Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…215216218220221…247

Comments

  • #6512
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tuxy wrote: »
    I'm unfamiliar on how this works. Can you get people you wish to date Garda vetted or do you mean only date people who have a job that requires vetting?
    If the boys had been 18 before committing this crime would they have been safe to date once vetted?

    Only date people who have been Garda vetted - whether for their job or because they coach GAA or they're a scout leader or whatever


  • #6513
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Only date people who have been Garda vetted - whether for their job or because they coach GAA or they're a scout leader or whatever

    Garda vetting will only disclose criminal convictions. It won't show if your potential new partner likes to cross dress etc.


  • #6514
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Only date people who have been Garda vetted - whether for their job or because they coach GAA or they're a scout leader or whatever

    Or you could go about your life not thinking everyone is an evil psychopath and fall in love with someone


  • #6515
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    smelly sock wrote: »
    Garda vetting will only disclose criminal convictions. It won't show if your potential new partner likes to cross dress etc.

    Are cross dressers usually potential violent criminals?


  • #6516
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Only date people who have been Garda vetted - whether for their job or because they coach GAA or they're a scout leader or whatever

    When you came up with this first I thought, yeah not a bad joke. As you keep repeating it I'm thinking you are serious. :o
    Tell your 20/30 something year old daughter she can only date people who are Garda vetted??? :D

    You don't have daughters do you?


  • Advertisement
  • #6517
    Suckit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Been talking about them all morning on RTE on Sean O'Rourke. As the story was overshadowed a lot yesterday by the death of Gay Byrne.


  • #6518
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Deleted User wrote: »
    When you came up with this first I thought, yeah not a bad joke. As you keep repeating it I'm thinking you are serious. :o
    Tell your 20/30 something year old daughter she can only date people who are Garda vetted??? :D

    You don't have daughters do you?

    Why just daughters why not sons also


  • #6519
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Letwin_Larry wrote: »

    the sentences handed down are far too lenient.

    If you were the judge what sentence would you give that would limit a successful appeal?
    Take into consideration how horrific an appeal process could be for the Kriegel's and the fact it risks them serving even less time than the actual sentence that was given.


  • #6520
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    martingriff wrote: »
    Why just daughters why not sons also

    Only men can commit violent and sexual crimes.


  • #6521
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Deleted User wrote: »

    You don't have daughters do you?

    It's either that or he's just gotten vetted and reckons it's a good pick up line!:D

    All joking aside i reckon that's why anonymity is a bad idea though. The state shouldn't be facilitating scumbags like this in pulling the wool over innocent peoples eyes. It's morally wrong by any metric i can think of.


  • Advertisement
  • #6522
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    tuxy wrote: »
    If you were the judge what sentence would you give that would limit a successful appeal?
    Take into consideration how horrific an appeal process could be for the Kriegel's and the fact it risks them serving even less time than the actual sentence that was given.


    its a fair point but i think on this thread people have to be allowed to be understood as talking not only in terms of what is practically or procedurally achievable given current status quo and what they think should be the case.

    the laws and norms of a society are never fixed and final and public discourse around hard cases like this shouldnt be shut down because "thats not how it currently works" (not saying youve done this btw, but plenty on thread have).


  • #6523
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    When you came up with this first I thought, yeah not a bad joke. As you keep repeating it I'm thinking you are serious. :o
    Tell your 20/30 something year old daughter she can only date people who are Garda vetted??? :D

    You don't have daughters do you?

    I'm not the one with the problem.

    I'm giving those who have a problem an easy solution.


  • #6524
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's either that or he's just gotten vetted and reckons it's a good pick up line!:D

    All joking aside i reckon that's why anonymity is a bad idea though. The state shouldn't be facilitating scumbags like this in pulling the wool over innocent peoples eyes. It's morally wrong by any metric i can think of.

    I was unable to be online yesterday and there has been so many posts. Apologies if I'm asking questions already answered.
    Is it impossible for them to be named at 18 years old?

    Also the state has a duty of care for all citizens and I don't think it's possible for this to be wavered. If there is risk to their well being then they are either never named, given new identities or round the clock Garda protection after release. They should definitely be named at some point if it does not put them in danger of attack.


  • #6525
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    tuxy wrote: »

    Also the state has a duty of care for all citizens and I don't think it's possible for this to be wavered. If there is risk to their well being then they are either never named, given new identities or round the clock Garda protection after release. They should definitely be named at some point if it does not put them in danger of attack.

    That's the crux of it alright. I don't think they'll ever be named, officially at least.

    But i think the way it should work is that society at large should be prioritised over the rights of criminals. I personally feel that it's way more important that innocent people be protected from sickos than sickos be protected from retribution.

    At the end of the day, they brought the situation on themselves, some hypothetical future girlfriend or kids didn't. I'm not saying the state should put a target on their backs, but if by protecting it's innocent citizens it endangers people like these, then so be it. That's a trade off i'm happy to make.


  • #6526
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    back in the day people were just locked up in the looney bin. I'd be certain there's something wrong with these two we just don't have a name for it yet, that's all I'm saying.

    I’ll rely on the medical professionals all the same. In my own opinion these boys are just a by product of the throwaway disposable world we live in now. I think it’s as simple as that. Boy A has a lust for murderous violence and boy b was keen too and they came to the conclusion that ana was disposable and wouldn’t be missed. I’d say they’re still puzzled about that.


  • #6527
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's either that or he's just gotten vetted and reckons it's a good pick up line!:D.

    Howaya doin'. I've a job with the civil service, a bit of road frontage land and I'm fully Garda vetted. Are we on?


  • #6528
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    tuxy wrote: »
    Only men can commit violent and sexual crimes.

    Of course how silly of me


  • #6529
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    But i think the way it should work is that society at large should be prioritised over the rights of criminals. I personally feel that it's way more important that innocent people be protected from sickos than sickos be protected from retribution.

    Society will be prioritised, I could be wrong but I don't think boy A will be released unless a psychological report deems him low risk after review. Of course psychologists are just as prone to mistakes as anyone else and that is worrying. But some people do commit such crimes once and then never a again, contant vigilante attacks on someone could be something that is more harmful to the community than not naming them.


  • #6530
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,547 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    Boy 'B' to appeal his conviction.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/boy-b-now-expected-to-appeal-his-conviction-for-murder-38665932.html

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • #6531
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's either that or he's just gotten vetted and reckons it's a good pick up line!:D

    All joking aside i reckon that's why anonymity is a bad idea though. The state shouldn't be facilitating scumbags like this in pulling the wool over innocent peoples eyes. It's morally wrong by any metric i can think of.

    Do you think by the naming of these 2 it will make everything okay and people wont have to be careful. You should alway be diligent but not pre judge people


  • Advertisement
  • #6532
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'm not the one with the problem.

    I'm giving those who have a problem an easy solution.

    Your not though as just because they pass a vetting means nothing just means they have not been caught


  • #6533
    tupenny
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭tupenny


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    Boy 'B' to appeal his conviction.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/boy-b-now-expected-to-appeal-his-conviction-for-murder-38665932.html

    Not surprised.
    Scum


  • #6534
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,547 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    tupenny wrote: »
    Not surprised. Admit

    Going on the slating the judge gave him, referring to his high IQ & deviousness in attempting to cover up & his total lack of remorse, he has to have no chance.

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • #6535
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    martingriff wrote: »
    Your not though as just because they pass a vetting means nothing just means they have not been caught

    It means that they're not Boy A or Boy B, which is the problem that a number of posters said needs to be solved.


  • #6536
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    tupenny wrote: »
    Not surprised. Admit

    Was it the boys family or the solicitor that said they didn't accept the verdict when it was announced? So unfortunately there was always a high chance of this.

    Some of the juries decision was based on interpretation and not hard facts. The jury made the right call but boy B has nothing to lose by attempting an appeal. :(


  • #6537
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It means that they're not Boy A or Boy B, which is the problem that a number of posters said needs to be solved.

    Ya because there the only 2 in Ireland we have to worry about


  • #6538
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    abff wrote: »
    This may lead them to look at emigrating post release, although their options in this regard may be somewhat limited with a murder conviction hanging over them.

    That didn't stop Wayne O'Donoghue making a great life for himself in the UK, working for an architectural firm.

    Sickening that O'Donoghue let Robert's family go on an eight-day search, knowing that their son was already dead.


  • #6539
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,547 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    tuxy wrote: »
    Was it the boys family or the solicitor that said they didn't accept the verdict when it was announced? So unfortunately there was always a high chance of this.

    Some of the juries decision was based on interpretation and not hard facts. The jury made the right call but boy B has nothing to lose by attempting an appeal. :(

    I don't know about that!

    The judge clearly stated yesterday when he addressed them directly that they had a lot of work to do to show they accepted what they had done in order to have any chance when they eventually face the review board.

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • #6540
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    I don't know about that!

    The judge clearly stated yesterday when he addressed them directly that they had a lot of work to do to show they accepted what they had done in order to have any chance when they eventually face the review board.

    You're right but I don't think you can appeal just for the sake of appealing. His solicitor must have something in mind where he believes something was done incorrectly. I wonder on what grounds the appeal will be made.


  • Advertisement
  • #6541
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    martingriff wrote: »
    Do you think by the naming of these 2 it will make everything okay and people wont have to be careful. You should alway be diligent but not pre judge people

    No of course not. But if you are aware that someones new neighbour / boyfriend / in law / employee or whatever is a convicted rapist + murderer, but you choose not to tell them because your concerned about said rapist / murderer and that situation ends in tears (which it most likely will) - well then you bear some of the blame in my eyes.

    That's the very stance the state is taking by maintaining anonymity for scum like this. Fúck the consequences for those 2 little bastards, they deserve everything they get and worse.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement