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

jmayo · 20-06-2019 02:15PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

That fooking school should be named and shamed because it looks like they let a lot of stuff go.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Reading some of the snippets of the interviews with Boy B I would doubt it.

As I have always maintained he is a right little boll**.

The way he pretended to be shocked when pieces of information were revealed to him and how he then threw his accomplice under the bus really shows his character.

And I am normally a critic of AGS as an organisation and a lot of Garda, but I have to highly commend all the officers involved in this case.

They picked up on things and they got to as near the truth as possible considering the awful case and the people they were dealing with.

80sChild · 20-06-2019 02:16PM

Grayson wrote: »

Do we have any evidence that the parents didn't look after their kids? This was the first offence they comitted. No-one says there were warning signs that the parents could have noticed before.

I have a hard time believing they went from "Normal" to rape/torture/murder without even a hint of a dark side to their personalities. Much more likely to have been some indicators.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 02:16PM

average_runner wrote: »

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

There have been loads of posts on here saying the parents should be locked up as well, they're probably abusers, etc etc etc

You don't normally see that being said about adult criminals.

Penn · 20-06-2019 02:17PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Yeah we'll have to agree to differ alright. I've no doubt he's guilty as sin as well, but my point was if he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing on him. I've broken down your points above.
There is nothing close to a conviction if he doesn't talk. No link to the scene, no witness to the attack, no lies to tell, no covering his tracks, no tape.
All they have is a witness account of him calling to the house and walking through the park on CCTV with Ana. That wouldnt even get close to court with the DPP. Never mind a murder conviction.

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

joe40 · 20-06-2019 02:21PM

Ace Attorney wrote: »

When a serious assault occurs and the school doesnt protect its students its not good enough. The school isnt responsible for what happened to ana at the hands of these boys tho. Thats a huge stretch of blame to claim that.

But regardless i was actually refering to the serious assault another poster was saying happened at the school by boy a and b. And was wondering was it sweeped under the carpet.

I fully agree if an assault takes place the school should be obliged to punish the children involved, and if it wasn't dealt with then absolutely that is not good enough.

The point I was making is that school sanctions have little influence on the hardcore elements in our schools (they are a minority but a difficult minority)

Parents should also remember that the law of the land does not stop at the school gate, there is nothing stopping parents taking legal action. Sometimes maybe that should happen more often.

TheW1zard · 20-06-2019 02:21PM

average_runner wrote: »

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

I mean its a tricky one as in, Im not sure what good would come of them being named as they are minors. Should kids be exempt, is it diminished responsibility?
If they were named, and they do there time, there whole lives are ruined, then are we saying the legal system didnt do enough? (prison time)
Maybe they should be named though, like i said I dont know its a tricky one!

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 02:21PM

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

Just on that point, anything in your statement cannot be used in evidence to convict another person. So even if Boy A said Boy B was there it would mean nothing.

retro:electro · 20-06-2019 02:23PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

Maybe I took you up wrong, but you seemed to be saying that you were uncomfortable with people describing Ana as naive and innocent because it seemed as if by saying so they were taking some of the blame from the boys' shoulders and basically implying that if only she had been wiser it wouldn't have happened so it wasn't totally their fault.

I found that a strange view.

I’m not uncomfortable with people describing her as naive and innocent. She was naive and innocent and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m uncomfortable with people saying “if only she was X” or “if only she was a little more street wise”, because Ana didn’t need to change one thing about herself or how she was in order to avoid being murdered or lower her chances. She was perfect as she was. The only people who needed to alter their behaviour are the ones who are responsible for beating her to death.

I know people don’t mean any harm by their comments, I even said I know people are well intentioned- it’s just something that irks me every time I read a comment like that. That is all.

20-06-2019 02:23PM

joe40 wrote: »

The story as quoted is accurate, there was "paedo" graffiti daubed on a paediatrician house.
Later exaggerations about beatings etc are false.

The point about mob/vigilante violence is still valid, mistakes can and are made.

People are idiots. I remember reading about Balbir Singh after the 9/11 attacks.

Balbir Singh Sodhi a Sikh-American gas station owner in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered in a hate crime in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. This was the first of several cases across the United States that were reported to the police as supposed acts of retaliation for the attacks.

Balbir Singh Sodhi, who wore a beard and a turban in accordance with his Sikh faith, was mistaken for an Arab Muslim and murdered by 42-year-old Frank Silva Roque.

average_runner · 20-06-2019 02:24PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

There have been loads of posts on here saying the parents should be locked up as well, they're probably abusers, etc etc etc

You don't normally see that being said about adult criminals.

If an 18 year does a crime, the family gets a really rough time, no protection for the younger siblings etc.

Faugheen · 20-06-2019 02:24PM

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

average_runner · 20-06-2019 02:31PM

TheW1zard wrote: »

I mean its a tricky one as in, Im not sure what good would come of them being named as they are minors. Should kids be exempt, is it diminished responsibility?
If they were named, and they do there time, there whole lives are ruined, then are we saying the legal system didnt do enough? (prison time)
Maybe they should be named though, like i said I dont know its a tricky one!

All of that would apply to an 18 year old also but he/she would be named

average_runner · 20-06-2019 02:32PM

Faugheen wrote: »

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

They are going have to release the identity or more innocent kids will get hurt in the wrong

Standman · 20-06-2019 02:33PM

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 hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

Nerdlingr wrote: »

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.

