Deceased/Not Found UK - April Jones, 5, Machynlleth, Wales, 1 Oct 2012 #7 *M. Bridger guilty*

[nursebeeme]

Very strange.

If he was planning to implicate someone else he should have already told the police about it by now.

imhoo there is no one else:twocents:

but his lawyer will argue in that manner to cast reasonable doubt.

I am perplexed as to why they were able to speak of their strategy. I am thinking he is going to claim she had a seizure or something and say it was a natural cause of death but he hid her body... again :twocents::moo::twocents:

 

[Cappuccino]

He's pleaded not guilty to concealment, so I don't know how he could argue that it was a natural death and he hid her body. That would be concealment.

 

[zwiebel]

He took her out in a boat and she fell in the water?

 

[YidArmyRach]

11:52 AMHywel Trewyn @HywelTrewynAPRIL JONES: Mark Bridger's defence is that he probably was responsible for April Jones' death *


So, what does that mean? He has denied abduction murder and concealing a body, which leaves?

Had it not been for the child witness see her getting into his car, I would have guessed that he would be going for the explanation of accidently running her over - she was playing outside in the near dark in dark clothing, so he didn't see her until it was too late. Then panicked and dumped her body.

But she was seen getting into his car, so that theory doesn't work.

I guess IF he had left her somewhere, still alive, then he is responsible for her death but didn't cause it first-hand. But if you leave a 5 year old out in the cold and dark all alone, in an area with lots of water, you can pretty much guarantee that something bad will happen, so I'm not sure that would work as a defense either. Especially as he shouldn't have taken her in the first place.

The only thing that is going to help his case is to spill as to what he did with her body, either where she is or where she might have ended up. If accidental death can be proved, then he may get a lesser sentence if convicted. But by continuing to prevent her body being found (and a PM being done) it gives the impression he is trying to conceal the exact cause/manner of death.

Can't see this ending in any other verdict that guilty of murder in my opinion. Just hope it ends with poor little April being found, so her family can properly lay her to rest.

All MOO.

 

[Clutchbag]

He took her out in a boat and she fell in the water?

or walking near the river and she fell in, but that doesnt fit in with the charge of murder for which the police must have had some kind of evidence

ETA
Maybe if his car was unstable or his driving was something happened, she wasnt wearing a seatbelt, the police found blood or other evidence in the car and came up with a murder charge in the absence of a confession of an accident

 

[summer_breeze]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bably-responsible-death-missing-year-old.html

By LARISA BROWN
PUBLISHED: 06:34 EST, 14 January 2013 |
UPDATED: 08:19 EST, 14 January 2013

Former lifeguard Mark Bridger 'probably responsible for death of missing five-year-old April Jones'

 

[nursebeeme]

not guilty of murder but that he accepted that he was probably responsible for the death of April

^^I cannot wait to hear his story in February. Hopefully the police have lots of forensics.

 

[Fluttershy]

By accident???!!!!!

Sorry zwiebel, am at work (naughty!) so I can't really give you an in-depth answer. I was just brainstorming.

 

[opalsqueak63]

Hello everyone

Brigder's lawyers says he is probably responsibe for her death which as I understand it, does not mean he left her somewhere he shouldn't have etc, but that he DID kill her, but

1.Bridger has claimed the intent to abduct and kill was not there, and therefore it's not murder

and/or

2. Bridger claims not to remember anything/was drunk/drugged/out of his mind at the time. Maybe he has claimed he does not know where her body is.

Or both

I thought he would plead guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility, but maybe that is not an option.

 

[Cappuccino]

Option number 2 is the most likely IMO. I can't think of another scenario in which he would plead not guilty, and then say he is "probably" responsible.

 

[Alyce]

Opal, thanks for your post above, makes it easier to understand now

I presume if he used Option 1 then he could say it was a terrible accident - but I dont then see how he is able to claim he is innocent of the concealment of a body charge

so I agree with Cappuccino, is more likely to be Option 2, where he can claim he doesnt remember what happened - hence not able to help police to locate AJ ( and in fact may even be true that he cant remember )

 

[Clutchbag]

This seeming direct quote reads slightly different.

But Brendan Kelly, defending, told the court his client's defence involves him "conceding that he probably killed the child".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-lifeguard-denies-april-murder-113042454.html#T4g5ky2

 

[Cherwell]

Could it just be very clever wording by the defence - responsible in that he could have intervened, and is going to implicate some one else?

If he was planning to implicate someone else he should have already told the police about it by now.

If there was anyone else involved he would have named them, and the police would have pulled them in.
If he was claiming that another party was involved, but refused to name them, I imagine that would come under the charge of perverting the course of justice. But they have specified that that charge refers to concealment of a body.

I am thinking he is going to claim she had a seizure or something and say it was a natural cause of death but he hid her body.

But in that case he would have to plead guilty to the concealment charge, surely?

Had it not been for the child witness see her getting into his car, I would have guessed that he would be going for the explanation of accidently running her over - she was playing outside in the near dark in dark clothing, so he didn't see her until it was too late. Then panicked and dumped her body.

But she was seen getting into his car, so that theory doesn't work.

