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

[jaci68]

I’m new here and I’m fascinated by this case having read through the posts from day one. It’s such an appalling crime and, like others, I am trying to get some sort of handle on why someone who, on the surface has everything going for him, decides to commit this truly wicked crime.

Before I dive in with some of my own opinions I would like to say that I think the DNA evidence is overwhelming and the authorities have definitely got the right man.

I also feel there are missing links in the case and I am especially interested in AC’s mother’s statement, quoted in the Sun that she started searching her CCTV at 2pm because TM’s aunt had said that TM last saw the child at 2pm.

To me this is significant and is unlikely to be explained away by lax journalism. I have been a journalist and to get this story the Sun Journalist would have had to befriend the woman as well as having had to be in court to listen to the whole trial to be able to put the interview in context.

This is likely to mean the journalist would have known the full significance of that statement and would have had substantial evidence that AC’s mother had really said it - ie an audio recording of some sort.

Before publication lawyers would have been informed of the significance and would have considered the sentance from every angle; court records would have been checked and the subsequent discrepancy between AC’s mother’s statement in the press and the one TM made in court would have meant the decision to publish would have been a joint one between the Editor and the lawyers.

So, to me it suggests that we are not the only ones who have noticed this discrepancy and there may be some sort of follow up.

I also can’t help noticing that there was one witness who was more sympathetic to TM in court than she was to the police. Another one mentioned that she hadn’t previously reported domestic violence between RM and TM because the parents had warned her off.

What does this mean? Possibly nothing in the long run but since the Mcphails certainly has some influence on the community talking it is enough for my brain to start looking further into discrepancies.

If AC’s mother is right then why would TM have said 11pm? Could it be that she was outside arguing with RM at 11pm as suggested by one witness and did not come back in until 2pm to check on Alesha and she didn’t want people to think there were problems between herself and Robert?

If TM is right then why would TM’s aunt have specifically mentioned 2pm to
AC’s mother, who then specifically started searching the CCTV at that time?

I don’t have the answers but there are certainly some large questions that will no doubt affect the community for sometime.

 

[Ciana]

Oh 4chan, how typical. That's actually where I discovered his name. I knew they would have it floating about somewhere. I don't know whether I'm allowed to post that but yeah, they were speaking about the case and someone even mentioned he might have posted on the boards before.

That's vile if it's true though. I don't know how no one did anything.

If that is true, a lot of folks need to have a good hard look at themselves.

 

[Kiranerys]

Because it has been established that he had been dealing drugs from the door of his father's flat, where he also lived. Alesha stayed at the flat every other weekend and during holiday times. If I were in that game I would never allow punters to come anywhere near my home or family for obvious reasons. A partial palm print of the prisoner had been located on part of a chair lift contraption thing (sorry, I can't recall the exact terminology) and he admitted that he had in the past dealt drugs to the prisoner at the door of the flat. The palm print could not be aged, according to the experts, but that is a moot point now. Of course, he has my sympathy, any person would if they were suffering as he quite obviously is. I could say more but I have no wish to be timed out. I am not victim bashing, not in the least, merely responding to your pertinent question, which I regard as being valid.

Fair enough,I don't take your post as victim bashing(we have a dealer round our way who incidentally also has a 6yr old and has had all manner of people round,and I have mused on the what ifs on more than one occaision).
I can only imagine her father has said these same things to himself every day since and will do forever I would think(who wouldn't?!).

Thanks for replying,I was curious as to whether this was the reason(I understand completely) or if as I see in a lot of cases people tend to think a mother's grief is somehow more than a fathers.

 

[Nikynoo]

From the article quoting Professor David Wilson, bolded and emphasised by me:
“The important thing to remember is that murder such a seems such a totalising noun but my experience of working with murderers is that they come in all shapes and sizes and their motivations are usually different from each other.

“I think in terms of what motivated him in the murder of Alesha was sexual. I think his naming of Toni McLachlan in the trial process was his being in denial. His way of coping with the fact that he has raped a little girl and killed her to cover up the rape.

“Being in denial is a very powerful process because it’s a way the individual copes with feelings of guilt and by being in denial he can block this powerful realisation and continue to present himself in the way he would prefer to be seen.

“He doesn’t want to be seen is as a rapist and a murderer. So much so was he in denial that he then went on to name a completely innocent party which shows the work that will need to be done with him.

Professor Wilson continued: "If this young man was ever to be released back in to the community we’d need to know he is safe and the first stage of being able to demonstrate that is to have him acknowledge his responsibility and his guilt for the rape and murder.

“It seemed to be in the case of Aaron Campbell that by putting the name of a third party in to the public domain he absolved himself from any consideration that we should have for him not being named.

“There was quite clearly an unfairness in the process and I’m pleased the judge recognised that unfairness.

“Having anonymity does not help the process in a case when a person has committed murder and in getting them to acknowledge guilt and responsibility.

Being in denial is very powerful and that’s how you can begin to understand how he could look at images (of Alesha MacPhail’s body shown in evidence) because he dissociates himself from having caused those images.

“Its only when you get him to recognise that he was responsible for these images then you can begin the work to actually treat him.

“Psychopathy is a personality disorder. I haven’t seen enough to be able to use that label. There were some who wanted to say he was a serial killer because he was so organised about how he went about the murder but it simply doesn’t stand up when you look carefully at the circumstances of the case.

“There were a number of elements of disorganisation. This wasn’t an organised crime scene at all. His DNA was left on Alesha’s body.

“If Id’ been profiling and dealing with an organised crime scene I would not find DNA. The body would have been disposed of in the sea where a lot of the forensic evidence would have been washed away.

“At the minute we are well off being able to use some of the labels people applying to him.”

Source: Criminologist 'hasn't seen enough' to brand Alesha killer a psychopath

 

[Edinlass]

I’m new here and I’m fascinated by this case having read through the posts from day one. It’s such an appalling crime and, like others, I am trying to get some sort of handle on why someone who, on the surface has everything going for him, decides to commit this truly wicked crime.

Before I dive in with some of my own opinions I would like to say that I think the DNA evidence is overwhelming and the authorities have definitely got the right man.

I also feel there are missing links in the case and I am especially interested in AC’s mother’s statement, quoted in the Sun that she started searching her CCTV at 2pm because TM’s aunt had said that TM last saw the child at 2pm.

To me this is significant and is unlikely to be explained away by lax journalism. I have been a journalist and to get this story the Sun Journalist would have had to befriend the woman as well as having had to be in court to listen to the whole trial to be able to put the interview in context.

This is likely to mean the journalist would have known the full significance of that statement and would have had substantial evidence that AC’s mother had really said it - ie an audio recording of some sort.

Before publication lawyers would have been informed of the significance and would have considered the sentance from every angle; court records would have been checked and the subsequent discrepancy between AC’s mother’s statement in the press and the one TM made in court would have meant the decision to publish would have been a joint one between the Editor and the lawyers.

So, to me it suggests that we are not the only ones who have noticed this discrepancy and there may be some sort of follow up.

I also can’t help noticing that there was one witness who was more sympathetic to TM in court than she was to the police. Another one mentioned that she hadn’t previously reported domestic violence between RM and TM because the parents had warned her off.

What does this mean? Possibly nothing in the long run but since the Mcphails certainly has some influence on the community talking it is enough for my brain to start looking further into discrepancies.

If AC’s mother is right then why would TM have said 11pm? Could it be that she was outside arguing with RM at 11pm as suggested by one witness and did not come back in until 2pm to check on Alesha and she didn’t want people to think there were problems between herself and Robert?

If TM is right then why would TM’s aunt have specifically mentioned 2pm to
AC’s mother, who then specifically started searching the CCTV at that time?

I don’t have the answers but there are certainly some large questions that will no doubt affect the community for sometime.

Welcome.

So the sun newspaper before printing every story have to run it by lawyers?? I find that hard to believe

 

[molly67]

I was timed out for 3 days for having an opinion.

it's always the good ones .... welcome back

 

[Ruben71]

I’m new here and I’m fascinated by this case having read through the posts from day one. It’s such an appalling crime and, like others, I am trying to get some sort of handle on why someone who, on the surface has everything going for him, decides to commit this truly wicked crime.

Before I dive in with some of my own opinions I would like to say that I think the DNA evidence is overwhelming and the authorities have definitely got the right man.

I also feel there are missing links in the case and I am especially interested in AC’s mother’s statement, quoted in the Sun that she started searching her CCTV at 2pm because TM’s aunt had said that TM last saw the child at 2pm.

To me this is significant and is unlikely to be explained away by lax journalism. I have been a journalist and to get this story the Sun Journalist would have had to befriend the woman as well as having had to be in court to listen to the whole trial to be able to put the interview in context.

This is likely to mean the journalist would have known the full significance of that statement and would have had substantial evidence that AC’s mother had really said it - ie an audio recording of some sort.

Before publication lawyers would have been informed of the significance and would have considered the sentance from every angle; court records would have been checked and the subsequent discrepancy between AC’s mother’s statement in the press and the one TM made in court would have meant the decision to publish would have been a joint one between the Editor and the lawyers.

So, to me it suggests that we are not the only ones who have noticed this discrepancy and there may be some sort of follow up.

I also can’t help noticing that there was one witness who was more sympathetic to TM in court than she was to the police. Another one mentioned that she hadn’t previously reported domestic violence between RM and TM because the parents had warned her off.

What does this mean? Possibly nothing in the long run but since the Mcphails certainly has some influence on the community talking it is enough for my brain to start looking further into discrepancies.

If AC’s mother is right then why would TM have said 11pm? Could it be that she was outside arguing with RM at 11pm as suggested by one witness and did not come back in until 2pm to check on Alesha and she didn’t want people to think there were problems between herself and Robert?

If TM is right then why would TM’s aunt have specifically mentioned 2pm to
AC’s mother, who then specifically started searching the CCTV at that time?

I don’t have the answers but there are certainly some large questions that will no doubt affect the community for sometime.

This 2am thing has been brought up alot on this thread. It's difficult to say at the moment because I don't really know if we can believe anything that comes out of AC's mother's mouth at the moment but I think if she was asked to check the CCTV from 2am onwards then the likelihood is that Toni had told her Aunt about the messages from AC just before 2am and maybe the Aunt didn't want to say check the CCTV from there because we think your son might have something to do with it and instead said something else.

 

[Edinlass]

This 2am thing has been brought up alot on this thread. It's difficult to say at the moment because I don't really know if we can believe anything that comes out of AC's mother's mouth at the moment but I think if she was asked to check the CCTV from 2am onwards then the likelihood is that Toni had told her Aunt about the messages from AC just before 2am and maybe the Aunt didn't want to say check the CCTV from there because we think your son might have something to do with it and instead said something else.

Exactly! Too much emphasis on this 2am IMO.

I personally think it wasn’t only TM who had her suspicions on AC being involved put it that way.

 

[angeldust]

Exactly! Too much emphasis on this 2am IMO.

I personally think it wasn’t only TM who had her suspicions on AC being involved put it that way.

Agreed this 2am thing. In the very same article further down his mum stated. “ He went out about two and was back at 3 only out for about an hour”. We and she know that’s untrue it was 2am - 3. 35 am. So if they can get that wrong they can get 2am. Wrong.

 

[Ciana]

I'm still shocked at Lynsey Calderwood and what she said about her 'friend' on the stand. Some friend she is; accusing her of being jealous of the child. Even if she did think that - if it were me in court, I'd keep it to myself as Toni is not the one on trial and only sways the jury away from AC. I feel so bad for Toni in all of this, it's all about AC now that his identity is out but my thoughts are with this girl too. I see she's no longer with Rab on Facebook at least. I imagine he's just a reminder of the torment she went through. A fresh start is all you could do in this case I guess and even then the pain of something like this probably never leaves

The friend was on the stand and was under oath to tell the truth. From what has been reported in MSM, she alleged those things in her initial statement, then stated that T loved Alesha.

 

[Nikynoo]

This 2am thing has been brought up alot on this thread. It's difficult to say at the moment because I don't really know if we can believe anything that comes out of AC's mother's mouth at the moment but I think if she was asked to check the CCTV from 2am onwards then the likelihood is that Toni had told her Aunt about the messages from AC just before 2am and maybe the Aunt didn't want to say check the CCTV from there because we think your son might have something to do with it and instead said something else.

But, what was the message to RM? asking for some weed? the call to TM was unanswered. Why would they immediately think that AC was involved because of this?

 

[Gardenista]

Agreed this 2am thing. In the very same article further down his mum stated. “ He went out about two and was back at 3 only out for about an hour”. We and she know that’s untrue it was 2am - 3. 35 am. So if they can get that wrong they can get 2am. Wrong.

Guess the lawyers missed that one

 

[Nikynoo]

Exactly! Too much emphasis on this 2am IMO.

I personally think it wasn’t only TM who had her suspicions on AC being involved put it that way.

Why do you think TM and (perhaps others) had suspicions of AC's involvement?

 

[Ruben71]

But, what was the message to RM? asking for some weed? the call to TM was unanswered. Why would they immediately think that AC was involved because of this?

Well a few things. Firstly by many accounts this kid has a background and a bit of a reputation. Also it was the middle of the night, just before Alesha was taken and they hadn't sold him weed for quite a while because of a dispute. The fact that he was asking for weed and trying to call them would immediately make you think he could've been near their house or even outside.

 

[Cherwell]

I also feel there are missing links in the case and I am especially interested in AC’s mother’s statement, quoted in the Sun that she started searching her CCTV at 2pm because TM’s aunt had said that TM last saw the child at 2pm.
To me this is significant and is unlikely to be explained away by lax journalism. I have been a journalist and to get this story the Sun Journalist would have had to befriend the woman as well as having had to be in court to listen to the whole trial to be able to put the interview in context.

Wasn't it 2 am ?

I don't think any "discrepancy" has anything to do with Mrs Campbell or the journalist particularly. It's more that we're getting it at third- or fourth-hand. We don't know exactly what Toni said: did she make a mistake? Did her aunt mishear, misunderstand or misremember what she said? Was there a slip of the tongue when she relayed it to Mrs Campbell?

It's all too easy to make a simple mistake, as you yourself have demonstrated here.

 

[Ardoch]

From the article quoting Professor David Wilson, bolded and emphasised by me:
“The important thing to remember is that murder such a seems such a totalising noun but my experience of working with murderers is that they come in all shapes and sizes and their motivations are usually different from each other.

“I think in terms of what motivated him in the murder of Alesha was sexual. I think his naming of Toni McLachlan in the trial process was his being in denial. His way of coping with the fact that he has raped a little girl and killed her to cover up the rape.

“Being in denial is a very powerful process because it’s a way the individual copes with feelings of guilt and by being in denial he can block this powerful realisation and continue to present himself in the way he would prefer to be seen.

“He doesn’t want to be seen is as a rapist and a murderer. So much so was he in denial that he then went on to name a completely innocent party which shows the work that will need to be done with him.

Professor Wilson continued: "If this young man was ever to be released back in to the community we’d need to know he is safe and the first stage of being able to demonstrate that is to have him acknowledge his responsibility and his guilt for the rape and murder.

“It seemed to be in the case of Aaron Campbell that by putting the name of a third party in to the public domain he absolved himself from any consideration that we should have for him not being named.

“There was quite clearly an unfairness in the process and I’m pleased the judge recognised that unfairness.

“Having anonymity does not help the process in a case when a person has committed murder and in getting them to acknowledge guilt and responsibility.

Being in denial is very powerful and that’s how you can begin to understand how he could look at images (of Alesha MacPhail’s body shown in evidence) because he dissociates himself from having caused those images.

“Its only when you get him to recognise that he was responsible for these images then you can begin the work to actually treat him.

“Psychopathy is a personality disorder. I haven’t seen enough to be able to use that label. There were some who wanted to say he was a serial killer because he was so organised about how he went about the murder but it simply doesn’t stand up when you look carefully at the circumstances of the case.

“There were a number of elements of disorganisation. This wasn’t an organised crime scene at all. His DNA was left on Alesha’s body.

“If Id’ been profiling and dealing with an organised crime scene I would not find DNA. The body would have been disposed of in the sea where a lot of the forensic evidence would have been washed away.

“At the minute we are well off being able to use some of the labels people applying to him.”

Source: Criminologist 'hasn't seen enough' to brand Alesha killer a psychopath

Thanks for posting. I agree with most of Prof Wilson's thoughts - in my uneducated way. I don't think it was organised either and yet the only issue I have with that is when did he decide where he was going to take A?
The route that he took and the spot seemed as though it had some kind of thought about it. I wonder if the CCTV of the shadowy figure gave any clue as to the speed or the manner of his walking?

If I may be lazy and refer back to something that's probably in a past post - the discarded jogging pants on the beach - was it discussed as to when he possibly got rid of them?
The mother's CCTV doesn't look as if he went down to the shore.

 

[jaci68]

Welcome.

So the sun newspaper before printing every story have to run it by lawyers?? I find that hard to believe

Actually lawyers play a major part in National newspapers. I used to write for the Sunday Times Magazine, which is also Murdoch owned so I have first hand experience of the company. Obviously not every story will have to go through lawyers but something as high profile and contentious as this story would certainly have been looked at by lawyers and executives at the highest level before publication.

 

[Slucie]

I found it quite odd his mother telling the media that when she visited him he cried and said why is this happening to me, I’ve got lots of friends, doing well etc. I don’t think AC would say that given he claimed to be innocent. If he was innocent I think he’d more likely to be screaming I didn’t do it, not why is this happening to me. I think that was more his mothers thoughts than his words.

 

[angeldust]

Actually lawyers play a major part in National newspapers. I used to write for the Sunday Times Magazine, which is also Murdoch owned so I have first hand experience of the company. Obviously not every story will have to go through lawyers but something as high profile and contentious as this story would certainly have been looked at by lawyers and executives at the highest level before publication.

Yeah for anything that may be liable but a time error, or typo, or a mum relating her words wouldn’t be liable would it ?

 

[jaci68]

Wasn't it 2 am ?

I don't think any "discrepancy" has anything to do with Mrs Campbell or the journalist particularly. It's more that we're getting it at third- or fourth-hand. We don't know exactly what Toni said: did she make a mistake? Did her aunt mishear or misremember what she said? Was there a slip of the tongue when she relayed it to Mrs Campbell?

It's very easy to make a simple mistake, as you yourself have demonstrated here.

Ok you are right I meant 2am! But the difference to me posting here and writing for a national newspaper is that there are layers of subeditors and editors above me that would correct such mistakes.

We don’t know the exact conversation between Toni and her aunt but my point was that what was reported is unlikely to be lax journalism. The reporter when faced with lawyers demanding clarification is likely to have gone back to AC’s mother to confirm that statement.