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

Suckit · 06-11-2019 08:39PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

The school did very little if nothing at all. It would appear in the school canteen when Ana came to sit at her classmates table the whole class got up & left.

Where did you see/hear that?

skallywag · 06-11-2019 09:00PM

Nameless_2019 wrote: »

This needs to be taken in context. The evidence referred to here in the IT article is the testimony of Boy B's own father.

I really hate folk who make an alt just to make a comment that they are afraid to under their regular username.

Grow up.

splinter65 · 06-11-2019 09:01PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Neither is reading. It wasn't an apology I sent you

I've no interest in one of your inane bickering sessions

You’ve no interest in backing up your claim that I generalised . Fine.

Hannibal_Smith · 06-11-2019 09:21PM

tayto lover wrote: »

You could also believe that Boy B was a lot more intelligent and was manipulative thus cajoling Boy A all the way to commit the foul deed.

Unfortunately we'll never know. Unless they decide to tell the truth, there's no way to know

Eric Cartman · 06-11-2019 09:23PM

NewClareman wrote: »

Well for a start:

Gregg McCrary, a behavioural criminologist and former FBI criminal profiler, has worked on many such investigations. “Typically there is a dominant offender and then a secondary offender who is subservient and follows their lead. They take direction from the dominant offender,” he says.

“Evidence indicates that Boy B was subservient to Boy A....
There is also evidence Boy B was and remains in fear of his co-accused.”

Quoting above from the same IT article I quoted earlier.

The judge stated that there was no evidence that he was involved in the attack, or knew in advance she was to be sexually assaulted. Of course the fact that he did nothing to help her was reprehensible. However, he was a child and might well have been panicked and in fear.

im so glad this has come to light, seeing the 'boy b mastermind' theory was shocking to say the least. He was a sidekick/admirer who picked the worst person to look up to.

Hannibal_Smith · 06-11-2019 09:25PM

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve no interest in backing up your claim that I generalised . Fine.

Splinter, the fact that you're ignoring all the posts that have quoted your generalisations back to you speaks for itself. Now get back to all those posters, because it's just poor form bickering in this thread.

Hal3000 · 06-11-2019 09:26PM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of the justice system and the urgent reform of the dominant ideology which has created the sentencing and parole regime we have endured the discussion is moving on to other aspects of this. To me there are a few things that need to be looked at.
These children had all finished national school and were in second level. They all had experience of years of anti bullying programs. There seems to be a major system failure of such programs when the isolation experienced before the murder was so long and so widespread. The murder seems to be an out working of that isolation. Please read this carefully: I am talking about a national system wide program not a school or schools. There may be more terribly isolated suffering children out there.

Access to violent porn. I don’t know if everything I read is true but Boy A had this and Boy B didn’t. Boy B had lost two smartphones? Losing a phone wouldn’t necessarily mean sites visited couldn’t be checked. I believe smartphone usage by NS and early years teenagers is at the root of a lot of grief. Teens by definition do not have developed the empathy and inhibitions of adults. Online chat is contextless and personless and social media enables and amplifies whatever trend is there. You can’t blame children for this: you can see it anywhere. You can ask why have children such devices in the first place. They enable unsupervised access.

I’m not saying there aren’t other issues. These are what hit me. And that house should be CPOed and demolished.

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

tayto lover · 06-11-2019 09:29PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

im so glad this has come to light, seeing the 'boy b mastermind' theory was shocking to say the least. He was a sidekick/admirer who picked the worst person to look up to.

Not so sure.
Not so sure at all.

tuxy · 06-11-2019 09:30PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now.

It would be easier to ban parents from giving children phones than banning porn for under 18s. Well you could ban it but only in law not in reality.

06-11-2019 09:32PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

when a vanishingly small percentage of people react to porn or video games or tv in this fashion, it really doesnt work to focus on these things.

its come up again and again.

rock music did not kill those kids

McCrack · 06-11-2019 09:37PM

scudzilla wrote: »

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

Well then you should move to North Korea or somewhere

tuxy · 06-11-2019 09:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

when a vanishingly small percentage of people react to porn or video games or tv in this fashion, it really doesnt work to focus on these things.

its come up again and again.

rock music did not kill those kids

Brave New World was banned in Ireland at one point perhaps it should have stayed that way. Do we know neither of those boys read that book?

tuxy · 06-11-2019 09:41PM

scudzilla wrote: »

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

What's stopping you? I doubt security in Oberstown is sufficient to stop someone who is that determined.

KWAG2019 · 06-11-2019 09:41PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

I may be wrong but I think an attempt in the UK to do this has collapsed. You are right when you say phones are everywhere with kids; you are right when you point to a collective failure of parenting in this regard. I think this is a rare moment brought about by the death of one of the most innocent children when there is a need for someone to begin. Strange and probably my age but I think Gay Byrne would have had it on the air and started something. I hope someone does.

Suckit · 06-11-2019 09:54PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

It is lazy parenting. And even more lazy how few of them use a kids profile or childproof it.

Lefty Bicek · 06-11-2019 10:07PM

tuxy wrote: »

What's stopping you? I doubt security in Oberstown is sufficient to stop someone who is that determined.

I think the other poster may be referring to a situation in which provision is made in the system for execution as a punishment for a capital crime.

Not everyone would have the intestinal fortitude for that. No doubt some do, even though our society at large does not.

I don't think anyone is sensibly going to jeopardise their own liberty, as such.

Just offering that as a more sensible alternative to your assumption.

As for other people's references to North Korea... very tiresome.

Nameless_2019 · 06-11-2019 10:18PM

skallywag wrote: »

I really hate folk who make an alt just to make a comment that they are afraid to under their regular username.

This is not an alt. I've read comments on these boards for a long time but I was moved to register a username to make that point.

NewClareman · 06-11-2019 10:42PM

scudzilla wrote: »

It's in cases like this i would have no hesitation with the death sentence, an irrefutable open and shut case.

Hand on heart i would have no questions at all on pulling the trigger on Animal A

And what would you propose for all those other people who stood by while Ana was bullied and her life made a misery?

Hal3000 · 06-11-2019 10:46PM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I may be wrong but I think an attempt in the UK to do this has collapsed. You are right when you say phones are everywhere with kids; you are right when you point to a collective failure of parenting in this regard. I think this is a rare moment brought about by the death of one of the most innocent children when there is a need for someone to begin. Strange and probably my age but I think Gay Byrne would have had it on the air and started something. I hope someone does.

The UK are still pressing ahead with it. We need new leaders here. Leaders who will focus on protecting children from extreme content, leaders who will make schools and principals accountable for bullying instead of letting schools say excuses like “ sorry our hands are tied and we can’t do anything “. We need leaders to sentence crimes especially against children harshly, we need leaders to stop letting people who view child abuse material walk away with suspended sentences, we need leaders who will address anti social behavior and have work programs for kids who engage in such. The youth today don’t know discipline and it’s clear they are now becoming more problematic than before. It time we as a country got our hands around these issues and stop sweeping them under the carpet by saying it rarely happens here etc etc.

RandomName2 · 06-11-2019 10:47PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Until our government act and totally ban porn access for under 18 what is really going to change ? Most parents have phones in the hands of 7 years old now. It’s just easier for them to raise their kids this way. A great quote earlier in a paper I read “ it’s like giving kids full access to red light zones in cities “ . Government need to act on this quickly. Parents will always cave and give the kids phones. It’s everywhere just look around. I saw two kids no older than 6 with phones while walking in the park with their parents. That’s just pathetic parenting in my view. Things are going on only get worse unless this problem is addressed.

Yes it was definitely access to pornography which caused Boy A and Boy B to murder a classmate. :pac:

Not the violent computer games this time, not the heavy metal, not the desensetization to violence witnessed on tv, but pornography. It is also definitely not the case that they would have been that way inclined without pornography. You could say that they were driven over the edge by pornography.

Their defense should have pleaded reduced responsibility owing to the influence of pornography on them.:rolleyes:

Do you remember how before the 90s and online pornography was a thing, how murder didn't exist? As such having government oversight of what everyone looks at online, and what technologies people can own, clearly follows as a natural response to this case.

NewClareman · 06-11-2019 10:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

when a vanishingly small percentage of people react to porn or video games or tv in this fashion, it really doesnt work to focus on these things.

its come up again and again.

rock music did not kill those kids

How do you know that only a vanishingly small number react badly. Many forms of violence, including sexual assault are at high levels.

Focusing on “those things” is exactly what’s required.

take everything · 06-11-2019 10:49PM

I wonder what B will appeal it on.

I find it hard to see why he would lie to the police so much if he thinks he's innocent of this crime.
People who are innocent cooperate with the police.

Also, never did I hear either of them express anything nice about Ana or her death, apart from derogatory comments.

Beasty · 06-11-2019 10:50PM

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve no interest in backing up your claim that I generalised . Fine.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Splinter, the fact that you're ignoring all the posts that have quoted your generalisations back to you speaks for itself. Now get back to all those posters, because it's just poor form bickering in this thread.

The pair of you were bickering. If you don't give it a rest you will be, at a minimum, banned from posting in this thread again

Hal3000 · 06-11-2019 10:53PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes it was definitely access to pornography which caused Boy A and Boy B to murder a classmate. :pac:

Not the violent computer games this time, not the heavy metal, not the desensetization to violence witnessed on tv, but pornography. It is also definitely not the case that they would have been that way inclined without pornography. You could say that they were driven over the edge by pornography.

Their defense should have pleaded reduced responsibility owing to the influence of pornography on them.:rolleyes:

Do you remember how before the 90s and online pornography was a thing, how murder didn't exist? As such having government oversight of what everyone looks at online, and what technologies people can own, clearly follows as a natural response to this case.

Sorry to disappoint you, but pornography on tap is effecting the sexual encounters of young teens. If you asked any young teen if they’ve been sent or seen explicit material within the last 24 hours the answer will almost always be yes. If you think daily access to graphic material at a young age is not harmful ? And I do remember the 90s. I also remember not having the ability to chose whatever form or category of porn I wanted in the click of a button.,

take everything · 06-11-2019 10:55PM

tuxy wrote: »

What's stopping you? I doubt security in Oberstown is sufficient to stop someone who is that determined.

I think he means if capital punishment was legal.
At least I hope that's what he means. :pac:

tuxy · 06-11-2019 11:03PM

take everything wrote: »

I think he means if capital punishment was legal.
At least I hope that's what he means. :pac:

I don't think the issue with capital punishment has ever been to find an executioner.

scudzilla · 06-11-2019 11:04PM

tuxy wrote: »

What's stopping you? I doubt security in Oberstown is sufficient to stop someone who is that determined.

take everything wrote: »

I think he means if capital punishment was legal.
At least I hope that's what he means. :pac:

Thats exactly what i meant, if it was legal. Hardly going to risk my own freedom for an animal am i?

mrjoneill · 06-11-2019 11:05PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Just to say Boy B didn't receive a sentence for the sexual attack. He's also never said what happened. Does that suggest he's still in fear of Boy A?

Don't think so. I have seen a few cases overseas of similar of the alpha male & their less dominant invol in crime. The less dominant life's mission is to please the alpha. In some cases that came to notice due to serious criminal activity their turned out there was a homoerotic attraction of the less dominant. Animal A was clearly the dominant & did martial arts. His father boasted to the park ranger he was more than capable of looking after himself. Why won't Animal B come clean is mysterious? He more than likely did not take part in the physical assault or sex assault yet he refuses to come clean. I put forward the theory he planned it to set up Ana for Animal A to please him & he wanted to see him in a sex act with Ana because Animal A turned him on. This would obv destroy what credibility he tries to maintain of his innocence. The investigation Gardai did notice he was smarts for his age & manipulative in how he tried to control his questioning. And he lied and he lied and he lied.

LillySV · 06-11-2019 11:11PM

McCrack wrote: »

Well then you should move to North Korea or somewhere

I’d prefer if you did

mrjoneill · 06-11-2019 11:18PM

careless sherpa wrote: »

In the year between the murder and the trial were the two boys still residing in the town? Could her parents have had to meet them out and about?

No, once arrested and charged they were in custody except for Animal A being released into his grandfathers custody over a Christmas period. Grandfather is not from the area or the county as I understand. I understand between the murder and their charging both of these Animals were free & could be seen hanging about the area they live in. Animal B had convinced his parents that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Ana's murder till the Gardai got an admission from him during questioning to his shocked mother that he was at the actual murder location.

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

Comments