The Murder of Ana Kriegel: Boy A

Ana Kriegel, 14,  was found murdered in 2018 after she went for a walk with two boys known to her.  The following are two statements made by the boys (13) and read in court. 

Statement Analysis is the study of words for the purpose of discerning deception from truth.  

Can we know if guilty knowledge is indicated by their words? 

First is the analysis of Boy A 

hat tip: Paul

Statement of Boy A:

One of my best friends is Boy B. He’s in the same class as me. I recall yesterday I finished school at 3.45pm and walked home from school with Boy B.

In making this statement, the subject began without the pronoun "I", but with another subject, Boy B.  

We also note that he reports what he "recalls", even though it was only "yesterday" in a case that is shocking (hormonally consequential) for a friend of the victim.  

One might consider if this subject is willing to blame his friend, Boy B, as we note that this is where he began his statement (priority) and he does not begin with the psychological presence represented by the pronoun "I" in his statement. 

We do not, however, know what wording the investigator used to prompt this statement. 

When I got home my mum, dad and sister were already there. I got changed and had a cup of tea then I went out. 

Note the pace of his statement with minor, unnecessary detail of changing and tea. 

He began his statement with being in the same class as the other boy and used the time 3:45pm.  

I called over to Boy B’s house but he was doing some chores so I arranged to meet him in park when he was finished.

I was in the park for maybe a few minutes when Boy B came in. Ana Kriégel was with him when he came in.

His friend was reported missing and found murdered.  Here he uses her full name, rather than "Ana." 

With Ana entering the statement, the first thing he tells us after her arrival is in the negative:

I don’t know her that well. 

He changed, had tea and doesn't know her that well.  This is not what one would expect from a shocked innocent boy who has heard frightening news about his friend of whom he went to the park with. This might be something an innocent may say, perhaps, years later in discussing the case.  

He now presses the point of not knowing her: 

It was the first time I was in the park with her.

The investigator/analyst should now question why the subject wishes to convey, in this time with police, that he does not know her "well" and that in the park (location) it was the "first time."

We should question, "Where was the first time that was not in the park?"

By telling us in the negative, and by using the word "with" between himself ("I") and the victim, he is psychologically distancing himself from Ana. 

We were walking very slowly. I was talking to Boy B, I remember talking about video games. 

He slows down the pace with a specific detail of walking slowly and then signals that he is concealing information by unnecessarily using the word "remember" in the context of the murder having just taken place a short time ago. 

His use of "remember" is about "talking" and "video games." This is an unnecessary detail found in an unnecessary use of recall. 

It is another indication that they (he and Boy B) were talking about something else besides video games.  The word "we" preceding it may be not the three of them, but in context, (talking to Boy B), he and Boy B being in unity at this point. 

This should cause us to consider possible premeditation should guilty knowledge of Ana's death be indicated within the statements. 

He now affirms the context that "we" was not the three of them ("we" indicates unity/cooperation) by reporting, again in the negative, what he was not doing: 

I wasn’t really talking to Ana. 

"really" here should cause the investigator to ask about this very important conversation.  By qualifying it, Ana was likely in, or meant to overhear, some of what was contained in the conversation.  

She was on her phone a good bit, not talking but using it.

At one stage Ana said to me “I have something to ask you, I was wondering if you wanted to go out with me”. I was surprised. It came out of nowhere. I did have an idea she liked me because she did kind of ask me out [previously].

While speaking to police about Ana, he includes his emotional reaction to the words of Ana.  

This is vital information and insight into the subject's thinking.  To "go out with me" is to be in some form of romantic relationship.  He wants police to know this is not the first time she "kind of" asked him out.

The analyst should be, in context of what happened, on alert for victim blaming---

The analyst should be concerned about the possibility of sexual assault being preempted by the subject.  

*the psychological distancing from the statement;

*the priority of beginning with his friend

*the psychological distancing from the victim

*the psychological distance in communication 

*the repetition of asking him "out" increasing its importance to the subject. 

In familiar homicides, we look for:

1. The conversation that preceded it to enter the language 

2. The subtle shifting of blame to the victim 

An innocent 13 year old boy should be bewildered and speaking directly to his time in the park with the victim, wanting answers and to help.  

We should consider that this statement may have been rehearsed.  

"The Good Guy" in analysis. 

"The Good Guy" shows a need to be seen in a positive light, often belying guilt beneath the surface. 

Here, while with police, after the murder of a friend, he has a need to be portrayed (twice) as a good person: 

I thought about it for a few minutes because I was going to say “No” and wanted to do it without hurting her feelings. 

again: 

The first time she asked me out... I said “No” she stormed off and I was trying to be considerate.

I said I was sorry but I wasn’t interested in her. 

We always note "I am sorry" in a statement--we do not conclude guilt by it, yet we do find it in many guilty statements. 

I wonder if this is true:  he really did tell her he was sorry, but not here in the park.  Here is why: 

She didn’t answer. She said nothing. 

It is very difficult to lie outright---generally, the words come from somewhere that a skilled interviewer can locate. 

Did these words come from the memory of a fatal encounter between him and the victim?  This would have to be answered in the interview process.  It is also something that may come out long after the case is over. 

She stayed there for a few minutes and walked off. I could tell she wasn’t happy. She looked annoyed and sad at the same time. She walked off in the direction she had come from and said nothing to me or Boy B after I told her I wasn’t interested.

He repeat her saying "nothing" using the element of time: 

"after"--- 

He said "no" and here he "told" her he "wasn't interested." 

The additional details offered again suggests rehearsal (narrative building, see the editing in of his emotion as another example) 

Boy B was a little bit ahead of us. He might have heard the conversation but I can’t be sure. He was still in view, about five metres away from us. When she stormed off, me and Boy B kept walking on the way we had been going. I said to him “that was a bit random” and he said “yeah”. We walked further and he said he had to go.

He headed back in the same direction as Ana went. He said he had to go home for dinner.

Consider his opening statement again...

 I said nothing to Ana to upset her except for declining her. Boy B was not upset either. I walked on further away from their direction.

He then offers an unusual detail: 

I became aware of two men walking behind me. It didn’t feel right so I sped up. They also sped up. They caught up with me and one grabbed me by the shoulder and pulled me to the ground and they started to kick me.

Instead of saying "two guys attacked me" he begins with passivity and staying in this ("passive voice" in analysis) psychological position, he includes his emotion (in the negative) indicative of artificial editing so soon after the event. When one enters a type of passive voice, it becomes difficult to exit it while in the story: 

I was winded from one of the kicks in the chest. I managed to get up and I kicked one in the head and they ran off.

The heavy lad was 5ft 8, stocky build like a rugby player. He was maybe 19/20 wearing dark tracksuit bottoms, white runners and a dark hoody. There was maybe white laces in the hoody. He had dark coloured hair, he may have had his ear pierced, which one I don’t know.

He gives unexpected detail -- but moves again to reporting what he "can't" do-- 

I can’t describe his face, roundish head. 

Do you notice the incongruence in his words? He reports what he "can't" do (negative) while giving a description of the alleged attacker's "head"? 

It was blurry for me. 

This is a good example of the passive voice in statement analysis--he is in it and remains passive. He does not say "I was blurry" or "my vision was blurry" but "it was blurry..."  

What was blurry? 

Our eyesight is very important to us  and is very personal.  Next take in an alleged attack, the same day a terrible tragedy has taken place to someone you were with the day before and the analyst will conclude that this subject is being deceptive. 

The incongruence continues. It is in situations like this that a judge or jury will sense the passivity but also hear the incongruence of words and think,

"this may not be coming from experiential memory." 

"it was blurry" yet: 

He had fringe across forehead. 

Now go back to how he began this event:

a. I became aware of two men walking behind me. It didn’t feel right so I sped up.

b. Now consider that he is slowing down the pace of the statement, in a way of running out the clock or passing of time. 

What became of these two "men"?

Neither of them spoke.

He tells us what they did not do.  

It may be somewhat challenging to think that two Rugby like attackers said nothing to the victim nor each other, but we follow his language --

what became of the two "men"? 

The second lad was tall and skinny about 6ft 1 and looked about same age as other lad. 

The "men" are now "lads"-- 

Change of Language noted.  One is even larger than the other, while going from "men" to "lads." 

This is a "positive linguistic disposition" towards the two attackers. 

Might the real "lads" in his language be himself and Boy B, of whom he used "we"? 

"It was blurry" yet it continues: 

Same type of haircut, lighter in colour. He had a long face and a long nose and was wearing dark blue jacket and peak in a hood, was wearing light grey tracksuit bottoms and grey runners.

Neither were wearing gloves and both were wearing baggy track suits bottoms. 

The lengthy details all come while "it" was blurry.  

I went home and my leg was hurting and I walked slowly.

I got home at about 6pm. 

He "went" somewhere and in doing so, he "walked slowly"---this is his second use of walking "slowly"

He "got" home at about 6pm. 

Did you notice it is out of chronological order?

a. he went home

b. his leg was hurting 

c. he walked slowly

d. he got home 

He doubling down of this pathway suggests that he went somewhere else before he "got" home. 

I told my parents what had happened. My back is bruised, my leg were sore around my knees and had cut in left leg. My right leg is very painful, small bruising on my chest and my right arm which was previously hurt was damaged again, my lip was bleeding.

Nothing was stolen from me nor did they demand anything from me. 

Notice all the detail about himself, even as a boy (he is intelligent) yet so little about the victim? 

Ana was wearing a black hoody with black leggings.

Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated

He is deceptive about what happened that day. 

His priority is himself and not the victim. 

In spite of the circumstance, (context) he shows a positive linguistic disposition towards self, towards the alleged attackers and a negative linguistic disposition towards the victim, via the lack of empathy. 

He has the need to portray himself as the good person of his story, which when taken with the complete analysis, indicates the contrary.  

His use of time indicates missing information and his words, including the sequence, suggest rehearsal. 

*************************************************************

Next post will be the analysis of Boy B

Statement of Boy B:

I called to a girl called Ana Kriégel at the request of my friend Boy A. He had asked me to call to her and bring her to the park to meet with him there. He told me he wanted to sort out some relationship issues with her.

So I called and got Ana and we walked through the pedestrian entrance on to the park.

Ana was very chatty. Ana wanted to know why Boy A wanted to meet her and I told her I would tell her when we got there.

We met him at the overflow car park then, we walked towards the changing rooms. I stayed behind them so they could talk. I could not really hear what they were saying, but I could hear their voices.

I let them continue on walking. I know that Boy A wanted to be clear to her that she was not of interest to him.

I turned back and went to the rear of the changing rooms. There is a water tap where I got a drink of water. I waited there a while as I was a little tired.

After I got the water, I came back around to the rear of the changing rooms and then walked across the car park and I noticed Ana was walking along the park toward where we had come from.

There were other people in the car park out walking but I did not see anyone else I recognised.

When I saw Ana this time I said “hey” but she didn’t really say anything, she looked really down, she seemed upset and she had her head down. I walked on in front of her but we did not really talk.

I did not see her or speak to her after that.

I am not sure where she went but it looked as if she went back towards the changing rooms. This was about 5.30pm or 5.40pm.

I know Ana had her phone on her and it was switched on because I saw her checking it once or twice and she also told me the time at one stage.

I did not see Ana or Boy A after that. I went straight home and did my homework. My father was home when I got back.

The first I heard there was a problem with Ana was when the gardaí called to our house asking about her.

I have no clue what happened to her.