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

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 01:28PM

Hi everyone, I just joined up here today solely to have a voice in this discussion. I've followed the thread since Tuesday, in the full knowledge I'd read some opinions that infuriated me but also some that would help me make sense of this beyond-horrific tragedy, which I've had both, so thank you to everyone for that, genuinely. The court reports were hugely informative, I feel very equipped with the facts but it's one-way information. There's a place for media commentary, especially if it comes from journalists who were present at the trial, but really I just wanted to know what other ordinary people thought of all this, if they were affected the same way I was, I'm glad to find there are so many who are.

I'd like to just contribute to the question of why the boys were excused from the courtroom by saying I don't think it was to spare them the horror of it for their own sake or because they were still innocent til proven guilty, I believe it was because the defence arguments were SO reachy they may use this 'exposure' of the boys to the evidence in some way to their legal advantage, should the boys show any emotion when confronted with the evidence in public. If you consider the desperate play-acting going on, between Lego, swords, holding hands and resting their heads on Mammy and Daddy's shoulders, the safest thing was to not have them there at all so the jury couldn't be swayed at closing time or some legal niggle brought up.
The defences proved they could use all their legal knowledge to come up with something far beyond my abilities, and weren't above chancing anything. 'A consentual encounter between A and Ana that got out of hand' for instance..how could this encounter happen if A maintained he wasn't at the scene?

But, my main point..I don't think they were excused to spare them the horror for their own sakes.

Penn · 21-06-2019 01:31PM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I don’t remember seeing that detail anywhere. How would he show them “where he last saw the body” when his story was that he ran out and heard her scream?

He lied several times in his interviews. Saying he ran out and heard her scream was his lie at one point, but in a later interviews he further admitted to being in the house during the attack, being in the room during the attack, and watching the attack (describing what Boy A did to her).

By his own admission after revising his story several times, he admitted witnessing the attack and staying in the room for at least most of it.

Cryptopagan · 21-06-2019 01:33PM

Penn wrote: »

He lied several times in his interviews. Saying he ran out and heard her scream was his lie at one point, but in a later interviews he further admitted to being in the house during the attack, being in the room during the attack, and watching the attack (describing what Boy A did to her).

By his own admission after revising his story several times, he admitted witnessing the attack and staying in the room for at least most of it.

Did he actually draw a picture showing the attack happen at X in the room, when X was where the body was discovered rather than where the attack took place?

Penn · 21-06-2019 01:34PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

The defences proved they could use all their legal knowledge to come up with something far beyond my abilities, and weren't above chancing anything. 'A consentual encounter between A and Ana that got out of hand' for instance..how could this encounter happen if A maintained he wasn't at the scene?

I think given the overwhelming forensic evidence, the defense for Boy A knew the prosecution could prove Boy A was there and was involved in her death. The defense's best chance was to go for a lesser charge of manslaughter by trying to prove it was an accident and wasn't planned.

21-06-2019 01:37PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

They could offer an earlier parole hearing or perhaps an extended length of time before your first parole hearing if you plead not guilty.

Also, I hate that they sentence someone to “life”. It doesn’t even mean life so why say that meaningless word.

Penn · 21-06-2019 01:38PM

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Did he actually draw a picture showing the attack happen at X in the room, when X was where the body was discovered rather than where the attack took place?

Not sure, his drawing probably isn't that detailed given his age. But there's no doubt the detectives, knowing the layout of the room, would have asked him "Where in the room did this part happen?", "Where was she in the room the last time you saw her?", "Which door did you enter the room from?" etc.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 01:39PM

Penn wrote: »

I think given the overwhelming forensic evidence, the defense for Boy A knew the prosecution could prove Boy A was there and was involve din her death. The defense's best chance was to go for a lesser charge of manslaughter by trying to prove it was an accident and wasn't planned.

I think that's what they were doing all right, but that's throwing in the towel and admitting yes he was there, yes he did attack her. He's claiming he wasn't even there. Looking for a manslaughter option admits his current defense is a lie. What am I missing?

Neyite · 21-06-2019 01:42PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

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?

They could have played a prank in the park or at school if they wanted to frighten her with the mask. They lured her to that location, 3km away to do something to her that needed privacy and where nobody would hear her struggle or scream.

I don't know how she injured him but maybe he underestimated her strength thinking he was bigger than her and had martial arts lessons.

Cryptopagan · 21-06-2019 01:42PM

Penn wrote: »

Not sure, his drawing probably isn't that detailed given his age. But there's no doubt the detectives, knowing the layout of the room, would have asked him "Where in the room did this part happen?", "Where was she in the room the last time you saw her?", "Which door did you enter the room from?" etc.

Sure, but the poster I was responding to claimed

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B drew a sketch for Gardai where he last saw the body of Ana and that was where she was found. But this was not the place in the room where she was beaten to death as the blood spatter indicates as her body was moved after her death.

That’s a very specific claim, and would be a very damning piece of evidence, but I don’t recall ever reading that or anything like it. I vaguely remember something about a drawing but nothing that revealing.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 01:42PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

I think that's what they were doing all right, but that's throwing in the towel and admitting yes he was there, yes he did attack her. He's claiming he wasn't even there. Looking for a manslaughter option admits his current defense is a lie. What am I missing?

By the time it went to trial did he claim he was not there?
Claiming to not be guilty of murder is different from saying he wasn't even there.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 01:44PM

ie

Charge: Murder
Pleads: Not Guilty
Defence: I wasn't there.

Charge: Manslaughter
Pleads: Guilty
Defence: Ok I was there.

And Boy A's defence DID ask for a manslaughter option They didn't just consider it in private, they asked the Judge and he said no.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 01:45PM

Boggles wrote: »

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.

She had a handful of friends at school . She was also close to her cousins. The other girl who took the photo may have been her cousin.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 01:46PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

ie

Charge: Murder
Pleads: Not Guilty
Defence: I wasn't there.

Well it was murder he was charged with, at what point in the trial did his barrister claim he was not there?

Boggles · 21-06-2019 01:50PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

She had a handful of friends at school . She was also close to her cousins. The other girl who took the photo may have been her cousin.

It hasn't been established who took the photo, unless I am missing something, apart from Ana telling her mother it was another girl.

Nobody called for Ana. She had no friends

That was the quote from the mother in court. On that basis she immediately went looking for her.

Something doesn't quite add up.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 01:56PM

tuxy wrote: »

Well it was murder he was charged with, at what point in the trial did his barrister claim he was not there?

Boy A maintained the last time he saw Ana was in the park

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 01:59PM

Boggles wrote: »

It hasn't been established who took the photo, unless I am missing something, apart from Ana telling her mother it was another girl.

That was the quote from the mother in court. On that basis she immediately went looking for her.

Something doesn't quite add up.

Just because she had a few friends at school doesn't mean they lived locally or were in the habit of calling for her.

What do you think would be gained from her Mother lying? Even Boy B corroborated that she had no friends and no one wanted to hang out with her.

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 02:00PM

You'd have thought there'd have been some messages between some of the 3 parties in the days before hand.

Or even any talk of interactions at school?

Ana supposedly said she liked Boy A, I wonder how long before it happened was that and who was involved.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 02:01PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

Boy A maintained the last time he saw Ana was in the park

The physical evidence proved otherwise .

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 02:02PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

You'd have thought there'd have been some messages between some of the 3 parties in the days before hand.

Why would they be messaging Ana ?

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 02:04PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why would they be messaging Ana ?

How odd would it be for a boy to randomly call to your house to say a boy wants to see you that you haven't talked to in months. The only thing actually that indicates they ever interacted before was they said Ana told boy A she liked him one time.

Or how did Boy B even know where she lived?

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:04PM

sorry for making my point in separate posts, I know sitting back and taking time to prepare a comprehensive answer would be better, it's just that this conversation is moving so quickly there'll be pages between my replies, it gets pointless.

Did Boy A' say anything between his final Garda interviews ('Boy B is lying. That is all') and the manslaughter application?

If he did and I've missed it I apologise. But I can't find it.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 02:05PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

Boy A maintained the last time he saw Ana was in the park

At first yes but then made no further comment to Garda after he was told about forensic evidence.

No such claim was made in the trial, it would be absurd for a barrister to ask for the jury to consider manslaughter while claiming his client wasn't there when the incident took place.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:08PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

The physical evidence proved otherwise .

I know but he didn't ADMIT it. And his defence didn't admit it. Their plea was not guilty, he wasn't there.

So
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there

'can we change to Manslaughter: guilty, was there?'

'no you can't.'

"ok well, it's back to
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there' then"

I must be missing something, let me continue to follow the conversation.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:11PM

tuxy wrote: »

At first yes but then made no further comment to Garda after he was told about forensic evidence.

No such claim was made in the trial, it would be absurd for a barrister to ask for the jury to consider manslaughter while claiming his client wasn't there when the incident took place.

I know. Totally absurd.
But he didn't change his story.

tayto lover · 21-06-2019 02:11PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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?

And it was a unanimous decision. Not one thought him not guilty. Very telling.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 02:12PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How odd would it be for a boy to randomly call to your house to say a boy wants to see you that you haven't talked to in months.

Or how did Boy B even know where she lived?

Why don't you share your theory? Come straight out with it rather than implying through questions

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 02:14PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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

Another two sticking points for me are that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The prosecution and the jury believed that Boy A & Boy B were in a plan, a plan to lure Ana to an abandoned house for her to be assaulted. That's all that's needed. We don't have to prove that Boy B should be aware of the fact that Boy A wanted to kill her at the time.

1 The witness that indicated Boy B laughing with Ana on the way to the abandoned house confirmed to me the deceitful nature of Boy B. He was luring an innocent immature girl to an out of the way house to be killed or seriously assaulted and he was joking as he did. This is evil and a smart alec.

2 I believe Boy B went to Ana's house believing he would not be recognized calling there. Ana's father or mother did not know Boy B name but I understand picked him out of facebook. Tehy did not know where he lived. I believe Boy B thought Ana was home alone. If Ana's father did not see Ana leave the house with Boy B we would be looking at the disappeared rather than going off with someone that was identifiable. This gave Gardai a lead which the followed up immediately. I believe both Boy A and Boy B did not pencil in CCTV into the plot because they were unaware of it. And only for there was a trail of evidence to the park Gardai may not have gone there looking for evidence. Boy B could well be the prime-mover in all that since he went to Ana's house to lure her to the abandoned house for to fulfill some twisted voyeuristic fantasy.

Anything is possible but its what the evidence pattern leads to we draw conclusions. Both Boy A and Boy B did not like Ana then why was she being lured to a remote location and Boy B doing the luring. And both of them from CCTV evidence were in the same time window going to the abandoned house. It had only one obvious conclusion, both were in a conspiracy to inflict injury on Ana. CCTV has them in the same time frame leaving the area also.
Boy B set out to prove his innocence as he was put in the frame a frame that CCTV and witness statements indicated he led Ana to the abandoned house. He tried his best to manipulate out of it and couldn't because of external evidence. Ana was killed at the abandoned house by his best friend, Boy A as forensics indicate. Boy B going no comment from the start would not have avoided being charged as another poster wrote here. Gardai would attack from another angle and his silence would have made them even more active. Should he have exercised silence and repeated no-comment when questioned on video evidence before a jury it would not wash as he was the prime mover in it. It was like his lies video evidence it did not wash either

SirGerryAdams · 21-06-2019 02:15PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why don't you share your theory? Come straight out with it rather than implying through questions

I'm not implying anything. I'm just posing questions and wonderances about this whole case trying to make sense of it all.

I have a curiosity about what exactly happened in this case, just like I did in the Graham Dwyer case and Bobby Ryan case....

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:15PM

anyway, it's a minor point, if I'm missing something, fine.
My macro-point was, the defence arguments - both of them - were pathetic, reachy, embarrassing and desperate.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 02:16PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

sorry for making my point in separate posts, I know sitting back and taking time to prepare a comprehensive answer would be better, it's just that this conversation is moving so quickly there'll be pages between my replies, it gets pointless.

Did Boy A' say anything between his final Garda interviews ('Boy B is lying. That is all') and the manslaughter application?

If he did and I've missed it I apologise. But I can't find it.

No there was no admission by Boy A or Boy B

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

Comments