Thread by @RoxyLegane

Long 🧵Save for Later 👀

It’s going to take me years to figure out what to do with my notes from this case, and how to make them accessible.

Here’s some screenshots on how the ‘gang’ narrative was forced down throats, and how it was resisted. Best landscape, boys are in bold.

Here Boy 1, 2 & 4 describe to defence what M40 meant to them. Boy 1 talks about his relationships with some of those that killed his friend, which were amicable (no long standing feud before his death), and Boy 2 made clear he doesn’t know many of those he shared the dock with

Prosecution bring in incidents on 5th Nov which are separate charges to this case again and again (this is Boy 1, who had already plead guilty for what is being discussed here, but of course they repeat to bring the ‘gang’ narrative back in, to help them frame what comes later)

The prosecutor introduces the idea to Boy 2 that you couldn’t possibly be sad about someone’s death, unless you’re a ‘gang member’. Which feels quite grotesque.

When Boy 3 is on the stand the prosecutor pretends he cannot comprehend being a victim of exploitation, only ‘gang members’ here.

He then goes on to name defendants to suggest they are who Boy 3 is scared of, and who were in the car on the night of harm in Dec… 😑

The prosecutor was good at being purposefully confusing. Group or ‘gang’, ‘gang friends’, it meant boys had to be really careful because they could be accidentally answering in a way they didn’t wish to. Boy 4 was probably the best at keeping on top of it, but it sounded tiring.

Again Boy 4 has to defend the things that happened on the 5th Nov, he had already plead guilty to violent disorder at this stage like others who were present. But they rehash it over and over.

Boy 4 really had to resist, inc explaining how social media works.

Prosecutor ‘that’s your gang friend’ he says ‘if you say so’ prosecutor says ‘I don’t’ he says ‘you just said gang friend’.

Prosecutor always moves on as soon as it ends like that, all at top speed, btw

As you get down the list to those who become more and more detached from those in the music group. Defence is just fairly simple re the ‘gang’, but you can see it must have been so odd for Boy 8 (who text) to be arrested later down the line.

Prosecution start to introduce the idea to him, as they have done others, of ‘gang terminology’ when it comes to messages.

Language, and the prosecution of it, played a key role throughout

This was entertaining. After it was shown that the picture of the ‘opposing gang’ Boy 6 had was not Rochdale, but a London music group, prosecution had to come back having looked them up. Next tactic, well the London group have done bad things and you’re a fan so you’re bad.

They bring Nov 5th violent disorder back to Boy 6 too, who also plead guilty to that case. But you see the language they use. You ‘lead the charge’ ‘armed’ ‘turf’… and this is continually rejected.

Finally, here, using a relationship that was described ‘like a little brother’ through the trial to suggest that Boy 7 must have knowledge his friend who died was a ‘gang member’ (and by default must be too). When the evidence is non-existent, let’s just reframe your friendship.