The senior defence lawyer for the second boy accused of Ana Kriégel's murder has told the jury the prosecution case does not add up in any shape or form.
Damien Colgan said the onus was on the prosecution to prove its case. Boy B did not have to call any evidence and was under no obligation to answer any questions and the jurors should not draw any adverse inference from that.
The mere fact of being present at a crime scene did not make someone guilty of an offence, he said.
Mr Colgan said the prosecution had asked the jurors to speculate but the prosecution couldn't point to any time or place where Boy A and Boy B had a conversation about what was to be done or how it was to be carried out.
He said Boy B saw something, on the day, no 13-year-old boy should see. And he pointed to the evidence of Professor Marie Cassidy where she said anyone who witnessed such a horrific death would be traumatised.
People lied for many reasons Mr Colgan said - for shame, from a desire to conceal things from their family, out of panic, confusion or misjudgment. And trauma affected different people in different ways.
Mr Colgan told the jurors they had two versions of Boy B - members of An Garda Síochána described him as bright, articulate, one of the brightest children of his age they had ever seen.
On the other hand his father had described him as someone who liked playing with transformers and Pokemon cards as well as watching cartoons.
His father described him as someone who thought everyone was his friend and wanted to please everyone.
He said it was "so off radar" and "not feasible" to suggest anyone would go to someone's house, and be seen crossing an open park with them, knowing they were going to be dead within 30 minutes.
Boy B believed Boy A wanted to talk to Ana about relationships. There was no advance planning, Mr Colgan said, nothing to suggest otherwise.
Mr Colgan said Boy A was taller and stronger than Boy B. When gardaí spoke to Boy B on 15 May, Boy B had seen what his friend had done to Ana the night before. He was afraid to report what he had seen.
He said the prosecution was asking them to speculate about a copybook mentioning a satanic club. He said they had heard the evidence and this was an attempt by the prosecution to ask the jurors to delve into something that wasn't there.
Mr Colgan said an allegation that the tape found around Ana's neck was used to strangle her was not in keeping with the evidence. He said Boy B had said he gave a few metres of the tape to Boy A previously. Mr Colgan said there was no evidence that Boy B had brought the tape along on 14 May.
Mr Colgan said the garda interviewers did not speak to a doctor or child psychologist or to other gardaí with expertise in interviewing children before interviewing the boy.
The arrangements made by the judge in the trial to make sure the boys had suitable breaks were not put in place with the boy when he was interviewed, he said.
Mr Colgan said there was no forensic evidence against Boy B. He took the jurors through some of his interviews with gardaí and asked them to consider that Boy B was in real fear of Boy A.
He asked them to consider that Boy B was very stressed during interviews and at one point asked his mother to leave the room. He asked if it was fair of gardaí to get a child to relive his experience and then to tell him he was lying.
He said when Boy B was rearrested, gardaí were going over old ground, trying to build a case against Boy A.
He said they did not question Boy B about when any plan was formulated or how it was to be carried out. The gardaí did not go through that in any detail, he said.
Mr Colgan said there was no plan and no knowledge to suggest Boy B knew anything was going to go on other than "drama, relationship or kissing".
He said the boy had told a friend later that he believed Boy A was setting him up, "snaking him". Mr Colgan said that was exactly what had happened to Boy B in this case.
Mr Colgan said the gardaí had put it to him that he must have seen blood on Ana's top when it was taken off. But he said forensic experts could not say when that blood first appeared on her clothing. He also asked the jurors to consider how long Boy B had been in the house.
Mr Colgan said there was nothing to support the prosecution case in the interviews. And the interviews did not prove Boy B had knowledge of what was going to happen on the date in question.
He suggested Boy B was naive about why Boy A did not want to call for Ana himself.
He suggested the jury should find the boy not guilty if they believed he didn't know what was going to happen on the day in question. If they believed that might reasonably be true, they had to give him the benefit of the doubt and also find him not guilty.
But even if they didn't accept either of those propositions, they had to critically analyse the prosecution case and find where they could say Boy B knew for definite what was going to happen.
Mr Colgan said he was suggesting to the jury that intent was not there but he said it was a matter for them.