Ian Huntley and the Soham murders - was he framed?

First topic message reminder :

Here's the background to the case - two friends murdered by the school caretaker in his house and the girlfriend who gave him an alibi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders

oham murders
Jessica Chapman
Holly Wells
Born Jessica Aimee Chapman
Holly Marie Wells
1 September 1991 (Chapman)
4 October 1991 (Wells)
Soham, Cambridgeshire, England
Died Both c. 4 August 2002 (aged 10)
Soham, Cambridgeshire, England
Body discovered Lakenheath, Suffolk, England
Parent(s) Leslie and Sharon Chapman
Kevin and Nicola Wells
The Soham murders occurred in Soham, Cambridgeshire, England, on 4 August 2002. The victims were two 10-year-old girls, Holly Marie Wells and Jessica Aimee Chapman. Their bodies were found near RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, on 17 August 2002, by a local farm worker.

Ian Kevin Huntley, a caretaker at local secondary school Soham Village College, was convicted on 17 December 2003 of the girls' murder and sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, with the High Court later setting a minimum term of 40 years.

His girlfriend, Maxine Ann Carr, was the girls' teaching assistant at St Andrew's Primary School. Carr had provided Huntley with a false alibi and received a three-and-a-half year prison sentence for perverting the course of justice.


Hoping Tommy can post what he has read up on regarding the question of whether Huntley was framed.

According to Huntley's "confession", he didn't take the bodies to Lakenheath until the next day. Then again, how did the press get hold of a taped confession anyway?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546975/Huntley-revealed-all-in-taped-confession.html

You might find this link interesting Raggamuffin.
http://www.onepaper.co.uk/DOC071204-007.pdf

Spindleshanks wrote:You might find this link interesting Raggamuffin.  
http://www.onepaper.co.uk/DOC071204-007.pdf

Thank you. Some interesting stuff in there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:You might find this link interesting Raggamuffin.  
http://www.onepaper.co.uk/DOC071204-007.pdf

Thank you. Some interesting stuff in there.

I thought so too and I think based on the evidence here Tommy is clearly wrong that Huntley was framed.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thank you. Some interesting stuff in there.

I thought so too and I think based on the evidence here Tommy is clearly wrong that Huntley was framed.

It's interesting that there was no sign of a leak from the bath, indicating that water did not escape from the bath via the crack. Much was made of that crack in the bath.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I thought so too and I think based on the evidence here Tommy is clearly wrong that Huntley was framed.

It's interesting that there was no sign of a leak from the bath, indicating that water did not escape from the bath via the crack. Much was made of that crack in the bath.

Yes, in an attempt to explain how water was found in the dining room?

It was also interesting to read that even being in water if there had been blood present from a bloody nose it would still have shown up on the shirt under testing.

I do think that despite no DNA present, the evidence is very clear that those clothes belonged to the girls.

I'm pretty sure that the girls parents would have been able to identify the underwear found even if there was any doubt about the footie shirts.

Ive no doubt he did it, but Tommy has given me food for thought and I will read up more about this.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's interesting that there was no sign of a leak from the bath, indicating that water did not escape from the bath via the crack. Much was made of that crack in the bath.

Yes, in an attempt to explain how water was found in the dining room?

It was also interesting to read that even being in water if there had been blood present from a bloody nose it would still have shown up on the shirt under testing.

It makes me wonder why the prosecution made so much of the crack in the bath. I wonder if their insistence that it was significant put the idea of one of the girls falling in the bath into Huntley's head

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes, in an attempt to explain how water was found in the dining room?

It was also interesting to read that even being in water if there had been blood present from a bloody nose it would still have shown up on the shirt under testing.

It makes me wonder why the prosecution made so much of the crack in the bath. I wonder if their insistence that it was significant put the idea of one of the girls falling in the bath into Huntley's head

Possibly. That link said one of the girls had a hairline skull fracture, could of been angling towards her head cracking the bath maybe?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Is that when the girls are supposed to have died?

