I hope they do have solid evidence but am worried. Reading the the threshold test on the CPS website and seeing "evidence" in other cases, is why I'm worried.
It reads to me that the CPS will charge even when the evidence isn't there yet (within a reasonable time)
It explains why the police are still searching and why they are prepared to put a 7 year old on the stand. A back-up plan if you will.
I genuinely believe if they have solid evidence like DNA or blood that shows he murdered April they wouldn't have need to call up a 7 year old to testify (or indeed bother filing abduction/perverting justice charges). As someone pointed out earlier, it would only get a conviction for abduction.
I hope my cynicism is proved wrong.
Actually the very fact that this case does not have a body explains why they are still searching and prepared to put a 7 year old on the stand. I absolutely guarantee if the only witness was a 4 year old CPS would have that 4 year old testify as well.
That's what prosecutors in no body cases do. They take every single bit of evidence available to them and use it all to build a case.
This 7 year old is the only one who can tie MB directly to April the evening she was abducted. The 5 year old presumably affirms this. Even if her DNA is all over Bridger's vehicle and home - and proof of her death is overwhelming and definitive - how'd her DNA get there? Did someone borrow MB's vehicle? Did anyone else have access to his house? Can MB claim he was somewhere else that evening? A good defence attorney would be able to poke a gazillion holes in this to provide enough reasonable doubt for the possibility of an acquittal.
Let me walk you through a very similar case that I've mentioned before - Bianca Jones - because I believe it will be tried in much the same way. Bianca was a 2 year Michigan girl reported missing by her father December 2, 2011. He claimed she'd been in the car when it was carjacked. They found the vehicle abandoned close by...no sign of Bianca.
The evidence:
A cadaver dog hit in Bianca's bedroom and the vehicle.
The trial lasted 9 months though and through a careful build-up of witness testimony, including Bianca's 8 year old sister, the prosecutor proved to a jury that D'Andre Lane beat his daughter to death for wetting herself; made child witnesses believe Bianca was sleeping but alive postmortem; and disposed of her body in a skip prior to reporting her missing.
So why have the 8 year old testify? Because the 8 year old witnessed abuse at the hands of D'Andre Lane. She could tie together abuse and her father into the same picture for the jury to see. She saw Bianca shortly before she was reported missing and could tell the jurors her sister was wrapped in a blanket, strapped into the seat, and she was warned to be quiet as not to wake her.
Why was Lane charged with child abuse in addition to 1st degree murder - a much lesser charge? (For that matter why are most criminals charged with lesser offenses as well as felonies?) Because juries are fickle things indeed. It's simply insurance for the prosecution that if the defendant is acquitted of the greater offence they may still be found guilty of a lesser charge. (Some states will even allow the DA to file charges for multiple degrees of the same murder or manslaughter in addition to murder.) I do not believe it is representative of the evidence at hand - you just never know how a group of people will react to a case. (As evidenced by us folks who followed the Anthony case for years prior to her unbelievable acquittal.) It also, obviously, allows for a lengthier sentence if convicted of multiple charges. (Lane was convicted of 1st degree murder and child abuse.)
This is JMO and FWIW but I cannot conclude based on following so many other child homicides that CPS has erred or doesn't have enough evidence to convict. The simple fact is that they will use every bit of evidence available to them - even the testimony of children - to attempt to persuade a jury of MB's guilt. Especially in a no body case.
