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

SirGerryAdams · 20-06-2019 11:26AM

Neyite wrote: »

Wasn't it different CCTV's though? One was the BMX track and there was another one. So you'd probably have to factor in the walking distance from the crime scene to where each was seen on the CCTV. It may be a shorter or longer time frame.

I'm personally thinking that B was there until the very end. The disclosure to the psychologist would make me think that.

Yes it was different CCTV. That's why I was wondering if anyone local who knows the location of the two CCTV cameras could specify the time needed to walk from the house to both locations.

pjohnson · 20-06-2019 11:26AM

SirChenjin wrote: »

Boy B's family 'forced into hiding' according to the news. Hmm.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0620/1056478-kriegel-case-court/

Awwww. If only they'd spent time trying to rear the little killer they mightn't be in that situation.

GreeBo · 20-06-2019 11:26AM

thecretinhop wrote: »

before long de likes of u would have me in de gulags if you had your way

I'd have you in a school if I could.

CityRoad · 20-06-2019 11:27AM

Basically, the child I know was leaving for school at the last minute, coming home for lunch whenever they could and leaving school as soon as the day ended. They also avoided school as much as they could.

Other kids would not speak to them.

This changed after the arrests.

I am not sure expecting a bunch of 12-13 year olds to predict how this was going to play out was useful and show more wisdom than adults is useful, considering how useless the adults were (the principal and counsellor).

20-06-2019 11:28AM

SirChenjin wrote: »

Boy B's family 'forced into hiding' according to the news. Hmm.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0620/1056478-kriegel-case-court/

no one will serve a minute of time in terms of facebook and twitter, they'll get a fine at worst and it will be paid without breaking a sweat and good luck in this particular case.
I know lads in the local coffee shop with a 50 fold watsapp group who got the real pics yesterday because the it was passed on.

There's Zero rule book to control social media, sure mainstream media have leaked the name FFS albeit by accident, it has been done. So lets see if the journo who made the mistake gets a 10K fine and 3 years in prison!! :rolleyes:

wont happen, sure the lad who revealed the victims name in that NI rape trial got a 300 pound fine and slap on the wrist.

SirChenjin · 20-06-2019 11:31AM

pjohnson wrote: »

Awwww. If only they'd spent time trying to rear the little killer they mightn't be in that situation.

I can't help wondering if it's a ploy to gain sympathy before the sentencing date.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:32AM

tayto lover wrote: »

He hung around

At the absolute minimum.

We may never know the degree he participated. Or maybe at some point in the future one or both of them will disclose exactly what happened.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 11:32AM

dickangel wrote: »

Ok we'll try again but slowly this time. Boy A could have made any number of remarks to implicate Boy B without admitting he was there such as "Boy B used to always talk about killing her" or "Boy B was obsessed with her." Boy B was happy to do that to Boy A but for whatever reason Boy A didn't retaliate despite being read the transcripts.

Boy B also remarked to another friend that he thought Boy A was trying to 'snake' him.
The bloody boots and murder kit shut Boy A up and got Boy B's talking.
Boy A went into shut down mode - no comment to practically every question.
Whereas Boy B knew the noose was tightening and tried to weasel his way out.

The thing is if Boy B had no commented everything too, he'd have probably got off. People gave out about his defence lawyer, but, if he was doing his job properly and had his best interests of his clients at heart, he would have directed the kid to shut up too.

Thankfully he didn't.

pjohnson · 20-06-2019 11:32AM

SirChenjin wrote: »

I can't help wondering if it's a ploy to gain sympathy before the sentencing date.

Definitely. Sure they'd didnt go into hiding after the killers were first arrested.

thebaz · 20-06-2019 11:33AM

SirChenjin wrote: »

Boy B's family 'forced into hiding' according to the news. Hmm.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0620/1056478-kriegel-case-court/

my biggest concern is that ther legal teams are not looking for legal loopholes to squash the convictions for this heinous crime , on legal technicalties. If they do shame on them.

joe40 · 20-06-2019 11:34AM

JuneMoon7 wrote: »

Absolutely. That is a terrible story, poor girl. And as for teachers..a child should never have to pluck up the courage to tell a teacher they are being bullied. In most cases they wont have the nerve to do it. teachers should have the emotional intelligence and basic common sense to pick up on it. They should be approaching the child, not the other way around. That said, i would like to think that if/when children do reach out to a parent or teacher, that SOMETHING is being done. It is every bit as much the teachers responsibility as anyone's to put an end to a child's suffering.

