UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #4

[404_notfound]

I get and always got guilty of murder, I can see how they came to a group conclusion of rape- I still struggle to find truth in the abduction evidence. Did I miss something? And yes I obviously need the obvious pointing out as still
Something doesn’t make sense to me there.

It seems that taken together with the accepted guilt of rape and murder, they decided that the most likely way he got her from the home, given the evidence of his palm print in their stairwell and the knife on the beach near her home was by abduction. She had clean bare feet, so she didn't walk willingly to the place where she died, and since he is the one who raped and murdered her, he is also the one who abducted her.

 

[Joolz1975]

I was just thinking on the bus ride home; Alesha looked to be on the killers back in the cctv, and then he was holding her at his front. Surely getting on his back would actually require Alesha to do this herself? To go willingly with him? I guess it also suggests that she wasn’t asleep. Sorry if this is obvious and already explained but I just copped it now. I think he might have spun some lie about being friends with her dad and her dad said she had to go with him. And him being quiet young she wouldn’t have been too scared?
The whole thing is actually like a horror movie to me. So scary

I never saw the cctv didn't know it was available.

He could have told her anything couldn't he.

We always tell our kids about stranger danger etc...but i don't think they fear teens the same way.

 

[L White]

I wonder what the sentence will be - do you think he will get off lightly and put in young offenders 'place' or what I hope put in Carstairs indefinitely

Carstairs is closing.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I don't really get the whole "let's name him" thing. I think most people know his name anyway. Would it open some doors to understanding more of the background info? I do feel an irrational need to try and make sense of what's happened but then how can you? It seems pure evil

 

[Gardenista]

Still catching up and saw this:

Mr McSporran also said the boy had been seen by a psychiatrist for possible "insanity or diminished responsibility".

He added: "There was no such issue." STV

I LOVE this judge. From your link

Lord Matthews had told him: "It will be obvious to anyone that Alesha MacPhail was a sweet angelic little girl."
He said the girl had arrived on Bute looking forward to the holidays.
She would have grown up and may even have taken her own children to the island, he added.
But the judge went on: "Instead you came into her life.
"You then stole it in committing some of the most evil and wicked crimes this court has ever heard in decades of dealing with depravity."
"I have no idea what made you do it. The evidence was overwhelming."
The judge also said incrimination of Toni McLachlan was "ridiculous".

 

[bronzepurple]

I bet he will still be expressionless and show no emotion or reaction tomorrow when he attends the hearing about whether his anonymity is going to be stripped or not.

 

[Mercsw]

The anonymity will depend on length of sentence. If he’s getting life without parole for example then there’s no problem with lifting the ban on naming. However this judge is pretty hardcore from his actions so far. Doesn’t seem to be the sort to go soft

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I bet he will still be expressionless and show no emotion or reaction tomorrow when he attends the hearing about whether his anonymity is going to be stripped or not.

Chilling. I imagine he is raging at being outsmarted. IMO

 

[Liming]

What happens in court tomorrow? Learning curve again!

 

[bfin1995]

How killer tried to convince jury with a mask of innocence

Good article about demeanour of child rapist in court from Edinlass

If anyone missed this, please do take a moment to read. In particular:

Professor Wilson, of Birmingham City University, also understands why the killer determinedly spun such an incredible lie in a bid to walk free.

He said: "There is some talk about this being about drugs but it is far more to do with rape and sex.

"This is a young man being unable to come to terms with the realisation that he had raped a little girl and only way he could deal with that was to kill her.

"This is is a lot about denial and how it allows the person to continue to lie and their life being able to exclude the truth from entering into their conscious world.

"That is what motivated him to tell this lie and if he is ever allowed safely back into the community then a great deal of work needs to be done for him to accept the truth."

Explains a lot, IMO.

 

[Yenriac]

If anyone missed this, please do take a moment to read. In particular:

Professor Wilson, of Birmingham City University, also understands why the killer determinedly spun such an incredible lie in a bid to walk free.

He said: "There is some talk about this being about drugs but it is far more to do with rape and sex.

"This is a young man being unable to come to terms with the realisation that he had raped a little girl and only way he could deal with that was to kill her.

"This is is a lot about denial and how it allows the person to continue to lie and their life being able to exclude the truth from entering into their conscious world.

"That is what motivated him to tell this lie and if he is ever allowed safely back into the community then a great deal of work needs to be done for him to accept the truth."

Explains a lot, IMO.

Interesting, explains loads.

 

[Alyce]

If anyone missed this, please do take a moment to read. In particular:

Professor Wilson, of Birmingham City University, also understands why the killer determinedly spun such an incredible lie in a bid to walk free.

He said: "There is some talk about this being about drugs but it is far more to do with rape and sex.

"This is a young man being unable to come to terms with the realisation that he had raped a little girl and only way he could deal with that was to kill her.

"This is is a lot about denial and how it allows the person to continue to lie and their life being able to exclude the truth from entering into their conscious world.

"That is what motivated him to tell this lie and if he is ever allowed safely back into the community then a great deal of work needs to be done for him to accept the truth."

Explains a lot, IMO.

I read that earlier, very interesting article. Only part I found a bit odd, was Prof Wilson being adamant that the murderer would not kill again. I would have thought, had he got away with it, that this would be an incentive for him to do another murder.

 

[GimmeAclueBlue]

Interesting, explains loads.

This is very interesting but I'm fully convinced he would have killed again and if not he would IMO have definitely become a dangerous peadophile!

I was lost today waiting for the verdict and elated at hearing the outcome! I said b4 I'm new here and have really found a great place to come and find answers to questions that annoy me while cases are on going. It's nice to know people are similar haha

 

[Alyce]

What happens in court tomorrow? Learning curve again!

