Anastasia Kriegel

[gallsman]

Cold as it is, the fact he probably could have saved her is irrelevant when it comes to determinimg his guilt. Failing to stop a crime is not a crime.

[Jeepers Creepers]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

[Jeepers Creepers]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

[johnnycool]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location, Boy B Fluid found on the poor girls clothes. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

Was it?
I know Boy A's was.

[Norf Tyrone]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location, Boy B Fluid found on the poor girls clothes. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

Was it?
I know Boy A's was.

None of Boy Bs person was found according to the very detailed IT interview.

[GetOverTheBar]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location, Boy B Fluid found on the poor girls clothes. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

He called to the girls house not knowing her, told her a lie to gain her trust (as was common in his evidence throughout), he's walked her about 3k / 30 mins knowing Boy A was waiting who has previously expressed his aggression towards her with his "murder kit" to an abandoned house, seen Boy A attack maybe seen him kill the poor girl, done nothing and went home like it was nothing seemingly.

He's lied repeatedly throughout his evidence, every time seemingly to distance himself from the act of Boy A. We are told this boy is intelligent but naive.

I'm fairly comfortable that he's been found guilty of murder to be honest.

[Jeepers Creepers]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location . He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

Was it?
I know Boy A's was.

Apologies if I read that incorrectly.

[GetOverTheBar]

AINAL (for damn sure!) but I suspect that Boy B in this case was found guilty of murder on the basis of "Common Purpose" or "Joint Enterprise" under the principle of Common Law as opposed to Statutory Law. Namely that if a group of two or more participants engage or prepare to engage in a criminal act, then they all hold joint liability of an outcome from that act. The jury were probably discussing for some time in deliberation as to wherever the murder was a Joint Enterprise or not.

The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder is two or more planning to cause death and doing so. If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable, regardless of who actually inflicted the fatal injury. However, when there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else, such as a planned robbery in which the participants hope to be able to get what they want without killing anyone, but one of them in fact kills, the other participants may still be guilty of murder or manslaughter if they had the necessary mens rea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose

It was common purpose.

[gallsman]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

This is the thing - juries don't get to do what you just did and make an off the cuff assumption that he"probably" laughed it off.

They have to decide based on the evidence. You can argue that you believe they did this incorrectly, but they've evidently decided that it was all a premeditated plan that he was aware and part of.

[magpie seanie]

Boy B lured that girl knowing something bad was going to happen.

I don't think anyone doubts that. Does that constitute a conviction for murder? That's the question.

Not exactly sure of the law surrounding this. A question for our legal eagles on board. Boy A had previously suggested murdering her, to which he probably laughed off. Then he was asked by Boy A to bring her to he location. He said he left the scene hearing her scream knowing she was in distress and did nothing to intervene or prevent!? Is this aiding and abetting?

This is the thing - juries don't get to do what you just did and make an off the cuff assumption that he"probably" laughed it off.

They have to decide based on the evidence. You can argue that you believe they did this incorrectly, but they've evidently decided that it was all a premeditated plan that he was aware and part of.

Boy B said in one of his accounts (remember he lied throughout this process numerous times) that he laughed it off. Even if you believe that, might the ould alarm bells have started ringing when Boy A asked him to collect Ana and bring her to a derelict house?

The only reasonable conclusion is they were in it together. These guys were best mates. Fairly cut and dried if you ask me.

[gallsman]

They weren't best mates. Boy B might have thought they were but Boy A made it clear they weren't.

The fact he said he laughed it off isn't what matters. What matters is whether the members of the jury believed this or not. Evidently they didn't.

[Drummer]

The bottom line is this:
Given Boy B's involvement and the evidence against him, then irrespective of whether he should have been convicted of murder or not, he deserves whatever punishment (plus more) is coming his way.

[Keyser soze]

Hard to know what is the most disturbing aspect of this case is as one horrific revelation follows another just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.

The detailed planning of such a gruesome act and the fact that it entailed a conspiracy between 2 people of that age. The calm way in which they went about their lives thereafter in the days before they became suspects. The way in which each of them responded to the allegations when they became suspects, one by no comment interviews and one by lying and lying and lying. The complete and utter lack of remorse or even acceptance of responsibility for their actions of either of these children, and indeed their parents.

The despicable outburst by the father of Boy B in the courtroom, which I found truly shameful, to me it is no wonder his son should be involved in actions such as these if this is how he feels it is appropriate to conduct himself in front of the parents of a young girl that was so brutally murdered.

[oliverkelly]

Personnally i would have felt more comfortable if Boy B was charged with lesser charge like one or two lads were in recent gangland murders for Facilitating the crime.  Dont think its clear cut whether or not he knew exactly what was going to happen. He wasnt the one who actually killed the poor girl.

[magpie seanie]

They weren't best mates. Boy B might have thought they were but Boy A made it clear they weren't.

The fact he said he laughed it off isn't what matters. What matters is whether the members of the jury believed this or not. Evidently they didn't.

The evidence pointed to the fact they were good friends. Clearly they are not any more.

Your second point is exactly shat I was saying - it wasn't believable that he laughed it off and then brought the girl to a derelict house to meet boy A.