Maxine Carr

I think that Tom has succeeded in proving that he's got considerably more than an ounce of sense and isn't trying to argue that rules should only apply whenever it suits him or his cause.

Mick. In my book Tom has already showed the forum that he is a "nice guy". Anyone spending some time in "the padded cell" following discussions like these and reading your posts will soon be aware that you have some not so nice opinions to put it mildly, imo of course but judging from the reactions you get many share this view.
Bjorne

I agree with the Alexes, Matthew, and the rest. Its now time to leave her alone.

I think Mick's standpoint about punishing severely those who have not only broken the law but have stood in the way of the judicial process is a deeply disturbing one for me.

If a loved one had confessed a serious crime to me and offered some kind of mitigating circumstances that, I'd be inclined to believe, then I'd be as guilty as Maxine Carr and would probably act in the way that she did.

Such a statement as, for example: "I swear I never meant to harm them, never mind kill them them, you've gotta believe me, I really love you etc..." is not going to have you rushing to call the police and subject them to possible investigation to their detriment unless you place your loyalty to the state/due process, the Establishment and our Hallowed Leader and Big Brother Anthony B. Liar above your own loved ones.

A balance needs, however, to be maintained between absolute loyalty to the state and its legal processes, and absolute loyalty to the closer Family which in turn serves to justify a Mafia mentality in which the interests our own kinship become secondary to the law of the land and the rest of society.

I'm beginning to think Mick as a child would have shopped his own grandmother though...



Regards,

Steve.

I remember a friend once saying of a girlfriend "If she had half a brain she would be dangerous."

My reply was "She's got a quarter of a brain and she's very dangerous."

Like Maxine Carr, she wasn't bright and did some really dumg things. Fortunately she didn't do anything illegal like Maxine Carr.

Maxine Carr obviously believed Huntley when he said he didn't commit the murders, until the court case.

Possibly she was in denial, she didn't want to believe the man she loved would do something so bad. She in her mind would have felt cheated by him and betrayed by him. She trusted him and he lied to her about something as serious as murder. She would have felt angry at being made to look stupid, for a crime she didn't commit. Huntley committed the murderers after all.

True, shes not bright and she will be in fear of her life and will have to live with the guilt and knowledge that she protected a Child murderer. Ask anyone who's done time and they'll tell you there is nothing so low as a child murder. Maxine Carr unwittingly protected one and that is why a lot of people dislike her.

She has served her time, albeit only 18 months of a 3 1/2 jail sentence.

But she is out and its going to cost us a lot of money for her protection. She needs protection herself from people, who would probably kill her if they had the chance.

I remember hearing somewhere about her committing benefit fraud. If thats true, shouldn't she been fined or do time for that crime?

And benefit fraud would probably put her in prison for a lot longer than her 18 months. Like that guy who was in for 5 years for fraud and shared a cell with a murderer who got two and a half.
Money is far more important than lives!

Michael Hubbard QC, for Carr, said the prosecution "beggared belief" and had the "hand of the Home Office all over it".

Mr Latham told Nottingham Crown Court that the deception offences had come to light as a result of the Soham murder investigation.

He said under normal circumstances Carr would have been charged in the spring of 2003, but lawyers were anxious not to do anything that would affect the outcome of the Soham trial which began in the autumn of 2003.


Judge for your self;
Independent News
The Guardian

Roy T

Its ironic that her Fraudulent behaviour went unnoticed, until she was investigated as part of the Soham Murder Case.

20 benefit fraud offences totalling nearly £4000 and lying to get a Teachers Assistant job is hardly the actions of an honest person.

Lying to provide an alibi for Ian huntley would have been second nature, bearing in mind the deception involved in committing the benefit frauds.

It does seem an injustice that she has not gone to prison for her dishonesty, whereas other people have.

One thing I do find odd, a three rehabilitation order for someone who is being given a new identity and Police protection.

How is she supposed too fulfil that Rehabilitation Order?

I agree with Matthew.

Paul

If you could trust the tabloid press in this country not to stir up a cloud of hatred, then we wouldn't need to spend so much money on her protection. Unfortunately you know without this that the Sun/Mail etc would have their Child Killer lives 50 meters from your daughters school headlines in place within weeks.

I don't believe Carr is a danger to anyone, She has served her sentance, She isn't Myra Hindley.

quote:

---

Its ironic that her Fraudulent behaviour went unnoticed

---

I don’t think that it is ironic. Criminal investigation on one matter often turns up other transgressions, though I’m surprised that the CPS bothered in this case. Considering that benefit fraud is running at around £2bn yearly, a grand total of £4k over 6 years is hardly the stuff of movie scripts. This level of fraud barely gets blinked at and in the grand scheme of things is piffling.

quote:

---

Lying to provide an alibi for Ian huntley would have been second nature, bearing in mind the deception involved in committing the benefit frauds.

---

Denial of cohabitation on benefit declarations accounts for a huge amount of benefit fraud and embellishment of educational and employment records is even more popular today than ever; with people from all walks of society and class. Of course it’s wrong, all fraud is, but it’s farcical and a flight from reality to suggest that since she lied about living with her partner to get extra HB or IC or embellished her educational record to get a job in a school or a flipping fish factory then it was a smooth and predictable transition to providing an alibi for her murderous lover. Her actions are indefensible, but the suggested corollary is really quite daft, unrealistic and perfectly exemplifies why public hysteria should always be ignored in respect of individual cases.

quote:

---

It does seem an injustice that she has not gone to prison for her dishonesty, whereas other people have.

---

I’m surprised to hear that other people have been given a custodial sentence for similar charges. Is this based on anything? It might be right but it doesn’t sound right to me. As Judge Pollard said, he did max out the Order. Without knowing the details of the Order, one can’t really comment on how it will work, though I would have thought that the supervision element at least, would have been fairly easy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
[I propose a law to allow shooting of people who wire their speakers out of phase

]

---

Hang on mate, it was an honest mistake. I've got them wired correctly now.

With regard to the serious subject. I suspect that Huntley was a persuasive, controlling and probably frightening partner for Ms Carr. Several other women seem to have been under his spell in the past. She wasn't even in the same county when he comitted his crimes. I see her more as a victim than a monster.

At the time of the trials, I expressed my doubts that she needed a jail sentence at all, and was genuinely shocked and surprised by the anger this generated. I had to leave the party I was at to avoid probable physical assault. I remain confused. Why do so many people focus on some selected crimes and become so deeply emotionally involved that they want to attack anyone who doesn't agree?
Nobody seems to want to punch me for taking the piss out of speed-manics, like those posting here last week, and as a body they kill far more than two little girls. Should their partners be shamed for not shopping them to the police?