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

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 09:43PM

So more lives destroyed

All four parents have missed time off work. Their colleagues aren’t thick and will join the dots. So that’s another wats it’ll get out.
They probably be shunned at work and lives made unbearable.
No idea how moving a family overseas to protect them even works.
Has it ever happened that Ireland had to do it?

I hope they get moved if the reports of one of them being threatened are to be believed. They didn’t do this. They shouldn’t have to be punished by the mob for it. Leave and forget their evil kin behind and don’t look back.

26-06-2019 09:44PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

This is thanks to rampant mob mentality

If that's the case then no murderer ever would be named.

gozunda · 26-06-2019 09:45PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Safe to assume they would have asked for the numbers of both phones. Easily checked with the networks to check when they were last activated as we saw in the Dwyer case it can place you within a few meters.
Could well be he genuinely didn’t have a phone.
I find it hard to believe such a smart kid with an alpha role mindset and a best buddy didn’t have a phone or social media apps.
It stinks.
He filmed it and destroyed the phone after and disposed of it I reckon.

Not that difficult imo. Most of boy A's relevant internet searches on his phone and downloaded images were dated to at the earliest some months before the murder.

It would not have been strange if boy B's internet access and use of a smart phone etc could have dated to the same period.

Father of boy B says that the son lost two mobile phones. So possible either phone(s) were confiscated by the parents due to accessing porn and violence

Or just as likley boy B told his parents that the phone(s) were lost - and boy A & B used phone with a new pay as you go sim card

Gardai would have had no usable leads from this tbh

threeball · 26-06-2019 09:45PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I just looked that up, flips sake, they have some nerve don't they?

However I am relieved to see that both Canada and the NZ PM Jacinda Arden have made it clear that won't be happening.

Federal government dismisses reports that notorious U.K. child killer could be relocated to Canada

Australia was also suggested it seems, so maybe it's time for the old joke about the guy filling in an immigration form for Australia who, when asked if he had any criminal convictions, replied "Is that still necessary?"

They'll just unload him on some poor country that can't afford to watch the cnut and he'll do his damage there.

Kidchameleon · 26-06-2019 09:46PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If this is true surely every defendant would be anonymous??

Many many posts this thread wish violence against these boys and their family. There have already been attacks on their family's. That is why they are anonymous. Few cases bring out the mob like this one so no, not every defendant needs to be anonymous. The ironic thing is, we would know who they were and be able to protect ourselves if it were not for the vigilantes who want to "protect" us

threeball · 26-06-2019 09:50PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So more lives destroyed

All four parents have missed time off work. Their colleagues aren’t thick and will join the dots. So that’s another wats it’ll get out.
They probably be shunned at work and lives made unbearable.
No idea how moving a family overseas to protect them even works.
Has it ever happened that Ireland had to do it?

I hope they get moved if the reports of one of them being threatened are to be believed. They didn’t do this. They shouldn’t have to be punished by the mob for it. Leave and forget their evil kin behind and don’t look back.

If they wanted to be treated decently after the trial then they should have behaved with decency. Don't stand by and watch as their child doubles down on his bad decisions and drags the Krigels through a trial and also deny them the truth. If nothing else they empowered their sons to do that. I have no sympathy for the parents. Siblings would be a different story.

tuxy · 26-06-2019 09:55PM

I still imagine it's very possible that parents of Boy B are in denial. It's easy to see how guilty he is when you look at it objectively. But when you look at it from the point of view that his is the boy you raised for 14 years, it's not so easy.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 09:56PM

gozunda wrote: »

Not that difficult imo. Most of boy A's relevant internet searches on his phone and downloaded images were dated to at the earliest some months before the murder.

It would not have been strange if boy B's internet access and use of a smart phone etc could have dated to the same period.

Father of boy B says that the son lost two mobile phones. So possible either phone(s) were confiscated by the parents due to accessing porn and violence

Or just as likley boy B told his parents that the phone(s) were lost - and boy A & B used phone with a new pay as you go sim card

Gardai would have had no usable leads from this tbh

Safe to assume gardai asked Bs parents when did he last have a phone. Did they? No report on that.
He genuinely might not have had one in a while and lost his last one prior to all this.
That’s the bit that dangles for me. The gardai were obviously satisfied with the answer especially as they were desperate to get harder evidence against him in particular.

From my own families kids and friends kids that age, it just rings utterly hollow that he didn’t have one. That’s perception bias perhaps but kids these days are glued to their phones and film everything.
Sort of odd if not outright unlikely this one kid in this particular case, didn’t.

