Brianna Ghey Murder Trial #3

[hooplifehero]

Just catching up as been out all day with not much signal. That tribute from her teacher was a very lovely way of saying 'she was an absolute nightmare, but she was our nightmare'.

I think Yip has made the right call here.

I was sort of amused to hear the Mail podcast today announce that Brianna “was just going to the park with friends to hang out, and maybe take some drugs.”

cocaine! Not really a blissful childish afternoon. I’m sure there are sides to Brianna we will never hear about now she’s being idolised as a terrified, fearless , bullied, assertive future trans icon.

I don’t blame anyone for only talking about her positive traits now, but realistically that won’t be the full picture.

none of which remotely means she deserved to be attacked, let alone killed.

 

[Salted Caramel]

I've got the absolute fear that there will be gender crtit/terfs on the jury who will go NG to fit their narrative. Entirely speculation and I hope to god I'm wrong, but I've seen some awful shit spouted by people (not here) about Brianna so it isn't impossible, sadly. I so hope I'm wrong.

I really don't think it's the GCs / "terfs" who have been twisting the narrative on this tragic case to further any agenda. Quite the opposite in fact
---

I have no words for this

Case in point.

 

[Shinythings]

I would bet a lot of money X will be diagnosed with ASPD when she is an adult. There is no cure and no treatment. A true criminal ASPD will never be able to feel and think the way they need to be a safe member of society. All you can do is manage them closely in the community.

People throw about the term psychopath so easily but it's incredibly rare. In my 15 year career I've only ever met 3 true psychopathic children (although they were never given that diagnosis until they were 18). You never forget them, they are haunting. And they all remind me of how Girl X spoke and conducted herself. That's why I've been saying from the beginning we are seeing something incredibly rare here. Granted if I met her IRL, I may have a completely different impression. I truly don't think she will ever be safe to the public.

 

[CrushedIcePlease]

I’d be more interested in seeing the police interviews. I don’t know why anyone needs to hear that 999 call, the poor witness had just discovered something horrific, I’m sure she doesn’t want her voice all over the news.

 

[bluecups]

I am so relieved that they are both guilty and my heart breaks for Brianna's family and I will probably get hate for this but I also feel a bit sad for the families of X and Y

I was just thinking the same thing. They must be distraught that they brought a human into the world capable of doing this. They must have memories of them as normal happy little kids and wonder what the hell went wrong.

 

[Nelly's mum]

Because men do not need to 'say they are women' to commit violent acts against women. They do it as men, every day, with no need to go to this length.

And as others have said, this is not the thread for this discussion, and therefore I will not be replying to any responses to this.

That is not a good reason to make it easier for men who identify as women to have access to vulnerable women.

Men who identify as women have the same offending profile as other men, that doesn't change because they are trans. Placing vulnerable women at risk in order to validate a trans identifying male is not the solution.

 

[MaryLou32]

Wow, bloody hell. I mean, if she didn't know what was going on in her own kids life should she really be working with other people's children? What else might she turn a blind eye to?!

This is gross. The mother is innocent. Why shouldn’t she teach other children? How many parents don’t have a clue what their teenagers are up to?…. Spoiler alert- pretty much all of them.
A blind eye? What are you talking about?! You just said she didn’t know what was going on in her child’s life… then implied she turned a blind eye. Which is it? Your comment is trash tbh

 

[nothinonyou]

I've got the absolute fear that there will be gender crtit/terfs on the jury who will go NG to fit their narrative. Entirely speculation and I hope to god I'm wrong, but I've seen some awful shit spouted by people (not here) about Brianna so it isn't impossible, sadly. I so hope I'm wrong.

I think no matter what your views are it's very obvious these two murdered Brianna. I think most people here probably have conflicting views on gender but we can all agree Brianna did not deserve this death

 

[fishyfishfish]

I am so relieved for poor Brianna. Her family. Everyone that knew her. May she rest in peace.

 

[BarryEvansHun]

But it’s not him saying these things about himself, it’s you. Saying it on a forum to strangers.

You said “he was quite Oriental looking”, which is ambiguous as to whether he was of East Asian origin and isn’t a particularly respectful way to refer to someone.

FYI, as you don’t seem to know, “Oriental” when used to describe people - and not rugs or vases - is widely considered derogatory and a racist term. Mainly because it has its roots in colonialism.

Well I didn’t know that! I’ve just googled it and seems the word has conflicting meanings regarding whether it is racist or not. Thank you for the education I will not use the word to describe a person again.

 

[Tofino]

Well, yeah. To be honest I think “hate crime” is a bizarre name for a subcategory when it comes to murder.

Murder motivated by racial, homophobic or transphobic prejudice, or misogyny - I can see how it makes a broader difference. But “hate” or “not hate” is an unfortunate way of phrasing it.

Some people may not realise misogyny can never be charged as a hate crime. It’s not covered under legislation. The simplified reason being women are too large a group (not a minority group) and ‘it’s complicated’. Despite the fact many men are actually motivated to kill women because they hate women.

ETA and also 2-3 women a week are killed by men. It happens to too many of us to be considered a hate crime

 

[HotesTilaire]

I’m surprised at people not being happy with the reasonable adjustments made to the court process for X and Y.
Would you prefer them in the dock kicking off, being restrained taken down to the cells and being calmed down before being dragged back up and repeat …
Judge Yip was quite happy to make these adjustments and said it was in the courts best interests to get through it as easily and quickly as possible for all involved.

As someone who needs reasonable adjustments, I’m not.
It’s always seen as a power play, a lie, you’re putting it on etc also always seen as a bonus, a gift, a special prize nobody else gets when they are made. It’s EXHAUSTING and I have ME which means I’m already permanently exhausted before “demanding” adjustments for my invisible disability.
Im frequently without a voice and people hate it. They hate that I want to email, write things down, I have to use relay UK for phonecalls because hearing people need a person to speak to them, they can’t cope with a robot voice or emails. They can’t explain things on email they have to speak. I get asked “can’t you do sign language?” I can’t (was never taught because I could speak and hear) although I sign a bit. If I sign, they say “oh I don’t know sign language, don’t you have an interpreter”
And the SHOUTING oh my days, my hearing is fine, in fact it’s sensitive, why do you shout at people who can’t talk? How does that make sense?
people who don’t have disabilities are the biggest wah wah cry babies about having to go slightly out of their normal way for a few minutes even though it costs nothing and does them no harm

 

[bluecups]

No date set for sentencing. Glad these pair of bastards will spend Christmas knowing they're looking at a life sentence but not knowing how long.

 

[CoopsLoops]

Yes I am aware of the legal obligations. I can still feel angry about how they get choices to ensure things are made easier for them when Brianna’s family have had to endure what they have, due to said person.

I don’t care whether he would’ve found it hard to concentrate and mentally draining. He murdered someone. He could have avoided such a ‘stressful’ situation for himself by…..simply not doing it. He could have avoided it by pleading guilty instead of prolonging the family’s pain.

I bet Brianna’s family found it hard to sit there and listen to their child’s last moments in horrific, graphic detail. To be completing sudoku puzzles whilst putting the family through a trial all due to his vile actions and inability to tell the truth IS sickening.

Yes I got the impression you didn’t agree with my post because of the nice sick face emoji you reacted with

I’ll put it another way. It wasn’t just about making things “easier” for him. It enabled the family to get a fair trial in as short a time possible that is far less likely to be appealed.

If there hadn’t been reasonable adjustments like allowing him to play Suduko, then they would have had to have taken more breaks. Because you have to ensure a child defendant can focus so they can instruct their legal team. More breaks would have lengthened the time the trial took overall. That would have meant the trial wasn’t over before Christmas.

If there hadn’t been such reasonable adjustments, Boy X’s legal team could argue he’d been discriminated against for disability reasons and therefore the trial wasn’t fair and demand a mis-trial.

 

[Ridandroo]

I do believe they should be named. If they get a 20 year sentence they will be out at 35. This crime was horrific. The public have every right to be aware of them if we will one day be exposed to them. Brianna’s face, personal information, messages, videos, medical information and anxieties are everywhere, without her knowledge. Expose the little scroats.

 

[BarryEvansHun]

They don’t deserve to be rehabilitated !! They took someone’s life ! 16 … by law yes children but they know right from wrong ! They deserve to rot in hell for what they’ve done

They are not rehabilitated for themselves, they are offered rehabilitation for protection of the public and to reduce the risk of reoffending. For those saying ‘fuck their rehabilitation’ etc, under UK law they cannot be given a whole life tariff. Do you really want them walking round in 20 odd years when they are released with 0 rehabilitation after learning a load of new tricks in prison, unable to manage their thoughts, emotions and ‘fantasies’ ready to strike again? I hope they get and are open to accepting some serious rehabilitation or the public have no hope.

 

[HotesTilaire]

If you’ve ever known someone famous - like an actor, singer etc they can be an absolute nightmare in real life, anxious, scared of their own shadow, utterly terrified of what people think of them etc but also quite confident to go on stage to thousands with a warm smile and do an amazing performance.
Just because Brianna was fearless in saying - I’m female, I want to transition, I want you to get my pronouns right and I’ll give you a right time of it if you don‘t, whilst in school, doesn’t mean she wasn’t terrified and anxious about going around on her own where let’s face it adults would probably pass loud comments and be hostile towards her

 

[BarryEvansHun]

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.

I’m GC too. But I think it’s probably a natural fear, due to how much of a bashing GC people get and all the lies and misunderstandings around our GC views. We are seen to want a trans genocide, that we support killing and torture of those with gender dysphoria and loads of other abhorrent shit. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

[SaLou]

I don’t think they should be named. The people who need to know their names know and have seen them in court.
by naming them it’s not them that will suffer, it’s their families. Who are innocent. They will probably get released with new identities anyway.

That's the case with innocent families in all murder cases though. You can't keep all criminals' identities anonymous because of that.

 

[CoopsLoops]

Can’t believe Y was doing Sudoku puzzles whilst in the dock/during the trial

Bet it was another pathetic attempt for him to appear innocent. He couldn’t possibly have done it. Look at him - ‘highly intelligent’, teaching himself GCSEs, doing sudoku, playing with his fidget spinner. It’s sickening.

It’s really quite believable because, as the judge made clear, he was allowed to as a reasonable adjustment. Doing something else whilst simply listening for a long stretch of time enables someone with autism and/or ADHD to focus more.

I’m not sure how playing with a fidget spinner makes someone look more intelligent , I’d have said the reverse myself, but it’s a common reasonable adjustment for someone with autism/ADHD. It provides necessary sensory stimulation.

The courts are legally obliged to provide reasonable adjustments to those with disabilities, including autism.

The courts are also obliged to make it easier for children who are defendants to follow and participate in their own trial.

This is really important to understand because
(a) these reasonable adjustments and accommodations for children make it possible for justice to actually fairly be achieved; and

(b) it’s insulting to people, including children, who require reasonable adjustments to participate in school/work/their own trial, to regard these things as special treatment and not the disability accommodations they are.

I’m an adult with ADHD. I’ve been in a 3-week trial as part of a legal team, and no way could I have sat and listened and fully focused for hours on end, day in and day out, without being able to do something with my hands, fortunately I could take notes.

Do you understand how much concentration, how mentally draining, and frankly how boring it can be at times, to just sit there in the court in a listening role for weeks, whilst being obliged to pay proper attention? And then have to do that without doing anything else at all, no note taking, no whispering to the person next to you, nothing? Being in the visitors gallery isn’t the same, you aren’t required to fully focus. X and Y would have been required to instruct their lawyers. They had to focus.

This is why even pre-diagnosis the police gave Boy Y a football to play with during his police interviews.

Seriously, it might seem sickening to you but without allowing Y to do those things, the trial wouldn’t have been fair or perhaps even possible.