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

tuxy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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

He was only identifiable by the fact he had a backpack on CCTV, the video was not sharp enough to show much else.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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

Not for being at the scene though. Obstruction of justice yes.

Odd that boy a never said anything much. Not even to incriminate boy b. I suppose once the dna was out there...

fash

jmayo wrote: »

Oh I get the analogy all right.
It is typical arrogance from high ranking legal professional.

It is trying to dress up and make it acceptable to represent some of the most morally reprehensible characters and do their best to get them to avoid their rightful punishment.

It is like how the legal team of these two scrotes will sit at home tonight and not see anything wrong with how they tried to claim to a jury there was no real evidence to convict their clients and how they were nice young lads from nice families.

That's b****cks - lawyers must represent even the "almost certainly guilty" - that is their duty to all of us- that the state can't just go "aah - that is Hitler, no need for a trial, he can go straight to jail" - the state cannot be allowed to be lazy in locking people away. It must do its job and be forced to do its job - for the benefit of all, otherwise it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Taking a slippery slope approach, we might as well lock you (or me or anyone here) up as I'm sure there is at least something illegal you've done at some point.

Secondly even in horrible cases, there are degrees of horribleness. Here for example, surely you can agree that boy A should be looked at more severely then boy B.

80sChild

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.

I think that presumes there is no nature v nurture question. Puts everything in the nurture domain. Surely you know families with children who are chalk and cheese despite identical upbringings. Kids are born with their own peculiarities which are mitigated or exacerbated by their environment and experience. Lots of kids from good families in trouble with the law/in school etc. Personal responsibility can't only begin on the day of your 18th birthday.

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

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.

If the Gardai had matched up the adhesive tape found wound around Ana throat with Boy B home it would be alarming & indicate a more active participation. While the rule "silence is golden" the gaping facts Ana's body found murdered, the DNA of Boy A his friend all over the site & the victim on him, the fact that his friend Boy B went to the house to entice her out & the adhesive tape would leave a lot of explaining to do if there was a void in his evidence. If I was in the jury I would not buy into video after video him stating "no comment" to Garda questioning.

Nerdlingr

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.

Last person to knowingly see Ana alive and caught on CCTV with her, so he was clearly the main suspect.
I dont get your DNA question ? Boy B's DNA was nowhere hear the house/scene. They found nothing.

Anyway,all boy B had to say was:

"I called for Ana because Boy A wanted to meet her in the house. I dont know what for. Maybe they met up to kiss or something. So we walked through the BMX park and I dropped her off at the house, I played for a bit on the way home in the field then went home. That's all I know. The tape?? oh yeah. I might have given that to him a few weeks back. Dunno what he wanted it for."

Thats it. No comment from then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.

mrjoneill

80sChild wrote: »

I think that presumes there is no nature v nurture question. Puts everything in the nurture domain. Surely you know families with children who are chalk and cheese despite identical upbringings. Kids are born with their own peculiarities which are mitigated or exacerbated by their environment and experience. Lots of kids from good families in trouble with the law/in school etc. Personal responsibility can't only begin on the day of your 18th birthday.

Not with that vicious streak to pre-plan a brutal murder of a defenseless young girl and to rape her. Its beyond comprehension the enormous evil around it.

Yurt2

fash wrote: »

That's b****cks - lawyers must represent even the "almost certainly guilty" - that is their duty to all of us- that the state can't just go "aah - that is Hitler, no need for a trial, he can go straight to jail" - the state cannot be allowed to be lazy in locking people away. It must do its job and be forced to do its job - for the benefit of all, otherwise it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Taking a slippery slope approach, we might as well lock you (or me or anyone here) up as I'm sure there is at least something illegal you've done at some point.

Secondly even in horrible cases, there are degrees of horribleness. Here for example, surely you can agree that boy A should be looked at more severely then boy B.

Indeed, the adversarial system, while ugly sometimes, is there to ensure justice is served to the highest possible degree. It does this more often than not.

Lackadaisical

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

Well, the judge is just applying the Children's Act 2001, which is fairly specific about how these things should work.

There isn't a whole lot of precedent around crimes of this magnitude involving minors, so the court inevitably has to attempt to apply the act and also ensure that procedures are in compliance with all other Irish law, any relevant European law, international best practice and also probably will be looking towards other Common Law and European jurisdictions in terms of what best practice is too.

They're not just making it up as they go along, but they are having to be quite innovative in what they do.

As for court orders around cases being held in camera or having reporting restrictions, those are fairly standard and if you breech the order you can be held in contempt. The law and court procedures around contempt are well known and very standard. Judges have coercive powers including holding people in custody until they purge their contempt, issuing fines and avenues like prison sentences.
The Chileren's Act itself also contains specific penalties:

Children's Act, 2001
Section 51
Part 3

(3) If any matter is published or broadcast in contravention of subsection (1), each of the following persons, namely—

(a) in the case of publication of the matter in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical,

(b) in the case of any other such publication, the person who publishes it, and

(c) in the case of any such broadcast, any body corporate which transmits or provides the programme in which the broadcast is made and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.

(4) (a) Where an offence under subsection (3)—

(i) has been committed by a body corporate, and

(ii) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he or she as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(b) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, paragraph (a) shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director of the body corporate.

(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (3), it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the person was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or broadcast in question was of a matter referred to in subsection (1).

(6) In this section—

“broadcast” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not;

“publish” means publish to the public or a section of the public, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

It's a pretty heavy legal prohibition of reporting on the identity of the minors on trial and really the debate around it is more of a political issue than a judicial one as the judge is just applying the law as it stands. If someone wants to change that, it's up to the Oireachtas.

The act is only 18 years old, but a whole world of social media and online communication has happened since then and it's probably asking Twitter and Facebook to achieve the impossible, considering even in countries that operate extreme censorship regimes, information still gets out through social media.

Making something illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the law is realistically enforceable. So this has the potential to case a major issue with social media companies.

I wonder will we see the rather bizarre international spectacle of Facebook and Twitter execs being held personally liable. It certainly wouldn't do us much good as a tech hub.

Suckit

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Anyway,all boy B had to say was:

"I called for Ana because Boy A wanted to meet her in the house. I dont know what for. Maybe they met up to kiss or something. So we walked through the BMX park and I dropped her off at the house, I played for a bit on the way home in the field then went home. That's all I know. The tape?? oh yeah. I might have given that to him a few weeks back. Dunno what he wanted it for."

Thats it. No comment for then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.

You have never called for her before, why did she leave with you so willingly?
What did you talk about for the 3km from her house to where you left her off?

80sChild

mrjoneill wrote: »

Not with that vicious streak to pre-plan a brutal murder of a defenseless young girl and to rape her. Its beyond comprehension the enormous evil around it.

Chills me to the bone.

Boggles

Gerianam wrote: »

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

I think they did a good job, but I wouldn't go over board TBH.

Boy A left more forensic evidence in any murder case I have ever seen.

Boy B was remember a child (however evil) interviewed over 17 hours by 2 trained detectives.

They did the job you would expect them to do.

Nerdlingr

Suckit wrote: »

You have never called for her before, why did she leave with you so willingly?
What did you talk about for the 3km from her house to where you left her off?

No comment.

(or 'my client has nothing further to add')

ooter

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Someone on 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.

the photo I seen last night definitely wasn't those 2 boys anyway.

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Last person to knowingly see Ana alive and caught on CCTV with her, so he was clearly the main suspect.
I dont get your DNA question ? Boy B's DNA was nowhere hear the house/scene. They found nothing.

Anyway,all boy B had to say was:

"I called for Ana because Boy A wanted to meet her in the house. I dont know what for. Maybe they met up to kiss or something. So we walked through the BMX park and I dropped her off at the house, I played for a bit on the way home in the field then went home. That's all I know. The tape?? oh yeah. I might have given that to him a few weeks back. Dunno what he wanted it for."

Thats it. No comment for then on. Try and get a conviction of murder out of that.

Boy B was seen heading to the abandoned house with Ana by witnesses confirmed by CCTV. Boy B tried that angle but was caught out lying so he had to do more lying which he was caught out repeatedly at. He has never come clean as we know from his own psychologist report as its at variance with the last Garda statement he made. The fact he went to Ana's house, is on CCTV in the park & witness statement and his video lying puts an awful image of complicity on him. He going "no comment" to questions would only further alienate the jury. Boy B firmly believed he was too smart for everyone. It has me wondering if he was not the leader of the pack and he was so derogatory over Ana as if she deserved it.

Penn

mrjoneill wrote: »

If the Gardai had matched up the adhesive tape found wound around Ana throat with Boy B home it would be alarming & indicate a more active participation. While the rule "silence is golden" the gaping facts Ana's body found murdered, the DNA of Boy A his friend all over the site & the victim on him, the fact that his friend Boy B went to the house to entice her out & the adhesive tape would leave a lot of explaining to do if there was a void in his evidence. If I was in the jury I would not buy into video after video him stating "no comment" to Garda questioning.

A lot of explaining to do, yes. But if he refused to explain and the gardai had no other evidence, he may not have even been brought to trial except maybe on obstruction of justice or similar. All the things you mention point to him having been involved, but aren't strong enough proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Video after video of him saying "no comment" highlight that he's likely not innocent, but aren't nearly enough to prove him guilty either.

All the gardai had was him collecting Ana from the house and walking with her part of the way to the house. The tape could have been given to Boy A for a multitude of other reasons, and Boy A likely had other friends too, not just Boy B. There was simply no physical or forensic evidence that the gardai could find which put Boy B in the house. Even if they knew he was lying, there was no other evidence and if there was they would have used it in the trial.

GarIT

mrjoneill wrote: »

If the Gardai had matched up the adhesive tape found wound around Ana throat with Boy B home it would be alarming & indicate a more active participation. While the rule "silence is golden" the gaping facts Ana's body found murdered, the DNA of Boy A his friend all over the site & the victim on him, the fact that his friend Boy B went to the house to entice her out & the adhesive tape would leave a lot of explaining to do if there was a void in his evidence. If I was in the jury I would not buy into video after video him stating "no comment" to Garda questioning.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has no responsibility to explain anything. "This looks suspicious" shouldn't be enough to convict anyone in a functioning legal system.

Standman

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Not for being at the scene though. Obstruction of justice yes.

Odd that boy a never said anything much. Not even to incriminate boy b. I suppose once the dna was out there...

How would he have been done for obstruction of justice?

Lucuma

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

There's about a 15 minute difference from when Boy A was spotted on CCTV returning home to Boy B being spotted on CCTV returning home.

Does anyone with local knowledge know if this looks like Boy B didn't stay the whole duration that Boy A did?

Well A had to take off his murder kit and put it all back into his back pack and straighten himself up a bit. That would have made him 5 or so minutes later than B anyway

Penn

Standman wrote: »

How would he have been done for obstruction of justice?

Refusal to co-operate with detectives trying to solve a murder case where they have sufficient reason to suspect he's withholding relevant information.

Tomw86

Lucuma wrote: »

Well A had to take off his murder kit and put it all back into his back pack and straighten himself up a bit. That would have made him 5 or so minutes later than B anyway

The body was moved too I believe, so could have been that.

God only knows what else Boy A did in that time...sick pr1ck.

Standman

Penn wrote: »

Refusal to co-operate with detectives trying to solve a murder case where they have sufficient reason to suspect he's withholding relevant information.

If that were applicable then it would effectively negate the right to silence.

