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

gimli2112

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.

he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.

He's probably not going to act like a murderer in front of the victim. I walk 25 minutes on a commute and couldn't tell you if there are any cctv cameras on the route, it's actually something I've never considered. Maybe if I was planning to kill someone I would but it still not proof of innocence, that he hadn't.

Smithwicks Man

retro:electro wrote: »

Because why else would he make it his business to call to the house of a girl he saw as slutty and a weirdo who he “wouldn’t be seen dead with”, and lead her astray into a derilect building to a who had previously confessed his desire to kill her? He had absolutely nothing nice to say about the girl. Not even after witnessing her violent death could he muster up something positive to say about her. So it stands to absolute reason that he had every intention to lead Ana to harm that day. His pathetic defence was he was bringing her to Boy A because he wanted to tell her in person he didn’t like her. That’s the best he could do for himself. Like another poster said, he even degraded her in death and tried to convince the detectives that she was no loss to the world. If that’s how he speaks about the girl when he apparently ran scared after witnessing her violent death then I think it’s absolutely apparent that he had zero regard or respect for her when she was living and breathing. And that’s before you even get to the fact that Boy A had alerted him a month previously of his desire to kill Ana, his copious lies, detached attitude and also the fact that he supplied one of the murder weapons.

If he had been a friend of Ana’s or had anything at all decent to say about her then I could maybe see a defence for him, but as it stands it’s clear he thought of her as trash and didn’t care that he played a part in disposing of that.

I don’t think “why else” is enough for a murder conviction. There are any number of reasons why a 13 year old would do what he did.

It’s a fair point that he had no business calling for her and showed little respect for her after which would indicate it being highly unusual for him to go to her house but that in itself still does not prove he knew that she would be seriously harmed. Nor does the friend bringing it up a month in advance when Boy B laughed it off as a joke due to how ridiculous it was. As for “supplying one of the murder weapons”. I would consider this a stretch. If I give you a hose and you strangle somebody with it some time later I would hardly consider myself as having supplied you with the murder weapon.

Smithwicks Man

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Isnt the reasonable doubt, in the eyes of the jury? If none of them had reasonable doubt, then a conviction for murder is the logical outcome...no?

Just because you have your own reasonable doubt, doesnt mean the jury had

This is a very fair point and that’s the nature of these cases but my question really is how could they possibly not have reasonable doubt when there is such little evidence? I just fail to see how any 12 people could not have reasonable doubt.

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

gozunda

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.
Another two sticking points for me are that:
1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.
2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

Plenty of evidence of preplanning imo. The selection of a remote and abandoned location for the crime. The contents of the backpack. Boy A and boy B splitting up with boy B taking the role of delivering Ana to boy B, the tape given by boy B to boy A and used as a ligature - the list goes on

1. Other evidence detailed showed that boy B was walking in front of Ana and not talking to her as he led her to the abandoned house. So no that is not clear cut - boy B has already been shown to be lying - he lied to Ana about to get her to come with him and put on an act to get her there.

2. From what they both told Gardai that Ana had supposedly disappeared in the Park after they met her - it would appear that was part of their preset plan to claim someone else abducted / murdered her - this was also alluded to in Boy Bs interviews when he suggested what might have happened to Ana. Also boy A claim that he had been attacked in the park. The fact is they wanted to be seen in the park.

That they also used an abandoned remote site where there was no CCTV, to commit the actual crime. On the point of boy B calling to Anas house - it was Ana who answered the door - her father only went to check who she was talking to - imo boy A did not expect her parents to be there and he had already said to Ana that boy B wanted to see her and the deed was done.

That neither boy divulged that they knew she was dead in the abandoned house during the period of the search is damning to both of them imo.

From the evidence and proceedings it is evident boy B is a liar and a manipulator who lured a trusting girl out of her house on false pretences, that he systematically and continuously lied until faced with evidence to the contrary, that he initially denied his best friend 'could do anything like that' and then threw his friend under the bus when he knew the game was up.


The fact is that the defence didn't have a leg to stand on imo.

pc7

Sorry if it’s been asked already can’t keep up with the thread. Will they stay in Oberstown until they are 18 and then go to a real prison? If after say 10 years review judge decides one or both are a risk to society how long can they be kept in prison for? Or is the review option just conjecture? Will they just serve x years?

