h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Going back to the point made in Post 21 (and a rare occasion on which I have cause to agree with blickybadger), I am intrigued as to how much insider knowledge any subscriber to this thread has outside of what they have learned from the media.

B

I don't think I said that no evidence ment no suspicion or accusation, however it is the law that one cannot be convicted without evidence 'beyond all reasonable doubt,' so if Carr honestly thought that Huntley was innocent why should she have lied for him, since there was no need to because there would have been no evidence that he did commit those murders. Or more concise and to the point, if he wasn't guilty would he have needed the alibi?

novadog, again you're making a flawed assumption. Just because you're innocent doesn't mean there's no evidence that might suggest guilt: if that were true then only the guilty would ever be suspected of crime. Secondly, if you can't understand the strain of being falsely accused does that mean you don't believe there's any strain at all? I only ask because what you're now saying implies that only if you're convicted is the process of being arrested, charged, remanded and tried anything other than a thoroughly enjoyable one.

Why is it a flawed assumtion to think that if someone was innocent they would not need a false aliby? This flawed assumption I'm making is the cornerstone of our justice system, that if someone is innocent they don't need to lie regardless what strain they are under. I say it again Maxine Carr must have had alarm bells going off when she made the decision to lie for him. You cannot go through the court process with someone without having, in some dark corner of your mind, the thought they might actually be guilty, despite giving them 100% of your support. So it follows you cannot provide someone with a lie that would get them out of trouble, without actually thinking why they would need such a deception?! The sheer magnatude of the situation, the fact that it was a murder case, Carr must have thought, must have known that something was gravely wrong with her boyfriends involvement in the case, regardless what he told her. She may not have thought she would have gotten caught, and with hyndsight she probibly would not have lied for him, however I think she knew what she was doing, and the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps I'm overestimating someone who was tried as an adult, perhaps I am on the one hand being suprimely naive in thinking that if you honnestly are innocent you don't need to lie, on the other hand being entirly sinical thinking that if someone asks you to lie on this magnatude their involvement is dishonest.

Either way would you lie for your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife(s) if they had phoned you up in a state, saying the police were trying to 'fit (them)up again' over the disapearance of two children in your area?

Tough one to answer.

My brother spent over a fornight on remand for a crime he was not involved in.

During this time he was beat up by a gang from a near by area my mother was ill with worry and there was a general strain put on the rest of my family.

Would you lie or trust in justice?

How many miscarriages of justice can you remeber over the last few years?

I was seriously tempted to lie for my brother, but thought it best not to as if the police unpicked the alibi I provided it would look worse for him and possibly land me in the dock too.

one love

novadog, it's a flawed assumption because it pre-supposes that only the guilty are ever convicted and that being investigated isn't in itself harmful. When you refer to the magnitude of the situation, you should bear in mind what that means for the accused: no hope of bail and several months on remand while your fellow inmates bay for your blood along with the rest of the world, and you'll probably have to leave your home and live under an assumed name for the rest of your life even if you're found not guilty. I'm not saying that it's right to lie to protect someone from that, but I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't at least consider it understandable.

Incidentally, Carr was convicted for her actions during the police investigation, not for her actions during the trial, in which she quite clearly demonstrated that her views regarding his innocence had changed somewhat.

>> Why is it a flawed assumption to think that if someone was innocent they would not need a false alibi? <<

Is it? As Mycroft quite rightly points out, if you have some regard for the person being accused, and if you know they that have been accused and not convicted in the past, its a very reasonable assumption to make.

It should be remembered the Maxine Carr was convicted of the relatively minor charge of Conspiring to Pervert the Cause of Justice. Not the far more serious charge of Perjury which is lying under oath.

Give the girl a chance. She made an error of judgement, as I am sure well have all done at some time, especially when it involves somebody you love. She paid the penalty for her mistake and is now older and wiser. There is probably far less chance of Maxine Carr doing the same thing again than the majority of people reading this if put into similar circumstances.

Donald

So you guys don't think that lying when your innocent won't incriminate you more so? Or that lying for someone in a case of murder (remembering that you don't know exactly where they were or what they did, since they can't seem to tell the police) is a situation anyone could get themselves into. I don't think I said that only the guilty are convicted. The guilty get away with alot because they lie, because other people will lie for them.

It must be a given that Carr had her own suspicions, that she must have known what would happen to her should Huntley be found guilty. I think that she got her three years, for her own protection ('cos yeh, they're seriously going to send someone to jail for lying on their CV). I just don't think that she was as gullible, as pawn like as other people, there are things you do and things you don't do. You don't stick wet fingers in an electric socket without thinking you'll seriously get hurt. You don't lie for your boyfriend over the murder of two girls, without considering he's guilty. I refuse to feel sorry for her.
If I'm the only one to have felt that lying for someone in a case of murder is something you don't do before her 'situation' came to light then I think society is in a pretty precarious space in it's head!

>I don't think I said that only the guilty are convicted<

If you're not sure, why don't you check? If you do, you'll find out a) that you didn't say it and b) that no-one said you did either.

>It must be a given that Carr had her own suspicions<

Why must it be a given that Carr had her own suspicions? Do you have any evidence at all to substantiate such a view?

>> Or that lying for someone in a case of murder (remembering that you don't know exactly where they were or what they did, since they can't seem to tell the police) is a situation anyone could get themselves into. <<

Simple answer to that question. Yes!

That is why, that under British Law, a spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence against their partner. The Law understands that such evidence might be flawed. Although Maxine Carr was not married, the same relationship existed and I am sure the Police took that into consideration during their investigations. If Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley had been married, she would never have been called as a witness.

I feel sorry for you novadog. It is quite obvious that you have never loved anybody. Not with a passion that would lead you to forget all other considerations. One day, when that happens, then you will understand.

Donald

>If Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley had been married, she would never have been called as a witness<

Well, she never was called as a 'witness' - she was asked what she knew by the police as part of thier investigation. It's routine to take statements from spouses and children during murder investigations (or any other serious crime). It is however very rare to use those statements as part of a prosecution. There's an old adage in my job - 'Never call the girlfriend!'

Partially, taking those types of statements is pre-emptive spouses and girlfriends are the ones *most* likely to provide alibis etc. Establishing early what they say on the matter can prevent a lot of bother later, as in the case under discussion. By taking a statement early in the case police may well be able to forestall the event of false evidence being given later.

The important thing to note here is that at no time was Carr accused of lying to cover up the murders themselves - she was merely accused of lying to provide an alibi for Huntley for something which at the time, she appears to have sincerely believed he did not commit. Her *relatively* light sentence confirms that.

That belief may have been misguided, but if it was sincerely held then she cannot be held responsible for covering up the kilings as she did not know that he had committed them. The only similar type of thing i can recall is the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, where Sutcliffe's wife failed to notice that her husband was a mass murderer. There was never any suggestion of trying her for a falure to report something she didn't know about.

Oh, and for what it's worth, i suspect Carr would have a fair stab at getting the News of the World stuffed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Mycroft - If I'm working under the 'false assumption' that supposses only the guilty get convicted, then granted I didn't say that, it was implied apon me. And I had to rebuke that assumption, as that is where I am not comming from.

Donald - I do think the love that you discribe exists, but only for ones children, out of necessity, other wise how else could you put up with a person who would wake you 5-6 times a night, hate you when their 13, then leave you when they've decided they like you again, 5-10 years later. Even in the case of ones own children, one must be able to acknowlage their bad points!! I cannot see how you could love anyone else you just happened to meet, even if you have known them for 2 years. We all have and hope to meet someone who we are perfectly contented to spend the rest of our lives with. But in order to have healthy relationships we have to be able to recognise stuff we don't like that they do. We have to be able to think 'I wish he wasn't lazy.' Or be able to tell (or even think) that they are (may be) lying in turn to you. And incidently, if you loved someone that much would you ask them to provide you with an aliby if such a situation arose? And if they asked you would 'I'd do it for you' wash with you? You have to admit that to even allow someone to do that for you is inexcuseable behaviour. To offer...

All our arguments are flawed because we put ourselves in the picture. In the space of Maxine Carr, one cannot provide a lie in such a situation without at least thinking that they (who you are lying for) have something to cover up. It is human nature to be that suspicious! If it's not then we never would have crawled out of our caves, never would have left Africa, never would have done alot of things with out suspecting what we were told were lies. Carr could not have provided an aliby which she knew was false, unless it was to cover up her own suspicions of what Huntley did, to prove her support, regardless of what he did. Other wise again, why would he need one and why should she feel compelled to give it?

Sorry, posting in haste i should have said 'I cannot see how you could love anyone else like that.' Not, 'how could you love anyone else you just happened to meet,' That sounds like your children are the only people one can love, and that's not what I wanted to say.

>> All our arguments are flawed because we put ourselves in the picture.<<

Of course we do. It's called empathy, similar but not the same as sympathy. Not necessarily a good quality for a juror, but we aren't jurors, we are humans beings first.

>> I cannot see how you could love anyone else like that. <<

Believe me novadog, it is possible. I have lied to protect someone I love who was no direct relation to me. Not in a case of murder I must say, but enough to protect them from harm. It was a surprising easy thing to do as well. I did it not because the person asked me to, I did it of my own volition, probably the same as Maxine Carr did.

Donald

But in order to have healthy relationships we have to be able to recognise stuff we don't like that they do.

I hope this applies to your realtionship Nova and to everyone elses on this thread, but I know plenty who dont have healthy relationships like this.

You make so many assumptions based on your own thinking and circumstances in your posts and that's fair enough but you have no idea really of what Carrs pbringing life at the time and ultimate motives really were. What you know of her actions have come to you second hand. I really dont think thats a good starting point to make such definate assertions about what she was doing and why.

You are entitled to your opinion but it is just that.

You say you undestand this:
All our arguments are flawed because we put ourselves in the picture.

but in the next sentence:
In the space of Maxine Carr, one cannot provide a lie in such a situation without at least thinking that they (who you are lying for) have something to cover up.

It is human nature to be that suspicious! If it's not then we never would have crawled out of our caves, never would have left Africa, never would have done alot of things with out suspecting what we were told were lies.

Yes that is a part of a lot of humans nature, but so is greed, maybe the search for more food during a drought took humanity out of Africa. What about aggression fleeing conflict still causes movements of people to this day.

I think your making another hastey assumption there.

one love

novadog, if it's not where you were coming from then where were you coming from? Such an assumption follows inexorably from your stated belief that there would be no evidence of guilt if Huntley were actually innocent: you cannot be convicted without evidence of guilt ergo the only people who can be convicted must be guilty because the innocent can't be tried as there's no evidence against them. In short, if you can't accept the conclusion, then you can't accept the premise either. This is unfortunate, I know, as your whole argument thus far depends on it, but logic can be a cruel mistress. On the up side, logic says that just because your argument is wrong it doesn't mean your conclusion isn't right, so it's not all bad news.

By the by, implying that Darwin must have been wrong if Maxine Carr wasn't suspicious is certainly an entertaining notion, but it's not evidence. For someone who's such a keen advocate of our judicial system as a model of fairness you seem remarkably reluctant to abide by its principles when reaching judgement yourself.

Donald, protecting someone from harm from what you did is completely different from lying so they avoid prosicution for something they did. And incidently, to 'love' someone so much you avoid recognising their faults, believing entirely in what they say, isn't that a form of obsession, and delusion, which I don't really think is love. If you do you must have some scary relationships, since our behaviour dictates how people treat us.

Blinky, yes I don't know what kind of upbringing Carr had, however I can not make that any form of excuse for her since those who are abused don't always abuse. And those of us who were subject to the best sort of upbringing, arn't always the nicest of people. There fore we don't know that she wasn't obsessed with Huntley, we don't know if she was abused as a child, we don't know what kind of education she had (we only really know the qualifications she did'nt get) therefore we cannot automaticly assume that a person had 'something wrong' with them to justify their actions.

Mycroft, the point I am comming from is that Maxine Carr had to have thought that Huntley had to have been up to something somewhere, and based on that she lied for him. Perhaps I 'digressed alittle' seeing as there seemed to me many reasons for her not to. To make the excuse that she was some sort of victim of Huntleys, that she believed inexplicably in everything he told her is rediculous 'cos everybody tells lies. And the point I'm making is that surely if Huntley was cleared the previous times for the investigations he was involved in, why should now (if we are presuming he was innocent) be any different. By your account what percentage of people would swear they were innocent, told lies in court and were yet convicted? How many do you think would be lying that they were innocent? In this case we know the truth, that ultimately he was guilty so, the system worked, didn't it?

As Blinky says my opinions are just my opinions and they matter no more than anyone elses. I think she knew somewhere he was guilty, you guys don't, fair 'nuff. You can't prove what you think anymore than I can. But you've got to admit it's possible.

No, whether or not she knew he was guilty is irrelevant. By reason of the charge bought and the verdict returned by the jury then legally all you can actually say is that she lied for him.

If there was any evidence to indicate that she knew what he had done then the Police would have charged with a conspiracy of some sort, most likely to conceal evidence from the coroner. (It's an obscure charge, but it indicates that someone knew there was a dead body somewhere and did something to conceal that from the authorities).

People lie in court rooms for their loved ones all the time. Very rarely is anybody actually prosecuted for those lies. That Maxine carr was prosecuted for telling those lies in a reflection of the gravity of the crimes she helped cover up, but it does not indicate that she had knowledge of what crime she was covering up.

<>

I guess the bottom line is that it cannot be proved whether she knew or not. Maybe she did, in which case she should roast in hell for all eternity (imho) but maybe she didn't, in which case she is as much a victim of this man as those poor children were.

To be honest, if a boyfriend or husband of mine was charged with murdering two young girls I would take a few giant steps back from this person and re-evaluate the 'relationship'. I would wonder how this came to be, that my beloved was suddenly charged with such a heinous crime. I would not take his word immediately. I would also not withdraw my love and support - I would just want some very serious answers to some very serious questions. And I certainly would not lie for a person in this very serious situation - that is where she made her biggest mistake (we hope).

Unfortunately the people we choose to love are not always what they seem to be.

az