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

SirGerryAdams

And then I wonder about the semen. The semen was found on her top.

You'd have thought the clothes would be ripped off first, or else he used to top to wipe it but...I dunno.

CityRoad

Deleted User wrote: »

Has the principal of her school faced any questions from authorities or the media? Did they try to deal with the bullying.

An Eimear Cotter article on the 20 May 2019 Irish Independent talks about the DNA evidence and the unknown DNA, I cannot post a link because I am new.

I do not know what the parents of Boy A did, my friend did not tell me, and the local parents wanted this to be brought to court, we only discussed the case in how it related to her child. Her child was one of their targets in the first half of the year.

If this third set of DNA indicates a third person, the boys are still lying.

coolshannagh28

There is an unprecedented level of horror to this tragic case :the wearing of the mask and the satanic pact indicate a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy . Online and mainstream media and films incorporate a high level of fantasy material now which lends to a blurring of the lines which children are unable to comprehend and in cases such as this acting in a manner devoid of empathy .

Sunflower 27

fryup wrote: »

it desensitises kids to violence.....there's definitely a lot more aggression/bad behaviour out there than a generation ago

This is worrying.

"Sexual offences by juveniles rose sharply last year, with children under 18 accounting for more than a third of all recorded sex crimes, Garda figures show."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/worrying-rise-in-sex-offences-involving-juveniles-in-2017-887268.html

fryup

@ cityroad....i take it you're from the area?

if so...did these kids have a reputation as bad brats?

Nerdlingr

tayto lover wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence would have hung him imo.
Caught Graham Dwyer and Joe O’Reilly nicely.

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

Force Carrier

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

That's true. His own admissions were the only real evidence against him. Likely the DPP wouldn't have been in a position to charge him even but for his admissions. Wouldn't have even got before a Jury.

Vicarious Function

JuneMoon7 wrote: »

Because the majority of the bullying would have been taking place where they were all together the most; in the classroom. if the entire class of little so and sos were engaging in this victimization and exclusion, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice it.

Not so! There's also the playground and after hours on the way home from school etc.

Nerdlingr

I said it before on here but the fact he tried to shift the blame onto Boy A got him convicted.
He had no reason to tell the story of Boy A's discussion of wanting to kill Ana a month previous, other than to drop his 'friend' in it.
In his attempt to grass out Boy A he convicted himself.
Dont ya just love irony. :)

tayto lover

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Nope. There was no evidence against him. Everything that convicted him came from his own mouth.

They had nothing of him being at the crime scene.

He could have just said " I called for her cos Boy A wanted to meet her, we walked over through the fields and I left her to go into the house. I played in the field for a bit, then went home. Havent a clue what happened afterwards."

1. Provided the blue sticky tape.
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder.
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.
4. Told lies about where he saw her last.
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry.
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana.

He would have got it hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

Boggles

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

This is worrying.

"Sexual offences by juveniles rose sharply last year, with children under 18 accounting for more than a third of all recorded sex crimes, Garda figures show."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/worrying-rise-in-sex-offences-involving-juveniles-in-2017-887268.html

Very worrying if just read the clickbait headline.

The devil is in the detail.

In 30 of the 47 cases, it said the “offender and injured party were in a relationship and had made the mutual decision to engage in sexual behaviour”.

It said: “In many cases both parties were not aware that by engaging in such behaviour, the male was committing a criminal offence.”

gozunda

dickangel wrote: »

Ok we'll try again but slowly this time. Boy A could have made any number of remarks to implicate or shift blame to Boy B without admitting he was there such as "Boy B used to always talk about killing her" or "Boy B was obsessed with her." He could have even said he had an active plan to do it. Boy B was happy to do that to Boy A but for whatever reason Boy A didn't retaliate despite being read the transcripts.

You can try as slowly as you like btw.

It remains he didn't. The question is why not?

Nerdlingr

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Provided the blue sticky tape.
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder.
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.
4. Told lies about where he saw her last.
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry.
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana.

He would have got it herd to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

None of that means a thing/or comes to light if he doesnt talk.
They only have him on CCTV and an eye witness who saw him. Thats it.
Far far far from a murder conviction. Miles away.

dickangel

gozunda wrote: »

You can try as slowly as you like btw.

It remains he didn't. The question is why not?

Which is the question I asked last night.

Sardonicat

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

And then I wonder about the semen. The semen was found on her top.

You'd have thought the clothes would be ripped off first, or else he used to top to wipe it but...I dunno.

Her clothes were ripped off her.

Standman

CityRoad wrote: »

An Eimear Cotter article on the 20 May 2019 Irish Independent talks about the DNA evidence and the unknown DNA, I cannot post a link because I am new.

I do not know what the parents of Boy A did, my friend did not tell me, and the local parents wanted this to be brought to court, we only discussed the case in how it related to her child. Her child was one of their targets in the first half of the year.

If this third set of DNA indicates a third person, the boys are still lying.

It does indicate a third person, but that means nothing. The third person could be one of her parents, a friend, anyone she came into contact with.

SirGerryAdams

Sardonicat wrote: »

Her clothes were ripped off her.

I know but would be odd to rip them off after he had finished.

Omackeral

inthehat wrote: »

Driving through town last night I saw scores of young people dolled up obviously heading out to celebrate end of exams. Mini skirts, make -up. fake tan etc (no prob with that, I did it all myself to some extent in my day ).

But all the girls looked like clones of each other. Same long poker straight hair, same daft eye-brows, same fake colour from top to toe. I just thought how hard it must be for a girl to be even remotely different. It's like a rite of passage - "we must all conform ".

The guys all looked like themselves, just well spruced-up.

Probably off topic but most young lads like the exact same as each other now too. Black runners, dark shorts or trackies, no socks and maybe a bubble jacket. Then that noodle hair or a fade cut. Clones.

Hurrache

In the rush to identify the boys on the internet, so as often happens, the information of an innocent boy has been circulated as being one of the 2.

SirGerryAdams

Hurrache wrote: »

In the rush to identify the boys on the internet, so as often happens, the information of an innocent boy has been circulated as being one of the 2.

No it hasn't. It's no different to some guy called Paddy Jackson being accused of being a rapist.

gozunda

dickangel wrote: »

Which is the question I asked last night.

Ditto

tuxy

Omackeral wrote: »

Probably off topic but most young lads like the exact same as each other now too. Black runners, dark shorts or trackies, no socks and maybe a bubble jacket. Then that noodle hair or a fade cut. Clones.

Hasn't it been like this for every generation? When you are young and part of that generation it's the subtle differences that stand out but to everyone else you all look the same.

MrMusician18

Nerdlingr wrote: »

None of that means a thing/or comes to light if he doesnt talk.
They only have him on CCTV and an eye witness who saw him. Thats it.
Far far far from a murder conviction. Miles away.

There is absolutely no way boy b would've seen the inside of a courtroom had he kept his mouth shut. His own words was really all they had on him - hence why they played 16hrs of his interviews in the court, it's usually only edited transcripts that appear in court.

While I'm glad they were convinced, you'd have to wonder what kind of counsel he was getting. Not a great advertisement for their services anyway.

Hurrache

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No it hasn't. It's no different to some guy called Paddy Jackson being accused of being a rapist.

So the court has been lied to?

As for your second sentence, what a bizarre comparison, off the wall.

brendanwalsh

Asked a few times but didn't get an answer. It was mentioned on reddit

Did boy a parents try to get him out of the country?

SirGerryAdams

Hurrache wrote: »

So the court has been lied to?

As for your second sentence, what a bizarre comparison, off the wall.

I don't see it in any articles?

Anyone who wants to know what the two rats look like will find it. The photos going around are correct.

Grayson

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

No it hasn't. It's no different to some guy called Paddy Jackson being accused of being a rapist.

It's completly different.

dickangel

Hurrache wrote: »

In the rush to identify the boys on the internet, so as often happens, the information of an innocent boy has been circulated as being one of the 2.

Was always going to happen. People are genuinely stupid, "wE HavE a RiGht to KnoW" as they endanger an innocent kid.

SirGerryAdams

dickangel wrote: »

Was always going to happen. People are genuinely stupid, "wE HavE a RiGht to KnoW" as they endanger an innocent kid.

How can they endanger an innocent kid when the scum are detained?

Standman

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I don't see it in any articles?

...

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0620/1056478-kriegel-case-court/

"The judge also said he was shocked to hear that an innocent child had been wrongfully identified on social media as being one of the two convicted boys and that a school had been targeted as well."