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

nehemiah

Necro wrote: »

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

That point is fine, you are entitled to it. But to emphasise your point you said "look at Venables, he was caught with child porn." What you purposely didn't say "look at Thompson, he never reoffended."

This was clearly on purpose, so don't talk about 'word lawyering'.

jimmycrackcorm

Boggles wrote: »

I don't see how that could be.

The "truth" is he conspired to kill the girl and is now guilty of murder according to 12 people.

That's the only truth that matters really.

His defence could have put it that he was led by and influenced by boy A. In that scenario, convicting a 13 year old of murder would have been extremely difficult.

It was his lying that got him convicted.

retro:electro

Hoboo wrote: »

Didn't require elaborate pre planning infers it required planning of some degree. Can't see where the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt this occured.

It reminds me of an incident that Judge Judy (bear with me) often recites when she’s lecturing someone about when she used to preside in Criminal Court. She once sentenced a group of five girls to murder even though only one of the girls dealt any fatal blows. What it came down to for her, and she is right, is the but for the fact. But for the fact that these four other girls didn’t conspire to meet the victim and lead her to the one who murdered her and watch as she got stabbed, the victim might still be alive today.
And that’s what I feel boy B’s conviction rests on too. But for the fact he never made it his business to clearly lead Ana to her death, she may never have met boy A and could still be alive today. And but for the fact he never alerted anyone to the fact he had witnessed an assault and left as she was screaming for her life, she may still have had a chance to live.

Skylinehead

Necro wrote: »

My point (which seems to be lost in all this word lawyering) is that they should not have been let out at all.

It was the entire argument, not "words lawyering".

Basically you took a snipe at a poster over absolutely nothing.

80sChild

strathspey wrote: »

It's a pity the justice system isn't sophisticated enough to find the parents of these boys accountable. Both sets of parents are responsible for having raised such a pair of monsters.

Maybe true in some cases of clear emotional neglect, but some people are just born on the psychopathy/dark triad scale. Not all parents of offenders are at fault. Nature v nurture argument I suppose. You would have to wonder if either boys parents saw dark behaviour before this. Seems a huge leap from "normal" to torture, rape and murder with no evidence of progression in between.

Necro

Skylinehead wrote: »

It was the entire argument, not "words lawyering".

Basically you took a snipe at a poster over absolutely nothing.

Did I?

I was responding to another poster actually and got drawn into this discussion - as per my original post on the issue:

Necro wrote: »

They were given new identities and released on a lifelong licence that Venables breached twice since then. Most recently for having images of child porn on his PC :rolleyes:

Neither should ever have been let out.

Where's the sniping, the other poster then responded to me and I disagree that anything after that incident should be considered normal in respect of either Venables or Thompson.

What's the issue?

GarIT

InTheShadows wrote: »

Just want to say i know your post is well intentioned but some of these kids are just plain bad and no amount of "feeling classes" or the like is going to help. The simple solution is with the principle of the school ultimately and the department to back them up. If a principle feels a kid is bullying and has the evidence make an example and expel them and stick to this with every single bully. It is the responsibility of the school to think of the good of the collective not some s h ithead who bullies innocent sweet kids.

I completely agree. I was just replying to someone who said we need classes on bullying in schools so I said classes on empathy would be more effective.

From my experience schools can't expel students in this country without a great amount of effort. We have a constitutional right to education that gets in the way of effective discipline in school.

Strazdas

retro:electro wrote: »

It reminds me of an incident that Judge Judy (bear with me) often recites when she’s lecturing someone about when she used to preside in Criminal Court. She once sentenced a group of five girls to murder even though only one of the girls dealt any fatal blows. What it came down to for her, and she is right, is the but for the fact. But for the fact that these four other girls didn’t conspire to meet the victim and lead her to the one who murdered her and watch as she got stabbed, the victim might still be alive today.
And that’s what I feel boy B’s conviction rests on too. But for the fact he never made it his business to clearly lead Ana to her death, she may never have met boy A and could still be alive today. And but for the fact he never alerted anyone to the fact he had witnessed an assault and left as she was screaming for her life, she may still have had a chance to live.

The fact that A physically attacked Ana virtually the moment she entered the abandoned house (this was the conclusion of the pathologist), makes me think it was a premeditated attack and that she was brought to the house with the intention of something terrible happening to her.

B never credibly explained why she was brought to such a remote location. He didn't even like Ana and wasn't friends with her.

Incidentally, prosecution don't even believe his claim that he left before or during her murder.

Dante7

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

Shanotheslayer

Necro wrote: »

I disagree that anything after that incident should be considered normal in respect of either Venables or Thompson.

What's the issue?

You're wrong.

Beechwoodspark

Dante7 wrote: »

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

Is that what Boy B said or is there independent verification of that ?

threeball

I hope the parents in this case never sleep another night.

To know the evidence that was available against these two scumbags and yet standby and allow them to plead not guilty, placing a huge burden on Annas parents on top of already unimaginable weight of the loss and wondering how she died.

If it was my son he would have been made come clean and explain to those poor people exactly what happened and then he'd do his time. No reasonable person would stand back and allow their child double down on such a terrible wrong unless they have serious issues themselves. If you want to know how this occurred you need look no further than these parents who obviously facilitated these rats in every way possible.

Always Tired

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no DNA linking him to the murder though. Will his sentence be the same?? seems a bit much if he never actually touched her, but he still should get jail time for luring her there and he didn't help her if he had watched the attack.

The tape around her neck came from his house also, don't forget that.

He is just as responsible, he facilitated the entire thing. Without his involvement, does Ana go to that park? No.

Boy A had asked him to help him kill Ana before. He wasn't confident to do it alone. Kids that age (myself included), their worst misbehavior is rarely done alone, usually when they do something they really know they shouldn't it's with an accomplice or group. He sent Boy B probably so he couldnt be identified.

Feisar

dickangel wrote: »

Boy A was supposedly tall for his age, and skilled in martial arts.

As someone who came up the line in the old school karate and is saddened to see the watered down kids karate that's being peddled these days I wouldn't put to much store in his skill.

evolving_doors

retro:electro wrote: »

It reminds me of an incident that Judge Judy (bear with me) often recites when she’s lecturing someone about when she used to preside in Criminal Court. She once sentenced a group of five girls to murder even though only one of the girls dealt any fatal blows. What it came down to for her, and she is right, is the but for the fact. But for the fact that these four other girls didn’t conspire to meet the victim and lead her to the one who murdered her and watch as she got stabbed, the victim might still be alive today.
And that’s what I feel boy B’s conviction rests on too. But for the fact he never made it his business to clearly lead Ana to her death, she may never have met boy A and could still be alive today. And but for the fact he never alerted anyone to the fact he had witnessed an assault and left as she was screaming for her life, she may still have had a chance to live.

Boy b was fleeing from a murder, but don't forget boy b was fleeing from a murderer too.

If you think about it, there probably was, in boy b's mind, a strong possibility that they wouldn't get caught. So he knew what boy a could do. Did he know he'd have the protection of the law against boy A if he told the truth? I think he was scared.

Don't know if it's been posted already but noticed this on the lengthy Irish Times article

Before closing speeches began there was some legal argument about the possibility of alternative verdicts being put before the jury. There had been some speculation lawyers for one or both of the boys would ask that the jury be allowed consider a manslaughter verdict as well as the murder verdict. However there was no such application from either party.

However after the jury began deliberations Gageby asked the judge to inform the jury the option of manslaughter was still open to them. McDermott refused following objections from the prosecution.

Oooops!! Guess they forgot to bring it up before the jury went out! What a shame.

threeball

Strazdas wrote: »

The fact that A physically attacked Ana virtually the moment she entered the abandoned house (this was the conclusion of the pathologist), makes me think it was a premeditated attack and that she was brought to the house with the intention of something terrible happening to her.

B never credibly explained why she was brought to such a remote location. He didn't even like Ana and wasn't friends with her.

Incidentally, prosecution don't even believe his claim that he left before or during her murder.

Boy A had been contemplating it for 9 months. There was evidence of his search history that wasn't presented in court showing just that.

Dante7

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Is that what Boy B said or is there independent verification of that ?

It's in the section of this article titled Plan, and has been widely reported elsewhere.


https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-a-ana-kriegel-trial-murder-4650918-Jun2019/

threeball

Feisar wrote: »

As someone who came up the line in the old school karate and is saddened to see the watered down kids karate that's being peddled these days I wouldn't put to much store in his skill.

These kids don't train in Karate, its mostly MMA and they're lethal. They'd knock the snot out of someone with a Karate background old school or not.

retro:electro

evolving_doors wrote: »

Boy b was fleeing from a murder, but don't forget boy b was fleeing from a murderer too.

If you think about it, there probably was, in boy b's mind, a strong possibility that they wouldn't get caught. So he knew what boy a could do. Did he know he'd have the protection of the law against boy A if he told the truth? I think he was scared.

The only thing he was scared of was the guards finding out the truth. Scared? He showed remarkable arrogance and detachment from reality throughout being questioned. When he wasn’t lying through his teeth he was yawning, stretching and treating an extremely serious situation as a massive inconvenience. What 13 year old who is “scared” of another 13 year old, acts in such arrogance and apathy when being questioned by authorities in a murder case? Scared me hole

mightybashful

Dante7 wrote: »

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

This exactly. B is every bit as guilty of murder as the other one

GarIT

I think some anti-bullying self protection sensibilities need to be taught in school too.

If anyone remembers years ago there were three suicides within a short period related to ask.fm where people answer anonymous questions that are asked of them.

If anyone remembers Anna's YouTube channel she sometimes did live videos where she answered anonymous questions on video, a google search search shows news articles saying she performed dares given by anonymous people live. She also did her her, makeup and tried on clothes live. Obviously she was innocently trying to make friends or get attention but I've seen so many kids doing this and it opens themselves up to bullying so badly. It's not her fault in the slightest, but kids need to know not to make themselves vlunerable like that.

Often teens don't use the block feature either. Every website has a block feature but people blocking their bullies is rare.

Feisar

threeball wrote: »

These kids don't train in Karate, its mostly MMA and they're lethal. They'd knock the snot out of someone with a Karate background old school or not.

Done my share of that as well but that's neither here nor there. Body weight counts for an awful lot, a skilled 13 year old is still 13. It was the same back in the 70's when the Kung Fu craze came in newspaper headings, this 13 year olds hands can kill. Eh no they can't.

tuxy

evolving_doors wrote: »

Boy b was fleeing from a murder, but don't forget boy b was fleeing from a murderer too.

If you think about it, there probably was, in boy b's mind, a strong possibility that they wouldn't get caught. So he knew what boy a could do. Did he know he'd have the protection of the law against boy A if he told the truth? I think he was scared.

The Jury and Garda saw hours of interviews with boy B and came to the conclusion that boy B was calm, calculating and manipulative not scared.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

Boy A: Hey, wanna kill somebody?’.
Boy B: No.
Boy A ‘Ah, here. Why not’.
Boy B: Because it’s retarded. Who are you planning to kill?
Boy A: ‘Ana Kriegel’.
Boy B: In your dreams.

A month later Boy B lured Anna to meet Boy A. Guilty. End of.

It really is that simple.

I know there was a discussion on this thread through the night about Boy B saying in an interview that he thought Boy A was joking but I don’t believe that. If he remembered the conversation whilst being interviewed he remembered the conversation when he went to know on Ana’s door.

This was Boy B’s way of pinning it all on Boy A. His lack of emotion and disdain for Ana shows us what we need to know. Don’t need a psychologist (whose services were to the defence side) to tell me different. Having raised two teenagers myself, I know a tall tale when I hear it.

SirGerryAdams

Boy B had to be involved.

Maybe some people are different but let's say I was a kid and I was asked to bring someone to a house for a shift or whatever.

The second I discover that the boy you lured her to killed her I would be ****ting it and I'd be telling exactly what happened.

His calmness and lies would tell me that he knew.

Stheno

Facebook and Twitter in court tomorrow over publishing of images

Beechwoodspark

Dante7 wrote: »

It's in the section of this article titled Plan, and has been widely reported elsewhere.


https://www.thejournal.ie/who-is-boy-a-ana-kriegel-trial-murder-4650918-Jun2019/

I think it’s his version. Not verified.

Open to correction.

Boggles

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

His defence could have put it that he was led by and influenced by boy A. In that scenario, convicting a 13 year old of murder would have been extremely difficult.

That literally was his defense.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It was his lying that got him convicted.

The judge spent a whole day pointing out, lying does not mean he is guilty of murder.

MrMusician18

Stheno wrote: »

Facebook and Twitter in court tomorrow over publishing of images

Great. Finally these cesspits will have to take responsibility for what goes on in their platform.

A couple of senior managers in prison for contempt for a few days might be no harm at all.