Flowers in Gods Garden - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman - Documents 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 ladies and gentlemen, some more directions as to the law. please bear in mind that what Maxine Carr said to the police or said to Ian Huntley's mother in conversations in prison is not evidence against Ian Huntley. The reason is obvious, he was not there to contradict it. You cannot use what she said about him on those occasions as evidence against him. It is only evidence in her case, and you can of course in that respect test what she told you against what she said earlier. Of course, for example, telling his mother that the decision to lie was on Monday and the place where it had happened, is evidence against her, on testing her evidence, for example, that it had not occurred until late on, on Tuesday. What of course Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr said in evidence on oath to you is part of the evidence in the case to be weighed, to be judged, to be considered by you just as any other evidence in the case; it does not call for a different approach just because the witness came from the dock as opposed from elsewhere to give that evidence. In relation to to Maxine Carr's evidence when it concerned Ian Huntley, I do have to give you a warning, not seeking in any way to cast doubt on the truth of her evidence, you will just have to judge that, but she did give evidence, did she not, in respect of important features which touched upon his case. You have to be careful about it because of course she has an axe to grind, on any view she had, she says, believed in him and loved him. She was on any view trying inevitably as a defendant to protect herself, and she clearly, you may think, exhibited considerable anger against him. You must, therefore, be cautious before you use any of the evidence she gave against the defendant Ian Huntley, for it may be coloured by reasons she has of her own - coloured by her anger. You must also bear in mind what Mr Coward said to you about witnesses looking at things with hindsight. As it happens, most of the prosecution evidence is not in dispute, but you still have to be careful - as he told you and as I stress - about those witnesses who made no notes at the time, who have looked upon events that they have recalled sometime before, by which time Mr Huntley had been arrested all too easy to make things look far more sinister than what has happened than if they were giving evidence about something they had made notes about. So be careful about that too. There is another aspect of the evidence I want to direct you about and that is expert evidence. The reason you hear expert evidence, that is evidence of the opinion of an expert, is that that expert has knowledge and expertise the rest of us, you and I, do not have. You are not bound to accept expert evidence, though in this case apart from really the evidence of Poleontologist there is virtually no dispute but you must bear in mind you do not have the expertise to challenge it. You have to have some reason not to follow it. There may be examples of the evidence in this case which you think really you ought to ect, for example the Poleontologist, Patricia Wiltshire's evidence of there being another path and that having anything to do with the case as demonstrating a second visit. A defendant is entitled to call expert evidence if he wishes to dispute something an expert said, but he is under no obligation to do so, no duty to do so, because the prosecution must prove the case. It is not for the defendants to prove anything. Where of course part of the evidence touches upon something the .... it means there is no evidence to (inaudible) there was, however, no dispute, as to Dr Cary's pathological evidence. It is the interpretation of it that you have to consider and about which there was argument. Let me turn to the evidence that you heard. Could you take out please, or find, that chronology. What I am going to do is to remind you of certain features of the time, fairly briefly because, as I say, most of it wasn't in dispute and for reasons I have given a lot of it may not matter very much. Can I just start though with the evidence that was read from the parents? Holly Wells's mother, Nicola Wells, who told you about the start of the panic, at about 8.45 after she had realised the girls were not upstairs on that evening of the 4th August, and told you about her husband, Kevin, going out to look for them on a bike. She, it was, who described the obvious affection her daughter Holly Wells had for Maxine Carr, describing her daughter saying something like there is Miss Carr when she saw Maxine Carr. Importantly in her evidence you heard evidence about the nosebleed and you well remember Mr Coward's comments about the fact taken with the admissions that Ian Huntley couldn't possibly have known about the nosebleed until he revealed that was the cause or the reason why he invited the girls into the house. What Nicola Wells said about this nosebleed in her statement in November after of course Ian Huntley was to be heard in the college. "Holly suffered from nosebleeds when she was about 5 or 6 years old. None of her nose bleeds were ever very heavy and tended to come on during summer time when it was warm and muggy, can't think of a year where Holly had more than four or five nose bleeds and she was never very bothered by them. She pinched her nose to try and get it to stop and may ask a tissue. I am not aware of an occasion where Holly ever had a heavy nosebleed it would always be fairly light. To the best of my knowledge there was no reason these nosebleeds should come on. As I said she had not at had one at all this year. I can say Holly had not had a nosebleed on 4th August 2002, prior to leaving the meal table at the barbecue. After that I cannot comment." with that evidence there was no record since 1997 in the school sick book of her having a nose bleed. The other piece of evidence about the girls comes really in relation to Sharon Chapman, Jessica's mother, does it not, her evidence was read. She told you this about Jessica didn't like the dark and so on, but she said this "the other thing she's frightened of is dogs in so much as she was attacked by a dog, they attacked her ear and she had her stitches. She doesn't like dogs that bark a lot as long as she knows where they are, and what they are doing and who they are she is fine." Something else she told you, and that was about Jessica's mobile. you know that Jessica had her mobile with her, let me remind you of that. "Jessica would always take her mobile phone with her. I always knew where she was going, if she was, i.e. at Holly's house", which means or example, Holly's house, "if she was to leave that location she would always ring to ask if it was okay to go for example to the sweet shop, used to go to (inaudible) close to Holly's house, if Jessica had ever done anything wrong, told off at school for talking and suchlike she would always arrive home and tell me what had happened. She was totally honest and to my knowledge always told me when she had been told off. I'm sure Jessica would never have turned her mobile off, even if she knew she might be in trouble for being late. She would never switch her phone off so I would be unable to contact her. Well, your concern your Jessica, I don't know if your experience is like mine, pretty difficult to get anybody of that age to turn their mobile phone off, waiting as they always are for calls from friends and so on." So much for the parents' evidence, save for Kevin Wells, and we'll come to that in chronology, going round looking for his daughter. You heard about the girls from Joy Pederson who took them in all subjects, and she gave evidence to you. Holly was the footballer, not Jessica, although it appears neither were couch potatoes; they were very good friends - not inseparable, not always together but spent a lot of time together and got on very well. They were bright girls, sensible, good for taking messages, very conscientious, and treated school work seriously. Then she spoke about them, she would have recommended them to be house captains. She spoke also of Maxine, how she got on very well with Holly and Jessica and how disappointed she was not to get the job. The other matter Joy Pederson told you about that may be of significance, being year 5 or at least having achieved year 5, they had sex and drug education and safety awareness course to support each other, run by an outside agency, and they had learned about the risks in and outside school. She confirmed in cross-examination with Mr Hubbard how much the children had enjoyed being with Maxine Carr. You will also take with that the evidence that in interview when the press were asking questions of these two defendants what Maxine Carr had said about how they have stuck together and one would never have left the other if they got into difficulties. Turning to the chronology, you know from the timings from the CCTV the important time, the time after which the girls must have gone to number 5, where Ian Huntley lived. You heard a whole lot of evidence read as to sightings, times vary of the girls in Sand Street - you have a map, it is in the bundle of photographs. I am not sure you will find it there but you will (inaudible) the only importance of the evidence you heard from people like Lucy Tucker, Grant Tucker and Fiona Loose was that the girls were perfectly happy and normal as they walked along Sand Street up to the War Memorial and down past the defendants house and up College Street. the only significance now of that evidence is the suggestion the prosecution made of how odd it was the defendant had been up College Road, although he stresses not this route and he had not seen them before they arrived outside his house. But otherwise, save insofar as it concerns their behaviour, happy and shoulders touching, you may think the evidence is not of the greatest significance. Now, what is of importance, is that evidence taken together clearly demonstrates, does it not, that the girls did not arrive outside Ian Huntley's house before 6.31. 6.31 was, as you see from page 5 in your chronology, the time of the text message sent by Maxine Carr in Grimsby before she went out again saying "Don't make me feel guilty." The importance of that evidence, you may think, is taken with the evidence over at page 6 on the chronology. ca's mobile power died. As Ian Huntley was to admit to you, the girls can't have been in the house much before sometime, say, 6.33, 6.34. Within, as prosecuting counsel pointed out, within 15 minutes Jessica's mobile was turned off. Ian Huntley denies turning it off. It certainly doesn't fit in, you may think, with the account of events; it may have happened when Jessica was alone in the lavatory and turned off the mobile. Remember what I said about little pieces of evidence. How did that mobile get turned off? The evidence you heard, the outside agency, and they had learned about the risks in and outside school. They confirmed in cross-examination with Mr Hubbard how much the children had enjoyed being with Maxine Carr. You will also take with that the evidence that in interview, when the press were asking questions of these two defendants what Maxine Carr had said about how they have stuck together, and one would never have left the other if they got into difficulties. Turning to the chronology, you know from the timings from the CCTV the important time, the time after which the girls must have gone to number 5, where Ian Huntley lived. You heard a whole lot of evidence read as to sightings; times vary of the girls in Sand Street you have a map, it is in the bundle of photographs. The evidence you heard from Peter Bristowe, the chartered engineer. The evidence that showed that at a certain point just by or within number 5 College Close, a mobile would take a signal from and give back the signal when it was turned off; not to the Soham aerial but to the one at the Burwell site. and his evidence undisputed, was that Jessica's mobile was detached from the Burwell cell site at 18.46. As he put it, the records show 18.46, within a minute or so when it was detached from the network of the Burwell site. He told you the record would be kept, the phone records and that is how he knows. It could have been detached, he pointed out in cross-examination, if the battery was taken off or ripped off, but Ian Huntley said he did not do either of those things; when he saw it in her pocket after she was dead it was turned off. is that the truth, or may it have been the truth or was it turned off by Huntley? Fifteen minutes or less from the time when the girls arrived at that house. The next evidence to which I wish to draw attention is the evidence of Margaret Bryden, who gave her evidence on Thursday, 13th November of this year, if you look through your notes. At some stage she gave evidence as Vice Principal at Soham Village College of taking on Ian Huntley he correct response he gave to the questions which were of concern to the school about appropriate behaviour with children. She describes herself as delighted with his responses and that he had a very sensible approach. She also told you that she visited the address and it was a very very clean, tidy house, well maintained, and of course as you heard from later evidence had been refurbished, including a refurbishment from flood damage in November and December at the time, or just before, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr moved in. She told you more about her dealings with Ian Huntley, that he found things very difficult at first but she tried to befriend him and sometimes there would be heated discussions and he would get upset with tears in his eyes and walk out of the office, but later return to discuss things, as she said. She spoke also of the events after the girls had disappeared, when he had complained about being hounded by the press and later told her that he thought he was the last person to see the girls alive. She gave much evidence about alarms and keys, "I don't think anybody is going to stop and say (inaudible). I'm not going to because it really does not matter at all now, does it? it might, however, have mattered had not the defendant given the evidence that he did in the witness box and it was clearly, at the time the evidence was being prepared, necessary to look into and obtain the evidence in the light of the stance the defendant at that point was taking. She was under the impression that Maxine Carr had been away for a week. She also gave evidence there may have been an occasion when Jessica and the defendant Huntley worked together when putting up decorations round about the time when there was a school prom. absolutely nothing to be made of that in any event you may think. The next piece of evidence if you look at the chronology is the times after Holly and Jessica had been reported as missing, page 6 of the chronology, at 10.35, Watkins times two in short. That was the meeting where Jonathan Watkins had come out of the sports centre, had joined the search, if you remember, with Mark Abbott and Watkins, who had been Mary Norman, and had met Huntley. Jonathan Watkins' girlfriend worked at the Sports Centre and she had closed up the bar at about 10.30. Mark Abbott had told him two girls were missing and he had gone to see if they could see anybody. There was group of four of them walking along the path by the school. He told you he saw a man. He did not know who he was, with a dog, who he later discovered was Ian Huntley. he told you, "I think I started the conversation. I said 'Have you seen two little girls?' 'No, he said.' I think he said he had been feet away he said he was walking the dog. Mark said he was the caretaker. He asked who the two girls were, and Mark told him the names and said they were wearing Man United shirts, only a few sentences." that was really you may think round about the first time that Ian Huntley had met any members of the public after he had taken the girls to that ditch. His first. His reaction was to deny knowing about the girls. He must have known you may think who they were talking about. It was later, not long after, that he was to tell people that he had thought he was the last to see them other than Watkins who had seen Ian Huntley later when he came over and asked for a cigarette because he had been up all night searching with the police. Mark Abbott you may think confirmed Jonathan Watkins's evidence. he too says that he recognised Ian Huntley, knew he was the site manager, asked whether he had seen the girls wearing the red tops and said, no he had not. The dog was off the lead and Mark Abbott's impression was that Huntley was his normal self. All these witnesses have not made witness statements at the time, it was pointed out during the course of Mr Coward's cross-examination of them that they made their statements very much later indeed, usually a month or two later. Mary Watkins also confirmed that evidence. Look , if you will, at the chronology again, at about 11 o'clock there was a meeting between Scott Day and this defendant, Scott Day, gave his evidence on the Friday 4th. Scott Day saw Kevin Wells outside looking for his daughter, calling out across the playing field for Jessica and Holly as loud as he could two or three times. Round about that area he saw, during the course of the fact that Kevin Wells was calling for his daughter, Ian Huntley - although as he accepted in cross-examination, Ian Huntley was near the sports centre and not by the playing fields. Scott Day also saw Ian Huntley later on about 4.30. That would be the morning of the 5th, when he and Kevin Wells had gone through the door into Lodeside, you remember, they had seen a light on and the dog Sadie had come running out so they backed up. Ian Huntley came out behind the dog, appeared to be wearing the same clothing he had worn before. Kevin Wells said he was out looking for the girls and Ian Huntley said he had just been in the office writing a note to say he had been up all night with the police and he would be late in in the morning. Another witness who had been there during the visit to the Lodeside was the witnesses referred to there, Scott Day and of course Kevin Wells, as I have said. Another witness who spoke about the events on the night of the Sunday, was the witness Stuart Smith who had gone to relieve himself up against the fence; he thought there was no car when he went to the fence diagonally across the lawn, he didn't see a car there. You may think he is probably wrong about that, but he did see Ian Huntley. He did not know him at the time, standing at the back with the police holding on to a long haired Alsatian. Another of the witnesses there at that time, if you look at page 6 at quarter to twelve, was PC Burton, the dog handler, who had been called over and had gone round trying to find the living girls by using her dog to sniff around the outside of the buildings finding, I think, one or two open and, of course, assisted by Ian Huntley. That is on the night, the early morning, of Sunday. She described him as being very pleasant and very helpful. They talked and she was surprised that so young a man would have such responsibilities. "he was incredibly helpful", is what she told you. Let us move on then to the Monday, and we are now getting to a period about which I have already commented, once the lies had been started that went on and on. So the meetings with Ian Huntley had been described rather shorter. The early morning of the 5th August, for example, at 1.30 if you look at page 7 of your chronology, you remember the meeting with the retained fireman, obviously rather important if they could get hold of the dragon lamps and they were much more skilled at finding people who had accidents or fallen, than others. One of them was David Hobbs, you remember? He was very familiar with the geography because he had been a schoolboy in the area. It was to him and his colleague Steven, that the defendant Ian Huntley first said he had seen the two girls passing by his house at 6.30. David Hobbs told there had been a very general conversation. Huntley said two girls had gone missing both wearing red tops, one blonde, one brown hair. He said the two girls passed his house at 6.30, didn't say where he lived. He had hung around the group but behaved as though he was out walking his dog. Again, his statement had been made much later and it was pointed out in cross-examination that Ian Huntley certainly had not said "Don't tell anybody." Stephen Jarvis gave similar evidence to this effect He said 'two young girls have gone missing. Their names are Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman'. he said, that's Huntley, he had been searching for two young girls he asked, they had red tops and one with blonde hair. I said yes. He said he had seen them earlier. I asked about what time, he said after six. Actually of course he knew exactly who the two girls were. He commented that the police were out in force and that rather annoyed the witness Stephen Jarvis and Ian Huntley said 'well I had better let the police know what I saw. In cross-examination he said I had seen them after six and pointed towards the bridge. Susan Hurrell and her daughters clearly had got extremely interested in Ian Huntley when he told them he had seen the girls and you will remember she saw him round about the rendezvous sitting down on the grass, she knew Maxine Carr was his partner. she asked him had he seen anything further he said yes I saw them last night, one blonde and one brown; did they speak to you? Yes. what did they say? one said how is Maxine Carr. and at the time he gave to her was 10 to 6. he said the dog was on heat running across the fields and was dirty, I was outside sorting out the dog when they came past. I asked where they went next he said over the bridge, College Road towards the library. She got excited and said quick tell the police sergeant. They went over to the police sergeant and you will then remember her account of what happened. That is different you may think quite markedly from what police sergeant Nelson said. Huntley had floundered she, Susan, interrupted and eventually the police sergeant had told her to go away. Michelle Hurrell, her daughter, told you that the police sergeant was writing down what Ian Huntley had said but no note was ever forthcoming and Louise Hurrell also confirmed what her mother had said. police Sergeant Pauline Nelson gave a rather different account. You remember Mr Coward's comments about the difference insofar as it is of importance. She said that she had smelt Ian Huntley, smelling as if he had freshly bathed, soap and after shave like officers coming on to a fresh shift, freshly bathed. she had announced the time the girls were seen about 6.30, and he had told her, when she asked how he had come to see the girls, that he had seen them at the Lodeside. and they asked how she was feeling. He said according to her that he couldn't remember what time, he said about 5.30. When I asked why he had not told anyone, Police Sergeant Nelson, he said he had and waved his arm at crowd. He just couldn't remember anything about him being flummoxed, or Mrs Hurrell, so there was clearly conflict in matters between what she was saying and what those other witnesses were saying. the next piece of evidence was the evidence of what happened at the place where the CCTV was being shown. You remember the evidence about Ian Huntley's obvious interest about the CCTV. If you look at 11 this next series of incidents are the occasions when the defendant, Ian Huntley, went and spoke to some of the neighbours next door as he accepts he did. Susan Midgley, the secretary to Margaret Bryden "He knocked at the door and said he was not going to school because he had been helping looking for missing girls." He said he had seen the girls on the footpath near the entrance as he recalled it to the Lodeside. evidence was also read to you about that. Someone else who also heard the door knocked by the defendant, Ian Huntley, who said straight away, "Have you seen the two girls in Manchester United tops, they have gone missing?" and he replied, "No". I said to him, "Where did they come from?" and Ian replied (inaudible). There is the evidence he had gone round to the neighbours. That he really did not dispute, really to see what they had seen. By Monday, 5th August, if you turn over the page at page 8, at one o'clock, the police were interviewing Ian Huntley, it was in those circumstances, the very first statement he made that you will have got, that was taken. Remember P C Andrea Warren, who went to his house with the other officer, Sergeant Taylor. She asked him if he was the caretaker, he said he was site manager. They went into the dining room. This is the Monday, as you see from your chronology, about one o'clock "the dining room was very smart and clean and he, the defendant, looked very clean as if he had had a shower although he was pale and clammy. He was calm and relaxed. I asked him about what he had said to the police officer about seeing the children, he asked me why, whether he was a suspect and I said, no, I would need to speak to others, he asked if they were suspects and he agreed to speak. I asked him to record the events of Sunday, which he did, he said he had been home all day and the dog had got out and run away. He had gone to search for it. He said it was raining. When the dog came back it was on its own, very dirty and he needed to bathe it. It was a bitch and it was perhaps on heat. He took it into the house, dried it with a towel and then dried it with a towel outside and when he was outside he was aware of the two children on the grass area in front of his house. He mentioned the floor, which was very wet, the two girls approached him, he had never seen them before. They asked how Maxine Carr was. They had come from the sports centre. He explained Maxine had applied for the job and didn't get it. The two girls said they were very sorry that she did not get the job and asked me to pass a message on and they left and walked to the college area. He described them as having Manchester United shirts on with Beckham on the back, one dark and one fair. She thought he was a bit agitated, he said the time he saw the girls was 6.30, and he watched TV for the rest of the evening. she then said this "He indicate that his partner had been in house watching TV and he said 'we watched TV and we heard the noises outside'." now, it wasn't, you may think, wholly clear whether she said we or he or whether she recollected that certainly there was no note at time. What there was, however, the statement, and you have got that statement, that he made to the police, then the the only real relevance you may think is the comment that Maxine Carr made by the prosecution. Here was Ian Huntley as early as lunchtime on the Monday indicating that Maxine Carr was there, which he would never have done had he not been confident she would back up his story. However as I said to you, you may think the conflicting arguments about when it was they decided to lie, really don't carry the case any further forward. What is important is that when she saw Ian Huntley, she saw no marks or visible signs of injury on him and you will remember it is only one Special Constable who says there was any reference to any marks on his face; only one Special Constable - I will come to his evidence in a moment - who saw that and not one other of the trained and skilled officers at any stage saw any marks upon him. The other evidence he gave was about the boots he was wearing, that was of some important when you take it with the evidence of the Poleontologist, who said he made two trips and she, the Poleontologist, focused on certain spots, although nothing on the pair of boots, which were the suede ones, but when - PC Warren and DC Taylor, who were there and took those statements at lunch time on 5th August was asked, it wasn't those suede boots at all it was the other brown leather boots that in fact this defendant was wearing. So you may think using those little bits of evidence Mr Coward was successfully able to destroy any theory about a second visit to the ditch, and you may think insofar as you think it is important, really the prosecution have wholly failed to prove that there was a second visit to the ditch. Whether of course it matters is entirely for you to consider but the importance of that cross-examination about the boot according to those officers was to lend force to the arguments Mr Coward had raised about the boots. The other pieces of evidence that are important about the visit of those two officers was Detective Sergeant Taylor's evidence. He said that Ian Huntley had said "Excuse the dining room, we have had a flood", and he noticed the light fitting with three spot lights hanging down from the ceiling supported only by a cable. To D S Taylor, what it appeared to be were some wet patches and a mark on one wall, he did not say when the flood was. It was to D S Taylor also Huntley said "You think I done it. I was the last person to see them or speak to them", and he started to cry. I said, D S Taylor responded that he shouldn't persecute himself, he should pull himself together. He had also noticed some bedding or curtains, he wasn't sure which, on the washing line in the garden. When DC Warren was recalled for further cross-examination she confirmed that he never in fact indicated where Maxine was, but she was under the impression that he had said she was there. Look again at the chronology, seven o'clock in the evening. The whole list of witnesses listed there. They were all read to you. They were the evidence of the cleaning of the car which now is not in dispute. I think Mr Coward said the cleaning had gone on at a considerable period of time, it may have been up to two hours. I have looked at the evidence, I'm not sure whether it quite gets you to two hours, but it is a long time, about quarter to 7 somebody's still seeing (inaudible) I'm not sure if it matters for these purposes - an hour or two hours, a very long time and they all saw it very clearly and (inaudible) one of the arguments Mr Coward advanced in relation to he was not that good at covering up if he was so openly obviously cleaning his car. but cleaning the car he was, and you may think very thoroughly indeed. if you turn over the page, page 9, you notice at 9.18 he returned the video. I will not remind you of the witness who told you that, but so you know I was paying attention, Simone Knight. I am not going through it. As (inaudible) said you may not think it is crucial to this case that that evening at 9.30, the defendant met another retained firefighter, Paul Fordham. . he gave evidence telling you the defendant, Ian Huntley, said "I have got to go now, my Mrs will have the dinner ready and I'm hungry" and he went into the house cool and calm. Again, founding the argument by the prosecution he wouldn't have been saying on Monday evening, Maxine Carr was there unless there was an agreement. The next piece of evidence, as you see from the chronology at page 9, is the meeting with all those special constables who were for example Special Constable Redhead and Goldsmith and PC Thwaites and it was to them the defendant said he had seen someone running off carrying something quite large and substantial a black bin bag. The prosecution argument about that evidence is here; is the defendant again trying to put police officers off the scent? Whether you get another example of that really you may think does not matter. There was a dispute about it, the defendant Ian Huntley said it was true and anyway wouldn't the police still be interested in a burglary even if they were searching for those girls? you may think again that is another example of really evidence that doesn't matter. Let's move to Tuesday, 6th August, because there you had evidence about what was going on in Grimsby. You heard much later right towards the evidence given in the case, evidence from various boys who see Maxine Carr at the nightclub. Well she admits she was there, so unless you are interested in that sort of thing it really has nothing to do with the case. More important was Marion Clift who, returning home, so she told you, about 12 to 12.20, saw Maxine outside by the car, the boot was open. Maxine was crying. I heard her crying. Ian was pale and shaken, he did not look very good at all. When she was cross-examined, she, it was pointed out to her that she said something different in the statement, not about what she saw, but about whether she was going or she was on her way back from the shops and you remember the comments made by Mr Hubbard as to how easy it is for a witness to get things like that wrong. You may think that perhaps does not touch on the obvious upset that she, Maxine Carr, was exhibiting when Marion Clift, a friend of her mother's, saw her. Maxine Carr explained that that was because she had seen the news about the girls on the television that morning, the search for those girls and it was clearly upsetting for her. On the way home they picked up the hitchhiker Mr Jeynes. You have all seen the unfortunate gentlemen who have to travel round the country carrying red trade plates and you remember the argument advanced by Mr Hubbard that there really had been a plot for Maxine Carr to say that they were going to be in Soham, a bit silly to raise the topic in front, not only of the bus driver the day before, that's Mr Walmsley, who again got the journey wrong, it was coming back from Keelby to Grimsby and not the other way round, and drawing attention to the hitchhiker, Robert Jeynes, the only point about his evidence was where there was discussion about what the woman had said on television last night Ian Huntley said he had seen the girls sedly and he said the last person to see them alive. Whether he said "supposedly" or not that piece of evidence was used by the prosecution as part of the news Maxine Carr might have picked up. Why did he say "supposedly"? She said she didn't hear that and whether it would have had that significance at the time is something you will have to consider. But that was Mr Jeynes' evidence. They arrived back at Soham and PC Iddenten, who is referred to at page ten of the chronology, saw Ian Huntley on the Tuesday, found him very helpful because he had the keys and was able to lock and unlock doors and it was to PC Iddenten - who later on was one of the officers who discovered the following day there was more to be seen on the CCTV than originally thought; namely, the girls could actually be seen - he was one of the officers of whom the defendant had asked whether anything interesting had been found upon the video. So was the officer also referred to there, Special Constable Fredericks. If you turn over you come to 7th August, that was the occasion Michael Gee, who had given evidence earlier, one of the caretakers or assistant site manager had unlocked the hangar door and found that although the padlock to the section had needed unlocking the door was unlocked and he gave the time of the search at 11 a.m.. Again that part of the evidence the prosecution referred to in support of the theory that Huntley had only tried to burn the clothes, dispose of them in the hangar after the search was over, hence the two visits and so forth. Again whether you think that matters is a matter for you. What Michael Gee also gave evidence about, however, on that Wednesday, was going back to College Close with Ian Huntley to have a cold drink and seeing Maxine Carr scrubbing the kitchen wall tiles and complaining that it took the paint off because she was scrubbing so hard. Again you are going to have to make your mind up about the significance of Maxine Carr's cleaning, with the rival arguments about that. but certainly, as Michael Gee's evidence established the cross-examination on behalf of Maxine Carr she did not try to conceal what she was doing; indeed, she drew attention to it and was going to get the dog out before she continued to clean downstairs. She told you she had a problem with cleaning the white tiles which were painted green and the green was coming off and it was only amateurish painting. If you turn back to the chronology, Detective Sergeant Mead, 10.30, Kevin Wells drew to his attention that Ian Huntley wanted to change his statement. Detective Sergeant Mead did not hear the whole of the conversation between Kevin Wells and Ian Huntley but did when his statement was read to you reveal that he had, Kevin explaining how they had been out looking for Holly and the man Ian Huntley replied, "Oh I didn't realise it was your daughter." What actually had happened, you heard partly from the evidence of Kevin Wells that was read, but what he could recall was that it was at the time of one of the meetings and when Kevin Wells' evidence was read to you, he said I turned round and saw it was Ian Huntley. He knew me because Kevin Wells had a window cleaning contract at the school. I said hello Ian, Ian replied, Kevin, I'm so sorry, didn't realise it was your daughter. I said I know, thank you for your kind words, it just beggars belief doesn't it, or something to that effect. He agreed and replied, yes, I know. Huntley then said he needed to speak to the police as he had to change the times of his statement. So that approach, which Ian Huntley was himself to describe in one of the interviews with the press - you will be able to see it up - going up to the man he describes as Kev could be timed 10 o'clock on the monitor of the Wednesday. You recall rival arguments about that approach, Mr Coward's submissions to you that this was again just part of the inevitable cover up, once he had chosen to lie and the prosecution's submissions, that is a piece of evidence which goes beyond merely a covering up. On that Wednesday, the gentleman who provides cleaning materials to the school called at the house, we'll see that was at 11 o'clock, and had the conversation in which he had said he will find them soon and Ian Huntley replied no they will be dead. I have got three daughters and if my daughters were missing I wouldn't give up after a couple of days, said Mr Mahoney and Ian Huntley replied no, they are dead. it was he who thought he had given an account of the card being put through the door which you have heard the comments, he may have got wrong. It was on the Wednesday as well, the police surveyed the CCTV which did show a correct time, which showed the girls on the College Road and the correct timing and also the evidence of discussions with, for example Special Constable Carr and Gilbert about DNA and the conversations about how long, and that you can continue to discover DNA, a topic in which it appears Ian Huntley was interested in at that time and you may think small wonder. Teresa Russell's evidence was read, Ian Huntley has admitted he went to visit his grandmother near Wangford about 8.30, again part of the evidence on which the Crown rely to show he would have gone back to the site. Let us turn to the night of the 7th August and 8th August, page 12. it is now that the interviews with the (inaudible) start, the early morning, however, of 8th August there was a meeting with P C Cleary. Let me remind you about that. There was a discussion that he had, when he had been invited in for tea, about various matters. He said Ian Huntley was very upset and looked very tired. I spent quite a lot of time reassuring him there was nothing more to be done. He spent a lot of time blaming himself for not finding out more where the children were going. and he was smoking nervously and had watery eyes. He said he wished with hindsight he had challenged the children where they were going and what they were doing. There was another police officer who said there was no marks or scratches on his face, but it is that sort of evidence on which the prosecution relies in showing that the defendant was well able to tag the police along in expressing what the prosecution submit to be phony regret. But again, remember the warning I gave you about all that evidence, however good he was at covering up his tracks, giving a false appearance of hope, it does not prove murder. Then we get to the journalists on the 8th August. for example, Debbie Tubby, the journalist for the BBC who recently had to come back with a notebook which had an account of what she told you was important evidence; namely, that he said they think I did it or have they found the girls clothes. that is not in dispute and it seemed important in the course of that cross-examination but at the end of the day you may wonder partly to show how witnesses can get it wrong even when they work for the BBC, and it did not take the case very much further forward. You heard a lot of evidence from various journalists either taking notes or from various interviews and you may think you do not need to spend a lot of time considering what they did or did not say when they were only relying upon their notes, when for example, a dispute with the (inaudible) about whether Huntley said he was washing or cleaning the dog outside the house. Never really going to resolve that and there is all sorts of room for error. What you may think of of some significance is the evidence of Mr Mikilovich, the London editor of the Herald in Scotland, who when cross-examined on behalf of Maxine Carr, spoke in his earlier statement when Maxine Carr said in the presence of Ian Huntley, Maxine "They wouldn't have gone with someone they didn't know, they would have kicked up right stink, they would have screamed out if someone tried to get hold of them." David Millward gave evidence to similar effect, the girls would have screamed. Ian Huntley said it has to be two people they know and trust what you have is a recording of BBC Radio One with (inaudible) and you able to able to take that machine and listen to the recording and you will be able to watch some the tapes of the interview and you may think it is worth having a look at them and worth listening, but only worth it for one purpose. But you may think it is a matter for you to compare how they spoke and how they looked; how they looked and how they spoke in the witness box and, when you are considering the prosecution argument, namely how ncingly both of them are able to lie. On 9th August Police Sergeant Johnson was carrying out house to house searches and filing out forms when he interviewed both of them. When officers interviewing Ian Huntley had to make a note of the clothes that were being worn at the time and you will remember that incident when he couldn't remember whether it was a green or yellow T shirt and Maxine had said I should know I do the bloody washing. Relevant again to her willingness at that time to help. He told you in cross-examination he would have noticed an injury if there had been any, would have recorded any cuts to the face and written it on the form and there were no marks on Ian Huntley's face. Detective Constable Cope, if we move forward to 10th August, after a whole series of more interviews with the police, took the second witness statement from Ian Huntley, the one where he formally amended the time he had seen the girls and also the statement from Maxine Carr. He had asked whether Maxine had made a statement and she said no she had not and she needed to make a statement and so she did and you have it. She was very clear, he said, and very helpful and she came across very nicely. you know that that statement was a lie. The next piece of evidence to which I draw attention is over at page 13, an announcement by Detective Chief Inspector Mead with Inspector Causer that he had made, not a last appeal, but an appeal to whoever they believe abducted Jessica and Holly by a message to Jessica's mobile and you remember DCI's Hebb's evidence about the questions asked by Ian Huntley about how anyone would get to the mobile phone if the battery was dead or if the phone had been thrown away. During the course of the evidence given on the same day as DCI Hebb gave evidence, 20th November, a week or two ago, there was evidence from those two journalists from Rachel Dane and the cameraman Sean Whitemore about the interview with Look East, and you have got the transcript of that, and that's when most graphically the question of the use by Maxine Carr of the past tense was brought up because certainly the cameraman was worried about her using the past tense because clearly the parents wouldn't want her to do so and she made the same mistake. now, whether that is a point of any weight is a matter for you, it is not perhaps overly fair to criticise prosecuting counsel - if he mentioned every point in his speech if it didn't make you fed up it would have made me, and my attention span wouldn't cover that much. It is not right to say if Mr Latham does not mention a point it is abandoned, but so far as the use of this past tense is concerned you may think worth raising but it has really hasn't it? If I asked you what were the girls like and if you had been their teacher you would have said, oh, the girls were very nice because you are referring back to the time when you were their teacher, and you may think it is very difficult to hinge any knowledge that the girls were dead on the use of past tense, and that's certainly one little battle Mr Hubbard has won. The interviews went on over the Thursday. I am not going to refer to them again. Can I turn then, having reminded you that the interviews are there, and that there was a whole lot of other evidence read. for example, evidence read about the Fiesta and the changing of the tyres back on the Monday, but now that is no longer in dispute, precise details of it do not matter. The fact of the matter is, in order to avoid being traced, this defendant went so far as to get the tyres on his car changed at Ely but, having stated that, there is really no need to run the point. Let me deal a little bit more, however, with the exhibits that were found. If you look at page 16, you will remember the evidence of the discovery of the keys, marked with the hangar - Mr Coward's point about that in the bedroom at 5 College Close. And the clothing found in the hangar. Helen Davey, the forensic scientist, examined some of that and you remember evidence about the cutting of the clothes. The only point really I want to make at this stage - and it is for you to decide if it is of any force or not - is this there was a whole lot of evidence read and a whole lot of evidence prepared, massive detail about fibres, about how the clothes were cut and examinations, and you are entitled to ask why. None of it would have been necessary had what Ian Huntley said to you - for the first time in the witness box - been said ages ago. It was not. All this detailed evidence was prepared, found in the armoury that you have to consider; namely, that if it had not been, would Ian Huntley have told you and said what he did say? So far as the exhibit evidence is concerned, let me remind you about the forensic scientist Helen Davey who saw the blood stain on the back of Holly's Nike, about which the submission, it really seems to have fallen out, if it has anything to do with anything, the DNA was never analysed, they couldn't get it. It may be some evidence of, I don't know it is difficult to see what they can do with that, the (inaudible) What she did talk about was the finding of the miscellaneous items in the bin that had been found because one of you asked a question about it, the two yellow cloths and the washing up cloth and I will come to that when I come to the evidence. you can see the answer to that in that schedule of fibres. there was no biological material, no semen or anything like that, or blood on those but there were two fibres, Manchester United fibres, came from one or other of the girls' shirts and you will be able to see that on the schedule. The other important evidence she gave of course was there was no sign of any penetrating injury on any of those clothes. One of the forensic scientists gave evidence about seeing possible discolouration due to a fire inside the hangar and you may think as a result of the cross-examination that point went and there is nothing to show Ian Huntley was not telling the truth when he said he tried to burn the clothes or part of the cloths, but was worried about the fire being seen when he took the bin out of the hangar and put them in there. the fibre evidence came from Peter Lamb. I am not going to repeat the comment I have made, it is a comment for you to accept or not, about what the fibre evidence told you, or would have told you if Ian Huntley had kept to the attitude he had adopted when he made his defence statement in April this year, that it wasn't in the fibre evidence you will find in the schedules, but I just want to show you this to show that I have been doing my homework. You will find the answer to the question one of you asked. if you look at the very last schedule of fibres, just before transfer of hairs behind tab 5 in the green bundle, have you got that one the split schedule? do you see, schedule F fibre transfers torn from other items in the bin, you see items 4 and 5 the last two, yellow duster, refuse bin from hangar, carpet in the boot that could have come from the car or the house and on the dish cloth exactly the same, the fibres from the carpet, the car or the house. Now that really, all that goes to show is perhaps the credibility of Ian Huntley's evidence to you, because he said he did not use those, they were, they must have been from industrial cleaning material by the cleaners in the school. well, this is what the undisputed schedule shows. The other thing I want to say about the fibres is this that the conclusion of the - that's all - I need to look at in the schedule for the moment, you can look at it at your leisure. Mr Lamb said that having gone through all those schedules there was very strong evidence Huntley had been in contact with the clothes of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, strong evidence of clothing upstairs and downstairs of Huntley's house, and I can even look it up. When you come to look at it you will see, for example, items 18, 19 and 20, on the very first schedule, carpet in bedroom 1, duvet and sheet, there were fibres from either Holly or Jessica's Manchester United shirts on those items. now that, you may think, is important, because it puts one of those girls - or two of them - in the bedroom and Ian Huntley had to explain that. You heard evidence, I am not going to bother to remind you of it, of the laying down of the concrete to repair Common Drove at Wangford, all of which would have been necessary had you needed to rely upon Mr Moncrieff the geology expert as to the type of chalk it was. I need not remind you of his evidence now, distinguished though it was. Do I need remind you of the polaeontologist, Patricia Wiltshire's, evidence save as to this she it was who said she found two paths, one quite marked and one faint. She could not in cross-examination say where that second path, B, precisely went to. She said she had spoken to a police officer about it but no police officer has any note of anything. And insofar as her evidence has any importance now, you may think again it was a point which Mr Coward successfully defeated in the evidence he adduced in cross-examination about the boots, in her failure to mention it to anybody, and you may think insofar as it supported a second visit to the site, the point has gone. I now turn to what you may think is much more crucial evidence, that is the evidence of the pathologist, Dr Cary. Dr Cary described to you the condition of those bodies when he found them, they having been found on 17th August. There was obvious evidence of fire damage and fire damage to the bodies. Substantial loss of skin and internal structures. Jessica Chapman's face and neck was largely decomposed. He could identify the voice box and hyoid; he looked for tissue damage but couldn't find any, so interpretation is severely limited. No damage to the internal bone structure, no fracture with blunt injury and no sharp injury on the bones. There was no visible damage to the skeleton. No evidence of a head or facial fracture, no severe blunt force trauma injury. no fracture of the face, no injury on the back, the cause of death was unascertainable due to decomposition. same true of Holly Wells, whose body was even more decomposed. No evidence of tissue damage, no skeletal damage, no fractures no cuts to the head and in the same position as the first body. All evidence when you consider the evidence of her going backwards and knocking herself out in the bath. Cartilage and voice box more decomposed, but no evidence of hyoid fracture, which sometimes occurs less often in younger people when they have been throttled. evidence of a dog bite. He said this, having looked at the medical records, these were two fit healthy young girls. Their body systems functioned well when greater demands were made of them. Death by natural causes could be excluded as a possibility in relation to either girl, and he also referred to the toxicology report from Dr Taylor, which you also heard read, there had been no finding of any drugs or blood or urine. He went on if there were fractures of the hyoid bone or cartilage, that would be strong evidence of depression of the neck. Of a pillow or hand or hands over the nose and mouth at the same time. She then dealt with rigor mortis. First of all the bodies are flexible, flaccid as he put it, then as rigor mortis sets in, very rapid 12 hours, then the body relaxes again. If rigor mortis had taken place it would be difficult to put them in the boot. then explained the position of Holly Wells' arm under Jessica Chapman. It could have been the bodies had floated into a different position. He dealt also with some evidence of the haematoma within the brain which was fire damaged. As he thought he was cross-examined, the cross-examination was not, you may think, to dispute the evidence, but to bring that important features in favour of the defence. He arrived at his view as he told you during cross-examination by a process of elimination. There was no physical evidence of strangulation but in the state they were in, one wouldn't expect to find any. More likely to be damage to the thyroid cartilage, (inaudible) the to the hyoid but there were no positive signs, none to exclude, merely absence of other things. Bruising could be an indication, but there was nothing to assess whether there was evidence of bruising. Then he dealt with drowning. He said if they were drowning there would be signs within the body, lungs partly filled, foam from nose or mouth. Couldn't exclude drowning. He then dealt with this, if there is very cold water then there is a reflex action which could be caused when that reflect hits the back of the throat, the shock that causes the heart to cease to operate when very cold, for example if you jump off a pier, if the water is not much above 0 degrees, in those circumstances you wouldn't find any water in the lungs and the fresh water could even in drowning be taken into circulation and leave not much in the lungs. It is not possible to say how long it would take to strangle. Brief compression of the neck wouldn't have such a powerful effect. If you grabbed someone briefly by the neck and they collapsed and died, that death would take place rapidly in a couple of seconds. It would be a similar reflex to that which would be caused by cold water hitting the back of the throat. you could have a reflex stoppage of the heart stimulated by the nerves in the carotid artery; I have never heard of it in a ten year-old child. then there would be a quick lapse in a few seconds. the carotid artery would be flattened, depriving the brain of blood which would cause collapse and death in rare instances, otherwise it would be something very difficult to cause, that smothering without there being bruising around the nose and mouth and restraint injuries - the assailant would end up being scratched. it was then that the case on behalf of Ian Huntley was put, a description, that Tuesday evening, 25th November, of what Ian Huntley was going to say if he was going to give evidence, happened. and it was consistent with his account, save possibly for the depth of water, that seemed to have been adduced once the evidence was given as to the overflow being 11 inches. So Dr Cary went away to consider it, as you may think it was fair to do, since he had never had that put to him before. He came back on the morning of Wednesday, 26th November and said this "The findings - the account that was put to me the day before was consistent with the lack of the pathological findings but was also consistent with other methods of death including strangulation. drowning in a bathroom is not particularly common unless one is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs or somebody is suffering from epilepsy. There could be then a tendency to have seizures, but in all cases it is a solitary affair. I would associate drowning when a third party is present with forced drowning, ie holding somebody under. I am not aware of a previous case where it is suggested someone drowned in the bathroom in the presence of two other persons, particularly bearing in mind it is not a huge area, it is a very compact area." pausing there, you have to be careful, is this the evidence of an expert or is it really just a question for you, although you may think what he was saying was not so very startling or surprising. but it is a matter for an expert in this sense. The pathologists, such as Dr Cary, have to deal with very, very many deaths so they do have experience of coming across both the usual and unusual, and it is that which gives him the right to make those sorts of comments in evidence; whether you accept them or not of course being a matter for you. He was then asked about the nosebleeds and the absence, as you know there was an absence, of any sign of Holly's blood within the house. or, perhaps more importantly, on her clothes. with a nosebleed a nosebleed would contaminate the hand, drip on to objects or structures where the person was present. I would expect someone who had a nosebleed to bleed on to the top, and he pointed out the tops or the top in this case was never found to be contaminated by blood as he would have expected it. if the clothing was soaked in water it would still test positive for blood, and that would be true if there was water on the floor and you remember when recalled Helen Davey said you can still find blood if you drop a drop of blood into a bucket of water. He thought it was surprising there was no contamination either on the threshold through the house or on the deceased clothes. Ian Huntley says the nosebleed was not very bad it wasn't an emergency, there was a nosebleed. if, in the unlikely event there was no bleeding on the clothing, then the blood remained in the nose, it would have gone into the bath water which would contaminate the clothing so that there would be traces of the blood from the nosebleed when the clothing in the water when it was immersed. He then considered the position of Holly and Jessica and the defendant who was dishing out paper tissue in a very compact area. Holly was of average height, he said this, there was not much room to slip over backwards and become immersed. There wasn't much room to fall over backwards the buttocks would go into the bath and she would be wedged at the top end. I don't see how her head would become immersed. The depth of 18 inches of water was proposed but the overflow is no more than one foot, nearer 11 inches unless the over flow was blocked. I suggest if the water was 18 inches it would not be a realistic possibility the depth is 11 inches, the opportunity for both nose and mouth to be completely immersed through some passive accident becomes very unlikely. I don't know how the legs would have got over the edge of the bath if she fell over backwards or whether the legs were lifted over. Why was the bath so deep if it was to wash the dog? Having regard to the size and shape of the bath and the bathroom, it seems ly that a fit, 11 year old would slip into the bath and drown in the presence of others. why would there not be a rescue? drowning would take sometime, it would not be instantaneous. if Jessica was restrained it would prevent her from rescuing and then he moved on to the topic of life savers and you remember the comment made about that by Mr Coward if Jessica had something over her nose and mouth I would associate the death caused by that with an elderly or very young infant or occasionally someone who is intoxicated. Jessica was a fit young girl, none of these. The only way she could be smothered to death would be with forcible restraint against vigorous struggling. You cannot just smother someone in mid-air or on the edge of a bath. You would have to force them up against something, perhaps a wall, with one hand behind the head and smother with the other. It would be a vigorous struggle when you are deprived of your airways. In either case it would be more than apparent what was happening during the course of covering the nose and mouth which is not capable of causing a rapid death. Compression of the neck, causing loss of the airway, would take many seconds and one would be likely to go through phases of loss of consciousness. To complete the task, one would continue to cover the nose and the mouth when Jessica was already collapsed unconscious. It is wholly implausible to smother someone to death in an upright position. Then vocal inhibition; compression of the neck could cause sudden collapse and death within seconds, but if you are trying to suppress a scream, it would be unnecessary to compress the neck. If Jessica did die quickly, Holly would have only have been in the bath a few (inaudible) her rescues would have been in effective. It is not necessary to fracture the skull to become unconscious, so the absence of signs she was (inaudible) wouldn't necessarily show she was knocked unconscious, and if someone was unconscious in the bath they would be just the same as if they were in the bath intoxicated, but Dr Cary asks how did you immerse in the presence of the others, if one is unconscious one cannot reach for air, but there would still be a period before drowning during which one would continue to breathe although there would be no more activity; the instinct not to breathe would not be there if you were unconscious. How did she become immersed in 11 inches, how did her legs become over the bath, asked the pathologist. If you went over backwards and bend your head it would cause you to turn to the right, and the centre of gravity would be over the bath. I'm sure he said one could work out a theoretical way that that could happen but if it happens at all it is, he said, "vanishingly rare - I'm not aware - I couldn't exclude it as a theoretical possibility." Why did the goodwill leading Mr Huntley to assist the girl with the bleeding nose not lead to a rescue, and he said that was a matter for the Jury and their common sense. You may think all he said was in that connection a matter for you and your common sense. are you dealing with reality or theoretical possibilities? In re-examination he repeated the evidence about how someone falling into a bath would go in in that way - bottom first. Everyone, he pointed out, was very close, practically in physical (inaudible). If he caused her to get in why didn't he pull her out, why did Jessica not help her friend? If she had a head injury when she fell backwards it would cause unconsciousness, and there wouldn't be much force needed to knock her into the bath. Lack of oxygen would cause death within 30 seconds to one minute and water would go into the blood stream relatively rapidly within one or two minutes. Jessica collapsed then with vagal inhibition and most of the 120 seconds there would be available to get Holly out of the bath. Most causes of strangulation involve changes which take some time to develop - a minimum of ten seconds. then he dealt with the blood. There was further evidence when he said instantaneous death would not be a realistic possibility. There was further evidence when Dr Cary was recalled to speak about finding blood in water. The other evidence I shall remind you about before I come to the defence is the evidence about the condition of number 5 College Close. you know that there was work carried out on number 5 College Close, because the statement was read to you from Mr (inaudible) about the work carried out before or just as Ian Huntley was moving in. I am not going to read it all out but it happened November/December and various items were repaired, including a Tew ceiling in the kitchen area and a new bathroom suite. He told you work on the dining room ceiling was necessary because there had been water damage there. This is long before these incidents and there had been a hole there, he noticed, about half a meter in diameter and it is that evidence, the comment by the prosecution that had may have given Ian Huntley the idea of talking about the flood and ceiling coming down. Helen (inaudible) who visited 5 College Close on the eighth did see water-run type marks on the wall to the living room, from the ceiling to the floor, and that had been recently painted. She also saw water marks on the floor boards under the bath. You will bear that in mind in that connection the evidence of Mr Smith, the gypsum expert, who did not find any evidence of flooding. He said there was minimal water damage round the tap end of the bath, no evidence of a significant flood of water down the ceiling. He spoke of the lack of signs on the plasterboard and you heard evidence of the position of that crack on the bath. You heard evidence from the unfortunate police officer who had to produce the bath and had to confess while the bath was under his custody it had fallen over in a room a distance of four and a half to five feet so there is another crack that you will be able to ignore. You will be able to see that bath, if you look at the photographs you can see the position of the crack, Ian Huntley says was caused by his foot when he was washing Sadie on the night of the Sunday. that's all I'm going to remind you about the evidence called by the prosecution. Let me turn to what Ian Huntley told you. He told you about his life with Maxine when they first met in January or February of 1999. He told you that after he got the job he did indeed have a problem with a female student who had been following him around and he had perfectly correctly reported that and the staff, Mrs Bryden, dealt with it. There had been that flood and on the Saturday, 3rd August he had to go to work to clear it up. Maxine was going see her parents so they had gone off from Soham early to get to his parents at seven in the morning, because they were going to take Maxine to Grimsby and she was expected to come back the following Saturday. On Sunday afternoon he was expecting to take Sadie, the black German shepherd dog, off for a walk but she had run off about one o'clock in the afternoon on the school field and so they didn't get to Mildenhall. He had gone looking for her as far the old railway lines and failed to find her. He spent most of the afternoon on and off looking for her. She returned as she did before he went to collect a video but when he came back about six in the afternoon she was in a real mess, muddy and covered in burrs. He was to brush her down, clear off the dirt outside and bath her and dry her with a hair dryer. He put Sadie downstairs in the downstairs toilet, he told you it is not locked but he shut the door and he ran a bath upstairs. Sadie was filthy, Maxine gets mad if she makes any mess - ran the water, went back downstairs, got the car keys off the small table, took Sadie out of the toilet area, unlocked the car to fetch the brush to brush her with from the back of the boot, opened the boot and knelt on the doorstep directly behind the car. "Sadie had a choke chain and I had my arm round her, I said to witnesses later I was cleaning her or in some cases brushing the dog. I heard voices I stood up to look there were two girls there in Manchester United tops. they were stood to the front of the side of my car. I didn't see where they came from. Like they had come from the Lodeside building direction, but that was an assumption and I did not recall the time. I had already spoken on the telephone to Maxine. I had seen them once before and politely asked them to leave the field, I had not remembered seeing them before that time. Jessica spoke, she asked how Miss Carr was, I found that quite funny because I wasn't used to hearing Maxine referred to in that way, I said she was not very good that she had gone away for days to relax. I assumed the girls were in her year and had learned that she had not got the job. They asked me if I could tell her they were sorry and they hoped to see her soon. had already taken the call from Maxine at 6.24 and got the text from Maxine at 6.31 about not making her feel bad. I was not overly happy about her going out, and I may have given the impression I was cross. I was slightly annoyed, it made no difference to how I treated the two girls. I knew Maxine had received many gifts from pupils and didn't know who they were from. I was not aware of the card until Maxine came home. The first time I had seen it", he said - then he said this, I shall rephrase that - "I think the cards were up on the mantle piece but I had not read any of them. I wasn't aware of that particular card. Holly put her hand up to her face a couple of times. There was a small amount of blood on one finger, and a small smear under the bottom of her nose. I asked her if she would like to get some tissue for her nose and she said yes please, I said put your bums on there and I will get you tissue, referring to the rim of the boot, got tissue from the upstairs bathroom, I put Sadie in the downstairs toilet, so she made no mess in the house. I gave the tissue to Holly but her nose did not stop bleeding, it was threatening to rain, Holly looked as if ... I asked if she wanted to to come inside and put wet tissue on the nose. Went with the girls into the living room, I had no plan to have them in the house, I suggested, and they agreed, in order to remedy the nosebleed. I remained standing. Holly sat at the end of the sofa that's in the lounge (inaudible) to the TV and Jessica at the end closest to the door. There is a wash basin, downstairs toilet, and a sink in the kitchen - tissues are generally upstairs. The kitchen was clean save for a sink full of pots. Sadie was in the downstairs toilet. I went upstairs leaving Jessica and Holly. I took toilet roll. I went downstairs, handed the tissue to Holly. I gave her two wet and one or two dry tissues. Her nose bleed did not seem to be getting any better. There was conversation in the living room, we discussed the Play Station, the fact the game they were discussing was too old for them, had an 18 certificate. We three went upstairs to the bathroom, Holly's nose was not getting any better. I thought it was good, yes, I do apply cold water to the nose I had basic first aid knowledge and Holly and Jessica went rs, Jessica came of her own accord. Went to the bathroom I had not at that stage bathed Sadie, it was under half full 6 to 8 inches of water. I usually stand by the side of the bath with Sadie in it, and then he described the wash basin hanging over the side of the bath. Holly sat near the sink and Jessica close to the door. I put cold water in the sink, tore toilet paper off the role, soaked it in water in the sink. The roll is usually on the cistern; the flooring is lino, wood effect flooring, a green bath mat and probably weighing scales and you can see them in the photograph. I passed the tissue to Holly which was wet and held it against her nose. Jessica asked if she could use the toilet and I said yes and I took the tissues off Holly and she and I went into the main bedroom. There was a drop of blood on the sheet, the bed and cover sheet and duvet. We went into the bedroom straight ahead. After me and Holly came out on to the landing and Jessica had come out of the toilet, we went into the front spare room. The door was open and Holly asked why the room was so bare and there was no carpet. I explained it was the spare room. I can't remember which one asked why the room was so bare, I asked if they wanted to look (inaudible) and they said they did. I stayed on the landing, they were there a few seconds. We returned to the bathroom Holly did not seem to be bleeding so much, there was not much blood. They went back to the same position. I went to pass Holly more tissue and as I did so I'm not sure how it happened I turned and slipped and lost my footing and sort of went forward in the direction of Holly. I wanted to pass the toilet paper, I don't know why I slipped. There was a green bath mat in the bathroom, scales and when one is getting out of the bath the mat would slip so I push it away and step straight on to the floor. I have no memory of what caused me to slip. It happened very quickly. My body went in the direction of Holly. I'm not sure if I went into contact with her. She fell backwards, I saw her fall backwards. I heard a splash. There was no (inaudible), I was not expecting it. I heard Jessica screaming and shouting you pushed her, you pushed her over and over. I don't know how many times she screamed, I just heard her screaming. I had not deliberately pushed her or done it on purpose but it is possible I accidentally knocked her into the bath. Jessica was screaming loudly in a higher pitched voice than normal when Holly fell into the bath. I was stuck there waiting for some moments waiting for her to get up, but there was no movement. I just panicked and froze. I wasn't actually aware of Jessica getting up or falling over. I was not aware she had done so until I heard screaming. The effect of her screaming was I couldn't think. Standing here it is logical to pull someone out of the bath, especially when they are not moving, but I couldn't think, I couldn't have logical thoughts. I had basic first aid training in the air cadets and Kimberley Clarke, but nothing came into my head. I was not sure what was happening, I was trying to think and panicked. I think it was a combination of two things, my panic and Jessica screaming. There were rules pupils couldn't, shouldn't have been in the house. The next door neighbour's daughter to come and play with Sadie. I told Maxine I was not overly happy about that. It did not occur to me it was not a good idea when I was outside the house. I can't say that thought entered my mind. I was very panicky. I went over to Jessica who was stood near the doorway still screaming. I put my hand over her mouth. I clearly remember one hand. I don't know if I even used the other hand restraining her - I don't know. All I clearly remember is one hand and I don't know which hand. Did it to stop her from screaming. I can't say how long time passed from when Holly went into the bath and I put my hand to Jessica's mouth. It hit me what I should have been doing was to get Holly out of the bath. I clearly remember holding Jessica's mouth. I let go of her. she fell to the floor. There was no interval between me letting go and her falling to the floor. It didn't register that much. My main priority was to get Holly out of the bath. Went in over to the bath and pulled her out of bath and placed her on the floor. Jessica had fallen in the doorway. Her feet were in the bathroom and there was no movement from Holly. I got her out of the bath on to the floor. There was no sign of movement. There was no noise from Jessica. I am not sure what I was thinking. I don't know what my state of mind was. I checked Holly's wrist and neck for pulse but there was no pulse, but I was not really aware of Jessica. It had not registered. Then I became aware of Jessica and went over to her. I checked her wrist and neck, put my right cheek near her mouth to check breath, but I was not very good at checking and there was no response. I remember sitting in a corner on the landing just looking at Jessica. I remember being in the corner. That part of the landing is carpeted. I noticed I had been sick. I'm not sure how long I had been on the landing by that time and I don't know why I chose that particular spot to sit. Didn't try to resuscitate - Holly had gone a strange colour. I felt no signs from Jessica, to be honest I wasn't quite sure what to do. I would now pull Holly out straight away and probably try and get her to regain consciousness, but can't think of anything else. If I had done, everything would have been okay. I have no memory of being sick, I remember thinking about what to do. I was thinking of calling the police but I can't believe what had happened, I kept thinking how was I going to explain this to the police. If you yourself can't believe what happened, how would you explain it to the police? Things were not clear in my head, I wasn't clear what had happened or how either happened. I think I had a clear idea what caused Holly to die, but not Jessica. I didn't call the police nor any other emergency service it was a decision I regretted when I thought back about it in the early hours of Monday morning. I would not be in that situation if I had my time again. I would have pulled Holly out of the bath. I decided against calling the police I knew I had to get the girls out of the house. the only thing I knew. I had to get them into the car, out out of the house. I went Jessica, she had a mobile phone in her pocket and I took it and looked at it. It was protruding from her pocket, it was off. I picked Jessica up and took her downstairs to the hallway and I went upstairs and picked Holly up to take her downstairs and placed her on the carpet at the bottom of the stairs. It was still light. I spent a few minutes downstairs and when it was still light I put them in the car, in the boot but I moved Holly round the corner so she couldn't be seen from the outside. I looked outside and I couldn't see anyone. I opened the boot of the car, which was near to the front of the house, closed the boot and locked the car. I don't think anything was going on in my head. I didn't know where I was going take them. I had no idea what time I set off. Without(?) looking at my watch I was just driving with no destination in mind. I wasn't conscious of avoiding CCTV, I can't remember the route, possibly Mildenhall and Lakenheath normal route to grandma's or Keepers Cottage. He went on, in the afternoon in his evidence-in-chief. He spoke about collecting the two black bin liners and the petrol can from the office to put petrol into. I thought I was likely to leave them in a field and it was likely to be muddy so I took bin liners to put over my shoes. I took the petrol to destroy the evidence. I initially parked up on the small grass verge turning to my father's old house where I used to watch aircraft. I was just- I didn't have anywhere specific in mind. As I was driving along Wangford Road I noticed (inaudible) I decided to go there I thought that was what I was going to do. I had not been on Common Drove before. It was as the light was fading, it was about 9 p.m.. The first place I got out of the car and then I went to the vegetation. I wasn't aware there was a ditch. Went to the boot of the car, opened the boot, picked up one of the girls, the ditch was too steep for me to carry the girls down. I (inaudible) place one at the top of the ditch and pushed her so she rolled down. I returned to the car and did the same with the other. I had plastic bags in the front with the petrol can. I went down the bank to the ditch to see how much I could see from the track to make absolutely certain you couldn't see from the track I went back to fetch the petrol can. I realised the under side of the cloths would not have burned and there would be carpet fibres from the house. I opened the boot of my car so I collected the scissors. Then told you the carpet boot had been changed few months before because Sadie had made a mess with diarrhoea or being sick. didn't touch either girl in any sexual way at all. I collected the scissors previously used to fit the carpet. I changed into trainers. I put the girls in the boot. Had not protected them before but the second time he went back he put black bags over the trainers. I put the petrol can on top of the bank, poured petrol into the ditch. The girls' clothes were not on, one the clothes were off. I removed the bags from my feet, put clothing in the the bags, poured petrol in the ditch and set fire to the petrol, lighting it with a piece of paper and a lighter. I don't know how long the fire lasted, it flared up and I put the petrol can in the front passenger well, clothing in the boot, and drove away as quickly as I could. the car was struggling . It was the only time I went down there, he said he went to his grandmother, but it was no good, the news was on there and he had not gone back to the site. He stopped on the way back at petrol station in Mildenhall (inaudible) in Soham to fill the petrol can. He had gone to Lodeside and dropped the mobile into a skip outside, remember Mr Coward's comments about leaving all the clues and how careless he was about it. Then the journey back he thought had taken between 45 minutes if busy, or 35 if not. Then he went and put the clothes in one of the yellow bins, having collected the keys to the hangar from the office and that bottle to put water on to put the fire out. I don't know why I disposed of the clothing at the college. I don't think there was much in the way of rational thought going on. He admits he met during the search Jonathan Watkins and Mark Abbott, and denied he had seen the girls. He said didn't tell those who were searching what had in fact happened - I couldn't, I had not made the decision to call the police I had let things go too far. Then he described his account of meeting the others and what he said to them later. He denied changing the time to fit in with the time of the CCTV. He then described events later on on that Sunday night. Sadie had a bath he told you, I couldn't let her go round the house in the state that she was in. Sometimes she would do a runner and quite try to struggle so I put her in the bath, first I thought she would do a runner, sometimes she still, sometimes quite a struggle, I removed my trousers - this is same night that he had run the bath, removed my trousers and stepped in the bath with my arms round her. I was not conscious of anything happening to the bath but I heard a drinking sound in the dining room and could see water leaking through and the spotlight unit hanging down from left to right on the dining room table I could see dripping. I put my foot through the bath when I was bathing Sadie. He said he took a screwdriver and took the light fitting down and separated the wires so they would be safe then he described making the call on the early morning of 5th August, speaking to Maxine's mum and then Maxine. I told Maxine the same as I told everybody else, the girls had been round to ask after her. I didn't tell the truth. I told her the names Holly and Jessica and they asked after her. It rang bells with Maxine. I can't remember if it was during that conversation there was talk of her coming home, but I know I did. One of the calls. I took the car to a garage and fitted four new tyres. did change the tyres every year that was not the reason I changed them and I would have changed them round that time anyway. He described the calls received from the chronology at 5.58 and 6.35 and said he told Maxine the girls had been there and what had happened that night. Maxine told me she wanted to come home and see if she could help. I said I had spoken to Ruth, had the day off on Tuesday so I could pick her up, it crossed my mind to say what had happened, it is fair to say I quickly dismissed the thought, when he made the first witness statement. On Tuesday, 6 August I asked Maxine if she thought I was responsible, I knew my behaviour was very strange I was crying and not eating she must have spotted something. I half hoped she would say yes, she said don't be daft, there was no way she thought I was responsible but I have never told anyone else either, didn't want to know when it came to doing television interviews. Then he described what it had been like when he had been arrested for something he had not done, the rape allegation in 1998, had a very hard time, he had missed the birth of his daughter and he found it very difficult when he had been arrested. He said of the days that followed, he said I was falling to pieces inside, it was very difficult. He had not agreed with Maxine to tell a false story on 5th August, and on 10th August he said they talked abo