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

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 04:30PM

gozunda wrote: »

The rest of what you wrote is bunkum btw.

Can’t help but cringe at people who cry outrage against those who commit heinous crimes under the guise of caring about the aggrieved and then when there are legitimately proposed solutions to limit the grief of the victims relations they cry foul once more.

It’s up there with those suggesting murders should be hung, drawn and quartered etc. Maybe come into the 21st century for an adult debate on serious topics.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 04:37PM

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.

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 04:39PM

splinter65 wrote: »

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?

No, I suggested he was. As have about 200 other members on this thread.

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.

splinter65 wrote: »

Grooming ( I think you don’t know what grooming is) involves long term one on one contact between the groomer and the groomee.

Nonsense. There is no set time limit on how long it takes to groom a child.

splinter65 wrote: »

What coincidence are you trying to point out?

I have all ready stated it several times.

But I think if you are suitably lucid it's quite obvious.

Roger Hassenforder · 21-06-2019 04:41PM

The number of fcuking Rumpoles we have is astonishing.

Even for the pool of talent we're accustomed to here.
The courts must be empty

GT_TDI_150 · 21-06-2019 04:45PM

I think its funny we are questioning the jurys doubts, reasonable or no, if they had doubts they wouldnt have convicted. End of story.

Nodferatu · 21-06-2019 04:46PM

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 04:48PM

Nodferatu wrote: »

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

They haven’t been sentenced yet

tayto lover · 21-06-2019 04:49PM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I think its funny we are questioning the jurys doubts, reasonable or no, if they had doubts they wouldnt have convicted. End of story.

I believe the jury got it spot on.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 04:51PM

Nodferatu wrote: »

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

What do you mean how many year have they got?
The sentencing will be next month, they will most likely get life and the judge will set the number of years before the parole boards reviews the case and decides when release on licence may be appropriate.

tayto lover · 21-06-2019 04:51PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The number of fcuking Rumpoles we have is astonishing.

Even for the pool of talent we're accustomed to here.
The courts must be empty

Ah it’s good to read people’s opinions whether they be right or wrong.

Nodferatu · 21-06-2019 04:51PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

They haven’t been sentenced yet

Is there any inclination as to what they might get? Or what do children usually get handed for a murder charge generally?

tuxy · 21-06-2019 04:56PM

Nodferatu wrote: »

Is there any inclination as to what they might get? Or what do children usually get handed for a murder charge generally?

7 years before the parole board gets to review it is standard but because of the violent nature of the crime the judge can extend this. Once the parole board are looking into it it usually takes a number of years after that before release, I imagine there are many factors involved in the decision.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 04:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.

We won't .

A diagnosis of psychopathy, or any other major Cluster B personality disorder, cannot be made for someone under 18.

It also cannot be made over the course of a few weeks for anyone.

Strazdas · 21-06-2019 05:09PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

B could have used all this in his defence ie. the plan was to scare Ana, not kill her and then A went way too far. But his numerous lies and evasion cast huge doubt on this angle (and speaking of her in highly derogatory terms does nothing to remove this doubt).

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 05:16PM

Strazdas wrote: »

B could have used all this in his defence ie. the plan was to scare Ana, not kill her and then A went way too far. But his numerous lies and evasion cast huge doubt on this angle (and speaking of her in highly derogatory terms does nothing to remove this doubt).

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 05:16PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

It boils down to the prosecution believed Boy B led Ana to her death which the jury also believed. There is no other alternative reasonable explanation. The Jury looked at the totality of the actions inc Boy B & Boy A antipathy towards Ana and her naivety to them. Love definitely was not in the air but murder is the reasoned opinion.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 05:18PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

It boils down to the prosecution believed Boy B led Ana to her death which the jury also believed. There is no other alternative reasonable explanation. The Jury looked at the totality of the actions inc Boy B & Boy A antipathy towards Ana and her naivety to them. Love definitely was not in the air but murder is the reasoned opinion.

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 05:19PM

tuxy wrote: »

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.

I was talking about boy A and Ana. We’re speculating. Deal with it. Cut out the sanctimonious self regarding backseat modding and go troll some other forum.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 05:27PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

You keep saying that but once again the DPP, judge and jury disagree. We can’t really accept your authority on this.

Strazdas · 21-06-2019 05:27PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

But he never seems to have moved towards the truth at any point. The version he gives for the start of the attack and then apparently fleeing the scene doesn't stack up and nor can he account for a good 30 minutes after the murder.

The constant lying is down to there being no witnesses I would guess and he trying to create a version that gets him off the hook for murder.

He's no criminal mastermind but is definitely dishonest and a liar. It doesn't sound anything like a mere innocent who got caught up in something horrible.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 05:27PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

They’ve proven it, literally, in a court of law. This isn’t a mathematical proof.

BloodBath · 21-06-2019 05:29PM

I can't believe people are still arguing that boy B should have got manslaughter. His constant lies implicated him. How hard is that to understand. If he didn't know she was going to be murdered he could have argued that and told the truth but he didn't.

Also some are questioning whether boy A is a psychopath or not. It's pretty bloody obvious that he is. Most likely boy B is too.

Neither 1 of them showed a shred of remorse and thought they could get away with it and thought they could manipulate everyone around them. All classic psychopath traits. Not to mention the gruesome murder that they could perform then go home and sleep soundly after.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 05:31PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

A diagnosis of psychopathy, or any other major Cluster B personality disorder, cannot be made for someone under 18.
.

Technically, but reports given to courts often comment on traits.

We will see next month if they are made public.

jimmycrackcorm · 21-06-2019 05:32PM

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.

This has come up a few times. INAL but AFAIK you cannot simply appeal because you don't like the verdict and hope a different jury might give the result you want.

It has to be either on a point of law, new evidence coming to light that significantly casts doubt in the conviction or finding a significant flaw in the existing evidence.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 05:33PM

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.
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.

They were in the same class in school.

Forensics link Boy A to the killing. The killing was gruesome something u would not expect from a 13yr old. Her body was a mass of injuries, fractures to her head, blood spatter all over the walls, throat strangulation and sex acts done on her. Anyone who did this is a monster. locked up for ever and the keys thrown away.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 05:36PM

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.

Is there evidence of this

BloodBath · 21-06-2019 05:37PM

Exactly. You don't need to be a psychologist to diagnose psychopathy in this case. It's pretty bloody obvious.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 05:37PM

Boggles wrote: »

No, I suggested he was. As have about 200 other members on this thread.

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.

Nonsense. There is no set time limit on how long it takes to groom a child.

I have all ready stated it several times.

But I think if you are suitably lucid it's quite obvious.

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

BloodBath · 21-06-2019 05:39PM

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

It's people opinions ad they are most likely right.

What do you propose? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Unsupported opinion? It definitely is not unsupported. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 05:40PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Exactly. You don't need to be a psychologist to diagnose psychopathy in this case. It's pretty bloody obvious.

Well I’ll diagnose you with schizophrenia then bloodbath if it’s your contention that you dont need any professional qualification or even to have met a patient.
I’ll pm you your prescription.

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

Comments