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

[Vail]

I have been following this case, it is horrendous. I know there is an outcry in Ireland about the details being reported daily and people wishing Anna's 'dignity' had been persevered by not reporting what happened to her. However, I feel, if it was my daughter, I would want the world to know what she suffered, down to the last detail, what these monsters put her through, I don't feel her dignity has been impacted at all by detailing publicly what she suffered through. She fought long and hard for her life and Boy A's injuries show how tough she was and how hard she fought back, even if she was not able to save herself. I do wonder if Boy B assisted in overpowering her, even if there is no forensic evidence to link him to it. There will be an outcry in Ireland if these monsters get a light sentence.
I wonder why none of Boy A's interviews were shown to the jury? any ideas? is it because the forensic evidence is so conclusive and they want to keep the focus on Boy B's interiviews. Hard to believe a 13 year old could lie so confidently on so many occasions, I am sure his parents, his solicitor and of course the police were persistently encouraging him to tell the truth. I also am shocked they are on bail, I expected they would be in Oberstown on remand.

I agree with you - as nightmare-inducing as they are, reading the details has only brought me closer to Ana and able to empathise with her more. I haven't been this personally disturbed over a case since Sophie Lancaster.

 

[KyleDeverell]

Mr. Gageby SC for Boy A asked "the jurors to recognise that young people, particularly teenagers, are immature". He said that "Boy A's interviews, in which he told gardaí he was not in the abandoned house, as being like a child who has eaten the biscuits and has "chocolate all around the mouth and they are still saying they didn't do it." He "asked the jury to consider if there is any “real evidence” that his client had planned “any of this at all ” or "if there was “any solid or real evidence” in the case of his client’s intention to kill or his intention to kill Ana Kriegel".
Ana Kriegel trial: Jury asked to consider if there is 'real evidence' of Boy A's intention to kill

 

[KyleDeverell]

"Addressing evidence on Boy A’s phone of a video detailing torture methods, Mr Gageby said there is nothing to indicate the video was searched for or even viewed. He noted 1.4 million other people have viewed it."
“If you took any 13 or 14 year-old-boy and did a complete trawl through their devices, what are the chances that you find something, one or two small things, that are unpleasant?”
"There was also no evidence given in court of Boy A having any intention to kill Ana, counsel said. His co-accused, Boy B, had claimed in interviews he had said he wanted to kill her but this cannot be considered by the jury under the rules of evidence."
"Boy A was given advance notice about his arrest, giving him an opportunity to dispose of evidence from his house linking him to the crime-scene. This was never done, counsel said."
"The boy also appeared distressed to several witnesses on the evening of May 14th. This evidence is inconsistent with someone who coolly planned a murder, he said."
Ana Kriégel murder trial told no evidence Boy A intended to kill her

 

[Legally Bland]

Mr. Gageby SC for Boy A asked "the jurors to recognise that young people, particularly teenagers, are immature". He said that "Boy A's interviews, in which he told gardaí he was not in the abandoned house, as being like a child who has eaten the biscuits and has "chocolate all around the mouth and they are still saying they didn't do it." He "asked the jury to consider if there is any “real evidence” that his client had planned “any of this at all ” or "if there was “any solid or real evidence” in the case of his client’s intention to kill or his intention to kill Ana Kriegel".
Ana Kriegel trial: Jury asked to consider if there is 'real evidence' of Boy A's intention to kill

Re. 'intention' is he going for manslaughter?

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder why none of Boy A's interviews were shown to the jury? any ideas?

RSBM

Did he do any formal interviews?

 

[mrjitty]

Re. 'intention' is he going for manslaughter?

What else is there in these cases?

He can't really deny she died at his hands.

 

[Legally Bland]

Mr Colgan told the jury about the Lucas rules, which state there can be many reasons other than guilt to explain an accused lying.

He said Boy B had witnessed the attack on Ana, “something no 13-year-old should see.”

Retired State Pathologist Marie Cassidy gave evidence anyone who witnessed it would have been traumatised.

“Trauma affects different people in different ways,” counsel said.

Shame can also explain lying, he said. He asked jurors to consider if Boy B was ashamed of telling the truth during garda interviews because his mother was present.

The gardaí did not give the boy regular breaks during the eight interviews, he said. Neither did they consult experts about how to interview children.

The interviews were a highly stressful and emotional time for Boy B during which he was asked to deal with issues of the most horrific nature, counsel said.

He also suggested Boy B was scared of Boy A who was bigger and stronger than him and knew martial arts. “He had seen what he did to Ana the night before.”

Boy B was ‘set up’ by Boy A - Ana Kriégel murder trial hears

 

[Mind your biscuits]

I'm guessing that boy A got better advice about being interviewed than boy B did. Moo.

 

[molly67]

I really don't know what to make of the defences closing statements - There wasn't a lot Boy A's defence could say and IMO he said very little apart from the usual nonsense defence lawyers come out with when they know their client is guilty as sin.

I pray the jury do the right thing.

I am not that articulate however I just wanted to say that.

My heart breaks every time I pass that house ... I really hope it is demolished very soon.

 

[Jim_M]

I really don't know what to make of the defences closing statements - There wasn't a lot Boy A's defence could say and IMO he said very little apart from the usual nonsense defence lawyers come out with when they know their client is guilty as sin.

I pray the jury do the right thing.

I am not that articulate however I just wanted to say that.

My heart breaks every time I pass that house ... I really hope it is demolished very soon.

I am in total agreement! And I pray that your hope is realized. These boys do not deserve the right to breathe the air of a free person. IMO of course!

 

[Deleted member 238128]

I really don't know what to make of the defences closing statements - There wasn't a lot Boy A's defence could say and IMO he said very little apart from the usual nonsense defence lawyers come out with when they know their client is guilty as sin.

I pray the jury do the right thing.

I am not that articulate however I just wanted to say that.

My heart breaks every time I pass that house ... I really hope it is demolished very soon.

I think this is very articulate Molly, it sums the whole wretched nightmare up. Horrific case, I’m glad you started a thread for Ana

 

[TheBigBanana]

Mr. Gageby SC for Boy A asked "the jurors to recognise that young people, particularly teenagers, are immature". He said that "Boy A's interviews, in which he told gardaí he was not in the abandoned house, as being like a child who has eaten the biscuits and has "chocolate all around the mouth and they are still saying they didn't do it." He "asked the jury to consider if there is any “real evidence” that his client had planned “any of this at all ” or "if there was “any solid or real evidence” in the case of his client’s intention to kill or his intention to kill Ana Kriegel".
Ana Kriegel trial: Jury asked to consider if there is 'real evidence' of Boy A's intention to kill

From the Defence - it is evident they have not tried to deny that Boy A killed Ana - just that the murder was not planned. Yet both boy A and B still maintain that they were involved in the killing. Is it that their counsel were not able to convince them to own up?

That the jury have been asked to disregard boy B's testimony - about boy A saying that he wished to kill Ana -as boy B Interviews were not under oath. I really wouldn't wish to be a member of the jury on this case tbh - they have been told what happened and directed to ignore it...

 

[LaCEZ]

It does seem that in the case of Boy A the defence are trying to get a manslaughter verdict, rather than a murder verdict, makes it clearer now, as to why he is denying murder, I could never understand that plea, considering the weight of the physical evidence against him. Even if they have been directed to discount Boy B's evidence against Boy A, they cannot discount Boy A's advance preparation for a murder, i.e. backpack. It will be difficult to find him not guilty of murder, at least I hope so.

Boy B, I have a bad feeling may not be found guilty of murder or even manslaughter, don't know if they can find him guilty of aiding and abetting. I pray I am wrong and he is found guilty of murder for luring her to the place where she died a violent death, I would not be surprised if he helped Boy A overcome her, Anna seemed pretty strong considering the injuries received by Boy A.

 

[mrjitty]

From the Defence - it is evident they have not tried to deny that Boy A killed Ana - just that the murder was not planned. Yet both boy A and B still maintain that they were involved in the killing. Is it that their counsel were not able to convince them to own up?

That the jury have been asked to disregard boy B's testimony - about boy A saying that he wished to kill Ana -as boy B Interviews were not under oath. I really wouldn't wish to be a member of the jury on this case tbh - they have been told what happened and directed to ignore it...

The Judge's summing up with be quite key as to the relevant law and it's application

Boy A has run a passive defence. So his barrister is simply saying, the State must prove intention. However the drafters of murder statutes were not born yesterday. Typically when you start inflicting GBH on the victim in a reckless manner, that is enough for intention to murder, even if you goal was tangental - e.g. to subdue them for a rape.

Boy B has really placed himself in the frame via his own statements, and can be found guilty as a party to murder.

He lured the victim to the scene, he was present, at least for some of the assault and he tried to cover it up.

Again while it may seem hard to prove exactly what he intended to involve himself in so far as the joint venture went, I dimly recall that the common law developed to prevent a party simply blaming the other party for bad stuff that unintentionally goes down

So if you raid a bank with guns and one robber shoots a guard - everyone is liable for it.

I guess as far as this joint enterprise goes, a lot will depend on whether the jury thinks it is reasonably possible Boy Bs version is now accurate, or whether he was truly a willing party to a sexually oriented assault.

IMO it is reasonably clear on the evidence that Boy B lured the victim to the house for criminal purposes and should be regarded as a party to murder

His differing role is a question for sentencing.

02c

 

[Ironside]

Are there any lesser charges against boy B? I can see boy A getting found guilty for sure but it could be hard for the jury to convict boy b of murder given there is no forensic evidence against him. Perverting the course of justice would be a suitable charge for boy b imo.

 

[Legally Bland]

Not sure if summing up has finished or not.
________________

The judge in the trial of two teenage boys accused of murdering Anastasia Kriegel has warned the jury that people lie for many reasons, including shame and to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family.

In his charge to the jury today, Mr Justice Paul McDermott said they could rely on lies allegedly told by the accused as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established that there was no other innocent explanation.

[...]

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. "If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury to Ana Kriegel you will acquit," he explained.


The judge said that intention does not require "elaborate pre-planning or premeditation", it can arise within a short time frame. "The prosecution make the case that the alleged murder was planned in advance, that is their case," he explained.

Judge warns Ana Kriegel trial jury that 'people lie for many reasons'



Much of the case against Boy B is based on what he said in Garda interviews, Mr Justice McDermott said. Jurors must take into account that the boy denied knowledge of any intention to kill Ana that day. He also denied assisting in her murder.

The jury must acquit Boy B if it believes his denials were credible or his account was reasonably possible.

[...]

Boy B admitted to being present when the attack on Ana began. This must be considered very carefully by the jury, Mr Justice McDermott said.

The boy is not guilty of murder simply because he was present at the scene. Neither is he guilty for not intervening to stop the attack, he said.

Helping to plan an attack, such as by making the victim available to the attacker, is a different matter, he said, and indicates participation.

The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Boy B knew what his co-accused planned to do to Ana.

Much of the evidence against Boy A was circumstantial, including the forensic evidence. He said jurors have to assess the weight of each piece of this evidence as well as its combined weight.

Lies told by Ana Kriégel murder accused do not equate to guilt, judge says

 

[KyleDeverell]

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? Alternatively 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.

 

[Jim_M]

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 have protected 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.

I cannot say that I blame you for needing a break. IMO the 'justice system' is broken pretty much everywhere. That the Professor was asked to speculate on other's reactions just screams putting doubts in the jurors' minds. I hope I'm wrong. I really hope these killers do not get away with murdering young Anastasia.

 

[KyleDeverell]

I cannot say that I blame you for needing a break. IMO the 'justice system' is broken pretty much everywhere. That the Professor was asked to speculate on other's reactions just screams putting doubts in the jurors' minds. I hope I'm wrong. I really hope these killers do not get away with murdering young Anastasia.

You know worse will come out after the trial. That is what is so upsetting.

 

[mrjitty]

Not sure if summing up has finished or not.
________________

The judge in the trial of two teenage boys accused of murdering Anastasia Kriegel has warned the jury that people lie for many reasons, including shame and to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family.

In his charge to the jury today, Mr Justice Paul McDermott said they could rely on lies allegedly told by the accused as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established that there was no other innocent explanation.

[...]

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. "If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury to Ana Kriegel you will acquit," he explained.


The judge said that intention does not require "elaborate pre-planning or premeditation", it can arise within a short time frame. "The prosecution make the case that the alleged murder was planned in advance, that is their case," he explained.

Judge warns Ana Kriegel trial jury that 'people lie for many reasons'



Much of the case against Boy B is based on what he said in Garda interviews, Mr Justice McDermott said. Jurors must take into account that the boy denied knowledge of any intention to kill Ana that day. He also denied assisting in her murder.



The jury must acquit Boy B if it believes his denials were credible or his account was reasonably possible.

[...]

Boy B admitted to being present when the attack on Ana began. This must be considered very carefully by the jury, Mr Justice McDermott said.

The boy is not guilty of murder simply because he was present at the scene. Neither is he guilty for not intervening to stop the attack, he said.

Helping to plan an attack, such as by making the victim available to the attacker, is a different matter, he said, and indicates participation.

The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Boy B knew what his co-accused planned to do to Ana.

Much of the evidence against Boy A was circumstantial, including the forensic evidence. He said jurors have to assess the weight of each piece of this evidence as well as its combined weight.

Lies told by Ana Kriégel murder accused do not equate to guilt, judge says

Good professional defence of Boy B

I guess the main issue is that if he lured Anna to the site, was present during the attack, and lied about it after, why you'd believe he was not a full party.