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

Road-Hog

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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?"

Even to suggest that such an injury could have been consensual given the violent nature of the description of all the other brutal injuiries is an absurd query and about as insensitive as you could get and ‘rubbing salt into the wounds’ of the poor girls parents........utterly warped thing to put on record.....it was also used in the closing arguments according to the Irish times...... oh but of course they are ‘only doing their job’.......they should take a good look at themselves But their arrogance obviosly doesn’t allow.......same with the Swiss girl in Galway as I said previously.....it was ‘postulated’ by the defense that the sexual element of her attack could have been consensual....😡😡😡😡😡

8-10

Suckit wrote: »

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

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.

Someone with more expertise might be able to correct me but I don't believe the judge can make sentencing decisions on the basis of the evidence that led to the conviction and his or her interpretation to his strong that evidence was?

He can use past behaviours, showing of remorse, admission of guilt, mitigating factors in his life (upbringing, mental health, under duress from another etc) as well as circumstances of the crime and his level of involvement

But I don't think he could say that he was convicted despite lack of physical evidence so he gets a lesser sentence

splinter65

Road-Hog wrote: »

Even to suggest that such an injury could have been consensual given the violent nature of the description of all the other brutal injuiries is an absurd query and about as insensitive as you could get and ‘rubbing salt into the wounds’ of the poor girls parents........utterly warped thing to put on record.....it was also used in the closing arguments according to the Irish times...... oh but of course they are ‘only doing their job’.......they should take a good look at themselves But their arrogance obviosly doesn’t allow.......same with the Swiss girl in Galway as I said previously.....it was ‘postulated’ by the defense that the sexual element of her attack could have been consensual....😡😡😡😡😡

It’s part of the process of ensuring that the eventual conviction is “safe”.
If these two boys were to be seen to have a fair trial then their defense team cannot shirk away from presenting every theory imaginable as a counter argument to the prosecution.
Look at it this way, some people sitting around this weekend may suggest that Ana was “up” for sexual intimacy with boy a, but now it’s been established that she wasn’t, the jury didn’t believe she was, end of discussion.

iamwhoiam

Boy B had a rucksack on him when he met Ana . So do we know what was in it ? Maybe he was far far cleverer than A and got rid of the contents before going home . Its a big park , full of bushes and trees and a deep river flowing through it . His DNA was not found in the house anywhere ? I wonder why not

sbsquarepants

take everything wrote: »

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.

This 100%

These scumbags, kids or not, have forgone their rights (certainly should have anyway) The rights of other people to avoid them upon release should be paramount now. (This release should also just never happen in my opinion, but probably will in time for their 21st)

In a nutshell - fúck them and what's best for them, they've made their beds.

Caledonia

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

tuxy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Boy B had a rucksack on him when he met Ana . So do we know what was in it ? Maybe he was far far cleverer than A and got rid of the contents before going home . Its a big park , full of bushes and trees and a deep river flowing through it . His DNA was not found in the house anywhere ? I wonder why not

I don't think they spend months analysing every single item in the house.
Boy B eventually admitted to being there when the attack happened, his DNA was not on Ana's body or items used in the attack so further investigation into DNA would have been a waste of time and resources.

SirGerryAdams

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?

One of Boy Bs lies was that he went into the house looking around while Ana and Boy A were outside and he picked up a stick (believed to be the same as the murder weapon, so maybe he thought his prints would be on it).

But it's believe Boy A was in the room waiting for the two of them to come in and attacked her right away when she entered.

So I wonder is it a possibility Boy A and Boy B had gone to the house at an earlier stage and had known what weapons were there and what they could use. Maybe Boy B picked up that stick and put it in the room in advance.

pablo128

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

One of Boy Bs lies was that he went into the house looking around while Ana and Boy A were outside and he picked up a stick (believed to be the same as the murder weapon, so maybe he thought his prints would be on it).

But it's believe Boy A was in the room waiting for the two of them to come in and attacked her right away when she entered.

So I wonder is it a possibility Boy A and Boy B had gone to the house at an earlier stage and had known what weapons were there and what they could use. Maybe Boy B picked up that stick and put it in the room in advance.

Or picked it up while Ana was getting the better of boy A in a struggle and gave her a few belts. Remember she gave boy A a good go, causing limping and bruising on his back.

Beechwoodspark

Just on 1 issue -

Boy B rucksack - where did that go? What was in it?

Was he asked to account for it

SirGerryAdams

pablo128 wrote: »

Or picked it up while Ana was getting the better of boy A in a struggle and gave her a few belts. Remember she gave boy A a good go, causing limping and bruising on his back.

I hadn't thought of that possibility.

I struggle to see how someone could fight back so strongly after getting hit in the head with a weapon like that.

Could they have checked the weapon for prints?

It just doesn't make sense - the injuries to Boy A, the tape.

When did he get the injuries - if he attacked her with the weapon when she went into the room how would she be able to fight back so strongly? The weapon was a plank with nails on either end.

When did he put the tape on her? If he had her on the ground, battered and weak why the need for the tape?

dudara

SirGerryAdams - you’ve repeated these questions several times at this stage. It’s getting a bit repetitive.

dudara

Road-Hog

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s part of the process of ensuring that the eventual conviction is “safe”.
If these two boys were to be seen to have a fair trial then their defense team cannot shirk away from presenting every theory imaginable as a counter argument to the prosecution.
Look at it this way, some people sitting around this weekend may suggest that Ana was “up” for sexual intimacy awith boy a, but now it’s been established that she wasn’t, the jury didn’t believe she was, end of discussion.

You must be a barrister I take it. Still utterly way over the top hypothesis to present give the depravity of the attack......these guys have no filter.......!

gozunda

To change the topic somewhat - one notable aspect of the case was the large amount of pornography that was found in boy A's procession. And by this I mean not just old style big boobs 'pornography' but violent and sadistic images and videos.

It is evident from the evidence which was presented in court that at least some of Boy A's sick and twisted behaviour appears to have been 'inspired' (for want of a better word) by some of this type of violent and sadistic imagery.

Imo in the minds of young and impressionable teenagers and children easy access to violent and sadistic pornography actually normalizes this type of behaviour. On line children see adults engaged in it - it's freely available and it becomes part of their learning about the world. Unfortunately it is learning that no one would want for their children imo.

Reading an article recently that in Hasidic Jewish communities, it detailed how minors are allowed zero or very limited access to the Internet with one of the the principle concerns us exposure to pornography.

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed? Yes there will always be some pornography which filters through but for the majority of children such ease of access to such material cannot be healthy.

There are many things which we restrict in the case of children and teenagers - such as driving and drinking on the basis that they lack the maturity to do so.

Parents of course can be the gate keepers for allowing appropriate internet access - the fact is many parents don't bother or do not have the skills to do so.

pablo128

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

And?

Everything is repetitive at this stage.

No one has replied to my questions by the way.

Because out of the only 2 people in the world that know, ones a proven liar and the other shut his mouth through the interviews.

No one on Boards.ie can answer your questions

.......

gozunda wrote: »

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed?

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

TheAsYLuMkeY

....... wrote: »

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

make it law that you need to be 16 or over to own a 'device'

Caledonia

Caledonia wrote: »

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

Completely agree. I think the jury ****ed that up. Surely there is reasonable doubt. They filled in the gaps themselves.

gozunda

....... wrote: »

If an adult showed a child of 13 pornography it would be a crime.

Of course they are too young to be accessing it.

But given the nature of todays technology its difficult to see how you can stop children from accessing pornography - outside of parents taking responsibility and preventing it on their kids devices - which really only means that they will look at it on some other kids devices.

And that's the crux of the matter highlighted.

In the UK the government is implementing restricted age related access to such sites.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/16/uk-online-porn-age-verification-launch

How that will work remains to be seen. That said there are possible technical solutions to this issue. It may not stop access to all pornography by children and teenagers but it will certainly make it more difficult...

SirGerryAdams

pablo128 wrote: »

Because out of the only 2 people in the world that know, ones a proven liar and the other shut his mouth through the interviews.

No one on Boards.ie can answer your questions

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

pablo128

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

It's a discussion forum not an AMA.

iamwhoiam

tuxy wrote: »

I don't think they spend months analysing every single item in the house.
Boy B eventually admitted to being there when the attack happened, his DNA was not on Ana's body or items used in the attack so further investigation into DNA would have been a waste of time and resources.

Well I didn’t mean on every wall in the house , I meant on the items like sticks and rocks and Anas clothes
Boy B left no DNA so I was just wondering what he had in his rucksack ? Possibly he disposed of items before going home . He might have been far far cleverer than Boy A .

SirGerryAdams

pablo128 wrote: »

It's a discussion forum not an AMA.

:rolleyes:

Gatekeeping discussion now?

Hannibal_Smith

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No one on boards.ie can answer any question that hasn't already been answered by reading articles. So let's close the thread?

We haven't seen everything the jury have seen/heard. Not everything has been reported.

Road-Hog

gozunda wrote: »

To change the topic somewhat - one notable aspect of the case was the large amount of pornography that was found in boy A's procession. And by this I mean not just old style big boobs 'pornography' but violent and sadistic images and videos.

It is evident from the evidence which was presented in court that at least some of Boy A's sick and twisted behaviour appears to have been 'inspired' (for want of a better word) by some of this type of violent and sadistic imagery.

Imo in the minds of young and impressionable teenagers and children easy access to violent and sadistic pornography actually normalizes this type of behaviour. On line children see adults engaged in it - it's freely available and it becomes part of their learning about the world. Unfortunately it is learning that no one would want for their children imo.

Reading an article recently that in Hasidic Jewish communities, it detailed how minors are allowed zero or very limited access to the Internet with one of the the principle concerns us exposure to pornography.

Knowing what we do - is it ok that such material is so easily accessed? Yes there will always be some pornography which filters through but for the majority of children such ease of access to such material cannot be healthy.

There are many things which we restrict in the case of children and teenagers - such as driving and drinking on the basis that they lack the maturity to do so.

Parents of course can be the gate keepers for allowing appropriate internet access - the fact is many parents don't bother or do not have the skills to do so.

Good point. One wonders would graham Dwyer have evolved earlier into the monster he became if he had access to the vile stuff on the web when he was a 12/13 year old.....?

splinter65

Caledonia wrote: »

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

What do you think he expected to happen at the house he brought Ana to? Boy A had told him only a month before that he wanted to kill Ana.
If he didn’t think she was going to be attacked didn’t want her to be attacked and then he saw her being attacked then why didn’t he run and get help?

splinter65

Road-Hog wrote: »

You must be a barrister I take it. Still utterly way over the top hypothesis to present give the depravity of the attack......these guys have no filter.......!

Not a barrister...I wish...just have a very clear understanding of the basics of our excellent justice system and I’m very glad that feelings and emotions are largely set aside when determining life changing decisions like guilt and innocence.
In the end the result is what everyone except for the defendants and their families wanted.
And the defendants can’t appeal on the grounds that the jury weren’t asked to consider the suggestion that it was consensual sex that got out of hand.
Can you not see that?

gozunda

Road-Hog wrote: »

Good point. One wonders would graham Dwyer have evolved earlier into the monster he became if he had access to the vile stuff on the web when he was a 12/13 year old.....?

True but I suppose that we really dont know what Dwyer had access to or from where and in this case we are dealing with a child / teenager with evident links to online sadistic and violent pornography and sexual assault and murder.

Whatever the case - I doubt anyone would want their child exposed to that type of content - and take the risk.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

What do you think he expected to happen at the house he brought Ana to? Boy A had told him only a month before that he wanted to kill Ana.
If he didn’t think she was going to be attacked didn’t want her to be attacked and then he saw her being attacked then why didn’t he run and get help?

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

but to bring a girl to a deserted building to meet somebody who has expressed an interest in killing that girl while carrying a "murder kit" is.