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

Pauliedragon

walshb wrote: »

That’s a crock of Sh1t as well...

Plenty wonderful and caring and loving parents, whose kids are bad bad apples!!

Agree. I know this is extreme but I'm sure all of us here know ratbags with good parents and good kids who came from horrible homes. Yes parents probably play the most important role especially in early life but sometimes scum is just scum. Experts have been grappling with this "nature vs nurture" debate since the beginning of time and still don't have an answer.

walshb

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Agree. I know this is extreme but I'm sure all of us here know ratbags with good parents and good kids who came from horrible homes. Yes parents probably play the most important role especially in early life but sometimes scum is just scum. Experts have been grappling with this "nature vs nurture" debate since the beginning of time and still don't have an answer.

Yes, that is because there is no definitive answer...

Too many variables........

Sometimes people are just bad apples....nasty. It's in their psyche...

We can look for reasons and excuses and whys........they may or may not be there....

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

If only The Kriegels could throw money at and appeal the loss of their child through no fault of her own

Dufflecoat Fanny

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Big legal fees there.

I hope the tax payer isn't footing the bill for this

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dufflecoat Fanny wrote: »

I hope the tax payer isn't footing the bill for this

Well, they aren't going to be cheap and I'd be surprised if the family had the means to foot the bill on their own.

salmocab

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, they aren't going to be cheap and I'd be surprised if the family had the means to foot the bill on their own.

To add to this if it’s normal for people in their situation to get the bill footed then it should happen as should the appeal. We may not like it but justice has to be run impartially because nothing ruins a system more than picking and choosing who gets what. If it always comes down to having money then only rich people would get their appeals and that’s inherently unfair.

Gadgetman496

salmocab wrote: »

To add to this if it’s normal for people in their situation to get the bill footed then it should happen as should the appeal. We may not like it but justice has to be run impartially because nothing ruins a system more than picking and choosing who gets what. If it always comes down to having money then only rich people would get their appeals and that’s inherently unfair.

If you appeal & can't really afford it, you might be entitled to free legal aid? maybe?

But I can't see you being eligible to hand pick the Mercedes of the law firms and expect the tax payer to fund it, surely?

salmocab

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If you appeal & can't really afford it, you might be entitled to free legal aid? maybe?

But I can't see you being eligible to hand pick the Mercedes of the law firms and expect the tax payer to fund it, surely?

Honestly don’t know how it works thats why I said if that’s what normally happens then that’s what should happen here.

ohnonotgmail

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If you appeal & can't really afford it, you might be entitled to free legal aid? maybe?

But I can't see you being eligible to hand pick the Mercedes of the law firms and expect the tax payer to fund it, surely?

regardless of the solicitors chosen the cost to legal aid is the same.

Gadgetman496

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

regardless of the solicitors chosen the cost to legal aid is the same.

I'm not sure that is the case. If you request free legal aid and are successful, a legal team is appointed to you by the courts, you don't get the choice of cherry picking.

ohnonotgmail

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case. If you request free legal aid and are successful, a legal team is appointed to you by the courts, you don't get the choice of cherry picking.

you can choose any solicitor on the legal aid panel. Michael Staines is on the legal aid panel and does a lot of legal aid work.

Gadgetman496

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can choose any solicitor on the legal aid panel. Michael Staines is on the legal aid panel and does a lot of legal aid work.

Right, never knew that.

White lighting

Truthvader wrote: »

Think the Dad roaring and shouting in Court revealed exactly what kind of person he was

So if you believed your child was wrongly convicted you would take it on the chin and say nothing?

Truthvader

White lighting wrote: »

So if you believed your child was wrongly convicted you would take it on the chin and say nothing?

Read the reports of Boy B's behaviour and the chain of lies he told and his central role.

If you believe your child is not guilty you can appeal (and we will all pay for it)

But

you can't believe anything you like forever. Plus the appeal process does not include shouting abuse in Court. I pity Boy B. Obviously brought up in a toxic environment evidenced by the absence of a shred of sympathy for the unfortunate girl he led to death and stood by while she was murdered -or for her parents. All about themselves as usual.

walshb

White lighting wrote: »

So if you believed your child was wrongly convicted you would take it on the chin and say nothing?

You really think he believes his child is innocent?

The evidence was damning and overwhelming to convict both.

