The Trial of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr
 Court One, The Old Bailey, London
Trial analysis by Joe Vialls,, 19 November & 25 November 2003

 New 1 Dec: Time Warps and Illusions, Click Here
INTRODUCTION
           Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted from their home village of Soham in Cambridgeshire, England, on 4 August 2002, and never seen alive again. Thirteen days later on 17 August, their bodies were found in a drainage ditch only yards away from the perimeter fence at the giant United States Air Force base at Lakenheath in Suffolk, roughly 16 miles north-north-east of Soham. To help describe what is almost impossible to explain with words alone, ten-inch high-resolution aerial reconnaissance photographs and maps of the alleged Lakenheath crime scene are provided on this page. Because of these very large photographs and maps, the page will take a long time to load, but please be patient, the startling imagery is well worth the wait.
             Within hours of the two badly decomposed bodies being found, and without bothering to interview any of the 5,000+ American servicemen based at Lakenheath, police arrested Soham residents Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr for the murders. Despite the remand prisoners pleading not guilty, both were then handled in an appalling manner reminiscent of the illegal American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Those readers seeking full details of this earlier period are advised to scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the links labeled “Holly & Jessica Reports 1, 2, 3” Indeed, in terms of understanding the politically supercharged nature of this extraordinary trial at the Old Bailey, a comprehensive knowledge of past events is considered essential.
TRIAL ANALYSIS
           After more than a year of stalling,  the trial of Huntley and Carr commenced on 5 November 2003, in Court Number One at the famous “Old Bailey” in London. The location itself is the first indication that this trial is of special political significance, because most British murder suspects are tried by perfectly competent Crown Courts scattered far and wide across the land, including the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Without direct political pressure from the British Home Office in London, the two suspects would unquestionably have been tried in a local Crown Court.
            The logic behind the selection of the Old Bailey for this trial lies partly in its fearsome reputation over the years, at least since the present building was opened by King Edward VII in 1907. Some of the more notorious trials held at the Old Bailey this century include Doctor Crippen, the “Yorkshire Ripper” and the Kray Twins of East End fame.  In the absence of any evidence against Huntley and Carr, the Home Office intended to use this fearsome Old Bailey reputation to artificially bolster its case.
            This is not in the spirit of a motto above the  Old Bailey door that reads, “Defend the Children of the Poor and  Punish The Wrongdoer”, but the Home Office didn’t  care about such niceties in this new age of synthetic terrorism. Entirely in accord with the spirit of the illegal American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the Home Office was about to reverse the motto to “Protect the Wrongdoer and Punish the Children of the Poor”. You will now discover this for yourselves, by analyzing the frightening number of blatant legal deceptions by the Prosecution in Court Number One.
            On 5 November 2003, Crown Prosecutor Richard Latham QC, set the tone for the entire trial when he told the jury, "We understand from those representing Huntley it is unlikely to be disputed by Huntley that the girls went into his home shortly after 6.30pm that evening, that Huntley was the only other person there at the time and that they died within a short time of going inside his home” …."It was Huntley who took their bodies to the place where they were found.”
             The defence did not confirm this claim, and Huntley was not even in court to hear it, but the boot was already in with a vengeance. Over the two weeks that followed, this unsubstantiated claim by Latham would become the prosecution catechism, constantly repeated on television and printed in full by at least two [different] newspapers every day, until the British public had been saturated with Huntley’s apparent “confession”. But it was not a confession at all, was it? No, it was just a monstrous legal trick designed to get the media cheerleaders on side, and hopefully subdue the British public.
           “The prosecution case is that these two girls fell into the hands of Huntley shortly after leaving home. For some reason known only to him he chose to murder them both. We allege that he went on to remove the bodies from Soham”.  Latham then went on to say that for this  reason the focus of the trial is likely to centre on whether or not, "it could be construed that the deaths while he [Huntley] was there with them in his house amounted to murder".
            This was another devastating “smoke and mirrors” legal conjuring trick, because one of the most obvious deficiencies in the bogus prosecution case against Huntley is the total absence of any forensic evidence linking Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman to the inside of Ian Huntley’s house. Richard Latham QC knew this of course, so took a neat short cut [for the written court record] by simplistically stating that they were. The media cheerleaders loved him, and broadcast the lie far and wide.
            Does anyone out there believe for a moment that an inexperienced school caretaker could simultaneously subdue two violently struggling 10-year-old girls, kill them one after the other in his own home without a sound, then remove every trace of their DNA to the point where police forensic experts could not find any at all? This is an absolute fantasy, because British police forensic experts are known world wide for their skills. If two girls had been attacked, let alone killed in Huntley’s house, police would have found hundreds of microscopic DNA traces. Alas, they found none.
            Latham was ready for a little skepticism, so the next morning [6 November 2003] he said that a  female detective who had visited Huntley’s house noted that the ground floor was tidy, and that there was a "strong smell of a lemony cleaning product". She also found it “strange” that there was washing on the line when it was raining. Though Latham was obviously using this statement to subtly back up his claim that Holly and Jessica were inside Huntley’s house the night before, we still need to examine the female detective’s statement more closely.
            Since when has it been a crime to keep your house tidy, use lemon-scented cleaning fluid, and forget to bring some clothes in from the washing line? If these items are really cause for suspicion, then half the housewives in Great Britain must also be investigated for murder. Furthermore, there will likely be a huge queue of criminals wanting to purchase this incredible “lemony cleaning product”, which is allegedly capable of removing all traces of DNA from a major crime scene in less than twelve hours.
            According to  Richard Latham QC, Ian Huntley made a "major attempt" to sanitize his car in the days after the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, actions which Latham claim show a man “who is thinking calmly and carefully and is calculating his way forward". These uncorroborated claims include removing an existing boot carpet, changing tyres, and cleaning the Ford Fiesta while others were out searching for the girls, presumably after casually dumping the two small bodies at USAF Lakenheath.
           Once again we are left wondering which of these actions [if true] constitutes an illegal or even suspicious act. Specifically where the boot carpet is concerned, Latham explained that when Huntley bought the car it had a professionally fitted carpet, which had been changed for another piece of domestic carpet by the time police seized the car. It is a [little known] fact that Huntley owns a large Alsation dog, which like our own Alsation :”Archer”, is more than capable of destroying a fitted car carpet completely in a matter of days.
            Years ago we used to take Archer around England in a Ford Cortina station wagon, and he completely shredded the expensive fitted carpet in less than two weeks. My solution was to throw away the tattered shreds of the Cortina’s luxurious shag, cut a piece of cheap domestic carpet to roughly the same size, and throw it in the back of the wagon.  Ian Huntley bought his car in July 2001, and my best guess, which is every bit as valid as Latham’s, is that the Fiesta’s fitted carpet would have needed to be replaced  by August 2001 at the very latest, i.e.; a full year before Holly and Jessica vanished.
            Potentially more damning but equally misleading, was Latham’s claim that on Monday 5 August 2003, the day after Holly and Jessica vanished, four new Sava Effecta tyres were fitted to a red Ford Fiesta at a garage in Ely .The registration was different to Huntley's car but Mr Latham suggested, "The man who turned up asked for a different registration number to be put on the paperwork and slipped £10 to the mechanic in order for that to be achieved."
            Not according to the mechanic in question, who said on the telephone that no such statement was ever made, and no man of Huntley’s description had ever visited the garage. “I’ve seen him on TV dozens of times”, the mechanic said, “I would remember if he had ever been here for a tyre change.” Indeed he would, so more “smoke and mirrors” from Richard Latham QC, no doubt designed to deflect attention away from the most interesting and damning aspect of Ian Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta.
            What about DNA from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman, inside the Ford Fiesta? Remember that Ian Huntley stands accused of throwing both bodies inside the car, then driving sixteen miles across country on rough bumpy roads, before allegedly dumping the small bodies in a drainage ditch close to the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath.
           Short of taking a car to pieces and immersing each individual component in an acid bath, there is no known way of removing all traces of human DNA. Microscopic particles vanish into more than a hundred hidden nooks and crannies, and sit there waiting to be found by diligent police forensic experts. So how many DNA traces of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman did police find inside Ian Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta? None. Not one, meaning that just like Ian Huntley’s house in Soham, the two girls were never inside the vehicle at any time.
            In order to try and “cover” this critical deficiency the prosecution then claimed that traces of chalk and concrete particles used as a surface on the track [at Lakenheath] had been found on the bottom of Huntley's car, and pollen grains found inside the vehicle that matched the area. It was a nice try, but pointless and grossly misleading. Because the total lack of human DNA from either girl proved they had never been transported in Huntley’s red Fiesta, then where or when the car was driven, and what might or might not be stuck to the underside of the vehicle, is completely irrelevant.
            The biggest “smoke and mirrors” prosecution conjuring trick of week one, was unquestionably that of the bright-red Manchester United T-shirts worn by the two girls the day they vanished. Nowadays if you key “Holly Jessica” into the Google image engine, most of the front page fills up with photographs of the girls wearing these famous T-shirts, and there is a natural tendency to believe Holly and Jessica’s shirts are unique. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tens of thousands of Manchester United T-shirts have been produced by the same mill from identical red fibres, to the point where they can be purchased by anyone with minimum effort. Identical T-shirts are available anonymously on the Internet for £29.99
           It is alleged by the prosecution that the Manchester United shirts “worn by the girls were cut from their bodies and burned in a bin at Soham Village College” [where Huntley worked], where they were finally and very conveniently discovered by police on 16 August 2002, though Huntley was not present. . Richard Latham QC said that hairs from Huntley's head had been found mixed in with the clothing in the bin, as were his fingerprints. ,and his fingerprints were found inside the bag. “We say the clothing was in the bottom of the bin, and after the clothing was there the bin liner had been put in it and spread and his fingerprints are on the spreading process, as it were, of the bin liner.”
            This initially sounds like fatal evidence against Huntley, until you realise that despite his fingerprints and hair being found on the inside of a waste bag, which is perfectly normal for a caretaker responsible for ALL waste bags at the college, police forensic experts did not recover any of Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA from these red shirts, which turned up in the nick of time, so to speak. The lack of the girl’s DNA on the shirts proves these were not the shirts Holly and Jessica were wearing when they vanished, but clumsy substitutes. In other words, a person or persons unknown “planted” the shirts, and also planted loose fibres from the same substitute shirts in Ian Huntley’s house.
            In light of this, and were it not so serious, the prosecution’s claim about the red fibres in Huntley’s house would be laughable. Latham claimed that 15 fibres were found on a yellow shirt discovered in the main bedroom, three on a pair of beige trousers, again in the bedroom, and one on a grey fleece also in the bedroom. An extraordinary situation, when you think about it carefully. We know that police found no trace of Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA anywhere in the house, and we know that none was found on the two red substitute shirts, so what is Huntley actually guilty of?
            Huntley is guilty of going about his business lawfully at the college, shedding a few hairs and fingerprints as he went, which then mysteriously found their way into close proximity with two red Manchester United shirts [and fibres from those shirts], which the total lack of DNA proved conclusively were never worn by either girl.
            Before we join the jury for  a visit to USAF Lakenheath at the beginning of week two,  let us close the book forever on the Soham crime scene, by borrowing witness WPC Anna Burton, who actually appeared in court much later on 14 November. WPC Burton is a police dog handler who attended Soham Village during Sunday evening to assist in searching for the missing girls. Her trained tracker dog had Holly Wells' scent, and for a while the pair searched around the village without any success. Then just after midnight, WPC Burton bumped into Ian Huntley near Soham College.
            “It was wonderful to run into the caretaker because he would know the layout of the place and he had offered to help look around”… "I just thanked him and said I was very grateful for his help, particularly because of the fact it was so late” WPC Burton told how she able to ask Huntley about buildings having alarms, and they spent an hour going round the site together, only going inside buildings if they were unlocked, meaning Holly and Jessica could have got inside.
WPC Burton asked him what the hangar building was, where the court has heard the charred remnants of the girls’ clothes were later found hidden in a bin, and was told it was a Groundsman’s building. She asked if he had the keys and was told he did not. WPC Burton  let her dog sniff round the outside of the building, but said it drew no reaction.
            The seminal clue here is not that WPC Burton’s trained police dog failed to react to the hangar building where the substitute red shirts would later be planted, but because the dog completely failed to react to Ian Huntley himself. Remember that the dog was following Holly Wells’ scent, and then came into very close proximity to the man who stands accused of attacking and murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman just a few hours earlier, and is then alleged to have traveled  in a car with their corpses all the way to Lakenheath. Believe me, if Huntley had been anywhere near Holly Wells at any time during the evening, WPC Burton’s trained dog would have picked it up in seconds. So let me repeat that one more time, the highly-trained police tracker dog failed to react in close proximity to Ian Huntley.
            In summary then, before we set off for Lakenheath with the jury, the Soham crime scene has proved absolutely no connection between Ian Huntley, and either Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman. The prosecution claims both girls were inside Huntley’s house, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not. The prosecution claims both girls were inside Huntley’s car, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not. A highly trained police tracker dog following Holly Wells’ scent on the night of the incident, does not react at all when placed in close proximity to the alleged murderer. At this stage, and despite the pompous rubbish being peddled in the Old Bailey by the prosecution, Huntley has no case to answer at all.
           The sub text on the photograph above shows the level of concern that all should feel about this trial. Juries travel to crime scenes in buses on a regular basis, but never in the presence of more than one hundred police officers. So who did the Home Office believe was about to attack these "twelve good men and true" of the Jury? Basque Separatists perhaps, or even the fabled Al Qaeda? The whole thing is nothing more than a distasteful Home Office stunt, designed to get the “right sort” of media publicity.
            We need not bother with the brief Soham part of the visit, because we already know there is nothing there of interest, other than a few scraps of red fibre from substitute Manchester United shirts. So let us bypass Soham, and rejoin the Jury as its members visit the crime scene close to the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath.
            "We suggest that Ian Huntley knew this area really well," Mr Latham said, "Whoever it was who dumped the bodies would not have set off down this track in the dark unless they knew where they were going and what they would find. Whoever dumped the bodies knew it would be a suitable place to hide them and they would be unlikely to be caught in the act. It was an ideal place and he [Huntley] was thinking when he set off from Soham that evening, thinking quite clearly and calmly, not in a panic trying to get rid of those bodies as quickly as possible."
           In the annals of British legal history, in is unlikely that any other Queens Counsel has shot himself through the foot quite so severely with a single long-winded statement like this. Latham’s words are the exact opposite of reality where Huntley is concerned, and this press release dated March 2002 and authorized by Lieutenant Chris Watt of USAF Lakenheath, proves why.
            “Nearly 60 closed circuit television cameras went operational here the first week of March. Placed in all areas around RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell, the anti-terrorism force protection cameras give the 48th Security Forces Squadron increased ability to deal with force protection issues and add another layer of security and safety to the base.
“Now one man can cover several positions at once,” said Master Sgt. Jim Kendall, 48th SFS police services NCOIC. “The new system augments the forces that we already have in place.”
            “Operated by handpicked, trained security forces 24 hours a day, AT/FP CCTV allows security forces to monitor more than forty camera views at once.” In fact, said Kendall, the system has already been used to reduce the time it takes to apprehend drivers that run the gates.
            “We can follow gate-runners with the cameras and record their actions until our forces catch up with them,” said Kendall. “Recording a gate-runner’s actions also helps us monitor a suspect for anti-terrorism and force protection activities.” RAF Lakenheath is the first base in U.S. Air Forces in Europe to install an AT/FP CCTV system, said Kendall.”
            What the press release does not mention is that on the same date, USAF Lakenheath personnel mounted additional armed patrols inside and outside the perimeter wire, 24 hours per day, every day including Sundays and public holidays. Remember that the 60 anti-terrorist cameras were switched on, and the extra patrols started, a full five months before Ian Huntley is accused of “dumping” Holly and Jessica’s bodies into a water-filled drainage ditch, itself within easy range of Lakenheath’s  “always-on” infra-red-capable day and night video cameras.
            It actually gets worse than this, far worse. If you look at the detailed maps and photographs of the airfield carefully, you will notice that the “crime scene” is very close to one end of the active runway, and thus constitutes a suitable firing point for a shoulder-launched “terrorist” surface to air missile. The USAF pays special attention to such areas, with cameras available at all times for their detailed surveillance, with video footage archived for later examination of possible suspects.
            Latham’s claim that, “whoever dumped the bodies knew it would be a suitable place to hide them and they would be unlikely to be caught in the act” is absolutely correct, provided that the culprit knew the precise layout of the anti-terrorist security cameras, their exact fields of view, and the precise timing of the armed patrols around the Lakenheath perimeter. Because the camera fields of view are adjusted on a daily basis, and the timing of the patrols altered constantly for security reasons, the only culprits capable of dumping the bodies in the drainage ditch without getting caught, would be an American [or Americans]  inside USAF Lakenheath, and not just anyone. Whoever it was had access to the anti-terrorist operations schedules, indicating a very high security clearance.
            Perhaps now the Home Office will be prepared to tell the British public why it failed to take action in this regard, and instead decided to deliberately psychologically abuse and “fit up” a man known to be innocent of any crime.
Update 25 Nov 2003
BBC Conspires to Pervert The Course of Justice
           At 6.18 p.m. on 24 November, the Government-controlled BBC issued a sweeping statement that appeared to seal the fate of Ian Huntley, prime suspect in the Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman double murder case. Under the dramatic headline “Huntley Admits Cutting Up Clothes”, the BBC used its huge media weight and perceived public credibility to claim:
            “Ian Huntley has admitted cutting off the clothes of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as their bodies lay in a ditch. His lawyer told the Old Bailey Mr Huntley took the clothes back to the Soham school where he worked as a caretaker, and set them on fire. Stephen Coward QC [for Huntley] said his client put the burnt clothes in the bin inside a hangar, where they were later found. The court has already heard Mr Huntley accepts the 10-year-old girls died at his home”.
            When the BBC printed and broadcast this scandalous statement at 6.18 p.m., they already knew it was a complete lie, and have thus placed themselves and their parent corporation completely outside the law. At the very least, those BBC personnel directly responsible for this blatant deception must be charged with “Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice”.
            Ian Huntley has made no admission about planting clothes anywhere at any time, and, as the BBC also knows very well, has never on any occasion “accepted” that the two girls “died at his home”. Earlier in the day Stephen Coward QC had merely outlined what he deduced the prosecution was trying to claim in respect of his client Huntley and the clothes in Soham College, and made the quizzical nature of his questions very plain by stating on open court “That is at least a possibility, is it not?"
            There is no excuse for the BBC here, because everyone has access to the online court transcripts about once every 15 minutes in real time, and a “mistake” is therefore impossible. The BBC was desperately trying to please someone very high up in the British establishment with its criminal lies and deception, and was certainly not acting alone in these obscene endeavours.
            Almost identical lies were peddled on the same day by Reuters, by the London Independent newspaper, by the Scotsman, and by a host of lesser newspapers and magazines stretching all the way from Canada to Australia. Just like me, every editor and producer had access to the same transcripts coming out of the same courtroom every fifteen minutes, meaning that every editor and producer knew that he or she was printing and broadcasting outright lies, designed to secure a fraudulent and wrongful conviction for the Crown.
            If there was ever a chance for the prosecution to successfully “fit up” Ian Huntley, it was on this day, and in the few days to come, using the generic Manchester United T-shirts so conveniently “found” by police in the hangar building at Soham College, but without a single trace of Holly Wells’ or Jessica Chapman’s DNA on them, a fact openly admitted by Crown Forensic Scientist Doctor Helen Davey.
            Unfortunately for Ian Huntley, this was also the day when the prosecution suffered a severe attack of amnesia about known critical events directly relating to the period of the search conducted in the immediate vicinity of Soham College, and the “Hangar” in which the generic red Manchester United T-shirts were eventually located.
            If you read the court transcripts carefully, it seems as though the hangar at Soham College was the private domain of Ian Huntley, an illusion reinforced by claims that Cambridgeshire police only investigated the hangar after finding the keys in Ian Huntley’s house, after he was arrested. This is absolute rubbish, a fact we will now prove using direct quotes from same mainstream media who are currently trying to bury Ian Huntley forever, on behalf of powerful figures within the British establishment.
            Readers will recall that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing on 4 August 2002, with the generic red Manchester United T-shirts subsequently located either on 16 or 17 August, depending on which report you prefer to believe. In turn this means that the T-shirts remained hidden inside the hangar for 12 or 13 days, a period during which you have been led to believe that only Ian Huntley had access to the hangar..
            Really? Try this from the Daily Mail of 6 August 2002: "Scores of American servicemen from nearby Mildenhall airbase joined in the search of Soham and its college grounds”. And this from the Times of London dated  7 August 2002: "On Monday, hundreds of local people and American servicemen from the United States Air Force bases at nearby Mildenhall and Lakenheath also took part in the hunt. One staff sergeant from Florida, who gave his name only as Eric, said he felt so closely connected with the local community after spending part of his childhood in the Fens when his father was an airman, that he went straight to Soham.."
             This mighty shock wave of military muscle went through Soham College like the grim reaper, including the exclusive “hangar” outbuilding and its contents, but found nothing at all. From this search we therefore know that the red generic Manchester United T-shirts were not there a full 48 hours after Huntley is alleged to have returned from the burial site, and tried to “set fire to them in a bin”.
             Nor does the problem end here. The additional nightmare we build in at this point, is that the very people who should have been investigated for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, viz. American servicemen based at USAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath, had direct unfettered access to what the prosecution nowadays refer to in hushed terms as a critical “crime scene” in the Soham College hangar. The hangar is not a valid crime scene at all, having been contaminated “after the event” by hundreds of unknown people.
            The list of people who could have later stuffed those generic Manchester United T-shirts into a waste bag [obviously] bearing caretaker Huntley’s fingerprints is virtually endless, and certainly includes a range of suspects not merely limited to servicemen at Mildenhall and Lakenheath.
             As the Daily Express reported on 13 August 2002, “Cambridgeshire police are now being assisted [in the search] by 16 other forces as well as the Ministry of Defence and the RAF." And this from the Western Daily Press dated 14 August 2002, "More than 320 officers from 16 different forces, plus British Transport Police as well as RAF and Ministry of Defence personnel, are involved in the hunt."
             At no time before 16 August 2002 was Soham College or its hangar placed off limits to any of these search personnel, and Soham locals advise searchers visited the College and surrounding area many times, certainly until the bodies were eventually located in the drainage ditch alongside the perimeter wire at USAF Lakenheath.
             If you all just sit by and let the British Government and BBC convict Ian Huntley for the gratification of a very sick elite, then you must share joint responsibility for his fate, and the fate of others that will surely follow in his footsteps if the pedophiles in high places are allowed to get away with this test case.
             Though you may think you can do nothing individually, this is simply not true. Get off your backsides and blast the Director General of the BBC by email, fax and registered letter. Demand that he order his quislings to apologize to Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr in television prime time, and further order those quislings to make it abundantly clear that there is absolutely no hard evidence connecting either Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr with the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. The false BBC story is linked here.
Trying to stay one step ahead of the prosecution at a range of 10,000 miles is proving increasingly difficult, resulting in increasing numbers of international telephone calls from five “anonymous” throwaway digital mobile telephones that cannot be traced. Unfortunately this sort of telephone has a voracious appetite for pre-paid phone cards over international distances, and I am having trouble keeping up with the bills. Would anyone who is in a position to help, please make a donation by clicking on the link below, or send what you can afford by snail mail to “J. Vialls”, 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020. Thank you for caring.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051226162556/http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/pedophile2.html

[back]