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

Sardonicat

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

She would not have been murdered if he didn't deliver her to boy 'A'

He played a huge part in her murder.

All true. But if he didn't know that Boy A intended to kill her then he's not guilty of murder.

He IS guilty of murder. The verdict is in.

STB.

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting enraged about. All we had to go on was media reports. Are you disputing that? I wasn't in the courtroom. Were you? I'm not doubting the media's veracity, btw. Never said I was.

Enraged ? You were making statements that we have only the reporting to go on. As distinct from what ? Are you used to watching criminal cases on the TV or something ?

Well if your not doubting the accuracy of the published court reporting by journalists, I don't know what your point is/was.

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're making in the second paragraph as it appears to be missing punctuation. I think you're saying the defence may never have called Colm Humphries as he might have been cross-examined by the prosecution and said that "Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give garda" to quote you.

Calling him was exactly the risk they were willing to take, but the judge ruled it out.

Well if you cant understand it, go back and read it again.

Yes, the Judge ruled it out, but I have asked you the question several times at this stage. Do you think they defense would have used it (when it was meant to explain the "inconsistencies" of the 8 interviews) when infact it reportedly would have led to the emergence of even more details that hadn't been disclosed to the Gardai in the previous 8 interviews ?

Also you seem to think think that it could be grounds for appeal, because of the judges dis allowance ?

Is it a full moon tonight or something ? Right I'm off.

Hoboo

Sardonicat wrote: »

As far as the jury were concerned, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was their job to deliberate, not yours or mine.

Thanks for your insight. I can analyse a case and hold opinion on the jurys decision. I think they made a balls of it.

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The psychologists testimony could have prejudiced Boy A's sexual assault charge.
No DNA or forensic evidence is needed here as
Boy B puts himself at the crime scene after luring the victim there and watches the attack take place.
Boy B provided the builders tape used in the murder of Ana.
Boy B and A had a conversation a month previously about Boy A's plans to kill Ana....Foreknowledge.

No doubt they'll probably appeal it. But I don't see what they have to go on to be honest.
PTSD affected him so much that he lied in the interviews? Maybe. The truth still came out though.
Gardai were heavy handed or coerced him in the interviews? Going by reports...not a hope.

Only placed at the crime scene by his own testimony. How long was he there and what role? Did he egg Boy A on or freeze when he saw what was happening then run?

He could have given him builder's tape for any amount of innocent reasons. School project or repair of some item at home. Or fully aware what it would eventually be used for.

Only evidence of the conversation in which Boy A said he'd like to kill Ana is from Boy B. And he dismissed it at the time. He could have not mentioned it and could be at home this evening.

I don't doubt that the Gardai questioning was done properly. Too much to lose if it hadn't been. But I don't believe this case against Boy B is proven and think he will be freed on Appeal.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The second quote was from an interview related to Boy B admitting to witnessing rape. He never said that in court. I ask you what interview you got that information from. I posit that it's an unreliable source.

He told the guards.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-case-16209873

One of the boys who denies murdering Anastasia Kriegel told gardai he saw his co-accused "raping" the 14-year-old schoolgirl, the Central Criminal Court has heard.
Boy B said he ran away when he realised what was happening

He also perfectly described the room she was killed in.

Boy B said his co-accused "kind of climbed on top of her" and started choking her.He said Boy A was choking her when he started "grabbing" her clothes.
He said he saw Boy A take off her jumper, t-shirt and then her pants and was about to take off her bra when he started choking her again and looked over to where Boy B was standing at the door.
He described seeing Boy A using his right hand to choke her while his left hand was on her bra.
Boy B described Boy A's face as "blank", showing no emotions.
Ana, he said, was crying and kept saying: "No, don't do this, please."

He was sure there long enough.

Seathrun66

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

What do you mean ?

Right-wing papers went mad. 16/17 years after unsafe convictions and unhappy they'd been released.

ILoveYourVibes

We're all lucky to be alive.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He has admitted to knowing he was luring her.

Plus he likes Pew Die Pie. If that's not enough....

Innocent people don't lie.

Did he say 'luring'? Or simply say he was taking her to meet Boy A.

And plenty of people lie. As the judge correctly stated to the jury in summing up.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

Not sure why he'd lie. Could be guilty of something, could be fearful, I don't know.

Why not intervene? He's a quiet non sporty boy, boy A is tall, strong and does martial arts. At 13 you know who to pick your battles with.

What I do know is from the evidence provided, I think it's a pretty weak conviction. Not saying it's right or wrong, I just think it's weak.

It's very hard to think of an innocent explanation for walking 3km with Ana to an abandoned house where he knows A is waiting inside. He must have told lies to Ana to get her to go there and he knows A doesn't like Ana.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Right-wing papers went mad. 16/17 years after unsafe convictions and unhappy they'd been released.

This boy has admitted to the very least luring a girl to a boy he knew was into sexual abuse. Has admitted to seeing her raped and killed. Knew the place inside out in his description. GAVE the killer the weapon. And rather than call police to HELP her, lied for weeks.

He was afraid the other boy would snake him. Which leads me to believe he touched her and there was physical evidence he was afraid they might find.

Seathrun66

Sardonicat wrote: »

He IS guilty of murder. The verdict is in.

Absolutely. And is now a convicted murderer. But beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so and believe he'll be freed in 18-24 months.

ILoveYourVibes

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very hard to think of an innocent explanation for walking 3km with Ana to an abandoned house where he knows A is waiting inside. He must have told lies to Ana to get her to go there and he knows A doesn't like Ana.

Yep. Snake.

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Only placed at the crime scene by his own testimony. How long was he there and what role? Did he egg Boy A on or freeze when he saw what was happening then run?

Own Admissions.

Criminal Law Act, 1997
Penalties for assisting offenders

7.—(1) 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.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/14/section/7/enacted/en/html

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. And is now a convicted murderer. But beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so and believe he'll be freed in 18-24 months.

At most i think it will be reduced to a lesser charge. He won't walk Scott free.

brooke 2

Faugheen wrote: »

Exactly this for me. He lied and lied and lied some more in the police interviews and everytime he tried to throw Boy A under the bus.

Boy B is the orchestrator of this, 100%. No doubt some people will think he was easily led though.

He went from leaving them in the park to watching her die in the farmhouse in a matter of 8 Garda interviews. If he was innocently led, he would have sung straight away.

Totally agree that Boy B was the orchestrator. Even afterwards, when their friends knew both boys had been brought in for questioning, while Boy A was nervous and shaky, Boy B's demeanour was perfectly calm. There was no doubt he was the more clever of the two, knew what Boy A's 'interests' were, and, possibly even egged him on to carry out the horrific murder.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He told the guards.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-case-16209873



He also perfectly described the room she was killed in.




He was sure there long enough.

Thanks for the link. Only he will ever know why he didn't intervene. He either enjoyed it or was petrified.

Nerdlingr

Hoboo wrote: »

Being at the scene of a murder and doing nothing is not a crime.

Giving someone tape is not a crime.

No plan to kill was ever discussed. Yes Boy A asked B would he like to kill, and that he would like to kill Ana, but no plan, that we know of, was discussed.

Only thing they can go on was that he wasn't aware of Boy A's intentions. I think it'll be harder to prove that he was aware than not. Beyond reasonable doubt being key.

Where did I say being at a scene of a murder and doing nothing is a crime?

Giving someone tape and then them using the tape to kill someone is a crime, If you know what that tape will be used for. Along with the luring to the abandoned house.
This is aiding and abeting.

We do not know if they discussed a plan to kill Ana for sure. So to say no plan was ever discussed is false. The fact is we do not know. What we do know is Boy B stated Boy A told him he wanted to kill Ana but he didn't believe him. In trying to implicate his friend he implicates himself.

The only thing we can go is not that he wasnt aware of boy A's intentions but the facts...

That boy B stated boy A discussed killing ana
That boy B gave him the tape
That boy B led ana to the farmhouse
That boy B watched the attack happen
That bit B continually changed his story to fit what the Gardai knew about it

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Did he say 'luring'? Or simply say he was taking her to meet Boy A.

And plenty of people lie. As the judge correctly stated to the jury in summing up.

He admitted he lied to her.

ILoveYourVibes

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Where did I say being at a scene of a murder and doing nothing is a crime?

Giving someone tape and then them using the tape to kill someone is a crime, If you know what that tape will be used for. Along with the luring to the abandoned house.
This is aiding and abeting.

We do not know if they discussed a plan to kill Ana for sure. So to say no plan was ever discussed is false. The fact is we do not know. What we do know is Boy B stated Boy A told him he wanted to kill Ana but he didn't believe him. In trying to implicate his friend he implicates himself.

The only thing we can go is not that he wasnt aware of boy A's intentions but the facts...

That boy B stated boy A discussed killing ana
That boy B gave him the tape
That boy B led ana to the farmhouse
That boy B watched the attack happen
That bit B continually changed his story to fit what the Gardai knew about it

We know they discussed killing Ana.

Hoboo

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very hard to think of an innocent explanation for walking 3km with Ana to an abandoned house where he knows A is waiting inside. He must have told lies to Ana to get her to go there and he knows A doesn't like Ana.

Completely agree with you, no doubt he lured her there and he had to have known it was for something sinister. But the evidence to prove he knew Boy A intended to murder her is very weak. Which means there's doubt.

But look, I haven't seen interview tapes or anything, just going on the IT report and other media, so like most, it's just an unqualified opinion.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We know they discussed killing Ana.

Exactly what innocent person, lures someone to an abandoned house to meet a person who asked if they wanted to murder them

Strazdas

brooke 2 wrote: »

Totally agree that Boy B was the orchestrator. Even afterwards, when their friends knew both boys had been brought in for questioning, while Boy B was nervous and shaky, Boy B's demeanour was perfectly calm. There was no doubt he was the more clever of the two, knew what Boy A's 'interests' were, and, possibly even egged him on to carry out the horrific murder.

Also, jurors would have seen his demeanour in the eight interviews. The interviews and how he was coming across seem to have played a big part in getting him convicted, not just the bare evidence.

ILoveYourVibes

How strong are 13 yr old boys? Girls mature earlier. I know i was pretty strong at 13 ...as a girl i think i could fight for my life. But TWO 13 yr old boys ...??

And boy b had injuries. So how did he get them???

brooke 2

Mech1 wrote: »

I would wager that a few more kids in that school might have known what these two where planning, girls included.

I would be concerned about the few other names, beside A's and B's, that were in Boy B's copybook which contained details of their 'satanic cult'. Horrifying to think there could be other schoolmates out there with the same mindset as these two murderers.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This boy has admitted to the very least luring a girl to a boy he knew was into sexual abuse. Has admitted to seeing her raped and killed. Knew the place inside out in his description. GAVE the killer the weapon. And rather than call police to HELP her, lied for weeks.

He was afraid the other boy would snake him. Which leads me to believe he touched her and there was physical evidence he was afraid they might find.

Again, 'luring' implies knowledge of a crime about to happen. Possibly aware, possibly not.

Had the other boy a history of sexual abuse? No. He may have believed that something consensual was about top occur as Ana liked Boy A.

The weapons were concrete and a stick (?) or blunt instrument. Did Boy B give them to Boy A? I think not.

If innocent then no excuse for not calling the police and continuing to lie. I try putting myself in his place as a thirteen year old. I assume I'd act and take on Boy A even if much more physically powerful. I hope I would. But it's really hard to put yourself into the mindset of a kid like that (if innocent) if confronted by a wild assault on a girl. And running away trying to pretend it didn't happen.

Boy B may be as guilty as hell. He may not. But his conviction clearly is not strong.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

Completely agree with you, no doubt he lured her there and he had to have known it was for something sinister. But the evidence to prove he knew Boy A intended to murder her is very weak. Which means there's doubt.

But look, I haven't seen interview tapes or anything, just going on the IT report and other media, so like most, it's just an unqualified opinion.

The prosecution may be taking the view that if he believed A was 'merely' going to sexually assault or harass Ana, he had ample opportunity to confess to this and say "Look, things got totally out of hand". It was the lack of a confession and lack of remorse that landed him up on a murder charge.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We know they discussed killing Ana.

No they didn't. Boy A stated he'd kill her. Boy B didn't take it seriously. As I wouldn't have had my friend said that at 13. I remember pals saying they'd like to kill parents, teachers, etc. All bluster. Fortunately none of us ever got caught up in a situation where someone carried through with it. Nor anyone in the country up to now.

ILoveYourVibes

Hoboo wrote: »

But the evidence to prove he knew Boy A intended to murder her is very weak.

It's actually very strong.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Only placed at the crime scene by his own testimony. How long was he there and what role? Did he egg Boy A on or freeze when he saw what was happening then run?

He could have given him builder's tape for any amount of innocent reasons. School project or repair of some item at home. Or fully aware what it would eventually be used for.

Only evidence of the conversation in which Boy A said he'd like to kill Ana is from Boy B. And he dismissed it at the time. He could have not mentioned it and could be at home this evening.

I don't doubt that the Gardai questioning was done properly. Too much to lose if it hadn't been. But I don't believe this case against Boy B is proven and think he will be freed on Appeal.

It's doesn't matter he was "only" placed at the crime scene by his own testimony. The FACT is he placed himself there. "Only" doesn't come into it. He admitted to being there.

He could have said nothing and rightly as you say be home having his dinner now and playing with his Lego. He's not. Thankfully he talked and lied himself into a murder conviction. Mention of the foreknowledge conversation got him locked up.

The tape could have been used for anything . Except it wasn't. It was used to attack Ana. Unfortunate for Boy B eh.

I can't see him being freed at all. None of your grounds for him walking free stand up. And the case for conviction has been proven. He was just found guilty of her murder today .

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How strong are 13 yr old boys? Girls mature earlier. I know i was pretty strong at 13 ...as a girl i think i could fight for my life. But TWO 13 yr old boys ...??

And boy b had injuries. So how did he get them???

Boy B had no injuries.

No DNA link between Boy B and Ana either.