As long as something gets the buggers locked up. I don't want this to be one of those "We know damn well they did it, but we can't quite prove it." cases. The photographs, texts, videos, hospital visits, bruises, internal injuries, leaving Preston to choke for ages before taking him the hospital - all of this points to deliberate and prolonged abuse.I think, based on these agreed facts, and unless nothing else nailed on re DNA is mentioned, the pathologists findings/evidence is going to be key to a guilty verdict
The photos are the smoking gun so far to me. No one takes that many pictures of "their" baby naked. He wasn't a newborn he was a year old, so the naked photoshoots aren't really a thing at that age and even then I have never seen one with the babies genitals visible, a bare bum at most. The way the photos are described this far seems so far outside of normal that to me there's no reasonable explanation for them. Even in terms of the sheer amount of pictures where the baby is unclothed, it's just odd. Lifting a towel to show his privates while he's asleep in a bath with no water, when previous photos showed him covered up. It's not an accidental snap, it's posed that way.The DNA wasn't as bad as I thought. It really does hinge on the postmortem, because a lot of things can be explained away right now. Apart from the photos, but we don't really know what about them is deemed inappropriate. I have naked pictures of my kids as babies, and if their genitals are in them I didn't really care as they were innocent, not for sharing outside the family and not the focus of the picture. He could easily claim he was trying to do one of those baby photoshoots and using the bath as a white backdrop, a lot of those have the baby naked in them. I'm not saying he/they are innocent, but unless the pictures are explicit then is it really enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt at this stage the horrific things they're accused of?
I'm not sure "He whimpers every time he sees me" is quite the defence he thinks it is tbh.I don’t understand this at all. Apart from it being cruel and neglectful. Why was he filming him? A 14 minute video is a huge length of time.
He also contradicts himself - wants to see how Preston was in his own company but then says Preston could see him.
View attachment 3988649View attachment 3988650View attachment 3988651View attachment 3988652
Nah, he's either doing that to be intentionally cruel for his own satisfaction watching the video back or he's filming it to send to others.I don’t understand this at all. Apart from it being cruel and neglectful. Why was he filming him? A 14 minute video is a huge length of time.
He also contradicts himself - wants to see how Preston was in his own company but then says Preston could see him.
View attachment 3988649View attachment 3988650View attachment 3988651View attachment 3988652
I don't know what to say, just utterly heartbreaking......bring back the death penaltyI don’t understand this at all. Apart from it being cruel and neglectful. Why was he filming him? A 14 minute video is a huge length of time.
He also contradicts himself - wants to see how Preston was in his own company but then says Preston could see him.
View attachment 3988649View attachment 3988650View attachment 3988651View attachment 3988652
The fucking bastard!I don’t understand this at all. Apart from it being cruel and neglectful. Why was he filming him? A 14 minute video is a huge length of time.
He also contradicts himself - wants to see how Preston was in his own company but then says Preston could see him.
View attachment 3988649View attachment 3988650View attachment 3988651View attachment 3988652
And yet again, Varley "tells" on himself - he whimpers when he sees meI don’t understand this at all. Apart from it being cruel and neglectful. Why was he filming him? A 14 minute video is a huge length of time.
He also contradicts himself - wants to see how Preston was in his own company but then says Preston could see him.
View attachment 3988649View attachment 3988650View attachment 3988651View attachment 3988652
Apart from being dangerous leaving ANY child of that age alone in the bath, that bath water will have been freezing after that amount of time. Poor cold, frightened, lonely little Preston. No wonder he was whimpering.And yet again, Varley "tells" on himself - he whimpers when he sees me
You can hear the anger in the police officer's voice, when you read this - good!
At last JV is being held accountable for his actions!
Not like those stupid heart emojis from that dimwit social worker
And yet again, Varley "tells" on himself - he whimpers when he sees me
You can hear the anger in the police officer's voice, when you read this - good!
At last JV is being held accountable for his actions!
Not like those stupid heart emojis from that dimwit social worker
A forensic swab could detect it. In the same way. However I seem to recall that in English law if a penis is used then it is referred to as rape but an object is used sexual assault by penetration.Could the pathologist find dna inside the body just thinking based of the dna stuff given the fact they are very specific in saying one count of sexual abuse by penetration and this not really linking up with the dna found on pants and toys is that where the 100% guilty will come into it by saying both there dna was found inside of his mouth or anus ? If that makes sence ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?