Paedo hid under girl's bed NSFAnyone
 

Paedo hid under girl's bed

By GUY PATRICK
November 10, 2006

A PAEDO seduced a girl of 12 — then lived in her bedroom for THREE MONTHS without her mother finding out.

Scott Jennings, 22, cut a giant hole in the bottom of the youngster’s divan bed then used it as a secret den to evade detection if somebody came into the room.

He systematically abused the girl. And when she went to school in the morning, Jennings slipped out of the house to find food. Jennings, of Ashton-under-Lyne, Gtr Manchester, befriended the girl on a bus last year.

He began chatting her up, persuaded her to give him her mobile phone number and then arranged a date.

When they met, Jennings said he had nowhere to live and confided that he was wanted by police for a minor dishonesty offence.

He told the girl he needed somewhere to hide and was taken into her home unnoticed. The pair then cut a hole in the bottom section of her bed enabling him to hide in it whenever her mum came in.


Pervert place ... Jennings hid in a cavity under girl's bed


Manchester Crown Court heard the girl then swore her ten-year-old sister to secrecy about Jennings.

His lair was found after the 12-year-old ran away with him leaving a note telling her mum not to worry.

Police went to the house and the girl’s sister confessed that Jennings had been hiding there.

Jennings was then found with the child at a flat in Fallowfield, Manchester, later the same day. He denied abducting the child and any sexual involvement but admitted living at the address for three months.

Jennings has now been jailed for two years and three months after he pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault.

He was also ordered to sign the sex offenders register for ten years and was disqualified from working with children.

Last night Det Con Dave Donlan said: “It is a quite extraordinary case. It is absolutely unbelievable — but it is as it sounds. It came as a complete shock to all concerned.

“This is an absolutely unbelievable case that has had a huge impact on the victim and her family.

“The girl Jennings abused was extremely young and vulnerable and he took advantage of this vulnerability for his own personal gain.

“Not only did he live in the room for over three months, but he also systematically abused her.

“I hope the family can now start to come to terms with what has happened to them and move on with their lives.”

g.patrick@the-sun.co.uk

What a stupid fucking sick fuck! Some people need help.

That's an amazing story. Hid inside/under her bed. Unbelievable.

Glad the guy is in jail.


The guy is clearly 100% in the wrong, since she is a minor, but the article doesn't say if the sex was consensual. She actively hid him from her parents for 3 months. He is 22. She's 12. That's an icky age difference, especially with her being so young. It's also criminal. But that doesn't answer the question of if it was consensual. When I was 12, I knew people my age who claimed to be experimenting with sex. Of course, that was Maine.

Well, whether she wanted to or not, it's still rape. The law says she's not old enough to make that decision for herself, so the state does it for her. The way I read it, it seems she invited and facilitated the process though.

A twelve-year-old cannot know what they "want" in that situation.
Nor can we trust what they say in relation to that, fear and confusion will make one say anything.
He invaded her sacred sanctuary and turned it into hell... there are no words.

I often, in relation to my son, say that nothing, nowhere and no one can be fully trusted, other than my wife... and am often called paranoid.
No.

But, we were both abused as kids... she by her father & I was randomly abducted. So, we know what it is really like out there for kids.

If he'd been 13 and she was 12, maybe I'd have reason for pause, but he's 22, stupid, and should spend his time in prison considering having his family allotment cut off.

(edited to correct apparent pidgen English phraseology)

Yup. You had it right when you called the guy a "stupid fucking sick fuck."

But I couldn't help noticing that this article is just the cops' perspective of the case, and doesn't tell us what actually happened from the guy's point of view or from the girl's point of view.

It does not matter what happened from his point of view.

It's amazing how many sicko's there are out there. I come from a pretty large family, and we've always been lucky. Tragedy has had few entries in our lives. As an adult and my circle of acquiantances has grown, it's amazing to realize how many people I've met who have been interfered with as a child either by strangers, but more often by members of their own family.

It was shocking to me when I first realized what the world can really be like.

next time a kid says: but I can't sleep, there's a monster under my bed!

I'm looking.

I'm not defending this guy so much as attacking this article. It's all about sensationalism and it only reports the official police line. The cops have a tendency to make things seem like a bigger deal than they are, so I tend to take what they say with a grain of salt.

So let's look at this for a second, the story uses the standard way of reporting current ages by saying his name, followed by a date. It's reporting that he is currently 22. It doesn't spell it out for you, it hopes you just get that number stuck in your head, and you don't wonder if that's his current age, or the age he was when he committed the crime. But it's written the way they write it when that is the current age. When they talk about previous ages, they always say things like "then 22." I think it's his current age.

Then it clearly says the girl was 12 when the crime happened. It's reporting his current age and her former age. Why is it mixing ages like that? Then it goes on to say that he's been in jail for 2 years and three months. So what if he just turned 22 a few days ago? That would mean that he was 19 when he went to jail. How long do legal proceedings take there? Maybe he was 18 when the crime was committed. Article doesn't say. There's a very good chance he was 18.

They could have run the headline "12 year old girl hides 18 year old boyfriend in bedroom." It's still a little shocking, but not going to sell as many newspapers as "Paedo hid under girl's bed." Both headlines would be factual, but they would rather make their readers' blood boil than try to write the whole story. And as long as we are talking about motives, why are they running this story 2 years and three months later? Where, exactly, is the news? There is nothing new here.

To recap: this story is blatantly one sided. It's very loose with pertinent facts. It came out about 3 years after the fact.

Maybe proceedings don't take quite so long there.

So out of curiosity, I Googled this guy, and see that the incident took place a year ago. He was 21 at the time. So this article was wrong when it said he has served all that time in jail.

So it was a sensationalistic article that didn't have its facts straight, but the facts that were wrong were different ones than I suspected. Go figure.

This means he has been sentenced to two years and three months jail and is currently serving the sentance.

What.....British newspapers sensationalise news and their reports contain inaccuracies? No...sorry I can't accept that :P

I think glatt might need to read the article again.

Nah. It was in the Sun, ergo it wasn't worth reading the first time :P

I don't need to. I found a better article with the actual dates of the crime, and ages of the people when the crime was committed, and accurate information about whether the guy has served his time or not. But it required doing a google search.

Care to share glatt?

Not the only paper that carried the story... try Google before jumping to conclusions, it helps to keep from looking foolish in hind-sight.

I would be happy to, but I already closed that window, and don't want to do another search. It was like the 6th one down when you do a Google news search for his name.

It was the first in a list that was sent to me.

I am very aware of the story. My comment wasn't about whether the story was true, merely about the wisdom of subjecting oneself to a second reading of anything in the Sun. Maybe it's a Brit thing, but the Sun is barely one step above the National Enquirer.

Are you talking about your posting a news story that said he already served his jail time, when he hadn't? Or me hypothesizing openly about what the unclear article might mean?

I think he was suggesting that I disbelieved a story in the Sun. I don't disbelieve the story, understandably it's been fairly big news over here. I do however stand by my suggestion that one shouldn't read the Sun twice:P

I am unfamiliar with the paper.

Fair enough :)

It didn't say he had already served his jail time. Glatt, if you're going to do a critical analysis, you really need to read the content more thoroughly.

I think this means that Jennings has been sitting in a jail cell for the last couple years. Past tense. Apparently you read this to mean he has been sentenced to be held in jail for a couple years. Future tense. This discussion must belong in the thread about differences in the way we speak in various countries.

Unclear, "has now been jailed" could be taken as, has now been sentenced or sent to jail, rather than has been serving in jail.

The Sun is way better than the National Enquirer.... boobies. :blush:

"Little shocking???"

I don't know about where you are, but from where I'm sitting it's still downright horrifying. I wouldn't care if he were 13 or even also 12 at the time of the originating offense ...

you know, this whole discussion of whether he has been in prison or will be in prison could have been avoided if the arresting officers had simply pointed at the hole in the bed and asked him "at any point in time did you live in this room and hide in the bed of a 12 year old?" Once he replied in the affirmative, one well aimed shot through the back of the head would be enough. the why's and how's don't matter.

if that makes me a knee-jerk righty, so be it.

Seems to be in Britain, so the arresting officers don't have guns, they just get to carry around a polite sense of quiet authority. I really don't understand how they get anything done.

I watched the British show, Life on Mars, and it was very, very strange for me.

It's a god-awful small affair
To the girl with the mousey hair...

no gun? ok, a single shot is out. it would take more than one smash from one of their sticks, but same concept.

I think that under British law they are allowed to look at him sternly, but if they cross the line into blatant contempt, the officers get reprimanded.

If you go back and read the complete story, you come across the folowing sentence:

"Jennings, of Ashton-under-Lyne, Gtr Manchester, befriended the girl on a bus last year."

That tells me, anyhow, that he was only recently sentenced for his mis-deeds.

Ever hear of Stolkholm Syndrome? This is a syndrome that often happens to hostages who are completely at the mercy of their captures. They begin to side with the bad guys. Its a psychological mechanism for survival - side with the strong, not the weak. It happens to adults, and it probably happened to this poor little girl.

She had no place of refuge - the man was in her very bed, hiding. Who knew what threats he made or things he told her. That child was being raped - not havig consensual sex.

I've tried to point that passage out mari. Good luck in having it fall on ears (or eyes) that listen (or see).

By the way, I did try googling the name. All I came up with was some artist by the same name.

Maybe you could check your history glatt and share that link you had?

At the risk of lowering the tone, I think you'll find boobies on Page Three of The Sun, but perhaps the Sunday Sport would be more to you taste (boobies on every page, I believe).

See post 13, posted at the same time as your post 12.

Sure. You've asked twice now. I'd be happy to run the Google News search again. It's slightly different this morning, but here are the results.

I skimmed through them yesterday and chose this one to open because it appeared in the summary to have actual facts about the case. You know, dates, ages, the location. That sort of stuff. A quick skimming of the article tells me it's more accurate, and not sensational like the Sun article. If this one had been posted in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

OK, let's leave aside these other issues and look at logistics. Maybe my house is too small, but I just can't believe we could have a fifth person hiding in it and they wouldn't be noticed. I mean, I just this morning went in to my daughter's room to give my usual "It's time to get up and go to school, yeah, I know, I'm going to work even though I don't want to" spiel like I do every morning. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive but I just can't believe there could be somebody hiding in the room who avoid being caught for such an amount of time.

I'm with you on that Steve...

Her parents never noticed? Heard anything? She was on a bus unchaperoned? Neighbors never saw a strange man coming and going?

A 12 yr old does not have the maturity to consent to sex. She has absolutely NO responsibility for this perv's actions. I will say that something was missing from that girl's life that no one noticed, so she recruited a stranger on a bus to fill it. How sad.

Stormie

Besides that, "cutting a hole" large enough for a person in the underside of her bed, without anyone noticing sound or debris? Where did they get the tools for that? And supposedly this guy would sneak in and out of the house every day to get food. I really wonder how much time the guy was actually spending in the house. Did he sleep there every night? Regardless, though, this girl was seriously unsupervised.

I'm with Lookout - one shot, just one. Then again, maybe we could tie him to a post in the street and let the public decide. On this type of offense, I AM as right as it gets. No rehab, no why? or how? - I don't care - period. You violate a child - you die - hopefully very painfully. Sorry, just my point of view.

My .02... one never knows the logistical situation.
Kids get raped by one parent without the other knowing, it happens. It has happened in my family, but there are always fools who like to talk of what they do not know who like to spout "she had to know"... Well, no, she did not and it is something she has to live with for the rest of her life.
However, I have a hard time with it too, logistically, how did he eat, shower, etc, without any evidence being present in the home? Smell is a very hard thing to cover-up and each person has their own set of distinctive smells, especially a man.
Not saying it is not possible, especially with her help... but very difficult under the best circumstances, very difficult.
Finally, if we just execute them, we are no better than they... worse actually.

On the how, it's likely that both parents work (with 12 and 10 year old daughters at school it's unlikely the mother would be in all day).

All the chap had to do was play dead til the house emptied (08.00? 08.30 latest?) then he'd have the place to himself until after school.

I agree that I couldn't have kept someone hidden in my room, but then I shared with my (uncooperative) sister and my parents believed that privacy bred mischief.

I can certainly imagine school friends of mine at that age managing it though.

We believed that if I were to trust them, they had to show trust in me. (unless I broke it)

When I was a teen I caught my Mom going through my stuff (later I found out she needed a cig). I went out and purchased a locking trunk and combo lock.

Did it? :angel:

I think there is a fine line between giving your child privacy and neglecting their well-being. I don't rummage through my children's things uninvited, but the house they live in is paid for by me, and I'm going to make sure it is fairly sanitary and in good repair. Thus, I enter their rooms to check windows, lighting, and furniture condition on a regular basis. We have a good relationship as well, so I am often invited in and proudly shown their world.

I don't doubt the incident happened as was stated, I just have a hard time understanding the apparent lack of interest and/or supervision this girl was shown. I also don't see how these parents could fail to notice another presence in the home. They didn't notice food missing? Things moved around? Higher water/electric bills? Unfamiliar scents? I dunno, maybe I could be conned like that, but the intruder would have to be absolutely, perfectly invisible.

Stormie

BS. i don't have to fuck a kid to put a bullet through a skull. the child was guilty of being a child. regardless of her parenting or mental state, she was a child. he was a man. a predator. you don't reason with, or rehab predators. you destroy them. without remorse.

Not til I was in my teens, and then only in other people's parents' houses!

So it bred intelligence too :D If you are gonna do it - do it in someone elses home!!

I am stooopid. I kept reading the article and wondering "who or what the hell is Paedo, and what does he have to do with this story?"

Excuse me while I go see my orthopaedist. :redface:

Unfortunately, I agree whole heartedly with Lookout. I wish I didn't and pray that somehow, some day I wont feel this way, but I do and I can't deny it.

Why?