Roy Whiting The Algebra of Justice

THE CASE OF THE SOHAM BADGERS - Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr


Before Tony Blair got into 10 Downing Street, our knowledge of stranger killers was that they always repeated their crimes and that they were very difficult to identify or catch. They were a faceless, nameless malignancy in a national multitude and they always had the upper hand. Their capture depended on police patience, vigilance and luck, or error on the part of the criminal. But since the Spin-and-Salary maestro invaded 10 Downing Street, this has all switched around. Now stranger killers are always locals, and they never repeat their crimes because the police always catch their man immediately after his first murder. Our police have become super-detectives, and instead of experiencing the nervous breakdown symptoms as before, our senior police officers appear to be developing psychopathic tendencies themselves.

There have been many examples of this new style of killer in recent convictions, including Sion Jenkins, Barry George, Roy Whiting and Ian Huntley for instance. In the cases of Whiting and Huntley, the crimes for which they are convicted were part of a series of child abductions and murders in the south east of England, which the police had begun prosecuting before the series was allowed to reveal its proper character. In Ian Huntley's case, a most interesting view of modern police procedure is traceable which enables us to understand why this change in our understanding of stranger killers has occurred.

The collective picture of the killer that emerged with this series of child murders was that he was a prowling hunter and traveller (as they usually are); that he came from around the Cheshire area (judging by his reaction to the Cheshire witness sighting in the Sarah Payne case); that he stole the Birmingham Cathedral Book of Condolences in the Jessica and Holly case (only their killer would have done this) and that therefore he is playing around with the press and the police (this type of killer usually does); that he has a cavalier attitude to the law generally and that he changes vehicles; that he is in middle age.

The collective picture that we get from the police prosecutions, however, is that he is several locals, some of whom had friendly relations with the victim, as in the cases of Danielle Jones' uncle and in Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley, and that he confined his hunting to his own back yard, even in the case of a village.

Police prosecutions then have changed these crimes from the extremely difficult to detect to the very easy, and we need to look at the evidence that has been used to produce this effect.

In Roy Whiting's case, there is a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence, with hair and fibres from Whiting's clothes and white van connecting the corpse to the defendant and vice versa. This arrangement eliminates the possibility of accidental contamination in the forensic evidence and leaves only two possible interpretations, these being either Whiting's guilt or else a fitting up by the police. And since only the Not Guilty would plead not guilty to a jury in the face of such insurmountable evidence, the only logical explanation must be a fitting up by the police. A guilty person pleading not guilty to such evidence would be wasting his defence. Defendants are advised by lawyers not to accuse the police of fraud as this would prejudice the jury against them, so the innocent would have no defence in this situation.

In Ian Huntley's case we have the same thing again, only this time the circumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence is the same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-down petrol, and a cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon's technique and scissors to remove the clothes from not one but two dead bodies, including underwear and shoes, purely in order to leave them in a place and a situation where the police can link him to the crimes and use them as forensic evidence against him in a prosecution. All of which is patently absurd. Despite our knowledge of such killers, here we are required to believe that a stranger killer would do all this purely to convenience the police.

The most remarkable thing about this case, however, is that if the police did commit fraud with this evidence, then the fraud has supernatural powers of clairvoyance behind it. This is because the police arrested Huntley for the murders of the missing girls in the early hours of the 17th of August, at four o'clock in the morning, and they had their forensic evidence for the prosecution in his caretaker bin that night, but the public did not find the two bodies until many hours later, at one o'clock the following afternoon. So if Ian Huntley was fitted up, where did the police get the evidence from?

If Huntley had not fitted himself up himself, we need to investigate how the police might have recovered that evidence before the public found the bodies.

Newmarket

If we go back in the investigation three days, to August 13th, we can find a possible explanation for this police clairvoyance. On that day, a local jogger reported to the police having seen two mounds of recently disturbed ground at Warren Hill in Newmarket. These were thought to be shallow graves, and so they must have looked like it. This same jogger had also reported, a week before, having heard child-like screams from this area three hours after the abductions, so that the timing and place are significant. The police had five hours of daylight in which to investigate these mounds, but they spent all night there, in fact thirteen hours, and they didn't emerge until six-thirty in the morning, "covered in twigs and soil" as a reporter put it, to announce that these mounds were only badger setts.

However, these mounds surely could not have been badger setts, as badger setts would not be confusable with graves, and nor would it take thirteen hours to find that they were badger setts. Both mounds were recent disturbances, and it is inconceivable that two badger setts or inlets could both have resembled shallow graves. They were 30 metres apart, and this must be too close together for badger setts.

The possibility that these mounds were actually where the police found the bodies would explain where the police acquired the forensic evidence, and why they were able to know that the girls were dead before the public found the bodies at Lakenheath. It would also show that the placing of the bodies at Lakenheath was part of the fraud against Huntley, because this is near the place where Maxine Carr had taken her adopted surname (a lake called The Carr) and where Ian Huntley's father and grandmother lived. This design corresponds with that of the forensic evidence itself, connecting the dead bodies to the defendants in the same way.

The discovery of the bodies at Warren Hill on the 13th of August corresponds with the finding of the coroner, who judged that the bodies had been moved to the woodland at Lakenheath and that the victims almost certainly had not been killed where their bodies were found. If the typical prowler killer had murdered them, they would most certainly have been killed where they were dumped, which site could have been at Warren Hill.

The Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police having seen at the time of the abductions (approx 7 pm) a metallic green saloon car which was being driven erratically and suicidally down the A142, the road that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hill stands. Ian Webster had been following this car and had pulled back two hundred yards because of the dangerous driving. He reported seeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road while struggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching out backwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of a child in the back seat. Mr Webster said that this child had brown hair, and that he thought there was another child in the front seat. Given the fact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, his behaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself, and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any other situation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seat would have been Jessica and she was the one with the mobile phone. The abductor would not have been able to stop his car to deal with any problem with this because the girls would have been able to get out of the car and run away.

Shortly before this, there were unconfirmed sightings of the two girls on the southern edge of Soham near a Q8 petrol filling station and a roundabout. It was from this point that Webster followed this car.

In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behavioural features of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster had witnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill and Newmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than Ian Huntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies at Lakenheath linked them together in a case against him.

Jessica's mobile phone contacted the mast at Burwell when it was switched off, and this is half-way between Soham and Newmarket. This circumstance connects the jogger incident with that of Ian Webster and the abductions at Soham.

The police lost interest in Mr Webster's testimony, despite its irrefutable authenticity, when it was discovered that a passenger's mobile phone bill had clocked the incident at 6 pm instead of 7 pm. This technical anomaly cannot discount Mr Webster's driver as an obvious suspect, and the timing of the mobile phone call would have to be questioned or distrusted. Their disregarding the facts of the incident instead shows that the police are allowing juries and trial procedure to determine how they detect their crimes rather than the events themselves.

Soham

Witnesses back in Soham had reported seeing a man and a woman in a dark green car staring at two girls that afternoon. Earlier in May that year a similar couple had attempted to abduct a child at an under-fives play group near where Jessica and Holly disappeared. A strange woman entered the play group and asked to take a child away, claiming that she belonged to a friend of hers. But the woman got the child's name wrong and didn't know the name of the mother, and when the staff saw a man acting suspiciously outside they called the police. When Jessica and Holly were snatched the police naturally connected the two incidents.

Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time that they are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubts about the time that they actually disappeared from Soham. Ian Webster's testimony would indicate 6.50 as being the approximate time of the abductions, and this corresponds with the police claim that Jessica's mobile phone was switched off at 6.46, which would explain what Ian Webster's erratic driver was flapping at in the back seat of his car. The phone mast at Burwell would indicate that she was out of Soham by then.

Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement, which he made when he realized that the two girls who had called to see Maxine Carr at 6:00 that evening had been the two that the police were looking for. He had told the girls that Maxine wasn't in and they left in the direction of College Road, which leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the girls at 6:45, the time that the prosecution case alleged they had died in Huntley's house. If the girls had been abducted at the War Memorial, the killer would have had a direct route to the A142 where the taxi driver Ian Webster encountered his suspect.

