UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #4

[Joolz1975]

I suspect given the small population the police would have cast their net to include adult males and young males of his age. The island community aspect works in the favour of the police in a way that wouldn't be possible in a large city.

I don't think the carelessness and arrogance aspects fit together. There's no doubt he is arrogant, but from what i've seen and read he clearly considers himself quite smart too - the sheer mess he left at the crime scene doesn't fit with someone who thinks they can get away with murder.

I know, i can't get my head around it so just thinking out loud.

It really doesn't make sense none of it. But then the murder of a 6 year old shouldn't make sense and it shouldn't happen.

Truth is we don't know how he did it or why he did it? And we don't know why the abduction scene had no evidence but the murder scene did.

Unless he comes clean and tells exactly what happened then nobody will ever know.

 

[Alyce]

This is what I am saying also, no doubt he took her, but it seems very implausible he entered into the main house to do so, is this stairwell a close like stairwell or out in the open? It is possible they don't lock the main door at the top of the steps and Alesha has wandered there/opened the door sleepwalking perhaps?

See my next post, with link to video clip of stairwell

 

[Alyce]

Here it is - shows the stair lift and also the steps that Alesha was taken up

 

[Legally Bland]

I think your point about evidence is absolutely correct, however, given a lot of the supporting evidence in the case against AC was circumstantial i don't think it is particularly untoward for people to have certain views that are a result of joining the dots.

There are a number of aspects that could indicate a relationship of sorts between TM and AC. There's a clear familiarity between them - on one side you have the drug dealing, on the other you have TM's aunt being a friend of AC's mother. AC clearly knew RM and it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume he may have had a soft spot for her, or more, given what he knew about RM. Furthermore, the evidence given by the neighbour regarding TM and RM is interesting - if there was domestic violence going on, TM sticking around (and the fact they had previously been together, split, and got back together) suggests an aspect of co-dependency. This would make her vulnerable to attention from others, ie AC, depending on the context.

Lastly, it may not have been common knowledge for a variety of reasons. Their method of communciation (via Instagram) isn't that far fetched - communicate and delete, communicate and delete, in order to avoid raising suspicion.

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Equating a made up co-dependancy issue leaving TM vulnerable to AC (not just anyone but this specific individual) to circumstantial evidence.

It's a bit of a stretch.

Just leave her alone, eh?

 

[Alyce]

It's wearing thin with me too. People aren't referring to proven court evidence to cast shadow on her, which I find uncomfortable. The witness was not sure it was TM and RM arguing, it wasn't said in court that she was up at 2am, no evidence at all of any relations between TM and AC. Leave the girl alone.

I agree. It is great to have new people posting on the threads, different viewpoints and ideas are always welcome. But it might help with some of the questions on here, to have a read back through earlier threads, as well as this one. Thread Three covers most of the Trial, up to just before the Jury verdict was announced and Thread Two and Thread One also supply useful background information. ( links to all of these earlier threads are on Page One of this thread ).
The factual answers to many questions can be found there.

 

[embro68]

He didn't leave any DNA because he was quick not clever.
He blamed TM because it was the best story he could come up with to fit what he knew was being presented in court. Opportunitist nothing more.
The doubt regarding time of TM checking Alesha comes from his mother, after the court case. Probably her own defence mechanism kicking in to cast a doubt to herself that he might not have done it. Same way she said he's not violent, same way she said again he left his clothes at his backside, when the reality is he threw them in the sea, and not on the bathroom floor. If the original statements showed these times etc the defence would have put TMs aunt on the stand. This time is approximate and reported in the sun newspaper via his mum, not court evidence. Leave the poor young women out of it she has blatantly been threw more than her fair share of hardship. This is a human not a character in a who done it novel.
Can I just highlight that other that his mum saying he cried after being formally charged - there is absolutely no evidence that he cares about being caught - the crime scene left no attempt to hide anything, he spoke to the police voluntary , gave his DNA voluntarily, didn't seem phased being arrested, being cross examined without showing any emotion, no emotion when convicted. What makes any of you so sure he actually cared about not getting caught?

 

[iamnotanumber]

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Equating a made up co-dependancy issue leaving TM vulnerable to AC (not just anyone but this specific individual) to circumstantial evidence.

It's a bit of a stretch.

Just leave her alone, eh?

TM and RM were previously together. They split up. They got back together. The neighbour's testimony relates to their relationship prior to the split. TM returning to a situation where there was any degree of violence does, regardless of how you wish to dispell it, indicate co-dependency.

Co-dependency in turn, is often at the root of a variety of problematic social situations.

 

[Legally Bland]

TM and RM were previously together. They split up. They got back together. The neighbour's testimony relates to their relationship prior to the split. TM returning to a situation where there was any degree of violence does, regardless of how you wish to dispell it, indicate co-dependency.

Co-dependency in turn, is often at the root of a variety of problematic social situations.

That is not circumstantial evidence of a relationship between AC and TM which is what you are equating it to.

 

[Ironside]

TM and RM were previously together. They split up. They got back together. The neighbour's testimony relates to their relationship prior to the split. TM returning to a situation where there was any degree of violence does, regardless of how you wish to dispell it, indicate co-dependency.

Co-dependency in turn, is often at the root of a variety of problematic social situations.

However messed up and dysfunctional their relationship is/was none of it caused the murder. It was an opportunistic crime.

 

[iamnotanumber]

That is not circumstantial evidence of a relationship between AC and TM which is what you are equating it to.

Co-dependency indicates a degree of vulnerability and comfort-seeking (the absence of the ability to self-soothe is often a fundamental aspect of co-dependency). A 'friends with benefits' relationship would have provided this, so, it isn't that far-fetched.

 

[LittleMystery]

What is the risk if he's caught? Attempted burglary? Trespass?

And we know the door was unlocked .

I may be doing you a disservice, and there are probably more relevant posts to reply to, but the suggestion that TM was somehow involved is wearing really thin for me.

There is no evidence, other than the word of a convicted child killer and rapist that she was involved, and I don't think we should be putting too much stock in that. He's shown he's a manipulative liar.

We may just have to live without knowing exactly how he abducted Alesha without leaving any trace of DNA (but he did leave a palm print). Equally we'll probably never know how he managed not to leave any DNA on the door handles and shower in his own home.

It's dissatisfying when you don't have an exact picture of what happened, I get that, but sometimes that's just how it is.

I wish I could like this post twice.

Such a valid point that the only person suggesting anything about TM is a convicted killer and currently his credibility is in tatters. There’s zero proof of truth in it.

It’s getting a little conspiracy-sleuth in here and I get it, we are all just trying to make sense of it and look for something more to understand why. But as someone has already very rightly pointed out - there’s no sense in killing a child.

I think it’s time to leave the innocent people alone and let them rebuild their lives. Remember this is an open forum that is currently ranking quite high in search results for this case - we don’t need to be making the innocents feel worse then they already do with half-baked conspiracies.

 

[gc105]

I wonder what part the knife played in the events.

If he hadn’t used it directly (i.e. other than for protection/to threaten) then it would have made much more sense for him to take it home and return it with the rest of the knives? As it’s in the family home, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for it to have his prints on.

There was never any discussion of whether it was/wasn’t used during court proceedings.

Why then, IF it wasn’t used, would he discard it. Makes me wonder if the knife WAS used in some capacity during this brutal attack :-(

 

[TaylorCallum]

I wonder what part the knife played in the events.

If he hadn’t used it directly (i.e. other than for protection/to threaten) then it would have made much more sense for him to take it home and return it with the rest of the knives? As it’s in the family home, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for it to have his prints on.

There was never any discussion of whether it was/wasn’t used during court proceedings.

