Preston Davey Trial

[Milliemoo99]

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?

Im trying to think if I had any photos of my babies in the bath? I dont think so, because I would have been too focused on washing them, playing with them or making sure they didnt slip and drown! Was it just me that heard the horror stories about babies drowning in 2 inches of water, in garden ponds etc?

yes there are innocent photos of children, which may or may not show them naked. But surely someone who is a safeguarding lead, would know that it is not 'ideal' to take or share photos of naked children showing their genitals. Especially if they are meant to be on 'best behaviour; for the adoption agency/process.

I cannot believe that any adoptive parents are encouraged at all to take or share naked photos of children with genital obvious, in their care. As for taking them to show to GPS, maybe GPs need to reconsider this as an option for young children? Its just encouraging a totally wrong attitude. If its a medical condition that needs monitoring, surely it can be done without photos? And surely it is going to be putting doctors surgeries and reception staff at risk, for viewing or having stored on their systems the equivalent of child porn?

 

[Cinnabun]

No wonder he asked his friend to hide the sex toys. b.

I think he has definitely vastly overestimated his own intelligence as he has been able to fool some people. I hope his arrogance will assist his downfall.

 

[Lyla001]

His responses in the police interview remind me of Savannah Brockhill. Arrogant twit who thinks he’s smart but really isn’t. I expect he may give evidence as he is the type to think he can win over a jury.

Totally agree with you. But he's going to be arrogant isn't he? . He's had all these agencies fawning over him and his vile partner, whilst carrying out sickening abuse on this little boy. Red flag after flag , hospital visits the lot. Colleagues undertaking 'welfare checks' on HIM.Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. Even had the nerve to bad mouth Prestons lovely foster mum when she raised concerns. Covert manipulator right there. I hope he takes the stand and they absolutely wipe the floor with him. b

 

[IGiveUp22]

There we go, Preston's DNA on their sex toys. Absolute monsters the pair of them

Where is this bit in the live reporting please? I must have missed this and can’t seem to find it on the Manchester live one I have been following although I’ve been having some troubles with it loading sometimes

 

[LittleMy]

I hope he takes the stand, the large duck. He’ll only show himself up for what he really is - they always do.

 

[Milliemoo99]

Re Varley leaving Preston to whimper when he sees him..... how ridiculous. A whimpering child is unhappy or scared or uncomfortable

A young child has limited means of commumication. If, Varley needed a break from childcare....use common sense. You dont just leave a child abandoned in a bath, anything can happen. Settle him down somewhere safe, a play pen or a cot, etc etc, give him some toys to play with, and sit quietly alongside the child, reassure yes, with a glance or smile or touch, but dont ignore them, thats way worse.

 

[owen2110]

A forensic swab could detect it. In the same way. However I seem to recall that in English law if a pen is used then it is referred to as grape but an object is used sexual assault by penetration.

Yeah you’re right, I just googled it. JV has 2 charges of assault by penetration of a child under 13.

Spoiler: TW SA/grape

putting this behind a spoiler as it discusses grape/SA. “Assault by Penetration: Involves penetration of the tina or mole with something other than a pen (e.g., fingers, objects) without consent.” That poor baby boy wonder if thats why he was so desperate for his friend to remove the sex toys from their room

 

[PaddyDomino]

Where is this bit in the live reporting please? I must have missed this and can’t seem to find it on the Manchester live one I have been following although I’ve been having some troubles with it loading sometimes

Also, JMF's DNA on the cot:

 

[JCMSadie]

Im trying to think if I had any photos of my babies in the bath? I dont think so, because I would have been too focused on washing them, playing with them or making sure they didnt slip and drown! Was it just me that heard the horror stories about babies drowning in 2 inches of water, in garden ponds etc?

yes there are innocent photos of children, which may or may not show them naked. But surely someone who is a safeguarding lead, would know that it is not 'ideal' to take or share photos of naked children showing their genitals. Especially if they are meant to be on 'best behaviour; for the adoption agency/process.

I'm not defending them. I am concerned that, especially in a climate where people are desensitised to the exploitation of kids online, the photos alone (unless the ones the police suggest are inappropriate are extreme enough) may not be compelling enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do think that the overall picture being built is becoming more compelling and less doubtful. But the pathology evidence will be pivotal in eradicating the element of doubt, I think.

 

[Liverbird2003]

I keep using the word horrific, but it is. I cannot imagine the fear and pain that poor baby went through. His DNA on their sex toys is surely going to seal the case?

 

[Tofino]

Also, JMF's DNA on the cot:
View attachment 3988824

I saw what you posted earlier and just been struggling to find it. Seems they have edited the DNA part out now

 

[IGiveUp22]

Also, JMF's DNA on the cot:
View attachment 3988824

Thank you! I totally missed that bit. I hope they go into more detail about this. I think someone else said they’d only covered the agreed facts re DNA so I think this will be discussed further. I nearly posted earlier that if Preston’s DNA was found on any of the sex toys that would have been (one) of my smoking guns.

The pair of them are just monsters. It’s actually heartbreaking what they subjected that little boy to. How can people be so utterly disgusting and cruel and evil

 

[IGiveUp22]

I saw what you posted earlier and just been struggling to find it. Seems they have edited the DNA part out now

View attachment 3988827

Ahh so I wasn’t going crazy with not seeing it!

 

[scantysandwich]

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.

 

[nothinonyou]

I saw what you posted earlier and just been struggling to find it. Seems they have edited the DNA part out now

View attachment 3988827

Wonder was it wrong that's why it's gone?

 

[PaddyDomino]

Ahh so I wasn’t going crazy with not seeing it!

I screenshot it earlier this afternoon to post on here and then I didn't get a chance to, I wonder why it's been edited out?!

 

[Shinythings]

Something I clocked in the podcast was that Preston only started to become unwell and presenting to hospital once JMF went back to work. I'm wondering if this will give him the benefit of the doubt that JV was abusing him when he was at work

 

[Tofino]

The bit that was edited out was what was said to JV in a police interview. I wonder if it’s been edited out because of this. I presume the agreed facts by experts on both sides came after the police interviews.

 

[Rubyroo160]

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.

 

[Tofino]

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.

The evidence of abuse isn’t based on DNA alone though. If there is other evidence of sexual assaults then DNA doubts don’t disprove it. I’d be more concerned by complete absence of DNA than ‘we have DNA but it could be normal transference in a family home’. It doesn’t prove no SA could have occurred.