Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…959698100101…247

Comments

  • #2912
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Nerdlingr wrote: »
    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 for then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.
    Boy B was seen heading to the abandoned house with Ana by witnesses confirmed by CCTV. Boy B tried that angle but was caught out lying so he had to do more lying which he was caught out repeatedly at. He has never come clean as we know from his own psychologist report as its at variance with the last Garda statement he made. The fact he went to Ana's house, is on CCTV in the park & witness statement and his video lying puts an awful image of complicity on him. He going "no comment" to questions would only further alienate the jury. Boy B firmly believed he was too smart for everyone. It has me wondering if he was not the leader of the pack and he was so derogatory over Ana as if she deserved it.


  • #2913
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,247 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    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.

    A lot of explaining to do, yes. But if he refused to explain and the gardai had no other evidence, he may not have even been brought to trial except maybe on obstruction of justice or similar. All the things you mention point to him having been involved, but aren't strong enough proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Video after video of him saying "no comment" highlight that he's likely not innocent, but aren't nearly enough to prove him guilty either.

    All the gardai had was him collecting Ana from the house and walking with her part of the way to the house. The tape could have been given to Boy A for a multitude of other reasons, and Boy A likely had other friends too, not just Boy B. There was simply no physical or forensic evidence that the gardai could find which put Boy B in the house. Even if they knew he was lying, there was no other evidence and if there was they would have used it in the trial.


  • #2914
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    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.

    The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has no responsibility to explain anything. "This looks suspicious" shouldn't be enough to convict anyone in a functioning legal system.


  • #2915
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    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...


    How would he have been done for obstruction of justice?


  • #2916
    Lucuma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭Lucuma


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    There's about a 15 minute difference from when Boy A was spotted on CCTV returning home to Boy B being spotted on CCTV returning home.

    Does anyone with local knowledge know if this looks like Boy B didn't stay the whole duration that Boy A did?

    Well A had to take off his murder kit and put it all back into his back pack and straighten himself up a bit. That would have made him 5 or so minutes later than B anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #2917
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,247 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Standman wrote: »
    How would he have been done for obstruction of justice?

    Refusal to co-operate with detectives trying to solve a murder case where they have sufficient reason to suspect he's withholding relevant information.


  • #2918
    Tomw86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 972 ✭✭✭Tomw86


    Lucuma wrote: »
    Well A had to take off his murder kit and put it all back into his back pack and straighten himself up a bit. That would have made him 5 or so minutes later than B anyway

    The body was moved too I believe, so could have been that.

    God only knows what else Boy A did in that time...sick pr1ck.


  • #2919
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Penn wrote: »
    Refusal to co-operate with detectives trying to solve a murder case where they have sufficient reason to suspect he's withholding relevant information.


    If that were applicable then it would effectively negate the right to silence.


  • #2920
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    Boy B was seen heading to the abandoned house with Ana by witnesses confirmed by CCTV. Boy B tried that angle but was caught out lying so he had to do more lying which he was caught out repeatedly at. He has never come clean as we know from his own psychologist report as its at variance with the last Garda statement he made. The fact he went to Ana's house, is on CCTV in the park & witness statement and his video lying puts an awful image of complicity on him. He going "no comment" to questions would only further alienate the jury. Boy B firmly believed he was too smart for everyone. It has me wondering if he was not the leader of the pack and he was so derogatory over Ana as if she deserved it.

    Boy B doesn't have to say any more than what I've written. Nothing. Doesn't have to elaborate on anything and he gets off.
    CCTV at a BMX park or a witness spotting him doesn't mean anything. Just he was in her presence that's all. It'd would all be covered in the few lines I've written. Any case of reasonable doubt and he would have had to have been acquitted.


  • #2921
    Tomw86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 972 ✭✭✭Tomw86


    Nerdlingr wrote: »
    Boy B doesn't have to say any more than what I've written. Nothing. Doesn't have to elaborate on anything and he gets off.
    CCTV at a BMX park or a witness spotting him doesn't mean anything. Just he was in her presence that's all. It'd would all be covered in the few lines I've written. Any case of reasonable doubt and he would have had to have been acquitted.

    I agree, Boy B was trying to be overly clever and ended up putting himself at the scene.

    He seemed cool and collected but was very naïve about how the whole process would work.


  • Advertisement
  • #2922
    Lucuma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭Lucuma


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Plus he was able to point out to detectives the room Ana’s body was found in.
    It was a different room to where he handed over Ana to Boy A and where the assault began.
    He hung around for sure enjoying his plan hatching out.

    We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that


  • #2923
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Penn wrote: »
    A lot of explaining to do, yes. But if he refused to explain and the gardai had no other evidence, he may not have even been brought to trial except maybe on obstruction of justice or similar. All the things you mention point to him having been involved, but aren't strong enough proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Video after video of him saying "no comment" highlight that he's likely not innocent, but aren't nearly enough to prove him guilty either.

    All the gardai had was him collecting Ana from the house and walking with her part of the way to the house. The tape could have been given to Boy A for a multitude of other reasons, and Boy A likely had other friends too, not just Boy B. There was simply no physical or forensic evidence that the garadi could find which put Boy B in the house. Even if they knew he was lying, there was simply no other evidence and if there was they would have used it in the trial.
    We would have Ana found murdered with Boy A forensics all over the place & Ana on him. We had Boy B enticing Ana out of the house and confirmed by witnesses & CCTV going to the abandoned house to meet with Boy B who was on CCTV going an alternative route. Boys B presence at the murder scene was not used to convict him as we have no evidence of an active participation in the murder. What was used to convict was the CCTV of both A & B meeting just prior to he enticing her out of her home, he leading her to an abandoned house 3km away while Boy B made an alternative route. We have videos of both A & B going home around the same time indicating they were together. What was damaging was he stating he gave adhesive tape to Boy A that was used on Ana & the fact of a plan to kill Ana was previously discussed which B tried to make light of. Without the latter 2 parts it would still be a very hard case for Boy B to escape from as there are so many interwoven parts with Boy A, that the forensics could stand on their own


  • #2924
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Lucuma wrote: »
    We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that


    Eye witnesses put Boy B & Ana going to the derelict house.


  • #2925
    Lucuma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭Lucuma


    Tomw86 wrote: »
    The body was moved too I believe, so could have been that.

    God only knows what else Boy A did in that time...sick pr1ck.

    According to the Irish times article she was killed near the door, then the body was moved nearer the window and then she was sexually assaulted. Or that's roughly what they think anyway according to the article


  • #2926
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Lucuma wrote: »
    We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that

    I believe very little of what he said can be taken as truth it can only be used to show he clearly was trying to cover up his involvement.


  • #2927
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    Standman wrote: »
    If that were applicable then it would effectively negate the right to silence.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/right-to-silence-garda-to-release-all-suspects-accused-of-withholding-evidence-after-high-court-ruling-36410284.html

    not a issue anymore unfortunately


  • #2928
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    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.

    Stephen pinker says good parenting or moderate parenting will allow what personality there is to develop naturally. That could be a bad personality.

    Very Bad parenting will make a potentially good child bad. (Very bad parenting in most cases)

    It’s like nutrition and height. You can’t make a child with short genetics tall by feeding them well, but you can make a child with potentially tall genetics small with bad nutrition.


  • #2929
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    Tomw86 wrote: »
    I agree, Boy B was trying to be overly clever and ended up putting himself at the scene.

    He seemed cool and collected but was very naïve about how the whole process would work.

    Thats why i dont understand his lawyer going along with 16 hours of questioning!

    Just in case anyone reads it wrong, i'm not sticking up for the Boy B!!!
    Just trying to show what a brilliant job the gardai did and how without Boy B talking he would have got away with it.

    The two biggest pieces of the jigsaw were

    1; him mentioning the discussion Boy A had about killing Ana. This throws away or at least casts doubt of a 'I didnt know what was going to happen" defence. Foreknowledge. The tape, calling for Ana and leaving her at the house can all now be used against him - he has aided and abeted a murderer.


    2; when he puts himself directly at the scene looking at the attack take place.


  • #2930
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    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

    Yeah, given how specific the rules are with interviewing minors they were probably the most likely source for a technical error that would have been exploited to try and get it thrown out.

    Seems early on that they knew they had the right kids. You'd want to throttle the little cnuts (I'm not saying that they should be throttled or killed or anything just that you'd probably feel like doing it), instead, in the case of Boy B, they successfully managed to build a rapport, establish trust. I mean I know it's their job and they're highly trained but it's still impressive control and professionalism.

    The fact that Boy A was self assured enough to not be cajoled or intimidated and just said nothing despite the evidence is pretty terrifying though.


  • #2931
    Lucuma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭Lucuma


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    Eye witnesses put Boy B & Ana going to the derelict house.

    No they don't. At least not that was revealed in the trial reporting anyway. Do you have access to additional information?


  • Advertisement
  • #2932
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,803 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Penn wrote: »
    A lot of explaining to do, yes. But if he refused to explain and the gardai had no other evidence, he may not have even been brought to trial except maybe on obstruction of justice or similar. All the things you mention point to him having been involved, but aren't strong enough proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Video after video of him saying "no comment" highlight that he's likely not innocent, but aren't nearly enough to prove him guilty either.

    Is it not the case that the juror has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt not that any specific piece of evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was the latter as I think your suggesting then you wouldn't need a jury at all because everyone would interpret the evidence the same way and a single judge would suffice to make a verdict. Not my expert opinion just a thought.


  • #2933
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    We would have Ana found murdered with Boy A forensics all over the place & Ana on him. We had Boy B enticing Ana out of the house and confirmed by witnesses & CCTV going to the abandoned house to meet with Boy B who was on CCTV going an alternative route. Boys B presence at the murder scene was not used to convict him as we have no evidence of an active participation in the murder. What was used to convict was the CCTV of both A & B meeting just prior to he enticing her out of her home, he leading her to an abandoned house 3km away while Boy B made an alternative route. We have videos of both A & B going home around the same time indicating they were together. What was damaging was he stating he gave adhesive tape to Boy A that was used on Ana & the fact of a plan to kill Ana was previously discussed which B tried to make light of. Without the latter 2 parts it would still be a very hard case for Boy B to escape from as there are so many interwoven parts with Boy A, that the forensics could stand on their own

    The bolded was a crucial bit of evidence against Boy B. Where did it come from? Boy B told it to Gardai during the interviews. (Boy A was hardly going to volunteer to the Guards he had said he wanted to kill Ana to Boy B.)


  • #2934
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    it's ok to discuss the why's and how's in terms of this thing being wrapped up and even the social media role before and after but I think some posters are getting a bit to graphic in terms of her assault, Jesus it's like the dark net meets Angela Lansbury. I'm no shrinking violet but trying to understand where and how semen got on her top/if she was stripped first etc is a bit much FFS. You'd not reviewing a horror film.


  • #2935
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Lucuma wrote: »
    No they don't. At least not that was revealed in the trial reporting anyway. Do you have access to additional information?

    I'd be interested in this too. Eyewitness reports would trump grainy CCTV footage of someone with a backpack.


  • #2936
    Shemale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,384 ✭✭✭Shemale


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    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.

    Her dad saw her go into the park with Boy B


  • #2937
    Nerdlingr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭Nerdlingr


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    We would have Ana found murdered with Boy A forensics all over the place & Ana on him. We had Boy B enticing Ana out of the house and confirmed by witnesses & CCTV going to the abandoned house to meet with Boy B who was on CCTV going an alternative route. Boys B presence at the murder scene was not used to convict him as we have no evidence of an active participation in the murder. What was used to convict was the CCTV of both A & B meeting just prior to he enticing her out of her home, he leading her to an abandoned house 3km away while Boy B made an alternative route. We have videos of both A & B going home around the same time indicating they were together. What was damaging was he stating he gave adhesive tape to Boy A that was used on Ana & the fact of a plan to kill Ana was previously discussed which B tried to make light of. Without the latter 2 parts it would still be a very hard case for Boy B to escape from as there are so many interwoven parts with Boy A, that the forensics could stand on their own

    Really? i dont remember reading that ? Dont think there was any CCTV of them together.


  • #2938
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,247 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Is it not the case that the juror has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt not that any specific piece of evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was the latter as I think your suggesting then you wouldn't need a jury at all because everyone would interpret the evidence the same way and a single judge would suffice to make a verdict. Not my expert opinion just a thought.

    Yes, the juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but it has to be based on sufficient reasoning backed up by evidence. All the pieces of evidence matter, and the more evidence you have, the greater the chances of convincing each juror beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

    The only evidence they had against Boy B was the CCTV/witnesses showing he picked up Ana and some of the distance they went, and his interviews and what he said in the interviews. If they had any other evidence, they would have used it to strengthen their case against him. But if he'd said nothing in his interviews, all they would have had was him picking up Ana and walking with her part of the way to the house. They would have had no evidence he went into the house, saw what Boy A did to her, or even that Boy A previously discussed wanting to kill Ana. That all came from his interviews. Without his interviews, he almost certainly wouldn't have been on trial for murder (though possibly for a lesser charge).


  • #2939
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Nerdlingr wrote: »
    Boy B doesn't have to say any more than what I've written. Nothing. Doesn't have to elaborate on anything and he gets off.
    CCTV at a BMX park or a witness spotting him doesn't mean anything. Just he was in her presence that's all. It'd would all be covered in the few lines I've written. Any case of reasonable doubt and he would have had to have been acquitted.
    Its not as simple as that as it was his best friends forensics was complete in implication Boy A. Boy B was seen going to abandoned house with Ana & was seen returning same time as Boy A. Both are on CCTV in the town together just prior to Boy B enticing Ana out of her home. There was too many interlinked strands of Boy A & Boy B for innocence. Rem there is no evidence that Boy B took part in the actual killing nor was it suggested but his complicity which external evidence supports & his own lies on video.


  • #2940
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    Read a seemingly intelligent person on Twitter making out like this was somehow his teachers fault, as her parents had done everything possible for her. Surely the blame lies exclusively with the boys and their parents.

    I feel in time technology will become a watchdog for sociopathic children but forced compliance seems a long way off. Too many parents suffer from the my Jimmy denial syndrome.


  • Advertisement
  • #2941
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,247 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    Its not as simple as that as it was his best friends forensics was complete in implication Boy A. Boy B was seen going to abandoned house with Ana & was seen returning same time as Boy A. Both are on CCTV in the town together just prior to Boy B enticing Ana out of her home. There was too many interlinked strands of Boy A & Boy B for innocence. Rem there is no evidence that Boy B took part in the actual killing nor was it suggested but his complicity which external evidence supports & his own lies on video.

    Again though, that proves he's not innocent. But it wouldn't be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement