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

tuxy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

Are you asking if a child can be subpoenaed to court?
They can.

Omackeral

swarlb wrote: »

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

Click unfollow there like a good little poster and let people discuss if they wish to... on a discussion site.

Penn

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

From what I understand, defendants can't be compelled to testify regardless of age.

If you are the accused in a criminal case you do not have to give evidence in your defence. If you decide not to give evidence in the case, the prosecution cannot comment on this to the jury. If you decide to give evidence in your trial, you can then be cross-examined by the prosecution. You cannot refuse to answer these questions on the grounds that it may incriminate you. However, the prosecution cannot ask you questions about your previous bad character unless you have:

Introduced evidence of your own good character or
Questioned the character of any prosecution witness or
Given evidence in your own defence against a co-accused

You cannot be forced to give evidence by the prosecution when they are trying to convict you. You also cannot be forced to give evidence against a co-accused if you are both being tried in the same proceedings. However, if the prosecution refuses to offer any evidence against you and you are found not guilty, then you can be forced to testify against a co-accused.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/witnesses/who_can_be_forced_to_be_a_witness.html

Force Carrier

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

No accused of any age is obliged to testify.

It is for the state to prove their case against the accused. He/she can sit back and present no evidence and no rebuttal if they so wish.

Equally the Defense can if they choose call the accused or call any other witnesses to counter the prosecutions case.

TCDStudent1

Penn wrote: »

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc. Him refusing to answer questions raises suspicions, but wouldn't prove guilt.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out of him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

Probably not. However, with a jury, you simply never know. But maybe it would not have gotten as far as a jury for Boy B if he had not said anything........

the butcher

mrjoneill wrote: »

We don't know it did not come out at the trial

Not only his backpack, the contents. Also his clothes, his shoes on the day (14th May).

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for B to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy A in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

You really need to get your facts straight.

mrjoneill

the butcher wrote: »

Not only his backpack, the contents. Also his clothes, his shoes on the day (14th May).

We don't know, he may have been so far ahead of the posse also with the mobile phones, none recovered. We do know he used the internet from a laptop at home but he may have been ahead of the posse here too. We have no messaging evidence between the pair which I found very strange as they were best friends.

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight.

got A and B miked up

swarlb

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Brush under the carpet...
As if it's not one of the most horrific crimes we've seen in years.
Sure, let's ignore this only a few days after the facts come out.

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

Penn

mrjoneill wrote: »

That's all immaterial the jury were convinced both Boy A & Boy B were acting on a plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing. If Boy B had turned away from the house after bringing Ana to it prob would not have influenced it much. By the fact he stayed and watched as we know from the evidence of him seeing the final position of Ana's body we can assume he is a twisted lying rat that got a kick out of the actual brutal killing if not participated. Ana's body was moved to a new location to the back of the room after her death the blood pattern expert confirmed. We also know from the blood pattern that Ana was struck with a weapon while she was upright which Boy B statement have not explained.

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight.

I have corrected getting A & B mixed up

Will I Am Not

swarlb wrote: »

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

It’s always the same. The boards detectives are all over these threads.

Roger Hassenforder

swarlb wrote: »

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight.

Penn wrote: »

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I got this arse ways

"plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing."


should have read

" plan for B to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy A in the actual killing.

Boy B would need to explain to convince the jury to the why Ana was not told this at school that Boy A had no interest in her and to the why he led her to an abandoned house to tell her that. These were all in the same class in school.

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I got this arse ways

"plan for A to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy B in the actual killing."


should have read

" plan for B to lure Ana to the abandoned house where the forensics implicate Boy A in the actual killing.

AudreyHepburn

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Based on what I’ve read I think Boy B might well regret his involvement. Boy A though doesn’t strike me as being capable of empathy or remorse.

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

U don't know the reasoning of the Jury only the jury knows that. Boy B defense would need to explain to the jury why Ana was led by him 3 km to an abandoned house. Simply his belief for Boy A to tell her he didn't like her would not wash after all he was the one that lured her there. These interactions could have taken place in the school or the open park. But she was lured to a secluded abandoned house by Boy B is the big stumbling block to get over.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B would need to explain to convince the jury

No he wouldn't.

He doesn't have to say anything. Or explain anything.
The state must prove its case against him.

Gerianam

the butcher wrote: »

Detective Garda Daly told Boy B that a witness saw a youth with a black backpack crossing into the field at the back of the abandoned house where Ana was found. He added: “I believe that was you going into the field…”

Boy B replied: “Ok, I did go into the field, but that was to look around, that’s all.”



Was his backpack ever recovered?

No, lost like the two smartphones :rolleyes:

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

The jury was convinced of that due to Boy B's interviews, not any other evidence. The defence could have said Boy B was asked to bring Ana to the house by Boy A, but he then left. The only evidence that Boy B was in the house, saw the murder and their previous discussion of Boy A suggesting they kill Ana all came from Boy B's interviews.

So again, without Boy B's interviews, there would not have been sufficient evidence to warrant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrong the reason Boy B made so many different conflicting statements is he was found out by CCTV & witnesses & told so by the Gardai. Boy B was not convicted on anything he did or not do at the abandoned derelict house. It was his complicity to a believed plan he had with Boy A.

Breaston Plants

Does anybody know why the lawyer for Boy B didn't instruct him to go along the " no comment " route?

tuxy

Breaston Plants wrote: »

Does anybody know why the lawyer for Boy B didn't instruct him to go along the " no comment " route?

The discussions between Boy B and his legal representation are private, we don't know what advice he was give and we don't know if he followed advice.

Larbre34

I said it yesterday, for all the people still scratching their heads about Boy B being convicted of murder....

"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."

Ana was murdered. Without Boy B's actions she wouldn't have been at the location where she was attacked. The jury were clearly convinced that from their previous interactions, Boy B knew what Boy A was planning to do.

Even if, for the sake of argument, B only knew A planned to assault her and nevertheless she died as result, thats malice aforethought and any unlawful killing with premeditated harm is murder under our laws

Therefore, murder charges for everybody.

I still would expect an appeal from B, but unless some aspect of the judge's oversight of the case is found to have erred in law, I'd say nothing will change.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

No he wouldn't.

He doesn't have to say anything. Or explain anything.
The state must prove its case against him.

It was not out of the blue the state had made out a case. It had made out a case of A & B involved in a concerted action to lure Ana to an abandoned house using evidence. For B to free himself from that conspiracy he would have to give convincing evidence of the contrary. Saying nothing was not an option for B as he had lured her from her home & he was acting in concert with A was the available evidence.

80sChild

swarlb wrote: »

Brush it under the Carpet... How dare you !!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort... but the relentless picking apart of what may or may not have happened, of where or where not semen may have been found, who had a backpack, did the parents of the boys know anything...it's all futile at this stage.
The trial is over, the boys have been (rightly I hope) found guilty, and are awaiting sentence.
Leave it at that....
Some people here are more interested in a tit for tat exchange of who knows more than who.
For example, this case has now taken hold where the 'Body in the Tank' case has left off....

Can you mute or unfollow the thread perhaps? I have found it very informative, with lots of insights and viewpoints I never would have had/considered. I've children this age and it all resonates deeply. Can't say I've noticed the grisly competitiveness you refer to. Horses for courses I guess.

kildare lad

mrjoneill wrote: »

Wrong the reason Boy B made so many different conflicting statements is he was found out by CCTV & witnesses & told so by the Gardai. Boy B was not convicted on anything he did or not do at the abandoned derelict house. It was his complicity to a believed plan he had with Boy A.

Sure his lawyer said that the poor boy B was suffering ptsd , he didn't know what he was saying. Lawyers are the most immoral people on the planet, imagine representing scum and trying to get them off or a reduced sentence...

MeMen2_MoRi_

mrjoneill wrote: »

Wrong the reason Boy B made so many different conflicting statements is he was found out by CCTV & witnesses & told so by the Gardai. Boy B was not convicted on anything he did or not do at the abandoned derelict house. It was his complicity to a believed plan he had with Boy A.

When he first told his story to the gardai, if he leaves things as is even with CCTV proving him wrong he would not have a conviction for murder now.

The fact the boy kept amending his story and telling new lies as well as some truths, is what has brought about a guilty verdict for murder.

MeMen2_MoRi_

kildare lad wrote: »

Sure his lawyer said that the poor boy B was suffering ptsd , he didn't know what he was saying. Lawyers are the most immoral people on the planet, imagine representing scum and trying to get them off or a reduced sentence...

Wasn't the lawyer, doctor said that. Doctor also said he didn't want to call him a liar (he told mis truths) as he didn't want to pass judgement on the boy. At the same time passed judgement that the boy didn't know what would happen to Ana at the house.