Deceased/Not Found UK - April Jones, 5, Machynlleth, Wales, 1 Oct 2012 #3 *M. Bridger guilty*

[PADDYWHACK]

Here you go. It's not a direct quote from the police though



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ses-on-areas-highlighted-by-arrested-man.html

Oh and :welcome3:

If they liked MB as has been quoted elsewhere and he had taken April out in his vehicle before, why the need to report her missing "immediately".

 

[Inge Jones]

If they liked MB as has been quoted elsewhere and he had taken April out in his vehicle before, why the need to report her missing "immediately".

I am imagining it went something like:
Mother goes to call April in, and she is not there.
Mother starts to phone people to say "what should I do?"
Godmother says "phone police - every minute might make a difference!"
Meanwhile word is getting around the immediate neighbors, and reaches the one who knows her daughter was playing with April.
Neighbor asks daughter "where did April go?"
Daughter says "she got into van" etc
Neighbor runs to CJ's house, who by now has the police with her, and reports what daughter said.
CJ exclaims "that sounds like it could be Mark!"

and we know the rest from there.

 

[PADDYWHACK]

I still have a niggling that others could have been involved in this....

My exact feelings too. Alarm bells are still going off in my head after watching Coral Jones's plea and I certainly do not mean to sound insensitive.

My other alarm bells are the need to contact the police immediately after April went missing if she knew April was with Mark Bridger. Why would you be concerned that your child was with another family member. April regularly played with MB's children?

 

[PADDYWHACK]

I am imagining it went something like:
Mother goes to call April in, and she is not there.
Mother starts to phone people to say "what should I do?"
Godmother says "phone police - every minute might make a difference!"
Meanwhile word is getting around the immediate neighbors, and reaches the one who knows her daughter was playing with April.
Neighbor asks daughter "where did April go?"
Daughter says "she got into van" etc
Neighbor runs to CJ's house, who by now has the police with her, and reports what daughter said.
CJ exclaims "that sounds like it could be Mark!"

and we know the rest from there.

Except he doesn't drive a van and was so well known in the area that they would have clearly said she got into the car with Mark Bridger.

 

[Elainera]

I am trying to put myself in the place of the police. Supposing they feel sure in their own minds based on everything they have heard, and their own experienced instinct, that MB killed the child. Supposing they can't bear the thought of freeing him as the 96hrs draws to a close, in case he disappears, or even abducts another child. Under these circumstances, the relevance of the evidence they do have could be presented in such a way as to persuade the public prosecutor. The court will certainly rely on the public prosecutor's advice when deciding whether to remand in custody.

I had the same thoughts. Plus, someone here said that LE can still change the charges before or at the January hearing. So they might have thought, let's go with murder charges, we can still change it, because they had evidence that she's dead and were very sure that he's involved somehow.

Also possible: they hope that a murder charge jolts him out of his uncooperativeness into "No, that's not what happened, I didn't mean to hrut her, it was an accident ..." or sth along those lines, and helps them find the body.

Is that at all conceivable?

 

[Blunomore]

I am imagining it went something like:
Mother goes to call April in, and she is not there.
Mother starts to phone people to say "what should I do?"
Godmother says "phone police - every minute might make a difference!"
Meanwhile word is getting around the immediate neighbors, and reaches the one who knows her daughter was playing with April.
Neighbor asks daughter "where did April go?"
Daughter says "she got into van" etc
Neighbor runs to CJ's house, who by now has the police with her, and reports what daughter said.
CJ exclaims "that sounds like it could be Mark!"

and we know the rest from there.

Or maybe, as soon as CJ found out that AJ got into MB's car, she tried calling him, to no avail.

 

[George Gently]

And if they didn't have sufficient evidence the magistrate would not remand MB in custody. Has to be enough for magistrate or judge to be satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused.

The magistrates would not have been made privy to any evidence.

The remand extensions would have simply been in response to Police requests and to ensure that a court is monitoring the process.

His last appearance at magistrates court would have been to determine jurisdiction for the trial.

A magistrates court cannot conduct trials in which a possible sentence can be longer that a relatively short prison term so jurisdiction would be passed over to Crown Court where his next appearance will be in January.

 

[TulipaNoir]

My exact feelings too. Alarm bells are still going off in my head after watching Coral Jones's plea and I certainly do not mean to sound insensitive.

My other alarm bells are the need to contact the police immediately after April went missing if she knew April was with Mark Bridger. Why would you be concerned that your child was with another family member. April regularly played with MB's children?

Very confusing indeed. I read that MB and PJ were friends. And recently MSM told us that they had been brother-in-laws. MB's kids played with AJ.

Did something untoward happen on the crabbing trip that gave them a niggling doubt about MB? But if so, would they have let AJ play outside unsupervised?

 

[jaldy80]

Aren't you curious as to why Mark Bridger who had lived in the region for over 20 years and was known by all, could not be identified by the vehicle driven? If they all knew each others business as they claim, they would have recognised his vehicle even from a distance.

That is one of the misconceptions. He wasn't known by all. Some of the locals hadn't seen him before. That was from a TV interview.

 

[Alyce]

.

