The Murder of Holly Newton

[LuluBlakey1]

Holly was 15 years old when she was murdered in Hexham, Northumberland after school by her ex-boyfriend Logan McPhail. He stalked her and stabbed her 36 times in the head and body in an alley.

It is the most horrific case. Hexham is a quiet market town in Northumberland, serving a rural community. He travelled 30 miles on a bus, carrying a large knife, masked his face and stalked her and harassed her around the town, after she finished school for the day, before killing her in an alley next to the chip shop where her friends were buying chips.

The level of excuses made for him is disgusting. He functions very adequately in society and expressed no remorse at all when he was arrested at the scene - just tild police hus name, who she was and complained and lied to the police that Holly had been 'too horrible' to him. There is no evidence that Holly (or her family) ever treated him with anything but kindness and care.

His treatment of her in the weeks leading up to him murdering her is terrifying. He should be locked up forever- any male who treats females like this should be locked up for life.

Details of case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwygp7x8874t

Holly's mum's Statement . Her mother's statement is devastating, astute and very moving. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jrpwyw78po

I was waiting to hear the sentence today. Such promise snatched away.

There was an incredible young man who tried to save her and he suffered severe injuries. That was so courageous of him.

I'm feeling overwhelmed of late with these murders of women and girls.

Nice victim shaming by the Guardian headline : https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/01/holly-newton-murder-coercive-control

Yes, as if it is her responsibility to see them. It's a terrible case- he's a real horror. No woman should ever have to face him again. Holly's mum's statement is a tough read. Very astute and revealing, thoughtful and her grief must be overwhelming. I found her description of his behaviours the night before really quite terrifying. The defence imply he is a barely functioning person and use low IQ, autism and ADHD as an excuse, but he clearly functions more than adequately- takes control of her social media, makes 45 + mile journeys to stalk her, repeatedly messages her and her younger brother with persuasive or manipulative messages, plans the steps of the murder, obtains a weapon, travels 30+ miles to stalk her and carry it out, conceals his face, lies to his school, carries out an horrific attack when he gets the chance, retains control of his emotions afterwards and blames it on Holly's behaviour. It's psychopathic and misogynistic.

The judge accepted none of the excuses. Holly's mum is very clear about his level of functionality.

It's horrific.

Christ. What a terrible case.

Excuse my ignorance but why can't it be classed as domestic abuse, because they were too young to live together in a domestic partnership? What age does that cease to be the case, 18? 16?

The Guardian put this as well

A striking part of the case was how long it took to come to trial. MacPhail is autistic and has a low IQ and learning difficulties, with his lawyers arguing he was not fit to plead or stand trial. It meant the trial did not take place until 18 months after Holly’s death – a significant delay.

The judge dealt with this in his summing up. He was not severely affected by autism and his learning difficulty did not affect his ability to recognise what he was doing or the consequences of it. I'm shocked that the Guardian haven't put that in the paragraph. Although I agree that as excuses they did clearly served to prolong the torture of Holly's family.

Sentencing remarks here https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-logan-macphail/

That Guardian headline is a disgrace.

It's a shocking case made even more so by the excuses he and his defence team made for his behaviour.
I read similar excuses for the men involved in the Pelicot rape case.

It's adding insult to the crime suggest a difficult childhood causes men to rape and murder.

What age does that cease to be the case, 18? 16?

I think its 16 and just as bad ends at 75.

As though age changes the fact that males of any age will act in a violent and controlling way.

I haven't checked the precise details of this nonsense age range, but Vera Baird was interviewed and she pointed out the complete nonsense of an age range.

I wonder what his sentence would have been were it in Scotland where the law says that men aged 26 and under cant be held to be responsible and their brains aren't mature enough (that isn't the wording of the law!) and so get lower sentences.

I was shocked at the headline too.

Why is there an age limit of 16?

In 2012, following a public consultation, the age limit in the cross-government definition of domestic abuse was lowered from 18 to 16, to recognise that young people can experience abuse in their relationships.

There was strong support for maintaining the age limit in the government’s domestic abuse consultation in 2018. We do not want to risk blurring the lines between domestic abuse and child abuse.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/statutory-definition-of-domestic-abuse-factsheet

The judge covers his autism and iq in parts 41 and 42 of his sentencing remarks. Having read most of it I'm even more horrified. His attack lasted at least a minute. That doesn't seem very long but put a timer on for 60 seconds and wait.

