GUILTY UK - Brianna Ghey, 16, murdered in Culcheth Linear Park, Feb 2023 *2 teenagers charged*

As I understand it, this is a classic 'cut throat' defence case where they accuse each other of doing it. I am not sure how counsel for Girl X will claim that it was actually Boy Y as she did not claim it in her pre-trial interviews. Perhaps based on the knife forensics?
She’s trying to blame it on this mystery 17 year old from Manchester, whose name she can’t remember. according to girl X Brianna knew him from Snapchat and he had a car, and Brianna left them to go meet him and told girl x “mind your business stop interrogating me”.
 
She’s trying to blame it on this mystery 17 year old from Manchester, whose name she can’t remember. according to girl X Brianna knew him from Snapchat and he had a car, and Brianna left them to go meet him and told girl x “mind your business stop interrogating me”.
I think the defence statement must indicate she's now blaming it all on Boy Y, going the the prosecution opening statement. I reckon Girl Y probably has to testify to change her story now.

"Indeed, it is accepted that Brianna Ghey was killed with a knife that belonged to Boy Y, a knife which he told Girl X that he would be bringing with him that day and which he said was sharp enough to kill her. But each defendant denies that they are guilty of murder.

"Each denies that they participated in killing Brianna at all. Each blames the other.


 
I think the defence statement must indicate she's now blaming it all on Boy Y, going the the prosecution opening statement. I reckon Girl Y probably has to testify to change her story now.

"Indeed, it is accepted that Brianna Ghey was killed with a knife that belonged to Boy Y, a knife which he told Girl X that he would be bringing with him that day and which he said was sharp enough to kill her. But each defendant denies that they are guilty of murder.

"Each denies that they participated in killing Brianna at all. Each blames the other.


I think that just indicates that it’s accepted by the jury and prosecution. Her blood was found on boy Ys knife. As far as girl x statement is concerned Brianna went off with the boy and that’s the last time she saw her before hearing about her death in the news. She never said boy Y stabbed brianna. Not in police interview or any other time as far as we know.
 
I think that just indicates that it’s accepted by the jury and prosecution. Her blood was found on boy Ys knife. As far as girl x statement is concerned Brianna went off with the boy and that’s the last time she saw her before hearing about her death in the news. She never said boy Y stabbed brianna. Not in police interview or any other time as far as we know.

I think you are mixing up what Girl X said in her police interview after her arrest, with the defence her counsel has offered at trial. It wouldn't make sense to stick to the story that the victim went off with the boy from manchester. Instead the defence have accepted certain facts, and presumably implicitly agree that Girl X did not tell the truth in her interview.

This makes sense. The only real chance is for each to portray the other as the real killer. However such defences are legally difficult as typically they are regarded as a joint venture and it may not matter who actually struck the blows.
 
I think the defence statement must indicate she's now blaming it all on Boy Y, going the the prosecution opening statement. I reckon Girl Y probably has to testify to change her story now.

"Indeed, it is accepted that Brianna Ghey was killed with a knife that belonged to Boy Y, a knife which he told Girl X that he would be bringing with him that day and which he said was sharp enough to kill her. But each defendant denies that they are guilty of murder.

"Each denies that they participated in killing Brianna at all. Each blames the other.



While I agree she would probably need to testify, to counter her interview, i doubt she will. I suspect counsel will just imply she was lying to protect Boy Y and herself.
 
15:45Abigail Nicholson

Court finished for the day​

That is all the court will hear for today.
Justice Yip asks the jury to return at 10am tomorrow.


 
Interesting question! Just looked it up and the law society website states that under the Children's Act, it depends on the child's competency to understand the proceedings, not their age. However, evidence may be unsworn if they don't understand taking the oath.

 
10:01Ellen Kirwin

Day 7 - Tuesday, December 5​

Good morning from Manchester Crown Court.
The trial is due to resume at 10am.

Deanna Heer KC prosecutes, assisted by Cheryl Mottram,

Richard Pratt KC defends Girl X, with Sarah Holt as junior counsel.

Boy Y will be represented by Richard Littler KC and Steven Swift.

Mrs Justice Yip is presiding over the trial.


 
It's difficult to read these accounts of Brianna's wounds, and some of the locations I am finding particularly haunting... She had been stabbed several times in the head and neck, among other places (details from Live court updates as Brianna Ghey murder trial continues). I just can't imagine. 'Frenzied' is the word that comes to mind for me.

Poor, poor Brianna. Her poor family.
 
Poor Brianna, those wounds sounded awful. Glad to see the jury are on the ball with asking about the possibility of two knives though, they sound engaged if they're asking good questions like that, even if there's no definite answer available.
 
Last edited:
If you read the Liverpool Echo live updates it says that Justice Yip said its perfectly normal for defendants to spend time with their lawyers and not be present in court, and not to read anything into him missing the pathologist part.

Also, maybe I'm in the minority, but I almost feel a little sorry for Y. I think he is niave, socially incompetent, desperate to please, gullible etc... his explanations seem quite reasonable and he is very honest. He knows he's been an idiot believing that X was just fantasising and I think he defends that quite well.

What will be interesting will be his explanation when they present him with the fact he DID take the knife that killed Brianna after all. That entirely changes the picture and in all likelihood will be his downfall
 
If you read the Liverpool Echo live updates it says that Justice Yip said its perfectly normal for defendants to spend time with their lawyers and not be present in court, and not to read anything into him missing the pathologist part.

Also, maybe I'm in the minority, but I almost feel a little sorry for Y. I think he is niave, socially incompetent, desperate to please, gullible etc... his explanations seem quite reasonable and he is very honest. He knows he's been an idiot believing that X was just fantasising and I think he defends that quite well.

What will be interesting will be his explanation when they present him with the fact he DID take the knife that killed Brianna after all. That entirely changes the picture and in all likelihood will be his downfall
I know what the Judge said about meeting with lawyers, etc.
But shouldn't lawyers be present during testimony of pathologist?

Well, I absolutely understand what Judge meant, trying to explain the defendant's absence.

It was JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
1,191
Total visitors
1,427

Forum statistics

Threads
587,437
Messages
17,882,621
Members
227,105
Latest member
oddfoxx
Back
Top