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

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:25AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

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.

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 10:29AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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?

No, of course he would be shocked, but PTSD is a specific thing, and it is different from the normal shock and even trauma of witnessing the killing. Its perfectly normal to be shocked and upset - but that's not PTSD.

PTSD develops later, so the idea that he wouldn't ever have been able to talk about the event (for example) is not something that would have been present in the days immediately following the killing. That avoidance is part of PTSD. But if he did get PTSD, then he was present at the killing, so why he immediately. chose to go home and act normally is inexplicable.

And believe me, if it's avoidance, your behaviour isn't normal. You don't go home and fool everyone unless you're really making an effort to do so. Like the victim of a rape might - but not a witness. Because there's usually an even higher psychological price to pay in that case, so there has to be a really good reason to put yourself through that. Society's attitude to rape often made victims feel they had to stay silent - but against that doesn't apply here.

And I'd appreciate not being told I'm inventing this: I know about it because I developed a "minor" form of PTSD just from having been a witness to a violent incident, so believe me, I've worked on all this.

I was able to talk about it, and yet that wasn't enough. Because other people around you don't really want to hear, or at least not endlessly! - and I do understand that - but that's still very different from having to actually hide that it happened.

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.

By that logic a murder with no dead body can't lead to a conviction. So clearly you're wrong. It's certainly more difficult, but it has happened.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 10:32AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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?

A normal 13 year old witnessing a murder would run to his parents or police. He was calm and collected in the subsequent interviews.

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 not convinced you understand what the reasonable in reasonable doubt is. It’s a qualifier that means your doubt has to be within reason. It doesn’t mean you have to be 100% certain.

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.

I suppose but you are arguing against a jury decision where they had much more information than you.

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.

The jury didn’t come up with the charge. The DPP brought a murder charge, and the judge agreed in his instructions. You seem to think or imply that the jury were presented with any number of options, but it was a murder trial for both and only that.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 10:34AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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

At what point in this thread did you suggest that previously? I have never had any interaction with you before on this thread.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 21-06-2019 10:36AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

retro:electro · 21-06-2019 10:37AM

The PTSD thing is bull simply because he only ever changed his story once he was confronted with direct contradiction to his version of events. If it was genuine PTSD he wouldn’t be chopping and changing to suit the lies and his avoidance would be consistent. Also he seemed pretty chilled out for a guy suffering from shellshock, yawning and stretching throughout as if he was being inconvened, even describing the mask worn by Boy A while killing Ana as “pretty cool”. So traumatised :rolleyes:

volchitsa · 21-06-2019 10:38AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

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.

Yes, this, exactly. It seems to me that a clever 13 year old thought up a plausible cover story, but being 13 was not (luckily!) able to completely withstand interrogation by trained professional investigators. It would be very worrying if he had been, and it actually concerns me for the future, as I said much earlier in the thread. By the time he's in his twenties he could be a much harder nut to crack.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 21-06-2019 10:43AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, this, exactly. It seems to me that a clever 13 year old thought up a plausible cover story, but being 13 was not (luckily!) able to completely withstand interrogation by trained professional investigators. It would be very worrying if he had been, and it actually concerns me for the future, as I said much earlier in the thread. By the time he's in his twenties he could be a much harder nut to crack.

Yeah that was my first reaction too. If they'd not escalated (assuming here that claims of their previous violent behaviour was true) to murder until they were older...Boy A was already at least able to just keep his mouth shut. Boy B, to me overestimated himself. He'll have a nice long time to kick himself over that now

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 10:46AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah that was my first reaction too. If they'd not escalated (assuming here that claims of their previous violent behaviour was true) to murder until they were older...Boy A was already at least able to just keep his mouth shut. Boy B, to me overestimated himself. He'll have a nice long time to kick himself over that now

I wonder what impact Boy As father had on him regarding his lack of answering.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 10:46AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

It’s not just that is it.

He admitted to being there (in the end).
He admitted that boy A had talked about killing ana.
He supplied an item used in the attack.
He brought a girl to an abandoned house
He lied about all this.

There are two conflicting theories here. One that he knew about it all so he lied.

The second that it all was a bit of a shock to him (even after he delivered a girl to what clearly her death) that when he was being interviewed he decided to say nothing for days even if the truth and telling it, were he innocent, would have exonerated him.

