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

Smithwicks Man

mrjoneill wrote: »

It boils down to the prosecution believed Boy B led Ana to her death which the jury also believed. There is no other alternative reasonable explanation. The Jury looked at the totality of the actions inc Boy B & Boy A antipathy towards Ana and her naivety to them. Love definitely was not in the air but murder is the reasoned opinion.

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

Franz Von Peppercorn II

tuxy wrote: »

They talked for sometime at the door before Anna left so there is something we know for sure but yes lets focus on speculation for now. We can get back to facts at a later date.

I was talking about boy A and Ana. We’re speculating. Deal with it. Cut out the sanctimonious self regarding backseat modding and go troll some other forum.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

You keep saying that but once again the DPP, judge and jury disagree. We can’t really accept your authority on this.

Strazdas

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

This is what puzzles me. Some people would have you believe the child is such a criminal mastermind so as to rival Hannibal Lecter yet his agitation and constant story changing is woefully incriminating. He’s obviously lying multiple times but everyone just assumes he is lying because he knew exactly what was going to happen and then wanted to get away with it. You can’t assume anything when deciding whether to convict someone for murder.

But he never seems to have moved towards the truth at any point. The version he gives for the start of the attack and then apparently fleeing the scene doesn't stack up and nor can he account for a good 30 minutes after the murder.

The constant lying is down to there being no witnesses I would guess and he trying to create a version that gets him off the hook for murder.

He's no criminal mastermind but is definitely dishonest and a liar. It doesn't sound anything like a mere innocent who got caught up in something horrible.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

They’ve proven it, literally, in a court of law. This isn’t a mathematical proof.

BloodBath

I can't believe people are still arguing that boy B should have got manslaughter. His constant lies implicated him. How hard is that to understand. If he didn't know she was going to be murdered he could have argued that and told the truth but he didn't.

Also some are questioning whether boy A is a psychopath or not. It's pretty bloody obvious that he is. Most likely boy B is too.

Neither 1 of them showed a shred of remorse and thought they could get away with it and thought they could manipulate everyone around them. All classic psychopath traits. Not to mention the gruesome murder that they could perform then go home and sleep soundly after.

Boggles

Sardonicat wrote: »

A diagnosis of psychopathy, or any other major Cluster B personality disorder, cannot be made for someone under 18.
.

Technically, but reports given to courts often comment on traits.

We will see next month if they are made public.

jimmycrackcorm

airy fairy wrote: »

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.

This has come up a few times. INAL but AFAIK you cannot simply appeal because you don't like the verdict and hope a different jury might give the result you want.

It has to be either on a point of law, new evidence coming to light that significantly casts doubt in the conviction or finding a significant flaw in the existing evidence.

mrjoneill

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s absolutely no evidence of Ana being in any contact with either boy at school so that is pure speculation on your behalf.
It is further wild speculation on your behalf that boy a is a psychopath. Nobody in authority in this case has suggested any such thing.
You stated in previous posts that Ana was groomed. Once again wild ludicrous completely unfounded speculation by you. Absolutely not one shred of evidence to support your theory.
The video of Ana tied and bound shows no evidence of either boy. No grooming by them. You’re just making stuff up as you’re going along now.

They were in the same class in school.



Forensics link Boy A to the killing. The killing was gruesome something u would not expect from a 13yr old. Her body was a mass of injuries, fractures to her head, blood spatter all over the walls, throat strangulation and sex acts done on her. Anyone who did this is a monster. locked up for ever and the keys thrown away.

mrjoneill

tuxy wrote: »

Clearly Boy A gave one of Boy B's phones to Ana while keeping one for himself.
It's all there in the reports, you just have to disregard everything said and have a vivid imagination.

Is there evidence of this

BloodBath

Exactly. You don't need to be a psychologist to diagnose psychopathy in this case. It's pretty bloody obvious.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

No, I suggested he was. As have about 200 other members on this thread.

But this will be done in the next few weeks so we will see what the results are.



Nonsense. There is no set time limit on how long it takes to groom a child.



I have all ready stated it several times.

But I think if you are suitably lucid it's quite obvious.

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

BloodBath

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

It's people opinions ad they are most likely right.

What do you propose? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Unsupported opinion? It definitely is not unsupported. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit.

splinter65

BloodBath wrote: »

Exactly. You don't need to be a psychologist to diagnose psychopathy in this case. It's pretty bloody obvious.

Well I’ll diagnose you with schizophrenia then bloodbath if it’s your contention that you dont need any professional qualification or even to have met a patient.
I’ll pm you your prescription.

splinter65

BloodBath wrote: »

It's people opinions ad they are most likely right.

What do you propose? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Unsupported opinion? It definitely is not unsupported. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit.

This forum is supposed to be people’s opinions on current affairs.
Not wild allegations and baseless speculation.

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion

Does everything have to be literally explained to you?

If someone isn't qualified to PHD level in the field, they can't have an opinion on any subject?

You must be great crack down the pub.

splinter65 wrote: »

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

Jaysus, it's just getting silly now, you either have severe comprehensive difficulties or your on the troll.

Either way go annoy someone else.

splinter65

mrjoneill wrote: »

Is there evidence of this

None whatsoever. This is the forum of wild speculation and unfounded allegations.

Gadgetman496

Boggles wrote: »

Does everything have to be literally explained to you?

If someone isn't qualified to PHD level in the field, they can't have an opinion on any subject?

You must be great crack down the pub.



Jaysus, it's just getting silly now, you either have severe comprehensive difficulties or your on the troll.

Either way go annoy someone else.

Since when do you need a PHD in order to have an opinion?

Smithwicks Man

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

They’ve proven it, literally, in a court of law. This isn’t a mathematical proof.

It would be naive to think that every verdict handed down in a court of law is the correct one.

I’m just trying to better understand how they’ve came to this conclusion. As I’ve said, I don’t know whether or not he knew. But I don’t see how the jury could be so confident that he knew either.

Just feels to me like the subjective voice had overridden the objective voice. When you take all of the emotion out of it and look solely at the facts. I can’t see the burden of proof being met so clearly as other seem to think it was.

I certainly don’t think he was innocent in the whole thing. Just seems to me like Boy A committed murder clear as day. Boy B is guilty of lesser offences no doubt but I’m not sure about murder itself.

Boggles

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Since when do you need a PHD in order to have an opinion?

That was a question to a poster who insists on it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

He’s just a naughty boy then? If boy A isn’t a psychopath then I’d hate to see what the criteria are.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

They obviously talked at school.

Kidchameleon

Dual wheels wrote: »

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

endacl

Oh, ffs.

Unfollows thread...

Eoin

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

You could argue that, if there was something really quite wrong with you.

And if you've put "dad" in quotes because she was adopted, that's especially ****ty.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

It would be naive to think that every verdict handed down in a court of law is the correct one.

True but we know what the jury knew in this case.

I’m just trying to better understand how they’ve came to this conclusion. As I’ve said, I don’t know whether or not he knew. But I don’t see how the jury could be so confident that he knew either.

Someone answered that already - a guy who actually knows the law. He just had to have reasonable suspicion that Ana would be harmed, which he did.

Just feels to me like the subjective voice had overridden the objective voice. When you take all of the emotion out of it and look solely at the facts. I can’t see the burden of proof being met so clearly as other seem to think it was.

You’re wrong and you are not engaging with counter arguments. Just continually musing to yourself about why the DPP, judge and jury got it wrong.

I certainly don’t think he was innocent in the whole thing. Just seems to me like Boy A committed murder clear as day. Boy B is guilty of lesser offences no doubt but I’m not sure about murder itself.

Here’s what they have.

He collected her.
He was there for the violence.
He stayed a few minutes (cc tv picks him up 15-20 minutes after he was seen going in, albeit a km or so away).

It’s not just about the lies.

80sChild

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

Murder conviction can be arrived at if:
" a person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, another person who dies as a result. Murder convictions can include situations where a killing was planned in advance;" (law reform commission)

The planning and being in on the planning is likely what secured Boy B conviction. Jury decided he knew he was deliberately putting her in (serious) harms way.

pjohnson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

Are you so ignorant to use those quotes because she was adopted?

Gotta say this new place is classy.

iamwhoiam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

How absolutely immature to even think to put her mum and dad in quotes
Its not even worth pointing out what is so awful about it
Sometimes i despair

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

What a thundering <SNIP> you are. Not a real one but an inverted commas one.

AngeloArgue

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

You do have to prove that Boy B was aware that the plan was to seriously harm or kill her.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense and in all likelihood he probably did know what he was doing. From a legal standpoint it’s hard to see how they’ve actually proved that do.

The only thing I can find in relation to intent in Irish law is:

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct

Could we presume that the natural and probable consequences of Boy B's actions point to an intent to cause her harm?