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

[jessie]

A case has been s-l-o-w-l-y unfolding in Australia of a man who murdered a young mother and her toddler, he and his partner then used her identity to steal her benefits over several years, some $100k AUS . The partner successfully impersonated the dead woman at a bank and social services appointments.

I believe that, years later when police closed in, the woman turned over key evidence (a photo he took of the body) in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and therefore this aspect of the murder is no longer being referenced, the prosecution are claiming his motive was a 'love triangle'. I think the motive was her benefits.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/27/karlies-identity-stolen-after-murder

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/578168/Benefit-living-taxpayers-space



Tip of the iceberg it seems Satchie. Hope this isn't O/T but how about this -

Experts estimate that £81million of the £920million that is illegally milked out of the system every year is taken by cheats who do not live in the UK.

Most of the stolen £81million is made up of £47million in pension credit, where families continue claiming for a relative long after they have died.

 

[Satchie]

True, i think many people can rationalize benefits fraud, but hopefully very few can rationalize murder for the sake of benefits fraud.

 

[Sleepyface]

Very interesting it’s a murder charge - under Scottish law I believe there’s also a charge of culpable homicide where there is act or failure to act that causes death, but there is no intent to kill. Whereas the charge of murder requires deliberate acts or clear intentions to kill - I wonder what they have to make the case for murder?

Not sure whether stacking charges is common in Scotland but in England/Wales it’s often done if the most serious charge might be on shakey ground at trial - I think due to their age, the seriousness and number of charges they are hoping for full confessions & plea deals not a trial.

 

[Taskforce88]

Very interesting it’s a murder charge - under Scottish law I believe there’s also a charge of culpable homicide where there is act or failure to act that causes death, but there is no intent to kill. Whereas the charge of murder requires deliberate acts or clear intentions to kill - I wonder what they have to make the case for murder?

Not sure whether stacking charges is common in Scotland but in England/Wales it’s often done if the most serious charge might be on shakey ground at trial - I think due to their age, the seriousness and number of charges they are hoping for full confessions & plea deals not a trial.

Yep, culpable homicide is the equivalent of manslaughter in England and Wales. So the police must be in the possession of firm evidence of abduction, assault and murder.

 

[jessie]

True, i think many people can rationalize benefits fraud, but hopefully very few can rationalize murder for the sake of benefits fraud.

Might be controversial, but I can't rationalise benefit fraud for any reason.

Obviously murder for benefit fraud is a completely separate offence, but it all involves greed and how many of these cases are investigated.?

Hope there is firm evidence in the case of Margaret. RIP Margaret :rose:

 

[jessie]

Not new, but worth posting on this thread for reference:

Cairney and Jones were arrested in connection with a probe into Margaret's disappearance earlier this week.

And today they appeared at Greenock Sheriff Court charged with her murder.

The pair are also facing separate charges of abduction and assault, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and fraud.

Cairney and Jones appeared in private, made no plea or declaration during a brief hearing and were remanded in custody.

They are expected to appear at court at the start of next month.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/carers-missing-woman-margaret-fleming-11420350

 

[Antonia]

A case has been s-l-o-w-l-y unfolding in Australia of a man who murdered a young mother and her toddler, he and his partner then used her identity to steal her benefits over several years, some $100k AUS . The partner successfully impersonated the dead woman at a bank and social services appointments.

I believe that, years later when police closed in, the woman turned over key evidence (a photo he took of the body) in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and therefore this aspect of the murder is no longer being referenced, the prosecution are claiming his motive was a 'love triangle'. I think the motive was her benefits.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/27/karlies-identity-stolen-after-murder

Thanks Satchie. This case is also similar: Mansfield murders: Christopher and Susan Edwards spun web of lies
(I only know of it because it's been mentioned on the mumsnet thread about Margaret)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27924098
"Susan and Christopher Edwards murdered her parents, buried their bodies in the garden and then spent 15 years looting their bank accounts to spend on Hollywood memorabilia."

It only came to light because DWP wanted to check on the father as he would have been approaching his 100th birthday. With all the cuts and SS so over-stretched, it's frightening to think how many cases like this there could be out there. It shows how short-sighted the cuts are (all the repurcussions are going to cost a lot more in the long run), and it emphasises how important community and society are to everyone's well-being.

 

[Laughing]

Ahh, a big step toward justice for Margaret! Yippee!

 

[Ironside]

Poor Margaret.

This must be a very satisfying day for everyone who worked on the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JerricaBenton]

I wonder why "abduction" if Margaret lived with them?

 

[Ironside]

I wonder why "abduction" if Margaret lived with them?

The abduction charge is to make sure these two get sent down for something.

For murder I think a lot of the police evidence is going to be circumstantial. To avoid Avril and Eddie walking away if the jury can't convict them of murder abduction is a great back up.

Abduction is taking someone against their will but that doesn't mean you have to bundle them into the boot of a car kidnapper style. Abduction in this case means the carers are considered responsible for Margaret not being there.

The charge works because Margaret clearly isn't at home. Benefits have been claimed and lots of lies told making it convincing to a jury that Avril and Eddie are involved with Margaret not being there.

 

[jiminy]

I wonder why "abduction" if Margaret lived with them?

I'm thinking that they took her somewhere else to do it. Didn't he used to have a boat?

 

[Ironside]

I'm thinking that they took her somewhere else to do it. Didn't he used to have a boat?

I don't think the police actually know exactly what happened to Margaret hence all the other charges.

If the police knew what happened they'd have a body by now or we'd see reports of a search for it somewhere.

 

[Laughing]

I wonder why "abduction" if Margaret lived with them?

The police may have found a family member or two, even if rather distantly related, who were denied contact with Margaret by these two "Carers."

The disability benefits suggest that Margaret may not have been legally able to make decisions for herself, including where she lived. These "carers" making the decision while excluding family could be a factor here.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

If the police knew what happened they'd have a body by now or we'd see reports of a search for it somewhere.

Not necessarily. They might be fairly sure her body was dumped at sea almost 20 years ago, in which case finding it would be effectively impossible.

 

[Rayemonde]

Oh my gosh!! I thought this case would fizzle away. Could LE have found evidence of death in the house, such as bone fragments in the garden or an old blood stain in the floorboards?

 

[jiminy]

I think something about the interview might have provided the extra nudge to make charging possible. It came from nowhere. Something like the BBC facilitate/apparently propose the interview with the POI and allow the police to maybe guide their questions, in return they'll have plenty of footage to use to make a programme about this case later.

 

[Ironside]

I'm wondering did a cop perhaps pose as BBC staff in their hovel and left a listening device there. The carers were bound to have a discussion/argument after the cameras left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jessie]

I'm wondering did a cop perhaps pose as BBC staff in their hovel and left a listening device there. The carers were bound to have a discussion/argument after the cameras left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could be right Ironside, been done before. Don't know whether that counts as evidence though? Also I have been pondering on why after a year of silence this pair suddenly spoke in public, wonder what prompted that - money ??
ETA = money and arrogance

 

[Legally Bland]

This is from the Police Scotland crime recording manual. Not sure it makes things clearer, but maybe Margaret wanted to leave E & A's home. I don't think it's overly cynical to think that the only interest in Margaret's well being was financial.

The essential feature of the crime of abduction is the deprivation of the victim’s personal freedom by either carrying them away against their will or confining them, so as long as the victim is unable to move from where you confine them it does not matter where they are confined to. Tying someone to a tree in a public park would be abduction as soon as the person is tied up and cannot get free as then they have been deprived of their liberty.

Page 78.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...iew=Standard&usg=AOvVaw3rsv9hJlVnuKqXvAKg5ucy