Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]
Options
Comments
-
political analyst wrote: »Can the media apply to have A's and B's anonymity lifted when they reach the age of 18?
The following case indicates that anonymity for juvenile criminals can be lifted in some cases.
https://www.thejournal.ie/cork-cork-toddler-hit-and-run-teen-jailed-4892274-Nov2019/
Probably not as the crime was convicted when they were children. There was a Senior Counsel on the RTE documentary explaining the difference between what is in public's interest in knowing about a crime and that the public are interested in a crime. The public are definitely interested in this crime and many want to know their identities but it is not necessary for the public to know the identity of two children who commit a crime..... apparently.0 -
I think to be fair that the poster is pointing to the legal terms of the convictions ie murder and sexual assault. We all know those obviously. The legal definition of the convictions isn’t the last word however.
Considering Ana was sexually assaulted prior to or around the time of being murdered, I find it highly disingenuous of people to say her gender didn't matter to A. Would you say that about any other rapist and murderer, or is it only this one that gets the "gender doesn't matter here", "he just wanted to kill anyone, it could have been a boy, equally" attitude? That sounds a lot like plain denial of reality to me.0 -
Considering Ana was sexually assaulted prior to or around the time of being murdered, I find it highly disingenuous of people to say her gender didn't matter to A. Would you say that about any other rapist and murderer, or is it only this one that gets the "gender doesn't matter here", "he just wanted to kill anyone, it could have been a boy, equally" attitude? That sounds a lot like plain denial of reality to me.
I agree with you that it is absolutely disingenuous of anyone to suggest that gender doesn’t matter here, but at the same time, I think it’s irresponsible of anyone to suggest that gender was the sole motivating factor here either. That’s equally a denial of the reality that the only people who know what their motivations were, are the people who committed the act.
To the best of my knowledge, they never explained their motivations, so to use any particular trait of either the victim or the perpetrator to speculate about their motivations is irresponsible and frankly just crass opportunism. The professor could have made their arguments without using the circumstances in this particular case, but there wouldn’t have been as much attention paid to their opinion had they not associated their opinions with this particular case.
To suggest that Ana was murdered by boys because she was a girl isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion, and amounts to nothing more than idle and irresponsible speculation used to present a particular narrative. Quite a long way away from any facts when the reality is that their motivations remain known only to the boys themselves, in this particular case.0 -
Except of course that's not what anyone on here was saying. Disagreeing with the claim that gender was irrelevant is not the same as saying that gender was the only factor, nor that she was killed purely because she was a girl.One eyed Jack wrote: »I agree with you that it is absolutely disingenuous of anyone to suggest that gender doesn’t matter here, but at the same time, I think it’s irresponsible of anyone to suggest that gender was the sole motivating factor here either. That’s equally a denial of the reality that the only people who know what their motivations were, are the people who committed the act.
To suggest that Ana was murdered by boys because she was a girl isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion, and amounts to nothing more than idle and irresponsible speculation used to present a particular narrative.
Do try not to put up straw men like that, Jack, there's a good chap.0 -
Again I ask, would you say of any other murderer whose sperm and evidence of sexual assault have been found on the victim's body, that the motivation for the attack is an unknown, and can only be a matter for our speculation?0
-
Advertisement
-
Except of course that's not what anyone was saying. Disagreeing with the claim that gender was irrelevant is not the same as saying that gender was the only factor, nor that she was killed purely because she was a girl.
Do try not to put up straw men like that, Jack, there's a good chap.
It’s the headline of the article we’re discussing?
Ana Kriégel was murdered by boys because she was a girl
Like many others, I have spent the week reading about and listening to analysis in the wake of Ana Kriégel’s murder. I presumed and indeed expected that someone else would state the blindingly obvious, but as yet they haven’t. So here I am. I will say it. Ana Kriégel was murdered by boys because she was a girl.0 -
-
Considering Ana was sexually assaulted prior to or around the time of being murdered, I find it highly disingenuous of people to say her gender didn't matter to A. Would you say that about any other rapist and murderer, or is it only this one that gets the "gender doesn't matter here", "he just wanted to kill anyone, it could have been a boy, equally" attitude? That sounds a lot like plain denial of reality to me.
The investigators stated that there is no known motive for the murder and are still clueless to why the murder happened. Surprisingly the perpetrators got checked for mental problems and there did not seem to be any.
They found no motive for the murder so its not right to say that the victims gender did matter as nobody knows what the motives were. I think alot cant accept not knowing the motive of such a tragic murder.0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »Probably not as the crime was convicted when they were children. There was a Senior Counsel on the RTE documentary explaining the difference between what is in public's interest in knowing about a crime and that the public are interested in a crime. The public are definitely interested in this crime and many want to know their identities but it is not necessary for the public to know the identity of two children who commit a crime..... apparently.
Are you sure it was an RTÉ programme?
Does the law say that the identities of juvenile criminals can never be disclosed?0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »The investigators stated that there is no known motive for the murder and are still clueless to why the murder happened. Surprisingly the perpetrators got checked for mental problems and there did not seem to be any.
They found no motive for the murder so its not right to say that the victims gender did matter as nobody knows what the motives were. I think alot cant accept not knowing the motive of such a tragic murder.
The fact that Boy A charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault as well as murder indicates the motive, doesn't it?0 -
Advertisement
-
She didn't say gender was the sole motivating factor, you said that.One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s the headline of the article we’re discussing?
Ana Kriégel was murdered by boys because she was a girl
Like many others, I have spent the week reading about and listening to analysis in the wake of Ana Kriégel’s murder. I presumed and indeed expected that someone else would state the blindingly obvious, but as yet they haven’t. So here I am. I will say it. Ana Kriégel was murdered by boys because she was a girl.
And the discussion on here has been from posters saying that gender was irrelevant, which it clearly was not. Though TBF I missed that point out when I pressed post, and added it straight after, so you may not have seen it.
(As for the article itself, it's basically correct. That's opinion if you like, of course, but then we have no certain insight into any murderer's motivation, even when they give one. That doesn't stop us from having some fairly clear notions all the same. The idea that the victim here could just as easily have been a boy, as some posters have explicitly claimed, is - IMO - implausible.)0 -
political analyst wrote: »The fact that Boy A charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault as well as murder indicates the motive, doesn't it?
No, it doesn’t. It indicates the nature of the acts for which he was charged and found guilty. His motivation for committing the acts remains unknown.0 -
political analyst wrote: »The fact that Boy A charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault as well as murder indicates the motive, doesn't it?
Yes, that's the way I see it.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No, it doesn’t. It indicates the nature of the acts for which he was charged and found guilty. His motivation for committing the acts remains unknown.
Considering that Boy A sexually assaulted Ana as well as murdering her, how can his motive not be sexual?0 -
political analyst wrote: »The fact that Boy A charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault as well as murder indicates the motive, doesn't it?
No, we don't know the motive for the murder0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »No, we don't know the motive for the murder
If there's a sexual element to the case then how can the murder not have been sexually motivated?
He couldn't have had one motive for the murder and a different motive for the sexual assault.
The only cases of sex crimes perpetrated by males that may not involve a sexual motive are those in which a perpetrator uses an inanimate object instead of his penis to penetrate the victim.0 -
She didn't say gender was the sole motivating factor, you said that.
And the discussion on here has been from posters saying that gender was irrelevant, which it clearly was not. Though TBF I missed that point out when I pressed post, and added it straight after, so you may not have seen it.
(As for the article itself, it's basically correct. That's opinion if you like, of course, but then we have no certain insight into any murderer's motivation, even when they give one. That doesn't stop us from having some fairly clear notions all the same. The idea that the victim here could just as easily have been a boy, as some posters have explicitly claimed, is - IMO - implausible.)
She suggests that Ana Kriegel was murdered by boys because she was a girl, and claims it’s obvious. It isn’t.
I already said I agreed that saying gender was irrelevant was highly disingenuous. It’s also irresponsible to claim that gender was the sole motivating factor, as the author of that article suggests. It’s not basically correct, it’s opportunistic speculation.
The fact that we don’t know their motivations is exactly what stops us from having any fairly clear notions. I wouldn’t be willing to speculate on their motivations because it could literally be any reason, in pretty much the same way as it has always been unclear what Wayne O’ Donohues motivations were when he murdered Robert Holohan -
Family appalled as child-killer Wayne's new life is revealed
I think plausibility or otherwise of hypothetical circumstances is just as much pointless speculation as anything else tbh.0 -
political analyst wrote: »Considering that Boy A sexually assaulted Ana as well as murdering her, how can his motive not be sexual?
