To think the BBC just mispresented baby Preston's killer (and in way that was favourable to the killer) ?

Well on topic that question has already been asked upthread and also answered

I'm not suggesting victim impact statements affect the sentencing. But there is a reason they are given before sentencing, so they can be taken into account.

I also wonder why the two of them not currently owning devices that had been used to look at CSA, is taken to mean anything other than a lack of evidence? And absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Has no one heard of burner phones? Obviously it can't be proved in court, but surely it's quite possible that they looked at CSA prior to the adoption, on burner devices they got rid of?

@OtterlyAstounding

I completely agree. I've been surprised by pp saying things like ' If they had been sexually attracted to children there would be evidence of them looking at CSA.'
Firstly, not everyone looks at porn. Its possible and indeed normal to have a healthy sex life in your imagination and in reality. Porn is not a necessity.
Secondly as a teacher, and then as someone who (in my view) was planning to acquire a child via adoption, he probably knew that looking at CSA was too high risk and incriminating so decided not to.
Or thirdly, he has just covered his tracks really well.

And I can make no sense of the fact that a man who has been convicted of horrendous sexual abuse of a baby over four months is judged not to be someone with a sexual interest in children because no one can find any CSA porn he was looking at. Choosing to prioritise that absence of evidence over the very real evidence of his convicted CSA, and so conclude he is not a man with a sexual interest in children is beyond counterfactual.

Really? So what's the point of victim impact statements, then? To allow the accused to get off on seeing the extent of the pain and damage he caused? It seems counterproductive to me.

Anyway, on topic - I agree, OP, that any mention of them 'struggling to cope as a parents' is entirely inappropriate in regards to the sexual torture. One doesn't just start brutally raping a baby because of sleep deprivation, unless one already has a predilection towards it. Violence is 'understandable' (not excusable) but sadistic sexual torture is an entirely different beast.

It sounds like justifying and excusing their behaviour, to mention that.

Varley might not be a paedophile in the narrow medical sense of the word, as clearly he's attracted to adults too, but it's also clear from his actions that he had a pre-existing sexual interest in enacting sexual torture on a helpless baby, or he wouldn't have behaved in that way. He would've just brutalised his victim without a sexual element.

I fully believe that a (subconscious?) driver of the adoption was the desire to be able to subtly sexually abuse a child, and that the sleep deprivation and 'struggle to cope' triggered the sexual abuse becoming overt and violent.

I also wonder why the two of them not currently owning devices that had been used to look at CSA, is taken to mean anything other than a lack of evidence? And absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Has no one heard of burner phones? Obviously it can't be proved in court, but surely it's quite possible that they looked at CSA prior to the adoption, on burner devices they got rid of?

A crime is no more or less serious because of the feelings of the victim. Whilst it may be taken into account, it doesnt always influence sentencing (and outside the most extreme cases, it shouldn’t)

I only heard the report on the Today programme earlier this morning, and I thought they were being INCREDIBLY careful not mention either the words "paedophile" or "homosexual." They really skirted around it.

I suppose I can see why - it wasn't not long ago that anti-gay bigotry was phrased in the "All gay men are paedophiles" sort of prejudice.

But still ... this man is gay and he is a paedophile.

Why do you think courts allow victim impact statements?

The judge needs to understand the victim's pain and suffering to inform their sentencing rationale.

It's not all about facts, it's about emotion too.

Victim impact statements have nothing to do with sentencing, it’s a way of making the victim feel heard but the judge will sentence the same way regardless, in accordance with the law.

And thank goodness, otherwise you’d end up with longer sentencing for the crimes committed against people who were able and willing to make these statements. Murdered but have no family to speak up for you? Raped but so traumatised you can’t put it into
words? Oh well, shorter sentence for your killer/rapist.

Why do you think courts allow victim impact statements?

The judge needs to understand the victim's pain and suffering to inform their sentencing rationale.

It's not all about facts, it's about emotion too.

I say this as a survivor of a rape when I was young. The judge’s job is to look at the legal facts.

This is not true. The social worker did say this and yes she was a POC herself. I am not sure why you think the race of the social worker is relevant here. She stated that she decided the timid and withdrawn nature of VC around her Aunt was due to cultural issues rather than a safeguarding red flag ( I am paraphrasing in that lasts part of the sentence). I used to work in social work and read the reports in social work news. The key point is a child who is fearful around their care giver should alarm bells regardless of the culture they come from. Children should not be raised by people they are frightened by.

I want the judge to understand the emotions of the victim and dynamic of the crime when a girl or women's lower clothes are cut off with a knife by her attacker, yes.

Of course VB’s death was caused by multiple factors. One of those was the SW not acting as she admitted herself that she ignore things that would otherwise have caused her concern because she felt she had to put them down to ‘cultural issues’. So yes, my point is SW are not neutral, they are heavily politically influenced and in cases like the ones I quoted that has caused them to prioritize politically influenced thinking over basic safeguarding.

The judge has to weigh up the evidence offered in mitigation or as a defence and presumably that will be reflected in the sentencing remarks.

I wasn’t at court and haven’t seen the evidence other than what the newspapers choose to print.

But yes, I would have thought it patently obvious that a man left largely on his own with a traumatised baby that is not biologically his would struggle to bond with the baby. I have no idea if the accused had ever displayed any sexual interest in children prior to this; would that not have been apparent from their phone or internet history?

However unpopular opinion, I don’t think gay couples should be able to adopt. I don’t understand why they would want to. And I wonder if this trial will create rule changes?

Please elaborate - revealed myself as what exactly?

I didn’t read the articles because it’s potentially upsetting. That’s how most people deal with things that might upset them.

I personally think that judges and also reporters etc should be able to deal with facts without bringing their own emotions into it.

Ding, ding, ding. I think you’ve just revealed yourself.

The judge referred to the likelihood of them escaping scrutiny because of how they presented, their charm etc

Jesus wept, surely this must be basic training for social workers, not to be affected by perceptions of respectability etc….

That’s not facts, it’s psychopathic levels of detachment that stop one from understanding what is happening in a human interaction. Being able to understand emotional dynamics is vital to understanding crimes like these.

I didn’t claim it was an horrific case I couldn’t deal with .

This is a comment about all the threads about this situation.and how people are dissecting every part of the case and the reporting, offering their own ‘expertise” etc

Better being desensitised and discussing facts than looking at things emotionally though in a legal situation