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
1…230231233235236…247

Comments

  • Options
    #6962
    Suckit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    They are kids.
    There's probably no need to read so deep into their reasoning.
    It could have been something as simple as Ana fancying Boy A, and Boy B with everyone else chipped away at him until he had had enough.
    The two of them planned it for a while.


  • Options
    #6963
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    dartboardio wrote: »
    Of course they are. But also very nasty for the sake of it, or if someone isn't deemed 'normal' in their mind.

    You actually said "this is not how the teenage mind works" which is trying to suggest that teenagers are never jealous.

    Try to deny that if you like but please go back and read your post and see how it reads.


  • Options
    #6964
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    No, you're completely wrong if you think that 13 year olds are not jealous of beauty. It's is you who does not understand the teenage mind if you don't realise that.

    IME as an ex 13 year old girl and a mother of teenagers, including girls, I think you're missing the point. It's not that kids couldn't possibly be jealous of someone, but a whole class wouldn't have reacted unanimously in excluding her - because she had no friends at all.

    That's not someone who was seen as being beautiful - IME there'd always have been at least a smallish groups who would have reacted differently to her looks, ie would have wanted to hang out with her.

    One group that hated her for her looks? Sure. Not a single friend ever? There's something else going on there, and it's more likely her deafness and her perceived oddness (her naivety). IMO of course.


  • Options
    #6965
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,961 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This doesn't even make sense. It wasn't a boy who was attacked, and she was raped as well as murdered - and you're even blaming porn for it yourself. So either there's a sexual motive or there isn't, and if there isn't, then it's nothing to do with porn.

    What exactly would have been needed for you to accept that there was a sexual element to the attack? A second rape? Not killing her? What if that was part of getting away with the rape? What about rapists who murder their victims - are those killings not related to gender either?

    Was she raped? I never heard anything about that. If you have a link I would be happy to read it. There was no conviction of rape.


  • Options
    #6966
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You edited your post while I was typing, so it's a bit much to tell me I didn't read it. You changed your post to try and make a bit more sense - but that's not my fault.

    I actually agree with you that the other kids probably didn't feel that she was beautiful, her other disabilities, including her height, clearly negated that in their minds, otherwise they wouldn't have bullied her - they'd have wanted to be with her.

    I still don't see how you can say that the attack had a sexual motive but had nothing to do with her gender though. Especially when you yourself linked it to porn. What differences in the attack would have made you think it was gender related?


    ??? I went back to check my post to make sure I said 'this was nothing to do with her gender' and not that I had said sex instead.

    Fair enough :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6967
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    You actually said "this is not how the teenage mind works" which is trying to suggest that teenagers are never jealous.

    Try to deny that if you like but please go back and read your post and see how it reads.

    Well then apologies for my misleading you. Or getting my words mixed.

    Teenagers can get jealous, but jealousy was definitely Not a factor in this case. It's clear to see.

    Two or three girls might bully a fellow girl if they were jealous. Not multiple people, boys and girls.


  • Options
    #6968
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You're aware that they usually aren't on holiday, which is what you make it sound like?

    In fact currently the alternative is that most women would just stop having children. As in Japan and Korea. And Germany to a lesser extent.

    And it's not women who stop men from taking time off to look after their children, it's usually precisely because they refuse to sacrifice their careers for their children. So isn't it in everyone's interests that women should not be stigmatised for pregnancy and motherhood?

    Which is what you doing there.

    This is nonsense. It’s entirely a woman’s choice today wether she has children or not. That is a desicion she makes with the other parent of her child, if she has one, or for herself if she doesn’t.
    Making that choice she has the prior knowledge that if she and her partner both go to work then childcare arrangements will have to be in place. So she can make choices about that based on her circumstances before she even conceives.
    If a woman makes a choice to have a child and then chooses to stay at home from work and look after the child herself then whos the hell Business is that except hers?
    You can’t give women the information and the choice and then expect to be allowed to complain afterwards?


