Because it may prejudice the trial.

Facts don't hinder a trial!

And I don't think that has stopped the newspaper reports before......as long it is fact/evident ??

Wouldn't it prejudice the jury pre-trial, so he wouldn't get a fair trial?

It really isn't the publics business at all until it comes to trial. They may well be the facts as the Police have them but they have to be presented to a jury without them having mind up their minds beforehand - newspapers always put a spin on it and can be very persuasive.

 

I think in the past newspapers have overstepped the mark printing 'facts' - that odd guy in Bristol is a case in point. I think they are being ultra careful so as not to jeapordise anything.

How can the facts/true evidence hinder a trial....it would be there for all to see in a court of law.

A fair trial is based on fact and nothing else isn't it ?

 

the sufficient evidence they have to charge him may be not being released without the Families permission depending on what it is - Aprils family are holding onto every second of hope that she could  still be alive ...  until she is found one way or another 

Hey Mrs!

 

Possible..
But I don't think so. (personally)

The family will be aware of the evidence, which if proves their little girl is dead then I don't see how it would serve them to hold back.

Surely factual evidence shared very often leads to further evidence ?

 

I hate this kind of story....makes my heart bleed to think of how she must be feeling/must have felt  

The thing is it might not be facts - it's Police suspicion - that is not fact. The suspicion and potential evidence needs to be proved in court.

 

In theory a jury should sit and listen to the evidence as it is presented in court and preferably have as little knowledge beforehand about anything pertaining to the case. If they have already read lots of stuff they may well have formed an opinion - therefore it's not really a fair trial.

 

Anyone who followed the Casey Anthony trial would be aware of the lengths they went to to get a jury that were 'unbiased'. 

I understand what you are saying Soozy...and wholeheartedly agree about a fair trial.
But I also maintain that factual evidence will end up at the same result whether known before/during or indeed after any case. 

But Slimfern we don't know for sure if its fact. Its not fact until proven. The evidence will be tested in court. You have to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. There would be expert witnesses to substantiate but also rebut the forensic evidence etc. Eye witnesses would be in court and asked questions about statements they made to police etc. 

 

The jury is only supposed to consider the evidence and the facts that they hear in court. Its human nature however to be influenced by things heard previously, so they have to be careful about releasing too much so the jury members don't go in with their minds already made up.

 

There are lots of rules about what evidence is admissable in court eg you can't admit hearsay as evidence, or similar fact evidence [for example if he had previous convictions or cautions in the past]. For all we know he may be known to police previously but they couldn't release that information now as it would be likely to seriously influence jury members before any trial. 

 

What we have now are reports of facts. Its not fact yet. Its up to the prosecution to prove to the jury's satisfaction all of it is true.

 

My head hurts 

I shall save you any more headache...am off to bed!

But!

I still maintain that if they have proper evidence then outside or inside a court, the evidence will speak for itself!

And that it shouldn't matter if we know or not.

 

It's all a bit iffy to me.....yes that poor child is missing...fact! (so was Shannon Matthews for a time)

I sincerely hope they have the right man...cos it means he isn't on the streets able to hurt another but I'm just not confident enough just yet...

 

Night!

 Night Slimfern...  I know what you're saying though... it doesn't all quite add up.

 

Innocent til proven guilty? Should he have been named?

 

if innocent his life has still been ruined

How would you suggest the police ask for help tracing a suspect's movements, when they are trying to find a missing child?

To be honest Blizz  - i dunno

I thought of this one - if he remains anon then it stops someone coming forward and saying "I saw him . . ."

 

But imagine if he was your son - and you just know he's innocent and all this hell breaks loose.

For this guy - his life is over even if he's proven innocent

I'm hoping that the police had good reason to suspect him and good reason to charge him. If not, and he's found not guilty, I'm hoping people will accept 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

Nothing else you can do. You can't risk worse things happening, by keeping suspects anonymous.

I remember that 1 or 2 days after April disappeared his name was mentioned by journalists before the police named him - did his name come from a leaked source from the police? Once mentioned the police went along with it and they wanted info from anyone who saw, or had knowledge of his movements in the timeframe of her disappearance. At this stage no one knows the truth of what happened to April. Her family deserve to know the truth however painful that will be to deal with.

I know Blizzie - it just seems so wrong though

 

Some crimes are never solved  - Suzy Lamplugh

Some poeple are wrongly convicted - Colin Stagg

 

 

Colin Stagg was never convicted by a court, just by the 'public', until the real culprit was found, of course.

 

Even if the police had not named Mark Bridger, I'm sure his name would have come out, as locals would have known that he'd been arrested. We just need to remain calm, until we see the evidence for ourselves. I can't see any way round it, in this case.

Exactly

I still can't see any way round it, can you?

No i can't

But it flies in the face of his right to innocence first

He's been convicted by the public right now

That would have happened anyway, even if he hadn't been named earlier. Are you saying he should remain anonymous throughout the trial? 

Essentially the law hasn't kept up with technology. Modern Communication enables us to discover his identity and it does fly in the face of justice. They were discussing these effects on the yank election last night too! "Global village" and all that!

In fairness - yes.

But i know its impractical

re the evidence the police had that was deemed to be sufficient to charge him and us not being told what it is, that is correct we should not know..

 

We may never know what they found because when it comes to trial some of what they have found may be inadmissible in court.. .for now it was deemed enough by the CPS to proceed with a charge ie there was a preponderance of evidence against him. . it may not be deemed sufficient or even found to have been gained legally when it comes to the trial part where it has to be proved without a shadow of a doubt. .  a charge and a trial are separate entity's I think, and different burdens of proof apply for each of them. 

 

I should have been a lawyer

 

I do hope they find the little one soon so she is in a state that is presentable enough fro the parents to be able to say goodbye properly

ps with thanks to Judge Judy for the word preponderance, and her explanation of what it meant. .  I lurve that word

He was charged and held on remand in prison for 13 months but was still innocent....

As we know people DON'T remain calm - there is already a FaceBook site calling for him to be hanged!!!

 

How can he ever walk the streets if found innocent.

Its a tradgedy for all involved.

I love Judge Judy

 

I really hope they find her soon

it's just gone in my note book for my creative writing course

 

 

 

I really hope they find April soon 

Maybe, if it had been known that Jimmy Saville was being investigated, his many, many victims would have had the courage to come forward and they would have received justice and others would not have become victims.

 

I prefer open justice, in most cases, tbh.

Mark Bridger, the man accused of murdering five-year-old April Jones, has been remanded in custody until January 11.

 

Bridger, 46, appeared at Caernarfon Crown Court via video link from prison in Manchester.

 

Sitting in front of a green curtain Bridger, who was unshaven and wore a black sweatshirt, seemed calm and listened closely to what was happening in court.

 

On Saturday, he was charged with the murder and abduction of April along with attempting to pervert the course of justice by the disposal or concealment of a body.

 

He will now face a plea and case management hearing back at Caernarfon Crown Court in January.

 

One of the most senior judges in Wales, Mr Justice Griffith-Williams, said he would oversee future hearings in the case.

 

April was last seen near her home on the Bryn-y-Gog estate in Machynlleth last Monday evening.

 

The search for the missing youngster is continuing in the mid Wales town.

On Tuesday police dog teams worked in rural outlying areas while marine units searched in the estuary of the River Dyfi.

 

There are now 135 police officers along with an RAF helicopter and a team of HM Coastguard searchers working on the case.

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/9957...ect-bridger-remanded

Isn't it horrible/terrible that they've still not found her. Heartbreaking

I dont think they ever will Soozy, the part of the river they were concentrating the search is not far from the Irish Sea... that's where i think  she ended up, yet another layer of pain put upon the poor family

As jen says the police are saying they may never find her i wonder if he has confirmed he put her in the river as thats where they seem to be searching the most

it is a very sad situation  it has dropped off the main news pages today 

Police searching for April Jones have renewed their focus on a small village a few miles from where she disappeared.

 

On day 11 of the search scores of police officers scoured land around Ceinws, which lies three miles north of Machynlleth.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/9963...-on-suspects-village

Today it emerged that Mark Bridger, the suspect accused of murdering April Jones is related to her family.

 

Bridger, 46, is the uncle of the little girl’s two half sisters.

 

Detectives looking at the complex relationships of Mr Bridger’s past, discovered that he had fathered two children with a woman called Elaine Griffiths. Mr Bridger and Elaine had Connor and Sophie in the 1990s.

 

Around the same time, Elaine’s sister Karen had two daughters - Hazel and Abby - with April’s father Paul Jones. He subsequently married April’s mother, Coral.

 

The connection means that Mr Bridger’s children are cousins to April’s half sisters.

 

Meanwhile it has emerged that children as young as seven will provide key evidence in the trial of Mr Bridger which is expected to take part next year.

 

The young witnesses, who have already provided video interviews about what they saw, are expected to provide further evidence via video link at the full hearing.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...r-five-year-old.html

How awful, as if it couldn't get any worse for the poor family.