Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]
Options
Comments
-
Yeah_Right wrote: »There a numerous cases around the world where a sexual assault was about power and humiliation and not about sex. Various studies have also shown that some killers became aroused by the act of killing. I suppose if killing is the only way for them to get a sexual release, then the motive could be classified as sexual. But we don't know if that is the case with Boy A.
Supposedly Boy A said to Boy B "lets kill Ana". He didn't mention raping or having sex with her as far as I know. The aim, the goal, appears to be killing her. Why? We can only speculate. Maybe someone will do a study on them. Maybe an expert will interview them and get to the bottom of their motivation for what they did. Maybe we will never know.
Rape is an act of violence to denigration the victim. The rapist gets his kick out of the power & the denigration. As for Ana's case obv there was some discussion took place between these two animals on the planning and the cover up. Both were in synch for the attack. Which was the prime-mover we don't know as the two are in dispute over it. I personally believe B was the motivator and this is the reason he cant come clean with his involvement. B stated he brought Ana to the disused house to see animal A "making out" with Ana. I believe he wanted to see Animal A invol in a sex act with Ana and the fact it was a remote location and abandoned building it was to be sinister. Animal A had the physical strength to effect this & he was sexualised watching porn. I would also read into the "cover-up" since both stories were similar, that they did not see Ana coming out of it alive. I find it mind boggling that two 13yrs old could be so deceitful, devious & violent.0 -
Rape is an act of violence to denigration the victim. The rapist gets his kick out of the power & the denigration. As for Ana's case obv there was some discussion took place between these two animals on the planning and the cover up. Both were in synch for the attack. Which was the prime-mover we don't know as the two are in dispute over it. I personally believe B was the motivator and this is the reason he cant come clean with his involvement. B stated he brought Ana to the disused house to see animal A "making out" with Ana. I believe he wanted to see Animal A invol in a sex act with Ana and the fact it was a remote location and abandoned building it was to be sinister. Animal A had the physical strength to effect this & he was sexualised watching porn. I would also read into the "cover-up" since both stories were similar, that they did not see Ana coming out of it alive. I find it mind boggling that two 13yrs old could be so deceitful, devious & violent.
But that is very speculative and probably not the motive for the kill. We cant really believe anything B said as he changed his story 9 times.. so no point in picking up on one thing he said in those 9 different signed statements he gave.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »But that is very speculative and probably not the motive for the kill. We cant really believe anything B said as he changed his story 9 times.. so no point in picking up on one thing he said in those 9 different signed statements he gave.
B changed his story to cover his own tracks to deny his own culpability. But demeaning Ana was part of his agenda which he never changed and he even thought he had the Gardai on board with it. He assumed making Ana worthless would make her murder less of importance. Why would 2 people concoct a story for after the event unless they planned that end, an end without Ana. Gardai state both A and B had not meet since the murder of Ana and the taking of their first statements. Gardai state these statements has similarities so we can presume it was planned like the killing. Only thing I speculate on as I stated was on who thought-up the plan to lure Ana to her death.0 -
There is no doubt they planned to murder Ana and give a false story to the Gardai after, everyone agrees on that. But what was their motive to murder Ana? that's what nobody knows.B changed his story to cover his own tracks to deny his own culpability. But demeaning Ana was part of his agenda which he never changed and he even thought he had the Gardai on board with it. He assumed making Ana worthless would make her murder less of importance. Why would 2 people concoct a story for after the event unless they planned that end, an end without Ana. Gardai state both A and B had not meet since the murder of Ana and the taking of their first statements. Gardai state these statements has similarities so we can presume it was planned like the killing. Only thing I speculate on as I stated was on who thought-up the plan to lure Ana to her death.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »The is doubt they planned to murder Ana and give a false story to the Gardai after, everyone agrees on that. But what was their motive to murder Ana? that's what nobody knows.
None of us know but my guess is it was for the thrill of a kill . A horrible thought and a dreadful motive but its seems that way to me0 -
Advertisement
-
Quote: ittakestwo
The is doubt they planned to murder Ana and give a false story to the Gardai after, everyone agrees on that. But what was their motive to murder Ana? that's what nobody knows.