The police arrested Huntley on suspicion of murder nine hours before the public found the bodies, and the public understood that it was now a murder investigation before the bodies were thus discovered. The prosecution case was that the police had found the girls' clothes in one of Huntley's caretaker's bins at the school. These clothes were the basis of the arrest and subsequent prosecution, yet the Manchester United shirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely that the girls could have lived and died and their bodies had decomposed in those shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killer would fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or that a trophy killer would use scissors and forensic techniques to remove his trophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that the police had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use the shirts as they found them because they were saturated with evidence that the girls had been buried underground.

The fictional nature of the forensic evidence against Ian Huntley would explain why he switched to a fictional defence two weeks prior to his trial. The evidence determined his response and his defence reflects the fictional character of the evidence. And the finding of the bodies at Warren Hill would explain why the police kept the bodies out in the August heat for thirty hours at Lakenheath instead of passing them straight away for an autopsy examination, which a proper examination would have required. This delay would have been to over-emphasize the point in the public eye that this site (Lakenheath) was where the bodies were officially found.

If we consider that the police had found the bodies at Warren Hill and had misinformed the public about what they had found there, then the mad-looking appeal to the killer on our TV sets by a senior detective becomes transformed with sense and meaning. While listening to this the killer would in that case have known that the police had found his bodies and were hiding the fact from everybody, and in the light of this the wording of this appeal becomes full of new significance:

"I appeal to you again to work with me to stop this getting any worse than it is. You do have a way out. I have left a personal message and text message on Jessica's phone. Listen to that message. It will tell you how to contact me so we can stop this now. You have the opportunity to speak to me. This is the time to use it."

The wording in the appeal offers a serial killer a way out. The implication in these words is of a deal with the killer to stop the series of crimes in exchange for non-prosecution. The police motive for such a deal would be that if the killer were ever publicly caught, the frauds in the previous prosecutions in the series would become evident, with no hope of using accidental contamination as an explanation for them. And again, the trouble that the police would have found themselves in would have been caused by their practise of using their experience of juries and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their cases nowadays.

Any such deal with the killer would explain the mysterious cessation of the series of murders since this appeal was made. In attempting such a deal, the police would have been protecting themselves from the trouble caused to them by modern police procedure, which allows jury foible and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their crimes. They are under a great deal of personal pressure via the press to secure convictions from the very thing that creates their problem – the juries and their inadequacy as judges in a justice system.

Immediately following their TV appeal, the police appear to have ended their detection of the case and begun their prosecution. Firstly, they turned the community of Soham against itself by telling its people that one of them was responsible and to watch their neighbours. Then, while the inhabitants of Soham were doing this, the police snatched away the two newest and weakest members of the community, and put one of them in a mental institution where friends and journalists couldn’t get to him, and the other in prison in London where friends and relatives couldn’t get to her, and so Ian Huntley was charged with the murders.

The arrests

The night before Ian Huntley was arrested, the police broke into his car on the pretence that the two girls were in danger in there (this was two weeks after the girls had disappeared and when the official police view had switched to a belief that the girls were now dead). This break-in was a civil rights abuse against Huntley and his property, and it should be illegal. A second such abuse occurred the following morning, when the police arrested him at his father's house at the unseemly hour of four in the morning on suspicion of murder.

Maxine Carr was implicated because she gave the police a false alibi for Huntley who was worried because the missing girls had called at their house. She told the police that she was with him at the time but it was revealed that she had been at Grimsby.

Huntley and Carr were taken to separate police stations for questioning, and Huntley was later taken to a psychiatric hospital where he was charged with the murders. The police gave as their explanation for this strategy that he didn't seem to understand why he was being charged with the murders, so his "treatment" in that hospital was for symptoms of innocence. He was deemed by the doctors to be unfit to be seen by the magistrates yet.

The police kept Maxine Carr in prison for eighteen months on an accessory charge purely on the strength of their prosecution case against Ian Huntley, who promptly went on hunger strike. And all this happened it must be said before an entire nation of journalists and jurors, and perhaps more importantly, before a government too, none of whom appear to have noticed that there was anything wrong. The prosecution of Maxine Carr shows that there is no tolerance in Tony Blair's Britain for a lover's trust and protective instinct.

Worse still, there was no inquest into the Soham murders. The coroner deferred the inquest in favour of the police prosecution of Ian Huntley and then abandoned it after Huntley’s conviction. Inquests are needed for an unbiased view and record of the facts relating to a death or murder, and they are needed to prevent a biased or malicious presentation of the facts relating to a murder.

The forensics

At the trial, a forensic expert testified that the clothes found in Huntley's caretaker's bin had been cut off, apparently in a hurry, and in a manner similar to the way that medics cut clothes off in emergencies. There was no DNA evidence, and the clothes had been burned and drenched in water and showed signs of soot and charred markings. All of them were wet or damp and smelled of an accelerant such as petrol.

Another expert reported finding five of Huntley's head hairs on the clothes, but any such hairs would surely be destroyed immediately by the heat of the fire, which left smoke discoloration on cobwebs on a lamp overhead. These smoke stains also show that the clothes were set alight inside the bin, and after removing Huntley's black bin liner, and that the wetness would be caused by putting the fire out so that Huntley's bin liner with his fingerprints on it could be replaced over the evidence.

So, we are required to accept that, in fitting himself up with this evidence, Huntley had gone to a lot of trouble to remove all the clothes from the bodies, including the shoes, and this in a hurry, and set fire to them to destroy them even further as trophies, and put the fire out quickly so as not to destroy them as evidence for the prosecution.

The forensic evidence linked Huntley to the bodies in several ways. Firstly there was the heat-resistant head hairs on the clothes; then there was the placing of the clothes in his caretaker's bin; then there was the fire itself, because peculiarly, the girls' bodies were partially burned too, destroying the other potential source for DNA evidence, so that his bin was connected to the bodies also by the absence of DNA from the bodies or from the carrier. Then there was the suggestion put to the jury by the prosecution that they might believe that when placing the bodies on Lakenheath, Huntley had used his black bin liners over his shoes to account for the absence of his shoe prints there, which uses his bin liners to connect the placing of the bodies on Lakenheath with the fire in his bin. So, in fitting himself up with the forensic evidence in his bin, the jury were also invited to believe that he forgot to remove his bin liners from his feet when he got into his car, because traces of the soil at Lakenheath were found in his car, and this after he was supposed to have spring-cleaned his car and his house (and his dog). The prosecution also linked him to the bodies geographically as well, because the public found the bodies very near his father's house (where he was arrested), and nearby the lake where Maxine Carr took her name (The Carr).

Aside from the black bin liners, the prosecution used another colour link-up between Huntley and the victims, in the red of their Manchester United shirts and the red of his petrol can, which he had been seen with on the Wednesday after the abduction, and which the prosecution "suggested" he had used to set fire to the bodies.

The smell of petrol was present at both the body site and at Huntley's caretaker's bin, and this formed another link-up between the two, which shows that the fitting up was done shortly before the public found the bodies.

The prosecution case had no evidence of Huntley at Lakenheath, except for the "motorbility" evidence of Lakenheath mud taken from his car after he had spring-cleaned it, and the Lakenheath botanical evidence attached to his petrol can. The evidence of the mud in his car is connected with an illegal break-in into his car by the police.

As occurred in the Roy Whiting case, the prosecution case had fibres from some of the victims' clothes allegedly found in Huntley's house, and fibres from his house allegedly found on their clothes, with a complete set of fibre colours from his carpet (five) to avoid any doubts with the jury as to proof. These 154 invisible fibres were allegedly found after months of painstaking searching while Huntley was being held in custody on the strength of the caretaker's bin find, and all this is supposed to have survived his house cleaning and the fires and water and weather exposure.

So the prosecution linked Huntley to the murders by smell, by colour (the red of the petrol can and the girls' shirts), by profession and by colour again (his caretaker's black bin liners), by domestic circumstances (the bodies being found near his father's house and near the lake known as The Carr), by fire (at the body site and at his bin), and by fibres from his house. And all of this was signatured by his fire-proof hair and fingerprints and rounded off with an illegal break-in into his car.

If intelligence seems to sink into this absurd deception, well, that is the purpose of the design. And that must be the proof of the design. This case has Huntley fitted up to the crime geographically, domestically, professionally, forensically, and artistically as well.

During the trial, a police officer testified that a few days after the abductions, when Huntley's home was being searched, Huntley had said to him, "You think I have done it." The policeman testified that he had told him not to "persecute" himself. This is a strange word for a policeman to use for his reply, and it is the key to the whole case, because the forensic evidence shows that either Ian Huntley has persecuted himself for the prosecution case, or else that the police have done it for him instead.

Night of terror

During the week prior to his arrest, Huntley's parents had comforted Maxine Carr amd their son over their concern about the media coverage that the school was getting and Huntley's fear that he would be blamed for the disappearances because his witness statement had left him the last person known to have spoken to the two girls. On the Friday afternoon, the day before the arrests, as they were driving home, his parents received a telephone call from a friend telling them that their son had been taken in for questioning by the police. When they spoke to Huntley on the telephone later that day he was angry and upset at being held in a "safe" house. In the early hours of the next day, Saturday the 17th of August, Huntley turned up at their house in a very distressed state, saying that he had something to talk to them about, but he did not have the time to explain before the police arrived and used their authority to force their way into the house and arrest him at four-thirty in the morning. Not very far from his parents' house, the bodies of the two girls were lying in a ditch waiting to be discovered by the public.

Huntley was held for questioning until the early hours of Tuesday the 20th, when he was snaffled away to Rampton high security hospital at five-thirty in the morning, and he was charged with the murders at ten o'clock that night. The timings of the arrests and the murder charge shows that the police and doctors found his condition to be robust, but the doctors would not allow the magistrates to see him giving the grounds that he was unfit to appear.

Ian Huntley's sleep had been ruined at both ends of the day that he was charged, and he was charged at the very point at which the police were legally obliged either to charge him or else to release him. The magistrates were not allowed to see him until he had been conditioned by the doctors at Rampton, when apparently he was no longer able to defend himself. If Huntley was fit to be charged with murder he should have been fit to be seen by the magistrates.

Jury policing

In any deception, further deceptions are needed to protect the first, and this looks to be what has happened in this series of child murders. The case against Roy Whiting is logically fraudulent, and the case against the prosecution of Ian Huntley has the police committing a further fraud to protect the earlier frauds.

If all this seems rather spectacular, it is no different in effect or value for the police than what happened to Timothy Evans. It is the same as happens in all miscarriages of justice, with the innocent being convicted and the guilty getting away with it, and the police being the instrument of the injustice. The police have been living with this problem for decades and cannot entirely be blamed for being corrupted by it.

The prosecution of Ian Huntley reveals the appalling standard of intelligence that the police have had to face when using the jury system to resolve the detection of crimes. In this case, in order to convict a killer in our jury system, the police have had to present to the jury a case in which the killer has fitted himself up with the forensic evidence and with the disposal of the bodies, while all the deceptions presented to the jury have gone way over their heads, and over the heads of the public at large, who of course are our juries.

The reason for this gullibility is apparent in the public's predilection for detective fiction, in which an author commits a murder at the start of his novel and reveals the fictional character that he has selected for his murderer at the end, while misleading the reader with red herrings and deceptions in between. The public has come to accept this procedure as detection in non-fictional situations such as the Ian Huntley case. Originally the literary detective was at odds with traditional police detection, but now this form of detection has been absorbed into the police in the same way.

Since the early 1980s the police have complained about the difficulty of putting prosecution cases against criminals in the proper way because of the juries' inability to evaluate the facts properly, a matter that is examined in The Algebra of Justice, and now they appear to be using this fault for their own convenience. Nowadays, instead of appealing to the intelligence of juries, the police have to present a complete map of forensic evidence, leaving no need for jury intelligence, and this has the value of negating any intelligence in the jury and any need of it in the trial process. It is this tactic that has introduced the potential for frauds in our justice system.

A fault in criminal prosecutions nowadays is that since the advent of Thatcherism, prosecutors have been putting their cases to juries as statements of fact rather than as cases or contentions, even when the defendant is pleading Not Guilty. They are taking the presumption that their prosecution case is the absolute truth, when it should be up to the jury to decide whether their case is the truth. By doing this, prosecutors are either actually in breach of the Oath of Truth when putting their cases, or else they are prepared to be in breach of it. Allowing this practise must degrade the integrity of trial procedures and their decisions, and this must affect policing also. Exploitism in criminal prosecutions has become rife since the early 1980s and it is endemic in Thatcherist courts.

When giving in to the evidence, psychopaths attack their victims by blaming them for what had happened. This is because their motive for murder is their psychopathic psychology. In contrast, Ian Huntley’s fictional defence consists of a farcical accident, and there is no sign of a psychosis in it anywhere. This defence appears to be the only way that he could accommodate his innocence to forensic evidence that his defence team couldn’t defend him against. His switching to a fictional defence shows that he was not defended adequately, and evidence of this occurred a year earlier, when he accepted the charge of perverting the course of justice by lying to the police. If he were not guilty of the murders as he had been pleading, and if the police were barking up the wrong suspect, then he would not have been perverting the course of justice by lying to them to defend himself. His accepting this charge undermined his not guilty plea and no doubt contributed to his switching to a fictional defence shortly before the trial.

The evidence in the Ian Huntley case has been designed for a justice system in which the decisions are made by juries who are not able to resolve the equations presented to them correctly, and by lawyers and judges whose heads are stuffed full and bound by law. This case shows that neither is adequate any longer. That justice system has long been inured to miscarriages of justice, and it even protects them after the event. It has become a facility for mob rule and for public lynchings.

Concerning the trial of Ian Huntley

The trial of Ian Huntley must be unlawful and illegal. It seems to have broken all the rules of criminal trial procedure and it was in breach of the Oath of Truth on several counts (part two of the Oath being "the whole truth").

There was no inquest into the deaths of Jessica and Holly before the trial. This responsibility was left to the prosecution of Ian Huntley. The purpose of an inquest is to provide an unbiased overview of the circumstances and witnesses relating to a death, and it is essential for a fair trial. Crown prosecutions in the UK use the adversarial system to examine the facts of a case and this consists of a counterbalance of potential biases. Since the prosecution produces all the evidence, a fair trial needs an adequate inquest.

An inquest would have called up many witnesses who did not appear at the trial.

The taxi driver, Ian Webster, whose evidence is mentioned above, was not called as a witness.

The evidence of a witness who was reported seeing the two girls in the High Street after they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house (the witness was with her husband and knew the girls), was not used in the trial.

The four witnesses who were reported seeing the two girls at the War Memorial at around the time that they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house did not appear in the trial. Their testimony confirms Huntley's original witness statement.

The witness who was reported seeing a man and a woman in a green car (metallic green?) staring at two girls in the High Street did not appear at the trial. This evidence is important because two kidnappers might well be needed to control two children.

The several witnesses who saw a green car acting suspiciously around Soham at the time were not called to the trial.

Ian Huntley's legal defence was incompetent, and on this ground alone the trial judgment should be scrapped. No defence witnesses were used. The only defence witnesses that appeared were Maxine Carr, who didn't know anything, and Ian Huntley, who only had the prosecution case to defend himself with. The legal defence acted throughout as though Huntley was guilty even while he was protesting his innocence. His defence even caused him to accept the charge of perverting the course of justice when he was pleading innocence, and this undermined his Not Guilty plea to the murder charge. He did not change this defence until a year later and two weeks before his trial.

At his trial, Huntley testified that he suffered a memory loss while in the psychiatric hospital, and that when he recovered afterwards he found it very difficult to tell the difference between reality and imagined things. This means that he was "mentally" unfit to defend himself or stand trial, and his prosecutors were responsible for this condition. He also testified that he remembered hearing a voice telling him "you pushed her" which would have come from his prosecutors. This formed the basis of his changed defence at his trial.

The magistrates were not allowed to see Huntley until after he had been conditioned by the doctors at Rampton. If he was fit to be charged with murder he was surely fit to be seen by the magistrates.

Huntley's confession at his trial resembles Timothy Evans's behaviour at the police station when he was presented with the evidence of the murders of his wife and baby daughter.

Ian Huntley's witness statement

Ian Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement which was made shortly after the girls disappeared. It established him as the last known person to have had contact with them before their disappearance. His statement went like this:

"On Sunday (August 4th) I was standing out front of my house, brushing my dog. I saw two girls approach at about 6pm from the area of the college. One asked me about my partner, Maxine Carr. Maxine worked at St Andrews, but had had to reapply for her job and had not been given the job. I did not know either of the girls. They obviously knew Maxine and obviously wanted to speak to her. They obviously knew where she lived. One asked how Maxine was. I told her she was not very happy, as she had not been given the job. They said they were very sorry, and walked off in the direction of College Road. I did not see them again. Both were wearing Manchester United tops with Beckham at the back."

College Road leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the two girls at about 6:45, which corroborates his witness statement. His not knowing the two girls despite their familiarity with Maxine and his house shows that he was not socially interested in the school girls.

The bleeding nose

According to Maxine Carr, Huntley had told her the day after the girls' disappearance that they had been inside their house with a nose bleed, and that they had left shortly afterwards. Her false alibi that she had been in Soham with Huntley on the night that the two girls called on the house might have been due to this and her story could account for the cleaning activity. However, if the girls did go into the house with a nose bleed, this doesn't make him the murderer, it simply means that his witness statement to the police would be incomplete. He would have told them just what they needed to know.

Huntley has expressed the belief that the killer must have followed the girls to his house, which suggests that he believes that they were taken soon after leaving. He also believes that the killer himself must have fitted him up with the forensic evidence.

Cracked bath theory

The trial of Ian Huntley featured the plastic bath from his house, which was cracked. This was paraded in the court as evidence that a ten year-old girl had died in his house. Maxine Carr had told the police in interviews that this damage was caused by their dog, which was an alsation, and that it weighed eight and a half stone. The question that must spring to a juror's mind is: How heavy is a ten year-old girl, and how powerful? On average a girl of this age weighs up to five and a half stone, or three stone less than the alsation. Therefore Maxine Carr's is the satisfactory explanation for this damage, and the cracked bath tub display in the courtroom shows that the prosecution of Ian Huntley was not based on detective principles or reasoning.

Reported last sightings of Jessica and Holly:

18.15 - Two girls wearing red tops were seen walking along the main road between school and the town centre, though police were reported not to be treating this as a confirmed sighting.

18.17 - CCTV cameras at the Ross Peers sports centre, on a nearby college campus, showed the girls crossing the centre's car park. They were seen entering the car park via an alleyway, Gidney Lane, from the main road, Sand Street.

Approx. 18.30 - There were four separate sightings of the pair walking along Sand Street towards the town centre, but the time given by the witnesses may not be accurate. However, four separate witnesses are not likely to be equally far out, so the timing should be approximately accurate.

Approx. 18.30 - Staff at the sports centre say that the girls came in at around this time to buy sweets from a vending machine in the entrance lobby.

18.45 - Staff at the centre believed that the girls left the college grounds via College Way, and the next confirmed sighting was at 1845 in the town centre nearby.

Four separate witnesses saw the pair in the vicinity of the town's war memorial, in Red Lion square, by the High Street.

One more witness reported seeing two girls fitting the description of Holly and Jessica at the southern end of Soham, a considerable distance from the town centre.

19.00 - The girls were reportedly seen at 1900 on the A142, near the Q8 garage, at the Downfield Roundabout, walking south in the direction of Newmarket. The police said that this report is unconfirmed at this stage. This sighting however corresponds in direction and place with the car incident reported by taxi driver Ian Webster.

These sightings correspond with Ian Huntley's witness statement. The trail goes progressively away from his house.

The Dustatic 101

While Huntley was working as the caretaker and manager of a team of cleaners in Soham Village College he sent a memo to the headmaster criticising the rotary floor polishers which sprayed a lot of dust around. He constructed a makeshift electro-static device and installed it on one of these polishers, and he found that it magnetically collected a lot of this dust. He applied for a patent in 2001 and approached the manufacturer of the polishers to make a deal whereby he would get royalties per unit. He was due to attend a meeting with the company in September 2002 when he was arrested for the Soham murders in August. In 2005 the UK Intellectual Property Office granted the patent. The company, Numatic International, has commented favourably about his invention, but in his new personality as the Soham murderer and reported homosexual and Islam convert in prison he refuses to allow any commercial company to develop his invention.

So there is a detectable hypocrisy in the prosecution case here, in the contradiction between the conscientious and resourceful caretaker behind the Dustatic invention, and the forensic evidence in which Huntley has fitted himself up with the black bin liner farce in his caretaker's bin.

Concerning the 1983 Mental Health Act

The Ian Huntley case shows that there needs to be a reform of the 1983 Mental Health Act. This Act enables anyone in Britain to be detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will, regardless of whether he has committed an offence. This is called sectioning, the grounds for which include the person's confusion (such as his not understanding why he is being charged with murder), or personality disorders, such as genius (Syd Barrett, Alfred Jarry, Peter Sellers), or that the person is suffering from the damaging effects of Thatcherism on his quality of life and society. Nowadays symptoms of innocence are confused with signs of psychopathy by criminal profilers.

Since Thatcherism is the cause of most social disorders nowadays, such as paranoias, conspiracy delusions and conspiracies, depressions, social dysfunctions, social and national alienation etc, then Thatcherism has been shovelling members of the public into the growing maw of allopathic psychiatry ever since. Ian Huntley's experience shows that psychiatrists have no restraint from capitalizing on this lucrative bonanza and it is flourishing with Thatcherism. Anti-psychotic drugs are also being used to immobilize dementia cases for the convenience of care workers, for instance.

A TV programme in the late 1990s featured a psychiatrist visiting a client that he wished to take back into his hospital against his will. He took with him a police SWAT team, and the neighbours stood about in the street watching in disbelief as the police crashed their way into the patient's front door with a copious tinkling of smashed glass. This TV programme showed that one of the problems with allopathic psychiatry is that customers who believe they need to be admitted to hospital can't have it, while those who don't want it have to. This psychiatrist said that he'd rather give drugs to nine people who didn't need them than not give them to the one that does. It is difficult to conceive who might benefit from this sort of treatment. With psychiatry, allopathic drugs turn illnesses that are caused by environmental factors into addictive biological disorders, and so they are very dangerous to the public. In Ian Huntley's case this treatment was nothing less than a chemical assault.

This TV programme shows that in Ian Huntley's case the police have used the psychiatrists as the psychiatrists have been using them.

The series of murders

The series of murders involving Jessica and Holly began with the victim's body (Sarah Payne) being dumped out in the open in the holiday area that she was taken from (this presumably to throw the police and public off the scent regarding the Cheshire sighting), and it ended with the bodies of Jessica and Holly being dumped out in the open, minus the forensic evidence (the clothes) for the prosecution of Ian Huntley. In between, the cases of Milly Dowler and Danielle Jones indicate that the series killer would tend to bury or conceal his victims, which corresponds with the two areas of disturbed ground on Warren Hill outside Newmarket that the jogger reported to the police in the Jessica and Holly case.

The series began with defendant Roy Whiting pleading Not Guilty against a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence (with hairs and fibres from the victim on the defendant's white van etc, and vice versa), and ends with Ian Huntley pleading Not Guilty (and changing his plea two weeks before his trial) against forensic evidence with which he is supposed to have fitted himself up.

Copyright David Dixon - 2004-9


For the Roy Whiting case and the rest of the series click here.

For the Algebra of Justice click here.

justalgebra@yahoo.com

Google
Monitored by: InternetSeer - Web Site Monitoring SearchEngineOptimising.com, free url submission and web site promotion for registration on search engines