Boy B was ‘set up’ by Boy A - Ana Kriégel murder trial hears

The boy accused of luring Ana Kriégel to the site of her death was “set up” by his co-accused, his defence counsel has said.

There was also no evidence of the boy, Boy B, planning the murder with with Boy A, the jury were told.

Boy B lied to gardaí because he was traumatised, Boy B’s defence counsel Damian Colgan SC said in his closing speech. He also appeared to be frightened of his co-accused, Boy A, who is alleged to have beaten Ana to death.

“The prosecution case does not add up, does not add up at all,” counsel said.

He said there was no obligation on Boy B to call any witnesses or evidence in his defence. The onus of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. Counsel also said it is not an offence to be at the scene of the crime if you do not take part.

The prosecution cannot point to any time or place where the two boys had a conversation planning a murder, Mr Colgan told the jury.

He said Boy B called for Ana that day because he believed Boy A wanted to see her about relationship issues. The boy knew there were cameras in the park.

Counsel asked “what person in their right mind” would call for Ana in the knowledge she was going to be killed. “That’s so off the radar that its just not even feasible.”

Mr Colgan said Boy B brought Ana to the house because he thought he might see some “drama” or “kissing” that he could tell his friends about.

Referring to Boy B’s statement that Boy A told him he wanted to kill Ana a month previously, counsel said “not for one moment” did Boy B believe he would do this. There is a difference between saying something and doing something, he said.

Mr Colgan told the jury about the Lucas rules, which state there can be many reasons other than guilt to explain an accused lying.

He said Boy B had witnessed the attack on Ana, “something no 13-year-old should see.”

Retired State Pathologist Marie Cassidy gave evidence anyone who witnessed it would have been traumatised.

“Trauma affects different people in different ways,” counsel said.

Shame can also explain lying, he said. He asked jurors to consider if Boy B was ashamed of telling the truth during garda interviews because his mother was present.

The gardaí did not give the boy regular breaks during the eight interviews, he said. Neither did they consult experts about how to interview children.

The interviews were a highly stressful and emotional time for Boy B during which he was asked to deal with issues of the most horrific nature, counsel said.

He also suggested Boy B was scared of Boy A who was bigger and stronger than him and knew martial arts. “He had seen what he did to Ana the night before.”

A friend of Boy B gave evidence during that trial that the boy believed he had been “snaked” by Boy A. “And that’s exactly what happened. [Boy B] was set up by the accused,” Mr Colgan said.

The jury also heard evidence of a copybook found in Boy B’s room referring to a satanic club. Boy B told gardaí this was a homework club and he called it a satanic club to discourage certain people from wanting to join.

Mr Colgan said the club was obviously “a bit of fun” and held no relevance to the trial. Other witnesses testified the club was not serious, he said.

Mr Colgan said it is “sensationalist” evidence which the jury is being invited to speculate on.

Counsel told the jury they must find Boy B not guilty if they believe he had no knowledge of a plan to kill Ana.

Boy A has pleaded not guilty to the murder and sexual assault “involving serious violence” of Ana Kriégel on May 14th, 2018, at Glenwood House, Laraghcon, Clonee Road, Lucan in Dublin.

Boy B has pleaded not guilty to the murder of the girl on the same date.

The accused were 13 at the time of the alleged offence and are 14 now.

The jury will now hear from Mr Justice Paul McDermott on the relevant law in the case before being asked to begin deliberations.