It is quite well know that Maxine Carr lives very close to where i live, and that she works in a local supermarket as a security officer. She has a different name of course. I did not follow the case all that much, but i can only remember feeling for the poor children and families involved.
Do you think that it is right that the papers are not allowed to reveal details about her ??
2007-01-02 21:12:53 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I guess she HAS to live somewhere,Huntley was the evil there really.Carr I imagine is a very weak,impressionable and easily influenced person.She was probably in fear of him,and I agree I think she was most likely a low intelligence person who found herself caught in a rut with a maniac.Granted I wouldnt want her near ANY kids but to 'name and shame'her and say where she's living is not right.fuk the papers they dont care anyway they only want to make money.u can be sure shes closely monitored by police
2007-01-03 02:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
How is she treated by the locals? I would have thought if people knew who she was her life would be hell. A while ago I was told she was living not too far from where I live - whether she still is or ever was living locally I don't know. Personally I think any person who commits crimes against children and is found guilty, should be shipped off to a remote island somewhere and left to fend for themselves instead of being given a new identity and new life.
This woman will be hounded for the rest of her life by people that realise who she is - I don't think the papers really have any need to reveal the details.
2007-01-02 21:30:23 · answer #2 · answered by Lost and found 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A rumour went round here recently that one of James Bulgers murderers was living on a local estate.Locals gave him a good hiding and--Yes you v'e guessed ---it wasn't him at all .Just someone moving in to a town and setting up home.Don't believe everything you are told .Wherever she is, this stupid inadequate woman will be well hidden and well guarded ..Certainly not set up as a security guard.If she were left alone, and everyone ignored her and stopped playing the vigilante it would not cost anymore to keep her than the average no hoper.Who knows she may one day get an education and put something into society .The hounds at bay ,disguised as the press ,and self righteous do gooders ,would hate being denied their pound of flesh.You could see from the TV interviews shes not playing with a full deck
2007-01-02 22:55:42 · answer #3 · answered by Xtine 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I do think its right the papers are not allowed to reveal details about her, if they did, she would be continually hounded. Recently in Somerset it was brought to everyones attention that a child sex offender was living on a housing estate, there was an immediate vigilante reaction from householders on the estate, some carrying placards demanding 'Megan's Law' this is the law in American giving people the right to know where child sex offenders live. Given the reaction to knowing the whereabouts of the sex offender in Somerset, it is unlikely this country will ever adopt Megan's law. Likewise, I'm sure if Maxine Carr's whereabouts were to be made public thick headed people would cause no end of trouble and she would have to be continually moved on. Perhaps this is what she deserves but think of the time, effort and expense involved.
2007-01-02 21:39:47 · answer #4 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
She was living near Matlock a couple of years ago. I saw her twice although she had to leave as she was getting harrassed in the street (no surprise there then!). I'm surprised she's been allowed to work as a security officer.
I can understand why papers are not allowed to reveal details about her because of revenge attacks. I'm not saying that what she did should be tolerated but cases like this involve high emotions and things can soon spiral out of control.
2007-01-02 21:25:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Leave Maxine alone, she had the horrible misfortune of dating a murderer, she was 200 miles away when the murders happened and had nothing at all to do with them.
It's down to a rampant devious media that we even know her name, she is innocent of any wrong doing and was scared into providing an alibi. She is a victim not a criminal.
2007-01-03 03:11:04 · answer #6 · answered by John H 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maxine carr is living in the eston area of middlesbrough ! unless you live close to there then the person you have seen is not her .
Her home is protected by 2 burly body guard`s and is quite a way set back off the main roadside so it is very difficult to actually see her !
And i can also tell you that there is not a cat in hell`s chance that you would find her working in a supermarket she is under 24 hour protection and lives off payment`s made to her by the tax payer`s .
2007-01-02 21:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by charlotterobo 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why should they? She is no threat to children, she was cleared of involvement in their deaths. Yes she was incredibly stupid and should have told police all she knew about huntley. But the only ethical reasion to reveal her identity is if people suspect she will attack children. Is it really going to cheer up the families of the murdered girls if they're told she's been lynched? People just want to get at her because they can't get at huntley.
2007-01-03 04:51:15 · answer #8 · answered by Nikita21 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You have to accept that what Maxine Carr did was wrong. She was tried and found guilty and served the sentence the judge gave to her.
Ian Huntley more than likely bullied Maxine into lying for him to the police and in court. I am not condoning what she did, but she has paid her debt to society and must be allowed to live her life as best she can. After all she is the one who has to live with this for the rest of her life.
2007-01-02 21:25:41 · answer #9 · answered by The Alchemist 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Yes. Let her be now. However, she did do wrong in lying to the police. She and any woman for that matter should know better than to lie for a fella. If people do things that are wrong then they should be brought to account . I certainly would never cover for them.
2007-01-02 23:14:23 · answer #10 · answered by breezinabout 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