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

strandroad

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

Perhaps he said it was a nosebleed.

forumdedum

strandroad wrote: »

Perhaps he said it was a nosebleed.

good point

Lefty Bicek

All,

I read every single post of the first 200 pages of this thread. The more I read the more despondent, angry, frustrated, and croi-briste I am getting.

So no more from me.

Today, and thanks to this post - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110474502&postcount=1764

I contacted RIAG and asked how I could make a contribution to their work.

They have replied with their IBAN <snip> and I have made a small donation.

I am not connected to them in any way whatsoever.


RIP Ana Kriegel

Franz Von Peppercorn II

splinter65 wrote: »

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

The test for psychopathy is just a series of questions. It doesn’t need a phd to actually work it out. You can do it online.

2-5-% of the population are psychopaths. Which is common enough.

Lucuma

BloodBath wrote: »

This has nothing to do with porn. Most likely not the parents either. People looking to demonise and punish them are sickening. This is the usual looking for external factors to blame this on.

The reality is around 1% of boys/men the world over are psychopaths. A smaller number of these go on to become dangerous killers but most of them are horrible bastards.

This has been the case before the internet, porn, movies, music, video games, possession, the parents or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.

While most of the above can contribute to the behaviour of this 1% it doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is genetic and there is no cure/rehabilitation other than a bullet to the head.

Many famous "great leaders" of the past like Alexander the great were psychopaths. Many leaders today are too.

Serious lack of understanding of this in society. Identifying this group of people should be a top priority for everybody as we all know some. The majority of pain and suffering the world over is caused by this demographic.

C'mon

There has been a digital explosion in the last 20 years. In just 1 generation we've gone from porn being something young lads saw in a magazine or 1 dodgy VHS which was passed around the whole group to something that's freely available at the touch of a button in their own bedrooms.

And now we have the youngest people ever convicted of murder in the history of the state. The murder was sexually motivated and involved extreme violence. And the main player was found to have 12,500 graphic images some of a seriously violent nature on his phone.

And you're saying there's no link between these 2 things

Loulou11

I think maybe boy B filmed it that’s why he said he lost his phone

Smithwicks Man

AngeloArgue wrote: »

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 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

I understand what you’re saying but I didn’t think the scope of those inferences could be so broad.

I didn’t think that anybody who hadn’t physically committed the murder could be convicted unless it was proven they put the wheels in motion so to speak with the knowledge that serious harm would be done or was likely to be done.

tuxy

Loulou11 wrote: »

I think maybe boy B filmed it that’s why he said he lost his phone

Are you planning on turning your fantasies into bedtime story books?

You know he lost the phones well before the incident and that's why his parents had given him a basic non smart phone but he usually left that at home anyway.

BloodBath

Lucuma wrote: »

C'mon

There has been a digital explosion in the last 20 years. In just 1 generation we've gone from porn being something young lads saw in a magazine or 1 dodgy VHS which was passed around the whole group to something that's freely available at the touch of a button in their own bedrooms.

And now we have the youngest people ever convicted of murder in the history of the state. The murder was sexually motivated and involved extreme violence. And the main player was found to have 12,500 graphic images some of a seriously violent nature on his phone.

And you're saying there's no link between these 2 things

The link is a little psychopath who fantasied about these things. If he played violent video games or watched a lot of violent movies you would also be blaming those. Are you suggesting the porn made him into this monster?

The level of extreme violence combined with sexual assault and 0 empathy points to psychopathy. The fact that the defence did not try to argue any other mental illness also points to this as psychopathy is not usable as a plea of insanity unlike say paranoid schizophrenia.

Loulou11

tuxy wrote: »

Are you planning on turning your fantasies into bedtime story books?

You know he lost the phones well before the incident and that's why his parents had given him a basic non smart phone but he usually left that at home anyway.

Oh yeah and he has told the truth all throughout this case hasn’t he

tuxy

BloodBath wrote: »

The link is a little psychopath who fantasied about these things. If he played violent video games or watched a lot of violent movies you would also be blaming those. Are you suggesting the porn made him into this monster?

This sounds about right to me. Remember when it was violent movies and before that rock bands and before that books and before that again scandalous paintings.

tuxy

Loulou11 wrote: »

Oh yeah and he has told the truth all throughout this case hasn’t he

He gave enough information for him to be found guilty of murder.

Newdawn11

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I understand what you’re saying but I didn’t think the scope of those inferences could be so broad.

I didn’t think that anybody who hadn’t physically committed the murder could be convicted unless it was proven they put the wheels in motion so to speak with the knowledge that serious harm would be done or was likely to be done.

He was an accessory before the fact and he was an accessory after the fact.

That is why he was convicted of murder.

Fair dues to the jury for the guilty verdict.

omega man

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Well it certainly wasn’t his fcuking Lego I’ll bet.

strandroad

BloodBath wrote: »

The link is a little psychopath who fantasied about these things. If he played violent video games or watched a lot of violent movies you would also be blaming those. Are you suggesting the porn made him into this monster?

The level of extreme violence combined with sexual assault points to psychopathy. The fact that the defence did not try to argue any other mental illness also points to this as psychopathy is not usable as a plea of insanity unlike say paranoid schizophrenia.

I don't think anyone is saying it caused it. But I don't think it can be denied that it channelled it. A pathological individual can hurt people or animals in many ways, setting fires or drowning cats. But if you have easy access to hardcore torture or sexual materials with children or Russian Anastasias at 13 it will inspire you to act in a particular way.

forumdedum

Also, I recall the jury requesting the video interviews of B which they started to watch on the (last) Friday. Then they asked for a larger screen which was provided on Monday.

Even if they were watching 7 of 8 videoed interviews that possibly should have taken 12-14 hours (8 interviews = 16 hours) but I think when they requested videos they had already deliberated for 7.5 hours so I don't think they re-watched all of the video interviews. That's not accounting for if they started watching again on the bigger screen on the final Monday.

Just some thoughts. Possibly they saw enough of the boy's demeanour to find him guilty.

When the verdict was reached lunchtime Tuesday I was expecting it to be Thursday/Friday

strandroad

BloodBath wrote: »

If you are looking for or enjoy material like that then your mind is already warped beyond repair.

Kids obviously should not be seeing anything like this but those that actively search for and enjoy it are already doomed.

If he was being forced to watch material like this at a young age you could have an argument. He actively searched for it and obviously enjoyed it.

I don't think it so clear cut to be honest. It's a rabbit hole, even on youtube you can start with a horror movie trailer and have some heavy **** suggested to you in a matter of minutes. Not to mention where certain forums can take you. An adult might recognise the risk, but for an easily attracted child the line between common (online) and normal is not necessary clear at all. It's part of their maturing now, on a par with parental influence and real life peer influence. Would he still hurt someone if he wasn't exposed to such materials? Likely he would. Would he enact that particular set of fantasies at that particular time on that girl? I'm guessing not.

BloodBath

Maybe. It's obviously very complex but the starting point is a twisted mind.

By 13 you certainly know the difference between right and wrong unless you have severe mental deficiencies which was never suggested.

abff

This whole thing is just ineffably sad. What Ana went through is just beyond words and what her parents have been and are still going through is the stuff of nightmares.

The lives of the two boys and their families have also been destroyed. it's hard to feel any sympathy for the boys, because their actions were so far beyond the pale as to defy comprehension. It's impossible to know the full extent of Boy B's involvement, but it's hard to disagree with the guilty verdict.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy for their parents, who were put in an almost impossible situation when they found out what their children had done and I suspect, based on what I've heard and read about the case, that this was relatively early on and that at least one set of parents may have been involved in an attempted cover up. In some ways this is understandable, but it is also deplorable.

I just hope that I, or anyone close to me, never finds themselves in a similar situation.

iamwhoiam

tuxy wrote: »

Are you planning on turning your fantasies into bedtime story books?

You know he lost the phones well before the incident and that's why his parents had given him a basic non smart phone but he usually left that at home anyway.

We know he said he lost two phones

Larbre34

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

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.

I've sat on a murder trial jury for 7 weeks, our deliberation was about 6 hours over 2 days and we convicted unanimously once everything was reviewed and every member was fully satisfied in their own mind of our decision, we only had 11 jurors left and that was vital. Nobody had any doubts and a couple of years later I happened to read that our perpetrator appealed and it was rejected on all grounds. That was very reassuring.

You talk about a landslide decision, but its not an election, a unanimous decision after 14 hours of deliberation tells me of a very detailed and methodical consideration, timelines and cross links up on whiteboards, pages and pages of electronic data and CCTV extracts organised into a storybook with a beginning middle and end that leaves nobody in that room in doubt.

I can foresee an appeal by Boy B, I can understand why people here might be concerned about that, but I'm not. He will have his appeal rejected and his rightful murder conviction will stand. Ana Kriegel is dead and it is as much down to Boy B placing her in harms way in a preplanned and deliberate manner as it is to Boy A inflicting that sickening assault.

Both these f**** are murderers and that will not change now.

tuxy

abff wrote: »

with the guilty verdict.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy for their parents, who were put in an almost impossible situation when they found out what their children had done and I suspect, based on what I've heard and read about the case, that this was relatively early on and that at least one set of parents may have been involved in an attempted cover up. In some ways this is understandable, but it is also deplorable.

Are you talking about washing of some clothes that had blood on them when Ana was still considered a missing person?
Now you are inferring that Boy A's mother knew about the murder before the body was found. If there was any evidence of that it would have been of great help to the prosecution and would have been used in court.

tuxy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

We know he said he lost two phones

No, we know his dad said he previously lost two phones. Boy B did not talk about losing phones. The only phone he talks about is Ana's, which he used to check the time while they were in the park.

Lucuma

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

There has been many accounts referring to the fact Boy 'A' did not like Ana, it is possible that he did in fact like her very much from a sexual point of view but couldn't handle her unwillingness to engage with him sexually & what he saw as her rejection of him fulled his rage to the point where he decided he was getting what he wanted and then killed her.

No.

A girl testified in the court case that Ana had told her via Snapchat that Ana fancied Boy A. So he was taking advantage of that fact.

iamwhoiam

tuxy wrote: »

No, we know his dad said he previously lost two phones. Boy B did not talk about losing phones. The only phone he talks about is Ana's, which he used to check the time while they were in the park.

Yes , we know he told his dad he lost two phones
You said we know Boy B lost two phones . We don’t we only know his father said he lost two phones

wiggle16

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.

If he had called to that girl's house believing that he and Boy A were going to do anything other than kill her, he would not have lied about it in the first place. This is quite basic.

If he'd brought her to the house thinking they were going to scare her, and then Boy A attacked and killed her out of nowhere, he would almost certainly have told his parents, like any normal child, and therefore would have been the one to report it to the guards. He wouldn't have covered for him, he wouldn't have lied every step of the way and told at least nine different versions of the story.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. He lied about being there. It is unreasonable to doubt that he knew what was about to happen when he knocked on her door.

abff

tuxy wrote: »

Are you talking about washing of some clothes that had blood on them when Ana was still considered a missing person?
Now you are inferring that Boy A's mother knew about the murder before the body was found. If there was any evidence of that it would have been of great help to the prosecution and would have been used in court.

I'm suggesting that this is something that might be implied from what I've read about the case. I don't know enough about the case to know whether this is something that could be proved in a court of law. Nor do I even know for sure that this is correct, or assuming it is correct, for what reasons the prosecution might have decided not to use it. If I was asked to speculate, my guess would be that it would not be considered proof of a cover up as it was not Boy A himself who washed the clothes.

But the reality is, I just don't know and it is probably unfair of me to imply any sinister motive.

tuxy

abff wrote: »

If I was asked to speculate, my guess would be that it would not be considered proof of a cover up as it was not Boy A himself who washed the clothes.

But the reality is, I just don't know and it is probably unfair of me to imply any sinister motive.

If there was any evidence of this the mother would have been up for accessory after the fact. This would not only strengthen the case but also be the correct thing for the DPP to do.

It was announced during the trial that the clothes being washed was an innocent mistake and this went unchallenged by the prosecution.

tayto lover

I don’t believe the washing of the clothes is a big issue.
The natural thing for a mother to do with stained clothes is to wash them ASAP before the stain is near impossible to get out. I seriously doubt either boys told their parents what happened in the days immediately after the murder and before Ana’s body was found. They were still meeting and I doubt either parents would have allowed that if they knew Ana they murdered Ana.

Strazdas

wiggle16 wrote: »

If he had called to that girl's house believing that he and Boy A were going to do anything other than kill her, he would not have lied about it in the first place. This is quite basic.

If he'd brought her to the house thinking they were going to scare her, and then Boy A attacked and killed her out of nowhere, he would almost certainly have told his parents, like any normal child, and therefore would have been the one to report it to the guards. He wouldn't have covered for him, he wouldn't have lied every step of the way and told at least nine different versions of the story.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. He lied about being there. It is unreasonable to doubt that he knew what was about to happen when he knocked on her door.

Indeed : also, in his earlier Garda interviews he was trying to clear A's name and knock the investigation off track by saying neither person was with Ana when she was killed. Quite bizarre testimony from a supposedly innocent person who knew at this point his friend had murdered Ana.