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

facehugger99 · 03-12-2019 08:57PM

dublincelt wrote: »

The judge should have stated that any appeals would result in the loss of right to anonymity..

What a stupid suggestion.

tuxy · 03-12-2019 08:59PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

What a stupid suggestion.

You will find such things are the norm when it comes to legal matters in threads on emotional subjects.

White lighting · 04-12-2019 08:20AM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I hope it gets increased

Hes appealing the conviction and not the sentence so cant get it increased. he is more than entitled to appeal it too. I am surprised it took so long to be honest. Was very surprised he was found guilty in the first place.

Faugheen · 04-12-2019 09:10AM

White lighting wrote: »

Hes appealing the conviction and not the sentence so cant get it increased. he is more than entitled to appeal it too. I am surprised it took so long to be honest. Was very surprised he was found guilty in the first place.

Lol.

Have you read anything about the case? Or are you one of those ‘there’s no physical evidence’ types?

He’s entitled to appeal, just he’s being extremely naive.

HeidiHeidi · 04-12-2019 09:16AM

Faugheen wrote: »

Lol.

Have you read anything about the case? Or are you one of those ‘there’s no physical evidence’ types?

He’s entitled to appeal, just he’s being extremely naive.

I'd imagine that his legal counsel has access to ALL the evidence (as opposed to what's been reported in the media), and on that basis thinks that an appeal has a chance of succeeding.

Boy B's naivety or otherwise has very little to do with it.

Emme · 04-12-2019 09:35AM

Why can't this scum (Boy A and Boy

be named and shamed?

Faugheen · 04-12-2019 09:36AM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'd imagine that his legal counsel has access to ALL the evidence (as opposed to what's been reported in the media), and on that basis thinks that an appeal has a chance of succeeding.

Boy B's naivety or otherwise has very little to do with it.

Just like Joe O’Reilly’s counsel and that didn’t do him much good.

His naivety has a lot to do with it. He’s guilty and he still thinks he can get away with it.

ohnonotgmail · 04-12-2019 09:38AM

Emme wrote: »

Why can't this scum (Boy A and Boy be named and shamed?

they are children. Murdering children but still children.

Gadgetman496 · 04-12-2019 09:58AM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'd imagine that his legal counsel has access to ALL the evidence (as opposed to what's been reported in the media), and on that basis thinks that an appeal has a chance of succeeding.

Boy B's naivety or otherwise has very little to do with it.

If his legal counsel told him to shut up? and he listened to them, he'd be home now looking forward to his turkey on Christmas Day.

But no, he was smarter than his legal counsel. smarter than the jury & smarter than the judge (not). The state had no real evidence against him, he willingly supplied it all to them, thankfully.

bigpink · 04-12-2019 10:00AM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If his legal counsel told him to shut up? and he listened to them, he'd be home now looking forward to his turkey on Christmas Day.

But no, he was smarter than his legal counsel. smarter than the jury & smarter than the judge (not). The state had no real evidence against him, he willingly supplied it all to them, thankfully.

What did he supply or say off the script?

Bigbagofcans · 04-12-2019 10:22AM

Emme wrote: »

Why can't this scum (Boy A and Boy be named and shamed?

Plenty of people know their names and have seen their photos.

Their families would be targeted by vigilantes if they were publicly named and shamed.

Faugheen · 04-12-2019 10:44AM

bigpink wrote: »

What did he supply or say off the script?

He placed himself at the scene, and told them Boy A said he wanted to kill her.

All this after initially saying he left her at the park.

juno10353 · 04-12-2019 12:22PM

If appeal is allowed does that mean a complete retrial of Boy B. Does he have to give new evidence as grounds for appeal?8

Gadgetman496 · 04-12-2019 12:25PM

juno10353 wrote: »

If appeal is allowed does that mean a complete retrial of Boy B. Does he have to give new evidence as grounds for appeal?8

An appeal is not a re-trial.

juno10353 · 04-12-2019 01:38PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

An appeal is not a re-trial.

Boy B has appealed the guilty verdict. I believe that to do so there has to be specific grounds eg judge giving wrong advice to jury, new evidence, etc. If the grounds are accepted then the appeal can go forward. What happens then?

knucklehead6 · 04-12-2019 01:42PM

juno10353 wrote: »

Boy B has appealed the guilty verdict. I believe that to do so there has to be specific grounds eg judge giving wrong advice to jury, new evidence, etc. If the grounds are accepted then the appeal can go forward. What happens then?

