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

McCrack wrote: »

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

Wow...educated & condescending.

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.[/quote

I would have thought the defence was robust enough to without having to include the ‘maybe there was consent’ theory, there surely was other less insensitive theory’s to put forward to cast doubt in the jury’s mind...?

Road-Hog wrote: »

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Everyone gets defense. It's the way the system works.

If we deny people defense when guilt is considered obvious then soon we will have a system where people can't get defense when the guilt is not obvious.[/quote

I would have thought the defence was robust enough to without having to include the ‘maybe there was consent’ theory, there surely was other less insensitive theory’s to put forward to cast doubt in the jury’s mind...?

What parts of the defense did you think was robust?

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 get that, but I don't see where they are obliged to make arguments that have no value in law and that they probably don't believe themselves? (Since firstly consent doesn't exist for a 13 year old, and especially since, as someone pointed out, the poor kid fought back with all her might so clearly was not consenting in any shape or form).

If the boys had said it was extra terrestrials, would the lawyers have been legally obliged, or even wise, to plead that?

volchitsa wrote: »

I get that, but I don't see where they are obliged to make arguments that have no value in law and that they probably don't believe themselves? (Since firstly consent doesn't exist for a 13 year old, and especially since, as someone pointed out, the poor kid fought back with all her might so clearly was not consenting in any shape or form).

If the boys had said it was extra terrestrials, would the lawyers have been legally obliged, or even wise, to plead that?

Why do you think that the argument that the sex might have been consensual has no value in law? If they could have persuaded the jury that the sex was consensual then it might have changed the outcome of the trial.

volchitsa wrote: »

She was 13, she can't give consent to sex, and even if she could have, how would that be relevant to her being beaten to death? She certainly didn't give consent to be beaten to death, and nor did they claim she wanted to be beaten.

But basically there is no such thing in Irish law as consent to sex at 13. As the boys' lawyers will have known. That's their job, unlike the two accused.

The proposition being put forward by the defence for murderer B was that his understanding were the intentions of murderer A were romantic rather than homicidal and that the meeting B was arranging or facilitating was for romantic purposes

The jury were not persuaded by that and rightly so.

uptherebels wrote: »

I think the issue, not just in this case but in others as well, is what constitutes a "defense". I'd imagine to most people a defense in a trial is things like making sure evidence was collected,handled and stored correctly. Tests are accurate,verifiable and repeatable. Police interviews were conducted properly, eye witnesses are cross examined etc etc.
what isn't a defense is a defence team deciding to throw any old ****e out in court, no matter how tenuous or dubious in the hope that something influences a judge/jury.

But the opposite can be true of prosecution, they can throw stuff around to influence too. That’s the job of both sides.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Firstly, it is preposterous to insinuate a fellow poster does not understand consent, I am very well aware that a child, drunk person, mentally retarded person etc. cannot give consent. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong (I am not as up to speed on the sexual aspects of this case as you) but the defense would have used the proximity argument rather than consent. Finally, please don't try to lecture me about morals, I am not the one repeatedly referring to the physical appearance of another persons child, it is not right that you speak of her like that. I'm not having a go at you, I am merely pointing it out as a bystander. Please try to reflect on the words you are using to describe Ana and you will see that they are, frankly, bizarre.

Ready to answer the question about when the consensual sex you say Ana possibly gave consent to got “out of hand” (your very words)?
You’ve been asked several times now. So whenever your ready.

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think that the argument that the sex might have been consensual has no value in law? If they could have persuaded the jury that the sex was consensual then it might have changed the outcome of the trial.

The overwhelming evidence showed that she was severely beaten to death and clothes were ripped off here like some deranged animal would do. The ‘Chatham omnibus man’ was hardly going to be convinced that yeah she consented to sexual activity but it got out of hand.....Ana didn’t like what she was asked to do so the A guy decided he would teach her a fatal lesson that yes means yes and therefore she should pay for this misunderstanding with her life.....fairly plausible alright.....as I may have tried to express earlier ‘legal proffession’ have no compassion....they would have seen the ‘book of evidence’ months ahead of the trial and would have had a fair idea what that their ‘clients’ were going to have a tough time avoiding a guilty verdict especially A. so they would have well planned their strategy for planting doubt in jury.......so to come out with the ‘consensual’ argument shows an absolute robotic inhuman lack of empathy towards the Kriegels and don’t come out with this ‘the law entitles the
To do so line’.......it shows a disgusting lack of compassion and to me is a shameful tactic but I’m sure messrs gagby et al still sleep soundly at night and enjoy the fruits of the fees they earned from this case

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So I never said she gave consent. Again, please look up the proximity defense.

You’ve said enough.

splinter65 wrote: »

If, when the defense see all the prosecution evidence against you, and they know from experience and expertise that you haven’t a snowballs chance in hell of being found not guilty (as was obvious here in the case at least of boy a), would they ever advise you to plead guilty in the hope of it being a mitigating factor in your favor when it comes to sentencing?
Is it possible that the defense teams did suggest that but the murderers, via their parents, wanted to go ahead with not guilty anyway?
It seems like a very bad idea now.

A defendant will almost always get mitigation on a guilty plea and that will be explained to the client. The lawyers job is to advise and clients decides which way to plead. The majority of indictable offences go forward for sentence on full facts basis on a signed or guilty plea.

I can't explain why at least one of these murderers pleaded not guilty but that was his right if he so wished and that choice will have consequences for sentencing