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

Beechwoodspark

Wouldn’t put it past boy b that

The LEGO request and his “naive” persona once in custody was a premeditated tactic to appear harmless and childlike

I wonder who was advising him.....

Somedaythefire

GarIT wrote: »

Some other posters have pointed out he hadn't been found guilty at the time which does change things. But I do believe people found guilty should fear the consequences of having such entitlement.

A "yes" would have been fine.

Fan of Netflix

If it's true there is a lad the same age with the same name in the area, that is very ****ty luck for him and his family.

El_Duderino 09

Sardonicat wrote: »

The dogs in the streets of North Kildare/Lucan must know exactly who they are. Not publishing their identities and photos is just putting innocents with the same names at risk of the mob from outside the area IMO. I don't believe they have right to anonymity. Ana was afforded no such right. She is the victim here.

We'll, they do have the right to anonymity. That's clear. The law is taking care of them and that's you or I need to know.

If mobs want to attack the lads then they're making criminals of themselves.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Wouldn’t put it past boy b that

The LEGO request and his “naive” persona once in custody was a premeditated tactic to appear harmless and childlike

I wonder who was advising him.....

You would be getting into John Doe levels of manipulation there.

I think people are losing the run of themselves TBH.

Boggles

weldoninhio wrote: »

The poor little murderers, eh? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The carrot and the stick method in prisons is not just for the prisoners, you do know right?

nehemiah

It's fair that nobody wants these boys to have an easy life in prison. Do the crime, do the time etc.

Oberstown doesn't sound like the worst place in the world to be in fairness but at the end of the day it is a detention centre, not a holiday camp. They are being taken out of their family environment at a young age and are going to have an abnormal upbringing, ice-cream or no ice- cream.

Incarceration is about rehabilitation as well as punishment. Like it or not, it is almost certain that they will be released at some stage in the future. Throwing them into Mountjoy at 14 would certainly mess them up even more than they already are. Not to mention that they are both likely to spend plenty of time in an adult prison at some stage in the not too distant future.

If and when they come out I'd like to think that the best efforts were made to rehabilitate them (as well as punish) so that the chances of them reoffending are minimal. That's not for their benefit but for the rest of us.

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

You would be getting into John Doe levels of manipulation there.

I think people are losing the run of themselves TBH.

Not at all

Have you read how he behaved during prolonged police interviews?

Sustained pressure was applied to him and he lied repeatedly and was asked to explain and yet was cool calm and collected throughout.

Manipulation perhaps but ...

I suspect someone else close to him was advising him also.

nehemiah

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Not at all

Have you read how he behaved during prolonged police interviews?

Sustained pressure was applied to him and he lied repeatedly and was asked to explain and yet was cool calm and collected throughout.

I suspect someone else close to him was advising him also.

He changed his story nine times, each time placing him closer to the scene of the crime.

He implicated himself in the crime.

Not exactly what I would describe as cool and collected.

El_Duderino 09

GarIT wrote: »

I haven't seen anything to the contrary. There was an article yesterday that Boy B was able to request Lego. I didn't have Lego as a child, that was for the rich kids. They should just take what they are given.

The way to deal with an official complaint about ice cream or TV stations is a hiding for the complainer.

I don't think prisons should be like the gulags but there shouldn't be a single minute of enjoying it either.

Ah this is silly. Prison conditions shouldn't be set by what Gary It had or didn't have in childhood.

Would you be so big and so brave to give a child a hiding? Impressive.

Prison deprives people of their freedom. Maybe you don't value your freedom but I think it's the single most important thing we have.

No need to constantly bully people in prison or give out hiding when they ask for something. Being deprived of freedom IS the punishment.

Beechwoodspark

nehemiah wrote: »

He changed his story nine times, each time placing him closer to the scene of the crime.

He implicated himself in the crime.

Not exactly what I would describe as cool and collected.

You obviously haven’t read the details of how he behaved during the interviews notwithstanding changing his story multiple times.

Recall this is a 14 yr old and was being interviewed by experienced gardai multiple times

nehemiah

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You obviously haven’t read the details of how he behaved during the interviews notwithstanding changing his story multiple times.

Recall this is a 14 yr old and was being interviewed by experienced gardai multiple times

Yeah, and he implicated himself in the crime.

Meanwhile Boy A is sitting there saying "no comment" and denying everything despite his DNA being everywhere. That is cool and collected.

