Verdict in on Soham

Even his mother would like to see him hang ... or fried. Now there's a nice family for you. No wonder the guy's a sicko.

The verdict for two families and two young lives is far from over. There is no justice, stolen smiles, embittered milestones, and cheated futures surpass verdict and justice. It's neither the first nor the last, more futures will be blighted, more questions will be asked and more inhumanity will be waged on the innocent by the depraved. Seeing around corners is the only justice, in a society that only sees the vertical there is no hope [%sig%]

His mother may be just trying to pre-empt the inevitable bricks that will come crashing through her window.

That is really tricky. She perhaps should have got more than she did. She loved him or was in fear of her own life maybe. Was hers a crime of passion perhaps. Perhaps they should retrial her because the spotlight always seemed to be on Huntley. Very tricky indeed.

her guilt, to me, lies in her knowledge of the state of the girls at the time of lying. Imagine her assumption was that they were simply missing and, therefore as in most cases of missing girls, they would probably turn up at any second and her love would be saved some unwarranted police pressure based on an allegation (singular) from his forgotten past. you could begin to understand her willingness to help him out. she was besotted with him and he was very convincing. You can imagine the private conversations, his feigned innocence, "they've only been missing a day or so, they'll probably turn up, I only said hello and off they went" etc etc. In this instance her crime is mere stupidity and misplaced loyalty in the face of some very odd behaviour. Once the lie is out there and the questions keep coming, she's cornered and tries to keep it up to save face. IF, however, the girls were discovered and known by her to be dead then her actions were a cover up of a terrible and evil crime and her collaboratiuon in things deserve the full weight of the judicial system

This verdict troubles me. Huntley, I mean, I couldn't give a toss about her. Where is the closure for the parents? There is no absolute proof he did it. It is all conjecture and whilst I admit his defence sucks bigtime and the subsequent allegations against him do him no favour, there is still the element of doubt. What actually happened? Like everyone else, I'd love to see him strung up by his goolies, but... it isn't clear cut. Those jurors are no different to an abc forum verdict. We all know he did it but we can't prove it. And this is why I don't believe in the death sentence. If Huntley can be convicted by conjecture, lord help anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

we're fortunate in that at least he admits he is responsible for their demise. If he was pleadinfg total innocence I'd be worried, a little, too. But to admit he killed them and then say it happened accidentally is desperation itself. He HAD to admit it because of the amount of physical evidence and his only option was to claim to be a victim of circumstance. As verdicts go, I believe this one to be very safe indeed

'If Huntley can be convicted by conjecture, lord help anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time' There's being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then there's burying two dead ten-year olds, cleaning the house from top to bottom and burning the remaining evidence. How much evidence is enough for it not to be 'conjecture'? Surely every case involves a degree of that. I sort of understand what I think you're trying to say, Stormy, but you overplay your hand with the last sentence.

I don't overplay my hand at all. I'm simple using the most public case of child murder in recent times to show there wasn't clear evidence, forensic or otherwise, to prove that Huntley actually killed those girls and, therefore, a case of doubt (although not reasonable I grant you) exists, and therefore, the death penalty should not be reintroduced.

apart from people who use therefore twice in one sentence

anyway, who says she didn't do it? i may have missed a bit here and there. do ther phine records prove she was in Grimsby when the murders took place? Doesn't take long to drive from Soham to Grimsby you know. Huntley could be the fall guy. *leaves thread just knowing the whole abcworld will dump on him tomorrow*

phine?

Stormy - yes she was seen on CCTV in Grimsby. Doesn't take long to drive to Soham from Grimsby? It's a good hour, hardly round the corner. Don't take this the wrong way, Stormy, but are you/were you pissed? One minute you say to "don't give a toss" about Carr, next you suggest she may have dunnit? There was enough forensic evidence to suggest without reasonable doubt he, Huntley, killed the girls in his house. His defence was a clutch at straws: arguing it was manslaughter as opposed to murder. Pretty pathetic. How the jury took nearly a week deliberating is way beyond me...maybe Stormy was head of the jury!

Verdict: 11 to 1 majority, I hear. Come on, Storms, admit it: you were the 1 weren't you? There can't be TWO people in the UK who doubt the f**ker did it!

"...there wasn't clear evidence, forensic or otherwise, to prove that Huntley actually killed those girls." There *was* forensic AS WELL AS otherwise evidence (the fact that he admitted killing them, and the circumstantial stuff) to prove that Huntley killed those girls. Have you been following this case in the papers, Stormy? I think you should stick to talking about WMD, you come across as more of an authority on that. Agree with you about the death penalty though. Under no circumstance would I agree with its introduction.

Come to think of it, Soham is 100 miles from Grimsby...what's that, best part of two hours? Anyway, I'll stop swamping now.

