"T" Stands For "Torture" In The Brave New Gulag Archipelago
The illegal return of murder suspect Ian Huntley to secure psychiatric prison for another 28 days of drugs
and "truth therapy", highlights the reintroduction of Witch Trials and Inquisitions in the "War on Terror"

Copyright Joe Vialls, 11 September  2002

Important: Cambridgeshire Police Investigators Arrested 12 September, See Update At Bottom of This Page
There is a precedent for Huntley's psychiatric abuse. During 1996, Australian remand prisoner Martin Bryant was held in illegal strict solitary confinement for 150 days, and "helped" by psychiatrists and psychologists until he finally pleaded guilty to the Port Arthur massacre. At no time did Australian police ever try to corroborate Bryant's false "guilty" pleas
          Ian Huntley, who stands accused of the murder of British ten-year-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, was rushed from Rampton high-security psychiatric prison to a court at Peterborough in Cambridgeshire at noon on 10 September 2002. Having run the gauntlet of the obligatory media hate mob pre-positioned outside in the street, Huntley was rapidly processed through the Magistrates Court to the [higher] Crown Court in less that one hour, an all time record for the British legal system which normally allows eight days for this process.
           Once in the Crown Court, Huntley was charged with attempted “Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”, for allegedly lying to police during their investigations. Having been charged with this further startling offence, Ian Huntley was immediately remanded back to Rampton high security psychiatric prison for a further 28 days of psychiatric evaluation.
            Not one single British newspaper or television network tried to explain this extraordinary move to the public, though some of the brighter reporters did note a change in Huntley himself, who has been completely at the mercy of the shrinks in Rampton Gulag since 20 August:  “Huntley looked gaunt and has lost weight since his arrest just over three weeks ago. His face is spotty and he has grey steaks in his hair. He is a shadow of the stocky man who appeared on TV a month ago to say he was one of the last people to see the girls alive.” The ways in which Huntley has been psychologically tortured to bring about these dramatic changes in his appearance, will be explained in detail later in this report.
           By using the Crown Court in this deplorable way to bring a further charge against Huntley, police have actually revealed plenty about their lack of progress in the case. If the shrinks had been able to force a false confession out of Ian Huntley, the police would have visited Rampton in a flash, obtained his signature and sent him to Wormwood Scrubs Prison for life. You see, under British law if a suspect pleads “guilty” there is no need for a trial. Such a result would be very useful in a politically supercharged case like this, where the naked bodies of the two little girls were actually found close to the boundary fence of the controversial USAF base at Lakenheath.
           Technically speaking, the police and courts have also erred seriously in law. When Ian Huntley was first committed to Rampton on 20 September 2002 under the Mental Health Act 1983, it was for the express and sole purpose of evaluating whether or not he was psychologically fit to plead. The police “investigation” was thus completely suspended at that precise point in time. If police considered that Huntley had lied to them during their earlier investigation, they should have charged him with conspiracy when they charged him with murder. Period.
           So unwittingly perhaps, senior officers of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary have demonstrated their total lack of  evidence in the case, and also their earnest desire that the shrinks should wring a confession out of Huntley one way or the other. Remember, “guilty” pleas mean no embarrassing trial for the investigators. At the same time, girlfriend Maxine Carr has been remanded back to her personal hell in Holloway Prison, in order that she may be frightened and/or physically coerced into telling police the “new” truth about Ian Huntley. Remember, even the Spanish Inquisition liked to have a tame witness ready to denounce the prime suspect.
           There is no doubt that Maxine’s treatment has already been used as a weapon against him in Rampton, and 
Ian Huntley is obviously very concerned about his girlfriend’s plight, a reality inadvertently noted by a reporter in the court: “He showed no emotion as Karim Khalil outlined the prosecution case, describing how the disappearance of the two 10-year-olds from Soham, Cambridgeshire, on 4 August had started a ‘growing and substantial hunt ... to discover their whereabouts’. Only once did Huntley seem to break his apparently trance-like state. He stared in the direction of the judge after Maxine Carr's name was mentioned.”  And this from another reporter:  “He [Huntley] became agitated when the name of Carr, charged with attempting to pervert justice, was read out. His eyes darted to a barrister, and he began to rub his nose and flick his head back.”
           Less than a month ago we all saw Ian Huntley on television, confident and relaxed, talking to reporters about the two girls and the fact that [from the apparent timing of their disappearance], he may have been the last person in Soham to talk to them before they vanished. Exactly how such a confident man could be reduced to the dazed state exhibited in the court after a “mere” three weeks in a psychiatric institution, may at first seem difficult to understand, but please be patient, all will be explained shortly.
            As a man charged with an offence but not yet convicted, Ian Huntley would have been held as a “remand” prisoner in a standard prison while awaiting trial. He would have been allowed to wear his own clothes, make telephone calls to the outside world and receive plenty of visitors. Clearly this relatively relaxed atmosphere could not be manipulated to bring extreme pressure to bear on Huntley, so the Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the Home Office in London conspired to have him committed under the Mental Health Act 1983. Once committed, the safeguards protecting a remand prisoner were completely removed, allowing the shrinks to have a field day.
           Immediately after arrival at Rampton high security psychiatric prison, Ian Huntley was forcibly stripped of his watch, other personal possessions, and all of his clothing  including his underwear. Thereafter he was allowed to wear only a knee length blue smock, and was then placed in an isolation cell on “suicide watch” with the lights burning brightly 24-hours every day.  A team of five psychiatric personnel were assigned the duty of “observing” and “evaluating” Huntley, a man whose entire world had just been turned upside down by them personally.
           Ian Huntley no longer had his watch, so he was unable to keep track of time. He had no outside window in the cell, so in turn could not judge whether it was night or day.  He was forced to wear a knee-length women’s dress with no underwear beneath, designed to heighten his sense of vulnerability and thus compliance with commands issued by the Rampton shrinks. .
           Would these deceptively simple procedures be enough to generate lasting psychological damage within a three week period? Oh yes, they certainly would, because the procedure used on Ian Huntley precisely mimics one of the most notorious psychological experiments of all time. Now known generically as “The Zimbardo Prison Study”, the experiment was conducted in the basement of Stanford University during late 1971, in the wake of the San Quentin and Attica prison riots.
Rare original photographs from the Zimbardo Prison Study, August 1971
Note the male "Prisoner" in the knee length smock, exactly the same as Ian Huntley in Rampton
          In less than a week the experiment went catastrophically wrong, and from that day forward the procedures used became a complete “no go zone” for psychiatrists and psychologists alike. Rest assured that every lousy shrink, psychologist and mental nurse in Rampton knows about the Zimbardo Experiment, its consequences, and the fact that the procedures are banned from use in psychiatry and clinical psychology. They ignored and continue to ignore the bans where Ian Huntley is concerned. Just how devastating the Zimbardo Experiment was, and must be for Huntley now, is shown here briefly through the eyes of a participating psychologist:
           “On Sunday morning, Aug., 17, 1971, nine young men were ‘arrested’ in their homes by Palo Alto police. At least one of those arrested vividly remembers the shock of having his neighbors come out to watch the commotion as TV cameras recorded his hand-cuffing for the nightly news. The arrestees were among about 70 young men, mostly college students eager to earn $15 a day for two weeks, who volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison life that had been advertised in the Palo Alto Times.
            “After interviews and a battery of psychological tests, the two dozen judged to be the most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate, assigned randomly either to be guards or prisoners. Those who would be prisoners were booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and driven to campus where they were led into a makeshift prison in the basement of Jordan Hall. Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms and instructed that they were not to use violence but that their job was to maintain control of the prison.
           “From the perspective of the researchers, the experiment became exciting on day two when the prisoners staged a revolt. Once the guards had crushed the rebellion,  ‘they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanization of the prisoners,’ Zimbardo recalls. ‘The staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics,’ he said, and the worst instances of abuse occurred in the middle of the night when the guards thought the staff was not watching. The guards' treatment of the prisoners ‘resulted in extreme stress reactions that forced us to release five prisoners, one a day, prematurely.’ ”
           On day six the entire experiment, planned to run for two weeks,  had to be terminated completely because of spiraling violence among the guards and acute stress among the prisoners. One of the psychologists who was involved in the experiment as an observer, later wrote: “I was sick to my stomach. When it's happening to you, it doesn't feel heroic; it feels real scary. It feels like you are a deviant.”
          Details of the experiment are well known. They are included in most basic psychology texts and in a public television psychology course, "Discovering Psychology," that Zimbardo wrote and narrates. Movie rights have been optioned, "60 Minutes" has filmed a segment on the experiment, and even a punk rock band in Los Angeles calls itself Stanford Prison Experiment.
           As you might expect, Ian Huntley is not the only man to have these obscene techniques used against him in the 21st Century.  Hidden from sight down in Cuba, hundreds of illegal prisoners are being subjected to almost identical treatment by US Government shrinks, psychologists and Military Police, the last of whom should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Also within federal American jurisdiction are more than 1,000 “disappeared” prisoners locked up after 9/11, whose names the White House refuses to release. Why the refusal?
Torture Victims in Camp X Ray, Cuba
          In Australia during 1996 we had the famous case of Martin Bryant, the intellectually impaired young man accused of slaughtering 35 victims at Port Arthur. Police had not a single scrap of forensic or any other evidence linking Bryant to Port Arthur, so  psychiatrists and forensic psychologists were tasked with forcing “guilty” pleas out of Bryant, one way or the other. Remember, as with Ian Huntley in England, guilty pleas mean no embarrassing trial for investigators who have no evidence.
           Though spared the humiliating woman’s dress, remand prisoner Bryant got everything else they could throw at him. For nearly 150 days straight he was illegally confined to a small windowless cell, and deprived of all forms of contact and stimulation including television, radio and newspapers. After nearly six months of denying any involvement in the crimes, Bryant finally cracked during November 1996 and said “guilty” in return for a television set in his cell, and the promise of an early release. His lawyer and mother were not allowed to be present at his interrogation, despite his intellectually impaired status. For more on the Bryant story click here.
           Disturbing for many is the rapidly expanding power of psychiatrists and psychologists in areas where they  have no expert or even useful input, for example the police forces of certain western nations. In many jurisdictions these psycho-babblers have the authority to order serving officers to submit to “counseling” when the officers do not want orneed it,  and in other jurisdictions they have what can only be described as “awesome” powers.
           For example, in one Australian police jurisdiction the Chief Psychologist has an absolute power of veto over any applicant who wishes to join the police service, and routinely fails nearly one third of all potential recruits, despite the fact they have already been security checked, and have passed their academic and physical examinations. Those he fails are frequently well qualified academically, high spirited, and have significant leadership qualities which later in their careers would be a marked advantage at senior rank level. To an outsider, the psychological ambition appears to be limiting operational police posts to those who can be relied on to carry out any and all orders, legal or illegal, without question.
            Almost without us realizing it, over the past decade the western world has been steadily [and stealthily] moving towards a post-Orwellian environment, where white is black, or indeed any other color selected at will by the mandarins or senators in power. It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyday folk that Ian Huntley, Maxine Carr, Martin Bryant, and thousands of other people mostly incarcerated in American and Israeli prisons, are there for purely political reasons.
           Ironically perhaps, this is much the same scenario that existed during the fall of the first Roman Empire. Some people had to be blamed for the catastrophes befalling the Empire, while others had to be blamed for bizarre political murders conducted on the orders of the Emperor and the Senate. The first few hundred “inquisitions” did not take place in Spain as most people fondly imagine, but in Rome. I need hardly mention that the destruction of the twin towers in New York on 11 September 2001, marked the beginning of the fall of second Roman Empire.
           The plight of political prisoners should not be forgotten by any of us, and all readers should do what they can to secure the prompt release of Ian Huntley, Maxine Carr, Martin Bryant and all of the other prisoners  in Cuba, America and Israel, whose names we do not yet know. It seems unlikely that shrinks will suddenly stop the abuse of their prisoners, and even more unlikely that politicians will ask them to stop.
           Psychiatric control is all too convenient for those committed to the abuse of power, which is probably why Doctor Jose Delgado, Director of  Neuropsychiatry at Yale University Medical School, was not thrown out of the US Congress back on 24 February 1974, for his unconventional [some might say insane] statements. It seems right to leave you here with what the “eminent” Doctor Delgado advised American politicians:
          “We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.
           "The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
           “Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain." … Congressional Record, No 26, Vol. 118
Update Friday 13 September 2002
Police Officers from Soham Investigation Arrested on Suspicion of Child Pornography
          According to the BBC, Detective Constable Brian Stevens and one other unnamed officer from the team investigating the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, were arrested at 7 am yesterday on suspicion of child pornography offences, apparently detected by the child pornography monitoring American “Operation Candyman” run by the FBI with CIA assistance. Tips from Candyman are routed through the British police anti-pornography unit at the Home Office, code-named Operation Ore.
            DC Stevens was one of four family liaison officers made available to the families 24-hours-a-day, from the time Holly and Jessica went missing on 4 August, and he also read out a poem at the memorial service for Jessica and her best friend Holly Wells. The other officer arrested, of unknown rank, also worked on the inquiry into the girls' deaths.
           While only a fool would completely rule out possible guilt where either of these two officers are concerned, it must be said that the timing of the arrests was extremely useful for people in high places. With no case against Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr, and none likely in the foreseeable future, media attention might eventually wander towards the huge USAF base at Lakenheath, where the bodies of the two girls were found.
           With Prime Minister Tony Blair psyching-up an unpopular attack on Iraq in which USAF Lakenheath and nearby USAF Mildenhall would play pivotal roles, the power brokers in London and Washington simply could not afford a scandal involving either base. Putting two local police officers in the frame, whether they are guilty or innocent, will certainly deflect attention away from Lakenheath and Mildenhall – at least for a while.     
          Though this analysis is obviously speculative, it is certainly no more speculative than suddenly arresting two officers on suspicion of child pornography offences,  when the real shock-wave of  “Operation Candyman” arrests in Britain and Australia took place more than four months ago, during May 2002.
          Furthermore, if these two officers had been genuine suspects at that time, Operation Ore would have taken discreet steps to have them sidelined into non-operational work, certainly well away from any controversial investigation into the two missing ten-year-old girls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
           Curiously perhaps, the two officers were apparently arrested  “on suspicion of inciting others to distribute indecent photographs of children - an offence contrary to common law”. This does not necessarily mean that any such “incitement” would require the use of computer equipment located in their homes or offices. The officers could, for example, have been “framed” by an informant calling Operation Candyman in America on the telephone, or by anyone sending an email or facsimile.
           Cambridgeshire's Acting Deputy Chief Constable Keith Hoddy - the man in charge of the Holly and Jessica operation – decided to call in an outside force to investigate, which is normal enough in these cases. West Midlands Police will conduct the investigation under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority at the Home Office.
           Check the timeline with me here. Large number of Candyman arrests were made in May 2002, but not these two officers. In August 2002 the same two officers were heavily engaged in the hunt for Holly and Jessica, without being discreetly excluded by Operation Ore. By late August and in early September both officers were heavily involved with the parents of the dead children, but were still not discreetly removed by Operation Ore.
           On Tuesday 10 September Ian Huntley appeared in Peterborough court, and despite the psychiatric abuse he has suffered at Rampton, refused to plead “guilty” to the two murders. He was immediately remanded back to Rampton for another 28 days in La La Land, but essentially the game was up. Sooner rather than later the bored  media would start looking around for other more likely suspects.
           Wednesday 11 September was the anniversary of the attack on New York, with most people in America quietly sobbing into their handkerchiefs, so what were the FBI or CIA doing putting through a call to Operation Ore about these two “suddenly” suspicious officers, right in the middle of tear jerking ceremonies being held across the length and breadth of the USA?. Gee, it must have been important! Or perhaps it was just simple agency concern about the ongoing availability of the twin bases at Lakenheath and Mildenhall for George W. Bush.
           Then very neatly at 7 am on Thursday 12 September, a mere two days after Ian Huntley stubbornly refused to take the drop for crimes he did not commit, Detective Constable Stevens and his colleague were arrested. The Police Complaints Authority became involved immediately, which from memory it normally only does if a complaint is laid before it by an individual, or by the Inspectorate of Constabulary at the  Home Office.
          With an independent constabulary involved, and especially the very heavy Police Complaints Authority, there is absolutely no chance of either officer being cleared overnight, so to speak. If only because of the onerous paperwork involved, the investigation of the Soham officers will take weeks rather than days. This page will be updated as and when there is something to report, but for the moment at least, and unless hard evidence is presented, my money is on the two officers being used as deliberate decoys.