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

[ann-other]

My husband served on the jury for a murder trial, the victim is an adult, but he is still troubled by having seen her bloody blouse full of knife holes. Ugh.

I can imagine.

 

[Crazy Mama]

I was wrong too. Not about feeling he was guilty but of thinking that there was not enough evidence.

I did not know about the things that were revealed later.

Nothing will bring AJ back, but a body could have brought closure.

 

[Clutchbag]

I have to hold my hands up and say I wasn't convinced. I believed that the tangled web of family ties held some other explanation ie he wasn't alone in this. I also was beginning to think his defence was so pathetic, he had to be covering/telling lies to protect someone else. However, after what we didn't know that has come out today, I am in no doubt I was wrong. I just honestly did not think there was enough concrete evidence to convict him unanimously. The jury, I have every admiration for, they heard and saw the most harrowing evidence and images which will haunt them for some time. As for CJ and PJ, especially CJ, the dignity she has shown right through this is just unbelievable. Hard enough to lose a child, never mind in such horrific circumstances but I also know as a mum, the hardest is not knowing and no body to bury. Aside from memories all they have is a couple of charred bones to rest her. So tragically heartbreaking.

I was not convinced with the evidence on a number of accounts especially Sue Black the bone fragments expert sayng it was unsafe to say they were human....and comparing the pros case with what Bridger had said on most occasions, some of what he said was totally ridiculous though, and also alot of people sayng he was a nice community guy, albeit telling tales about his past, No sexual crimonal past, but I became convinced today with some reports he had images of young girls being sadistically abused and that recorded horror movie....Innocent before proven guilty, I still dont believe he was proven guilty beynd a doubt, though even though he most probably was, comes a time I guess juries have to balance the evidence and their common sense

His exes must be feeling sick and I pity his kids

 

[ann-other]

His exes must be feeling sick and I pity his kids

I really feel for his children, from the youngest to the oldest. I really hope the community comes together here for the sake of them.

 

[Perodicticus potto]

However, after what we didn't know that has come out today, I am in no doubt I was wrong.

This often happens after British trials. It's not like America, where the public see (almost) everything as it unfolds.

 

[ScotAng]

I'm not sure but I think the judge can instruct them to retire again to consider the evidence and if it is still hung order a retrial.

We don't have Not Proven in the UK like in French courts.

I've been reading but not posted here since November or so. I think I said then I love your username George.

We do have Not Proven in Scotland unfortunately, the most frustrating, cop-out plea imaginable. Thankfully, a jury with common sense, though I didn't doubt this would the conclusion.

I was not convinced with the evidence on a number of accounts especially Sue Black the bone fragments expert sayng it was unsafe to say they were human....and comparing the pros case with what Bridger had said on most occasions, some of what he said was totally ridiculous though, and also alot of people sayng he was a nice community guy, albeit telling tales about his past, No sexual crimonal past, but I became convinced today with some reports he had images of young girls being sadistically abused and that recorded horror movie....Innocent before proven guilty, I still dont believe he was proven guilty beynd a doubt, though even though he most probably was, comes a time I guess juries have to balance the evidence and their common sense

His exes must be feeling sick and I pity his kids

Sue Black was hired by the defence to try and throw doubt on the prosecutions' experts findings. She failed to do that, as she conceded in her last statement that at least one fragment was compatible with human bone. Bridger is an accomplished liar, a pathological liar. You saw/heard for yourself how he contradicted his own statements in relation to what the prosecution confronted him with. Then basically branded his team liars when his Defence Case was re-read and he said they had it wrong. You see the common denominator there?

From the beginning when you didn't believe he was responsible at all, to conceding along the way he 'must' have done this or that, to now still believing it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, really? I'm seriously curious as to what it is about him that had you 'fighting his corner' for some time?

The jury did use their common sense thank God. I think a lot of people look for, and expect, a massive BOOM re forensic evidence these days. I also believe people get frustrated when a murderer doesn't come out with something along the lines of a full blown confession. To tell the truth is to condemn themselves, why don't people get that?

I was not the least surprised when the jury came back quickly with their decision, it was a no-brainer imo. May he rot by whatever means.

I know a few others admit they got it wrong, we're only human after all. But I struggle to see it, and that's why i'm genuinely curious.

May April's parents find some kind of peace, though they face an extremely diffficult life ahead of them by not having her with them, and not even getting the chance to say a proper goodbye to her. Poor little April.:heartbeat:

Ps, the Priest would not be called by the Prosecution as it would be hearsay, without any corroboration, ie tape, other witnesses, etc.

 

[Elainera]

I wonder now why MB did sort of half confess? What was the purpose of that? He cleaned his home, maybe the car, got rid of April - did he believe "they will get me anyway, I better prepare a story right away"? Like ScotAng says "To tell the truth is to condemn themselves", so why did he blurt out that he was responsible for April's death? Why not wait and see what they can prove, if anything. It could have been that they would not have been able to prove anything. Did he want to be locked up?

Broken human being.

 

[ScotAng]

Neurotripsy, thanks for the twitter updates and your Pastebin, I read them everyday even though I didn't post here. Must have been time-consuming for you, you're a star. :blowkiss:

And also to everyone else along the way who filled in too, many thanks.

 

[Sarahlou]

Sue Black was hired by the defence to try and throw doubt on the prosecutions' experts findings. She failed to do that, as she conceded in her last statement that at least one fragment was compatible with human bone. Bridger is an accomplished liar, a pathological liar. You saw/heard for yourself how he contradicted his own statements in relation to what the prosecution confronted him with. Then basically branded his team liars when his Defence Case was re-read and he said they had it wrong. You see the common denominator there?

From the beginning when you didn't believe he was responsible at all, to conceding along the way he 'must' have done this or that, to now still believing it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, really? I'm seriously curious as to what it is about him that had you 'fighting his corner' for some time?

The jury did use their common sense thank God. I think a lot of people look for, and expect, a massive BOOM re forensic evidence these days. I also believe people get frustrated when a murderer doesn't come out with something along the lines of a full blown confession. To tell the truth is to condemn themselves, why don't people get that?

I was not the least surprised when the jury came back quickly with their decision, it was a no-brainer imo. May he rot by whatever means.

I know a few others admit they got it wrong, we're only human after all. But I struggle to see it, and that's why i'm genuinely curious.

May April's parents find some kind of peace, though they face an extremely diffficult life ahead of them by not having her with them, and not even getting the chance to say a proper goodbye to her. Poor little April.:heartbeat:

Ps, the Priest would not be called by the Prosecution as it would be hearsay, without any corroboration, ie tape, other witnesses, etc.

Love this post. Everything and more I've wanted to say. I really really don't understand some of the posts there have been over the course of this case about doubting his guilt etc, and as you say, fighting his corner. I find it very odd/puzzling.

 

[MidwestMama]

Nick Martin @NickMartinSKYBreaking news:

Mark Bridger will spend the rest of his life in prison after being handed a 'whole life order'.

Thank God this monster will never be free to harm anyone again. I followed this case from the moment it was posted here on WS. My heart breaks for her family. Bad enough to lose such a precious, darling daughter - but to know this monster had her and not be able to give her a proper burial - ugh. How horrible. Life in prison for the rest of his life is appropriate. May he suffer everyday with memories of the evil thing he did.

^i^ Rest in peace, sweet girl ^i^

 

[George Gently]

I wonder now why MB did sort of half confess? What was the purpose of that? He cleaned his home, maybe the car, got rid of April - did he believe "they will get me anyway, I better prepare a story right away"? Like ScotAng says "To tell the truth is to condemn themselves", so why did he blurt out that he was responsible for April's death? Why not wait and see what they can prove, if anything. It could have been that they would not have been able to prove anything. Did he want to be locked up?

Broken human being.

He had heard on a visit to Mac that morning, that the police were looking for a Land Rover so knew he had been seen at some point. He had to come up with a story and if he threw in little bits of the truth it might make it easier for him to act it out and then blame a blackout for the rest. Then they found her blood at his home. It all hinged on the evidence of the young witness. Without her evidence, the police may not have even got onto him let alone visit his home where they found enough evidence to confirm she had been there.

Without her evidence he may have got away with it, especially in such a close knit community where he was seen as friendly and polite. People may have even thought that it was a stranger from much farther afield, especially as no body was found locally.

That little girl that gave evidence has most likely saved the lives of other young children.

As she was believed all the other evidence fell into place.

The strange thing is, that even if she had not been believed his story still didn't make sense.

 

[Bluey]

Thank you to Neurotripsy and in fact all others that have commented here. I've followed this, every word of it from the start, but not commented till now.

I discovered just how deeply and emotionally involved I was when I saw the posts that the jury were back in - it was a false alarm first time. but my heart was in my mouth.

I personally was convinced by the prosecution's evidence, but I was worried the jury might over-think it and decide there was reasonable doubt. The defence did the job they had to do, but for me the prosecution's case was compelling.

I can't put a word to the emotion(s) I felt when I saw the guilty verdicts. I won't lie, I've wept today as I have many times over April and the crimes committed against her, it's an emotion of horror and grief that I struggle to find a word to describe.

I had thought, that if a guilty verdict came in, that the judge had plenty of scope to give a whole life term. Sexually motivated and abduction, in my understanding will warrant that.

I had a slight thought the judge may possibly go for a 35 years plus instead, knowing that it would in effect be a whole life and leave less wriggle room for an appeal. But I am glad he went for the whole life term and I thought he gave very clear reasons why this was applicable, reasons I agree with. I personally can see no room for appeal. If he does ever manage to successfully appeal the whole life term though, I believe a 35+ would be given, so he won't ever, ever get out imo.

I worried for April's friend, how she may be affected (not just now, but in years to come) by a not guilty, a feeling of the jury not believing her- whether April got in to or was crushed and then lifted into the landrover was a pivotal point for the jury to consider. I really did believe her, just a young girl, but even with that in mind,for me the initial, immediate facts that came out were that April got in someone's car. Not run over by anyone.


I really, really hope that he will say where he put April now, where she is But, to be honest, I don't think he will. Hateful man.

I can't bear to think what April went through and what her parents go through still. It's all beyond any word that I have to be honest.

RIP sweet girl xxxx

 

[Clutchbag]

I've been reading but not posted here since November or so. I think I said then I love your username George.

We do have Not Proven in Scotland unfortunately, the most frustrating, cop-out plea imaginable. Thankfully, a jury with common sense, though I didn't doubt this would the conclusion.




Sue Black was hired by the defence to try and throw doubt on the prosecutions' experts findings. She failed to do that, as she conceded in her last statement that at least one fragment was compatible with human bone. Bridger is an accomplished liar, a pathological liar. You saw/heard for yourself how he contradicted his own statements in relation to what the prosecution confronted him with. Then basically branded his team liars when his Defence Case was re-read and he said they had it wrong. You see the common denominator there?

From the beginning when you didn't believe he was responsible at all, to conceding along the way he 'must' have done this or that, to now still believing it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, really? I'm seriously curious as to what it is about him that had you 'fighting his corner' for some time?

The jury did use their common sense thank God. I think a lot of people look for, and expect, a massive BOOM re forensic evidence these days. I also believe people get frustrated when a murderer doesn't come out with something along the lines of a full blown confession. To tell the truth is to condemn themselves, why don't people get that?

I was not the least surprised when the jury came back quickly with their decision, it was a no-brainer imo. May he rot by whatever means.

I know a few others admit they got it wrong, we're only human after all. But I struggle to see it, and that's why i'm genuinely curious.

May April's parents find some kind of peace, though they face an extremely diffficult life ahead of them by not having her with them, and not even getting the chance to say a proper goodbye to her. Poor little April.:heartbeat:

Ps, the Priest would not be called by the Prosecution as it would be hearsay, without any corroboration, ie tape, other witnesses, etc.

IT WAS presumed innocent before proven guilty scot ang if thats ok with YOU

there was no evidence here that he murdered her, none at all

 

[ScotAng]

IT WAS presumed innocent before proven guilty scot ang if thats ok with YOU

there was no evidence here that he murdered her, none at all

You're right, of course everyone has the right to be considered innocent 'till proven guilty.

That's exactly my point though, at the beginning, when everyone is speculating as that is all we can do, I was struck by how much you defended MB AFTER he was charged on those 3 counts. It's obvious you were coming around to believing in his guilt, but yet you still defend. I suppose this is what I'm most curious about.

You've obviously taken offence at what I asked. Although it wasn't meant to be offensive, reading over my post I'm assuming where I say you pretty much championed him may have offended you, sorry about that.

Though to say now, at this stage, that there was no evidence at ALL that he murdered her, is one strange statement to make. What sort of proof do you need, a video of the whole thing from start to finish? Yes I realise that's snark, but seriously, that kind of remark is exactly why I was curious about your defence of MB in the first place.

 

[cocomod]

I am SO very happy about the verdict and the sentence. I have followed this case from the beginning and I have been most impressed by how LE handled the case. They took a monster off of the streets to never harm again. The Little girl that testifies is SO very brave and amazing. She is a hero.

I haven't posted much since his arrest because of the many that felt that LE jumped the gun on his guilt. There will still be those that question murder vs accident; however, in a court of law, he was found guilty. And, might I say his story did not make since. Her blood was in his home. He had her little body in his home. His memory reminds me of CMJA, very convenient when there are lapses.

R.I.P. little April. IMHO justice was served here. :rose:

 

[Perodicticus potto]

You're right, of course everyone has the right to be considered innocent 'till proven guilty.

That's exactly my point though, at the beginning, when everyone is speculating as that is all we can do, I was struck by how much you defended MB AFTER he was charged on those 3 counts.

I'm confused to why that would make a difference. The fact that someone has been charged with a crime doesn't necessarily mean their guilt can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; that's what the trial is for. They are still presumed innocent, and observers should still be able to evaluate the evidence dispassionately and state their opinions without being accused of supporting criminals and/or crime.

I still maintain that the evidence reported in media accounts during the trial would not have been enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt from my mind as to Bridger's guilt on the specific charges against him. I also think that if this case had been less emotionally charged and media-driven -- if, for example, Bridger had been on trial for murdering a runaway Bengali teenager with facial piercings, rather than a photogenic little white girl from a well-spoken family -- expressing such doubt would have been a lot more socially acceptable.

 

[italianWSfan]

April Jones trial: Mark Bridger beat me up almost every day, says ex

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/april-jones-trial-mark-bridger-1923203

I can't imagine how all of his ex-girlfriends must be feeling now, given the fact the all had children themselves.

 

[Cherwell]

I still maintain that the evidence reported in media accounts during the trial would not have been enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt from my mind as to Bridger's guilt on the specific charges against him.

You have put your finger right on it there. Our perceptions are filtered through what the media tell us. We aren't given all the facts, either because the media don't know themselves, or because the police have asked them not to report certain things.

When the police named Bridger before arresting him it was clear to me that they must have compelling reason to do so, because it's very unusual to name a suspect before they're charged (let alone arrested). Now I didn't know what that reason was, but I recognised that there was stuff we weren't going to be told at that point.

Only now have we learned that the little girl recognised the car. She may have had difficulty describing it, but she knew that she had seen her friends in that same car. So once it was established who the children were, it was a short step to deducing who the suspect was.

 

[Cherwell]

I also think that if this case had been less emotionally charged and media-driven -- if, for example, Bridger had been on trial for murdering a runaway Bengali teenager with facial piercings, rather than a photogenic little white girl from a well-spoken family -- expressing such doubt would have been a lot more socially acceptable.

That works the other way round too. Would people have been so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if his mugshot had shown an ugly thuggish-looking man glaring into the camera?

 

[George Gently]

I think it is fine for someone to adopt the defence stance based on the known evidence. The adversarial method is something the UK and USA share although I get the impression American courts are more flamboyant. The reason British barristers wear whigs and gowns is to remove any individuality and appear equal, so that the jury is not affected by such individual superficial characteristics as appearance.

I prefer that method to the inquisitional method employed in other parts of Europe.