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

Fusitive

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I am not at all convinced that B was the weak one . The more I read the more I think he could well have been the master puppeteer .

Boy B was not a master puppeteer, if he was, he gave away the biggest clue to the case by directly putting himself in the line of suspicion by calling to Ana's house while the other boy was hiding away.

GreeBo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think bullies at school age work in packs, herd mentality. What do they do with them then?

There is typically a ring leader though, that's the one you turf out.

justmyimput

and boy a will most likely do it again to another innocent person because nobody can recognize him or know his name because our justice system is protecting the monsters, giving new names, a chance at a new life when they took poor ana’s life away from her. sick scums need to stay behind bars for the rest of their lives and not just another 4 years till they’re 18.

Fakediamond

airy fairy wrote: »

Perhaps this has been asked and discussed already, but as boy A has been charged with aggravated sexual assault along with the murder, is that not grounds to be put on the sex offenders list? Surely then his anonymity cannot be kept?

The Sex Offenders Register is not a public document and is administered And kept by Gardai for public safety reasons. Other agencies such as Tusla and Probation Service will also likely be aware of who is in the register, but not the general public, or the next door neighbours, etc.

iamwhoiam

theemigrant wrote: »

I thought Boy A was. The horrific porn etc would lead me to believe he was the one who planned it.

B knew A had a problem and knew his desire and possibly showed him the path and led him down
We will never know now I guess because both are lying through their teeth to cover their own ass

Dante7

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Going by the Irish Times article Boy B appeared as highly intelligent and astute during the Garda interviews. However further down the opinion of a psychologist found him to be immature and lacking in boundaries. I don't think it is as clear cut as one boy being 'this' way and the other boy being 'that' way.

The psychologist who was hired by the defence and who didn't even review the Garda interviews before submitting his report? The Judge was correct it ruling it as inadmissable.

_blaaz

It would more of a concern from a brief reading on this there was very limited dna evidence



I think myself.they.were 100% guilty....but afaik.if that boy A had not lied and siad he was assulted.in the park,gaurds would never have.taken his runners and her blood not been found on it



Them.2 would have lied their way to freedom....there was a fair amount of planning/prep went into this,a degree of organisation that is rarely seen outside of gangland murders

Patrick2010

From all reports Ana was quite a strong girl, 5’ 8” and well built. It’s unlikely boy A could have overpowered her without the help of his accomplice who led her to him.

dickangel

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Because if A left her there knowing she could be still alive it shows that there is no question of the intent to kill.

As for morbid. The whole case is morbid, not least because she was killed in a gruesome way by children.

So the reason you're dreaming up various morbid scenarios is to try and somehow prove Boy A intended to kill Ana? He was found guilty of murder. It's obvious he intended to kill her. Just quit the ghoulishness, it's disrespectful and utterly pointless.

fryup

iamwhoiam wrote: »

B knew A had a problem and knew his desire and possibly showed him the path and led him down
We will never know now I guess because both are lying through their teeth to cover their own ass

maybe..Boy A got a kick from doing it, and Boy B got a kick from watching it

SirGerryAdams

The file with question about boy A....where was that?? On his PC? Or what?

dickangel

Patrick2010 wrote: »

From all reports Ana was quite a strong girl, 5’ 8” and well built. It’s unlikely boy A could have overpowered her without the help of his accomplice who led her to him.

Boy A was tall for his age and skilled in martial arts, he also seemingly got injured in the process. I don't think it's likely Boy B helped, there was no DNA on him.

mrjoneill

dickangel wrote: »

Boy A was tall for his age and skilled in martial arts, he also seemingly got injured in the process. I don't think it's likely Boy B helped, there was no DNA on him.

She was stripped naked, not easy while holding down a person that was very strong and fit. Boy B stated she put up her hands to remove her clothing, he seems to know a lot how they were removed.

tuxy

_blaaz wrote: »

I think myself.they.were 100% guilty....but afaik.if that boy A had not lied and siad he was assulted.in the park,gaurds would never have.taken his runners and her blood not been found on it

His DNA(semen) was on her dead body. They would have found and convicted boy A under almost every circumstance I can think of.

Patrick2010 wrote: »

From all reports Ana was quite a strong girl, 5’ 8” and well built. It’s unlikely boy A could have overpowered her without the help of his accomplice who led her to him.

Really? By all accounts Boy A was also tall and strong being male I don't see why he wouldn't have been able to overpower her, especially when he had planned it out.

dickangel

mrjoneill wrote: »

She was stripped naked, not easy while holding down a person that was very strong and fit. Boy B stated she put up her hands to remove her clothing, he seems to know a lot how they were removed.

So how does one person get covered in DNA and the other have no trace at all?

Sunflower 27

dickangel wrote: »

So the reason you're dreaming up various morbid scenarios is to try and somehow prove Boy A intended to kill Ana? He was found guilty of murder. It's obvious he intended to kill her. Just quit the ghoulishness, it's disrespectful and utterly pointless.

I'm not dreaming anything up. It is how she was found.

His defense tried to claim it was not premeditated.

It clearly was if she was left to die while A walked off. The way she was found made me question that.

volchitsa

She'd been hit on the back of the head to start off. That alone would have made her much more vulnerable than if both had started off face to face and then it degenerated from there. So not impossible that a strong boy who knew some martial arts could have overpowered her on his own.
It is odd the other boy seems to have stood there and done nothing, but there was none of his DNA on her, not identifiable anyway. That's actually why I wonder if he wasn't in fact the instigator.

Hoboo

mrjoneill wrote: »

She was stripped naked, not easy while holding down a person that was very strong and fit. Boy B stated she put up her hands to remove her clothing, he seems to know a lot how they were removed.

Not wanting to speculate on something so horrible, it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

dickangel

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I'm not dreaming anything up. It is how she was found.

His defense tried to claim it was not premeditated.

It clearly was if she was left to die while A walked off. The way she was found made me question that.

I think the fact that it took over 40 mins for the list of injuries to be read out is evidence enough that the intent was to kill. There's literally no doubt, hence why he was found guilty of murder.

Dante7

dickangel wrote: »

So how does one person get covered in DNA and the other have no trace at all?

Where are you getting that Boy A was covered in Ana's DNA? His DNA was (semen) was found on Ana, of the other way round.

dickangel

Dante7 wrote: »

Where are you getting that Boy A was covered in Ana's DNA? His DNA was (semen) was found on Ana, of the other way round.

Are you serious? There was blood all over his belongings. It was key evidence.

strandroad

Dante7 wrote: »

Where are you getting that Boy A was covered in Ana's DNA? His DNA was (semen) was found on Ana, of the other way round.

Her blood was on his clothes etc., multiple locations.

Dante7

<snipped>

Wombatman

tayto lover wrote: »

Again.

1. Boy A told him he was going to murder Ana.
Boy B said he didn't believe him. Why did Boy B volunteer this info to incriminate himself? Boy B lied so much, his testimony is worthless, so why believe this part?

2. Boy B took her to the scene of her death. CCTV proves this also her father saw him at the door.
Does not equate to murder if he did not know what Boy A had planned.

3. Boy B supplied the stick tape used to subdue her.
Does not equate to murder if he did not know what Boy A had planned.

4. Boy B watches it all and doesn’t help or even ask Boy A to stop.
Does not equate to murder.

5. In his interviews Boy B refers to Ana as dressing like a slut. No remorse.
Does not equate to murder.

6. Boy B changes his story at least 9 times in his questioning.
Does not equate to murder.

7. The interviewing detectives describe him as being smart conniving and confident little ****.
Does not equate to murder.

8. The cctv also showed him coming back a good bit later from the scene than he said. So he hung around enjoying it all.
Any proof what he did at this time?

I really can’t see him beating this rap and hopefully the little murderer will have a long painful life in custody.

People need to understand that for Boy B to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove either:

1. He participated in the act of killing
or
2. He helped Boy A with the murder in the full knowledge of what Boy A was about to do.

From what I have read there is no proof for one.

The IT article addresses point two.

Nevertheless, it only got them so far. Boy B was shown repeatedly lying to gardaí, but there was zero forensic evidence linking him to the killing. In order to prove murder, the prosecution needed to prove he knew the plan that day was to kill Ana. To do this they relied heavily on Boy B’s admission that Boy A had asked him a month earlier if he wanted to kill the girl.

The entire case against Boy B would essentially boil down to one issue: Did he believe Boy A when he said this or did he think he was joking? If the former was true Boy B was guilty, if it was the latter he was innocent.

This is will be the main focus of Boy B's appeal

From the IT Article

One of the main objectives of Boy B’s defence team was to have the jury hear the evidence of Dr Humphries, the psychologist who examined the teen at the start of the year and determined he had been traumatised by witnessing the attack on Ana.

In the absence of the jury, Humphries repeated what he said in his report, that the trauma caused Boy B to tell the gardaí “untruths”. The doctor said he didn’t like to use the word “lie” because he didn’t want to seem judgmental.

He told Colgan the boy was bright but naive and immature. By way of illustration, he said that, during his stay in Oberstown, Boy B had asked for Lego to play with – a request the staff had never had before.

Grehan’s cross-examination of Humphries for the prosecution was easily the most combative of the entire trial. Counsel took particular issue with the doctor’s assertion that Boy B had “no knowledge of a plan for murder”.

Grehan said this was a matter for the jury. He said the doctor’s report contained a lot of jargon but there “doesn’t appear to be any engagement with the facts of the interviews”.

He submitted that allowing the doctor’s evidence into the trial would trespass on the function of the jury as the judges of fact and effectively make Humphries a “13th juror”. After taking the night to think about it, McDermott excluded the doctor’s evidence entirely.

All of Boy Bs testimony will become junk if it is accepted that "the trauma [by witnessing the attack on Ana] caused Boy B to tell the gardaí “untruths”.

Boy B's conviction is entirely based on his own testimony.

If there were text messages, recordings, notes etc between the two for example, detailing a pact or plan to kill Ana, this would be solid proof that Boy B knew.

Why during deliberations did the jury ask for DVDs of seven of Boy B’s Garda interviews?

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

The psychologist who was hired by the defence and who didn't even review the Garda interviews before submitting his report? The Judge was correct it ruling it as inadmissable.

Yes the very same. My point is that we don't know with any certainty who these boys are, or indeed what they are. I've been thinking a lot on this case. I haven't a clue as to what went on in the minds of Boy A and Boy B. Were they both the product of a dysfunctional home? Did they fit the criteria for Cluster B personality disorders? Were they simply bad? Was one the ring leader and if so which one?
Its horrendous. Poor Ana and her poor family.

Strazdas

volchitsa wrote: »

She'd been hit on the back of the head to start off. That alone would have made her much more vulnerable than if both had started off face to face and then it degenerated from there. So not impossible that a strong boy who knew some martial arts could have overpowered her on his own.
It is odd the other boy seems to have stood there and done nothing, but there was none of his DNA on her, not identifiable anyway. That's actually why I wonder if he wasn't in fact the instigator.

The pathologist suggested that the physical attack indeed came first followed by the sexual assault.

The prosecution case was that B watched on voyeuristically.....this was in their opening arguments

donkeykong5

tayto lover wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I wondered this too. But apparently she was hit as soon as she walked into where Boy A was. So it doesn't seem like she was able to defend herself?

I read yesterday that when she went missing police were searching the park and came across a man and a boy out for a walk. They stopped to talk to the police. They later discovered it was Boy A and his dad. There he was walking through the park with his dad chatting to police all the while knowing she was dead because of her in that manky place.

The teacher said he was an intelligent boy with not an ounce of trouble from him.

You never think of something like this happening and to think two 13 year old came up with it, carried it out a d calmly tried to get away with it. It's crazy stuff

Ana fought like a tiger for her life. She had defensive wounds. Her nails were broken.
Jaysus lads read the court reports. It’s all there.

Poor girl. She really had a terrible death. It's awful reading what she went through. It's like a horror story and then you suddenly realise it's all true. Hope those protected boys rot in hell.

pjohnson

<snipped>

anewme

People recounting here in graphic detail what happened to Ana in that place is too much to bear.

Locals want it levelled, despite its history and I dont blame them.

iamwhoiam

The unfairness in a lot of peoples eyes that Ana was not afforded the same protection . Her life , her difficulties , her struggles , her pain , her horrific death was on every single newspaper for weeks on end . No one gave her protection from that