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

fryup

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Wasn't Robert Holahan's killer given a new identity and moved to the UK when he was released?
Same as James Bolger's killers.
I wonder could this be a possibility for these 2 animals when they leave detention.

without doubt, it will

thecretinhop

volchitsa wrote: »

thecretinhop wrote: »

Jesus wept not innocent..

Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't make you right.

If boy B had kept his mouth shut, like boy A did, B would likely have got away with a much lesser charge, and maybe got off completely. Would that have made him innocent?

de mind boggles bringing this up here. de left has found a new system where not guilty also still means guilty.
before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

Sunflower 27

dickangel wrote: »

What's to be gained from speculating like that? Needlessly morbid.

Because if A left her there knowing she could be still alive it shows that there is no question of the intent to kill.

As for morbid. The whole case is morbid, not least because she was killed in a gruesome way by children.

Gimme A Pound

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Dammit, knew that would happen. Those who join a mob for the ride don't give a **** about minor details like correct identity.

The type that can't distinguish between the word pediatrician and paedophile, and listen to inaccurate reports etc.

SirGerryAdams

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Wasn't Robert Houlihan's killer given a new identity and moved to the UK when he was released?
Same as James Bolger's killers.
I wonder could this be a possibility for these 2 animals when they leave detention.

No. Houlihans killer is doing quite well for himself in construction or architecture in the UK now...you can google him!

volchitsa

thecretinhop wrote: »

de mind boggles bringing this up here. de left has found a new system where not guilty also still means guilty.
before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

Ummm. Are you alright? Where did that rant come out of and what has it got to do with anything?

pjohnson

thecretinhop wrote: »

de mind boggles bringing this up here. de left has found a new system where not guilty also still means guilty.
before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

"De left" can you crying shítes not go one thread without this rubbish ffs.

Hannibal_Smith

tayto lover wrote: »

Ana fought like a tiger for her life. She had defensive wounds. Her nails were broken.
Jaysus lads read the court reports. It’s all there.

Would ya stop. I asked earlier today whether they intended to kill her or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself. Some one posted that she was hit first and assaulted after, which I took to mean she couldn't have defended herself.

pjohnson

Also it was the same with the Jackson thing there was 2 or 3 women that were all said to be the "victim" the chinese whispers doesn't help anyone and just drags actual innocents into the mess. But they bend over backwards to protect the criminals consequences be damned.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Would ya stop. I asked earlier today whether they intended to kill her or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself. Some one posted that she was hit first and assaulted after, which I took to mean she couldn't have defended herself.

You wondered if there was an assault because she resisted the rape. She was attacked first then sexually assaulted. She did fight back though.

SirGerryAdams

NIMAN wrote: »

This is how the Internet is dangerous in the hands of idiots.

Only thing is, if a lad is named and is out and about walking the streets, going to school etc, then it's not him. Think that much would be obvious


But that doesn't make it any easier if you are innocent and brain dead folk on the Internet are naming you as a murderer.

sorry but the guy you are talking about is not being called a murderer. He's simply someone who comes up in google search. The pictures being circulated are correct!

tuxy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You wondered if there was an assault because she resisted the rape. She was attacked first then sexually assaulted. She did fight back though.

I could believe that if there wasn't evidence of a plan to kill her.

thecretinhop

my dad in 2012 nearly died due to lack of care. nothing changes

tommy de tinker burns insulated copper pipes all summer thick pungent smoke for months in area. nothing changes

autistic kids get mb 2 hours a week.
nothing changes

carers treated like dirt: nothing changes

relative suffering severe mental problems no resources nothing changes

scrote a and b brutally kill and rape. everything changes
5 star hostel x boxes breakfast made to order tv till 2am 8 staff per week.
court ready to cull anyone who wants to name them....
why do so many people want to name them?? because we are ****ing exacerbated the victim is now treated like dirt. de aggressor nearly a hero.
we have de corruption of Italy combined with de left wing version of sweeden hand wringers
wat a great wee country...

NIMAN

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

sorry but the guy you are talking about is not being called a murderer. He's simply someone who comes up in google search. The pictures being circulated are correct!

My reading of it was that incorrect names of Boys A&B were being published online

Is this incorrect?

