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

Fan of Netflix · 20-06-2019 11:13PM

https://www.thejournal.ie/boy-b-ana-kriegel-family-assault-4690675-Jun2019/

Relation of Boy B attacked last month in Dublin.

Gadgetman496 · 20-06-2019 11:16PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Her bully's were in secondary school and that was primary school

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

Sardonicat · 20-06-2019 11:19PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

Sigh

The teacher you are referring to was her resource teacher at primary school. What she alerted the patents to was Ana"s vulnerability to bullying in secondary school due to her trusting nature, not that she was being bullied.

Dual wheels · 20-06-2019 11:21PM

Reading through the full story I can’t believe the amount of concessions the killers were given by the guards and the judge, if they were old enough to maim and destroy the body of a young girl then they are old enough to be named and shamed for their actions
Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

gctest50 · 20-06-2019 11:21PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Her bully's were in secondary school and that was primary school

A scumbag in third year in <SNIP> grabbed her arse and propositioned her for sex

She was in primary school at the time

He got some sort of caution

Filthy little cesspit of paedos and now murderers

iguana · 20-06-2019 11:25PM

Does the law preventing the identification of the boys apply to their own families? What if at some point a parent or sibling of one of the boys wants to come forward and tell their story publicly? Are they gagged from sharing details about their own life in order to continue protecting a pair of murderers?

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:26PM

Dual wheels wrote: »

Reading through the full story I can’t believe the amount of concessions the killers were given by the guards and the judge, if they were old enough to maim and destroy the body of a young girl then they are old enough to be named and shamed for their actions
Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

It is smart to make those concessions.

Then the lads have no come back. They can't claim bad treatment. Unfair or harsh interrogation. Breach of their rights. They are left with no come back.

B was convicted largely on admissions he made during garda questioning. His defense lawyers main route to get him off would have been to make those admissions inadmissible. Due to breaches in custody regulations. The Gardaí would know this and would go out of their way to be nice as pie to him. Give him lots of breaks. Be friendly. No threats or inducements.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 11:27PM

iguana wrote: »

Does the law preventing the identification of the boys apply to their own families? What if at some point a parent or sibling of one of the boys wants to come forward and tell their story publicly? Are they gagged from sharing details about their own life in order to continue protecting a pair of murderers?

There would be nothing stopping them from telling the story while withholding their real name and other factors that identifies the convicted.

Gadgetman496 · 20-06-2019 11:27PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Sigh

The teacher you are referring to was her resource teacher at primary school. What she alerted the patents to was Ana"s vulnerability to bullying in secondary school due to her trusting nature, not that she was being bullied.

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Gimme A Pound · 20-06-2019 11:28PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

It appears they were pretty much powerless - wouldn't be the only time. Quite simply ridiculous that children get to call the shots and not the adults supervising them. The school up the street from me where a boy I know transferred due to bullying has a zero tolerance policy. It's not impossible. Schools can't protect teenagers 100% of the time - I accept that - but they have a duty of care.

Dual wheels wrote: »

Interestingly if someone from a jurisdiction with no extradition treaty with Ireland such as panama decided to post the boys details online there’s not a thing Irish law enforcement could do about it

Wondered that all right.

STB. · 20-06-2019 11:29PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Tonight the following is true:

Boy A and Boy B are detained and will be for many years. This is right and proper.

Will the sentence imposed ever match the life they took ?

They will most likely receive a life sentence each, with a review clause in 10 years time. They may well be out in 10-12 years, at that stage in their mid 20s with their whole lives ahead of them.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Wannabe vigilantes, keyboard hard men and people who get some weird, sad satisfaction from seeming more distressed/or outraged about the situation have been clamouring for the names... the pictures... for the parents to be imprisoned... for their other children to be seized and handed over to strangers.

You think that the parents of these boys have no culpability whatsoever ? Not even a small bit ? I don't think there will be any vigilantism or any hint of it. The local people in this area know the perpetrators and have known for some time. Has there been an issue with vigilantism ?

Whats all this about other children being seized - I haven't read that here ? That's a matter for the child protective services of this country if anything, if it even was an issue.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I make absolutely no apology for knowing and saying that those in that camp are shameful, and those who share your feelings are responsible for the other truths of this night:

An innocent child has been named, shamed and shared as one of the perpetrators;

The family of Boy B, who include other young and totally innocent children have been forced into hiding.

What other truths of this night are you rambling about ?

The family of Boy B have been forced into hiding because of the actions of their son. Yes, it may be in the public domain. And its most certainly in the local domain, so are we talking about genuine fear from locals or the fear of the shame that the child they raised was found guilty of murder ?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And for what?

The general public have been fed much of the harrowing and gruesome details of this case through court reports and the vast majority are genuinely shocked that two 13 year old boys could have done such a terrible act (the jury is this case are probably the worst affected!). The two found guilty are the youngest killers in the history of the state.

It may seem unprecedented that killers are not named and may never be (as they are protected by Child protective legislation and a judges decision). Many members of the public fear that their kids/siblings may unwittingly come in contact with them in 10-12 years time.

That is called public interest, and is one of the the areas that a judge can remove a gagging order on anonymity. But that may will be revisited when these boys apply to attend a review date of their sentence in the future, by which stage they will be adults.

You shouldn't need this spelt out for you or need to use all that OTT emotive language.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 11:29PM

tuxy wrote: »

We will never know what legal advice he got, if he followed that legal advice or if he also lied to his legal advisers.

What we do know is that once the Garda started to call him out on his lies with witnesses and evidence to prove he was lying he tried to pass all blame onto Boy A but in doing so only incriminated himself. It is also known that Boy B was originally under the mistaken impression that he could only get in a small amount of trouble because it was not him that did the actual killing.

Boy B believed he would be got on some lesser charge of misrepresentation a few weeks in prison and he would be free. He really believed he was in control. I don't know what went on with his solicitors but it seems they were equally flummoxed with Boys B video evidence. We see in Boys B final statement he wanted his mother out of the room before he came clean he was present during the killing of Ana. So this may be a reason he did not come clean with his solicitor. Even though he is a minor I would if I was representing him seek an interview with him all on his own to run through the case with him this is prior to questioning began. Here again maybe the solicitor did that and Boy B did not cooperate with him. What I understand is the solicitors have not a right to be present during the questioning by law but because of the age they allow. The arrest for questioning for suspicion of murder would have all my alarm bells going and I would be seeking to get to the bottom of the charges before questioning began. Its such a serious charge and could only happen where the state had a formidable case prepared. I would see Boy A being advised by his solicitor to the "no comment " and "cant remember" are legalistic jargon's.

iguana · 20-06-2019 11:31PM

tuxy wrote: »

There would be nothing stopping them from telling the story while withholding their real name and other factors that identifies the convicted.

Which completely prevents them from being open and honest about it. I know some people who have very close relatives who committed awful crimes and for some, being able to say it and distance themselves from it is extremely important to their mental health. This prevents them from ever being able to do that and that's actually not ok. They may never want to but they should not have the option to taken away from them.

BloodBath · 20-06-2019 11:32PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

The jeannie is out of the bottle, once out it not going back in. The facts are that most 12 yrs old are being fed a stable diet of porn. Those kids without smart phones see their friends ones. Exch porn is the new way to exch as people did of stamps at one time. Making porn only avail to adults is peppered with assumptions. In Brit kids steal their parents credit cards to get access unknown to them as no charges arise. Time to consider teaching kids about the realities of porn & the effect it can have on them.

This has nothing to do with porn. Most likely not the parents either. People looking to demonise and punish them are sickening. This is the usual looking for external factors to blame this on.

The reality is around 1% of boys/men the world over are psychopaths. A smaller number of these go on to become dangerous killers but most of them are horrible bastards.

This has been the case before the internet, porn, movies, music, video games, possession, the parents or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.

While most of the above can contribute to the behaviour of this 1% it doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is genetic and there is no cure/rehabilitation other than a bullet to the head.

Many famous "great leaders" of the past like Alexander the great were psychopaths. Many leaders today are too.

Serious lack of understanding of this in society. Identifying this group of people should be a top priority for everybody as we all know some. The majority of pain and suffering the world over is caused by this demographic.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 11:33PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Sickening, it's been less than two hours since someone tried to place some blame on poor Ana's parents and here we are again.
They knew she would be a target for bullies in any environment with her peers. She had issues which her two very supporting parents were helping her with along with a councillor.
Progress was being made, she sound like the kind of person who would have flourished in college which makes this whole thing even more tragic.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 11:34PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know for a fact she was being bullied, it's irrelevant which school it was happening in. What is relevant is that it appears to have not been dealt with by her guardians, the very people we are all supposed to entrust our children to while they are in school.

Not true, we know a scenarios was allowed develop in Ana's secondary school of extreme bullying and they were not proactive enough is protecting her despite the forwardness from her primary school. As for he mum and dad and granny the best anyone could want.

IontachSpraoi · 20-06-2019 11:35PM

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

dickangel · 20-06-2019 11:35PM

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/boy-b-ana-kriegel-family-assault-4690675-Jun2019/

Relation of Boy B attacked last month in Dublin.

I always feel like these vigilante types are the dregs of society and murderers or pedophiles are the only type of person they hold the moral highground over. The fact that they assaulted a relative just because he's a relative goes to show their level of intellect. Not to mention that a verdict hadn't been reached at the time of the assault.

Gimme A Pound · 20-06-2019 11:36PM

tuxy wrote: »

Sickening, it's been less than two hours since someone tried to place some blame on poor Ana's parents.
They knew she would be a target for bullies in any environment with her peers. She had issues which her two very supporting parents were helping her with along with a councillor.
Progress was being made, she sound like the kind of person who would have flourished in college which makes this whole thing even more tragic.

I think he was referring to the school in its guise as guardians.

I agree too. Schools are in loco parentis and it's totally farcical that a child can be tormented and terrorised there.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:36PM

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Will they be in isolation in Oberstown? I reckon they could be killed in there if not.

I don't think Oberstown has a facility to isolate prisoners.
Each kid has an individual bedroom and then there are communal areas for dining , recreation etc.
If I recollect right staff there got in trouble previously for isolating a misbehaving youth in his bedroom for too long.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 11:37PM

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

What do you believe the mistake was?
Was there any unique features to the back of their heads that could be used to identify them?

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 11:40PM

BloodBath wrote: »

This has nothing to do with porn. Most likely not the parents either. People looking to demonise and punish them are sickening. This is the usual looking for external factors to blame this on.

The reality is around 1% of boys/men the world over are psychopaths. A smaller number of these go on to become dangerous killers but most of them are horrible bastards.

This has been the case before the internet, porn, movies, music, video games, possession, the parents or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.

While most of the above can contribute to the behaviour of this 1% it doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is genetic and there is no cure/rehabilitation other than a bullet to the head.

Many famous "great leaders" of the past like Alexander the great were psychopaths. Many leaders today are too.

Serious lack of understanding of this in society. Identifying this group of people should be a top priority for everybody as we all know some. The majority of pain and suffering the world over is caused by this demographic.

The sexual nature to the crime on their young age implies internet learning and Boy A had a fine collection of porn and was searching for animal and child porn. I would not be surprised if Boy B his friend was getting a good look at this too if he had not his own collection. Something like 10% of sex crimes are now committed by young teenagers on younger.

Fan of Netflix · 20-06-2019 11:40PM

dickangel wrote: »

I always feel like these vigilante types are the dregs of society and murderers or pedophiles are the only type of person they hold the moral highground over. The fact that they assaulted a relative just because he's a relative goes to show their level of intellect. Not to mention that a verdict hadn't been reached at the time of the assault.

Sounds like someone with local knowledge assaulted one of the fathers.

IontachSpraoi · 20-06-2019 11:41PM

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

It also showed either their parents or barristers, I believe. Seemed a bit odd that identifying them has been strictly forbidden, and then a fairly detailed sketch appears of them (albeit the back of their heads). Even if it identified things like skin colour / hair colour - which it did - it could lead to further identification.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 11:43PM

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

It also showed either their parents or barristers, I believe. Seemed a bit odd that identifying them has been strictly forbidden, and then a fairly detailed sketch appears of them (albeit the back of their heads). Even if it identified things like skin colour / hair colour - which it did - it could lead to further identification.

Fairly mild compared to the mistake made on Red FM then.
The sketch probably should have been black and white.

IontachSpraoi · 20-06-2019 11:43PM

tuxy wrote: »

What do you believe the mistake was?
Was there any unique features to the back of their heads that could be used to identify them?

Sorry, I didn't see this before my last post. It just seemed odd that nothing had ever been shown before, and here we were being presented with fairly blatant details of the boys' appearance.

STB. · 20-06-2019 11:49PM

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't see this before my last post. It just seemed odd that nothing had ever been shown before, and here we were being presented with fairly blatant details of the boys' appearance.

An artist impression of a courtroom scene identifies nobody from the back of their heads. I would imagine the artist impression only achieved one thing, to add to the disbelief that yes they were very young etc.

When you get your first passport you will experience the reality of facial recognition.

Mellor · 20-06-2019 11:50PM

Fall_Guy wrote: »

...and they may well be (or at least boy a) psychopaths.... But if that's the case, they are 1. Beyond rehabilitation and 2. Not truly in control of their actions....What you are viewing as a person's choice to commit evil acts is really far less of an act of free will than you are painting it.

Boy A could very well be a clinical psychopath.
I've no idea why you are making the leap from there to not being in control of their actions? A lack of guilt, empathy, and emotional attachments are traits of psychopathy. There's nothing about being a psychopath that relates to not being in control.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:50PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

The sexual nature to the crime on their young age implies internet learning and Boy A had a fine collection of porn and was searching for animal and child porn. I would not be surprised if Boy B his friend was getting a good look at this too if he had not his own collection. Something like 10% of sex crimes are now committed by young teenagers on younger.

That doesn't mean he was normal to begin with. And porn changed him into a psychopath.

If he was a psychopath to begin with, predisposed to violence and sexual violence to begin with, then he would seek out such porn if available to him. Just like he would seek out victims to attack and abuse when the time was right. Non availability of porn wouldn't mean he would not rape or kill people.

Some people are born with an incapacity to feel empathy and a propensity to harm others.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 11:52PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

We know the teacher identified Ana was being bullied.

We know she made it known to Ana's parents.

What we don't know is what she did if anything to reprimand the bullies.

Ana had no peer friend which sounds awful. As for bullying the school was in a posh suburb that they thought there was no need for a bullying policy. What we see from the surrounding circumstances Ana was in crisis before it was identified as a problem. Boy A & Boy B were in her class, both saw her as being vulnerable and played on it. It really astonishes me in 2019 that kids could be so mean, though we had overcome all this of old.

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

Comments