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

Sunflower 27

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.

Well, just that he said he was. And if B hadn't put himself in the frame and the heat was entirely on A, A may have said he was there (not wanting him to get off scot-free and take some pressure off himself).

Force Carrier

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

You must prove common design. You must prove B knew what was going to happen at the house. Not just 'i think' 'or sure what else was he doing'.

Without B's confession all we would know was he took Anna half way to a place where someone else killed her. Did he know what would happen to her at the house. Hmm. Maybe. But maybe not. Who knows.
The bar is set in a Criminal Trial of proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You could speculate he thought it was a genuine date.
Or he thought it would be a small assault.
Or anything.
It's all speculation.
To prove murder you must show he had knowledge of what was happening and was a full and willing participant. His answers in Garda interrogation gave us that. Otherwise not.

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

Again. You don't have your facts correct.

And again with "the plan".
And you haven't answered my question...how does CCTV & witness statements PROVE there was a plan to kill Ana, and Boy B knew of this plan?

Beechwoodspark

Are we meant to feel sympathy for boy B’s family being forced into hiding ? Seriously ?

Hal3000

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

Not true, nothing is ever beyond fixing. If things got so bad the government could switch it off with the click of a button. Don't ever forget that. The Jeanie is never out of the bottle considering we don't control any of the online infrastructure.

Nerdlingr

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Well, just that he said he was. And if B hadn't put himself in the frame and the heat was entirely on A, A may have said he was there (not wanting him to get off scot-free and take some pressure off himself).

One Boy's statement cannot be used as evidence against the other Boy.
If A said B was there at the scene it wouldn't have been allowed as evidence to convict B.

mrjoneill

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

Glad someone else can see it all quite clearly, I was beginning to feel I was alone in seeing the obvious.

Boy A counsel sought during the jury deliberations to introduce manslaughter as a verdict for him. The Judge stated it was not applicable as his client was pleading not guilty. There are 2 forms of MS voluntary & involuntary. The first may have application if there was not the intention to kill but recklessness to the fact. As for involuntary MS is usually associated with a unlawful & dangerous act which had not application.
Boy B was hoping for a totally not guilty verdict. He had the best opportunity to go for involuntary MS if he was truthful & honest in his evidence.

Lucuma

What has struck me from the evidence regarding both the parents of Boy A and Boy B - specifically the fathers - is their attitude of how their darling Johnny couldn't possibly do any wrong. Boy A's father banging down the door of the park ranger's hut when his boy got 'attacked' and Boy B's outburst to the court after the verdict. It's clear there's something very, very wrong with these boys and their attitude to right and wrong. It seems like their parents are doing them no favours either. It's hard to know if they'll rehabilitate when they'll have their family fighting for 'justice' for them like this and celebrating if they get early release etc.

Shouldn't the parents be encouraging the lads to take responsibility for their actions. Is this good parenting? Is all this standing by them and supporting them after them doing that going to help or hinder them you'd wonder

Beechwoodspark

Lucuma wrote: »

What has struck me from the evidence regarding both the parents of Boy A and Boy B - specifically the fathers - is their attitude of how their darling Johnny couldn't possibly do any wrong. Boy A's father banging down the door of the park ranger's hut when his boy got 'attacked' and Boy B's outburst to the court after the verdict. It's clear there's something very, very wrong with these boys and their attitude to right and wrong. It seems like their parents are doing them no favours either. It's hard to know if they'll rehabilitate when they'll have their family fighting for 'justice' for them like this and celebrating if they get early release etc.

Shouldn't the parents be encouraging the lads to take responsibility for their actions. Is this good parenting? Is all this standing by them and supporting them after them doing that going to help or hinder them you'd wonder

The whole thing stinks

I suspect that much more went on than has come out so far.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

mrjoneill wrote: »

Glad someone else can see it all quite clearly, I was beginning to feel I was alone in seeing the obvious.

Boy A counsel sought during the jury deliberations to introduce manslaughter as a verdict for him. The Judge stated it was not applicable as his client was pleading not guilty. There are 2 forms of MS voluntary & involuntary. The first may have application if there was not the intention to kill but recklessness to the fact. As for involuntary MS is usually associated with a unlawful & dangerous act which had not application.
Boy B was hoping for a totally not guilty verdict. He had the best opportunity to go for involuntary MS if he was truthful & honest in his evidence.

That guy wasn’t agreeing with you at all. And boy B couldn’t be charged for manslaughter if the co-defendant was charged for murder.

Lucuma

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The whole thing stinks

I suspect that much more went on than has come out so far.

I mean I'm just thinking of Boy B hearing his father shouting that he's innocent and that the court system of this country are a bunch of pr!cks or whatever he said.

What kind of message is that sending to Boy B. You can do what you did and I'll still believe you're innocent? WTF

mrjoneill

Hal3000 wrote: »

Not true, nothing is ever beyond fixing. If things got so bad the government could switch it off with the click of a button. Don't ever forget that. The Jeanie is never out of the bottle considering we don't control any of the online infrastructure.

