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

Force Carrier

STB. wrote: »

I know this is not directed at me, but access to such content at this age in this new digital age does need to be tackled.

I don't disagree with you if you advocate restriction on access to porn with young people. There is research to show that it can be harmful. But that has nothing to do with these two twisted psychopaths.
That people think they were regular joe soaps and watched a porn video and changed into someone who could inflict 170 wounds on a young girl and kill her. These are sick people and were before they looked up any porn or sought out any victim to harm or kill. Psychopaths make up 1% of the population.
Banning porn may have many beneficial consequences but it won't change that. And it won't change that there has always been bad people and evil killers in our midst. In very small number thank God but they are there.

Gadgetman496

STB. wrote: »

I know this is not directed at me, but access to such content at this age in this new digital age does need to be tackled. Sexual assault (aas well as murder) was an element of this case.

In the case of one of the two children whose two phones was recovered had a staggering amount of porn on it, and not soft porn either.

That anyone at such an age can easily access this sort of material on a hand held device does need to be tackled. Its something we have been behind the curve on.

There has been many accounts referring to the fact Boy 'A' did not like Ana, it is possible that he did in fact like her very much from a sexual point of view but couldn't handle her unwillingness to engage with him sexually & what he saw as her rejection of him fulled his rage to the point where he decided he was getting what he wanted and then killed her.

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

It was A who had the bag containing the mask and shin guards etc and most likely him that used them.

You really are clueless on every aspect of this case.

I should have stated Boy A that had the gear but the point is if u were open to other opinions and not so full of ur own self opinions which r all horse manure u would see he was acting out a character which is so often in these cases where masks are used

mrjoneill

iguana wrote: »

Does the law preventing the identification of the boys apply to their own families? What if at some point a parent or sibling of one of the boys wants to come forward and tell their story publicly? Are they gagged from sharing details about their own life in order to continue protecting a pair of murderers?

Yes families of the pair are bound like the public from preventing the identification of the pair. The protection is of the pair.

STB.

tuxy wrote: »

No the Guards used the pulse system to find out where he lived as they just had a surname at that stage.

There is no info at all as to which member of the household was on pulse or why they were on it. There are many totally innocent reasons why someones details may be in the pulse system.

PULSE does not solely capture information on offenders, but is also used to store information on Garda interactions with individuals, whether adults or children, such as victims of crime, persons injured in road traffic accidents and child welfare incidents.

Shatter answered this a few years back, when a journalist got whiff of traveller children or adults being assigned separate criminal intelligence PULSE numbers when going in to get passport photos and forms for kids signed at a Garda station.

whodafunk

mrjoneill wrote: »

Yes families of the pair are bound like the public from preventing the identification of the pair. The protection is of the pair.

I feel so so sorry for that poor girls family and the evidence in what they have had to endure. I'm sorry but what "normal" 13 year old knows about satan and the dark web. I'm over 40 and only learned about the dark web in the last 2 years (through educational reasons). Again I'm sorry but what role if/any are the parents playing in these kids lives?
I have always said these 2 scum will be roaming our streets in the next few years whilst Patrick Quirke will most likely spend the rest of his living life in jail for something I would consider similar- murder charge - adult vs juvenile.

mrjoneill

Fall_Guy wrote: »

That's such black and white thinking on what is such a complex subject. In the case of these young boys there are a lot of unknowns, but let's take the worst case scenario and assume both are "evil /psychopaths / whatever term you choose" and for some unexplained neurological reason or some supernatural reason (depending on your beliefs) are incapable of remorse or rehabilitation....why would you be against the death penalty? If their inability to function safely in society is not in their control, if they are "psychopaths" they can't just choose to be good, upstanding citizens, it is out of their control. Why do you feel they should continue to be punished for as long as they live? In a case like this would the death penalty not be the more compassionate action to take, something more akin to the likes of euthanasia?

On the flip side, if someone in a moment of temporary madness commits a terrible crime of passion that they are immediately remorseful for and they truly would not be likely to re-offend or be a danger to society again, why should they be kept in prison until the day they die?


In this case I don't know if these boys were psychopaths. I know they had very troubling interests, I know they were exposed to a great deal of very troubling content through their own searches online. I know that these really dark tendencies don't seem to have been flagged by any adults in their lives, be it teachers or parents. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say this was an avoidable tragedy, but I can't help but feel that less Internet access and more engagement on the part of the boys parents or teachers could have had SOME difference in the path that those boys ended up walking. As it is, it's a horrific tragedy, and a part of me really does feel that those two boys would be better off dead at this point, not to feed the thirst for justice porn that is rampant (understandably) at the moment but more for their own sake. What sort of existence can they have going forward in their lives from here on out?

Do u not read what u write, here u blame the internet "but I can't help but feel that less Internet access and more engagement on the part of the boys parents or teachers could have had SOME difference in the path that those boys ended up walking." and u go on in later posts to blame it all on innate characteristics and the internet having no blame despite the young age of the offenders. U cant be right on both posts as they conflict or do u like to write horse manure stuff.

mrjoneill

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.

Absolutely correct, that poster gets carried away on his own opinions which don't amount to much upon examinations. I have been trying to point out to him on several post that the CCTV & other witness statements showed Boy B to be consummate liar and the interviews confirmed that rather than provide self incriminating evidence.

mrjoneill

Stheno wrote: »

His family apparently they didn't feel the need to move until now

They were only found guilty now

prinzeugen

I think they should be named and not given new identification when released.

There are many cases from the UK where "child" killers have gone on to re-offend often for other serious crimes in adulthood.

I am interested to know how parents of kids that are 13-14 just now would react, when in 10 years time, they get engaged to "Bob" and it turns out he is boy A or boy B?

Would you let them get married??

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

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.

Total BS, the Mens Rea can be inferred by the actions of the parities involved. Boy B was bringing Ana to a disused house 3km away where Boy A was waiting in combat gear to kill her. Boy B made no admission of guilt in his video statement but confirmed he was a consummate liar & kept it up till Gardai pointed out the facts he was telling lies. He then tried a new set of lies till that was again pointed out from external sources it was lies. The prosecution did not get any admission from any of the 2 boys and did not rely on any of their statements as the facts spoke for themselves. Why do u write such BS when its so obvious the case. The Gardai did make all their progress on the case of Boy B on CCTV and witness evidence while both parties lied. Boy A was convicted on the forensics alone and it was obvious he and Boy B were acting in concert from the CCTV evidence.

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?

The jury believed it that's all that's needed and the prosecution put forward that case. Boy B video evidence is all about his capacity to lie. There is no admission about any wrongdoing by him in them. His testimony against Boy A should not have been part of the evidence burden against him.

Mehapoy

Bambi wrote: »

Two psychos looking for a victim chose the most vulnerable, good looking girl that they knew. Lesson learned, unless you're like Ruth Coppinger and want to drag some poxy agenda into everything regardless.

I'm surprised 'toxic masculinity' and 'rape culture' hasn't been brought into it as the usual suspects use this family's tragedy to further their own agendas

Mehapoy

Force Carrier wrote: »

I don't disagree with you if you advocate restriction on access to porn with young people. There is research to show that it can be harmful. But that has nothing to do with these two twisted psychopaths.
That people think they were regular joe soaps and watched a porn video and changed into someone who could inflict 170 wounds on a young girl and kill her. These are sick people and were before they looked up any porn or sought out any victim to harm or kill. Psychopaths make up 1% of the population.
Banning porn may have many beneficial consequences but it won't change that. And it won't change that there has always been bad people and evil killers in our midst. In very small number thank God but they are there.

Its the video nasties hysteria for the digital age, not that I'd agree with the free access to porn that everybody has these days, but equally how about parents learn to say no and refuse to get their little darlings smartphones and ipads before they are 15 or 16

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

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.

The prosecution did not believe there was any romantic liaison and neither did the jury and that is opinion based on facts. And that was Boy B statement and video evidence of what he was doing was not true was inferred form the facts. We can infer from the facts what makes up the mens rea of the crime and that is precisely what the prosecution did and the jury believed it. It did not believe Boy B was on such a romantic mission but he was a cold calculating criminal that was part of the murder conspiracy. I understand how the law functions all too well and I don't need a lecture by someone wound up on his own beliefs which did not stand the test in this case. The prosecution could prove from the CCTV & witness statements that both Boy A and Boy B were acting in concert in how they arrived at the derelict house and how Boy B lured Ana. Their leaving the scene of the crime was also in the same time frame. What Boy B showed in his video evidence was he is a consummate liar and he admitted nothing. We can't get inside the minds of anyone but infer from their actions their mindset. As for admitting evidence into court the test is not what u can prove but its probative value. Ur all washed up in ur own 1/2 baked BS nonsense.

Mellor

whodafunk wrote: »

I'm sorry but what "normal" 13 year old knows about satan and the dark web. I'm over 40 and only learned about the dark web in the last 2 years (through educational reasons).

That's a product of the dark web getting a lot of exposure in the last two years and not your age.
If you were 20 years younger, you'd have found out about it well before you were 40, etc

Road-Hog

Extract below regarding the reasoning why the Jamie bugler killers’ identities and names were revealed......

‘At the close of the trial, the judge lifted reporting restrictions and allowed the names of the killers to be released, saying "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children."[44] Sir David Omand later criticised this decision and outlined the difficulties created by it in his 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case.[45]’

I wonder if today, 25 years on would the same logic have been used to allow their names and faces to be revealed......?

Our ‘job venebales (boy a) and Robert Thompson (boy b) are 3 years older than these two and are been given conplete anoninity.

Mellor

prinzeugen wrote: »

There are many cases from the UK where "child" killers have gone on to re-offend often for other serious crimes in adulthood.

Apart from the obvious example, Terry Venebles, who else are there in the UK?
I imagine offending is common. Locking a 10 year old away for a decade will mess up their development, and if they are already messed up to begin with there is only a slim chance of rehabilitation.

Road-Hog wrote: »

I wonder if today, 25 years on would the same logic have been used to allow their names and faces to be revealed......?

Our ‘job venebales (boy a) and Robert Thompson (boy b) are 3 years older than these two and are been given conplete anoninity.

Revealing their identify does seem completely at odds with the fact they are currently granted anonymity.
The father of Bulger is trying to have Venebles anonymity removed. Interestingly, the mother wants it to remain to avoid vigilante attacks.

Ash.J.Williams

whodafunk wrote: »

I feel so so sorry for that poor girls family and the evidence in what they have had to endure. I'm sorry but what "normal" 13 year old knows about satan and the dark web. I'm over 40 and only learned about the dark web in the last 2 years (through educational reasons). Again I'm sorry but what role if/any are the parents playing in these kids lives?
I have always said these 2 scum will be roaming our streets in the next few years whilst Patrick Quirke will most likely spend the rest of his living life in jail for something I would consider similar- murder charge - adult vs juvenile.

most metal loving kids are well aware of satan

Smithwicks Man

mrjoneill wrote: »

Total BS, the Mens Rea can be inferred by the actions of the parities involved. Boy B was bringing Ana to a disused house 3km away where Boy A was waiting in combat gear to kill her. Boy B made no admission of guilt in his video statement but confirmed he was a consummate liar & kept it up till Gardai pointed out the facts he was telling lies. He then tried a new set of lies till that was again pointed out from external sources it was lies. The prosecution did not get any admission from any of the 2 boys and did not relay on any as the facts spoke for themselves. Why do u write such BS when its so obvious the case. The Gardai did make all their progress on the case of Boy B on CCTV and witness evidence while both parties lied. Boy A was convicted on the forensics alone and it was obvious he and Boy B were acting in concert from the CCTV evidence.

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.

Another two sticking points for me are that:

1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.

2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.

When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.

Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.

Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

MintyMagnum

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I pray for bad things to happen to boy a and boy b.

I think chemical castration would be appropriate

Mechanical would be even better

Shemale

Larbre34 wrote: »

What goes on at School itself is pretty much the least of the issue.

I know but a lot of the groups are formed around the school and if the first sign is squashed with a suspension it might just squash it.

Schools still deal with certain social media issues too, I know twice Gardai have been in the local primary school over facebook / whatsapp issues

Shemale

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/boy-b-ana-kriegel-family-assault-4690675-Jun2019/

Relation of Boy B attacked last month in Dublin.

Garbage, surely the police are investigating?

Smells like another fake assault.

Shemale

IontachSpraoi wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but did anyone notice that an artist's impression / sketch of the courtroom very clearly showing the back of Boy A and B's heads appeared on the news a couple of nights ago? Can't remember which station, either RTE or Virgin Media. Could this have been a mistake on the broadcaster's part?

Not sure how they could be identified from the back in a drawing, art has lost some credibilty with the Denarys waxword and Ronaldo statue. They might have different hair colour to the sketch

wicorthered

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.

Another two sticking points for me are that:

1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.

2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.

When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.

Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.

Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

1. Maybe he was laughing because he knew what was about to happen and was happy and excited about it. He went there to pick Ana up and deliver to a murderer, so maybe he was pleased with himself for a job well done. They're a pair of little pyscos, I'm sure they were looking forward to this day.

2. Maybe he was too cocky and arrogant to think he'd ever get caught, maybe that's why he didn't disguise his actions. Maybe he thought he'd easily explain his actions. The fact a 13 year old wouldn't be terrified being interviewed by Gardai is astonishing. He was cold and calculated throughout. It didn't seem to matter what evidence was put to him, he just told a new lie effortlessly.

The guards aren't in the business of locking people up for no reason, especially kids. How many murder cases do the guards no the killer but have no proof. They were so determined to prosecute him for murder I know, the guards know he did it and used the best possible evidence to convict the little pysco.

I can't get my head around how many people are trying to excuse what this scumbag did.
Just watch, the bleeding hearts will ensure their out before they're 21, and THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN!!

splinter65

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I pray for bad things to happen to boy a and boy b.

I think chemical castration would be appropriate

Well your prayers won’t be answered. This is why we can’t be told the names of the boys. Stuff like this encourages the knuckle draggers to go the houses of these two families and throw stones at the windows.
If people weren’t so stupid we could know who these boys are and could avoid them in every way in the future.

retro:electro

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen?

