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
-
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.
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.
But didn't it occur to him that he might not have been doing himself any favours by making those horrific remarks about Ana?0 -
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.
The poor ‘boys’ how disrespectful of the’mjoneil’.....describing a human as an animal is not new and obviously meant to be derogatory....referring to them as boys suggests childhood innocence and naivety etc.....based on the evidence in this case this couldn’t be further from the truth. These two are absolute degenerates/abominations/monsters/freaks......but of course they came from loving hardworking normal families who took a prank/game too far and ended up killing/murdering someone unintentionally. Don’t see anything wrong with referring to them as animals.....it could be argued it’s too kind0 -
The poor ‘boys’ how disrespectful of the’mjoneil’.....describing a human as an animal is not new and obviously meant to be derogatory....referring to them as boys suggests childhood innocence and naivety etc.....based on the evidence in this case this couldn’t be further from the truth. These two are absolute degenerates/abominations/monsters/freaks......but of course they came from loving hardworking normal families who took a prank/game too far and ended up killing/murdering someone unintentionally. Don’t see anything wrong with referring to them as animals.....it could be argued it’s too kind
But it is rather unfair on animals .Animals dont kill for the joy it can be argued , they kill to eat and survive .0 -
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.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/967066-birthrate/
A total of 1,041 teenagers had babies in 2017. 19 of those teenage mothers were 16 years old or younger
Not that many really , 19 in 2018 . I cant find where the law stands on them though .0 -
But it is rather unfair on animals .Animals dont kill for the joy it can be argued , they kill to eat and survive .
It's unfair for animals and a pretence for humans, the idea a human would never do that.
"referring to them as boys suggests childhood innocence and naivety etc."
Who cares what it "suggests", that's clearly not what it always means. Just because a word "suggests" something doesn't mean that in contrary examples they should be labelled as something else. What if a white man from upper class society with a Ivy League education suddenly started dealing drugs and killing people, would he suddenly be a black man from the ghetto because a well-educated white man "suggests" something else?
You wouldn't start referring to the boys as islamic or from a broken eastern european family and then say "oh well being a white person suggests that they wouldn't be so bad". That's silly and offensive. It's interesting information that they're actually boys. Like I said I admired his posts, it's just why live in a fantasy land and pretend they weren't boys at the time of the incident... sure as **** they were human boys.
It's not that big a deal, it's just I was trying to read the posts through and it kept triggering me, especially with how badly animals are treated by humans so often.0 -
Advertisement
-
Should B have exercised his constitutional and legal right to silence and the role his solicitor played in the questioning we don’t know as to how he was advised by his client. Should B have come clean to him would it have been wise to have allowed him to answer questions during Garda interview is an unknown. I don’t believe B was truthful to his solicitor.political analyst wrote: »But didn't it occur to him that he might not have been doing himself any favours by making those horrific remarks about Ana?
Arrested on suspicion of murder would immediately raise my attention to the highest level that the Gardaí had good solid evidence to make out a case. They had concluded correctly that B had been at the abandoned house, but they had no way of proving it without an admission.
The Children’s Act does give a role for a solicitor to be present during questioning. I would like to think I being his solicitor I would have advised my client he was to defer to me whether he should answer any question or not and should he have doubt the right to consult in private. I don’t see the Gardaí have any powers to exclude the solicitor from interviews for acting in such a role that this being obstructing the course of justice. The evidence is that the solicitor for B was quiet at the start of the interview but as it went on there were more and more conflict with the Gardaí. The first day of interviews Garda proved B he was lying and on the second day of questioning it was his solicitor informed Gardai he wished to change his story. Gardai had got a big break, B had admitted lying. Whether he should have intervened or did advice his client to say no more we don’t know. It prob would have been better if he did exercise his right to silence at this time but then again his client was for pushing on to exonerate himself. Prior to B admission during Gardaí questioning he was at the abandoned house his solicitor suggested they take a break, but Garda were for pressing on stating they were at a crucial point that of getting B to admit he was at the abandoned house. There is no doubt that his solicitor could have brought that period of questioning to an end by seeking a private consultation with his client.
But in this case it would seem B thought he was far too “smarts” and he was there to set the record straight from his own perspective. That was Animal A set him up to call for Ana that they wanted to chat and he brought her to him in the park and he left them and went home. He lied and he lied and he lied to correct lies and he was found out on this.
