Hi there, new to the forum, thought I’d post some of my thoughts and concerns (in no particular order) about the AJ case. My apologies if I'm repeating what has already been said but this thread is getting rather large now and it's difficult to keep in mind who said what and when!
First, is everyone familiar with this Huffington Post article, which provides a picture of a white van supposedly ‘dumped’ by MB?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/02/april-jones-missing-man-arrest-machynlleth_n_1932634.html
The article describes the van as "a vehicle he had use of which is of interest to the inquiry." To the best of my knowledge, however, no further details about this vehicle were ever released. Given that we’ve not been provided with the vehicle’s make, model and registration number I can only assume that the police do not regard it as significant to the investigation, which leaves us with MB’s Land Rover as the only possible “vehicle of interest”. In this context, does anyone know why his Land Rover's number plate is covered up in the published pictures? Is this standard police procedure?
Second, as regards reports of MB’s vehicle being driven ‘erratically’ during the evening in question (and prior to the abduction) it seems to me that this is consistent with it being taken to a garage for repair. Perhaps a clutch or gearbox issue? On a personal level, if I hear something that doesn’t sound quite right with my car’s engine or drive-train then I’ll usually accelerate/decelerate several times in order to reproduce or isolate the problem. Anyone witnessing this would probably classify my driving as ‘erratic’ even though there’s a perfectly innocent explanation. On a related note, if MB’s vehicle had developed a fault (one serious enough to require the attention of a mechanic) then is it plausible that MB abducted AJ in a vehicle he knew to be faulty, perhaps even likely to break down?
Third, I’ve seen articles quoting police spokesmen to the effect that they’re dealing with “vast” amounts of forensic evidence. One assumes, therefore, that they’ve found something far more substantial than a few hairs and fibres in MB’s home and/or vehicle and/or on his person, given that this kind of evidence is likely to be found in the homes and vehicles of everyone who has come into contact with AJ. Under the circumstances it’s difficult to imagine the CPS sanctioning a murder charge in the absence of damning physical evidence. If no such evidence exists then it's hard to understand the nature of the case against MB and the basis on which the police have concluded that AJ is dead.
Fourth, if the forensic evidence doesn't amount to an open-and-shut case then why on earth would the CPS sanction charges given that the only witnesses to the abduction are young children? MB’s defence would have a field day with this and quite rightly so. Adults’ memories have been shown to be malleable and open to suggestion and manipulation by leading questions when it comes to recalling this kind of detail. It’s very difficult to imagine a jury accepting the evidence of children this young as regards the type and colour of the vehicle involved, let alone how many people were in it at the time. How will the prosecution explain a light grey van’s metamorphosis into a dark blue Land Rover without invalidating the testimony of these key witnesses?
Fifth, I’m struck by how swiftly MB came to LE’s attention and the fact that the investigation has focused on him and him alone. The obvious explanation is that the evidence against him is substantial and compelling, although we have no way of knowing this at the present time. If the case against him is largely circumstantial, however, then the situation is very different. A number of others have referred to a potential “stitch up” and it seems to me that in cases like these a point is reached at which the police and CPS plough on regardless simply because they’ve invested so much time and effort in pursuit of “their man”. In other words, they’re obliged to try and make the case stick come what may, if only because the alternative would involve explaining why other leads were not actively pursued or allowed to go cold. In these circumstances the “stitch-up” usually takes the form of withholding new or ambiguous evidence from the defence team. In my view, the point of no return was reached the moment MB was charged (imagine the uproar if the CPS were to suddenly drop the charges) so we can only hope that the police and CPS have got it right.