That could still have happened, somewhere else later. But again, he would have to plead guilty to the concealment charge.

I guess IF he had left her somewhere, still alive, then he is responsible for her death but didn't cause it first-hand. But if you leave a 5 year old out in the cold and dark all alone, in an area with lots of water, you can pretty much guarantee that something bad will happen, so I'm not sure that would work as a defense either. Especially as he shouldn't have taken her in the first place.

Would that be defined as murder? I'm not sure.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Hello everyone

Brigder's lawyers says he is probably responsibe for her death which as I understand it, does not mean he left her somewhere he shouldn't have etc, but that he DID kill her, but

1.Bridger has claimed the intent to abduct and kill was not there, and therefore it's not murder

and/or

2. Bridger claims not to remember anything/was drunk/drugged/out of his mind at the time. Maybe he has claimed he does not know where her body is.

Or both

I thought he would plead guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility, but maybe that is not an option.

I thought he'd attended his childrens' parents evening very shortly before he took April. If the teachers testify that he was perfectly lucid when speaking to them, what could he claim to have taken/drunk that would render him incapable of his actions just half an hour or so later? I doubt he would have had time to have gone anywhere between the school and the estate either, to buy drugs, get drunk etc.

Makes sense that he would go with this excuse though - it fits in nicely with the erratic driving some witnesses reported at the time. (Could hais story have been made up to fit the evidence perhaps?). MOO.

 

[Clutchbag]

I thought he'd attended his childrens' parents evening very shortly before he took April. If the teachers testify that he was perfectly lucid when speaking to them, what could he claim to have taken/drunk that would render him incapable of his actions just half an hour or so later? I doubt he would have had time to have gone anywhere between the school and the estate either, to buy drugs, get drunk etc.

Makes sense that he would go with this excuse though - it fits in nicely with the erratic driving some witnesses reported at the time. (Could hais story have been made up to fit the evidence perhaps?). MOO.

Maybe he did any drinking/drug taking later on that evening

 

[Cappuccino]

This is a really strange turn of events. How can he plead not guilty to abduction for a start? If he was "probably" responsible for her death, then he must be conceding that it was his car she got into. How is that not abduction?

 

[cluciano63]

If there was anyone else involved he would have named them, and the police would have pulled them in.
If he was claiming that another party was involved, but refused to name them, I imagine that would come under the charge of perverting the course of justice. But they have specified that that charge refers to concealment of a body.



But in that case he would have to plead guilty to the concealment charge, surely?



That could still have happened, somewhere else later. But again, he would have to plead guilty to the concealment charge.



Would that be defined as murder? I'm not sure.

In the US, it would be, if a person dies while kidnapped.

 

[Clutchbag]

This is a really strange turn of events. How can he plead not guilty to abduction for a start? If he was "probably" responsible for her death, then he must be conceding that it was his car she got into. How is that not abduction?

If he had none of the below in mind (second section on strangers, though he wasnt one) and was just taking her for a ride in his car they could argue it wasnt? Especially if she or other kids had played inhis car gone on rides before.Thats all I can think of.


Child abduction or Child theft is the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians.
The term child abduction confounds two legal and social categories which differ by their perpetrating contexts: abduction by members of the child's family or abduction by strangers:
Parental child abduction: a family relative's (usually parent's) unauthorized custody of a child without parental agreement and contrary to family law ruling, which largely removes the child from care, access and contact of the other parent and family side. Occurring around parental separation or divorce, such parental or familial child abduction may include parental alienation, a form of child abuse seeking to disconnect a child from targeted parent and denigrated side of family.

Abduction or kidnapping by strangers (from outside the family, natural or legal guardians) who steal a child for criminal purposes which may include:
extortion, to elicit a ransom from the guardians for the child's return
illegal adoption, a stranger steals a child with the intent to rear the child as their own or to sell to a prospective adoptive parent
human trafficking, a stranger steals a child with the intent to exploit the child themselves or by trade in a list of possible abuses including slavery, forced labor, sexual abuse, or even illegal organ trading
murder

 

[Alyce]

I thought he'd attended his childrens' parents evening very shortly before he took April. If the teachers testify that he was perfectly lucid when speaking to them, what could he claim to have taken/drunk that would render him incapable of his actions just half an hour or so later? I doubt he would have had time to have gone anywhere between the school and the estate either, to buy drugs, get drunk etc.

Makes sense that he would go with this excuse though - it fits in nicely with the erratic driving some witnesses reported at the time. (Could hais story have been made up to fit the evidence perhaps?). MOO.

Doesnt have to be half an hour later that he was drunk......he could have taken AJ to his home and then began to drink during the evening and then became incapable/passed out etc

( not that I believe this, but it could be his defence )

 

[Alyce]

This is a really strange turn of events. How can he plead not guilty to abduction for a start? If he was "probably" responsible for her death, then he must be conceding that it was his car she got into. How is that not abduction?

Because he is ( was ) a family friend ............and AJ is quoted as saying, its ok I know them, when she got into his car -

So AJ went willingly with him and MB can say he was taking a friends daughter for a little ride in his car, not abducting a child