UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -teen arrested

[Edinlass]

Thanks mrazda1 for the journalists comments. No surprise that he is showing lack of emotion and taking everything in. Starting to sway toward thinking he may take the stand afterall.

 

[neteditor]

Thanks mrazda1 for the journalists comments. No surprise that he is showing lack of emotion and taking everything in. Starting to sway toward thinking he may take the stand afterall.

I would be shocked if he does.

 

[Bluedaisy100]

Thanks, Mrazda! I was trying to imagine the scene in the courtroom and how the accused was reacting. It seems like no reaction.

 

[Caroclaud]

I was a court reporter way back in the olden days before Twitter. Actually, even before mobile phones unless you include the solitary Motorola brick car phone that my office had!

Trials always take the same format.

The prosecution begins with a statement, then start calling their witnesses who they examine on the stand. The defence is allowed to cross-examine these witnesses.

When the prosecution has called all their witnesses, the defence calls theirs. The prosecution can cross-examine these witnesses.

When all evidence has been heard, the prosecution sums up their case in a speech. Then the defence sums up. The defence always goes last as it is considered fairer to the defendant (the jury having their statement freshest in their minds).

Then the Judge/Sheriff sums up the entire case, makes any points of law to the jury.

The jury is then sent out to deliberate. They must try and reach a unanimous verdict but if that isn't possible the judge will allow a majority verdict.

The defendant is under no obligation to take the stand during the defence phase. That is a decision the defence team must make. Usually they don't want to expose the defendant to cross examination by the prosecution.

All my court reporting experience was in England, but the basic format is the same in both countries I believe.

ETA: Personally, I can't see the defence subjecting a 16 year old lad to cross examination.

I do agree it would be slightly uncomfortable to watch a 16 year old get destroyed by the prosecution in cross examination but there again he deserves to have his story ripped apart ( esp if TM wants to be exonerated) plus it sounded like some of his 16 year old friends did get cross examined by the defence today ..... when one girl was asked whether some of the messages were just silly nonsense. So I guess it is possible.

I am just wondering if he is not planning to take the stand then what actual defence is there, they have to try and defend him somehow, how could they do it without calling him up to tell his “story”?.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The evidence was put there by the accused not the police.

Not according to the trial

 

[arrogantcat]

Perhaps a forensics or police witness will give evidence about any material discovered on his devices if relevant. Trying to think how many people they could fit into Monday and Tuesday morning...

I remember in the Vincent Tabak trial (Joanna Yeates murder) his use was deemed inadmissible in court - despite showing women being strangled and photos of women arranged to look a lot like his victim. It was revealed after the jury had reached a verdict.
I’ve never fully understood why, but I think it’s similar to how previous convictions aren’t mentioned too.

 

[Truthseeker777]

Thanks, Mrazda! I was trying to imagine the scene in the courtroom and how the accused was reacting. It seems like no reaction.

Hi, nice to meet you all.

I suspect the defence QC, if he decides to continue with the case, will focus in on the girlfriend getting up when they are all sleeping and going in to Alesha's room on the top floor of the building. No doubt he will also further explore/develop the issues of and domestic abuse accusations in her relationship with the victim's father, and attempt to show the opportunity she had to carry out this horrendous crime, ultimately aiming to create sufficient suspicion to make it difficult for the jury to find the accused guilty 'beyond doubt'

 

[Tortoise]

I remember in the Vincent Tabak trial (Joanna Yeates murder) his use was deemed inadmissible in court - despite showing women being strangled and photos of women arranged to look a lot like his victim. It was revealed after the jury had reached a verdict.
I’ve never fully understood why, but I think it’s similar to how previous convictions aren’t mentioned too.

I could be totally wrong here but this is my best guess.

In the case of Vincent Tabak his use was not the same as a prior conviction - so it hasn't been proven and it would be liable to be very prejudicial in the jury deliberations, especially if say someone he was living with shared use of the computer (even if unlikely).

Prior convictions can be brought in (at least in England, not sure about Scotland) if the offence has similar characteristics to that he is being tried for. Case in point is the trial of the Babes in the Wood killer Russell Bishop where the CPS was allowed to bring in his previous conviction for abducting and sexually assaulting another child and leaving her for dead with similar injuries.

 

[Bampot]

Can the prosecution not call the accused as a witness??? Where is the sense in that?

 

[Tortoise]

Can the prosecution not call the accused as a witness??? Where is the sense in that?

Every defendant has the right to not take the stand.

Welcome by the way, and welcome to all new posters.

 

[angeldust]

A few thoughts...There is no way he's taking the stand. It would result in a new trial.. No defence lawyer would be stupid enough to open themselves up to that.

I don't think he used the knife as we would know about it. However he may have used it to keep the young girl quiet and get her away, child predators often threaten the child with killing their parents, to keep them quiet. If found guilty it will be young offenders and kid gloves for the poor wee misunderstood psychopathic child killer.

 

[Bampot]

Why would the accused taking the stand result in a mistrial?

 

[TaylorCallum]

I've been following the case closely for the past few days and I'm curious what will happen on Monday, I wonder what witnesses/evidence they will bring out. It seems pretty inevitable that the jury will vote guilty as it stands, but there's still a week to go so who knows.

I've been looking through the notoriously unreliable social media, however, I did notice a few people make comments about the accused, relating to a past incident, that locals on the island are aware of. I'm not sure what they were referring to, or if it was just made up. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes out though.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Only read this post since the trial started. Only interest is a friend of mine lives close by and I saw it on her social media and her daughter was an ex pupil. All I can say is glad you aren’t my jury- the posts on this forum have definitely all swayed one way. Until all evidence is heard, I rarely form a strong opinion. In this case, I am particularly dubious about the whole family- for lots of reasons that have been said in the media and in the trial. I am curious to see how this pans out- motive is not strong at this point.

 

[angeldust]

Why would the accused taking the stand result in a mistrial?

sorry not mistrial, another trial. He's 16 clearly incompetent, there would be all sorts of appeals IF they allowed him to take the stand, They would not be acting in his best interests, he is a minor in the eyes of the law. I can just see some other lawyer raising appeal after appeal on his behalf. Until he took the stand no one would know on what grounds to appeal, but they would find them, if he did .

 

[SJ16321]

Only read this post since the trial started. Only interest is a friend of mine lives close by and I saw it on her social media and her daughter was an ex pupil. All I can say is glad you aren’t my jury- the posts on this forum have definitely all swayed one way. Until all evidence is heard, I rarely form a strong opinion. In this case, I am particularly dubious about the whole family- for lots of reasons that have been said in the media and in the trial. I am curious to see how this pans out- motive is not strong at this point.

I find the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The whole condom defence is laughably weak as well. You do make a very good point about the motive though, it's difficult to ascertain a motive at this moment in time.

 

[Gardenista]

IMO the motive was rape.

 

[Bampot]

Yes clearly a sexual motive imo

 

[Alyce]

Only read this post since the trial started. Only interest is a friend of mine lives close by and I saw it on her social media and her daughter was an ex pupil. All I can say is glad you aren’t my jury- the posts on this forum have definitely all swayed one way. Until all evidence is heard, I rarely form a strong opinion. In this case, I am particularly dubious about the whole family- for lots of reasons that have been said in the media and in the trial. I am curious to see how this pans out- motive is not strong at this point.

Which family..the accused’s or the victim’s ?

 

[Bluedaisy100]

The accused stated to friends that he would kill someone for the" life experience". As if this is a milestone in someone's life. His mother, who he butts heads with, is friends with Toni's family. This would be especially painful for her. He had a contentious relationship with Toni and RM over weed. Senselessly killing a child in such a cruel and gruesome manner means a lifetime of pain for the family. His semen DNA will be put into evidence. His clothes are at the beach. His mother's CCTV has him jumping fences in various states of undress in the wee hours of the morning. Two other CCTV's have a man carrying a child up the beach in the direction of the murder scene. We have yet to hear the forensics and the defense, but I'd say the state has put on a solid case so far.