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

mrjoneill

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.

This was to an abandoned house 3km away. Boy B never associated with Ana before so he decides he will do his friend a favor and lead her to a remote abandoned house, not to hang out with but but so Boy A can tell her he don't want any assoc with. We do know that both Boy A and Boy B had no caring interest in Ana but disparaging. So why lead Ana on this journey? This being truthful from Boy B is too too far fetched for me. Boy B could simply told Ana at her door, Boy A doesn't want to be assoc with u. There it would have ended. They did not want to hang out with Ana so ur whole premise is wrong. Both Boy A and Boy B met just prior them separating in their different paths and its just not believable that a plan was not put into place at that meeting, a plan involving serious violence being done on Ana. Boy B was far from the village idiot according to his school he was smarts academically and would not have bought into this outlandish plan of Boy A out of nativity. Boy A and Boy B were childhood friends and its inconceivable they did not share their thoughts and part of such was the bullying of Ana.

SirGerryAdams

Boy B:

- unprompted, brought up that Boy A said he wanted to kill Ana a month before the attack.
- lied immediately as to where he last saw Ana while she was still a missing person
- Didn't mention Boy A until the next day
- Supplied the tape that was around her neck
- Was cool and calm in interviews, no sign of distress and spoke down on Ana saying she was someone he shouldn't be around.
- Changed story multiple times only when faced with facts and was caught out.

Remember Boy B said no one liked Ana and she was someone he shouldn't be around and also Boy A said he wanted to tell her he wasn't interested....

So if that was true, why walk 3km to tell her that? If that is what Boy A was going to tell Ana, why would Boy B walk back alone? Surely you'd wait for your friend and go together? How long would rejection have taken??

Why would boy B even agree to walk 3km so his friend could tell her he wasn't interested?

Effects

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

What does it matter if he could have got away with it or not? He's a murderer, and he got caught and punished for it.

There's a lot of talk about him actually planning the whole thing, and talking Boy A into doing it. If that's the case then he's more to blame, despite Boy A having a more physical role in the attack.

volchitsa

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.

I haven't seen anyone asking for a link, and I can't remember which newspaper I saw it described exactly, but this one comes up with a mention of him drawing of the last place he saw Ana and Boy A

the corridor he picked up a "white plank" and looked into a room with a carpet but didn't see anything so he went outside.

Again, he said, he met Ana and Boy A who were now walking in. He followed them but, he said, Boy A told him he would be "ok", so Boy B left.

"That was the last time I saw [Boy A] and Ana that day."

Det Gda Daly asked Boy B to tell him "everything, everyone, every movement."

Boy B recounted the same movements and agreed with Det Gda Daly that the carpeted room was the one where Ana's body was found.

He described it again, saying: "First he started to choke her, then the jumper, then the shirt and just before he got to the bra I ran away and that is when I heard the scream."

He described it again, saying she was lying on the floor, Boy A was on top of her, choking her as he took off her clothes.

Boy B then drew a picture of what he remembered and signed it.

The drawing was shown to the jury by Det Gda Daly under examination by Brendan Grehan SC for the prosecution.

The point being that this room they called the carpeted room is indeed the room where her body was found, but is not the room where she was killed.
He got mixed up in all his lies.

SirGerryAdams

How did they know where Ana lived by the way?

SirGerryAdams

volchitsa wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone asking for a link, and I can't remember which newspaper I saw it described exactly, but this one comes up with a mention of him drawing of the last place he saw Ana and Boy A

The point being that this room they called the carpeted room is indeed the room where her body was found, but is not the room where she was killed.
He got mixed up in all his lies.

She was in the same room I thought???

Ash.J.Williams

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

Read some news?

Ash.J.Williams

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How did they know where Ana lived by the way?

Meticulous stalking and planning..they chose ana .

mrjoneill

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

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?

Glad for u have got to the bottom of it, but for most we haven't. Why would one boy that lives in a happy family situation be so cruel to lead another kid, a girl to a location where he knew she was to be seriously assaulted of murdered. And this was done by another boy who it appears came from a normal happy home. And this was done in a brutal ways with a serious sexual assault if not rape. These were 13 yr old boys.

tayto lover

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.

What are you looking for? Photographs?
Give over ffs.

Ash.J.Williams

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

CCTV sightings vs times whilst compared to statements

mrjoneill

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.

It was admitted at the trial, what he stated as recorded by the psychologist was when Boy A got up he realized the crotch of Boy A pants was open. Boy A was not wearing a pants but track-bottoms so the crotch could not be exposed unless the bottoms was rolled down over his backside. So why use the crotch exposed is baffling.

volchitsa

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

She was in the same room I thought???

The forensic report said her body was moved. i was posting from memory, and perhaps I'm wrong that it was from one room to another, it may have been just from one part of the room to another. The point was that his drawing showed her position after death, which contradicts his claim that he left before she died.

Suckit

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Boy B:

- unprompted, brought up that Boy A said he wanted to kill Ana a month before the attack.
- lied immediately as to where he last saw Ana while she was still a missing person
- Didn't mention Boy A until the next day
- Supplied the tape that was around her neck
- Was cool and calm in interviews, no sign of distress and spoke down on Ana saying she was someone he shouldn't be around.
- Changed story multiple times only when faced with facts and was caught out.

Remember Boy B said no one liked Ana and she was someone he shouldn't be around and also Boy A said he wanted to tell her he wasn't interested....

So if that was true, why walk 3km to tell her that? If that is what Boy A was going to tell Ana, why would Boy B walk back alone? Surely you'd wait for your friend and go together? How long would rejection have taken??

Why would boy B even agree to walk 3km so his friend could tell her he wasn't interested?

From here

Boy A said he was in the park “for maybe a minute or two” when Boy B arrived. Boy B was in the company of Ana Kriegel.
Boy A, in his statement, said he knew Ana from school but did not know her well and that this was the first time he had been in the park with her.
He told gardaí that all three were walking very slowly and that he remembers talking to Boy B about video games, and that he wasn’t really talking to Ana.
The statement added that at one stage Ana said to him, ‘I have something to ask you’, and asked if he wanted to go out with her.
“I was surprised. It came out of nowhere. I did have an idea she liked me as she did kind of ask me out at the start of the school year,” he said in the statement.

I thought about it for a few minutes because I was going to say no and wanted to do it without hurting her feelings. I said to her that I was sorry but I wasn’t interested in her.”

Boy A said she didn’t answer and walked off soon afterwards. He said Ana looked annoyed and sad at the same time.
Boy A then turned to Boy B and said “that was a bit random” to which Boy B replied “yeah”.
It was then, according to Boy A, that they all parted ways.

There are so many contradictions in both of their stories it's ridiculous.


I wonder how detailed the Garda search of the house was. I would have searched everywhere in Boy B's house (and Boy A) for a phone hidden somewhere.

Obviously no evidence of them having been in contact with one another after she was murdered, but the next morning when the Gardaí noticed 'the look' both Boy A and Boy B had the story that Boy A had been attacked by two men, I didn't see how Boy B had heard that.



Out of curiosity, was Ana's phone recovered?

mrjoneill

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

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?

Boy B stated he was bringing Ana to the remote house so Boy A could tell her he didn't want a relationship with her. I would believe Ana was going there believing or led to believe he did, why else would she go there. Its just too far fetched that Boy B innocently believed he was the intermediate for Boy A to tell her he didn't want a relationship. It just doesn't add up. Only reason a person lies is they want to cover over the truth.

mrjoneill

Suckit wrote: »

From here



There are so many contradictions in both of their stories it's ridiculous.


I wonder how detailed the Garda search of the house was. I would have searched everywhere in Boy B's house (and Boy A) for a phone hidden somewhere.

Obviously no evidence of them having been in contact with one another after she was murdered, but the next morning when the Gardaí noticed 'the look' both Boy A and Boy B had the story that Boy A had been attacked by two men, I didn't see how Boy B had heard that.



Out of curiosity, was Ana's phone recovered?

Ana phone was found smashed in the room she was murdered in, and Gardai were able to recover data from it. While no smartphone could be found for Boy B it must be realized that one doesn't need a smartphone to run android applications. There is a MS Windows software to stimulate the android operating system. Just cant see Boy B without some platform to use apps as that's how all young people interact. Yet we don't have any evidence from his friends or Boy A that he was using them. Also there was no evidence from Boy A apps other than his browser activity.

spurious

pablo128 wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

MadYaker

It’s a pointless debate as none of you have seen the evidence so how can you say it should or shouldn’t be what it is. I’ve done jury duty, the jury will have seen more evidence than was reported in the press.

Rubberchikken

three families are destroyed with this.
baying for blood, name calling etc wont change anything.

i will argue that its unfair and unjust on animals to compare these bots to animals.
animals do not treat each other like that. animals do not kill just because...

these boys are seriously unwell and deserve to be removed from society for the length of time allowed by law.
they need to be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated. after that if competent professionals deem them safe then they should be released after doing their sentences.

bellowing on about hanging etc is ignorant mob mentality behaviour and justifies the necessity for anonymity.

Suckit

MadYaker wrote: »

It’s a pointless debate as none of you have seen the evidence so how can you say it should or shouldn’t be what it is. I’ve done jury duty, the jury will have seen more evidence than was reported in the press.

And there is a lot in the papers, if you read many of the stories.
Up to the point where the two boys took a different turn and then 'shared a look', I don't think the Gardaí had really thought either of them had done anything. But once they saw that, everything changed. They separated the boys and from then on took statements and were looking at the boys as having some part of her disappearance.
The evidence that I have read in many different papers against Boy B is enough to find him guilty of conspiracy to murder imho, and obviously he was there when much of her beating took place (by his own words).

I think Boy B is lucky in the sense that he may get a lesser sentence for lack of hard evidence.

I personally believe that Boy B may have had a physical hand in it too but, obviously I have not seen the rest of the evidence, and more importantly, nobody has seen any evidence of Boy B having been physical toward her.

I don't believe anyone would run away like he claims he did, if they saw a friend doing that. He would have known the two of them could have stopped him. Again, that is just my opinion.

The evidence, witness statements and CCTV footage times against Boy B puts him coming back from the house after the murder had been committed. Personally, I think it's very strong evidence against him, and again, I think he might get off very lightly with the sentencing as a result of the lack of physical evidence.

Facts.
He was aware that Boy A wanted to murder her - as had been said to him more than once over a year.
He called in to Ana to walk 3km with her to meet Boy B after knowing the above.
He owned the tape that was found wrapped around her neck.
He only changed his story each time he was caught, and the reason for his change sound coached by Solicitor.
He admitted being in the house and watching Boy A beat her, unclothe her and attempt to rape her.
He called a weirdo, slutty and somebody he knows he didn't want to be around.
When they called to his house on the night she was missing, according to his statement(s) he had last seen her in the house being attacked and felt ashamed of himself because he hadn't helped her. Why not tell them then?
A number of child witnesses gave evidence via video link during the trial.
One boy claimed Boy B confided in him about what happened to Ana.

And there is more..

take everything

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 the accused

Also apart from the fact that he supplied the tape that was used to strangle her.
And after eventually admitting to witnessing the assault (as per the scenario in the other weirdo's videos) after repeatedly lying. And then lying about it afterwards for days knowing a girl was killed.
Apart from what the jury observed from his demeanour in interviews. Cool as a cucumber.
Apart from him "not owning a phone", bull**** piled upon bull**** facilitated by a dad who goes to bed when cops call to the door to question his son.

Afraid boy A would beat him up? PTSD? My arse. The jury didn't think so watching the interviews.

Dontfadeaway

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

take everything

Suckit wrote: »

I don't get why anyone wants to know the two boys names. Is it so they can look them up online, or so they can give their families an earful of their disgust?
I can't see what other purpose there could be.

Children the same age and wondered.....? Nope.

Well one obvious reason would be so your daughter doesn't end up married to them I would imagine.

There are genuine issues with people possibly interacting with them in the future oblivious to their dangerous nature. I think it's unfair that society isn't protected from that.

Suckit

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

I believe they did have at least one weapon. A long pole with nails in the end of it.
But it is possible that one had planned to Rape her, and Ana fought back.

Which then became murder, and leaves them in the same situation they are in now.

Effects

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

One theory is that they were going to video it and didn't want to have the face visible.

mrjoneill

spurious wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

Where conspiracy is used its used in conjunction with the major charge in this case that of murder and sexual assault. It takes 2 or more to conspire. Boy A was not charged with simple assault. As for as I can see Boy B could be charged with sexual assault as he instigated it by bringing Ana to where it was done. Its not necessary to do the actual sexual element in it. If Boy B knowingly led Ana to her doom or serious sexual assault which appears it is then he got the right law applied and judgement. Boy B has played on everyone weaknesses and he has failed, time he took responsibility for his own actions. Time also he apologized for what he did.

mrjoneill

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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.

Wrong Boy B sketched where Ana's body was found in the room when he s found out. I would believe this was done by Gardai in case he did another belly flop. The location was actually where Ana's body was found. Gardai and forensics do not believe this is where she died from the blood spatter/blood and the dust/rubbish in the room. They believe Ana was dragged dead by the noose around her neck away from near the doorway to the back of the room. This could be very well for concealment.

Strazdas

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

Boy B's story was he asked Ana to come meet Boy A, but is it possible that he asked Ana to come out and didn't tell her that Boy A was waiting? Just wondering because why would Boy A have a mask?

Also they planned to murder her but didn't bring anything to kill her with other than tape?

I would imagine B told Ana he was bringing her to meet A - she doesn't seem to have been interested in A in any way. A and B seem to have been aware that Ana may have fancied A and probably used this as a means of luring her to the abandoned house.

It looks like a definite set up - lure her to a deserted location on false pretences and then do something horrible to her (which was pre-planned by the two of them).

Ash.J.Williams

spurious wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he is innocent. He clearly was there and was involved to some extent.

Did he know for sure what Boy A was planning to do? That's the bit I am not sure about.

Personally (and I was not in court), I would have been much happier with a verdict along the lines of 'conspiracy to assault' (or however it would be termed in Irish law) but all along, the option was only either guilty or not guilty of murder. I think there should have been an option to get Boy B for something else. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there is an appeal.

We're repeating ourselves now

Ash.J.Williams

Ana's injuries
https://www.thejournal.ie/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-day-8-4626078-May2019/


Defence teams are only doing their job but when Cassidy was detailing the pubic injuries he asked "could that injury have been consensual?"