Their plan may have been to just get Ana to that place and just scare her? Boy A was waiting, wearing a costume, after that things got out of hand. They were 13 years old. Jesus, what 13 year old would plan murder? And two of them?.. I don't think they planned ahead of what would happen once they got Ana there.0 -
CollyFlower wrote: »
Their plan may have been to just get Ana to that place and just scare her? Boy A was waiting, wearing a costume, after that things got out of hand. They were 13 years old. Jesus, what 13 year old would plan murder? And two of them?.. I don't think they planned ahead of what would happen once they got Ana there.
If things had just gotten out of hand and Anna had been unintentionally killed, surely there would have been some remorse exhibited by these boys. We have not seen any.0 -
Vicarious Function wrote: »If things had just gotten out of hand and Anna had been unintentionally killed, surely there would have been some remorse exhibited by these boys. We have not seen any.
Don't mean to be Cliché here but could they be in 'denial' too horrified by what they done to admit it?0 -
It makes no difference. I have no sympathy for them whether they planned to kill her or not. They DID kill her.CollyFlower wrote: »Don't mean to be Cliché here but could they be in 'denial' too horrified by what they done to admit it?
They must serve full life terms.0 -
Absolutely what both of theses evil best have stated and even after the verdict has been self serving. The enormity of the crime and the suffering of her loved ones has not entered their equation. Best B tried to sell it that Ana had consensual sex with Beat A and when he was questioned on the removal of her clothes he stated Ana lifted her hands to allow, even demonstrating how. Gardai had to remind him Ana clothes were torn and ripped off her, even her underwear. Beast A for sentencing, denied sexual assault and what took place as consensual. The evidence states otherwise. Beast A went to the abandoned house fully equipped for attack. I believe he immediately laid into Ana raining blows with a weapon at Ana's head the second she was led into the old house. Ana had a broken eye socket, serious injuries to her head and bruising all over her body. I believe the abandoned remote house was specifically chosen for that purpose. It does show a level of deviousness for 13yr olds that is mind-boggling. They never figured DNA or the CCTV for their cover-up. They lied & they lied pushing their young age as of innocence. Without the forensics and CCTV it prob would have remained an unsolved murder and the area would be on tenterhooks for an older monster still out there.Vicarious Function wrote: »If things had just gotten out of hand and Anna had been unintentionally killed, surely there would have been some remorse exhibited by these boys. We have not seen any.0 -
Advertisement
-
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »It makes no difference. I have no sympathy for them whether they planned to kill her or not. They DID kill her.
They must serve full life terms.
All the more devious when it had a long term planning.0 -
Rape is an act of violence to denigration the victim. The rapist gets his kick out of the power & the denigration.
Right, very possible. They're still sexual assaults though, so I don't really understand what point is being made here.
Ana was the victim of a sexual assault, and while it's possible that - like many sexual assaults - the motivation was to hurt and humiliate her as much as to have sex, so what? The point is that those are all still assault by a male against a female, and that's not a coincidence. The Yorkshire Ripper murders, which may not even have involved rape, were very clearly directed only at women.
Now given how women are traditionally expected to voluntarily limit their personal freedom so as to keep themselves safe from men like the Yorkshire Ripper, and indeed here too, some posters have blamed Ana's parents for letting her go with Boy B, it's ironic that posters are also making out that her gender is irrelevant and it could as easily have been a boy who was attacked.0 -
Right, very possible. They're still sexual assaults though, so I don't really understand what point is being made here.
Ana was the victim of a sexual assault, and while it's possible that - like many sexual assaults - the motivation was to hurt and humiliate her as much as to have sex, so what? The point is that those are all still assault by a male against a female, and that's not a coincidence. The Yorkshire Ripper murders, which may not even have involved rape, were very clearly directed only at women.
Now given how women are traditionally expected to voluntarily limit their personal freedom so as to keep themselves safe from men like the Yorkshire Ripper, and indeed here too, some posters have blamed Ana's parents for letting her go with Boy B, it's ironic that posters are also making out that her gender is irrelevant and it could as easily have been a boy who was attacked.
