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

Penn wrote: »

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.

I got this arse ways

"plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing."


should have read

" plan for B to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy A in the actual killing.

Penn wrote: »

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.

U don't know the reasoning of the Jury only the jury knows that. Boy B defense would need to explain to the jury why Ana was led by him 3 km to an abandoned house. Simply his belief for Boy A to tell her he didn't like her would not wash after all he was the one that lured her there. These interactions could have taken place in the school or the open park. But she was lured to a secluded abandoned house by Boy B is the big stumbling block to get over.

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?

No, lost like the two smartphones :rolleyes:

Does anybody know why the lawyer for Boy B didn't instruct him to go along the " no comment " route?

I said it yesterday, for all the people still scratching their heads about Boy B being convicted of murder....

"The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, or joint criminal enterprise is a common-law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise."

Ana was murdered. Without Boy B's actions she wouldn't have been at the location where she was attacked. The jury were clearly convinced that from their previous interactions, Boy B knew what Boy A was planning to do.

Even if, for the sake of argument, B only knew A planned to assault her and nevertheless she died as result, thats malice aforethought and any unlawful killing with premeditated harm is murder under our laws

Therefore, murder charges for everybody.

I still would expect an appeal from B, but unless some aspect of the judge's oversight of the case is found to have erred in law, I'd say nothing will change.

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....

Can you mute or unfollow the thread perhaps? I have found it very informative, with lots of insights and viewpoints I never would have had/considered. I've children this age and it all resonates deeply. Can't say I've noticed the grisly competitiveness you refer to. Horses for courses I guess.

mrjoneill wrote: »

Wrong the reason Boy B made so many different conflicting statements is he was found out by CCTV & witnesses & told so by the Gardai. Boy B was not convicted on anything he did or not do at the abandoned derelict house. It was his complicity to a believed plan he had with Boy A.

When he first told his story to the gardai, if he leaves things as is even with CCTV proving him wrong he would not have a conviction for murder now.

The fact the boy kept amending his story and telling new lies as well as some truths, is what has brought about a guilty verdict for murder.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I said it yesterday, for all the people still scratching their heads about Boy B being convicted of murder....

"The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, or joint criminal enterprise is a common-law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise."

Ana was murdered. Without Boy B's actions she wouldn't have been at the location where she was attacked. The jury were clearly convinced that from their previous interactions, Boy B knew what Boy A was planning to do.

Even if, for the sake of argument, B only knew A planned to assault her and nevertheless she died as result, thats malice aforethought and any unlawful killing with premeditated harm is murder under our laws

Therefore, murder charges for everybody.

I still would expect an appeal from B, but unless some aspect of the judge's oversight of the case is found to have erred in law, I'd say nothing will change.

Absolutely 100% spot on, it was the plan or perceived plan that implicated Boy B confirmed by he luring her from her home. Boy B did not have to know that Boy A wanted to kill her but he that had an illegal act in plan.

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

When he first told his story to the gardai, if he leaves things as is even with CCTV proving him wrong he would not have a conviction for murder now.

The fact the boy kept amending his story and telling new lies as well as some truths, is what has brought about a guilty verdict for murder.

Not true he only alienated the jury with his lies even further. The jury believed there was a plan between Boy A and Boy B to lure her to the abandoned house. Boy B played an active part in that by calling to her house to lure her there. The jury believed that this plan was for Boy A to kill Ana or seriously assault her & Boy B was part of this.

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

She would not have been murdered if he didn't deliver her to boy 'A'

He played a huge part in her murder.

He could have murdered her later with a different plan.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I despair... I honestly do.

Would you be satisfied then? When you have 6 people in prison? What will we do with those parents' other children? Will we throw them in prison as well? Why stop there? Why not just slit their throats in the public square?

Let the other kids be adopted by competent parents? Ideally this should be done regardless.