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?

M2T - I also feel pity for Maxine Carr. I do feel convinced that she was so sure he wasn't guilty but was about to be fitted up by the police that she thought she was helping justice to be done rather than protecting a murderer. He lied to her as was clear from her bugged phone calls IMO. Her life is now totally ruined and she will never be able to have the very ordinary life she craved.
His story is clear rubbish. The pathologist basically said that it couldn't have happened. That someone falling backwards from the edge of the bath could not have become accidentally submerged and know themselves unconscious at the same time. It is also totally impossible to acccidentally kill a healthy strong ten year old simply by putting one hand over their mouth. I have no doubt he will be found guilty. The forensic evidence is against him - no blood on the clothes disproving his nosebleed story, and forensic that they were in the bedroom, which he denies.

There's also the latest evidence from Maxine Carr about the washing machine having been on - apparently he never did the washing. The ir=tems being washed were a duvet and bedclothes. She thought he'd had awoman there. But it's all rather suspicious.

Aloha- I agree.

Me too. And as for his story that after all that, he went on to bath the dog...during which the bath cracked!!!

I do believe that MC believed he had not done it...her account of how he planted in her mind the idea to give him an alibi, by telling her how much better it would have been if she had been there etc, rings true of manipulative behaviour...Think she is a victim of an unfortunate combination of weak character, low self-belief, dependency on a manipulative man, some emotional disturbance, but that that HAS led her to a position where she is guilty of at least obstructing justice.

I said to dh this evening if I came home and found out he had washed the bed linen I would be very suspicious - he can't even put a sock in the washing machine. I still don't believe ih's story - it seems a bit far fetched.

Does anyone else feel that IH will get off on the charge of Holly as their is an element of "doubt" with the so called drowning incident.
He has admitted killing Jessica so will be found guilty of that obviously.
It knocks me sick even writing this down.

I really think it is beyond 'reasonable' doubt though - Even if he froze and couldn't pull Holly out, Jessica was there - he must have prevented her from helping Holly. I'm sure he will be convicted.

janh - you can only presume that IH was checked out thoroughly - but he had changed his name by deed poll. Wonder if something happened before this point; and whether it would have come up unless they checked out both names?

Doormat - I don't think he will get off. I know his lawyers have done their best to create reasonable doubt (as we thought they would), but there is still the question of why he didnt help her out of the bath. I'm sure there isnt anyone whose natural instinct would have been anything other than to immediately lift her out of the water.

Was he asked this on the stand? I must admit i told myself I wasnt going to read any of the gruesome details but i picked up a Metro on the train the other day and ended up reading more than i intended to. Surely the only way someone could die after falling into the bath was if they had knocked themselves out on the way in? Is he claiming this has happened?

Doormat - I don't think he will get off. I know his lawyers have done their best to create reasonable doubt (as we thought they would), but there is still the question of why he didnt help her out of the bath. I'm sure there isnt anyone whose natural instinct would have been anything other than to immediately lift her out of the water.

Was he asked this on the stand? I must admit i told myself I wasnt going to read any of the gruesome details but i picked up a Metro on the train the other day and ended up reading more than i intended to. Surely the only way someone could die after falling into the bath was if they had knocked themselves out on the way in? Is he claiming this has happened?

janh - it was after this case I think that they really stepped up on all the school checks, causing lots of delays at the start of the school term.

Didn't the Jury visit the house etc, so they are going to have to make a judgement as to whether his story is physically feasible as well as probable based on the facts and contradictions.

I agree, tutb, but he said he "didn't hear a bang" - implying she didn't hit her head.

And he implied some kind of blackout-while-conscious - he calls it "shutting down" and claims he smothered Jessica while shut down and did all the other stuff while shut down but still apparently functioning as normal. And it all suddenly came back to him at some point. Allegedly.

But as has already been said, his story appears to have been made up to fit the timings. My DH is extremely sceptical about the whole thing but keeps saying "how could he have physically controlled 2 10-yr-old girls at once?"

willow2, the name thing is funny, because his old name was Nixon and his mother's name is Nixon so where did Huntley come from? (Well, logically his father is called Huntley and his mother married a Nixon and he took that name. But it doesn't sound as if the name change was a secret.)

In any case I'm wrong about "something in his past" because I read a bit on the Guardian website last night (can't find it now) which included a list of points from the defence, and one of them was that his current admission of guilt to the conspiracy charge is the only conviction on his record. (It also said that Holly's last nosebleed at school was in 1997 - suggesting that MC wouldn't have known about them and couldn't have provided him with that information - but when he supposedly told her, by phone when she was still in Grimsby, he said it was "the dark one" who had the nosebleed. So that's odd.)

Oh, and he was asked it on the stand - why he didn't just pull her out - he said something like "it seems like the obvious thing to do here, now" but that he just froze at the time. Something like that.

How could the Guardian release details of his record, is that allowed?

His whole story in the bathroom may never have happened at all so talk of drowning and banging heads may be irrelevant I suppose. Do agree with your husband though janh, that's what I keep wondering.

Well, it wasn't details of his record, Tinker, it was some kind of final submission from the defence - in court AFAIK - with 4 or 5 points in it and the fact that he has no previous convictions was one of them - possibly to stop the jury from thinking along the same lines as me? Previous convictions are not admissible evidence for the prosecution, are they, but no previous convictions must be admissible for the defence.

Mind you it's funny I can't find it now but it was only a short item.

They have been allowed to mention his previous arrest for rape up in Scarbourgh because there was no conviction. Its only the convictions that the prosecution can't mention. The defence can mention them if they want (though usually don't).

I wonder - is this 'shutting down' story an attempt at getting a temporary insanity verdict?

turnupthebass my thoughts too
as for the getting off I am looking at it from a legal point of view as there is no evidence to how they died IYKWIM.

I don't have a legal background, but could it be possible that his lawyers know the truth and have 'designed' his defence in this way for him?

I know this presumes he has not told the truth, but i can't help being so sceptical about him.

If so, i know it is their job to do the best for their client, but as people how could they??

sick isnt it, I just feel his story is a cop out and he knows exactly what he did and why but feel that his defence will get him off lighter with these cock and bull stories.
Very clever and evil IMO.

tutb, there is a post further down this thread that says that if someone tells his/her barrister that he/she is guilty, that barrister cannot continue to defend them. So that would be a no, I think. Strictly speaking, anyway.

If someone told you what to say you wouldn't be able to withstand cross examination, anyway.

Just come back to this trhead having been hounded away further down!

I feel very strange about it really: though I find it oddly fascinating, I can't help thinking its a show trial and that the reporting etc is a bit sinister. Why, for example, was it necessary for the media to report in detail the parents' feelings about the whole thing (and why was it relevant to the case, for that matter)?

Anyway, I'm pleased to see there are others who feel sorry for MC too. Who could believe that their partner could do such a thing?

Think IH's story is such nonsense that it couldn't possibly have been cooked up by lawyers though.

I'm not surprised the press have picked up on the parents' reactions. Lets not forget that IH deliberately went out of his way to contact one of the fathers to say how sorry he was that the girls had gone missing. That conversation has since been referred to in court as yet further proof of IH trying to cover his tracks and avert suspicion.