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

splinter65 · 23-06-2019 06:47PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Totally agree with you there.

There is no shortage of sympathy towards the Kreigels and rightly so but there is a distinct lack of sympathy towards A & B's familys. Lets not forget, there are three familys destroyed because of this tragedy. I cannot blame B's dad for his actions in the court room. He has just seen his son charged with murder. Not everyone is going to be cool, calm and collected at a time like that. The poor man, im sure he regrets that outburst. He will never get a chance to apologise for it either, at least publicly due to the mob mentality in this country.

I have said I hope the state gives them what ever they need. At mine and other tax payers expense. Im not sure how that can be considered "having an opinion on their behalf"

One family have a much loved member rotting in her grave because of the depravity of members of two other families.
One family can go to the grave and say prayers and plant flowers.
The other two families have been this weekend to visit the depraved killers and they’ll have held them and comforted them and themselves.
Not reaalllyy very fair is it kidchameleon?
Yet you’ll try to equalize the suffering of all 3 families for yourself because your political ideology leans towards the idea that victims of crimes, even horrific crimes, need to suck it up, basically, because punishment and guilt and personal responsibility are not ideas that you agree with.
Would you meet face to face with Ana’s parents and tell them gently that they must try to understand boy bs fathers crass insensitive selfish tantrum because, you know, his feelings were hurt when the Gardai the solicitors the forensic scientists the judge and the jury all did their job?
Or do you just reserve your virtue signaling nonsense for here?

Kidchameleon · 23-06-2019 06:48PM

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

Calltocall · 23-06-2019 06:51PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I found myself in that position I would hope I would act rationally. Some posters here have openly admitted they would have no problem becoming murderers in that situation. That is not me... like I have said, all three familys in this tragic case have been destroyed

He is a decent parent IMHO, supporting his child under any circumstances. That is the job a good parent, unconditional love. As I have said, he is probably regretful of his outburst but because of the mob mentality he will never be able to publicly express that regret.

I disagree on every and any level and I’m a parent too, if he was a decent father he would have made his son face the consequences of what what he did, instead he went along with his sons absolute clear hoax hoping he would get off even though it was clear he was lying, I’m sorry but your rationale is complete bull****.

Sardonicat · 23-06-2019 06:51PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

They were not tried as adults.

iamwhoiam · 23-06-2019 06:53PM

The outstanding moment of this sad and sorry tragedy were The Kriegel beautiful tribute to their Ana . Their dignity and strength and support for each other was admirable .

“ Speaking outside the court, Ana's father Patric Kriegel said; "Ana was our strength."

Her mother, Geraldine Kreigel added; "Ana was a dream come true for us and she always will be. She will stay in our hearts, forever loved and forever cherished.
"We love you Ana."

Lets remember Ana and her parents and brother and family . They are the important people here .
RIP , Ana .

Kidchameleon · 23-06-2019 06:54PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Yet you’ll try to equalize the suffering of all 3 families for yourself because your political ideology

In fairness, I have said a few posts ago that the Kreigels have it far worse.

splinter65 wrote: »

Would you meet face to face with Ana’s parents and tell them gently that they must try to understand boy bs fathers crass insensitive selfish tantrum because, you know, his feelings were hurt when the Gardai the solicitors the forensic scientists the judge and the jury all did their job?

Yes I would have not problem saying something of the sort if I were ever in a situation like that. I would perhaps not use the words you are suggesting here though. To be fair though, I get the impression the Kreigels would not need to have that said to them, they are a decent family from what I can tell and would not engage in hatred of anyone.

Road-Hog · 23-06-2019 06:55PM

mikemac2 wrote: »

Nobody ever says my lord, that’s the Brits. Wigs are not common these days and were not used by anyone even the judge in this case

Arrogance, well you don’t become a barrister lacking confidence for sure

You had a point but kinda ruined it by judging the entire profession. Coming up with theories and fighting is what they get paid to do

Thank you for the corrections.......I still stand by what I said though.......totally below the belt and about as ‘insensative’ as one could get toncome uo with a theory that it could have been consensual.......as far as I recall a barrister coma eout with something in defense of that animal that murdered the poor Swiss girl in Galway

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 06:56PM

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

Kidchameleon · 23-06-2019 06:58PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

They were not tried as adults.

I have seen conflicting reports on that but either way, it makes no difference to my point.

McCrack · 23-06-2019 06:58PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

Be aware youre not fooling everyone around here

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 23-06-2019 07:00PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

And we are human too, and condemn that. There’s no excuse for it. His son is clearly guilty. He rubbished the police and the system in front of the Kriégels.

Concern for the killers or their families is a weird argument, trending to pathological itself. I remember locking horns here with a poster who complained about the mob that hounded poor old Ted Bundy. Not a good look.

Lackey · 23-06-2019 07:01PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He is a decent parent IMHO, supporting his child under any circumstances. That is the job a good parent, unconditional love.

A decent parent holds their children accountable from a very young age.
It’s hard work and it’s every day, but that’s what love is
Protecting your kids from the consequences of their actions does them no favours.
.
I would give them the chance to restart their lives when Ana can be afforded the same opportunity.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 23-06-2019 07:06PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

If you are open up correction, read the thread. There’s far more evidence than that.

Suckit · 23-06-2019 07:07PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

This may help

https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-b-ana-kriegel-murder-trial-4657833-Jun2019/

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 07:13PM

Suckit wrote: »

This may help

https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-b-ana-kriegel-murder-trial-4657833-Jun2019/

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

Suckit · 23-06-2019 07:22PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

The interviews would have been a massive part of it.

Those and the fact that he mentioned a few times his dislike for her, referred to her in derogatory terms, had been one half of texts talking about killing her and called into her house to bring her to her final location.

I meant it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he had a part in it from those few facts, and the jury were privy to a lot more than we were.
I haven't heard what happened to Boy B's backpack, or what was in it.

A large part of me believes he also may have had a pair of gloves and used them to hit her with weapons. The only thing he admits he picked up was a white plank, presumably without gloves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-the-five-things-that-convicted-boys-a-and-b-of-murder-1.3932346

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that implies the truth of a fact rather than supporting it directly. The testimony of a witness to a murder is direct evidence. The testimony of a witness who saw the suspected killer leave the crime scene is indirect or circumstantial evidence.

So the presence of Ana Kriégel’s blood on the boots of Boy A implied he was at the scene of her murder. CCTV footage of Boy B walking with Ana towards the abandoned house where she was killed implied he went there with her. The lies and evasiveness of the boys implied they had something to hide.

A jury would never be asked to convict on a single piece of circumstantial evidence. The Garda and prosecution needed to gather many pieces to allow them to meet the burden of proof.

Dozens of strands of circumstantial evidence pointed towards the guilt of Boys A and B, but five key pieces stood out and made a conviction possible.

splinter65 · 23-06-2019 07:24PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In fairness, I have said a few posts ago that the Kreigels have it far worse.

Yes I would have not problem saying something of the sort if I were ever in a situation like that. I would perhaps not use the words you are suggesting here though. To be fair though, I get the impression the Kreigels would not need to have that said to them, they are a decent family from what I can tell and would not engage in hatred of anyone.

So Ana’s parents anguish in court at the end of a horrific 6 weeks for them simply MUST give way to the feelings of the father of the child who murdered their daughter?
Why?

McCrack · 23-06-2019 07:26PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

Fortunately it doesn't matter what you fail to see after reading media reports

The jury on the other hand after hearing and seeing the evidence including watching 16 hour interviews with murderer B and over a six week trial were unanimously satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case

pablo128 · 23-06-2019 07:29PM

One other thing, and I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but in my opinion if the boys family have any respect for the Kriegels they should move out of the area. It's bad enough what their sons did, the Kriegels don't need to be bumping into the families while going about their lives.

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 07:33PM

Suckit wrote: »

The interviews would have been a massive part of it.

Those and the fact that he mentioned a few times his dislike for her, referred to her in derogatory terms, had been one half of texts talking about killing her and called into her house to bring her to her final location.

I meant it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he had a part in it from those few facts, and the jury were privy to a lot more than we were.
I haven't heard what happened to Boy B's backpack, or what was in it.

A large part of me believes he also may have had a pair of gloves and used them to hit her with weapons. The only thing he admits he picked up was a white plank, presumably without gloves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-the-five-things-that-convicted-boys-a-and-b-of-murder-1.3932346

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

gozunda · 23-06-2019 07:39PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thanks for that.
if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor...

No. The weight of circumstantial evidence combined and the boy B's own testimony meant that only outcome of this case was a guilty charge.

Some seem to think that the term 'circumstantial' suggests that such evidence is somehow weak. In law this is not so. The prosecution showed for boy B that infact the opposite was true. All the circumstantial evidence combined with testimony provided a compelling case that left the jury in no doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused

Suckit · 23-06-2019 07:43PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

No, he had spoken to Boy A about murdering her, up to a year before and as recently as a month before.
His version is that it was one sided, but it still means he knew Boy A wanted to murder her and brought her to him.

I'm not even sure I believe Boy B gave Boy A the tape a couple of weeks before. But it doesn't really matter what I or you believe.

The Irish Times article pretty much says why both were found guilty.

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 07:43PM

gozunda wrote: »

No. The weight of circumstantial evidence combined and the boy B's own testimony meant that only outcome of this case was a guilty charge.

Some seem to think that the term 'circumstantial' suggests that such evidence is somehow weak. In law this is not so. The prosecution showed for boy B that infact the opposite was true. All the circumstantial evidence combined with testimony provided a compelling case that left the jury in no doubt with regard to the guilt of an accused

ok then, well this atleast explains to me how a jury got over a line to get to that verdict.

fash · 23-06-2019 07:44PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

It's the fact that the lying and cover up began immediately and was systematic. If he had not been a party to all of the events, he would not have been so forceful in immediately denouncing the girl and trying to bail out his co-conspirator.

Road-Hog · 23-06-2019 07:49PM

Does anyone think this pair will ever get to an adult gaol.....following their time in detention will they get deemed ‘cured/reforned’ And released back into society like the Jamie Bulger killers....?

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 07:51PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Does anyone think this pair will ever get to an adult gaol.....following their time in detention will they get deemed ‘cured/reforned’ And released back into society like the Jamie Bulger killers....?

Boy A will hopefully never walk the streets again , id say they'll come back when he's 18 and find a way to throw him in with the adults.

Boy B I think will end up in oberstown till he's 18 and be sent off to live in rural ireland or the UK under a new identity.

Road-Hog · 23-06-2019 08:02PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Boy A will hopefully never walk the streets again , id say they'll come back when he's 18 and find a way to throw him in with the adults.

Boy B I think will end up in oberstown till he's 18 and be sent off to live in rural ireland or the UK under a new identity.

I think they both my get released when they get to 18........nobody can say for certain if boy B was not directly involved in the horrific crime.....he may well have held Ana down while A played out his sick fantasy or maybe he administered some of the physical brutality also

tayto lover · 23-06-2019 08:21PM

They’ll have plenty of time together inside to examine where they made mistakes and plan better in the future.

SirChenjin · 23-06-2019 08:32PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The outstanding moment of this sad and sorry tragedy were The Kriegel beautiful tribute to their Ana . Their dignity and strength and support for each other was admirable .

“ Speaking outside the court, Ana's father Patric Kriegel said; "Ana was our strength."

Her mother, Geraldine Kreigel added; "Ana was a dream come true for us and she always will be. She will stay in our hearts, forever loved and forever cherished.
"We love you Ana."

Lets remember Ana and her parents and brother and family . They are the important people here .
RIP , Ana .

+1.

mrjoneill · 23-06-2019 08:42PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

Are u really that gullible, Boy B led a naive girl 3km to a remote abandoned house while his friend was arriving from another direction in battle gear. Both had been together minutes before this. Why the remote abandoned house? If it was innocuous why not meet in the park where there were people.Why did Boy B give Boy A tape that was used to strangle Ana? Why did Boy B lie & lie, this going on the other evidence is because he has a lot to cover-up. He led Ana for a sex assault or to be killed. I believe it was the foremost, a sex assault but it was in the knowledge she was to be seriously assaulted. He showed no remorse for it but in fact tried to demean the victim.

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

Comments