UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #2

[HongKongPhooey]

Interesting objection logged on line at Argyll and Bute gov site, re developments to the pub. As someone said, probably explains cctv. Worth a look.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

However, he wouldn't know if the grandparents were asleep ot not, nor would a non-reply indicate they were asleep.

Also I think it was said he contacted a friend for cannabis too, but it could have been a cover.

 

[Taskforce88]

Also I think it was said he contacted a friend for cannabis too, but it could have been a cover.

Yes, didn't he say he was out meeting a dealer?

Is it possible the spot where the body was found was known to all involved for a drug dealing spot? (again per the private chat)

 

[Bampot]

I dont think in rothesay you would need to go somewhere so discreet to deal drugs. It's a small place probably hardly any police. Did RM not say the accused came to his door for drugs? I smoked some weed in my youth and you basically go to a person's door not a forrest!

 

[jiminy]

Would the police have told TM what the defendant was accusing? And would that have known he was going to say ? As in her questioning she had only just found out that Monday. I don’t think she’s a viable suspect, but let’s see what the defence have . Very confused

It's my understanding that the defence don't have to say anything in advance as to what the defence strategy will be. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and it's up to them to have a tight case no matter what the accused may say. That TM only realised the finger was being pointed at her on Monday, indicates to me that the accused did not put this forward when he was being questioned by police. Otherwise she would have been rigorously questioned before (one would hope!) and may have suspected she was being put in the frame.

If Day 1 in court was the first the prosecution heard of this, I fully expect the judge to draw attention to it in the summing up. "It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court".

It strikes me that the accused has watched 'How To Get Away With Murder' or similar. I didn't watch it all but I seem to recall the premise was that you effectively bury the truth in a whole load of balderdash in court.

 

[Keeneye]

I will ring on Monday morning and take it from there. Will keep you's posted! I dont do twitter so cannot tweet anyone...

I’m free mornings so might go down at least for 1 half day if allowed . Keep us posted if poss

 

[Bampot]

Willdo

 

[octagonsunrise]

I'm keeping an open mind as to where infatuation, jealousy, or both could potential play a part in this case. And i don't mean in the most obvious sense. I think it would go some way to explaining why there's a sense of things not being particularly clean cut.

 

[AnnesCuthberts]

(Just wanting to mark my spot in this thread).

 

[Alyce]

Also I think it was said he contacted a friend for cannabis too, but it could have been a cover.

and was refuted by the friend during testimony yesterday

 

[Alyce]

It's my understanding that the defence don't have to say anything in advance as to what the defence strategy will be. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and it's up to them to have a tight case no matter what the accused may say. That TM only realised the finger was being pointed at her on Monday, indicates to me that the accused did not put this forward when he was being questioned by police. Otherwise she would have been rigorously questioned before (one would hope!) and may have suspected she was being put in the frame.

If Day 1 in court was the first the prosecution heard of this, I fully expect the judge to draw attention to it in the summing up. "It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court".

It strikes me that the accused has watched 'How To Get Away With Murder' or similar. I didn't watch it all but I seem to recall the premise was that you effectively bury the truth in a whole load of balderdash in court.

I can't speak for Scottish Law, but in England the defence do have to provide a statement to the Prosecution, pre trial, basically setting out the basis of their defence - so I am surprised that the Prosecution appears to have had no pre warning of the accusation that was to be made against TM. Unless they chose not to inform her - but I cant see why they would not tell her.

 

[jiminy]

I can't speak for Scottish Law, but in England the defence do have to provide a statement to the Prosecution, pre trial, basically setting out the basis of their defence - so I am surprised that the Prosecution appears to have had no pre warning of the accusation that was to be made against TM. Unless they chose not to inform her - but I cant see why they would not tell her.

Indeed you're right. I did a google and according to Wiki, the court would have been notified in advance of his special defence (of incrimination). Though I'm still a bit unclear if specifics would have to be given. Special defence - Wikipedia

 

[auldlassie777]

Hi Newbie here.
A case that continues to shock and disgust me at every turn.
From what I can gather the accused, if found guilty, can be named once he is 18. As per Bailey Gwynne's murderer who was named in 2017. I cannot find any change in the law relating to this since that time.

It has been stated here that the accused is being tried as a child. I can find no evidence for that. His name is withheld due to his age in Scottish law, but in Scotland someone between the ages of 16 and 18 can be tried as a child or adult. In both cases their name will be withheld . Children's cases are normally heard by a Children's reporter or panel. This is a serious case, being tried in the High Court and I do not think I have read anywhere that he is being tried as a child. perhaps some here know for certain and can post verification of that.

I take great note that when Alesha's forensics were done, she would have been thoroughly check for DNA, but that would have been for anyone's (and everyone's) DNA, not just that of the accused. Family and friends in normal contact will have been tested as forensics are not tested as a "fit up" for any one individual. As Toni remain uncharged with any crime to date, I will surmise that the DNA evidence gave no indication of Toni's involvement in any suspicious way whatsoever. However, it is clear the prosecution believe it did incriminate the accused.

As Crazy Mama earlier mentioned, yes indeed a condom will have had spermicide. Forensics would show this if a condom was involved, as the accused suggests. Spermicide's purpose is destroy/degrade sperm cells, which would be evident in the sample (and I seem to recall the accused claimed a reasonably long interval between their intercourse and the murder, giving spermicide time to work). If there is no evidence of spermicide then it certainly suggests the accused's dispersal via condom claim is unlikely. I would also tentatively suggest that the "smearing on the body" as claimed by the accused's counsel would not match usual patterns of sperm present on the bodies of raped murder victims.

Given the short notice to the prosecution of the special defence (as far as we publicly know at least) there may be some additional checks being carried out forensically now for the upcoming cross-examination of the accused.

Another posted claimed previously that the accused seemed well-spoken. For what anyone might judge that to mean, I wonder how anyone has managed to hear the accused speak? Has a voiced statement been in the media? I doubt that very much. I can see that his grammar and spelling are very poor though.

As to other points I can recall that I had to go check, 2 newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) reported on the 11th Feb that the accused's hand print was on a "chair rail leading up to the flat", not stair rail. As a previous poster said, this might be a typo, but as the 2 newspapers are not related journalistically (i.e. 2 separate reporters involved) then I wonder if it was in fact read to the court as this? A court typo? There is a possibility that a stairlift might be fitted within the flat, but that is just a wild guess. I know there is an exterior door at the bottom of the stairwell to this upper flat, which I would assume is the external locking door, but if anyone has proof of that or otherwise it would be helpful. This is a flatted house, not a tenement flat (as was discussed way back near the start of this thread) so in Scotland normally the external locking door is indeed the one at the bottom of the stairwell even if there is another at the top. The stairwell is normally part of the private property within the upper flat. Therefore any handprint on the stair (or chair?) rail would mean that the person it belonged to and been further inside that just at the front door.

I know some have speculated how far the accused could travel in 9 minutes, during one of his excursions (with the torch) and whether it would be possible to go to the murder site about half a mile from his house and back within that time. I have seen the accused in photos and videos. I cannot identify him here, so I will not. He is very fit and strong. As has been mentioned previously in this thread and not deleted, he does parkour, trampolining and weight training (and mentioned in court also). He can travel many distances in a straight line around many objects where a normal person could not. He can take shortcuts and run as we likely could not. I am in my mid fifties and have an arthritic knee, yet I am reasonably fit and can walk that distance (1 mile) at pace in 12 mins. Not saying this happened, but it might, although it would allow little time to be at the site. But perhaps enough to check whatever was necessary. I do not feel I can write it off for the accused. Wherever he went, he can cover ground more quickly than a lot of people might realise.

I do not know much about the current state of affairs in Rothesay re crime or unemployment or social difficulties. I expect there is a lot of info on the web. The first one I checked seems to have a wide variety of opinions as one might expect. BBC Scotland - Island Blogging - Bute Rants I imagine many of you are already up to date with earlier face book posts from many locals which can give an insight also.

 

[LittleMystery]

Hi Newbie here.
A case that continues to shock and disgust me at every turn.
From what I can gather the accused, if found guilty, can be named once he is 18. As per Bailey Gwynne's murderer who was named in 2017. I cannot find any change in the law relating to this since that time.

It has been stated here that the accused is being tried as a child. I can find no evidence for that. His name is withheld due to his age in Scottish law, but in Scotland someone between the ages of 16 and 18 can be tried as a child or adult. In both cases their name will be withheld . Children's cases are normally heard by a Children's reporter or panel. This is a serious case, being tried in the High Court and I do not think I have read anywhere that he is being tried as a child. perhaps some here know for certain and can post verification of that.

I take great note that when Alesha's forensics were done, she would have been thoroughly check for DNA, but that would have been for anyone's (and everyone's) DNA, not just that of the accused. Family and friends in normal contact will have been tested as forensics are not tested as a "fit up" for any one individual. As Toni remain uncharged with any crime to date, I will surmise that the DNA evidence gave no indication of Toni's involvement in any suspicious way whatsoever. However, it is clear the prosecution believe it did incriminate the accused.

As Crazy Mama earlier mentioned, yes indeed a condom will have had spermicide. Forensics would show this if a condom was involved, as the accused suggests. Spermicide's purpose is destroy/degrade sperm cells, which would be evident in the sample (and I seem to recall the accused claimed a reasonably long interval between their intercourse and the murder, giving spermicide time to work). If there is no evidence of spermicide then it certainly suggests the accused's dispersal via condom claim is unlikely. I would also tentatively suggest that the "smearing on the body" as claimed by the accused's counsel would not match usual patterns of sperm present on the bodies of raped murder victims.

Given the short notice to the prosecution of the special defence (as far as we publicly know at least) there may be some additional checks being carried out forensically now for the upcoming cross-examination of the accused.

Another posted claimed previously that the accused seemed well-spoken. For what anyone might judge that to mean, I wonder how anyone has managed to hear the accused speak? Has a voiced statement been in the media? I doubt that very much. I can see that his grammar and spelling are very poor though.

As to other points I can recall that I had to go check, 2 newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) reported on the 11th Feb that the accused's hand print was on a "chair rail leading up to the flat", not stair rail. As a previous poster said, this might be a typo, but as the 2 newspapers are not related journalistically (i.e. 2 separate reporters involved) then I wonder if it was in fact read to the court as this? A court typo? There is a possibility that a stairlift might be fitted within the flat, but that is just a wild guess. I know there is an exterior door at the bottom of the stairwell to this upper flat, which I would assume is the external locking door, but if anyone has proof of that or otherwise it would be helpful. This is a flatted house, not a tenement flat (as was discussed way back near the start of this thread) so in Scotland normally the external locking door is indeed the one at the bottom of the stairwell even if there is another at the top. The stairwell is normally part of the private property within the upper flat. Therefore any handprint on the stair (or chair?) rail would mean that the person it belonged to and been further inside that just at the front door.

I know some have speculated how far the accused could travel in 9 minutes, during one of his excursions (with the torch) and whether it would be possible to go to the murder site about half a mile from his house and back within that time. I have seen the accused in photos and videos. I cannot identify him here, so I will not. He is very fit and strong. As has been mentioned previously in this thread and not deleted, he does parkour, trampolining and weight training (and mentioned in court also). He can travel many distances in a straight line around many objects where a normal person could not. He can take shortcuts and run as we likely could not. I am in my mid fifties and have an arthritic knee, yet I am reasonably fit and can walk that distance (1 mile) at pace in 12 mins. Not saying this happened, but it might, although it would allow little time to be at the site. But perhaps enough to check whatever was necessary. I do not feel I can write it off for the accused. Wherever he went, he can cover ground more quickly than a lot of people might realise.

I do not know much about the current state of affairs in Rothesay re crime or unemployment or social difficulties. I expect there is a lot of info on the web. The first one I checked seems to have a wide variety of opinions as one might expect. BBC Scotland - Island Blogging - Bute Rants I imagine many of you are already up to date with earlier face book posts from many locals which can give an insight also.

Welcome!

People have heard him speak because there are videos online of him talking and practising hobbies.

I think that is where the ‘well-spoken’ is coming from.

 

[Bampot]

Hi Newbie here.
A case that continues to shock and disgust me at every turn.
From what I can gather the accused, if found guilty, can be named once he is 18. As per Bailey Gwynne's murderer who was named in 2017. I cannot find any change in the law relating to this since that time.

It has been stated here that the accused is being tried as a child. I can find no evidence for that. His name is withheld due to his age in Scottish law, but in Scotland someone between the ages of 16 and 18 can be tried as a child or adult. In both cases their name will be withheld . Children's cases are normally heard by a Children's reporter or panel. This is a serious case, being tried in the High Court and I do not think I have read anywhere that he is being tried as a child. perhaps some here know for certain and can post verification of that.

I take great note that when Alesha's forensics were done, she would have been thoroughly check for DNA, but that would have been for anyone's (and everyone's) DNA, not just that of the accused. Family and friends in normal contact will have been tested as forensics are not tested as a "fit up" for any one individual. As Toni remain uncharged with any crime to date, I will surmise that the DNA evidence gave no indication of Toni's involvement in any suspicious way whatsoever. However, it is clear the prosecution believe it did incriminate the accused.

As Crazy Mama earlier mentioned, yes indeed a condom will have had spermicide. Forensics would show this if a condom was involved, as the accused suggests. Spermicide's purpose is destroy/degrade sperm cells, which would be evident in the sample (and I seem to recall the accused claimed a reasonably long interval between their intercourse and the murder, giving spermicide time to work). If there is no evidence of spermicide then it certainly suggests the accused's dispersal via condom claim is unlikely. I would also tentatively suggest that the "smearing on the body" as claimed by the accused's counsel would not match usual patterns of sperm present on the bodies of raped murder victims.

Given the short notice to the prosecution of the special defence (as far as we publicly know at least) there may be some additional checks being carried out forensically now for the upcoming cross-examination of the accused.

Another posted claimed previously that the accused seemed well-spoken. For what anyone might judge that to mean, I wonder how anyone has managed to hear the accused speak? Has a voiced statement been in the media? I doubt that very much. I can see that his grammar and spelling are very poor though.

As to other points I can recall that I had to go check, 2 newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) reported on the 11th Feb that the accused's hand print was on a "chair rail leading up to the flat", not stair rail. As a previous poster said, this might be a typo, but as the 2 newspapers are not related journalistically (i.e. 2 separate reporters involved) then I wonder if it was in fact read to the court as this? A court typo? There is a possibility that a stairlift might be fitted within the flat, but that is just a wild guess. I know there is an exterior door at the bottom of the stairwell to this upper flat, which I would assume is the external locking door, but if anyone has proof of that or otherwise it would be helpful. This is a flatted house, not a tenement flat (as was discussed way back near the start of this thread) so in Scotland normally the external locking door is indeed the one at the bottom of the stairwell even if there is another at the top. The stairwell is normally part of the private property within the upper flat. Therefore any handprint on the stair (or chair?) rail would mean that the person it belonged to and been further inside that just at the front door.

I know some have speculated how far the accused could travel in 9 minutes, during one of his excursions (with the torch) and whether it would be possible to go to the murder site about half a mile from his house and back within that time. I have seen the accused in photos and videos. I cannot identify him here, so I will not. He is very fit and strong. As has been mentioned previously in this thread and not deleted, he does parkour, trampolining and weight training (and mentioned in court also). He can travel many distances in a straight line around many objects where a normal person could not. He can take shortcuts and run as we likely could not. I am in my mid fifties and have an arthritic knee, yet I am reasonably fit and can walk that distance (1 mile) at pace in 12 mins. Not saying this happened, but it might, although it would allow little time to be at the site. But perhaps enough to check whatever was necessary. I do not feel I can write it off for the accused. Wherever he went, he can cover ground more quickly than a lot of people might realise.

I do not know much about the current state of affairs in Rothesay re crime or unemployment or social difficulties. I expect there is a lot of info on the web. The first one I checked seems to have a wide variety of opinions as one might expect. BBC Scotland - Island Blogging - Bute Rants I imagine many of you are already up to date with earlier face book posts from many locals which can give an insight also.

Yes you mention seeing his videos and know his hobbies, surely you have heard him speak like the rest of us in these videos?

 

[Alyce]

Hi AuldLassie - welcome to the thread

Have had to copy and paste this over from the first thread, so hope it works

This is Mrazda's post of her exchange with one of the journos covering the trial, which confirmed that he is indeed being tried as a child.


My P.M with Fraser Knight

Hope this is within Websleuth rules, if not ... @Tortoise made me do it

Attached Files:

• 
  a">
• 
  
  
• 
  

 

[angeldust]

Wonder if any of you can help with a few things please. Does anyone actually know where the accused lives in relation to were Alesha went missing? Not asking for anything to be revealed but maybe clear some of my confusion.
Accused left house at 1.54am apparently takes around 7 minutes to walk from his to Alesha house if whats been posted here is correct. so we assume 2.01 am arrival time . A comment just made by someone stating where the cctv was taken is near a pub so its nearer the crime scene than her home correct ? that was around 2.25/27 it must have took a good ten minutes carrying a child on a rocky shoreline with an incoming tide but low enough at points to be hardly noticeable. So 2.15 he has her that cuts down the wait time to around 15 minutes to take her.

Does this mean his house is much nearer the crime scene ? might account for the quick in and out trips between 3.35 and 4.05

Where the clothes are concerned was the hoody not found on the beach covered in seaweed the police picked it up and lobbed it in a skip but it would have been contaminated anyway I do hope it had a stray hair but doubt it.

Someone also pointed out about condom and spermicide great catch ) I often think people like me think forensics are like csi and its not and simple things like this are sometimes overlooked but could be hugely beneficial. I do hope they have thought of this.

nt sure what any of this means but would clear some of this up for me .

Im also pretty sure his sister is nothing to do with anything she probably came back with his friend at 12,30 because he used her phone to fb call so she was probably home when he left an hour and a half after telling his pal he was sad angry suicidal and wanted to harm himself

 

[Taskforce88]

I have seen spermicide being mentioned. Most condoms in the UK do not contain spermicide.

 

[Alyce]

Have just snipped this section of your post Auldlassie

As to other points I can recall that I had to go check, 2 newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) reported on the 11th Feb that the accused's hand print was on a "chair rail leading up to the flat", not stair rail. As a previous poster said, this might be a typo, but as the 2 newspapers are not related journalistically (i.e. 2 separate reporters involved) then I wonder if it was in fact read to the court as this? A court typo? e at the bottom of the stairwell even if there is another at the top. The stairwell is normally part of the private property within the upper flat. Therefore any handprint on the stair (or chair?) rail would mean that the person it belonged to and been further inside that just at the front door.

My fault as I had not heard the term before. It is indeed a chair rail - have just watched a fascinating ( not ) clip on you tube of how to install one. Makes sense now as to how they have marked out the section of the rail where the hand print was found.

 

[LittleMystery]

Im also pretty sure his sister is nothing to do with anything she probably came back with his friend at 12,30 because he used her phone to fb call so she was probably home when he left an hour and a half after telling his pal he was sad angry suicidal and wanted to harm himself

I could be wrong but I don’t think it’s been clarified who made the call from the sister’s Facebook account yet or where it was made from. It could easily have been him from a computer his sister was still logged into at home or if he had her password. You don’t necessarily need a phone to make a call from FB messenger.

That aside, I think you are correct. His sisters whereabouts are likely irrelevant.