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

STB.

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.

You cant be a practicing solicitor if you do not have the ability to read.


As reported (during one of the 8 interviews conducted)

AS REPORTED wrote:

Boy B told gardaí Boy A had suggested a month previously that they kill someone. He said when he asked who, Boy A replied “Ana Kriégel”. Boy B told gardaí he assumed his friend was joking.

and in another interview

AS REPORTED wrote:

He told gardaí he had witnessed Boy A attack Ana in the house.

Boy A “flipped” Ana to the ground before starting to choke and strip her, he told gardaí.
Asked what Boy A was doing to her, Boy B said he was “raping” her.

petrolcan

Seathrun66 wrote: »

But face it, you don't have a clue so why denigrate people you don't know.

Nerdlingr

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.

On what grounds? That he had PTSD?
Because aiding, abeting and foreknowledge is all there.
Boy B's statements cannot be used to convict Boy A. So if they left the Doctor's assessment in, they would also let in the fact Boy B stated Boy A had his pants open as he attacked Ana. Thus prejudicing Boy A's aggrevated sexual assault charge.

Seathrun66

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

ILoveYourVibes

petrolcan wrote: »

That is a little disrespectful.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

He aided and abetted a rape. Really beginning to doubt you are a lawyer.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

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.

You haven’t proven your case at all. It’s pure waffle.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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.

Why did he raise it do you think?
What advantage did Boy B have to gain by saying Boy A told him he wanted to murder Ana?
To get himself off the hook and shift the blame.

Instead he convicts himself. Lovely.

The jury chose not to believe him when he said he didn't take it seriously. And why should they when he was shown to be a manipulative liar during his garda interviews.
The boy who cries wolf come to mind.

Seathrun66

redzerdrog wrote: »

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

Psychologist here did a psychiatric evaluation. No psychiatrist involved apparently as not deemed to be a mental health case.

n97 mini

Strazdas wrote: »

why the dozens of lies? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana?

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present.

The judge already directed to the jury that lying and not intervening are not necessarily evidence of guilt. "There are many reasons why people tell lies" he said.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

More waffle. Here you are positioning yourself as more knowledgeable on murder than the DPP, or the judge, but it’s clear you didn’t understand the law you were talking about.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Psychologist here did a psychiatric evaluation.

They can't. It's misreported.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

We need to talk about rape culture.

Agreed. And the dehumanisation of a lovely girl.

Strazdas

STB. wrote: »

You cant be a practicing solicitor if you do not have the ability to read.


As reported (during one of the 8 interviews conducted)

Boy B told gardaí Boy A had suggested a month previously that they kill someone. He said when he asked who, Boy A replied “Ana Kriégel”. Boy B told gardaí he assumed his friend was joking.

One thing that jumps right out at me here is that B knows full well that A doesn't like Ana, is no friend of hers and does not have her best interests at heart. And yet he calls into her house to bring her to A in a deserted location.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

As before I'd have recommended other charges against him. Those charges would have stuck. This conviction may not and he wouldn't be recharged on other offences.

anewme

petrolcan wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

You cant be a practicing solicitor if you do not have the ability to read.


As reported (during one of the 8 interviews conducted)



and in another interview

The first quote is what we've been referring to. Boy B's testimony. What is the second quote and from what source?

Gadgetman496

If boy 'B' had any remorse for leading her to her death, why was she left there for three days?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

As before I'd have recommended other charges against him. Those charges would have stuck. This conviction may not and he wouldn't be recharged on other offences.

So you know more than the DPP and the judge in this case. You’re accusing them basically of not understanding the law on murder, and of bringing a case that can’t possibly be won on appeal?

Because it’s not legally murder.

Huge if true.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The first quote is what we've been referring to. Boy B's testimony. What is the second quote and from what source?

Ffs. You claim to have read the documents.

Gimme A Pound

anewme wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

Yeah some weirdly appear less bothered by this terrible case than by stuff they're imagining. The vast majority of people are being level headed.

STB.

n97 mini wrote: »

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

All we have to go on ? As distinct from what else ?

And by the way we are lucky there was any reporting at all as the Judge went mental when one of the tabloids printed a front page headline that could have jeopardised the case (theres a contempt hearing in 2 weeks on that) and banned all reporting until it was finished. He changed his mind following legal submissions from the Irish Times and RTE.

The defence may never have used the psychiatrist they had engaged anyway as it reportedly would have also opened up to the prosecution that Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give gardaí. (in the previous 8 interviews)

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

On what grounds? That he had PTSD?
Because aiding, abeting and foreknowledge is all there.
Boy B's statements cannot be used to convict Boy A. So if they left the Doctor's assessment in, they would also let in the fact Boy B stated Boy A had his pants open as he attacked Ana. Thus prejudicing Boy A's aggrevated sexual assault charge.

As the jury agreed on. But possibly not an Appeal court.

PTSD, psychologist's testimony, no DNA, no forensic evidence, no proof of foreknowledge. All depends how the Appeal judges see it but they'll be very cautious given the public nature of the trial and they'll sift through everything.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He aided and abetted a rape. Really beginning to doubt you are a lawyer.

He was convicted of murder. He may be guilty. He may not. But for me the evidence is not strong enough and the Gardai knew that also. They got a conviction entirely due to Boy B's unreliability.

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You haven’t proven your case at all. It’s pure waffle.

Proven what case? My suggestion is that the conviction of Boy B is weak and very challengeable. That of Boy A is solid.

Noveight

Delighted for both of them.

Length of rope and a 4 foot drop wouldn’t be any more severe than they deserve.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

My suggestion is that the conviction of Boy B is weak and very challengeable.

It depends on what decade you are living in. I would say there would be uproar if it was overturned.

Mam of 4

How could Boy B have developed PTSD if he wasn't present , or didn't watch Boy A murder the girl he had lured from her home under false pretenses ?

Is that not a contradiction in itself ?

He was present .

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

More waffle. Here you are positioning yourself as more knowledgeable on murder than the DPP, or the judge, but it’s clear you didn’t understand the law you were talking about.

I've given clear facts on what constitutes grounds for conviction. No waffle. No supposition. Just facts.

This is a jury conviction and they felt those grounds were met. I feel it's not a strong conviction and may be reversed.

Strazdas

Seathrun66 wrote: »

As the jury agreed on. But possibly not an Appeal court.

PTSD, psychologist's testimony, no DNA, no forensic evidence, no proof of foreknowledge. All depends how the Appeal judges see it but they'll be very cautious given the public nature of the trial and they'll sift through everything.

He brought Ana to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere, knowing full well that A didn't like Ana as a person. The prosecution believe A was in the abandoned house waiting. What did B think was going on here?