Discussion in 'Trials' started by Legally Bland, Jul 2, 2018.
Peter A SmithVerified account @PeterAdamSmith 2m2 minutes ago
Defence adds the law says 18 is the age for a reason and it is not for the court to hasten any potential problems by identifying the 16 year-old before he turns 18.
This is kind of true actually. But he should still be named.
In reality, most of the media couldn't care less about naming him for the "sake of justice" though. They just want the biggest story possible, the most traffic to their websites and the most sales and if they plaster the front pages with the killer's name and face they will likely get that. Maybe that's just me being cynical but oh well.
I like you wtiger.
Every time I see your posts it's all sense and interesting.
Spot on. That is exactly why the Media want to have the name reveal.
I want it so that they can get the media circus over with now - and then let Alesha's family have peace.
Libby BrooksVerified account @libby_brooks 3m3 minutes ago
While the Crown is remaining neutral on whether to name #Alesha MacPhail’s killer, Iain McSporran notes “difficult to imagine a case more exceptional in nature of crime, impact on small community & effect on incriminee”
I am gonna frame that one
I've had one online friend for years who lives in Scotland. Her son is clearly disturbed. She is not mentally well herself and desperately needs help. Everyone knows this. She has basically done nothing but try and get help for him for years with little to show for it.
Most out of control and mentally ill children don't turn around and rape and kill someone. And authorities act in that manner. They take the easy and especially cheaper route in most countries. Dump as much as possible on the parents and go out of their way to avoid offering the care the law will even say they are required to offer. It takes smart, educated, dedicated parents to fight to access what kids like this need and even then they don't always get it.
Yes exactly same reasons...it will just go on and on if not.
Do you think he's going to be referred to 30-40 years down the line the same way other notorious killers are, or do you think by that time he will have faded into obscurity? I think it's probably the most high-profile crime in Scotland in my lifetime so I don't see it being forgotten anytime soon but I don't think he should have the notoriety.
You can't ignore how much the murderer has self publicized. Generally before the fiendish act, and continued on thru snapchat, texting etc. Right up to and including testifying in court for hours. This is not a shy person. He wants and seeks attention.
This deals with the reference to the Ann Maguire case
True. I wonder if he'll go down the Dennis Nilsen route and try and write an autobiography behind bars.
All gone a bit quiet on the twitter front
Decision imminent do you think
If he has a history of self harm anyway; has been found guilty of one of the most heinous crimes imaginable and is likely to be incarcerated for a long time then I don’t think being identified is going to significantly increase the risk over and above these factors
I think so, can't see it going beyond lunch time
Peter A SmithVerified account @PeterAdamSmith 1m1 minute ago
Judge has indicated even if he does decide to lift the anonymity of the 16 year-old today, he will likely suspend the order to allow time for a challenge to come in (effectively an appeal). That would mean we can not identify the teenage killer until the order was final
ah not being revealed today then
Not happening today!
He might lift it today and allow him to be named publicly in 4 weeks.