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

Suckit

From the Independent at start of June
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-dad-of-boy-b-says-his-son-didnt-tell-him-full-story-at-beginning-as-he-couldnt-believe-it-38179372.html


The father of Boy B understandably, believed everything his son had told him.
He must be asking himself questions now and going over things in his mind.

Ana Kriegel murder trial: Dad of Boy B says his son didn't tell him full story at beginning as he 'couldn't believe it'


THE DAD of a boy accused of murdering schoolgirl Ana Kriegel has said his son didn't tell him the full story at the beginning because he "couldn't believe it", a trial heard.

Boy B's father also said his son doesn't respect him and didn't want to "share his truths" with him.
The dad said he was "shocked" and "angry" and the more angry he was the less likely his son was to talk to him.
In cross examination, Boy B's father said his son was "very naïve", "very immature" and was "hungry for friendship".

This morning, the jury heard from Boy B's father. He said gardai called to his home around 9pm or 10pm on May 14, 2018 - the day Ana went missing.
His wife answered the door and his son was behind her. Gardai told them they were looking for a missing girl, he said.
Asked if he remembered his son's expression, the man said he was "kind of surprised".
He said he wouldn't say his son was frightened, but "something in between".
He later described it as his son "wasn't happy being surprised".
Boy B's father said he spoke to his son the next day but he "wasn't really chatty". He told his son that if he knew something he had better tell gardai everything he knew.
The father said his son told him that Boy A had asked him to bring Ana to the park because she had a crush on him.
The witness said he thought he and his son had gone with gardai to the park on the Wednesday and they had re-walked the route his son said he had taken with Ana.
The dad gave evidence that he tried to ask his son to "remember every detail" but he "wasn't normally reacting". His son wasn't "happy" or "chatty".
His father said he knew his son was "trying to say something but didn't want to say something to me".
He said he knew, as his father, that Boy B was not capable of doing anything like that.
The man also said he was ""frustrated" and "furious" when his son told him that he'd given some Tesco-branded tape to Boy A. He'd taken the tape from his father's garden shed and hadn't told him, the court heard.
Boy B was arrested by gardai and questioned on May 24 and May 25, and Boy B's dad said he learned his son had been in the abandoned house.
He said he asked his son why he didn't tell the full story at the beginning. He said his son told him he couldn't believe it, and secondly he didn't respect him and didn't want to share his truths with him.
The witness said he asked Boy B why he had not come to him. His dad said Boy B told him he was afraid of Boy A as he had "lots of power".
The dad also said Boy B told him that he couldn't believe Boy A had done it until they found Ana's body.
He said his son was "scared" and "shocked" and told him he had run away when he saw Boy A attacking Ana.
The dad said Boy B told him he saw Boy A "making a judo or wrestling move" to Ana and throw her on the floor. Boy A then tried to pull her bra with one hand while the other hand was trying to suffocate her.
He said his son told him that Boy A turned his head to the door and saw Boy B, and that's when he ran.
Mr Grehan asked Boy B's dad if he had questioned his son about why he had lied to gardai.
His father said his son told him he was "panicking".
He said his son did not share his "truth" with him because he did not have much trust in him, and did not want to make him angry.
"I believe he was very confused", his father said.
In cross examination, Boy B's father told defence lawyer Damien Colgan SC, for Boy B, that his son was "very naïve", "very immature" and was "hungry for friendship".
Boy B also "tended to believe what his friends were saying", his dad said.
Lawyers for the two boys then made a number of formal admissions, including that the scene was properly designated a crime scene and properly preserved.
Mr Colgan and Patrick Gageby SC, for Boy A, also admitted that all the exhibits in the case were kept securely and there was no issue with the chain of evidence.
There was no issue with the arrest and detention of the two accused, nor was there an issue with obtaining DNA swabs.
The trial continues before Mr Justice Paul McDermott and a jury of eight men and four women.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

Your version of loving a child unconditionally is woefully wrong wrong wrong...and kinda worrying in a way. But your in a tiny tiny minority so it’s not so bad.
It is possible to love your child and support your child while at the same time letting them know when appropriate that their words and/or actions are totally unacceptable to you and that you are very disappointed. That other people have rights and entitlements and are deserving of respect.
Your version of unconditional love is to let your child know, quite literally, that they can murder someone and you will continue to tell them that they’ve done nothing wrong and that you can fix it.
Wrong wrong wrong

They could well have told the boys this. We have not heard a word from them and never will so it is unfair to assume they have not said that or words to that effect. All we know for sure is that the parents were by their side in court, which you yourself say you have no problem with.


The only words from A or B's parents the we have are those of B's father (as far as I am aware). He seems to believe that B is innocent of murder and that is his right (he knows way more about the case than you or I). Nothing he has said would suggest he thinks boy B is totally innocent of any wrong doing.


And before you point it out, yes I know, the jury think he is guilty of murder and that is all that matters but we are discussing the parents attitude here.

Calltocall

splinter65 wrote: »

Your version of loving a child unconditionally is woefully wrong wrong wrong...and kinda worrying in a way. But your in a tiny tiny minority so it’s not so bad.
It is possible to love your child and support your child while at the same time letting them know when appropriate that their words and/or actions are totally unacceptable to you and that you are very disappointed. That other people have rights and entitlements and are deserving of respect.
Your version of unconditional love is to let your child know, quite literally, that they can murder someone and you will continue to tell them that they’ve done nothing wrong and that you can fix it.
Wrong wrong wrong

Spot on, if everyone parented this way then we would be living in an absolute toilet world were people would act with impunity and without fear of consequences because mammy and daddy didn’t teach them right from wrong and let them do whatever they wanted. The way to a better society starts at home through teaching values etc. Your perception of unconditional love is warped.

LiamoSail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The parents done exactly what they signed up to do by becoming parents, supporting their child unconditionally. There is no "good reason" to be horrified at that.

Good parents would support a child in attempting to reform, not in attempting to get away with murder. I think you'll find it's that aspect that has angered people

Hannibal_Smith

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Name calling? What name calling?

You can’t even imagine yourself in their position because you know almost nothing about them. You have “questions” about them. What questions? So far as I’m aware, they are not accused of any wrongdoing, and they fully cooperated with the investigation.

You describe Boy B’s father’s outburst as “selfish”, but how do you come to that judgement? We’d have to concede that it’s at least possible that Boy B’s father believes his son is not guilty, or at least not guilty of murder. If that is the case, would his outburst still seem “selfish”?

Stop being so bloody sanctimonious.

^^ name calling.

As far as you know, you've no more information on them than I do so you can't speak for them.

What Boy B's father did was extremely selfish. The Kreigels had to listen to forensics detail the injuries caused to their daughter and never lashed out.

Whether he believes his son as innocent or not, he should not have done what he did. Are you defending it?

tayto lover

I wonder how Boy B’s father feels now since he has had time to reflect?
Has his attitude changed and does he still think that his boy has been convicted in the wrong?
I’d say myself that he will eventually realize the truth.

Hannibal_Smith

tuxy wrote: »

Standard advice for a murder case in this country as there is no penalty for pleading not guilty.

Standard advice when there is overwhelming evidence?

Kidchameleon

tayto lover wrote: »

I wonder how Boy B’s father feels now since he has had time to reflect?
Has his attitude changed and does he still think that his boy has been convicted in the wrong?
I’d say myself that he will eventually realize the truth.

Most likely he will but we will never know.

Kidchameleon

LiamoSail wrote: »

Good parents would support a child in attempting to reform, not in attempting to get away with murder. I think you'll find it's that aspect that has angered people

And this brings us back to the lack of incentive to plead guilty. I really think this should be reviewed.

Cryptopagan

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Stop being so bloody sanctimonious.

^^ name calling.

As far as you know, you've no more information on them than I do so you can't speak for them.

What Boy B's father did was extremely selfish. The Kreigels had to listen to forensics detail the injuries caused to their daughter and never lashed out.

Whether he believes his son as innocent or not, he should not have done what he did. Are you defending it?

“Sanctimonious” is not a name.

I think everyone agrees the Kreigels showed incredible dignity and fortitude throughout.

As for the outburst, I’m neither defending nor condemning it; I’m just not scandalized by it.

tuxy

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Standard advice when there is overwhelming evidence?

No penalty for pleading not guilty. Hope for an error from the Garda. Try to get it downgraded to manslaughter.

Yes fairly standard. There are many problems with the system but that's how it currently stands.

Hannibal_Smith

Cryptopagan wrote: »

“Sanctimonious” is not a name.

I think everyone agrees the Kreigels showed incredible dignity and fortitude throughout.

As for the outburst, I’m neither defending nor condemning it; I’m just not scandalized by it.

Grand, you stand by your remark.

It was a horrible thing to do after what the Kriegel family endured and after the hard work gardai put in to getting to the bottom of what happened, in some way anyhow .

Suckit

tayto lover wrote: »

I wonder how Boy B’s father feels now since he has had time to reflect?
Has his attitude changed and does he still think that his boy has been convicted in the wrong?
I’d say myself that he will eventually realize the truth.

He said his wife was talking to the gardaí and Boy B was kind of hiding behind his mum. He said his son was not frightened but looked surprised.

Probably surprised because he wasn't counting on Ana's brother to have been able to identify him.

He said he was surprised to hear that Boy A had been attacked in the park, in the middle of the day, without reason. He said as far as he knew it was a very peaceful park. When he heard that Boy A had no wounds on his face, he said he was kind of suspicious of that.

Seems he was suspicious of Boy A from early on..

He said he went with his son and gardaí to the park the following day to establish when Boy B had last seen Ana.
He described his son as being "afraid of saying something".
The following day, he said he learned Ana's body had been found in an abandoned house, when his wife rang him, crying hysterically.
The man said he asked the boy about the house, but his son was not really chatty at that stage. Boy B told him he had been there the previous year.
He was trying to jog his son's memory and get him to remember every detail.
He described his son as not reacting normally - he was not happy or chatty the man said, he knew he was trying to say something but he did not want to say anything to him.


He said it was only after his son had been arrested that he learned he had actually been in the abandoned house. He asked him why he did not tell the full story at the beginning.
The man said his son said he could not believe it and also that he did not want to "share his truth" with him.
The man said he was shocked and very angry, and the more angry he was, the less his son wanted to talk to him.

He said he also asked his son why he had not approached any adult. He said his son said he was afraid of Boy A, describing him as someone who had a lot of power and did martial arts.
He also told his father that he was scared and shocked and did not know what to do.

Surely the father will look back on a lot of that..

Hannibal_Smith

tuxy wrote: »

No penalty for pleading not guilty. Hope for an error from the Garda. Try to get it downgraded to manslaughter.

Yes fairly standard. There are many problems with the system but that's how it currently stands.

So everyone pleads not guilty to murder do they?

tuxy

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

So everyone pleads not guilty to murder do they?

It depends on the legal advice they receive.

Yurt2

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

So everyone pleads not guilty to murder do they?

I would love to see stats vs other jurisdictions that empower judges to take into account a guilty plea when sentencing for murder, but it would appear that in Ireland, very few people would plead guilty for the reasons outlined. There is no incentive to, brazen it out and hope that there was a procedural error.

tuxy

Yurt! wrote: »

I would love to see stats vs other jurisdictions that empower judges to take into account a guilty plea when sentencing for murder, but it would appear that in Ireland, very few people would plead guilty for the reasons outlined. There is no incentive to, brazen it out and hope that there was a procedural error.

Correct and it's the system that is wrong not the solicitor giving correct advice or a client heeding that advice.

Hannibal_Smith

tuxy wrote: »

It depends on the legal advice they receive.

But its standard advice though? So if its fairly standard why not plead guilty every time?

tuxy

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

But its standard advice though? So if its fairly standard why not plead guilty every time?

Because in Irish system there is no advantage to pleading guilty.

Suckit

tuxy wrote: »

Correct and it's the system that is wrong not the solicitor giving correct advice or a client heeding that advice.

Morally or Legally?

LiamoSail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

And this brings us back to the lack of incentive to plead guilty. I really think this should be reviewed.

The incentive is that if you're guilty it's the right thing to do. It's saving the victims family from the ordeal of a trial, it's saving the victims memory from having every detail of their life combed over and widely reported on. It's the first step in reforming.

I appreciate that legal advice is often different from what is the right thing to do, but in such a horrific case like this the parents, knowing their kids were guilty, should have made them confess everything and plead guilty. Those kids will never reform if they can't be honest now.

Never mind your personal incentives, this is about doing what's right for the victim and her family.

iamwhoiam

What is this ****e about signing up to love a child unconditionally ? Firstly I dont remember ever signing anything never mind how to love my kids .
But let me say this and I am not in the minority , I will always love my kids but that doesn't mean I support what they do if its wrong.
Leave murder aside for now and just imagine one of my kids bullied another or harmed another or shunned another .I would make damn sure he or she knew I disapproved , I would still love them but let them know I hated the act .
God forbid one of mine murdered a girl with the brutality with which poor Ana was killed there is no way on this wide earth that my son would not be told that I did not support his act . He would face that court and that judge and bloody well pay for what he did .
Thankfully my kids were decent and good kids but they knew if they got in trouble with school or harmed another in any way my love would not wain but I would not support them and they would face my wrath too .

Cryptopagan

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Grand, you stand by your remark.

It was a horrible thing to do after what the Kriegel family endured and after the hard work gardai put in to getting to the bottom of what happened, in some way anyhow .

Well, tbf it is an insulting term and not a constructive thing to say, so I’ll retract that.

But I maintain that there is nothing I know of that’s being reported that places any blame or wrongdoing on either boy’s parents, apart from somebody got emotional and shouted some things out in court, which obviously people shouldn’t do but is hardly worthy of some of the condemnation I’ve seen.

Indeed it seems like the parents were totally cooperative with the investigation. Sure Boy B’s mother sat there during Garda interviews even when it must have been obvious the boy was talking himself into a hole.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Yurt! wrote: »

I would love to see stats vs other jurisdictions that empower judges to take into account a guilty plea when sentencing for murder, but it would appear that in Ireland, very few people would plead guilty for the reasons outlined. There is no incentive to, brazen it out and hope that there was a procedural error.

The last thing we want to do is allow judges discretion in murder cases. The penalty would track down to the low level for manslaughter.

tuxy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The last thing we want to do is allow judges discretion in murder cases. The penalty would track down to the low level for manslaughter.

That's not how it works. For a manslaughter charge there much be different evidence. A judge can't just sentence someone to a completely different crime to what they have been found guilty of.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

tuxy wrote: »

That's not how it works. For a manslaughter charge there much be different evidence. A judge can't just sentence someone to a completely different crime to what they have been found guilty of.

That’s not what I said. Or meant say. I said the penalty for murder would track down to the kind of low level we now see for manslaughter. Maybe a year or two more.

tuxy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s not what I said. I said the penalty for murder would track down to the kind of low level we now see for manslaughter. Maybe a year or two more.

It would only happen if there were new guidelines for sentencing to allow it.
Remember with murder it's the parole board that gets the decision not the judge.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

tuxy wrote: »

It would only happen if there were new guidelines for sentencing to allow it.

Yeh. That’s what you are arguing for.

tuxy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yeh. That’s what you are arguing for.

Yes it is what I believe, I wouldn't have said it otherwise.

Kidchameleon

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I would make damn sure he or she knew I disapproved , I would still love them but let them know I hated the act .

There is no evidence to suggest that this has not happened in the case of A & B's parents.