Guest Ian Chesterton Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 She isn't in Oz. Actually, there were rumours that Robert Thompson was sent there but that turned out to be rubbish too. There were strong suspicions that Maxine Carr was in Sweden for some reason. Anyway, I'm 90% sure I know where she was living (may still be) due to a load mouthed barman - confirmed by other sources. Maxine Carr is another example of why mob justice needs to be prevented. I remember hearing on a radio show (Jeremy Vine I think) when a caller said that she "just knew Maxine Carr was involved" in the murders as opposed to just being a silly girl who tried to help her boyfriend. The media needed a new Myra Hindley (who had recently died) and had a frenzy over Maxine Carr resulting in people thinking like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Absolutely Fabulous Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Maxine Carr is another example of why mob justice needs to be prevented. I remember hearing on a radio show (Jeremy Vine I think) when a caller said that she "just knew Maxine Carr was involved" in the murders as opposed to just being a silly girl who tried to help her boyfriend. The media needed a new Myra Hindley (who had recently died) and had a frenzy over Maxine Carr resulting in people thinking like this. I never thought Maxine Carr was involved. Just a gullible girl who trusted a psychopath. I don't think people realise how utterly convincing a psychopath can be. They can charm the birds out of the trees. The level of trustworthy sincerity they can 'fake' is incredible. When I saw her the impression I got was - dumb. At the risk of sounding as tho' I am the oracle, I had him spotted as the killer - before the police arrested him - when I saw him on telly. There was just summat about him that did not 'gel'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 I never thought Maxine Carr was involved. Just a gullible girl who trusted a psychopath. I don't think people realise how utterly convincing a psychopath can be. They can charm the birds out of the trees. The level of trustworthy sincerity they can 'fake' is incredible. When I saw her the impression I got was - dumb. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 The mother of murdered toddler James Bulger has hit out at the continued anonymity of her son's killer, claiming she received assurances his identity would be revealed following his latest conviction.Denise Fergus ... claimed former justice secretary Jack Straw promised her that after a conviction "his new identity and sentencing would be made public". It has been reported that on his release, Venables may be given a new identity, at a possible cost of £250,000 to the taxpayer. Mrs Fergus told the newspaper: "It's gone past protection. It's just like they're conspiring with him now. He's untouchable. Why should he be protected now? He's not a child, he's an adult criminal who's been handed chance after chance." Mrs Fergus questioned the decision not to place her son's killer back into custody after he was arrested over a drunken fight and cautioned over drugs in 2008. She also attacked the decision to allow only the judge to see Venables' face at Friday's hearing. "Why shouldn't we see him in court? Why shouldn't he hang his head in shame, face up to the consequences of what he has done?" James's mother added that she felt like she was "helping protect" her child's killer due to his ongoing anonymity and aired concern that friends of the convicted man who have children would not know of his crimes. In her interview, Mrs Fergus claimed that Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has failed to honour the assurances made to her by Mr Straw. She claimed Mr Clarke only told her details of a secret court hearing involving Venables after it took place. "That's not keeping me informed. I said to him, 'Jack Straw made promises'. Ken Clarke said, 'Well, Jack's no longer Justice Secretary." This is what disturbs me most about his concealed identity - since he is clearly not a reformed individual: anyone could be unwittingly putting their own children at risk through acquaintance or friendship, let alone closer relationship, with him. I don't recall signing up for that, and I'm unhappy with TPTB taking that decision on my behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 This is what disturbs me most about his concealed identity - since he is clearly not a reformed individual: anyone could be unwittingly putting their own children at risk through acquaintance or friendship, let alone closer relationship, with him. I don't recall signing up for that, and I'm unhappy with TPTB taking that decision on my behalf. If Jack Straw did promise that his idenity would be revealed upon conviction then that was extremely irresponsible of him. He has no power to reveal it and nor does anyone else unless the High Court lifts or amends the injunction and, being a QC, he would know this fine well Whichever way you look at it, Venables is protected by the right to life in the ECHR and the courts are bound by the Human Rights Act to give effect to that. Not only that but the state is bound not to act in a way which infringes a persons rights under the Convention. Having said all that, I doubt we'll be facing the problem for quite a while as I don't think he'll be getting out of prison for quite some time. He's still under the terms of his original life licence when his sentence on the porn charges runs out and I think that it's going to be very difficult to show that he's fit to be released - especially given that the offences which saw him back inside involved child abuse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 If Jack Straw did promise that his idenity would be revealed upon conviction then that was extremely irresponsible of him. He has no power to reveal it and nor does anyone else unless the High Court lifts or amends the injunction and, being a QC, he would know this fine well Whichever way you look at it, Venables is protected by the right to life in the ECHR and the courts are bound by the Human Rights Act to give effect to that. Not only that but the state is bound not to act in a way which infringes a persons rights under the Convention. Having said all that, I doubt we'll be facing the problem for quite a while as I don't think he'll be getting out of prison for quite some time. He's still under the terms of his original life licence when his sentence on the porn charges runs out and I think that it's going to be very difficult to show that he's fit to be released - especially given that the offences which saw him back inside involved child abuse! You're really very good! I seriously hope you're right on the last point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You're really very good! I seriously hope you're right on the last point though. I do too but I think I am. Venables is on life licence which means, strictly speaking, that he is still serving (and will allways be serving) his life sentence for murder. He isnt serving it in prison but is subject to recall to prison if he breacehes a condition of his licence. When he finishes his sentence on the porn charges he still has to show that he is fit to be released under his life licence. Given that his life sentence relates to the murder of a child and that he was recalled to prison (and subsequently convicted) on child porn accusations, which included distributing this stuff, I think it highly unlikely that he will be released in the near future as I doubt any probation board would find him safe to be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.