  • Options
    #6969
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This is nonsense. It’s entirely a woman’s choice today wether she has children or not. That is a desicion she makes with the other parent of her child, if she has one, or for herself if she doesn’t.
    Making that choice she has the prior knowledge that if she and her partner both go to work then childcare arrangements will have to be in place. So she can make choices about that based on her circumstances before she even conceives.
    If a woman makes a choice to have a child and then chooses to stay at home from work and look after the child herself then whos the hell Business is that except hers?
    You can’t give women the information and the choice and then expect to be allowed to complain afterwards?

    Pretty much this imho. The truth is that while there may be cases where one partner is more pushy for their choices, that partner can be male or female, and plenty of men are left working longer hours to make up for a partners foregone salary that “just wasn’t worth it compared to having those years with the kids”. Fortunately the handmaids tale isn’t actually a real life documentary in spite of what certain media commentators might present


  • Options
    #6970
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    dartboardio wrote: »
    Of course they are. But also very nasty for the sake of it, or if someone isn't deemed 'normal' in their mind.

    Children of that age are, and always have been, very quick to identify and often isolate people they see as different in some way. In my view this, and the evidence of how Ana was seen as different is a far more credible view than the agenda laden whitterings of some twit in the Irish times


  • Options
    #6971
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    That tiny percentage is almost entirely male. The same as the people who commit serious (and not so serious assaults) are predominantly male. there is a problem with male violence in society. to think otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

    Since you’re so preoccupied on that tiny percentage, let’s look at some details on child killings: globally parents commit 56% of child killings. Of those over half are committed by the mother. Do you think maybe a better way to protect children would be to teach parents not to murder their children? Maybe have don’t kill your children classes for mothers as a risk group? Perhaps an Irish times op ed is needed to highlight this?

    Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Yet the IT identity politics baiting nonsense is no less ridiculous. It looks to place blame on a demographic for the actions of a tiny few. Exclude gangland type killings (where frankly nice course on being nice aren’t much benefit) and that drops even further.

    That’s not to say I think there isn’t a problem with random violence in society btw. The level of random assaults, often fueled by drink or drugs is too high and root causes should have been tackled long ago. Dv by both genders is a problem that needs resources (especially for male victims). I just don’t buy this bull**** that somehow an innocent life has more or less value in highlighting and protecting based on their gender.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6972
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    I don't think there is a problem with "male violence" as opposed to female, it's just a consequence of biology that men are stronger and therefore do more damage if they do hit someone. I think women are every bit as likely to react violently as men, maybe even more so.


  • Options
    #6973
    xalot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭xalot


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    Was she raped? I never heard anything about that. If you have a link I would be happy to read it. There was no conviction of rape.

    The state pathologist said there was 'penetration or attempted penetration' with an object that could not be identified. Hence the aggravated sexual sexual assault charge.


  • Options
    #6974
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This is nonsense. It’s entirely a woman’s choice today wether she has children or not. That is a desicion she makes with the other parent of her child, if she has one, or for herself if she doesn’t.
    Making that choice she has the prior knowledge that if she and her partner both go to work then childcare arrangements will have to be in place. So she can make choices about that based on her circumstances before she even conceives.
    If a woman makes a choice to have a child and then chooses to stay at home from work and look after the child herself then whos the hell Business is that except hers?
    You can’t give women the information and the choice and then expect to be allowed to complain afterwards?

    So we don't need maternity cover or indeed subsidised education, people can just pay for it themselves, right? It's a choice after all.

    The point is that in an organised society we're all interdependent, and unless we're going to return to the 50s when married women couldn't work but could rely on a widows pension In old age, that includes allowing women to both work and have children.

    Because if they don't have children, then we'll have to resort to immigration to staff our hospitals when we're old and sick.

    So yes, it's the couple's choice, but it's in all our interest to facilitate them making the choice to have children without necessarily leaving the workforce. That's all.


  • Options
    #6975
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I don't think there is a problem with "male violence" as opposed to female, it's just a consequence of biology that men are stronger and therefore do more damage if they do hit someone. I think women are every bit as likely to react violently as men, maybe even more so.

    I'm not sure that's a great argument for there not being a problem with male violence - could a 6 foot muscle bound man use it as a defence in why he killed a skinny 15 year old for instance? "Oh I didn't mean to but he was actually more violent than me, just less effective"?

    The other problem with your claim is that women don't kill as many babies and small children as men do, and yet their physical size is not what's stopping them.


  • Options
    #6976
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm not sure that's a great argument for there not being a problem with male violence - could a 6 foot muscle bound man use it as a defence in why he killed a skinny 15 year old for instance? "Oh I didn't mean to but he was actually more violent than me, just less effective"?

    The other problem with your claim is that women don't kill as many babies and small children as men do, and yet their physical size is not what's stopping them.

    That's not how i mean it. I don't have the figures, i'm just thinking out loud and i don't want to derail the thread. I'm just saying from my own experiences over the years that i haven't found men to be inherently more violent than women, they're just stronger.

    More dangerous certainly, more inherently violent probably not.

    As i said, i'm just thinking out loud!


  • Options
    #6977
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,961 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    xalot wrote: »
    The state pathologist said there was 'penetration or attempted penetration' with an object that could not be identified. Hence the aggravated sexual sexual assault charge.

    That's what I thought. So there wasn't evidence of rape. I think if it was a "weird" "loner" boy that they had decided to kill instead of Ana, they might have done the same. I still believe Ana's gender wasn't a (major) factor in her murder.


  • Options
    #6978
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm not sure that's a great argument for there not being a problem with male violence - could a 6 foot muscle bound man use it as a defence in why he killed a skinny 15 year old for instance? "Oh I didn't mean to but he was actually more violent than me, just less effective"?

    The other problem with your claim is that women don't kill as many babies and small children as men do, and yet their physical size is not what's stopping them.

    You seem to miss the uncomfortable fact that in cases of parental homicide of a child women are statistically more likely than men to be the killer.


  • Options
    #6979
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    tritium wrote: »
    You seem to miss the uncomfortable fact that in cases of parental homicide of a child women are statistically more likely than men to be the killer.

    Not quite that simple - women are statistically more likely to be the main caregivers. When you take that into account, basically male caregivers are far more likely to kill or harm the children they are looking after than female caregivers.

    What you're doing there is the same as saying that white people in Ireland are more dangerous than black people because they commit the majority of crimes. Or Catholics compared to Protestants or Jews.


  • Options
    #6980
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not quite that simple - women are statistically more likely to be the main caregivers. When you take that into account, basically male caregivers are far more likely to kill or harm the children they are looking after than female caregivers.

    What you're doing there is the same as saying that white people in Ireland are more dangerous than black people because they commit the majority of crimes. Or Catholics compared to Protestants or Jews.

    Eh no actually, even though it would be a nice straw man it’s still a straw man. The statistics are clear here and basically completely disprove your original assertion


  • Options
    #6981
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    tritium wrote: »
    Eh no actually, even though it would be a nice straw man it’s still a straw man. The statistics are clear here and basically completely disprove your original assertion

    No, they really don't. And you obviously don't understand what a straw man is either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6982
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭tritium


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, they really don't. And you obviously don't understand what a straw man is either.

    Tell you what, read the meta analysis for yourself, plenty of other studies out there too . I really can’t be arsed when people just want to parrot ideology against data based evidence

    https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000112


  • Options
    #6983
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    I'm dipping back in after a day or two. The article I quoted has stirred a debate alright. Leaving the heat it generated aside there has been some light too. I still think most people here accept that Ana was murdered because she was a girl who was perceived to be isolated, bullied, "slutty", a "weirdo" and the best target for the violent heterosexual fantasies of one of those convicted of her murder. I cannot separate the violence of her death and heterosexual assault from her gender. It simply does not fit the facts as we know them and as the court convicted.

    The broader question raised about violence, male on female violence, male on male, female on male has had a lot of discussion. The stats from Womens Aid I posted were answered to a certain extent by stats from a COSC report. Even today on Twitter I saw a comment from a DV counsellor who mentioned that one of the male victims they dealt with had been a serving soldier in the SAS. There is a lot of food for thought in all that discussion. The last stats I saw posted here again pointed to the role of females in DV, with mothers as the main killers in deaths of children under 1.

    What interests me after all that is how society can build a consensus on the way forward in addressing violence; in this thread, violence of a savage and unprecedented type including heterosexual assault of a 14 year old girl by two 13 year old boys. Lots of answers around anti bullying and phones access and porn access. The broader question remains and it needs a unifying overarching theoretical approach to avoid paralysis around polarized opinion. All in my humble opinion. And probably for a new thread somewhere.


