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

[nothinonyou]

Did have, but it was closed down once the cat was out of the bag as to who he was.

I always wonder in these kind of situations. I presume police advise him to take down his social media?
And in the case of Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews, I think their fb was up until after the trial. Does someone have to contact fb and asked their profiles to be removed?
Another case is Ian Watkins... his twitter is still up

 

[Hedgehog]

I always wonder in these kind of situations. I presume police advise him to take down his social media?
And in the case of Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews, I think their fb was up until after the trial. Does someone have to contact fb and asked their profiles to be removed?
Another case is Ian Watkins... his twitter is still up

Often times with terrorists after attacks the police here tell FB to lock & hide the account as it very often will have pertinent information. There isn't a rule, but more & more they tend to shut them down & quite quickly.

 

[jessie]

I always wonder in these kind of situations. I presume police advise him to take down his social media?
And in the case of Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews, I think their fb was up until after the trial. Does someone have to contact fb and asked their profiles to be removed?
Another case is Ian Watkins... his twitter is still up

BBM = This surprises me, is that a fact? IIRC their fb and phone messages formed an important part in the prosecution case, so odd if they were allowed to use it for outside contact once charged.
It was my understanding (happy to be corrected) that once charged all types of electronic communication are withdrawn. The police can and do then use the records in their investigation.

 

[nothinonyou]

BBM = This surprises me, is that a fact? IIRC their fb and phone messages formed an important part in the prosecution case, so odd if they were allowed to use it for outside contact once charged.
It was my understanding (happy to be corrected) that once charged all types of electronic communication are withdrawn. The police can and do then use the records in their investigation.

I mean they were being questioned, charged and put in custody pretty quickly. There wasn't much time for fb use

 

[mrazda71]

No one is allowed access to Social Media when they're in custody, under arrest, on remand or serving a sentence.

The police can access their accounts in some cases but, website owners (Apple in particular) can prove unhelpful even in legal cases.

The profile owners could also have friends/family members accessing their SM for them.

 

[Tallburt]

Social media has enabled information (whether true or otherwise) to be disseminated more widely and quickly than ever before. Going back in time, the printing press, railways, the telegraph and telephones had a similar effect but the principles of justice remained the same (essentially Magna Carta here in England).

The trial of Rose West was moved to Winchester from Gloucester due to concerns over jury impartiality but given the reporting of the West case I would have been amazed that anyone in the UK was not aware of the case or the individuals involved at the time and this was immediately before the internet age. This approach may have helped in say the 16th century when most people would not have strayed more than half a day's walk from home but it is just an anachronistic tradition today.

The vast majority of the country still takes their news from MSM sources and, unless they have actively looked for it, will not be aware of any names or theories that have appeared elsewhere. Given the nature of this case I am surprised that social media account holders (family members, the media) have been slow in closing discussions or accounts. Family members unfortunately have more pressing matters on their minds and some accounts may have conceivably been maintained to potentially collect evidence, but the media seems unable to help itself when covering this and other emotive crimes.

 

[Alyce]

Police Hour‏Verified account @PoliceHour 3m3 minutes ago




Tonight the Isle Of Bute will pay their respects to little angel Alesha MacPhail at 8pm The island will hold a candle light vigil. Those that do not live on the island are invited to light a candle ans post a picture on social media with the #lightforalesha

 

[Taskforce88]

Police Scotland @policescotland
2h
Police Scotland is investigating a number of reports of social media posts which risk prejudicing future court proceedings and could put you in breach of the Contempt of Court Act.

 

[Legally Bland]

Social media has enabled information (whether true or otherwise) to be disseminated more widely and quickly than ever before. Going back in time, the printing press, railways, the telegraph and telephones had a similar effect but the principles of justice remained the same (essentially Magna Carta here in England).

The trial of Rose West was moved to Winchester from Gloucester due to concerns over jury impartiality but given the reporting of the West case I would have been amazed that anyone in the UK was not aware of the case or the individuals involved at the time and this was immediately before the internet age. This approach may have helped in say the 16th century when most people would not have strayed more than half a day's walk from home but it is just an anachronistic tradition today.

The vast majority of the country still takes their news from MSM sources and, unless they have actively looked for it, will not be aware of any names or theories that have appeared elsewhere. Given the nature of this case I am surprised that social media account holders (family members, the media) have been slow in closing discussions or accounts. Family members unfortunately have more pressing matters on their minds and some accounts may have conceivably been maintained to potentially collect evidence, but the media seems unable to help itself when covering this and other emotive crimes.

I understand where you're coming from, but ensuring a fair trial isn't anachronistic.

There was a post earlier about how we were within our rights to discuss gossip and maybe name the accused because it's all over social media.

It's total bollocks.

What is generally overlooked is that while social media may give you an outlet to exercise your rights of freedom of speech, it also gives you responsibilities.

Everyone is a publisher on social media and are subject to the same rules as MSM.

Maybe laws need to change to keep up with technology, but the idea that we should abandon personal responsibility doesn't do it for me.

Nobody has banned what people say / gossip / speculate about in private. Just keep it private. It really isn't that complicated.

You aren't responsible for what other people post, just look after what you post.

It's not that hard.

Just be responsible.

 

[Taskforce88]

Ideally, nobody should be named until found guilty in a court of law. Even after being charged, I am uneasy about naming people, many do go on to be found not guilty, but are forever tainted with the crime. Laws are there for a reason, online mob rule and Facebook justice are for people who need to look at themselves and perhaps take time off social media and get out more?

 

[mrazda71]

Ideally, nobody should be named until found guilty in a court of law. Even after being charged, I am uneasy about naming people, many do go on to be found not guilty, but are forever tainted with the crime. Laws are there for a reason, online mob rule and Facebook justice are for people who need to look at themselves and perhaps take time off social media and get out more?

Thats a tough one!

I would never want an innocent person to suffer by being wrongly/falsely accused ... but, and here we're back to the old pitchfork wavers again, they wouldn't suffer as much if people just closed their mouths til justice was done...

In some cases, some crimes in particular such as Sexual assault, rape, abuse crimes ... it is only when one victim is courageous enough to report the crime that others, who may have been too afraid (or wrongly, ashamed) feel able to do the same.

Personally, I'd rather be falsely accused than have 100 guilty getting away with it.

 

[Tallburt]

Apologies but I didn't mean to indicate that a fair trial was anachronistic, just the habit of moving a trial 100 miles away as jurors would traditionally have been naive of events or individuals involved is.

And yes, people should engage brain before posting what they do on social media but MSM outlets should also strive to be more sensitive (given they are at least professionally familiar with laws concerning contempt and libel) to what they allow to be maintained on their outlets. With emotive cases such as this one, it might also be prudent of them to set relevant articles to 'no comments'. I agree the comments naming people have been made by private individuals but the MSM have given them a platform from which to do it; if they were sounding off in their usual 'friend only' bubbles no-one would probably notice.

 

[MsFacetious]

I still haven't seen a link about the DNA evidence. However, I wanted to clear up a giant misconception. At least in the US there does NOT have to be DNA to be charged with rape.

With a live accuser all they have to do is point at you. There doesn't have to be a scintilla of evidence, that accusers word is enough to take your freedom.

If you are accused of murdering someone who was also raped, no DNA is required either. There have been several cases like this.

The only time DNA becomes vital is when the suspect is a mystery. Like serial killers and things like that.

 

[MsFacetious]

Thats a tough one!

I would never want an innocent person to suffer by being wrongly/falsely accused ... but, and here we're back to the old pitchfork wavers again, they wouldn't suffer as much if people just closed their mouths til justice was done...

In some cases, some crimes in particular such as Sexual assault, rape, abuse crimes ... it is only when one victim is courageous enough to report the crime that others, who may have been too afraid (or wrongly, ashamed) feel able to do the same.

Personally, I'd rather be falsely accused than have 100 guilty getting away with it.

If you are falsely accused, at least in the US.... you are incarcerated often without bail until your trial. Which on average is about 4 years away. Your attorney's fees will bankrupt your family if they can afford to pay one at all.

You lose pretty much every thing you have, you lose years with your family and children, miss births and deaths and weddings.... all because someone falsely accused you.