Because his motivation for committing sexual assault could be anything. We don’t know what his motivations were, is the point. Some people will argue that it was about power over someone vulnerable, some people will argue an infinite number of reasons based upon explanations of events after the fact. Those speculative opinions aren’t a million miles away from the idea that a person committed rape because of the way their victim was dressed.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I agree with you that it is absolutely disingenuous of anyone to suggest that gender doesn’t matter here, but at the same time, I think it’s irresponsible of anyone to suggest that gender was the sole motivating factor here either. That’s equally a denial of the reality that the only people who know what their motivations were, are the people who committed the act.
I've said a few times that gender is central but you have to add in the isolation, the bullying that presented Ana as a target etc. etc. I don't want to trawl over the horrific detail again. But Boy A announced a prior intention to kill. His target, given what we know of his pornography, had to be a girl.
I'm not sure if you sat down with 13 year olds and asked them their motivation for doing something you would get a closely argued account. I suspect that for some things the motivation, the urges that move within them are unidentifiable to themselves. And sometimes the thing is in plain view. And sometimes people lie. And maintain a lie to the end.
As I see it, her point was that there was a silence developing about the case around gender. Why the "blindingly obvious" wasn't mentioned can be speculated about. I don't have the legal knowledge about why investigators didn't go there but I wonder if it might have more to do with securing convictions and avoiding appeals.One eyed Jack wrote: »The professor could have made their arguments without using the circumstances in this particular case, but there wouldn’t have been as much attention paid to their opinion had they not associated their opinions with this particular case.One eyed Jack wrote: »To suggest that Ana was murdered by boys because she was a girl isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion, and amounts to nothing more than idle and irresponsible speculation used to present a particular narrative.
A court decides, I think, that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Given all the points made in court I think it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that Boy A murdered Ana because she was a girl who he perceived as a vulnerable, isolated target who fitted the bill for his depravity.0 -
political analyst wrote: »If there's a sexual element to the case then how can the murder not have been sexually motivated?
He couldn't have had one motive for the murder and a different motive for the sexual assault.
The only cases of sex crimes perpetrated by males that may not involve a sexual motive are those in which a perpetrator uses an inanimate object instead of his penis to penetrate the victim.
What is the motive for a sexual assault? A lot of sexual assaults ( probably most) are carried out to assert power over the victim rather than the perpetrator having a sexual attraction to the victim... it can be used as another form of violence to the victim like hitting them over the head with a brick.
But what was the motive for this to Ana Kriegel....nobody knows.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »She suggests that Ana Kriegel was murdered by boys because she was a girl, and claims it’s obvious. It isn’t.
I already said I agreed that saying gender was irrelevant was highly disingenuous. It’s also irresponsible to claim that gender was the sole motivating factor, as the author of that article suggests. It’s not basically correct, it’s opportunistic speculation.
The fact that we don’t know their motivations is exactly what stops us from having any fairly clear notions. I wouldn’t be willing to speculate on their motivations because it could literally be any reason, in pretty much the same way as it has always been unclear what Wayne O’ Donohues motivations were when he murdered Robert Holohan -
Family appalled as child-killer Wayne's new life is revealed
I think plausibility or otherwise of hypothetical circumstances is just as much pointless speculation as anything else tbh.
No I don't agree that she does suggest it. That's purely your interpretation. Which is rather ironic in the circumstances. There is actually rather better evidence for the author's opinion about the murder than for yours, about her opinion.0 -
No I don't agree that she does suggest it. That's purely your interpretation. Which is rather ironic in the circumstances. There is actually rather better evidence for the author's opinion about the murder than for yours, about her opinion.
Hang on there chief, this the authors own quote...
It’s a simple explanation and it is a wonder it hasn’t been said already. It isn’t a very nice sentence to read. Yet it is a harsh and unpalatable fact. Despite all of the writing seeking more complex explanations, the real reason is hidden in plain sight. Ignored because we cannot or will not look at the fact that gender-based violence is a real problem in Ireland.0 -
No I don't agree that she does suggest it. That's purely your interpretation. Which is rather ironic in the circumstances. There is actually rather better evidence for the author's opinion about the murder than for yours, about her opinion.
And what is the author’s opinion then if my interpretation of the headline in which they state quite clearly that ‘Ana Kriegel was murdered by boys because she was a girl’ is incorrect?
All they’ve done as I said is made the evidence in this particular case fit their opinion. The only factually accurate observation in that article is that what appears obvious to the author is only obvious to the author, based upon her interpretation of the circumstances in this particular case.
It would be like me picking any other particular trait and saying “well it’s obvious, isn’t it?” The reality is that their motivations aren’t obvious, and the authors opinions only serve to fuel speculation and myths about the motivations of people who commit these acts, and their victims.
The author says at the end of the article -
A really good start would be a guiding principle that values women’s safety over men’s feelings.
An even better start IMO would be a guiding principle that discourages people from making prejudicial assumptions about the circumstances of individual cases to support a broader argument about a societal problem which appears obvious to them.0 -
I've said a few times that gender is central but you have to add in the isolation, the bullying that presented Ana as a target etc. etc. I don't want to trawl over the horrific detail again. But Boy A announced a prior intention to kill. His target, given what we know of his pornography, had to be a girl.
I'm not sure if you sat down with 13 year olds and asked them their motivation for doing something you would get a closely argued account. I suspect that for some things the motivation, the urges that move within them are unidentifiable to themselves. And sometimes the thing is in plain view. And sometimes people lie. And maintain a lie to the end.
I know you’ve said it a few times that gender is central. I don’t agree, because I don’t know their motivations any better than you do. That’s my point. You’re at least willing to acknowledge other factors which may have been their motivation, and as you suggest, they could simply lie too. In this particular case they were at least known to have lied on a number of occasions.As I see it, her point was that there was a silence developing about the case around gender. Why the "blindingly obvious" wasn't mentioned can be speculated about. I don't have the legal knowledge about why investigators didn't go there but I wonder if it might have more to do with securing convictions and avoiding appeals.
I don’t know whether investigating officers did or didn’t go there, and my point is - neither does the author of that article. They’re literally speculating based upon what limited evidence they have, or more to the point - speculating about something which they don’t have - evidence. That’s called “filling in the blanks”. It’s never a good idea as it can lead to ill-informed conclusions based upon a lack of evidence.A court decides, I think, that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Given all the points made in court I think it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that Boy A murdered Ana because she was a girl who he perceived as a vulnerable, isolated target who fitted the bill for his depravity.
That’s exactly all that was established by the jury. They didn’t give their reasons for coming to the conclusion they did. For any individual juror it could have been as simple as having the prejudiced opinion that “sure you’d know by the heads of them”. Juries are after all made up of members of the general public, as susceptible to prejudice as you, or I, or indeed the author of that article.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I know you’ve said it a few times that gender is central. I don’t agree, because I don’t know their motivations any better than you do. That’s my point. You’re at least willing to acknowledge other factors which may have been their motivation, and as you suggest, they could simply lie too. In this particular case they were at least known to have lied on a number of occasions.
There is a big question you have to answer: what would establish their motivations for you? I ask because you can see the problem already: if your answer is that they must tell us and only they can reveal their motivation then you have to consider that we are dealing with liars, we are dealing with 13 year olds at the time whose grasp of the urges within them may not be choate, we are allowing their version of the truth which may be limited by their own ability to face the horror of themselves, an almost infallible status.
I think is is reasonable to come to a conclusion that we can state at least the motivation of Boy A. As I have done above. It is to a certain extent speculation. But it is much more reasonable than to invoke "mystery" as some have done or to demand the establishment of fact by the statements of convicted liars and murderers.0 -
Where are you getting this from? I read that she seemed to have been bullied mainly because her disabilities (partial deafness) meant that she struggled in school and that she was very naive.
Her mother mentioned her size as being a factor. I don't remember hearing anything about girls being jealous of her beauty. I think you're looking at her as adults do, and not how 13 year old girls see each other.
I haven't heard anything about other girls being the instigators of the exclusion (though obviously they were part of it), never mind that these two boys were influenced by the opinion of the girls.
As for the idea that rape and murder are merely "finalising" an act of bullying by 13 year olds, well. I wonder about some people.
