Soham Murder trial

[codswallop]

I am sure this must be indescribably Painful for the parents , But I was thinking in bed - what if I had been selected for that Jury service....

I am soooooo emotional and i reckon that this would seriously affect me for the rest of my life (not saying it wouldnt for others natch).

I know you cant get out of Jury Service But God - how would you cope?

Berries - perhaps she didn't actually lie that time? Maybe she really WAS his alibi!

Yeah, right. sorry to sound aggressive, but really, he's a multiple rapist and child abuser.

Just read the Judge's comments and MC only has to serve half her sentence with the balance on licence. By my calculation she could be out in 6 months but goodness only knows what she will do with herself then. Jurors have been relieved of any future Jury service.

Aloha - I wouldn't like to have YOU on my jury!!! He is a murderer..... but has never been convicted of anything else.

GT - but if Aloha or anyone else were on your jury she wouldn't know about your previous convictions let alone things of which you had been accused but not convicted.

GladTidings - er, I really don't know what you are talking about. Why would you not like me on your jury? I hardly think it is much of a stretch to see that he is a rapist and child sex abuser. Unless, of course, you think that someone who is capable of killing two ten year olds, stripping their cold dead bodies naked, burning their corpses beyond recognition, lying to the police and even pretending to be sorry to their families is too nice to be a rapist or sex abuser - even though eight separate children have said so, and at least four different women. Bit of a coincidence, eh?

Or of course, you could believe the word of a killer against 12 totally separate people... that's your call.

Numbers are wrong: IH's contacts with police were for 10 investigations: 1 burglary + 3 incidents of rape (of women over 15, one of whom subsequently saw IH on TV and positively identified him as NOT her attacker) + 6 allegations of sex with females under 16 (all of whom declined to press charges, so probably many of them were definitely NOT prepared to call him an abuser). I don't know where the "8 [children] have said so" comes from.

I think Northerner & Aloha should get together.

What's that supposed to mean?

What's that supposed to mean?

So the children (as young as ten - a familiar age in this case, I think) 'declined to press charges'. I don't think so. Don't you think it was rather more likely that the children's parents couldn't face their traumatised children going through more pain in court?

I am utterly, utterly stunned to find that I am being attacked for suggesting that a convicted child murderer who has multiple allegations of sex attacks against him could possibly be guilty of those also. Er, who exactly is the bad person here?

Not sure where you're coming from on this zebra?

I think many people, adults as well as children 'decline to press charges' because they are so traumatised by the whole experience.

It must defy all credible belief that one man could be 'wrongly accused' so many times! He is and evil, evil man. So bad it almost makes me wish we still had the death penalty (which I oppose).

The amazing ability that Aloha & Northerner share to decide on a person's guilt without the nuisance of a trial -- Amazing! If only we all shared this talent.

I gather that you mean to insult me in some way Zebra. I realise from scrolling down this thread you have defended Ian Huntley all the way...but NOW?

For Christ's sake Zebra, are you related to him or something? I know I'm not a convicted child killer, but maybe you could direct your ire to a more worthy cause. It's hardly rocket science to assume that not all the children were wicked liars (what a coincidence - amazing!) and that a multiple child murderer might also be a child sex abuser.

I defended him all the way?! I defended his right to a jury trial. And I also wrote:
"The story IH's barrister gave is exactly what you would expect from someone who is self-delusional about what he actually did. I've listened to my dad interviewing low-lifes in courtrooms and it's exactly the sort of far-fetched bizarre account these people dream up."

Yup, I'm obviously one of his greatest fans.

From the Guardian:
Beneath the respectable facade that Huntley presented to the interview panel at the college lurked a man with a proclivity to very young women and girls and a willingness to use violence when denied.
Well-placed police sources who have knowledge of the profile drawn up on Huntley by a criminal psychologist say that, when he arrived in Soham, he was a "latent predatory paedophile".
It is thought that his chance encounter with Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman last summer - detectives have found no evidence that he or Carr groomed the girls - gave him the opportunity to indulge his darkest of fantasies.
There is little doubt amongst those who know the case well that Huntley intended to or did actually indecently assault the girls. By the time their bodies were found, they were too decomposed for it to be said for certain whether they had been sexually assaulted. But one police officer said: "Why else does a grown man lure two 10-year-old girls into his house?"
Huntley was also a man who must have thought he could get away with just about anything. By the time he arrived in Soham, Humberside police had had 10 "contacts" with him, and social services five. But no firm action was taken to stop him.

From my post of 26th November:

However I totally agree that the fact that even the most terrible people are entitled to a fair trial and proper representation is one of the great glories of a democracy and free society and we tamper at that at our peril.

This clearly does not mean that any intelligent person cannot draw their own private conclusions from overwhelming evidence. Especially about someone who is a convicted child killer. Or maybe you think I am casting aspersions on his lovely character? I am baffled as to why you think it so unlikely that he is a rapist?

From my post of 26th November:

However I totally agree that the fact that even the most terrible people are entitled to a fair trial and proper representation is one of the great glories of a democracy and free society and we tamper at that at our peril.

This clearly does not mean that any intelligent person cannot draw their own private conclusions from overwhelming evidence. Especially about someone who is a convicted child killer. Or maybe you think I am casting aspersions on his lovely character? I am baffled as to why you think it so unlikely that he is a rapist?

Didn't say it was unlikely; but I wouldn't go around labelling somebody "a multiple rapist" unless they were convicted of it.

Incidentally... I have a feeling that the previous time when MC gave IH an alibi, it was the same incident (the last rape allegation) where the victim has since definitely said IH was not the perpetrator.

Come on Zebra - you aren't stupid. He liked having sex with children (unless you think 13year olds aren't children). He was accused over and over again of similar style rapes. He is a convicted multiple child killer who the police who investigated the case firmly believe had a sexual motive (he liked having sex with children,remember). Why do you prefer to think the three women and the 11 year old children were liars and this convicted child killer was telling the truth? It is clear he is a rapist. Unless he is Britain's unluckiest man who just happened be to named by all those separate people. I happen to consider that unlikely beyond belief. And I suggest that the vast majority of people share my considered opinion, based on the evidence.

I think zebra means we do not KNOW that he did these other crimes because they were never brought to trial. He was just accused of them. No-one if he did them or not.

I despise the bloke

Actually we DO know he liked having sex with children. Look on the Guardian website. He was investigated for having relationships with under age girls. There is no doubt he had sex with these children - one only 13 - but there was no prosecution because the girls 'regarded him as their boyfriend'. In the other cases to assume he is innocent is to decide that one eleven year old girl and three teenagers (see a pattern?) all lied when they accused him of remarkably similar rapes. I fail to see why we would only 'know' he was guilty if he was tried for these crimes. I think any intelligent person can see he is more than capable of these crimes and for him to be innocent of the rapes suggests a series of coincidences that are utterly ridiculous IMO.