Notice that through all of this, there is no mention of a mother--or stepmother--in the home when all of this was taking place. Was there an adult woman living with this pedophile? Or is this a single dad?
Enfield father found guilty of raping stepdaughter and sexually abusing daughter in the 1980s
4:26pm Friday 22nd February 2013
By Hermione Wright.
A father has been found guilty today of sexually abusing his daughter and raping his stepdaughter in Edmonton in the 1980s.
Members of the jury were unanimous in convicting the Enfield man of all nine counts of sexual abuse and rape against the girls, who were both under 13 at the time of the abuse.
The man’s wife - who is not the mother of the victims - ran out of court in tears once she heard the jury call out the guilty verdicts following his week-long trial at Wood Green Crown Court in Lordship Lane.
He remained silent as he was led from the dock minutes after the guilty verdicts were read to the court.
Despite protesting his innocence, the paedophile was found guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, one count of rape, two counts of indecency with a child and four counts of indecently assaulting a woman.
He had sex with his stepdaughter when his younger daughter was watching television in the same room.
The court heard testimonies from his daughter and stepdaughter, who said he started molesting his stepdaughter as soon as she hit puberty.
When she escaped to live with relatives, the paedophile started to sexually abuse his own daughter in their family home.
His stepdaughter reported the suspect in November 2011, and his daughter also agreed to testify against him during the trial, which started on Monday.
Although no attempt was made for bail, Judge Rosa Dean ordered the criminal to be remanded in custody as there were “substantial grounds” to believe he would fail to attend his sentencing now he has been found guilty.
Because he is a convicted paedophile, she also said bail would not be appropriate due to the risk of him committing further offences.
The man cannot be named to protect the anonymity of his victims.
Judge Dean told the criminal to expect a “very lengthy” custodial sentence when he reappears at the court on March 8.
She decided not to sentence him immediately to allow the victims a chance to attend.
The court heard the man was fined £150 last year for breaching a non-molestation order against a child and was also fined £150 for theft in 1981.
The man’s mother-in-law, who must remain anonymous to protect the victims, said she was “overjoyed” with the verdict reached by the jury.
His father-in-law said: “justice has been done for the victims”.