UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Off Topic and General Discussions => Off topic, general discussions and the Wide Awake Club. => Topic started by: mrswah on September 07, 2017, 10:27:41 AM
-
At the time of Ian Huntley's and Maxine Carr's trial, I was studying this case as part of my Open University course. I assumed, like most other people, that Ian Huntley was as guilty as sin, although I did have some sympathy for Maxine Carr. She was being branded, by some elements of the media, as the next Myra Hindley, while she had been away from home at the time of the murders, and therefore, can't have participated.
Surprisingly, I now find various articles on the internet which suggest that Huntley is innocent of the Soham murders. I am listing a few links, some of which promote his guilt, and others which promote his innocence.
What do people think?
www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/743324
www.aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/who-killed-holly-and-jessica.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-204232
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495
-
At the time of Ian Huntley's and Maxine Carr's trial, I was studying this case as part of my Open University course. I assumed, like most other people, that Ian Huntley was as guilty as sin, although I did have some sympathy for Maxine Carr. She was being branded, by some elements of the media, as the next Myra Hindley, while she had been away from home at the time of the murders, and therefore, can't have participated.
Surprisingly, I now find various articles on the internet which suggest that Huntley is innocent of the Soham murders. I am listing a few links, some of which promote his guilt, and others which promote his innocence.
What do people think?
This person thinks the following, sober link merits including in your list:
http://www.justjustice.org/
-
At the time of Ian Huntley's and Maxine Carr's trial, I was studying this case as part of my Open University course. I assumed, like most other people, that Ian Huntley was as guilty as sin, although I did have some sympathy for Maxine Carr. She was being branded, by some elements of the media, as the next Myra Hindley, while she had been away from home at the time of the murders, and therefore, can't have participated.
Surprisingly, I now find various articles on the internet which suggest that Huntley is innocent of the Soham murders. I am listing a few links, some of which promote his guilt, and others which promote his innocence.
What do people think?
www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/743324
www.aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/who-killed-holly-and-jessica.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-204232
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495
Why was Ian Huntley put in Rampton ???? What signs of mental health issues did Ian Huntley display for him to be held at Rampton???
-
Why was Ian Huntley put in Rampton ???? What signs of mental health issues did Ian Huntley display for him to be held at Rampton???
I read that when he was first arrested, he appeared confused about why he had been arrested, wouldn't answer questions, and was dribbling while being questioned. So, the police called in doctors who sectioned him under the Mental Health Act. He was held in Rampton for 50 days so that doctors could assess him to determine whether or not he was fit to stand trial. He was actually sectioned before he was charged.
-
It should not be of concern what people think, as it is perception that can get in the way of what actually "is". We should never judge on account of what appears to us to be the case, our perceptions, but rather, we should apply raw unadulterated logic, much like a genuine philosopher in the process of actual philosophy/truth unveiling. Perception is a product of all kinds of garbage from all kinds of different places, and it is the thorn in the side of our judicial system. Perception is often a product of little more than how convincing a collection, come collections of words sound to our ears.
-
I've been reading the links & I find the evidence against Huntley all a bit confusing.
'At Huntley's trial, a forensic expert testified that the clothes found in Huntley's caretaker bin had been cut off, apparently in a hurry, and in a manner similar to the way that medics cut clothes off in emergencies. There was no evidence of DNA, probably because of the condition of the clothes, and almost all of the clothes showed signs of soot and charred markings. All were wet or damp and smelled of an accelerant such as petrol.
According to the story, Huntley went to the trouble of returning to the burial site to remove both girls shirts/ clothes.
He set fire to them in a bin to destroy evidence, using petrol, but they weren't fully destroyed?
Surely, if he was going to so much trouble to destroy evidence he would make bloody well sure it was destroyed?
I've burnt clothing in a bin before, it tends to burn well, even without petrol.
The only reason I can see for the clothing to be damp or wet & not fully destroyed is if someone put out the fire after they started it?
Doesn't make any sense.
Apparently none of the girls DNA was found in his house.
