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

KathleenGrant · 23-06-2019 08:45PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

This!

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 08:59PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

brooke 2 · 23-06-2019 09:00PM

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.

According to Boy B's father, his son did not respect him and would not open up to him as he was afraid he might start shouting and roaring....so, his loss of control in court would seem to be par for the course for him.

He was such a great father, he did not even go to the door with his wife on the first night, when the gardaí called making inquiries about Ana's disappearance. He just went on his merry way up to bed instead!! :rolleyes:

Also, he failed to accompany his wife to the police station when their son was brought in for questioning. This was not the act of a supportive father and husband. His wife, who obviously believed in her son's innocence, had to sit in the room with him, growing increasingly distressed as the garda expert kept showing up the boy's lies as the day progressed.

There was also no mention of his staying overnight in the police station with his wife and their son. Sounds like a prize father alright who is always present for his family! Not!! But, he sure made his presence felt in the courtroom when he was mortified that 'his innocent son' was found guilty of murder. His anger was as much about his own ego as it was about anything else!! :mad:

pablo128 · 23-06-2019 09:05PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

Well if he knew fcuk all about the plan, why did he stay all the way through a sexual attack and murder, right until after she was dead and her body being dragged around a room, and did nothing?

Gardai landing at his door that evening and not a word, calm as you like.

Lying repeatedly to Gardai in official statements, for what, if he was innocent?

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 09:11PM

pablo128 wrote: »

Well if he knew fcuk all about the plan, why did he stay all the way through a sexual attack and murder, right until after she was dead and her body being dragged around a room, and did nothing?

Gardai landing at his door that evening and not a word, calm as you like.

Lying repeatedly to Gardai in official statements, for what, if he was innocent?

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

brooke 2 · 23-06-2019 09:19PM

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.

I believe the judge had left the court when the father B's ranting took place.

OwlsZat · 23-06-2019 09:19PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

- Openly admired boy As zombie mask
- Supplier his Dads builders tap to boy A to make weapons.
- Confirmed boy A had told him he planned to kill Ana
- Collected Ana from her home and brought her to an abandoned house to meet said person who wanted to kill her
- Watched Ana die didn't intervene
- Didn't tell anyone of Ana's death
- Told countless lies to conceal Ana's death and protect her murderer.

Boy B got exactly what he deserved.

gctest50 · 23-06-2019 09:23PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

- Openly admired boy As zombie mask
- Supplier his Dads builders tap to boy A to make weapons.
- Confirmed boy A had told him he planned to kill Ana
- Collected Ana from her home and brought her to an abandoned house to meet said person who wanted to kill her
- Watched Ana die didn't intervene
- Didn't tell anyone of Ana's death
- Told countless lies to conceal Ana's death and protect her murderer.

...........

That and the missing phones sounds like Boy B had engineered a "snuff film"

And seemed to think he'd never get caught

Monumental · 23-06-2019 09:26PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Remember her. The most sensible post to date.
Remember her. Her beauty. Her youth. Her potential. Remember her.

She will always be remembered,unfortunately as the girl who was murdered in Leixlip by two vile sub humans Very few will remember her face or the absolue agony she must have gone through as she died RIP beautiful girl x

volchitsa · 23-06-2019 09:36PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 23-06-2019 09:46PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

Obviously his previous versions of he statements were lies. He kept getting caught out by cc cameras and witness statements so he eventually admitted:

1) he was there, therefore he brought her there.
2) he saw the assault and heard the screams.

He also gave boy A the duct tape and admitted boy A had previously said that he wanted to kill Anna.

You are the 3rd poster to comment on this without much understanding of what happened. Might be worth reading the Irish times article by Gallagher.

Monumental · 23-06-2019 09:46PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

Ah innocent times for many ! but from the outside looking in ,this murder was planned by both accused ,do you seriously believe he got the tape for a project and it ended up around the poor girls neck No one wants to believe 12 13 or 14 year olds are cabable of such evil but you know what ...they are . RIP Ana

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 09:49PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

This is drawn from the statement of a kid who lied multiple times during that process. In my book if somebody lies once to the gardai, im not taking the rest of their statements without some proof. In this case you have so many users that say "he lied to the gardai about not being there" and at the same time "he told the gardai he was there so was completely guilty"

You can't just use the part of his statements that suit your opinion as the correct ones and the other ones are lies.

The judge warned that jury specifically to only base this on the facts and evidence and not their own theories, judging by this thread with everyone coming up with gloves that 'probably exist' , 'snuff films' , admiring a 'cool mask' (like 13 year old boys like doing) etc... makes him guilty and all sorts of extended theories about what he 'probably' did.

He filed a statement that said he minced round the park and went home
He filed a statement that said he heard a scream and went home
He filed a statement that said he saw Boy A do the whole thing and on top of her raping her but provided no further detail about her state of undress or how exactly he was holding her or anything else at all . Yet statement 3 is definitely his truth and the other two are complete lies because thats how most people wanted it to be.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 23-06-2019 09:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

Actually everything Eric said was wrong. There was witness evidence that he was at the house. He did admit to being there for the “screams”, and admitted he saw the initial attack so how can anybody argue that he must have runaway before hand.

And you can’t lump his statements together. The earlier ones were lies of course.

I haven’t seen what you said about the drawing anywhere. Any link to that?

Adolfpriller · 23-06-2019 09:55PM

Shows how many horrible kids there are these days. They bullied her because she was adopted. How low can one go?

El_Bee · 23-06-2019 09:55PM

Remember that Boy B told a psychologist that he saw Boy A standing over Ana with his trousers opened, that was not admitted as evidence in the trial.

El_Bee · 23-06-2019 09:56PM

Adolfpriller wrote: »

Shows how many horrible kids there are these days. They bullied her because she was adopted. How low can one go?

The kids in my area are.... wild, they're angry, aggressive, they're not happy children, you only hear them laugh when it's at another's expense.

pablo128 · 23-06-2019 09:57PM

El_Bee wrote: »

Remember that Boy B told a psychologist that he saw Boy A standing over Ana with his trousers opened, that was not admitted as evidence in the trial.

Of course it wasn't admitted. It was another clear lie.

Boy A was wearing tracksuit bottoms during the attack.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 23-06-2019 10:00PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is drawn from the statement of a kid who lied multiple times during that process. In my book if somebody lies once to the gardai, im not taking the rest of their statements without some proof. In this case you have so many users that say "he lied to the gardai about not being there" and at the same time "he told the gardai he was there so was completely guilty"

That’s not the way it works. The original statements are found out to be lies.

You can't just use the part of his statements that suit your opinion as the correct ones and the other ones are lies.

This is ludicrous. Are you saying that if a prisoner lies about robbing a bank in his first interview, but other evidence shows he isn’t where he says he was and he admits it later on we take each interview as equal. Of course not. When someone eventually admits to something that’s what’s taken as the truth.

The judge warned that jury specifically to only base this on the facts and evidence and not their own theories, judging by this thread with everyone coming up with gloves that 'probably exist' , 'snuff films' , admiring a 'cool mask' (like 13 year old boys like doing) etc... makes him guilty and all sorts of extended theories about what he 'probably' did.

People here are not the jury.

He filed a statement that said he minced round the park and went home

A lie.

He filed a statement that said he heard a scream and went home

Closer to the truth. He changed his story because of cc tv and witness evidence.

He filed a statement that said he saw Boy A do the whole thing and on top of her raping her but provided no further detail about her state of undress or how exactly he was holding her or anything else at all . Yet statement 3 is definitely his truth and the other two are complete lies because thats how most people wanted it to be.

Of course that’s even closer to the truth because he is incriminating himself. If your logic worked no confession would ever be valid provided the perp has lied beforehand.

You are the third person who has come into this thread ranting that boy b probably didn’t do it, and each time the arguments are getting worse. At least the others knew the evidence.

Suckit · 23-06-2019 10:03PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is drawn from the statement of a kid who lied multiple times during that process. In my book if somebody lies once to the gardai, im not taking the rest of their statements without some proof. In this case you have so many users that say "he lied to the gardai about not being there" and at the same time "he told the gardai he was there so was completely guilty"

You can't just use the part of his statements that suit your opinion as the correct ones and the other ones are lies.

The judge warned that jury specifically to only base this on the facts and evidence and not their own theories, judging by this thread with everyone coming up with gloves that 'probably exist' , 'snuff films' , admiring a 'cool mask' (like 13 year old boys like doing) etc... makes him guilty and all sorts of extended theories about what he 'probably' did.

He filed a statement that said he minced round the park and went home
He filed a statement that said he heard a scream and went home
He filed a statement that said he saw Boy A do the whole thing and on top of her raping her but provided no further detail about her state of undress or how exactly he was holding her or anything else at all . Yet statement 3 is definitely his truth and the other two are complete lies because thats how most people wanted it to be.

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

pablo128 · 23-06-2019 10:11PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s not the way it works. The original statements are found out to be lies.

This is ludicrous. Are you saying that if a prisoner lies about robbing a bank in his first interview, but other evidence shows he isn’t where he says he was and he admits it later on we take each interview as equal. Of course not. When someone eventually admits to something that’s what’s taken as the truth.

People here are not the jury.

A lie.

Closer to the truth. He changed his story because of cc tv and witness evidence.

Of course that’s even closer to the truth because he is incriminating himself. If your logic worked no confession would ever be valid provided the perp has lied beforehand.

You are the third person who has come into this thread ranting that boy b probably didn’t do it, and each time the arguments are getting worse. At least the others knew the evidence.

This one says he's a local. I'll bet if boy A and boy B were from Darndale he would have no problem in believing they were guilty of murder.

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 10:12PM

Suckit wrote: »

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

ok but what witness footage or cctv has him in the house at the time , surely that footage would have put a dead end to this of showing them all entering the house at the same time or the two boys leaving at the same time ?

if its witness evidence, how close were they , did they not hear the screams, what did they see ?

volchitsa · 23-06-2019 10:15PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is drawn from the statement of a kid who lied multiple times during that process. In my book if somebody lies once to the gardai, im not taking the rest of their statements without some proof. In this case you have so many users that say "he lied to the gardai about not being there" and at the same time "he told the gardai he was there so was completely guilty"

You can't just use the part of his statements that suit your opinion as the correct ones and the other ones are lies.

I'm wondering what it is that you don't understand here : it's not about his statement, it's the fact that his drawing betrayed that he knew more about her death than he was admitting to. It's a version of the old trick of asking an under age kid their date of birth instead of their age - much harder not to trip up on that because they haven't usually thought it all through that well.

It would be some coincidence if he drew where her body was found when he didn't already know that. Because it's not the room where she was killed, so at the very least he went back after her death to see the results of what his friend had done.

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 10:15PM

pablo128 wrote: »

This one says he's a local. I'll bet if boy A and boy B were from Darndale he would have no problem in believing they were guilty of murder.

Nobody is in any way doubting what boy A did, not for one second no matter where they are from.

Im merely asking for clarifications in the case of boy B and seeing what im missing , so far getting a lot of theories.

by the same logic of your darndale comment, I should probably be gunning for this lad to be convicted too. :rolleyes: leixlip also has 'low income families' and tracksuit clad scobes too.

SirChenjin · 23-06-2019 10:17PM

From the Times article that has been linked a number of times on the thread...

'We can say a lot more about Ana Kriégel. Her mother said she was a girl who loved to dance. She was part of the Leixlip-based troupe Dance LA, whose members, decked in red headscarves and silver sequins, formed a guard of honour at her funeral. Ana “spent hours in our front room, listening to music, practising her moves”, her mother said.

We can say Ana was a great singer and wanted to learn how to play guitar. We can say her Siberian strength and height made her an incredible swimmer. We can say she loved to volunteer for things and, shortly before her death, agreed to model in a fashion show organised by older classmates to raise money for charity.

Ana never lost touch with her Russian roots. A Russian flag and a matryoshka doll were placed on her coffin. Geraldine and Patric had announced their adoption of Ana in 2006 by handing their friends a similar doll containing her picture.

We can say she also loved her holidays to France, symbolised by the presence of a miniature Eiffel Tower on her coffin.

And we can say Ana loved her family dearly and was loved dearly in return. We can say she was someone who, as her funeral heard, was never happier than when she was curled up with her mother on a Sunday, “watching some beautiful fairy-tale-princess movie while munching her favourite food, popcorn”.'

RIP Ana.

Suckit · 23-06-2019 10:17PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok but what witness footage or cctv has him in the house at the time , surely that footage would have put a dead end to this of showing them all entering the house at the same time or the two boys leaving at the same time ?

if its witness evidence, how close were they , did they not hear the screams, what did they see ?

Who said there was footage of him in the house at the time?

Where was that written, I would be interested in that also.

Eric Cartman · 23-06-2019 10:19PM

Suckit wrote: »

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

^^^ here , how can his statements about being in the house / not being in the house be proven or disproven if this cctv or witness doesnt exist.

pablo128 · 23-06-2019 10:19PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nobody is in any way doubting what boy A did, not for one second no matter where they are from.

Im merely asking for clarifications in the case of boy B and seeing what im missing , so far getting a lot of theories.

by the same logic of your darndale comment, I should probably be gunning for this lad to be convicted too. :rolleyes: leixlip also has 'low income families' and tracksuit clad scobes too.

You can gun all you like. He has already been convicted. Of murder.

AngeloArgue · 23-06-2019 10:20PM

Suckit wrote: »

The only thing he admits he picked up was a white plank, presumably without gloves.

That is very telling.

Just as he was being called out for his lies by the CCTV footage. He offers that at some earlier date he picked up the murder weapon but immediately put it back down. This sounds like believed that forensics would show that he had handled it.

Suckit · 23-06-2019 10:20PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

^^^ here , how can his statements about being in the house / not being in the house be proven or disproven if this cctv or witness doesnt exist.

^^^here what?

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

Comments