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

18-06-2019 11:18PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He will probably admit to murder in a year or so. Gut feeling.

You may be right. To be honest I'd be happy with that outcome as he'd likely explain all and that would give the parents some sense of closure.
Personally I don't believe that will happen though. And unfortunately, as other posters have said, we may never get the entire truth.

18-06-2019 11:19PM

Faugheen wrote: »

'Weak kid' my hole.

He orchestrated the whole thing.

Maybe he did. But the evidence doesn't imply that.

petrolcan · 18-06-2019 11:21PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Once more, foreknowledge of the intended offence is required for conviction. And the Appeal will rule on whether that was present. The evidence implies it wasn't.

Away with thee

Your logic and levelheadedness has no place here.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:22PM

Bobblehats wrote: »

I see these boys had a satanic study group what was that all about?

The youth of Ireland seriously needs better guidance from the darkside.

18-06-2019 11:22PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He was at least equal. Kids can 'goad' each other. Maybe he thought he could talk his way out of it.

Plus he was injured.

Boy B injured? Not in any media or court reports. And remember, no DNA link so clearly no altercation with Ana.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:23PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Maybe he did. But the evidence doesn't imply that.

It does he confessed it to a psychologist and a friend.

holliehobbie · 18-06-2019 11:23PM

El_Bee wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

Maybe this is a stupid question but is there any crime called bullying even when it's at the extreme end ? Can you go to the garda station and report that your child is being bullied by X ? Because some of these bullies would badly want a squad car to the door or to be up in court.

screamer wrote: »

You know I could tell you a bullying story that would make your hair stand in end with what the bully did, and their parents refused to let them be questioned or anything as they were under 18 and they got away with it scot free. So in short, if your kid is being bullied in school, find a new school, unless your kid is willing to kick the crap out of the bullies, there’s no other way.

As I mentioned earlier, I overheard a neghbour and her friend build an alibi for their two little angels as they were called into a meeting in the school over bullying another girl, the vile creatures are still in school, clown world.

I had to sit and make small talk with the mother of one of two little 10 year old bitches who had my daughter and her little friend who were only in junior infants and 4 years of age at the time so petrified they were hysterical going to school. Things came to a head when my daughter completely refused to go to school one day and she said it was this pair of butter wouldn't melt in their mouths bitches who were scaring her and her wee friend. This was happening in the yard at lunchtime. In fairness as soon as it was reported to my daughters teacher it stopped immediately .

18-06-2019 11:25PM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Because he believed, wrongly, that if he didn't actually do anything to her then he would get away with it?

He was quite adamant he just left at the park to start with. That was what he planned to say, until under pressure he cracked and admitted the truth

That may be true. Hopefully we'll get to the truth irrespective of whether he's guilty or not. But his lies thus far mean that seems a long way off.

holliehobbie · 18-06-2019 11:25PM

I did end up moving her to a different primary for the rest of primary school but that was for various other reasons as well.

18-06-2019 11:26PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

They had the conversation about killing her. Boy B was shown to be a continual liar. Is it plausible that they hatched a plan to kill her...yes given the circumstances! Prosecution presented it and the jury believed it.

The only reason they know about that conversation is because Boy B reported it to the police. And said he didn't take it seriously. Crazy self-incrimination otherwise.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:26PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

That may be true. Hopefully we'll get to the truth irrespective of whether he's guilty or not. But his lies thus far mean that seems a long way off.

Please stop twisting the narrative. He has been FOUND legally guilty. That is not provisional. You should know that.

hatrickpatrick · 18-06-2019 11:27PM

Suckit wrote: »

He came home from wherever and saw the Garda at his door, and wasn't at all interested.

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the probability that he is, indeed, a f*cking scumbag? Who arrives home, finds the Gardaí at their door making enquiries about their children, and isn't at all interested?

Same son's address was found by Gardaí by looking up the PULSE system.

So what was it doing there in the first place, I wonder? Clearly either the son or someone else in the family had come to the attention of the Gardaí before.

All the evidence points towards these people being total scumbags.

STB. · 18-06-2019 11:28PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Never claimed to know more, or point that out from my posts if you'd be so gracious. I posit that the conviction may be unsafe. Thus appealable and winnable. As many case are. On a daily basis if you check the court reports.

Not allowing the doctor to give psychiatric evidence was I believe a judicial error. No justifiable reason for exclusion. That alone will ensure there's an Appeal granted. The court may weigh it up and discount it but not allowing it allows cracks in the conviction.

No recanting on the Gardai interviews. I stated that the defence team will continue to argue they were coercive. I believe they were not but more weight may be given to the argument if the psychiatric evidence is allowed.

Legal system is very clear on what constitutes murder. Some posters here less so. Him being at the scene is insufficient. And if he wasn't aware that a murder was going to take place then he is not guilty.

Read the bloody court reporting. FULL SUMMARY via Irish Times

EXTRACT FROM IRISH TIME REPORT BY CONOR GALLAGHER wrote:

In early 2019 Boy B's legal team asked Dr Colm Humphries, an experienced psychologist specialising in childhood trauma, to examine Boy B and the interview tapes (to minimise the damage done in those interviews)

The defence planned to call Humphries as a witness to explain that Boy B’s lies were the result of trauma rather than an effort to hide his guilt.

Calling him as a witness carried a risk however.

During Boy B’s sessions with the doctor he had given him information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give gardaí.

The boy told the doctor he saw Boy A standing over Ana with his trousers open during the attack. And that he saw Ana gasping before going silent.

If Humphries gave defence evidence he would likely be open to cross-examination on these matters, re-enforcing the notion that Boy B continued lying to gardaí up to his final interview.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:28PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The only reason they know about that conversation is because Boy B reported it to the police. And said he didn't take it seriously. Crazy self-incrimination otherwise.

Correction.
You are not taking it seriously.

You have no idea what Boy B felt. You have never even spoken to him. The Guards have.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:28PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

That may be true. Hopefully we'll get to the truth irrespective of whether he's guilty or not. But his lies thus far mean that seems a long way off.

Quick question for ya there...you're a lawyer...if you were representing Boy B, would you have employed a "no comment" interview with the Gardai for your client?

18-06-2019 11:29PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The fact Boy B brought up the conversation they previously had is foreknowledge. He literally said Boy A told him he wanted to kill Ana.

And he said he didn't take it seriously. If he was so manipulative why would he self-incriminate like that? Kids say loads of crazy stuff so it's understandable that he wouldn't believe Boy A's chatter. And the crucial question for me is why he collected Ana to lead her to a murder scene. Doesn't make any sense.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:31PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The only reason they know about that conversation is because Boy B reported it to the police. And said he didn't take it seriously. Crazy self-incrimination otherwise.

He placed himself at the crime scene and witnessed the attack!
He self incriminated himself throughout this whole thing!!
His mouth got him convicted.
The conversation is foreknowledge as presented by the prosecution. The jury believed that.

anewme · 18-06-2019 11:32PM

Very sad that anyone could believe that these two monsters deserve anything less than a guilty verdict.

the Father of B seems a mouthpiece bully who cant keep his mouth shut. He will end up getting himself in trouble at some stage as most people are not as tolerant as Ana s parents.

18-06-2019 11:32PM

Faugheen wrote: »

'Particularly if there was little evidence'.

You're absolutely not a lawyer, or just a really bad one.

Maybe a bad one, but a long-qualified one. With most of my experience in the courts of London and the South of England. Dealing with forensic mental health cases mainly. None quite like this thankfully, and none with such youngsters.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:34PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And he said he didn't take it seriously. If he was so manipulative why would he self-incriminate like that? Kids say loads of crazy stuff so it's understandable that he wouldn't believe Boy A's chatter. And the crucial question for me is why he collected Ana to lead her to a murder scene. Doesn't make any sense.

Boy B had no reason to bring up boy A's conversation about wanting to kill Ana, only the fact that he wanted to frame or shift the guilt onto Boy A. Instead it's this very statement that gets Boy B convicted.
There's a delicious irony in that.

n97 mini · 18-06-2019 11:34PM

STB. wrote: »

Read the bloody court reporting. FULL SUMMARY via Irish Times

If called by the defence, Colm Humphries could be cross-examined by the prosecution, but the judge ruled his evidence inadmissible.

The defence were still willing to put him on the stand, knowing he could be cross-examined.

hatrickpatrick · 18-06-2019 11:34PM

petrolcan wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that you never did anything that could be construed as bullying when a teenager?

Personally I never physically assaulted anyone who didn't hit me first. And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying. Regardless of the latter, not every teen engages in physical violence, and those that do tend to be a lot scummier in general than those who don't. I've never thrown a punch at someone or engaged physically with anyone who didn't start sh!t physically with me first, and your assertion that everyone has is a little disturbing tbh.

The point I'm making is that all teens did/do it, even without thinking. Give them a criminal record for it and see what happens. It'd be like giving everyone a 2:1 degree for writing their name on a bit of paper.

This simply isn't true. I can count on one hand the number of people I was in school with who engaged in acts of violence on a persistent basis which would be described as bullying. It is not something all teens to, and those who do tend, more often than not, to grow up to be scrotes in one way or another.

Casual slagging and acting the dick are one thing, but those who start fist fights or worse with others and cause them injury, those people absolutely should be taken to task. Teenaged or not. Anyone who throws a punch at someone else for absolutely no reason other than being a sadistic piece of sh!t absolutely should be prosecuted for it.

18-06-2019 11:34PM

tayto lover wrote: »

****load of evidence.
He might have fooled you but the jury thankfully didn’t buy it.

No DNA. No forensic evidence whatsoever. In 2019. Only convicted on his unreliable testimony. Without that the DPP may not even have raised charges. And certainly not murder.

n97 mini · 18-06-2019 11:35PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Correction.
You are not taking it seriously.

You have no idea what Boy B felt. You have never even spoken to him. The Guards have.

Boy B say he didn't take it seriously. The reply reported was "in your dreams".

18-06-2019 11:36PM

STB. wrote: »

Read the reports for God sake.

Own Admissions.

Have read court and media reports. No admissions whatsoever of knowledge of Boy A's plan to murder. Boy B dismissed his talk of plans to harm her a month prior as not serious.

Nobelium · 18-06-2019 11:36PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No DNA. No forensic evidence whatsoever. In 2019. Only convicted on his unreliable testimony. Without that the DPP may not even have raised charges. And certainly not murder.

so this lad B that changed his story 9 times so far and counting is innocent . . .lol

18-06-2019 11:38PM

tayto lover wrote: »

He’s obviously just trolling.

No trolling. I genuinely believe the conviction of Boy B is unsafe. We'll see with the Appeal soon enough. I believe the jury did a good job and wavered over his guilt. Had they been privy to the psychiatric evidence and the doctor's testimony then I believe the conviction may not have happened.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:39PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Have read court and media reports. No admissions whatsoever of knowledge of Boy A's plan to murder. Boy B dismissed his talk of plans to harm her a month prior as not serious.

It wasn't talk of plans to harm her. It was to kill her. Let's get the facts straight here.

anewme · 18-06-2019 11:40PM

I cant see a campaign for Boy B <snip> as a great miscarriage of justice. Nasty person and his bullying Dad wont evoke much sympathy.

JuanJose · 18-06-2019 11:42PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Is there some kind of app that can monitor activity and report it back to another phone? Wouldn't this be ideal for monitoring a teenagers phone searches and activity? I know it might sound a tad extreme, but when I was growing up I didn't have unfettered access to such gruesome material. This thing about handing a teenager a phone without any controls is just madness.

This is hugely relevant IMO but it'll probably get lost due to the horrific nature of the case.

When the internet was shiny, new and physically tied down, what was the advice to parents?

Ensure the computer isn't in the kid's bedroom. Best in a communal space where a responsible adult can monitor the activity.

What happens next?

Boom! The thing goes mobile.
Boom! Kids start getting handed mobile devices - by those same responsible adults - at an earlier and earlier age.
Boom! Social media arrives, introduces a minimum age limit which means diddly squat in reality.

And, hey presto, bullies have carte blanche, 24 hour access to their víctim(s). Fookin' off the wall.

Rant over. Feel desperately sorry for Ana & her parents. If we, as a society, don't learn lessons from this case then we're.....I dunno.

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

Comments