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

El_Bee

274 pages and people are still confused as to why an accessory is tried as a principal? Took me 15 seconds on google.

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").

mrjoneill

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

Boy B was questioned what was in the rucksack and he stated it was his water bottle. Yet he claimed on the way home from the murder he went to the Park Rangers cabin to its tap to get a drink of water. I'm sure this was confirmed by CCTV. Seems strange for both.

Strazdas

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

To be fair, I wondered about Boy B too. And at the end of the day, no one can know what his intentions were for sure and no one can know what the plan was for sure.

But Boy B knew that Boy A didn't like Ana. So why would he want to meet her in an abandoned house? He had to have been in on it.

There had to have been a discussion about what was going to happen after. If it was all innocent and Boy B did nothing, why not just tell the truth from the start? The parents thought Boy A was attacked in the park. So when did the boys agree to say nothing to nobody?

There must have been something somewhere which convinced the jury it was more than circumstantial.

There's a good Irish Times article setting out the 5 steps leading to the conviction. It's an interesting read.

Also, Boy B didn't like Ana himself, never mind A. He described her as a weirdo, somebody he wouldn't want to hang around with and 'not a friend'.

So you have two people who don't like Ana one bit luring her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere.

mrjoneill

gozunda wrote: »

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...

What I understand age verification is being done on credit cards. I believe kids r stealing their parents credit cards to get a verification number and they get around it. Also anonymous credit cards can be got by depositing monies in them which will get through the verification system. Once a kid has porn downloaded its available for all their friends. Unfortunately there is not an easy solution. It was reported on RTE recently the SOR program primary school kids sharing porn & charging €2 to kids without smartphones to view.

SirGerryAdams

Boy B had to know because Boy A could not have known that Boy B would automatically attempt to cover up and lie for him.

For all Boy A knew, once Boy B saw what Boy A was doing he could run home to his parents and tell them everything!

Put yourself in Boy A's shoes and pretend he was acting alone.

- You get an unsuspecting, innocent boy to bring Ana to you so you could attack her
- Boy A was clever enough to get another boy to bring Ana so not to be seen. Why couldn't Boy A have gone to Ana herself and told her he wanted to kiss her in the house and then attack her?
- Why risk having an innocent boy there, to see what could happen? He would be caught red handed.
- Even if Boy B had left immediately and didn't even see/hear anything, Boy A would surely believe that Boy B would say that he left Ana with Boy A in the house once Ana became a missing person/was found in the house.

Random sample

A lot of posts on this thread sound like ‘things boy b could have done differently to get away with murder’. It’s an unusual take on the story.

RIP Ana. I think the jury have made the correct decision.

splinter65

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

But you weren’t in court. You didn’t see or hear all the evidence. The jury did. And they found him guilty unanimously. So, no offense, but how can you think that you know more then them??

People keep saying Boy B would have walked if he kept his mouth shut. Thank heavens he didn't.

I suspect his brief told him he was better off saying nothing, but that the parent who sat beside him throughout urged him to tell the truth. I know I would if I was in that position. This could be why he drip fed the story, making his parent believe his involvement was incidental but having to elaborate on his story as the inconsistencies were brought up. I can think of no other reason why he talked at all, or kept adding and embroidering his story. Boy A was told to say nothing in his defence, which we know is because he had no defence. Boy B thought he did, or that he could convince people he did.

I think people are being hard on the parents. I'm sure no parent thinks their kid might be a savage murderer and it's understandable that they could be totally in denial about it. The fact it was Boy Bs mother who was consistently by his side in the interviews might be because his dad was completely disengaged from the possibilty of his guilt. Not fair or clever or even decent, but it's human. They're in a sickeningly stressful situation with all kinds of horror and shame in the mix and we have no clue if they are in any way culpable. Good people can have bad kids like bad people can have good kids, and people have outbursts when under awful stress. We simply don't know what, if any, role their upbringings played in how they turned out.

None of that compares to poor Anas family and what they have endured, are enduring, and will endure forever. Nobody's pain or stress can compare with that, it's a nightmare they can never wake from and I admire their dignity and discretion in the face of so much horror. I can't even imagine their heartbreak. They, and poor lonely, innocent Ana, are the primary victims of those evil boys. The boys own families are the secondary victims, and their lives will never be the same again. It doesn't compare to even a tiny fraction of Ana's families suffering, but its still true.

