DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR Boy B told the jury in his closing statement that the idea his client knew he was bringing Ana to any form of harm does “not hold water” and does not “add up in any shape or form”.
Addressing the jury, senior counsel Damien Colgan said his client is a child in the eyes of the law. He said it was the prosecution’s case that both the accused planned the events of 14 May 2018 together – that they planned for Boy B to go to Ana’s house and bring her to a designated spot where they would do “untold deeds” or cause injury to her. Colgan said this prosecution case here “does not hold water”.
Colgan said that the prosecution’s case is relied upon by “what they say are the lies of Boy B”. He said the prosecution can’t point to any particular time or place where the accused allegedly discussed what was to be done or how it was to be carried out.
“They can’t do that – they want you to speculate,” Colgan said.
He said that any person who witnessed such a “horrific death” would be traumatised. He cited earlier evidence by former state pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy in which she said that anyone who would have witnessed what happened to Ana would have been negatively impacted.
Colgan said that, in this case, she was talking about an adult and then added: “Let’s take a step back here and remember this is a 13-year-old boy.
‘Alleged lies’
Colgan said that the jury was given two versions of who Boy B is – he said you have members of the gardaí who tell you he is bright and an articulate teenage boy. Colgan then added that “you have his father on the other hand who tells you he’s 13 and likes Transformers, collecting Pokémon cards, someone who likes cartoons…”
He said Boy B is “a child who thought he knew what friends were”. He said “he thought everyone was his friend and he was there to please everyone”.
“What person in their right mind would go to someone’s house where he is known; where he has known Ana for years; then they are seen then crossing the park knowing this girl would be dead in 25 minutes and that’s what the state are honestly asking you to believe.
“I respectfully submit no person would do that – that is so off the radar that it is not feasible. Boy B believed on the day in question that he was to call to Ana and that Boy A wanted to talk about her and it was about relationships.”
Colgan said that on that date in question, he was seen going across the park and he’s caught on CCTV - he knows there is CCTV in the park and “it doesn’t worry him”. Boy B is also seen by a youth witness on the day who testified that Boy B and Ana appeared to be having a good time, they were “laughing and joking, skipping and jumping”.
He added: “Is it really feasible that someone who made that plan exposes himself to be observed by other people? If this was all so happy go lucky, is he the greatest actor, the greatest pretender you’ve ever seen?”
Colgan said that it was due to the panic and shame of not being able to save Ana that Boy B wasn’t able to formulate to gardaí straight away what he had seen. He said that Boy B said his “brain froze” and he couldn’t help her so he ran away. He said Boy B was in fear of Boy A. He said his client doesn’t appear to be street wise – he didn’t have a smartphone and was more interested in “childish things” like going exploring.
Colgan said during the interviews you could see Boy B “coming to terms with the trauma he had suffered”.
In his conclusion, Damien Colgan said there “is nothing to support the prosecution case” against Boy B.
“If you believe what Boy B said, he didn’t know what was to happen to Ana on the day in question and there was no plan or preparation then that’s the end of it, you find him not guilty.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say