hollyandjessicashanesullivan

Mr Sullivan's point of view is not to be ignored, so he has provided it in bold text. On the other hand he considers Mr Vialls work as cranky and ill-informed -unbalanced. His original submission provided Mr Viall's work in italics, which he may have done to emphasise this, even if only subconsiously. All mind stuff, which perhaps Mr Sullivan was not aware of. I don't know; but I'm certainly not going to play that game, if there is one. In my view, both are entitled to their opinions.

Neither are fully informed, and both have presented their cases according to the information they have, be it valid or otherwise. Mr Vialls has much experience regarding covert operations and is therefore not easily persuaded by official versions, intended for public consumption..

I feel that the work of Joe Vialls is so flawed that it is necessary to respond in detail to the offering of that author linked to from this site. This work suffers from a good deal of factual inaccuracies, illogical assumptions, and fanciful (and unevidenced) conspiracy theories.A detailed analysis of this offering reveals that it is littered with factual inaccuracies as well as unfounded and defamatory opinions. In essence he offers forth a "conspiracy theory" based upon his own lack of knowledge, and implausible and unproven musings. What follows is a detailed and systematic analysis of his piece. The offerings of Vialls are reproduced in full with my analysis inserted in dark bold text after every paragraph.

You will note the inflamatory and unjustified tone of the subheading. He has indicated that the police have tortured Huntley and Carr but his piece provides not one single shred of evidence of this. It is quite clear that this indicates the unfounded prejudices of the author (that the police are an instrument of state torture rather than a legitimate institution for the investigation of crime and the maintenance of order), and that such prejudices are to dominate this piece. He then deliberately misrepresents the position of Huntley and Carr. He describes them as the "least likely suspects." This is clearly an unjustified and unacceptable position. They are the "least likely suspects." His tone and tenor suggests that they are the "least likely suspects" possible to imagine. Does this mean that Vialls believes them to be less likely suspects than the Prime Minister of Australia? The centre forward for his local football team? It is quite clear that Vialls is deliberately using misleading and inaccurate statements to mislead and to cultivate opinion.

When British police arrested Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr during the early hours of Saturday 17 August, 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 was very simple: Just hours earlier, two small bodies had been found near the perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath, and the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street was terrified of a massive political scandal involving American servicemen based in, or transiting through, the United Kingdom.

Here again we have a misrepresentation or ignorance of the facts. Carr and Huntley were initially giving a witness statement (16th August), and after substantial evidence was found at the place where Hunter worked (in a place of access limited to maintenance staff i.e. Huntley) they were arrested on suspicion of murder and abduction. It should also be stated that the police had developed suspicions regarding this pair in the days previous. He follows this gross inaccuracy with an unfounded, and unconnected statement regarding the Prime Minister, the USA, and the military forces.

It should be self evident that the author is inaccurate in his knowledge of the chain of events in this case. He claims that they were arrested and that the reason for this was that two bodies had been found "just hour earlier." This is plain wrong. They were arrested at 4.30am on Saturday the 17th. The bodies of these two unfortunate children were not found until 8 hours after the arrest!

Shortly after the arrests, British and American media organizations demonized Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr so successfully that public attention was diverted away from Lakenheath completely, and focused instead on the young couple from Soham who had earlier willingly spoken to television crews about their concerns for the well being of the two missing 10-year-old girls. Both knew the girls reasonably well. Ian Huntley was the caretaker at their school, and Maxine Carr was a former teaching auxiliary in their class.

Here again we see Mr. Viall's prejudice determining his analysis and the facts are rewritten to accommodate this. He claims that media attention was diverted away from Lakenheath completely. This is utter nonsense. It would be obvious to anyone who watched the television coverage (Sky News, ITV 24 Hour news, BBC 24 hour news) that from the 17th until the 20th August that most of the coverage was focussed upon Lakenheath. Indeed there were lengthy live broadcasts and reports from this site, and every single news service repeatedly reported the Air Base, and showed numerous "graphics" and maps showing where the bodies were found and the location of the airbase. Thus his contention is completely wrong, and is perhaps indicative of the author's determination to follow a fanciful conspiracy theory regardless of the facts.

Millions of viewers around the world watched Ian and Maxine being interviewed by the media, and most were impressed by the openness of their statements and their genuine willingness to help if possible. Experts in non-verbal communication also noticed that Ian and Maxine's involuntary body and eye movements perfectly matched what they were saying verbally to the journalists.

Here again we have a gross ignorance and/or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. In fact most people were very dubious of their interviews. In particular the fact that Huntley never showed any signs of upset or emotion. Indeed the main focus of Huntley and Carr was not the suffering of the girls or their families. In fact the main emphasis of their interviews was the fact that Carr was not given a permanent job at the school. They emphasised that she was not given the job despite the fact that the girls (who were the focus of everyone's sympathy and emotions) liked Carr. Thus the majority of the interviews were about their loss and their suffering. Rather bizarre and revealing considering the circumstances. It should also be emphasised that in her last interview on Thursday 15th of August Maxine Carr inadvertently gave away much more than she realised. I would ask anyone to watch this interview in full. I would ask you to pay attention to the end of the interview when she makes an emotionless plea for the girls to come home.

Mr. Vialls follows up his inaccurate analysis with unfounded claims of expert analysis of "non-verbal communication." It is noticeable that he fails to produce a single reference for this dubious claim. In fact the opposite is true. As it became increasingly obvious that the answer to this case lay within Soham the police were carefully watching residents. This included (and focussed upon) those who were amongst the last to see them. Thus in such cases the media coverage is watched very carefully and specialists watch the coverage. It is not unusual for the culprits to court media attention in such cases. It is also not unusual for the culprits to help police and pretend to be concerned etc. It has been confirmed that experts in the field were watching all the interviews and were advising the police.

In other words, both appeared to be telling the truth both verbally and non-verbally, an almost impossible feat for even a trained liar to fabricate. It is critical to note here also that both came across on television as perfectly normal, sane individuals, a reality later to be inexplicably challenged by police and psychiatrists in Cambridgeshire.

The first conclusion is inaccurate and the latter is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Neither the police nor the psychiatrists have claimed that Huntley was legally insane when he allegedly committed the crimes. Indeed it is quite clear as a legal specialist that he was legally sane when he committed the crimes. It is not unusual for suspects who have committed such acts to undergo a mental trauma when they have been caught and realised what they face.

If Huntley and Carr had been involved at all with the abduction and murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, would they have then been stupid enough to run the gauntlet of about 10,000 American servicemen en-route, and dump the two small bodies in a location clearly visible from Lakenheath Control Tower, taxi track, and main runway? A serviceman with detailed knowledge of activities and procedures inside the base might get away with it unseen, but certainly not two civilians from Soham in Cambridgeshire. So the perimeter would be an ideal dumping ground for American servicemen eager to return to "safe" territory at USAF Lakenheath, before either entering their barracks on the base, or catching a shuttle bus to USAF Mildenhall.

Here again we have a clear demonstration of an inaccurate and incomplete grasp of the facts of this case. The location was not clearly visible at night. Nor is it that unusual for people to drive up that track. Indeed Mr. Huntley knew the track quite well as he is a plane spotter that used that track to watch planes. They did not have to "run the gauntlet" of anyone, and certainly not the amount of people suggested. It is also clear that the bodies were dumped in panic. The bodies of these two poor girls were kept at a location in Soham. It was only the community meeting on the 15th of August and the public claims for and the police eagerness, to do a complete and exhaustive house to house search of Soham that caused the murderers to panic, and change their plans for the bodies. Thus they had to get rid of the bodies in a manner different from that they had envisaged. There were dumped in a relatively secluded place that they knew.

It should be obvious to any rational person that Vialls arguments demonstrate a serious lack of logic. He claims that Huntley and Carr would not dump bodies in a place which would implicate them, and would be difficult to achieve. However, he claims a serviceman would have done so. He bizarrely fails to realise that dumping the bodies there would immediately point suspicion at the airbase (the serviceman would be leaving the body on his own doorstep), and the serviceman would also have to "run the gauntlet." Thus his argument makes no logical sense.

In an attempt to demonize Ian Huntley still further, police "leaked" the damning information that he had been arrested for rape a number of years earlier. Well, yes, almost. While still a teenager Huntley had consensual sex with his girlfriend, who was only 15-years-old at the time, an offence in the United Kingdom known as statutory rape. He was never charged with an offence however, and his former girlfriend [now age 21 years] recently confirmed it was a mutual crush [love affair], with enthusiastic sexual consent on both sides.

Yet again we have inaccuracies and gross misrepresentation. The police did not "leak" details of an arrest for rape. In fact an ex-girlfriend of Hunter gave an interview to the press. She voluntarily came forward. However, she was only 15 years of age. This is a serious criminal offence, and her consent or otherwise does not justify it. It is still an example of improper sexual relations with a minor. Also Vialls's statement of the nature of the relationship is wholly inaccurate. In fact the ex-girlfriend revealed that it was not a happy or enthusiastic relationship. In fact she revealed that Huntley was a sexual predator and a control freak. He deliberately preyed upon an underage girl, and exercised obsessive control which included preventing her from going to school. In essence the author has either deliberately misrepresented the facts, or is in ignorance of them, and attempts to use this false basis to support his fanciful theory.

So for a while at least, police and media have managed to deflect attention away from the two massive nearby USAF bases at Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and the political minefield lurking just below the surface if the British public ever find out about the very large numbers of children abused, raped, and sometimes murdered by American servicemen on overseas duty. So let us properly consider the "American Connection", before returning later in this report to the unbelievable ongoing psychological abuse of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr.

Yet again we have Mr. Vialls stating inaccuracies in an attempt to sustain his supposed conspiracy. As stated, and as would be obvious to anyone who is even remotely familiar to this case, there has been no deflecting of attention away from Lakenheath or the airbase. In fact there has been and remains massive media interest in this site. Thus this is another unsustainable statement.

Though earlier in the investigation police declared they would be interviewing "700 known sex offenders" of British nationality, there was no mention of interviewing the 10,000+ US servicemen based in close proximity to Soham Village, or determining which other American servicemen has transited through the two bases, and on which flights, since Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman first disappeared.

Why should they interview 10,000 US servicemen? There is good reason to interview the 700 known sex offenders as such persons are always called upon quite early in a child abduction case. The idea that the police should interview all 10,000 servicemen and any others who may have travelled through the base without any evidence pointing to any of them is utterly ludicrous.

The simple fact that Holly and Jessica's bodies were found within yards of the USAF Lakenheath perimeter fence, which in turn provides access to the American barracks within, should have had British police knocking on Lakenheath's front door immediately. Unfortunately, any such action might have accidentally undermined Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal slavish dedication to George W Bush's "War on Terror."

Though most members of the American military are unquestionably nice people, the small number who are not, are invariably psychotic savages. It is a matter of public record that many American servicemen have habitually carried out sickening attacks against civilians while on overseas duty, happy in the knowledge that the serious assault or murder of women or girls in Japan, Kosovo or England, carries a lesser penalty than at home.

One such case is that of Staff Sergeant Frank Ronghi, who on 24 August 2000 pleaded guilty to sodomizing and killing an 11-year-old Kosovar girl in January the same year. A member of his platoon testified that Staff Sergeant Ronghi disdainfully claimed, "It's easy to get away with this shit in a third-world country."

The "shit" Ronghi referred to is described here by the US Army Pathologist for Europe. "Her right jaw was fractured, practically bisected," said Lieutenant Colonel Kathleen Ingwersen, "We found evidence of sperm and semen in her vagina, mouth and rectum," she testified to a hushed hearing. "There was trauma to the neck muscles, the trachea and the carotid artery," Colonel Ingwersen said, adding she had found evidence of "blunt trauma" as the child was apparently beaten, choked and forced to kneel, face to the ground, as she was sodomized.

But in a perverse way Ronghi was proved right about the overall American perception of the "lesser worth" of women and children, in what he and others continually refer to as the third world. At his trial the Staff Sergeant was sentenced to life imprisonment, despite the fact that an identical offence against an American woman in the USA, would have resulted in his execution.

It would be impossible to list here all such vile attacks against "locals" by American servicemen overseas because there have been far too many. However, in order to educate the British police [who mercifully are rarely exposed to similar atrocities in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk] it seems prudent to mention a handful, thereby proving that Staff Sergeant Ronghi is far from being an isolated case.

In 1955, an American soldier was sentenced to death for the murder of a six-year-old Okinawan girl, a sentence that was later commuted to life imprisonment. During 1966 a US soldier confessed to strangling a young waitress. Then in 1972, US soldiers were sentenced to life imprisonment for strangling local women. Later In 1975, a US soldier was sent to prison for raping two junior high school students. Local Okinawan police arrested two US soldiers during 1985 in the act of raping a woman.

During a spate of crimes in 1995, a US soldier was arrested for the hammering death of a young woman., two children were killed by a drunken soldier, and three US soldiers brutally raped a young schoolgirl. In January 2000 a US seaman was sentenced for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old Japanese girl. Remember this is only a small part of the overall list, nor does it include the many more alleged perpetrators who Japanese and other authorities claim were "spirited out of the country and back to the USA" before they could be apprehended and charged.

The central flaws in the analysis of Mr Vialls is demonstrated in these passages. He claims that the vast majority of US servicemen are nice but the ones that are not are "invariably psychotic savages." It should be obvious that this is a wholly naïve and simplistic way to characterise tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. He then contradicts himself by stating that "many American servicemen have habitually carried out sickening attacks." It might be useful if Vialls could take a consistent position. How many US servicemen are "psychotic savages" who "habitually attack"? Is it a few or is it "many." It seems that Vialls is groping around in the dark. This is compounded by his attempts to quantify is analysis. He provides a few examples scattered over a period of 46 years! The statistical significance of his evidence is non-existent. It will be obvious that to any reasonable person that considering the period under review, and the number of persons in the forces during this period, that the crime rate amongst the US Services is substantially lower than that of the general population. Thus there is no justification for his conclusion that "many" of the US services habitually carry out vicious attacks.

He then goes onto to describe a reason for this non-existent trait within US servicemen. He claims that it is because the punishments are weaker in the UK than they are in the US. Thus it would appear to Mr. Vialls that "psychotic savages" are able to restrain themselves when at home where the death penalty is a possibility, but that these "savages" are encouraged by the fact that they will only receive life imprisonment in the UK. This is a self-contradictory and unsustainable argument. It should also be noted that some of the examples of barbarity provided actually took place in the US!

In brief Vialls draws a number of erroneous conclusions (many US service men are psychotic savages) without any evidence to sustain this conclusion. A thesis which is not about the evidence is NOT a thesis. It is a musing, or a imagining. It is an exercise in imagination, and not a serious, and sustainable analysis.

The last point to consider before returning to the plight of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, is the strange fate of four wives at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the former home base of Staff Sergeant Ronghi. All four wives were allegedly killed by their Sergeant husbands when they returned from active duty in Afghanistan, during the same week that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing. US Army authorities are currently trying to establish whether or not an anti-malarial drug all were taking contributed to the murders. The drug is acknowledged to have extra-pyramidal psychotic side-effects, and is prescribed to all US Servicemen in Afghanistan.

There are no direct flights out of Afghanistan to the USA, meaning that all American servicemen including those seriously affected by the drug, and also affected by PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) are obliged to change aircraft either in Germany or in England normally at USAF Mildenhall. As a matter of urgency the British public should shame their local police into establishing accurately how many of these servicemen transited through USAF Mildenhall and USAF Lakenheath during the week that Holly and Jessica vanished. Initially on Saturday 17 August, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr were arrested "on suspicion" of being involved in the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Each was taken to a different police station in Cambridgeshire for interrogation, which is standard police procedure. However, this is also the point at which standard police procedure vanished completely. Obviously Ian and Maxine were determined to protest their innocence, and refused to provide police with a convenient "confession", no matter how tired they were, and no matter how much extreme pressure was applied by the big burly threatening policemen. There was also a marked absence of defence lawyers making statements on behalf of the suspects.

Here Vialls shows his complete ignorance of the legal system and his strong prejudice against the police. He claims that "standard procedure vanished completely" but once again provides no evidence to back up his claim. You should also note his deliberately use of misleading language. This includes "interrogation" instead of "interview" or "questioning", and "big burly threatening policemen." This is deliberately intended to mislead and prejudice the reader. Here again we have some grossly inaccurate statements. He claims they were pressured and deprived of sleep. Both of these statements are wrong and unsupported by any fact, and his statement that there are no defence lawyers involved is factually inaccurate.

In an extraordinary move, police then applied to a "Closed Court" for an extension of Huntley and Carr's detention, though the reasons were not made public. There was actually no need for police to provide us with a reason, because it was blatantly obvious they still had absolutely nothing to connect the two suspects with the two murders. If at that stage police had any hard evidence linking Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr to the murders, or had managed to coerce a confession out of either, they would have been charged immediately.

Here again there is either deliberate inaccuracy or a gross misrepresentation. He claims that applying to a "closed court" for an extension of the right to extend the detention period is "extraordinary." Hence he is attempting to make the reader believe that the police have somehow acted different in this case. In fact the behaviour of the police in seeking an extension of the power to detain and the way in which this was conducted was standard procedure. Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the legal system would know this. It is further claimed that the police had "absolutely nothing to connect the two suspects with the two murders." Here again we see factual inaccuarcies concerning this case. In fact during the course of Friday the 16th August the police had recovered a good deal of forensic and post mortem evidence. It is also extremely rare that any suspect is charged immediately. There is always a period of questioning before a formal charge is made.

Then on Tuesday 20 August, just twenty-four hours before the legally extended detention was due to expire at 6.19 am on Wednesday, a complete team of psychiatrists appeared as if by magic, and deemed that Ian Huntley was unfit to appear in court. He was then "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act 1983 and remanded to Rampton high-security psychiatric hospital, at Retford in North Nottinghamshire, without being charged with any offence.

Now think about this carefully people, think about it! When we all saw Ian Huntley on international television he was entirely coherent and unquestionably sane. But apparently, after a mere three days in police custody, he became insane. How? Did the police deprive him of sleep and induce a [predictable and natural] nervous breakdown, or are the all-too-convenient government psychiatrists a pack of liars? You choose

Yet again we see factual inaccuracies and the author's prejudice. In fact the psychiatrists did not magically appear and deem Huntley unfit to stand trial. In fact the psychiatrists were called in shortly after he was arrested. Why? His behaviour had already begun to deteriorate. Indeed even his parents have stated that this was the case. Indeed there statements to the media indicate that he was on the verge of confessing to them just before he was arrested. There is no evidence he was deprived of sleep. The psychiatrists are not "government psychiatrists" but are in fact independent experts and had been monitoring his behaviour for several days whilst in custody. Why? Huntley had not been interviewed very much because of his behaviour and deteriorating behaviour.

One thing is certain. We have all just watched the gross violation of Ian Huntley's legal and human rights on international television, and we have done absolutely nothing about it. Ask yourself: Is it even legal to section a man in England under the Mental Health Act before he is charged? When asked this precise question, Dr Harris of Rampton Psychiatric Hospital was evasive, replying, "It is not unheard of, but it is very unusual."

Again these unfounded claims are based upon the inaccuracies and mistakes of the author. He has repeatedly claimed that Huntley's human and legal rights have been violated because he was sectioned without being charged of anything, and that it is illegal to be sectioned without being charged with a criminal offence. This is simply wrong. In fact the Mental Health Act 1983 is not solely designed to deal with criminals. As the name of the act makes clear it is intended to deal with those people who are mentally ill and as a result are a danger to themselves or others. Thus the act is not aimed at criminals but those suffering from mental ill heath. These details are contained within Sections 1-5 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Thus there are no requirements of criminal behaviour. In essence Vialls has claimed that the police were breaking the law and admitting Huntley unlawfully. This is based upon the fact that Vialls has absolutely no knowledge of the subject of which he speaks. In fact the Police would have preferred to remand him in prison. To section the accused is often seen as a failure. See below for the reasons why. It might be appropriate to read a simple guide to the Mental Health Act 1983. You may wish to try this link

Once inside the terrifying Rampton building, a Victorian hulk originally founded as an asylum in 1912 under the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1860, police charged Ian Huntley with murder. He is now at the mercy of a five-man psychiatric team who will assess his "symptoms" night and day over the next month, and shove him full of God-knows-what medication. This is the Gulag Archipelago all over again, and Joe Stalin would have loved it.

If, after a full month at the hands of the medical nutters in Rampton, Ian Huntley should choose to "confess" to everything including the murder of the Princess of Wales, try not to believe him. Stalin's enemies used to confess all the time in the Gulag, but only after being pumped full of Reserpine by the shrinks.

Here again we have inflamatory ill-founded prejudice presented as fact. Vialls describes Rampton as "terrifying" and a "hulk" without any justification. In fact Rampton is very modern, very well equipped, and is so plush that it is considered to be a soft option when compared with prison. Indeed the main police concern was that Huntley was feigning mental illness to seek this soft option. Vialls then proceeds to label the trained professionals who work there as "medical nutters." Yet again we see more prejudiced analysis without a single shred of credible evidence. This was proceeded by the even more ludicrous claim that this is "the Gulag Archipelago all over again." In essence this paragraph is the presentation of more unsustainable and unproven arguments and prejudice.

The next problem for police was Maxine Carr. Clearly no-one would believe that two people had suddenly gone completely insane in police custody at the same time, so senior officers in Cambridgeshire [and at the Home Office] had to think of something a little more creative. They knew Huntley and Carr were both were innocent of course, but somehow Maxine had to be brought under control. In other words Maxine Carr had to be so badly frightened that she would be positively eager to "cooperate" with police when the drugged, perhaps electro-shocked and certainly docile Ian Huntley was finally paraded in front of the courts.

Here again we have inaccurate statements without any evidence. He claims that the Police knew this pair were innocent. We await his evidence for this claim, and yet again there is none. It should also be added that "electro-convulsive shock" therapy is no longer used. However, this fact seems to have escaped the attention of the author.

So police formally charged Maxine Carr with "attempting to pervert the course of justice", i.e. lying to police whether she had or not, and quietly arranged to have her incarcerated in the most brutal and terrifying of Britain's women's' prisons, at Holloway in London. "Attempting to pervert" is not a violent crime requiring a high security establishment of course, and there were certainly prisons closer to Soham, but only Holloway would have the desired devastating effect on Maxine, hopefully bringing her under immediate control.

Yet again we have more unfounded and inaccurate statements. It should be obvious that Ms. Carr had to be remanded in custody for her own protection. Indeed both Carr and her legal representatives accepted this and made no application for bail. They were of course free to do so. The reason she was put in Holloway is self-evident. It is a high security prison which is needed to protect Ms. Carr from the public and more importantly her fellow prisoners. No other prison could have done this job so effectively. It is also to be asked why Ms. Carr would prefer a prison closer to Soham? Her connections with Soham are not that strong. She is not a native of the area, and has only lived there a few months. So where would be the advantage to Ms. Carr of being imprisoned closer to there?

Although the Victorian Holloway was replaced in a phased rebuilding programme between 1975 and 1985, it has managed to retain its brutal reputation. In 1995 Sir David Ramsbotham, then inspector of prisons, walked out in disgust at the conditions he found inside. He noted that 75% of women at the jail were suffering from some form of identifiable mental disorder, while one in 10 was suicidal. Almost half were drug addicts in need of immediate detoxification, while more than half had serious alcohol problems and nearly 95% were on sleeping pills.

Firstly, it should be stated that prisons are not meant to be nice places. As well as rehabilitation they are designed to punish. The status of Holloway is grossly misstated. Vialls claims that 1 in 10 of the prisoners are suicidal. This is actually a rather low figure. The research of Morris and Rushton based on all womens prisons in 1993 found that "one in five reported attempts to self-harm in prison and one in three reported having self-harmed outside prison, with 44% reporting thoughts of suicide while in prison." Thus it would appear from the data provided by Vialls that Holloway is rather better off than the average prison. It is also not surprising that there are a heavy number of drug and drink users in prison. Thus in brief Vialls has attempted to portray the normal harshness of a prison regime as part of some unevidenced and unproven conspiracy.

Naturally enough, on its own this would be quite enough to send a quiet country girl like Maxine insane in weeks, but the British authorities wanted to make absolutely sure. So before she left for London, police arranged a court hearing for her in the local town of Peterborough, and made sure the media and "rent a mob" people knew about its exact timing well in advance.

Here again we have a number of factual inaccuracies. First, Ms. Carr is neither quiet nor a country girl. It is a matter or public record that Ms. Carr is not from the relatively rural area of Soham. She has only lived in this area briefly. She has in fact lived in a variety of areas including Keelby, Rasen, and Grimsby. Thus describing her as a quiet country girl is utterly wrong. He further states that a hearing was arranged in the "local town of Peterborough." Local to where? Peterborough is 36 miles from Soham and is hardly local. The author may wish to be informed that in fact the accused has to be charged (and usually tried ) within the catchment area of the relevant Crown Court which in this case was Peterborough. The author then attempts to impugn the motives of the Police by claiming that they made sure the media knew of the exact timing if the court appearance in advance. Here again we encounter a lack of legal knowledge on the part of teh author. In fact as any informed person would know such court hearings are a matter of public record and cannot be hidden. Finally he describes the angry protestors at the court as a "rent a mob." Here again the author is attempting to misconstrue their presence and motives. His description suggests that they were paid for and arranged. There is not a single shred of evidence for these ludicrous suggestions.

As the police van approached the court, the commotion started for the innocent woman not yet convicted of any offence at all. Unseen hands banged on the metal van, and several females led an ugly chorus, jeering and shouting at a woman they could not see - a thick grey blanket had been placed over Maxine Carr's head - for a double murder with which she has not even been charged. "Evil bitch", screamed one. "Sick cow," spat another. In the melee, a woman and her two daughters unfurled a home-made banner. "Rot in hell forever", it said.

Trial by television media had well and truly started, and the trembling Maxine Carr had not yet even reached that special part of hell called Holloway. But a week or two in there with the deranged and the druggies should have her "cooperating" with anything and everything the Cambridgeshire Police Service wants.

But is that really the point here? The Chief Constable and all of his officers at Cambridgeshire Constabulary should be mortally ashamed of their blatant abuse of police powers, abuse of the judicial process, and abuse of the Mental Health Act. In turn it goes almost without saying that we the public should not believe a word of any subsequent "confession" that Maxine Carr is coerced into making, during or after her terrifying ordeal at Holloway.

Yet again we have more inflamatory, ill-informed and grossly inaccurate statements. There has been no abuse of police powers (no evidence has been produced by the author). There has been no abuse of the judicial process (this is simply a product of the authors lack of knowledge). There has been no abuse of the Medial Health Act. Any claim that there has been is simply a product of the ignorance of someone who has no knowledge of ths subject. Despite this fact we have the same unproven and discredited arguments repeated.

Nor should we necessarily believe that the little Cambridgeshire Constabulary [1,307 proud officers and still going up] had the overall power to pull off these impressive stunts without some very heavy political assistance. Think about it carefully. The original players in a tight little Cambridgeshire county investigation have been scattered to the four winds. Ian Huntley is 100 miles away to the north in Rampton, Nottinghamshire, and Maxine Carr is 100 miles away to the south in Holloway, London. The bodies of the girls were actually found in Suffolk, directly involving a third force, the Suffolk Constabulary. And oh, yes, police investigators from the Norfolk Constabulary did quite a lot of the leg work on this case.

So the Cambridgeshire Holly and Jessica Case, is no longer really the Cambridgeshire Holly and Jessica case at all, is it? The only people who will know exactly what is going on in London, Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire in the future, will be the small group of powerful manipulators who set the scene. This is the same small group who had sufficient power to arrange special closed courts, send a truckload of wobbly shrinks to Cambridgeshire, subvert the Mental Health Act, and personally arrange the twin hells of Rampton and Holloway for suspects Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr. Believe me, only senior bureaucrats at the Home Office in London have sufficient raw power to arrange all of this.

Yet again the author makes spurious claims about "stunts" and "pilling strings." This is despite the fact there is no evidence to support any of these ludicrous claims. There was nothing unusual about the applications to magistrates for the extension of detention, he claims the psychiatrists were "wobbly" without any justification, and yet again his ignorance of the Mental Health Act 1983 leads him to falsely claim that it has been "subverted."

There is a final point to consider about the case itself. A newspaper report states "The bodies of murdered 10-year-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were discovered in a 'severely decomposed and partially skeletonised' state, and the pair were almost certainly not killed where they were discovered, a coroner's inquest was told yesterday. Their remains were found last Saturday in woodlands outside a United States air base at Lakenheath, Suffolk." Even now, the cause or place of death cannot be established, and the Coroner has released the bodies to the parents for burial.

The reason for the importance of this statement will be obvious to residents in the Lakenheath area, whose local newspapers have saturated them for weeks with the information that Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr once lived years ago in a house owned by relatives less than a half-mile away from where the bodies were found. So this information allowing police to "point the finger" at the pair has long been in the public domain, and would be of enormous value to anyone wishing to deflect attention away from the real killers. Adding real substance to this claim is the fact that the path beside which the bodies were located is well used by walkers, but the bodies were not "found" until the very morning of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr's arrests.

This is further evidence of the aurthor's inaccurate grasp of the facts of this case. It has never been suggested that Huntley and Carr lived less than half a mile from the site where the girls bodies were found. The only property in Lakenheath which has been mentioned is the home of Huntley's paternal grandmother who lives in a one bedroom sheltered flat in Lakenheath four miles from the site. Thus once again the facts are proven to be inaccurate and the analysis likewise.

The author also suggest that it is suspicious that the bodies were only found the morning of the arrest of the couple despite the fact that the path was well used. The reason for this is simple. The bodies were in fact in Soham until a short while before they were dumped in Lakenheath. The Community meeting in Soham on Wednesday 14th August was designed to partly settle the concerns and fears of the community and to suggest that they were going to do a house by house search of the whole of Soham. This was intended to panic the murderers into making a mistake. This they surely did. The initial plans for the disposal of the bodies were disrupted and they made a poor job of disposing the bodies in a partly secluded place that Huntley knew very well. The author has also made another glaring mistake. In fact the spot where the bodies were found is not an area used by walkers etc, and there is not a lot of random activity there.

Now ask yourself what you would do if you were Ian Huntley and had really been involved in the murder of the two little girls. Would you deliberately move their bodies close to a residence that you had lived in some years before, thereby tacitly pointing the finger of guilt at yourself, or would you move the bodies well away from any such residence? You choose, though even a deranged person in Holloway should be able to select the correct answer to this elementary question.

Taking the opposite view, what would you do if you were a deranged American serviceman who managed to smuggle the two little girls inside USAF Lakenheath, and then murdered them at some remote location inside the very large airfield boundary, with its multitude of convenient empty buildings? Would you leave the bodies where they lay until the smell of putrefaction attracted the attention of the Military Police at the base, or would you toss the pathetic remains over the perimeter fence one dark night, as close as possible to the former Huntley residence you learned about in the local Suffolk newspaper, and then tip off police? Once again, you choose.

This paragraph demonstrates the logical flaws in the analysis of Mr. Vialls. First, he believes that a serviceman would smuggle two children (presumably alive) into an airforce base. We are to assume there is no security, and the fact that the base (according to Vialls) houses 10,000+ people seems not to be a deterrent. How many empty and unused buildings are there on a military site? Very few. How many insecure sites are there within the base which would allow the uninterrupted and unnoticed abuse and murder of two little girls? Then apparently the bodies are thrown over a fence. This at a site which Vialls states the bodies were "in a location clearly visible from Lakenheath Control Tower, taxi track, and main runway?" He claims that there bodies were put there to implicate Huntley. The nearest house which Huntley had a connection to was four miles away. It can only be assumed that US servicemen can throw bodies a very long way. Thus all in all, this argument is fanciful at best and illogical at worst.

No matter what you choose and no matter what you think, it will probably make no difference to the final outcome. The atmosphere surrounding this case is so heavily laden with political fog that you could cut it with a knife. At the national level you cannot afford to rock the boat because of Tony Blair's "special relationship" with the White House, and all this entails for his personal prestige and the "War on Terror". That said, Tony Blair's wife Cherie is apparently a leading human rights lawyer, who might decide to take independent personal action where this gross abuse of human rights in her own back yard is concerned.

At the county level you cannot rock the boat because, as the Chamber of Commerce will eagerly explain, those thousands of nice American servicemen at USAF Lakenheath and USAF Mildenhall spend millions of pounds each year with local businesses in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. You remember the people at the Chamber of Commerce don't you? Masons, Rotarians, Buffs and the rest, guzzling free Budweiser Beer at the Lakenheath Officer's Club, while looking down their noses at the Base Commander.

Thus in conclusion we can conclude that the offering of Mr. J. Vialls is littered with factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies, self-contradiction, and illogical statements. His spurious claims are based on his own ignorance of the subject, and his furtile imagination. He has made numerous claims, which quickly fall apart when subjected to even the most brief analysis. Instead of facts and evidence he offers inflamatory and loaded language which betray his prejudices, and lack of knowledge of this case.