Talk:Maxine Ann Carr

The Photograph[edit]

Shouldn't the innocent lady's photograph be removed? Her identity is supposed to be protected and even if the BBC published the photo we don't have to show it. And who says the photo has no copyright, where does that come from? Anyways, I say the photo should be removed.Mackan 04:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have to say doesn't care. Are you more concerned with the violation of copyright or with that bitch? 189.13.20.58 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be jealous, dear, her breasts are better than yours but you've got nicer hair. TescoCookies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.70.91 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Her photograph was splashed all over TV and newspapers for weeks. Her identity may be protected by law but I don't think see how her (then) image could be. David 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Carr get cosmetic surgery to help conseal her idennty? Besides there's no reason to hide photo or even her whereabouts, as wikipedia is not the british media. I wouldn't support adding it, but I think in theory we could. --Alan Алан アラン 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/split from Ian Huntley[edit]

wow, first one to start the discussion page, personally, i think that they are both amazing ppl and they should be left alone to their own lives, they are entitled to be. anybody else who wants to join in the discussion is welcome.

Hmmm... I think Maxine Carr was a fool for what she did - she probably thinks the same herself - but she shouldn't be turned into Myra Hindley. Sorry, but no such sympathy for Huntley, who to my mind should have been already standing on a trapdoor with a rope around his neck when the jury announced the verdict.

Is there really enough here to justify an article separate from Ian Huntley? Unless there is some important information relating to Maxine Carr unconnected from Ian Huntley, I believe that it justifies, at most, a small section in the Ian Huntley article. Eorake 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. She is not exactly an important figure in criminology. Her crime had no bearing on the evil that came to the two little girls, and being manipulated by Huntley into providing a false alibi after the crime did not make her an accomplice to it. It is unlikely that we shall ever hear from her again in any major criminal context, she poses no threat (and for that matter never did). The only thing she is guilty of now is having a rather distinctive face, which is hard to forget or disguise. I say merge, and even then only mention her in passing as 'Huntley's then girlfriend, Maxine Carr'.

Manipulated? I was just under the impression that she loved (and thus, trusted) him. Just because he killed two girls, doesn't mean he has to have made her lie about it; she can act on her own accord, and he can commit acts that aren't always inherently evil. 81.77.103.131 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She could be used as a jumping off point for the British press' insistence that every woman is either an angel or pure evil. J, 311859ZOCT05

Wheras loyalty to your partner is one thing, there has to be a point where the actions of your partner exceed acceptable limits and your need to 'do the decent thing' overrides whatever loyalty you have. Maxine Carr reached that point when she realised Huntley had killed the two girls. Most other people would have recoiled from it and said' im not getting involved in this any further' and attempted to bring it to a halt, by distancing themselves from it or by reporting it to the police. Carr did only the the former when it was far too late (when the police had already caught Huntley), and never considered doing the latter, so she is just as guilty as Huntley, by her omissions, and by co-operating with open eyes in the cover up up of the murder. Carr is no victim, she continued well past the point where any normal, moral, sane person would have become repulsed, and its clear she made a concious decision to do this.

All persons have an innate morality, Carrs morality seems to have a low threshhold, or the woman is a sociopath. Whatever, she should be made to live with the consequences of her actions, because the public found her actions so repulsive. I say print the picture, and publish her location. Wikipedia is not bound by UK law, and can do both these things with impunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Lincolnshire Poacher 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shall probably never know the extent to which Carr was involved and when she knew that Huntley was involved. My recollection is that her story was that she had lied (saying that she was with Huntley in Soham) because he had persuaded her that the police would come after him because of his prior activities. It seems plausible to me that she believed him; she might even have believed that she had reformed him after these youthful indiscretions. The police eventually caught up with Huntley because one of the girls' mobile phone was switched off in one of only five houses in Soham in that particular cell. I think, and I have no evidence for this beyond what I saw in the papers and on TV, that Carr genuinely did not know that Huntley was involved until the police told her. Cross Reference 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Wikipedia is beholden to UK law is immaterial; Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for vigilantes and therefore should not publish Carr's location. Wikipedia is not in the business of facilitating lynch mobs. 71.90.25.175 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is it though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.148.2 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No of course it does not facilitate lynch mobs. It is a voilation of laws which in the UK are extra-territorial meaning if you commit the cime in Paraguay or Swaziland or Burkinia Faso relating to a subject in britian you are still breaking british law.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soham Muders[edit]

The page must be either merged, witn the Soham Murders. The only reason this article is known about is because of the Soham murders and Ian hutley both of whihc are found exclusivly on the Soham muders page. A lack of notability outside of the Soham murders cannot be established. The only reason the briish tabloid press went mad was due to her association with Huntley. --Lucy-marie (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope!--86.29.247.108 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reason for that answer would be nice.--134.225.235.27 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no comments against this with any substance I will assume that therefor there is no opposition to this merger.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's notable in her own right due to subsequent events. If you want to merge, take it to AfD. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does not deal with merging, articles bought must actually want to be deleted by the nominator. If you have sources to back up your claims please provide them if not please do not block legitimate process form occurring, that is within the scope of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merger, unless we're to have pages on every perjuror, benefit cheat or person granted anonymity by the courts now? Being notorious does not equal being notable. Jcuk (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]