Soham Murder trial

[codswallop]

I am sure this must be indescribably Painful for the parents , But I was thinking in bed - what if I had been selected for that Jury service....

I am soooooo emotional and i reckon that this would seriously affect me for the rest of my life (not saying it wouldnt for others natch).

I know you cant get out of Jury Service But God - how would you cope?

I do feel sorry for MC. She shouldn't have lied. But in as lots of people have said, it is the jury's view that she did not know he had killed the girls. She should still have told the truth. But she has been called 'Myra the second' - is someone who told lies to protect their partner who they believed to be innocent really on a level with Myra Hindley who murdered several children?

Beety in a nutshell because she lied to protect IH.
She already has stated that when she came back from Grimsby she knew something was not right in her home ie duvet and bedding in the washing machine,housework done, light fitting in dining room hanging down, dining table not in its place, boot of car cleaned out etc.
She also stated that she thought IH had another woman in the house and that is why things were altered.But whatever she thought she knew something was not right.
All I know and this is my opinion as a mother, woman and human being is no matter how much I love my partner, dh whatever I would not lie for them under any circumstances especially when 2 girls have disappeared.

agree i can understand what maxine carr was like, i feel sorry for her. if he was such a manipulative and controlling pig and she was vulnerable, niave and gullable. i really think her situation is beleivable. sorry if this offends, but the jury obviously thought she was not a part in the bigger picture.

she was not a mother though doormat...I dont want to disagree with you because you are my friend but she is not emotionally mature, from what i gather

I know that MC is not a mother fio and we wont disagree LOL
I was saying from my perspective as a mother, woman and human being I would not lie for my dh under those circumstances.
Agree she was vulnerable, naive and down right stupid.

yup

Beety yes I think we would not believe anything like that in our partners but
why not tell the truth
when you have nothing to hide IMO.

I do feel very sorry for MC - think how many people take a while to realise that their partner is having an affair even when it seems 'obvious' to outsiders. How much harder would it be to imagine that they had done something even more terrible? I think the way she appears to have behaved is completely human.

me too sorry. how+ o+ld was she btw0255

Another viewpoint - leaving aside all the mudslinging - if social services liaised more with the police IH's activities would have been seen for what they were - according to one article (link posted earlier) social services only looked at the under-age sex allegations from the child's point of view - there was no facility at all to log the offender and subsequent offences. This must surely be rectified?

I also think MC was deeply odd - I think to demonise her (as I think The Sun did) for being unfaithful to Huntley is simply bizarre. There is also an element of blame for the whole murder being subtly laid at her door - ie she 'made' him so angry by her sexual behaviour that he was somehow forced into his actions. I does remind me of the blame that men put onto women for 'forcing' them or 'provoking' them into hitting them, or for 'leading them on' into rape. A very common and succesful defence against spousal murder charges is that the woman was sexually unfaithful therefore the man had lost control of his actions. A lot of men get away with murdering their wives/partners because of this terrible defence. I see it again here. Maxine Carr was sometimes sexually available after drinking too much (typical behaviour, I think, of someone with low self esteem and no boundaries - the sort of person Huntley would naturally prey upon) and that this caused Huntley to 'flip'. We do live in a culture IMO in which men are often excused their actions and a women in their life is made a scapegoat. I seem to remember that in the Harold Shipman case it was suggested that his mothers death at a young age was the reason for his crimes, and there was a lot of criticism of his wife for being fat and plain with a distinct implication that this had something to do with the murders. We, as a society, seem to find it easy to blame women for male violence - perhaps another reason for all those rape allegations that never go to court, let alone get a conviction.

I still feel quite uncomfortable about MC - I really don't know what to think. There are several of you saying 'how could she not know' well I think it's plausable that she didn't. My sister is 25 (the same age as MC?) she is intelligent and has a responsible job. But I can see her defending her partner in the same way. She has been abused by at least 2 previous partners. She only left the previous one when she was pregnant (she then miscarried). Up until that point she was quite happy to defend him ('it was my fault', 'he didn't mean it' etc). She was so determined to have a home and a family that she was prepared to turn a blind eye to the fact that it was a far from ideal situation. Each and every time she gets into a relationship it's the same thing - she has that one goal in mind from day one, and doesn't like to admit that it's not going to work.

Does anyone get the point I'm trying to make here??? A lot of (fragile?) women seem to havr this ability to turn a blind eye when they are in love.

Changing the subject, I am always a little cautious about the underage sex thing. When I was 15 and 16 I dated 2 men aged 26 and 28. Both relationships were entirely consentual, but technically illegal, no? I would hate for either of them (neither of them angels, but certainly not paedophiles) to get into trouble, or have criminal records because of that.

Also, I am not sure about Twinkies suggestion that she would run a mile from anyone who'd had accusations made about them. Accusation does not = guilt.

I think that what needs to come from this is a complete rethink and overhaul of 'the system.' He should not have been able to walk away from so many accusations and get a job in a school. There must be a way of stopping that ever happening again.

Just to clarify, I am not defending IH. But I don't like the idea some seem to be suggesting that because accusations have been made that makes him guilty. I would say it's almost certain that he is guilty, but 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Whatever MC is guilty of, she has had her life ruined anyway. She might be out in a few months, but it's not like people will throw a "welcome home" -party for her.....
I don't think it really matters if she is in prison or out. Surely one of the main reasons for a prison sentence (as well as punishment which MC is going to get the rest of her life anyway) is to keep dangerous people away from society. MC is hardly a danger now to anyone but herself....

angelanais - I was thinking similar things.

It struck me yesterday that the idea of teenage girls with older men has suddely become totally unacceptable, where it wasn't before.

And I think MC could be telling the truth too - love really is blind for some women.

that too fairymum. Her punishment is the knowledge that she had a relationship with that slimeball and nearly helped him get away with it - which is worse than any prison sentence.

Angelanais, but that beggars belief. He has had FOUR women and children come to the police - totally separately and at different times, long before the events in Soham - to say that Ian Huntley attacked them. All the rapes were similar and the victims are similar. He has a known history of preying sexually on children. He is known to be violent in relationships. It is simply not remotely credible that all those women (and an eleven year old child) all spontaneously chose him of all people to tell lies about to the police. It's just absurd to think that. And now we know he is a child murderer that adds to his form (just a little!). The psychologist who interviewed him prior to the trial described him as a 'latent predatory paedophile'. If you don't think those women and that child are all liars, then you must conclude that he is a rapist. If you say he isn't a rapist, then you really do imply that they are all lying their heads off. It really is that simple. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept and an important one in a court of law, but it can be utterly nonsensical in real life. As I said earlier, Fred West was never convicted of any crime. Do you think he is 'innocent' or that it is wrong to describe him as a murderer? Where there is no trial - as in the case of Huntley or West - then you cannot just say 'he's innocent because he wasn't found guilty'.
I do not understand this reluctance to believe all these women and to believe Huntley instead. I am utterly baffled - and, to be honest, horrified. If this isn't enough to make people believe a man is a rapist, then we might as well give up prosecuting rapists. There is nothing magical about juries. They are only people giving an opinion. They do not have a special hotline to the truth. I think it is close to superstition to say that you cannot believe someone guilty without a conviction. Or indeed that every acquittal is a proof of innocence.

A few of us trying to defend MC turned into WWIII earlier today because we were taken to be defending IH instead...and, yes, underage sex is no longer admissible or permissible, because IH engaged in it. Just be careful what you say - some posts are being wilfully misinterpreted.

Well I for one have never said anything of the sort. I can believe that MC was stupid, vulnerable and strange enough to cling to her belief that Huntley was innocent. What I can't believe that all four accusers are liars and that this predatory, child abusing murderer is telling the truth.

aloha, nobody said that earlier and nobody is saying it now.

Aloha, I'm not sure which of my comments you are responding to. I am not for one moment suggesting that any of the people who have accused IH are lying, and I don't think I am defending him. I just don't like this idea that obviously because he's been found guilty of one thing that that automatically makes him guilty of everything else - I think he almost certainly is guilty, but it's all too easy to jump to conclusions.

I also think that most people had IH guilty before he had even got to court. In cases like these people are so determined to have someone to blame. There is such a thing as a miscarriage of justice, you know? (AND NO, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT IS THE CASE HERE)

But innocent people get locked up, guilty people get away with things. (So Twinkie, avoiding people with a 'past' is one thing, but you don't always know).

Well, logically, if someone says he is innocent until proven guilty (ie in a court) and he has never been to court, then the conclusion must be that he is innocent.
ie: "I wouldn't go around labelling somebody "a multiple rapist" unless they were convicted of it."