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

Gimme A Pound · 19-06-2019 03:50PM

Yeah people can certainly be shaped by a terrible childhood of abuse, neglect, deprivation, addiction. Not so these lads. Some people are just sh1t.

MrMusician18 · 19-06-2019 03:52PM

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.

Well there was no physical evidence only Boy B's words put him there. Not the mark of the high intellect criminal master mind that some posters are trying to make him out to be.

If he had stonewalled the detectives he wouldn't have even been tried, let alone convicted.

Skylinehead · 19-06-2019 03:52PM

Necro wrote: »

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.

Can you read? Please stop misrepresenting arguments, it's entirely disingenuous.

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 03:53PM

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

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.

No problem. The report does say that, but doesn't indicate whether that is applicable across the board. For example, most younger prisoners will be released after short sentences and many will be actively involved in the drugs trade.

For these reasons the report should be taken with a pinch of salt to an extent. These boys will not be 'normal' prisoners, they will serve an extended period of time in jail and won't be that young by the time they are released.

The report also doesn't highlight what offences the 26% were convicted. But as I said in my earlier post it would appear that only a very small percentage of convicted murderers kill again upon their release. I am not aware of any in Ireland and I would imagine if there are any they would be drug/paramilitary related.

However, I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Somedaythefire · 19-06-2019 03:54PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well there was no physical evidence only Boy B's words put him there. Not the mark of the high intellect criminal master mind that some posters are trying to make him out to be.

If he had stonewalled the detectives he wouldn't have even been tried, let alone convicted.

As I said earlier in the thread, the kid might have fancied himself as a high intellect criminal. Kids overestimate their own intelligence, especially if they're good in primary school.

Lackadaisical · 19-06-2019 03:55PM

It seems that the judge has hauled Facebook and Twitter's representatives into court over publications that identified the two minors convicted in this case and has pointed out that the court has "unlimited powers" of detention and fine for anyone found in contempt of court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/facebook-and-twitter-ordered-to-court-over-identification-of-boys-1.3930913?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So, if you do get any messages identifying either of them, even reposting could potentially carry fairly serious legal consequences.

It sounds like one of those kinds of things that works in theory rather than practise, but it still carries potentially very real penalties.

Necro · 19-06-2019 03:55PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Can you read? Please stop misrepresenting arguments, it's entirely disingenuous.

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Skylinehead · 19-06-2019 03:56PM

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Oh my god. Do you know what the word after means? Why do I have to explain this?

You're not arguing in good faith here at all.

freshpopcorn · 19-06-2019 03:59PM

Bullying is a very complex(if that's the correct word in school, work, online, etc.
*Take in schools for example. It's one persons word against another and it can be hard to prove unless they are witnesses/etc.(Of course they are useless teachers/etc)
*Another issue is how schools are resourced. I know locally one school A would be more suited to kids who may have had various types of needs or behavior issues. This schools has more councilors/activities/etc whilst the other schools don't have them. Now the government could provide these resources in schools but there is sort of a prudish attitude and some parent feel school A isn't academic enough for there kids.
*When I was at school there was a lad with learning difficulties. Most people were nice to him. He had a group of friends and they were into playstation/etc. However he tried to befriend another groups of guys who was cooler and they were fine with him at first but they found him tough going. They had nothing in common and they always had to be looking after him. He sort of ended up isolated at times.
*When I was in primary school we got on fairly well as a class but we knew they were some people we didn't mix well with and we just stayed out of their way. Now there's this type of everybody has to be friends/get on and I wonder is that the right attitude to have at times.
*Whilst Ireland and other countries has come along way with thing such as sexuality in the last few years. There is a lot of nastiness out there and online. You see it on here if somebody asks a question that might be silly or somebody makes a mistake people love berating them with emojis or smart comments.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 19-06-2019 03:59PM

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

What's you definition of "after"?

Obviously nobody's saying the fcuking murder was normal, it was pointed out that AFTER their release, one boy reoffended and one boy AFTER release went on to live a normal life.

It's like the opposite of before. You know how the way the weather comes on after the news.

Necro · 19-06-2019 04:03PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Oh my god. Do you know what the word after means? Why do I have to explain this?

You're not arguing in good faith here at all.

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 04:05PM

Necro wrote: »

Obviously we have a different definition of normal, I don't consider anything about those two animals normal in any way shape or form.

Just stop. You're either completely misunderstanding or on the WUM.

Either way you look like an fool.

Always Tired · 19-06-2019 04:07PM

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.

Yeah wow, why don't all the parents of kids being bullied just do that, problem solved?

I'd like to see how well adjusted you would be if you were adopted, taken to a foreign country where they spoke a different language, were deaf in one ear due to having a tumor removed, were completely ostracized by your peers. Sexually harrassed as well (the halloween incident)

Yeah just laugh it all off.

strathspey · 19-06-2019 04:07PM

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Yeah people can certainly be shaped by a terrible childhood of abuse, neglect, deprivation, addiction. Not so these lads. Some people are just sh1t.

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

GarIT · 19-06-2019 04:08PM

Somedaythefire wrote: »

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.

Which is why I literally said I may not have the full story.

GarIT · 19-06-2019 04:09PM

strathspey wrote: »

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

What did the parents do or not do that caused this then?

nehemiah · 19-06-2019 04:09PM

Necro wrote: »

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

That point is fine, you are entitled to it. But to emphasise your point you said "look at Venables, he was caught with child porn." What you purposely didn't say "look at Thompson, he never reoffended."

This was clearly on purpose, so don't talk about 'word lawyering'.

jimmycrackcorm · 19-06-2019 04:12PM

Boggles wrote: »

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.

His defence could have put it that he was led by and influenced by boy A. In that scenario, convicting a 13 year old of murder would have been extremely difficult.

It was his lying that got him convicted.

retro:electro · 19-06-2019 04:14PM

Hoboo wrote: »

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.

It reminds me of an incident that Judge Judy (bear with me) often recites when she’s lecturing someone about when she used to preside in Criminal Court. She once sentenced a group of five girls to murder even though only one of the girls dealt any fatal blows. What it came down to for her, and she is right, is the but for the fact. But for the fact that these four other girls didn’t conspire to meet the victim and lead her to the one who murdered her and watch as she got stabbed, the victim might still be alive today.
And that’s what I feel boy B’s conviction rests on too. But for the fact he never made it his business to clearly lead Ana to her death, she may never have met boy A and could still be alive today. And but for the fact he never alerted anyone to the fact he had witnessed an assault and left as she was screaming for her life, she may still have had a chance to live.

Skylinehead · 19-06-2019 04:18PM

Necro wrote: »

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

It was the entire argument, not "words lawyering".

Basically you took a snipe at a poster over absolutely nothing.

80sChild · 19-06-2019 04:19PM

strathspey wrote: »

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

Maybe true in some cases of clear emotional neglect, but some people are just born on the psychopathy/dark triad scale. Not all parents of offenders are at fault. Nature v nurture argument I suppose. You would have to wonder if either boys parents saw dark behaviour before this. Seems a huge leap from "normal" to torture, rape and murder with no evidence of progression in between.

Necro · 19-06-2019 04:24PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

It was the entire argument, not "words lawyering".

Basically you took a snipe at a poster over absolutely nothing.

Did I?

I was responding to another poster actually and got drawn into this discussion - as per my original post on the issue:

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.

Where's the sniping, the other poster then responded to me and I disagree that anything after that incident should be considered normal in respect of either Venables or Thompson.

What's the issue?

GarIT · 19-06-2019 04:25PM

InTheShadows wrote: »

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.

I completely agree. I was just replying to someone who said we need classes on bullying in schools so I said classes on empathy would be more effective.

From my experience schools can't expel students in this country without a great amount of effort. We have a constitutional right to education that gets in the way of effective discipline in school.

Strazdas · 19-06-2019 04:27PM

retro:electro wrote: »

It reminds me of an incident that Judge Judy (bear with me) often recites when she’s lecturing someone about when she used to preside in Criminal Court. She once sentenced a group of five girls to murder even though only one of the girls dealt any fatal blows. What it came down to for her, and she is right, is the but for the fact. But for the fact that these four other girls didn’t conspire to meet the victim and lead her to the one who murdered her and watch as she got stabbed, the victim might still be alive today.
And that’s what I feel boy B’s conviction rests on too. But for the fact he never made it his business to clearly lead Ana to her death, she may never have met boy A and could still be alive today. And but for the fact he never alerted anyone to the fact he had witnessed an assault and left as she was screaming for her life, she may still have had a chance to live.

The fact that A physically attacked Ana virtually the moment she entered the abandoned house (this was the conclusion of the pathologist), makes me think it was a premeditated attack and that she was brought to the house with the intention of something terrible happening to her.

B never credibly explained why she was brought to such a remote location. He didn't even like Ana and wasn't friends with her.

Incidentally, prosecution don't even believe his claim that he left before or during her murder.

Dante7 · 19-06-2019 04:27PM

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

Shanotheslayer · 19-06-2019 04:28PM

Necro wrote: »

I disagree that anything after that incident should be considered normal in respect of either Venables or Thompson.

What's the issue?

You're wrong.

Beechwoodspark · 19-06-2019 04:29PM

Dante7 wrote: »

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

Is that what Boy B said or is there independent verification of that ?

threeball · 19-06-2019 04:29PM

I hope the parents in this case never sleep another night.

To know the evidence that was available against these two scumbags and yet standby and allow them to plead not guilty, placing a huge burden on Annas parents on top of already unimaginable weight of the loss and wondering how she died.

If it was my son he would have been made come clean and explain to those poor people exactly what happened and then he'd do his time. No reasonable person would stand back and allow their child double down on such a terrible wrong unless they have serious issues themselves. If you want to know how this occurred you need look no further than these parents who obviously facilitated these rats in every way possible.

Always Tired · 19-06-2019 04:30PM

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.

The tape around her neck came from his house also, don't forget that.

He is just as responsible, he facilitated the entire thing. Without his involvement, does Ana go to that park? No.

Boy A had asked him to help him kill Ana before. He wasn't confident to do it alone. Kids that age (myself included), their worst misbehavior is rarely done alone, usually when they do something they really know they shouldn't it's with an accomplice or group. He sent Boy B probably so he couldnt be identified.

Feisar · 19-06-2019 04:30PM

dickangel wrote: »

Boy A was supposedly tall for his age, and skilled in martial arts.

As someone who came up the line in the old school karate and is saddened to see the watered down kids karate that's being peddled these days I wouldn't put to much store in his skill.

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

Comments