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

Road-Hog

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The conduct of solicitors says:-

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and to protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

Interestingly, in relation to times where the client admits guilt (not saying the boys admitted anything to anyone here) but it also says:-

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for
the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction.

Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where
the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client’s innocence.

Note the repeated use of the word ‘may’ in the above.......there is no compulsion/obligation or ‘must’ used so the defence do not have to delve into and put forward theories that they would be full aware would cause further upset to the victims relatives.......barristers are supposedly smart people are they not...? They get carried away with the court room drama obviously......does their arrogance and self righteousness remove the ‘collateral affect’ that putting forward such theories (even though they probably know it’s futile and will be not believed by the jury) can have on the victims family. The same theory was put forward in the case of the animal in Galway who raped murdered the Swiss student......there was claims that it was consensual.....rant over

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

No we do know for sure. It was proven in court that it couldn’t possibly have been consensual. She fought so hard against the attempts to force intercourse on her that her acrylic nails were totally shattered and scattered around the room.
A 13 year old cant consent to sex anyway
Very interesting take you have there on what consensual sex is kidchameleon
Was she just a little prick tease kidchameleon?
Led him on?
Got what she deserved?
Truly the mask slips here with you.

Hannibal_Smith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She was whacked over the head at the door and her clothes were ripped off her. At what point would things have got out of hand in your mind ?

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

Again, at what point do you think things would have got out of hand?

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

Very interesting kidchameleon. So if 13 year old me agrees to sex with you in 3 weeks time then when I turn up to meet you and I don’t feel like having sex you can beat me to death?

Hannibal_Smith

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a fair trial means a proper defence. They have a job to do and defending their client is that job.

I'm glad they got a proper defence and pulled out all the stops, they can't complain then that they didn't try everything to weasel out of their crime.

Are you trying to say that if their smug defence team didn’t put forward the ‘consensual’ theory as in it was a sexual encounter gone wrong then the two sadistic/deviants wouldn’t have had a fair trail......and may have escaped justice.....!!!

Huh? What I said is what I posted. Not sure why you're trying to stretch it into something else?

Hannibal_Smith

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The conduct of solicitors says:-

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and to protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

Interestingly, in relation to times where the client admits guilt (not saying the boys admitted anything to anyone here) but it also says:-

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for
the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction.

Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where
the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client’s innocence.

Note the repeated use of the word ‘may’ in the above.......there is no compulsion/obligation or ‘must’ used so the defence do not have to delve into and put forward theories that they would be full aware would cause further upset to the victims relatives.......barristers are supposedly smart people are they not...? They get carried away with the court room drama obviously......does their arrogance and self righteousness remove the ‘collateral affect’ that putting forward such theories (even though they probably know it’s futile and will be not believed by the jury) can have on the victims family. The same theory was put forward in the case of the animal in Galway who raped murdered the Swiss student......there was claims that it was consensual.....rant over

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

Road-Hog

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Again, at what point do you think things would have got out of hand?

He’ll be back when there have been enough posts for your question to be forgotten about....

Hannibal_Smith

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

Morally? In my mind, morally no. Morally the two boys should have been marched into the court so they could stand up, plead guilty and spare the Kriegels what they had to endure.

But legally their counsel were instructed to defend them. They pleaded not guilty and used every method available to them to protect themselves.

In my opinion should they have thrown consent into the mix? No. But I'm not their client.

McCrack

Road-Hog wrote: »

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

It was a murder trial ffs... Huge ramifications for both sides

Clearly the defence will put the prosecution to proof and let the jury make up their own minds

The defence have nothing to be ashamed for

mvt

Road-Hog wrote: »

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

For some reason I was thinking the same thing last week.
I appreciate one is entitled to a defence but you ( a barrister) doesn't have to be the one to do it.
You could just say no,even in the middle of a case.

mvt

McCrack wrote: »

It was a murder trial ffs... Huge ramifications for both sides

Clearly the defence will put the prosecution to proof and let the jury make up their own minds

The defence have nothing to be ashamed for

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

salmocab

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

They can’t insist their clients plead guilty, they can only advise. If they don’t do their best to defend their clients then the whole system will break down and nobody will get justice for anything. Think of the defense as a necessary evil.

McCrack

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

No you see I understand the requirements of what a fair trial in due course of law is and the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that applies to everyone regardless of how bad they are

Clearly justice prevailed here and the system works and these murderers will face sentence next month

Road-Hog

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

Ageee. The ‘defence team’ should be ashamed of playing the ‘maybe there was concent card’.......I’m sure they studied the ‘book of evidence’ from the prosecution before the trial and could see the overwhelming evidence against their ‘sub-human sadistic clients’ but still decided to arrogantly pile further distress onto the Kriegels.......justifying it by ‘we are only doing our job’........if there was less brutality and less damming evidence against those two then I could understand it but here I can’t.....,,,plus looking at the age of the barristers it’s not like they were some young guns trying to make a name for themselves......one of them, gagby (I think) was called to bar in 1976

mvt

McCrack wrote: »

No you see I understand the requirements of what a fair trial in due course of law is and the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that applies to everyone regardless of how bad they are

Clearly justice prevailed here and the system works and these murderers will face sentence next month

Wow...educated & condescending.

Hannibal_Smith

McCrack wrote: »

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

No you see I understand the requirements of what a fair trial in due course of law is and the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that applies to everyone regardless of how bad they are

Clearly justice prevailed here and the system works and these murderers will face sentence next month

Exactly. The justice system worked here. The boys got a fair trial and were convicted by the jury on the basis of what they heard.

I also think Paul McDermott has been exceptional throughout this case.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

Was she just a little prick tease

Your repeated use of language that tries to sexualise a child is so disturbing that I am done debating with you on this issue my friend

Road-Hog

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.[/quote

I would have thought the defence was robust enough to without having to include the ‘maybe there was consent’ theory, there surely was other less insensitive theory’s to put forward to cast doubt in the jury’s mind...?

splinter65

salmocab wrote: »

They can’t insist their clients plead guilty, they can only advise. If they don’t do their best to defend their clients then the whole system will break down and nobody will get justice for anything. Think of the defense as a necessary evil.

People don’t understand this at all.

splinter65

Road-Hog wrote: »

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.[/quote

I would have thought the defence was robust enough to without having to include the ‘maybe there was consent’ theory, there surely was other less insensitive theory’s to put forward to cast doubt in the jury’s mind...?

What parts of the defense did you think was robust?

mvt

splinter65 wrote: »

People don’t understand this at all.

I think people do understand this but this thread is not a courtroom & so people are saying what they feel.

volchitsa

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I get that, but I don't see where they are obliged to make arguments that have no value in law and that they probably don't believe themselves? (Since firstly consent doesn't exist for a 13 year old, and especially since, as someone pointed out, the poor kid fought back with all her might so clearly was not consenting in any shape or form).

If the boys had said it was extra terrestrials, would the lawyers have been legally obliged, or even wise, to plead that?

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your repeated use of language that tries to sexualise a child is so disturbing that I am done debating with you on this issue my friend

I understand that someone like you doesn’t have any friends but I’m afraid I’m not your friend either.
I’ve told you that before but because there’s something badly wrong with you you don’t remember.
You’ve stated clearly that you think that at some earlier date Ana consented to sex with these murderers of whom you are so fond.
For you the fact that she then so violently resisted intercourse justifies the horrific attack they launched on her.
You seem incapable of recognizing what your stated beliefs in this case say about you as a person.
Another poster has asked you several times at what point the encounter (in your words) “got out of hand”.
Would you like to take the opportunity to answer this?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

I get that, but I don't see where they are obliged to make arguments that have no value in law and that they probably don't believe themselves? (Since firstly consent doesn't exist for a 13 year old, and especially since, as someone pointed out, the poor kid fought back with all her might so clearly was not consenting in any shape or form).

If the boys had said it was extra terrestrials, would the lawyers have been legally obliged, or even wise, to plead that?

Why do you think that the argument that the sex might have been consensual has no value in law? If they could have persuaded the jury that the sex was consensual then it might have changed the outcome of the trial.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think that the argument that the sex might have been consensual has no value in law? If they could have persuaded the jury that the sex was consensual then it might have changed the outcome of the trial.

She was 13, she can't give consent to sex, and even if she could have, how would that be relevant to her being beaten to death? She certainly didn't give consent to be beaten to death, and nor did they claim she wanted to be beaten.

But basically there is no such thing in Irish law as consent to sex at 13. As the boys' lawyers will have known. That's their job, unlike the two accused.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve stated clearly that you think that at some earlier date Ana consented to sex with these murderers

As I said, I am done debating with you but I just wanted to correct you on this point. I have not clearly stated that at all. I said that we "simply don't know"

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As I said, I am done debating with you but I just wanted to correct you on this point. I have not clearly stated that at all. I said that we "simply don't know"

But we simply do know. The defense put forward the allegation that the sex was consensual. The allegation was heard by the jury and discounted as not possible, not least because a 13 year old cannot give consent to sex.
So we do know.
You just don’t accept that a 13 year old cannot give consent. That is rather worrying kidchameleon. You don’t appear to have any morals around consent at all.
Perhaps you should talk to someone about that?

McCrack

volchitsa wrote: »

She was 13, she can't give consent to sex, and even if she could have, how would that be relevant to her being beaten to death? She certainly didn't give consent to be beaten to death, and nor did they claim she wanted to be beaten.

But basically there is no such thing in Irish law as consent to sex at 13. As the boys' lawyers will have known. That's their job, unlike the two accused.

The proposition being put forward by the defence for murderer B was that his understanding were the intentions of murderer A were romantic rather than homicidal and that the meeting B was arranging or facilitating was for romantic purposes

The jury were not persuaded by that and rightly so.