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

SirGerryAdams

You'd have thought there'd have been some messages between some of the 3 parties in the days before hand.

Or even any talk of interactions at school?

Ana supposedly said she liked Boy A, I wonder how long before it happened was that and who was involved.

Sardonicat

Gavtronik wrote: »

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

The physical evidence proved otherwise .

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

You'd have thought there'd have been some messages between some of the 3 parties in the days before hand.

Why would they be messaging Ana ?

SirGerryAdams

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why would they be messaging Ana ?

How odd would it be for a boy to randomly call to your house to say a boy wants to see you that you haven't talked to in months. The only thing actually that indicates they ever interacted before was they said Ana told boy A she liked him one time.

Or how did Boy B even know where she lived?

Gavtronik

sorry for making my point in separate posts, I know sitting back and taking time to prepare a comprehensive answer would be better, it's just that this conversation is moving so quickly there'll be pages between my replies, it gets pointless.

Did Boy A' say anything between his final Garda interviews ('Boy B is lying. That is all') and the manslaughter application?

If he did and I've missed it I apologise. But I can't find it.

tuxy

Gavtronik wrote: »

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

At first yes but then made no further comment to Garda after he was told about forensic evidence.

No such claim was made in the trial, it would be absurd for a barrister to ask for the jury to consider manslaughter while claiming his client wasn't there when the incident took place.

Gavtronik

Sardonicat wrote: »

The physical evidence proved otherwise .

I know but he didn't ADMIT it. And his defence didn't admit it. Their plea was not guilty, he wasn't there.

So
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there

'can we change to Manslaughter: guilty, was there?'

'no you can't.'

"ok well, it's back to
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there' then"

I must be missing something, let me continue to follow the conversation.

Gavtronik

tuxy wrote: »

At first yes but then made no further comment to Garda after he was told about forensic evidence.

No such claim was made in the trial, it would be absurd for a barrister to ask for the jury to consider manslaughter while claiming his client wasn't there when the incident took place.

I know. Totally absurd.
But he didn't change his story.

tayto lover

gk5000 wrote: »

The jury sits on our behalf and hear all the evidence.
They decided both were guilty of murder. I have full confidence in the jury and their verdict, as do most people.

How can people who were not on the jury know better?

And it was a unanimous decision. Not one thought him not guilty. Very telling.

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How odd would it be for a boy to randomly call to your house to say a boy wants to see you that you haven't talked to in months.

Or how did Boy B even know where she lived?

Why don't you share your theory? Come straight out with it rather than implying through questions

mrjoneill

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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

Another two sticking points for me are that:

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

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

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

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

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


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

The prosecution and the jury believed that Boy A & Boy B were in a plan, a plan to lure Ana to an abandoned house for her to be assaulted. That's all that's needed. We don't have to prove that Boy B should be aware of the fact that Boy A wanted to kill her at the time.


1 The witness that indicated Boy B laughing with Ana on the way to the abandoned house confirmed to me the deceitful nature of Boy B. He was luring an innocent immature girl to an out of the way house to be killed or seriously assaulted and he was joking as he did. This is evil and a smart alec.


2 I believe Boy B went to Ana's house believing he would not be recognized calling there. Ana's father or mother did not know Boy B name but I understand picked him out of facebook. Tehy did not know where he lived. I believe Boy B thought Ana was home alone. If Ana's father did not see Ana leave the house with Boy B we would be looking at the disappeared rather than going off with someone that was identifiable. This gave Gardai a lead which the followed up immediately. I believe both Boy A and Boy B did not pencil in CCTV into the plot because they were unaware of it. And only for there was a trail of evidence to the park Gardai may not have gone there looking for evidence. Boy B could well be the prime-mover in all that since he went to Ana's house to lure her to the abandoned house for to fulfill some twisted voyeuristic fantasy.


Anything is possible but its what the evidence pattern leads to we draw conclusions. Both Boy A and Boy B did not like Ana then why was she being lured to a remote location and Boy B doing the luring. And both of them from CCTV evidence were in the same time window going to the abandoned house. It had only one obvious conclusion, both were in a conspiracy to inflict injury on Ana. CCTV has them in the same time frame leaving the area also.
Boy B set out to prove his innocence as he was put in the frame a frame that CCTV and witness statements indicated he led Ana to the abandoned house. He tried his best to manipulate out of it and couldn't because of external evidence. Ana was killed at the abandoned house by his best friend, Boy A as forensics indicate. Boy B going no comment from the start would not have avoided being charged as another poster wrote here. Gardai would attack from another angle and his silence would have made them even more active. Should he have exercised silence and repeated no-comment when questioned on video evidence before a jury it would not wash as he was the prime mover in it. It was like his lies video evidence it did not wash either

SirGerryAdams

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why don't you share your theory? Come straight out with it rather than implying through questions

I'm not implying anything. I'm just posing questions and wonderances about this whole case trying to make sense of it all.

I have a curiosity about what exactly happened in this case, just like I did in the Graham Dwyer case and Bobby Ryan case....

Gavtronik

anyway, it's a minor point, if I'm missing something, fine.
My macro-point was, the defence arguments - both of them - were pathetic, reachy, embarrassing and desperate.

mrjoneill

Gavtronik wrote: »

sorry for making my point in separate posts, I know sitting back and taking time to prepare a comprehensive answer would be better, it's just that this conversation is moving so quickly there'll be pages between my replies, it gets pointless.

Did Boy A' say anything between his final Garda interviews ('Boy B is lying. That is all') and the manslaughter application?

If he did and I've missed it I apologise. But I can't find it.

No there was no admission by Boy A or Boy B

The Rapture

The sentencing will be interesting as I don't believe there is a defined life term for a minor.
Will Boy B be granted any leniency based on that shadow od doubt as to his involvement ?

wiggle16

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.

What is it that you don't think adds up? And what are you taking it to imply?

I had friends in school I never, ever saw outside of school. No one ever called for Ana, so it was unusual for her to be out like that, which is what concerned her mother.

dickangel

Gavtronik wrote: »

anyway, it's a minor point, if I'm missing something, fine.
My macro-point was, the defence arguments - both of them - were pathetic, reachy, embarrassing and desperate.

That's all you can do when there's overwhelming evidence against you. Boy B maybe had a better defence but he had already hung himself.

Penn

Gavtronik wrote: »

I know but he didn't ADMIT it. And his defence didn't admit it. Their plea was not guilty, he wasn't there.

So
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there

'can we change to Manslaughter: guilty, was there?'

'no you can't.'

"ok well, it's back to
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there' then"

I must be missing something, let me continue to follow the conversation.

He wouldn't have to change his story though for them to change to manslaughter.

The trial begins with the full presumption of innocence of the defendant. It's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty. The defense in trying to claim what happened could have been down to things going too far and that what happened wasn't planned, they're simply trying to introduce doubt in the prosecution's case, and pointing out that the prosecution haven't proven Boy A fully planned what happened.

That's the role of the defense. Not to prove innocence (as the defendant begins with the presumption of innocence), but to point out holes/flaws/inconsistencies/guesswork or similar in the prosecution's argument, and introduce as much doubt in the minds of the jurors as possible.

Gavtronik

mrjoneill wrote: »

No there was no admission by Boy A or Boy B

thanks, at least I know I didn't miss it, whether it proves anything or not.

tuxy

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

Many have asked why Boy A didn't place some of the blame on Boy B after he found out Boy B was talking.
But it makes perfect sense, whether Boy A had an accomplice or not would not have diminished his responsibility for the crime.
The only way he was going free was if somehow there was a massive blunder with the forensics but he could still be found responsible if he had talked at all, so he stayed quiet and may continue to do so as I don't think talking will help him gain early release.

wiggle16

The Rapture wrote: »

The sentencing will be interesting as I don't believe there is a defined life term for a minor.
Will Boy B be granted any leniency based on that shadow od doubt as to his involvement ?

The only precedent I believe is a case from the early 2000's where a minor was sentenced to life, with a review after ten years, which I think was a result of the judge trying to find a compromise between the seriousness of the crime and the age of the perpetrator.

In work now so I can't find a link to the case but if I do I'll post it.

I think one way or the other there will be uproar over the sentence(s). Hard to see how a judge can balance their age, the crime, and the contraints imposed upon him by the law to make the sentence fit.

dickangel

tuxy wrote: »

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

Many have asked why Boy A didn't place some of the blame on Boy B after he found out Boy B was talking.
But it makes perfect sense, whether Boy A had an accomplice or not would not have diminished his responsibility for the crime.
The only way he was going free was if somehow there was a massive blunder with the forensics but he could still be found responsible if he had talked at all, so he stayed quiet and may continue to do so as I don't think talking will help him gain early release.

