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

[Honeybirdette]

I have been on the fence about the boy. But my one sticking point was his blood droplet on Girl Xs shoes. And his blood on the sheath. And his defence gave no explanation for that, which is troubling.

I like to think his version is accurate, but that's a tricky bit of evidence to get past, with no attempt at all to explain it.

I don’t think there is much they could say to defend the the blood drop evidence. It’s there in black and white, and completely disproves his story of her already lying on the floor. The blood would have to have dripped from above to land on his toe. They tried to get an expert in to say he could have been stood on a lower step and the blood dripped that way if I remember correctly….. but it reminded me of something that came up in the lucy letby trial.

“Mr Myers then asked him whether vigorous CPR could be "categorically excluded" as a possibility for Child O's injuries.
Dr Marnerides compared it to the hypothetical discovery of a dead man in the desert with a pot next to him, saying it could be "possible" that a helicopter flew over and dropped the pot on his head, but that it was not "probable".

Lucy Letby: Bruises on baby not caused by CPR, trial told - BBC News

Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of killing the boy before also allegedly murdering his triplet brother.

www.bbc.co.uk

Basically it’s possible, but not probable.

 

[Mirabel091]

The problem the prosecution have is that if the jury focus independently on the evidence given by X and Y, each of them could end up walking away free, despite both of them admitting to being there and that it was certainly one of them who stabbed Brianna.

That's why the defence lawyers are playing up that X is a fantasist and Y is easily led. That's also why Ms Heer said not to get too hung up on needing to prove who did what.

Anyway, I hope the jury take all the time they need and don't feel pressured to be done by Christmas.

 

[Skigh]

The problem the prosecution have is that if the jury focus independently on the evidence given by X and Y, each of them could end up walking away free, despite both of them admitting to being there and that it was certainly one of them who stabbed Brianna.

That's why the defence lawyers are playing up that X is a fantasist and Y is easily led. That's also why Ms Heer said not to get too hung up on needing to prove who did what.

Anyway, I hope the jury take all the time they need and don't feel pressured to be done by Christmas.

I feel there is more than enough evidence to convict the pair of them. I will be surprised if the jury do not give their verdicts tomorrow.

 

[katydid23]

The message was sent at 3.06pm according to the court transcript. Mrs Vize's phone call was logged at 3.13pm (source BBC, below) and they didn't immediately realise what they were seeing. I do think it's a close call whether it was sent by Brianna just before the attack or X just after it, but I agree it's unlikely a modern teenager would need to pause much to compose it.

Brianna Ghey: Dog walker's 999 call about teenager played to jury

A dog walker who found Brianna Ghey told a 999 operator help needed to come "quickly", a court hears.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't think it was sent by Brianna because BOTH defendants say that girlX walked with Brianna from the bus stop to the stairs at the park. They disagree about which one of them began stabbing her, but neither of them say that girl X totally disappeared from Brianna's sight. The park witness said girlX walked to the top of the stairs at one point, but that would still be visible to the victim. The witness said both defendants walked to top of stairs at one point, appearing to be looking around to see if coast was clear.

 

[Legal]

I still think it's likely x brought another knife (jmo, if guilty) and it could have been disposed of, like brianna's phone. Whether or not one or both of these are found guilty, the events seem to have followed the plans which they explicitly discussed in the text messages (invite B out, take her to the park, stab her in stomach and back etc) and x was told to bring a knife by y if she wanted to join in, which she said she did.

All JMO.

 

[bbsaz]

I don’t think there is much they could say to defend the the blood drop evidence. It’s there in black and white, and completely disproves his story of her already lying on the floor. The blood would have to have dripped from above to land on his toe. They tried to get an expert in to say he could have been stood on a lower step and the blood dripped that way if I remember correctly….. but it reminded me of something that came up in the lucy letby trial.

“Mr Myers then asked him whether vigorous CPR could be "categorically excluded" as a possibility for Child O's injuries.
Dr Marnerides compared it to the hypothetical discovery of a dead man in the desert with a pot next to him, saying it could be "possible" that a helicopter flew over and dropped the pot on his head, but that it was not "probable".

Lucy Letby: Bruises on baby not caused by CPR, trial told - BBC News

Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of killing the boy before also allegedly murdering his triplet brother.

www.bbc.co.uk

Basically it’s possible, but not probable.

I'm talking about his blood found on girl Xs shoe. And again, his blood on/in the knife sheath. Now the sheath you could explain by saying he previously said he used it for self harm, but they didn't even use that excuse. As for his blood on her shoe, no mention was made by his defence today. That's telling

 

[Honeybirdette]

I'm talking about his blood found on girl Xs shoe. And again, his blood on/in the knife sheath. Now the sheath you could explain by saying he previously said he used it for self harm, but they didn't even use that excuse. As for his blood on her shoe, no mention was made by his defence today. That's telling

Ohh sorry I misunderstood. Boy ys blood on girl x shoe doesn’t do anything for proving / disproving his involvement in the murder of Brianna though. His blood could have got on her shoe innocently from a previous occasion. They were friends and had met up several times before. If it was a mixed sample of Brianna’s and boy ys blood maybe, or if there was evidence found at the scene of boy ys blood, showing he was actively bleeding at that time maybe, but there wasn’t.

 

[Mirabel091]

I don't think it was sent by Brianna because BOTH defendants say that girlX walked with Brianna from the bus stop to the stairs at the park. They disagree about which one of them began stabbing her, but neither of them say that girl X totally disappeared from Brianna's sight. The park witness said girlX walked to the top of the stairs at one point, but that would still be visible to the victim. The witness said both defendants walked to top of stairs at one point, appearing to be looking around to see if coast was clear.

I did consider though, that if X was repeatedly moving a short distance away, Brianna might be anxious about being left with Y, who she didn't know.

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

The "Girl where are u" text message is bugging me.

Boy Y's version is that Girl X sent it to herself, from Brianna's phone, as an alibi (almost immediately after stabbing BG 28 times).

But...

- The message doesn't fit with the original cover story, that Brianna ran off to meet some lad from Manchester. How does "Girl where are you" fit with that? It makes no sense. Would have made more sense to text something like "Girl sorry I had to run, forgot I was meeting this lad".

- Ironically "Girl where are you" actually DOES fit better with Girl X's current version, that she wandered off leaving Brianna with Boy Y... but hang on, isn't this the narrative the defence are claiming she "stole" from Boy Y? So are they saying Girl X planted evidence for a narrative she didn't even know about yet?!

- If it was sent as an alibi, how was it in Girl X's interest to then delete this chat immediately on receiving it? Why fabricate a message to imply you were not at the scene, then delete it within seconds? That makes no sense either.

- Plus how does Girl X even get into Brianna's phone to send this message, when even the police have apparently not been able to access her phone?

DH: “What about the deceased Brianna Ghey? We know her phone was recovered from a drain. Have the police been able to access that telephone?”
...
CO: “We have been unable to do so.”

Brianna Ghey murder trial live updates as Girl X gives evidence

The 16-year-old transgender schoolgirl was fatally stabbed in a park and two teenagers are charged with her murder

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Its not clear if this was because the phone was locked, or damaged from being in the drain, but blood was found on the phone, suggesting maybe it wasn't in water. So if locked, how did Girl X access the phone to send a message?


It seems to me most plausible version is that Brianna sent that last message "Girl where are u" around the time she was stabbed.

Which would mean Girl X had indeed left her alone with Boy Y.


JMO MOO etc, and obviously only commenting on what has been reported in the live feed!

 

[Grouse]

I didn't follow all reports and I'm curious how this pair met.
Was it explained?

Did they attend the same school in the past?

They live in 2 different places - GX in W. and BY in L.
(I don't remember these names).

