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

Grayson

Neyite wrote: »

If unofficial reports are true that they were known bullies prior to Ana's murder then it's probable that parents and teachers had a few chats about them targeting other children. And if you have parents who defend and excuse the little stuff, go in guns blazing to tear strips off a teacher on behalf of their little angels, it's not a stretch to assume those kids get braver and more arrogant that they can get away with more and more daring forms of bullying. Mam and Dad will go tell that principal to fcuk off like all the other times, right?

I'm not saying it specifically happened with these boys, but we can see from the way the parents washed evidence /court outbursts that it's possible.

But they didn't yet have the knowledge and experience that comes with adulthood. They don't have the logical brains of adults yet. So by their 13yo logic, they figure the lies they tell about their actions with Ana would also be believed and even defended by mam and dad - especially in boy B's case . But lying to Gardai is a very different ball game to lying to your parents or your teachers.

It sounds like half the class was bullying Ana. I don't think we can take anything away from the fact that they were and it led to something.
If we take anything away from it it's that we need a bigger campaign against bullying and kids need to be taught more about this from a younger age.

Suckit

I have said it before, but I believe the only reason Boy B spoke, was because when he was first asked to go to the station by the Garda (good work on their behalf btw), he and his mother were of the belief that it was to give a statement of where he last saw Ana.
He didn't realise it would come back and bit him in the ass so hard.
It may also explain why Boy A never really opened his mouth other than to stick to his story, even when he was presented with DNA evidence on his boots.
Two of the rules in Boy B's 'satanic pledge' book were "Don't talk about it" and "Act normal like nothing happened".
Those rules may not have meant anything to anybody else, but he wrote them and I'd bet had some sort of belief in them.

If those boys get out in their early 20's (or sooner) I hope they are watched like hawks and never given the benefit of doubt if anything serious should ever happen near to them.
I think they have learned some things about crime evasion that they will not repeat if they commit a crime again. Namely using phones, leaving DNA and talking to the investigators. No doubt they have learned a lot more and are taking it all in.

the butcher

Why did boy A look up 'abandoned places in Lucan' on his phone if this was a place "frequently visited by kids/teens" according to a select few posters on this thread? I've been to the park in question, in my youthful years it was never a place known to my friends or anyone else. Teens/kids want convenient places to go, not treks of 3km, especially from the directions they were coming from.

For people asking in previous pages, there seems to be no evidence recovered concerning the backpack of Boy B (see on CCTV footage), no evidence of his clothing of that day or shoes/smartphone/contents of missing backpack. Only thing is the tape he supplied Boy A.

Boy B had nothing but disdainful things to say bout Ana in his interviews - all said knowing that she was dead and killed in a brutal fashion. No remorse, no guilt, no sadness, nothing. Just displays of boredom during the interview breaks. Knew she was dead for days and continually lied to everyone since she went "missing". The jury sat through 16 hours of footage on him. They know more than anyone on here. Justice has been served by the jury, it's up the judge and his sentencing now.

El_Bee

Grayson wrote: »

It sounds like half the class was bullying Ana. I don't think we can take anything away from the fact that they were and it led to something.
If we take anything away from it it's that we need a bigger campaign against bullying and kids need to be taught more about this from a younger age.

We have non-stop anti-bullying campaigns for decades now, and children are still committing suicide in relation to the bullying they receive, it's no big leap to correlate the continued rise in bullying with the inability to expel or even suspend bullies from schools.

Yurt2

Grayson wrote: »

It sounds like half the class was bullying Ana. I don't think we can take anything away from the fact that they were and it led to something.
If we take anything away from it it's that we need a bigger campaign against bullying and kids need to be taught more about this from a younger age.

100% on the bullying anti-bullying campaign. It should be a national campaign bringing in adults into the conversation about workplace bullying also.

It breaks my heart to think that the poor girl was trying to survive a day-in day-out grind with bullying before this happened.

I don't know it to be the case at all, but I suspect Ireland has more bullying in it's culture than other nations. It's a pastime to devalue other people - you hear it in the pub, in the breakroom, the gym: 'this f*cking eejit, that f*cking tool, the state of him and his jumper.' It's like for people to feel good about themselves they need to run others down. A nation with individual and mass low self esteem lashing out at anyone and anything different. I spend a lot of my time out of the country with work thankfully, and it's a refreshing mental break to be honest.

mrjoneill

the butcher wrote: »

Why did boy A look up 'abandoned places in Lucan' on his phone if this was a place "frequently visited by kids/teens" according to a select few posters on this thread? I've been to the park in question, in my youthful years it was never a place known to my friends or anyone else. Teens/kids want convenient places to go, not treks of 3km, especially from the directions they were coming from.

For people asking in previous pages, there seems to be no evidence recovered concerning the backpack of Boy B (see on CCTV footage), no evidence of his clothing of that day or shoes/smartphone/contents of missing backpack. Only thing is the tape he supplied Boy A.

Boy B had nothing but disdainful things to say bout Ana in his interviews - all said knowing that she was dead and killed in a brutal fashion. No remorse, no guilt, no sadness, nothing. Just displays of boredom during the interview breaks. Knew she was dead for days and continually lied to everyone since she went "missing". The jury sat through 16 hours of footage on him. They know more than anyone on here. Justice has been served by the jury, it's up the judge and his sentencing now.

All 3 were from Leixlip and Lucan was 3km away. The abandoned house was 3km from Lexlip across the fields of St Catherines Park just outside Lucan. The building is not a place where Lexlip kids would be hanging out it would be more for Lucan ones. This was summer time and there would be no need for kids to be indoors so it would have been predictable the house would be empty when they went there.



As for Boy B, CCTV shows him carrying a backback as do witnesses. When asked what was in it he stated a bottle of water. Yet on his return home after the murdering of Ana he stated he went to the Park Rangers hut to drink water from the tap. It doesn't make sense. Kids don't bring a whole backpack to carry a bottle of water either. Everything from Boy B has been elicited after being found out. There can be only one reason to tell lies and so many is he is covering up his own culpability.

tuxy

the butcher wrote: »

, no evidence of his clothing of that day or shoes/smartphone/contents of missing backpack. Only thing is the tape he supplied Boy A.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-was-struck-with-weapon-as-she-lay-on-the-floor-blood-pattern-specialist-tells-trial-38113234.html

Earlier, Detective Garda Gabriel Newton gave evidence of collecting the clothing which Boy A and Boy B were wearing on the day Ana went missing.

Things that have no impact on the case tend to get reported less it does not mean it didn't happen.

mrjoneill

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

This is why its in the public interest to name them or at least allow the school to be named.

The school was named in earlier newspaper reports and the school web page had an appreciation for Ana. I would not take a genius to work out what school it from the location of the crime.

Suckit

tuxy wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-was-struck-with-weapon-as-she-lay-on-the-floor-blood-pattern-specialist-tells-trial-38113234.html

Things that have no impact on the case tend to get reported less it does not mean it didn't happen.

His backpack was never handed over.

Boy B was in the kitchen when his mother handed over his clothes, the court heard.
These clothes, consisting of a pair of blue runners, a grey hoodie, black bottoms and a white polo T-shirt with a navy collar, were also shown to the jury.
Det Gda Newton said she then handed the two boys clothes to the exhibits officer in the case.

Boy B had a Black Backpack and Boy A had a Khaki Backpack.

tuxy

Suckit wrote: »

His backpack was never handed over.



Boy B had a Black Backpack and Boy A had a Khaki Backpack.

That same story also does not state that boy A's backpack was found yet we know it was when they searched his house.
Where was it stated that Boy B's backpack was never recovered?

TCDStudent1

tuxy wrote: »

That same story also does not state that boy A's backpack was found yet we know it was when they searched his house.
Where was it stated that Boy B's backpack was never recovered?

I read in one article (possibly in Sunday Independent) that Boy B said he carried the back pack just as a place to hold a bottle of water.
This raised some questions for the guards as he said he went to a water station to get a drink of water.

tuxy

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

I read in one article (possibly in Sunday Independent) that Boy B said he carried the back pack just as a place to hold a bottle of water.
This raised some questions for the guards as he said he went to a water station to get a drink of water.

I read that too but what happened when they tried to recover that backpack?
If nothing was found when it was tested the papers may not bother to report it.

hawkelady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is one aspect I find worrying and support anonymity. I have sympathy for the parents. For all we know, the boys lied to the parents too. I imagine it's a very traumatic situation for everyone involved. What would you do if this was your child. Do you think you would definitely act entirely objective or would some parental emotions override and blind you until the evidence slowly presents the truth. If your child continues tells you they're innocent, do you believe them. Will you be in denial. I'm not a parent so I don't fully understand these instincts but I've certainly seen them in action. I don't think people recognising the parents in the street is of benefit to anyone. While I wouldn't go as far as to say they deserve the same respect as the Kriegal's, they don't deserve abuse.

As a parent , I make sure the son I raised would tell the truth !!! Those parents didn’t , and as such , they have failed as parents

gozunda

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

I read in one article (possibly in Sunday Independent) that Boy B said he carried the back pack just as a place to hold a bottle of water.
This raised some questions for the guards as he said he went to a water station to get a drink of water.

Is it possible that boy B used his backback to carry a change of clothes and the clothes he came home in / the ones handed over were not the ones he wore at the scene of the crime. Speculation I know but it would explain at least some of the inconsistencies with regard to why he brought a back back with him that day. One black backpack as seen on CCTV could easily be swapped for another...

It would also make him also more forensicly aware than his friend if that was the case...

Would there have been an opportunity to get rid of a backpack and clothes after leaving the abandoned house?

Ash.J.Williams

I reckon B videoed the whole thing...

mrjoneill

Reati wrote: »

He was 13 and thought he was more clever than the Gardaí interviewing him? Everyone been saying how supposedly smart he was... maybe he believed it.

Absolutely and brazen to go knock on Ana's door and lead her away not caring he would be identified. I'm sure both could have acquired her details and text her to come out Boy A wanted to meet up with her. But Boy B was so cock sure of his smarts and the fact he was a 13 yr old and all he was doing at worst was voyeuristic which not an issue. He even thought he would manipulate Gardai of the worthlessness of Ana, as if she was no great shakes, not a real person and implied they should be taking up so much of their time. He was the future. And to really work the salt into the wound he has no remorse for what they did. His only desire was to go back to life before the murder. There is nothing of the horrific assault on Ana and the aftermath it is having on her family. If any of them had any semblance of humanity they would have instructed their lawyers to apologize on their behaviour, just our client are "so sorry for what happened Ana". Its just him,him,him and Boy A its like its just another milestone.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

mrjoneill wrote: »

The school was named in earlier newspaper reports and the school web page had an appreciation for Ana. I would not take a genius to work out what school it from the location of the crime.

Yeh. I know the school.

But it cant now be named. So think what that means regarding future debates on bullying even in that school, or investigations into bullying in that school.

Grayson

hawkelady wrote: »

As a parent , I make sure the son I raised would tell the truth !!! Those parents didn’t , and as such , they have failed as parents

You think those parents raised their kid to lie to them?

They probably thought the same as you. And that's why they believed their kid.

Edit: I'm not saying you are a bad parent. I'm pointing out that they probably weren't bad parents either.

OwlsZat

Yes I would speculate that Boy B photographed or videoed the event.

As for the parents, yes it's quite obvious both sets of parents have failed massively. When I do parent will be installing keyloggers on my children's devices to monitor for a vast array of key words. I don't see how you can effectively parent without this.

iamwhoiam

hawkelady wrote: »

As a parent , I make sure the son I raised would tell the truth !!! Those parents didn’t , and as such , they have failed as parents

I am making no excuses whatsoever for anyone but a good parent knows that their kids will be capable of lies . You don’t raise them to lie but just know that they all will at some stage

Strazdas

OwlsZat wrote: »

Yes I would speculate that Boy B photographed or videoed the event.

As for the parents, yes it's quite obvious both sets of parents have failed massively. When I do parent will be installing keyloggers on my children's devices to monitor for a vast array of key words. I don't see how you can effectively parent without this.

That would certainly explain his role of being there as a spectator instead of it being a two person attack on Ana.

It was definitely pre-planned and not something that slowly escalated. The pathologist estimated that Ana was attacked as soon as she arrived at the abandoned house.

tuxy

OwlsZat wrote: »

Yes I would speculate that Boy B photographed or videoed the event.

As for the parents, yes it's quite obvious both sets of parents have failed massively. When I do parent will be installing keyloggers on my children's devices to monitor for a vast array of key words. I don't see how you can effectively parent without this.

How would this work when the majority of children have a greater knowledge of new technology than their parents?

hawkelady

hawkelady wrote: »

As a parent , I make sure the son I raised would tell the truth !!! Those parents didn’t , and as such , they have failed as parents

I don't think it's that simple. I think it's easy and comforting to blame the parents because all we have to do then to stop kids being monsters is to be good parents. But some kids are monsters without bad parenting, and that's the scary truth. You can't always mitigate savagery, and reassuring ourselves that it's just a matter of good parenting won't stop outliers like these kids existing.

I don't know if their parents were good or bad, I don't know if they failed. Maybe they weren't great or exceptional parents, just average ones. Maybe the failure was nature, not nurture.

Lots of people have less than optimum parenting, it still doesn't explain why the kids went beyond the usual teenage trouble into the realm of savage rapist and vicious murderer.

mrjoneill

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yeh. I know the school.

But it cant now be named. So think what that means regarding future debates on bullying even in that school, or investigations into bullying in that school.

For the school its catastrophic, one of its vulnerable students was murdered by two of her male classmates while allegations fly about they did not do enough to protect her. It does seem there was incessant bullying taking place of her. She had no school friends. Why, it appears she was perceived as different and naive. She was subjected an online bullying campaign as well. And there was none of her peers able to stand up and take her under their wing. While I know they all started the same time in school she came to the school with a big warning of her vulnerability from the previous school where a resource teacher took under her wing. Some schools when a new student joins the school another student is appointed a "buddy" to help them settle in.

There is a very big lessons to be learnt from it although the thought that 2 classmates would gang up to murder a classmate and a girl is mind boggling. I do hope the Dep of Education appoint an inspector or an outside one to look at the whole scenario for lessons to be learnt.

humberklog

Grayson wrote: »

You think those parents raised their kid to lie to them?

They probably thought the same as you. And that's why they believed their kid.

Edit: I'm not saying you are a bad parent. I'm pointing out that they probably weren't bad parents either.

I posted this previously on this thread and before the identity (and background) of the kids was known and this of course only relates to the father of boy B.


"The gardai came to the door of boy B the day after Ana's disappearance. The father had returned from work at 5 and the Gardai knocked at the door at 8. The mother and boy B talked to the gardai on the doorstep. The father passed them in the hall,at 9 noted his son and wife were still talking to the gards about Ana. He didn't stop to listen and went straight up to bed and went to sleep.
In the morning he had a brief conversation about it with his wife.

Now that is a sign of some pretty sh1tty parenting skills."

Suckit

tuxy wrote: »

I read that too but what happened when they tried to recover that backpack?
If nothing was found when it was tested the papers may not bother to report it.

Yeah, I scanned the article and didn't realise that Boy A's backpack was also omitted from the clothes.

The white stick that was in the house, was that used to hit her? Because that is the only thing that Boy B admitted to picking up in the house.
They had said that Boy A's clothes had been washed twice, just wondering if Boy B's clothes had been washed at all?
I hope the two of them get long sentences. Very long.
They both made reference to her having her phone with her and checking it. I wonder did they see her phone and see that her mother was ringing. They definitely must have heard it.

The whole thing is sickening.

humberklog

humberklog wrote: »

I posted this previously on this thread and before the identity (and background) of the kids was known and this of course only relates to the father of boy B.


"The gardai came to the door of boy B the day after Ana's disappearance. The father had returned from work at 5 and the Gardai knocked at the door at 8. The mother and boy B talked to the gardai on the doorstep. The father passed them in the hall,at 9 noted his son and wife were still talking to the gards about Ana. He didn't stop to listen and went straight up to bed and went to sleep.
In the morning he had a brief conversation about it with his wife.

Now that is a sign of some pretty sh1tty parenting skills."

Or, the cops came to talk about a missing person from his kids school and he thought nothing of it, or stop and wonder if his 13 year old kid was a murderer. So off he went to bed secure in the knowledge that his kid would tell them everything he knows.

Why would anyone be concerned about the police doing routine enquiries if a kid was missing? It'd be a big leap from there to wondering if his kid killed her.

Suckit

Candie wrote: »

Or, the cops came to talk about a missing person from his kids school and he thought nothing of it, or stop and wonder if his 13 year old kid was a murderer. So off he went to bed secure in the knowledge that his kid would tell them everything he knows.

Why would anyone be concerned about the police doing routine enquiries if a kid was missing? It'd be a big leap from there to wondering if his kid killed her.

Not sure where to start with that, but maybe here:
If the Gardaí are stood at your door talking to your son for an hour because he was the last person to see a missing girl, and you ignore it and go up to bed while they are still questioning him, that is 100% shitty parenting.

Suckit

Suckit wrote: »

Not sure where to start with that, but maybe here:
If the Gardaí are stood at your door talking to your son for an hour because he was the last person to see a missing girl, and you ignore it and go up to bed while they are still questioning him, that is 100% shitty parenting.

For all he knew they were chatting to his wife. They were on the doorstep, which seems very informal.

I'm not saying it isn't lousy parenting, I don't know either way. It's possible he assumed his wife had it in hand and there was nothing for them to personally worry about.

All the parents are being held responsible here, and they haven't have the formality of a criminal conviction or their side of the story told. They might very well be awful people but they might also be decent enough sorts going through a different kind of hell of their own, there's nothing to be gained by pointing the finger in a direction we haven't a clue is warranted or not.

Suckit

Suckit wrote: »

Not sure where to start with that

If the police came to my door with door to door enquiries about a missing person, I wouldn't be personally worried about it, I'd just help them as best I could.

That's what I mean by that, nothing else, as you probably know.