Carr out by the end of the week!

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Nugget

A little too harsh I think.

Whilst I understand your opinion that sheââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s an habitual liar (as a result of the Benefit fraud charges etc), it still doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t change the fact that she was (at the time) †˜onlyâÃà ‚¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ found guilty of perverting the course of justice and, as a result, was sentenced appropriately †“ you canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t use the argument of a now uncovered track record to say that she should be locked up for years, as it had no relevance to the case in point.

Sorry if you disagree Kronas †“ Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not trying to start an argument and, as ever, this is purely IMHO.

i understand your point but no 'safe house' will be safe for her when she is released.

Originally Posted by Nugget

I think this is why Julian is saying about a court order - if the papers are bound by the law not to reveal where she is, then they can't (whether this happens or not though remains to be seen).

i knew what he said, but these are tabloid newspapers they want the best information to put towards the public to sell papers, so what better way to uncover her location.....

[Nugget]

I understand what you're saying but, to use a recent example, the courts could take the same path as they use with Venables and Thompson (sorry, I can't remember their first names, but they are the two lads who killed Jamie Bulger), then the press would not be allowed to reveal the location - any paper that did would be in breach of a court order and subject to criminal action themselves.

Originally Posted by Nugget

I understand what you're saying but, to use a recent example, the courts could take the same path as they use with Venables and Thompson (sorry, I can't remember their first names, but they are the two lads who killed Jamie Bulger), then the press would not be allowed to reveal the location - any paper that did would be in breach of a court order and subject to criminal action themselves.

Robert and John, IIRC. The difference in that case is that both boys have grown up and changed in appearance since they were jailed, so they have a good chance of remaining anonymous wherever they choose to live, with help from a court order designed to prevent their grown-up faces being connected with their old names.

Carr, on the other hand, is all to recognisable.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by towny

Robert and John, IIRC. The difference in that case is that both boys have grown up and changed in appearance since they were jailed, so they have a good chance of remaining anonymous wherever they choose to live, with help from a court order designed to prevent their grown-up faces being connected with their old names.

Carr, on the other hand, is all to recognisable.

Sorry, I'm just trying to play a bit of Devils Advocate. Unfortunately, as has been proven in this thread, it's an inflammatory topic, and I'm just trying to put a reasoned point across - apologies if I'm getting a bit above myself!

I was using the arguement regarding the two boys to try and give a response to both Julian and Kronas.

kronas,she killed no one.She stupidly lied for someone she loved but she killed no one.

The problem is that everyone has Hindley and Brady in the backs of their minds when they think of this case.However they shouldn't.Hindley was directly involved in all Brady's murders.Carr was tricked into lying to protect her lover from one thing and then discovered that she was stuck in a lie that quickly unravelled her whole world.Even if she had told the truth at the start those two children were already dead and she had not killed them.

Personally I think her sentence should have been longer as a warning to others who commit such perjury but that is another issue.

Incog.

[Julian]

I suppose my point is that what she is doing is not/should not be really of any concern to anyone.

If it was Huntley being released then I would be in favour of his whereabouts being released as he is a convicted sex offender.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

kronas,she killed no one

read my previous post on what i said regarding that.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

She stupidly lied for someone she loved but she killed no one.

im sorry, but i could never love a murderer.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Personally I think her sentence should have been longer as a warning to others who commit such perjury but that is another issue.

my referels were to the murder and subsequent fraud charges, as it stands i still think she should have gotten a longer sentence.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

kronas,she killed no one.She stupidly lied for someone she loved but she killed no one.

The problem is that everyone has Hindley and Brady in the backs of their minds when they think of this case.However they shouldn't.Hindley was directly involved in all Brady's murders.Carr was tricked into lying to protect her lover from one thing and then discovered that she was stuck in a lie that quickly unravelled her whole world.Even if she had told the truth at the start those two children were already dead and she had not killed them.

Personally I think her sentence should have been longer as a warning to others who commit such perjury but that is another issue.

Incog.

Very true, although I guess we will never know whether she was really tricked into perjuring herself, or if she chose to do - like I said, it's irrelivant now anyway.

