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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No actually it's not. Presence at the murder scene or not trying to stop the murder are not legal justifications for a murder conviction.

And yet here we are. A murder conviction.

Foreknowledge and conspiracy to murder are. But that's not what the poster said.

And therefore the jury must have accepted this too because there is a murder conviction.

You might know more than this judge, and the DPP and the legal system on this one but I doubt it.

You started off by claiming that there might be a technicality on the inadmissible evidence (and certainly that might be grounds for an appeal) and that the gardai might have interviewed coercively, something you seem to have recanted on.

Now you are claiming that the entire Irish legal system doesn’t know what constitutes murder but you do.

Huge if true. Heads should roll.

Seathrun66

anewme wrote: »

Same as when he went to bed when his son was interviewed at the front door for an hour by Gardai as being the last to see a missing girl alive.

Where does it say an hour. Reports from the court and newspapers said a brief talk at the door.

ILoveYourVibes

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Liking horror films, being into martial arts, for instance, doesn't necessarily mean anything sinister.

For a child it might to be honest. Childhood needs a certain watershed of innocence before children can mature.

JustAThought

Seathrun66 wrote: »

It's pretty strong and consistent evidence going by the Irish Times and other reporting. Not to include it will give grounds for appeal for starters. I think it's clear he was at the scene but crucial questions are for how long and what was his role there? Captured leaving on CCTV soon after. At best he's a weak kid who did nothing to intervene and lied to protect himself. At worst he's a murderer.

Yes. Guilty.
Murderer.
And monster.

mattser

I just want to give a little appreciation to the Gardai and all other services that were involved in this most distressing event.
You would have to have a heart of stone to go home and sleep well.

petrolcan

Hal3000 wrote: »

Will Ana's parents be offered the same treatment?

Let's hope so.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

It's pretty strong and consistent evidence going by the Irish Times and other reporting. Not to include it will give grounds for appeal for starters. I think it's clear he was at the scene but crucial questions are for how long and what was his role there? Captured leaving on CCTV soon after. At best he's a weak kid who did nothing to intervene and lied to protect himself. At worst he's a murderer.

He will probably admit to murder in a year or so. Gut feeling.

Sunflower 27

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

For a child it might to be honest. Childhood needs a certain watershed of innocence before children can mature.

Weren't the Scream films targeted at teenagers?

Faugheen

Seathrun66 wrote: »

It's pretty strong and consistent evidence going by the Irish Times and other reporting. Not to include it will give grounds for appeal for starters. I think it's clear he was at the scene but crucial questions are for how long and what was his role there? Captured leaving on CCTV soon after. At best he's a weak kid who did nothing to intervene and lied to protect himself. At worst he's a murderer.

'Weak kid' my hole.

He orchestrated the whole thing.

PressRun

I also hope this case opens up some dialogue about how we speak to and about young girls and women. Ana was sexually harassed in school which eventually led to her being assaulted and murdered. She is not the first young girl to experience this kind of harassment and she won't be the last. The normalisation of certain language and behaviours around women and girls makes it so much easier to dehumanise them and ultimately harm them. To even hear one of the boys refer to Ana as a "slut" after he knew she had been murdered speaks to a warped view of women at a very young age.

ILoveYourVibes

petrolcan wrote: »

Let's hope so.

I doubt it. I think they will be left alone.

I hope their community doesn't leave them alone in the dark.

Sardonicat

Shemale wrote: »

jmayo wrote: »

From humberlog earlier



Very weird alright.
I mean how many of us wouldn't scamper off to bed when our 13 year old kid is being chatted to at the door by Gardai.
And especially so when they have already been talking for an hour.

One might even leap to the conclusion he has nothing, but contempt for the Gardai.
Oh and couldn't give shyte when a young girl around the same age as his son and in the same school is missing.

Even the fact they didnt ask the Gardai in is weird, clearly a cover up.

I recall a rumour at the time it happened that one of the fathers dads roughed him to to make it look lile he was attacked by men, seemed odd to me at time but might be possible given this and calling Gardai scumbags

Except it was A who claimed he was beaten up.

tuxy

Shemale wrote: »

I recall a rumour at the time it happened that one of the fathers dads roughed him to to make it look lile he was attacked by men, seemed odd to me at time but might be possible given this and calling Gardai scumbags

This came out in the trial, Boy A claimed he was attacked by two adults in the park to explain injuries he had.
There was nothing said that would indicated abuse from his father.
It would seem the trial continues on whatapp and I find it worrying that many on here take some pleasure from participating in this.

STB.

spaceHopper wrote: »

The sentence for murder is life no matter what, you can't be given a lighter sentence for pleading guilty - so they had nothing to gain by doing so. The prosecution had to prove she didn't consent to sex with boy A and that they planned to kill her, they this wasn't something gone wrong and man-slaughter

Except in the case of minors. Whilst they are tried as adults in the Circuit or Central Criminal Court due to the nature of the charge, i.e. murder, the Children’s Act is silent on mandatory sentences, but the legal consensus is they don’t apply to children even in cases of murder.

This has come up several times in the thread. Naming - why they weren't named, will they ever be if they are released.

Strangely there have been cases before in Ireland where the murderer was named at the time despite being a minor. I don't know why in that case. The Criminal Justice Act made amendments to the Childrens Act in 2006 so perhaps it was before it. In any event he was named at the time and again when he was released 12 years later.

The Journal claims that the gagging order remains indefinitely for the two found guilty today, even after they reach 18 and are eventually released.

I believe that only a Judge can release the gag on naming if he/she believes it is the public interest to do so.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I'll just post this again...

"Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender."

Exactly. That’s the law here.

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I'll just post this again...

"Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender."

Foreknowledge of the crime is required. I very much doubt that Boy B had that. He states that he thought Boy A was joking when talking about harming her. He provided materials. But did he know a murder was about to take place? And if so why go to her house and thus become the prime or only suspect?

ILoveYourVibes

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe he was the chief organizer and planner of the whole lot.

He was at least equal. Kids can 'goad' each other. Maybe he thought he could talk his way out of it.

Plus he was injured.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He gave the other boy the cord to choke her with. He lured her there. He watched while she was sexually assaulted and beaten to death.

I would say he did even more.

Like what? Given a complete absence of DNA or other forensic evidence tying him to the scene. The only was anyone knows he was there is due to his own admissions.

gctest50

Sardonicat wrote: »

What about the older boy who propositioned Ana for sex and slapped her on the bum? A fecking caution! !!

Or the 3rd year lad who harrassing her on her youtube channel with sexual comments when she was in 6th class? 6th class.!

And he would have known it too because he knew enough about her to make fun of her for having a "fake" mum and Dad ............

<snip>* seems to a cesspit of paedos and now murderers

Slapping a primary school kid on the arse and propositioning her for sex ?






( * before anyone starts, it comes up now before you finish typing Ana K case)

Nerdlingr

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Exactly. That’s the law here.

Yep. It's basically as simple as that. That is the exact wording set out in Irish Law.

The prosecution presented a case where Boy A discusses with Boy B about killing Ana. Boy B gives Boy A building tape. Boy B then lures Ana to meet Boy A. Boy B watches as the attack starts. Whether he sees her die we will probably never know. Boy B then continually lies.

Aiding and abeting. The jury believed it. Tried as a principal offender. Murder. Job done.

LillySV

magic_murph wrote: »

Bit harsh to be fair.

Did you hear what the dad of child b said after the judgement ?

Sardonicat

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe he was the chief organizer and planner of the whole lot.

He was at least equal. Kids can 'goad' each other. Maybe he thought he could talk his way out of it.

Plus he was injured.

Boy B was not injured

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They were in the room. I am sure they FELT it was aimed at them.

Why would they? And again stick to the facts here. There's enough nonsense and conjecture being spouted here. The Dad may not be a nice guy. But he may also possibly be a decent man who has seen his son convicted of murder and he believed it was unjustified.

Sunflower 27

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Foreknowledge of the crime is required. I very much doubt that Boy B had that. He states that he thought Boy A was joking when talking about harming her. He provided materials. But did he know a murder was about to take place? And if so why go to her house and thus become the prime or only suspect?

Because he believed, wrongly, that if he didn't actually do anything to her then he would get away with it?

He was quite adamant he just left at the park to start with. That was what he planned to say, until under pressure he cracked and admitted the truth

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Eh, that's exactly my point.

Anyone who aids or abets a principal offender can be tried as a principal offender themself.
Hence why Boy B was found guilty of murder.

Once more, foreknowledge of the intended offence is required for conviction. And the Appeal will rule on whether that was present. The evidence implies it wasn't.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Foreknowledge of the crime is required. I very much doubt that Boy B had that. He states that he thought Boy A was joking when talking about harming her. He provided materials. But did he know a murder was about to take place? And if so why go to her house and thus become the prime or only suspect?

They had the conversation about killing her. Boy B was shown to be a continual liar. Is it plausible that they hatched a plan to kill her...yes given the circumstances! Prosecution presented it and the jury believed it.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Foreknowledge of the crime is required. I very much doubt that Boy B had that. He states that he thought Boy A was joking when talking about harming her. He provided materials. But did he know a murder was about to take place? And if so why go to her house and thus become the prime or only suspect?

He did.

Zombie mask killer Boy A had a sick interest in violent porn which included searches for child abuse and women being forced to have sex with animals.
Gardai downloaded more than 5,000 files from two mobile phones found inside the then 13-year-old killer’s house.
An expert uncovered these files were pornographic images of violence against children and women.
The search history evidence on those phones was not included in the trial as the judge believed it would “unbalance” the jury’s deliberations.


In one search he typed “Anastasia has the perfect body for f%&king”.

And “Teen sweet Russian”

What kind of 14 yr old boy has a friend like that?

Stoner

Gimme A Pound wrote:

I've seen levelheaded people on this thread, whom I'm pretty sure are parents, condemn the boys' parents. I don't buy the notion that people would stick by their children no matter what. When it comes to horrors like this, I hope not.

Exactly. I grew up knowing there were actions I'd be disowned for, or at least thought I would. It was part of a deterrent, a duty to society.

You can still stand with your child, get them help and do the right thing while recognising they did something wrong.

I suspect that some patents think only they can speak of the parent child bond. Their bond is so strong that nobody else can understand it, yet they think they can measure other people's.

It's a monumental lack of empathy masked by a narcissistic view of their own relationship with their child. Its possibly not good for the childs moral development either.

Regardless of what happened up to the murder, including any potential tampering with evidence initially. There came a point when they chose to take stand for the wrong thing, to hide behind their love, people will understand.

No amount of pulling on fellow patents' heart strings should hide that imo. It's a weakness in character, "don't judge it, it might happen to you"

I would be sick with shame if my boy did something like this, personally I'd be finished.

But

He'd still be my boy. I'd still love him. I'd have to make decisions and do what I though was right, ultimately for him too. This is the time to consider other parents, particularly the ones left with nothing, that's the heart string to pull.

Seathrun66

tayto lover wrote: »

Ah ok, that makes it alright then. He’s a nice man so.

He may well be. He may not. Not sure how I'd react if my son was convicted of murder. Particularly if there was little evidence. Can't say I'd be composed.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Once more, foreknowledge of the intended offence is required for conviction. And the Appeal will rule on whether that was present. The evidence implies it wasn't.

The fact Boy B brought up the conversation they previously had is foreknowledge. He literally said Boy A told him he wanted to kill Ana.