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

dickangel

Dante7 wrote: »

No, I posted about an incorrect person with the same name being identified. The photos are correct.

What do you mean? If they had the same name but the kid's picture wasn't shown what difference does it make?

gozunda

dickangel wrote: »

He still could have said " Boy B was always going on about killing her" without placing himself at the scene.

How with the forensic evidence which was found on Boy A?

tuxy

Infini wrote: »

I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults

How are you at a loss? There is nothing in Irish law that can accommodate having children tried as adults. New laws are not just made up at the start of each trial.
They are over 10 years old so can be held responsible for murder, now that is a law and that is what happened in this case.

dickangel

gozunda wrote: »

How with the forensic evidence which was found on Boy A?

You just said if he admitted being at the scene his defence would be null and void....he can still not admit it and implicate Boy B.

Why do you think he didn't try to drop Boy B in it despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus?

mrjoneill

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

Cctv footage got the boy, so they would have been caught sooner or later.

There would be no need to check the CCTV in the park if they had no knowledge she went there. And as I understand the CCTV is vague and Boy A & Boy could only be identified by the rucksacks they carried on their backs. Since Ana had no friends there would be very little information what became of her if she disappeared. Again if her father had not seen going off with Boy B there would be no knowledge to believe there was foul play involved. What triggered the Gardai zoning into her disappearance was evidence she was seen in a boys company which he expanded to involve another and their unsurety & lies led to suspicions of them.

Ursus Horribilis

Dante7 wrote: »

No, I posted about an incorrect person with the same name being identified. The photos are correct.

That still does not make it OK. It might not happen in this case but some day an innocent person is going to pay a terrible price for this sort of vigilante behaviour. It has already happened elsewhere. People are prepared to believe anything, especially if it makes them think they're in the know somehow. I've received a photo, just like what seems like every live adult in Ireland. Can I say with any confidence what I trust the source? Or even that the photo that I have is the same one everyone else has.

Strazdas

Wombatman wrote: »

None of this would prove that he murdered Ana.

Boy B does not need to establish his innocence, the prosecution needs to prove he is guilty, not of misleading, or lying or obstructing justice, or shaming Ana, guilty of murder.

Let's say proof came to light (text messages for example) that Boy B believed that Boy A was planning to rape Ana in the house, and that Boy B facilitated this plan, would he still be guilty of murder?

Boy B could have used this angle as a defence in his trial or admitted to it under questioning but chose not to. His very evasiveness and numerous lies played a big part in his conviction.

JP Liz V1

Ace Attorney wrote: »

until the sentencing next month

What is the maximum they can get?

Ace Attorney

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the maximum they can get?

wouldnt have a clue, not a judge, they wont get life as they werent tried as adults, so who knows. i think its at the judges discretion due to being minors and the 2001 act not having any guidelines and im gonna go out on a limb here and guess boy b will get less of a sentence for his part.

tuxy

Ace Attorney wrote: »

wouldnt have a clue, not a judge, they wont get life as they werent tried as adults, so who knows. i think its at the judges discretion due to being minors and the 2001 act not having any guidelines and im gonna go out on a limb here and guess boy b will get less of a sentence for his part.

Eum what?
They will get life as they were over 10 years tried and found guilty of murder.
There are other legal systems in the world outside of certain(backward) US states, I assume this is where people are getting this tried as adults idea.

tuxy

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the maximum they can get?

Do you mean in theory or realistically?
In theory the rest of their natural lives but in reality it's in the hands of the parole board after seven years minimum. However it's not unusual for Judges to increase this minimum in violent cases like this.

Ace Attorney

tuxy wrote: »

Eum what?
They will get life as they were over 10 years tried and found guilty of murder.
There are other legal systems in the world outside of certain(backward) US states, I assume this is where people are getting this tried as adults idea.

my mistake then.

mrjoneill

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re assuming the families were in on it but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case.

I’ll say it again - let go of the emotion and desire for revenge for a moment and think clearly.

Would you expect to be punished for your children’s wrong doing? Of course not nor should you.

But I would not cover it up esp the awfulness of it a vulnerable immature girl zoned in on by wolves who want to appear playful teddy-bear type kids. I'd be on next avail flight to Australia for permanent residence there

mrjoneill

Infini wrote: »

I will be honest the childrens act should apply in most cases but NOT in the case of Murder and Sex Crimes. These 2 are the worst of the worst though in terms of Murder if it was in self defence that's the only exception but absolutely nothing on the 2nd. I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults as much as some might want to disagree otherwise the fact is Sex crime and Murder are the type where being underage is no excuse to have the anonymity they dont deserve to be fair.

Considering the vile nature of the crimes the 2 should have been tried as Adults plain and simple and if it's found these 2 get off lightly and arent locked up for the rest of their lives I'm nearly sure someone is going to find out who they are and take a shot at them at some point as much as some might disagree but once faith is lost in the Justice system then vigilange justice ends up taking over and thats the last thing anyone really wants.

Everyone is tired of the feral vermin having the run of the place and while these 2 are rare outlying worst cases there's plenty of them out there that are nearly as bad as them.

There is also an ECHR ruling on not naming underage form the Venerable & Thomson crime

shesty

tuxy wrote: »

Eum what?
They will get life as they were over 10 years tried and found guilty of murder.
There are other legal systems in the world outside of certain(backward) US states, I assume this is where people are getting this tried as adults idea.

No I don't think there is any guarantee of that.There a large number of posts further back on the thread explaining it.And a few news articles have explained legislation around Children also.Can't remember exact detail but the aim is more to try to rehabilitate to go back into society I think.It is at the judge's discretion as far as I remember, but I don't think life is guaranteed by any means.

volchitsa

There's inevitably a lot of comparison with Venables and Thomson happening and one thing I wonder about is whether, Ireland's youth detention system being so much smaller than the UK's they will be able to remain in any sort of contact with each other. The two Bulger killers were kept apart, and I think it would be very unfortunate if that couldn't be guaranteed here. But I suspect it can't be.

Hal3000

It think trying to protect the identities of these boys is just going to increases people's curiosity to seek them out. We are in a much different time than the Bulger case. I'm not even on social media and already seen the images. There is little chance that legal threats will stop that now. Best off to let justice do its job and hopefully both get a decent sentence.

TheAsYLuMkeY

AudreyHepburn wrote:

You’re assuming the families were in on it but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case.

I’ll say it again - let go of the emotion and desire for revenge for a moment and think clearly.

Would you expect to be punished for your children’s wrong doing? Of course not nor should you.

To be honest, because technology has leaped forward in recent history, i think there is now a case to hold accountable any parent for, 'Willful neglect of children', for not controlling their access to media, Neglect can be categorised as child abuse,

https://www.tusla.ie/services/child-protection-welfare/definitions-of-child-abuse/

Why hold these parents accountable?

Well certainly it has been revealed about Boy A's free access to anything on the internet, my opinion (Which wont be swayed by the way) is that free access to anyone under 16 to the internet via a 'smartphone' (cool name attached to them to make them sought after and a must have commodity) that is permitted by parents is Neglect, the parents most definitely have something to answer for here.

Control of internet access in home and possession of mini handheld computers needs to be seriously tackled, starting with the parents of the children.

If i allow my 13 year old to go out freely and drink/take drugs, do you think i should be prosecuted?

Hal3000

Totally agree here. To a degree parents must be responsible for any child's access to the internet. Giving a child unfettered access to the internet is irresponsible. Also we need to look at limiting access to Whatsapp for u18. We are really going to cause damage to our youths if we allow them to keep viewing violent and extreme content. Im sure in years we will look back on this and think WTF we're we thinking.

CityRoad

I have been following this thread for a few days and although I have not read every post, I want to make a couple of points as I know some of the details of the background. I will not put the case at risk, I do not know the names or have any information on the boys or the family and I take my cue from the local community who have done a sterling job in waiting for the case to be tried and not risking it in anyway. I am torn about the confidentiality aspect, because I believe it follows the rehabilitation model of justice and I am not sure that some can be rehabilitated.

I mention the information as some think there may be non national element to it (there wasn't, they were good Irish boys!), that there is mental illness, that there is coercion by one on the other or any nonsense that the jury got this wrong. They did not.

1. Boy A & B were bullies at the local school, I know this as they bullied a child of a friend of mine constantly before the murder, so it could have been someone I know and love in the grave, instead of poor Ana. These boys worked as a bullying team, one is not more innocent than the other.

2. There are no learning issues, the school did not consider them to be problems in anyway whatsoever. There is no mental illness, there are no special ed needs, this is who they are.

3. Anyone that was their target was isolated by the others, including the child I know. It is not pleasant but it seems it was the only viable solution for the other kids.

My worry now is my friend's child and the long term effects, like survivors guilt.

In regards to the principal and counsellor at the local school they should be sacked, there is alot of negligence there, I would love to see some litigation or an inquiry on that.

If they are both mentally ill it's a folie a deux, if not it is joint enterprise, you cannot deliver someone to their death and claim innocence.

The Gardai did an amazing job in talking to the kids and handling the case.

The only mystery is the unknown DNA on Ana's body, but don't worry he'll strike again.

AudreyHepburn

dickangel wrote: »

What do you mean? If they had the same name but the kid's picture wasn't shown what difference does it make?

Because without seeing the correct child’s face it would be easy for people to assume it’s the innocent boy that’s being referred.

A little logical thinking please. Trial and sentence by social media should never be acceptable.

AudreyHepburn

Hal3000 wrote: »

Totally agree here. To a degree parents must be responsible for any child's access to the internet. Giving a child unfettered access to the internet is irresponsible. Also we need to look at limiting access to Whatsapp for u18. We are really going to cause damage to our youths if we allow them to keep viewing violent and extreme content. Im sure in years we will look back on this and think WTF we're we thinking.

I agree with this absolutely - it just sounds like between pointing fingers at the boys parents, the school and Ana’s peers people are scapegoating or trying to absolve the boys of some or all of the blame.

A and B alone are to blame for their actions that day.

pjohnson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because without seeing the correct child’s face it would be easy for people to assume it’s the innocent boy that’s being referred.

A little logical thinking please. Trial and sentence by social media should never be acceptable.

Well when the "justice" is more concerned about protecting murderers what do you expect the public have a right to know.

AudreyHepburn

pjohnson wrote: »

Well when the "justice" is more concerned about protecting murderers what do you expect the public have a right to know.

Of course we do, I have never once said otherwise.

But leaving revealing their identities in the hands of emotionally charged mobs (online or real world) solely out for revenge is dangerous.

Let be done properly by the authorities.

AudreyHepburn

mrjoneill wrote: »

But I would not cover it up esp the awfulness of it a vulnerable immature girl zoned in on by wolves who want to appear playful teddy-bear type kids. I'd be on next avail flight to Australia for permanent residence there

The truth is none of us know how we’d react in this situation and it’s useless and naive to pretend you do.

NeonWolf

thecretinhop wrote: »

Jesus wept not innocent..

I don't really care for their respective ages , more for the severity of the crime/indiscretion of both parties.

Two murderers have been protected from further abuse and scrutiny while a group of acquitted innocent men have had their livelihoods and reputations destroyed.

NeonWolf

Grayson wrote: »

different jurisdiction, different ages.

I don't want to get into the semantics of it , i just find societies moral compass is malfunctioning.

These lads sent lurid texts and obviously treated the girl like a piece of meat on the night in question , but they are in the hapenny house compared to these two murdering scumbags. One group gets protected while the other doesn't.

Id rather have Paddy Jackson as my next door neighbour than either of these two.

And them suffering further abuse or scrutiny should be a moot point, they should in an ideal world never see fresh air ever again.

AudreyHepburn

NeonWolf wrote: »

I don't really care for their respective ages , more for the severity of the crime/indiscretion of both parties.

Two murderers have been protected from further abuse and scrutiny while a group of acquitted innocent men have had their livelihoods and reputations destroyed.

My personal belief is that all parties in a trial should be kept anonymous until such time as verdict is reached. If and only if the accused are found guilty then right to anonymity should be rendered null and void. The victim/accuser should be given the choice.

Mrsmum

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So what. Sentencing may be controversial, but who knows?

All forgotten in time anyway, we all move on.

We all have to move on in time (not yet I imagine) for our own sanity. Otherwise you could never enjoy another day with Ana's dreadful murder at the forefront of your mind. My heart is broken over this and have cried endless tears over the whole thing. I say that but of course my heart isn't really broken the way Ana's parents hearts are truly broken. Everyone carries their own troubles, you can't carry someone elses too. But she will never be entirely forgotten either by anyone.

martingriff

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I agree with this absolutely - it just sounds like between pointing fingers at the boys parents, the school and Ana’s peers people are scapegoating or trying to absolve the boys of some or all of the blame.

A and B alone are to blame for their actions that day.

I agree with you 100% A and B killed her and they alone are accountable. I am not saying the parents should be more vigilant but hindsight and all that. All this vigilante mob to just get a piece of skin is dangerous. We already have wrong people been mentioned in places.