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

TCDStudent1 · 20-06-2019 04:01PM

Penn wrote: »

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).

The prosecution would probably have come at it from a different angle in that case. Maybe focusing on the unaccounted 35 minutes between the sightings of him.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-06-2019 04:01PM

tuxy wrote: »

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

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 04:02PM

We all know he did it. We're all glad he was convicted.
But the state had no case without the young lads own admissions.
They couldn't put him at the scene of the crime.
They couldn't prove he had knowledge of the crime.
There wouldn't have been grounds to charge him. Not even close.
Only A would have faced a jury and not B.
Thankfully B was inexperienced and foolishly gave Gardaí everything they needed.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:02PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

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

Yes that is fact & was used as evidence at trial. I'm sure this was gathered from a house camera in the estate they lived in. Boy B parents had told Gardai of Boy A visiting their house as well which may have being the lead to acquiring that particular CCTV. Boy B parents initially though they were just helping in a missing person investigation.

TCDStudent1 · 20-06-2019 04:03PM

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

My understanding is that Boy A's backpack contained the 'murder kit'.

I dont think it was ever said what Boy B's backpack contained.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 04:03PM

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.

Well that's false anyway.

Everything you've mentioned does not prove any guilt whatsoever. Just cos he's in town with Boy A and called in for Ana and brought her to the house does not make him a murderer.

And yes, it is really as simple as Boy B saying a few lines and then nothing.

If he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing - I cant see how people cant see that.

CCTV and a few witness statements couldnt possible lead to a murder conviction in this case.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 04:03PM

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

It contained shin guards, face mask and stuff like that. A 'murder kit' the prosecution called it.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 04:04PM

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

Do you mean Boy B? Because they recovered Boy A's backpack which had DNA evidence both in it and on it. Boy B also explained why boy A had a back pack.

the butcher · 20-06-2019 04:05PM

Detective Garda Daly told Boy B that a witness saw a youth with a black backpack crossing into the field at the back of the abandoned house where Ana was found. He added: “I believe that was you going into the field…”

Boy B replied: “Ok, I did go into the field, but that was to look around, that’s all.”

Was his backpack ever recovered?

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:09PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

We all know he did it. We're all glad he was convicted.
But the state had no case without the young lads own admissions.
They couldn't put him at the scene of the crime.
They couldn't prove he had knowledge of the crime.
There wouldn't have been grounds to charge him. Not even close.
Only A would have faced a jury and not B.
Thankfully B was inexperienced and foolishly gave Gardaí everything they needed.

Boy B conviction was for complicity in the murder not for participation in the actual killing. There was a lot of external strands to put that complicity together of witnesses & CCTV & most damning of all going to Ana's house leading her through the park to the direction of the abandoned house. This is while Boy is seen heading there too from a different direction. Can't but deduce there was a plan in place. In that case it would be for Boy B to convince the jury there was no plan in place. This he did not do, rather he confirmed the suspicion of it.

swarlb · 20-06-2019 04:09PM

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

fash · 20-06-2019 04:10PM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

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.

Fully agree. "That's their job" is a silly comment. Even if you are a Garda how often are you interviewing a psychopathic 13 year old who just raped and murdered someone and you have to get them to confess because there is no physical evidence against them? Even if you've done it a few times, that doesn't mean you are going to be good at it- it is a dynamic and fluid situation which takes a natural talent.
So kudos to the Gardai - I hope they get some well deserved satisfaction out of it.

Penn · 20-06-2019 04:10PM

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

The prosecution would probably have come at it from a different angle in that case. Maybe focusing on the unaccounted 35 minutes between the sightings of him.

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc. Him refusing to answer questions raises suspicions, but wouldn't prove guilt.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out of him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:11PM

the butcher wrote: »

Detective Garda Daly told Boy B that a witness saw a youth with a black backpack crossing into the field at the back of the abandoned house where Ana was found. He added: “I believe that was you going into the field…”

Boy B replied: “Ok, I did go into the field, but that was to look around, that’s all.”

Was his backpack ever recovered?

We don't know it did not come out at the trial

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 20-06-2019 04:12PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Well that's false anyway.

Everything you've mentioned does not prove any guilt whatsoever. Just cos he's in town with Boy A and called in for Ana and brought her to the house does not make him a murderer.

And yes, it is really as simple as Boy B saying a few lines and then nothing.

If he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing - I cant see how people cant see that.

CCTV and a few witness statements couldnt possible lead to a murder conviction in this case.

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

jimmycrackcorm · 20-06-2019 04:13PM

swarlb wrote: »

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

Brush under the carpet...
As if it's not one of the most horrific crimes we've seen in years.
Sure, let's ignore this only a few days after the facts come out.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 04:15PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

Are you asking if a child can be subpoenaed to court?
They can.

20-06-2019 04:15PM

swarlb wrote: »

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

Click unfollow there like a good little poster and let people discuss if they wish to... on a discussion site.

Penn · 20-06-2019 04:16PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

From what I understand, defendants can't be compelled to testify regardless of age.

If you are the accused in a criminal case you do not have to give evidence in your defence. If you decide not to give evidence in the case, the prosecution cannot comment on this to the jury. If you decide to give evidence in your trial, you can then be cross-examined by the prosecution. You cannot refuse to answer these questions on the grounds that it may incriminate you. However, the prosecution cannot ask you questions about your previous bad character unless you have:

Introduced evidence of your own good character or
Questioned the character of any prosecution witness or
Given evidence in your own defence against a co-accused

You cannot be forced to give evidence by the prosecution when they are trying to convict you. You also cannot be forced to give evidence against a co-accused if you are both being tried in the same proceedings. However, if the prosecution refuses to offer any evidence against you and you are found not guilty, then you can be forced to testify against a co-accused.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/witnesses/who_can_be_forced_to_be_a_witness.html

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 04:17PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

No accused of any age is obliged to testify.

It is for the state to prove their case against the accused. He/she can sit back and present no evidence and no rebuttal if they so wish.

Equally the Defense can if they choose call the accused or call any other witnesses to counter the prosecutions case.

TCDStudent1 · 20-06-2019 04:17PM

Penn wrote: »

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc. Him refusing to answer questions raises suspicions, but wouldn't prove guilt.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out of him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

Probably not. However, with a jury, you simply never know. But maybe it would not have gotten as far as a jury for Boy B if he had not said anything........

the butcher · 20-06-2019 04:19PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

We don't know it did not come out at the trial

Not only his backpack, the contents. Also his clothes, his shoes on the day (14th May).

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:20PM

Penn wrote: »

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for B to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy A in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 04:22PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

You really need to get your facts straight.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:23PM

the butcher wrote: »

Not only his backpack, the contents. Also his clothes, his shoes on the day (14th May).

We don't know, he may have been so far ahead of the posse also with the mobile phones, none recovered. We do know he used the internet from a laptop at home but he may have been ahead of the posse here too. We have no messaging evidence between the pair which I found very strange as they were best friends.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:24PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight.

got A and B miked up

swarlb · 20-06-2019 04:26PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Brush under the carpet...
As if it's not one of the most horrific crimes we've seen in years.
Sure, let's ignore this only a few days after the facts come out.

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

Penn · 20-06-2019 04:30PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 04:31PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight.

I have corrected getting A & B mixed up

Will I Am Not · 20-06-2019 04:31PM

swarlb wrote: »

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

It’s always the same. The boards detectives are all over these threads.

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

Comments