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…104105107109110…247

Comments

  • #3182
    Uncharted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Her parents did all they could to protect their daughter. They have no questions to answer to anyone in this.

    Her parents showed the utmost dignity. They did their daughter proud.

    They have done no wrong. Just like Anastasia.


  • #3183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    paddy jackson was found innocent like it or not and he can hardly get a job,the whole Diageo/london irish thing may blow over or up in his face but look at the time, money effort afforded to these actual two monsters, to protect them and yet their 100% guilty of a crime evil by middle ages comparison. I don't get it, the tax payer will pick up the tab for these two ***** too, in fact imagine the gardai/detective resources now pulled from cathing paedo's on line to knocking on doors asking, Hey watsup with your watsap!!


  • #3184
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 27,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

    It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

    Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

    His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

    All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?


  • #3185
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Jesus.

    Why not just kill them?

    Hmmm
    Lets tease that out a bit


    *only joking.ish


  • #3186
    Blinky Plebum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Blinky Plebum


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Jesus.

    Why not just kill them?

    Not in favour of death penalty but honestly I have no issue with giving any cold blooded murderers as hard a time as humanly possible in prison.They don't deserve any sympathy.This was a crime of pure nastiness there is absolutely nothing in the world that can even attempt to justify it.

    They should not be allowed out of prison again , life should mean life and ridiculously it doesn't. I really wish somebody would challenge this in the courts and have life sentences actually mean life in prison.

    Murder is the worst crime a person can commit it is the only crime that you can't have the potential to recover from and it should mean you never get out of prison again.


  • Advertisement
  • #3187
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,522 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    SirChenjin wrote: »
    Haven't watched the programme but it's a point I have made a couple of times in the thread. Ana was a beautiful child who was deeply loved. This is evident from everything that her parents said about her in the course of the trial. I cannot begin to imagine their horrendous loss, in the very worst of circumstances.

    May she rest in peace, poor innocent child.

    The local TD who knew Ana and the family well said Ana's mum was a fantastic mother to her. I don't doubt this for a moment.


  • #3188
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    spurious wrote: »
    I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

    It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

    We will never know what legal advice he got, if he followed that legal advice or if he also lied to his legal advisers.

    What we do know is that once the Garda started to call him out on his lies with witnesses and evidence to prove he was lying he tried to pass all blame onto Boy A but in doing so only incriminated himself. It is also known that Boy B was originally under the mistaken impression that he could only get in a small amount of trouble because it was not him that did the actual killing.


  • #3189
    jus_tin4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 432 ✭✭jus_tin4


    spurious wrote: »
    I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

    It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

    Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

    His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

    All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?

    Think he had to talk tbh, cctv evidence of him at the location and with Ana. Then got caught in his own lies. Not sure of all the fact so stand to be corrected obviously, but anyone point out to me how he was directly involved in the murder? Did he know that was boys a plan? Just this area seems pretty unclear to me but maybe there was more evidence that I’m not aware of other that him saying he saw something happening


  • #3190
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Sure the little knacks were excused from hearing evidence as it was deemed too graphic for them... even though it was them who bloody caused it. Farce.

    People have criticized this as it's natural to feel anger and want to grab those boys by the hair, stick their face in front of the screen and roar, look at what you did.

    But the job of the judge was to make sure that the trial was conducted in a very fair manner that took into account that these boys are still children regardless of how the outcome would prove to be.


  • #3191
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    spurious wrote: »
    I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

    It sounds like he did not put a hand on her, so there was no forensic evidence to link him - or perhaps he knew for a fact he hadn't directly harmed her, so why then didn't he do a 'no comment' job like the other guy?

    Surely he was not given legal advice to talk non-stop?

    His father's OTT reaction in the court then made me think could he have been under the impression that if his son gave evidence against A things might go easier? (anger aimed at guards etc.)

    All speculation on my part, absolutely, but what legal team tells their client to spill their guts, unless they think it will help their defence?

    You can be fairly certain the solicitor's advice was to keep shtum. That's standard.

    I think the dynamic of his parents presence here might have had an influence.
    The lad was maintaining his innocence to them as much as to the garda and was saying I can answer everything it's all ok.

    Also he was basically unknowledgeable and inexperienced at dealing with being accused of a crime, dealing with police and being in custody. His solicitor was probably going nuts on the inside but could do nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • #3192
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Jesus.

    Why not just kill them?

    In an ideal world they would both be put down like the animals they are.


  • #3193
    Goodgoods
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4 ✭Goodgoods


    Aisling_Dublin wrote: »
    Exactly what I think, too. I would move countries for my child in this situation.


    Maybe her parents realized that moving her might give her the message that SHE had done something wrong and damage her self esteem further


  • #3194
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Sure the little knacks were excused from hearing evidence as it was deemed too graphic for them... even though it was them who bloody caused it. Farce.

    When I first heard the guilty verdict on the news, they also reported all the snippets about them being excused for the graphic evidence, about the barristers and judge not wearing their regular court attire, court emblems being covered up - basically a sanitised, warmer environment being created to make these two monsters feel more comfortable. I was a bit livid thinking about it.

