GUILTY Ireland - Anastasia Kriegel, 14, Found deceased, Lucan, Co Dublin, 14 May 2018 *minors arrested*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

KyleDeverell said:
Extracting from the various sources already cited

Prof Cassidy said her impression was that the teenager had received her injuries closer to the door in the room where she had been found, and her body then moved further into the room.

Prof Cassidy said there were four separate impacts to Ana's head. She could not say what had caused these impacts.

She said Ana suffered a fractured right eye socket, upper jaw and cheek bone.

Her lips were swollen, and there was a large area of injury on the right side of her face.

There was also an 11.5cm laceration down the left-hand side of Ana’s face, the court heard.

There was also a large area of bruising on the left side of her face.

Prof Cassidy said there were four lacerations to the right side at the back of the scalp and there was dark red bruising and a broad area of injury on her neck.

Prof Cassidy also noted grazes or abrasions on Ana's left shoulder and collarbone as well as purple bruising on her right shoulder and linear scratches to the side of her trunk.

The pathologist conducted an internal examination and found there was "extensive and widespread" haemorrhaging to the neck.

There was also evidence of attempted penetration of the vagina. ​

The first point very strongly suggests to me that Boy B was present for the initial assault and none of the injuries detailed indicate that it was anything less brutal than the subsequent assaults. Based on Professor Cassidy's evidence Ana was dragged into the room where, presumably, the sexual assault took place and Boy B admits he was present for the start of the sexual assault. Boy A's father said that the house was a magnet for teenagers and Boys A and B would not have wanted witnesses.

Asked by Defence Counsel Damien Colgan, for Boy B, if someone observing this could suffer trauma, she said "anyone witnessing something like that would be traumatised". ​

I am not sure why Professor Cassidy was asked to speak to the minds of other people. This is not her area of expertize and not something she should be commenting on. She cannot know how something affects another person - only herself. Yes, the vast majority of people out there are shocked and appalled but there is a small but significant minority that it doesn't affect. It seems to be more of her projecting her feelings She has stated that her job is just a job but

"But she said child deaths affected her. “When it comes to dealing with children, there is nothing in this world that makes that right. There’s no point in saying, ‘Well, it’s just one of those things.’ To the family this is the worst thing that can ever happen, and you can understand that, because we’ve all got children, and you do think, If something happened to my child, how would I ever cope? With children, you just look at them; you think, That could happen to my family.”​

Prof Marie Cassidy to retire as State Pathologist

Ana fought tooth and nail to survive

Professor Cassidy said Ana suffered bruising to her hands and arms – injuries she said were consistent with defensive injuries. The teenager was lying on her back, with her right leg extended. Her arm was grasping a ligature on her neck. ​

Ana fought hard but Boy A fought harder and killed her and Boy B did nothing to stop it. He is intelligent and would know well that adults and the gardai would protect him if he informed on Boy A. He brought Ana to the house where just by happenstance Boy A was waiting with a rape kit. Did Boy B seriously think he was going to deliver Ana to Boy A to be raped while he watched? Then Ana would get up and go on her merry way and tell no-one what happened? Or did they both seriously believe that Ana would have consensual sex in a dirty farmhouse with a witness watching - possibly filming? I definitely think that Boy A and Boy B had this planned meticulously. In contrast, being 13, they may not have seriously thought of the aftermath but I have no doubt that Ana was not walking out alive. They had no regard for Ana and, even after she was found, Boy B [we know very little of Boy A] still spoke of her contemptuously.

I think I will be taking a break now. This is such a terrible case to process and I do not envy the jury. This will live with them forever.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting this together.

My feeling is that Boy B assisted in the initial assault - to get Anna's clothes off

Maybe things got a bit violent for his taste - you often see in group attacks a much higher level of violence
 
Looks like there was more summing up this morning. Hopefully we'll find out about any alternative charges.
________________

The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old Anastasia Kriégel is continuing to sum up the evidence for the jury.

Judge continuing to sum up evidence in Kriégel trial



ETA: Jury now out. I think this may be a long deliberation.
_____

Conor Gallagher‏ @ConorGallaghe_r 2m2 minutes ago
Jury in the trial of Boy A and B accused of the murder of 14 year old Ana Kriegel retire to consider verdicts at 12.35pm

Conor Gallagher on Twitter
 
mrjitty said:
Thanks for putting this together.

My feeling is that Boy B assisted in the initial assault - to get Anna's clothes off

Maybe things got a bit violent for his taste - you often see in group attacks a much higher level of violence
Click to expand...
His DNA would have been found on her clothes if that was the case.

I've been thinking of stupid situations I got in at 13 and how I reacted. I do feel it is plausible that boy b had no idea what boy a was about to do. Because he was asked to call for AK he felt he'd be in trouble hence all the stupid lies. I don't think the prosecution have in any way ruled out that boy b is completely innocent.
 
KyleDeverell said:
He is intelligent and would know well that adults and the gardai would protect him if he informed on Boy A.
Click to expand...

I wonder, if something about this actually will become clear when more is known.

Very sad case. Boy A- well it seems like he is keeping quiet for numerous reasons. I would assume he is going by the instructions of those counselling him. Hopefully no foul play on that side, but either way the evidence is stacked against him. He can't be anything other than guilty.

IMO.
 
Ironside said:
His DNA would have been found on her clothes if that was the case.

I've been thinking of stupid situations I got in at 13 and how I reacted. I do feel it is plausible that boy b had no idea what boy a was about to do. Because he was asked to call for AK he felt he'd be in trouble hence all the stupid lies. I don't think the prosecution have in any way ruled out that boy b is completely innocent.
Click to expand...

I agree it is possible - but I see it only as speculative.

The difficulty is that Boy B's "final" version of events should largely be thrown in the dustbin because he lied right through his different versions, and is no doubt still lying. There is no credible evidence that Boy B left before the murder took place. But - unfortunately for him - we can use his confessions against him where they match events we know took place.

IMO it is not credible that he innocently lured Anna to the house and hung around to watch the rape - we only have his unreliable word for that.

He was clearly part of a joint venture to lure her to the house and take advantage of her there and that turned violent. So i see him as a party to the offending clearly until that point. IMO he is clearly part of a conspiracy to sexually assault Anna and perhaps worse.

However this is where it gets difficult.

If the attack got far outside of what he contemplated he and runs off - it is potentially a stretch to say he is a party to the murder.

This is where my dimly remembered crimes knowledge falters. I do recall that the law takes a dim view of the so called cut throat defence. In the classic cut throat defence, you have say two parties to a joint venture criminal escapade. Say they decide to rob a shop safe at night. One takes a weapon. During the robbery they hit a guard over the head and he dies. In Court each argues their only intention was to commit a robbery, and say it was the other one did the murder and that they were surprised and shocked by this, so they ran off. IIRC the prosecution is not required to unpick who did exactly what if it's a genuine joint venture. They both become liable for the obvious and foreseeable consequences.

In this case the defence is half cut throat. We know Boy A did the physical murder. Boy B says it was all Boy A. He says there was no venture, and if there was, it ended when he ran.

I guess this is where my cynicism as an ex lawyer kicks in. We have every reason to find that Boy B is not a credible witness. There is thus no reliable evidence that he cut and ran before the murder.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that reveals him as a party to a criminal enterprise. He lured Anna to the scene, he admits watching the assault. There is evidence they were discussing this long before at school. I see him properly charged with murder and guilty as a party.

I would separate culpability via sentencing.

Boy A brought a rape kit and a weapon and physically murdered Anna. His sentence should be much higher.
 
Legally Bland said:
Detective Garda Thomas Doyle told prosecuting counsel Gerardine Small BL that Boy A was interviewed a number of times after his arrest on May 24th. In one of the interviews gardaí showed the boy a number of screenshots of search results which had been taken from the boy’s phone.

One of the screenshots showed a search for “15 most gruesome torture methods in history”. Others included “horror movies that will blow everyone away”, “Ouija Board in haunted Asylum (warning)”, “Until Dawn, get Jessica’s clothes off” and “sexiest video games characters of 2017”.

Detective Garda Marcus Roantree told the boy he was “particularly interested” in the torture methods result. He said it was accessed on February 14, 2018.

Boy A said he was looking for horror movies online. He said he was interested in ghost horror movies. He denied he was interested in torture horror movies.

The court also heard evidence of a search for “abandoned places in Lucan” earlier in the year was also put to the boy.

Boy accused of Ana Kriégel murder searched online for ‘torture methods’, trial told
Click to expand...

molly67 said:
Ana Kriegel murder trial jury asks for DVDs of Boy B's garda interviews

Ana Kriegel murder trial jury asks for DVDs of Boy B's garda interviews
Click to expand...

I realize the jury is requesting the interview tapes with boy 'B'. Previously, there were references to boy 'A' being interviewed. However, I cannot find anything about 'tapes' on boy 'A'. Are there any? And why do we think the jury is wanting to go over boy 'B's tapes, and not boy 'A's?

Will one, or both, of these boys get away with murder here? Or do we think the jury will uphold justice for this murdered child?
 
Ironside said:
Boy A had blood splatter on his boots and his semen was found at the scene. The jury don't need to see his police interviews to work out what he did.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, however, the defence seem to be insinuating it wasn't pre-meditated therefore it cannot be murder. I really hope the police and prosecution have not made any errors of judgement in going for a murder charge rather than a manslaughter one, it would be horrendous if they got off on a technicality. Praying for justice for Anna and her family.
 
LaCEZ said:
Yes, you are correct, however, the defence seem to be insinuating it wasn't pre-meditated therefore it cannot be murder. I really hope the police and prosecution have not made any errors of judgement in going for a murder charge rather than a manslaughter one, it would be horrendous if they got off on a technicality. Praying for justice for Anna and her family.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be premeditated to be murder.

Obviously she was strangled and bashed - that is murder all day long. The attacker doesn't have to have the goal of killing the victim. Most countries extend murder to include GBH where the attacker is reckless and death ensues
 
I have to admit, this is what worries me :-

Mr Justice McDermott told the jurors that murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another, where the person responsible intended to kill or cause serious injury. He asked the jurors to look at how Ana was killed.

The judge said an element of “great importance” is the requirement that the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury and he invited the jury to look at the circumstances in the case. If they are not satisfied that the accused intended to kill, then they must consider if either or both intended to cause the deceased serious injury, he said.
 
LaCEZ said:
I have to admit, this is what worries me :-

Mr Justice McDermott told the jurors that murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another, where the person responsible intended to kill or cause serious injury. He asked the jurors to look at how Ana was killed.

The judge said an element of “great importance” is the requirement that the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury and he invited the jury to look at the circumstances in the case. If they are not satisfied that the accused intended to kill, then they must consider if either or both intended to cause the deceased serious injury, he said.
Click to expand...

How do you accidentally, without intent, swing a stick with a bent nail in it at a girl's head? Choke and drag her with a ligature? Beat and rape?

If they are deliberating anything, it is whether Boy B is guilty. As far as I'm concerned, apart from his own confession placing him at the scene, there is physical and circumstantial evidence proving he made the stick, held it, and thus hit her with it.
 
Vail said:
How do you accidentally, without intent, swing a stick with a bent nail in it at a girl's head? Choke and drag her with a ligature? Beat and rape?

If they are deliberating anything, it is whether Boy B is guilty. As far as I'm concerned, apart from his own confession placing him at the scene, there is physical and circumstantial evidence proving he made the stick, held it, and thus hit her with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Intent to cause serious injury is easy to imply from the circumstances.

However as the direct evidence as regards Boy B on the physical attacks is weaker, his potential liability is likely as a party to murder (i.e an accomplice)

That has different considerations which I am sure the Judge will have briefed the jury on. Indeed we saw some of the comments

For me the key point is there is no reliable evidence Boy B bailed out midstream - IMO he should be viewed as a party to the murders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 210 more.
Total: 598 (members: 211, guests: 387)

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
387
Total visitors
598
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,062
Messages
18,233,945
Members
234,277
Latest member
tomdavona
Back
Top