GUILTY UK - Brianna Ghey, 16, murdered in Culcheth Linear Park, Feb 2023 *2 teenagers charged*

[Kasmeer]

I don't think folie à deux is exactly the phrase I want here, but does anyone else get the sense that without one another, neither X nor Y would have progressed from fantasy to actual murder?

Partly, I don't think either would've murdered on their own (if, of course, either is found guilty of murder here), but I do wonder if one or both might've done if they were to find someone else of similar mindset.

X may be claiming all of her messages were fantasy (and clearly some are given the police could find no evidence of the Laydon stuff), but those are very very dark fantasies, with an awful lot of planning, and when the one with the most planning ends up happening in much the same way as the plan says, it's hard to think of her as anything other than dangerous. Y may perhaps be more led than leader, but has enough interest in violence and torture to likely end up in contact with someone else of similar interests too.

 

[Dotta]

I'm really worried that a 15 year old could find,
with seemingly little effort,
an access to "dark web" with disturbing contents.

JMO

 

[Mirabel091]

The dark web is not a good place to be if you already have dark thoughts.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

But she insisted that messages she swapped with a teenage boy about killing the schoolgirl – who was transgender - and other children were ‘fantasy’, and maintained she had never attempted to poison her.

Giving evidence from behind a curtain to avoid ‘distractions’, the 16-year-old alleged killer – who can only be referred to as Girl X – said she had been questioning her own gender at the time, and agreed that she found Brianna 'attractive'.

Denying holding ‘any anti-transgender views’ herself, she told a court her co-accused – who the court has heard referred to Brianna as ‘it’ - ‘didn’t exactly agree with people who were trans or people who were gay’.

Girl accused murdering Brianna Ghey admits being fascinated by murder

She insisted that messages she swapped with a teenage boy about killing the schoolgirl and other children were 'fantasy', and maintained she had never attempted to poison her.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[nothinonyou]

For her to sit there and say "I was questioning my own gender" in a trial where she's accussed of murdering a trans girl is so messed up. I don;t believe that for a minute and I think she's trying to provoke the family or cause them further pain and confusion

 

[hopesxcase]

Granted my forensic knowledge is minimal but I’m shocked at JM virtually refusing to comment on the blood found on Y?? Don’t think I’ve heard anything like it before actually.

 

[iamshadow21]

Granted my forensic knowledge is minimal but I’m shocked at JM virtually refusing to comment on the blood found on Y?? Don’t think I’ve heard anything like it before actually.

The experts can only speak to the facts, not make inferences like the defense for X wanted them to. Girl X's defense wanted the expert to make some kind of blanket statement that would commit to who attacked Brianna, and the fact is, just from the blood spatter, there's no way of telling. The expert stood their ground. They were correct. Sometimes, an attacker is covered in blood. Sometimes, they aren't. Sometimes a bystander or a secondary person not using the weapon is covered in blood. Sometimes they aren't. So many factors come into play as to how blood is distributed and why.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

The experts can only speak to the facts, not make inferences like the defense for X wanted them to. Girl X's defense wanted the expert to make some kind of blanket statement that would commit to who attacked Brianna, and the fact is, just from the blood spatter, there's no way of telling. The expert stood their ground. They were correct. Sometimes, an attacker is covered in blood. Sometimes, they aren't. Sometimes a bystander or a secondary person not using the weapon is covered in blood. Sometimes they aren't. So many factors come into play as to how blood is distributed and why.

MOO

Agreed.

It's really for the jury to make these inferences. Personally I think defence counsel did well to highlight what the evidence was.

In view of UK reporting restrictions, I am limited in what I can say to this point, so I will hold fire until the verdict.

So I'll simply say, the defense agree one or other did it, and of course the prosecution case is that this question does not really matter. I remember back to Crimes class 30 years ago, that the prosecution cannot be expected to show every detail, which the accused have allegedly sought to conceal.

 

[Dave32]

Do we know what they have actually been charged with, is it literally "X is charged with murder", and "Y is charged with murder"?

I ask because I was on a jury recently for a drug dealing case. The defendants weren't charged with drug dealing though, they were charged with "conspiracy" to deal. So I'm wondering if X and Y have been charged with conspiracy to murder, which from what I've seen so far (IMO) would be an easier decision for the jury.

 

[iamshadow21]

Do we know what they have actually been charged with, is it literally "X is charged with murder", and "Y is charged with murder"?

I ask because I was on a jury recently for a drug dealing case. The defendants weren't charged with drug dealing though, they were charged with "conspiracy" to deal. So I'm wondering if X and Y have been charged with conspiracy to murder, which from what I've seen so far (IMO) would be an easier decision for the jury.

All the articles I've found say 'charged with murder'.

 

[mrjitty]

They are charged with murder on a party basis - in other words the physical act of murder was committed by one or both of them, but it was a joint endeavour from a criminal law perspective.

The defendants each state that the other struck the blows, and that they were not a party to murder.

So as we see from Girl X's counsel and her testimony. she argues the blows were all struck by Boy Y, and that Girl X was only suggesting a fantasy she created for Boy Y - she never seriously intended murder.

Boy Y in turn claims Girl X struck the blows, and from his perspective, it was a joke gone wrong.

As a general law school kind of question, the law has developed to make the Girl X type of defence difficult i.e. you can't go along with a murder and then say you were tricking / not serious

The judge will direct the jury on these questions.

 

[Dotta]

I wonder if she was (allegedly) filming the crime.
To send to "dark web" she had access to.

I wouldn't be surprised, as teens nowadays record nearly everything on their phones.
Especially "fantasies" coming true.

Allegedly, of course.

JMO

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

I wonder if she was (allegedly) filming the crime.
To send to "dark web" she had access to.

I wouldn't be surprised, as teens nowadays record nearly everything on their phones.
Especially "fantasies" coming true.

Allegedly, of course.

JMO

It hasn't been mentioned in evidence as far as I am aware. The police seized her phone and everything on there, and we've heard a lot about what was on her phone. Even if deleted, a video might be forensically recoverable.

If there was a video, surely it would have been put forward as evidence by the prosecution - case closed? The fact we had two days of experts testifying on blood spatter analysis to try to determine the sequence of events suggests not.

 

[Dotta]

It hasn't been mentioned in evidence as far as I am aware. The police seized her phone and everything on there, and we've heard a lot about what was on her phone. Even if deleted, a video might be forensically recoverable.

If there was a video, surely it would have been put forward as evidence by the prosecution - case closed? The fact we had two days of experts testifying on blood spatter analysis to try to determine the sequence of events suggests not.

It depends on how many phones she allegedly used

 

[Lucy6226]

For her to sit there and say "I was questioning my own gender" in a trial where she's accussed of murdering a trans girl is so messed up. I don;t believe that for a minute and I think she's trying to provoke the family or cause them further pain and confusion

I think she is trying to convince the jury that it wasn't her by suggesting 'it wasn't me who hated trans people'

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

It depends on how many phones she allegedly used

Of course. From memory I am pretty sure Police only recovered one phone, and a tablet device.

However the evidence we have heard does not suggest to me that she was in the habit of using multiple burner phones for "security" if this is your theory. In fact it is more surprising how little effort they made to cover their digital tracks. IMO.

 

[Dotta]

Of course. From memory I am pretty sure Police only recovered one phone, and a tablet device.

However the evidence we have heard does not suggest to me that she was in the habit of using multiple burner phones for "security" if this is your theory. In fact it is more surprising how little effort they made to cover their digital tracks. IMO.

OK
But when I read there was not even one drop of victim's blood on her, I wondered what exactly she was (allegedly) doing.

After all it seemed to be her (alleged) fantasy.

She seems to me very cunnning and persuasive.
Allegedly.

As for leaving evidence behind,
Weren't they startled by an unexpected witness?
And had to ran away in haste?

Allegedly, of course.

JMO

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

OK
But when I read there was not even one drop of victim's blood on her, I wondered what exactly she was (allegedly) doing.

After all it seemed to be her (alleged) fantasy.

She seems to me very cunnning and persuasive.
Allegedly.

As for leaving evidence behind,
Weren't they startled by an unexpected witness?
And had to ran away in haste?

Allegedly, of course.

JMO

Being startled at the scene is irrelevant to what was on their phones - all their messages about killing Brianna etc. They could have erased these at any time, but didn't. They may be cunning but also extremely stupid. The evidence points against them being savvy enough to use different phones. Who knows, but I think if there was a video we would know by now.

I have my own theory as to what Girl X and Boy Y were doing during the crime but we should probably leave it for the court. Girl X should resume her testimony tomorrow so I am sure we will hear her side then.

 

[Dotta]

Being startled at the scene is irrelevant to what was on their phones - all their messages about killing Brianna etc. They could have erased these at any time, but didn't. They may be cunning but also extremely stupid. The evidence points against them being savvy enough to use different phones. Who knows, but I think if there was a video we would know by now.

I have my own theory as to what Girl X and Boy Y were doing during the crime but we should probably leave it for the court. Girl X should resume her testimony tomorrow so I am sure we will hear her side then.

Their conversations could have been erased, but it wouldn't matter.
They would have been retrieved by experts.

But leaving a knife and a paper note at home was really stupid - I agree.

I meant evidence left at crime scene.

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

Their conversations could have been erased, but it wouldn't matter.
They would have been retrieved by experts.

But leaving a knife and a paper note at home was really stupid - I agree.

I meant evidence left at crime scene.

Exactly, but the fact they didn't even try to erase the messages shows even more how utterly naive they were. So definitely not smart enough to be using multiple phones, IMO. Because they barely even tried to conceal the evidence on their own phones.

It depends on how many phones she allegedly used