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

[Elainera]

its 50 50 in my mind probably guilty but maybe hung IMO

The prosecution failed IMO to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that he abducted and murdered her

The prosecution also relied heavily on the bone fragments found, the defence forensic witnesses put a doubt to that too

ITA with you. The defence also didn't do a stellar job imo. Did they ever offer any explanation why there was no forensic evidence under the car/tire?

If the jury is hung what will happen next?

 

[George Gently]

ITA with you. The defence also didn't do a stellar job imo. Did they ever offer any explanation why there was no forensic evidence under the car/tire?

If the jury is hung what will happen next?

I'm not sure but I think the judge can instruct them to retire again to consider the evidence and if it is still hung order a retrial.

We don't have Not Proven in the UK like in French courts.

 

[Clutchbag]

I tend to agree.

thanks, if I was on that jury I would vote not guilty of the charges based on the evidence

i might vote guilty of perverting the course of justice though as he could have and probabky lied about not rememberinf what he did, but no evidence for murder IMHO

And i didnt believe the forensic so called expert that human bones were in the fire, aue black for the defence said there was no evidence ans it was unsafe

 

[ann-other]

thanks, if I was on that jury I would vote not guilty of the charges based on the evidence

i might vote guilty of perverting the course of justice though as he could have and probabky lied about not remembering, but no evidence for murder IMHO

And i didnt believe the forensic so called expert that human bones were in the fire

Again, I agree and if I was on the jury, I would also have serious doubts based on the evidence.

 

[George Gently]

However, there is some irony in a man who has been shown to be a liar and fantasist to the extent that he creates entire fabrications, casting doubt on the smaller details of the evidence of a young girl who witnessed the incident where she maintains AJ was not driven over but entered the vehicle of her own volition. A witness he calls a liar.

Who is telling the truth?

 

[Clutchbag]

ITA with you. The defence also didn't do a stellar job imo. Did they ever offer any explanation why there was no forensic evidence under the car/tire?

If the jury is hung what will happen next?

any evidence under the car coukd have been destroyed easily as said before by driving around in the rain and mud

 

[Clutchbag]

However, there is some irony in a man who has been shown to be a liar and fantasist to the extent that he creates entire fabrications, casting doubt on the smaller details of the evidence of a young girl who witnessed the incident where she maintains AJ was not driven over but entered the vehicle of her own volition. A witness he calls a liar.

Who is telling the truth?

Thats a point but a liar for personal reasons over the years is not proof that he lied here


the other argument by the prosecution was that he was interested in real life crimes, as per their pathetic question to him as why did he have wipes in his car, hello??? I have interest in real life crime, as does everyne here, and i have wet wipes in my car

what a couple of stupid stupid points, evans qc should go back to school

Kelly normally wins trials

 

[Clutchbag]

I think there is no evidence he murdered her so i expect a no guilty verdict IMO

 

[George Gently]

Thats a point but a liar for personal reasons over the years is not proof that he lied here


the other argument by the prosecution was that he was interested in real life crimes, as per their pathetic question to him as why did he have wipes in his car, hello??? I have interest in real life crime, as does everyne here, and i have wet wipes in my car

what a couple of stupid stupid points

I agree on that but the verdict will depend on whether they believe the young girl or not.

She may well have got details wrong, as is the case with any witness, but is she lying over the relevant point of whether AJ was run over and lifted into the car or climbed into it of her own free will.

That is the crucial issue.

 

[Clutchbag]

I agree on that but the verdict will depend on whether they believe the young girl or not.

She may well have got details wrong, as is the case with any witness, but is she lying over the relevant point of whether AJ was run over and lifted into the car or climbed into it of her own free will.

That is the crucial issue.

I wouldnt believe her for a few reasons

I think there is reasonable doubt here and that should be enough

 

[ann-other]

I agree on that but the verdict will depend on whether they believe the young girl or not.

She may well have got details wrong, as is the case with any witness, but is she lying over the relevant point of whether AJ was run over and lifted into the car or climbed into it of her own free will.

That is the crucial issue.

I don't think she is lying as to what she saw but I'm not sure that what she saw has not been integrated into the adult's perceivement as to what she may have seen.

 

[Clutchbag]

Can i ask again what people would vote i cant post q poll

 

[Clutchbag]

I don't she is lying as to what she saw but I'm not sure that what she saw has not been integrated into the adult's percievement as to what she saw.

Ditto

If this jury is going to get a man senteneced to life they better be sure

 

[ann-other]

Although I have intimated this, I haven't in so many words voiced this before but feel I have to now. Is it not possible he is covering up for someone, someone obviously very close to him. Won't go any further here though.

 

[George Gently]

I don't think she is lying as to what she saw but I'm not sure that what she saw has not been integrated into the adult's perceivement as to what she may have seen.

That is true in the early stages over details such as the shape of the van and the colour of his eyes, but there is a massive difference between the two alleged versions when it comes to the crucial issue.

She will have been briefed before trial about the need to be honest and the jury saw her give evidence by video link.

They will have seen her demeanour and have a better insight than the rest of us as to whether they thought she was truthful.

 

[George Gently]

Although I have intimated this, I haven't in so many words voiced this before but feel I have to now. Is it not possible he is covering up for someone, someone obviously very close to him. Won't go any further here though.

He was seen at the scene of her disappearance, he admits she left with him, he admits she was at his home and that he got rid of the body.

If someone else was involved he would still be co-charged with the same offences.

 

[Clutchbag]

Sorry george i dont believe your account of the child witness she could have been told to say anything

 

[Clutchbag]

Although I have intimated this, I haven't in so many words voiced this before but feel I have to now. Is it not possible he is covering up for someone, someone obviously very close to him. Won't go any further here though.

No

WHo would he be doing this for

 

[George Gently]

Sorry george i dont believe your account of the child witness she could have been told to say anything

That may be the case, I'm just putting it in perspective.

If she had been run over and injured though, you would have expected even greater panic over her disappearance as they would know she could be dying. Why would people who loved her want to create a different impression and keep that from the police.

 

[ann-other]

As far as we have been told, the child witness has not been asked to actually identify MB's Land Rover as the car involved nor has she been asked to identify MB himself. Please correct me if mistaken in this.