Peter Elliott's Social Media Accounts
Know a Social Media Account Linked to Peter Elliott?
Want to add information? Log in to your account to contribute accounts and phone numbers.
PADSTOW MAN PETER ELLIOTT CAUGHT WITH CHILD INDECENT IMAGES AND MURDER VICTIMS' PICTURES
In a case that has shocked the local community of Padstow, Peter Elliott, a 51-year-old resident of Raleigh Close, was found to possess indecent images of children, along with photographs of notorious murder victims Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, as well as the missing toddler Madeleine McCann. The incident came to light during a court hearing held at Bodmin magistrates on Friday, October 31, 2008, where Elliott pleaded guilty to four separate charges related to the creation and possession of indecent images.According to court records, the charges stemmed from activities that took place around September 2007. Among the images found on Elliott’s devices was a photograph of a girl approximately 11 years old, which was classified as level four on a severity scale where five indicates the most serious offenses. It is important to note that none of the charges directly involved the images of Holly Wells, Jessica Chapman, or Madeleine McCann, but their photographs were nonetheless discovered on his mobile phones.
Prosecutor Anita Kennett revealed that during police interviews, Elliott admitted to having an unhealthy and disturbing interest in young females. He also acknowledged using various aliases, including one inspired by the film 'Billy Elliott' and another derived from the TV series 'The Saint,' where he was known as Simon Roger Templar.
Authorities seized two mobile phones from Elliott, which contained images of actresses aged between three and five, as well as the BBC test card girl from the 1970s. Disturbingly, these devices also held photographs of the murdered schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, along with images of Madeleine McCann, the toddler who went missing in Portugal. Additionally, a computer was confiscated, revealing a total of 119 images classified as level one in terms of seriousness, which indicates a lower level of harm but still constitutes a criminal offense.
During the hearing, defense lawyer Paul Gallagher argued that the case could be adequately handled by the magistrates, emphasizing that the number of files—119 in total—was not considered large. He also pointed out that only one image was classified as level four, suggesting the severity of the material was relatively limited. Nonetheless, the court took the charges seriously, given the nature of the offenses and the disturbing content involved.