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

spurious · 19-06-2019 06:15AM

I worry that had there been another local boy, who knew the layout of the house (and apparently it's a known hangout for kids in the area), who kept insisting he was there, but getting some details wrong (lying?), would that have been enough to convict him?

I'm not suggesting there actually was a third boy, but I'm trying to understand how somebody can incriminate themselves without any evidence to say what they said was true. Again, not saying it is in this case, but say you had a child who was fond of notice and telling stories, would they have been convicted too? Just to re-iterate, I'm not suggesting Boy B is such a child, just wondering is that the case here, if you say you did something/were somewhere, it is taken as absolute truth that you did?

How is it decided when the lies have stopped? When the current version matches what the police want/think?

petrolcan · 19-06-2019 06:19AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That is a little disrespectful.

It really isn't.

Mrsmum · 19-06-2019 06:19AM

My general opinion is that Boy B was actively involved but tbh if I had to stake my children's lives on that, I wouldn't whereas I would for Boy A. I often have teenage boys here in my house and the amount of pure crap and bravado stuff they come out with is unbelievable. They seem to find inappropriate stuff totally hilarious and you're looking askance at them. But then they flip back to just silly young messers again. I think maybe it is possible that Boy B was going along with being a bit of a hardshaw with Boy A but that he never ever believed what happened would do. Maybe his mind didn't have the knowledge the other boy had so he couldn't imagine it. I think it's possible he thought they would give Ana a bad fright which of course is right nasty but nowhere near rape and murder. And when it was ongoing he realised what a physco Boy A was and froze. As I say mainly I think he was involved and actively so but not with 100% certainty.

petrolcan · 19-06-2019 06:21AM

anewme wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

Awful terrible thing as I posted in another reply.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 06:23AM

spurious wrote: »

I worry that had there been another local boy, who knew the layout of the house (and apparently it's a known hangout for kids in the area), who kept insisting he was there, but getting some details wrong (lying?), would that have been enough to convict him?

I'm not suggesting there actually was a third boy, but I'm trying to understand how somebody can incriminate themselves without any evidence to say what they said was true. Again, not saying it is in this case, but say you had a child who was fond of notice and telling stories, would they have been convicted too? Just to re-iterate, I'm not suggesting Boy B is such a child, just wondering is that the case here, if you say you did something/were somewhere, it is taken as absolute truth that you did?

How is it decided when the lies have stopped? When the current version matches what the police want/think?

Was he caught on CCTV like the other two?

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 06:31AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

My general opinion is that Boy B was actively involved but tbh if I had to stake my children's lives on that, I wouldn't whereas I would for Boy A. I often have teenage boys here in my house and the amount of pure crap and bravado stuff they come out with is unbelievable. They seem to find inappropriate stuff totally hilarious and you're looking askance at them. But then they flip back to just silly young messers again. I think maybe it is possible that Boy B was going along with being a bit of a hardshaw with Boy A but that he never ever believed what happened would do. Maybe his mind didn't have the knowledge the other boy had so he couldn't imagine it. I think it's possible he thought they would give Ana a bad fright which of course is right nasty but nowhere near rape and murder. And when it was ongoing he realised what a physco Boy A was and froze. As I say mainly I think he was involved and actively so but not with 100% certainty.

Then why all the lies? The kid was clever, I don't believe he was a clueless pawn. He watched because he wanted to. And then did nothing to help police find her.

Mrsmum · 19-06-2019 06:42AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Then why all the lies? The kid was clever, I don't believe he was a clueless pawn. He watched because he wanted to. And then did nothing to help police find her.

I know. I'm not saying he didn't do it, just exploring the safety of his conviction. The lies, well maybe he realised he was hugely implicated and that he was looking at jail so he was trying to save his own skin by saying everything and anything that would get him off.

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 06:54AM

RIP poor Ana. No one should be taken from the world like that, and she suffered so much with bullying in life as well. It's all wrong.

The old adage of it takes a community to raise a child couldn't be truer. Parents and schools don't do enough to instil decency and kindness in their children.

The truly disturbing thing is that these boys are not just the products of their parents, but the product of our culture.

I don't know what else to say, it's the most unsettling and sad case in Ireland in a long long time.

Mrsmum · 19-06-2019 06:54AM

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

shesty · 19-06-2019 06:54AM

Probably need to remind ourselves that we are tallking about kids here.They did a horrendous thing, but they are still kids and not mature, won't behave as we would expect-ie the lying.There is probably no rationality to why he did it really.

Also let's face it - 12 people looked at tapes of his lying and came to the conclusion that he was guilty.One or two people, you might ask was that justified.But 12 people.....never mind the Gardai who kept at him in those interviews because he was clearly not telling the truth.They could see it, and the 12 people on the jury could see it.I did read that one of the few things they asked to look at during deliberations was tapes of 7 of his interviews.He built the case against himself without even realising it.

Happy4all · 19-06-2019 06:55AM

An awful end to a young girl's life. Heartbreaking for her parents who behaved with dignity throughout the trial. Boy B's father on the underhand, while understandably, feeling emotions run high, his outburst made him look like the scumbag not the Gardai. Thankfully Justice was served.

Mrcaramelchoc · 19-06-2019 06:59AM

"Ana Kriegel loved sparkle and colour and just wanted a friend"

Wouldn't that just break your bloody heart.god rest her and keep her family.

namloc1980 · 19-06-2019 06:59AM

shesty wrote: »

Probably need to remind ourselves that we are tallking about kids here.They did a horrendous thing, but they are still kids and not mature, won't behave as we would expect-ie the lying.There is probably no rationality to why he did it really.

Also let's face it - 12 people looked at tapes of his lying and came to the conclusion that he was guilty.One or two people, you might ask was that justified.But 12 people.....never mind the Gardai who kept at him in those interviews because he was clearly not telling the truth.They could see it, and the 12 people on the jury could see it.I did read that one of the few things they asked to look at during deliberations was tapes of 7 of his interviews.He built the case against himself without even realising it.

Yeah which were many hours long. I'd say they decided Boy A was guilty in about 5 minutes and the rest of the time was spent on Boy B and rewatching the interviews. Ultimately they decided on his guilt based on the lies and his foreknowledge of the event.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:01AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

Because he did not plan on doing anything to her and likely thought no DNA would be on her. He could always say, as he did, he left her at park and never saw her after that.

He probably didnt bank on CCTV to go against his version of events.

Also he is still a kid, he's not going to have it all planned out like a professional serial killer.

Happy4all · 19-06-2019 07:06AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

Because he was happy to lure Ana to the scene of her death and watch knowing what boy A planned. I supposed he believed boy a would be the sole person charged.

Likewise, you could say boy a was a fool to think he could get away with it.

Mrsmum · 19-06-2019 07:08AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Because he did not plan on doing anything to her and likely thought no DNA would be on her. He could always say, as he did, he left her at park and never saw her after that.

He probably didnt bank on CCTV to go against his version of events.

Also he is still a kid, he's not going to have it all planned out like a professional serial killer.

Yeah but he would have had to explain why he called for her out of the blue and that involved telling that he was taking her to meet his friend thereby linking himself to Boy A who he is supposed to have known was going to murder her.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:08AM

Happy4all wrote: »

Because he was happy to lure Ana to the scene of her death and watch knowing what boy A planned. I supposed he believed boy a would be the sole person charged.

Likewise, you could say boy a was a fool to think he could get away with it.

I agree. They were kids, albeit clever ones that may have even convinced themselves no one would believe a child would kill. And I suppose, they'd have been right on that. The initial feeling on the streets seemed to be absolute shock.

Happy4all · 19-06-2019 07:12AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah but he would have had to explain why he called for her out of the blue and that involved telling that he was taking her to meet his friend thereby linking himself to Boy A who he is supposed to have known was going to murder her.

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 07:14AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah but he would have had to explain why he called for her out of the blue and that involved telling that he was taking her to meet his friend thereby linking himself to Boy A who he is supposed to have known was going to murder her.

He would think .....'That's not a crime. I can say i did nothing wrong. I can say i didn't know what was going to happen.'

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:17AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah but he would have had to explain why he called for her out of the blue and that involved telling that he was taking her to meet his friend thereby linking himself to Boy A who he is supposed to have known was going to murder her.

All he had to say was what he did, A asked me to get her so I did. No DNA of him on Ana, likely didn't bank on CCTV or witnesses discrediting him.

In his mind if caught he was just an innocent go between ( that got to watch a brutal killing and do nothing about it).

These are kids, he probably thought his explanation was entirely plausible.

They had to get Ana to the secluded place somehow. It's not like they could kidnap her in a car.

I think you are trying to rationalise it as they thought it all through with adult brains and foresight. They don't have that.

Do you think Boy B didn't know what was going to happen?

Mrsmum · 19-06-2019 07:17AM

Happy4all wrote: »

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

Yeah I suppose. Anyway I'm just teasing out some questions in my head on this sounding board.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:19AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He would think .....'That's not a crime. I can say i did nothing wrong. I can say i didn't know what was going to happen.'

Yes, that's child logic.

19-06-2019 07:19AM

If boy B was innocent he would have called the Gardai immediately or at least his parents when he saw what was happening. He did nothing of the sort.

Lackadaisical · 19-06-2019 07:19AM

I remember from an RTE report last week the jury had been instructed to put themselves in the mindset of a person of their age and not to think about it from an adult perspective. So I'm sure they put considerable thought and effort into trying to understand the world from their age perspective.

The judge will take lots of things into account on sentencing. These kinds of cases are extremely rare and there isn't much precedent so I think we will be seeing a very detailed and considered judgement and very well explained sentencing logic.

They seem to be taking every reasonable step the can to ensure very fair procedure, given the ages of the defendants. I'm not really sure that any of us can second guess that without having been in the court and hearing all the evidence.

We've a robust appeals system and the courts seem to be following and exceeding international best practice for cases involving minors. I really think we should just wait for the final reports on this utterly grim case.

I don't really think there's much point in adding to the anguish of the Kriegel family by an online forum attempting to second guess a case that none of us sat through.

19-06-2019 07:19AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, that's child logic.

I know plenty of adults who reason like that. Many business owners and execs and high ranking public servants.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:22AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If boy B was innocent he would have called the Gardai immediately or at least his parents when he saw what was happening. He did nothing of the sort.

Even if scared and not saying anything initially, if he had no idea at all what was going to happen to Ana he'd have been an absolute mess throughout the questioning when it was known A was caught.

Happy4all · 19-06-2019 07:25AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah I suppose. Anyway I'm just teasing out some questions in my head on this sounding board.

Understand fully. My initial reaction listening to the daily paper reports was that Boy B was possibly an innocent person used by Boy A. However. I have to accept that the jury that trawled through the full evidence got it right.

The saddest comment for me was Ana's mother saying, nobody ever calls for Ana. Imagine how excited she must have been at someone wanting to be her friend and the horror that unfolded. RIP Ana.

19-06-2019 07:26AM

I have a daughter around the same age and to be honest prison is too good for these scum. Couldn't read some the details of the case, it made me sick to my stomach. And it was an open and shut case, with plenty of evidence.

laugh · 19-06-2019 07:27AM

I don't really believe the stuff that was posted here overnight, by the "lawyer" etc that the conviction of boy B was unsafe.

The PTSD defence was basically bollox, the jury could see on camera:

his relaxed bored demeanour at times while being interviewed in relation to a rape and murder case.
his derogatory description of Ana given in one of those interviews, a girl he knew to be dead and at least saw his friend assault (his final version of events to Gardai, he later claimed to the psychologist to have seen her murdered)
he didn't lie initially through fear or stress and then come clean with the truth, 8 times he tried to figure out what version of events would get him out of trouble.

Does't sound like someone suffering from a mental break.

How many 13 year old psychopaths has the psychologist, who claims he was suffering from PTSD, dealt with?

evolving_doors · 19-06-2019 07:29AM

Happy4all wrote: »

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

Probably didn't want to be seen with her in school.

I'm surprised -(if , boy b was fully intent on assisting the murder)- that they didn't have a story sorted before it took place.

I think boy A didn't care about the aftermath and so didn't need to have a good story. I know there was some attempt at saying they were attacked but it doesn't add up. I honestly don't think bout b had the same intent as a and it was a case if getting caught up in boy a's manipulation.
In maturity levels a first year kid like boy a could have the maturity of a 5th class kid ....or the maturity of a 3rd year.

Plenty of normal adults go along with heinous crimes as they are put in abnormal circumstances.
Its easy for us to say ' oh boy b could have stopped boy a if he wanted'. But I think boy b was a victim of boy a's very strong manipulation. He pestered boy b for ages that he just wanted to talk to her. He tested the waters previously to another kid who kicked him out of his house so I think he moved on till he found his accomplice.

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

Comments