I had a longer post but I've deleted it. It's just too much. I don't know what makes monsters like this. I wish they could be detected in utero and cured before they caused harm, locked away or aborted.

😱 why is there an upper limit???

😱 why is there an upper limit???

Dont want to derail this thread but there are active campaigns about this.

But, and (not excusing terrible Guardian headline) its like the law is caught in some time warp.

ie that what, somehow women over 75 aren't in relationships, and that young women, girls aren't whether consenting or forced in relationships with men.

“Because she was so young, she didn’t really know how to get out of it … With Holly, she quite often felt sorry for people, which is why she kept going back and forward.”

Even when she was at home he wanted to know what she was doing. At one point he changed all her passwords on her social media accounts. “There was just a lot of controlling behaviour going on.”

The red flags were there but Holly was too young to recognise them.

I think sadly we have heard or even now of women older than Holly that have not "recognised" the signs.

If only for once someone would write about how friends, parents or whoever of the male perpetrator "failed to recognise the signs" of a boy or man not respecting other peoples boundaries. ie that their was more focus on how or why men and boys seem unable to know life if not about them being entitled to enforce what they want.

But it is interesting that he got the sentence he did, because I thought they might make "allowances" for his age, being autistic, low IQ and learning difficulties.

Many grown men who have been convicted of murdering a current or ex partner get away with far lighter sentences.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/01/teenager-who-killed-ex-girlfriend-jailed-for-life-logan-macphail-holly-newton-northumberland

I completely agree. The Guardian's reporting of the case is neglectful at best and at worst favours MacPhail both by the wording of the headline and the lack of reporting of the judge's comments dismissing his supposed learning issues.

It's one of the worst cases I recall. Poor Holly- she must have been terrified and she lost her whole life because of him. It is another case that raises much wider issues about society's treatment of girls and women, its attitudes towards violence against girls and women of whatever age and how we address those.

There is a huge amount of work to do with our legal system also to ensure just consequences are always imposed without excuses being taken into account in these circumstances.

I wonder how long he will serve. 15 years and x months is nothing- I know he can (and should) be detained much longer but I wonder if he will be.

It's the Guardian so I'm not surprised.

Holly’s mother’s statement is excellent, so clear and so loving without sentimentality (of course she has the right to say whatever she feels, but I was struck by how clearly she articulated the situation.

I saw Mr Justice Hilliard in action a few times when he was Treasury Counsel and he is very very good, so I’m not surprised the sentencing remarks pull no punches.

The Guardian’s journalistic/editorial standards have fallen off a cliff. I don’t think they’d have published a headline like this even a few years ago. It’s disgraceful.

Seems the Guardian have changed the headline. I don't know if they've made any other changes.

Holly's mum's statement made me cry.

And it was quite clearly a domestic abuse situation. His controlling behaviour was terrifying. It beggars belief that somehow it's deemed not to be because of the ages involved.

And don't even get me started on the upper age limit.

@lcakethereforeIam Yes, they have changed the title and some of the wording. It still does not report the judge's comments dismissing the excuses presented by the defence and does not really condemn his behaviour but it is more balanced and does not apportion any responsibility to Holly.

Not in anyway to excuse the male's behaviour but to say the reason was "mundane" is also really odd.

Whether teenagers of adults most people who think they are in a relationship dont think it "mundane" when it ends.

As I tried to say up thread, the problem is man who dont think women have the right to behave autonomously or worse reject them.

Why isn't there ever a focus on why men of all ages seem unaware or unable to accept they aren't in control of women.

a terrible case
I disagree that anyone has tried to excuse what he did- his defence team are duty bound to put forward anything that might be considered a defence or mitigation, if they did not then he could possibly have grounds for appeal and her family and friends would have to suffer another trial- only with the best possible defence can a conviction be secure.

I also disagree that the headline is victim blaming. She was so so young how could she have recognised what was happening, when as PP have said so many older more worldly wise women cannot avoid these vile men.

If only for once someone would write about how friends, parents or whoever of the male perpetrator "failed to recognise the signs" of a boy or man not respecting other peoples boundaries. ie that their was more focus on how or why men and boys seem unable to know life if not about them being entitled to enforce what they want.

Absolutely this