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

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

Are you claiming that there was other evidence to put B at the crime scene?

No read what I wrote, CCTV & other witness statements put both Boy A & Boy B together in a common plan. Boy B statements were to throw doubt on the camera lying. Every-time he lied of his non involvement he was corrected with external evidence to the facts.

Gimme A Pound

Just in relation to the bullying Ana endured, not the murder as only two arrogant, vile pieces of sh1t did that: I see people write "As a parent, this does this to me and that to me". I know people mean well, but it reeks a bit of "only a parent will truly understand the pain" - well where were any of these super beings in the locality to help out Ana when she was alive and needed them? How could nobody help her? How can a world become such that children have more power than adults?

Some person was trying to be edgy last night here by saying over and over that people will forget soon. Personally I'm just getting more and more angry and upset.

And while the bullying didn't murder her, it created a culture of dehumanising her and making her more and more fair game.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

When I was at the end of primary school/start of secondary school there were a few porn pics/videos going around.
They were nothing violent/just tit pics really/Also there was a lot of Marge/Homer stuff doing the rounds.
A lot of the stuff originated from people texting off for pics off magazines. Then they were forwarded on infrared.(I think)
One thing that never happened tough was shoving them in girls faces.

Yeah that's what I mean, there's a violence there that has always existed long before access to violent porn on phones, and most kids don't want to be part of that. Like most adults I would hope. Boys want to see what women look like without their clothes on, they don't want to see adults having sex with children.

Mech1

I Dont think your allowed to mention the school name. better if you delete.

Grayson

OwlsZat wrote: »

Read a seemingly intelligent person on Twitter making out like this was somehow his teachers fault, as her parents had done everything possible for her. Surely the blame lies exclusively with the boys and their parents.

I feel in time technology will become a watchdog for sociopathic children but forced compliance seems a long way off. Too many parents suffer from the my Jimmy denial syndrome.

I wouldn't say blame but rather a causal factor.

Think of it this way, there could be a hundred different things that led to the point where the boys killed her. We could say that if one of those things hadn't happened it might not have happened. However only one decision was taken with the intent of killing her. That was the two boys.

All of the other events are really just what if's. What if the teacher or parent or whoever had done something different. Well, none of them knew otherwise they would have.

That doesn't mean that we can't learn some lessons. We can take away from this that we need to do more about bullying. Not because it might stop a death but because it hurts innocent children.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

The contorted statements of Boy B confirmed there was a common design that's all, his presence at the murder scene

Force Carrier wrote: »

Are you claiming that there was other evidence to put B at the crime scene?

mrjoneill wrote: »

No read what I wrote

I read what you typed. You say Boy B was at the murder scene.

TheBoyConor

Could the court order prohibiting identification be sort of circumvented by people sharing the identities of the parents instead?
That way the bastards are not identified directly but there accomplice parents are and then people can draw their own conclusions and to which of their children may have been the murderers?

It's all a waste if time anyway. People will find out one way or another. All one has to do is ask someone they know in the local pubs up there and they will spill it. Word of mouth will carry it far and wide if not the internet.

I believe that the boys' parents should all be arrested and charged with being an accessory to the crime. Boy As mother washed a blood soaked hoodie TWICE! Unless she is intellectual deficienct, she knew what happened. Someone was killed or seriously hurt.
All four parents stood by these two proclaiming their innocence and interfering brazenly in the face of overwhelming evidence. How they could even show their faces in public after knowing what their kids did is actually staggeringly brazen.

For that, I would like to see both families imprisoned for an significant sentence.

I am also satisfied to see Boy B's family forced into hiding. They are feeling the wrath of the public's revulsion at what they have done and how they have supported the killers of Ana.

Suckit

Force Carrier wrote: »

I read what you typed. You say Boy B was at the murder scene.

Boy B was at the murder scene. He admitted that.

MeMen2_MoRi_

mrjoneill wrote: »

No read what I wrote, CCTV & other witness statements put both Boy A & Boy B together in a common plan. Boy B statements were to throw doubt on the camera lying. Every-time he lied of his non involvement he was corrected with external evidence to the facts.

CCTV/witness statement do not prove a common plan.

Boy B statement were not to throw doubt on the CCTV lying, the opposite happened.

I'm not sure if you're just not really explaining yourself properly here or you're trying hard to be I know it all and coming off really bad at it. A previous post you mentioned how the jury was "feeling".. unless you were on the jury/know someone on it, a weird way to phase what you were trying get across.

Force Carrier

Suckit wrote: »

Boy B was at the murder scene. He admitted that.

I know that. We are discussing Boy B's position if he had of kept his mouth shut and made no admissions.


mrjoneill is claiming that Boy B would have been charged and convicted even had he made no comment or statement to Gardaí.


He has yet to answer what evidence would place Boy B at the scene or how a murder verdict would carry against him without that.

facehugger99

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Could the court order prohibiting identification be sort of circumvented by people sharing the identities of the parents instead?
That way the bastards are not identified directly but there accomplice parents are and then people can draw their own conclusions and to which of their children may have been the murderers?

It's all a waste if time anyway. People will find out one way or another. All one has to do is ask someone they know in the local pubs up there and they will spill it. Word of mouth will carry it far and wide if not the internet.

I believe that the boys' parents should all be arrested and charged with being an accessory to the crime. Boy As mother washed a blood soaked hoodie TWICE! Unless she is intellectual deficienct, she knew what happened. Someone was killed or seriously hurt.
All four parents stood by these two proclaiming their innocence and interfering brazenly in the face of overwhelming evidence. How they could even show their faces in public after knowing what their kids did is actually staggeringly brazen.

For that, I would like to see both families imprisoned for an significant sentence.

I am also satisfied to see Boy B's family forced into hiding. They are feeling the wrath of the public's revulsion at what they have done and how they have supported the killers of Ana.

I find it more disturbing to have to share a country with you than with those boy’s parents TBH.

tuxy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

It's all a waste if time anyway. People will find out one way or another. All one has to do is ask someone they know in the local pubs up there and they will spill it. Word of mouth will carry it far and wide if not the internet.

I believe that the boys' parents should all be arrested and charged with being an accessory to the crime. Boy As mother washed a blood soaked hoodie TWICE! Unless she is intellectual deficienct, she knew what happened. Someone was killed or seriously hurt.
All four parents stood by these two proclaiming their innocence and interfering brazenly in the face of overwhelming evidence. How they could even show their faces in public after knowing what their kids did is actually staggeringly brazen.

For that, I would like to see both families imprisoned for an significant sentence.

You're crazy. You know that Boy A claimed he was attacked and him and his Dad even went around the park trying to track down the two men his son claimed were responsible. The clothes were washed while Ana was still missing with no contact between him and the Guards yet.
What kind of mother would suspect her son of murder the instant a girl goes missing in the area?

Kidchameleon

The amount of posters here saying they wished they didn't read the details or that they cant sleep at night thinking about this is worrying. I mean, come on people, this stuff happens every day the world over, if you are so personally effected by this that you are having nightmares then I really question your ability to cope in the real world.

mrjoneill

tuxy wrote: »

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.

Forensics made Boy A an open & shut case. As for Boy B there was none so evidence had to be build up from the surrounding circumstances. Most telling was Ana's father identifying Boy B calling for her and she going off with him and she not coming home. Boy B implicated Boy A at the start of the investigations while Boy A was complaining of being a victim handling over his own clothes & footwear as evidence of this which provided the evidence of it having Ana's blood. He even gave his DNA at that time. Ana was still missing at that time.

The Specialist

facehugger99 wrote: »

I find it more disturbing to have to share a country with you than with those boy’s parents TBH.

He’s dead right in what he says to be honest. What do you find disagrreable?

I’m delighted their names and pictures have been exposed, I hope this crime hounds the both of them until the day they die. Sub human scum is all they are

Gimme A Pound

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The amount of posters here saying they wished they didn't read the details or that they cant sleep at night thinking about this is worrying. I mean, come on people, this stuff happens every day the world over, if you are so personally effected by this that you are having nightmares then I really question your ability to cope in the real world.