I hope they're never released, but they will be. With that in mind their identities should be revealed when they reach adulthood so that no innocent person finds themselves unwittingly in their orbit.

tayto lover

Boy A told Boy B on a number of occasions that he wanted to kill Ana.
Neither boy liked Ana.
( everyone is agreed on that)

Boy A asks Boy B to fetch Ana and take her 3 km to a secluded abandoned house.
Boy B has two choices (a) Refuse to do it or (b) go and fetch her.
Boy B chooses to go and fetch Ana and take her to the boy who wants to kill her.

Boy B watches on as Boy A assaults and sexually assaults Ana. He then says he left.
Boy B draws map of room where Ana’s body was found later in the exact position it was found, the body having being moved after Boy B says he had left the area.
The tape Boy B gave to Boy A being around her neck.
Boy B changes his story 9 times during interviews.

The jury found both guilty. Rightly so.

Suckit

Yes, apart from anything else, Boy B stated that he felt ashamed he didn't help Ana there and then, and ran off.
So why when the Gardaí called to his house when she was missing, did he not tell them then what he knew?
Why not tell them the day after that?
Why did he keep lying about it?

They are intelligent 13 year olds, not criminal masterminds (yet).

SirGerryAdams

Candie wrote: »

People keep saying Boy B would have walked if he kept his mouth shut. Thank heavens he didn't.

I suspect his brief told him he was better off saying nothing, but that the parent who sat beside him throughout urged him to tell the truth. I know I would if I was in that position. This could be why he drip fed the story, making his parent believe his involvement was incidental but having to elaborate on his story as the inconsistencies were brought up. I can think of no other reason why he talked at all, or kept adding and embroidering his story. Boy A was told to say nothing in his defence, which we know is because he had no defence. Boy B thought he did, or that he could convince people he did.

I think people are being hard on the parents. I'm sure no parent thinks their kid might be a savage murderer and it's understandable that they could be totally in denial about it. The fact it was Boy Bs mother who was consistently by his side in the interviews might be because his dad was completely disengaged from the possibilty of his guilt. Not fair or clever or even decent, but it's human. They're in a sickeningly stressful situation with all kinds of horror and shame in the mix and we have no clue if they are in any way culpable. Good people can have bad kids like bad people can have good kids, and people have outbursts when under awful stress. We simply don't know what, if any, role their upbringings played in how they turned out.

None of that compares to poor Anas family and what they have endured, are enduring, and will endure forever. Nobody's pain or stress can compare with that, it's a nightmare they can never wake from and I admire their dignity and discretion in the face of so much horror. I can't even imagine their heartbreak. They, and poor lonely, innocent Ana, are the primary victims of those evil boys. The boys own families are the secondary victims, and their lives will never be the same again. It doesn't compare to even a tiny fraction of Ana's families suffering, but its still true.

I hope they're never released, but they will be. With that in mind their identities should be revealed when they reach adulthood so that no innocent person finds themselves unwittingly in their orbit.

Actually Boy A should have been told to tell the truth by his parents....

But...there are reasons why Boy A would refuse to answer if you had further info, which may be construed as "identifying" information.

I believe Boy A was told by someone not to answer questions, when he should have been told to tell the truth.

Hannibal_Smith

Strazdas wrote: »

Also, Boy B didn't like Ana himself, never mind A. He described her as a weirdo, somebody he wouldn't want to hang around with and 'not a friend'.

So you have two people who don't like Ana one bit luring her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere.

True. He referred to her as slutty in the police interviews, didn't he .

So, if he didn't think anything harmful was going to happen, why take a girl he didn't like to an abandoned house 3k from her house to a boy who didn't like her either?

Random sample

Is there a thing in Irish law about a solicitor not being able to defend you if you plead innocent but they know you are guilty?

Most 13 year old boys would be a lot more afraid of their mums reaction than anything the Gardai could throw at them. I could see that as a reason for boy b to keep talking.

SirGerryAdams

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Actually Boy A should have been told to tell the truth by his parents....

But...there are reasons why Boy A would refuse to answer if you had further info, which may be construed as "identifying" information.

I believe Boy A was told by someone not to answer questions, when he should have been told to tell the truth.

I believe both of their barristers would have told them the best route for them would be no comment.

Obviously Boy B either thought he was clever enough to outsmart them or he was urged to come clean by his parent(s), which would also explain his drip feeding of admissions as he was tripped up again and again by the police.

tuxy

Random sample wrote: »

Is there a thing in Irish law about a solicitor not being able to defend you if you plead innocent but they know you are guilty?

I don't believe so. It's not up to them to decide the verdict. All they can do is work with the evidence to provide reasonable doubt, the same evidence the defence has access to. In a fair case the truth will come out if the evidence is there to back it up.

If a solicitor wants to stop working for a client they must give a valid reason and I don't think it could be because they think the client is guilty. Stating that would impact the case and it's not for them to make such accusations.

ohnonotgmail

Random sample wrote: »

Is there a thing in Irish law about a solicitor not being able to defend you if you plead innocent but they know you are guilty?

Most 13 year old boys would be a lot more afraid of their mums reaction than anything the Gardai could throw at them. I could see that as a reason for boy b to keep talking.

The Bar website covers this.

https://www.lawlibrary.ie/About-Us/FAQs.aspx

If the client has confessed to the barrister to the crime of which they are accused, or admitted an incriminating fact, but still wishes to fight the case instead of pleading guilty, the barrister, if the client so instructs, can still defend the case by making the State prove the client committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. But the barrister cannot call evidence or make submissions to the judge or jury that the client did not commit the crime. The barrister can cross-examine the prosecution witnesses with a view to showing that the State has failed to prove their client committed the crime and should therefore be acquitted.

Eric Cartman

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

True. He referred to her as slutty in the police interviews, didn't he .

So, if he didn't think anything harmful was going to happen, why take a girl he didn't like to an abandoned house 3k from her house to a boy who didn't like her either?

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

The kid has definitely through his own intention or as a patsy become embroiled in this , but what helps nobody is this rampant speculation about perfectly normal things 13 year old boys do like hang out in parks , like masks , lend people tape and say not so nice things about how teenage girls dress as definitive murderous traits.

I 100% bet you wouldnt find a 13-14 year old lad in the land who hasnt called somebody a weirdo/loner or commented on the way a girl dresses and hasn’t been interested in hanging out with some lad who has brought a samurai sword or some other weapon back from moore street / holidays. Lets not start pretending that every 13 year old boy doing 13 year old boy things is suddenly 80% of the way to being a murderer

mrjoneill

tuxy wrote: »

I don't believe so. It's not up to them to decide the verdict. All they can do is work with the evidence to provide reasonable doubt, the same evidence the defence has access to. In a fair case the truth will come out if the evidence is there to back it up.

If a solicitor wants to stop working for a client they must give a valid reason and I don't think it could be because they think the client is guilty. Stating that would impact the case and it's not for them to make such accusations.

A solicitor can walk away from their client anytime except when charges are preferred and they are before the courts. It usual then for the solicitor/barrister to ask the court to be excused. This is done without giving reason as the cant give reason without implying their clients guilt. The usual reason for seeking to be excused is their client has lied to them and this has been exposed in court. A solicitor/barrister must at all times respect client confidentiality.

IvoryTower

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

The kid has definitely through his own intention or as a patsy become embroiled in this , but what helps nobody is this rampant speculation about perfectly normal things 13 year old boys do like hang out in parks , like masks , lend people tape and say not so nice things about how teenage girls dress as definitive murderous traits.




I 100% bet you wouldnt find a 13-14 year old lad in the land who hasnt called somebody a weirdo/loner or commented on the way a girl dresses and hasn’t been interested in hanging out with some lad who has brought a samurai sword or some other weapon back from moore street / holidays. Lets not start pretending that every 13 year old boy doing 13 year old boy things is suddenly 80% of the way to being a murderer

The traits on their own might be innocent but put them all together along with the little detail of someone being murdered and it looks a tad different

From what you've read you're not convinced. I have to say I was shocked when I heard boy b was also guilty of murder, but having read the Irish Times article I did change my mind. We have nothing else to go on cause we weren't on the jury so I don't think anyone is going to change our mind at this point unless we hear more details that weren't yet released to the public.

Strazdas

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

The kid has definitely through his own intention or as a patsy become embroiled in this , but what helps nobody is this rampant speculation about perfectly normal things 13 year old boys do like hang out in parks , like masks , lend people tape and say not so nice things about how teenage girls dress as definitive murderous traits.

I 100% bet you wouldnt find a 13-14 year old lad in the land who hasnt called somebody a weirdo/loner or commented on the way a girl dresses and hasn’t been interested in hanging out with some lad who has brought a samurai sword or some other weapon back from moore street / holidays. Lets not start pretending that every 13 year old boy doing 13 year old boy things is suddenly 80% of the way to being a murderer

What innocent explanation could there be for calling into her house and bringing her to the abandoned house? He didn't like Ana, wasn't friends with her and knew categorically that A didn't like her (A had spoken of killing her recently).

