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

SirGerryAdams

The article in Irish Times says Marie Cassidy says she was likely attacked after going into the room, beaten to the ground and then hit 4 times with a heavy object (like a concrete block) and then dragged to a different part of the room before being sexually assaulted.

Where would the tape come into it then?

Or how would Boy A have got injured? When he was hitting her with the stick and she fought back?

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

What about an innocent 13 year old ignoring his lawyer's advice to say no comment to every question because he wanted to clear things up but kept lying to avoid what he thought would be incriminating himself?

Can spin that one whichever way you want.

Like I said, as an initial panicked reaction, and then not being able to go back on that for a few days, maybe even a couple of weeks, but not for month after month.

Are you saying you think he might be innocent? Really?

joe40

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Fair enough but he has been found guilty in the eyes of the law. I'm sure the jury were told to only convict if they were certain beyond all reasonable doubt. They were the ones that sat through all the evidence and they reached their decision.

A guilty verdict means guilty, and this verdict requires the burden of proof so on balance I am happy to accept this verdict.

A not guilty verdict can throw up more debate since that is not proof of innocence (innocence is assumed) it just means not enough evidence to secure a conviction. People will often have their own opinions which is ok.

I think though we have to have faith in our system and accept the guilty verdicts.

These were 13 year olds it is very unlikely they would be able to cover their tracks.

I also find it almost impossible to imagine jury members would convict a child unless they were absolutely certain.
The totality of the evidence the Jury heard must have been very strong for them to reach the conclusion they did.
I would hate to have been in their shoes.

Smithwicks Man

volchitsa wrote: »

Like I said, as an initial panicked reaction, and then not being able to go back on that for a few days, maybe even a couple of weeks, but not for month after month.

Are you saying you think he might be innocent? Really?

See below

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Smithwicks Man

joe40 wrote: »

Fair enough but he has been found guilty in the eyes of the law. I'm sure the jury were told to only convict if they were certain beyond all reasonable doubt. They were the ones that sat through all the evidence and they reached their decision.

A guilty verdict means guilty, and this verdict requires the burden of proof so on balance I am happy to accept this verdict.

A not guilty verdict can throw up more debate since that is not proof of innocence (innocence is assumed) it just means not enough evidence to secure a conviction. People will often have their own opinions which is ok.

I think though we have to have faith in our system and accept the guilty verdicts.

These were 13 year olds it is very unlikely they would be able to cover their tracks.

I also find it almost impossible to imagine jury members would convict a child unless they were absolutely certain.
The totality of the evidence the Jury heard must have been very strong for them to reach the conclusion they did.
I would hate to have been in their shoes.

Very fair and reasoned points here. It's not the first high profile case which throws up questions about the verdict afterward and it certainly won't be the last.

It would be interesting to know to what extent the lies played a role in his conviction. Even though in and of themselves they aren't enough to convict, they certainly ensured his character was tarnished to the point where the jury probably didn't believe a word he said.

Curious to see how swiftly they will launch an appeal.

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

But the jury decided they did know, so what do you know that they don't? Or where are they going wrong in the law?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is a very fair point and that’s the nature of these cases but my question really is how could they possibly not have reasonable doubt when there is such little evidence? I just fail to see how any 12 people could not have reasonable doubt.

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

They were explained the law before the deliberations. They couldn’t have found boy b guilty of anything but murder as an accomplice.

What they then had to ascertain is whether the lies he told were hiding his guilt. We know he was there. We know he said (eventually) he saw the attack.

If he knew or suspected that the purpose of bringing Anna to the house was to get her killed then he was an accomplice, and he admitted that boy a had said he wanted to kill her. Given what happened you can’t write that off as teenage macho comment. He also provided the tape.

What reasonable explanation is there for his not telling the gardai when first questioned what had happened - at the very least mention the house. The shrink said he had PTSD but that wasn’t admitted as evidence. He could only have had PTSD if he saw the killing. So that admission was to get the shrink on board I think, but it backfired.

The other reasonable explanation for lying is guilt. Fear doesn’t cut it. He could hardly be fearful of boy A in custody.

It’s reasonable therefore to assume that he took her there with full knowledge of what might happen.

A normal boy who didn’t anticipate what was going to happen would, seeing the attack, intervene or run away and tell his parents or the authorities.

Smithwicks Man

If there's one standout change to the law that should be made it's that there should be leniency offered for those who plead guilty to murder.

It makes zero sense to have a mandatory life sentence regardless of plea and merely means every person accused will roll the dice on a trial regardless of the amount of evidence against them.

Boy B likely wouldn't have taken a plea here anyway but had he not been involved, it's highly likely that Boy A would have done so and it could have saved the family of the victim a lot of heartache during a prolonged trial.



In case anyone was wondering why these cases almost always go to trial it is because pleading guilty the second your charged does not aid you in any way so people feel they may as well roll the dice on a trial as they have nothing to lose by doing so.

Boggles

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

If there's one standout change to the law that should be made it's that there should be leniency offered for those who plead guilty to murder.

It makes zero sense to have a mandatory life sentence regardless of plea and merely means every person accused will roll the dice on a trial regardless of the amount of evidence against them.

Boy B likely wouldn't have taken a plea here anyway but had he not been involved, it's highly likely that Boy A would have done so and it could have saved the family of the victim a lot of heartache during a prolonged trial.



In case anyone was wondering why these cases almost always go to trial it is because pleading guilty the second your charged does not aid you in any way so people feel they may as well roll the dice on a trial as they have nothing to lose by doing so.

Life sentence isn't mandatory in this case. Both could have plead guilty.

I can see why Boy B didn't, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why Boy A didn't.

Boggles

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The other reasonable explanation for lying is guilt. Fear doesn’t cut it. He could hardly be fearful of boy A in custody.

Both boys got bail.

80sChild

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is a very fair point and that’s the nature of these cases but my question really is how could they possibly not have reasonable doubt when there is such little evidence? I just fail to see how any 12 people could not have reasonable doubt.

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

The jury saw the 16 hours of his interviews. Likely his attitude and demeanor were very telling when witnessed first hand. We are not in possession of all the evidence they were.

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

The article in Irish Times says Marie Cassidy says she was likely attacked after going into the room, beaten to the ground and then hit 4 times with a heavy object (like a concrete block) and then dragged to a different part of the room before being sexually assaulted.

Where would the tape come into it then?

Or how would Boy A have got injured? When he was hitting her with the stick and she fought back?

Why the hell do you want to know all of this? Why do you want to rehash the gorey details and sequence of events on a public discussion forum? All of the issues you raised were covered(as tactfully as possible ) in the IT article, which you know already as you've read it.

Smithwicks Man

volchitsa wrote: »

But the jury decided they did know, so what do you know that they don't? Or where are they going wrong in the law?

Solely focusing on the joint enterprise aspect I'm just wondering if the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lead up to the act and the lies that followed are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact know what would happen.

JE is an extremely complex element of the law so I'm just wondering about how they proved his knowledge of what would happen.

SirGerryAdams

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why the hell do you want to know all of this? Why do you want to rehash the gorey details and sequence of events on a public discussion forum? All of the issues you raised were covered(as tactfully as possible ) in the IT article, which you know already as you've read it.

Curiosity as to what really happened.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

Both boys got bail.

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

Smithwicks Man

Boggles wrote: »

Life sentence isn't mandatory in this case. Both could have plead guilty.

I can see why Boy B didn't, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why Boy A didn't.

Life sentences are mandatory for murder, the only reason there is discretion here in terms of when they'll get out is because they're children.

There's no incentive for an adult to plead guilty to murder.

ohnonotgmail

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

in seperate cells. and only for a short period.

Smithwicks Man

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why the hell do you want to know all of this? Why do you want to rehash the gorey details and sequence of events on a public discussion forum? All of the issues you raised were covered(as tactfully as possible ) in the IT article, which you know already as you've read it.

Because I study Law and am interested in the legal aspect of the case. The very reason that people are not able to separate their emotions from factual evidence is why people are sometimes wrongly convicted.

I would suggest if you don't have the stomach for the "gorey details" then you'd be best off exiting the thread.

What did you think was going to be discussed in a thread about the case if not the details of the case itself?

Boggles

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

During the questioning they were both sleeping in Garda stations, afaik.

Doesn't matter, they were eventually released, so dismissing the fear element as impossible can't be absolute assumption because he was locked up, he wasn't, he was locked up for a time but they both spent the vast majority of the last year on bail.

What you are doing is casting opinion applying 100% hindsight and not applying timelines, also as the Judge tirelessly pointed out to the Jury you have to look at it through the eyes of children, even if they are murderous psychopaths.

I'm not definitely saying he wasn't bullshíttíng by the way.

Boggles

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Life sentences are mandatory for murder, the only reason there is discretion here in terms of when they'll get out is because they're children.

There's no incentive for an adult to plead guilty to murder.

I know that. But unless I picked you up wrong you were being specific to this case.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

It makes zero sense to have a mandatory life sentence regardless of plea and merely means every person accused will roll the dice on a trial regardless of the amount of evidence against them.

Boy B likely wouldn't have taken a plea here anyway but had he not been involved, it's highly likely that Boy A would have done so and it could have saved the family of the victim a lot of heartache during a prolonged trial.
.

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Solely focusing on the joint enterprise aspect I'm just wondering if the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lead up to the act and the lies that followed are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact know what would happen.

JE is an extremely complex element of the law so I'm just wondering about how they proved his knowledge of what would happen.

Given that the jury, advised by the judge, found that the evidence was sufficient, I'm wondering why you persist in suggesting that it isn't.

Your assumption that his lies should not count against his version of the story since there is no other even vaguely plausible version offered by anyone mean that a guilty verdict is perfectly reasonable.

If he had given another version that was not proven to be a lie, then yes, your point about the benefit of the doubt would apply. But here there really is no doubt - we know how she died and that he was there. And that he led her there. And his own testimony shows that he didn't believe it was for a romantic tryst, as someone tried to say earlier.

So the only logical conclusion is that he knew that boy A was going to harm her. Whether or not he realized that she would actually die from it.

wind the clock say 10-12 years and they get out. They go home to a family who are 12 years older in their lives and very much changed by past events. For example have their siblings now written them off and resent their very existence having been burdened with carrying that dark stain by association!! surely the siblings friends would not go near the house as you wouldn't want to breathe the same air as the monsters. again, tough on the family to be fair.

They will have no friends and never will, lets be honest. they missed the teen and early 20's when you really grow with your friends from childhood.
They have no life to speak of or refer to, it's not like "eh mam I'm heading to lucan village to meet the old crew and catch up with my wild tales of a decade plus in sunny OZ!" they'll be moving into a spare room with the same death metal posters and everything else. They'll be freaks, all they know is where they've been.. they'll never fit in or recover ever.. and that's providing they're release is not reported and they're actually left alone..it's one thing to join the pack and throw one kick too many under the influence of drink (Annabelles)
or another choke a child in a blind rage.. but what they did before, during and after is something different, something Evil.

Wouldn't be surprised if having grown up in one, that prison is a welcome home to them, free from judgement and surrounded by like minds. A place where being them or like them is the norm or even celebrated.
I see them getting worse, re-offending or ending up dying by suicide..In fact sad as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if a family member takes a turn for the worse either and the whole family fabric tears apart.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in seperate cells. and only for a short period.

They werent held in cells, the gardai cleares offices into a bed room

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They werent held in cells, the gardai cleares offices into a bed room

fair enough, i hadn't read that. Office or offices? i cant imagine they allowed them to be alone together.

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

Well, no one on here was a witness.

TBH, if you can't quietly fill in the blanks from the information that is publicly available and find yourself looking for more detail than is currently available you might want to consider speaking to someone in a professional capacity. Healthy people find dwelling on the precise details and sequence of events of a child's brutal sexual assault and murder too much for them. People tend to feel sympathy with the professionals who's task it is to gather that kind of information because most people really don't want to know more than the vaguest outline.

And constantly raising these questions in a public forum shows little respect for Ana. Your curiosity over the precise manner of her terrible end does not trump her right to some dignity in death.

Smithwicks Man

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

They were explained the law before the deliberations. They couldn’t have found boy b guilty of anything but murder as an accomplice.

What they then had to ascertain is whether the lies he told were hiding his guilt. We know he was there. We know he said (eventually) he saw the attack.

If he knew or suspected that the purpose of bringing Anna to the house was to get her killed then he was an accomplice, and he admitted that boy a had said he wanted to kill her. Given what happened you can’t write that off as teenage macho comment. He also provided the tape.

What reasonable explanation is there for his not telling the gardai when first questioned what had happened - at the very least mention the house. The shrink said he had PTSD but that wasn’t admitted as evidence. He could only have had PTSD if he saw the killing. So that admission was to get the shrink on board I think, but it backfired.

The other reasonable explanation for lying is guilt. Fear doesn’t cut it. He could hardly be fearful of boy A in custody.

It’s reasonable therefore to assume that he took her there with full knowledge of what might happen.

A normal boy who didn’t anticipate what was going to happen would, seeing the attack, intervene or run away and tell his parents or the authorities.

Fair points here but he could be an abnormal boy, react differently than what would be expected and this still isn't evidence he knew what would happen.

I have every belief he was in the room when the attack took place or at the very least when Boy A initiated it. How long he was present is anyone's guess.

Being present for the crime and not intervening is not a crime in and of itself. What got him convicted is that the jury believed he knew what was going to happen, my sole question is how could they possibly know this for a fact.

His presence, his lies, his calling to the house. All of it adds little bits of proposed guilt but I don't see it as conclusive.

The conversation some time previous where Boy A proposed the idea of killing her definitely had a huge bearing so it depends how much you read into that. Can you say for sure he took that seriously and proceeded to act on that plan down the line? I'm not sure that's clear cut.

Who's to say Boy A didn't manipulate him with a false story as to getting him to lure her there unbeknownst as to what his plans were. A is definitely a psychopath based on his actions, mannerism thereafter and clear lack of remorse. The likelihood of both of them being psychopaths (as most on here would have you believe they are) is so incredibly small as to not even have a % chance of being the case. There's more to it than that.

The PTSD wasn't allowed as evidence but external to that it surely would explain his actions afterward if he had witnessed a murder he in no way was expecting.

McCrack

rusty cole wrote: »

wind the clock say 10-12 years and they get out. They go home to a family who are 12 years older in their lives and very much changed by past events. For example have their siblings now written them off and resent their very existence having been burdened with carrying that dark stain by association!! surely the siblings friends would not go near the house as you wouldn't want to breathe the same air as the monsters. again, tough on the family to be fair.

They will have no friends and never will, lets be honest. they missed the teen and early 20's when you really grow with your friends from childhood.
They have no life to speak of or refer to, it's not like "eh mam I'm heading to lucan village to meet the old crew and catch up with my wild tales of a decade plus in sunny OZ!" they'll be moving into a spare room with the same death metal posters and everything else. They'll be freaks, all they know is where they've been.. they'll never fit in or recover ever.. and that's providing they're release is not reported and they're actually left alone..it's one thing to join the pack and throw one kick too many under the influence of drink (Annabelles)
or another choke a child in a blind rage.. but what they did before, during and after is something different, something Evil.

Wouldn't be surprised if having grown up in one, that prison is a welcome home to them, free from judgement and surrounded by like minds. A place where being them or like them is the norm or even celebrated.
I see them getting worse, re-offending or ending up dying by suicide..In fact sad as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if a family member takes a turn for the worse either and the whole family fabric tears apart.

They will be certainly be targets in Oberstown and prison when they are moved at 18 - other prisoner's will target them - nobody will want to associate with them

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fair enough, i hadn't read that. Office or offices? i cant imagine they allowed them to be alone together.

Office, they were in seperate stations too. Prevented from coming into contact with other gougers

Fairness to the cops, its a text book example of how to question children on serious crimes.

Smithwicks Man

Boggles wrote: »

I know that. But unless I picked you up wrong you were being specific to this case.

Apologies I wrote that incorrectly.

What I meant was that it probably wouldn't have saved the family from the trial in this instance because Boy B would've went to trial anyway but in other cases it could save the family of a victim from a trial when the evidence is so strong as to dissuade the accused from event attempting a not guilty plea.

People will say "they should burn in hell forever" but there has to be some incentive to spare the trial. Often in the US they'll take the death penalty off the table in states where it exists so as to ensure a guilty plea with life imprisonment. Hard to start shaving off years here for a murder conviction just because of a guilty plea but the current system could be improved.

Smithwicks Man

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, no one on here was a witness.

TBH, if you can't quietly fill in the blanks from the information that is publicly available and find yourself looking for more detail than is currently available you might want to consider speaking to someone in a professional capacity. Healthy people find dwelling on the precise details and sequence of events of a child's brutal sexual assault and murder too much for them. People tend to feel sympathy with the professionals who's task it is to gather that kind of information because most people really don't want to know more than the vaguest outline.

And constantly raising these questions in a public forum shows little respect for Ana. Your curiosity over the precise manner of her terrible end does not trump her right to some dignity in death.

I don't see anybody fixating on the grisly details of the murder. We're discussing the merits of the conviction of Boy B on the basis of his mannerisms and actions before and after the act itself.

Nobody is "dwelling on the precise details of a child's sexual assault and murder". Again, people are discussing the legal aspects of the conviction of the youngest murderers in the history of the state.


I would suggest again that this thread might not be the place for you.