How about channelling that "worried" energy into things of more importance than people being too empathetic for your liking.

tuxy

The Specialist wrote: »

He’s dead right in what he says to be honest. What do you find disagrreable?

The locking up of several generations of the same family for years over the transgression of one family member. No evidence, no trial, just lock them all up.

The Specialist

tuxy wrote: »

The locking up of several generations of the same family for years over the transgression of one family member. No evidence, no trial, just lock them all up.

They didn’t even need to go that far, Boy B hung himself in interviews with the Gardaí and Boy A sounds like he should never see the light of day again.

Hal3000

We need incentives for parents who don't give their kids smartphones until after 16 years old. Free Nokia that can't access the internet would be a start. Most use the excuse that they need to contact them. It doesn't have to be internet ready to contact them. Also, most parents bow to peer pressure because other parents allowed their kids have one. If we allowed this unfettered access to the internet for kids the effects on future society will be detrimental.

tuxy

The Specialist wrote: »

They didn’t even need to go that far, Boy B hung himself in interviews with the Gardaí and Boy A sounds like he should never see the light of day again.

My response was to a claim by another poster that any adult that had a hand in the upbringing of these boys deserve lengthily sentences.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

I know that. We are discussing Boy B's position if he had of kept his mouth shut and made no admissions.


mrjoneill is claiming that Boy B would have been charged and convicted even had he made no comment or statement to Gardaí.


He has yet to answer what evidence would place Boy B at the scene or how a murder verdict would carry against him without that.

What was necessary to show to the jury was both Boy A and Boy B had a common plan, that of Boy B to lure Ana from her home to an abandoned house where Boy A lay in wait. CCTV & witness statement inc Ana's father confirmed this. CCTV & witness statements show Boy B leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house this is while Boy A is taking another route. This is convincing of a common plan added to the fact that CCTV shows them together earlier that evening. Ana was not lured to a park but an abandoned derelict house 3km away which shows much deeper intrigues.

The Specialist

tuxy wrote: »

My response was to a claim by another poster that any adult that had a hand in the upbringing of these boys deserve lengthily sentences.

Apologies, that is a ridiculous assertation and I stand by your opinion on it.

Tokyo

Mod:

Posting identifying information on the parties involved will earn an immediate threadban. Please take care with what you post or quote from other sources.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

What was necessary to show to the jury was both Boy A and Boy B had a common plan, that of Boy B to lure Ana from her home to an abandoned house where Boy A lay in wait. CCTV & witness statement inc Ana's father confirmed this. CCTV & witness statements show Boy B leading Ana in the direction of the abandoned house this is while Boy A is taking another route. This is convincing of a common plan added to the fact that CCTV shows them together earlier that evening. Ana was not lured to a park but an abandoned derelict house 3km away which shows much deeper intrigues.

That doesn't show a common plan.

That doesn't show B knew what A was going to do.

Direction of means nothing. There was no indication B was in the house or met A in the house.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

I read what you typed. You say Boy B was at the murder scene.

Boy B states he was, but that is not the conclusive evidence of guilt, its the fact he led Ana there obv under a rouse of Boy A wanting to meet her. If he went to Ana house enticed her out to be murdered or attacked that is all that's need to prove his complicity. CCTV & witness statements support this as does Ana's father. It was Ana's father that placed Boy B at her house, which startled him when Gardai called to his house that evening. Boy B then put the blame on Boy A as if passing on his problem. If Boy B was at the murder scene & did not entice Ana there or had prior notice of a plan to kill her & did not participate in the killing he would have no guilt associated to him. And he stating he was there would not imply guilt either. His only liability would be to report a felony.

Nerdlingr

Mrjoneill, you keep going on about a "common plan". That the prosecution built their case on CCTV and witness statements. And this evidence somehow convinced the jury that the boys designed a plan to murder Ana.
How? You're putting the horse before the cart.

