'No doubt' teens killed Brianna Ghey together, jury told

There can be no doubt both teenagers accused of the killing of Brianna Ghey participated in her murder, a jury has been told.

The 16-year-old was stabbed 28 times in a Cheshire park in February.

Prosecutor Deanna Heer KC said jurors might find it difficult to fathom how two children could do what was alleged but urged them not to look for an explanation.

The pair, who were 15 at the time, deny murder and blame each other.

In her closing speech, Ms Heer said the jury may be tempted to look for an explanation as "they are children after all", but added the prosecution do not have to prove why a crime has been committed, only that it has been.

"Don't be tempted to try and work out why they did what they [allegedly] did if you're sure they did it," she told Manchester Crown Court.

Ms Heer said both encouraged the other in the attack, adding the evidence showed both defendants participated in Brianna's murder by encouraging the other, by contributing to a plan to kill her, by taking part in the plan and by trying to conceal evidence afterwards.

Ms Heer said the prosecution accepted some of the messages the boy and girl, identified only as girl X and boy Y, exchanged were initially fantasies about killing people.

But she said as the weeks passed the messages became more detailed and more real, she added: "They were leading each other along a path that became more extreme and more real as time goes on."

Ms Heer said a message from girl Y to boy X read "then you distract I go from behind with my knife then stab his neck", showing the kernel of their plan to kill Brianna, who was transgender.

She said the messages they exchanged showed their plan to murder Brianna matched what actually happened to her at Culcheth Linear Park.

"It's all there in black and white. These are the defendants' own words," she said.

Ms Heer said the defendants' actions after the killing should also "dispel any doubt once and for all" about what happened.

She said "faced with a choice of staying at the scene and trying to help Brianna, or running off with an armed killer, both chose the latter option".

She also said the pair exchanged messages after the murder.

"They just pick up the conversation as if nothing had happened," Ms Heer said.

In his closing speech, Richard Pratt KC, who is defending girl X, said the defence does not have to prove she did not murder Brianna, the prosecution has to.

Mr Pratt said the jury "should grasp the nettle and not sit on the fence, and when you do you will inevitably conclude that it was [boy Y] who stabbed Brianna to death, or at least you will be not be able to say that [girl X] did so".

He said boy Y's explanation that he took his hunting knife to the park to show girl X or let her hold it did "not bear intelligent scrutiny".

Mr Pratt said there was evidence from a pathologist that wounds to Brianna's bones would have need a "degree of strength" to inflict.

"Which of the two defendants had the strength to cause that damage?

"The slightly built [girl X] with her eating disorder or was it obviously [boy Y]?"

Mr Pratt said in a police interview boy Y himself had described girl X as "skinny, she doesn't really eat properly".

He said the scientific evidence suggested it was boy Y alone who stabbed Brianna.

He added Brianna's blood was on his jacket and shoes and her DNA was on a knife found at his home.

"There's not even so much as microscopic observable drop of blood on [girl X's] jacket or shoes. Not a cell of [girl X's] DNA on anything incriminating in this case."

He also addressed the Crown's assertion messages between the pair show they had planned together to kill Brianna.

He said: "On the face of it there is a plan in text messages and in the note found in [girl X's] bedroom."

But he added girl X's thoughts about killing Brianna were only fantasies, just like her claim to boy Y that she killed two people previously.

Mr Pratt said girl X had to accept that if she had not got Brianna to go to the park she might be alive today, but that did not make girl X guilty of murder, unless the jury were sure she participated in it or intentionally encouraged boy Y to do it.

The trial continues.

Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, X and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to [email protected]