Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…8081838586…247

Comments

  • Options
    #2462
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    No chance in this day and age that he had a phone and gardaí couldn’t verify it.

    That's exactly what I was thinking and after the excellent job the Garda did on this case I think it's an insult to start claiming they were negligent at this stage.


  • Options
    #2463
    Wombatman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    Boy B enticed Ana to a derelict isolated house 3km from her home. It was not to a public park but an isolated house. Boy A, his friend is linked by strong forensic to the murder and we know from forensics he went equipped to kill. Boy B has a lot of explaining to do to establish his innocence in it. But he has lied & lied & the only reason for the repeated lying & the degrading of the victim is manipulation to get around his own active involvement. Over 2 days of questioning by experienced Gardai he did not crack but gave another lie to cover for external evidence. We do know he was present at the murder scene till the end as he drew on sketch where Ana's body was found. Ana's body was moved after she was killed as the blood spatter pattern indicates.

    None of this would prove that he murdered Ana.

    Boy B does not need to establish his innocence, the prosecution needs to prove he is guilty, not of misleading, or lying or obstructing justice, or shaming Ana, guilty of murder.

    Let's say proof came to light (text messages for example) that Boy B believed that Boy A was planning to rape Ana in the house, and that Boy B facilitated this plan, would he still be guilty of murder?


  • Options
    #2464
    Aisling_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 9 ✭Aisling_Dublin


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    He prob though Ana was at home alone & it was only chance her dad saw him. If her dad didn't see him the case could very well have the "disappeared " about it. Where exactly would the search begin? There is a possibility both of these scvmbags planned to go back bury the body which would have been found only accidentally & the forensics would have degenerated that they would have no value. Boy B prob had not the physical capacity to do it alone so he would not draw attention. I would look at him going to the house knowingly aware there was a kill plan going on as he furthering that agenda or led that agenda.

    Cctv footage got the boy, so they would have been caught sooner or later.


  • Options
    #2465
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,875 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Happy4all wrote: »
    tupenny wrote: »
    If you people lived locally to this you would not defend the parents

    If they were covering up the truth and justice for a murdered girl? No

    If they were getting the child to face the truth and learn remorse? Yes

    Ana's violent death is not a step by step dummies guide tutiorial in facing the truth and learning remorse.


  • Options
    #2466
    Wombatman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Lets put to bed any ambiguity about Boy B.

    "The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, or joint criminal enterprise is a common-law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise."

    In other words, without the participation of Boy B, Ana likely wouldn't have been in that building on that particular occasion. She was killed there, so Boy B goes down for common design.

    And the reason it is a conviction of Murder and not anything else for him?

    If you and I randomly cross paths in a chipper on a night out, get into a disagreement and it escalates into physicals and I fall and bang my head and die, you will be charged with Manslaughter, because there was no malice aforethought, you planned no part of it and that distinguishes murder from other unlawful killing.

    However, if you know me and decide for whatever reason that I warrant a beating for some apparent transgression and even though you don't intend me to die, but I do happen to die as a result, the charge will be murder. Death as a result of any preplanned harm, even that not intended to result in death, is Murder.

    And so whether or not Boy A did really intend Ana to die that day is irrelevant, he did plan and intend her to be harmed and because she died as a result, its murder. The contributory actions of Boy B, under common design, are assessed no differently and so its a murder for him too.

    I do hope detention is a very unpleasant experience for them both.

    You are misinterpreting. Common purpose means all parties are acting towards the same end.

    If a taxi drives you to a house where you commit a crime, but the taxi driver has no knowledge of your intention, there is no guilt attributable to the driver.

    If the driver knows what you plan to do, and still brings you there, then the guilt is shared.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2467
    SirChenjin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭SirChenjin


    Omackeral wrote: »
    ''Geraldine and Patric Kriegel remained throughout the testimony of Prof Marie Cassidy as she dispassionately described the autopsy process and the injuries inflicted on Ana. (Boys A and B were both excused from court that day because of the graphic nature of the evidence.


    This is so f*cking wrong    .

    +1.
    So so ****ing wrong. I remember thinking that when the trial was in progress.

    Cannot even begin to imagine how Ana's parents felt. There are no words.

    And that pair excused from listening...

    Once again, all I can say is fair play to the gardai and anyone who helped to bring them to trial and to see justice served.

    Nothing will bring that beautiful child back and her parents and family will have to try to live with their terrible loss. I wish them every strength.


  • Options
    #2468
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,524 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Wombatman wrote: »
    You are misinterpreting. Common purpose means all parties are acting towards the same end.

    If a taxi drives you to a house where you commit a crime, but the taxi driver has no knowledge of your intention, there is no guilt attributable to the driver.

    If the driver knows what you plan to do, and still brings you there, then the guilt is shared.

    I think they meant that boy b knew harm would come to her, and although he might not have known murder was the plan, he knew harm would come. So they both acted towards the same end, albeit one possibly knowing murder would be the end result. And by knowing harm would come, because murder is the result, murder is the charge.


  • Options
    #2469
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,905 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    TBH I personally will give this a week from now, and then it will all move on.

    We will all forget it soon enough, but the parents of Ana will never be able to forget.


  • Options
    #2470
    Ace Attorney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭Ace Attorney


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    TBH I personally will give this a week from now, and then it will all move on.

    We will all forget it soon enough, but the parents of Ana will never be able to forget.

    until the sentencing next month


  • Options
    #2471
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,905 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Ace Attorney wrote: »
    until the sentencing next month

    So what. Sentencing may be controversial, but who knows?

    All forgotten in time anyway, we all move on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2472
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Lets put to bed any ambiguity about Boy B.

    "The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, or joint criminal enterprise is a common-law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise."

    In other words, without the participation of Boy B, Ana likely wouldn't have been in that building on that particular occasion. She was killed there, so Boy B goes down for common design.

    And the reason it is a conviction of Murder and not anything else for him?

    If you and I randomly cross paths in a chipper on a night out, get into a disagreement and it escalates into physicals and I fall and bang my head and die, you will be charged with Manslaughter, because there was no malice aforethought, you planned no part of it and that distinguishes murder from other unlawful killing.

    However, if you know me and decide for whatever reason that I warrant a beating for some apparent transgression and even though you don't intend me to die, but I do happen to die as a result, the charge will be murder. Death as a result of any preplanned harm, even that not intended to result in death, is Murder.

    And so whether or not Boy A did really intend Ana to die that day is irrelevant, he did plan and intend her to be harmed and because she died as a result, its murder. The contributory actions of Boy B, under common design, are assessed no differently and so its a murder for him too.

    I do hope detention is a very unpleasant experience for them both.


    And may I add for a very long time. I presume their release will be on license since the conviction is murder.

    All has to be satisfied to implicate Boy B was that assault was know to him when he lured her to the abandoned house. Sure there is no other way of explaining away there was a common plan, they were friends, had met up prior to Boy B going to Ana's home, Boy B gave Boy A or brought to the site adhesive tape to tie up Ana, Boy B lured her to abandoned house 3km away where Boy A waited in killing gear.There are too many strands for it to be innocent. For Boy B he believed he was smarter than everyone else his lies could give an innocent explanation, but he ended up doing the contrary.


  • Options
    #2473
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    tuxy wrote: »
    I have no idea what phones you are talking about, there is no report of phones going missing after the fact.

    Boy B had no phone on him and used Ana's phone to check the time at one stage. They had no problem getting Boy A's phone and they found out what he had been searching for.


    Boy B father state his son lost 2 mobile phones he gave him to portray a bumbling fool & stated he was very immature for his age as well as craved friendship also to portray his darling son as a pawn of the Big Bad Boy A.


  • Options
    #2474
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    TBH I personally will give this a week from now, and then it will all move on.

    We will all forget it soon enough, but the parents of Ana will never be able to forget.
    I don't know why you're being so glib.

    It's in poor taste.

    You can speak only for yourself.

    Personally I think this will stay raw for a long time.


  • Options
    #2475
    theballz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭theballz


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    TBH I personally will give this a week from now, and then it will all move on.

    We will all forget it soon enough, but the parents of Ana will never be able to forget.

    The media will stop printing it, the thread won’t be trending but people will not forget. I cannot sleep tonight thinking about story and many parents not just in Ireland but around the world will be deeply deeply saddened by this tragic event and loss of a child.

    You may forget. I know for certain I definitely won’t.


  • Options
    #2476
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    mrjoneill wrote: »
    Boy B father state his son lost 2 mobile phones he gave him to portray a bumbling fool & stated he was very immature for his age as well as craved friendship also to portray his darling son as a pawn of the Big Bad Boy A.

    This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?


  • Options
    #2477
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,843 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Wombatman wrote: »
    You are misinterpreting. Common purpose means all parties are acting towards the same end.

    If a taxi drives you to a house where you commit a crime, but the taxi driver has no knowledge of your intention, there is no guilt attributable to the driver.

    If the driver knows what you plan to do, and still brings you there, then the guilt is shared.

    I'm not really, the jury were clearly satisfied both boys were acting towards the same end, I'm sure due in no small part to that boys lies and obfuscation in his in Garda interviews. It is clear to any reasonable analysis that B could have had no doubt that A intended to harm Ana. That harm resulted in her death, and so murder charges all round.

    I'm crystal clear on this because I myself sat on a murder trial jury in the last five years that had an ambiguity about the involvement of more than one person and we had the law explicitly demonstrated to us in a two day long judges charge. As it happens, we convicted just one person.


  • Options
    #2478
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    Wombatman wrote: »
    None of this would prove that he murdered Ana.

    Boy B does not need to establish his innocence, the prosecution needs to prove he is guilty, not of misleading, or lying or obstructing justice, or shaming Ana, guilty of murder.

    Let's say proof came to light (text messages for example) that Boy B believed that Boy A was planning to rape Ana in the house, and that Boy B facilitated this plan, would he still be guilty of murder?


    Yes knowledge of an unlawful act is sufficient for complicity. Boy B is implicated as he clearly enticed Ana out of her house & this was to a remote abandoned house. He was shown by CCTV to be in contact with Boy A shortly before he went to Ana's home. CCTV shows him & Ana going to the abandoned house as well as Boy A using different routes. CCTV shows Boy B returning from the abandoned house, there is no CCTV of Ana gong home. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to imply there was conspiracy esp the enticing her out of the house in what was a rouse that only someone gullible would fall for. Boy A could have told Ana at school he had not the hots for her or got one of his friends do it.


  • Options
    #2479
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,524 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    theballz wrote: »
    The media will stop printing it, the thread won’t be trending but people will not forget. I cannot sleep tonight thinking about story and many parents not just in Ireland but around the world will be deeply deeply saddened by this tragic event and loss of a child.

    You may forget. I know for certain I definitely won’t.

    Gill Meagher. Every girl I know swore they'd never walk alone again. Two weeks later all back at it.....most people won't remember that name now nevermind the case, which was equally horrific.


  • Options
    #2480
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    tuxy wrote: »
    This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?

    Whose the poster? Tbh didn't see anyone claim that. If the phones were destroyed and dropped in a river for example htf would gardai recover them?


  • Options
    #2481
    mrjoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 536 ✭✭✭mrjoneill


    tuxy wrote: »
    This is true but it still does not have anything to do with him throwing away phones( Yes one poster is claiming he had many phones on him) after the murder. Do you really think Garda could not recover even one of these phones?


    I have no criticism of the Gardai they were like bloodhounds in the investigation. Collecting internet evidence was only done weeks after the murder was done. There was loads of opportunity to dispose of the evidence in that period. It was Boys B father that tried to portray him as a bumbling idiot. All one can recover is whats available to recover.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2482
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    gozunda wrote: »
    Whose the poster? Tbh didn't see anyone claim that. If the phones were destroyed and dropped in a river for example htf would gardai recover them?

    Here
    pablo128 wrote: »
    I'd say part of the reason B was there was to record the attack. Hence the phones were first to dissappear when the heat was on him.

    Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?


  • Options
    #2483
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,804 ✭✭✭take everything


    I really hope the two little ****ers are hounded every moment of their lives when they're released.


  • Options
    #2484
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    tuxy wrote: »
    Here

    Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?

    It was presented that boy B 'lost' his phones. Boy A's phones showed that he had engaged in relevant internet searches linking his crime to the sexual aggravated attack. Boy B's phones are conveniently missing. And some are now claiming that boy B's conviction is somehow unsafe because 'sure he only watched' etc ...

    Yes the phones may indeed be missing- but happily there was enough evidence to convict.

    I reckon its only a matter of time before boy A - realises that Boy B has stitched him well and truely up as the main instigator ...


  • Options
    #2485
    Ursus Horribilis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Ursus Horribilis


    tuxy wrote: »
    Why does there need to be phones involved? Were you unsatisfied with the evidence used to obtain the guilty conviction?

    This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.


  • Options
    #2486
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Ursus Horribilis wrote: »
    This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.

    The father of Boy B stated that his son had lost his two mobile phones so no there are no 'phatom' phones - no matter how much rampant imagination is suggested all the same ...


  • Options
    #2487
    dickangel
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭dickangel


    gozunda wrote: »

    I reckon its only a matter of time before boy A - realises that Boy B has stitched him well and truely up as the main instigator ...

    Boy A was read the transcripts of Boy B's interviews and his only response was that Boy B was lying. Interestingly he didn't attempt to put blame on Boy B despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus.


  • Options
    #2488
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Dante7


    Ursus Horribilis wrote: »
    This is when a boards thread reaches the "jump the shark" stage. Random speculation about phantom phones and rubbish from WhatsApp groups makes its way in. Oh and the photos being distributed are the right ones because the next door neighbour's sister's cousin's friend in Mullingar says so.

    No, the photos being distributed are the correct ones because the lawyers for the defendants went to court to have them removed.


  • Options
    #2489
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    dickangel wrote: »
    Boy A was read the transcripts of Boy B's interviews and his only response was that Boy B was lying. Interestingly he didn't attempt to put blame on Boy B despite knowing he'd been thrown under the bus.

    He was read selected transcripts. If he had admited to being at the scene of the crime - his defence would have been null and void

    Now convicted - that's now not an obstacle...


  • Options
    #2490
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »
    The law is the law with regard to naming these boys. But the law is completely wrong here.

    The public should absolutely have the right to know the identity of anyone convicted of murder in the state. The girl had her whole life put out there and she is now gone. The weasels that killed her get protected. That's very rotten.

    Protecting murdering scum is not what the criminal justice system should be there for.

    I will be honest the childrens act should apply in most cases but NOT in the case of Murder and Sex Crimes. These 2 are the worst of the worst though in terms of Murder if it was in self defence that's the only exception but absolutely nothing on the 2nd. I honestly am at at loss why they weren't tried as adults as much as some might want to disagree otherwise the fact is Sex crime and Murder are the type where being underage is no excuse to have the anonymity they dont deserve to be fair.

    Considering the vile nature of the crimes the 2 should have been tried as Adults plain and simple and if it's found these 2 get off lightly and arent locked up for the rest of their lives I'm nearly sure someone is going to find out who they are and take a shot at them at some point as much as some might disagree but once faith is lost in the Justice system then vigilange justice ends up taking over and thats the last thing anyone really wants.

    Everyone is tired of the feral vermin having the run of the place and while these 2 are rare outlying worst cases there's plenty of them out there that are nearly as bad as them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2491
    dickangel
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭dickangel


    gozunda wrote: »
    Nope. Incorrect. The father of Boy B stated that his son had lost his two mobile phones so no there are no 'phatom' phones - no matter how much rampant imagination is suggested all the same ...

    He still could have said " Boy B was always going on about killing her" without placing himself at the scene.

    Meant to quote your other post re: transcripts


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement