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

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The only reason they know about that conversation is because Boy B reported it to the police. And said he didn't take it seriously. Crazy self-incrimination otherwise.

He placed himself at the crime scene and witnessed the attack!
He self incriminated himself throughout this whole thing!!
His mouth got him convicted.
The conversation is foreknowledge as presented by the prosecution. The jury believed that.

anewme

Very sad that anyone could believe that these two monsters deserve anything less than a guilty verdict.

the Father of B seems a mouthpiece bully who cant keep his mouth shut. He will end up getting himself in trouble at some stage as most people are not as tolerant as Ana s parents.

Seathrun66

Faugheen wrote: »

'Particularly if there was little evidence'.

You're absolutely not a lawyer, or just a really bad one.

Maybe a bad one, but a long-qualified one. With most of my experience in the courts of London and the South of England. Dealing with forensic mental health cases mainly. None quite like this thankfully, and none with such youngsters.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And he said he didn't take it seriously. If he was so manipulative why would he self-incriminate like that? Kids say loads of crazy stuff so it's understandable that he wouldn't believe Boy A's chatter. And the crucial question for me is why he collected Ana to lead her to a murder scene. Doesn't make any sense.

Boy B had no reason to bring up boy A's conversation about wanting to kill Ana, only the fact that he wanted to frame or shift the guilt onto Boy A. Instead it's this very statement that gets Boy B convicted.
There's a delicious irony in that.

n97 mini

STB. wrote: »

Read the bloody court reporting. FULL SUMMARY via Irish Times

If called by the defence, Colm Humphries could be cross-examined by the prosecution, but the judge ruled his evidence inadmissible.

The defence were still willing to put him on the stand, knowing he could be cross-examined.

hatrickpatrick

petrolcan wrote: »

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

Personally I never physically assaulted anyone who didn't hit me first. And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying. Regardless of the latter, not every teen engages in physical violence, and those that do tend to be a lot scummier in general than those who don't. I've never thrown a punch at someone or engaged physically with anyone who didn't start sh!t physically with me first, and your assertion that everyone has is a little disturbing tbh.

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.

This simply isn't true. I can count on one hand the number of people I was in school with who engaged in acts of violence on a persistent basis which would be described as bullying. It is not something all teens to, and those who do tend, more often than not, to grow up to be scrotes in one way or another.

Casual slagging and acting the dick are one thing, but those who start fist fights or worse with others and cause them injury, those people absolutely should be taken to task. Teenaged or not. Anyone who throws a punch at someone else for absolutely no reason other than being a sadistic piece of sh!t absolutely should be prosecuted for it.

Seathrun66

tayto lover wrote: »

****load of evidence.
He might have fooled you but the jury thankfully didn’t buy it.

No DNA. No forensic evidence whatsoever. In 2019. Only convicted on his unreliable testimony. Without that the DPP may not even have raised charges. And certainly not murder.

n97 mini

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Correction.
You are not taking it seriously.

You have no idea what Boy B felt. You have never even spoken to him. The Guards have.

Boy B say he didn't take it seriously. The reply reported was "in your dreams".

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

Read the reports for God sake.


Own Admissions.

Have read court and media reports. No admissions whatsoever of knowledge of Boy A's plan to murder. Boy B dismissed his talk of plans to harm her a month prior as not serious.

Nobelium

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No DNA. No forensic evidence whatsoever. In 2019. Only convicted on his unreliable testimony. Without that the DPP may not even have raised charges. And certainly not murder.

so this lad B that changed his story 9 times so far and counting is innocent . . .lol

Seathrun66

tayto lover wrote: »

He’s obviously just trolling.

No trolling. I genuinely believe the conviction of Boy B is unsafe. We'll see with the Appeal soon enough. I believe the jury did a good job and wavered over his guilt. Had they been privy to the psychiatric evidence and the doctor's testimony then I believe the conviction may not have happened.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Have read court and media reports. No admissions whatsoever of knowledge of Boy A's plan to murder. Boy B dismissed his talk of plans to harm her a month prior as not serious.

It wasn't talk of plans to harm her. It was to kill her. Let's get the facts straight here.

anewme

I cant see a campaign for Boy B <snip> as a great miscarriage of justice. Nasty person and his bullying Dad wont evoke much sympathy.

JuanJose

Hal3000 wrote: »

Is there some kind of app that can monitor activity and report it back to another phone? Wouldn't this be ideal for monitoring a teenagers phone searches and activity? I know it might sound a tad extreme, but when I was growing up I didn't have unfettered access to such gruesome material. This thing about handing a teenager a phone without any controls is just madness.

This is hugely relevant IMO but it'll probably get lost due to the horrific nature of the case.

When the internet was shiny, new and physically tied down, what was the advice to parents?

Ensure the computer isn't in the kid's bedroom. Best in a communal space where a responsible adult can monitor the activity.

What happens next?

Boom! The thing goes mobile.
Boom! Kids start getting handed mobile devices - by those same responsible adults - at an earlier and earlier age.
Boom! Social media arrives, introduces a minimum age limit which means diddly squat in reality.

And, hey presto, bullies have carte blanche, 24 hour access to their víctim(s). Fookin' off the wall.

Rant over. Feel desperately sorry for Ana & her parents. If we, as a society, don't learn lessons from this case then we're.....I dunno.

