Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

[IwantToRetire]

Distressing content
-----

A former teacher has been found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering a baby boy that he planned to adopt.

Jamie Varley, 37, was convicted at Preston Crown Court of murder, child cruelty, sexual offences and indecent images relating to 13-month-old Preston Davey.

John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, was convicted of allowing the death of a child, child cruelty and sexual assault.

Varley was in the process of adopting baby Preston (also known as Elijah) with his partner McGowan-Fazakerley. Just four months after being placed with the couple, Preston was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital unconscious and in cardiac arrest. Sadly, Preston could not be saved.

Varley tried falsely claiming that Preston had accidentally drowned in a bath, but prosecutors were able to prove that his injuries were consistent with his airways being obstructed.

The evidence presented by the prosecution proved that in the final months of Preston’s life, he was routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted – suffering more than 40 separate injuries.

CPS statement continues at https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/former-teacher-guilty-sexually-abusing-and-murdering-baby-boy-he-wanted-adopt

More from a BBC report - also distressing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp77l79e9o

I thought there was a thread about this, but cant find one. But sorry if a duplicate.

I really only wanted to post out of respect for this poor baby and the horror of his short life.

RIP

Someone upthread mentions that Preston's mother was jailed at 14 for murder yet has been let out twice, to become pregnant, while full of drugs and alcohol but without a simple contraceptive implant. She is always returned to prison for breaches of her bail terms. Why don't prisons use implants to protect females who are out on bail? (Why don't they use implants for violent offenders, who need to take behaviour - modifying drugs and will not take oral prescriptions?)_

I think any form of hormonal
contraception being forced on somebody is morally wrong, I’m afraid.

They are allowed to run an adoption agency. So they do. See the results.

I find it weird he committed such heinous assaults on Preston and yet had no CSM.

Either this came out of the blue or is it possible the police didn’t find it? I would have thought they’d be pretty good at these kinds of forensics.

With respect your experience, this case doesn’t have anything to do with being a burnt out adoptive parent.

they got Preston and within 4 months he was dead as a result of sexual abuse. They must have immediately started abusing him. 4 months is no time at all.

Yes, I think that is strange to say the least.

It is possible that he didn’t have tendencies prior to adoption but in the lack of bonding he also succumbed to detachment and even dislike and sexual abuse became more of a punishment than an existing perversion. I suspect I’ve explained that badly but it is very hard to explain what I mean without being horribly graphic and I don’t want to be.

Yes, me too, but I really don't think it is likely it came out of the blue. There is nearly always a history with men like this. The police can't find absolutely everything I don't think, or not currently. They just said that THEY could find no evidence of his accessing that kind of material, but that didn't mean he never did.

They DID have an original charge of possession of extreme pornography from a hidden folder dating back to 2017 they found for Vardy, but that charge was removed from this particular case, although it may get covered by a later one. I have seen it suggested elsewhere that this was for bestiality but no idea if there is an accurate source anywhere for that. His "predilictions" appear to be for choking etc and extreme sexual acts in general but in my sadly long experience of understanding child abuse research, I'm afraid it's very rare for these men to 'suddenly' become child rapists - they escalate to it.

And, as we can surmise here, often plan it. Sometimes for years before they get to act on it. Getting themselves into positions of trust, for instance. It's truly shocking how far some of them will go and for how long to get access.

One, there is a difference between 'forced' and offered. Two, a murderer who will clearly never be able to comply with any bail conditions, and will be returned repeatedly to prison, drunk, drugged and pregnant, is not rationally deciding anything. Moral superiority may make one person convinced that everyone has the right to create one baby after another, with drug withdrawal and permanent damage from pre-natal alcohol. Others may have a different notion of what is 'moral'. Three, the contraception ought not to be needed each time she is in prison, so it is possible to remove the implant then, but replace it when she is again sent out on bail. Four, it is debatable if one person's moral views should take precedence over what is best for the person being denied contraception and for the miserable lives of the resulting babies.

