Flybhoy Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 12 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: These guys should not have been convicted of this murder. There simply was no conclusive evidence. I was having this 'debate' on social media earlier, they were convicted on the basis that them having murdered her was the most likely explanation, there was a smattering of circumstantial evidence and a grand total of zero forensic or witness evidence, it is the job of the prosecution to provide evidence and prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of an offence, I failed to see any way how they managed to do so, as I touched on earlier Cairney's quite awful behaviour in court really, in my opinion went a long way to persuading the jury of his character in the sense that is the type of thing he would be well capable of, but without a shred of foolproof evidence to say he actually did kill or, at least bear culpability for her death. I also think that ridiculous 'gangmaster in Poland' story vastly harmed them too. Were I on the jury there would be no way I could possibly have had my own vote as guilty as there simply wasn't the evidence to definitively link them to murder, my gut feeling is they were in some way responsible for her death but you can't deliver a guilty verdict on gut feeling, as one of the defence lawyers said, there is no crime scene, no body, no forensics, no DNA, no CCTV or witness evidence at all and without that there is no way guilt beyond reasonable doubt can be proven here, I strongly suspect the jury members have indeed went with the aforementioned 'gut feeling'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyBear Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Agree with this. The London hotel story was ridiculous as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 All the ridiculous stories they came out with fucked them. Still no evidence whatsoever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Capital Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 One thing that was never touched on was the two other far more presentable looking houses alongside Seacroft. Surely if she'd been there, even off and on since 1999, the neighbours would've seen her at least once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyBear Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, Highland Capital said: One thing that was never touched on was the two other far more presentable looking houses alongside Seacroft. Surely if she'd been there, even off and on since 1999, the neighbours would've seen her at least once. That's assuming they knew who she was. They might have moved in after 1999. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Was Seacroft not surrounded by large hedges? Been by there many times and I find it quite believable the neighbours would have very little knowledge of who was coming and going unless the happened to be leaving at the same time 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Capital Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 minute ago, FuzzyBear said: That's assuming they knew who she was. They might have moved in after 1999. Indeed but the guy said she'd visited Seacroft "dozens of times" over the years. Surely someone would've seen her at least once or someone similar to her description. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 On 09/01/2020 at 09:38, ICTChris said: I watched the first part of the documentary on this last night. Really sad case, the couple of people who remembered her from school reminsicing was very poignent. I don't really understand the family dynamic - I had assumed that her mother was dead and she had been put int he care of her murderers as she didn't have any blood relatives but apparently that isn't the case. One thing I'd never seen was in the interview that the BBC did with them the journalist asked Cairney what Margaret was like and he said "she's got dark hair... she's fat and dirty" what a piece of human garbage, hopefully he's never released. Another witness made the point that people see him now as a kind of pathetic figure but he wasn't like that when he was younger, he was a kind of dominating figure, physically and emotionally. Agreed, great programme on what is a tragic case. I thought her mother was dead too. Apparently she's not. Interesting that her mother did not feature in what was broadcast from the court. She must have been involved with proceedings though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 I've not seen this yet but the folk who made it are the same people who made Murder Case (decent watch on BBC Scotland last year). The guilty parties in the two investigations were a bit more forthcoming, having told neighbours in both cases that they "had killed some c**t" and in one case there was a trail of blood from the victim's flat to the murderer's flat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Capital Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) If you watch the police interrogation of Edward Cairney, it's clear he's as guilty as sin. "Is Margaret Fleming dead?" "No comment" "Did you murder Margaret Fleming?" "No comment" "Are you involved in the death or disappearance of Margaret Fleming?" "No comment" He's so clearly guilty and the fact he smirks while answering if she's dead or not gives the game away. Guilty as sin. Edited January 10, 2020 by Highland Capital 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 On 09/01/2020 at 10:26, Melanius Mullarkey said: Aye, in the foundations. They split up before she was even born. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flybhoy Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 In all fairness, for all Cairney is clearly a scumbag, if you are being interviewed by police for anything, whether it be murder or nicking a can of 7up from Tesco your lawyer will, unless there are exceptional reasons to do otherwise almost always advise you to answer 'No Comment' in a police station interview. Anyone who has been lifted for even the most minor misdemeanor knows that is how you should respond in a recorded interview unless specifically advised otherwise by you lawyer, the whole purpose of that interview from a police perspective is to hope you will trip yourself up and/or say something without thinking that will incriminate yourself, the clue is in the beginning when you are told.. "You do not have to say anything but anything you do say can be used against you in evidence in court" No comment is the way you have to go through these types of interviews so you don't inadvertently talk yourself into a serious fucking stretch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flybhoy Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said: They split up before she was even born. She lived with her dad until he died, when living with Cairney and Jones her mother turned up and she told her she didn't want to see her, the mother remarked in court she felt Margaret was under serious duress to say this as apparently she freaked out and became aggressive verbally and physically the mother remarked in court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 I've been on a High Court Jury. Most people in there thought that they were there to decide whether the defendant is guilty, not to decide whether the defendant has been proven guilty. I assume that goes for just about every case. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Flybhoy said: She lived with her dad until he died, when living with Cairney and Jones her mother turned up and she told her she didn't want to see her, the mother remarked in court she felt Margaret was under serious duress to say this as apparently she freaked out and became aggressive verbally and physically the mother remarked in court. Whoosh. For you (including a bit of Savile at the start): 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flybhoy Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 That Savile fella at the start of that TOTP clip looks a bit seedy in my opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, Flybhoy said: That Savile fella at the start of that TOTP clip looks a bit seedy in my opinion. OFTW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 18 minutes ago, Flybhoy said: In all fairness, for all Cairney is clearly a scumbag, if you are being interviewed by police for anything, whether it be murder or nicking a can of 7up from Tesco your lawyer will, unless there are exceptional reasons to do otherwise almost always advise you to answer 'No Comment' in a police station interview. Anyone who has been lifted for even the most minor misdemeanor knows that is how you should respond in a recorded interview unless specifically advised otherwise by you lawyer, the whole purpose of that interview from a police perspective is to hope you will trip yourself up and/or say something without thinking that will incriminate yourself, the clue is in the beginning when you are told.. "You do not have to say anything but anything you do say can be used against you in evidence in court" No comment is the way you have to go through these types of interviews so you don't inadvertently talk yourself into a serious fucking stretch. ^^^sang like a canary 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said: I've been on a High Court Jury. Most people in there thought that they were there to decide whether the defendant is guilty, not to decide whether the defendant has been proven guilty. I assume that goes for just about every case. i mentioned there was no evidence to convict them on twitter and a couple of folk had a go that they were "clearly guilty" and they obviously were proven guilty as that's what the jury decided. Completely missing the point and letting their feelings cast judgement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Busta Nut said: i mentioned there was no evidence to convict them on twitter and a couple of folk had a go that they were "clearly guilty" and they obviously were proven guilty as that's what the jury decided. Completely missing the point and letting their feelings cast judgement. Probably mentioned it before on here, but the case that I was in the Jury voted 9-6 Not Proven, so 2 votes the other way and the guy would have been away for 4 or 5 years. The "evidence" was a long line of Police giving it the General Melchett in the Courtroom 'Flanders Pigeon Murderer Coatbridge Bookies Robber!!!' (it was an armed robbery on a bookies with nothing stolen) even though they weren't there. Nobody who was present identified the guy, all the Police had seen was the same grainy CCTV footage that we all saw which was completely inconclusive. Get into the Jury room and suddenly every c**t has turned into fucking Matlock. The c**t had a big scar on his face and his address started HMP, though, so there was a very good chance it was him. Hence the 6 votes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.