Re: Maxine Carr wants 'taxpayers to foot bill for new home and new identity' over fears she could become victim of a vigilante attack

by Guest 29.12.15 22:05

plebgate wrote:Don't know enough about it all but hasn't he got family who could lobby for him? There must be legal people who work pro bono who would perhaps be able to advise? What is his current solicitor doing about it all?

Nobody would take this on.

Just look at the reaction here.

Huntley thinks he did it.

But what he thinks after the Rampton neuroleptic drug "treatment" counts for nothing... this man's mind was mashed.

by plebgate 29.12.15 22:14

If there is evidence as stated in this thread then surely it would have been explored?
If his mind has gone then his legal team should be able to apply to the courts for that to be taken into consideration.
Why did she need to give him a false alibi?

by Guest 29.12.15 22:22

plebgate wrote:If there is evidence as stated in this thread then surely it would have been explored?
If his mind has gone then his legal team should be able to apply to the courts for that to be taken into consideration.
Why did she need to give him a false alibi?

He doesn't have a legal team.

He thinks he did it.

His description in court of how he was "helped" to remember what he did over several weeks in Rampton is quite something.

Prompted by Coward (his QC) , Huntley tried to explain further. “I had been trying pretty much everyday to try and remember what had happened on the 4th August. I knew inside that I wasn’t there [in Rampton] for no reason and I knew that something must have happened, but didn’t know what, I had been seeing all kinds of things, for example, I had seen the girls leaving my house or thought I had seen the girls leaving my house and the psychiatrist said that was a coping mechanism and I was just seeing what I wanted to see. it was driving me mad trying to, trying to remember and nothing coming. (inaudible).”

“I say things started coming back after a few weeks, there wasn’t just one day couldn’t remember and the next day I could. It was very slow, a bit like a jig-saw puzzle, first of all I started hearing the voice and the voice was, “You pushed her”, and thought that I must have pushed her down the stairs or something. It was very difficult to piece things together, and it was also difficult at times to know the difference between reality and imagination. I had problems with imagining things and things I wanted to see, and the way I determined the difference was that the reality – if there was emotion attached to it – you could sort of feel; you could feel what you was feeling at the time.”

by Guest 29.12.15 22:29

@BlueBag "Huntley thinks he did it". Perhaps he thinks he did it because he did do it.

by plebgate 29.12.15 22:38

not being an expert, can't see how those two examples show that his mind was mashed by what he went through in Rampton.
He says he did it and anyone capable of doing something like that would have a very mashed mind to begin with.   IMO those examples don't show that he didn't do it and I doubt it would be enough to get another hearing anyway.   Maybe that's why no attempt has been made to get one?

Everyone is entitled to a solicitor and his family would be entitled to make sure he got one.   Couldn't those who have studied the case and the court transcripts lobby on his behalf if they believe he didn't do it or maybe refer it to an organisation who would take up his case?

Was it ever made known why she gave him a false alibi?

by Guest 30.12.15 8:41

plebgate wrote:not being an expert, can't see how those two examples show that his mind was mashed by what he went through in Rampton.
He says he did it and anyone capable of doing something like that would have a very mashed mind to begin with.   IMO those examples don't show that he didn't do it and I doubt it would be enough to get another hearing anyway.   Maybe that's why no attempt has been made to get one?

Everyone is entitled to a solicitor and his family would be entitled to make sure he got one.   Couldn't those who have studied the case and the court transcripts lobby on his behalf if they believe he didn't do it or maybe refer it to an organisation who would take up his case?

Was it ever made known why she gave him a false alibi?

Well if you can't see what happened then you can't see it.

He was whisked to Rampton after not caving in to Police interrogation (he had been deprived of sleep). The reason for sending him to Rampton was pretty incredible actually and highly irregular.

” The official reason given by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Hebb, may someday gain a place of notoriety at the police black museum in London, “He [Huntley] gave an impression of not understanding what was going on, and refused to answer questions.

Did anyone else ever get sent to Rampton for reasons like this?

He was then over a period of weeks persuaded that he did it with the use of neuroleptic drugs.

As for the false alibi, it means nothing, she was trying to be protective because she could see the writing on the wall and was trying to help him, she only did 21 months so not an accomplice, just an unhelpful perversion of the course of justice.

Joe Vialls (RIP) summed it all up in 2003.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=30495

Worth reading through because it's food for thought.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 30.12.15 9:01

So are you suggesting Huntley was a patsy and the real killer is still out there?

Wasn't Clarence Mitchell involved with reporting, or whatever, the Soham murders?

by Guest 30.12.15 9:13

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So are you suggesting Huntley was a patsy and the real killer is still out there?

Wasn't Clarence Mitchell involved with reporting, or whatever, the Soham murders?

I'm just saying that there is more to this case than the public generally understands.

More Joe Vialls.

http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/joe-vialls-the-trial-of-ian-huntley-and-maxine-carr

The stuff about heightened security at US Airforce base Lakenheath is interesting.

Also the stuff about teams of US servicemen all over Soham helping with the search.

There were pedos at Lakenheath and child abuse by US servicemen is a known problem.

by plebgate 30.12.15 9:17

I still don't understand why someone hasn't taken all of this up with the Authorities if it is clear that is what happened. With the internet and so many forums interested in getting justice for people who have been "set up" it doesn't make sense to me. Of course it could be as LIR said, maybe because he did do it and has admitted that he did.

Where was he that he needed to have an alibi provided?

Could go round and round but I can't understand how you can say that he was persuaded that he did it as a matter of fact .

by Guest 30.12.15 9:22

You can't see the media/authorities parallels with another case?

Powerful forces at work?

by j.rob 30.12.15 13:07

Cover up of corruption including paedophile rings?

The medico/legal mafia tend to 'close ranks' to prevent exposure of information which would shock/anger/disgust the public and/or embarrass the state/Government. Rupert Murdoch has been quite helpful in this respect, imo.

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

http://www.justjustice.org/

by j.rob 30.12.15 13:10

In Ian Huntley's case we have the same thing again, only this time the circumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence is the same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-down petrol, and a cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon's technique and scissors to remove the clothes from not one but two dead bodies, including underwear and shoes, purely in order to leave them in a place and a situation where the police can link him to the crimes and use them as forensic evidence against him in a prosecution. All of which is patently absurd. Despite our knowledge of such killers, here we are required to believe that a stranger killer would do all this purely to convenience the police.

http://www.justjustice.org/

by j.rob 30.12.15 13:16

@aquila: You stated this:

Oh, and both Huntley and Carr had previous form btw.

Where is the evidence that Carr had what you state as "previous form?"

by Guest 30.12.15 13:19

j.rob wrote:In Ian Huntley's case we have the same thing again, only this time the circumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence is the same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-down petrol, and a cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon's technique and scissors to remove the clothes from not one but two dead bodies, including underwear and shoes, purely in order to leave them in a place and a situation where the police can link him to the crimes and use them as forensic evidence against him in a prosecution. All of which is patently absurd. Despite our knowledge of such killers, here we are required to believe that a stranger killer would do all this purely to convenience the police.

http://www.justjustice.org/

Yeah...

"I must take these clothes back 6 miles to next door to where I live and half burn them so that people can clearly see what they still are and stitch myself up like a kipper".

"Yeah.. that'll work".

NO DNA of the girls on the clothes.
NO DNA of the girls in Huntleys house.
NO DNA of the girls in Huntleys car.
NO CCTV of Huntley driving from Soham to Lakenheath.
NO CCTV of Huntley at or near the US Airforce base perimeter even though this is a top security base with at least 60 CCTV cameras.

by Liz Eagles 30.12.15 17:35

Soham - 10 years on.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.15 18:09

aquila wrote:Soham - 10 years on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjCdq1m-g4

That video, by the controversial Mark Williams-Thomas by the way, is over 45 minutes long.

For those who might have 3 minutes' time, rather than 45 minutes, in which to look at a YouTube video on Ian Huntley, might I recommend this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bUJBwKxU4

In that short video, we see Huntley being interviewed by the BBC several days after the girls were murdered, and some time before he was arrested. What we see here, quite clearly, is a case of what Peter Hyatt and 'Hobs' here refer to as Duper's Delight - see the police officer's comments at the end of this vid.

It follows from what I have said that, like 'Amy Dean' and 'Ladyinred' on the thread, I believe that both Huntley and Carr were justly convicted as charged. As is stated on the vid above, it appears he was a consummate, practised and experienced liar - and I did note the total lack of emotion as he spoke about the girls' disappearance. Now where have we seen that before?

For a good summary of Huntley's form, well, it's available here on Wikipedia, under the section: 'Trial and subsequent revelations'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bUJBwKxU4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Trial_and_subsequent_revelations

Many years ago, I read all that there was to read about the girls' bodies being found near the Lakenheath air base, and claims that Huntley was framed etc. Someone certainly put together a set of facts to make one think twice about the case, but I do not believe those claims that they were murdered by people from the air base.

I do agree that these three coincidences also give pause for thought:

1. Clarence Mitchell all over the Soham murders and all over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
2. Lori Campbell being a reporter on the Soham murders and then being the one to point the finger at Robert Murat in the Madeleine McCann case...which certain people in the British security services seemed to want someone to do, and
3. Mark Williams-Thomas pontificating about both the Soham murders and in the Madeleine McCann case.

Whether those coincidences, and the further one identified by 'BlueBag' (mobile 'phone expert David Bristowe being involved in both the Soham and Madeleine McCann cases) mean anything, I am very doubtful.

by Guest 30.12.15 18:55

Back on topic...Maxine Carr may want a new home and ID but it doesn't mean she'll get them.

by Liz Eagles 30.12.15 19:16

Ladyinred wrote:Back on topic...Maxine Carr may want a new home and ID but it doesn't mean she'll get them.

I think she will. If you look at the precedence in law of lifetime anonymity granted to Mary Bell and add the weight of the European Court of Human Rights, she'll be re-named and re-housed - especially as she has a child - just like Mary Bell had a child (who is also granted lifetime anonymity - although why any professional in their right mind would leave Mary Bell to bring up a child beats the hell out of me).

It's just the same for Thompson and Venables (murderers of James Bulger). They are protected by the same precedence in law.

by Guest 30.12.15 19:27

@Aquila. There is a big difference in the cases highlighted - the others were children when they commited their crimes. IMO, it is right that they have new identities.

by Liz Eagles 30.12.15 19:38

Ladyinred wrote:@Aquila. There is a big difference in the cases highlighted - the others were children when they commited their crimes. IMO, it is right that they have new identities.

Maxine Carr's child is also afforded the protection of lifetime anonymity - which is why Maxine Carr qualifies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055570/Soham-liar-Maxine-Carr-gives-birth-baby-know-mother-really-is.html

by Guest 30.12.15 22:25

I wasn't aware that she had a child.

It would appear from the report that she has FEARS that she COULD become a victim of attacks. So not a watertight claim, IMO.

by j.rob 30.12.15 22:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:Soham - 10 years on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjCdq1m-g4

That video, by the controversial Mark Williams-Thomas by the way, is over 45 minutes long.

For those who might have 3 minutes' time, rather than 45 minutes, in which to look at a YouTube video on Ian Huntley, might I recommend this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bUJBwKxU4

In that short video, we see Huntley being interviewed by the BBC several days after the girls were murdered, and some time before he was arrested. What we see here, quite clearly, is a case of what Peter Hyatt and 'Hobs' here refer to as Duper's Delight - see the police officer's comments at the end of this vid.

It follows from what I have said that, like 'Amy Dean' and 'Ladyinred' on the thread, I believe that both Huntley and Carr were justly convicted as charged. As is stated on the vid above, it appears he was a consummate, practised and experienced liar - and I did note the total lack of emotion as he spoke about the girls' disappearance. Now where have we seen that before?

For a good summary of Huntley's form, well, it's available here on Wikipedia, under the section: 'Trial and subsequent revelations'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bUJBwKxU4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Trial_and_subsequent_revelations

Many years ago, I read all that there was to read about the girls' bodies being found near the Lakenheath air base, and claims that Huntley was framed etc. Someone certainly put together a set of facts to make one think twice about the case, but I do not believe those claims that they were murdered by people from the air base.

