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

[Elainera]

Wonder what the press briefing today will bring. Anything earth shattering you think?

 

[PADDYWHACK]

Clio that is what I think. They have enough evidence that they're feeling 99% sure in their own experience this means what they think it means, but the people they have to convince won't have the same set of hinkymeters as the police do, and will want to see some objective evidence.

Do you remember the young girl strangled on a bridge a few Christmas's ago? Her landlord was charged with murder and the press made a meal of it. It wasn't him though, was it?

Remember this couple?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/may/16/derby-fire-father-video

 

[LegallyBrunette]

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.

What is out there is still confusing, child witness said 'light coloured van', some posters here have said it looks like a Ford Connect. The elderly neighbour was reported as seeing a vehicle driving up and down the street, parked near garages? then children were gone. Police didn't release description of the vehicle he saw. Later MSM reports that MB had access to a light coloured van (for work or whatever). Maybe he took little one in van, did whatever and transferred to his Land Rover the next day.

 

[Mrs P]

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, yes it has been mentioned. See post 766.

 

[Inge Jones]

Do you remember the young girl strangled on a bridge a few Christmas's ago? Her landlord was charged with murder and the press made a meal of it. It wasn't him though, was it?

Actually I don't think he was charged in the end. And it was sort of quite different in that I think her body had been found before anyone was charged with murder.

 

[Clio]

Do you remember the young girl strangled on a bridge a few Christmas's ago? Her landlord was charged with murder and the press made a meal of it. It wasn't him though, was it?

Ah but Chris Jeffries was never charged

 

[Blunomore]

Since the elderly neighbour said that the van was parked near the garages, maybe that was indeed the abductor's attempt at concealing his crime. Otherwise he could have parked more out in the open.

 

[PADDYWHACK]

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

If Mark Bridger did do it, it is a direct attack on the family. What types of circumstances usually lead to such attacks?

 

[Mrs P]

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.

Yes. I would say that he is 'well-known', rather than 'by all'.

 

[Mrs P]

...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.

Yes. Hence my point about who was the last adult to confirm a sighting of the little girl, and when?

 

[Clio]

What is out there is still confusing, child witness said 'light coloured van', some posters here have said it looks like a Ford Connect. The elderly neighbour was reported as seeing a vehicle driving up and down the street, parked near garages? then children were gone. Police didn't release description of the vehicle he saw. Later MSM reports that MB had access to a light coloured van (for work or whatever). Maybe he took little one in van, did whatever and transferred to his Land Rover the next day.

It was the police who said the van could be something like a Landrover or a Ford connect. I wondered about the possibility that he wasn't driving the Landrover and was actually driving a Ford Connect when AJ was taken. It's almost too specific in the LE statement.

Partial transcript from LE Press Conference

"They describe it as a small van, small at the front and large at the back. So that could be interpreted as something similar to a Ford Connect van, something like a Landrover. And also, that April got into the driver’s side. Now that may well be that she got in with the driver, but of course that could mean that it’s a left hand drive vehicle."

However, the Landrover was reportedly seen at the parents evening so it's probably unlikely.

Today it emerged that Mr Bridger attended the same school parents' evening as the five year–old's mother and father in the hours before she was kidnapped.

He was at Machynlleth primary school on Monday evening, where his Land Rover Discovery was parked in a one-way street and blocked in other parents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...fter-giving-up-hope-of-finding-her-alive.html

 

[Elainera]

Hello, yes it has been mentioned. See post 766.

Had a look at post 766, where it was mentioned that "many children" will testify. Doesn't answer my question though whether there is more to it than testifying that they saw April getting into a car that night.

Maybe I'm overlooking something ... ?

 

[Blunomore]

If Mark Bridger did do it, it is a direct attack on the family.

That would IMO depend on how well they really knew each other, if they were close at all, etc.

 

[Inge Jones]

Had a look at post 766, where it was mentioned that "many children" will testify. Doesn't answer my question though whether there is more to it than testifying that they saw April getting into a car that night.

Maybe I'm overlooking something ... ?

The other children could be witnesses for either side. On the prosecution side to tesify that she was actually out at all around that time (other children were said to be playing with her some minutes earlier but not at the time she got into the van) and on the defence side they could be called to confirm that April had been in the car before and got out safely - to prove that any of her dna found in the car may have been put there on a previous occasion.

 

[Mrs P]

Had a look at post 766, where it was mentioned that "many children" will testify. Doesn't answer my question though whether there is more to it than testifying that they saw April getting into a car that night.

Maybe I'm overlooking something ... ?

*766 [snipped] 'UPDATE 1028: The judge presiding over the case is keen for the trial of Mark Bridger to be brought forward as soon as possible because many of the witnesses will be young children, some as young as seven years of age, BBC News reports' (This is Bristol)

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/April...ail/story.html

Q2: Is bringing a case forward appropriate? Is this thorough? Does this give enough time for the defence to respond to evidence? What does this 'many' tell us about reliable witnesses? Does this demonstrate a bias? If so, to whom?*

Does this help? I was exploring the meaning behind the term, basically.

 

[Elainera]

If Mark Bridger did do it, it is a direct attack on the family. What types of circumstances usually lead to such attacks?

Good question. Maybe he felt not accepted.

 

[Mrs P]

*Doesn't answer my question though whether there is more to it than testifying that they saw April getting into a car that night.*

Yes. I completely understand what you are saying... it had crossed my mind also - hence the earlier post.

 

[Mrs P]

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.

...additionally, it is worth noting that the maximum sentence for 'perverting the course of justice' is (in fact) life. All angles are covered...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/perverting_the_course_of_justice_-_rape_and_dv_allegations/

 

[Elainera]

*766 [snipped] 'UPDATE 1028: The judge presiding over the case is keen for the trial of Mark Bridger to be brought forward as soon as possible because many of the witnesses will be young children, some as young as seven years of age, BBC News reports' (This is Bristol)

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/April...ail/story.html

Q2: Is bringing a case forward appropriate? Is this thorough? Does this give enough time for the defence to respond to evidence? What does this 'many' tell us about reliable witnesses? Does this demonstrate a bias? If so, to whom?*

Does this help? I was exploring the meaning behind the term, basically.

Ah, now I see what you mean.

Inge Jones made an interesting point: the defence could also have children testifying. I never never thought of that. If that was indeed the reason why the judge said "many", wouldn't it imply that MB is denying all charges and is trying to establish that he was liked and trusted by children (and their parents)? That nobody has anything bad to say about him.

 

[Elainera]

*Doesn't answer my question though whether there is more to it than testifying that they saw April getting into a car that night.*

Yes. I completely understand what you are saying... it had crossed my mind also - hence the earlier post.

Ok, I understand you now