M.W. Wolf’s Jungle Gun Phenomena& Baby Reindeer- Describing The Industry Man Suspected of Grooming and Abusing Young Creatives.

M.W. Wolf’s Jungle Gun Phenomena

&

Baby Reindeer- Describing The Industry Man Suspected of Grooming and Abusing Young Creatives.

Based on what we can safely discern from investigations and documented evidence. For the lowdown, please read Part 1 of Cries of Silence - UK Talent and Entertainment Sexual Predator Gossip Sphere. Three part conspiracy-mapping narrative and a documentary treatment draft.

For this blog, we will be utilizing the old military alphabet system of describing a person or suspect. This system is not an in-depth suspect profile but is designed for personnel, say Officer or Soldier, to quickly jot down a suspect’s descriptors to build and retain a log of the suspect for themselves and for others to use to try to identify suspects and dangerous individuals. This system uses a likely bracketing range as to not accidently eliminate viable suspects. It also avoids placing firm parameters on descriptors as this too could cause confusion and miscalculation or accusing of innocent individuals.

Please do not use this blog to accuse anyone of these horrendous crimes. But if you do believe that you know the abuser or have any evidence or details, please report it to the Polcie. The Metropolitan Police is most likely where your reports need to be sent to.

The M.W. Wolf fable below is one of many which will eventually be written into a book.

M.W. Wolf’s Fables- Jungle Gun Phenomena & Why Weak Predators Keep Cats.

The Jungle Gun Phenomena is a social evolutionary theory which holds that: with the right weapons, such as guns, and in numbers, the weak rule the jungle. The Jungle has a packing order, a hierarchical structure and stable evolutionary rules. The phrase "king of the jungle" most commonly refers to lions, even though they do not live in jungles. But Lions are the apex predators in their habitat. Thus really, this common phrase "king of the jungle," means apex predators in a given habitat.

In the Asian jungles, tigers are the apex predators. The “King of the Amazon" is commonly said to be the jaguar. In African jungles, the African leopard is considered the primary apex predator. All big cats! Therefore, the true, undisputed king of the jungle is the Cat.

Humans have no chance at survival against these apex predators in their natural habitats. Yet destroy their habitat overwhelm them with numbers and fire, and we have removed much of their advantage. Then put a gun in even the weakest of the humans hands and it’s game over for the big cats. Survival of the fittest is obsolete when there’s a gun in the jungle.

Over time, the big strong finest of killer cats are reduced to cute, cuddly “Pets”. Fondled and handled by weak morons. Thus, the balance of nature is skewed. Most of the big cats die out and we are left with “Pets” and fondlers.

This Jungle Gun fable is obviously told to parallel the message that over time, the weakest of humans who feel threatened by stronger humans or more established humans, band together to cause havoc and break up the old “habitats” of outdated systems, to rebuild them in perhaps better and a more equitable way.

Yet hidden amongst the ranks are weak and crafty covert predators, who secretly don’t really want safety in numbers or equality, or a better system, they want to be the king of the jungle, they want to feel the “Power of Greyskull.” But they can’t so they scheme and plot and cheat and deceive. They plan and promote underhanded destruction, and attack in numbers, taking full advantage of the freedoms brave men and women have fought to afford them, then they shout about their morals and how liberate they are. And then they fondle “Pet” cats because it makes them feel big and strong and dominate over the tiny killer predator in the palm of their hands. Their words are their weapon, their gun. But words are cheap and disposable, they almost never mean what they mean…. If you know what I mean.

A weak human with a gun is king of the jungle and that is sad but also liberating, as we now, by in large, have no real predators, apart from ourselves that is. A human’s predator is someone who looks the same as them. It’s the mirror, it’s the person lying next to them, it’s the boss at work, it’s the stepdad, it’s the stranger down the alleyway, it’s the CEO or powerful and influential guy at the top who just cannot get enough power and thrill and will do, and has done, anything to get his rocks off on the power afforded to him by someone giving him a gun.

For the predatory abuser we are going to speak about in this article, his gun is not metallic, it does not shoot bullets. His gun is influence, money, power, status. His gun is access to many things, including talent, vulnerable people, money and drugs. He’s skirting behind the curtain, away from the strong and preying on the weak, gaining power and control and access. He’s drugging and raping young fit men who will soon grow up to become much stronger and better humans than him. This is a predatory competitive psychology, of eliminating the young challengers before they grow strong and powerful. It’s weak anti-competitive behaviour.

This anti-competitive behaviour is also what we see in the literary industry at the moment, where weak abusers with the proverbial gun, hold all the cards and abuse the work of up and coming aspiring writers so they can maintain a monopoly over the industry. They “Swipe and Gripe” from the slush pile, feed it to their “Pets” and sell it to their buddies at Netflix as original content. Thus we have an endless bland sausage factory of soulless stolen work and ideas with fake social messaging fudge packed into them.

Thus over 90% of writers never make a living off their writing and talentless “Pets” share hotel rooms, victims and drugs with the abusers at the top of the filth pile, during festivals where they scout for victims. Remember this whilst we progress through this descriptor list and try to put flesh on this monster’s skull, to expose him.  

