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

Sawduck

Seathrun66 wrote: »

People stating that the conviction is weak and he may not be guilty. So much so that I believe he'll be freed on appeal. Hard to know quite how involved he was but it's difficult to see how he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

Screw the both of them, sick animals for what they did

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

Disgusting post. Utterly reprehensible.
It wasn't enough that she was sexually harassed, thought of as a slut and a weirdo and ultimately defiled and murdered; she's now got some keyboard law expert stating it was reasonable to assume that she was up for it.

Shame on you!

Rape culture.

Seathrun66

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Ah well, right-wing rags in anti-Irish sentiment shocker...

Your other post suggested a general uproar in the UK after 16/17 (sic) years. There really wasn't one. The world and it's dog knew what had gone on in terms of police and judicial corruption, for many years. A Labour MP published a book about the miscarriage of justice re the Birmingham Six four years before they were released.

It seems to me that this is a totally different kettle of fish ie it involves the conviction of the actual depraved scum who perpetrated, and a decent performance by the cops.

Any outrage about the dismissals of G4 or B6 convictions can be dismissed as right-wing, anti-Irish vitriol in the face of clear evidence.

Outrage about a reversal of this decision is, or will be, from what I can see, much more justifiable.

So I don't see the value in drawing any parallel between the two cases.


But that is just ancient history.

What I really want to say is that I have found this whole case to be depressing, enraging, shameful.

RIP Ana Kriegel.

And Chris Mullins got slaughtered for that campaign. Daily Mail and Telegraph didn't accept their innocence and certainly didn't celebrate their release.

Outrage about a reversal of this decision would be similarly unfair if the conviction wasn't justified. We all have the right to a fair trial and if Boy B didn't deserve to be convicted then he'll be released. Why wouldn't you accord him, or any other defendant, that right?

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

That touching is very different to the insinuation of inappropriate touching.

And alongside me he's questioning the guilt of Boy B. This state, and the UK, is littered with wrongful convictions. Those same people who were slated as killers are later found not to be so. Boy B may very well fit into that category. A reasonable stance on the justice system is possible without ad hominen attacks. Even at 2.30am.

You're a lawyer and you're, by your own admission, surmising on here!
Stick to what you know about the case. The facts as they were presented.
You've presented no solid grounds for appeal or how they might win that appeal on the few hours I've spent talking about this. Only that you believe it will happen. Nothing to back it up.
I hope for Ana and her family's sake that never happens.
Boy B is not some innocent victim of build justice or some embarrassed little teenager.
He partook in the bullying and murder of a young girl and in my opinion was rightly convicted today.
I'm bowing out now so I'll leave it at that.
RIP Ana.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Nobody else here is.

They are. It just doesn't suit your agenda is all.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And Chris Mullins got slaughtered for that campaign. Daily Mail and Telegraph didn't accept their innocence and certainly didn't celebrate their release.

Outrage about a reversal of this decision would be similarly unfair if the conviction wasn't justified. We all have the right to a fair trial and if Boy B didn't deserve to be convicted then he'll be released. Why wouldn't you accord him, or any other defendant, that right?

What are you ranting about ? WTF is boy b like some political prisoner or something??

Where people prejudiced about this Irish kid? Was there political pressure to get him?
Did the guards not do it by the book ..did they plant evidence?

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Couldn't talk freely about himself. Wasn't that clear.

Sure what did he have to talk freely about himself for...it was Boy A that was doing the "sexual encounter" bit. Or wasn't that clear?
It much easier to talk about someone else than yourself no?

Seathrun66

Sardonicat wrote: »

Disgusting post. Utterly reprehensible.
It wasn't enough that she was sexually harassed, thought of as a slut and a weirdo and ultimately defiled and murdered; she's now got some keyboard law expert stating it was reasonable to assume that she was up for it.

Shame on you!

I know it's nearly 3am but maybe reading my post before responding would help. I posited the thinking of Boy B. Not that of Ana. Big difference and your wild leaps don't make sense.
Boy B may be a cold-blooded manipulator and killer. Or he may be an innocent dragged into something by an evil kid. We may never know. But those of you out there calling for the death of these two lads and attacking their parents are doing Ana a disrespectful disservice. Don't use her appalling death to let out your own anger.

RIP Ana

Sawduck

Its really weird that this is becoming a right wing vs left wing thing, pretty sure the girls family wouldn't want a bunch of keyboard dopes fighting about whos the best, be more respectful and stop pushing your agenda's, left or right, please stop being selfish pricks

jjnaas

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not much of the finer techniques of romance at 13.

