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

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:16AM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Much apparently hinged on whether Boy B took A’s statement that he wanted to kill Ana seriously. Purely on the basis of what has been released in the media, I don’t see how you could say without any doubt he did take it seriously, but the jury had the benefit of seeing his interviews and all concluded he did.

This is it essentially. 16 hours of interviews isn't an easy thing for an jury to sit through and study methodically. I was surprised they came to the conclusion that he took Boy A seriously when he said that originally, because he stated multiple times that he thought he was joking.

This is what convicted him.

joe40 · 21-06-2019 08:19AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

No, I'm the type of person who believes that the evidence should be very strong in order to convict someone for a crime and potentially serve them with a life sentence in prison. This trial by media nonsense is what's bs. There are laws for a reason and they must be adhered to. Anybody who thinks the burden of innocence must be proven by a defendant is an idiot. I'm also a believer that it's better for one guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be convicted (I'm not suggesting he was innocent, I just mean in general).

The burden of proof is a focal point of every court in the world. It is absolutely essential this be maintained.

The rest of your points are fair but they are circumstantial. I just don't think, legally speaking, they are absolute evidence he knew she would be seriously harmed/killed.

You have to understand that Boy B was convicted on the basis of joint enterprise which is by its very nature very difficult to prove. This is why I have my questions around how they overcame this.

There was no trial by media, the trial took place in a courtroom. There was a judge, legal teams for prosecution and defence and a jury.

Unless you were actually on the jury you do not have full access to the evidence you are only going by media reports.

And unless you are an experienced criminal lawyer you're not qualified to say if there was a miscarriage of justice here.

I am happy that the court case was legal and correct, and that the jury reached their decision to the best of their ability.

Some people are making the point that if boy B just said nothing there may not have been enough evidence against him. That may be so but the fact is his testimony along with evidence convinced a jury he was guilty. That is all that matters.

Two 13 year olds carrying out a crime like this were probably always going to be caught.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:19AM

martingriff wrote: »

I have asked this question a few time to people who have said they want the names and pictures of the 2 as they would not want them near there kids. I am right with everyone on that point. However these 2 things will not be released for a long time (not long enough) and by the time they are not they will probably look different and have there names changed. So you won't know unfortunately. Are you going to forbid you kids from hanging out with anyone with a similar name or face just because.

I don't think that they should be given anonymity post-release and I would certainly want to know who they were if they moved into my area.

I believe in the vast majority of cases that those who are convicted of certain crimes and serve their sentence should be allowed to have a life past that, get a job etc. but when there is a clear and apparent threat to public safety, which I fully believe Boy A poses even post release, I think exceptions should be made in the name of safety, not vigilantism.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 08:19AM

Ana on the day before she died I believe streamed live on youtube. I wonder did Boy A view or comment on that youtube video? Was that ever checked?

CalamariFritti · 21-06-2019 08:20AM

Not getting involved here, just one general observation.
I find it really awful that the poor girls identity and pictures are plastered all over the media with gory details of what she had to suffer for every sicko to get their little kick from but the little cvnts are being protected. That’s quite disgusting tbh.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:25AM

joe40 wrote: »

There was no trial by media, the trial took place in a courtroom. There was a judge, legal teams for prosecution and defence and a jury.

Unless you were actually on the jury you do not have full access to the evidence you are only going by media reports.

And unless you are an experienced criminal lawyer you're not qualified to say if there was a miscarriage of justice here.

I am happy that the court case was legal and correct, and that the jury reached their decision to the best of their ability.

Some people are making the point that if boy B just said nothing there may not have been enough evidence against him. That may be so but the fact is his testimony along with evidence convinced a jury he was guilty. That is all that matters.

Two 13 year olds carrying out a crime like this were probably always going to be cut.

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 08:31AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

An innocent 13 year old ignoring the advice of the lawyer paid to keep them out of jail? I can accept that for a couple of days, no problem - but not for all that time, and all through the court case.

