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

iamwhoiam

MadYaker wrote: »

From reading the Irish times it sounds like boy a will get a life sentence with a review in ten years, potentially for extension as well as release. Boy b could get something much more lenient, short stint in oberstown followed by a long parole. Though he could also get life but I think that’s unlikely.

I hope they both get a sentence that would mean they are transferred to an adult prison .I say this because they should live with that fear of being in prison rather than in the holiday camp of Oberstown .

volchitsa

salmocab wrote: »

Well it is probably useful in a lot of cases, it gives background and tells the judge what kind of family or how they are in the community. It can give an indicator of whether a crime is a once off or something more. The problem here is people are emotionally involved in this case but the court has to treat them like any other convicted people would be and they have to be afforded the same rights.

I wasn't just talking about this case, it's a general objection. Personally I don't think people should be judged by their family background. I really hate all this "Oh he comes from a good family" stuff.

in this particular case, as they're children, I figure that if it's relevant, it should appear in some other way, particularly the psychologists' report but could be in background info from the police too. Or ask less emotionally involved people who know him like teachers. Because how likely is it that the family will provide anything other than a carefully-spun version of what the boy is like. Or maybe they even believe it. Doesn't make it true though. Maybe their blindness to what he was really like stopped them from getting help long ago.

Also, if they don't give a statement, like Boy B's dad, does the judge take that into account against him? And if not, that begs my question about what use it is again.

salmocab

volchitsa wrote: »

I wasn't just talking about this case, it's a general objection. Personally I don't think people should be judged by their family background. I really hate all this "Oh he comes from a good family" stuff.

in this particular case, as they're children, I figure that if it's relevant, it should appear in some other way, particularly the psychologists' report but could be in background info from the police too. Or ask less emotionally involved people who know him like teachers. Because how likely is it that the family will provide anything other than a carefully-spun version of what the boy is like. Or maybe they even believe it. Doesn't make it true though. Maybe their blindness to what he was really like stopped them from getting help long ago.

Also, if they don't give a statement, like Boy B's dad, does the judge take that into account against him? And if not, that begs my question about what use it is again.

They’ve already been judged though, now it’s time to find an appropriate punishment, the judge looks for a lot of information before deciding. People were also complaining about defense tactics in the thread and giving out about the solicitors/barristers. The natural thing here is to just hate the pair of them but that’s just internet noise it means nothing to the case, the judge gives people a chance to speak up now from both sides before deciding on the punishment and that seems to be both fair and reduce the chances of things coming out in the future that might result in more attention.

Ash.J.Williams

volchitsa wrote: »

I wasn't just talking about this case, it's a general objection. Personally I don't think people should be judged by their family background. I really hate all this "Oh he comes from a good family" stuff.

in this particular case, as they're children, I figure that if it's relevant, it should appear in some other way, particularly the psychologists' report but could be in background info from the police too. Or ask less emotionally involved people who know him like teachers. Because how likely is it that the family will provide anything other than a carefully-spun version of what the boy is like. Or maybe they even believe it. Doesn't make it true though. Maybe their blindness to what he was really like stopped them from getting help long ago.

Also, if they don't give a statement, like Boy B's dad, does the judge take that into account against him? And if not, that begs my question about what use it is again.

the old GAA defence he comes form a great GAA family

Vicarious Function

volchitsa wrote: »

.....

Also, if they don't give a statement, like Boy B's dad, does the judge take that into account against him? And if not, that begs my question about what use it is again.

It's a pity Boy B's father did not attend Court yesterday. Maybe he woud have learned something by being present and hearing what everybody had to say. Regarding a relative making a statement on behalf of Boy B, that would a bit problematic, as Boy B totally does not accept the Guilty Verdict that has been handed down to him. Better not say anything under the circumstances.

Hopefully, Boy B's father will attend the sentencing next Tuesday. Maybe it's an overstatement - but he really needs to Man Up, IMO.

KWAG2019

volchitsa wrote: »

I wouldn't actually blame the grandfather, I think he did the best he could. But I just don't understand why the families of the two criminals are expected/allowed to speak at all TBH.

If what they had to say was important (and as you point out, he's going to be smoothing over anything negative in the boy's past activities anyway so as not to make things worse for him, so it's not terribly useful anyway) that could have been done as a written report given to the judge.

But TBH even then, what could he possibly have to say that should influence the judge's opinion in any way?

I already posted about the grandfather so I won’t go there again. There is a need for statements on behalf of the convicted criminals but I think you are right when you say they could be written and submitted but made public and referred to in sentencing by the judge. That would leave the focus where it should be and the balance where it should be and remove the illusion that a judge has to strike a balance between competing claims. The focus after conviction must always be on the victim. Ana Kriegel. Of course, the illusion that the judge has competing claims of equal merit before them is useful to some.

shesty

Vicarious Function wrote: »

It's a pity Boy B's father did not attend Court yesterday. Maybe he woud have learned something by being present and hearing what everybody had to say. Regarding a relative making a statement on behalf of Boy B, that would a bit problematic, as Boy B totally does not accept the Guilty Verdict that has been handed down to him. Better not say anything under the circumstances.

Hopefully, Boy B's father will attend the sentencing next Tuesday. Maybe it's an overstatement - but he really needs to Man Up, IMO.

I think I read there has been a rift and he isn't speaking to the boy because he believes his son should have 'manned up' basically and stopped it, rather than running away?

I remember thinking I could understand that but equally, his own behaviour hasn't exactly been the best example for his son.

mcgovern

Vicarious Function wrote: »

It's a pity Boy B's father did not attend Court yesterday. Maybe he woud have learned something by being present and hearing what everybody had to say. Regarding a relative making a statement on behalf of Boy B, that would a bit problematic, as Boy B totally does not accept the Guilty Verdict that has been handed down to him. Better not say anything under the circumstances.

Hopefully, Boy B's father will attend the sentencing next Tuesday. Maybe it's an overstatement - but he really needs to Man Up, IMO.

Boy Bs dad apologised to the Kriegels privately after the original verdict.

volchitsa

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I already posted about the grandfather so I won’t go there again. There is a need for statements on behalf of the convicted criminals but I think you are right when you say they could be written and submitted but made public and referred to in sentencing by the judge. That would leave the focus where it should be and the balance where it should be and remove the illusion that a judge has to strike a balance between competing claims. The focus after conviction must always be on the victim. Ana Kriegel. Of course, the illusion that the judge has competing claims of equal merit before them is useful to some.

I don't see why there is a need for statements from the families of the convicted people.

If there really is a need, then what do you think is the consequence of there being nobody to make such a statement on behalf of someone? Boy B being only one example - someone else may have lost contact with their family.

volchitsa

mcgovern wrote: »

Boy Bs dad apologised to the Kriegels privately after the original verdict.

This is the man who roared out in court? Presumably he apologised for that rather than for the boy's actions?

Suckit

shesty wrote: »

I think I read there has been a rift and he isn't speaking to the boy because he believes his son should have 'manned up' basically and stopped it, rather than running away?

I remember thinking I could understand that but equally, his own behaviour hasn't exactly been the best example for his son.

The father sounds like he is very confused and probably the worst person to be dealing with it. From ignoring the Gardaí at the door to shouting in court to falling out with his son and not turning up at the sentencing.

There have been a few references already to Boy B's intelligence. The father may be already unable to deal with him on that level.
The father may have wanted hs son to 'man up'. But by saying it over a year after the fact, won't change things. His father is probably as angered and feels as helpless as the rest of us. Wishing he could go back and change things, catch them etc..
It is also possible he found out more than he bargained for when talking to his son about that days events.



Irish Times today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sentencing-over-ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-surrounded-by-complicated-law-1.4066287


When members of the Oireachtas set down legislation for the sentencing of young offenders in 2001, it appears it never entered their minds that some of those offenders would be murderers barely out of primary school.
As a result, the sentencing of children for murder and other crimes, which could ordinarily attract a lengthy sentence, has been fraught with difficulty ever since.


It seems odd to me that they didn't take these possibilities into account, considering the James Bulger case was 8 years prior to that. They should have at least taken the possibility into account.

salmocab

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I already posted about the grandfather so I won’t go there again. There is a need for statements on behalf of the convicted criminals but I think you are right when you say they could be written and submitted but made public and referred to in sentencing by the judge. That would leave the focus where it should be and the balance where it should be and remove the illusion that a judge has to strike a balance between competing claims. The focus after conviction must always be on the victim. Ana Kriegel. Of course, the illusion that the judge has competing claims of equal merit before them is useful to some.

This is sentencing, surely the focus should be on the convicted at this point?

mcgovern

volchitsa wrote: »

This is the man who roared out in court? Presumably he apologised for that rather than for the boy's actions?

He apologised for what happened to Ana from what I heard, without either admitting or denying his sons involvement.

KWAG2019

salmocab wrote: »

This is sentencing, surely the focus should be on the convicted at this point?

Only to the extent that they have been convicted of a crime committed on a victim. The victim is the one to remember and focus on in arriving at a sentence appropriate to the crime committed on the victim.

volchitsa

mcgovern wrote: »

He apologised for what happened to Ana from what I heard, without either admitting or denying his sons involvement.

Seems to me he'd do better to apologise for his own actions. He alone is responsible for those after all.

Anyway, apologising for what happened to Ana while refusing to accept his son's responsibility is pointless - if his son is innocent, what does he have to apologise for? And if he knows he's not innocent, then he shouldn't pretend to think he is.

KWAG2019

Suckit wrote: »

The father sounds like he is very confused and probably the worst person to be dealing with it. From ignoring the Gardaí at the door to shouting in court to falling out with his son and not turning up at the sentencing.

There have been a few references already to Boy B's intelligence. The father may be already unable to deal with him on that level.
The father may have wanted hs son to 'man up'. But by saying it over a year after the fact, won't change things. His father is probably as angered and feels as helpless as the rest of us. Wishing he could go back and change things, catch them etc..
It is also possible he found out more than he bargained for when talking to his son about that days events.



Irish Times today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sentencing-over-ana-kri%C3%A9gel-murder-surrounded-by-complicated-law-1.4066287


When members of the Oireachtas set down legislation for the sentencing of young offenders in 2001, it appears it never entered their minds that some of those offenders would be murderers barely out of primary school.
As a result, the sentencing of children for murder and other crimes, which could ordinarily attract a lengthy sentence, has been fraught with difficulty ever since.


It seems odd to me that they didn't take these possibilities into account, considering the James Bulger case was 8 years prior to that. They should have at least taken the possibility into account.

Of course they should. 18 years later they haven’t. Judges carry out what the law allows them. Politicians, influenced by various interest groups, make the law. People elect politicians. Past time we had politicians put under pressure.

Kevhog1988

When are they likely to actually be sentenced?

salmocab

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Only to the extent that they have been convicted of a crime committed on a victim. The victim is the one to remember and focus on in arriving at a sentence appropriate to the crime committed on the victim.

I don’t think the courts see it that way, it’s about sentencing the convicted and writing a sentence with the word victim in it several times won’t change that.

KWAG2019

salmocab wrote: »

I don’t think the courts see it that way, it’s about sentencing the convicted and writing a sentence with the word victim in it several times won’t change that.

Lol. True. Nor will 392 pages of sentences on boards change anything. I’m pointing to the fact that the only reason there is a focus on the convicted is because there was a victim. I think you are right that courts and the professions around the judicial system don’t see it that way. The problem is they think they are right.

HeidiHeidi

theemigrant wrote: »

When are they likely to actually be sentenced?

Next Tuesday

salmocab

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Lol. True. Nor will 392 pages of sentences on boards change anything. I’m pointing to the fact that the only reason there is a focus on the convicted is because there was a victim. I think you are right that courts and the professions around the judicial system don’t see it that way. The problem is they think they are right.

Look I know this is crass but the trial is over, as far as the law is concerned Ana got her justice, scant help as that is to the family. Now the court has moved onto the next phase. It seems harsh but for a system to really work it has to be dispassionate. Personally I think anything less than life would be lenient but it’s hard to know how this one will go due to their ages.

suicide_circus

Ana has got all the justice she is going to get within our system. There is no sentence these boys can receive that will make up for her death and suffering, even if we went back to hanging; it dosnt fix anything.

Vicarious Function

mcgovern wrote: »

Boy Bs dad apologised to the Kriegels privately after the original verdict.

This statement seems to have been plucked out of the blue with no backup. Further on you say it's based on hearsay. This has no validity and only serves to introduce confusion into the issues being discussed on this thread.

Brock Turnpike

Vicarious Function wrote: »

This statement seems to have been plucked out of the blue with no backup. Further on you say it's based on hearsay. This has no validity and only serves to introduce confusion into the issues being discussed on this thread.

Agree 100% and was just about to post something similar. McGovern needs to back up what he's saying or retract it.

tayto lover

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

the old GAA defence he comes form a great GAA family

I’ve heard the opposite said for the same reason - “ the lad comes from a dysfunctional family, he never had a chance “.

There’s excuses made for everything.

tayto lover

Vicarious Function wrote: »

It's a pity Boy B's father did not attend Court yesterday. Maybe he woud have learned something by being present and hearing what everybody had to say. Regarding a relative making a statement on behalf of Boy B, that would a bit problematic, as Boy B totally does not accept the Guilty Verdict that has been handed down to him. Better not say anything under the circumstances.

Hopefully, Boy B's father will attend the sentencing next Tuesday. Maybe it's an overstatement - but he really needs to Man Up, IMO.

Maybe he’s in denial- “ I couldn’t possibly have reared a son who would do that “.
Looks bad for his ego.

Road-Hog

Anyone out there recall the Lavinia kerwick (apologies Re spelling)....guy got off a rape conviction based on being from a respectable family.....there was outrage at he time.....

iamwhoiam

Road-Hog wrote: »

Anyone out there recall the Lavinia kerwick (apologies Re spelling)....guy got off a rape conviction based on being from a respectable family.....there was our rage at he time.....

Thank you Lavinia . Thank you for speaking out about the huge injustice



https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/lavinia-kerwick-my-life-in-my-20s-and-30s-was-absolutely-destroyed-taken-away-1.3730419%3fmode=amp

jon1981

Not sure why they're dragging the arse out of this. Life for the pair of them. They're over thinking this with it's a "delicate issue". 2 little evil bastards, it's in their DNA.

salmocab

jon1981 wrote: »

Not sure why they're dragging the arse out of this. Life for the pair of them. They're over thinking this with it's a "delicate issue". 2 little evil bastards, it's in their DNA.

They’re “dragging the arse out of it” because to do things quickly without all the due processes available means risking extra appeals. The judge doesn’t care that people are baying for blood he’s making sure the system works as that’s his job.