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

Penn · 19-06-2019 09:03AM

Sundance_Kid wrote: »

I missed parts of the trial due to being away but a couple of questions,someone may be able to answer

1. Did they show interviews with Boy A in court? Seemed to be mostly Boy B interviews that were shown. Was it a case of Boy A saying "No comment" to all interview questions? And then just trying to get Boy B to be the one to confirm it was Boy A?

Can't answer the second one, but from what I've read videos of interviews are rarely shown, rather transcripts are read out and the garda or detectives testify about it. There was no point in watching Boy A's interviews as most of it was no comment etc, plus they had ample other evidence against Boy A. However the case against Boy B largely hinged on his interviews and changing his story 8-9 times, so his interviews alone were a key piece of evidence against him. Hence why they watched all his interviews.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2019 09:03AM

Yurt! wrote: »

Under the Children's Act it does. Minors accused of a crime attracting a tariff less than 12 months are prosecuted in the Children's Court. The nature of this crime and the tariff it attracts upon a guilty verdict meant it had to be heard in the Central Criminal Court.

well no it doesn't. Serious crimes committed by children are tried in the central criminal court but the childrens act still applies so they are not "tried as adults". they are just tried in an adult court.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 09:03AM

Sundance_Kid wrote: »

I missed parts of the trial due to being away but a couple of questions,someone may be able to answer

1. Did they show interviews with Boy A in court? Seemed to be mostly Boy B interviews that were shown. Was it a case of Boy A saying "No comment" to all interview questions? And then just trying to get Boy B to be the one to confirm it was Boy A?

2. Semen or DNA (cant remember which or if both the same thing) from a third unidentified source was found on her top. Seems strange if it was semen from someone else, how it got there. Did someone come across her body after or something.

1) there was a ton of forensic evidence linking boy a to the crime.
2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.

iamwhoiam · 19-06-2019 09:04AM

mariaalice wrote: »

That is blaming parents its not as simple as that if one parent holds the line you can others are not so the child will just get access to it from thier friends unmonitored phone society has to back up the parents and make it easier.

I didn’t say it was easy . Its not but parents must be in control as much as they can

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:05AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no it doesn't. Serious crimes committed by children are tried in the central criminal court but the childrens act still applies so they are not "tried as adults". they are just tried in an adult court.

Right, like I said. Children are tried under the provisions of the Children's Act, which means it has a statutory basis.

screamer · 19-06-2019 09:07AM

I hope the precedence from another teen case leads to these two ****s being named when they reach 18. It should be branded on them so we all know who they are and the risk they pose to everyone.

InTheShadows · 19-06-2019 09:08AM

davyboy1975 wrote: »

Looks like redfm could be in trouble for naming one of the boys this morning.

It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.

Flippyfloppy · 19-06-2019 09:09AM

InTheShadows wrote: »

It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.

It could affect their sentencing!

davyboy1975 · 19-06-2019 09:10AM

InTheShadows wrote: »

It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.

True but also means the parents will forever be abused and possibly hounded out of their house for something that wasnt down to them or which wasnt their fault entirely

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:12AM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It could affect their sentencing!

Naming them would have had a potentially predjudicial effect on the trial as we know the media wouldn't be able to help themselves during the trial, but it's not going to prejudice the presiding judge - who after all, knows quite well who they are.

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:12AM

Lehiff - you should probably take that down.

Boggles · 19-06-2019 09:12AM

Well that's the thread.

Idiot.

MrFresh · 19-06-2019 09:15AM

Risking jail to post a pic. What an idiot.

GreeBo · 19-06-2019 09:15AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

1) there was a ton of forensic evidence linking boy a to the crime.
2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.

Surely they would have been able to ascertain if the DNA was boy B's?

I think that if Boy B had told the truth from the start he wouldnt have received any custodial sentence since there is a lack of any real evidence against him and we dont have Joint Enterprise here.

I'm not that concerned with him changing his story, he is a kid afterall, but his demeanour during the interviews seems to have been pretty disturbing.

spurious · 19-06-2019 09:16AM

So many cretins sharing photos online. Here and elsewhere.

Penn · 19-06-2019 09:16AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.

Surely they would have checked Boy B's DNA, no? No forensic evidence of Boy B was found at the scene, so they would have checked Boy B to see if his DNA matched the unidentified DNA that was found.

SirGerryAdams · 19-06-2019 09:18AM

Seeing the picture makes it worse. How could he do it?!?!

Padraig Mor · 19-06-2019 09:19AM

MrFresh wrote: »

Was it a presenter or caller?

I heard it. It was a journalist who had covered the trial. At the end of the interview where he'd referred to Boy A and B throughout, he referred to Boy A twice by name - clearly accidentally as he immediately started stumbling over his words when he'd realised what he'd done. Interview was quickly terminated! Checked the kid out on Google and doesn't seem 'the type' on the surface [snipped].

MrFresh · 19-06-2019 09:20AM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I heard it. It was a journalist who had covered the trial. At the end of the interview where he'd referred to Boy A and B throughout, he referred to Boy A twice by name - clearly accidentally as he immediately started stumbling over his words when he'd realised what he'd done. Interview was quickly terminated! Checked the kid out on Google and doesn't seem 'the type' on the surface [snipped].

I'd say the journalist will be in big trouble, particularly if he was in the court room.

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:21AM

Well that's his career toast then

Somedaythefire · 19-06-2019 09:21AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely they would have been able to ascertain if the DNA was boy B's?

I think that if Boy B had told the truth from the start he wouldnt have received any custodial sentence since there is a lack of any real evidence against him and we dont have Joint Enterprise here.

I'm not that concerned with him changing his story, he is a kid afterall, but his demeanour during the interviews seems to have been pretty disturbing.

Well unless the truth was Boy A wanted to kill Ana (as he told Boy

so Boy B brought Ana to a derelict house and watched Boy A attack Ana (as Boy B told the psychologist).

Padraig Mor · 19-06-2019 09:25AM

MrFresh wrote: »

I'd say the journalist will be in big trouble, particularly if he was in the court room.

Was in courtroom throughout. In fairness it was clearly accidental.

NB: I've received a couple of PMs already asking me to name the boy. Apologies, but I ain't gonna do it.

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:26AM

Who was the journalist?

Boggles · 19-06-2019 09:26AM

Yurt! wrote: »

Who was the journalist?

ex journalist.

Yurt2 · 19-06-2019 09:29AM

The media really can't help themselves. I know this instance was a serious foot-in-mouth clanger, but they apparently nearly collapsed the Paddy Jackson / Stuart Olding trial a couple of times. Apart from driving the country mental with their salacious reporting.

blackwhite · 19-06-2019 09:29AM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I heard it. It was a journalist who had covered the trial. At the end of the interview where he'd referred to Boy A and B throughout, he referred to Boy A twice by name - clearly accidentally as he immediately started stumbling over his words when he'd realised what he'd done. Interview was quickly terminated! Checked the kid out on Google and doesn't seem 'the type' on the surface - seems to have been a leading underage GAA player.

There's a different kid with same name [snipped]. Possibly you stumbled across him instead.

Goes to show the dangers of all the unconfirmed online speculation around their identities

EDIT - as with Padraig Mor above - I won't be replying to any PMs asking for the names. I don't want to be responsible for the wrong kid being targetted just for having the same name as a killer.

weldoninhio · 19-06-2019 09:30AM

Boggles wrote: »

ex journalist.

https://www.thejournal.ie/oberstown-ice-cream-4155500-Aug2018/

Here's where they poor boys are currently. :rolleyes:

We need a proper childs prison and more adult prisons. When was the last one built in Ireland??

Suckit · 19-06-2019 09:30AM

For those that haven't seen it

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1141034068546654208

GarIT · 19-06-2019 09:30AM

blackwhite wrote: »

There's a different kid with same name [snipped]. Possibly you stumbled across him instead.

Goes to show the dangers of all the unconfirmed online speculation around their identities

In that case I'd be changing my name ASAP.

Padraig Mor · 19-06-2019 09:31AM

blackwhite wrote: »

There's a different kid with same name [snipped]. Possibly you stumbled across him instead.

Goes to show the dangers of all the unconfirmed online speculation around their identities

Could well be. And, yes, shows the dangers in putting the names out there.

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

Comments