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

[always reading]

I often feel it would be better to not name ANY accused until they are found guilty, given how often people's lives are ruined by false accusations. Which, before the pitchforks come out, does not mean I am saying that this one is a false accusation - we just don't know yet, as the police are rightly not holding a trial by media but saving their evidence for the actual court trial.

But there have been plenty of cases where the media have whipped everyone up into a frenzy and it turns out the accused was completely innocent - remember Christopher Jefferies? Plenty of stories I've heard of false rape accusations too that even after being proven false have still ruined the reputation of the accused. So my feeling on serious crimes is that unless it's helpful for the police to name a suspect in hopes of getting information from potential witnesses, it would be better for the default to be not naming until found guilty, and then always name, no matter the age; if someone's old enough to commit a crime of this magnitude, they're old enough for the world to know how evil they are. Especially if they're 16+ in Scotland, which is legally an adult for many things anyway.

I disagree with this. If your neighbor was accused of child rape and got out on bail, wouldn't you want to know for the safety of your children?

 

[Kasmeer]

I disagree with this. If your neighbor was accused of child rape and got out on bail, wouldn't you want to know for the safety of your children?

I feel it's unlikely that anyone actively dangerous to the public would be allowed out on bail if there was sufficient evidence to charge them, and even if that is the case, it is entirely possible for police to tell people in a certain area to be careful without specifically identifying anyone. Frankly, unless my neighbour had been accused of something particularly high profile, I'd have no idea (unless a local told me, which could still happen regardless of laws, as we know from this case) until he was convicted anyway; arrests are rarely mentioned in the press until the conviction happens.

The problem with identifying people is they don't become unidentified again if they were actually innocent. It's there on the internet forever, plus not everyone believes in the innocence: "there's no smoke without fire". To take the other side to your question: if your husband/father/brother (or you, if you are male!) was (falsely) accused of molesting a child, how would you feel if he had that reputation forever, struggled to get jobs, lost friends, whenever people found out about it he was shunned/abused, despite having never done anything wrong?

Getting very off the topic of this case though, I'm sorry, it's just something I've felt the system does wrong in this country; false accusations or mistakes can really ruin someone's life. Not naming under-18s is wrong too in my opinion: it should be name everyone, but after conviction.

I'll drop it now to prevent sidetracking the thread any further!

 

[Charmainereilly27]

I understand people are angry and want to know the murderers name .. but i would rather not spread it so the poor childs family get justice in court !!! said this already too so many people and their replys are still disgusting ! think of the parents.

 

[Taskforce88]

I understand people are angry and want to know the murderers name .. but i would rather not spread it so the poor childs family get justice in court !!! said this already too so many people and their replys are still disgusting ! think of the parents.

I noticed some comments and replys in various places and wonder just how dangerous some of the online vigilantes are. Most do it for attention and for people to give them a pat on the back.

People with no relationship with a victim, raging for a few minutes online and then they go back to doing something else. If they truly cared and had an ounce of common sense they would keep quiet.

 

[emmalpage81]

This 16yo Scottish "child" is an adult for the purposes of voting in Scottish referenda

He would only be eligible to vote in local elections (and the independence vote) other than that, as far as I am aware, the voting age is 18. Regardless, under the criminal laws he is a minor and, as such, he should not be named pending trial and, if convicted, the judge can lift this restriction.

All IMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I noticed some comments and replys in various places and wonder just how dangerous some of the online vigilantes are. Most do it for attention and for people to give them a pat on the back.

Just caught up on this case today and wanted to comment on this aspect of it - the sort of "vigilante" comments on social media. I follow a lot of these kinds of cases where a child is brutally assaulted and murdered and I can tell you, these kinds of comments are NOT uncommon. I don't think people do it for attention or for a pat on the back (for the most part) I think they temporarily lose their cool and let their (entirely justified) feelings of rage and injustice take control of rationality and common sense. As human beings, for most of us, it does something deeply profound to us when we receive news that the most innocent and defenseless in our society (children) has been victimized in a particularly brutal and violent way. In essence, it literally flips on the Mama Bear switch. 100% normal reaction. Although it's best to NOT post public comments until cooler heads prevail, I really do get it when I see those kind of pro-violent, vigilante type comments.

My 2 cents, FWIW. My heart goes out to Alesha's family and I do hope and pray justice is swift in this case.

 

[mrazda71]

This 16yo Scottish "child" is an adult for the purposes of voting in Scottish referenda

He's also considered an adult at 12 if he wants to go to Alton Towers ... doesn't mean he should be allowed to drive at 12 ...

The law is the law - if you don't like it, change it, don't break it.

 

[beatrixpotter]

He's also considered an adult at 12 if he wants to go to Alton Towers ... doesn't mean he should be allowed to drive at 12 ...

The law is the law - if you don't like it, change it, don't break it.

People seldom change bad laws that way though. If everyone follows a bad law to a T then there is seldom incentive to actually get change pushed through.

 

[mrazda71]

People seldom change bad laws that way though. If everyone follows a bad law to a T then there is seldom incentive to actually get change pushed through.

I was pondering if breaking a law actually got any laws changed too ... and I thought about a recent case here in the UK, A mother wanting to travel with her child and bring CBD oil with them from Canada for his epilepsy, it was confiscated at Heathrow but, has now been allowed after the 12 year old ended up hospitalised by a seizure.

So ... maybe ... though I think battles should be chosen wisely.

Does the wider public benefit in any way from having the 16 year olds identity made public at this moment, pre trial and (probable) conviction?

 

[jessie]

So ... maybe ... though I think battles should be chosen wisely.

Does the wider public benefit in any way from having the 16 year olds identity made public at this moment, pre trial and (probable) conviction?

RSBM

BBM...... I would say an absolute NO to your question (BBM).
Seems to me this is where social media flouts the law since this is now sub judice and reporting in MSM is restricted, as it should be imo to ensure a fair trial.
Different countries, different laws I understand that this doesn't happen in the US but I think the public opinion (man/woman in the street) can be heavily influenced by the media - sadly.

 

[mrazda71]

RSBM

BBM...... I would say an absolute NO to your question (BBM).
Seems to me this is where social media flouts the law since this is now sub judice and reporting in MSM is restricted, as it should be imo to ensure a fair trial.
Different countries, different laws I understand that this doesn't happen in the US but I think the public opinion (man/woman in the street) can be heavily influenced by the media - sadly.

I agree totally Jessie!

Identifying him publicly at this point really just serves to answer peoples morbid curiosity and give people a focus for their pitchforks.

The only benefit I can think of in this case is that at least it shut down the likes Katie Hopkins and her fans with their vile anti Muslim hate campaign suggesting that it was a refugee who'd commited this horrendous crime.

 

[Kasmeer]

I'm as curious as anyone, but the name didn't really matter to me, I just wanted to know: relation, stranger, neighbour? I think the "how could such a thing happen?" question is a valid one which the public don't want to wait for a trial to see answered, but that can be sufficiently answered by a broad description of relationship (or lack of) to the victim; in this case, friend of the family, as has been published in MSM.

Certainly heading off accusations like the Hopkins one is a good thing, but beyond that, the lad's locked up till the trial, nobody's at any risk from him, so we have enough information for now. But absolutely DO name him and explain the relationships and how he accessed the house clearly after he's convicted, as people do want to understand exactly how it could happen; the Kim Edwards case comes to mind as one that really makes little sense until you realise she lived in the same house as the victims!

 

[beatrixpotter]

I had a pretty benign post in this thread in response to how it works when someone is blocking you. I asked how it worked exactly. I don't understand why it appears it was deleted. Or was it not deleted and I'm just missing the post? Can someone link me to rules or info on this? I didn't get any messages or warnings and I'm seriously baffled. Or is the "hedgehog" poster just gone? I don't see her/his posts anymore either.

Or maybe link me to where in the forum I can ask these questions? I have to admit I rely on the "new posts" feature. When I've tried just searching the forums and subforums I'm left confused and last time I looked was never sure about where to ask questions not related necessarily to a specific thread. Like, did I break a rule asking someone how blocking worked? Thanks!

 

[beatrixpotter]

I was pondering if breaking a law actually got any laws changed too ... and I thought about a recent case here in the UK, A mother wanting to travel with her child and bring CBD oil with them from Canada for his epilepsy, it was confiscated at Heathrow but, has now been allowed after the 12 year old ended up hospitalised by a seizure.

So ... maybe ... though I think battles should be chosen wisely.

Does the wider public benefit in any way from having the 16 year olds identity made public at this moment, pre trial and (probable) conviction?

What specifically comes to my mind here is issues with racism, slavery etc. But, yes, also laws regarding the medicinal use of something like marijuana. I can't say I see what purpose naming him would do in this situation to expand or change laws though. I'm not entirely clear on the purpose of the law there.

It made me think of another thread I was reading about today. A 16 yo here in the US recently raped and murdered a friend. He is also 16 yo. But he is not only named, he's going to be tried as an adult and not a child. Is the law inflexible there in that a 16 yo is always tried as a child?

The public flaying on social media regarding any crime is pretty horrible in general. It never leaves me feeling very good about humanity in general.

 

[Tortoise]

TRAGIC Alesha MacPhail died from “pressure” to her neck and face, it’s emerged.

The cause was revealed on the death certificate of the six-year-old girl, who perished on Bute last week. [...]

A boy of 16 is due to appear tomorrow at Greenock Sheriff Court charged with raping and murdering Alesha.

Tragic Alesha MacPhail's cause of death finally revealed one week on

 

[mrazda71]

Deleted by me.

 

[Alyce]

What specifically comes to my mind here is issues with racism, slavery etc. But, yes, also laws regarding the medicinal use of something like marijuana. I can't say I see what purpose naming him would do in this situation to expand or change laws though. I'm not entirely clear on the purpose of the law there.

It made me think of another thread I was reading about today. A 16 yo here in the US recently raped and murdered a friend. He is also 16 yo. But he is not only named, he's going to be tried as an adult and not a child. Is the law inflexible there in that a 16 yo is always tried as a child?

The public flaying on social media regarding any crime is pretty horrible in general. It never leaves me feeling very good about humanity in general.

It is possible for him to be tried as an adult - Scottish Law says a 16 or 17 year old can be tried either as a child or an adult - the decision will be down to the judge pre trial.

 

[Alyce]

TRAGIC Alesha MacPhail died from “pressure” to her neck and face, it’s emerged.

The cause was revealed on the death certificate of the six-year-old girl, who perished on Bute last week. [...]

A boy of 16 is due to appear tomorrow at Greenock Sheriff Court charged with raping and murdering Alesha.

Tragic Alesha MacPhail's cause of death finally revealed one week on

Hopefully no leeway here for him to plead some kind of accident - that is assuming it goes to trial.

Interesting that he is back at Sheriff Court tomorrow ( and not High Court ).
I believe he can enter a plea tomorrow , so we may get to hear something if he does.

 

[beatrixpotter]

Is it odd for cause of death to be "pressure" instead of asphyxiation? I mean I'm assuming that's what the pressure did.

 

[Tortoise]

Is it odd for cause of death to be "pressure" instead of asphyxiation? I mean I'm assuming that's what the pressure did.

Interesting...

This is an extract from the 2008 Goudge Inquiry:-

"The terms employed in the post-mortem report were also a source of difficulty. For example, Dr Smith frequently used the term ‘asphyxia’ to describe his opinion on the cause of death. In the years I reviewed, it is clear that he was not alone in this. There is also no doubt that asphyxia can be a confusing term.12 In the 1980s and 1990s, it was sometimes used in post-mortem reports to mean ‘mechanical deprivation of oxygen that may be accidental’. At other times, it appeared to imply that another person caused the lack of oxygen deliberately. As Professor Cordner said in one of the two excellent research papers he and his associates authored for us,13 the ordinary dictionary meaning of asphyxia is quite non-specific about a particular mechanism interfering with breathing.14 Unaccompanied by further explanations, as a cause of death in an autopsy report, it tells the reader little, and can easily result in confusion. Professor Cordner concludes:

Asphyxia unqualified is not meaningful if it purports to be the cause of death. If it is qualified perhaps as ‘mechanical asphyxia’, then it needs to be further specified as it is not possible to diagnose post-mortem a condition called simply and solely ‘mechanical asphyxia’.15

Thus, one of the failings of communication between forensic pathology and the criminal justice system was in the choice of language used to express opinions."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2009/15.pdf