Not entirely sure, my best guess would be
Newspapers make their case for being able to reveal name of murderer
Murderer's QC makes the case for him being allowed to keep his anonymity
Judge says he will consider the matter and rule at a later date - sometime before March 21.

 

[404_notfound]

I read that earlier, very interesting article. Only part I found a bit odd, was Prof Wilson being adamant that the murderer would not kill again. I would have thought, had he got away with it, that this would be an incentive for him to do another murder.

Presumably he has good basis for his feeling, based on his professional qualifications and experience. I think what he means is that the boy is a rapist who killed his victim rather than face his crime, rather than a murderer who enjoys rape too. I know that seems an insignificant distinction, an it makes no difference to the severity of his crime nor to the punishment he should face, but i can see why it may set him in a different category of criminals who kill because THAT is the thing they like. He may well have gone on to be a dangerous paedophile, but in fact the vast majority of paedophiles are NOT murderous.

 

[Thebutlerdiditagain]

I read that earlier, very interesting article. Only part I found a bit odd, was Prof Wilson being adamant that the murderer would not kill again. I would have thought, had he got away with it, that this would be an incentive for him to do another murder.

I love the experts with he would not kill again
I remember another expert filing a report kemper was no longer a danger to the public little did the expert know Kemper had a head of a recent victim in the boot!

 

[Ciana]

Two things that I am confused about; where H.H., in his directions to the jury before they went out to deliberate, informed them that they didn't have to consider the issues of abduction and rape. It was pointed out to me by better informed Sleuthers that in Scots Law, only penile penetration is recognised as rape (as opposed to digital or via an implement). Okay thus far, I get that. It then appeared to me that there had been agreement with counsel and H.H. that that particular part of the Indictment was to be no longer deliberated upon. I found this most odd, as it had been a pertinent part of the Indictment, according to MSM. Sometimes, during a trial there is permission to amend the charge/s of an Indictment, (for instance in this case, changing the indictment to wording such as "sexual assault", or such wording to take into consideration that it may have been an implement which had been used as my understanding is that that aspect had never been clearly established (to the general public via MSM at least). As for the abduction part - I did find that odd that they were told that they did not have to deliberate on that, either. I thought that perhaps it had been had been agreed that as no actual evidence had been provided to substantiate the abduction of Alesha from the flat, (lack of any physical evidence INSIDE the flat) and that she may have left via other means (unknown) that this had also been amended during the course of the trial. I thought that under those circumstances, the jury would most probably find the then-accused guilty as charged, as his DNA evidence found at the scene was very compelling to say the least and that if they only had to deliberate on that one charge, then it would help them immensely to come to a swift conclusion of guilt. I came in today and switched on the news and heard the verdict of guilty, ( to murder) together with the charges of rape and abduction. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood what had been recorded in the tweet from the reporter re H.H.'s instructions to the jury prior to their deliberations. Can someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks in advance.

 

[wtiger]

The disgrace here is this pantomime of him having anonymity.

Who is this protecting?

The little girl and all of her family have had their names thrown into the public domain and all because this little rat thought that he was more clever than any lawyer or jury.

He could have saved lots of agony for that family by growing some spine and facing what he had done.

Instead he used the opportunity to heap more pain upon them.

The idea that anyone would wish to protect him in any way is beyond me.

Surely this crime must be so revolting that it simply cannot be in anyones interest to leave him unidentified because whether people like it or not, i have a feeling that he may well be back on the streets one day in the future.

No protection should ever be afforded to anyone who has behaved that way.

If he is old enough to rape,murder and grandstand in court...then he should be man enough to put his name to his actions.

This is not from a personal curiosity viewpoint Btw....i already know who he is.

 

[404_notfound]

Two things that I am confused about; where H.H., in his directions to the jury before they went out to deliberate, informed them that they didn't have to consider the issues of abduction and rape. It was pointed out to me by better informed Sleuthers that in Scots Law, only penile penetration is recognised as rape (as opposed to digital or via an implement). Okay thus far, I get that. It then appeared to me that there had been agreement with counsel and H.H. that that particular part of the Indictment was to be no longer deliberated upon. I found this most odd, as it had been a pertinent part of the Indictment, according to MSM. Sometimes, during a trial there is permission to amend the charge/s of an Indictment, (for instance in this case, changing the indictment to wording such as "sexual assault", or such wording to take into consideration that it may have been an implement which had been used as my understanding is that that aspect had never been clearly established (to the general public via MSM at least). As for the abduction part - I did find that odd that they were told that they did not have to deliberate on that, either. I thought that perhaps it had been had been agreed that as no actual evidence had been provided to substantiate the abduction of Alesha from the flat, (lack of any physical evidence INSIDE the flat) and that she may have left via other means (unknown) that this had also been amended during the course of the trial. I thought that under those circumstances, the jury would most probably find the then-accused guilty as charged, as his DNA evidence found at the scene was very compelling to say the least and that if they only had to deliberate on that one charge, then it would help them immensely to come to a swift conclusion of guilt. I came in today and switched on the news and heard the verdict of guilty, ( to murder) together with the charges of rape and abduction. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood what had been recorded in the tweet from the reporter re H.H.'s instructions to the jury prior to their deliberations. Can someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks in advance.

I thought he said they DIDN'T have to consider whether murder took place but they DID have to consider whether rape and abduction did?

 

[Popcorn80]

Forgive me if already been asked.
Do you think if his identity is made public the CCTV that helped get a guilty verdict will ever be realised? I no we have had some photos and a video of the stairwell.