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

tayto lover

mrjoneill wrote: »

And how would u explain away Boy B enticing Ana out of her house could be innocent. Both Boy A & Boy B had no love for Ana rather it was ill feeling, going on the evidence at the trial. Yet we have Boy B luring her to an isolate place 3km away joking with her on the way. Only for Ana was so knave she would not have gone with him. That puts Boy B in an unenviable position as a scumbag for starters. And while Boy B was doing this his best friend Boy A was making his way to the abandoned house to be waiting for her arrival. It just doesn't hold mustard the story of Boy B that Boy A wanted to tell her he had no interest in her. Boy B could have done that all on his own at the door or met with Boy B in the park itself or at school they were in the same class There can be only one conclusion why she was led to a isolated house and that was to attack her. I'm sure Boy B was in it if he did not orchestrate it for voyeuristic purpose at minimum. Boy B comes across as a manipulative smart alec and in the Garda investigations he put this to the max. His playacting in court was all an act as his Lego request at his place of detention. He believed he would get off on a lesser charge with a very small prison sentence in a youth detention center. The fact he has not come clean on his involvement has me worried he had a much larger role than we now know.

These scumbags have killed an innocent vulnerable person, destroyed her family in the process, destroyed their own lives and have put an awful burden on their own families. And they are remorseless and the case of Boy B is acting out innocence.

Boy B for me was the planner in chief.
I wonder what he had in his backpack? Never found affair.
I wonder where his phones went to? Did he record the whole thing after prepping Boy A?
Guilty as sin.

Boom_Bap

Boggles wrote: »

The picture of her bound to a chair a week before she was brutally murdered by a person who was into that.

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?
Anything I have read or seen doesn't give a timeline and suggests that it was part of the family contacting Pieta House for assistance.

Eoin

The Irish Times has a good article that answers an awful lot of the questions here - it really is worth reading.

Ana did have a handful of friends, including a girl who would call over for sleepovers and to watch films. But she was certainly not friends with Boy B, something Geraldine was well aware of when she returned home on Monday, May 14th.

Boggles

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?

Guard gave evidence the picture was taken on the 6th of May.

Her mother said she found it after that but a few day before the murder.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

At school, how I have no idea but I imagine quite easily if he is in fact a psychopath.



I haven't stated anything confidently or otherwise, I have given an opinion on certain aspects of the case I find unusual. I have no issue with the verdict.



The picture of her bound to a chair a week before she was brutally murdered by a person who was into that.

The fact that she went to see the boy.

There’s absolutely no evidence of Ana being in any contact with either boy at school so that is pure speculation on your behalf.
It is further wild speculation on your behalf that boy a is a psychopath. Nobody in authority in this case has suggested any such thing.
You stated in previous posts that Ana was groomed. Once again wild ludicrous completely unfounded speculation by you. Absolutely not one shred of evidence to support your theory.
The video of Ana tied and bound shows no evidence of either boy. No grooming by them. You’re just making stuff up as you’re going along now.

splinter65

Eoin wrote: »

The Irish Times has a good article that answers an awful lot of the questions here - it really is worth reading.

That article is full of facts.
A lot of posters here are not interested in facts. They have created a whole other scenario in their imaginations that involves attributing blame to Ana’s mother in some way and in true conspiracy theory style they will move facts around to fit their theory.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Guard gave evidence the picture was taken on the 6th of May.

Her mother said she found it after that but a few day before the murder.

What’s your point though?

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s absolutely no evidence of Ana being in any contact with either boy at school so that is pure speculation on your behalf.

Your right mental speculation they could have been contact in the same school the went to. :rolleyes:

splinter65 wrote: »

It is further wild speculation on your behalf that boy a is a psychopath.

Actually that is one thing I would be confident of.

splinter65 wrote: »

The video of Ana tied and bound shows no evidence of either boy.

It was a picture, but like I all ready said it could just be one of those mad coincidences.

I am finding trouble with that one though.

tuxy

splinter65 wrote: »

Soooo.... there was a whole other layer of subterfuge going on that the Garda didn’t spot but boggles did.

It's not that he spotted it more like fabricated it in his brilliant mind.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Your right mental speculation they could have been contact in the same school the went to. :rolleyes:



Actually that is one thing I would be confident of.



It was a picture, but like I all ready said it could just be one of those mad coincidences.

I am finding trouble with that one though.

