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

SirGerryAdams

Boggles wrote: »

Was it established who took that video and picture?

First I've heard of this....

mrjoneill

gozunda wrote: »

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

Boy B drew a sketch for Gardai where he last saw the body of Ana and that was where she was found. But this was not the place in the room where she was beaten to death as the blood spatter indicates as her body was moved after her death. So Boy B saw the whole event. And Gardai believe Ana's body was moved by grabbing her by the ligature around her neck that Boy B provided.

tuxy

Boggles wrote: »

Was it established who took that video and picture?

Another girl that wasn't named took the picture.

dickangel

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

First I've heard of this....

Jaysus Gerry you aren't even up on the basics. Read about the case before theorising gruesome and disrespectful scenarios.

Moonymoon00

tuxy wrote: »

Another girl that wasn't named took the picture.

I'm sorry , I lost track of the feed. What picture and video is this ?

I says

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

B up to his neck in it. Lie after lie and more than likely stood in the way of the poor girl trying to escape out any doorway from the house.

tuxy

Moonymoon00 wrote: »

I'm sorry , I lost track of the feed. What picture and video is this ?

It's not really relevant to the case IMO

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

At one point it was discovered that Ana had set up fake social-media accounts that she was using to send bullying messages to herself. From then on she had to give all the passwords to her apps to Geraldine, who would check her phone every night.

“She didn’t like it but she knew if she didn’t I would take the phone,” her mother said. Shortly before Ana’s death Geraldine found a photograph on the phone of her blindfolded and tied to a chair. Ana told her mother it was part of a prank. She and another girl were pretending she was in trouble, to see if another boy would come and rescue her.

Strazdas

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B drew a sketch for Gardai where he last saw the body of Ana and that was where she was found. But this was not the place in the room where she was beaten to death as the blood spatter indicates as her body was moved after her death. So Boy B saw the whole event. And Gardai believe Ana's body was moved by grabbing her by the ligature around her neck that Boy B provided.

His claims that he fled the scene were undoubtedly an attempt to get himself off the hook. In his mind, if he didn't witness Ana being murdered, he cannot possibly have been guilty of her murder ("it was the other guy.....nothing to do with me at all").

Everything about this case, including his hours of questioning, makes me think he knew full well a violent attack on Ana would happen.

endacl

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Curiosity as to what really happened.

A young girl died a horrible death.

mrjoneill

Suckit wrote: »

They were only 13.
But I thought Boy B had come to their attention, that's how they got his name from the Pulse system?

That was stated at his trial he had not come to Garda notice previous but yet his name was on the Garda Pulse system. We don't know to the how. One could be on the system just being a witness to an event.

mrjoneill

Road-Hog wrote: »

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.

That case went all the way to the ECHR which made rulings on it, that it was wrong to id the perpetrators, wrong to try them as adults & the need for a more child friendly court. This was incorporated into the Irish Act.

Cryptopagan

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B drew a sketch for Gardai where he last saw the body of Ana and that was where she was found. But this was not the place in the room where she was beaten to death as the blood spatter indicates as her body was moved after her death. So Boy B saw the whole event. And Gardai believe Ana's body was moved by grabbing her by the ligature around her neck that Boy B provided.

I don’t remember seeing that detail anywhere. How would he show them “where he last saw the body” when his story was that he ran out and heard her scream?

Boggles

tuxy wrote: »

It's not really relevant to the case IMO

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

At one point it was discovered that Ana had set up fake social-media accounts that she was using to send bullying messages to herself. From then on she had to give all the passwords to her apps to Geraldine, who would check her phone every night.

“She didn’t like it but she knew if she didn’t I would take the phone,” her mother said. Shortly before Ana’s death Geraldine found a photograph on the phone of her blindfolded and tied to a chair. Ana told her mother it was part of a prank. She and another girl were pretending she was in trouble, to see if another boy would come and rescue her.

I thought Ana didn't have any friends according to her mother?

There may be no relevance and it might just be a freak coincidence, but a week before she is brutally murdered in which tape is used, she is bound to a chair by tape and blindfolded.

Cryptopagan

Boggles wrote: »

I thought Ana didn't have any friends according to her mother?

There may be no relevance and it might just be a freak coincidence, but a week before she is brutally murdered in which tape is used, she is bound to a chair by tape and blindfolded.

She had her cousin and I think one girl who occasionally slept over.

Gavtronik

Hi everyone, I just joined up here today solely to have a voice in this discussion. I've followed the thread since Tuesday, in the full knowledge I'd read some opinions that infuriated me but also some that would help me make sense of this beyond-horrific tragedy, which I've had both, so thank you to everyone for that, genuinely. The court reports were hugely informative, I feel very equipped with the facts but it's one-way information. There's a place for media commentary, especially if it comes from journalists who were present at the trial, but really I just wanted to know what other ordinary people thought of all this, if they were affected the same way I was, I'm glad to find there are so many who are.

I'd like to just contribute to the question of why the boys were excused from the courtroom by saying I don't think it was to spare them the horror of it for their own sake or because they were still innocent til proven guilty, I believe it was because the defence arguments were SO reachy they may use this 'exposure' of the boys to the evidence in some way to their legal advantage, should the boys show any emotion when confronted with the evidence in public. If you consider the desperate play-acting going on, between Lego, swords, holding hands and resting their heads on Mammy and Daddy's shoulders, the safest thing was to not have them there at all so the jury couldn't be swayed at closing time or some legal niggle brought up.
The defences proved they could use all their legal knowledge to come up with something far beyond my abilities, and weren't above chancing anything. 'A consentual encounter between A and Ana that got out of hand' for instance..how could this encounter happen if A maintained he wasn't at the scene?

But, my main point..I don't think they were excused to spare them the horror for their own sakes.

Penn

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I don’t remember seeing that detail anywhere. How would he show them “where he last saw the body” when his story was that he ran out and heard her scream?

He lied several times in his interviews. Saying he ran out and heard her scream was his lie at one point, but in a later interviews he further admitted to being in the house during the attack, being in the room during the attack, and watching the attack (describing what Boy A did to her).

By his own admission after revising his story several times, he admitted witnessing the attack and staying in the room for at least most of it.

Cryptopagan

Penn wrote: »

He lied several times in his interviews. Saying he ran out and heard her scream was his lie at one point, but in a later interviews he further admitted to being in the house during the attack, being in the room during the attack, and watching the attack (describing what Boy A did to her).

By his own admission after revising his story several times, he admitted witnessing the attack and staying in the room for at least most of it.

Did he actually draw a picture showing the attack happen at X in the room, when X was where the body was discovered rather than where the attack took place?

Penn

Gavtronik wrote: »

The defences proved they could use all their legal knowledge to come up with something far beyond my abilities, and weren't above chancing anything. 'A consentual encounter between A and Ana that got out of hand' for instance..how could this encounter happen if A maintained he wasn't at the scene?

I think given the overwhelming forensic evidence, the defense for Boy A knew the prosecution could prove Boy A was there and was involved in her death. The defense's best chance was to go for a lesser charge of manslaughter by trying to prove it was an accident and wasn't planned.

Smithwicks Man

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.

They could offer an earlier parole hearing or perhaps an extended length of time before your first parole hearing if you plead not guilty.

Also, I hate that they sentence someone to “life”. It doesn’t even mean life so why say that meaningless word.

Penn

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Did he actually draw a picture showing the attack happen at X in the room, when X was where the body was discovered rather than where the attack took place?

Not sure, his drawing probably isn't that detailed given his age. But there's no doubt the detectives, knowing the layout of the room, would have asked him "Where in the room did this part happen?", "Where was she in the room the last time you saw her?", "Which door did you enter the room from?" etc.

Gavtronik

Penn wrote: »

I think given the overwhelming forensic evidence, the defense for Boy A knew the prosecution could prove Boy A was there and was involve din her death. The defense's best chance was to go for a lesser charge of manslaughter by trying to prove it was an accident and wasn't planned.

I think that's what they were doing all right, but that's throwing in the towel and admitting yes he was there, yes he did attack her. He's claiming he wasn't even there. Looking for a manslaughter option admits his current defense is a lie. What am I missing?

Neyite

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

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?

They could have played a prank in the park or at school if they wanted to frighten her with the mask. They lured her to that location, 3km away to do something to her that needed privacy and where nobody would hear her struggle or scream.

I don't know how she injured him but maybe he underestimated her strength thinking he was bigger than her and had martial arts lessons.

Cryptopagan

Penn wrote: »

Not sure, his drawing probably isn't that detailed given his age. But there's no doubt the detectives, knowing the layout of the room, would have asked him "Where in the room did this part happen?", "Where was she in the room the last time you saw her?", "Which door did you enter the room from?" etc.

Sure, but the poster I was responding to claimed

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B drew a sketch for Gardai where he last saw the body of Ana and that was where she was found. But this was not the place in the room where she was beaten to death as the blood spatter indicates as her body was moved after her death.

That’s a very specific claim, and would be a very damning piece of evidence, but I don’t recall ever reading that or anything like it. I vaguely remember something about a drawing but nothing that revealing.

tuxy

Gavtronik wrote: »

I think that's what they were doing all right, but that's throwing in the towel and admitting yes he was there, yes he did attack her. He's claiming he wasn't even there. Looking for a manslaughter option admits his current defense is a lie. What am I missing?

By the time it went to trial did he claim he was not there?
Claiming to not be guilty of murder is different from saying he wasn't even there.

Gavtronik

ie

Charge: Murder
Pleads: Not Guilty
Defence: I wasn't there.

Charge: Manslaughter
Pleads: Guilty
Defence: Ok I was there.

And Boy A's defence DID ask for a manslaughter option They didn't just consider it in private, they asked the Judge and he said no.

Sardonicat

Boggles wrote: »

I thought Ana didn't have any friends according to her mother?

There may be no relevance and it might just be a freak coincidence, but a week before she is brutally murdered in which tape is used, she is bound to a chair by tape and blindfolded.

She had a handful of friends at school . She was also close to her cousins. The other girl who took the photo may have been her cousin.

tuxy

Gavtronik wrote: »

ie

Charge: Murder
Pleads: Not Guilty
Defence: I wasn't there.

Well it was murder he was charged with, at what point in the trial did his barrister claim he was not there?

Boggles

Sardonicat wrote: »

She had a handful of friends at school . She was also close to her cousins. The other girl who took the photo may have been her cousin.

It hasn't been established who took the photo, unless I am missing something, apart from Ana telling her mother it was another girl.

Nobody called for Ana. She had no friends

That was the quote from the mother in court. On that basis she immediately went looking for her.

Something doesn't quite add up.

Gavtronik

tuxy wrote: »

Well it was murder he was charged with, at what point in the trial did his barrister claim he was not there?

Boy A maintained the last time he saw Ana was in the park

Sardonicat

Boggles wrote: »

It hasn't been established who took the photo, unless I am missing something, apart from Ana telling her mother it was another girl.



That was the quote from the mother in court. On that basis she immediately went looking for her.

Something doesn't quite add up.

Just because she had a few friends at school doesn't mean they lived locally or were in the habit of calling for her.

What do you think would be gained from her Mother lying? Even Boy B corroborated that she had no friends and no one wanted to hang out with her.