11/12/03 - Soham Trial Transcript
Thursday, 11 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
MR JUSTICE MOSES
yes, Mr Hubbard.
MR HUBBARD
you have not seen this, not in its original form. It is
the card. Holly's card to Maxine. It is in your grey folder.
Listen to a poem that's on this card. "it is Class
12's special TA, we'll miss her a lot and we'll say, see
you in the future, Miss Carr, don't leave us, don't go
far." I said to you a week ago, when I was opening
her case, that that card was on the mantel piece when
she left. For the ten days or so following her return
as best we can judge it was on the mantle piece again.
The prosecution say that she acted in "concert",
Mr Latham's word yesterday, with Ian Huntley. She had
worked it out by Tuesday night, he put to her. her complicity
in what this man did was obvious - that's the prosecution
case. members of the Jury, does that sit happily alongside
the sentiments on this card?
This card, we suggest, speaks volumes. Do you remember
the very first witness who came along, Joy Pederson, they
were my words, did Maxine's heart sometimes rule her head?
"yes, sometimes", she said. Then I asked her
about her attitude towards the children and other evidence
you heard went like this, did it not "Maxine adored
the children and they her, she lived for them, she gave
her all."
Mrs Chapman, talking about how Jessica found that she
was "cool". Mrs Chapman talked about how she
would help "Maxine would help Jessica with homework
and course work." These two little girls were very
special to Maxine Carr and she to them and we suggest
it is almost preposterous to suggest that she would conceal
what Huntley did, having worked out that he had murdered,
or in some other way, unlawfully killed those girls.
I asked you, did I not, when I opened the case to judge
her as she stepped into the witness box, (inaudible) you
got a better snap of her, didn't you? She was courteous,
she was polite, she was calm and she was firm. And "heavy
going", said Mr Latham yesterday, her cross-examination
was on the interview.
I don't quarrel with that, Members of the Jury. It was
not just a heavy going cross-examination, it was a relentless
cross-examination. At times it was fierce you may think
and, indeed, if you judged it and compared it against
the cross-examination of Ian Huntley, you may conclude
it was a good deal more hostile. She kept her cool throughout
and no matter how many times counsel, both Mr Latham and
Mr Coward, put things to her, she said back in answer
"At the time I didn't intend anything other than
to protect Ian Huntley, the man I loved, from revelations
coming out about his past."
she was in the witness box under cross-examination for
the better part of a day. And there was one small outburst,
was there not, when Mr Coward was suggesting that she
ought to take the blame really for the lie and the alibi,
and she looked at Mr Coward and then at the dock, you
well remember no doubt. "I'm not taking the blame
for what that thing in that box has done".
Was it acting or was it for real? Members of the Jury,
there is an expression that comes from the other side
of the Atlantic "Let's get real". In these closing
few moments we want to get real with you and face up to
what the Crown say she worked it out by the Tuesday evening?
Let us just consider her testimony in the witness box.
for 14 months she has been - a little longer - awaiting
this trial.
You know how the system works; it has been explained to
you by other counsel. As the prosecution case progresses
and as the evidence unfolds it is served on the defence.
Back in August in the police interviews she believed,
did she not, that Ian Huntley had done no wrong.
In October when talking to his mother, Linda Nixon, the
same attitude of mind, but then she is gradually presented
with the evidence the prosecution have got and bit by
bit pieces of the jig-saw begin to make sense and then
over the months she comes to realise that the man she
once loved, was probably responsible for the killing of
those two children. when this trial started there was
no mention of drowning.
When this trial started, or shortly before, it was as
you heard yesterday, "I didn't do it". She has
had to remain in Holloway listening to all these changes
and yesterday we heard Mr Coward dare to suggest to her
that something she said was a recent invention. Pot calling
the kettle black, (inaudible) but that expression "recent
invention" lies elsewhere. I said make allowances
for her because, if you think about it, she has been vilified
for well over a year now by the media.
She has been cast alongside (inaudible) people no doubt
did not understand the charges she faced, perhaps they
thought that she was involved in the murder. Every conceivable
unflattering photograph of her has been put before the
breakfast table of the nation month after month. She must
have been like a coiled up spring must she not, as she
left that witness box the other day, the dock, to go into
the witness box, she was controlled and calm and we say
honest.
You see, much of her cross-examination was taken up with
that 160-odd pages of interviews. there would have been
another hundred pages if we had seen it all. Did Mr Latham
hear me when I said in opening her case she concedes she
told lies? This is a series of lies. Mr Latham, in cross-examining
her, plodded through them.
At one stage it was a major lie. then he suggested it
was a fundamental lie, then he said it was a serious lie,
then he accused her of a bare faced lie. Members of the
Jury, it is emotive stuff. A lie is a lie. It is what
lies behind the lie. She says very simply behind these
lies in the interview was my overwhelming desire to protect
Ian Huntley.
She went to absurd lengths to do it, did she not? Somewhere
around 148 or 149 - she even said the note, the crib sheet,
she had done it, it was in her hand. It was blindingly
obvious to the police officers it was not and when they
put to it her "Look, it is not yours, it is Ian Huntley's.
Well, yes, it is Ian Huntley's."
Prepared to say almost anything, and that is why, is it
not, she says in here "Oh yes, it was my idea to
lie." It does not help you very much, we suggest,
to have a morning virtually spent cross-examining her
about these 166 pages. It totally misses the point, Members
of the Jury, but it is good stuff. How many times was
she asked if that is a lie? dozens. You will not hear
a word from us condoning it.
Remember one other thing as she was being interviewed
she had been arrested on suspicion of murder. She knew
it had nothing to do with her, the murders, but the police
officers who interviewed her didn't know that. I am not
making excuses for her. You may think she deserved to
be in that situation because of the untruths she told,
but it is the effect that sort of situation has on her
mind - or anyone's mind - because, you see, scandalous
allegations were put to her by the police officers you
have been grooming - grooming - these children. That is
what they said at one stage.
You had a glimpse of how she dealt with Linda Nixon because
the tapes were played to you, not asked that the interviews
be played, probably they will still be on the evidence
file we have. In a sense you don't need them because you
have all the exclamation marks. When she is actually told
about Ian you can almost see on the page her shout of
an anguish, and all the exclamation marks that follow
her answers.
To Linda Nixon she was distraught, wasn't she? that wasn't
the tone of someone who worked it out. A long time ago,
Dr Johnson said that language was aggressive thought (?
). Her language on that tape reveals her thought process.
Even then it is plain she had not worked it out. Talking
(inaudible) about the nosebleed she wasn't going to tell
the police in these interviews because she wasn't going
to make it any worse for Ian Huntley.
She gave you a glimpse, you may think, of their relationship.
She said at one stage "Oh, it is a team effort really,
Ian and I, we work very hard, he works very hard. He looks
after me and I look after him and that's it." A touch
old fashioned perhaps nowadays, it may be a touch old-fashioned
to stand by your man. my goodness, Members of the Jury,
can any one of you not feel a touch of sympathy, even
Mr ----
MR JUSTICE MOSES
his name is Latham.
MR HUBBARD
Latham. even Mr Latham yesterday said you might feel sorry
- sympathy - with her. I do not imagine any of you 12
(inaudible). "I don't want what happened, my past
coming out again , I can't cope with it - I was inside",
and all the rest. "if anyone says anything I will
agree to lie". what loyalty , Members of the Jury.
misguided, but understandable. So that was her in the
witness box. I invite you to judge her by how you found
her to be, listening to her, and when you watched her
and we stand by that test.
members of the Jury, the prosecution - let us move on
to something else - said the case against her, saying
the same against Huntley, remains the same as indeed when
I opened it. Well, bless my soul, Members of the Jury,
Mr Latham must have forgotten a few of the things he opened
to you, a few of the things they relied upon in the course
of the evidence. Let us just consider one or two which
disappeared now - the use of the past tense, sinister.
It was being suggested at one stage pointed out at the
interviews (inaudible) Mr Walmsley the bus driver, claiming
he got it wrong; he is a chap that says "Well, it
was on the way to - I picked her up in the afternoon,
1.27 or so, and she was going to Grimsby, she said she
came from Keelby. We had this conversation. it was the
other way about? no, no, I'm quite sure of it, quite sure
she lived in Grimsby for those few days with her mum and
went to Keelby to visit grandad."
That is an illustration of how witnesses get things wrong.
Just the same way, you may think, as that gentleman Mr
Mahoney, - worthy of a point by the prosecution in their
closing address. The one who saw this card and said there
was conversation about dropping it through the letterbox.
the card was given. (inaudible) that's disappeared. Mr
Gee, prosecution laid emphasis on him, not a word as they
closed because they could not rely on his evidence any
more.
He was billed as a man who was going to be able to tell
you that he saw Maxine Carr cleaning and scrubbing so
vigorously the paint came off the very tiles she was scrubbing,
all done with a view to concealing evidence. but Michael
Gee would not have it that way. "no, he said, when
I came in the house she didn't disguise what she was doing."
She didn't stop. She actually volunteered "Look at
these tiles, the paint is coming off." What manner
of woman is that?
What is the mind set of a woman who talks so openly and
freely as Mr Gee says she did. nothing furtive at all.
The prosecution, in opening this case, suggested that
the plot had been hatched in the early morning call on
the Monday morning about 0700. Now they seem to be suggesting,
do they not, that that was more likely to have taken place
when she was at grandad's.
What are they actually left with, Members of the Jury?
Put aside these lies, what are you left with? A phone
call at 7 o'clock or so on the Monday morning. Ian Huntley
says he told Maxine Carr that only came out at the 4 o'clock
conversation at grandad's. It is a small point but let
us just test it, alongside this test was the plot hatched
on that Monday at all? The prosecution say it was whensoever
it was hatched, they say she had agreed to lie the alibi,
game, set and match.
And these we suggest are common sense questions, the answers
to which will help you through the evidence. One, if that
plot had been hatched on the Monday, would she have remained
in Grimsby until Tuesday lunch time? Consider the risk
she was running; they have agreed that she would alibi
him to say she was in Soham. On the Monday she visits
grandad. On the way she talks freely to bus driver about
herself - Mr Walmsley.
What do you (inaudible) as to the fact Mr Walmsley, when
he was somewhere abroad, spotted her photograph and got
in touch with the police on his return "She was on
my bus". On the Tuesday morning, if the plot had
been hatched before they picked up the hitchhiker Mr James,
another 'whether', what on earth was she doing telling
Mr James where she was going? A huge risk. The alibi was
to be, "I'm in Soham".
To a lesser extent Marion Clift, the lady who sees her
by the boot of the Fiesta in tears, another example, you
know, Members of the Jury, of how easy it is to get things
wrong in a case. She was an honest witness, bless her
soul, she was doing her best. But she said in her witness
statement "It was, as I was going shopping I came
out of the gate and as I came out of my gate I saw the
Fiesta and I saw Maxine by the boot in tears.
No" - she says to you - "It wasn't on my way
out, it was on the way back from shopping it all happened."
Hang on, imagine if that mistake had been made by Maxine
what the attitude of the prosecution in this case would
have been? In a sense you can liken it to what she said
to Linda Nixon she said the alibi was hatched (inaudible)
on the Monday. She has plainly got that wrong, Members
of the Jury.
The same sort of mistake as Mr Walmsley made, as Mrs Clift
made, as we suggest, Mr Mahoney. How easy it is to think
you are recalling things accurately when you don't know,
say the prosecution you should have realised something
serious was up when he told you at your grandfather's
if it was then that the girls had been in the house and
had a nosebleed. Well, why?
If she was told the girls (inaudible) and from start to
finish of the next ten days Ian Huntley told her those
girls had left - and another little test for you Members
of the Jury - you remember when there was, in the second
week, a hope that the girls might still be alive? Oh,
she said, that has given us all hope. Was that play-acting?
Why should she have immediately, seeing the new carpet
in the boot of the car, said to herself "My goodness,
the bodies of those two girls were in that car".
Is that really what the prosecution are saying, that those
tears were tears of shame? Or is it that this girl had
watched the television and she had seen the reports and
she had seen that morning something about someone had
seen these children. Ian Huntley had come back, she is
being pulled away, mum is going into hospital on Thursday,
she wanted to be with mum. she went up to Grimsby for
that purpose, she was not expected back until the end
of the week. She had to cut her holiday short.
All kinds of jumbled up emotions, Members of the Jury,
must have been going through her mind and she is in tears
as she leaves mum's house and as the bags are put into
the boot of the car she is in tears and nothing more simple
than that. Looking at it through the microscope, all the
assembled part of the jig-saw, if she had an ounce of
a thought that anything untoward had gone on, would they
have stopped for a hitchhiker?
So they go back home - the prosecution say an exaggeration
when Mr Latham tells you again - bombarded with information.
bombarded with information? The house had been transformed,
he told you, that his word. She goes to the front door,
what does she see? She sees a house different from when
she left it, something has gone on in that dining room.
The light fitting is gone, there is a table, wetness,
damp, there is a bit of support for that Members of the
Jury, is there not?
A police officer saw some wet on the wall. What is she
supposed to think? Do you immediately say to yourself,
goodness gracious the man I love, the man I'm going to
marry has suddenly done something awful with these two
little girls? You seek an explanation and she did and
she was given one and she accepted it and she was taken
upstairs and shown the bath, the damaged bath.
Members of the Jury, I am not suggesting for one moment
that you should come to the view that Huntley's defence
want you to come to. Did she damage that bath for her
benefit? he had to find or work out a pretty good story,
did he not? What better way than damaging the bath? There
was, as you know, no damage to the under-side.
No real evidence of any sort of flood. There was dampness
and when she went in she knew something had happened and
he gave her an explanation - Sadie. She accepted it. He
had obviously cleaned the house up. I will come back to
that in a moment. She goes into the kitchen and she sees
the washing machine.
Now, is it an unnatural thought, you ladies on the Jury,
you suddenly see bed linen. has he had a woman in? No
don't be silly, of course he hasn't. It comes into your
mind and a just (inaudible). Mr Latham, Members of the
Jury dared to suggest to her sex with children (inaudible).
confronted by what she saw, obviously something had happened,
she had an explanation and she accepts it.
Let us stop her for a moment and work back. It is not
my function to put forward a likely scenario as to what
happened in this case. You will no doubt have your own
thoughts but I am going say this as the prosecution papers
suggested, that they were acting in concert by the time
they came back to Soham.
It is interesting, if you think about it, how much the
prosecution rely on what she says when it suits their
purpose. They are very happy to accept what she has told
us "When I rang Ian in that afternoon on Sunday,
the 2 minutes and 12 seconds, I told him that I was going
out. He said he had got some beer in and he had got a
video, he was going to watch it. Don't go out. Yes, I'm
going out."
He got annoyed and a thought went through his mind. He
said to Mr Latham "I know Maxine, she has had a few
to drink and gets loud and a bit flirty". She is
annoyed. The phone is slammed down, according to Maxine,
in the same way, remember, as Linda Nixon said to Maxine
in those covert recordings, "Ian slammed the phone
down on me", to his mother.
At 18.31 she texted "Don't make me feel guilty just
because I'm going out". That has not been disputed
has it? The phone goes down. "Don't make me feel
guilty, don't make me feel bad." If any one of you
doubts that those two girls came by to enquire how Maxine
Carr was, as I said, that card speaks volumes. See (inaudible)
in 15 minutes of that text message Jessica's phone is
disconnected.
You work out Members of the Jury what happened next. It
is a bit rich, isn't it, for the prosecution to say you
worked it out on Tuesday night when, goodness gracious,
they have had 16 months to work out what happened, and
have they come up with a scenario which really holds water?
Do they really know what happened? I give you a glimpse
Members of the Jury, but it is for you not I. Jessica
is frightened of dogs.
She had been bitten. Maxine said the dog, she could hear,
was in the the room when she made the phone call. The
prosecution deny it. The girls (inaudible) now, you have
got to face this haven't you. There was another side of
Ian Huntley as a result of what has happened in this case,
quite unknown to Maxine Carr. It comes into your mind
and a just.... . Mr Latham, members of the jury dared
to suggest to her sex with children (inaudible).
Confronted by what she saw obviously something had happened.
she was given an explanation and she accepts it. Let's
stop her for a moment and work back. Now, you have got
to face this have you not? there was another side of Ian
Huntley as a result of what has happened in this case,
quite unknown to Maxine Carr. a dark side. an evil side.
incalculably evil if you think about it. At 4 o'clock
on the (inaudible) Pauline *Nickson* said to him "Where
is your partner?" Why? She never got an answer.
Monday morning he hatched up a plot with Ruth Oddy "I'm
going to get Maxine to alibi me", he told Ruth Oddy.
We know this because he admitted it in evidence. This
is a man who had been told Maxine will do what I say.
At 1 o'clock on Monday lunchtime he is telling police
officers that she has gone to look for a job. in the evening
- Members of the Jury it is not often I got told people
are not hearing.
MR JUSTICE MOSES
it is the people in the other room.
MR
HUBBARD
fireman Ford, 9.15 or 9.30 that evening. "got to
go now, my Mrs has got my dinner on", or "my
tea". what is going on, Members of the Jury? I tell
you these things in answer to the suggestion put forward
by Mr Coward yesterday. whose idea was it to alibi? Do
you believe for one moment it was Maxine Carr's? for whose
benefit was this alibi? Ian Huntley. who had been working
it out since 4 o'clock that morning? Ian Huntley.
He even had the courage to confide in Ruth Oddy, one of
his staff. She will alibi. Don't be so silly, Ian; you
can hear Ruth Oddy, although we don't know what she looks
like or sounds like, saying that can't you? Whose idea
do you think it was for the alibi? consider this is it
seriously suggested that Ian Huntley would dared to have
risked telling Maxine Carr the truth, or half the truth,
or any of the truth?
I do not rely on a word Ian Huntley said to you in this
court, but if any one of you are in doubt that if she
had been told half the truth or any of it, she would have
said, as she told you "I wouldn't have stayed in
that house." It wasn't in his interests, he dared
not, couldn't afford to. There is no clear-cut agreement,
there is certainly no meeting of minds, because she did
not know what happened. But he did. So it was agreed,
if anyone asks, tell them you were in Soham.
You tell a lie once, Members of the Jury, what was that
nursery rhyme whatever it is, what a tangled web we weave
when first we practice to deceive. Then the crib note
in his hand. Who do you think was behind that? All the
lines he feeds her with enough information, worrying about
the Grimsby disclosure coming out.
Just enough to keep her on side. members of the Jury,
she said she was pushed into a orner. Pushed into the
interview. "you don't know Ian Huntley", she
said to Mr Coward, she loved that man. Now a few other
thoughts. I'm going to stick to my agreement. I said I
would be an hour and I'm going to be an hour although
I don't think we started until almost 25 to. Some common-sense
questions and matters I touched upon when I re-examined
Maxine Carr.
And they are just the sort of questions which we suggest
will tell you whether they were lies. if you had thought
for a moment that Ian Huntley had murdered those children
and one of them had drowned in the bath, would you have
used that bath on the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
the succeeding ten days?
Then let us rewrestle with this and not pussyfoot around
it she shared the same bed with Ian Huntley. would she
have allowed the hand that had drowned Holly and killed
Jessica, on his account, or the hands that had murdered
those two children to wander over her body on the Tuesday,
Wednesday and succeeding days. it is against every female
instinct, isn't it? Mr Latham yesterday posed what I am
afraid we suggest is a quite absurd proposition. He talked
for the first time about her motive.
He said her motive - of course in lying, in having worked
it out - her motive was she wanted her man, she wanted
- he said - to have his baby and to marry him and have
a new home, said Mr Latham. Now think about that. is it
worthy of a moment's thought, the proposition that you
are going to go ahead and have a child knowing or believing
that the father of that child has killed two little children?
You don't just kill children, do you, unless there is
a reason. that 50% of Ian Huntley's genes would be in
the baby she bore. does that make any sense? Did she know
or believe that he had killed these children? Members
of the Jury, we say a sure no on the evidence. We turn
to count 5. Mr Latham, time and time again said she simply
has no defence conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
I will tell you what her defence is, Members of the Jury,
first of all, the charge.
It requires a specific intent, it requires an intent at
the time to pervert the course of justice. It is not Mr
Latham's mind or intent or Mr Coward's. It is Maxine's
intent. Mr Coward said- suggested, well he told you, did
he not, that counsel has a certain duty in cases, you
follow your client's case. Have you forgotten, when he
pressed Maxine Carr, that the reason she lied was to conceal
the proof and pervert the course of justice because he
had a go at her.
Goodness knows why Members of the Jury, he must have forgotten
what his own client had said, because Ian Huntley, when
pressed about this by the prosecution said "No you
call it concealing." I think Maxine had something
else in mind. I do not think Maxine saw it that way. 200
or so years ago, a wise old statesman said this "It
is not what a lawyer tells me, it is what humanity, reason,
and justice tell me I must do."
We suggest humanity, reason and justice compel you to
acquit her of that charge as well. Humanity because it
is the most human thing in the world to lie. It had the
consequences of perverting the course of justice, that
element in the case has been proved, but did Maxine see
it that way? Was that Maxine's mind? She said in simple
terms "I wanted them to go and get the real man,
it had nothing to do with Ian Huntley."
Reason, Members of the Jury. she had every reason to lie
because of what Huntley had been through before. So humanity
and reason were on her side. what about justice? That
is what you are there for. Not to do what lawyers tell
you to do, but what you, the Jury, in justice compels
you to do. I asked her in order that you can see something
of her state of mind when she was talking to Linda what
life was like in Holloway, not to gain huge sympathy from
you, but so you could get some inkling of what life was
all about, and she said, didn't she - "Well, I hadn't
heard the word before, 'nonce' and they were likening
me to Myra Hindley, saying Myra Hindley Mark II."
The next day you may have seen on the front page of one
of the tabloids a picture of Maxine Carr, a picture of
Myra Hindley. They are still at it. They have been at
it for 16 months. Vilified. Indeed, portrayed as Myra
Hindley Mark II. I say to you why? what evil had she done?
She sat alongside this man for 6 weeks nigh on. She is
associated with this man. She had no part in the dreadful
deeds which primarily concern you.
She need not have sat alongside this man, she need not,
you may think, have had to face trial, but she has been
put on trial and you are going to have to decide her fate.
Members of the Jury, has she not suffered enough? I said
to you in opening look at the costs of those lies. anyone
even think (inaudible) for, telling a lie. she was allowed
to say .... might echo the lines of that song I will,
read you (inaudible)
Members of the Jury, "Please release me, let me go.
" she you may think she was deceived as much as anyone
else. He has deceived everyone he could think of Mrs Bryden,
police officers, staff, the press, the prosecution, even
his own legal team. You will aver point number 14; the
way he changed the tyres in the red Fiesta had nothing
to do with the case, didn't even take his own legal team
into these lies.
She has gone through the very painful process of realising
just what sort of man he was. The dark side doesn't always
emerge, not at first blush; of these 14/16 months, she
has noted all of them. Members of the Jury, enough is
enough for Maxine Carr.
MR JUSTICE MOSES
members of the Jury we will take a break now and then
I will sum this case up to you. (Short adjournment)
MR JUSTICE MOSES
ladies and gentlemen, let me start my summing-up by directing
you about your function and the difference between your
function and mine. You and you alone are the judges of
fact. You decide which witnesses you believe, which witnesses
you disbelieve, which witnesses are reliable and which
witnesses are unreliable. you decide what evidence is
important and what evidence is unimportant.
My task is to direct you as to the law and you must take
direction of law from me. I will remind you of some, but
by no means all, of the evidence. To do so would insult
your intelligence. If you think I have missed something
out which you regard as important, act upon it. It is
your decision as to what is important which counts, not
mine.
If, in identifying the issues or summarising the evidence,
you think I am expressing an opinion with which you agree,
well then all well and good. If you disagree, it is not
just your right, but it is your duty to disregard it.
Because it is your opinion, your judgment, your judgment
that counts, not mine. I want to say more about your judgment.
I spoke right at the outset of this trial of what was
required of each one of you. It is that you exercise your
judgment on the evidence that you have heard, either from
witnesses or from what has been admitted. You decide where
the truth lies. No more and no less is required of you.
Do not be overawed by the gravity of the offences alleged.
Juries up and down this country try cases where murder
is alleged on many, many occasions. You, like they, are
called upon to exercise your judgment using your good
sense. The judgment you make must be on the evidence.
You must take into account the arguments you have heard
on the one side and on the other. But the arguments are
not evidence. In reaching your judgments, your conclusions,
remember this is a trial, not an investigation.
It is not an inquiry. Do not fall into the error of thinking
merely because every question is unanswered, merely because
there are unsolved problems, it necessarily follows that
the prosecution cannot prove its case. The absence of
evidence only matters if it leaves you with a reasonable
doubt as to guilt in your minds.
There may be unanswered questions in this case which have
occurred to you. But you are not required to answer every
question that arises. If the evidence which is called
is sufficient to make you sure of guilt that is enough.
You are not required to solve every problem or every question
which arises. You have heard much evidence it is not actually
six weeks, I think it is nearer three weeks' worth of
actual evidence - but not all of it will be equally important
or even relevant. you must only give weight to that which
you regard as important and sometimes it would have occurred
to you, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes, a small piece
of evidence, evidence that is not disputed, that may not
have even taken more than a moment to present, may prove
very important indeed.
Stick to the essentials. Do not get lost in unnecessary
detail or bogged down by issues which are not essential.
Do not speculate on what witnesses might have said had
they been called or what answers they might have given
had they been asked. You have heard all the evidence that
there is going to be and there will not be any more. In
judging that evidence you must decide which witnesses
are telling the truth and which witnesses are lying to
you. A witness may be telling part of the truth or none
at all.
You assess that in the light of all the evidence and your
good sense. The defendants are also witnesses and they
are to be subjected to no different consideration from
you save that, obviously, the stress of being a defendant
must be taken into account when they face so serious a
charge. The judgment you make is a judgment you must make
on the evidence uninfluenced by the emotion that a case
such as this inevitably arouses - it is idle to pretend
that this is not a tragic case.
It would not be sensible for me or even for you to pretend
that some of the facts are not bound to provoke a reaction.
Let me give you an example while the families of Holly
Wells and Jessica Chapman searched that night for the
lost girls, the defendant, Ian Huntley, started to destroy
the evidence and left those girls in a ditch.
But I only mention that because it is part of the facts
- but it is bound to create an emotional reaction and
any emotional reaction to such events cannot and must
not influence your verdicts. those facts alone do not
prove that he murdered them. Only the evidence can do
that if, in your judgment, it does. Nor must the interest
displayed by the press influence you. I am sure it will
not have done as you, as we have watched you doing, have
concentrated on the evidence.
What you may have seen or read at any stage, put out of
your minds. We do not have trial by the media; we have
trial by you, each one of you, the Jury, concentrating
as you have done, on the evidence. Nor is any particular
verdict required of you. the only verdicts required of
you are verdicts on the evidence. But do not be frightened
to use your good sense and your judgment about that evidence.
If you have exercised your judgment on that evidence fairly
and rationally, you have done all that is required of
you. If you have used your judgment to distinguish on
the evidence between that which is proved to be fact,
and that which is proved to be fiction; between what the
evidence proves to be reality and that which is proved
to be untrue, then you will have done justice. Let me
start my directions of law with the two guiding principles
which you must apply in judging the evidence. firstly,
as to the burden of proof.
The burden of proving any one of these charges, if it
can, rests upon the prosecution throughout. it is for
the prosecution to prove the guilt, if it can, of one
or both of these defendants, not for the defendant to
prove anything. The defendants obligation is to sit in
the dock. This they have done. In this case, both have
given evidence and Maxine Carr has called a witness, but
in giving evidence and in calling a witness, they have
not in any way taken upon themselves the burden of proving
anything.
Next as to the standard of proof. Before you can convict
either or both of these defendants on any of the charges
laid against them, the prosecution must satisfy you so
that you feel sure of guilt. Another way of saying the
same thing is that you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt. Let me turn to the charges against them. You have
got your indictment and your charge sheet, which is in
my green bundle behind tab 1.
Have you all got that? You need not look at it yet, as
long as you have it open. I am going to tell you what
in law these charges mean. Do not worry too much about
the details of it. Most of it is very simple, but I am
at the end going to give you the questions that will act
like a flow chart, which will remind you of my directions.
I am not going to give them to you yet because I want
you to concentrate on what I am going to say about what
has to be roved if it can. For full murder, let us take
count 1 which alleges murder as against Ian Huntley, murder,
murdering Jessica Chapman.
In order to prove murder the prosecution must make you
sure Ian Huntley unlawfully killed Jessica Chapman. Note
the words "unlawfully killed". That means in
the context of this case the prosecution must prove that
he caused her death and must prove that the death was
not an accident. Remember what I said about the burden
of proof, the defendant does not have to prove it was
not an accident.
The prosecution must.... (inaudible) the prosecution must
prove at the time he killed her he intended to kill her
or to cause her really serious bodily harm. It does not
matter whether the killing was planned in advance or whether
it was on the spur of the moment. If the prosecution has
made you sure that he killed her with the intention to
do so, or with the intention to cause her really serious
bodily harm, he is guilty of murder.
If you are sure he killed her but not sure whether he
intended to do so or to cause her really serious bodily
harm, then he is not guilty of murder but is guilty of
manslaughter. In giving your verdict you should say "Not
guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter". If
you conclude that Jessica Chapman's death may have been
an accident then he is not guilty. Let me turn to the
issue in relation to count 1 and indeed, in relation to
count 2 the alleged murder of Holly Wells.
The prosecution cannot prove the cause of Jessica Chapman's
death. I shall have more to say to you about how you should
approach the evidence of the experts but I shall refer
to part of the pathologist Dr Cary's evidence at this
stage. You know from the evidence of the pathologist that
the defendant left the bodies of both girls, having partially
burnt them, in such a state that when they were discovered
13 days later on the 17th August, the cause of death could
not be ascertained.
The pathologist can say what it was not, if you accept
his evidence. There is no evidence of blunt injury, though
that could not be excluded as a theoretical possibility.
You are not dealing with fantastical or theoretical possibilities.
There is no penetrating injury, no poison, no signs of
drugs or poison, and importantly, this probably you did
not need an expert to tell you healthy, ten year-old girls
do not die together from natural causes.
So by a process of elimination, Dr Cary concluded the
girls died as a result of interference with the mechanism
of their breathing. The pathologist Dr Cary discussed
a number of ways in which that could occur. He discussed
strangulation or smothering. It was not possible to say
how long smothering would take, or strangulation, but
he pointed out that Jessica was a fit young girl. She
was not a young baby, she was not an infirm, old lady.
If deprived of air, she would have struggled.
Moreover, the only way she could be smothered to death
would be through force. You cannot just smother someone
in mid-air. You would have to first put her up against
something, such as a wall or the floor and put one hand
behind her head. When deprived of her airways, both nose
and mouth, not just mouth, there would be a vigourous
struggle.
In either case, it would be more than apparent what was
happening during the course of covering the nose and the
mouth and to do so would not cause a rapid death. If the
airways were blocked through compression of the neck,
remember the demonstration of the strangle hold over the
crook of the arm. It would take, he told you, many seconds
and the victim would go through phases of unconsciousness.
To complete the task, it would be necessary to cover the
nose and the mouth when the victim had already lost consciousness.
There is, he told you - and Mr Coward referred to it -
a method of killing which would cause a rapid death in
a few seconds. I think counsel referred to it as vagal
inhibition, I am not sure if Dr Cary did. That is compressure
of the neck which could occur if the pressure was applied
on or near the carotid artery, which would cause, he told
you, a reflex action in the brain which stops the heart.
The flattening of the carotid artery deprives the brain
of blood which causes collapse and death in rare instances.
But he commented again is this really a matter for an
expert, that it was not necessary to compress the neck
to try to stop someone screaming? So the prosecution case
is that Jessica Chapman cannot have died by accident and
if, if you accept Dr Cary, the most likely explanation
is that she died from being deprived of breath, the prosecution
submits that you can be sure that she was killed by the
defendant and that it was done with a murderous intention
as I have explained and described. Let me turn to the
motive the reason why. It is not the same as intention,
it is something different.
The prosecution does not have to prove a motive. The reason
why he killed the girls, if you are sure he did. The absence
of motive of course, the absence of any reason why he
should kill the girls, if you reach the conclusion, there
was no reason or may have been no reason is an important
argument for the defence. You have heard the rival arguments.
The prosecution submitting to you that whether there was
a nosebleed or not and Ian Huntley only describes it as
minor, not an emergency, there was no reason for the two
girls to go upstairs with the defendant. Not so, submits
Mr Coward, there was a perfectly good reason.
There must have been a nosebleed, it is the only way Ian
Huntley could have learned that there was a history of
nosebleeds so far as Holly Wells as concerned. And he
points out to you what he said was no evidence of a sexual
motive. You will have to give that argument serious consideration.
perhaps, I hope I am not being too pernickety, more accurately
there was certainly no evidence of sexual activity. It
may not be the same thing.
The defendant argues through Mr Coward that you cannot
prove murder if you cannot prove a sexual motive in this
case. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is not a rule,
it is an argument for you to consider. Certainly, if you
take the view there was no motive proved, or there may
have been no motive, it is a factor you must take into
account. But if the evidence makes you sure that he was
guilty, the absence of any motive is no defence. you may
feel - although there has been a lot of argument about
it and some evidence - far better to concentrate on what
the defendant says happened in the bathroom and decide
whether that was the truth or may have been the truth.
The defendant, so far as count 1 is concerned, gives an
account of putting one hand over Jessica's mouth to stop
her screaming after Holly had fallen backwards into a
bath of 6 of 8 inches of water, and he told you he cannot
remember what he did with his other hand. All he remembers,
clearly is, to use his word, holding her mouth. When he
let go she collapsed and appeared dead. You have to decide
whether that account of how Jessica Chapman came to die
is the truth or may be the truth.
You must bear in mind that a defendant, like any witness,
may give an account which is wholly true, partly true,
partly false or wholly false. But you must judge his account
of the death of Jessica Chapman in the context of the
evidence as a whole and, in particular, in the context
of his description of how Holly Wells came to die. If
you thought that the defendant's account of Holly's death
was plainly unbelievable, bearing in mind that the burden
is on the prosecution to make you sure that his account
is not the truth, if you thought his account of what led
him to turning to Jessica was plainly unbelievable, then
- but it is a matter for your judgment that you may think
he is not telling the truth about the death of Jessica.
Counsel, Mr Coward, for good reason and with good sense,
submitted to you that he was not going to argue that the
defendant was not guilty of manslaughter in relation to
Jessica Chapman. That is a matter for you. it is not what
Ian Huntley said, is it? If you accept the evidence of
Dr Cary, that you cannot smother someone in mid-air, then
you may take the view that his account makes no sense
unless he has or may have forgotten or not noticed he
was restraining her with the other hand. if you are sure
that the defendant, Ian Huntley, was lying to you about
how Jessica Chapman came to die, then what are you left
with?
You are left with the fact that she was a healthy, happy,
fit girl when she went into his house and that she died
there. You are left with the fact that the defendant,
if you are sure about this, has lied to you about how
she died and on the basis of those facts and just those
facts, you would be entitled to conclude that the reason
he has lied to you about how Jessica came to die, is because
he murdered her.
Do not fall into the error of saying to yourselves that
if you disbelieve the defendant, if you are sure he was
lying to prove how Jessica died, the only evidence to
prove his guilt is circumstantial. It is one of the most
misused words. circumstantial evidence simply means that
the prosecution is relying upon circumstances surrounding
the deaths and concerning the defendant which, when taken
together, leads to the sure conclusion that the defendant
committed murder. Look at those circumstances, examine
them with care and decide whether those circumstances
lead to that sure conclusion.
If those circumstances may lead to an alternative conclusion,
consistent with innocence, then they cannot prove guilt.
Circumstances may weaken or destroy a prosecution case.
Remember, you must distinguish between drawing conclusions
on the circumstances as you find them to be and you must
not speculate or guess. But if, in your judgment, the
circumstances lead to only one sure conclusion, then you
must act upon those circumstances. Now what if you concluded
that Ian Huntley was, or may be telling you the truth?
Telling you the truth about the death of Jessica. what
then? He tells you he put one hand on her and does not
know where his other hand was. But he accepts on his own
account - although he has no recollection of it - that
he must have cut off her air supply. He does not suggest
that he took hold of her by accident or that he was lawfully
entitled to take hold of her. If you thought his version
is or may be the truth, then it is not argued that he
did not unlawfully kill her.
If, in the evidence of Dr Cary as to her likely reaction
and the time it would take, you were sure he intended
to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm, he
is guilty of murder. Not sure if the the intention (inaudible)
guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter. It was the
alternative, suggested by his counsel, no doubt on the
basis of how the answers that his own client gave in cross-examination
and perhaps the prospect of facing the reality of that
acquittal altogether might not be acceptable to you.
But concentrate on Ian Huntley's evidence and whether
it persuades you, convinces you, or may be the truth because
it does not have to persuade you or convince you of anything,
or whether on he other hand you are sure he was lying
to you. The second count alleges murder against Huntley
concerning Holly Wells. The prosecution must prove exactly
the same elements of the offence as that which it must
prove under count 1, and I am not going to repeat them.
But I do have more to say about it.
You must consider it separately. Let me emphasise that
that is not because you are bound to accept Ian Huntley's
account of the deaths or bound to accept that his account
may be true, that is a matter for your judgment, but you
must consider the counts separately because they are two
allegations of the murder of two different people.
That does not mean to say, however, that you look at the
evidence in separate compartments. After all, the prosecution
evidence of the circumstances of their death, their disappearance,
and the evidence of Dr Cary, save when he was responding
to the defence suggestion, is exactly the same. The defendant
says that Holly Wells, while sitting on the edge of the
bath, fell backwards into the bath for some reason when
he slipped or tripped. He may have come into contact with
her although he does not recall doing so.
He says he then froze and panicked and while he froze
and panicked Holly Wells came to lie in the bath with
her feet towards the tap. For some reason, her nose and
mouth went under the 6 or 8 inches of water which would
have been displaced, making it somewhat deeper. For some
reason she did not get out and she must therefore have
been unconscious. He did not pull her out but he remained
frozen.
She then drowned. If you reject the evidence of the defendant,
if you are sure he is lying to you about how the girls
came to die, and how Holly Wells came to die, if you consider
his evidence is simply not believable, or you do not believe
it, then, as I have said, you are left with the sudden
deaths of two healthy girls without a credible explanation
as to how the deaths came about from the one person who
could have explained to you, but if you are sure he is
not telling the truth, chose not to do so in knowledge
in a way you find believable.
On the contrary, he chose to destroy the evidence of how
those deaths came about. If you conclude those are the
facts and the prosecution has made you sure those are
the facts, although you must consider the counts separately,
you may have little difficulty in concluding that he murdered
them both.
In short, if you reject his account altogether and conclude
he murdered Jessica, then, it is a matter for your judgment,
you may have little difficulty in concluding he murdered
Holly. I stress that is if you reject his account altogether.
Let me pause to consider the alternative. If you think
his account of how Holly came to die is the truth or may
be the truth, remembering the burden is on the prosecution
to disprove it, then he did not kill her unlawfully, and
did not intend to kill her or to cause her really serious
bodily harm and your verdict must be not guilty of murder
and not guilty of manslaughter.
There is one other possibility and I must deal with it
in the light of the way Mr Coward put the defence case.
It was his suggestion there was a possible alternative,
faced with the prospect of guilty or not guilty, not his
client's evidence. But he was perfectly entitled, it is
perfectly proper to put this forward as an alternative
and I must deal with the law in relation to that.
I must deal with the suggestion if you believe the defendant
or think he may have been telling the truth, you would
be entitled to conclude he is guilty of manslaughter by
gross negligence. So I must explain this to you and I
shall do so. It requires more directions of law and they
are, you may think, a little more complex, although not
that complicated. I must stress the fact, although I in
fairness must dwell upon the meaning of the law of gross
negligence, it does not mean I am giving any indication
one way or the other as to the reality of what is suggested.
The time it takes to explain is merely because it is more
complicated as a matter of law than the law as to murder.
It does not mean to say that you are bound to spend a
lot of time considering it. The time you spend is a matter
for you, not for me. let me stress at the outset that
the issue of manslaughter by gross negligence only arises
if you thick the defendant is, or may be, telling you
the truth as to how Holly Wells came to die.
If you think that she fell into the bath or may have done
so, was knocked unconscious and drowned, or that may be
how she died in short that she was not deliberately drowned,
you should then and only then consider manslaughter by
gross negligence and let me explain to you what that is.
A man is guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence in
the following circumstances, again you will have notes
on this.
Firstly, he must owe a duty of care to the person who
dies. Secondly, he must fail to do something which would
have prevented the death. Thirdly, that failure must be
a breach of duty. Fourthly, the failure must be a more
than trivial cause of the death and fifthly if, having
regard to the risk of death, the failure was, in your
judgment, so bad as to amount to a criminal failure, then
he is guilty of gross negligent manslaughter.
Let me break up those elements. All must be proved. You
must be sure about them all. Firstly, as to the duty of
care in some circumstances, one individual owes another
a duty to take care for his safety. Let me give you obvious
examples which will be familiar to you. When you drive
a car on the road, you owe a duty of care to other road
users. It is a classic example of a duty, can you remember
a less common one, but one you may have read about is
of a school teacher taking a party of children on an expedition
on an adventure training and takes them out somewhere
into the mountains.
The school teacher owes a duty of care. Suppose there
is a failure to take an obvious precaution if you are
driving a car - look both ways, before you come out of
a side road, if you do not do that you fail in your duty
of care.
Letting young children run about by the edge of a dangerous
cliff if you are a school master on an expedition, another
example of a failure to take reasonable care. Such failure
would be a breach of duty and if there is then an accident,
a crash, one of them falls over the cliff, then there
is a failure, and that failure will be a more than trivial
cause of the death, one because of her tripping and falling
over but another one will have been that failure to take
care, keep away from the edge.
Now if you, Jury, and again you have read about these
cases, is sure the circumstances of the risk of death
was so obvious and the failure was not just negligent
but so bad as to amount to a crime, then that person will
be guilty of the criminal offence of gross negligence
manslaughter. In this this case if you believe Ian Huntley's
account of how Holly Wells came to die, or it may be right
she was lying in a bath of water - the defendant had invited
her into the house and let her sit on the edge of the
bath, seeing her fall in and seeing her not trying to
get herself out - and in those circumstances Mr Coward
submits that he owed her a duty of care.
He accepts that the failure to pull her out was a breach
of duty which was the cause of death and in those circumstances
he submits to you (inaudible) you would be entitled to
... the failure of this defendant to pull out Holly Wells
from the bath as she lay there unconscious was so bad
a failure as to amount to a crime and was the offence
of gross negligence manslaughter.
That would be an alternative to murder which you would
be entitled to bring. You would only be entitled to do
so if you are sure of those elements and if you took the
view the defendant's account is true, or may be true.
If that was your conclusion then on count two your verdict
would be "Not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter
by gross negligence" and you should say so, so that
I know there is a distinction between manslaughter and
manslaughter by gross negligence.
Whether this is realistic or not in the context of the
facts of this case, whether it merits any careful attention
or time spent or not are matters for your judgment. If
Holly died because she fell accidentally into the bath
or may have done so you are perfectly entitled just to
acquit this defendant under count 2 and say "Not
guilty". But for the reasons I have explained, it
is necessary for you to consider the alternative and I
have explained it to you. so much for the counts against
Ian Huntley Let me turn to the charges against Maxine
Carr. Will you have a look at counts 3 and 4? actually
they set out the elements the prosecution have to prove.
Have you got those? counts 3 and 4, it is the second page.
she is charged under both with assisting an offender.
Let me set out the elements of those particular offences.
you should only consider them if you found the defendant
guilty of murder or manslaughter. You only consider count
3 against Maxine Carr if you found Ian Huntley guilty
of murder or manslaughter of Jessica Chapman and only
consider count 4 against her if you found him guilty of
the murder or manslaughter of Holly Wells. If you do,
then go on to consider counts 3 or 4 as the case may be.
Firstly, the prosecution must prove that Maxine Carr assisted
an offender.
Must prove that she provided false accounts as to her
whereabouts, to the press or to the police and there is
no dispute about that. Next, they must prove that she
did so to impede or prevent the apprehension of his arrest
or prosecution. There is possibly some dispute about this,
it is not wholly clear, but from the argument of Mr Hubbard,
let us assume that there is, because he told you really
she did not have any of this in mind. It is more relevant
to count 5, she was merely trying to protect him.
Remember what I said about motive and intention. The two
things are different. You may intend to impede the course
of justice. you may intend to prevent or apprehend arrest
or prosecution. Your motive may be quite different because
you do it out of love, the reason to protect him. It is
not the same as intention. You may think there is little
difficulty in thinking the lies were done to prevent him
being apprehended or arrested. The third element, the
prosecution must make you sure that she knew or believed
at the time she told the lies that he was guilty of murder
or manslaughter.
I want to say a little bit more about knowledge or belief,
the essential issue in counts 3 or 4. The prosecution
must prove, make you sure, that this particular defendant,
Maxine Carr, knew or believed that Ian Huntley was guilty
or murder or manslaughter. The test in other words is
subjective. You must consider whether the prosecution
has proved she knew or believed. So although your state
of mind is relevant in testing her evidence and the strength
of the prosecution case, it is not what your state of
mind would have been if you had been faced with the circumstances
with which she was faced.
It is what her state of mind is proved to have been. You
must be sure that she in fact accepted that Ian Huntley
had murdered the girls referred to in the count you are
considering, or was guilty manslaughter. The mere fact
that she shut her eyes to what you regard as the obvious
is not enough. The mere fact that you conclude that she
was suspicious or even very suspicious or ought to have
been suspicious is not enough.
To shut your eyes to the obvious, whether accompanied
or no by suspicion, is not enough. But in judging whether
the prosecution has made you sure that she knew or believed
that Ian Huntley had murdered the girl referred into the
count you are considering, you will judge her by her actions
in the context of the facts as you found them. If you
conclude that she chose to ignore signs which were obvious
to her that Ian Huntley had murdered or unlawfully killed
it would be evidence, but only some evidence, which you
could take into account in deciding whether she knew or
believed he was guilty. It does not determine the issue.
Such conclusion would only be some evidence of the state
of mind which the prosecution must prove. The prosecution
contend that the evidence with which she was faced, the
fact that Ian Huntley had admitted the girls were in the
house, that they had gone upstairs, the disturbance in
the house, in the the sense of clearly Ian Huntley had
been cleaning and washing, if you accept her evidence,
and the continued disappearance of the girls were, so
the prosecution submit, such obvious indications that
you can be sure she knew or believed he was guilty of
murder or manslaughter.
In those circumstances, they submit, her thorough house-cleaning
takes on a particular significance. Not so, say the defence.
She loved him and believed him. She would not have stayed
for a moment in the house had she believed he had killed
those girls. She could not contemplate the fact that he
had done away with the girls. She would never have stayed
in the house, let alone his bed, if she thought for a
moment he had done so. She believed him when he said the
girls had left and that had been confirmed by the reported
sighting on the Monday morning on television.
His nervousness was in her mind explained , by the fact
that the girls had been in the house, and what had happened
to him when he had been previously wrongly accused. She
went along with the story of her presence in the house
and concealed the fact the girls had been there to protect
him from what she thought and believed were unfounded
allegations. If you believe her, or think that she may
have been telling the truth, as to what she thought, she
is not guilty on counts 3 and 4. Counts 3 and 4 are separate
and require separate verdicts; you consider count 3 only
if you are sure Ian Huntley murdered or was guilty of
manslaughter in respect of Jessica Chapman, you consider
count 4 if the same is true in respect of Holly Wells.
But if you are sure he murdered both or unlawfully killed
both then the two counts against Maxine Carr, 3 and 4,
stand or fall together. there is no basis for distinguishing
them. Her state of mind must have been the same in respect
of both girls. Either the prosecution have proved that
she knew or believed both were murdered or unlawfully
killed or it has not. I turn to the last count, count
5 if you look at that, please. That is conspiracy. there
is no magic about the word, it merely means a criminal
agreement.
You only have to consider Maxine Carr because Ian Huntley
has pleaded guilty to that. Please remember this the fact
that he has pleaded guilty is not evidence against Maxine
Carr at all. Put his plea of guilty out of your mind.
Only consider count 5 if you acquit her on counts 3 and
4. If you convict Maxine Carr of one or both counts 3
or 4, you need not bother with the lesser offence under
count 5. If you acquit her of counts 3 and 4, then this
in relation to count 5, the prosecution must make you
sure she agreed with Ian Huntley that she should falsely
tell the police or the press that she was in Soham on
the 4th and 5th August. There is an no distinction between
the press or the police, because if she told the police
it was bound to be broadcast.
There is no real dispute as to that. there is some dispute
as to when it was suggested, when she agreed with it.
You may think this dispute about when it was first hatched
up does not really matter. The next thing the prosecution
must make you sure, such a false account had a tendency
to pervert the course of justice. Again, there is no real
dispute about it, just test it by what would have happened
if she had told the truth. What would the police have
done? At the very least they would have questioned Ian
Huntley very early on, very carefully indeed.
It did not happen. If you are sure of those two elements,
go on to consider the final element and that is where
there is dispute; namely whether she intended to pervert
the course of justice. If she intended to put the police
off questioning Ian Huntley, or even pursuing a suspicion
of him, whatever her motives, whatever her reasons for
doing so, then she is guilty. and you may think, but it
is a matter for you, she came very close to admitting
that in the fine questions in cross-examination put by
Mr Latham to her.
It was towards the end of her cross-examination, difficult
to keep your concentration up over that length of time,
so you must consider her answers in the checks of the
evidence as a whole and consider Mr Hubbard's arguments
on that final aspect of his speech to you. I hope he will
forgive me saying he rather concentrated on motive. She
loved him. Those are arguments that go to motive. you
have to concentrate on whether the prosecution intended,
but you must bear in mind that Mr Hubbard said well it
never really occurred to her and that's why the prosecution
can't prove e intended to pervert the course of justice.
Well, even though motive is irrelevant, concentrate, consider
carefully the arguments in relation to intention, but
it may be that at the end of the day count 5, if you get
to it at all, need not detain you long, but that is a
matter for your decision. One thing I know, I have told
you to put some things out of your minds. I said that
so as to help you consider the case of both these defendants
fairly. I am afraid it also applies in relation to the
defence. It really is not a defence to tell the jury,
"Hasn't she suffered enough?"
Now ladies and gentlemen, I have told you what the law
is. I want you to remember what I have told you, but what
I have done is to give you an aide-memoir; one of you
has been certainly writing notes on almost everything.
I hope this will at least save her pen. Here are summaries
of questions you can follow through that will bring back
to your mind my directions of law. Perhaps the Jury could
have them now. (Same handed)
MR LATHAM
in relation to counts 3 and 4, my Lord has not touched
upon the element (inaudible) unless it be (inaudible)
MR JUSTICE MOSES
you are quite right. thank you very much. you will see
the words there. I am for it; I missed them out because
they are not an issue in this case; nobody says if the
other elements weren't proved there was any lawful excuse
or lawful authority or reasonable excuse, so you need
not worry about that element. it is something that the
prosecution have to disprove. It is not an issue in this
case; you are quite right to remind me of it because you
will have read it there and you don't want to question
later on.
can I turn to the questions which again do not touch that
element which you need not worry about. What I'm going
to do is read them through. I am not going to make further
comments because it is merely summarising but I ought
to read them through so at least there is a transcript
of what the questions are.
Question 1 and question 2 and question 3, sorry the margin
typing is not very good, relate to count 1, Jessica Chapman.
1, are we sure that Ian Huntley caused the death of Jessica
Chapman? Then in italics what follows. If the answer to
the first question is no, the defendant is not guilty
of count 1. 2, if the answer to question 1 is yes, are
we sure he did not accidentally cause her death? sorry
to put it that way but it is to stress the burden is on
the prosecution to disprove accidents.
The answer to question 2 is no, in other words it might
have been an accident, the defendant is not guilty of
count 1, the murder of Jessica Chapman. 3, if the answers
to questions 1 and 2 are yes, sure he caused the death,
sure he did not, it wasn't an accident are we sure at
the time he killed Jessica Chapman he intended to kill
her or to cause her really serious bodily harm? If the
answer to questions 1, 2 and 3 are yes, the defendant
is guilty of murder and your verdict should be guilty,
you will say guilty.
If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes but to question
3 is no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict
should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter,
I put in bold the words your foreman will say. count 2
exactly the same. Question 4, are we sure Ian Huntley
caused the death of Holly Wells? The answer to question
4 is no, the defendant is not guilty of count 2. 5, the
answer to question 4 is yes, that you did, are we sure
that he did not accidentally cause her death?
In other words, sure it was an accident. The answer to
question 5 is yes, go on to consider question 6. the answer
to question 5 is no(?), in other words it may have been
an accident go on to consider question 7. Suppose you
are sure it was not an accident the same as question 3,
question 6 the answers to questions 4 and 5 are yes, sir
yes. Be sure at the time he killed Holly Wells, he intended
to kill her or cause her really serious bodily harm, the
answers to question 4, 5 and 6 are yes, the defendant
is guilty of murder on count 2, and your verdict will
be guilty.
The answer to questions 4 and 5 are yes, and to question
6 is no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict
should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Just suppose you thought that it may have been an accident.
That is when you turn to question 7 and the questions
you ask in relation to manslaughter by gross negligence.
Here they are summarised A, are we sure that the defendant
owed a duty of care, as explained by (inaudible) to Holly
Wells? The answer to A is no, the defendant is not guilty
of gross negligence manslaughter. B, if the answer to
question A is yes, yes, he did; are we sure his failure
to act was a breach of that duty? The answer to question
B is no, the defendant is not guilty. C, if the answer
to guilty question B is yes, failure to act was breach
of duty, are we sure his failure to act was a more than
a trivial cause of her death.
If the answer to question C, is no, the defendant is not
guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and again you
will remember Mr Coward did not seek to argue to the contrary
in relation to A, B and C. D, the answer to questions
A, B, C and D are yes, in other words, was it a duty of
care, was a breach of duty of care, was a cause of death
then and also it was so bad as to amount to a criminal
omission, then the defendant is guilty of gross negligence
manslaughter under count 2, your verdict should be not
guilty of murder but guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
If the answers are no to any of the questions he is not
guilty. Turning to Maxine Carr, consider count 3 against
Maxine Carr only if you found the defendant Ian Huntley
guilty of murder or manslaughter on count 1. count 3,
question 8, are we sure that Maxine Carr provided false
accounts of her whereabouts on the 4th and 5th August?
No dispute about this. 9, if the answer to question 8
is yes, are we sure at the the time, or time she did so,
she intended to impede the apprehension or prosecution
of Ian Huntley. If the answer to question 8 is no, she
is not guilty of count 3, then 10, the all important question,
if the answer to question 9 is yes, are we sure at the
time, or times she did so, she knew or believed he murdered
or unlawfully killed Jessica Chapman?
If the answers to questions 8, 9 and 10 are yes, she is
guilty of count 3. If the answer to any of the questions
8, 9 or ten is no, she is not guilty of count 3. On to
count 4, only consider it if you sure Huntley is guilty
of murder or manslaughter on count 2, if you are sure
Huntley murdered or unlawfully killed Holly Wells, you
should ask the same questions in relation to count 4 concerning
Holly Wells as under count 3. if you are sure Huntley
murdered or unlawfully killed both Jessica Chapman and
Holly Wells there is no (inaudible) for distinguishing
count 3 and 4 you either acquit Maxine Carr or both or
convict (inaudible) both, then I remind you consider count
5 only if you acquit Carr on counts 3 and 4, sorry about
the 'only', it is not giving you a hint or nudge, it is
just to remind you and emphasise. Consider count 5 if
you acquit Carr on 3 and 4.
If you convict on either counts 3 or 4 don't concern yourselves
with count five. there are the questions under count 5.
11, are we sure that Maxine Carr agreed with Ian Huntley
she should falsely tell the police or others she was in
Soham on 4th or 5th August, 2002, well, whoever's idea
it was, whenever it was, there is not much dispute about
it. if the to answer question 11 is no, she is not guilty
of count 5. if the answer to question 11 is such false
account had intended to pervert the course of a justice
the sense explained by (inaudible) again not much dispute.
dispute about question 13, if the answers to question
11 and 12 are yes, are we sure at the time she made the
agreement she intended to pervert the course of justice?
if the answers to 11, 12 and 13 are yes, she is guilty
of count 5. If the answer is no to any of those questions,
she is not guilty.
So here is my summary. Let me turn to another topic, an
important topic in this case. I want to give you directions
about lies. A lot of the evidence in this case has been
taken up with the lies told both by Ian Huntley and by
Maxine Carr after the girls had died. a lot of evidence
in this case has been taken up with Ian Huntley's attempts
to destroy the evidence as to what had happened. You must
take great care in your approach to the lies he has admitted
he told and great care as to the conclusions you draw
from the evidence, undisputed evidence, of his attempts
to destroy that evidence.
You will remember Mr Coward's point and indeed Mr Hubbard's
point. Once a decision had been taken at the outset to
lie, it was pretty inevitable that they were going to
have to go on and on lying. Before you could treat any
of his lies - it applies also to Maxine Carr, in the context
of her case - but before you could treat any of Ian Huntley's
lies as intending to prove that he murdered the girls,
you would have to be sure that there was not some other
possible explanation for what he said and what he did.
If the reason he lied and concealed the deaths of those
girls, which had happened in his house may have been to
cover up the fact that he had laid his hand or hands on
Jessica, then those lies and the cover up cannot be any
evidence of murder. Similarly, if he lied and tried to
destroy the evidence because Holly Wells had died in his
house by accident, in circumstances which, as he told
us, he did not think the police would accept, in circumstances
where the previous accusation made against him might be
dragged up again, or in circumstances where the girls
should not have been in his house at all, those lies,
and that deception, cannot be evidence of murder.
If his lies and the cover up are just as consistent with
an intention to conceal the fact that the girls had come
into the house and died there, just as consistent as with
his murdering them, then they cannot and must not be used
by you as evidence of his having murdered them. He himself
says he did not think he would be believed as to how Holly
Wells came to die and in those circumstances he sought
to cover up her death in the house.
He clearly thought, as he put it, his holding of Jessica's
mouth had something to do with her death and thus he set
upon a course of lying and destroying the evidence and
concealing the bodies, and once he started, he found it
inevitably difficult to stop. So the fact that the lies
went on and on and the attempt to destroy the evidence
persisted, can be in those circumstances of no assistance.
You could only act upon any lies he told or any aspect
of his activities if you were sure that the only explanation
for them was that he was lying about and trying to cover
up murder.
In other words, if those actions or those lies went to
prove not just that there was an accident, not just that
his account was untrue, but that he intended to kill them
or cause them really serious bodily harm then those lies
and actions have no other explanation. My advice is -
and it is only advice - first of all you must take into
account my directions on this, but my advice is that most
of the evidence that has taken up considerable time of
the lies and of his conduct in relation to the bodies
and destruction and concealment, won't help you at all.
Not all of it, but most of it, and you may think it is
just as consistent with his story as with the fact that
he was a murderer and therefore cannot assist in proving
murder. Of course, the ease with which he and Maxine Carr
told the lies, their appearance on television, telling
lies, when, and it is a matter for you, you may think
- if you did not know it you would never believe they
were telling lies - is relevant when it comes to judging
the evidence they gave you.
But it might be that your time might be more profitably
spent, and again it is entirely a matter for you, in focusing
on his account of how he said the girls came to die. If
you came to the conclusion that what he said about what
happened in the bathroom was a lie, that is totally different.
You would be entitled to ask yourselves, well, why did
he lie about that? You would be entitled to conclude that
the only explanation for a lie about how one or both came
to die, was in the context of the evidence as a whole
to conceal the fact that one or both had died because
he had murdered them.
That is not the earlier lies, that is lying to you in
the witness box. I want to say a little bit more about
his behaviour after the girls died. His description of
how he came to dispose of those bodies may have appalled
you. But remember, emotion can play no part in your deliberations.
it is all too easy to say that a man who could behave
like that must be a murderer, but that is not a proper
approach, do not jump to that conclusion.
There is one aspect, however, on which the prosecution
rely, which may be relevant. it may be - it is a matter
for you - that that behaviour not later on, I am not talking
about the Monday and the 13 days there after - the behaviour
on the night gives you some clue. It is a matter for you,
as to his state of mind at the time of the deaths, one
of which he says was an accident and one of which came
about in circumstances he did not understand. was this
panic; did he or might he have frozen when one of the
girls fell in the bath?
How does it, his behaviour afterwards, as he took hose
bodies down the stairs, put one of them out of the way
so they on the be seen from the door, he then put them
in the car and drove to Wangford - how does that behaviour
square with his account of having frozen and panicked
so he was unable to think of anything to help them?
You are entitled, but again, it is your decision, not
mine or prosecuting counsel's, to consider his account
of what happened in the bathroom, tested against his clarity
of thought when he drove to, when he got to Wangford.
Those are questions you are entitled to consider when
judging the truth of his evidence to you. you are also
entitled, although be very careful about this, to take
into account whether the lies and course of conduct he
adopted went beyond that which was necessary, or may have
appeared necessary, for the cover up.
What was the approach to Holly Wells's father about? Was
it merely part of the pretence? Or does it display a more
sinister cynicism? Why did he feel it necessary to cut
off the girls under clothes? Was it an unthinking part
of a disposal of the evidence, or was it because he feared
there might be some clues found on the under clothes.
But I repeat, only act upon facts you find, about the
events after the deaths if you are sure that they tend
to prove murder and nothing else. You will remember the
counter-arguments advanced by Mr Coward about leaving
clues because he wanted to be found out; the scissors
and the petrol can in the boot, the pretty inadequate
burning of the cloths in the hangar. all evidence so it
was submitted that show he may have wanted to be found
out.
It does of course raise the question, found out for what?
another factor you must take into account in his favour
is this until this case, Ian Huntley was a man of good
character. that is something you must take into account
in his favour when considering the charges of murder.
It means he has never been guilty of this type of behaviour
in the past and it is therefore relevant to the question
as to the likelihood of his being guilty of murder. It
is not a defence, but it is a fact you must take into
account when judging his evidence as a whole. please do
not take into account and ignore the fact that he has
previously been accused of rape.
You only heard about it because it was part of Maxine
Carr's explanation for her behaviour. It is nothing to
do with the case against him and you must ignore it. It
would, and I know you want to adopt this approach, it
would be wholly unfair to say in the light of what we
now know, perhaps there is something in it that won't
be her approach. I know, having seen you and watched you,
you won't adopt and you must not adopt in relation to
Maxine you must adopt the same approach in relation to
her lies and the cover-up.
The fact that she lied and concealed her knowledge that
the girls had been in the house does not mean that you
can use those lies and behaviour as evidence that she
knew or believed he was guilty of murder or manslaughter.
You could only do so if you are sure the only explanation
was that she did indeed know or believe he was the murderer.
After all, both counts 3, 4, and 5 themselves make it
clear that you must be sure not only that she lied but
she did so knowing or believing he was guilty of murder
or manslaughter in relation to count 5 with intention
to pervert the course of justice, so you must look for
more and not merely rely upon what she said, which she
accepts were lies.
If you are sure she helped clean up the house, not just
because she was an obsessive cleaner but to conceal evidence,
the matter might be different, although you would have
to be sure that that was done not just to conceal evidence
that the girls had been in the house. But there is one
aspect of the case, one aspect of her behaviour, you might
like to consider. She was fond of those girls; she admired
them.
You are entitled to ask yourselves if you consider it
a sensible question, whether she would have behaved in
the way she did if she had thought they were still alive.
If she thought they were you are entitled to ask yourselves
whether she might not have wanted to help the police find
them alive by telling the full story. Set against that
is her undoubted lying for Ian Huntley and the fact that
allowing her heart to rule her head in the belief that
he couldn't possibly be the murderer, she went along with
the plan.
but if you are sure the explanation is that she believed
they were dead and nothing more could be done you would
be entitled to ask why did she think they were dead and
how did she think their deaths had come about. that is
one approach. It is your decision as to the approach which
matters, and the approach you should adopt. She is of
good account, it is a matter you must take into account
in her favour, it was a respect. It is relevant to the
likelihood that she would like to save someone she believed
to be a murderer and the likelihood of her intending to
pervert the course of justice.
You must also take it into her favour in a second way.
It goes to her credibility as to whether she is entitled
to be believed or not. Then, that beneficial effect, may
be qualified in your minds by the fact that, on her own
admission, she was prepared to lie in the face of the
most desperate circumstances. I have nearly finished my
directions of law you, I shall repeat them after the break.
two o'clock, please, is 55 minutes all right? then I will
go on to a brief summary of the evidence.
Hearing
adjourned - will resume after lunch luncheon adjournment}
Page 01 02 |