Unfortunately we are not all that rational. Dads & Mams would continue to transgress believing their little pets would not dare look at porn & use their smart phones for games which gets majority use by teenagers. The use of apps which need internet is so common there is no going back. Internet browsers on mobiles there is no way of controlling it. For me its quite clear the horse has long bolted and is on the way to the end-line. Its time to accept the inevitable & prepare for it.

volchitsa

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Again. You don't have your facts correct.

And again with "the plan".
And you haven't answered my question...how does CCTV & witness statements PROVE there was a plan to kill Ana, and Boy B knew of this plan?

This has been repeated before : there doesn't have to have been a plan to kill her, it is enough if there was a plan to do her harm (hit her to incapacitate her and then rape her for example) - if she died as a result of that plan being put into action, then that is also murder and B was an active accomplice.

Since Boy B said that nobody liked her, or wanted to be seen with her, it's obvious that he didn't think he was bringing her to a romantic tryst.

So he knew he was bringing her there to have some harm done to her. And that's what happened.

mrjoneill

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That guy wasn’t agreeing with you at all. And boy B couldn’t be charged for manslaughter if the co-defendant was charged for murder.

I didn't state he was nor u should not presume he wasn't either.


Difference of murder & involuntary manslaughter is on the frame of mind of the perpetrator. Both require a homicide but its the frame of mind that makes them specific. For murder its the intention to kill or do really serious injury whereas for manslaughter its recklessness to it, ie did not believe at the time that death would be caused or serious injury done.

volchitsa

mrjoneill wrote: »

I didn't state he was nor u should not resume he wasn't either.

Difference of murder & involuntary manslaughter is on the frame of mind of the perpetrator. Both require a homicide but its the frame of mind that makes them specific. For murder its the intention to kill or do really serious injury whereas for manslaughter its recklessness to it, ie did not believe at the time that death would be caused or serious injury done.

But to argue involuntary manslaughter you presumably have to accept that your actions caused the death. You can't deny it all and also say, oh but it was an accident.

They could have argued manslaughter, especially boy B (though not going for help when he heard her scream doesn't plead in his favour but still), but they chose to say it wasn't them at all. That's why they were found guilty of murder - because they set up a scenario that seemed like it was intended to get away with murder.

mrjoneill

Lucuma wrote: »

I mean I'm just thinking of Boy B hearing his father shouting that he's innocent and that the court system of this country are a bunch of pr!cks or whatever he said.

What kind of message is that sending to Boy B. You can do what you did and I'll still believe you're innocent? WTF

Whatever message Boy B takes out of it is irrelevant as he is locked up. For me and the general public he made an ass of himself & showed he was a callous b@stard with the clapping too. A beautiful innocent girl was brutally murdered & raped by his scum son with his friend. He spoke for no one but himself & his ignorance.

Boggles

mrjoneill wrote: »

Unfortunately we are not all that rational. Dads & Mams would continue to transgress believing their little pets would not dare look at porn & use their smart phones for games which gets majority use by teenagers. The use of apps which need internet is so common there is no going back. Internet browsers on mobiles there is no way of controlling it. For me its quite clear the horse has long bolted and is on the way to the end-line. Its time to accept the inevitable & prepare for it.

The absolute vast majority of Parents in this country are fine FFS.

They are not neanderthals when it comes to tech either, it's been around a while, also Dad's know exactly what teenage males get up, they used be one.

Jesus, one tragic ultra rare case of horror and society has crumbled.

I think a lot people need to calm down, the hyperbole has hit 11.

Hal3000

mrjoneill wrote: »

Unfortunately we are not all that rational. Dads & Mams would continue to transgress believing their little pets would not dare look at porn & use their smart phones for games which gets majority use by teenagers. The use of apps which need internet is so common there is no going back. Internet browsers on mobiles there is no way of controlling it. For me its quite clear the horse has long bolted and is on the way to the end-line. Its time to accept the inevitable & prepare for it.

Yeah agree we're pretty much done for as a society. That slow train Bob Dylan talked about is coming!!

beggars_bush

Lucuma wrote: »

I mean I'm just thinking of Boy B hearing his father shouting that he's innocent and that the court system of this country are a bunch of pr!cks or whatever he said.

What kind of message is that sending to Boy B. You can do what you did and I'll still believe you're innocent? WTF

The kids take after the parents it seems

Larbre34

Force Carrier wrote: »

You must prove common design. You must prove B knew what was going to happen at the house. Not just 'i think' 'or sure what else was he doing'.

Without B's confession all we would know was he took Anna half way to a place where someone else killed her. Did he know what would happen to her at the house. Hmm. Maybe. But maybe not. Who knows.
The bar is set in a Criminal Trial of proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You could speculate he thought it was a genuine date.
Or he thought it would be a small assault.
Or anything.
It's all speculation.
To prove murder you must show he had knowledge of what was happening and was a full and willing participant. His answers in Garda interrogation gave us that. Otherwise not.

Indeed you do have to prove it and so it was, but you cannot say that he hung himself in his Garda interviews and otherwise there would have been no proof. In that event, the case would have been structured differently by the DPP and Prosecution Counsel. These guys could have made significant headway with his identification by witnesses and CCTV.

He is far from the sole architect of his own downfall.

mrjoneill

volchitsa wrote: »

But to argue involuntary manslaughter you presumably have to accept that your actions caused the death. You can't deny it all and also say, oh but it was an accident.

They could have argued manslaughter, especially boy B (though not going for help when he heard her scream doesn't plead in his favour but still), but they chose to say it wasn't them at all. That's why they were found guilty of murder - because they set up a scenario that seemed like it was intended to get away with murder.

Absolutely they pleaded not guilty so MS was a non runner. And for Boy A it was never a runner for MS the facts were so awful and his preparedness. The lies and inaction of Boy B once he got Ana into the frame was going to be very damning for him for the jury when he did nothing to save her.

joe40

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yeah agree we're pretty much done for as a society. That slow train Bob Dylan talked about is coming!!

75 years ago millions, literally millions of people were been killed in ww2.
Society right now is doing ok.

Primetime Special about the case on RTE now.

mrjoneill

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Are we meant to feel sympathy for boy B’s family being forced into hiding ? Seriously ?

Not me, I still have not heard an apology for the grief he has caused from him or from his parents of what he done.

Nerdlingr

volchitsa wrote: »

This has been repeated before : there doesn't have to have been a plan to kill her, it is enough if there was a plan to do her harm (hit her to incapacitate her and then rape her for example) - if she died as a result of that plan being put into action, then that is also murder and B was an active accomplice.

Since Boy B said that nobody liked her, or wanted to be seen with her, it's obvious that he didn't think he was bringing her to a romantic tryst.

So he knew he was bringing her there to have some harm done to her. And that's what happened.

Edit:I was not the one to bring "the plan" into it. That was mrjoneill. I was asking him how do we know Boy B knew if a plan to do ana harm. A question he still hasn't answered.

I think we're getting away from the original point of all this....which is hourrrrss ago at this stage!...that if Boy B says nothing then the police don't have a case against him.
CCTV and witness statements and speculating that he knew ana would come to some kind of harm is not evidence enough to prove he is guilty of murder.
Just because he says he didnt like ana that does not equate to wanting to do her harm... without some kind of evidence.

That would be one hell of a jump to make.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this point.
If people don't understand that after 5 hours of posting on here, they probably never will.
Night all.

Sardonicat

mrjoneill wrote: »

Not me, I still have not heard an apology for the grief he has caused from him or from his parents of what he done.

What about any siblings he may have? What have they done?

volchitsa

mrjoneill wrote: »

Absolutely they pleaded not guilty so MS was a non runner. And for Boy A it was never a runner for MS the facts were so awful and his preparedness. The lies and inaction of Boy B once he got Ana into the frame was going to be very damning for him for the jury when he did nothing to save her.

I definitely think B could have got away with a manslaughter claim. I'd be very worried about how he's going to develop now, even with psychological counselling and whatever, I think he's extremely devious for a 13 year old and will be very very dangerous when he becomes an adult.

I don't believe for one minute the stuff about sticks for playing swords or wanting Lego at the detention centre, and it concerns me that the psychologist (but not the Gardaí, luckily) seems to have fallen for it. Because I'm convinced that he will continue to manipulate the psychologists he will be in contact with now, and I fear they will be only too ready to believe that they've done sterling work on him and turned him into a nice boy who was dragged into a nasty business.

Gimme A Pound

Sardonicat wrote: »

What about any siblings he may have? What have they done?

Yeah ffs it's going too far to punish the whole family.

Pity the warriors in Ana's community now didn't use such energy to help her when she was being bullied.

fryup

Force Carrier wrote: »

We are all of us formed by a mixture of nature and nurture.
Our genes play a role. Our environment plays a role.

Some people in their intrinsic physiological make up lack empathy. Events in their childhood and life then play a role in forming their personality and behavior. But you have to be wired up a particular way to want hurt and kill people. 99.9% of the population could watch all the porn until kingdom come but they wouldn't bring a girl to an abandoned house. Drinking in her confusion, panic and pain. Savagely smash their skull in. And then go home and eat their dinner and go to bed. These were fundamentally bad little fcukers. A trace element of the population are and always will be.

and yet what are the chances of two Psychopaths being in the same school and same class??

i wonder were they as thick as thieves from a very early age? one influencing the other??

Force Carrier

Larbre34 wrote: »

Indeed you do have to prove it and so it was, but you cannot say that he hung himself in his Garda interviews and otherwise there would have been no proof. In that event, the case would have been structured differently by the DPP and Prosecution Counsel. These guys could have made significant headway with his identification by witnesses and CCTV.

He is far from the sole architect of his own downfall.

Mens Rea was necessary.
Without his admissions his knowledge he was involved in a murder could not be estalbished.
No "significant headway" could be made from cctv and witnesses because they merely showed him bringing a girl part way to a date.