Deceased/Not Found UK - Margaret Fleming, 19, Inverclyde, Scotland, 17 Dec 1999 *Guilty*

[Deleted member 178385]

I just checked on missingpeople and it only lists 3 people missing in Scotland in the last 6 months - Margaret, a lady from Glasgow, and another lady, Crystalla Dean who went missing from Oban 3 weeks ago. Oban is only 7 miles from where this body was found.

https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/help-us-find/crystalla-dean-16-006713

The Scottish Sun is making that connection too: Two walkers find body on remote shoreline near Oban as fears grow it could be missing Crystalla Dean

 

[Ironside]

Argyll is absolutely massive, for context it would take about 4 hours to get from Inverkip to Oban by train.

I think if Margaret ever is found it would only be within a few miles of Inverkip.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 178385]

In The Sun today... The cop leading the hunt for missing Margaret Fleming believes she may have started a new life

 

[CoverMeCagney]

In The Sun today... The cop leading the hunt for missing Margaret Fleming believes she may have started a new life

Bit of a misleading headline there, sounds to me more like he's just saying what he should say, without evidence of foul play.

I still think Margaret's been dead a looooong time. I also think she'll never be found because she's in the sea and it's going to be really difficult to prove anything one way or the other. Even if a case against the carers goes to court it'll end up with a "not proven" verdict.

For those unfamiliar with this quirk of Scottish law: "not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. As with other judicial systems, the burden to prove guilt rests with the prosecution. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty")
[Wikipedia]

 

[Laughing]

Unbelievable, CMC do you expect criminal charges for those "carers?" The court has more evidence of them using Margaret's benefit checks without benefit to Margaret, sounds like police are sifting through that sort of thing now.

SO sad for Margaret!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Unbelievable, CMC do you expect criminal charges for those "carers?" The court has more evidence of them using Margaret's benefit checks without benefit to Margaret, sounds like police are sifting through that sort of thing now.

SO sad for Margaret!

I really don't know, I think I reckoned on an arrest by now, but I suspect any evidence would be gone after so many years. The police must have had very good reason to completely dig up the entire (huge) garden so I think they know Margaret didn't just vanish a few weeks ago. The problem is proving it.

The handwriting thing is interesting, but again, I'm not sure what can be proved from it. When I look at my age-20 writing it's nothing like it is now and the carers would just say they filled the forms in and Margaret just signed them. Hopefully the experts can find something to point to foul play (or at least fraud) but it could be flimsy.

 

[Ironside]

Arrests are different in Scotland, you only get arrested when you are being charged. Until then you are "helping with enquiries".

I think the police telling Margaret she does not have to go back to Inverkip is a subtle way of them acknowledging that something very bad happened there. They are trying to make someone crack with that statement.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Arrests are different in Scotland, you only get arrested when you are being charged. Until then you are "helping with enquiries".

I think the police telling Margaret she does not have to go back to Inverkip is a subtle way of them acknowledging that something very bad happened there. They are trying to make someone crack with that statement.

BBM, I didn't know that, Ironside. So more like the American arrest system by the sounds of it.

That makes me more hopeful that something might happen out of the blue. Fingers crossed!!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

1. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and has somehow been accessing her own benefits all this time.
2. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and the carers have been claiming her benefits
3. Margaret died naturally years ago, her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
4. Margaret was killed years ago her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
5. Margaret was living, undetected, with her carers up until recently but has not been back since the police turned up.

Now.... forensics would show if she's been there recently - toothbrush, towels, laundry, bedding etc. If there is no sign of that it means the carers are lying. If they're lying it's either because they know where she is (dead) or they don't know where she is (as she left voluntarily) in either case they've been claiming her benefits fraudulently so they have good reason to tell fibs.

Personally I reckon 3 or 4. I find it hard to imagine Margaret has gone undetected whether it be a few weeks or several years. And I think those carers had the story ready - "if the police show up say she's just gone out, otherwise we'll get done for benefit fraud". They'd have been better saying she left after an argument a couple of months ago and they'd kept her benefits as they expected her back any day now.

 

[jessie]

1. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and has somehow been accessing her own benefits all this time.
2. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and the carers have been claiming her benefits
3. Margaret died naturally years ago, her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
4. Margaret was killed years ago her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
5. Margaret was living, undetected, with her carers up until recently but has not been back since the police turned up.

Now.... forensics would show if she's been there recently - toothbrush, towels, laundry, bedding etc. If there is no sign of that it means the carers are lying. If they're lying it's either because they know where she is (dead) or they don't know where she is (as she left voluntarily) in either case they've been claiming her benefits fraudulently so they have good reason to tell fibs.

Personally I reckon 3 or 4. I find it hard to imagine Margaret has gone undetected whether it be a few weeks or several years. And I think those carers had the story ready - "if the police show up say she's just gone out, otherwise we'll get done for benefit fraud". They'd have been better saying she left after an argument a couple of months ago and they'd kept her benefits as they expected her back any day now.

I'd really like it to be (1), but tend towards (3).

As to the forensics/DNA that must be so difficult from what we have heard from as to the state of this house. I hold little hope of any proof from that in this case.

As to the latest LE statement, this strikes me as so sad..... Telling a hopefully still alive Margaret she wouldn't have to go back to those carers blinking heartbreaking actually.
But I suppose LE have to make sure they cover all bases, even if the misper is deceased.

 

[Ontario Mom]

1. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and has somehow been accessing her own benefits all this time.
2. Margaret left of her own accord years ago and the carers have been claiming her benefits
3. Margaret died naturally years ago, her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
4. Margaret was killed years ago her body was hidden and the carers have been claiming her benefits
5. Margaret was living, undetected, with her carers up until recently but has not been back since the police turned up.

Now.... forensics would show if she's been there recently - toothbrush, towels, laundry, bedding etc. If there is no sign of that it means the carers are lying. If they're lying it's either because they know where she is (dead) or they don't know where she is (as she left voluntarily) in either case they've been claiming her benefits fraudulently so they have good reason to tell fibs.

Personally I reckon 3 or 4. I find it hard to imagine Margaret has gone undetected whether it be a few weeks or several years. And I think those carers had the story ready - "if the police show up say she's just gone out, otherwise we'll get done for benefit fraud". They'd have been better saying she left after an argument a couple of months ago and they'd kept her benefits as they expected her back any day now.

I'm going with #4. No one's seen her in 17 years and her carers are still receiving her benefits. Frankly I can't believe how they thought they'd get away with it for this long. And somehow... they did.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I'm going with #4. No one's seen her in 17 years and her carers are still receiving her benefits. Frankly I can't believe how they thought they'd get away with it for this long. And somehow... they did.

Sadly I think #4 as well. It's statistically unlikely for a young woman to drop dead and they'd have taken her to the doctors if she became unwell. Unless she was being abused of course.

 

[JerricaBenton]

I think #4 as well I hope this gets resolved soon.

 

[Coach]

Hi, first time posting. I agree #4, have they considered that she could have been put in the water as oppose to being buried in the garden?

 

[Ironside]

Re the Sun article I don't think that DCI would be on the case at all if they thought Margaret could still be alive and it is just a naughty bit of fraud. He usually deals with murder investigations.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Hi, first time posting. I agree #4, have they considered that she could have been put in the water as oppose to being buried in the garden?

The house is right next to the sea and the male carer has an interesting in diving (and probably his own boat) so I'm sure it's a big consideration. The extent to which they dug up the garden is unusual I think, they must have a strong inclination they'd find Margaret there.

 

[Taskforce88]

Hi there, I travel past the property in question at least once a month, recently been going past at least once a week.

I have been following this investigation with some interest and have the following points (sorry if they have been covered):

1. A one mile radius no-fly zone is in force over the property to stop drones taking pictures. This is in force until the end of February which indicates that the investigation at the property, or at least the work in the garden, will be over by then.

2. The entire property is now sealed off with steel shutters so its not easy to see what the police are doing

3. The police - according to the lasted pics from before the no-fly zone and shutters - are not digging very deep, possibly looking for a shallow grave?

4. There was an attempted murder outside the property just 9 months before the lady was reported missing. It is a remote area and two major events is a big coincidence

On the attempted murder 9 months before, the police command vehicle was parked in the exact same spot that it is today, right in the driveway of the missing woman's house. Was this the event that would eventually lead to the social/police making a visit 9 months later?

 

[Taskforce88]

DLA checks are literally just medical/care needs assessments. If someone's medical condition isn't likely to change (such as with a learning disability) then there's nothing to justify the cost of re-checking.

BUT someone on a long term award - particularly a vulnerable/single person - should be known to their local social work dept and THEY should be doing regular welfare checks (IMO). It sounds like Margaret was indeed known to the social work dept but they don't appear to have checked on her in a while..

Hi,

I was under the impression that nobody had seen her since 1999, and that included social services etc. The only people who she had contact with were her carers, her uncle and his wife?

She had not attended any checkups or interviews since 1999. Nobody had attempted to speak to her, see her, nothing. That's what makes this so strange a case.

What changed? What prompted the social services to go to the house, with a police escort?

The attempted murder 9 months before outside the house may hold the key.

Someone must have tipped the social/police off or they realized she was off the grid and thought they had better check up on her.

 

[JerricaBenton]

Is there a media link for the attempted murder? I am interested in reading about that.

 

[Taskforce88]

Is there a media link for the attempted murder? I am interested in reading about that.

Hi there, here are some online articles:

An American citizen is on trial.

http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/14339939.Man_slashed_in_Inverkip_murder_bid/

http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/...enock_Sheriff_Court_on_murder_attempt_charge/

Check out the photo in this article:

http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/villages/14341803.Man_charged_over_Inverkip_attack/

The gardens of the houses where Margaret stayed.

Forensic teams investigating the attempted murder entered the grounds of the property the missing woman is from. I remember seeing police tape around the garden at the time. Police had a temp command vehicle in her driveway.

When I saw the police back again in November I thought they were re-investigating that crime, it wasn't till I checked the news that it was to do with the missing woman.