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

Gimme A Pound

A Summer In Provence wrote: »

Ana’s parents mentioned in their testimony to the court that she was bullied relentlessly throughout her time at secondary school.

I hope school principals and boards of management the length and breath of this country pay attention to this case, while two boys were convicted of murdering her, it would appear that lots of other young people excluded her or bullied her during her very short life.

Bullying can have catastrophic effects on victims with many carrying the pain around with them for life - it’s time to start taking it seriously. There is no point in having an anti bullying policy displayed on the school website or printed in the school prospectus - the policy shouldn’t be an aspiration document, it should be fully implemented and sanctions should be handed out as and when required.

Rest In Peace Ana - I hope your parents get some peace from today’s guilty verdict.

Oh I think the bullying is what ultimately led to her fate, and that it buoyed the lads up. A culture of "anything goes" when it came to that girl helped to dampen their conscience.

The two boys are of course the only ones responsible for killing Ana but the bullies have blood on their hands for helping to create that culture.

Faugheen

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus, people really have their brains warped by CSI, etc.

There is no one clever enough not to leave evidence if they were involved in a brutal murder, he wasn't involved in the actual killing that's why there is no physical evidence, the prosecution accepts this.

As for been clever, he called to the girls house in broad daylight and was seen doing it by several witnesses.

Neither of them is what I would call "clever".

Jesus, relax.

There was no evidence of his at the scene because he was clever enough not to leave any there. The only thing that had him at the scene were the words out of his own mouth (after lying multiple times).

He called for Ana but his initial story was to say he left her in the company of Boy A. Wasn’t going to be his problem.

If Boy A was the ring leader, then why did Boy B do everything in his power to throw Boy A under the bus? Why would Boy A make it blatantly obvious what happened if he was the one to orchestrate all of this?

Your version of Boy A being the ‘alpha’ makes no sense when you consider everything above. Boy B is the brains behind this, that’s why he had her killed but not a shred of evidence linking him to the crime until he said himself that he was there.

Gatling

sdanseo wrote: »

Boy A was clearly guilty, the book of evidence sounds like it was more of a mountain.

Seems like the second fella was led the whole way by the first, hadn't a clue of the seriousness of what he did. Said the below after hearing the visit and asked for Lego in Oberstown.

Could all be a ploy to get away with what he did ,play the immature child who doesn't believe he did anything wrong

Imhof Tank

This is it wrote: »

Of course Boy A was interviewed. I can only assume not much is made of his interview because of the concrete evidence they had against him, he could plead not guilty all he wanted but the evidence was overwhelming. With Boy B they had nothing but his statements, and that of Boy A, to implicate him in the murder.

You cant be forced to "help police with their enquiries" you know.

I thought A was only spoken to as part of the missing persons investigation when he was claiming he was beaten up. He wasn't convicted on the back of whatever he told the guards anyway, it was all forensics in his case.

B was voluntarily helping with enquiries AFAIK, accompanied by the father and solicitor, he wasn't under arrest when making those statements, at least the early ones. Regardless of what the father knows or suspects about the killing, any parent watching his 14 year old be convicted of murder is going to regret letting him be questioned.

lemmno

Read a post a few pages back that a youth club worker saw a group of kids get up whenever Ana came down to sit with them. I don’t understand why so many adults just watched things like that happen? Isolation is so cruel, those kids should have been told that they make everyone feel welcome or they’re not in the youth club. End of.

Hoboo

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Middle class is a broad term.

Any reason why the defense didn’t lodge a guilty plea?

They didn't even lodge a defense. Think they hoped the evidence wouldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Solicitor was a certain Lionel Hutz.

Larbre34

Turbohymac wrote: »

Good news..pity whatever short term they get behind bars will cost the taxpayers of Ireland about 100k per year for each ..
And will as always get free in a short few years..

It costs a lot more than that for a prisoner in Oberstown, simply to do with the higher ratio of staff and facilities costs at that location. A friend in the Prison Service reckoned it exceeds 300k per head per year. Also in their case, increased isolation may be required from the other inmates as sex offenders get much the same treatment in juvey as in adult prisons.

Mind you, I think I'd give my pension to ensure neither of these animals have an anonymous day of freedom in their lives again.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the jury. Having sat on a murder trial jury some years ago I can appreciate how draining it can be. Although my trial was a 'common or garden' murder as such, it would have taken massive strength and patience to endure this trial and all the details of it and then to analyse it all forensically over almost 12 hours, they clearly committed to the task at hand and I hope they will have some peace from the awfulness they faced and will be consoled that they provided a measure of justice for Ana and their fellow citizens.

PokeHerKing

Imhof Tank wrote:

Basically if he didn't talk there was no forensics on him, he would be free tonight not a bother on him, probably wouldn't even have been charged. The strategy in terms of how they dealt with the guards had to have been the parents' decision

Guilty or not guilty never talk to guards in a formal setting without a solicitor present.

If they've brought you in for questioning you're a suspect and anything you say can and will be used as evidence etc etc.

LLMMLL

Faugheen wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus, people really have their brains warped by CSI, etc.

There is no one clever enough not to leave evidence if they were involved in a brutal murder, he wasn't involved in the actual killing that's why there is no physical evidence, the prosecution accepts this.

As for been clever, he called to the girls house in broad daylight and was seen doing it by several witnesses.

Neither of them is what I would call "clever".

Jesus, relax.

There was no evidence of his at the scene because he was clever enough not to leave any there. The only thing that had him at the scene were the words out of his own mouth (after lying multiple times).

He called for Ana but his initial story was to say he left her in the company of Boy A. Wasn’t going to be his problem.

If Boy A was the ring leader, then why did Boy B do everything in his power to throw Boy A under the bus? Why would Boy A make it blatantly obvious what happened if he was the one to orchestrate all of this?

Your version of Boy A being the ‘alpha’ makes no sense when you consider everything above. Boy B is the brains behind this, that’s why he had her killed but not a shred of evidence linking him to the crime until he said himself that he was there.

Alpha? You could be a writer for Criminal Minds. It's obviously your favourite show.

Stheno

Imhof Tank wrote: »

You cant be forced to "help police with their enquiries" you know.

I thought A was only spoken to as part of the missing persons investigation when he was claiming he was beaten up. He wasn't convicted on the back of whatever he told the guards anyway, it was all forensics in his case.

B was voluntarily helping with enquiries AFAIK, accompanied by the father and solicitor, he wasn't under arrest when making those statements, at least the early ones. Regardless of what the father knows or suspects about the killing, any parent watching his 14 year old be convicted of murder is going to regret letting him be questioned.

Boy A was questioned about the blood on his boots

AllForIt

These guys appear to be utter trash on a scale rarely seen.

If what ppl are saying about them being out in no time is true then I hope this case sparks a review of the way the Judaical system deals with juvenile crime. I don't believe in rehabilitation in severe cases like this.

This is it

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus, relax.

There was no evidence of his at the scene because he was clever enough not to leave any there. The only thing that had him at the scene were the words out of his own mouth (after lying multiple times).

He called for Ana but his initial story was to say he left her in the company of Boy A. Wasn’t going to be his problem.

If Boy A was the ring leader, then why did Boy B do everything in his power to throw Boy A under the bus? Why would Boy A make it blatantly obvious what happened if he was the one to orchestrate all of this?

Your version of Boy A being the ‘alpha’ makes no sense when you consider everything above. Boy B is the brains behind this, that’s why he had her killed but not a shred of evidence linking him to the crime until he said himself that he was there.

You're giving Boy B far too much credit in my opinion, he talked himself in circles and gave 9 different accounts of what happened by the end. We don't know who the 'brains' of this was, and we'll likely never know. I would think that the only two that will ever know the whole truth are the two boys themselves.

Gatling

Correct me if I'm wrong wasn't Ana's blood found on both boys shoes ,

MrFresh

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Middle class is a broad term.

Any reason why the defense didn’t lodge a guilty plea?

I think there's no benefit to the defence of plea in a murder trial.

Stop moaning ffs

Boy B DEFINITELY the one pulling the strings
From the link above and Garda interview

‘When Daly showed him a picture of the crime scene with Ana’s body pixelated out, Boy B held his head in his hands and responded: “Jesus, one of my closest friends.” He quickly added he was referring to Boy A not Ana.

“Wait a minute. Holy ****. Oh my God,” he said when shown a picture of the insulation tape which had been wrapped around Ana’s neck. He told gardaí he had recently given the tape to Boy A.‘

Stheno

Gatling wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong wasn't Ana's blood found on both boys shoes ,

No just boy a

Faugheen

LLMMLL wrote: »

Alpha? You could be a writer for Criminal Minds. It's obviously your favourite show.

You need to read back through the chain of posts. Boggles was the one who first said ‘alpha’.

I was quoting him, hence the quotation marks. I think it’s a stupid term.

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

I would have hoped that the overriding feeling would be an abhorrence of murder instead of a desire for additional killings.

its not as clever as you might imagine to draw such a direct equivalency between the two bucks and their victim.

Suckit

sdanseo wrote: »

Boy A was clearly guilty, the book of evidence sounds like it was more of a mountain.

Seems like the second fella was led the whole way by the first, hadn't a clue of the seriousness of what he did. Said the below after hearing the visit and asked for Lego in Oberstown.

Horrific case. If the Bolger case hadn't happened I'd say it was society devaluing human life but the reality is there are just some sick twisted f*cks who can't be helped. Terrifying to think this kid could be walking the streets again in 10 years, a completely broken human and a danger to everyone.

I believe Boy B is a lot more involved than you would imagine.

Galwayguy35

What a short tragic life Ana had, she was bullied online by her classmates and then had the misfortune to cross paths with those 2 yokes.

Faugheen

This is it wrote: »

You're giving Boy B far too much credit in my opinion, he talked himself in circles and gave 9 different accounts of what happened by the end. We don't know who the 'brains' of this was, and we'll likely never know. I would think that the only two that will ever know the whole truth are the two boys themselves.

But every account threw Boy A in the firing line. He knew nothing about it, only that he left her in the company of Boy A, then it went all the way to being at the scene.

Read the reports of his demeanour in the Garda interviews. He wasn’t in the slightest bit intimidated by the surroundings he found himself in and he always had a response for his lies.

Gimme A Pound

py2006 wrote: »

There is no correlation between viewing porn and committing horrific murders.

It's like the people who blame playing video games for crimes or Marilyn Manson on Columbine.

We'd have multiple similar cases to the one in question on a daily basis if that was the case.

I don't think people are talking about just porn, but specifically violent porn.

And I don't think people are talking about murder but about sexual violence.

I don't think it caused the assault on Ana though, but I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation about the potential pitfalls of young teens having access to very extreme porn, in case there is the risk of even a little bit of inspiration in a rare instance.

Bobeagleburger

Boy A had child and animal porn searches on his computer. Not heard at the trial.

Kids aren't born like this.

jackboy

Boggles wrote: »

There is no one clever enough not to leave evidence if they were involved in a brutal murder, he wasn't involved in the actual killing that's why there is no physical evidence, the prosecution accepts this.

As for been clever, he called to the girls house in broad daylight and was seen doing it by several witnesses.

Neither of them is what I would call "clever".

I suspect that they chose her because of the widespread abuse that she received. As she was widely despised and isolated at school, in the back of their minds they may have thought that nobody would really care about her and they could get away with anything. Most teenagers live in a small bubble with their peer group which skews their thinking.

If she was never bullied it is highly unlikely that they would have chose her.

Imhof Tank

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Guilty or not guilty never talk to guards in a formal setting without a solicitor present.

If they've brought you in for questioning you're a suspect and anything you say can and will be used as evidence etc etc.

B had a solicitor present, didn't do him much good

If he had sat there said nothing and brazened it out, with no forensics on him, no way is he charged.

If the parents come in with a €4k report from a clinical psychologist to say he cant handle the pressure of questioning, no way is he charged.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

its not as clever as you might imagine to draw such a direct equivalency between the two bucks and their victim.

Exactly. I don't get why people do this.

I wouldn't endorse murdering the boys but to say a revenge murder for the butchering of an innocent victim is the same thing... is patently ridiculous.

LLMMLL

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Boy A had child and animal porn searches on his computer. Not heard at the trial.

Kids aren't born like this.

Yes they are

Imhof Tank

Stheno wrote: »

Boy A was questioned about the blood on his boots

Yes he may have been questioned but what did he say? No comment AFAIK

Shemale

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Scumbag A should never be allowed out. A pure blooded Psychopath that will rape and kill someone again.

B could be even more dangerous, its one thing being a murdered but to be callous enough to set it up and watch it happen, I think he had the satantic thing too. I wouldmt be surprised if B murders in the future.

Nerdlingr

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Boy B DEFINITELY the one pulling the strings
From the link above and Garda interview

‘When Daly showed him a picture of the crime scene with Ana’s body pixelated out, Boy B held his head in his hands and responded: “Jesus, one of my closest friends.” He quickly added he was referring to Boy A not Ana.

“Wait a minute. Holy ****. Oh my God,” he said when shown a picture of the insulation tape which had been wrapped around Ana’s neck. He told gardaí he had recently given the tape to Boy A.‘

That only proves that he was trying to save his own skin and throw his buddy under the bus.
He lied and lied and lied to try and get out of it, because he was the only one with a way out!
We'll never know who led who, or who was the one "pulling the strings".
If Boy A didn't have DNA all over him, he'd be lying through his teeth to try and get out of it too.