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked him to the murder scene. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against him came from his own mouth during his eight Garda interviews. If he had remained silent it is highly likely he would never have been charged."

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 02:33PM

Faugheen wrote: »

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

Someone on here thought a picture of two lads on facebook was one of them.
It wasnt. It was the two guys that tragically drowned in a quarry in Clare last year.

:( This is the problem.

Brego888 · 20-06-2019 02:34PM

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

Boom_Bap · 20-06-2019 02:35PM

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

He tried to have the evidence not be made available, for example, the boots with the blood, he was saying that they were acquired as part of a separate investigation.

Boggles · 20-06-2019 02:36PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Someone one here thought a picture of two lads on facebook was one of them.
It wasnt. It was the two guys that tragically drowned in a quarry in Clare last year. :( This is the problem.

That's fúcking horrific.

retro:electro · 20-06-2019 02:38PM

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

From The Irish Times article:

The boys’ defences would finally become clear when their lawyers delivered their closing speeches.

In a speech lasting less than an hour, Gageby focused on what he said was a lack of evidence that Boy A planned to kill Ana. He never overtly said his client was connected to the girl’s death, but he conceded that the jury might decide Boy A was present when the injuries were inflicted on Ana. “But is there any real evidence that he planned any of this?” he asked.

The barrister also alluded to the idea that Boy A and Ana engaged in consensual sexual activity. Glenwood House was probably used by young people for “romantic trysts”, given the presence of condom wrappers on the ground, he said. Pathology evidence showed injuries to Ana’s genitals, but it couldn’t be established if these occurred through nonconsensual activity.
Counsel added that it “can’t be ruled out” that a neck swab taken from Ana showing male DNA did not result from “casual intimacy”.

Seemed to be focused on pre-meditation and the possibility Ana may have consented to what happened.
Sickening.

tayto lover · 20-06-2019 02:38PM

Standman wrote: »

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked him to the murder scene. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against him came from his own mouth during his eight Garda interviews. If he had remained silent it is highly likely he would never have been charged."

Journalists all thought Joe O’Reilly wouldn’t be found guilty too or Graham Dwyer.
Thank God they’re not on juries.

Will I Am Not · 20-06-2019 02:40PM

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

Because some of this mob mentality crowd aren't terribly bright.

I remember something odd like that happening after that girl Jastine was murdered. Think there was people ringing your man's house and leaving abusive messages to him and him dead ffs.

Sardonicat · 20-06-2019 02:40PM

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

His barrister tried to infer that Ana was sexually active and could have had a consensual encounter with A that got out of hand. Other than that the hope was for a procedural or technical error to get him off. No defence to speak of! really.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 02:40PM

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

Gardai knew Boy B enticed Ana out of her house if they didn't know that the murder may not have been resolved so easily as it may have taken weeks for her body to be recovered & the DNA would have degenerated. Boy B had to explain his situation to avoid further Garda attention and the lies unfolded to deny what happened. I'm sure Boy A was flummoxed that Gardai knocked on his door the night she went missing fearing the whole thing unraveling. Boy A implicated Boy B who also tried to lie his way out of it. And they were able to look for CCTV & witnesses when they knew where A & B were. I understand A & B went around the local area together after the murder still best friends.

Yurt2 · 20-06-2019 02:40PM

average_runner wrote: »

They are going have to release the identity or more innocent kids will get hurt in the wrong

Because the baying mob can't control themselves? And we like to speak of individual responsibility in this society.

Looks like we're in the midst of a moral panic, and I'm not even joking. This is mass neurotic psychology at play here.

The Gardai did their job, the DPP did their job, the judge and jury did their job. It's not going to bring Ana back and justice isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. The two are going away in accordance with the laws of our state. Many online are looking for something beyond justice - and if they get the names of the family, it's not unreasonable to think they'll take retribution on behalf of a girl they never knew, never cared about until two days ago.

rob316 · 20-06-2019 02:41PM

I reckon the judge will name them, there is no precedent set for this. Uncharted territory convicting the states youngest murderers.

Sardonicat · 20-06-2019 02:42PM

rob316 wrote: »

I reckon the judge will name them, there is no precedent set for this. Uncharted territory convicting the states youngest murderers.

He cannot name them. He does not have discretion in this matter.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 02:42PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not uncomfortable with people describing her as naive and innocent. She was naive and innocent and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. She was also just a 14 year old child. I’m uncomfortable with people saying “if only she was X” or “if only she was a little more street wise”, because Ana didn’t need to change one thing about herself or how she was in order to avoid being murdered or lower her chances. She was perfect as she was. The only people who needed to alter their behaviour are the ones who are responsible for beating her to death.

I know people don’t mean any harm by their comments, I even said I know people are well intentioned- it’s just something that irks me every time I read a comment like that. That is all.

Fair enough.

Theboinkmaster · 20-06-2019 02:42PM

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

Larbre34 · 20-06-2019 02:42PM

Standman wrote: »

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked him to the murder scene. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against him came from his own mouth during his eight Garda interviews. If he had remained silent it is highly likely he would never have been charged."

I read that but I have to disagree. Patric Kriegel answered the door to him and we know now that both Boys A and B and indeed Ana were encountered by people known to them before and after the murder, as well as a decent amount of CCTV.

I'm not sure how he could have got away without being implicated in some fashion and had it come to it he would have been put on the stand and questioned, probably quite harshly by Boy A's counsel, seeking to add doubt about his own client if nothing else.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 02:45PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

With what?

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

Comments