Ian Huntley and the Soham girls

Dee Coy wrote:https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/paedophile-innuendo-the-soham-murders-something-for-the-wannabe-censors-to-think-about/

Don't think we'll ever know the full extent or otherwise of Huntley's past as Humberside police deleted his files. The above link is an interesting and illuminating read.

----

How amazing! The police who are supposed to be upholding the justice principle just happened to 'whoosh' the relevant files.

Well, well, well....

As always I am utterly repulsed by those in supposed 'authority' who abuse their position. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

One thing that ties these two cases together for me was the nose bleed excuse, this was the excuse Huntley used for blood in the bathroom and then low and behold Gerry looked up and said if there was any blood Madeleine may have had a nose bleed, as soon as I read that I knew he was lying in case any blood that could be proved beyond doubt to come from Maddie had to be explained away.

poster wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/paedophile-innuendo-the-soham-murders-something-for-the-wannabe-censors-to-think-about/

Don't think we'll ever know the full extent or otherwise of Huntley's past as Humberside police deleted his files. The above link is an interesting and illuminating read.

----

How amazing! The police who are supposed to be upholding the justice principle just happened to 'whoosh' the relevant files.

Well, well, well....

As always I am utterly repulsed by those in supposed 'authority' who abuse their position. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

Quite, poster. The man in charge when these files were deleted - CC David Westwood - was ordered be suspended by the Home Secretary when this came to light. Westwood was backed wholeheartedly, and unprecedentedly under such circumstances, by the chairman of the Police Authority, Colin Inglis, a man, like Huntley, also accused of sexual crimes against children. The files against Inglis would also be kept in Humberside police's archives. Just a thought.

Inglis was subsequently cleared, by a majority verdict, of his charges, of course.

Now WHY would Humberside police delete Ian Huntley's files? Why on earth would they do that when supposedly lessons should be learned from what happened in this case?

---------

Below excerpts snipped from the link at foot of post which sounds perfectly plausible to me.
My emphasis:

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.

What about DNA from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman, inside the Ford Fiesta? Remember that Ian Huntley stands 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.

The biggest “smoke and mirrors” prosecution conjuring trick of week one, was unquestionably that of the bright-red Manchester United T-shirts worn by the two girls the day they vanished. Nowadays if you key “Holly Jessica” into the Google image engine, most of the front page fills up with photographs of the girls wearing these famous T-shirts, and there is a natural tendency to believe Holly and Jessica’s shirts are unique. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tens of thousands of Manchester United T-shirts have been produced by the same mill from identical red fibres, to the point where they can be purchased by anyone with minimum effort. Identical T-shirts are available anonymously on the Internet for £29.99
          It is 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, though 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 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 clumsy 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 is Huntley actually guilty of?



http://www.whale.to/b/trial_of_ian_huntley.html

If the above analysis is even partially true, then it raises intriguing questions about the total lack of Madeleine McCann's DNA from apartment 5a where Madeleine was allegedly staying until Thursday evening when she was, according to her parents and their friends, abducted by a person or people unknown. But suspected to be a paedophile or paedophile ring according to Madeleine's parents and friends.

How could there be NO DNA from Madeleine McCann if she had really been in apartment 5a that week? Even allowing for an amazing clean-up job there would still be DNA on her clothes, say. Or on toys. And there would be her DNA in the kids' club. Plus any other equipment she handled that week (the tennis racquet she used that week, for instance, or did Kate spring-clean that too?)

I do not doubt the findings of the sniffer dogs, though. I believe that they alerted to the scent of death in apartment 5a and in the Renault Scenic that the McCanns hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's alleged abduction.

But that still does not PROVE that Madeleine McCann was ever alive in apartment 5a. And IF - as one would naturally suspect given the circumstances of Madeleine's mysterious disappearance - the sniffer dogs were indeed alerting to poor little Madeleine's dead body in apartment 5a then- given the absence of Madeleine's DNA - when was her body (or a body) placed in apartment 5a?

It is also of note, imo, that the early search and rescue dogs became highly agitated outside another apartment (supposedly unoccupied that week) in the block occupied by the McCanns which was apartment 5J. Although they were not alerting to the person whose scent they were following - which is what they are trained to do, they nevertheless became extremely agitated outside both the front and back door of this apartment on several occasions involving several different dogs. I would be fascinated to know who owns apartment 5J. And of course it is on record that when police eventually gained access they found a fridge with the door open and rotting food inside or nearby.

Which of course might just possibly have been a nice little 'plant' to account for the dog alerts. And is remarkably similar, imo, to the excuses given by Team McCann for the odour coming from the Renault Scenic which was apparently due to dirty nappies and blood leaking from meat! And of course we know that Sean happened to develop a taste for sea bass on that holiday which apparently the smell of which can sometimes be somewhat similar to cadaver or at least be confused with it.

Reckon even Inspector Clouseau could have cracked this case in about three days surely? Poor Detective Amaral, he really was landed in it wasn't he?

Those pesky sniffer dogs again (from the link below). Makes one view Gerry's glib remark to a journalist: "Ask the dogs, Sandra" in a new light, perhaps? And we know that dogs, unlike humans, don't lie.

---------

Before we join the jury for a visit to USAF Lakenheath at the beginning of week two, let us close the book forever on the Soham crime scene, by borrowing witness WPC Anna Burton, who actually appeared in court much later on 14 November. WPC Burton is 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 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 hangar building was, where the court has heard 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 because 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 traveled 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.
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 claims both girls were inside Huntley’s house, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not. The prosecution claims 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

http://www.whale.to/b/trial_of_ian_huntley.html

Fascinating reading Poster. Once again I don't know what to believe.
Do you or anyone else have a theory on why Huntley was perhaps fitted up for this crime? I can't buy the diplomatic hush hush over a US airman, or at least can't understand why it would be that sensitive. Any other ideas?

Why would he admit to the crime - albeit claiming it was an accident - if he was innocent?

There have been cases where vulnerable people have been coerced into agreeing to things they hadn't done but I wouldn't put Ian Huntley in that category.

Exactly Freedom. He had a long record of inappropriate sexual activity none of which unfortunately had resulted in a court conviction in which case he never could have become a school caretaker, a totally unsuitable position for a man with his background.

There is no reason why there would be a cover up if a US airman had been the murderer.

Why would the girlfriend need to lie to provide an alibi if he was innocent?

Maxine Carr claimed to have thought he was innocent but knew that, with his previous history, he would be suspected and that's why she lied.

chirpyinsect wrote:Fascinating reading Poster. Once again I don't know what to believe.
Do you or anyone else have a theory on why Huntley was perhaps fitted up for this crime? I can't buy the diplomatic hush hush over a US airman, or at least can't understand why it would be that sensitive. Any other ideas?

-----

Well, suppose it HAD been something to do with US airmen at the nearby base, for instance? Given how close the base is to where the bodies were found, surely there would be some questioning of servicemen there? Why would they be above suspicion?

Perhaps this was part of a bigger picture. Possibly involving atrocities carried out by servicemen overseas when on duty, for instance. Or maybe there was a big racket going on at the base. Given the highly sensitive nature of the base, everything would be 'top secret' so who knows what was going on there?

The whole Iraq situation was highly sensitive and the war became extremely unpopular. Plus there were never any weapons of mass destruction. Can't imagine that the UK Government and US Government for that matter would welcome scrutiny of the goings on at the US airbase.

Freedom wrote:Why would he admit to the crime - albeit claiming it was an accident - if he was innocent?

There have been cases where vulnerable people have been coerced into agreeing to things they hadn't done but I wouldn't put Ian Huntley in that category.  

---

Well, it seems like the shrinks at Rampton did a pretty good job on him.

Antonia wrote:Exactly Freedom. He had a long record of inappropriate sexual activity none of which unfortunately had resulted in a court conviction in which case he never could have become a school caretaker, a totally unsuitable position for a man with his background.

There is no reason why there would be a cover up if a US airman had been the murderer.

Why would the girlfriend need to lie to provide an alibi if he was innocent?

----

Given that Humberside police wiped his files we don't know for sure what his background was.

I disagree with the bolded sentence. I think that the brutal murder of two schoolchildren by someone within the perimeter of the US air base would have been truly terrible publicity for the UK/US attacks on Iraq. Plus of course is would have lead to a closer look at what was going on inside the airbase. Which I would imagine would be quite unwelcome.

Chuck a bunch of servicemen and women into a compound some of whom would presumably be traumatized by what they have seen and done on active duty and I would imagine it is a fairly volatile environment.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495

I found this link when was exploring this the other day. Has pictures of Huntley prior and post Rampton:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/who-killed-holly-and-jessica.html

Dee Coy wrote:I found this link when was exploring this the other day. Has pictures of Huntley prior and post Rampton:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/who-killed-holly-and-jessica.html

----

Well, they say a picture tells a thousand words. In the top one he looks normal. In the bottom one he is clearly drugged up to the eyeballs.

---

This excerpt stands out from the link above:

On 17 August 2002, the bodies of two ten-year-old girls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, were found right next to an air force base.

"The series of murders in the South East of England during 2000-2002 had five victims, namely Sarah Payne, Milly Dowler, Danielle Jones, and Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman."

Sarah Payne in Cheshire - The Soham Murders...

Well protected pedophile rings at work?

-----------

Don't forget of course that the McCanns themselves and their friends first declared that they thought a paedophile or paedophile ring had been involved in Madeleine's abduction which was a remarkable thing to have said, imo.

Very disturbing, imo. Excerpts from web-site linked below. My emphasis.

Most readers are already aware that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing in Soham village on 4 August 2002, an event which led to a massive search of the area by hundreds of searchers. Tthe Soham “crime scene” where the two red Manchester United T-shirts were “found”, was repeatedly and comprehensively contaminated by searchers including unidentified American servicemen.


Jurors at the Huntley and Carr trial have not been advised that the Soham crime scene was hopelessly contaminated, nor have they been told the searchers included American servicemen, based less than five hundred yards away from the site where the bodies of Jolly Wells and Jessica Chapman were subsequently discovered.

During the same time frame in August 2002, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr went about their business in Soham in a normal manner, occasionally giving brief interviews to interested media. It is critical to note here that both appeared 100% normal, with their body language completely open and unambiguous. There is no deceit whatever on this file video footage, just a concerned young couple who knew the girls slightly and were prepared to talk to the media about the sequence of events.

The court has been told that during this same period, Huntley and Carr gave a hitchhiker a lift back to Soham when they were returning from Grimsby, and that the hitchhiker though they were a little tense. Think about this one people, think about it very carefully. If you had just murdered and dumped two little girls, and as co-conspirators you were trying to get your stories straight, would you pick up a hitchhiker? No, of course you would not. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Huntley’s court-appointed “defense” lawyer failed to bring this blatantly obvious point to the attention of the jurors.


On 17 August 2002, Huntley and Carr were arrested “on suspicion”, and then twelve hours after they were arrested, the bodies of the two girls were found in a drainage ditch close to the USAF Lakenheath perimeter fence. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but, in my experience, suspects are normally arrested by police after the bodies have been found, not twelve hours before. One gets the unmistakable impression that the main players in this Home Office charade were already under starters orders, and some of them jumped the gun.

No doubt members of the Cambridgeshire Police Service were expected to beat a swift confession out of Ian Huntley, aided by black Home Office assertions that he had already been imprisoned for rape in another jurisdiction back in 1998. This damning information was also leaked to the jurors in court last week, in an attempt to influence their final judgement on Ian Huntley.

What the Cambridgeshire Police Service did not know in 2002, and jurors were not told in court last week, is that after being in prison on remand for two months, Huntley was freed because a council video camera was found to have filmed him many miles away from the crime scene, at the exact time of the rape. Ian Huntley was therefore not only an innocent man, he was also a man who had been arrested and unlawfully detained because of significant police incompetence.

This time around, the Home Office was not going to leave it up to the police, and three days later on 20 August 2002, government psychiatrists ordered that Ian Huntley be transferred to the Rampton high-security psychiatric hospital for “assessment.” The official reason given by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Hebb, may someday gain a place of notoriety at the police black museum in London, “He [Huntley] gave an impression of not understanding what was going on, and refused to answer questions.”

This is not surprising. An innocent man would not have understood “what was going on” at all, and every prisoner arrested in Great Britain has the absolute right not to answer any questions. There was no valid reason in or outside the law to incarcerate Huntley, who as we already know from video footage filmed only days before, was a completely coherent and reasonably cheerful man.



http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495

Interesting analysis of the body language of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr. Snipped from link below.

Shortly after the arrests, British and American media organizations demonized 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 well being 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 auxiliary 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 noticed 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.


http://codshit.com/wells-chapman.htm

Almost exactly 10 years after the dreadful Soham murders, 12-year-old Tia Sharpe disappeared.

Wow! These sniffer dog findings are interesting:

This case consists of an abduction and murder of a schoolchild on the 10th anniversary of the Soham murders, the first since then, and a decomposing body in the loft which had escaped the nostrils of the residents and sniffer dogs, and which was discovered by the police only after they had astonished everyone by turning their search to the house itself. The only apparent justification that they could have had for this switch was that the girl had disappeared soon after leaving the house and had not yet shown up in CCTV surveillance records.

Witnesses had reported seeing a white van in the area bothering children the day before the disappearance, and earlier in the week, the police had conducted a search of a local wood 400 yards away from the house known as Birchwood. They had sealed off the entrances with tape and used sniffer dogs and long sticks to probe the undergrowth. If the body were to be found there, it would explain why she had disappeared so quickly, and the police would have been stuck with a body in an incident that resembled the Soham murders that the 10th anniversary commemorated.


http://www.justjustice.org/anniversary.html

More on sniffer dogs in relation to the Tia Sharp case and also referencing the Soham murders.

They want us to believe that highly trained sniffer dogs, with a sense of smell 2000 times greater than a human, could not detect a body in the house 5 days after she went missing! Please!

http://truthseeker444.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tia-blog-stuart-hazell-at-this-stage-is.html

Please!

The sniffer dog HAD alerted but was ignored, because police had already checked the attic and found noting!
They also didn't want to send the dog upstairs as the floor was "unreliable".
And MWT sat underneath interviewing the murderer on camera.

Châtelaine wrote:Please!

The sniffer dog HAD alerted but was ignored, because police had already checked the attic and found noting!
They also didn't want to send the dog upstairs as the floor was "unreliable".
And MWT sat underneath interviewing the murderer on camera.

---

I don't quite understand your post! From what I understand the house was searched quite a few times before the body was found.

Given that body language and facial expressions can often be a giveaway, I checked out this interview. There is nothing in his demeanour, behaviour, actions, words - imo - that point towards any kind of guilt.

Zilch.

Notice his very direct answers to questions - with direct eye contact to the interviewer - without fidgeting, without stalling, without stumbling over his words or contradicting himself. He has a very clear memory of what happened when he last saw Tia. He remembers exactly what she ate, exactly what they spoke about, exactly when she left. I find this quite credible. He also shows his exasperation over her not listening to him when he tries to get her to charge her phone. Again, I find this completely credible.

He has a very clear recollection of this vital moment in time as anyone (innocent, imo) would as it has become an emotionally-charged memory.

Contrast this account of the last time he saw Tia with the McCanns account of the last time they saw Madeleine. His sounds just like real life. Theirs sounds like a fairy-tale. Also contrast his body language with that of the McCanns. He seems authentic. They seem totally fake.

IMO of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E_dTHeeszA

ETA: In this particular case I think it might be of interest to look more closely at the role played by Tia's step-father.

Hadn't seen this before. Wow! When you consider all the deleted phone calls on the McCanns phones. Just how desperate is/was the state to take the trail away from TM?

   

Telecommunications experts from the UK are attempting to trace the movement of the abductor of Madeleine McCann by following a trail left by mobile telephone signals.

A team of British specialists have arrived in the Algarve to attempt to pinpoint the movements of mobile telephones around the resort complex where Madeleine was abducted 26 days ago.

The technique was used to collect the evidence which helped convict Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in 2002.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id86.html

Freedom wrote:He called them all paranoid fruitcakes apparently.

Well, it's true.

But it is more than that...they have an agenda.

When I made a completely innocent comment about having spotted one of the tapas jogging by and my being intrigued and getting into my car to pass him just to double-check, one or two of the rabid dogs went into full-on attack accusing me of being a stalker.

It was pathetic, actually. But I guess was indicative of their mind-set. You accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing. TB strikes me as pretty stalkerish. He seems pretty obsessed with finding out the weak link in a person and then exposing it.

Why not just get a life?

The other thing that drove a few of the hard-core into a frenzy was my suggestion that drowning might have been a feature of the case - whether actual drowning or pretend drowning (as in the 'tragic accident' theory when it may not have been.)

I just threw the idea up as a potential hazard for Madeleine in the event of an accident - as Dr Amaral suggested had happened - and never suggested that that had happened.

But it seemed to drive the mob into a frenzy.

The ever-perceptive missbettle later on posted a few photos and made a few comments pertaining to the Soham case in which, of course, it is alleged that one of the girls had been drowned by Huntley in a bath. I've done a fair bit of research on that case and I think the conviction does not have a leg to stand on.

It's relevance to the Madeleine case, imo, is that I think the McCanns' use of the photograph of Madeleine in a sponsored football shirt played right into memories of the Soham tragedy. The huge significance being that the Soham girls were wearing those shirts when last seen so obviously the photo would have been crucially important in terms of a search for them, plus also provide evidence - if the shirts were found- as to what happened. The shirts were, indeed, found in a bin on the school site. I'm sorry, but why would the murderer put the shirts in a bin on the site where he worked? Was he wanting to be caught? That makes no sense. Seems far more likely to me - and others who have researched that case - that someone put there in order to muddy the waters of the case.

In the Madeleine case, there is no indication that the shirt was worn by her that fateful week. So it would not have helped in the search. IMO it was acutely insensitive to have published that photo in the media - given the associations with the Soham case in which the parents became so distressed by the continued use of the photo that it was discontinued - and I think it was deliberately used with an ulterior motive attached. In any event the girl wearing the football shirt looks older than the girl in the 'last photo'.

IMO there are those 'in the know' about the Soham case who are also 'in the know' about the Madeleine case.

They both stink to high heaven as far as I am concerned. The forensics do not add up. The dog alerts also give the game away. In the Madeleine case the dogs alerted positively in many instances. In the Soham case there was no dog alert at all from the policewoman who arrived on the scene with a dog shortly after Huntley had allegedly murdered the girls and whom Huntley showed around the school campus.

As others have pointed out, if Huntley had just murdered the two girls, there is no way that a police-dog would not have picked up on the scent and become extremely agitated. Huntley, too, would surely have been agitated. But no - he was very helpful and showed the policewoman around and she was very grateful. No way would he have been so calm and collected if he had just carried out a double murder.

IMO of course. Only a theory/idea and nothing stated as fact.

ETA: I think that the shrinks at Rampton worked on Huntley. If this was the case, this would have been a directive from high up and would be known by others in positions of power.

It is on public record that the McCanns were privy to high level support at the beginning.

The question is: why?

I always meant to thank you for this interesting post @ poster.    
I agree with many of your points and theories, but it appears general consensus about the Soham murders is taken as fact, so I would not wish to upset others who hold differing opinions.
Sorry I haven't written before to say this, but better late than never.

bluebell wrote:
I always meant to thank you for this interesting post @ poster.    
I agree with many of your points and theories, but it appears general consensus about the Soham murders is taken as fact, so I would not wish to upset others who hold differing opinions.
Sorry I haven't written before to say this, but better late than never.      

I'm aware of some general discontent in some parts about Huntley's conviction, but I really don't have the time or inclination to get into that as well. But for any seasoned McCann watcher, surely the slimy presence of Clarence Mitchell in Soham must at least get you wondering?