Regardless of his demeanour, Boy B would not be a convicted murderer right now if he had been 'cool and collected' in his police interviews.

Somedaythefire

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You obviously haven’t read the details of how he behaved during the interviews notwithstanding changing his story multiple times.

Recall this is a 14 yr old and was being interviewed by experienced gardai multiple times

An assumption on my part, but when I read the story it seemed to me like Boy B fancies himself as a smart fella and to be fair he probably is, but there's a difference between excelling in primary school and tricking garda into believing your story. Seemed to me like he thought the gards would just believe him and every time they caught him out he made small adjustments to placate them. Definitely seems to be more to B's story and involvement to me.

DellyBelly

.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We'll, they do have the right to anonymity. That's clear. The law is taking care of them and that's you or I need to know.

If mobs want to attack the lads then they're making criminals of themselves.

Not sure if I have linked it right, but this is the "law taking care of them" in Ireland.

https://www.facebook.com/TheCapitalPage/posts/2414981111856189?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDywmbDRrk1dKoNJw2Ur1Ves1PMpV4bOv-IOT9yU0ihllCW7cVX39Lw0VlnCdJdRhGzn75MOP-IhJvjRiIId6kTacLSN8a2ceFEhbWseNFs5L7c3v21PZ1gmIHDsbL5wjceyESqC__V6E2guOPbd0bgJ7NxbNeRaAIJFRDZz3NO_rPnMJRy_BQo2DbpAyDijSQuROQ4t7tn4LVQnVbispLxy6QYR_UVo3ZhPoMh6pkGcvXfMzqauuDqsBXSIGhmm3iAXd6NKn05u-RUZSXysgTAVsHnuegvt40zhFDZo04zYeTQHm60nS4dHmpMwSeZki_BtYFHEL1ZtiBdz6qphdq-HA&__tn__=K-R"

weldoninhio

Boggles wrote: »

The carrot and the stick method in prisons is not just for the prisoners, you do know right?

Oberstown is not a prison. There are no prison officers working in it. It's all social workers and care workers.

Boggles

weldoninhio wrote: »

Oberstown is not a prison. There are no prison officers working in it. It's all social workers and care workers.

Semantics.

It's the same method.

weldoninhio

nehemiah wrote: »

Yeah, and he implicated himself in the crime.

Meanwhile Boy A is sitting there saying "no comment" and denying everything despite his DNA being everywhere. That is cool and collected.

Regardless of his demeanour, Boy B would not be a convicted murderer right now if he had been 'cool and collected' in his police interviews.

No, he is not implicating himself in the crime. He was changing his story, as more evidence (CCTV etc) was presented, to keep himself out of trouble.

joe40

I'm in no way defending boy B, but I was always under the impression you had to actually commit the murder to be found guilty.

Is there any evidence that boy B was in any contact with Ana during her murder? Did he take part in the actual act?

I know he lured her there and witnessed the act and so definitely guilty of a crime.

Obviously the judge and legal teams know a lot more about the law than me but this aspect has confused me.

Again not defending anyone just confused about trial.

Gadgetman496

Can any of you clarify this for me?

How was it initially ascertained that boy 'B' called for Ana?

Was there another family member there to witness this?

Who told Ana's mother when she returned home that Ana had gone off with a boy?

Why was whomever new Ana was gone off with boy 'B' not as instantly concerned as the mother was when she found out?

Beechwoodspark

Personally as I have said many times on boards prison is waaaay too soft.

There should be prisons like in the USA.

Let them work from 4 am to 12 midnight day in day out for the whole of their sentence. Boring manual Labour that is of benefit to society.

Life either means firing squad or compromise of full life behind bars.

I doubt any of the mainstream political parties we have would ever ever ever consider it.

weldoninhio

Boggles wrote: »

Semantics.

It's the same method.

https://www.facebook.com/TheCapitalPage/posts/2414981111856189?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDywmbDRrk1dKoNJw2Ur1Ves1PMpV4bOv-IOT9yU0ihllCW7cVX39Lw0VlnCdJdRhGzn75MOP-IhJvjRiIId6kTacLSN8a2ceFEhbWseNFs5L7c3v21PZ1gmIHDsbL5wjceyESqC__V6E2guOPbd0bgJ7NxbNeRaAIJFRDZz3NO_rPnMJRy_BQo2DbpAyDijSQuROQ4t7tn4LVQnVbispLxy6QYR_UVo3ZhPoMh6pkGcvXfMzqauuDqsBXSIGhmm3iAXd6NKn05u-RUZSXysgTAVsHnuegvt40zhFDZo04zYeTQHm60nS4dHmpMwSeZki_BtYFHEL1ZtiBdz6qphdq-HA&__tn__=K-R



Yeah, this looks like a prison. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Somedaythefire

joe40 wrote: »

I'm in no way defending boy B, but I was always under the impression you had to actually commit the murder to be found guilty.

Is there any evidence that boy B was in any contact with Ana during her murder? Did he take part in the actual act?

I know he lured her there and witnessed the act and so definitely guilty of a crime.

Obviously the judge and legal teams know a lot more about the law than me but this aspect has confused me.

Again not defending anyone just confused about trial.

If he knew Boy A was going to kill her, and willingly led Ana to him that's being involved in the murder. I believe there's no such thing as accessory to murder in Irish law, so they are treated the same as the person that did the physical act.

Exclamation Marc

weldoninhio wrote: »

Oberstown is not a prison. There are no prison officers working in it. It's all social workers and care workers.

From the Irish Times on Oberstown

The daily regime unfolds in a more relaxed and less secure setting than an adult prison; one where staff prepare cooked breakfasts for young offenders as treats and where playing video games, watching movies and being given the space and time to take private phone calls is part of the daily regime.

Young people are brought on day trips outside the campus, including swimming and to the cinema, and they also receive pocket money if their behaviour is deemed good enough.
“You have a TV in your bedroom that is turned off at 2am and can be turned back on at 9am,” the information booklet for each offender informs them.

“Your bedroom is locked during the night. However, staff are there during the night if you need them and will check on you during the night to ensure you are OK.”

Each unit on the campus has a lounge area allowing the young people to congregate socially. “Multipurpose rooms” are also included in each unit where young offenders can watch movies, play video games and take phone calls in private.

FFS, sounds like a holiday camp.

Grayson

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Can any of you clarify this for me?

How was it initially ascertained that boy 'B' called for Ana?

Was there another family member there to witness this?

Who told Ana's mother when she returned home that Ana had gone off with a boy?

Why was whomever new Ana was gone off with boy 'B' not as instantly concerned as the mother was when she found out?

It was her father. Are you trying to pass some blame onto him?

B_ecke_r

joe40 wrote: »

I'm in no way defending boy B, but I was always under the impression you had to actually commit the murder to be found guilty.

No, I don't think so.

IIRC the rider of the bike was done for murder in Veronica Guerin's case and not the one Gardai believe pulled the trigger.

nehemiah

weldoninhio wrote: »

No, he is not implicating himself in the crime. He was changing his story, as more evidence (CCTV etc) was presented, to keep himself out of trouble.

There was limited evidence from the CCTV. Without his interviews there was no case against him.

From the IT article:

Compared to Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. There was no forensic evidence linking him to the murder scene. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against him came from his own mouth during his eight garda interviews. If he had remained silent it is highly likely he would never have been charged.

Turtyturd

davyboy1975 wrote: »

Looks like redfm could be in trouble for naming one of the boys this morning.

The Courts accidentally named them in an email a few weeks ago, very surprised it didn’t get out at the time.

Penn

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Can any of you clarify this for me?

How was it initially ascertained that boy 'B' called for Ana?

Was there another family member there to witness this?

Who told Ana's mother when she returned home that Ana had gone off with a boy?

Why was whomever new Ana was gone off with boy 'B' not as instantly concerned as the mother was when she found out?

I think Ana told her father she was going out and would be back later. He said she looked happy and so didn't think there was any cause for concern. I think after she was spotted with Boy B on CCTV in the area. I can't remember if the father knew specifically she went with Boy B or not.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

joe40 wrote: »

I'm in no way defending boy B, but I was always under the impression you had to actually commit the murder to be found guilty.

Is there any evidence that boy B was in any contact with Ana during her murder? Did he take part in the actual act?

I know he lured her there and witnessed the act and so definitely guilty of a crime.

Obviously the judge and legal teams know a lot more about the law than me but this aspect has confused me.

Again not defending anyone just confused about trial.

In law an accomplice who is there is as guilty as the murderer.