The April Jones trial has started

[NorthernLurker]

The trial of Mark Bridger for the abduction and murder of April Jones plus some other charges has started today. From what I've read of the initial statements given by the prosecution, it's clearly going to be a very distressing case.
My thoughts are with all in court including the jury but most especially with April's parents who are in court. I don't know how they can bear it.

Or suggests that we believe in the legal system.

Oh heck - that's me outed then

'provocative, salivating, voyeuristic, mawkish, distasteful, tricoteuse and grief tourist'.

Yup - that'll out me to anyone who knows me. Or wait a minute - no it won't. Because it's bollocks.

You are not merely disagreeing with a thread. You are making moral judgments on those who don't agree with you.

You have every right to do that, just seems a waste of your time.

Yeah I don't like moral judgement postings either - they're a real heart sink.

And discussing what the prosecution have already said in open court can not prejudice a fair trial. The jury will be told NOT to read stuff on Internet or in papers. They must consider only evidence raised in court.

I think it would be sensible for this thread to remain as I assume potential for another to be started if this one's removed. At least it is clear this is a subject to be referenced with extreme care.

I hope April's parents are told where April's body is so they can lay her to rest peacefully and with love.

Terrible events.

The jury will be told NOT to read stuff on the Internet

Doesn't mean they won't. Imagine if someone on the jury is a MNetter?

If the jury won't take their responsibilities seriously, they may find themselves in prison. I don't see why I should censor myself because a juror may be too stupid to understand his or her role.

But again, if the discussion is about what has been said in court, what precisely is the problem?

Oh well, as you were then.

There are 9 women on the jury. Not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more uses this site (or the men of course) so while I think the thread should remain, let's all take care with what we post as I don't imagine anyone wants this trial to be needlessly prejudiced or even for that possibility to be opened up in appeal.

And yawn at the 'don't see the point of these threads' crowd. If there had to be a point to internet discussion, most of MN could be shut down right now. Yes of course you can have your say but so can others. As long as the site guidelines are observed and the law isn't broken, people can select whatever topics they wish to discuss. At least it's not 'amusing' trolling by people who should have better things to do with their time.

'If you were Aprils mum would you like to read Pret people poring over the agony your kid experienced ?'

No one knows how she must feel. None of us can guess. But I think, when bad things happen to people, they don't necessarily object to genuine, well meant sympathy coming from complete strangers.

I don't understand the problem with that. And I think people will be interested in the details, but most of the posts here seem to be expressing horror and sadness for the people who are actually involved.

I think that could be said to be one of Mumsnet's purposes - support, I suppose. Even if her family never see these posts, we're contributing perhaps to a wider sympathetic vibe all over the internet.

As long as we stick to the sympathy that is.

Maybe if any good can come from a thread like this, it is the reminder that yet again, in a horrific, unimaginable crime against a little child, and god, the evidence heard today is grim, the accused prime suspect is someone that she and the family knew.

I believe the majority of people are still far too hung up on the prospect of random strangers abducting their child and are not vigilant enough when it comes to people they know, or sort of know, or know of, or have met through a friend.

Child internet porn and abuse is rife through ALL walks of life, GPs, teachers, clergy, policemen, babysitters, other parents on the playground at hometime - you can never be too careful about who you allow your child to know. I am not saying there were any warning signs in this case at all, just that we all need to be so so careful. The law of averages says we probably ALL know someone who is not what they seem. Its not rude to question people, to be vigilant, to monitor their behaviour, to say no to their friendly gestures, to report ANY suspicions when something does not seem right or makes you uncomfortable.

At the same time, when we see heartbreaking stories like this or the death of the Indian girl who was raped, we need to remember that there are far more decent people than bad in the world.

I sat for a long time after seeing the 1 o'clock news. Just thinking about her parents and what it must be like for them. It's Desperately sad.

Her poor parents & family, so sad

I would hope that anyone who has he intelligence to operate a computer will listen and understand when the judge tells her what her duties are and the penalties for breaching that.

If not, the problem isn't with the Internet, its with that juror.

I'm with Nehru. Collective grief amongst strangers gives me the creeps.

I think its more creepy to not have any compassion or sorrow for the family tbh...

I agree with pumpkin. She was a little girl. I remember my daughter at that stage. If feeling sad and sick is mawkish and 'creepy' then so be it. It is how I feel. I am not going to make it my facebook status but nor am I am going to feel ashamed of this emotion.

If that creeps people out, by all means go and do something else.

Who on earth said they have no compassion or sorrow? Certainly not me. I just don't like the Diana-esque emotional incontinence that these threads encourage.

indeed pumpkin, stories like this should touch all our hearts, and for many of us the only "outlet" for the anger, sadness, shock, disgust, compassion -is to share those feelings with others online.

my thoughts and prayers are with Aprils family, her school friends and teachers and all those in her community who are still living with this nightmare. I hope they find some strength and peace knowing they are the subject of such an outpouring of human compassion. How awful it would be if no one cared.

Thanks for that

It's interesting they are admitting his computer browsing history as evidence of a motive when the same was excluded from the Joanna Yeates trial because it was thought it could be prejudicial. Any ideas why they decided it was OK here, but not in the JY case?

Well this is an extraordinary and horrific thing that happened here to this little girl. It's hard not to want to say on a discussion board like this what do make of that? And what do you make of his story that he ran the girl over??

We've established that it's sensible not to discuss the defendant's alleged actions and motives but bloody hell - very bloody bizarre turn of alleged events!

Spero You may be surprised to learn that you are not excluded from jury service because you are stupid.

Stupid people do end up on juries. In fact, I'd go so far as to say in any random group of 12 people you are going to get a stupid one.

All it would take is for stupid juror to go into the jury room one day over the next few weeks and spout something they have read on the net in front of a clerk, and they'd have to have a retrial. This is why if you sent opinion on an ongoing trial to a letters page of a newspaper they wouldn't print it.

Of course people are going to want to talk about something so shocking and sad, but the problem for MN here is that it is contempt of court to publish anything which might prejudice a trial - including discussion of evidence, guesses as to guilt etc. Letting stuff stay on the website counts as 'publishing' and it's strict liability, which means you don't have to have INTENDED to publish it or intend to affect the trial. It also doesn't matter whether it actually affects the trial, just whether it has the potential to.

So MN will need to delete anything which may possibly do any of those things.

This is only the case while proceedings are 'active' - once there is a verdict you can say what you like.