There is no blame with Ana or her parents. Ana's mother Geraldine was not at home when Animal B came calling but as soon as she heard of it her alarm bells went off. She obv new from previous, obv from Ana he had not good intentions for her. Ana and her family are the victims here and there can never be any diminution of that. What was done to their family by these animals can never have any refuge with any excuse. And the whole of Ana's class has their share of the burden too in that not one of them reached out to her. While I can understand that none of them didn't see this ending but as a gesture of kindness none reached out to her in class and this really bothers me.0 -
There is no blame with Ana or her parents. Ana's mother Geraldine was not at home when Animal B came calling but as soon as she heard of it her alarm bells went off. She obv new from previous, obv from Ana he had not good intentions for her. Ana and her family are the victims here and there can never be any diminution of that. What was done to their family by these animals can never have any refuge with any excuse. And the whole of Ana's class has their share of the burden too in that not one of them reached out to her. While I can understand that none of them didn't see this ending but as a gesture of kindness none reached out to her in class and this really bothers me.
A couple of points here: at least one poster here explicitly blamed Ana's father (he agree that her mother wasn't responsible, not being there, which was big of him). The point being that if she'd been a little older, she would certainly have been blamed for going off alone with the boys. That sort of victim-blaming is almost standard when women are murdered.
Another version is when women are told not to go out alone when there have been violent attacks - but some women work late nights and have very little choice in the matter, yet they are immediately put in the position of not obeying police instructions just because they work.
Now I'm not saying that's wrong of the police - I assume it's meant well - but my point is that women specifically are told to limit their movements, and yet people are simultaneously claiming that such attacks are completely unrelated to the victim being a woman.
Double standards, is all.
(I agree with you that the rest of her class should, I hope, feel absolutely ashamed of their own behaviour. And I also hope, but with less certainty, that in other schools there will be more awareness of how terrible bullying is.)0 -
Right, very possible. They're still sexual assaults though, so I don't really understand what point is being made here.
Ana was the victim of a sexual assault, and while it's possible that - like many sexual assaults - the motivation was to hurt and humiliate her as much as to have sex, so what? The point is that those are all still assault by a male against a female, and that's not a coincidence. The Yorkshire Ripper murders, which may not even have involved rape, were very clearly directed only at women.
Now given how women are traditionally expected to voluntarily limit their personal freedom so as to keep themselves safe from men like the Yorkshire Ripper, and indeed here too, some posters have blamed Ana's parents for letting her go with Boy B, it's ironic that posters are also making out that her gender is irrelevant and it could as easily have been a boy who was attacked.
We dont know the motive for her murder as you even admit above. So how do we know her gender was relevant. Investigators of the murder have stated the most confusing thing about it is that they cant find a motive for the murder.
Take the scissors sisters. There motive to kill was that their mother was being mistreated by Noor. However the murder also included them chopping of Noor's penis which is a sexual assault but there was no sexual motive to the murder.
The sexual violence was just one form of violence that took place against Ana. Bricks were thrown at head. Hit with metal bars and tape to her throat.
To say Ana was chosen because she was a girl is not known.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »There isn’t anything for me personally which would establish their motivations conclusively.
Fair enough. That at least closes off any discussion about what we might reasonably infer from the evidence we have.
But you have to recognise that while it no doubt seems a reasonable position to you, to me it seems more akin to an absolute epistemological stance more than anything else, rather than a real world conclusion. Nonetheless you hold it consistently here.
I'd ask you to consider what the consequences of the position are in this instance. Many here have accused Prof Muldoon of an agenda; before I read her article I had no idea who she was or what agenda she might have or might not. Rather than their objections achieving the dismissal of her point, to me it seems that the denial of the relevance of Ana's gender in this crime leaves others open to the very accusations made against Muldoon's agenda, albeit in reverse. It clearly has for some posters deep connections to US "identity politics" and a deep sense of threat. I don't think that applies in your case as your posts seem more philosophical than emotive.
Which brings me back to the consequences of your own position: how far does it go for you? Ana's gender is irrelevant. Is the gender of the criminals irrelevant? In a broader sense...Is race irrelevant in crime? Is homophobia irrelevant? Should we abandon statistical recording of crimes perpetrated by gender? If as you say we can never know their motives in this case how can we ever know the motives in other cases? I'm not sure the answers you have belong in this thread but they are worth hearing.1 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »Exactly.
People commit rapes because they are rapists - that's all there is to it. There are no mitigating circumstances or explanatory reasons. They are just scummy people.