Now a guilty 13 year old, unable to face up to what he'd done and the inevitable punishment that a guilty plea would bring - that I can imagine.

gk5000 · 21-06-2019 08:31AM

The jury sits on our behalf and hear all the evidence.
They decided both were guilty of murder. I have full confidence in the jury and their verdict, as do most people.

How can people who were not on the jury know better?

gozunda · 21-06-2019 08:32AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

The finding of guilt with regard to the two boys does in fact indicate that there was sufficient evidence in this case. When the evidence and testimony was brought together it allowed the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that both boy a and boy b planned and carried out the murder of Ana Kreigel

That you disagree with that is immaterial.

Of interest what was the source of the detail in the following.

Smithwicks Man wrote:

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

I have served on a jury as part of a criminal trial and the bulk of direction is given to the jury members by the judge prior to the start of jury deliberations. Also questions asked by the jury of the judge about procedure etc are not always reported on...

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:33AM

volchitsa wrote: »

An innocent 13 year old ignoring the advice of the lawyer paid to keep them out of jail? I can accept that for a couple of days, no problem - but not for all that time, and all through the court case.

Now a guilty 13 year old, unable to face up to what he'd done and the inevitable punishment that a guilty plea would bring - that I can imagine.

What about an innocent 13 year old ignoring his lawyer's advice to say no comment to every question because he wanted to clear things up but kept lying to avoid what he thought would be incriminating himself?

Can spin that one whichever way you want.

airy fairy · 21-06-2019 08:34AM

I'm very nervous of this case falling apart.
There will obviously be an appeal?
If the case is overturned, and if boy B is found not guilty....it's unthinkable but probable.

joe40 · 21-06-2019 08:35AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

I'm not sure what your position is. Do you think he might be innocent? or are you saying that if he had handled the questioning better, (i.e remained silent) he might have got off with the crime.

Serious question i'm not trying to catch anyone out.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:37AM

gozunda wrote: »

The finding of guilt with regard to the two boys does in fact indicate that there was sufficient evidence in this case. When the evidence and testimony was brought together it allowed the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that both boy a and boy b planned and carried out the murder of Ana Kreigel

That you disagree with that is immaterial.

Of interest what was the source of the detail in the following.

I have served on a jury as part of a criminal trial and the bulk of direction is given to the jury members by the judge prior to the start of jury deliberations. Also questions asked by the jury of the judge about procedure etc are not always reported on...

Obviously it's immaterial, they're hardly going to overturn the verdict because I'm wondering how they met the burden of proof. Nonsense comment, sure we may as well just accept every verdict and never discuss it afterward :rolleyes:

Conor Callagher (chief reporter for the Times for this case) indicated in his court report that deliberations went on for over 14 hours and not once did the jury come back with any legal questions or seek clarification on any aspect of the law surrounding joint enterprise or any other.

I'm aware direction is given prior to deliberations, it is still unusual that questions do not surface thereafter.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:44AM

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not sure what your position is. Do you think he might be innocent? or are you saying that if he had handled the questioning better, (i.e remained silent) he might have got off with the crime.

Serious question i'm not trying to catch anyone out.

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Wheety · 21-06-2019 08:45AM

Boy B was found guilty on the basis that he lured her to her death. Strong suspicions that he watched the whole thing too and was complicit. Then he constantly lied to try and cover this up and shift the blame. We haven't seen all the evidence but the jury thought there was enough to convict Boy B of murder.

gozunda · 21-06-2019 08:48AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Obviously it's immaterial, they're hardly going to overturn the verdict because I'm wondering how they met the burden of proof. Nonsense comment, sure we may as well just accept every verdict and never discuss it afterward
Conor Callagher (chief reporter for the Times for this case) indicated in his court report that deliberations went on for over 14 hours and not once did the jury come back with any legal questions or seek clarification on any aspect of the law surrounding joint enterprise or any other.
I'm aware direction is given prior to deliberations, it is still unusual that questions do not surface thereafter.

Well by return a whole bunch of nonsensical questions posed in an attempt to cast doubt on the deliberations and procedures of a criminal trial imo.

I can confirm that not all jury queries / questions are reported on. That was certainly the case with the jury on which I was empaneled. That said a well briefed jury may indeed not require additional direction.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 08:48AM

The article in Irish Times says Marie Cassidy says she was likely attacked after going into the room, beaten to the ground and then hit 4 times with a heavy object (like a concrete block) and then dragged to a different part of the room before being sexually assaulted.

Where would the tape come into it then?

Or how would Boy A have got injured? When he was hitting her with the stick and she fought back?

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 08:52AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

What about an innocent 13 year old ignoring his lawyer's advice to say no comment to every question because he wanted to clear things up but kept lying to avoid what he thought would be incriminating himself?

Can spin that one whichever way you want.

Like I said, as an initial panicked reaction, and then not being able to go back on that for a few days, maybe even a couple of weeks, but not for month after month.

Are you saying you think he might be innocent? Really?

joe40 · 21-06-2019 08:57AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Fair enough but he has been found guilty in the eyes of the law. I'm sure the jury were told to only convict if they were certain beyond all reasonable doubt. They were the ones that sat through all the evidence and they reached their decision.

A guilty verdict means guilty, and this verdict requires the burden of proof so on balance I am happy to accept this verdict.

A not guilty verdict can throw up more debate since that is not proof of innocence (innocence is assumed) it just means not enough evidence to secure a conviction. People will often have their own opinions which is ok.

I think though we have to have faith in our system and accept the guilty verdicts.

These were 13 year olds it is very unlikely they would be able to cover their tracks.

I also find it almost impossible to imagine jury members would convict a child unless they were absolutely certain.
The totality of the evidence the Jury heard must have been very strong for them to reach the conclusion they did.
I would hate to have been in their shoes.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 08:57AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Like I said, as an initial panicked reaction, and then not being able to go back on that for a few days, maybe even a couple of weeks, but not for month after month.

Are you saying you think he might be innocent? Really?

See below

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:02AM

joe40 wrote: »

Fair enough but he has been found guilty in the eyes of the law. I'm sure the jury were told to only convict if they were certain beyond all reasonable doubt. They were the ones that sat through all the evidence and they reached their decision.

A guilty verdict means guilty, and this verdict requires the burden of proof so on balance I am happy to accept this verdict.

A not guilty verdict can throw up more debate since that is not proof of innocence (innocence is assumed) it just means not enough evidence to secure a conviction. People will often have their own opinions which is ok.

I think though we have to have faith in our system and accept the guilty verdicts.

These were 13 year olds it is very unlikely they would be able to cover their tracks.

I also find it almost impossible to imagine jury members would convict a child unless they were absolutely certain.
The totality of the evidence the Jury heard must have been very strong for them to reach the conclusion they did.
I would hate to have been in their shoes.

Very fair and reasoned points here. It's not the first high profile case which throws up questions about the verdict afterward and it certainly won't be the last.

It would be interesting to know to what extent the lies played a role in his conviction. Even though in and of themselves they aren't enough to convict, they certainly ensured his character was tarnished to the point where the jury probably didn't believe a word he said.

Curious to see how swiftly they will launch an appeal.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 09:04AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

But the jury decided they did know, so what do you know that they don't? Or where are they going wrong in the law?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 09:05AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is a very fair point and that’s the nature of these cases but my question really is how could they possibly not have reasonable doubt when there is such little evidence? I just fail to see how any 12 people could not have reasonable doubt.

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

They were explained the law before the deliberations. They couldn’t have found boy b guilty of anything but murder as an accomplice.

What they then had to ascertain is whether the lies he told were hiding his guilt. We know he was there. We know he said (eventually) he saw the attack.

If he knew or suspected that the purpose of bringing Anna to the house was to get her killed then he was an accomplice, and he admitted that boy a had said he wanted to kill her. Given what happened you can’t write that off as teenage macho comment. He also provided the tape.

What reasonable explanation is there for his not telling the gardai when first questioned what had happened - at the very least mention the house. The shrink said he had PTSD but that wasn’t admitted as evidence. He could only have had PTSD if he saw the killing. So that admission was to get the shrink on board I think, but it backfired.

The other reasonable explanation for lying is guilt. Fear doesn’t cut it. He could hardly be fearful of boy A in custody.

It’s reasonable therefore to assume that he took her there with full knowledge of what might happen.

A normal boy who didn’t anticipate what was going to happen would, seeing the attack, intervene or run away and tell his parents or the authorities.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:05AM

If there's one standout change to the law that should be made it's that there should be leniency offered for those who plead guilty to murder.

It makes zero sense to have a mandatory life sentence regardless of plea and merely means every person accused will roll the dice on a trial regardless of the amount of evidence against them.

Boy B likely wouldn't have taken a plea here anyway but had he not been involved, it's highly likely that Boy A would have done so and it could have saved the family of the victim a lot of heartache during a prolonged trial.

In case anyone was wondering why these cases almost always go to trial it is because pleading guilty the second your charged does not aid you in any way so people feel they may as well roll the dice on a trial as they have nothing to lose by doing so.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 09:11AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

If there's one standout change to the law that should be made it's that there should be leniency offered for those who plead guilty to murder.

It makes zero sense to have a mandatory life sentence regardless of plea and merely means every person accused will roll the dice on a trial regardless of the amount of evidence against them.

Boy B likely wouldn't have taken a plea here anyway but had he not been involved, it's highly likely that Boy A would have done so and it could have saved the family of the victim a lot of heartache during a prolonged trial.

In case anyone was wondering why these cases almost always go to trial it is because pleading guilty the second your charged does not aid you in any way so people feel they may as well roll the dice on a trial as they have nothing to lose by doing so.

Life sentence isn't mandatory in this case. Both could have plead guilty.

I can see why Boy B didn't, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why Boy A didn't.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 09:15AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The other reasonable explanation for lying is guilt. Fear doesn’t cut it. He could hardly be fearful of boy A in custody.

Both boys got bail.

80sChild · 21-06-2019 09:19AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is a very fair point and that’s the nature of these cases but my question really is how could they possibly not have reasonable doubt when there is such little evidence? I just fail to see how any 12 people could not have reasonable doubt.

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

The jury saw the 16 hours of his interviews. Likely his attitude and demeanor were very telling when witnessed first hand. We are not in possession of all the evidence they were.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 09:21AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

The article in Irish Times says Marie Cassidy says she was likely attacked after going into the room, beaten to the ground and then hit 4 times with a heavy object (like a concrete block) and then dragged to a different part of the room before being sexually assaulted.

Where would the tape come into it then?

Or how would Boy A have got injured? When he was hitting her with the stick and she fought back?

Why the hell do you want to know all of this? Why do you want to rehash the gorey details and sequence of events on a public discussion forum? All of the issues you raised were covered(as tactfully as possible ) in the IT article, which you know already as you've read it.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:24AM

volchitsa wrote: »

But the jury decided they did know, so what do you know that they don't? Or where are they going wrong in the law?

Solely focusing on the joint enterprise aspect I'm just wondering if the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lead up to the act and the lies that followed are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact know what would happen.

JE is an extremely complex element of the law so I'm just wondering about how they proved his knowledge of what would happen.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 09:24AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why the hell do you want to know all of this? Why do you want to rehash the gorey details and sequence of events on a public discussion forum? All of the issues you raised were covered(as tactfully as possible ) in the IT article, which you know already as you've read it.

Curiosity as to what really happened.

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

Comments