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

Stheno

jobbridge4life wrote: »

A child murderer, or a child who committed a murder?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/i-can-relax-now-and-not-be-nervous-that-i-would-see-him-mum-after-sons-killer-banned-from-town-35711934.html

Darren Goodwin who as a 15 year old murdered a 14 year old.

He was actually named during his trial as a 16 year old in 2004

Boom_Bap

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I hadn't realized this was a dating competition?

A desperate man, who believed in his sons innocence in respect of a horrific crime lashed out in the very seconds following a contrary verdict. String him from the nearest lampost.

That's what I'd love to be the truth. But I personally am certain that it's not the truth.

tayto lover

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re assuming the families were in on it but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case.

I’ll say it again - let go of the emotion and desire for revenge for a moment and think clearly.

Would you expect to be punished for your children’s wrong doing? Of course not nor should you.

Nothing to be gained from losing the run of yourself and craving revenge at all.
The courts will deal with the guilty.
These boys will be spend many years in detention and rightly so,

jobbridge4life

Stheno wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/i-can-relax-now-and-not-be-nervous-that-i-would-see-him-mum-after-sons-killer-banned-from-town-35711934.html

Darren Goodwin who as a 15 year old murdered a 14 year old.

He was actually named during his trial as a 16 year old in 2004

As a Laois man who was 15 at the time of the murder, I remember it well. I remember being coddled and worried over. I remember how people feared Goodwin. I remember too how we changed our laws in the wake.

AudreyHepburn

Happy4all wrote: »

Boy B's father sounds classy. While the parents of Ana where dealing with the verdict he was roaring at the Gardai that they were scumbag pr1icks

Or maybe he, like I imagine the vast majority of parents were they in his shoes, doesn’t want to believe his son is the evil little thug he’s been shown to be?

I actually find his reaction understandable if poorly timed. He could and probably should have waited until he was outside the court to start ranting.

Stheno

jobbridge4life wrote: »

As a Laois man who was 15 at the time of the murder, I remember it well. I remember being coddled and worried over. I remember how people feared Goodwin. I remember too how we changed our laws in the wake.

The laws around naming children? Were they not in affect from 2001? I may well be mistaken about that

Sunflower 27

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Are there honestly people so dumb, so dim, so dull as to not to have ever heard of the many, multiple miscarriages of justice based on eye witness testimony?

Are we to forever have to tolerate this ignorant grunts as equally valid opinions?

The boys will no longer be in school.

Any local boy still in school is pretty safe from false accusations.

jobbridge4life

Boom_Bap wrote: »

That's what I'd love to be the truth. But I personally am certain that it's not the truth.

You have no right, no information and (excuse me if i'm wrong) no special powers of psychic insight, to allow you legitimately assert your personal certainties.

The man raised a child. The man loved a child. The child stands accused of murder. For which, in the case of his child, there is no forensic evidence, and clear forensic evidence against another child.

Odyssey 2005

Happy4all wrote: »

Kids these days won't leave a phone out of there hand. Strange to lose two.

Learned a thing or two from former garda commissioners

Sunflower 27

Stheno wrote: »

The laws around naming children? Were they not in affect from 2001? I may well be mistaken about that

Not sure, but be interesting to know.

tayto lover

Stheno wrote: »

The laws around naming children? Were they not in affect from 2001? I may well be mistaken about that

They were in even before the Children Act 2001.

gozunda

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

For clarification, I was not saying Boy B didn't have a backpack. Not sure how you read that into it. I think he did and that was identified on CCTV.

No didnt read into that tbh. The comment was in addition.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The question I was responding to was did Boy B bring the murder gear and my response was it's unlikely he did as he would have had to give it to A without Ana seeing, who would then have to get changed before attacking Ana. It makes no sense. I also think the mask was A's from the previous Halloween.

Also, B is cunning. I think he knew the less he did the better. Yes, he could say he was seen with her, but beyond that there was nothing linking him to her actual attack. He got to see her brutally murdered but could still say he wasn't there as no DNA would link him.

I believe he felt safe in that knowledge. Possibly so did his father and that explains his outburst. I'm sure B was told by his legal team that they had nothing on him directly linking him to the crime. He probably felt he had a good chance of getting off.

Surely the gear was tested for B's DNA as well as A's and Ana's? I didnt read anywhere his DNA was on it.

Its possible that boy b had 'gear' as well. He was observed carrying a backpack when he called for Ana. I don't believe that backpack was found tbh

jobbridge4life

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Protecting our daughters and grandchildren maybe ?

I don't, not for a second, question that impulse. It is one I share, frankly, violently.

I just do not for one second believe that naming these children will protect anyone. Not a single person. Not one.

Stheno

tayto lover wrote: »

They were in even before the Children Act 2001.

So how is it that Darren Goodwin aged 16 was named during his murder trial in 2004 for a crime he committed aged 15?

Sunflower 27

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You have no right, no information and (excuse me if i'm wrong) no special powers of psychic insight, to allow you legitimately assert your personal certainties.

The man raised a child. The man loved a child. The child stands accused of murder. For which, in the case of his child, there is no forensic evidence, and clear forensic evidence against another child.

The boy was found guilty, unanimously, by a jury.

Like it or not, that's the law.

Will I Am Not

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Crikey, what do you have to react like that for? It's not like absolutely nobody whatsoever knows a soul in their neighbourhood anymore either.

React like what? I’m saying bollox to the idea that a whole village should feel guilty over this.

Boom_Bap

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You have no right, no information and (excuse me if i'm wrong) no special powers of psychic insight, to allow you legitimately assert your personal certainties.

The man raised a child. The man loved a child. The child stands accused of murder. For which, in the case of his child, there is no forensic evidence, and clear forensic evidence against another child.

I've no doubt that the man raised the child and loves him. No doubt about that at all.
It's the fact that there is no forensic evidence that is the kicker for me. Why is there none although he was there and admitted to being there. Where are his clothes he was wearing on the day? There is always forensic evidence from a scene like that. And the boy was certainly in contact with her that day.

screamer

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re assuming the families were in on it but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case.

I’ll say it again - let go of the emotion and desire for revenge for a moment and think clearly.

Would you expect to be punished for your children’s wrong doing? Of course not nor should you.

The least I would expect is to make my children face up to what they did. Do I think parents should bear responsibility for their miscreant juvenile offspring? Bet your ass I do, and I’d include all parents in that, all of us.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

No didnt read into that tbh. The comment was in addition.



Its possible that boy b had 'gear' as well. He was observed carrying a backpack when he called for Ana. I don't believe theat backpack was found tbh

Boy B, also found guilty of murder, was a friend of Boy A. He described to gardaí how Boy A was planning to kill Ana.

In the recordings of interviews played in court, Boy B told gardaí that he was in school when he was approached by Boy A around a month before Ana died.

“I was in school by myself. He came up to me and said ‘hey, wanna kill somebody?’. I said no. He replied with ‘ah, here. Why not’. [I said] because it’s retarded. I then asked him who he was planning to kill and he replied ‘Ana Kriegel’. I replied with ‘in your dreams’. Then he just went. I didn’t think he was being serious.”

The court previously heard that Boy A had asked Boy B to call in for Ana and to arrange to meet in the park. The reason given for this was that Boy A could tell Ana that he was not romantically interested in her.

Boy B was asked by gardaí why Boy A’s bag – which he brought with him when going to the park – contained a mask, gloves, knee pads and shin pads if he was there to deal with a relationship matter.

Boy B responded: “He was planning to kill Ana – I didn’t know.”

tayto lover

Stheno wrote: »

So how is it that Darren Goodwin aged 16 was named during his murder trial in 2004 for a crime he committed aged 15?

Don’t know but I will try to find out tomorrow. Has me baffled.

Dante7

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And how do you propose to protect her from them when you’re locked in a jail cell?

