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

Suckit · 20-06-2019 02:59PM

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.

You cannot hold the parents 100% responsible for this.

Boom_Bap · 20-06-2019 03:00PM

Do I hold the parents accountable. No.

Do I think that the parents actions from May 14th onwards need to be investigated. Yes.

iamwhoiam · 20-06-2019 03:01PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

Have a read of this that a poster linked a few pages back . Very informative

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 03:03PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I still don’t agree and we will never know now anyway but the line of investigation would have taken a different direction and the detectives would have approached it in a different way if he had kept silent. I believe they suspected his guilt as soon as they saw the “look” between the two boys in the park. They knew they were not telling the truth.

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no means proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

jimmycrackcorm · 20-06-2019 03:04PM

jmayo wrote: »

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

The school was already named in numerous newspaper articles including the IT, mirror, Sun, Leinster Leader, herald etc.

These were published last year long before the trial.

gozunda · 20-06-2019 03:04PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Tbh the reported accounts of the behaviour of the two boys and to some extent that of the parents says something about how these two psychos were facilitated in their denials in the face of Boy Bs own testimony and the forensics on the case of Boy A

According to a multitude of reports - Boy A sat with his mother and father at the rear of the courtroom - with his mother placing a white paper hanky in his shirt pocket and holding hands. At one stage he sat with his head rested on his mother's shoulder and cried as the verdict was read out.

Boy B sat with his mother and father also holding hands and at the end they all embraced for several minutes at the end of the court case

Following the verdict we then have the father of Boy B shouting
"Bunch of scumbags here ,You bunch of scumbags, you f**king pricks, innocent boy."
And : "F***ing bunch of scumbags, Nazi p****s. F*** you."He also clapped, shouting: "You are happy".

Boy A cried for himself and not for the life of the poor girl he murdered and sexually assaulted.

Boy Bs father obviously believes his son is a little angel that just has a perchance for telling porky pies....

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 20-06-2019 03:04PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

So at what age does it end, the responsibility? How old must a kid be?

These were 14 - they were children still.

In general, in this country, a lot of parents do not accept the full responsibility of being parents properly and their kids end up utter scumbags or mentally deranged.

I'm not arguing that isn't sometimes the case. But without knowing all the facts we have no idea if the parents are responsible for their sons growing up to be so amoral and depraved.

It's not simply about the age of the children. There are some things for which a parent cannot be held responsible or cannot control. Children from the best and most stable families can sometimes go off the rails, breaking their parents hearts. Children from very challenging homes can go on to live very successful and normal lives.
It's not always black and white.

BarryD2 · 20-06-2019 03:04PM

80sChild wrote: »

Ridiculous, all the articles from the period she was missing not yet found state her school - have all newspapers worked overnight to purge these? They were still there yesterday.

EDIT: There are tweets still up with people @'ing the school with questions around their bullying policy. You cannot unring a bell.

So the justice system is just basically making it up as we go along. It's this sort of 'censorship' that brings disrespect on the system. Threatening concerned citizens with legal action is never a good idea.

iamwhoiam · 20-06-2019 03:05PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no mean proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

The interviewing of Boy B is to be commended . The Gardai held their cool and never once took their eye off the ball

BarryD2 · 20-06-2019 03:09PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The school was already named in numerous newspaper articles including the IT, mirror, Sun, Leinster Leader, herald etc.

These were published last year long before the trial.

Indeed, it's take all of 30 seconds to find the name of the school concerned and yet the courts are saying it cannot be named. What sort of nonsense is this?

Penn · 20-06-2019 03:09PM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

And the reason they saw that look was because he was ostensibly cooperating with them. In the lead up to the boys exchanging that look, the officers had already noticed that Boy B was leading them along a different route to the one he previously claimed; his lies were already unraveling and giving him away.

Had he refused to cooperate or answer questions from the start, that certainly would have been very suspicious, but in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence putting him at the scene of the crime, it’s very hard to see what he could have been charged with. The investigation was exhaustive as it was—-you can’t pluck new evidence out of thin air.

Agreed. Even if the detectives strongly suspected Boy B was was there, there was no evidence putting him there. All they had was CCTV footage of him walking with Ana in that direction. They had no evidence he went the whole way to the house with her, went into the house, was in the room, or that he knew Boy A was there.

If they had any other evidence, they would have also included it in the trial regardless. But all they had was what Boy B said in the interviews, after the detectives kept dragging the info out of him. If he'd said nothing even after his first interview when they then knew he was lying, they wouldn't have had a case against him. Knew he was lying, sure. But no evidence of what the truth was.

Boy B seemed to think each time they unraveled his lies that he could reveal a bit more info, say that's it, and that'd be the end of it. Instead, he was just digging a deeper hole for himself and creating more inconsistencies in his story, allowing the detectives to keep pushing through the gaps he left.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 03:09PM

tuxy wrote: »

I've no idea what people are trying to get at with these phantom phones.
There was enough evidence to convict both boys so unless someone thinks these phantom phones could be used to appeal the guilty verdict all you are doing is making useless speculation about a very sensitive murder trial.

What we are inferring is Boy B is much more scheming liar & manipulator he is given credit for.

tayto lover · 20-06-2019 03:11PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no means proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

Maybe but do you not think they would have investigated him knowing he was the last person seen with her and as such a suspect. Also Boy A who left dna at the scene and was a friend of his would have been asked to supply dna and linked to Boy B. There would have been a different slant to the investigation. Hopefully they both would have been caught eventually.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 03:13PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

What we are inferring is Boy B is much more scheming liar & manipulator he is given credit for.

His interviews make that very clear and obviously the jury gave him loads of credit as a manipulator. That was based on actual tangible evidence not some made up theories.

iamwhoiam · 20-06-2019 03:14PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but do you not think they would have investigated him knowing he was the last person seen with her and as such a suspect. Also Boy A who left dna at the scene and was a friend of his would have been asked to supply dna and linked to Boy B. There would have been a different slant to the investigation. Hopefully they both would have been caught eventually.

He was on CCTV also so they would have caught him sooner or later

Gerianam · 20-06-2019 03:15PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The interviewing of Boy B is to be commended . The Gardai held their cool and never once took their eye off the ball

Yes! Well done Gardaí! Professional to their finger tips. They are not getting the regognition they deserve. They excelled themselves in this investigation.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 03:15PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

He was on CCTV also so they would have caught him sooner or later

He was only identifiable by the fact he had a backpack on CCTV, the video was not sharp enough to show much else.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 20-06-2019 03:16PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

He was on CCTV also so they would have caught him sooner or later

Not for being at the scene though. Obstruction of justice yes.

Odd that boy a never said anything much. Not even to incriminate boy b. I suppose once the dna was out there...

80sChild · 20-06-2019 03:17PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I don't think it is.

These boys are mentally fvcked up - who is responsible for that? Their parents so I hold them ultimately responsible for this poor girls brutal murder.

I think that presumes there is no nature v nurture question. Puts everything in the nurture domain. Surely you know families with children who are chalk and cheese despite identical upbringings. Kids are born with their own peculiarities which are mitigated or exacerbated by their environment and experience. Lots of kids from good families in trouble with the law/in school etc. Personal responsibility can't only begin on the day of your 18th birthday.

fash · 20-06-2019 03:17PM

jmayo wrote: »

Oh I get the analogy all right.
It is typical arrogance from high ranking legal professional.

It is trying to dress up and make it acceptable to represent some of the most morally reprehensible characters and do their best to get them to avoid their rightful punishment.

It is like how the legal team of these two scrotes will sit at home tonight and not see anything wrong with how they tried to claim to a jury there was no real evidence to convict their clients and how they were nice young lads from nice families.

That's b****cks - lawyers must represent even the "almost certainly guilty" - that is their duty to all of us- that the state can't just go "aah - that is Hitler, no need for a trial, he can go straight to jail" - the state cannot be allowed to be lazy in locking people away. It must do its job and be forced to do its job - for the benefit of all, otherwise it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Taking a slippery slope approach, we might as well lock you (or me or anyone here) up as I'm sure there is at least something illegal you've done at some point.

Secondly even in horrible cases, there are degrees of horribleness. Here for example, surely you can agree that boy A should be looked at more severely then boy B.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 03:19PM

Penn wrote: »

Agreed. Even if the detectives strongly suspected Boy B was was there, there was no evidence putting him there. All they had was CCTV footage of him walking with Ana in that direction. They had no evidence he went the whole way to the house with her, went into the house, was in the room, or that he knew Boy A was there.

If they had any other evidence, they would have also included it in the trial regardless. But all they had was what Boy B said in the interviews, after the detectives kept dragging the info out of him. If he'd said nothing even after his first interview when they then knew he was lying, they wouldn't have had a case against him. Knew he was lying, sure. But no evidence of what the truth was.

Boy B seemed to think each time they unraveled his lies that he could reveal a bit more info, say that's it, and that'd be the end of it. Instead, he was just digging a deeper hole for himself and creating more inconsistencies in his story, allowing the detectives to keep pushing through the gaps he left.

If the Gardai had matched up the adhesive tape found wound around Ana throat with Boy B home it would be alarming & indicate a more active participation. While the rule "silence is golden" the gaping facts Ana's body found murdered, the DNA of Boy A his friend all over the site & the victim on him, the fact that his friend Boy B went to the house to entice her out & the adhesive tape would leave a lot of explaining to do if there was a void in his evidence. If I was in the jury I would not buy into video after video him stating "no comment" to Garda questioning.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 03:21PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but do you not think they would have investigated him knowing he was the last person seen with her and as such a suspect. Also Boy A who left dna at the scene and was a friend of his would have been asked to supply dna and linked to Boy B. There would have been a different slant to the investigation. Hopefully they both would have been caught eventually.

Last person to knowingly see Ana alive and caught on CCTV with her, so he was clearly the main suspect.
I dont get your DNA question ? Boy B's DNA was nowhere hear the house/scene. They found nothing.

Anyway,all boy B had to say was:

"I called for Ana because Boy A wanted to meet her in the house. I dont know what for. Maybe they met up to kiss or something. So we walked through the BMX park and I dropped her off at the house, I played for a bit on the way home in the field then went home. That's all I know. The tape?? oh yeah. I might have given that to him a few weeks back. Dunno what he wanted it for."

Thats it. No comment from then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 03:22PM

80sChild wrote: »

I think that presumes there is no nature v nurture question. Puts everything in the nurture domain. Surely you know families with children who are chalk and cheese despite identical upbringings. Kids are born with their own peculiarities which are mitigated or exacerbated by their environment and experience. Lots of kids from good families in trouble with the law/in school etc. Personal responsibility can't only begin on the day of your 18th birthday.

Not with that vicious streak to pre-plan a brutal murder of a defenseless young girl and to rape her. Its beyond comprehension the enormous evil around it.

Yurt2 · 20-06-2019 03:22PM

fash wrote: »

That's b****cks - lawyers must represent even the "almost certainly guilty" - that is their duty to all of us- that the state can't just go "aah - that is Hitler, no need for a trial, he can go straight to jail" - the state cannot be allowed to be lazy in locking people away. It must do its job and be forced to do its job - for the benefit of all, otherwise it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Taking a slippery slope approach, we might as well lock you (or me or anyone here) up as I'm sure there is at least something illegal you've done at some point.

Secondly even in horrible cases, there are degrees of horribleness. Here for example, surely you can agree that boy A should be looked at more severely then boy B.

Indeed, the adversarial system, while ugly sometimes, is there to ensure justice is served to the highest possible degree. It does this more often than not.

Lackadaisical · 20-06-2019 03:23PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

So the justice system is just basically making it up as we go along. It's this sort of 'censorship' that brings disrespect on the system. Threatening concerned citizens with legal action is never a good idea.

Well, the judge is just applying the Children's Act 2001, which is fairly specific about how these things should work.

There isn't a whole lot of precedent around crimes of this magnitude involving minors, so the court inevitably has to attempt to apply the act and also ensure that procedures are in compliance with all other Irish law, any relevant European law, international best practice and also probably will be looking towards other Common Law and European jurisdictions in terms of what best practice is too.

They're not just making it up as they go along, but they are having to be quite innovative in what they do.

As for court orders around cases being held in camera or having reporting restrictions, those are fairly standard and if you breech the order you can be held in contempt. The law and court procedures around contempt are well known and very standard. Judges have coercive powers including holding people in custody until they purge their contempt, issuing fines and avenues like prison sentences.
The Chileren's Act itself also contains specific penalties:

Children's Act, 2001
Section 51
Part 3

(3) If any matter is published or broadcast in contravention of subsection (1), each of the following persons, namely—

(a) in the case of publication of the matter in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical,

(b) in the case of any other such publication, the person who publishes it, and

(c) in the case of any such broadcast, any body corporate which transmits or provides the programme in which the broadcast is made and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.

(4) (a) Where an offence under subsection (3)—

(i) has been committed by a body corporate, and

(ii) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he or she as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(b) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, paragraph (a) shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director of the body corporate.

(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (3), it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the person was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or broadcast in question was of a matter referred to in subsection (1).

(6) In this section—

“broadcast” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not;

“publish” means publish to the public or a section of the public, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

It's a pretty heavy legal prohibition of reporting on the identity of the minors on trial and really the debate around it is more of a political issue than a judicial one as the judge is just applying the law as it stands. If someone wants to change that, it's up to the Oireachtas.

The act is only 18 years old, but a whole world of social media and online communication has happened since then and it's probably asking Twitter and Facebook to achieve the impossible, considering even in countries that operate extreme censorship regimes, information still gets out through social media.

Making something illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the law is realistically enforceable. So this has the potential to case a major issue with social media companies.

I wonder will we see the rather bizarre international spectacle of Facebook and Twitter execs being held personally liable. It certainly wouldn't do us much good as a tech hub.

Suckit · 20-06-2019 03:24PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Anyway,all boy B had to say was:

"I called for Ana because Boy A wanted to meet her in the house. I dont know what for. Maybe they met up to kiss or something. So we walked through the BMX park and I dropped her off at the house, I played for a bit on the way home in the field then went home. That's all I know. The tape?? oh yeah. I might have given that to him a few weeks back. Dunno what he wanted it for."

Thats it. No comment for then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.

You have never called for her before, why did she leave with you so willingly?
What did you talk about for the 3km from her house to where you left her off?

80sChild · 20-06-2019 03:24PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Not with that vicious streak to pre-plan a brutal murder of a defenseless young girl and to rape her. Its beyond comprehension the enormous evil around it.

Chills me to the bone.

Boggles · 20-06-2019 03:25PM

Gerianam wrote: »

Yes! Well done Gardaí! Professional to their finger tips. They are not getting the regognition they deserve. They excelled themselves in this investigation.

I think they did a good job, but I wouldn't go over board TBH.

Boy A left more forensic evidence in any murder case I have ever seen.

Boy B was remember a child (however evil) interviewed over 17 hours by 2 trained detectives.

They did the job you would expect them to do.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 03:26PM

Suckit wrote: »

You have never called for her before, why did she leave with you so willingly?
What did you talk about for the 3km from her house to where you left her off?

No comment.

(or 'my client has nothing further to add')

ooter · 20-06-2019 03:26PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

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.

the photo I seen last night definitely wasn't those 2 boys anyway.

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

Comments