Hailey's Story--She Was an Eleven-Year-Old Child. He Was Soham Murderer Ian Huntley. This is the Story of How She Survived (11 page)

At the Bichard Inquiry, Detective Chief Superintendent Gavin Baggs acknowledged failure after failure regarding lack of training within the intelligence-saving system of Humberside Police. Under cross-examination by the Inquiry his exact words were: ‘…there was this general misunderstanding which I accept was regrettable … and I do accept that that is a failure.'

Unbelievably, no records of the previous allegations against Huntley 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 [these numbers refer to the system of numbering incidents in the Inquiry] managed to make it to the police's CIS Nominals system. There was also an acceptance among police staff that they hadn't been adequately trained and it was accepted that officers were disgruntled at being ‘overworked and understaffed', as DCS Gavin Baggs conceded at the Bichard Inquiry.

In what I consider one of the more generously proportioned blunders of the Humberside Police that was not unearthed until the Humberside Police carried out an investigation for the purpose of their
submissions to the Bichard Inquiry, DCS Baggs admitted that the Humberside Force knew that Huntley was using the name Nixon, but that information did not get transposed from his manual record on to the CIS Nominals.

In response to being asked, ‘That in your view, I take it, was a pretty serious failing?' DCS Baggs replied, ‘It was in retrospect a serious failing, yes. It is a failing that had very severe knock-on consequences, yes.'

Unbelievable. A total cock-up was responsible for the fact that Huntley was not correctly vetted for his caretaker's job.

It was alleged that in August 1995 Huntley had a 13-year-old boy and the boy's 15-year-old sister living with him in Grimsby. The girl's father claimed to the police that Huntley had been having unlawful sexual intercourse with the girl, which she appears to have informally confirmed. This resulted in Huntley admitting everything to PC Teasdale under caution when interviewed at his home. Huntley signed the interview statement, and his exact words were: ‘If her parents were OK about it, it was not an offence.' Why wasn't Huntley charged?

Which leads me back to the Bichard Inquiry and the questioning of DCS Baggs on 3 March 2004 over this matter.

This is what DCS Baggs said about why Huntley was not charged or even cautioned over the matter of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in August 1995: ‘The test that is applied in terms of whether or not someone should be cautioned for any offence is initially the sufficiency of evidence test, as has been alluded to. The sufficiency of evidence test is based on whether or not there is sufficient evidence for there to be a likelihood of a successful prosecution. In considering this particular crime, at the time that Mr Billam made his decision, it is my view – and of course this might not be the same view as everyone else – but it is my view that there was not sufficient evidence to make it likely that there could be a successful prosecution because there was no signed statement from the victim in this case. The evidence in the Officer's notebook was hearsay evidence and could not have been introduced into a court case, as I understand it, so we are left with a situation where the only evidence that is in a suitable format for introduction in a potential court case is the confession evidence in the interview record which Huntley had himself signed. So it is my opinion – and I have in the past been the head of the Admin and Justice Unit where these policies are set – it is my opinion that there was insufficient evidence as it stood at that time to properly authorise a caution.'

To the credit of the Bichard team, I should add that one of them said to DCS Baggs, ‘I am grateful for that. You are aware, of course, that others within the force
and HMIC take a potentially different view in relation to incident 1 and the appropriateness or otherwise of issuing a caution?'

DCS Baggs answered, ‘I am aware of that. Certainly within the force, at the time of the chronology document being put together, there were divided opinions. I think that, within the force now, those divided opinions are much more reconciled along the view that I have just expressed. I am aware that the HMIC also takes a different view. Perhaps I could just take it one stage further. Although at the moment, at the time when Mr Billam made his decision, it is certainly my opinion that there was insufficient evidence to justify an appropriate caution, it is possible – and we will never know now, I expect – but it is possible that by doing some further work we could have reached a situation where a caution could have been justified because, although the complainant in that case had expressed a view that there should be no action taken against her boyfriend, it does appear to me, at least, that she was not being obstructive insofar as she has actually given a verbal account and signed the pocket book. Whether she would have been prepared to go that one stage further and sign the written statement, I do not know, but it is possible that with some more work we could have reached that situation where a caution would have been appropriate.'

Had Huntley received a police caution, he would have been more detectable in future searches on the police's criminal intelligence database. Personally, I am less than happy at what I have learned about police incompetence in this matter.

In response to DCS Baggs's answer just quoted, a further question was put to him at the Bichard Inquiry: ‘In your view, with the benefit of hindsight, is that work that you think should desirably have been taken?'

DCS Baggs replied, ‘I do not know exactly what Mr Billam was presented with and he made a decision on all of the facts before him at the time, and maybe he had information before him that I am not in possession of.'

A follow-up question was put to DCS Baggs: ‘Thank you. Let us go to contact three, the incident number 3, which is the second of the unlawful sexual intercourse allegations that appears to have come to the attention of the police on 22 May 1996. Again, I want to concentrate on the record-keeping and creation so far as this is concerned. You have already expressed the view that it would have been desirable and helpful to have created a record on CIS Nominals in relation to incident 1. Does it follow that the substance of your answer is the same in relation to this incident, namely that although you say in 12.1: “With the information obtained from the original police officers … [Reading to the words] … in relation to this contract”, and so on, your view is that a record should have been made on
CIS Nominals in relation to this incident also? Paragraph 12, 0070 0086.'

DCS Baggs: ‘I am just trying to remind myself of the full details of contact. It is contact three we are referring to, is it not?'

Follow-up question to DCS Baggs: ‘It is. You will see in 12.1 how you deal with it. You do not express a view one way or the other. In relation to the earlier incident you had said you would not have expected it and it was not normal practice but that matter does not…'

DCS Baggs: ‘No, I remained silent on this one.'

Follow-up question to DCS Baggs: ‘Sorry, at 14.1 you say “would not be expected”. If you want to have a look at that as well, 14.1?'

DCS Baggs: ‘Yes. I say it will not be expected in this case because we did not actually get involved in the investigation at all and the decision was made by Mr Billam again to leave this matter with the Social Services, so on that basis I would not expect anyone within my organisation to submit that intelligence for entry on our criminal-intelligence system.'

Follow-up question to DCS Baggs: ‘The fact of the allegation though, in retrospect, surely, would have been information which it was important to recall? It was information about an allegation of the sort of offence in relation to which he had already made a confession nine months earlier. He had been given the sternest warning. Even though he had not been formally
cautioned, he knew the form in relation to having sex with underage girls and here he was alleged to have done it again.'

DCS Baggs: ‘Yes.'

Follow-up question to DCS Baggs: ‘It would surely have been helpful to have had some record, if only of the allegation, and with whatever specific reliability grade you chose to put on it, but some record surely would have been helpful in relation to incident 3?'

DCS Baggs: ‘Again, clearly with the benefit of hindsight then some record would have been very helpful, but at the time – and in this document I have tried to comment on what people did at the time and whether it was appropriate or not – and at that time, of course, as far as we could tell, there was no recognition of a previous incident because there was no URN, no record from the previous contact created.'

Follow-up question to DCS Baggs: ‘But it was no record, was it not? You started saying “No URN”, and corrected yourself rightly, because there was no record on CIS Nominals?'

DCS Baggs: ‘That is quite right, yes.'

When I look at all these failings and how Huntley was able to get a job working in a Cambridgeshire school with children after having been investigated over my allegation and further allegations, I am filled with disbelief. From the onset of the Soham investigation, it
took the police nearly two weeks to become aware of the previous sexual allegations against Ian Huntley. Also, early on during the investigation, his story was not even checked out as regards his whereabouts.

But this can lead on to things such as when I made the complaint to the police. I have said to this day that it was always questioned that when it came out they said they were going to get a special unit in from the police department, a lady that would come and chat with me. After all this, I thought, Thank God I am speaking to a woman or girl or whatever, and then this man rolled up and he just sat there with his notebook.

In 2004, when the investigation into my allegation was brought to light again, in tears I said to the lady, ‘What happens if I'm not believed?'

She asked, ‘Why?'

‘Because,' I said, ‘I can't remember whether I told this copper that was interviewing me or taking notes, whether he [Huntley] had inserted his fingers into me or not, because I can remember feeling embarrassed with him being a man.'

After the attack was reported to the police, to some of my family members I was the biggest whore walking. But, if that was the case, I was a dead whore walking. My soul had become pickled and lost. I endured quite a bit of spitefulness, and I don't know why. This isn't just about Huntley, it is about the whole lot of them. All are as bad as each other. I was goaded
by my brothers and even branded a cow and similar names. I saw myself as worthless and saw no way out of the mess in which I had become embedded.

Really, though, there was only one person that was able to lift me from my quagmire of misery. Nobody could make me feel the love of mankind as much as my granddad could. Forget therapists and child psychologists. What happened to the old shoulder to cry on? People have grown apart and modern living has killed off the old-style doorstep counselling.

Thinking back to when I was about 14, I don't know if Granddad knew about Huntley's attack on me. Maybe Mum told him in confidence and, if she did, he never let on. I feel, in retrospect, that he could have changed something but then sometimes I'm glad that he didn't know because it would have broken his heart knowing that somebody had done that to me.

Anyway, returning to how things have gone wrong in terms of law and order: murders, stabbings, shootings, drinking, drugging, raping, mugging. Ideally, you are brought up to learn how to respect people and their possessions and to respect and look after your own. People who are doing those bad things have not learned respect for others or themselves. They have not been mentored or shown the right way. I know that if I kicked someone's car window in I would get a fine. But these people aren't getting the right message.

By this, I mean the justice system in this country
stinks. I think they would rather punish the innocent and let the guilty just go away and carry on. I am able to say that after what has happened to me, and my experience has brought the issue to the fore for me. More understanding is given to the criminal than the victim.

Criminals should be made to pay for their crimes and made to show respect to their victim. But instead, the way the justice system works now, I think the people whose job it is to punish crime are too worried about people like Ian Huntley; they are too worried about his rights and his needs. The European Court protects that bastard's rights. Who protects mine?

He has committed a crime and he is in prison, where nobody from outside can get to him. Now if somebody from outside wanted to stab him, they wouldn't get the chance because they can't get close enough to him. Others behind bars can get him, but with every attack that is made on him – whether it's hot water thrown over him or whatever – he will sue the Prison Service and come up smelling of roses as well as receiving a big payout.

But what's to stop that sort of attack from happening to me? Who is there to protect me if anything like that happens? I know things will happen to Huntley in prison, but I would not like to see him murdered, as that is too good for him. Leave him to suffer behind bars as I am suffering, in a prison of his making. Let us see who lasts the longest. Maybe I could sue him for the
money he will win from being attacked. There's poetic justice for you.

Huntley and other supermonsters, like Ian Brady, make me feel sick. These criminals are mentally flawed by a weakness that controls them and they will never be cured, no matter how much therapy, medication or shock treatment they get. I have looked into the eyes of Huntley and survived. I know what makes him tick.

I can also say that, if Huntley had been prosecuted over one of the sexual allegations but not sent to prison, or if he had just been put on file or on the Sex Offenders' Register, he would never have got that job in that school, as he would have been more closely monitored and probably would not have had that opportunity to kill. Even so, I do believe that, given the chance, Huntley would have killed or tried to kill in order to silence his victim – it was only a matter of when – but it may not have been a double killing.