Shannon Matthews step father charged

[AnAngelWithin]

10 counts of possessing indecent images of children

makes me

crikey

what a horrible situation all round

Suspect he's been under scrutiny for a while tbh. Maybe if he is in custody she can be placed back home soon.

Trust me 10 counts would not be enough to keep a child out of the home they must want him for more than this if he is the sole reason she is not home.

TBH I am surprised he is going to court, it must be because it is such a high profile case (or he has decided to deny it).

Dirty bastard.

i thought there is probably something deeper to keep her away from the family. unfortunately 10 counts isnt much these days

Hopefully now social services will now do something about my nephews and neices. This was a long time coming. Karen needs a bloody good kick up the backside.

Are you able to explain further, Immaculate?

immaculate is a relative, I think.

I am not in anyway what so ever sticking up for him, but can the police/computer bods tell if he has actually gone looking for these pictures or if it is that he had been looking for something totally innocent and these have popped up?

I only ask because we recently put 'Thomas the Tank Engine' into a search engine and the stuff it came back with was nothing to do with Thomas the Tank (it wasn't pictures of children being abused either, just adult porn) but when we pressed the 'close' sign thing, one after another kept popping up.

Either way something has deffo been going on within that family, else Shannon would have been home a long time ago.

I'm assuming, although not an expert so maybe cod could clarify, that "10 specimen offences" means that they don't charge for each picture that is found on the computer? and that they charge with a number of offences of downloading/creating/possessing in order to bring the charges, and thus the prosicution more quickly?

Presumably all the children will be taken into care now?

Sicko! I thought it was strange not allowing her home and i had this gut feeling about the stepfather too!! Dont know why? Just couldnt put my finger on it...String um up i say, let me at um!

apparantley evolution tells us that step fathers have a high inclination to hurt children that are not theirs , its all down to promoting the passing down of their own genetics, not someone elses. I really didnt like the look of him. There is a lot to be said about the instincts of women in certain situations

I read that a number of locals had access to the computer, so it's not definite that the stepfather was downloading stuff. Although, there have been enough hints from the media (and now Immaculate) that Something Is Amiss. So, who knows? I just hope that Shannon is given the time, space and support to recover. It's none of our business, and is not going to help her recovery if the gory details of her life are plastered all over the press.

well innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It wasn't a secret that he was considered a nasty piece of work by the family - the grandparents spoke out against him in the press saying he hit the children etc. If that is true then I'm sorry but the mother is then also culpable as she stayed with him anyway.

Why were the other children allowed to stay at the house though?

it says in the papers computers were seized as soon as the child went missing, but on the tv pragramme about them he (and other people) were frequently seen using the pc. whole thing is strange.

wannabe, i agree, if he is guilty of hurting the children then the mother should take some responsibility.

(From a friend who is barrister who tries these types of cases), the number of charges does not relate to the number of pictures found. They can be tried on sample pictures, or groups of sample pictures. The total amount downloaded/ taken is relevant when in comes to sentencing.

The likelihood of indecent images of children 'popping' up is not a valid defence, although apparently defendants often argue it. I'm not sure whether because it doesn't happen for these sort of images or whether the police can tell which sites were accessed, when and for how long but either way, if it's on his computer, he, or someone else, has accessed it.

People go to court in these cases for various reasons. Sometimes they're guilty but just trying to get off, but other times they may look to plead around the categorisation of the images, or mitigating circumstances. For what it's worth, my friend said he has never (in hundreds of cases) come across someone who has been charged who is actually innocent of the charges against them.

I watched the documentary about them, and I have to be honest, the mother was sitting there eating take aways and monster munch while Shannon was missing. Now I know you have to eat, but if someone abducted my dd, I sure as hell wouldn't look that calm. But, I guess everyone handles things in their own way.

Just looked odd to an outsider.

I don't understand, what's the difference betwen 1 count and 100 counts. Isn;t one enough?

agree mt but

let's say for arguments sake you went on to a sight and looked at images, you might be disgusted by what you had done, or might be afraid of repercussion and might never do it again. whereas if you go back there 100 times it shows more of a systematic need iyswim.

Dreadful situation, let's just hope that Shannon and her siblings get all the help they need.

god he's gross

No, one count wouldn't always be enough, depending on the number and nature of the images, e.g. someone might be charged with on count of Category 3, one count of Category 4 and one count of Category 5 images.

Shannon's natural father says he has always thought Craig to be a decent guy. That seems unusual.