Soham Murders - Huntley Guilty

[nichomach]

Why? I'm familiar with the law and the facts. Viewing the latter in the light of the former, the verdicts were legally correct; it's entirely possible that an overenthusiastic jury might have convicted on the "assisting an offender" charges, given the emotive nature of the crimes, and this would have been incorrect. What's bizarre or hard to understand about that?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by nichomach
Why? I'm familiar with the law and the facts. Viewing the latter in the light of the former, the verdicts were legally correct; it's entirely possible that an overenthusiastic jury might have convicted on the "assisting an offender" charges, given the emotive nature of the crimes, and this would have been incorrect. What's bizarre or hard to understand about that?

I am assuming you familiarised yourself with the facts in a second hand manner, by way of the news media. If I am wrong about this, I apologise.

Based on the history of the case, the overtly gratuitous involvement of the media within it, and consequently the context within which you heard about it, I took exception to your comment.

I agree that someone who had experienced the case first hand, and for the entirity of the proceeding, could come to a fairly accurate, objective conclusion as to whether the decision of the jury was "correct", but I do not feel that learning about the case second hand, from sources that do not have legal objectivity as their primary concern, puts you in a position to make such a judgement.

[floppybootstomp]

I sincerely hope the rest of that creep's life is living hell.

As for the Jury's verdict, from information I've gleaned, and that's all I can go upon, the evidence was overwhelming and that dirtbag just lied through his cowardly teeth to try and wriggle out of it.

And it's only now that his past crimes have come to light, although it appears he wasn't convicted of the majority of accusations. But a definite pattern emerges there.

For crimes like that, he should have swung, and I'm generally not in favour of the death sentence.

[Clingy]

Death penalty? It wont be long before HE wishes there was one!

[nichomach]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
but I do not feel that learning about the case second hand, from sources that do not have legal objectivity as their primary concern, puts you in a position to make such a judgement.

So I may presume that you will be refraining from offering opinions on any issue with which you are not directly and personally familiar at first hand, then? I mean, I recall you offering opinions as to the correctness of invading Iraq, the hunt for WMD etc...may I take it from that that you have had direct access to intelligence sources, as opposed to deriving your opinion from the news media reports?

[telfer12000]

I am also extremely pleased and relieved that the jury reached a just verdict and, as was mentioned in an earlier post, it is always amazing (to me) that one member of the jury, given the apparent conclusiveness of the heavily reported trial evidence, was not convinced that Huntley was guilty of murder and one jurist (perhaps the same person) was not convinced of Carr's guilt in the conspiracy charge.

[madwelshboy]

INHO he was guilty, had previuos history of rape and under age sex (12 and 13 year olds ?!?).
Lets just hope he meets "Donk" the 6'5" Nympho black guy in prison, then he wont be smiling for a while.............evil ba$tard.

[Barry]

She should have got longer than 3 years just makes me sick

[Cesium]

Originally posted by Barry
She should have got longer than 3 years just makes me sick

Quote:
"She could be free and electronically tagged within 30 days, because she has already spent 16 months in jail."

[Swafe]

i reckon 3.5 years for carr is fair, seing as she didnt do a lot, she was protecting a mate, and most of us would do that? well depenin on what they did anyway i wouldnt if they did that bbut other things i might

huntley should get 20 years then the death penulty, best of both worlds for the mother..

[telfer12000]

Swafe, gotta disagree.

There's no excuse for what she did given she knew that he'd been accused of rape at least twice in the past. That said, I do think she was scared of him, given he allegedly beat her senseless from time to time, and for that reason there maybe a little mitigation.

The thing is, no matter what happens in the future, no one will ever forget the name and the face of Maxine Carr and she'll never have a life again in the outside world which might be seen as justice for some.

In recent times, the Jamie Bolger case was the closest thing to what happened in Soham (only in terms of the impact on a nations consciousness) and I don't know what others remember but today I can remember Jamie Bolger and the Venables and Thompson faces as if it was yesterday and it's now nearly eleven years ago.

Maxine Carr might not have committed a murder but society needs someone to vent their collective fury on and, short of emigrating to an Amazonian rain forest, she’ll never have a life again.

[PriestJPN]

Don't bend over for the soap, Mr Shuntley...

Convicted child killer and alleged pedo; I bet his fellow inmates are just flexing for a nonce bashing...

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by nichomach
So I may presume that you will be refraining from offering opinions on any issue with which you are not directly and personally familiar at first hand, then? I mean, I recall you offering opinions as to the correctness of invading Iraq, the hunt for WMD etc...may I take it from that that you have had direct access to intelligence sources, as opposed to deriving your opinion from the news media reports?

My opinions are merely that; opinions.

I took exception to your self prescribed statement of fact, that is all.

[nichomach]

Oh, FFS, get off it. Would you care to explain precisely what you mean by "self prescribed" in that sentence? Meaningless puff.

On the basis of the facts as reported there was sufficient evidence to convict on the conspiracy to pervert charge, but insufficient to convict on the aiding an offender charge, since Carr could not have been shown to have had the requisite mens rea for the offence. That IS fact, whether you like it or not, and it's not "self prescribed", whatever you mean by that, but "prescribed" by S4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that:

Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

In other words, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Carr not only acted to impede Huntley's capture, but that she knew or believed him to have committed the murders (the requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence). The prosecution were unable to satisfy the jury that such mens rea was proven, therefore the jury correctly acquitted.

[lynni]

Ok you both have different opinions over this matter, so just leave it alone yeah? Its already a sensitive subject enough without you too arguing over it......

[DaBeeeenster]

Look, I'm just saying, I dont think you can make a sound judgement based on hearing "evidence" from the case second hand via the news media. You can provide an opinion, but I dont think you can legitimately use the word "correctly" in this instance.

If you were the judge presiding over the case then I think you could make that sort of statement.

There's no need to get wound up about it.