Oh dear. Please just stop. I’m getting angry and a bit queasy reading your latest theory re. a sexual thryst gone wrong (a line the defence tried btw). I’m sure women who read it will be raging but also, sadly, not surprised, it’s the go to old defence always trotted out to blame the girl and excuse the boy. I mean really of all the things you now go so far as to imagine B as a naive,fumbling suitor? The boy who openly called the young girl he certainly watched be raped, a slut? It’s one thing to suggest the verdict could be overturned on appeal but these last few posts are very insensitive to the deceased young ladies’ memory and frankly in very poor taste.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe he hoped she would answer the door or be home alone and he would never be seen.

All you're surmising is on his side and with nothing to back it up, we do know the murder was mentioned between the 2 boys thats a fact

Her father was there. Her father saw him. To proceed with a crime when you'd be the prime, or only, suspect makes no sense at all.

simongurnick

B is guilty as sin. Should be hung drawn and quartered along with any scum that defend him.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You didn't even know he had admitted to see her being raped and killed!

He did not admit to seeing her being killed. That's utterly untrue and the latest in a line of incorrect information you've put on here.

I've made two suppositions and guessed at what may have been in the mind of Boy B. They were not presented as fact.

So please don't continue to state falsehoods. It reduces the believability or argument of all of your other posts.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

He did not admit to seeing her being killed. That's utterly untrue and the latest in a line of incorrect information you've put on here.

I've made two suppositions and guessed at what may have been in the mind of Boy B. They were not presented as fact.

So please don't continue to state falsehoods. It reduces the believability or argument of all of your other posts.

For the last time he did. He said she went silent.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 i don't know who you are but you are definitely not a lawyer.

Lefty Bicek

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And Chris Mullins got slaughtered for that campaign.

Yet he held his seat in parliament until 2010.

Daily Mail and Telegraph didn't accept their innocence and certainly didn't celebrate their release.

I've already explained why that is so. It's for reasons irrelevant to this case.

Outrage about a reversal of this decision would be similarly unfair if the conviction wasn't justified. We all have the right to a fair trial and if Boy B didn't deserve to be convicted then he'll be released. Why wouldn't you accord him, or any other defendant, that right?

Not disputing any of that, I just say that you threw in a random reference to those cases in the UK, and I don't see any value in the comparison you make.

That is all.

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You're a lawyer and you're, by your own admission, surmising on here!
Stick to what you know about the case. The facts as they were presented.
You've presented no solid grounds for appeal or how they might win that appeal on the few hours I've spent talking about this. Only that you believe it will happen. Nothing to back it up.
I hope for Ana and her family's sake that never happens.
Boy B is not some innocent victim of build justice or some embarrassed little teenager.
He partook in the bullying and murder of a young girl and in my opinion was rightly convicted today.
I'm bowing out now so I'll leave it at that.
RIP Ana.

Surmising is part of the work. It's what the prosecution had to do to put things in the mind of the jury. Has to happen as there were no other witnesses. My suppositions were not presented as facts.

You've obviously not read through the thread if you've not seen the grounds for appeal. Look over it tomorrow. There'll be an appeal in 18 months I'd guess. Fair chance of success and then you can rage at the justice system for being wrong. But I'd ask you to look carefully at the evidence if he is freed. The appeal judges will not do it lightly.

ILoveYourVibes

RIP ANA.

Condolences to her family.

Seathrun66

jjnaas wrote: »

Oh dear. Please just stop. I’m getting angry and a bit queasy reading your latest theory re. a sexual thryst gone wrong (a line the defence tried btw). I’m sure women who read it will be raging but also, sadly, not surprised, it’s the go to old defence always trotted out to blame the girl and excuse the boy. I mean really of all the things you now go so far as to imagine B as a naive,fumbling suitor? The boy who openly called the young girl he certainly watched be raped, a slut? It’s one thing to suggest the verdict could be overturned on appeal but these last few posts are very insensitive to the deceased young ladies’ memory and frankly in very poor taste.

There is no blame whatsoever for the girl. How did you deduce that? Boy A had clearly planned to kill her. Boy B may, if not a murderer, may have been hoping for a fumble. He may be a cold-blooded killer but we have to examine all possibilities. This is a discussion on the guilt or innocence of a boy and no aspersions are cast on Ana whatsoever. Read back on what I say and challenge me on the legal stuff but don't state that I am displaying disrespect for Ana.

Seathrun66

Sawduck wrote: »

Its really weird that this is becoming a right wing vs left wing thing, pretty sure the girls family wouldn't want a bunch of keyboard dopes fighting about whos the best, be more respectful and stop pushing your agenda's, left or right, please stop being selfish pricks

I missed that bit.

Sardonicat

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Disgusting post. Utterly reprehensible.
It wasn't enough that she was sexually harassed, thought of as a slut and a weirdo and ultimately defiled and murdered; she's now got some keyboard law expert stating it was reasonable to assume that she was up for it.

Shame on you!

I know it's nearly 3am but maybe reading my post before responding would help. I posited the thinking of Boy B. Not that of Ana. Big difference and your wild leaps don't make sense.
Boy B may be a cold-blooded manipulator and killer. Or he may be an innocent dragged into something by an evil kid. We may never know. But those of you out there calling for the death of these two lads and attacking their parents are doing Ana a disrespectful disservice. Don't use her appalling death to let out your own anger.

RIP Ana

We can all read what you posted. It's there in black and white. It was 'reasonable' for the boy to assume that Ana would engage in sexual activity based on the fact that she liked boy a. A reasonable assumption for him to make, according to you. You can try to reframe it however you like but it won't change the meaning of what you wrote.

Seathrun66

simongurnick wrote: »

B is guilty as sin. Should be hung drawn and quartered along with any scum that defend him.

Thanks man. And if he's freed on appeal you'll say that anyone arguing his case or his potential innocence deserves to be killed.

This was a reasonable discussion earlier. People were in disagreement. Now it's turning into a rage machine.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Seathrun66 i don't know who you are but you are definitely not a lawyer.

Irrelevant what you think my occupation is. But no reason for me to lie. If I did I'd pretend to be something a hell of a lot more glamorous than a solicitor.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

For the last time he did. He said she went silent.

Nope, he stated consistently that he was not there when she died.

Silence could be due to unconsciousness.

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

We can all read what you posted. It's there in black and white. It was 'reasonable' for the boy to assume that Ana would engage in sexual activity based on the fact that she liked boy a. A reasonable assumption for him to make, according to you. You can try to reframe it however you like but it won't change the meaning of what you wrote.

I thought that was awful too.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Thanks man. And if he's freed on appeal you'll say that anyone arguing his case or his potential innocence deserves to be killed.

This was a reasonable discussion earlier. People were in disagreement. Now it's turning into a rage machine.

Wutever I wouldn't leave boy B around me kids though would you?

Seathrun66

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Yet he held his seat in parliament until 2010.



I've already explained why that is so. It's for reasons irrelevant to this case.



Not disputing any of that, I just say that you threw in a random reference to those cases in the UK, and I don't see any value in the comparison you make.

That is all.

Very strong Labour constituency in Sunderland.

Not random but in response to someone who asked me about public outcries in cases being reversed in the UK and Ireland. Those are the most prominent ones to mind.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone in the legal profession in the uk or Ireland refer to themselves as lawyers?

Some do actually. Even if they haven't practiced in years.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Very strong Labour constituency in Sunderland.

Not random but in response to someone who asked me about public outcries in cases being reversed in the UK and Ireland. Those are the most prominent ones to mind.

Nothing to do with this.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Surmising is part of the work. It's what the prosecution had to do to put things in the mind of the jury. Has to happen as there were no other witnesses. My suppositions were not presented as facts.

You've obviously not read through the thread if you've not seen the grounds for appeal. Look over it tomorrow. There'll be an appeal in 18 months I'd guess. Fair chance of success and then you can rage at the justice system for being wrong. But I'd ask you to look carefully at the evidence if he is freed. The appeal judges will not do it lightly.

You told other people to stick to the facts on here, yet you're surmising yourself. That's why I called you out on it. Both sides need to stick to just the facts.
You dreamt up the scenario where boy B would have been able to talk more freely about the supposed sexual encounter with Ana if his mother had not been present.
So I ask you this...
What sexual encounter?!! Boy B never mentions anything of the sort. What the hell are you basing that on? He never once mentioned they were meeting up to have sex. You're just coming up with random sh*t that is as bad if not worse than the people your giving out about on here. Pulling stuff from thin air. Stick to the facts.

I've been on here for hours now and read through the thread. I've addressed the grounds for appeal and broken it down in many of my replies. You haven't countered anything, given an iota of evidence or opinion of why they might get off. Only broad sweeping statements.
You've brought the G4 and B6 into it and likened Boy B's case to theirs without any foundation whatsoever.
No doubt there will be an appeal. That's a given. There always is.