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

P.Walnuts

tayto lover wrote: »

1. The Garda investigators thought he was guilty and recommended he be charged.
2. The DPP agreed having read the details.
3. The jury agreed he was guilty having listened to the evidence presented.

He’s guilty.

Playing Devils advocate here but...

You're essentially implying that every person that has been convicted in a court of law is guilty.....you don't need me to tell you that mistakes have been made and innocent people sent to prison.

Again I'm not saying Boy B is innocent, just pointing out that I don't think your logic holds up

corpusvile

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Playing Devils advocate here but...

You're essentially implying that every person that has been convicted in a court of law is guilty.....you don't need me to tell you that mistakes have been made and innocent people sent to prison.

Again I'm not saying Boy B is innocent, just pointing out that I don't think your logic holds up

With respect your logic appears to be that a possible wrongful conviction may have occurred because wrongful convictions have occurred. Plenty of guilty people have been sent to prison too, the vast majority of those convicted actually.

And I think the other poster may well have meant that the jury found him guilty but had far more access to the evidence & overall context of the case so are in a better position to make such a call.

Suckler

Suckler wrote: »

Beyond idiotic post.

NO NO NO, not in that way!! FFS

I mean you often read that because the victim is a normal person like ourselves, the judge went softly. Like the old adage, if she was a FF councilors daughter, they'd be hung!! and thus and such

So what I mean Is because her folks are friends with someone of this persuasion, this will be less likely.. if that makes sense.. Not I hope the local crony rings up and executes said parish pump policy to get a death penalty..


c'mon now, yiz know I didn't mean that.

P.Walnuts

corpusvile wrote: »

With respect your logic appears to be that a possible wrongful conviction may have occurred because wrongful convictions have occurred. Plenty of guilty people have been sent to prison too, the vast majority of those convicted actually.

And I think the other poster may well have meant that the jury found him guilty but had far more access to the evidence & overall context of the case so are in a better position to make such a call.

We yes, I am implying that it is possible for wrongful convictions to occur. I mean that is just fact. I am not implying that it is applicable to this case.

forumdedum

splinter65 wrote: »

Ana Kriegel trial: Sentencing of schoolgirl's murderers adjourned until October

Good news. Hope everything is examined at length.

Why is this good news?

Can't understand why reports were not ready for sentencing date.

Vicarious Function

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I thanked this post by mistake

Hi, donkeykong5! I don't know if you realise you can remove your Thanks by clicking bottom left next to the post, under Report button e.g.

(6) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks

Just click on "Remove Your Thanks" and Bob's your uncle!

LollipopJimmy

forumdedum wrote: »

Why is this good news?

Can't understand why reports were not ready for sentencing date.

Because it takes longer than a few weeks to compile a comprehensive report. It won't be a case of meeting them for a few hours, it will be over a longer period with any changes in behaviours monitored. At the end of the day they are still removed from society while this goes on and having it done properly leaves no grounds for appeal.

Vicarious Function

forumdedum wrote: »

Why is this good news?

Can't understand why reports were not ready for sentencing date.

Obviously no stone is being left unturned to make sure everything is done right and in order. There was a suggestion some clinicians would be hired from England. Obviously all of this takes time, especially now as we are in the middle of the Summer and many of these experts may not be free to get involved straight away. The testing and interviewing and drawing up relevant reports probably take quite some time too. This was only to be expected.

Suckit

It's probably a good thing, but can't be pleasant for Ana's parents waiting.

Vicarious Function

Suckit wrote: »

It's probably a good thing, but can't be pleasant for Ana's parents waiting.

I'd say even more so Reality by now is beginning to click in with these two Boys. They're probably realising after their day in court with their Parents today, that their friends from school are now off on the Summer Hols free to run around as they please, enjoying their freedom, which the Boys now don't have.

donkeykong5

Vicarious Function wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I thanked this post by mistake

Hi, donkeykong5! I don't know if you realise you can remove your Thanks by clicking bottom left next to the post, under Report button e.g.

(6) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks

Just click on "Remove Your Thanks" and Bob's your uncle!

Ok. Thanks. I'm not great on the phone to be honest. Cheers.

tayto lover

P.Walnuts wrote: »

We yes, I am implying that it is possible for wrongful convictions to occur. I mean that is just fact. I am not implying that it is applicable to this case.

This is the only case I was referring to.
I read all the evidence and came to the same conclusions as the Garda, DPP and the Jury.

JP Liz V1

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Because it takes longer than a few weeks to compile a comprehensive report. It won't be a case of meeting them for a few hours, it will be over a longer period with any changes in behaviours monitored. At the end of the day they are still removed from society while this goes on and having it done properly leaves no grounds for appeal.

Where are they in custody now until sentencing?

ohnonotgmail

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Where are they in custody now until sentencing?

Oberstown house. there is nowhere else to put them now that st patricks is closed.

iamwhoiam

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Where are they in custody now until sentencing?

In Oberstown

Fakediamond

The probation reports were done. Can’t be much detail in those, given the short time they had. I wonder why they didn’t ask for more time too?

corpusvile

P.Walnuts wrote: »

We yes, I am implying that it is possible for wrongful convictions to occur. I mean that is just fact. I am not implying that it is applicable to this case.

Nobody is saying the system is infallible or that wrongful convictions don't happen & I'm aware you're not applying it here to this case specifically but the logic is still flawed with respect. Usually in wrongful convictions once they become known, there's a clear cut path to see how it occurred. There might be evidence planting, coerced confession, mistreatment, mistaken identity unfair due process etc. Even if someone has their conviction overturned on technicalities, the technicalities themselves are specified. But there's usually a "wtf" style epiphany in such cases, an understanding how the wrongful conviction occurred once the fog clears.

Here there's nothing of that nature. Gardaí did an excellent job even the defence found no flaws. Their trial was certainly fair, no legal errors seem to have happened. Judge seem quite fair in assessing evidence admissibility or lack thereof.

So I can't see them even having grounds for an appeal in this case.

But in general everyone knows wrongful convictions occur but there's no grounds to assume this one is re boy B. Again with respect the argument seems to be that a wrongful conviction could occur because wrongful convictions occur & that's not really how it works.

Vicarious Function

If there's going to be any appeal, it may be in connection with length of sentence, but that's jumping the gun a bit at this stage. Just a thought.

forumdedum

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Obviously no stone is being left unturned to make sure everything is done right and in order. There was a suggestion some clinicians would be hired from England. Obviously all of this takes time, especially now as we are in the middle of the Summer and many of these experts may not be free to get involved straight away. The testing and interviewing and drawing up relevant reports probably take quite some time too. This was only to be expected.

I like most others hope all is done right.

I recall the Yorkshire Ripper's appeal on grounds of insanity were thrown out at the trial. Against advice of experts I think.

Suckit

Suckit wrote: »

It's probably a good thing, but can't be pleasant for Ana's parents waiting.

Not really a good thing. A delay like this is only going to benefit the defendants. Spending 3 extra months basically getting to know the defendants better is not going to incline a Judge to treat them more harshly.

Cryptopagan

forumdedum wrote: »

I like most others hope all is done right.

I recall the Yorkshire Ripper's appeal on grounds of insanity were thrown out at the trial. Against advice of experts I think.

How could an appeal be thrown out at the trial? Did he appeal before he was convicted?

forumdedum

ChikiChiki wrote: »

From what I hear the opposite. Reports from Osberstown are that they are quite boastful about what they have done and other young offenders are appalled.

Little demons.

Source?

forumdedum

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Conversation with a social worker.

Naturally these 2 are seriously flawed in many many ways. If they could do that to that young lady nothing would surprise me.

Eric Cartman

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It’s called Oberstown, not Osberstown. And let’s face it, you don’t have any reports from there.

+1. no journo in the country has been able to talk anyone into loosening their lips over how those lads are getting on in there, a poster on here knows nothing either.

P.Walnuts

corpusvile wrote: »

Nobody is saying the system is infallible or that wrongful convictions don't happen & I'm aware you're not applying it here to this case specifically but the logic is still flawed with respect. Usually in wrongful convictions once they become known, there's a clear cut path to see how it occurred. There might be evidence planting, coerced confession, mistreatment, mistaken identity unfair due process etc. Even if someone has their conviction overturned on technicalities, the technicalities themselves are specified. But there's usually a "wtf" style epiphany in such cases, an understanding how the wrongful conviction occurred once the fog clears.

Here there's nothing of that nature. Gardaí did an excellent job even the defence found no flaws. Their trial was certainly fair, no legal errors seem to have happened. Judge seem quite fair in assessing evidence admissibility or lack thereof.

So I can't see them even having grounds for an appeal in this case.

But in general everyone knows wrongful convictions occur but there's no grounds to assume this one is re boy B. Again with respect the argument seems to be that a wrongful conviction could occur because wrongful convictions occur & that's not really how it works.

I broadly agree with what you are saying.

My point is that no conviction is infallible, mistakes do happen (no-one , including myself know every exact detail of the case).

Let's say for instance Boy A volunteers that Boy B did not know of his intention to kill? It's unlikely but would immediately cast doubt on Boy B's murder conviction.

Again i'm not saying Boy B is not guilty, I just found the sentiments of the particular post I initially responded to a little troubling

Vicarious Function

P.Walnuts wrote: »

I broadly agree with what you are saying.

My point is that no conviction is infallible, mistakes do happen (no-one , including myself know every exact detail of the case).

Let's say for instance Boy A volunteers that Boy B did not know of his intention to kill? It's unlikely but would immediately cast doubt on Boy B's murder conviction.

Again i'm not saying Boy B is not guilty, I just found the sentiments of the particular post I initially responded to a little troubling

Before and during the trial was when Boy A had every opportunity to say such a thing, but he chose to remain silent.

P.Walnuts

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Before and during the trial was when Boy A had every opportunity to say such a thing, but he chose to remain silent.

He sure did.

Sometimes people don't confess/tell the truth for years after conviction

In my post I said it's very unlikely, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility

Vlthap

Vicarious Function wrote: »

If there's going to be any appeal, it may be in connection with length of sentence, but that's jumping the gun a bit at this stage. Just a thought.

Has either boy's legal team indicated they were appealing the conviction. I was half expecting Boy B's legal team to do this.

tuxy

Vlthap wrote: »

Has either boy's legal team indicated they were appealing the conviction. I was half expecting Boy B's legal team to do this.

Why did you think that?
They can't just appeal because they don't like the outcome. They would have to find fault with the way the trial was conducted.

Limpy

Was it the case boy A didn't deny having sex with Ana?, he said no comment. As it was the prosecutions case to prove he sexually assaulted her?

The reason I ask is because he surely told his parents and defence he had consensual sex with her. The evidence proves he did. How does his parents stand over that. If they know he had sex then they surely know he did the rest of brutal crimes.

They shouted at the jury after the verdict knowing what these monsters did. Shame on them.