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

Boy B was seen heading to the abandoned house with Ana by witnesses confirmed by CCTV. Boy B tried that angle but was caught out lying so he had to do more lying which he was caught out repeatedly at. He has never come clean as we know from his own psychologist report as its at variance with the last Garda statement he made. The fact he went to Ana's house, is on CCTV in the park & witness statement and his video lying puts an awful image of complicity on him. He going "no comment" to questions would only further alienate the jury. Boy B firmly believed he was too smart for everyone. It has me wondering if he was not the leader of the pack and he was so derogatory over Ana as if she deserved it.

Boy B doesn't have to say any more than what I've written. Nothing. Doesn't have to elaborate on anything and he gets off.
CCTV at a BMX park or a witness spotting him doesn't mean anything. Just he was in her presence that's all. It'd would all be covered in the few lines I've written. Any case of reasonable doubt and he would have had to have been acquitted.

Tomw86

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Boy B doesn't have to say any more than what I've written. Nothing. Doesn't have to elaborate on anything and he gets off.
CCTV at a BMX park or a witness spotting him doesn't mean anything. Just he was in her presence that's all. It'd would all be covered in the few lines I've written. Any case of reasonable doubt and he would have had to have been acquitted.

I agree, Boy B was trying to be overly clever and ended up putting himself at the scene.

He seemed cool and collected but was very naïve about how the whole process would work.

Lucuma

tayto lover wrote: »

Plus he was able to point out to detectives the room Ana’s body was found in.
It was a different room to where he handed over Ana to Boy A and where the assault began.
He hung around for sure enjoying his plan hatching out.

We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that

mrjoneill

Penn wrote: »

A lot of explaining to do, yes. But if he refused to explain and the gardai had no other evidence, he may not have even been brought to trial except maybe on obstruction of justice or similar. All the things you mention point to him having been involved, but aren't strong enough proof to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Video after video of him saying "no comment" highlight that he's likely not innocent, but aren't nearly enough to prove him guilty either.

All the gardai had was him collecting Ana from the house and walking with her part of the way to the house. The tape could have been given to Boy A for a multitude of other reasons, and Boy A likely had other friends too, not just Boy B. There was simply no physical or forensic evidence that the garadi could find which put Boy B in the house. Even if they knew he was lying, there was simply no other evidence and if there was they would have used it in the trial.

We would have Ana found murdered with Boy A forensics all over the place & Ana on him. We had Boy B enticing Ana out of the house and confirmed by witnesses & CCTV going to the abandoned house to meet with Boy B who was on CCTV going an alternative route. Boys B presence at the murder scene was not used to convict him as we have no evidence of an active participation in the murder. What was used to convict was the CCTV of both A & B meeting just prior to he enticing her out of her home, he leading her to an abandoned house 3km away while Boy B made an alternative route. We have videos of both A & B going home around the same time indicating they were together. What was damaging was he stating he gave adhesive tape to Boy A that was used on Ana & the fact of a plan to kill Ana was previously discussed which B tried to make light of. Without the latter 2 parts it would still be a very hard case for Boy B to escape from as there are so many interwoven parts with Boy A, that the forensics could stand on their own

mrjoneill

Lucuma wrote: »

We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that

Eye witnesses put Boy B & Ana going to the derelict house.

Lucuma

Tomw86 wrote: »

The body was moved too I believe, so could have been that.

God only knows what else Boy A did in that time...sick pr1ck.

According to the Irish times article she was killed near the door, then the body was moved nearer the window and then she was sexually assaulted. Or that's roughly what they think anyway according to the article

tuxy

Lucuma wrote: »

We don't know where he handed Ana over to Boy A do we? He never told the truth about that. He claimed they all met outside the house first which is obviously BS. And he never came clean on that

I believe very little of what he said can be taken as truth it can only be used to show he clearly was trying to cover up his involvement.

mynamejeff

Standman wrote: »

If that were applicable then it would effectively negate the right to silence.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/right-to-silence-garda-to-release-all-suspects-accused-of-withholding-evidence-after-high-court-ruling-36410284.html

not a issue anymore unfortunately