I wonder who was on the other end of the walkie talkie?
I guess it might have just been a mobile phone with a booster antenna - reception in the Corris valley, where he had moved, is very poor indeed.
I wonder who was on the other end of the walkie talkie?
Friend saw her getting into his car - then when did he allegedly run her over? When and where did she get back out and why? And why not he at the same time? She gets out but he doesn't and runs her over. Doesn't make sense.
Friend saw her getting into his car - then when did he allegedly run her over? When and where did she get back out and why? And why not he at the same time? She gets out but he doesn't and runs her over. Doesn't make sense.
He contests that she got into his car of her own volition. Remember, his defence counsel accused April's friend of lying when she said that April got into the car ("I have to say you are wrong about that. Do you understand?").
The prosecution's witnesses of yesterday and today have, of course, given some credence to MB's claim: the garage mechanic thought it would be very difficult for a child to open the car door, and those who saw the car drive past said there was no sign of April (suggesting that she might already be dead, with her body out of sight in the vehicle).
The defence will make great play of the fact that the only witness to April getting into the vehicle alive is a very young child.
I guess it might have just been a mobile phone with a booster antenna - reception in the Corris valley, where he had moved, is very poor indeed.
Just getting caught up with the evidence, and nothing so far is really surprising, as we had surmised a lot of it here several months ago, but what *is* surprising is how quickly and methodically he did his deeds, especially the disposal of the April's body. Had he pre-planned the 'alleged' abduction and murder down to the last detail? I feel he must have.
IIRC there was a third person's DNA found on the shower curtain where they found April's blood, but obviously they've found out whose that was and ruled it out.
I fully believe he worked alone.
I wonder what the significance of that jury question is. Even if he didn't have a working telly, they know he had the internet, assuming we are referring to his ability to keep track on the case...?
Just thinking out loud!
He contests that she got into his car of her own volition. Remember, his defence counsel accused April's friend of lying when she said that April got into the car ("I have to say you are wrong about that. Do you understand?").
The prosecution's witnesses of yesterday and today have, of course, given some credence to MB's claim: the garage mechanic thought it would be very difficult for a child to open the car door, and those who saw the car drive past said there was no sign of April (suggesting that she might already be dead, with her body out of sight in the vehicle).
The defence will make great play of the fact that the only witness to April getting into the vehicle alive is a very young child, who claims to have seen this happen at dusk, as the light was fading, and who has already admitted to inventing details such as being able to see the colour of MB's eyes.
Question for veggie - why would the head teacher have given her evidence in Welsh? I saw an interview with her just after April went missing and of course she speaks English fluently. Just curious![]()
This might sound silly but does anyone know if the national grid can tell when electricity is put on, when theres a surge,if so could they figure out what time he went home and when for instance washing machine was put on? Tia
Won't matter what defence makes of that, the forensic evidence is there in his house, on his computer, even the headmistress of the school knew about his dating habits and taste for very young women.
Adult witnesses saw him hanging around the garages as well, even if they didn't see April get into the vehicle.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.