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

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

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.

Sure the school posted about Ana (their 1st year pupil) being missing.

SirGerryAdams

This nonsense about not publishing it is pointless.

Anyone who wants to find out the identity will find it.

Strawberry Milkshake

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Sure the school posted about Ana (their 1st year pupil) being missing.

And it’s still on their fb page!

Strazdas

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?

Victim blaming? I'm sticking up for poor Ana and condemning those two scumbags out of hand. There would be nothing wrong with Ana being innocent. I'm saying they deliberately went after her because they perceived her to be different. Ana did nothing wrong and everything they did was wrong - a good person vs two horrible ones.

Sardonicat

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Sure the school posted about Ana (their 1st year pupil) being missing.

Yup, but my point is, even without public naming of the school anyone with knowledge of the area could figure it out anyway. Just like anyone living in the area already knows who these 2 boys are.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

CityRoad wrote: »

An Eimear Cotter article on the 20 May 2019 Irish Independent talks about the DNA evidence and the unknown DNA, I cannot post a link because I am new.

I do not know what the parents of Boy A did, my friend did not tell me, and the local parents wanted this to be brought to court, we only discussed the case in how it related to her child. Her child was one of their targets in the first half of the year.

If this third set of DNA indicates a third person, the boys are still lying.

Here it is.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-dna-profile-from-one-of-accused-boys-found-on-clothes-at-scene-38128930.html

The new dna was not traceable but that doesn’t mean it was a different person to who we already know.

retro:electro

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, (and I know all the comments here are) it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. And Jesus why would she? It’s not something anyone would envision, naive or not. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

80sChild

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yup, but my point is, even without public naming of the school anyone with knowledge of the area could figure it out anyway. Just like anyone living in the area already knows who these 2 boys are.

Or anyone who knows anyone (who knows anyone else) who goes to said school. Dogs in street know the names at this point. Ireland is too damn small to keep a lid on something like this.

joe40

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

We need to pause before referencing that story...



https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/a-tale-told-too-much-the-paediatrician-vigilantes/

The story as quoted is accurate, there was "paedo" graffiti daubed on a paediatrician house.
Later exaggerations about beatings etc are false.

The point about mob/vigilante violence is still valid, mistakes can and are made.

Ace Attorney

CityRoad wrote: »

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.

Thats seriously ****ed up then, was it phyiscal in nature or worse....

Also i cant help think the school didnt pursue bc it didn't want trouble

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Omackeral wrote: »

Read this and you'll get your answer

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.

The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.

This piece describes that as exaggerated.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/a-tale-told-too-much-the-paediatrician-vigilantes/

c68zapdsm5i1ru

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. We are actually saying that the two boys made a calculated decision to target Ana because she wasn't streetwise and savvy. That reflects on them, not on her. It in no way takes 'a little portion of the blame from them'.

Are you seriously saying that if someone is a little innocent or naive that it might be partly their fault if they are taken advantage of? It would never have crossed my mind to think such a thing.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yup, but my point is, even without public naming of the school anyone with knowledge of the area could figure it out anyway. Just like anyone living in the area already knows who these 2 boys are.

Just officially name them. They haven’t been sentenced yet and even if emotions die down for a few weeks everything will be full on again when that happens. Least then no innocent kids will be tarnished with being them as is happening now.

Neyite

veryangryman wrote: »

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

In the picture I saw, assuming that it was the correct boys, no they didn't. They looked like they could be your son. Or mine. They weren't scruffy or tough looking, just regular boys. No more than the pictures of Venables and Thompson, your instinctive reaction is that they ARE just kids and your mind doesn't compute that they could be capable of such horror.

I don't think that they should be named. They are locked up and any names or pictures being bandied about will likely result in either any potential siblings of the boys being targeted and bullied, or another innocent kid getting targeted mistakenly.

Sharing the pictures makes no odds either. In a year or so their appearances will change and by the time they reach 18 may look very different to the kids they were starting their prison sentence. If you had a picture of 13yo Larry Murphy, you'd not recognise him if you saw him in the street.

Now, I'm less sure about anonymity when they reach 18 or on release whenever that will be. I understand why it's necessary now but I wonder is it a kind of a safety net for teens now to do what they like as a juvenile knowing that their identity will forever be protected after they come of age. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that either...

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Ace Attorney wrote: »

Thats seriously ****ed up then, was it phyiscal in nature or worse....

Also i cant help think the school didnt pursue bc it didn't want trouble

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, but it seems that an awful lot of schools - despite well worded bullying policies - are absolutely useless at handling serious bullying incidents and, in some cases, will try to deny or minimise what is happening.

Strazdas

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, (and I know all the comments here are) it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

Yes, it's a very point. No matter what Ana was thinking, an innocuous incident like this ending up with her being murdered by two of her peers was quite an unbelievable and horrific outcome. It's impossible to get your head around it.

retro:electro

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. We are actually saying that the two boys made a calculated decision to target Ana because she wasn't streetwise and savvy. That reflects on them, not on her. It in no way takes 'a little portion of the blame from them'.

