Worthy of punishment’ but not guilty of murder, says Huntley’s lawyer in closing

THERE is evidence to convict Soham accused Ian Huntley of the manslaughter of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and he is “worthy of punishment”, his lawyer conceded yesterday.

But the Old Bailey jury had "waited in vain" for evidence that he was guilty of the murders of the 10-year-olds, Stephen Coward QC said in his closing speech for Huntley's defence.

Mr Coward said: "We conclude on the evidence available, thin as it is, that there is evidence that Mr Huntley is guilty of the manslaughter both of Holly Wells and of Jessica Chapman."

He said the jury would need to consider whether Huntley was guilty of murder, manslaughter or not guilty.

Mr Coward said: "Let's be blunt.

"On the evidence you have heard and the totality of the evidence you have heard, we are not going to argue on behalf of Mr Huntley in the case of either girl that what he did makes him innocent and unworthy of punishment.

"He clearly is worthy of punishment."

Huntley denies murdering the girls, claiming Holly drowned and that he killed Jessica as he tried to silence her screams at his home in Soham, Cambridgeshire.

He has always insisted that he did not intend to kill either girl.

But earlier the jury heard the prosecution assert that the friends "had to die" on Sunday August 4 last year after Huntley's "sexual motive" for taking them into his home went "plainly wrong".

The former Soham caretaker was ruthless, merciless and operating for his own "selfish interest" when he killed the youngsters, Richard Latham QC said in his closing speech.

Summing up his case, the barrister urged the jury to reject Huntley's defence that the girls died by accident.

He said: "We suggest the whole business in the house was motivated by something sexual.

"Whatever he initiated with one or other or both girls plainly went wrong and thereafter, in this ruthless man's mind, those girls had to die.

"They had to die in his own selfish self-interest. Each were potential witnesses he was quite merciless."

Mr Latham said Huntley had "nerves of steel" to carry out media interviews knowing the girls were dead, and to seek out and speak to Holly's father.

He said the defendant also conducted "a series of ruthless acts" by dumping the bodies of the girls in a remote ditch and cutting off their clothes to remove potential evidence that would link him.

Mr Latham said: "Is this the mind of a man who has closed down and can't think rationally, and hasn't got a proper memory of what has occurred?

"We suggest it is the complete opposite it is a man under control and he is thinking, thinking very hard indeed."

Huntley denies the murder of Holly and Jessica but admits he dumped their bodies in the remote ditch where they were found 13 days later, cut off their clothing and set fire to them.

Both girls' parents were in court yesterday to hear Mr Latham say that after disposing of the bodies Huntley was "a capable and convincing liar" who embarked on "12 days of cynical deception".

"He was playing the part, the role of the helpful caretaker, while at the same time arranging an alibi, cleaning up at home, cleaning up the Fiesta."

Mr Latham said Huntley had changed his defence over time as he examined the prosecution case against him.

He told the jury: "You know the mindset of Ian Huntley.

"He makes a cold, calm assessment of the problem and produces the best explanation that will fit the facts that he can't get round."

He said Huntley, as a man "capable of a cold-blooded sequence of events", would not have fallen apart because of the result of a genuine accident.

The lawyer reminded the jury that Huntley had kept control over himself when he lost his temper in the witness box.

Mr Latham said: "We suggest you saw a complete change, a very different person, in that witness box. For some reason, we suggest, that's what happened in that house and we suggest it was murder, indeed, double murder."

But Mr Coward said the suggestion that Huntley had a sexual motive was not supported by a "single shred of evidence".

The girls' clothing was not ripped or missing, and there were no traces of semen in their clothes or on their bodies, he said.

The defence lawyer said the absence of such evidence suggested Huntley was telling the truth, and that the girls could have gone into his house "for an innocent purpose and somehow died".

The decomposition of the bodies meant Huntley was robbed of his chance to prove that the girls left his house without bruises or marks from a sexual assault, Mr Coward said, accusing the prosecution of looking at the caretaker's account "through twisted eyes".

He said: "They treated it as sinister from the start and we submit there is evidence, and the only evidence there is, which suggests it was entirely innocent from the start."

Mr Coward said it was "inevitable" that Huntley had lied after he had failed to go to the police immediately.

But he said "the same state of mind of panic and fear and cover-up" could apply equally well to manslaughter as to murder.

Jessica died because Huntley "laid hands on her", he said, adding that the defence would not challenge anyone who believed Huntley was guilty of criminal gross negligence in failing to pull Holly out of the bath or trying to save her.

Mr Coward told the jury: "The real issue is has the prosecution proved the extra ingredient, namely the intention to kill each or at least the intention to cause each really serious bodily harm."

He said: "If you say, I do not think there is any evidence of a sexual motive, or I am not sure there is evidence of a sexual motive, then in our submission the proper verdict for Mr Huntley in respect of each girl is a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter."

He added: "That is not, I concede straight away, what hundreds and thousands, if not millions, are expecting from you.

"What is the solution? The solution actually is a simple one.

"If anybody has the temerity to come up to you and say 'how could you find Ian Huntley not guilty of these murders', look them straight in the eye and say 'on the evidence'."

Mr Coward urged the jury not to be swayed by the fact that this case had "gone deep into the psyche of everyone in Britain", or by those "baying at the door" to say: "lock him up and throw away the key".

The closing speeches from both lawyers came as the trial reached its final stages. The jury was told it would be sent out to consider its verdicts tomorrow, once Maxine Carr's lawyer has spoken and the judge has given his summing-up.

Carr, 26, denies conspiring to pervert the course of justice and two counts of assisting an offender.