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

mrjoneill · 23-06-2019 11:42PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

If you believe he wasn't there and left then why didn't he mention Boy A on the evening Ana disappeared? Only the next day did he mention Boy A.

His lies began right away when he said he last saw her in the park...when CCTV captured them walking to the house.

Also if a 13 year old didn't know anything bad happened to her, you'd think he'd be shocked and shaken by what happened. Instead, he was cool and calm all along!

Put yourself in a 13 year old body of an innocent boy. So you bring a girl to kiss another boy and you leave. That evening it turns out the girl is missing. Guards come and ask where you last saw her.

Does an innocent boy immediately lie? Why would you lie?

Boy B stated he was bringing Ana to the remote house so Boy A could tell her he didn't want a relationship with her. I would believe Ana was going there believing or led to believe he did, why else would she go there. Its just too far fetched that Boy B innocently believed he was the intermediate for Boy A to tell her he didn't want a relationship. It just doesn't add up. Only reason a person lies is they want to cover over the truth.

mrjoneill · 23-06-2019 11:55PM

Suckit wrote: »

From here

There are so many contradictions in both of their stories it's ridiculous.

I wonder how detailed the Garda search of the house was. I would have searched everywhere in Boy B's house (and Boy A) for a phone hidden somewhere.

Obviously no evidence of them having been in contact with one another after she was murdered, but the next morning when the Gardaí noticed 'the look' both Boy A and Boy B had the story that Boy A had been attacked by two men, I didn't see how Boy B had heard that.

Out of curiosity, was Ana's phone recovered?

Ana phone was found smashed in the room she was murdered in, and Gardai were able to recover data from it. While no smartphone could be found for Boy B it must be realized that one doesn't need a smartphone to run android applications. There is a MS Windows software to stimulate the android operating system. Just cant see Boy B without some platform to use apps as that's how all young people interact. Yet we don't have any evidence from his friends or Boy A that he was using them. Also there was no evidence from Boy A apps other than his browser activity.

spurious · 23-06-2019 11:57PM

pablo128 wrote: »

You're coming across as extremely desperate to prove this fella is innocent. It means nothing. 12 grown adults on a jury have found him guilty of murder.

You are wasting your time.

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

MadYaker · 24-06-2019 12:01AM

It’s a pointless debate as none of you have seen the evidence so how can you say it should or shouldn’t be what it is. I’ve done jury duty, the jury will have seen more evidence than was reported in the press.

Rubberchikken · 24-06-2019 12:11AM

three families are destroyed with this.
baying for blood, name calling etc wont change anything.

i will argue that its unfair and unjust on animals to compare these bots to animals.
animals do not treat each other like that. animals do not kill just because...

these boys are seriously unwell and deserve to be removed from society for the length of time allowed by law.
they need to be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated. after that if competent professionals deem them safe then they should be released after doing their sentences.

bellowing on about hanging etc is ignorant mob mentality behaviour and justifies the necessity for anonymity.

Suckit · 24-06-2019 12:17AM

MadYaker wrote: »

It’s a pointless debate as none of you have seen the evidence so how can you say it should or shouldn’t be what it is. I’ve done jury duty, the jury will have seen more evidence than was reported in the press.

And there is a lot in the papers, if you read many of the stories.
Up to the point where the two boys took a different turn and then 'shared a look', I don't think the Gardaí had really thought either of them had done anything. But once they saw that, everything changed. They separated the boys and from then on took statements and were looking at the boys as having some part of her disappearance.
The evidence that I have read in many different papers against Boy B is enough to find him guilty of conspiracy to murder imho, and obviously he was there when much of her beating took place (by his own words).

I think Boy B is lucky in the sense that he may get a lesser sentence for lack of hard evidence.

I personally believe that Boy B may have had a physical hand in it too but, obviously I have not seen the rest of the evidence, and more importantly, nobody has seen any evidence of Boy B having been physical toward her.

I don't believe anyone would run away like he claims he did, if they saw a friend doing that. He would have known the two of them could have stopped him. Again, that is just my opinion.

The evidence, witness statements and CCTV footage times against Boy B puts him coming back from the house after the murder had been committed. Personally, I think it's very strong evidence against him, and again, I think he might get off very lightly with the sentencing as a result of the lack of physical evidence.

Facts.
He was aware that Boy A wanted to murder her - as had been said to him more than once over a year.
He called in to Ana to walk 3km with her to meet Boy B after knowing the above.
He owned the tape that was found wrapped around her neck.
He only changed his story each time he was caught, and the reason for his change sound coached by Solicitor.
He admitted being in the house and watching Boy A beat her, unclothe her and attempt to rape her.
He called a weirdo, slutty and somebody he knows he didn't want to be around.
When they called to his house on the night she was missing, according to his statement(s) he had last seen her in the house being attacked and felt ashamed of himself because he hadn't helped her. Why not tell them then?
A number of child witnesses gave evidence via video link during the trial.
One boy claimed Boy B confided in him about what happened to Ana.

And there is more..

take everything · 24-06-2019 12:26AM

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 the accused

Also apart from the fact that he supplied the tape that was used to strangle her.
And after eventually admitting to witnessing the assault (as per the scenario in the other weirdo's videos) after repeatedly lying. And then lying about it afterwards for days knowing a girl was killed.
Apart from what the jury observed from his demeanour in interviews. Cool as a cucumber.
Apart from him "not owning a phone", bull**** piled upon bull**** facilitated by a dad who goes to bed when cops call to the door to question his son.

Afraid boy A would beat him up? PTSD? My arse. The jury didn't think so watching the interviews.

Dontfadeaway · 24-06-2019 12:40AM

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

take everything · 24-06-2019 12:41AM

Suckit wrote: »

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?
I can't see what other purpose there could be.

Children the same age and wondered.....? Nope.

Well one obvious reason would be so your daughter doesn't end up married to them I would imagine.

There are genuine issues with people possibly interacting with them in the future oblivious to their dangerous nature. I think it's unfair that society isn't protected from that.

Suckit · 24-06-2019 12:45AM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

I believe they did have at least one weapon. A long pole with nails in the end of it.
But it is possible that one had planned to Rape her, and Ana fought back.

Which then became murder, and leaves them in the same situation they are in now.

Effects · 24-06-2019 12:54AM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

One theory is that they were going to video it and didn't want to have the face visible.

mrjoneill · 24-06-2019 01:19AM

spurious wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

Where conspiracy is used its used in conjunction with the major charge in this case that of murder and sexual assault. It takes 2 or more to conspire. Boy A was not charged with simple assault. As for as I can see Boy B could be charged with sexual assault as he instigated it by bringing Ana to where it was done. Its not necessary to do the actual sexual element in it. If Boy B knowingly led Ana to her doom or serious sexual assault which appears it is then he got the right law applied and judgement. Boy B has played on everyone weaknesses and he has failed, time he took responsibility for his own actions. Time also he apologized for what he did.

mrjoneill · 24-06-2019 02:07AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There was no mention of where the body was found until the court case. As far as I know.

I’m not 100% sure about the drawing though. Never heard that one.

Wrong Boy B sketched where Ana's body was found in the room when he s found out. I would believe this was done by Gardai in case he did another belly flop. The location was actually where Ana's body was found. Gardai and forensics do not believe this is where she died from the blood spatter/blood and the dust/rubbish in the room. They believe Ana was dragged dead by the noose around her neck away from near the doorway to the back of the room. This could be very well for concealment.

Strazdas · 24-06-2019 03:35AM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

I would imagine B told Ana he was bringing her to meet A - she doesn't seem to have been interested in A in any way. A and B seem to have been aware that Ana may have fancied A and probably used this as a means of luring her to the abandoned house.

It looks like a definite set up - lure her to a deserted location on false pretences and then do something horrible to her (which was pre-planned by the two of them).

Ash.J.Williams · 24-06-2019 03:47AM

spurious wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

We're repeating ourselves now

Ash.J.Williams · 24-06-2019 04:00AM

Ana's injuries
https://www.thejournal.ie/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-day-8-4626078-May2019/

Defence teams are only doing their job but when Cassidy was detailing the pubic injuries he asked "could that injury have been consensual?"

Road-Hog · 24-06-2019 05:53AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Ana's injuries
https://www.thejournal.ie/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-day-8-4626078-May2019/

Defence teams are only doing their job but when Cassidy was detailing the pubic injuries he asked "could that injury have been consensual?"

Even to suggest that such an injury could have been consensual given the violent nature of the description of all the other brutal injuiries is an absurd query and about as insensitive as you could get and ‘rubbing salt into the wounds’ of the poor girls parents........utterly warped thing to put on record.....it was also used in the closing arguments according to the Irish times...... oh but of course they are ‘only doing their job’.......they should take a good look at themselves But their arrogance obviosly doesn’t allow.......same with the Swiss girl in Galway as I said previously.....it was ‘postulated’ by the defense that the sexual element of her attack could have been consensual....ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡

8-10 · 24-06-2019 06:08AM

Suckit wrote: »

I think Boy B is lucky in the sense that he may get a lesser sentence for lack of hard evidence.

The evidence, witness statements and CCTV footage times against Boy B puts him coming back from the house after the murder had been committed. Personally, I think it's very strong evidence against him, and again, I think he might get off very lightly with the sentencing as a result of the lack of physical evidence.

Someone with more expertise might be able to correct me but I don't believe the judge can make sentencing decisions on the basis of the evidence that led to the conviction and his or her interpretation to his strong that evidence was?

He can use past behaviours, showing of remorse, admission of guilt, mitigating factors in his life (upbringing, mental health, under duress from another etc) as well as circumstances of the crime and his level of involvement

But I don't think he could say that he was convicted despite lack of physical evidence so he gets a lesser sentence

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 07:04AM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Even to suggest that such an injury could have been consensual given the violent nature of the description of all the other brutal injuiries is an absurd query and about as insensitive as you could get and ‘rubbing salt into the wounds’ of the poor girls parents........utterly warped thing to put on record.....it was also used in the closing arguments according to the Irish times...... oh but of course they are ‘only doing their job’.......they should take a good look at themselves But their arrogance obviosly doesn’t allow.......same with the Swiss girl in Galway as I said previously.....it was ‘postulated’ by the defense that the sexual element of her attack could have been consensual....ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡ðŸ˜¡

It’s part of the process of ensuring that the eventual conviction is “safe”.
If these two boys were to be seen to have a fair trial then their defense team cannot shirk away from presenting every theory imaginable as a counter argument to the prosecution.
Look at it this way, some people sitting around this weekend may suggest that Ana was “up” for sexual intimacy with boy a, but now it’s been established that she wasn’t, the jury didn’t believe she was, end of discussion.

iamwhoiam · 24-06-2019 07:09AM

Boy B had a rucksack on him when he met Ana . So do we know what was in it ? Maybe he was far far cleverer than A and got rid of the contents before going home . Its a big park , full of bushes and trees and a deep river flowing through it . His DNA was not found in the house anywhere ? I wonder why not

sbsquarepants · 24-06-2019 07:18AM

take everything wrote: »

Well one obvious reason would be so your daughter doesn't end up married to them I would imagine.

There are genuine issues with people possibly interacting with them in the future oblivious to their dangerous nature. I think it's unfair that society isn't protected from that.

This 100%

These scumbags, kids or not, have forgone their rights (certainly should have anyway) The rights of other people to avoid them upon release should be paramount now. (This release should also just never happen in my opinion, but probably will in time for their 21st)

In a nutshell - fúck them and what's best for them, they've made their beds.

Caledonia · 24-06-2019 07:33AM

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

tuxy · 24-06-2019 07:34AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Boy B had a rucksack on him when he met Ana . So do we know what was in it ? Maybe he was far far cleverer than A and got rid of the contents before going home . Its a big park , full of bushes and trees and a deep river flowing through it . His DNA was not found in the house anywhere ? I wonder why not

I don't think they spend months analysing every single item in the house.
Boy B eventually admitted to being there when the attack happened, his DNA was not on Ana's body or items used in the attack so further investigation into DNA would have been a waste of time and resources.

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 07:37AM

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

One of Boy Bs lies was that he went into the house looking around while Ana and Boy A were outside and he picked up a stick (believed to be the same as the murder weapon, so maybe he thought his prints would be on it).

But it's believe Boy A was in the room waiting for the two of them to come in and attacked her right away when she entered.

So I wonder is it a possibility Boy A and Boy B had gone to the house at an earlier stage and had known what weapons were there and what they could use. Maybe Boy B picked up that stick and put it in the room in advance.

pablo128 · 24-06-2019 07:40AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

One of Boy Bs lies was that he went into the house looking around while Ana and Boy A were outside and he picked up a stick (believed to be the same as the murder weapon, so maybe he thought his prints would be on it).

But it's believe Boy A was in the room waiting for the two of them to come in and attacked her right away when she entered.

So I wonder is it a possibility Boy A and Boy B had gone to the house at an earlier stage and had known what weapons were there and what they could use. Maybe Boy B picked up that stick and put it in the room in advance.

Or picked it up while Ana was getting the better of boy A in a struggle and gave her a few belts. Remember she gave boy A a good go, causing limping and bruising on his back.

Beechwoodspark · 24-06-2019 07:45AM

Just on 1 issue -

Boy B rucksack - where did that go? What was in it?

Was he asked to account for it

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 07:53AM

pablo128 wrote: »

Or picked it up while Ana was getting the better of boy A in a struggle and gave her a few belts. Remember she gave boy A a good go, causing limping and bruising on his back.

I hadn't thought of that possibility.

I struggle to see how someone could fight back so strongly after getting hit in the head with a weapon like that.

Could they have checked the weapon for prints?

It just doesn't make sense - the injuries to Boy A, the tape.

When did he get the injuries - if he attacked her with the weapon when she went into the room how would she be able to fight back so strongly? The weapon was a plank with nails on either end.

When did he put the tape on her? If he had her on the ground, battered and weak why the need for the tape?

dudara · 24-06-2019 07:58AM

SirGerryAdams - you’ve repeated these questions several times at this stage. It’s getting a bit repetitive.

dudara

Road-Hog · 24-06-2019 08:10AM

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s part of the process of ensuring that the eventual conviction is “safe”.
If these two boys were to be seen to have a fair trial then their defense team cannot shirk away from presenting every theory imaginable as a counter argument to the prosecution.
Look at it this way, some people sitting around this weekend may suggest that Ana was “up” for sexual intimacy awith boy a, but now it’s been established that she wasn’t, the jury didn’t believe she was, end of discussion.

You must be a barrister I take it. Still utterly way over the top hypothesis to present give the depravity of the attack......these guys have no filter.......!

gozunda · 24-06-2019 08:12AM

To change the topic somewhat - one notable aspect of the case was the large amount of pornography that was found in boy A's procession. And by this I mean not just old style big boobs 'pornography' but violent and sadistic images and videos.

It is evident from the evidence which was presented in court that at least some of Boy A's sick and twisted behaviour appears to have been 'inspired' (for want of a better word) by some of this type of violent and sadistic imagery.

Imo in the minds of young and impressionable teenagers and children easy access to violent and sadistic pornography actually normalizes this type of behaviour. On line children see adults engaged in it - it's freely available and it becomes part of their learning about the world. Unfortunately it is learning that no one would want for their children imo.

Reading an article recently that in Hasidic Jewish communities, it detailed how minors are allowed zero or very limited access to the Internet with one of the the principle concerns us exposure to pornography.

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed? Yes there will always be some pornography which filters through but for the majority of children such ease of access to such material cannot be healthy.

There are many things which we restrict in the case of children and teenagers - such as driving and drinking on the basis that they lack the maturity to do so.

Parents of course can be the gate keepers for allowing appropriate internet access - the fact is many parents don't bother or do not have the skills to do so.

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

Comments