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

uptherebels

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.

I think the issue, not just in this case but in others as well, is what constitutes a "defense". I'd imagine to most people a defense in a trial is things like making sure evidence was collected,handled and stored correctly. Tests are accurate,verifiable and repeatable. Police interviews were conducted properly, eye witnesses are cross examined etc etc.
what isn't a defense is a defence team deciding to throw any old ****e out in court, no matter how tenuous or dubious in the hope that something influences a judge/jury.

salmocab

uptherebels wrote: »

I think the issue, not just in this case but in others as well, is what constitutes a "defense". I'd imagine to most people a defense in a trial is things like making sure evidence was collected,handled and stored correctly. Tests are accurate,verifiable and repeatable. Police interviews were conducted properly, eye witnesses are cross examined etc etc.
what isn't a defense is a defence team deciding to throw any old ****e out in court, no matter how tenuous or dubious in the hope that something influences a judge/jury.

But the opposite can be true of prosecution, they can throw stuff around to influence too. That’s the job of both sides.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

But we simply do know. The defense put forward the allegation that the sex was consensual. The allegation was heard by the jury and discounted as not possible, not least because a 13 year old cannot give consent to sex.
So we do know.
You just don’t accept that a 13 year old cannot give consent. That is rather worrying kidchameleon. You don’t appear to have any morals around consent at all.
Perhaps you should talk to someone about that?

Firstly, it is preposterous to insinuate a fellow poster does not understand consent, I am very well aware that a child, drunk person, mentally retarded person etc. cannot give consent. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong (I am not as up to speed on the sexual aspects of this case as you) but the defense would have used the proximity argument rather than consent. Finally, please don't try to lecture me about morals, I am not the one repeatedly referring to the physical appearance of another persons child, it is not right that you speak of her like that. I'm not having a go at you, I am merely pointing it out as a bystander. Please try to reflect on the words you are using to describe Ana and you will see that they are, frankly, bizarre.

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Firstly, it is preposterous to insinuate a fellow poster does not understand consent, I am very well aware that a child, drunk person, mentally retarded person etc. cannot give consent. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong (I am not as up to speed on the sexual aspects of this case as you) but the defense would have used the proximity argument rather than consent. Finally, please don't try to lecture me about morals, I am not the one repeatedly referring to the physical appearance of another persons child, it is not right that you speak of her like that. I'm not having a go at you, I am merely pointing it out as a bystander. Please try to reflect on the words you are using to describe Ana and you will see that they are, frankly, bizarre.

Ready to answer the question about when the consensual sex you say Ana possibly gave consent to got “out of hand” (your very words)?
You’ve been asked several times now. So whenever your ready.

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

Ready to answer the question about when the consensual sex you say Ana possibly gave consent to got “out of hand” (your very words)?
You’ve been asked several times now. So whenever your ready.

When did I say she gave "consent"? Could you quote the post you are referring to please pal.

Road-Hog

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think that the argument that the sex might have been consensual has no value in law? If they could have persuaded the jury that the sex was consensual then it might have changed the outcome of the trial.

The overwhelming evidence showed that she was severely beaten to death and clothes were ripped off here like some deranged animal would do. The ‘Chatham omnibus man’ was hardly going to be convinced that yeah she consented to sexual activity but it got out of hand.....Ana didn’t like what she was asked to do so the A guy decided he would teach her a fatal lesson that yes means yes and therefore she should pay for this misunderstanding with her life.....fairly plausible alright.....as I may have tried to express earlier ‘legal proffession’ have no compassion....they would have seen the ‘book of evidence’ months ahead of the trial and would have had a fair idea what that their ‘clients’ were going to have a tough time avoiding a guilty verdict especially A. so they would have well planned their strategy for planting doubt in jury.......so to come out with the ‘consensual’ argument shows an absolute robotic inhuman lack of empathy towards the Kriegels and don’t come out with this ‘the law entitles the
To do so line’.......it shows a disgusting lack of compassion and to me is a shameful tactic but I’m sure messrs gagby et al still sleep soundly at night and enjoy the fruits of the fees they earned from this case

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

When did I say she gave "consent"? Could you quote the post you are referring to please pal.

In response to my comment that the e murderers had lied about the sex being consensual you responded:

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

So you’ve clearly indicated that you don’t accept that Ana DIDNT give consent and go on to state that things “got out of hand”.
So, did the possibly consensual sex get out of hand before or after she was smashed in the face by a studded piece of 4’2” instantly on walking into the room?

Kidchameleon

splinter65 wrote: »

In response to my comment that the e murderers had lied about the sex being consensual you responded:

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

So you’ve clearly indicated that you don’t accept that Ana DIDNT give consent and go on to state that things “got out of hand”.
So, did the possibly consensual sex get out of hand before or after she was smashed in the face by a studded piece of 4’2” instantly on walking into the room?

So I never said she gave consent. Again, please look up the proximity defense.

abff

Just out of interest, I always thought that it went against professional conduct standards (and the law) to knowingly suborn untrue testimony from your clients? Or have I been watching too many US crime dramas?

splinter65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So I never said she gave consent. Again, please look up the proximity defense.

You’ve said enough.

Hannibal_Smith

volchitsa wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I get that, but I don't see where they are obliged to make arguments that have no value in law and that they probably don't believe themselves? (Since firstly consent doesn't exist for a 13 year old, and especially since, as someone pointed out, the poor kid fought back with all her might so clearly was not consenting in any shape or form).

If the boys had said it was extra terrestrials, would the lawyers have been legally obliged, or even wise, to plead that?

No where did I say they were legally obliged to say anything. Some one asked why they brought the consent argument in and I showed why.

Again, the full code of conduct is available on the law society website and that sets out situations which may address your extra terrestrial query.

I would think the issue as to whether consent exists comes up in a lot of trials, no?

I know the poor girl fought for her life and i have never, in any post, suggested or questioned her.

Beasty

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Does this warning apply to people blaming the parents of the murderers or can I freely do that? Bear in mind they are innocent

Kidchameleon - do not post in this thread again

splinter65

If, when the defense see all the prosecution evidence against you, and they know from experience and expertise that you haven’t a snowballs chance in hell of being found not guilty (as was obvious here in the case at least of boy a), would they ever advise you to plead guilty in the hope of it being a mitigating factor in your favor when it comes to sentencing?
Is it possible that the defense teams did suggest that but the murderers, via their parents, wanted to go ahead with not guilty anyway?
It seems like a very bad idea now.

McCrack

splinter65 wrote: »

If, when the defense see all the prosecution evidence against you, and they know from experience and expertise that you haven’t a snowballs chance in hell of being found not guilty (as was obvious here in the case at least of boy a), would they ever advise you to plead guilty in the hope of it being a mitigating factor in your favor when it comes to sentencing?
Is it possible that the defense teams did suggest that but the murderers, via their parents, wanted to go ahead with not guilty anyway?
It seems like a very bad idea now.

A defendant will almost always get mitigation on a guilty plea and that will be explained to the client. The lawyers job is to advise and clients decides which way to plead. The majority of indictable offences go forward for sentence on full facts basis on a signed or guilty plea.

I can't explain why at least one of these murderers pleaded not guilty but that was his right if he so wished and that choice will have consequences for sentencing

Monumental

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

Three youngsters !! You are sadly mistaken ,two murderers and one teenage girl who was murdered by them

splinter65

McCrack wrote: »

A defendant will almost always get mitigation on a guilty plea and that will be explained to the client. The lawyers job is to advise and clients decides which way to plead. The majority of indictable offences go forward for sentence on full facts basis on a signed or guilty plea.

I can't explain why at least one of these murderers pleaded not guilty but that was his right if he so wished and that choice will have consequences for sentencing

I’ll be very interested to read the media reports of the judges remarks at sentencing. This case has affected me very deeply.

Road-Hog

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ll be very interested to read the media reports of the judges remarks at sentencing. This case has affected me very deeply.

Judges have a poor record on sentencing and bale applications in this country if you ask me....it will be ‘very interesting’ alright......really important not to ‘over sentance’ these two inhuman/sadistic/sexual deviant psychopaths.......the assessments of them and their families currently under way Will allow the judge to sentance with surgical accuracy and they won’t spend any more than an hour more than they should in detention....

Donald Trump

headnorth wrote: »

Papers can't print anything that might identify boy a & b , radio & tv the same. And social media folk might get locked up too. Thank god for the courts own website.

I would imagine they use aliases for the initials

Donald Trump

Road-Hog wrote: »

I’m sure messrs gagby et al still sleep soundly at night and enjoy the fruits of the fees they earned from this case

That's the legal people's job. They have to represent their client whether they like it or not. And it's important that someone does it. If nobody did it, it would give the culprits an excuse that they couldn't get a fair trial. So you have to allow them to put forward whatever bull**** they like, through their legal team, in order for justice to be done correctly.

Road-Hog

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's the legal people's job. They have to represent their client whether they like it or not. And it's important that someone does it. If nobody did it, it would give the culprits an excuse that they couldn't get a fair trial. So you have to allow them to put forward whatever bull**** they like, through their legal team, in order for justice to be done correctly.

Common decency and respect for the victim’s family is not a lot to expect especially given the barbarity of what they had to listen to about the final moments of their daughters life. As I said already the ‘consent was possibly given card’ was so far from the truth that it is shameful that so called professionals would pile more unwanted distress onto anas parents. Justifying such a tactic under the guise of ensuring these degenerates got a fair trial is just so wrong

Road-Hog

Donald Trump wrote: »

I would imagine they use aliases for the initials

Apparently not so.

McCrack

Road-Hog wrote: »

Common decency and respect for the victim’s family is not a lot to expect especially given the barbarity of what they had to listen to about the final moments of their daughters life. As I said already the ‘consent was possibly given card’ was so far from the truth that it is shameful that so called professionals would pile more unwanted distress onto anas parents. Justifying such a tactic under the guise of ensuring these degenerates got a fair trial is just so wrong

You clearly have an axe to grind with the Judiciary and legal profession and perhaps this thread is not the proper venue for you

up for anything

McCrack wrote: »

You clearly have an axe to grind with the Judiciary and legal profession and perhaps this thread is not the proper venue for you

Ah stop, you're making out like this purely for gossip thread is not in the vilest forum on boards mostly populated by disgruntled recent regs with a single purpose. "not the proper venue for you"? I do hope this was a tongue-in-cheek comment. :pac::D

Road-Hog

McCrack wrote: »

You clearly have an axe to grind with the Judiciary and legal profession and perhaps this thread is not the proper venue for you

I think any right minded individual would have regarding this issue.....,in a broader level I don’t think they are any worse than other sectors but using such ‘absurd theory’ in attempt to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors is reprehensible......the absolute barbaric nature of the attack and having it fully recounted to the kriegel family with every detail of the injuries and examinations described by the pathologist and then to throw in a theory that ‘it could have been a bit of consensual teenage fun/experimentation that got out of hand’ is just deplorable

salmocab

Road-Hog wrote: »

I think any right minded individual would have regarding this issue.....,in a broader level I don’t think they are any worse than other sectors but using such ‘absurd theory’ in attempt to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors is reprehensible......the absolute barbaric nature of the attack and having it fully recounted to the kriegel family with every detail of the injuries and examinations described by the pathologist and then to throw in a theory that ‘it could have been a bit of consensual teenage fun/experimentation that got out of hand’ is just deplorable

They can’t do their jobs based on who might hear though, the family can’t be taken into consideration when building a defense they have to do everything they can to defend their clients. Once things are made unusable based on hurting someone’s feelings then the system starts to break down. It is horrific for the family of the victim but it is due process and without it the perpetrators would be back in court looking for a mistrial followed by another trial where the victims family would have to live it all again. It doesn’t matter if it’s the most horrific of crimes or a bit of shoplifting.

McCrack

Road-Hog wrote: »

I think any right minded individual would have regarding this issue.....,in a broader level I don’t think they are any worse than other sectors but using such ‘absurd theory’ in attempt to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors is reprehensible......the absolute barbaric nature of the attack and having it fully recounted to the kriegel family with every detail of the injuries and examinations described by the pathologist and then to throw in a theory that ‘it could have been a bit of consensual teenage fun/experimentation that got out of hand’ is just deplorable

You're misunderstanding what the defence were proposing - and this has been explained already - in respect of Murderer B - his story was that he was arranging the meeting and that the intentions/understanding were romantic and not homicidal

Anyway all this is inconsequential because the jury were not convinced and justice prevailed

There is absolutely nothing reprehensible as a defence Counsel putting a robust defence forward on behalf of their client as upsetting as it may be to the family of the victim provided it is within professional conduct guidelines - this was a murder trial with far reaching consequences for both sides - sensitivities have to be left at the door and the family are forewarned - for example the State Pathologist I believe gave uninterrupted direct evidence for over 30 min of every inch of Ana's body and the injuries/traumas found.

Road-Hog

McCrack wrote: »

You're misunderstanding what the defence were proposing - and this has been explained already - in respect of Murderer B - his story was that he was arranging the meeting and that the intentions/understanding were romantic and not homicidal

Anyway all this is inconsequential because the jury were not convinced and justice prevailed

There is absolutely nothing reprehensible as a defence Counsel putting a robust defence forward on behalf of their client as upsetting as it may be to the family of the victim provided it is within professional conduct guidelines - this was a murder trial with far reaching consequences for both sides - sensitivities have to be left at the door and the family are forewarned - for example the State Pathologist I believe gave uninterrupted direct evidence for over 30 min of every inch of Ana's body and the injuries/traumas found.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

splinter65

Road-Hog wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The worst possible outcome right now would be that the murderers successfully appealed to the court that they didn’t get a fair trial because all their evidence wasn’t put before the jury, including their position that the sex was consensual.
Then there would have to be another trial and the Kriegels would have to sit through the whole thing again.
We can’t run the country or organize society based on the notion that people’s feelings are paramount.
Chaos would ensue very quickly.

tuxy

The Garda did a great job the DPP also did well and I believe it was very important that the defence had the liberty to constuct whatever defence they felt was strongest. All these combined makes the convictions concrete in my eyes.
Much earlier on in these thread there were posters claiming the guilty verdict of boy b was unsafe. We have not heard from them since as there is nothing about the trial they can actully point to where procediures were not carried out correctly.
This case from the very first investigation by the Garda to the jury finding them guilty is a text book example of how such a difficult and desturbing crinimal case should be handeled by the justice system. It's actully a relief to see our police force can perform to such a high standard considering some of the recent scandals.

Road-Hog

tuxy wrote: »

The Garda did a great job the DPP also did well and I believe it was very important that the defence had the liberty to constuct whatever defence they felt was strongest. All these combined makes the convictions concrete in my eyes.
Much earlier on in these thread there were posters claiming the guilty verdict of boy b was unsafe. We have not heard from them since as there is nothing about the trial they can actully point to where procediures were not carried out correctly.
This case from the very first investigation by the Garda to the jury finding them guilty is a text book example of how such a difficult and desturbing crinimal case should be handeled by the justice system. It's actully a relief to see our police force can perform to such a high standard considering some of the recent scandals.

So you are saying that without the ‘consensual card being played’ we would definitely have had a retrial.......? Despite the barbaric inhuman injuries etc that were all over the child’s body.......