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

Hal3000

Sardonicat wrote: »

I don't think you need an app. You just need to not give your kid one of these devices .

True. Even better.

No Bills

While the automatic life sentence does not apply to children, this quote from Conor Gallagher's detailed Irish Times article may go some way to explaining the lack of a guilty plea:
"Guilty pleas are extremely rare in murder trials as the offence carries an automatic life sentence on conviction no matter what approach the accused takes. As there is no sentencing discount for a guilty plea, defendants reason they have little to lose by taking a chance on a trial. Even if the evidence is damning they may be acquitted on a technicality or because of a deficiency in the investigation."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

Gimme A Pound

petrolcan wrote: »

Indeed. I did and I've no doubt that many of the posters in this thread did too.

Criminal records all round

Ah, projection.

tayto lover

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I believe they were too. The Gardai will have been uber-wary about getting anything wrong. Won't stop the defence lawyers on appeal from disputing it though. Particularly with the psychiatric evidence of PTSD meaning Boy B may not have been of a fit mind to answer questions. He was there from the assault going by his interview with the doctor but whether he stayed for the murder is unclear.

Easy for us all to say we'd have intervened. As a 13 year old I was pretty scared of some guys my age and older. I'd hate though to think I wouldn't try to stop a murder.

And even if you couldn’t stop the murder the decent thing to do is to run home and blurt it all out to your parents who’d then do the decent thing and inform the police.
But when you probably took part in the planning by supplying the blue sticky tape, called for her with this “nice story” about Boy A wanting to meet her and leading her to her death while you watched it all and afterwards lied through your teeth about it for ages while the search went on and again and again after being arrested you might not have been that scared.

Suckit

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The father of one of the boys called everyone in the courtroom (inc anna's parents) 'scumbags' when the verdict was read.

They don't sound like nice people.

I think he was just referring to the Gardaí.

He was obviously convinced by his sons story.

Seathrun66

anewme wrote: »

Boy B's Father was a disrespectful see you next Tuesday, slamming doors, cursing, shouting abuse in the Court when he did not get his way.

Ana's parents remained dignified in the face of horrible evidence.

But what kind of responsible parent skulks off to bed when their son is interviewed at their own front door by Gardai as being the last so see a young girl alive?

Boy B is particularly evil, manipulative sly dog who thought hed get away with it. A junior Graham Dwyer, praying on the vulnerable.

Were I his Dad and doubted his conviction I may have done the same myself. Undignified and it'd portray me in a bad light but I may not be able to compose myself were my own son to be convicted of something I felt he was innocent of.

And when the Gardai came to the house there was no indication then that it was anything other than a check on a girl who'd not come home for a few hours. He left it to his wife and kid. It was not a murder investigation then.

hatrickpatrick

petrolcan wrote: »

Indeed. I did and I've no doubt that many of the posters in this thread did too.

Criminal records all round

As far as I'm concerned, absolutely. The vast majority of kids I grew up with did not engage in violent bullying. If done by adults it's called "assault" and carries a criminal conviction. It should be no different when done among teenagers.

Dante7

spaceHopper wrote: »

The sentence for murder is life no matter what, you can't be given a lighter sentence for pleading guilty - so they had nothing to gain by doing so. The prosecution had to prove she didn't consent to sex with boy A and that they planned to kill her, they this wasn't something gone wrong and man-slaughter

You are completely wrong in every aspect of this post. Life sentence is not mandatory for children.
They defense plan was to seek a manslaughter conviction for Boy A, which would have exonerated Boy B.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I believe they were too. The Gardai will have been uber-wary about getting anything wrong. Won't stop the defence lawyers on appeal from disputing it though. Particularly with the psychiatric evidence of PTSD meaning Boy B may not have been of a fit mind to answer questions. He was there from the assault going by his interview with the doctor but whether he stayed for the murder is unclear.

Easy for us all to say we'd have intervened. As a 13 year old I was pretty scared of some guys my age and older. I'd hate though to think I wouldn't try to stop a murder.

You’re assuming that the gardai the PTSD evidence will somehow convince a higher court when it wasn’t even admissible in this trial. This is the very evidence that actually definitely puts boy B at the scene of the crime.

Also one shrinks opinion isn’t itself absolutely guaranteed to win the trial, even if an appeal happens the new jury or judges may well discount the evidence even if it is deemed permissible.

anewme

Suckit wrote: »

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The father of one of the boys called everyone in the courtroom (inc anna's parents) 'scumbags' when the verdict was read.

They don't sound like nice people.

I think he was just referring to the Gardaí.

He was obviously convinced by his sons story.

Same as when he went to bed when his son was interviewed at the front door for an hour by Gardai as being the last to see a missing girl alive.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Suckit wrote: »

I think he was just referring to the Gardaí.

He was obviously convinced by his sons story.

Which story? There were quite a few.

tuxy

washman3 wrote: »

Highly regarded by who...???
He's laughing all the way to the bank tonight anyway, courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.
A few weeks golfing vacation and then back to 'spin the wheel; again with the appeal case.
And this is supposed to be democracy.:mad:

Would denying some people a defence in court be democracy?
It sounds like he did a good job by all reports I've read.
The people claiming his goal was to prevent murders from being prosecuted as some on here have claimed is complete nonsense. It's clear these people are too lazy to read the statements the defence council for boy A made in court.

Nobelium

Like the Jamie Bulger murderers . . . . the bleeding hear liberals will insist these murdering satanic scum get out as soon as they are adults after playing PlayStation, x-box and table tennis in some comfy hotel like facility (At least one of the bulger murderers was having regular sex with his social workers in his cosy care home). Then the state will spend a fortune setting them up with a nice new identity, accommodation and jobs somewhere.

MissShihTzu

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I suppose working parents, busy lives. Most parents aren't going to think they are raising potential murderers.

Kids spend a lot of time on their phones these days. That would hardly been seen as strange or deviant.

No. I suppose not. But then again - Most parents should take an interest in their children's lives. Likes, dislikes, favourite programmes, who their friends are. Normal ****. No matter how busy their lives are. So I don't buy that. And I would most certainly ask to see their phones from time to time. But then, that's me.

tuxy

No Bills wrote: »

While the automatic life sentence does not apply to children, this quote from Conor Gallagher's detailed Irish Times article may go some way to explaining the lack of a guilty plea:
"Guilty pleas are extremely rare in murder trials as the offence carries an automatic life sentence on conviction no matter what approach the accused takes. As there is no sentencing discount for a guilty plea, defendants reason they have little to lose by taking a chance on a trial. Even if the evidence is damning they may be acquitted on a technicality or because of a deficiency in the investigation."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kriegel-murder-trial-the-complete-story-1.3929570

I believe this should be changed, the plea give at trial should weight heavily on future parole. It would spare some grieving families painful lengthy trials.

El_Bee

washman3 wrote: »

Highly regarded by who...???
He's laughing all the way to the bank tonight anyway, courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.
A few weeks golfing vacation and then back to 'spin the wheel; again with the appeal case.
And this is supposed to be democracy.:mad:

That's not fair, the right to a fair trial regardless of the severity of the crime, is the bedrock of a free and democratic republic.

Hal3000

Nobelium wrote: »

Like the Jamie Bulger murderers . . . . the bleeding hear liberals will insist these murdering satanic scum get out as soon as they are adults after playing PlayStation, x-box and table tennis in some comfy hotel like facility. Then the state will spend a fortune setting them up with a nice new identity, accommodation and jobs somewhere.

Probably getting counseling as we speak.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

tayto lover wrote: »

And even if you couldn’t stop the murder the decent thing to do is to run home and blurt it all out to your parents who’d then do the decent thing and inform the police.
But when you probably took part in the planning by supplying the blue sticky tape, called for her with this “nice story” about Boy A wanting to meet her and leading her to her death while you watched it all and afterwards lied through your teeth about it for ages while the search went on and again and again after being arrested you might not have been that scared.

And this is exactly what the jury decided and took 14 hours to do so watching all of those tapes over again. (They probably decided on the guilt of boy A in 5 minutes).

I trust they made a good decision.

ILoveYourVibes

Suckit wrote: »

I think he was just referring to the Gardaí.

He was obviously convinced by his sons story.

