Even so, it’s very odd and was still being discussed as if there was a possibility it could have happened
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Were people not quoting prosecuting Diana Heer? I don’t think anyone on this forum came up with that idea. She put this forward as a potential explanation for why he was seen bending over her body in her closing statement yesterday, referring back to messages from Y where he said he he wanted to ‘see how big her d**k is’ or something equally disgusting.
You’re not making logical sense. Just because you think it’s not relevant doesn’t make it so.
All we’ve discussed re trans-related comments and Boy Y was discussed in the trial as it’s evidence. Therefore it’s relevant. If you disagree, take it up with the prosecution legal team.
You’ve accused people of wanting this to be a hate crime for political reasons when there’s not much evidence of that. I’ll say again for the cheap seats, I’m gender critical. Doesn’t mean I can’t be objective based on the facts. You’re behaving in the way you accuse the other side of the trans debate of being - over emotive.
Not really - she was pointing out he’s a hitman character and girl x viewed boy y as her hitman.
It was being discussed as a possibility of having happened because the prosecution claimed it was a possibility given Boy Y expressed the intent of wanting to do exactly that, and there was witness evidence he was bending down/kneeling by Brianna.
Seriously, why are you trying to undermine evidence?
You’re literally the person who said you wouldn’t be surprised if he had looked under Brianna’s skirt. I’ve already made my feelings on that clear so I’m not going to repeat them and I’m not going to argue with you as I think it’s clear you have a vastly different opinion to mine here.
I kind of feel that compared to stabbing someone 28 times, this sort of distasteful remark from a teenage boy is less relevant. He said a lot of nasty and stupid things. They were talking about a child being a 'nonce' and another one being made to eat his own penis. If they'd killed the boy they were calling 'nonce', would we be saying that his prejudice against paedophilia was part of the motive? I think they were just being crude and unpleasant about people they considered part of their semi-joking, sinister joint plans, finding whatever aspect they could about a child to diminish and dehumanise them and to strip them of value. It is striking that there weren't any (other) girls on their list but don't you think if they'd chosen a girl to kill, they would have been sharing horrible ideas about what to do with her female body? Would that make it a misogynist hate crime?
I don't agree that transphobia was involved, because Girl X introduced Brianna to the conversation and enticed her to the murder location, and I don't think Girl X was 'transphobic' in the usual sense - she felt Brianna was possibly prettier than her, and was fascinated by Brianna and obsessed, but she respected pronouns and regarded Brianna as a girl.
And I don't think Boy Y stabbed Brianna because Brianna was trans. I think he did it because Girl X encouraged and supported him to do it, steadily over a period of time through their bizarre and twisted conversations, and probably at the location, in person, at the time of the killing.
I am literally that person, yes. After the prosecution said she thinks that’s what he was doing, or may have been doing. Because he said he wanted to do that. We know that they both acted out other parts of their plan. Their intent is a huge reason why they are being prosecuted for murder.
Girl X said she wanted one of Brianna’s eyes. There’s no evidence she tried to take one but if she’d been seen with Brianna’s face in her hands by a witness and the prosecution had suggested that’s what Girl X may have been trying to do, I would also have agreed that’s a possibility.
The factual evidence - non-disputed - presented isn’t a buffet. You can’t pick and choose what you take and what you leave.
So over this hate crime/not a hate crime discussion, which has been had many times.
It hasn’t been prosecuted as a hate crime, but Brianna’s gender was a factor.
I wonder if Y’s barrister is being bizarre on purpose? Is he “technically” being his advocate but has nothing to say in support of him, so is just filling the time? Essentially being seen to provide a defence, without really summing up a defence?
It hasn’t been prosecuted as a hate crime, but Brianna’s gender was a factor.
I wonder if Y’s barrister is being bizarre on purpose? Is he “technically” being his advocate but has nothing to say in support of him, so is just filling the time? Essentially being seen to provide a defence, without really summing up a defence?
I wasn’t surprised (or offended) by the meal deal and other comments - they like their theatrics and sarcasm. It’s par for the course.
And there’s no factual evidence that boy Y killed Brianna because she was transgender, nor is there evidence that he lifted her skirt.
This is true and I didn't realise it at the time. I still think it's entirely far-fetched and speculative.
It's absolutely gross to even visualise such a thing, but if you wanted to assess the size of a male teenager's genitals, would you really rummage through their bloodied clothes as they lay dying? Like... this is getting into the most uncomfortable territory, but what would you even be able to tell by looking at the body of someone bleeding to death?
I know we are dealing with two teenagers capable of horrific acts, but Boy Y also seems matter of fact, pedantic and scientific in a way. I don't know if even he would think it made sense to try to judge the size of someone's penis by rooting through their garments as they lay face down in the mud, after stabbing them 28 times, while a member of the public approached you and your accomplice.
The whole line of enquiry is sick and bizarre.
---
I think a point that may have been lost is that Boy Y had the hair and goatee of Keanu Reeves' character in the movies.
---
Come on, though - you know that none of us can take it up with anyone who's currently in court. We can only discuss this among ourselves. You can't legitimately tell someone on Tattle 'don't argue with me, argue with the judge if you disagree.'
There’s no firm evidence no. But there is non-disputed evidence that he intended to do that.
I no idea whether he did, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if he had.
Because to have killed Brianna with that level of force and ‘overkill’ - if indeed they did - suggests a level of dehumanisation and sadism where the perpetrators could do a whole range of awful things, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Girl X lifted up Brianna’s skirt either. As I said, morbid curiosity.
The evidence is that a witness saw him bending over and that she assumed he was tethering a dog.
That is very, very far from a witness seeing him delving into Brianna's intimate clothing as she died.
That is very far also from anything so specific as 'Brianna's face in her hands.'
As the witness approached, she didn't even think there was a dead body there. She assumed a dog. Then she assumed a dummy, or balloons. She assumed a sick prank. She assumed a whole number of things. She did not assume she had seen a boy trying to check the genitals of a dying teenager.
---
I think you are drawing conclusions based on images in your head and creative speculation about what Boy Y and Girl X might be like.
I might as well say 'I wouldn't be surprised if Girl X was about to carve Brianna's eye out, and was interrupted by dog-walkers.'
OK, it's as legitimate as any other imagined scenario about what could have happened if things had gone differently, but I think 'things we wouldn't be surprised by' is a different category to the evidence you advised we stick to.
Yea re John Wick there’s a likeness - I agree.
Thought this as well, most trials I've followed it's almost like a performance with the lines they deliver. They're supposed to have a desired affect. Some of the comments the barristers made (sorry not sure if they were barristers) at the Savannah Brockhill trial were often very funny and were intended to be so. It's supposed to keep people interested I guess, the process is very long. It's not intended at all to be offensive.
You’re forgetting that the evidence is that he wrote that he intended to do this. I agree there’s no evidence he actually did. I never said he did.
What I did do is say I wouldn’t be surprised if the prosecution’s suggestion of a possibility was correct. I didn’t even think of it as a possibility until the prosecution raised it, but that is because I’d not read of his message where he said he wanted to do that.
As for your previous message, OBVIOUSLY stabbing someone 28 times is more relevant than making a comment about wondering if they’d scream like a man or a girl. It’s insulting to come up with that level of whataboutism. I raised that comment in reply to you saying what he said about Brianna being trans.
Look, I would personally prefer it if there had been no trans-related comments by the defendants. For several reasons, for Brianna’s dignity, her family’s peace, and because I don’t like either that this has been used politically by trans activists.
But to try and undermine and downplay certain facts is wrong. I’m capable of arguing my GC points and still respect that there were transphobic comments made here. I was in the legal profession, and I’m going by the evidence.
I won’t get drawn into this further until it comes up in sentencing if Boy Y is found guilty. And if he is, then it will come up.
Yes it’s their day to day life and they’re point scoring naturally - I’m old enough to remember Rumpole of The Bailey (my Dad watched it) it’s all about the theatrics and wit 
I'm not, or none of us would have that idea in our heads at all. My view is that he said a lot of horrible, tasteless and stupid things, and most of them came to absolutely nothing.
But, fair enough CoopsLoops. I respect your argument and the way you've put it, and I am happy to step away from this particular discussion, with admiration for your responses even though I still disagree to some extent. I know I've been a bit intense in my own responses, and you have been forthright in return, and I see where you are coming from.
Pax
Goodness me this thread is a nicer place than most corners of the internet. A civil outcome to a disagreement!
Does anyone know when the jury will be brought back in when/if this doesn't wrap up by Friday? 27th? Really feel for them and the families having to sit on this over Christmas. Not that it goes away once a verdict is reached, but I do hope it brings some level of closure.
Does anyone know when the jury will be brought back in when/if this doesn't wrap up by Friday? 27th? Really feel for them and the families having to sit on this over Christmas. Not that it goes away once a verdict is reached, but I do hope it brings some level of closure.
- Status