View Full Version : Ian Huntley
Does anyone actually believe (from the coverage and transcripts made available so far) his story about nose-bleeds and accidentally drowning one girl and smothering another?
you have got to be joking.
he did it. lets make sure he is killed in prison.....by a freak accident :nod:
Jezz_S13
30-11-2003, 19:35
yep, I've put £1k on him getting off with an apology.
it seems very odd indeed.
I seem to remember some book/film where the killer only wanted to stop them screaming.
Some Sherlock Holmes thing comes to mind, don't know why tho...
ANyone got any ideas? It's been bugging me for weeks
Originally posted by Starionman
it seems very odd indeed.
I seem to remember some book/film where the killer only wanted to stop them screaming.
Some Sherlock Holmes thing comes to mind, don't know why tho...
ANyone got any ideas? It's been bugging me for weeks
of mice and men - lennie breaks the girl's neck cos shes screaming and trying to escape him
and as for poor old Mr Huntley well, he must be sooo mortified at this terrible accident :rolleyes:
Load of toss IMO
Originally posted by arry
of mice and men - lennie breaks the girl's neck cos shes screaming and trying to escape him
that wasn't what I was thinking of, having never read that book or watched the film...
grrr...
It's soemthing more innocent. A simple type man tries to stop a child crying or summat... doesn't realise the consequences until too late...
voodoo_melon
30-11-2003, 20:02
The bloke in Savior did it, although it didn't kill the baby, it just stopped breathing for a bit.
As for Huntley, as far as I can tell he's as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
hope he suffers when he gets a guilty verdict. If he doesn't then I'll lose faith in this system
tim rome
30-11-2003, 20:16
he murdered them, and i believe he did it to spite his g/f cos he knew that they liked her and she liked them. he's a sicko and i doubt he will last more than a month b4 he gets bumped off after he has been sentenced:mad:
Originally posted by tim rome
he murdered them, and i believe he did it to spite his g/f cos he knew that they liked her and she liked them. he's a sicko and i doubt he will last more than a month b4 he gets bumped off after he has been sentenced:mad:
you think he'll last that long??....
if someone don't bump him, he'll take his own...
Hmm, ground up glass in his prison issue instant mash, that should do the job. He's guilty, anyone who is so vacuous between the ears, as to believe his plea, of I dumped their bodies, was alone in the house with them, but I didn't kill them, honest, needs his head adjusting with a blunt instrument so they see sense.
Yup, he did it, end of story imho. He's just sh1tting himself now he's been caught and is trying to make the judge send him on a nice holiday on the grounds of being a feckwit.
C'mon guys - give the man a break! We've only heard a small snapshot of the evidence and - let's face it - he wouldn't have been charged unless there were a compelling case against him. Don't forget, the jury is surely going to be best placed to determine his innocence or otherwise.
As for his defence - what do you expect him to do....make up a pack of lies instead just to sound more plausible??
On second thoughts................send the bugger down :D :D :D
Remember that he claimed insanity just after his arrest and was transferred to Broadmoor.......
Me thinks they should bring back the death penalty for child killer's, (rapist's & peadophiles) where it can be proved beyond any doubt.
i don't know a hello of a lot about this altho soham is just up the road from me.
but i remeber a copper telling me ow they found the bodies. they were virtually unidentifyable. he covered them in lime or somehting .... and done other horrible nasty things to try and stop dna beign traced back to him
All I'm saying is, if he's innocent, then that's just too bad, 'cos he's going down anyway, he might as well plead guilty :indiff:
Originally posted by RCS
Me thinks they should bring back the death penalty for child killer's, (rapist's & peadophiles) where it can be proved beyond any doubt.
its that beyond any doubt that is the issue.
Papa Lazarou
01-12-2003, 10:43
All convictions are in theory "beyond reasonable doubt"...
Personally I think Huntley should have his hands and feet nailed to a cross, and be kept alive for as long as possible (force fed via a tube) in a silent white room with no windows...
Personally I think he is as guilty as a puppy sat next to big steaming pile of poo :nod:
MattyGee
01-12-2003, 10:50
Originally posted by voodoo_melon
As for Huntley, as far as I can tell he's as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
Gary, you big copy ;) :D lol
Huntley is so guilty :nod: :mad:
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
All convictions are in theory "beyond reasonable doubt"...
In theory - true.
If all convictions were beyond reasonable doubt, then no appeal would ever succeed.
Plus I would NOT trust the average British citizen to vote on my future. Trial by jury is deeply flawed - not that I have a replacement in mind - but I wouldn't trust "12 men good and true" to come out with the right choice...
Originally posted by MattyGee
Gary, you big copy ;) :D lol
Huntley is so guilty :nod: :mad:
Lol, I didnt read the rest :)
looks like me and Voodoo_Mellon both watch Black Adder :) :thumbs:
MattyGee
01-12-2003, 11:06
Originally posted by Hachi-Roku
Lol, I didnt read the rest :)
looks like me and Voodoo_Mellon both watch Black Adder :) :thumbs:
:D lol
:thumbs:
Originally posted by RCS
Me thinks they should bring back the death penalty for child killer's, (rapist's & peadophiles) where it can be proved beyond any doubt.
Hmmmm... what a well-thought-through well-reasoned statement. :rolleyes:
1. Guilt can almost never be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. There have been several instances of innocent people being executed. One instance like this, ever, should be enough to suggest that capital punishment should never be used again.
2. Are we not somewhat more civilised than that? Personally, I look down on societies that use capital (or other brutal forms of) punishment as less evolved than ours. Lets go back to living in f*cking caves by the light of fires, why not?
3. Where does it stop? First we arbitarily decide that child killers, rapists, and paedophiles are suitable for execution, if they are found guilty. What about the next time there's a more straightforward murder, and the public (who after all, like the idea of capital punishment, and are part of a democracy) press for the death sentence? Before you know it, we'll be stoning women for adultery, and cutting off peoples' hands for stealing.
4. Philosophically, it doesn't make sense. You're basing your belief on the concept that human life is very precious, and should be protected with as much power as the law can muster - in this case, you are suggesting the ultimate punishment that can be levied. So why, suddenly, is it alright for us (via our democratically elected government) to kill people, just because you've defined their crimes are arbitarily defined as 'bad enough'?
5. Why do children deserve more protection than adults? This is an overly sentimental concept which doesn't hold up too well under examination. Frankly, I think that rape is the vilest crime just about possible - whether the victim is 8, 18, or 80. And having had to deal with some victims, from time to time, I too feel incredibly angry --indeed, almost to a murderous level-- at what has been done to them. If it was my daughter, wife, mother --whoever-- who'd been raped, then hell yes, I'd want vengance - irrespective of their age. I'd want vengance because I cared deeply about them, and because of the extent of the crime against them.
But that wouldn't make it right.
Originally posted by Tombs
5. Why do children deserve more protection than adults?
Indeed ........ I'm all for teminating anyone that kills / rapes anyone.
I know that wasnt quite where you were going Tombs ... but I agree totally with your "point 5"
I know we shouldnt kill as a punishment for the reasons you set out above ...... But at the end of the day .... I cant be bothered with people can cannot socially behave themselves. Terminating these people wont lower crime rates ..... but it would make victims feel a lot better for it ... bit like a good insurance payout.
I believe that a crime on a child is more serious. but i say more serious loosely and in the sense that it is in my opinion a graver crime. When the court sentences one of the sentencing guidelines suggests an aggravating feature of a crime is if its on a child, woman etc
personally i think he will do himself in once inside
Originally posted by simonas
I believe that a crime on a child is more serious.
What are your reasons for this belief? :)
gaz.thomas
01-12-2003, 12:28
Huntley is a nutbox and will probably not have a particularly pleasant time in the joint. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Originally posted by Tombs
What are your reasons for this belief? :)
As I say this is my own viewpoint. There's more of a sympathy factor with children. Where I live a 30 year old man was shot last week. That story struck no chords with me yet if a child under 14 say had of got shot I would have felt sad about that news. I am a father so maybe that has something to do with it.
Also I think there is a breach of trust element with a crime on a child as they generally put trust in adults as they are more vulnerable.
All day I hear of horrible things that have happened to adults and I visit people in prison yet, if its a peadophile I deal with or go to see it stirs an emotion cos I feel sorry for the child
John Bennett
01-12-2003, 12:39
For just one innocent person to be executed is reason enough for the death penalty to be outlawed.
I also don't feel that punishment is about revenge, it's about trying to gain some sense of remorse. If that means locking someone up for life (in the hope they might think about what they've done), as opposed to executing them, so be it.
I also feel that for someone to murder/rape a child is an act of mental illness - I doubt whether they're satan worshiping monsters who laugh at the evilness of what they've done. Obviously lock them up (for life if necessary), work out why they did it (improving the way social services deal with questionable characters would prevent quite a few child murders - e.g. Dunblane IIRC), but I don't think killing them will acheive acheive anything.
I won't pass comment on Huntley as he hasn't been convicted.
My 2 cents anyway (hope I don't anger anyone).
Capital Punishment should be allowed if:
A known offender attacks again..
this way the person knows that when he/she is released the death penalty will be up for grabs the next time they attack.
and anyone who attacks that has a mental illness will be chucked into a mental home anyway..
I personally feel that this should be the case against people who sexual assult children..
Rape is hard to determine because how many girls have you read that have slept with so and so and then cried rape afterwards? - at the end of the day.. its your word against theres. - dont get me wrong, I HATE rapists.. and if I knew of anyone who has raped a female friend of mine then a few mates of mine armed with a collection of some of the finest tools from the black market will "sort him out"
anyway getting back to the original thread.. Ian Huntley..
To be honest, I dont know whether he is guilty or not, some days I watch the news and think he is guilty, other days its the opposite.
IF he is innocent then the problem is WHY did he take the bodies away? But then you could also think that he paniked and thought that if he took away the bodies..
Arrrgggh..
Im getting meself a headache:smash:
Guilty as sin.
The man should be castrated and force fed his own testicles.
This is just my opinion obviously :D :D
Martin T
01-12-2003, 13:28
Well since part of the principal of our justice system is "an eye for an eye" the powers that be dont agree with you.
To simply punish someone looking purely at the criminals behaviour is totally unfair on the victim. Society should stop sympathising woth the criminal and start sympathising with the victim.
Take for example the Lockerbie bomber. He murdered 270 people. I dont give a shit is he becomes genuinely remorseful for the 270 people that he murdered. He should still remain locked up for the rest of his life quite simply because of the seriousness of the crime he's committed.
For someone to rape/murder a child could be mental illness, but with a paedophile its permanent. Its a sexual preferance. You cannot punish people for what they think as all people should have total freedom for what they think/feel, but if they act on these feelings and it happens to be doing something to a child, then the law should land on them like a ton of bricks, because quite simply the chances of reoffence are so high. Anyone that commits child rape etc should be automatically locked up for life, regardless of excuses. Why? Because the public has a right not to be expesed to this kind of monster. The public should be protected, not the criminals, yet it seems to be that to focus is currently on the criminals.
YorkshireRam
01-12-2003, 13:32
executing someone is an easy way out for them
make their life in prison as hard as hell - and let them out when they're about 80, just so they can appreciate the little time they have left and what they've missed out on. thats punishment.
Papa Lazarou
01-12-2003, 13:33
How about then, say you were trying a child pornographer and murderer. Found were bodies of kids in his house, collections of thousands of sicko photographs featuring himself with kids who have been reported missing... Undisputable evidence. And a signed statement from him admitting to everything and saying he did it because he enjoyed it.
Would it not be right to wipe this scum off the earth in the most brutal way possible?
Or should we be giving him support and trying to "re-habilitate" him? Perhaps with a light stretch of community service?
Discuss :wack:
any sex crime on adults or kids should mean - chop off the tackle!
If they have no tackle they cannot do it anymore! Similar to where they chop fingers off if you nick things, eventually you run out of fingers/hands and cannot nick stuff. Solves the problem.
John Bennett
01-12-2003, 13:51
I do feel that sentences are often way too light. Lock a child rapist up for life in my opinion, you just don't need to execute them.
A known attacker shouldn't be back in society if there's ANY question of them re-offending again. As well as for punishment, prison is to protect the public.
Papa, my thoughs: Could you stand and watch this monster you describe being slowly executed in the most brutal way possible - dissection perhaps. It truly would feel like society had regressed 100's of years to sanction such a thing. He'd probably want to be martyred anyway so you'd be doing him a favour :wack: Stick him in a cell 'till he dies.
Trouble with sticking him in a cell is that it costs us a lot of money per year to keep them in jail. £40,000+ each person! Which is a joke when you consider I earn £19k a year.
John Bennett
01-12-2003, 14:03
I would love to know why this value is so high (often hear it).
Are the overheads really that much? Do they give the prisoners silver service or something? :confused:
Thing is, we haven't got millions of life prisoners so I can't see that introducing the death penalty would save the taxpayer THAT much.
altcourse in fazakarley where i visit a lot is the first private prison and its a bout 50,000k a year per prisoner but apparently its a nicer prison to live in!!!!
Back to the topic, has anyone given a motive for the crime yet. I have not heard a good reason from the prosecution yet as to why they think Huntley killed the girls
:confused:
i suppose to kill two young girls, no motive would be necessary apart from being mentally ill or just plain evil!!!
WTF:
"Huntley, whose lawyer has already told the court his client admits the girls died in his house and that he took their bodies to a remote woodland to dump them, said he asked the girls into his house because he wanted to help them."
Help my arse!
"Huntley says Holly died after he accidentally knocked her into a bath full of water and that Jessica died after he grabbed her mouth when she started screaming."
----
Accidentally knocked her in the bath (that won't kill anyone, maybe holding her head under the water might though!) FFS!! Jessica died after he grabbed her mouth to stop her screaming (held his habd over her nose & mouth until she stopped breathing!). The man is a blatant cnut and needs shooting.:mad:
Originally posted by simonas
i suppose to kill two young girls, no motive would be necessary apart from being mentally ill or just plain evil!!!
I still think that if I was on the jury I would like the prosecution to suggest a motive before I convicted someone.
manic_mechanic
01-12-2003, 16:54
Originally posted by Starionman
In theory - true.
If all convictions were beyond reasonable doubt, then no appeal would ever succeed.
Plus I would NOT trust the average British citizen to vote on my future. Trial by jury is deeply flawed - not that I have a replacement in mind - but I wouldn't trust "12 men good and true" to come out with the right choice...
No-one hates paedophiles more than me but I think you are innocent until proven guilty - not long to wait!
Also how the devil can he get a fair trial?
Originally posted by Scottie
I still think that if I was on the jury I would like the prosecution to suggest a motive before I convicted someone.
Have you seen the news tonight or read the transcripts of his evidence today.
The bloke admits killing them just hopes we'll all believe it was an accident.
I say stop the trial now and release him into the care of the Soham community. He's taking the piss and trying to make fools of everybody whilst twisting the knife into their parents.
Martin T
02-12-2003, 03:13
Hmm lock him up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. Just put a tray with his food in every day. thats it. That would be a suitable punishment.
Originally posted by Tombs
Before you know it, we'll be stoning women for adultery, and cutting off peoples' hands for stealing.
And?
Your point is?
:D ;)
Originally posted by Scottie
I still think that if I was on the jury I would like the prosecution to suggest a motive before I convicted someone.
a madman would not always neeed a motive other than maybe a morbid fascination with killing or wanting to kill young children. The jury just needs to be convinced by the weight of evidence against and the holes in his evidence.
Apparently his evidence was terrible. He was crying and looking remorseful etc and generally realising what a shitty position he was now in!!!!!
Originally posted by seb
And?
Your point is?
:D ;)
the point is we're supposed to be a civilised society and, no matter how much you may want to and it may "seem right", we dont have the god given right to take life/inflict injury etc.
Originally posted by arry
we dont have the god given right to take life/inflict injury etc.
Actually yes we do ... If you are bringing God in to this, then you must accept that he will cast judgement when you die ........ However When he cast us out of the garden of Eden he allowed us free choice and gave us the right judge each other.
So by gods own working we are allowed to punish by death if we break his will.
I'm not relegious, so I guess the reason they wrote the Bible this way was so that they could justify hanging each other 2000 years ago.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.