Deceased/Not Found UK - April Jones, 5, Machynlleth, Wales, 1 Oct 2012 #6 *M. Bridger guilty*

[PADDYWHACK]

ALL men, & women? Not generalising at all. So, the mate or friend is made on a false impression of the person? Great basis for a relationship:twocents:

A lot of females are met when looking at their best. Nice dress, hair do and make up. Men are the same. As we mellow into relationships jeans and jog bottoms and comfy sweaters can be the norm, but first impressions count and I would never have attended a job interview in jeans! I wanted to impress.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

I don't know how fair it is to criticize him for his selection of this photo. It may have been a joke, an inside one perhaps.

I agree that men do not have to try and put up a false front, but is that really what we are programmed to think?

What about men that drive really swanky fast cars, or men who drive gigantic trucks with huge wheels and noisy engines?

What about the man who works all day in a cubicle, and buys a Ducati, even though he is unskilled at riding a motorcycle?

I think the most frequent explanations for this behavior are low self-esteem, a desire to live an exciting adventurous life, and the need for companionship ( either sex or a relationship).

Nearly all of the creatures on the planet with a vertebrae and a sex drive exhibit this behavior in one form or another. Among humans it is especially pronounced because of the complexity of our society. The advertising business uses the psychological aspects of this phenomenon and use it to boost sales in industries such as fashion, cosmetics, and jewelry.

I believe the usual word to describe most of the above starts with 'W'.

 

[PADDYWHACK]

I think you're saying that we all do (or should) aim to make a good first impression - ' You don't get a second chance to make a good first impression'. Agree with that, but isn't that different from laying on a load of absolute BS to impress people. Because if they become your friend, they are really friends with someone who doesn't exist.

People do it all the time, it doesn't make them child killers. I used to go to parties when younger and the majority I found boring, but someone in the office was always having a better time than anyone else. It was embroidered to impress. I used to sit there thinking "were we at the same event!"

 

[LegallyBrunette]

A lot of females are met when looking at their best. Nice dress, hair do and make up. Men are the same. As we mellow into relationships jeans and jog bottoms and comfy sweaters can be the norm, but first impressions count and I would never have attended a job interview in jeans! I wanted to impress.

Agreed -all of above This is showing respect, taking care of your grooming and appearance.

Doesn't equate to someone trying to be a cross between Rambo and Tom Cruise in a pink fit.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

People do it all the time, it doesn't make them child killers. I used to go to parties when younger and the majority I found boring, but someone in the office was always having a better time than anyone else. It was embroidered to impress. I used to sit there thinking "were we at the same event!"

Yet again - who said it did make them child killers? A man of almost 47 behaving like this might indicate immaturity, can't read more than that into it on face value.

 

[Dirk Gently]

Very true, but apart from vehicle/person ID the next very important question would be the time and did she run and tell her mum April had gotten into a car.

Clearly she didn't, or the police would not have delayed in putting the appeal on TV. Abducted children are usually killed within the first 3hrs so every minute counts.

The other extraordinary thing was the police allowing such a public search in the dark where valuable evidence could be trampled under foot and lost forever by inexperienced and understandably angry residents.

Good point. In forensic terms I should imagine that most of the immediate area was thoroughly contaminated within hours of AJ being reported missing.

If LE were working on the assumption that AJ had been abducted and driven away in an anonymous light grey van then why was their initial response confined to the local area? By 9pm she could have been across the border and by midnight pretty much anywhere in the UK.

It would be very interesting to know what information was passed on to other forces in the immediate aftermath of AJ's disappearance. Were traffic police under instructions to pull over and spot check any light grey vans or similar vehicles within, say, a 75 mile radius of the scene? There are only a handful of main roads leading away from the scene so where were the roadblocks?

What is it about this case that led LE to believe that a local 'solution' would be found?

N.b. just noticed the Guardian article posted by Legally Brunette re: nationwide child rescue alert.

"We discussed it long into the night," said Hedges. "Normally you would issue fairly precise information and we didn't have that. It was a really difficult call, but we decided the risk to April was such that we needed to launch the alert."

So they discussed it "long into the night" and only decided to shut the gate long after the horse had bolted? Does this not thrown considerable doubt on the eyewitness report of AJ being abducted in a light grey van? Or any other vehicle for that matter?

 

[Cherwell]

What is it about this case that led LE to believe that a local 'solution' would be found?

I think there is a lot of background that they aren't telling us, and whatever it is, it's crucial to understanding what happened.

 

[Inge Jones]

Agreed -all of above This is showing respect, taking care of your grooming and appearance.

Doesn't equate to someone trying to be a cross between Rambo and Tom Cruise in a pink fit.

But it simply demonstrates the values those well groomed party goers believe the people they want to impress hold. Some of them may be complete slobs when at home with their family. Knowing what values you feel you should display publicly for a good image is not the same as living those values in day to day life.

 

[PADDYWHACK]

Yet again - who said it did make them child killers? A man of almost 47 behaving like this might indicate immaturity, can't read more than that into it on face value.

For what its worth, if I were allowed to bet on who abducted and killed April, I would choose MB purely on his female relationships, lack of being able to maintain them and inability to hold down a job for long periods.

My doubt arises because people feel April was targeted and that means it would have to be planned. If I remove that doubt, I could safely say that anyone of those children out playing could have been his victims, I could also safely say that he had done something to children of varying degrees before.

The question is, is if people here believe April was specifically targeted, who took April to the position/garages to be abducted and why?

 

[Inge Jones]

So they discussed it "long into the night" and only decided to shut the gate long after the horse had bolted? Does this not thrown considerable doubt on the eyewitness report of AJ being abducted in a light grey van? Or any other vehicle for that matter?

No I don't think so. I am sure all the locals were spoken to by police quite early on. They would have needed to do that anyway, even if only to see if April had snuck into someone's house and was curled up under a bed somewhere for a sleep (one missing kid was found having done just that). What took them the time would have been making the decision whether to turn it into a national alert - eg produce widescale TV appeals for the public to tell them anything they noticed.

 

[Marymead]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/02/april-jones-child-rescue-alert 3 Oct 12. (edited)

The abduction of April Jones triggered the first nationwide child rescue alert ever used in the UK as investigators weighed up the risk to the child in the hours after her disappearance.

Late into Monday experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit, (Ceop) liaising with Dyfed-Powys police were engaged in the difficult decision of whether to initiate the high profile national alert to help in the hunt for the missing five-year-old.

A tactic long used in America, the child rescue alert has never been used across the country like this before, partly because suspected stranger abductions are rare.

Charlie Hedges – manager of the missing, abducted and kidnapped children unit within Ceop – said the decision to launch the alert was made in the knowledge that to do so could swamp the investigating team. Hedges said such alerts are usually only triggered if the police have detailed descriptions of suspects or vehicles to release to the public.

We discussed it long into the night," said Hedges. "Normally you would issue fairly precise information and we didn't have that. It was a really difficult call, but we decided the risk to April was such that we needed to launch the alert."

The child rescue alert – a system adopted in the UK in 2010 – aims to engage the public through the media and feed information back into the investigating team.

The special 0300 hotline number is answered by police forces across the country – who are providing mutual aid to the inquiry – and the information is fed into the major incident room within Dyfed-Powys police.

As every hour passes the risk to the child grows, something that will be at the forefront of the police's mind.

"The early hours are crucial in two ways," said Hedges. "From the point of view of the investigation, what has happened is fresh in people's minds and information coming in hasn't been contaminated.

"The other aspect is that the longer April is being held somewhere, the more damage there could be to her from a child protection point of view.

"Part of the appeal is trying to trigger people's consciences. Maybe there is someone out there who knows someone, or something about the person responsible."

I hadn't read this before. I find Hedges comments very interesting and informative - am I mistaken or do they answer quite a few of the questions we have raised here ? jmo

 

[PADDYWHACK]

Good point. In forensic terms I should imagine that most of the immediate area was thoroughly contaminated within hours of AJ being reported missing.

If LE were working on the assumption that AJ had been abducted and driven away in an anonymous light grey van then why was their initial response confined to the local area? By 9pm she could have been across the border and by midnight pretty much anywhere in the UK.

It would be very interesting to know what information was passed on to other forces in the immediate aftermath of AJ's disappearance. Were traffic police under instructions to pull over and spot check any light grey vans or similar vehicles within, say, a 75 mile radius of the scene? There are only a handful of main roads leading away from the scene so where were the roadblocks?

What is it about this case that led LE to believe that a local 'solution' would be found?

N.b. just noticed the Guardian article posted by Legally Brunette re: nationwide child rescue alert.

"We discussed it long into the night," said Hedges. "Normally you would issue fairly precise information and we didn't have that. It was a really difficult call, but we decided the risk to April was such that we needed to launch the alert."

So they discussed it "long into the night" and only decided to shut the gate long after the horse had bolted? Does this not thrown considerable doubt on the eyewitness report of AJ being abducted in a light grey van? Or any other vehicle for that matter?

Great post.

 

[Dirk Gently]

No I don't think so. I am sure all the locals were spoken to by police quite early on. They would have needed to do that anyway, even if only to see if April had snuck into someone's house and was curled up under a bed somewhere for a sleep (one missing kid was found having done just that). What took them the time would have been making the decision whether to turn it into a national alert - eg produce widescale TV appeals for the public to tell them anything they noticed.

My point is that if LE had received a credible eyewitness report indicating that AJ had been driven away in a light grey van then why wasn't this acted on - immediately? Either the report came later, at a point when the decision to act on it was moot because too much time had elapsed, or the report was never considered credible in the first instance. Or LE were just plain incompetent.

 

[Elainera]

Good point. In forensic terms I should imagine that most of the immediate area was thoroughly contaminated within hours of AJ being reported missing.

If LE were working on the assumption that AJ had been abducted and driven away in an anonymous light grey van then why was their initial response confined to the local area? By 9pm she could have been across the border and by midnight pretty much anywhere in the UK.

It would be very interesting to know what information was passed on to other forces in the immediate aftermath of AJ's disappearance. Were traffic police under instructions to pull over and spot check any light grey vans or similar vehicles within, say, a 75 mile radius of the scene? There are only a handful of main roads leading away from the scene so where were the roadblocks?

What is it about this case that led LE to believe that a local 'solution' would be found?

N.b. just noticed the Guardian article posted by Legally Brunette re: nationwide child rescue alert.

"We discussed it long into the night," said Hedges. "Normally you would issue fairly precise information and we didn't have that. It was a really difficult call, but we decided the risk to April was such that we needed to launch the alert."

So they discussed it "long into the night" and only decided to shut the gate long after the horse had bolted? Does this not thrown considerable doubt on the eyewitness report of AJ being abducted in a light grey van? Or any other vehicle for that matter?

bbm

Excellent point. Your whole post sums up the doubts the keep coming back to me about this arrest.

But we will see eventually what all this is/was about.

My interest was piqued by a recent comment here (can't remember who said it), that searchers were told my more than the press and that there is a whole lot more to this story.

Can't wait to find out!

 

[Cherwell]

Good point. In forensic terms I should imagine that most of the immediate area was thoroughly contaminated within hours of AJ being reported missing.

I should think that's completely normal. As others have pointed out, children frequently "go missing" with no serious consequences or malicious intent, and naturally people will start looking for them immediately.

 

[uk_sleuth]

My interest was piqued by a recent comment here (can't remember who said it), that searchers were told my more than the press and that there is a whole lot more to this story.

Can't wait to find out![/QUOTE]

I read this comment from a supposed searcher on another forum also. IMO if they're briefing searchers it can only be what to look for. I think it would be unprofessional of LE to tell anyone the story right :waitasec:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2012/oct/02/april-jones-missing-five-live
FWIW
Godmother speaks
London's Evening Standard newspaper has quotes from April's godmother, Mair Raftree, about the impact on the family:

I was the first person Coral called. She was absolutely devastated. She was in shock. She was upset, saying ‘April’s gone. She was put in a van. She was taken away’.

I told her to call the police immediately and she said she was about to. She called me first because she was in a state of shock. She had just been told by April’s little friend that she was snatched. I was just gobsmacked. It didn’t register until I’d put the phone down.

 

[bijoux]

For what its worth, if I were allowed to bet on who abducted and killed April, I would choose MB purely on his female relationships, lack of being able to maintain them and inability to hold down a job for long periods.

Really? That's not much to go on!

My doubt arises because people feel April was targeted and that means it would have to be planned. If I remove that doubt, I could safely say that anyone of those children out playing could have been his victims, I could also safely say that he had done something to children of varying degrees before.

My feeling is that he had all the children in Wales to choose from but chose someone with whom he was familiar. There is no evidence we know of to indicate other parties were involved in either the abduction or murder of AJ.
I think the abduction was simple: MB drove up and down the road waiting for an opportunity and it came. Perhaps he parked by the garages because he spotted AJ playing there. (Not an unusual play area in my opinion.)
She recognised the vehicle and driver and ran over, or she was called over and complied because she recognised the vehicle and driver.
Why she voluntarily got into the vehicle we do not know.

 

[Dirk Gently]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2012/oct/02/april-jones-missing-five-live
FWIW
Godmother speaks
London's Evening Standard newspaper has quotes from April's godmother, Mair Raftree, about the impact on the family:

I was the first person Coral called. She was absolutely devastated. She was in shock. She was upset, saying ‘April’s gone. She was put in a van. She was taken away’.

I told her to call the police immediately and she said she was about to. She called me first because she was in a state of shock. She had just been told by April’s little friend that she was snatched. I was just gobsmacked. It didn’t register until I’d put the phone down.

Great find, albeit one that raises more questions.

If I were April's father, and LE's first response to my report of her being abducted in a van was to start searching my neighbour's coal shed, then I'd be demanding a personal audience with the Chief Constable to ask what the hell his (or her) officers are playing at.

 

[Cherwell]

The article in the Evening Standard is dated 2 October so not new, but I hadn't seen it. I hadn't heard that April was shy.

She described April as a “lovely, friendly little girl” but said she was shy and it was “very unusual” she would speak to a stranger.

So bijoux's comment makes sense:

She recognised the vehicle and driver and ran over, or she was called over and complied because she recognised the vehicle and driver.
Why she voluntarily got into the vehicle we do not know.