Ian Huntley and the Soham girls

This is a short clip - I haven't been able to find the whole programme yet - where experts analyse Ian Huntley's words and body language.

What a field day they would have with some of the McCann interviews!

Freedom wrote:
This is a short clip - I haven't been able to find the whole programme yet - where experts analyse Ian Huntley's words and body language.

What a field day they would have with some of the McCann interviews!

Interesting. I hadn't seen that before. I find it totally unconvincing. I think it's a classic case of being asked to retrospectively come up with 'evidence' that supports a particular stance. The first 'expert' speaks with some authority but I think he's talking nonsense, as GM might say.

The only possible moment when there might be some incongruence, imo, might be at the 4.36 point which is highlighted by the 'expert' who is claiming it is 'duper's delight' although he doesn't use that term. Huntley's mouth pulls back into what I would describe more as a grimace than a smile. I think Huntley is being a bit coy here and is demonstrating a sort of nervous embarrassment which is understandable given the highly sensitive nature of the case. The obvious allusion (Huntley is making) is to the type person who would sexually assault two children (and then go on to murder them). I don't think there is any evidence that Huntley was that type of person and I don't think there is anything at all suspicious in his manner during those clips. There is no furtiveness, no darting eyes, no hesitation or endless 'ummmms' and 'arrrs' and 'I can't really remember' etc which we all saw in the Tapas interviews.

I suggest that he was probably worried that he might turn out to have been the last person to see them (but he wasn't - they were spotted later on by witnesses in and around Soham) and is worried that the finger of suspicion might turn on him. As indeed it did. I think this was in part a case of 'trial by media'.

If, as some believe, this was a gross miscarriage of justice then what were the real circumstances behind this atrocious act?

The 'heinous' crimes that the female 'expert' mentions in the clip are all quite flimsy allegations, imo.

http://www.justjustice.org/

http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/geopolitics/the-soham-scapegoats-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice/

If one is to subscribe to a theory that Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr are victims of a miscarriage of justice and that the driver of the erratically-driven car that Ian Webster saw with two girls inside was (one of?) the girls' abductors  then one has to get one's head around the idea that there was a gigantic cover-up. Possibly to protect the reputation of Tony Blair's 'war on terror' if the perpetrators of the crime had anything to do with the nearby US airbase where the bodies were eventually found on the perimeter edge.

One then has to struggle with the notion that the police who spent all night at the site where a jogger thought he saw two mounds of earth, which could possibly have been shallow graves, and announced it was just badger setts, were not merely investigating badger setts, but were investigating something else.

We know that the bodies of the girls were eventually found at a different location, by the perimeter fence of the US airbase. And it was reported by the coroner that the girls had died around 2 weeks before they were found and the bodies had almost definitely been moved. (Which would place the murder of the girls as having happened not long after Ian Webster saw the car with two children inside.)

We know that a member of the public heard what sounded like teenagers screaming on the evening of the girls' disappearance near the site where police spent all night investigating what they claim were badger setts.

So, if Ian Huntley was not responsible for the murders then who was?

I think that the discovery of the disturbed mounds of earth by a member of the public happened on or around the time that police made a direct appeal to the abductor/s leaving a message on Jessica's phone. Or maybe it happened around the time that an appeal was made to trace the driver of the car with two children inside? Or maybe around the time of both?

Need to check out the timelines here. But we know there was a large response from members of the public to the appeal for information about the driver of the green saloon car being driven manically. This must surely have given rise to more information about who this person could have been?

Could the discovery of the disturbed mounds of earth possibly be related to the police direct appeal to the abductor? Or did it relate to more knowledge about the driver of the car? Or both?

Suppose police had spent all night not investigating badger setts but investigating what had happened?

I am finding my mind boggling a bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/aug/23/childprotection.uk

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/huntley-deemed-fit-to-stand-trial-for-murder-139512.html

A timeline:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/soham-murders-timeline-8045799.html