Mark Bridger / April Jones dissapearance

[Patti]

In April 2013, he pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting 13 girls, aged between 9 and 17 years old, during the period 1967–86.When the news became public knowledge at the beginning of May 2013, the BBC immediately terminated his contract.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Patti yes, to me it makes a difference because of the age of the man, in this case Stuart Hall. In 1967 he was 38 years old, he was old enough to know that a child under the age of consent was too young to be sexually active. Its not like we're talking about two love struck teenagers under 16. Plus, him being on programmes like 'It's a knockout' would have, I imagined given him plenty of access to children when he was supposed to be in a position of trust.

Hi Joanne

I am referring to Bill Roach...Although I do agree with you. 

[maggie]

And charge by all accounts...Do you think things are going to far? I think there is a big difference to a 15 year old girl than that of say a 12 year old....I might get shooted down for saying that, because even at any age to force someone in a sexual act is against the law.....

Obviously, rape is always unacceptable and a crime!! However, I do question some of these allegations.  When I look back to the misty, distant past  I remember many incidents happening either to myself or friends.  For a start many 15 year olds looked, acted and pretended to be much older than they were, they wanted to be seen as 16 or maybe even 18 how would anyone know the difference? I agree there is a massive difference between a 15 year old and a 9 year old, it's a whole different crime as far as I can see. However rape is rape at any age??

[Bridget]

Obviously, rape is always unacceptable and a crime!! However, I do question some of these allegations.  When I look back to the misty, distant past  I remember many incidents happening either to myself or friends.  For a start many 15 year olds looked, acted and pretended to be much older than they were, they wanted to be seen as 16 or maybe even 18 how would anyone know the difference? I agree there is a massive difference between a 15 year old and a 9 year old, it's a whole different crime as far as I can see. However rape is rape at any age??

I agree, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Bill Roache was in his 30s when this is supposed to have happened. Whether she was willing or not, and whether she looked older or not, you'd think he would have some concern about whether or not she was mature enough.

[Patti]

Obviously, rape is always unacceptable and a crime!! However, I do question some of these allegations.  When I look back to the misty, distant past  I remember many incidents happening either to myself or friends.  For a start many 15 year olds looked, acted and pretended to be much older than they were, they wanted to be seen as 16 or maybe even 18 how would anyone know the difference? I agree there is a massive difference between a 15 year old and a 9 year old, it's a whole different crime as far as I can see. However rape is rape at any age??

I question them too Maggie, I mean how long ago was it that this crime took place? I am referring to BRoach....mind you on saying that how long ago was it when JSavile paid his attentions to young girls?

Why wait all these years to come out of the woodwork? I suppose the Savile cases has set a president and time have changed, so out the allegations come...modern times and all that. Nonetheless the girl was 15 and therefore she was underage.....and might not have dressed like our 15 year olds do today...some on them hardly wear anything....I do agree rape is rape no matter what age....

[Jane]

I agree, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Bill Roache was in his 30s when this is supposed to have happened. Whether she was willing or not, and whether she looked older or not, you'd think he would have some concern about whether or not she was mature enough.

Bridget, have you never heard that a rampant apendage has no conscience and is certainly not concerned about the maturity or otherwise of the person it has in its sight.

[Bridget]

Bridget, have you never heard that a rampant apendage has no conscience and is certainly not concerned about the maturity or otherwise of the person it has in its sight.

Yes, unfortunately I think you're right.

[maggie]

I question them too Maggie, I mean how long ago was it that this crime took place? I am referring to BRoach....mind you on saying that how long ago was it when JSavile paid his attentions to young girls?

Why wait all these years to come out of the woodwork? I suppose the Savile cases has set a president and time have changed, so out the allegations come...modern times and all that. Nonetheless the girl was 15 and therefore she was underage.....and might not have dressed like our 15 year olds do today...some on them hardly wear anything....I do agree rape is rape no matter what age....

I'd like to bet she did dress older, we were just the same in the 60s and 70s.  I knew guys in bands in the 60s most of who would grab any offer anytime from pretty much any girl.  I would like to bet many of these girls were 15 but no guy in those days would have thought about that for one minute, the law was ignored and no one was ever prosecuted...it was the way it was.  People are much more aware of the age of consent now than they were then.  In many ways it was more about a girls morals than her age....it was a very different time.

[OnceSaid]

I've been trying to follow the press articles relating to the trial, and although some of the details are answering some questions I had, it is throwing up more questions than answers. Regardless of what the defence come back with, he is responsible for her death. 

He claimed in his first statements that he doesnt know where he left her,  which is probably why they continued there search for her, till last week.  But how does that explain the findings of a piece of skull bone found in the log burner?  Of all the bones in a human skull why would only one be found? 

Looks like he is going down the manslaughter route.

[Patti]

I've been trying to follow the press articles relating to the trial, and although some of the details are answering some questions I had, it is throwing up more questions than answers. Regardless of what the defence come back with, he is responsible for her death. 

He claimed in his first statements that he doesnt know where he left her,  which is probably why they continued there search for her, till last week.  But how does that explain the findings of a piece of skull bone found in the log burner?  Of all the bones in a human skull why would only one be found? 

Looks like he is going down the manslaughter route.

Hi OnceSaid

Lovely to see you by the way.

I think it will be murder not manslaughter.....Is the penalty less for manslaughter? I'm not sure. I doubt he was drunk when he picked her up...Surely they would have taken blood tests and stuff when they arrested him...

[OnceSaid]

Hi OnceSaid

Lovely to see you by the way.

I think it will be murder not manslaughter.....Is the penalty less for manslaughter? I'm not sure. I doubt he was drunk when he picked her up...Surely they would have taken blood tests and stuff when they arrested him...

Hi Patti, the reason I was thinking he is trying for the lesser of charge of manslaughter was because he is claiming it was an accident.  Look what happened with Philpott, they believed he didnt mean to kill the children so he was done with manslaughter.

Blood tests when he was arrested the next afternoon would not be able to confirm if he was drunk at 6.30-7pm the night before. I dont even know if they would take blood tests for this as he was walking when he was arrested and not in charge of a vehicle.

Did you see the inside of his cottage?  There was at least two cases of cider? in the sitting room.  Whether he drank before going to the parents evening I dont know, though the landrover was apparently abandoned outside the school, parked in such a way it was hindering other drivers, could he have been drink driving?  He was witnessed driving erraticly and crunching his gears heading out of the village, could this be a sign of a drink driver.  I just dont know, unless someone from the school says they smelt drink from him at the parents evening which could confirm he was drinking, either way it is no excuse, and he shouldnt be using it as his defence.   

[Patti]

Hi Patti, the reason I was thinking he is trying for the lesser of charge of manslaughter was because he is claiming it was an accident.  Look what happened with Philpott, they believed he didnt mean to kill the children so he was done with manslaughter.

Blood tests when he was arrested the next afternoon would not be able to confirm if he was drunk at 6.30-7pm the night before. I dont even know if they would take blood tests for this as he was walking when he was arrested and not in charge of a vehicle.

Did you see the inside of his cottage?  There was at least two cases of cider? in the sitting room.  Whether he drank before going to the parents evening I dont know, though the landrover was apparently abandoned outside the school, parked in such a way it was hindering other drivers, could he have been drink driving?  He was witnessed driving erraticly and crunching his gears heading out of the village, could this be a sign of a drink driver.  I just dont know, unless someone from the school says they smelt drink from him at the parents evening which could confirm he was drinking, either way it is no excuse, and he shouldnt be using it as his defence.   

Arrr I see your point now and totally agree with you, you are right.  Yes, he could have been drunk whilst driving.  He states he knew he had run her over, but the prosecution are saying there is no evidence of that on his vehicle, so is this a lie? He conveniently remembers knocking her over, but does not know what he has done with the poor little mite. 

[maggie]

Arrr I see your point now and totally agree with you, you are right.  Yes, he could have been drunk whilst driving.  He states he knew he had run her over, but the prosecution are saying there is no evidence of that on his vehicle, so is this a lie? He conveniently remembers knocking her over, but does not know what he has done with the poor little mite. 

Patti, when I heard he had said it was an accident, it reminded me of Ian Huntley and his statement.  He claimed the girls were playing in the bath or something like that and there was an accident and one or both of them drowned.  That was a lie and this is a lie.  These people are murderers and cowards imo.

[OnceSaid]

Arrr I see your point now and totally agree with you, you are right.  Yes, he could have been drunk whilst driving.  He states he knew he had run her over, but the prosecution are saying there is no evidence of that on his vehicle, so is this a lie? He conveniently remembers knocking her over, but does not know what he has done with the poor little mite. 

Yes, it is too convenient.  You cant clearly remember one thing but clearly forget another, unless you are trying to hide something IMO.  To be honest I dont think he was drunk, or his excuse that he ran her over. 

I just wish she could be found and recieve a proper burial.

[Patti]

Patti, when I heard he had said it was an accident, it reminded me of Ian Huntley and his statement.  He claimed the girls were playing in the bath or something like that and there was an accident and one or both of them drowned.  That was a lie and this is a lie.  These people are murderers and cowards imo.

Quite right Maggie, both Huntley and Bridger makes me want to throw up! It will be interesting to hear what the defence in this case brings up...if anything at all. 

[OnceSaid]

Quite right Maggie, both Huntley and Bridger makes me want to throw up! It will be interesting to hear what the defence in this case brings up...if anything at all. 

I dont think he has a defence, just trying to wriggle out of the mess he's in.