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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Jim_M said:
These unnamed murderers really worked together to end this young girl's life. She did not get to learn, and grow, and find the needed ways, to avoid 'boys' like these two.

This makes me curious as to how this 'defense team', will work to portray our victim's last 45 minutes on this Earth? They best not even go near blaming our victim.
Click to expand...
 
Jim_M said:
These unnamed murderers really worked together to end this young girl's life. She did not get to learn, and grow, and find the needed ways, to avoid 'boys' like these two.

This makes me curious as to how this 'defense team', will work to portray our victim's last 45 minutes on this Earth? They best not even go near blaming our victim.
Click to expand...

"Unnamed murderers" are these two, but also bullies at her school...let them live with it now, let karma take care of it.

Kids can be horribly cruel. And from what I have read, Ana was a vulnerable minor, not just a minor. Obviously the boys used her naivete and her disabilities to lure her out of the house. I can not imagine her last minutes. I am a always against cruelty in prisons. However, the decision to judge these boys as adults is the right one. JMO.
 
Ironside said:
Ther was no ecidence the boy didn't run off though. The prosecution is meant to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think boy b has grounds for an appeal.

Boy a I have zero sympathy for though.
Click to expand...

Just to dig into this as it is a favourite topic of mine. IMO an appeal is difficult as the jury is the ultimate arbiter of factual questions, and appealing questions of fact is extremely difficult.

While it is true that the prosecution must prove guilt to BARD standard, this does not mean every fact of the case must be proved BARD. Instead the jury is to consider what facts it accepts and then draw logical and obvious inferences from the facts they believe were established.

Also while the defence does not need to prove innocence, from an evidential standpoint, he who asserts must prove. This means that if the defence wants to argue positively for a particular version, from a practical evidential perspective, they will need to point to facts which support it. And alibi is an obvious example of this. It's no good simply to claim an alibi. You need some facts to stand the alibi up. If you can point to some facts that establish your alibi - so there is a reasonable possibility your alibi is true, then as usual, the prosecution would need to disprove it or you must be found not guilty.

So how does all this impact the current case?

IMO the prosecution has significant evidence of a joint venture involving Boy B. The conversation at school. The tape. Luring Ana to the house. Evidence she was ambushed as she entered the room. Presence at the assault. Failing to help the victim. Covering up the murder.

Call me old fashioned, but this is easily enough to infer guilt to murder, even if Boy B didn't "pull the trigger". IIRC the state does not need to untangle the precise role of each participant. There is a public policy aspect to this. You can't go getting involved in pre-meditated violent assaults like this, then go crying that someone went too far. At the very least, an accused would require hard evidence that he ended his involvement.

So in the present case, Boy B's defence argues for a positive version. The two key elements appear to be that he did not know Boy A planned to attack Ana, and that he ran away when things got very violent.

Let's make one point here. Boy B did not set out his version in testimony at trial (as his right). Argument for a version by counsel is also not evidence. So in fact the only evidence before the jury on these 2 key points are the interviews of Boy B

So how should a jury evaluate this version?

A jury assesses both the veracity and credibility of a witness. Boy B obviously has little credibility as a witness due to his repeated lying. There is no reason for the jury to think he is telling the truth. Legally, a jury is fully entitled to disregard the evidence of Boy B as unreliable, except where veracity is otherwise established.

This is the approach i would have taken. Boy B's evidence goes in the dustbin, apart from where he was forced to make key admissions by the pressure of external evidence (witnesses, CTV)

So if I was a juror I would have made 2 factual findings adverse to Boy B

1. Boy B most likely lured Ana to the house for the purposes of a sexual assault. His claim that it was so Boy A could talk to Ana is clearly a lie IMO. He provided the tape. This was premeditated.

2. He was most likely present for the entire attack.

tldr;

the jury did not believe Boy B, and instead made more logical inferences from the evidence

Last step

Standing back - is the case against Boy B proved BARD? IMO yes. Lots of evidence points to his joint involvement, and he has no credible defence.
 
One procedural aspect was cleared up by yesterday's long form article.

Boy A's interview content was placed in evidence via a transcript exhibit. This is apparently the normal process in Ireland.

Boy B's interviews were unusual in that the videos were screened in their entirety.
 
A picture of the two boys was being widely shared yesterday and earlier today on social media but has since been removed from public forums, although I believe it's still doing the rounds in WhatsApp groups. Here's FB's response ahead of their contempt of court appearance tomorrow:

Facebook said as soon as it became aware of content identifying two boys who were found guilty of murdering Ana Kriégel on its platform on Wednesday morning, it removed it.

It said in a statement on Wednesday evening that it also used photo-matching technology in a bid to prevent this content from being shared again.

Facebook removes content identifying boys found guilty of Ana Kriegel murder
 
I saw some of the pictures being shared this morning on twitter, when I warned the people posting, I got responses like - I don't care, I'll take the risk, I don't mind going to jail. Some people can be so stupid when the law is clear about this and has been warned about so many time in this case. If they wanted to share it with someone they knew, they should have done it privately. I think the DPP will be coming down heavy on this, at the very least to make an example.
 
Until this morning, I had not heard the name Ana Kriegel.

The Connor Gallagher piece was in my Twitter feed and I thought the suggested read time of 75 minutes must be a typo but no!

First of all, what an absolutely brilliant piece of journalism from Connor ...

Secondly, I've spent the whole day reading everything I could find, especially here of course.

I've followed so many cases here now that I can't even say that I was especially shocked by anything I've read. Unbearably saddened but, not shocked.

Not shocked probably because so many of the different cases all share many similarities.

If there's any private chats, please add me if possible?
 
Mo Thuairim said:
A picture of the two boys was being widely shared yesterday and earlier today on social media but has since been removed from public forums, although I believe it's still doing the rounds in WhatsApp groups. Here's FB's response ahead of their contempt of court appearance tomorrow:

Facebook said as soon as it became aware of content identifying two boys who were found guilty of murdering Ana Kriégel on its platform on Wednesday morning, it removed it.

It said in a statement on Wednesday evening that it also used photo-matching technology in a bid to prevent this content from being shared again.

Facebook removes content identifying boys found guilty of Ana Kriegel murder
Click to expand...

There's definitely still photos on Facebook as of 20 mins ago ...
 
mrazda71 said:
Until this morning, I had not heard the name Ana Kriegel.

The Connor Gallagher piece was in my Twitter feed and I thought the suggested read time of 75 minutes must be a typo but no!

First of all, what an absolutely brilliant piece of journalism from Connor ...

Secondly, I've spent the whole day reading everything I could find, especially here of course.

I've followed so many cases here now that I can't even say that I was especially shocked by anything I've read. Unbearably saddened but, not shocked.

Not shocked probably because so many of the different cases all share many similarities.

If there's any private chats, please add me if possible?
Click to expand...

Took me a lot longer than 75 minutes to read it, had to take a couple of breaks and re read certain bits. Compelling and harrowing in the same breath. Ana Kriegel murder trial: The complete story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 510 (members: 62, guests: 448)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
448
Total visitors
510
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,149
Messages
18,235,301
Members
234,302
Latest member
TKMorgan
Back
Top