Smithwicks Man

gimli2112 wrote: »

He's probably not going to act like a murderer in front of the victim. I walk 25 minutes on a commute and couldn't tell you if there are any cctv cameras on the route, it's actually something I've never considered. Maybe if I was planning to kill someone I would but it still not proof of innocence, that he hadn't.

That would suggest he’s a highly adept killer. Could be the case but I doubt it.

Agree on the CCTV, I wouldn’t pass any remarks either. Kids messing are probably more likely to be aware of it though especially if they’re very familiar with the area and he Gardaí have put them away from loitering/messing there before.

I don’t think it’s proof of innocence at all, merely pointing out that people are just stating one thing about his actions to indicate guilt but refusing to acknowledge the same thing that illustrates the contrary. E.g - he’s smart enough to have planned everything all out but yet he’s not smart enough to have accounted for CCTV cameras he knew where there. Or he’s cold and calculated enough to laugh and joke with a girl he knew was about to be murdered but he’s messed up the lies in the interviews because he’s naive and lost his cool.

Can’t have it both ways, it’s not black and white like that in my opinion

wicorthered

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Maybe, maybe. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong.

Maybe the guards “knew” he did it. Maybe he genuinely was unaware she’d be attacked and harmed.

None of that matters in the eyes of the law though. I just can’t see how they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she would be seriously harmed. And that is the basis on which he was convicted.

I think your sensationalism is cloutinh your judgement. I’ve yet to see a single person excuse what anybody has done in a moral sense. It’s a complex legal argument and I’m interested in the legal aspect of the conviction as it appears to me that the burden of proof on the state is an ever reducing burden and that is concerning.

I don’t think there’s a single person on here who doesn’t find what happened to be morally reprehensible, I just want be putting that caveat in every single post I make.

This burden of proof bull**** is the reason so many get away with murder. Are you the type of person that thinks charges should be dropping because the wrong date is filled in a search warrant?

I'm absolutely convinced he did it.

His friend told him he'd like to kill Ana previously.
He called to her house to pick her up, despite openly disliking her.
Ridiculous cover story of, "to talk about relationship stuff"
Delivers her to a friend he describes as scary and weird
Brings her to an abandoned house. Would he not think, why can't they talk in the park?
He provides the tape.
Watches his fellow pysco murder her and doesn't tell the gardai in the first interview.
Has a new lie every time he's caught lying.
None of his timeline matches CCTV.
Doesn't get rattled in a police station at 13.

He may not have been caught in the act but that's pretty damning to me. Like I said before the Gardai know he did it. That's why they prosecuted him. If they had any doubts they would have let him plead to a lesser charge and not run the risk of bleeding hearts falling for his bull**** sob story. Especially with his age, they wouldn't have even been criticized for that.


I'm not saying people aren't finding it reprehensible but the amount of people looking for reasons to explain what he did is frightening. Oh he was laughing and chatting, he obviously didn't know what was going to happen. Evil exists, It can't always be explained away.

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

That would suggest he’s a highly adept killer. Could be the case but I doubt it.

Agree on the CCTV, I wouldn’t pass any remarks either. Kids messing are probably more likely to be aware of it though especially if they’re very familiar with the area and he Gardaí have put them away from loitering/messing there before.

I don’t think it’s proof of innocence at all, merely pointing out that people are just stating one thing about his actions to indicate guilt but refusing to acknowledge the same thing that illustrates the contrary. E.g - he’s smart enough to have planned everything all out but yet he’s not smart enough to have accounted for CCTV cameras he knew where there. Or he’s cold and calculated enough to laugh and joke with a girl he knew was about to be murdered but he’s messed up the lies in the interviews because he’s naive and lost his cool.

Can’t have it both ways, it’s not black and white like that in my opinion

No, you're applying normal teenage reactions to a teenager who at the very least was present for the rape and murder of a classmate and who
managed to "keep it all together" in a way that doesn't suggest "normal" at all.

He was questioned by trained professional investigators - if he could outwit them at 13 he's a criminal mastermind.

Laughing and joking with Ana though, that just shows his lack of empathy with other people - not that surprising if he is someone who was able to take part in a plan to beat her to death and rape her.

martingriff

I have asked this question a few time to people who have said they want the names and pictures of the 2 as they would not want them near there kids. I am right with everyone on that point. However these 2 things will not be released for a long time (not long enough) and by the time they are not they will probably look different and have there names changed. So you won't know unfortunately. Are you going to forbid you kids from hanging out with anyone with a similar name or face just because.

SirGerryAdams

Well lads, in one of the interviews with Boy B they tell boy B that a witness saw him walking in a field towards the abandoned house. Boy B then said he did walk into the field to look around but no more.

There was no mention of Ana being with him. Was this actually Boy A and not Boy B?

Cryptopagan

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

How did they overcome the reasonable doubt to prove he knew what was going to happen? Legally, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear it’s in any way clear enough for joint enterprise to definitively come into play. I just don't see how it's sufficient to say that he knew what was going to happen just because he brought her to the house.

Another two sticking points for me are that:

1. People say his actions in the lead up to the murder prove he knew what was going to happen. I don't see how they could but this is further thrown into doubt by a witness statement clearly stating the pair seemed to be in good form as they headed for the abandoned house, laughing and chatting. This doesn't appear to be the actions of someone who knew his friend was about to commit a heinous murder.

2. There's also the suggestion that Boy B is some sort of criminal mastermind, and yet he took no measures to disguise his actions or whereabouts except retrospectively lying when he was questioned. Defense counsel makes a good point here that the prosecution are suggesting Boy B knew exactly what was going to happen and yet he called to her house knowing he'd be easily identified after she was found murdered and he also walked with Ana through an area well known to him knowing there was CCTV everywhere but yet he simply ignored it.

When the second point is put to people the answer is that he did these things mistakenly because he was nervous etc. but yet this doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation as to why a 13 year old who witnessed a murder would lie multiple times to the authorities afterwards.

Isn't it possible he didn't believe that Boy A was going to physically harm Ana and that's why the build up played out as suggested. Once Boy A actually attacked her he then froze and din't know what to do, he ran and tried to bury it out of his head and then his limited understanding of the law caused him to fear he'd get in trouble so he lied. Once he lied then he was in too deep so he kept lying and only changing his lies when forced to by the evidence disproving his whereabouts. This is a 13 year old child people have to remember. There was also no physical evidence against him which strongly suggests he had no active physical part in the attack itself.

Now he could well have been entirely complicit and possibly he's as psychopathic as Boy A but I fail to see how this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Also, to those suggesting he would have been convicted regardless of the interviews. If he had no commented, gave basic truths that were later found on CCTV anyway or said he couldn't remember etc. then not only would he not have been convicted but he also wouldn't have been charged. (I'm obviously not condoning any of his actions or suggesting people should stifle investigations into murders but merely speaking from a legal standpoint)

Much apparently hinged on whether Boy B took A’s statement that he wanted to kill Ana seriously. Purely on the basis of what has been released in the media, I don’t see how you could say without any doubt he did take it seriously, but the jury had the benefit of seeing his interviews and all concluded he did.

SirGerryAdams

Reading again about the stories Boy B told, I wonder if there's bit of truths in amongst the lies.

Like he said Boy A and Ana went into the house and he walked away and then heard a scream that got muffled towards the end.

Could it be that Boy B was there and Ana walked into Boy A and he was wearing the mask and she screamed and he attacked her.

Smithwicks Man

wicorthered wrote: »

This burden of proof bull**** is the reason so many get away with murder. Are you the type of person that thinks charges should be dropping because the wrong date is filled in a search warrant?

I'm absolutely convinced he did it.

His friend told him he'd like to kill Ana previously.
He called to her house to pick her up, despite openly disliking her.
Ridiculous cover story of, "to talk about relationship stuff"
Delivers her to a friend he describes as scary and weird
Brings her to an abandoned house. Would he not think, why can't they talk in the park?
He provides the tape.
Watches his fellow pysco murder her and doesn't tell the gardai in the first interview.
Has a new lie every time he's caught lying.
None of his timeline matches CCTV.
Doesn't get rattled in a police station at 13.

He may not have been caught in the act but that's pretty damning to me. Like I said before the Gardai know he did it. That's why they prosecuted him. If they had any doubts they would have let him plead to a lesser charge and not run the risk of bleeding hearts falling for his bull**** sob story. Especially with his age, they wouldn't have even been criticized for that.


I'm not saying people aren't finding it reprehensible but the amount of people looking for reasons to explain what he did is frightening. Oh he was laughing and chatting, he obviously didn't know what was going to happen. Evil exists, It can't always be explained away.