Because why else would he make it his business to call to the house of a girl he saw as slutty and a weirdo who he “wouldn’t be seen dead with”, and lead her astray into a derilect building to a guy who had previously confessed his desire to kill her? He had absolutely nothing nice to say about the girl. Not even after witnessing her violent death could he muster up something positive to say about her. So it stands to absolute reason that he had every intention to lead Ana to harm that day. His pathetic defence was he was bringing her to Boy A because he wanted to tell her in person he didn’t like her. That’s the best he could do for himself. Like another poster said, he even degraded her in death and tried to convince the detectives that she was no loss to the world. If that’s how he speaks about the girl when he apparently ran scared after witnessing her violent death then I think it’s absolutely apparent that he had zero regard or respect for her when she was living and breathing. The fact he may have laughted with her or shared a joke along the way is a reflection on nothing at all. In fact I’d wager that he was manipulating the situation to make her feel more comfortable and gain her trust.
And that’s before you even get to the fact that Boy A had alerted him a month previously of his desire to kill Ana, his copious lies, detached attitude and also the fact that he supplied one of the murder weapons.

If he had been a friend of Ana’s or had anything at all decent to say about her then I could maybe see a defence for him, but as it stands it’s clear he thought of her as trash and didn’t care that he played a part in disposing of that.

Smithwicks Man

wicorthered wrote: »

1. Maybe he was laughing because he knew what was about to happen and was happy and excited about it. He went there to pick Ana up and deliver to a murderer, so maybe he was pleased with himself for a job well done. They're a pair of little pyscos, I'm sure they were looking forward to this day.

2. Maybe he was too cocky and arrogant to think he'd ever get caught, maybe that's why he didn't disguise his actions. Maybe he thought he'd easily explain his actions. The fact a 13 year old wouldn't be terrified being interviewed by Gardai is astonishing. He was cold and calculated throughout. It didn't seem to matter what evidence was put to him, he just told a new lie effortlessly.

The guards aren't in the business of locking people up for no reason, especially kids. How many murder cases do the guards no the killer but have no proof. They were so determined to prosecute him for murder I know, the guards know he did it and used the best possible evidence to convict the little pysco.

I can't get my head around how many people are trying to excuse what this scumbag did.
Just watch, the bleeding hearts will ensure their out before their 21, and THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN!!

Maybe, maybe. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong.

Maybe the guards “knew” he did it. Maybe he genuinely was unaware she’d be attacked and harmed.

None of that matters in the eyes of the law though. I just can’t see how they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she would be seriously harmed. And that is the basis on which he was convicted.

I think your sensationalism is cloutinh your judgement. I’ve yet to see a single person excuse what anybody has done in a moral sense. It’s a complex legal argument and I’m interested in the legal aspect of the conviction as it appears to me that the burden of proof on the state is an ever reducing burden and that is concerning.

I don’t think there’s a single person on here who doesn’t find what happened to be morally reprehensible, I just want be putting that caveat in every single post I make.

GT_TDI_150

wicorthered wrote: »

I can't get my head around how many people are trying to excuse what this scumbag did.
Just watch, the bleeding hearts will ensure their out before their 21, and THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN!!

This!

My fear is that with their kill being a 14yr old girl, if they were to reoffend, they might look for that same trill again and find that 14-15year old girls is where their satisfaction lies that they experienced this time around.

As a father of a 5yr old, you have to be worried that these pricks could be out in 10yrs. They could end up in any town in Ireland with inhabitants none the wiser as to who they are (because our juditiary decided their safety is more important than that of girls and women around the country). So any girls in preschool right now could be right in their demographic when released... Its frightening to be honest.

Also, i firmly believe that withholding their identity not only risks the safety of women in the future, it risks cases of wrongly identifying innocent boys and their families and all the concequences that brings...

GT_TDI_150

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Maybe, maybe. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong.

Maybe the guards “knew” he did it. Maybe he genuinely was unaware she’d be attacked and harmed.

None of that matters in the eyes of the law though. I just can’t see how they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she would be seriously harmed. And that is the basis on which he was convicted.

I think your sensationalism is cloutinh your judgement. I’ve yet to see a single person excuse what anybody has done in a moral sense. It’s a complex legal argument and I’m interested in the legal aspect of the conviction as it appears to me that the burden of proof on the state is an ever reducing burden and that is concerning.

I don’t think there’s a single person on here who doesn’t find what happened to be morally reprehensible, I just want be putting that caveat in every single post I make.

Isnt the reasonable doubt, in the eyes of the jury? If none of them had reasonable doubt, then a conviction for murder is the logical outcome...no?

Just because you have your own reasonable doubt, doesnt mean the jury had