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

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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.

One of them, given the other evidence, is more reasonable and that's the one I believe myself, as I said, even without having to put the slant on the second one that you have there.

Boy B can say he's been manipulated all he wants as it's him Vs Boy A
Who's to say he didn't get the other eejit to do everything whilst watched from a safe distance himself. Who's to say he wasn't the bloody keyser soze behind it all and was hoping to claim PTSD and the likes after, that would makes sense being that he had zero DNA and yet managed to watch It happen. it's all irrelevant now but worth discussing nonetheless to some and other extents.


How would you feel if they did get a light sentence??? serious question? worth a march? Justice for Ana type of thing?

Smithwicks Man

Penn wrote: »

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.

This is a good account of what happened.

But all of the stuff outside him knowing she'd be hurt.

The only way he can be convicted, and I mean the absolute only way, is if they thought beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew there was an intention to cause at least serious harm.

Bringing her there if he thought it was for any other reason than to cause serious harm isn't a crime
Witnessing the act isn't a crime
Not intervening isn't a crime
The lies aren't a crime (obstructing the course of justice aside)

People want to believe that these things are crimes and believe that he did them so he should be convicted. I believe he did all of the above with the caveat that there is doubt as to whether or not he knew she'd be seriously harmed/killed.

The jury believed he did know and that's how they could convict him. It's a tough one but some posters have made good points that the evidence in it's entirety would indicate it's likely he had to have known some harm would come to her based on everything beforehand. His actions afterwards are an afterthought because whilst they portray a liar, manipulator and what not. They don't clearly indicate he knew in advance of it happening.

I guess me sticking on that point is because it is such a grey area, we'll never know if he knew or not but he was convicted on the basis they believed he did.

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

Boy B can say he's been manipulated all he wants as it's him Vs Boy A
Who's to say he didn't get the other eejit to do everything whilst watched from a safe distance himself. Who's to say he wasn't the bloody keyser soze behind it all

Keyser Sóze doesn't collect the girl from her house in broad day light and march her to her brutal death. I don't think we are dealing with a genius here.

That said it could be very telling in sentencing and explaining that sentencing what weight the Judge if any applies to both Boys.

He has still full discretion in this case to set Boy B free if he wants to, not that I think he will.

I also wonder if an appeal is successful and the verdict against Boy B is quashed and the DPP decide on another trial.

Can Boy A be used as a witness for the prosecution or defense?

ollkiller

A few thoughts after reading that extensive Irish Times article and this thread.

First Boy B's lawyer must be the most inept idiot ever. Would he ever have been charged if he just shut up. Probably not. Talked himself into a conviction. Highly probable Boy B knew what was gonna happen so conviction correct.

Boy A defo a psychopath. Boy B seems very clever and manipulating but I'm not convinced he's a psychopath as wouldn't a psychopath stay at the house during the attack. Of course I could be totally wrong and he could indeed be a psychopath. If he was though wouldn't the psychologist have picked up on that.

Naming of Boy A and Boy B. If they get named it's highly possible that relatives (cousins, aunts, uncle's etc) could get attacked or abused etc. Mob mentality is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs because some innocent person always bears the brunt. It's either a justice system or a free for all.

Posters who said charge the parents. Kop on. Bad kids can come from any type of family. I know families who have 1 bad apple but siblings are fine. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to charge someone who did not commit the crime.

If we can learn anything from this awful case hopefully its to put effort into education around bullying and the extent to which it is prevalent in the Irish school system. I went to school in the 90's and it was hell. Seemingly nothing much has changed.

Goodgoods

ollkiller wrote: »

A few thoughts after reading that extensive Irish Times article and this thread.

First Boy B's lawyer must be the most inept idiot ever. Would he ever have been charged if he just shut up. Probably not. Talked himself into a conviction. Highly probable Boy B knew what was gonna happen so conviction correct.

Boy A defo a psychopath. Boy B seems very clever and manipulating but I'm not convinced he's a psychopath as wouldn't a psychopath stay at the house during the attack. Of course I could be totally wrong and he could indeed be a psychopath. If he was though wouldn't the psychologist have picked up on that.

Naming of Boy A and Boy B. If they get named it's highly possible that relatives (cousins, aunts, uncle's etc) could get attacked or abused etc. Mob mentality is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs because some innocent person always bears the brunt. It's either a justice system or a free for all.

Posters who said charge the parents. Kop on. Bad kids can come from any type of family. I know families who have 1 bad apple but siblings are fine. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to charge someone who did not commit the crime.

If we can learn anything from this awful case hopefully its to put effort into education around bullying and the extent to which it is prevalent in the Irish school system. I went to school in the 90's and it was hell. Seemingly nothing much has changed.

How do you know he didn’t stay at the house during the attack?

martingriff

McCrack wrote: »

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

Even criminals have some morals (for want of a better word) and child killer and sexual deviant will have them low on the order of been liked especially if they have the superior complex they have

spurious

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 agree, but I am with Smithwicks Man on a question as to how the jury could come to the conclusion that his actions/words meant there was only one possible reason for him to act that way with no other reasonable explanation.

I think it's something that will be dealt with if/when there is an appeal.

ollkiller

Goodgoods wrote: »

How do you know he didn’t stay at the house during the attack?

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Penn

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Bringing her there if he thought it was for any other reason than to cause serious harm isn't a crime
Witnessing the act isn't a crime
Not intervening isn't a crime
The lies aren't a crime (obstructing the course of justice aside)

But together, they form a pattern of behaviour which when considered with the conversation he'd had where Boy A suggested they kill Ana, indicate a strong possibility that again, at the very least he knew she was going to be hurt in some fashion. He brought her to the house at the behest of Boy A. If that was all he did, I'd say he likely didn't know what was going to happen. He went into the house with her, watched her being killed and lied about it in proper interviews with detectives as many as 8 times after.

All the pieces matter. Many of the things individually that he did could show he didn't know what was going to happen, or aren't crimes by themselves. But everything together (especially considering the jury was likely shown or told many things we haven't been) was enough for the jury to unanimously find him guilty.

I get you have your reservations, but the detectives, prosecutors and jury did not.

Neyite

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So what if anything did the secondary school teachers do to reprimand the bullies?

How can teachers eradicate bullying when the boys who were known to be bullies have parents who even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary deny that their angels did anything wrong. And sadly there are MANY parents who refuse to believe that their kids are capable of anything.

I don't disagree that schools have a big part to play, but stamping out bullying starts at home.

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 would bet money on Boy B recording the attack on one of the two phones that were lost. It never made sense to me that he was in the room and Boy A getting injuries to the point he was limping as Ana fought back and Boy B not helping A to hold her down. But if he was holding a phone it would explain it. It would also explain him being far enough away from the attack not to have any trace of it on his clothes or any trace of him on Ana in order to fit the whole attack on screen.

The phones might have been destroyed or hidden, but teens whip their phones out at every mundane opportunity so it stands to reason that this being the most daring and extreme plans they had that they would have wanted it recorded.

Goodgoods

ollkiller wrote: »

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Reported from boy B’s interview 9. Need to be careful of the source of the ‘facts’

SirGerryAdams

ollkiller wrote: »

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Anyone know where courtyard lane is in Catherines park?

Boy B was spotted about 10 minutes away from the house at the BMX track on his way home.

Boy A was spotted on courtyard CCTV going home 14 minutes later.

Someone with local knowledge might be able to say if these timings would indicate they left at the same time or if Boy B left before the attack ended.

SirGerryAdams

Neyite wrote: »

How can teachers eradicate bullying when the boys who were known to be bullies have parents who even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary deny that their angels did anything wrong. And sadly there are MANY parents who refuse to believe that their kids are capable of anything.

I don't disagree that schools have a big part to play, but stamping out bullying starts at home.



I would bet money on Boy B recording the attack on one of the two phones that were lost. It never made sense to me that he was in the room and Boy A getting injuries to the point he was limping as Ana fought back and Boy B not helping A to hold her down. But if he was holding a phone it would explain it. It would also explain him being far enough away from the attack not to have any trace of it on his clothes or any trace of him on Ana in order to fit the whole attack on screen.

The phones might have been destroyed or hidden, but teens whip their phones out at every mundane opportunity so it stands to reason that this being the most daring and extreme plans they had that they would have wanted it recorded.

Do you reckon it was possible that they had planned to just scare her with the mask etc and she attacked him when she got scared and he lost his temper? Maybe they planned to record that "prank" and share it around.

I don't understand how she would have injured him if he had started attacking her with the stick right away?

But the lack of any mention of this by Boy A or B would probably rule this out I guess?

Lucuma

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.

This is the best post here. Can you send that by carrier pigeon to wherever B's father is hiding out please?

Boggles

Neyite wrote: »

I would bet money on Boy B recording the attack on one of the two phones that were lost. It never made sense to me that he was in the room and Boy A getting injuries to the point he was limping as Ana fought back and Boy B not helping A to hold her down. But if he was holding a phone it would explain it. It would also explain him being far enough away from the attack not to have any trace of it on his clothes or any trace of him on Ana in order to fit the whole attack on screen.

The phones might have been destroyed or hidden, but teens whip their phones out at every mundane opportunity so it stands to reason that this being the most daring and extreme plans they had that they would have wanted it recorded.

He had a phone, it was a non smart phone.

This was analysed by Gardaí and nothing of note was found.

They also had full access to Boy A's phones.

I wouldn't be putting much money on that theory at all TBH.

Gerianam

Boggles wrote: »

He had a phone, it was a non smart phone.

This was analysed by Gardaí and nothing of note was found.

They also had full access to Boy A's phones.

I wouldn't be putting much money on that theory at all TBH.

His father said that he had bought him TWO smartphones which wewre conveniently lost.:rolleyes:

gozunda

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

Seriously do you really have to drag in that type of ad hominem crap into the discussion. And with that you've just lost the argument.

And FYI minors may indeed get reduced sentences for murder under the the current judicial system. Look it up if you dont believe anyone but yourself.

Bribing criminals to plead guilty so they can get reduced sentences is a non sequitur imo whatever way you look at it.

You proposed that one or more of these boys might have pleaded guilty if a Carrot was dangled in front of them.

How about they plead guilty because it's the right thing to do instead of being facilitated because they think they could beat the system.

Only they could mitigate the impacts of a trial on the family of the victim. Tbh they showed as much regard for the family as they did Ana

tuxy

Great, we are back to the imaginary phone theory again.
The phones Boy B had went missing long before the murder happened.

Boy B was convicted using actual evidence that was satisfactory to the jury.
I find it odd that many are now claiming that the case the Garda built doesn't meet their standards.

Boggles

Gerianam wrote: »

His father said that he had bought him TWO smartphones which wewre conveniently lost.:rolleyes:

I know.

Do you think the detectives might have not thought of that too and in examining the Boy B's phone may have raised some suspicion if it had just been activated on May 14th?

Eoin

airy fairy wrote: »

I'm very nervous of this case falling apart.
There will obviously be an appeal?
If the case is overturned, and if boy B is found not guilty....it's unthinkable but probable.

I am 99% sure you can't appeal just because you think the evidence was too weak to convict you. It's more if there was an error in law - e.g. evidence should/should not have been presented to the jury, if the judge did not give good instructions to the jury etc.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

You also said earlier that it was really bugging you not knowing if she was sexually assaulted before or after she was killed. Nobody here needs to know that kind of thing, and it doesn't seem healthy for someone to wonder about it that much.

Boggles

Garda Sheridan said nothing of relevance had been found on a phone associated with Boy B, and she said she had downloaded an image from Ana Kriégel's phone showing Ana sitting on a chair in a sitting room.

She agreed the schoolgirl was fully clothed, her feet appeared to be bound together, there was some kind of white bandage or bandana around her eyes and a black scarf covering the rest of her face.

There were up to four lengths of wide sellotape around her chest and the chair. Garda Sheridan agreed it appeared she was posing for a photograph.

This image appeared to have been created on 6 May 2018.

The garda said she had also examined a video of Ana walking through an abandoned house and talking to a person as she did so.

The video appeared to have been created on 14 February 2018.

Was it established who took that video and picture?

alchemist33

tuxy wrote: »

Great, we are back to the imaginary phone theory again.
The phones Boy B had went missing long before the murder happened.

Boy B was convicted using actual evidence that was satisfactory to the jury.
I find it odd that many are now claiming that the case the Garda built doesn't meet their standards.

This reminds me of the discussion after the conviction in the Tipperary farm murder case. People kept bringing up imaginary theories that might have exonerated the murderer, even though the man himself didn't bring them up in his own testimony.

gozunda

ollkiller wrote: »

I don't. I'm only going on what's reported. Supposedly he was there when it started and left. Only two people know the truth of that.

Boy B admitted to seeing Ana being strangled and held down by boy A.

Smithwicks Man

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously do you really have to drag in that type of ad hominem crap into the discussion. And with that you've just lost the argument.

And FYI minors may indeed get reduced sentences for murder under the the current judicial system. Look it up if you dont believe anyone but yourself.

Bribing criminals to plead guilty so they can get reduced sentences is a non sequitur imo whatever way you look at it.

You proposed that one or more of these boys might have pleaded guilty if a Carrot was dangled in front of them.

How about they plead guilty because it's the right thing to do instead of being facilitated because they think they could beat the system.

Only they could mitigate the impacts of a trial on the family of the victim. Tbh they showed as much regard for the family as they did Ana

Are you joking? Accusing me of Ad hominem? This coming from the person who originally stated the below in response to me :rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

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

I'm well aware that minors get reduced sentences as I have previously stated.

I suggested, quite fairly, that there are plenty of cases whereby getting the accused to plead guilty with the incentive of a slightly reduced sentence/getting choice of where they serve their sentence etc. would prevent grieving families from the agony of a long drawn out trial.

You suggest they should just plead guilty because it's the right thing to do. If they were that concerned about the right thing to do I doubt they'd have murdered somebody in the first place ffs.

It's not nice, nobody wants to see criminals getting reduced sentences or favourable treatment but it is pragmatic and practical to have some sort of incentive to avoid trials like this where there could even by a small chance a killer could walk on a technicality.

Everybody wants to believe in good and evil and any perpetrator should be locked up and the keys thrown away but the world doesn't work like that.

gozunda

tuxy wrote: »

Great, we are back to the imaginary phone theory again.
The phones Boy B had went missing long before the murder happened.

Boy B was convicted using actual evidence that was satisfactory to the jury.
I find it odd that many are now claiming that the case the Garda built doesn't meet their standards.

Link?

No one is claiming the Gardai did anything but the best in this case. But as has been pointed out however they can't do miracles and detect phones which may have been deliberatly and permanently destroyed ...

mrjoneill

volchitsa wrote: »

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.



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.

He had no PTSD but fretting over been found out. His peers stated he behaved normal after the event & was back in school. His discussions with his school counselor was of the blame being put on him as he was last seen in Ana's company. He is a cold calculating manipulator with all the pretensions of niceness. I'm not satisfied that Boy B was not the mastermind behind the whole episode using Boy A to carry out his fantasies. Boy B has demeaned Ana at every opportunity. Boy B only told the minimum after being confronted 8 times for lying and his statement to his psychologist is different too. Boy B has not told the full story and he was present for all that took place. Lies that stick out to me is the forensic blood spatter indicate Ana was severely beaten with a weapon while standing up, Boy B has not indicated this. Boy B spoke about he became aware of the crotch of Boy A pants being open when he stood up. Boy A was wearing trackbottoms. He don't tell us of the sex acts carried out by Boy A which forensics indicate was. He lied in the removing of Ana clothes stating she assisted which the forensics indicate were violently ripped off her We don't know what he carried in his backpack and we do know he left his house with this and went to Ana's house with it and to the abandoned house. His loss of phones & the lack of internet profiling & electronics communications with Boy A his best friend concerns me. Teenagers now are 24/7 texting each other but with him its blank. Cant but feel this is a manipulator who though he did the perfect crime.

gozunda

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Are you joking? Accusing me of Ad hominem? This coming from the person who originally stated the below in response to me...

.

You do know that ad hominem is directed at the person - like your comment was - yes?

Smithwicks Man wrote:

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

The exaggeration used re. holidays or a cash prize was directed at your comment to highlight its ridiculness and is not an ad hominem

gozunda wrote:

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

Others have also pointed out your overt use of ad hominem

The rest of what you wrote is bunkum btw.

Strazdas

gozunda wrote: »

Boy B admitted to seeing Ana being strangled and held down by boy A.

The prosecution case was that B witnessed the entire murder from start to finish. Given that he told lie after lie after lie, it's very hard believe anything he says about leaving before the attack ended.

Smithwicks Man

Eoin wrote: »

I am 99% sure you can't appeal just because you think the evidence was too weak to convict you. It's more if there was an error in law - e.g. evidence should/should not have been presented to the jury, if the judge did not give good instructions to the jury etc.
.

This is true. There would be multiple avenues they'll likely try to exploit. Hard to see inadequate defence being one. Potentially object to the length and intensity of the interview process but this was discussed pre-trial and no laws where broken there.

I would suggest they'll probably go down the route of appealing on the basis of the judge's direction to jurors or something along the lines of prejudicial evidence being included/material evidence being excluded with would have swayed their case.

By no means clear as of yet if they'll even appeal but I'd be surprised if they don't. The appeal would be a lot trickier to win than the case itself.