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

The Specialist · 20-06-2019 07:16PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

I find it more disturbing to have to share a country with you than with those boy’s parents TBH.

He’s dead right in what he says to be honest. What do you find disagrreable?

I’m delighted their names and pictures have been exposed, I hope this crime hounds the both of them until the day they die. Sub human scum is all they are

Gimme A Pound · 20-06-2019 07:17PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The amount of posters here saying they wished they didn't read the details or that they cant sleep at night thinking about this is worrying. I mean, come on people, this stuff happens every day the world over, if you are so personally effected by this that you are having nightmares then I really question your ability to cope in the real world.

How about channelling that "worried" energy into things of more importance than people being too empathetic for your liking.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 07:19PM

The Specialist wrote: »

He’s dead right in what he says to be honest. What do you find disagrreable?

The locking up of several generations of the same family for years over the transgression of one family member. No evidence, no trial, just lock them all up.

The Specialist · 20-06-2019 07:21PM

tuxy wrote: »

The locking up of several generations of the same family for years over the transgression of one family member. No evidence, no trial, just lock them all up.

They didn’t even need to go that far, Boy B hung himself in interviews with the Gardaí and Boy A sounds like he should never see the light of day again.

Hal3000 · 20-06-2019 07:23PM

We need incentives for parents who don't give their kids smartphones until after 16 years old. Free Nokia that can't access the internet would be a start. Most use the excuse that they need to contact them. It doesn't have to be internet ready to contact them. Also, most parents bow to peer pressure because other parents allowed their kids have one. If we allowed this unfettered access to the internet for kids the effects on future society will be detrimental.

tuxy · 20-06-2019 07:23PM

The Specialist wrote: »

They didn’t even need to go that far, Boy B hung himself in interviews with the Gardaí and Boy A sounds like he should never see the light of day again.

My response was to a claim by another poster that any adult that had a hand in the upbringing of these boys deserve lengthily sentences.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 07:23PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

I know that. We are discussing Boy B's position if he had of kept his mouth shut and made no admissions.

mrjoneill is claiming that Boy B would have been charged and convicted even had he made no comment or statement to Gardaí.

He has yet to answer what evidence would place Boy B at the scene or how a murder verdict would carry against him without that.

What was necessary to show to the jury was both Boy A and Boy B had a common plan, that of Boy B to lure Ana from her home to an abandoned house where Boy A lay in wait. CCTV & witness statement inc Ana's father confirmed this. CCTV & witness statements show Boy B leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house this is while Boy A is taking another route. This is convincing of a common plan added to the fact that CCTV shows them together earlier that evening. Ana was not lured to a park but an abandoned derelict house 3km away which shows much deeper intrigues.

The Specialist · 20-06-2019 07:24PM

tuxy wrote: »

My response was to a claim by another poster that any adult that had a hand in the upbringing of these boys deserve lengthily sentences.

Apologies, that is a ridiculous assertation and I stand by your opinion on it.

Tokyo · 20-06-2019 07:24PM

Mod:

Posting identifying information on the parties involved will earn an immediate threadban. Please take care with what you post or quote from other sources.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 07:27PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

What was necessary to show to the jury was both Boy A and Boy B had a common plan, that of Boy B to lure Ana from her home to an abandoned house where Boy A lay in wait. CCTV & witness statement inc Ana's father confirmed this. CCTV & witness statements show Boy B leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house this is while Boy A is taking another route. This is convincing of a common plan added to the fact that CCTV shows them together earlier that evening. Ana was not lured to a park but an abandoned derelict house 3km away which shows much deeper intrigues.

That doesn't show a common plan.

That doesn't show B knew what A was going to do.

Direction of means nothing. There was no indication B was in the house or met A in the house.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 07:37PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

I read what you typed. You say Boy B was at the murder scene.

Boy B states he was, but that is not the conclusive evidence of guilt, its the fact he led Ana there obv under a rouse of Boy A wanting to meet her. If he went to Ana house enticed her out to be murdered or attacked that is all that's need to prove his complicity. CCTV & witness statements support this as does Ana's father. It was Ana's father that placed Boy B at her house, which startled him when Gardai called to his house that evening. Boy B then put the blame on Boy A as if passing on his problem. If Boy B was at the murder scene & did not entice Ana there or had prior notice of a plan to kill her & did not participate in the killing he would have no guilt associated to him. And he stating he was there would not imply guilt either. His only liability would be to report a felony.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 07:37PM

Mrjoneill, you keep going on about a "common plan". That the prosecution built their case on CCTV and witness statements. And this evidence somehow convinced the jury that the boys designed a plan to murder Ana.
How? You're putting the horse before the cart.