No interest in making this worse. It just makes more sense that he filmed all this and he’s disposed of it when heat came on him.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 09:59PM

threeball wrote: »

If they wanted to be treated decently after the trial then they should have behaved with decency. Don't stand by and watch as their child doubles down on his bad decisions and drags the Krigels through a trial and also deny them the truth. If nothing else they empowered their sons to do that. I have no sympathy for the parents. Siblings would be a different story.

What do you do in that instance?
He calls her slutty in an interview, you lean over and clatter him on camera?
They were being held in police stations at that point. It’s not like you could parent within normal realms whichever form they take in your house.
What can you do?

threeball · 26-06-2019 09:59PM

tuxy wrote: »

I still imagine it's very possible that parents of Boy B are in denial. It's easy to see how guilty he is when you look at it objectively. But when you look at it from the point of view that his is the boy you raised for 14 years, it's not so easy.

If it were a few weeks ago I'd accept that. They've had over a year to dissect the events and months to absorb the evidence of a case file yet they still backed a not guilty plea and B's father lashed out in court when things didn't go their way.

tuxy · 26-06-2019 10:01PM

Well his parents had got him a basic phone so they could contact with him but he just left it at home most the time.
I know people who are young (though not as young as him) that just hate to carry a phone around.
I'd be really surprised if he didn't at least have the use of a tablet or pc at home. There's no mention of anything like that though.

Suckit · 26-06-2019 10:01PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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.
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?

There was CCTV footage and a witness saw Boy B
Geraldine Kriegél called Ana at 5:10pm and it went straight to voicemail, that was a few minutes before they made it to the house they were seen on CCTV at 5:14pm crossing the field.
Ana’s phone pings off a mast on the Lucan side of the park where she was last seen alive. BOY A’s phone was pinging off the same mast at the same time, that was at 5:32pm (Boy B had no phone that anybody knows of).
CCTV shows BOY B coming back into view of cameras at BMX track at 5:49pm. He appears to be walking towards the ranger’s hut. He had been absent since 5.16pm and couldn't account for that 33 minutes absence during his Garda interviews. Boy A was caught on the same CCTV a few minutes after.
CCTV shows BOY B near ranger’s hut at 5:56pm.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

As to these two. It just feels like they had a plan and B broke the trust and thought he was smarter.

I think the only reason Boy B spoke, was because the first time he made a statement to the Gardaí he was with his mother and it was to help them retrace Ana's steps and help find her. At that stage, he may have thought he could mislead the Gardaí away from the house and him.
The statements he made after that were to explain why he had lied in the first statement, and then the next lie etc..

Boy A got back to his friends house limping and blood on his t-shirt, and was visibly shaken and pale. He told his friend that he got jumped on in the park - That was a 5:55pm.
He then returned home at 6pm and his mother also said he was 'very pale and shaking', she also saw the blood on his clothes.
At 6:15, himself and his father went to the park to try and find the two men that jumped him. He made a complaint to the park ranger who described Boy A as looking like a 'rabbit caught in headlights'.

It has been mentioned a few times how visibly shaken Boy A looked, yet nobody has said at any time how shaken or pale Boy B looked, and he's the one who said he had to run away from the house because he was scared.
Doesn't sound like he was all that scared, hanging around the park rangers hut (allegedly looking for water), then went home did his homework and went up to watch anime in his room. When the Gardaí called later that same evening, there is no mention of him looking worried at all.

threeball · 26-06-2019 10:02PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

What do you do in that instance?
He calls her slutty in an interview, you lean over and clatter him on camera?
They were being held in police stations at that point. It’s not like you could parent within normal realms whichever form they take in your house.
What can you do?

This is about more than one interview. They had a year to get him to tell the truth. Maybe he did tell them yet they chose to cover it up. Either way they're culpable. You tell them if you take this route you're on your own. No support, no prison visits, no more family. Tell the truth or you're on your own. They accepted lie after lie.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 10:07PM

Suckit wrote: »

There was CCTV footage and a witness saw Boy B
Geraldine Kriegél called Ana at 5:10pm and it went straight to voicemail, that was a few minutes before they made it to the house they were seen on CCTV at 5:14pm crossing the field.
Ana’s phone pings off a mast on the Lucan side of the park where she was last seen alive. BOY A’s phone was pinging off the same mast at the same time, that was at 5:32pm (Boy B had no phone that anybody knows of).
CCTV shows BOY B coming back into view of cameras at BMX track at 5:49pm. He appears to be walking towards the ranger’s hut. He had been absent since 5.16pm and couldn't account for that 33 minutes absence during his Garda interviews. Boy A was caught on the same CCTV a few minutes after.
CCTV shows BOY B near ranger’s hut at 5:56pm.

I think the only reason Boy B spoke, was because the first time he made a statement to the Gardaí he was with his mother and it was to help them retrace Ana's steps and help find her. At that stage, he may have thought he could mislead the Gardaí away from the house and him.
The statements he made after that were to explain why he had lied in the first statement, and then the next lie etc..

Boy A got back to his friends house limping and blood on his t-shirt, and was visibly shaken and pale. He told his friend that he got jumped on in the park - That was a 5:55pm.
He then returned home at 6pm and his mother also said he was 'very pale and shaking', she also saw the blood on his clothes.
At 6:15, himself and his father went to the park to try and find the two men that jumped him. He made a complaint to the park ranger who described Boy A as looking like a 'rabbit caught in headlights'.

It has been mentioned a few times how visibly shaken Boy A looked, yet nobody has said at any time how shaken or pale Boy B looked, and he's the one who said he had to run away from the house because he was scared.
Doesn't sound like he was all that scared, hanging around the park rangers hut (allegedly looking for water), then went home did his homework and went up to watch anime in his room. When the Gardaí called later that same evening, there is no mention of him lloking worried at all.

Fvck

I hadn’t seen that. Thanks. That just deepens the rabbit hole.

Countless people here defending B.
There’s 30 minutes he can’t account for and his normal af when he gets home

CollyFlower · 26-06-2019 10:07PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Safe to assume gardai asked Bs parents when did he last have a phone. Did they? No report on that.
He genuinely might not have had one in a while and lost his last one prior to all this.
That’s the bit that dangles for me. The gardai were obviously satisfied with the answer especially as they were desperate to get harder evidence against him in particular.

From my own families kids and friends kids that age, it just rings utterly hollow that he didn’t have one. That’s perception bias perhaps but kids these days are glued to their phones and film everything.
Sort of odd if not outright unlikely this one kid in this particular case, didn’t.

No interest in making this worse. It just makes more sense that he filmed all this and he’s disposed of it when heat came on him.

If he did have a phone, after he murdered Ana, surely there are people who would see him with one, like, his mates, classmates!.. Wouldn't he stand out for not having one and it's something his peers would notice.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 10:11PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

If he did have a phone, after he murdered Ana, surely there are people who would see him with one, like, his mates, classmates!.. Wouldn't he stand out for not having one and it's something his peers would notice.

He and A were bullies. How often does a kid stare at his bullies to notice? You try avoid their attention not attract it.

Saw it mentioned earlier that B confided in a classmate that they did it but haven’t seen that anywhere else. Possible bragging about it? They all seemed to be giving her a hard time

26-06-2019 10:11PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Many many posts this thread wish violence against these boys and their family. There have already been attacks on their family's. That is why they are anonymous. Few cases bring out the mob like this one so no, not every defendant needs to be anonymous. The ironic thing is, we would know who they were and be able to protect ourselves if it were not for the vigilantes who want to "protect" us

Wrong. It's because they're underage.

Under Irish law, a child over the age of ten can be charged with more serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and aggravated sexual assault.

According to Courts Service directions, the trial process should not itself expose young defendants to “avoidable intimidation, humiliation or distress”.

“Young defendants accused of committing serious crimes may be vulnerable due to their age, level of maturity or disability when standing trial in the children’s court.”

For these reasons, and because Irish and European laws dictate it, the ordinary trial processes in relation to children are adapted to ensure due regard to the welfare of the young defendant.

This is why members of the public were excluded from this trial. Only officers of the court, relatives of the children involved, witnesses and members of the press were permitted to sit in the courtroom to hear the evidence.

Under the Children’s Act 2001 (amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2006), no report can be published or included in a broadcast which reveals the name, address or school of any child concerned in the proceedings.

iamwhoiam · 26-06-2019 10:16PM

Boy B father stated that B lost two smart phones so he was given a non smart phone instead . He had a phone just not a smart phone

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 10:21PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Boy B father stated that B lost two smart phones so he was given a non smart phone instead . He had a phone just not a smart phone

Aware of that. Just seems very very convenient no? As well as unlikely in the modern context.

He knew anime (gruesome and brutal quite often) what was he watching it on?
No mention of his laptop if he ever had one.

He wasn’t watching it on a regular phone. He’d need a smartphone

tuxy · 26-06-2019 10:22PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

He wasn’t watching it on a regular phone. He’d need a smartphone

Or a smart TV, which most TVs are these days.

iamwhoiam · 26-06-2019 10:22PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Aware of that. Just seems very very convenient no? As well as unlikely in the modern context.

He knew anime (gruesome and brutal quite often) what was he watching it on?
No mention of his laptop if he ever had one.

