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

mrjoneill

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

Absolutely 100% spot on, it was the plan or perceived plan that implicated Boy B confirmed by he luring her from her home. Boy B did not have to know that Boy A wanted to kill her but he that had an illegal act in plan.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

You talk about 'lured' 'enticed' 'planned' These are words out of your head. They don't exist in evidence. B doesn't have to free himself from anything or explain anything. If the Gardaí had no or insufficient evidence against him then he is home and free. They may know he was involved. They might even be certain but they require evidence. The DPP will not bring charges without evidence.

If you take Boy B's admissions out of the equation there was no evidence against him.
There was no evidence he was at the scene of the crime.
There was no evidence that he assaulted her leading to her death.
There is no evidence that he had knowledge of Boy B's intention to or his committing of murder.

tuxy

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

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.

The Guards called him out on his lies when they were sure he was not being truthful, this is when he started to change his story. If he had stopped talking at this stage the Guards would know he was involved but not have enough evidence to convict him. You can be sure their investigate would have taken a very different route at this point and it's impossible to say if they could have accumulated enough evidence to convince a jury.

jobbridge4life

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...

It was the testimony of a psychologist. The barrister is legally and morally bound to provide the best possible defense for their client. In our legal system it is essential that defense counsel pursue their briefs diligently and vigorously.

This not only aids the accused in any given case, but all of us by ensuring that convictions are only handed down when properly deserved and that our law enforcement officers, prosecutors etc maintain the required high standards.

mrjoneill

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

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.

Not true he only alienated the jury with his lies even further. The jury believed there was a plan between Boy A and Boy B to lure her to the abandoned house. Boy B played an active part in that by calling to her house to lure her there. The jury believed that this plan was for Boy A to kill Ana or seriously assault her & Boy B was part of this.

freshpopcorn

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

So let me get this correct.
Let's just saw the laws changed in the morning and parents were held responsible.
One night you have a disagreement with one of your teenage kids and they are really pissed with you. They decided to go out and kill somebody so you, your partner will be jailed and your other kid could end up in foster care.
Is this what you want?

Aisling_Dublin

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

She would not have been murdered if he didn't deliver her to boy 'A'

He played a huge part in her murder.

He could have murdered her later with a different plan.

jobbridge4life

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

I despair... I honestly do.

Would you be satisfied then? When you have 6 people in prison? What will we do with those parents' other children? Will we throw them in prison as well? Why stop there? Why not just slit their throats in the public square?

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I despair... I honestly do.

Would you be satisfied then? When you have 6 people in prison? What will we do with those parents' other children? Will we throw them in prison as well? Why stop there? Why not just slit their throats in the public square?

Let the other kids be adopted by competent parents? Ideally this should be done regardless.

FAILSAFE 00

They should name the boys. Its getting very dangerous out there.

Already someone was wrongfully identified has one of the boys.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-kriegel-case-court-hears-innocent-child-wrongfully-identified-as-one-of-the-boys-on-social-media-38238206.html

jobbridge4life

pjohnson wrote: »

Let the other kids be adopted by competent parents? Ideally this should be done regardless.

And the teachers? And the grandparents? And how wide a net will it take?

Better yet spare the whole lot the trauma and just execute them all on the late late.

mrjoneill

Breaston Plants wrote: »

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

We don't but suspect that he was not told the truth by his client. Boy B told his psychologist he believed he would somehow get out of it with a small prison sentence. He believed he would get a few weeks for just luring Ana not a conviction for murder. Looking at the evidence it would seem Boy B though he was a master manipulator. Boy B was already deeply implicated by the fact he called to Ana and lured her from her home & he thought he could simply explain that away, "I took her to the park to meet Boy A & I went home". But CCTV & witness statements showed he was lying. He had to keep expanding when found out. And we don't even know now of the extent of his involvement.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

Not true he only alienated the jury with his lies even further. The jury believed there was a plan between Boy A and Boy B to lure her to the abandoned house. Boy B played an active part in that by calling to her house to lure her there. The jury believed that this plan was for Boy A to kill Ana or seriously assault her & Boy B was part of this.

This is nonsense again.
The 'plan' stuff is all in your head. The Jury weren't involved in any plan.
The Jury makes its decision based on evidence put in front of it.
The prosecution produced evidence of interviews between gardai and Boy B.
In these interviews Boy B made a number of admissions.
He admitted to being at the crime scene.
He admitted to being present and observing the commencement of the sexual assault and attack that would lead to her death.
Based on that evidence he was found guilty of murder.
Without that evidence there was no case.

jobbridge4life

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

They should name the boys. Its getting very dangerous out there.

Already someone was wrongfully identified has one of the boys.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-kriegel-case-court-hears-innocent-child-wrongfully-identified-as-one-of-the-boys-on-social-media-38238206.html

Disgraceful comment. Keyboard warriors and vigilantes demanding the naming are responsible for this nonsense. They would be responsible for even worse if the names were revealed.

