Jemimah
Active member
I'm the parent of one of the children on "the list" and I'm also in two minds about them naming and identifying X and Y publicly for this reason.
- Notice
BarryEvansHun
Active member
I have no words for this
Attachments
thegirlscout
VIP Member
The head teacher’s tribute to Brianna is beautiful. It mentions her mum being the main support and I’ve heard that in many comments during the trial. I wonder what happened with her Dad as I know he turned up to the trial but didn’t seem to have a close relationship with her. When she changed her name she changed her surname to her mum’s surname too.
BarryEvansHun
Active member
Between the years of 2008-2017 a total of 9 trans people were murdered in the UK. That’s an average of 1 per year.
In the UK, 2 women a WEEK a murdered.
Trans people are not being killed left right and centre as it is portrayed. When we use high profile murders, such as Brianna’s for political gain it reinforces this myth.
Men literally KILL women because they HATE women, and it’s not considered a hate crime. It’s barbaric. It really is relevant to state the truth.
BarryEvansHun
Active member
I’ve not killed anyone. But as a child I was off the wall. Set fire to my childrens home, attempted to stab the post man, constantly in trouble. I spent 2 years in a secure unit from the age of 12. Now I work, supporting very vulnerable adults, have guardianship of 2 children, live relatively normal and don’t even shout. When people see me now that knew me back then they cannot believe it is actually me. When people find out about my childhood, they cannot believe I was capable of such things. Truth is I was an abused child and I learned people only listened to me when I did extreme things. Then doing extreme things became the norm for me. I went from being scared of adults, to adults being scared of me. Which meant they left me alone. Hurt people hurt people. I do wonder what went on with X in her family home.
Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
I'm going to say what many other previous posters have probably already been flamed for, but I don't care: I don't for one moment believe Boy Y's autism diagnosis or his selective mutism.
A reminder that Lucy Letby obtained a legitimate diagnosis of PTSD, and was able to get special treatment throughout her trial because of it and to perform vulnerability for the jury - even though it turned out that the incidents she claimed gave her PTSD categorically did not happen as she said they did. A diagnosis isn't infallible, and both defendants are too young to have a diagnosis of personality disorders, including anti-social (the official name for sociopathy).
It should not be taboo to question a diagnosis of an accused murder who is getting so many advantages from said diagnosis, and when questionable diagnosis like this harm other people who really do have the condition. Diagnosing autism is not a hard science and some studies suggest that false diagnoses are common. I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a murderer.
The advantages he's getting:
Here's why I think his diagnosis of autism and selective mutism are dubious:
I was diagnosed 16 years ago and my whole life since then has revolved around participating in groups for people with autism. I have met hundreds and hundreds of other autistic people, and befriended dozens. All my friends are autistic. I have never, ever seen anybody express themselves the way he does, or say the things he does. It seems like the performance of somebody who has researched the traits and symptoms and is acting it out with no nuance. He basically states the symptoms of autism, without knowing what it looks or feels like to actually have that symptom.
That is my opinion, and as I said it should not be off-limits to doubt the diagnosis of an accused murderer when his defense depends on that diagnosis. And when he's too young to officially receive the more likely diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder - who incidentally, do not feel anxiety in the same way as regular people.
A reminder that false diagnoses (especially of alleged homicidal sadists) are harmful to people with real autism and I feel we should be able to talk about it when it's suspected. Before anyone says, I am aware that people with autism can be bad too, or have comorbid ASPD. I just don't think this is one of those cases.
A reminder that Lucy Letby obtained a legitimate diagnosis of PTSD, and was able to get special treatment throughout her trial because of it and to perform vulnerability for the jury - even though it turned out that the incidents she claimed gave her PTSD categorically did not happen as she said they did. A diagnosis isn't infallible, and both defendants are too young to have a diagnosis of personality disorders, including anti-social (the official name for sociopathy).
It should not be taboo to question a diagnosis of an accused murder who is getting so many advantages from said diagnosis, and when questionable diagnosis like this harm other people who really do have the condition. Diagnosing autism is not a hard science and some studies suggest that false diagnoses are common. I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a murderer.
The advantages he's getting:
- His entire defense relies on him not understanding that Girl X's murder fantasy and plan was to become reality. Despite the judge saying it is irrelevant, his barrister did indeed heavily draw on his autism diagnosis to support this.
- His barrister claimed that Girl X - who is also supposed to have ADHD and traits of autism - is socially superior compared to the "inept" Boy Y and was able to manipulate him. He even implied "grooming".
- His autism was used to justify his odd presentation during his police interviews. Guilty people also tend to present oddly during police interviews, and Boy Y gets a free pass for being judged for this. Despite also having been diagnosed, Girl X was attacked for her atypical presentation (inappropriate laughter) during her police interviews by the boy's barrister.
- He was able to type out his answers on the stand, which gave him more time to think and less chance of being caught out. It gave him much more control over his presentation.
- He has been portrayed both by himself and his defense as vulnerable, which may provoke sympathy from the jury. At least, this is a possibility - it may well go the other way but it's an attempt.
- Regardless of if it is truly needed (and it may be), being given special treatment during his trial will have given Boy Y a sense of control, which he will be desperate for when his whole future hangs in the balance.
- There is a misogynist trope that women are responsible for male violence; this performance of Boy Y as vulnerable and Girl X as massively socially superior and a manipulator plays into this.
- He is only able to talk to his mother, which prevents him having to engage with authority figures in prison, and will no doubt be affording him special treatment in there too. Again this will give him the precious relief of having some control over his life.
Here's why I think his diagnosis of autism and selective mutism are dubious:
- Selective mutism usually starts in early childhood, and is heavily linked with anxiety. Boy Y's started at near adulthood, and he claims to not know what anxiety feels like.
- Similarly, autistic people have higher levels of anxiety than average and know what this feels like - he's trying to portray alexithymia (not knowing your own feelings), but over-egging it and making it unrealistic.
- He seems very perceptive in his messages to Girl X, and very aware of and interested in her feelings about things, which is atypical for autism.
- He expresses himself coherently in the messages - I was not even able to have a back and forth conversation at that age.
- He apparently messaged with Girl X frequently every day, which most autistic people would not have the social energy to do.
- He described Brianna as looking like she didn't want to be seen by anybody - independently describing her in exactly the same way as the bus driver did. He accurately read and interpreted Brianna's body language, which people with autism are not able to do.
- His writing style in court was extremely different from his writing style in his messages, in which he writes normally. His writing style in court is deliberately stilted and robotic. I would say he's trying to make himself look different.
- He repeatedly draws attention to his differences on the stand ("I have insufficient awareness about myself" blah blah. A non-pretentious person would just say "I'm not sure why I do that")
- In his police interview, he talks with great self awareness about things such as supposedly not understanding when something is a joke or not, and supposedly being desperate to be liked so going along with whatever his friends do. Usually when young autistic people do these things, they are not consciously aware of it, or able to describe it, at that age.
- He and girl X are known to have researched autism, and considered if he had it.
I was diagnosed 16 years ago and my whole life since then has revolved around participating in groups for people with autism. I have met hundreds and hundreds of other autistic people, and befriended dozens. All my friends are autistic. I have never, ever seen anybody express themselves the way he does, or say the things he does. It seems like the performance of somebody who has researched the traits and symptoms and is acting it out with no nuance. He basically states the symptoms of autism, without knowing what it looks or feels like to actually have that symptom.
That is my opinion, and as I said it should not be off-limits to doubt the diagnosis of an accused murderer when his defense depends on that diagnosis. And when he's too young to officially receive the more likely diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder - who incidentally, do not feel anxiety in the same way as regular people.
A reminder that false diagnoses (especially of alleged homicidal sadists) are harmful to people with real autism and I feel we should be able to talk about it when it's suspected. Before anyone says, I am aware that people with autism can be bad too, or have comorbid ASPD. I just don't think this is one of those cases.
BarryEvansHun
Active member
I work in forensic mental health. I’ve supported many patients with autism. There is this myth that people with autism and/or learning disabilities are exempt from bad behaviours. That they are happy, clappy, smiley humans that wouldn’t hurt a fly. This is not true. They are just a capable of lying, manipulating, harming and killing as somebody without autism. There is no hiding behind an autism diagnosis in a situation like this. He’s a murderer AND he has autism. He’s not killed Brianna because he’s autistic. Plus he is deemed full capacity, or he wouldn’t be tried in a court of law. He knows exactly what he’s doing. The judge has explained this. Selective mutism is common for people with autism after a traumatic event. Even though he is the perpetrator, it can still be considered a traumatic event.
hooplifehero
Chatty Member
As what many people would probably call a 'terf' myself, I can't imagine this.
Whether you agree with it or not (and you don't!) I think gender critical approaches are usually based in concern for vulnerable children: people exactly like Brianna.
Some gender critical people might maintain that Brianna was a male teenager, which you'd perhaps feel was harmful in itself, and some might argue that Brianna should not have had access to hormones and should have delayed the social transition process, and some might feel that Brianna was a feminine boy who should have been allowed to explore those possibilities through further counselling rather than automatically confirmed as a young woman, and I can understand if you'd disagree with all of that, but absolutely nobody I have ever heard of within gender critical circles would ever wish physical harm to come to someone like Brianna.
I don't know of any political, gendered narrative that would excuse the behaviour of X and Y and find them not guilty.
noharmdone
Member
It's a quote from the trial which this thread is about
Justhereforthedrama
VIP Member
I hope Rowling, Gervais and co sue the fucking arse off Willoughby for that vile claim.
lookwhatthecatdraggedin1
VIP Member
My friend was stabbed to death this year and the woman who killed him has a brother who owns multiple shops in our area who is a lovely man and does a lot for the community. Once found guilty multiple people tried to tarnish his business smashing the shops up and assaulting his staff members over something his sister who he’s had no contact with for over 20 years has done meaning it affected him and his children. I hate the whole witch hunt over family who have 0 involvement in it all, for all anyone knows these people have completely cut him off and want nothing further to do with him. It’s ridiculous
BarryEvansHun
Active member
I’m gender critical. My reasoning behind being GC is the safety and protection of children. Any child, especially children questioning their gender. Even if the a member of the jury had GC views and viewed Brianna as male, it wouldn’t affect their verdict. I don’t think Brianna’s gender even comes into it. Brianna isn’t on trial here.
What a disgusting, ridiculous comment. I quite proud of the fact I'm a TERF, and I'd have found them guilty. I've hoped from the start that they both spend the rest of their lives in prison.
How DARE you talk about "suiting a narrative" and then imply its us that would let two child murderers go free for a laugh. What a disgrace.
Lardsnomes
Well-known member
It’s not a case of deadnaming her or people knowing or not. The judge literally said this at the start of the trial. It’s factual and neither of her parents have had an issue with the facts about Brianna’s status or birth name being open.
CoopsLoops
Active member
Tbh, and hopefully I’m not being insensitive, I think it’s a shame the headteacher focused so much on the individual elements of Brianna’s look rather than (only) on individual elements of Brianna’s character. A general comment about her interest in fashion would suffice.
The present day focus on how young people look and being noticeable on social media isn’t particularly healthy. Especially when the look Briana had was in many ways a somewhat-sexualised and certainly stereotypical look of ‘feminity’. I don’t think a head teacher should be inadvertently encouraging that, although obviously that wasn’t her intention.
Fact is that while Brianna had a lot of followers on social media, by Brianna’s mother’s admission, Brianna was self-harming and had an eating disorder. Whatever BG’s fashion look, they unfortunately didn’t have a healthy self-image or view of their body.
The present day focus on how young people look and being noticeable on social media isn’t particularly healthy. Especially when the look Briana had was in many ways a somewhat-sexualised and certainly stereotypical look of ‘feminity’. I don’t think a head teacher should be inadvertently encouraging that, although obviously that wasn’t her intention.
Fact is that while Brianna had a lot of followers on social media, by Brianna’s mother’s admission, Brianna was self-harming and had an eating disorder. Whatever BG’s fashion look, they unfortunately didn’t have a healthy self-image or view of their body.
Miggsy
Well-known member
That’s a quite disgraceful comment and utterly baseless. I am GC and in no way would I have used a child’s senseless death and my role as a juror to further any agenda.
Thegirlwhouk
Well-known member
This sums it up well but it makes Y look more guilty than X which I actually don't think is the case. I think X's planning started the whole thing and I also think the transphobic stuff is a red herring. Her gender didn't come into the planning. She just happened to be transgender. I do think however that X picked Brianna because she was vulnerable and her vulnerability was partly down to her gender dysphoria.
I think the are both equally guilty, even if X didn't touch a knife. She pushed this idea, planned it and told Y to bring the knife.
---
Oh and we don't know that she didn't bring a knife, we just know they didn't find one. Similar to the blood. I think she cleaned herself up and washed her stuff. There has been a lot of mention of the clothes she wore and I think it's because it's not black and white. It's not that she didn't get blood on her, it's that there was no evidence of it.
Exactly. People are soooo desperate for this to be a hate crime? Why? What part of “they had a list of 5 other kids to kill” do they not understand?
Their original number 1 target was boy E ( who they described as a nonce because he was going out with a girl in the year or couple years below)
He blocked the fake insta, and girl x said “if we can’t get boy e, we can kill Brianna”
To be a hate crime, Brianna would have been murdered cause she was trans.
Where’s the evidence of this? Stop pushing your agenda.
Trans people are still normal people you know, they can still be murdered just like other normal people. It doesn’t have to be because they were trans.