Nonsense. Ill bred dysfunctional family.

tuxy

Nobelium wrote: »

Like the Jamie Bulger murderers . . . . the bleeding hear liberals will insist these murdering satanic scum get out as soon as they are adults after playing PlayStation, x-box and table tennis in some comfy hotel like facility. Then the state will spend a fortune setting them up with a nice new identity, accommodation and jobs somewhere.

I don't remember anyone demanding early release in that case. Care to jog my memory?

Bikerman2019

Venable and thompson, the two scumbags who got similar protection orders after killing the child in Liverpool, have been outed several times.

Orders of anonymity cannot be enforced internationally and someone will out them.

One of the two Liverpool killers even had his photo put online. Any legal order will come down hard on Irish sources, but the net is global.

Suckit

anewme wrote: »

Same as when he went to bed when his son was interviewed at the front door for an hour by Gardai as being the last to see a missing girl alive.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Which story? There were quite a few.

I'm not defending the man, I'm just saying how I read it. He was attacking the Gardaí.


He came home from wherever and saw the Garda at his door, and wasn't at all interested. Same son's address was found by Gardaí by looking up the PULSE system.

Don't know anything about the man, but it seems to me that maybe he was one of the first people that his son realised he was smarter then.

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It is actually. If he was there. If he brought Anna. If he had reason to believe she would have been killed and If he didn’t stop the murder then he’s an accomplice.

No actually it's not. Presence at the murder scene or not trying to stop the murder are not legal justifications for a murder conviction.

Foreknowledge and conspiracy to murder are. But that's not what the poster said.

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I don’t think you have a clue of the law.

I'm a lawyer.

anewme

Seathrun66 wrote: »

anewme wrote: »

Boy B's Father was a disrespectful see you next Tuesday, slamming doors, cursing, shouting abuse in the Court when he did not get his way.

Ana's parents remained dignified in the face of horrible evidence.

But what kind of responsible parent skulks off to bed when their son is interviewed at their own front door by Gardai as being the last so see a young girl alive?

Boy B is particularly evil, manipulative sly dog who thought hed get away with it. A junior Graham Dwyer, praying on the vulnerable.

Were I his Dad and doubted his conviction I may have done the same myself. Undignified and it'd portray me in a bad light but I may not be able to compose myself were my own son to be convicted of something I felt he was innocent of.

And when the Gardai came to the house there was no indication then that it was anything other than a check on a girl who'd not come home for a few hours. He left it to his wife and kid. It was not a murder investigation then.

Cursing and slamming doors in the faces of a family whose daughter has lost her life horrifically as a result of your sons actions leading her to her death and involvement is not to be defended or condoned.

If it were Ana's parents id understand.

fritzelly

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Were I his Dad and doubted his conviction I may have done the same myself. Undignified and it'd portray me in a bad light but I may not be able to compose myself were my own son to be convicted of something I felt he was innocent of.

Think I would be a whimpering mess on the floor tbh not screaming at people across the court
Ana's parents showed upmost respect for the jurors, judge and everyone but that guy showed absolute contempt
It certainly wasn't easy for the jury to come to a unanimous decision

petrolcan

Hal3000 wrote: »

Here we go... That took longer than expected. Won't somebody please think of the bullies. Fu*k the bullies. This type of response is the problem.

Are you seriously telling me that you never did anything that could be construed as bullying when a teenager?

The point I'm making is that all teens did/do it, even without thinking. Give them a criminal record for it and see what happens. It'd be like giving everyone a 2:1 degree for writing their name on a bit of paper.

rizzodun

Nobelium wrote: »

Like the Jamie Bulger murderers . . . . the bleeding hear liberals will insist these murdering satanic scum get out as soon as they are adults after playing PlayStation, x-box and table tennis in some comfy hotel like facility (At least one of the bulger murderers was having sex with his social workers in his cosy care home). Then the state will spend a fortune setting them up with a nice new identity, accommodation and jobs somewhere.

It's a fairly emotive topic but people need to stop comparing this case, in Ireland, with a case in the UK. Different jurisdictions, 26 years apart.

Nerdlingr

I'll just post this again...

"Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender."

ILoveYourVibes

Hal3000 wrote: »

Probably getting counseling as we speak.

I don't have an issue with that. Hopefully it brings them round to admitting what they did. That's real counseling.

Otherwise they are just playing games.