One of these theories is more reasonable than the other.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 10:49AM

Did parents of the boys not give a recollection of where the boys were/what they were doing on that day?

On one article I think it said Boy A went to Boy Bs house and he asked him to go to get Ana and I think another article stated Boy B was hanging out at Boy As house?

Or maybe I'm wrong?

joe40 · 21-06-2019 10:51AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

I would agree, but the gardai and the DPP must have been convinced of his guilt and the jury must have been convinced of his guilt.

I would just find it incomprehensible that they would put a child of 13 through this unless they were absolutely convinced.
It was not a decision that would have been taken lightly, and I'm sure they would have tried to discard any bias based simply on his personality (i.e a cocky little prick)

The fact they had boy A with conclusive evidence there was no pressure to secure another conviction.

They must have been sure, It is just difficult to imagine so many people getting it so badly wrong.

gk5000 · 21-06-2019 10:51AM

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.

I don't wish to argue with you, and do not believe it is useful to anyone to continue with such an argument.

Please cease with the ad hominem calling me snide. I posted because of your similar attacks on another poster.

It may be a valid discussion point for another thread, but as I said the starting point is that they are guilty. I see no point in re-arguing a case when the jury has spoken and none of us except them know the full details.

The poor girl is dead. The 2 boys have been found guilty of her murder.

8-10 · 21-06-2019 10:52AM

Mellor wrote: »

Apart from the obvious example, Terry Venebles, who else are there in the UK?

Everybody seems to be glossing over this comment about an ex-England football manager

What did he do?

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 10:55AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

At what point in this thread did you suggest that previously? I have never had any interaction with you before on this thread.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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?

Again, it seems your original comment that time wasn't directed at me but at a previous poster.

Penn · 21-06-2019 11:02AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

Boy A suggested killing Ana a month before, which Boy B says he dismissed. A month later, he went to Ana's house, brought her to an abandoned house approx. 3km away where he knew Boy A was.

Whether he knew in advance he was actually going to kill her, we don't know. However, it seems far more likely than not that he knew she was going to be hurt in some way. When she was hurt and being attacked, he stood there and watched. Afterwards, he went home and repeatedly lied to the detectives interviewing him.

By bringing her to that house, watching her being killed and lying to detectives after, he became a significant party in her death and his actions helped lead to her death. He very well may not have known Boy A was going to kill her, I accept that. But I think there is ample evidence that he knew or suspected she was going to be hurt in some way, that he played a role in facilitating it, and helped try to cover it up after.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 21-06-2019 11:03AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s not just that is it.

He admitted to being there (in the end).
He admitted that boy A had talked about killing ana.
He supplied an item used in the attack.
He brought a girl to an abandoned house
He lied about all this.

There are two conflicting theories here. One that he knew about it all so he lied.

The second that it all was a bit of a shock to him (even after he delivered a girl to what clearly her death) that when he was being interviewed he decided to say nothing for days even if the truth and telling it, were he innocent, would have exonerated him.

One of these theories is more reasonable than the other.

One of them, given the other evidence, is more reasonable and that's the one I believe myself, as I said, even without having to put the slant on the second one that you have there.

21-06-2019 11:26AM

Boy B can say he's been manipulated all he wants as it's him Vs Boy A
Who's to say he didn't get the other eejit to do everything whilst watched from a safe distance himself. Who's to say he wasn't the bloody keyser soze behind it all and was hoping to claim PTSD and the likes after, that would makes sense being that he had zero DNA and yet managed to watch It happen. it's all irrelevant now but worth discussing nonetheless to some and other extents.

How would you feel if they did get a light sentence??? serious question? worth a march? Justice for Ana type of thing?

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 11:28AM

Penn wrote: »

Boy A suggested killing Ana a month before, which Boy B says he dismissed. A month later, he went to Ana's house, brought her to an abandoned house approx. 3km away where he knew Boy A was.

Whether he knew in advance he was actually going to kill her, we don't know. However, it seems far more likely than not that he knew she was going to be hurt in some way. When she was hurt and being attacked, he stood there and watched. Afterwards, he went home and repeatedly lied to the detectives interviewing him.

By bringing her to that house, watching her being killed and lying to detectives after, he became a significant party in her death and his actions helped lead to her death. He very well may not have known Boy A was going to kill her, I accept that. But I think there is ample evidence that he knew or suspected she was going to be hurt in some way, that he played a role in facilitating it, and helped try to cover it up after.

This is a good account of what happened.

But all of the stuff outside him knowing she'd be hurt.

The only way he can be convicted, and I mean the absolute only way, is if they thought beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew there was an intention to cause at least serious harm.

Bringing her there if he thought it was for any other reason than to cause serious harm isn't a crime
Witnessing the act isn't a crime
Not intervening isn't a crime
The lies aren't a crime (obstructing the course of justice aside)

People want to believe that these things are crimes and believe that he did them so he should be convicted. I believe he did all of the above with the caveat that there is doubt as to whether or not he knew she'd be seriously harmed/killed.

The jury believed he did know and that's how they could convict him. It's a tough one but some posters have made good points that the evidence in it's entirety would indicate it's likely he had to have known some harm would come to her based on everything beforehand. His actions afterwards are an afterthought because whilst they portray a liar, manipulator and what not. They don't clearly indicate he knew in advance of it happening.

I guess me sticking on that point is because it is such a grey area, we'll never know if he knew or not but he was convicted on the basis they believed he did.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 11:34AM

rusty cole wrote: »

Boy B can say he's been manipulated all he wants as it's him Vs Boy A
Who's to say he didn't get the other eejit to do everything whilst watched from a safe distance himself. Who's to say he wasn't the bloody keyser soze behind it all

Keyser Sóze doesn't collect the girl from her house in broad day light and march her to her brutal death. I don't think we are dealing with a genius here.

That said it could be very telling in sentencing and explaining that sentencing what weight the Judge if any applies to both Boys.

He has still full discretion in this case to set Boy B free if he wants to, not that I think he will.

I also wonder if an appeal is successful and the verdict against Boy B is quashed and the DPP decide on another trial.

Can Boy A be used as a witness for the prosecution or defense?

ollkiller · 21-06-2019 11:39AM

A few thoughts after reading that extensive Irish Times article and this thread.

First Boy B's lawyer must be the most inept idiot ever. Would he ever have been charged if he just shut up. Probably not. Talked himself into a conviction. Highly probable Boy B knew what was gonna happen so conviction correct.

Boy A defo a psychopath. Boy B seems very clever and manipulating but I'm not convinced he's a psychopath as wouldn't a psychopath stay at the house during the attack. Of course I could be totally wrong and he could indeed be a psychopath. If he was though wouldn't the psychologist have picked up on that.

Naming of Boy A and Boy B. If they get named it's highly possible that relatives (cousins, aunts, uncle's etc) could get attacked or abused etc. Mob mentality is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs because some innocent person always bears the brunt. It's either a justice system or a free for all.

Posters who said charge the parents. Kop on. Bad kids can come from any type of family. I know families who have 1 bad apple but siblings are fine. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to charge someone who did not commit the crime.

If we can learn anything from this awful case hopefully its to put effort into education around bullying and the extent to which it is prevalent in the Irish school system. I went to school in the 90's and it was hell. Seemingly nothing much has changed.

Goodgoods · 21-06-2019 11:44AM

ollkiller wrote: »

A few thoughts after reading that extensive Irish Times article and this thread.

First Boy B's lawyer must be the most inept idiot ever. Would he ever have been charged if he just shut up. Probably not. Talked himself into a conviction. Highly probable Boy B knew what was gonna happen so conviction correct.

Boy A defo a psychopath. Boy B seems very clever and manipulating but I'm not convinced he's a psychopath as wouldn't a psychopath stay at the house during the attack. Of course I could be totally wrong and he could indeed be a psychopath. If he was though wouldn't the psychologist have picked up on that.

Naming of Boy A and Boy B. If they get named it's highly possible that relatives (cousins, aunts, uncle's etc) could get attacked or abused etc. Mob mentality is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs because some innocent person always bears the brunt. It's either a justice system or a free for all.

Posters who said charge the parents. Kop on. Bad kids can come from any type of family. I know families who have 1 bad apple but siblings are fine. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to charge someone who did not commit the crime.

If we can learn anything from this awful case hopefully its to put effort into education around bullying and the extent to which it is prevalent in the Irish school system. I went to school in the 90's and it was hell. Seemingly nothing much has changed.

How do you know he didn’t stay at the house during the attack?

martingriff · 21-06-2019 11:44AM

McCrack wrote: »

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

Even criminals have some morals (for want of a better word) and child killer and sexual deviant will have them low on the order of been liked especially if they have the superior complex they have

spurious · 21-06-2019 11:46AM

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

I agree, but I am with Smithwicks Man on a question as to how the jury could come to the conclusion that his actions/words meant there was only one possible reason for him to act that way with no other reasonable explanation.

I think it's something that will be dealt with if/when there is an appeal.

ollkiller · 21-06-2019 11:46AM

Goodgoods wrote: »

How do you know he didn’t stay at the house during the attack?

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Penn · 21-06-2019 11:51AM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Bringing her there if he thought it was for any other reason than to cause serious harm isn't a crime
Witnessing the act isn't a crime
Not intervening isn't a crime
The lies aren't a crime (obstructing the course of justice aside)

But together, they form a pattern of behaviour which when considered with the conversation he'd had where Boy A suggested they kill Ana, indicate a strong possibility that again, at the very least he knew she was going to be hurt in some fashion. He brought her to the house at the behest of Boy A. If that was all he did, I'd say he likely didn't know what was going to happen. He went into the house with her, watched her being killed and lied about it in proper interviews with detectives as many as 8 times after.

All the pieces matter. Many of the things individually that he did could show he didn't know what was going to happen, or aren't crimes by themselves. But everything together (especially considering the jury was likely shown or told many things we haven't been) was enough for the jury to unanimously find him guilty.

I get you have your reservations, but the detectives, prosecutors and jury did not.

Neyite · 21-06-2019 11:55AM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

How can teachers eradicate bullying when the boys who were known to be bullies have parents who even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary deny that their angels did anything wrong. And sadly there are MANY parents who refuse to believe that their kids are capable of anything.

I don't disagree that schools have a big part to play, but stamping out bullying starts at home.

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

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.

I would bet money on Boy B recording the attack on one of the two phones that were lost. It never made sense to me that he was in the room and Boy A getting injuries to the point he was limping as Ana fought back and Boy B not helping A to hold her down. But if he was holding a phone it would explain it. It would also explain him being far enough away from the attack not to have any trace of it on his clothes or any trace of him on Ana in order to fit the whole attack on screen.

The phones might have been destroyed or hidden, but teens whip their phones out at every mundane opportunity so it stands to reason that this being the most daring and extreme plans they had that they would have wanted it recorded.

Goodgoods · 21-06-2019 11:57AM

ollkiller wrote: »

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Reported from boy B’s interview 9. Need to be careful of the source of the ‘facts’

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 12:02PM

ollkiller wrote: »

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Anyone know where courtyard lane is in Catherines park?

Boy B was spotted about 10 minutes away from the house at the BMX track on his way home.

Boy A was spotted on courtyard CCTV going home 14 minutes later.

Someone with local knowledge might be able to say if these timings would indicate they left at the same time or if Boy B left before the attack ended.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 12:07PM

Neyite wrote: »

How can teachers eradicate bullying when the boys who were known to be bullies have parents who even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary deny that their angels did anything wrong. And sadly there are MANY parents who refuse to believe that their kids are capable of anything.

I don't disagree that schools have a big part to play, but stamping out bullying starts at home.

I would bet money on Boy B recording the attack on one of the two phones that were lost. It never made sense to me that he was in the room and Boy A getting injuries to the point he was limping as Ana fought back and Boy B not helping A to hold her down. But if he was holding a phone it would explain it. It would also explain him being far enough away from the attack not to have any trace of it on his clothes or any trace of him on Ana in order to fit the whole attack on screen.

The phones might have been destroyed or hidden, but teens whip their phones out at every mundane opportunity so it stands to reason that this being the most daring and extreme plans they had that they would have wanted it recorded.

Do you reckon it was possible that they had planned to just scare her with the mask etc and she attacked him when she got scared and he lost his temper? Maybe they planned to record that "prank" and share it around.

I don't understand how she would have injured him if he had started attacking her with the stick right away?

But the lack of any mention of this by Boy A or B would probably rule this out I guess?

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

Comments