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

volchitsa wrote: »

This has been repeated before : there doesn't have to have been a plan to kill her, it is enough if there was a plan to do her harm (hit her to incapacitate her and then rape her for example) - if she died as a result of that plan being put into action, then that is also murder and B was an active accomplice.

Since Boy B said that nobody liked her, or wanted to be seen with her, it's obvious that he didn't think he was bringing her to a romantic tryst.

So he knew he was bringing her there to have some harm done to her. And that's what happened.

This is the best post here. Can you send that by carrier pigeon to wherever B's father is hiding out please?

Boggles wrote: »

He had a phone, it was a non smart phone.

This was analysed by Gardaí and nothing of note was found.

They also had full access to Boy A's phones.

I wouldn't be putting much money on that theory at all TBH.

His father said that he had bought him TWO smartphones which wewre conveniently lost.:rolleyes:

airy fairy wrote: »

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.

I am 99% sure you can't appeal just because you think the evidence was too weak to convict you. It's more if there was an error in law - e.g. evidence should/should not have been presented to the jury, if the judge did not give good instructions to the jury etc.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

You also said earlier that it was really bugging you not knowing if she was sexually assaulted before or after she was killed. Nobody here needs to know that kind of thing, and it doesn't seem healthy for someone to wonder about it that much.

tuxy wrote: »

Great, we are back to the imaginary phone theory again.
The phones Boy B had went missing long before the murder happened.

Boy B was convicted using actual evidence that was satisfactory to the jury.
I find it odd that many are now claiming that the case the Garda built doesn't meet their standards.

This reminds me of the discussion after the conviction in the Tipperary farm murder case. People kept bringing up imaginary theories that might have exonerated the murderer, even though the man himself didn't bring them up in his own testimony.

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously do you really have to drag in that type of ad hominem crap into the discussion. And with that you've just lost the argument.

And FYI minors may indeed get reduced sentences for murder under the the current judicial system. Look it up if you dont believe anyone but yourself.

Bribing criminals to plead guilty so they can get reduced sentences is a non sequitur imo whatever way you look at it.

You proposed that one or more of these boys might have pleaded guilty if a Carrot was dangled in front of them.

How about they plead guilty because it's the right thing to do instead of being facilitated because they think they could beat the system.

Only they could mitigate the impacts of a trial on the family of the victim. Tbh they showed as much regard for the family as they did Ana

Are you joking? Accusing me of Ad hominem? This coming from the person who originally stated the below in response to me :rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

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

I'm well aware that minors get reduced sentences as I have previously stated.

I suggested, quite fairly, that there are plenty of cases whereby getting the accused to plead guilty with the incentive of a slightly reduced sentence/getting choice of where they serve their sentence etc. would prevent grieving families from the agony of a long drawn out trial.

You suggest they should just plead guilty because it's the right thing to do. If they were that concerned about the right thing to do I doubt they'd have murdered somebody in the first place ffs.

It's not nice, nobody wants to see criminals getting reduced sentences or favourable treatment but it is pragmatic and practical to have some sort of incentive to avoid trials like this where there could even by a small chance a killer could walk on a technicality.

Everybody wants to believe in good and evil and any perpetrator should be locked up and the keys thrown away but the world doesn't work like that.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.



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.

He had no PTSD but fretting over been found out. His peers stated he behaved normal after the event & was back in school. His discussions with his school counselor was of the blame being put on him as he was last seen in Ana's company. He is a cold calculating manipulator with all the pretensions of niceness. I'm not satisfied that Boy B was not the mastermind behind the whole episode using Boy A to carry out his fantasies. Boy B has demeaned Ana at every opportunity. Boy B only told the minimum after being confronted 8 times for lying and his statement to his psychologist is different too. Boy B has not told the full story and he was present for all that took place. Lies that stick out to me is the forensic blood spatter indicate Ana was severely beaten with a weapon while standing up, Boy B has not indicated this. Boy B spoke about he became aware of the crotch of Boy A pants being open when he stood up. Boy A was wearing trackbottoms. He don't tell us of the sex acts carried out by Boy A which forensics indicate was. He lied in the removing of Ana clothes stating she assisted which the forensics indicate were violently ripped off her We don't know what he carried in his backpack and we do know he left his house with this and went to Ana's house with it and to the abandoned house. His loss of phones & the lack of internet profiling & electronics communications with Boy A his best friend concerns me. Teenagers now are 24/7 texting each other but with him its blank. Cant but feel this is a manipulator who though he did the perfect crime.

gozunda wrote: »

Boy B admitted to seeing Ana being strangled and held down by boy A.

The prosecution case was that B witnessed the entire murder from start to finish. Given that he told lie after lie after lie, it's very hard believe anything he says about leaving before the attack ended.

tuxy wrote: »

Another girl that wasn't named took the picture.

I'm sorry , I lost track of the feed. What picture and video is this ?

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

A young girl died a horrible death.

Road-Hog wrote: »

Extract below regarding the reasoning why the Jamie bugler killers’ identities and names were revealed......

‘At the close of the trial, the judge lifted reporting restrictions and allowed the names of the killers to be released, saying "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children."[44] Sir David Omand later criticised this decision and outlined the difficulties created by it in his 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case.[45]’

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.

That case went all the way to the ECHR which made rulings on it, that it was wrong to id the perpetrators, wrong to try them as adults & the need for a more child friendly court. This was incorporated into the Irish Act.

tuxy wrote: »

It's not really relevant to the case IMO

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

At one point it was discovered that Ana had set up fake social-media accounts that she was using to send bullying messages to herself. From then on she had to give all the passwords to her apps to Geraldine, who would check her phone every night.

“She didn’t like it but she knew if she didn’t I would take the phone,” her mother said. Shortly before Ana’s death Geraldine found a photograph on the phone of her blindfolded and tied to a chair. Ana told her mother it was part of a prank. She and another girl were pretending she was in trouble, to see if another boy would come and rescue her.

I thought Ana didn't have any friends according to her mother?

There may be no relevance and it might just be a freak coincidence, but a week before she is brutally murdered in which tape is used, she is bound to a chair by tape and blindfolded.