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?

zebra, I think the prosecution is concentrating on proving that he's not disturbed, is perfectly sane and knew what he was doing - that's why they're going over who said what when.

If there was an accident, why didn't he call an ambulance at the time? If there was nothing to hide, why did he try to burn the bodies? Why did he keep contradicting himself about what happened when? He hasn't told what happened, they died in his house when he was there so he has to be tried for murder, not manslaughter.

I did see a piece recently about the 14-yr-old boy - I remember reading about it when it happened. It was horrendous and the people who did it are sickos - but I bet they're sane too and will be locked up.

CnR, Northerner, doormat; all that proves is a conspiracy charge. Do them for that, sure, but murder?? And Maxine Carr speaking about them in past tense; well, if I was on the jury, I would discount entirely. Possibly more relevant that she didn't want one of the interviews broadcast in Grimsby, because of where she claimed to be on the night of the girls' disappearance.

The thing about the sexual assault theory is this: it doesn't fit any usual pattern. He's not a complete stranger who can hope to kidnap them anonmyously. He's not a friend of the family who seizes an opportunity because of his close, frequent contact. They supposedly died within minutes of getting in his house; sexual assaults usually occur over a longer period and then the perpetrator either tries to talk his victims into not telling or decides to silence them permanently. Sexual predators usually pick on single girls in isolated environments, not pairs in a public place.

And accidents do happen... I thought of electrocution because it can kill two people at once in the same accident. But I will wait, like everyone else, to hear IH's defense.

Zebra IMO I think we are dealing with a very clever man and an opportunist.
He was in "the heart of it" at the time gathering info on DNA etc.
With what forensic evidence they do have eg fibres etc he cannot deny they were in the house, is this now his story because there is no (apologies for this next remark)evidence from the bodies.
it knocks me sick this whole thing.

Zebra, how does anyone know that they died within minutes of being in his house?

Can't quite believe you think he should be done for conspiracy but not murder. For christs sake woman 2 innocent girls died here and he did his upmost to cover his tracks, he burnt their clothes and their bodies, he convinced his girlfriend to lie for him, he joined in the search knowing they were dead, he lied during TV interviews and he even expressed his sorrow to one of the girls parents. I am sure we will find out that this was no accident.

What worries me is that all the evidence seems so circumstantial ... they're going to get off on a lesser charge

I think the prosecution itself was stating that they believed the girls died very soon after entering his house, so perhaps they have some kind of evidence for that.

Just because a woman has 2 children die of cot death, (which is statistically extremely unlikely), does not mean she killed them. Just because 2 girls died in IH's house (which is statistically extremely unlikely), does not mean he killed them. The murder charge should be proven. English law isn't supposed to convict on the basis that we can't think of a better explanation, it's supposed to convict on the basis of proof that something happened. Just because IH was disturbed enough to respond very badly when the girls died in his house does not prove that he is malicious or evil enough to kill anybody, or that he's a danger to anybody, or that he should be punished for a murder charge just because he panicked and was afraid of a murder charge.

Anyway, so far there is much evidence which doesn't seem relevant or compelling. When will the good quality evidence finally appear, I wonder?

Zebra how can you seriously compare cot death with the deaths of Jessica and Holly? IMO the 'weak' evidence as you put it is damning enough. Ok, let's say he didn't kill them but it wsa an accident. He then disposed of their bodies, removed their clothing etc. This behaviour is not that of a man frightened of a murder charge, but of a man covering his tracks and frightened of being caught. Giving IH the benefit of the doubt makes me sick.

agree northerner

Didn't he burn their bodies? Ian Huntley is guilty. In my mind a trial is a waste of tax payers money. Just lock him up!

zebra, what good quality evidence? He made sure there could be no forensic evidence from their bodies. If he doesn't tell what happened there is only circumstantial, and forensic from his house and car and ditch at airfield.

If your line was followed, anybody who ever kills anybody and disposes of the body completely can get away with it if nobody can prove how they were killed and the killer doesn't tell.

In other words Zebra your talking bull s**t.

Thanks, Northerner, you're just so lovely, sweet and kind.

I'm confused as to why you think zebra is talking bull s**t because of the known principle of law known as beyond reasonable doubt? That's how our courts system works. I'm as annoyed as you that it could mean a murderer getting off on a lesser charge, but it does (hopefully) reduce the chances of a miscarriage of justice.

It seems to me (although I may well be very very wrong on this part) that it's quite unusual NOT to have forensic evidence and proof of cause of death even when the body is well disposed of. Most murder cases are just that - it was obvious that the body was strangled/stabbed/burnt alive or whatever.

Of course, we could just ditch the jury system all together - it seems to be what the government wants at the moment... I'm just not convinced that's a particular boost to justice either...

"CnR, Northerner, doormat; all that proves is a conspiracy charge. Do them for that, sure, but murder??"

Do Ian Hutley for conspiracy but not murder?

If that's not bullsh**t than I'm the Quuen mother.

The pair of them need to be locked up or better taken off this plant for good. The do not deserve anything less. Whatever happened it was pure evil and for them to carry giving interviews is sick. As far as I am concerned they are not human and this applies to all people who attack and murder children.

Danielle Jones' uncle was convicted of her murder after overwhelming forensic evidence was located in his house/van etc. Yet her body has never been found, so the 'no body no conviction'theory doesn't stand up.

I think the evidence is overwhelming, and I'm only going by what I've read, not what the jury is hearing. I have to say, I'd find it damm odd if a person went to such huge lengths to disguise the cause of death if it was accidental. That certainly makes no sense at all.
You can convict without a body at all if the case is otherwise strong enough.
The chances of two strong, robust, perfectly healthy girls of that age just dropping dead within a short time of entering the house of a man where he was the only other person present, and who subsequently stripped their bodies, burned them to destroy evidence of cause of death and buried them in a ditch, all the while lying and lying about what had happened and getting someone else to lie for him too, seems to me so improbable that I no longer have any 'reasonable' doubt at all. I expect the evidence being offered to the jury is even stronger. All the little bits of evidence are part of the jigsaw of the case.

Whether they are guilty of murder or not, I really don't know but what I did find really odd was the outtake of the Maxine Carr interview where she kept using the past tense. They had to cut it and she started giggling. Now, I assume she knew at that stage that they were dead but even if a) you didn't know they were dead or b) you were not involved in anyway I just don't think it would be appropriate to be giggling about it. She does seem to be quite a silly girl.

I commented on that to DH too Tinker. Very odd indeed.

Me too.

The pair of them giving interviews made me think of all those other cases where the police have got murder suspects to do those 'please come home' pleas for the victims. This is so much worse because these two seem to have actually volunteered. Very sick.

Radio5 just gave a very succinct summary of IH's defense I'm not going to summarise because you all seem to believe the trial is a waste of time but I imagine it will be on websites everywhere, in a few minutes. Could try Radio5's listen-again feature.