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

McCrack wrote: »

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

I’ll be very interested to read the media reports of the judges remarks at sentencing. This case has affected me very deeply.

headnorth wrote: »

Papers can't print anything that might identify boy a & b , radio & tv the same. And social media folk might get locked up too. Thank god for the courts own website.

I would imagine they use aliases for the initials

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's the legal people's job. They have to represent their client whether they like it or not. And it's important that someone does it. If nobody did it, it would give the culprits an excuse that they couldn't get a fair trial. So you have to allow them to put forward whatever bull**** they like, through their legal team, in order for justice to be done correctly.

Common decency and respect for the victim’s family is not a lot to expect especially given the barbarity of what they had to listen to about the final moments of their daughters life. As I said already the ‘consent was possibly given card’ was so far from the truth that it is shameful that so called professionals would pile more unwanted distress onto anas parents. Justifying such a tactic under the guise of ensuring these degenerates got a fair trial is just so wrong

Road-Hog wrote: »

Common decency and respect for the victim’s family is not a lot to expect especially given the barbarity of what they had to listen to about the final moments of their daughters life. As I said already the ‘consent was possibly given card’ was so far from the truth that it is shameful that so called professionals would pile more unwanted distress onto anas parents. Justifying such a tactic under the guise of ensuring these degenerates got a fair trial is just so wrong

You clearly have an axe to grind with the Judiciary and legal profession and perhaps this thread is not the proper venue for you

McCrack wrote: »

You clearly have an axe to grind with the Judiciary and legal profession and perhaps this thread is not the proper venue for you

I think any right minded individual would have regarding this issue.....,in a broader level I don’t think they are any worse than other sectors but using such ‘absurd theory’ in attempt to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors is reprehensible......the absolute barbaric nature of the attack and having it fully recounted to the kriegel family with every detail of the injuries and examinations described by the pathologist and then to throw in a theory that ‘it could have been a bit of consensual teenage fun/experimentation that got out of hand’ is just deplorable

Road-Hog wrote: »

I think any right minded individual would have regarding this issue.....,in a broader level I don’t think they are any worse than other sectors but using such ‘absurd theory’ in attempt to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors is reprehensible......the absolute barbaric nature of the attack and having it fully recounted to the kriegel family with every detail of the injuries and examinations described by the pathologist and then to throw in a theory that ‘it could have been a bit of consensual teenage fun/experimentation that got out of hand’ is just deplorable

You're misunderstanding what the defence were proposing - and this has been explained already - in respect of Murderer B - his story was that he was arranging the meeting and that the intentions/understanding were romantic and not homicidal

Anyway all this is inconsequential because the jury were not convinced and justice prevailed

There is absolutely nothing reprehensible as a defence Counsel putting a robust defence forward on behalf of their client as upsetting as it may be to the family of the victim provided it is within professional conduct guidelines - this was a murder trial with far reaching consequences for both sides - sensitivities have to be left at the door and the family are forewarned - for example the State Pathologist I believe gave uninterrupted direct evidence for over 30 min of every inch of Ana's body and the injuries/traumas found.

Road-Hog wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The worst possible outcome right now would be that the murderers successfully appealed to the court that they didn’t get a fair trial because all their evidence wasn’t put before the jury, including their position that the sex was consensual.
Then there would have to be another trial and the Kriegels would have to sit through the whole thing again.
We can’t run the country or organize society based on the notion that people’s feelings are paramount.
Chaos would ensue very quickly.

tuxy wrote: »

The Garda did a great job the DPP also did well and I believe it was very important that the defence had the liberty to constuct whatever defence they felt was strongest. All these combined makes the convictions concrete in my eyes.
Much earlier on in these thread there were posters claiming the guilty verdict of boy b was unsafe. We have not heard from them since as there is nothing about the trial they can actully point to where procediures were not carried out correctly.
This case from the very first investigation by the Garda to the jury finding them guilty is a text book example of how such a difficult and desturbing crinimal case should be handeled by the justice system. It's actully a relief to see our police force can perform to such a high standard considering some of the recent scandals.

So you are saying that without the ‘consensual card being played’ we would definitely have had a retrial.......? Despite the barbaric inhuman injuries etc that were all over the child’s body.......

Road-Hog wrote: »

So you are saying that without the ‘consensual card being played’ we would definitely have had a retrial.......? Despite the barbaric inhuman injuries etc that were all over the child’s body.......

if the defence were prevented from entering the defence they wanted that would be grounds for appeal and possible retrial.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is current affairs the vilest forum? Genuine question

I want to know too.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I worry that boyb will appeal. Its not that I find the conviction unsafe as such. Appeal doesn't automatically mean unsafe. But I wonder about the psychologists report of boy b not being allowed in evidence regarding his post traumatic stress.

I wonder will they say that that would have explained his behaviour with the gardai in his interviews.

I don't even know if that would be grounds for appeal, but i do still wonder about it.

It may have been his behaviour in interviews that proved his guilt, but that guilt already existed, so I don't see how PTSD could be used as an excuse to exonerate him.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is current affairs the vilest forum? Genuine question

Because miserable people come here to complain about the world moving on and leaving them behind.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if the defence were prevented from entering the defence they wanted that would be grounds for appeal and possible retrial.

During the trial there were numerous things that the judge didnt allow to be presented to the jury.......are each of these grounds for an appeal as the defence was not allowed the ‘defence’ that it wanted.....??

Road-Hog wrote: »

During the trial there were numerous things that the judge didnt allow to be presented to the jury.......are each of these grounds for an appeal as the defence was not allowed the ‘defence’ that it wanted.....??

possibly, yes.

Donald Trump wrote: »

I would imagine they use aliases for the initials

I don't think that would be possible legally as there needs to be a public record of such things.