Soham murders

No i didn't miss ur point but in my eyes if it's consented underage sex then no problems would be raised and therefore there wud be no need to decide the death penalty.

The be all and end all of the situation is that i think that the death penalty should be given to evil people that hurt people so that is my opinion!!

for starters the two verdicts carry vastly different penalties!

assisting an offender is defined in the Criminal Law Act (1997) as "whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commision of any idictable offence whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principle offender"

basically if the jury believed she was even aware the murders were going to take place and did nothing, took part in the murders, helped plan the murders, helped plan how to dispose of the bodies, or took part in any physical act directly linked to the murders then the jury should of found her guilty on this count and as such she would of recieved a mandatory life sentance!

perverting the course of justice is defined principally as providing innacurate information 'after an event'. It can consist of omissions, fabrications, and half truths. so if the jury believed she suspected something 'afterwards' and did nothing about it, suspected something but told a lies e.g. gave false alibies.

This would also apply if she knew for certain he had done it but had no involvement herself but then helped cover it up. However this is where it can become a bit blurred as to how far involved she was and if her actions crossed into the realm of assisting an offender. In situations like this case the judge is not allowed to direct a jury to find in favour of one verdict or another as this is a 'matter of fact' and is completely down to jurors to decipher the evidence and decide upon a verdict.

after reading large parts of court transcripts my view is the right verdicts have definately been reached by the jury.

Yeah your post helped me get to grips with the situation more, I was jus wondering what your personnal opinion was jus intrested in hearing peeps views.

The time Carr has spent in custody during the investigation and trial will count towards her sentence

Because she was also charged with assisting an offender. By pleading not guilty to both charges, she increased the likelihood of the jury agreeing on the lesser charge. If she pleaded guilty, the jury would of seen her in a less positive light, thus probably convisting her of the more serious charge (assiting an offender). Similair to Huntleys attempts to get convicted of manslaughter really - he denied all charges.

isn't that different in that he couldnt be convicted of both?

and do you think that if she had pleaded guilty to perverting the course.... she would have been more likely to be convicted of assisting an offender. Personally i don't see how pleading innocent to the lighter charge she was obviously guilty of would make the jury more sympathetic on the worse charge....??

She was charged with both. If she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge, then she wouldn't of been able to play the sympathy card properly as she would of already pleaded guilty to something (would of looked bad to the jury when considering the more serious charge). By pleading not guilty to both, she could play the sympathy card and make out that she was somehow influenced by Huntley. Also, by pleading not guilty to both, the prosecution couldn't just concentrate of the more serious charge (as they would of done if she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge).

Huntley couldn't be convicted of both, but was hoping to be convicted of the manslughter charge instead of murder. If he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, then his legal team would of had less to work on as the prosecution would of just concentrated on proving it was just murder, and not trying to prove that he was responsible for the girls deaths AND if it was murder.

Hope that makes sense

Anyway, I think what I'm trying to say is that Carr's team wanted the jury to decide whether she was guilty of Assisting an Offender or whether she was guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice (or possibly both). Her lawyers probably knew that with all the video and audio evidence that she was always going to get convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice and played on this, thus, tried to get the lesser charge and deflect attention away from the more serious charge.

If you take the lesser charge out of the equation (by pleading guilty to it) then it leaves you more open to being convicted of a the more serious charge.

AYE!! Thanks thats better