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

Hannibal_Smith · 08-09-2019 6:30pm

volchitsa 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 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?

No where did I say they were legally obliged to say anything. Some one asked why they brought the consent argument in and I showed why.

Again, the full code of conduct is available on the law society website and that sets out situations which may address your extra terrestrial query.

I would think the issue as to whether consent exists comes up in a lot of trials, no?

I know the poor girl fought for her life and i have never, in any post, suggested or questioned her.

Beasty · 08-09-2019 7:39pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Does this warning apply to people blaming the parents of the murderers or can I freely do that? Bear in mind they are innocent

Kidchameleon - do not post in this thread again

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 10:44pm

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.

McCrack · 08-09-2019 10:55pm

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

Monumental · 08-09-2019 10:55pm

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

Three youngsters !! You are sadly mistaken ,two murderers and one teenage girl who was murdered by them

splinter65 · 08-09-2019 11:12pm

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.

Road-Hog · 08-09-2019 11:32pm

splinter65 wrote: »

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

Judges have a poor record on sentencing and bale applications in this country if you ask me....it will be ‘very interesting’ alright......really important not to ‘over sentance’ these two inhuman/sadistic/sexual deviant psychopaths.......the assessments of them and their families currently under way Will allow the judge to sentance with surgical accuracy and they won’t spend any more than an hour more than they should in detention....

Donald Trump · 09-09-2019 2:00am

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 · 09-09-2019 2:07am

Road-Hog wrote: »

I’m sure messrs gagby et al still sleep soundly at night and enjoy the fruits of the fees they earned from this case

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.

Road-Hog · 09-09-2019 3:16am

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 · 09-09-2019 3:28am

Donald Trump wrote: »

I would imagine they use aliases for the initials

Apparently not so.

McCrack · 09-09-2019 8:08am

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

up for anything · 09-09-2019 8:17am

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

Ah stop, you're making out like this purely for gossip thread is not in the vilest forum on boards mostly populated by disgruntled recent regs with a single purpose. "not the proper venue for you"? I do hope this was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

:pac::D

Road-Hog · 09-09-2019 12:19pm

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

salmocab · 09-09-2019 12:33pm

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

They can’t do their jobs based on who might hear though, the family can’t be taken into consideration when building a defense they have to do everything they can to defend their clients. Once things are made unusable based on hurting someone’s feelings then the system starts to break down. It is horrific for the family of the victim but it is due process and without it the perpetrators would be back in court looking for a mistrial followed by another trial where the victims family would have to live it all again. It doesn’t matter if it’s the most horrific of crimes or a bit of shoplifting.

McCrack · 09-09-2019 12:53pm

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 · 09-09-2019 3:53pm

McCrack wrote: »

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.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

splinter65 · 09-09-2019 6:02pm

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 · 09-09-2019 8:18pm

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.

Road-Hog · 09-09-2019 9:23pm

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.......

Flippyfloppy · 09-09-2019 9:42pm

up for anything wrote: »

Ah stop, you're making out like this purely for gossip thread is not in the vilest forum on boards mostly populated by disgruntled recent regs with a single purpose. "not the proper venue for you"? I do hope this was a tongue-in-cheek comment. :pac::D

Why is current affairs the vilest forum? Genuine question

ohnonotgmail · 09-09-2019 9:55pm

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.

splinter65 · 09-09-2019 10:14pm

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.......

Which do you think was better for the Kriegels
1. to suffer the indignity of the attempted slur on Ana’s character by the defense making the allegation, for the length of time it went on in court, followed quickly by the satisfaction of the allegation being blown out of the water so competently.
(there was the added satisfaction of the murderers then being damned as despicable remorseless cowardly liars for even suggesting it).
Or
2. The consensual sex suggestion “not being allowed”in court but then the possibility hanging over them that the “not allowed in court” would be a possible basis for a mistrial?

splinter65 · 09-09-2019 10:16pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is current affairs the vilest forum? Genuine question

I want to know too.

Hannibal_Smith · 10-09-2019 7:33am

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.

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.

abff · 10-09-2019 10:33am

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.

Hannibal_Smith · 10-09-2019 10:54am

abff wrote: »

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.

I don't think his behaviour in interviews proved his guilt on its own. It was a number of things, but I think it was a crucial factor in the whole picture.

The report from the psychologist was an attempt to throw shadow over the interviews. But the judge wouldn't allow it be submitted out of concern that he was deciding whether the boy was guilty or innocent and that was the jury's job.

Also, I'm not saying anything will exonerate him or that an appeal would be successful. How would anyone know that? I'm wondering whether there will be grounds for an appeal. I'm also not saying the conviction should be appealed, but I just wonder that there will be something.

Lux23 · 10-09-2019 10:59am

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.

splinter65 · 10-09-2019 1:52pm

Lux23 wrote: »

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

Let me guess lux. People who don’t agree with you make you very unhappy and angry?

Road-Hog · 10-09-2019 2:46pm

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.....??

splinter65 · 10-09-2019 7:59pm

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.....??

They possibly could be. We’ve no idea what grounds the murderers will be appealing on , if they appeal at all.

ohnonotgmail · 10-09-2019 9:47pm

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.

hetuzozaho · 10-09-2019 10:59pm

splinter65 wrote: »

I want to know too.

Clearly kidchameleon wants to know too

corpusvile · 15-09-2019 11:37am

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.

corpusvile · 15-09-2019 11:42am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

possibly, yes.

I'm not sure as afaik judges routinely accept/reject evidence in trials just as they grant or deny prosecution & defence requests and/or objections. Trials would probably drag on for years if defence were allowed absolutely everything & anything, I reckon.

So I don't know if such things would be grounds for an appeal.

Road-Hog · 17-09-2019 6:01pm

corpusvile wrote: »

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

Mere initials as already said are hardly much good in identifying the true identity of the ‘animals’ in this case.....in the Lucan area I’m sure there would be 100’s of individuals that would share the same initials.

salmocab · 17-09-2019 6:05pm

Road-Hog wrote: »

Mere initials as already said are hardly much good in identifying the true identity of the ‘animals’ in this case.....in the Lucan area I’m sure there would be 100’s of individuals that would share the same initials.

I’m sure in the local area people are well aware who they are. I’m sure people could find out if they really wanted to but there’s no point the information is no good to anyone really.

corpusvile · 19-09-2019 9:30am

Road-Hog wrote: »

Mere initials as already said are hardly much good in identifying the true identity of the ‘animals’ in this case.....in the Lucan area I’m sure there would be 100’s of individuals that would share the same initials.

Well the "true"identity doesn't need to be released but one can't be convicted of murder under an alias. I'm sure they were referred to by name in court & the initials on the court site would have needed to be correct I reckon, even if they're not identified by their full names.

Moonymoon00 · 30-09-2019 9:47pm

Any word on the sentencing ?

Hal3000 · 30-09-2019 9:51pm

Moonymoon00 wrote: »

Any word on the sentencing ?

Doubt we will hear anything. This is Ireland...

tuxy · 30-09-2019 10:09pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

Doubt we will hear anything. This is Ireland...

Are you saying it won't be listed on courts.ie? Very unusual if that was the case.

sullzz · 30-09-2019 10:31pm

tuxy wrote: »

Are you saying it won't be listed on courts.ie? Very unusual if that was the case.

Sentencing adjourned until October 29 and Judge ordered that all relevant reports be made available to the legal teams by October 21.

Suckit · 01-10-2019 1:53am

Anyone any idea what is delaying the sentencing, or why this keeps getting stretched out?
It's not as if Ana's parents haven't already been dragged through enough.
If it's a psychological profile, I am genuinely hoping that it's so the Judge can decide to lock them up longer than he has in mind, but I doubt that is the case.

tuxy · 01-10-2019 2:01am

Suckit wrote: »

Anyone any idea what is delaying the sentencing, or why this keeps getting stretched out?
It's not as if Ana's parents haven't already been dragged through enough.
If it's a psychological profile, I am genuinely hoping that it's so the Judge can decide to lock them up longer than he has in mind, but I doubt that is the case.

As I keep saying it's not the judges decision on how long they get in total. Murder is normally a mandatory life sentence with a recommendation of when it should be passed to the parol board.In the case of minors a life sentence is not mandatory. I would hope the judge is planning on giving a life sentence and he may be taking the time to ensure that he has done everything in his power that would leave the defence with no possible grounds for appeal.
The fact that there is no talk of appeal of the verdict is a good sign and if done correctly it will be the same for the sentencing.
An appeal would be even worse for her parents than a delay in sentencing.

Road-Hog · 18-10-2019 6:35am

tuxy wrote: »

As I keep saying it's not the judges decision on how long they get in total. Murder is normally a mandatory life sentence with a recommendation of when it should be passed to the parol board.In the case of minors a life sentence is not mandatory. I would hope the judge is planning on giving a life sentence and he may be taking the time to ensure that he has done everything in his power that would leave the defence with no possible grounds for appeal.
The fact that there is no talk of appeal of the verdict is a good sign and if done correctly it will be the same for the sentencing.
An appeal would be even worse for her parents than a delay in sentencing.

An appeal would be great though for gentleman like mr. gageby et al......giving them an opportunity to fine tune their skills and reputations......!

Thoie · 25-10-2019 3:36pm

Sentencing hearing to take place next Tuesday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/judge-receives-psychological-reports-on-boys-convicted-of-ana-kriegel-s-murder-1.4062680

iamwhoiam · 25-10-2019 5:43pm

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-restricts-media-access-to-sentencing-hearing-for-ana-kriegels-killers-959799.html

He said he decided to restrict the number of media in court based on his concern, "for the health, welfare and best interests of these children who face the most significant determination to be made in their lives".

He said the boys are under "enormous pressure" and restricting the number of journalists is necessary to ensure that the environment in court creates the "least interference to their dignity and welfare".

Is he for real ? Not a mention of the toll on Anas family or the trauma they live daily

gozunda · 25-10-2019 6:06pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

...

Is he for real ? Not a mention of the toll on Anas family or the trauma they live daily

He did - another account here

Mr Justice McDermott said that during the course of the trial and following the conviction it was clear to him from his own observations and what happened in the trial that the proceedings were taking a considerable toll on the Kriégel family, the accused boys' families and the physical and mental well being of the two boys.

He said he had requested that no more than five members of the media be in court to maximise the least possible interference with the boys' right to dignity, health and bodily integrity.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1025/1085664-kriegel-courts/

I acknowledge the judge has at least to be seen to be fair but I do hope he is at least making a point with the bolded bit.. There was feck all "dignity, health and bodily integrity" shown to Ana by these two scotes - may they rot in hell ...

McCrack · 25-10-2019 6:08pm

He's right not to let it turn into a media circus

A victim impact statement will be given by or on behalf of Ana's family

salmocab · 25-10-2019 6:15pm

McCrack wrote: »

He's right not to let it turn into a media circus

A victim impact statement will be given by or on behalf of Ana's family

As there’s no identifying them anyway we’re really only going to hear the words spoken and some of the people involved reactions. Not sure having half the hacks in the country there will give us much more info.

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

Comments