He wasn’t watching it on a regular phone. He’d need a smartphone

Plus B was not exactly a truthful young man so every word he speaks has the potential to be a lie

CollyFlower · 26-06-2019 10:31PM

Even a non smartphone can access the internet and take pictures and videos..... I guess there wasn't anything on it to incriminate him when the police examined it 10 days after the murder.

Monumental · 26-06-2019 10:44PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Pretty much everyone else sank that low by blaming B's dad.... for the record I do not blame Patric, I was trying to illustrate what blaming an innocent person can do. B's dad has suffered enough and doesnt need a gang of keyboard warriors saying he should be locked up with his son. The only people responsible are A & B.

RIP Ana.

I dont blame boy B's dad but I do think he should have kept his mouth shut in court and had respect for Ana's parents He needs to accept his son committed a horrible murder and as his parent perhaps should have been aware of his sons activities both online and on a daily basis

CollyFlower · 26-06-2019 10:52PM

Monumental wrote: »

I dont blame boy B's dad but I do think he should have kept his mouth shut in court and had respect for Ana's parents He needs to accept his son committed a horrible murder and as his parent perhaps should have been aware of his sons activities both online and on a daily basis

I can kinda understand his outburst, no parent wants to believe that their child could do something like that, he's probably still in denial. .. Give him time and he'll come around and accept the truth.

Monumental · 26-06-2019 11:07PM

threeball wrote: »

This is about more than one interview. They had a year to get him to tell the truth. Maybe he did tell them yet they chose to cover it up. Either way they're culpable. You tell them if you take this route you're on your own. No support, no prison visits, no more family. Tell the truth or you're on your own. They accepted lie after lie.

Did they really accept those lies ! Any parent who spends time with their child/teen knows when they are lying straight away .I cannot get my head around him pleading not guilty

LiamoSail · 26-06-2019 11:13PM

Monumental wrote: »

Did they really accept those lies ! Any parent who spends time with their child/teen knows when they are lying straight away .I cannot get my head around him pleading not guilty

Legally, there's no incentive to plead guilty to a murder charge as there's no leniency afforded for doing so, as there is with other charges.

Morally, it's dispicible. But that obviously isn't an issue for either family.

Monumental · 26-06-2019 11:15PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

I can kinda understand his outburst, no parent wants to believe that their child could do something like that, he's probably still in denial. .. Give him time and he'll come around and accept the truth.

If it was a few weeks after the murder I might understand it ..One year on and I think dad knows the truth of his boys actions ,have a bit of respect for Ana and her parents . Seek further legal advise if you think your boy has been wronged

pablo128 · 26-06-2019 11:16PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

I can kinda understand his outburst, no parent wants to believe that their child could do something like that, he's probably still in denial. .. Give him time and he'll come around and accept the truth.

He was cute enough to wait until the judge had left the court before he started mouthing off. At best he's an insensitive muppet. He knew the Kriegels were sitting there.

mrjoneill · 26-06-2019 11:23PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

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.

Mortgages have to be paid, food has to be put on the table, clothes have to be washed and cleaned and life has to go on no matter the circumstance which can't be easy.

I too would find it very hard to assoc with him if he was my son, I deffo would not be holding his hand in court or he leaning on me. I just wouldn't trust him. In the case of Boy B not only been part of the murder but lied & lied & inc to protect Boy A to exonerate him, has lost all trusts. I would feel he was winding me too. Don't know about going to see him in detention but I would make it clear the winding died a death the day he was invol in Ana's death. Everything would be on my terms from then on. U could not be true to yourself if you did otherwise and I would want a full account of what he did, just to let him know where I was at. Boy B thinks he is too smarts for everyone and I would imagine he is still in that territory.

As for Boy A parents, its incomprehensible how one could have any friendship with someone capable of such evil. I would feel dirty after it. He not only planned and executed the deed but carried on after it as if nothing happened. He spend 30 min battering a naive girl to death and then sexually assaulted her and he was only 13. You couldn't turn your back to someone so evil. I would feel I was letting Ana down by assoc. His crime can't be ever forgiven. He seems to have a generous forgiving grandfather who bailed him out for Christmas to where he lived which was outside the Lexlip-Lucan area.

mrjoneill · 26-06-2019 11:35PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Legally, there's no incentive to plead guilty to a murder charge as there's no leniency afforded for doing so, as there is with other charges.

Morally, it's dispicible. But that obviously isn't an issue for either family.

Conviction for murder is a mandatory life under Common Law, but the Children's Act gives the trial judge powers to what this actual detention time should be. They can even bring it back for review in a set period. What is not clear in the Children's Act is do those found guilty of murder remain on license when released from detention.

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

Comments