Discussion
His defence appears to be that one girl died in the bath and he killed the other with his bare hands.
Is a "I'm not guilty because I did kill them" defence really a defence at all?
[obligatory dig at plod]
Shame plod deployed their spare resources in camera vans instead of defending children from weirdos.
[/obligatory dig at plod]
>>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Thursday 4th December 10:01
Is a "I'm not guilty because I did kill them" defence really a defence at all?
[obligatory dig at plod]
Shame plod deployed their spare resources in camera vans instead of defending children from weirdos.
[/obligatory dig at plod]
>>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Thursday 4th December 10:01
toad_oftoadhall said:
[obligatory dig at plod]
Shame plod deployed their spare resources in camera vans instead of defending children from weirdos.
[/obligatory dig at plod]
Au contrare, the police put their best men on the job, its just a damned shame that two of them turned out to be kiddy fiddlers themselves...
puggit said:
Mrs Puggit thinks he's telling the truth, I'm not so easy to sway!
Either way - he admits to killing one of them!
That's what I don't get. If *his* story is correct he murdered a young girl to stop her screaming.
Hardly a whizz defence. I would have thought something along the lines of 'I didn't do it' would have been best.
He wants to get off on manslaughter rather than go down for murder. He could get off scott-free if this happens (although life imprisonment is still the maximum). He won't get away with insanity.
However he has the balance of probability working against him.
Chances of someone drowning in the bath after falling into it, maybe 1 in 1000.
Chances of smothering someone when getting them to be quiet, maybe 1 in 500.
Combined chance that Huntley is telling the truth is 1 in 500,000.
Either the unluckiest victim of circumstance or a double child murderer. Over to the jury...
However he has the balance of probability working against him.
Chances of someone drowning in the bath after falling into it, maybe 1 in 1000.
Chances of smothering someone when getting them to be quiet, maybe 1 in 500.
Combined chance that Huntley is telling the truth is 1 in 500,000.
Either the unluckiest victim of circumstance or a double child murderer. Over to the jury...
Ah, but to be guilty of murder, there needs to be an element of intent (ie he set out to kill one or both). He's saying that one drowned and in a panic, he smothered the other one whilst trying to stop her screaming.
He's admitting that he killed her, but is trying to have the charge dropped to something like manslaughter and the stuff about "freezing" etc is to try and show that there was no intent to kill either.
TBH, yes he's had plenty of time to come up with this, but it is (IMHO) plausible. However, where his story creaks a bit is when it comes to disposing of the bodys.
The only thing I'm uneasy about is the actual chances he'll have a fair trial from the point of view of the jury.
Sheepy
He's admitting that he killed her, but is trying to have the charge dropped to something like manslaughter and the stuff about "freezing" etc is to try and show that there was no intent to kill either.
TBH, yes he's had plenty of time to come up with this, but it is (IMHO) plausible. However, where his story creaks a bit is when it comes to disposing of the bodys.
The only thing I'm uneasy about is the actual chances he'll have a fair trial from the point of view of the jury.
Sheepy
Having admitted to killing one of them, and watching the other one die (allegedly), there is no way the jury are going to let him get away with anything other than murder.
His defence of selective memory loss just won't wash with anyone. No-one with any sense, if the girls were there completely innocently, would've tried to stop the second girl from screaming if the first one did really fall into the bath - all efforts would've been made to try n get her out and breathing again.
Sooooooooo, having admitted that he lied to the police, having admitted killing one of them, the balance has to be that murder did indeed take place, and that he is the guilty party.
The only way he'll get off is if the jury is made up of scrotes, and I hope, nay pray, that that isn't the case.
His defence of selective memory loss just won't wash with anyone. No-one with any sense, if the girls were there completely innocently, would've tried to stop the second girl from screaming if the first one did really fall into the bath - all efforts would've been made to try n get her out and breathing again.
Sooooooooo, having admitted that he lied to the police, having admitted killing one of them, the balance has to be that murder did indeed take place, and that he is the guilty party.
The only way he'll get off is if the jury is made up of scrotes, and I hope, nay pray, that that isn't the case.
toad_oftoadhall said:
[obligatory dig at plod]
Shame plod deployed their spare resources in camera vans instead of defending children from weirdos.
[/obligatory dig at plod]
No offense intended Toad, but change the record mate! Theres one or two people on these forums who only seem to post digs at the BiB and it gets a bit tedious after a while!
As i say, no personal offense intended, and just my 2c worth.
how can a ten year fall in a bath and not just get back out again? sorry any half wit kid above 3 years old could work out thery need to get head above water. if huntley was so busy throttling kid B, kid A would have penty of chance, unless of course he was holding her under? And why was their DNA in the bedroom...
puggit said:
He's had a lot of time to come up with this.
Mrs Puggit thinks he's telling the truth, I'm not so easy to sway!
Has she actually read much of the details about what hes actually said? A two year old falling and drowning in the bath - ok. A ten year old...with just a nosebleed...with her mate standing next to her...no bloody way.
Murdering scum.
Toad, [ob ref to police is insensitive and irrelevant] If he is innocent then he must be the most clumsy person in history, 2 kids enter his house, moments later they are both dead in a completely unrelated way. 1 is clumsy, 2 is taking the piss. I had a word with someone involved with Huntlys ID parade and he tried every trick in the book to avoid it as did his legal team. He is a devious little shit and he will suffer for this whatever the result from the jury. I feel a bit of sympathy for his girlfriend though, I think she got in way over her head before she had time to think about it. [/ob ref to police is insensitive and irrelevant]
mondeoman said:In a criminal case the test is "beyond reasonable doubt" - his defence team are trying to create that doubt. The "balance (of probabilities)" is a civil test - and some argue that it can be more difficult to demonstrate.
Having admitted to killing one of them, and watching the other one die (allegedly), there is no way the jury are going to let him get away with anything other than murder.
His defence of selective memory loss just won't wash with anyone. No-one with any sense, if the girls were there completely innocently, would've tried to stop the second girl from screaming if the first one did really fall into the bath - all efforts would've been made to try n get her out and breathing again.
Sooooooooo, having admitted that he lied to the police, having admitted killing one of them, the balance has to be that murder did indeed take place, and that he is the guilty party.
The only way he'll get off is if the jury is made up of scrotes, and I hope, nay pray, that that isn't the case.
Personally, I'm in favour of flogging, amputation and public beheading ... and that's just for doing 71 in an NSL
. Streaky
Mrs Wanty and I have been holding in-depth talks about this case since it started. I actually said at the start that he might get off the murder charge because there isn't actually any proof he murdered them and the jury would have to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
On the one hand he's been extremely clever in covering his tracks (like scrubbing the house and coming up with a, albeit probably dodgy, possible story) but on the other hand he's been a bit thick to use the scenario he has.
I do think he's guilty, as does my wife. I just don't think, based on the evidence put forward, he can be convicted of murder. Whether it's unlikely one slipped in the bath & died and he smothered the other 'just to stop her screaming', there's no solid proof that it didn't happen like that.
Devil's Advocate and all that
On the one hand he's been extremely clever in covering his tracks (like scrubbing the house and coming up with a, albeit probably dodgy, possible story) but on the other hand he's been a bit thick to use the scenario he has.
I do think he's guilty, as does my wife. I just don't think, based on the evidence put forward, he can be convicted of murder. Whether it's unlikely one slipped in the bath & died and he smothered the other 'just to stop her screaming', there's no solid proof that it didn't happen like that.
Devil's Advocate and all that
Take him down BalifDidn't he say that one fell into the bath, banging her head on the way, inplied unconscious, the second he held his hand over her mounth and nose etc. So, if they came to his house because of a nose bleed, no toilet tissues downstairs etc, so he asked them to go to the bathroom. Why did the bath have water in it?
toad_oftoadhall said:
Manslaughter?
Surely even if he tried to shag them, failed, then killed them it's not premeditated???
Seems unlikely he planned to kill them - just wanted to do some kiddie fiddling then lost the plot when he realised they'd tell...
Surely that's still manslaughter?
Murder doesn't have to be pre-meditated in the sense that it doesn't have to be planned. It (or GBH) just has to be the intended consequence at the time of the actual murder. Therefore, in your scenario, if he originally wanted a bit of kiddie fiddling but wasn't getting anywhere so decided to kill them, then that is murder.
Its only in limited circumstances that murder drops down to manslaughter, eg. lack of intention, insanity, certain medical grounds (ie. under influence of certain medicinal drugs).
>> Edited by NickD on Thursday 4th December 11:47
wanty1974 said:
I do think he's guilty, as does my wife. I just don't think, based on the evidence put forward, he can be convicted of murder. Whether it's unlikely one slipped in the bath & died and he smothered the other 'just to stop her screaming', there's no solid proof that it didn't happen like that.
A common misconception that "beyond reasonable doubt" means that it definitely must have happened because all the proof is there. Is not the case, you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt with only circumstantial evidence. Another phrase often used by a judge when explaining the requirement instead of beyond reasonable doubt is a standard of being sure. You can be sure - this doesn't mean 100% sure, it just means sure.
wanty1974 said:
Mrs Wanty and I have been holding in-depth talks about this case since it started. I actually said at the start that he might get off the murder charge because there isn't actually any proof he murdered them and the jury would have to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
On the one hand he's been extremely clever in covering his tracks (like scrubbing the house and coming up with a, albeit probably dodgy, possible story) but on the other hand he's been a bit thick to use the scenario he has.
I do think he's guilty, as does my wife. I just don't think, based on the evidence put forward, he can be convicted of murder. Whether it's unlikely one slipped in the bath & died and he smothered the other 'just to stop her screaming', there's no solid proof that it didn't happen like that.
Devil's Advocate and all that
No but there is a whole lot of circumstancial evidence which implies that what happened wasn't a tragic accident. Like cutting their clothes off, burning the bodies, cleaning his car from top to toe.
He's a nasty, manipulative, scum bag who originally tried the "i'm insane, diminished responsibility trick" remember.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff