How many of you really know of the true facts of the Soham murders case .
How many of you know that the girls bodies were found on a USAF base at Lakenheath.

How many know that USAF servicemen contaminated the scene where the bodies were found and not even 1 USAF serviceman was questioned about it.

How many of you know that at the time of the Ian Huntley trial that hard evidence that the monster or monsters who murdered Holly and Jessica might well reside inside the razor wire at USAF Lakenheath, was provided at a Courts Martial held on 23 July 2003. A military judge found against Technical Sergeant Randy Bitter on three charges of child sex abuse. Tech Sgt Bitter pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge with a female child under 12 years of age, and two counts of indecent acts with the same victim. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with dishonorable discharge from the United States Air Force.
Despite the fact that Bitter was convicted less than 500 yards away from the exact point at which Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman's bodies were dumped, not one British newspaper or television network anywhere in the land reported these horrifying crimes, details of which were made available in "Immediate Press Release #073103-4" dated 31 July 2003 at USAF Lakenheath. Predictably perhaps, these frightening lookalike offences and their obvious implications have been withheld from the jurors in the trial of Ian Huntley.

How many of you know that Ian Huntley was drugged and tortured after his arrest and before his trial. Even when he was "confessing" he was clearly stating he didn't know what was real and what was imaginery, even though he was perfectly 100% ok before his arrest he was suddenly brain damaged only a few months later, obviously a result of the neurleptic drugs and the treatment he was subjected to. The Home office wanted to frame someone to totally deflect all attention away from the USAF base at Lakenheath.

Huntleys lawyer should very easily have succeded in winning the case for his client BUT he was appointed to Huntley by the court and was obviously working for them. There are so many holes in the case against Huntley that he should very easily have cleared his name.

The trial of Ian Huntley must be unlawful and illegal. It seems to have broken all the rules of criminal trial procedure and it was in breach of the oath of truth on several counts (part two of this being "the whole truth").

There was no inquest into the deaths of Jessica and Holly before the trial. This responsibility was left to the prosecution of Ian Huntley. The purpose of an inquest is to provide an unbiased overview of the circumstances and witnesses relating to a death, and it is essential for a fair trial. Crown prosecutions in the UK use the adversarial system to examine the facts of a case and this consists of a counterbalance of potential biases. Since the prosecution produces all the evidence a fair trial needs an adequate inquest.

The taxi driver, Ian Webster, whose evidence is mentioned above, was not called as a witness in the trial.

The evidence of the witness Margaret Withers, who saw the two girls in the High Street half an hour after they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house (she was with her husband and knew the girls), was not used in the trial.

The four witnesses who saw the two girls at the War Memorial at the time that they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house did not appear in the trial.

The witness who saw a man and a woman in a green car (metallic green?) staring at two girls in the High Street did not appear at the trial. This evidence is particularly important because two kidnappers might well be needed to control two children.

The witness who contradicted the prosecution case that in changing his car tyres Huntley had paid the mechanic a backhander to falsify the registration of his car did not appear as a witness at the trial..... continued>>>

Fascinating find.

I clearly have a lot of reading to do. Thanks very much for bringing this to ATS.

Of course the Home Office would want to cover-up if the USAF servicemen commited such crimes in Britain. Do you live in Britain or USA. If it became known that it was USAF servicemen there would have been a HUGE outcry in Britain about it, the public would be demanding that the USAF base be closed, american military out of Britain AND this was all at around the time when Blair was supporting Bush's aggression against Iraq, and this was at a time when the public in Britain were not at all happy of Blair's supporting of the US. If it became known that it was USAF servicemen it would have almost certainly have caused enough pressure for Blair to have to cease supporting Bush's bogus War on Terror. You are certainly underestimating what would have been the backlash from the public in Britain if the truth came out.

If you read the facts of the case you will learn that Huntley should have won his case very easily. And his "confession" later can be easily explained. He was pleading innocence initially. He was treated with neuroleptic drugs and tortured over a period of months, this explains his forced confession. I would ask you to read the facts first before asking the why's and so forth. If you do study the facts you will come to the conclusion that we were told alot of lies about the case, and don't you think it is remarkable that the public in britain still don't know that the girls bodies were found alongside the perimeter fence at the USAF base at Lakenheath, and in the press it was said to be a RAF base, it was never mentioned that is was a USAF base, a clear cover-up. Before the bodies were discovered the police were repeatedly claiming that the answers lay in Soham, look in Soham, focus on Soham, etc. Deflecting ALL attention away from where the bodies were found, alongside the USAF base. You don't need to be a detective to know that you should keep all options open and you would have to consider the USAF base at Lakenheath considering the bodies were found there.
And consider this, why would Huntley take such an enormous risk as to take the bodies to a USAF base??? There would be too many possibilities of getting caught there.
There are so many things to consider which I have posted earlier, it is worth reading the facts of the case and to learn what really happened before asking why.

Originally posted by golddragnet
Of course the Home Office would want to cover-up if the USAF servicemen commited such crimes in Britain.

A cover up of two children if leaked would have caused to much damage to the govt organisations involved.

Do you live in Britain or USA.

British living in southern europe.

If it became known that it was USAF servicemen there would have been a HUGE outcry in Britain about it, the public would be demanding that the USAF base be closed, american military out of Britain AND this was all at around the time when Blair was supporting Bush's aggression against Iraq, and this was at a time when the public in Britain were not at all happy of Blair's supporting of the US.

Yes there would have been an outcry, and all the above would have happened.But that Airmen would have been put on trial.

If you read the facts of the case you will learn that Huntley should have won his case very easily.

Overwhelming evidence against him.

If there was a cover up the bodies would have been left in Huntleys property not next to the airfield.They have proved the location of the killing.

If a govt was to cover up someething it would be done more simply.Huntley would have been found died with a confession note.

it wasn't reported at all in the media, THAT was part of the coverup. It should have been in the news every bit as mich as Huntley was. Huntley was on every newspaper and on every radio and tv news programme for weeks on end, and this story which should have been every bit as big news didn't get a mention. It was a cover-up. Are you deliberatley trying to sound naive and gullible.

So you don`t believe the media, you don`t believe the govt so where and why do you believe your info.
Do you even live in the U.K.
The american was tried for his crimes and sentanced.
Why does the British govt cover this up just for the fact a simple Amercan commits a crime.
How do you now who what where l am.
Info from govt sources are not allowed on this site so nobady of any importance can post actual facts realating to this or any other case that maybe secret or sensitive.
You get banned.
This is a disscussion stop with the insults just cause people disagree with you.We don`t all believe govt are corrupt to cover up every small obscure crime by members of friendly countries.

Who can give a logical reason why such vital evidence for the defence was not used in the show-trial

The evidence of the witness Margaret Withers, who saw the two girls in the High Street half an hour after they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house (she was with her husband and knew the girls), was not used in the trial.

The four witnesses who saw the two girls at the War Memorial at the time that they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house did not appear in the trial.

The witness who saw a man and a woman in a green car (metallic green?) staring at two girls in the High Street did not appear at the trial. This evidence is particularly important because two kidnappers might well be needed to control two children.

The witness who contradicted the prosecution case that in changing his car tyres Huntley had paid the mechanic a backhander to falsify the registration of his car did not appear as a witness at the trial

The witness who contradicted the prosecution case that in changing his car tyres Huntley had paid the mechanic a backhander to falsify the registration of his car did not appear as a witness at the trial.

The mobile phone evidence that Jessica's signal had faded at 1:30 AM and that it was traced to countryside north of Soham was not examined at the trial. This contradicted the police case that the phone was switched off at the time that their case alleged they died and that the signal came from a mast outside Huntley's house.

Huntley's legal defence was incompetent, and on this ground the trial judgment should be scrapped. No defence witnesses were used, and the legal defence acted throughout as though Huntley were guilty even while he was protesting his innocence. His defence even caused him to accept the charge of perverting the course of justice when he was pleading innocence, and this undermined his pleas of innocence. He did not change this defence until a year later and two weeks before his trial.

The British Home Office asserted that Huntley had already been imprisoned for rape in another jurisdiction back in 1998. This damning information was also leaked to the jurors in court, 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 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

There was no inquest into the deaths of Jessica and Holly before the trial. This responsibility was left to the prosecution of Ian Huntley. The purpose of an inquest is to provide an unbiased overview of the circumstances and witnesses relating to a death, and it is essential for a fair trial. Crown prosecutions in the UK use the adversarial system to examine the facts of a case and this consists of a counterbalance of potential biases. Since the prosecution produces all the evidence a fair trial needs an adequate inquest.