I'll ask you specifically....How does boy b calling for ana, been seen by her father, been seen on CCTV, been seen walking towards the house with her prove he knew she was going to be murdered?

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 07:45PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

We need incentives for parents who don't give their kids smartphones until after 16 years old. Free Nokia that can't access the internet would be a start. Most use the excuse that they need to contact them. It doesn't have to be internet ready to contact them. Also, most parents bow to peer pressure because other parents allowed their kids have one. If we allowed this unfettered access to the internet for kids the effects on future society will be detrimental.

The jeannie is out of the bottle, once out it not going back in. The facts are that most 12 yrs old are being fed a stable diet of porn. Those kids without smart phones see their friends ones. Exch porn is the new way to exch as people did of stamps at one time. Making porn only avail to adults is peppered with assumptions. In Brit kids steal their parents credit cards to get access unknown to them as no charges arise. Time to consider teaching kids about the realities of porn & the effect it can have on them.

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 07:46PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B states he was, but that is not the conclusive evidence of guilt, its the fact he led Ana there obv under a rouse of Boy B wanting to meet her. If he went to Ana house enticed her out to be murdered that is all that's need to prove his complicity. CCTV & witness statements support this as does Ana's father. It was Ana's father that placed Boy B at her house, which startled him when Gardai called to his house that evening. Boy B then put the blame on Boy A as if passing on his problem. If Boy B was at the murder scene & did not entice Ana there or had prior notice of a plan to kill her & did not participate in the killing he would have no guilt associated to him. And he stating he was there would not imply guilt either. His only liability would be to report a felony.

Calling to Ana's house and bringing her part way to a romantic liaison is not a crime.

You must understand that in Court all that counts is what you can prove.
You must show Knowledge in B's mind of what is happening. That he is taking part in a murder. He knows he's taking part in a murder. Evidence to show that. Not opinion or speculation.

Mens Rea.

Larbre34 · 20-06-2019 07:48PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

That doesn't show a common plan.

That doesn't show B knew what A was going to do.

Direction of means nothing. There was no indication B was in the house or met A in the house.

Patric Kriegel identified Boy B as the person who called to their home and who Ana left with. There is no confusion there as quite sadly both parents gave evidence that "nobody called for Ana"

We now know that all of Boy A, Boy B and Boy B with Ana were spotted en route by people known to them, not to mention the CCTV.

If Boy B had never uttered one word in his Garda interviews, those above facts still remain and in that event I have no doubt that Boy As Counsel would have gone after Boy B in Court in order to distract in any way possible from his client and introduce that critical element called doubt.

As someone who has sat on a murder trial jury and had the law explained to me at length in a judges charge, I have absolutely zero doubt that the correct charge for Boy B was murder and that by reason of 'common design' the verdict of guilty was the right one.

By the way, a few people who have no idea what they were talking about earlier suggested he might have got manslaughter as a lesser conviction. Thats not the way it works, for any consideration of manslaughter, there would have to have been doubt over whether Ana died some sort of unintentional death without premeditation. Thats not what happened though, Boy A planned to do her harm, she died as a result and it is irrelevant as to whether he meant it to go that far, she's dead and it was a planned attack, so its murder. Nothing lessens that for Boy B either.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 07:54PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Mrjoneill, you keep going on about a "common plan". That the prosecution built their case on CCTV and witness statements. And this evidence somehow convinced the jury that the boys designed a plan to murder Ana.
How? You're putting the horse before the cart.

I'll ask you specifically....How does boy b calling for ana, been seen by her father, been seen on CCTV, been seen walking towards the house with her prove he knew she was going to be murdered?

How do his conflicting statement prove it either? The reason he has so many conflicting statements is he was being caught out by CCTV & other witness statements. Boy B statements have nothing in them that he knew Boy A was going to kill her. Its we can deduce from the circumstances of the whole available evidence there was a plan. All Boy B did with his video lies was convince the Gardai, prosecution & jury he was a convoluted manipulative liar and well up to be part of a plan to kill Ana.

Sunflower 27 · 20-06-2019 07:55PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

That doesn't show a common plan.

That doesn't show B knew what A was going to do.

Direction of means nothing. There was no indication B was in the house or met A in the house.

Well, just that he said he was. And if B hadn't put himself in the frame and the heat was entirely on A, A may have said he was there (not wanting him to get off scot-free and take some pressure off himself).

Force Carrier · 20-06-2019 08:00PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Patric Kriegel identified Boy B as the person who called to their home and who Ana left with. There is no confusion there as quite sadly both parents gave evidence that "nobody called for Ana"

We now know that all of Boy A, Boy B and Boy B with Ana were spotted en route by people known to them, not to mention the CCTV.

If Boy B had never uttered one word in his Garda interviews, those above facts still remain and in that event I have no doubt that Boy As Counsel would have gone after Boy B in Court in order to distract in any way possible from his client and introduce that critical element called doubt.

As someone who has sat on a murder trial jury and had the law explained to me at length in a judges charge, I have absolutely zero doubt that the correct charge for Boy B was murder and that by reason of 'common design' the verdict of guilty was the right one.

By the way, a few people who have no idea what they were talking about earlier suggested he might have got manslaughter as a lesser conviction. Thats not the way it works, for any consideration of manslaughter, there would have to have been doubt over whether Ana died some sort of unintentional death without premeditation. Thats not what happened though, Boy A planned to do her harm, she died as a result and it is irrelevant as to whether he meant it to go that far, she's dead and it was a planned attack, so its murder. Nothing lessens that for Boy B either.

You must prove common design. You must prove B knew what was going to happen at the house. Not just 'i think' 'or sure what else was he doing'.

Without B's confession all we would know was he took Anna half way to a place where someone else killed her. Did he know what would happen to her at the house. Hmm. Maybe. But maybe not. Who knows.
The bar is set in a Criminal Trial of proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You could speculate he thought it was a genuine date.
Or he thought it would be a small assault.
Or anything.
It's all speculation.
To prove murder you must show he had knowledge of what was happening and was a full and willing participant. His answers in Garda interrogation gave us that. Otherwise not.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 08:01PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

How do his conflicting statement prove it either? The reason he has so many conflicting statements is he was being caught out by CCTV & other witness statements. Boy B statements have nothing in them that he knew Boy A was going to kill her. Its we can deduce from the circumstances of the whole available evidence there was a plan. All Boy B did with his video lies was convince the Gardai, prosecution & jury he was a convoluted manipulative liar and well up to be part of a plan to kill Ana.

Again. You don't have your facts correct.

And again with "the plan".
And you haven't answered my question...how does CCTV & witness statements PROVE there was a plan to kill Ana, and Boy B knew of this plan?

Beechwoodspark · 20-06-2019 08:03PM

Are we meant to feel sympathy for boy B’s family being forced into hiding ? Seriously ?

Hal3000 · 20-06-2019 08:03PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

The jeannie is out of the bottle, once out it not going back in. The facts are that most 12 yrs old are being fed a stable diet of porn. Those kids without smart phones see their friends ones. Exch porn is the new way to exch as people did of stamps at one time. Making porn only avail to adults is peppered with assumptions. In Brit kids steal their parents credit cards to get access unknown to them as no charges arise. Time to consider teaching kids about the realities of porn & the effect it can have on them.

Not true, nothing is ever beyond fixing. If things got so bad the government could switch it off with the click of a button. Don't ever forget that. The Jeanie is never out of the bottle considering we don't control any of the online infrastructure.

Nerdlingr · 20-06-2019 08:03PM

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Well, just that he said he was. And if B hadn't put himself in the frame and the heat was entirely on A, A may have said he was there (not wanting him to get off scot-free and take some pressure off himself).

One Boy's statement cannot be used as evidence against the other Boy.
If A said B was there at the scene it wouldn't have been allowed as evidence to convict B.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 08:05PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Patric Kriegel identified Boy B as the person who called to their home and who Ana left with. There is no confusion there as quite sadly both parents gave evidence that "nobody called for Ana"

We now know that all of Boy A, Boy B and Boy B with Ana were spotted en route by people known to them, not to mention the CCTV.

If Boy B had never uttered one word in his Garda interviews, those above facts still remain and in that event I have no doubt that Boy As Counsel would have gone after Boy B in Court in order to distract in any way possible from his client and introduce that critical element called doubt.

As someone who has sat on a murder trial jury and had the law explained to me at length in a judges charge, I have absolutely zero doubt that the correct charge for Boy B was murder and that by reason of 'common design' the verdict of guilty was the right one.

By the way, a few people who have no idea what they were talking about earlier suggested he might have got manslaughter as a lesser conviction. Thats not the way it works, for any consideration of manslaughter, there would have to have been doubt over whether Ana died some sort of unintentional death without premeditation. Thats not what happened though, Boy A planned to do her harm, she died as a result and it is irrelevant as to whether he meant it to go that far, she's dead and it was a planned attack, so its murder. Nothing lessens that for Boy B either.

Glad someone else can see it all quite clearly, I was beginning to feel I was alone in seeing the obvious.

