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

Small Wonder

Tomw86 wrote: »

I may be incorrect in assuming this - but as their Guardians, if the parents wanted them to please guilty, then they would have had to submit that plea.......

Surely that cannot be correct.

Suckit

I watched her youtube videos after this happened. Heartbreaking is an understatement. Everything about this case except the verdict is heartbreaking.
As the OP said, these two should rot in hell.

Bigbagofcans

retro:electro wrote: »

I remember that being covered. Didn’t he say she dressed like a slut? How absolutely tone deaf but an insight into the mind of the depraved piece of shlt

Awful. People need to stop calling others 'sluts' - it's an absolutely disgusting word and people who use it should be ashamed of themselves. I hear it being used too often and usually by people who should know better and are trying to belittle someone so they're seen to be worthless.

Tomw86

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think this is true at all. they get to make their own decisions based on the advice given to them.

Far enough, I wasn't sure.

The advice of their parents was either to go with the lawyers or decide yourselves then too...or they weren't listened to if they said plead guilty - either way, parents are not free of blame in this!!

shesty

I can't understand why they pleaded not guilty either.The only thing I can figure is it was some sort of thickness on the part of them/their parents to refuse to allow them to be seen as guilty and take their chances on a court believing their lies.Seeing as Boy B seems to have lied his way through what-8 hours of police interviews? - and Boy A doesn't seem to have even bothered trying to defend himself (something very contemptuous about that, although it was probably a legal decision), it may not be a far stretch to think that they pleaded innocent because they felt their lies were convincing.I had no doubt Boy A would be found guilty, but wasn't sure what the jury would think about Boy B.

Judge has instructed they not be named anyway.

Suckit

I believe (from what I have read), that boy B manipulated this whole thing.

Jupiter Mulligan

Banned.

iamwhoiam

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

We can only hope he gets taken care of in prison.

I get the feeling boy B was easily led from the limited stuff I read and heard, found the details very hard to take. Not usually upset easily, but christ this case had me turning the news off on a number of occasions

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0618/1056046-boy-b-ana-kriegal-trial/


In the case of Boy B however, a decision was taken to allow the jurors to watch his demeanour and trace the evolution of his many stories. Mr Grehan said he knew it was an imposition, but he hoped, having seen the interviews, that the jurors would understand why this was considered proper and appropriate.

Mr Grehan told the jurors the interviews showed a boy who was "highly intelligent, highly articulate, highly composed". He suggested the boy was not in the least bit intimidated by surroundings that would "bring most people to their knees".

Beechwoodspark

MightyMandarin wrote: »

God help you if your child ever commits a heinous crime. While how one is raised is definitely a factor in how they end up, to blame the parents for their sons committing an act of murder is totally unfair. Plenty of murderers and criminals were raised in good homes with loving parents.

No I blame the parents for going along with the charade that these evil bastards were innocent.

DNA evidence alone was conclusive yet the parents and their sons put the victims family through that horrific trial

So yes I do blame the parents of these murderers. They should’ve sat the murderers down and got the truth out of them.

Instead they seemed to be gambling that the rubbishy childish lies and inconsistencies would clear their murderer children.

Scum is all I can say.

Roger Hassenforder

Small Wonder wrote: »

That's a fair point. I just don't understand the sudden urge to have their identities revealed. They can rot in their cells as far as I'm concerned. Boy A and Boy B suits me fine.

Because theyre identity is cloaked.
They have somethingafter this, they havent lost all.
Ana has.

"Boy A and Boy B"...like they're anonymous villians from a novel. They can move on from their crime. Couple of years in juve/joy and they're free men. Free to do this again to some poor kid. Unknown to whatever community they move to.

Fair enough if a prank went wrong. An error of judgement with fatal consequences, "a mistake".
Not this.

Tomw86

They should be named - and if people in the area know the names, no doubt it will get around.

If I had them I would have no problem at all putting them up on Social Media and ensuring they are exposed.

NuttyMcNutty

Did the judge not say that he was going to ask for their school reports before sentencing?:eek:

McCrack

jmayo wrote: »

Oh I get the analogy all right.
It is typical arrogance from high ranking legal professional.

It is trying to dress up and make it acceptable to represent some of the most morally reprehensible characters and do their best to get them to avoid their rightful punishment.

It is like how the legal team of these two scrotes will sit at home tonight and not see anything wrong with how they tried to claim to a jury there was no real evidence to convict their clients and how they were nice young lads from nice families.

Well you see there is a thing in the Constitution (art 38.1)

In fact to save my fingers have a read of this:

http://brophysolicitors.ie/pre-trial-rights/

Basically in a trial there are two sides - prosecution and defence - DPP is represented by lawyers and the defence represented by lawyers and the jury listen to everything and decide the defendant's guilt or innocence - everybody from the great and terrible are entitled to legal representation - and if you don't like that perhaps move to North Korea or somewhere

keng66

Couldn't listen to some of the court details as found it too upsetting as a father of a teenage girl.
Whatever about loosing a child to an accident or a disease, the idea of my daughter calling out for me to help her in her last moments would haunt me

Beechwoodspark

Tomw86 wrote: »

They should be named - and if people in the area know the names, no doubt it will get around.

If I had them I would have no problem at all putting them up on Social Media and ensuring they are exposed.

The names and details of the murder were known widely in the area a few days after it happened

Small Wonder

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So yes I do blame the parents of these murderers.

Blame them for what?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Tomw86 wrote: »

The relationship was already broken if the parents couldn't deduce or get a confession over exactly what happened from either child.

If they knew what had happened and still caused this to go to trial but letting them plead not guilty, then they are to blame.

If they didn't know, then they either intentionally turned a blind eye, or didn't want to know - this also attributes some blame to them.

You speak as if you think parents would always behave rationally in these situations. Can you imagine the sheer horror of hearing your child, who you'd loved since they were a baby, had done something like this? Because I can't and I haven't a clue how I'd behave or react.

Captain Red Beard

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0618/1056046-boy-b-ana-kriegal-trial/


In the case of Boy B however, a decision was taken to allow the jurors to watch his demeanour and trace the evolution of his many stories. Mr Grehan said he knew it was an imposition, but he hoped, having seen the interviews, that the jurors would understand why this was considered proper and appropriate.

Mr Grehan told the jurors the interviews showed a boy who was "highly intelligent, highly articulate, highly composed". He suggested the boy was not in the least bit intimidated by surroundings that would "bring most people to their knees".

That's fairly chilling behaviour, and gives a bit of insight too.

Beechwoodspark

Small Wonder wrote: »

Blame them for what?

Read my post slowly and repeatedly if necessary

Strazdas

shesty wrote: »

I can't understand why they pleaded not guilty either.The only thing I can figure is it was some sort of thickness on the part of them/their parents to refuse to allow them to be seen as guilty and take their chances on a court believing their lies.Seeing as Boy B seems to have lied his way through what-8 hours of police interviews? - and Boy A doesn't seem to have even bothered trying to defend himself (something very contemptuous about that, although it was probably a legal decision), it may not be a far stretch to think that they pleaded innocent because they felt their lies were convincing.I had no doubt Boy A would be found guilty, but wasn't sure what the jury would think about Boy B.

Judge has instructed they not be named anyway.

Initially, I thought the version Boy B was giving of him getting scared and running away from a crime scene might be plausible, but even after several days of questioning he was still lying through his teeth and being caught out in his lies. Also he never seems to have lost his composure or become upset under questioning.

ZilkyG

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

RIP Ana

Rot in hell, scum

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0617/1055781-ana-kriegel/

I say hang the little ****s. Although knowing this country, they'll probably get a suspended sentence and a PS4

blackwhite

BattleCorp wrote: »

I did a quick Google and can't see anything that says that they were tried as adults.

Maybe someone else will turn up something either way.

They were tried in the Central Criminal Court.

We don't have the legal concept of "tried as adults" or "tried as children/minors" here - that's a UK concept - and we get lazy journalism here that continues to use the phrase.

