UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #3

[Alyce]

He had proof .. his special defence .. but failed to mention that until last week .. why?

To be accurate, we didn't hear about it until last week. We have no idea when he first mentioned it.

 

[Yenriac]

It's all getting a bit heated in here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, that is why we are here.

There is no way we will ever all agree. I think he's guilty but i also have other thoughts on the whole case. I totally respect the opinions of all other forum members. There is no point in arguing amongst ourselves what we say will never change the outcome of this whole case.

 

[emmalpage81]

"Not proven" is actually quite a rare verdict, it happens in fewer than 1% of cases - see Not proven verdicts delivered from 2011 to 2016: FOI release - gov.scot

That's actually very interesting, thank you. I will be honest, I was struggling to understand the difference between a 'not proven' and a 'not guilty' verdict (not being Scottish nor previously following any Scottish criminal case). So it is interesting to see how often this verdict is reached.

All IMO

 

[JosieJo]

I don't agree 100% with your post, but i do mirror a number of the points you have made as i too feel (discussion in general aside) that there is an odd sense of determination to condemn which i too find quite uncomfortable.

I had this very conversation last night with a friend last night - i specifically said it worried me to think that a jury (which is by all accounts a random cross section of members of the public) could potentially be made up of people who seem to see things without shades of grey, or get 'nervous' or 'on edge' at the thought of a not guilty verdict. To me that isn't a jury.

There is something about this trial which still doesn't sit right with me. No matter who you look at it, there is fundamentally a lack of concrete evidence against the accused, and whilst his defence to some may seem far fetched it is a defence which has been successfully proven in other cases. It is also something that one of the experts deemed 'technically possible'.

It boils down to this. Either the 16 year old on the stand is a one-in-a-million, acutely advanced psychopath, with the potential to kill again, or there is something far more fundamental at the root of this case. My inclination is to go with the latter.

My gut feeling is, the lack of carelessness in terms of evidence at both the abduction site (the MacPhail's home) and the accused's own home does not add up with the obvious carelessness at the murder scene. Regardless of how you look at this, it simply does not fit.

Lastly, i see no motive. I think the idea that he had been planning this throughout the day is as far fetched as it gets - if he was, he certainly didn't plan particularly well given the mess that was left at the murder scene. However, i do see motive in certain other people involved.

I agree with everyone that justice for Alesha MacPhail is of the upmost importance, but if the wrong person is convicted, that in itself is doing that poor little girl the biggest injustice that could be done.

Totally agree

 

[Taskforce88]

The special defence may have been discussed with his lawyer on day one of him being remanded or it may have been day one of the trial. All that is on record for it is day one of the trial.

 

[Crestnut]

How do you know it wasn’t? How do you know the police didn’t ask for all witnesses or anyone who was in those areas at those times on those dates to come forward? They usually do.

I don't,so just wondering really why certain posters feel it's definitely the accused

 

[Pooksthebear]

defence strategy maybe?

I thought the defence had a duty to disclose? If they knew then why didn’t they disclose so that investigations into Toni could have been done.. for the sake of Alesha and others that may be at risk?

 

[Taskforce88]

People keep referring to the accused previous behaviour what are we actually talking about ?

It cannot be discussed. And any reference to it is regarded as baiting.

 

[Joolz1975]

People keep referring to the accused previous behaviour what are we actually talking about ?

I think some people may have more background knowledge than others.

Who knows , I think information is out there if you are willing to look for it

 

[stephaniejanes]

It cannot be discussed. And any reference to it is regarded as baiting.

Agreed. Only stick to what has been published by MSM people!

 

[Nikynoo]

People keep referring to the accused previous behaviour what are we actually talking about ?

I honestly don't know, it may be something or nothing. I dare say we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Pooksthebear]

To be accurate, we didn't hear about it until last week. We have no idea when he first mentioned it.

Wouldn’t you have thought that Toni would have been told she had been accused as soon as she was accused? She was only told last week.

 

[embro68]

See No Comment! | Think Forensic
"If you’re innocent, and have proof of this, there’s really no reason to give ‘no comment’ when interviewed; it’s common sense. But if you’re not innocent, or you have little evidence to prove you are, it seems uttering ‘no comment’ won’t necessarily save your skin. Ultimately, it just delays the inevitable…"

Because of how the process of arresting charging and a case going to court, and the evidence requirements that must be met for each stage, an arrested person will always be advised to say no comment as there is already some form evidence against them, any admission of any connection however remote will ensure they are charged. So often attempting to explain anything will be used against you.

 

[Taskforce88]

Shortly after 2pm hopefully

 

[Joolz1975]

I'm not implying it, i'm saying it does make me uncomfortable. It's all sorts of wrong to say you want that verdict when you only know a very small percentage of the facts given. By all means have an opinion - if you think he's guilty that is of course your right, but saying you are nervous that the jury won't bring in the verdict that YOU personally want, is quite disrespectful.

I think he's guilty.

But I trust the jury, they will have heard much more than us.

Not to mention study his demeanour.

I think it's important to have faith in the justice system even though they don't always get it right

But I've probably heard 50% of the facts and a lot of rumour so personally for me I think the jury will do their job and deliver the right verdict.

 

[charlotte123456]

I think he's guilty.

But I trust the jury, they will have heard much more than us.

Not to mention study his demeanour.

I think it's important to have faith in the justice system even though they don't always get it right

But I've probably heard 50% of the facts and a lot of rumour so personally for me I think the jury will do their job and deliver the right verdict.

This is the stance that I take. Very sensible. I am invested in the TRUTH.

 

[Yenriac]

Can someone help me out here? I thought I was allowed to share my opinion and say that I want a guilty verdict if I believe he did it. In the end it makes no difference as I’m not part of the jury and neither are you.

Use the ignore button. Arguing for arguing's sake is pointless. Just ignore.

 

[Junothecat]

I think he's guilty.

But I trust the jury, they will have heard much more than us.

Not to mention study his demeanour.

I think it's important to have faith in the justice system even though they don't always get it right

But I've probably heard 50% of the facts and a lot of rumour so personally for me I think the jury will do their job and deliver the right verdict.

Agreed. We all have our own opinions based on what we've seen, but ultimately the jury almost certainly have seen a fuller presentation of the evidence than we have, so I trust them to deliver a fair verdict.

 

[DanceCard]

Can someone help me out here? I thought I was allowed to share my opinion and say that I want a guilty verdict if I believe he did it. In the end it makes no difference as I’m not part of the jury and neither are you.

Post #44 on this thread, posted by the admin. I bumped it earlier. Unfortunately I can't bring it up as a quote now for some reason. This is the relevant part C+Pd

ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random.

Members are not allowed to tell other members how to think/post. Everyone has an opinion and you may respectfully disagree, but to chastise other members for their opinion is not allowed.

While "innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial principle within the legal system, the general public is not held to that standard and are allowed to have their own speculative opinion.

 

[Joolz1975]

This is the stance that I take. Very sensible. I am invested in the TRUTH.

Me too...I do think he's guilty though.

That's my gut feeling, I'm entitled to it and I won't change my mind.

But then I'm not on the jury so in the grand scheme of things my opinion or thoughts don't count anyway.

I hope whatever decision comes is the correct one.