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

ziedth wrote: »

I think a worrying part of this (and something I personally never even realised) us how widely reported it has been the Boy B essentially would have walked (or at least been charged with a lesser crime) if he had just kept his mouth shut from Day 1.

I read a very detailed article about the garda interview methods etc and how damning it was that he kept changing his story

Makes me wonder when the next murder comes are they going to try this tactic and take something like a tactic of "No, I refuse to answer, you prove I was involved anything from now will be answered no comment"

Luckily, Boy B went to pieces fairly rapidly in the interrogation process and told the Gards what they wanted to hear, and I expect that most 13 year old boys from a comfortable suburban background would do the same, being unused as they are to undergoing police interrogation.

But I'm not sure how clear it is that Boy B would have walked or escaped a heavy sentence if he'd clammed up. Since the Gards knew he was involved with bringing Ana to Boy A, I'd imagine they'd have put him under much greater scrutiny via forensics, i.e. footprints, fingerprints, dna, hairs, clothing fibres etc. There are three choices for a defendant in a case such as this, cooperate, clam up, or lie, in order of least risky to riskiest. Boy B chose 3, and got the worst of both worlds out of it. Not that anyone's particularly sorry for him about that.

In any case, Boy B was f***ed by the time he was arrested. Even if he had gotten off the charge, how's he going to go back to normal life in Lucan where he'd still be heavily suspected to have been involved? How would he face his friends, his teachers, Ana's parents and all those about town whispering? He and his family would have had to move away at the very least, and no matter where he went, he would still have had to deal with the trauma of what happened and the guilt of his involvement.

briany wrote: »

Luckily, Boy B went to pieces fairly rapidly in the interrogation process and told the Gards what they wanted to hear, and I expect that most 13 year old boys from a comfortable suburban background would do the same, being unused as they are to undergoing police interrogation.

But I'm not sure how clear it is that Boy B would have walked or escaped a heavy sentence if he'd clammed up. Since the Gards knew he was involved with bringing Ana to Boy A, I'd imagine they'd have put him under much greater scrutiny via forensics, i.e. footprints, fingerprints, dna, hairs, clothing fibres etc. There are three choices for a defendant in a case such as this, cooperate, clam up, or lie, in order of least risky to riskiest. Boy B chose 3, and got the worst of both worlds out of it. Not that anyone's particularly sorry for him about that.

In any case, Boy B was f***ed by the time he was arrested. Even if he had gotten off the charge, how's he going to go back to normal life in Lucan where he'd still be heavily suspected to have been involved? How would he face his friends, his teachers, Ana's parents and all those about town whispering? He and his family would have had to move away at the very least, and no matter where he went, he would still have had to deal with the trauma of what happened and the guilt of his involvement.

That's the thing - boy B didnt go to pieces whilst being interviewed by Gardai. There are some transcripts of the interviews in the media - and from the ones I saw / listened to he was like the whole thing didnt really bother him tbh.

He also continued to describe Ana in derogatory terms. No apparent remorse either for luring Ana from her house to 'hand' her over to Boy A or her death. Whatever this kid is - 'innocent' is not a word I'd use to describe him.

It was noted by the Gardai that he was calm and collected. He only changed his story when presented with evidence such as CCTV footage that showed what he was saying was not true.

gozunda wrote: »

That's the thing - boy B didnt go to pieces whilst being interviewed by Gardai. There are some transcripts of the interviews in the media - and from the ones I saw / listened to he was like the whole thing didnt really bother him tbh.

He also continued to describe Ana in derogatory terms. No apparent remorse either for luring Ana from her house to 'hand' her over to Boy A or her death. Whatever this kid is - 'innocent' is not a word I'd use to describe him.

It was noted by the Gardai that he was calm and collected. He only changed his story when presented with evidence such as CCTV footage that showed what he was saying was not true.

That's what I mean by going to pieces. Once it became apparent to him that the Gardaí had evidence to counter his lies, he began telling them what they wanted to hear. The Gardaí didn't have too hard a time unravelling a 13 year old boy's lies, and being 13 years old, his naivete was plain in thinking (or hoping) there'd be no evidence the Gards would have collected to place him at the scene, or to implicate him as an accomplice.

tuxy wrote: »

I believe €10 on a debit card will get you a VPN to bypass that. Unless they start filtering VPNs also but that could cause privacy issues.
Tor is another option and doesn't cost a cent but is very slow.

Afaik submission of photo ID will be required. Some said its similar to the way online bank accounts are verified. The article linked previously details about the photo ID. I'd expect usual gdpr rules would apply. It will he interesting to see how this works in the UK.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Have a bit of respect for his dad, how would you feel if people joked about Patrick Kreigel?

Respect for what. He couldn't even get his owns sons lies straight. If he was decent and got the truth early on he'd have spared Anas parents the nightmare of a trial and given them some closure. Instead they sat there brazenly contesting he was completely innocent and lashes out when the inevitable happened. Respect my arse.

tuxy wrote: »

Yes I believe it's the advise a solicitor will give to most people in such cases. We don't know why exactly Boy B did talk so much.

I think Boy B spoke so much because the first time he was interviewed was before Ana had been found and without a solicitor, he wasn't under any suspicion as far as he and his family were concerned. He went with his mother to the station to make a statement after the Gardaí saw himself and Boy A 'share a look'.

I believe it was that statement that he had to then change, and from then on it was pretty much downhill.

He had to change his story to match the cctv and eventually led to him having spoke so much that he admitted he was there.
I don't believe for a second that he has shared the full truth.


I think Cameron Reilly was murdered shortly after that and it was publicised everywhere how important the phone was, and what the Gardaí could get from it, so if Boy B did actually have a phone hidden somewhere, it is very likely at this stage it is destroyed, or will be.

FFred wrote: »

I think this thread has run it’s course.

The fact remains that an innocent and vulnerable young lady was led under false pretenses to a filthy and lonely place, and then slaughtered and butchered like an animal whilst fighting for her life.

Shame on any posters here trying to point-score against other anonymous internet people to make themselves feel better.

Shame on you.

Very true and the thing to be remembered is how this young lady was treated/ murdered and how posters are justifying scum bag B over this poor girl.
Shame on you a million times over.
No girl deserves what happened to Anna and if you have girls of your own it would be simple to understand the loss her family has gone through.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That wasnt in the IT article, was it?

It's not in the long IT article but I read it too. I think it was in the day to day reporting of the evidence during the trial.

That seems to be the boy's evidence, what I read probably took place at another point in the trial I think, maybe the guards explaining how they joined the dots between his claims and the blood spatter analysis that disproved what he was saying.

Unfortunately there's so much written about it that only the most recent articles come up now.