But in the overall context of things the Garda had a good grasp of the outline of the case from CCTV of the actually happenings in the park. Clearly Animal B was seen with Ana entering the park, being in the park and leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house which was 20 to25min walk away. Animal A could be seen to be slightly ahead of him at another side of the park making a bee line to the abandoned house. Both of these animals could be seen coming back through the park obv without Ana at slightly different times. There was a 45min approx. period which could not be accounted for and Gardaí had the solid forensics on Animal A which there was no getting away from. Animal B was fully implicated from the CCTV and the fact he called for Ana in a pact of some sorts of illegality. They fact she was led to an abandoned house out of the way just couldn’t have an innocent explanation.The onus was squarely on B at that stage to exonerate himself which he failed dismally to do. I don’t think any solicitor repeatedly interrupting questioning advising his client not to answer a question or seeking a private consultation in the overall context could have saved him.0 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/967066-birthrate/
A total of 1,041 teenagers had babies in 2017. 19 of those teenage mothers were 16 years old or younger
Not that many really , 19 in 2018 . I cant find where the law stands on them though .
Unless there is a complaint the Gardai don't act. Don't think it would look "right" for Gardai to be trawling maternity wards questioning pregnant or mothers that are minors.
We can presume from these figures they had sex when 15yrs old. But its not uncommon for minors 14-15-16 particularly in deprived areas to get carry-packs of alcohol, drink it at some secluded place and it ending with sexual acts taking place while intoxicated with more than one person often with a group.0 -
Should B have exercised his constitutional and legal right to silence and the role his solicitor played in the questioning we don’t know as to how he was advised by his client. Should B have come clean to him would it have been wise to have allowed him to answer questions during Garda interview is an unknown. I don’t believe B was truthful to his solicitor.
Arrested on suspicion of murder would immediately raise my attention to the highest level that the Gardaí had good solid evidence to make out a case. They had concluded correctly that B had been at the abandoned house, but they had no way of proving it without an admission.
The Children’s Act does give a role for a solicitor to be present during questioning. I would like to think I being his solicitor I would have advised my client he was to defer to me whether he should answer any question or not and should he have doubt the right to consult in private. I don’t see the Gardaí have any powers to exclude the solicitor from interviews for acting in such a role that this being obstructing the course of justice. The evidence is that the solicitor for B was quiet at the start of the interview but as it went on there were more and more conflict with the Gardaí. The first day of interviews Garda proved B he was lying and on the second day of questioning it was his solicitor informed Garda he wished to change his story. Garda had got a big break, B had admitted lying. Whiter he should have intervened or did advice his client to say no more we don’t know. It prob would have been better if he did exercise his right to silence at this time but then again his client was for pushing on to exonerate himself. Prior to B admission during Gardaí questioning he was at the abandoned house his solicitor suggested they take a break, but Garda were for pressing on stating they were at a crucial point that of getting B to admit he was at the abandoned house. There is no doubt that his solicitor could have brought that period of questioning to an end by seeking a private consultation with his client.
But in this case it would seem B thought he was far too “smarts” and he was there to set the record straight from his own perspective. That was Animal A set him up to call for Ana that they wanted to chat and he brought her to him in the park and he left them and went home. He lied and he lied and he lied to correct lies and he was found out on this.
But in the overall context of things the Garda had a good grasp of the outline of the case from CCTV of the actually happenings in the park. Clearly Animal B was seen with Ana entering the park, being in the park and leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house which was 20 to25min walk away. Animal A could be seen to be slightly ahead of him at another side of the park making a bee line to the abandoned house. Both of these animals could be seen coming back through the park obv without Ana at slightly different times. There was a 45min approx. period which could not be accounted for and Gardaí had the solid forensics on Animal A which there was no getting away from. Animal B was fully implicated from the CCTV and the fact he called for Ana in a pact of some sorts of illegality. They fact she was led to an abandoned house out of the way just couldn’t have an innocent explanation.The onus was squarely on B at that stage to exonerate himself which he failed dismally to do. I don’t think any solicitor repeatedly interrupting questioning advising his client not to answer a question or seeking a private consultation in the overall context could have saved him.
How can you continue to disrespect the ‘boys’ by continuing to refer to them as animals....!
Can these two have come for ordinary hard working respectable families....? These boys just got a raw deal with the ‘genes’, what they did was not preventable irrespective as to what ‘parenting’ they received....0 -
Calling them animals lessens the problem because humans wouldn't be capable of such things.
There is no longer a need to look at society as a whole and see what changes can be made because these boys were actually animals, not real people.0 -
Calling them animals lessens the problem because humans wouldn't be capable of such things.
There is no longer a need to look at society as a whole and see what changes can be made because these boys were actually animals, not real people.
Personally I don’t care whether someone refers to them as animals or humans or anything else, I’m more perplexed as to what this idea is of saying there’s a need to look at society as a whole when something highly unusual and out of the ordinary like this happens. Society isn’t responsible for what these boys did. They are.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Personally I don’t care whether someone refers to them as animals or humans or anything else, I’m more perplexed as to what this idea is of saying there’s a need to look at society as a whole when something highly unusual and out of the ordinary like this happens. Society isn’t responsible for what these boys did. They are.
Lack of proper parenting is surely a factor also.....despite this ‘both coming from hard working respectable families’ line......?0 -
Lack of proper parenting is surely a factor also.....despite this ‘both coming from hard working respectable families’ line......?
If that’s a question, the answer is “I don’t know” and neither does anyone else. Plenty of people have been raised in awful circumstances, and they didn’t go on to commit murder or anything else, and then the opposite of that is also true - people who were raised in loving families who go on to commit terrible deeds against other people. Backwards rationalising after the fact, in hindsight like you’re attempting to do, just doesn’t work. It doesn’t explain the greater number of people raised in similar circumstances who don’t display the same attitudes and behaviours towards other people that these boys did.
Using that rationale, you might as well be arguing that they were influenced by things like “The End of the F***ing World” -
Premise
James is a 17-year-old who believes he is a psychopath. He kills animals as a hobby, but grows bored of the practice. He decides he wants to try killing a human. He settles on Alyssa, a mouthy, rebellious 17-year-old classmate with issues of her own. She proposes they run away together, hoping for an adventure away from her turbulent home-life, and James agrees with the intention of finding an opportunity to kill her. They embark on a road trip across England, and begin to develop a relationship after a series of mishaps.
Scores above 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, so hard to argue that it isn’t popular, and yet most teenagers don’t appear to display psychopathic traits. My point is - there’s simply no way of knowing why they did what they did, and the idea that anyone could have prevented it is based upon what we now know, in hindsight. It doesn’t do anything to prevent anyone else from doing something similar in the future, and assuming it does would mean casting aspersions on innocent people.0 -
Calling them animals lessens the problem because humans wouldn't be capable of such things.
There is no longer a need to look at society as a whole and see what changes can be made because these boys were actually animals, not real people.
These aren't animals, they are murderers. Animals only kill for food or when they are threatened and in the animal world there's nothing wrong with that.0 -
-
-
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.
How can rape not be a sexually-motivated crime? Obviously, the perpetrator wants to fulfill his sexual desire and so forces the victim to give him satisfaction. For example, in Austria, an Iraqi man raped a boy at a swimming-pool complex because he had a 'sexual emergency'.
You seem to think that a sexually-motivated sex crime is an oxymoron.0 -
political analyst wrote: »How can rape not be a sexually-motivated crime? Obviously, the perpetrator wants to fulfill his sexual desire and so forces the victim to give him satisfaction. For example, in Austria, an Iraqi man raped a boy at a swimming-pool complex because he had a 'sexual emergency'.
You seem to think that a sexually-motivated sex crime is an oxymoron.
I think there's some confusion here (not you BTW). People objecting to traditional views that were often victim blaming, that rape was the woman's fault for somehow leading the man on, for being too sexily attired, or even that she "wanted it really" have made the point that rape is "not about sex" in that it is not committed because of anything the woman does, and is not so much about her sexual attractiveness as about the rapist wanting to frighten and hurt her. Or in some cases, hurt any woman at all.
But that doesn't mean that rape is not a sexual assault. Of course it is. Rape of a woman by a man is of course related to her gender, just as rape of a man by another man is homosexual rape. Doesn't make either assault any less awful for the victim, but let's not pretend it's all gender neutral. The attacker was looking for a victim of the gender that they wanted to rape and hurt, because that's what excites the attacker. But not the victim, is the point. And that is what some posters here seem to have missed or conflated.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »They just sound like a pair of sick deviants. I doubt parenting turned them into rapists and murders.
Did these two heinous ‘boys’ have a predisposition from birth to being ‘violent sexual deviants’ through an ‘unfortunate genetic union’.....? Could this have been noticed by the parents during their formative years could both have been steered away from what they ultimately became ie states youngest ever murderers........it appears that along with a predisposition to being the monsters they evolved into they (especially A) also had free and unhindered access to the internet and all its dark disgusting perverted places........would parental intervention have made a difference...were they doomed from birth.....? We will never know but I do think some level of parental guidance was lacking with both and was a contributory factor to their evolution0 -
political analyst wrote: »How can rape not be a sexually-motivated crime? Obviously, the perpetrator wants to fulfill his sexual desire and so forces the victim to give him satisfaction. For example, in Austria, an Iraqi man raped a boy at a swimming-pool complex because he had a 'sexual emergency'.
You seem to think that a sexually-motivated sex crime is an oxymoron.
When the motivation for committing rape isn’t sexual. There are an infinite amount of motives from humiliation and degradation to contempt and what is known as ‘corrective rape’. The idea that the motivation for rape or sexual assault is motivated by sexual desire is only one motivating factor.
It doesn’t for example explain circumstances where male inmates or male soldiers are often the victims of rape, committed against them by other men, or young boys and girls who are the victims of rape and sexual assault.
You’re putting the cart before the horse in assuming that the motivation for rape could only ever be sexual, when in reality the circumstances are far more complex and can’t be explained by a limited and frankly simplistic explanation for the reasons why men commit rape and sexual assault. It’s absolutely true to say that the vast majority of perpetrators of rape are male, and that’s due to how the nature of the act is defined. I wouldn’t be so certain as to assume the majority of victims of rape are female, nor would I be so certain as to assume the majority of perpetrators of sexual assault, or the victims of sexual assault, are of one gender or the other.
What happened in this particular case though was murder, and when examining the circumstances of this particular case, it’s silly IMO to be trying to use this case to make a commentary on wider society from any particular perspective.0 -
I think there's some confusion here (not you BTW). People objecting to traditional views that were often victim blaming, that rape was the woman's fault for somehow leading the man on, for being too sexily attired, or even that she "wanted it really" have made the point that rape is "not about sex" in that it is not committed because of anything the woman does, and is not so much about her sexual attractiveness as about the rapist wanting to frighten and hurt her. Or in some cases, hurt any woman at all.
But that doesn't mean that rape is not a sexual assault. Of course it is. Rape of a woman by a man is of course related to her gender, just as rape of a man by another man is homosexual rape. Doesn't make either assault any less awful for the victim, but let's not pretend it's all gender neutral. The attacker was looking for a victim of the gender that they wanted to rape and hurt, because that's what excites the attacker. But not the victim, is the point. And that is what some posters here seem to have missed or conflated.
The only confusion for me is why you’re suggesting that rape of a woman by a man is of course related to her gender, when I know that’s not true, nor is it true that rape of a man by another man is ‘homosexual rape’ (gay men must be vastly over-represented among the male prison population if that were the case), and I don’t think anyone was pretending anything was gender neutral.
I’m not missing or conflating anything when I suggest that in this particular case, we simply don’t know what the attackers motivations were. From the time when they were able to coerce Ana to go with them (and perhaps long before that, as by all accounts their actions were premeditated), to the time when they were convicted of her murder, they have displayed nothing but contempt for anyone who has had any interactions with them in any capacity. They have shown a propensity for lying and thinking they were able to outsmart everyone. Ultimately their primary motivation appears to have been to avoid being caught for their vile behaviour. That’s about as much of their motivation we know for certain at least. Whatever other motives they had or whatever motivated them to carry out the acts they did, are really anyone’s guess.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The only confusion for me is why you’re suggesting that rape of a woman by a man is of course related to her gender, when I know that’s not true, nor is it true that rape of a man by another man is ‘homosexual rape’ (gay men must be vastly over-represented among the male prison population if that were the case), and I don’t think anyone was pretending anything was gender neutral.
I’m not missing or conflating anything when I suggest that in this particular case, we simply don’t know what the attackers motivations were. From the time when they were able to coerce Ana to go with them (and perhaps long before that, as by all accounts their actions were premeditated), to the time when they were convicted of her murder, they have displayed nothing but contempt for anyone who has had any interactions with them in any capacity. They have shown a propensity for lying and thinking they were able to outsmart everyone. Ultimately their primary motivation appears to have been to avoid being caught for their vile behaviour. That’s about as much of their motivation we know for certain at least. Whatever other motives they had or whatever motivated them to carry out the acts they did, are really anyone’s guess.
Does the evidence not suggest/indicate that the motivation was the acting out of some vile fantasy they (or at least fiend A) had derived from an obsession with porn.....they developed a desire to ‘act out’ what they had become so totally de-sentasised to.......Ana was the obvious target, easily led and in their view nobody would miss her.......the description of Ana during B’s interviews confirms this, A’s views were obviously the same.0 -
Does the evidence not suggest/indicate that the motivation was the acting out of some vile fantasy they (or at least fiend A) had derived from an obsession with porn.....they developed a desire to ‘act out’ what they had become so totally de-sentasised to.......Ana was the obvious target, easily led and in their view nobody would miss her.......the description of Ana during B’s interviews confirms this, A’s views were obviously the same.
And they were too cleaver for everyone else or so they thought. Ana suffering or her families was never in their equation. There is no doubt that what was planned for Ana had but one end her death, her murder. Her murder was planned in detail esp the old abandoned house. A witness testified at the trial he saw A making a bee line for the house and he was sure by the direct route he took he had been at the abandoned house, Glenwood House before. Its obv both had hatched this plan together for the total humiliation of Ana. A came in full battledress. It is still mind boggling how two 13yr olds could be so devious in the crime they did and the cover up. Both have refused to come clean on the roles they played in it. As for A bestiality and cruelty at such a young age he will need to be forever on a watch list if he is ever released. He reminds me so much of Ian Horgan, who at the age of 16 attacked, murdered and raped Rachel Kiely a few yrs ago as she was walking her dogs in a park in Ballincollig, Co Cork. Horgan later got his conviction reduced to manslaughter on a technicality. Horgan had a girlfriend then of 2yrs, so sexual frustration was not the motive for those that see rape-sexual assault as such. He even collected his girlfriend at her place of work after murdering Rachel. He was asked to leave school at 14. While out on bail for the homicide left a catalogue of criminality and even after serving his sentence it has continued. Regret for his crimes it would seem never bothered him. Suppose the big question to pondered would A have killed and I mean killed someone at some time irrespective of being aided or abetted by B. Prob would, as B stated he had approached him previously of such a plan to kill Ana. And after murdering Ana he had no hangups and for B hangups it was the focus was on him.0 -
Late watcher of the documentary, sorry!
I thought an interesting moment in the documentary was the (presumably informed) opinion put forward that people who are predisposed to violence (however hidden that predisposition may be) are likely to seek out violent porn whereas people who are not tend to avoid it and look at more mainstream sources. This goes against the argument that violent porn is the causation of the desire in a young person to engage in a violent sexual scenario, but rather suggests that violent porn is one of the interests pursued by that type of mind. That is not to say it doesn't desensitize and contribute often to the type of scenario the offender ultimately creates and acts upon. I started to look for sources to back up the journilst's opinion but unfortunately I can't wade through such disturbing content.
I suppose the reason I honed in on this is that I intensely dislike the narrative that most young boys are watching if not violent porn, porn that results in aggressive first sexual experiences for girls. Those pushing that agenda are also deaf to the fact that it is not only young boys that watch porn, but girls also.
Should we be concerned about their exposure to porn? Yes! Of course! Should we be hypercritical of young boys in this way? No. Sort out policy on the issue and be fairer. Teenage lust and love is hard enough to navigate as it is.
As I haven't posted on the thread much and probably won't again I just wanted to add that it should always come back to Ana. I think her community, Dublin and Ireland lost a really wonderful person who was possibly going to do something wildly creative with her life and would have contributed so much to her community and country. It is utterly heartbreaking and it would do no soul good to dwell too long on how her life ended. Her poor, poor family.0 -
What documentary are you talking about0
-
Ana Kriegel: Tragic Leixlip girl's teen killers Boy A and B blame each other for being locked up“Boy A blames Boy B for revealing details of the crime to gardai while Boy B blames Boy A for getting him caught up in the murder to begin with.
“They have to spend the next few years at the detention centre together and will most likely be in some of the same classes too.
"When they turn 18 and are transferred to an adult prison they will most likely have to be segregated away from other inmates due to the nature of their crime too.
"So regardless, the next few years of avoiding each other is going to be tough.”
According to same source, when they move to adult prison in a few years they will most likely have their own Liaison Officer to help them adjust. Most likely they will be sent to Wheatfield Prison.
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/ana-kriegel-murderers-blame-eachother-17307248?utm_source=dublin_live_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_DublinLive_Nletter_News_smallteaser_Text_Story2&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter0 -
-
Vicarious Function wrote: »Ana Kriegel: Tragic Leixlip girl's teen killers Boy A and B blame each other for being locked up
At least that might make both of them think very hard about whether they might have more to lose than gain by appealing their sentences. If they blame each other the chances of one further incriminating the other if it came to an appeal must be something to consider.0 -
I can’t believe I wasted a few minutes reading that, nothing of interest in it. Just some media outlet flogging tiny details for clicks.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6079
Not in Kansas wrote: »
I just wanted to add that it should always come back to Ana. I think her community, Dublin and Ireland lost a really wonderful person who was possibly going to do something wildly creative with her life and would have contributed so much to her community and country. It is utterly heartbreaking and it would do no soul good to dwell too long on how her life ended. Her poor, poor family.
Always.
It's what her parents asked also, that we remember her, and keep her in our hearts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why did gardaí not stop Boy B from sullying Ana's memory? If they had stopped him from saying what he said then Ana's parents wouldn't have heard it in court.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement