Eleanor Neale

Because they had so much physical evidence against him, the semen sample, the blood, all that.

So do you wanna know what his team did?

Do you wanna know what his team did?

They actually tried to argue that the semen on Anna's t-shirt was from

consensual intimacy.

So they're trying to say that the two of them had, you know, perfectly fine consensual sex, everything was good, everything was happy and rosy, and then boy A just out of nowhere just turned around and murdered her.

But I mean, look at how her body was found.

Anna was literally trying to free herself from the duct tape around her neck.

it certainly doesn't look consensual.

Also, I just thought I'd take this opportunity to remind you that Boy A told the police right at the start of this investigation that he wasn't attracted to or interested in Anna Krijal.

His original cover story was that he was meeting her in the park that day to let her down gently because he wasn't interested.

So how could this meeting have gone from, leave me alone, I'm not interested in you, to, hang on a minute, let's go have consensual sex in that abandoned building.

Personally, I'm not buying that.

So eventually, after a seven-week trial, the jury went to deliberate.

But before they did, Boy B's lawyer actually stopped them and he was like, wait, let me just do a little speech.

He urged the jury to be open-minded when it came to Boy B's verdict.

The lawyer reminded them that the manslaughter verdict was still on the table.

Yes, Boy B was charged with murder, but they didn't have to find him guilty or not guilty.

They could go for the alternative, which was manslaughter.

If they believed the lack of physical evidence to be enough of an issue, then it would only make sense to go for the manslaughter plea.