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

tayto lover

Cryptopagan wrote: »

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.

I still don’t agree and we will never know now anyway but the line of investigation would have taken a different direction and the detectives would have approached it in a different way if he had kept silent. I believe they suspected his guilt as soon as they saw the “look” between the two boys in the park. They knew they were not telling the truth.

Faugheen

average_runner wrote: »

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

The ones who share photos falsely identifying one of the boys and then blaming the judiciary for not identifying them?

I agree. Absolute fools who think the law shouldn't have to apply to them.

mrjoneill

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the maximum they can get?

life

average_runner

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

Because you don't want to know. But if yobs really want to know, they are going to find out or attack an incident person!!

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

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.

Her body was recovered without either boy's assistance. It was a missing person's case at the start so gardai were called in to look for her. Even without the knowledge of Boy B calling for her they still would have searched for Ana.

Theboinkmaster

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

How do you know the parents are responsible?

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

average_runner

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

I dont think its that simple

Theboinkmaster

mrjoneill wrote: »

life

Yeah but they'll be out by the time they're 21.

The term "life" means nothing in this country.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

That doesn't mean they can control every eventuality. We don't know the circumstances, the influences on these children, what their parents were like, anything. They may have been bad parents or there may have been other factors at play.

Cryptopagan

tayto lover wrote: »

I still don’t agree and we will never know now anyway but the line of investigation would have taken a different direction and the detectives would have approached it in a different way if he had kept silent. I believe they suspected his guilt as soon as they saw the “look” between the two boys in the park. They knew they were not telling the truth.

And the reason they saw that look was because he was ostensibly cooperating with them. In the lead up to the boys exchanging that look, the officers had already noticed that Boy B was leading them along a different route to the one he previously claimed; his lies were already unraveling and giving him away.

Had he refused to cooperate or answer questions from the start, that certainly would have been very suspicious, but in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence putting him at the scene of the crime, it’s very hard to see what he could have been charged with. The investigation was exhaustive as it was—-you can’t pluck new evidence out of thin air.

sbsquarepants

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.

Some people are just bad. Everything a child does is not the fault of the parents, that's just crazy!

You may well be lucky enough to have "normal" kids and have done a decent job rearing them - but a lot of how our kids behave is just inherent to them. Some kids are sweet and good natured, others are cold and calculating, and some are just plain bad eggs.

Parenting can help in some ways of course, or it can make things worse - but psychopaths are born that way, they can't be fixed!

Theboinkmaster

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

That doesn't mean they can control every eventuality. We don't know the circumstances, the influences on these children, what their parents were like, anything. They may have been bad parents or there may have been other factors at play.

So at what age does it end, the responsibility? How old must a kid be?

These were 14 - they were children still.

In general, in this country, a lot of parents do not accept the full responsibility of being parents properly and their kids end up utter scumbags or mentally deranged.

tuxy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

Not for murder, in Ireland when a child is over 10 years old they can be legally responsible for murder.
I don't believe there are any plans to bring the parents up on any charges for neglect, abuse or anything else.

Here's a Ted talk with Sue Klebold who was the mother of one of the Columbine shootings. Do you hold her responsible?

https://www.ted.com/talks/sue_klebold_my_son_was_a_columbine_shooter_this_is_my_story#t-113439

mrjoneill

Hal3000 wrote: »

Totally agree here. To a degree parents must be responsible for any child's access to the internet. Giving a child unfettered access to the internet is irresponsible. Also we need to look at limiting access to Whatsapp for u18. We are really going to cause damage to our youths if we allow them to keep viewing violent and extreme content. Im sure in years we will look back on this and think WTF we're we thinking.

We now are at the stage its compulsive porn viewing for 12yr old and swapping of such videos. While some parents can control their own kids access at home they have no controls in the school yard. I am aware of phone kids charging non-phone kids €2 to view this. Its like the jenie is out of the bottle and not going back in.

Suckit

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.

You cannot hold the parents 100% responsible for this.

Boom_Bap

Do I hold the parents accountable. No.


Do I think that the parents actions from May 14th onwards need to be investigated. Yes.

iamwhoiam

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their own kids.

Have a read of this that a poster linked a few pages back . Very informative

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

Nerdlingr

tayto lover wrote: »

I still don’t agree and we will never know now anyway but the line of investigation would have taken a different direction and the detectives would have approached it in a different way if he had kept silent. I believe they suspected his guilt as soon as they saw the “look” between the two boys in the park. They knew they were not telling the truth.

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no means proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

jimmycrackcorm

jmayo wrote: »

That fooking school should be named and shamed because it looks like they let a lot of stuff go.

The school was already named in numerous newspaper articles including the IT, mirror, Sun, Leinster Leader, herald etc.

These were published last year long before the trial.

gozunda

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Tbh the reported accounts of the behaviour of the two boys and to some extent that of the parents says something about how these two psychos were facilitated in their denials in the face of Boy Bs own testimony and the forensics on the case of Boy A

According to a multitude of reports - Boy A sat with his mother and father at the rear of the courtroom - with his mother placing a white paper hanky in his shirt pocket and holding hands. At one stage he sat with his head rested on his mother's shoulder and cried as the verdict was read out.

Boy B sat with his mother and father also holding hands and at the end they all embraced for several minutes at the end of the court case

Following the verdict we then have the father of Boy B shouting
"Bunch of scumbags here ,You bunch of scumbags, you f**king pricks, innocent boy."
And : "F***ing bunch of scumbags, Nazi p****s. F*** you."He also clapped, shouting: "You are happy".

Boy A cried for himself and not for the life of the poor girl he murdered and sexually assaulted.

Boy Bs father obviously believes his son is a little angel that just has a perchance for telling porky pies....

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

So at what age does it end, the responsibility? How old must a kid be?

These were 14 - they were children still.

In general, in this country, a lot of parents do not accept the full responsibility of being parents properly and their kids end up utter scumbags or mentally deranged.

I'm not arguing that isn't sometimes the case. But without knowing all the facts we have no idea if the parents are responsible for their sons growing up to be so amoral and depraved.

It's not simply about the age of the children. There are some things for which a parent cannot be held responsible or cannot control. Children from the best and most stable families can sometimes go off the rails, breaking their parents hearts. Children from very challenging homes can go on to live very successful and normal lives.
It's not always black and white.

BarryD2

80sChild wrote: »

Ridiculous, all the articles from the period she was missing not yet found state her school - have all newspapers worked overnight to purge these? They were still there yesterday.

EDIT: There are tweets still up with people @'ing the school with questions around their bullying policy. You cannot unring a bell.

So the justice system is just basically making it up as we go along. It's this sort of 'censorship' that brings disrespect on the system. Threatening concerned citizens with legal action is never a good idea.

iamwhoiam

Nerdlingr wrote: »

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no mean proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

The interviewing of Boy B is to be commended . The Gardai held their cool and never once took their eye off the ball

BarryD2

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The school was already named in numerous newspaper articles including the IT, mirror, Sun, Leinster Leader, herald etc.

These were published last year long before the trial.

Indeed, it's take all of 30 seconds to find the name of the school concerned and yet the courts are saying it cannot be named. What sort of nonsense is this?

Penn

Cryptopagan wrote: »

And the reason they saw that look was because he was ostensibly cooperating with them. In the lead up to the boys exchanging that look, the officers had already noticed that Boy B was leading them along a different route to the one he previously claimed; his lies were already unraveling and giving him away.

Had he refused to cooperate or answer questions from the start, that certainly would have been very suspicious, but in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence putting him at the scene of the crime, it’s very hard to see what he could have been charged with. The investigation was exhaustive as it was—-you can’t pluck new evidence out of thin air.

Agreed. Even if the detectives strongly suspected Boy B was was there, there was no evidence putting him there. All they had was CCTV footage of him walking with Ana in that direction. They had no evidence he went the whole way to the house with her, went into the house, was in the room, or that he knew Boy A was there.

If they had any other evidence, they would have also included it in the trial regardless. But all they had was what Boy B said in the interviews, after the detectives kept dragging the info out of him. If he'd said nothing even after his first interview when they then knew he was lying, they wouldn't have had a case against him. Knew he was lying, sure. But no evidence of what the truth was.

Boy B seemed to think each time they unraveled his lies that he could reveal a bit more info, say that's it, and that'd be the end of it. Instead, he was just digging a deeper hole for himself and creating more inconsistencies in his story, allowing the detectives to keep pushing through the gaps he left.

mrjoneill

tuxy wrote: »

I've no idea what people are trying to get at with these phantom phones.
There was enough evidence to convict both boys so unless someone thinks these phantom phones could be used to appeal the guilty verdict all you are doing is making useless speculation about a very sensitive murder trial.

What we are inferring is Boy B is much more scheming liar & manipulator he is given credit for.

tayto lover

Nerdlingr wrote: »

They knew the 'look' wasnt right - and cast doubts in their minds whether the boys were telling the truth.
Getting from a 'look' to a murder conviction involved fantastic interview techniques from the gardai in question. They really did brilliant work.
But, the defendant is entitled to say nothing. Try as they might, if someone wants to answer "no comment" in an interview they can, all day long. And there is nothing you can do about it.It wont look great in court, if it gets that far. But it by no means proves guilt.
And if the gardai lost the rag whilst interviewing him, his whole statements could have been thrown out of court.

Maybe but do you not think they would have investigated him knowing he was the last person seen with her and as such a suspect. Also Boy A who left dna at the scene and was a friend of his would have been asked to supply dna and linked to Boy B. There would have been a different slant to the investigation. Hopefully they both would have been caught eventually.

tuxy

mrjoneill wrote: »

What we are inferring is Boy B is much more scheming liar & manipulator he is given credit for.

His interviews make that very clear and obviously the jury gave him loads of credit as a manipulator. That was based on actual tangible evidence not some made up theories.

iamwhoiam

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but do you not think they would have investigated him knowing he was the last person seen with her and as such a suspect. Also Boy A who left dna at the scene and was a friend of his would have been asked to supply dna and linked to Boy B. There would have been a different slant to the investigation. Hopefully they both would have been caught eventually.

He was on CCTV also so they would have caught him sooner or later

Gerianam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The interviewing of Boy B is to be commended . The Gardai held their cool and never once took their eye off the ball

Yes! Well done Gardaí! Professional to their finger tips. They are not getting the regognition they deserve. They excelled themselves in this investigation.