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

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 09:12AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Technically, we are all animals, you, me, Ana and those boys. Everyone

Ana is now a dead animal torn to shreds by animals who hadn’t been taught by their parents not to behave like animals.
That’s what separates human beings from the animal kingdom, mostly.
Thankfully most of the rest of us have been lifted above the level of wild hyenas by our parents.

abff · 08-09-2019 10:18AM

I know everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a proper defence, but does a proper defence include lying through your teeth and trying to besmirch the reputation of the victim?

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 10:26AM

abff wrote: »

I know everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a proper defence, but does a proper defence include lying through your teeth and trying to besmirch the reputation of the victim?

Well they lied about the sex being consensual, they were very easily shown to be lying and proved themselves to be not only brutal murderers but lying cowardly brutal murderers in the process.
Ana’s reputation remains as pure as the driven snow.

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 10:55AM

abff wrote: »

I know everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a proper defence, but does a proper defence include lying through your teeth and trying to besmirch the reputation of the victim?

The conduct of solicitors says:-

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and to protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

Interestingly, in relation to times where the client admits guilt (not saying the boys admitted anything to anyone here) but it also says:-

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for
the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction.

Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where
the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client’s innocence.

Kidchameleon · 08-09-2019 10:57AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Well they lied about the sex being consensual.

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 10:59AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

Well they lied about the sex being consensual.

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

She was whacked over the head at the door and her clothes were ripped off her. At what point would things have got out of hand in your mind ?

pjohnson · 08-09-2019 11:03AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She was whacked over the head at the door and her clothes were ripped off her. At what point would things have got out of hand in your mind ?

We've seen enough of kidschameleons mind to know the answer is either never or that its her fathers fault. Dont blame those two angles and their beautiful parents no matter what.

Kidchameleon · 08-09-2019 11:17AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She was whacked over the head at the door and her clothes were ripped off her. At what point would things have got out of hand in your mind ?

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

iamwhoiam · 08-09-2019 11:20AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

None of which matters or has any bearing on the subsequent assault and murder . They attacked her and sexually assaulted her and murdered her on the day she died

Kidchameleon · 08-09-2019 11:21AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

None of which matters or has any bearing on the subsequent assault and murder . They attacked her and sexually assaulted her and murdered her on the day she died

Are boy A & B's parents responsible for that?

Kidchameleon · 08-09-2019 11:22AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

None of which matters or has any bearing on the subsequent assault and murder . They attacked her and sexually assaulted her and murdered her on the day she died

One of them did, not necessarily the other. And before you go nuts, yes they are both equally as guilty for the outcome

iamwhoiam · 08-09-2019 11:24AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Are boy A & B's parents responsible for that?

Why are you replying this to me ?? I never mentioned them . Just goes to show that you simply have a blinkered agenda and can’t even discuss a point made .

knucklehead6 · 08-09-2019 11:33AM

I reckon if Kid Chameleon’s posts were deleted this threads post count would be cut in half.

pearcider · 08-09-2019 11:34AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

Unreal attitude. Can only presume you’re related to them and a bit touched in the head as well. Evil spirits like these two monsters are irredeemable. Lying psychopaths like this are common enough in the prison system if you get someone who works there to to talk about it candidly. Any criminal psychologist will tell you they are utterly irredeemable. Both of them should get a bullet in the head and that would be a kindness.

Road-Hog · 08-09-2019 11:45AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a fair trial means a proper defence. They have a job to do and defending their client is that job.

I'm glad they got a proper defence and pulled out all the stops, they can't complain then that they didn't try everything to weasel out of their crime.

Are you trying to say that if their smug defence team didn’t put forward the ‘consensual’ theory as in it was a sexual encounter gone wrong then the two sadistic/deviants wouldn’t have had a fair trail......and may have escaped justice.....!!!

Road-Hog · 08-09-2019 11:55AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The conduct of solicitors says:-

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and to protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

Interestingly, in relation to times where the client admits guilt (not saying the boys admitted anything to anyone here) but it also says:-

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for
the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction.

Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where
the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client’s innocence.

Note the repeated use of the word ‘may’ in the above.......there is no compulsion/obligation or ‘must’ used so the defence do not have to delve into and put forward theories that they would be full aware would cause further upset to the victims relatives.......barristers are supposedly smart people are they not...? They get carried away with the court room drama obviously......does their arrogance and self righteousness remove the ‘collateral affect’ that putting forward such theories (even though they probably know it’s futile and will be not believed by the jury) can have on the victims family. The same theory was put forward in the case of the animal in Galway who raped murdered the Swiss student......there was claims that it was consensual.....rant over

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 12:02PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nobody knows for sure. All we know is that things got out of hand

No we do know for sure. It was proven in court that it couldn’t possibly have been consensual. She fought so hard against the attempts to force intercourse on her that her acrylic nails were totally shattered and scattered around the room.
A 13 year old cant consent to sex anyway
Very interesting take you have there on what consensual sex is kidchameleon
Was she just a little prick tease kidchameleon?
Led him on?
Got what she deserved?
Truly the mask slips here with you.

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 12:05PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She was whacked over the head at the door and her clothes were ripped off her. At what point would things have got out of hand in your mind ?

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

Again, at what point do you think things would have got out of hand?

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 12:06PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What I mean is, we dont know what was discussed whilst they walked to the house. It could have been anything. We also dont know what the three youngsters spoke about in the preceding days/weeks

Very interesting kidchameleon. So if 13 year old me agrees to sex with you in 3 weeks time then when I turn up to meet you and I don’t feel like having sex you can beat me to death?

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 12:07PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a fair trial means a proper defence. They have a job to do and defending their client is that job.

I'm glad they got a proper defence and pulled out all the stops, they can't complain then that they didn't try everything to weasel out of their crime.

Are you trying to say that if their smug defence team didn’t put forward the ‘consensual’ theory as in it was a sexual encounter gone wrong then the two sadistic/deviants wouldn’t have had a fair trail......and may have escaped justice.....!!!

Huh? What I said is what I posted. Not sure why you're trying to stretch it into something else?

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 12:13PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The conduct of solicitors says:-

It is the duty of the advocate to uphold fearlessly the proper interests of his client and to protect his client’s liberty. He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct. He should resist any attempt to restrict him or his client in the performance of this task.

Interestingly, in relation to times where the client admits guilt (not saying the boys admitted anything to anyone here) but it also says:-

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for
the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction.

Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where
the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client’s innocence.

Note the repeated use of the word ‘may’ in the above.......there is no compulsion/obligation or ‘must’ used so the defence do not have to delve into and put forward theories that they would be full aware would cause further upset to the victims relatives.......barristers are supposedly smart people are they not...? They get carried away with the court room drama obviously......does their arrogance and self righteousness remove the ‘collateral affect’ that putting forward such theories (even though they probably know it’s futile and will be not believed by the jury) can have on the victims family. The same theory was put forward in the case of the animal in Galway who raped murdered the Swiss student......there was claims that it was consensual.....rant over

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

Road-Hog · 08-09-2019 12:20PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 12:23PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Again, at what point do you think things would have got out of hand?

He’ll be back when there have been enough posts for your question to be forgotten about....

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 12:42PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He is entitled to state every fact freely and to use every argument, whether technical or otherwise, that may be used in accordance with the law and within the rules of professional conduct.

It's literally in the post you quoted.

You are free to look at the Conduct of Solicitors and all the rules contained in it on the Law Society website.

Haven't a clue why you're ranting at me tbh :pac:

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

Morally? In my mind, morally no. Morally the two boys should have been marched into the court so they could stand up, plead guilty and spare the Kriegels what they had to endure.

But legally their counsel were instructed to defend them. They pleaded not guilty and used every method available to them to protect themselves.

In my opinion should they have thrown consent into the mix? No. But I'm not their client.

McCrack · 08-09-2019 12:50PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

It was a murder trial ffs... Huge ramifications for both sides

Clearly the defence will put the prosecution to proof and let the jury make up their own minds

The defence have nothing to be ashamed for

mvt · 08-09-2019 12:51PM

Road-Hog wrote: »

I understand he is free to do so but he doesn’t have to......especially in sensitive cases like this one.......but Sensativity is obviously thrown out the window by the defence barristers they put forward any absurd theory no matter who they are tryin to defend......is this morally acceptable...’

For some reason I was thinking the same thing last week.
I appreciate one is entitled to a defence but you ( a barrister) doesn't have to be the one to do it.
You could just say no,even in the middle of a case.

mvt · 08-09-2019 12:57PM

McCrack wrote: »

It was a murder trial ffs... Huge ramifications for both sides

Clearly the defence will put the prosecution to proof and let the jury make up their own minds

The defence have nothing to be ashamed for

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

salmocab · 08-09-2019 01:00PM

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

They can’t insist their clients plead guilty, they can only advise. If they don’t do their best to defend their clients then the whole system will break down and nobody will get justice for anything. Think of the defense as a necessary evil.

McCrack · 08-09-2019 01:00PM

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

No you see I understand the requirements of what a fair trial in due course of law is and the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that applies to everyone regardless of how bad they are

Clearly justice prevailed here and the system works and these murderers will face sentence next month

Road-Hog · 08-09-2019 01:05PM

mvt wrote: »

Totally disagree, a 13 year old girl was slaughtered by these two & everyone in that courtroom knew this.
If you are not ashamed of defending this by not insisting your clients plead guilty, well, I hope they don't ever have their own daughters treated in a similar way.

Ageee. The ‘defence team’ should be ashamed of playing the ‘maybe there was concent card’.......I’m sure they studied the ‘book of evidence’ from the prosecution before the trial and could see the overwhelming evidence against their ‘sub-human sadistic clients’ but still decided to arrogantly pile further distress onto the Kriegels.......justifying it by ‘we are only doing our job’........if there was less brutality and less damming evidence against those two then I could understand it but here I can’t.....,,,plus looking at the age of the barristers it’s not like they were some young guns trying to make a name for themselves......one of them, gagby (I think) was called to bar in 1976

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

Comments