Are you seriously saying that if someone is a little innocent or naive that it might be partly their fault if they are taken advantage of? It would neve have crossed my mind to think such a thing.

I’m not sure how you got that from my comment?
I was actually saying the opposite

topmanamillion

JuneMoon7 wrote: »

Absolutely. That is a terrible story, poor girl. And as for teachers..a child should never have to pluck up the courage to tell a teacher they are being bullied. In most cases they wont have the nerve to do it. teachers should have the emotional intelligence and basic common sense to pick up on it. They should be approaching the child, not the other way around. That said, i would like to think that if/when children do reach out to a parent or teacher, that SOMETHING is being done. It is every bit as much the teachers responsibility as anyone's to put an end to a child's suffering.

Parents should control their feral children.

I dont buy this stuff for a second about it being "the teachers responsibility". Passing the buck nonsense at its finest.

The process should be Teacher informs parents - parents take necessary action against their child to stop it.

Instead of that, the process is more often than not: Teacher informs parent(s) - Teacher is verbally abused by parent(s) for having the cheek to point out their child's wrong doing - Teacher left under no illusion where the bully has gotten their behaviour from.

joe40

Ace Attorney wrote: »

Thats seriously ****ed up then, was it phyiscal in nature or worse....

Also i cant help think the school didnt pursue bc it didn't want trouble

A school can only suspend pupils, that is their only sanction. When you have difficult children they can go trough the whole range of sanctions available in a few months. Expulsions are virtually impossible.

There are plenty of kids in schools all around Ireland where suspensions aren't even a punishment, just a few days off.

How a school is responsible for the actions of these boys is beyond me.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not sure how you got that from my comment?
I was actually saying the opposite

But you said that by saying she was naive that was alsmost saying that the boys weren't totally responsible. I don't understand why you would equate comments about her 'not being streetwise' or 'being very innocent' as people seeing her fate as being partly her own fault. Surely it makes the boys almost worse (if that could be possible) for deliberately targetting a girl who they knew would be easily taken in and would go trustingly with them to an abandoned house.

SirGerryAdams

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Sardonicat

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Just officially name them. They haven’t been sentenced yet and even if emotions die down for a few weeks everything will be full on again when that happens. Least then no innocent kids will be tarnished with being them as is happening now.

I agree with you. But the Children's Act forbids it. I really think in cases of murder and sexual assault the right to anonymity should be forfeited if found guilty.It's utterly pointless in a country so small. The boys are safely locked up now so don't need protecting from a mob. All that's happening now is photos of boys with the same name are being circulated and falsely identified as murderers.

Force Carrier

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, (and I know all the comments here are) it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

I would guess that Boy A laid the groundwork well in advance.
Having previously been mean to her he probably started being nice. He probably led her to believe he liked her. That would be consistent with the manipulative psychopath he appears to be.

TheW1zard

I figured out who they were in 10 minutes by using the google machine. I dont know if they should be named or not though thats a tricky one.

Strazdas

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. We are actually saying that the two boys made a calculated decision to target Ana because she wasn't streetwise and savvy. That reflects on them, not on her. It in no way takes 'a little portion of the blame from them'.

Are you seriously saying that if someone is a little innocent or naive that it might be partly their fault if they are taken advantage of? It would never have crossed my mind to think such a thing.

Boy B referred to Ana as a "weirdo" at one point. It's obvious they regarded her as 'other' and different. If ever they were going to go after someone, it would be someone they perceived to be different. Maybe they somehow thought it would increase their chances of getting away with it or something.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Sardonicat wrote: »

I agree with you. But the Children's Act forbids it. I really think in cases of murder and sexual assault the right to anonymity should be forfeited if found guilty.It's utterly pointless in a country so small. The boys are safely locked up now so don't need protecting from a mob. All that's happening now is photos of boys with the same name are being circulated and falsely identified as murderers.

No, but their families might. Mob mentality can be nasty and illogical and can also attract some very thick but very violent people.

Lefty Bicek

joe40 wrote: »

The story as quoted is accurate, there was "paedo" graffiti daubed on a paediatrician house.
Later exaggerations about beatings etc are false.

No. The story as quoted refers to 'self-styled vigilantes', so the story is not accurate.

Unless you think 'self-styled vigilantes' is just another way of saying 'youngsters' ?

The point about mob/vigilante violence is still valid, mistakes can and are made.

I know mistakes can be and are made, I already said so.

tayto lover

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Doubt they give a s*** now because they didn’t then and were very cool and calculating during their interrogations. Psychos imo.

joe40

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No. The story as quoted refers to 'self-styled vigilantes', so the story is not accurate.

Unless you think 'self-styled vigilantes' is just another way of saying 'youngsters' ?



I know mistakes can be and are made, I already said so.

Considering the nature of this thread I hope you are not going to suggest that "youngsters" are harmless

Priscilla Mushy Banner

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

No, but their families might. Mob mentality can be nasty and illogical and can also attract some very thick but very violent people.

All anyone has to do is travel to Leixlip and talk to a few locals ad they’d know where they live anyway.

Has anything happened to their families or homes since the boys were charged? I’m not from area so don’t know v