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

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Honestly I don't know what was going through the poor mans head in that situation. I don't think any of us will ever find ourselves in such a horrible situation thankfully. The dad could genuinely think his son is innocent of murder but guilty of a lesser crime. So saying he is an "innocent child" is possibly not an inaccurate statement from his perspective.

I don't remember hearing the Kreigels standing up and shouting at anyone in the court?

Kidchameleon

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If they admitted what they did and had some sort of remorse about it, maybe I might agree. But they have done neither.

The thing is, with all of the justice mob waiting with baited breath for any info on them, the family simply cannot publicly state anything. If people calmed down, accept that justice has and will be done by the state, perhaps the family's of A and B would be free to show their sympathies. Members of B's family have reportedly been attacked already.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I don't remember hearing the Kreigels standing up and shouting at anyone in the court?

The Kreigels handled themselves with great dignity. I really admire them.

gozunda

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Totally agree with you there, the Kreigels situation is far far worse. Where we would disagree though is I would consider having my son/brother/grandson locked up for life as well as the stigma of his actions to be a symptom of a destroyed family.

Its not a competition.

The parties who committed this crime had a choice (boy A and boy B)which the victim didn't.

That choice carrys the penalty of incarceration. That is the penalty for the murder of an innocent girl. The family of those convicted need to acknowledge that and not pretend they are the ones offended against.

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The thing is, with all of the justice mob waiting with baited breath for any info on them, the family simply cannot publicly state anything

.

The father stood up and roared at the court

Kidchameleon

gozunda wrote: »

The family of those convicted need to acknowledge that and not pretend they are the ones offended against.

What avenue(s) do you think is available to them (if any) should they wish to acknowledge it?

Kidchameleon

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The father stood up and roared at the court

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

pablo128

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What avenue(s) do you think is available to them (if any) should they wish to acknowledge it?

They could go around and knock on the Kriegels door and offer their apologies. They could ask the local priest to apologise on their behalf. They could make a public statement through their solicitor while still remaining unnamed.

Plenty of options. But in my opinion they should have apologised as soon as their killer sons were convicted.

jobbridge4life

Can an admin/mod over this thread please PM me? I have been ignored now for several days straight.

mikemac2

Road-Hog wrote: »

I just can’t understand how some pompous wigged huffing and puffing ‘me lurd’ arrogant barrister would have the neck to come out with something like this.

Nobody ever says my lord, that’s the Brits. Wigs are not common these days and were not used by anyone even the judge in this case

Arrogance, well you don’t become a barrister lacking confidence for sure

You had a point but kinda ruined it by judging the entire profession. Coming up with theories and fighting is what they get paid to do

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

The court allows a platform for the accused to tell the truth. Neither boy did.

You say the family cannot publicly say anything. The father could speak up when he wanted. When it was his son affected.

Sardonicat

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

No more human than the parents of Ana. Despite their grief and despite listening to the horrific evidence and despite sitting through video of one of their daughter's killers referring to her as a weirdo who wore slutty clothes they managed to control themselves.

There is no reason the parents of the boys could not manage to do the same. It was a very telling outburst.

gozunda

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

There is being human and having some sense of common decency and decorum in a court. The father of boy B refused to accept the ruling of the court and that alone is within his remit.

However he went out of his way to abuse the Gardai and others. Imo he should have been charged with contempt of court. Instead the judge left this gratuitous outburst unsanctioned.

If the boys father has a grievance with regard to his 'innocent boy' then an appeal is open to him. Not the screaming of unfounded abuse and bile in a court of law.

To do what he did in front of the Kreigels was inexcusable.

KathleenGrant

Sardonicat wrote: »

No more human than the parents of Ana. Despite their grief and despite listening to the horrific evidence and despite sitting through video of one of their daughter's killers referring to her as a weirdo who wore slutty clothes they managed to control themselves.

There is no reason the parents of the boys could not manage to do the same. It was a very telling outburst.

Agree. If a child of mine spoke of another person in that manner. talking about *slutty clothes* and showing her figure or calling them a "freak"and "weirdo" I would be gutted. I would never, ever refer to them as innocent if they spoke of another person as disposable or lacking of worth. And I would most likely be by their side in a court (because my child would need support) but I could never defend them.

Road-Hog

mrjoneill wrote: »

I don't recall that but Boy B in the video interviews state Ana raised her hands for Boy A to strip her. Gardai quickly put that to bed telling him her clothes were violently ripped off her.

