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

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 01:54AM

Seathrun66 i don't know who you are but you are definitely not a lawyer.

Lefty Bicek · 19-06-2019 01:54AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And Chris Mullins got slaughtered for that campaign.

Yet he held his seat in parliament until 2010.

Daily Mail and Telegraph didn't accept their innocence and certainly didn't celebrate their release.

I've already explained why that is so. It's for reasons irrelevant to this case.

Outrage about a reversal of this decision would be similarly unfair if the conviction wasn't justified. We all have the right to a fair trial and if Boy B didn't deserve to be convicted then he'll be released. Why wouldn't you accord him, or any other defendant, that right?

Not disputing any of that, I just say that you threw in a random reference to those cases in the UK, and I don't see any value in the comparison you make.

That is all.

19-06-2019 01:56AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You're a lawyer and you're, by your own admission, surmising on here!
Stick to what you know about the case. The facts as they were presented.
You've presented no solid grounds for appeal or how they might win that appeal on the few hours I've spent talking about this. Only that you believe it will happen. Nothing to back it up.
I hope for Ana and her family's sake that never happens.
Boy B is not some innocent victim of build justice or some embarrassed little teenager.
He partook in the bullying and murder of a young girl and in my opinion was rightly convicted today.
I'm bowing out now so I'll leave it at that.
RIP Ana.

Surmising is part of the work. It's what the prosecution had to do to put things in the mind of the jury. Has to happen as there were no other witnesses. My suppositions were not presented as facts.

You've obviously not read through the thread if you've not seen the grounds for appeal. Look over it tomorrow. There'll be an appeal in 18 months I'd guess. Fair chance of success and then you can rage at the justice system for being wrong. But I'd ask you to look carefully at the evidence if he is freed. The appeal judges will not do it lightly.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 01:56AM

RIP ANA.

Condolences to her family.

19-06-2019 01:59AM

jjnaas wrote: »

Oh dear. Please just stop. I’m getting angry and a bit queasy reading your latest theory re. a sexual thryst gone wrong (a line the defence tried btw). I’m sure women who read it will be raging but also, sadly, not surprised, it’s the go to old defence always trotted out to blame the girl and excuse the boy. I mean really of all the things you now go so far as to imagine B as a naive,fumbling suitor? The boy who openly called the young girl he certainly watched be raped, a slut? It’s one thing to suggest the verdict could be overturned on appeal but these last few posts are very insensitive to the deceased young ladies’ memory and frankly in very poor taste.

There is no blame whatsoever for the girl. How did you deduce that? Boy A had clearly planned to kill her. Boy B may, if not a murderer, may have been hoping for a fumble. He may be a cold-blooded killer but we have to examine all possibilities. This is a discussion on the guilt or innocence of a boy and no aspersions are cast on Ana whatsoever. Read back on what I say and challenge me on the legal stuff but don't state that I am displaying disrespect for Ana.

19-06-2019 02:00AM

Sawduck wrote: »

Its really weird that this is becoming a right wing vs left wing thing, pretty sure the girls family wouldn't want a bunch of keyboard dopes fighting about whos the best, be more respectful and stop pushing your agenda's, left or right, please stop being selfish pricks

I missed that bit.

Sardonicat · 19-06-2019 02:01AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Disgusting post. Utterly reprehensible.
It wasn't enough that she was sexually harassed, thought of as a slut and a weirdo and ultimately defiled and murdered; she's now got some keyboard law expert stating it was reasonable to assume that she was up for it.

Shame on you!

I know it's nearly 3am but maybe reading my post before responding would help. I posited the thinking of Boy B. Not that of Ana. Big difference and your wild leaps don't make sense.
Boy B may be a cold-blooded manipulator and killer. Or he may be an innocent dragged into something by an evil kid. We may never know. But those of you out there calling for the death of these two lads and attacking their parents are doing Ana a disrespectful disservice. Don't use her appalling death to let out your own anger.

RIP Ana

We can all read what you posted. It's there in black and white. It was 'reasonable' for the boy to assume that Ana would engage in sexual activity based on the fact that she liked boy a. A reasonable assumption for him to make, according to you. You can try to reframe it however you like but it won't change the meaning of what you wrote.

19-06-2019 02:02AM

simongurnick wrote: »

B is guilty as sin. Should be hung drawn and quartered along with any scum that defend him.

Thanks man. And if he's freed on appeal you'll say that anyone arguing his case or his potential innocence deserves to be killed.

This was a reasonable discussion earlier. People were in disagreement. Now it's turning into a rage machine.

19-06-2019 02:04AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Seathrun66 i don't know who you are but you are definitely not a lawyer.

Irrelevant what you think my occupation is. But no reason for me to lie. If I did I'd pretend to be something a hell of a lot more glamorous than a solicitor.

19-06-2019 02:06AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

For the last time he did. He said she went silent.

Nope, he stated consistently that he was not there when she died.

Silence could be due to unconsciousness.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:07AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

We can all read what you posted. It's there in black and white. It was 'reasonable' for the boy to assume that Ana would engage in sexual activity based on the fact that she liked boy a. A reasonable assumption for him to make, according to you. You can try to reframe it however you like but it won't change the meaning of what you wrote.

I thought that was awful too.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:07AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Thanks man. And if he's freed on appeal you'll say that anyone arguing his case or his potential innocence deserves to be killed.

This was a reasonable discussion earlier. People were in disagreement. Now it's turning into a rage machine.

Wutever I wouldn't leave boy B around me kids though would you?

19-06-2019 02:08AM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Yet he held his seat in parliament until 2010.

I've already explained why that is so. It's for reasons irrelevant to this case.

Not disputing any of that, I just say that you threw in a random reference to those cases in the UK, and I don't see any value in the comparison you make.

That is all.

Very strong Labour constituency in Sunderland.

Not random but in response to someone who asked me about public outcries in cases being reversed in the UK and Ireland. Those are the most prominent ones to mind.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:09AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone in the legal profession in the uk or Ireland refer to themselves as lawyers?

Some do actually. Even if they haven't practiced in years.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:10AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Very strong Labour constituency in Sunderland.

Not random but in response to someone who asked me about public outcries in cases being reversed in the UK and Ireland. Those are the most prominent ones to mind.

Nothing to do with this.

Nerdlingr · 19-06-2019 02:11AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Surmising is part of the work. It's what the prosecution had to do to put things in the mind of the jury. Has to happen as there were no other witnesses. My suppositions were not presented as facts.

You've obviously not read through the thread if you've not seen the grounds for appeal. Look over it tomorrow. There'll be an appeal in 18 months I'd guess. Fair chance of success and then you can rage at the justice system for being wrong. But I'd ask you to look carefully at the evidence if he is freed. The appeal judges will not do it lightly.

You told other people to stick to the facts on here, yet you're surmising yourself. That's why I called you out on it. Both sides need to stick to just the facts.
You dreamt up the scenario where boy B would have been able to talk more freely about the supposed sexual encounter with Ana if his mother had not been present.
So I ask you this...
What sexual encounter?!! Boy B never mentions anything of the sort. What the hell are you basing that on? He never once mentioned they were meeting up to have sex. You're just coming up with random sh*t that is as bad if not worse than the people your giving out about on here. Pulling stuff from thin air. Stick to the facts.

I've been on here for hours now and read through the thread. I've addressed the grounds for appeal and broken it down in many of my replies. You haven't countered anything, given an iota of evidence or opinion of why they might get off. Only broad sweeping statements.
You've brought the G4 and B6 into it and likened Boy B's case to theirs without any foundation whatsoever.
No doubt there will be an appeal. That's a given. There always is.

19-06-2019 02:12AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

We can all read what you posted. It's there in black and white. It was 'reasonable' for the boy to assume that Ana would engage in sexual activity based on the fact that she liked boy a. A reasonable assumption for him to make, according to you. You can try to reframe it however you like but it won't change the meaning of what you wrote.

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
That does not mean that it is right for Boy B to assume that. He may have been right or wrong. But it is not difficult to guess that would be in the mind of a thirteen year old boy.

And we here are far beyond thirteen so can discuss without huge leaps.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:14AM

wicorthered wrote: »

The sad things is they could easily be out and about by their 18 birthdays.

They'll definitely be free men in their 20s. If the trial information is anything to go by Boy A will do this again.

Yep. And no one will have a clue who he is.

19-06-2019 02:14AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I thought that was awful too.

Seriously? You denigrate those two boys. Justifiably for Boy A. Maybe not for Boy B. And when I say that there may have been the thoughts of sexual intent in the mind of Boy B you dispute that. Makes no sense.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:15AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
.

NO IT IS NOT.

I'm sorry not all thirteen yr old boys are sleezebags. In fact VERY few of them are.

19-06-2019 02:16AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Wutever I wouldn't leave boy B around me kids though would you?

Nope. On that I'll agree. As before I'm unsure of the conviction. Though aware he could be a scheming, manipulative killer. The Gardai simply haven't had the evidence to prove that.

simongurnick · 19-06-2019 02:16AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Thanks man. And if he's freed on appeal you'll say that anyone arguing his case or his potential innocence deserves to be killed.

This was a reasonable discussion earlier. People were in disagreement. Now it's turning into a rage machine.

Screw him and you too for that matter.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:16AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Seriously? You denigrate those two boys. Justifiably for Boy A. Maybe not for Boy B. And when I say that there may have been the thoughts of sexual intent in the mind of Boy B you dispute that. Makes no sense.

CONSENT. I DISPUTE THERE WAS THOUGHTS OF ANA'S SEXUAL CONSENT.

19-06-2019 02:17AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Some do actually. Even if they haven't practiced in years.

All do. Whether they're a barrister or solicitor they'll intertwine the term lawyer with either. Makes for a change of vocabulary if nothing else.

Nerdlingr · 19-06-2019 02:19AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Boy B knew that Ana fancied Boy A. It is reasonable to assume that Boy B thought that Ana and Boy A would be kissing or doing more.
That does not mean that it is right for Boy B to assume that. He may have been right or wrong. But it is not difficult to guess that would be in the mind of a thirteen year old boy.

And we here are far beyond thirteen so can discuss without huge leaps.

More assumptions then.

What about the FACT that boy B also knew that Boy A didn't like Ana and didn't want anything to do with her. How does that fit into your narrative?

ILoveYourVibes · 19-06-2019 02:20AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

All do. Whether they're a barrister or solicitor they'll intertwine the term lawyer with either. Makes for a change of vocabulary if nothing else.

What is with people claiming to be lawyers though if they haven't practiced in 20 yrs and aren't on the roll anymore?

19-06-2019 02:21AM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

You told other people to stick to the facts on here, yet you're surmising yourself. That's why I called you out on it. Both sides need to stick to just the facts.
You dreamt up the scenario where boy B would have been able to talk more freely about the supposed sexual encounter with Ana if his mother had not been present.
So I ask you this...
What sexual encounter?!! Boy B never mentions anything of the sort. What the hell are you basing that on? He never once mentioned they were meeting up to have sex. You're just coming up with random sh*t that is as bad if not worse than the people your giving out about on here. Pulling stuff from thin air. Stick to the facts.

I've been on here for hours now and read through the thread. I've addressed the grounds for appeal and broken it down in many of my replies. You haven't countered anything, given an iota of evidence or opinion of why they might get off. Only broad sweeping statements.
You've brought the G4 and B6 into it and likened Boy B's case to theirs without any foundation whatsoever.
No doubt there will be an appeal. That's a given. There always is.

Surmising and clearly signalled as stuff not as fact. Hard to be confused by it. Facts stated and clearly shown as such.
Nothing stated as fact when it was supposition.

Grounds for appeal are running through the thread. First, and most obvious, is the exclusion of psychological evidence and a witness.

G4 and B6 given of examples of unpopular reversed convictions. In response to someone who said the appeal freeing of Boy B would be unpopular. Which I agree it will if it happens. But it may be the right thing to happen. We'll see soon enough.

jjnaas · 19-06-2019 02:22AM

This is just weird. Why does Seatherun66 have such an investment in the case that he’s posting over and over through the night? I’m in the States but it’s after 3am at home and a solicitor is staying up on a work night to conjure up possible defences of Boy B? Hmmm.

Anyway, the thread was very interesting and I’m grateful to those of you who posted the Irish Times article. Great read.

Lefty Bicek · 19-06-2019 02:22AM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not random but in response to someone who asked me about public outcries in cases being reversed in the UK and Ireland. Those are the most prominent ones to mind.

You're not listening.

I was there. The gutter press played to its constituency, but there was no general public outcry because the general public knew the truth about conspiracy and cover-up.

Like the general public here know the truth that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no racism.

ie The right scrotes have been sent down. Good.

19-06-2019 02:23AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT.

I'm sorry not all thirteen yr old boys are sleezebags. In fact VERY few of them are.

What was in the mind of Boy B then?

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

Comments