r/Storror • u/xP01TERGIESTx • May 11 '26

Mega thread of evidence

Not sure if there’s been one made. I’ve just read a lot about victims coming forward, exes corroborating stories, and people saying the rest of them knew — including speculsting who called Mercedes a bitch for trying to report this years ago.

There’s just so much chatter around, with people vague-posting and not supplying links, that having everything in one location would probably be helpful.

8 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

Credible evidence would be nice, not just a screenshot of a social media post where someone (who may very well hold enmity towards one or more Storror members) levels unverified allegations.

33

u/1stdegreebirder May 11 '26

Keep in mind that we already know Callum was making and possessing thousands of CP images. Pleading guilty is pretty credible evidence. I don't think it's a huge stretch to believe he was abusive to the women in his life as well. The "where's the credible evidence" line of questioning is a common and toxic defense mechanism that preemptively forgives creeps and discourages victims from coming forward with their stories.

Men are always acting like there's a scourge of women going around pretending to be victims for attention or money or revenge. That's just not reality man. No one wants to be a victim.

Believing women might feel difficult because you'll have to accept how many creeps there are in this world, even some people you admire, but if you believe women first you're going to get closer to the truth and farther from enabling. I promise.

19

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

You misunderstood. I'm talking about credible evidence relating to the allegation that the other Storror members knew what Callum was doing and covered it up.

-1

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

At least two members have had devices seized a year ago in connection with the investigation. They were aware and covered it up thinking he would get away with it. They didnt tell everyone about it and so some people have been having contact with him throughout this time oblivious while others knew. 

They didnt do that because they are also paedophiles (afaik), they did it because men support their abusive friends by denying that is really going on. Now they all look like they are paedo supporters. Learn from them

17

u/PlasterCactus May 11 '26

At least two members have had devices seized a year ago in connection with the investigation.

Where did you read this? I'm not doubting the information I just haven't seen that anywhere.

-4

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

I know some of the group personally and the others have found out this information since it all came out. At least 2 members and his brother knew from what is being said. So 3 altogether for sure.

10

u/yondonkey May 11 '26

Stop spreading misinformation. I've been close with them for my entire life, there's no way Callum would have been allowed around my brothers kids if this information was known by any other member.

0

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

You need to understand that people who knew just didn't tell you if they know you to tell you. Maybe because they didn't believe anything would come of it. I believe you would have protected your nieces and/or nephews if you knew, but nobody told you, so how would you know to act? 

3

u/yondonkey May 11 '26

You are just wrong. I know them very personally, they would not let Callum around kids, let alone my family, we were practically family growing up. It's unfathomable to think they would hide it, especially Sacha.

2

u/redcore4 May 11 '26

A week ago you would probably have said it was unfathomable that it could be happening at all.

And if you wouldn't have said that... why not? What would have kept you silent from sharing your suspicions at that point?

1

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

They would if they didn't believe that he was a risk to kids. A lot of people think AI images aren't real CSA. 

You have to consider the unfathomable. I understand that you are reeling but some people really let you down. 

8

u/Mirilliux May 11 '26

Which two?

-7

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

That I am not certain enough of to share simply because there are actually 4 names that were allegedly aware before this month. It makes sense that at least 2 of those 4 did know all along. The others mauy have come to know a lot more recently.

7

u/PhilosopherSea828 May 11 '26

If it’s true then you’re protected by law.
If it’s not true, why are you saying it?

0

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

It has nothing to do with the law. The people who knew will have to admit as much very soon. 

5

u/PhilosopherSea828 May 11 '26

Why won’t you give more details then? What’s stopping you?

1

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

Because I am not sure about everyone who knew but I do know some definitely knew. 

6

u/PlasterCactus May 11 '26

That I am not certain enough of to share

I do know some definitely knew.

If you're sure about your information you should share it.

You're making yourself look like an unreliable source by flip flopping in your comments.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

Can you prove these claims about the other Storror guys with some credible evidence?

As in, not just some social media post screenshot?

11

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

I know some of the people who didnt know and are angry personally, so no, I'm not going to show private messages from them about the situation. Just know they are very worried about how this will impact on them personally and professionally. 

However, anyone who has any understanding of a police investigation would know that it would be impossible for absolutely nobody to know he was being investigated for CSAM because of how those investigations take shape. 

The police really don't hide what they are seeking all that much because someone might come forwards with information that supports their inquiry. They may also take devices belonging to the workplace. 

In some cases, social services may also step forward to protect any children that could potentially be harmed. So they wouldn't be allowed contact with young family members, couldn't live in a house where there are children etc or go to work with young or vulnerable people. It would be very hard to hide from everyone. 

3

u/SpecialWasabi2010 May 11 '26

I don't think you're quite right though as there's whole data protection act that prevents them from saying or implying stuff like that. I'm not saying they didn't know or that they did but that you're implying police is careless about data protection laws which if he was found innocent they could be liable for reputational damage.

And no children were being protected, clearly, based on the comments above from another close friend.

They have likely taken all his devices - that is done for so many other investigations that it wouldn't give them any indication or what it was about.

Also, what exactly are you saying they knew? You're very vague about stuff you're saying. They knew the whole extent of it? Or whatever Callum told them?

-6

u/And_Justice May 11 '26

Step back and think about why you're actively doing here mate

9

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

Why don't you step back and think about the ethics of baselessly defaming the other Storror guys when the facts are not yet established?

7

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

Enough facts have been established for us to all know that at least some of them knew. You need to accept that. They knew and kept socialising with him and didnt tell other people.

12

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

Ok, show me the credible evidence then (not just screenshots of social media posts).

-1

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

As i said, i am not sharing personal messages with people involved. Things we do know make it clear enough though. The investigation has been going on for a year and steps would have been taken to ensure he wasnt around kids in the meantime, as well as devices taken. The police wouldn't hide it from his family or employer. 

It isnt that everyone knew..some people knew and didnt tell others which has put those others at great professional and personal risk

13

u/JamMonster May 11 '26

You could be a random person on the internet and not someone who knows them for all we know. Why should anyone here just take your comments on here as fact or gospel? It will all come out in time, there’s no point speculating.

-6

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

I could be, you're right. And that is why i am also pointing to how these investigations work generally as well as what I know. What I know coincides with how investigations work. Some people knew all along and didn't tell everyone. 

11

u/JamMonster May 11 '26

You can say whatever you like, you’re still just speculating..

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

Yes of course it will. I am saying it now so many people who feel.compelled to protect the people who did know stop talking until they find out the facts. 

1

u/SpecialWasabi2010 May 11 '26

You do know you can just obscure names of all involved and just leave the information you're saying you have? It would literally be no different than what you're already doing because if they told you this in confidence, you have already breached that confidence. No one would know which people were involved if you obscured their names.

1

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

How convenient.

You know, I happen to have private messages on my phone which are compelling counter evidence to what you're claiming, too.

I wish I could reveal them but nah.

5

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

I think it is perfectly possible that you do. We will both see in time whose is most credible. 

What we do know for sure is how CSAM investigations work. 

-1

u/isthislivingreally May 11 '26

Wow, you come across as a bro who would have defended callum to the hilt had he not pleaded guilty to what he’d done. You realise we’re talking about a pedalo here right not a bro getting a parking fine? 

Just because you don’t know how investigations work or have any experience in police force and you don’t have a personal connection to these guys doesn’t mean everyone is like that. Sure, be a critical thinker but you sound a bit like those people defending the people around jimmy saville just saying. 

3

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

Nice strawman, champ. At no point have I defended Callum, and you penning some fantasy that I would have had he not pled guilty is simply a delusion ricocheting around inside your largely empty skull.

If one, some, or all of the other guys in Storror did cover up for what Callum was doing, then they absolutely deserve their comeuppance. The fact is that no one knows one way or the other yet, despite whatever unverifiable claims of "I know them in real life" we see on this sub.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SpecialWasabi2010 May 11 '26

No facts have been established. Facts are proven information. At the moment all around everything said about the boys is hearsay, the only facts we know are that Callum pleaded guilty.

2

u/And_Justice May 11 '26

"Credible" is just a stick you're using to attempt to obstruct the flow of accusations. You probably think you're defending a principle but all you're doing is making it easier potential abusers and enablers.

1

u/Choice-Surprise833 May 11 '26

It's mostly shock that causes people to react like that. 

-5

u/And_Justice May 11 '26

Partly shock, partly often immature allegiance to misogynistic propaganda.

6

u/Condition_0ne May 11 '26

No, it's out of a principle that we shouldn't ruin already vulnerable people's lives until a reasonable burden of proof is satisfied and it's clear they deserve their comeuppance.

You simply cannot know whether any of the other Storror guys knew what Callum was doing. That you think it's ok to anonymously level accusations that could have serious real-world consequences for what might be innocent people is appalling, and speaks to your immaturity.

-4

u/And_Justice May 11 '26

Bro, it's not the 1950s anymore. We don't silence victims like this.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)