SirGerryAdams

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

How common would it be to walk 3km to "hang out" with someone you admitted no one liked or should be around.....

Boy B immediately lied when Ana was still a missing person.

If he was innocent why would he lie?

mrjoneill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

The kid has definitely through his own intention or as a patsy become embroiled in this , but what helps nobody is this rampant speculation about perfectly normal things 13 year old boys do like hang out in parks , like masks , lend people tape and say not so nice things about how teenage girls dress as definitive murderous traits.

I 100% bet you wouldnt find a 13-14 year old lad in the land who hasnt called somebody a weirdo/loner or commented on the way a girl dresses and hasn’t been interested in hanging out with some lad who has brought a samurai sword or some other weapon back from moore street / holidays. Lets not start pretending that every 13 year old boy doing 13 year old boy things is suddenly 80% of the way to being a murderer

Boy B stated he took Ana 3km so Boy A could tell her he had no interest on her. That simply does not wash. He could have told her in school or he could have got Boy B to tell her at her door. We also get from Boy B that he wanted to see Boy A and Ana kissing and stuff and thats why he hung around the derelict house. Both are totally inconsistent and both Boy A and Boy B wanted no romantic association with her. Boy B claim he was to bring Ana 3km so she could be told she wasn't wanted is total BS, there had to be another purpose and that sticks out that to assault her.

mrjoneill

I would put forward another theory that Boy B had a homoerotic interest in Boy A. Boy A was the guy even prior to his teens involved in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu which is an extreme body grappling contact physical activity. According to his father, telling the Park Ranger he was more than capable of looking after himself and the Park Ranger thought he was over 16. He comes across as the alpha male. Boy B did not engage in any sports and the evidence from his father was he was trying to “make a man out of him” trying to get him interested in sports which he showed no interest. I imagine Ana was at that stage so demeaned by her peer group and to both Boy A and Boy B that they had lost any respect for her. They way Boy B demeaned her in Garda interviews would support this with that being deeply embedded. I could see the situation of Boy A expressing an interest of having sex with Ana to Boy B or Boy B suggesting the idea to him on light of Ana expressed romantic interest. I could see them discussing how this to be best done. Boy A had a big collection of what was called obscene porn so his mind would be on the re-enactment of same. I’m sure they both knew from Ana’s earlier encounters with other youths this would not to be voluntary and both had no intention to hang out with her for to build a relationship. Both were also best friends since their childhood. Looking in the internet for derelict building in the area as being part of this conspiracy of wrongdoing. Boy B led Ana on his own for 3km to the derelict house and he made no sexual overtures to her and from the murder scene (he was present in the murder scene till Ana was dead) none of his DNA was found indicating the likelihood he did not participate in any sex acts there. One may well ask what was in this for Boy B. We do know he stayed there till Ana was dead as he was able to indicate where the body was found. Was he to be satisfied with seeing Boy A raping and sexually abusing Ana? Boy A went fully equipped for a serious assault so one can rule out the consensual intentions and the choosing a remote secluded location adds to the deviousness. I believe Boy B never believing it would turn into a gruesome murder scene or gave it that consideration. He stated he wanted to see Boy A “making out” with Ana but this is a lie as he stated Boy B wanted to tell her he had no interest in her. They could have “made out” in the street corner away from Ana’s home or the park but the fact are she was lured to a secluded derelict house had much more sinister overtones to it. After the murder Boy B told a friend that Boy A was snaking on him, this was twisted by his defense council that Boy B had misled him in bringing Ana to the location. I did not read that into it but rather that Boy A had left him exposed or was “grassing” on him to put the blame on him alone. It appeared at that time Boy B was the only person under focus as he had enticed her from her home. I could well see the scenario that Boy B “got off” on this seeing Boy A involved in sexual assault or raping Ana and this was sufficient incentive for his participation. I could also see him guarding the door against the escape of Ana from the house or holding Ana while Boy B laid into her. Blood spatter indicates at one stage Ana was severely beaten while she was standing and we can presume this was with a weapon and there is a possibility she may have escaped during this if she was not inhibited by Boy B. Boy B was not a foolish guy in how he handled questioning and only for external evidence to correct his misleading he would have led his inquisitors all over the place. Boy B had to get an awful lot out of it and I believe this was in sexual voyeurism which he knew would arise by facilitating the sexual assault by Boy A on Ana. Boy B has an awful lot to hide since he did so much to obfuscation and lying during questioning.

volchitsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.

The kid has definitely through his own intention or as a patsy become embroiled in this , but what helps nobody is this rampant speculation about perfectly normal things 13 year old boys do like hang out in parks , like masks , lend people tape and say not so nice things about how teenage girls dress as definitive murderous traits.

I 100% bet you wouldnt find a 13-14 year old lad in the land who hasnt called somebody a weirdo/loner or commented on the way a girl dresses and hasn’t been interested in hanging out with some lad who has brought a samurai sword or some other weapon back from moore street / holidays. Lets not start pretending that every 13 year old boy doing 13 year old boy things is suddenly 80% of the way to being a murderer

You talk about 13 year old boy things, but not many of them do that in a context of the girl in question having been brutally murdered.

I think that, just like the bullies in her class probably feel terrible in hindsight, for a normal 13 year old, most of that stuff would have stopped the minute they learned she'd been found dead. Instead this lad seemed perfectly happy to describe her as slutty etc, he showed no remorse about having had that attitude at the time. That's the difference.

iamwhoiam

Eric Cartman wrote: »

He said she dressed slutty, hardly “i want her dead” material.

This 3km from the house business is a nonsense, that park would be a very common spot for youths to hang out there from Ana’s estate. It would be quire common for people to walk close by that building as its on a popular walking route. People acting like they brought her to some far off no mans land that nobody ever visits.
rer

I walk in that park , I bring small kids to the playground , we park near the rangers office . I pass the tragic house three times weekly
The older kids hang out around the BMX track or on the playing pitches or along the river . I have never once seen them around the house or in the fields surrounding the house . They sit under trees or on grass not in manky , cold , dark houses
A and B went off the popular path and over a field and took Ana way off the course the teens hang around .

Eric Cartman

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B stated he took Ana 3km so Boy A could tell her he had no interest on her. That simply does not wash. He could have told her in school or he could have got Boy B to tell her at her door. We also get from Boy B that he wanted to see Boy A and Ana kissing and stuff and thats why he hung around the derelict house. Both are totally inconsistent and both Boy A and Boy B wanted no romantic association with her. Boy B claim he was to bring Ana 3km so she could be told she wasn't wanted is total BS, there had to be another purpose and that sticks out that to assault her.

Would probably be the most common area in <SNIP> for youths to go hang out, go for a chat, drink cans etc.. , if you were from here you’d realise its just media sensationalism on this element of it.

At 13 years old in secondary school , status is everything , if the ‘weird girl’ being in to you and it heing known about would be a cause of frustration, if you wanted to sort it out you sure as hell wouldnt be doing it in school or where people might get the idea youre together.

If everyone really thinks back to when they were 13, especially lads here , if your mate came up to you and said ‘here will you go get yer one so i can tell her to stop telling people she likes me ‘ and asked to meet in the local spot that youths go to in your respective town (distance irrelevant) , you probably wouldnt think twice about it as a 13 year old. Its stupid now but at 13 that kind of thing is important.

facehugger99

Seems rather superfluous to be trying the case again without any of the witnesses, evidence or legal knowledge.

volchitsa

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Would probably be the most common area in <SNIP> for youths to go hang out, go for a chat, drink cans etc.. , if you were from here you’d realise its just media sensationalism on this element of it.

If that is so, how come the body took several days to be found?
That doesn't sound like a place that lots of people hung out at.

EDIT: I've just seen the post by Iamwhoiam which confirms my scepticism. The notion that they would be searching for her for days without having thought to search any of the known teenage haunts is crazy, TBH.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Would probably be the most common area in <SNIP> for youths to go hang out, go for a chat, drink cans etc.. , if you were from here you’d realise its just media sensationalism on this element of it.

At 13 years old in secondary school , status is everything , if the ‘weird girl’ being in to you and it heing known about would be a cause of frustration, if you wanted to sort it out you sure as hell wouldnt be doing it in school or where people might get the idea youre together.

If everyone really thinks back to when they were 13, especially lads here , if your mate came up to you and said ‘here will you go get yer one so i can tell her to stop telling people she likes me ‘ and asked to meet in the local spot that youths go to in your respective town (distance irrelevant) , you probably wouldnt think twice about it as a 13 year old. Its stupid now but at 13 that kind of thing is important.

Read the post before yours.

iamwhoiam

volchitsa wrote: »

If that is so, how come the body took several days to be found?
That doesn't sound like a place that lots of people hung out at.

It isn’t , they don’t . Its off the beaten track and not the teens usual spot at all .