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

Grayson · 19-06-2019 02:35PM

Necro wrote: »

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.

Sure but at the same time if we expect it to fall on the parents there will be kids that are missed. I mentioned it earlier but a lot of parents would probably be out of their depth. Don't get me wrong, most parents do an ok job but the only qualification you need to be a parent is to have a child and these sort of things should be dealt with by experts.

I should also say that although that kind of approach *might* have stopped the murder, we don't know it would have. But it would probably lessen bullying incidents and would help kids who are being bullied like Ana.

GarIT · 19-06-2019 02:36PM

More than classes on bullying we need classes on empathy and personal development. Telling a bully bullying is wrong won't stop them. Getting them to understand other people have feelings too and that being different is ok would be much more effective.

Bigbagofcans · 19-06-2019 02:36PM

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.

Department of Education will argue that they don't have time in the day to have these types of classes.

Scrap all the pointless Religion lessons, significantly reduce time spent on Irish and have a few mandatory classes a week on consent, bullying, mental health, life skills.

AudreyHepburn · 19-06-2019 02:36PM

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?s

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

He stood by while an innocent young girl was brutally assaulted and murdered and repeatedly lied about it to Gardai, his parents etc.

He deserves all he gets imo - he’s as guilty as Boy A.

Grayson · 19-06-2019 02:40PM

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Department of Education will argue that they don't have time in the day to have these types of classes.

Scrap all the pointless Religion lessons, significantly reduce time spent on Irish and have a few mandatory classes a week on consent, bullying, mental health, life skills.

If the money was there I'd make each kid have sessions with a child therapist too. The idea being that if everything is ok they just talk about cartoons or whatever but if they need someone, there's already someone there that they can trust.

It'd never happen though which is a pity.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 02:40PM

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

Once boy A was found with Ana's blood all over his shoes, bag, etc he was going to be charged. What did boy B have to be afraid of?

There was no DNA evidence on him, I'm sure his own legal team made him very aware of that so a set-up by Boy A wasn't plausible

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 02:40PM

decky1 wrote: »

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.

Victims ' families do get help, they would have had access to Family Liaison officers throughout this time.

But anyway, you're just expressing outrage. Darren Goodwin served 13 years in jail from the age of 16. This is not 'life' of course and perhaps not much in the scheme of things but there seems to be little chance that these two (especially Boy A) will serve any less than that time. My prediction is that Boy A will serve no less than 20 years given the violence and sexual nature of the crime.

Dontfadeaway · 19-06-2019 02:41PM

rekdtangle wrote: »

Have seen the names and photos of boy A & B. Strangely if you google Boy A's name all the Ana newspaper articles come up. How does that happen if they aren't named in any of the articles?

RIP Ana

Nothing comes up when I put in his name. Maybe I seen the wrong one

AudreyHepburn · 19-06-2019 02:42PM

Necro wrote: »

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.

Agreed a combined effort is the only way deal with complex issues like this. Leaving it to one party or another to deal with alone is a recipe for disaster.

I also think a better understanding of psychiatric and psychological issues in children and young people is needed. Ordinary joe soap parent or teacher may not be able to recognize the symptoms of say psychopathy or sociopathy or may not understand them for what they are if they do see them. A better understanding could stop cases like this before they happen.

....... · 19-06-2019 02:43PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He stood by while an innocent young girl was brutally assaulted and murdered and repeatedly lied about it to Gardai, his parents etc.

He deserves all he gets imo - he’s as guilty as Boy A.

Its the cover up that disturbs me the most.

I can understand that he might have lured her there, maybe not realising Boy A was serious to murder her. I can understand he might have feared Boy A and was frightened to intervene or it all happened so quickly that he was in shock etc...

I can even understand him making up a story about being attacked by 2 men - in the heat of the moment.

But the repeated lying and attempting to cover it up the whole time in all the interviews afterwards, when the seriousness of the charge was in front of him and the knowledge that Boy A couldnt hurt him etc...

Im sure his legal team told him to sing like a canary and save himself. But instead he just kept misleading and misleading.

Bigbagofcans · 19-06-2019 02:43PM

We should be leading by example to younger people. As a poster mentioned earlier that so many older people are glued to Love Island which features bullying and promoting taunting/negative among others.

Also, parents with their heads stuck in their smartphones and telling their children to get off theirs aren't helping matters.

