So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Crimes of Present and Past Centuries and Heros of Crime Detection, Fingerprints to DNA, all information will be found here. Also a forum to discuss the ongoing investigation into the Childrens Home findings in Jersey

So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby Payge » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:23 pm

Yesterday I went to my regular hairdressing salon where the owner who had not seen me for a while. As I was about to leave he pulled me to one side and brought up the McCann case and asked my view. I pretended ignorance and said I knew very little about it, then listened intently to everything he had to say - in a very quiet voice - the case in his view.
To my amazement he knew all about Operation Ore and Blair's D notices blacking out the press etc. He was convinced some major cover-up was going on.

But here's the thing -- then he said, "It's just like Soham, the same type of cover-up with Huntley being the patsy."
What? Ian Huntley a patsy? Don't be ridiculous.
But no, he was quite certain of a major cover-up there, citing one of the top detectives on the case who had later been found to have child pornography on his computer and arrested.
"Huntley didn't do it," he insisted. "And he was fingered by a journalist - just like Murat. Only that didn't go to plan, did it?"

I rebutted everything he said about Huntley being a patsy, because I honestly knew little about the case being in Brazil at the time of it.

But he was not to be budged. "And Maxine Carr -- "why do you think she has been treated so well from the very beginning, even to the provision of every luxury in prison, and is now being taken care of on the "witness protection" programme, or a situation just as good? Does any other female criminal get protected like that?"

I then remembered that Maxine's Carr's fellow inmates had complained that whenever Carr was brought out of her quarters to take a telephone call etc, they all had to return to their cells so they would not see her or be able to talk to her. "Treated like royalty, she is," they complained at the time to a journalist.

Still, I could not buy this particular theory and fortunately my husband arrived to drive us on to somewhere else, so end of conversation.

So what do you think? Is he mad? Are we all mad to be seeing a cover-up in the McCann case? Or is Joe Public just a bit TOO questioning for his own good?
Payge
Local Lag
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:15 am

Re: So whaddaya think?

Postby farfromthe... » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:30 pm

Oh dear, does he wear a tin hat as well? :lol:

Sorry no offence.

Maxine Carr gets treated carefully because the justice system has a responsibility to protect her against vigilantism, same with the killers of James Bulger, if the public could be trusted to act within the law then our taxes wouldn't have to go towards rehoming and renaming and supporting these people.
Zero tolerance. If ignore doesn't work then I will name and shame culprits.
farfromthe...
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: So whaddaya think?

Postby cynical_tourist » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:35 pm

"I rebutted everything he said about Huntley being a patsy, because I honestly knew little about the case being in Brazil at the time of it."

Some might say that your hairdresser is good at getting to the roots of things :wink:

At the risk of upsetting some people - you should read this - raises serious doubts about the soundness of Huntleys conviction

http://www.justjustice.org/
User avatar
cynical_tourist
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:52 pm
Location: SW Scotland

Re: So whaddaya think?

Postby Scarlett » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:37 pm

I worked in Holloway Prison, years before Maxine Carr, off course but still have friends there and know there was alot of unhappiness about how she was treated.
I didn't hear any conspiracy theories though. I didn't hear anything out of ordinary, except the discontent at her treatment.

I don't know anything about Huntley being a patsy but did know about the detective but that was because it was in the press.
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Cuddle Cat. Copy and paste cuddle cat into your
(")_(") signature to help her gain world domination
User avatar
Scarlett
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:45 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby bjr » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:43 pm

THE CASE OF THE SOHAM BADGERS - Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Tony Blair got into 10 Downing Street, our knowledge of stranger killers was that they always repeated their crimes and that they were very difficult to identify or catch. They were a faceless, nameless malignancy in a national multitude and they always had the upper hand. Their capture depended on police patience, vigilance and luck, or error on the part of the criminal. But since the Spin-and-Salary maestro invaded 10 Downing Street, this has all switched around. Now stranger killers are always locals, and they never repeat their crimes because the police always catch their man immediately after his first murder. Our police have become super-detectives, and instead of experiencing the nervous breakdown symptoms as before, our senior police officers appear to be developing psychopathic tendencies themselves.

There have been many examples of this new style of killer in recent convictions, including Sion Jenkins, Barry George, Roy Whiting and Ian Huntley for instance. In the cases of Whiting and Huntley, their crimes were part of a series of child abductions and murders in the south east of England, which the police had begun prosecuting before the series was allowed to reveal its character. In Ian Huntley's case, a most interesting view of modern police procedure is traceable which enables us to understand why this change in our understanding of stranger killers has occurred.

The collective picture of the killer that emerged with this series of child murders was that he was a prowling hunter and traveller (as they usually are); that he came from around the Lancashire area (judging by his reaction to the Cheshire witness sighting in the Sarah Payne case); that he stole the Birmingham Cathedral Book of Condolences in the Jessica and Holly case (only their killer would have done this) and that therefore he is playing around with the press and the police (this type of killer usually does); that he has a cavalier attitude to the law generally and that he changes vehicles and appearance; that he is in middle age. In the Sarah Payne case he had a beard, and in two half-hearted snatching attempts in and around Soham on the anniversary of Ian Huntley's imprisonment he appears to have had a pony-tail.

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

Police prosecutions then have changed these crimes from the extremely difficult to detect to the very easy, and we must look at the evidence that 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 connecting the corpse to the defendant and vice versa. This arrangement eliminates the possibility of accidental contamination in the forensic evidence and leaves only two possible interpretations, these being either Whiting's guilt or else police fraud. And since only the Not Guilty would plead not guilty to a jury in the face of such insurmountable evidence, the only logical explanation must be a police fraud. A guilty person pleading not guilty to such evidence would be wasting his defence. Defendants are advised by lawyers not to accuse the police of fraud as this would prejudice the jury against them, so the innocent would have no defence in this situation.

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

The most remarkable thing about this prosecution, however, is that if the police did commit fraud with this evidence, then the fraud has supernatural powers of clairvoyance behind it. This is because the police arrested Huntley for the murders in the early hours of the 16th of August, and they found the incriminating forensic evidence in his caretaker bin that night, but the public did not find the two bodies until many hours later, at 1 pm. So where did they get the evidence from?

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

Newmarket
If we go back in the investigation three days, to August 13th, we can find a possible explanation for the police clairvoyance. On that day, a local jogger reported to the police having seen two mounds of recently disturbed ground at Warren Hill in Newmarket. These were thought to be shallow graves, and so must have looked like it. This same jogger had also reported, a week before, having heard child-like screams from this area three hours after the abductions, so that the timing and place are significant. The police had five hours of daylight in which to investigate this site but they spent all night there, in fact thirteen hours, and they didn't emerge until six thirty in the morning, "covered in twigs and soil" as a reporter put it, to announce that these mounds were only badger setts.

However, these mounds surely could not have been badger setts, as these would not be confusable with graves, and nor would it take thirteen hours to find that they were badger setts. Both were recent disturbances, and it is inconceivable that two badger setts or inlets could both have resembled shallow graves. They were 30 metres apart, and this must be too close together for badger setts.

The possibility that these mounds were actually where the police found the bodies would explain where the police acquired the forensic evidence, and why they were able to know that the girls were dead before the public found the bodies at Lakenheath. It would also show that the placing of the bodies at Lakenheath was part of the fraud against Huntley, because this is near the place where Maxine Carr had taken her adopted surname (a lake called The Carr) and where Ian Huntley's father and grandmother lived. This design corresponds with that of the forensic evidence itself, connecting the dead bodies to the defendants in the same way.

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

The Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police having seen at the time of the abductions (approx 7 pm) a metallic green saloon car which was being driven erratically and suicidally down the A142, the road that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hill stands. He had been following this car and pulled back two hundred yards because of the dangerous driving. Mr Webster reported seeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road while struggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching out backwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of a child 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 the fact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, his behaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself, and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any other situation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seat would 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 any problem with this because the girls would have been able to get out of the car and run away.

In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behavioural features of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster had witnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill and Newmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than Ian Huntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies at Lakenheath linked them together in a case against him.

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

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

Soham
Witnesses in Soham reported seeing a man and a woman in a dark green car staring at two girls that afternoon. Earlier in May that year a similar couple had attempted to abduct a child at an under-fives play group near where Jessica and Holly disappeared. A strange woman entered the play group and asked to take a child away, claiming that she belonged to a friend of hers. But the woman got the child's name wrong and didn't know the name of the mother, and when the staff saw a man acting suspiciously outside they called the police. When Jessica and Holly were snatched the police naturally connected the two incidents.

Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time that they are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubts about the time that they actually disappeared from Soham. Ian Webster's testimony would indicate 6.50 as being the approximate time of the abductions, and this corresponds with the police claim that Jessica's mobile phone was switched off at 6.46, which would explain what Ian Webster's erratic driver was flapping at in the back seat of his car. The phone mast at Burwell would indicate that she was out of Soham by then.

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 were looking for. He had told the girls that Maxine wasn't in and they left in the direction of College Road, which leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the girls at 6:45, the time that the prosecution case alleged they had died in Huntley's house. If the girls had been abducted at the War Memorial, the killer would have had a direct route to the A142 where the taxi driver Ian Webster encountered his suspect.

The police arrested Huntley on suspicion of murder nine hours before the public found the bodies, and from this point the public understood that it was now a murder investigation. The prosecution case was that the police had found the girls' clothes in one of Huntley's caretaker's bins at the school. The clothes that were recovered were the basis of the arrest and subsequent prosecution, yet the Manchester United shirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely that the girls could have lived and died and their bodies begun to decompose in those shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killer would fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or that a trophy killer would use scissors and a forensic technique to remove his trophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that the police had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use the shirts as they found them because they were saturated with evidence that the girls had been buried underground.

We can trace patterns and clues as to the true nature of what happened to the bodies of Jessica and Holly in the disposal of bodies earlier in the series. In the cases of Danielle and Milly Dowler the victims were buried, with no intention that they be found, and in the case of Sarah Payne the body was dumped out in the open – fully clothed – two weeks after the Cheshire witness sighting, presumably to throw the public and police off the killer's whereabouts (the distance in time corresponds with the distance in place). In the cases of Jessica and Holly, the bodies were either buried on Warren Hill and subsequently placed at Lakenheath by the police - minus the forensic evidence - to throw the public off the scent of the truth of these crimes and their killer, or else they were dumped by the killer out in the open minus the clothes, which is not consistent with the series.

The fictional nature of the forensic evidence against Ian Huntley would explain why he switched to a fictional defence two weeks prior to his trial. He was allowing that evidence to determine his response, and his defence reflects the fictional character of the evidence. And the finding of the bodies at Warren Hill would explain why the police kept the bodies out in the August heat for thirty hours at Lakenheath instead of passing them straight away for an autopsy examination, which a proper examination would have required. This delay would have been to over-emphasize the point in the public eye that this (Lakenheath) was where the bodies were officially found.

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

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

The wording in the appeal offers a serial killer a way out. The implication in these words is of a deal with the killer to stop the series of crimes in exchange for non-prosecution. The police motive for such a deal would be that if the killer were ever publicly caught, the frauds in the previous prosecutions in the series would become evident, with no hope of using accidental contamination as an explanation for them. And again, the trouble that the police would have found themselves in would have been caused by their practise of using their experience of juries and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their cases nowadays.

Any such deal with the killer would explain the mysterious cessation of the series of murders since this appeal was made. In attempting such a deal, the police would have been protecting themselves from the trouble caused to them by modern police procedure, which allows jury foible and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their crimes. They are under a great deal of personal pressure via the press to secure convictions from the very thing that creates their problem – the juries and their inadequacy as judges in a justice system. And of course the press are on the rampage, with capitalism their only ethic, and capitalists are morally hypocritical too.

Immediately following their TV appeal, the police appear to have ended their detection of the case and begun their prosecution. Firstly, they turned the community of Soham against itself by telling its people that one of them was responsible and to watch their neighbours. Then, while the inhabitants of Soham were doing this, the police snatched away the two newest and weakest members of the community, and put one of them in a mental institution where friends and journalists couldn't get to him, and the other in prison in London where friends and relatives couldn't get to her, and so Ian Huntley was charged with the murders.

The arrests
The night before Huntley was arrested, the police broke into his car on the pretence that the two girls were in danger in there (this was two weeks after the girls had disappeared and when the official police view had changed to a belief that the girls were now dead). This break-in was a civil rights abuse against Huntley and his personal property, and it was surely illegal. A second such abuse occurred the following morning, when the police arrested him at his father's house at the unseemly hour of about 3 AM on suspicion of murder.

Huntley and Carr were taken to separate police stations for questioning, and Huntley was later taken to a psychiatric hospital where he was charged with the murders. The police gave as their explanation for this strategy that he didn't seem to understand why he was being charged with the murders, so his "treatment" in that hospital was for symptoms of innocence.

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

Worse still, there was no inquest into the Soham murders. The coroner deferred the inquest in favour of the police prosecution of Ian Huntley and abandoned it after Huntley's conviction. Inquests are needed for an unbiased view and record of the facts relating to a death or murder, and so inquests are needed to prevent biased or malicious presentations of facts relating to a murder.

The forensics
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.

Another expert reported finding five of Huntley's head hairs with the clothes, but any such hairs would surely be destroyed immediately by the heat of the fire, which left smoke discoloration on cobwebs on a lamp overhead. These smoke stains also show that the clothes were set alight inside the bin, and after removing Huntley's black bin liner, and that the wetness would be caused by putting the fire out so that Huntley's bin liner with his fingerprints on it could be replaced over the evidence.

So, in fitting himself up with this evidence, we are required to accept that Huntley had gone to a lot of trouble to remove all the clothes from the bodies, including the shoes, and this in a hurry, and set fire to them to destroy them as trophies, and put the fire out quickly so as not to destroy them as evidence for the prosecution.

Huntley was linked to the bodies in several ways by this forensic evidence. Firstly there was the head hairs that would have been destroyed by the heat of the fire; then there was the placing of the clothes in his bin; then there was the fire itself, because peculiarly, the girls' bodies were partially burned too, destroying the other potential source for DNA evidence. Then there was the suggestion put to the jury by the prosecution that they might believe that when placing the bodies on Lakenheath, Huntley had used his black bin liners over his shoes to account for the absence of his shoe prints there, and this connects the placing of the bodies on Lakenheath with the fire in his bin. So, in fitting himself up with the forensic evidence in his bin, the jury were also invited to believe that he forgot to remove his bin liners from his feet when he got in his car, because traces of the soil at Lakenheath were found in his car, and this after he was known to have spring-cleaned his car and his house (and his dog). The prosecution also linked him to the bodies geographically as well, because the public found the bodies very near his father's house (where he 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 United shirts and the red of his petrol can, which he had been seen with on the Wednesday after the abduction, and which the prosecution "suggested" he used to set fire to the bodies.

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

The prosecution case had no evidence of him at Lakenheath and no evidence of the girls at his house, with the exception of the "motorbility" evidence of Lakenheath mud taken from his car after he had spring-cleaned it, and the Lakenheath botanical evidence attached to his petrol can. The evidence of the mud in his car was also connected with an illegal break-in into his car.

So the prosecution linked Huntley to the murders by smell, by colour (the red of the petrol can and the girls' shirts), by profession and colour again (his black bin liners), by domestic circumstances (the bodies being found near his father's house and near the lake known as The Carr), and by fire (at the body site and at his bin). And all of this was signatured by his fire-proof hair and fingerprints, and rounded off with an illegal break-in into his car.

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

During Huntley's trial, a police officer testified that a few days after the abductions, when his home was allegedly searched, Huntley had said to him, "You think I have done it." The policeman told him not to "persecute" himself. This is a strange word for a policeman to use for a reply, and it is critical to the Ian Huntley case, because the forensic evidence shows that either Ian Huntley has persecuted himself for the prosecution case, or else that the police did it for him instead.

Jury policing
In any deception, further deceptions are needed to protect the first, and this appears to be what has happened in this series of child murders. The case against Roy Whiting is logically fraudulent, and the case against the prosecution of Ian Huntley has the police committing a further fraud to protect the earlier frauds.

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

The prosecution of Ian Huntley reveals the appalling standard of intelligence 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 killer in our jury system, the police have had to present to the jury a case in which the killer has fitted himself up with the forensic evidence and with the disposal of the bodies, while all the deceptions presented to the jury have gone way over their heads, and over the heads of the public at large, who of course are our juries.

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

Since the early 1980s the police have complained about the difficulty of putting prosecution cases against criminals in the proper way because of the juries' inability to evaluate the facts properly, a matter that is examined in The Algebra of Justice, and now they appear to be using this fault for their own convenience. Nowadays, instead of appealing to the intelligence of juries, the police have to present a complete map of forensic evidence, leaving no need for jury intelligence, and this has the value of negating any intelligence in the jury and any need of it in the trial process. It is this tactic that has introduced the potential for frauds in our justice system.

A fault in criminal prosecutions nowadays is that since the advent of Thatcherism, prosecutors have been putting their cases to juries as statements of fact rather than as cases or contentions, even when the defendant is pleading Not Guilty. They are taking the presumption that their prosecution case is the absolute truth, when it should be up to the jury to decide whether their case is the truth. By doing this, prosecutors are 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 must degrade the integrity of trial procedures and their decisions, and this must affect policing also. Exploitism in criminal prosecutions has become rife since the early 1980s and it is endemic in Thatcherist courts.

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

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

Government targets
The British police are under a lot of pressure to meet government targets, and this causes them to neglect major crimes (which can take ages to resolve and use a lot of manpower) in favour of minor crimes where resolution is easier. In addition to this, the police are also under a lot of media pressure in high-profile cases, which appears to be forcing them into quick resolutions of the kind that has convicted Ian Huntley and Barry George. These injustices are a consequence of these targets.

Policemen responsible for the detection of cases should have nothing to do with the media and should be protected from it. And Thatcherist ministers are mostly lawyers who are not qualified to govern historically or to direct the police, as these cases show. The pressure of government targets has passed the professional inexpertise of Thatcherist governments through to the police, and the pretentious public roles of its politicians on to people such as Barry George, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, John Humble, Michael Brookes etc.

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

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

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

The taxi driver, Ian Webster, whose evidence is mentioned above, was not called as a witness.

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

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

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

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

Ian Huntley's legal defence was incompetent, and on this ground alone the trial judgment should be scrapped. No defence witnesses were used. The only defence witnesses that appeared were Maxine Carr, who didn't know anything, and Ian Huntley, who only had the prosecution case to defend himself with. The legal defence acted throughout as though Huntley was guilty even while he was protesting his innocence. His defence even caused him to accept the charge of perverting the course of justice when he was pleading innocence, and this undermined his Not Guilty plea. He did not change this defence until a year later and two weeks before his trial.

At his trial, Huntley testified that he suffered a memory loss while in the psychiatric hospital, and that when he recovered afterwards he found it very 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 also testified that he remembered hearing a voice telling him "you pushed her" which would have come from his prosecutors. This formed the basis of his changed defence at his trial.

Huntley's confession at his trial corresponds with Timothy Evans's behaviour when he was presented with the evidence of his wife's and baby daughter's murders.

Concerning Ian Huntley's witness statement
Ian Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement that was made shortly after the girls disappeared. It established him as the last known person to have had contact with them before their disappearance, and it was for this reason that he was selected for prosecution. His statement went like this:

"On Sunday (August 4th) I was standing out front of my house, brushing my dog. I saw two girls approach at about 6pm from the area of the college. One asked me about my partner, Maxine Carr. Maxine worked at St Andrews, but had had to reapply for her job and had not been given the job. I did not know either of the girls. They obviously knew Maxine and obviously 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 she had not been given the job. They said they were very sorry, and walked off in the direction of College Road. I did not see them again. Both were wearing Manchester United tops with Beckham at the back."

College Road leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the two girls at about 6:45, and this corroborates his witness statement. His not knowing the two girls despite their familiarity with Maxine and his house shows that he was not socially interested in school girls.

His statement shows that there was no nose bleed, and the police found no DNA or bloodstains from the girls at Huntley's house. His statement also shows that when he spring-cleaned his house and his car, he also spring-cleaned his dog. The psychology behind his cleaning activity is more likely to be due to his professional psychology as a caretaker.

Concerning the 1983 Mental Health Act
The Mental Health Act of 1983 enables anyone in Britain to be detained in a psychiatric hospital against their will, regardless of whether they are committing an offence. This is called "sectioning", and grounds for it include the person's confusion (which in the Ian Huntley's case was his not understanding why he is being charged with a murder), or personality disorders, such as genius (Syd Barrett, Alfred Jarry, Peter Sellers), or that the person is suffering from the damaging effects of Thatcherism on his quality of life and society.

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

In the late 1990s a TV programme featured a psychiatrist who was visiting a client that he wished to take back into his hospital against his will. He took with him a police SWAT team, and the neighbours stood about in the street watching in disbelief as the police crashed their way into the patient's front door with a copious tinkling of smashed glass. The TV programme showed that one of the problems with allopathic psychiatry is that customers who wish to be admitted to hospital can't have it, while those who don't want it have to. This psychiatrist said that he'd rather give drugs to nine people who didn't need them than not give them to the one that does. It is difficult to conceive who might benefit from this sort of treatment. With psychiatry, allopathic drugs turn illnesses that are caused by environmental factors into addictive biological disorders, and so they are very dangerous to the public.

In the Ian Huntley case, the police have used the psychiatrists as the psychiatrists have been using them. The Ian Huntley case shows that this Act needs reform.

Concerning the series of murders
The series of murders involving the deaths of Jessica and Holly began with the victim's body (Sarah Payne) being dumped out in the open and fully dressed in the holiday area that she was taken from (this presumably to throw the police and public off the scent regarding the Cheshire sighting), and it ended with the bodies of Jessica and Holly being dumped out in the open minus the forensic evidence (the clothes), this for the prosecution of Ian Huntley. In between, the cases of Milly Dowler and Dannielle indicate that the series killer would tend to bury his victims, and this corresponds with the two areas of disturbed ground on Warren Hill outside Newmarket that the jogger reported to the police.

The series began with the defendant Roy Whiting pleading Not Guilty against a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence (with hairs and fibres from the victim on the defendant and vice versa), and it ends with Ian Huntley pleading Not Guilty (and changing his plea two weeks before his trial) against forensic evidence with which he is supposed to have fitted himself up.

Copyright (c) David Dixon 2004

Revising December 2007
To my critics
When I'm in a sober mood, I worry, work and think,
When I'm in a drunken mood, I gamble, play and drink,
But when my moods are over and my time has come to pass,
I hope I'm buried upside down, so the world may kiss my ar*e
User avatar
bjr
Moderator
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: 3rd Cesspit from left of Rothley Towers

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby bjr » Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: sex allegations against Ian Huntley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been several allegations made against Ian Huntley regarding his sexual activity in his early 20s, but these mostly consist of sexual relations with under-age girls of 15 and a half who were sexually matured and consentual.

The public's faith in Huntley's guilt, and its lack of interest in his innocence of the Soham murders, are secured by an accusation made against him by a giirl of a sexual assault when she was 11. Her accounts have since become severely coloured by his conviction for the Soham murders, and there are several inconsistencies and odd-looking coincidences of a psychological character in them. This charge is not consistent with other allegations made about him, which concern his sexual relations with 15+ year old girls when he was 20, all of whom were sexually matured and active. Huntley appears to have co-operated with the social services where they became involved.

The accusation began as one of a rape that had occurred 18 months before, but this changed under police questioning to one of indecent assault and to a period of 9 months before, in September 1997. She attributes the cause of her misbehaviour at school and at home to this assault, but her history of unrest also corresponds with her starting at Secondary school. Her recent account in a TV interview of repeated forcible fondlings and threats of murder doesn't make much sense and doesn't accord with his lack of interest in her otherwise or since. In her account she claims that she first made her accusation during a row with her mother over the state her bedroom was in, and that the police only became involved afterwards when they came to question her about this assault. But the government account has the accusation being made in the presence of the police after they had brought her home from a second truancy in 2 days. She says that the policeman who questioned her about it had looked like Ian Huntley, with the same haircut, so that her account has her reporting a sexual assault by Ian Huntley to a policeman that looked like Ian Huntley, and who had snatched her from the truancy that she attributes to Ian Huntley and who had taken her home to trouble with her mother. This brings Ian Huntley and the police together in a collective image of threat and repression and trouble at home.

Her account of the assault includes an episode where, having got away from the orchard where the assault had begun, she had gone with Huntley to a school hoping that the caretaker would be there, but he wasn't, and here again, there is an interesting correlation of values, with Ian Huntley, now the infamous school caretaker and alleged sex attacker, and the school caretaker who is not there to protect her from him. And her disappointment over the absence of the caretaker's protection provokes another of these attacks by Huntley. This corresponds with the blending of Huntley with the police in her account.


Since his conviction for the Soham murders, her account of this alleged assault has become coloured with threats of murder by Huntley. She reports that he threatened to kill her repeatedly through the hour or so of the incident. Her narration of these threats in a recent TV interview resembles the iconic performance of the black actor in "Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels" who uses the same words in the same way, and the same applies with her description of the questioning she had received from the policeman who had looked like Ian Huntley, so that the two seem merged together in the style of her narration too.

In this same TV interview she was asked when she first connected her attacker with the Soham murders, and she gave a graphic account of her shocked reaction when she heard the news on TV that he had been charged with the Soham murders. But Ian Huntley had been on TV regularly for two weeks or more prior to that point, and if she had been assaulted and threatened as she describes, then surely she might have suspected that he might have had something to do with their disappearance before this. But it was the press who pushed the police in his direction.

When she gave her original statement in a video interview at the police station, she used her hands to shield her face from the camera and her parents who were watching from behind a glass screen. She also made her accusation knowing that Huntley had moved to Cleethorpes a week beforehand.

Despite her subsequent claims that Huntley had repeatedly threatened to kill her, the social services did not think she was a child protection case (which proved to be right), and the police did not prosecute. A month or two prior to this accusation two women accused him of rape, but in each case Huntley insisted that the sex was consential and the police did not prosecute.

There is an interesting sequence of values in the girl's story, which suggests a possible psychological basis for it. The story begins in the Garden of Eden (the orchard) with Adam and Eve and the sexual assaults, then goes on to the schoolyard and the missing caretaker, then on to her truancy and her being picked up by the police. This sequence describes a young girl troubled by the transition from childhood to adulthood at school.


These may be natural coincidences or psychological ones. One could interpret all this by reading that she was being naughty when she was brought home by the police, that she was being naughty when she made this accusation, that she was being naughty when she gave her statement (except that she would have been forced into this if she had made her accusation up), and if she has been naughty by maintaining her story after Huntley's conviction for the Soham murders, she would have been forced into this by pressure from the press and the mind-set of the public. She would feel that she was contributing to the social environment that would have caused her troubled schooling.

Interestingly, the girl (now aged 21) is married to a man twice her age (he is 40), which corresponds with the alleged situation between herself and Ian Huntley (he was twice her age at the time of the alleged assault).

Each aspect of the girl's account has an odd-looking aspect to it, which taken individually wouldn't have any significance, but taken together must cast doubt on the allegation. Some of this may be due to corrupted or subjective memory, but the elaborate detail given to the threats of murder since Huntley's conviction for the Soham murders would not be due to this. One can't avoid the suspicion that she is giving the media what it wants, in which case she would be in the same position that the police were with the Soham murders. The incident is not consistent with Huntley's record or his known habits.

When questioned by the police about this allegation at the time, Ian Huntley said, "I've only ever seen her once." This is an empty, naïve-looking response that contains no recognition or defence of the assault that he was being questioned about.

And when the girl brought a civil action against him after his conviction for the Soham murders, Huntley's initial response was not to contest it, or to ignore it, which is naïve in another way, because sexual abusers and rapists are notorious for enjoying to relive their crimes and harass their victims again in court. This reaction of Huntley to the civil action shows no evidence or defence of any sexual assault again, and it is consistent with his not taking the charge seriously. And after his experience at the Soham murder trial he is not likely to care any more.

Huntley then changed his mind on the grounds that he did not wish to be remembered as a paedophile, and he decided to contest this civil action after all. He had wanted the court hearing to be held in his prison, but this was contested by his opponent, and it was held in Manchester County Court instead. Shortly before this hearing, Huntley appears to have baulked at the prospect of the hearing and signed a confession in Wakefield Prison. It was on the strength of this that the girl won her case.

However, Ian Huntley's confessions are rubbish. They are clearly made to ease him in a trial situation over which he has no control and in which he is unable to defend himself. His defeat over the location of the trial is likely to be the cause of this development. While molesters enjoy molesting their victims as witnesses in court, Ian Huntley prefers to hide away in Wakefield Prison, where he is convicted of the Soham murders.

Either Ian Huntley's confession is a belated show of remorse for the alleged assault, which is unlikely because he wished to contest the accusation, or else it was made because he was terrified of the prospect of the public appearance in Manchester. No doubt his defence would have advised him that he wouldn't stand a chance against a forthright accuser in view of his conviction for the Soham murders.

With the exception of this confession, Ian Huntley's behaviour has always looked innocent, and ironically, if the girl had made up her allegation in the first place, she would have been in a similar situation to Huntley himself. She would be innocent as well, because at no point would she have been in a position of responsibility, and like Huntley in his situation, she would have had to live up to the fib of a troubled 12 year-old girl through pressure from the press and from a wrongful murder conviction. And the 12 year-old girl of yesteryear would have been a victim of the society that she was being brought up in, her original fault that of innocence polluted by the society that she was required to conform to.

Whichever, it is not possible to resolve this equation because there is no motive or hypocrisy to identify. Unless a reliable confession is made by Huntley, the above resolution of the dispute must logically annul the accusation against Ian Huntley, because it opposes the allegation with a creditable alternative that fits the facts completely, and the girl's case cannot be proved.

In any examination of this issue after the event, given the details and circumstances in this case, the allegation can have no legal or political value, and it cannot serve as a precedent for the Soham murders anyway.

In the Ian Huntley case, and several others, the civil courts have been used by members of the public to by-pass the strict rules governing criminal prosecutions, and when this happens successfully, the victims are automatically convicted in the criminal courts afterwards, and so they do not have the strict rules governing criminal trials.

Note:

It has since been reported elsewhere on the Internet that Huntley still denies the allegation, and that he signed the confession because of the fear of public attack in the Manchester court and because the legal money that he had been granted was withdrawn. This money had caused public outcry in the press.
To my critics
When I'm in a sober mood, I worry, work and think,
When I'm in a drunken mood, I gamble, play and drink,
But when my moods are over and my time has come to pass,
I hope I'm buried upside down, so the world may kiss my ar*e
User avatar
bjr
Moderator
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: 3rd Cesspit from left of Rothley Towers

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby bomaris » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:20 pm

My God BJR - what are you doing to your own forum? Putting your tin foil hat and joining in the madness!!!

There's no comparison between the two cases. Huntley in case you've forgotten admitted in court that the girls had been in his house at the relevant time and that they died "accidentally".

He was as guilty as hell as anyone could see from watching the pathetic police video.

The pros will love this thread.

Well done.
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby shoperoo » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:18 pm

Huntley -guilty as charged

The policeman charged with having child porn as I recollect, was acting as family liason officer to one of the girl's families.
There was something abouta female friend of his working in the CPS being charged with perverting the course of justice-sorry don't remember her exact deeds.



Image
User avatar
shoperoo
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby Sally » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:53 pm

bomaris wrote:My God BJR - what are you doing to your own forum? Putting your tin foil hat and joining in the madness!!!

There's no comparison between the two cases. Huntley in case you've forgotten admitted in court that the girls had been in his house at the relevant time and that they died "accidentally".

He was as guilty as hell as anyone could see from watching the pathetic police video.

The pros will love this thread.

Well done.


He eventually did admit it, but only after been pumped full of psyche drugs, he was then convinced by doctors that he did it....it goes all the way to tony blair, it was around the time american army were shipped to leakenheath, it is there that they will find the killers!!
Sally
New In Town
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:46 am

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby bjr » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:53 pm

bomaris wrote:My God BJR - what are you doing to your own forum? Putting your tin foil hat and joining in the madness!!!

There's no comparison between the two cases. Huntley in case you've forgotten admitted in court that the girls had been in his house at the relevant time and that they died "accidentally".

He was as guilty as hell as anyone could see from watching the pathetic police video.

The pros will love this thread.

Well done.


I just copied and pasted the documents supplied by cynical_tourists link.
To my critics
When I'm in a sober mood, I worry, work and think,
When I'm in a drunken mood, I gamble, play and drink,
But when my moods are over and my time has come to pass,
I hope I'm buried upside down, so the world may kiss my ar*e
User avatar
bjr
Moderator
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: 3rd Cesspit from left of Rothley Towers

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby tylersmum » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:05 pm

Sally wrote:
bomaris wrote:My God BJR - what are you doing to your own forum? Putting your tin foil hat and joining in the madness!!!

There's no comparison between the two cases. Huntley in case you've forgotten admitted in court that the girls had been in his house at the relevant time and that they died "accidentally".

He was as guilty as hell as anyone could see from watching the pathetic police video.

The pros will love this thread.

Well done.


He eventually did admit it, but only after been pumped full of psyche drugs, he was then convinced by doctors that he did it....it goes all the way to tony blair, it was around the time american army were shipped to leakenheath, it is there that they will find the killers!!

What about the forensic evidence that tied him to the murders?
As to the American Army being shipped to Lakenheath there has been an American base there since the war.

As to pumping him with psyche drugs what ones did you have in mind?

As to the Badger post posrted by BJR,thanks BJR ,that is a total load of c*** and no doubt if ever the Mccanns get convicted some idiot will post the same sort of defence as that for them.
tylersmum
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:55 am

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby tylersmum » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:29 pm

The post about Huntley's innocence was written by a man named David Dixon.

One reason that Huntley managed to get a job in a school even though he was known to police was that Huntley also used the surname Dixon.

Could there be a connection?
tylersmum
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:55 am

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby emma2 » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:38 pm

Joe Vialls (who is rumoured to be former Mossad spy Ari Ben Menashe) says that the crime was committed by a US army serviceman, Randy Bitter.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread231461/pg1
http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/neuroleptic.html
User avatar
emma2
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:14 pm

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby cushty » Thu May 01, 2008 6:15 pm

any Sky subscribers - programme on Huntley tonight at 9pm on the Crime and Investigation channel 531
User avatar
cushty
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: So whaddaya think? - Could Huntley have been a patsy

Postby Sally » Sat May 03, 2008 2:54 pm

Do your research tylersmum......its all there to see.
Sally
New In Town
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:46 am


Return to Crimes (New and Old), The Jersey Case and Heroes of Crime Detection

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron