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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 )

True, but I wonder what defense he could give for for being perfectly sober when deciding to take a child off the street and driving off with her, without the permission of her family, and not letting anyone know he had her.

Sometimes I do wonder how barristers can go along with stories such as these, when they must know its all lies and just adds to the pain of the families. How could you even try to defend someone who you know is responsible for a little girl's death, let alone attempt to get them off with a lighter sentence?

All MOO.
 
At least he is getting close to admitting that April is in fact dead. Now, if he will only tell where he put her little body. The deals, etc. can be worked out later. I am sure he will not end up getting the degree of justice I feel he deserves anyway. He should do life in prison, IMO.
 
True, but I wonder what defense he could give for for being perfectly sober when deciding to take a child off the street and driving off with her, without the permission of her family, and not letting anyone know he had her.

Sometimes I do wonder how barristers can go along with stories such as these, when they must know its all lies and just adds to the pain of the families. How could you even try to defend someone who you know is responsible for a little girl's death, let alone attempt to get them off with a lighter sentence?

All MOO.

That is a topic for debate without end...
 
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

Taking a friends' daughter for a little ride in his car without the parents' permission would be abduction, unless the daughter is of age to give her own consent to such a thing, which April clearly was not.
 
Taking a friends' daughter for a little ride in his car without the parents' permission would be abduction, unless the daughter is of age to give her own consent to such a thing, which April clearly was not.

which is what i don't get. How can anybody say "i was 'probably' responsible for her death". AJ wasn't responsible for herself at the age of 5. Anything that happened to AJ while with MB, he was entirely responsible for.
 
At least he is getting close to admitting that April is in fact dead. Now, if he will only tell where he put her little body. The deals, etc. can be worked out later. I am sure he will not end up getting the degree of justice I feel he deserves anyway. He should do life in prison, IMO.

We've no idea what he has said - he may never have denied that she is dead.

And we do not know what happened. I shall wait for the trial before deciding what I think he deserves. I have a feeling that there is a lot of background to these events which is yet to come out.
 
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
well, if he took her that is abduction... her parents didn't give him permission
 
And we do not know what happened. I shall wait for the trial before deciding what I think he deserves. I have a feeling that there is a lot of background to these events which is yet to come out.

Yes, I think there's a lot more to come out about the circumstances leading up to it that we don't know about yet.

IMO though, the crux of the trial is going to come down to his story of what happened that night. With no witnesses beyond the time she got into the car it'll be a case of who tells the most compelling tale - MB's word vs whatever physical evidence the police have uncovered that has led them to the murder / abduction charge.

It just seems such a strange decision to release that one detail about him being "probably responsible for her death" but not guilty of any of the charges. I can understand that with all the local and media interest that they wanted to give what information they could to the public without jeopardising his trial.
Such an enigmatic statement though is only going to fuel speculation (which I'm trying VERY hard to remain open minded and not do)
 
I think there might be something similar coming in this trial, to what was heard in the Soham murders' trial:

"Huntley admitted that the girls had died in his house; he claimed that he accidentally knocked Wells into the bath while helping her control a nosebleed, and this caused her to drown. Chapman witnessed this and he claimed he accidentally suffocated her while attempting to stifle her screaming."

Scroll down to 'Murder Trial and Subsequent Revelations'


Soham murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If I remember correctly, he also denied enticing/abducting them, but said they had called at his house looking for their teacher?
 
I just hope that little girl is on land somewhere. I hate the thought of her being in the water. I hope she's brought home one day.
 
I think there might be something similar coming in this trial, to what was heard in the Soham murders' trial:

"Huntley admitted that the girls had died in his house; he claimed that he accidentally knocked Wells into the bath while helping her control a nosebleed, and this caused her to drown. Chapman witnessed this and he claimed he accidentally suffocated her while attempting to stifle her screaming."

Scroll down to 'Murder Trial and Subsequent Revelations'


Soham murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surely in that case he would say "I accidentally killed her", not I "probably" killed her.
 
Mot that I believe in conspiracies but I've looked at 3 places where someone had asked a question about what "probably responsible" meant, and they've all been deleted...
 
Perhaps his defense will be a convenient memory loss? Hence "probably responsible?"
 
Mot that I believe in conspiracies but I've looked at 3 places where someone had asked a question about what "probably responsible" meant, and they've all been deleted...

What kind of places? If they were UK-based sites, the likely reason is that the admin doesn't want any discussion of the case before the trial for fear of contempt of court. Not long to wait this time, though.
 
What kind of places? If they were UK-based sites, the likely reason is that the admin doesn't want any discussion of the case before the trial for fear of contempt of court. Not long to wait this time, though.

Well one was a Uk site I think, one was Yahoo answers, and I thought I saw something in the UK Legal groups but they don't seem to be accessible. So not sure who would manage them.

It just surprises me that the judge allowed such an unusual statement to be made and yet none of the media I've seen has explained even in general terms it's possible meaning.
 
It just surprises me that the judge allowed such an unusual statement to be made and yet none of the media I've seen has explained even in general terms it's possible meaning.

I imagine it's too difficult without touching on matters which the judge ordered could not be publicly reported.

I can't see that there's anywhere to go but a manslaughter plea, but I'm no lawyer.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/april-jones-mum-and-dad-dress-1534676

By Luke Traynor
MARK BRIDGER TRIAL
14 Jan 2013 23:08

<snipped>
The judge, Mr Justice Griffiths, addressed the media and ruled it was now permissible to publish Bridger’s likely defence.

He said: “That matter can be reported. You [barrister Brendan Kelly QC] have indicated that the defendant’s case is that he was probably responsible for the death of April.”

Mr Kelly made an application for the full trial, due to be held next month, to be moved to a different court – either in South Wales or in the North West.

But Mr Justice Griffiths refused the application and ruled that Mold crown court, in North Wales, was more than adequate to cover a high-profile case of this nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,830
Total visitors
2,006

Forum statistics

Threads
600,282
Messages
18,106,258
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top