Strazdas

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And he said he didn't take it seriously. If he was so manipulative why would he self-incriminate like that? Kids say loads of crazy stuff so it's understandable that he wouldn't believe Boy A's chatter. And the crucial question for me is why he collected Ana to lead her to a murder scene. Doesn't make any sense.

If things spiralled out of control, why the dozens of lies? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? If he is completely innocent and bears her no ill will, his failure to intervene is particularly incriminating.

Seathrun66

Faugheen wrote: »

But you're basing a case on what you've read in the media.

A legal profession knows what happens in the court room isn't always portrayed as well in writing, no matter the case. You need to be in the court room to get a real indicator.

You, a supposed lawyer, are basing your thoughts from what was written down and having not set foot inside the court room.

Without working on the case I would have no access as general public not allowed and media presence regulated. Thus I glean what I can from the court recorded material. Which is what I do at work too in preparing for a case. Until it reaches the courtroom the paperwork, client's evidence and witness statements are all I have to go on. And with full disclosure of all evidence I can make a fair judgement on the likelihood of conviction or not.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It does he confessed it to a psychologist and a friend.

Confessed what?

redzerdrog

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Maybe a bad one, but a long-qualified one. With most of my experience in the courts of London and the South of England. Dealing with forensic mental health cases mainly. None quite like this thankfully, and none with such youngsters.

Yet you don't know the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist

petrolcan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I never physically assaulted anyone who didn't hit me first. And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying. Regardless of the latter, not every teen engages in physical violence, and those that do tend to be a lot scummier in general than those who don't. I've never thrown a punch at someone or engaged physically with anyone who didn't start sh!t physically with me first, and your assertion that everyone has is a little disturbing tbh.

To be fair to me, I'd moved the goalposts from 'violent' to 'construed' at that post.

And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying

According to you. What did the recipient feel of your 'verbal slaggery and douchebaggery' though?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This simply isn't true. I can count on one hand the number of people I was in school with who engaged in acts of violence on a persistent basis which would be described as bullying. It is not something all teens to, and those who do tend, more often than not, to grow up to be scrotes in one way or another.

Casual slagging and acting the dick are one thing, but those who start fist fights or worse with others and cause them injury, those people absolutely should be taken to task. Teenaged or not. Anyone who throws a punch at someone else for absolutely no reason other than being a sadistic piece of sh!t absolutely should be prosecuted for it.

I agree

STB.

n97 mini wrote: »

If called by the defence, Colm Humphries could be cross-examined by the prosecution, but the judge ruled his evidence inadmissible.

The defence were still willing to put him on the stand, knowing he could be cross-examined.

Willing ? The defence engaged the psychologist reportedly to minimise the content of the interviews.

Even if the judge erred in not allowing it, do you think the content will be helpful on appeal given its reported content ?

What about the stuff what the jury did not hear.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Please stop twisting the narrative. He has been FOUND legally guilty. That is not provisional. You should know that.

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

Rubberchikken

the parents cant ne blamed for these boys actions any more than the girls parents can be for raising a girl who was described as 'different' to other girls in her dress, behaviour etc.

what they did is incomprehensible to most people but its happened and now they must be dealt with calmly and rationally and do whatever time the judge and the law decides.

as a parent the thought of my childs life beibg taken by another is of nightmare quality but the thought of my child being capable of what these boys were found guilty of is beyond a nightmare - description fails me.

ILoveYourVibes

Considering everything Boy A searched for and the actions of Boy B.

We need to talk about rape culture.

Gadgetman496

Correct verdict but there will be little justice after sentencing unfortunately.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

He isn't completely innocent. Maybe it will be reduced its not going to be reversed.

Seathrun66

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the probability that he is, indeed, a f*cking scumbag? Who arrives home, finds the Gardaí at their door making enquiries about their children, and isn't at all interested?



So what was it doing there in the first place, I wonder? Clearly either the son or someone else in the family had come to the attention of the Gardaí before.

All the evidence points towards these people being total scumbags.

PULSE system - they may have reported a crime. Or been witnesses to a crime. Or an array of other reasons for dealing with the police.

Or they may be criminals. But face it, you don't have a clue so why denigrate people you don't know. Who may actually have the same character as decent neighbours of yours who have got caught up in an horrific crime.

ILoveYourVibes

Rubberchikken wrote: »

the parents cant ne blamed for these boys actions any more than the girls parents can be for raising a girl who was described as 'different' to other girls in her dress, behaviour etc.

Being different is a good thing. Being evil is not.

Boy A searched online for images of child abuse for months before this. Yeah the parents have a hand in this.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

Read the bloody court reporting. FULL SUMMARY via Irish Times

Still in his interest to have the psychiatrist give evidence. Hence the defence team's push for it.

n97 mini

STB. wrote: »

Willing ? The defence engaged the psychologist reportedly to minimise the content of the interviews.

Even if the judge erred in not allowing it, do you think the content will be helpful on appeal given its reported content ?

What about the stuff what the jury did not hear.

As reported (which is all we have to go on) the defence wanted to explain the constantly changing story.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Correction.
You are not taking it seriously.

You have no idea what Boy B felt. You have never even spoken to him. The Guards have.

That was his evidence to police. Boy B said he didn't take it seriously and the Gardai would not have known about that conversation had he not raised it. Read the court reports for the clear evidence given here.