Third, I would not rely much at all on what the 7 year old who was with April said,

Nevertheless, possibly based on what the 7 year old girl described, April's mother seemed to have an idea whose car it was. She immediately told LE this. So what happened then? I find it hard to believe that nobody knew where MB now lived (if it was indeed him she pointed out to LE), and that he didn't answer his phone?



Lastly, another point that I find interesting (and kind of disturbing) is that the Judge at the hearing on Wednesday said "many" children will be testifying in January. Many? Why many? As far as we know there was a 7 year old girl and possibly a couple of others present when April climbed into that car. Would that be enough to say "many"? To me it sounds more like something else has been discovered about his past behaviour with children, to which those other "many" children will testify in court. (not a nice thought!)

Hello Elainera and welcome to the Forum :welcome5:

I have snipped some of your post, so I can respond to just a few points.

When CJ went to the home of MH ( the 7 year old witness ) to search for AJ, which is how I read it way back at the beginning of this event, I think it quite possible that MH said only that AJ had got into a light coloured van.
I doubt a 7 year old child would immediately say it was LHD or even say that AJ got into the drivers side.
So at that point, all CJ knows is that her child has possibly been taken away by a stranger - she calls the police, neighbours are alerted to search the immediate neighbourhood, and CJ calls her friend, AJs godmother.

Then the police arrive and they question MH and elicit more info from her, to the effect that AJ got into the drivers side of the van ( as she called it ) and from this the police perhaps raise the question of LHD vehicle and at this point, CJ and others say that could be MBs Discovery.

After this, they may very well have phoned MB, if anyone had a mobile number for him, but, if he is the guilty party, then I think its very unlikely he would be answering his phone.
Also, as has been said, he had moved very recently, so it is reasonable to assume that no one in the immediate CJ family circle or close neighbours actually knew where he was living.


With regard to your point about the judge talking of * children* testifying....I took this to mean that all the children who had been playing out with AJ on that night would be asked to testify. Might be only a few questions, but would help to give a picture of exactly where they were playing, who went home when etc....

 

[Elainera]

Thank you for the Welcome, Alyce!

Yes what you say makes sense.

 

[Gallivant]

Hello, another newbie here.

Having read this thread through from start to finish, and followed the news coverage, I am pretty much convinced the police have a very good case against MB. Certainly, as has been stated numerous times on this thread, the CPS wouldn't countenance what is set to be such a hugely expensive and high-profile trial, without damning evidence to hand.

The major puzzle for me is the man - MB - himself. Obviously we know little about him; his past, his mental state. No doubt his story will become clearer during and after the trial.

His behaviour though baffles me. Why blatantly abduct a child in front of a witness who likely knows you, on an estate where friends and family live, and have the power to easily recognise you and your vehicle? Reports also suggest he had been driving erratically on the estate that same evening prior to the actual abduction, so he wasn't exactly sneaking about, trying to conceal his identity.

Either he was the dumbest child abductor ever, or he really wanted it known that HE was the abductor. Of course he could have been having some kind of psychotic break at the time... who knows. But it strikes me as odd, and doesn't quite tally with the same man in custody, who then 'perverts and obstructs' the course of justice, by refusing to divulge information on April's whereabouts.

IF MB had indeed wanted it known that he was the abductor, (and he was obviously successful in achieving that aim), then his subsequent distortion of events (as perceived by the police here) smacks of a particularly cruel and repellent sort of aggression directed towards the Jones family, and by extension, even the estate/town itself. The motives for that are entirely unknown at this point, and no doubt everything will become a lot clearer during the trial.

 

[Inge Jones]

With regard to your point about the judge talking of * children* testifying....I took this to mean that all the children who had been playing out with AJ on that night would be asked to testify. Might be only a few questions, but would help to give a picture of exactly where they were playing, who went home when etc....

...and to corroborate that April was actually out playing that night at all! Just in case anyone on the jury has any doubts that it was a Tia Sharpe like case, where relative murdered her long before pretending she'd gone out somewhere.

 

[Alyce]

Hello, another newbie here.

Having read this thread through from start to finish, and followed the news coverage, I am pretty much convinced the police have a very good case against MB. Certainly, as has been stated numerous times on this thread, the CPS wouldn't countenance what is set to be such a hugely expensive and high-profile trial, without damning evidence to hand.

The major puzzle for me is the man - MB - himself. Obviously we know little about him; his past, his mental state. No doubt his story will become clearer during and after the trial.

His behaviour though baffles me. Why blatantly abduct a child in front of a witness who likely knows you, on an estate where friends and family live, and have the power to easily recognise you and your vehicle? Reports also suggest he had been driving erratically on the estate that same evening prior to the actual abduction, so he wasn't exactly sneaking about, trying to conceal his identity.

Either he was the dumbest child abductor ever, or he really wanted it known that HE was the abductor. Of course he could have been having some kind of psychotic break at the time... who knows. But it strikes me as odd, and doesn't quite tally with the same man in custody, who then 'perverts and obstructs' the course of justice, by refusing to divulge information on April's whereabouts.

IF MB had indeed wanted it known that he was the abductor, (and he was obviously successful in achieving that aim), then his subsequent distortion of events (as perceived by the police here) smacks of a particularly cruel and repellent sort of aggression directed towards the Jones family, and by extension, even the estate/town itself. The motives for that are entirely unknown at this point, and no doubt everything will become a lot clearer during the trial.

Helo Gallivant and welcome:Welcome1:

I have said before on one of these threads that I thought it may have been a spur of the moment thing. He was in a bad mood, relationship just broken down, goes to parents meeting and sees his children in a complete family unit, and feels left out of that, unemployed ( as far as we know ) ...... life being a bit hard on him at the time.
So he decides to take a child or children ( we dont know whether he invited both MH and AJ into the car ) just to give the happy families a bit of a worry for a few minutes.
Could have been nothing more than that, then it all went very wrong.

As to taking AJ in front of others, again as far as we know, the only person who saw this was MH ..... no one else has come foward to say they actually saw this happen.

And with regard to not revealing the location of AJ now
could be -
1.He genuinely doesnt know

2.He wants everyone to believe he doesnt know - perhaps said he dropped her off back at her house after just a few mins in his car ?

3.He is well aware that a body can provide evidence against him, the longer it goes without AJ being found, the better it could be for him, evidence wise

4. Could be exactly as you have said - some form of cruel aggression against the family

 

[Elainera]

Latest News: Police to issue update on search for missing girl


The policeman in charge of the search to find missing April Jones will brief the media later today.

Superintendent Ian John will meet reporters this afternoon to give an update on the investigation.


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/2012/1...te-on-search-for-missing-girl-91466-32018818/

 

[Elainera]

I have said before on one of these threads that I thought it may have been a spur of the moment thing. He was in a bad mood, relationship just broken down, goes to parents meeting and sees his children in a complete family unit, and feels left out of that, unemployed ( as far as we know ) ...... life being a bit hard on him at the time.
So he decides to take a child or children ( we dont know whether he invited both MH and AJ into the car ) just to give the happy families a bit of a worry for a few minutes.
Could have been nothing more than that, then it all went very wrong.

I also suspect something like that. Maybe even just a prank gone wrong without any feelings of revenge towards the families involved.

And now he can't admit to it, he's horrified about what happened (which would fit with him shaking his head before the magistrate and sobbing), and he believes it is better for him not to reveal where he put the body.

Although if indeed it was some kind of tragic accident he would be well adviced by his lawyer to tell everything. I believe jury and judge would be more lenient in such a case.

 

[TulipaNoir]

Hello, another newbie here.

....

The major puzzle for me is the man - MB - himself. Obviously we know little about him; his past, his mental state. No doubt his story will become clearer during and after the trial.

....

IF MB had indeed wanted it known that he was the abductor, (and he was obviously successful in achieving that aim), then his subsequent distortion of events (as perceived by the police here) smacks of a particularly cruel and repellent sort of aggression directed towards the Jones family, and by extension, even the estate/town itself. The motives for that are entirely unknown at this point, and no doubt everything will become a lot clearer during the trial.

Welcome Gallivant

The motive is indeed very puzzling. If he wanted to show aggression against the family why not do material damage to get whatever it is out of his system. It seems so odd to abduct a child as 'revenge', if that was indeed his motive. Then again, we dont know what he was like at all.

 

[Clio]

If they liked MB as has been quoted elsewhere and he had taken April out in his vehicle before, why the need to report her missing "immediately".

It sounds to me as if they reported her missing immediately because they initially thought it was a stranger abduction. Once the police arrived and MH was questioned by professionals, it might then have come to light that the vehicle she described could belong to MB.

 

[Inge Jones]

Was doing some more thinking on the position of the Prosecution service. They said "In the public interest". It is of course part of their remit to take decisions that are in the public interest, ie cost-effective in terms not only decided by probability of conviction but those which will help the general public interest for other reasons.

For example, were the police to explain "Look we genuinely think this is a man who is just turning into a serial child killer (and they produce a respected psychologist to support their theory) but we just can't *yet* find the forensic evidence" then the prosecutor may decide to agree to charges to protect the public from the risk of the dreadful consequences were MB to be released when his 96 hours were up and immediately kill again. Remember that once a person is released without charge because their time is up, they cannot have restrictions placed upon their movements like a suspect on bail.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Was doing some more thinking on the position of the Prosecution service. They said "In the public interest". It is of course part of their remit to take decisions that are in the public interest, ie cost-effective in terms not only decided by probability of conviction but those which will help the general public interest for other reasons.

For example, were the police to explain "Look we genuinely think this is a man who is just turning into a serial child killer (and they produce a respected psychologist to support their theory) but we just can't *yet* find the forensic evidence" then the prosecutor may decide to agree to charges to protect the public from the risk of the dreadful consequences were MB to be released when his 96 hours were up and immediately kill again. Remember that once a person is released without charge because their time is up, they cannot have restrictions placed upon their movements like a suspect on bail.

They could have kept him in custody on the child abduction charge. It is the magistrate or judge who decides ultimately, not the police prosecutor or the Crown. There has to be enough evidence prima facie, for a jury to be able to convict.