  • Options
    #6984
    ittakestwo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,642 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    I'm dipping back in after a day or two. The article I quoted has stirred a debate alright. Leaving the heat it generated aside there has been some light too. I still think most people here accept that Ana was murdered because she was a girl who was perceived to be isolated, bullied, "slutty", a "weirdo" and the best target for the violent heterosexual fantasies of one of those convicted of her murder. I cannot separate the violence of her death and heterosexual assault from her gender. It simply does not fit the facts as we know them and as the court convicted.

    The broader question raised about violence, male on female violence, male on male, female on male has had a lot of discussion. The stats from Womens Aid I posted were answered to a certain extent by stats from a COSC report. Even today on Twitter I saw a comment from a DV counsellor who mentioned that one of the male victims they dealt with had been a serving soldier in the SAS. There is a lot of food for thought in all that discussion. The last stats I saw posted here again pointed to the role of females in DV, with mothers as the main killers in deaths of children under 1.

    What interests me after all that is how society can build a consensus on the way forward in addressing violence; in this thread, violence of a savage and unprecedented type including heterosexual assault of a 14 year old girl by two 13 year old boys. Lots of answers around anti bullying and phones access and porn access. The broader question remains and it needs a unifying overarching theoretical approach to avoid paralysis around polarized opinion. All in my humble opinion. And probably for a new thread somewhere.

    The crime was a murder, not a ''heterosexual assault'' The victims and perpetrators gender is irrelevant to a murder as both genders can be perpetrators and victims of murder. BTW do you believe Jamie Bulgers murder was a ''homosexual assault'' ?

    These type of murders are carried out by people who are very sick in the head. maybe the question should be, how/why do people get that way?


  • Options
    #6985
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭political analyst


    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/


  • Options
    #6986
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    The crime was a murder, not a ''heterosexual assault'
    I still think most people here accept that Ana was murdered
    The victims and perpetrators gender is irrelevant to a murder as both genders can be perpetrators and victims of murder.
    In terms of the legal definition of murder this is correct. I am not discussing the legal definition. I am responding to the last few pages of discussion here.
    BTW do you believe Jamie Bulgers murder was a ''homosexual assault''
    I don't know if his murder involved an element of sexual assault but if so, as it was carried out by boys, it can be accurately described as homosexual assault. Said accuracy might not be compatible with the definitions used in English law at the time but I'm sure those interested in such definitions can repair to the Legal discussion forum for a definitive answer.
    These type of murders are carried out by people who are very sick in the head. maybe the question should be, how/why do people get that way?
    AFAIK the psychological reports found no evidence of mental illness in either of the convicted criminals. That said I think most lay people would unhesitatingly say that Boy A is "very sick in the head".

    I think that is a very good question and part of any considered response to this.


  • Options
    #6987
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    p
    I don't know if his murder involved an element of sexual assault but if so, as it was carried out by boys, it can be accurately described as homosexual assault.

    Yes there was quite a severe sexual assault involved, and one of the two killers is homosexual. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/03/27/gay-groups-voice-concern-over-bulger-killers-outing/
    Now perhaps that's just a coincidence, but I suspect not.


  • Options
    #6988
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Yes there was quite a severe sexual assault involved, and one of the two killers is homosexual. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/03/27/gay-groups-voice-concern-over-bulger-killers-outing/
    Now perhaps that's just a coincidence, but I suspect not.

    A general question: is there ever a comparative exploration done between cases?


  • Options
    #6989
    seenitall
    Registered Users Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭seenitall


    ittakestwo wrote: »
    The crime was a murder, not a ''heterosexual assault''

    What?? Why is A on the on the sexual offenders' register then, and why was he convicted for sexual assault, as well as murder..?


  • Options
    #6990
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    seenitall wrote: »
    What?? Why is A on the on the sexual offenders' register then, and why was he convicted for sexual assault, as well as murder..?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6991
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    A general question: is there ever a comparative exploration done between cases?

    No idea. Studies are certainly carried out into crimes, and can be consulted, but I don't know if their results are directly applied in courts very often. I think it's more university research into specific domaines like psychology or whatever.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement