{"id":30495,"date":"2011-07-21T07:24:53","date_gmt":"2011-07-21T07:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=30495"},"modified":"2013-05-30T19:47:00","modified_gmt":"2013-05-30T19:47:00","slug":"holly-and-jessica-the-trial-of-ian-huntley-and-maxine-carr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=30495","title":{"rendered":"Holly and Jessica: The Trial of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 4 – Time Warps and Illusions
\n<\/em><\/strong>
\nTrial analysis by Joe Vialls, 1 & 4 December 2003<\/strong><\/h3>\n

During the last week at the Old Bailey, lawyers for both prosecution and defense have thrown caution to the wind and embarked on a dangerous series of illusions concerning both Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr. By warping time, and taking evidence and events out of sequence and context, both lawyers have desperately sought to place Huntley and Carr in the frame, for crimes they could not and did not commit. <\/span><\/p>\n

If we are to believe every media outlet in Britain this weekend, Ian Huntley has now admitted that both Holly and Jessica were in his house, has admitted accidentally drowning them in his bath, and further admitted taking their bodies to Lakenheath for disposal. In turn, Maxine Carr has admitted that Ian Huntley was lying, and admitted that Huntley told her the girls had an accident in his bathroom. <\/span><\/p>\n

It all sounds hopelessly damning, and the media hype might be enough to get Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr a life sentence. However, this does not detract from the fact that these claims by prosecution and defense alike are, in most instances, outright lies, with a few gross distortions of evidence thrown in for good measure. <\/span><\/p>\n

Conventional analysis of the court transcripts will not help us here, because most human brains do not have a built-in \u201cHuntley and Carr Chronology of Events\u201d. To explain this more simply, because we cannot remember what happened in this case more that a year ago, it is all but impossible for us to <\/span>volunteers, including American servicemen from the nearby Lakenheath and Mildenhall USAF bases. During the 13 days that followed until tseparate truth from lie, when lawyers for both sides are deliberately warping time in order to distort the known facts. <\/span>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There is only one way we can prove these lawyers are acting deceitfully, and that is to go back in time to the very beginning of this case on Day Zero in August 2002. Once there, we must then follow the sequence of actual events chronologically, while judiciously inserting the various prosecution and defense claims [of last week], as we move forward in real time. <\/span><\/p>\n

This unusual procedure has the immediate effect of exposing the shameful charade at the Old Bailey for what it really is, though writing it will certainly take longer than merely shredding a few false legal claims in the courtroom. But for those who ultimately want to know the truth of the matter, this trip down memory lane is essential and unavoidable. <\/span><\/p>\n

Most readers are already aware that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing in Soham village on 4 August 2002, an event which led to a massive search of the area by hundreds of <\/span>searchers. Tthe Soham \u201ccrime scene\u201d where the two red Manchester United T-shirts were \u201cfound\u201d, was repeatedly and comprehensively contaminated by searchers including unidentified American servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jurors at the Huntley and Carr trial have not been advised that the Soham crime scene was hopelessly contaminated, nor have they been told the searchers included American servicemen, based less than five hundred yards away from the site where the bodies of Jolly Wells and Jessica Chapman were subsequently discovered. <\/span><\/p>\n

During the same time frame in August 2002, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr went about their business in Soham in a normal manner, occasionally giving brief interviews to interested media. It is critical to note here that both appeared 100% normal, with their body language completely open and unambiguous. There is no deceit whatever on this file video footage, just a concerned young couple who knew the girls slightly and were prepared to talk to the media about the sequence of events. <\/span><\/p>\n

The court has been told that during this same period, Huntley and Carr gave a hitchhiker a lift back to Soham when they were returning from Grimsby, and that the hitchhiker though they were a little tense. Think about this one people, think about it very carefully. If you had just murdered and dumped two little girls, and as co-conspirators you were trying to get your stories straight, would you pick up a hitchhiker? No, of course you would not. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Huntley\u2019s court-appointed \u201cdefense\u201d lawyer failed to bring this blatantly obvious point to the attention of the jurors. <\/span><\/p>\n

On 17 August 2002, Huntley and Carr were arrested \u201con suspicion\u201d, and then twelve hours after they were arrested, the bodies of the two girls were found in a drainage ditch close to the USAF Lakenheath perimeter fence. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but, in my experience, suspects are normally arrested by police after the bodies have been found, not twelve hours before. One gets the unmistakable impression that the main players in this Home Office charade were already under starters orders, and some of them jumped the gun. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

No doubt members of the Cambridgeshire Police Service were expected to beat a swift confession out of Ian Huntley, aided by black Home Office assertions that he had already been imprisoned for rape in another jurisdiction back in 1998. This damning information was also leaked to the jurors in court last week, in an attempt to influence their final judgement on Ian Huntley. <\/span><\/p>\n

What the Cambridgeshire Police Service did not know in 2002, and jurors were not told in court last week, 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

This time around, the Home Office was not going to leave it up to the police, and three days later on 20 August 2002, government psychiatrists ordered that Ian Huntley be transferred to the Rampton high-security psychiatric hospital for \u201cassessment.\u201d The official reason given by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Hebb, may someday gain a place of notoriety at the police black museum in London, \u201cHe [Huntley] gave an impression of not understanding what was going on, and refused to answer questions.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

This is not surprising. An innocent man would not have understood \u201cwhat was going on\u201d at all, and every prisoner arrested in Great Britain has the absolute right not to answer any questions. There was no valid reason in or outside the law to incarcerate Huntley, who as we already know from video footage filmed only days before, was a completely coherent and reasonably cheerful man. <\/span><\/p>\n

We will return to Huntley a bit later in September and October 2002, but in order to stay chronologically \u201cpure\u201d, we now have to address other points put to the jurors last week, when \u201cdefence\u201d lawyer Coward claimed that Ian Huntley had admitted to accidentally killing both girls in his house on 4 August 2002. Please note that it was Mr Coward not Mr Huntley who made this admission, and remember we will be returning later to the reasons why Mr Huntley is no longer mentally able to refute Mr Coward.<\/span><\/p>\n

In order to gain a true feeling for the level of deceit in the courtroom, it is necessary to quote Mr Coward verbatim as he was addressing witness Dr Nathaniel Carey, the forensic pathologists who carried out post-mortem examinations on both girls after their bodies were found. This is what Mr Coward said. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI’m going to put to you, I will put the whole incident and break it into pieces, my client’s case of what actually happened on 4th August of last year. At the material time, Holly Wells had a nose bleed and because it wouldn’t stop she, Jessica and the defendant Mr Huntley went up to the bathroom at number 5 College Close. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHolly sat on the edge of the bath at the tap end, which is the end furthest from the door, and next to the bath is a wash basin. Jessica sat on the other end of the bath nearer to the door. Mr Huntley was getting pieces of tissue or toilet paper, putting them under the cold tap to cool them, handing them to Holly and on his terms, getting the wet tissue to give to Holly, he slipped, and it seems that he may well have banged into her as she is sitting on the edge of the bath and she went backwards. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHe has no recollection of a bang, but he does remember a splash. When Holly went in the bath, which had roughly 18 inches of water in it, because Mr Huntley was going to wash the dog, Jessica stood up and started screaming, “You pushed her, you pushed her!” and he then turned towards Jessica and, either with one hand or two, he is not sure, put his hands out towards Jessica, his memory is over her mouth, to stop her screaming. For how long he was in that position he can’t say. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBut he was then conscious that Jessica was no longer supporting herself on her feet. He let go and she went to the ground. He then turned round to the bath and Holly was lying in the bath apparently dead. He lifted Holly out of the bath, put her on the floor, looked for signs of breathing, and found none.\u00a0 He turned his attention to Jessica, looked for signs of breathing and found none.\u00a0 That’s the whole account, as I put to you.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

Defence lawyer Coward had craftily left this \u201cconfession\u201d until almost the end of the working day, and basically then started badgering Dr Carey to \u201crubber stamp\u201d the whole thing in the small amount of time remaining, so that everyone could go home. But the mild-mannered Dr Nathaniel Carey was having none of that\u2026 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy Lord, I’m concerned this is the first I have heard of a quite detailed scenario and I would normally ideally want a written account of the scenario. It is going over it rather on the hoof, otherwise. And secondly I might consider such a scenario, had it been put earlier, by discussing with the forensic scientists involved in the examination of the bathroom, the ceiling, the clothing and this sort of thing, because I don’t think I can give it fair credit otherwise.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

So, the forensic pathologist in charge of the Holly and Jessica case had no former knowledge of this startling \u201cconfession\u201d, which of course he would have if the confession was real, and if it had been available to the Cambridgeshire Police Service during August or September of 2002, which it was not. Visibly disturbed by this very sudden shift in alleged evidence, Dr Carey went away to consult with his colleagues, and returned to court the very next morning. <\/span><\/p>\n

The news was not at all good for the forged \u201cconfession\u201d, in fact Dr Carey\u2019s response was blunt and terminal. In an exchange that the mainstream media went to great lengths to keep away from you, Dr Carey essentially trashed the whole idea on various grounds, the most interesting being a total lack of dilute blood on the two red Manchester United T-shirts, which most readers will recall were planted by a person or persons unknown in the forensically-contaminated hangar building at Soham College. <\/span><\/p>\n

Mr Coward tried an amateur parry, along the lines that \u201cSurely the bath water would have washed off the blood\u201d, but he was no match for the quietly indignant forensic pathologist. Apparently there should have been a lot of dilute blood in the fibers of the T-shirts, but alas, there was none. The Home Office really should have thought of that yawning bear trap, before planting the generic red Manchester United T-shirts in the hangar bin, and then drafting Huntley\u2019s \u201cconfession\u201d without his knowledge or consent. <\/span><\/p>\n

A little later on in a taped telephone conversation with Huntley\u2019s mother Linda Nixon, Maxine Carr expressed considerable concern about the lack of Holly\u2019s nasal blood, though for an entirely different reason. Apparently after resisting the best efforts of the Cambridgeshire Police Service, Huntley finally slipped up and \u201cconfessed\u201d to Maxine in a letter allegedly dated October 2002. Maxine was far from convinced, saying: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat Ian told me, the ones with the nosebleed the blonde haired one, the dark haired one and (inaudible). it doesn’t add up. Ian told me the blonde girl had a nosebleed, it wouldn’t stop bleeding. That’s what I was saying he said to me. It was nearly stopped and they went but it doesn’t add up, the times don’t add up, I mean he rang me at my mum’s house at like 20 to 7 because we were already going out. What I can’t understand and yet they were going across that car park at quarter past 6. They would have seen Ian, this nose bleed incident or whatever would have happened and if they weren’t, it weren’t bleeding on the camera, you know, the [Soham] CCTV?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Maxine Carr, the unassuming teaching auxiliary, had fingered a critical piece of evidence that the police should have spotted. In fact she fingered several pieces of critical evidence, which in combination punch giant holes in the prosecution [and defense] cases against Ian Huntley. It is not merely the lack of Holly\u2019s nosebleed that proves the point, though she was quite correct about that. The precise times are also enormously important, and it now seems likely that the clock on the Soham street surveillance camera was altered after the event, by a person or persons unknown. <\/span><\/p>\n

Exactly what Huntley\u2019s mother Linda Nixon was doing setting up her own son and his girlfriend on [obviously regulated] taped conversations for the police, confused me for a while, and to an extent it confuses me still. Perhaps Linda Nixon simply wanted to get at the truth, or perhaps she had no choice in the matter. Ian Huntley\u2019s father and brother both work at USAF Mildenhall, the \u201ctwin base\u201d for USAF Lakenheath, and the family is thus dependent on the United States of America for its monthly paychecks. <\/span><\/p>\n

August blurred into September for Ian Huntley, completely at the mercy of a bunch of unprincipled shrinks at Rampton mental institution. By the time of a brief court appearance on 10 September, the perfectly normal Ian Huntley we all saw on the video footage from Soham in August, had been \u201cbrought under psychiatric control\u201d, though at that early stage it was almost impossible to discern which class of drugs the shrinks were using on him. <\/span><\/p>\n

The media noticed the change though, and reported it thus, \u201cInside the modern court building, Mr Huntley sits silently throughout the proceedings, flanked by security guards and a psychiatric nurse from Rampton high-security hospital. His eyelids are heavy and his head and body shakes slightly.\u201d\u00a0 Try to remember that this is a remand prisoner who has pleaded \u2018not guilty\u2019, and whose only crimes, according to Detective Chief Inspector Hebb, are \u201cHe gave an impression of not understanding what was going on, and refused to answer questions.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

If you feel that you have suddenly been transported backwards in time to the Gulag Archipelago in the terrifying days of Stalin and Beria, rest assured you are not alone. That this could be done to a remand prisoner in England is disgraceful, and the reality that the British media has now been coerced into blotting out the details, is frightening beyond any telling of it. So far as the lawyers strutting around the Old Bailey are concerned, it never happened, and the jurors have been provided with no details. <\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately it gets worse than this, a whole lot worse. But if you are to have the slightest chance of understanding why Huntley now sits dribbling and silent, you\u2019ll have to continue reading, though I would suggest you fasten your seatbelts. Huntley was \u201cgiven back\u201d to the shrinks at Rampton for another month during September 2002, and they really got stuck into him. Remember that just like the Gulag, there were no checks or balances. Only the need to make Huntley aware of his \u201cguilt\u201d \u2013 one way or the other.<\/span><\/p>\n

The next time we saw Ian Huntley was on 8 October 2002, when he appeared in the dock of Peterborough Crown Court for a preliminary hearing. Gone was the 100% normal Ian Huntley we all watched on television in August, replaced by a shell of a man barely aware of his own surroundings. \u201dHe seemed to be struggling to walk and stumbled as he was led out of the dock by his escorts,\u201d [\u2018British girls’ murder suspect declared fit to stand trial.\u2019 Agence France Presse, 08\/10\/02]\u00a0 Other papers of that evening and the next day reported Huntley variously \u201cshaking\u201d \u201cmumbling to himself,\u201d \u201cshambling,\u201d \u201cnervous,\u201d \u201cquivering,\u201d \u201cfidgeting\u201d and \u201cagitated\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

The next day, the Sun newspaper reported that \u201c\u2026throughout the 15-minute hearing Huntley rocked gently backwards and forwards in his chair appearing to stare blankly ahead into space\u201d\u2026.. \u201cDuring the hearing, Huntley appeared not to notice his brother Wayne, who sat just a few feet in front of him wearing a suit, white shirt and dark orange tie. \u201cAs Mr Khalil outlined Dr Clark’s findings, Huntley held his left wrist with his right hand and constantly flicked out his tongue as if to lick his lips\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

According to the work of expert witness Dr Peter Breggin MD in his book \u201cToxic Psychiatry,\u201d, the references to Huntley rocking himself backwards and forwards, and the constant darting out of his tongue, the twitching and the shaking are classic adverse reactions to neuroleptic drugs. From the whole range of psychotropic drugs, those side-effects are virtual unique to neuroleptics [The other symptoms listed above – the agitation, the fidgeting – those are symptoms that \u2018could\u2019 be attributed to neuroleptic poisoning, but also to other drugs.] <\/span><\/p>\n

However, it is the continual media references to his constant tongue-darting, twitching, shaking, and rocking motions which provide absolute proof that Huntley was abused [tortured] with powerful neuroleptic drugs while in Rampton. <\/span><\/p>\n

Harvard-trained Dr Breggin has spent the past thirty or forty years exposing the brain-damaging treatments that make up clinical psychiatry, and dedicates close to 100 pages in his book describing every conceivable movement disorder caused by neuroleptic drugs. He documents in detail the repetitive tongue darting movements, the rocking movements, the twitches and the spasms, all of which have been reported in Ian Huntley. Those who wish to confirm this information independently, should visit Dr Breggin\u2019s website at <\/span>http:\/\/www.breggin.com<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

While it would be technically inaccurate to claim that the Rampton shrinks have completely \u201cfried\u201d Ian Huntley\u2019s brain, they have certainly inflicted a massive amount of psychological damage, on the direct orders of the British Home Office. And then, of course, the shrinks started to panic, because members of the media were running precise diagnostics on Huntley that could not under any circumstances be mistaken for, say, a dose of \u2018flu or a couple of ingrown toenails. <\/span><\/p>\n

The result was that the entire British media was placed in total lockdown, and since the trial started at the Old Bailey, there has not been a single peep from any media outlet about how Ian Huntley looks nowadays, or how badly he twitches and rocks on those occasions when he is actually fit enough to be dragged into court.<\/span><\/p>\n

Because Huntley is no longer capable of coherent thought, he is certainly unable to protect himself from his own court-appointed \u201cdefense\u201d lawyer. We know that his written [late October] \u201cconfession\u201d that so puzzled Maxine Carr is invalid, and not only because of the deliberately-induced neuroleptic drug effects. <\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cHuntley Confession\u201d was written by someone or another who knew that not one scrap of evidence existed against either Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr, regarding the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. The \u201cconfession\u201d was a cheap conjuring trick designed to be used by the media, ultimately to make us believe the cock and bull story circulated by a British\/American elite with its back to the wall. <\/span><\/p>\n

Where this trial goes next I do not know and perhaps should not care, but the fact of the matter is that I do care, and so should you. What has been done to Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr is almost too appalling to contemplate, but we are forced to contemplate it because we must protect others from identical abuse in the future. <\/span><\/p>\n

There is a terrible sickness stalking the hallowed halls of power in both Britain and America, a sickness that makes those who think they run the world, actually believe that they can get away with monstrous behavior like this in the long term. I will keep monitoring this trial in the days to come, and report on it again, but in the end the jurors may be fooled by the corrupt strutting peacocks in their silken gowns, and convict Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr by mistake. <\/span><\/p>\n

If these two unfortunate people were your own mothers and fathers, or sisters and brothers, would you then leave them to rot away on behalf of a bunch of high-ranking pedophiles? No, of course not, and by the same token we cannot leave Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr to rot either, for they have no-one else to turn to. If push comes to shove we will all have to help, and that means you.<\/span><\/p>\n

Update 4 December 2003<\/h3>\n

Huntley Admits Putting Dead Girls In the Boot of his Ford Fiesta<\/h3>\n

Problem is, two dead ten-year-old girls won\u2019t fit into the boot of a Ford Fiesta\u2026<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

\u201cNo hairs from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman recovered from 5 College Close; no blood from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman recovered from 5 College Close; no fingerprints from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman recovered from 5 College Close, save for those on the [portable]\u00a0 box of Celebration chocolates [reference made to that already]; no hairs from either Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman recovered from the Ford Fiesta, no blood from either Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman recovered from the Fiesta; no fingerprints from Holy Wells or Jessica Chapman were recovered from the Fiesta in August 2002\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Formal Admissions by the Prosecution, 1 December 2003<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

On Monday 1 December 2003, Ian Huntley finally took the stand in Court Number One at the Old Bailey in London. Though he was shaking visibly and kept flicking his tongue around, Huntley managed to answer most of his \u2018defense\u2019 counsel\u2019s questions, which seemed to have a great deal in common with those of the prosecution. The court transcripts show defense counsel Mr Coward asking an aggressive series of questions designed only to incriminate Huntley out of his own mouth, so to speak, with not a single question designed to consign this entire pack of fabricated lies to the waste bin. <\/span><\/p>\n

In brief [because a full analysis will follow after Christmas], Huntley admitted that the two girls were in his house, admitted there was an \u201caccident\u201d in the bathroom during which both girls unfortunately died, and further admitted driving their bodies out to Lakenheath for disposal in a drainage ditch. When asked it he had attempted to remove any of the girls\u2019 clothing either on the way or when he dumped them at Lakenheath, Huntley indignantly retorted \u201cNo, not at all\u201d. By his own account he then returned to Soham where he disposed of the two red Manchester United T-shirts in a bin at Soham College. So here we have a man without any red T-shirts in his possession, who nonetheless manages to burn some at Soham College the very same night. It is OK to be puzzled here, because we will return to this point later. <\/span><\/p>\n

When repeatedly asked if he had returned to the disposal site later on 7 August 2003, Huntley was very firm. No he did not, because he and girlfriend Maxine had gone away to his Nan\u2019s during this period. No, he never returned to the Lakenheath site, which is unfortunate for the prosecution and defense, who already have two distinctly different access points to the disposal site, made on two entirely different days. Obviously it would be better if Huntley admitted both, but unfortunately the Rampton-induced \u201cFalse memory Syndrome\u201d was too simplistic, with no leeway for sudden changes in the rehearsed story. <\/span><\/p>\n

While still locked into the same false memory early in the day, Huntley also admitted that he remembered all these details at the time of the deaths in August 2002, had desperately wanted to tell Maxine about what had happened, but did not know how to do so. The entire story was obviously untrue, and forensically impossible, but it was what Huntley had come to believe was the truth. There was no doubting his pathetic sincerity. <\/span><\/p>\n

The actual truth came later in the day, in a curious exchange that you can rest assured the mainstream media will bury forever, because it provides a startling insight into how Ian Huntley was \u201chandled\u201d at Rampton, and how his real truth was exchanged for a carefully structured set of lies. <\/span><\/p>\n

During the afternoon for no apparent reason, Coward QC suddenly asked, \u201cWhilst you were at Rampton [a period of time lasting from 21 August to 8 October 2002], what did you remember of the events of the night of the 4th August?\u201d Huntley\u2019s reply was enlightening: \u201cNothing. I remember that some – I’m not sure if I remembered at Rampton or shortly after arriving at Wood Hill that Holly had a nosebleed, but that is as far as my recollection..\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

Remember this point in the proceeding very carefully, because it proves that when not sticking to the carefully rehearsed \u201cFalse Memory\u201d story earlier in the day, Huntley is still capable of remembering he knew nothing about his alleged \u201cguilt\u201d, until after he was forcibly admitted to the mental institution at Rampton. <\/span><\/p>\n

Prompted by Coward, Huntley tried to explain further. \u201cI had been trying pretty much everyday to try and remember what had happened on the 4th August. I knew inside that I wasn’t there [in Rampton] for no reason and I knew that something must have happened, but didn’t know what, I had been seeing all kinds of things, for example, I had seen the girls leaving my house or thought I had seen the girls leaving my house and the psychiatrist said that was a coping mechanism and I was just seeing what I wanted to see. it was driving me mad trying to, trying to remember and nothing coming. (inaudible).\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

So here we are at the very beginning of the Rampton-induced False Memory Syndrome. Huntley\u2019s brain is telling him that he \u201cwasn\u2019t there for no reason\u201d, which is a perfectly reasonably thought. After all, how many of us could wake up in a padded cell and automatically assume we were innocent of any misdemeanor?<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then, after liberally drugging him with neuroleptics, the psychiatrists started to tell Huntley that the real truth he could actually remember, i.e. of having done nothing wrong at all, was only a \u201ccoping mechanism\u201d protecting him from the \u201creal truth\u201d of his terrible \u201cguilt\u201d. These techniques were used all the time in the Soviet Gulag Archipelago in the sixties, but this time around were being applied to Ian Huntley behind the forbidding walls of a thoroughly British mental institution, on British Government orders. <\/span><\/p>\n

It is hard to imagine this torment being inflicted on a genuinely perceived ‘enemy of the State academic’, let alone a blue-collar caretaker from Soham village in Cambridgeshire. Every time I get emails from self-righteous politically-correct little sods saying, \u201dLook, you were wrong, Huntley has confessed\u201d, I have a strong urge to throw them over the wall at Rampton ,to see how long they could withstand the combined drug and emotional pressure in Great Britain\u2019s new revised version of Stalin’s Gulag. Huntley described this terrible combined pressure to the court thus: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI say things started coming back after a few weeks, there wasn’t just one day couldn’t remember and the next day I could. It was very slow, a bit like a jig-saw puzzle, first of all I started hearing the voice and the voice was, “You pushed her”, and thought that I must have pushed her down the stairs or something. It was very difficult to piece things together, and it was also difficult at times to know the difference between reality and imagination. I had problems with imagining things and things I wanted to see, and the way I determined the difference was that the reality – if there was emotion attached to it – you could sort of feel; you could feel what you was feeling at the time.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

And as the days turned into weeks, the crazed shrinks in Rampton quietly plied Ian Huntley with higher and higher does of neuroleptic drugs [remember the unmistakable media symptoms?], and then those same shrinks helped the poor man to \u201cpiece things together\u201d. A little bit here and a little bit there, until the real truth of his innocence was overwhelmed and finally crushed completely, by a thick layer of freshly-manufactured psychiatric lies. <\/span><\/p>\n

Many people have asked me why, if Huntley could be made to confess to \u201caccidentally\u201d killing the girls, he could not be made to plead guilty to murder instead, thereby removing any potentially risky requirement for a high-profile trial at the Old Bailey. The simple answer is that asking Huntley to plead \u201cguilty\u201d to murder would not have worked, because such an admission would have been in direct conflict with his subconscious moral code. This conflict is well known to all clinical psychologists. <\/span><\/p>\n

Even drugged up to the eyeballs as we now know he was, it is almost inconceivable that Huntley would have agreed to plead guilty to murder, wittingly or otherwise. But getting him to agree that he acted as a guardian angel to the girls [i.e. helping with a nosebleed] would have been relatively easy, with the unfortunate fatal \u201caccident\u201d slowly fed into his memory over extended time, and the shrinks were rapidly given all the extended time they needed by the British Government. <\/span><\/p>\n

In true Gulag fashion, the shrinks also had another more potent weapon to use against Ian Huntley, in the form of the woman he loved, Maxine Carr, who at that time was being horribly abused in the hellhole called Holloway Prison. No doubt is was pointed out to Huntley, that if he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of\u00a0 \u201cconspiring to pervert the course of justice\u201d for failing to report Holly and Jessica\u2019s\u00a0 \u201caccident\u201d to police, this in turn would prove his beloved Maxine was innocent of any crime, meaning that she would eventually be set free.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a little bit of the \u201cSir Galahad\u201d in most males, and there are thousands of examples of men being killed by sword, arrow or bullet, as they tried desperately to protect their spouses from harm. Fundamentally, this is what males are born to do, and the chance to \u201csave\u201d his Maxine, would have been as overwhelming for Ian Huntley as for any other man throughout the ages. <\/span><\/p>\n

All of this activity inside Rampton helps to explain the inexplicable, i.e. how Huntley made the \u201cmistake\u201d of saying that he came straight back from Lakenheath on 4 August 2002 and immediately placed the red Manchester United T-shirts in the bin at Soham College. This can now be understood as a simple lack of communication between those making up the cover story and planting evidence around Soham, and the folk inside Rampton torturing Ian Huntley. The Rampton \u201cFalse Memory\u201d had to be kept simple, which means that there was no leeway at all for complicated variations like date and venue changes. <\/span><\/p>\n

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\u00a0 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

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 “<\/span>Immediate Press Release #073103-4<\/span><\/a>” 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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,\u00a0 because it was members of the British media who described his awful and unmistakable symptoms in their newspapers and magazines. All mainstream reporters have very easy access to books like \u201cToxic Psychiatry\u201d, and huge research funds to spend, where I have almost none. <\/span><\/p>\n

The bitter truth is that the British media focus is turned outwards by both proprietors and government, meaning that reporters in London can politely whine about human rights abuses in Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, while frantically cheering on the exact same human rights abuse of Ian Huntley, by the British Government in their own country. <\/span><\/p>\n

Nor do the NGOs give a damn. Months ago I brought this matter to the attention of Amnesty International, the Medical Foundation for Torture Victims, and many other London- based charities that are supposed to care. Not one of them bothered to answer my emails, though all emails were logged as opened at the other end. <\/span><\/p>\n

I will continue to research this appalling case of medical torture and injustice, and hope to post a long and very full report on the Internet in the fullness of time. However, the sheer volume of documents is now so huge, and the number of people who need to be contacted in England so vast, that this task cannot reasonably be completed until well into the New Year. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the short term I fully expect the silk-clad peacocks to bang Ian Huntley up for many years, one way or the other, and I suspect that Maxine Carr will be \u201clet off\u201d with time served, because she has now fulfilled her government role as Huntley\u2019s \u201cDamsel in Distress.\u201d Now that Huntley has ‘confessed’ in true Gulag fashion, there is no more need for Maxine Carr to be held in custody.\u00a0 No doubt Prime Minister Blair and his government will gain significant media brownie points by being \u201cmerciful\u201d in her case. <\/span><\/p>\n

And the folk at Rampton?\u00a0 No doubt they will continue to dribble down their shirtfronts, sharpen up their hypodermics, and brace themselves for the Government\u2019s next \u201cdifficult case\u201d. Let us all hope fervently that next time around, the \u201cdifficult case\u201d is either a Queens Counsel or a member of the British media pack.<\/span><\/p>\n

Footnote<\/h3>\n

In a stunning coincidence, The British “Guardian” newspaper has just published a long authoritative report proving the everyday use of induced False Memory Syndrome. Among others, the report cites the American Psychological Association [APA], the University of Sussex,\u00a0 and the Department of Imaging Neuroscience at University College London, in explaining how the mechanism works. It is a little “academic” in nature, but essential reading for those concerned about what was done to Ian Huntley, and to others vulnerable to British Government pressure. Automatically link to this extraordinary Guardian report by clicking <\/span>here.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Much of the late Joe Vialls investigative work has been removed from the net. He got too close to the truth and consequently his work had to be surpressed. However, one reader who sent this in<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":30518,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-Behind_The_News","category-mind_control"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30495"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30495\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":72067,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30495\/revisions\/72067"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/30518"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}