Huntley

[Sisyphus]

So now we've heard Huntley's version of how Holly and Jessica died is there any point in carrying on with the trial? Why not send the jury out and see what they decide.

'Er indoors says it's so implausible that it could be true. Sorry, I have to disagree with her. One girl falls in the bath. Why not pull her out immediately? Why didn't the other girl pull her out or, at least, lift her head above the water? Why try to stop her screaming by covering her mouth with his hand? And last time I tried it on the missus, she continued to breath through her nose. Detached house, no one else in earshot..............

Suppose the QC's will drag it out to inflate their incomes but I really can't see the point. And, normally, I'm all in favour of 'due process'

[Spannerman]

..........ditto, but as you say it has to run its course, more's the pity..........

[Sticky Blue]

I've been waiting for this to come up

He is in a hole and hoping to get accidental death and manslaughter. Why didn't he send one to get the ambulance whilst he pulled the other out of the bath? So many 'ifs'. The Mrs has been reading the transcript every day on sky... put the bastard in a room with the parents for an hour and then let the parents out and shut the door, then brick it up and forget about it. If Carr wasn't there and she is being done for 'covering up'... she is just as guilty, not to the same extent in punishment but I would say 30 years should sort her out!

[Artist]

He and his Girlfreind are both as guilty as sin.

I just hope the familys can get over the evidence. (very much doubt it mind) there but for the grace of God go I. The thought of anyone doing what was done to them poor kids to my kids just makes my blood boil!

There is a lot of talk about bringing back the death sentence, I for one am all for it. When it comes to this sordid little bit of life.

Artist

[JR]

The evil B'stard is hoping for Rampton (mental health Nick),when we all know that if he go's to one of Her Majestys institutions he will be on what is known as Rule 43, that is has to be watched by Prison Staff 24/7,It has been known for a supervising Officer to turn his back,(wink wink)Aye JR

[dannyd]

In Huntley's case I'd rather he was shipped off to a gulag in Siberia and left to live the rest of his life in constant pain and suffering. This is of course after the parents have had their time with him

I don't like the idea the idea of paying for convicted murderers to stay in jail, yet I can't help feeling that the death sentence is the easy way out for them.

Maybe we should have varying standards of prison cells for different crimes, i.e. for a small offence you get a normal cell and basic amenities; for rape and murder you get a hut the size of a dog kennel, with no roof, in the highlands of Scotland, with only a bucket of fish heads every week for food. Or is this too good for them?

[Jon]

Hang the c@#t and his wife. A bigger deterrent is needed!

[Tab]

They say that hanging is inhuman, but why should we pay about £50.000.00 per year to keep him safe and sound, and fed water and entertained. Now if a terrorist that put a bomb on an aircraft which killed hundreds of people only got 27 years, then Huntley will most likely serve even less and will be out on the streets again before he is 50 years old.
I think we should have a referendum on hanging in the next election and let the people chose on what punishments should be dealt out to murders.
Why is it that once an MP get elected they seem to go deaf for the next five years, then promise you the world till they are reelected. Having spoken to my MP about it he just states they he is morally opposed to hanging and thats that.

[Rotary Booty]

There's hanging and there's hanging!

When I was serving in Oman in 1961 we were taken to the town of Nizwa, and while there, to a tall, round, stone building with a flat roof. We climbed the internal, spiral stairs and entered a room with a deep 'well' in the middle, and a metal ring in the roof directly over the well. The ceiling was covered in dark red stalactites (are they the ones that hang down?!) a bit like the ceiling had been heavily artexed. Next to the well was a large mill-stone with a metal ring in the middle of it. A rope was tied to the mill-stone ring, and then passed through the ring in the ceiling, ending in a noose.

We were told that the British Government had told the Sultan that he could no longer execute his people in public by beheading them, as British troops would be offended by the sight. The Sultan asked how the British executed prisoners, and someone described hanging to him. What we saw was his interpretation of the event. In this case the noose was placed around the victims neck, and the mill-stone was pushed into the well!

Here my description of the proceedings must end, and your own imaginations take over.

I wish Huntley was an Omani!

Aye, Derek

[Blue Streak]

I must agree that there is no suitable punishment open to the courts to hand down to Huntley. The sad fact is in the case of Carr that she might only get about 10 years as she had no real involvement at all in the actual murder or depositing of the evidence. All she did was give a false statement and try and clean the house.....Scary thing is she could be out in five years. Talking of over inflated QC's wages l wonder which one of them came up with the story because when Huntley was initially arrested he was never even interview because of his mental state. That person deserves a good slap for the mere fact they are offering him a possible way out as Huntley is forensically f**ked, the only thing that can't be proved is how they died and that was stopped by him setting them alight. The actions of an innocent man....l think not. As defences go l think its fairly poor, another sad fact is that Huntley most probably won't take the stand A because of the naughty questions he would be asked but B and more importantly he could not hide his guilt.[/u][/b]

[Sticky Blue]

If Huntley won't take the stand he should be made to choose... take the stand or stand on the gallows! In the states they have the "Silence is an admission of guilt" thing don't they? I'd say the same in this case.

I've been reading the transcript again today and my blood was very close to boiling point before I'd read the first few lines. By the end I was cloese to exploding!

Like everyone else I suppose I only want to know one thing and I doubt we will ever find it out... WHY?

[Frank S.]

I think the families and friends of the accused should be very thouroughly interviewed to delve into both husband and wife's life history.
I would guess there are bound to exist behavioral signs there that they were going to commit such a crime.
Question to Blue Streak: if this was done, could this be presented as circumstantial and or testimonial evidence at the trial?

[Blue Streak]

The problem with this evidence would be it would be hearsay "Not said in the presense andd hearing of the accused" and is not what is referred to as direct or primary evidence. The only way to bring that out would be through the questioning of Carr. I did hear on the grapevine that they had a strange sexual relationship which would indicate signs of possible abuse type behaviour. The source wouldn't clarify this but it seems about right. I am still pondering a motive for Huntley which l could only presume was sexual and then he realised the extent of what he had done and decided to take there lives. As they knew him he would never get away with it so he thought if he destroyed the evidence and hid them then he might evade capture. Mental health problems have been ruled out....when arrested from the minute he reached custody he just glared and dribbled pretending to be mad....he knew what he had done and someone in the know said pretrial he was showing signs of deep guilt.
In relation to his possible silence as a defendant he cannot be called by the prosecution as a witness because he is the defendant and if the defence don't call him he doesn't go in the box. The caution talks about "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court", well that relates to interview and any inferences drawn from his silences. That means the court will be less likely to believe what he says in court if it was not said in interview. Now l know Huntley was interviewed post Rampton (Post charge) and l think he admitted to everything bar the murder but this will come out in the tape transcript, so watch this space. To get to the point if Huntley doesn't go in the box the court (Judge) will not draw anything from it but more importantly l think the jury will.

[Sticky Blue]

Is this story getting good coverage in the States Frank?
Although not the number of offences of Hindley and Brady the sickness of it is on a similar scale and the punishment should fit the evilness of the crime. I wonder at what other reason he could have had other than 'disposing' of evidence by burning the bodies. The transcript today looked, to my untrained eyes, that his mother was trying to get Carr, or vice versa, to say that the girls suffered with nose bleeds. As they never found any blood, that we have been told about, this seems to be a weak line. If I can see through it I'm pretty sure the jury can and hopefully will. His whole story is so full of holes you could drive and armoured division through it in line abreast!

[Frank S.]

I haven't read or seen anything pertaining to the case in the US media. I only heard about it from UK news outlets.
One reason I'm curious about the couple's background is the nagging idea that this might not be their first homicide. But not knowing quite enough about it, I also think I could be way off. Just wondering.