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?

Sorry Lucy123 I dont really care whether she has been treated harshly or not, she knew something and kept it hidden, in my eyes that makes her deserve everything she gets.
If she didnt know anything why be held on remand for that long, not for protection as the police could of made public statements that MC had nothing to do with the crimes.

Sorry but if that was me and I had an idea or knew for a fact that my dh done something like that the police would have to scrape him up from the floor.

Ummmm, has Carr been found guilty already, then? Maybe we should wait for the verdict......

exactly suedonim. It is also possible that Huntley is innocent.

yeah... right

we do sound like mOthers sometimes...

Can I just add that Huntley is not expected to deny that both girls died in his house, nor that he hid the bodies. So errr, can I just jump on the bandwagon and say "Guilty as Hell!" It will be interesting to see what his defence come up with, I suppose the fact that they both just died in his house is a coincidence?

My point.

ok these people are at trial but here are the FACTS we know so far.
he admits they died in his house
he admits to removing the bodies
there personal possessions were found removed and burnt ina place where only he had access to
his car is major forensic evidence
he made appeals in the media knowing all the above before their bodies were found

for miss carr
a major amount of calls were made to her from him on the day in question
she cut short her visit home
she too made appeals for the safe return of the girls by this time she must have known the truth.
she gave a false alibi for him

as i said theyve not been found guilty but on this evidence alone can anyone honestly say that they dont think he did it?and that she didnt cover for him?
remember we're only on day 3 of this trial ,there is alot more to come yet....

I absolutely agree that Carr was wrong and wicked to cover up for him - though possibly she thought he was innocent -she does seem profoundly odd and none too bright. But he's the one who was there when they died and refuses to say what happened. I don't think we should lose sight of that. I personally am convinced they both committed crimes, but his is far worse than hers - in a different league IMO. I must say, I am much more interested in why he did what he did and why she covered up for him than I am in the details. It does seem beyond comprehension.

Revenge for her not getting the job? She was very close to Holly apparently and let her call her by her first name and she was criticised for this by the teacher - maybe he thought it was all Holly's fault.

I wonder if he had been CRB'd but didn't put his name change on the form? He obviously has got something in his background though it hasn't come out yet.

He was so devious though - stupid, but devious. If he'd been smart too he might have got away with it.

Janh - agree that it sounds likely that Huntley has a previous conviction/s - although these will only come out if he is found guilty.

Regarding "gagging" the press - as with any case, once someone is charged the press is strictly limited as to what it can and cannot publish relating to a case, because of subjudice laws. These laws are in place to try to ensure that everyone has a fair trial - and this is as much to protect society as it is the individual. If a trial is proven to be unfair then a guilty person could end up walking free.

I wonder just exactly what Huntly told Maxine Carr about the missing girls while she was away? How much did he manipulate her? When she cut her holiday short and came back to Soham, what had she been told?

Even if she knew the girls had somehow died in the house, was she still convinced of Huntly's innocence? She might have started out lying because she believed Huntly had nothing to do with it, but was afraid he could be implicated because he had seen them last. Then as it became clear to her that Huntly had more to do with them, she was afraid to backtrack and Huntly built on her fears.

Yes, but Rhubarb does he necessarily have to offer a defence as such - it is surely up to the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit murder, possibly with only forensic and circumstantial evidence to go on.

I feel so much for the parents of Holly and Jessica, having to sit through that day in and out. I would just have to get a gun and shot that man.

If anyone is interested the transcript of the trial is on SKY NEWS ACTIVE under Soham Trial.

Like many have mentioned in this post, it is the snippets of "juicy gossip" in the media that are really stomach churning.

For example, all this weekend the media was full of mentions that "the dark haired one" meaning Jessica, had sat on their bed with a nose-bleed. They mentioned this several times over in some articles, in different papers.

Now as a parent reading that it is obvious what conclusion we are meant to jump at. I am so heart-sorry for the girls' parents going through this and hope justice is served. It would be enough to drive you mad thinking your child needed you and there was nothing you could do, one of the Moors murder victims mothers went through a life of torture after hearing her daughter pleading for her mummy in that terrible tape Hindley and Brady made.

There are also people saying what Carr did was not in line with being called another "Hindley." I feel people will say that because, not only did she lie but she appeared on TV flaunting a card from Holly. This would imply, certainly to me, that she was enjoying the morbid celebrity this was bringing. If she felt guilty there would have been no way she could have done that. And Carr will be treated the same as Huntly as women are meant to have that mothering instinct that should kick in where children are concerned.

This is of course my opinion and I am holding back the urge to say I hope he gets his in prison (oops). If they are found guilty I hope we hear how that decision was made without the media gleefully parading each sick little horror those girls went through.

SueW, I know when my mum did jury service they got bussed (sp ?) down to the scene. From the little she said it was either a GBH or domestic violence case but she was at a loss as to what she was supposed to infer from it.

It's only a guess here, but I imagine that both the trip to Soham and the nosebleed in the bedroom detail will all become relevant to the jury as more forensic information is revealed by the prosecution - and once the defence states its case.

Interestingly it says on the bbc site that Huntley metnioned unusual vehicles around the college weeks before...

Does anybody listen to the so-called evidence, as reported on the BBC, and feel very confused about how it is relevant? I mean, Maxine Carr spoke of the girls in the past tense 3 days after they disappared. How is that supposed to prove her guilt???? I bet many many people were speaking of them in past tense by then. I just keep thinking that use of the video interviews or similar seems extremely weak....

What if the two girls somehow died from electrocution in his house -- I thought the prosecutation case was that they died within 15 minutes of entering Huntley's house, which Huntley is not even going to deny. Isn't this consistent with Huntley's defense that there was an accident??

We have a local, very gruesome murder trial where a 14 yo boy was beaten and tortured for about 24 hours before being killed... it's absolutely horrendous, but all the media is focusing on the Soham deaths. I can't help but compare the complete difference in quality of evidence between the 2 trials, and right now, the case against Huntley is seeming very tenuous, at best.

Don't get me wrong, if Huntley is guilty I want him to get put away. If they died by accident and he got paranoid and hid their bodies, he's obviously disturbed -- but does that mean he deserves a murder charge?? Why is the prosecution using all this weak media interview evidence which says pretty much nothing, unless they really don't have much evidence at all? I just do not understand, unless the case against Huntley is very weak and based only on the fact that the girls died in his house, not HOW they died. No motive has been suggested, nothing.

zebra I agree with you but
The changing of the car tyres was damaging though esp when he offered £10 not to put reg plate details on.

Zebra - I find it very hard to believe that 2 children could die in an accident. And regarding a motive, when children are murdered it's usually sexual but as he burnt their bodies they can't prove this. And as far as Maxine Carr is concerned, she conducted that interview knowing the girls were dead, and they died in her boyfriends house and that he had disposed of the bodies. I don't care if she was speaking in the past tense or not, that is the work of an evil disturbed woman and they both deserve to rot in hell IMO.

It is the fact that they did these interviews KNOWING the girls were dead that is so damning though. They are not denying that the girls died in their house. So why even do the interviews at all?

I just can't think of what could have accidentally happened to two healthy girls that they both die.