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

dudara · 26-06-2019 03:04PM

Right, this stops now. It’s going around in circles and detracting from the very good discussion that had been taking place.

If either side continues, there will be cards

dudara

Kidchameleon · 26-06-2019 03:46PM

I haven't see this shared on thread yet, it contains a good write up of all of the physical and circumstantial evidence that got the convictions.

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

Gadgetman496 · 26-06-2019 04:29PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I haven't see this shared on thread yet, it contains a good write up of all of the physical and circumstantial evidence that got the convictions.

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

Something in that article caught my attention which led me to wonder if it was done to facilitate better quality photos or video, possibly using a mobile phone as the recording device?

Article quote:

Gardaí believed the tape had instead been used to drag Ana to the other side of the room, over to where there was more light. It could not be determined if she was conscious or alive at this point.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 04:43PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I haven't see this shared on thread yet, it contains a good write up of all of the physical and circumstantial evidence that got the convictions.

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

The whole tape story is quiet weird.

LiamoSail · 26-06-2019 04:54PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Something in that article caught my attention which led me to wonder if it was done to facilitate better quality photos or video, possibly using a mobile phone as the recording device?

Article quote:

Between that, Boy B's phone not having been found and Boy B's father deliberately stating on the stand that Boy B had lost two phones, it would seem very suspicious .

Kidchameleon · 26-06-2019 04:55PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The whole tape story is quiet weird.

Guards seem convinced B took it to the scene but it could well have been A. I would imagine the guards took a look at the items B made with the tape such as a bow & arrow. That stuff is VERY strong

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 04:58PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Guards seem convinced B took it to the scene but it could well have been A. I would imagine the guards took a look at the items B made with the tape such as a bow & arrow. That stuff is VERY strong

What’s confusing to me is who owned the tape in the B’s house. It reads like it’s the boy who bought it for side projects, but he apologises to his father for giving some if it (but not all of it) to boy A.

Since most of the tape was still there and it’s the boy’s tape anyway this conversation sounds off.

Kidchameleon · 26-06-2019 05:01PM

From what I understand from the article, the tape that was in B's house found by the guards was a different roll. The end of a roll was given to A some time previously. I may be picking it up wrong though

Gadgetman496 · 26-06-2019 05:06PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Between that, Boy B's phone not having been found and Boy B's father deliberately stating on the stand that Boy B had lost two phones, it would seem very suspicious .

Well, it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of belief that the perpetrator of the crime wanted some sort of trophy considering their interest in all things satanic?

I mean if you really wanted to push the theory boat out you could suggest that boy B's phone were not in fact lost but in the possession of boy A, not only to record the event but also to implicate boy B if the need arose? He may have stashed them en-route home as they did go in different directions. You just couldn't overemphasize the devious mind of boy A.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 05:14PM

What I’m confused about is who actually owned or bought the tape for B.

Hannibal_Smith · 26-06-2019 05:14PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What’s confusing to me is who owned the tape in the B’s house. It reads like it’s the boy who bought it for side projects, but he apologises to his father for giving some if it (but not all of it) to boy A.

Since most of the tape was still there and it’s the boy’s tape anyway this conversation sounds off.

I thought I read somewhere it belongs to the dad?

c.p.w.g.w · 26-06-2019 05:15PM

tuxy wrote: »

How would this work when the majority of children have a greater knowledge of new technology than their parents?

I managed to install it on my own laptop a number of years back. In an elorborate prank on my then housemate, who works in the field of IT. He had been using my laptop at the time to play games and use Facebook, as he was too tight to buy his own and was too afraid to use his work laptop for gaming. He had zero idea that it was on the laptop

Managed to get some of his passwords for his numerous social media accounts. He saw the funny side... eventually

Ash.J.Williams · 26-06-2019 05:21PM

I occasionally have to remind people that if you have even a passing interest in heavy metal there is absolutely nothing odd about satanism in your search history...but I heard no mention of music during the case

Gadgetman496 · 26-06-2019 05:22PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What I’m confused about is who actually owned or bought the tape for B.

Again, from the latest article it would appear it was boy B's fathers tape.

Boy B’s story was backed up by his father, who told the trial he was in the garden with Boy B the weekend before Ana’s murder when his son told him he had lent Boy A the tape.

The father was furious. The tape was expensive and so sticky that it was very difficult to handle. “I became very frustrated. I told him he can’t give anything from my shed to anyone without my permission.”

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 05:23PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Again, from the latest article it would appear it was boy B's fathers tape.

Yes but that doesn’t make a lot of sense because previously boy B said he was using the tape for his own personal projects.

Gadgetman496 · 26-06-2019 05:26PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yes but that doesn’t make a lot of sense because previously boy B said he was using the tape for his own personal projects.

He did. The tape was €30 bucks a roll and I'd imagine the father was happy for his own son to use it but not to be giving it away to other people. A let them buy their own attitude perhaps?

iamwhoiam · 26-06-2019 05:26PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of belief that the perpetrator of the crime wanted some sort of trophy considering their interest in all things satanic?

I mean if you really wanted to push the theory boat out you could suggest that boy B's phone were not in fact lost but in the possession of boy A, not only to record the event but also to implicate boy B if the need arose? He may have stashed them en-route home as they did go in different directions. You just couldn't overemphasize the devious mind of boy A.

Or over emphasise the lieing of Boy B . I wouldn’t believe a word out of his mouth
Maybe the phones were never lost . I wonder where they ever traced or whatever you call the Gardai searching for the phones ?

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 05:55PM

Things that don’t add up and remain weirdly curious

Boy A and father in the park and meeting Gardai while they were searching for Ana, and the gardai later realising the next morning it was the same father when they arrived at the door. A’s father deflected / directed them and told Gardai to search a local sewer. The boy was injured. Did he tell his father what happened and the father gave him a hiding? He had injuries and a limp for days after. Rather more than a 14 year old girl could have given him.

Boy B having two phones but lost both mysteriously gone and according to his father, who went on to point out they had been lost before all of this took place.
It looks and sounds like boy Bs role was to lead poor Ana to the house and he actually filmed the whole thing. But as with his backpack, explained away so nothing could be set down in concrete evidence. The phones remain a lingering question but probably destroyed.
Why was Anas body moved ‘for better light’ by their own admission, if not for filming? This makes no sense at all to move her body after the fact.

Boy B held the ‘white plank’ but nothing comes of it?

Boy A and Bs mothers meeting before Anas body was recovered. Why?

Boy Bs father safe to say known to police given the address was in pulse system and his ignoring the police upon arrival at home and going to bed. Possibly explaining his outburst in the court upon the verdict being delivered.
The tape was his we know as he had more when Gardai searched the house. So that’s a tool of his job maybe.

Maybe a nothing but the unidentified dna on her top is really bizarre. Never heard of a sample of dna being too small to identify but it could have been just about anything. Not at all on the scale of the dangling questions above.

tuxy · 26-06-2019 06:49PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Things that don’t add up and remain weirdly curious

Most of your questions actually have legitimate explanations and were covered in the trial and on this thread many times, I know you can't read all the thread as it's very long but check out the media reports on it.

26-06-2019 06:55PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I haven't see this shared on thread yet, it contains a good write up of all of the physical and circumstantial evidence that got the convictions.

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

I don't really get how the Kriegal's statement counts as evidence to convict

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 06:55PM

tuxy wrote: »

Most of your questions actually have legitimate explanations and were covered in the trial and on this thread many times, I know you can't read all the thread as it's very long but check out the media reports on it.

Not being controversial at all I’ve followed the case. These are just weird moments or things left hanging.

I don’t understand why we now don’t implement Anas law. Make it a complete zero tolerance policy on bullying nationwide.

No blame on any parents. Any of them. Your kid might just well be a handful or a weirdly dark quiet one. It isn’t on you. Only so much any parent can do.

But if it was top down zero tolerance we would see change.

Those kids that bullied her and excluded her are out there right now. They’re living with this and hopefully come around to learning from it. And hopefully will teach their own never to do it. It’s the only good outcome we can hope for in all of this sad scary affair.

tuxy · 26-06-2019 07:04PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Not being controversial at all I’ve followed the case. These are just weird moments or things left hanging.

If so why are you suspicious of Boy A's father being in the park? His son had told him he was attacked by two men in the park, his son used this excuse to explain his injuries and we know Ana put up a fight. His father was looking for the two men, he asked the park ranger if he had seen the men and then used the rangers phone to call the Gardi to report it the continued his search.

Suckit · 26-06-2019 07:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really get how the Kriegal's statement counts as evidence to convict

I'm guessing it is because their testimony highlights how unusual it was for anyone to call into her and ask her to go out, and the father was able to identify Boy B as the person who called.

That, coupled with all of the other evidence against them made it more plausible that it was planned and not just a lot of random events.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 07:13PM

tuxy wrote: »

If so why are you suspicious of Boy A's father being in the park? His son had told him he was attacked by two men in the park, his son used this excuse to explain his injuries and we know Ana put up a fight. His father was looking for the two men, he asked the park ranger if he had seen the men and then used the rangers phone to call the Gardi to report it the continued his search.

Boy a doesn’t seem like the kind of kid that would admit any weakness.
He also doesn’t seem like the kind of guy going for a walk with his father.
What did him and his father plan to do upon finding these imaginary assailants?

That element just doesn’t add up for me somehow.

tuxy · 26-06-2019 07:23PM

We know practically nothing about boy A, he refused to cooperate very early in the interview process.

pablo128 · 26-06-2019 07:25PM

tuxy wrote: »

If so why are you suspicious of Boy A's father being in the park? His son had told him he was attacked by two men in the park, his son used this excuse to explain his injuries and we know Ana put up a fight. His father was looking for the two men, he asked the park ranger if he had seen the men and then used the rangers phone to call the Gardi to report it the continued his search.

The father was seen the next day walking in the park with his son, who was supposed to have a bad limp. Why would you go out walking with your son whos leg was hurting him? Surely not for the imaginary 2 lads from the day before?

tuxy · 26-06-2019 07:27PM

pablo128 wrote: »

The father was seen the next day walking in the park with his son, who was supposed to have a bad limp. Why would you go out walking with your son whos leg was hurting him? Surely not for the imaginary 2 lads from the day before?

Any hypothesis on what they were doing so?

pablo128 · 26-06-2019 07:30PM

tuxy wrote: »

Any hypothesis on what they were doing so?

It strikes me as a little bit odd. I wouldn't be going walking in the local park with my daughter if she had a hurt leg.

We'll probably never know though.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 07:30PM

tuxy wrote: »

We know practically nothing about boy A, he refused to cooperate very early in the interview process.

Chilling that he didn’t.

I wondered about both his and Bs parents. How to get that time for court off work.

What are they doing now.

How is it Bs(?) family have had to move? Neither family should have to but as evidenced in this thread they probably have been forced to.

It’s heartbreaking all of it. I wouldn’t even visit him if he was mine. I just wouldn’t. They’ll get out when they get out and is blank him then too.
Ideally.
Same time you’re always going to love your son.
They won’t come out of prison in any single way that’s compatible with normality and day to day. Not up to us to call judgement. They have to live the rest of their lives with a horrific call they made as kids. And rightly so.

Hannibal_Smith · 26-06-2019 07:34PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Things that don’t add up and remain weirdly curious

Boy A and father in the park and meeting Gardai while they were searching for Ana, and the gardai later realising the next morning it was the same father when they arrived at the door. A’s father deflected / directed them and told Gardai to search a local sewer. The boy was injured. Did he tell his father what happened and the father gave him a hiding? He had injuries and a limp for days after. Rather more than a 14 year old girl could have given him.

There was a witness who said he saw a Boy, who the police believe to be Boy A walking through the park and limping, I think he said he had blood on his clothes too, but not sure about that. So it appears Boy A was injured before he got home.

But you're right regarding th bullying. I had a talk with my kids as well last week about bullying. I asked if they were being mean to anyone, or if anyone was mean to them and explained what to do if there was. I also told them to look out for kids in their class who are being mean to someone or to look out for kids who are left out constantly and if they see that, to tell me and a teacher. It's up to everyone, I think to look out, not just the ones directly involved.

Regarding the time lines. They say that Mrs Kriegel called Ana's phone about 5.40 and they believed any had already been murdered by then. I think Boy A was seen about 5.50. But did they see Boy B leaving? Is there no CCTV or witness statement showing when he left the park and when? Was there time for them to agree a story then?

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

Comments