April Jones

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

It does sometimes happen - the jury sends a note. After retiring, the jury can request a transcript of some evidence, or ask for guidance on a point of law.

I can understand that entirely. That is simply revisiting the evidence given, or clarifying a legal point, as opposed to asking for information on something evidential that was not put across clearly by either defence or prosecution. As an (far too obvious) example, in this case, why do they think April is deceased.

[RtdRacer]

Durzel said:

I'm not sure I believe that magistrates are as corruptable as you infer there. If anything the public attention on this will probably make the scrutiny of the evidence and procedure even greater. Magistrates have form for ruling and sentencing disparately to public opinion ("hangin's too good for 'em")

Just not true these days. All the 'good old buffers' are now retired.

Sentencing Guidelines for mags is very, very good these days, and sentencing is very consistent. Mags care about sending the right message to the public yes, but they certainly don't pander to the court of public opinion.

And a less corruptible body of people I have never met. And how would you do it? Mags don't know what cases they have until that morning when they get to the retiring room - and they go straight from there to the court room.

[RtdRacer]

Jasandjules said:

Durzel said:

Regards "truth drugs", once you've stepped over that line there's no going back.

(sorry to sound melodramatic but it's true)

You are not wrong.

I agree. ONce you cross that line for kiddie murder, what about normal murder?

Then, what about rape? Aggravated Burglary?

It is very much the thin end of the wedge.

[streaky]

daz3210 said:

streaky said:

... to obtain information about the patient's condition that they are unwilling or unable to divulge.

Is that not the idea in this particular case, assuming this Bridger bloke is the right man? He may have info he is unwilling to divulge....

But why is it classed as torture? Are there some really painful side effects or something?

Use is only permissible to obtain information about the patient. Bridger would be "the patient".

Torture does not have to be 'physically' painful ... and pain is all in the mind anyway.

Streaky

[Pontoneer]

I read this morning that Bridger is the uncle of April's two older half-sisters .

[Melman Giraffe]

This has gone very quiet, did they find her?

[streaky]

There are now 150 officers and specialist searchers covering a 60 square kilometre area around Machynlleth as the hunt entered its third week. Specialist helicopters have also been drafted in to look for evidence of a shallow grave.

Police have vowed the search will go on for as long as it takes to find April.

Streaky

[tbc]

wouldn't surprise me if it turns out the parents had some involvement in her disappearance

call me a heartless bd, but I have every sympathy for those affected

[Tunku]

I suspect she went down the in spate river to the sea. If only we could force the heartless bd who disposed of her to give some details to allow a decent funeral.
God bless her soul.

[TheTurbonator]

Tunku said:

I suspect she went down the in spate river to the sea. If only we could force the heartless bd who disposed of her to give some details to allow a decent funeral.
God bless her soul.

Unfortunately this does seem to be the most likely scenario. The river would have been very full and fast flowing with all that rain we had.

[mattyn1]

tbc said:

wouldn't surprise me if it turns out the parents had some involvement in her disappearance

call me a heartless bd, but I have every sympathy for those affected

It is a common thought by the onlookers, especially considering the high profile cases recently. I don't think it is the case here though - the mum seemed definiotely genuinely upset. I have a feeling she is still alive though - maybe it's more hope than a feeling - but I would not be surprised if matey is acquitted of murder. I would have thought (hoped) the immediate response, and the masses searching from almost the word go would have turned something up. Maybe he passed her on to another before his capture, but I don't think Aprils parents are involved.

Not my feelings with the Megan Stammers case though (sorry Breadvan - I know you disagree). I feel sure her parents knew something about the teacher and Megan going away. No evidence, just thoughts from what I have seen on the TV.

[EU_Foreigner]

As he had a car and hours time to drive about, the search range could be massive though.

[k99]

There has to be more to this nightmare than we are being told about by the Police etc. He'd taken April out for trips before with his own children but all of a sudden he does this.
He didn't try to hide the kidnap, as his car was well known to the other kids who were there when he took her. So he knew he was going to be caught but didn't attempt to disappear afterwards.

[anonymous-user]

Not a big fan of the presumption of innocence, I see. Shall we not bother with a tiresome trial?

[k99]

You're right of course, I'm only hypothecating on what happened if he did take her.
It might make more sense if it turns out that he didn't actually take her and that's the reason he can't tell the Police where she is.

Edited by k99 on Sunday 21st October 18:06

[anonymous-user]

Hypothesising. Hypothecation is something dull to do with tax.

[db]

TheTurbonator said:

Tunku said:

I suspect she went down the in spate river to the sea. If only we could force the heartless bd who disposed of her to give some details to allow a decent funeral.
God bless her soul.

Unfortunately this does seem to be the most likely scenario. The river would have been very full and fast flowing with all that rain we had.

If she went into the river, I doubt they'll ever find her body.
I believe a body will float for a day then sink. A few days or so later the body will float again for another day or so before sinking and never rising

[mjb1]

telegraph.co.uk said:

But Mr Kelly told the court his client's defence involved him "conceding that he probably killed the child".

A slightly odd defence??

[carinaman]

mjb1 said:

telegraph.co.uk said:

But Mr Kelly told the court his client's defence involved him "conceding that he probably killed the child".

A slightly odd defence??

How does this news coverage effect the trial?

I'm glad I won't be called to do jury service on that one. 'Oh he's already said he probably did it.......

Would the jury be locked in a room to debate the verdict? Imagine trying to go against, or reason with 11 others that as of today now know he's said he probably did it?

[anonymous-user]

You may recall that Ian Huntley conceded that the Soham girls died in his house. His defence (it was not accepted by the jury) was that they died by accident. Maybe this bloke will say the same, and deny the requisite intention for murder.

The reporting is unobjectionable, as long as it is a fair and accurate record of what was said in open court, assuming no reporting restrictions were imposed by the court.

The jury are indeed sequestered while they try to reach their verdict. Your suggested scenario is counter factual, given what has been said on behalf of the accused. Saying "I killed her" is not the same as saying"I murdered her", although it may well be a tricky defence to run.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 14th January 16:07