So, your qualified as a senior mental health professional to PHD level and you’ve interviewed boy A at length and you’ve reached the conclusion that he’s a psychopath?
Grooming ( I think you don’t know what grooming is) involves long term one on one contact between the groomer and the groomee. Where is your evidence of this between Ana and either boy?
What coincidence are you trying to point out?

tuxy

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are you getting this timeline of a week from?
Anything I have read or seen doesn't give a timeline and suggests that it was part of the family contacting Pieta House for assistance.

It comes from the same alternative timeline as the one where Boy B lost his phones after the murder.

splinter65

tuxy wrote: »

It's not that he spotted it more like fabricated it in his brilliant mind.

Aren’t we lucky to have posters here who’s so much smarter than not only us, but the entire Ana murder investigation/prosecution team? I’m in awe....

Smithwicks Man

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

Agree with the majority of this except for two points:

You do have to prove that Boy B was aware that the plan was to seriously harm or kill her. That’s literally what he was convicted on. This is what Joint enterprise is.

Secondly, I disagree that he would have been convicted had he no commented for the duration of the questioning as the only evidence against him that was not circumstantial was his own admissions through the recorded interviews, which is why the prosecution showed all 16 hours of then to the jury.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense and in all likelihood he probably did know what he was doing. From a legal standpoint it’s hard to see how they’ve actually proved that do.

This thing that people have of “I think he’s guilty therefore he must be guilty” doesn’t wash with me. You can only convict on the merits of the evidence. The jury felt there was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was fully aware of what was going to happen in the abandoned house. I, myself, have doubts that I would be confident to say that I knew what he was at based on everything I’ve read and seen.

I certainly do not see how he could possibly have been convicted if he no commented the interrogations. In fact, had the interview recordings not been admissible I don’t even think there would have been enough evidence to bring him to a trial.

Strazdas

AngeloArgue wrote: »

The CCTV evidence as reported by the media would place boy B leading Ana to the murder site. This was at 5.14PM from a camera at BMX Lucan located on the outskirts of St Catherine's park. This showed two figures identified as Ana and Boy B walking across fields.
It does not indicate in the media which direction the camera was facing, but BMX Lucan is 600m away from the murder site, Glenwood house on the Clonee Road.
If the camera was facing the direction they were walking it could place them closer than 600m away at 5.14.
The next CCTV of Boy B was picked up at 5.49PM from the same camera coming back alone from the direction him and Ana had walked. Again it is not clear how close to the murder sites this camera located him at the time.
That Leaves a 35 Minute window.
Boy B claims he immediately left once the attack had started.
So how do we account for the 35 minutes?
Again Boy B picked up by CCTV at BMX Lucan at 5.49PM after the murder.
Boy A picked up by CCTV 8 minutes later at St Catherine's Park car park at 5.57PM which is further from the murder scene than BMX Lucan.
I do not believe a word from either boys, it seems to me they spent similar time at the scene but had left by different routes, just as they had taken different routes to get there.

Absolutely. Everything points to B being with A when the killing took place and probably leaving the abandoned house at the same time with him. B is a pathological liar and any denials of this from him can be dismissed.

Smithwicks Man

gozunda wrote: »

The rest of what you wrote is bunkum btw.

Can’t help but cringe at people who cry outrage against those who commit heinous crimes under the guise of caring about the aggrieved and then when there are legitimately proposed solutions to limit the grief of the victims relations they cry foul once more.

It’s up there with those suggesting murders should be hung, drawn and quartered etc. Maybe come into the 21st century for an adult debate on serious topics.

Smithwicks Man

mrjoneill wrote: »

And how would u explain away Boy B enticing Ana out of her house could be innocent. Both Boy A & Boy B had no love for Ana rather it was ill feeling, going on the evidence at the trial. Yet we have Boy B luring her to an isolate place 3km away joking with her on the way. Only for Ana was so knave she would not have gone with him. That puts Boy B in an unenviable position as a scumbag for starters. And while Boy B was doing this his best friend Boy A was making his way to the abandoned house to be waiting for her arrival. It just doesn't hold mustard the story of Boy B that Boy A wanted to tell her he had no interest in her. Boy B could have done that all on his own at the door or met with Boy B in the park itself or at school they were in the same class There can be only one conclusion why she was led to a isolated house and that was to attack her. I'm sure Boy B was in it if he did not orchestrate it for voyeuristic purpose at minimum. Boy B comes across as a manipulative smart alec and in the Garda investigations he put this to the max. His playacting in court was all an act as his Lego request at his place of detention. He believed he would get off on a lesser charge with a very small prison sentence in a youth detention center. The fact he has not come clean on his involvement has me worried he had a much larger role than we now know.

These scumbags have killed an innocent vulnerable person, destroyed her family in the process, destroyed their own lives and have put an awful burden on their own families. And they are remorseless and the case of Boy B is acting out innocence.

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

So, your qualified as a senior mental health professional to PHD level and you’ve interviewed boy A at length and you’ve reached the conclusion that he’s a psychopath?

No, I suggested he was. As have about 200 other members on this thread.

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.

splinter65 wrote: »

Grooming ( I think you don’t know what grooming is) involves long term one on one contact between the groomer and the groomee.

Nonsense. There is no set time limit on how long it takes to groom a child.

splinter65 wrote: »

What coincidence are you trying to point out?

I have all ready stated it several times.

But I think if you are suitably lucid it's quite obvious.

Roger Hassenforder

The number of fcuking Rumpoles we have is astonishing.

Even for the pool of talent we're accustomed to here.
The courts must be empty

GT_TDI_150

I think its funny we are questioning the jurys doubts, reasonable or no, if they had doubts they wouldnt have convicted. End of story.

Nodferatu

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

Sardonicat

Nodferatu wrote: »

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

They haven’t been sentenced yet

tayto lover

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I think its funny we are questioning the jurys doubts, reasonable or no, if they had doubts they wouldnt have convicted. End of story.

I believe the jury got it spot on.

tuxy

Nodferatu wrote: »

How many years have they got? I read somewhere that its not like a prison at all but more like a rehabilitation centre. I know the law is the law and underage get different sentences etc. bu I feel like these guys are getting off so easily for what they done. When they turn 18 they get transported to an adult prison but by then will most of their sentence be done!? Look at the Jamie Bolger case for example.

What do you mean how many year have they got?
The sentencing will be next month, they will most likely get life and the judge will set the number of years before the parole boards reviews the case and decides when release on licence may be appropriate.

tayto lover

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The number of fcuking Rumpoles we have is astonishing.

Even for the pool of talent we're accustomed to here.
The courts must be empty

Ah it’s good to read people’s opinions whether they be right or wrong.

Nodferatu

Sardonicat wrote: »

They haven’t been sentenced yet

Is there any inclination as to what they might get? Or what do children usually get handed for a murder charge generally?

tuxy

Nodferatu wrote: »

Is there any inclination as to what they might get? Or what do children usually get handed for a murder charge generally?

7 years before the parole board gets to review it is standard but because of the violent nature of the crime the judge can extend this. Once the parole board are looking into it it usually takes a number of years after that before release, I imagine there are many factors involved in the decision.

Sardonicat

Boggles wrote: »

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.

We won't .

A diagnosis of psychopathy, or any other major Cluster B personality disorder, cannot be made for someone under 18.

It also cannot be made over the course of a few weeks for anyone.

Strazdas

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

B could have used all this in his defence ie. the plan was to scare Ana, not kill her and then A went way too far. But his numerous lies and evasion cast huge doubt on this angle (and speaking of her in highly derogatory terms does nothing to remove this doubt).

Smithwicks Man

Strazdas wrote: »

B could have used all this in his defence ie. the plan was to scare Ana, not kill her and then A went way too far. But his numerous lies and evasion cast huge doubt on this angle (and speaking of her in highly derogatory terms does nothing to remove this doubt).

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

mrjoneill

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Again, agree with most of what you’re saying but I don’t have to explain why he enticed her out of the house up to the abandoned warehouse. There could have been any number of reasons. It’s up to the prosecution to show that the sole purpose was to seriously harm and kill her. I don’t see how they’ve done that.

People seem to be struggling with the actual premise on which he was convicted. Had this whole thing been planned out and Boy B under the impression that Boy A was going to scare her/punch her/mug her anything else other than seriously harm/kill her - then he should not be convicted of murder. If they can illustrate that Boy B knew the intention was to seriously harm or kill her then he is guilty of murder. That’s all the case against him boils down to and the evidence to suggest he knew is almost entirely circumstantial.

It’s a very big jump from one to the other. Being a scumbag isn’t enough to be convicted for murder.

It boils down to the prosecution believed Boy B led Ana to her death which the jury also believed. There is no other alternative reasonable explanation. The Jury looked at the totality of the actions inc Boy B & Boy A antipathy towards Ana and her naivety to them. Love definitely was not in the air but murder is the reasoned opinion.