© By Sophie Lewis | The Grooming Files
About This Research
Sophie Lewis is a final-year BA (Hons) Social Sciences student specialising in criminology, forensic psychology, and counselling. This research is conducted independently with full informed consent protocols and trauma-informed methodology. Over three years, Sophie has documented a previously unrecognised offender pattern: exposure-seeking behaviour in individuals with concerning sexual ideation about children.
Timeline of Events
October 2023: Eddie B’s case begins with Greater Manchester Police
January 2024: Case referred to CPS (after 3 months with police)
June 2025: First documented case (Matt) contacts Sophie voluntarily
August 2025: Eddie contacts Sophie voluntarily — 20 months into CPS review, 22 months total investigation — claiming allegations of “receiving inappropriate images of children, and sending inappropriate images of children. Upskirting.”
August 2025: Full interview conducted with informed consent and signed contract
October 2025: Eddie receives No Further Action (NFA) — after 24 months under investigation (21 months with CPS)
October 2025: Matt observed continuing online searches consistent with his previous behavioural pattern
October 29, 2025: GMP confirms they cannot verify details without additional identifiers beyond his name
The Weight of 24 Months
Eddie didn’t reach out to me in a moment of panic. He contacted me nearly two years deep into an investigation that had been with CPS for 20 months.
To put that in context: average CPS review timelines are 3-6 months. Eddie’s case took 21 months with CPS alone.
This wasn’t impulsive confession. This was calculated approach during active CPS proceedings.
He knew he was under investigation.
He knew CPS had been reviewing his case for over a year and a half.
He reached out anyway.
What NFA Means After 21 Months with CPS
When CPS holds a case for 21 months before deciding No Further Action, that’s extraordinary.
Standard CPS review timelines are weeks to months, not nearly two years.
21 months with CPS typically indicates:
- Complex digital evidence requiring extensive forensic analysis
- Multiple devices or accounts being examined
- Cross-jurisdictional complications
- Borderline threshold decisions — evidence exists but charging standard not met
- Ongoing investigation whilst CPS advises police on additional evidence needed
What it doesn’t mean:
That the case was trivial. That nothing was found. That no risk exists.
CPS doesn’t sit on cases for 21 months over nothing.
The Compulsion to Confess — 20 Months Into CPS Review
The most significant aspect of Eddie’s case isn’t the NFA.
It’s that he sought journalist exposure whilst CPS was actively reviewing his case for nearly two years.
In August 2025 — with his case still under CPS consideration — Eddie:
- Volunteered explicit details about sexual fantasies involving schoolgirls
- Described recurring arousal at school uniforms (“feeling can come back sometimes when I see schoolgirls”)
- Admitted his “darkest thought”: “having sex with a schoolgirl in uniform and other things”
- Revealed visits to a dominatrix for punishment over “nawty feelings”
- Confirmed speaking to me gives him the same “rush”: “Yes”
- Stated his greatest fear is “people finding out” — not prison
He couldn’t stop himself from seeking exposure with CPS proceedings 20 months in.
This is textbook exposure-seeking compulsion.
What Takes 21 Months at CPS?
Between January 2024 and October 2025, what was CPS reviewing?
The timeline itself tells a story:
- Months 1-6: Initial evidence review, legal advice to police, potential further investigation requested
- Months 7-12: Additional evidence gathered, re-reviewed, threshold assessments
- Months 13-18: Borderline charging decisions, possibly seeking senior prosecutor review
- Months 19-21: Final decision: evidence insufficient for realistic prospect of conviction
This wasn’t a quick dismissal. This was prolonged consideration.
The three stated allegations were:
- Receiving inappropriate images of children
- Sending inappropriate images of children
- Upskirting
For CPS to spend 21 months on this means something was there to review.
Why He Reached Out 20 Months In
Eddie’s stated reason: to help me “expose people who prey on children online.”
The reality:
After 20 months of CPS review, with the outcome still uncertain, he needed the exposure-shame cycle.
The investigation alone wasn’t providing it. The waiting wasn’t enough.
He needed to perform confession.
When asked if speaking to me gave him the same rush as his dominatrix sessions, he answered: “Yes.”
That single word contains the entire pattern.
CASE UPDATE: Matt — Post-Exposure Escalation
Following publication of his case in June 2025, Matt has been observed:
- Continuing online searches consistent with his previous behavioural pattern
- Demonstrating the same concerning patterns documented in his original interview
- Showing that public exposure did not function as deterrent
Timeline:
- June 2025: Matt contacts Sophie, full interview published
- October 2025: Matt observed continuing concerning online activity
This is critical evidence: exposure did not deter — it may have accelerated the pattern.
Matt’s continued behaviour demonstrates that the exposure-seeking cycle is not broken by being exposed. If anything, it provides temporary satisfaction before the compulsion returns — stronger than before.
This has profound implications for current intervention approaches.
The Pattern Across Cases
Over three documented cases, a consistent pattern emerges:
Chris — sought exposure and shame compulsively
Matt (June 2025) — continues to spiral post-exposure; continuing online searches consistent with previous patterns
Eddie (August 2025) — sought interview 20 months into CPS review, admitted shame-arousal cycle
All three share:
- Contradictory denials alongside explicit admissions
- Fetishisation of punishment and exposure
- Compulsive outreach despite active risk
- Projection (claiming to help “expose others”)
- Exposure as fuel, not deterrent
Matt’s continued behaviour proves: exposure doesn’t deter this pattern. It reinforces it.
THE ACCOUNTABILITY GAP
When I attempted to verify Eddie’s claims with Greater Manchester Police, I hit a wall that survivors and journalists know well:
“Unfortunately, only a name isn’t enough and we are unable to do anything without that extra information.”
— GMP Media Officer, October 29, 2025
Translation: Without the very details a subject controls (date of birth, crime reference number), verification is impossible.
This means:
- Subjects can claim investigation status without accountability
- Journalists cannot verify claims that could inform public safety
- The public has no way to know if NFA means “innocent” or “insufficient evidence”
- Survivors seeking information face identical barriers
This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s a structural barrier to transparency in cases involving potential risk to children.
The system protects process over protection. Form over function. Privacy over prevention.
Meanwhile:
A man who spent 24 months under investigation for allegations relating to indecent-image offences:
- Admits recurring sexual arousal at schoolgirls in uniform
- Describes explicit fantasies about “schoolgirls in uniform and other things”
- Seeks punishment and exposure as eroticised relief
- Compulsively approached a journalist mid-investigation
And I cannot verify a single detail through official channels.
What the System Can’t See
After 24 months of investigation, 21 months with CPS, and an NFA outcome:
Eddie walks away with:
- No charges
- No monitoring
- No intervention
- No therapy requirement
- No restriction
- No record that follows him
Despite admitting:
- Recurring sexual arousal at schoolgirls in uniform
- Explicit fantasies about “schoolgirls in uniform and other things”
- Seeking punishment and exposure as eroticised relief
- Compulsive approach to journalist during active CPS review
- Fear of exposure greater than fear of prison
- That confession gives him arousal: “Yes”
The system says: case closed.
The risk markers say: pattern active.
The Unanswered Questions
What evidence sustained a 21-month CPS review?
We don’t know. But CPS doesn’t review baseless allegations for nearly two years.
What was found but deemed insufficient?
Likely below charging threshold — but “insufficient to charge” ≠ “nothing there.”
Why the extraordinary timeline?
Complex evidence, borderline decisions, or ongoing parallel investigations?
What happens now?
Eddie is free. The compulsion remains. No system is watching.
Will it escalate?
Matt’s case suggests exposure doesn’t break the cycle — it reinforces it.
What Should Change
This research identifies a clear gap in current safeguarding approaches. The following recommendations are evidence-based and actionable:
1. Pre-Offence Psychological Risk Assessment Protocols
Individuals who exhibit exposure-seeking behaviour, shame-arousal cycles, and persistent sexual ideation about children should trigger assessment pathways — regardless of whether charges are brought.
2. Mandatory Referral Pathways for Exposure-Seeking Behaviour
When individuals compulsively seek confession, punishment, or exposure related to sexual thoughts about children, this should be recognised as a risk marker requiring intervention, not dismissed as “just thoughts.”
3. CPS Guidance on Behavioural Red Flags
Cases that result in NFA after extended review due to insufficient evidence should include risk assessment and safeguarding referral protocols — especially when behavioural indicators are present.
4. Research Funding for Exposure-Seeking Offender Typology
This pattern has been independently documented across multiple cases. It requires:
- Academic research validation
- Development of screening tools
- Evidence-based intervention protocols
- Training for police, CPS, and safeguarding professionals
5. Transparency in NFA Decisions
Public interest cases involving allegations relating to indecent-image offences should include:
- Anonymised statistics on NFA reasons
- Distinction between “no evidence” and “insufficient evidence”
- Safeguarding outcome tracking
Without these changes, individuals like Eddie and Matt will continue to fall through every gap — until they don’t.
Why This Matters
The system operates on binaries: charged or NFA’d.
There is no category for individuals who:
- Spent 24 months under investigation
- Admit persistent sexual ideation about children
- Seek exposure compulsively during official proceedings
- Eroticise shame and punishment
- Cannot self-regulate even under CPS scrutiny
Eddie represents what falls through every gap:
Not charged = not an offender
Admits urges = not “safe”
Seeks exposure = not hiding
= No framework exists
The Research Continues
Three years. Three documented cases. Same pattern. Zero institutional response.
I have attempted to engage:
- Criminology departments
- Forensic psychology researchers
- Child protection bodies
- Police research units
I have been largely ignored.
This is survivor-led, trauma-informed investigative journalism conducted with:
- Full informed consent protocols
- Signed contracts with all participants
- Trauma-informed interview methodology
- Ethical safeguarding throughout
I am not a vigilante. I am documenting a risk pattern the system refuses to acknowledge.
Eddie’s 24-month investigation ending in NFA doesn’t invalidate these findings.
It proves the system can stare at this pattern for two years and still not see it.
Conclusion
The system spent 24 months investigating Eddie.
I spent 90 minutes interviewing him.
In that time, he admitted:
- Recurring sexual arousal at schoolgirls in uniform
- Explicit fantasies he describes as his “darkest thoughts”
- Compulsive need for exposure and punishment
- That speaking to me gives him the same rush as paid domination sessions
The system concluded: No Further Action.
The pattern concluded: Still active.
How many more Eddies are out there, cycling through shame and arousal, waiting for someone to notice before they cross the line?
And how many children will pay the price whilst we wait for the system to catch up to what it refuses to see?
Right of Reply
- Greater Manchester Police confirmed they cannot verify details without DOB or crime reference
- Eddie B was contacted for comment; no response received
- Any subject named may submit a formal response for publication
Contact
For research collaboration, professional consultation, or if you are a forensic psychologist, criminologist, or child protection professional interested in these findings:
sophie.editorial@outlook.com
Published by Sophie Editorial | Independent Freelance Journalist ❤️
The Grooming Files 
Leave a comment