Brianna Ghey Murder Trial #3

[fishyfishfish]

Quoting song lyrics feels so deeply inappropriate to me:

“For whatever reason, it may be quoting the old Who song, that Brianna should be able to see for miles and miles, maybe she didn’t have a good view.

---

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.

I've posted this before but it bears repeating in this instance. Hate crimes are not as cut and dried as that (BiB). See below from The CPS:

Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:

• demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Or

• been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Here "demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity" applies for Boy Y, regardless of the fact that this is not the reason he murdered her.

 

[kikixxxxx]

Quoting song lyrics feels so deeply inappropriate to me:

---


I've posted this before but it bears repeating in this instance. Hate crimes are not as cut and dried as that (BiB). See below from The CPS:


Here "demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity" applies for Boy Y, regardless of the fact that this is not the reason he murdered her.

Why do you think they decided not to prosecute it as a hate crime?

 

[Tofino]

Quoting song lyrics feels so deeply inappropriate to me:

---


I've posted this before but it bears repeating in this instance. Hate crimes are not as cut and dried as that (BiB). See below from The CPS:


Here "demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity" applies for Boy Y, regardless of the fact that this is not the reason he murdered her.

but it’s not been prosecuted as a hate crime? It is not on the indictment.

Police/CPS must believe the evidence is not strong enough to prosecute it as a hate crime, and I have to agree.

It’s possible sentencing guidelines may consider vulnerabilities or protected characteristics as an aggravating factor (such as someone with learning disabilities being a victim of a crime), but that’s not the same as it being a hate crime.

 

[fishyfishfish]

Why do you think they decided not to prosecute it as a hate crime?

My guess (and it is a guess) is because they are being tried together and there's no evidence (that we've seen) that Girl X was/is transphobic. I've based this assumption on the 'multiple offenders' guidance from the CPS:

Spoiler: CPS Multiple Offenders Guidance

Demonstrated: multiple offenders
Prosecutors will need to analyse carefully the facts of a particular case to determine whether a particular offender can be said to have participated in a demonstration of hostility.

In R v Davies and Ely [2003] EWCA Crim 3700, a joint allegation of wounding with intent, the fact that one offender uttered words of racial abuse during the attack did not make all guilty of the aggravated offence, on the facts of the case, and the defendants should not be so sentenced when the evidence did not identify the one who uttered the words.

However, in RG and LT v DPP May LJ said that, "an offender may demonstrate racial hostility by joining in the activities of a group of people where a sufficient number of members of the group are themselves demonstrating racial hostility, and where the defendant's adherence to the group is such as to go beyond mere presence within the group, but so as to associate himself or herself with the demonstration of racial hostility which the group as a whole is displaying".

 

[ohdoris]

How can we assume that Girl X would be unable to
over power Brianna? I know that some people are desperate to exert the point that she was “biological male” but we don’t know what build Girl X is? I’ve seen Brianna’s social media videos & there was nothing to her, it’s already been mentioned that she was 5 foot five & eight stone. She was very slight. It’s not impossible for a girl to overpowered her at all.

 

[Jasminexx02]

But he didn’t demonstrate hostility towards Briana during the murder based off of her gender identity? I don’t understand why people want this to be a hate crime so badly. The crime is bad enough as it is, just as it would have been had it been any of the other four children instead of Brianna, it’s so odd to me and I can’t think of any reason why people would be doing this other than to try to push a certain political agenda
---

How can we assume that Girl X would be unable to
over power Brianna? I know that some people are desperate to exert the point that she was “biological male” but we don’t know what build Girl X is? I’ve seen Brianna’s social media videos & there was nothing to her, it’s already been mentioned that she was 5 foot five & eight stone. She was very slight. It’s not impossible for a girl to overpowered her at all.

Girl X has also been described as slight

 

[fishyfishfish]

But he didn’t demonstrate hostility towards Briana during the murder based off of her gender identity? I don’t understand why people want this to be a hate crime so badly. The crime is bad enough as it is, just as it would have been had it been any of the other four children instead of Brianna, it’s so odd to me and I can’t think of any reason why people would be doing this other than to try to push a certain political agenda
---

Girl X has also been described as slight

it doesn't have to be during the murder.

Not sure if BIB is aimed at me but I don't necessarily 'want' it to be a hate crime, more explaining from my perspective/expertise (limited, no longer in this profession) that it could well be viewed as one.

 

[Jasminexx02]

it doesn't have to be during the murder.

Not sure if BIB is aimed at me but I don't necessarily 'want' it to be a hate crime, more explaining from my perspective/expertise (limited, no longer in this profession) that it could well be viewed as one.

But the murder is the crime that was committed. There was no intention behind it different to what the intention would have been if it would have been somebody other than Brianna

 

[ohdoris]

But he didn’t demonstrate hostility towards Briana during the murder based off of her gender identity? I don’t understand why people want this to be a hate crime so badly. The crime is bad enough as it is, just as it would have been had it been any of the other four children instead of Brianna, it’s so odd to me and I can’t think of any reason why people would be doing this other than to try to push a certain political agenda
---

Girl X has also been described as slight

Thanks for this, I hadn’t read that. I still don’t think that if it came down to physical strength, Brianna would have had much of an edge.

I think I’ve said this before, but my opinion is that Brianna was targeted because she was vulnerable. Girl X had identified that she didn’t have many friends, had self harmed & her mental health wasn’t great / she suffered from anxiety. I think that was the motive for the attack, I don’t believe that they targeted her purely because she was transgender. If I remember correctly, the boy she tried to befriend on social media to try and target first as a possible victim was also vulnerable character (didn’t she say this was someone that was often called a N*nce) so clearly she knew what she was doing & selected victim/s based on character. Pure evil.

 

[Shinythings]

This overpowering stuff is a red herring. You don't need to overpower someone who has been stabbed who wasn't expecting to be. They're going down very easily.

 

[BarryEvansHun]

But the murder is the crime that was committed. There was no intention behind it different to what the intention would have been if it would have been somebody other than Brianna

Brianna would have been killed whether she was trans or not. It was whatever child on that list that they could lure to meet them first. Y dehumanised each child on that list and said distasteful things about them all.

 

[hooplifehero]

This overpowering stuff is a red herring. You don't need to overpower someone who has been stabbed who wasn't expecting to be. They're going down very easily.

I think the point about physical force isn't to do with overpowering -- girl Y could have no doubt overpowered a 30 year old man twice her size, if she was able to stab him in the back once first -- but to do with the force of the blows, which I believe damaged bone and skull.

Personally too I don't think we really need to place biological male in sarcastic quotation marks for Brianna. It is a fact. But it's also not the point when one person is unarmed and one has a hunting knife.
---

Yes, because of the overdose. Brianna's mum saw the after effects.

It's been suggested that Girl X knew Brianna was sick, and invented the drugs/poisoning story around it, just as she invented Langdon (?) and Nathan

 

[Tofino]

My guess (and it is a guess) is because they are being tried together and there's no evidence (that we've seen) that Girl X was/is transphobic. I've based this assumption on the 'multiple offenders' guidance from the CPS:

Spoiler: CPS Multiple Offenders Guidance

Demonstrated: multiple offenders
Prosecutors will need to analyse carefully the facts of a particular case to determine whether a particular offender can be said to have participated in a demonstration of hostility.

In R v Davies and Ely [2003] EWCA Crim 3700, a joint allegation of wounding with intent, the fact that one offender uttered words of racial abuse during the attack did not make all guilty of the aggravated offence, on the facts of the case, and the defendants should not be so sentenced when the evidence did not identify the one who uttered the words.

However, in RG and LT v DPP May LJ said that, "an offender may demonstrate racial hostility by joining in the activities of a group of people where a sufficient number of members of the group are themselves demonstrating racial hostility, and where the defendant's adherence to the group is such as to go beyond mere presence within the group, but so as to associate himself or herself with the demonstration of racial hostility which the group as a whole is displaying".

This extract seems to suggest that you couldn’t, for example, charge X with a hate crime when it was only Y that made comments relating to Brianna’s identity. I don’t think that means CPS couldn’t charge Y independently if they had enough evidence.

However, it also suggests if the ‘group’ as a whole had a clear hate crime motivation then you could in theory charge the person who joined in but didn’t say anything.

I honestly think the fact they had a list of potential victims and Brianna wasn’t even the first target, is strong enough evidence to show this wasn’t a hate crime. X was the one that actually picked Brianna to go next and X said nothing that is considered transphobic.

 

[Jasminexx02]

Brianna would have been killed whether she was trans or not. It was whatever child on that list that they could lure to meet them first. Y dehumanised each child on that list and said distasteful things about them all.

Exactly!!

 

[fishyfishfish]

This extract seems to suggest that you couldn’t, for example, charge X with a hate crime when it was only Y that made comments relating to Brianna’s identity. I don’t think that means CPS couldn’t charge Y independently if they had enough evidence.

Just to confirm, that's exactly what its saying.

I don't have a particularly strong view as to whether it should be tried as a hate crime, I just wanted to share some facts around it.

 

[HotesTilaire]

I think being transgender is a factor in the murder, but it’s not been prosecuted as a hate crime and I can see why.
I think it’s telling Y was trans and homo phobic on text whereas X not so much. It probably means any institute doing a risk assessment needs to be aware. Although that’s just another thing on a list that has “murderer” at the top.

 

[Kissinger]

I personally think (and hope) that the pair of them get the same amount of time behind bars.
One isn’t more to blame than the other imo. They’re both calculated, manipulative liars in their own way. Not one of them has had the decency to tell the truth.

What is truthful though is that Y brought the knife, X had “the plan” in her bedroom. Whether it was a “fantasy” or not, she clearly knew how manipulative she could be (especially the way she said she loves playing the victim)
They are both to blame. I really don’t think either of them would have done anything this evil without the other.

I really hope Brianna’s family get the justice they deserve.

 

[CocoLoco2]

If anyone has seen the kickboxing Facebook page that is quite clearly owned by Y’s family member, there are photos on there of a teenage boy who looks VERY similar to the school photo of Boy Y…….

There is a video on instagram. Big lad

 

[hooplifehero]

If Boy Y was responsible for all the physical violence, though, while Girl X was out of sight up a path - as seems possible - why would she make up elaborate lies about a lad from Manchester, and text Boy Y inane stuff about cats purring lol, and feed him a cover story, and maintain her lie even when interviewed by police under arrest?

She thought her texts would make her look bad, but surely if he was the only one who stabbed Brianna, and she was a distance away, and he was covered in blood with his hand on a hunting knife, she could be pretty secure in blaming him?

 

[CoopsLoops]

I think the point about physical force isn't to do with overpowering -- girl Y could have no doubt overpowered a 30 year old man twice her size, if she was able to stab him in the back once first -- but to do with the force of the blows, which I believe damaged bone and skull.

Personally too I don't think we really need to place biological male in sarcastic quotation marks for Brianna. It is a fact. But it's also not the point when one person is unarmed and one has a hunting knife.

Exactly. The context here is very relevant. My point was it's "unlikely" that out of BOTH OF THEM, Girl X could ON HER OWN use the force that was used in many of the stabbings AT THE SAME TIME as overpowering Brianna. We know that Brianna tried to defend themselves. We know that Girl X is slight. We know that Girl X is not a kickboxer, nor trained in any sports. She is therefore not known to be particularly strong.

The natural biological strength of people is relevant. Which is why both the prosecutor and X's defence pointed this out in terms of X versus Y.