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

El_Bee

Adolfpriller wrote: »

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

The kids in my area are.... wild, they're angry, aggressive, they're not happy children, you only hear them laugh when it's at another's expense.

pablo128

El_Bee wrote: »

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.

Of course it wasn't admitted. It was another clear lie.

Boy A was wearing tracksuit bottoms during the attack.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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"

That’s not the way it works. The original statements are found out to be lies.

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

This is ludicrous. Are you saying that if a prisoner lies about robbing a bank in his first interview, but other evidence shows he isn’t where he says he was and he admits it later on we take each interview as equal. Of course not. When someone eventually admits to something that’s what’s taken as the truth.

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.

People here are not the jury.

He filed a statement that said he minced round the park and went home

A lie.

He filed a statement that said he heard a scream and went home

Closer to the truth. He changed his story because of cc tv and witness evidence.

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.

Of course that’s even closer to the truth because he is incriminating himself. If your logic worked no confession would ever be valid provided the perp has lied beforehand.

You are the third person who has come into this thread ranting that boy b probably didn’t do it, and each time the arguments are getting worse. At least the others knew the evidence.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

pablo128

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s not the way it works. The original statements are found out to be lies.



This is ludicrous. Are you saying that if a prisoner lies about robbing a bank in his first interview, but other evidence shows he isn’t where he says he was and he admits it later on we take each interview as equal. Of course not. When someone eventually admits to something that’s what’s taken as the truth.



People here are not the jury.



A lie.



Closer to the truth. He changed his story because of cc tv and witness evidence.



Of course that’s even closer to the truth because he is incriminating himself. If your logic worked no confession would ever be valid provided the perp has lied beforehand.

You are the third person who has come into this thread ranting that boy b probably didn’t do it, and each time the arguments are getting worse. At least the others knew the evidence.

This one says he's a local. I'll bet if boy A and boy B were from Darndale he would have no problem in believing they were guilty of murder.

Eric Cartman

Suckit wrote: »

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

ok but what witness footage or cctv has him in the house at the time , surely that footage would have put a dead end to this of showing them all entering the house at the same time or the two boys leaving at the same time ?

if its witness evidence, how close were they , did they not hear the screams, what did they see ?

volchitsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

I'm wondering what it is that you don't understand here : it's not about his statement, it's the fact that his drawing betrayed that he knew more about her death than he was admitting to. It's a version of the old trick of asking an under age kid their date of birth instead of their age - much harder not to trip up on that because they haven't usually thought it all through that well.

It would be some coincidence if he drew where her body was found when he didn't already know that. Because it's not the room where she was killed, so at the very least he went back after her death to see the results of what his friend had done.

Eric Cartman

pablo128 wrote: »

This one says he's a local. I'll bet if boy A and boy B were from Darndale he would have no problem in believing they were guilty of murder.

Nobody is in any way doubting what boy A did, not for one second no matter where they are from.

Im merely asking for clarifications in the case of boy B and seeing what im missing , so far getting a lot of theories.

by the same logic of your darndale comment, I should probably be gunning for this lad to be convicted too. :rolleyes: leixlip also has 'low income families' and tracksuit clad scobes too.

SirChenjin

From the Times article that has been linked a number of times on the thread...

'We can say a lot more about Ana Kriégel. Her mother said she was a girl who loved to dance. She was part of the Leixlip-based troupe Dance LA, whose members, decked in red headscarves and silver sequins, formed a guard of honour at her funeral. Ana “spent hours in our front room, listening to music, practising her moves”, her mother said.

We can say Ana was a great singer and wanted to learn how to play guitar. We can say her Siberian strength and height made her an incredible swimmer. We can say she loved to volunteer for things and, shortly before her death, agreed to model in a fashion show organised by older classmates to raise money for charity.

Ana never lost touch with her Russian roots. A Russian flag and a matryoshka doll were placed on her coffin. Geraldine and Patric had announced their adoption of Ana in 2006 by handing their friends a similar doll containing her picture.

We can say she also loved her holidays to France, symbolised by the presence of a miniature Eiffel Tower on her coffin.

And we can say Ana loved her family dearly and was loved dearly in return. We can say she was someone who, as her funeral heard, was never happier than when she was curled up with her mother on a Sunday, “watching some beautiful fairy-tale-princess movie while munching her favourite food, popcorn”.'

RIP Ana.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok but what witness footage or cctv has him in the house at the time , surely that footage would have put a dead end to this of showing them all entering the house at the same time or the two boys leaving at the same time ?

if its witness evidence, how close were they , did they not hear the screams, what did they see ?

Who said there was footage of him in the house at the time?

Where was that written, I would be interested in that also.

Eric Cartman

Suckit wrote: »

Except it didn't matter what statements he filed when they didn't match the CCTV footage or the witness sightings.

^^^ here , how can his statements about being in the house / not being in the house be proven or disproven if this cctv or witness doesnt exist.

pablo128

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nobody is in any way doubting what boy A did, not for one second no matter where they are from.

Im merely asking for clarifications in the case of boy B and seeing what im missing , so far getting a lot of theories.

by the same logic of your darndale comment, I should probably be gunning for this lad to be convicted too. :rolleyes: leixlip also has 'low income families' and tracksuit clad scobes too.

You can gun all you like. He has already been convicted. Of murder.

AngeloArgue

Suckit wrote: »

The only thing he admits he picked up was a white plank, presumably without gloves.

That is very telling.

Just as he was being called out for his lies by the CCTV footage. He offers that at some earlier date he picked up the murder weapon but immediately put it back down. This sounds like believed that forensics would show that he had handled it.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

^^^ here , how can his statements about being in the house / not being in the house be proven or disproven if this cctv or witness doesnt exist.

^^^here what?

SirGerryAdams

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.

If you believe he wasn't there and left then why didn't he mention Boy A on the evening Ana disappeared? Only the next day did he mention Boy A.

His lies began right away when he said he last saw her in the park...when CCTV captured them walking to the house.


Also if a 13 year old didn't know anything bad happened to her, you'd think he'd be shocked and shaken by what happened. Instead, he was cool and calm all along!

Put yourself in a 13 year old body of an innocent boy. So you bring a girl to kiss another boy and you leave. That evening it turns out the girl is missing. Guards come and ask where you last saw her.

Does an innocent boy immediately lie? Why would you lie?

Eric Cartman

Suckit wrote: »

^^^here what?

you said the other 2 statements (where he's not in the house) were proven to be a lie by cctv and witness evidence, but then said theres no cctv or witness evidence of him being in the house. resolve that one.

Ash.J.Williams

Boy b seen laughing and skipping and jumping with ana on the way to her death, and said those horrible things about her in court. Sly little psychopath.

volchitsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you said the other 2 statements (where he's not in the house) were proven to be a lie by cctv and witness evidence, but then said theres no cctv or witness evidence of him being in the house. resolve that one.

He drew a picture of her in the house in the room where she was found. How else would he know that, if he hadn't been there?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok but what witness footage or cctv has him in the house at the time , surely that footage would have put a dead end to this of showing them all entering the house at the same time or the two boys leaving at the same time ?

if its witness evidence, how close were they , did they not hear the screams, what did they see ?

Will we do your research for you Eric?


No.

Eric Cartman

volchitsa wrote: »

He drew a picture of her in the house in the room where she was found. How else would he know that, if he hadn't been there?

you have been asked before to back that one up, ive heard nothing about that , but some of these statements are given weeks after the body was found and the story had broken , presumably the guy was familiar with the layout of the house having explored there before , thats not proof of anything really unless you can show me where that statement was taken off the kid 48 hours or less after the murder.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you have been asked before to back that one up, ive heard nothing about that , but some of these statements are given weeks after the body was found and the story had broken , presumably the guy was familiar with the layout of the house having explored there before , thats not proof of anything really unless you can show me where that statement was taken off the kid 48 hours or less after the murder.

There was no mention of where the body was found until the court case. As far as I know.

I’m not 100% sure about the drawing though. Never heard that one.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you said the other 2 statements (where he's not in the house) were proven to be a lie by cctv and witness evidence, but then said theres no cctv or witness evidence of him being in the house. resolve that one.

I think you should read over again what I actually said, because nowhere did I say the other two statements were proven to be a lie by cctv and witness evidence. Nor did I say there's no cctv or witness evidence of him being in the house.

Are you just making stuff up to fit your own agenda and accusing people of doing the same?

pablo128

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you have been asked before to back that one up, ive heard nothing about that , but some of these statements are given weeks after the body was found and the story had broken , presumably the guy was familiar with the layout of the house having explored there before , thats not proof of anything really unless you can show me where that statement was taken off the kid 48 hours or less after the murder.

You're coming across as extremely desperate to prove this fella is innocent. It means nothing. 12 grown adults on a jury have found him guilty of murder.

You are wasting your time.

Sardonicat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you said the other 2 statements (where he's not in the house) were proven to be a lie by cctv and witness evidence, but then said theres no cctv or witness evidence of him being in the house. resolve that one.

He placed himself in the house. He was proven to be lying about his actions in the house when he drew a picture of Ana in the exact part of the room her body was found. He stated that this was where the attack began but forensics proved otherwise. It's not just that he lied. It's what his lies revealed. If he was innocent these lies don't make sense as lies borne out of fear of being implicated in the murder.

Suckit

I'm pretty sure this person is trolling, bored on a Sunday night.

tayto lover

Boy B is a murderer. Convicted. Guilty as sin.
Nothing more to discuss.
Hope he never gets out.

Gadgetman496

What are all the web-sleuths trying to achieve here?

They were tried, found guilty and convicted.

The case is over.

The sentencing is all that remains.

Has nobody here figured that out after 268 pages?

AngeloArgue

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Could it be at the time he believed forensics would place him in the room? Just as CCTV had shown him leading Ana to the murder scene and returning 35 minutes later and changing his story to fit this evidence in. So he offered an admission of being in the room but continued to minimise his part in the death.
He also stated that on an earlier date he had been in the house and picked up a stick that matches closely the description of the murder weapon.
Did he believe, while making these admissions, that forensics would place him in the room and handling the murder weapon?

Eric Cartman

Im not trying to prove anyone innocent , they have boy A on all manor of evidence to convict him and rightly so,

I just wanted to know how boy B got over the line for a full blown murder charge , as I know now all circumstantial. From the arguments and points that come up here it very much seems like if he kept his mouth shut instead of lies that he may have gotten away with this , talked himself into a full blown murder conviction without even touching the victim (no proof of it, not saying it didnt happen) when theres very little other evidence against him

maebee

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not trying to prove anyone innocent , they have boy A on all manor of evidence to convict him and rightly so,

I just wanted to know how boy B got over the line for a full blown murder charge , as I know now all circumstantial. From the arguments and points that come up here it very much seems like if he kept his mouth shut instead of lies that he may have gotten away with this , talked himself into a full blown murder conviction without even touching the victim (no proof of it, not saying it didnt happen) when theres very little other evidence against him

Boy B called to Ana's house and knowingly took her away to her death:(:(:(