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

Franz Von Peppercorn II

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.

Stephen pinker says good parenting or moderate parenting will allow what personality there is to develop naturally. That could be a bad personality.

Very Bad parenting will make a potentially good child bad. (Very bad parenting in most cases)

It’s like nutrition and height. You can’t make a child with short genetics tall by feeding them well, but you can make a child with potentially tall genetics small with bad nutrition.

Nerdlingr

Tomw86 wrote: »

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.

Thats why i dont understand his lawyer going along with 16 hours of questioning!

Just in case anyone reads it wrong, i'm not sticking up for the Boy B!!!
Just trying to show what a brilliant job the gardai did and how without Boy B talking he would have got away with it.

The two biggest pieces of the jigsaw were

1; him mentioning the discussion Boy A had about killing Ana. This throws away or at least casts doubt of a 'I didnt know what was going to happen" defence. Foreknowledge. The tape, calling for Ana and leaving her at the house can all now be used against him - he has aided and abeted a murderer.


2; when he puts himself directly at the scene looking at the attack take place.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

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

Yeah, given how specific the rules are with interviewing minors they were probably the most likely source for a technical error that would have been exploited to try and get it thrown out.

Seems early on that they knew they had the right kids. You'd want to throttle the little cnuts (I'm not saying that they should be throttled or killed or anything just that you'd probably feel like doing it), instead, in the case of Boy B, they successfully managed to build a rapport, establish trust. I mean I know it's their job and they're highly trained but it's still impressive control and professionalism.

The fact that Boy A was self assured enough to not be cajoled or intimidated and just said nothing despite the evidence is pretty terrifying though.

Lucuma

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

No they don't. At least not that was revealed in the trial reporting anyway. Do you have access to additional information?

AllForIt

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.

Is it not the case that the juror has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt not that any specific piece of evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was the latter as I think your suggesting then you wouldn't need a jury at all because everyone would interpret the evidence the same way and a single judge would suffice to make a verdict. Not my expert opinion just a thought.

Cryptopagan

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

The bolded was a crucial bit of evidence against Boy B. Where did it come from? Boy B told it to Gardai during the interviews. (Boy A was hardly going to volunteer to the Guards he had said he wanted to kill Ana to Boy B.)

it's ok to discuss the why's and how's in terms of this thing being wrapped up and even the social media role before and after but I think some posters are getting a bit to graphic in terms of her assault, Jesus it's like the dark net meets Angela Lansbury. I'm no shrinking violet but trying to understand where and how semen got on her top/if she was stripped first etc is a bit much FFS. You'd not reviewing a horror film.

tuxy

Lucuma wrote: »

No they don't. At least not that was revealed in the trial reporting anyway. Do you have access to additional information?

I'd be interested in this too. Eyewitness reports would trump grainy CCTV footage of someone with a backpack.

Shemale

mrjoneill wrote: »

There would be no need to check the CCTV in the park if they had no knowledge she went there. And as I understand the CCTV is vague and Boy A & Boy could only be identified by the rucksacks they carried on their backs. Since Ana had no friends there would be very little information what became of her if she disappeared. Again if her father had not seen going off with Boy B there would be no knowledge to believe there was foul play involved. What triggered the Gardai zoning into her disappearance was evidence she was seen in a boys company which he expanded to involve another and their unsurety & lies led to suspicions of them.

Her dad saw her go into the park with Boy B

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

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

Really? i dont remember reading that ? Dont think there was any CCTV of them together.

Penn

AllForIt wrote: »

Is it not the case that the juror has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt not that any specific piece of evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was the latter as I think your suggesting then you wouldn't need a jury at all because everyone would interpret the evidence the same way and a single judge would suffice to make a verdict. Not my expert opinion just a thought.

Yes, the juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but it has to be based on sufficient reasoning backed up by evidence. All the pieces of evidence matter, and the more evidence you have, the greater the chances of convincing each juror beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

The only evidence they had against Boy B was the CCTV/witnesses showing he picked up Ana and some of the distance they went, and his interviews and what he said in the interviews. If they had any other evidence, they would have used it to strengthen their case against him. But if he'd said nothing in his interviews, all they would have had was him picking up Ana and walking with her part of the way to the house. They would have had no evidence he went into the house, saw what Boy A did to her, or even that Boy A previously discussed wanting to kill Ana. That all came from his interviews. Without his interviews, he almost certainly wouldn't have been on trial for murder (though possibly for a lesser charge).

mrjoneill

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.

Its not as simple as that as it was his best friends forensics was complete in implication Boy A. Boy B was seen going to abandoned house with Ana & was seen returning same time as Boy A. Both are on CCTV in the town together just prior to Boy B enticing Ana out of her home. There was too many interlinked strands of Boy A & Boy B for innocence. Rem there is no evidence that Boy B took part in the actual killing nor was it suggested but his complicity which external evidence supports & his own lies on video.

OwlsZat

Read a seemingly intelligent person on Twitter making out like this was somehow his teachers fault, as her parents had done everything possible for her. Surely the blame lies exclusively with the boys and their parents.

I feel in time technology will become a watchdog for sociopathic children but forced compliance seems a long way off. Too many parents suffer from the my Jimmy denial syndrome.

Penn

mrjoneill wrote: »

Its not as simple as that as it was his best friends forensics was complete in implication Boy A. Boy B was seen going to abandoned house with Ana & was seen returning same time as Boy A. Both are on CCTV in the town together just prior to Boy B enticing Ana out of her home. There was too many interlinked strands of Boy A & Boy B for innocence. Rem there is no evidence that Boy B took part in the actual killing nor was it suggested but his complicity which external evidence supports & his own lies on video.

Again though, that proves he's not innocent. But it wouldn't be enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

TCDStudent1

Penn wrote: »

Yes, the juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but it has to be based on sufficient reasoning backed up by evidence. All the pieces of evidence matter, and the more evidence you have, the greater the chances of convincing each juror beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

The only evidence they had against Boy B was the CCTV/witnesses showing he picked up Ana and some of the distance they went, and his interviews and what he said in the interviews. If they had any other evidence, they would have used it to strengthen their case against him. But if he'd said nothing in his interviews, all they would have had was him picking up Ana and walking with her part of the way to the house. They would have had no evidence he went into the house, saw what Boy A did to her, or even that Boy A previously discussed wanting to kill Ana. That all came from his interviews. Without his interviews, he almost certainly wouldn't have been on trial for murder (though possibly for a lesser charge).

The prosecution would probably have come at it from a different angle in that case. Maybe focusing on the unaccounted 35 minutes between the sightings of him.

Jump_In_Jack

tuxy wrote: »

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

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

Force Carrier

We all know he did it. We're all glad he was convicted.
But the state had no case without the young lads own admissions.
They couldn't put him at the scene of the crime.
They couldn't prove he had knowledge of the crime.
There wouldn't have been grounds to charge him. Not even close.
Only A would have faced a jury and not B.
Thankfully B was inexperienced and foolishly gave Gardaí everything they needed.

mrjoneill

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Really? i dont remember reading that ? Dont think there was any CCTV of them together.

Yes that is fact & was used as evidence at trial. I'm sure this was gathered from a house camera in the estate they lived in. Boy B parents had told Gardai of Boy A visiting their house as well which may have being the lead to acquiring that particular CCTV. Boy B parents initially though they were just helping in a missing person investigation.

TCDStudent1

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

My understanding is that Boy A's backpack contained the 'murder kit'.

I dont think it was ever said what Boy B's backpack contained.

Nerdlingr

mrjoneill wrote: »

Its not as simple as that as it was his best friends forensics was complete in implication Boy A. Boy B was seen going to abandoned house with Ana & was seen returning same time as Boy A. Both are on CCTV in the town together just prior to Boy B enticing Ana out of her home. There was too many interlinked strands of Boy A & Boy B for innocence. Rem there is no evidence that Boy B took part in the actual killing nor was it suggested but his complicity which external evidence supports & his own lies on video.

Well that's false anyway.

Everything you've mentioned does not prove any guilt whatsoever. Just cos he's in town with Boy A and called in for Ana and brought her to the house does not make him a murderer.

And yes, it is really as simple as Boy B saying a few lines and then nothing.

If he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing - I cant see how people cant see that.

CCTV and a few witness statements couldnt possible lead to a murder conviction in this case.

Force Carrier

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

It contained shin guards, face mask and stuff like that. A 'murder kit' the prosecution called it.

tuxy

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Was it ever explained why Boy A had a backpack at all?

Do you mean Boy B? Because they recovered Boy A's backpack which had DNA evidence both in it and on it. Boy B also explained why boy A had a back pack.

the butcher

Detective Garda Daly told Boy B that a witness saw a youth with a black backpack crossing into the field at the back of the abandoned house where Ana was found. He added: “I believe that was you going into the field…”

Boy B replied: “Ok, I did go into the field, but that was to look around, that’s all.”



Was his backpack ever recovered?

mrjoneill

Force Carrier wrote: »

We all know he did it. We're all glad he was convicted.
But the state had no case without the young lads own admissions.
They couldn't put him at the scene of the crime.
They couldn't prove he had knowledge of the crime.
There wouldn't have been grounds to charge him. Not even close.
Only A would have faced a jury and not B.
Thankfully B was inexperienced and foolishly gave Gardaí everything they needed.

Boy B conviction was for complicity in the murder not for participation in the actual killing. There was a lot of external strands to put that complicity together of witnesses & CCTV & most damning of all going to Ana's house leading her through the park to the direction of the abandoned house. This is while Boy is seen heading there too from a different direction. Can't but deduce there was a plan in place. In that case it would be for Boy B to convince the jury there was no plan in place. This he did not do, rather he confirmed the suspicion of it.

swarlb

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

fash

Melanie Tangy Appendix wrote: »

Yeah, given how specific the rules are with interviewing minors they were probably the most likely source for a technical error that would have been exploited to try and get it thrown out.

Seems early on that they knew they had the right kids. You'd want to throttle the little cnuts (I'm not saying that they should be throttled or killed or anything just that you'd probably feel like doing it), instead, in the case of Boy B, they successfully managed to build a rapport, establish trust. I mean I know it's their job and they're highly trained but it's still impressive control and professionalism.

The fact that Boy A was self assured enough to not be cajoled or intimidated and just said nothing despite the evidence is pretty terrifying though.

Fully agree. "That's their job" is a silly comment. Even if you are a Garda how often are you interviewing a psychopathic 13 year old who just raped and murdered someone and you have to get them to confess because there is no physical evidence against them? Even if you've done it a few times, that doesn't mean you are going to be good at it- it is a dynamic and fluid situation which takes a natural talent.
So kudos to the Gardai - I hope they get some well deserved satisfaction out of it.

Penn

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

The prosecution would probably have come at it from a different angle in that case. Maybe focusing on the unaccounted 35 minutes between the sightings of him.

It wouldn't have been enough though. They had no proof he was at the house until he said he was during an interview. In the trial, they could have pointed out his whereabouts were unaccounted for during that time, but that wouldn't have proven he was at the house, just that his whereabouts were unaccounted for. Maybe he met another friend and they were doing drugs, hence why he doesn't want to say where he actually was since he'd get in trouble for that. Maybe he's secretly gay and met his boyfriend etc etc. Him refusing to answer questions raises suspicions, but wouldn't prove guilt.

The prosecution would not have had any evidence that put him at the house, never mind that he was involved in the murder. Silence during interviews would have definitely been suspicious and the detectives would have investigated the f*ck out of him, but without actual evidence putting him there they would not have brought a murder charge against him, and definitely not been able to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that put Boy B in that house was Boy B's interviews.

mrjoneill

the butcher wrote: »

Detective Garda Daly told Boy B that a witness saw a youth with a black backpack crossing into the field at the back of the abandoned house where Ana was found. He added: “I believe that was you going into the field…”

Boy B replied: “Ok, I did go into the field, but that was to look around, that’s all.”



Was his backpack ever recovered?

We don't know it did not come out at the trial

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Well that's false anyway.

Everything you've mentioned does not prove any guilt whatsoever. Just cos he's in town with Boy A and called in for Ana and brought her to the house does not make him a murderer.

And yes, it is really as simple as Boy B saying a few lines and then nothing.

If he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing - I cant see how people cant see that.

CCTV and a few witness statements couldnt possible lead to a murder conviction in this case.

Does he have to testify? Or are kids exempt.

jimmycrackcorm

swarlb wrote: »

Christ, would you all give this a rest... PLEASE !!!

2 boys were found guilty of murdering Ana, either directly, or indirectly. Neither matters, the trial is over. Because as sure as night follows day there will be another 16,000 posts waffling on, when the sentences are passed down.
Let the girl and her family rest in peace.

Brush under the carpet...
As if it's not one of the most horrific crimes we've seen in years.
Sure, let's ignore this only a few days after the facts come out.