Mark Bridger charged...

[boxtops]

On BBC TV news at the moment

[Mick-Talbot]

DTcrosswordfan

has he indeed......interesting - of only he would say what he has done to give the family a little settlement.


It made no sense to me DT.... no need to get snotty.

[DTCwordfan]

no need to get on your high horse too.

[Ann]

//has he indeed......interesting - if only he would say what he has done to give the family a little settlement//
I can understand that comment perfectly Mick T and I'm sure you do too.

[jno]

His case will presumably be that he's innocent and it is the CPS's job to prove otherwise. He is therefore unlikely to say anything to give the family settlement. All he has said so far is to confirm his name and address.

[Mick-Talbot]

It did not make sense; Anne, that is why I asked him to clarify.

[Psybbo]

He confirmed his name, address, etc., and said yes to do you understand the charges.

[Barmaid]

no plea would be taken at this stage. There might not even be a plea taken on Wednesday. The first opportunity for a plea will be a the PCMH (Plea and Case Management hearing).

Generally, people charged with murder don't plead guilty since there is a sentence imposed by law (ie life). Thus there is nothing for them to gain by pleading guilty - the normal tariff is reduced by 1/3rd for a guilty plea.

[owdhamer]

I hope they find the little lass safe but its not looking good,as for the guy arrested,innocent till proven guilty.

[FredPuli43]

It's true that not many murderers plead guilty but the reason is more complex than not getting a reduction in sentence for pleading guilty.

Many of those charged with murder hope to get a verdict of manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility (basically circumstances amounting to such provocation that they lost self-control). That's because so many murders are domestic, and the accused will point to behaviour by their wife or lover which put them 'over the edge'. This defence isn't as easy to run as it once was, when 'crime passionel', anger at infidelity, was often enough but now isn't.

Otherwise, they run 'self-defence' or 'no intention to inflict grievous bodily harm' thus denying an element in the offence.

This man,really alleged to be a paedophile may try any of the paedophile defences: 'accident', that is he either didn't assault the child but she fell in the river, or some such accident (!), or that he did assault her but not with the intent of harming her badly, or of course, that it wasn't him seen picking her up. The second one has an unpleasant, but neat air to it, because it's admitting everything apart from the intent. The best criminals admit everything they can but deny intent or dishonesty, the mental element in their crime.