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

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 09:24AM

Boggles wrote: »

Both boys got bail.

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:26AM

Boggles wrote: »

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.

Life sentences are mandatory for murder, the only reason there is discretion here in terms of when they'll get out is because they're children.

There's no incentive for an adult to plead guilty to murder.

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2019 09:26AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

in seperate cells. and only for a short period.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:28AM

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.

Because I study Law and am interested in the legal aspect of the case. The very reason that people are not able to separate their emotions from factual evidence is why people are sometimes wrongly convicted.

I would suggest if you don't have the stomach for the "gorey details" then you'd be best off exiting the thread.

What did you think was going to be discussed in a thread about the case if not the details of the case itself?

Boggles · 21-06-2019 09:31AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

Doesn't matter, they were eventually released, so dismissing the fear element as impossible can't be absolute assumption because he was locked up, he wasn't, he was locked up for a time but they both spent the vast majority of the last year on bail.

What you are doing is casting opinion applying 100% hindsight and not applying timelines, also as the Judge tirelessly pointed out to the Jury you have to look at it through the eyes of children, even if they are murderous psychopaths.

I'm not definitely saying he wasn't bullshíttíng by the way.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 09:32AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Life sentences are mandatory for murder, the only reason there is discretion here in terms of when they'll get out is because they're children.

There's no incentive for an adult to plead guilty to murder.

I know that. But unless I picked you up wrong you were being specific to this case.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.
.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 09:34AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

Given that the jury, advised by the judge, found that the evidence was sufficient, I'm wondering why you persist in suggesting that it isn't.

Your assumption that his lies should not count against his version of the story since there is no other even vaguely plausible version offered by anyone mean that a guilty verdict is perfectly reasonable.

If he had given another version that was not proven to be a lie, then yes, your point about the benefit of the doubt would apply. But here there really is no doubt - we know how she died and that he was there. And that he led her there. And his own testimony shows that he didn't believe it was for a romantic tryst, as someone tried to say earlier.

So the only logical conclusion is that he knew that boy A was going to harm her. Whether or not he realized that she would actually die from it.

21-06-2019 09:34AM

wind the clock say 10-12 years and they get out. They go home to a family who are 12 years older in their lives and very much changed by past events. For example have their siblings now written them off and resent their very existence having been burdened with carrying that dark stain by association!! surely the siblings friends would not go near the house as you wouldn't want to breathe the same air as the monsters. again, tough on the family to be fair.

They will have no friends and never will, lets be honest. they missed the teen and early 20's when you really grow with your friends from childhood.
They have no life to speak of or refer to, it's not like "eh mam I'm heading to lucan village to meet the old crew and catch up with my wild tales of a decade plus in sunny OZ!" they'll be moving into a spare room with the same death metal posters and everything else. They'll be freaks, all they know is where they've been.. they'll never fit in or recover ever.. and that's providing they're release is not reported and they're actually left alone..it's one thing to join the pack and throw one kick too many under the influence of drink (Annabelles)
or another choke a child in a blind rage.. but what they did before, during and after is something different, something Evil.

Wouldn't be surprised if having grown up in one, that prison is a welcome home to them, free from judgement and surrounded by like minds. A place where being them or like them is the norm or even celebrated.
I see them getting worse, re-offending or ending up dying by suicide..In fact sad as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if a family member takes a turn for the worse either and the whole family fabric tears apart.

Roger Hassenforder · 21-06-2019 09:35AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in seperate cells. and only for a short period.

They werent held in cells, the gardai cleares offices into a bed room

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2019 09:36AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They werent held in cells, the gardai cleares offices into a bed room

fair enough, i hadn't read that. Office or offices? i cant imagine they allowed them to be alone together.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 09:40AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

Well, no one on here was a witness.

TBH, if you can't quietly fill in the blanks from the information that is publicly available and find yourself looking for more detail than is currently available you might want to consider speaking to someone in a professional capacity. Healthy people find dwelling on the precise details and sequence of events of a child's brutal sexual assault and murder too much for them. People tend to feel sympathy with the professionals who's task it is to gather that kind of information because most people really don't want to know more than the vaguest outline.

And constantly raising these questions in a public forum shows little respect for Ana. Your curiosity over the precise manner of her terrible end does not trump her right to some dignity in death.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:42AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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.

Fair points here but he could be an abnormal boy, react differently than what would be expected and this still isn't evidence he knew what would happen.

I have every belief he was in the room when the attack took place or at the very least when Boy A initiated it. How long he was present is anyone's guess.

Being present for the crime and not intervening is not a crime in and of itself. What got him convicted is that the jury believed he knew what was going to happen, my sole question is how could they possibly know this for a fact.

His presence, his lies, his calling to the house. All of it adds little bits of proposed guilt but I don't see it as conclusive.

The conversation some time previous where Boy A proposed the idea of killing her definitely had a huge bearing so it depends how much you read into that. Can you say for sure he took that seriously and proceeded to act on that plan down the line? I'm not sure that's clear cut.

Who's to say Boy A didn't manipulate him with a false story as to getting him to lure her there unbeknownst as to what his plans were. A is definitely a psychopath based on his actions, mannerism thereafter and clear lack of remorse. The likelihood of both of them being psychopaths (as most on here would have you believe they are) is so incredibly small as to not even have a % chance of being the case. There's more to it than that.

The PTSD wasn't allowed as evidence but external to that it surely would explain his actions afterward if he had witnessed a murder he in no way was expecting.

McCrack · 21-06-2019 09:43AM

rusty cole wrote: »

wind the clock say 10-12 years and they get out. They go home to a family who are 12 years older in their lives and very much changed by past events. For example have their siblings now written them off and resent their very existence having been burdened with carrying that dark stain by association!! surely the siblings friends would not go near the house as you wouldn't want to breathe the same air as the monsters. again, tough on the family to be fair.

They will have no friends and never will, lets be honest. they missed the teen and early 20's when you really grow with your friends from childhood.
They have no life to speak of or refer to, it's not like "eh mam I'm heading to lucan village to meet the old crew and catch up with my wild tales of a decade plus in sunny OZ!" they'll be moving into a spare room with the same death metal posters and everything else. They'll be freaks, all they know is where they've been.. they'll never fit in or recover ever.. and that's providing they're release is not reported and they're actually left alone..it's one thing to join the pack and throw one kick too many under the influence of drink (Annabelles)
or another choke a child in a blind rage.. but what they did before, during and after is something different, something Evil.

Wouldn't be surprised if having grown up in one, that prison is a welcome home to them, free from judgement and surrounded by like minds. A place where being them or like them is the norm or even celebrated.
I see them getting worse, re-offending or ending up dying by suicide..In fact sad as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if a family member takes a turn for the worse either and the whole family fabric tears apart.

They will be certainly be targets in Oberstown and prison when they are moved at 18 - other prisoner's will target them - nobody will want to associate with them

Roger Hassenforder · 21-06-2019 09:44AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fair enough, i hadn't read that. Office or offices? i cant imagine they allowed them to be alone together.

Office, they were in seperate stations too. Prevented from coming into contact with other gougers

Fairness to the cops, its a text book example of how to question children on serious crimes.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:46AM

Boggles wrote: »

I know that. But unless I picked you up wrong you were being specific to this case.

Apologies I wrote that incorrectly.

What I meant was that it probably wouldn't have saved the family from the trial in this instance because Boy B would've went to trial anyway but in other cases it could save the family of a victim from a trial when the evidence is so strong as to dissuade the accused from event attempting a not guilty plea.

People will say "they should burn in hell forever" but there has to be some incentive to spare the trial. Often in the US they'll take the death penalty off the table in states where it exists so as to ensure a guilty plea with life imprisonment. Hard to start shaving off years here for a murder conviction just because of a guilty plea but the current system could be improved.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 09:51AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, no one on here was a witness.

TBH, if you can't quietly fill in the blanks from the information that is publicly available and find yourself looking for more detail than is currently available you might want to consider speaking to someone in a professional capacity. Healthy people find dwelling on the precise details and sequence of events of a child's brutal sexual assault and murder too much for them. People tend to feel sympathy with the professionals who's task it is to gather that kind of information because most people really don't want to know more than the vaguest outline.

And constantly raising these questions in a public forum shows little respect for Ana. Your curiosity over the precise manner of her terrible end does not trump her right to some dignity in death.

I don't see anybody fixating on the grisly details of the murder. We're discussing the merits of the conviction of Boy B on the basis of his mannerisms and actions before and after the act itself.

Nobody is "dwelling on the precise details of a child's sexual assault and murder". Again, people are discussing the legal aspects of the conviction of the youngest murderers in the history of the state.

I would suggest again that this thread might not be the place for you.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 09:52AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Fair points here but he could be an abnormal boy, react differently than what would be expected and this still isn't evidence he knew what would happen.

I have every belief he was in the room when the attack took place or at the very least when Boy A initiated it. How long he was present is anyone's guess.

Being present for the crime and not intervening is not a crime in and of itself. What got him convicted is that the jury believed he knew what was going to happen, my sole question is how could they possibly know this for a fact.

His presence, his lies, his calling to the house. All of it adds little bits of proposed guilt but I don't see it as conclusive.

The conversation some time previous where Boy A proposed the idea of killing her definitely had a huge bearing so it depends how much you read into that. Can you say for sure he took that seriously and proceeded to act on that plan down the line? I'm not sure that's clear cut.

Who's to say Boy A didn't manipulate him with a false story as to getting him to lure her there unbeknownst as to what his plans were. A is definitely a psychopath based on his actions, mannerism thereafter and clear lack of remorse. The likelihood of both of them being psychopaths (as most on here would have you believe they are) is so incredibly small as to not even have a % chance of being the case. There's more to it than that.

The PTSD wasn't allowed as evidence but external to that it surely would explain his actions afterward if he had witnessed a murder he in no way was expecting.

You don't get PTSD instantly, it takes days or weeks to develop. In the meantime he lied, and lied quite convincingly, to his parents anyway, and then continued to lie, adapting his story as and when bits of it were shown to be lies - none of which fits with the loss of control that PTSD implies.

You're determined that he's a victim, but it doesn't make sense. His behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the killing corresponds with his behaviour all along the investigation and the trial, at no point did he "give in" and tell the truth to an adult, any adult. There's a reason for that, and that's what the jury decided too.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 09:54AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, no one on here was a witness.

TBH, if you can't quietly fill in the blanks from the information that is publicly available and find yourself looking for more detail than is currently available you might want to consider speaking to someone in a professional capacity. Healthy people find dwelling on the precise details and sequence of events of a child's brutal sexual assault and murder too much for them. People tend to feel sympathy with the professionals who's task it is to gather that kind of information because most people really don't want to know more than the vaguest outline.

And constantly raising these questions in a public forum shows little respect for Ana. Your curiosity over the precise manner of her terrible end does not trump her right to some dignity in death.

There is no blanks to fill in because the boys stories changed so many times.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 21-06-2019 09:58AM

Mehapoy wrote: »

I'm surprised 'toxic masculinity' and 'rape culture' hasn't been brought into it as the usual suspects use this family's tragedy to further their own agendas

Well don't let that stop you getting a dig to further your own, good man.

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2019 10:00AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

There is no blanks to fill in because the boys stories changed so many times.

it changed many times and we still dont know the full extent of his involvement.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:01AM

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't get PTSD instantly, it takes days or weeks to develop. In the meantime he lied, and lied quite convincingly, to his parents anyway, and then continued to lie, adapting his story as and when bits of it were shown to be lies - none of which fits with the loss of control that PTSD implies.

You're determined that he's a victim, but it doesn't make sense.

Well this is a complete fabrication. Are you suggesting that a 13 year old witnessing a brutal murder would not be traumatized immediately but rather it would take weeks to settle in?

I'll reiterate for the last time that I'm in no way determined he's a victim. I'm curious as to how they came to the conclusion that he knew what was going to happen to her because it's almost impossible to prove that he did without an admission or some physical evidence explicitly indicating he did in fact know.

I'm aware I wasn't on the jury, people are allowed to discuss the legal merits of the case beyond the 12 people appointed to do so you know.

If he was found not guilty and there was a sway of evidence to suggest he should have been convicted then I would play devil's advocate on the opposite side. I have zero motivation or incentive here other than my curiosity surrounding the jury's application of joint enterprise and what potential changes could be made to the law following a case like this e.g naming of perpetrators aged 18 or upon release, incentive for accused to plead guilty to avoid trials etc.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 10:08AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I don't see anybody fixating on the grisly details of the murder. We're discussing the merits of the conviction of Boy B on the basis of his mannerisms and actions before and after the act itself.

Nobody is "dwelling on the precise details of a child's sexual assault and murder". Again, people are discussing the legal aspects of the conviction of the youngest murderers in the history of the state.

I would suggest again that this thread might not be the place for you.

With respect, I wasn't addressing you or the issues you raised in any way shape or form. I was addressing a specific poster, who I quoted, who has repeatedly tried to introduce sleazy, unnecessary levels if lurid details about the actual attack itself into the thread. Amongst the things he has asked over the past few days is at what point did boy a ejaculate. He now wants to know what the tape was used for, despite this being covered in an IT article which he has read. That is not the type of discussion that anyone should be engaging in publicly nor would they be if they had any respect with the deceased child or her family. There is no legal argument in what the poster is posting . Hes not rven talking about Boy B. And like I said, as I was quoting the poster to whom I replied to, it should have been pretty obvious I wasn't referring to the discussion you have been having.

gk5000 · 21-06-2019 10:08AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I don't see anybody fixating on the grisly details of the murder. We're discussing the merits of the conviction of Boy B on the basis of his mannerisms and actions before and after the act itself.

Nobody is "dwelling on the precise details of a child's sexual assault and murder". Again, people are discussing the legal aspects of the conviction of the youngest murderers in the history of the state.

I would suggest again that this thread might not be the place for you.

No, you (alone) are discussing the legal aspects, and trying to second guess the jury which is impossible. Most people fully accept that they were found guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence.

The thread title is that they were found guilty, so maybe take that as a starting point.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:11AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

With respect, I wasn't addressing you or the issues you raised in any way shape or form. I was addressing a specific poster, who I quoted, who has repeatedly tried to introduce sleazy, unnecessary levels if lurid details about the actual attack itself into the thread. Amongst the things he has asked over the past few days is at what point did boy a ejaculate. He now wants to know what the tape was used for, despite this being covered in an IT article which he has read. That is not the type of discussion that anyone should be engaging in publicly nor would they be if they had any respect with the deceased child or her family. There is no legal argument in what the poster is posting . Hes not rven talking about Boy B. And like I said, as I was quoting the poster to whom I replied to, it should have been pretty obvious I wasn't referring to the discussion you have been having.

My apologies, misread your intent there. Happy to retract on that!

I, too, don't care for persistent musings over details like that which aren't up for debate as they're evident what they are.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 21-06-2019 10:14AM

Boy B's story, that he didn't know what was going to happen, froze during the attack, and then was ashamed and terrified, tried to pretend it had never happened and lied about it...on the face of it that is a credible sequence of events for a 13 year old. That his actions and fears were irrational doesn't mean they're incredible, he was 13.

But it just doesn't hold up once you dig into it and the jury obviously agreed.

gozunda · 21-06-2019 10:15AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Life sentences are mandatory for murder, the only reason there is discretion here in terms of when they'll get out is because they're children.
There's no incentive for an adult to plead guilty to murder.

I presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (sic) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no thought whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:17AM

gk5000 wrote: »

No, you (alone) are discussing the legal aspects, and trying to second guess the jury which is impossible. Most people fully accept that they were found guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence.

The thread title is that they were found guilty, so maybe take that as a starting point.

OJ Simpson was found innocent, just that thread have ended with that verdict too?

Plenty of others have made reasoned argument to my points. Just because you haven't got any doesn't mean you should be snide.

You think they're guilty and the jury is correct, that's fair enough. I'm interested in how they came to that conclusion. It's a valid discussion point.

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2019 10:19AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

OJ Simpson was found innocent, just that thread have ended with that verdict too?

Plenty of others have made reasoned argument to my points. Just because you haven't got any doesn't mean you should be snide.

You think they're guilty and the jury is correct, that's fair enough. I'm interested in how they came to that conclusion. It's a valid discussion point.

unfortunately nobody here can answer that definitively. nobody here has seen the evidence the jury did.

Goodgoods · 21-06-2019 10:22AM

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (six) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no though whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

As long as boy B knows his daddy believes he is innocent he is likely never going to acknowledge any guilt or tell the truth about what happened that day.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:22AM

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (six) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no though whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

I wouldn't quit your day job to take up a night gig in the Laughter Lounge if I was you.

I'm suggesting an imposed minimum sentence should be imposed for murder which could be tangibly reduced for co-operation and a guilty plea which is the norm in most of Western Civilization.

Yes they may both have opted to plead not guilty regardless in this case (Boy B definitely would have) but there are other murder cases where the evidence is so strong that the accused is a certainty to be convicted but they opt to roll the dice anyway. An incentive of a slightly reduced prison sentence could help avoid a trial for grieving families. The DPP could be required to have consent from the victim's family to agree to said reduced plea.

Some may choose to do so, some may not. But the cold facts of the matter are that there are plenty of grieving families who would prefer to see the perpetrator locked up for 20 years instead of 25 if it meant they didn't have to go through the agony of a trial, testifying, media invasion etc.

There are lessons to be learned from other countries.

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

Comments