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

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.

The psychologists testimony could have prejudiced Boy A's sexual assault charge.
No DNA or forensic evidence is needed here as
Boy B puts himself at the crime scene after luring the victim there and watches the attack take place.
Boy B provided the builders tape used in the murder of Ana.
Boy B and A had a conversation a month previously about Boy A's plans to kill Ana....Foreknowledge.

No doubt they'll probably appeal it. But I don't see what they have to go on to be honest.
PTSD affected him so much that he lied in the interviews? Maybe. The truth still came out though.
Gardai were heavy handed or coerced him in the interviews? Going by reports...not a hope.

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

None of that is enough evidence for a murder conviction, as the judge explained.

For the jury to convict Boy B or murder, he has to have had prior knowledge of the intent to murder, and then to chose to be actively involved.

Nerdlingr wrote: »

The psychologists testimony could have prejudiced Boy A's sexual assault charge.
No DNA or forensic evidence is needed here as
Boy B puts himself at the crime scene after luring the victim there and watches the attack take place.
Boy B provided the builders tape used in the murder of Ana.
Boy B and A had a conversation a month previously about Boy A's plans to kill Ana....Foreknowledge.

No doubt they'll probably appeal it. But I don't see what they have to go on to be honest.
PTSD affected him so much that he lied in the interviews? Maybe. The truth still came out though.
Gardai were heavy handed or coerced him in the interviews? Going by reports...not a hope.

Being at the scene of a murder and doing nothing is not a crime.

Giving someone tape is not a crime.

No plan to kill was ever discussed. Yes Boy A asked B would he like to kill, and that he would like to kill Ana, but no plan, that we know of, was discussed.

Only thing they can go on was that he wasn't aware of Boy A's intentions. I think it'll be harder to prove that he was aware than not. Beyond reasonable doubt being key.

Hoboo wrote: »

I don't think that was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he'll walk on appeal. It might not be the right decision, I don't know, but on the evidence I think the jury made a balls of it.

I would hazard a guess he knew something bad was going to happen to Ana (rape?).

There can be no innocent explanation for bringing her to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere. He knew A didn't like or respect her.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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.

He has admitted to knowing he was luring her.

Plus he likes Pew Die Pie. If that's not enough....

Innocent people don't lie.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Kids can be such cruel cruel c*nts...

They can. Always have been.
Typically many kids who are bullied as teenagers manage to come out of it at the other end without major trauma. It's part of growing up and toughening up.

This poor girl had the great misfortune to be bullied by an utter psychopath and his sidekick. There but for the grace of God go many kids who have grown up with being ostracised and shunned for any one of a number of trivial reasons: not from round these parts, having a squint, having a cleft palate, dyslexia, exhibiting early signs of being gay.

Schools should have a zero tolerance policy on bullying. That could have been my daughter. Or any one of yours.

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Not sure why he'd lie. Could be guilty of something, could be fearful, I don't know.

Why not intervene? He's a quiet non sporty boy, boy A is tall, strong and does martial arts. At 13 you know who to pick your battles with.

What I do know is from the evidence provided, I think it's a pretty weak conviction. Not saying it's right or wrong, I just think it's weak.

n97 mini wrote: »

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.

Enraged ? You were making statements that we have only the reporting to go on. As distinct from what ? Are you used to watching criminal cases on the TV or something ?

Well if your not doubting the accuracy of the published court reporting by journalists, I don't know what your point is/was.

n97 mini wrote: »

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.

Well if you cant understand it, go back and read it again.

Yes, the Judge ruled it out, but I have asked you the question several times at this stage. Do you think they defense would have used it (when it was meant to explain the "inconsistencies" of the 8 interviews) when infact it reportedly would have led to the emergence of even more details that hadn't been disclosed to the Gardai in the previous 8 interviews ?

Also you seem to think think that it could be grounds for appeal, because of the judges dis allowance ?

Is it a full moon tonight or something ? Right I'm off.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Right-wing papers went mad. 16/17 years after unsafe convictions and unhappy they'd been released.

This boy has admitted to the very least luring a girl to a boy he knew was into sexual abuse. Has admitted to seeing her raped and killed. Knew the place inside out in his description. GAVE the killer the weapon. And rather than call police to HELP her, lied for weeks.

He was afraid the other boy would snake him. Which leads me to believe he touched her and there was physical evidence he was afraid they might find.

Strazdas wrote: »

It's very hard to think of an innocent explanation for walking 3km with Ana to an abandoned house where he knows A is waiting inside. He must have told lies to Ana to get her to go there and he knows A doesn't like Ana.

Yep. Snake.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Absolutely. And is now a convicted murderer. But beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so and believe he'll be freed in 18-24 months.

At most i think it will be reduced to a lesser charge. He won't walk Scott free.