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

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 01:50PM

Ace Attorney wrote: »

Thats seriously ****ed up then, was it phyiscal in nature or worse....

Also i cant help think the school didnt pursue bc it didn't want trouble

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, but it seems that an awful lot of schools - despite well worded bullying policies - are absolutely useless at handling serious bullying incidents and, in some cases, will try to deny or minimise what is happening.

Strazdas · 20-06-2019 01:51PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, (and I know all the comments here are) it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

Yes, it's a very point. No matter what Ana was thinking, an innocuous incident like this ending up with her being murdered by two of her peers was quite an unbelievable and horrific outcome. It's impossible to get your head around it.

retro:electro · 20-06-2019 01:51PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. We are actually saying that the two boys made a calculated decision to target Ana because she wasn't streetwise and savvy. That reflects on them, not on her. It in no way takes 'a little portion of the blame from them'.

Are you seriously saying that if someone is a little innocent or naive that it might be partly their fault if they are taken advantage of? It would neve have crossed my mind to think such a thing.

I’m not sure how you got that from my comment?

I was actually saying the opposite

topmanamillion · 20-06-2019 01:53PM

JuneMoon7 wrote: »

Absolutely. That is a terrible story, poor girl. And as for teachers..a child should never have to pluck up the courage to tell a teacher they are being bullied. In most cases they wont have the nerve to do it. teachers should have the emotional intelligence and basic common sense to pick up on it. They should be approaching the child, not the other way around. That said, i would like to think that if/when children do reach out to a parent or teacher, that SOMETHING is being done. It is every bit as much the teachers responsibility as anyone's to put an end to a child's suffering.

Parents should control their feral children.

I dont buy this stuff for a second about it being "the teachers responsibility". Passing the buck nonsense at its finest.

The process should be Teacher informs parents - parents take necessary action against their child to stop it.

Instead of that, the process is more often than not: Teacher informs parent(s) - Teacher is verbally abused by parent(s) for having the cheek to point out their child's wrong doing - Teacher left under no illusion where the bully has gotten their behaviour from.

joe40 · 20-06-2019 01:53PM

Ace Attorney wrote: »

Thats seriously ****ed up then, was it phyiscal in nature or worse....

Also i cant help think the school didnt pursue bc it didn't want trouble

A school can only suspend pupils, that is their only sanction. When you have difficult children they can go trough the whole range of sanctions available in a few months. Expulsions are virtually impossible.

There are plenty of kids in schools all around Ireland where suspensions aren't even a punishment, just a few days off.

How a school is responsible for the actions of these boys is beyond me.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 01:54PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not sure how you got that from my comment?
I was actually saying the opposite

But you said that by saying she was naive that was alsmost saying that the boys weren't totally responsible. I don't understand why you would equate comments about her 'not being streetwise' or 'being very innocent' as people seeing her fate as being partly her own fault. Surely it makes the boys almost worse (if that could be possible) for deliberately targetting a girl who they knew would be easily taken in and would go trustingly with them to an abandoned house.

SirGerryAdams · 20-06-2019 01:55PM

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Sardonicat · 20-06-2019 01:55PM

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Just officially name them. They haven’t been sentenced yet and even if emotions die down for a few weeks everything will be full on again when that happens. Least then no innocent kids will be tarnished with being them as is happening now.

I agree with you. But the Children's Act forbids it. I really think in cases of murder and sexual assault the right to anonymity should be forfeited if found guilty.It's utterly pointless in a country so small. The boys are safely locked up now so don't need protecting from a mob. All that's happening now is photos of boys with the same name are being circulated and falsely identified as murderers.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 01:55PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think she was naïve to not know she was going to be led to her death and battered so brutally by the guy she liked. I don’t like when people say “if only she was wiser”, because however well intended that comment may be, (and I know all the comments here are) it takes a little portion of the blame from the two delinquents who murdered her and places it on her shoulders for not being street wise enough. All over the country you have boys and girls knocking into each other and teens “going out for a minute” and it’s extremely rare that anything fatal ever comes of these instances. She was probably thinking this is what normal people do, and so happy to have someone call for her that she didn’t think twice about any danger. What happened to her isn’t a reflection of her nativity, rather a reflection on how disturbed and fcuked up the two boys are.

I would guess that Boy A laid the groundwork well in advance.
Having previously been mean to her he probably started being nice. He probably led her to believe he liked her. That would be consistent with the manipulative psychopath he appears to be.

TheW1zard · 20-06-2019 01:56PM

I figured out who they were in 10 minutes by using the google machine. I dont know if they should be named or not though thats a tricky one.

Strazdas · 20-06-2019 01:56PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. We are actually saying that the two boys made a calculated decision to target Ana because she wasn't streetwise and savvy. That reflects on them, not on her. It in no way takes 'a little portion of the blame from them'.

Are you seriously saying that if someone is a little innocent or naive that it might be partly their fault if they are taken advantage of? It would never have crossed my mind to think such a thing.

Boy B referred to Ana as a "weirdo" at one point. It's obvious they regarded her as 'other' and different. If ever they were going to go after someone, it would be someone they perceived to be different. Maybe they somehow thought it would increase their chances of getting away with it or something.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 01:56PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

I agree with you. But the Children's Act forbids it. I really think in cases of murder and sexual assault the right to anonymity should be forfeited if found guilty.It's utterly pointless in a country so small. The boys are safely locked up now so don't need protecting from a mob. All that's happening now is photos of boys with the same name are being circulated and falsely identified as murderers.

No, but their families might. Mob mentality can be nasty and illogical and can also attract some very thick but very violent people.

Lefty Bicek · 20-06-2019 01:57PM

joe40 wrote: »

The story as quoted is accurate, there was "paedo" graffiti daubed on a paediatrician house.
Later exaggerations about beatings etc are false.

No. The story as quoted refers to 'self-styled vigilantes', so the story is not accurate.

Unless you think 'self-styled vigilantes' is just another way of saying 'youngsters' ?

The point about mob/vigilante violence is still valid, mistakes can and are made.

I know mistakes can be and are made, I already said so.

tayto lover · 20-06-2019 01:59PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Doubt they give a s*** now because they didn’t then and were very cool and calculating during their interrogations. Psychos imo.

joe40 · 20-06-2019 02:00PM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No. The story as quoted refers to 'self-styled vigilantes', so the story is not accurate.

Unless you think 'self-styled vigilantes' is just another way of saying 'youngsters' ?

I know mistakes can be and are made, I already said so.

Considering the nature of this thread I hope you are not going to suggest that "youngsters" are harmless

20-06-2019 02:01PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

No, but their families might. Mob mentality can be nasty and illogical and can also attract some very thick but very violent people.

All anyone has to do is travel to Leixlip and talk to a few locals ad they’d know where they live anyway.

Has anything happened to their families or homes since the boys were charged? I’m not from area so don’t know v

captbarnacles · 20-06-2019 02:02PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

I think Boy A regrets being caught. That's about it.

retro:electro · 20-06-2019 02:03PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

But you said that by saying she was naive that was alsmost saying that the boys weren't totally responsible. I don't understand why you would equate comments about her 'not being streetwise' or 'being very innocent' as people seeing her fate as being partly her own fault. Surely it makes the boys almost worse (if that could be possible) for deliberately targetting a girl who they knew would be easily taken in and would go trustingly with them to an abandoned house.

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

optogirl · 20-06-2019 02:04PM

I think I'm just crying out to hear that these boys had a terrible home life, neglect or trauma or SOMETHING that would give some reason for why this happened. It's awful but I am actually hoping that they came from terrible homes because the alternative is just so scary.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 02:06PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Seems to me they have one regret that is getting caught

Grayson · 20-06-2019 02:06PM

topmanamillion wrote: »

Parents should control their feral children.

I dont buy this stuff for a second about it being "the teachers responsibility". Passing the buck nonsense at its finest.

The process should be Teacher informs parents - parents take necessary action against their child to stop it.

Instead of that, the process is more often than not: Teacher informs parent(s) - Teacher is verbally abused by parent(s) for having the cheek to point out their child's wrong doing - Teacher left under no illusion where the bully has gotten their behaviour from.

Do we have any evidence that the parents didn't look after their kids? This was the first offence they comitted. No-one says there were warning signs that the parents could have noticed before.

Ace Attorney · 20-06-2019 02:07PM

joe40 wrote: »

A school can only suspend pupils, that is their only sanction. When you have difficult children they can go trough the whole range of sanctions available in a few months. Expulsions are virtually impossible.

There are plenty of kids in schools all around Ireland where suspensions aren't even a punishment, just a few days off.

How a school is responsible for the actions of these boys is beyond me.

When a serious assault occurs and the school doesnt protect its students its not good enough. The school isnt responsible for what happened to ana at the hands of these boys tho. Thats a huge stretch of blame to claim that.

But regardless i was actually refering to the serious assault another poster was saying happened at the school by boy a and b. And was wondering was it sweeped under the carpet.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 02:08PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

Little vermin that the sewer rats would avoid.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 02:09PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Regret their liberty is curtailed only

Igotadose · 20-06-2019 02:10PM

optogirl wrote: »

I think I'm just crying out to hear that these boys had a terrible home life, neglect or trauma or SOMETHING that would give some reason for why this happened. It's awful but I am actually hoping that they came from terrible homes because the alternative is just so scary.

Psychopathy in children is about 1% probability. Sometimes, you get the Harris/Klebolds of the world teaming up (and massacring others.) Sometimes, you get Boy A and Boy B, and it's not due to 'nurture.' They're born with it. Researchers can usually tell when the kids are 3 or 4 years old. So, yeah, scary indeed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 02:11PM

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Provided the blue sticky tape. He told the Gardai this - didnt have to say anything. giving someone tape is not a crime unless you know what they are going to use it for
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder. collecting ana and bringing her to the house is not a crime, it only becomes a crime if he knows what will happen
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.CCTV has him in the skate park - not going to and from the "scene"
4. Told lies about where he saw her last. again, he told lies. he spoke. didnt have to say a word
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry. not a crime - could easily said last time i saw was her in the field
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.not a crime
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.not a crime - you cannot convict someone on a "look"
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana. did they? thought it was only Boy A they saw. Anyway, again not a crime unless he knows what is about to happen

He would have got it hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

tayto lover wrote: »

We’ll have to agree to differ then.
The miles away bit I forgot to include. Why not outside her home or in anywhere there might be others not intent on harming Ana.
I would have convicted him on what I posted if I was on a jury. Maybe it’s a blessing i wasn’t and that it didn’t come to that.t
He’s as guilty as sin as we all know now anyway.

Yeah we'll have to agree to differ alright. I've no doubt he's guilty as sin as well, but my point was if he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing on him. I've broken down your points above.
There is nothing close to a conviction if he doesn't talk. No link to the scene, no witness to the attack, no lies to tell, no covering his tracks, no tape.
All they have is a witness account of him calling to the house and walking through the park on CCTV with Ana. That wouldnt even get close to court with the DPP. Never mind a murder conviction.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 02:12PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Boy B referred to Ana as a "weirdo" at one point. It's obvious they regarded her as 'other' and different. If ever they were going to go after someone, it would be someone they perceived to be different. Maybe they somehow thought it would increase their chances of getting away with it or something.

Absolutely he was on manipulation mode, "she was only a foreign slut we could do without" to diminish the nature of the crime.

average_runner · 20-06-2019 02:13PM

TheW1zard wrote: »

I figured out who they were in 10 minutes by using the google machine. I dont know if they should be named or not though thats a tricky one.

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

Boggles · 20-06-2019 02:14PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Absolutely he was on manipulation mode, "she was only a foreign slut we could do without" to diminish the nature of the crime.

Where did that quote come from?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 02:15PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

Maybe I took you up wrong, but you seemed to be saying that you were uncomfortable with people describing Ana as naive and innocent because it seemed as if by saying so they were taking some of the blame from the boys' shoulders and basically implying that if only she had been wiser it wouldn't have happened so it wasn't totally their fault.

I found that a strange view.

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

Comments