Missing April Jones: Search Intensifies

I'm not sure if there is a more current thread on this where this is being discussed, but I thought his plea was interesting...

Former lifeguard Mark Bridger has conceded he is "probably responsible" for the death of April Jones but has denied her abduction and murder.

Bridger, who is accused of abducting the five-year-old as she played near her home in Machynlleth, mid-Wales, will go on trial next month.

At a plea and management hearing at Mold crown court, Flintshire, Bridger denied abduction, murder and intending to pervert the course of justice by concealing or disposing of the child's body.

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.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Am I wrong in thinking that this is prejudicial...the judge seems to have already made up his mind...admittedly, the press were barred from reporting the evidential hearing, but it also seems as though Bridger's brief is mounting his defence against a murder charge while acknowledging his responsibility for her death. How does that work? I could understand it if he had abducted and then abandoned her to make her own way home, for example, but he is also pleading not guilty to abduction.

How can he 'probably' be responsible?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


The judge isn't being prejudicial, he's stating what the defence will be according to the accused's legal team. As for 'probably responsible' I assume that this means a diminished responsibily plea.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

When I heard this on the news I thought it might be that he took her but passed her on to someone else, but I've been thinking that all along.
I see he is going not guilty for abducting her, so unless he had somebody else in or using his car then Insomniac is probably right, he's going for diminished responsibility.
They haven't found her body yet as far as I know but I'm sure he knows where she is or what happened to her.

Originally posted by LEL01
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

When I heard this on the news I thought it might be that he took her but passed her on to someone else, but I've been thinking that all along.
I see he is going not guilty for abducting her, so unless he had somebody else in or using his car then Insomniac is probably right, he's going for diminished responsibility.
They haven't found her body yet as far as I know but I'm sure he knows where she is or what happened to her.

[/quote

I've been wondering that all along as well - his plea does seem to acknowledge an involvement with what happened, at least. He has links with the military / guards, links with the leisure industry round Machynlleth and links with the entertainment world through the extended family and the other regulars at the Red Lion pub. A lot of places to look.

reply to post by Anthony2


It's a bit hard to get your head around this one because he denied abduction, murder and intending to pervert the course of justice by concealing or disposing of the child's body but he was probably responsible for her death. Legal people have strange ways of doing things it's never straight forward with them.

To me that means he didn't take or kill her but he did help the person who did, the person who took her didn't tell him where he was taking her. All we know is the police found evidence in or around his house but we don't know what that evidence is.

I don't like to give up hope for a child until a body is found because you never know, it's harder to do that with April because she needed medication but people who can make a child disappear would probably have that covered.

Thanks chaps!

I hadn't considered diminished responsibility...and I suppose since reporting was barred from the evidential hearing, that that could have included the presentation of the psychiatric report...and possibly a claim of 'lost time' or 'amnesia' on his part.

I would have thought that if there was anyone else involved, then there would have been a charge of aiding and abetting

Thanks again all.

Monday 25 February.
I'm just posting the date of the trial to make it easy to find, still 4 weeks away.

This timing seems significant when 3 events are taken together;
1. 22 April, police say they are stopping the search for April Jones because they have thoroughly searched everywhere in the Machynllech area, www.guardian.co.uk...

2. 30 April, 11.34am reported that Jury sworn in for Mark Bridger's trial, www.guardian.co.uk...

3. 30 April, 20.52pm reported that blood and bone fragments had been found at Mark Bridger's home near Machynllech - no date given for the find but not previously reported, Additionally, all kinds of incriminating material was found on his computer, www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Anthony2
This timing seems significant when 3 events are taken together;
1. 22 April, police say they are stopping the search for April Jones because they have thoroughly searched everywhere in the Machynllech area, www.guardian.co.uk...

2. 30 April, 11.34am reported that Jury sworn in for Mark Bridger's trial, www.guardian.co.uk...

3. 30 April, 20.52pm reported that blood and bone fragments had been found at Mark Bridger's home near Machynllech - no date given for the find but not previously reported, Additionally, all kinds of incriminating material was found on his computer, www.bbc.co.uk...

I was hoping and praying that that lovely little girl had a quick painless death. So todays revelations are so upsetting but not particularly suprising. I just wish he'd the decent thing and tell the truth. Hes scum.

One point I was making though was, when was this evidence found at Mark Bridger's home? It was searched very early on, around the time he was arrested, yet there doesn't seem to be an indication that it was found at that time. He has been in custody since then, so are they saying the evidence was there all the time and they kept missing it?

I'm not saying he isn't guilty - he might be - but there are one or two other elements that disturb me about the evidence here. One, that they are relying on the report of a little girl that she got into his car and looked happy - not saying either that the little girl is not to be trusted, but it so happened that an elderly man who was also a witness was killed as he drove his car back from North Wales a few days after the abduction. As a previous post pointed out, the original description of the vehicle involved with April wasn't anything like Mark Bridger's vehicle, however it sounded very like one that was reported to the police by a headmistress earlier on the same day of the abduction, approaching school children in Solva, Pembrokeshire, which was described in the local press at the time as driven by a "couple". Drive-time-wise, the journey up the coast from Solva to Machynlleth would have tied in with April's abduction in the afternoon. Also, one of the early descriptions of the abduction - by a child, don't know whether this was the same one who has just featured in the court evidence - talked about "they" in the vehicle that took April - not "he". It was reported that one or more of those that April had been playing with were Mark Bridger's own children - wouldn't they have recognised their father? Also, some of the volunteer searchers who, early on, were at what sounded like farmland in the surrounding countryside, found a water-bottle on the ground, pink and from memory, possibly with some purple on it as well - pink being April's favourite colour and a water-bottle being something she might well have used. A volunteer said in a "blog" that it was taken away as possible evidence but after it was found, the volunteers were told to stop searching up there, the wet weather being the given reason, when some people might have wanted to go on to search a derelict farm building that was nearby. Was that farm building ever searched - and/or was it a convenient sort of spot for a helicopter to land, and did the police investigation include that possibility? Apparently they closed the roads off pretty quickly after it happened, but there are helicopters in that area sometimes.

Those are some questions I'd like to see answered before I'd be willing to settle on who might have done this.

this Bridger chap is a piece of cowardly crap who deserves some 'inmate justce'. i hope he gets it.