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

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

You're just embarassing. Everyone else is the sad sack sure. The kids (if younger) may currently be innocent but look how the child they "reared" for 13 years turned out?

For the kids own good they'd be better going to an actual home that will actually care for them.


You cry if anyone speaks against your beloved boys parents but then use Ana (the ACTUAL victim) parents. You sap.

tuxy

Suckit wrote: »

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.

Boy A's defence after they knew there was DNA evidence was to not say a single thing and hope the Garda would make a technical error or that the judge would allow the jury to consider manslaughter.
He had nothing to gain by talking and there was no indication that he would no matter what the status of Boy B's defence was. I don't think shared responsibility will have an impact on his sentence.

Jimmy McGill

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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?

Absolute idiot

Franz Von Peppercorn II

pjohnson wrote: »

You're embarassing. Everyone else is the sad sack sure. The kids (if younger) may currently be innocent but look how the child they "reared" for 13 years turned out?

For the kids own good they'd be better going to an actual home that will actually care for them.

That’s rubbish. A bad kid can come from a good home. And vice versa.

jobbridge4life

pjohnson wrote: »

You're embarassing. Everyone else is the sad sack sure. The kids (if younger) may currently be innocent but look how the child they "reared" for 13 years turned out?

For the kids own good they'd be better going to an actual home that will actually care for them.

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

I for one am glad that the law, on this question, is firmly on my side.

A parade of hard-lads, and keyboard queens demanding names, photos and the imprisonment of innocent people might satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy me.

iamwhoiam

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.

A 12 man jury who heard all evidence thought differently .

BarryD2

Goose76 wrote: »

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

Parents of Boy B gone into hiding apparently.

Doesn't quite stack up. Why would one family go into hiding and not the other, particularly when the latter is more directly connected with the actual assault?

Also curious that it was reported that it was the legal team for parents of Boy B who sought the further injunctions against publishers. One can only conclude that they have more to lose and the in court behaviour of one parent left a lot to be desired.

MrFresh

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

What innocent children?

Omackeral

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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

That's vile commentary.

FAILSAFE 00

Like I was saying its very dangerous out there at the moment.

Its far too easy for someone holding a grudge with any teenage male to post "Hey, boy A is this person" and so on.

We already have someone who has been wrongfully identified has one of the two.

By all means make sure their families are safe, relocated, etc, etc but its far too risky leaving both these boys unidentified.

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

I for one am glad that the law, on this question, is firmly on my side.

A parade of hard-lads, and keyboard queens demanding names, photos and the imprisonment of innocent people might satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy me.

The law that you are currently arguing against RE Boy B being guilty of murder?

jobbridge4life

MrFresh wrote: »

What innocent children?

The other siblings of either Boy A or B whose lives would be even furthered destroyed by being deprived of their parents to satiate a braying internet mob.

Omackeral

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful.

Reported.

And that poster has the nerves to cast shame on others for daring to say they believe the killers should be named.

dudara

@jobbridge4life warned for uncivil posting. Keep it civil folks

dudara

Franz Von Peppercorn II

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

I for one am glad that the law, on this question, is firmly on my side.

A parade of hard-lads, and keyboard queens demanding names, photos and the imprisonment of innocent people might satisfy you, it doesn't satisfy me.

Whatever about the imprisonment of the families, which is absurd, I’m not convinced that justice is served by not knowing the names of killers but only the victim.

Suckit

tuxy wrote: »

Boy A's defence after they knew there was DNA evidence was to not say a single thing and hope the Garda would make a technical error or that the judge would allow the jury to consider manslaughter.
He had nothing to gain by talking and there was no indication that he would no matter what the status of Boy B's defence was. I don't think shared responsibility will have an impact on his sentence.

I mean if Boy B were to appeal his sentence, and if there is genuine proof that it was his idea and he manipulated the whole turn of events etc.
Boy A may decide not to stay quiet anymore, it no longer makes any difference to his case.

Omackeral

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An absolute disgrace. You should feel ashamed.

From the person who said this mere minutes ago;

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You seem to be taking it worse than Ana's parents

jobbridge4life

pjohnson wrote: »

The law that you are currently arguing against RE Boy B being guilty of murder?

I am not arguing against it. I never said I was. I said I had thought that it was possible a conviction of manslaughter might of occurred rather than murder, and purely because of the lack of forensics linking him to the act, or as I understand any documentary evidence indicating an intention to lure Ana to the house for the purpose of killing her.

That isn't a defense. It isn't intended as one.

dudara

Calm down everyone. Take a step back before posting.

dudara

jobbridge4life

Omackeral wrote: »

That's vile commentary.

It was. I acknowledge and apologise. I won't further defend it beyond pointing out that it was after and in response to an individual who likened me to the father of a convicted murderer.

martingriff

BarryD2 wrote: »

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

It's not but if you read here people are blaming everyone who has any contact with the boys for not catching and stop them and who know what some act first and think later person will do

Breaston Plants

Anyone know what kind of conditions these 2 guys should expect in Oberstown prison?

Utopia Parkway

Penn wrote: »

Boy B seemed to think each time they unraveled his lies that he could reveal a bit more info, say that's it, and that'd be the end of it. Instead, he was just digging a deeper hole for himself and creating more inconsistencies in his story, allowing the detectives to keep pushing through the gaps he left.

Boy B would almost certainly have gotten away with it had he just said nothing to the police. As bad as it would have looked there was no DNA evidence tying him to the scene.

He ended up incriminating himself through his own inconsistent web of lies.

I have no idea how they thought they would get away with it to be honest. I mean Boy B called to Ana's house to collect her. The trail was always going to lead back to him and then Boy A.

Lackadaisical

Some of the commentary here is a getting a bit ridiculous. Thankfully, we actually have a reasonable judicial system and the Oireachtas isn't filled with reactionary hotheads.

It's difficult, but you have to be able to be extremely dispassionate, logical and maintain a cool head when actually dealing with cases. It goes against our instincts to just want revenge, but it's what it takes to be a civilised society.

Also, as the old adage goes: hard cases make bad law.

BarryD2

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Whatever about the imprisonment of the families, which is absurd, I’m not convinced that justice is served by not knowing the names of killers but only the victim.

I'm inclined to agree. In normal circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable to protect the identities of children. But these are far from normal circumstances and the injunctions/ warnings from the bench and Gardai, are more likely to up the ante and raise public speculation rather than quell it. Common sense would advise that a degree of openness is required in these circumstances, not least so that entirely innocent people are not accidentally identified as being involved.

Shemale

weldoninhio wrote: »

This isn't CSI Ireland. We don't have a vast semen database. They wouldn't have gotten a match if they didn't know who to test.

Absolute horse****e, they knew Ana left her house with Boy B, even if he didnt given up boy A the police would have looked at his friends / school friends

BloodBath

There needs to be a serious review of the law. These little ****s gave up any status of being children or even human when they committed this act.

They are both 1% of the male population that are psychopaths. They are an even further minority of this demographic that go on to commit such heinous acts.

They should never see the light of day again. I'm firmly behind the death penalty for this minority of people once they cross the line like this regardless of age. At the very least they should never be released. Once a psychopath always a psychopath.

Just like the Bulger murderers they will go on to commit other offences once released. But the state will spend millions protecting them and their identities.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

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.

Completely wrong the trial judge warned the jury the presence at an assault does not implicate guilt nor observing an assault or any other criminal behavior. There is no onus for to act to stop such. What I understand of the Common Law from old case law is failing to assist a police constable when called to do so to assist may be a criminal of fence. Other than that there is no onus on anyone to intervene in an assault. If Boy B had intervened and assisted Ana it may cancel or ameliorated the common plan which was then in place.
The fact that Boy B was at the killing & did nothing only convinced the jury more of his guilt to a common plan/design. If Boy B stumbled on Boy A killing Ana & he had no prior involvement there would be no onus on him to do anything. The common plan was deduced from the facts that Boy B brought Ana to Boy A at the derelict house. It could not be done unless it was a plan.

tuxy

Shemale wrote: »

Absolute horse****e, they knew Ana left her house with Boy B, even if he didnt given up boy A the police would have looked at his friends / school friends

Then there was incident with the ranger in the park and other people that can place Boy A in that area. Once the DNA was found Garda would have eventually tested Boy A under almost every possible scenario.
The case against Boy B was the one that needed the most work.

Teepinaw

Hi

I haven't read the entire thread.
I've a few questions.

Did boy B have two phones? And they were lost??

I remember hearing on the radio, something about a parent washing one of the boys clothes - twice? Can anyone comment on this please? Which boy was it.