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

tuxy · 20-06-2019 12:28AM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B father state his son lost 2 mobile phones he gave him to portray a bumbling fool & stated he was very immature for his age as well as craved friendship also to portray his darling son as a pawn of the Big Bad Boy A.

This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?

Larbre34 · 20-06-2019 12:30AM

Wombatman wrote: »

You are misinterpreting. Common purpose means all parties are acting towards the same end.

If a taxi drives you to a house where you commit a crime, but the taxi driver has no knowledge of your intention, there is no guilt attributable to the driver.

If the driver knows what you plan to do, and still brings you there, then the guilt is shared.

I'm not really, the jury were clearly satisfied both boys were acting towards the same end, I'm sure due in no small part to that boys lies and obfuscation in his in Garda interviews. It is clear to any reasonable analysis that B could have had no doubt that A intended to harm Ana. That harm resulted in her death, and so murder charges all round.

I'm crystal clear on this because I myself sat on a murder trial jury in the last five years that had an ambiguity about the involvement of more than one person and we had the law explicitly demonstrated to us in a two day long judges charge. As it happens, we convicted just one person.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 12:32AM

Wombatman wrote: »

None of this would prove that he murdered Ana.

Boy B does not need to establish his innocence, the prosecution needs to prove he is guilty, not of misleading, or lying or obstructing justice, or shaming Ana, guilty of murder.

Let's say proof came to light (text messages for example) that Boy B believed that Boy A was planning to rape Ana in the house, and that Boy B facilitated this plan, would he still be guilty of murder?

Yes knowledge of an unlawful act is sufficient for complicity. Boy B is implicated as he clearly enticed Ana out of her house & this was to a remote abandoned house. He was shown by CCTV to be in contact with Boy A shortly before he went to Ana's home. CCTV shows him & Ana going to the abandoned house as well as Boy A using different routes. CCTV shows Boy B returning from the abandoned house, there is no CCTV of Ana gong home. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to imply there was conspiracy esp the enticing her out of the house in what was a rouse that only someone gullible would fall for. Boy A could have told Ana at school he had not the hots for her or got one of his friends do it.

Hoboo · 20-06-2019 12:37AM

theballz wrote: »

The media will stop printing it, the thread won’t be trending but people will not forget. I cannot sleep tonight thinking about story and many parents not just in Ireland but around the world will be deeply deeply saddened by this tragic event and loss of a child.

You may forget. I know for certain I definitely won’t.

Gill Meagher. Every girl I know swore they'd never walk alone again. Two weeks later all back at it.....most people won't remember that name now nevermind the case, which was equally horrific.

gozunda · 20-06-2019 12:40AM

tuxy wrote: »

This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?

Whose the poster? Tbh didn't see anyone claim that. If the phones were destroyed and dropped in a river for example htf would gardai recover them?

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 12:43AM

tuxy wrote: »

This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?

I have no criticism of the Gardai they were like bloodhounds in the investigation. Collecting internet evidence was only done weeks after the murder was done. There was loads of opportunity to dispose of the evidence in that period. It was Boys B father that tried to portray him as a bumbling idiot. All one can recover is whats available to recover.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 12:43AM

gozunda wrote: »

Whose the poster? Tbh didn't see anyone claim that. If the phones were destroyed and dropped in a river for example htf would gardai recover them?

Here

pablo128 wrote: »

I'd say part of the reason B was there was to record the attack. Hence the phones were first to dissappear when the heat was on him.

Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?

take everything · 20-06-2019 12:45AM

I really hope the two little ****ers are hounded every moment of their lives when they're released.

gozunda · 20-06-2019 12:53AM

tuxy wrote: »

Here

Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?

It was presented that boy B 'lost' his phones. Boy A's phones showed that he had engaged in relevant internet searches linking his crime to the sexual aggravated attack. Boy B's phones are conveniently missing. And some are now claiming that boy B's conviction is somehow unsafe because 'sure he only watched' etc ...

Yes the phones may indeed be missing- but happily there was enough evidence to convict.

I reckon its only a matter of time before boy A - realises that Boy B has stitched him well and truely up as the main instigator ...

Ursus Horribilis · 20-06-2019 12:55AM

tuxy wrote: »

Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?

This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.

gozunda · 20-06-2019 12:59AM

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.

The father of Boy B stated that his son had lost his two mobile phones so no there are no 'phatom' phones - no matter how much rampant imagination is suggested all the same ...

dickangel · 20-06-2019 01:01AM

gozunda wrote: »

I reckon its only a matter of time before boy A - realises that Boy B has stitched him well and truely up as the main instigator ...

Boy A was read the transcripts of Boy B's interviews and his only response was that Boy B was lying. Interestingly he didn't attempt to put blame on Boy B despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus.

Dante7 · 20-06-2019 01:02AM

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.

No, the photos being distributed are the correct ones because the lawyers for the defendants went to court to have them removed.

gozunda · 20-06-2019 01:05AM

dickangel wrote: »

Boy A was read the transcripts of Boy B's interviews and his only response was that Boy B was lying. Interestingly he didn't attempt to put blame on Boy B despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus.

He was read selected transcripts. If he had admited to being at the scene of the crime - his defence would have been null and void

Now convicted - that's now not an obstacle...

Infini · 20-06-2019 01:06AM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The law is the law with regard to naming these boys. But the law is completely wrong here.

The public should absolutely have the right to know the identity of anyone convicted of murder in the state. The girl had her whole life put out there and she is now gone. The weasels that killed her get protected. That's very rotten.

Protecting murdering scum is not what the criminal justice system should be there for.

I will be honest the childrens act should apply in most cases but NOT in the case of Murder and Sex Crimes. These 2 are the worst of the worst though in terms of Murder if it was in self defence that's the only exception but absolutely nothing on the 2nd. I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults as much as some might want to disagree otherwise the fact is Sex crime and Murder are the type where being underage is no excuse to have the anonymity they dont deserve to be fair.

Considering the vile nature of the crimes the 2 should have been tried as Adults plain and simple and if it's found these 2 get off lightly and arent locked up for the rest of their lives I'm nearly sure someone is going to find out who they are and take a shot at them at some point as much as some might disagree but once faith is lost in the Justice system then vigilange justice ends up taking over and thats the last thing anyone really wants.

Everyone is tired of the feral vermin having the run of the place and while these 2 are rare outlying worst cases there's plenty of them out there that are nearly as bad as them.

dickangel · 20-06-2019 01:08AM

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Incorrect. The father of Boy B stated that his son had lost his two mobile phones so no there are no 'phatom' phones - no matter how much rampant imagination is suggested all the same ...

He still could have said " Boy B was always going on about killing her" without placing himself at the scene.

Meant to quote your other post re: transcripts

dickangel · 20-06-2019 01:10AM

Dante7 wrote: »

No, I posted about an incorrect person with the same name being identified. The photos are correct.

What do you mean? If they had the same name but the kid's picture wasn't shown what difference does it make?

gozunda · 20-06-2019 01:11AM

dickangel wrote: »

He still could have said " Boy B was always going on about killing her" without placing himself at the scene.

How with the forensic evidence which was found on Boy A?

tuxy · 20-06-2019 01:11AM

Infini wrote: »

I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults

How are you at a loss? There is nothing in Irish law that can accommodate having children tried as adults. New laws are not just made up at the start of each trial.
They are over 10 years old so can be held responsible for murder, now that is a law and that is what happened in this case.

dickangel · 20-06-2019 01:14AM

gozunda wrote: »

How with the forensic evidence which was found on Boy A?

You just said if he admitted being at the scene his defence would be null and void....he can still not admit it and implicate Boy B.

Why do you think he didn't try to drop Boy B in it despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus?

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 01:15AM

Aisling_Dublin wrote: »

Cctv footage got the boy, so they would have been caught sooner or later.

There would be no need to check the CCTV in the park if they had no knowledge she went there. And as I understand the CCTV is vague and Boy A & Boy could only be identified by the rucksacks they carried on their backs. Since Ana had no friends there would be very little information what became of her if she disappeared. Again if her father had not seen going off with Boy B there would be no knowledge to believe there was foul play involved. What triggered the Gardai zoning into her disappearance was evidence she was seen in a boys company which he expanded to involve another and their unsurety & lies led to suspicions of them.

Ursus Horribilis · 20-06-2019 01:20AM

Dante7 wrote: »

No, I posted about an incorrect person with the same name being identified. The photos are correct.

That still does not make it OK. It might not happen in this case but some day an innocent person is going to pay a terrible price for this sort of vigilante behaviour. It has already happened elsewhere. People are prepared to believe anything, especially if it makes them think they're in the know somehow. I've received a photo, just like what seems like every live adult in Ireland. Can I say with any confidence what I trust the source? Or even that the photo that I have is the same one everyone else has.

Strazdas · 20-06-2019 01:36AM

Wombatman wrote: »

None of this would prove that he murdered Ana.

Boy B does not need to establish his innocence, the prosecution needs to prove he is guilty, not of misleading, or lying or obstructing justice, or shaming Ana, guilty of murder.

Let's say proof came to light (text messages for example) that Boy B believed that Boy A was planning to rape Ana in the house, and that Boy B facilitated this plan, would he still be guilty of murder?

Boy B could have used this angle as a defence in his trial or admitted to it under questioning but chose not to. His very evasiveness and numerous lies played a big part in his conviction.

JP Liz V1 · 20-06-2019 01:42AM

Ace Attorney wrote: »

until the sentencing next month

What is the maximum they can get?

Ace Attorney · 20-06-2019 01:54AM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the maximum they can get?

wouldnt have a clue, not a judge, they wont get life as they werent tried as adults, so who knows. i think its at the judges discretion due to being minors and the 2001 act not having any guidelines and im gonna go out on a limb here and guess boy b will get less of a sentence for his part.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 01:58AM

Ace Attorney wrote: »

wouldnt have a clue, not a judge, they wont get life as they werent tried as adults, so who knows. i think its at the judges discretion due to being minors and the 2001 act not having any guidelines and im gonna go out on a limb here and guess boy b will get less of a sentence for his part.

Eum what?
They will get life as they were over 10 years tried and found guilty of murder.
There are other legal systems in the world outside of certain(backward) US states, I assume this is where people are getting this tried as adults idea.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 02:06AM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the maximum they can get?

Do you mean in theory or realistically?
In theory the rest of their natural lives but in reality it's in the hands of the parole board after seven years minimum. However it's not unusual for Judges to increase this minimum in violent cases like this.

Ace Attorney · 20-06-2019 02:10AM

tuxy wrote: »

Eum what?
They will get life as they were over 10 years tried and found guilty of murder.
There are other legal systems in the world outside of certain(backward) US states, I assume this is where people are getting this tried as adults idea.

my mistake then.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 05:49AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re assuming the families were in on it but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case.

I’ll say it again - let go of the emotion and desire for revenge for a moment and think clearly.

Would you expect to be punished for your children’s wrong doing? Of course not nor should you.

But I would not cover it up esp the awfulness of it a vulnerable immature girl zoned in on by wolves who want to appear playful teddy-bear type kids. I'd be on next avail flight to Australia for permanent residence there

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 05:51AM

Infini wrote: »

I will be honest the childrens act should apply in most cases but NOT in the case of Murder and Sex Crimes. These 2 are the worst of the worst though in terms of Murder if it was in self defence that's the only exception but absolutely nothing on the 2nd. I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults as much as some might want to disagree otherwise the fact is Sex crime and Murder are the type where being underage is no excuse to have the anonymity they dont deserve to be fair.

Considering the vile nature of the crimes the 2 should have been tried as Adults plain and simple and if it's found these 2 get off lightly and arent locked up for the rest of their lives I'm nearly sure someone is going to find out who they are and take a shot at them at some point as much as some might disagree but once faith is lost in the Justice system then vigilange justice ends up taking over and thats the last thing anyone really wants.

Everyone is tired of the feral vermin having the run of the place and while these 2 are rare outlying worst cases there's plenty of them out there that are nearly as bad as them.

There is also an ECHR ruling on not naming underage form the Venerable & Thomson crime

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

Comments