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.

Seriously don't engage, it's just not worth it.

The jury will be visiting Bridger's house tomorrow, apparently.

georgedawes agreed.

I didn't mean to make anyone look daft, just can't abide something being spelt wrong

I am kind of on the fence here, I don't think any of us means harm - I can see that Growlithe is frustrated, everyone else is feeling pretty horrified, wanting to talk about it...we just have to be calm and respectful of each other's perspective if at all possible. And most of all try not to prejudice anything.

agreed chaps?

I haven't done any crime for ages but I am very interested in the whole role of the jury and now decisions are made about what evidence the jury can or can't see. I think we should trust the jury more or what is the point of them? I think if you have looked at certain things on the Internet that are even vaguely linked, then the jury should know this and they should decide what weight they put on the evidence.

And I would be in favour of allowing juries to make adverse inferences if you fail to give evidence on your behalf.

Agreed Spero.

but Spero forgive me asking, we're not in charge of what should be the law - as it stands now do we not have to abide by contempt rules, however iniquitous it might be?

If I have said anything that is in contempt of court, report me and my post will be deleted.

I don't want to jeopardise a trial or go to prison. I am a bit hacked off that people with apparently very little understanding of what constitutes contempt of court are appointing themselves guardians of this thread and my morality too.

I wasn't suggesting that you had, for a moment.

Rooney I think those of us who want to discuss the case have expressed by now our intent to avoid saying anything that would jeopardise the trial. I am also sure MN will be watching the thread closely to delete anything that might do so. The fact that there have been deletions but the thread remains shows that they don't have a problem with the discussion itself.

I was only saying that whatever we think should be allowed, it doesn't change the fact that in law at present we still need to be careful.

You're right I have no legal knowledge.

that's why I was asking you.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting I hadn't respected laws around contempt of court - with which I agree.

To jeopardise this trial would be awful - terrible for the parents and a massive waste of taxpayers money.

I don't 'do' crime so I am not an expert on what does constitute contempt in these circs but I am pretty confident that a general discussion about criminal proceedings or reference to facts already in public domain cannot possibly be contempt.

I think we all want to see justice served and will be careful not to write anything that is in contempt of court (and people should report anything if they think that it is prejudicial).

What I object to is being told we're not allowed to discuss the case at all, that is incorrect. People may not agree with that, but it's just not worth repeating the same point over and over - I feel that is almost on goading territory and I am not going to engage with it, and I think others would be best not to either. By all means make your point, but to keep on and on is just an attempt to derail the thread. The best thing is therefore to ignore.

Ah Ok. So sorry for causing the misunderstanding. Thankyou for clarifying a bit too.

Good point well made about going on and on about the same point of view. I'll shut up now, and get off my high horse now, as I have taken things too far. I felt goaded too.

There is of course interest in the case, especially on a parenting site. I feel very sorry for the jurors, you would never choose to be in that position. And it is unrealistic to expect someone to be offline for the duration of a long case with the way we use the internet in our leisure time these days. It would take enormous self control for a normal person who was so heavily involved in the court case not to read anything about it IMO.

I myself requested my posts be withdrawn on the original thread when April went missing, I had not considered the fact that anything said may prejudice a trial. Maybe I ended up a bit trigger happy with my own posts, they hadn't been deleted by MNHQ. So I do actually recognise a need to talk about this, and sorry if I've made light of that need.

And for the record, I have not and will not report anything on this thread.

Anticipating the outcome of a criminal trial or mounting an organised campaign for a particular verdict or discussing previous convictions is likely to be contempt - basically anything that is deemed to interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Growlithe thanks, that's very gracious of you. And I share your concern for the jury, who are having to consider some awful things.

Spero, do juries in cases like this get offered counselling afterwards?

Appreciate the sentiment growlithe.

I dont think juries get counselling but someone else might know more.

My criminal pupil master used to have horrific photos to look at - he wouldn't let me see most of them. He got no counselling.

I still don't understand why a picture of an autopsy helped him prepare his defence... It must be one of the wort parts of jury duty in murder cases. My dad had a very old book on forensic medicine which I found as a teenager and some of the photos haunt me still.

I got out of jury service two years ago as was due to give birth however I did comment to dh that it must be so damaging for jurers to hear awful cases. Life changing I'd imagine for many.
As a sw I've heard some pretty horrific stories but this really is painful to hear.
Poor baby.

Respect to you for your last post Growlithe. I felt goaded too! Clearly this emotive and difficult situation has got us all somewhat het up. May I hand round restorative cups of ?

I would like to know what support is provided for the jury as well. Do yuou get excused future service if you have a particularly upsetting case or have I imagined that?

I've heard of judges excusing jurors from future cases after being on complex or distressing cases before. Don't know fully how it works though.

If you are selected for jury duty and want to get out of it, can't you just say that you've read so much about the case that you don't feel you can be impartial. Or (naughty suggestion) that you have met the defendant or witnesses ... even if you haven't, would anybody know otherwise?

I think lying to get out of jury duty is probably a crime too!

I'd be honoured to do jury duty but I'm such a fuckwit I doubt they would let me near a court.