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

SirGerryAdams

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

We haven't seen everything the jury have seen/heard. Not everything has been reported.

I'm entitled to ask questions then.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but to bring a girl to a deserted building to meet somebody who has expressed an interest in killing that girl while carrying a "murder kit" is.

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

its called being an accomplice which makes him as guilty of murder as the person who killed her.

iamwhoiam

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I'm entitled to ask questions then.

But how can we answer them ? We are not the jury .

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

He will in his hole.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its called being an accomplice which makes him as guilty of murder as the person who killed her.

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

Try reading the thread or even the Irish Times article.
It was a unanimous decision of the jury that he was guilty I.e all of them believe he is guilty of murder. But maybe they’re wrong and you’re right.

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

Where are his clothes from the day, and what was in the bag he was carrying on the day?
Why did his story change so much, and how did he know where the final position of Ana's body although he had by his own admission left the scene before being moved there.
When the jury reviewed his interviews, they were convinced, all of them, that he was guilty.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Try reading the thread or even the Irish Times article.
It was a unanimous decision of the jury that he was guilty I.e all of them believe he is guilty of murder. But maybe they’re wrong and you’re right.

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

Make a banner and head for the Dail.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Where are his clothes from the day, and what was in the bag he was carrying on the day?
Why did his story change so much, and how did he know where the final position of Ana's body although he had by his own admission left the scene before being moved there.
When the jury reviewed his interviews, they were convinced, all of them, that he was guilty.

I don't know the answers to any of that. Regardless its all circumstantial. It's highly probable that he did it but I was under the impression that with such serous crimes highly probable isn't good enough to convict.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Make a banner and head for the Dail.

Lol am I not allowed to discuss this objectively

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol am I not allowed to discuss this objectively

There’s nobody in here who could convince you I’d safely say.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

Can you go and read up on the case first and then come back to us?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As the judge said, to witness a murder is not crime, to not stop a murder is not a crime.

To deliberately with malice deliver the victim into the hands of the murderer in full knowledge of what was going to happen to her is a crime. It’s murder. That’s why he was found guilty.

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know the answers to any of that. Regardless its all circumstantial. It's highly probable that he did it but I was under the impression that with such serous crimes highly probable isn't good enough to convict.

We are not privy to all the evidence, testimony, court transcripts and interviews. The information there could turn the 'probable' into a 'definite'.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah given my limited information from one article, I think the jury got it wrong as there is reasonable doubt

You don’t know anything really about the case, but you’ve decided that the jury are wrong?!?

Suckit

Caledonia wrote: »

I think it’s probable Boy B didn’t know murder was planned. I don’t think the verdict for him is right.

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely agree. I think the jury ****ed that up. Surely there is reasonable doubt. They filled in the gaps themselves.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think he thought was planned? To go an beat her or rape her? Because they both lead to the same result, which was murder.

If you believe that he thought nothing was going to happen, and he just thought that he was bringing her to an abandoned house so that Boy A could tell her he wasn't interested in her romantically, then you are both incredibly naive.

Edit - just seeing the above posts now, but my question still stands.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Can you go and read up on the case first and then come back to us?

Does this cover it well enough

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570?mode=amp&mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcriminal-court%2Fana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's the case, I stand corrected on the definition of murder. I'm still not convinced he knew that was gonna happen.

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

We are not privy to all the evidence, testimony, court transcripts and interviews. The information there could turn the 'probable' into a 'definite'.

Absolutely. Seems to be the case. I'm not convinced of definite from reading that Irish Times article.

Suckit

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Seems to be the case. I'm not convinced of definite from reading that Irish Times article.

Well then read more, because that Irish Times article, despite what the headline says, does definitely not cover the complete story, and leaves quite a large amount out that was in the media. Even with that, it wouldn't be the full story.

But I don't understand why you are even posting if you have read the bare minimum.

gimli2112

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. The fact they were able to place him at the scene, his involvement and he lied throughout were enough to convict beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
There's always room for debate but I think the overwhelming majority see it as justice being done.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not defending these boys actions in any way shape or form. I'm trying to understand how the jury came to a unanimous decision on B.

Suckit

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

Well if you weren't purposely misquoting last night, then you were reading everything very poorly. And going by the way that you interpreted some posts last night, it doesn't surprise me that you don't see the evidence that we are privy to, in the same light as roughly 95% of anyone else that read it.

iamwhoiam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not defending these boys actions in any way shape or form. I'm trying to understand how the jury came to a unanimous decision on B.

Try these to read up on a journalists report



https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-the-five-things-that-convicted-boys-a-and-b-of-murder-1.3932346%3fmode=amp



https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kri%25C3%25A9gel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570%3fmode=amp

mrjoneill

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. Charge him with that. B has been convicted of murder right? Unless I don't understand the legal definition, that's not murder. He'll appeal and win.

The chances of him winning on that point is practically nil. The Appeal Court Judges have no way of second guessing the jury on determining the fact. His only avenue for appeal would be on law or the trial judge charging the jury. From what I read of the charging it was textbook stuff that all law students could learn from on intention and what constitutes murder indirectly.

Dontfadeaway

Suckit wrote: »

I believe they did have at least one weapon. A long pole with nails in the end of it.
But it is possible that one had planned to Rape her, and Ana fought back.

Which then became murder, and leaves them in the same situation they are in now.

I think that was already in the house?

Hannibal_Smith

Eric Cartman wrote: »

See thats my thing, might he have known - yes , has the prosecution demonstrated any evidence that he knew - no. Even if he was in the house at the time and saw the lot and did nothing, without the pre-meditation its not murder, and they havent demonstrated that.

To be fair, I wondered about Boy B too. And at the end of the day, no one can know what his intentions were for sure and no one can know what the plan was for sure.

But Boy B knew that Boy A didn't like Ana. So why would he want to meet her in an abandoned house? He had to have been in on it.

There had to have been a discussion about what was going to happen after. If it was all innocent and Boy B did nothing, why not just tell the truth from the start? The parents thought Boy A was attacked in the park. So when did the boys agree to say nothing to nobody?

There must have been something somewhere which convinced the jury it was more than circumstantial.

There's a good Irish Times article setting out the 5 steps leading to the conviction. It's an interesting read.

Larsso30

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That makes Thompson the cold psychopath . Also the first child porn conviction looked to me like an attempt to go back to prison.venebales essentially handed the computer to the cops.

Can't say I agree with either of that.

Could also show Thompson was capable of being rehabilitated, he was young enough to be imo