Why then, IF it wasn’t used, would he discard it. Makes me wonder if the knife WAS used in some capacity during this brutal attack :-(

I do wonder what the knife was used for as well. I thought if it was used during the attack we would be aware of it but perhaps not. Like you said it would make more sense to return it home rather than discard it, if it wasn't actually part of the murder.

 

[Legally Bland]

Co-dependency indicates a degree of vulnerability and comfort-seeking (the absence of the ability to self-soothe is often a fundamental aspect of co-dependency). A 'friends with benefits' relationship would have provided this, so, it isn't that far-fetched.

I'm not doubting your description of co-dependancy etc.

It just isn't evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of a relationship between AC and TM.

Let's just leave her alone.

 

[Mercsw]

I would avoid naming accomplices as that’s not fair. One was found guilty and we shouldn’t doubt that. I do wonder in these cases if evidence is withheld due to the nature of the case and subject matter.

There are concerns by the lack of trace at the flat, the direction and attitude on the cctv, the way he was singled out quickly etc.

Maybe there is a footnote or another secret or two here. It doesn’t change the outcome mind.

 

[TaylorCallum]

Do you think I could apply for the transcript at Glasgow High Court since his anonymity has been lifted now? Or do you think they still wouldn't give it out?

 

[Alyce]

I wonder what part the knife played in the events.

If he hadn’t used it directly (i.e. other than for protection/to threaten) then it would have made much more sense for him to take it home and return it with the rest of the knives? As it’s in the family home, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for it to have his prints on.

There was never any discussion of whether it was/wasn’t used during court proceedings.

Why then, IF it wasn’t used, would he discard it. Makes me wonder if the knife WAS used in some capacity during this brutal attack :-(

The knife was found on the beach, very close to the McPhail home and was found quite quickly on that same morning, July 2.
Based on the fact that the clothing was found more or less where we assume AC threw it into the water - ie; the other end of the beach, close to the murder site/his home - then I think it would be fair to say that the knife was also thrown into the water at more or less the place it was found.
LThis was the start of ACs route from the McPhail home towards the woods. He had by now abducted Alesha and had not needed to use the knife as a threat to anyone. Now had no further need and discarded it. Yes, it would have been sensible to take it back home and replace it in the knife block...but I think he believed it would wash out to sea ( same as the clothing ) so getting rid was the easier option.

 

[kyndigs]

Do you think I could apply for the transcript at Glasgow High Court since his anonymity has been lifted now? Or do you think they still wouldn't give it out?

Think there is a cost but:

Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA”) any person can make a request to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to seek access to information. The SCTS will be obliged to provide that information, unless a reason under FOISA means that information cannot be provided.

 

[stephaniejanes]

The knife was found on the beach, very close to the McPhail home and was found quite quickly on that same morning, July 2.
Based on the fact that the clothing was found more or less where we assume AC threw it into the water - ie; the other end of the beach, close to the murder site/his home - then I think it would be fair to say that the knife was also thrown into the water at more or less the place it was found.
LThis was the start of ACs route from the McPhail home towards the woods. He had by now abducted Alesha and had not needed to use the knife as a threat to anyone. Now had no further need and discarded it. Yes, it would have been sensible to take it back home and replace it in the knife block...but I think he believed it would wash out to sea ( same as the clothing ) so getting rid was the easier option.

It's also possible he dropped it whilst down on the shoreline.

All of the conspiracy theories on here don't rest well with me. Particularly the insistence that "there has to be more to the story" and that he had an accomplice, despite there being no evidence to support that theory.

 

[Neko Luna Moon]

When he left the house with no shoes on and is carrying what he said was a t-shirt, was that actually the jogging bottoms? I know he said that the t-shirt was tucked into the waistband of his shorts when he came back but I can't see anything. It looks like a t-shirt in his hand when he goes but I don't know when else he was supposed to have ditched the jogging bottoms otherwise.