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

[Antonia]

This seems so strange to me. So only 6 experts worldwide and prosecution and defence want one each.
I just wonder how much different experts with the same expertise can differ in their
reading of the same facts?
Is it possible they will disagree with each other in their interpretations of evidence? I'm already finding this difficult to understand.

That's what I was wondering - can/will they have contradictory/opposing interpretations of the same evidence. Also, if it's so very specialised, has the excavation work been done correctly? Maybe that is something the defence will be based on/exploit. Was also wondering what possible defence there could be, and would be really interested to hear the evidence.

 

[Littlegreenlady]

I think sometimes it's not that the experts will have opposing interpretations as such, it's more the defence want to find an expert that can cast doubt on the findings. So if the prosecution expert says that they found something that indicates a dead body (for example) the defence expert would be called up to maybe quote some statistics to show that whilst they did find something, it's not necessarily evidence of a human body, it could be an animal. Sometimes with defence arguments it seems to be less about proving the defendants innocence and more about disproving the prosecution.

 

[Taskforce88]

It looks as if remains of some sort were found in the back garden of the property, or at the mysterious dig that took place a number of months ago in Ayrshire. Either way, the type of experts that have been brought in suggest that the body was destroyed and disposed of in a burial. It would also suggest that the case against the carers is not watertight. Remeber they have to be proven guilty.

 

[Antonia]

The case is now listed for 'criminal preliminary hearing' on 25 May:
Court Roll

It's changed again! The case was removed from Friday's listings earlier last week (or even before that). Now it is listed for a criminal preliminary hearing on Monday, at Livinston (as opposed to Glasgow, previously).
Court Roll

 

[Ironside]

Trial starts end of September.

Missing Margaret Fleming: trial date set for carers

 

[Legally Bland]

Trial starts end of September.

Missing Margaret Fleming: trial date set for carers

From that link, I think this bit is new.

They are also accused of trying to board a train to London at Glasgow Central Station on October 25, 2017 while carrying £3500 and the keys to a safe deposit box at a bank in London which contained £27,000.

It is alleged that they planned to travel and evade police and prosecutors.

So it seems like they were going to do a runner.

 

[Ironside]

I thought I'd perhaps just forgot about the train detail but I can't find any previous reference to it in news articles so I think it is new info.


I can just picture them settling into their seats on a virgin or east coast train and then the police enter the carriage. I would love to see the cctv from the train, hopefully it will be shown at the trial.

 

[Spyder84]

"It is alleged that Cairney and Jones abducted Ms Fleming at her home at Seacroft, Inverkip, locked her in a room, assaulted her, cut her hair and bound her arms and wrists with tape on various occasions between November 1 1997 and January 5 2000"

Read more: Two carers 'abducted and murdered woman before claiming benefits by pretending she was still alive' | Daily Mail Online

I know the prosecution have to present what they think happened, but that is pretty detailed, I wander if someone has come forward with information... Also the details about them trying to do a runner, is very suspicious, why they weren't arrested sooner is beyond me, unless the police decided to keep them under surveillance to see what might be revealed - The police did this in the Phillpotts case

 

[sar2them1984]

"It is alleged that Cairney and Jones abducted Ms Fleming at her home at Seacroft, Inverkip, locked her in a room, assaulted her, cut her hair and bound her arms and wrists with tape on various occasions between November 1 1997 and January 5 2000"

Read more: Two carers 'abducted and murdered woman before claiming benefits by pretending she was still alive' | Daily Mail Online

I know the prosecution have to present what they think happened, but that is pretty detailed, I wander if someone has come forward with information... Also the details about them trying to do a runner, is very suspicious, why they weren't arrested sooner is beyond me, unless the police decided to keep them under surveillance to see what might be revealed - The police did this in the Phillpotts case

I see theu both pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I'm going to have to dip out for a bit. Losing taptalk has made it very difficult for me to follow threads via my phone. A shame really.. but fornall those regulars I've connected with over the past x amount of years, keep up the good work!

 

[Legally Bland]

The police did this in the Phillpotts case

RSBM. That's a good shout. I don't know what the rules are for police bugging people in the UK. But with the Philpotts they bugged the hotel room.

As EC and AJ were in a hotel for months I imagine it would have also been legal to bug then there.

(I have no idea whether it makes any difference if a bug is in a private residence or a hotel etc.)

 

[Spyder84]

RSBM. That's a good shout. I don't know what the rules are for police bugging people in the UK. But with the Philpotts they bugged the hotel room.

As EC and AJ were in a hotel for months I imagine it would have also been legal to bug then there.

(I have no idea whether it makes any difference if a bug is in a private residence or a hotel etc.)

There was undercover surveillance in the Stephen Lawrence case too which was in a private residence, but scots law is very different. I think if there are strong grounds of suspicion, such as the couple trying to flee and strong grounds to suspect Margaret was deceased then I think thats good enough to warrant a bug.

 

[Micha07]

Heh, came here to post today’s stv article but I see the info is already here (nicely done, sleuths).

I believe the grounds for surveillance need to be compelling for it to be allowed here in Scotland. However I am not sure the use of ‘bugs’ or devices is the type of surveillance the police would employ here. Probably noticed bank activity relating to ticket purchases... Not to mention that Central Station usually has quite a heavy police presence.

£3500! No accounting for some... but I’d say that is quite a large amount to be carrying in that part of the city if you aren’t planning to do a runner!

I have doubts as to there being anything found in the garden excavation but given that Margaret’s carers were hoarders, it’s quite believable that something was found in the house search.

Still following this intently and from a preparing (Scots) law student’s standpoint, fascinated.

 

[Satchie]

Surveillance could have been just police watching the hotel and following them whenever they left it. Hoping to be led to some kind of evidence. Plus they can usually get phone taps.

I think bugging a hotel or home is pretty unproductive unless a wired outsider is brought in to steer a conversation in the right direction. Plus, it's an awful invasion of privacy for a couple, if officers are listening in to catch pillow talk, or shared showers, or whatever.

 

[Spyder84]

Heh, came here to post today’s stv article but I see the info is already here (nicely done, sleuths).

I believe the grounds for surveillance need to be compelling for it to be allowed here in Scotland. However I am not sure the use of ‘bugs’ or devices is the type of surveillance the police would employ here. Probably noticed bank activity relating to ticket purchases... Not to mention that Central Station usually has quite a heavy police presence.

£3500! No accounting for some... but I’d say that is quite a large amount to be carrying in that part of the city if you aren’t planning to do a runner!

I have doubts as to there being anything found in the garden excavation but given that Margaret’s carers were hoarders, it’s quite believable that something was found in the house search.

Still following this intently and from a preparing (Scots) law student’s standpoint, fascinated.

According to the following paragraph which was published in a daily record article in 2012 (Not an overly reliable news source)

"Police have the powers to check on people without their knowledge through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
(Scotland) Act 2000.

They can check private call and text records – without seeing the content – and only need written permission from a senior colleague.

For more intrusive forms of surveillance, including phone taps or bugging someone’s property, permission has to be granted by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.

This is usually done in more serious cases such as investigations into organised crime and murder."

 

[Spyder84]

To add to my post, if the police can use intrusive forms of surveillance then we have to look at what grounds that surveillance would have been granted on in this particular case. IMO
1) There was no evidence at all that Margaret was alive & no evidence that she succumbed to natural causes
2) The carers were said to be the last people to see Margaret alive
3) They had a motive which was financial
4) The murder likely happened a number of years ago & obtaining DNA evidence would have been challenging even with a body
5) Given the period of time that has elapsed the carers had adequate & numerous opportunities to destroy any physical evidence
6) Their behaviour was odd (Not wanting to do any public appeals, possibly changing stories, throwing in red herons that didn't have much rhyme, reason or logic)
7) The couple seemed to have plans to leave the area once the police became involved - which would be highly unusual for a couple who were reclusive & had been reclusive for a number of years.
IMO all of the above would point to the fact that they were very much considered suspects but due to lack of evidence securing charges or even a conviction for murder would be nigh on impossible without something more tangible to support the prosecution.
I would also say that to bring charges of murder on circumstantial or shakey evidence would be too much of a risk as a "Not Proven" verdict would be extremely likely - However I do think that is going to be the way the trial ends, Not Proven on the murder charges but IMO they will likely be found guilty of the other charges

 

[JerseyGirl]

Judge set 27 September as the date for their trial.

Couple face trial for murder and fraud

 

[jessie]

I see theu both pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I'm going to have to dip out for a bit. Losing taptalk has made it very difficult for me to follow threads via my phone. A shame really.. but fornall those regulars I've connected with over the past x amount of years, keep up the good work!

I'm really sorry to read this sar2them1984. Personally I do hope you manage to keep in touch somehow, your views are valuable imo. Not finding the new site easy myself actually but will persist.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Welcome To Websleuths

This is my first time doing multi quote and I too find the new site challenging. However please check in on the site forum - lots of helpful tips including how to multi quote. I will edit and add link above.

One tip I can give is to reply above the quote(s) like I am doing now, because it kept jumping up to the top and overwriting the quote.

I see theu both pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I'm going to have to dip out for a bit. Losing taptalk has made it very difficult for me to follow threads via my phone. A shame really.. but fornall those regulars I've connected with over the past x amount of years, keep up the good work!

I'm really sorry to read this sar2them1984. Personally I do hope you manage to keep in touch somehow, your views are valuable imo. Not finding the new site easy myself actually but will persist.

 

[gregjrichards]

Carers accused of murdering a missing woman claim she is still alive, a court has heard.

Margaret Fleming was reported missing in October 2016 from her home in Inverkip, Inverclyde, but has allegedly not been seen since December 1999.

Edward Cairney, 76, and Avril Jones, 58, are due to face trial next month accused of her abduction and murder, and of claiming £182,000 in benefits fraudulently by pretending she was still alive.

They deny all the charges against them.

Carers accused of murdering a vulnerable woman claim she is still alive | Daily Mail Online

 

[JerseyGirl]

Missing woman's carers claim she is alive

The case was continued until next Friday when Mr Cairney will appear in court.