Boy A counsel sought during the jury deliberations to introduce manslaughter as a verdict for him. The Judge stated it was not applicable as his client was pleading not guilty. There are 2 forms of MS voluntary & involuntary. The first may have application if there was not the intention to kill but recklessness to the fact. As for involuntary MS is usually associated with a unlawful & dangerous act which had not application.
Boy B was hoping for a totally not guilty verdict. He had the best opportunity to go for involuntary MS if he was truthful & honest in his evidence.

Lucuma · 20-06-2019 08:05PM

What has struck me from the evidence regarding both the parents of Boy A and Boy B - specifically the fathers - is their attitude of how their darling Johnny couldn't possibly do any wrong. Boy A's father banging down the door of the park ranger's hut when his boy got 'attacked' and Boy B's outburst to the court after the verdict. It's clear there's something very, very wrong with these boys and their attitude to right and wrong. It seems like their parents are doing them no favours either. It's hard to know if they'll rehabilitate when they'll have their family fighting for 'justice' for them like this and celebrating if they get early release etc.

Shouldn't the parents be encouraging the lads to take responsibility for their actions. Is this good parenting? Is all this standing by them and supporting them after them doing that going to help or hinder them you'd wonder

Beechwoodspark · 20-06-2019 08:06PM

Lucuma wrote: »

What has struck me from the evidence regarding both the parents of Boy A and Boy B - specifically the fathers - is their attitude of how their darling Johnny couldn't possibly do any wrong. Boy A's father banging down the door of the park ranger's hut when his boy got 'attacked' and Boy B's outburst to the court after the verdict. It's clear there's something very, very wrong with these boys and their attitude to right and wrong. It seems like their parents are doing them no favours either. It's hard to know if they'll rehabilitate when they'll have their family fighting for 'justice' for them like this and celebrating if they get early release etc.

Shouldn't the parents be encouraging the lads to take responsibility for their actions. Is this good parenting? Is all this standing by them and supporting them after them doing that going to help or hinder them you'd wonder

The whole thing stinks

I suspect that much more went on than has come out so far.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 20-06-2019 08:10PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Glad someone else can see it all quite clearly, I was beginning to feel I was alone in seeing the obvious.

Boy A counsel sought during the jury deliberations to introduce manslaughter as a verdict for him. The Judge stated it was not applicable as his client was pleading not guilty. There are 2 forms of MS voluntary & involuntary. The first may have application if there was not the intention to kill but recklessness to the fact. As for involuntary MS is usually associated with a unlawful & dangerous act which had not application.
Boy B was hoping for a totally not guilty verdict. He had the best opportunity to go for involuntary MS if he was truthful & honest in his evidence.

That guy wasn’t agreeing with you at all. And boy B couldn’t be charged for manslaughter if the co-defendant was charged for murder.

Lucuma · 20-06-2019 08:10PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The whole thing stinks

I suspect that much more went on than has come out so far.

I mean I'm just thinking of Boy B hearing his father shouting that he's innocent and that the court system of this country are a bunch of pr!cks or whatever he said.

What kind of message is that sending to Boy B. You can do what you did and I'll still believe you're innocent? WTF

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 08:11PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Not true, nothing is ever beyond fixing. If things got so bad the government could switch it off with the click of a button. Don't ever forget that. The Jeanie is never out of the bottle considering we don't control any of the online infrastructure.

Unfortunately we are not all that rational. Dads & Mams would continue to transgress believing their little pets would not dare look at porn & use their smart phones for games which gets majority use by teenagers. The use of apps which need internet is so common there is no going back. Internet browsers on mobiles there is no way of controlling it. For me its quite clear the horse has long bolted and is on the way to the end-line. Its time to accept the inevitable & prepare for it.

volchitsa · 20-06-2019 08:17PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Again. You don't have your facts correct.

And again with "the plan".
And you haven't answered my question...how does CCTV & witness statements PROVE there was a plan to kill Ana, and Boy B knew of this plan?

This has been repeated before : there doesn't have to have been a plan to kill her, it is enough if there was a plan to do her harm (hit her to incapacitate her and then rape her for example) - if she died as a result of that plan being put into action, then that is also murder and B was an active accomplice.

Since Boy B said that nobody liked her, or wanted to be seen with her, it's obvious that he didn't think he was bringing her to a romantic tryst.

So he knew he was bringing her there to have some harm done to her. And that's what happened.

mrjoneill · 20-06-2019 08:18PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That guy wasn’t agreeing with you at all. And boy B couldn’t be charged for manslaughter if the co-defendant was charged for murder.

I didn't state he was nor u should not presume he wasn't either.

Difference of murder & involuntary manslaughter is on the frame of mind of the perpetrator. Both require a homicide but its the frame of mind that makes them specific. For murder its the intention to kill or do really serious injury whereas for manslaughter its recklessness to it, ie did not believe at the time that death would be caused or serious injury done.

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

Comments