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

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

You don't get PTSD instantly, it takes days or weeks to develop. In the meantime he lied, and lied quite convincingly, to his parents anyway, and then continued to lie, adapting his story as and when bits of it were shown to be lies - none of which fits with the loss of control that PTSD implies.

You're determined that he's a victim, but it doesn't make sense. His behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the killing corresponds with his behaviour all along the investigation and the trial, at no point did he "give in" and tell the truth to an adult, any adult. There's a reason for that, and that's what the jury decided too.

SirGerryAdams

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.

There is no blanks to fill in because the boys stories changed so many times.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Mehapoy wrote: »

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

Well don't let that stop you getting a dig to further your own, good man.

ohnonotgmail

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

There is no blanks to fill in because the boys stories changed so many times.

it changed many times and we still dont know the full extent of his involvement.

Smithwicks Man

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't get PTSD instantly, it takes days or weeks to develop. In the meantime he lied, and lied quite convincingly, to his parents anyway, and then continued to lie, adapting his story as and when bits of it were shown to be lies - none of which fits with the loss of control that PTSD implies.

You're determined that he's a victim, but it doesn't make sense.

Well this is a complete fabrication. Are you suggesting that a 13 year old witnessing a brutal murder would not be traumatized immediately but rather it would take weeks to settle in?

I'll reiterate for the last time that I'm in no way determined he's a victim. I'm curious as to how they came to the conclusion that he knew what was going to happen to her because it's almost impossible to prove that he did without an admission or some physical evidence explicitly indicating he did in fact know.

I'm aware I wasn't on the jury, people are allowed to discuss the legal merits of the case beyond the 12 people appointed to do so you know.

If he was found not guilty and there was a sway of evidence to suggest he should have been convicted then I would play devil's advocate on the opposite side. I have zero motivation or incentive here other than my curiosity surrounding the jury's application of joint enterprise and what potential changes could be made to the law following a case like this e.g naming of perpetrators aged 18 or upon release, incentive for accused to plead guilty to avoid trials etc.

Sardonicat

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

With respect, I wasn't addressing you or the issues you raised in any way shape or form. I was addressing a specific poster, who I quoted, who has repeatedly tried to introduce sleazy, unnecessary levels if lurid details about the actual attack itself into the thread. Amongst the things he has asked over the past few days is at what point did boy a ejaculate. He now wants to know what the tape was used for, despite this being covered in an IT article which he has read. That is not the type of discussion that anyone should be engaging in publicly nor would they be if they had any respect with the deceased child or her family. There is no legal argument in what the poster is posting . Hes not rven talking about Boy B. And like I said, as I was quoting the poster to whom I replied to, it should have been pretty obvious I wasn't referring to the discussion you have been having.

gk5000

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

No, you (alone) are discussing the legal aspects, and trying to second guess the jury which is impossible. Most people fully accept that they were found guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence.



The thread title is that they were found guilty, so maybe take that as a starting point.

Smithwicks Man

Sardonicat wrote: »

With respect, I wasn't addressing you or the issues you raised in any way shape or form. I was addressing a specific poster, who I quoted, who has repeatedly tried to introduce sleazy, unnecessary levels if lurid details about the actual attack itself into the thread. Amongst the things he has asked over the past few days is at what point did boy a ejaculate. He now wants to know what the tape was used for, despite this being covered in an IT article which he has read. That is not the type of discussion that anyone should be engaging in publicly nor would they be if they had any respect with the deceased child or her family. There is no legal argument in what the poster is posting . Hes not rven talking about Boy B. And like I said, as I was quoting the poster to whom I replied to, it should have been pretty obvious I wasn't referring to the discussion you have been having.

My apologies, misread your intent there. Happy to retract on that!

I, too, don't care for persistent musings over details like that which aren't up for debate as they're evident what they are.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Boy B's story, that he didn't know what was going to happen, froze during the attack, and then was ashamed and terrified, tried to pretend it had never happened and lied about it...on the face of it that is a credible sequence of events for a 13 year old. That his actions and fears were irrational doesn't mean they're incredible, he was 13.

