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

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 10:28AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

To deliberately with malice deliver the victim into the hands of the murderer in full knowledge of what was going to happen to her is a crime. It’s murder. That’s why he was found guilty.

Boom_Bap · 24-06-2019 10:29AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know the answers to any of that. Regardless its all circumstantial. It's highly probable that he did it but I was under the impression that with such serous crimes highly probable isn't good enough to convict.

We are not privy to all the evidence, testimony, court transcripts and interviews. The information there could turn the 'probable' into a 'definite'.

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 10:30AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

You don’t know anything really about the case, but you’ve decided that the jury are wrong?!?

Suckit · 24-06-2019 11:13AM

Caledonia wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely agree. I think the jury ****ed that up. Surely there is reasonable doubt. They filled in the gaps themselves.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think he thought was planned? To go an beat her or rape her? Because they both lead to the same result, which was murder.

If you believe that he thought nothing was going to happen, and he just thought that he was bringing her to an abandoned house so that Boy A could tell her he wasn't interested in her romantically, then you are both incredibly naive.

Edit - just seeing the above posts now, but my question still stands.

24-06-2019 11:14AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Can you go and read up on the case first and then come back to us?

Does this cover it well enough

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570?mode=amp&mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcriminal-court%2Fana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

Eric Cartman · 24-06-2019 11:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

24-06-2019 11:17AM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

We are not privy to all the evidence, testimony, court transcripts and interviews. The information there could turn the 'probable' into a 'definite'.

Absolutely. Seems to be the case. I'm not convinced of definite from reading that Irish Times article.

Suckit · 24-06-2019 11:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Seems to be the case. I'm not convinced of definite from reading that Irish Times article.

Well then read more, because that Irish Times article, despite what the headline says, does definitely not cover the complete story, and leaves quite a large amount out that was in the media. Even with that, it wouldn't be the full story.

But I don't understand why you are even posting if you have read the bare minimum.

gimli2112 · 24-06-2019 11:23AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. The fact they were able to place him at the scene, his involvement and he lied throughout were enough to convict beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
There's always room for debate but I think the overwhelming majority see it as justice being done.

24-06-2019 11:23AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not defending these boys actions in any way shape or form. I'm trying to understand how the jury came to a unanimous decision on B.

Suckit · 24-06-2019 11:30AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

Well if you weren't purposely misquoting last night, then you were reading everything very poorly. And going by the way that you interpreted some posts last night, it doesn't surprise me that you don't see the evidence that we are privy to, in the same light as roughly 95% of anyone else that read it.

iamwhoiam · 24-06-2019 11:30AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not defending these boys actions in any way shape or form. I'm trying to understand how the jury came to a unanimous decision on B.

Try these to read up on a journalists report

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-the-five-things-that-convicted-boys-a-and-b-of-murder-1.3932346%3fmode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570%3fmode=amp

mrjoneill · 24-06-2019 01:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

The chances of him winning on that point is practically nil. The Appeal Court Judges have no way of second guessing the jury on determining the fact. His only avenue for appeal would be on law or the trial judge charging the jury. From what I read of the charging it was textbook stuff that all law students could learn from on intention and what constitutes murder indirectly.

Dontfadeaway · 24-06-2019 01:03PM

Suckit wrote: »

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.

I think that was already in the house?

Hannibal_Smith · 24-06-2019 01:07PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

To be fair, I wondered about Boy B too. And at the end of the day, no one can know what his intentions were for sure and no one can know what the plan was for sure.

But Boy B knew that Boy A didn't like Ana. So why would he want to meet her in an abandoned house? He had to have been in on it.

There had to have been a discussion about what was going to happen after. If it was all innocent and Boy B did nothing, why not just tell the truth from the start? The parents thought Boy A was attacked in the park. So when did the boys agree to say nothing to nobody?

There must have been something somewhere which convinced the jury it was more than circumstantial.

There's a good Irish Times article setting out the 5 steps leading to the conviction. It's an interesting read.

Larsso30 · 24-06-2019 01:09PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That makes Thompson the cold psychopath . Also the first child porn conviction looked to me like an attempt to go back to prison.venebales essentially handed the computer to the cops.

Can't say I agree with either of that.

Could also show Thompson was capable of being rehabilitated, he was young enough to be imo

El_Bee · 24-06-2019 01:09PM

274 pages and people are still confused as to why an accessory is tried as a principal? Took me 15 seconds on google.

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").

mrjoneill · 24-06-2019 01:29PM

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

Boy B was questioned what was in the rucksack and he stated it was his water bottle. Yet he claimed on the way home from the murder he went to the Park Rangers cabin to its tap to get a drink of water. I'm sure this was confirmed by CCTV. Seems strange for both.

Strazdas · 24-06-2019 01:36PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

To be fair, I wondered about Boy B too. And at the end of the day, no one can know what his intentions were for sure and no one can know what the plan was for sure.

But Boy B knew that Boy A didn't like Ana. So why would he want to meet her in an abandoned house? He had to have been in on it.

There had to have been a discussion about what was going to happen after. If it was all innocent and Boy B did nothing, why not just tell the truth from the start? The parents thought Boy A was attacked in the park. So when did the boys agree to say nothing to nobody?

There must have been something somewhere which convinced the jury it was more than circumstantial.

There's a good Irish Times article setting out the 5 steps leading to the conviction. It's an interesting read.

Also, Boy B didn't like Ana himself, never mind A. He described her as a weirdo, somebody he wouldn't want to hang around with and 'not a friend'.

So you have two people who don't like Ana one bit luring her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere.

mrjoneill · 24-06-2019 01:37PM

gozunda wrote: »

And that's the crux of the matter highlighted.

In the UK the government is implementing restricted age related access to such sites.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/16/uk-online-porn-age-verification-launch

How that will work remains to be seen. That said there are possible technical solutions to this issue. It may not stop access to all pornography by children and teenagers but it will certainly make it more difficult...

What I understand age verification is being done on credit cards. I believe kids r stealing their parents credit cards to get a verification number and they get around it. Also anonymous credit cards can be got by depositing monies in them which will get through the verification system. Once a kid has porn downloaded its available for all their friends. Unfortunately there is not an easy solution. It was reported on RTE recently the SOR program primary school kids sharing porn & charging €2 to kids without smartphones to view.

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 01:39PM

Boy B had to know because Boy A could not have known that Boy B would automatically attempt to cover up and lie for him.

For all Boy A knew, once Boy B saw what Boy A was doing he could run home to his parents and tell them everything!

Put yourself in Boy A's shoes and pretend he was acting alone.

- You get an unsuspecting, innocent boy to bring Ana to you so you could attack her
- Boy A was clever enough to get another boy to bring Ana so not to be seen. Why couldn't Boy A have gone to Ana herself and told her he wanted to kiss her in the house and then attack her?
- Why risk having an innocent boy there, to see what could happen? He would be caught red handed.
- Even if Boy B had left immediately and didn't even see/hear anything, Boy A would surely believe that Boy B would say that he left Ana with Boy A in the house once Ana became a missing person/was found in the house.

Random sample · 24-06-2019 01:50PM

A lot of posts on this thread sound like ‘things boy b could have done differently to get away with murder’. It’s an unusual take on the story.

RIP Ana. I think the jury have made the correct decision.

splinter65 · 24-06-2019 01:51PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

But you weren’t in court. You didn’t see or hear all the evidence. The jury did. And they found him guilty unanimously. So, no offense, but how can you think that you know more then them??

24-06-2019 01:56PM

People keep saying Boy B would have walked if he kept his mouth shut. Thank heavens he didn't.

I suspect his brief told him he was better off saying nothing, but that the parent who sat beside him throughout urged him to tell the truth. I know I would if I was in that position. This could be why he drip fed the story, making his parent believe his involvement was incidental but having to elaborate on his story as the inconsistencies were brought up. I can think of no other reason why he talked at all, or kept adding and embroidering his story. Boy A was told to say nothing in his defence, which we know is because he had no defence. Boy B thought he did, or that he could convince people he did.

I think people are being hard on the parents. I'm sure no parent thinks their kid might be a savage murderer and it's understandable that they could be totally in denial about it. The fact it was Boy Bs mother who was consistently by his side in the interviews might be because his dad was completely disengaged from the possibilty of his guilt. Not fair or clever or even decent, but it's human. They're in a sickeningly stressful situation with all kinds of horror and shame in the mix and we have no clue if they are in any way culpable. Good people can have bad kids like bad people can have good kids, and people have outbursts when under awful stress. We simply don't know what, if any, role their upbringings played in how they turned out.

None of that compares to poor Anas family and what they have endured, are enduring, and will endure forever. Nobody's pain or stress can compare with that, it's a nightmare they can never wake from and I admire their dignity and discretion in the face of so much horror. I can't even imagine their heartbreak. They, and poor lonely, innocent Ana, are the primary victims of those evil boys. The boys own families are the secondary victims, and their lives will never be the same again. It doesn't compare to even a tiny fraction of Ana's families suffering, but its still true.

I hope they're never released, but they will be. With that in mind their identities should be revealed when they reach adulthood so that no innocent person finds themselves unwittingly in their orbit.

tayto lover · 24-06-2019 01:58PM

Boy A told Boy B on a number of occasions that he wanted to kill Ana.
Neither boy liked Ana.
( everyone is agreed on that)

Boy A asks Boy B to fetch Ana and take her 3 km to a secluded abandoned house.
Boy B has two choices (a) Refuse to do it or (b) go and fetch her.
Boy B chooses to go and fetch Ana and take her to the boy who wants to kill her.

Boy B watches on as Boy A assaults and sexually assaults Ana. He then says he left.
Boy B draws map of room where Ana’s body was found later in the exact position it was found, the body having being moved after Boy B says he had left the area.
The tape Boy B gave to Boy A being around her neck.
Boy B changes his story 9 times during interviews.

The jury found both guilty. Rightly so.

Suckit · 24-06-2019 01:58PM

Yes, apart from anything else, Boy B stated that he felt ashamed he didn't help Ana there and then, and ran off.
So why when the Gardaí called to his house when she was missing, did he not tell them then what he knew?
Why not tell them the day after that?
Why did he keep lying about it?

They are intelligent 13 year olds, not criminal masterminds (yet).

SirGerryAdams · 24-06-2019 02:00PM

Candie wrote: »

People keep saying Boy B would have walked if he kept his mouth shut. Thank heavens he didn't.

I suspect his brief told him he was better off saying nothing, but that the parent who sat beside him throughout urged him to tell the truth. I know I would if I was in that position. This could be why he drip fed the story, making his parent believe his involvement was incidental but having to elaborate on his story as the inconsistencies were brought up. I can think of no other reason why he talked at all, or kept adding and embroidering his story. Boy A was told to say nothing in his defence, which we know is because he had no defence. Boy B thought he did, or that he could convince people he did.

I think people are being hard on the parents. I'm sure no parent thinks their kid might be a savage murderer and it's understandable that they could be totally in denial about it. The fact it was Boy Bs mother who was consistently by his side in the interviews might be because his dad was completely disengaged from the possibilty of his guilt. Not fair or clever or even decent, but it's human. They're in a sickeningly stressful situation with all kinds of horror and shame in the mix and we have no clue if they are in any way culpable. Good people can have bad kids like bad people can have good kids, and people have outbursts when under awful stress. We simply don't know what, if any, role their upbringings played in how they turned out.

None of that compares to poor Anas family and what they have endured, are enduring, and will endure forever. Nobody's pain or stress can compare with that, it's a nightmare they can never wake from and I admire their dignity and discretion in the face of so much horror. I can't even imagine their heartbreak. They, and poor lonely, innocent Ana, are the primary victims of those evil boys. The boys own families are the secondary victims, and their lives will never be the same again. It doesn't compare to even a tiny fraction of Ana's families suffering, but its still true.

I hope they're never released, but they will be. With that in mind their identities should be revealed when they reach adulthood so that no innocent person finds themselves unwittingly in their orbit.

Actually Boy A should have been told to tell the truth by his parents....

But...there are reasons why Boy A would refuse to answer if you had further info, which may be construed as "identifying" information.

I believe Boy A was told by someone not to answer questions, when he should have been told to tell the truth.

Hannibal_Smith · 24-06-2019 02:01PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Also, Boy B didn't like Ana himself, never mind A. He described her as a weirdo, somebody he wouldn't want to hang around with and 'not a friend'.

So you have two people who don't like Ana one bit luring her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere.

True. He referred to her as slutty in the police interviews, didn't he .

So, if he didn't think anything harmful was going to happen, why take a girl he didn't like to an abandoned house 3k from her house to a boy who didn't like her either?

Random sample · 24-06-2019 02:03PM

Is there a thing in Irish law about a solicitor not being able to defend you if you plead innocent but they know you are guilty?

Most 13 year old boys would be a lot more afraid of their mums reaction than anything the Gardai could throw at them. I could see that as a reason for boy b to keep talking.

24-06-2019 02:05PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Actually Boy A should have been told to tell the truth by his parents....

But...there are reasons why Boy A would refuse to answer if you had further info, which may be construed as "identifying" information.

I believe Boy A was told by someone not to answer questions, when he should have been told to tell the truth.

I believe both of their barristers would have told them the best route for them would be no comment.

Obviously Boy B either thought he was clever enough to outsmart them or he was urged to come clean by his parent(s), which would also explain his drip feeding of admissions as he was tripped up again and again by the police.

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

Comments