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

Lucuma wrote: »

But what could they have done about it even if they had discovered that his non-smart-phone had been activated on 14th May? If the evidence is gone, it's gone

If the non smart phone had only been activated or used after the murder that would have been evidence and used to discredit the 2 defense witnesses who volunteered that information.

tuxy wrote: »

What's wrong with asking about new details about the case that has come to light? The media have yet to disclose the new info that fash has given us. It could have a serious impact on sentencing which does not take place until next month.

I believe you’ve been asked two or three times for the link which states Boy B lost the two phones months in advance of the murder so maybe answer that before you go throwing around questions.

tuxy wrote: »

Don't you mean prior to the murder? An exact date was not given in the long Irish times article.

So you stating as fact on several occasions that they went missing “long before the murder happened” would be incorrect then?

tuxy wrote: »

They had been missing long enough before hand for his father to buy him a new non smart phone.
However I am now coming around to the idea Boy B had a backpack full of electrical gadgets. And that some of these phones were given to Ana to groom her over the course of many years.
Boy B also took video from a few angles on the day and uploaded them to the dark web.
It's all these in the reports.

You don’t get to infer and make absolute statements of fact based on speculation. He could have bought the new phone at any stage. You don’t know how long before the murder the phones went missing, thanks for clearing that up.

tuxy wrote: »

When was the charge for Boy B also upgraded to include rape?

True enough - although I suspect prosecution could have gone for (and considered) conspiracy on that charge also and didn't do so for economy and admittedly further away from the available facts in relation to boy B which would weaken the conspiracy to murder charge.

GarIT wrote: »

Video of the sexual assault/murder or something else? Which report is this in?

It’s not in any report. This poster is having trouble separating opinions and speculation from fact.

"During the trial, in the absence of the jury, his defence would attempt to prevent the boots being introduced as evidence. Patrick Gageby, Boy A’s barrister, argued that they had been obtained under false pretences and that Det Garda Newton was uninterested in investigating the alleged assault and interested in the case only as it related to Ana.
He asked the detective why she would seize clothes when they had already been washed. Clothing can still yield forensic clues after washing, Det Garda Newton responded." - from The Irish Times today.

I knew that clothing can still contain forensic clues after washing. Boy A's barrister didn't know this? I'm amazed (though not amazed at the same time)

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Patrick Gageby knew well but was probably chancing his arm in a desperate throw of the dice.

Desperate indeed.

tayto lover wrote: »

That was an attempt to get the Garda to admit that she suspected Boy A of being involved in Ana’s disappearance and as such the clothes were seized illegally or under a false pretense and any evidence obtained from them would then have been inadmissible. The Garda had her facts right and he got nowhere.

Intelligent Garda. I like this.