He (or his solicitor) may have thought that blaming Boy B would have descended into tit for tat divulging of information also. The Guards would have loved the opportunity to play them off each other.

Gavtronik

Penn wrote: »

He wouldn't have to change his story though for them to change to manslaughter.

The trial begins with the full presumption of innocence of the defendant. It's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty. The defense in trying to claim what happened could have been down to things going too far and that what happened wasn't planned, they're simply trying to introduce doubt in the prosecution's case, and pointing out that the prosecution haven't proven Boy A fully planned what happened.

That's the role of the defense. Not to prove innocence (as the defendant begins with the presumption of innocence), but to point out holes/flaws/inconsistencies/guesswork or similar in the prosecution's argument, and introduce as much doubt in the minds of the jurors as possible.

OK I hear you, and I'm asking this respectfully, not sarcastically

does that mean Boy A's defence can go from not guilty of murder (on the grounds that he maintained he wasn't even at the murder site) to guilty of manslaughter (inherently admitting he WAS at the murder site) BACK to not guilty of murder if a manslaughter application isn't successful (contradicting himself).
If it does, fine. I understand what you're saying, it's not to defend his innocence (which is taken as given), it's to poke holes in the prosecutions claim that he's guilty (and sway the jury). Thanks for answering.

mrjoneill

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

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.

Life means they are on license on release & have to be on their best behavior or its back in. Unlike manslaughter it ends with the serving of the sentence murder give the Gardai & the Prison services a life time control.

Gavtronik

tuxy wrote: »

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

cool, I hear you

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I'm not implying anything. I'm just posing questions and wonderances about this whole case trying to make sense of it all.

I have a curiosity about what exactly happened in this case, just like I did in the Graham Dwyer case and Bobby Ryan case....

You're looking for answers that no one can give. Nothing more than wild speculation would result from an attempt to answer them.

We know exactly what happened

No one can tell you why some things didn't happen or why Ana was so trusting (aside from the evidence of her naive and trusting nature and desperation for friends and approval from her peers that was presented in court)

Gavtronik

I agree.

Gavtronik

dickangel wrote: »

That's all you can do when there's overwhelming evidence against you. Boy B maybe had a better defence but he had already hung himself.

I agree.

The Rapture

wiggle16 wrote: »

The only precedent I believe is a case from the early 2000's where a minor was sentenced to life, with a review after ten years, which I think was a result of the judge trying to find a compromise between the seriousness of the crime and the age of the perpetrator.

In work now so I can't find a link to the case but if I do I'll post it.

I think one way or the other there will be uproar over the sentence(s). Hard to see how a judge can balance their age, the crime, and the contraints imposed upon him by the law to make the sentence fit.

Another juristiction but Thompson/Venables both served 8 years.
I wonder if Boy A will exceed that.

Penn

Gavtronik wrote: »

OK I hear you, and I'm asking this respectfully, not sarcastically

does that mean Boy A's defence can go from not guilty of murder (on the grounds that he maintained he wasn't even at the murder site) to guilty of manslaughter (inherently admitting he WAS at the murder site) BACK to not guilty of murder if a manslaughter application isn't successful (contradicting himself).
If it does, fine. I understand what you're saying, it's not to defend his innocence (which is taken as given), it's to poke holes in the prosecutions claim that he's guilty (and sway the jury). Thanks for answering.

Pretty much, yeah. It's their role to get a not guilty verdict, or if not to get the lesser charge possible. I think given the evidence against him they knew he was going to be found guilty of something. Pointing out things such as that her death may not have been planned but was just a case of things going too far by itself doesn't hold much weight, but it's the defenses role to do that for almost everything the prosecution says. To offer an alternative version of what may have happened, thereby trying to weaken the prosecution's case by showing the prosecution's version of events may not be true (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So they likely didn't admit that Boy A was there, but rather felt their best chance was to introduce the idea it was possibly an accident and wasn't planned and hope that if he was to be found guilty of anything, it'd be the lesser charge of manslaughter.