    However, then the penny dropped - No matter how sure the guards and prosecutors can be that they have the right suspect(s), no matter how heinous the crime which is being leveled at the accused, there is that presumption of innocence which lead to the likes of these murderers being excused from graphic evidence and the other court alterations.

    Yeah, these absolute horrors had to be excused for graphic evidence and the adult court made a bit more child-friendly, seems crazy and farcical considering the verdict, but I now know and understand why it is that way and I'm glad that the presumption of innocence exists in our court system.


  • #3195
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    tuxy wrote: »
    We will never know what legal advice he got, if he followed that legal advice or if he also lied to his legal advisers.

    What we do know is that once the Garda started to call him out on his lies with witnesses and evidence to prove he was lying he tried to pass all blame onto Boy A but in doing so only incriminated himself. It is also known that Boy B was originally under the mistaken impression that he could only get in a small amount of trouble because it was not him that did the actual killing.

    He may not have pulled the trigger but he loaded the gun.

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • #3196
    bessboroughboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 104 ✭✭bessboroughboy


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    I feel that the state should intervene to publish their identities and appearances on their eventual release.

    Otherwise the state may be liable for negligence when the inevitable happens and some unfortunate woman meets either one of them and is taken in by their, no doubt, jolly demeanour and, no doubt, flawless social skills.

    There is plenty time to lobby the relevant politicians/civil servants and have a proper procedure in place for properly informing the public, you wouldn't be allowed put a dangerous car on the market for God's sake.


    Further to my comment above, if a "proper procedure" isn't in place by the time either of them is released and, probably, strikes again, then the politicians will simply chant a mantra about how they're going to "redouble their efforts" and "learn from their mistakes going forward". This is why there needs to be a procedural change PRIOR to their release/releases.


  • #3197
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 27,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    People have criticized this as it's natural to feel anger and want to grab those boys by the hair, stick their face in front of the screen and roar, look at what you did.

    But the job of the judge was to make sure that the trial was conducted in a very fair manner that took into account that these boys are still children regardless of how the outcome would prove to be.

    At that stage legally they were two still innocent children who had been charged with a crime. In the (OK we know now the unlikely) event they had nothing to do with it, it would not be acceptable to expose children to such evidence.


  • #3198
    Shemale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,384 ✭✭✭Shemale


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Doesn't quite stack up. Why would one family go into hiding and not the other, particularly when the latter is more directly connected with the actual assault?

    Also curious that it was reported that it was the legal team for parents of Boy B who sought the further injunctions against publishers. One can only conclude that they have more to lose and the in court behaviour of one parent left a lot to be desired.

    Boy Bs dad is a sack of **** he is probably concocting this to try get money out of people that named his son.


  • #3199
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    spurious wrote: »
    I haven't read the last ten pages or so, so apologies if someone else has asked this, but I was wondering why Boy B didn't essentially keep his mouth shut.

    He almost could have got off. The decision to show his interview videos instead of the normal reading out of written statements though it took much longer was paramount.

    What it showed was that he was involved initially having called for Ana, and have an explanation, then everyone the guards came across and presented more evidence such as CCTV, he changed his story until he eventually admitted after 9 times that he was present.
    He could have stopped at any point and simply said no comment. I think that might have been enough for reasonable doubt perhaps, but the guards were excellent in their technique drawing it out.


  • #3200
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fall_Guy wrote: »
    The concept of presumption of innocence is crucial to the Irish legal system. At the time the evidence was being shown it had yet to be determined that they had caused it. Do you think it would be right for two innocent children to be exposed to that graphic evidence? I certainly don't, and as such I think it was a good call on the part of the judge.

    Fair point, never thought of it from that position. Thanks for the explanation. Still, there's definitely irony at play in the situation, albeit in hindsight technically.


  • #3201
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yeah, these absolute horrors had to be excused for graphic evidence and the adult court made a bit more child-friendly, seems crazy and farcical considering the verdict, but I now know and understand why it is that way and I'm glad that the presumption of innocence exists in our court system.

    Absolutely agree with you. I wasn't thinking of it from a legal standpoint. I'm on board and happy to have my mind changed. Thanks to the poster who challenged my view, I see their point and have adjusted my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #3202
    Fall_Guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Fall_Guy


    Blinky Plebum wrote: »
    Not in favour of death penalty but honestly I have no issue with giving any cold blooded murderers as hard a time as humanly possible in prison.They don't deserve any sympathy.This was a crime of pure nastiness there is absolutely nothing in the world that can even attempt to justify it.

    They should not be allowed out of prison again , life should mean life and ridiculously it doesn't. I really wish somebody would challenge this in the courts and have life sentences actually mean life in prison.

    Murder is the worst crime a person can commit it is the only crime that you can't have the potential to recover from and it should mean you never get out of prison again.

    That's such black and white thinking on what is such a complex subject. In the case of these young boys there are a lot of unknowns, but let's take the worst case scenario and assume both are "evil /psychopaths / whatever term you choose" and for some unexplained neurological reason or some supernatural reason (depending on your beliefs) are incapable of remorse or rehabilitation....why would you be against the death penalty? If their inability to function safely in society is not in their control, if they are "psychopaths" they can't just choose to be good, upstanding citizens, it is out of their control. Why do you feel they should continue to be punished for as long as they live? In a case like this would the death penalty not be the more compassionate action to take, something more akin to the likes of euthanasia?

    On the flip side, if someone in a moment of temporary madness commits a terrible crime of passion that they are immediately remorseful for and they truly would not be likely to re-offend or be a danger to society again, why should they be kept in prison until the day they die?


    In this case I don't know if these boys were psychopaths. I know they had very troubling interests, I know they were exposed to a great deal of very troubling content through their own searches online. I know that these really dark tendencies don't seem to have been flagged by any adults in their lives, be it teachers or parents. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say this was an avoidable tragedy, but I can't help but feel that less Internet access and more engagement on the part of the boys parents or teachers could have had SOME difference in the path that those boys ended up walking. As it is, it's a horrific tragedy, and a part of me really does feel that those two boys would be better off dead at this point, not to feed the thirst for justice porn that is rampant (understandably) at the moment but more for their own sake. What sort of existence can they have going forward in their lives from here on out?


  • #3203
    fryup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    Shemale wrote: »
    Boy Bs dad is a sack of **** he is probably concocting this to try get money out of people that named his son.

    or maybe the social media websites??


  • #3204
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,009 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Force Carrier wrote: »
    The man involved in this murder is living in london with a wife and kids and working in finance.

    Wonder do any of his colleagues or friends know his history.

    Interestingly that article says he was never named as he was a minor. But everyone knows his name! I wasn't even born in 1973 and I know it.

    These guy's names will filter down to everyone, eventually.


  • #3205
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    Amazing how the teacher was so gifted that she flagged her serious concerns about Ana yet appears to (as far as we know) have been unable to see through the real interests of the two boys.

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • #3206
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    fryup wrote: »
    or maybe the social media websites??

    Or maybe he didn't want to move his whole family?


  • #3207
    Blinky Plebum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Blinky Plebum


    Fall_Guy wrote: »
    That's such black and white thinking on what is such a complex subject. In the case of these young boys there are a lot of unknowns, but let's take the worst case scenario and assume both are "evil /psychopaths / whatever term you choose" and for some unexplained neurological reason or some supernatural reason (depending on your beliefs) are incapable of remorse or rehabilitation....why would you be against the death penalty? If their inability to function safely in society is not in their control, if they are "psychopaths" they can't just choose to be good, upstanding citizens, it is out of their control. Why do you feel they should continue to be punished for as long as they live? In a case like this would the death penalty not be the more compassionate action to take, something more akin to the likes of euthanasia?

    On the flip side, if someone in a moment of temporary madness commits a terrible crime of passion that they are immediately remorseful for and they truly would not be likely to re-offend or be a danger to society again, why should they be kept in prison until the day they die?


    In this case I don't know if these boys were psychopaths. I know they had very troubling interests, I know they were exposed to a fret deal of very troubling content through their own searches online. I know that these really dark tendencies don't seem to have been flagged by any adults in their lives, be it teachers or parents. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say this was an avoidable tragedy, but I can't help but feel that less Internet access and more engagement on the part of the boys parents could have had SOME difference in the path that those boys ended up walking. As it is, it's a horrific tragedy, and a part of me really does feel that those two boys would be better off dead at this point, not to feed the thirst for justice porn that is rampant (understandably) at the moment but more for their own sake. What sort of existence can they have going forward in their lives from here on out?


    This was pure calculated evil, there was no emotion (passion,anger whatever else you might try to use as an excuse) to explain it.

    I don't care about being compassionate for individuals like this, they don't deserve any compassion.

    Most people have dark angry thoughts throughout there lives (i.e.I'd love to kick the ****e out of that dickhead), but most people know the line and know that acting upon them is wrong.

    These boys were old enough and intelligent enough to know what they were doing was wrong.


  • #3208
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,416 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    I am beginning to think the boys should never be named . Not to protect them but so they will never be known or spoken about or made feel important .
    They should remain invisible and not be seen as anything but two murdering gutless little ****s

    But we should remember Ana by name and give her a name and remember her smile and her beauty . Ana Kriegel should not be forgotten


  • #3209
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    Deleted User wrote: »

    These guy's names will filter down to everyone, eventually.


    Yes, trying to suppress it almost creates more hype and interest around it.
    And in this day and age you really can't keep anything like that hidden.
    You can see what the law is trying to do but it doesn't really work out in reality.


  • #3210
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,833 ✭✭✭joe40


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    Amazing how the teacher was so gifted that she flagged her serious concerns about Ana yet appears to (as far as we know) have been unable to see through the real interests of the two boys.

    What are you talking about. Is the teacher supposed to be a mind reader. This thread getting idiotic at this stage


  • Advertisement
  • #3211
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,416 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Gadgetman496 wrote: »
    Amazing how the teacher was so gifted that she flagged her serious concerns about Ana yet appears to (as far as we know) have been unable to see through the real interests of the two boys.

    She was Ana primary school teacher . Were the boys in that school ? Did she know them ? Did she have contact with them ? Was she in their home checking their phones ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement