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

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:13PM

Boggles wrote: »

Seriously?

Boy A obviously.

Da Fuq?

When and how did he groom her? You must have some theory if you state it so confidently. Where is your evidence of grooming?!?

wiggle16 · 21-06-2019 03:13PM

Boggles wrote: »

I think it is unusual she said "She had no friends" when she clearly did. Now she may have meant she had no friends who would call for her which is fair enough.

But even still, Ana had only left the house literally minutes when her mother got home and she started freaking out. Her father didn't appear to be one bit concerned.

My implication is, it doesn't make sense to me that Boy B just calls out of the blue and convinces Ana to go to an abandoned house that is 3km away.

The mother also has access to all Ana's digital profile and finds a picture of her bound and gagged in a chair a week before she is brutally murdered by a psychopath with a taste for torture.

I think the mother knew something was up with Ana and that's why she freaked out that day.

My main point is though I think Ana was groomed for brutal murder long before May 14th.

But what does that matter? What would the mother have known?

I really don't know what you're getting at, unless you think the mother knew something like this was going to happen??

They targeted her because they knew she was vulnerable, that if they asked her to meet them or come out with them she would skip out the door with them, that she would be at home when they called.

Her mother freaked because she came home, Ana was out with "friends" when her mother knew she had none in the area, knew she was immature for her age. Factor in that she was an only child and her parents were older than average for a girl her age.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one - her mother was probably a bit over protective and Ana was herself vulnerable and the mother knew this. That's why she went out looking. It's not a conspiracy.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 03:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

Do you have only one gear, Outrage?

It must be fair tiring.

You are using a public forum to air completely unfounded flights of speculative fancy after the facts if the case have been established.
What can you hope to achieve from this beyond a chip thrill gutter level gossip at best or a desire to smear a bereaved family?

tuxy · 21-06-2019 03:19PM

splinter65 wrote: »

When and how did he groom her? You must have some theory if you state it so confidently. Where is your evidence of grooming?!?

He groomed her using Boy B's phantom phones.....

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:20PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

You are using a public forum to air completely unfounded flights of speculative fancy after the facts if the case have been established.
What can you hope to achieve from this beyond a chip thrill gutter level gossip at best or a desire to smear a bereaved family?

How have I done that exactly?

I've been nothing but respectful, you seem just to want to pick fights with people discussing any aspect of the case.

Maybe just report the posts or stop clicking on the thread.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 03:21PM

Penn wrote: »

Pretty much, yeah. It's their role to get a not guilty verdict, or if not to get the lesser charge possible. I think given the evidence against him they knew he was going to be found guilty of something. Pointing out things such as that her death may not have been planned but was just a case of things going too far by itself doesn't hold much weight, but it's the defenses role to do that for almost everything the prosecution says. To offer an alternative version of what may have happened, thereby trying to weaken the prosecution's case by showing the prosecution's version of events may not be true (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So they likely didn't admit that Boy A was there, but rather felt their best chance was to introduce the idea it was possibly an accident and wasn't planned and hope that if he was to be found guilty of anything, it'd be the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Depressing stuff. Ok cool I hear you.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:22PM

tuxy wrote: »

He groomed her using Boy B's phantom phones.....

And how did boy As “grooming” messages to Ana manage to escape her mothers nightly checks?

tuxy · 21-06-2019 03:24PM

splinter65 wrote: »

And how did boy As “grooming” messages to Ana manage to escape her mothers nightly checks?

Clearly Boy A gave one of Boy B's phones to Ana while keeping one for himself.
It's all there in the reports, you just have to disregard everything said and have a vivid imagination.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 03:29PM

tuxy wrote: »

Clearly Boy A gave one of Boy B's phones to Ana while keeping one for himself.
It's all there in the reports, you just have to disregard everything said and have a vivid imagination.

They must have talked at school at some point about meeting up, as Ana seemed relaxed when she left with B.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 03:29PM

Boggles wrote: »

How have I done that exactly?

I've been nothing but respectful, you seem just to want to pick fights with people discussing any aspect of the case.

Maybe just report the posts or stop clicking on the thread.

You don't think implying her mother lied about her having no friends and implying she 'knew something ' isn't smearing her?

Maybe don't use the thread to indulge some wild theory about a case where the facts are already established or accuse a bereaved mother of lying about her own child.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 03:31PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

They must have talked at school at some point about meeting up, as Ana seemed relaxed when she left with B.

They talked for sometime at the door before Anna left so there is something we know for sure but yes lets focus on speculation for now. We can get back to facts at a later date.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:40PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

You don't think implying her mother lied about her having no friends and implying she 'knew something ' isn't smearing her?

I think it is unusual she said "She had no friends" when she clearly did. Now she may have meant she had no friends who would call for her which is fair enough.

Maybe stop being so outraged all the time and actually read the posts you are been outraged by.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 03:41PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I don’t think “why else” is enough for a murder conviction. There are any number of reasons why a 13 year old would do what he did.

It’s a fair point that he had no business calling for her and showed little respect for her after which would indicate it being highly unusual for him to go to her house but that in itself still does not prove he knew that she would be seriously harmed. Nor does the friend bringing it up a month in advance when Boy B laughed it off as a joke due to how ridiculous it was. As for “supplying one of the murder weapons”. I would consider this a stretch. If I give you a hose and you strangle somebody with it some time later I would hardly consider myself as having supplied you with the murder weapon.

And how would u explain away Boy B enticing Ana out of her house could be innocent. Both Boy A & Boy B had no love for Ana rather it was ill feeling, going on the evidence at the trial. Yet we have Boy B luring her to an isolate place 3km away joking with her on the way. Only for Ana was so knave she would not have gone with him. That puts Boy B in an unenviable position as a scumbag for starters. And while Boy B was doing this his best friend Boy A was making his way to the abandoned house to be waiting for her arrival. It just doesn't hold mustard the story of Boy B that Boy A wanted to tell her he had no interest in her. Boy B could have done that all on his own at the door or met with Boy B in the park itself or at school they were in the same class There can be only one conclusion why she was led to a isolated house and that was to attack her. I'm sure Boy B was in it if he did not orchestrate it for voyeuristic purpose at minimum. Boy B comes across as a manipulative smart alec and in the Garda investigations he put this to the max. His playacting in court was all an act as his Lego request at his place of detention. He believed he would get off on a lesser charge with a very small prison sentence in a youth detention center. The fact he has not come clean on his involvement has me worried he had a much larger role than we now know.

These scumbags have killed an innocent vulnerable person, destroyed her family in the process, destroyed their own lives and have put an awful burden on their own families. And they are remorseless and the case of Boy B is acting out innocence.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:44PM

splinter65 wrote: »

When and how did he groom her?

At school, how I have no idea but I imagine quite easily if he is in fact a psychopath.

splinter65 wrote: »

You must have some theory if you state it so confidently.

I haven't stated anything confidently or otherwise, I have given an opinion on certain aspects of the case I find unusual. I have no issue with the verdict.

splinter65 wrote: »

Where is your evidence of grooming?!?

The picture of her bound to a chair a week before she was brutally murdered by a person who was into that.

The fact that she went to see the boy.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:45PM

tuxy wrote: »

Clearly Boy A gave one of Boy B's phones to Ana while keeping one for himself.
It's all there in the reports, you just have to disregard everything said and have a vivid imagination.

Soooo.... there was a whole other layer of subterfuge going on that the Garda didn’t spot but boggles did. I see....
One thing. If Ana had one of boy bs secret phones then why didn’t he ring her and tell her to meet him that evening?!?

AngeloArgue · 21-06-2019 03:47PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

The CCTV evidence as reported by the media would place boy B leading Ana to the murder site. This was at 5.14PM from a camera at BMX Lucan located on the outskirts of St Catherine's park. This showed two figures identified as Ana and Boy B walking across fields.
It does not indicate in the media which direction the camera was facing, but BMX Lucan is 600m away from the murder site, Glenwood house on the Clonee Road.
If the camera was facing the direction they were walking it could place them closer than 600m away at 5.14.
The next CCTV of Boy B was picked up at 5.49PM from the same camera coming back alone from the direction him and Ana had walked. Again it is not clear how close to the murder sites this camera located him at the time.
That Leaves a 35 Minute window.
Boy B claims he immediately left once the attack had started.
So how do we account for the 35 minutes?
Again Boy B picked up by CCTV at BMX Lucan at 5.49PM after the murder.
Boy A picked up by CCTV 8 minutes later at St Catherine's Park car park at 5.57PM which is further from the murder scene than BMX Lucan.
I do not believe a word from either boys, it seems to me they spent similar time at the scene but had left by different routes, just as they had taken different routes to get there.

tayto lover · 21-06-2019 03:47PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

And how would u explain away Boy B enticing Ana out of her house could be innocent. Both Boy A & Boy B had no love for Ana rather it was ill feeling, going on the evidence at the trial. Yet we have Boy B luring her to an isolate place 3km away joking with her on the way. Only for Ana was so knave she would not have gone with him. That puts Boy B in an unenviable position as a scumbag for starters. And while Boy B was doing this his best friend Boy A was making his way to the abandoned house to be waiting for her arrival. It just doesn't hold mustard the story of Boy B that Boy A wanted to tell her he had no interest in her. Boy B could have done that all on his own at the door or met with Boy B in the park itself or at school they were in the same class There can be only one conclusion why she was led to a isolated house and that was to attack her. I'm sure Boy B was in it if he did not orchestrate it for voyeuristic purpose at minimum. Boy B comes across as a manipulative smart alec and in the Garda investigations he put this to the max. His playacting in court was all an act as his Lego request at his place of detention. He believed he would get off on a lesser charge with a very small prison sentence in a youth detention center. The fact he has not come clean on his involvement has me worried he had a much larger role than we now know.

These scumbags have killed an innocent vulnerable person, destroyed her family in the process, destroyed their own lives and have put an awful burden on their own families. And they are remorseless and the case of Boy B is acting out innocence.

Boy B for me was the planner in chief.
I wonder what he had in his backpack? Never found affair.
I wonder where his phones went to? Did he record the whole thing after prepping Boy A?
Guilty as sin.

Boom_Bap · 21-06-2019 03:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

The picture of her bound to a chair a week before she was brutally murdered by a person who was into that.

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?
Anything I have read or seen doesn't give a timeline and suggests that it was part of the family contacting Pieta House for assistance.

Eoin · 21-06-2019 03:48PM

The Irish Times has a good article that answers an awful lot of the questions here - it really is worth reading.

Ana did have a handful of friends, including a girl who would call over for sleepovers and to watch films. But she was certainly not friends with Boy B, something Geraldine was well aware of when she returned home on Monday, May 14th.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:50PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?

Guard gave evidence the picture was taken on the 6th of May.

Her mother said she found it after that but a few day before the murder.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:53PM

Boggles wrote: »

At school, how I have no idea but I imagine quite easily if he is in fact a psychopath.

I haven't stated anything confidently or otherwise, I have given an opinion on certain aspects of the case I find unusual. I have no issue with the verdict.

The picture of her bound to a chair a week before she was brutally murdered by a person who was into that.

The fact that she went to see the boy.

There’s absolutely no evidence of Ana being in any contact with either boy at school so that is pure speculation on your behalf.
It is further wild speculation on your behalf that boy a is a psychopath. Nobody in authority in this case has suggested any such thing.
You stated in previous posts that Ana was groomed. Once again wild ludicrous completely unfounded speculation by you. Absolutely not one shred of evidence to support your theory.
The video of Ana tied and bound shows no evidence of either boy. No grooming by them. You’re just making stuff up as you’re going along now.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:57PM

Eoin wrote: »

The Irish Times has a good article that answers an awful lot of the questions here - it really is worth reading.

That article is full of facts.
A lot of posters here are not interested in facts. They have created a whole other scenario in their imaginations that involves attributing blame to Ana’s mother in some way and in true conspiracy theory style they will move facts around to fit their theory.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

Guard gave evidence the picture was taken on the 6th of May.

Her mother said she found it after that but a few day before the murder.

What’s your point though?

Boggles · 21-06-2019 04:00PM

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s absolutely no evidence of Ana being in any contact with either boy at school so that is pure speculation on your behalf.

Your right mental speculation they could have been contact in the same school the went to. :rolleyes:

splinter65 wrote: »

It is further wild speculation on your behalf that boy a is a psychopath.

Actually that is one thing I would be confident of.

splinter65 wrote: »

The video of Ana tied and bound shows no evidence of either boy.

It was a picture, but like I all ready said it could just be one of those mad coincidences.

I am finding trouble with that one though.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 04:12PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Soooo.... there was a whole other layer of subterfuge going on that the Garda didn’t spot but boggles did.

It's not that he spotted it more like fabricated it in his brilliant mind.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 04:13PM

Boggles wrote: »

Your right mental speculation they could have been contact in the same school the went to. :rolleyes:

Actually that is one thing I would be confident of.

It was a picture, but like I all ready said it could just be one of those mad coincidences.

I am finding trouble with that one though.

So, your qualified as a senior mental health professional to PHD level and you’ve interviewed boy A at length and you’ve reached the conclusion that he’s a psychopath?
Grooming ( I think you don’t know what grooming is) involves long term one on one contact between the groomer and the groomee. Where is your evidence of this between Ana and either boy?
What coincidence are you trying to point out?

tuxy · 21-06-2019 04:13PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?
Anything I have read or seen doesn't give a timeline and suggests that it was part of the family contacting Pieta House for assistance.

It comes from the same alternative timeline as the one where Boy B lost his phones after the murder.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 04:15PM

tuxy wrote: »

It's not that he spotted it more like fabricated it in his brilliant mind.

Aren’t we lucky to have posters here who’s so much smarter than not only us, but the entire Ana murder investigation/prosecution team? I’m in awe....

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 04:23PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

Agree with the majority of this except for two points:

You do have to prove that Boy B was aware that the plan was to seriously harm or kill her. That’s literally what he was convicted on. This is what Joint enterprise is.

Secondly, I disagree that he would have been convicted had he no commented for the duration of the questioning as the only evidence against him that was not circumstantial was his own admissions through the recorded interviews, which is why the prosecution showed all 16 hours of then to the jury.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense and in all likelihood he probably did know what he was doing. From a legal standpoint it’s hard to see how they’ve actually proved that do.

This thing that people have of “I think he’s guilty therefore he must be guilty” doesn’t wash with me. You can only convict on the merits of the evidence. The jury felt there was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was fully aware of what was going to happen in the abandoned house. I, myself, have doubts that I would be confident to say that I knew what he was at based on everything I’ve read and seen.

I certainly do not see how he could possibly have been convicted if he no commented the interrogations. In fact, had the interview recordings not been admissible I don’t even think there would have been enough evidence to bring him to a trial.

Strazdas · 21-06-2019 04:23PM

AngeloArgue wrote: »

The CCTV evidence as reported by the media would place boy B leading Ana to the murder site. This was at 5.14PM from a camera at BMX Lucan located on the outskirts of St Catherine's park. This showed two figures identified as Ana and Boy B walking across fields.
It does not indicate in the media which direction the camera was facing, but BMX Lucan is 600m away from the murder site, Glenwood house on the Clonee Road.
If the camera was facing the direction they were walking it could place them closer than 600m away at 5.14.
The next CCTV of Boy B was picked up at 5.49PM from the same camera coming back alone from the direction him and Ana had walked. Again it is not clear how close to the murder sites this camera located him at the time.
That Leaves a 35 Minute window.
Boy B claims he immediately left once the attack had started.
So how do we account for the 35 minutes?
Again Boy B picked up by CCTV at BMX Lucan at 5.49PM after the murder.
Boy A picked up by CCTV 8 minutes later at St Catherine's Park car park at 5.57PM which is further from the murder scene than BMX Lucan.
I do not believe a word from either boys, it seems to me they spent similar time at the scene but had left by different routes, just as they had taken different routes to get there.

Absolutely. Everything points to B being with A when the killing took place and probably leaving the abandoned house at the same time with him. B is a pathological liar and any denials of this from him can be dismissed.

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

Comments