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

Hoboo

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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

Completely agree. Can't believe B was convicted.

ILoveYourVibes

Mam of 4 wrote: »

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 .

We know he did. He admitted it.

And yeah i am pretty sure he is majorly ****ed up from it. Pretty sure boy A is too.

Kermit.de.frog

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

n97 mini

STB. wrote: »

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 garda(in the previous 8 interviews)

I'm not sure what you're getting enraged about. All we had to go on was media reports. Are you disputing that? I wasn't in the courtroom. Were you? I'm not doubting the media's veracity, btw. Never said I was.

I'm not sure what point you're making in the second paragraph as it appears to be missing punctuation. I think you're saying the defence may never have called Colm Humphries as he might have been cross-examined by the prosecution and said that "Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give garda" to quote you.

Calling him was exactly the risk they were willing to take, but the judge ruled it out.

ILoveYourVibes

Hoboo wrote: »

Completely agree. Can't believe B was convicted.

I can't either. I believe it was right though.

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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.

The DPP took a chance on this. And it worked. But if Boy B is freed on Appeal then the DPP have erred in not bringing lesser charges that would have stuck.

Seathrun66

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Ffs. You claim to have read the documents.

So, no source then?

Hoboo

Strazdas wrote: »

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?

Is that enough to be guilty of murder? Knowing Boy A didn't like her and intending to murder her are miles apart.

I don't think anyone could seriously consider what Boy A said a few weeks earlier as his intention.

Strazdas

Mam of 4 wrote: »

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 .

It is the firm belief of the prosecution that B witnessed everything: the sexual assault and the murder in its entirety. Given that B is a pathological liar, there is no reason to believe his claim that he left before the murder was carried out.

letsgo2018

Small Wonder wrote: »

Why do people want then named? What good will it do?

No Good but hopefully lots of bad for those 2 ****ers

Sardonicat

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

He was convicted of murder for luring Ana to her fate in the knowledge of what was awaiting her. That's hardly doing 'nothing'.

STB.

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?

COURT REPORTING !


Conor Gallagher covered it for the Irish Times. Conor Feehan for The Independent.


You know if you google the quotes, you'll get the answers.

Infact if you read all the court reporting, understand what the jury were asked to deliberate on (and the specific definitions of what constitutes the charges) and watch less Law and Order, it may aid you from posting inane questions and statements.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

I think you're right as the vast majority of the public (and here) seem convinced of a conspiracy to murder between the two boys. I'm not so convinced. But if Boy B admits guilt then I'm happy to hold my hands up and say I'm wrong.

And don't forget the uproar in the UK when the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were released.

Hopefully the Appeal will take place by 2021 at latest, as is the usual timeline for COA and then it's effectively done with.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

Is that enough to be guilty of murder? Knowing Boy A didn't like her and intending to murder her are miles apart.

I don't think anyone could seriously consider what Boy A said a few weeks earlier as his intention.

You could argue this but why lie for the murderer under questioning? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? He admits watching the start of the attack.

Gadgetman496

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

She would not have been murdered if he didn't deliver her to boy 'A'

He played a huge part in her murder.

Nerdlingr

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.

The psychologists testimony could have prejudiced Boy A's sexual assault charge.
No DNA or forensic evidence is needed here as
Boy B puts himself at the crime scene after luring the victim there and watches the attack take place.
Boy B provided the builders tape used in the murder of Ana.
Boy B and A had a conversation a month previously about Boy A's plans to kill Ana....Foreknowledge.

No doubt they'll probably appeal it. But I don't see what they have to go on to be honest.
PTSD affected him so much that he lied in the interviews? Maybe. The truth still came out though.
Gardai were heavy handed or coerced him in the interviews? Going by reports...not a hope.

Hoboo

Sardonicat wrote: »

He was convicted of murder for luring Ana to her fate in the knowledge of what was awaiting her. That's hardly doing 'nothing'.

I don't think that was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he'll walk on appeal. It might not be the right decision, I don't know, but on the evidence I think the jury made a balls of it.

Seathrun66

Mam of 4 wrote: »

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 .

Interview with the psychologist has him witnessing the initial attack. Read the Irish Times report. Thus he was present, but unclear how long for and doing what.

Seathrun66

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

No. The rationale being to stop members of the public intervening in crimes and worsening the situation (eg bank robberies). And also what if people freeze when seeing a violent assault. Hard to tell how any of us would react in those circumstances. Particularly at the age of thirteen.

n97 mini

Strazdas wrote: »

It is the firm belief of the prosecution that B witnessed everything: the sexual assault and the murder in its entirety. Given that B is a pathological liar, there is no reason to believe his claim that he left before the murder was carried out.

None of that is enough evidence for a murder conviction, as the judge explained.

For the jury to convict Boy B or murder, he has to have had prior knowledge of the intent to murder, and then to chose to be actively involved.

Lefty Bicek

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And don't forget the uproar in the UK when the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were released.

What do you mean ?

Hoboo

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The psychologists testimony could have prejudiced Boy A's sexual assault charge.
No DNA or forensic evidence is needed here as
Boy B puts himself at the crime scene after luring the victim there and watches the attack take place.
Boy B provided the builders tape used in the murder of Ana.
Boy B and A had a conversation a month previously about Boy A's plans to kill Ana....Foreknowledge.

No doubt they'll probably appeal it. But I don't see what they have to go on to be honest.
PTSD affected him so much that he lied in the interviews? Maybe. The truth still came out though.
Gardai were heavy handed or coerced him in the interviews? Going by reports...not a hope.

Being at the scene of a murder and doing nothing is not a crime.

Giving someone tape is not a crime.

No plan to kill was ever discussed. Yes Boy A asked B would he like to kill, and that he would like to kill Ana, but no plan, that we know of, was discussed.

Only thing they can go on was that he wasn't aware of Boy A's intentions. I think it'll be harder to prove that he was aware than not. Beyond reasonable doubt being key.

Seathrun66

Strazdas wrote: »

It is the firm belief of the prosecution that B witnessed everything: the sexual assault and the murder in its entirety. Given that B is a pathological liar, there is no reason to believe his claim that he left before the murder was carried out.

Depends wholly on the timeline for the murder. He was caught on CCTV in the park soon after the assault was estimated to have taken place. His role in the murder is something that only he can really divulge. And as a witness he's a tad unreliable.

Strazdas

Hoboo wrote: »

I don't think that was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he'll walk on appeal. It might not be the right decision, I don't know, but on the evidence I think the jury made a balls of it.

I would hazard a guess he knew something bad was going to happen to Ana (rape?).

There can be no innocent explanation for bringing her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere. He knew A didn't like or respect her.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

COURT REPORTING !


Conor Gallagher covered it for the Irish Times. Conor Feehan for The Independent.


You know if you google the quotes, you'll get the answers.

Infact if you read all the court reporting, understand what the jury were asked to deliberate on (and the specific definitions of what constitutes the charges) and watch less Law and Order, it may aid you from posting inane questions and statements.

The second quote was from an interview related to Boy B admitting to witnessing rape. He never said that in court. I ask you what interview you got that information from. I posit that it's an unreliable source.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I think you're right as the vast majority of the public (and here) seem convinced of a conspiracy to murder between the two boys. I'm not so convinced. But if Boy B admits guilt then I'm happy to hold my hands up and say I'm wrong.

And don't forget the uproar in the UK when the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were released.

Hopefully the Appeal will take place by 2021 at latest, as is the usual timeline for COA and then it's effectively done with.

He has admitted to knowing he was luring her.

Plus he likes Pew Die Pie. If that's not enough....

Innocent people don't lie.

Seathrun66

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

She would not have been murdered if he didn't deliver her to boy 'A'

He played a huge part in her murder.

All true. But if he didn't know that Boy A intended to kill her then he's not guilty of murder.

Snickers Man

Hector Savage wrote: »

Kids can be such cruel cruel c*nts...

They can. Always have been.
Typically many kids who are bullied as teenagers manage to come out of it at the other end without major trauma. It's part of growing up and toughening up.

This poor girl had the great misfortune to be bullied by an utter psychopath and his sidekick. There but for the grace of God go many kids who have grown up with being ostracised and shunned for any one of a number of trivial reasons: not from round these parts, having a squint, having a cleft palate, dyslexia, exhibiting early signs of being gay.

Schools should have a zero tolerance policy on bullying. That could have been my daughter. Or any one of yours.

Sardonicat

Hoboo wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

He was convicted of murder for luring Ana to her fate in the knowledge of what was awaiting her. That's hardly doing 'nothing'.

I don't think that was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he'll walk on appeal. It might not be the right decision, I don't know, but on the evidence I think the jury made a balls of it.

As far as the jury were concerned, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was their job to deliberate, not yours or mine.

Hoboo

Strazdas wrote: »

You could argue this but why lie for the murderer under questioning? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? He admits watching the start of the attack.

Not sure why he'd lie. Could be guilty of something, could be fearful, I don't know.

Why not intervene? He's a quiet non sporty boy, boy A is tall, strong and does martial arts. At 13 you know who to pick your battles with.

What I do know is from the evidence provided, I think it's a pretty weak conviction. Not saying it's right or wrong, I just think it's weak.