---

by lizzieslayer
Ok so he denies killing them but admits killing Jessica. This guy needs to get his story straight. In my opinion, he should bloody rot

---

No, while, undoubtedly, he has changed his story more than once, he accepts he is responsible for the death of Jessica but that, according to his version of events, it was an accident. In other words, he had not formed the intent to kill her - which is the necessary element needed to convict someone of murder.

His defence team are obviously banking on the jury acquitting him of murder, for which he would get a mandatory life sentence, and, if he is convicted of anything, that it be manslaughter - an unlawful killing.

Trials, as they are a lot of the time, are conducted on a tactical basis and he is in a far better position to admit from the outset he is responsible for the deaths than deny them when the evidence against him is so great.

At the end of the day, the jury have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt, that he had formed the intent to kill them. If they aren't, then he can't be convicted of murder.

From what I've heard of the evidence from news stations like Sky News, and read in the papers, I would be surprised if he isn't convicted of murder. But, then, I'm not on the jury. And, they, at the end of the day, are the ones who have heard all the evidence and have to decide.


(Edited by Whistler 02/12/2003 19:22)

I think Whistler has summed it up nicely.

I've been battling this one out at work with a colleague for over a week now. We've been debating all the original lies and coverups and at the end of the day it's going to be hard to finalise anything.

There are certain facts obviously that have become apparent. Huntley has admitted dumping the bodies (albeit it in shock and confusion afterwards) and for removing the clothes and attempting to burn them (not very well in my opinion) for fear of being pinpointed for murder.

As many of the papers have said, you can't very well accidentally kill 2 girls at the same time, but whether or not the actual events are the way Huntley is describing is for the jury to decide upon.

At the moment he is undoubtedly guilty of perverting the course of justice for covering up the events.

The only way it would have been pre-meditated would have been if Huntley knew the girls would be at his house and had everything planned in advance.



(Edited by Samphirette 03/12/2003 00:02)

---

by Samphirette
The only way it would have been pre-meditated would have been if Huntley knew the girls would be at his house and had everything planned in advance.

---

Actually, you only need to have formed the intent to kill the instant before the act is committed to be guilty of murder.

Yeah that's true.

I was thinking more from the point of view that nobody really knows what made the girls leave the house that day, ie if they were intending on meeting with him.

I still feel for the parents, this will never go away for them as there must be so many questions that will remain unanswered. Considering the amount of deceit, it must be hard for even them to think they are hearing the truth

The more I see of this wretched case in the media, the more I stand by my original thoughts: it should not be reported. There's no more public interest in this than the innumerous other murder and manslaughter trials that take up the Courts' time; it just so happens it's photogenic gold dust for public prurience. I know personally of a murder trial on a charge even more depraved than what Ian Huntley stands accused of, and it received not a word of attention in the press.

If people are genuinely interested in seeing due process done and seen to be done, they'll be willing to go to the effort of either attending the public gallery or reading the court records. As it is, we have media jackals indulging in an ill-disguised feeding frenzy that serves justice and the families last of all. When asked, the people of Soham simply asked the gawpers to go away and leave them in peace. What a sorry indictment it is that this horrible affair cannot be handled with whatever scant dignity is possible.

I hear where you are coming from as I for one would be just as happy hearing the final outcome at the END of the trial instead of having each day splashed over the news and internet which means you can't get away from it. We have the bbc website as the homepage at work and inevitably it has the latest *flash* of information almost hourly (which tends to lead to the debates)

I think it's fair comment to say that Huntley's explanation of how two healthy ten year olds died in his bathroom leaves much to be desired. There's more to this affair than meets the eye, I believe, but I shan't speculate further publicly...

I've been following this... not obsessively, but as SKY news seem to be reporting on literally every single breath taken in this trial, it's hard not to.

As always the media have gone overboard with the amount of press coverage, and i wonder if they're thinking of Holly and Jessica's parents whilst they're reporting on every lascivious detail, every painful second?.

Huntley reports that one of the girls fell into his bath and he froze and she drowned. Okay, this sits funny with me because as a parent and general all round human being, if a child fell in my bath, the first thing i would do would get him or her out, i would not think twice, i would not freeze. And he says the bath had 18 inches of water in it when according to experts, with the overflow, it couldn't hold more than 11 inches. Depending on how the child fell in, wouldn't her first instinct be to struggle, to get her face out of the water?. Unless she hit her head and knocked herself out?. Why didn't he phone the police? or phone for an ambulance?. As he said, he froze.

The fact that he hid the bodies, set fire to them (what a thing for their poor parents to hear about) as well as destroy, or at least attempt to, their clothing to me speaks a lot more than just an accident. If it had been an accident as he's claimed, why destroy the evidence? surely it would've cleared him in the same way as it could convict him? (just remembered, he was cleared of rape in 1998, maybe that was why). I don't believe that it happened the way it did. And to think this trial is expected to last three months.

Private Eye recently noted that there's a secure courtroom attached to the goal where Mr Huntley is being held, perfectly suited to trying a high-risk suspect. Yet for some reason, at a cost estimated to be in the region of £50,000, he is shipped daily to the Old Bailey.

As the Eye duly speculated, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the prison being too remote for a media-swamped show trial, could it?