UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #5

[molly67]

Me too. I mean people on the island will already know who she is. I imagine they were already "in a relationship" on Facebook so it was probably fairly common knowledge before the crime occurred. I think DM have done her a huge disservice by posting that photo because now not only do we know what age she is, and where she's from, we also know what colour her hair is. It won't be hard for some people to work out who she is, unfortunately.

What was AC's Mother even thinking about giving an interview - not just after the trial but last weekend too ....I believe the interview last weekend was when she mentioned the gf .... beggars belief

 

[TaylorCallum]

What was AC's Mother even thinking about giving an interview - not just after the trial but last weekend too ....I believe the interview last weekend was when she mentioned the gf .... beggars belief

I really don't know and she didn't mention Alesha or her family once in it. It didn't come across very well at all. I wonder if his girlfriend was very happy about what his mother said.

 

[bronzepurple]

How are the DM etc getting these pictures of AC, particularly the one with the girlfriend? I’m a bit uncomfortable with the idea of them following teenagers about for photographs, I saw a reference on a Bute Facebook page to journalists harassing kids.

there was a camera person and what looked like an interviewer here today in town...no doubt they are still looking for more stories of AC..

 

[Deufin]

Maybe the guy is too clever for his own good, but if you ignore the overwhelming evidence at the scene, this is a weak case.

The knife is just a knife found in the sea a week later. We have an idea it’s from his house but no idea of the use. Just hearsay he has a knife...so why would that be a kitchen knife?
The clothes fibres are similar and so falls apart. The hoodie can’t be used as evidence and is quickly dismissed.
He has left no trace beyond a single print at the flat. Despite it being dark and having no gloves or knowledge of the interior. He’s moved around leaving no prints or hair bar a single print in a weird location on the stairs.
The cctv is drip fed to the mum to check by someone linked to the person he then blames. Likewise it’s not conclusive and a bit weird. The direction, his actions and calmness.
All of this could be explained away.

It seems the gaps have been filled with hearsay and winks and nods to suggest it was obvious.

Yes he did it...but I’m just curious to why everyone knew before it was obvious. I mean this isn’t slashing tyres of someone you dislike, it’s possibly the sickest thing someone could do. Now if there has been no suggestion of this before, it’s very weird.

No doubt there’s loads omitted to explain this. I think it will come out eventually but at the minute it’s confusing as it doesn’t make sense. Not that murders do, but this is completely out of left field...

The jury weren’t privy to the winks or the rumours or hearsay, but also heard all of the evidence in far more detail than we have.

And subsequently unanimously decided he was guilty.

Doesn’t that count for something?

 

[molly67]

I really don't know and she didn't mention Alesha or her family once in it. It didn't come across very well at all. I wonder if his girlfriend was very happy about what his mother said.

Ah, Do you know what TC ... she prob did and the gutter press didn't bother mentioning it (or at least I hope) .... as wtiger said during the week ... an ill advised interview.

 

[Ardoch]

I really don't know and she didn't mention Alesha or her family once in it. It didn't come across very well at all. I wonder if his girlfriend was very happy about what his mother said.

That puzzled me too as to why she made no mention of Alesha or her family. It could be because she's in shock - that would explain speaking to the (gutter) press as well. His father is staying well away from the press too.

 

[TaylorCallum]

Ah, Do you know what TC ... she prob did and the gutter press didn't bother mentioning it (or at least I hope) .... as wtiger said during the week ... an ill advised interview.

Yes, maybe that was the case. I hope so. Also, I'm sure she wasn't in a very good state of mind considering everything that was going on. It was a bad decision on her part to do the interview but I'd guess she wasn't thinking straight. I just hope the reason she did it wasn't for money.

 

[Joolz1975]

Yes, maybe that was the case. I hope so. Also, I'm sure she wasn't in a very good state of mind considering everything that was going on. It was a bad decision on her part to do the interview but I'd guess she wasn't thinking straight. I just hope the reason she did it wasn't for money.

I suppose she thought that they would likely print a story anyway so she may as well give her point of view.

But yes Ill advised she would have been better off not adding fuel to the fire.

I bet they just printed what they thought would put her across in the worst possible light.

She would have to be a pretty heartless woman to not be absolutely devastated about what her son has done and she doesn't appear to be like that.

I think all I can say about her is she did the right thing contacting the police and deserves to be left in peace as does as her daughter.

 

[Mercsw]

The jury weren’t privy to the winks or the rumours or hearsay, but also heard all of the evidence in far more detail than we have.

And subsequently unanimously decided he was guilty.

Doesn’t that count for something?

Well yes. He’s guilty. Banged to rights on the crime scene. No one is arguing that.

It’s the process to get to that point which is fishy. The certainty was there from the start, the evidence was sought to prove this, then the reasoning. It is in reverse.

Maybe we just aren’t used to sickening crimes out of the blue. We are used to our monsters being monsters and having reasons to explain why they do evil stuff.

A lot of this feels like a narrative is being added to fit the mode of what we expect to see. It’s certainly a weird place for a psycho to start their life of crime at the age of 16.

 

[Joolz1975]

Well yes. He’s guilty. Banged to rights on the crime scene. No one is arguing that.

It’s the process to get to that point which is fishy. The certainty was there from the start, the evidence was sought to prove this, then the reasoning. It is in reverse.

Maybe we just aren’t used to sickening crimes out of the blue. We are used to our monsters being monsters and having reasons to explain why they do evil stuff.

A lot of this feels like a narrative is being added to fit the mode of what we expect to see. It’s certainly a weird place for a psycho to start their life of crime at the age of 16.

There will occasionally be that one shocking crime that doesn't fit the mold though.

We can try and analyse and make sense of it all we want but there is no sense to the killing of a 6 year old by a teenage boy.

Crimes like this are so rare that we probably have little to compare them to.

We can't compare him to adult psychopaths that may have had years to act out and hone their skills.

We can't compare him to people like venables and Thompson either that were so so young.

I get there are unknowns but there is in every case.

Maybe one day he will tell the truth and speak up but for now I think we're stuck with a lot of uncertainties.

Just glad they got him at such a young age as he could have been a very dangerous young man.

 

[UKslueth2018]

I think it probably will be quite a lengthy sentence, but I do believe he will get out at some point. I just don't see a 16 year old being imprisoned for life, not in Scotland anyway. Unless his behaviour in prison is appalling and he shows signs of being a persistent danger but I doubt it will happen. He might be out as early as his mid-to-late 30's which might seem unfathomable but it really wouldn't surprise me.

I really hope that isn't the case... He should be held indefinitely.. Given the nature of the crime imo

 

[Deufin]

Well yes. He’s guilty. Banged to rights on the crime scene. No one is arguing that.

It’s the process to get to that point which is fishy. The certainty was there from the start, the evidence was sought to prove this, then the reasoning. It is in reverse.

Maybe we just aren’t used to sickening crimes out of the blue. We are used to our monsters being monsters and having reasons to explain why they do evil stuff.

A lot of this feels like a narrative is being added to fit the mode of what we expect to see. It’s certainly a weird place for a psycho to start their life of crime at the age of 16.

I think you’re doing the police an injustice tbh. I don’t think there’s anything to suggest they’ve simply acted on the local rumours??

In fact it was his own mother that alerted the police.

I’m not sure any reasoning has been offered either?

 

[emmalpage81]

Maybe the guy is too clever for his own good, but if you ignore the overwhelming evidence at the scene, this is a weak case.

The knife is just a knife found in the sea a week later. We have an idea it’s from his house but no idea of the use. Just hearsay he has a knife...so why would that be a kitchen knife?
The clothes fibres are similar and so falls apart. The hoodie can’t be used as evidence and is quickly dismissed.
He has left no trace beyond a single print at the flat. Despite it being dark and having no gloves or knowledge of the interior. He’s moved around leaving no prints or hair bar a single print in a weird location on the stairs.
The cctv is drip fed to the mum to check by someone linked to the person he then blames. Likewise it’s not conclusive and a bit weird. The direction, his actions and calmness.
All of this could be explained away.

It seems the gaps have been filled with hearsay and winks and nods to suggest it was obvious.

Yes he did it...but I’m just curious to why everyone knew before it was obvious. I mean this isn’t slashing tyres of someone you dislike, it’s possibly the sickest thing someone could do. Now if there has been no suggestion of this before, it’s very weird.

No doubt there’s loads omitted to explain this. I think it will come out eventually but at the minute it’s confusing as it doesn’t make sense. Not that murders do, but this is completely out of left field...

I respectfully disagree, whilst the perception we get from the trial is wishy washy, I believe the evidence is, actually, rather strong. We have the semen of the accused inside the victim. There is no argument of contamination (i.e. particles from any implement that inserted this). There are, additionally, 13 other areas of DNA over a vast area of the victims body. Such a volume could not be put down to simple touch transfer.

In respect of the clothing that was worn by the accused, it would be extremely unlucky, highly unlikely, that the murderer just happened to be wearing clothing (both underwear and jogging bottoms) that were microscopically similar to those that the accused 'lost' in the days prior to the murder. It is also extremely unlikely that the clothing, as 'lost' by the accused could have been in the salt water of the sea for the period claimed given that his DNA was recovered from them (I posted an article on one of the previous threads which stated that DNA was lost in salt water after a period of 12 hours). The clothes, if we follow the accused timeline, would have been in the water for a number of days.

The knife, was a branded knife, the mother owned a set of those knives and one was missing. It has also been stated in recent articles that the accused had been carrying a knife since first year (I assume they mean the first year of secondary education).

I do not agree that CCTV was drip-fed. Given that we have three separate CCTV videos it is highly likely that residents were asked to check their CCTV for any sight of A. We know that the accused left and returned to the home on three separate occasions. This evidence, quite clearly, speaks for itself.

In respect of the DNA at the McPhail home, I do not believe that the accused ever entered the actual home, just the stairwell. Thus, he would not have left any DNA there. Similarly, in respect of the lack of DNA at the accused's home, A was never in the home. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that you would find her DNA there.

I did not come into this case with any preconceived notion. I did not have any idea of any rumoured past deeds of the accused. My belief that he carried out these acts is due to the evidence as presented.

All IMO

 

[mrazda71]

The crime scene was enough for a safe conviction. However this is my concern, that certain folk seemed to know it was him before the evidence. That is my one red flag.

I would have thought family then random sex offenders first. But somehow it’s just him that’s considered. The leaked stories and we always knew stuff just feels contrived to explain the suspicion. The fact is he seems normal and a moody teen into girls drink drugs and parties.

His behaviour is strange and a bit scary. It’s easier to believe he was stitched up in a far fetched scheme than believe someone so calm, normal and unphased can do that and not be affected. I mean what is his motive and reason for this? How is he so normal after what he did.

Scary stuff

Maybe because he's a psychopath or maybe because this is normal for him?

There are convicted paedophiles on the island, I'm positive that police will have considered them and ruled them out.

We however, should not assume that everyone else on the island knows exactly who those people are, they may or they may not.

If islanders were suspecting Aaron early on then, I trust that there was good reason for that and ... they weren't wrong.

 

[Joolz1975]

I respectfully disagree, whilst the perception we get from the trial is wishy washy, I believe the evidence is, actually, rather strong. We have the semen of the accused inside the victim. There is no argument of contamination (i.e. particles from any implement that inserted this). There are, additionally, 13 other areas of DNA over a vast area of the victims body. Such a volume could not be put down to simple touch transfer.

In respect of the clothing that was worn by the accused, it would be extremely unlucky, highly unlikely, that the murderer just happened to be wearing clothing (both underwear and jogging bottoms) that were microscopically similar to those that the accused 'lost' in the days prior to the murder. It is also extremely unlikely that the clothing, as 'lost' by the accused could have been in the salt water of the sea for the period claimed given that his DNA was recovered from them (I posted an article on one of the previous threads which stated that DNA was lost in salt water after a period of 12 hours). The clothes, if we follow the accused timeline, would have been in the water for a number of days.

The knife, was a branded knife, the mother owned a set of those knives and one was missing. It has also been stated in recent articles that the accused had been carrying a knife since first year (I assume they mean the first year of secondary education).

I do not agree that CCTV was drip-fed. Given that we have three separate CCTV videos it is highly likely that residents were asked to check their CCTV for any sight of A. We know that the accused left and returned to the home on three separate occasions. This evidence, quite clearly, speaks for itself.

In respect of the DNA at the McPhail home, I do not believe that the accused ever entered the actual home, just the stairwell. Thus, he would not have left any DNA there. Similarly, in respect of the lack of DNA at the accused's home, A was never in the home. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that you would find her DNA there.

I did not come into this case with any preconceived notion. I did not have any idea of any rumoured past deeds of the accused. My belief that he carried out these acts is due to the evidence as presented.

All IMO

Really good post.

Id have liked to have said similar but I'm not clever enough.

 

[Mercsw]

I think you’re doing the police an injustice tbh. I don’t think there’s anything to suggest they’ve simply acted on the local rumours??

In fact it was his own mother that alerted the police.

I’m not sure any reasoning has been offered either?

But it was leaked to her by the family of the one he claims was involved which makes it stranger.

Maybe I’m trying to apply reason to madness but it’s strange. This idea he was so quick he left no dna at the flat...yet two days later is researching basic dna techniques. The idea he knew to throw stuff in the sea to get rid of evidence, yet left a posed scene full of dna as well. It’s full of contradictions and as he’s not admitting it, I guess they will remain that way.

I think there’s more depth to this case, however the outcome is the same I guess and the important aspect is the poor little girl, not the private lives of those involved.

 

[emmalpage81]

Well yes. He’s guilty. Banged to rights on the crime scene. No one is arguing that.

It’s the process to get to that point which is fishy. The certainty was there from the start, the evidence was sought to prove this, then the reasoning. It is in reverse.

Maybe we just aren’t used to sickening crimes out of the blue. We are used to our monsters being monsters and having reasons to explain why they do evil stuff.

A lot of this feels like a narrative is being added to fit the mode of what we expect to see. It’s certainly a weird place for a psycho to start their life of crime at the age of 16.

Personally, I am not sure why the police would need to look elsewhere once they had a DNA link from the accused to the victim. I am sure, at the outset, all people were looked at. It was his DNA that came back as being on the victim. At that point he was, and should have been, their only suspect.

He was tried, and found guilty, on the mainland. The jury would not (or should not) have been privy to any accusation of prior bad acts.

All IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

Really good post.

Id have liked to have said similar but I'm not clever enough.

Yes you are, never doubt yourself!!!!!!

 

[nothinonyou]

I suspect something happened that night that made him snap-argument with his mother and maybe something at the party. We know he was crying, could have been more issues. So the party ended at 12.30pm and he left his house to abduct Alesha around 2am? something significant happened within that time frame. Like he said himself, someone would have to be fantisizing about this for some while to actually carry it out. My guess is that he's always had a sexual attraction towards children but repressed it-hence no child *advertiser censored* on his computer. He didn't want to be that way, maybe that's where the anger came from. Just one theory but I also suspect there is multitude of reasons why he did what he did that night. All of them we'll never know.

 

[Joolz1975]

But it was leaked to her by the family of the one he claims was involved which makes it stranger.

Maybe I’m trying to apply reason to madness but it’s strange. This idea he was so quick he left no dna at the flat...yet two days later is researching basic dna techniques. The idea he knew to throw stuff in the sea to get rid of evidence, yet left a posed scene full of dna as well. It’s full of contradictions and as he’s not admitting it, I guess they will remain that way.

I think there’s more depth to this case, however the outcome is the same I guess and the important aspect is the poor little girl, not the private lives of those involved.

Someone said earlier he may have been clued up about fingerprints and hiding evidence like his clothes etc.... but totally naive to DNA.

Which would explain why there were no fingerprints and why his clothes were dumped in the sea.

So what of it was pointed out to his mum to check cctv ?? Is it not common sense to ask someone to check it, maybe initially it wasn't a case of check to see if Your son was up to no good? More a case of something has happened check it for anytbing?