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

pablo128 · 24-06-2019 08:12AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

And?

Everything is repetitive at this stage.

No one has replied to my questions by the way.

Because out of the only 2 people in the world that know, ones a proven liar and the other shut his mouth through the interviews.

No one on Boards.ie can answer your questions

....... · 24-06-2019 08:17AM

gozunda wrote: »

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed?

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

TheAsYLuMkeY · 24-06-2019 08:20AM

....... wrote: »

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

make it law that you need to be 16 or over to own a 'device'

24-06-2019 08:22AM

Caledonia wrote: »

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

Completely agree. I think the jury ****ed that up. Surely there is reasonable doubt. They filled in the gaps themselves.

gozunda · 24-06-2019 08:31AM

....... wrote: »

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

And that's the crux of the matter highlighted.

In the UK the government is implementing restricted age related access to such sites.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/16/uk-online-porn-age-verification-launch

How that will work remains to be seen. That said there are possible technical solutions to this issue. It may not stop access to all pornography by children and teenagers but it will certainly make it more difficult...

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 08:39AM

pablo128 wrote: »

Because out of the only 2 people in the world that know, ones a proven liar and the other shut his mouth through the interviews.

No one on Boards.ie can answer your questions

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

pablo128 · 24-06-2019 08:43AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

It's a discussion forum not an AMA.

iamwhoiam · 24-06-2019 08:47AM

tuxy wrote: »

I don't think they spend months analysing every single item in the house.
Boy B eventually admitted to being there when the attack happened, his DNA was not on Ana's body or items used in the attack so further investigation into DNA would have been a waste of time and resources.

Well I didn’t mean on every wall in the house , I meant on the items like sticks and rocks and Anas clothes
Boy B left no DNA so I was just wondering what he had in his rucksack ? Possibly he disposed of items before going home . He might have been far far cleverer than Boy A .

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 08:56AM

pablo128 wrote: »

It's a discussion forum not an AMA.

:rolleyes:

Gatekeeping discussion now?

Hannibal_Smith · 24-06-2019 09:10AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

We haven't seen everything the jury have seen/heard. Not everything has been reported.

Road-Hog · 24-06-2019 09:32AM

gozunda wrote: »

To change the topic somewhat - one notable aspect of the case was the large amount of pornography that was found in boy A's procession. And by this I mean not just old style big boobs 'pornography' but violent and sadistic images and videos.

It is evident from the evidence which was presented in court that at least some of Boy A's sick and twisted behaviour appears to have been 'inspired' (for want of a better word) by some of this type of violent and sadistic imagery.

Imo in the minds of young and impressionable teenagers and children easy access to violent and sadistic pornography actually normalizes this type of behaviour. On line children see adults engaged in it - it's freely available and it becomes part of their learning about the world. Unfortunately it is learning that no one would want for their children imo.

Reading an article recently that in Hasidic Jewish communities, it detailed how minors are allowed zero or very limited access to the Internet with one of the the principle concerns us exposure to pornography.

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed? Yes there will always be some pornography which filters through but for the majority of children such ease of access to such material cannot be healthy.

There are many things which we restrict in the case of children and teenagers - such as driving and drinking on the basis that they lack the maturity to do so.

Parents of course can be the gate keepers for allowing appropriate internet access - the fact is many parents don't bother or do not have the skills to do so.

Good point. One wonders would graham Dwyer have evolved earlier into the monster he became if he had access to the vile stuff on the web when he was a 12/13 year old.....?

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 09:33AM

Caledonia wrote: »

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

What do you think he expected to happen at the house he brought Ana to? Boy A had told him only a month before that he wanted to kill Ana.
If he didn’t think she was going to be attacked didn’t want her to be attacked and then he saw her being attacked then why didn’t he run and get help?

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 09:41AM

Road-Hog wrote: »

You must be a barrister I take it. Still utterly way over the top hypothesis to present give the depravity of the attack......these guys have no filter.......!

Not a barrister...I wish...just have a very clear understanding of the basics of our excellent justice system and I’m very glad that feelings and emotions are largely set aside when determining life changing decisions like guilt and innocence.
In the end the result is what everyone except for the defendants and their families wanted.
And the defendants can’t appeal on the grounds that the jury weren’t asked to consider the suggestion that it was consensual sex that got out of hand.
Can you not see that?

gozunda · 24-06-2019 09:46AM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Good point. One wonders would graham Dwyer have evolved earlier into the monster he became if he had access to the vile stuff on the web when he was a 12/13 year old.....?

True but I suppose that we really dont know what Dwyer had access to or from where and in this case we are dealing with a child / teenager with evident links to online sadistic and violent pornography and sexual assault and murder.

Whatever the case - I doubt anyone would want their child exposed to that type of content - and take the risk.

24-06-2019 09:53AM

splinter65 wrote: »

What do you think he expected to happen at the house he brought Ana to? Boy A had told him only a month before that he wanted to kill Ana.
If he didn’t think she was going to be attacked didn’t want her to be attacked and then he saw her being attacked then why didn’t he run and get help?

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

ohnonotgmail · 24-06-2019 09:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

but to bring a girl to a deserted building to meet somebody who has expressed an interest in killing that girl while carrying a "murder kit" is.

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 09:57AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

We haven't seen everything the jury have seen/heard. Not everything has been reported.

I'm entitled to ask questions then.

24-06-2019 09:59AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but to bring a girl to a deserted building to meet somebody who has expressed an interest in killing that girl while carrying a "murder kit" is.

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

ohnonotgmail · 24-06-2019 10:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

its called being an accomplice which makes him as guilty of murder as the person who killed her.

iamwhoiam · 24-06-2019 10:04AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I'm entitled to ask questions then.

But how can we answer them ? We are not the jury .

tayto lover · 24-06-2019 10:04AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

He will in his hole.

24-06-2019 10:09AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its called being an accomplice which makes him as guilty of murder as the person who killed her.

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

tayto lover · 24-06-2019 10:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

Try reading the thread or even the Irish Times article.
It was a unanimous decision of the jury that he was guilty I.e all of them believe he is guilty of murder. But maybe they’re wrong and you’re right.

Boom_Bap · 24-06-2019 10:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

Where are his clothes from the day, and what was in the bag he was carrying on the day?
Why did his story change so much, and how did he know where the final position of Ana's body although he had by his own admission left the scene before being moved there.
When the jury reviewed his interviews, they were convinced, all of them, that he was guilty.

24-06-2019 10:18AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Try reading the thread or even the Irish Times article.
It was a unanimous decision of the jury that he was guilty I.e all of them believe he is guilty of murder. But maybe they’re wrong and you’re right.

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

tayto lover · 24-06-2019 10:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

Make a banner and head for the Dail.

24-06-2019 10:22AM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are his clothes from the day, and what was in the bag he was carrying on the day?
Why did his story change so much, and how did he know where the final position of Ana's body although he had by his own admission left the scene before being moved there.
When the jury reviewed his interviews, they were convinced, all of them, that he was guilty.

I don't know the answers to any of that. Regardless its all circumstantial. It's highly probable that he did it but I was under the impression that with such serous crimes highly probable isn't good enough to convict.

24-06-2019 10:23AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Make a banner and head for the Dail.

Lol am I not allowed to discuss this objectively

tayto lover · 24-06-2019 10:24AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol am I not allowed to discuss this objectively

There’s nobody in here who could convince you I’d safely say.

Ash.J.Williams · 24-06-2019 10:27AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

Can you go and read up on the case first and then come back to us?

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

Comments