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

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 05:41PM

BloodBath wrote: »

It's people opinions ad they are most likely right.

What do you propose? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Unsupported opinion? It definitely is not unsupported. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit.

This forum is supposed to be people’s opinions on current affairs.
Not wild allegations and baseless speculation.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 05:42PM

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion

Does everything have to be literally explained to you?

If someone isn't qualified to PHD level in the field, they can't have an opinion on any subject?

You must be great crack down the pub.

splinter65 wrote: »

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

Jaysus, it's just getting silly now, you either have severe comprehensive difficulties or your on the troll.

Either way go annoy someone else.

splinter65 · 21-06-2019 05:42PM

mrjoneill wrote: »

Is there evidence of this

None whatsoever. This is the forum of wild speculation and unfounded allegations.

Gadgetman496 · 21-06-2019 05:45PM

Boggles wrote: »

Does everything have to be literally explained to you?

If someone isn't qualified to PHD level in the field, they can't have an opinion on any subject?

You must be great crack down the pub.

Jaysus, it's just getting silly now, you either have severe comprehensive difficulties or your on the troll.

Either way go annoy someone else.

Since when do you need a PHD in order to have an opinion?

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 05:46PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

They’ve proven it, literally, in a court of law. This isn’t a mathematical proof.

It would be naive to think that every verdict handed down in a court of law is the correct one.

I’m just trying to better understand how they’ve came to this conclusion. As I’ve said, I don’t know whether or not he knew. But I don’t see how the jury could be so confident that he knew either.

Just feels to me like the subjective voice had overridden the objective voice. When you take all of the emotion out of it and look solely at the facts. I can’t see the burden of proof being met so clearly as other seem to think it was.

I certainly don’t think he was innocent in the whole thing. Just seems to me like Boy A committed murder clear as day. Boy B is guilty of lesser offences no doubt but I’m not sure about murder itself.

Boggles · 21-06-2019 05:46PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Since when do you need a PHD in order to have an opinion?

That was a question to a poster who insists on it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 05:48PM

splinter65 wrote: »

No, you said in your reply to me that you are confident that he is a psychopath. So now you concede that it’s just your totally unqualified unsupported opinion, yet another wild allegation. That’s fine. As long as we both know then that’s grand.

He’s just a naughty boy then? If boy A isn’t a psychopath then I’d hate to see what the criteria are.

So....you can groom a child by merely being in the same building as them and approx 600 other people and you don’t have to have any direct contact with that child?!? Please tell me how that works?

They obviously talked at school.

Kidchameleon · 21-06-2019 05:52PM

Dual wheels wrote: »

The parents of the two vermin are going to pay a heavy price for their parental negligence, I’d say they are a shoe in for the Gerry and Kate Mccann parents of the year award

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

endacl · 21-06-2019 05:54PM

Oh, ffs.

Unfollows thread...

Eoin · 21-06-2019 06:00PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

You could argue that, if there was something really quite wrong with you.

And if you've put "dad" in quotes because she was adopted, that's especially ****ty.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 06:09PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

It would be naive to think that every verdict handed down in a court of law is the correct one.

True but we know what the jury knew in this case.

I’m just trying to better understand how they’ve came to this conclusion. As I’ve said, I don’t know whether or not he knew. But I don’t see how the jury could be so confident that he knew either.

Someone answered that already - a guy who actually knows the law. He just had to have reasonable suspicion that Ana would be harmed, which he did.

Just feels to me like the subjective voice had overridden the objective voice. When you take all of the emotion out of it and look solely at the facts. I can’t see the burden of proof being met so clearly as other seem to think it was.

You’re wrong and you are not engaging with counter arguments. Just continually musing to yourself about why the DPP, judge and jury got it wrong.

I certainly don’t think he was innocent in the whole thing. Just seems to me like Boy A committed murder clear as day. Boy B is guilty of lesser offences no doubt but I’m not sure about murder itself.

Here’s what they have.

He collected her.
He was there for the violence.
He stayed a few minutes (cc tv picks him up 15-20 minutes after he was seen going in, albeit a km or so away).

It’s not just about the lies.

80sChild · 21-06-2019 06:11PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

I know the prosecution believed it, show me where they’ve proven it?

His behaviour and comments after the fact seem to have been what has convinced most people of his guilt

Murder conviction can be arrived at if:
" a person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, another person who dies as a result. Murder convictions can include situations where a killing was planned in advance;" (law reform commission)

The planning and being in on the planning is likely what secured Boy B conviction. Jury decided he knew he was deliberately putting her in (serious) harms way.

pjohnson · 21-06-2019 06:12PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

Are you so ignorant to use those quotes because she was adopted?

Gotta say this new place is classy.

iamwhoiam · 21-06-2019 06:12PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

How absolutely immature to even think to put her mum and dad in quotes
Its not even worth pointing out what is so awful about it
Sometimes i despair

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 06:15PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

What a thundering <SNIP> you are. Not a real one but an inverted commas one.

AngeloArgue · 21-06-2019 06:15PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

You do have to prove that Boy B was aware that the plan was to seriously harm or kill her.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense and in all likelihood he probably did know what he was doing. From a legal standpoint it’s hard to see how they’ve actually proved that do.

The only thing I can find in relation to intent in Irish law is:

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct

Could we presume that the natural and probable consequences of Boy B's actions point to an intent to cause her harm?

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 06:16PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

True but we know what the jury knew in this case.

Someone answered that already - a guy who actually knows the law. He just had to have reasonable suspicion that Ana would be harmed, which he did.

You’re wrong and you are not engaging with counter arguments. Just continually musing to yourself about why the DPP, judge and jury got it wrong.

Here’s what they have.

He collected her.
He was there for the violence.
He stayed a few minutes (cc tv picks him up 15-20 minutes after he was seen going in, albeit a km or so away).

It’s not just about the lies.

Enjoying the snide remarks. I’m fully engaging with counter arguments.

“A guy who knows the law.” - The Law surrounding Joint Enterprise does not merely state that an accomplice only has to have reasonable suspicion of any harm being done. He would have to have been aware that the intent was to cause serious harm depending on the circumstances in which things unfolded.

Answer me this. Hypothetically, if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

pjohnson · 21-06-2019 06:17PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

How absolutely immature to even think to put her mum and dad in quotes
Its not even worth pointing out what is so awful about it
Sometimes i despair

Its not even the first fúcking time someone has used the Kriegels in comparison to the murderers parents.

Reati · 21-06-2019 06:18PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What a thundering <SNIP> you are. Not a real one but an inverted commas one.

Gets my award as reply of the week.

iamwhoiam · 21-06-2019 06:20PM

pjohnson wrote: »

Its not even the first fúcking time someone has used the Kriegels in comparison to the murderers parents.

But that says a lot more about the posters than about Anas parents . Anas parents have shown such dignity and such love for their daughter and anyone with a brain can see that they were great parents

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 06:20PM

AngeloArgue wrote: »

The only thing I can find in relation to intent in Irish law is:

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

Could we presume that the natural and probable consequences of Boy B's actions point to an intent to cause her harm?

You could reasonably presume that was the case based on the surrounding evidence but I could reasonably doubt that Boy B thought any one of a number of other things was going to happen.

There’s arguments to be made for both sides. It appears the DPP argued their version much better.

The more I read about it, the more it appears the defence counsel made an awful attempt and casting doubt on what happened. They weren’t helped by the boy’s persistent lying but it certainly appears as though they could have done more.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 21-06-2019 06:23PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

Enjoying the snide remarks. I’m fully engaging with counter arguments.

“A guy who knows the law.” - The Law surrounding Joint Enterprise does not merely state that an accomplice only has to have reasonable suspicion of any harm being done. He would have to have been aware that the intent was to cause serious harm depending on the circumstances in which things unfolded.

Yes. That’s why boy B saying that boy A wanted to kill Anna matters.

Answer me this. Hypothetically, if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

No but I don’t believe that he thought, or could reasonably have thought that. We know that A speculated about killing Ana and that they were taking her to a deserted house. Reasonably he should have been aware of potential harm.

Kidchameleon · 21-06-2019 06:24PM

It was obviously not a serious post. It was to highlight the idiocy of wanting B & A's parents & family punished

pjohnson · 21-06-2019 06:24PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

But that says a lot more about the posters than about Anas parents . Anas parents have shown such dignity and such love for their daughter and anyone with a brain can see that they were great parents

This seems to be the major issue. That and attention seeking.

dudara · 21-06-2019 06:25PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What about Anna's "dad" Patrick? You could argue that he was equally if not more neglegtful than them as he let Anna go off with Boy B (who was not known to him at the time). The fact that Anna's "mam" was immeadietly suspicious of this when she found out makes matters worse. Was Patrick so ignorant of the goings on in Anna's life that he let it just breeze past him?

Knock it off with the quotation marks. They are her parents. Show some respect.

dudara

AngeloArgue · 21-06-2019 06:27PM

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

if Boy B genuinely believed that no harm would come to Ana in the abandoned house, but yet every other aspect of his actions before, during and after remained the exact same. Would you still think he’s guilty of murder?

As I have inferred in my earlier post

Criminal Justice Act, 1964 Malice.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

The jury can make presumptions of intent on actions alone.

If we went by your demands for proof of intent nobody could be convicted of murder without a confession.
We can not forensically know the absolute truth of what goes on in anothers mind.

forumdedum · 21-06-2019 06:29PM

I have read most of this thread and lots of articles, listened to radio etc.

Did the Garda only get DNA from Boy A's clothing because he claimed he was attacked? Is it possible that Boy B (or his parents) destroyed his clothing that may have contained blood on shoes etc?

Did Boy B's phone(s) disappear after or close to the murder?

Rest in Peace Ana.

Smithwicks Man · 21-06-2019 06:31PM

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yes. That’s why boy B saying that boy A wanted to kill Anna matters.

No but I don’t believe that he thought, it could reasonably have thought that. We know that A speculated about killing Ana and that they were taking her to a deserted house. Reasonably he should have been aware of potential harm.

We know this because he’s the one who openly admitted it and, of his own volition, he brushed it off completely and didn’t think it was serious.

I guess the jury read more into this comment than I would have, understandably

Wildly Boaring · 21-06-2019 06:33PM

I've read most of this but not the last 30 pages.

On the naming of the 2 assholes.

When an awful crime is committed (eg New Zealand shootings) there is now rightly a conscious effort to not name the perpetrator. Firstly this is to not give them the infamy they crave. Secondly it's to attempt to stop copycats. Third it's to give the focus to the victims.

Perhaps in this case not naming these pricks is best and all attention and future memories can purely be of Ana. Ana's smiling face and Ana's story.

tayto lover · 21-06-2019 06:34PM

I’d love to know what Boy B had in his backpack when he took Ana to the abandoned house to be murdered.

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

Comments