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
Please study the case carefully before coming to your own conclusions (not the conclusions the British Home Office and the controlled mainstream media
want you to have). It seems very clear it was all a coverup for the USAF base at Lakenheath