Is it possible they actually died later than that especially if they were seen at 7.20 by someone who knew them.

Some time between about 6.30 and about 6.50 I think. The reasoning behind that is the CCTV at the sports centre which shows them at 6.28, and also a witness saw them in that area at around 6.30. Jessica's phone was switched off at 6.46, and it was proposed that Huntley switched it off to stop her phoning anyone.

What time was this...?


Two times showing on 1 cctv picture...!!!???


Plus... where is this precise location and where would this camera be pointing from and direction pointing to on the map...?

Tommy, I think we've exhausted the issue of the CCTV times. Let's talk about the possibility of a false confession by Huntley instead.

Show me an explanation of the two different times on the cctv image?

And explain this news article dated 6th Aug 2002...



Police said they were "confident" that two girls wearing red shirts seen walking along the A10 between Ely and Cambridge by a woman were Jessica and Holly.

The sighting was made about 10 miles east of Soham and more than 24 hours after the last confirmed sighting of the girls on a road near their homes at around 6.30pm on Sunday.

In a press conference, Det Supt David Hankins said: "You can never be 100 per cent sure but the description matched them to a T.

"The lady saw the red shirt and the name and the numbers and everything. It gives us some hope and a whole new impetus to the inquiry.

"We are particularly reassured as both seemed happy and were described to us by the lady as larking about. It shows that the girls were not snatched while walking through Soham. That is the positive thing."

Tina-Marie Easey, 39, who saw the girls, said: "It was about 6.45am and I was just opening the blinds. I saw two little girls walk along the pavement a few yards from my front window in the direction of Cambridge.

"One had fair hair and one dark. The fair one of the two pushed the dark one. They seemed to be larking about. I just thought 'they are up early'."

She said although it had been raining in the night both girls looked dry and clean and smartly dressed.

Police are urging anyone who was on the road in that area on Sunday evening to think very hard as to whether they saw two girls.

Police search teams were scouring verges along the sides of the A10 from early today but a spokesman said as they had yet to find anything that confirmed or denied the sighting. The spokesman said officers were also searching fields and hedgerows around Soham.

Police have also seized two computers, one from each of the girls' houses and are trying to establish whether they could have been going to meet someone they had contacted through email.

Police said they are also checking records relating to Jessica's mobile phone, which she had on her when she vanished. The spokesman said he was not aware that any calls had been made from the phone.

There was no answer when relatives and police rang the phone late on Sunday, he said. The signal on the phone was thought to have died at about midnight on Sunday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403705/Beckham-appeals-to-missing-girls.html

It cant possibly have been the girls Tommy. It was proven during post mortem when examining the remains of their stomach contents that they died fairly soon after eating bbq food.

Tommy Monk wrote:Show me an explanation of the two different times on the cctv image?

Apparently, there were two (?) CCTV cameras, but they were out of sync with the real time.  The evidence seems to be that the girls were caught on CCTV at 6.28 - ie, once the faulty times were corrected. It's mentioned in that article that Spindle posted, but I can't copy and paste from it for some reason.

I'm still confused about it tbh but I don't think we'll get to the bottom of it. Even the people who say that Huntley was framed don't really discuss it much. I presume that the CCTV evidence was presented in court, and that the prosecution didn't just get away with stating that the CCTV said 6.28 when it clearly didn't. They must have presented evidence to show that the clock(s) on the CCTV was wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403877/Timetable.html

Oh, whatever.

Police said they are also checking records relating to Jessica's mobile phone, which she had on her when she vanished. The spokesman said he was not aware that any calls had been made from the phone.

There was no answer when relatives and police rang the phone late on Sunday, he said. The signal on the phone was thought to have died at about midnight on Sunday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403705/Beckham-appeals-to-missing-girls.html



So the original story was that they were ringing the phone late on Sunday and there was no answer... but then it changed to that the phone was switched off around 6.45.


Plus a cctv camera doesn't show two different sets of times... it only shows one.

I posted a bbc link before with pictures from both the Ross Peers car park cameras.


There are plenty of reports of the girls being seen in the town after being seen at sports centre...


Plus the original story was that the photo in Holly's house was taken at 5.04pm and then the girls went upstairs and used the computer Internet, and then they slipped out unseen... there was no mention of them coming back down to sit and eat after photo taken and Internet use...


The barbecue was supposed to started around 3.00pm... I'm sure that they would have eaten plenty by 5.04pm...


The early reports that Huntley had seen them around 5.45pm were never in question... it was never said then that it must have been later because girls were still at Holly's house and sitting down eating until after 6.00pm...

How many barbecues have you been to where all the food is cooked up first for 2 and half hours before everyone then sits down round a table to eat it...?

Tommy, please read the link I posted.

It all boils down to one thing really - Huntley confessed. Obviously, he didn't confess to murdering them, but he confessed to killing them. That's the real issue. It's not like he denied doing anything to them. Therefore, the point is - is he falsely remembering killing them or not?

Raggamuffin wrote:It all boils down to one thing really - Huntley confessed. Obviously, he didn't confess to murdering them, but he confessed to killing them. That's the real issue. It's not like he denied doing anything to them. Therefore, the point is - is he falsely remembering killing them or not?

He was clearly heavily involved. There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped. The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing. A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house. Hair belonging to him was found in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

I feel for the parents though, they know their daughters are dead but they will never know how they died because their bodies were in too bad shape to be able to tell the pathologist what caused them to die.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It all boils down to one thing really - Huntley confessed. Obviously, he didn't confess to murdering them, but he confessed to killing them. That's the real issue. It's not like he denied doing anything to them. Therefore, the point is - is he falsely remembering killing them or not?

He was clearly heavily involved.  There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped.  The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing.  A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house.  Hair belonging to him was found  in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

The difficulty for me is finding proper evidence - such as was presented in court. It's not like the US where you can follow a court case live on the internet. You have to rely on newspaper reports mostly.

Assuming he did kill them, the next question is - did he have some kind of amnesia or brainstorm afterwards? He's been portrayed as someone who lied all along, but he really did seem to think he hadn't done it until it came to the trial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

He was clearly heavily involved.  There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped.  The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing.  A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house.  Hair belonging to him was found  in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

The difficulty for me is finding proper evidence - such as was presented in court. It's not like the US where you can follow a court case live on the internet. You have to rely on newspaper reports mostly.

Assuming he did kill them, the next question is - did he have some kind of amnesia or brainstorm afterwards? He's been portrayed as someone who lied all along, but he really did seem to think he hadn't done it until it came to the trial.

Denial perhaps?

Either that or a sick person who got some kind of kick out of the pretence.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The difficulty for me is finding proper evidence - such as was presented in court. It's not like the US where you can follow a court case live on the internet. You have to rely on newspaper reports mostly.

Assuming he did kill them, the next question is - did he have some kind of amnesia or brainstorm afterwards? He's been portrayed as someone who lied all along, but he really did seem to think he hadn't done it until it came to the trial.

Denial perhaps?

Either that or a sick person who got some kind of kick out of the pretence.

I don't think it's the latter. This wasn't a premeditated crime, and I think that one of the deaths may well have been an accident. He was then faced with a bit of a nightmare situation - fess up or try to cover up by killing the other one and cover his tracks. It's just weird that he put himself out there so much rather than try to keep a low profile.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Denial perhaps?

Either that or a sick person who got some kind of kick out of the pretence.

I don't think it's the latter. This wasn't a premeditated crime, and I think that one of the deaths may well have been an accident. He was then faced with a bit of a nightmare situation - fess up or try to cover up by killing the other one and cover his tracks. It's just weird that he put himself out there so much rather than try to keep a low profile.

He's not the first to do that though. I think there is something sinister about someone who kills and then becomes very involved in the investigation, ie talking to the media, searching for the victim etc.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It all boils down to one thing really - Huntley confessed. Obviously, he didn't confess to murdering them, but he confessed to killing them. That's the real issue. It's not like he denied doing anything to them. Therefore, the point is - is he falsely remembering killing them or not?

He was clearly heavily involved.  There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped.  The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing.  A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house.  Hair belonging to him was found  in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

There was no evidence girls were in his house or car... he walked his dog near the area where they were found and I believe his dad lived there too...

The story was originally that he went back to where bodies were dumped some time after, cut the clothes off them, then set fire to the bodies, then York clothes home and washed them, then put them in a bin in the shelter on the site where he worked, put petrol on them and lit them but then poured water over them after a few seconds, then put a bin bag over the top of them and left them to be found...


I don't buy it!


It seems to me that the police had already decided it was Huntley who was going to be charged for it and they manipulated the evidence and story to fit while ignoring everything else that pointed away from Huntley.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

He was clearly heavily involved.  There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped.  The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing.  A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house.  Hair belonging to him was found  in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

There was no evidence girls were in his house or car... he walked his dog near the area where they were found and I believe his dad lived there too...

The story was originally that he went back to where bodies were dumped some time after, cut the clothes off them, then set fire to the bodies, then York clothes home and washed them, then put them in a bin in the shelter on the site where he worked, put petrol on them and lit them but then poured water over them after a few seconds, then put a bin bag over the top of them and left them to be found...


I don't buy it!


It seems to me that the police had already decided it was Huntley who was going to be charged for it and they manipulated the evidence and story to fit while ignoring everything else that pointed away from Huntley.

If you bothered to read the link I posted Tommy, you will see there is evidence that they were in his house and in his car.

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.

The scissors that were found in Huntleys car could be linked to Jessica, Tommy.

As for the hairs, well it seems the girls hair survived too, as did much of the clothing so it wasn't really much of a fire.

It also wasn't just mud from the site where the girls were found Tommy, there was a lot of other stuff too.

Read the link Tommy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3251009.stm


Richard Latham QC said fibres found on Mr Huntley's clothes and carpets matched "precisely" those from Manchester United tops worn by the girls when they disappeared.

He said chemical tests had been carried out to establish the fibre and dye used in the tops was the same as the fibres found.

Short fibres would have been shed from the shirts when they were cut and would be more likely to remain unnoticed and survive the washing process, to be picked up later by experts, the prosecution said.

"We suggest that the most likely recipient of the fibres would be the cutter.

"If those shirts were either cut in the house or by him in the ditch and carried by him back to the hangar, then he got shed fibre on himself and went into the house.

"There is always a potential that some of them would drop in the house. Microscopic in size, they would not be noticed."

Pile of clothes

Fibres attached to clothing could be detached and fall onto other garments or furniture when the item of clothing was removed, Mr Latham said.


Fibres got into that house and [they were] matching the girls' shirts. They were over many items
Richard Latham QC
He then showed the jury an animated film of how this might happen.

"Fibres got into that house and [they were] matching the girls' shirts. They were over many items," Mr Latham said.

Police found one fibre on a grey fleece, three on a pair of beige trousers, and 15 on a yellow shirt which had all been in Mr Huntley's main bedroom, the prosecution said. These would have come from one of the girls' shirts.

New carpet

Mr Latham said 12 fibres from Jessica's shirt were found on carpet material and could "either have come from the carpet in the boot or the carpet in the house - that may be significant".

"We invite you to infer the new boot carpet came from the house. It was one of the off-cuts from the bedroom.

"You may think the purpose of replacing the boot carpet is to put a piece in the boot to replace the fitted carpet on the night when the car was used to take the bodies away."

Mr Latham said one fibre from the car carpet was found on Holly's shirt.

Forensic experts also found eight fibres from carpet in the house on the shirt, along with 29 other fibres from items around the house.

Mr Latham also said 16 fibres were found on the tracksuit bottoms.

In total, 39 fibres from Mr Huntley's clothes were found on Jessica's shirt, while 38 fibres from his clothes, house or car were found on Holly's shirt.

The jury was given a breakdown by the prosecution of other items the fibres were found on:

A jacket - one
Left boot taken from Huntley while in custody - one
The car boot carpet - two
A bath mat - two
Carpet from the main bedroom - two
The main living room carpet - one
Another piece of living room carpet - two
The hallway - two
The carpet at the front door - one
From the stairs - two
Carpet in the hall - one
A cupboard in the main bedroom - two
A seat cover - one
Furniture in the living room - six
Dusters - one
Duvet in the main bedroom - one
A sheet - two

Not sure why Tom is still trying to defend the indefensible.
Pethaps Huntley was a member of Tom's masonic Alt Right KKK clan.
That would make sense.

Spindleshanks wrote:I do think that despite no DNA present, the evidence is very clear that those clothes belonged to the girls.

I'm pretty sure that the girls parents would have been able to identify the underwear found even if there was any doubt about the footie shirts.

So you admit there was no dna on clothes...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:I do think that despite no DNA present, the evidence is very clear that those clothes belonged to the girls.

I'm pretty sure that the girls parents would have been able to identify the underwear found even if there was any doubt about the footie shirts.

So you admit there was no dna on clothes...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

I never claimed there was DNA found on the clothes

Spindleshanks wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


So you admit there was no dna on clothes...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

I never claimed there was DNA found on the clothes

So we agree that there was no dna on any of the clothes...


Question remains...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I never claimed there was DNA found on the clothes

So we agree that there was no dna on any of the clothes...


Question remains...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm sure the forensics people would know though.

Now Tommy, how about the fact that the girls seen the next morning couldn't possibly have been Jessica and Holly because when the girls were found the contents of their stomachs proved they had eaten BBQ food just prior to their deaths.

What about over 150 transfers of fibres between the girls clothing and Huntleys clothing/house/car.

What about the fabric found beneath one of the girls bodies that matched the tracky bottoms she had worn which were found in that bin.

What about the girls underwear found in that bin, I'm sure their mothers would have been able to identify that along with the bra that was also found which had only been bought the day before the child died.

What about the geological and botanical evidence found inside and outside of Huntleys car that matched plants and soil and whathaveyou in the place the girls were found.

What about the pollen grains that were found in Huntleys car that matched plants at the scene the girls were found, some of them rare.

What about the scissors in Huntleys car that were linked to Jessica and all the rest of the forensic evidence.

If you are seriously trying to suggest that this was all a set up then that is one hell of an elaborate set up when all they needed to do was to place some of Huntleys DNA on the girls and some of the girls DNA in his house to establish a link.

To suggest in the face of all the forensic evidence that Huntley didn't kill and then try to cover up the deaths of these girls is really quite something to behold.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

He was clearly heavily involved.  There is evidence the girls were in his house, in his car, that his car was in the place where the girls were dumped.  The scissors found in his car could be linked to one of the girls and the cut clothing.  A fuel can in his car was linked to the fuel used to set the girls alight. The clothing was found in a bin where he worked, in a place which he denied having a key to, the key which was found in his house.  Hair belonging to him was found  in the bin with the clothes as well as his finger prints and a palm print on a black bag placed on top of the clothing.

A piece of fabric found with one of the bodies was matched to the tracky bottoms in the bin and on and on go the forensics.

The girls died with the remains of BBQ food in their stomachs meaning they died within hours of eating at the BBQ, meaning they can't have been the girls seen at 6.45am the next morning.

No, he killed them and after he killed them he then tried to cover it up.

There was no evidence girls were in his house or car... he walked his dog near the area where they were found and I believe his dad lived there too...

The story was originally that he went back to where bodies were dumped some time after, cut the clothes off them, then set fire to the bodies, then York clothes home and washed them, then put them in a bin in the shelter on the site where he worked, put petrol on them and lit them but then poured water over them after a few seconds, then put a bin bag over the top of them and left them to be found...


I don't buy it!


It seems to me that the police had already decided it was Huntley who was going to be charged for it and they manipulated the evidence and story to fit while ignoring everything else that pointed away from Huntley.

He said he only went to Lakenheath once, and didn't go back. The hangar was searched a few days after the girls disappeared, but nothing was found. However, it's not clear if the actual bin was searched, so it's not clear when the clothes were put there.

I do find it odd that he would have taken a pair of scissors with him to cut the clothes off when he took the bodies there, or did he happen to have scissors in his car? On the other hand, weren't the bodies submerged in water at one point, which would make it difficult to burn them? Also, there's no evidence that he changed the tyres on his car twice, so they would have found tyre tracks matching his new tyres if he'd gone back a second time.

Also, there were apparently signs of two tracks leading to where the bodies were found. I guess one could have been made by the people who found the bodies though.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/huntley-colleagues-in-court-6956376.html

Read this from page 23 to page 29 Raggamuffin

http://the-investigator.co.uk/files/April_2010_The_Investigator.pdf

Spindleshanks wrote:Read this from page 23 to page 29 Raggamuffin

http://the-investigator.co.uk/files/April_2010_The_Investigator.pdf

Thanks for that.

the first thing which strikes me as odd is that Huntley knew the Village College was being used by the police as a kind of headquarters, but he still put the clothes there later?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:Read this from page 23 to page 29 Raggamuffin

http://the-investigator.co.uk/files/April_2010_The_Investigator.pdf

Thanks for that.

the first thing which strikes me as odd is that Huntley knew the Village College was being used by the police as a kind of headquarters, but he still put the clothes there later?

Yes, but he also knew it had already been searched.

I think he didn't realise that his actions had already started to arouse suspicion.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


So we agree that there was no dna on any of the clothes...


Question remains...

How could all traces of dna have been removed from all these clothes...?

I have absolutely no idea.  I'm sure the forensics people would know though.

Now Tommy, how about the fact that the girls seen the next morning couldn't possibly have been Jessica and Holly because when the girls were found the contents of their stomachs proved they had eaten BBQ food just prior to their deaths.

What about over 150 transfers of fibres between the girls clothing and Huntleys clothing/house/car.

What about the fabric found beneath one of the girls bodies that matched the tracky bottoms she had worn which were found in that bin.

What about the girls underwear found in that bin, I'm sure their mothers would have been able to identify that along with the bra that was also found which had only been bought the day before the child died.

What about the geological and botanical evidence found inside and outside of Huntleys car that matched plants and soil and whathaveyou in the place the girls were found.

What about the pollen grains that were found in Huntleys car that matched plants at the scene the girls were found, some of them rare.

What about the scissors in Huntleys car that were linked to Jessica and all the rest of the forensic evidence.

If you are seriously trying to suggest that this was all a set up then that is one hell of an elaborate set up when all they needed to do was to place some of Huntleys DNA on the girls and some of the girls DNA in his house to establish a link.

To suggest in the face of all the forensic evidence that Huntley didn't kill and then try to cover up the deaths of these girls is really quite something to behold.

Girls were allegedly found in a water filled ditch only after it was drained... badly decomposed and partially skeletonised...

So must have been in the water in ditch for a long time...

When exactly was it that Huntley was alleged to have gone to place where bodies were found and cut off clothes, burned bodies, put them back in the water. and then returned to remove all dna from the clothes... before then leaving them to be found in the bin in shelter...?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thanks for that.

the first thing which strikes me as odd is that Huntley knew the Village College was being used by the police as a kind of headquarters, but he still put the clothes there later?

Yes, but he also knew it had already been searched.

I think he didn't realise that his actions had already started to arouse suspicion.

Even so, they could easily have searched it again.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I have absolutely no idea.  I'm sure the forensics people would know though.

Now Tommy, how about the fact that the girls seen the next morning couldn't possibly have been Jessica and Holly because when the girls were found the contents of their stomachs proved they had eaten BBQ food just prior to their deaths.

What about over 150 transfers of fibres between the girls clothing and Huntleys clothing/house/car.

What about the fabric found beneath one of the girls bodies that matched the tracky bottoms she had worn which were found in that bin.

What about the girls underwear found in that bin, I'm sure their mothers would have been able to identify that along with the bra that was also found which had only been bought the day before the child died.

What about the geological and botanical evidence found inside and outside of Huntleys car that matched plants and soil and whathaveyou in the place the girls were found.

What about the pollen grains that were found in Huntleys car that matched plants at the scene the girls were found, some of them rare.

What about the scissors in Huntleys car that were linked to Jessica and all the rest of the forensic evidence.

If you are seriously trying to suggest that this was all a set up then that is one hell of an elaborate set up when all they needed to do was to place some of Huntleys DNA on the girls and some of the girls DNA in his house to establish a link.

To suggest in the face of all the forensic evidence that Huntley didn't kill and then try to cover up the deaths of these girls is really quite something to behold.

Girls were allegedly found in a water filled ditch only after it was drained... badly decomposed and partially skeletonised...

So must have been in the water in ditch for a long time...

When exactly was it that Huntley was alleged to have gone to place where bodies were found and cut off clothes, burned bodies, put them back in the water. and then returned to remove all dna from the clothes... before then leaving them to be found in the bin in shelter...?

The hangar had been searched on the Wednesday, so presumably after that.

"...Are you are seriously trying to suggest that this was all a set up then that is one hell of an elaborate set up when all they needed to do was to place some of Huntleys DNA on the girls and some of the girls DNA in his house to establish a link..."


Or some conveniently placed fibres and some lightly burnt clothes in a bin...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

I have absolutely no idea.  I'm sure the forensics people would know though.

Now Tommy, how about the fact that the girls seen the next morning couldn't possibly have been Jessica and Holly because when the girls were found the contents of their stomachs proved they had eaten BBQ food just prior to their deaths.

What about over 150 transfers of fibres between the girls clothing and Huntleys clothing/house/car.

What about the fabric found beneath one of the girls bodies that matched the tracky bottoms she had worn which were found in that bin.

What about the girls underwear found in that bin, I'm sure their mothers would have been able to identify that along with the bra that was also found which had only been bought the day before the child died.

What about the geological and botanical evidence found inside and outside of Huntleys car that matched plants and soil and whathaveyou in the place the girls were found.

What about the pollen grains that were found in Huntleys car that matched plants at the scene the girls were found, some of them rare.

What about the scissors in Huntleys car that were linked to Jessica and all the rest of the forensic evidence.

If you are seriously trying to suggest that this was all a set up then that is one hell of an elaborate set up when all they needed to do was to place some of Huntleys DNA on the girls and some of the girls DNA in his house to establish a link.

To suggest in the face of all the forensic evidence that Huntley didn't kill and then try to cover up the deaths of these girls is really quite something to behold.

Girls were allegedly found in a water filled ditch only after it was drained... badly decomposed and partially skeletonised...

So must have been in the water in ditch for a long time...

When exactly was it that Huntley was alleged to have gone to place where bodies were found and cut off clothes, burned bodies, put them back in the water. and then returned to remove all dna from the clothes... before then leaving them to be found in the bin in shelter...?

Yes 13 days they were in the ditch, however the ditch was drained on 13th August, 4 days before they were found.

Apparently, just after he asked a special constable how long DNA lasts and if it could be obtained from clothing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes, but he also knew it had already been searched.

I think he didn't realise that his actions had already started to arouse suspicion.

Even so, they could easily have searched it again.

I don't know that the Hanger had been searched, Huntley denied having keys to it until they were found in his house as far as I can gather from what I've read.

Or maybe they only searched it again after they found the keys he denied having which is when they found the clothing in the bin.