I do agree that these three coincidences also give pause for thought:

1. Clarence Mitchell all over the Soham murders and all over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
2. Lori Campbell being a reporter on the Soham murders and then being the one to point the finger at Robert Murat in the Madeleine McCann case...which certain people in the British security services seemed to want someone to do, and
3. Mark Williams-Thomas pontificating about both the Soham murders and in the Madeleine McCann case.

Whether those coincidences, and the further one identified by 'BlueBag' (mobile 'phone expert David Bristowe being involved in both the Soham and Madeleine McCann cases) mean anything, I am very doubtful.

"But I do not believe those claims that they were murdered by people from the air base"

I'm not sure anyone claimed that, But of course it might be a possibility.

Nothing I have read or heard gives me any confidence in the convictions of Huntley and Carr. Not one thing.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.12.15 1:03

j.rob wrote:

Nothing I have read or heard gives me any confidence in the convictions of Huntley and Carr. Not one thing.

You must therefore have very good explanations for all of the following, @ j.rob >>>

a) Huntley's repeated lies about the Soham girls
b) The burnt clothing of the girls being found in the caretaker's store room
c) Chalk dust and mud on his car tyres matching that found where the bodies had been burnt
d) Why he voluntarily confessed to killing the girls (albeit giving a wholly implausible explanation of how he did so)

- all of this and much more is in this documentary, which presumably you must have seen: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwqey7_ian-huntley-the-soham-murderer_shortfilms

Please provide your full reasons for having no confidence in the convictions of Huntley and Carr ASAP, because your posts do not look good on this forum when there was overwhelming evidence of Huntley's guilt

by Guest 31.12.15 7:40

a) Huntley's repeated lies about the Soham girls

Only later considered lies because he "confessed" after his mind was altered at Rampton.

b) The burnt clothing of the girls being found in the caretaker's store room

Yes... a very big convenient "it was the caretaker" piece if evidence.
So this clever "duper" decided to remove the clothes with scissors (why?), take them 6 miles home and half burn them and leave them in a place that would stitch himself up like a kipper.
No DNA from the girls on the clothing (or in his house and car).
US servicemen and all kinds of people were all over Soham in the days leading up to this.

c) Chalk dust and mud on his car tyres matching that found where the bodies had been burnt

The car pedal actually.
But also, the prosecution alleged he wore bin liners over his feet when he dumped the bodies.
Did he drive with the bin liners still on his feet?

d) Why he voluntarily confessed to killing the girls (albeit giving a wholly implausible explanation of how he did so)

Rampton.
Over a period of 6 weeks where he was "helped" to remember by a team of psychiatrists and neuroleptic drugs. In court Huntley tells exactly what happened including "the voice" telling him how he did it.

Come on Tony. How can you look at the Madeleine McCann case and not see what the media and authorities can do if something is deemed important enough.

There were pedos at Lakenfield... Sergeant Randy Bitter for one.

There were witnesses not called to court.. Huntley was appointed a defense council. he may as well have been on the prosecution side.

by Liz Eagles 31.12.15 7:43

Ladyinred wrote:I wasn't aware that she had a child.

It would appear from the report that she has FEARS that she COULD become a victim of attacks. So not a watertight claim, IMO.

I believe you are correct that it's not a watertight case and it isn't helped by the DM's intentional inflammatory headline. It's also at odds with the Court ruling that her child can never know the real identity of her mother. If her mother keeps changing her identity and moving house how can a child be expected to either not notice or live a continuous lie?

As an aside, I watched a very interesting documentary on YouTube regarding the child murderers Thompson and Venables and how they were taken into care to be rehabilitated. This documentary gave insight and imo was fairly well balanced. I was left wanting to hold Denise Fergus' (James Bulger's mother) hand and say just about everything in the system let her and her son down - but that's only my opinion - and I made it after listening to all the points raised. Whilst this is not particularly relevant to the case of Maxine Carr, it is in many respects relevant to the legal precedence of lifetime anonymity awarded to her child in the wake of Mary Bell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6nsxMucKug

Maxine Carr wants 'taxpayers to foot bill for new home and new identity' over fears she could become victim of a vigilante attack