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

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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





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.

So Ana’s parents anguish in court at the end of a horrific 6 weeks for them simply MUST give way to the feelings of the father of the child who murdered their daughter?
Why?

McCrack

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.

Fortunately it doesn't matter what you fail to see after reading media reports

The jury on the other hand after hearing and seeing the evidence including watching 16 hour interviews with murderer B and over a six week trial were unanimously satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case

pablo128

One other thing, and I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but in my opinion if the boys family have any respect for the Kriegels they should move out of the area. It's bad enough what their sons did, the Kriegels don't need to be bumping into the families while going about their lives.

Eric Cartman

Suckit wrote: »

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

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

gozunda

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...

No. The weight of circumstantial evidence combined and the boy B's own testimony meant that only outcome of this case was a guilty charge.

Some seem to think that the term 'circumstantial' suggests that such evidence is somehow weak. In law this is not so. The prosecution showed for boy B that infact the opposite was true. All the circumstantial evidence combined with testimony provided a compelling case that left the jury in no doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

No, he had spoken to Boy A about murdering her, up to a year before and as recently as a month before.
His version is that it was one sided, but it still means he knew Boy A wanted to murder her and brought her to him.

I'm not even sure I believe Boy B gave Boy A the tape a couple of weeks before. But it doesn't really matter what I or you believe.

The Irish Times article pretty much says why both were found guilty.

Eric Cartman

gozunda wrote: »

No. The weight of circumstantial evidence combined and the boy B's own testimony meant that only outcome of this case was a guilty charge.

Some seem to think that the term 'circumstantial' suggests that such evidence is somehow weak. In law this is not so. The prosecution showed for boy B that infact the opposite was true. All the circumstantial evidence combined with testimony provided a compelling case that left the jury in no doubt with regard to the guilt of an accused

ok then, well this atleast explains to me how a jury got over a line to get to that verdict.

fash

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He reffered to her as a weirdo and a loner and said she dressed slutty , now those aren't nice things to say but its not an age known for its tolerance. He did bring her there but what makes him a murderer is not being a bit vulgar or getting a mate to go for a walk.

I don't know if he knew or not, but Ive yet to see how the prosecution demonstrated that he knew what would happen that day.

on the texts about murdering her, wasnt that him talking about a verbal conversation with boy A and that was during the 'i saw him do the whole thing' edition of his statement trying to save himself.

I would be of the opinion that all his versions of events should be discounted but theres especially no evidence to back up that version.

It's the fact that the lying and cover up began immediately and was systematic. If he had not been a party to all of the events, he would not have been so forceful in immediately denouncing the girl and trying to bail out his co-conspirator.

Road-Hog

Does anyone think this pair will ever get to an adult gaol.....following their time in detention will they get deemed ‘cured/reforned’ And released back into society like the Jamie Bulger killers....?

Eric Cartman

Road-Hog wrote: »

Does anyone think this pair will ever get to an adult gaol.....following their time in detention will they get deemed ‘cured/reforned’ And released back into society like the Jamie Bulger killers....?

Boy A will hopefully never walk the streets again , id say they'll come back when he's 18 and find a way to throw him in with the adults.

Boy B I think will end up in oberstown till he's 18 and be sent off to live in rural ireland or the UK under a new identity.

Road-Hog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Boy A will hopefully never walk the streets again , id say they'll come back when he's 18 and find a way to throw him in with the adults.

Boy B I think will end up in oberstown till he's 18 and be sent off to live in rural ireland or the UK under a new identity.

I think they both my get released when they get to 18........nobody can say for certain if boy B was not directly involved in the horrific crime.....he may well have held Ana down while A played out his sick fantasy or maybe he administered some of the physical brutality also

tayto lover

They’ll have plenty of time together inside to examine where they made mistakes and plan better in the future.

SirChenjin

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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 .

+1.

mrjoneill

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.

Are u really that gullible, Boy B led a naive girl 3km to a remote abandoned house while his friend was arriving from another direction in battle gear. Both had been together minutes before this. Why the remote abandoned house? If it was innocuous why not meet in the park where there were people.Why did Boy B give Boy A tape that was used to strangle Ana? Why did Boy B lie & lie, this going on the other evidence is because he has a lot to cover-up. He led Ana for a sex assault or to be killed. I believe it was the foremost, a sex assault but it was in the knowledge she was to be seriously assaulted. He showed no remorse for it but in fact tried to demean the victim.

KathleenGrant

mrjoneill wrote: »

Are u really that gullible, Boy B led a naive girl 3km to a remote abandoned house while his friend was arriving from another direction in battle gear. Both had been together minutes before this. Why the remote abandoned house? If it was innocuous why not meet in the park where there were people.Why did Boy B give Boy A tape that was used to strangle Ana? Why did Boy B lie & lie, this going on the other evidence is because he has a lot to cover-up. He led Ana for a sex assault or to be killed. I believe it was the foremost, a sex assault but it was in the knowledge she was to be seriously assaulted. He showed no remorse for it but in fact tried to demean the victim.

This!

Eric Cartman

mrjoneill wrote: »

Are u really that gullible, Boy B led a naive girl 3km to a remote abandoned house while his friend was arriving from another direction in battle gear. Both had been together minutes before this. Why the remote abandoned house? If it was innocuous why not meet in the park where there were people.Why did Boy B give Boy A tape that was used to strangle Ana? Why did Boy B lie & lie, this going on the other evidence is because he has a lot to cover-up. He led Ana for a sex assault or to be killed. I believe it was the foremost, a sex assault but it was in the knowledge she was to be seriously assaulted. He showed no remorse for it but in fact tried to demean the victim.

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

brooke 2

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.

According to Boy B's father, his son did not respect him and would not open up to him as he was afraid he might start shouting and roaring....so, his loss of control in court would seem to be par for the course for him.

He was such a great father, he did not even go to the door with his wife on the first night, when the gardaí called making inquiries about Ana's disappearance. He just went on his merry way up to bed instead!! :rolleyes:

Also, he failed to accompany his wife to the police station when their son was brought in for questioning. This was not the act of a supportive father and husband. His wife, who obviously believed in her son's innocence, had to sit in the room with him, growing increasingly distressed as the garda expert kept showing up the boy's lies as the day progressed.

There was also no mention of his staying overnight in the police station with his wife and their son. Sounds like a prize father alright who is always present for his family! Not!! But, he sure made his presence felt in the courtroom when he was mortified that 'his innocent son' was found guilty of murder. His anger was as much about his own ego as it was about anything else!! :mad:

pablo128

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

Well if he knew fcuk all about the plan, why did he stay all the way through a sexual attack and murder, right until after she was dead and her body being dragged around a room, and did nothing?

Gardai landing at his door that evening and not a word, calm as you like.

Lying repeatedly to Gardai in official statements, for what, if he was innocent?

Eric Cartman

pablo128 wrote: »

Well if he knew fcuk all about the plan, why did he stay all the way through a sexual attack and murder, right until after she was dead and her body being dragged around a room, and did nothing?

Gardai landing at his door that evening and not a word, calm as you like.

Lying repeatedly to Gardai in official statements, for what, if he was innocent?

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

brooke 2

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.

I believe the judge had left the court when the father B's ranting took place.

OwlsZat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

- Openly admired boy As zombie mask
- Supplier his Dads builders tap to boy A to make weapons.
- Confirmed boy A had told him he planned to kill Ana
- Collected Ana from her home and brought her to an abandoned house to meet said person who wanted to kill her
- Watched Ana die didn't intervene
- Didn't tell anyone of Ana's death
- Told countless lies to conceal Ana's death and protect her murderer.

Boy B got exactly what he deserved.

gctest50

OwlsZat wrote: »

- Openly admired boy As zombie mask
- Supplier his Dads builders tap to boy A to make weapons.
- Confirmed boy A had told him he planned to kill Ana
- Collected Ana from her home and brought her to an abandoned house to meet said person who wanted to kill her
- Watched Ana die didn't intervene
- Didn't tell anyone of Ana's death
- Told countless lies to conceal Ana's death and protect her murderer.

...........

That and the missing phones sounds like Boy B had engineered a "snuff film"


And seemed to think he'd never get caught

Monumental

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Remember her. The most sensible post to date.
Remember her. Her beauty. Her youth. Her potential. Remember her.

She will always be remembered,unfortunately as the girl who was murdered in Leixlip by two vile sub humans Very few will remember her face or the absolue agony she must have gone through as she died RIP beautiful girl x

volchitsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again, only claimed to be in the room when he was in his 'it was all boy A, i saw the lot' version of his statement, originally he wasn't there at all and theres nobody else who can place him there at that time.

if he didn't know about it really then that would explain the garda calmness.

I don't think anyone will ever know what really happened there but as much as other people can post up "well i reckon he had gloves and also held her down" I can certainly entertain the theory that he dropped her off to boy A and thought they were going to 'talk' minced around the park for a while and either heard screams and ran home / went home without hearing a thing.

Obviously his previous versions of he statements were lies. He kept getting caught out by cc cameras and witness statements so he eventually admitted:

1) he was there, therefore he brought her there.
2) he saw the assault and heard the screams.

He also gave boy A the duct tape and admitted boy A had previously said that he wanted to kill Anna.

You are the 3rd poster to comment on this without much understanding of what happened. Might be worth reading the Irish times article by Gallagher.

Monumental

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As somebody who grew up in leixlip , asking a girl to go up that park / getting a mate to do it for you to get stuck in or asking mates to go hang out around that area in that park was not in any way unusual behaviour. Going in to abandoned buildings for fun was not unusual behaviour.

The tape I have no idea, claimed it was for a project or something was what was officially said.

the lies in the statements make me believe its possible but a lot of this story equally sounds like a kid who was a patsy in boy A's sick plan. I don't think theres anything 'gullible' about asking for more detail on how the jury were thinking to get this over the line.

Ah innocent times for many ! but from the outside looking in ,this murder was planned by both accused ,do you seriously believe he got the tape for a project and it ended up around the poor girls neck No one wants to believe 12 13 or 14 year olds are cabable of such evil but you know what ...they are . RIP Ana

Eric Cartman

volchitsa wrote: »

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

This is drawn from the statement of a kid who lied multiple times during that process. In my book if somebody lies once to the gardai, im not taking the rest of their statements without some proof. In this case you have so many users that say "he lied to the gardai about not being there" and at the same time "he told the gardai he was there so was completely guilty"

You can't just use the part of his statements that suit your opinion as the correct ones and the other ones are lies.

The judge warned that jury specifically to only base this on the facts and evidence and not their own theories, judging by this thread with everyone coming up with gloves that 'probably exist' , 'snuff films' , admiring a 'cool mask' (like 13 year old boys like doing) etc... makes him guilty and all sorts of extended theories about what he 'probably' did.

He filed a statement that said he minced round the park and went home
He filed a statement that said he heard a scream and went home
He filed a statement that said he saw Boy A do the whole thing and on top of her raping her but provided no further detail about her state of undress or how exactly he was holding her or anything else at all . Yet statement 3 is definitely his truth and the other two are complete lies because thats how most people wanted it to be.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

volchitsa wrote: »

Except this is directly contradicted by the evidence: when he was asked to draw where he last saw Ana, he drew her in the room and position she was found in. Which is not where she was killed. So he saw her body after the murder. And still lied about it to everyone for days.

Actually everything Eric said was wrong. There was witness evidence that he was at the house. He did admit to being there for the “screams”, and admitted he saw the initial attack so how can anybody argue that he must have runaway before hand.

And you can’t lump his statements together. The earlier ones were lies of course.

I haven’t seen what you said about the drawing anywhere. Any link to that?

Adolfpriller

Shows how many horrible kids there are these days. They bullied her because she was adopted. How low can one go?

El_Bee

Remember that Boy B told a psychologist that he saw Boy A standing over Ana with his trousers opened, that was not admitted as evidence in the trial.