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

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 03:15PM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

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?

He doesn't have to take part in the attack itself to be guilty of murder.

beejee · 19-06-2019 03:16PM

The whole thing is just miserable.

Reading about it over lunch earlier, I noted that one of the boys phones was found to contain thousands of pornographic images and videos, including bestiality, bdsm and other lovely things.

Imagine being a 13 year old and being exposed to the utter slime of humanity at every second of every day. Bound to give rise to healthy, well-adjusted normal people, right?

The internet should be 100% restricted to adults, and only allowed in strictly controlled educational institutions for children. F99k your oh-so-precious "internet freedom"

There are always psychos, but anyone who attempts to argue that the inhumanity of the internet has no impact on children can just shut their mouth before they start.

Boggles · 19-06-2019 03:16PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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 was responding to a question.

I have no idea how people on here garnered their preconception.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I assumed boy b would get a lower charge until recently.

What did you think he would get charged with?

19-06-2019 03:17PM

Manslaughter probably.

Grayson · 19-06-2019 03:19PM

There was an article I read ages ago and I've been trying to find it all day.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers

On the afternoon of 15 October 1994, three young children, a girl aged five, and two six-year-old boys, were playing on a football field covered in freshly fallen snow. Their parents were neighbours who did not know each other, but the children had played together before. The three had been making "snow castles", until the fun stopped. Nobody knows why. A childish disagreement? A tantrum, perhaps? Whatever it was it triggered a reaction in the boys that devastated a family and the community. At some point while playing, the boys turned on the little girl, punching and kicking her and beating her with stones before stripping off her clothes. Then they ran away, leaving her to die in the snow.

I'd recommend reading the whole article. It's an interesting take on what to do with children who commit crimes

And note, I'm not saying it's the same. the kids here were 6, not 13 and there's a lot of difference in those ages, but they are similar in other ways.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 03:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Manslaughter probably.

he brought her to meet another boy who had expressed a desire to murder her. manslaughter does not apply.

jmayo · 19-06-2019 03:23PM

Grayson wrote: »

There was an article I read ages ago and I've been trying to find it all day.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers

I'd recommend reading the whole article. It's an interesting take on what to do with children who commit crimes

And note, I'm not saying it's the same. the kids here were 6, not 13 and there's a lot of difference in those ages, but they are similar in other ways.

Actually remember coming across that before.
Very scary.

Sometimes the Lord of the Flies is actually closer to the surface than anyone dares say.

And some kids can be pure evil from the get go.
Now upbringing can help either make those tendencies come out or remain hidden.

Ash.J.Williams · 19-06-2019 03:23PM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

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?

i think the CCTV showed he (boyB)didn't just run home for his tea and may have been there 30mins or so

Necro · 19-06-2019 03:24PM

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 given new identities and released on a lifelong licence that Venables breached twice since then. Most recently for having images of child porn on his PC :rolleyes:

Neither should ever have been let out.

80sChild · 19-06-2019 03:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he brought her to meet another boy who had expressed a desire to murder her. manslaughter does not apply.

There is no denying this simple fact.

Also, he provided the duct tape, but we will likely never know how much he knew about its intended use.

spurious · 19-06-2019 03:24PM

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.

Or get parents to do their job and rear a child with high self-esteem that laughs off bullying from the spawn of parents who rear theirs to bully.

Faugheen · 19-06-2019 03:24PM

People still chatting ****e about Boy B’s conviction?

You can tell those who have actually read the case thoroughly rather than those who read what they want to read.

And the usual ‘there’s no physical evidence’ brigade who have no idea how the law works.

GarIT · 19-06-2019 03:27PM

Faugheen wrote: »

People still chatting ****e about Boy B’s conviction?

You can tell those who have actually read the case thoroughly rather than those who read what they want to read.

And the usual ‘there’s no physical evidence’ brigade who have no idea how the law works.

The way the law works is that it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Based on what I have read which may not be the full story I would have reasonable doubts.

19-06-2019 03:27PM

What’s the story with the stick that Boy B picked up? I only recall reading that he picked a stick up but did the guards question him further about it?

shutup · 19-06-2019 03:28PM

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Ah you are, but still...

It's only words on the internet. In the greater scheme of things it's meaningless. I don't agree with it either, but there are more important, real things to be bothered by in relation to this case, rather than message board posts by people understandably angered by this atrocity.

“Words on the internet”.
How many times of you written those words on the internet?

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 03:29PM

Necro wrote: »

They were given new identities and released on a lifelong licence that Venables breached twice since then. Most recently for having images of child porn on his PC :rolleyes:

Neither should ever have been let out.

Meanwhile Thompson has apparently never reoffended and went on to live a normal life.

branie2 · 19-06-2019 03:30PM

And he has a boyfriend as well

Somedaythefire · 19-06-2019 03:30PM

GarIT wrote: »

The way the law works is that it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Based on what I have read which may not be the full story I would have reasonable doubts.

Because you've only read second hand information. There's a massive difference between seeing the evidence, and reading information about the evidence. Thankfully the reasonable doubt of people who haven't seen all the evidence counts for naught.

Necro · 19-06-2019 03:31PM

nehemiah wrote: »

Meanwhile Thompson has apparently never reoffended and went on to live a normal life.

Normal???

One of the boys later revealed that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the shopping centre, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic

You call that normal?

They were both animals and belong in a cage for the rest of their natural lives.

19-06-2019 03:31PM

nehemiah wrote: »

Meanwhile Thompson has apparently never reoffended and went on to live a normal life.

I looked over the report you linked me up with (thank you). The data is for prisoners from 17 years onwards though and the younger you are released, the higher the chance you will reoffend.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2019 03:33PM

spurious wrote: »

Or get parents to do their job and rear a child with high self-esteem that laughs off bullying from the spawn of parents who rear theirs to bully.