Quote below from Irish times lengthy summary of the trial.......

The barrister also alluded to the idea that Boy A and Ana engaged in consensual sexual activity. Glenwood House was probably used by young people for “romantic trysts”, given the presence of condom wrappers on the ground, he said. Pathology evidence showed injuries to Ana’s genitals, but it couldn’t be established if these occurred through nonconsensual activity.

Counsel added that it “can’t be ruled out” that a neck swab taken from Ana showing male DNA did not result from “casual intimacy”

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Totally agree with you there.



There is no shortage of sympathy towards the Kreigels and rightly so but there is a distinct lack of sympathy towards A & B's familys. Lets not forget, there are three familys destroyed because of this tragedy. I cannot blame B's dad for his actions in the court room. He has just seen his son charged with murder. Not everyone is going to be cool, calm and collected at a time like that. The poor man, im sure he regrets that outburst. He will never get a chance to apologise for it either, at least publicly due to the mob mentality in this country.



I have said I hope the state gives them what ever they need. At mine and other tax payers expense. Im not sure how that can be considered "having an opinion on their behalf"

One family have a much loved member rotting in her grave because of the depravity of members of two other families.
One family can go to the grave and say prayers and plant flowers.
The other two families have been this weekend to visit the depraved killers and they’ll have held them and comforted them and themselves.
Not reaalllyy very fair is it kidchameleon?
Yet you’ll try to equalize the suffering of all 3 families for yourself because your political ideology leans towards the idea that victims of crimes, even horrific crimes, need to suck it up, basically, because punishment and guilt and personal responsibility are not ideas that you agree with.
Would you meet face to face with Ana’s parents and tell them gently that they must try to understand boy bs fathers crass insensitive selfish tantrum because, you know, his feelings were hurt when the Gardai the solicitors the forensic scientists the judge and the jury all did their job?
Or do you just reserve your virtue signaling nonsense for here?

Kidchameleon

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

Calltocall

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I found myself in that position I would hope I would act rationally. Some posters here have openly admitted they would have no problem becoming murderers in that situation. That is not me... like I have said, all three familys in this tragic case have been destroyed



He is a decent parent IMHO, supporting his child under any circumstances. That is the job a good parent, unconditional love. As I have said, he is probably regretful of his outburst but because of the mob mentality he will never be able to publicly express that regret.

I disagree on every and any level and I’m a parent too, if he was a decent father he would have made his son face the consequences of what what he did, instead he went along with his sons absolute clear hoax hoping he would get off even though it was clear he was lying, I’m sorry but your rationale is complete bull****.

Sardonicat

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

They were not tried as adults.

iamwhoiam

The outstanding moment of this sad and sorry tragedy were The Kriegel beautiful tribute to their Ana . Their dignity and strength and support for each other was admirable .

“ Speaking outside the court, Ana's father Patric Kriegel said; "Ana was our strength."

Her mother, Geraldine Kreigel added; "Ana was a dream come true for us and she always will be. She will stay in our hearts, forever loved and forever cherished.
"We love you Ana."


Lets remember Ana and her parents and brother and family . They are the important people here .
RIP , Ana .

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

Yet you’ll try to equalize the suffering of all 3 families for yourself because your political ideology

In fairness, I have said a few posts ago that the Kreigels have it far worse.

splinter65 wrote: »

Would you meet face to face with Ana’s parents and tell them gently that they must try to understand boy bs fathers crass insensitive selfish tantrum because, you know, his feelings were hurt when the Gardai the solicitors the forensic scientists the judge and the jury all did their job?

Yes I would have not problem saying something of the sort if I were ever in a situation like that. I would perhaps not use the words you are suggesting here though. To be fair though, I get the impression the Kreigels would not need to have that said to them, they are a decent family from what I can tell and would not engage in hatred of anyone.

Road-Hog

mikemac2 wrote: »

Nobody ever says my lord, that’s the Brits. Wigs are not common these days and were not used by anyone even the judge in this case

Arrogance, well you don’t become a barrister lacking confidence for sure

You had a point but kinda ruined it by judging the entire profession. Coming up with theories and fighting is what they get paid to do

Thank you for the corrections.......I still stand by what I said though.......totally below the belt and about as ‘insensative’ as one could get toncome uo with a theory that it could have been consensual.......as far as I recall a barrister coma eout with something in defense of that animal that murdered the poor Swiss girl in Galway

Eric Cartman

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

Kidchameleon

Sardonicat wrote: »

They were not tried as adults.

I have seen conflicting reports on that but either way, it makes no difference to my point.

McCrack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The judge was right not to have B's father hit with contempt of court IMHO. The judge understands that emotions are high and people may not act with a level head at times like this. It was only words that the father said, nobody was hurt at the end of the day. I think people are being harsh on him.

It has only been a few days since the judgement, things are still raw & perhaps after sentencing the family's of A and B will make statements through one of the avenues suggested by pablo128 above, we just don't know yet. Show some compassion for their situation and give them time.

Again, I am not sure why there is such contempt for the family's of A and B. They have done nothing wrong. It is their sons, who were tried as adults, who committed the crime. Spare their family, they have enough to deal with.

Be aware youre not fooling everyone around here

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As far as I know, the court does not give a platform to family's of the accused to make statements. Yes, it is well publicized that B's father lost control of himself, he is human after all.

And we are human too, and condemn that. There’s no excuse for it. His son is clearly guilty. He rubbished the police and the system in front of the Kriégels.

Concern for the killers or their families is a weird argument, trending to pathological itself. I remember locking horns here with a poster who complained about the mob that hounded poor old Ted Bundy. Not a good look.

Lackey

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He is a decent parent IMHO, supporting his child under any circumstances. That is the job a good parent, unconditional love.

A decent parent holds their children accountable from a very young age.
It’s hard work and it’s every day, but that’s what love is
Protecting your kids from the consequences of their actions does them no favours.
.
I would give them the chance to restart their lives when Ana can be afforded the same opportunity.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

If you are open up correction, read the thread. There’s far more evidence than that.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This one really gets me and ive tried following it but somebody here correct me if im wrong :

boy A - DNA evidence, was in the location, evidence out the door - dead to rights they had him off the bat in every way, well done glad he got convicted.

boy B - they have no evidence at all that he did anything more than get ana from the house and bring her up to the park to see boy A. The kids story was all over the place and went from 'i saw nothing' to 'i saw boy A do it all' when it looked like he was going to get a conviction. Now the jury have concluded their way but is there any actual evidence that boy b knew the plan on that day or participated in any way in the event ? to me it seems like he may be guilty of being a patsy and has lied his way into this, but I am open to correction.

This may help

https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-b-ana-kriegel-murder-trial-4657833-Jun2019/

Eric Cartman

Suckit wrote: »

This may help

https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-b-ana-kriegel-murder-trial-4657833-Jun2019/

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thanks for that.

if anything its just re-inforcing my theory. For me it seems that the entire prosecution of Boy B is because he lied to police and the belief that he knew ana's fait that day, now Im open to him having known, but it doesn't seem to me that the prosecution has been able to prove that in any manor.

On the obstruction of justice for his lies id be 100% behind a conviction for that, 13 year olds lie all the time but this is definitely one time he tried to save his mate and himself.

Im just really failing to see how the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that boy b was a willing participant in a planned murder and I would love somebody to tell me what im missing.

The interviews would have been a massive part of it.

Those and the fact that he mentioned a few times his dislike for her, referred to her in derogatory terms, had been one half of texts talking about killing her and called into her house to bring her to her final location.

I meant it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he had a part in it from those few facts, and the jury were privy to a lot more than we were.
I haven't heard what happened to Boy B's backpack, or what was in it.

A large part of me believes he also may have had a pair of gloves and used them to hit her with weapons. The only thing he admits he picked up was a white plank, presumably without gloves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-the-five-things-that-convicted-boys-a-and-b-of-murder-1.3932346

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that implies the truth of a fact rather than supporting it directly. The testimony of a witness to a murder is direct evidence. The testimony of a witness who saw the suspected killer leave the crime scene is indirect or circumstantial evidence.

So the presence of Ana Kriégel’s blood on the boots of Boy A implied he was at the scene of her murder. CCTV footage of Boy B walking with Ana towards the abandoned house where she was killed implied he went there with her. The lies and evasiveness of the boys implied they had something to hide.

A jury would never be asked to convict on a single piece of circumstantial evidence. The Garda and prosecution needed to gather many pieces to allow them to meet the burden of proof.

Dozens of strands of circumstantial evidence pointed towards the guilt of Boys A and B, but five key pieces stood out and made a conviction possible.