why are we spending money on a court case for this bloke

[Publius Ovidius]

Prosecution lawyer Karim Khalil told the court 21 admissions made by Mr Huntley would be dealt with "in due course".

The jury had previously heard only that Mr Huntley was "unlikely to deny" that the girls had died in his house while he was alone with them or that he had disposed of their bodies.

In other evidence, botany witness Patricia Wiltshire said that during her examination of the red Ford Fiesta, samples from underneath the car matched soil samples from the place where the bodies were found.

Ms Wiltshire said she and colleague Mr Peter Murphy had inspected a 100m area around the site, near Lakenheath

This is just unbelievable. What is his defence??

 

[Locky]

I have been wondering the same thing.....................
If his lawyers get him of this one they are worth every penny.

 

[Sorrel]

It does seem very strange. I'm glad I don't understand how that mans mind works.

I don't know how anyone could look more guilty (except maybe Harold Shipman).

It's waste of money, but we have to have a trial if the defendant pleads "Not Guilty". Justice has to be seen to be done.

 

[bhaexpress]

Tragically it's his 'legal right'.

Guilty as sin, yep, big needle for this bastard.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

small needle full of sulphuric acid applied to his testicles me thinks!!!

 

[trueblue]

I am guessing, but presumably if he's been charged with 'murder' his defence is that he didn't kill the girls himself, or perhaps didn't do it deliberately i.e. an accident and he panicked. If the latter was the case, then I think he would be guilty only of 'manslaughter'.

It's up to them to PROVE he actually did it, which isn't easy.

So you don't misunderstand, I'm not sticking up for him... just saying what they're up against. Like Duncan says, justice has to be seen to be done.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

this is the perfect case for 10 yrs in prison followed by death sentance, he is scum he will be killed in jail

 

[Easy 10]

I have been waiting with interest to hear the case for the defence on this - I just cannot see WHAT they can come up with to say he didn't murder them. I gather the post mortem indicated that the girls *may* have died of asphixiation.

 

[Sorrel]

I wonder if he's going for the "insane" defence, as he'd prefer to be locked up in Broadmoor rather than an ordinary prison.

 

[fatbadger]

No, no, no.

Justice does not have to be seen to be done. Justice has to be done.

 

[Soton Seagull]

His defence must have a proverbial rabbit out the hat still to come. Surely?

Otherwise, nut house for him.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

I am friendly with several criminal defence lawyers. We have been scratching our heads trying to see what his line of defence will be. my mate reckons that in certain circumstances, the prosecution will not accept a guilty verdict to murder ie there has to be a show trial to satisfy the collective desire for retribution. i suspect they have offered a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility which has been rejected. For the life of me given the number of admissions I can not see anyway a jury will not convict him of murder. He will have to give evidence and I can not see him being believed given that he was at large for a number of weeks after they had died. The whole circumstances of this case are very odd. It certainly does not appear to me to be a case of premeditated murder, rather some opportunistic crime. As for the girlfriend I actually feel quite sorry for her. She's been put in a pretty invidious position by him.

 

[bhaexpress]

Hard to say that 'justice must be done' when this nonce will still be able to walk around in one guise or another unlike his victims.

 

[fatbadger]

Hard to say that 'justice must be done' when this nonce will still be able to walk around in one guise or another unlike his victims.

Well, that wasn't quite my point, I suppose, but I get your point. We all have different views of what 'justice' is; but what I was saying was that the justice system we currently have must operate fully (and not just be seen to operate fully) - this necessarily means that a full defence should be offered _if the defence want it, that is!).

Jambo, I can't make sense of his defence. Interesting to hear that your criminal lawyer mates can't, either!

 

[bhaexpress]

Well, that wasn't quite my point, I suppose, but I get your point. We all have different views of what 'justice' is; but what I was saying was that the justice system we currently have must operate fully (and not just be seen to operate fully) - this necessarily means that a full defence should be offered _if the defence want it, that is!).

Jambo, I can't make sense of his defence. Interesting to hear that your criminal lawyer mates can't, either!

Sorry, not meant as a dig more an ironic comment, no offense intended.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Must admit I'm waiting for the full story of what actually happened in his house on that day. The other thing that'll affect his sentance is was it premeditated or was it a spur of the moment thing. By the looks of things her crime was to cover up for him.

 

[trueblue]

No, no, no.

Justice does not have to be seen to be done. Justice has to be done.

Hmmm... but if we don't SEE justice being done i.e. through a prosecution proving their case, then how do we know it's justice being done.

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw. Perhaps you are just being a pedant.

 

[Easy 10]

So if he didn't murder them, why did he dispose of the bodies in that ditch, and then feel the need to return to them THREE DAYS LATER to remove and subsequently attempy to destroy the clothing ? (this was admitted to by his defence lawyer). It just doesn't make any sense.

If his lawyer is going to play the "insanity" card, then do they not have to plead "Guilty but insane" at the outset ? I just can't see what they can possibly come up with as a credible defence to say that he didn't actually murder them. The evidence seems to be utterly conclusive. Unless they have some kind of cast-iron alibi up their sleeves which blows the whole case for the prosecution apart - but that looks impossible at the moment.

 

[Titanic]

Something that puzzles me... if he did plead GUILTY - and there was no trial in front of a jury, a judge and the public - how do they assess any right to appeal at a later date ?

Say ten years later he comes back saying it was all a big mistake... it's going to make having a trial then much more difficult.

Do you ever get people pleading guilty to 'big' crimes like this ?

 

[Theatre of Trees]

But then he'll only plead guilty if the evidence is insurmountable, hence all this money being spent to make sure he'll get done.