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“She was very withdrawn, and she had a small social circle.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