With all due respect it is not that easy. I work in a large secondary school and dealing with bullying issues is very difficult.
More often than not what pupils and parents call bullying is pupils having rows with each other that escalate.

It is heartbreaking to watch the children that are alone and don't seem to have many friends. But as a teacher there are limits to what you can do.
I would talk to classes about including the child that seems alone and a lot of teenagers would do that.
The same message would be conveyed at assemblies.
I bet every adult can remember the boy or girl in class that wasn't particularly popular. How did you act as a teenager? did you make a big effort to include that person with your friends? maybe you did which is great but you would have needed to be a strong personality in your group of friends

Most schools have all sorts of programmes to promote inclusion and prevent bullying. There are talks given regularly about the harmful affects of cyber bullying and internet safety. Modern schools are not like the 70s and 80s (Like I remember)

When there are clear cut cases of bullying, and violence the schools implement the full sanctions available, detentions, suspensions etc. Expulsion is virtually impossible.

This case is heartbreaking and if there are further lessons to be learned that should be implemented. It is however a bit simplistic to think schools do nothing in this regard, it is also simplistic to think schools can eradicate this type of behaviour. Schools are basically microcosms of society.

But as I said lessons can always be learned and improvements made.

SirGerryAdams · 20-06-2019 11:34AM

I hadn't seen the bit about the psychologist!

During legal argument in the absence of the jury it also emerged that Boy B gave the psychologist further details of what he saw happening to Ana, including seeing her top and pants being "ripped off", hearing gasping sounds, Ana struggling before "everything stopped" and Ana said nothing.

Boy B told the doctor he didn't know if Ana was dead when he saw Boy A stand up with his pants open at the crotch.

What's the bit about the crotch? Just meaning he had his zip open?

So it sounds like Boy A attacked her, then he put tape on her neck? I wonder was she still fighting back at this stage? Or was she weak and he then sexually assaulted her?

Or else he attacked her, she was weak and put tape around her neck which she tried to remove and he pulled her by the tape to a different position in the room where there was more light, so he could assault her.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:36AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Boy B also remarked to another friend that he thought Boy A was trying to 'snake' him.
The bloody boots and murder kit shut Boy A up and got Boy B's talking.
Boy A went into shut down mode - no comment to practically every question.
Whereas Boy B knew the noose was tightening and tried to weasel his way out.

The thing is if Boy B had no commented everything too, he'd have probably got off. People gave out about his defence lawyer, but, if he was doing his job properly and had his best interests of his clients at heart, he would have directed the kid to shut up.

Thankfully he didn't.

I would have no doubt the solicitor did tell him to keep his mouth shut. The kid and his parents obviously went against this advice. Solicitors will always tell you to say nothing. Even if you're innocent and have answers they view that those answers can be given in Court if necessary and there is no advantage or need to give them in a police interrogation. Where you may make a mistake or incriminate yourself.

TheAsYLuMkeY · 20-06-2019 11:37AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

people have been bashing each others heads in since the dawn of time. the problem is people. some people are just evil little ****s.

However, in todays world some countries have higher rates of different types of crimes than others, which would lead one to assume there are influential factors at play that are greater than simply,

'people have been bashing each others heads in since the dawn of time'

fryup · 20-06-2019 11:37AM

Boy B's family 'forced into hiding' according to the news. Hmm.

thebaz wrote: »

my biggest concern is that ther legal teams are not looking for legal loopholes to squash the convictions for this heinous crime , on legal technicalties. If they do shame on them.

compo?

tayto lover · 20-06-2019 11:37AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Boy B also remarked to another friend that he thought Boy A was trying to 'snake' him.
The bloody boots and murder kit shut Boy A up and got Boy B's talking.
Boy A went into shut down mode - no comment to practically every question.
Whereas Boy B knew the noose was tightening and tried to weasel his way out.

The thing is if Boy B had no commented everything too, he'd have probably got off. People gave out about his defence lawyer, but, if he was doing his job properly and had his best interests of his clients at heart, he would have directed the kid to shut up.

Thankfully he didn't.

Circumstantial evidence would have hung him imo.
Caught Graham Dwyer and Joe O’Reilly nicely.

SirGerryAdams · 20-06-2019 11:39AM

And then I wonder about the semen. The semen was found on her top.

You'd have thought the clothes would be ripped off first, or else he used to top to wipe it but...I dunno.

CityRoad · 20-06-2019 11:40AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Has the principal of her school faced any questions from authorities or the media? Did they try to deal with the bullying.

An Eimear Cotter article on the 20 May 2019 Irish Independent talks about the DNA evidence and the unknown DNA, I cannot post a link because I am new.

I do not know what the parents of Boy A did, my friend did not tell me, and the local parents wanted this to be brought to court, we only discussed the case in how it related to her child. Her child was one of their targets in the first half of the year.

If this third set of DNA indicates a third person, the boys are still lying.

coolshannagh28 · 20-06-2019 11:41AM

There is an unprecedented level of horror to this tragic case :the wearing of the mask and the satanic pact indicate a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy . Online and mainstream media and films incorporate a high level of fantasy material now which lends to a blurring of the lines which children are unable to comprehend and in cases such as this acting in a manner devoid of empathy .

Sunflower 27 · 20-06-2019 11:41AM

fryup wrote: »

it desensitises kids to violence.....there's definitely a lot more aggression/bad behaviour out there than a generation ago

This is worrying.

"Sexual offences by juveniles rose sharply last year, with children under 18 accounting for more than a third of all recorded sex crimes, Garda figures show."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/worrying-rise-in-sex-offences-involving-juveniles-in-2017-887268.html

fryup · 20-06-2019 11:44AM

@ cityroad....i take it you're from the area?

if so...did these kids have a reputation as bad brats?

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 11:46AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence would have hung him imo.
Caught Graham Dwyer and Joe O’Reilly nicely.

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 11:49AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

That's true. His own admissions were the only real evidence against him. Likely the DPP wouldn't have been in a position to charge him even but for his admissions. Wouldn't have even got before a Jury.

Vicarious Function · 20-06-2019 11:51AM

JuneMoon7 wrote: »

Because the majority of the bullying would have been taking place where they were all together the most; in the classroom. if the entire class of little so and sos were engaging in this victimization and exclusion, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice it.

Not so! There's also the playground and after hours on the way home from school etc.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 11:52AM

I said it before on here but the fact he tried to shift the blame onto Boy A got him convicted.
He had no reason to tell the story of Boy A's discussion of wanting to kill Ana a month previous, other than to drop his 'friend' in it.
In his attempt to grass out Boy A he convicted himself.
Dont ya just love irony.

:)

tayto lover · 20-06-2019 11:55AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

1. Provided the blue sticky tape.
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder.
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.
4. Told lies about where he saw her last.
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry.
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana.

He would have got it hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

Boggles · 20-06-2019 11:57AM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

This is worrying.

"Sexual offences by juveniles rose sharply last year, with children under 18 accounting for more than a third of all recorded sex crimes, Garda figures show."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/worrying-rise-in-sex-offences-involving-juveniles-in-2017-887268.html

Very worrying if just read the clickbait headline.

The devil is in the detail.

In 30 of the 47 cases, it said the “offender and injured party were in a relationship and had made the mutual decision to engage in sexual behaviour”.

It said: “In many cases both parties were not aware that by engaging in such behaviour, the male was committing a criminal offence.”

gozunda · 20-06-2019 12:02PM

dickangel wrote: »

Ok we'll try again but slowly this time. Boy A could have made any number of remarks to implicate or shift blame to Boy B without admitting he was there such as "Boy B used to always talk about killing her" or "Boy B was obsessed with her." He could have even said he had an active plan to do it. Boy B was happy to do that to Boy A but for whatever reason Boy A didn't retaliate despite being read the transcripts.

You can try as slowly as you like btw.

It remains he didn't. The question is why not?

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 12:03PM

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Provided the blue sticky tape.
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder.
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.
4. Told lies about where he saw her last.
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry.
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana.

He would have got it herd to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

None of that means a thing/or comes to light if he doesnt talk.
They only have him on CCTV and an eye witness who saw him. Thats it.
Far far far from a murder conviction. Miles away.

dickangel · 20-06-2019 12:06PM

gozunda wrote: »

You can try as slowly as you like btw.

It remains he didn't. The question is why not?

Which is the question I asked last night.

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

Comments