I don't agree, that many with disabilities go through the education sys with being bullied. I have never seen this as a primary reason for being bullied. People get bullied for a myriad of reasons. You think that her peers saw her different to me as not being strikingly beautiful, tall and pretty and prob more femininely developed than her peers, prob the one to get the boys to turn the head when she passed. You think that has no impact on her peers that from even younger age are sexualised to get the boys attention? I do believe this was the reason her own sex bullied her and I would think they found the excuse she was naive and different in being born in remote part of Europe to counter this. I think it showed how naive she was to get hoodwinked by Animal B. I don't think another girl in the class would be as naive to be led on an wild goose chase like she was. Her mother Geraldine stated she was comprehensively and totally bullied. She had not one friend in her class. As for her natural beauty I understand another older class sought her to model for them.
Jealous one of the 7 deadly sins and as relevant today as back in biblical time when the sentence was phrased. As for the two animals I would believe they were opportunist to what has developed in the school and sought an opportunity to capitalize on it. We can see this from Animal B evidence in he has total contempt for Ana as a human being. He even thought he had the investigating Gardai on his side during this demeaning of her, And it would seem his mission with the other animal was to further degenerate her in to brutally murder her and sexually assault her, after all in their eyes she was totally worthless.
0 -
Before I sign out of this thread for a day or two I want to say something about bullying: if we are looking for the reasons for bullying we should look at the bully, not the victim.0
-
There is a big question you have to answer: what would establish their motivations for you? I ask because you can see the problem already: if your answer is that they must tell us and only they can reveal their motivation then you have to consider that we are dealing with liars, we are dealing with 13 year olds at the time whose grasp of the urges within them may not be choate, we are allowing their version of the truth which may be limited by their own ability to face the horror of themselves, an almost infallible status.
I think is is reasonable to come to a conclusion that we can state at least the motivation of Boy A. As I have done above. It is to a certain extent speculation. But it is much more reasonable than to invoke "mystery" as some have done or to demand the establishment of fact by the statements of convicted liars and murderers.
There isn’t anything for me personally which would establish their motivations conclusively. It would be irresponsible of me to speculate as to their motivations, and that’s why I said it was irresponsible of the author of that article in their capacity as a professor of psychology to speculate as to the motivations of the boys in this particular case, based upon her own prejudices.
It’s absolutely speculation on your part to conclude your own reasons for their motivations, but it makes sense that your conclusions would appear reasonable to you. As you noted earlier, the standard to establish guilt is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. There isn’t any requirement to establish guilt conclusively, nor is there any requirement to establish motivations conclusively either. The prosecution has to establish that the defendant is guilty of the offences of which they are accused, beyond reasonable doubt, in order to overcome the presumption of innocence, a right to which everyone in society is entitled to.
That’s why I pointed out the last sentence in the article as particularly concerning -
A really good start would be a guiding principle that values women’s safety over men’s feelings.
I’m all for valuing women’s safety, but the guiding principle in law is the presumption of innocence, not the assumption of guilt. As a professor of psychology I would have thought the author would be familiar with the concept of the presumption of innocence, but perhaps they have chosen to ignore it or refuse to acknowledge it on this particular occasion when they suggest that men and boys need to be held to task, as though anyone should be held responsible for the actions of anyone else, solely by virtue of the fact they happen to be of the same gender and should be assumed guilty of wrongdoing on that basis alone.
The problems with the application of that principle of casting aspersions on any group in society on the basis of any particular trait, should be obvious.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because his motivation for committing sexual assault could be anything...... Those speculative opinions aren’t a million miles away from the idea that a person committed rape because of the way their victim was dressed.
Exactly.
People commit rapes because they are rapists - that's all there is to it. There are no mitigating circumstances or explanatory reasons. They are just scummy people.0 -
Advertisement
-
political analyst wrote: »Considering that Boy A sexually assaulted Ana as well as murdering her, how can his motive not be sexual?
There a numerous cases around the world where a sexual assault was about power and humiliation and not about sex. Various studies have also shown that some killers became aroused by the act of killing. I suppose if killing is the only way for them to get a sexual release, then the motive could be classified as sexual. But we don't know if that is the case with Boy A.
Supposedly Boy A said to Boy B "lets kill Ana". He didn't mention raping or having sex with her as far as I know. The aim, the goal, appears to be killing her. Why? We can only speculate. Maybe someone will do a study on them. Maybe an expert will interview them and get to the bottom of their motivation for what they did. Maybe we will never know.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement