NATALIE REED FROM DAGENHAM JAILED FOR ONLINE GROOMING OF UNDERAGE GIRLS IN LONDON
| Red Rose Database
Dagenham Child Sexual Abuser
In June 2011, a disturbing case of online grooming and sexual exploitation emerged involving Natalie Reed, a 30-year-old woman from Wellington Drive, Dagenham. Reed, who is known for her tattoos and distinctive crop hairstyle, engaged in a calculated scheme to manipulate and groom two underage girls for sexual purposes over a period spanning from January 2007 to January 2009.
Reed’s deception was particularly insidious as she posed as a teenage boy, adopting the alias William Hymes, in an effort to lure her victims into a false sense of trust. Her aim was to establish a sexual relationship with the girls, aged 12 and 14, by exploiting their innocence and vulnerability. The court heard that Reed’s actions were facilitated through online platforms and telephone conversations, where she maintained her male persona to deceive her victims.
Originally from Northamptonshire, Reed’s criminal activities came to light after her mobile phone records were traced by investigators. Prosecutor Lisa Matthews detailed how Reed, under the guise of William Hymes, engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the girls, convincing them that she was a young man interested in a relationship. These conversations, which took place over social media sites like Facebook and Bebo, included explicit messages and calls that aimed to deepen her influence over the victims.
One of the victims, a 12-year-old girl, was targeted after Reed managed to infiltrate her social circle. Reed befriended the girl’s family and friends, including a woman she had initially contacted by phone in early 2007. She then established a connection with the girl’s daughter and her friend, the second victim. Over several months, Reed communicated with the second girl, who was only 14, calling her frequently and claiming to live with a woman named Sandy, whose husband George was in prison for child sexual abuse. This story was part of Reed’s manipulative tactics to create a sense of familiarity and trust.
Reed’s persistent communication included daily calls and texts, with her becoming increasingly obsessive. She expressed a desire to meet the girls in person, and although she arranged to meet the first victim in Bermondsey, south-east London, the girl ultimately backed out at the last minute. Reed was arrested shortly thereafter. During police interviews, Reed claimed she was bisexual, unable to read or write, and unfamiliar with the girls she had contacted. However, evidence contradicted her claims, revealing she had sent messages to the second girl in January 2009, expressing love and desire, including statements like “i love you sexy. its always been u n it always wil b iv never loved any1 the way I love u,” and asking for sex with messages such as “wen do u wanna.”
Further investigation uncovered chat logs from December 2008, where Reed explicitly asked the girl for sexual activity, saying, “I wanna get u naked rite now.” Her phone also contained the girl’s birthday, indicating a level of familiarity and planning. The court learned that Reed’s psychological profile suggested she was dealing with significant emotional baggage and identity issues, partly stemming from her parents’ separation when she was 15. A psychologist who examined her described her as “dealing with a young boy rather than a 30-year-old woman,” emphasizing her immature state and emotional instability.
Judge Usha Karu addressed the profound impact of Reed’s actions on her victims, stating, “It’s plain that both of them have been severely traumatised by what happened and that they will take a long time to recover if they ever will at all. You manipulated them, eventually taking advantage of their very young age and vulnerability. You attempted to have full sexual relations with them, thankfully nothing sexual did happen, but that was not for want of trying by you.”
As a result of her conviction, Reed was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Additionally, she was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which bans her from contacting children unless they are members of her own family. She is also required to sign the sex offender register for the next ten years, marking a significant step in her legal punishment and ongoing monitoring for her actions in the London area, particularly in Dagenham.
Reed’s deception was particularly insidious as she posed as a teenage boy, adopting the alias William Hymes, in an effort to lure her victims into a false sense of trust. Her aim was to establish a sexual relationship with the girls, aged 12 and 14, by exploiting their innocence and vulnerability. The court heard that Reed’s actions were facilitated through online platforms and telephone conversations, where she maintained her male persona to deceive her victims.
Originally from Northamptonshire, Reed’s criminal activities came to light after her mobile phone records were traced by investigators. Prosecutor Lisa Matthews detailed how Reed, under the guise of William Hymes, engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the girls, convincing them that she was a young man interested in a relationship. These conversations, which took place over social media sites like Facebook and Bebo, included explicit messages and calls that aimed to deepen her influence over the victims.
One of the victims, a 12-year-old girl, was targeted after Reed managed to infiltrate her social circle. Reed befriended the girl’s family and friends, including a woman she had initially contacted by phone in early 2007. She then established a connection with the girl’s daughter and her friend, the second victim. Over several months, Reed communicated with the second girl, who was only 14, calling her frequently and claiming to live with a woman named Sandy, whose husband George was in prison for child sexual abuse. This story was part of Reed’s manipulative tactics to create a sense of familiarity and trust.
Reed’s persistent communication included daily calls and texts, with her becoming increasingly obsessive. She expressed a desire to meet the girls in person, and although she arranged to meet the first victim in Bermondsey, south-east London, the girl ultimately backed out at the last minute. Reed was arrested shortly thereafter. During police interviews, Reed claimed she was bisexual, unable to read or write, and unfamiliar with the girls she had contacted. However, evidence contradicted her claims, revealing she had sent messages to the second girl in January 2009, expressing love and desire, including statements like “i love you sexy. its always been u n it always wil b iv never loved any1 the way I love u,” and asking for sex with messages such as “wen do u wanna.”
Further investigation uncovered chat logs from December 2008, where Reed explicitly asked the girl for sexual activity, saying, “I wanna get u naked rite now.” Her phone also contained the girl’s birthday, indicating a level of familiarity and planning. The court learned that Reed’s psychological profile suggested she was dealing with significant emotional baggage and identity issues, partly stemming from her parents’ separation when she was 15. A psychologist who examined her described her as “dealing with a young boy rather than a 30-year-old woman,” emphasizing her immature state and emotional instability.
Judge Usha Karu addressed the profound impact of Reed’s actions on her victims, stating, “It’s plain that both of them have been severely traumatised by what happened and that they will take a long time to recover if they ever will at all. You manipulated them, eventually taking advantage of their very young age and vulnerability. You attempted to have full sexual relations with them, thankfully nothing sexual did happen, but that was not for want of trying by you.”
As a result of her conviction, Reed was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Additionally, she was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which bans her from contacting children unless they are members of her own family. She is also required to sign the sex offender register for the next ten years, marking a significant step in her legal punishment and ongoing monitoring for her actions in the London area, particularly in Dagenham.