Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…4849515354…247

Comments

  • Options
    #1502
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    The Irish Times article was a tough read. Heart breaking to think what she went through even before the day of the murder. Hopefully the kids who bullied her feel a lot of remorse for their acts. Legally, the fact that murder investigators only get 24 hours to interview suspects seems ridiculous when you consider the number of interviews they had to do with the juveniles and the extra steps they had to take due to their age. Really something that needs to be looked at.


  • Options
    #1503
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,927 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    Yes. She was attacked by boy a wesring a mask the minute she entered the room. She wasn’t sexually assaulted first.

    That answers that question then. Thank you


  • Options
    #1504
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,538 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The mandatory sentence for murder is life, there is no remission for pleading guilty early like there is for other charges. A lot of solicitors will advise their clients of this. They will also advise that if it does go to trial there is a very small chance that the trial will collapse on a technicality etc so there is a small % chance they will get off.

    That would be if they were adults.

    The judge has discretion of what sentence to impose, if it was a mandatory life sentence they would have got it yesterday. He still has that option.

    If Boy A's legal team did not explain to him that if he pleads guilty and shows remorse this will be taken into account in sentencing then they failed him professionally. I'd be astonished if they didn't though.

    Boy A didn't offer a defense apart from suppression of evidence, in reality his defense started yesterday when he was found guilty.


  • Options
    #1505
    Samuel Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Samuel Vimes


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The mandatory sentence for murder is life, there is no remission for pleading guilty early like there is for other charges. A lot of solicitors will advise their clients of this. They will also advise that if it does go to trial there is a very small chance that the trial will collapse on a technicality etc so there is a small % chance they will get off.

    No
    There is no mandatory sentence for murder where the convicted person is a child- under the Childrens Act the judge has discretion as to what sentence to impose.


  • Options
    #1506
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    vicwatson wrote: »
    Easier said than done

    Absolutely . I am not saying its easy , raising teens never was . But it takes effort involvement and for a few years putting your own needs in second place


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1507
    Sawduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,711 ✭✭✭Sawduck


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    I missed that bit.

    Read your posts then


  • Options
    #1508
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    vicwatson wrote: »
    Easier said than done

    At least trying is something just saying there are all at it, a well what can you do is not really good enough. It is not blaming parents some parent do need more help with holding the line society has to support them in some way with doing that.

    The parents I know who did best with this were basically tough nuts who more or less took the line of their will was stronger than the childs and no amount of perstre power was going to work. I know its hard.


  • Options
    #1509
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Absolutely . I am not saying its easy , raising teens never was . But it takes effort involvement and for a few years putting your own needs in second place

    That is blaming parents its not as simple as that if one parent holds the line you can bet others are not so the child will just get access to it from thier friends unmonitored phone society has to back up the parents and make it easier.


  • Options
    #1510
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    "tried as adults" has no meaning in an irish court.

    ?

    Pretty sure it does and they were, by and large, with some exemptions (from having to see the evidence of the brutality).


  • Options
    #1511
    SteelyDanJalapeno
    Registered Users Posts: 14,237 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    nevermind


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1512
    Sundance_Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 364 ✭✭Sundance_Kid


    I missed parts of the trial due to being away but a couple of questions,someone may be able to answer

    1. Did they show interviews with Boy A in court? Seemed to be mostly Boy B interviews that were shown. Was it a case of Boy A saying "No comment" to all interview questions? And then just trying to get Boy B to be the one to confirm it was Boy A?

    2. Semen or DNA (cant remember which or if both the same thing) from a third unidentified source was found on her top. Seems strange if it was semen from someone else, how it got there. Did someone come across her body after or something.


  • Options
    #1513
    davyboy1975
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭davyboy1975


    Looks like redfm could be in trouble for naming one of the boys this morning.


  • Options
    #1514
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    "tried as adults" has no meaning in an irish court.


    Under the Children's Act it does. Minors accused of a crime attracting a tariff less than 12 months are prosecuted in the Children's Court. The nature of this crime and the tariff it attracts upon a guilty verdict meant it had to be heard in the Central Criminal Court.


  • Options
    #1515
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    davyboy1975 wrote: »
    Looks like redfm could be in trouble for naming one of the boys this morning.


    Was it a presenter or caller?


  • Options
    #1516
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,230 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sundance_Kid wrote: »
    I missed parts of the trial due to being away but a couple of questions,someone may be able to answer

    1. Did they show interviews with Boy A in court? Seemed to be mostly Boy B interviews that were shown. Was it a case of Boy A saying "No comment" to all interview questions? And then just trying to get Boy B to be the one to confirm it was Boy A?

    Can't answer the second one, but from what I've read videos of interviews are rarely shown, rather transcripts are read out and the garda or detectives testify about it. There was no point in watching Boy A's interviews as most of it was no comment etc, plus they had ample other evidence against Boy A. However the case against Boy B largely hinged on his interviews and changing his story 8-9 times, so his interviews alone were a key piece of evidence against him. Hence why they watched all his interviews.


  • Options
    #1517
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,150 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Under the Children's Act it does. Minors accused of a crime attracting a tariff less than 12 months are prosecuted in the Children's Court. The nature of this crime and the tariff it attracts upon a guilty verdict meant it had to be heard in the Central Criminal Court.

    well no it doesn't. Serious crimes committed by children are tried in the central criminal court but the childrens act still applies so they are not "tried as adults". they are just tried in an adult court.


  • Options
    #1518
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Sundance_Kid wrote: »
    I missed parts of the trial due to being away but a couple of questions,someone may be able to answer

    1. Did they show interviews with Boy A in court? Seemed to be mostly Boy B interviews that were shown. Was it a case of Boy A saying "No comment" to all interview questions? And then just trying to get Boy B to be the one to confirm it was Boy A?

    2. Semen or DNA (cant remember which or if both the same thing) from a third unidentified source was found on her top. Seems strange if it was semen from someone else, how it got there. Did someone come across her body after or something.

    1) there was a ton of forensic evidence linking boy a to the crime.
    2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.


  • Options
    #1519
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    mariaalice wrote: »
    That is blaming parents its not as simple as that if one parent holds the line you can others are not so the child will just get access to it from thier friends unmonitored phone society has to back up the parents and make it easier.

    I didn’t say it was easy . Its not but parents must be in control as much as they can


  • Options
    #1520
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well no it doesn't. Serious crimes committed by children are tried in the central criminal court but the childrens act still applies so they are not "tried as adults". they are just tried in an adult court.


    Right, like I said. Children are tried under the provisions of the Children's Act, which means it has a statutory basis.


  • Options
    #1521
    screamer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭screamer


    I hope the precedence from another teen case leads to these two ****s being named when they reach 18. It should be branded on them so we all know who they are and the risk they pose to everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1522
    InTheShadows
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭InTheShadows


    davyboy1975 wrote: »
    Looks like redfm could be in trouble for naming one of the boys this morning.

    It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.


  • Options
    #1523
    Flippyfloppy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    InTheShadows wrote: »
    It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.

    It could affect their sentencing!


  • Options
    #1524
    davyboy1975
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭davyboy1975


    InTheShadows wrote: »
    It's all over social media and the internet. It's a stupid rule anyway. Once they are found guilty screw them.

    True but also means the parents will forever be abused and possibly hounded out of their house for something that wasnt down to them or which wasnt their fault entirely


  • Options
    #1525
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Flippyfloppy wrote: »
    It could affect their sentencing!


    Naming them would have had a potentially predjudicial effect on the trial as we know the media wouldn't be able to help themselves during the trial, but it's not going to prejudice the presiding judge - who after all, knows quite well who they are.


  • Options
    #1526
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Lehiff - you should probably take that down.


  • Options
    #1527
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,538 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Well that's the thread.

    Idiot.


  • Options
    #1528
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    Risking jail to post a pic. What an idiot.


  • Options
    #1529
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    1) there was a ton of forensic evidence linking boy a to the crime.
    2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.

    Surely they would have been able to ascertain if the DNA was boy B's?

    I think that if Boy B had told the truth from the start he wouldnt have received any custodial sentence since there is a lack of any real evidence against him and we dont have Joint Enterprise here.

    I'm not that concerned with him changing his story, he is a kid afterall, but his demeanour during the interviews seems to have been pretty disturbing.


  • Options
    #1530
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,111 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    So many cretins sharing photos online. Here and elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1531
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,230 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    2) personally I believe that probably, if that was indeed different dna, that was boy b. We only have his word for it that he left the scene and he kept changing that story to put himself closer every day. His last claim, to the shrink, was that he was there for the rape at least. Anyway it wasn’t admissible.

    Surely they would have checked Boy B's DNA, no? No forensic evidence of Boy B was found at the scene, so they would have checked Boy B to see if his DNA matched the unidentified DNA that was found.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement