THE former partner of a British man who murdered two 10-year-old schoolgirls in a case which shocked the country could soon be released from prison, officials and reports said.
Maxine Carr, whose then-lover Ian Huntley was convicted in December of killing the girls, could be eligible for release at any moment, according to a Prison Service official.
However, such is Carr’s notoriety, she would require a new identity, round-the-clock police protection and possible plastic surgery to be able to live in any safety, newspapers said today.
While Huntley was jailed for life for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in August 2002, Carr was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
She has been in jail since August 2002, and could be eligible for freedom soon under an early-release scheme which would require her to wear an electronic tag for a period.
The Times newspaper reported that police security for Carr could cost STG100,000 ($241,283) a year.
“It is virtually impossible to imagine that she will keep her name,” a Probation Service source told the paper.
“She will also change her appearance to make it less likely that she is recognised.”
The depth of feeling about the case was shown by a poll in the Sun newspaper, in which 96 per cent of the near-15,000 people who telephoned in their opinion said Carr should not be released yet.
The disappearance of the two girls sparked one of the biggest police hunts ever seen in Britain.
Their partly-burnt bodies were found in a ditch outside a US airbase near their home town of Soham, eastern England, 13 days after they disappeared wearing matching Manchester United football jerseys.
By: Flood - 8th February 2004 at 23:57
Originally posted by Snapper
It’s spelt gourd you pansy.
I know that – which is why I put I think you’ll find a gaurd is very nearly a large hard-rinded fleshy fruit similar to the cucumber family, often hollowed out and used as a bottle or cup… But if you can mis-spell guard then I can change a letter too… – and you know thst, but for the sake of playing to the audience and keeping them happy I thought this was a better way of hi-lighting his mis-spelling.
Whats up? You finished shooting rats and the authorities might notice if you started shooting locals?
Flood.
By: Snapper - 8th February 2004 at 23:23
It’s spelt gourd you pansy.
By: Flood - 8th February 2004 at 12:14
Never mind, at least it isn’t just a full stop…:D
Flood.
By: plawolf - 8th February 2004 at 11:19
“I would not welcome the criminal element working in call centres – you might. Nor as door-to-door salesmen. Or in my bank, the post office, selling me insurance, coming to fix the shower, or having anything to do with food production, etc”
i would not either, however where did i ever say that criminals could or should be allowed to do any type of work? the type i had in mind when i suggest that is more like the kind of jobs Nike used to employ poor philopino kids to do.
“And Britain has loads of nowhere to put them!”
😀 yeah, good point, the brits tried to deal with that problem by sending all their ‘bad’ ppl away a few hundred years ago. didnt quite work out the way ppl planned.
“America has – but then they started putting farm workers out of jobs when the agricultural industry saw how cheap it would be to employ them. A real vote winner in Britain.”
well, i was thinking more of setting up a factory or have them build new roads to bring in more ppl to unpopulated areas, not to just send them to a deserted part of the counry and leave them there and have them run amock. (u been watching too many ‘escape for LA/New yrok’… films. 😎 )
“Metal detectors not needed at airports anymore then? Don’t worry – we can get this firm in to fix them, very cheap too coz they use criminal labour…”
i heard somewhere that the metal detectors at some airports were being upgraded or replaced cos the old ones cant detect some of the new fancy composit guns or sth.
im sure inmates wont get to play with materials that fancy, so the old ones should work just fine, and u can get tem at bargin prices too.
“I am sure there are many around who would disagree with you on that, but since Bliars wife is big on human rights (ie get paid loads to fight for it in court) you can see where this one is going too “
lol, guess we can at least find out who wears the pants in the blair household.:cool:
“but thats ok coz I have found this little firm that uses struck-off lawyers; it is cheap and they don’t always win the case (if they stick around long enough) but since they might have just been sewing mailbags thats alright. “
i think u r taking this ‘criminals r us’ thing a litte too far. :rolleyes:
“What is ‘sth’? To me it is south but you might have a lisp – I don’t know!”
its ‘something’, suprised u havent come across it before.
“I think you’ll find a gaurd is very nearly a large hard-rinded fleshy fruit similar to the cucumber family, often hollowed out and used as a bottle or cup…”
:rolleyes: nice.
By: Flood - 8th February 2004 at 02:19
Originally posted by Merlin3945
…The kids didnt deserve to die and I dont think Carr wanted to be involved but she had no choice in the matter when she got back to Soham. But she should have come clean as soon as she knew for definate…
The things you do for love…
She did come clean as soon as it was put to her.
As soon as she realised she started calling him ‘that thing’.
As has been stated earlier if she had knocked down and killed a child in her car she would have been treated more leniently.
She will be paying for her mistake for the rest of her life – although not in the same way that the childrens families are – because the police were incompetant enough not to have caught Huntley before nor hold his records on file, so she could understand that they would be harrassing him.
Another trial by ‘popular’ media? Watch out. The lynch mobs might come out again and start stoning paediatricians – again…
Flood.
By: Flood - 8th February 2004 at 02:05
Originally posted by plawolf
“Nice thought – but which part of the community are you going to put out of work so that prisoners can do their jobs? ”uk jobs are being outsource because of high wages, inmates have no wages, and so should be able to beat even the chinese on wages. and last timei checked, uk residents dont care much abt chinese ppl loosing jobs to their local criminals. 😉
I would not welcome the criminal element working in call centres – you might. Nor as door-to-door salesmen. Or in my bank, the post office, selling me insurance, coming to fix the shower, or having anything to do with food production, etc.
If your employer sacked you and your work colleagues and started using crims instead because they were free – would you not feel more than a little agrieved?“If it is off site then the local community will whinge like buggery about being put in danger – no matter how many guards are involved. If is on site then you might have difficulty preventing the light-fingered from pilfering the shiney objects or making off with potential weapons… “
can always put them in the middle of nowhere, nowhere to run and hide and noone to bother. or u can have metal detectors at the exits, im sure the airports have a few they are throwing out.:cool:
And Britain has loads of nowhere to put them! America has – but then they started putting farm workers out of jobs when the agricultural industry saw how cheap it would be to employ them. A real vote winner in Britain.
Metal detectors not needed at airports anymore then? Don’t worry – we can get this firm in to fix them, very cheap too coz they use criminal labour…“If the job is too boring then the European Courts of Human Rights might get involved! “
problem, but since the uk has an inflentual vioce within the ECJ, im sure they can work sth out.
I am sure there are many around who would disagree with you on that, but since Bliars wife is big on human rights (ie get paid loads to fight for it in court) you can see where this one is going too – but thats ok coz I have found this little firm that uses struck-off lawyers; it is cheap and they don’t always win the case (if they stick around long enough) but since they might have just been sewing mailbags thats alright.
What is ‘sth’? To me it is south but you might have a lisp – I don’t know!“Imagine the compensation claims and then weigh that up with letting them have TVs and giving them the right to buy their own cells…”
inmates can on their own cells?:eek: does that mean they can sue the gaurds for trespassing if the come in?:confused: :rolleyes:
Sorry – thats a Thatcherite thing: all long-term inmates would be given encouragement to look after their ‘homes’ by being allowed to buy their own cell. I think you’ll find a gaurd is very nearly a large hard-rinded fleshy fruit similar to the cucumber family, often hollowed out and used as a bottle or cup…;) But if you can mis-spell guard then I can change a letter too.
Flood.
By: plawolf - 8th February 2004 at 01:05
“Nice thought – but which part of the community are you going to put out of work so that prisoners can do their jobs? “
uk jobs are being outsource because of high wages, inmates have no wages, and so should be able to beat even the chinese on wages. and last timei checked, uk residents dont care much abt chinese ppl loosing jobs to their local criminals. 😉
“If it is off site then the local community will whinge like buggery about being put in danger – no matter how many guards are involved. If is on site then you might have difficulty preventing the light-fingered from pilfering the shiney objects or making off with potential weapons… “
can always put them in the middle of nowhere, nowhere to run and hide and noone to bother. or u can have metal detectors at the exits, im sure the airports have a few they are throwing out.:cool:
“If the job is too boring then the European Courts of Human Rights might get involved! “
problem, but since the uk has an inflentual vioce within the ECJ, im sure they can work sth out.
“Imagine the compensation claims and then weigh that up with letting them have TVs and giving them the right to buy their own cells…”
inmates can on their own cells?:eek: does that mean they can sue the gaurds for trespassing if the come in?:confused: :rolleyes:
By: Merlin3945 - 8th February 2004 at 01:04
The whole things just one big game. British justice is exactly that and everyone just has to play the game.
The kids didnt deserve to die and I dont think Carr wanted to be involved but she had no choice in the matter when she got back to Soham. But she should have come clean as soon as she knew for definate and I think she should have to serve the other 3 years of her sentence at least before being considered for release. Forget all this remand stuff she should now have to do the rest.
As for Huntley hanging is too good for him I wouldnt waste the rope. But I would however put some shoe rubber about him.
By: Flood - 7th February 2004 at 22:25
Yeah – but I don’t want to talk about it…;)
Flood.
By: Snapper - 7th February 2004 at 22:21
You’ve been inside then have you? Want to know what it’s really like?
By: Flood - 7th February 2004 at 19:44
Nice thought – but which part of the community are you going to put out of work so that prisoners can do their jobs?
If it is off site then the local community will whinge like buggery about being put in danger – no matter how many guards are involved. If is on site then you might have difficulty preventing the light-fingered from pilfering the shiney objects or making off with potential weapons… If the job is too boring then the European Courts of Human Rights might get involved!
Imagine the compensation claims and then weigh that up with letting them have TVs and giving them the right to buy their own cells…;)
Flood.
By: plawolf - 7th February 2004 at 18:57
“But what about the other option – that bored prisoners might feel that they have got nothing to lose by killing each other and/or prison officers and burning down their prisons? These people have to go to prison, granted; but unless you give them something to occupy their minds then they will run riot. If you want to really punish them then force them to watch non-stop soaps, gardening and home improvement programs: pure torture…”
totally agree with the part abt needing to give prisoners sth to do. however i just dont see why so many ppl have a problem with prisoners doing manual labour while they are in prison.
surely its fair that those who have committed crimes against others (and sociatly ultimately) pay back their debt in the form of work, instead of doing more harm to other law abiding citizens by tying up scarce government resources in keeping them in prison (just think how many more lives would be saved or improved if all the money used to keep criminals nice and comfortable could be used on the NHS or state pensions!).
this would also sove ur boredum issue nicely. so why not?:confused:
By: Flood - 7th February 2004 at 18:29
Originally posted by HURRICANE 477
Lets all agree that she must be punished for her part in the conspiracy with Huntley, and I reckon she probaly knew but kept her mouth shut.
And the courts decided different – but that has to mean the courts were wrong, doesn’t it. Still, I suppose whether she knew or not The Sun, etc, will spend countless hours hunting her down and hounding from town to town.
These days I wonder if prison isn’t more than a hotel, the prisoners receive too much in the cell, they shouldn’t be allowed T.Vs should they, its a big waste giving prisoners a nice cell, which looks more like their original bedrooms, its a wonder that the british prisons don’t have revolving doors.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t – it will all depend on where you received all these nuggets of wisdom. If you really have it in for prisoners then you will believe that the prison officers are actually just serving staff and that the cons eat caviar off the silver service. But what about the other option – that bored prisoners might feel that they have got nothing to lose by killing each other and/or prison officers and burning down their prisons? These people have to go to prison, granted; but unless you give them something to occupy their minds then they will run riot. If you want to really punish them then force them to watch non-stop soaps, gardening and home improvement programs: pure torture…
Flood.
By: HURRICANE 477 - 7th February 2004 at 16:41
Lets all agree that she must be punished for her part in the conspiracy with Huntley, and I reckon she probaly knew but kept her mouth shut.
These days I wonder if prison isn’t more than a hotel, the prisoners receive too much in the cell, they shouldn’t be allowed T.Vs should they, its a big waste giving prisoners a nice cell, which looks more like their original bedrooms, its a wonder that the british prisons don’t have revolving doors. The prison sysytem in this country is a disgrace and no longer a deterrent!
By: kev35 - 7th February 2004 at 15:56
A380.
“LOCK HER UP”
You may not have noticed but she is already locked up. She currently resides in a women’s prison in your fair city. She killed no one, she wasn’t even there when Huntley decided he had a golden opportunity to commit murder, twice. She knew there was something wrong but she was faced with two powerful factors. The first was her love for Huntley and the second was her fear of him. She has been sentenced according to the law and has already served 18 months of that sentence. Being tagged is different from being free. She will face extremely strong restrictions on what she can and cannot do and where she can and cannot go. She is likely to have to change her identity and may have to have police protection.
Plawolf
“whether the law is too ‘soft’ on sentencing is another matter, and some of the sentences does seem rediculously light, just take the example of the illegal imagrant who ran over a 6 year old kid for example, two years! u can be put away for longer for animal crualty in some coutries!”
In this case the sentencing is far too soft. The sentence is cumulative. Believe it or not he only got four months for causing death by dangerous driving. The rest of the sentence was made up of a few months here and a few months there for failing to stop and a series of motoring offences such as not having a license, driving without insurance etc.
Regards,
kev35
By: plawolf - 7th February 2004 at 15:34
A380:
but she didnt do the killing. the courts sentenced her according to the law, so i think their decision would be a little fairer then our’s for no other reason then we didnt see all the evidence and hear all the arguments.
whether the law is too ‘soft’ on sentencing is another matter, and some of the sentences does seem rediculously light, just take the example of the illegal imagrant who ran over a 6 year old kid for example, two years! u can be put away for longer for animal crualty in some coutries!:eek:
By: A380!! - 7th February 2004 at 14:22
😡 😡 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 :(:mad: murdering b*stards LOCK HER UP the evil murdering bitch!!!
By: ageorge - 7th February 2004 at 13:21
Originally posted by Snapper
She helped because she didn’t know. Look, the courts sentenced her for what she HAD done, not what that scum Huntley did. Fairs fair. Does anyone serve a full sentence any more?
Good point , life usually means 8-10 years now , where I live this chap murdered his wife ( split up , if I can’t have you nobody can type thing ) he served 4 1/4 years and is back living nearby .
Life should mean life .
By: Snapper - 7th February 2004 at 13:14
She helped because she didn’t know. Look, the courts sentenced her for what she HAD done, not what that scum Huntley did. Fairs fair. Does anyone serve a full sentence any more?
By: ageorge - 7th February 2004 at 12:19
Originally posted by Snapper
She didn’t murder the kids. She doesn’t deserve life.
She never got life . She did try to help out the murdering b*stard who did murder the kids . Lock her up in a room full of the WRVS ladies !!!
Sign In
February 7, 2004 at 4:17 am