Ian Huntley Framed: USAF servicemen paedo's

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>>>

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.

www.justjustice.org/

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
www.vialls.com...
www.vialls.com...
www.joevialls.co.uk...

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

Fascinating find.

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

why would he confess?

link to bbc news article

[edit on 27/10/06 by Creeping Jesus]

Originally posted by Creeping Jesus
why would he confess?

link to bbc news article

[edit on 27/10/06 by Creeping Jesus]

The British Home Office have a great record of FORCING confessions. Huntley was drugged, with neuroleptic drugs which caused him brain-damage, it was quite easy for them to hypnotis and brainwash him. During his "confession" he was saying he couldn't remember what was real and what was imagninery. In court Huntley showed the very obvious symptoms of a man being treated with neuroleptic drugs. Early on in the trial the media were instructed to stop reporting Huntleys condition because it was so obvious that he was being druged and tortured after his arrest.
If you want to learn of a few other "forced confessions" by the British Home Office just simply search Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Maguire 7, Judith Ward, Danny MacNamee, etc.

another link to the case worth reading, details the paedo's in the USAF base at lakenheath, which were only 500yards from where the girls bodies were found
www.joevialls.co.uk...

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.

Originally posted by zuri
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.


Far too simplistic to say if there was a coverup the bodies would have been left next to Huntleys. The coverup came after the crime and they would have been caught planting the badly damaged bodies later, the press were all over the place.

Hard proof 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.
The most terrible part of what is happening today, lies not only in the fact that the charade is being allowed to happen, but also that the media pack is baying for Huntley’s blood while the fancy silk-clad peacocks strut their stuff in Number One Court at the Old Bailey. The British media knows full well that Huntley was tortured inside Rampton mental institution, because it was members of the British media who described his awful and unmistakable symptoms in their newspapers and magazines

www.vialls.com...

Originally posted by zuri

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.

Overwhelming evidence against him!!! WRONG, that is a lie and you obviously only read the news-reports. Consider this:

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.

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.

www.justjustice.org...

When British police arrested Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr on suspicion of the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, they did so in the certain knowledge that absolutely no hard evidence existed incriminating either suspect. The reason for the rapid arrests on 17 August 2002 at first appeared disarmingly simple. Just hours earlier, two small bodies had been found near the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath in Cambridgeshire, England, and the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street was terrified of a massive political scandal involving American servicemen transiting through the United Kingdom.
To gain an international perspective on this politically sensitive scenario, try imagining what would happen if two little Australian girls were abducted, brutalized, murdered and then found near the perimeter wire of the American base at Pine Gap in the Australian Northern Territory. Within the hour, sensing possible danger for their political masters over in Washington, Prime Minister John Howard and Attorney General Daryl Williams would probably order the Australian Federal Police to charge some poor retarded sap in Geelong or Girrawheen with the offence. No evidence needed - just enough political deception to shift the public gaze away from the American presence.
This certainly appeared the most likely scenario when Huntley and Carr were first arrested in Cambridgeshire, but over the nine months that followed, it became increasingly obvious that this cover-up was a lot more than a hasty deflection for a perverted American with an unhealthy taste for underage English schoolgirls. Normally in a case like this, the false charges against Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr would have been dropped after about three months, with the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman remaining open for discreet inquiry at a more leisurely pace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Added LINK

There is no need to copy/paste entire webpages when a few paragraphs will do. We can all click and read.

Also, a link is required with EVERY cut/paste for copyright reasons

As well, added 'ex' tags



[edit on 093131p://upSunday by masqua]

If you were under an illusion that the US military has many paedophiles consider this:

Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Child Rape Photos

www.afterdowningstreet.org...

And:

IN the USAF base at Laneknheath a Courts Martial was held on 23 July 2003 and 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.

Originally posted by golddragnet
.

Hard proof 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.

There you go this man was tried and convicted.So why cover up the fact he murdered two children.
Ian Huntley has also been investigated on ten occasions for rape,underage sex,indicent assualt and burglary.During the trial he claimed the girls died accidently knocked Holly into the bath whilst helpin to control a nose bleed.The jury returned a majority verdict. on both charges.The trial was open to the public and at no time did Mr Huntley state he hadn`t seen those girls that day and was not involved.He admitted the girls were in then house that day.He has since admitted he lied when giving evidence at his trial.In a tape conversation he stated to a relative that he killed her because she tried to make a mobile call for help.He had advanced from rape to murder to cover the crime that he had originally planed.This is well documented and studied trate of sex offenders that have been previously succesful.He has never stated he was set up.

Please read

nelincs.gov.uk - .pdf link

[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak

[edit on 29/10/06 by JAK]

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.

Originally posted by zuri

Originally posted by golddragnet
.

Hard proof 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.

There you go this man was tried and convicted.So why cover up the fact he murdered two children.
Ian Huntley has also been investigated on ten occasions for rape,underage sex,indicent assualt and burglary.During the trial he claimed the girls died accidently knocked Holly into the bath whilst helpin to control a nose bleed.The jury returned a majority verdict. on both charges.The trial was open to the public and at no time did Mr Huntley state he hadn`t seen those girls that day and was not involved.He admitted the girls were in then house that day.He has since admitted he lied when giving evidence at his trial.In a tape conversation he stated to a relative that he killed her because she tried to make a mobile call for help.He had advanced from rape to murder to cover the crime that he had originally planed.This is well documented and studied trate of sex offenders that have been previously succesful.He has never stated he was set up.

Please read

Link

you oviously have NOT read what I posted earlier and got your news from the tabloid newspapers. Why do you even visit a site such as this. The Sun and News of the World is written exactly for people like you, if you actually learn all the facts of the case you will know it was not straight forward as you suggest. Huntley was treated with neuroleptic drugs, his behaviour in court could not be mistaken for anything other than a man who was being given such drugs which caused him brain-damage. Huntley pleaded innocent and it was only after many months of receiveing such drugs that he changed his story, and even then he clearly said he did not know what was real or what was imaginery. It was a forced confession.

Not a single witness was brought for his defence. Why don't you read what I posted earlier before replying. I won't be replying to your posts again until you have at least read what I posted earlier and you learn some of the facts that should have been presented in court. You have made up your mind already even though you don't know anything about the facts of the case, you only know what the tabloid press told you, we all know the press tells lies all the time, yet here you are quoting what you were told by the same press. Try to use your own judgement a bit more wiselyu. Don't you even think that it is very significant that the USAF sergeant was convicted as a paedophile, he was only a few hundred yards from where the bodies were dumped yet it never was ever considered significant to the case. AND the whole case got alot more attention from the press than it should have, the media was doing its very best to brainwash the public into watching only Soham and focusing on Huntley, it was never mentioned that the bodies were found next to the USAF base at Lakenheath, why was this covered up, USAF servicemen had badly contaminated the site, not 1 of them was ever questioned WHY, why did the police and media only ever talk about Soham and divert all attention away from lakenheath. There are many, many more issues about this case which show it was a clear cover-up, such as people in Soham who claim to have seen the girls alive AFTER they left Huntley, yet they were never brought forward in court for his defense etc.

[edit on 29/10/06 by JAK]

Originally posted by zuri
He has since admitted he lied when giving evidence at his trial.

Link

Posting a link to a British government website, how gullible are you, do you believe everything that is NOT an independant link, the government were part of the coverup. Try to show at least some common sense.

Huntley's addmission AFTER being drugged and tortured does NOT count for anything.
The Birmingham 6 confessed when under the control of the British Home Office, as did the The Guildford 4, Maguire 7 etc. A confession after torture is NOT proof of anything

[edit on 29/10/06 by JAK]

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.

Originally posted by zuri
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.

(...)
A single american commits a crime, stop making a fool of yourself. A USAF servicemen is NOT a simple american, it is alot more significant that it is a memeber of the military, a bigger news story and you know it. And it wasn't just any crime, he wasn't convicted of shoplifting or parking on a yellow line, he was a paedophile and of course it is dsignificant that a knwon paedophile was only a few hundred yards away from where the young girls bodies were found, don't reply to this thread and stop playing the ignorant fool, you should be ashamed for trying to trviliase that "simple americans" crime

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The personal attacks stop NOW

The word Numpty is still a personal attack

[edit on 093131p://upSunday by masqua]

[edit on 083131p://upSunday by masqua]

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.

Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time that they are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubts about the time that they actually disappeared from Soham.

The police charged Huntley with the murders six hours before the public found the bodies, and the Manchester United shirts which were found in one of his caretaker's bins were the basis of that charge and their prosecution, yet the shirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely that the girls could have lived and died and their bodies begun to decompose in those shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killer would fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or a trophy killer would use scissors and forensic technique to remove his trophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that the police had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use the original shirts because they were saturated with evidence that the girls had been buried underground, and so they had either bought new ones, or else laundered the originals.

“What we have is Ian Huntley was there because, found in the tucks of his trousers were seeds from plants that were in this forest. He could have got them from anywhere, they could have been planted. Then he supposedly takes these bodies to the USAF perimeter fence, he strips them of their clothes and pours petrol on them to burn them. Everybody knows that you would leave the clothes on to soak up the petrol and make the fire burn more. He then supposedly takes the clothes back to the school, he gets out a bin from underneath the stage, puts the clothes in the bin and sprinkles petrol on them and sets them alight waits until they're burned so far and puts the fire out with a hose. This is nonsense, obviosuly he was framed! We have the case of the lady who has tried to get a newspaper or to get any form of media to print her story. She walked her dog in that forest everyday for 2 weeks before Jessica and Holly were discovered. She said military police were blocking the road”
www.justjustice.org...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
added 'ex' tags for cut/paste


[edit on 093131p://upSunday by masqua]