The senior defence lawyer, representing one of two boys accused of murdering 14-year-old Ana Kriégel just over a year ago, has said there was not one pick of evidence given by any witness in court, that the boy intended to kill the schoolgirl, or anyone. 

In his closing speech to the jury, Senior Counsel Patrick Gageby, representing the first accused boy, said there did not seem to be any evidence of an intention to kill.

He also said Boy A came from a family of hardworking, decent people and did not come from a house with a history of drink or drug problems or any history of criminal behaviour. 

Two teenage boys have denied murdering the 14-year-old girl at an abandoned house in Lucan just over a year ago. 

Boy A has also denied violently sexually assaulting her.

Mr Gageby told the jurors he was not going to tell them what their verdict should be - that was a matter for them. 

He said it was worth thinking about the importance of age in this case - all three were young teenagers.  

Mr Gageby said the justice system recognised that young people, particularly in their early teens, had an immaturity. 

He said Ana had died in demeaning circumstances and her parents had exhibited enormous grace in the face of the evidence. She appeared to have come from a very happy home where everything a child could want for was provided. While it may be considered trite to say it was the nightmare of every parent to bury a child - it was all the more so when the death was sudden, unforeseen and violent. 

He said the jurors would perhaps also recognise the terrible effect on the parent of a young teenager brought to trial for such serious offences.

Mr Gageby said he was not saying that the parents and grandparents of Boy A had suffered equivalent stress or anxiety to the Kriégel family.

But he said these were hard working, decent people.

This was not a house where the gardaí would call or where the children would be known to gardaí - for anti-social behaviour, drinking in the park, juvenile cautions. None of that was here, he said.

There was no suggestion of misbehaviour at school and it was not a house with drink or drug problems or a history of criminal behaviour.

"Far from it," he said. 

Mr Gageby said it was not a house either where anyone would have held a view that Ana was not part of the community or would pass any adverse comment on her appearance. 

Coming from a good home was not a defence, Mr Gageby said, but it was highly relevant in establishing if this boy planned to kill and sexually assault a girl. 

The prosecution had classed Boy A's interests as unusual, he told the jurors. 

But it was perhaps easy to forget the world of a 13 and 14-year-old. 

The boy usually wore black - but kids went through phases. "Knee and shin pads, a backpack, boots", these were not unusual for Boy A, Mr Gageby said. 

The gardaí had "laid a trail" including pictures of a school project involving making masks. A search on the boy's phone for "abandoned places in Lucan" also included results for nerf guns and skulls. 

A screenshot showing a video entitled "15 most gruesome torture methods in history" did not show if that was actually searched for and there was no evidence it was viewed.

In amongst the material retrieved by gardaí was a large amount of material being sought about nerf guns - described by Mr Gageby as very large, plastic toy guns. 

There seemed to be evidence, Mr Gageby said about a homework club and some interest by investigators in some "satanic aspect" to this.

He said this showed the danger of speculating and making unwarranted findings. If you examined the devices used by any 13 or 14 year-old boy, or looked at the games they played on x boxes,  the chances are you would find one or two unpleasant things.

Mr Gageby asked if there was any 13 or 14-year-old boy whose media could sustain an examination like that performed in this case and he asked where was the relevance. 

Mr Gageby reminded the jurors that the account given by Boy B of what happened could not be used against Boy A.  

He said there was no evidence that Boy A had indicated Boy B was to blame for anything.

He asked the jury to consider if there was any solid or real evidence of this intention to kill. He said there was not one pick of evidence from the witness box to justify the assertion by Boy B in interviews that Boy A wanted to kill Ana. 

He said it was telling that although the gardaí had told Boy A he would be arrested he did not appear to have done anything with the backpack or its contents found in his home. 

There was nothing suggesting that he was cool, calm or collected in the aftermath, Mr Gageby said. 

In relation to the charge of aggravated sexual assault, Mr Gageby reminded the jury that the former State pathologist Professor Marie Cassidy agreed that Ana's injuries were not inconsistent with consensual sexual activity.

And he said it was not possible to rule out that a trace of male DNA on her neck could have arisen from "casual intimacy". 

Mr Gageby said the jurors were faced with decisions to be made about a young boy.

He said he knew they would proceed carefully and that they would do appropriate justice in the case. 

He said they had to consider if the prosecution had proved its case.

The decision was theirs and theirs alone, he said.