The Soham Murders and Ian Huntley

29/03/2012 The Soham Murders and Ian Huntley

1/13www.justjustice.org

Roy Whiting The Algebra of Justice

THE CASE OF THE SOHAM

BADGERS - Ian Huntley andMaxine Carr

Before Tony Blair got into 10 Downing Street, our knowledge of strangerkillers was that they always repeated their crimes and that they were verydifficult to identify or catch. They were a faceless, nameless malignancyin a national multitude and they always had the upper hand. Theircapture depended on police patience, vigilance and luck, or error on thepart of the criminal. But since the Spin-and-Salary maestro invaded 10Downing Street, this has all switched around. Now stranger killers arealways locals, and they never repeat their crimes because the policealways catch their man immediately after his first murder. Our policehave become super-detectives, and instead of experiencing the nervousbreakdown symptoms as before, our senior police officers appear to bedeveloping psychopathic tendencies themselves.

There have been many examples of this new style of killer in recentconvictions, including Sion Jenkins, Barry George, Roy Whiting and IanHuntley for instance. In the cases of Whiting and Huntley, the crimes forwhich they are convicted were part of a series of child abductions andmurders in the south east of England, which the police had begunprosecuting before the series was allowed to reveal its proper character.In Ian Huntley's case, a most interesting view of modern policeprocedure is traceable which enables us to understand why this changein our understanding of stranger killers has occurred.

The collective picture of the killer that emerged with this series of childmurders was that he was a prowling hunter and traveller (as they usuallyare); that he came from around the Cheshire area (judging by hisreaction to the Cheshire witness sighting in the Sarah Payne case); thathe stole the Birmingham Cathedral Book of Condolences in the Jessicaand Holly case (only their killer would have done this) and that thereforehe is playing around with the press and the police (this type of killerusually does); that he has a cavalier attitude to the law generally and thathe changes vehicles; that he is in middle age.

The collective picture that we get from the police prosecutions, however,is that he is several locals, some of whom had friendly relations with thevictim, as in the cases of Danielle Jones' uncle and in Maxine Carr andIan Huntley, and that he confined his hunting to his own back yard, evenin the case of a village.

Police prosecutions then have changed these crimes from the extremelydifficult to detect to the very easy, and we need to look at the evidencethat has been used to produce this effect.

In Roy Whiting's case, there is a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence,with hair and fibres from Whiting's clothes and white van connecting thecorpse to the defendant and vice versa. This arrangement eliminates thepossibility of accidental contamination in the forensic evidence andleaves only two possible interpretations, these being either Whiting'sguilt or else a fitting up by the police. And since only the Not Guilty wouldplead not guilty to a jury in the face of such insurmountable evidence, theonly logical explanation must be a fitting up by the police. A guilty personpleading not guilty to such evidence would be wasting his defence.Defendants are advised by lawyers not to accuse the police of fraud asthis would prejudice the jury against them, so the innocent would haveno defence in this situation.



In Ian Huntley's case we have the same thing again, only this time thecircumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence isthe same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-downpetrol, and a cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon'stechnique and scissors to remove the clothes from not one but two deadbodies, including underwear and shoes, purely in order to leave them ina place and a situation where the police can link him to the crimes anduse them as forensic evidence against him in a prosecution. All of whichis patently absurd. Despite our knowledge of such killers, here we arerequired to believe that a stranger killer would do all this purely toconvenience the police.

The most remarkable thing about this case, however, is that if the policedid commit fraud with this evidence, then the fraud has supernaturalpowers of clairvoyance behind it. This is because the police arrestedHuntley for the murders of the missing girls in the early hours of the 17thof August, at four o'clock in the morning, and they had their forensicevidence for the prosecution in his caretaker bin that night, but the publicdid not find the two bodies until many hours later, at one o'clock thefollowing afternoon. So if Ian Huntley was fitted up, where did the policeget the evidence from?

If Huntley had not fitted himself up himself, we need to investigate howthe police might have recovered that evidence before the public found thebodies.

Newmarket

If we go back in the investigation three days, to August 13th, we can finda possible explanation for this police clairvoyance. On that day, a localjogger reported to the police having seen two mounds of recentlydisturbed ground at Warren Hill in Newmarket. These were thought to beshallow graves, and so they must have looked like it. This same joggerhad also reported, a week before, having heard child-like screams fromthis area three hours after the abductions, so that the timing and placeare significant. The police had five hours of daylight in which toinvestigate these mounds, but they spent all night there, in fact thirteenhours, and they didn't emerge until six-thirty in the morning, "covered intwigs and soil" as a reporter put it, to announce that these mounds wereonly badger setts.

However, these mounds surely could not have been badger setts, asbadger setts would not be confusable with graves, and nor would it takethirteen hours to find that they were badger setts. Both mounds wererecent disturbances, and it is inconceivable that two badger setts orinlets could both have resembled shallow graves. They were 30 metresapart, and this must be too close together for badger setts.

The possibility that these mounds were actually where the police foundthe bodies would explain where the police acquired the forensicevidence, and why they were able to know that the girls were dead beforethe public found the bodies at Lakenheath. It would also show that theplacing of the bodies at Lakenheath was part of the fraud againstHuntley, because this is near the place where Maxine Carr had taken heradopted surname (a lake called The Carr) and where Ian Huntley'sfather and grandmother lived. This design corresponds with that of theforensic evidence itself, connecting the dead bodies to the defendants inthe same way.

The discovery of the bodies at Warren Hill on the 13th of Augustcorresponds with the finding of the coroner, who judged that the bodieshad been moved to the woodland at Lakenheath and that the victimsalmost certainly had not been killed where their bodies were found. If thetypical prowler killer had murdered them, they would most certainly havebeen killed where they were dumped, which site could have been atWarren Hill.



The Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police havingseen at the time of the abductions (approx 7 pm) a metallic green salooncar which was being driven erratically and suicidally down the A142, theroad that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hillstands. Ian Webster had been following this car and had pulled back twohundred yards because of the dangerous driving. Mr Webster reportedseeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road whilestruggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching outbackwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of achild in the back seat. Mr Webster said that this child had brown hair,and that he thought there was another child in the front seat. Given thefact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, hisbehaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself,and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any othersituation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seatwould have been Jessica and she was the one with the mobile phone.The abductor would not have been able to stop his car to deal with anyproblem with this because the girls would have been able to get out ofthe car and run away.

In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behaviouralfeatures of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster hadwitnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill andNewmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than IanHuntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies atLakenheath linked them together in a case against him.

Jessica's mobile phone contacted the mast at Burwell when it wasswitched off, and this is half-way between Soham and Newmarket. Thiscircumstance connects the jogger incident with that of Ian Webster andthe abductions at Soham.

The police lost interest in Mr Webster's testimony, despite its irrefutableauthenticity, when it was discovered that a passenger's mobile phonebill had clocked the incident at 6 pm instead of 7 pm. This technicalanomaly cannot discount Mr Webster's driver as an obvious suspect,and the timing of the mobile phone call would have to be questioned ordistrusted. Their disregarding the facts of the incident instead showsthat the police are allowing juries and trial procedure to determine howthey detect their crimes rather than the events themselves.

Soham

Witnesses back in Soham had reported seeing a man and a woman ina dark green car staring at two girls that afternoon. Earlier in May thatyear a similar couple had attempted to abduct a child at an under-fivesplay group near where Jessica and Holly disappeared. A strangewoman entered the play group and asked to take a child away, claimingthat she belonged to a friend of hers. But the woman got the child'sname wrong and didn't know the name of the mother, and when the staffsaw a man acting suspiciously outside they called the police. WhenJessica and Holly were snatched the police naturally connected the twoincidents.

Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time thatthey are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubtsabout the time that they actually disappeared from Soham. Ian Webster'stestimony would indicate 6.50 as being the approximate time of theabductions, and this corresponds with the police claim that Jessica'smobile phone was switched off at 6.46, which would explain what IanWebster's erratic driver was flapping at in the back seat of his car. Thephone mast at Burwell would indicate that she was out of Soham bythen.

Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement,which he made when he realized that the two girls who had called to see



Maxine Carr at 6:00 that evening had been the two that the police werelooking for. He had told the girls that Maxine wasn't in and they left in thedirection of College Road, which leads directly to the War Memorial,where four witnesses reported seeing the girls at 6:45, the time that theprosecution case alleged they had died in Huntley's house. If the girlshad been abducted at the War Memorial, the killer would have had adirect route to the A142 where the taxi driver Ian Webster encounteredhis suspect.

The police arrested Huntley on suspicion of murder nine hours beforethe public found the bodies, and the public understood that it was now amurder investigation before the bodies were thus discovered. Theprosecution case was that the police had found the girls' clothes in oneof Huntley's caretaker's bins at the school. These clothes were the basisof the arrest and subsequent prosecution, yet the Manchester Unitedshirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely thatthe girls could have lived and died and their bodies had decomposed inthose shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killerwould fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or that a trophykiller would use scissors and forensic techniques to remove histrophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that thepolice had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use theshirts as they found them because they were saturated with evidencethat the girls had been buried underground.

The fictional nature of the forensic evidence against Ian Huntley wouldexplain why he switched to a fictional defence two weeks prior to his trial.The evidence determined his response and his defence reflects thefictional character of the evidence. And the finding of the bodies atWarren Hill would explain why the police kept the bodies out in theAugust heat for thirty hours at Lakenheath instead of passing themstraight away for an autopsy examination, which a proper examinationwould have required. This delay would have been to over-emphasize thepoint in the public eye that this site (Lakenheath) was where the bodieswere officially found.

If we consider that the police had found the bodies at Warren Hill andhad misinformed the public about what they had found there, then themad-looking appeal to the killer on our TV sets by a senior detectivebecomes transformed with sense and meaning. While listening to thisthe killer would in that case have known that the police had found hisbodies and were hiding the fact from everybody, and in the light of thisthe wording of this appeal becomes full of new significance:

"I appeal to you again to work with me to stop this getting any worse thanit is. You do have a way out. I have left a personal message and textmessage on Jessica's phone. Listen to that message. It will tell you howto contact me so we can stop this now. You have the opportunity tospeak to me. This is the time to use it."

The wording in the appeal offers a serial killer a way out. The implicationin these words is of a deal with the killer to stop the series of crimes inexchange for non-prosecution. The police motive for such a deal wouldbe that if the killer were ever publicly caught, the frauds in the previousprosecutions in the series would become evident, with no hope of usingaccidental contamination as an explanation for them. And again, thetrouble that the police would have found themselves in would have beencaused by their practise of using their experience of juries andprosecution procedure to determine how they detect their casesnowadays.

Any such deal with the killer would explain the mysterious cessation ofthe series of murders since this appeal was made. In attempting such adeal, the police would have been protecting themselves from the troublecaused to them by modern police procedure, which allows jury foibleand prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their crimes.



They are under a great deal of personal pressure via the press to secureconvictions from the very thing that creates their problem – the juries andtheir inadequacy as judges in a justice system.

Immediately following their TV appeal, the police appear to have endedtheir detection of the case and begun their prosecution. Firstly, theyturned the community of Soham against itself by telling its people thatone of them was responsible and to watch their neighbours. Then, whilethe inhabitants of Soham were doing this, the police snatched away thetwo newest and weakest members of the community, and put one ofthem in a mental institution where friends and journalists couldn’t get tohim, and the other in prison in London where friends and relativescouldn’t get to her, and so Ian Huntley was charged with the murders.

The arrests

The night before Ian Huntley was arrested, the police broke into his caron the pretence that the two girls were in danger in there (this was twoweeks after the girls had disappeared and when the official police viewhad switched to a belief that the girls were now dead). This break-in wasa civil rights abuse against Huntley and his property, and it should beillegal. A second such abuse occurred the following morning, when thepolice arrested him at his father's house at the unseemly hour of four inthe morning on suspicion of murder.

Maxine Carr was implicated because she gave the police a false alibi forHuntley who was worried because the missing girls had called at theirhouse. She told the police that she was with him at the time but it wasrevealed that she had been at Grimsby.

Huntley and Carr were taken to separate police stations for questioning,and Huntley was later taken to a psychiatric hospital where he wascharged with the murders. The police gave as their explanation for thisstrategy that he didn't seem to understand why he was being chargedwith the murders, so his "treatment" in that hospital was for symptoms ofinnocence. He was deemed by the doctors to be unfit to be seen by themagistrates yet.

The police kept Maxine Carr in prison for eighteen months on anaccessory charge purely on the strength of their prosecution caseagainst Ian Huntley, who promptly went on hunger strike. And all thishappened it must be said before an entire nation of journalists andjurors, and perhaps more importantly, before a government too, none ofwhom appear to have noticed that there was anything wrong. Theprosecution of Maxine Carr shows that there is no tolerance in TonyBlair's Britain for a lover's trust and protective instinct.

Worse still, there was no inquest into the Soham murders. The coronerdeferred the inquest in favour of the police prosecution of Ian Huntleyand then abandoned it after Huntley’s conviction. Inquests are neededfor an unbiased view and record of the facts relating to a death ormurder, and they are needed to prevent a biased or maliciouspresentation of the facts relating to a murder.

The forensics

At the trial, a forensic expert testified that the clothes found in Huntley'scaretaker's bin had been cut off, apparently in a hurry, and in a mannersimilar to the way that medics cut clothes off in emergencies. There wasno DNA evidence, and the clothes had been burned and drenched inwater and showed signs of soot and charred markings. All of them werewet or damp and smelled of an accelerant such as petrol.

Another expert reported finding five of Huntley's head hairs on theclothes, but any such hairs would surely be destroyed immediately bythe heat of the fire, which left smoke discoloration on cobwebs on a



lamp overhead. These smoke stains also show that the clothes wereset alight inside the bin, and after removing Huntley's black bin liner, andthat the wetness would be caused by putting the fire out so that Huntley'sbin liner with his fingerprints on it could be replaced over the evidence.

So, we are required to accept that, in fitting himself up with this evidence,Huntley had gone to a lot of trouble to remove all the clothes from thebodies, including the shoes, and this in a hurry, and set fire to them todestroy them even further as trophies, and put the fire out quickly so asnot to destroy them as evidence for the prosecution.

The forensic evidence linked Huntley to the bodies in several ways.Firstly there was the heat-resistant head hairs on the clothes; then therewas the placing of the clothes in his caretaker's bin; then there was thefire itself, because peculiarly, the girls' bodies were partially burned too,destroying the other potential source for DNA evidence, so that his binwas connected to the bodies also by the absence of DNA from thebodies or from the carrier. Then there was the suggestion put to the juryby the prosecution that they might believe that when placing the bodieson Lakenheath, Huntley had used his black bin liners over his shoes toaccount for the absence of his shoe prints there, which uses his binliners to connect the placing of the bodies on Lakenheath with the fire inhis bin. So, in fitting himself up with the forensic evidence in his bin, thejury were also invited to believe that he forgot to remove his bin linersfrom his feet when he got into his car, because traces of the soil atLakenheath were found in his car, and this after he was supposed tohave spring-cleaned his car and his house (and his dog). Theprosecution also linked him to the bodies geographically as well,because the public found the bodies very near his father's house (wherehe was arrested), and nearby the lake where Maxine Carr took her name(The Carr).

Aside from the black bin liners, the prosecution used another colour link-up between Huntley and the victims, in the red of their Manchester Unitedshirts and the red of his petrol can, which he had been seen with on theWednesday after the abduction, and which the prosecution "suggested"he had used to set fire to the bodies.

The smell of petrol was present at both the body site and at Huntley'scaretaker's bin, and this formed another link-up between the two, whichshows that the fitting up was done shortly before the public found thebodies.

The prosecution case had no evidence of Huntley at Lakenheath, exceptfor the "motorbility" evidence of Lakenheath mud taken from his car afterhe had spring-cleaned it, and the Lakenheath botanical evidenceattached to his petrol can. The evidence of the mud in his car isconnected with an illegal break-in into his car by the police.

As occurred in the Roy Whiting case, the prosecution case had fibresfrom some of the victims' clothes allegedly found in Huntley's house, andfibres from his house allegedly found on their clothes, with a completeset of fibre colours from his carpet (five) to avoid any doubts with the juryas to proof. These 154 invisible fibres were allegedly found after monthsof painstaking searching while Huntley was being held in custody on thestrength of the caretaker's bin find, and all this is supposed to havesurvived his house cleaning and the fires and water and weatherexposure.

So the prosecution linked Huntley to the murders by smell, by colour (thered of the petrol can and the girls' shirts), by profession and by colouragain (his caretaker's black bin liners), by domestic circumstances (thebodies being found near his father's house and near the lake known asThe Carr), by fire (at the body site and at his bin), and by fibres from hishouse. And all of this was signatured by his fire-proof hair andfingerprints and rounded off with an illegal break-in into his car.



If intelligence seems to sink into this absurd deception, well, that is thepurpose of the design. And that must be the proof of the design. Thiscase has Huntley fitted up to the crime geographically, domestically,professionally, forensically, and artistically as well.

During the trial, a police officer testified that a few days after theabductions, when Huntley's home was being searched, Huntley hadsaid to him, "You think I have done it." The policeman testified that hehad told him not to "persecute" himself. This is a strange word for apoliceman to use for his reply, and it is the key to the whole case,because the forensic evidence shows that either Ian Huntley haspersecuted himself for the prosecution case, or else that the police havedone it for him instead.

Night of terror

During the week prior to his arrest, Huntley's parents had comfortedMaxine Carr amd their son over their concern about the media coveragethat the school was getting and Huntley's fear that he would be blamedfor the disappearances because his witness statement had left him thelast person known to have spoken to the two girls. On the Fridayafternoon, the day before the arrests, as they were driving home, hisparents received a telephone call from a friend telling them that their sonhad been taken in for questioning by the police. When they spoke toHuntley on the telephone later that day he was angry and upset at beingheld in a "safe" house. In the early hours of the next day, Saturday the17th of August, Huntley turned up at their house in a very distressedstate, saying that he had something to talk to them about, but he did nothave the time to explain before the police arrived and used their authorityto force their way into the house and arrest him at four-thirty in themorning. Not very far from his parents' house, the bodies of the two girlswere lying in a ditch waiting to be discovered by the public.

Huntley was held for questioning until the early hours of Tuesday the20th, when he was snaffled away to Rampton high security hospital atfive-thirty in the morning, and he was charged with the murders at teno'clock that night. The timings of the arrests and the murder chargeshows that the police and doctors found his condition to be robust, butthe doctors would not allow the magistrates to see him giving thegrounds that he was unfit to appear.

Ian Huntley's sleep had been ruined at both ends of the day that he wascharged, and he was charged at the very point at which the police werelegally obliged either to charge him or else to release him. Themagistrates were not allowed to see him until he had been conditionedby the doctors at Rampton, when apparently he was no longer able todefend himself. If Huntley was fit to be charged with murder he shouldhave been fit to be seen by the magistrates.

Jury policing

In any deception, further deceptions are needed to protect the first, andthis looks to be what has happened in this series of child murders. Thecase against Roy Whiting is logically fraudulent, and the case againstthe prosecution of Ian Huntley has the police committing a further fraudto protect the earlier frauds.

If all this seems rather spectacular, it is no different in effect or value forthe police than what happened to Timothy Evans. It is the same ashappens in all miscarriages of justice, with the innocent being convictedand the guilty getting away with it, and the police being the instrument ofthe injustice. The police have been living with this problem for decadesand cannot entirely be blamed for being corrupted by it.

The prosecution of Ian Huntley reveals the appalling standard ofintelligence that the police have had to face when using the jury system



to resolve the detection of crimes. In this case, in order to convict a killerin our jury system, the police have had to present to the jury a case inwhich the killer has fitted himself up with the forensic evidence and withthe disposal of the bodies, while all the deceptions presented to the juryhave gone way over their heads, and over the heads of the public atlarge, who of course are our juries.

The reason for this gullibility is apparent in the public's predilection fordetective fiction, in which an author commits a murder at the start of hisnovel and reveals the fictional character that he has selected for hismurderer at the end, while misleading the reader with red herrings anddeceptions in between. The public has come to accept this procedure asdetection in non-fictional situations such as the Ian Huntley case.Originally the literary detective was at odds with traditional policedetection, but now this form of detection has been absorbed into thepolice in the same way.

Since the early 1980s the police have complained about the difficulty ofputting prosecution cases against criminals in the proper way becauseof the juries' inability to evaluate the facts properly, a matter that isexamined in The Algebra of Justice, and now they appear to be usingthis fault for their own convenience. Nowadays, instead of appealing tothe intelligence of juries, the police have to present a complete map offorensic evidence, leaving no need for jury intelligence, and this has thevalue of negating any intelligence in the jury and any need of it in the trialprocess. It is this tactic that has introduced the potential for frauds in ourjustice system.

A fault in criminal prosecutions nowadays is that since the advent ofThatcherism, prosecutors have been putting their cases to juries asstatements of fact rather than as cases or contentions, even when thedefendant is pleading Not Guilty. They are taking the presumption thattheir prosecution case is the absolute truth, when it should be up to thejury to decide whether their case is the truth. By doing this, prosecutorsare either actually in breach of the Oath of Truth when putting their cases,or else they are prepared to be in breach of it. Allowing this practise mustdegrade the integrity of trial procedures and their decisions, and thismust affect policing also. Exploitism in criminal prosecutions hasbecome rife since the early 1980s and it is endemic in Thatcheristcourts.

When giving in to the evidence, psychopaths attack their victims byblaming them for what had happened. This is because their motive formurder is their psychopathic psychology. In contrast, Ian Huntley’sfictional defence consists of a farcical accident, and there is no sign of apsychosis in it anywhere. This defence appears to be the only way thathe could accommodate his innocence to forensic evidence that hisdefence team couldn’t defend him against. His switching to a fictionaldefence shows that he was not defended adequately, and evidence ofthis occurred a year earlier, when he accepted the charge of pervertingthe course of justice by lying to the police. If he were not guilty of themurders as he had been pleading, and if the police were barking up thewrong suspect, then he would not have been perverting the course ofjustice by lying to them to defend himself. His accepting this chargeundermined his not guilty plea and no doubt contributed to his switchingto a fictional defence shortly before the trial.

The evidence in the Ian Huntley case has been designed for a justicesystem in which the decisions are made by juries who are not able toresolve the equations presented to them correctly, and by lawyers andjudges whose heads are stuffed full and bound by law. This case showsthat neither is adequate any longer. That justice system has long beeninured to miscarriages of justice, and it even protects them after theevent. It has become a facility for mob rule and for public lynchings.



Concerning the trial of Ian Huntley

The trial of Ian Huntley must be unlawful and illegal. It seems to havebroken all the rules of criminal trial procedure and it was in breach of theOath of Truth on several counts (part two of the Oath being "the wholetruth").

There was no inquest into the deaths of Jessica and Holly before thetrial. This responsibility was left to the prosecution of Ian Huntley. Thepurpose of an inquest is to provide an unbiased overview of thecircumstances and witnesses relating to a death, and it is essential for afair trial. Crown prosecutions in the UK use the adversarial system toexamine the facts of a case and this consists of a counterbalance ofpotential biases. Since the prosecution produces all the evidence, a fairtrial needs an adequate inquest.

An inquest would have called up many witnesses who did not appear atthe trial.

The taxi driver, Ian Webster, whose evidence is mentioned above, wasnot called as a witness.

The evidence of a witness who was reported seeing the two girls in theHigh Street after they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house (thewitness was with her husband and knew the girls), was not used in thetrial.

The four witnesses who were reported seeing the two girls at the WarMemorial at around the time that they are supposed to have died inHuntley's house did not appear in the trial. Their testimony confirmsHuntley's original witness statement.

The witness who was reported seeing a man and a woman in a greencar (metallic green?) staring at two girls in the High Street did not appearat the trial. This evidence is important because two kidnappers mightwell be needed to control two children.

The several witnesses who saw a green car acting suspiciously aroundSoham at the time were not called to the trial.

Ian Huntley's legal defence was incompetent, and on this ground alonethe trial judgment should be scrapped. No defence witnesses wereused. The only defence witnesses that appeared were Maxine Carr, whodidn't know anything, and Ian Huntley, who only had the prosecutioncase to defend himself with. The legal defence acted throughout asthough Huntley was guilty even while he was protesting his innocence.His defence even caused him to accept the charge of perverting thecourse of justice when he was pleading innocence, and thisundermined his Not Guilty plea to the murder charge. He did not changethis defence until a year later and two weeks before his trial.

At his trial, Huntley testified that he suffered a memory loss while in thepsychiatric hospital, and that when he recovered afterwards he found itvery difficult to tell the difference between reality and imagined things.This means that he was "mentally" unfit to defend himself or stand trial,and his prosecutors were responsible for this condition. He alsotestified that he remembered hearing a voice telling him "you pushedher" which would have come from his prosecutors. This formed thebasis of his changed defence at his trial.

The magistrates were not allowed to see Huntley until after he had beenconditioned by the doctors at Rampton. If he was fit to be charged withmurder he was surely fit to be seen by the magistrates.

Huntley's confession at his trial resembles Timothy Evans's behaviour atthe police station when he was presented with the evidence of his wife'sand baby daughter's murders.



Ian Huntley's witness statement

Ian Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witnessstatement which was made shortly after the girls disappeared. Itestablished him as the last known person to have had contact with thembefore their disappearance. His statement went like this:

"On Sunday (August 4th) I was standing out front of my house, brushingmy dog. I saw two girls approach at about 6pm from the area of thecollege. One asked me about my partner, Maxine Carr. Maxine worked atSt Andrews, but had had to reapply for her job and had not been giventhe job. I did not know either of the girls. They obviously knew Maxine andobviously wanted to speak to her. They obviously knew where she lived.One asked how Maxine was. I told her she was not very happy, as shehad not been given the job. They said they were very sorry, and walkedoff in the direction of College Road. I did not see them again. Both werewearing Manchester United tops with Beckham at the back."

College Road leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnessesreported seeing the two girls at about 6:45, which corroborates hiswitness statement. His not knowing the two girls despite their familiaritywith Maxine and his house shows that he was not socially interested inthe school girls.

The bleeding nose

According to Maxine Carr, Huntley had told her the day after the girls'disappearance that they had been inside their house with a nose bleed,and that they had left shortly afterwards. Her false alibi that she had beenin Soham with Huntley on the night that the two girls called on the housemight have been due to this and her story could account for the cleaningactivity. However, if the girls did go into the house with a nose bleed, thisdoesn't make him the murderer, it simply means that his witnessstatement to the police would be incomplete. He would have told themjust what they needed to know.

Huntley has expressed the belief that the killer must have followed thegirls to his house, which suggests that he believes that they were takensoon after leaving. He also believes that the killer himself must havefitted him up with the forensic evidence.

Cracked bath theory

The trial of Ian Huntley featured the plastic bath from his house, whichwas cracked. This was paraded in the court as evidence that a ten year-old girl had died in his house. Maxine Carr had told the police ininterviews that this damage was caused by their dog, which was analsation, and that it weighed eight and a half stone. The question thatmust spring to a juror's mind is: How heavy is a ten year-old girl, andhow powerful? On average a girl of this age weighs up to five and a halfstone, or three stone less than the alsation. Therefore Maxine Carr's isthe satisfactory explanation for this damage, and the cracked bath tubdisplay in the courtroom shows that the prosecution of Ian Huntley wasnot based on detective principles or reasoning.

Reported last sightings of Jessica and Holly:

18.15 - Two girls wearing red tops were seen walking along the mainroad between school and the town centre, though police were reportednot to be treating this as a confirmed sighting.

18.17 - CCTV cameras at the Ross Peers sports centre, on a nearbycollege campus, showed the girls crossing the centre's car park. Theywere seen entering the car park via an alleyway, Gidney Lane, from the



main road, Sand Street.

Approx. 18.30 - There were four separate sightings of the pair walkingalong Sand Street towards the town centre, but the time given by thewitnesses may not be accurate. However, four separate witnesses arenot likely to be equally far out, so the timing should be approximatelyaccurate.

Approx. 18.30 - Staff at the sports centre say that the girls came in ataround this time to buy sweets from a vending machine in the entrancelobby.

18.45 - Staff at the centre believed that the girls left the college groundsvia College Way, and the next confirmed sighting was at 1845 in the towncentre nearby.

Four separate witnesses saw the pair in the vicinity of the town's warmemorial, in Red Lion square, by the High Street.

One more witness reported seeing two girls fitting the description ofHolly and Jessica at the southern end of Soham, a considerabledistance from the town centre.

19.00 - The girls were reportedly seen at 1900 on the A142, near the Q8garage, at the Downfield Roundabout, walking south in the direction ofNewmarket. The police said that this report is unconfirmed at this stage.This sighting however corresponds in direction and place with the carincident reported by taxi driver Ian Webster.

These sightings correspond with Ian Huntley's witness statement. Thetrail goes progressively away from his house.

The Dustatic 101

While Huntley was working as the caretaker and manager of a team ofcleaners in Soham Village College he sent a memo to the headmastercriticising the rotary floor polishers which sprayed a lot of dust around.He constructed a makeshift electro-static device and installed it on oneof these polishers, and he found that it magnetically collected a lot of thisdust. He applied for a patent in 2001 and approached the manufacturerof the polishers to make a deal whereby he would get royalties per unit.He was due to attend a meeting with the company in September 2002when he was arrested for the Soham murders in August. In 2005 the UKIntellectual Property Office granted the patent. The company, NumaticInternational, has commented favourably about his invention, but in hisnew personality as the Soham murderer and reported homosexual andIslam convert in prison he refuses to allow any commercial company todevelop his invention.

So there is a detectable hypocrisy in the prosecution case here, in thecontradiction between the conscientious and resourceful caretakerbehind the Dustatic invention, and the forensic evidence in which Huntleyhas fitted himself up with the black bin liner farce in his caretaker's bin.

Concerning the 1983 Mental Health Act

The Ian Huntley case shows that there needs to be a reform of the 1983Mental Health Act. This Act enables anyone in Britain to be detained in apsychiatric hospital against his will, regardless of whether he hascommitted an offence. This is called sectioning, the grounds for whichinclude the person's confusion (such as his not understanding why he isbeing charged with murder), or personality disorders, such as genius(Syd Barrett, Alfred Jarry, Peter Sellers), or that the person is sufferingfrom the damaging effects of Thatcherism on his quality of life andsociety. Nowadays symptoms of innocence are confused with signs ofpsychopathy by criminal profilers.



Since Thatcherism is the cause of most social disorders nowadays,such as paranoias, conspiracy delusions and conspiracies,depressions, social dysfunctions, social and national alienation etc,then Thatcherism has been shovelling members of the public into thegrowing maw of allopathic psychiatry ever since. Ian Huntley'sexperience shows that psychiatrists have no restraint from capitalizingon this lucrative bonanza and it is flourishing with Thatcherism. Anti-psychotic drugs are also being used to immobilize dementia cases forthe convenience of care workers, for instance.

A TV programme in the late 1990s featured a psychiatrist visiting a clientthat he wished to take back into his hospital against his will. He took withhim a police SWAT team, and the neighbours stood about in the streetwatching in disbelief as the police crashed their way into the patient'sfront door with a copious tinkling of smashed glass. This TV programmeshowed that one of the problems with allopathic psychiatry is thatcustomers who believe they need to be admitted to hospital can't have it,while those who don't want it have to. This psychiatrist said that he'drather give drugs to nine people who didn't need them than not give themto the one that does. It is difficult to conceive who might benefit from thissort of treatment. With psychiatry, allopathic drugs turn illnesses that arecaused by environmental factors into addictive biological disorders, andso they are very dangerous to the public. In Ian Huntley's case thistreatment was nothing less than a chemical assault.

This TV programme shows that in Ian Huntley's case the police haveused the psychiatrists as the psychiatrists have been using them.

The series of murders

The series of murders involving Jessica and Holly began with thevictim's body (Sarah Payne) being dumped out in the open in the holidayarea that she was taken from (this presumably to throw the police andpublic off the scent regarding the Cheshire sighting), and it ended withthe bodies of Jessica and Holly being dumped out in the open, minusthe forensic evidence (the clothes) for the prosecution of Ian Huntley. Inbetween, the cases of Milly Dowler and Danielle Jones indicate that theseries killer would tend to bury or conceal his victims, whichcorresponds with the two areas of disturbed ground on Warren Hilloutside Newmarket that the jogger reported to the police in the Jessicaand Holly case.

The series began with defendant Roy Whiting pleading Not Guiltyagainst a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence (with hairs and fibresfrom the victim on the defendant's white van etc, and vice versa), andends with Ian Huntley pleading Not Guilty (and changing his plea twoweeks before his trial) against forensic evidence with which he issupposed to have fitted himself up.

David Dixon - 2004-9

For the Roy Whiting case and the rest of the series clickhere.

For the allegations against Ian Huntley click here.

For the Algebra of Justice click here.

[email protected]

�

� � Google Search



�

Documents

The Soham Murders and Ian Huntley