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

[ann-other]

How canhe be convicted of manslaughter if he didnt know there was a child under the car as he began to drive off? Well, according to his story that is.

He has already admitted to killing her, albeit accidentally.

 

[Clutchbag]

He has already admitted to killing her, albeit accidentally.

But how can that confer guilt, if he was driving recklessly at the time that would be different. its like youre driving normally down the road and some one jumps out in front of your car,and is hit and dies, there is no culpability there is there?


Having said that, his testimony via the tweets is not 100 % clear to me though it seems when he tried to drive off he felt his car rise. When he said he saw two kids on bikes coming towards to him seems was when he began to drive off, one somehow fell and landed under the car just before?

Eta but if that is exactly what happened he would have no reason to run and not call 999 , that might have happened to anyone drunk or not

I think the pros probablycan get perversion of course of justice

 

[Cherwell]

Right. Hit and run drivers don't usually take the victim's body with them.

 

[Clutchbag]

Right. Hit and run drivers don't usually take the victim's body with them.

No they dont but he was in a place where people were around and knew him and his car and may have witnessed it, his car was there for quite a few minutes before and after

He couldnt run off, in that way, he says he tried to save her then panicked, he still has no excuse for not calling 999


I think he is telling lies but am not convinced he murdered her BUT I also dont believe he cant remember where he put her, so that puts me back to square one as to why hide the body,sorry its all too confusing

 

[Cherwell]

I still have a sense that there is more to this than we've been told.

 

[Clutchbag]

I still have a sense that there is more to this than we've been told.

me too, right from the beginning, cant thnk what though exactly

 

[Elainera]

Surely drunk driving that results in the death of a person plus failure to get help should also get a stiff sentence? He has admitted all of it.

 

[Clutchbag]

Surely drunk driving that results in the death of a person plus failure to get help should also get a stiff sentence? He has admitted all of it.

According to him he wasnt driving at the time, and didnt know there was anyone under the car, just that as he started to drive off he felt the car rise, so the body was already under there

Or

He may have started to drive off and hit her though, and being drunk not notice a child on a bike near him and ran her over before the car rising

i cant figure out which it was from his statements


As for failing to get help Im sure thats a crime and mightbe considered negligent homicide if she was alive when he he found her and didnt call for help

 

[Clutchbag]

I also think the prosecuting lawyer failed on interrogating him enough and more precisely on his movements on the night from 7 15 to the next morning

Shes had nine months to make a case and seems to have failed

And asked pathetic questions like why did youhave wet wipes in your car, i have them and i dont have young kids as if that is an indication of any crime at all

I do think MB has a case to answer and has not answered it fully and I dont belive on memory lapses in the dircumatances

 

[Elainera]

If we had a video of him we could send it to Eyes for Lies. Wonder what she would make of him.

 

[Clutchbag]

If we had a video of him we could send it to Eyes for Lies. Wonder what she would make of him.

I dont rate eyes for lies, i thnk thatsite is biased, now prof paul eckman is a different matter but he wont do anything until trials are over

 

[Rutland Girl]

n the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt what should the verdict be = not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict? I think the defence is going to go with - He's admitted he caused AJ's death but did not intend to murder her, defence will ask jury - are you sure beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill her,if not then you cannot find him guilty. It's those words 'sure beyond reasonable doubt' that will undo this trial. I am in no way defending mb etc but there is very little evidence to define between 'caused her death' and 'killed her' Again I say - I am not defending mb in any way, I think he is guilty but due to some very clever defence moves He may get a lesser sentence IMO -I do hope I'm wrong tho.

 

[agme28]

It sure is a bizarre case. If he's telling the truth and he did run over her and then panic and dispose of the body, that is quite an unusual set of circumstances. Yet if he had the mind to snatch her, abuse her, murder her and dispose of her in such a way that no sufficient evidence was left behind to convict him in a court of law, then that in itself is pretty unusual too.

Either way, I wouldn't trust a word Bridger said and I would find it very frustrating as a juror if I was unable to pass a guilty verdict and he had cleverly got away with potential murder. I feel for her parents, this must be heartwrenching.

 

[Martha Morris]

For those who are in the UK:

how is the public reacting to the proceedings of the case? Is this a big case in the UK? Is there constant coverage in the news, with experts weighing in, etc? Are there those who believe him and those who don't, is there discussion?

No it's not a big deal over here. It's reported of course in the nationals, but it's not a case that has garnered a huge amount of public interest. We also don't have anything like HLN or anything like that, experts and debates and talking heads etc. What goes on in our courts doesn't make the news to the extent it does in the US other than in huge (and rare) high profile cases. We also don't have televised trials or any evidence revealed or anything like that. The main publicity tends to come during the investigation. Once a perp is identified, arrested and charged it tends to go quiet. Next thing we get the court case and then that's it.

In Wales of course it's a different matter, particularly in that locality, which is a rural, low population area, which I know well - used to live very near. It's a big 'talking point' amongst the locals and reported in the Welsh media more than in the UK media generally but still nothing like on the scale that happens in the US where the interest in the judicial system and the prosecution of murderers and so on - garners so much public interest. I guess that's why so many of us from other parts of the world are so captivated by your investigations and trials.

As for Bridger - I've got absolutely no doubt he will be convicted of murder not manslaughter and am very surprised at the speculation that he will get off with a lesser charge. The police and locals know they've got their man and know exactly what he did. He abducted, sexually abused and murdered her. Then cut her up, burnt her and disposed of what was left of her remains in the wild countryside of that area, most likely in the fast flowing river so it was swept out to sea and dispersed. I'm stone cold certain of it, and certain he will go down for it.

 

[Elainera]

Thank you Martha for your post.

How do you, "the police and locals know they've got their man and know exactly what he did"? Do you feel the presented evidence proves it? I'm surprised you are so certain, as surprised as you are that many of us here are not certain about the outcome of the trial.

Would like to know where exactly you see the evidence (as opposed to your opinion).

Another question: are you also surprised about the sudden ending of proceedings yesterday? It's puzzling me.

 

[Redgoblin]

IMO if you put all the facts together, his poor excuses in every aspect of the case, the lack of evidence, the blood in his house and not in his car, the indecent images, his web searches, his clean up of his house to cover his , his convenient memory loss... I hope the jury make the correct choice, I know which way I would swing.

 

[veggiefan]

n the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt what should the verdict be = not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?

If the jury cannot agree on a unanimous verdict, the judge may be willing to accept a majority verdict of 10 from the jury of 12. If the jury cannot reach a verdict one way or the other, there would have to be a re-trial with a new jury.

 

[Sarahlou]

As for Bridger - I've got absolutely no doubt he will be convicted of murder not manslaughter and am very surprised at the speculation that he will get off with a lesser charge. The police and locals know they've got their man and know exactly what he did. He abducted, sexually abused and murdered her. Then cut her up, burnt her and disposed of what was left of her remains in the wild countryside of that area, most likely in the fast flowing river so it was swept out to sea and dispersed. I'm stone cold certain of it, and certain he will go down for it.

Thank you! Because of some of the views in this thread I felt like I was going a bit crazy by thinking there's no way he'd get off.
I'm pretty positive he'll get convicted of murder and serve a long sentence.

 

[Elainera]

Lets hope you're right! We will find out next week.

 

[Cherwell]

I think he has given himself away a few times: I find the use of the phrase "stick by my story" quite telling.

Detectives suggested to Bridger that the evidence they had indicated he had abducted and murdered April in a "sexually motivated" attack. They suggested the abduction followed a "build up of sexual frustration". Bridger rejected this, insisting he will "stick by my story" that he accidentally killed April in a road accident.

Then this (IF it's accurate):

Officer: Did you kill her in the car then? Bridger: No! When April got into the car I believe I had a chance to revive her.

And his attempts to explain away his internet searches are unconvincing, to say the least. He's claimed that some of the images of local girls were saved at the request of his children, yet we've heard no confirmation of that and it could easily have been submitted as a written statement from them.

The story about helping his daughter to shop for bras is utter hogwash, and the nine women on the jury (and, I have no doubt, the men too) will have seen through that straightaway. That's something a girl does with her mother. I might accept it from a single father, but this girl lives with her mother - and I'd bet that most single fathers would delegate teenage bra-fitting excursions to a female friend or relative anyway.

He has also continually undermined his position of memory loss. Apparently he has no trouble remembering that he didn't do certain things.