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 02:45PM

...

wicorthered · 19-06-2019 02:45PM

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

Comments like these sicken me. Oh poor old so and so, not his fault, someone tricked him, threatened him etc. Why is there always someone else at fault, is there no more personal responsibility left in Ireland? He might be 13, but when I was 13 I knew my friends shouldn't kill school girls!

Christ he stood by and watched a young girl murdered in cold blood, then did his best to cover it up. This scumbag is no victim, he's as much at fault as Boy A!

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 02:51PM

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

TOO MANY LIES.

He was never in the house. He was in the house. He saw her walking away. He heard her scream. He went into the house before Ana and Boy A. He looked in the door and ran away.

Boy B told so many lies we still don't know what exactly happened!

Grayson · 19-06-2019 02:51PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ana-kriegel-garda-will-investigate-anyone-sharing-photos-of-murderers-1.3930854

The Garda has said it will investigate anyone sharing the identities of the two 14-year-olds convicted of murdering Ana Kriégel.

Boy A and Boy B, as they are known publicly, were found guilty by a jury on Tuesday of murdering the 14-year-old girl in Lucan last year. Boy A was also found guilty of the aggravated sexual assault of Ana on the same date.

Since the verdict, photographs claiming to show the two boys have circulated widely on WhatsApp and social media.

It is understood gardaí have been alerted to several incidents of the boys photographs being shared online. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is also aware of the issue and is considering making an application for those sharing to photos to be held in contempt.

Under the Children Act 2001, it is a criminal offence to identify children who are parties to court proceedings. This includes witnesses and defendants.

The offence carries a prison term of up to 12 months and a €1,500 word fine on conviction in the District Court or a term of up to three years and a €10,000 on conviction in a higher court.

So maybe don't share the pictures.

Also, it appears your punishment will be a €1500 word fine (I think an intern who has an assignment wrote that bit).

retro:electro · 19-06-2019 02:52PM

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

The judge said that intention to kill does not require elaborate pre-planning. You see, even if we believe his version of events where his aim was to paint himself in the best possible light, he still painted a picture of a remarkably cruel, negligent and dangerous liar. He received a text message from boy A a month before the act informing him that he intends to kill Ana. Boy B responded “in your dreams”, and laughed it off as a joke. If we are to believe that he led Ana to boy A because he was going to tell her he didn’t fancy her then he is a remarkably cruel person. If we are to believe he saw Ana being thrown to the ground and assaulted and he left as she screamed for her life and told no one for days only lied and deflected then he is a remarkably cruel and dangerous person. I believe he is a lot more involved than he is letting on, his only saving grace is there is no evidence to prove he directly assaulted her but he assisted in the murder by leading her there.

They saw her as sub- human. They saw her as disposable and less than. They showed her absolutely no respect before, during or after and his comments about her being “slutty” give an insight into how he viewed her. When I was his age, being questioned in such a serious manner would have me on my knees in bits but he continually played a game of cat and mouse with the guards, sussing them on what they knew until they eventually peeled away the lies one by one.

Throughout questioning, in between lying, he yawned and stretched and acted in unashamed arrogance and treated the whole thing like it was a massive inconvenience to his time. A detachment like that to such a serious situation is concerning and who knows what a detached mind like that is capable of.
It makes me sick to think I even breathe the same air as these cretins.

Dontfadeaway · 19-06-2019 02:56PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

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

TOO MANY LIES.

He was never in the house. He was in the house. He saw her walking away. He heard her scream. He went into the house before Ana and Boy A. He looked in the door and ran away.

Boy B told so many lies we still don't know what exactly happened!

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 02:59PM

I wonder if the distances of the two locations the two boys were spotted on CCTV after the crime would be roughly the same distance? There's about a 15 minute difference from when Boy A was spotted on CCTV after Boy B. I wonder would this indicate Boy B left before Boy A? If so, why?

Anyone with knowledge of the area be able to read into the timings? I'm guessing by the suspected murder times that it would take about 10 minutes for Boy B to walk from the house to the location he was caught on CCTV.

Boggles · 19-06-2019 03:02PM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Once boy A was found with Ana's blood all over his shoes, bag, etc he was going to be charged. What did boy B have to be afraid of?

Both boys got bail, they haven't been in detention the whole time since the murder.

Also there is no indication that both boys talked to each other in the days after the murder.

Now if one approaches the case with the preconception that Boy B was like John Doe in Seven and not a 13 year old child (even a fúcked up one) - which the judge kept reminding the jury, then all ones conclusions will only go down one alley.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 03:03PM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

he was an accomplice. he is as guilty of murder as the boy who killed her.

Hoboo · 19-06-2019 03:06PM

retro:electro wrote: »

The judge said that intention to kill does not require elaborate pre-planning. You see, even if we believe his version of events where his aim was to paint himself in the best possible light, he still painted a picture of a remarkably cruel, negligent and dangerous liar. He received a text message from boy A a month before the act informing him that he intends to kill Ana. Boy B responded “in your dreams”, and laughed it off as a joke. If we are to believe that he led Ana to boy A because he was going to tell her he didn’t fancy her then he is a remarkably cruel person. If we are to believe he saw Ana being thrown to the ground and assaulted and he left as she screamed for her life and told no one for days only lied and deflected then he is a remarkably cruel and dangerous person. I believe he is a lot more involved than he is letting on, his only saving grace is there is no evidence to prove he directly assaulted her but he assisted in the murder by leading her there.

They saw her as sub- human. They saw her as disposable and less than. They showed her absolutely no respect before, during or after and his comments about her being “slutty” give an insight into how he viewed her. When I was his age, being questioned in such a serious manner would have me on my knees in bits but he continually played a game of cat and mouse with the guards, sussing them on what they knew until they eventually peeled away the lies one by one.

It makes me sick to think I even breathe the same air as these cretins.

Didn't require elaborate pre planning infers it required planning of some degree. Can't see where the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt this occured.

boardise · 19-06-2019 03:07PM

Grayson wrote: »

Probably never. Despite what they did they are children.

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2019 03:08PM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Securing murder and manslaughter convictions don’t just rely on DNA evidence. Cases were solved pre DNA testing.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 03:08PM

Boggles wrote: »

Both boys got bail, they haven't been in detention the whole time since the murder.

Also there is no indication that both boys talked to each other in the days after the murder.

Now if one approaches the case with the preconception that Boy B was like John Doe in Seven and not a 13 year old child (even a fúcked up one) - which the judge kept reminding the jury, then all ones conclusions will only go down one alley.

Do you think people had those preconceptions or rather didn’t but made up their minds after the trial, when most people read about this in detail for the first time. I assumed boy b would get a lower charge until recently.

AudreyHepburn · 19-06-2019 03:09PM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Once again there doesn’t need to be DNA in this case - he put himself there. He incriminated himself and that along with his repeated lies and lack of empathy for Ana in life and death are enough to show what kind of boy he is and give a good indication of exactly what his involvement was.

He’s as bad as A and deserves the same punishment.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2019 03:10PM

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

They were but were given new identities on release from prison.

jmayo · 19-06-2019 03:12PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Online bullies did not kill the girl nor cause the girl to be killed. In fact the online bullying was completely unrelated to the actual main facts of the case.
It was just mentioned by her parents to show what type of girl Ana was, and how she was more vulnerable than most

Actually the bullies, both online and in real life made Ana appear as worthless, a non entity to be lambasted, to be taunted, to be avoided.

These guys saw her, as Gimp A (the one who some gobdaws seem to think of as the poor bullied easily led one and innocent) described as slutty and a weirdo that everyone avoided.

They saw her as so worthless that they could rape and kill her and nobody would probably care.

How many serial killers the world over have targeted the homeless (the real ones not the modern Irish definition), the runaways, the drug addicts, the prostitutes because they thought no one would notice they were gone, because they were worthless.

So yes in my opinion all the bast***s that went to school with her or were in social club with her that treated her like dirt should look take a long hard at themselves.
Personally I don't hold out much hope for a lot of them.
Hell I bet some of them still laugh about her.

ted1 · 19-06-2019 03:12PM

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

They were giving new identities on their release

Dontfadeaway · 19-06-2019 03:14PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

Once again there doesn’t need to be DNA in this case - he put himself there. He incriminated himself and that along with his repeated lies and lack of empathy for Ana in life and death are enough to show what kind of boy he is and give a good indication of exactly what his involvement was.

He’s as bad as A and deserves the same punishment.

I know that but I didn't know it was the same charge.

If he did take part in the attack itself, wouldn't they have found DNA like they did with Boy A?

Grayson · 19-06-2019 03:15PM

boardise wrote: »

But weren't the two rats who murdered the toddler jamie Bulger named ?
Why should these two poisonous runts not be ?

Different countries, different laws.

And one of those guys actually went on to live a normal life. (the other didn't).