Oct 11 2018
John Hamer, with foreword by Christopher Spivey.
What follows is an article on the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, written by John Hamer.
Course, regular readers of mine will know that I believe that the Soham Murders – as they came to be known – was nothing more than ‘smoke & mirrors’ carried out by a series of actors.
However, John puts forward an alternative view to mine which is nonetheless compelling and well worth a read… And as to my way of thinking, it is always important to be aware of all the facts on any given subject, before making your mind up.
The Soham Scapegoats – A Gross Miscarriage of Justice
By John Hamer
When British police arrested Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr (pictured left and right above) during the early hours of Saturday 17 August 2002, on suspicion of the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, they did so in the certain knowledge that absolutely no hard evidence existed to incriminate either suspect.
The reason for the rapid arrests was very simple; just hours earlier, two small bodies had been found near the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath, and the British Government headed by PM, Tony Blair, was terrified of a massive political scandal involving American servicemen based in, or transiting through, the United Kingdom. Why would that be? Bear with me and all will be revealed…
Shortly after the arrests, British and American media organisations demonised Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr so successfully that public attention was diverted away from Lakenheath completely, and focused instead on the young couple from Soham who had earlier willingly spoken to television crews about their concerns for the wellbeing of the two missing 10-year-old girls. Both knew the girls reasonably well. Ian Huntley was the caretaker at their school, and Maxine Carr was a former teaching assistant in their class.
Millions of viewers around the world watched Ian and Maxine being interviewed by the media, and most were impressed by the openness of their statements and their genuine willingness to help if possible. Experts in non-verbal communication also confirmed that Ian and Maxine’s involuntary body and eye movements perfectly matched what they were saying verbally, to the journalists.
In other words, both appeared to be telling the truth both verbally and non-verbally, an almost impossible feat for even a trained liar to fabricate. It is critical to note here also that both came across on television as perfectly normal, sane individuals, a reality later to be inexplicably challenged by police and psychiatrists in Cambridgeshire.
If Huntley and Carr had been involved at all with the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, would they have then been stupid enough to run the gauntlet of about 10,000 American servicemen en-route, and dump the two small bodies in a location clearly visible from Lakenheath Control Tower, taxi track, and main runway? A serviceman with detailed knowledge of activities and procedures inside the base might get away with it unseen, but certainly not two civilians. So the perimeter would be an ideal dumping ground for American servicemen eager to return to ‘safe’ territory at USAF Lakenheath, before either entering their barracks on the base, or catching a shuttle bus to USAF Mildenhall.
In an attempt to demonise Ian Huntley still further, police ‘leaked’ the damning information that he had been arrested for rape a number of years earlier. Well, yes, sort-of. Whilst still a teenager himself, Huntley had consensual sex with his girlfriend, who was only 15-years-old at the time, an offence in the United Kingdom known as statutory rape. He was never charged with an offence
however, and his former girlfriend confirmed it was a mutual attraction, with enthusiastic sexual consent on both sides.
So for a while at least, the government, police and media managed to deflect attention away from the two massive nearby USAF bases at Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and the political minefield lurking just below the surface if the British public ever found out about the very large numbers of children abused, raped, and sometimes murdered by American servicemen on overseas duty. So let us now consider the ‘American Connection,’ before returning shortly to the relentless ongoing psychological abuse of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr.
The simple fact that Holly and Jessica’s bodies were found at the USAF Lakenheath perimeter fence, should have had British police knocking on Lakenheath’s front door immediately. Unfortunately, any such action would have seriously undermined Tony Blair’s personal slavish dedication to George W Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ and seriously jeopardised any public support for the upcoming, illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (which of course at that time was unknown to the general public.)
Even though earlier in the investigation police declared they would be interviewing ‘700 known sex offenders’ of British nationality, there was no mention of interviewing the 10,000+ US servicemen based in close proximity to Soham Village, many of whom were also serious, serial sex offenders – or also determining which other American servicemen had transited through the two bases, and on which flights, since Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman first disappeared.
Obviously not all members of the American military are criminals, but amongst the small number who do fall into that group, more than a few are actually psychopathic savages. It is a matter of public record that many American servicemen have habitually carried out sickening attacks against civilians while on overseas duty, happy in the knowledge that the serious assault or murder of women or girls around the world, carries a lesser penalty than at home.
One such case is that of Staff Sergeant Frank Ronghi, who on 24 August 2000 pleaded guilty to sodomising and killing an 11-year-old Kosovar girl in January the same year. A member of his platoon testified that Ronghi disdainfully claimed, “It’s easy to get away with this shit in a third-world country.”