I'll ask you specifically....How does boy b calling for ana, been seen by her father, been seen on CCTV, been seen walking towards the house with her prove he knew she was going to be murdered?

mrjoneill

Hal3000 wrote: »

We need incentives for parents who don't give their kids smartphones until after 16 years old. Free Nokia that can't access the internet would be a start. Most use the excuse that they need to contact them. It doesn't have to be internet ready to contact them. Also, most parents bow to peer pressure because other parents allowed their kids have one. If we allowed this unfettered access to the internet for kids the effects on future society will be detrimental.

The jeannie is out of the bottle, once out it not going back in. The facts are that most 12 yrs old are being fed a stable diet of porn. Those kids without smart phones see their friends ones. Exch porn is the new way to exch as people did of stamps at one time. Making porn only avail to adults is peppered with assumptions. In Brit kids steal their parents credit cards to get access unknown to them as no charges arise. Time to consider teaching kids about the realities of porn & the effect it can have on them.

Force Carrier

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B states he was, but that is not the conclusive evidence of guilt, its the fact he led Ana there obv under a rouse of Boy B wanting to meet her. If he went to Ana house enticed her out to be murdered that is all that's need to prove his complicity. CCTV & witness statements support this as does Ana's father. It was Ana's father that placed Boy B at her house, which startled him when Gardai called to his house that evening. Boy B then put the blame on Boy A as if passing on his problem. If Boy B was at the murder scene & did not entice Ana there or had prior notice of a plan to kill her & did not participate in the killing he would have no guilt associated to him. And he stating he was there would not imply guilt either. His only liability would be to report a felony.

Calling to Ana's house and bringing her part way to a romantic liaison is not a crime.

You must understand that in Court all that counts is what you can prove.
You must show Knowledge in B's mind of what is happening. That he is taking part in a murder. He knows he's taking part in a murder. Evidence to show that. Not opinion or speculation.

Mens Rea.

Larbre34

Force Carrier wrote: »

That doesn't show a common plan.

That doesn't show B knew what A was going to do.

Direction of means nothing. There was no indication B was in the house or met A in the house.

Patric Kriegel identified Boy B as the person who called to their home and who Ana left with. There is no confusion there as quite sadly both parents gave evidence that "nobody called for Ana"

We now know that all of Boy A, Boy B and Boy B with Ana were spotted en route by people known to them, not to mention the CCTV.

If Boy B had never uttered one word in his Garda interviews, those above facts still remain and in that event I have no doubt that Boy As Counsel would have gone after Boy B in Court in order to distract in any way possible from his client and introduce that critical element called doubt.

As someone who has sat on a murder trial jury and had the law explained to me at length in a judges charge, I have absolutely zero doubt that the correct charge for Boy B was murder and that by reason of 'common design' the verdict of guilty was the right one.

By the way, a few people who have no idea what they were talking about earlier suggested he might have got manslaughter as a lesser conviction. Thats not the way it works, for any consideration of manslaughter, there would have to have been doubt over whether Ana died some sort of unintentional death without premeditation. Thats not what happened though, Boy A planned to do her harm, she died as a result and it is irrelevant as to whether he meant it to go that far, she's dead and it was a planned attack, so its murder. Nothing lessens that for Boy B either.

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Mrjoneill, you keep going on about a "common plan". That the prosecution built their case on CCTV and witness statements. And this evidence somehow convinced the jury that the boys designed a plan to murder Ana.
How? You're putting the horse before the cart.

I'll ask you specifically....How does boy b calling for ana, been seen by her father, been seen on CCTV, been seen walking towards the house with her prove he knew she was going to be murdered?

How do his conflicting statement prove it either? The reason he has so many conflicting statements is he was being caught out by CCTV & other witness statements. Boy B statements have nothing in them that he knew Boy A was going to kill her. Its we can deduce from the circumstances of the whole available evidence there was a plan. All Boy B did with his video lies was convince the Gardai, prosecution & jury he was a convoluted manipulative liar and well up to be part of a plan to kill Ana.