Sometimes laughing off bullies is very hard to do. And I don’t know what high self-esteem will do to ward off physical attacks.

jmayo · 19-06-2019 03:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

When these boys are released I don’t want them to pose a further danger to society, insofar as this can be prevented. My Pollyanna dream would be that prison would offer them the following:

1. Reinforcement that what they did was at the extreme end of being wrong and that’s why they are there.

2. The possibility of being able to be a much better person in the future and that restitution can be made.

3. To learn the rights of all humans and living beings, including themselves, matched with responsibilities.

4. To gain insights into what it is like to walk in other people’s shoes.

5 To gain an education so that they might be self-supporting in the future, or at least have a more rounded view of the world and an aspiration to learn more.

6 To get whatever psychological or medical help that might help to prevent them reoffending, To learn to be able to desist and deflect from perversion to sexual violence.

All that is an enormous ask of prison, educational and social services. They would need to know of role models of people who have transformed their lives from sexual violence, and they are thin enough on the ground. I’m guessing the families might not have too many good role models amongst their males.

Otherwise one or both of these boys will be a further significant danger to society when they are released, and indeed be in danger of their own lives if anyone gives a fcuk about the latter.

There is little way they will escape attention when they are released, other inmates will leak it out when they too get out. Ireland is too small a country to change identity without somebody getting word, and Britain will probably be out with Brexit etc. If one or both are from other European countries maybe they could merge into those societies with maybe a head start on language from parents etc.

Personally believe they have gone so far over the bounds they never deserve a second chance.

They carried out premeditated murder and rape.
One of the boys battered her, strangled her and raped her.
The other aided him and may for all we know had more involvement.

And that boy was arrogant enough to think he was smart enough to lie his way out of it.
In fact he lied his way into the frame and a guilty verdict.

Of course the do gooders will believe his bullcr** and are already giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The jury thankfully saw his arrogance, saw his conniving manipulation and rightfully found him guilty.

These remind me of the type that in the US walk into a classroom and riddle it full of bullets.

A clinical psychologist claimed that boy B was suffering from PTSB and that he was traumatised.
Yep he was so traumatised that in multiple interviews over number of days he confidently lied through his ass, only changing his story when his lies were found out.

Any clinical psychologists I know always look for the good in people, maybe they need to sometimes start from the other end.

You deserve a second chance if you accidentaly kill or maim someone, if you steal something, if you were drunk or drugged out of your skull and did harm to someone and then really show remorse and regret.

You do not deserve second chance if you set out to rape and batter someone to death.
And especially so if it is a child.

It doesn't matter if the killer or rapist is also a child, they are guilty of premeditated thought out evil.

And no I am not religious, don't believe in God or heaven, but I do bloody well believe in evil.

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 03:42PM

Necro wrote: »

Normal???

You call that normal?

They were both animals and belong in a cage for the rest of their natural lives.

Went on to live a normal life. As in after he murdered someone and served his sentence.

Didn't really think that would need explaining but anyway.

Necro · 19-06-2019 03:44PM

nehemiah wrote: »

Went on to live a normal life. As in after he murdered someone and served his sentence.

Didn't really think that would need explaining but anyway.

Normal is stealing a few penny sweets from the counter and learning from it.

Torturing and murdering a three year old child is not normal at any age.

jimmycrackcorm · 19-06-2019 03:44PM

I was intrigued by boy Bs father outburst in court. He would have watched all the interview recordings and seen the repeated lies and story changes by B.
Perhaps he is reading this thread, so my question is why he didn't insist and advise that his son tell the absolute whole truth from the very start.
I suspect that he told him that youre innocent until proven guilty which requires the Gardai to find the evidence and the more you keep your mouth shut, the greater chance of getting off. He sounded pissed because they didn't present the evidence in its entirety so the boy had to change his story to keep up..

Had he instead told the whole truth from the start then I doubt that he'd be getting a sentence for murder. It would be something lesser. But his own evidence made him look the conniving murder conspirator.

If his father is reading this then he should know that he is a failure for not convincing his kid to tell the whole truth upfront.

Gimme A Pound · 19-06-2019 03:45PM

shutup wrote: »

“Words on the internet”.
How many times of you written those words on the internet?

They were in relation to two people who were found guilty of murder. People's outrage over those words in the context of everything else was pretty weird at best.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 03:46PM

spurious wrote: »

Or get parents to do their job and rear a child with high self-esteem that laughs off bullying from the spawn of parents who rear theirs to bully.

By pressing the “high self esteem” button on the back of the children’s necks?

InTheShadows · 19-06-2019 03:47PM

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Just want to say i know your post is well intentioned but some of these kids are just plain bad and no amount of "feeling classes" or the like is going to help. The simple solution is with the principle of the school ultimately and the department to back them up. If a principle feels a kid is bullying and has the evidence make an example and expel them and stick to this with every single bully. It is the responsibility of the school to think of the good of the collective not some s h ithead who bullies innocent sweet kids.

boardise · 19-06-2019 03:47PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he brought her to meet another boy who had expressed a desire to murder her. manslaughter does not apply.

If B was not heavily implicated and was merely a witness to the actions of A -he would have told the told the truth.
By telling a slew of lies and incoherences he hampered the inquiries and therefore could presumably be charged with obstructing the course of justice.

Boggles · 19-06-2019 03:49PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Had he instead told the whole truth from the start then I doubt that he'd be getting a sentence for murder.

I don't see how that could be.

The "truth" is he conspired to kill the girl and is now guilty of murder according to 12 people.

That's the only truth that matters really.

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

Comments