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

[Skigh]

When I was on a jury at the end of every day the judge told us to go away, go home, and forget about the trial until next time we were in court. I don't know if those are standard directions though.

You can tell some one not to think about events ,but ,even if subconsciously,people are going to think about what they have recently heard.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes the judge usually indicates to the jury to enjoy their weekend and don’t dwell on the case. Sometimes a short day is one of those things.
Remember Letby everyone !

 

[Dotta]

Yes the judge usually indicates to the jury to enjoy their weekend and don’t dwell on the case. Sometimes a short day is one of those things.
Remember Letby everyone !

Besides,
Court is Court and
Home is Home

Never ever bring work home!
Think about balance!

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

I long to learn the art of switching off Dotta !

 

[katydid23]

Maybe judge and counsel think it might be worthwhile for the jury to think about the legal instructions over the weekend before closing arguments begin on Monday?

That's the best theory I can think of!

I think there were a few really important concepts the jury needs to sit with, before Monday resumes.

For example:

“The fact there are two suspects for the murder does not mean you must convict at least one defendant.
“You could find both defendants guilty, you could find one guilty, or you could find both not guilty.”

[super important concept in this case^^^---imo]


“You do not have to decide exactly what happened on February 11 or why it happened."


“The prosecution do not have to prove who stabbed Brianna, whether it was one or both of the defendants.

What matters is whether you are sure the defendant played a part in the killing, intending that Brianna die or be caused really serious injury.”


I am glad they went over these key concepts before Monday. That will be a long day. These issues will already be processed before they hear the closings, etc.

 

[CS2C]

There seems to be lots of aggravating factors for boy y. the transphobic language he used against Brianna, (girl x always used the correct pronouns) the blood evidence on his clothes and shoes which strongly suggests him being the one that stabbed her. It was his weapon and he brought it with him on the day of the murder.
I think someone mentioned earlier they think his culpability would be less than girl x. I disagree. They also have these messages of him suggesting various poison to kill her with showing strong premeditation. Huge aggravating factors imo. If guilty, I’d say he’s even more of a danger to the public than she is.

Totally agree.

 

[mrjitty]

I remember studying this exact formulation or parties to murder in Crimes 200. I am too lazy to look up the law on it, so this is all just IMO as to general policy and you can always google if you want the precise law.

From a policy perspective party offences evolved to stop this exact type of defence. So for example A and B shoot a man. Then in court say "ha ha you can't prove which one of us pulled the trigger therefore you must find us both not guilty!" It gets more complicated e.g. armed bank robbers where people have different roles e.g the getaway driver - and many countries codified this to make everyone responsible for whatever bad stuff happens.

tldr - the idea of party offences evolved and was codified to punish everyone who was directly responsible, even if they are not the killer. Each can be guilty of murder, even where we don't know which one did the murder (sometimes it is impossible to know).

The parties to an offence​

Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories ) (D2). Each offence will have at least one principal, although it is not always possible or necessary to identify the principal(s).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs or causes the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.

A secondary party is one who aids, abets, counsels or procures (commonly referred to as assists or encourages) D1 to commit the substantive offence, without being a principal offender. However, a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender: s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

Secondary liability principles can be applied to most offences. The principles remain the same, whichever offence they are applied to. The principles are commonly used in offences of violence, theft, fraud and public order.

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

In respect of Girl X, I am sure the prosecution is going to say she had a clear plan to murder the victim, even if she struck no blows and didn't bring her own knife. They will argue exact role does not matter as she was the mastermind.

I think counsel for Girl X will say look this was all a bunch of text messages with a boy she didn't know well, surely she never expected he would actually do it - no one would expect that. He didn't even know the victim. etc. As such she lacks the requisite intention for murder and she never actually foresaw it, despite ostensibly planning it. I'll be interested exactly how counsel tries to argue this.

This may sound strange but I think there is some validity to the idea that neither accused really believed the other was serious, but then according to defences' case one or other crossed the rubicon. There was one of those moments of truth in cross where counsel asked Boy Y something along the lines did he ever stop to think the game had gone too far

But whether that argument would be enough for Girl X with a jury remains to be seen

02c

 

[Dotta]

Didn't it go too far earlier?
When BG was (allegedly) poisoned?

Both defendants were (allegedly) involved.

JMO

 

[Legally Bland]

I remember studying this exact formulation or parties to murder in Crimes 200. I am too lazy to look up the law on it, so this is all just IMO as to general policy and you can always google if you want the precise law.

From a policy perspective party offences evolved to stop this exact type of defence. So for example A and B shoot a man. Then in court say "ha ha you can't prove which one of us pulled the trigger therefore you must find us both not guilty!" It gets more complicated e.g. armed bank robbers where people have different roles e.g the getaway driver - and many countries codified this to make everyone responsible for whatever bad stuff happens.

tldr - the idea of party offences evolved and was codified to punish everyone who was directly responsible, even if they are not the killer. Each can be guilty of murder, even where we don't know which one did the murder (sometimes it is impossible to know).

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

In respect of Girl X, I am sure the prosecution is going to say she had a clear plan to murder the victim, even if she struck no blows and didn't bring her own knife. They will argue exact role does not matter as she was the mastermind.

I think counsel for Girl X will say look this was all a bunch of text messages with a boy she didn't know well, surely she never expected he would actually do it - no one would expect that. He didn't even know the victim. etc. As such she lacks the requisite intention for murder and she never actually foresaw it, despite ostensibly planning it. I'll be interested exactly how counsel tries to argue this.

This may sound strange but I think there is some validity to the idea that neither accused really believed the other was serious, but then according to defences' case one or other crossed the rubicon. There was one of those moments of truth in cross where counsel asked Boy Y something along the lines did he ever stop to think the game had gone too far

But whether that argument would be enough for Girl X with a jury remains to be seen

02c

I honestly think girl X's KC is mainly going to try and obfuscate over the difference of opinions about the blood spatter evidence. I think he'll try to convince the jury there's been a significant misstep by the police/forensics/prosecution.

In reality you can remove the blood spatter evidence altogether and still have 2 guilty verdicts, if that's how the jury sees it.

Just get the feeling that's the way he's heading.

 

[mrjitty]

I honestly think girl X's KC is mainly going to try and obfuscate over the difference of opinions about the blood spatter evidence. I think he'll try to convince the jury there's been a significant misstep by the police/forensics/prosecution.

In reality you can remove the blood spatter evidence altogether and still have 2 guilty verdicts, if that's how the jury sees it.

Just get the feeling that's the way he's heading.

Right but he needs to deal with the planning in the texts

 

[Legally Bland]

Right but he needs to deal with the planning in the texts

Yeah definitely, I just think we're in for some serious overanalysis of blood spatter.

 

[Grouse]

I long to learn the art of switching off Dotta !

It's easier said than done in some situations.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Agreed !

 

[Honeybirdette]

There seems to be lots of aggravating factors for boy y. the transphobic language he used against Brianna, (girl x always used the correct pronouns) the blood evidence on his clothes and shoes which strongly suggests him being the one that stabbed her. It was his weapon and he brought it with him on the day of the murder.
I think someone mentioned earlier they think his culpability would be less than girl x. I disagree. They also have these messages of him suggesting various poison to kill her with showing strong premeditation. Huge aggravating factors imo. If guilty, I’d say he’s even more of a danger to the public than she is.

Also, I just wanted to add to this that this is someone he hadn't even met. how dangerous must he be to do this to someone he didn’t even know? He had seen a few photos of her n that’s it. He allegedly murdered a stranger in cold blood just cause a friend suggested it. Horrifying if guilty… I’m not sure someone like that is ever safe to be released

 

[katydid23]

Right but he needs to deal with the planning in the texts

I think that's where it's going to go wrong for both of them. They can claim it was just a fantasy or just a joke gone too far. But there were physical actions by both that created the lethal situation. JMO

 

[bbsaz]

I think Girl X is cut and dried. The jury might take some time wrangling over Boy Y though (imo)

 

[bbsaz]

Also, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the potential that Girl Xs clothes had no blood on because they've forensically analysed the wrong clothes.... I find that very odd and a crucial part of the case

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

Also, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the potential that Girl Xs clothes had no blood on because they've forensically analysed the wrong clothes.... I find that very odd and a crucial part of the case

Yes I'm still not sure what to make of that. Obviously it has been insinuated that the wrong clothes were tested but was it conclusively proved? Or just the KC leaping on the fact she had two similar looking items to sow any doubt possible for the jury? I don't recall DH providing a response.

 

[Dotta]

Yes I'm still not sure what to make of that. Obviously it has been insinuated that the wrong clothes were tested but was it conclusively proved? Or just the KC leaping on the fact she had two similar looking items to sow any doubt possible for the jury? I don't recall DH providing a response.

I honestly doubt the wrong clothes were examined.
It might mean making idiots of Police officers.
Really!
Shaking my head
JMO

 

[Legal]

I can't believe that if these 2 are guilty, they could have just thrown away their own phones as well as Brianna's and disposed of the knife and claimed they went off for a walk alone and came back and found her dead. They could have said the blood came from them touching her body. I think without the texts and knife, their involvement would be a lot more difficult to evidence (if guilty).

Also, the 28 (I think it was) stab wounds seems to have been brushed over. I mean this would have taken a huge amount of physical energy and god knows the psychology behind it. If these 2 are guilty and had planned to kill someone potentially for the first time, I would have expected one or two stabs and then them to run away before they were caught. I don't feel the ferocity of this attack has really been addressed. JMO