The Trial of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr
Court One, The Old Bailey, London
by Joe Vialls
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted from their home village of Soham in Cambridgeshire, England, on 4 August 2002, and never seen alive again. Thirteen days later on 17 August, their bodies were found in a drainage ditch only yards away from the perimeter fence at the giant United States Air Force base at Lakenheath in Suffolk, roughly 16 miles north-north-east of Soham. To help describe what is almost impossible to explain with words alone, ten-inch high-resolution aerial reconnaissance photographs and maps of the alleged Lakenheath crime scene are provided on this page. Because of these very large photographs and maps, the page will take a long time to load, but please be patient, the startling imagery is well worth the wait.
Within hours of the two badly decomposed bodies being found, and without bothering to interview any of the 5,000+ American servicemen based at Lakenheath, police arrested Soham residents Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr for the murders. Despite both remand prisoners pleading not guilty, both were then handled in an appalling manner reminiscent of the illegal American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Those readers seeking full details of this earlier period are advised to scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the links labeled “Holly & Jessica Reports 1, 2, 3” Indeed, in terms of understanding the politically supercharged nature of this extraordinary trial at the Old Bailey, a comprehensive knowledge of past events is considered essential.
After more than a year of stalling, the trial of Huntley and Carr commenced on 5 November 2003, in Court Number One at the famous “Old Bailey” in London. The location itself is the first indication that this trial is of special political significance, because most British murder suspects are tried by perfectly competent Crown courts scattered far and wide across the land, including the counties of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Without direct political pressure from the British Home Office in London, the two suspects would unquestionably have been tried in a county court.
The logic behind the selection of the Old Bailey for this trial lies partly in its fearsome reputation over the years, at least since the present building was opened by King Edward VII in 1907. Some of the more notorious trials held at the Old Bailey this century include Doctor Crippen, the “Yorkshire Ripper” and the Kray Twins of East End fame. In the absence of any evidence against Huntley and Carr, the Home Office intended to use this fearsome Old Bailey reputation to artificially bolster its case.
This is not in the spirit of a motto above the Old Bailey door that reads, “Defend the Children of the Poor and Punish The Wrongdoer”, but the Home Office didn’t care about such niceties in this new age of synthetic terrorism. Entirely in accord with the spirit of the illegal American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the Home Office was about to reverse the motto to “Protect the Wrongdoer and Punish the Children of the Poor”. You will now discover this for yourselves, by analyzing the frightening number of blatant legal deceptions by the Prosecution in Court Number One.
On 5 November 2003, Crown Prosecutor Richard Latham QC, set the tone for the entire trial when he told the jury, "We understand from those representing Huntley it is unlikely to be disputed by Huntley that the girls went into his home shortly after 6.30pm that evening, that Huntley was the only other person there at the time and that they died within a short time of going inside his home” …."It was Huntley who took their bodies to the place where they were found.”
The defence did not confirm this claim, and Huntley was not even in court to hear it, but the boot was already in with a vengeance. Over the two weeks that followed, this unsubstantiated claim by Latham would become the prosecution catechism, constantly repeated on television and printed in full by at least two [different] newspapers each day, until the British public had been saturated with Huntley’s apparent “confession”. But it was not a confession at all, was it? No, it was just a monstrous legal trick designed to get the media cheerleaders on side, and hopefully subdue the British public.
“The prosecution case is that these two girls fell into the hands of Huntley shortly after leaving home. For some reason known only to him he chose to murder them both. We allege that he went on to remove the bodies from Soham”. Latham then went on to say that for this reason the focus of the trial is likely to centre on whether or not, "it could be construed that the deaths while he [Huntley] was there with them in his house amounted to murder".
This was another devastating “smoke and mirrors” legal conjuring trick, because one of the most obvious deficiencies in the bogus prosecution case against Huntley is the total absence of any forensic evidence linking Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman to the inside of Ian Huntley’s house. Richard Latham QC knew this of course, so took a neat short cut [for the written court record] by simplistically stating that they were. The media cheerleaders loved him, and broadcast the lie far and wide.
Does anyone out there believe for a moment that an inexperienced school caretaker could simultaneously subdue two violently struggling 10-year-old girls, kill them one after the other in his own home without a sound, then remove every trace of their DNA to the point where police forensic experts could not find any at all? This is an absolute fantasy, because British police forensic experts are known world wide for their skills. If two girls had been attacked, let alone killed in Huntley’s house, police would have found hundreds of microscopic DNA traces. Alas, they found none.