berkshire seagull
New member
At the end of the day being put away just isn't good enough is it
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
why are we spending money on a court case for this bloke
- Thread starter Publius Ovidius
- Start date
Jambo Seagull
Well-known member
"guilty but insane" is not plea which can be made. i think it went out about 30-40 years ago. if he's insane he's not sane and fit to plead and therefore technically not guilty.
he is now admitting they died in the bathroom of his house. This gets more bizarre!
he is now admitting they died in the bathroom of his house. This gets more bizarre!
Jambo Seagull
Well-known member
This is what he's saying now!
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman died in the bathroom of Ian Huntley's home, his lawyer has told the Old Bailey.
Holly apparently died after falling into the bath, defence lawyer Stephen Coward QC told the jury.
Mr Huntley denies murdering the 10-year-old girls on 4 August 2002 in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Mr Coward said Mr Huntley had covered Jessica's mouth with either one or both of his hands to stop her screaming, and that she fell to the ground.
Ian Huntley's 'admissions'
Holly and Jessica went into 5 College Close shortly after 1830 BST on Sunday 4 August
Jessica's mobile was switched off at 1846 BST
Holly and Jessica died in 5 College Close on Sunday 4 August
The only other person present in the house was Ian Huntley
Ian Huntley removed the dead bodies and transferred them in his Ford Fiesta to the place they were found
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.
I can't wait until he gives evidence. He's making up a defence on the hoof!
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman died in the bathroom of Ian Huntley's home, his lawyer has told the Old Bailey.
Holly apparently died after falling into the bath, defence lawyer Stephen Coward QC told the jury.
Mr Huntley denies murdering the 10-year-old girls on 4 August 2002 in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Mr Coward said Mr Huntley had covered Jessica's mouth with either one or both of his hands to stop her screaming, and that she fell to the ground.
Ian Huntley's 'admissions'
Holly and Jessica went into 5 College Close shortly after 1830 BST on Sunday 4 August
Jessica's mobile was switched off at 1846 BST
Holly and Jessica died in 5 College Close on Sunday 4 August
The only other person present in the house was Ian Huntley
Ian Huntley removed the dead bodies and transferred them in his Ford Fiesta to the place they were found
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.
I can't wait until he gives evidence. He's making up a defence on the hoof!
Well, here is his 'evidence' today - convincing ??
"Mr Coward said the 10-year-old girls had both gone to Huntley's house after Holly suffered a nose bleed.
Still denying the two counts of murder Huntley, 29, through Mr Coward, said he had dabbed toilet paper under the nose of Holly as they sat perched on the edge of the bath.
With Holly's parents listening intently to the harrowing words, the court heard Huntley slipped and "may well have" banged into the girl, sending into a bath originally run so he could clean his dog.
Jessica started screaming, "You pushed her, you pushed her," forcing Huntley to put a hand over her mouth.
Mr Coward said the defendant let go of Jessica but as she was no longer supporting herself, she fell to the ground.
He spun around to look at Holly was lying in the bath "apparently dead".
"Mr Coward said the 10-year-old girls had both gone to Huntley's house after Holly suffered a nose bleed.
Still denying the two counts of murder Huntley, 29, through Mr Coward, said he had dabbed toilet paper under the nose of Holly as they sat perched on the edge of the bath.
With Holly's parents listening intently to the harrowing words, the court heard Huntley slipped and "may well have" banged into the girl, sending into a bath originally run so he could clean his dog.
Jessica started screaming, "You pushed her, you pushed her," forcing Huntley to put a hand over her mouth.
Mr Coward said the defendant let go of Jessica but as she was no longer supporting herself, she fell to the ground.
He spun around to look at Holly was lying in the bath "apparently dead".
Sorrel
Well-known member
His defence covers the one thing that no-one can fathom: i.e what was the point of it all?
It may be that some perversion comes out later in the case, which will explain it, but at the moment it just seems so sensless. His defence seems to be that he wouldn't have just killed them for no reason, so it was some kind of accident.
To be honest I like to read details of the case to see what happened, but it does make me feel sick. It's so so horrible.
It may be that some perversion comes out later in the case, which will explain it, but at the moment it just seems so sensless. His defence seems to be that he wouldn't have just killed them for no reason, so it was some kind of accident.
To be honest I like to read details of the case to see what happened, but it does make me feel sick. It's so so horrible.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
The court case is to establish whether murder with intent or the manslaughter with diminished responsibility card is played.
north stand falmer
Banned
dave the gaffer said: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??
Haven't even read your post and cant be arse to as well as the title has made me say this.
I said from day one that it is a waste of tax payers money going as head with this. This trail should be stopped NOW!!
All I want is 1 second with huntley. A bullet in the head!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
So Huntley is claiming that one of the girls died after he accidentally bumped into her and knocked her into the bath, while the other one died as he covered her mouth to stifle her screams. Two girls dying within seconds of each other, both in some kind of bizarre freak accident.
Do me a favour. This "defence" is an absolute insult to our intelligence. This guy is going down forever.
Do me a favour. This "defence" is an absolute insult to our intelligence. This guy is going down forever.
north stand falmer
Banned
Easy 10 said:
I totally agree.
He knows, we all know, The judge knows, the jury knows hes guilty.
I've given up reading about the case as I know he is guilty as charged!
Can't believe Huntley has put the family through it all again.
marvin
New member
When the trial started and we had the opening speeches it was very clear from that he was going to make a case of either temporary insanity (you can still claim this, it can get you a not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter due to diminished etc.)
Accident.
Or they killed each other.
That is the order I expected them in and am a little surprised he has gone for the accidental one. (the final one was always a big outsider)
However there is one thing in his favour for that defence.
No traces of semen, so hard to prove a sexual motive, far easier to get the jury believing that it was all a ghastly accident.
I think this is another Tracey Andrews, tying to be clever I think it will, like it did for her, do for him. Had Tracey Andrews just stuck to near the real case, that she was being attacked by the boyfriend and she struck out in self defence in fear of real harm to herself she would have got away with manslaughter got 2 -3 years tops if that.
I have always said it will be interesting to hear his defence given that he was not denying that he was the only person present when they died or that he disposed of the bodies.
I have to say though money on a trial for a person charged with any offence like this is not money wasted. It helps society no end, especially when they plead not guilty, to understand what really happened.
How much do we know about the Camden Ripper now he has pleaded guilty!
Accident.
Or they killed each other.
That is the order I expected them in and am a little surprised he has gone for the accidental one. (the final one was always a big outsider)
However there is one thing in his favour for that defence.
No traces of semen, so hard to prove a sexual motive, far easier to get the jury believing that it was all a ghastly accident.
I think this is another Tracey Andrews, tying to be clever I think it will, like it did for her, do for him. Had Tracey Andrews just stuck to near the real case, that she was being attacked by the boyfriend and she struck out in self defence in fear of real harm to herself she would have got away with manslaughter got 2 -3 years tops if that.
I have always said it will be interesting to hear his defence given that he was not denying that he was the only person present when they died or that he disposed of the bodies.
I have to say though money on a trial for a person charged with any offence like this is not money wasted. It helps society no end, especially when they plead not guilty, to understand what really happened.
How much do we know about the Camden Ripper now he has pleaded guilty!
alan partridge
Active member
i've just read his account of 'what happened' that day. absoultely ridiculous. guilty as hell.
i still can't believe people talk about sodding taxpayers money being spent on this though. what do you want? anrchy, trial by tabloid? try the fucker, and convict him. i'm certainly not worrying about my taxes
i still can't believe people talk about sodding taxpayers money being spent on this though. what do you want? anrchy, trial by tabloid? try the fucker, and convict him. i'm certainly not worrying about my taxes
southstandandy
WEST STAND ANDY
- Jul 9, 2003
- 5,964
The longer the Lawyer's can string out the case the more money they make - simple.
Still fucks me off though being a tax payer.
Still fucks me off though being a tax payer.
bhaexpress
New member
southstandandy said:
You are so right.
Albion Rob
New member
It strikes me that it was an impulse killing from a man who was sick of his boring life and wanted 15 minutes of fame. He then went on every news bulletin and is now dragging out a trial that will surely not return a verdict other than guilty.
For what it's worth I would imagine the rest of his days will be a hell of prison warden brutality and door *accidentally* being left open so he gets raped on a regular basis. Can't imagine the screws or the cons having much time for him. I just hope no-one kills him or he doesn't do himself in because if he is guilty he deserves every beating, every bit of brutality and every bum burgling he gets.
Also, I wonder about the lawyer, surely he can't sleep at night and if I needed defending I wouldn't choose him as he is obviously a wanker. Like has been said earlier, the only thing I can guess is he has soemthing pretty amazing up his sleeve.
For what it's worth I would imagine the rest of his days will be a hell of prison warden brutality and door *accidentally* being left open so he gets raped on a regular basis. Can't imagine the screws or the cons having much time for him. I just hope no-one kills him or he doesn't do himself in because if he is guilty he deserves every beating, every bit of brutality and every bum burgling he gets.
Also, I wonder about the lawyer, surely he can't sleep at night and if I needed defending I wouldn't choose him as he is obviously a wanker. Like has been said earlier, the only thing I can guess is he has soemthing pretty amazing up his sleeve.
bhaexpress
New member
You know what's so annoying though ? This bloke will end up on rule 41 which means he'll be with the nonces and thus segrefated from the mainstream prison population. He;ll probably have a better time in there (such that it is) than he would has a common or garden burglar or drug dealer.
Totally agree about it being a monumental waste of public money though. I suspect the cost of this trial will be over seven figures.
Totally agree about it being a monumental waste of public money though. I suspect the cost of this trial will be over seven figures.
Have to say, as annoying as it is, the process does have to be gone through, as many have said above. As guilty as he clearly his, he does have to have a fair trial. Then we'll see him rot in jail for life.
Incidentally, I didn't get round to posting on the death penalty poll, but a few people have mentioned it above, so I may aswell here, even though it's not entirely relevant. You cannot have a death penalty, simply because it is ludicrous to have a "worst possible punishment". Otherwise, once you're murdered someone, and know you're going to be executed for it, why not carry on, and murder any possible witnesses? Your punishment can't get any worse.
It's like in Italy, where I believe they tried to make kidnapping a life sentence, so kidnappers starting executing hostages, knowing they wouldn't be able to give evidence, and if they were still caught, their sentence wouldn't be any worse anyway...
As I said though, my first paragraph is the relevant one here.
Incidentally, I didn't get round to posting on the death penalty poll, but a few people have mentioned it above, so I may aswell here, even though it's not entirely relevant. You cannot have a death penalty, simply because it is ludicrous to have a "worst possible punishment". Otherwise, once you're murdered someone, and know you're going to be executed for it, why not carry on, and murder any possible witnesses? Your punishment can't get any worse.
It's like in Italy, where I believe they tried to make kidnapping a life sentence, so kidnappers starting executing hostages, knowing they wouldn't be able to give evidence, and if they were still caught, their sentence wouldn't be any worse anyway...
As I said though, my first paragraph is the relevant one here.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,499
It might turn out that Huntley has previous form, we just don't know because criminal history generally can't be brought into a trial until afte a verdict. Not many people (except the police) knew about Roy Whiting's history until he was found guilty of murdering Sarah Payne. Or Russell Bishop when he tried to kill that girl on Devil's Dyke and was, ahem, acquitted of the Wild Park murders.
The fact that Huntley has worked at a school and therefore must have undergone police checks before he commenced employment makes it less likely that he's gone after kids before, but he could conceivably have changed his name or something.
As far as Huntley's lawyer goes, he may have been allocated the case, I'm sure he despises him as much as the rest of the world does. You don't legally have to believe in someone's innocence to defend them, and he probably knows damn well the defence's argument is paper thin and Huntley is going down.
Has there ever been a case when nobody wanted to represent a defendant?
The fact that Huntley has worked at a school and therefore must have undergone police checks before he commenced employment makes it less likely that he's gone after kids before, but he could conceivably have changed his name or something.
As far as Huntley's lawyer goes, he may have been allocated the case, I'm sure he despises him as much as the rest of the world does. You don't legally have to believe in someone's innocence to defend them, and he probably knows damn well the defence's argument is paper thin and Huntley is going down.
Has there ever been a case when nobody wanted to represent a defendant?
Sully's Moustache
Member
You're right about previous form, Edna, look at this latest report:
"SOHAM accused Ian Huntley was charged with rape in 1998, his Old Bailey murder trial has heard.
The jury heard details of a police statement made by his ex-girlfriend Maxine Carr on August 17 last year after the couple were both arrested on suspicion of the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
In the statement, Carr said: "The reason why I told the police I was at home was because my partner Ian, he was accused in 1998 of attacking a girl, of raping a girl."
She said the case went to court and that he was "acquitted", but that he subsequently suffered "a nervous breakdown".
Huntley, 29, denies the double murder of the schoolgirls - but has admitted one charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Carr, 26, denies the conspiracy charge and two counts of assisting an offender.
The case continues."
Doesn't sound like the police checks for his employment were any good at all.
"SOHAM accused Ian Huntley was charged with rape in 1998, his Old Bailey murder trial has heard.
The jury heard details of a police statement made by his ex-girlfriend Maxine Carr on August 17 last year after the couple were both arrested on suspicion of the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
In the statement, Carr said: "The reason why I told the police I was at home was because my partner Ian, he was accused in 1998 of attacking a girl, of raping a girl."
She said the case went to court and that he was "acquitted", but that he subsequently suffered "a nervous breakdown".
Huntley, 29, denies the double murder of the schoolgirls - but has admitted one charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Carr, 26, denies the conspiracy charge and two counts of assisting an offender.
The case continues."
Doesn't sound like the police checks for his employment were any good at all.
Sully's Moustache said:
Ok, putting this particular case aside for a second, should someone acquited of rape (hence maybe even completely wrongly accused) be rejected for any jobs because of it? Is it that simple. Take Quintin Hann for example, accused of rape last year, which turned out to be a complete lie....