kids killing kids

[Dr. Martin Gooter Bling]

reading their wig's closing statements is infuriating.
the spoofing cunts should be waterboarded after the trial indefinitely.

[john m]

Judge is basically telling them to ignore the evedence because they are kids and might not be telling the truth ....The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old, Ana Kriégel has told the jurors to exclude normal human sympathy and empathy from their deliberations.

Mr Justice Paul McDermott has begun his summing up of the case to the jury.

Both 14-year-old boys deny murdering the schoolgirl at an abandoned house in Lucan in May last year.

The first accused boy also denies aggravated sexual assault.

Mr Justice McDermott told the jurors they should bring their life experience to bear on the facts of this case, including their experience of childhood and of telling lies.

He said a murder trial would normally attract high emotion and feelings and very, very strong emotions ran in this case "for obvious reasons".

He said it was essential for the jurors to be independent in mind and act on the evidence.

He said it would be impossible not to have sympathy and empathy for the bereaved family in this case.

And it would also be impossible not to have a degree of empathy for the families of the accused boys and the situation they had been placed in.

But he said they must clinically analyse the facts of the case and exclude the normal sympathy and empathy they would have.

He suggested they might find it useful to consider the evidence against Boy A first before proceeding to consider the evidence against Boy B.

He said that was the way the prosecution had presented the case.

He also reminded them that the accused were very young as were some of the witnesses and this should have some bearing on the way the jurors approached the evidence.

Mr Justice McDermott said there had been limited cross examination in the trial.

What would be a matter of great importance to the jurors would be the interpretation of the sequence of events put before them.

The boys were entitled not to give evidence in their own defence he said, and that could not be held against them.



The judge said they should examine carefully what both boys said in garda interviews along with all the other evidence in the case.

But he warned them that they could not rely on something said by one co-accused when considering the case against the other boy.

Mr Justice McDermott said the jurors should carefully consider whether they could draw inferences from certain facts.

He suggested they might consider, for example, evidence about a copy book containing information about a "satanic club" to be a distraction or irrelevant to the real issues in the case.

He told them not to put strained interpretations on what they would normally regard as "teenage messing".

The judge said he had "considerably more" to say to the jurors and the issues in this case were very serious.

He'll resume his charge to them in the morning.

[Belker]

I reckon boy A is guilty as sin offering no defense that could be cross-examined and hoping that the court might if allowed accept a manslaughter charge. The forensic evidence against him is too damming fer him to even try to attempt to wriggle away from.
Boy B I reckon had a pretty good understanding of what was going on, his crusade of lies might even help him as it's pretty hard to know which is the lie and which is the truth, which makes his case ambiguous in the jurors eyes and creates reasonable doubt, so he might get a 'Walk'.

[The Liffey Lip]

Judge is basically telling them to ignore the evedence because they are kids and might not be telling the truth ....The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old, Ana Kriégel has told the jurors to exclude normal human sympathy and empathy from their deliberations.

Mr Justice Paul McDermott has begun his summing up of the case to the jury.

Both 14-year-old boys deny murdering the schoolgirl at an abandoned house in Lucan in May last year.

The first accused boy also denies aggravated sexual assault.

Mr Justice McDermott told the jurors they should bring their life experience to bear on the facts of this case, including their experience of childhood and of telling lies.

He said a murder trial would normally attract high emotion and feelings and very, very strong emotions ran in this case "for obvious reasons".

He said it was essential for the jurors to be independent in mind and act on the evidence.

He said it would be impossible not to have sympathy and empathy for the bereaved family in this case.

And it would also be impossible not to have a degree of empathy for the families of the accused boys and the situation they had been placed in.

But he said they must clinically analyse the facts of the case and exclude the normal sympathy and empathy they would have.

He suggested they might find it useful to consider the evidence against Boy A first before proceeding to consider the evidence against Boy B.

He said that was the way the prosecution had presented the case.

He also reminded them that the accused were very young as were some of the witnesses and this should have some bearing on the way the jurors approached the evidence.

Mr Justice McDermott said there had been limited cross examination in the trial.

What would be a matter of great importance to the jurors would be the interpretation of the sequence of events put before them.

The boys were entitled not to give evidence in their own defence he said, and that could not be held against them.



The judge said they should examine carefully what both boys said in garda interviews along with all the other evidence in the case.

But he warned them that they could not rely on something said by one co-accused when considering the case against the other boy.

Mr Justice McDermott said the jurors should carefully consider whether they could draw inferences from certain facts.

He suggested they might consider, for example, evidence about a copy book containing information about a "satanic club" to be a distraction or irrelevant to the real issues in the case.

He told them not to put strained interpretations on what they would normally regard as "teenage messing".

The judge said he had "considerably more" to say to the jurors and the issues in this case were very serious.

He'll resume his charge to them in the morning.

[john m]

Judge suggesting that the jury ignore evidence that they had a satanic club which points to premeditation .FFS whats going on here ...He suggested they might consider, for example, evidence about a copy book containing information about a "satanic club" to be a distraction or irrelevant to the real issues in the case.

[silverbullet]

Judge suggesting that the jury ignore evidence that they had a satanic club which points to premeditation .FFS whats going on here ...He suggested they might consider, for example, evidence about a copy book containing information about a "satanic club" to be a distraction or irrelevant to the real issues in the case.

Voodoo!

[Belker]

The Judges final summing up was a bit of a 'Sit on the Fence' job, a bit like an Irish weather forecast, the Sun might shine or it might Rain !

The judge in the trial of two teenage boys for the murder of 14-year-old Ana Kriégel has told the jurors they could rely on lies alleged to have been told by the boys as evidence of guilt, only if the prosecution had established there was no other innocent explanation.
Mr Justice McDermott said the prosecution was relying on what it claimed were lies told by the two accused boys as evidence of guilt, particularly in the case of the second boy.
The prosecution case was that the lies were told to cover up guilt and for no other reason.
The judge said the prosecution was entitled to rely on inconsistencies in various accounts given by the two boys, or lies told by them.
He said a series of false denials could be regarded and relied on as evidence of guilt.
But the judge cautioned the jurors against jumping to simple conclusions in relation to the telling of lies.
Lies on their own may not indicate guilt, he said.
In certain circumstances, an inference of guilt should be drawn, but lies had been told in the past by accused people who are innocent.

[john m]

GUILTY BOTH OF THEM .

[john m]

TWO teenagers have been found guilty before the Central Criminal Court of the murder of schoolgirl Ana Kriegel.

One of them, known as Boy A, has also been found guilty of aggravated sexual assault.

The boys, who were just 13 years old at the time, had denied the offences.

Ana's body, naked apart from a pair of black socks, was found by gardai in a derelict farmhouse, Glenwood House, Laraghcon, Clonee Road, in Lucan at 1pm on May 17, 2018.

The 14-year-old had been reported missing by her parents Patric and Geraldine Kriegel three days earlier.

Ana was last seen by her father leaving her home in the company of the second accused, Boy B, around 5pm on the day she disappeared, and heading towards the park.

Schoolgirl Ana Kriegel2
2
Schoolgirl Ana Kriegel
Boy B was interviewed by gardai for over 17 hours on two separate dates, on May 24 and July 7 last year.

In his interviews, Boy B had claimed that he called to Ana's house on behalf of Boy A who told him he wanted to sort out some "relationship issues" with her.

In his closing address to the jury, prosecution counsel Brendan Grehan SC said there was an "overwhelming forensic case" against Boy A, which not just connected him to the scene but where items belonging to him, from his house, connected him to Ana and the scene.

Mr Grehan told jurors it was the prosecution case that there was "no innocent explanation" that could explain away these facts other than Boy A's involvement.

He said the evidence in relation to Boy A pointed in only one way - he was at the scene, he was there when Ana was bleeding, his DNA was on her neck and his semen was on her top. Most significant of all, Mr Grehan added, is that Ana's blood was on Boy A's boots.

In relation to Boy B, Mr Grehan said there was no forensic evidence connecting him to the scene, and the case against Boy B relied on "what came out of his own mouth" in his interviews with gardai.

Mr Grehan said the interviews contained "lies, untruths and half truths" and told the jury "quite where the lies end or the truth begins will be a matter you will have to decide".

After deliberating for 14 hours and 25 minutes, jurors came back at 2.11pm and delivered the verdicts, first for Boy A and then for Boy B.

[Jack Meoff]

Hope they rot in prison

[john m]

Think I read they were charged as adults if so its mandatory Life sentences If they were charged as kids they would be upfor review when they were 18..

[Dr. Martin Gooter Bling]

hope the parents get ran out of the area now for not making them do the right thing and plead guilty.

[dalymount]

I think its outrageous that they cannot be named for legal reasons.they murdered a young girl for Christs sake.why should they be protected ?

[Shallowhal]

I think its outrageous that they cannot be named for legal reasons.they murdered a young girl for Christs sake.why should they be protected ?

More protected than the victim.....filth the pair of them!!

[Lizzzy]

I think its outrageous that they cannot be named for legal reasons.they murdered a young girl for Christs sake.why should they be protected ?

Their photos can't be shown either, they mustn't be Irish.