The ‘shit’ Ronghi referred to is described here by the US Army Pathologist for Europe. “Her right jaw was fractured, practically bisected,” said Lieutenant Colonel Kathleen Ingwersen, “We found evidence of sperm and semen in her vagina, mouth and rectum,” she testified to a hushed hearing. “There was trauma to the neck muscles, the trachea and the carotid artery,” Colonel Ingwersen said, adding she had found evidence of “blunt trauma” as the child was apparently beaten, choked and forced to kneel, face to the ground, as she was sodomised.
But in a perverse way Ronghi was proven right about the overall American perception of the ‘lesser worth’ of women and children, in what he and others continually refer to as ‘the third world.’ At his trial he was sentenced to life imprisonment, despite the fact that an identical offence against an American girl in the USA, would have resulted in his execution in many States.
It would be impossible to list here all such vile attacks against local girls by American servicemen overseas because there have been far too many. However, in order to educate the British police (who mercifully are rarely exposed to similar atrocities in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk) it seems prudent to mention a handful, thereby demonstrating that Ronghi is far from being an isolated case.
In 1955, an American soldier was sentenced to death for the murder of a six-year-old girl in occupied Japan, a sentence that was later commuted to life imprisonment. During 1966 a US soldier confessed to strangling a young waitress. Then in 1972, several US soldiers were sentenced to life imprisonment for strangling local women. Later In 1975, a US soldier was sent to prison for raping two high school students. Local police also arrested two US soldiers during 1985, caught in the act of raping a woman.
During a spate of crimes in 1995, a US soldier was arrested for the brutal murder of a young woman, with a hammer, two children were killed by a drunken soldier, and three US soldiers brutally raped a young schoolgirl. In January 2000 a US sailor was sentenced for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old Japanese girl. Remember this is only a small part of the overall list, nor does it include the many more alleged perpetrators who Japanese and other authorities claim were ‘spirited out of the country and back to the USA’ before they could be apprehended and charged.
The last point to consider before returning to the plight of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, is the strange fate of four wives at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the former home base of Staff Sergeant Ronghi. All four wives were allegedly killed by their Sergeant husbands when they returned from active duty in Afghanistan, during the same week that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing. US Army authorities attempted to establish whether or not an anti-malarial drug all were taking contributed to the murders, but the results were inconclusive. This drug is acknowledged to have psychotic side-effects, and yet nevertheless is still routinely prescribed to US servicemen.
There were no direct flights out of Afghanistan to the USA at the time, meaning that all American servicemen including those seriously affected by the drug, and also affected by PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) were obliged to change aircraft either in Germany or in England – usually at USAF Lakenheath or Mildenhall. No attempt has ever been made to accurately establish how many of these servicemen transited through USAF Mildenhall and USAF Lakenheath during the week that Holly and Jessica vanished. Maybe there should have been? But of course that was not a priority for the British government who to the contrary, wished to deflect blame anywhere but the US armed forces.
Initially on Saturday, 17 August, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr were arrested ‘on suspicion’ of being involved in the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Each was taken to a different police station in Cambridgeshire for interrogation, which is standard police procedure. However, this is
also the point at which standard police procedure was completely disregarded. Obviously Ian and Maxine were determined to protest their innocence, and refused to provide police with a convenient ‘confession,’ no matter how tired they were, and no matter how much extreme pressure was applied by the intimidating tactics of the police. There was also a distinct absence of defence lawyers arguing the suspects’ versions of events.
In an extraordinary move, police then applied to a closed court, for an extension of Huntley and Carr’s detention, although the reasons were not made public. There was actually no need for police to provide a reason, because it was blatantly obvious they still had absolutely nothing to connect the two suspects with the two murders. If at that stage, police had any hard evidence linking Huntley or Carr to the murders, or had managed to coerce a confession out of either, they would have been charged immediately.
Then on Tuesday 20 August, just twenty-four hours before the legally extended detention was due to expire at 6.19 am on Wednesday, a large team of psychiatrists appeared on the scene as if by magic, and deemed that Ian Huntley was unfit to appear in court. He was then duly ‘sectioned’ under the Mental Health Act 1983 and remanded to Rampton high-security psychiatric hospital, at Retford in Nottinghamshire, without being charged with any offence. How convenient.
Now think about this carefully… When Ian Huntley appeared on international television he was entirely coherent and unquestionably sane. But apparently, after a mere three days in police custody, he suddenly became insane. How? Did the police deprive him of sleep and induce a nervous breakdown, or were the all-too-convenient government psychiatrists a pack of liars? You choose.
One thing is certain. There was a gross violation of Ian Huntley’s legal and human rights and absolutely nothing was said or done about it on his behalf. Ask yourself, is it even legal to section a man under arrest in England under the Mental Health Act before he is charged with a crime? In fact, when asked this precise question, Dr. Harris of Rampton Psychiatric Hospital was evasive, replying, “It is not unheard of, but it is very unusual.” In other words, ‘no’.
