UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #5

[JosieJo]

If it could have been proven it would have been left

 

[Crestnut]

I don't know that ... do you?

No I don't know but I thought you did when you posted he was a small time dealer really

 

[Noseyjosie]

But why ? If it can be proven it's more positive evidence for prosecution

I'd have thought that the prosecution would have done everything they could to enhance the cctv images to try to see what he was carrying etc but, ultimately all it really PROVES is that he went out, not where or why. If they can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt I guess they risk losing the confidence of the jury - and it was much more important to get the conviction for rape and murder than for dumping clothing. JMO

 

[JosieJo]

No I don't know but I thought you did when you posted he was a small time dealer really

Although we dont know ..its "unlikely" imo it was just to AC if so would have been more personal eg in the house ...not selling from a bus shelter

 

[JosieJo]

I'd have thought that the prosecution would have done everything they could to enhance the cctv images to try to see what he was carrying etc but, ultimately all it really PROVES is that he went out, not where or why. If they can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt I guess they risk losing the confidence of the jury - and it was much more important to get the conviction for rape and murder than for dumping clothing. JMO

I agree but the reason being ..it cant be proven

 

[Yenriac]

It does ...but that is all based on that it cant be proven

I really don't understand the above statement.

If it could have been proven it would have been left

I really don't understand what you're going on about here either. I've linked the tweet from the journalist at court, I've explained why that charge may have been withdrawn. Don't know what else your looking for.

 

[Junothecat]

Why didn’t the defence do it?

I don't think the defence QC did badly, given what he had to work with. It's worth remembering that he didn't have to prove his own case - he simply had to raise doubts regarding the prosecution case. He failed, but given the weight of forensic evidence from the murder scene, that isn't entirely surprising.

There are a few odd points, though. For instance, if T was A's 'friend-with-benefits', then why not, when she took the stand, cross-examine her regarding this contention? Lying under oath is a serious issue, so if there was a feeling she'd been less than candid, why not press her on this? In my opinion, the only reason not to try to chase down these 'special defence' points is that even the defending QC felt they were weak and improbable. And why not 'discover' any phone evidence held by the police? Again, because the defending QC didn't feel it would help acquit his client. In law, no inference should be drawn from any of that, but in normal, common sense reasoning, perhaps it might be. As I've said before, the guilty party is, indeed, guilty.

I'm not happy about every point of the prosecution case. The narrative is a bit odd. As someone who's spent a lot of time around 6-year old children, the abduction narrative puzzles me. I don't believe that any normal six-year old, in a familiar space surrounded by loving adults, would simply comply, rather than start wailing or screaming. Nor do I believe that screams wouldn't have carried across a sleepy coastal village. Surely that beautiful, blameless child must have been definitively silenced in the flat, in order to be carried out without attracting attention?

R and T may well have had a relationship that was more volatile, even violent than what their own testimony to the police suggested. R, in particular, may not be a saint - but he wasn't on trial, so that doesn't matter. T and A were clearly on friendly terms, vide their messages on the morning of the murder. They might have all been well advised to tell the absolute truth regarding all these points. But ultimately, a jury that sat through days of this stuff was quite clear about who was guilty, and that is good enough for me.

One final oddity - surely it would have been very dark at the murder scene circa 2-3 am, even in Scotland in summer - so much so that it's hard to see how the crime was carried out? I didn't see a street lamp on the relevant Google Maps. But again, serious investigators have put work into this case, so I am sure they have got it right.

If some of us keep dwelling on this case, it's perhaps out of a feeling that as we couldn't help Alesha when she needed that help, at least we can try to understand afterwards. But my sympathies are with her parents, wider family and her community. She was a lovely little girl and deserved so much better than this.

Again, though, I am sure, based on the forensic evidence, that the right person has been convicted of this particularly horrible crime.

 

[JosieJo]

I really don't understand the above statement.


I really don't understand what you're going on about here either. I've linked the tweet from the journalist at court, I've explained why that charge may have been withdrawn. Don't know what else your looking for.

I'm not looking for anything.. I stated earlier that him disposing of his clothes in sea could not be proven...others asked me to show this ..not me

 

[mrazda71]

No I don't know but I thought you did when you posted he was a small time dealer really

I think assumptions can be made fairly safely by the fact that Rab has admitted selling weed. People buying a bit of weed are not the same kind of people who are buying their desperate fix of heroin or crack.

Either way ... the point being that the person I was responding to said they felt less for Rabs loss than Genies 'because' he was dealing drugs from his house, therefore attracting people buying drugs (this could go round in circles)

Rabs drug dealing is NOT the reason that Aaron knew the family or knew of Alesha.
Rabs drug dealing is NOT the reason that Alesha is dead.
Rab is NOT to blame in any way.

Aaron is solely to blame and not his victims family.

 

[Yenriac]

I'm not looking for anything.. I stated earlier that him disposing of his clothes in sea could not be proven...others asked me to show this ..not me

It couldn't be proven because he said on the stand he was pier jumping and they got swept away.

 

[JosieJo]

It couldn't be proven because he said on the stand he was pier jumping and they got swept away.

Yes absolutely

 

[Taskforce88]

I don't think the defence QC did badly, given what he had to work with. It's worth remembering that he didn't have to prove his own case - he simply had to raise doubts regarding the prosecution case. He failed, but given the weight of forensic evidence from the murder scene, that isn't entirely surprising.

There are a few odd points, though. For instance, if T was A's 'friend-with-benefits', then why not, when she took the stand, cross-examine her regarding this contention? Lying under oath is a serious issue, so if there was a feeling she'd been less than candid, why not press her on this? In my opinion, the only reason not to try to chase down these 'special defence' points is that even the defending QC felt they were weak and improbable. And why not 'discover' any phone evidence held by the police? Again, because the defending QC didn't feel it would help acquit his client. In law, no inference should be drawn from any of that, but in normal, common sense reasoning, perhaps it might be. As I've said before, the guilty party is, indeed, guilty.

I'm not happy about every point of the prosecution case. The narrative is a bit odd. As someone who's spent a lot of time around 6-year old children, the abduction narrative puzzles me. I don't believe that any normal six-year old, in a familiar space surrounded by loving adults, would simply comply, rather than start wailing or screaming. Nor do I believe that screams wouldn't have carried across a sleepy coastal village. Surely that beautiful, blameless child must have been definitively silenced in the flat, in order to be carried out without attracting attention?

R and T may well have had a relationship that was more volatile, even violent than what their own testimony to the police suggested. R, in particular, may not be a saint - but he wasn't on trial, so that doesn't matter. T and A were clearly on friendly terms, vide their messages on the morning of the murder. They might have all been well advised to tell the absolute truth regarding all these points. But ultimately, a jury that sat through days of this stuff was quite clear about who was guilty, and that is good enough for me.

One final oddity - surely it would have been very dark at the murder scene circa 2-3 am, even in Scotland in summer - so much so that it's hard to see how the crime was carried out? I didn't see a street lamp on the relevant Google Maps. But again, serious investigators have put work into this case, so I am sure they have got it right.

If some of us keep dwelling on this case, it's perhaps out of a feeling that as we couldn't help Alesha when she needed that help, at least we can try to understand afterwards. But my sympathies are with her parents, wider family and her community. She was a lovely little girl and deserved so much better than this.

Again, though, I am sure, based on the forensic evidence, that the right person has been convicted of this particularly horrible crime.

With regards to the crime scene, I believe there is a street light within the area that was taped off on Gortans Road, I think an image on a daily mail article showed one. However, I am not sure that it would have provided much light. Also, there are houses nearby, again, probably not much light from there. He would have had light via his phone. Even in the darkest of woods, I have been able to see things, once my eyes adjust and with ambient light.

 

[Yenriac]

.

 

[Noseyjosie]

I agree but the reason being ..it cant be proven

I must be missing something here sorry. I don't understand what you're asking, we've all attempted to explain why the evidence wasn't able to be "proved beyond reasonable doubt" so could you just clarify what you want to know please?
Thanks x

ETA Since typing this I see you have replied to a similar question already so please ignore this x

 

[Cherryplum]

In the article Ms Stewart details that it was Janette who escalated the situation by texting her accusing her of attacking her son. Janette has now risen to become my candidate as AC's primary enabler. She would take his word as a ten year old over that of a trusted neighbor. Janette caused her friend to be thrown in jail and subject to a court proceeding. That's a pretty remarkable story.

There are always 3 sides to a story, there's Janettes, Ms Stewart's & somewhere in the middle is the truth & Janette has not given her side of this story.

Also do we all believe what we read in the gutter press? I certainly don't.

 

[jaci68]

No personal offence intended to you but, I find that laughable!
Especially in the online news articles! Id need a new red pen every day to mark the spelling, grammatical errors, using wrong names and times and general typos if they were print versions!

You have obviously never been s journalist if you find my comments laughable.As I said not all articles are checked by lawyers. There are many different types of news articles. There are lots of online rehashed articles written in a hurry whose source is often from another news organisation. For those exclusive articles that could have a bearing on a high profile legal case where the accused is 16, I can assure you that lawyers and high level executives would be aware of its content and significance.

 

[jaci68]

mrazda, I have previously responded to that question via another poster, so I will not repeat it at length. Suffice it to say that I do feel sorry for the father, he is quite obviously heartbroken at losing his beloved child. I have never said, at any time, that he is responsible for what happened. The essence of my previously response is that if I were dealing drugs there is no way that I would allow punters to come to my door when my child frequently stayed there, for a multitude of reasons. Not victim bashing, he does have my sympathy, but drugs and children do not mix.

Ciana, do you think Georgina was aware of Rabs drug dealing?

 

[Ardoch]

I take it that there's no CCTV on the High Rd not even outside West Coast Motors?
The more I look at his behaviour on camera, he seems more disoriented and panicked (running with torch) rather than composed. IMO

I wonder what his mental - and physical state (that's never been mentioned) was really like the next day up to arrest?

 

[Taskforce88]

I take it that there's no CCTV on the High Rd not even outside West Coast Motors?
The more I look at his behaviour on camera, he seems more disoriented and panicked (running with torch) rather than composed. IMO

I wonder what his mental - and physical state (that's never been mentioned) was really like the next day up to arrest?

To me, he appears composed until the time he is running out with the torch.

 

[mrazda71]

You have obviously never been s journalist if you find my comments laughable.As I said not all articles are checked by lawyers. There are many different types of news articles. There are lots of online rehashed articles written in a hurry whose source is often from another news organisation. For those exclusive articles that could have a bearing on a high profile legal case where the accused is 16, I can assure you that lawyers and high level executives would be aware of its content and significance.

You are perhaps not helping yourself when, you have yet to write a post which doesn't contain an error when discussing errors in articles.