Two monsters butchered a young girl...

If he truly believes his child is innocent he is an absolute laughing stock..

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

You really think he believes his child is innocent?

The evidence was damning and overwhelming to convict both.

Two monsters butchered a young girl...

If he truly believes his child is innocent he is an absolute laughing stock..

He could well believe it, people’s brains are very adept at seeing and hearing what it wants. He might well have bought his sons story possibly because he wanted to.

tayto lover

I don’t believe boy B at all. He is a conniving little manipulative murderer.
Hope they both serve their full time after the appeal is turned down.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

He could well believe it, people’s brains are very adept at seeing and hearing what it wants. He might well have bought his sons story possibly because he wanted to.

Yes, but his son actually admitted to luring the girl...

So what is he believing?

The judge said he was part of the murdering of Anna...That is fact..

He needs to be a decent human being and allow that poor girl to rest..

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but his son actually admitted to luring the girl...

So what is he believing?

The judge said he was part of the murdering of Anna...That is fact..

He needs to be a decent human being and allow that poor girl to rest..

I don’t know what he’s believing, I was suggesting he may be picking and choosing what he wants to believe or hear. Saying it is fact doesn’t mean he believes it.

political analyst

Truthvader wrote: »

Read the reports of Boy B's behaviour and the chain of lies he told and his central role.

If you believe your child is not guilty you can appeal (and we will all pay for it)

But

you can't believe anything you like forever. Plus the appeal process does not include shouting abuse in Court. I pity Boy B. Obviously brought up in a toxic environment evidenced by the absence of a shred of sympathy for the unfortunate girl he led to death and stood by while she was murdered -or for her parents. All about themselves as usual.

But the law prevents us from knowing what type of upbringing B had before he lured Ana to her death.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

If Boy B had simply refused to speak from the moment the guards called to his door, where would he be now?

He would be at home.

There is not a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the murder.
Some people here believe Boy B ‘manipulated’ Boy A.
Others believe Boy B was ‘manipulated’ by Boy A.

I don’t know. You don’t know.

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

How anybody can feel that Boy B should face the exact same punishment as Boy A is genuinely beyond me.

Am I suggesting he should get a gentle pat on the back and be allowed to resume his life as though nothing happened? Of course not.

I’m aware of his tangled web of lies. Most guilty adults, let alone 13 year olds, will lie to get out of trouble.

Of course Boy B was complicit and has to face the penalties. I’m simply stating that there is no conclusive way to know whether he was horrified/satisfied/indifferent/shocked after the horrific actions of Boy A.

ohnonotgmail

Reed Panicky Swimmer wrote: »

If Boy B had simply refused to speak from the moment the guards called to his door, where would he be now?

He would be at home.

There is not a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the murder.
Some people here believe Boy B ‘manipulated’ Boy A.
Others believe Boy B was ‘manipulated’ by Boy A.

I don’t know. You don’t know.

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

How anybody can feel that Boy B should face the exact same punishment as Boy A is genuinely beyond me.

Am I suggesting he should get a gentle pat on the back and be allowed to resume his life as though nothing happened? Of course not.

I’m aware of his tangled web of lies. Most guilty adults, let alone 13 year olds, will lie to get out of trouble.

Of course Boy B was complicit and has to face the penalties. I’m simply stating that there is no conclusive way to know whether he was horrified/satisfied/indifferent/shocked after the horrific actions of Boy A.

he lured her to her death. he is as guity of her murder as boy A

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Sure remember the absolute neck on them asking the court to let them home for Christmas and let him go for a walk to see his granny after his Christmas dinner. Then sure they wanted him on house arrest and not in prison before his trial. Parents must’ve thought from the start they’d be put on the naughty step. Their contempt for that innocent child and her life was evident even in court as they spoke about her being weird and different, like they were still better than her.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Reed Panicky Swimmer wrote: »

If Boy B had simply refused to speak from the moment the guards called to his door, where would he be now?

He would be at home.

There is not a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the murder.
Some people here believe Boy B ‘manipulated’ Boy A.
Others believe Boy B was ‘manipulated’ by Boy A.

I don’t know. You don’t know.

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

How anybody can feel that Boy B should face the exact same punishment as Boy A is genuinely beyond me.

Am I suggesting he should get a gentle pat on the back and be allowed to resume his life as though nothing happened? Of course not.

I’m aware of his tangled web of lies. Most guilty adults, let alone 13 year olds, will lie to get out of trouble.

Of course Boy B was complicit and has to face the penalties. I’m simply stating that there is no conclusive way to know whether he was horrified/satisfied/indifferent/shocked after the horrific actions of Boy A.

His actions are absolutely equivalent to boy A. Boy B was too smart for his own good. Directly after he witnessed a murder and sexual assault, him and his father stopped a garda out looking for Ana and had a chat. Cool as you like.
The rotten vermin walked up to the door of anas home where she was safe inside, minding her own business, and he lured her away from her dad and to her death. That is 100% fact. Without B she would be still at home.

Absolutely no remorse shown at any stage.

Hrududu

Reed Panicky Swimmer wrote: »

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

Do we? I don't remember them proving that all he did was lure her there. He says he didn't kill her but he changed his story so many times you can't believe a word he says.

Ash.J.Williams

Reed Panicky Swimmer wrote: »

If Boy B had simply refused to speak from the moment the guards called to his door, where would he be now?

He would be at home.

There is not a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the murder.
Some people here believe Boy B ‘manipulated’ Boy A.
Others believe Boy B was ‘manipulated’ by Boy A.

I don’t know. You don’t know.

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

How anybody can feel that Boy B should face the exact same punishment as Boy A is genuinely beyond me.

Am I suggesting he should get a gentle pat on the back and be allowed to resume his life as though nothing happened? Of course not.

I’m aware of his tangled web of lies. Most guilty adults, let alone 13 year olds, will lie to get out of trouble.

Of course Boy B was complicit and has to face the penalties. I’m simply stating that there is no conclusive way to know whether he was horrified/satisfied/indifferent/shocked after the horrific actions of Boy A.

fat freddie is doing a life sentence for murder and he wasn't even there, same thing.

walshb

Reed Panicky Swimmer wrote: »

If Boy B had simply refused to speak from the moment the guards called to his door, where would he be now?

He would be at home.

There is not a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the murder.
Some people here believe Boy B ‘manipulated’ Boy A.
Others believe Boy B was ‘manipulated’ by Boy A.

I don’t know. You don’t know.

The only thing we do know is that there is no way his crime is equivalent to that of Boy A.

How anybody can feel that Boy B should face the exact same punishment as Boy A is genuinely beyond me.

Am I suggesting he should get a gentle pat on the back and be allowed to resume his life as though nothing happened? Of course not.

I’m aware of his tangled web of lies. Most guilty adults, let alone 13 year olds, will lie to get out of trouble.

Of course Boy B was complicit and has to face the penalties. I’m simply stating that there is no conclusive way to know whether he was horrified/satisfied/indifferent/shocked after the horrific actions of Boy A.

You make valid points and I understand them

Fact is: that boy brought that girl to her death..he was the primary reason she ended up in that predicament. It has been proven in a court of law that he knew what he was doing..

He deserves his sentence!

JustAThought

Appeals can increase the sentence as well as reduce them. Personally I steadfastly hooe that will be the case here. I am as horrified by the neck of his parents as the vicious cruelty he displayed. It is appalling that the Kriegels may be forced to endure another trial.Can’t they refuse to grant an appeal -that would be a very positive outcome.

salmocab

JustAThought wrote: »

Appeals can increase the sentence as well as reduce them. Personally I steadfastly hooe that will be the case here. I am as horrified by the neck of his parents as the vicious cruelty he displayed. It is appalling that the Kriegels may be forced to endure another trial.Can’t they refuse to grant an appeal -that would be a very positive outcome.

His parents actions are not remotely as bad as his, he has to be given the same rights as absolutely anyone else would regardless of what he done or who it upsets because that’s a bascule tenet of the justice system.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

His parents actions are not remotely as bad as his, he has to be given the same rights as absolutely anyone else would regardless of what he done or who it upsets because that’s a bascule tenet of the justice system.

But there are times when morals and decency and character and kindness and compassion need to be examined, and not just the letter of the law, which can be rigid and matte of fact; devoid of any real human element....

For me, and I can't be certain, it appears that the parents are showing me a real coldness and lack of sympathy and compassion for the horrendous ordeal that that poor girl went through

Said it before......My son.....key thrown away.