Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Lavender425

Active member
Yes, and I think McGowan-Fazakerley also worked with children, as a tutor or something?
I don't think I've seen what his job was exactly.
I suppose it's one reason they seemed good prospects as adoptive parents, they must have passed enhanced checks for their teaching/tutoring jobs?
In the trial podcast episode, they said he worked in Sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Lucymyers

VIP Member
Well there was no water in the bath when police attended the house. Apparently due to a seal which had been leaking and then glued that day.
Preston was sick multiple times and had fresh nappies on after soiling them. Will they present photos of the house showing no sick and no dirty nappies.

He qualified as a teacher in 2021. He'd been a design technician before that at the same school and did his training there presumably a SCITT arrangement. He was then head of year by the time he took paternity leave in 2023 so only qualified 2 years. Very fast to get to that level really considering he only held QTS since 2021.
Id read there was evidence water had been in the bath when the police checked after preston died
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

nothinonyou

VIP Member
I think he was in the house at the time Preston was photographed over the cot which was what I thought this poster was referring to? Jamie took the photo and sent it to John whose phone location put him as being in the house. I may have also got this wrong but I’m sure that is what the reporting said?
On the day Preston died, John was not in the house.
Yes that's what I meant thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

nothinonyou

VIP Member
You are supposed to think it was intended either intentionally "beyond reasonable doubt" OR that you it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that you should have been aware that your actions were likely to cause death and you were reckless and didn't give a toss, I think.

Personally, I think the foul POS had been prolonging the distress for poor little Preston - starting at comparatively short periods of abuse and torture and getting progressively long as he gained confidence and got away with it time and again. I think he believed that Preston would choke, and have a fit every time - perhaps even "get used to it" :sick: and developing some sort of iresistance, and that he could prolong his own vile pleasure and that Preston would still (eventually) recover and start breathing again.

This is my opinion, of course - I have no idea what goes through the mind of someone like this, who gets a kick from torturing and abusing a helpless infant. He wouldn't have given a damn if Preston had ended up severely brain-damaged for lack of oxygen (it might even have been a bonus for him - then Preston could never tell). IMO he was uncaring and reckless in the way he abused that poor baby, and intentionally allowed him to die by not taking him to hospital the moment he realised that he wasn't going to breathe properly again. Instead he filmed it and let that baby suffer for God alone knows how long? An hour? Something like that - and only took him to hospital when it was too late, and he'd had time to fabricate a cover story with the other POS, and they'd destroyed or hidden all the evidence they could find.

This is murder, and in the most dreadful and cruel way imaginable.
Yeah it definitely doesn't have to be premeditated (I think that's an America term?) just that any reasonable person would know your actions will likely kill somebody, that's murder
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Rubyroo160

Well-known member
I don’t think it is commonly known, but DNA itself can’t be determined to be from a particular source (blood, semen, skin cells etc.).
The genetic code in a cell from skin, blood, saliva, or semen is the same code. So when a forensic laboratory extracts DNA and produces a profile, that profile tells you whose DNA it is, but it does not, on its own, tell you what body material the DNA came from.

The sample around the DNA can be tested and in some cases is very obvious. Semen has microscopic characteristics which is what they used to determine that this was found in a saliva sample from the cot that also contained a mix of DNA from JMF and JV.

With the sex toy the obvious defense is transfer DNA from Preston to the toy via the hands of JMF or JV. The prosecution will be layering the evidence so that one strand alone is doubtful but together it leaves little room for manoeuvre.
So out of interest, if the DNA can’t be determined to be from a particular source could the men not just say their DNA was on the cot from them touching it with their hands? I’m not defending them but just hoping they can’t wriggle out of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Rubyroo160

Well-known member
Horrible to say but I think it’s happened a fair few times before due to the nature of the abuse. Preston’s recovered on previous occasions (albeit with chest infections and seizures) but this time has been too bad. Probably why JV in such a state because he thought he’d get away with it again. So he’s maybe taken the time to get ready for the inevitable hospital visit when Preston’s looked poorly but instead of recovering he’s gone into respiratory arrest. I wonder about the 111 callback on a previous occasion that went unanswered, baby was probably in a lot of distress after being abused but had settled so they didn’t bother to get him checked over.
Sorry if I’m being dim but does anybody know why the abuse would cause seizures/chest infections/repsiratory arrest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Emsie

VIP Member
To teach children you need Qualified Teacher Status QTS without this your role is support. SENCOs always have QTS because of the nature of their role which is far more than pastoral. I know this because I have been in the profession since Noah counted the animals on to the arc. Then tried to count children getting on a bus for a field trip. The arc was a successful count, the bus not so good.
Okay but you can be a head of year without being a QT can't you? In academy's and such. I was just explaining why JV seemed to fly through the ranks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Cinnabun

VIP Member
Me too. One other thing i do also think is we need to learn a few lessons about the wide availability of porn and kinks in general. Sadly I dont think this kind of stuff just exists in a vaccuum. JV must have known what he was doing was wrong, wrong on every level.
Maybe instead of the media being so accepting of kinks and porn, there needs to be a few more negative voices condemning it?
Ian Watkins is anither one who got more and more extreme in his 'kinks'.
 
  • Like
  • Sick
Reactions: 3
I'm a social worker, and I'm hoping the general introduction process was around 1-2 weeks and was agreed as facts by all parties therefore didn't need to be covered in oral evidence.
I've managed to find a bit of info. It looks like there was a general meeting in February with possible adopters, foster carers, SW and Preston.
Once matched they met on 23 March. possibly other meeting in between. Then again 28 March and Preston moved in on 3rd April with JV and JFM.

Screenshot_20260506-130638.png
Screenshot_20260506-130745.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

zogsmum

Active member
John was in the house that day as well so knew full well what happened. I think every other charge Jamie is alone with the baby but sending explicit pictures to John

Was John at the house then? I thought he was away from the house eg at work and he came home with the door locked and the dog at the door? He came in to a panicking Jamie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Square Peg

Active member
Agree, not to mention if semen was found internally as well as externally, there’s just no explaining that away is there?

I mean they can’t even explain away semen being present in or around the cot. Using a soiled towel on a baby is too gross to think about.
I was thinking if the men were in bed doing whatever then had to get up because Preston woke up, sperm could be on their hands and transfer. I hope the prosecution have definitive evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Square Peg

Active member
I feel so sad for this little boy. I’m curious to know if they can interrogate the water company or electric company to see whether a shower/bath was run to disprove his claim, whether a runny poo nappy was found, messages from John to his friends and family and between the two. I find the shoes off thing really odd - you may take your shoes off when you get in but John was locked out and with how Jamie is dramatic that would be the last thing you’d do as he’s likely have been causing a scene when John got home. Unless the call from Jamie to John was telling him something was off. But you’d call an ambulance!! Not drive him to hospital. They could have called 999 and being given instructions on performing cpr instead of driving him to hospital with no resuscitation attempts. Was that to get him out of the house where evidence may be?!
Not defending them, but Just to say where they lived at the time it is less than a mile to the hospital, they thought it would be quicker, I would also think it quicker if I was in that situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Shinythings

VIP Member
Is it possible he was in the bath and SA'd him in there which might explain water residue being in the bath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2