What is Huntley playing at...??

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hang on....in 2 paragraphs you have set him up as an expert witness (which he would probably never be in a month of sundays), put him in a courtroom, had him savaged by the defence and lost the case for the prosecution! Thats one hell of a leap of imagination!

I don`t know if you haven`t looked at the site Tiptoes was linking too, but he has a track record of tracking cases of child pornography on the web. Since that isn`t something you do as a part-time thing, I think it is fair to conclude that they are responsible in an official capacity for collecting evidence. That evidence would have to be presented in court, both in terms of content and acquisition methods, so I think in that capacity it would be fair to describe Tiptoes as an expert witness.

The situation you have both described in the courtroom is an idealisation I fear, all the while we have an adversarial court system there will be room to present the evidence to cast it in a specific light, and under those situations there is room for personal opinion to "colour" testimony, regardless of any conscious intention not to do so.

[Tiptoes]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I don`t know if you haven`t looked at the site Tiptoes was linking too, but he has a track record of tracking cases of child pornography on the web. Since that isn`t something you do as a part-time thing, I think it is fair to conclude that they are responsible in an official capacity for collecting evidence. That evidence would have to be presented in court, both in terms of content and acquisition methods, so I think in that capacity it would be fair to describe Tiptoes as an expert witness.

The situation you have both described in the courtroom is an idealisation I fear, all the while we have an adversarial court system there will be room to present the evidence to cast it in a specific light, and under those situations there is room for personal opinion to "colour" testimony, regardless of any conscious intention not to do so.

You dont need to colour anything when the details are passed over for processing.

Its not sites... Its people as well.

Much of the evidence isnt actually evidence as you may present but groundwork prior to evidence collection.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Whatever happened to that US marine who took that girl out of the country? Did the press forget the story or did I miss it?

18/7/03
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_det...40-1-9,00.html

3/11/03
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

http://icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/01...name_page.html

A trial date was set for February 12 at Manchester Crown Court.

Back in the news early next year...

[Clairybum]

right.... I'm probbly going to be slammed left, right and centre for this but I'll stick in my 2penny worth anyway.

My opinion used to be that, although Maxine wasn't there at the time of the girls' deaths, she had a lot more to do with their deaths than anyone realised. I had this idea that Maxine was the stronger character of her and Ian (who'd suffered a nervous breakdown in the past). I thought perhaps that she was SO MAD at not getting the job after all the hard work she'd put in that she must have nagged and nagged at Ian about her unfair treartment. When Holly and Jessica showed up, Ian saw some chance, however twisted, of getting revenge on Maxine's behalf (the girls having gone to the school). I even speculated as to whether Maxine may have set the girls up, i.e. invited them to pop by, knowing that she would be safely away at her mum's with the perfect alibi. My theory was that Ian was weak and would do anything for his Maxine.... even murder. I just could not believe that anyone would help invent an alibi and cover up for them in the knowledge that this person has killed 2 ten year old girls where, any normal person would be running to the phone to ring the police.

Having followed the trial... reading the transcripts etc... I've changed my mind completely. Although I do think they both deserve to go to prison based on their actions, I don't think that Maxine is the sinister, nasty person I once thought she was. I think Ian was responsible for both girls' deaths but I don't think the girls were lured into his house, by him, with the intention of killing them. I think something went horribly wrong and once it did, there was no looking back. I think it is possible that the first death was the result of an accident and once that happened, Ian panicked and acted to shut the other girl up, be it vocally or as a potential witness to something that had happened. A rational person would've probably acted very different, starting with not allowing the girls into the house and if they did, reacting to whatever occurred in a different way. Ian strikes me as nervous and weak.... the sort of person who doesn't react well to unexpected situations and who would take time to adjust to new things. Maybe Maxine was like a kind of crutch for him... I reckon he relied on her very much emotionally and would have been quite lost without her. Whether Ian is telling the truth now... maybe not but I still believe something happened which was out of his control and which turned Ian into a man desperately trying to cover it all up and pretend that it didn't happen.

As to what had happened to Ian in the past... all I can say is s**t sticks.... there will always be the people who will still believe something of someone, even when it's been proven to be false and in some areas, it's not easy just to forget and try to carry on.... there are some very nasty people out there who will NEVER forget or let you carry on with your life.... you know... those gossipy little areas where, if you go to the toilet at 9pm, you can guarantee that the little old lady from way up the road will know about it at ten past.

Going back to Maxine... Seeing the scripts of the phone conversations, I kind of tried to put myself in her shoes and I can see a person who is really trying to work out, the same as everyone else is, what has happened to these girls. She's questioning whether what she thinks she knows about Ian could be wrong... like why didn't Ian mention the girls when I spoke to him just 10 minutes after they were there? As for her reactions to the press.... I think there are a lot of people who would have acted the same... I for one hate being the centre of attention and definitely don't like my photo being taken either in general and especially not to be splashed over the newspapers. There was probably a mixture of not wanting publicity, a sense of duty to help and being peed off that they were having reporters etc knocking on their door all day. I don't think reluctance to be in the spotlight should always make someone look guilty.

There.. I'll take a breather now

[Reginald Perrin]

Well, I think that summary is the defences case! it leaves unanswered questions like how and why did Holly die and rests heavily on a kind of assumption that huntley was unable to act responsibly under those circumstances. It might come across differently when the prosecution get going. As per Maxine Carr, I think I agree.

[Clairybum]

Originally Posted by Reginald Perrin

Well, I think that summary is the defences case!.

Yes that's true and probably based on my view that, for a person to be able to murder another in cold blood, especially a child, they'd have to mentally sick so, if they weren't, it would then have had to happen as a result of something gone wrong like an accident. It would be interesting to hear more of his background and, apart from the rape incident, for which he was found to be innocent, I'd like to know if there were any other similar incidents in his life. I don't think I've heard anything as yet. I'm sure if there were any, we would have known by now.

Whatever way I look at it, Ian is most definitely responsible for the girls' deaths.... by letting them into his home he broke the rules which we all have to live by. I'm always dubious about childless people who allow lots of children into their homes. Whatever happened after he did well, the jury will have to decide and I don't envy them one bit. I still wouldn't say that he intended to kill someone that evening (although that's something only he knows). I don't reckon we're dealing with some sort of paedo ring or a serial killer.

There's something I can't make out from todays transcript.... there doesn't seem to be enough time for all that went on in the house between the girls arriving and Ian phoning Maxine telling her he was going to watch a film and have some beers. I don't even think that phonecall was mentioned today at all. Perhaps once Mr Latham gets ahold of him we'll get to hear.

Originally Posted by Clairybum

<snip> It would be interesting to hear more of his background and, apart from the rape incident, for which he was found to be innocent, I'd like to know if there were any other similar incidents in his life. I don't think I've heard anything as yet. I'm sure if there were any, we would have known by now.<snip>

It's quite unusual to hear anything at all about former allegations or convictions during a court case. They may not be reported by the media or even mentioned in court in front of the jury, in case it colours their judgement against the defendant.

I would imagine that in this case, the rape allegation was allowed to be mentioned only because it forms part of Maxine Carr's defence - she lied to cover up for him because she feared he would be wrongly accused 'again'.

[Clairybum]

Originally Posted by towny

It's quite unusual to hear anything at all about former allegations or convictions during a court case. They may not be reported by the media or even mentioned in court in front of the jury, in case it colours their judgement against the defendant.

Looks like we'll just have to wait and see.... I would have thought though, with some papers, something would have been leaked out by now and the jury is usually told to ignore anything they've previously read or heard in the media.

I'm not saying he hasn't done anything in the past just that I'd be interested to hear if he has and what his character is like.

Another thing is the phone conversation between Ian and his mum.... it makes me wonder if she knows something about him mental health wise when they talk of shutdowns etc or if that was as a result of the nervous breakdown he had.

Originally Posted by Clairybum

Looks like we'll just have to wait and see.... I would have thought though, with some papers, something would have been leaked out by now and the jury is usually told to ignore anything they've previously read or heard in the media.

A judge has no choice but to warn jurors to disregard anything they previously heard, because there will often have been news coverage of the original crime.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt that the hacks from all the national papers and TV news know all there is to know about Huntley, including 'previous', if there is any. They are forbidden by law from printing any of it, and editors can go (and have gone) to jail for breaking this law. That's how the system guarantees that even things not mentioned in court will not be reported until afterwards - but watch, if there's a guilty verdict, just how quickly the radio and TV will run reports about every aspect of Huntley's past. It is all carefully researched and prepared, ready to broadcast.

[Tiptoes]

Oh yes........... for whom the bell tolls....

We shall see indeed..