No, I'm the type of person who believes that the evidence should be very strong in order to convict someone for a crime and potentially serve them with a life sentence in prison. This trial by media nonsense is what's bs. There are laws for a reason and they must be adhered to. Anybody who thinks the burden of innocence must be proven by a defendant is an idiot. I'm also a believer that it's better for one guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be convicted (I'm not suggesting he was innocent, I just mean in general).

The burden of proof is a focal point of every court in the world. It is absolutely essential this be maintained.

The rest of your points are fair but they are circumstantial. I just don't think, legally speaking, they are absolute evidence he knew she would be seriously harmed/killed.

You have to understand that Boy B was convicted on the basis of joint enterprise which is by its very nature very difficult to prove. This is why I have my questions around how they overcame this.

Smithwicks Man

gozunda wrote: »

Plenty of evidence of preplanning imo. The selection of a remote and abandoned location for the crime. The contents of the backpack. Boy A and boy B splitting up with boy B taking the role of delivering Ana to boy B, the tape given by boy B to boy A and used as a ligature - the list goes on

1. Other evidence detailed showed that boy B was walking in front of Ana and not talking to her as he led her to the abandoned house. So no that is not clear cut - boy B has already been shown to be lying - he lied to Ana about to get her to come with him and put on an act to get her there.

2. From what they both told Gardai that Ana had supposedly disappeared in the Park after they met her - it would appear that was part of their preset plan to claim someone else abducted / murdered her - this was also alluded to in Boy Bs interviews when he suggested what might have happened to Ana. Also boy A claim that he had been attacked in the park. The fact is they wanted to be seen in the park.

That they also used an abandoned remote site where there was no CCTV, to commit the actual crime. On the point of boy B calling to Anas house - it was Ana who answered the door - her father only went to check who she was talking to - imo boy A did not expect her parents to be there and he had already said to Ana that boy B wanted to see her and the deed was done.

That neither boy divulged that they knew she was dead in the abandoned house during the period of the search is damning to both of them imo.

From the evidence and proceedings it is evident boy B is a liar and a manipulator who lured a trusting girl out of her house on false pretences, that he systematically and continuously lied until faced with evidence to the contrary, that he initially denied his best friend 'could do anything like that' and then threw his friend under the bus when he knew the game was up.


The fact is that the defence didn't have a leg to stand on imo.

That is evidence, no doubt. I still don't think it's enough.

Ana's father gave the account of Boy B walking ahead of Ana just after they left the house which is consistent with her following him. A different witness saw them shortly after saying they were walking alongside one another and joking and laughing.

He did lie to her yes, I don't think myself he thought that Boy A wanted to discuss relationship status.

The abandoned house was a common hangout spot for kids in the area.

He lied multiple times with multiple different stories and manipulated the situation to suit whatever he thought would make the situation go away. I completely agree. But this still does not prove he knew that she would be murdered. He was convicted on the basis that he knew, I don't see how any of this clearly shows he knew.

Smithwicks Man

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Much apparently hinged on whether Boy B took A’s statement that he wanted to kill Ana seriously. Purely on the basis of what has been released in the media, I don’t see how you could say without any doubt he did take it seriously, but the jury had the benefit of seeing his interviews and all concluded he did.

This is it essentially. 16 hours of interviews isn't an easy thing for an jury to sit through and study methodically. I was surprised they came to the conclusion that he took Boy A seriously when he said that originally, because he stated multiple times that he thought he was joking.

This is what convicted him.

joe40

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

No, I'm the type of person who believes that the evidence should be very strong in order to convict someone for a crime and potentially serve them with a life sentence in prison. This trial by media nonsense is what's bs. There are laws for a reason and they must be adhered to. Anybody who thinks the burden of innocence must be proven by a defendant is an idiot. I'm also a believer that it's better for one guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be convicted (I'm not suggesting he was innocent, I just mean in general).

The burden of proof is a focal point of every court in the world. It is absolutely essential this be maintained.

The rest of your points are fair but they are circumstantial. I just don't think, legally speaking, they are absolute evidence he knew she would be seriously harmed/killed.

You have to understand that Boy B was convicted on the basis of joint enterprise which is by its very nature very difficult to prove. This is why I have my questions around how they overcame this.

