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

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:29AM

Happy4all wrote: »

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.

That was so hard to digest.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-06-2019 07:31AM

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?

One of the reports yesterday said that the Garda interviewer was a level 3 interviewer or something. Highly trained in interviewing kids. The idea is to develop a rapport with the kid and then ask them questions without leading them.

As new evidence was found that discounted what was told he changed his story. 9 times apparently.

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 07:31AM

Anyone have any idea what actually happened?

Was the boy A waiting in the room when boy B brought her there and then he attacked her while wearing the mask? What was the tape all about? How did he manage to get it on her?

Did he assault her with the stick and block and then sexually assault her when she was near dead or did he kill her and then sexually assault her.

The sequence of events make no sense whenever I try to think.

I don't think he would have been able to put tape around her neck by himself as she seemed to be fairly strong. Or when did he take her clothes off because they seemed to be all ripped?

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 07:32AM

Also the semen stain on the top, they said there was Anas dna (I assume from the top itself) and then Boy As but also another male DNA? Who could that be or why?

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:33AM

laugh wrote: »

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?

Yes, PTSD is laughable. That boy was only intent on saving himself. No evidence of trauma or triggering. Unless you count the panic attack in court. Can't remember what that was from, but likely because he realised he was not going to get away with it.

Edit: "Boy B was treated at the scene and seen by his GP that evening. The incident occurred as the jury watched videos of Boy B’s garda interviews during which he admitted lying to gardaí. No reason was given for the panic attack."

Jurgen The German · 19-06-2019 07:33AM

There is so much posted about parents being aware for the signs that their kids are being bullied. There should be just as much awareness and focus on parents to ensure their kids aren't doing the bullying too. Obviously its impossible to fully supervise but things like parents having passwords to all social media accounts owned by their kids should be the norm.

Roger Hassenforder · 19-06-2019 07:33AM

The more thats coming out about this, the more i'm thinking B was the brains, A the tool.

B is into lego, puzzles assembling things. Maybe A was a bit more open to influence, manipulation.

Maybe B's whole "A is setting me up for the fall" sthick is actually the other way around. He set A up, and thought it would be regarded as inconceivable that he would have had something to do with it, being the last one to be seen with her, had concocted a story.
Maybe im giving him too much credit.

shesty · 19-06-2019 07:36AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

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.

Pretty much.Thinking about it, if he had come straight out and told the truth, there was probably a possibility that he could have got away.There might have been enough doubt cast about whether he knew what would happen or helped or whatever.

I fully expect he will appeal, with the psychiatric report as backup.

laugh · 19-06-2019 07:37AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, PTSD is laughable. That boy was only intent on saving himself. No evidence of trauma or triggering. Unless you count the panic attack in court. Can't remember what that was from, but likely because he realised he was not going to get away with it.

Yea he probably could see that he didn't come across as the innocent he though he was portraying.

I think his derogatory statements about her revealed his inner narrative that she didn't have a worth.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-06-2019 07:38AM

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.

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

MrFresh · 19-06-2019 07:42AM

laugh wrote: »

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?

The thing is, even if he had some form of PTSD, it doesn't really explain away the lying at all.

volchitsa · 19-06-2019 07:43AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Also the semen stain on the top, they said there was Anas dna (I assume from the top itself) and then Boy As but also another male DNA? Who could that be or why?

I don't think it was necessarily a third person, just that it was contaminated in some way and didn't yield a clear identity.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:44AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

Who knows, but A came with mask, gloves and knee guards. They were not planning to do anything pleasant to the poor girl.

The mentioning killing her and the videos of Russian Anastasia mean there had been clear forethought.

B knew they weren't going to talk about a relationship and he wasn't going to see snogging. He knew A had only contempt for Ana

strandroad · 19-06-2019 07:47AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

Boy A came dressed to kill, all geared up and masked. He knew there would be blood. It's not how you dress for a chat or even if you plan to sexually assault someone. He did say he wanted to kill her.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-06-2019 07:48AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Who knows, but A came with mask, gloves and knee guards. They were not planning to do anything pleasant to the poor girl.

The mentioning killing her and the videos of Russian Anastasia mean there had been clear forethought.

No. I totally get they didn't bring her there for pleasantries.

I think the mask etc was to frighten the sh*t out of the poor girl when she went into the dark house. Before they did what they set out to do.

I just wondered whether killing her was always their intention.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-06-2019 07:50AM

strandroad wrote: »

Boy A came dressed to kill, all geared up and masked. He knew there would be blood. It's not how you dress for a chat or even if you plan to sexually assault someone. He did say he wanted to kill her.

How do you mean 'geared up'?

I don't expect they had a pleasant chat on their minds at any stage.

When did he say he wanted to kill her?

Did boy A say anything about boy b?

iamwhoiam · 19-06-2019 07:50AM

https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-a-ana-kriegel-trial-murder-4650918-Jun2019/

Some very interesting reading online and now we know a bit more this case is horrendous . Boy A was planning this and walked out to meet Ana with intent
He never once till this day caved or faltered and not once admitted he did it
He stuck to the story that he was attacked by the two men and still sticks to that . That is the measure of a cold hearted young man

He apparently approached B to join his plan and so it enfolded
Two boys age 13 in one school who were sociopaths and at least one a psychopath met and planned a murder most horror . Horrible , frightening and terrifying to read .
I hope lessons are learned from this and someone has the courage to point the finger at the bullying culture that is surrounding our young people . The wider implication of the bullying and ostracism of Ana must be addressed as in my opinion it is intrinsically linked with the boys targeting Ana

May Ana rest in peace and the parents and brother get all the help they need to face each day .

Well done to the Gardai and the jury on this case who also must be helped to cope with their ordeal
.
These boys must in my opinion never get out as they both are a real danger to society . I hope someone has the insight to know that and the courage to voice it

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 07:51AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, that's child logic.

Yes.

TBH leading someone to a place etc. Probably did not seem wrong or illegal. Even if someone else did kill her. It wasn't him. That couldn't be illegal could it? He wasn't going to MAKE her come. etc.

Even if he held her down for a little bit or shouted things and watched. He wasn't the one killing her. Was he?

They decided the one who wasn't going to kill her should call for her and lead her there.

When he actually saw her raped and killed he knew intuitively he would have to lie. It was probably only then he realized how awful it was.

And they still planned their lying a bit well for it being on the spot imo.

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 07:52AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No. I totally get they didn't bring her there for pleasantries.

I think the mask etc was to frighten the sh*t out of the poor girl when she went into the dark house. Before they did what they set out to do.

I just wondered whether killing her was always their intention.

B followed to watch something. it wasn't snogging.

strandroad · 19-06-2019 07:52AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I just wondered whether killing her was always their intention.

First he said he would, and then he came prepared. I don't think it can be explained away at all...

patmahe · 19-06-2019 07:53AM

The only people who deserve a second thought here are Ana and her family. How have we as a society, parents, teachers and kids evolved to a situation where a young girl's Mother was immediately concerned when she heard some people had called around and she had gone with them. Are we so indifferent to other people's suffering as a society that we choose to take the easy option and ignore it. I actually believe that for the past 10-15 years we've all been so caught up with the economy and social media that we have forgotten how to be humane towards each other in the real world.

These murderers have grown up in the social media age and I think based on the search history evidence that we really need to look at what children are actually exposed to at such a young age. Maybe the internet had nothing to do with it and it was always in them to commit these horrific crimes, but I do think the internet acts as an enabler, you can type any dark thing you like into a computer and almost immediately find like minded individuals.

My heart has broken for Ana and her family during this trial, like many I have actually tried not to find out too many details as its all so horrific and I am ashamed to say that. It means I am part of the problem, we need to drag this out into the light and try to learn from it, otherwise Ana's death was completely in vain and we as a society have failed her. Shame on us if that happens.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here with the whole social media/internet thing, fine if I'm wrong I'm wrong but lets have the discussion and get some answers, so there we're not all here in another couple of years talking about another similar case.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 07:53AM

evolving_doors wrote: »

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

No. They knew the boy killing her couldn't be seen with her.

volchitsa · 19-06-2019 07:55AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No. I totally get they didn't bring her there for pleasantries.

I think the mask etc was to frighten the sh*t out of the poor girl when she went into the dark house. Before they did what they set out to do.

I just wondered whether killing her was always their intention.

Quite possible that they would have felt it was their best chance of getting away with rape.
They were certainly prepared in terms of material.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 07:55AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

Yes. She was attacked by boy a wesring a mask the minute she entered the room. She wasn’t sexually assaulted first.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 07:55AM

patmahe wrote: »

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here with the whole social media/internet thing, fine if I'm wrong I'm wrong but lets have the discussion and get some answers, so there we're not all here in another couple of years talking about another similar case.

You are not. I agree with you. But I am completely incapable of this. I don't have the right tools.

I am at a loss. I wouldn't know where to begin.

What questions do we ask?

strandroad · 19-06-2019 07:56AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How do you mean 'geared up'?

I don't expect they had a pleasant chat on their minds at any stage.

When did he say he wanted to kill her?

Did boy A say anything about boy b?

He told boy B that he wanted to kill Ana about a month before the killing. It's in the reports.

He had protective kneecaps and a hoodie on and was wearing a mask, they all had Ana's blood on them. He had a backpack with tape etc with him. He hit her on the head immediately.

It wasn't a misunderstanding.

weldoninhio · 19-06-2019 08:03AM

Grayson wrote: »

Considering the DNA evidence, especially against Boy A I have no idea why they didn't.

The mandatory sentence for murder is life, there is no remission for pleading guilty early like there is for other charges. A lot of solicitors will advise their clients of this. They will also advise that if it does go to trial there is a very small chance that the trial will collapse on a technicality etc so there is a small % chance they will get off.

iamwhoiam · 19-06-2019 08:04AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are not. I agree with you. But I am completely incapable of this. I don't have the right tools.

I am at a loss. I wouldn't know where to begin.

What questions do we ask?

The first question I would ask is how did the school deal with the bullying and ostracism of Ana . They were informed by her mother before she ever entered school that their were concerns about Anas vulnerability . Did the school put any plan or defence or safety measures in place ?

The second question I would ask is who can be approached to put legislation in place to make bullying a crime

The third is how do we guide parents to have the courage to ensure they check young teens online activity and to actually parent and take control

There is much more to learn from this and we must somehow learn from it for Ana sake and the other kids who are suffering

Sunflower 27 · 19-06-2019 08:05AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Quite possible that they would have felt it was their best chance of getting away with rape.
They were certainly prepared in terms of material.

I don't think they thought they would get away with rape. Hadn't Ana already spoken about another guy hitting her on her backside? She would have said she was raped if she wasn't killed. She knew who they were.

The knee guards and gloves prove the intent wasn't just to scare her. They were going to hurt her

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 08:08AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

The mandatory sentence for murder is life,

It isn't for children.

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

Comments