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

Smithwicks Man

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

True but we know what the jury knew in this case.

Someone answered that already - a guy who actually knows the law. He just had to have reasonable suspicion that Ana would be harmed, which he did.

You’re wrong and you are not engaging with counter arguments. Just continually musing to yourself about why the DPP, judge and jury got it wrong.

Here’s what they have.

He collected her.
He was there for the violence.
He stayed a few minutes (cc tv picks him up 15-20 minutes after he was seen going in, albeit a km or so away).

It’s not just about the lies.

Enjoying the snide remarks. I’m fully engaging with counter arguments.

“A guy who knows the law.” - The Law surrounding Joint Enterprise does not merely state that an accomplice only has to have reasonable suspicion of any harm being done. He would have to have been aware that the intent was to cause serious harm depending on the circumstances in which things unfolded.


Answer me this. Hypothetically, if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

pjohnson

iamwhoiam wrote: »

How absolutely immature to even think to put her mum and dad in quotes
Its not even worth pointing out what is so awful about it
Sometimes i despair

Its not even the first fúcking time someone has used the Kriegels in comparison to the murderers parents.

Reati

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What a thundering <SNIP> you are. Not a real one but an inverted commas one.

Gets my award as reply of the week.

iamwhoiam

pjohnson wrote: »

Its not even the first fúcking time someone has used the Kriegels in comparison to the murderers parents.

But that says a lot more about the posters than about Anas parents . Anas parents have shown such dignity and such love for their daughter and anyone with a brain can see that they were great parents

Smithwicks Man

AngeloArgue wrote: »

The only thing I can find in relation to intent in Irish law is:

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.



Could we presume that the natural and probable consequences of Boy B's actions point to an intent to cause her harm?

You could reasonably presume that was the case based on the surrounding evidence but I could reasonably doubt that Boy B thought any one of a number of other things was going to happen.

There’s arguments to be made for both sides. It appears the DPP argued their version much better.

The more I read about it, the more it appears the defence counsel made an awful attempt and casting doubt on what happened. They weren’t helped by the boy’s persistent lying but it certainly appears as though they could have done more.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Enjoying the snide remarks. I’m fully engaging with counter arguments.

“A guy who knows the law.” - The Law surrounding Joint Enterprise does not merely state that an accomplice only has to have reasonable suspicion of any harm being done. He would have to have been aware that the intent was to cause serious harm depending on the circumstances in which things unfolded.

Yes. That’s why boy B saying that boy A wanted to kill Anna matters.

Answer me this. Hypothetically, if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

No but I don’t believe that he thought, or could reasonably have thought that. We know that A speculated about killing Ana and that they were taking her to a deserted house. Reasonably he should have been aware of potential harm.

Kidchameleon

It was obviously not a serious post. It was to highlight the idiocy of wanting B & A's parents & family punished

pjohnson

iamwhoiam wrote: »

But that says a lot more about the posters than about Anas parents . Anas parents have shown such dignity and such love for their daughter and anyone with a brain can see that they were great parents

This seems to be the major issue. That and attention seeking.

dudara

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

Knock it off with the quotation marks. They are her parents. Show some respect.

dudara

AngeloArgue

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

As I have inferred in my earlier post

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

The jury can make presumptions of intent on actions alone.

If we went by your demands for proof of intent nobody could be convicted of murder without a confession.
We can not forensically know the absolute truth of what goes on in anothers mind.

forumdedum

I have read most of this thread and lots of articles, listened to radio etc.

Did the Garda only get DNA from Boy A's clothing because he claimed he was attacked? Is it possible that Boy B (or his parents) destroyed his clothing that may have contained blood on shoes etc?

Did Boy B's phone(s) disappear after or close to the murder?

Rest in Peace Ana.

Smithwicks Man

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yes. That’s why boy B saying that boy A wanted to kill Anna matters.



No but I don’t believe that he thought, it could reasonably have thought that. We know that A speculated about killing Ana and that they were taking her to a deserted house. Reasonably he should have been aware of potential harm.

We know this because he’s the one who openly admitted it and, of his own volition, he brushed it off completely and didn’t think it was serious.

I guess the jury read more into this comment than I would have, understandably

Wildly Boaring

I've read most of this but not the last 30 pages.

On the naming of the 2 assholes.

When an awful crime is committed (eg New Zealand shootings) there is now rightly a conscious effort to not name the perpetrator. Firstly this is to not give them the infamy they crave. Secondly it's to attempt to stop copycats. Third it's to give the focus to the victims.

Perhaps in this case not naming these pricks is best and all attention and future memories can purely be of Ana. Ana's smiling face and Ana's story.

tayto lover

I’d love to know what Boy B had in his backpack when he took Ana to the abandoned house to be murdered.

Smithwicks Man

AngeloArgue wrote: »

As I have inferred in my earlier post

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

The jury can make presumptions of intent on actions alone.

If we went by your demands for proof of intent nobody could be convicted of murder without a confession.
We can not forensically know the absolute truth of what goes on in anothers mind.

Well that’s not true now is it. The proof of intent only applies in the circumstances of joint enterprise. Boy B never actually physically touched Ana (according to what we know) yet he was convicted for the principal crime. This is why it’s such a complex conviction and why intent or knowledge or potential serious harm is pivotal to the conviction.

iamwhoiam

forumdedum wrote: »

I have read most of this thread and lots of articles, listened to radio etc.

Did the Garda only get DNA from Boy A's clothing because he claimed he was attacked? Is it possible that Boy B (or his parents) destroyed his clothing that may have contained blood on shoes etc?

Did Boy B's phone(s) disappear after or close to the murder?

Rest in Peace Ana.

Boy A boots were taken for forensics in relation to the alleged assault on him

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

We know this because he’s the one who openly admitted it and, of his own volition, he brushed it off completely and didn’t think it was serious.

I guess the jury read more into this comment than I would have, understandably

Well yes. Normally you wouldn’t. A teenager saying he would kill someone? Joking no doubt. Until he does it.

Of course B said he laughed it off but can we not reasonably assume that he didn’t?

dudara

I’m going to remind posters on one of the main Boards rules - do not debate mod actions in thread. You can send a PM to forum mods or raise it through other channels but do not argue on thread.

Thank you
dudara

Smithwicks Man

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Well yes. Normally you wouldn’t. A teenager saying he would kill someone? Joking no doubt. Until he does it.

Of course B said he laughed it off but can we not reasonably assume that he didn’t?

You can I suppose but it’s a very grey area. Would you be happy to put a seal of approval on a murder conviction on this?

I know I’m playing devils advocate at this stage. I’m just surprised it was such a landslide decision, although it’s probably safe to assume that 90% of the deliberation time was spent on Boy B’s case.

forumdedum

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Boy A boots were taken for forensics in relation to the alleged assault on him

Yes I read that thank you. I was wondering if Boy B destroyed his clothing before it could be checked.

tayto lover

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Well yes. Normally you wouldn’t. A teenager saying he would kill someone? Joking no doubt. Until he does it.

Of course B said he laughed it off but can we not reasonably assume that he didn’t?

What if Boy A said “ I’m going to kill Ana” and Boy B said “I’ll help you. I’ll give you tape to subdue her and better than that I’ll bring her to you”?

Because that’s what actually happened. He supplied the tape and brought Ana to her death. This is more likely because it happened and the jury believed that this happened.

iamwhoiam

forumdedum wrote: »

Yes I read that thank you. I was wondering if Boy B destroyed his clothing before it could be checked.

I don’t think Boy B clothes were mentioned in that respect . Its an interesting question

tuxy

tayto lover wrote: »

What if Boy A said “ I’m going to kill Ana” and Boy B said “I’ll help you. I’ll give you tape to subdue her and better than that I’ll bring her to you”?

Because that’s what actually happened. He supplied the tape and brought Ana to her death. This is more likely because it happened and the jury believed that this happened.

If that's what the Jury believes then they made the wrong decision.
However if they believe he was guilty based on what they saw in the videos then they made the correct decision.

forumdedum

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I don’t think Boy B clothes were mentioned in that respect . Its an interesting question

I recall reading parents washing blood from clothes twice. I think that was Boy A.

splinter65

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Since when do you need a PHD in order to have an opinion?

It’s fine if you just express an opinion,
Not fine when you state as a fact that boy a is a psychopath.

AngeloArgue

forumdedum wrote: »

I have read most of this thread and lots of articles, listened to radio etc.

Did the Garda only get DNA from Boy A's clothing because he claimed he was attacked? Is it possible that Boy B (or his parents) destroyed his clothing that may have contained blood on shoes etc?

Did Boy B's phone(s) disappear after or close to the murder?

Rest in Peace Ana.

All interesting questions that I'm sure are known to investigators but were not presented as evidence. I'm sure in time a book will be written about this tragic, sickening murder.
I found the medias reporting of the trial lacked detail. Hopefully the author of a book will honor Ana's life and give light to the full truth of what happened.
I don't know the legalities of serving Gardai given interviews for anyone researching a book about the case and I don't know of any Irish authors who could do the story justice. In saying that Conor Gallagher's piece in the Irish Times is appropriate. I don't know if he ever wrote any books.

iamwhoiam

forumdedum wrote: »

I recall reading parents washing blood from clothes twice. I think that was Boy A.

Yes Boy A mother washed the bloodied clothes twice . She said her son had told her he was assaulted and hence the blood
What was odd was Boy A was noted to have injuries and bruising by the GP but I don’t recall mention of a bleeding wound
So where did his mother think the blood had come from is a question I would be interested in

forumdedum

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes Boy A mother washed the bloodied clothes twice . She said her son had told her he was assaulted and hence the blood
What was odd was Boy A was noted to have injuries and bruising by the GP but I don’t recall mention of a bleeding wound
So where did his mother think the blood had come from is a question I would be interested in

A fine observation. I'm sure there are many questions . . .

I would hate to think the parents knew.

splinter65

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

He’s just a naughty boy then? If boy A isn’t a psychopath then I’d hate to see what the criteria are.



They obviously talked at school.

The Scottish schoolboy who was recently sentenced to a minimum of 27 years for the abduction rape and murder of a 6 year old girl was examined by 4 psychiatrists and found to have no mental illness and only a minor personality disorder.Some people just decide to be evil.
There’s no evidence of Ana being groomed at school otherwise we’d have heard about it.

AngeloArgue

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Well that’s not true now is it. The proof of intent only applies in the circumstances of joint enterprise. Boy B never actually physically touched Ana (according to what we know) yet he was convicted for the principal crime. This is why it’s such a complex conviction and why intent or knowledge or potential serious harm is pivotal to the conviction.

You are not taken on what I am saying

It is here In Irish Law, Section 4(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964

The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct

The jury can draw inferences about intent from actions.

You're interpretation of Mens Rea would mean that nobody could be convicted of murder without a confession