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

tuxy

Limpy wrote: »

They shouted at the jury after the verdict knowing what these monsters did. Shame on them.

No one shouted at the Jury, what are you talking about?

Vlthap

tuxy wrote: »

Why did you think that?
They can't just appeal because they don't like the outcome. They would have to find fault with the way the trial was conducted.

I'm not familiar at all with the legal system but it seems to be the thing to do in most murder trials as soon as a guilty verdict is made. With the way the media was emphasising that the evidence against Boy B was circumstantial and gleaned from things he did/didn't say or changed his statement about in the interviews, I thought they would lodge an appeal as soon as they could.

So if they were to appeal they'd have to have a fairly compelling reason to do so?

Vlthap

Limpy wrote: »

Was it the case boy A didn't deny having sex with Ana?, he said no comment. As it was the prosecutions case to prove he sexually assaulted her?

The reason I ask is because he surely told his parents and defence he had consensual sex with her. The evidence proves he did. How does his parents stand over that. If they know he had sex then they surely know he did the rest of brutal crimes.

They shouted at the jury after the verdict knowing what these monsters did. Shame on them.

tuxy wrote: »

No one shouted at the Jury, what are you talking about?

I heard that too but I heard it was Boy B's father who was being loud and obnoxious, calling names as the Jury left the Courtroom and also at Gardaí. I'll see if I can find where I read it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/bunch-of-scumbags-father-of-boy-b-loudly-condemns-verdict-1.3929674

spurious

Vlthap wrote: »

I heard that too but I heard it was Boy B's father who shouted at the Jury and at Gardaí. I'll see if I can find where I read it.

I read it was at the Gardai, not the jury.

Vlthap

spurious wrote: »

I read it was at the Gardai, not the jury.

That would make sense cos I also read the Judge was no longer in the Courtroom. The Jury would hardly be left behind!!

In saying that though I have no experience of trials or the court system so I don't know!

Limpy

tuxy wrote: »

No one shouted at the Jury, what are you talking about?

Well if the jury were present when the judgment was read then they would of been on the receiving end of the rants, as well as the gardai and judge.

gozunda

Vlthap wrote: »

That would make sense cos I also read the Judge was no longer in the Courtroom. The Jury would hardly be left behind!!

In saying that though I have no experience of trials or the court system so I don't know!

The first outburst happened when the judge was thanking jury members for their jury service. The father then left the court after security said 'he's too high" - the father of boy B then re-entered the court and continued his rant - at this stage the judge had left.

From the reports his language was insulting, quite colourful and appeared to be directed at the investigative gardai present.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the Interviews the judge called for prior to sentancing, with this man ...

n97 mini

splinter65 wrote: »

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you were correct, A's parents would not be included in the process. So you are wrong.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the outrageous outburst from the father of boy b in part prompted the judge to seek reports on clinical interviews with both sets of parents.

Bull crap. From the outset the judge separated the wheat from the chaff. Boy B's evidence could not be used against Boy A. Therefore Boy B's father's reaction to the verdict counted for nothing.

The judge is trying to be as fair as possible, nothing more, nothing less. I commend him for leaving no stone unturned.

Suckit

I'm only really curious as to boy A.
If he had spoken, he may have also caught himself up in lies. It is also possible he was still in shock (and maybe is still shaken) by what he did. I hope he is.
It wouldn't excuse a thing he did. But if it was/is the case, he may show some signs of regret at a later date, or hopefully some signs of remorse.
He may have found the actual act of murder a lot more traumatising than he thought he would.

I also wonder how heavily monitored their internet activity is in Oberstown. Are they reading this thread?
Does anyone know how strict it is?

tuxy

Suckit wrote: »

I also wonder how heavily monitored their internet activity is in Oberstown. Are they reading this thread?
Does anyone know how strict it is?

Internet access?
It's not an open prison, there aren't people constantly smuggling in mobile phones and drugs!

Suckit

tuxy wrote: »

Internet access?
It's not an open prison, there aren't people constantly smuggling in mobile phones and drugs!

They have internet access, it is limited, but I'm sure I read something about circumstances allowing more internet access to them in more recent times (it may have been up for review).

I was just wondering how limited it currently is.

McCrack

Very limited and limited for educational purposes

Gadgetman496

Slightly off topic but worrying all the same

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0716/1063373-attack-child/

Vicarious Function

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but worrying all the same

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0716/1063373-attack-child/

I'm also wondering if this has arisen as a result of details of Ana's attack being broadcast. The eldest child, a boy, is ten years old. Old enough to influence two other younger boys to attack a young girl, 5 and a half, in an abandoned shed. Lucky for her that she managed to escape and good on her parents that they reported it to the Police.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just ten, when they murdered James Bolger.

Back on track, Thompson and Venables received one to one tutoring while in detention.

Am just wondering how Boys A and B will occupy their time during the Summer Hols (apart from psychological testing) and will they have one to one tutoring during Sept and October while they await their sentencing on Oct. 29. All at tax-payers' expense, of course!

Fakediamond

tuxy wrote: »

Internet access?
It's not an open prison, there aren't people constantly smuggling in mobile phones and drugs!

I dunno, I am aware that there’s huge pressure on kids on day/weekend passes to bring drugs in on their return, and they do.

tuxy

Fakediamond wrote: »

I dunno, I am aware that there’s huge pressure on kids on day/weekend passes to bring drugs in on their return, and they do.

Actually good point, I guess those on good behaviour get to spend some time with their family. I can't see much money to be made like in regular prisons but maybe the pressure you talk about is enough.

mrjoneill

Suckit wrote: »

I think Oranage2 meant (and said) that there was no evidence to prove anything on Boy B. The first sentence was a separate point.
I agree with that (there was no physical evidence).

It's also hard to know where to start explaining any belief of what happened, as that's all it is. Guessing.
But going by the evidence we are privy to (in a nutshell so missing a bit).
Boy B was only caught (imo) because he was brought in to make a statement before he believed he was a suspect. At the time he still believed he was only 'helping' the Gardaí locate her.
Facts:
- by filling them with lies.
When Ana was found, Boy B's statement was reviewed along with cctv footage, and he had to lie again to explain why the cctv and his statement didn't match up. And then the lies continued (for over 16 hours of statements).

After many different statements (some of which have been published), One is of Boy B admitting that he was in the house and watched Boy A attack her.
His (I think) final statement says he ran away after watching Boy A flip her over and take off her top, because he was afraid.

Boy B walked home and stopped off at the park rangers hut to get a drink of water. (according to himself, witnesses and cctv) .
Once home he finished his homework and went upstairs to watch Anime on his TV in his bedroom.
The Gardaí called to his house that night (looking for Ana) and he was surprised to see them, but still calm. And never mentioned Boy A, the house or anything that he had seen.

A year later - and even though a lot of what he said did not match up, the father knew at the very least, his son had called into Ana's house, convinced her to come out, thought she was a weirdo and not somebody he liked, walked with her for 3km to bring her to an abandoned house and watched his friend whom he brought her to meet, beat her and strip her to her underwear.

Boy B then says he ran away 'sprinting'.
He cannot account for 35 minutes from when he ran away to when turns up again on cctv walking.

I am not blaming the parents, nor have I, for this heinous crime, but I do believe that Boy B's father is either not the brightest individual and that is why he erupted in court.
Or
He is just (putting it mildly) an inconsiderate ****ing idiot that is aware of everything that has happened and what Ana's parents have been through for a year (and will continue to go through for the rest of their lives), but still thought that was the best time to shout out - Because lets be honest, if he isn't stupid, he must have been able to see that his son had a hand in her death.
Albeit without any physical proof that he physically had a hand.
The father chose to believe everything his son said, and I can't blame him for that, but do think that there is a point when you have to stop believing, and murder would definitely be after that point.

Boy B claims to have watched Boy A strip her by pulling her top off over her head, but it was ripped off her.

Impossible to put bullet points in a nutshell, as I found out when I tried. There are tons of articles and each one gives a little bit of evidence/statements that were seen and heard in court that aren't in other publications.

Boy B's synopsis
https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-b-ana-kriegel-murder-trial-4657833-Jun2019/

You left out most importantly Boy B was able to mark on a sketch where Ana's body was found. Incidentally Ana's body only clothing when found was "wearing socks". Where Ana's body was found was not where she was brutally beaten to death. Boy B did not state Ana was beaten with a weapon which she clearly was when standing as indicated by the blood spatter. This seems to be close to the room door, Boy B does not state Ana was beaten with a weapon when she was on the ground. And finally Ana was dragged by the ligature around her neck provided by Boy B to the place where she was found, the back of the room. Only thing one can deduce is Boy B was present for the vicious assault till the very end. Boy B also stated that he became aware of Boy A had the crotch of his pants open when he stood-up, Obv this is to do with the sex assault aspect but Boy B does not inform exactly what was the sex-assault. And confusing what I understand from CCTV & clothes washed by his mother, this was a tracksuit-bottoms.
Its my belief to the reason Boy B lied so much & did not provide an accurate description of what took place is because it would highlight the degree of his own involvement. I do believe Boy B led Ana into the dark room where she was found and upon entering this room was an immediate viciously assaulted by Boy A to the degree she had a broken eye socket and deep scalp wounds. The nature of the assault was sheer savagery yet he had no problems over it.

mrjoneill

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I'm also wondering if this has arisen as a result of details of Ana's attack being broadcast. The eldest child, a boy, is ten years old. Old enough to influence two other younger boys to attack a young girl, 5 and a half, in an abandoned shed. Lucky for her that she managed to escape and good on her parents that they reported it to the Police.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just ten, when they murdered James Bolger.

Back on track, Thompson and Venables received one to one tutoring while in detention.

Am just wondering how Boys A and B will occupy their time during the Summer Hols (apart from psychological testing) and will they have one to one tutoring during Sept and October while they await their sentencing on Oct. 29. All at tax-payers' expense, of course!

I would not think its absolutely nothing to do with Ana's trial. Long before the internet I do remember isolated cases of children assaulting other children. I remember one case where a child 10 or 12 led a group of younger children to an isolated abandoned house and where he forced the children to sexually assault each other, ordered them to remove their clothing and which I found most offensive rubbed dog excrement into the kids hair. This was a neighboring child well known to the victims. I do recall another case where a teenager with mental health issues approached neighboring kids who knew him and asked them to expose themselves to him, which some did. While these crimes are isolated I do believe they have been always happening.

mrjoneill

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I'd say even more so Reality by now is beginning to click in with these two Boys. They're probably realising after their day in court with their Parents today, that their friends from school are now off on the Summer Hols free to run around as they please, enjoying their freedom, which the Boys now don't have.

Yes indeed theses two monsters have a lot of time to reflect on what they did as their peers now have a long hot summer to roam the beautiful park where they lived with the Liffey flowing through it. They have no access to social media and very limited internet, I presume.They are missing the most idealistic period of their lives their mid-teens. I would imagine these are locked up most of the time to stop both meeting and to prevent other "inmates" having a go at them. It would seem at the trial Boy B was wishing it was all a bad nightmare and he could wake up and go home to life prior.
Wonder will the psychiatric/psychological assessment give us any clearer view to what actually took place. Is Boy A going to exercise his right to silence which I believe he will and Boy B going to attempt to fabricate the truth as he has done?

Suckit

mrjoneill wrote: »

You left out.....

I left out loads. I was trying to point out some points without going into every detail.

I found that a lot harder than I thought.

Vicarious Function

mrjoneill wrote: »

Yes indeed theses two monsters have a lot of time to reflect on what they did as their peers now have a long hot summer to roam the beautiful park where they lived with the Liffey flowing through it. They have no access to social media and very limited internet, I presume.They are missing the most idealistic period of their lives their mid-teens. I would imagine these are locked up most of the time to stop both meeting and to prevent other "inmates" having a go at them. It would seem at the trial Boy B was wishing it was all a bad nightmare and he could wake up and go home to life prior.
Wonder will the psychiatric/psychological assessment give us any clearer view to what actually took place. Is Boy A going to exercise his right to silence which I believe he will and Boy B going to attempt to fabricate the truth as he has done?

All of that, but most importantly they will miss developing relationships with girls. Prior to what they've done they might have had some chance of developing this in a normal way. They've now forfeited this forever, it seems. As always seems to happen with "monsters" such as these, there will be a girl (girls) who will write to them, thinking they are in love or can reform them. I imagine all of these boys' mail will be monitored by staff, as it comes in.

LollipopJimmy

Vicarious Function wrote: »

I'm also wondering if this has arisen as a result of details of Ana's attack being broadcast. The eldest child, a boy, is ten years old. Old enough to influence two other younger boys to attack a young girl, 5 and a half, in an abandoned shed. Lucky for her that she managed to escape and good on her parents that they reported it to the Police.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just ten, when they murdered James Bolger.

Back on track, Thompson and Venables received one to one tutoring while in detention.

Am just wondering how Boys A and B will occupy their time during the Summer Hols (apart from psychological testing) and will they have one to one tutoring during Sept and October while they await their sentencing on Oct. 29. All at tax-payers' expense, of course!

What is the alternative to the emboldened? At some point, no matter what the sentence these two boys will reenter society, I would rather they were educated and an attempt at rehabilitation before this happens

A2LUE42

Just saw a story in todays Independent about an incident two weeks ago in the north east of the country where 'A five-year-old girl was “lured” to a derelict house and beaten by three young boys who allegedly attempted to sexually assault her in a shed before the child escaped and raised the alarm.'

Was this some sort of copy cat or what is going on that is giving really young children the idea to do this?

Vicarious Function

A2LUE42 wrote: »

Just saw a story in todays Independent about an incident two weeks ago in the north east of the country where 'A five-year-old girl was “lured” to a derelict house and beaten by three young boys who allegedly attempted to sexually assault her in a shed before the child escaped and raised the alarm.'

Was this some sort of copy cat or what is going on that is giving really young children the idea to do this?

We've been discussing this going back a few posts. Have you not read them?

Vicarious Function

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

What is the alternative to the emboldened? At some point, no matter what the sentence these two boys will reenter society, I would rather they were educated and an attempt at rehabilitation before this happens

Of course! Rehabilitation has to be in the picture. Just saying this does not come cheap! And the Taxpayer carries the can.

ohnonotgmail

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Of course! Rehabilitation has to be in the picture. Just saying this does not come cheap! And the Taxpayer carries the can.

It comes a lot cheaper than not doing it.

Vicarious Function

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It comes a lot cheaper than not doing it.

Probably right there, ohnonotgmail! :P

Also from what I've read re the James Bolger murderers, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, providing a new identity does not come cheap either. Apparently it's very expensive.

PS I don't know why "Venables" has appeared as the title of this post. Can't remove it.

LollipopJimmy

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Of course! Rehabilitation has to be in the picture. Just saying this does not come cheap! And the Taxpayer carries the can.

Rehabilitating a couple of murderers is a worthwhile expense.

iamwhoiam

Well I hope the parents have to pay for school books and school equipment for them . And use the children’s allowance for their extras in there . Then they are still responsible for them

ohnonotgmail

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Well I hope the parents have to pay for school books and school equipment for them . And use the children’s allowance for their extras in there . Then they are still responsible for them

the parents will not be paid childrens allowance while their children are in oberstown.