Under Irish law, they are children in front of the court. However, once it's a serious offence worthy of the Central Criminal Court, then the trial procedure is almost identical to an adult trial (other than protections around identity, etc.) - and the same sentencing options are open to the judge as would be for an adult (albeit with a proviso from the Children's Act that imprisonment should be a "last resort").

The Children's Act doesn't mention mandatory sentencing, but widespread legal opinion is that mandatory sentencing isn't applicable for children. However judges here have generally imposed life sentences on children convicted of murder so the applicability of mandatory sentencing hasn't been tested in Court.

GT_TDI_150

Small Wonder wrote: »

Why do people want then named? What good will it do?

Might just set alarm bells ringing when someones now 5-10yr old daughters starts dating this scroth in 20yrs time....

These lads will walk out in x years time and will be able to settle in most country towns and noone will be any the wiser who they are dealing with...similar to jamie buldgers killers in the uk... Would you not like to know of 9ne of them moved in next to you?

Nerdlingr

gctest50 wrote: »

Boy B led her to death

I know that.
I was responding the post that there was no forensic evidence of him at the scene.

Dublin Spur

great day for justice system
now don't ruin it with soft sentencing

Wombatman

Nerdlingr wrote: »

There didn't need to be. Boy B put himself at the scene and said he witnessed the start of the assault, got scared and ran.

.... and that's enough for a murder conviction?

BattleCorp

blackwhite wrote: »

They were tried in the Central Criminal Court.

We don't have the legal concept of "tried as adults" or "tried as children/minors" here - that's a UK concept - and we get lazy journalism here that continues to use the phrase.

Under Irish law, they are children in front of the court. However, once it's a serious offence worthy of the Central Criminal Court, then the trial procedure is almost identical to an adult trial (other than protections around identity, etc.) - and the same sentencing options are open to the judge as would be for an adult (albeit with a proviso from the Children's Act that imprisonment should be a "last resort").

The Children's Act doesn't mention mandatory sentencing, but widespread legal opinion is that mandatory sentencing isn't applicable for children. However judges here have generally imposed life sentences on children convicted of murder so the applicability of mandatory sentencing hasn't been tested in Court.

Thanks for your insight.

So, no guarantee of a life sentence for the boys. It's an option but not a certainty.

Jupiter Mulligan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps they did advise them to plead guilty but the kids were free to ignore that advice. If you ask a kid to plead guilty and tell them they will definitely do time if they do or they can plead not guilty and take their chances what do you think a kid would do?

What their experienced legal advisers told them too.

ohnonotgmail

blackwhite wrote: »

They were tried in the Central Criminal Court.

We don't have the legal concept of "tried as adults" or "tried as children/minors" here - that's a UK concept - and we get lazy journalism here that continues to use the phrase.

Under Irish law, they are children in front of the court. However, once it's a serious offence worthy of the Central Criminal Court, then the trial procedure is almost identical to an adult trial (other than protections around identity, etc.) - and the same sentencing options are open to the judge as would be for an adult (albeit with a proviso from the Children's Act that imprisonment should be a "last resort").

The Children's Act doesn't mention mandatory sentencing, but widespread legal opinion is that mandatory sentencing isn't applicable for children. However judges here have generally imposed life sentences on children convicted of murder so the applicability of mandatory sentencing hasn't been tested in Court.

there has been an instance where a kid was not sentenced to life for murder and the sentence was upheld by the appeal court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/children-charged-with-serious-crimes-face-different-criminal-justice-process-to-adults-1.3508849

Amalgam

I'm glad the proper verdict has come about.

I couldn't watch TV at all while this trial was on, the coverage was quite salacious at times and it affected me whenever it would come on. This really was a case that seeped into your mind and lurked in your thoughts, for no good reason.

I guarantee you we'll here from one or both of the guilty as they grow up into adulthood.

Visions of the James Bulger accused, spring to mind..

The only thing that was a ''positive' for me was the noticeable lack of hand wringing on behalf of A & B.