You also choose to ignore all the other strong evidence which nailed Huntley such as:
The fact that he claimed, in his TV interview with Jeremy Thompson, to be the last person and “friendly face” to see the girls alive.
That's not strong evidence of anything apart from the fact that Huntley was probably right - he was one of the last people to see the girls alive as they happily went their way away from his house.
The fact that in an earlier TV interview with Brian Farmer he insisted on keeping it local to Soham rather than distributed nationwide, because he didn’t want his previous misdemeanours in Grimsby open to scrutiny.
If he had really been guilty of the girls' murders, I would have thought he would want to make it a lot less local than Soham. I think his 'misdemeanours' in Grimsby are fairly irrelevant, if they ever really existed in the first place. There is nothing in his past that suggests he was a man who would murder two schoolgirls.
The fact that he ingratiated himself with the police to gain information on their enquiry, such as e.g. on the persistence of DNA evidence.
That proves precisely nothing. He was probably worried he would be stitched up, which he was in the end, in my opinion. Anyone in his situation would have wanted to know what DNA evidence the police had, because there was none in his house, nor in his car. The police dog did not become agitated around him after he had allegedly committed a double murder. There was no hard DNA evidence against him. Some flimsy evidence appears to have been placed, albeit absurdly.
The fact that the victims’ partially-burnt T-shirts, pants, underclothing and shoes were found hidden under a black bin bag in a refuse container in Soham Village College hangar which Huntley, as school caretaker, had ready access to.
How incredibly convenient for the prosecution. Huntley himself appears to have 'planted' the 'evidence' in order to secure his conviction. Very thoughtful of him - especially to have planted it on his work premises. Are double murderers usually this helpful to the prosecution?
The fact that his fingerprints were found on the black bin liner which concealed those articles of clothing.
So what? Huntley works there. His fingerprints will have been everywhere. Was Huntley responsible for placing the bin liner in the bin? Was that one of his duties as caretaker? Or did he help search the premises, as would be perfectly normal behaviour for the school caretaker and touch the bin liner? Flimsy evidence, at best. I don't think that is hard evidence in the slightest.
The fact that fibres from the girls T-shirts were found in Huntley’s house and on his shoes.
Were they? If the girls were murdered in Huntley's house, there would have been a lot more than a few fibres from football shirts that may or may not have been worn by the girls inside his house. Like copious amounts of DNA, blood, signs of a struggle etc. Sniffer dogs would have detected blood and/or other bodily fluids and cadaver dogs would have alerted to the scent of the bodies even months and years after the alleged double murder inside his house.
The fact that his house had been thoroughly cleaned by him to remove any traces of visible evidence.
Thoroughly cleaning his house is evidence of nothing apart from thoroughly cleaning his house. There would still have been traces of the girls DNA and also there would still be scent that could be picked up by sniffer dogs and cadaver dogs. Plus probably evidence of a struggle. Dogs don't lie, unlike crown prosecution lawyers, so they saying goes.
The fact that on the day after the girls disappeared he had a full set of new tyres fitted to his car at Hi-Q and gave the fitter a £10 backhander to falsify the registration on his receipt.
So what about the tyres? The £10 backhander - really? Who gave the fitter a backhander, I wonder? Sounds pretty underwhelming to me. Where was the DNA from the car? Dogs would have alerted to blood and cadaver scent in the car if the girls had been transported in it after their death.
The fact that soil and chalk deposits found on the front suspension arm of his car, specifically matched the same on the isolated farm track leading to where the bodies were located.
Hugely underwhelming. The bodies were presumably moved from the 'badger setts' that the police - inexplicably - spent all night investigating to a location where they were eventually found which would have been far more convenient for the prosecution and far more incriminating for Huntley than the location of the 'badger setts' at the perimeter wall of the US base.
The fact that Huntley had previous form in Grimsby with his sexual penchant for young girls.
Not really. He had had a consensual sexual relationship with a girl who was I think 15 when he was a few years older. I'm not sure the 'penchant' for young girls was not conveniently exaggerated. In any event, since when did that kind of 'penchant' lead to a 'penchant' for a double murder of two children? 'Iffy' evidence at best. Really there is no correlation, in my opinion, between what he allegedly did in his past and the tragic murders of those two schoolgirls.
The overwhelming forensic evidence that Jessica Chapman’s phone had been switched off DIRECTLY OUTSIDE Huntley’s house at 6:46 pm on the night they disappeared.
Why would Jessica's phone have been turned off outside Huntley's house? If Huntley had been planning on luring the girls inside his home (for which there is zero evidence) then surely Jessica's phone would have been switched off once inside Huntley's home by Huntley himself? Why would Jessica conveniently turn off her phone outside Huntley's house while presumably having a chat with him as he brushed/washed his Alsatian? And Huntley at that stage could hardly have risked forcing Jessica to turn her phone off could he?
I suspect that Jessica's phone was switched off at around the time that the taxi driver saw a car being driven erratically with two children inside, one of whom could have been Jessica in the back seat. The driver of the car - presumably their abductor - was turning around and trying to grab something from the girl in the back seat's hands - presumably Jessica's phone.
Then, of course, we have Maxine Carr’s deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice by lying about where she was on the Sunday in question, to prevent Huntley from arrest and conceal his previous time on remand for a rape charge.
Yes, I am sure this young couple had got the flavour of the investigation by then. Two young people with humble occupations are unlikely to be a match for a prosecution that is hell-bent on taking the crime scene away from where it really took place and landing it somewhere where it really didn't. (And there is no hard evidence for the crime having happened at Huntley's either). Does the 'rape' charge relate to the consensual sex? In any event, he's hardly Epstein, is he?
I see no 'hard evidence' against Huntley. Quite the contrary.