Huntley

[michaelH]

A law professor writes:

Given that Maxine Carr was acquitted on the charges of knowingly assisting an offender, the jury clearly were not satisfied that she knew or even believed him to be guilty when she lied to the police. The jury might just possibly have got that wrong, but I doubt it. I would have reached the same conclusion as they did. That being the case, the sentence imposed on her was pretty harsh. Had it not been such a high profile case (and not all murder cases are) she would probably have got rather less. Her lawyers had told her to expect no more than 30 months, which would have meant her immediate release, given time already served.

She was a fool and she certainly acted wrongly, but her punishment has been very severe and her vilification by some tabloid newspapers is pretty sickening. Huntley had battered and dominated her for years, and yet she still believed in him. Poor sad woman. Has she not suffered enough already?

To give you some context, three and a half years would not have been out of line if she herself had been guilty of manslaughter as a result of a deliberate criminal act such as assault (ie the kind of crime Huntley admitted committing). Earlier this year a husband who battered his unfaithful wife to death with an iron bar (he hit her with it over 70 times and pretended it was a burglar who did it) got away with just four years for manslaughter (reduced on appeal from an orginal 6 years which the C of A said was 'too severe') but what if anythng did our tabloid press make of that. Did they even notice?

As for revealing past offences at trial, sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is done. It can now be done even where the defendant has previously been acquitted of that other crime, but only where it is now pretty obvious that the guy is a serial offender who was just lucky the previous times. I think the prosecution might well have considered using Huntley's past as evidence in their case, but decided it was too marginal and that they could nail him without having to go down that route - as of course they did. But did you notice that one of the jurors was not prepared to convict him on the evidence given? How credulous can one get?

[Monster-Mat]

Given that Maxine Carr was acquitted on the charges of knowingly assisting an offender, the jury clearly were not satisfied that she knew or even believed him to be guilty when she lied to the police. The jury might just possibly have got that wrong, but I doubt it. I would have reached the same conclusion as they did. That being the case, the sentence imposed on her was pretty harsh. Had it not been such a high profile case (and not all murder cases are) she would probably have got rather less. Her lawyers had told her to expect no more than 30 months, which would have meant her immediate release, given time already served.

She was a fool and she certainly acted wrongly, but her punishment has been very severe and her vilification by some tabloid newspapers is pretty sickening. Huntley had battered and dominated her for years, and yet she still believed in him. Poor sad woman. Has she not suffered enough already

i agree totally, i think she was truely very messed up mentally .....

i also think it wrong, that in all TV and paper reports, there images are shown together, its now known she took no part in this tragedy.

her only crime was sticking up for the only person who actually gave her the time of day.......how misguided she was.

[Steve]

her problem is that she is living a life sentance for being associated with it... what happens when she is released?

[mudzs]

I would think a new name and she will move a long way from were it happend .and of course a lot of therapy for her obvious mental state.

[UKPulse]

Well, there have been reports on the radio that she could get plastic surgery (paid for by the tax payer) to change her appearance.

When all is said and done, yes Maxine was a victim herself to an extent, but in the end it was her choice to give him an alibi. The two girls and their parents had no choice, and it is the parents who now have to come to terms with her walking free in a few months time.

[jac114]

I like Mudzs would goe to any lenght to make sure he stopped breathing if it was one of my kids..

and I would make sure I could do it in the most painfull way possible even if it was after 26 yrs.. and as this is not the carpark I cannot goe into some of the things i would do to him.. :shutit:

[flotsam]

Life is only 26 years in this country.  If they are good and the judge hasn't said they must serve at least life, they could be out in 12 yrs!!  How is that justice.

Actually, that thug that raped and murdered two Spanish Girls after doing similar in London was let out in less than 10 years.

The death penalty DEFINITELY should be brought back. Even if it is never used and stops 1 murder then it's done its job. Regardless, it should always be an option for the judge to use and for him to decide whether it's appropriate on a case by case basis. The Tories are right to want it back for serial killers.

The reason the MPs don't bring it back is because they'd have to think twice before doing some of the dodgy things they do. I'm sure Prescott's involved in the railway 'accidents' that re-nationalised Railtrack.

[kev dood]

if she knew he did it then she should have gone to the police. Would you want to be with someone who you know has committed a crime like this - think not.

GUILTY - stupidity is not a defence!

[michaelH]

No Kev: stupidity may not be a defence in itself, but a stupid mistake may be, because if, as in Maxine's case, you are charged with 'knowingly assisting an offender' the jury cannot convict you unless they are 'sure' (at least beyond reasonable doubt) that you knew or believed he was guilty. It seems pretty clear that Maxine did not know or believe this, even if she suspected it, and that was why the jury rightly acquitted her on the more serious charges.

It seems amazing to me that the usual quota of time-served rapists, murderers, robbers, etc will be leaving our prisons over the next few months with nothing at all to fear from the public, whereas a silly besotted girl who believed in her bloke's innocence and stupidly lied for him (without making any real difference to the outcome) will need to be given a new life abroad once she has finished a sentence of almost unprecedented severity for a crime of that kind. I blame those vindictive and ignorant editors and columnists at the Star, Sun, etc for this. They would ruin anyone's life in order to sell a few more newspapers.

[Monster-Mat]

once again i fully agree with Micheal..its the media that sent her down for a long stretch not the judicial system

i agree also with bringing back the death penalty, for serious crime. i.e Murder, but only where its proven with DNA or un questionable evidence

now...wheres that poll button

[kev dood]

ummm.....see your point - I must admit to not following the case that closely!

RE the death penaulty, yeah for serious crimes, but 2 people can TEST to have the same DNA, as they only take a small number of points in the sample comparison.

Thats why in LA court of laws, they will not accept DNA as sole proof of guilt!! Itsusually used to help get a confession or build up more evidence.