I disagree. People who are convicted of rape are rapists. If we say people commit rape because they are rapists the implication is that there are lots of rapists still wandering about but they haven't yet committed rape, been convicted and sent to prison. But they are still rapists. We just don't know it yet. It's a position that some extremists take admittedly. I disagree with it.0 -
Fair enough. That at least closes off any discussion about what we might reasonably infer from the evidence we have.
Which brings me back to the consequences of your own position: how far does it go for you? Ana's gender is irrelevant. Is the gender of the criminals irrelevant? In a broader sense...Is race irrelevant in crime? Is homophobia irrelevant? Should we abandon statistical recording of crimes perpetrated by gender? If as you say we can never know their motives in this case how can we ever know the motives in other cases? I'm not sure the answers you have belong in this thread but they are worth hearing.
You only know what is relevant to the perpetrator when you know their motive for the crime. What is the piont in saying things were relevant to this crime when we have no idea of what made them do this?
Is it the fact that people cant accept not knowing what caused such a horrible crime? So we have to pretend we do know what caused the crime when we really are clueless. Does it make people feel more in control of their lives if we are able to file this murder into a certain category of attack.
Again to state all the investigators of this crime were extremely confused to the motive of this murder because from all the evidence they had there was none. But lets not accept that and come up with are own speculative theories to the motive of the murder.... so we can feel more in control of our lives.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »You only know what is relevant to the perpetrator when you know their motive for the crime. What is the piont in saying things were relevant to this crime when we have no idea of what made them do this?
So you do accept that the motive for the crime can be known?
I think/speculate/ believe that we may reasonably conclude what was the motive of Boy A for this murder. I have outlined it previously here.
I don't put this forward to assert control of anything, or that I feel the need for control of anything. I put it forward because "mystery" is invoked too lightly when we know what we know. When we start with what we know, the place of mystery becomes much smaller.
I have avoided Boy B because that seems a more obscure aspect.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »We dont know the motive for her murder as you even admit above. So how do we know her gender was relevant.
What exactly would be evidence of a motive in your opinion?
I mean, given the lies they've told, how could we believe even a full confession as to why they said they'd done it?ittakestwo wrote: »Investigators of the murder have stated the most confusing thing about it is that they cant find a motive for the murder.
Well, we don't know much about why any 13 year olds plan and carry out a murder because it is so rare, but I can't comment on that claim as I don't remember it, and I think the context in which it was said may be relevant.
And I'm not clear as to why you think this particular sexual assault and murder is not related to the victim's gender whereas I assume you aren't similarly puzzled by all sexual assaults or all murders - why this one?
Oh I think there clearly was a sexual motive to the Scissors sisters, but that it may not have been sexual satisfaction because they didn't try to have sex with him, instead they wanted to mutiliate him. I suspect there's an element of revenge against men for past humiliations there, rather than of sexual pleasure.ittakestwo wrote: »Take the scissors sisters. There motive to kill was that their mother was being mistreated by Noor. However the murder also included them chopping of Noor's penis which is a sexual assault but there was no sexual motive to the murder.
The sexual violence was just one form of violence that took place against Ana. Bricks were thrown at head. Hit with metal bars and tape to her throat.
To say Ana was chosen because she was a girl is not known.
However physical violence related to sex is also a thing (as the increasing number of men using "consensual rough sex" as a defence for killing their female partners shows), so the fact that there was also severe physical violence is not evidence that the boys weren't experimenting with the idea that sexual pleasure is heightened by violence.0 -
Advertisement
-
The barrister for the prosecution said in the summing-up that the evidence for Boy B's guilt came out of his own mouth. Boy B was incredibly stupid because it appears that he forgot that he was told that he didn't have to say anything and that anything he did say would be used as evidence. Did the solicitor not advise him to stay silent?0
-
Anyone watch the virgin media one spot light on the case? What is it about the panel they had narrating the case? a profound lack of empathy and pure personal gain for them. Probably made their career off the back off it... Harrowing case, still can't get my head around it0
-
I accept this is what the prosecuting council stated in summing up but the reality is different. Gardai had their homework well done when B was arrested. They knew he had called for Ana as his first written statement corroborated. They had him in CCTV with Animal A meeting just prior to calling to Ana. They had him on the park CCTV with Ana and the route he took in it with Ana and his return journey. They also had the same for Animal A. They had no return journey for Ana. Outside of that B lied and lied to be constantly corrected by Gardai that the CCTV showed differently. From the period of going into the park and his return without Ana it was correctly deducted that he must have brought Ana to the abandoned house where Animal A was in waiting. They finally got a final admission he brought Ana to the abandoned house and was present during Animal A's assault. That in itself is not an offense unless there is a prior plan and he was aware Animal A was waiting to assault her. He denied this part. His only damming admission was Animal A had approached him some time prior about killing Ana. Should Animal B have refused to answer any questioning with "no comment" for every question would it have made a significant difference to the jury? I would think not. Animal B made no admission of doing anything unlawful in any of his statements. The jury inferred guilt from the whole of the circumstances of the case.political analyst wrote: »The barrister for the prosecution said in the summing-up that the evidence for Boy B's guilt came out of his own mouth. Boy B was incredibly stupid because it appears that he forgot that he was told that he didn't have to say anything and that anything he did say would be used as evidence. Did the solicitor not advise him to stay silent?
As for his solicitors advise we don't know his advise only he wanted to take a break in the interview when Gardai were forcing the issue when B admitted he was presence at the abandoned house. Animal B was fully intent of selling himself as an innocent party that had being duped by Animal A and he may not have been willing to take advice. I would also believe Animal B had not been truthful to his solicitor. Animal B had not being truthful to his own mother and sought to have her excluded from the final questioning. I would presume the solicitors interviews took place with the mother present.0 -
mrjoneill what you're writing is very interesting but can you just stop using this "animal a" and "animal b" nonsense to describe "boy a" and "boy b"? They are boys, it's Boy A and Boy B. They're human beings, why are you pretending to think they're not? It's very offputting when reading your posts. Also humans are animals and are very, very often worse than a lot of non-human animals.0
-
Little girls are calling to little boys houses and little boys are calling to little girls to hang out all the time. This goes on without incident day in day out. But it would seem in this case Ana's mother Geraldine was not happy with B calling and believed from a start there was something sinister involved.A couple of points here: at least one poster here explicitly blamed Ana's father (he agree that her mother wasn't responsible, not being there, which was big of him). The point being that if she'd been a little older, she would certainly have been blamed for going off alone with the boys. That sort of victim-blaming is almost standard when women are murdered.
Another version is when women are told not to go out alone when there have been violent attacks - but some women work late nights and have very little choice in the matter, yet they are immediately put in the position of not obeying police instructions just because they work.
Now I'm not saying that's wrong of the police - I assume it's meant well - but my point is that women specifically are told to limit their movements, and yet people are simultaneously claiming that such attacks are completely unrelated to the victim being a woman.
Double standards, is all.
(I agree with you that the rest of her class should, I hope, feel absolutely ashamed of their own behaviour. And I also hope, but with less certainty, that in other schools there will be more awareness of how terrible bullying is.)0 -
Little boys don't do beastly acts.paleoperson wrote: »mrjoneill what you're writing is very interesting but can you just stop using this "animal a" and "animal b" nonsense to describe "boy a" and "boy b"? They are boys, it's Boy A and Boy B. They're human beings, why are you pretending to think they're not? It's very offputting when reading your posts. Also humans are animals and are very, very often worse than a lot of non-human animals.0 -
-
Little girls are calling to little boys houses and little boys are calling to little girls to hang out all the time. This goes on without incident day in day out. But it would seem in this case Ana's mother Geraldine was not happy with B calling and believed from a start there was something sinister involved.
Not relevant to the point though - a poster on here explicitly blamed her father for letting her go.
I wasn't saying I agreed, in fact I don't. But clearly some people think that there's an onus on women not to be alone with men, and some think that when its a girl of 13 then the same responsibility is on the parents.
(FWIW when her mother came home Ana was already later than expected - obviously she concluded that there was a connection with the boy calling. Doesn't mean she'd have been suspicious of him if she'd been in the house though.)0 -
political analyst wrote: »Considering that Boy A sexually assaulted Ana as well as murdering her, how can his motive not be sexual?
Sexual in sexual assault not consensual sexual sex. I don't know if a 13yr old male can have legal consensual sex with a 14yr old female. There are many 15-16yr old mother out there with same age group fathers of their child and it doesn't lead to prosecutions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough. That at least closes off any discussion about what we might reasonably infer from the evidence we have.
But you have to recognise that while it no doubt seems a reasonable position to you, to me it seems more akin to an absolute epistemological stance more than anything else, rather than a real world conclusion. Nonetheless you hold it consistently here.
Rest assured it’s not an epistemological stance to suggest that it would be irresponsible to infer conclusions from evidence we don’t have. The only real world conclusion can be drawn is that we don’t know what motivated the boys in this particular case to do what they did, and we don’t know why they specifically targeted Ana or what it was about her specifically that set her apart from anyone else as a target for them. Ms. Muldoon puts forward the theory that the circumstances of this case are actually a culmination of a wider social issue -
Ana Kriégel’s death is a particularly dark representation of men’s violence towards women. Make no mistake: violence by men against women is a continuum, and this is its most extreme form. Murder is only a fraction of the burden arising from this form of violence.
That’s one take on it, from her perspective obviously. I disagree of course that this case can be used as representative of anything. It’s ripe though for all sorts of agendas, which I regard as crass opportunism. “Nobody said it”, because people generally have more tact.I'd ask you to consider what the consequences of the position are in this instance. Many here have accused Prof Muldoon of an agenda; before I read her article I had no idea who she was or what agenda she might have or might not. Rather than their objections achieving the dismissal of her point, to me it seems that the denial of the relevance of Ana's gender in this crime leaves others open to the very accusations made against Muldoon's agenda, albeit in reverse. It clearly has for some posters deep connections to US "identity politics" and a deep sense of threat. I don't think that applies in your case as your posts seem more philosophical than emotive.
Well like I said earlier - this case is ripe for all sorts of agendas, and sure, attempting to deny gender should be a relevant consideration in trying to determine their motivations is just silly. On the other hand, as I said - attempting to portray the circumstances of this particular case as solely based upon gender, and using that to argue a wider point about gender based violence perpetrated by men against women, and this particular case being a representative culmination of that effect - it’s reaching, to be honest. The only people who are responsible for the murder of Ana Kriegel are the two boys who committed the act. Nobody else in society is responsible for tbe death of Ana Kriegel. The point the author tries to make is to claim that the events which transpired are at the extreme end of a spectrum. Then she makes a point about the influence of pornography and so on, again - portraying the influence of pornography as an explanation for gender based violence against women.
As a psychologist she would surely be aware of the fact that an individuals attitudes and behaviours are a culmination of genetic, environmental and cognitive factors. That’s why the vast majority of men, in spite of being exposed to the same influences as everyone else in society, they don’t commit violence against women and girls, or other men and boys for that matter. Ms. Muldoon is basically ignoring the evidence she has, in favour of placing greater emphasis on her theories, which betray her own prejudices IMO. I can’t rule out the possibility that gender was a factor in this particular case, but I think it’s irresponsible to argue as though it was the only factor, going so far as to say it was “obvious”. It’s only obvious if one allows their prejudices to cloud their objectivity.Which brings me back to the consequences of your own position: how far does it go for you? Ana's gender is irrelevant. Is the gender of the criminals irrelevant? In a broader sense...Is race irrelevant in crime? Is homophobia irrelevant? Should we abandon statistical recording of crimes perpetrated by gender? If as you say we can never know their motives in this case how can we ever know the motives in other cases? I'm not sure the answers you have belong in this thread but they are worth hearing.
It depends upon each individual case, that’s the only way one can approach any given circumstances objectively without allowing their prejudices to cloud their judgment and have them place greater emphasis, or indeed downplay, evidence which may or may not be relevant. Knowing their motives in this case wouldn’t be of any help in determining anyone else’s motives in another case, even if the circumstances were similar. All you’d be doing is allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgment and putting more emphasis on one factor which may or may not have been relevant in explaining someone else's motivations. Even in her capacity as a professor of psychology, it’s beyond Ms. Muldoon’s capabilities to know what was going through these boys minds when they chose to do what they did, and why they chose Ana specifically. I can’t imagine why anyone would even think of doing what they did, I’m certainly not going to pretend I know why they did it either.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement