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

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 20-06-2019 05:59PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

I for one am glad that the law, on this question, is firmly on my side.

A parade of hard-lads, and keyboard queens demanding names, photos and the imprisonment of innocent people might satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy me.

Whatever about the imprisonment of the families, which is absurd, I’m not convinced that justice is served by not knowing the names of killers but only the victim.

Suckit · 20-06-2019 05:59PM

tuxy wrote: »

Boy A's defence after they knew there was DNA evidence was to not say a single thing and hope the Garda would make a technical error or that the judge would allow the jury to consider manslaughter.
He had nothing to gain by talking and there was no indication that he would no matter what the status of Boy B's defence was. I don't think shared responsibility will have an impact on his sentence.

I mean if Boy B were to appeal his sentence, and if there is genuine proof that it was his idea and he manipulated the whole turn of events etc.
Boy A may decide not to stay quiet anymore, it no longer makes any difference to his case.

20-06-2019 05:59PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

From the person who said this mere minutes ago;

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You seem to be taking it worse than Ana's parents

jobbridge4life · 20-06-2019 06:00PM

pjohnson wrote: »

The law that you are currently arguing against RE Boy B being guilty of murder?

I am not arguing against it. I never said I was. I said I had thought that it was possible a conviction of manslaughter might of occurred rather than murder, and purely because of the lack of forensics linking him to the act, or as I understand any documentary evidence indicating an intention to lure Ana to the house for the purpose of killing her.

That isn't a defense. It isn't intended as one.

dudara · 20-06-2019 06:02PM

Calm down everyone. Take a step back before posting.

dudara

jobbridge4life · 20-06-2019 06:04PM

Omackeral wrote: »

That's vile commentary.

It was. I acknowledge and apologise. I won't further defend it beyond pointing out that it was after and in response to an individual who likened me to the father of a convicted murderer.

martingriff · 20-06-2019 06:11PM

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.

It's not but if you read here people are blaming everyone who has any contact with the boys for not catching and stop them and who know what some act first and think later person will do

Breaston Plants · 20-06-2019 06:11PM

Anyone know what kind of conditions these 2 guys should expect in Oberstown prison?

Lackadaisical · 20-06-2019 06:11PM

Some of the commentary here is a getting a bit ridiculous. Thankfully, we actually have a reasonable judicial system and the Oireachtas isn't filled with reactionary hotheads.

It's difficult, but you have to be able to be extremely dispassionate, logical and maintain a cool head when actually dealing with cases. It goes against our instincts to just want revenge, but it's what it takes to be a civilised society.

Also, as the old adage goes: hard cases make bad law.

Utopia Parkway · 20-06-2019 06:11PM

Penn wrote: »

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.

Boy B would almost certainly have gotten away with it had he just said nothing to the police. As bad as it would have looked there was no DNA evidence tying him to the scene.

He ended up incriminating himself through his own inconsistent web of lies.

I have no idea how they thought they would get away with it to be honest. I mean Boy B called to Ana's house to collect her. The trail was always going to lead back to him and then Boy A.

BarryD2 · 20-06-2019 06:11PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Whatever about the imprisonment of the families, which is absurd, I’m not convinced that justice is served by not knowing the names of killers but only the victim.

I'm inclined to agree. In normal circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable to protect the identities of children. But these are far from normal circumstances and the injunctions/ warnings from the bench and Gardai, are more likely to up the ante and raise public speculation rather than quell it. Common sense would advise that a degree of openness is required in these circumstances, not least so that entirely innocent people are not accidentally identified as being involved.

Shemale · 20-06-2019 06:13PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

This isn't CSI Ireland. We don't have a vast semen database. They wouldn't have gotten a match if they didn't know who to test.

Absolute horse****e, they knew Ana left her house with Boy B, even if he didnt given up boy A the police would have looked at his friends / school friends

BloodBath · 20-06-2019 06:15PM

There needs to be a serious review of the law. These little ****s gave up any status of being children or even human when they committed this act.

They are both 1% of the male population that are psychopaths. They are an even further minority of this demographic that go on to commit such heinous acts.

They should never see the light of day again. I'm firmly behind the death penalty for this minority of people once they cross the line like this regardless of age. At the very least they should never be released. Once a psychopath always a psychopath.

Just like the Bulger murderers they will go on to commit other offences once released. But the state will spend millions protecting them and their identities.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 06:16PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

This is nonsense again.
The 'plan' stuff is all in your head. The Jury weren't involved in any plan.
The Jury makes its decision based on evidence put in front of it.
The prosecution produced evidence of interviews between gardai and Boy B.
In these interviews Boy B made a number of admissions.
He admitted to being at the crime scene.
He admitted to being present and observing the commencement of the sexual assault and attack that would lead to her death.
Based on that evidence he was found guilty of murder.
Without that evidence there was no case.

Completely wrong the trial judge warned the jury the presence at an assault does not implicate guilt nor observing an assault or any other criminal behavior. There is no onus for to act to stop such. What I understand of the Common Law from old case law is failing to assist a police constable when called to do so to assist may be a criminal of fence. Other than that there is no onus on anyone to intervene in an assault. If Boy B had intervened and assisted Ana it may cancel or ameliorated the common plan which was then in place.
The fact that Boy B was at the killing & did nothing only convinced the jury more of his guilt to a common plan/design. If Boy B stumbled on Boy A killing Ana & he had no prior involvement there would be no onus on him to do anything. The common plan was deduced from the facts that Boy B brought Ana to Boy A at the derelict house. It could not be done unless it was a plan.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 06:17PM

Shemale wrote: »

Absolute horse****e, they knew Ana left her house with Boy B, even if he didnt given up boy A the police would have looked at his friends / school friends

Then there was incident with the ranger in the park and other people that can place Boy A in that area. Once the DNA was found Garda would have eventually tested Boy A under almost every possible scenario.
The case against Boy B was the one that needed the most work.

Teepinaw · 20-06-2019 06:17PM

Hi

I haven't read the entire thread.
I've a few questions.

Did boy B have two phones? And they were lost??

I remember hearing on the radio, something about a parent washing one of the boys clothes - twice? Can anyone comment on this please? Which boy was it.

Amalgam · 20-06-2019 06:17PM

Are there laws to prevent A, B, or their families making money from being payed for interviews, etc.. in the future?

Could the family of the murdered teen divert any payments by applying to the courts?

..is there any legislation in place?

What really boiled my piss was a certain drug mule more or less coining it over the last few years, with appearances on various TV tat and tabloid articles.

Suckit · 20-06-2019 06:17PM

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?
I can't see what other purpose there could be.

Children the same age and wondered.....? Nope.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 06:20PM

Shemale wrote: »

Absolute horse****e, they knew Ana left her house with Boy B, even if he didnt given up boy A the police would have looked at his friends / school friends

Once Boy B was id his friends would come under suspicion & failing that the whole school would be DNA tested.

shesty · 20-06-2019 06:25PM

They have been convicted....what is the point of all this?

tuxy · 20-06-2019 06:25PM

Teepinaw wrote: »

Hi

Did boy B have two phones? And they were lost??

At one point in his life yes. His dad gave a character witness on Boy B and amongst other things pointed out two times in the past where his son had lost phones. This was to give the impression his son was stupid and careless.

Not to be confused with any phones that connect Boy B to he murder, there is no such evidence.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 20-06-2019 06:26PM

Suckit wrote: »

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?
I can't see what other purpose there could be.

Children the same age and wondered.....? Nope.

I’d like to know if I was living next door to these depraved lunatics in a few years, if one of them was dating my child/family member or if our paths crossed in any way, I think I should have the right to know if they raped someone or took a life.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 06:27PM

Teepinaw wrote: »

Hi

I haven't read the entire thread.
I've a few questions.

Did boy B have two phones? And they were lost??

I remember hearing on the radio, something about a parent washing one of the boys clothes - twice? Can anyone comment on this please? Which boy was it.

Yes Boy B father state he gave him 2 phones which he lost. Boy B father gave evidence of his son as a timid, forgetful eagerly seeking friends who had no interest in physical activity. Boy A mother made an earlier statement when her son was being treated as a victim of an assault of washing his blood stained jersey 2 times. Ana was still missing at that time.

BarryD2 · 20-06-2019 06:28PM

Suckit wrote: »

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?

It's an interesting question. I think it maybe because the public expect the justice system to be open and transparent, particularly for serious crimes and more so after conviction.

It seems to make people uneasy or distrustful that the identities of people who are convicted of murder are hidden behind labels. That something is being hidden from view and full accountability is not being upheld.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 06:28PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Completely wrong the trial judge warned the jury the presence at an assault does not implicate guilt nor observing an assault or any other criminal behavior. There is no onus for to act to stop such. What I understand of the Common Law from old case law is failing to assist a police constable when called to do so to assist may be a criminal of fence. Other than that there is no onus on anyone to intervene in an assault. If Boy B had intervened and assisted Ana it may cancel or ameliorated the common plan which was then in place.
The fact that Boy B was at the killing & did nothing only convinced the jury more of his guilt to a common plan/design. If Boy B stumbled on Boy A killing Ana & he had no prior involvement there would be no onus on him to do anything. The common plan was deduced from the facts that Boy B brought Ana to Boy A at the derelict house. It could not be done unless it was a plan.

You introduced now the idea of not intervening. I never said that that was what was implied. The two key pieces of evidence his presence at the scene and that he knew what was happening came from his admissions. Without them there was no case. That is not to say there was no evidence beyond those points. And of course the case was based on them being involved in a common enterprise. That could not have been proven without B's answers to garda questions.

Hal3000 · 20-06-2019 06:30PM

BloodBath wrote: »

There needs to be a serious review of the law. These little ****s gave up any status of being children or even human when they committed this act.

They are both 1% of the male population that are psychopaths. They are an even further minority of this demographic that go on to commit such heinous acts.

They should never see the light of day again. I'm firmly behind the death penalty for this minority of people once they cross the line like this regardless of age. At the very least they should never be released. Once a psychopath always a psychopath.

Just like the Bulger murderers they will go on to commit other offences once released. But the state will spend millions protecting them and their identities.

I have argued this endlessly on other threads and was told that harsh sentencing doesn't work and we need to understand criminals. We are soft on crime. Im sure both these boys have been well briefed on how long they will get. Don't be surprised when you see the patheticness of the sentence. Mitigating factors - time served - suspended portion. It's happening week in week out and no political party is bothered.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 06:30PM

martingriff wrote: »

It's not but if you read here people are blaming everyone who has any contact with the boys for not catching and stop them and who know what some act first and think later person will do

The school identified itself in its own web page and had posted comments on the regret over Ana's death.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 06:32PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

the whole school would be DNA tested.

Do you know the legal position with this?

guestus · 20-06-2019 06:34PM

Suckit wrote: »

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?
I can't see what other purpose there could be.

Children the same age and wondered.....? Nope.

Would you like your daughter going out with one of these guys when they get out of prison , without knowing who they are and what they did?

volchitsa · 20-06-2019 06:34PM

tuxy wrote: »

It was not found in his home. Boy B talked about a stick he picked up inside one of the rooms of the abandoned building but left it back as it was not suitable to be used as a play sword.

Anyine else think he was trying a bit too hard here? A play sword at 13, Lego at Oberstown? I have 2 boys who were a lot more naive than this lad seems to have been they certainly didn't hang around with friends who had child porn on their phones and wanted to kill people, but I think they stopped selecting the "right" kind of stick to be a play sword around the ages of 9 or 10 at the latest.

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

Comments