| Flowers in Gods Garden - Holly Wells
and Jessica Chapman - Documents |
10/12/03 - Soham Trial Transcript
Wednesday, 10 December 2003
SKY News
Richard Latham is the chief prosecutor; his colleague
on the prosecution team is Karim Khalil QC. Stephen Coward
QC is Ian Huntley's defence barrrister. Michael Hubbard
QC is Maxine Carr's defence lawyer. Mr Justice Moses is
the judge. Other witnesses and lawyers are introduced
as they appear.
Page 01
02
Then at the very bottom of the page, "They came in
the house - one of them had a nosebleed, apparently, and
then they left. As far as that's what he told me".
That's what she was told by Ian. But there is a reservation
there at the bottom, is there not, in that phrase "As
far as what he told me". It is at the end of that
conversation that Mrs Huntley says "Don't worry,
I won't drop you in it". and Maxine Carr says "All
right".
Mrs Huntley says "I promise". Members of the
jury, Maxine Carr worked it out. She worked it out from
the information that was provided to her by what he said,
by what she saw, the evidence in front of her very eyes.
She has told you that on the Tuesday evening they discussed
this whole business for an hour and a half and yet she
would have you believe that during that hour and a half
of discussion she never once raised the contents of the
washing machine and/or what was on the washing line.
Yet she admits she was told about the unreliability of
all of those other sightings. Look at her behaviour thereafter.
She withheld her knowledge of the girls being in the house,
she withheld the boot carpet, never told anyone that;
she withheld the washing machine. She tried to lie about
the crib sheet and it was hopeless.
You remember that, in interview? She spent some time going
through a charade in interview, even though she had been
telling the police over and again she was telling the
truth, pretending she had written the crib sheet out,
members of the jury. Having withheld all that information,
she lied to every single person to whom she spoke about
this matter, not just up to her arrest, but right the
way through to the end of the interviews.
She did her best to be entirely convincing and you may
think she is a convincing liar "I should know, I
do your bloody washing". Is she really providing
a reluctant alibi for Ian Huntley? The details she gave
to the woman Detective Constable who took her witness
statement, the reason for being in the bath for so long,
the long chat she had with that police officer. Her ability
to look the camera in the eye, not just Huntley could
do it, she can do it too.
There is material to suggest, members of the jury, that
she worked in concert with Huntley from the moment she
got back, but even before she got back there is material
to suggest she was intimately involved with what he was
up to. I she was told on the Monday that the girls had
been in the house and agreed on the Monday to provide
him with a lying account, and that is what she said, particularly
in that conversation from Holloway Prison, look at what
else she was about in relation to what Huntley did and
we are back to the chronology here.
The Monday morning call immediately after he had spoken
to her, he is out finding out what the neighbours know,
is he not? Immediately after the Monday evening call that
he had with her, he is involved in the Fiesta clean up,
is he not? And on the Monday night call, three minutes
after that ends, it is the Special Constable and the bin
bag incident. She is laundering the hall and dining room
curtains.
There are two rooms we suggest those girls were in. Members
of the jury, you know what we suggest about counts 3 and
4 she is guilty. You only need to account count 5, the
lesser count, if you find her not guilty on counts 3 and
4. You may think those two counts stand together. You
may think it is difficult to say you believed Holly was
murdered but didn't know Jessica was murdered. They stand
or fall together.
Her attitude to count 5, however, is of itself interesting
and goes to her refusal to tell you the truth. She in
effect admits all the constituent elements of count 5,
except she tells you she had, or maintains the position.
She had no intention to pervert the course of justice
because she believed he would become the innocent victim
of the Soham investigation.
that is her explanation, is it not? So she justifies what
she did on the basis she was, in her view, entitled to
lie and deceive as she did in order to ensure as best
she could that suspicion would not fall on him and, far
from having an intention to pervert the course of justice,
she somehow thereby is helping the course of justice.
Yet when I pressed her in it she acknowledged she knew
that what she said, her lies, would get into the system
and that the investigation would advance on the basis
of those lies. yet, she continues to maintain doggedly
that somehow she had no intention to pervert the investigation.
If you think she has continued right through her evidence
to tell lies, that she is still not being frank with you,
you have to ask why.
We say she worked it out, she worked it out from those
key pieces of information - some provided by Huntley orally,
some provided by Huntley's actions which she became aware
of - and they are all pointers, the ones to which I referred,
which cumulatively, we suggest, mean that she worked it
out. It was awful to contemplate; she may have refused
to confront what she had worked out. No doubt she would
desperately have liked it never to have happened, but
that does not stop her being in the position of knowing
or believing that it has.
She had one further piece of information to which I have
made no reference thus far it is a matter for you but
you may think that also must have gone into the reasoning
process which was going on in this intelligent woman's
mind. It was from her own lips, again, during the course
of her evidence and during cross-examination. There came
a time did there not, when she displayed certain aggression
and, indeed, distaste for Ian Huntley? She said words
to the effect of "You don't know him", did she
not?
The real Ian Huntley, as I know him. Precisely to what
she was referring is not clear but you may think she was
a woman who had lived with him for, what, three years
or so and must have known him pretty well. She seems to
infer the character of the man she lived with was something
again which was in her mind. She must within the three
years you may think, for example, have seen him by definition,
as we all do of people we know well, people we live with
- must have seen him in a temper, by definition; in three
years she must have done. "You know how I have described
the type of temper he has on him". If she saw that,
that is yet one further piece of information in the equation,
is it not?
The girls in her own words were, "out of the equation".
nothing could bring them back by the time she was in Soham
and lying through her teeth to everyone she spoke to.
In her own self-interest she had the prospects of a marriage,
the prospects of a baby, a nice home, a new start and,
indeed, the prospect of new employment as a child minder.
unpleasant as it is, we suggest that was her motive.
They were out of the equation, nothing could help those
two girls. She did not want to think about it, the deaths
of those two girls, but she worked it out and she preferred
to do what she could to make the best of the position
she was in - and that involved at all costs protecting
Ian Huntley. We suggest, therefore, that you find her
guilty of counts 3 and 4 on this indictment. Sympathy
as there may be for her in one sense, as I have pointed
out, this was not a spur of the moment decision as we
suggest with Huntley. It exhibits all features of a cold,
rational decision she made.
But, if having considered all material relating to counts
3 and 4 you are not prepared to say you are sure, as of
course you must be before you can convict of any count,
that she knew or believed that he had at the very least
unlawfully killed those two girls, I invite you to turn
to count 5 and there we suggest she simply has no defence
at all. I am sorry I have taken so long, members of the
jury, I am grateful for your patience. We suggest when
you look at this case, the appropriate verdicts on counts
1 to 4 are guilty.
MR JUSTICE MOSES
Thank you very much.
MR COWARD
There is a matter unconnected to speeches I would wish
to raise with your Lordship before lunch.
MR
JUSTICE MOSES
We'll start this afternoon. Is this going to take long.
MR COWARD
No reason the jury shouldn't be back at the usual time.
MR JUSTICE MOSES
Can I say something, a word came to me one or two of you
understandably wanted to know about it the programme I
think will be, I shall certainly start my summing up tomorrow
and you will be going out to start your consideration,
entirely up to you how long you take on Friday. You will
not be staying in a hotel at any stage. Jurors for their
own protection used to be sent to a hotel. You will be
going home at the end of everyday (inaudible). So we'll
go into the weekend in the normal way and carry on on
the Monday or however many days. Thank you very much,
back at two o'clock. Hearing adjourned - will resume after
lunch
MR COWARD
Members of the Jury, (inaudible) as I am by Kleenex and
Lemsip, I am probably the only person in court at the
moment who does not find it very hot. Attempts are being
made to cool the court down. Looking at you, as we have,
over several weeks now, it is possible to get an idea
of your combined age, we are looking at 400 or 500 years
between you perhaps. And that is important, because for
most of your lives you have been talking to people, listening
to them, weighing them up, judging them, sorting out those
who are telling the truth and those not telling the truth.
When summoned to be a juror, you no doubt said to somebody
I am going to be a juror at the Old Bailey so you may
have said I am going to be a juror in the Soham case.
Do not be a juror, be you. It is not some special task
you have to perform. It is your experience of life, everything
you have learned of those years, which we ask you to bring
to bear on everything you have heard in this case; the
emotional pressures involved in the case are obvious,
are they not? We have naturally four deeply distressed
parents.
We have two girls aged ten who were alive and happy, who
are now dead. And inevitably, that imposes great pressures
on everyone concerned with the case. As an aside, do not
be distracted by the fact that they were beautiful, happy,
charming ten year olds. They could have been the nastiest
ten year olds you had ever come across, could they not,
but they would deserve the same verdict from you.
The pressures, of course, do not exist on you only inside
the court. There has been, and you would have to be blind
not to see it, month after month after month, my client
and Maxine Carr in the paper day after day after day.
My Lord, at the very start of this case, said something
absolutely vital to you. It is going to be tough but it
is vital and that is whatever you have read, whatever
you have seen and heard on the television or radio, somehow
you have got to bin that so it plays no part in your deliberations.
I say it is hard, because sometimes things go in deeper
than you imagine, do they not? The facts of this case
have obviously gone deep into the psyche of everyone in
Britain. For many out there who have not heard the evidence
your task is similar lock him up and throw away the key,
they are baying at the door. It is your job to resist
those pressures. You are not representatives of the public
out there; you are the 12 who try Ian Huntley.
You do that by thinking together, keeping together, preserving
a barrier against any outside influence on your decision
and by being yourselves and by being fair; above all by
deciding the case and only deciding the case on the evidence.
What is evidence when you think about it? It is some fact
placed before you, is it not, which tends to suggest the
defendant is guilty, or tends to suggest that he is innocent.
That's evidence of fact.
What is speculation? Certain words give it away when one
is speculating suppose, what if, perhaps, could it be,
let us imagine , I hope that, I bet. When you retire to
consider your verdicts, would you remember that list of
words? You might want to add one or two of your own. Try
to avoid falling into the trap of speculation, because
the essential difference is that speculation is not the
evidence, it is not merely based on the evidence, it is
in a sense ignoring the evidence. Let me explain in a
simple way what evidence is.
A robbery takes place at Barclays Bank in the High Street,
the robber armed with a sawn-off shotgun is wearing a
motorcycle helmet inside the bank. As he rushes out of
the bank he takes off the motor cycle helmet and disappears
from sight. Nearby, is a bus stop and there are three
ladies standing waiting for a bus at the bus stop. Attracted
by the commotion a lady looks up and sees the man and
sees him without the motor cycle helmet on.
It is her nephew, Mark Smith. She was at his christening,
she has seen him regularly, month after month, and only
a fortnight before the robbery he came to her silver wedding.
What sort of evidence is that? Well, it is very powerful
evidence, is it not, that the person who robbed the bank
is Mark Smith. Who better to identify him than his own
aunt? What about lady B, standing next to her? She sees
the man, she doesn't know him, she doesn't recognise him,
but she thinks she could identify him.
So she attends an identification parade where Mark Smith
stands under carefully controlled conditions with other
similar looking men and she picks him out. Now the prosecution
have some evidence against Mark Smith from the mouth of
Mrs B. it is obviously not as powerful as Mrs A because
identifying witnesses can make mistakes.
How long did she have to look at the face? Was she really
concentrating at the time? What were the weather conditions
like? Questions of that sort may undermine her accuracy
in doing the identification. Mrs A, Mrs B, Mrs C. The
reason Mrs C is at the bus stop is that she has lost her
glasses and she is on the way to boots to get a new pair
of glasses, without them she can't see anything more than
3 feet in front of her face.
It is just a blur. She wasn't even aware that a man had
run out of the bank with a sawn-off shotgun. She can prove
no evidence in the case, can she? She can be of no value
to the prosecution or the defence, for that matter. She
may be called as a witness to prove exactly what time
it was she was standing at the bus stop, but that would
be the only help she could give to the case. It might
be tempting to say if A, B and C gave her evidence before
you, I am sure if Mrs C had had her glasses on, she would
have identified Mark Smith but you see what is happening?
You are incorporating into Mrs C a bit of wishful thinking,
because what you know Mrs B says or what Mrs A says.
When you stand back and think about it, there is simply
no way Mrs C can help the jury at all. Picture the same
scene without Mrs A. The prosecution still have a case.
Mrs B has been to the identification parade, picked out
Mark Smith. Picture the same scene without Mrs A and without
Mrs B, just Mrs C on her way to Boots as the only witness.
The prosecution have no evidence, no evidence that Mark
Smith was the robber and no amount of wishful thinking,
hoping and speculation can elevate her into a witness
of fact upon whom the jury can rely.
Her evidence is a blank space, a void. We submit you will
find in this case a lot of blank spaces, a lot of voids
and resist the temptation by improper means to fill the
void. If it is a blank, it is a blank, full stop. What
conclusions thereafter you can draw from the blank is
a different question and I will come to that later. When
you think about this case, one of the critical features
of it is the case against Ian Huntley. In many vital areas
there is no evidence, it is a blank space.
I list but some of them. There will be more that occur
to you as you go through the evidence yourself. 1(i) the
mechanism by which each of the girls died. We do not know.
The actual timescale within which they died we do not
know. Where in the house they died, apart from Mr Huntley
there is no evidence. Mr Huntley - it has been said to
you and rightly so - that he for weeks or months has told
a series of lies, deceptions evasions to a whole variety
of people to whom he has spoken.
The next section of which I want to speak to you is called
digging a hole for yourself. This is the picture about
half past 5 that night you are driving home from your
work on your usual route, you are thinking about something
that cropped up at work, you are not conscious of the
actual speed you are travelling at.
You are passing a line of cars parked bumper to bumper
on the left-hand side of the road when, between two of
those cars, comes something. Before you even register
what it is there is a terrific bang. You have a vague
sensation of something flying through the air and you
are hit with shock and the rush of adrenalin. Your car
has travelled some distance already. You look for somewhere
to pull over, a space - the first space is about 80 yards
from where the bang took place just around the corner.
You get out of your car once you have stopped and walk
back on the pavement until you can see round the bend.
Lying in the road is a boy, 5, 6, 7 years old; people
are already round him doing what they can. What is the
state of your mind at this point? It is in turmoil isn't
it? Questions are pounding away in your head could I have
braked, could I have swerved, why didn't I see him? Was
I going too fast? Did he give me a chance? Was I concentrating
properly? It's all my fault; was it all my fault?
How badly is he injured? As you stand there with these
thoughts racing through your head one of the helpers fetches
a blanket, takes it, places over the young lad. To your
horror pulls the blanket up and over his face. Oh my God,
he is dead. In those few seconds from the bang, that moment,
as you are standing there, you had a choice.
In the few seconds from standing there, seeing the boy
is dead, you have a choice. We all know, don't we, what
you should do? What it is expected you should do, which
is to take a deep breath, walk up to where the boy is
and say "It was me in my car that hit the boy".
You should do that but we are human beings, aren't we,
not robots.
We are all capable of fear, lack of courage and panic.
As you stand on the roadside you miss the moment. You
go back to your car. there is blood, hair and a sizable
dent in it. It was your car. You are not dreaming. You
have caused the death of that boy. You are sick by the
side of your car. What to do. You get back into your car
and you drive off. All the time on the journey to your
home you say what to do, what to do?
When you get home you park your car in the garage as far
in as possible so no-one can go round the front of the
car and see what you have seen. She, your wife, asks you
if you have had a nice day and you say yes. Lie number
one. She tells you she has to go out straight away to
her pilates class and you say you will do a bit on the
computer.
Lie number 2. As soon as she has left the house you are
out in the garage scrubbing and scrubbing and scrubbing.
You have still got the dent. You remember a mate at work
told you previously about a car mechanic who works at
night under the railway arches, he is a bit dodgy but
he does not ask any questions. So you drive to the workshop,
ask him to fix the dent, saying you had a prang when you
were out with another woman and you do not want your wife
to know about it.
Lie number 3. The workshop man asks for your name and
address, you give a false name and address. Lie number
4. You ask him to put a false registration on the documents
and in his books so that there is no come back to you.
He does the job, you pay him cash so there is no trace
from your credit card. Your wife comes back from the class
saying she has heard there has been a terrible accident
on the High Street about 5.30. Did you see it? no.
Lie number 6. I went the Saint Andrews Road way; I wanted
to pick up a computer magazine from the shop there, but
they didn't have one. Lie number 7. You lie awake all
night and really are in no fit state to go to work the
next day, but you do because it might look suspicious
if you didn't. Of course everybody at work is talking
about it and you feel you have to join in the general
sadness so as not to stick out like a sore thumb.
Then a real hammer blow, someone in the office tells you
it was Ken Jackson's lad. You know Ken Jackson. His firm
supplies stationary to your office. You usually deal with
him when he comes. Somehow you get through the day and
you steel yourself to drive the High Street route. There
on each side of the road are those signs. We are all familiar
with, accident, date, and time. "If you have any
information to help, contact this number". But it
is too late now, isn't it? You have burned your boats.
You worry whether a CCTV camera is on that bit of the
High Street. Whether it would have picked up your registration
number. For the next fortnight the nightmare goes on when
anyone says what a tragedy it was, you agree because in
fact it is true; it was a tragedy. When someone says,
"I would string the bastard up who did that",
you find yourself nodding in agreement.
Then one day at the office there is Ken Jackson, the boy's
father, looking awful but no doubt thinking work might
take his mind off what has happened. You walk over to
him and offer your sympathy. You have to really. Part
of you wants to tell him but by now you are so deeply
entrenched in lies that anyone looking at your behaviour
over that fortnight is likely to say that you are devious
cold, callous, evil.
In fact you are not, you are scared stiff what was bad
enough on the day it happened is now 50 times worse. You
had a brief period when you could have faced up to it
and you blew it, you blew that chance and now you feel
in your bones that no-one will ever believe you. Is that
scenario unrealistic? Are there not human beings who have
done exactly things on those lines? There are, aren't
there?
They are not all necessarily bad people, evil people,
or callous people, they were weak, they were foolish and
they have dug a hole for themselves and the more it went
on the deeper they dug and the harder it was to get out
of the hole. It is easy for all of us to say, "He
shouldn't have done what he did, he should have owned
up straight away. I would have owned up straight away."
Are you absolutely confident that on the scenario I have
presented, absolutely confident that you would?
You see, it is easy for us, for anyone with the benefit
of hindsight, to take the high moral ground, because we
know, don't we, what we should have done? But human beings
are then thrown into a situation they never dreamed could
happen, it is on the cards, isn't it, that some will not
have the guts to do what is best, what is right. Are you
sure that you and everyone you know would react in the
same way faced with those facts?
In my submission one can't be sure. One has to look at
what happens, what sort of person you are dealing with
and whether his account of how he got into the hole makes
sense or not. As I said earlier, half of you in that situation
wants to be caught, (inaudible) it? Half of you wants
to come out, but the other half is trapped in the face
of your own lies. Pausing there for a moment and thinking
to the situation at number 5.
If what Ian Huntley has told you is right, or may be right,
as to the death of those two girls, what a mind blowing
situation that must have been. In less than five minutes
of meeting two nice girls, you have two dead girls in
your house. I mentioned something about hindsight. I want
to look at various aspects of hindsight in this case,
because in our submission it has an important bearing
on how you view witnesses who gave evidence before you.
In events as terrible as this, there exists in all of
us does there not, a natural desire to help the cause.
Something dreadful has happened, we wish to be seen to
be helping. Maybe a number of witnesses that came before
you were caught up, whether consciously or sub consciously,
by the same desire to help. Remember this not one single
witness statement was taken by the police from anyone
in this case, other than Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr,
before Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley went off with the police.
Not one.
Why is that important? It is important for this reason
if you do not know that someone is suspect number one
and you say something about him, it is likely to be right.
It is likely to be balanced, it is likely to be fair,
is it not? If you make for the first time a statement
after Mr Huntley is in police custody, then your mind
set is different. Your mind set is, got him, what do I
remember, what did he say? But your mind set is you are
looking for things which would help the prosecution forward.
It is natural. It is human. Everyone is trying to help.
You may think Debbie Tubby was a classic example of someone
trying to help. She is media trained. She spoke with Ian
Huntley on the 8th August and gave you a detailed account
of what she claimed Ian Huntley had said to her. On closer
examination it appeared when she came to court at first
she brought with her her second notebook, which did not
actually cover the date of the 8th August at all.
When she came back with the correct notebook on a later
occasion, it appeared she had very extensive notes of
a press conference on the 5th August, but what she had
to say about Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley in the whole
of that notebook could be written on the back of a postage
stamp. Out of them comes the full blown account that was
given to you. Are you confident it is right or is it very
much the product of hindsight?
Special Constable Goldsmith, one of the special constables
there on 5th August. It is about 11 o'clock at night and
he said he saw some scratches on the defendant's face.
They spoke about it, he said, between the two of them
and he said it was the dog that scratched him in a play
fight. There are other special constables there. None
of them spoke of such conversation. None of them claimed
to have seen those scratches.
It becomes even more unlikely when you remember the Detective
Constables Warren and Taylor actually saw the defendant
on the same day, 5th August, in number 5. They got there
about one o'clock. They were with him until about half
past two. there were no marks on him. There were a number
of witnesses who saw the defendant on the 6th, 7th and
8th. Not one of them has claimed to see any mark on Mr
Huntley at all.
There, regretfully, was an officer trying to too hard
to help, wasn't it? One notices that he has not featured
in the closing speech at all. Even my learned friend Mr
Latham, fair as he is, has himself fallen into the trap.
Do you remember when he was dealing with the searching
witnesses? An expression he used in asking questions of
them about the hangar was, which was of particular concern
to you, the searchers, in which the police were particularly
interested. Were they? on the day of the 7th? No, they
were not.
The hangar was no different from the 20, 30, 40 other
buildings on this massive site. It became significant
once the Manchester United tops had been found, but it
was of no more interest to the searching officers than
anywhere else. One final little matter and it shows how,
in a sense, the (inaudible) goes further. You remember
Mr Blackmore, the forensic scientist who came to look
for signs of fire inside the hangar.
As a scientist he deals in facts and should base his conclusions
upon his expertise as applied to those facts. it is his
job to be strictly neutral. He is not a witness for the
prosecution, even though he is called by the prosecution.
Do you remember what he said about his examination of
the roof of the hangar? He said, "Unfortunately"
he can find no evidence of smoke deposits on the under
side of the roof.
He apologised for the word, "unfortunately",
and said it was a slip of the tongue. It obviously was
a slip of the tongue, but doesn't it reveal - in just
one word - how in a case as emotionally charged as this,
everyone - everyone - finds it difficult to be truly neutral?
Then I come, under the hindsight category, to Sergeant
Nelson, the lady police officer on crutches. You were
fortunate in the way events panned out on that particular
day, because earlier than the evidence of Police Sergeant
Nelson, you had heard from Mrs Susan Hurrell - you remember,
that Mr Huntley spoke to - she was there with her two
daughters and her daughters came and gave evidence as
well.
So you had heard what they had to say when Sergeant Nelson
began to give her account. And dramatic stuff it was,
was it not? Mrs Hurrell told me the girls had been seen
by the caretaker and Susan Hurrell pointed to Ian Huntley
who was 8 to 10 feet away. "I pointed at him and
virtually shouted 'You, here'". Did it happen? Did
anything like that happen? Because you heard, and you
just heard, what Susan Hurrell had told you. "Mr
Huntley told me he had seen the girls.
I got excited, said we must go tell the police officer.
He was a bit reluctant. We went to Police Sergeant Nelson,
we went to her. He began to speak but spluttered a bit.
'I tried to tell her', he said. She stopped me and said
'I want to hear it from him'. He floundered again, I interfered
again and she sent me away." Had you not heard from
Mrs Hurrell, only from Sergeant Nelson, it might have
appeared impressive evidence from her. She even remembered
he had got after shave on.
Having heard the Hurrells, are you sure you can accept
Sergeant Nelson's account? It is not until 21st August
she put in a written statement that she claimed she had
heard and seen and done on the night of 4th August. In
evidence to you Sergeant Nelson began by saying she didn't
make a note of the time of what Ian Huntley had said,
which was decidedly odd because minutes before Sergeant
Nelson had come into the witness box, Michelle Hurrell
had said to you "I do remember the police sergeant
writing down what he was saying." Sergeant Nelson
had nothing in her pocket notebook.
She said with hindsight it would have been good idea to
write down what Mr Huntley was saying. She said she wrote
down on pieces of paper which were handed to a police
inspector. She had hunted for them since, but they have
not turned up. Who is your money on? Which account of
those do you accept? It is a perfect example of trying
to help. There is another area where exactly this comes
to the fore and that is the question, was there was a
second visit to the deposition site?
For a period of time it seems the prosecution were quite
keen on the idea there was a second visit to the site.
They even fixed on a date, 7th August, because a call
was made on that date to Maxine Carr's mobile from Mrs
Gollings home at Lakenheath. In support of the theory
that Ian Huntley had gone back to Common Drove, as Miss
Patricia Wiltshire had claimed
Transcript
edited by Sky News
MR COWARD
That was wrong because those orange boots were taken from
Mr Huntley in custody at Huntingdon police station, following
his arrest at his father's house. At his father's house,
at Littleport, was a blue top, some blue work trousers,
and some work boots, whose were those? Mr Huntley was
shown the boots and said, "They are my work boots."
All those were found in the hallway at Littleport.
Mr Huntley - the police had to wait for him to come from
work to go with the police, on the day that he went with
the police and he never went back to number 5. From that
moment onward number 5 was a search area. So he goes to
the police in his work clothes, the work clothes, including
his boots. What has happened? Obviously before he is arrested
and gone to the police he has changed into some different
clothing, which no doubt his father provided for him.
Fortunately Detective Constable Taylor who was with Detective
Constable Warren at number 5 remembered the detail of
the boots that he was wearing on 5th August. They were
Brasher boots and you have seen those. Nothing was ever
found on the soles of the Brasher boots to connect them
in any way with the Drove. The final destruction of the
two visits theory came in the document with 5 admissions.
It is one that is important, the one beginning, "No
police officer." "no police officer or anyone
connected to the prosecution has any record or recollection
of Patricia Wiltshire notifying them....".
MR JUSTICE MOSES
Some people have not found it, don't worry I will help
you find it, we'll number all these, make the point again
so they are following it.
MR COWARD
I will read the whole thing, members of the jury. No police
officer or anyone connected to the prosecution has any
record or recollection of Patricia Wiltshire notifying
them on a second path to the deposition site at any time
in 2002." That's goodbye, isn't it, to a second visit
to the site? Mrs Wiltshire's memory was that she told
a scenes-of-crime officer with an earring.
I know we live in modern times but I suspect not all scenes-of-crime
officers wear earrings and still there is no one who says
she reported that to him or her. One final point about
that if you think about it. He changed the car tyres at
Ely, because he may have left tracks from the old tyre
down the Drove, and you get your new tyres on and go down
the Drove on the new tyres for the second visit. It doesn't
make sense, does it? I want to turn now, members of the
jury, to a, in a sense, side issue - but I want to get
it out of the way and do not want to overstate the importance
of it.
This is not certainly on behalf of Ian Huntley, an attempt
at character assassination of the co-accused Maxine Carr.
But it would be wrong to leave the position as it is without
a few comments. What is said on behalf of Mr Huntley is
said more in sorrow than in anger. Was there not a hint
of climbing on the bandwagon by Maxine Carr in what she
said to you?
A touch of helping yourself and also of, at the same time,
making things more difficult for him? Creating distance
between yourself and him so the Jury may look at you better
than they otherwise would? There are one or two aspects
of her evidence, which you may find quite astonishing.
She said in evidence to you when we got back from Grimsby
on Tuesday, 6th August, the washing machine was full.
"There was a duvet, cover for a duvet. I think
the mat out of the bathroom. He doesn't normally use the
washing machine. The bed in the main bedroom had the winter
duvet on and a cover." The prosecution say these
are statements against interest by Maxine Carr. Are you
sure they are, or is it simply just to create a bit of
distance between yourself and the position of Ian Huntley?
One of the points that come ringing out at you from his
new account of Maxine Carr.
One thing you can say about Ian Huntley, he is not a modern
man, is he? He only washed up twice in all the time they
had been together. it makes some of you feel comparatively
virtuous. She is cleaning mad, she covered the carpet
in the dining room when polishing the dining room table
underneath. Are there any underneath dining room table
polishers in court? You can bet there are not.
She cannot have missed the washing machine can she when
she got home, because she would have had her dirty clothing
from Grimsby that she would have to wash herself. So to
put those in the washer she would have had to take out
anything that was already in. By the way, do you reckon
you could get a double bed duvet cover and bath mat in
a washing machine?
She also said "I put the original duvet cover out
of the washing machine when it was dry back on the bed
and I never thought of a woman having anything to do with
it at that stage." Most important of all, you will
look in vain for any mention by Maxine of this full washing
machine when interviewed at great length by the police.
Let us have a look at where she deals with the topic.
The grey file. If you turn to the section dealing with
her interview, I think you begin at page 66. Page 66,
about 8, 9, 10 lines down "Who cleans the house?
Is that your job? Me, that's my job. Does Ian who any
cleaning at all? No, oh he has washed up twice. You can
probably tell me which days he has washed up - if it's
that few? No, he has washed up twice", and she actually
gives details of the two days when he has washed up. Turn
on to page 71, right at the top of 71, the first answer
from Maxine Carr "Well, Ian doesn't know how to use
a hoover.
There were pots in the sink, not that many. Sadie obviously
would be on heat but Ian is not going to go round with
a scouring pad and clean it? I had all that to do, I had
my own washing and washing for Ian to do as well".
Isn't that the moment when you say, if it is true I took
out of the washing machine the washing that Ian had been
doing and I put mine and I put his dirty stuff in, not
out.
Bottom of the page, Maxine Carr "Down there where
he has been watching telly - obviously the sitting room
- his ash tray, he's just not one of those that goes round
after himself and does it. I do all of that. Is there
any other difference to the police, I mean I think you
mentioned yesterday, whichever it was, he 'something'
about the bath?" This, if she is telling you the
truth, is the one and only time that this slob - and I
use the word advisedly - has ever used the washing machine
and somehow it doesn't seem to feature. Turn on to 83
by the bottom punch hole.
Officer "Okay, all right, I might have already asked
but, forgive me if I have, was there anything you noticed
different about the house when you got - apart from the
state of it obviously, yes, with him not having cleaned
up - anything different you noticed about the house? That
wasn't before I went away? That wasn't before you went
away, yes. Anything new when you came back? Anything new
in the house? "
Another perfect opportunity, isn't there, to say, oh,
Superman had managed to use the washing machine. Not a
word. Finally on this topic page 112, near the top punch
hole, it is the same point "what did you do the next
day? I did all my washing from like being away and Ian's
washing." No mention of anything being in the washing
machine. So where has it come from? Why has it come in
evidence? What is the purpose of it? I leave you to work
that out. The second area concerns the carpet in the boot.
Ian said the factory one was dirty and smelly and he took
it out before, sometime before the events we are concerned
with - May, June, something like that.
That was his evidence; he said it from the witness box
there. We have procedure, following from (inaudible) dispute
the evidence that is given. It is part of counsel's duty
to say to the witness that's wrong, the carpet was only
changed while Maxine was away in Grimsby. No suggestion
was ever put to Ian Huntley that what he was saying was
wrong. What conclusion can you safely draw from that?
Whose idea was it to give the false alibi? Maxine Carr
in evidence "He said it would be so much easier if
I had been in the house. He said just tell anyone who
asks you were here". You must have been slightly
puzzled at the time that was actually given and perhaps
there was no opportunity then to flick back to what Maxine
Carr had told the police in 166 pages of interview. let
us do it now. Can you go back to pages 3 and 4? About
five or six lines from the top "I mean all my family
can vouch for me.
They have been ringing the station telling you that, you
know telling them she was in Grimsby, so I had to tell
you that and even Ian has told me to tell you that. he
told me yesterday when he was being held at a Holiday
Inn place. Told you to tell us what? Just to tell the
truth." Then the bottom of the page "When did
you decide to tell a lie?". She talks about the date
on which that happened and then by the top punch hole
"Didn't lie because I wanted to protect him from
you lot, not in the way, not in anything to do with the
girls. I just wanted to protect him from having all his
past thrown back in his face.
Did you tell him you had gone and lied for him? You are
moving your head, Maxine. Yes, sorry. When did you tell
him that? When I got back on the Tuesday and he wouldn't
have any of it. You say he wouldn't have any of it? He
wouldn't have any of it. He wouldn't have me saying anything.
He was so upset and then when the police officer came
round, I don't know where she came from, when she came
round she took me into another room and then it just,
then I just gulped it is obvious isn't it.
I took in a deep breath, I put forward a lying alibi then
he said to me, when I come out, I said I told him I was
there, all the details. He told me I told him. The only
thing I said was I was in the bath. I weren't in the bath,
I weren't in the house which is probably a lot. Then he
sort of went into 'well you have told the police now,
what are you going to do next time'?" Right at the
bottom of the page.
"He said 'now if you
get arrested, Maxine, you tell them the truth, you tell
them that you weren't in Soham, you tell them where you
were'". There is a repetition of that conversation
if one wishes to make a note of it at, 89, 90 and 91.
It is the same conversation she is saying, "I raised
the idea of putting forward an alibi, I was the first
one to do it with Detective Constable Warren, and I told
Ian I had done it when I came out of the room with the
officer." It has changed, has it not? Why? You work
it out.
She also suggested that she said to him, "Why don't
you go to the police and tell them about Grimsby, and
then you come out in the open with me and it will deflect
any suspicion off you." It is a very interesting
suggestion, is it not? This does not appear anywhere in
166 pages.
Transcript edited by Sky
News
But the matter above all which I think will throw a flood
of light on the relationship, and Maxine Carr's position
in relation to Ian Huntley, is the suggestion that the
police had the nerve to put that she was under the thumb
of Ian Huntley. you will no doubt remember when we were
going through the interviews exactly how she responded
to that over and over again. I will just remind you of
the jewel in crown, page 156, just above the top punch
hole on 156, the other references are at 119 and 192 "Have
you been a victim of some sort of abuse by Ian?
No, I haven't been a victim of any bloody abuse by any
bugger. Well, you don't want to believe anything bad of
Ian? But there ain't anything bad of Ian, that's why.
except his fingerprint are on that bag. Are the fingerprints
on the clothes - who had access, what sort of hold has
he got over you, Maxine? He ain't got any flaming hold
over me. God you, you people just push and push and push".
Well, you saw her, you saw her over a long period of time.
Do we have some shrinking violet here, members of the
jury, in the body of Maxine Carr? We have a thoroughly
modern woman, mistress of her own mind. It is against
that background that she made you should judge what she
has had to say to you. My Lord, I would be grateful for
a short break.
(Short adjournment)
MR COWARD
It is an easy suggestion to make. You may remember when
I was putting questions to Dr Cary, I put to Dr Cary Mr
Huntley's case as to what happened in the bathroom. When
I had finished putting it, my Lord said to you, members
of the jury, a word of warning here, it is counsel's duty
to put his case to the witness but that is only counsel's
suggestion, it is not evidence in the case.
Equally, the prosecution saying we say that there is a
sexual motive is only a suggestion. Where is the proof?
Aren't the Crown in a sense putting the cart before the
horse here? In effect, are they saying because you had
a sexual motive you murdered these girls? Or are they
saying, because you murdered these girls you must have
had a sexual motive? We say this is a classic (inaudible)
situation. In the Second World War or shortly thereafter,
there was rationing, I say would go round if we had some
eggs we could have eggs and bacon if we had any bacon.
Beware the prosecution logic in this part of the case.
It doesn't make sense. What makes sense is the evidence.
What is the evidence? What might the prosecution have
been able to point to as a basis for the suggestion that
there was a sexual motive? Ripped clothing? Missing pants?
Missing bra? Semen on pants? Semen on other clothing.
Semen on specimens taken from the two bodies from an area
where semen was not to be found. Semen in the house. Semen
in the car, the Fiesta.
Evidence that the girls had been drugged. Well, where
is it? There is none, is there. Not one single shred of
evidence. The clothing, apart from where it has been cut
with scissors to remove, no sign of damage. Pants, obviously
still on the girls at the time cut off at the deposition
site. Stop and think about that one. What is the suggestion?
That you sexually interfere with the girls then put their
pants back on before you take them to the deposition site?
No damage to the pants at all except where they had been
cut.
The bra is there. All the clothes are there together.
It is not as though there are any missing clothes at all.
No semen on the pants and you can bet your bottom dollar
the forensic scientists looked. One sperm so would have
transformed the case for the prosecution and none they
are tiny, not one. No semen found anywhere at all.
There is no evidence, we are back to Mrs C at the bus
stop. You can't make it up and say must have been, I bet
there was, I bet there was a sexual motive because there
isn't any evidence of it. But there is one difference
with Mrs C at the bus stop. The absence of evidence can
at times be important in circumstances where you would
expect to find it. It is a significant feature of the
case, isn't it, that tends to suggest Ian Huntley is telling
the truth.
What is the position if you say, well, I can't possibly
work on the basis there was a sexual motive because there
isn't a bit of evidence to support it. Suddenly, dramatically,
this becomes a different case. It means that two girls
could have come into that house for an innocent purpose
and somehow died. What earthly reason can there be though,
that the two girls go into number 5? It is obvious, is
it not? It is so obvious that you will have spotted that
it it has not even received a mention in the Crown's closing
speech.
Funny that, is it not? One of them had a nosebleed. Mr
Huntley said that, both in his evidence in court and to
his mother when she visited him at Woodhill in October
- note, October. It seems that he told his mother and
Maxine that it was the dark-haired one. We know the dark-haired
one is Jessica. So what? Is he psychic?
He told Maxine Carr that in August 2002 one of them had
a nosebleed. He told his mother in October and the police
listened to the tape that was recorded at Woodhill police
station, no doubt with great interest, and there he was
talking about the dark-haired one having a nosebleed.
So what did the police do?
On 13th November they went to see Mrs Chapman, because
Jessica was the dark-haired one. No doubt the prosecution
were delighted to catch Ian Huntley out in a lie because
Mrs Chapman was able to say Jessica doesn't suffer from
nosebleeds. Jessica never has suffered from nose bleeds
- so, things are looking good for the prosecution. But
somehow, someone, perhaps in order to dot every I and
cross every T, thought We'll really nail Ian Huntley on
this because we'll check with Mrs Wells as well, and if
we get two mums who say "no nosebleeds", then
he is lying, isn't he?
So on the 19th November Mrs Wells is approached. Oh dear,
lo and behold Holly did suffer from nosebleeds and had
done for some years. But it becomes more significant because
Holly had not had one in the whole of 2002, according
to her mum - and her mum should know - and had not had
one reported in the school sick book since 1997. Maxine
had only started working with Holly and Jessica in February
2002.
No nosebleeds in that year, says mum. What an amazing
coincidence, isn't it, that a girl who is not known by
Maxine Carr to suffer from nosebleeds, but she had not
had one at school since 1997, who had not had one in 2002,
until August, turns out to be someone who does suffer
from nosebleeds. Is it sheer coincidence? No, it is not,
is it?
You may remember, it is such a small point, but it may
have its significance, the prosecution served, as part
of their case against Mr Huntley, the statement from Mrs
Chapman to say that Jessica did not suffer from nosebleeds.
They did not serve, as part of their case, Mrs Wells saying
that her daughter did suffer with nosebleeds.
A long time ago the evidence of Mrs Wells was read out
to you and there were several statements. I asked my learned
friend to read the statement of 19th November. It was
at our behest you heard that, and that was the nosebleed
statement. The reason the girls went into the house is
clear, is it not? There is a sensible explanation for
it, that, as it turned it was Holly. Holly suffered a
nosebleed, and Ian Huntley tried to help.
A lot has been made by my learned friend of the inappropriate
behaviour of inviting two girls into your house. Inappropriate
behaviour? Go through this sequence; Holly has a nosebleed.
Mr Huntley invites them in, they go to the bathroom, two
go into the bedroom while Jessica goes to the toilet,
all go back in the bathroom, nosebleeds stops, Holly and
Jessica leave the house and go home, Holly tells her parents
what Ian Huntley has done.
What do the parents do? Either they get in touch with
the headmaster, Mrs Bryden and demand that he be fired
as caretaker because it was inappropriate to have two
girls in his house and upstairs and on his bed, or they
put a note through the letterbox of number 5 saying Mr
Huntley, thanks very much for the help you gave to Holly.
What is your money on? It is a classic case, isn't it,
of the prosecution looking through twisted eyes at what
may well have been totally innocent and looking with the
benefit of what happened afterwards as to what caused
it to happen in the first place. They treated it as sinister
from the start and we submit there is evidence - and it
is the only evidence there is - which suggests it was
entirely innocent from the start.
So, if it could be that those girls were not lured into
the house for some sexual motive - stopping there for
a moment, can you think that one through? You have two
vigourous ten year olds and you are planning to sexually
assault them. How? Two? You are going to have to kill
them, as Mr Latham put it to you. So you see the girls
outside and think, oh, I fancy those, and I'm going to
have to kill them when I have done what I have done. Does
it make sense? It doesn't, does it?
Always look, please, for the simplest explanation, because
the simplest explanation most often is the right one.
So if no sexual motive is proved, the Crown are forced
back on the evidence of Dr Cary the pathologist, and never
can that pathologist have a more thankless task to fulfil.
At the end of the most careful examination he had to say
the cause of death for each girl was unascertainable.
He was forced to speak in positive tones in part so that
he could say what the girls did not die from.
They were not shot, stabbed, no major blunt injury, no
fractured bone in the body. What he was left with then,
none of which he could pick, were the possibles strangulation,
suffocation, vagal inhibition, pressure on the nerve on
the neck, and drowning, wet or dry drowning. But he could
take you no further forward on those because he found
no positive signs of anything to indicate which of those
it might be.
No damage to the voice box, no bruising of the voice box
could be detected; no bruising around the mouth could
be ascertained, no foam in the mouth which you often get
when a person has drowned. The state of decomposition
was such that a lot of things that otherwise he might
have been able to establish he simply could not.
Not one single bruise was found on either girl. No bleeding
beneath the skin was found on either girl. Nothing. There
was no mark that Dr Cary could point to on either of those
girls which said to him this is that. Not one. You might
say, yes, but Mr Huntley created that situation because
he took the girls to the Drove, set fire to them, which
helped to destroy some of the evidence.
They were allowed to decompose by nature's course, and
he deprived the prosecution of getting the vital evidence
of how they had died. There is a snag about that. It might
equally have deprived Mr Huntley of the evidence which
supported his account of how they died. If the bodies
had been in better condition and Dr Cary could say no
strangulation, there is no evidence of it, suffocation,
no bruising round the mouth at all, no foam in the lungs,
then you have got one situation.
But if he said I looked for positive signs that one of
these girls may have drowned and did find some foam in
the nostrils and around the mouth, then that would be
some indication of drowning, would it not? So Mr Huntley
has been as robbed of possible facts as the prosecution
have been robbed of possible facts. going through the
various possibilities, Dr Cary was careful in the main
to try to be absolutely neutral with what may have happened.
You remember he talked about a peculiar, unusual scenario,
of three people in a relatively small bathroom.
At one stage he talked about a lifeguard, because, members
of the jury, a lifeguard is there for a job and his job
is to get out of the water people who are in difficulty.
That is an alian situation. What happened here on the
basis of what Mr Huntley had to say? All we would submit
is this is it possible that Holly did fall over backwards,
maybe going to the right as she fell into the bath? She
is not the full length of the bath in height, is she?
She is very small. She would not jam in the bottom of
the bath.
And bang her head in the process and her head go under
the water. Remember the water level has gone up because
she is in it. As Dr Cary explained to you, one of the
curses about being very drunk you do not sense you are
in the water and continue breathing. One of the problems
about being unconscious, your brain is not telling you
you are underwater, so you continue breathing.
He said of dry drowning, which this quickest form, usually
this occurs in cold water. that became rather stronger
later in evidence where he said you have to have very
very cold water. They are not quite the statements. It
is rare, he said, we rarely come across dry drowning.
Vagal inhibition can kill someone in seconds. Equally,
it is very rare.
There is a danger, isn't there, of trying to do a sort
of multiplication here and saying two rare events cannot
happen. There is recent experience of this which you may
be familiar with with regard cot deaths. two babies of
the same mother died, and attempts being made to express
in betting terms what the odds are of two children from
the same family dying a cot death. There are real dangers
about that approach.
Because something is rare does not mean it cannot happen.
Rarity is not an answer to the defence case unless the
Crown can put forward positive evidence that that suggestion
cannot be right, and we submit they have not and cannot
put forward that positive evidence. I have already indicated
that so far as Ian Huntley is concerned everything he
did, including going to the deposition site with the girls,
setting fire to them, taking the clothing, can be explained
on the basis of someone who had a moment to decide, got
it wrong and once he was committed on the path he was
on, it just got worse and worse.
The lies are (inaudible). What you might wish to look
for is any piece of behaviour by Mr Huntley which says
to you this does not just prove manslaughter, that he
was guilty of manslaughter, that he had done something
terribly wrong amounting to manslaughter, but proves additionally
that he intended to kill, or intended to cause really
serious injury. You might have waited, no doubt you have
waited in vain, as it turns out, for an indication from
the prosecution that any of the behaviour proves murder
rather than manslaughter.
They have, we submit, pointed to none, because the same
state of mind of panic and fear and cover-up can apply
in both situations, can it not? I want to turn now before
I come to my final conclusions to a curious aspect of
the case. It is one perhaps have you not thought about,
but when you begin to, maybe it casts a different light
on what seem some puzzling features of the case. I call
it wanting to be caught. Wanting to be caught.
The prosecution has sought to paint the picture of a man
who covered his tracks skillfully. "You thought of
everything" was the expression used. is that right?
Does it stand up to scrutiny when you look at the evidence?
There remains some very puzzling aspects of the evidence.
Ian Huntley has told you that he used the red petrol can
belonging to the college to set fire to the bodies.
Pollen evidence tends to suggest that the petrol can had
been at the Drove. There is no dispute about it. Where
does the petrol can normally live? In the in the office,
doesn't it, or by the sweeping machine which is petrol
driven. Where is the petrol can actually found, 17th August?
In the boot of the Fiesta. very odd, isn't it? What else
was in the boot? A pair of scissors which had been used
to cut the piece of blue carpet which replaced the factory-fitted
carpet, the scissors which had been used to cut the girls'
clothes off Why are they still in the boot?
Why, if he is clever and careful, does he have at his
house, in his bedroom keys to the hangar where the girls
clothing was kept? Keys with a tag on them saying hangar.
Why, when he is talking to Mr Peter Jordan the undergraduate,
who is doing some summer painting to earn a bob or two,
the point about missing girls and Mr Huntley said to Mr
Jordan that he had been out near Brandon and it seemed
so vast, the countryside, he thought it unlikely that
anyone would be found there.
What, this nearest town to Wangford? Brandon. Why does
he mention that particular vector of all places he could
have talked about around Soham? Is it some sort of faint
signal he is trying to give? Drawing questions to himself
- drawing attention to himself by asking questions of
police officers involved in the inquiry. Cleaning the
car. This is the car that has carried the two girls to
the deposition site. You are scared, you want to destroy
the evidence and so you decide you are going to clean
the car.
Where do you do it? You drive out into the country, don't
you, where there is nobody about, you go to a garage a
long way from Soham and do a thorough job with the vacuum
facilities there. You wait until Tuesday morning and on
your journey up to Grimsby to pick up Maxine you pop into
a garage miles away from Soham and clean it up there.
Does Mr Huntley? No. Where does he clean his car? Outside
number 5.
For how long is he cleaning it? About two hours on the
various witness statements we have. Is it dark? No, it
is not, it is in broad daylight. A stream of people walking
past to go to the village Hall for a meeting. Decidedly
odd behaviour isn't it? I leave until last the most staggering
of all. We know the girls clothes were cut off at Wangford
because a portion of the material was actually found under
one of bodies at the deposition site.
We know where the clothing and shoes finished up, at the
college, in the hangar, yards from number 5 College Close.
Why? You have been on that journey from Soham to Wangford.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the loneliest
terrain perhaps some of you have ever seen in your lives.
Was there a thousand spots, ten thousand spots where he
could have got rid of the clothing? Yes, there were, weren't
there? Why weren't they taken out into the countryside
and thoroughly burnt?
He had got the petrol to do it. Why weren't they dropped
in a builders skip somewhere, why weren't they put cut
up in tiny pieces and put in different people's wheely
bins so they would go off to the refuse tip? Why wasn't
something done to make the items unrecognisable. You have
the photographs, they were recognisable, two Manchester
United shirts, still recognisable as what make of trainer
they were, what make of bra it was. Why didn't Mr Huntley
go back at some stage to the hangar to have a look and
see if he had done the job properly?
He obviously hadn't. Is it possible that part of him wanted
this to come out? I know in Westerns you walk up and 'do
what a man has to do', and ordinary people are not like
that and it is not easy to walk into a police station
and say I want to tell you what has happened. are these
clues that he is leaving. that a part of him wanted this
to come out? Conclusions, my Lord, in due course must
direct you to the law applicable to each girl and for
each girl as a matter of law, there are three possible
verdicts open to you guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter
and not guilty.
Let us be blunt. On the evidence you have heard, and the
totality of the evidence you have heard, we are not to
argue on behalf of Mr Huntley in the case of either girl
that what he did makes him innocent and unworthy of punishment.
He clearly is worthy of punishment. In relation to Holly
Wells, we concede that once he had agreed to help her
with her nosebleed he had a duty of care towards her which
continued throughout her time in number 5. Equally, we
concede that he was in breach of that duty of care in
a number of ways. Not getting her out of the bath quicker.
Not trying to revive her by methods of resuscitation.
Not calling for an ambulance so someone else could come
and try and revive her. It is for you to decide whether
those failings are, in your judgment, so serious as to
amount to gross negligence. If you were so to conclude,
that it was criminal gross negligence we would not seek
to persuade you otherwise. In relation to Jessica Chapman
she died because Ian Huntley laid hands on her. He had
no right to do so.
You may think, when you look at what was done to cause
her to, it cannot really have been achieved with one hand.
If you were to come to the tentative conclusion that's
what he did to Jessica Chapman, with no excuse for doing
it, that would amount to manslaughter, and it would be
unrealistic for us to argue to the contrary in her case
as well.
That is as blunt as it gets, and we concede on the evidence
available - thin as it is - that there is evidence that
Mr Huntley is guilty of the manslaughter, both of Holly
Wells and Jessica Chapman. So the real issue is have the
prosecution proved the extra ingredient; namely, the intention
to kill each, or at least the intention to cause each
really serious bodily harm. Beware of the traps over his
behaviour afterwards, as I have said.
Beware of the traps of his lies. Do they prove only murder?
Do they prove either murder or slaughter? If it is murder
or manslaughter they cannot help you on this question.
It is at this stage when you are considering the evidence
of intention, what was in his mind? That in a sense we
come full circle back to what we submit is the question
of lies at the very heart of this matter.
If you can answer the question, and if you can say I am
sure on evidence that there was a sexual motive, then
other pieces fall into place which would tend to lead
to murder. But if you say I don't think there is any evidence
of a sexual motive, I'm not sure there is evidence of
a sexual motive, then in our respectful submission, the
proper verdict for Mr Huntley in respect of each girl
is a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Now, that is not I concede straight away, what hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, are expecting from you.
What is the solution? The solution actually is a simple
one if anybody has the temerity ever ever to come up to
you and say how could you find Ian Huntley not guilty
of those murders look them straight in the eye and say
"on the..."
MR JUSTICE MOSES
Someone has handed me another document. Have you got the
admissions with the Ford Fiesta, headed Ford Fiesta? One
of you write on that one, the first set of admissions;
have you got the admissions relating to all the different
exhibits? The following items were seized by the police
from the hangar, we call that two.
The next lot of admissions should be about 21 which contain
admissions to events starting Holly Wells and Jessica
Chapman went into 5 College Close. Let's call those three.
The next ones are the admissions relating to handwritten
documents, handwritten notes. Have you got those? Let's
call those four. The next ones, the absence of hairs and
fingerprints from 5 College Close, let's call that five.
And now I had it, they were important, from Mr Coward's
point of view in his argument, let's call these 6, you
are about to get them. I will point out the two that were
important to Mr Coward's submissions, - unless you want
to have another go yourself? Let's call those number 6.
The two things, first of all number 5 at the bottom, the
point about Patricia Wiltshire, the second part, she said
she thought she had told somebody, and (inaudible) nobody
has any recollection of that at all.
Then the one above the point, the more significant point
perhaps, Mr Coward said Huntley could have pressed that
either of the girls suffered from nosebleeds and here
is the admission the (inaudible) back in 97 before Maxine
Carr started work. That's where he gets that from. That's
all for today. What is going to happen next Mr Hubbard
will submit to you for general.
MR HUBBARD
My Lord, one hour.
MR JUSTICE MOSES
We will not hold you to it. We will start one hour, then
have a break, and I will sum up and you will be able to
go out for lunch in the normal way. What I will not do
is finish my summing-up tomorrow afternoon. What will
happen is that you will go out first thing Friday morning.
I keep saying it to you, but we really have come to the
most important part of the trial. Be very, very careful;
particularly careful about what extracts from speeches
the Crown and defence are publishing in the press. As
Mr Coward said to you, nobody else is here judging the
evidence except you. Half past ten.
Hearing
adjourned - will resume tomorrow
Page 01 02 |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
| Flowers in Gods Garden |
|
| Paul Pearson |
|
| Rosie Palmer |
|
| Sophie Hook |
|
| Sarah Payne |
|
| Victoria Climbie |
|
| Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman |
- Documents
- Audio
|
| The Yorkshire Ripper |
- Video
|
|
