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

Sunflower 27

Happy4all wrote: »

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.

I agree. They were kids, albeit clever ones that may have even convinced themselves no one would believe a child would kill. And I suppose, they'd have been right on that. The initial feeling on the streets seemed to be absolute shock.

Happy4all

Mrsmum wrote: »

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.

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

ILoveYourVibes

Mrsmum wrote: »

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.

He would think .....'That's not a crime. I can say i did nothing wrong. I can say i didn't know what was going to happen.'

Sunflower 27

Mrsmum wrote: »

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.

All he had to say was what he did, A asked me to get her so I did. No DNA of him on Ana, likely didn't bank on CCTV or witnesses discrediting him.

In his mind if caught he was just an innocent go between ( that got to watch a brutal killing and do nothing about it).

These are kids, he probably thought his explanation was entirely plausible.

They had to get Ana to the secluded place somehow. It's not like they could kidnap her in a car.

I think you are trying to rationalise it as they thought it all through with adult brains and foresight. They don't have that.

Do you think Boy B didn't know what was going to happen?

Mrsmum

Happy4all wrote: »

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

Yeah I suppose. Anyway I'm just teasing out some questions in my head on this sounding board.

Sunflower 27

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He would think .....'That's not a crime. I can say i did nothing wrong. I can say i didn't know what was going to happen.'

Yes, that's child logic.

If boy B was innocent he would have called the Gardai immediately or at least his parents when he saw what was happening. He did nothing of the sort.

Lackadaisical

I remember from an RTE report last week the jury had been instructed to put themselves in the mindset of a person of their age and not to think about it from an adult perspective. So I'm sure they put considerable thought and effort into trying to understand the world from their age perspective.

The judge will take lots of things into account on sentencing. These kinds of cases are extremely rare and there isn't much precedent so I think we will be seeing a very detailed and considered judgement and very well explained sentencing logic.

They seem to be taking every reasonable step the can to ensure very fair procedure, given the ages of the defendants. I'm not really sure that any of us can second guess that without having been in the court and hearing all the evidence.

We've a robust appeals system and the courts seem to be following and exceeding international best practice for cases involving minors. I really think we should just wait for the final reports on this utterly grim case.

I don't really think there's much point in adding to the anguish of the Kriegel family by an online forum attempting to second guess a case that none of us sat through.

Sunflower 27

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, that's child logic.

I know plenty of adults who reason like that. Many business owners and execs and high ranking public servants.

Sunflower 27

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If boy B was innocent he would have called the Gardai immediately or at least his parents when he saw what was happening. He did nothing of the sort.

Even if scared and not saying anything initially, if he had no idea at all what was going to happen to Ana he'd have been an absolute mess throughout the questioning when it was known A was caught.

Happy4all

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah I suppose. Anyway I'm just teasing out some questions in my head on this sounding board.

Understand fully. My initial reaction listening to the daily paper reports was that Boy B was possibly an innocent person used by Boy A. However. I have to accept that the jury that trawled through the full evidence got it right.

The saddest comment for me was Ana's mother saying, nobody ever calls for Ana. Imagine how excited she must have been at someone wanting to be her friend and the horror that unfolded. RIP Ana.

I have a daughter around the same age and to be honest prison is too good for these scum. Couldn't read some the details of the case, it made me sick to my stomach. And it was an open and shut case, with plenty of evidence.

laugh

I don't really believe the stuff that was posted here overnight, by the "lawyer" etc that the conviction of boy B was unsafe.

The PTSD defence was basically bollox, the jury could see on camera:

• his relaxed bored demeanour at times while being interviewed in relation to a rape and murder case.
• his derogatory description of Ana given in one of those interviews, a girl he knew to be dead and at least saw his friend assault (his final version of events to Gardai, he later claimed to the psychologist to have seen her murdered)
• he didn't lie initially through fear or stress and then come clean with the truth, 8 times he tried to figure out what version of events would get him out of trouble.

Does't sound like someone suffering from a mental break.

How many 13 year old psychopaths has the psychologist, who claims he was suffering from PTSD, dealt with?

evolving_doors

Happy4all wrote: »

You might ask why did boy A not arrange to meet her from a school chat rather than have someone call to her house and create a link to them.

They weren't that clever, but ultimately capable of a horrendous act.

Probably didn't want to be seen with her in school.

I'm surprised -(if , boy b was fully intent on assisting the murder)- that they didn't have a story sorted before it took place.

I think boy A didn't care about the aftermath and so didn't need to have a good story. I know there was some attempt at saying they were attacked but it doesn't add up. I honestly don't think bout b had the same intent as a and it was a case if getting caught up in boy a's manipulation.
In maturity levels a first year kid like boy a could have the maturity of a 5th class kid ....or the maturity of a 3rd year.

Plenty of normal adults go along with heinous crimes as they are put in abnormal circumstances.
Its easy for us to say ' oh boy b could have stopped boy a if he wanted'. But I think boy b was a victim of boy a's very strong manipulation. He pestered boy b for ages that he just wanted to talk to her. He tested the waters previously to another kid who kicked him out of his house so I think he moved on till he found his accomplice.

Sunflower 27

Happy4all wrote: »

The saddest comment for me was Ana's mother saying, nobody ever calls for Ana. Imagine how excited she must have been at someone wanting to be her friend and the horror that unfolded. RIP Ana.

That was so hard to digest.

Hannibal_Smith

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?

One of the reports yesterday said that the Garda interviewer was a level 3 interviewer or something. Highly trained in interviewing kids. The idea is to develop a rapport with the kid and then ask them questions without leading them.

As new evidence was found that discounted what was told he changed his story. 9 times apparently.

SirGerryAdams

Anyone have any idea what actually happened?

Was the boy A waiting in the room when boy B brought her there and then he attacked her while wearing the mask? What was the tape all about? How did he manage to get it on her?

Did he assault her with the stick and block and then sexually assault her when she was near dead or did he kill her and then sexually assault her.

The sequence of events make no sense whenever I try to think.

I don't think he would have been able to put tape around her neck by himself as she seemed to be fairly strong. Or when did he take her clothes off because they seemed to be all ripped?

SirGerryAdams

Also the semen stain on the top, they said there was Anas dna (I assume from the top itself) and then Boy As but also another male DNA? Who could that be or why?

Sunflower 27

laugh wrote: »

I don't really believe the stuff that was posted here overnight, by the "lawyer" etc that the conviction of boy B was unsafe.

The PTSD defence was basically bollox, the jury could see on camera:

• his relaxed bored demeanour at times while being interviewed in relation to a rape and murder case.
• his derogatory description of Ana given in one of those interviews, a girl he knew to be dead and at least saw his friend assault (his final version of events to Gardai, he later claimed to the psychologist to have seen her murdered)
• he didn't lie initially through fear or stress and then come clean with the truth, 8 times he tried to figure out what version of events would get him out of trouble.

Does't sound like someone suffering from a mental break.

How many 13 year old psychopaths has the psychologist, who claims he was suffering from PTSD, dealt with?

Yes, PTSD is laughable. That boy was only intent on saving himself. No evidence of trauma or triggering. Unless you count the panic attack in court. Can't remember what that was from, but likely because he realised he was not going to get away with it.

Edit: "Boy B was treated at the scene and seen by his GP that evening. The incident occurred as the jury watched videos of Boy B’s garda interviews during which he admitted lying to gardaí. No reason was given for the panic attack."

Jurgen The German

There is so much posted about parents being aware for the signs that their kids are being bullied. There should be just as much awareness and focus on parents to ensure their kids aren't doing the bullying too. Obviously its impossible to fully supervise but things like parents having passwords to all social media accounts owned by their kids should be the norm.

Roger Hassenforder

The more thats coming out about this, the more i'm thinking B was the brains, A the tool.

B is into lego, puzzles assembling things. Maybe A was a bit more open to influence, manipulation.

Maybe B's whole "A is setting me up for the fall" sthick is actually the other way around. He set A up, and thought it would be regarded as inconceivable that he would have had something to do with it, being the last one to be seen with her, had concocted a story.
Maybe im giving him too much credit.

shesty

namloc1980 wrote: »

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.

Pretty much.Thinking about it, if he had come straight out and told the truth, there was probably a possibility that he could have got away.There might have been enough doubt cast about whether he knew what would happen or helped or whatever.

I fully expect he will appeal, with the psychiatric report as backup.

laugh

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Yes, PTSD is laughable. That boy was only intent on saving himself. No evidence of trauma or triggering. Unless you count the panic attack in court. Can't remember what that was from, but likely because he realised he was not going to get away with it.

Yea he probably could see that he didn't come across as the innocent he though he was portraying.

I think his derogatory statements about her revealed his inner narrative that she didn't have a worth.

Hannibal_Smith

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.

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

MrFresh

laugh wrote: »

I don't really believe the stuff that was posted here overnight, by the "lawyer" etc that the conviction of boy B was unsafe.

The PTSD defence was basically bollox, the jury could see on camera:

• his relaxed bored demeanour at times while being interviewed in relation to a rape and murder case.
• his derogatory description of Ana given in one of those interviews, a girl he knew to be dead and at least saw his friend assault (his final version of events to Gardai, he later claimed to the psychologist to have seen her murdered)
• he didn't lie initially through fear or stress and then come clean with the truth, 8 times he tried to figure out what version of events would get him out of trouble.

Does't sound like someone suffering from a mental break.

How many 13 year old psychopaths has the psychologist, who claims he was suffering from PTSD, dealt with?

The thing is, even if he had some form of PTSD, it doesn't really explain away the lying at all.

volchitsa

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Also the semen stain on the top, they said there was Anas dna (I assume from the top itself) and then Boy As but also another male DNA? Who could that be or why?

I don't think it was necessarily a third person, just that it was contaminated in some way and didn't yield a clear identity.

Sunflower 27

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

Who knows, but A came with mask, gloves and knee guards. They were not planning to do anything pleasant to the poor girl.

The mentioning killing her and the videos of Russian Anastasia mean there had been clear forethought.

B knew they weren't going to talk about a relationship and he wasn't going to see snogging. He knew A had only contempt for Ana

strandroad

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Do you think they were intent on killing her that day? Or was it something that got out of hand when she defended herself?

Boy A came dressed to kill, all geared up and masked. He knew there would be blood. It's not how you dress for a chat or even if you plan to sexually assault someone. He did say he wanted to kill her.

Hannibal_Smith

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Who knows, but A came with mask, gloves and knee guards. They were not planning to do anything pleasant to the poor girl.

The mentioning killing her and the videos of Russian Anastasia mean there had been clear forethought.

No. I totally get they didn't bring her there for pleasantries.

I think the mask etc was to frighten the sh*t out of the poor girl when she went into the dark house. Before they did what they set out to do.

I just wondered whether killing her was always their intention.

Hannibal_Smith

strandroad wrote: »

Boy A came dressed to kill, all geared up and masked. He knew there would be blood. It's not how you dress for a chat or even if you plan to sexually assault someone. He did say he wanted to kill her.

How do you mean 'geared up'?

I don't expect they had a pleasant chat on their minds at any stage.

When did he say he wanted to kill her?

Did boy A say anything about boy b?