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

Strazdas · 18-06-2019 11:42PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And he said he didn't take it seriously. If he was so manipulative why would he self-incriminate like that? Kids say loads of crazy stuff so it's understandable that he wouldn't believe Boy A's chatter. And the crucial question for me is why he collected Ana to lead her to a murder scene. Doesn't make any sense.

If things spiralled out of control, why the dozens of lies? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? If he is completely innocent and bears her no ill will, his failure to intervene is particularly incriminating.

18-06-2019 11:42PM

Faugheen wrote: »

But you're basing a case on what you've read in the media.

A legal profession knows what happens in the court room isn't always portrayed as well in writing, no matter the case. You need to be in the court room to get a real indicator.

You, a supposed lawyer, are basing your thoughts from what was written down and having not set foot inside the court room.

Without working on the case I would have no access as general public not allowed and media presence regulated. Thus I glean what I can from the court recorded material. Which is what I do at work too in preparing for a case. Until it reaches the courtroom the paperwork, client's evidence and witness statements are all I have to go on. And with full disclosure of all evidence I can make a fair judgement on the likelihood of conviction or not.

18-06-2019 11:43PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It does he confessed it to a psychologist and a friend.

Confessed what?

redzerdrog · 18-06-2019 11:43PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Maybe a bad one, but a long-qualified one. With most of my experience in the courts of London and the South of England. Dealing with forensic mental health cases mainly. None quite like this thankfully, and none with such youngsters.

Yet you don't know the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist

petrolcan · 18-06-2019 11:44PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I never physically assaulted anyone who didn't hit me first. And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying. Regardless of the latter, not every teen engages in physical violence, and those that do tend to be a lot scummier in general than those who don't. I've never thrown a punch at someone or engaged physically with anyone who didn't start sh!t physically with me first, and your assertion that everyone has is a little disturbing tbh.

To be fair to me, I'd moved the goalposts from 'violent' to 'construed' at that post.

And I engaged in the kind of verbal slaggery and douchebaggery that tends to go on amongst lads but I'm struggling to think of any cases which would be described as bullying

According to you. What did the recipient feel of your 'verbal slaggery and douchebaggery' though?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This simply isn't true. I can count on one hand the number of people I was in school with who engaged in acts of violence on a persistent basis which would be described as bullying. It is not something all teens to, and those who do tend, more often than not, to grow up to be scrotes in one way or another.

Casual slagging and acting the dick are one thing, but those who start fist fights or worse with others and cause them injury, those people absolutely should be taken to task. Teenaged or not. Anyone who throws a punch at someone else for absolutely no reason other than being a sadistic piece of sh!t absolutely should be prosecuted for it.

I agree

STB. · 18-06-2019 11:45PM

n97 mini wrote: »

If called by the defence, Colm Humphries could be cross-examined by the prosecution, but the judge ruled his evidence inadmissible.

The defence were still willing to put him on the stand, knowing he could be cross-examined.

Willing ? The defence engaged the psychologist reportedly to minimise the content of the interviews.

Even if the judge erred in not allowing it, do you think the content will be helpful on appeal given its reported content ?

What about the stuff what the jury did not hear.

18-06-2019 11:45PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Please stop twisting the narrative. He has been FOUND legally guilty. That is not provisional. You should know that.

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

Rubberchikken · 18-06-2019 11:45PM

the parents cant ne blamed for these boys actions any more than the girls parents can be for raising a girl who was described as 'different' to other girls in her dress, behaviour etc.

what they did is incomprehensible to most people but its happened and now they must be dealt with calmly and rationally and do whatever time the judge and the law decides.

as a parent the thought of my childs life beibg taken by another is of nightmare quality but the thought of my child being capable of what these boys were found guilty of is beyond a nightmare - description fails me.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:46PM

Considering everything Boy A searched for and the actions of Boy B.

We need to talk about rape culture.

Gadgetman496 · 18-06-2019 11:46PM

Correct verdict but there will be little justice after sentencing unfortunately.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:46PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

He isn't completely innocent. Maybe it will be reduced its not going to be reversed.

18-06-2019 11:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the probability that he is, indeed, a f*cking scumbag? Who arrives home, finds the Gardaí at their door making enquiries about their children, and isn't at all interested?

So what was it doing there in the first place, I wonder? Clearly either the son or someone else in the family had come to the attention of the Gardaí before.

All the evidence points towards these people being total scumbags.

PULSE system - they may have reported a crime. Or been witnesses to a crime. Or an array of other reasons for dealing with the police.

Or they may be criminals. But face it, you don't have a clue so why denigrate people you don't know. Who may actually have the same character as decent neighbours of yours who have got caught up in an horrific crime.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:49PM

Rubberchikken wrote: »

the parents cant ne blamed for these boys actions any more than the girls parents can be for raising a girl who was described as 'different' to other girls in her dress, behaviour etc.

Being different is a good thing. Being evil is not.

Boy A searched online for images of child abuse for months before this. Yeah the parents have a hand in this.

18-06-2019 11:49PM

STB. wrote: »

Read the bloody court reporting. FULL SUMMARY via Irish Times

Still in his interest to have the psychiatrist give evidence. Hence the defence team's push for it.

n97 mini · 18-06-2019 11:50PM

STB. wrote: »

Willing ? The defence engaged the psychologist reportedly to minimise the content of the interviews.

Even if the judge erred in not allowing it, do you think the content will be helpful on appeal given its reported content ?

What about the stuff what the jury did not hear.

As reported (which is all we have to go on) the defence wanted to explain the constantly changing story.

18-06-2019 11:51PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Correction.
You are not taking it seriously.

You have no idea what Boy B felt. You have never even spoken to him. The Guards have.

That was his evidence to police. Boy B said he didn't take it seriously and the Gardai would not have known about that conversation had he not raised it. Read the court reports for the clear evidence given here.

STB. · 18-06-2019 11:53PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Have read court and media reports. No admissions whatsoever of knowledge of Boy A's plan to murder. Boy B dismissed his talk of plans to harm her a month prior as not serious.

You cant be a practicing solicitor if you do not have the ability to read.

As reported (during one of the 8 interviews conducted)

AS REPORTED wrote:

Boy B told gardaí Boy A had suggested a month previously that they kill someone. He said when he asked who, Boy A replied “Ana Kriégel”. Boy B told gardaí he assumed his friend was joking.

and in another interview

AS REPORTED wrote:

He told gardaí he had witnessed Boy A attack Ana in the house.

Boy A “flipped” Ana to the ground before starting to choke and strip her, he told gardaí.
Asked what Boy A was doing to her, Boy B said he was “raping” her.

petrolcan · 18-06-2019 11:53PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

But face it, you don't have a clue so why denigrate people you don't know.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:53PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

On what grounds? That he had PTSD?
Because aiding, abeting and foreknowledge is all there.
Boy B's statements cannot be used to convict Boy A. So if they left the Doctor's assessment in, they would also let in the fact Boy B stated Boy A had his pants open as he attacked Ana. Thus prejudicing Boy A's aggrevated sexual assault charge.

18-06-2019 11:55PM

Strazdas wrote: »

If things spiralled out of control, why the dozens of lies? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? If he is completely innocent and bears her no ill will, his failure to intervene is particularly incriminating.

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:55PM

petrolcan wrote: »

That is a little disrespectful.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:56PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

He aided and abetted a rape. Really beginning to doubt you are a lawyer.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 18-06-2019 11:56PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. But there will be an appeal. Possibly not for Boy A but Boy B has very clear grounds. And that guilty verdict may well be reversed.

You haven’t proven your case at all. It’s pure waffle.

Nerdlingr · 18-06-2019 11:57PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

That was his evidence to police. Boy B said he didn't take it seriously and the Gardai would not have known about that conversation had he not raised it. Read the court reports for the clear evidence given here.

Why did he raise it do you think?
What advantage did Boy B have to gain by saying Boy A told him he wanted to murder Ana?
To get himself off the hook and shift the blame.

Instead he convicts himself. Lovely.

The jury chose not to believe him when he said he didn't take it seriously. And why should they when he was shown to be a manipulative liar during his garda interviews.
The boy who cries wolf come to mind.

18-06-2019 11:57PM

redzerdrog wrote: »

Yet you don't know the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist

Psychologist here did a psychiatric evaluation. No psychiatrist involved apparently as not deemed to be a mental health case.

n97 mini · 18-06-2019 11:58PM

Strazdas wrote: »

why the dozens of lies? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana?

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present.

The judge already directed to the jury that lying and not intervening are not necessarily evidence of guilt. "There are many reasons why people tell lies" he said.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 18-06-2019 11:58PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not incriminating as he can't be charged for that nor for being present. The prosecution have successfully argued that he was aware of what would happen. Whether that will work on Appeal we will soon see. I'm not sure.

More waffle. Here you are positioning yourself as more knowledgeable on murder than the DPP, or the judge, but it’s clear you didn’t understand the law you were talking about.

ILoveYourVibes · 18-06-2019 11:59PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Psychologist here did a psychiatric evaluation.

They can't. It's misreported.

18-06-2019 11:59PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Considering everything Boy A searched for and the actions of Boy B.

We need to talk about rape culture.

Agreed. And the dehumanisation of a lovely girl.

Strazdas · 18-06-2019 11:59PM

STB. wrote: »

You cant be a practicing solicitor if you do not have the ability to read.

As reported (during one of the 8 interviews conducted)

Boy B told gardaí Boy A had suggested a month previously that they kill someone. He said when he asked who, Boy A replied “Ana Kriégel”. Boy B told gardaí he assumed his friend was joking.

One thing that jumps right out at me here is that B knows full well that A doesn't like Ana, is no friend of hers and does not have her best interests at heart. And yet he calls into her house to bring her to A in a deserted location.

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

Comments