Suspect in missing child case pleads Not Guilty but is 'Probably responsible for her death'.

I've only ever posted a couple of threads, but I felt compelled to draw as much attention to this case as possible.
I'm from the UK (England specifically,) and have been interested in a number of events that may well have connections, particularly with regard to child abuse and paedophile rings.
Alot of this has been in the news over the last few months or even years, with such events as the Jimmy Saville scandal, the Jersey care home abuse stories, and stories of abuse in Wales at the hands of prominent Members of Parliament.

1st October last year, a young girl named April Jones disappeared from her home in Machynlleth, Wales.
The next day, a man named Mark Bridger was arrested for her disappearance. He was subsequently charged with abducting and murdering April, and of unlawfully disposing of and concealing her body with intent to pervert the course of justice, though April's body was never located and the search continues.

The 47-year-old Mark Bridgerpleaded not guilty to abduction, murder and perverting the course of justice, when he appeared at Mold Crown Court.
However, Mr Bridger’s barrister explained his client’s defence would involve him “conceding that he probably killed the child”. The defence counsel and the judge agreed that this could be reported before the trial. No more details were given.



www.express.co.uk...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So what does this statement mean exactly? He pleads not guilty to all charges, and yet his lawyer states his defence will show him responsible for her death? Why plead not guilty then?
Much information about what went on in court today appears to have been shut down.
There is tenuous evidence with which to convict him. Child witnesses made reference to a vehicle seen in the area, the details of which seemed to change with time until it morphed into Mr Bridgers' vehicle.
I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm begining to think that he is somehow a patsy or scapegoat for whoever did take her.
I believe there is a paedophile ring out there that managed to find useful people to point fingers at, just as police were going deeper into their investigations (Operation Yewtree, operation Ore).
This thing will be buried.

Thanks for posting the links. You are correct, none of it makes sense unless he was an accomplice, and someone brought her to him and then disposed of her for him.

Nothing else makes sense.

reply to post by Lucius Driftwood


Yep this had me scratching my head earlier. A very unusual circumstance.
I'm not yet convinced that there is a conspiratorial connection though.

I know there really is a global network of psychos trafficking kids women and men for the abuse by and entertainmnt of the elites, but I need more to connect that to this. Sometimes it's just a solitary sick [snip]!!!


Edit to add: not sure how I feel about about the info release. I'm really intrigued but hope not too much info comes out beause of the risk of protestations of a soiled jury and requests for a mistrial.

reply to post by merkins


Firstly Mark Bridger is innocent until proven guilty.
Courts of public opinion have no bearing on his true innocence or guilt.

The only details given by police to the public at present are sparse, but one hopes this is for good and just reason and to ensure a fair trial.
However, there are inconsistencies within what has been relayed to the public...

April was abducted 7:30pm Oct 01, approximately.
The police stated that they were informed of the abduction almost immediately.

They also stated that they had been informed of the name/identity of alleged abductor.

Also stated by police, a 7 year old girl was the only witness to the abduction.
This witness led police to put out public report stating they were looking for a light coloured or grey or cream coloured small van (possibly transit connect type) or a land rover.

The facts being, Mark Bridgers Land rover is mid to dark blue. In darkness of 7:30pm and street lighting, the vehicle would still appear dark in colour and possibly darker than it is in reality.
It could be possible that Mark Bridger had access and use to another vehicle which matches up with initial police description. Although, it has not been relayed to public that this could be so and it appears that police are not looking for another vehicle.

Bridger's name/details, according to police information was given almost immediately at the start of enquiries.
Yet, Bridger was not arrested until 3:30pm the very next day.
Perhaps the police immediately went to Bridger's home in Ceinws near Corris/Machynlleth. Having done so, Bridger may not have been home.
The police surely would have posted officers outside his home to apprehend him when he returned.
The reports though appear to show this did not occur. Bridger was seen driving out of his village next morning by a neighbour. This shows that the police did not stake out Bridger's home.
Also, Bridger took his car to the local Machynlleth garage and left it their on that morning after April's abduction and then he possibly walked back home immediately.
The garage in question is mere yards from where he was arrested later on in the same day.
At 1:40, later same day, Bridger was seen/filmed by t.v company walking along the river bank situated between his home in Ceinws and the garage his Land rover was parked in Machynlleth.
There is nothing unusual in his walking along the river bank. In fact it is the most sensible and safe option to walking along a narrow winding and often slippery roadside.
We can only presume he was walking to check on or collect his Land rover.
After walking into Machynlleth and probably stopping at repair garage, he must have decided to walk from Old station road, where garage was situated and out onto the main stretch of road into Machynlleth, about 1 min walk.
At this point he was detained and arrested, approx 3:30pm.
This seems to show that again police were not in Bridgers village searching or waiting for him.
Remember, police stated that Bridgers name/details were given to them almost immediately within start of enquiries...
Do the police have very odd, non standard enquiry/investigative procedures?

When a child or anyone for that matter is abducted, the initial few hours are very, very important in locating the abductee.

We can be sure the police have not divulged all details to April's abduction.
To not do so is standard procedure during ongoing investigations and before court proceedings/conviction.

Bridger, was very well known in Machynlleth, especially on the estate where April lives.
IF... he is the abductor, to commit such a crime where you are so well known and would be instantly recognised, is to state the least, beyond reasonable sanity. Although, it can happen... rarely.

If the police were of the knowledge from the outset, that Bridger could be the abductor, then why not immediately advise the public as to his name/details/description/vehicle.
Note, this abduction was a five year old defenceless child...
The police saw fit to not do so, why?

Mark Bridger was well known to April's family and apparently at times had taken April out on small trips with two of his own children, who also live on the Bryn Y Gog estate.
So, it would be far from unusual to expect forensics to find no evidence of D.N.A etc within his vehicle or even his home.
According to latest reports, Bridger has been charged with murder, based on April's fingerprints having been found within his home.
Based on the evidence that has been publicly released and backs up the charge of murder, it is circumstantial at best on this particular instance.
Again, from what information that has been publicly released, there are inconsistencies about this case.
There appears to be no corpus delecti (body of evidence) from what little public information is out there.
IF...April is dead, then of course there is no body to prove such.