I feel the punishment for perverting the course of justice is nowhere near severe enough anyway - but that's a topic for another thread I guess.

[Nugget]

I think we're getting a bot confused here - please correct me if I'm wrong but, AFAIK, she never perjured herself. During the court case, she told the truth regarding the fact that she lied to police and, as a result, was convicted for perverting the course of justice - if she;d told the truth from the start, the police may have found out about Huntley earlier.

Originally Posted by Nugget

<snip> if she;d told the truth from the start, the police may have found out about Huntley earlier.

But not in time.The girls were dead before Carr even lied.

She stuck to the lie until it was proved Huntley had tricked her into lying for the wrong reason.

Incog.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by kronas

im sorry, but i could never love a murderer.

but could you believe that the person you love was a murderer if they told you they were not.

She did not fall in love with a murderer, the man she loved turned out to be one, there is a huge difference (IMO).

Originally Posted by kronas

my referels were to the murder and subsequent fraud charges, as it stands i still think she should have gotten a longer sentence.

that's as may be - but the court decided on the sentence, and I am guessing that they felt that she was not acting out of deliberate malice, but to protect the man she both loved and believed was innocent.

Again - if you loved someone and they were accused of such a heinous crime, would you instantly stop loving them, even though they proclaimed their innocence to you, or would you find it hard to accept that this person, whom you love and think you know, could be the person that they are accused of being ?

[Ramrod]

She didn't think/know he was a murderer when she lied for him. As soon as she realised that he might be she 'came clean'.

[TheBlueRaja]

Exactly what i was about to post - who says that she knew that he had killed them.

She probably thought, like all the rest of us, that nobody would be capable of such a thing, never mind the person she loved.

To blame her or even assosiate her with the murder is rediculous, she lied, but then confessed to the lie when she started to realise excatly what had happened.

Thats enough for me - she protected the person she loved until it became apparent that things were not right with his end of the story - then confessed - and all some of you can do is condem her as an assosiate to murder.

Wake up.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by zovat

but could you believe that the person you love was a murderer if they told you they were not.

its quite dependant on what the person said if they told you they were elsewhere you could try and check these things, but the law will catch up on you eventually and the truth comes out then.

Originally Posted by zovat

She did not fall in love with a murderer, the man she loved turned out to be one, there is a huge difference (IMO).

yes and lied to the police

Originally Posted by zovat

that's as may be - but the court decided on the sentence, and I am guessing that they felt that she was not acting out of deliberate malice, but to protect the man she both loved and believed was innocent.)

the evidence was there for all to see, to use a phrase in 'black and white'

Originally Posted by zovat

Again - if you loved someone and they were accused of such a heinous crime, would you instantly stop loving them, even though they proclaimed their innocence to you, or would you find it hard to accept that this person, whom you love and think you know, could be the person that they are accused of being ?

no i would 'hold out' but not lie for the person, to lie is an admission of a cover up on the guilty parties request, you are still guilty of something if you lie about it to the police, and she lied for him.

i do know she lied for him to protect him but a lie is a lie and she lied to the police.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by kronas

its quite dependant on what the person said if they told you they were elsewhere you could try and check these things, but the law will catch up on you eventually and the truth comes out then.



yes and lied to the police




the evidence was there for all to see, to use a phrase in 'black and white'



no i would 'hold out' but not lie for the person, to lie is an admission of a cover up on the guilty parties request, you are still guilty of something if you lie about it to the police, and she lied for him.

i do know she lied for him to protect him but a lie is a lie and she lied to the police.

Yes, she lied to the police, because the man she loved probably told her that he was innocent, but had no way to prove it.

As soon as she realised the truth she came clean.

She was punished for lying to the police, but had she not told the truth (albeit belatedly), he may well have never got to court, as his alibi would be hard to disprove.

I find it hard to imagine just how she must have felt when she realised that she had been played, and that the man she loved was capable of something so heinous.

They say that love is blind - but imagine the horror when you can suddenly see clearly and you are looking at this man....