Already the family of Boy B have been forced into hiding. Shame on you.

mrjoneill

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

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.

He was not convicted for telling lies but for being part of a plan which he failed to dissuade the jury on.

Nerdlingr

Not that it matters in any case but ,I'm sorry mrjoneill, you havent a clue how the justice system works. Everything you've posted for the last while is completely incorrect.

MeMen2_MoRi_

mrjoneill wrote: »

Not true he only alienated the jury with his lies even further. The jury believed there was a plan between Boy A and Boy B to lure her to the abandoned house. Boy B played an active part in that by calling to her house to lure her there. The jury believed that this plan was for Boy A to kill Ana or seriously assault her & Boy B was part of this.

Everytime the boy "corrected" a lie, he moved himself ever closer to the murder scene, of course you're aleinating yourself from the jury. The CCTV proves things only so far in his guilt, he did his own hanging, I don't see a jury convicting him any other way.

Roger Hassenforder

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

They should name the boys. Its getting very dangerous out there.

The genie is certainly half out of the bottle.
(Or still half in if you prefer)

There was mention of a white stick BoyB had at the house. Were his fingerprints recovered from anything there?

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And the teachers? And the grandparents? And how wide a net will it take?

Better yet spare the whole lot the trauma and just execute them all on the late late.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Disgraceful comment. Keyboard warriors and vigilantes demanding the naming are responsible for this nonsense. They would be responsible for even worse if the names were revealed.

Already the family of Boy B have been forced into hiding. Shame on you.

Jesus your taking this worse than Boy B's dad. Did you think they are innocent?

martingriff

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How can they endanger an innocent kid when the scum are detained?

Because some people when they geta mob mentality can do irrational things and think later. What if they do. If they are been detained why do we have know them. By the time they are freed they will look different and have change

Goose76

Apologies if I’m late but obviously this is a very fast moving thread.

Parents of Boy B gone into hiding apparently.

tuxy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The genie is certainly half out of the bottle.
(Or still half in if you prefer)

There was mention of a white stick BoyB had at the house. Were his fingerprints recovered from anything there?

It was not found in his home. Boy B talked about a stick he picked up inside one of the rooms of the abandoned building but left it back as it was not suitable to be used as a play sword.

jobbridge4life

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Everytime the boy "corrected" a lie, he moved himself ever closer to the murder scene, of course you're aleinating yourself from the jury. The CCTV proves things only so far in his guilt, he did his own hanging, I don't see a jury convicting him any other way.

Given the complete lack of forensic evidence connecting him with the killing, I think a manslaughter verdict might have been an alternative. Of course conspiracy complicates matters but it is worthy of note that only Boy A was convicted of sexual assault.

Daisy78

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Given the complete lack of forensic evidence connecting him with the killing, I think a manslaughter verdict might have been an alternative. Of course conspiracy complicates matters but it is worthy of note that only Boy A was convicted of sexual assault.

Why on earth are you defending this boy?

tuxy

Daisy78 wrote: »

Why on earth are you defending this boy?

It's not defending someone to point out a conviction of murder would have been difficult without them implicating themselves over and over in interviews with the Guards.

Suckit

If Boy B had more involvement while he was there, more than just calling into her and walking her the 3km to the house, then Boy A might be convinced to share any evidence of that, that he may be able to provide.
For example if Boy B helped plant items in the house or helped with the mask etc.
If Boy B did have a phone despite claiming it was lost etc.
Boy A may remember Boy B doing something specific in the house.

jobbridge4life

pjohnson wrote: »

Jesus your taking this worse than Boy B's dad. Did you think they are innocent?

No. You seem to be taking it worse than Ana's parents... but that's always the way isn't it? Sad sacks on the internet making out like tough men?

I tell you what, when it comes to taking those innocent children from their parents I'll support it so long as you are the one who has to do it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Given the complete lack of forensic evidence connecting him with the killing, I think a manslaughter verdict might have been an alternative. Of course conspiracy complicates matters but it is worthy of note that only Boy A was convicted of sexual assault.

Surely the accomplice can’t be convicted of manslaughter if the charge for the principal is murder.

Lefty Bicek

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No. You seem to be taking it worse than Ana's parents...

Absolutely disgraceful.

Reported.

MeMen2_MoRi_

tuxy wrote: »

The Guards called him out on his lies when they were sure he was not being truthful, this is when he started to change his story. If he had stopped talking at this stage the Guards would know he was involved but not have enough evidence to convict him. You can be sure their investigate would have taken a very different route at this point and it's impossible to say if they could have accumulated enough evidence to convince a jury.

I think they've put in a huge amount of investigation into this case, what they got was boy A at the scene, boy B with Ana before.

The rest of the dots linking B to the murder scene is his own words. And this "plan" boy A saying to B about wanting to murder Ana came from B in the interviews.