So, he done this amazingly meticulous & thorough job of removing all the evidence, finger prints, DNA from his home, but then gave up being careful during the simplest part of his cover up, burning stuff.
Odd.
-
The body language of a killer: How Soham murderer Ian Huntley gave away SEVEN signs of deception during a police interview 15 years ago - all while saying just three words
17th August 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4796702/Expert-analyses-body-language-Soham-killer-Ian-Huntley.html
I'd be interested to see the police interview of Huntley appearing confused & dribbling, which lead to his detainment under the mental health act.
** P.S.
Whilst I find some aspects of the case & evidence confusing, I can't help but think that...any cover up/ framing scenario of Ian Huntley(for whatever reason that I can imagine) with the murder of these girls, just seem incredibly far fetched.
-
I find it somewhat difficult to believe Ian Huntley is innocent , to be perfectly honest. However, I think there are questions to be asked.
Firstly, his being "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act even before he was charged. From what I have read, he had attempted suicide at the age of about eighteen, so he must have had some kind of history of mental health problems. However, when he was assisting the police in the early days after Holly and Jessica disappeared, he looked and sounded perfectly sane on TV.
Also, there were, apparently, various witnesses who claimed to have seen the girls after they were supposed to have been killed in Huntley's house. None of these witnesses testified in court. I presume they were not asked to. At least one of them actually knew both girls. In one book written about the case, the author suggests that they were time wasters, taking up valuable police time! This sounds too "convenient", IMO.
-
an interesting Thread Mrswah.
I believe he did commit those murders, purely based from memory and what I read. He panicked and didn't intend to kill them-when one girl died in the bathroom? he had to kill the other one. I don't know how he did this, locked the door perhaps. I don't know. IF this all took place in one room the bathroom it is easy to get rid of all DNA.
He doesn't come across as the smartest of chumps and his sad attempt to be a serial killer failed- he may have had suicidal thoughts due to being caught and how that would affect him. Maybe he didn't mean to kill the first girl and did panic and became scared of what he did. Remorse and shame perhaps?
With regards to his then girlfriend- she gave an alibi-lied to the police. Guilt by association? I wouldn't put her in Myra Hindley file, but certainly she did cover for him, for a while.
-
Yes, Maxine Carr did cover for him, by saying that she was at home and in the bath when the girls came to the house. In fact, she was away in Grimsby, staying with her mother. She was given a prison sentence for this, although the jury found her not guilty of assisting an offender. She said that she covered for him because he had previously been accused of rape (falsely, as it happens: CCTV later showed him to have been elsewhere at the time) and had suffered emotionally as a result, and she believed he was afraid of being falsely accused again.
It seems, however, that he did have previous form for having sexual relationships with underage girls. One of these girls was only 11 years old when she claims to have been abused by him, and she has written a book: "Hailey's Story" by Hailey Giblin. He had also been involved in a burglary. None of his previous offences ever came to court.
His story regarding killing the girls accidentally was not accepted , and he was convicted of murder.
Is he a murderer? I really don't know-------------
-
When exposed to the evidence against him, Huntley changed his story to accidentally killing both girls. A last desperate attempt to avoid responsibility. How on earth anyone can question his guilt is beyond me.
-
When exposed to the evidence against him, Huntley changed his story to accidentally killing both girls. A last desperate attempt to avoid responsibility. How on earth anyone can question his guilt is beyond me.
The man has been proven to be as guilty as sin.
In providing a false alibi for him and helping him to clean the house Maxine Carr deserved every second of jail time she served and more besides.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/21/soham.ukcrime1
-
Totally agree with Tim and Brie, Huntley was rightly convicted of killing the two girls, a depraved and despicable crime which he compounded when he tried to burn their bodies. He should rot in jail for the rest of his miserable days. I also agree that Maxine Carr got what she had coming for covering up for him.
-
I wasn't aware of any attempt to burn the bodies, this is of importance to our investigation. Can anybody elaborate?
AH
-
He tried to burn the bodies to make identification more difficult.
-
I wasn't aware of any attempt to burn the bodies, this is of importance to our investigation. Can anybody elaborate?
