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

The Rapture · 21-06-2019 02:16PM

The sentencing will be interesting as I don't believe there is a defined life term for a minor.
Will Boy B be granted any leniency based on that shadow od doubt as to his involvement ?

wiggle16 · 21-06-2019 02:17PM

Boggles wrote: »

It hasn't been established who took the photo, unless I am missing something, apart from Ana telling her mother it was another girl.

That was the quote from the mother in court. On that basis she immediately went looking for her.

Something doesn't quite add up.

What is it that you don't think adds up? And what are you taking it to imply?

I had friends in school I never, ever saw outside of school. No one ever called for Ana, so it was unusual for her to be out like that, which is what concerned her mother.

dickangel · 21-06-2019 02:17PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

anyway, it's a minor point, if I'm missing something, fine.
My macro-point was, the defence arguments - both of them - were pathetic, reachy, embarrassing and desperate.

That's all you can do when there's overwhelming evidence against you. Boy B maybe had a better defence but he had already hung himself.

Penn · 21-06-2019 02:19PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

I know but he didn't ADMIT it. And his defence didn't admit it. Their plea was not guilty, he wasn't there.

So
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there

'can we change to Manslaughter: guilty, was there?'

'no you can't.'

"ok well, it's back to
Murder: not guilty, wasn't there' then"

I must be missing something, let me continue to follow the conversation.

He wouldn't have to change his story though for them to change to manslaughter.

The trial begins with the full presumption of innocence of the defendant. It's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty. The defense in trying to claim what happened could have been down to things going too far and that what happened wasn't planned, they're simply trying to introduce doubt in the prosecution's case, and pointing out that the prosecution haven't proven Boy A fully planned what happened.

That's the role of the defense. Not to prove innocence (as the defendant begins with the presumption of innocence), but to point out holes/flaws/inconsistencies/guesswork or similar in the prosecution's argument, and introduce as much doubt in the minds of the jurors as possible.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:19PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

No there was no admission by Boy A or Boy B

thanks, at least I know I didn't miss it, whether it proves anything or not.

tuxy · 21-06-2019 02:20PM

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

Many have asked why Boy A didn't place some of the blame on Boy B after he found out Boy B was talking.
But it makes perfect sense, whether Boy A had an accomplice or not would not have diminished his responsibility for the crime.
The only way he was going free was if somehow there was a massive blunder with the forensics but he could still be found responsible if he had talked at all, so he stayed quiet and may continue to do so as I don't think talking will help him gain early release.

wiggle16 · 21-06-2019 02:21PM

The Rapture wrote: »

The sentencing will be interesting as I don't believe there is a defined life term for a minor.
Will Boy B be granted any leniency based on that shadow od doubt as to his involvement ?

The only precedent I believe is a case from the early 2000's where a minor was sentenced to life, with a review after ten years, which I think was a result of the judge trying to find a compromise between the seriousness of the crime and the age of the perpetrator.

In work now so I can't find a link to the case but if I do I'll post it.

I think one way or the other there will be uproar over the sentence(s). Hard to see how a judge can balance their age, the crime, and the contraints imposed upon him by the law to make the sentence fit.

dickangel · 21-06-2019 02:22PM

tuxy wrote: »

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

Many have asked why Boy A didn't place some of the blame on Boy B after he found out Boy B was talking.
But it makes perfect sense, whether Boy A had an accomplice or not would not have diminished his responsibility for the crime.
The only way he was going free was if somehow there was a massive blunder with the forensics but he could still be found responsible if he had talked at all, so he stayed quiet and may continue to do so as I don't think talking will help him gain early release.

He (or his solicitor) may have thought that blaming Boy B would have descended into tit for tat divulging of information also. The Guards would have loved the opportunity to play them off each other.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:25PM

Penn wrote: »

He wouldn't have to change his story though for them to change to manslaughter.

The trial begins with the full presumption of innocence of the defendant. It's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty. The defense in trying to claim what happened could have been down to things going too far and that what happened wasn't planned, they're simply trying to introduce doubt in the prosecution's case, and pointing out that the prosecution haven't proven Boy A fully planned what happened.

That's the role of the defense. Not to prove innocence (as the defendant begins with the presumption of innocence), but to point out holes/flaws/inconsistencies/guesswork or similar in the prosecution's argument, and introduce as much doubt in the minds of the jurors as possible.

OK I hear you, and I'm asking this respectfully, not sarcastically

does that mean Boy A's defence can go from not guilty of murder (on the grounds that he maintained he wasn't even at the murder site) to guilty of manslaughter (inherently admitting he WAS at the murder site) BACK to not guilty of murder if a manslaughter application isn't successful (contradicting himself).
If it does, fine. I understand what you're saying, it's not to defend his innocence (which is taken as given), it's to poke holes in the prosecutions claim that he's guilty (and sway the jury). Thanks for answering.

mrjoneill · 21-06-2019 02:27PM

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

They could offer an earlier parole hearing or perhaps an extended length of time before your first parole hearing if you plead not guilty.

Also, I hate that they sentence someone to “life”. It doesn’t even mean life so why say that meaningless word.

Life means they are on license on release & have to be on their best behavior or its back in. Unlike manslaughter it ends with the serving of the sentence murder give the Gardai & the Prison services a life time control.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:28PM

tuxy wrote: »

Not talking is different from claiming not to be there.

Boy A's defence was to not say anything and hope the Garda would slip up with evidence and failing that see if the judge would allow the possibility of a manslaughter verdict. I'm not even sure how serious the manslaughter angle was it sounded like the defence just had no other possible route.

cool, I hear you

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 02:28PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I'm not implying anything. I'm just posing questions and wonderances about this whole case trying to make sense of it all.

I have a curiosity about what exactly happened in this case, just like I did in the Graham Dwyer case and Bobby Ryan case....

You're looking for answers that no one can give. Nothing more than wild speculation would result from an attempt to answer them.

We know exactly what happened

No one can tell you why some things didn't happen or why Ana was so trusting (aside from the evidence of her naive and trusting nature and desperation for friends and approval from her peers that was presented in court)

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:29PM

I agree.

Gavtronik · 21-06-2019 02:30PM

dickangel wrote: »

That's all you can do when there's overwhelming evidence against you. Boy B maybe had a better defence but he had already hung himself.

I agree.

The Rapture · 21-06-2019 02:32PM

wiggle16 wrote: »

The only precedent I believe is a case from the early 2000's where a minor was sentenced to life, with a review after ten years, which I think was a result of the judge trying to find a compromise between the seriousness of the crime and the age of the perpetrator.

In work now so I can't find a link to the case but if I do I'll post it.

I think one way or the other there will be uproar over the sentence(s). Hard to see how a judge can balance their age, the crime, and the contraints imposed upon him by the law to make the sentence fit.

Another juristiction but Thompson/Venables both served 8 years.
I wonder if Boy A will exceed that.

Penn · 21-06-2019 02:37PM

Gavtronik wrote: »

OK I hear you, and I'm asking this respectfully, not sarcastically

does that mean Boy A's defence can go from not guilty of murder (on the grounds that he maintained he wasn't even at the murder site) to guilty of manslaughter (inherently admitting he WAS at the murder site) BACK to not guilty of murder if a manslaughter application isn't successful (contradicting himself).
If it does, fine. I understand what you're saying, it's not to defend his innocence (which is taken as given), it's to poke holes in the prosecutions claim that he's guilty (and sway the jury). Thanks for answering.

Pretty much, yeah. It's their role to get a not guilty verdict, or if not to get the lesser charge possible. I think given the evidence against him they knew he was going to be found guilty of something. Pointing out things such as that her death may not have been planned but was just a case of things going too far by itself doesn't hold much weight, but it's the defenses role to do that for almost everything the prosecution says. To offer an alternative version of what may have happened, thereby trying to weaken the prosecution's case by showing the prosecution's version of events may not be true (beyond a reasonable doubt).

So they likely didn't admit that Boy A was there, but rather felt their best chance was to introduce the idea it was possibly an accident and wasn't planned and hope that if he was to be found guilty of anything, it'd be the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 02:38PM

wiggle16 wrote: »

What is it that you don't think adds up? And what are you taking it to imply?

I had friends in school I never, ever saw outside of school. No one ever called for Ana, so it was unusual for her to be out like that, which is what concerned her mother.

I think it is unusual she said "She had no friends" when she clearly did. Now she may have meant she had no friends who would call for her which is fair enough.

But even still, Ana had only left the house literally minutes when her mother got home and she started freaking out. Her father didn't appear to be one bit concerned.

My implication is, it doesn't make sense to me that Boy B just calls out of the blue and convinces Ana to go to an abandoned house that is 3km away.

The mother also has access to all Ana's digital profile and finds a picture of her bound and gagged in a chair a week before she is brutally murdered by a psychopath with a taste for torture.

I think the mother knew something was up with Ana and that's why she freaked out that day.

My main point is though I think Ana was groomed for brutal murder long before May 14th.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 02:52PM

Boggles wrote: »

I think it is unusual she said "She had no friends" when she clearly did. Now she may have meant she had no friends who would call for her which is fair enough.

But even still, Ana had only left the house literally minutes when her mother got home and she started freaking out. Her father didn't appear to be one bit concerned.

My implication is, it doesn't make sense to me that Boy B just calls out of the blue and convinces Ana to go to an abandoned house that is 3km away.

The mother also has access to all Ana's digital profile and finds a picture of her bound and gagged in a chair a week before she is brutally murdered by a psychopath with a taste for torture.

I think the mother knew something was up with Ana and that's why she freaked out that day.

My main point is though I think Ana was groomed for brutal murder long before May 14th.

Tell us what you think was really going on, that the Gardai missed.

Somedaythefire · 21-06-2019 02:53PM

I assumed the "she had no friends" specifically meant she had no friends that called for her out of the blue outside school and her cousin.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 02:54PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Tell us what you think was really going on, that the Gardai missed.

Who says the Gardai missed anything?

The prosecution presents what evidence it thinks is best to gain a conviction, that's not up to the Gardai.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 02:56PM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

You'd have thought there'd have been some messages between some of the 3 parties in the days before hand.

Or even any talk of interactions at school?

Ana supposedly said she liked Boy A, I wonder how long before it happened was that and who was involved.

Why would the boys need to be messaging one another when they were together all day every day at school?!?
Why on earth would either of them message Ana?

Theboinkmaster · 21-06-2019 02:56PM

Boggles wrote: »

The mother also has access to all Ana's digital profile and finds a picture of her bound and gagged in a chair a week before she is brutally murdered by a psychopath with a taste for torture.

Sorry maybe I missed something, whats this now?

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 03:02PM

Boggles wrote: »

Who says the Gardai missed anything?

The prosecution presents what evidence it thinks is best to gain a conviction, that's not up to the Gardai.

Okay

So the truth of the matter is you are inclined to wild speculation and are astonishingly ignorant of the law. It's not that you're trying to cast vile aspertions on a family who have lost a beautiful child in an horrific act of callous and pre-meditated murder.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:05PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Sorry maybe I missed something, whats this now?

Her mother went to the school complaining that she was being bullied online, it turned out that some at least of the bullying was by Ana herself under numerous fake accounts.

As a punishment the mother had full access to her phone, a few days before her murder she found a staged picture of her taped to a chair blind folded.

Ana said she was messing around with a friend.

I struggling to see that as a coincidence.

Sardonicat · 21-06-2019 03:05PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Sorry maybe I missed something, whats this now?

It's nothing new. It was reported on at the time. And it was entirely innocent and unrelated.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:06PM

Boggles wrote: »

Who says the Gardai missed anything?

The prosecution presents what evidence it thinks is best to gain a conviction, that's not up to the Gardai.

The Gardai present all their evidence to the prosecution so that the prosecution can make their case.
Ana’s family were very concerned about her. She was in counseling to deal with her many issues.
You are implying that Ana’s mother overreacted to the news that her daughter had left the house in a highly unusual situation with a boy they didn’t know. You have stated that this means her mother knew more then she’s letting on. You also state that Ana was groomed. By who?

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:06PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Okay

So the truth of the matter is you are inclined to wild speculation and are astonishingly ignorant of the law. It's not that you're trying to cast vile aspertions on a family who have lost a beautiful child in an horrific act of callous and pre-meditated murder.

Do you have only one gear, Outrage?

It must be fair tiring.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:10PM

splinter65 wrote: »

The Gardai present all their evidence to the prosecution so that the prosecution can make their case.

Where did I say they didn't?

The DPP and the prosecution build the case and pick the relevant evidence in the best effort to secure a conviction.

splinter65 wrote: »

You also state that Ana was groomed. By who?

Who do you think?

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 03:11PM

Boggles wrote: »

Where did I say they didn't?

The DPP and the prosecution build the case and pick the relevant evidence in the best effort to secure a conviction.

Who do you think?

No you answer boggles. You said she was groomed. Who groomed her and how and when?

Boggles · 21-06-2019 03:11PM

splinter65 wrote: »

No you answer boggles. You said she was groomed. Who groomed her and how and when?

Seriously?

Boy A obviously.

Da Fuq?

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

Comments