I hate to say this and whether hes shown remorse or not
I think he may not reveal where the body is because he has a better chance at a lower sentence/getting off without a body
Or he simply
Left her in the river and shes been taken with the current to the sea and therefore, he would be charged with that because his actions have made uncovering a body impossible.
Either way, its sickening. I agree with Tasha though, the evidence against him must be compelling, its heartbreaking, i really thought they would find her.
Like I said I agree, but was just saying what the defence would be.
Someone on another forum explained the date thing. The are from midnight the day before the person was last seen alive to midnight on the day the body was discovered, they dont have a body in this case so it is midnight on the day (or day after) he was arrested x
Jem I thought similar, my theory is (warning graphic)
that something happened at the parents evening that and that it was sorta of the straw that broke the camels back. He then flipped (driving eratically), saw April and the moment too over for some awful things, then the next thing he knows there is national if not international media coverage, panics and murders her
Obviously just speculation though.
For those that arent convinced they had their man; it is very rare to press charges for murder without having found the person, it is practically unheard of with a child. They must have some pretty strong forensic evidence, IMO.
Those of you worried about the shoe throwing etc. On Wednesday he wont be going to the crown court instead it will be video link, much safer
Agreed, as horribly sad as it is. I don't know about anyone else but I find myself going over the possibilities of what they could have found in my head. I have to MAKE myself stop & even then sometimes I can't. It's so morbid. I genuinely do not know how April's family are meant to live like this. It's beyond words
But we have to bear in mind that there have been cases where someone has been charged and found guilty to be released years later after they were innocent. I think that was the man who was accused of Jill Dando's murder.
But sadly I do think in this case the evidence must be compelling against him.
But we have to bear in mind that there have been cases where someone has been charged and found guilty to be released years later after they were innocent. I think that was the man who was accused of Jill Dando's murder.
But sadly I do think in this case the evidence must be compelling against him.
Just seen this link. not sure if its already been said as i not updated myself with this thread properly yet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19867915
says he was charged with preventing the course of justice and then it says:
The latter charge refers to the unlawful disposal and concealment of a body.
Yes I wondered what that means as they have no body... I wonder if he has told them he put her in the river. I'm starting to think he might have confessed to everything! how can they be so sure otherwise?
that was my thinking as im pretty sure there are a few different acts that come under this charge and for them to actually say one.. unless its inaccurate ?
I too thought he had maybe admitted to everything and must have told them he had put her in the river and they were just trying to find her in there now but on the news before they said the police will stopping cars tonight and asking people if they had anymore info on Bridgers whereabouts last monday night to jog peoples memories. So if he had told them everything why would they still be trying to piece together his whereabouts?
Confusing!
how come the police wont release what evidence they have in order to charge
I keep on turning the news on and hoping shes found alive
It must be unbearable for the family and friends- I am devastated myself, and I am just a stranger
xxx
how come the police wont release what evidence they have in order to charge
I keep on turning the news on and hoping shes found alive
It must be unbearable for the family and friends- I am devastated myself, and I am just a stranger
xxx
Because there is a law that forbids it in the UK. It is so the person gets a fair trial otherwise it can be seen that the jurors will of made their mind up by stuff that may of been reporte (and not accurately).
But we have to bear in mind that there have been cases where someone has been charged and found guilty to be released years later after they were innocent. I think that was the man who was accused of Jill Dando's murder.
But sadly I do think in this case the evidence must be compelling against him.
No matter how compelling the evidence, he is still innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial. Thankfully the UK is still the kind of country that has that at the core of its justice system.
I still can't see why people are so hung up on the evidence thing, it's not any different to any other crime case, evidence is never made public at this stage. Details will come out at the trial, they do have it, and there is no way they would have been allowed to proceed without it
If you've never really followed a case before though you might not know at what stage evidence is released. Whenever there is a case like this, we usually 'find out' what has happened but I think people are just unsure when this occurs.
I still can't see why people are so hung up on the evidence thing, it's not any different to any other crime case, evidence is never made public at this stage. Details will come out at the trial, they do have it, and there is no way they would have been allowed to proceed without it
I guess because it is a highly unusual case. Usually the body is the evidence, but obviously this isnt the case (most people wont of heard of any case where a murder charge has happened without the person being found). So it is difficult for people to comprehend what the evidence could be, especially cos you dont want to think about any awful things he may of done to that precious girl.
But it was of a sexually explict nature about a five year old
As for the 50 people that went round to his house, well I hope they're all arrested too. When are people going to realise taking the law into your own hands is wrong, and makes you ust as bad?
I am amazed that guy has been sent to prison - what he said must have been horrendous (but even then I didn't think he would get sent to prison.........if you start jailing everyone who says something 'wrong' where do you stop, IYKWIM)
Off to read article now x
EDIT: I wonder if it's because it was sexual relating to a child, rather than 'just' being offensive.
People should not have descended upon his house.. I hate mob mentality. But to be honest with you, he needs to learn a lesson. There's making a joke, then there's posting sexually explicit jokes about children. That will be why he got a prison sentence, and rightly so. You cannot get away with things like that. Especially on a profile which is public. I hope he's learned now how wrong that was, drunk or not. I don't know anyone who makes jokes of that nature about children when drunk, no excuse.
admiral that is beautiful I send balloons and lanterns to my girls, I always imagine them catching them, it seems silly to some but comfort to me. I hope the lanterns and stuff have been something that her Mum has been able to do with less press around and has been a comfort to her.
Me neither Jem, it isnt just a case of offensive jokes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I send balloons and lanterns to my girls, I always imagine them catching them, it seems silly to some but comfort to me. I hope the lanterns and stuff have been something that her Mum has been able to do with less press around and has been a comfort to her.
