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

I've seen people stand trial in courts who could make their 'nearest and dearest' swear that black was white, to be honest.

It's not a direct comparison but there is only a small step from manipulating one mind to manipulating an entire country into killing millions of it's own people.

We seem to have no difficulty in believing that Hitler and a relatively small group of people were able to gain control of the mindset of an entire country, yet we are very slow to come to terms that on a n individual level it goes on every day...

Well, it seems we are in agreement, Blues.

It isn't that I expect the worst in people, but I would never uncategorically assume the best in anybody.

Perhaps because I grew up as a victim of childhood sexual abuse I am very aware that those I love most *can* behave in a very evil manner. So basically, nothing surprises me anymore in terms of human behaviour.

I *can* see that perhaps this woman was manipulated to believe her lover was totally innocent. But it also says to me that she was not too bright by believing this. Especially as she must have been asked by him to provide an alibi. That would have sent my personal 'danger radar' straight off the map. So, was she just incredibly stupid?

az

In my honest opinion? Yes.

And easily manipulated.

He seems a predator, it is likely that he was involved with her because he sensed he could control her.

Then it appears she should be pitied more than anything. I was quite appalled when I read about death threats against her. I mean, good grief! How sick are all those other people doing that?

az

>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.<

azahar, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take and one I think most people would agree with, but that's not the situation Carr found herself in in Soham. Bear in mind that she had already been with him for quite a while during which time he was questioned or arrested several times for sexual offences and released without charge each time. The first one of those occasions would equate with the situation you describe, but by the time they got to Soham a perceived pattern of police persecution had already been established, and the consequences of a continuance of that pattern were already well known to her: Huntley had had to change his name and move to another part of the country to escape the consequences of his dealings with the police despite being 'innocent'.

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

This is the heart of the matter. I certainly think this is true, but there are a huge number of people out there who believe that they would know if someone they loved were truly evil. I think Carr was one of these people, and that's why she continued believing in Huntley, and the rest of them are the people who can't believe Carr didn't know and vilify her solely because they think they would have suspected something had they been in her shoes.

<>

Yes, I doubt I would have lasted longer than the first 'alleged' offence. That kind of doubt for me is just too much doubt. Which is possibly unfair, but I can't help it, all things considered.

Even so, it is really difficult to understand how this woman (or anybody) could overlook so many 'doubts'. How could this man have been arrested so many times for nothing?

The mind reels.

az

We dont know the woman but you and I az, do know someone who can deny facts and absolve those close to them of any wrong doing at the drop of a hat.

OK we are talking massively different scales here.

When you are talking about recognising the truth, neither stupidity or intellect always translate into confidence and emotinal strength or lack of them. We can all say how we would have reacted but none of us are Maxine Carr.

I think if she had known that Huntley was the murderer and the police could find enough evidence she might well of been tried and convicted on a stronger charge.

It saddens me that people are looking at the results of a long investigation and assuming the guilt of this person based soley on their own interpretations of slanted second hand tabloid information about the case. We know the press love to create monsters and what better than two for the price of one?

After the pardon and release of the Birmingham Six all the police who investigated had to say to those investigating the original investigation was pretty much. "We had the right people" despite their methods of interrogation being contrary to procedure thier evidence being wrong and the treatment of the prisoners being illegal from the outset.

I see a similar thing on this thread people condeming Carr of things that they are concocting without any sound evidence. How can any of you know more than the investigating officers at the time?

one love

>How could this man have been arrested so many times for nothing?<

The obvious answer is because he was being victimised.

So why would Carr believe that instead of going with rational scepticism? The answer probably lies in a run-in Huntley had with the police in 1999. He was interviewed in connection with a rape and Carr provided him with an alibi. Huntley also supplied a DNA sample, which did not prove to be a match, and the victim later confirmed he wasn't the culprit. In short, he could hardly have been more demonstrably innocent.

I don't think it takes much imagination to see how Huntley could have taken advantage of this episode to 'prove' that all the other accusations of sex crimes that had been levelled against him (remember, none of them even got to trial) were the product of malice on the part of the police.

Yeah...thank bod she wasn't black or Irish.

RF

<>

Oh, no denying he took advantage. But really, how many people get repeatedly hauled in on sex-offence charges who are totally innocent?

az

Well, just ask Blicky how many black people who are innocent of any crime get arrested by the police.

RF

Well, anyone can accuse someone of rape and remain anonymous. Although that's different from being charged, it does mean contact with the police.

I've no idea, but just as is the case with guilt, so too can innocence be prejudicial.

Consider a situation where you're infatuated with a nice young man who's confided in you that the police are out to get him ("I didn't know she was married!", "...to a detective inspector!", "I was heart-broken!", etc) by accusing him of all sorts of horrible crimes. You want to believe him because, well, he's just not the type and you've always been a really good judge of character so you'd know. After a while some nasty policemen come to your house, ask you some incredibly intrusive questions and accuse your boyfriend of doing something terrible which you know he didn't do because he was with you the whole time, and then they take him away. He comes back the next day and he's a nervous wreck for weeks. Despite being completely innocent - even the victim says so! - he doesn't get so much as an apology. Some time later, just when your boyfriend was getting back to his old self, those bastards come knocking on the door again...

Obviously this isn't exactly how things happened, and equally obviously, you wouldn't buy it, but I bet you know someone who would.

>> "But really, how many people get repeatedly hauled in on sex-offence charges who are totally innocent?"

Probably not many, but then how many get hauled in for even *one* where they *are* clearly innocent. Probably not many either.

'Totally innocent' is a bit of an odd concept. It's hard to be 90% innocent of a *particular* crime.
If being questioned about (but not charged with) crimes means one gradually becomes more stained with guilt over time, it would seem the best police strategy is to keep interviewing the same people until they become so tainted that their guilt can be assumed in the absence of evidence, possibly concentrating on 'that odd bloke down the road' that everyone always thought was a bit strange anyway.

There are no doubt cases where the police (correctly) *know* someone is probably guilty of previous offences, but not to a provable standard, and keep them near the top of their list of likely suspects for future crimes.
However, I (and many other people) wouldn't be surprised to find cases where the police (incorrectly) *know* someone is probably guilty of previous offences, and keep them dragging them in in future cases in the hope that they can get enough circumstantial evidence, or a convincing eyewitness (whether the eyewitness is actually accurate in their identification or not).

In the case where someone assumes the person in question is a criminal, their repeated questioning is likely to reinforce that assumption. In the case where someone seems to be being victimised, their repeated questioning is likely to reinforce *that* assumption.

I don't know the precise chronology of Huntley's previous arrests and when he met Maxine Carr, or what he told her about his history of questioning, but I'd have tpo assume that she found whatever he had told her sufficiently plausible for her to think he was being victimised, so that seems to be the best context to look at her actions in.

<< believe that they would know if someone they loved were truly evil.>>
It has been my experience that it is perfectly possible to love someone (in a relationship, not a family) and not really know that they are capable of "evil"... It may be incredibly stupid, but I think all of us have had the experience of what Billy Joel calls 'The Stranger'.

I think Mycroft's point was that he was demonstrably innocent once, so that would make her more certain when asked for an alibi this time!