I’m really surprised there isn’t already a thread on this topic, and I’m placing this one in the pit because of the nature of the subject material.
WARNING - DISTRESSING STORY OF CHILD ABDUCTION AND MURDER
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3257470.stm
Perhaps it is simply impossible for me to be objective and impartial about this whole thing now, but does anyone find his claims even slightly credible?
Um … his name’s Ian.
And of course not. In fact, when this is all over (which I predict will be approximately 30 seconds after it goes to the jury) the girls’ parents ought to sue him for making them go through this joke of a trial.
And what justice will be served to Ian Huntley or the memory of the young girls who were abducted and murdered if we are going to determine judgement here before all the evidence is weighed?
Mangetout, if you feel it is impossible for you to be impartial and objective, maybe you should refrain from making comments about the case, at least for the time being.
You may well be proved correct in your estimation of Huntley. However, you might be completely wrong. Let’s leave it for the courts to decide, OK?
Addendum:
Sorry if I came across as being a picky civil-libber, but I have seen many ‘cases’ of people accused of crimes who were deemed absolutely guilty by the media and the public, but were ultimately found not-guilty by the courts.
I’d rather trust in trial by judge/jury than trial by media myself.
Normally I’d agree with you kambuckta. But, come on. Unless the media are misquoting his testimony, it’s not them that’s making him sound guilty, it’s him.
And the same was said of Lindy (and Michael) Chamberlain when Lindy was charged with the murder of their infant daughter Azaria back in the early 1980’s. They were not ‘misquoted’ but their testimony was deemed so improbable, and their reactions to the death of Azaria were considered ‘cold and unfeeling’. Lindy went to jail until a few years later when the case was re-opened and she was ‘pardoned’…
I’m NOT saying that Huntley’s case is the same, but even ONE instance where the media have prejudged someone falsely should keep us on the alert for the possibility of it happening again.
kambucta, go read the story. He’s admitted he killed them both. He just said it was an “accident”
Seriously, go read the cite.
Agreed. Can’t be doing with a cyber lynch mob. Let’s hear the evidence.
Oops; Ian* Huntley - not sure why I got that wrong.
I’m not trying to incite a lynch mob; don’t forget we’ve heard a great deal of evidence already - what fact could possibly arise at this stage which would make sense of his story?
…Although perhaps my rather obvious factual error in the thread title vindicates your sentiments L_C - would a mod be kind enough to close this thread.
Curiously enough (diving in before the mods lock it) I find Huntley’s story almost credible, in a way … that is, I can believe he set out with no intention other than to indulge in some nasty fantasy, and found himself dealing with the unexpected consequences of this, in a way which only made things worse.
Of course “I didn’t initially mean to kill them, but things got out of hand, and it seemed the only way out of the situation” is no defence in law against a charge of murder … I wonder how many murders, in fact, are committed for more or less this reason?
Anyway. Jury’s hearing the story and viewing the evidence, I’ll happily leave the verdict to them.
We are in fact discussing Huntley’s story in the “So who wants to have a row?” forum at NADS.
I find the whole thing incredible, in the most fundamnetal meaning of the word. And I think his lawyer needs his head examining.
Another Quicky befoe lock-down!
All for a sensible, fair and just trial, but come on, the enevitable high cost of a trial such as this is a pure waste of time and money.
I don’t care, he commited murder in cold blood, or it was as he puts it an accident. The result is the same, these were 10 year old children, he’s going away for ever. GOOD
Based on the reported exchanges and admissions in court, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he killed both girls. He now stands to receive a literal life sentence, when a guilty plea might have saved millions, avoided the pain of a trial for the families, and reduced this sentence to 20 years or so. I, too, am at a loss to understand why a guilty plea was not entered, although if Huntley simply stuck with this fanciful story throughout then his lawyers would be duty bound to enter an Not Guilty plea for their client no matter how hard they might try to convince him otherwise.
My guess is that Huntley has convinced himself that “it wasn’t my fault really, sort of thing”, and is confident that he will be able to convince the jury of the same thing.
My further guess is that he’s going to be very disappointed. But these are just my guesses.
I find his story strangely credible precisely because it is so improbable.
Doesn’t matter, though. Off to jail for him!
Cheers.
How did the two girls end up at his house im the first place?
Probably because like jjimm, you’re not an experienced QC.
Fwiw, yes, Huntley admits being “responsible” for their deaths. But for the offence of Murder to have been committed, he had to intended to kill them.
And the Jury has to be convinced that he had that intention beyond all reasonable doubt.
At the moment, I think the Defence is doing a good job and the Prosection have only highlighted:
It wasn’t premeditated (the girls approached him)
It had no sexual aspect (Prosecution gave up on this angle)
Huntley has been consistent pretty much all the way through
The possibility (to be explored) of a similar ‘blackout’ experience in the past (the Rape for which he was acquitted)
Huntley was crap at disposing of the clothing (Did he want to be caught . .?)
Why did I phrase that to badly:
. . . the Jury has to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt Huntley intended to kill the girls. That’s better.
I’ve got a guess at Mangetout’s misnomer in the OP: did he muddle him up with Stephen Gateley off of Boyzone?