That’s unfair, I was trying to explain the realities of adoption. There has been a witch hunt on here towards adopters. On other threads, posters have been insistent that all adopters should be subject to spot checks and should be prepared to hand our devices over to the state for regular perusal. It’s easy to become overwhelmed by adoption in a very short period of time. As I say, I am making no excuses at all. What has happened is horrific. But I would ask that if society thinks that adopters should be held to higher account than other parents, then please support us.

What do you describe as a regular agency?

If he did have a predilection for choking then that would sadly be very relevant.

Why don't prisons use implants to protect females who are out on bail?

• 'protect'- I see what you mean but how would this work? If a woman is an alcoholic or drug addict should they have contraception implanted whether they want it or not?

What most posters are assuming is that everything is centred on local authority social workers controlling the adoption and choice of new parents. It seems troubling that an agency with a gay-men / Stonewall, agenda are in control.

Literally none of this is an "attack on adopters" ffs. It is about child safeguarding and child protection in the face of male child sexual assault.

You are posting on a feminism board, where the women here often discuss issues like male violence, sexual violence against women and children, child protection and safeguarding. Without sugarcoating, and yes, often bluntly. MANY women here have been on the wrong end of that and have extensive experience. Many women are parents, many will also be adopters. But this is a thread about Preston Davey. It is not a "plight of adopters" thread or board nor an adopters v biological parents board.

Child protection is about centering the needs and safety of the child and not the wishes of adults. I'm sorry if that upsets you but that is how child protection is supposed to work.

the person being denied contraception

• women like this aren't being 'denied' contraception. They could have it if they asked for it.

I know what you mean - they won't. I still feel really uncomfortable about forced contraceptive implants though.

How could they be stopped from running an agency though?

I agree that agencies shouldn't be officially affiliated with Stonewall who have been proved to not know the first thing about child safety!

Yes, I know this. Because I am a woman. And an intelligent one. I am allowed to have my own opinions. Posters here are jumping up and down about safeguarding and child protection. There is zero chance of eradicating risk in child protection because social work is not an exact science as it is predicated on the unpredictability of human beings. I will just point out that women kill babies and children too.

One not dedicated to organising adoptions for gay men in particular.

This is literally how adoption works. The state ie local authorities remove children. The local authorities become the corporate parents. The various agencies recruit adopters. These can be the LAs themselves or private agencies. Again, one of the massive issues in child protection is the proliferation of agencies for profit. But that’s a discussion for another day. The LAs seek the best possible matches for their children who are legally freed for adoption. The LAs, who are now all combined into geographic groups as regional adoption agencies, will usually seek to place children who are freed for adoption within the RAAs, unless there are valid reasons for placing children in another area.

Nobody said you weren't? We don't tend to do tone policing over here, sorry.

As I said, though, we are "jumping up and down about it" because we are coming from a perspective that is primarily about male violence and sexual assault, women, children and safeguarding. Far too many people want to close their ears to that, imo. It needs jumping up and down about.

Again, this is not a thread about the personal plight of adopters or whatever gripes you have with how you're treated in your situation v biological parents. A child is dead. He has been raped to death by a man in a situation that the STATE put a very young baby into.

We are allowed to talk about this and without euphemism. People are allowed to be angry about it and talk about the system that allowed this to happen.

The very mechanism of that placement and the decisions made is really important here. I assumed it was a state adoption agency and not one specifically for LGBT, because it covered multiple areas. Do we know that for sure?

Is the agency, Adoption Now, only for gay men/gay couples? I looked at their website and that doesn't seem to be the case.

If they support Stonewall that is very worrying though.

Adoption Now is not specifically for LGBT people.

https://adoptionnow.org.uk/why-us

Yes, I didn't get that impression. I thought it was for everyone. Lots of agencies might've historically had Stonewall training though. I still don't think it's a given that normal checks were bypassed because they were gay. I suspect it's more about perceived class and status, and the "adoption must be the ideal answer" thing.

It would be helpful if those making claims about adoption were even slightly informed about the process though, don’t you think?

There are NO adoption agencies specifically for gay men. Or gay women. Or Reform supporters. Or Cat Lovers. There are just adoption agencies. That are open to all, regardless of sex, household income, relationship status, home ownership, job status, ethnicity, age (with a preferred upper limit), health issues. They all pretty much do the same job.