Either way I’d say this thread will get locked

Gadgetman496 · 04-12-2019 01:45PM

juno10353 wrote: »

Boy B has appealed the guilty verdict. I believe that to do so there has to be specific grounds eg judge giving wrong advice to jury, new evidence, etc. If the grounds are accepted then the appeal can go forward. What happens then?

I'm not sure but it may be reviewed by a panel of judges?

04-12-2019 03:13PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I'm not sure but it may be reviewed by a panel of judges?

Or possibly go to a re-trial. More fun for Ana's suffering parents - he really is a piece of crap. Of course his lawyers don't really care whether he wins or not as either way, they'll be paid their fees.

Patrick2010 · 04-12-2019 04:22PM

171170 wrote: »

Or possibly go to a re-trial. More fun for Ana's suffering parents - he really is a piece of crap. Of course his lawyers don't really care whether he wins or not as either way, they'll be paid their fees.

Can’t go a retrial just because they didn’t like the initial verdict, has to be because there was something wrong with how the first trial was carried out . Like evidence allowed that should not have been or the judges direction.

04-12-2019 05:22PM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Can’t go a retrial just because they didn’t like the initial verdict, has to be because there was something wrong with how the first trial was carried out . Like evidence allowed that should not have been or the judges direction.

I know that. Doesn't change what I wrote, i.e. that one possible outcome of the appeal would be a re-trial!

Gadgetman496 · 04-12-2019 05:27PM

171170 wrote: »

I know that. Doesn't change what I wrote, i.e. that one possible outcome of the appeal would be a re-trial!

Ain't going to happen.

04-12-2019 11:41PM

Emme wrote: »

Why can't this scum (Boy A and Boy be named and shamed?

They can.

04-12-2019 11:49PM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Can’t go a retrial just because they didn’t like the initial verdict, has to be because there was something wrong with how the first trial was carried out . Like evidence allowed that should not have been or the judges direction.

Or new evidence. Which he can introduce whenever he likes as he held back so much from the initial trial. The 'I was just a really scared kid' line is hard to argue with when you're dealing with a 13 year old in a murder trial. He obviously didn't expect the murder conviction, so now is going to tell a different story. That story might be the truth. Or it might be a lie.

tuxy · 04-12-2019 11:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Or new evidence. Which he can introduce whenever he likes as he held back so much from the initial trial. The 'I was just a really scared kid' line is hard to argue with when you're dealing with a 13 year old in a murder trial. He obviously didn't expect the murder conviction, so now is going to tell a different story. That story might be the truth. Or it might be a lie.

I understand that an appeal can be made in light of new evidence. But can it be permitted when that evidence was deliberately withheld by the person on trial?

volchitsa · 05-12-2019 12:01AM

tuxy wrote: »

I understand that an appeal can be made in light of new evidence. But can it be permitted when that evidence was deliberately withheld by the person on trial?

Good question. It's hard to see how it could really help him, he pled not guilty first time, so if he failed to provide the evidence then, it's hard to see how it could be so convincing that it would make a jury find him not guilty second time around - and if he failed the second time, would he provide another version and have yet another go?

OTOH, how much extra leeway does his young age get him? Quite a lot I think.

gozunda · 05-12-2019 01:50AM

Faugheen wrote: »

https://open.spotify.com/show/423eOUseAmEqJNYTKFiVOx?si=AbEEpcaVQH6X2vEgig5Vww

It’s on the Newstalk website somewhere too I’d imagine

Here:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/justice-for-ana-three-part-podcast-series-ana-kriegel-trial-923214

Vicarious Function · 05-12-2019 12:22PM

Maybe he could explain the real reason why he took the builder's tape from his father's shed and explain why he gave it to boy A.

tuxy · 05-12-2019 12:34PM

Could he get a harsher sentence if the appeal finds he had an even greater part in it?
I know it won't happen but technically possible?

n97 mini · 05-12-2019 12:40PM

tuxy wrote: »

Could he get a harsher sentence if the appeal finds he had an even greater part in it?
I know it won't happen but technically possible?

No. The conviction and sentence are dealt with seperately. The only way the sentence could be increased is if the DPP appeals it.

Mr E · 20-12-2019 04:36PM

Mod: Nonsense rumour deleted.

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

Comments