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

whodafunk wrote: »

I'm sorry but what "normal" 13 year old knows about satan and the dark web. I'm over 40 and only learned about the dark web in the last 2 years (through educational reasons).

That's a product of the dark web getting a lot of exposure in the last two years and not your age.
If you were 20 years younger, you'd have found out about it well before you were 40, etc

prinzeugen wrote: »

There are many cases from the UK where "child" killers have gone on to re-offend often for other serious crimes in adulthood.

Apart from the obvious example, Terry Venebles, who else are there in the UK?
I imagine offending is common. Locking a 10 year old away for a decade will mess up their development, and if they are already messed up to begin with there is only a slim chance of rehabilitation.

Road-Hog wrote: »

I wonder if today, 25 years on would the same logic have been used to allow their names and faces to be revealed......?

Our ‘job venebales (boy a) and Robert Thompson (boy b) are 3 years older than these two and are been given conplete anoninity.

Revealing their identify does seem completely at odds with the fact they are currently granted anonymity.
The father of Bulger is trying to have Venebles anonymity removed. Interestingly, the mother wants it to remain to avoid vigilante attacks.

mrjoneill wrote: »

Total BS, the Mens Rea can be inferred by the actions of the parities involved. Boy B was bringing Ana to a disused house 3km away where Boy A was waiting in combat gear to kill her. Boy B made no admission of guilt in his video statement but confirmed he was a consummate liar & kept it up till Gardai pointed out the facts he was telling lies. He then tried a new set of lies till that was again pointed out from external sources it was lies. The prosecution did not get any admission from any of the 2 boys and did not relay on any as the facts spoke for themselves. Why do u write such BS when its so obvious the case. The Gardai did make all their progress on the case of Boy B on CCTV and witness evidence while both parties lied. Boy A was convicted on the forensics alone and it was obvious he and Boy B were acting in concert from the CCTV evidence.

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.

Another two sticking points for me are that:

1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.

2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.

When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.

Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.

Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

Larbre34 wrote: »

What goes on at School itself is pretty much the least of the issue.

I know but a lot of the groups are formed around the school and if the first sign is squashed with a suspension it might just squash it.

Schools still deal with certain social media issues too, I know twice Gardai have been in the local primary school over facebook / whatsapp issues

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

Not sure how they could be identified from the back in a drawing, art has lost some credibilty with the Denarys waxword and Ronaldo statue. They might have different hair colour to the sketch

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I pray for bad things to happen to boy a and boy b.

I think chemical castration would be appropriate

Well your prayers won’t be answered. This is why we can’t be told the names of the boys. Stuff like this encourages the knuckle draggers to go the houses of these two families and throw stones at the windows.
If people weren’t so stupid we could know who these boys are and could avoid them in every way in the future.

wicorthered wrote: »

1. Maybe he was laughing because he knew what was about to happen and was happy and excited about it. He went there to pick Ana up and deliver to a murderer, so maybe he was pleased with himself for a job well done. They're a pair of little pyscos, I'm sure they were looking forward to this day.

2. Maybe he was too cocky and arrogant to think he'd ever get caught, maybe that's why he didn't disguise his actions. Maybe he thought he'd easily explain his actions. The fact a 13 year old wouldn't be terrified being interviewed by Gardai is astonishing. He was cold and calculated throughout. It didn't seem to matter what evidence was put to him, he just told a new lie effortlessly.

The guards aren't in the business of locking people up for no reason, especially kids. How many murder cases do the guards no the killer but have no proof. They were so determined to prosecute him for murder I know, the guards know he did it and used the best possible evidence to convict the little pysco.

I can't get my head around how many people are trying to excuse what this scumbag did.
Just watch, the bleeding hearts will ensure their out before their 21, and THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN!!

Maybe, maybe. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong.

Maybe the guards “knew” he did it. Maybe he genuinely was unaware she’d be attacked and harmed.

None of that matters in the eyes of the law though. I just can’t see how they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she would be seriously harmed. And that is the basis on which he was convicted.

I think your sensationalism is cloutinh your judgement. I’ve yet to see a single person excuse what anybody has done in a moral sense. It’s a complex legal argument and I’m interested in the legal aspect of the conviction as it appears to me that the burden of proof on the state is an ever reducing burden and that is concerning.

I don’t think there’s a single person on here who doesn’t find what happened to be morally reprehensible, I just want be putting that caveat in every single post I make.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Maybe, maybe. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong.

Maybe the guards “knew” he did it. Maybe he genuinely was unaware she’d be attacked and harmed.

None of that matters in the eyes of the law though. I just can’t see how they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she would be seriously harmed. And that is the basis on which he was convicted.

I think your sensationalism is cloutinh your judgement. I’ve yet to see a single person excuse what anybody has done in a moral sense. It’s a complex legal argument and I’m interested in the legal aspect of the conviction as it appears to me that the burden of proof on the state is an ever reducing burden and that is concerning.

I don’t think there’s a single person on here who doesn’t find what happened to be morally reprehensible, I just want be putting that caveat in every single post I make.

Isnt the reasonable doubt, in the eyes of the jury? If none of them had reasonable doubt, then a conviction for murder is the logical outcome...no?

Just because you have your own reasonable doubt, doesnt mean the jury had

retro:electro wrote: »

Because why else would he make it his business to call to the house of a girl he saw as slutty and a weirdo who he “wouldn’t be seen dead with”, and lead her astray into a derilect building to a who had previously confessed his desire to kill her? He had absolutely nothing nice to say about the girl. Not even after witnessing her violent death could he muster up something positive to say about her. So it stands to absolute reason that he had every intention to lead Ana to harm that day. His pathetic defence was he was bringing her to Boy A because he wanted to tell her in person he didn’t like her. That’s the best he could do for himself. Like another poster said, he even degraded her in death and tried to convince the detectives that she was no loss to the world. If that’s how he speaks about the girl when he apparently ran scared after witnessing her violent death then I think it’s absolutely apparent that he had zero regard or respect for her when she was living and breathing. And that’s before you even get to the fact that Boy A had alerted him a month previously of his desire to kill Ana, his copious lies, detached attitude and also the fact that he supplied one of the murder weapons.

If he had been a friend of Ana’s or had anything at all decent to say about her then I could maybe see a defence for him, but as it stands it’s clear he thought of her as trash and didn’t care that he played a part in disposing of that.

I don’t think “why else” is enough for a murder conviction. There are any number of reasons why a 13 year old would do what he did.

It’s a fair point that he had no business calling for her and showed little respect for her after which would indicate it being highly unusual for him to go to her house but that in itself still does not prove he knew that she would be seriously harmed. Nor does the friend bringing it up a month in advance when Boy B laughed it off as a joke due to how ridiculous it was. As for “supplying one of the murder weapons”. I would consider this a stretch. If I give you a hose and you strangle somebody with it some time later I would hardly consider myself as having supplied you with the murder weapon.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.
Another two sticking points for me are that:
1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.
2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

Plenty of evidence of preplanning imo. The selection of a remote and abandoned location for the crime. The contents of the backpack. Boy A and boy B splitting up with boy B taking the role of delivering Ana to boy B, the tape given by boy B to boy A and used as a ligature - the list goes on

1. Other evidence detailed showed that boy B was walking in front of Ana and not talking to her as he led her to the abandoned house. So no that is not clear cut - boy B has already been shown to be lying - he lied to Ana about to get her to come with him and put on an act to get her there.

2. From what they both told Gardai that Ana had supposedly disappeared in the Park after they met her - it would appear that was part of their preset plan to claim someone else abducted / murdered her - this was also alluded to in Boy Bs interviews when he suggested what might have happened to Ana. Also boy A claim that he had been attacked in the park. The fact is they wanted to be seen in the park.

That they also used an abandoned remote site where there was no CCTV, to commit the actual crime. On the point of boy B calling to Anas house - it was Ana who answered the door - her father only went to check who she was talking to - imo boy A did not expect her parents to be there and he had already said to Ana that boy B wanted to see her and the deed was done.

That neither boy divulged that they knew she was dead in the abandoned house during the period of the search is damning to both of them imo.

From the evidence and proceedings it is evident boy B is a liar and a manipulator who lured a trusting girl out of her house on false pretences, that he systematically and continuously lied until faced with evidence to the contrary, that he initially denied his best friend 'could do anything like that' and then threw his friend under the bus when he knew the game was up.


The fact is that the defence didn't have a leg to stand on imo.

gimli2112 wrote: »

He's probably not going to act like a murderer in front of the victim. I walk 25 minutes on a commute and couldn't tell you if there are any cctv cameras on the route, it's actually something I've never considered. Maybe if I was planning to kill someone I would but it still not proof of innocence, that he hadn't.

That would suggest he’s a highly adept killer. Could be the case but I doubt it.

Agree on the CCTV, I wouldn’t pass any remarks either. Kids messing are probably more likely to be aware of it though especially if they’re very familiar with the area and he Gardaí have put them away from loitering/messing there before.

I don’t think it’s proof of innocence at all, merely pointing out that people are just stating one thing about his actions to indicate guilt but refusing to acknowledge the same thing that illustrates the contrary. E.g - he’s smart enough to have planned everything all out but yet he’s not smart enough to have accounted for CCTV cameras he knew where there. Or he’s cold and calculated enough to laugh and joke with a girl he knew was about to be murdered but he’s messed up the lies in the interviews because he’s naive and lost his cool.

Can’t have it both ways, it’s not black and white like that in my opinion

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

That would suggest he’s a highly adept killer. Could be the case but I doubt it.

Agree on the CCTV, I wouldn’t pass any remarks either. Kids messing are probably more likely to be aware of it though especially if they’re very familiar with the area and he Gardaí have put them away from loitering/messing there before.

I don’t think it’s proof of innocence at all, merely pointing out that people are just stating one thing about his actions to indicate guilt but refusing to acknowledge the same thing that illustrates the contrary. E.g - he’s smart enough to have planned everything all out but yet he’s not smart enough to have accounted for CCTV cameras he knew where there. Or he’s cold and calculated enough to laugh and joke with a girl he knew was about to be murdered but he’s messed up the lies in the interviews because he’s naive and lost his cool.

Can’t have it both ways, it’s not black and white like that in my opinion

No, you're applying normal teenage reactions to a teenager who at the very least was present for the rape and murder of a classmate and who
managed to "keep it all together" in a way that doesn't suggest "normal" at all.

He was questioned by trained professional investigators - if he could outwit them at 13 he's a criminal mastermind.

Laughing and joking with Ana though, that just shows his lack of empathy with other people - not that surprising if he is someone who was able to take part in a plan to beat her to death and rape her.

gozunda wrote: »

Plenty of evidence of preplanning imo. The selection of a remote and abandoned location for the crime. The contents of the backpack. Boy A and boy B splitting up with boy B taking the role of delivering Ana to boy B, the tape given by boy B to boy A and used as a ligature - the list goes on

1. Other evidence detailed showed that boy B was walking in front of Ana and not talking to her as he led her to the abandoned house. So no that is not clear cut - boy B has already been shown to be lying - he lied to Ana about to get her to come with him and put on an act to get her there.

2. From what they both told Gardai that Ana had supposedly disappeared in the Park after they met her - it would appear that was part of their preset plan to claim someone else abducted / murdered her - this was also alluded to in Boy Bs interviews when he suggested what might have happened to Ana. Also boy A claim that he had been attacked in the park. The fact is they wanted to be seen in the park.

That they also used an abandoned remote site where there was no CCTV, to commit the actual crime. On the point of boy B calling to Anas house - it was Ana who answered the door - her father only went to check who she was talking to - imo boy A did not expect her parents to be there and he had already said to Ana that boy B wanted to see her and the deed was done.

That neither boy divulged that they knew she was dead in the abandoned house during the period of the search is damning to both of them imo.

From the evidence and proceedings it is evident boy B is a liar and a manipulator who lured a trusting girl out of her house on false pretences, that he systematically and continuously lied until faced with evidence to the contrary, that he initially denied his best friend 'could do anything like that' and then threw his friend under the bus when he knew the game was up.


The fact is that the defence didn't have a leg to stand on imo.

That is evidence, no doubt. I still don't think it's enough.

Ana's father gave the account of Boy B walking ahead of Ana just after they left the house which is consistent with her following him. A different witness saw them shortly after saying they were walking alongside one another and joking and laughing.

He did lie to her yes, I don't think myself he thought that Boy A wanted to discuss relationship status.

The abandoned house was a common hangout spot for kids in the area.

He lied multiple times with multiple different stories and manipulated the situation to suit whatever he thought would make the situation go away. I completely agree. But this still does not prove he knew that she would be murdered. He was convicted on the basis that he knew, I don't see how any of this clearly shows he knew.