Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Soham Murder trial

432 replies

codswallop · 05/11/2003 12:04

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?

OP posts:
hmb · 26/11/2003 15:21

They have an absolute right be be defended in court. They also have the absolute right to be considered 'innocent until proved guilty' under law. If I were a juror I would have that in the front of my mind. However, the fact of their guilt or innocence is not simply a matter of law. If they did it, they are guilty, even though the law dictates they must be treated in the law courts as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

naughtynoonoo · 26/11/2003 15:24

This man shot be shot, have a look at this

www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12935115,00.html

The story about him in the bathroom with the girls sounds a bit crap, if I were the judge on this case I would start loading up the gun.

Northerner · 26/11/2003 15:44

I understand that they have an absolute right to be defended in court under British law. But somehow the words 'Ian Huntley', and 'absolute right to be defended' seem to stick in my throat. He's guilty, and we are wasting time and money, not to mention putting the girls parents through even more hell. I hope he get life. Then when in prison I hope he gets his comeuppance.

hmb · 26/11/2003 15:48

If it helps, it does me too, but it is the price we pay for having a halfway reasonable legal system. I also think that his 'defence' is impossible. But I have a right to say that, cos I'm not in the jury.

CnR · 26/11/2003 20:15

Under current law Barristers are not allowed to refuse cases just because they don't like it. If the client tells a barrister that they are not guilty they have to believe them - under our laws you are innocent until proven guilty.

However if a client says he is guilty but wants to plead not guilty a barrister is not allowed to act. It has to work both ways or the system will fall apart.

SenoraPostrophe · 26/11/2003 20:17

Yes. and in the scheme of things, quite right too.

I used to fancy myself as a barrister, but it was this that put me off in the end. I can only argue well if I belive in what I'm saying.

marthamoo · 26/11/2003 20:52

Just read on yahoo that he was accused (and cleared) on a rape charge several years ago. That is what he was referring to when he said he would be fitted up as he had been in the past and why, Maxine Carr says, she lied for him, as she knew what he had been through in the past.

My heart bleeds for those girls' parents - having to listen to all the speculation about what happened to their babies.

aloha · 26/11/2003 20:55

But John Mortimer only ever acted as a defence barrister, not a prosecution one.
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.

Cam · 27/11/2003 11:23

The court hearing is part of a process, a process which must be carried out lawfully. Otherwise, any judgement will be considered unsafe and I H will be let off.
I was living in Brighton at the time of the Wild Park killings when two 9 or 10 year old girls were killed. Russell Bishop was arrested, charged and tried for their murder. However, because the police "knew" it was him and were so keen to get a conviction, they made a mistake of due process, his lawyers exploited this and R B was let off.
So, in law we will never be sure that he did it and those killings went unpunished. However Russell Bishop was arrested about a year later for the attempted murder of a 7 year old who he had left for dead on Devil's Dyke in Brighton and she somehow survived and was found wandering around by a passing motorist. This time the police proceeded absolutely according to the due process and R B was convicted.

janh · 01/12/2003 22:59

I've just read the transcript of Huntley's appearance in the witness box here . He makes it all sound so plausible.

But he says Jessica's phone was already off (her family say it was never switched off). And how could he look at Holly in the bath, see no movement and not pull her out? And why didn't it occur to him to call an ambulance? And why was there no trace of blood on Holly's clothes? This is just a story he's put together, isn't it?

From the taped phone calls to his mother his "blackouts" didn't sound like something she'd ever heard of before - talking to Maxine Carr she said he'd said he couldn't remember, but she thought he could remember.

But...but...it did all happen so quickly (whatever "it" was)...and if it was murder it was completely motiveless...god I would hate to be on the jury for something like this.

ks · 02/12/2003 08:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Tinker · 02/12/2003 08:27

Agree with you jan. If I was one the jury, even though I feel I'd know his story doesn't make sense, I wouldn't be able to not have doubts. What if etc.

zebra · 02/12/2003 08:30

I suspect that the parents, on balance, want to hear as much as possible from Huntley; I would be desperate to know details of how the girls died, even if it was horrible painful to hear. IH's weird story suggests that the girls didn't suffer hardly at all in their deaths. If I could bring myself to believe his story, that would be great comfort to me if I were one of the girls' mothers. So even if it is all cobblers, I hope the parents believe it, for their own piece of mind.

I would like being on the jury, even hearing all the scarey details and having to think about it often, because I would feel I had given the entire process fair due. That these young girls died (however they died) is awful, that an innocent man be locked up for it could be worse, so if it were me I'd feel honoured to have the responsibility of sifting thru the evidence.

Cam · 02/12/2003 11:33

I don't think IH's story makes any kind of sense at all and I sincerely hope the jury will not be taken in by it.

ks · 02/12/2003 11:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

FairyMum · 02/12/2003 11:39

He is probably just feeling sorry for HIMSELF locked up in prison.

tigermoth · 02/12/2003 12:14

His story makes no sense to me. The timing of the events in the bathroom seems so unbelievable, even if I could just at a pinch believe his account of his reactions.

Reading the transcript, he sounds so unsure of the facts anyway. I want to hear the rest of the defence case - I wonder how his version will then appear? I guess the defence will try to sow stronger seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury.

Cam · 04/12/2003 09:01

Yes, given that he was alone with the girls when they died and what he did (and didn't) do afterwards, all the defence can do is to throw as much doubt and confusion on the situation as possible.

M2T · 04/12/2003 09:06

I must say that I feel really sorry for Maxine Carr. If she's telling the truth (which I beleive she is) then she didn't know that he had actually killed them until he told his version of events to the Jury!

She lied to protect him coz she thought the girls had been there earlier and he would be in the frame through circumstances!

How awful to have the man you so desperately love turn out to be a monster!!!

mieow · 04/12/2003 09:22

I am sure that your first reaction would be to pull the girl out of the bath, not silence the other.

Cam · 04/12/2003 09:56

No, sorry, I don't believe MC either, it appears she was very involved in the cleaning afterwards.

handlemecarefully · 04/12/2003 12:32

I think MC might have had suspiscions, but probably suppressed them and was in 'denial'...so to an extent I feel a tiny bit sorry for her...(but not all that much!)

janh · 04/12/2003 12:40

He got the job as caretaker partly because the Head (?) thought he had such a sensible attitude about girls (previous caretaker, the one he tried to finger for this, having been sacked for something to do with a girl). They must have done a thorough check on him, mustn't they?

Only I keep wondering, because of the line of questioning the prosecution used, if they know about something in his past to do with little girls which they are not allowed to refer to in court (they have been allowed to refer to the rape charge because he was acquitted).

LIZS · 04/12/2003 13:51

If MC has been feeling so guilty for a long time that she could have prevented the deaths had she been there, then how does this square with her claim that she has heard the details for the first time in court. Surely to feel guilty she must have at least suspected something earlier ?

judetheobscure · 04/12/2003 14:19

MC heard of the change in IH's defence some while ago. Initially he claimed he didn't kill them. Then, after his suicide attempted he "remembered" what had happened. That's when his defence changed (maybe April 2003 IIRC). Like some others I would have difficulty convicting on the evidence so far. However there are lots of questions which I would ask or expect to be answered by the prosecution and/or defence which would confirm his guilt or otherwise. Small parts of his story don't tie up with the prosecution's case for example. I'd like to know more about his mental history - how he reacts in times of crisis etc. The case is expected to continue into january so presumable there is a lot more evidence to come.