Nursery paedophile Vanessa George has still not identified the children she abused and their parents may never be informed even if police discover who they are, a report has revealed.
A police ‘case summary’ has been sent to the parents of youngsters who attended Little Teds Day Nursery in Plymouth, Devon, where George carried out her abuse.
The document reveals that George is still refusing to reveal who she abused and will not even meet investigators to discuss the case.
George was given an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of seven years at Bristol Crown Court in 2009 after admitting a string of sickening sex attacks on children.
She took pictures of the abuse before sending them to fellow paedophile Colin Blanchard, who she met online.
But extensive analysis of the images has failed to identify which of the children she assaulted.
However, the 32 page report states that even if officers do identify the victims they may never tell parents due to the ”emotional stress” it could cause.
It warns: ”The whole issue surrounding identification of victims is a sensitive one. It is something that police have discussed in detail with partner agencies.
”Even if officers were able to make a positive identification at this late stage, we would carefully weigh up the benefit of telling the child and his/her parents, weighed against the emotional stress such a disclosure would cause.”
George admitted seven sexual assaults and six counts of making and distributing indecent pictures of children at Bristol Crown Court.
She used a mobile phone to take pictures of herself abusing toddlers and sent them to Colin Blanchard, 39, from Rochdale, Lancs., who forwarded them to Angela Allen, 39, from Nottingham.
Allen admitted four child sex assaults and one count of distributing an indecent image and was jailed for a minimum of seven years.
Blanchard pleaded guilty to 17 offences relating to indecent images of children and two sexual assaults on children and was also jailed indefinitely in January this year.
They shared indecent images over the internet after meeting on the social networking website Facebook.
The summary document released to parents this week partly reveals some detail on the investigation of George, her arrest and interviews.
It also refers to the recovery of images from her mobile phone and computer, as well as those recovered from Blanchard’s computer.
Investigators on the case, codenamed Operation Hopton, said the paperwork was promised from the outset by senior detectives but was delayed due to the complexity of the investigation.
The case summary does not reveal any explicit details, with the authors explaining that the document is merely to give an overview of the investigation and reasons why certain actions were taken.
It also includes the background on those accused, including Blanchard, Angela Allen, Tracy Lyons and Tracy Dawber.
One section describes the identification of George’s victims, noting how there were an ”unknown number of children, both boys and girls, whom have been photographed”.
The summary adds: ”We cannot tell whether the same children have been photographed repeatedly, or if there are single images of lots of children.”
Investigators revealed how they used not only their own specialists from the Child Abuse Investigation Team and the Hi Tech Crime Unit to identify the children, but also experts in forensic anthropology and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Agency ”who have sophisticated software that can be used to identify victims”.
The only firm view came from ”an experienced paediatrician” who believed that those children photographed were ”very young, probably aged under three years old”.
George has only ever provided four full names and two first names but officers cannot be sure enough that she is telling the truth to inform the parents, the report explained.
It said: ”What George has actually done is to provide a list of four full names and two first names only. She has provided NO other information.”
But Detective Superintendent Michele Slevin had ”very real concerns regarding the accuracy of the details provided when cross-referenced against the other information held by the investigation”.
It reveals that the prosecution team have asked to re-interview George to help identify the victims but that recent requests have been refused with George claiming she cannot help further.
Detectives do not accept George’s claims, with the report adding: ”We believe that George knew many of you (the parents) very well, that she will remember what has happened and we would at least like the opportunity of being able to interview George to satisfy ourselves of the accuracy of her recollections.”
The summary notes how George has repeatedly refused to even meet with investigators who have continued in their efforts to identify the victims.
Leave a Reply