Anastasia Kriegel

[magpie seanie]

The media made a mistake reporting the father's reaction.
This was not a normal trial. Children murdered a child and public revulsion levels were already high.
Driving a family into hiding serves nobody .

Maybe the father should have thought of that before he carried on in the way he did. He's not a child.

[GetOverTheBar]

Wouldn't be too fond of this naming these boys  The law is there for a reason and should be upheld and protected.

Any1 know what the story is when they turn 18? Can they be named then?

The law is there to protect the identities of the families as opposed to the perpetrators. Infact anyone who is naming them / sharing photos online could actually well help Boy B in his seemingly inevitable appeal - 'unfair trial' etc.

Any sharing of information now will have no bearing on an appeal.  Anything shared now would not compromise the jury and the appeal can only be on a point of law. The likely appeal points will arise out of the ruling by the judge not to allow the psychological report in,  possibly some stuff that may have arisen in a voir dire that was not before the jury and sometimes is not reported on,  possible questions over the detention and nature of the questioning by AGS, stuff like that.  After the fact stuff like sharing his name/picture on-line will not impact any appeal.

I work with a woman here who has looked up Boy B and feels sorry for him because she's seen him in his uniform.

I agree with your points regarding what points an appeal could take under, but of course revealing information on him / pictures could compromise a jury as above. She's a normal woman with kids that age - it would take a pretty cold hearted b**** not to feel something.

[seafoid]

The media made a mistake reporting the father's reaction.
This was not a normal trial. Children murdered a child and public revulsion levels were already high.
Driving a family into hiding serves nobody .

Maybe the father should have thought of that before he carried on in the way he did. He's not a child.

It is not a crime to have a temper
This is probably a privacy issue
The media messed it up

[Hound]

The media made a mistake reporting the father's reaction.
This was not a normal trial. Children murdered a child and public revulsion levels were already high.
Driving a family into hiding serves nobody .

Maybe the father should have thought of that before he carried on in the way he did. He's not a child.

It is not a crime to have a temper
This is probably a privacy issue
The media messed it up

After the verdict, a barrister pal of mine texted me that he heard "the father had plenty to say to the jury and guards".  I checked RTE and Irish Times and while they referred to some reactions they didn't mention this at all. I then listened to Newstalk and the court reporter actually discussed the reaction of all the key parties. In relation to this father, he just said he was upset and walked out the room, closed the door quite hard, but returned a short time later. That was it.

So I think there was an initial plan to play it down in the mainstream media. But presumably the more tabloid elements (Mail, Indo, Star, etc) decided to go full disclosure, then everyone had to.

[Dougal Maguire]

His reaction was normal, he's human for God's sake.

[magpie seanie]

His reaction was normal, he's human for God's sake.

Referring to the Gardaí and the court as scumbags is normal? I hope not.

[Dougal Maguire]

While, thankfully,  neither of us knows what actually constitutes as 'normal' behaviour in such situations I'm pretty sure many people would reacted similarly if they felt that their child was being subjected to a miscarriage of justice

[Puckoon]

The guards.

Oops. Thanks for that. Agree with your sentiments on this thread by the way

As do I, I have a hard time with the inability of some to understand the multiple layers of devastation and complexity here and that having empathy for the other victims of this horrible circumstance in NO WAY implies a lack of understanding and thought to the heart shattering loss and brutal truth suffered by the Kriegel family at the hands of what are still children themselves.

[omaghjoe]

Wouldn't be too fond of this naming these boys  The law is there for a reason and should be upheld and protected.

Any1 know what the story is when they turn 18? Can they be named then?

The law is there to protect the identities of the families as opposed to the perpetrators. Infact anyone who is naming them / sharing photos online could actually well help Boy B in his seemingly inevitable appeal - 'unfair trial' etc.

The law is there to protect the child not anyone else... I'm well in favour of this no matter what the crime.

It seems like the anonymity extends for life tho which I'm not sure about...

[Tony Baloney]

The media made a mistake reporting the father's reaction.
This was not a normal trial. Children murdered a child and public revulsion levels were already high.
Driving a family into hiding serves nobody .

Maybe the father should have thought of that before he carried on in the way he did. He's not a child.

His 14 year old son had just been sentenced to life in prison for murder of a 13 year old girl. It's not a normal day so I wouldn't expect "normal" behaviour. We can only but aspire to your level of perfection.

[seafoid]

The media made a mistake reporting the father's reaction.
This was not a normal trial. Children murdered a child and public revulsion levels were already high.
Driving a family into hiding serves nobody .

Maybe the father should have thought of that before he carried on in the way he did. He's not a child.

It is not a crime to have a temper
This is probably a privacy issue
The media messed it up

After the verdict, a barrister pal of mine texted me that he heard "the father had plenty to say to the jury and guards".  I checked RTE and Irish Times and while they referred to some reactions they didn't mention this at all. I then listened to Newstalk and the court reporter actually discussed the reaction of all the key parties. In relation to this father, he just said he was upset and walked out the room, closed the door quite hard, but returned a short time later. That was it.

So I think there was an initial plan to play it down in the mainstream media. But presumably the more tabloid elements (Mail, Indo, Star, etc) decided to go full disclosure, then everyone had to.

The 2 boys are very valuable to the tabloids. They are more odious than Joe what's his name who murdered his wife  , the scissor sisters and the other " evil killers" regularly featured in those papers . Crime porn sells papers . The fact that boy B's father lost the plot is a bonus.

[manfromdelmonte]

there should have been a reporting ban on this whole trial if you ask me
two minors being tried

[seafoid]

there should have been a reporting ban on this whole trial if you ask me
two minors being tried

I agree

[High Fielder]

I strongly disagree. The world needs to know about the dangers that lurk around every corner. This happened and a 14 year old girl is dead because of it. Their age makes it more unpalatable, but it shouldn't detract from the depravity of the crime. If anything, it should act as a warning to all that even 13 year olds can do stuff like this. We have to accept that some 13 year olds know far too much about things that shouldn't interest them. Whose fault that is is debatable, but the fact is they do, and sometimes act on it. I have no interest in living in a world where I'm not aware of who or what is out there. What good could that possibly serve?

[clarshack]

Wouldn't be too fond of this naming these boys  The law is there for a reason and should be upheld and protected.

Any1 know what the story is when they turn 18? Can they be named then?

The law is there to protect the identities of the families as opposed to the perpetrators. Infact anyone who is naming them / sharing photos online could actually well help Boy B in his seemingly inevitable appeal - 'unfair trial' etc.

Any sharing of information now will have no bearing on an appeal.  Anything shared now would not compromise the jury and the appeal can only be on a point of law. The likely appeal points will arise out of the ruling by the judge not to allow the psychological report in,  possibly some stuff that may have arisen in a voir dire that was not before the jury and sometimes is not reported on,  possible questions over the detention and nature of the questioning by AGS, stuff like that.  After the fact stuff like sharing his name/picture on-line will not impact any appeal.

I work with a woman here who has looked up Boy B and feels sorry for him because she's seen him in his uniform.

Evil takes many forms. He is scum. End of.