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

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Fair enough. That at least closes off any discussion about what we might reasonably infer from the evidence we have.


Which brings me back to the consequences of your own position: how far does it go for you? Ana's gender is irrelevant. Is the gender of the criminals irrelevant? In a broader sense...Is race irrelevant in crime? Is homophobia irrelevant? Should we abandon statistical recording of crimes perpetrated by gender? If as you say we can never know their motives in this case how can we ever know the motives in other cases? I'm not sure the answers you have belong in this thread but they are worth hearing.

You only know what is relevant to the perpetrator when you know their motive for the crime. What is the piont in saying things were relevant to this crime when we have no idea of what made them do this?

Is it the fact that people cant accept not knowing what caused such a horrible crime? So we have to pretend we do know what caused the crime when we really are clueless. Does it make people feel more in control of their lives if we are able to file this murder into a certain category of attack.

Again to state all the investigators of this crime were extremely confused to the motive of this murder because from all the evidence they had there was none. But lets not accept that and come up with are own speculative theories to the motive of the murder.... so we can feel more in control of our lives.

ittakestwo wrote: »

We dont know the motive for her murder as you even admit above. So how do we know her gender was relevant.

What exactly would be evidence of a motive in your opinion?
I mean, given the lies they've told, how could we believe even a full confession as to why they said they'd done it?

ittakestwo wrote: »

Investigators of the murder have stated the most confusing thing about it is that they cant find a motive for the murder.

Well, we don't know much about why any 13 year olds plan and carry out a murder because it is so rare, but I can't comment on that claim as I don't remember it, and I think the context in which it was said may be relevant.

And I'm not clear as to why you think this particular sexual assault and murder is not related to the victim's gender whereas I assume you aren't similarly puzzled by all sexual assaults or all murders - why this one?

ittakestwo wrote: »

Take the scissors sisters. There motive to kill was that their mother was being mistreated by Noor. However the murder also included them chopping of Noor's penis which is a sexual assault but there was no sexual motive to the murder.

The sexual violence was just one form of violence that took place against Ana. Bricks were thrown at head. Hit with metal bars and tape to her throat.

To say Ana was chosen because she was a girl is not known.

Oh I think there clearly was a sexual motive to the Scissors sisters, but that it may not have been sexual satisfaction because they didn't try to have sex with him, instead they wanted to mutiliate him. I suspect there's an element of revenge against men for past humiliations there, rather than of sexual pleasure.

However physical violence related to sex is also a thing (as the increasing number of men using "consensual rough sex" as a defence for killing their female partners shows), so the fact that there was also severe physical violence is not evidence that the boys weren't experimenting with the idea that sexual pleasure is heightened by violence.

Anyone watch the virgin media one spot light on the case? What is it about the panel they had narrating the case? a profound lack of empathy and pure personal gain for them. Probably made their career off the back off it... Harrowing case, still can't get my head around it

mrjoneill what you're writing is very interesting but can you just stop using this "animal a" and "animal b" nonsense to describe "boy a" and "boy b"? They are boys, it's Boy A and Boy B. They're human beings, why are you pretending to think they're not? It's very offputting when reading your posts. Also humans are animals and are very, very often worse than a lot of non-human animals.

paleoperson wrote: »

mrjoneill what you're writing is very interesting but can you just stop using this "animal a" and "animal b" nonsense to describe "boy a" and "boy b"? They are boys, it's Boy A and Boy B. They're human beings, why are you pretending to think they're not? It's very offputting when reading your posts. Also humans are animals and are very, very often worse than a lot of non-human animals.

Little boys don't do beastly acts.

mrjoneill wrote: »

Little girls are calling to little boys houses and little boys are calling to little girls to hang out all the time. This goes on without incident day in day out. But it would seem in this case Ana's mother Geraldine was not happy with B calling and believed from a start there was something sinister involved.

Not relevant to the point though - a poster on here explicitly blamed her father for letting her go.

I wasn't saying I agreed, in fact I don't. But clearly some people think that there's an onus on women not to be alone with men, and some think that when its a girl of 13 then the same responsibility is on the parents.

(FWIW when her mother came home Ana was already later than expected - obviously she concluded that there was a connection with the boy calling. Doesn't mean she'd have been suspicious of him if she'd been in the house though.)

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Fair enough. That at least closes off any discussion about what we might reasonably infer from the evidence we have.

But you have to recognise that while it no doubt seems a reasonable position to you, to me it seems more akin to an absolute epistemological stance more than anything else, rather than a real world conclusion. Nonetheless you hold it consistently here.

Rest assured it’s not an epistemological stance to suggest that it would be irresponsible to infer conclusions from evidence we don’t have. The only real world conclusion can be drawn is that we don’t know what motivated the boys in this particular case to do what they did, and we don’t know why they specifically targeted Ana or what it was about her specifically that set her apart from anyone else as a target for them. Ms. Muldoon puts forward the theory that the circumstances of this case are actually a culmination of a wider social issue -


Ana Kriégel’s death is a particularly dark representation of men’s violence towards women. Make no mistake: violence by men against women is a continuum, and this is its most extreme form. Murder is only a fraction of the burden arising from this form of violence.


That’s one take on it, from her perspective obviously. I disagree of course that this case can be used as representative of anything. It’s ripe though for all sorts of agendas, which I regard as crass opportunism. “Nobody said it”, because people generally have more tact.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I'd ask you to consider what the consequences of the position are in this instance. Many here have accused Prof Muldoon of an agenda; before I read her article I had no idea who she was or what agenda she might have or might not. Rather than their objections achieving the dismissal of her point, to me it seems that the denial of the relevance of Ana's gender in this crime leaves others open to the very accusations made against Muldoon's agenda, albeit in reverse. It clearly has for some posters deep connections to US "identity politics" and a deep sense of threat. I don't think that applies in your case as your posts seem more philosophical than emotive.

Well like I said earlier - this case is ripe for all sorts of agendas, and sure, attempting to deny gender should be a relevant consideration in trying to determine their motivations is just silly. On the other hand, as I said - attempting to portray the circumstances of this particular case as solely based upon gender, and using that to argue a wider point about gender based violence perpetrated by men against women, and this particular case being a representative culmination of that effect - it’s reaching, to be honest. The only people who are responsible for the murder of Ana Kriegel are the two boys who committed the act. Nobody else in society is responsible for tbe death of Ana Kriegel. The point the author tries to make is to claim that the events which transpired are at the extreme end of a spectrum. Then she makes a point about the influence of pornography and so on, again - portraying the influence of pornography as an explanation for gender based violence against women.

As a psychologist she would surely be aware of the fact that an individuals attitudes and behaviours are a culmination of genetic, environmental and cognitive factors. That’s why the vast majority of men, in spite of being exposed to the same influences as everyone else in society, they don’t commit violence against women and girls, or other men and boys for that matter. Ms. Muldoon is basically ignoring the evidence she has, in favour of placing greater emphasis on her theories, which betray her own prejudices IMO. I can’t rule out the possibility that gender was a factor in this particular case, but I think it’s irresponsible to argue as though it was the only factor, going so far as to say it was “obvious”. It’s only obvious if one allows their prejudices to cloud their objectivity.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Which brings me back to the consequences of your own position: how far does it go for you? Ana's gender is irrelevant. Is the gender of the criminals irrelevant? In a broader sense...Is race irrelevant in crime? Is homophobia irrelevant? Should we abandon statistical recording of crimes perpetrated by gender? If as you say we can never know their motives in this case how can we ever know the motives in other cases? I'm not sure the answers you have belong in this thread but they are worth hearing.

It depends upon each individual case, that’s the only way one can approach any given circumstances objectively without allowing their prejudices to cloud their judgment and have them place greater emphasis, or indeed downplay, evidence which may or may not be relevant. Knowing their motives in this case wouldn’t be of any help in determining anyone else’s motives in another case, even if the circumstances were similar. All you’d be doing is allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgment and putting more emphasis on one factor which may or may not have been relevant in explaining someone else's motivations. Even in her capacity as a professor of psychology, it’s beyond Ms. Muldoon’s capabilities to know what was going through these boys minds when they chose to do what they did, and why they chose Ana specifically. I can’t imagine why anyone would even think of doing what they did, I’m certainly not going to pretend I know why they did it either.

paleoperson wrote: »

mrjoneill what you're writing is very interesting but can you just stop using this "animal a" and "animal b" nonsense to describe "boy a" and "boy b"? They are boys, it's Boy A and Boy B. They're human beings, why are you pretending to think they're not? It's very offputting when reading your posts. Also humans are animals and are very, very often worse than a lot of non-human animals.

The poor ‘boys’ how disrespectful of the’mjoneil’.....describing a human as an animal is not new and obviously meant to be derogatory....referring to them as boys suggests childhood innocence and naivety etc.....based on the evidence in this case this couldn’t be further from the truth. These two are absolute degenerates/abominations/monsters/freaks......but of course they came from loving hardworking normal families who took a prank/game too far and ended up killing/murdering someone unintentionally. Don’t see anything wrong with referring to them as animals.....it could be argued it’s too kind

mrjoneill wrote: »

Sexual in sexual assault not consensual sexual sex. I don't know if a 13yr old male can have legal consensual sex with a 14yr old female. There are many 15-16yr old mother out there with same age group fathers of their child and it doesn't lead to prosecutions.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/967066-birthrate/


A total of 1,041 teenagers had babies in 2017. 19 of those teenage mothers were 16 years old or younger

Not that many really , 19 in 2018 . I cant find where the law stands on them though .

political analyst wrote: »

But didn't it occur to him that he might not have been doing himself any favours by making those horrific remarks about Ana?

Should B have exercised his constitutional and legal right to silence and the role his solicitor played in the questioning we don’t know as to how he was advised by his client. Should B have come clean to him would it have been wise to have allowed him to answer questions during Garda interview is an unknown. I don’t believe B was truthful to his solicitor.
Arrested on suspicion of murder would immediately raise my attention to the highest level that the Gardaí had good solid evidence to make out a case. They had concluded correctly that B had been at the abandoned house, but they had no way of proving it without an admission.

The Children’s Act does give a role for a solicitor to be present during questioning. I would like to think I being his solicitor I would have advised my client he was to defer to me whether he should answer any question or not and should he have doubt the right to consult in private. I don’t see the Gardaí have any powers to exclude the solicitor from interviews for acting in such a role that this being obstructing the course of justice. The evidence is that the solicitor for B was quiet at the start of the interview but as it went on there were more and more conflict with the Gardaí. The first day of interviews Garda proved B he was lying and on the second day of questioning it was his solicitor informed Gardai he wished to change his story. Gardai had got a big break, B had admitted lying. Whether he should have intervened or did advice his client to say no more we don’t know. It prob would have been better if he did exercise his right to silence at this time but then again his client was for pushing on to exonerate himself. Prior to B admission during Gardaí questioning he was at the abandoned house his solicitor suggested they take a break, but Garda were for pressing on stating they were at a crucial point that of getting B to admit he was at the abandoned house. There is no doubt that his solicitor could have brought that period of questioning to an end by seeking a private consultation with his client.

But in this case it would seem B thought he was far too “smarts” and he was there to set the record straight from his own perspective. That was Animal A set him up to call for Ana that they wanted to chat and he brought her to him in the park and he left them and went home. He lied and he lied and he lied to correct lies and he was found out on this.


But in the overall context of things the Garda had a good grasp of the outline of the case from CCTV of the actually happenings in the park. Clearly Animal B was seen with Ana entering the park, being in the park and leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house which was 20 to25min walk away. Animal A could be seen to be slightly ahead of him at another side of the park making a bee line to the abandoned house. Both of these animals could be seen coming back through the park obv without Ana at slightly different times. There was a 45min approx. period which could not be accounted for and Gardaí had the solid forensics on Animal A which there was no getting away from. Animal B was fully implicated from the CCTV and the fact he called for Ana in a pact of some sorts of illegality. They fact she was led to an abandoned house out of the way just couldn’t have an innocent explanation.The onus was squarely on B at that stage to exonerate himself which he failed dismally to do. I don’t think any solicitor repeatedly interrupting questioning advising his client not to answer a question or seeking a private consultation in the overall context could have saved him.

mrjoneill wrote: »

Should B have exercised his constitutional and legal right to silence and the role his solicitor played in the questioning we don’t know as to how he was advised by his client. Should B have come clean to him would it have been wise to have allowed him to answer questions during Garda interview is an unknown. I don’t believe B was truthful to his solicitor.
Arrested on suspicion of murder would immediately raise my attention to the highest level that the Gardaí had good solid evidence to make out a case. They had concluded correctly that B had been at the abandoned house, but they had no way of proving it without an admission.

