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

Boom_Bap

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

He tried to have the evidence not be made available, for example, the boots with the blood, he was saying that they were acquired as part of a separate investigation.

Boggles

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Someone one here thought a picture of two lads on facebook was one of them.
It wasnt. It was the two guys that tragically drowned in a quarry in Clare last year. :( This is the problem.

That's fúcking horrific.

retro:electro

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

From The Irish Times article:

The boys’ defences would finally become clear when their lawyers delivered their closing speeches.

In a speech lasting less than an hour, Gageby focused on what he said was a lack of evidence that Boy A planned to kill Ana. He never overtly said his client was connected to the girl’s death, but he conceded that the jury might decide Boy A was present when the injuries were inflicted on Ana. “But is there any real evidence that he planned any of this?” he asked.

The barrister also alluded to the idea that Boy A and Ana engaged in consensual sexual activity. Glenwood House was probably used by young people for “romantic trysts”, given the presence of condom wrappers on the ground, he said. Pathology evidence showed injuries to Ana’s genitals, but it couldn’t be established if these occurred through nonconsensual activity.
Counsel added that it “can’t be ruled out” that a neck swab taken from Ana showing male DNA did not result from “casual intimacy”.

Seemed to be focused on pre-meditation and the possibility Ana may have consented to what happened.
Sickening.

tayto lover

Standman wrote: »

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked 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."

Journalists all thought Joe O’Reilly wouldn’t be found guilty too or Graham Dwyer.
Thank God they’re not on juries.

Will I Am Not

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

Because some of this mob mentality crowd aren't terribly bright.

I remember something odd like that happening after that girl Jastine was murdered. Think there was people ringing your man's house and leaving abusive messages to him and him dead ffs.

Sardonicat

Brego888 wrote: »

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?

His barrister tried to infer that Ana was sexually active and could have had a consensual encounter with A that got out of hand. Other than that the hope was for a procedural or technical error to get him off. No defence to speak of! really.

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

Gardai knew Boy B enticed Ana out of her house if they didn't know that the murder may not have been resolved so easily as it may have taken weeks for her body to be recovered & the DNA would have degenerated. Boy B had to explain his situation to avoid further Garda attention and the lies unfolded to deny what happened. I'm sure Boy A was flummoxed that Gardai knocked on his door the night she went missing fearing the whole thing unraveling. Boy A implicated Boy B who also tried to lie his way out of it. And they were able to look for CCTV & witnesses when they knew where A & B were. I understand A & B went around the local area together after the murder still best friends.

Yurt2

average_runner wrote: »

They are going have to release the identity or more innocent kids will get hurt in the wrong

Because the baying mob can't control themselves? And we like to speak of individual responsibility in this society.

Looks like we're in the midst of a moral panic, and I'm not even joking. This is mass neurotic psychology at play here.

The Gardai did their job, the DPP did their job, the judge and jury did their job. It's not going to bring Ana back and justice isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. The two are going away in accordance with the laws of our state. Many online are looking for something beyond justice - and if they get the names of the family, it's not unreasonable to think they'll take retribution on behalf of a girl they never knew, never cared about until two days ago.

rob316

I reckon the judge will name them, there is no precedent set for this. Uncharted territory convicting the states youngest murderers.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not uncomfortable with people describing her as naive and innocent. She was naive and innocent and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. She was also just a 14 year old child. I’m uncomfortable with people saying “if only she was X” or “if only she was a little more street wise”, because Ana didn’t need to change one thing about herself or how she was in order to avoid being murdered or lower her chances. She was perfect as she was. The only people who needed to alter their behaviour are the ones who are responsible for beating her to death.

I know people don’t mean any harm by their comments, I even said I know people are well intentioned- it’s just something that irks me every time I read a comment like that. That is all.

Fair enough.

Sardonicat

rob316 wrote: »

I reckon the judge will name them, there is no precedent set for this. Uncharted territory convicting the states youngest murderers.

He cannot name them. He does not have discretion in this matter.

Theboinkmaster

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

Larbre34

Standman wrote: »

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked 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."

I read that but I have to disagree. Patric Kriegel answered the door to him and we know now that both Boys A and B and indeed Ana were encountered by people known to them before and after the murder, as well as a decent amount of CCTV.

I'm not sure how he could have got away without being implicated in some fashion and had it come to it he would have been put on the stand and questioned, probably quite harshly by Boy A's counsel, seeking to add doubt about his own client if nothing else.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

With what?

Cryptopagan

tayto lover wrote: »

Journalists all thought Joe O’Reilly wouldn’t be found guilty too or Graham Dwyer.
Thank God they’re not on juries.

The journalist isn’t saying he wouldn’t be found guilty; the piece was published after the case concluded. They are just pointing out that the case against Boy B was based largely on what he said to Gardai. That being so, had he said nothing to Gardai—as is anyone’s right—there is unlikely to have been enough evidence to charge him.

In contrast, Boy A told Gardai very little—frequently answering their questions with “I don’t know”, “no comment” and the like—but the case against him was largely based on physical evidence.

If Boy B reacted as Boy A did to questioning, he might never have even been tried.

sbsquarepants

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

Don't be ridiculous!

Grayson

80sChild wrote: »

I have a hard time believing they went from "Normal" to rape/torture/murder without even a hint of a dark side to their personalities. Much more likely to have been some indicators.

I see what you mean but that doesn't mean it was noticeable.

mrjoneill

volchitsa wrote: »

There's inevitably a lot of comparison with Venables and Thomson happening and one thing I wonder about is whether, Ireland's youth detention system being so much smaller than the UK's they will be able to remain in any sort of contact with each other. The two Bulger killers were kept apart, and I think it would be very unfortunate if that couldn't be guaranteed here. But I suspect it can't be.

Prob build them 2 bungalows in the grounds to keep them apart till 18 & then 2 different prisons where they will have to be segregated.

retro:electro

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can the parents be charged? Should they?

I've 2 kids and I'd hold myself largely responsible for their behaviour (whilst they live at home and are still "kids") so if one of them did something like this it would be 100% my fault and I should go to prison for a very long time.

Why would their parents be arrested? The age of criminal responsibility in case like this is 10 years old.

Theboinkmaster

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

With what?

Accessory to murder. Why not?

Sunflower 27

Boom_Bap wrote: »

He tried to have the evidence not be made available, for example, the boots with the blood, he was saying that they were acquired as part of a separate investigation.

Absolutely desperate

average_runner

Yurt! wrote: »

Because the baying mob can't control themselves? And we like to speak of individual responsibility in this society.

Looks like we're in the midst of a moral panic, and I'm not even joking. This is mass neurotic psychology at play here.

The Gardai did their job, the DPP did their job, the judge and jury did their job. It's not going to bring Ana back and justice isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. The two are going away in accordance with the laws of our state. Many online are looking for something beyond justice - and if they get the names of the family, it's not unreasonable to think they'll take retribution on behalf of a girl they never knew, never cared about until two days ago.

But the Yobs that want to take retribution already knows who they are.
Its not that hard to find out, its common knowledge in Leixlip and Lucan.

Faugheen

average_runner wrote: »

They are going have to release the identity or more innocent kids will get hurt in the wrong

Or grown adults can actually have some personal responsibility and cop the f*ck on.

Standman

Larbre34 wrote: »

I read that but I have to disagree. Patric Kriegel answered the door to him and we know now that both Boys A and B and indeed Ana were encountered by people known to them before and after the murder, as well as a decent amount of CCTV.

I'm not sure how he could have got away without being implicated in some fashion and had it come to it he would have been put on the stand and questioned, probably quite harshly by Boy A's counsel, seeking to add doubt about his own client if nothing else.

He can't be forced to take the stand. Again, there's the right to silence.

The fact alone that he called for Ana/was seen walking with her on CCTV is simply not enough to charge him for murder.

Theboinkmaster

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous!

I don't think it is.

These boys are mentally fvcked up - who is responsible for that? Their parents so I hold them ultimately responsible for this poor girls brutal murder.

average_runner

Faugheen wrote: »

Or grown adults can actually have some personal responsibility and cop the f*ck on.

haha, there is always a few idiots out there with no cop on

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Accessory to murder. Why not?

Are you serious?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I don't think it is.

These boys are mentally fvcked up - who is responsible for that? Their parents so I hold them ultimately responsible for this poor girls brutal murder.

How do you know the parents are responsible?

Yurt2

average_runner wrote: »

But the Yobs that want to take retribution already knows who they are.
Its not that hard to find out, its common knowledge in Leixlip and Lucan.

There is a world outside Leixlip and Lucan. I don't know their names and I don't care to. The State has done a very good job in bringing them to justice in an extremely sensitive case. And that's the State's job, not Johnnyangryman on WhatsApp or Twitter.

retro:electro

Boom_Bap wrote: »

He tried to have the evidence not be made available, for example, the boots with the blood, he was saying that they were acquired as part of a separate investigation.

The defence tried every trick in the book to try and get a lot of the evidence deemed inadmissible, and a lot of their attempts were rejected. What’s great though is they literally couldn’t find fault with the Garda interviews or how the process of acquiring the info from Boy B was conducted, such is the professionalism that was shown on behalf of those interviewing. Stellar work in what I’m sure what was a highly frustrating environment.