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

Seathrun66

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.

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
That does not mean that it is right for Boy B to assume that. He may have been right or wrong. But it is not difficult to guess that would be in the mind of a thirteen year old boy.

And we here are far beyond thirteen so can discuss without huge leaps.

ILoveYourVibes

wicorthered wrote: »

The sad things is they could easily be out and about by their 18 birthdays.

They'll definitely be free men in their 20s. If the trial information is anything to go by Boy A will do this again.

Yep. And no one will have a clue who he is.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I thought that was awful too.

Seriously? You denigrate those two boys. Justifiably for Boy A. Maybe not for Boy B. And when I say that there may have been the thoughts of sexual intent in the mind of Boy B you dispute that. Makes no sense.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
.

NO IT IS NOT.

I'm sorry not all thirteen yr old boys are sleezebags. In fact VERY few of them are.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

Nope. On that I'll agree. As before I'm unsure of the conviction. Though aware he could be a scheming, manipulative killer. The Gardai simply haven't had the evidence to prove that.

simongurnick

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.

Screw him and you too for that matter.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Seriously? You denigrate those two boys. Justifiably for Boy A. Maybe not for Boy B. And when I say that there may have been the thoughts of sexual intent in the mind of Boy B you dispute that. Makes no sense.

CONSENT. I DISPUTE THERE WAS THOUGHTS OF ANA'S SEXUAL CONSENT.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

All do. Whether they're a barrister or solicitor they'll intertwine the term lawyer with either. Makes for a change of vocabulary if nothing else.

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
That does not mean that it is right for Boy B to assume that. He may have been right or wrong. But it is not difficult to guess that would be in the mind of a thirteen year old boy.

And we here are far beyond thirteen so can discuss without huge leaps.

More assumptions then.

What about the FACT that boy B also knew that Boy A didn't like Ana and didn't want anything to do with her. How does that fit into your narrative?

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

All do. Whether they're a barrister or solicitor they'll intertwine the term lawyer with either. Makes for a change of vocabulary if nothing else.

What is with people claiming to be lawyers though if they haven't practiced in 20 yrs and aren't on the roll anymore?

Seathrun66

Nerdlingr wrote: »

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.

Surmising and clearly signalled as stuff not as fact. Hard to be confused by it. Facts stated and clearly shown as such.
Nothing stated as fact when it was supposition.

Grounds for appeal are running through the thread. First, and most obvious, is the exclusion of psychological evidence and a witness.

G4 and B6 given of examples of unpopular reversed convictions. In response to someone who said the appeal freeing of Boy B would be unpopular. Which I agree it will if it happens. But it may be the right thing to happen. We'll see soon enough.

jjnaas

This is just weird. Why does Seatherun66 have such an investment in the case that he’s posting over and over through the night? I’m in the States but it’s after 3am at home and a solicitor is staying up on a work night to conjure up possible defences of Boy B? Hmmm.

Anyway, the thread was very interesting and I’m grateful to those of you who posted the Irish Times article. Great read.

Lefty Bicek

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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.

You're not listening.

I was there. The gutter press played to its constituency, but there was no general public outcry because the general public knew the truth about conspiracy and cover-up.

Like the general public here know the truth that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no racism.

ie The right scrotes have been sent down. Good.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT.

I'm sorry not all thirteen yr old boys are sleezebags. In fact VERY few of them are.

What was in the mind of Boy B then?

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Surmising and clearly signalled as stuff not as fact.

Seathrun66

simongurnick wrote: »

Screw him and you too for that matter.

Glad to make your acquaintance.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What was in the mind of Boy B then?

Simple. He wanted to watch.

Seathrun66

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What is with people claiming to be lawyers though if they haven't practiced in 20 yrs and aren't on the roll anymore?

Refer me to some please.

simongurnick

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Glad to make your acquaintance.

Lucky for you it's only online.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Refer me to some please.

How can I if they are not on the roll?

Seathrun66

jjnaas wrote: »

This is just weird. Why does Seatherun66 have such an investment in the case that he’s posting over and over through the night? I’m in the States but it’s after 3am at home and a solicitor is staying up on a work night to conjure up possible defences of Boy B? Hmmm.

Anyway, the thread was very interesting and I’m grateful to those of you who posted the Irish Times article. Great read.

Dragged into responding to stuff. Should know better. But the hateful angry stuff against the parents of the kids and a potentially unsecure conviction meant I wanted to have a say. I'll know better next time. And FYI it's gentleman's hours for me tomorrow so hopefully not too exhausted at work. I'll bid adieu to all. Would like to say it was a pleasure but I can't. Nevertheless despite disagreements I wish you well and we can all send our best hopes for the family of Ana Kriegel.

Seathrun66

simongurnick wrote: »

Lucky for you it's only online.

Less flirtation please. I've got to crash out.

ILoveYourVibes

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Dragged into responding to stuff. Should know better. But the hateful angry stuff against the parents of the kids and a potentially unsecure conviction meant I wanted to have a say. I'll know better next time. And FYI it's gentleman's hours for me tomorrow so hopefully not too exhausted at work. I'll bid adieu to all. Would like to say it was a pleasure but I can't. Nevertheless despite disagreements I wish you well and we can all send our best hopes for the family of Ana Kriegel.

Question what work can you do if you are not on the roll?

Nerdlingr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Surmising and clearly signalled as stuff not as fact. Hard to be confused by it. Facts stated and clearly shown as such.
Nothing stated as fact when it was supposition.

Grounds for appeal are running through the thread. First, and most obvious, is the exclusion of psychological evidence and a witness.

G4 and B6 given of examples of unpopular reversed convictions. In response to someone who said the appeal freeing of Boy B would be unpopular. Which I agree it will if it happens. But it may be the right thing to happen. We'll see soon enough.

It's not that it's not hard to be confused by it, it's the fact it serves no purpose. Only to back up your superfluous claims.

Tell me, since you didn't address it in your post...where did you get the idea that Boy B couldn't talk freely about the supposed sexual encounter with Ana because his mother was present.? Where did Boy B ever mention or infer that they were meeting Ana of the basis that something might happen sexually?
It's all pie in the sky stuff. Its just something you made up.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Rape culture.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT.

I'm sorry not all thirteen yr old boys are sleezebags. In fact VERY few of them are.

Well which is it?

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

Well which is it?

This is not about you dear. 3 rd post eh?

dickangel

Nerdlingr wrote: »

It's not that it's not hard to be confused by it, it's the fact it serves no purpose. Only to back up your superfluous claims.

Tell me, since you didn't address it in your post...where did you get the idea that Boy B couldn't talk freely about the supposed sexual encounter with Ana because his mother was present.? Where did Boy B ever mention or infer that they were meeting Ana of the basis that something might happen sexually?
It's all pie in the sky stuff. Its just something you made up.

I've no dog in this race but Boy B's therapist said Boy B wanted to watch them "snogging." Not saying that's proof of anything at all, but they did attempt to use it as a defence, it wasn't allowed though. However, the notion was reported on.

ILoveYourVibes

dickangel wrote: »

I've no dog in this race but Boy B's therapist said Boy B wanted to watch them "snogging."

I actually had heard no such reports. But I had already SURMISED this.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is not about you dear. 3 rd post eh?

Yep, intrigued by this case so thought I'd sign up. Not sure buzz words such as rape culture warrant a place in the discussion though. Especially if you are to contradict yourself straight after.

dickangel

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I actually had heard no such reports. But I had already SURMISED this.

Check out the Irish Times piece "The Complete Story." It's in there.

"This PTSD contributed to the boy telling the gardaí untruths in an effort to protect himself, he wrote. The doctor said it was his opinion that Boy B had no knowledge of what was going to happen to Ana that day. He said the boy was sexually naive and had gone to the house with Ana and Boy A in the hope of watching them “snogging.”"