Also how can you be sure that the names you’ve been given and pictures you’ve seen are in fact A and B? It’s dangerous to just assume you’ve been told correctly.

Let’s try thinking logically about this and leave the emotion out of it.

Why would I be locked up? I havent shared any details and nor will I.
I know I have been given the correct information.

sReq | uTeK

Grayson wrote: »

Considering the DNA evidence, especially against Boy A I have no idea why they didn't.

Firstly haven't read all the info in the thread. Secondly heartbreaking what happend and I hope these two Cnuts rot in prison for the rest if their adult lives.

Forgive me if I'm.wrong but in a murder case pleading guilty still gets you the mandatory life sentence so of course you'll roll the dice.and try and use a technicality to get off some where or cause doubt.

screamer

tayto lover wrote: »

Don’t know but I will try to find out tomorrow. Has me baffled.

In the current trial the judge has forbidden the identification of the thugs. It’s not automatic, and they can be named if it’s in the public interest. In that other case the judge either didn’t impose reporting restrictions or instructed he be named I’d imagine.

Galwayguy35

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Firstly haven't read all the info in the thread. Secondly heartbreaking what happend and I hope these two Cnuts rot in prison for the rest if their adult lives.

Forgive me if I'm.wrong but in a murder case pleading guilty still gets you the mandatory life sentence so of course you'll roll the dice.and try and use a technicality to get off some where or cause doubt.

They will probably be out in less than 10 years

Dante7

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Please prove that these are the correct boys in the photo. Evidence please.

Boy B's lawyers went to court today to get an injunction to have the photos and names removed from social media.

nehemiah

tayto lover wrote: »

Don’t know but I will try to find out tomorrow. Has me baffled.

Judge has discretion to name convicted children if it is viewed to be in the public interest.

Sunflower 27

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I've no doubt that the man raised the child and loves him. No doubt about that at all.
It's the fact that there is no forensic evidence that is the kicker for me. Why is there none although he was there and admitted to being there. Where are his clothes he was wearing on the day? There is always forensic evidence from a scene like that. And the boy was certainly in contact with her that day.

It depends how far back he was standing. Blood may not have reached him. He could of got rid of his clothes if it had.

If he put on gloves there would be no fingerprints either.

BarryD2

tuxy wrote: »

Of course the parents can't, try to think about it logically.

Can't what? The legislation protects the identity of the convicted boys, but does it protect the names of their parents? And if it does, how far does that extend? Their grandparents, uncles and aunts? Neighbours? Teachers? School? How far can you go?

I can see the merit in their photographs or names not being published but I'm less convinced about their adult connections.

Grayson

Stheno wrote: »

I'd like to see them named on release as adults

They could have siblings. Siblings who were still underaged at that time.

Honestly I don't want to see them get any special treatment. They should be treated as any other offender of that age.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Boy B, also found guilty of murder, was a friend of Boy A. He described to gardaí how Boy A was planning to kill Ana.

In the recordings of interviews played in court, Boy B told gardaí that he was in school when he was approached by Boy A around a month before Ana died.

“I was in school by myself. He came up to me and said ‘hey, wanna kill somebody?’. I said no. He replied with ‘ah, here. Why not’. [I said] because it’s retarded. I then asked him who he was planning to kill and he replied ‘Ana Kriegel’. I replied with ‘in your dreams’. Then he just went. I didn’t think he was being serious.”

The court previously heard that Boy A had asked Boy B to call in for Ana and to arrange to meet in the park. The reason given for this was that Boy A could tell Ana that he was not romantically interested in her.

Boy B was asked by gardaí why Boy A’s bag – which he brought with him when going to the park – contained a mask, gloves, knee pads and shin pads if he was there to deal with a relationship matter.

Boy B responded: “He was planning to kill Ana – I didn’t know.”

And this was an obvious cock and bull story from B. We now know they didn't meet in the park and there was never any intention to - meaning B was also lying about the real reason for bringing Ana to the abandoned house 3km away.