "...with fist already clenched in anger..." because his hand was closed.

If only the parents had noticed he looked rough at that young age...

SirGerryAdams

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're throwing in a few off the point references to the sexual aspects in the last hour or so Gerry. A cynical person may think this was in some way for your own prurient gratification....

For the record, Boy A could quite easily have developed his own behaviour due to any number of psychological disorders and fostered by exposure to extreme imagery and ideations online or from other sources - the bargain basement satanism and secretive behaviour.

There has been zero suggestion anywhere of a background you are alluding to.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Abba987

It serves no purpose but is the first thing a few people have said. Fact is they don't look like the little scrotes in town waiting to swipe your phone they look like nice boys.

This whole story is devastatingly tragic. Like with Jamie Bolger how can do people be on the same page. How can 2 people of that age be so cruel. That poor girl it doesn't bear thinking about

I seriously doubt there will be rehabitating these boys so they will be back out to do it again soon

Force Carrier

We are all of us formed by a mixture of nature and nurture.
Our genes play a role. Our environment plays a role.

Some people in their intrinsic physiological make up lack empathy. Events in their childhood and life then play a role in forming their personality and behavior. But you have to be wired up a particular way to want hurt and kill people. 99.9% of the population could watch all the porn until kingdom come but they wouldn't bring a girl to an abandoned house. Drinking in her confusion, panic and pain. Savagely smash their skull in. And then go home and eat their dinner and go to bed. These were fundamentally bad little fcukers. A trace element of the population are and alwasy will be.

TheBoyConor

I can't get my head around how the parents of boys a and b could brazenly maintain that they were innocent despite the overwhelmingly convincing and damning evidence against them.
Personnally, I think I would like to see those family members also punished up to and including imprisonment for this, for two reasons. Firstly trying to pervert the course of justice by denying the actions of their sons and secondly for doing/not doing whatever it was as parents that make these boys likely to do something. As I see it their actions have basically made them accomplices or enablers of sorts.
I accept that imprisoning the family members of someone who commits a horrible crime might be considered harsh but in such a horrible case as this it is a pity it cannot be done as they have a certain level of cuplability. Sure one of them even washed a blood sodden hoodie! How the hell did they think that was right? I think it was an effort to destroy evidence.

razorblunt

Penn wrote: »

I remember years ago, either during or after the Raoul Moat manhunt, either The Sun or The Mirror had a story about Moat which included a photo of him at about 6 months old. The photo of this 6-month old smiling child included the caption "...with fist already clenched in anger..." because his hand was closed.

If only the parents had noticed he looked rough at that young age...

Nothing has yet to beat the "with sadness in his eyes" from Kay Burley..

Boom_Bap

Prominent_Dawg wrote: »

Anonymity gives the public and media the opportunity to speculate, which makes every great story, the family couldn't even keep their mouth closed in court, I can see a million euro book deal down the road "Boy B".

I wonder how many revisions of the book there will be.

Patrick2010

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I can't get my head around how the parents of boys a and b could brazenly maintain that they were innocent despite the overwhelmingly convincing and damning evidence against them.
Personnally, I think I would like to see those family members also punished up to and including imprisonment for this, for two reasons. Firstly trying to pervert the course of justice by denying the actions of their sons and secondly for doing/not doing whatever it was as parents that make these boys likely to do something. As I see it their actions have basically made them accomplices or enablers of sorts.
I accept that imprisoning the family members of someone who commits a horrible crime might be considered harsh but in such a horrible case as this it is a pity it cannot be done as they have a certain level of cuplability. Sure one of them even washed a blood sodden hoodie! How the hell did they think that was right? I think it was an effort to destroy evidence.

Wasn't it boy As mother that washed his clothes twice?

CityRoad

fryup wrote: »

@ cityroad....i take it you're from the area?

if so...did these kids have a reputation as bad brats?

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very likely that Ana was naive and innocent, despite looking older. A more streetwise girl would have smelled a rat when that yoke came looking for her and especially having to walk miles to a deserted location.

Yes she was, that was not the question, the question was were they known to be brats/bullies. I mention it because Ana's mother was also worried when she found out who she left with.

Grayson

razorblunt wrote: »

Nothing has yet to beat the "with sadness in his eyes" from Kay Burley..

"Five murders, in six weeks - do you think if you'd had a better sex life he wouldn't have done them?"

That's still her best.

Strazdas

captbarnacles wrote: »

I guess sheer happiness at being called for by a peer and asked to come out with them overrode any concerns she had. Hard to take that bit.

Absolutely. A more streetwise girl may have been far more suspicious, especially having to walk miles to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere ("why can't he meet me here in the park?" etc)

It's very likely A and B targeted Ana precisely because they saw her as being naive and gullible.

BarryD2

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

MaccaTacca wrote: »

<snipped>

What exactly is the point of this post?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Strazdas wrote: »

Absolutely. A more streetwise girl may have been far more suspicious, especially having to walk miles to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere ("why can't he meet me here in the park?" etc)

It's very likely A and B targeted Ana precisely because they saw her as being naive and gullible.

Sadly that seems to be the case.

Sardonicat

BarryD2 wrote: »

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

I imagine not publishing the name of the school would be to protect the pupils from being approached by less savoury elements of the press for comment. A bit pointless really because if you have any knowledge of the area it's not hard to figure out which school it is. I lived in Leixlip 10 years ago and have been able to work it out very easily just from the reporting of the case.

tayto lover

Nerdlingr wrote: »

None of that means a thing/or comes to light if he doesnt talk.
They only have him on CCTV and an eye witness who saw him. Thats it.
Far far far from a murder conviction. Miles away.

We’ll have to agree to differ then.
The miles away bit I forgot to include. Why not outside her home or in anywhere there might be others not intent on harming Ana.
I would have convicted him on what I posted if I was on a jury. Maybe it’s a blessing i wasn’t and that it didn’t come to that.t
He’s as guilty as sin as we all know now anyway.

CityRoad

Ace Attorney wrote: »

Jesus, if it was boy a or b involved in that serious assault, that school needs to answer some questions about its running

They were. Boy A and B are not very pleasant individuals. If the child I know had a different as personality, it could have been them. It's been a very sobering and upsetting time.

80sChild

BarryD2 wrote: »

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

Ridiculous, all the articles from the period she was missing not yet found state her school - have all newspapers worked overnight to purge these? They were still there yesterday.

EDIT: There are tweets still up with people @'ing the school with questions around their bullying policy. You cannot unring a bell.

Apollinaris

Strazdas wrote: »

Absolutely. A more streetwise girl may have been far more suspicious, especially having to walk miles to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere ("why can't he meet me here in the park?" etc)

It's very likely A and B targeted Ana precisely because they saw her as being naive and gullible.

Your comment is beyond ridiculous and victim blaming, shame on you. It was a 14 yo girl for crying out loud, what kind of life experience did she have?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Apollinaris wrote: »

Your comment is beyond ridiculous and victim blaming, shame on you. It was a 14 yo girl for crying out loud, what kind of life experience did she have?

No one's 'victim blaming'. What a stupid comment.