Prolific catfish abuser who drove girl to suicide jailed for at least 20 years

[IwantToRetire]

(Some information in the article is very distressing and disturbing and it maybe that some on FWR wont want to read the details. But it does seem that police in NI, even though a small force, put a huge amount of effort in tracking this man down.)

An online predator who drove one of his catfish victims in the US to take her own life has today been jailed for at least 20 years.

Alexander McCartney, 26, who admitted 185 charges involving 70 children, was given a life sentence with a minimum term by Mr Justice O’Hara at Belfast Crown Court on Friday.

McCartney, who posed as a teenage girl to befriend young females on Snapchat before blackmailing them, is believed to be the UK’s most prolific catfish offender with victims identified across the world.

Twelve-year-old Cimarron Thomas from West Virginia in the US took her own life in May 2018 rather than comply with McCartney’s demands for her to involve her younger sister in sex acts.

Article continues at https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/alexander-mccartney-sentenced-prolific-catfish-30227880

I've taken the man's name out of the thread title and deleted the newspaper image of him.

I appreciate the work that the PSNI put into this investigation, but I'm trying to understand why he was allowed operate for years after he first came to their attention. From RTE:

He first came to the attention of police when a large number of electronic devices including four laptops, eight computer tablets and nine mobile phones were seized in January 2016 and were found to contain 3,490 indecent images.
McCartney was arrested on 4 February 2016 before being released on police bail.
His home was searched again in March 2018 and the following year, March 2019, a week after the PSNI had received a referral from police in Scotland alerting detectives that a victim of McCartney had come forward there.
The final search was conducted four months later, on 30 July, 2019, when he was again arrested and charged with a number of offences.
Despite the attention of the police and multiple searches of his home, prosecutors said that as time went on, there was an escalation in the seriousness of his conduct, in the form of "the depravity of the demands" he made.

I read about Alexander McCartney yesterday, and my heart broke for Cimarron, her father who never knew what drove his dear daughter to suicide and her 9 year old sister. Also the potentially thousands of childhoods and lives he has ruined.

He is where he should be now and I hope that callous, depraved bastard, never ever has the opportunity to harm another living being ever again.

To be fair, some of the PPS do read like this. 'why was a 12 year old on social media' etc. I'm not saying it isn't a relevant question but it can be read as a bit victim blamey.

I 100% agree but in this case the sheer numbers are specific to technology. 3500. Without the internet his opportunities for abuse would have been limited primarily to the small amount of children within his local area. Yes if he was in a position of power (teachers, catholic priests, etc) his opportunities would have been higher which is why we have now put in place restrictions and checks for people in those positions - DBS checks, oversight and scrutiny etc. Plus there's just general reputation - often (not always) someone who repeatedly offends is identified at a young age 'stay away from that Andrew boy, he's a bit odd,' etc. Still not fair on the small amount who they do manage to ensnare, but it would never be 3500.

This probably isn't the right thread for this, and I am concerned about veering into victim blaming territory (the parents, not the girl herself of course), but yet again it also shows the danger of having guns available where children can access them. If the poor girl had tried hanging herself or taking pills or whatever it's far more likely she might have been saved, it's almost impossible to survive a shot to the head.

Reading more about the case on here just makes me so angry. If he hadn't been released that first time, that poor young girl wouldn't have killed herself. How could they have the amount of images etc they had initially and not been able to get him prosecuted and put away? And it sounds like they've only really concentrated on the manslaughter charge. I only hope now that he's in jail, they will look at charging him with the other crimes too and try to get that minimum sentence increased. He should be serving a whole life sentence - he's proven time and time again that he is going to do whatever he can to continue abusing. Young girls are not safe whenever he is free. We should be protecting his future potential victims and making sure this monster never gets a day of freedom again.

And if it's true that his mother kept enabling him by buying him new devices every time then maybe she should face some sort of sanction as an accomplice?

Nothing would surprise me less.
He’s shown no remorse. He’ll spend his whole time plotting how to do it again. If we’re lucky, they’ll catch him earlier.

He deserves every minute of 20 years. What an evil bastard. That poor girl and her father too.

☹️
This is horrendous and heartbreaking.

According to this BBC report, some of his victims were 4 years old. How did he even get access to children that age??
It's horrifying.

www.bbc.com/news/articles/crejr8grr01o

He blackmailed some of his victims into involving their younger siblings in his abuse. He is absolutely despicable.

He forced his primary victims (most of whom seems to have been 10-12) to involve their younger siblings. He's an appalling human being and I hope he never sees the outside of prison again.

Coming at this from the angle of school safeguarding, I hope cases like this highlight to parents the need to take a more nuanced approach to your children sharing nudes.

I deal with 11-19yo and incidents involving nude or semi nude images all the time, it's a main-stay of secondary DSL. In the vast majority of cases children don't want parents to know because parental will tell them off. And in most cases it takes a lot of education from me before a parent moves past expessing degrees of disappointment or anger towards their child. It's not uncommon that a parents responce to finding out their daughter sent a nude is to remove her phone. Or ground her. Or some other punishment.

This grinds my gears. Because its a parent's default responce of expressing disappointment to their child that is exactly the reason sexpolitation like this can continue. Because no girl wants their parents to be disappointed. Kids don't want to have their phone removed off them. They don't want parents to ground them or be angry. So they don't ask for help. So they keep their embarrassment and exploitation a secret.

There's a growing body of parents who's responce to hearing her daughter took a nude and shared it, empathise with her. Explain why that wasn't wise. Support her to get clued up on why it isn't a good idea and what to do when they've lost control of an image they share. I hope the legacy of Cimarron Thomas is a growth in this group of parents.

LittleHangleton It's not uncommon that a parents responce to finding out their daughter sent a nude is to remove her phone. Or ground her. Or some other punishment.

Removing the phone of a child who has sent nude photos of herself is not a punishment, it is removing a danger. The parents are now racing to restore the situation which should have prevailed all along, i.e. not giving a smartphone to a child who does not have the maturity to use it safely and within the law.

it is illegal to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978. [UK], so the child is also putting themselves, and the children they are sending the nude photos to, in a dodgy place legally.

The advice that smartphones are not suitable for children under 16 has been around since smartphones were around, and the fact that it seems to be commonplace for to children send nude photos to each other, and to the likes of McCartney and the hundreds and thousands of other predators on the net, shows what good advice that was.

How many tragedies will it take for people to see through the hype about smartphones being a necessity for children, and get the message that they are no more suitable for a child than a 750cc motorbike would be.

With due respect MarieDeGournay a child will not be criminalised for voluentaily sharing a nude image of themself. Suggesting such to children is exactly the problem I describe. It's sending children into feelings of shame and fear, when they need help.

If you care to dig a little deeper into safeguarding of this area, you'll find https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people

Written in conjunction with police, education and NSCPP. This isn't new guidance. First published 2016, from memory. It explains in much more detail why a more nuanced approach is needed.

A start point to understanding why children won't be criminalised for taking a nude and sharing it is by looking at the date of the legislation this refers to: 1978.

This legislation was written way before the Internet or social media. It was not imagined that the whole world will change in terms of taking and sharing their images (of all kinds) worldwide. The intent behind the legislation is not to criminalise children who take an image of themselves and choose to voluntarily share it. The intent of the legislation is to protect children from exploitative adults. While the legislation has not been overturned, it is wrong and highly unhelpful to the safeguarding of children to suggest they'd be criminalised for taking and sharing a nude or semi nude image.

All this in itself goes back to my earlier point. Parents, on the whole, do not have a deep enough understanding of how to safeguard their children on this subject. Their well-meaning responce (like your not having your phone until you learn), is making the problem worse. It enhances secretism. The child won't go to that parent next time if being exploited because they want to keep their phone.

I have a job educating my staff on understanding why we should take a different approach to the subject of sharing nudes. And my staff (large secondary school) are safeguarding trained. So for parents to understand deeper than superficial presentation of facts, this is a big task. I hope that more conversations like this help in that.

You are right tthat social media use should be limited to younger children (I would not widen this to smart phone use, personally, I feel that is short-sighted), in particular under 13s. But that cannot be used as an excuse to increase the risks and dangers current children face, with a one-size-fits-all response to current online safeguarding risks. We dont live in a world where u16s don't have mobiles. So we must safeguarding the children in the world we do live. This involves deeper considerations than just mobile phones are bad.

I didn't say that children are, or should be criminalised for sharing a nude image of themselves, LittleHangleton.

I am familiar with the nuanced approach taken to such cases, as detailed in the sources I have drawn on, e.g.
Sexting - childlawadvice.org.uk
What To Do If You Think Your Child Is Sending Nudes
etc.

But children grow up, and if they continue exchanging sexual images beyond the age of legal responsibility, they will get in trouble with the law, and they need to be told that, in a non-threatening but factual way. Alexander McCartney started targeting victims in 2013, when he was only 14.

I also never said that 'mobile phones are bad', my approach is much more nuanced than that - I have a tech background and admire the complexity of the technology involved.

For one thing, there are mobile phones and there are smartphones. Smartphones are only phones incidentally, they are really mostly internet-enabled cameras, so giving a child a smartphone is going to push image-based online activity. Which is great if it's appropriate and supervised, potentially dangerous if not.

There are mobile phones which are not smartphones (which are re-gaining popularity amongst adults doing a 'tech de-tox') which do the necessary, i.e. communication by text or voice with family and friends. Why would a child need more tech than that?

You point out that 'we don't live in a world where under 16s don't have mobiles'.

I agree - although it's only true where there is enough disposable income to give children such expensive items, and sadly many families don't have enough money to buy food, let alone a smartphones for children - but I don't agree that we should just accept it an acceptable or necessary risk.

I question how on earth we got into this situation in the first place, how the advertising power of the phone manufacturers could override wisdom and common sense.

I question how many more cases we will see of children being damaged - lethally, in tragic cases like Cimarron Thomas, but also insidiously - we live in a world where a NSPCC/ChildLine survey found that 6 out of 10 teenagers say they have been asked for sexual images or videos and 4 out of 10 said they had created a sexual image or video, and about a quarter said they had sent one to someone else by text.

How did we get into this situation, and do we just accept it as the world we live in, and deal with the fallout after we find that a child has been catfished or preyed upon or distressed or abused or threatened? Do we put the onus on the child to be tech-savvy and sensible and responsible and able to assess dangerous online situations?

Or should adults take proactive and practical steps to stop the damage happening in the first place, as we do with other forms of technology, such as automotive technology - a wonderful thing, but we wouldn't hand the car keys over to a 10 year old.

We don't live in a world that is safe for children, and my question is: what can we do as adults to mitigate the dangers, wherever they come from?

This is entirely incorrect:

"if they continue exchanging sexual images beyond the age of legal responsibility, they will get in trouble with the law".

They will not.

That is precisely the point I am making.

Under 18s will not get into any legal trouble for voluentaily sending a nude or semi nude image. And over 18s will also not get into any trouble exchanging nude images with other over 18s in a voluntary and consensual way.

That is not the intention of the law. That is why the guidance I linked to was produced. This is what all police forces and schools across England adhere to.

Unfortunately for children, the general public have not caught up with the professional understanding of police and safeguarding professionals. In particular general public who are parents who falsely follow a narrative around shame and victim blaming, suggesting that by taking a nude image of themselves and sending it they'll be in trouble.

This is the problem. The opinions like yours MarieDeGournay are making it harder for children to ask for help. And more challenging for professionals who do understand to give that help.

I hope by talking and read about this, the legacy of this case is more parents understand the need to take an educational and empathic responce to our daughters and sons who are involved in the sharing of nude images. Not punative and shamed based responses.

I’m from Newry and grew up during the ”Troubles”. I think @DaisysChains is mostly talking drivel. Unfortunately there’s a lot of sick people everywhere.

I know McCartneys Aunt quite well. A lovely person with children the same age. I feel so sorry for her.

We dont live in a world where u16s don't have mobiles

No, but we should and I support legislation to make that happen. Make it like alcohol where an adult who sells it to a minor or buys it on a minors behalf can be prosecuted.

Thankfully lots of parents are now resisting smart phones for the under 16s, returning to Nokia bricks or choosing smart watches instead of smart phones (no cameras, no social media, no internet browser, just calls, texts, GPS locations & maps, music players and Health apps).

My DD’s inner city state secondary has recently gone ‘Smartphone Free’, and it seems to be going well.
Giving your child a smartphone will hopefully become about as socially acceptable as giving them 10 B&H and a scratch card.

No shade on the children and parents in this awful news story though - parents have only just started to take action on this matter, McCartney’s abuse of Cimarron occurred 6 and a half years ago.

The depravity online knows no bounds it's up to adults to police what their children do and don't give in to everyone else is on tik tok and whole other myriad of platforms.
You wouldn't leave your front door open and let the local paedophiles into your child's bedroom for a chat so why take the risk with mobile phones and social media.

The internet has robbed our society of innocence and unfortunately I think it is up to axhools, parents and the government to warn families as much as possible (including through media) about these dangers. Do not talk to strangers in the internet has to become a mantra so integrated in general upbringing it becomes like crossing a road.

The other thing is that large internet companies really do need to take this seriously and accept weaknesses in their platforms are a a factor and they have the money and technology to address this. I think successive governments have been too weak with big tech.

Australia have passed legislation banning smart phones for children I believe and maybe it is time we considered an h a drastic action; what is the counter argument?

Yes this is more common than you think. I work in a high school in safeguarding. We recently had an unknown target alot of girls in a year group. Asked them to play a game and tried to get them to send naked pics of themselves and he also sent them pics of himself unsolicited. The police are involved and are now having to ask Snapchat to give over the account holders details. I really hope Snapchat co operate. It's sickening that these social media companies don't have to give away details though. The law needs to change around that. Especially WhatsApp and their end to end encryption

I think Daisyschains is mostly talking drivel. Unfortunately there’s a lot of sick people everywhere

I dgaf what your opinion of me is but your latter opinion somewhat negates what came before it

NI has historical factors that research has shown to increase the likelihood of MVAWG and children and other males too

just this week a case is being relooked into with regards two young boys - two of five possibly linked to Kincora

the ‘troubles’, the laundries/care homes, the religious orders/schools, the paramilitaries/drug-dealing and generational trauma all combine within NI to create a society that is fertile ground for continuing abuse

that you cannot see the extent of the abuse is not a failing

that you dismiss it out of hand mightn’t be a failing to you either - you may feel righteously justified in believing that abuse is not widespread or organised within NI

but I’m allowed to hold the opinion that it is

To be honest, during The Troubles a lot of crime (from small things like traffic offences to large things like GBH and smuggling) went without investigation and flourished because the RUC, HMRC and other investigatory bodies were more concerned about paramilitaries and terrorism.

As well as this, Republican paramilitaries actively sought to prevent the RUC and British Army from entering ‘their’ areas by declaring them targets for snipers etc so lawlessness was common.

Where I grew up, we never saw the police except when they occasionally flew in by helicopter, with army backup, and they stayed for maybe an hour at most doing checkpoints on the roads before they flew away again. They also refused to come out to calls for help from victims of crime because paramilitaries used that tactic to lure them into ambushes, they basically lived in their fortified barracks and travelled in and out of the barracks by helicopter because the roads weren’t safe for them to use, so we had no-one to enforce the law where I grew up. Paramilitary gangs tried to style themselves as protectors of the community by punishing bad behaviour in communities but they only punished what they considered bad (or people who weren’t in their gangs) and punishment beatings of kneecapping were not an effective deterrent for a lot of young men who liked taking drugs or joyriding because they didn’t believe they’d get found out.

NI was a much less safe and law-abiding society during The Troubles and lots of nasty stuff went under the radar of the police, and if the perpetrator was in a paramilitary gang he was allowed away with it because he was considered a hero for the cause of one side or the other.

Domestic violence, sexual assault, paedophilia, GBH etc were all crimes that no-one investigated on a regular basis or if the perpetrator had the right connections to keep things quiet.

There was a recent report from Foyle Women's Aid about how the existence of paramilitaries continues to impact women's experience of male violence.

https://foylewomensaid.org/when-you-know-what-they-are-capable-of-paramilitary-related-gendered-coercive-control/

For what he did 20 years is barely a slap on the wrist. I hope the sentence gets reviewed.