If you would go through all that rather than letting a guilty person free, you are a better person than I am. Though, in many cases there is no guilty person and the accusations are entirely fabricated.

Sorry, I know it's a touchy subject for me. I've actually seen families destroyed by this and there is no way I'd choose to put my own family through it. Watching a baby become a toddler while an innocent parent misses it all is heartbreaking.

 

[Weeobanite]

My point really was that just because someone has a respectable job, doesn't make them a decent person. Parents can also provide all the material things needed for a child but be emotionally cruel/ unavailable. Personality disorders can lurk anywhere, I know I've met a few! This is all my speculation anyway as the kids upbringing is not public.

Yeah i get what your saying! According to locals.. he was brought up well and hes just a bad one.. that can happen too!

 

[beatrixpotter]

If you are falsely accused, at least in the US.... you are incarcerated often without bail until your trial. Which on average is about 4 years away. Your attorney's fees will bankrupt your family if they can afford to pay one at all.

You lose pretty much every thing you have, you lose years with your family and children, miss births and deaths and weddings.... all because someone falsely accused you.

If you would go through all that rather than letting a guilty person free, you are a better person than I am. Though, in many cases there is no guilty person and the accusations are entirely fabricated.

Sorry, I know it's a touchy subject for me. I've actually seen families destroyed by this and there is no way I'd choose to put my own family through it. Watching a baby become a toddler while an innocent parent misses it all is heartbreaking.

Yeah, I'd not sign up for it for sure. I have some friends who are gone. Just *poof* gone. Hauled off to jail and initial accusations did include things they supposedly said on FB. But they are likely in jail now for YEARS before anyone knows what's really going on. A bail set so high no one could pay that unless they were a millionaire. The jail returns their mail almost exclusively unopened.

A reminder to me to keep my mouth shout on social media....

 

[Weeobanite]

If you are falsely accused, at least in the US.... you are incarcerated often without bail until your trial. Which on average is about 4 years away. Your attorney's fees will bankrupt your family if they can afford to pay one at all.

You lose pretty much every thing you have, you lose years with your family and children, miss births and deaths and weddings.... all because someone falsely accused you.

If you would go through all that rather than letting a guilty person free, you are a better person than I am. Though, in many cases there is no guilty person and the accusations are entirely fabricated.

Sorry, I know it's a touchy subject for me. I've actually seen families destroyed by this and there is no way I'd choose to put my own family through it. Watching a baby become a toddler while an innocent parent misses it all is heartbreaking.

No one has falsely accused him though! The police didn’t pick him up because someone told them to! They have evidence against him! You have to have enough evidence to charge someone of rape and murder and someone saying they think it’s him isn’t it!!! He is guilty according to their evidence, the opinions of the people who knew him and my opinion.. otherwise he wouldn’t be in jail with those 2 charges!

 

[Weeobanite]

I always wonder in these kind of situations. I presume police advise him to take down his social media?
And in the case of Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews, I think their fb was up until after the trial. Does someone have to contact fb and asked their profiles to be removed?
Another case is Ian Watkins... his twitter is still up

I think the police would of contacted fb to have his page removed since he’s a ‘minor’ the others your talking about are adults so that would be up to them to remove the pages if they wanted.

 

[evans242]

I always wonder in these kind of situations. I presume police advise him to take down his social media?
And in the case of Shauna Hoare and Nathan Matthews, I think their fb was up until after the trial. Does someone have to contact fb and asked their profiles to be removed?
Another case is Ian Watkins... his twitter is still up

Can be ordered to be closed by authority, and sometimes family, with the back up of authority
There's obviously a certain contact number for this, but can sometimes still pose a problem for some people to get one closed.
As unless they have it on authority they won't do it.
If you're a suspect held you would have had your phone confiscated anyway so you wouldn't be able to shut your own account down.
But again the certain police department often go through people's media accounts to see if anything to do with said crime or any other affair has been mentioned on the account.
They will study all posts.

 

[Phoenix70]

What if the boy was babysitting because grandparents away for the night, dad staying with girlfriend? Grandparents return on the morning ferry and find her missing & the boy unable to explain where she is?