I have no interest in googling names of boys,cos I don't know anyone involved in the case so itll mean nothing to me to know names

Gimme A Pound

thecretinhop wrote: »

de mind boggles bringing this up here. de left has found a new system where not guilty also still means guilty.
before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

Ah here, why can't you just type "the"?

What have you done that's so terrible you'd be sent to a gulag?

It's nothing to do with the left, it's not an opinion - it's the actual legal definition. "Not guilty" is not the same as innocent. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's incorrect or that you have grounds for accusing people of nonsense.

pjohnson

thecretinhop wrote: »

my dad in 2012 nearly died due to lack of care. nothing changes

tommy de tinker burns insulated copper pipes all summer thick pungent smoke for months in area. nothing changes

autistic kids get mb 2 hours a week.
nothing changes

carers treated like dirt: nothing changes

relative suffering severe mental problems no resources nothing changes

scrote a and b brutally kill and rape. everything changes
5 star hostel x boxes breakfast made to order tv till 2am 8 staff per week.
court ready to cull anyone who wants to name them....
why do so many people want to name them?? because we are ****ing exacerbated the victim is now treated like dirt. de aggressor nearly a hero.
we have de corruption of Italy combined with de left wing version of sweeden hand wringers
wat a great wee country...

Seek professional help good boy.

thecretinhop

pjohnson wrote: »

thecretinhop wrote: »

de mind boggles bringing this up here. de left has found a new system where not guilty also still means guilty.
before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

"De left" can you crying shítes not go one thread without this rubbish ffs.

i didnt go there 'mate'

pjohnson

thecretinhop wrote: »

i didnt go there 'mate'

No one else said "de left".

Which you since used a second time. Maybe you need conspiracy forum or something.

Hannibal_Smith

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You wondered if there was an assault because she resisted the rape. She was attacked first then sexually assaulted. She did fight back though.

I asked whether they intended to kill her or was it something that got [further] out of hand when she defended herself. And you responded saying she was hit first and assaulted after. I took that to mean [probably a misunderstanding on my part] she was unconscious or had no reaction to what happened next.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

tuxy wrote: »

I could believe that if there wasn't evidence of a plan to kill her.

What’s not to believe? Why does her getting attacked first not mean they didn’t plan to kill her.

From the pathologists report.

On the basis of the pathology and forensic evidence, the Garda suspected Ana had been beaten to the ground with a heavy stick shortly after entering the room, then hit four times with a heavy object such as a concrete block.

Next she was pulled towards the window, where there was more light. It was likely here she was sexually assaulted. Her false nails scattered around the room indicated she had fought her attacker fiercely.

It’s a horrible case. Upto me boy a would spend 20-25 years in jail or life at the discretion of the minister for justice. Also he would be named when an adult as a sex offender.

thecretinhop

pjohnson wrote: »

thecretinhop wrote: »

my dad in 2012 nearly died due to lack of care. nothing changes

tommy de tinker burns insulated copper pipes all summer thick pungent smoke for months in area. nothing changes

autistic kids get mb 2 hours a week.
nothing changes

carers treated like dirt: nothing changes

relative suffering severe mental problems no resources nothing changes

scrote a and b brutally kill and rape. everything changes
5 star hostel x boxes breakfast made to order tv till 2am 8 staff per week.
court ready to cull anyone who wants to name them....
why do so many people want to name them?? because we are ****ing exacerbated the victim is now treated like dirt. de aggressor nearly a hero.
we have de corruption of Italy combined with de left wing version of sweeden hand wringers
wat a great wee country...

Seek professional help good boy.

very droll reported.
anyway i have a very valid point that the resources needed v my above examples are a valid claim.
left wing guff?? check out ruth coppengers tweet...

SirGerryAdams

NIMAN wrote: »

My reading of it was that incorrect names of Boys A&B were being published online

Is this incorrect?

I have no interest in googling names of boys,cos I don't know anyone involved in the case so itll mean nothing to me to know names

I only saw one name being mentioned which I believe is correct..

Gimme A Pound

thecretinhop wrote: »

very droll reported.
anyway i have a very valid point that the resources needed v my above examples are a valid claim.
left wing guff?? check out ruth coppengers tweet...

I agree with your points since your post about "Not guilty". That Coppinger tweet is vile. She wrote an even worse one before it but deleted it.

mariaalice

I use to think the bad influence thing was often a copout, but really it does seem to be a mix of a weak and easily influenced immature teenager who lies all the time and wasn't the sporty son the father wanted mixing with someone who was a highly intelligent and manipulative teenager who clearly had something wrong with him.

If they had never met would this have happned.

Dante7

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I asked whether they intended to kill her or was it something that got [further] out of hand when she defended herself. And you responded saying she was hit first and assaulted after. I took that to mean [probably a misunderstanding on my part] she was unconscious or had no reaction to what happened next.

Boy A told Boy B a month previously that he wanted to commit a murder and singled out Ana as the target.

dubdaymo

Whilst the law about ID'ing the boys has to be obeyed I'm of the opinion that the law never envisaged a case like this.

If a minor is found guilty of, say, robbing shops or stealing phones I can sort of understand why such a law was brought into existence - not that I agree with it. However, these were the lowest form of evil scum who deliberately planned and committed an atrocity against a poor defenceless girl. They never admitted their guilt, they showed zero remorse for what they did. In fact, one of them made disgusting, insulting remarks about the victim.

In this case there is absolutely no good reason why they should remain anonymous. They have shown that they have no respect for human life. They are a danger to society and I hope the judge will take this into consideration as he ponders his next course of action.

iamwhoiam

mariaalice wrote: »

I use to think the bad influence thing was often a copout, but really it does seem to be a mix of a weak and easily influenced immature teenager who lies all the time and wasn't the sporty son the father wanted mixing with someone who was a highly intelligent and manipulative teenager who clearly had something wrong with him.

If they had never met would this have happned.

I am not at all convinced that B was the weak one . The more I read the more I think he could well have been the master puppeteer .

mrjoneill

volchitsa wrote: »

Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't make you right.

If boy B had kept his mouth shut, like boy A did, B would likely have got away with a much lesser charge, and maybe got off completely. Would that have made him innocent?

I have looked at the same, Boy B was implicated from calling to the house for Ana. He could not explain that away & his silence would only add to the intrigue. He had to find an explanation as well as the CCTV evidence & witness statements to quell the obv disquiet. I'm sure his solicitors would have put him on the no-comment warning if there was any other way out of it. There is no way out of a person bringing another to a place where they were murdered only complicity. His lies were all countered with evidence till he tried the next one. He really believed he was able to manipulate the world the little weasel. The little crying boy that asked for permission to use the toilet, leant on his mother shoulder & held her hand, needed to be excused from the awful forensic evidence that he was directly involved in, the same weasel that called his victim a "slut, weirdo, not seen dead with" thinking he was able to manipulate his questioners. Prob Boy B is the real leader of the plot that Boy A carried out as he was the more polished & brightest under interrogation. The greatest ever to deflect. His last statement to his psychologist again contradicting his last Garda statement, he only realized that Boys B crotch of his pants was open when he stood up. Boy B wore tracksuit-bottoms. He does not tell us how Boys A semen stains got on Ana body & her clothes. We also find there is an unidentified DNA which is very mysterious. I would not be the least surprised Boy B played an active participation in it. I would not be least surprised that he actually pulled the clothes off her body while the other scumbag held her down. What amazes me of these types is how 2 of the same mindset came together. Without each other there is a great likelihood Ana would be still alive as Boy A had not the neck to entice her without an accomplice & this also gave support to the plan. Boy B intrigues have run out of road, he needs 20yrs to think over what he did in very harsh prison conditions

Kevhog1988

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I am not at all convinced that B was the weak one . The more I read the more I think he could well have been the master puppeteer .

I thought Boy A was. The horrific porn etc would lead me to believe he was the one who planned it.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

I use to think the bad influence thing was often a copout, but really it does seem to be a mix of a weak and easily influenced immature teenager who lies all the time and wasn't the sporty son the father wanted mixing with someone who was a highly intelligent and manipulative teenager who clearly had something wrong with him.

If they had never met would this have happned.

Going by the Irish Times article Boy B appeared as highly intelligent and astute during the Garda interviews. However further down the opinion of a psychologist found him to be immature and lacking in boundaries. I don't think it is as clear cut as one boy being 'this' way and the other boy being 'that' way.