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

[Uchiki Kuri]

10 Oct 2012:

The court heard that the prosecution had been given notice of Bridger's "likely defence" which had been taken in interviews.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ark-Bridger-in-court-charged-with-murder.html

Details of what Mr Bridger has told police were not given in court but the judge said: “The Crown have notice of the likely defence in his account in interviews.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ies-between-Mark-Bridger-and-April-Jones.html

 

[mrsward]

this has confused the hell out of me.. doesnt matter which way round its worded its still abduction and murder . the only way u could say 'probably' is if you didnt know what youd done but theres proof you did it.. so thats either insanity... drunk..high or just plain stupid .. so now his defence have to prove it was one of the above for his not guilty to stand...

errrr.... yeah.. thatll work....

 

[cluciano63]

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.

this has confused the hell out of me.. doesnt matter which way round its worded its still abduction and murder . the only way u could say 'probably' is if you didnt know what youd done but theres proof you did it.. so thats either insanity... drunk..high or just plain stupid .. so now his defence have to prove it was one of the above for his not guilty to stand...

errrr.... yeah.. thatll work....

That is what my guess is, some sort of "diminished capacity" or "amnesia" defense. At least he seems to be acknowledging that she is in fact deceased. I hope soon he will admit where he left her body. I feel for the searchers, in those rough areas, month after month.

 

[Wolf Dreamer]

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.

that's what I mean though - why allow a statement to be made public that's just confusing the issue? The only people who really needed to hear that at this point are April's parents and they were in court and had some background to it.

I agree, I think he's going for manslaughter. But I can't see how he will now ever reveal where she is as perverting the course of justice can carry a life sentence and my assumption is he's trying to avoid that.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

that's what I mean though - why allow a statement to be made public that's just confusing the issue? The only people who really needed to hear that at this point are April's parents and they were in court and had some background to it.

I agree, I think he's going for manslaughter. But I can't see how he will now ever reveal where she is as perverting the course of justice can carry a life sentence and my assumption is he's trying to avoid that.

The word that was around from the time of his arrest was that 'he couldn't remember'. Apparently nice Mr Policeman and DPP didn't buy it hence the charges including 'perverting the course of justice'.

Without knowing what's in the evidence you couldn't speculate about a plea, which in any case must be to the offences as charged. He can't just rock up and plead guilty to manslaughter.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

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.

IF the barrister 'knows it's all lies', he or she can't defend the person based on the lies. A practitioner's first duty is to the Court, not their client. They may suspect, but unless the client tells them, the defence is based on what is told. A client may confess their guilt but wish to plead not guilty. In that case the barrister can represent them but cannot introduce such things as alibi evidence etc. In any event, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.:twocents:

 

[Alyce]

That is what my guess is, some sort of "diminished capacity" or "amnesia" defense. At least he seems to be acknowledging that she is in fact deceased. I hope soon he will admit where he left her body. I feel for the searchers, in those rough areas, month after month.

As has been said on here, there was talk at the time - possibly only rumour ? that MBs statement to the police was that he couldnt remember much of what had happened that night...
I suspect he will be keeping to that story

As for advising what he did with AJ - I dont think he will ever tell and he knows that , by now, there is most likely nothing for searchers to find

 

[CherryPie]

I first though this was a plea bargaining attempt - however as I undertand it Manslaughter charge was not made or offerred so he can't plea to that (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm new to all this).

The more I think about the statement, the more I think it's some kine of clever playmaker by the defense. Do they mean "responsible" metaphorically or literally?

So say for example, he picked her up, gave her a lift to someone else (as someone else was allegedly looking after her on the night in question), drops her at that house but doesn't taking her in, and at that point she went missing? Far fetched maybe - but an example, then he's "responsible" for her death but he didn't kill her?

OR for example, say I suspected a child was being neglected or abused, and I dilly dallied and did nothing about it, and that child later came to harm. I'd feel responsible, but would technically be not guilty.

I just can't see any other kind of rationale for that kind of statement.

I don't believe the drunk/drug scenario would be used, as the CPS would already know his state at the time of arrest?

 

[agme28]

Have they not got the power to put him through a lie detector test?

 

[Cherwell]

I agree, I think he's going for manslaughter. But I can't see how he will now ever reveal where she is as perverting the course of justice can carry a life sentence and my assumption is he's trying to avoid that.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is also life imprisonment.

Without knowing what's in the evidence you couldn't speculate about a plea, which in any case must be to the offences as charged. He can't just rock up and plead guilty to manslaughter.

Yes, he could. That's exactly what happened in the Joanna Yeates case - Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to murder but admitted manslaughter. In that case the Crown did not accept his plea, and proceeded with the murder charge - of which he was eventually found guilty. If the jury had found him not guilty of murder, he would have been sentenced for manslaughter without the need for another trial, as he had admitted killing JY.

 

[Cherwell]

The more I think about the statement, the more I think it's some kine of clever playmaker by the defense. Do they mean "responsible" metaphorically or literally?

So say for example, he picked her up, gave her a lift to someone else (as someone else was allegedly looking after her on the night in question), drops her at that house but doesn't taking her in, and at that point she went missing? Far fetched maybe - but an example, then he's "responsible" for her death but he didn't kill her?

OR for example, say I suspected a child was being neglected or abused, and I dilly dallied and did nothing about it, and that child later came to harm. I'd feel responsible, but would technically be not guilty.

I just can't see any other kind of rationale for that kind of statement.

Most reports are only quoting the judge's words, but some quote both the judge and the defence barrister, whose words as quoted were more direct:

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

Mr Justice Griffith-Williams said: "That matter can be reported. You have indicated that the defendant's case is that he was probably responsible for the death of April."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/april-jones-mark-bridger-probably-1533721

 

[Fluttershy]

Have they not got the power to put him through a lie detector test?

We don't do that in the UK.

 

[CherryPie]

Can anyone tell me the reliability stats for lie detector tests in the US please?

 

[Cherwell]

I don't believe the drunk/drug scenario would be used, as the CPS would already know his state at the time of arrest?

Judging by his mugshot, he looks pretty hung-over to me. Whether he was drinking before whatever happened, happened, I don't know, but he looks like someone who's had a skinful at some point.

 

[CherryPie]

Judging by his mugshot, he looks pretty hung-over to me. Whether he was drinking before whatever happened, happened, I don't know, but he looks like someone who's had a skinful at some point.

Are you talking about his police mugshot? On that I believe him to have been in a fight, bruising to his left cheek, and his nose looks broken. Or - a car accident which would tie in to the damage that can be seen on the front of his landrover.

This was taken after his arrest, so almost 24 hours after April went missing.

 

[CherryPie]

Judging by his mugshot, he looks pretty hung-over to me. Whether he was drinking before whatever happened, happened, I don't know, but he looks like someone who's had a skinful at some point.

Are you talking about his police mugshot? On that I believe him to have been in a fight, bruising to his left cheek, and his nose looks broken. Or - a car accident which would tie in to the damage that can be seen on the front of his landrover.

This was taken after his arrest, so almost 24 hours after April went missing.

 

[Cadfael]

OK, I haven't posted on thus thread before but just thought I would share my husbands interesting theory. The statement made that he is `probably` responsible suggests that MB is implying he did not murder her. What if he is going to claim he simply gave her a lift home, dropped her off then she was never seen again? I think this will most likely be his story even though it is incredibly flimsy. Another thought struck me that maybe he handed April to a third party.... Thus in his mind absolving him of any crime but `probably` contributing to her death? Could explain the police reluctance to release any info if there is a third party ring involved? This is all just a theory of course.

Was he found in waterproofs near the river? Can't fund a source backing this up now so wondering if this factor was purely gossip at the time.

 

[CherryPie]

OK, I haven't posted on thus thread before but just thought I would share my husbands interesting theory. The statement made that he is `probably` responsible suggests that MB is implying he did not murder her. What if he is going to claim he simply gave her a lift home, dropped her off then she was never seen again? I think this will most likely be his story even though it is incredibly flimsy. Another thought struck me that maybe he handed April to a third party.... Thus in his mind absolving him of any crime but `probably` contributing to her death? Could explain the police reluctance to release any info if there is a third party ring involved? This is all just a theory of course.

Was he found in waterproofs near the river? Can't fund a source backing this up now so wondering if this factor was purely gossip at the time.

I think it is possible that maybe close to his defence. He was arrested in camouflage gear walking into Mach. I can't recall it being waterproof.

 

[Cherwell]

His barrister has been quoted as saying that "he probably killed the child".

 

[Cherwell]

This was taken after his arrest, so almost 24 hours after April went missing.

Yes, exactly. Not very long. And we don't know how long April was with him before she came to harm.