Was the murder defence against Ian Huntley nouns?

I did not follow the case at the time, but I have hear since that there were problems near the conviction. Is this true? Was Ian Huntley framed to protect the real culprits? (it is suggested they were USAF servicemen from Lakenheath airbase). Was the forensic evidence against Huntley up to standard? Why was he arrested for murder before any bodies be found?
Answers:
I've not heard any such rumours myself, but a.) his girlfriend give him a false alibi, and b.) they found the girls clothes in the incinerator at the school he be caretaker at, if my memory serves me right. I don't think there's ever been any doubt.
The evidence against Huntley was overwhelming. He admit to having been present when the girls died, but claimed their annihilation was accidental. He also have form.

His version of events was malarkey. It's vaguely within the realm of possibility that a healthy ten year old girl could suddenly die, but definitely not two in quick succession. He be arrested because the girls' partly burned clothes were found contained by one of the large dustbins at the school where on earth he was caretaker.

Now it could be that other people be involved, but since Huntley was the one who had contact beside the girls, he would have come up with a different security. I was there but the Yank dunnit.

Any suggestion that he be framed is conspiracy theory at its silliest.
My understanding is that Huntley invited the 2 young girls into his home and subsequently murdered them. He disposed of their bodies some 20 miles away contained by a ditch, he had lite the bodies on fire surrounded by order to destroy any forensic evidence. The two girls bodies be found 13 days later. He was arrested and informed the police as to the where on earth a bouts of the bodies--they were recovered 12 hours later. He be charged with two counts of murder and sectioned lower than the Mental Health Action and placed into the Rampton Hospital --a judge, later found him suitable to stand trial.
Ian Huntley admit to the killings of the two young 10 y/o girls. Although he have never stated as to why he killed them nor how--the stories conflict with one another.
The jury returned a majority of guilty on both counts of murder on 17th December, 2003, he be placed into prison. His term to be decided at a after that date.
I do not believe he was wrongfully commited and found guilty--all the evidence led to him, and he admit to the killings of the two young girls.

Sorry for human being so long--I copied/pasted this part --it might help answer your cross-question
After Huntley was convicted, it was revealed that he have been investigated in olden times for sexual offences and burglary but had still be allowed to work in a school. Home Secretary David Blunkett ordered an inquiry into these failing, chaired by Sir Michael Bichard, and later ordered the suspension of David Westwood, Chief of Humberside Police. The outcome of the inquiry criticised Humberside Police for delete information relating to previous allegations against Huntley, as well as criticising Cambridgeshire Police for not following vetting guidelines. An added complication into the vetting procedures was the certainty that Huntley had applied for the caretaker's job underneath the name of Ian Nixon. It is believed that Humberside Police did not check under the cross Huntley on the police computer - if they had then they would own discovered a burglary charge left on file.

Since one jailed, Huntley has reportedly admitted that he lied when giving evidence at his trial. He changed his story almost the death of Jessica, having previously admit to suffocating her in a panic. An audio cassette recording of Huntley speaking to a relative at Wakefield Prison revealed that he allegedly killed her when she tried to phone up for help on her mobile phone.

On 29 September 2005, High Court Judge Mr Justice Moses, who presided over Huntley's original trial, ruled that he should spend 40 years contained by prison before he can be considered for parole. He was not issued beside a whole life tariff because the mediate said there was no evidence of abduction of the two girls. The commencement of his sentence was backdated to October 2002, when he was first remanded within custody — not August 2002, as he was initially held in a mental hospital since a judge decided he be fit to stand trial.

It is not yet clear whether Huntley will appeal for his tariff to be reduced. Under its terms, he will not be capable of apply for parole until October 2042, when he will be 68 years old. Even then, he will lone be released from prison if he can convince the parole board that he is no longer a danger to the public.

The families of Huntley's victims latter revealed that they had been hoping for a total life tariff to be set, but Huntley's sentence was approximately three times heavier than the minimum jargon imposed on most convicted murderers.
Prison

On 14 September 2005 Huntley was scalded with boiling marine when another inmate attacked him. A prison service spokesman said that due to the nature of high-security prisoners, "it's impossible to prevent incidents of this nature occasionally happening", but Huntley alleged that the prison authorities inferior in their duty of care towards him, and launch a claim for lb15,000 compensation. Huntley was reportedly awarded lb2,500 in permissible aid to pursue this claim, a move strongly criticised by the Soham MP, Jim Paice, who insisted on tight restrictions on the use of public money for compensation, and said "The people I represent have no sympathy for him at all". Huntley's injuries designed that he did not attend the hearing at which his minimum term be decided.

The Wells and Chapman families received lb11,000 within compensation for the murder of their daughters.

Hope this answered your question!


Related Questions: