huntley

[steve56]

i find his story hard to believe,now ive just read he was done for rape in 98.

[jj]

He was acquitted. So it's irrelevant and prejudicial.
And I think it was a shabby trick to introduce this information by the strategy of allowing it as part of Carr's 'evidence'. The judge should have refused to allow it.

[IdolDroog]

still...it doesn't exactly bode well does it, sometimes guilty ppl get away with it just as innocent ppl get put away for things. the whole "accident" thing is obviously a bit far fetched but its quite a scary prospect that something SIMILAR and a combination of genuine freak accidents COULD actually take place....think about it for a second its hard to imagine anything but brutal murder because of the news coverage....

[jj]

As the forensic 'expert' said today, it's a little implausible.......but in the absence of any other rational explanation, a tragic 'accident' seems at least possible.

[steve56]

then if that was the case why didnt he go straight to the police then ?

[jj]

Because he panicked, I suppose.
And not all of us believe that the police are fair and impartial, understanding human beans.

[Lizard]

You got that bit right!

[jj]

Which bit?

[steve56]

i spose its feasible

[jj]

Well, they're not (so far) suggesting he's a paedo or kills kids for kicks, so what else remains?