Search results

Is there legal precedent for that?? I know there is for sleep walking etc.

Just thinking maybe the car issue is why he is pleading not guilty to abduction. If the only witness is a 7 year old child, who failed to give an accurate description of the vehicle, or identify MB (despite living in the same street for a period of time), and there are no credible forensics...

Lets not forget he's pleaded not guilty to abduction. So, how will he explain that away? He had permission, he had implied permission, he did not take her in his car, he had parental rights (rumour around SN sites). If he did not abduct her, then what. And he didn't conceal her, then what...

Also quoted: "probably responsible for killing the child" and the judge: "probably responsible for April's death". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9800678/April-Jones-Mark-Bridger-probably-responsible-for-death-court-hears.html

I think it is possible that maybe close to his defence. He was arrested in camouflage gear walking into Mach. I can't recall it being waterproof.

Are you talking about his police mugshot? On that I believe him to have been in a fight, bruising to his left cheek, and his nose looks broken. Or - a car accident which would tie in to the damage that can be seen on the front of his landrover. This was taken after his arrest, so almost 24...

Are you talking about his police mugshot? On that I believe him to have been in a fight, bruising to his left cheek, and his nose looks broken. Or - a car accident which would tie in to the damage that can be seen on the front of his landrover. This was taken after his arrest, so almost 24...

Can anyone tell me the reliability stats for lie detector tests in the US please?

I first though this was a plea bargaining attempt - however as I undertand it Manslaughter charge was not made or offerred so he can't plea to that (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm new to all this). The more I think about the statement, the more I think it's some kine of clever playmaker...

Could it just be very clever wording by the defence - responsible in that he could have intervened, and is going to implicate some one else?

Hmmm. Quite surprised at the judge allowing the defense statement to be released. How usual is this? Does this indicate that the defense are pushing for a manslaughter deal? So confused with this today:(

Sorry, I've never found them convincing at all. I've found them cold and detached. Any "emotion" appears fake to me. Now that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything, but that's how I feel when I watch them.

I will have to disagree with that. According to the NSPCC there is no legally set age at which it is acceptable to leave your child alone. The law states that it is unlawful to leave a child at home alone when doing so puts them at risk. Which regardless of what happened and who was...