Crikey, there have been some dodgy convictions in the past *cough* Barry Bulsara *cough*, but Huntley's as bang to rights as you are ever going to get. Nobody will ever know the truth of what happened, as he is the only one alive who was there and he will never confess as that excludes any possibility of appeal. If he'd been nicked *like Barry Bulsara* on basis of being around at the time and having a bit of an oddball background, then that would be an unsafe conviction, (although the Court of Appeal disagree with me), but this chap admitted that the children died while they were with him and him alone, that he disposed of the bodies and set fire to them and that he burned their clothes. His explanation is intrinsically implausible and we will never know why exactly a man who is on his own for the evening invites two teenage girls in his house. What we don't have is a motive, but these days, motives are for Agatha Christie. It is never up to the Crown to prove why someone did something unspeakable, merely that they DID do it. I can't think of a safer verdict than this one in recent years, given the usual concerns about the police conspiring with the press to get round contempt of court rules - i.e they announce to the press that they have not arrested someone, but there is a man aged 29 and his girlfriend aged 23 who live in the village near the school who are helping with their enquries. Before they're arrested, the press can report whatever they like without breaching the law. By the way, my calculations are that Maxine Carr could be out tomorrow. Three and a half years, halved (for parole) equals 1 year 8 months, time spent on remand counts double, she has already served her sentence... I suspect that she will have been given sensible guidance on it being expedient for her not to seek parole until the middle of next year. If she was found guilty and walked free, there'd be some consqeuence for her outside the law, I suspect.

going back to Carr, I don't believe she should be branded with Huntley as a child killer, in a 'Brady-Hindley' way. She was stupid and unthinking but not a killer and not, therefore, a social leper even though, as the judge said when sentencing her, she will be a public figure of hate for the rest of her life. Not fair I think but that's the public for you. She'd be better off moving abroad somewhere. Something just occurred to me, what is it with evil child killers and the name Ian? Any more of this and I'll have to change my name like all the Adolphs did after the war! [for anyone who doesn't know, my real name is Ian Watson]

As far as I'm concerned there's only one question that needed to be asked, and I don't mean of Huntley. I mean of anybody you happen to meet in the street. The question is, 'When was the last time two kids died together in your bathroom?' It doesn't matter that we don't know EXACTLY what happened, it isn't necessary, just as long as we are sure they died at his hands. This he doesn't deny. End of story. Apart from the fact that I don't give a s.hit about the difference between murder and manslaughter in this instance.

Huntley admitted he killed the second child. That's enough guilt on its own, isn't it? Carr's sentence makes sense to me. She's guilty of lying to the police, and that's about it. If she'd been at home he wouldn't have killed the girls, but she couldn't have known that. What drives me mad about her is the blind way she did the bidding of this guy. How do men get this power over women? Why do some women cover up for murdering boyfriends and husbands? Why do some women write to murderers and rapists in prison and even marry them? Why do the Lady Archers and Hilary Clintons of this world stay married to liars and philanderers who are just taking the mickey? Is some biological force at work? ie. has it occurred to Nature that if women only had babies with nice trustworthy men the species would soon become depleted? d.beswetherick.

yes, yes, I agree with all of you. I was merely being pedantic in pointing out that no evidence shows he actually killed them deliberately, nor could the prosecution suggest what might have happened in the 10 or 15 minutes they say the girls were in his house. Forensics proved they were not raped and had no injuries and don't know how or when (apart from 'soon after eating') they died. My unease comes from not knowing what happened (as opposed to motive). Sure, huntley changed his not guilty plea once he saw the evidence against him but, implausible as his story is, I'd feel happier if the prosecution could have demonstrated it to be false or, to repeat myself, suggest an alternative scenario. They can't. None of it makes sense. Today the media has been full of huntley's sexual past, as if this has some bearing on the case. Surely, given his predilictions, he would have wanted some 'fun' before thinking 'oops, shlt, better kill them now'? Does he have a history of inviting 10 yr olds into his house and trying to suffocate them within ten minutes. One woman on tv today said he had sex with her when she was 14. That's illegal isn't it? he didn't kill her though. What I was trying and clearly failing to say was that if a jury can convict you of murder as opposed to manslaughter without any evidence or even a suggestion of what might really have happened what chance does anyone in a high profile case have of a fair trial, let alone what happens in the cases that never make the press - I'm thinking of all types of crime here, not only murder cases. and yes, I shouldn't have suggested carr might have dunnit. That was very silly of me and gave greco so much ammo he will have been feeling smug all day long. I hope the abc jury accept my plea that it was a hasty post tacked on in one of those 'said without thinking' moments and do not convict me of complete stupidity.