The Children’s Act does give a role for a solicitor to be present during questioning. I would like to think I being his solicitor I would have advised my client he was to defer to me whether he should answer any question or not and should he have doubt the right to consult in private. I don’t see the Gardaí have any powers to exclude the solicitor from interviews for acting in such a role that this being obstructing the course of justice. The evidence is that the solicitor for B was quiet at the start of the interview but as it went on there were more and more conflict with the Gardaí. The first day of interviews Garda proved B he was lying and on the second day of questioning it was his solicitor informed Garda he wished to change his story. Garda had got a big break, B had admitted lying. Whiter he should have intervened or did advice his client to say no more we don’t know. It prob would have been better if he did exercise his right to silence at this time but then again his client was for pushing on to exonerate himself. Prior to B admission during Gardaí questioning he was at the abandoned house his solicitor suggested they take a break, but Garda were for pressing on stating they were at a crucial point that of getting B to admit he was at the abandoned house. There is no doubt that his solicitor could have brought that period of questioning to an end by seeking a private consultation with his client.

But in this case it would seem B thought he was far too “smarts” and he was there to set the record straight from his own perspective. That was Animal A set him up to call for Ana that they wanted to chat and he brought her to him in the park and he left them and went home. He lied and he lied and he lied to correct lies and he was found out on this.


But in the overall context of things the Garda had a good grasp of the outline of the case from CCTV of the actually happenings in the park. Clearly Animal B was seen with Ana entering the park, being in the park and leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house which was 20 to25min walk away. Animal A could be seen to be slightly ahead of him at another side of the park making a bee line to the abandoned house. Both of these animals could be seen coming back through the park obv without Ana at slightly different times. There was a 45min approx. period which could not be accounted for and Gardaí had the solid forensics on Animal A which there was no getting away from. Animal B was fully implicated from the CCTV and the fact he called for Ana in a pact of some sorts of illegality. They fact she was led to an abandoned house out of the way just couldn’t have an innocent explanation.The onus was squarely on B at that stage to exonerate himself which he failed dismally to do. I don’t think any solicitor repeatedly interrupting questioning advising his client not to answer a question or seeking a private consultation in the overall context could have saved him.

How can you continue to disrespect the ‘boys’ by continuing to refer to them as animals....!

Can these two have come for ordinary hard working respectable families....? These boys just got a raw deal with the ‘genes’, what they did was not preventable irrespective as to what ‘parenting’ they received....

tuxy wrote: »

Calling them animals lessens the problem because humans wouldn't be capable of such things.
There is no longer a need to look at society as a whole and see what changes can be made because these boys were actually animals, not real people.

Personally I don’t care whether someone refers to them as animals or humans or anything else, I’m more perplexed as to what this idea is of saying there’s a need to look at society as a whole when something highly unusual and out of the ordinary like this happens. Society isn’t responsible for what these boys did. They are.

Road-Hog wrote: »

Lack of proper parenting is surely a factor also.....despite this ‘both coming from hard working respectable families’ line......?

If that’s a question, the answer is “I don’t know” and neither does anyone else. Plenty of people have been raised in awful circumstances, and they didn’t go on to commit murder or anything else, and then the opposite of that is also true - people who were raised in loving families who go on to commit terrible deeds against other people. Backwards rationalising after the fact, in hindsight like you’re attempting to do, just doesn’t work. It doesn’t explain the greater number of people raised in similar circumstances who don’t display the same attitudes and behaviours towards other people that these boys did.

Using that rationale, you might as well be arguing that they were influenced by things like “The End of the F***ing World” -


Premise

James is a 17-year-old who believes he is a psychopath. He kills animals as a hobby, but grows bored of the practice. He decides he wants to try killing a human. He settles on Alyssa, a mouthy, rebellious 17-year-old classmate with issues of her own. She proposes they run away together, hoping for an adventure away from her turbulent home-life, and James agrees with the intention of finding an opportunity to kill her. They embark on a road trip across England, and begin to develop a relationship after a series of mishaps.


Scores above 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, so hard to argue that it isn’t popular, and yet most teenagers don’t appear to display psychopathic traits. My point is - there’s simply no way of knowing why they did what they did, and the idea that anyone could have prevented it is based upon what we now know, in hindsight. It doesn’t do anything to prevent anyone else from doing something similar in the future, and assuming it does would mean casting aspersions on innocent people.