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

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Yep, intrigued by this case so thought I'd sign up. Not sure buzz words such as rape culture warrant a place in the discussion though. Especially if you are to contradict yourself straight after.

You can't censor words dick sorry.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You can't censor words dick sorry.

I can't. I can point out the severe lack of logical thinking in your posts though.

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Check out the Irish Times piece "The Complete Story." It's in there.

"This PTSD contributed to the boy telling the gardaí untruths in an effort to protect himself, he wrote. The doctor said it was his opinion that Boy B had no knowledge of what was going to happen to Ana that day. He said the boy was sexually naive and had gone to the house with Ana and Boy A in the hope of watching them “snogging.”"

I read it. I don't think it's in there. I think it was my own genius.

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

I can't. I can point out the severe lack of logical thinking in your posts though.

You can't censor types of thinking you don't like dick.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I read it. I don't think it's in there. I think it was my own genius.

It's in there. It's even in my post that you quoted.

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Check out the Irish Times piece "The Complete Story." It's in there.

"This PTSD contributed to the boy telling the gardaí untruths in an effort to protect himself, he wrote. The doctor said it was his opinion that Boy B had no knowledge of what was going to happen to Ana that day. He said the boy was sexually naive and had gone to the house with Ana and Boy A in the hope of watching them “snogging.”"

Ah ha. I was right.

Thinking illogically works!

I didn't even NEED heaps of interviews and evidence to work that one out!

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Ah ha. I was right.

Thinking illogically works!

I didn't even NEED heaps of interviews and evidence to work that one out!

Is there a point to what you're saying? Or are you trying to disguise the fact that you didn't read the article and made false claims as a result?

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Is there a point to what you're saying? Or are you trying to disguise the fact that you didn't read the article and made false claims as a result?

I made no false claims.

He said he and boy A discussed killing her. He gave really detailed descriptions of the house. He described Boy A raping and killing Ana.

He then made no attempts to save her. He lied and lied and lied.

Now I surmise. I think he knew EXACTLY what boy A wanted to do. And it was more than snogging. And he wanted to watch.

Maybe they didn't mean to kill her just rape her. But then they panicked.

I think he knew Ana wouldn't consent. Certainly not to everything Boy A had planned.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I made no false claims.

He said he and boy A discussed killing her. He gave really detailed descriptions of the house. He described Boy A raping and killing Ana.

He then made no attempts to save her. He lied and lied and lied.

Now I surmise. I think he knew EXACTLY what boy A wanted to do. And it was more than snogging. And he wanted to watch.

Maybe they didn't mean to kill her just rape her. But then they panicked.

Yeah that's fine. I agree. Not sure why you're saying all that tbh.

I'm referring to you saying there was no reference to snogging in the Irish Times article you claimed you read. You went out of your way to say it wasn't in there. It was.

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Yeah that's fine. I agree.

I'm referring to you saying there was no reference to snogging in the Irish Times article you claimed you read. You went out of your way to say it wasn't in there. It was.

ok fair nuff

pjohnson

Hearing about Boy B's da shouting around the courtroom. Good thing hes heavily protected aswell. Dont want any of the "innocents" getting consequences.

Fann Linn

pjohnson wrote: »

Hearing about Boy B's da shouting around the courtroom. Good thing hes heavily protected aswell. Dont want any of the "innocents" getting consequences.

I'd say the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree with that one.

Sunflower 27

pjohnson wrote: »

Hearing about Boy B's da shouting around the courtroom. Good thing hes heavily protected aswell. Dont want any of the "innocents" getting consequences.

I posted way back how much his behaviour disgusted me.

He also said in trial how much his son was led by his friends, implying he was made lure Ana to her death.

This man is either stupid and totally deluded or absolutely knows his son did what he did and set out to get him off at any cost.

The other thing that really got me was Boy A's barrister saying the DNA evidence on Ana's neck may have come from consensual intimacy and she may have agreed to intimacy with A. Her poor parents having to listen to that **** when the world and his dog knows that was absolutely not true.

Thank God they were found guilty.

Sunflower 27

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I made no false claims.

He said he and boy A discussed killing her. He gave really detailed descriptions of the house. He described Boy A raping and killing Ana.

He then made no attempts to save her. He lied and lied and lied.

Now I surmise. I think he knew EXACTLY what boy A wanted to do. And it was more than snogging. And he wanted to watch.

Maybe they didn't mean to kill her just rape her. But then they panicked.

I think he knew Ana wouldn't consent. Certainly not to everything Boy A had planned.

Like a kid would be excited to watch a bit of snogging. It's hardly taboo is it. Ridiculous.

spurious

I worry that had there been another local boy, who knew the layout of the house (and apparently it's a known hangout for kids in the area), who kept insisting he was there, but getting some details wrong (lying?), would that have been enough to convict him?

I'm not suggesting there actually was a third boy, but I'm trying to understand how somebody can incriminate themselves without any evidence to say what they said was true. Again, not saying it is in this case, but say you had a child who was fond of notice and telling stories, would they have been convicted too? Just to re-iterate, I'm not suggesting Boy B is such a child, just wondering is that the case here, if you say you did something/were somewhere, it is taken as absolute truth that you did?


How is it decided when the lies have stopped? When the current version matches what the police want/think?

petrolcan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That is a little disrespectful.

It really isn't.

Mrsmum

My general opinion is that Boy B was actively involved but tbh if I had to stake my children's lives on that, I wouldn't whereas I would for Boy A. I often have teenage boys here in my house and the amount of pure crap and bravado stuff they come out with is unbelievable. They seem to find inappropriate stuff totally hilarious and you're looking askance at them. But then they flip back to just silly young messers again. I think maybe it is possible that Boy B was going along with being a bit of a hardshaw with Boy A but that he never ever believed what happened would do. Maybe his mind didn't have the knowledge the other boy had so he couldn't imagine it. I think it's possible he thought they would give Ana a bad fright which of course is right nasty but nowhere near rape and murder. And when it was ongoing he realised what a physco Boy A was and froze. As I say mainly I think he was involved and actively so but not with 100% certainty.

petrolcan

anewme wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

Awful terrible thing as I posted in another reply.

Sunflower 27

spurious wrote: »

I worry that had there been another local boy, who knew the layout of the house (and apparently it's a known hangout for kids in the area), who kept insisting he was there, but getting some details wrong (lying?), would that have been enough to convict him?

I'm not suggesting there actually was a third boy, but I'm trying to understand how somebody can incriminate themselves without any evidence to say what they said was true. Again, not saying it is in this case, but say you had a child who was fond of notice and telling stories, would they have been convicted too? Just to re-iterate, I'm not suggesting Boy B is such a child, just wondering is that the case here, if you say you did something/were somewhere, it is taken as absolute truth that you did?


How is it decided when the lies have stopped? When the current version matches what the police want/think?

Was he caught on CCTV like the other two?

Sunflower 27

Mrsmum wrote: »

My general opinion is that Boy B was actively involved but tbh if I had to stake my children's lives on that, I wouldn't whereas I would for Boy A. I often have teenage boys here in my house and the amount of pure crap and bravado stuff they come out with is unbelievable. They seem to find inappropriate stuff totally hilarious and you're looking askance at them. But then they flip back to just silly young messers again. I think maybe it is possible that Boy B was going along with being a bit of a hardshaw with Boy A but that he never ever believed what happened would do. Maybe his mind didn't have the knowledge the other boy had so he couldn't imagine it. I think it's possible he thought they would give Ana a bad fright which of course is right nasty but nowhere near rape and murder. And when it was ongoing he realised what a physco Boy A was and froze. As I say mainly I think he was involved and actively so but not with 100% certainty.

Then why all the lies? The kid was clever, I don't believe he was a clueless pawn. He watched because he wanted to. And then did nothing to help police find her.

Mrsmum

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Then why all the lies? The kid was clever, I don't believe he was a clueless pawn. He watched because he wanted to. And then did nothing to help police find her.

I know. I'm not saying he didn't do it, just exploring the safety of his conviction. The lies, well maybe he realised he was hugely implicated and that he was looking at jail so he was trying to save his own skin by saying everything and anything that would get him off.

Yurt2

RIP poor Ana. No one should be taken from the world like that, and she suffered so much with bullying in life as well. It's all wrong.

The old adage of it takes a community to raise a child couldn't be truer. Parents and schools don't do enough to instil decency and kindness in their children.

The truly disturbing thing is that these boys are not just the products of their parents, but the product of our culture.

I don't know what else to say, it's the most unsettling and sad case in Ireland in a long long time.

Mrsmum

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

shesty

Probably need to remind ourselves that we are tallking about kids here.They did a horrendous thing, but they are still kids and not mature, won't behave as we would expect-ie the lying.There is probably no rationality to why he did it really.

Also let's face it - 12 people looked at tapes of his lying and came to the conclusion that he was guilty.One or two people, you might ask was that justified.But 12 people.....never mind the Gardai who kept at him in those interviews because he was clearly not telling the truth.They could see it, and the 12 people on the jury could see it.I did read that one of the few things they asked to look at during deliberations was tapes of 7 of his interviews.He built the case against himself without even realising it.

Happy4all

An awful end to a young girl's life. Heartbreaking for her parents who behaved with dignity throughout the trial. Boy B's father on the underhand, while understandably, feeling emotions run high, his outburst made him look like the scumbag not the Gardai. Thankfully Justice was served.

Mrcaramelchoc

"Ana Kriegel loved sparkle and colour and just wanted a friend"

Wouldn't that just break your bloody heart.god rest her and keep her family.

namloc1980

shesty wrote: »

Probably need to remind ourselves that we are tallking about kids here.They did a horrendous thing, but they are still kids and not mature, won't behave as we would expect-ie the lying.There is probably no rationality to why he did it really.

Also let's face it - 12 people looked at tapes of his lying and came to the conclusion that he was guilty.One or two people, you might ask was that justified.But 12 people.....never mind the Gardai who kept at him in those interviews because he was clearly not telling the truth.They could see it, and the 12 people on the jury could see it.I did read that one of the few things they asked to look at during deliberations was tapes of 7 of his interviews.He built the case against himself without even realising it.

Yeah which were many hours long. I'd say they decided Boy A was guilty in about 5 minutes and the rest of the time was spent on Boy B and rewatching the interviews. Ultimately they decided on his guilt based on the lies and his foreknowledge of the event.

Sunflower 27

Mrsmum wrote: »

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

Because he did not plan on doing anything to her and likely thought no DNA would be on her. He could always say, as he did, he left her at park and never saw her after that.

He probably didnt bank on CCTV to go against his version of events.

Also he is still a kid, he's not going to have it all planned out like a professional serial killer.

Happy4all

Mrsmum wrote: »

One thing that bothers me is if Boy B knew, as people say he knew,what the final outcome was going to be, why did he call to Ana's door for her thereby linking himself to her. Only a fool would do that.

Because he was happy to lure Ana to the scene of her death and watch knowing what boy A planned. I supposed he believed boy a would be the sole person charged.

Likewise, you could say boy a was a fool to think he could get away with it.

Mrsmum

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Because he did not plan on doing anything to her and likely thought no DNA would be on her. He could always say, as he did, he left her at park and never saw her after that.

He probably didnt bank on CCTV to go against his version of events.

Also he is still a kid, he's not going to have it all planned out like a professional serial killer.

Yeah but he would have had to explain why he called for her out of the blue and that involved telling that he was taking her to meet his friend thereby linking himself to Boy A who he is supposed to have known was going to murder her.