No, so tabloid vigilantes would not attack someone else they believed to be her. Anyway, Tracey Connely was not given a new identity (rightly so) and swans around town without incident.
It's because vigilantes are a bit stupid and revenge-obsessed that new identities have to be given, especially when a criminal's face has been all over the tabloids. I still remember what Maxine Carr looked like but I've no idea what Tracey Connely was even in for.
She wouldn't have needed one if the tabloids hadn't have tried to make her the most hated woman in Britain. ...
It's hard to disagree with this - in any case I always felt the murders had an extraordinary amount of publicity from the tabloids trying to out-do each other.
From this I do understand Biffo's comment earlier in the thread about crimes the tabloids treat as their occasional big-ticket items and without looking at the actual figures wonder how many other such murders (and perpetrators) escape the larger publicity.
Along with many others I followed the Soham murders trial very closely back in 2003; the Court transcripts were broadcast live on TV.
Maxine Car was given three-and-a-half years for conspiring to pervert the course of justice but cleared of two counts of assisting an offender.
However, I really believe one should not denigrate the very significant part played by Maxine Carr during the aftermath of Huntleys actions.
During her trial the court heard that after her arrest, she admitted she’d been lying throughout the fortnight since the girls disappeared.
The murdered children’s cause (and time) of death was never fully established due to the state of the corpses;.... Asphyxia was cited as the 'likely cause'.
There was even mention at the time that one of the children may possibly have been still alive when Huntley left their ‘bound’ bodies hidden in undergrowth. Days later he returned to burn the ‘evidence’.
Had it been shown (which it wasn’t by the way) that one, or both, of the children may have been alive for a few days after their abduction/disposal then Maxine Carr’s duplicity and lies would certainly have had far more significance.
In his 2003 trial Ian Huntley pleaded not-guilty to the two murders but was eventually found guilty by a ‘majority verdict’.
The jury was initially ‘hung’ because some brain-dead numpty juror (that’s a legal term by the way) chose to believe Huntleys incredulous version of the events of that dreadful crime;......several years later Huntley admitted to the murder of both children.
The evil monster that is Ian Huntley was given a life sentence. Maxine Carr was given 3.5 years;......was she just another ‘victim’ of the whole episode?......not in my opinion she wasn’t.
Whether Maxine Carr ever knew, or even suspected, that Huntley had abducted and killed those children was never established. Opinions vary on that score.
However, she most certainly was (unwittingly or otherwise), a willing and duplicitous player in one of the most heinous crimes in living memory and for that she fully deserved her time in prison, IMHO;
............ whether her sentence was too lenient (or too harsh) will always be a moot point, I guess.
P.S. she actually served 21-months in jail;.... which included 16-months on remand.
I too followed it with interest and whilst I understand where you are coming from my opinion remains the same.
No one needs to be told what a heinous crime Huntley committed but I think the vilification of Carr has been largely as a result of the sins of her boyfriend and the nature of the media reporting towards her.
When you break it down she was stupid and naive but lying for someone you believe you love and trust was her crime. I don't have a problem whatsoever with her prison sentence, but the reaction from many towards her, including from in this very thread is OTT and ill judged.A lot of the reaction I believe is purely guilt by association.
If you look not just at this trial but at the history of Huntley and his abusive controlling relationships, you may get a better understanding of the type of dynamic between them. This doesn't excuse someone lying of course, but it helps when looking at the bigger picture.
To say that she was 'a willing and duplicitous player in one of the most heinous crimes of the century' is massively overplaying her part, somewhat hyperbolic, and not too dissimilar from the irresponsible nature of a lot of the reporting on her.
It's hard to disagree with this - in any case I always felt the murders had an extraordinary amount of publicity from the tabloids trying to out-do each other.
From this I do understand Biffo's comment earlier in the thread about crimes the tabloids treat as their occasional big-ticket items and without looking at the actual figures wonder how many other such murders (and perpetrators) escape the larger publicity.
I wouldn't like to live in a world where the disappearance and murder of two little girls by a man who worked in their school didn't attract publicity. Don't you remember the massive search when they disappeared? Then the horror at the state of the bodies when they were found? And Huntly with his big moon face giving interviews and being helpful? And Cafr lying and lying and lying for Huntly? Such a liar she was - didn't she give him a false alibi in a previous case and maybe the Soham murders would never have happened if she hadn't. And what were all those phone calls between her and him on the day of the murders about? No wonder the Press went after her.
She's served her time, though, and should ve left alone but the new identity is almost a provocation to track her down.. And innocent women have been harassed when wrongly identified as Carr.
However, it wasn't the Press made her a hage figure - she did that all by herself.
I wouldn't like to live in a world where the disappearance and murder of two little girls by a man who worked in their school didn't attract publicity. Don't you remember the massive search when they disappeared? Then the horror at the state of the bodies when they were found? And Huntly with his big moon face giving interviews and being helpful? And Cafr lying and lying and lying for Huntly? Such a liar she was - didn't she give him a false alibi in a previous case and maybe the Soham murders would never have happened if she hadn't. And what were all those phone calls between her and him on the day of the murders about? No wonder the Press went after her.
She's served her time, though, and should ve left alone but the new identity is almost a provocation to track her down.. And innocent women have been harassed when wrongly identified as Carr.
However, it wasn't the Press made her a hage figure - she did that all by herself.
Yes, it was. You might not want to believe that, but it definitely was.
I wouldn't like to live in a world where the disappearance and murder of two little girls by a man who worked in their school didn't attract publicity. Don't you remember the massive search when they disappeared? Then the horror at the state of the bodies when they were found? And Huntly with his big moon face giving interviews and being helpful? And Cafr lying and lying and lying for Huntly? Such a liar she was - didn't she give him a false alibi in a previous case and maybe the Soham murders would never have happened if she hadn't. And what were all those phone calls between her and him on the day of the murders about? No wonder the Press went after her.
She's served her time, though, and should ve left alone but the new identity is almost a provocation to track her down.. And innocent women have been harassed when wrongly identified as Carr.
However, it wasn't the Press made her a hage figure - she did that all by herself.
I think the problem with the press is that no matter how tragic and horrific a case is, there's the urge to whip them up to be even more tragic and horrific - and to eke them out to fill the rolling news. When the search was on for Holly and Jessica, did we really the blanket coverage often of nothing at all or a rehash of the last 10 minute update just worded slightly differently?
As their recent payouts show, it's not actually up to the press to go after anyone at all in cases like this.
... Don't you remember the massive search when they disappeared? ...
Yes, I distinctly remember 99% of the country all joining in and being really helpful in the search on a daily front page basis.
I was not objecting to there being publicity, my question was whether this case had more or less publicity than any other child murder and whether any had been 'missed', directly or indirectly as a result of this and reactions to it.
Sorry Penny but your attitude has stunk throughout this thread for no reason. Sarcastic and belittling. I am glad someone else has noticed.
I have simply stated my opinion like everyone else. That's what we all do - if people find it sarcastic and belittling there's not much I can do. I have simply posted my opinion - as we all do.
Yes, it was. You might not want to believe that, but it definitely was.
I think it's best to have the opinion that the press don't actually care about the story as such - just getting the next news bulletin or headline to keep people watching/buying them rather than their competitors. They seemed to actually want another Hindley or West to give an extra frisson and the reality of a rather sad, naive and browbeaten woman didn't fit their narrative.
How they acted in the Soham case set the framework for how they carried on in others. With Soham they could get away with it because as it turned out they were guilty of various things. In other cases they used the same template for people who turned out to be completely innocent - and that's when they had their fingers burnt.
I have simply stated my opinion like everyone else. That's what we all do - if people find it sarcastic and belittling there's not much I can do. I have simply posted my opinion - as we all do.
You told me I got my opinion from the red tops. How is that not belittling?
I disagree with your opinion on this issue but it doesn't make mine any less valid.
You told me I got my opinion from the red tops. How is that not belittling?
I disagree with your opinion on this issue but it doesn't make mine any less valid.
Did I say it was less valid?
You appear to have a problem with anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I am simply stating my opinion on the case - it's you who's calling out everyone for having a different view.
I don't have an ounce of sympathy for maxine carr and if she's being harassed now I don't care. I do care about the two innocent children murdered and her active role in helping her lover. I do care about those girls parents and family left behind and their grief. I do care about a village full of people that thought their children were safe. But Maxine Carr? No sorry not an ounce, not 1.
I too followed it with interest and whilst I understand where you are coming from my opinion remains the same.
No one needs to be told what a heinous crime Huntley committed but I think the vilification of Carr has been largely as a result of the sins of her boyfriend and the nature of the media reporting towards her.
When you break it down she was stupid and naive but lying for someone you believe you love and trust was her crime. I don't have a problem whatsoever with her prison sentence, but the reaction from many towards her, including from in this very thread is OTT and ill judged.A lot of the reaction I believe is purely guilt by association.
If you look not just at this trial but at the history of Huntley and his abusive controlling relationships, you may get a better understanding of the type of dynamic between them. This doesn't excuse someone lying of course, but it helps when looking at the bigger picture.
To say that she was 'a willing and duplicitous player in one of the most heinous crimes of the century' is massively overplaying her part, somewhat hyperbolic, and not too dissimilar from the irresponsible nature of a lot of the reporting on her.
Firstly, if you are going to say I’m being ‘somewhat hyperbolic’ and ‘massively overplaying’ Carr’s part in the events then please quote my ‘massive (and irresponsible) overstatements’ correctly.
I wrote ; ”one of the most heinous crimes in living memory”;.....I did not write “one of the most heinous crimes of the century”
Secondly, Maxine Carr WAS very ‘willing’ AND ‘duplicitous’ in her naive and ill-judged support of Huntley.
That is why she was given a 3.5 year sentence;.... nothing ‘hyperbolic’ or ‘massively overstated’ about that.
Firstly, if you are going to say I’m being ‘somewhat hyperbolic’ and ‘massively overplaying’ Carr’s part in the events then please quote my ‘massive (and irresponsible) overstatements’ correctly.
I wrote ; ”one of the most heinous crimes in living memory”;.....I did not write “one of the most heinous crimes of the century”
Secondly, Maxine Carr WAS very ‘willing’ AND ‘duplicitous’ in her naive and ill-judged support of Huntley.
That is why she was given a 3.5 year sentence;.... nothing ‘hyperbolic’ or ‘massively overstated’ about that.
'In living memory'/ 'of the century'. Potato. Po Tar Toe.
I would say that calling a crime " one of the most heinous crimes in living memory " is a very good example of hyperbole
This in an era of Hungerford, Christie, West, Shipman, Dunblane, Sutcliffe, Nilsen, 7/7, Etc.
Whether it’s hyperbola to call a criminal act “one of the most heinous crimes in living memory" pretty much depends on the nature of the crime in question I guess, Monty;
......you’ve listed a host of other very high profile ‘heinous’ crimes that were committed within ‘living memory’.
Hyperbola notwithstanding, the Soham murders were undoubtedly heinous and very high-profile;.....that’s why they are still being debated 13 years on.
It's complete rubbish as far as Maxine's crime is concerned.
I think you’ve picked up the wrong end of the stick there, zx50.
I don’t believe any rational person would say that Maxine Carr’s specific role (for which she was convicted) could ever be called one of the most heinous crimes in living memory.
That particular phrase (with regard to my posts anyway) appertains solely to Huntley.
No she didn't. She was seen cleaning the kitchen. Anyway, since when is it a crime to clean your kitchen?
What she knew and the ridiculous idea that she stopped lying after his guilt was clear. It seems obvious to me that she continued to lie to the police and court but in order to protect herself and sanitise her reputation.
Maxine Carr was seen sobbing as she peered into the boot of Ian Huntley's car two days after Holly and Jessica vanished, the Soham trial jury was told.
Just after 2pm on the Monday a bus driver picked up a woman he later identified as Ms Carr in Grimsby. They got talking. She said she was from Soham and knew the girls who had gone missing.
Mr Latham claimed that when Ms Carr was interviewed after her arrest she said it was not until 4.30pm that Mr Huntley told her the names of the girls who had vanished.
Next day the search for the girls continued. During a break, a junior caretaker went into Mr Huntley and Ms Carr's house for a drink. He claimed Ms Carr was in the kitchen scrubbing the tiles so hard that she was complaining she was rubbing the pattern off.
The jury has been told that Mr Huntley "sanitised" his car by cleaning it thoroughly and when police visited the house the day after the girls' disappearance they noticed a strong smell of a "lemony cleaning product".
You appear to have a problem with anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I am simply stating my opinion on the case - it's you who's calling out everyone for having a different view.
Have a word with yourself.
:D:D
If you can show me where I said your opinion was wrong ill admit it but I never did. My tone was also far more polite aswell.
Comments
It's because vigilantes are a bit stupid and revenge-obsessed that new identities have to be given, especially when a criminal's face has been all over the tabloids. I still remember what Maxine Carr looked like but I've no idea what Tracey Connely was even in for.
From this I do understand Biffo's comment earlier in the thread about crimes the tabloids treat as their occasional big-ticket items and without looking at the actual figures wonder how many other such murders (and perpetrators) escape the larger publicity.
I too followed it with interest and whilst I understand where you are coming from my opinion remains the same.
No one needs to be told what a heinous crime Huntley committed but I think the vilification of Carr has been largely as a result of the sins of her boyfriend and the nature of the media reporting towards her.
When you break it down she was stupid and naive but lying for someone you believe you love and trust was her crime. I don't have a problem whatsoever with her prison sentence, but the reaction from many towards her, including from in this very thread is OTT and ill judged.A lot of the reaction I believe is purely guilt by association.
If you look not just at this trial but at the history of Huntley and his abusive controlling relationships, you may get a better understanding of the type of dynamic between them. This doesn't excuse someone lying of course, but it helps when looking at the bigger picture.
To say that she was 'a willing and duplicitous player in one of the most heinous crimes of the century' is massively overplaying her part, somewhat hyperbolic, and not too dissimilar from the irresponsible nature of a lot of the reporting on her.
I wouldn't like to live in a world where the disappearance and murder of two little girls by a man who worked in their school didn't attract publicity. Don't you remember the massive search when they disappeared? Then the horror at the state of the bodies when they were found? And Huntly with his big moon face giving interviews and being helpful? And Cafr lying and lying and lying for Huntly? Such a liar she was - didn't she give him a false alibi in a previous case and maybe the Soham murders would never have happened if she hadn't. And what were all those phone calls between her and him on the day of the murders about? No wonder the Press went after her.
She's served her time, though, and should ve left alone but the new identity is almost a provocation to track her down.. And innocent women have been harassed when wrongly identified as Carr.
However, it wasn't the Press made her a hage figure - she did that all by herself.
Yes, it was. You might not want to believe that, but it definitely was.
I think the problem with the press is that no matter how tragic and horrific a case is, there's the urge to whip them up to be even more tragic and horrific - and to eke them out to fill the rolling news. When the search was on for Holly and Jessica, did we really the blanket coverage often of nothing at all or a rehash of the last 10 minute update just worded slightly differently?
As their recent payouts show, it's not actually up to the press to go after anyone at all in cases like this.
I was not objecting to there being publicity, my question was whether this case had more or less publicity than any other child murder and whether any had been 'missed', directly or indirectly as a result of this and reactions to it.
Also, Huntley didn't work at their school.
I have simply stated my opinion like everyone else. That's what we all do - if people find it sarcastic and belittling there's not much I can do. I have simply posted my opinion - as we all do.
I think it's best to have the opinion that the press don't actually care about the story as such - just getting the next news bulletin or headline to keep people watching/buying them rather than their competitors. They seemed to actually want another Hindley or West to give an extra frisson and the reality of a rather sad, naive and browbeaten woman didn't fit their narrative.
How they acted in the Soham case set the framework for how they carried on in others. With Soham they could get away with it because as it turned out they were guilty of various things. In other cases they used the same template for people who turned out to be completely innocent - and that's when they had their fingers burnt.
You told me I got my opinion from the red tops. How is that not belittling?
I disagree with your opinion on this issue but it doesn't make mine any less valid.
Did I say it was less valid?
You appear to have a problem with anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I am simply stating my opinion on the case - it's you who's calling out everyone for having a different view.
Have a word with yourself.
Firstly, if you are going to say I’m being ‘somewhat hyperbolic’ and ‘massively overplaying’ Carr’s part in the events then please quote my ‘massive (and irresponsible) overstatements’ correctly.
I wrote ; ”one of the most heinous crimes in living memory”;.....I did not write “one of the most heinous crimes of the century”
Secondly, Maxine Carr WAS very ‘willing’ AND ‘duplicitous’ in her naive and ill-judged support of Huntley.
That is why she was given a 3.5 year sentence;.... nothing ‘hyperbolic’ or ‘massively overstated’ about that.
'In living memory'/ 'of the century'. Potato. Po Tar Toe.
The rest of my points remain.
This in an era of Hungerford, Christie, West, Shipman, Dunblane, Sutcliffe, Nilsen, 7/7, Etc.
No she didn't. She was seen cleaning the kitchen. Anyway, since when is it a crime to clean your kitchen?
Yes his favorite film was the old deer hunter..
Yeah, that's not exactly scrubbing the house from top to bottom.
Whether it’s hyperbola to call a criminal act “one of the most heinous crimes in living memory" pretty much depends on the nature of the crime in question I guess, Monty;
......you’ve listed a host of other very high profile ‘heinous’ crimes that were committed within ‘living memory’.
Hyperbola notwithstanding, the Soham murders were undoubtedly heinous and very high-profile;.....that’s why they are still being debated 13 years on.
It's complete rubbish as far as Maxine's crime is concerned.
I think you’ve picked up the wrong end of the stick there, zx50.
I don’t believe any rational person would say that Maxine Carr’s specific role (for which she was convicted) could ever be called one of the most heinous crimes in living memory.
That particular phrase (with regard to my posts anyway) appertains solely to Huntley.
What she knew and the ridiculous idea that she stopped lying after his guilt was clear. It seems obvious to me that she continued to lie to the police and court but in order to protect herself and sanitise her reputation.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/07/soham.ukcrime
If you can show me where I said your opinion was wrong ill admit it but I never did. My tone was also far more polite aswell.
Maybe you should have a word with yourself penny