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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cherwell said:
His barrister has been quoted as saying that "he probably killed the child".
Click to expand...

The only scenario I can think of that would explain that along with his not guilty plea is the drink/drugs scenario where he's claiming he doesn't remember anything.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...seeing-alleged-killer-Mark-Bridger-court.html

By PAUL BENTLEY and LARISA BROWN
PUBLISHED: 07:38 EST, 15 January 2013 |
UPDATED: 07:52 EST, 15 January 2013

The heartbroken mother of missing April Jones, 5, today told how she 'can't stop crying' after seeing her daughter's alleged killer in court.

Coral, 40, attended Mold Crown Court yesterday along with her husband Paul Jones, 43, to hear Mark Bridger, the man charged with the murder and abduction of their daughter, plead not guilty.
Click to expand...

article-2262701-16F3DF8F000005DC-655_306x423.jpg


article-2262701-16F3F238000005DC-170_306x423.jpg


article-2262108-16F0B586000005DC-759_634x691.jpg
 
CherryPie said:
Also quoted: "probably responsible for killing the child"

and the judge: "probably responsible for April's death".
Click to expand...

Most newspapers now seem to be quoting the defence barrister's words. The Sun is even leading with the headline "I probably killed April"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...es-court-told-of-Mark-Bridgers-admission.html

I think perhaps most reporters played safe yesterday and only quoted the judge, but as a few also quoted Brendan Kelly, they've now all followed suit. I don't think there's been any misquoting.
 
His Honour's words - from The Guardian.

Bridger denies abducting and murdering five-year-old girl but concedes he is 'probably responsible' for her death

Steven Morris The Guardian, Monday 14 January 2013 14.42 GMT

In court it emerged his case would be that he was probably responsible for her death. The judge, Mr Justice Griffith-Williams, said: "The defendant's case is that he was probably responsible for the death of April." The defence counsel and the judge agreed this could be reported before the trial. No more details were given.
.....
The judge said there was to be no reporting of any evidence discussed during the hearing in case it prejudiced Bridger's trial, which is expected to last around four weeks and take place at the same court. He also put an order in place banning the naming of any child witnesses mentioned.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/april-jones-mark-bridger-court
 
badhorsie said:
Alcoholic blackout IMO. Either real or used as a get out
Click to expand...

Possibly. I would also consider an accident in the car. There would have been no secure child seat, so a child might easily sustain a fatal injury. Even if the driver was sober, he would still be responsible for ensuring the child's safety.
 
Cherwell said:
Yes, no one's disputing the judge's words. But most sources are now also reporting the words of Brendan Kelly, the defence barrister. For instance, the Daily Telegraph:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...obably-responsible-for-death-court-hears.html
Click to expand...

If Mr Kelly said those actual words, and given that his client has pleaded not guilty to murder, it's possible they may be running a 'diminished responsibility' defence. If successful it can reduce murder to manslaughter, with judicial discretion in sentencing.
The risk with this defence is that the sentence may be served in a hospital rather than a prison, with an offender actually detained indefinitely.

ETA: There is an episode of 'Judge John Deed' that deals with this type of defence, and is excellent to demonstrate how it works and the possible consequences.

Judge John Deed: Season 3, Episode 1 -Health Hazard (27 Nov. 2003)
James Brooklands is charged with the death of a woman and her two children whom he struck with his car. Brooklands was using his mobile phone at the time and didn't have a valid driver's license. His barristers now argue that their client has had a complete mental breakdown and is unable to proceed with his defence.
Click to expand...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0617133/plotsummary
 
He may yet change his plea, if you plead not guilty then you get more privilages/allowances whilst in prison. If you plead guilty then you are basically classed as convicted even prior to trial.
 
This 'probably' business is quite confusing. But it's clearly just an attempt to get a lighter sentence IMO. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what happened to her. I hope his plan doesn't work. JMO.
 
Untidyhedgehog said:
He may yet change his plea, if you plead not guilty then you get more privilages/allowances whilst in prison. If you plead guilty then you are basically classed as convicted even prior to trial.
Click to expand...

But there is also the likelihood of a longer sentence for not pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity. He will have been informed that pleading guilty from the outset can result in one-third being knocked off the sentence, while changing his plea to guilty at the start of the actual hearing usually results in a reduction of no more than one-tenth.
 
Cappuccino said:
The only scenario I can think of that would explain that along with his not guilty plea is the drink/drugs scenario where he's claiming he doesn't remember anything.
Click to expand...

I think that's highly likely. Remember the huge number of beer cans and bottles found at his cottage?

article-2212734-155D2486000005DC-968_634x340.jpg
 
I am even more confused about this than ever before. Firstly why release this statement at all to the public about "probably caused her death"??

I also can't accept the idea of a crash/drunkenness and/or amnesia. It appears that MB was no stranger to alcohol so, this just doesn't ring true to me and a crash would have given more forensic evidence.

Unless, as has been suggested, he is hanging on for a lesser sentence because of lack of evidence ie a body, and although we don't know what evidence the police have, I still feel as I did initially.

JMO but still feel he was not alone in all this. There was so little time before the alert that AJ had gone missing, the subsequent search and his arrest the next day. Just how do you get rid of a body with no trace so quickly. Ok maybe the river, as so fast flowing but still can't help feeling she was driven out of the area. As I said JMO
 
ann-other said:
JMO but still feel he was not alone in all this. There was so little time before the alert that AJ had gone missing, the subsequent search and his arrest the next day. Just how do you get rid of a body with no trace so quickly. Ok maybe the river, as so fast flowing but still can't help feeling she was driven out of the area. As I said JMO
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I just can't believe they've used the word 'probably'. MB would be entirely responsible for anything that happened to AJ if he didn't deliver her straight back to her parents where she belongs. As a parent himself, surely he would feel responsible if she was alone with him. Unless he (claims) not to remember anything at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 2,437 (members: 147, guests: 2,290)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
2,290
Total visitors
2,437
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,264
Messages
18,106,153
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top