But it just doesn't hold up once you dig into it and the jury obviously agreed.

gozunda

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 presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (sic) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no thought whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

Smithwicks Man

gk5000 wrote: »

No, you (alone) are discussing the legal aspects, and trying to second guess the jury which is impossible. Most people fully accept that they were found guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence.



The thread title is that they were found guilty, so maybe take that as a starting point.

OJ Simpson was found innocent, just that thread have ended with that verdict too?

Plenty of others have made reasoned argument to my points. Just because you haven't got any doesn't mean you should be snide.

You think they're guilty and the jury is correct, that's fair enough. I'm interested in how they came to that conclusion. It's a valid discussion point.

ohnonotgmail

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

OJ Simpson was found innocent, just that thread have ended with that verdict too?

Plenty of others have made reasoned argument to my points. Just because you haven't got any doesn't mean you should be snide.

You think they're guilty and the jury is correct, that's fair enough. I'm interested in how they came to that conclusion. It's a valid discussion point.

unfortunately nobody here can answer that definitively. nobody here has seen the evidence the jury did.

Goodgoods

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (six) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no though whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

As long as boy B knows his daddy believes he is innocent he is likely never going to acknowledge any guilt or tell the truth about what happened that day.

Smithwicks Man

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you are referencing when minors convicted of murder that judges may impose a lesser sentence as is deemed appropriate.

As to 'incentives' (six) - what are suggesting a cash reward? - holiday in the sun?

The reason people chose to plead guilty- is because that is they are actually guilty and they chose to acknowledge that. They alone have the power to mitigate the experience of the victims family to sit through a full court case. The accused had no though whatsoever for the victims family from the very start - not even revealing where Ana's body had been left.

From the lies both these boys told and stuck to throughout the whole investigation and court case and despite these lies been exposed it is evident that neither of them were going to plead guilty.

The fact their lies failed and they were found guilty.

I wouldn't quit your day job to take up a night gig in the Laughter Lounge if I was you.

I'm suggesting an imposed minimum sentence should be imposed for murder which could be tangibly reduced for co-operation and a guilty plea which is the norm in most of Western Civilization.

Yes they may both have opted to plead not guilty regardless in this case (Boy B definitely would have) but there are other murder cases where the evidence is so strong that the accused is a certainty to be convicted but they opt to roll the dice anyway. An incentive of a slightly reduced prison sentence could help avoid a trial for grieving families. The DPP could be required to have consent from the victim's family to agree to said reduced plea.

Some may choose to do so, some may not. But the cold facts of the matter are that there are plenty of grieving families who would prefer to see the perpetrator locked up for 20 years instead of 25 if it meant they didn't have to go through the agony of a trial, testifying, media invasion etc.

There are lessons to be learned from other countries.

Smithwicks Man

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Boy B's story, that he didn't know what was going to happen, froze during the attack, and then was ashamed and terrified, tried to pretend it had never happened and lied about it...on the face of it that is a credible sequence of events for a 13 year old. That his actions and fears were irrational doesn't mean they're incredible, he was 13.

But it just doesn't hold up once you dig into it and the jury obviously agreed.

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Well this is a complete fabrication. Are you suggesting that a 13 year old witnessing a brutal murder would not be traumatized immediately but rather it would take weeks to settle in?

No, of course he would be shocked, but PTSD is a specific thing, and it is different from the normal shock and even trauma of witnessing the killing. Its perfectly normal to be shocked and upset - but that's not PTSD.

PTSD develops later, so the idea that he wouldn't ever have been able to talk about the event (for example) is not something that would have been present in the days immediately following the killing. That avoidance is part of PTSD. But if he did get PTSD, then he was present at the killing, so why he immediately. chose to go home and act normally is inexplicable.

And believe me, if it's avoidance, your behaviour isn't normal. You don't go home and fool everyone unless you're really making an effort to do so. Like the victim of a rape might - but not a witness. Because there's usually an even higher psychological price to pay in that case, so there has to be a really good reason to put yourself through that. Society's attitude to rape often made victims feel they had to stay silent - but against that doesn't apply here.

And I'd appreciate not being told I'm inventing this: I know about it because I developed a "minor" form of PTSD just from having been a witness to a violent incident, so believe me, I've worked on all this.

I was able to talk about it, and yet that wasn't enough. Because other people around you don't really want to hear, or at least not endlessly! - and I do understand that - but that's still very different from having to actually hide that it happened.

I'll reiterate for the last time that I'm in no way determined he's a victim. I'm curious as to how they came to the conclusion that he knew what was going to happen to her because it's almost impossible to prove that he did without an admission or some physical evidence explicitly indicating he did in fact know.

By that logic a murder with no dead body can't lead to a conviction. So clearly you're wrong. It's certainly more difficult, but it has happened.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Well this is a complete fabrication. Are you suggesting that a 13 year old witnessing a brutal murder would not be traumatized immediately but rather it would take weeks to settle in?

A normal 13 year old witnessing a murder would run to his parents or police. He was calm and collected in the subsequent interviews.

I'll reiterate for the last time that I'm in no way determined he's a victim. I'm curious as to how they came to the conclusion that he knew what was going to happen to her because it's almost impossible to prove that he did without an admission or some physical evidence explicitly indicating he did in fact know.

I’m not convinced you understand what the reasonable in reasonable doubt is. It’s a qualifier that means your doubt has to be within reason. It doesn’t mean you have to be 100% certain.

I'm aware I wasn't on the jury, people are allowed to discuss the legal merits of the case beyond the 12 people appointed to do so you know.

I suppose but you are arguing against a jury decision where they had much more information than you.

If he was found not guilty and there was a sway of evidence to suggest he should have been convicted then I would play devil's advocate on the opposite side. I have zero motivation or incentive here other than my curiosity surrounding the jury's application of joint enterprise and what potential changes could be made to the law following a case like this e.g naming of perpetrators aged 18 or upon release, incentive for accused to plead guilty to avoid trials etc.

The jury didn’t come up with the charge. The DPP brought a murder charge, and the judge agreed in his instructions. You seem to think or imply that the jury were presented with any number of options, but it was a murder trial for both and only that.

Sardonicat

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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

At what point in this thread did you suggest that previously? I have never had any interaction with you before on this thread.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

retro:electro

The PTSD thing is bull simply because he only ever changed his story once he was confronted with direct contradiction to his version of events. If it was genuine PTSD he wouldn’t be chopping and changing to suit the lies and his avoidance would be consistent. Also he seemed pretty chilled out for a guy suffering from shellshock, yawning and stretching throughout as if he was being inconvened, even describing the mask worn by Boy A while killing Ana as “pretty cool”. So traumatised :rolleyes:

volchitsa

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Boy B's story, that he didn't know what was going to happen, froze during the attack, and then was ashamed and terrified, tried to pretend it had never happened and lied about it...on the face of it that is a credible sequence of events for a 13 year old. That his actions and fears were irrational doesn't mean they're incredible, he was 13.

But it just doesn't hold up once you dig into it and the jury obviously agreed.

Yes, this, exactly. It seems to me that a clever 13 year old thought up a plausible cover story, but being 13 was not (luckily!) able to completely withstand interrogation by trained professional investigators. It would be very worrying if he had been, and it actually concerns me for the future, as I said much earlier in the thread. By the time he's in his twenties he could be a much harder nut to crack.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, this, exactly. It seems to me that a clever 13 year old thought up a plausible cover story, but being 13 was not (luckily!) able to completely withstand interrogation by trained professional investigators. It would be very worrying if he had been, and it actually concerns me for the future, as I said much earlier in the thread. By the time he's in his twenties he could be a much harder nut to crack.

Yeah that was my first reaction too. If they'd not escalated (assuming here that claims of their previous violent behaviour was true) to murder until they were older...Boy A was already at least able to just keep his mouth shut. Boy B, to me overestimated himself. He'll have a nice long time to kick himself over that now

SirGerryAdams

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah that was my first reaction too. If they'd not escalated (assuming here that claims of their previous violent behaviour was true) to murder until they were older...Boy A was already at least able to just keep his mouth shut. Boy B, to me overestimated himself. He'll have a nice long time to kick himself over that now

I wonder what impact Boy As father had on him regarding his lack of answering.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

It’s not just that is it.

He admitted to being there (in the end).
He admitted that boy A had talked about killing ana.
He supplied an item used in the attack.
He brought a girl to an abandoned house
He lied about all this.

There are two conflicting theories here. One that he knew about it all so he lied.

The second that it all was a bit of a shock to him (even after he delivered a girl to what clearly her death) that when he was being interviewed he decided to say nothing for days even if the truth and telling it, were he innocent, would have exonerated him.

One of these theories is more reasonable than the other.

SirGerryAdams

Did parents of the boys not give a recollection of where the boys were/what they were doing on that day?

On one article I think it said Boy A went to Boy Bs house and he asked him to go to get Ana and I think another article stated Boy B was hanging out at Boy As house?

Or maybe I'm wrong?

joe40

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah it's a very tough one to look at objectively, if the jury's decision boiled down to him being a cocky little prick and lying in his interviews that makes me very uncomfortable. I'd imagine he'll appeal.

I personally do believe he was aware and involved but yeah.

I would agree, but the gardai and the DPP must have been convinced of his guilt and the jury must have been convinced of his guilt.

I would just find it incomprehensible that they would put a child of 13 through this unless they were absolutely convinced.
It was not a decision that would have been taken lightly, and I'm sure they would have tried to discard any bias based simply on his personality (i.e a cocky little prick)

The fact they had boy A with conclusive evidence there was no pressure to secure another conviction.

They must have been sure, It is just difficult to imagine so many people getting it so badly wrong.

gk5000

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

OJ Simpson was found innocent, just that thread have ended with that verdict too?

Plenty of others have made reasoned argument to my points. Just because you haven't got any doesn't mean you should be snide.

You think they're guilty and the jury is correct, that's fair enough. I'm interested in how they came to that conclusion. It's a valid discussion point.

I don't wish to argue with you, and do not believe it is useful to anyone to continue with such an argument.


Please cease with the ad hominem calling me snide. I posted because of your similar attacks on another poster.


It may be a valid discussion point for another thread, but as I said the starting point is that they are guilty. I see no point in re-arguing a case when the jury has spoken and none of us except them know the full details.


The poor girl is dead. The 2 boys have been found guilty of her murder.

8-10

Mellor wrote: »

Apart from the obvious example, Terry Venebles, who else are there in the UK?

Everybody seems to be glossing over this comment about an ex-England football manager

What did he do?

Smithwicks Man

Sardonicat wrote: »

At what point in this thread did you suggest that previously? I have never had any interaction with you before on this thread.

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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?

Again, it seems your original comment that time wasn't directed at me but at a previous poster.

Penn

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying but it simply begs the question about it having to hold up? The focal point of people presuming his guilt is based on his lies.

I guess it comes down to whether or not his lies are ample evidence he knew she'd be killed. I personally don't think that they are.

Boy A suggested killing Ana a month before, which Boy B says he dismissed. A month later, he went to Ana's house, brought her to an abandoned house approx. 3km away where he knew Boy A was.

Whether he knew in advance he was actually going to kill her, we don't know. However, it seems far more likely than not that he knew she was going to be hurt in some way. When she was hurt and being attacked, he stood there and watched. Afterwards, he went home and repeatedly lied to the detectives interviewing him.

By bringing her to that house, watching her being killed and lying to detectives after, he became a significant party in her death and his actions helped lead to her death. He very well may not have known Boy A was going to kill her, I accept that. But I think there is ample evidence that he knew or suspected she was going to be hurt in some way, that he played a role in facilitating it, and helped try to cover it up after.