AH
I read somewhere that he burned some clothing in a bin at the school.
Their bodies were deposited in a ditch near the barracks, I've also read that he tried to burn them there.
Huntley admits burning bodies
Mr Huntley admits that he cut and removed the clothing from the girls, that he burned the girls' clothes in a bin before placing a bag over the garments, and that he "set the bodies alight and used petrol in the process."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/28/soham.ukcrime
-
This report is quite detailed.
Huntley 'burned girls' bodies in ditch'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446212/Huntley-burned-girls-bodies-in-ditch.html
-
The man has been proven to be as guilty as sin.
In providing a false alibi for him and helping him to clean the house Maxine Carr deserved every second of jail time she served and more besides.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/21/soham.ukcrime1
I agree totally.
I find it hard to cast Maxine Carr in the role the sisterhood would like us to believe.
Behind every woman who commits an unsavoury act is a Svengali? I rather think not.
-
At the time of Ian Huntley's and Maxine Carr's trial, I was studying this case as part of my Open University course. I assumed, like most other people, that Ian Huntley was as guilty as sin, although I did have some sympathy for Maxine Carr. She was being branded, by some elements of the media, as the next Myra Hindley, while she had been away from home at the time of the murders, and therefore, can't have participated.
Surprisingly, I now find various articles on the internet which suggest that Huntley is innocent of the Soham murders. I am listing a few links, some of which promote his guilt, and others which promote his innocence.
What do people think?
www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/743324
www.aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/who-killed-holly-and-jessica.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-204232
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495
-
With regard to the quote above, I do not think there is a shred of evidence against either Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr. I think they were both royally stitched-up. The bodies were found outside an American airbase where US servicemen and women were on transit via active service in Afghanistan. Some of these personnel will have been suffering from PTSD and some may have been suffering from the effects of some of the medications needed. Given the location of the bodies, the criminals involved are far more likely to have been from a US airbase.
It is on record that the girls walked past Ian Huntley's house while he was outside brushing his dog - an Alsation. It is quite likely - given the ages and dispositions of the girls - that the girls would have wanted to stroke Ian Huntley's dog and this also may have facilitated striking up a conversation about Huntley's then girlfriend Maxine Carr.
Was the dog tested for DNA from the girls? I know there was some talk of a cracked bath - I wonder if Huntley panicked after realizing he was the last person to see the girls and it was then that the Alsation was washed thus cracking the bath, allegedly.
I do not for a minute believe he or his girlfriend were guilty but you could see why they might panic. The account of the conversation he had with the girls sounds entirely plausible and many eye-witnesses saw the girls AFTER they had walked away from his house. No DNA from the girls was found in his house.
A police handler with a dog who spoke to Ian Huntley when he helpfully showed her around the campus does not record the dog reacting to Huntley at all. This is despite the fact that according to the investigation Huntley had killed the girls by then.
Why would Huntley put the girls' football tops in a bin on his campus? That would just be a ridiculous thing to do. No DNA was found on the tops.
Why was the taxi-driver who saw a car driving crazily with two girls inside after the girls had left Huntley's house not called to the witness stand? There are many other witnesses who saw the girls in Soham and heading in the Newmarket direction after Huntley had allegedly murdered them.
I honestly don't think the conviction has a leg to stand on. The forensics don't match. Huntley was incarcerated at Rampton where he apparently lost his memory. What drugs was he given at Rampton?
Why were none of the servicemen and women at the US airbases interviewed? The taxi-driver saw the erratically driven car with two girls inside - with the driver turning around flapping at presumably Jessica's mobile - heading in the Newmarket direction at around 7pm. A jogger several hours later heard child-like screams coming from the area at Warren Hill where the very same jogger, a week later, found two mounds of earth that looked like shallow graves. Police spent all night at the site and then declared they were 'badger sets'. Why spend all night there on a false lead? What were they doing all night?
Days later the bodies were supposedly found for the first time outside the perimeter fence at Lakenheath?
It seems far more likely that the bodies were, in fact, found at Warren Hill and later moved to Lakenheath near where Huntley had family members living and I think is said he would go there plane-spotting.
I think there is every evidence that the trail lead away from Huntley's house and ended at Warren Hill.
If I was the family of either Huntley or Carr I would be firmly on this case as I think it's the most appalling miscarriage of justice. I think they were framed to avoid a scandal involving US servicemen at one of the airbases.
IMO only of course!
-
With regard to the quote above, I do not think there is a shred of evidence against either Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr. I think they were both royally stitched-up. The bodies were found outside an American airbase where US servicemen and women were on transit via active service in Afghanistan. Some of these personnel will have been suffering from PTSD and some may have been suffering from the effects of some of the medications needed. Given the location of the bodies, the criminals involved are far more likely to have been from a US airbase.
It is on record that the girls walked past Ian Huntley's house while he was outside brushing his dog - an Alsation. It is quite likely - given the ages and dispositions of the girls - that the girls would have wanted to stroke Ian Huntley's dog and this also may have facilitated striking up a conversation about Huntley's then girlfriend Maxine Carr.
Was the dog tested for DNA from the girls? I know there was some talk of a cracked bath - I wonder if Huntley panicked after realizing he was the last person to see the girls and it was then that the Alsation was washed thus cracking the bath, allegedly.
I do not for a minute believe he or his girlfriend were guilty but you could see why they might panic. The account of the conversation he had with the girls sounds entirely plausible and many eye-witnesses saw the girls AFTER they had walked away from his house. No DNA from the girls was found in his house.
A police handler with a dog who spoke to Ian Huntley when he helpfully showed her around the campus does not record the dog reacting to Huntley at all. This is despite the fact that according to the investigation Huntley had killed the girls by then.
Why would Huntley put the girls' football tops in a bin on his campus? That would just be a ridiculous thing to do. No DNA was found on the tops.
Why was the taxi-driver who saw a car driving crazily with two girls inside after the girls had left Huntley's house not called to the witness stand? There are many other witnesses who saw the girls in Soham and heading in the Newmarket direction after Huntley had allegedly murdered them.
I honestly don't think the conviction has a leg to stand on. The forensics don't match. Huntley was incarcerated at Rampton where he apparently lost his memory. What drugs was he given at Rampton?
Why were none of the servicemen and women at the US airbases interviewed? The taxi-driver saw the erratically driven car with two girls inside - with the driver turning around flapping at presumably Jessica's mobile - heading in the Newmarket direction at around 7pm. A jogger several hours later heard child-like screams coming from the area at Warren Hill where the very same jogger, a week later, found two mounds of earth that looked like shallow graves. Police spent all night at the site and then declared they were 'badger sets'. Why spend all night there on a false lead? What were they doing all night?
Days later the bodies were supposedly found for the first time outside the perimeter fence at Lakenheath?
It seems far more likely that the bodies were, in fact, found at Warren Hill and later moved to Lakenheath near where Huntley had family members living and I think is said he would go there plane-spotting.
I think there is every evidence that the trail lead away from Huntley's house and ended at Warren Hill.
If I was the family of either Huntley or Carr I would be firmly on this case as I think it's the most appalling miscarriage of justice. I think they were framed to avoid a scandal involving US servicemen at one of the airbases.
IMO only of course!
Huntley later admitted in court that he had returned to the site several days after the girls died to set the bodies alight, in what police saw as an attempt on his part to destroy any forensic evidence. Not something an innocent person would admit to doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3246118.stm
PS. Welcome to the forum by the way.
-
Huntley later admitted in court that he had returned to the site several days after the girls died to set the bodies alight, in what police saw as an attempt on his part to destroy any forensic evidence. Not something an innocent person would admit to doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3246118.stm
PS. Welcome to the forum by the way.
---------------
Huntley was detained at Rampton for 'treatment'. I do not for a minute believe he is responsible for the killing of the two girls. There is no proper evidence that he did it.
IMO!
-
Huntley later admitted in court that he had returned to the site several days after the girls died to set the bodies alight, in what police saw as an attempt on his part to destroy any forensic evidence. Not something an innocent person would admit to doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3246118.stm
PS. Welcome to the forum by the way.
---------------
Huntley was detained at Rampton for 'treatment'. I do not for a minute believe he is responsible for the killing of the two girls. There is no proper evidence that he did it.
IMO!
You're wrong...sorry.
-
You're wrong...sorry.
I concur. Information released after his conviction showed he'd long had a penchant for younger girls and violence.
-
Huntley later admitted in court that he had returned to the site several days after the girls died to set the bodies alight, in what police saw as an attempt on his part to destroy any forensic evidence. Not something an innocent person would admit to doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3246118.stm
PS. Welcome to the forum by the way.
---------------
Huntley was detained at Rampton for 'treatment'. I do not for a minute believe he is responsible for the killing of the two girls. There is no proper evidence that he did it.
IMO!
What (to you) constitutes proper evidence?
-
Hello Searcher,
you said "I think they were framed to avoid a scandal involving US servicemen at one of the airbases. "
So can you explain why they 'confessed'. and what evidence is there of a cover up, and who do you think is involved in this cover up and why?
The witneses who saw the girls after being at Huntly's house were not allowed to give evidence because?
-
Welcome Searcher.
Didn't Huntley confess to the deaths of Holly and Jessica?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546975/Huntley-revealed-all-in-taped-confession.html
-
Welcome Searcher.
Didn't Huntley confess to the deaths of Holly and Jessica?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546975/Huntley-revealed-all-in-taped-confession.html
I think the 'Americans dun it' theory with a UK coverup a bit far fetched to be honest.
-
The witnesses who saw Holly and Jessica in and around the town centre after they had spoken to Huntley outside his house were not called to trial. The strongest witness is the taxi driver - and his passengers - who saw a man driving very erratically and turning around towards a child in the back, with brown hair, as if trying to get something out of her hands. Commonsense would suggest this could have been the abductor of the two children driving them away from Soham town centre and trying to wrestle the mobile phone out of Jessica's hands.
Why would Ian Huntley be so calm when he showed a police woman with a dog around the campus when he had allegedly recently murdered the two girls? The police woman found nothing suspicious about his demeanour and, perhaps more pertinently, neither did her dog. Dogs don't lie.
http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/geopolitics/the-soham-scapegoats-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice/
-
The witnesses who saw Holly and Jessica in and around the town centre after they had spoken to Huntley outside his house were not called to trial. The strongest witness is the taxi driver - and his passengers - who saw a man driving very erratically and turning around towards a child in the back, with brown hair, as if trying to get something out of her hands. Commonsense would suggest this could have been the abductor of the two children driving them away from Soham town centre and trying to wrestle the mobile phone out of Jessica's hands.
Why would Ian Huntley be so calm when he showed a police woman with a dog around the campus when he had allegedly recently murdered the two girls? The police woman found nothing suspicious about his demeanour and, perhaps more pertinently, neither did her dog. Dogs don't lie.
http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/geopolitics/the-soham-scapegoats-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice/
Why would 'common sense' suggest anything of the sort?
Why wouldn't IH be calm? And I think you forget that the monster admitted to killing them - granted he gave a B/S account of what happened but his confession kind of squashes your theory. Also, why would a police dog react? I don't think they're trained in psychological assessments? They also require a queue from their handler before any kind of reaction.
-
Huntley was sectioned at Rampton and given mind-altering drugs. If you section a sane person and give them drugs they are quite likely to lose their mind and confess to pretty much whatever you want them to confess to. A 'confession' made under these circumstances means that the person has been unlawfully sectioned and given drugs, in my opinion. There was no evidence he was insane before he went into Rampton. He came across as a normal person who was worried about the girls safety. I can understand how he might have panicked and thought he would be stitched up, though.
How do you know that the taxi driver DIDN'T see the abductor? He also had passengers in his car. It would be interesting to hear what they saw as well. The taxi driver was behind the erratically-driver car for some time.
I don't think there is any good evidence that Huntley committed the crime. A 'confession' after having been sectioned and given drugs is not evidence that should be taken seriously in my opinion.
-
Wasn't it a hack on a tabloid paper who said Huntley was acting suspiciously? Uh? Who gives a damn what a hack on working for the gutter press thinks? He wasn't acting suspiciously in any case. He was acting normally in my opinion.
-
Huntley was sectioned at Rampton and given mind-altering drugs. If you section a sane person and give them drugs they are quite likely to lose their mind and confess to pretty much whatever you want them to confess to. A 'confession' made under these circumstances means that the person has been unlawfully sectioned and given drugs, in my opinion. There was no evidence he was insane before he went into Rampton. He came across as a normal person who was worried about the girls safety. I can understand how he might have panicked and thought he would be stitched up, though.
How do you know that the taxi driver DIDN'T see the abductor? He also had passengers in his car. It would be interesting to hear what they saw as well. The taxi driver was behind the erratically-driver car for some time.
I don't think there is any good evidence that Huntley committed the crime. A 'confession' after having been sectioned and given drugs is not evidence that should be taken seriously in my opinion.
After reading that, I can't decide whether it's you or me who's drunk.
-
What part of what I wrote do you have a particular problem with?
It is a FACT that Huntley was sectioned.
It is a FACT that a taxi driver saw a car being driven very erratically around the area and the time that the girls were last seen. The driver of the car was turning back to a dark-haired child in the back seat and appearing to grab at something in her hands. This could have been the girls' abductor trying to wrestle Jessica's mobile out of her hands. The mobile that went dead shortly after this. Given the timing of this incident, it is certainly possible that the taxi driver saw the girls being driven away.
I've no idea whether you were drunk. How would I know?
-
Huntley was sectioned at Rampton and given mind-altering drugs. If you section a sane person and give them drugs they are quite likely to lose their mind and confess to pretty much whatever you want them to confess to. A 'confession' made under these circumstances means that the person has been unlawfully sectioned and given drugs, in my opinion. There was no evidence he was insane before he went into Rampton. He came across as a normal person who was worried about the girls safety. I can understand how he might have panicked and thought he would be stitched up, though.
How do you know that the taxi driver DIDN'T see the abductor? He also had passengers in his car. It would be interesting to hear what they saw as well. The taxi driver was behind the erratically-driver car for some time.
I don't think there is any good evidence that Huntley committed the crime. A 'confession' after having been sectioned and given drugs is not evidence that should be taken seriously in my opinion.
Hi Searcher.
I understood Huntley had stockpiled his anti-depressants (in a tea bag?) at Rampton for suicide purposes. If he hadn't taken the prescribed mind-altering drugs there's no reason to believe a confession was mentally coerced.
It was also claimed that he'd previously feigned mental illness when arrested on occasions in the 90's.
-
What part of what I wrote do you have a particular problem with?
It is a FACT that Huntley was sectioned.
It is a FACT that a taxi driver saw a car being driven very erratically around the area and the time that the girls were last seen. The driver of the car was turning back to a dark-haired child in the back seat and appearing to grab at something in her hands. This could have been the girls' abductor trying to wrestle Jessica's mobile out of her hands. The mobile that went dead shortly after this. Given the timing of this incident, it is certainly possible that the taxi driver saw the girls being driven away.
I've no idea whether you were drunk. How would I know?
Is that all you’ve got? One sighting by a taxi driver with a poor description of what might or might not be happening in a car.
Huntley was sectioned after his initial police interview whilst under arrest during which he feigned insanity, by deliberately shaking, appearing vacant and refusing to answer when prompted. This was to ascertain whether he was fit to be interviewed further and stand trial… NOT to be pumped full of drugs to render him insane as you claim. He had no trouble at all and was voluble answering press questions in the days before.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that his fingerprints were found on the black bin liner which concealed those articles of clothing.
The fact that fibres from the girls T-shirts were found in Huntley’s house and on his shoes.
The fact that his house had been thoroughly cleaned by him to remove any traces of visible evidence.
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.
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.
The fact that Huntley had previous form in Grimsby with his sexual penchant for young girls.
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.
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.
-
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.