And they only have met in person 2 or 3 times this year?
How strange!

These places are all relatively close to each other, and are all actually on the number 28 bus route as well, the bus Brianna used to get from Birchwood to Culcheth(~20 mins), and also the bus Y used to get home from Culcheth to Leigh(~15 mins) afterwards.

https://www.warringtonsownbuses.co.uk/services/WBTR/28

 

[Grouse]

I'm talking about his blood found on girl Xs shoe. And again, his blood on/in the knife sheath. Now the sheath you could explain by saying he previously said he used it for self harm, but they didn't even use that excuse. As for his blood on her shoe, no mention was made by his defence today. That's telling

Yes, not much seems to have been said about him cutting himself at some point during proceedings.

 

[Sam & Twitch]

t

 

[bbsaz]

Ohh sorry I misunderstood. Boy ys blood on girl x shoe doesn’t do anything for proving / disproving his involvement in the murder of Brianna though. His blood could have got on her shoe innocently from a previous occasion. They were friends and had met up several times before. If it was a mixed sample of Brianna’s and boy ys blood maybe, or if there was evidence found at the scene of boy ys blood, showing he was actively bleeding at that time maybe, but there wasn’t.

Yes, but part of my point is that no attempt at an excuse was made for that blood. His defence could have said he recalls having a nosebleed during their previous meet up, for example. But they just conveniently forgot all about it today. Which for me (who is somewhat on the fence over the boy) is telling.

Excuses/explanations could have been created to dismiss the evidence of his blood on the sheath and on Girl Xs shoe, but nothing was said. Which could end up being the thing that pushes me off that fence (so to speak)

 

[Parker Knoll]

I’m just catching up but I looks like I am the only one who loved the “she stole our defence “ quote.
It did make me laugh.
I’m betting jury out by 11.15 and decision Thursday afternoon latest.

 

[bastien]

I still think it's likely x brought another knife (jmo, if guilty) and it could have been disposed of, like brianna's phone. Whether or not one or both of these are found guilty, the events seem to have followed the plans which they explicitly discussed in the text messages (invite B out, take her to the park, stab her in stomach and back etc) and x was told to bring a knife by y if she wanted to join in, which she said she did.

All JMO.

I find this unlikely. Given the conversations between the defendants where they liked to show off, I can't imagine a second knife being brought by Girl X that isn't the "chef knife". She mentioned this knife several times in messages. This knife was later found in Girl X's room with only Girl X's DNA on it. I think there was only one knife that day.

 

[katydid23]

I did consider though, that if X was repeatedly moving a short distance away, Brianna might be anxious about being left with Y, who she didn't know.

Maybe, but X did those other fake texts later, where she talks about Brianna running off with some guy from Manchester, and where she fakes a discussion with Y about what happened to Brianna, as if it was a surprise to both of them.

So it fits in with her pattern of 'staging' the scene with fake texts. But in the whole scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if that one text was fake or not. The damage was already done When she lured B to the park, walked her to the steps, made a fake account of a drug dealer to convince her to stay, ask Y to bring a knife so they could stab her, and make the plans with him for a code word to trigger the attack.

IMO, those actions fit the criteria set forth by the statute---->>>encouraging the accomplice and planning the crime together

 

[Honeybirdette]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737414893974786555

Sent out already

 

[Skigh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737414893974786555

Sent out already

That was quicker than I thought it would be. I am going for verdicts before lunch.

 

[Detective_Popcorn]

Not prejudging any verdict, but in the event one or both were to be found guilty, is it likely sentencing would happen before Christmas?

 

[Honeybirdette]

Not prejudging any verdict, but in the event one or both were to be found guilty, is it likely sentencing would happen before Christmas?

I’d hope so, letbys sentencing was within a couple days of the last verdict if I remember. But I think the judge might want further reports on them both, especially boy y. Hoping I’m wrong and this can be wrapped up before Christmas break (Including the anonymity lifting if that happens too)