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

19-06-2019 12:00AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

As before I'd have recommended other charges against him. Those charges would have stuck. This conviction may not and he wouldn't be recharged on other offences.

anewme · 19-06-2019 12:00AM

petrolcan wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

19-06-2019 12:03AM

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)

and in another interview

The first quote is what we've been referring to. Boy B's testimony. What is the second quote and from what source?

Gadgetman496 · 19-06-2019 12:03AM

If boy 'B' had any remorse for leading her to her death, why was she left there for three days?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 12:03AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

As before I'd have recommended other charges against him. Those charges would have stuck. This conviction may not and he wouldn't be recharged on other offences.

So you know more than the DPP and the judge in this case. You’re accusing them basically of not understanding the law on murder, and of bringing a case that can’t possibly be won on appeal?

Because it’s not legally murder.

Huge if true.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 19-06-2019 12:04AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The first quote is what we've been referring to. Boy B's testimony. What is the second quote and from what source?

Ffs. You claim to have read the documents.

Gimme A Pound · 19-06-2019 12:05AM

anewme wrote: »

And what about Ana who died horribly at the hands iof these monsters.

Yeah some weirdly appear less bothered by this terrible case than by stuff they're imagining. The vast majority of people are being level headed.

STB. · 19-06-2019 12:06AM

n97 mini wrote: »

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

All we have to go on ? As distinct from what else ?

And by the way we are lucky there was any reporting at all as the Judge went mental when one of the tabloids printed a front page headline that could have jeopardised the case (theres a contempt hearing in 2 weeks on that) and banned all reporting until it was finished. He changed his mind following legal submissions from the Irish Times and RTE.

The defence may never have used the psychiatrist they had engaged anyway as it reportedly would have also opened up to the prosecution that Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give gardaí. (in the previous 8 interviews)

19-06-2019 12:07AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

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.

As the jury agreed on. But possibly not an Appeal court.

PTSD, psychologist's testimony, no DNA, no forensic evidence, no proof of foreknowledge. All depends how the Appeal judges see it but they'll be very cautious given the public nature of the trial and they'll sift through everything.

19-06-2019 12:09AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

He was convicted of murder. He may be guilty. He may not. But for me the evidence is not strong enough and the Gardai knew that also. They got a conviction entirely due to Boy B's unreliability.

19-06-2019 12:10AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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

Proven what case? My suggestion is that the conviction of Boy B is weak and very challengeable. That of Boy A is solid.

Noveight · 19-06-2019 12:12AM

Delighted for both of them.

Length of rope and a 4 foot drop wouldn’t be any more severe than they deserve.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 12:12AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

My suggestion is that the conviction of Boy B is weak and very challengeable.

It depends on what decade you are living in. I would say there would be uproar if it was overturned.

Mam of 4 · 19-06-2019 12:13AM

How could Boy B have developed PTSD if he wasn't present , or didn't watch Boy A murder the girl he had lured from her home under false pretenses ?

Is that not a contradiction in itself ?

He was present .

19-06-2019 12:14AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

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.

I've given clear facts on what constitutes grounds for conviction. No waffle. No supposition. Just facts.

This is a jury conviction and they felt those grounds were met. I feel it's not a strong conviction and may be reversed.

Strazdas · 19-06-2019 12:14AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

As the jury agreed on. But possibly not an Appeal court.

PTSD, psychologist's testimony, no DNA, no forensic evidence, no proof of foreknowledge. All depends how the Appeal judges see it but they'll be very cautious given the public nature of the trial and they'll sift through everything.

He brought Ana to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere, knowing full well that A didn't like Ana as a person. The prosecution believe A was in the abandoned house waiting. What did B think was going on here?

Hoboo · 19-06-2019 12:14AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Proven what case? My suggestion is that the conviction of Boy B is weak and very challengeable. That of Boy A is solid.

Completely agree. Can't believe B was convicted.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 12:15AM

Mam of 4 wrote: »

How could Boy B have developed PTSD if he wasn't present , or didn't watch Boy A murder the girl he had lured from her home under false pretenses ?

Is that not a contradiction in itself ?

He was present .

We know he did. He admitted it.

And yeah i am pretty sure he is majorly ****ed up from it. Pretty sure boy A is too.

Kermit.de.frog · 19-06-2019 12:15AM

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

n97 mini · 19-06-2019 12:15AM

STB. wrote: »

All we have to go on ? As distinct from what else ?

