Teenage Killers in Finland

[Vixen]

Good account of the hearing today by ILTA-LEHTI.

To sum up, the verdict and sentencing will be on 24 March 2021. The prosecutor demands 9years and six months for Boy B, 12 years for Boy A, and 11 years for Boy C.

Here are some excerpts of the legal arguments here:

At 9:15 the session begins

At the beginning of the hearing, the alternative charges presented by the prosecutor and the answers to them are read.
Alternative charges include aggravated assault and aggravated death penalty. Alternative charges for one boy include aiding and abetting murder and aiding and abetting abuse.


9:20 a.m. Closing remarks begin

The final statements will now be read. Beginning deals with assault charges related to the other two accused violence perpetrated by the eldest boy. Evidence of this is, among other things, messages between the accused and medical statements.


9:30 a.m .: The prosecutor explains the consensus

The prosecutor is now going through a consensual process. Consensus can also be formed during the course of action. Central to this is knowledge of the crimes that are going to be committed. The prosecutor brings up the term "domination of the act," which means that everyone has been involved in the act and in control of the situation. In the opinion of the prosecutor, everyone has contributed to the act.

9:35 a.m .: Prosecutor presents messages

So now we are dealing with a murder charge. The prosecutor, on the other hand, reads messages between the accused, in which, according to the prosecutor, violence and watering of the victim are planned. The posts talk about beating and beating. The prosecutor describes the use of the words "beat" and "hack" in the messages, which means that the violence has been serious.

"Niidii will beat (the victim) tomorrow," one message said, among other things.

The messages also talked about the victim's "coldness", which, according to the prosecutor, indicates that the perpetrators knew that the victim had had a cold in the past because of light clothing. The prosecutor notes that despite this, the defendants left the victim lying out in the cold air in an uninformed state.

9:45 a.m .: The prosecutor explains why the act is murder

The prosecutor now explains why he thinks the act is murder. The key is that the act is particularly cruel and cruel to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor again describes the violence inflicted on the victim and its seriousness.
The prosecutor talks about the probability of probability, ie that the prosecutor believes that the perpetrators must have considered the death of the victim as a probable consequence. The prosecutor does not claim that this was intentional, that is, that the killing was the express intention of the accused.

9:54 a.m .: Loud defense of the victim's relatives

The victim's assistant agrees with the prosecutors' allegations. He stresses that all the boys were involved in the violence. Without their actions, the victim would not have died. Everything the respondents themselves have said is very serious violence and clear humiliation. In addition, the victim was left alone to die.

“The allegations that it would not have been entirely clear that the victim would die in that situation are utterly outrageous,” the relatives ’legal counsel says.

10 a.m.: Respondents' final statements

We now turn to the final statements of the respondents. First up is the defense of the youngest boy. His lawyer Jarkko Jaatela wants to present in the final statement something related to health information that is confidential. Therefore, the sound will be cut off at some point in the media hall when these things come up.

The defense reiterates that the boy admits an alternative charge, namely aggravated assault and aggravated death.

The boy largely accepts the prosecutor's description of the violence he committed. However, the defense argues that the eldest boy was responsible for the most serious violence, and the youngest boy also sometimes tried to reassure the eldest. According to the defense of the youngest boy, it is a question of whether the youngest boy can also be held responsible for the violence perpetrated by the eldest boy. It is undisputed that the eldest boy committed the most serious violence against the victim.

However, the youngest boy does not admit that it was an intentional act. According to the defense, he did not accept or be involved in the most serious violence perpetrated against the victim. In addition, the boy's defense notes that the victim did not die until several hours after the accused left the scene

.

10:19 a.m .: The defense of the youngest boy continues

The defense of the youngest boy is still in the voice. He points out that when considering what the perpetrator should have understood from the consequences of the act, the young age of the accused must also be taken into account.

The defense also takes the view that it has not emerged that such serious violence was intended to be directed at the victim in advance.

The defense also alleges that the youngest boy tried to reassure the oldest boy but failed. The seriousness of the violence came as a surprise to the youngest boy, according to the defense. The defense therefore considers that there was no consensus, as an attempt was made to prevent and reassure the eldest boy.

10:58 a.m .: The session resumes

The sitting is resumed. The defense of the second eldest boy now gets into the voice. So this is a boy who has only admitted beating. He is defended by lawyer Dani Palviainen. He emphasizes that defendants cannot be required to understand an adult - let alone a criminal lawyer - about the consequences of the serious violence in question. According to him, the respondents have thought that the victim will at least get up on his own and go home.

The defense argues that the serious violence began after the second eldest boy had left the scene.

The defense reiterates its claim that the boy had hit the victim twice when he returned to the scene, and he is innocent of all other violence.
According to the defense, the boy has not played any part in the violence that has caused the death of the victim.
"Nothing he has done since arriving at the scene has contributed to the crime."

According to the defense, the real state of the matter only became clear to the boy the next morning when he listened to the voice message sent by the youngest boy. The youngest boy had visited the scene and realized the victim was dying.

11:20 a.m.: The eldest boy's defense out loud

The defense of the eldest boy can now give his final statement. The eldest boy is defended by lawyer Seppo Heikkilä.
He points out that other defendants have shifted responsibility to the oldest accused. Against this background, he believes that the accusations of the eldest boy of assaulting the other two boys should be rejected. There is a word against the word.

Then we talk about the murder charge. According to the defense, the beating with an iron pipe has come to light as told by the co-defendants, ie the two younger defendants. The defense of the eldest boy calls into question the reliability of these accounts precisely because, he says, an attempt has been made to roll the blame on the necks of the eldest boy.

"It is reasonable to think that my principal has been causing major injuries. It is not really possible to know whether they have all been caused by my principal," the lawyer says.

The defense's view is that no act has been used in the act in such a way that the defendant would have understood in the circumstances that the events would lead to death.

11:41 a.m .: Prosecutors' Sanctions Statement

Final statements have been received. The following is a discussion of punitive sanctions and prescribing for a state of mind examination.

Prosecutors point out that the accused could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. Under the age of 18, the penalty for murder is 2 to 12 years. However, this twelve-year limit may be exceeded by three years in the case of a joint offense involving several offenses.

Second, the prosecutor demands a term of imprisonment of at least 9 years and 6 months for the second eldest boy, a term of imprisonment of at least 12 years for the eldest boy, and a term of imprisonment of at least 11 years for the youngest boy. The prosecutor demands that the defendants remain detained.

11:53 a.m .: Defensive Sentences

Secondly, the defense of the eldest boy considers that the period of pre-trial detention already completed could possibly be sufficient to punish the boy for the act. The defense demands the second eldest boy be released from pre-trial detention. The eldest boy’s defense does not oppose being held captive.
The final discussion will now turn to prescribing a state of mind survey. This section is reviewed without being present in the audience.
12:10 pm: The sitting will continue in public

The sitting will continue in public. The session is followed immediately by a 10-minute break. During the break, the court is likely to consider a request for the release of at least one boy. It is not known whether a decision will be made to order a state of mind survey today.
12:21: Solution coming 24.3.

The judge says that the solution in the case will not be given today, but on March 24. It remains unclear whether this is a final decision or an interlocutory decision ordering a mental health test.
All respondents are still being held in custody.

So, it looks as though Boy A will likely get 12 years, Boy B, 9.5 years and Boy C, 11 years, if found guilty of murder. It will be a lot less if aggravated assault is accepted instead and/or manslaughter (second degree murder). On the other hand, even if the verdict and sentences are the maximum or the lesser ones, a further three years can be added on due to joint enterprise to commit the crime by more than one person (conspiracy). So Boy A could be looking at 15 years maximum, Boy B, 12 years six months and Boy C, 14 years.

 

[Vixen]

So the following defence demand might possibly be the cheekiest, most arrogant, most deluded ever, in the annals of crime history:

At 11.56 a.m. the second-eldest defendant's lawyer says his principal's sentence must be significantly shorter than 9.5 years in prison.
According to lawyer Dani Palviainen , an appropriate punishment for this boy would be less than two years' probation. If that was not enough, the boy could be additionally sentenced to surveillance and juvenile punishment.
According to Palviainen, the court must consider whether the three-month pre-trial detention has already served as a sufficient punishment for this accused. This of the boys is the one who wasn’t there all night in Koskela Park and he only hit the victim a couple of times that night. He admits he was only guilty of assault.
The boy has now been remanded in custody for three months, which, according to the lawyer, equates to 9 months in prison as a young person.
Palviainen is demanding the release of the boy from pre-trial detention now as soon as the trial is over.

MTV

Signs of a real sociopath: narcissistic belief he can get away with anything, self-entitlement and a failure to accept responsibility for his actions. Boy B, unlike Boy A, has admitted to nothing apart from the bare minimum of a couple of punches and the fortuitous fact he had to leave the scene for a while for a hospital appointment for his diabetes. Boy A, the one with the designer parents, at least attempted to be as candid as possible and admitted his role in the crime, although, of course he denies murder.

The boys were present in court with their chaperones. None looked at the other. Two of the mothers were there. They offered condolences to the victim's parents. So perhaps one parent was missing, or maybe declined to make a statement.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Thanks for the updates on the trial. Looking at it from Canada, it was very speedy. Had the crime been committed here at the same time (December 2020), I wouldn't expect a trial until 2021 at least and probably 2022.

I know the court is referring to the defendants as boys A, B, and C, but given that their names are already public, could you provide a cross-reference for us? (e.g. "Boy A is <name>, age <age>")?

 

[llwyd]

So the following defence demand might possibly be the cheekiest, most arrogant, most deluded ever, in the annals of crime history:

Well, the defence attourneys are just doing their work - obviously that's a really unpleasant and disingenious demand, but based on an interpretation of the law. I totally understand why people despise defence lawyers but they still do a really valuable service in keeping the prosecutors and the police honest. When the defendants had next to no rights and no defenders the justice system was a total corrupt travesty - and would be again. Such is human nature.

 

[Vixen]

Well, the defence attourneys are just doing their work - obviously that's a really unpleasant and disingenious demand, but based on an interpretation of the law. I totally understand why people despise defence lawyers but they still do a really valuable service in keeping the prosecutors and the police honest. When the defendants had next to no rights and no defenders the justice system was a total corrupt travesty - and would be again. Such is human nature.

The guy is acting for the Boy B and it is testimony to this Boy B's lack of self-awareness/arrogance that the other two Boys have accepted at least some responsibility, albeit not murder itself, and expressed remorse (even if only for the benefit of the court and saving their own skin). For Boy B to demand 'two years probation' and to walk free because he had already been on remand three months is shocking. Maybe now he can sit in his cell and reflect on why he hasn't been released, no doubt to hide away in his parents summer cottage somewhere remote, but somehow is still in custody! How can this be? I am betting it is his mother who begged the court for the verdict to be 'fair'; i.e., 'Let my little darling go.'

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for the updates on the trial. Looking at it from Canada, it was very speedy. Had the crime been committed here at the same time (December 2020), I wouldn't expect a trial until 2021 at least and probably 2022.

I know the court is referring to the defendants as boys A, B, and C, but given that their names are already public, could you provide a cross-reference for us? (e.g. "Boy A is <name>, age <age>")?

It's extremely speedy even for Finland See post no. 10, these are supposedly the culprits, in chronological order. The oldest two are born within a couple of weeks of each other, the third almost a year younger.

 

[Ernie M]

So today the hearing resumes.

[...]

One of the boys or more claims to have seen the victim's hand move (one hand was deliberately broken by boy A, the one who barely knew the victim but did know boy B from riippukoulu (confirmation class for sixteen-year-olds)). Boy B, seems to be at the centre of the Venn diagram, knowing all three of the boys, the victim and his best friend Boy C, from primary school.

[...]

Hi Vixen, is there a Venn diagram you can link? If there is, I'd love to see how the information was presented.

I wasn't sure if there's an actual Venn diagram, or if you used the phrase "Boy B, seems to be at the centre of the Venn diagram," figuratively?

Thank you for your detailed coverage.
I've read some of the articles you linked with google translate.

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen, is there a Venn diagram you can link? If there is, I'd love to see how the information was presented.

I wasn't sure if there's an actual Venn diagram, or if you used the phrase "Boy B, seems to be at the centre of the Venn diagram," figuratively?

Thank you for your detailed coverage.
I've read some of the articles you linked with google translate.

Yes, I was being figurative. However, I have sketched a diagram for you, as I see it.

So, despite Boy B claiming he had very little to do with it at all, he is obviously the ringleader AFAICS.

 

[Matthew Best]

I get that the ring around A, B and C shows that they knew each other, and the ring round B, C and D shows that they knew each other, and consequently there was no connection between A and D.

But what does the ring around Boy B alone indicate?

 

[Vixen]

I get that the ring around A, B and C shows that they knew each other, and the ring round B, C and D shows that they knew each other, and consequently there was no connection between A and D.

But what does the ring around Boy B alone indicate?

Less confusing than a big circle.

 

[Matthew Best]

The big circle is less confusing than a big circle?

Not following.

 

[Vixen]

The Verdict



The verdict is in.

The three teenage boys who were on trial for the murder of a another boy who had suffered long-term relentless bullying by his peers have now had the verdict. The prosecutor mostly got his way and the eldest boy who was found to have premeditated the act received ten years and one month, the second boy who had argued he was only at the scene for a short time got eight years and two months whilst the youngest received nine years and two months.

A fourth boy who was not at this crime scene received 60 days for the earlier assault and robbery of the victim.

THE LONGEST sentence, 10 years and one month, was given to the oldest defendant, whose court found he had committed the most violence against the victim.

The shortest sentence, eight years and two months, came second to the youngest defendant, who was killed several hours away from the scene.

The youngest accused was sentenced to nine years and two months in prison.

It is exceedingly unusual for person of this age group to have received such a sentence. The aggravating factors were the length of time their victim was tortured and the preplanning that went into the act.

According to the law, the perpetrators had a consensus at the time of the act and thus the accused have jointly intentionally killed the victim.

According to the judgment, the act shows particular brutality, inter alia, because the violence was directed at a completely defenseless person.

“The use of violence has taken several hours and the acts of violence against [the victim] must have caused him pain and distress,” the verdict says.

HS


The trial lasted six months because in the interim a psychological assessment was ordered, which took a few months. The outcome of which was that all three had an awareness of the difference between right and wrong and thus eligible for imprisonment. It is not known whether the prosecutor will appeal as it was not as long as they had pleaded. However, the victim's relatives have stated satisfaction with the verdict, which included compensation of €12,000 from each of the three youths.

In March, the district court issued an interlocutory judgment and ordered the defendants to undergo a state of mind. According to the investigations, all the accused were guilty at the time of the act, i.e. they understood the consequences of their actions.

Because of this, they could be sentenced to prison terms.

ibid

It is possible the defendants might appeal.

 

[Matthew Best]

The verdict is in.

THE LONGEST sentence, 10 years and one month, was given to the oldest defendant, whose court found he had committed the most violence against the victim.

The shortest sentence, eight years and two months, came second to the youngest defendant, who was killed several hours away from the scene.

The youngest accused was sentenced to nine years and two months in prison.

Seems reasonable to give the shortest sentence to someone who is already dead.

 

[Elaedith]

Seems reasonable to give the shortest sentence to someone who is already dead.

Did something get lost in translation?

 

[llwyd]

They should be in a mental hospital instead of a prison, and who knows how long, maybe indefinitely. Otherwise I don't really have a quarrel with short sentences for people who have a reasonable chance of rehabilitation, but some maybe damaged beyond hope - they should not be punished but treated, and never be let back to the society unless genuinely mended. Anyway, the Nordic model of justice system is much better than the Anglo-American alternatives. The American prison industrial complex is a disgusting abomination and the UK version is not much better.

 

[Vixen]

Seems reasonable to give the shortest sentence to someone who is already dead.

I used Google translate without checking it was correct.

Lyhin rangaistus, kahdeksan vuotta ja kaksi kuukautta, tuli toiseksi nuorimmalle syytetylle, joka oli surmailtana useita tunteja poissa paikalta.

HS

Should read (my translation):

'The shortest sentence of eight years and two months was secondly for the young defendant, who as one of the killers, was away from the scene for a few hours.'

(This guy IMV was the svengali.)

 

[Vixen]

They should be in a mental hospital instead of a prison, and who knows how long, maybe indefinitely. Otherwise I don't really have a quarrel with short sentences for people who have a reasonable chance of rehabilitation, but some maybe damaged beyond hope - they should not be punished but treated, and never be let back to the society unless genuinely mended. Anyway, the Nordic model of justice system is much better than the Anglo-American alternatives. The American prison industrial complex is a disgusting abomination and the UK version is not much better.

The guy who got the shortest sentence was the one whose defence lawyer argued that as he had already served three months detention - as of the time of the initial hearing - should be freed straightway! The sheer sense of entitlement and narcissistic arrogance of this fellow tell me he is a real psychopath. Reminds me of the Kinks' song, 'I wish I could be like David Watts'.

He is the head boy at the school
He is the captain of the team
He is so gay and fancy free
And I wish I could be like David Watts
And all the girls in the neighbourhood
Try to go out with David Watts
They try their best but can't succeed
For he is of pure and noble breed

He was the tall blond football player for a third division team, he was the boy who was friends with everyone. He orchestrated the mixed up rich kid with a chip on his shoulder and the trendy media parents into extreme violence that he knew the boy was capable of (he got >ten years) although he barely knew the victim except from riipukoulu (confirmation class) whilst the victim's childhood friend who lured him to the 'birthday party' - set up to entrap him as a captive audience for their ultraviolence and which he had endured for years - received nine years, the second longest sentence. It was this second boy who told his parents...but only after the biggest day in the Finnish calendar after Christmas and Midummers Day - Independence Day 6 Dec 2020 - was over. The killing was ion Friday and he told his parents Monday.

Really, I don't see how he got the shortest sentence simply because he had to break off the violence for a couple of hours to attend his diabetic clinic appointment, at which he was sent Snap Chat photos and directed the other two from afar to wait for his return. On his return, he immediately punched the poor bullied kid twice in the face.

For me getting the correct verdict is the important thing. It is good they got almost the maximum for an underage person although they are entitled to be free after two-thirds of the way through.

The second boy tried to collaborate with the third boy to pint he whole thing on the first boy (the one who got ten years) which reveals his manipulative sociopathic personality. He is probably congratulating himself on having 'achieved' the shortest sentence, despite being the ringleader and agent provocateur.