There was no trial by media, the trial took place in a courtroom. There was a judge, legal teams for prosecution and defence and a jury.

Unless you were actually on the jury you do not have full access to the evidence you are only going by media reports.

And unless you are an experienced criminal lawyer you're not qualified to say if there was a miscarriage of justice here.

I am happy that the court case was legal and correct, and that the jury reached their decision to the best of their ability.

Some people are making the point that if boy B just said nothing there may not have been enough evidence against him. That may be so but the fact is his testimony along with evidence convinced a jury he was guilty. That is all that matters.

Two 13 year olds carrying out a crime like this were probably always going to be caught.

Smithwicks Man

martingriff wrote: »

I have asked this question a few time to people who have said they want the names and pictures of the 2 as they would not want them near there kids. I am right with everyone on that point. However these 2 things will not be released for a long time (not long enough) and by the time they are not they will probably look different and have there names changed. So you won't know unfortunately. Are you going to forbid you kids from hanging out with anyone with a similar name or face just because.

I don't think that they should be given anonymity post-release and I would certainly want to know who they were if they moved into my area.

I believe in the vast majority of cases that those who are convicted of certain crimes and serve their sentence should be allowed to have a life past that, get a job etc. but when there is a clear and apparent threat to public safety, which I fully believe Boy A poses even post release, I think exceptions should be made in the name of safety, not vigilantism.

SirGerryAdams

Ana on the day before she died I believe streamed live on youtube. I wonder did Boy A view or comment on that youtube video? Was that ever checked?

CalamariFritti

Not getting involved here, just one general observation.
I find it really awful that the poor girls identity and pictures are plastered all over the media with gory details of what she had to suffer for every sicko to get their little kick from but the little cvnts are being protected. That’s quite disgusting tbh.

Smithwicks Man

joe40 wrote: »

There was no trial by media, the trial took place in a courtroom. There was a judge, legal teams for prosecution and defence and a jury.

Unless you were actually on the jury you do not have full access to the evidence you are only going by media reports.

And unless you are an experienced criminal lawyer you're not qualified to say if there was a miscarriage of justice here.

I am happy that the court case was legal and correct, and that the jury reached their decision to the best of their ability.

Some people are making the point that if boy B just said nothing there may not have been enough evidence against him. That may be so but the fact is his testimony along with evidence convinced a jury he was guilty. That is all that matters.

Two 13 year olds carrying out a crime like this were probably always going to be cut.

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

volchitsa

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

An innocent 13 year old ignoring the advice of the lawyer paid to keep them out of jail? I can accept that for a couple of days, no problem - but not for all that time, and all through the court case.

Now a guilty 13 year old, unable to face up to what he'd done and the inevitable punishment that a guilty plea would bring - that I can imagine.

gk5000

The jury sits on our behalf and hear all the evidence.
They decided both were guilty of murder. I have full confidence in the jury and their verdict, as do most people.

How can people who were not on the jury know better?

gozunda

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

That is evidence, no doubt. I still don't think it's enough.

Ana's father gave the account of Boy B walking ahead of Ana just after they left the house which is consistent with her following him. A different witness saw them shortly after saying they were walking alongside one another and joking and laughing.He did lie to her yes, I don't think myself he thought that Boy A wanted to discuss relationship status.The abandoned house was a common hangout spot for kids in the area. He lied multiple times with multiple different stories and manipulated the situation to suit whatever he thought would make the situation go away. I completely agree. But this still does not prove he knew that she would be murdered. He was convicted on the basis that he knew, I don't see how any of this clearly shows he knew.

The finding of guilt with regard to the two boys does in fact indicate that there was sufficient evidence in this case. When the evidence and testimony was brought together it allowed the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that both boy a and boy b planned and carried out the murder of Ana Kreigel

That you disagree with that is immaterial.

Of interest what was the source of the detail in the following.

Smithwicks Man wrote:

Over the course of 14.5 hours deliberations in an extremely difficult case, not once did the jury return to the judge with a question about the law or what the exact criteria is on which Boy B is to be judged. This is highly irregular. I fail to see how they could be so well versed in the law that they could make a conviction based solely on joint enterprise with no physical evidence and not once ask for help in doing so

I have served on a jury as part of a criminal trial and the bulk of direction is given to the jury members by the judge prior to the start of jury deliberations. Also questions asked by the jury of the judge about procedure etc are not always reported on...

Smithwicks Man

volchitsa wrote: »

An innocent 13 year old ignoring the advice of the lawyer paid to keep them out of jail? I can accept that for a couple of days, no problem - but not for all that time, and all through the court case.

Now a guilty 13 year old, unable to face up to what he'd done and the inevitable punishment that a guilty plea would bring - that I can imagine.

What about an innocent 13 year old ignoring his lawyer's advice to say no comment to every question because he wanted to clear things up but kept lying to avoid what he thought would be incriminating himself?

Can spin that one whichever way you want.

airy fairy

I'm very nervous of this case falling apart.
There will obviously be an appeal?
If the case is overturned, and if boy B is found not guilty....it's unthinkable but probable.

joe40

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I meant post-conviction.

Not having full access to the evidence is always an issue but it's also something people say when they don't want to hear arguments against the conviction. All of the primary evidence in the case has already been made public. I'm sure there were comments, mannerisms etc. evident throughout the interviews which had their impact on the jurors and we'll never know the full extent of these.

I don't think he should have said nothing but if I was his solicitor I certainly would have advised him better than his actual defense counsel did because how any experienced lawyer would sit and listen to their client list lie and lie after they had been charged with murder, is beyond me. They surely had to have realised he was incriminating himself by changing his story, even if each new story was absent any significant incrimination in and of itself.

There is the possibility he disregarded their advice though, which often happens.

I'm not sure what your position is. Do you think he might be innocent? or are you saying that if he had handled the questioning better, (i.e remained silent) he might have got off with the crime.

Serious question i'm not trying to catch anyone out.

Smithwicks Man

gozunda wrote: »

The finding of guilt with regard to the two boys does in fact indicate that there was sufficient evidence in this case. When the evidence and testimony was brought together it allowed the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that both boy a and boy b planned and carried out the murder of Ana Kreigel

That you disagree with that is immaterial.

Of interest what was the source of the detail in the following.



I have served on a jury as part of a criminal trial and the bulk of direction is given to the jury members by the judge prior to the start of jury deliberations. Also questions asked by the jury of the judge about procedure etc are not always reported on...

Obviously it's immaterial, they're hardly going to overturn the verdict because I'm wondering how they met the burden of proof. Nonsense comment, sure we may as well just accept every verdict and never discuss it afterward :rolleyes:

Conor Callagher (chief reporter for the Times for this case) indicated in his court report that deliberations went on for over 14 hours and not once did the jury come back with any legal questions or seek clarification on any aspect of the law surrounding joint enterprise or any other.

I'm aware direction is given prior to deliberations, it is still unusual that questions do not surface thereafter.

Smithwicks Man

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not sure what your position is. Do you think he might be innocent? or are you saying that if he had handled the questioning better, (i.e remained silent) he might have got off with the crime.

Serious question i'm not trying to catch anyone out.

My position essentially is that Boy A is clearly guilty (and I believe should serve a minimum of 20 years)

But in the case of Boy B, whilst it is likely he knew something untoward was going to happen, I just don't see how it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew Ana was going to be seriously harmed/killed. People just wanted them both to be guilty which clouts their judgment.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I really don't know if he knew what would happen or to what extent he knew. I'm saying that I don't think it's possible to know which he is and not knowing should equal innocent in the eyes of the law.

Wheety

Boy B was found guilty on the basis that he lured her to her death. Strong suspicions that he watched the whole thing too and was complicit. Then he constantly lied to try and cover this up and shift the blame. We haven't seen all the evidence but the jury thought there was enough to convict Boy B of murder.

gozunda

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Obviously it's immaterial, they're hardly going to overturn the verdict because I'm wondering how they met the burden of proof. Nonsense comment, sure we may as well just accept every verdict and never discuss it afterward
Conor Callagher (chief reporter for the Times for this case) indicated in his court report that deliberations went on for over 14 hours and not once did the jury come back with any legal questions or seek clarification on any aspect of the law surrounding joint enterprise or any other.
I'm aware direction is given prior to deliberations, it is still unusual that questions do not surface thereafter.

Well by return a whole bunch of nonsensical questions posed in an attempt to cast doubt on the deliberations and procedures of a criminal trial imo.

I can confirm that not all jury queries / questions are reported on. That was certainly the case with the jury on which I was empaneled. That said a well briefed jury may indeed not require additional direction.