And by the way we are lucky there was any reporting at all as the Judge went mental when one of the tabloids printed a front page headline that could have jeopardised the case (theres a contempt hearing in 2 weeks on that) and banned all reporting until it was finished. He changed his mind following legal submissions from the Irish Times and RTE.

The defence may never have used the psychiatrist they had engaged anyway as it reportedly would have also opened up to the prosecution that Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give garda(in the previous 8 interviews)

I'm not sure what you're getting enraged about. All we had to go on was media reports. Are you disputing that? I wasn't in the courtroom. Were you? I'm not doubting the media's veracity, btw. Never said I was.

I'm not sure what point you're making in the second paragraph as it appears to be missing punctuation. I think you're saying the defence may never have called Colm Humphries as he might have been cross-examined by the prosecution and said that "Boy B had given information about what he saw in the abandoned house that day, information he had failed to give garda" to quote you.

Calling him was exactly the risk they were willing to take, but the judge ruled it out.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 12:16AM

Hoboo wrote: »

Completely agree. Can't believe B was convicted.

I can't either. I believe it was right though.

19-06-2019 12:16AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

So you know more than the DPP and the judge in this case. You’re accusing them basically of not understanding the law on murder, and of bringing a case that can’t possibly be won on appeal?

Because it’s not legally murder.

Huge if true.

The DPP took a chance on this. And it worked. But if Boy B is freed on Appeal then the DPP have erred in not bringing lesser charges that would have stuck.

19-06-2019 12:17AM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Ffs. You claim to have read the documents.

So, no source then?

Hoboo · 19-06-2019 12:18AM

Strazdas wrote: »

He brought Ana to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere, knowing full well that A didn't like Ana as a person. The prosecution believe A was in the abandoned house waiting. What did B think was going on here?

Is that enough to be guilty of murder? Knowing Boy A didn't like her and intending to murder her are miles apart.

I don't think anyone could seriously consider what Boy A said a few weeks earlier as his intention.

Strazdas · 19-06-2019 12:18AM

Mam of 4 wrote: »

How could Boy B have developed PTSD if he wasn't present , or didn't watch Boy A murder the girl he had lured from her home under false pretenses ?

Is that not a contradiction in itself ?

He was present .

It is the firm belief of the prosecution that B witnessed everything: the sexual assault and the murder in its entirety. Given that B is a pathological liar, there is no reason to believe his claim that he left before the murder was carried out.

letsgo2018 · 19-06-2019 12:19AM

Small Wonder wrote: »

Why do people want then named? What good will it do?

No Good but hopefully lots of bad for those 2 ****ers

Sardonicat · 19-06-2019 12:19AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's an interesting one with Boy b.

He is convicted of murder but from the evidence it appears he was just spineless but didn't have active role in the murder?

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Is doing nothing to prevent a crime a crime?

He was convicted of murder for luring Ana to her fate in the knowledge of what was awaiting her. That's hardly doing 'nothing'.

STB. · 19-06-2019 12:20AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The first quote is what we've been referring to. Boy B's testimony. What is the second quote and from what source?

COURT REPORTING !

Conor Gallagher covered it for the Irish Times. Conor Feehan for The Independent.

You know if you google the quotes, you'll get the answers.

Infact if you read all the court reporting, understand what the jury were asked to deliberate on (and the specific definitions of what constitutes the charges) and watch less Law and Order, it may aid you from posting inane questions and statements.

19-06-2019 12:21AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It depends on what decade you are living in. I would say there would be uproar if it was overturned.

I think you're right as the vast majority of the public (and here) seem convinced of a conspiracy to murder between the two boys. I'm not so convinced. But if Boy B admits guilt then I'm happy to hold my hands up and say I'm wrong.

And don't forget the uproar in the UK when the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were released.

Hopefully the Appeal will take place by 2021 at latest, as is the usual timeline for COA and then it's effectively done with.

Strazdas · 19-06-2019 12:22AM

Hoboo wrote: »

Is that enough to be guilty of murder? Knowing Boy A didn't like her and intending to murder her are miles apart.

I don't think anyone could seriously consider what Boy A said a few weeks earlier as his intention.

You could argue this but why lie for the murderer under questioning? And why not intervene when A attacks Ana? He admits watching the start of the attack.

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

Comments