Guilty verdict in Brianna Ghey case

As to the more incendiary issue of Brianna's transgender status, there is no evidence coming out of that trial which in any way suggests transphobia was the motive. That isn't to say the crime didn't have transphobic elements. Boy Y's language about Brianna was textbook transphobia. He also dehumanised the other kids they planned to kill in much the same way as Hollywood tends to sensationalise serial killers. The 'list' indicates that these two had the makings of this rare breed, and a couple of psychologists have been interviewed talking about this. Had they not been caught, the likelihood is they would have gone on killing. Boy Y called one would-be victim a nonce; Girl X simply added anyone to her shit list who happened to have slighted her in some way.

As to motive, the only real discernible one comes directly from Girl X's own testimony: 'because it's fun'. Brianna wasn't her first choice of victim but Girl X was a devious, meticulous planner, and going after this particular victim provided her with a convenient alibi. Brianna was vulnerabile: whether because of her trans stats or because the transition was prompted by the vulnerability. Whichever way round it was, it made the possibility of suicide more plausible, thereby avoiding implicating Girl X for murder. And this particular murderer had given a lot of thought to how she would cover her tracks. Had the Ibruprofen poisoning achieved its desired effect, there's a stronger possibility she would have got away with her murderous actions. That is a really chilling thought.

You’re way off track.

RedToothBrush quoted the police who led the investigation saying Brianna had a number of vulnerabilities. Someone accused RedToothBrush of victim blaming because of this. It was pointed out that acknowledging victim vulnerability is not victim blaming and I backed that up by pointing out that it was specific to this particular case when described by the police in this particular case. My post has nothing to do with claims of trans vulnerability or police capture.

Something about Esther Ghey's dignity and compassion reminds me strongly of Sylvia Lancaster, the mother of Sophie, who set up campaigns in her daughter's name to help promote understanding and stamp out hate. Esther Ghey's appeal for restraint in relation to the perpetrators' families was very moving and admirable in the circumstances.

She's also clear about what her new focus is. It's about acknowledging the safeguarding failings which let down all three of the children in this tragic case. It's about addressing these failings with more mental health support for young people, for mindfulness to be introduced into the syllabus, and for teachers to receive more training in relation to this.

The only respectful stance for anyone to take in the wake of this senseless murder, and a trial the like of which I've never heard before and hope never to again, is to follow the lead of Brianna's bereaved mother. Her focus alone indicates that she doesn't want her child's death to be politicised. That decision should be respected.

I think I read online, and this may be a slight misremember on my part and/or the source may have been bad, that the names have been widely leaked on tiktok etc but in a way that's partly wrong, e.g. some leakers havemixed up the names of the boy and girl, mixed up the surnames, or similar.

puffyisgood · Yesterday 17:29

doing so might expose their blameless parents, siblings, and so on to unwelcome, undeserved, attention. though the same is largely true of adult criminals who get named.

Yes, when I was in high school, (1980s) there were two brothers and a sister, whose father murdered somebody. They got so much abuse that they left the area.

Never underestimate the ability of people's stupidity and misplaced sense of vengeance for things which don't concern them.

...

I have a lot of admiration for Brianna's mother, who offered compassion to the families of the murderers. It must have been so difficult for her, at least their children are alive and not butchered horribly. I dread to think what she must be going through.

MN can be weird, at times it feels like the Guardian Comment is Free moderating team have been giving the keys to this forum.

I think there are probably a lot of people reading this thread, so this leads to more stringent monitoring. We know that certain Twitter "personalities" read MN.

‘Trans are the vulnerable-est people ever’ is a Stonewall mantra taught to everyone, including Stonewalled police, which is patently not true. However, it is used as an excuse to dismiss the needs of every other group in their favour.

One should only bring one's professional self to work.

Indeed. We have the whole self mantra at work, introduced quite recently.
Fortunately my whole self is not an easily offended psychopathic killer or we'd have more staffing shortages than we do now.

Well this precisely what the interim Cass report highlighted.

I think for some people in trying to make sense of something want to be able to package it up so it nicely fits into a box. This can be either to be able to blame 'them over there' or as a means of protection "it means it won't happen to me / a loved one"

The actual unpicking involves hard questions and even harder answers. We all do it to a lesser or greater extent, but we should be careful of just brushing things away rather than getting to a root cause.

Yes, well said. The impression I have is that CAMHS and GIDS have both been utterly unable to function in recent years because of huge caseloads, staffing problems and inadequate budgets. So when troubled children are referred to CAMHS and it emerges that there is a gender-related element to their distress they get referred to GIDS and nothing much else is done. After an interminable wait they get to GIDS and until recently, anyway, their gender identity is immediately affirmed, a full evaluation of their health including mental health isn't done, and no other therapy is offered to help with the co-morbidities. No wonder in desperation some turn to Gndr GP and the like.

MN can be weird, at times it feels like the Guardian Comment is Free moderating team have been giving the keys to this forum.

Could it be to do with correctly naming IW's sex and using the related pronouns?

I’d be interested to know. IW makes false statements attacking women and repetition on here is deleted

Especially when it was the police involved in the case who said it.

Why was my IW post deleted?

Most children who are transgender have a range of co morbid factors about them which make them extremely vulnerable, a high number are ASD, a high number have experienced trauma, a high number have been sexually abused. I am talking more about girls who say they want to be boys/non binary.

Its less common for boys to say they are girls but the factors are there first

No one is talking about this or addressing it, its dangerous to ignore this.

She wasn't (or shouldn't have been) vulnerable because she identified as trans. She was vulnerable because of her anxiety etc.

Acknowledging vulnerability is not victim shaming. It's almost as if some quarters don't want young people to have protections in place.

Pointing out that an individual is vulnerable and will be at higher risk is not the same as victim blaming at all. It’s precisely why we are more vigilant with children and vulnerable adults.

It’s the same way single, lonely, elderly people are more likely to be the victim of scams. The are isolated, they don’t have a social group to step in and often that need for social interaction can mean red flags aren’t noticed. We don’t blame people for this - we acknowledge that the vulnerable nature of the victims is what made them easier targets.

The Guardian has spoken. Transphobia was at most a secondary motive for this hideous crime. If it wasn't Brianna it would have been some other poor kid.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/why-brianna-ghey-police-quickly-ruled-out-transphobia-as-motive

but identifying as trans made someone particularly vulnerable

No RedToothBrush the appalling behaviour of 2 murderous thugs made her vulnerable.

You know it’s not acceptable anymore to blame victims for wearing certain clothing? Would you say a woman wearing a short skirt made her vulnerable? Don’t victim blame please.

Another excellent post, Red. Thank you.

Detective chief superintendent Mike Evans, Cheshire Police’s head of crime, was asked by members of the press why he thinks the pair targeted Brianna.

He said: “So Brianna, I would say from her lifestyle, her being an anxious child who stayed indoors a lot, was quite a vulnerable individual

“She was very withdrawn, and she had a small social circle.

“The fact of her lack of confidence and anxiety, and the fact this was the first time she had been out alone for a while, I think made her quite vulnerable.

“That, and her being quite trusting of the girl involved who befriended her, I think made her relatively easy in terms of accessibility.”

He went on to say: “We know girl X had a bit of an obsession with her. She says that herself with text messages. But I don't think this was any sort of almost hatred or ill feeling towards Brianna.

“There is a level of betrayal. We know from text messages to her mum that Brianna was nervous to be out of the house.

“She thought she was going to meet someone who she thought was a friend, who she trusted, and that makes it really quite sad.

“I think if it hadn't been Brianna, it would have been one of the other children on their list.

“It is just that Brianna was the one who was accessible at that time, and then became the focus of those desires so to speak.”

Ursula Doyle, deputy chief crown prosecutor for the CPS, added: “I think in terms of accessibility, the contact that that girl X had with Brianna allowed her effectively to lure Brianna, as part of the plan, to the park where the killing was carried out.

“There was obviously a list of a number of young people who could have been potential victims, but it fell into place in terms of Brianna, in effect.”

On if they hadn’t been caught, would there have been other victims, DCS Evans said: “It is really difficult to say.

“We have had those conversations. I have no idea is the honest answer.

“They did not seem to be bothered by what they had done, which maybe leads to that could have been, but God knows.”

As Brianna was identified as the person who had been killed, many were quick to point to her being transgender as the reason for the killing – despite not knowing any of the facts.

DCS Evans was also asked about this and commented: “Within 48 hours of the murder, we had no information or intelligence to suggest this was a hate crime.

“We never said it wasn't a hate crime, but from very early on, we had a 16-year-old girl with a significant number of injuries.

“Any senior investigating officer would then go through the thought process of what this could be.

“It could be sexually motivated, it could be this, it could be that. Hate element was one of these, but the truth is, the vast majority of people who are murdered are murdered by someone they know.”

He continued: “We had started to get the descriptions of the two individuals who had left as part of our media appeal.

“As those bits fell into place, there was nothing there that suggested Brianna was murdered because she was transgender.

“I accept now, looking at the text messages and on the sort of side of the boy, there is some horrific dehumanising and transphobic messages.

“But when you look at the girl involved, she almost admires or is obsessed with Brianna, so I still think to this day Brianna wasn't killed because she was transgender.

“Brianna was killed for the reasons we discussed earlier, and possibly the fact she was transgender made her that little bit more vulnerable and accessible.”

Neither Cheshire Police nor the CPS believe it was a hate crime.

They believe that being transgender made Briana have a co-morbid issue with anxiety and lack of social circle (you can argue chicken and egg on this point) and that's ultimately what made them vulnerable. They believe the transphobic comments are part of the dehumanising process, but transphobia was not the cause of it.

This is important to understand.

Why - because it maybe demonstrates that children who identify as transgender perhaps are in need of greater safeguarding than the average child. The social isolation, is making them vulnerable. Why are they socially isolated - perhaps because of transphobia but also perhaps because of other issues (the notable one is autism) which makes them seek approval and acceptance from peers where this might put them at added risk. They may not be reading social cues (and potential threats) correctly as a result. It might not be murder that's the consequence - it might be risk taking behaviour though and that encompasses a whole pile of scenarios.

And I do think there's an point here - if you socially transition at a young age, does it separate you from your peers further because it establishes and cements 'difference' and almost restricts the pool of people you identify with to a narrower group and those barriers which might have otherwise disappeared over time become fixed as you are more able to find a social group you fit into as you grow older rather than the forced environment of school relationships. Does it, in fact, make relationships harder in both the short and long term?

It's a hard one - but the nuance is important to understand because it has significant ramifications.

In some ways it makes it more worrying and disturbing than if it had been labelled as a hate crime.

Clearly unacceptable comments were made, but in this case, the issue of being transgender goes beyond simply being targeted because of that. Otherwise the police and CPS would have taken a completely different line over the case.

This might well be really hard for those dealing with Brianna's loss to process because it does raise questions about other things. If it was being just being trans it frames things neatly as Brianna being a victim in a way that's different.

But unfortunately that means we need to talk about it more not less because it's clearly much more complex. It muddies the water and instead of making it a simple poster child for trans rights cause, it opens up conversations which might be inconvenient for purists (namely ones about comorbidities with mental health - which activists are keen to keep away from).

The situation is not the gender critical argument in its purest form either I might add as there is transphobia in play. That can't be ignored either.

Unfortunately that's also why the case will be a battle ground too though - with people from both camps trying to almost win the argument.

But no one wins the argument until you acknowledge both points - it was not a hate crime but identifying as trans made someone particularly vulnerable and they may need additional safeguarding because of a difficulty with peer relationships and this identity which made them different was part of it - but any sort of difference would have been equally used. They weren't a 'special' kind of victim 'because trans', they were a victim because of more generalised and non specific non-conformity and social isolation.