Eleanor Neale

There was no blood on his clothing.

He didn't leave a semen sample on a t-shirt.

All of that was boy A.

So how could they prove that Boy B was there, and more importantly, that he was involved in Anna's murder?

The only reason that police knew that Boy B was even there on that day was because of his own admissions, because of what Boy B had told them openly in interviews.

Which, this comes with a little bit of a moral dilemma.

Because of the age of this child, he was 13.

He didn't have a lawyer present.

He only had his parents, who obviously were not knowledgeable on the law and what their son can and can't say.

And so a lot of people think that Boy B didn't really have a fair...

chance here.

I mean legally everything was sound.

It wasn't like the police did anything wrong.

They didn't question him illegally without a lawyer there.

It was completely optional I think.

So like yeah they were allowed to use the interviews in the trial but a lot of people felt really weird about it.

Like a lot of people felt like they shouldn't be able to use those interviews in the trial.

With such a lack of physical evidence people actually felt really weird that Boy B had even been charged with murder at all.

Because there was no evidence to say that he murdered anyone.

I mean, obviously there were his own admissions and the things that he'd said in his interviews.