Huntly Guilty

[kleinboet]

After a few DAYS of deliberation the Soham jury brought in a guilty verdict. THEN AND ONLY THEN were we told that he lied to get the job, was accused of rape, was discovered in bed with a 16 year old and was known to the police. Why oh why do the courts not tell jurors of 'previous' in order for them to make a SPEEDY, BALANCED judgement? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[jeepster]

i've known all that since the second day of the trial, its absolutely ridiculous that its common knowledge amongst the media, but not amongst those that should know. but this isnt the first time and it wont be the last.

[Apache]

The jurors are not told of previous complaints whether upheld, withdrawn or if they resulted in a conviction or not for many reasons.

 

For a start, the jurors have to be impartial, and are asked at the beginning of the case of they have any information and/or views that may cause their decision of guilty or not guilty to be prejudiced in any way. I think that telling them that complaints had been made against him for similar offences would have considerably altered their opinion of him.

 

Also, if he was charged with something earlier in his life and found not guilty, then that verdict makes him a free man, he has not been convicted of anything. Such evidence as fingerprints by law have to be destroyed.

 

I am not defending Huntley, I think he should be hanged for what he did, but how many rape allegations have been made up against men out of spite, etc, etc, and we all know the saying of "Mud sticks".

 

I know that Holly and Jessica did not make up those allegations, and that they were murdered in cold blood, but if a man is in the dock charged with rape, and his face is splattered across every tabloid int he country, and even if he is found not guilty, there will allways be that stigma over him that he was charged with rape, even if the allegation was prooved to be false.

 

[ 17. December 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Apache]

The full story can be found here

[kleinboet]

Matt,

I always agreed with what you have so eloquently put, but, this jury was 'out' for 4DAYS and STILL could not come to a unanimous verdict. I am afraid, and this is purely conjecture on my part, that the person who did not agree was one who believed that Huntley 'made a mistake' and deserved a second chance. This would not have happened if the jury was informed he had 'previous' but no specific incidents. I believe the Police themselves are going to hold an enquiry into this very thing.

[lufc999]

ALLI WANT TO SAY IS THE BA***RD DESERVE'S ALL HE GETS!! AND SO DOES HIS GIRLFREIND

[butiaboy]

i hope that now he has been proven guilty he gets the kicking he deserves from the other prisoners

[jeepster]

one thing we can be sure of is that every prisoner in the country knows who he is, and he can't be kept segregated for 24 hours a day, so sooner or later he'll get whats coming to him.

maxine carr on the other hand may be released soon, having already served 16 months so if i were her i'd be looking over my shoulder for years to come

[Apache]

It is true, that although they are criminals, the inmates of prisons are still human beings and feel as sick as we do about Huntley. Most sex offenders and especially child mollestors don't survive long at all in prison - and Huntley will be no exception. :mad: :mad:

[Apache]

kleinboet:

Matt,

I always agreed with what you have so eloquently put, but, this jury was 'out' for 4DAYS and STILL could not come to a unanimous verdict.  I am afraid, and this is purely conjecture on my part, that the person who did not agree was one who believed that Huntley 'made a mistake' and deserved a second chance.  This would not have happened if the jury was informed he had 'previous' but no specific incidents.  I believe the Police themselves are going to hold an enquiry into this very thing.

Then that person must have had good reason to support a not guilty verdict. There can be no half measures in that decision - it is either yes he did it, or no he didn't.

 

If the jury is told of previous, especially in a case like this and as widely publicised, it will only cause them to beleive all the insinuations and implied comments that are read in the press everyday, and it will affect their judgement.

 

If it was one conviction say twenty years ago and a clean sheet ever since, then what is the jury going to think, "Oh, he has form, he must be guilty". It may never be possible that he may have changed, to them a criminal is always a criminal - and I admit in some cases it is certainly true.