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

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 02:01PM

El_Bee wrote: »

But received full support from all mainstream parties, FF & FG included.

Because they knew which way the wind was blowing.

Divorce was close but the other two were overwhelming.

Incidentally only two countries still prohibit divorce - Philippines and the Vatican.

Grayson · 19-06-2019 02:01PM

Necro wrote: »

Bullying these days isn't just the typical tough guy in the class pushing you down in the mud or beating the sh1t out of you though.

It's exclusion from social groups and activities.
It's withering looks from your peers if you try to speak to them.
It's online a lot of the time and away from school grounds.
It's through social media and different apps, groups sharing stupid pictures and videos of X or Y in silly situations.

I'm not sure there are enough laws on the planet to cover the different forms that bullying takes these days.

To be fair you're also describing bullying that existed years ago. The only difference is technology so it follows the kids home. Exclusion, looks, nasty talk. That's all part of bullying and always has been.

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Should being arrested and interviewed for murder be a walk in the park? Forcing a confession is totally different to what we are talking about here. It's all on camera and recorded. The rules should change about parents being there 100% of the time. We lost probably the best chance of ever knowing exactly what happened because of pc over the top nonsense.

It's not 'PC' to have a minor interviewed in the presence of their parent/guardian, it's written into the laws of the land.

It's for the protection of the Gardaí as much as it is those interviewed. I personally don't see an issue with it tbh.

19-06-2019 02:03PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My kid was bullied at school. We didn't know they missed a third of the school year, instead going to the park and sitting alone in the cold and rain instead of going in to face being bullied.

None of the several subject teachers passed a blind eye that they were missing so much roll call. We only found out when tusla contacted us at the end of the year to find it why were such bad parents to not send then to school.

The teachers don't give a crap they're just there to complain about their pay and enjoy their time off in summer

The ones who do/did give a **** have that taken out of them pretty quickly.

19-06-2019 02:04PM

Re the online bullying, is something radical like banning smartphones in schools the answer, or banning under 18 or x age from owning smartphones a route?

19-06-2019 02:05PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Psychopath A & Sociopath B.

Very little could be done in school for students like this.

Yeah it's more the bullying/social media that Ana and the likes of the Gallagher sisters in Donegal endured that I'd be hopeful of society realistically tackling someday soon. Also...a major update of how sex education is taught could help.

How a school or even society could identify the potential psychopaths and dangerous sociopaths though, I'm really not sure. Hopefully something about that can be learned from this tragic case.

InTheShadows · 19-06-2019 02:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Think I heard Leo V on the radio saying they're going to clamp down on porn or something....how about clamping down on bullying? You know like have teachers actually do something instead of turning a blind eye?

Face book, Whatapp etc.. aren't porn sites per say so i guess Leo will leave them to it even though the likes of them is also a real issue here. Can't be annoying Zuckerburg Leo what.

Penn · 19-06-2019 02:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Re the online bullying, is something radical like banning smartphones in schools the answer, or banning under 18 or x age from owning smartphones a route?

Bullying existed before smartphones and I think it'd be unfair to take smartphones off all children/teens. Perhaps better parental controls on them though, where you can buy them pre-installed as such that they have to be linked to a parent's phone who can monitor everything they do on them. Bullying happens a lot in schools because that's where the teens are/meet the most, but as much as teachers should be doing, parents should also be making sure both their children aren't being bullied nor bullying others.

weldoninhio · 19-06-2019 02:08PM

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

I can't wrap my head around why the Ana's parents never took her out of the school seeing clearly that she was suffering, why didn't they take her out after the first ever bullying incident, after the death threats or even after one if the teachers confided in them about how gravely concerned she was.... Take her out to safety, home school, miss a year, find tutors, or no tutors, a vocational school maybe, anything to save her. Can't forgive them for their passivity, although they are of course their own judges and punishers now.

WTF!!

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:08PM

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair you're also describing bullying that existed years ago. The only difference is technology so it follows the kids home. Exclusion, looks, nasty talk. That's all part of bullying and always has been.

Point is how do you police it or write laws to deal with a nasty look or excluding someone?

It's absolutely abhorrent behaviour but how can you legislate for it criminally?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 19-06-2019 02:09PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should being arrested and interviewed for murder be a walk in the park? Forcing a confession is totally different to what we are talking about here. It's all on camera and recorded. The rules should change about parents being there 100% of the time. We lost probably the best chance of ever knowing exactly what happened because of pc over the top nonsense.

I'm not saying a confession would have been forced, I'm saying a legal team would have argued that was a possibility and got it ruled inadmissible.

Those rules are there to protect children who have an assumption of innocence, to make sure charges and convictions are sound. They're based on sound reasoning and decades of evidence.

Unfortunately for you, satisfying the public's prurient curiosity about the details of a case seems to have been pretty far down the gards list of priorities here, and that of the people who formulated these rules.

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 02:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Re the online bullying, is something radical like banning smartphones in schools the answer, or banning under 18 or x age from owning smartphones a route?

I left school over 10 years ago and even then phones were not allowed and would be confiscated if you were found to have one.

I suspect nowadays parents demanded they have them for safety reasons.

Discipline is becoming less and less strict. Example is hitting kids. If I ever did something bad like telling someone to F off or smashing something because I was angry I got a kick up the hole from the auld lad. It did me the world of good.

Now I believe it's all about reflection corners and such nonsense. Kids need to learn they will be punished with an equal punishment for things they do wrong.

If a kid steals a packet of sweets from a shop, being sent to a corner to reflect is no good.

znv6i3h7kqf9ys · 19-06-2019 02:11PM

El_Bee wrote: »

Economically right, but socially very very liberal; pro divorce, pro abortion, pro gay marriage. pro mass immigration (not saying any of those things are bad before you all lynch me, but definitely not right wing positions).

Bollox. All the liberal things you've listed there don't cost any money and make the govt look good. The new environmental one is a peach too, ban petrol and diesel........ easy with the stroke of a pen but where is the infrastructure to offer an alternative. They always fall short when they have to get the cheque book out

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:12PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

WTF!!

Honestly it's best to ignore that sort of nonsense.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 02:12PM

Necro wrote: »

Bullying these days isn't just the typical tough guy in the class pushing you down in the mud or beating the sh1t out of you though.

It's exclusion from social groups and activities.
It's withering looks from your peers if you try to speak to them.
It's online a lot of the time and away from school grounds.
It's through social media and different apps, groups sharing stupid pictures and videos of X or Y in silly situations.

I'm not sure there are enough laws on the planet to cover the different forms that bullying takes these days.

If I had to choose I'd prefer a punch in the arm to the psychological and emotional abuse many young people experience on a daily basis.

It can have life-long effects and doesn't just go away when the kids leave school.

Rmulvany · 19-06-2019 02:12PM

Didn't check back the pages to see if this is already mentioned...

Pictures of both "Boy A" and "Boy B" have started to be shared on Facebook, I spotted them earlier today, I can foresee lots of people sharing posts in order to get some level of awareness about their identities

Presuming that the boys in the pictures are in fact the guilty parties it makes it all the more shocking as they are so young looking to produce that level of evil!

I know they have already been found guilty of murder but would this level of social hijacking be damaging towards them getting a fair sentencing? I know that social media can definitely have an effect on an ongoing trial

bobbyss · 19-06-2019 02:14PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My kid was bullied at school. We didn't know they missed a third of the school year, instead going to the park and sitting alone in the cold and rain instead of going in to face being bullied.

None of the several subject teachers passed a blind eye that they were missing so much roll call. We only found out when tusla contacted us at the end of the year to find it why were such bad parents to not send then to school.

The teachers don't give a crap they're just there to complain about their pay and enjoy their time off in summer

That is an horrendous scenario.

Some schools ask for parents' signature on homework journal as a parental involvement.

john123470 · 19-06-2019 02:14PM

Originally Posted by Aisling_Dublin View Post

"I can't wrap my head around why the Ana's parents never took her out of the school seeing clearly that she was suffering, why didn't they take her out after the first ever bullying incident, after the death threats or even after one if the teachers confided in them about how gravely concerned she was.... Take her out to safety, home school, miss a year, find tutors, or no tutors, a vocational school maybe, anything to save her ..."

This is a very valid point. Ana was knowingly being abused / bullied. Students stood up and left when she sat in their midst. Boys came up and threatened her .. with sex, violence. She ran home distraught on occasions. The school should have stepped in at some point .. i can't speak for the parents - but this behavior created the atmosphere where Boy A and B felt they had a licence to dehumanize and, ultimately, destroy her.

The school itself has some blood on its hands here. Schools need to be more aware / pro active when it comes to bullying. They might appoint class prefects, whatever, to report on bullying when it is encountered and have a visible zero tolerance to same

The school were aware of the bullying and did nothing

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 02:20PM

john123470 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Aisling_Dublin View Post

"I can't wrap my head around why the Ana's parents never took her out of the school seeing clearly that she was suffering, why didn't they take her out after the first ever bullying incident, after the death threats or even after one if the teachers confided in them about how gravely concerned she was.... Take her out to safety, home school, miss a year, find tutors, or no tutors, a vocational school maybe, anything to save her ..."

This is a very valid point. Ana was knowingly being abused / bullied. Students stood up and left when she sat in their midst. Boys came up and threatened her .. with sex, violence. She ran home distraught on occasions. The school should have stepped in at some point .. i can't speak for the parents - but this behavior created the atmosphere where Boy A and B felt they had a licence to dehumanize and, ultimately, destroy her.

The school itself has some blood on its hands here. Schools need to be more aware / pro active when it comes to bullying. They might appoint class prefects, whatever, to report on bullying when it is encountered and have a visible zero tolerance to same

The school I went to was a zoo, and very few teachers appeared to care about some of the violence and intimidation that went on. The principal too didn't give a rattlers, cruising towards a pension so why get your hands dirty. A lot of kids were written off by frankly lazy and uncaring 'educators'. There were a couple of genuinely passionate teachers, but they were in the minority in my school I'm afraid.

I was lucky in that I publicly set boundaries for a couple of scrotes early on in secondary school (i.e. I decked them when they tried to rough me up) and I was left alone from there on in.

80sChild · 19-06-2019 02:21PM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

I'm not saying a confession would have been forced, I'm saying a legal team would have argued that was a possibility and got it ruled inadmissible.

Those rules are there to protect children who have an assumption of innocence, to make sure charges and convictions are sound. They're based on sound reasoning and decades of evidence.

Unfortunately for you, satisfying the public's prurient curiosity about the details of a case seems to have been pretty far down the gards list of priorities here, and that of the people who formulated these rules.

I know the rules have been created to protect all parties and not for a minute would I suggest the guards were anything but meticulous in securing the conviction. The point is should this particular rule be now reviewed in light of the potential lost evidence, for future cases. Dont think anyone here cared for prurient details for their own sake, just perhaps a chance to make sure the pros of this rule outweigh the cons.

Bigbagofcans · 19-06-2019 02:23PM

Rmulvany wrote: »

Didn't check back the pages to see if this is already mentioned...

Pictures of both "Boy A" and "Boy B" have started to be shared on Facebook, I spotted them earlier today, I can foresee lots of people sharing posts in order to get some level of awareness about their identities

Presuming that the boys in the pictures are in fact the guilty parties it makes it all the more shocking as they are so young looking to produce that level of evil!

I know they have already been found guilty of murder but would this level of social hijacking be damaging towards them getting a fair sentencing? I know that social media can definitely have an effect on an ongoing trial

I've seen the photos. Even younger looking than I had anticipated. Scary that evil walks among us.

Gadgetman496 · 19-06-2019 02:26PM

Two boys are guilty of murder - what happens next?

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0618/1056052-ana-kriegel-trial-what-happens-next/

Grayson · 19-06-2019 02:27PM

Necro wrote: »

Point is how do you police it or write laws to deal with a nasty look or excluding someone?

It's absolutely abhorrent behaviour but how can you legislate for it criminally?

I don't think it should be policed. Well, not by the police. Schools should have a bigger role in this. And as i mentioned before, from a young age children should have classes around consent, bullying, and all that stuff. And it should start in junior infants. By the time they're in their teens it's too late.

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:28PM

80sChild wrote: »

I know the rules have been created to protect all parties and not for a minute would I suggest the guards were anything but meticulous in securing the conviction. The point is should this particular rule be now reviewed in light of the potential lost evidence, for future cases. Dont think anyone here cared for prurient details for their own sake, just perhaps a chance to make sure the pros of this rule outweigh the cons.

Not just a rule though, it's law. And no I don't think there's any need to review, justice was served in the end and both were convicted of the crimes they committed.

arkle1 · 19-06-2019 02:30PM

I will be slated for this but I feel Boy B may not be guilty...is he guilty of planning to kill her. I cant stop thinking he lied as

1. Afraid of being set up as he said
2. Afraid of Boy A
3. Was traumatised by what happened?

I think he was an evil prick for persistently not telling the truth and am shocked at how long he managed to keep that going ... but I'm not sure he was guilty of murder.

I am wondering how you are so sure on him

This case has me really bothered

decky1 · 19-06-2019 02:30PM

leaving out the smart phones for a minute , these 2 have been found guilty but the law say's they are children what can be done with them ? they'll get a few years inside minded to the best and then back out , murder is murder there should only be one law for that -life in jail and they still cost the tax payer money at that, all this talk of them holding their mammy's hands in court etc does'nt wash with me , it's all a game to them they and the likes of them need to be punished for their crime,they'll get all the help what about the victim's family who got a life sentence and no help.

19-06-2019 02:30PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

My kid was bullied at school. We didn't know they missed a third of the school year, instead going to the park and sitting alone in the cold and rain instead of going in to face being bullied.

None of the several subject teachers passed a blind eye that they were missing so much roll call. We only found out when tusla contacted us at the end of the year to find it why were such bad parents to not send then to school.

The teachers don't give a crap they're just there to complain about their pay and enjoy their time off in summer

I see Tusla in the news prosecuting parents for their child's poor attendance. The kid has to attend but there's no effort to make it a safe environment. Joke of a country.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 19-06-2019 02:31PM

80sChild wrote: »

I know the rules have been created to protect all parties and not for a minute would I suggest the guards were anything but meticulous in securing the conviction. The point is should this particular rule be now reviewed in light of the potential lost evidence, for future cases. Dont think anyone here cared for prurient details for their own sake, just perhaps a chance to make sure the pros of this rule outweigh the cons.

This is an extraordinary case though, any weighing up of hypothetical benefits him being interviewed without a guardian present can't be applied to all or most cases. For obvious reasons it's not up to the interviewing gards' discretion. The more serious the charge the more carefully they have to proceed and the greater the chance for loss of objectivity.

The interviews as carried out to the letter of the law resulted in a conviction so I'm not seeing how they indicate a need to change these rules.

The poster I was quoting was complaining we "lost our chance to know what happened". That's prurient curiosity pure and simple.

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:31PM

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think it should be policed. Well, not by the police. Schools should have a bigger role in this. And as i mentioned before, from a young age children should have classes around consent, bullying, and all that stuff. And it should start in junior infants. By the time they're in their teens it's too late.

I agree that the Department of Education seems to drag it's feet in this respect.

But parents also need to take some responsibility about these issues too imo. It shouldn't just be left to the schools, it should be a combined effort.

Necro · 19-06-2019 02:34PM

arkle1 wrote: »

I will be slated for this but I feel Boy B may not be guilty...is he guilty of planning to kill her. I cant stop thinking he lied as

1. Afraid of being set up as he said
2. Afraid of Boy A
3. Was traumatised by what happened?

I think he was an evil prick for persistently not telling the truth and am shocked at how long he managed to keep that going ... but I'm not sure he was guilty of murder.

I am wondering how you are so sure on him

This case has me really bothered

I think we've been over this before though, why on earth does someone who speaks of Ana in interviews with Gardaí after the fact refer to her with such vulgar language?
It's clear he had absolutely no respect for her whatsoever through his own words, even when she had been brutally killed.

So...

Why on earth was he calling to her that day, something he had never done before in his life?

He's as guilty as sin.

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

Comments