The sentencing of two 15-year-old boys for the murder of 14-year-old Ana Kriégel in Dublin in May last year has heard there still is not any clear explanation for what happened.

The teenagers known as Boy A and Boy B were convicted of murdering Ana in a derelict farmhouse on 14 May 2018.

Boy A was also found guilty of aggravated sexual assault.

The boys were not sentenced to the mandatory term of life in prison for murder because of their age.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

Instead, they were remanded to Oberstown Detention Centre to allow reports to be prepared.

The court heard that Boy A now accepts he caused the death of the schoolgirl, but still denies sexually assaulting her.

It also heard the two boys are in dispute about most aspects of what happened in accounts given to health professionals while in detention.

Sentencing of both boys has been adjourned until next Tuesday morning.

Read More:

In six garda interviews before he was charged, Boy A made no admissions and denied ever being in the abandoned farmhouse in Lucan with Ana.

But the court heard, in reports from medical professionals prepared after the boy's conviction, he now seems to suggest he accepted he caused Ana's death.

Detective Inspector Mark O'Neill agreed with prosecuting counsel Brendan Grehan that the boy described various actions, including a headlock, choke-hold, kicking and hitting Ana with a stick.

He also described hitting her with a block, which he either threw at her or hit her head with on three occasions.

But Mr Grehan said Boy A maintained he did not sexually assault Ana and put forward an alternative explanation for some of her injuries.

The court heard Boy B has maintained the position he finally maintained in the last of his stories to gardaí. He says he had no part in what happened.

Det Inspector O'Neill agreed there was still no consensus about what happened particularly in relation to the evidence of planning and premeditation.

He agreed there were disputes between the two boys' accounts:

  • about whose idea it was to meet Ana in the first place
  • who decided Boy B was to call for her
  • who decided where they were to meet up
  • who brought what to the house, especially in relation to the length of tape found around her body
  • how her clothing was removed
  • who assaulted her and with what
  • who smashed her phone when it started to ring
  • who produced the tape and put it on her neck
  • whether there had been any previous discussion about Boy A wanting to kill Ana and how they came up with similar accounts as part of the cover up afterwards.

When it was put to Det Inspector O'Neill that there did not appear to be any clear explanation as to why this happened, he replied: "No, there isn't."

Under cross-examination by lawyers for Boy A, Det Inspector O’Neill agreed his family all appeared to be decent, hardworking people and that his parents were co-operative with the investigation.

He agreed Boy A had never come to garda attention before or to adverse attention in school for any kind of antisocial behaviour.

He said there had been a number of instances where the boy had been named in graffiti and on social media and agreed this had had an adverse effect on his family.

Det Inspector O'Neill also agreed with lawyers for Boy B that he had not come to adverse garda attention previously either.

There was no drink or drugs involved and nothing of a sinister nature was found on his phone or laptop. He agreed Boy B's DNA had not been found at the scene or on the length of tape found there.

The Inspector agreed admissions made by both boys' legal teams in relation to matters, such as the preservation of the scene and the chain of evidence, had saved the attendance of more than 150 witnesses and considerably shortened the trial.

Mr Justice Paul McDermott has made it clear he is conscious of the enormity of his decision for such young boys and has limited the number of journalists who will be allowed to be present in court.

Both boys appeared in court with members of their family.

Ana's mother and father, Geraldine and Patric Kriégel, were also in court with a number of friends and other family members.

Only five members of the media were permitted to be in the courtroom for the sentencing hearing. Other journalists were accommodated in a courtroom upstairs where there was a live feed of the proceedings.

The sentencing has been adjourned until next Tuesday.