Once inside the terrifying Rampton, a Victorian hulk originally founded as an asylum in 1912 under the Criminal Lunatic Act of 1860, police charged Ian Huntley with murder. He was now at the mercy of a five-man psychiatric team who assessed his ‘symptoms’ night and day over the next month, and shot him full of God-knows-what medication. These are the tactics of the Soviet Gulags. Stalin would no doubt have wholeheartedly approved.
It would have been no surprise if, after a full month at the hands of these pseudo-scientists in Rampton, that Ian Huntley had chosen to confess to almost anything, including the murder of JFK and the Princess of Wales. Stalin’s enemies frequently confessed in the Gulags, but only after being deprived of sleep for days on end and pumped-full of Reserpine by the ‘psychs.’
But the next problem for the police was Maxine Carr. Clearly no-one would believe that two people had suddenly gone completely insane in police custody at the same time, so senior officers in Cambridgeshire and at the Home Office had to think of something a little more creative. They knew Huntley and Carr were both were innocent of course, but somehow Maxine had to be brought under control. In other words, she had to be so badly frightened that she would be positively eager to ‘cooperate’ with police when the drugged, perhaps electro-shocked and certainly docile Ian Huntley was finally paraded in the courts.
So police formally charged Maxine Carr with ‘attempting to pervert the course of justice,’ i.e. lying
to police, whether she had or not, and quietly arranged to have her incarcerated in the most brutal and terrifying of Britain’s women’s prisons, at Holloway in London. ‘Attempting to pervert justice’ is not a violent crime requiring a high security establishment of course, and there were certainly prisons closer to Soham, but only Holloway would have the desired devastating effect on Maxine, hopefully bringing her under immediate control.
Although the Victorian-built Holloway was replaced in a phased rebuilding programme between 1975 and 1985, it has managed to retain its brutal reputation. In 1995 Sir David Ramsbotham, then inspector of prisons, walked out in disgust at the conditions he found inside. He noted that 75% of women at the jail were suffering from some form of identifiable mental disorder, while one in 10 was suicidal. Almost half were drug addicts in need of immediate detoxification, while more than half had serious alcohol problems and nearly 95% were on sleeping pills.
Naturally enough, on its own this would be quite enough to send a small-town country girl like Maxine insane in weeks, but the British authorities wanted to make absolutely sure. So before she left for London, police arranged a court hearing for her in the local town of Peterborough, and made sure the media and ‘rent-a-mob’ people knew about its exact timing well in advance.
As the police van approached the court, the commotion directed at the innocent woman not yet convicted of any offence at all, began. Unseen hands banged on the metal van, and several females led an ugly chorus, jeering and shouting at a woman they could not see – a thick grey blanket had been placed over Maxine Carr’s head – for a double murder with which she had not even been charged. “Evil bitch”, screamed one. “Sick cow,” spat another. In the melee, another woman and her two daughters unfurled a home-made banner. “Rot in hell forever”, it said – which is of course, a lovely example to give to two impressionable, ‘innocent’ young children in how to behave towards others.
Trial by media had well and truly begun, and the trembling Maxine Carr had not yet even reached that special part of hell called Holloway. But a week or two in there with the deranged and the junkies would quickly have her co-operating with anything and everything the Cambridgeshire Police Service (not to mention the establishment) wanted.
But is that really the point here? The Chief Constable and all of his officers at Cambridgeshire Constabulary should be mortally ashamed of their blatant abuse of police powers, abuse of the judicial process, and abuse of the Mental Health Act. In turn it goes almost without saying that we the public should not have believed a word of any subsequent ‘confession’ that Maxine Carr was coerced into making, either during or after her terrifying ordeal at Holloway.
Nor should we necessarily believe that the relatively tiny Cambridgeshire Constabulary had the overall power to pull off these impressive stunts without some very heavy political assistance.
Think about it carefully. The original players in a tight little Cambridgeshire county investigation had now been scattered to the four winds. Ian Huntley was 100 miles away to the north in Rampton, Nottinghamshire, and Maxine Carr was 100 miles away to the south in Holloway, London. The bodies of the girls were actually found in Suffolk, directly involving a third force, the Suffolk Constabulary. And police investigators from the Norfolk Constabulary also did quite a lot of the leg work on this case.
So the Cambridgeshire ‘Holly and Jessica Case,’ was no longer really the Cambridgeshire Holly and Jessica case at all. The only people who knew exactly what was going on in London, Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire were the small group of powerful manipulators who set the scene. This is the same small group who had sufficient power to arrange special closed courts, send an army of highly briefed ‘shrinks’ to Cambridgeshire, subvert the Mental Health Act, and personally arrange the twin hells of Rampton and Holloway for the two suspects, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr. Believe me, only senior bureaucrats at the Home Office in London have sufficient power and influence to arrange all of this.
There is a final point to consider about the case itself. A newspaper report stated “The bodies of murdered 10-year-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were discovered in a ‘severely decomposed and partially skeletonised’ state, and the pair were almost certainly not killed where they were discovered, a coroner’s inquest was told yesterday. Their remains were found last Saturday in woodlands outside a United States air base at Lakenheath, Suffolk.” Even now, the cause or place of death could be established, and yet the Coroner had released the bodies to the parents for burial.
The reason for the importance of this statement was obvious to residents in the Lakenheath area, whose local newspapers saturated them for weeks with the information that Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr once lived in a house owned by relatives less than a half-mile away from where the bodies were found. So this information allowing police to ‘point the finger’ at the pair had long been in the public domain, and was of enormous value to anyone wishing to deflect attention away from the real killers. Adding real substance to this claim is the fact that the path beside which the bodies were located is well-used by walkers, but the bodies were not ‘found’ until the very morning of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr’s arrests.
Now ask yourself what you would do if you were Ian Huntley and had really been involved in the murder of the two little girls. Would you deliberately move their bodies close to a residence that you had lived in some years before, thereby tacitly pointing the finger of guilt at yourself, or would you move the bodies well away from any such residence? You choose, though even a certified insane person in Rampton should be able to select the correct answer to this elementary question.
Taking the opposite view, what would you do if you were a deranged American serviceman who managed to smuggle the two little girls inside USAF Lakenheath, and then murdered them at some remote location inside the very large airfield boundary, with its multitude of convenient empty buildings? Would you leave the bodies where they lay until the smell of putrefaction attracted the attention of the Military Police at the base, or would you toss the pathetic remains over the perimeter fence one dark night, as close as possible to the former Huntley residence you learned about in the local Suffolk newspaper, and then tip off police? Once again, you choose.
No matter what you choose and no matter what you think, it would probably have made no difference to the final outcome. The atmosphere surrounding the case was so heavily laden with political fog that you could cut it with a knife. At the national level, Blair and his pathetic cronies could not afford to rock the boat because of the ‘special relationship’ with the US, and all this entailed for his personal prestige and the manufactured ‘War on Terror.’
Even at the local level they could not make waves either because, as the Chamber of Commerce will eagerly explain, those thousands of nice American servicemen at USAF Lakenheath and USAF Mildenhall spent millions of pounds each year with local businesses in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. You know, those good people at the Chamber of Commerce… Masons, Rotarians, Buffalos and the rest, being entertained for free at the Lakenheath Officer’s Mess, with their USAF ‘pals.’
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 was of special political significance, because most British murder suspects are tried by perfectly competent Crown Courts scattered far and wide across the land, including the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Without direct political pressure from the British Home Office in London, the two suspects would unquestionably have been tried in a local Crown Court. The logic behind the selection of the Old Bailey for this trial lies partly in its fearsome reputation over the years, at least since the present building was opened by King Edward VII in 1907. Some of the more notorious trials held at the Old Bailey include Doctor Crippen, the Yorkshire Ripper and the Kray Twins of East End infamy.
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 certainly 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 cares little 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.’
Let us analyse the frightening number of blatant legal deceptions by the Prosecution in Court Number One… On 5 November 2003, Crown Prosecutor Richard Latham QC, set the tone for the entire trial when he told the jury, “We understand from those representing Huntley it is unlikely to be disputed by Huntley that the girls went into his home shortly after 6.30pm that evening, that Huntley was the only other person there at the time and that they died within a short time of going inside his home. …. It was Huntley who took their bodies to the place where they were found.” The defence did not confirm this claim, and Huntley was not even in court to hear it, but the boot was already in with a vengeance. Over the two weeks that followed, this unsubstantiated claim by Latham would become the prosecution catechism, constantly repeated on television and printed in full by at least two different newspapers every day, until the British public had been saturated with Huntley’s alleged ‘confession.’ But it was not a confession at all, it was just a monstrous legal trick designed to bring the media cheerleaders on side, and brainwash 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 was 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 fawning 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 find none at all?
This is an absolute fantasy, because British police forensic experts are known worldwide for their skills. If two girls had been attacked, let alone killed in Huntley’s house, police would have found hundreds of microscopic DNA traces. Alas, they found none. Latham was ready for a little scepticism, so the next morning, 6 November 2003 he said that a female detective who had visited Huntley’s house noted that the ground floor was tidy, and that there was a “strong smell of a lemony cleaning product”.
She also found it “strange” that there was washing on the line when it was raining. Though Latham was obviously using this statement to subtly back up his claim that Holly and Jessica were inside Huntley’s house the night before, we still need to examine the female detective’s statement more closely. Since when has it been a crime to keep your house tidy, use lemon-scented cleaning fluid, and forget you had washing on the line when it was raining? If these events are really cause for suspicion, then half the housewives in Great Britain must also be investigated for murder. Furthermore, there will likely be a huge queue of criminals wanting to purchase this incredible “lemony cleaning product”, which by implication is allegedly capable of removing all traces of DNA from a major crime scene in less than twelve hours.
According to Richard Latham QC, Ian Huntley made a “major attempt” to sanitise his car in the days after the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, actions which Latham claim show a man “who is thinking calmly and carefully and is calculating his way forward”. These uncorroborated claims include removing an existing boot carpet, changing tyres, and cleaning the Ford Fiesta while others were out searching for the girls, presumably after casually dumping the two small bodies at USAF Lakenheath.
Once again we are left wondering which of these actions (if true) constitutes an illegal or even suspicious act. Specifically where the boot carpet is concerned, Latham explained that when Huntley bought the car it had a professionally fitted carpet, which had been changed for another piece of domestic carpet by the time police seized the car. It is a little known fact that Huntley owned a large Alsatian dog, which is more than capable of destroying a fitted car carpet completely in a matter of days.
Ian Huntley bought his car in July 2001, and my best guess, which is every bit as valid as Latham’s, is that the Fiesta’s fitted carpet would have needed to be replaced by August 2001 at the very latest, i.e.; a full year before Holly and Jessica vanished. Potentially more damning but equally misleading, was Latham’s claim that on Monday 5 August 2003, the day after Holly and Jessica vanished, four new Sava Effecta tyres were fitted to a red Ford Fiesta at a garage in Ely .
The registration was different to Huntley’s car but Mr Latham suggested, “The man who turned up asked for a different registration number to be put on the paperwork and slipped £10 to the mechanic in order for that to be achieved.” Not according to the mechanic in question, who said on the telephone that no such statement was ever made, and no man of Huntley’s description had ever visited the garage. “I’ve seen him on TV dozens of times”, the mechanic said, “I would remember if he had ever been here for a tyre change.” Indeed he would, so more ‘smoke and mirrors’ from Richard Latham QC, no doubt designed to deflect attention away from the most interesting and damning aspect of Ian Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta.
So, what about DNA from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman, inside the Ford Fiesta? Remember that Ian Huntley stood accused of throwing both bodies inside the car, then driving sixteen miles across country on rough bumpy roads, before allegedly dumping the small bodies in a drainage ditch close to the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath.
Short of taking a car to pieces and immersing each individual component in an acid bath, there is no known way of removing all traces of human DNA. Microscopic particles vanish into more than a hundred hidden nooks and crannies, and sit there waiting to be found by diligent police forensic experts. So how many DNA traces of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman did police find inside Ian Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta? None. Not one, meaning that just like Ian Huntley’s house in Soham, the two girls were never inside the vehicle at any time.
In order to try and cover this critical deficiency the prosecution then claimed that traces of chalk and concrete particles used as a surface on the track at Lakenheath had been found on the bottom of Huntley’s car, and pollen grains found inside the vehicle that matched the area. It was a nice try, but pointless and grossly misleading. Because the total lack of human DNA from either girl proved they had never been transported in Huntley’s red Fiesta, then where or when the car was driven, and what might or might not be stuck to the underside of the vehicle, is completely irrelevant, legally speaking and should in any fair trial have been laughed out of court.
The biggest ‘smoke and mirrors’ prosecution conjuring trick of week one, was unquestionably that of the bright-red Manchester United shirts worn by the two girls the day they vanished. Nowadays if you key “Holly Jessica” into Google, most of the first page contains photographs of the girls wearing these famous shirts, and there is a natural tendency to believe Holly and Jessica’s shirts are unique in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Tens of thousands of Manchester United shirts were produced by the same mill from identical red fibres, to the point where they could have been purchased by anyone with minimum effort. Identical shirts were available anonymously on the Internet for £29.99.
It is also alleged by the prosecution that the Manchester United shirts “worn by the girls were cut from their bodies and burned in a bin at Soham Village College” where Huntley worked, where they were finally and very conveniently discovered by police on 16 August 2002, although Huntley was not present. Richard Latham QC said that hairs from Huntley’s head had been found mixed in with the clothing in the bin, as were his fingerprints, and his fingerprints were also found inside the bag. “We say the clothing was in the bottom of the bin, and after the clothing was there the bin liner had been put in it and spread and his fingerprints are on the spreading process, as it were, of the bin liner.”
This initially sounds like fatal evidence against Huntley, until you realise that despite his fingerprints and hair being found on the inside of a waste bag, which is perfectly normal for a caretaker responsible for ALL waste bags at the college, police forensic experts did not recover any of Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA from these red shirts, which turned up in the nick of time, so to speak. The lack of the girl’s DNA on the shirts proves these were not the shirts Holly and Jessica were wearing when they vanished, but merely deceptive substitutes. In other words, a person or persons unknown ‘planted’ the shirts, and also planted loose fibres from the same substitute shirts in Ian Huntley’s house.
In light of this, and were it not so serious, the prosecution’s claim about the red fibres in Huntley’s house would be laughable. Latham claimed that 15 fibres were found on a yellow shirt discovered in the main bedroom, three on a pair of beige trousers, again in the bedroom, and one on a grey fleece also in the bedroom. An extraordinary situation, when you think about it carefully. We know that police found no trace of Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA anywhere in the house, and we know that none was found on the two red substitute shirts, so what was Huntley actually guilty of?
Seemingly, Huntley is guilty of going about his business lawfully at the college, shedding a few hairs and fingerprints as he went, which then mysteriously found their way into close proximity with two Manchester United shirts and fibres from those shirts, which the total lack of DNA proved conclusively were never worn by either girl. Before we join the jury on a visit to USAF Lakenheath at the beginning of week two, let us close the book on the Soham crime scene, by examining witness WPC Anna Burton, who actually appeared in court much later on 14 November.
WPC Burton was a police dog handler who attended Soham Village during Sunday evening to assist in searching for the missing girls. Her trained tracker dog had Holly Wells’ scent, and for a while the pair searched around the village without any success. Then just after midnight, WPC Burton bumped into Ian Huntley near Soham College. “It was wonderful to run into the caretaker because he would know the layout of the place and he had offered to help look around… I just thanked him and said I was very grateful for his help, particularly because of the fact it was so late” WPC Burton told how she was able to ask Huntley about buildings having alarms, and they spent an hour going round the site together, only going inside buildings if they were unlocked, meaning Holly and Jessica could have got inside.
WPC Burton asked him what the purpose of the ‘hangar’ building was, the location where the court heard that the charred remnants of the girls’ clothes were later found hidden in a bin, and was told it was a Groundsman’s building. She asked if he had the keys and was told he did not. WPC Burton let her dog sniff round the outside of the building, but said it drew no reaction. The seminal clue here is not that WPC Burton’s trained police dog failed to react to the hangar building where the substitute red shirts would later be planted, but the fact that the dog completely failed to react to Ian Huntley himself.
Remember that the dog was following Holly Wells’ scent, and then came into very close proximity to the man who stands accused of attacking and murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman just a few hours earlier, and is then alleged to have travelled in a car with their corpses all the way to Lakenheath. Believe me, if Huntley had been anywhere near Holly Wells at any time during the evening, WPC Burton’s trained dog would have picked it up in seconds. So let me repeat that one more time, the highly-trained police tracker dog failed to react in close proximity to Ian Huntley, hours after he allegedly killed Holly.
In summary then, before we set off for Lakenheath with the jury, the Soham crime scene has proved absolutely no connection between Ian Huntley, and either Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman. The prosecution claimed both girls were inside Huntley’s house, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not. The prosecution claimed both girls were inside Huntley’s car, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not. A highly trained police tracker dog following Holly Wells’ scent on the night of the incident, does not react at all when placed in close proximity to the alleged murderer.
At this stage, and despite the nonsense being peddled in the Old Bailey by the prosecution, Huntley had no case to answer at all. Maybe a seriously pertinent question at this juncture should be, what was Huntley’s defence thinking when all this easily refutable nonsense was presented to the court? No attempt whatsoever was made to counter all these points and the prosecution was allowed to totally unhindered, making point after incriminating point, slowly sealing Huntley (and Carr’s) fates.
The text on the photograph above shows the level of concern that we all should feel about this trial. Juries travel to crime scenes in buses on a regular basis, but never in the presence of more than one hundred police officers.
So who did the Home Office believe was about to attack these ‘twelve good men and true’ of the Jury? Basque Separatists perhaps, or maybe even the Taliban? The whole thing was nothing more than a distasteful Home Office stunt, designed to get the maximum amount of media publicity.
Actually, we need not bother with the brief Soham part of the visit, because we already know there is nothing there of interest, other than a few scraps of red fibre from substituted Manchester United shirts. So let us bypass Soham, and re-join the Jury as its members visit the crime scene close to the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath… “We suggest that Ian Huntley knew this area really well,” Latham said, “whoever it was who dumped the bodies would not have set off down this track in the dark unless they knew where they were going and what they would find. Whoever dumped the bodies knew it would be a suitable place to hide them and they would be unlikely to be caught in the act.
It was an ideal place and he [Huntley] was thinking when he set off from Soham that evening, thinking quite clearly and calmly, not in a panic trying to get rid of those bodies as quickly as possible.” In the annals of British legal history, in is unlikely that any other Queens Counsel has shot himself through the foot quite so severely with a single, long-winded statement like this. Latham’s words are the exact opposite of reality where Huntley was concerned, and this press release dated March 2002 and authorised by Lieutenant Chris Watt of USAF Lakenheath, proves why.
“Nearly 60 closed circuit television cameras went operational here the first week of March. Placed in all areas around RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell, the anti-terrorism force protection cameras give the 48th Security Forces Squadron increased ability to deal with force protection issues and add another layer of security and safety to the base. “Now one man can cover several positions at once,” said Master Sgt. Jim Kendall, 48th SFS police services NCOIC. “The new system augments the forces that we already have in place. Operated by handpicked, trained security forces 24 hours a day, AT/FP CCTV allows security forces to monitor more than forty camera views at once. In fact,” said Kendall, “the system has already been used to reduce the time it takes to apprehend drivers that run the gates. We can follow gate-runners with the cameras and record their actions until our forces catch up with them,” said Kendall.
“Recording a gate-runner’s actions also helps us monitor a suspect for anti-terrorism and force protection activities. RAF Lakenheath is the first base in US Air Forces in Europe to install an AT/FP CCTV system,” he said. What the press release does not mention is that on the same date, USAF Lakenheath personnel mounted additional armed patrols inside and outside the perimeter wire, 24 hours per day, every day including Sundays and public holidays. Remember that the 60 anti-terrorist cameras were switched on, and the extra patrols started, a full five months before Ian Huntley was accused of dumping Holly and Jessica’s bodies into a water-filled drainage ditch, itself within easy range of Lakenheath’s ‘always-on’ infra-red-capable day and night video cameras.
It actually gets worse than this, far worse. If you look at detailed maps and photographs of the airfield carefully, it is obvious that the ‘crime scene’ is very close to one end of the active runway, and thus constitutes a suitable firing point for a shoulder-launched ‘terrorist’ surface to air missile. The USAF pays special attention to such areas, with cameras available at all times for their detailed surveillance, with video footage archived for later examination of possible suspects.
So Latham’s claim that, “whoever dumped the bodies knew it would be a suitable place to hide them and they would be unlikely to be caught in the act” is absolutely correct, provided that the culprit knew the precise layout of the anti-terrorist security cameras, their exact fields of view, and the precise timing of the armed patrols around the Lakenheath perimeter. Because the camera fields of view were adjusted on a daily basis, and the timing of the patrols altered constantly for security reasons, the only culprits capable of dumping the bodies in the drainage ditch without getting caught, would be an American serviceman (or men) inside USAF Lakenheath, and not just anyone.
Whoever it was had access to the anti-terrorist operations schedules, indicating a very high security clearance. I wonder if the Home Office will ever be prepared to tell the British public why it failed to take action in this regard, and instead decided to deliberately psychologically abuse and frame a man and a woman known to be innocent of any crime? I will not be holding my breath.
The BBC Conspired to Pervert The Course of Justice.
At 6.18 pm on 24 November, the Government-controlled BBC issued a sweeping statement that appeared to seal the fate of Ian Huntley, prime suspect in the Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman double murder case.
Under the dramatic headline “Huntley Admits Cutting Up Clothes,” the BBC used its huge media presence and perceived public credibility to claim:
“Ian Huntley has admitted cutting off the clothes of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as their bodies lay in a ditch. His lawyer told the Old Bailey that Mr Huntley took the clothes back to the Soham school where he worked as a caretaker, and set them on fire. Stephen Coward QC [for Huntley] said his client put the burnt clothes in the bin inside a hangar, where they were later found. The court has already heard that Mr Huntley accepts the 10-year-old girls died at his home.”
When the BBC printed and broadcast this scandalous statement at 6.18 pm, they already knew it was a complete lie, and have thus placed themselves and their parent corporation completely outside the law. At the very least, those BBC personnel directly responsible for this blatant deception must be charged with ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.’
Ian Huntley had made no admission about planting clothes anywhere at any time, and, as the BBC also knew very well, had never on any occasion “accepted” that the two girls “died at his home”. Earlier in the day Stephen Coward QC had merely outlined what he deduced the prosecution was trying to claim in respect of his client Huntley and the clothes in Soham College, and made the quizzical nature of his questions very plain by stating on open court “That is at least a possibility, is it not?”
There is no excuse for the BBC here, because the media and journalists have access to the online court transcripts about once every 15 minutes in real time, and a ‘mistake’ is therefore impossible. The BBC was desperately trying to please someone very high up in the British establishment with its criminal lies and deception, and was certainly not acting alone in these obscene endeavours.
Almost identical lies were peddled on the same day by Reuters, by the London Independent newspaper, by the Scotsman, and by a host of lesser newspapers and magazines stretching all the way from Canada to Australia. Every editor and producer had access to the same transcripts emanating from the same courtroom every fifteen minutes, meaning that every editor and producer knew that he or she was printing and broadcasting outright lies, designed to secure a fraudulent and wrongful conviction for the Crown. If there was ever a chance for the prosecution to successfully frame Ian Huntley, it was on this day, and in the few days following, using the generic Manchester United shirts so conveniently ‘found’ by police in the hangar building at Soham College, but without a single trace of Holly Wells’ or Jessica Chapman’s DNA on them, or indeed the fingerprints of Ian Huntley, a fact openly admitted by Crown Forensic Scientist Doctor Helen Davey.
Unfortunately for Ian Huntley, this was also the day when the prosecution suffered a severe attack of amnesia about known critical events directly relating to the period of the search conducted in the immediate vicinity of Soham College, and the hangar in which the generic red Manchester United shirts were eventually located. Reading the court transcripts carefully, it creates the strong impression that the hangar at Soham College was the private domain of Ian Huntley, an illusion reinforced by claims that Cambridgeshire police only investigated the hangar after finding the keys in Ian Huntley’s house, after he was arrested.
This is absolute nonsense, proven by direct quotes from same mainstream media who have put-away Ian Huntley, probably forever, on behalf of and at the behest of powerful figures within the British establishment. Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing on 4 August 2002, with the generic red Manchester United shirts subsequently located either on 16 or 17 August, depending on which report you prefer to believe. In turn this means that the shirts remained hidden inside the hangar for 12 or 13 days, a period during which we were led to believe that only Ian Huntley had access to the hangar. Oh really? Try this from the Daily Mail of 6 August 2002: “Scores of American servicemen from nearby Mildenhall airbase joined in the search of Soham and its college grounds”.
And this from the Times of London dated 7 August 2002: “On Monday, hundreds of local people and American servicemen from the United States Air Force bases at nearby Mildenhall and Lakenheath also took part in the hunt. One staff sergeant from Florida, who gave his name only as Eric, said he felt so closely connected with the local community after spending part of his childhood in the Fens when his father was an airman, that he went straight to Soham.”
This mighty shock wave of military muscle went through Soham College like the grim reaper, including the exclusive ‘hangar’ outbuilding and its contents, but found nothing at all. From this search we therefore know that the red generic Manchester United shirts were not there a full 48 hours after Huntley is alleged to have returned from the burial site, and tried to “set fire to them in a bin.” Nor does the problem end there. The additional nightmare is that the very people who should have been investigated for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, ie. American servicemen based at USAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath, had direct unfettered access to what the prosecution nowadays refer to in hushed terms as a ‘scene of crime’ in the Soham College hangar.
The hangar is not a valid crime scene at all, having been contaminated after the event by hundreds of unknown people. The list of people who could have later stuffed those generic Manchester United shirts into a waste bag [obviously] bearing caretaker Huntley’s fingerprints is virtually endless, and certainly includes a range of suspects not merely limited to servicemen at Mildenhall and Lakenheath. As the Daily Express reported on 13 August 2002, “Cambridgeshire police are now being assisted [in the search] by 16 other forces as well as the Ministry of Defence and the RAF.”
And this from the Western Daily Press dated 14 August 2002, “More than 320 officers from 16 different forces, plus British Transport Police as well as RAF and Ministry of Defence personnel, are involved in the hunt.” At no time before 16 August 2002 was Soham College or its hangar placed off limits to any of these search personnel, and Soham locals advised searchers visited the College and surrounding area many times, certainly until the bodies were eventually located in the drainage ditch alongside the perimeter wire at USAF Lakenheath.
If we all just sit by now that the British Government, the BBC and the rest of the establishment have convicted Ian Huntley for the gratification of a very sick elite and their even sicker ongoing agenda, then we must all share joint responsibility for his fate, and the fate of others that will surely follow in his footsteps if the paedophiles in high places are allowed to get away with this forever. Let’s collectively make sure that they don’t.
With grateful thanks and acknowledgements to the late, Joe Vialls and his estate.