A - Age

• We know from the show, investigations and other comments that the abuser is likely around 2 decades older than Gadd. Gadd is now 35, so this would give us around about age of 55, bracketed 5 years either side, thus the abuser is likely 50 to 60 years old.

• We also know that he is still very much active and influential in the talent industries, showing no signs of slowing down, thus he isn’t yet at retirement age. “Still very active” and highly influential, further suggests he is likely in his mid to late 50s to mid-60s.

• He is likely part of the post-Baby Boomer or early Gen X cohort, with decades of industry tenure. These roles offer prestige without physical demands, so many stay active well beyond normal UK retirement age (66).

• Interestingly, Tom Goodman-Hill, the actor who played the abuser Darrien in the show is 56 years old, right in the middle of the bracketing range.

• Yet there have been unreliable comments suggesting that the abuser is older than Tom Goodman-Hill, the actor who portrays him in Baby Reindeer. This claim seems implausible. Tom is 56 in 2024, and he already plays the role of an older, experienced mentor. The abuse is said to have taken place around 2010–2011, approximately 14 or 15 years ago. If the real abuser had been the same age as Tom was then (early 40s), he would now be in his late 50s or early 60s, which fits the timeline well. I suggest that Tom might be too close to the real age, thus efforts have been made to mask this.

• To suggest the man was already in his late 50s or 60s back in 2010 implies he is now in his mid-to-late 70s. While there are certainly older men in the UK entertainment industry who are still active, such as Duncan Heath (78) or Trevor Eve (73), this doesn’t align with other consistent elements of the profile. The abuser is described as energetic, still highly connected, and actively engaging with young creatives. Someone pushing 80 would likely not still be operating with the same professional stamina or proximity to emerging talent.

Age Outcome

Safe Estimate:

It is likely that the abuser is currently aged between 50 and 60 years old. This aligns with the timeline of the abuse (circa 2010–2011), when Gadd was around 21 and the abuser was described as significantly older and professionally established.

Possible Outlier:

It is possible that the abuser was older, potentially in his early 60s at the time of the abuse, but this seems unlikely. Such an age now (mid-to-late 70s) would make continued activity at a high level in the talent and literary industries rare, though not impossible. Comparisons to figures like Duncan Heath (78) or Trevor Eve (73) show it can happen, but it’s not common for predators to maintain such access or influence so late in life.

Writer’s Guesstimate:

Efforts appear to have been made, either creatively or legally, to blur or displace the abuser’s actual age, especially in Baby Reindeer. Casting Tom Goodman-Hill (56) as “Darrien” likely anchors the abuser within a certain age range. However, 50 now would place the man at just 35 at the time of the abuse, which feels too young given Gadd’s descriptions of maturity, mentorship, and influence.

For this reason, I’d narrow the likely age window to between 54 and 58, close to Tom’s real-life age and fitting with both the timeline and the psychological role the abuser played in Gadd’s life. If the abuser is currently aged 54 to 58, then his likely year of birth would be 1966 to 1970.

B - Build

• From available descriptions, interviews, and visual storytelling in Baby Reindeer, the abuser is presented as physically unremarkable. Richard Gadd has explicitly stated that the actor who plays "Darrien" does not resemble the real man. In fact, the real abuser is described as plain-looking, not conventionally attractive, and even somewhat physically unimpressive, which aligns with predatory patterns relying on psychological, not physical, power.

• Gadd was in his early 20s at the time of the abuse and has spoken of feeling dominated, controlled, and groomed by someone significantly older, which implies a man who carried a sense of authority, not necessarily physical intimidation.

• There’s no suggestion of a tall, broad, or athletic build, the abuser instead seemed to exert influence through charisma, intellect, and professional status. Given the age estimate (54–58), it's likely the man either showed signs of age (e.g., weight gain, posture change, or male pattern baldness) or took modest care of his appearance, typical of men in managerial or literary professions.

• In Baby Reindeer, “Darrien” is slim, tailored, and sleek, a visual metaphor for control and status. The real person may be slightly stockier, average height, or even a bit dishevelled, depending on whether his public image required careful maintenance, which it does not seem so as he is sometimes described as in the background, controlling. His power is from connections and is not appearance or physical prowess related. Donny did not recognise the man on sight.

Build Outcome

Safe Estimate: The abuser is likely of average, non-athletic physique. He does not rely on physicality, but on authority, social manipulation, and calculated trust-building. His presence was more psychological than physical.

Possible Outlier: It’s possible he has a more distinctive physical feature (e.g., visible baldness, greying hair, or distinctive posture), but none have been explicitly stated by Gadd. There is also the high possibility of slight obesity or a sedentary, slightly unkept appearance, in line with professional life behind desks, meetings, and networking.

Writer’s Guesstimate: The abuser is not striking in build, which may have helped him blend in. He likely exhibits soft authority: posture, voice, eye contact, and calculated calmness. He might see himself or market himself as a father figure. His grooming method relies on being disarming and non-threatening, not dominant in stature. He likes a drink and has a semi-sedentary job; thus he has a moderate degree of subcutaneous body fat, a “Dad Bod.” This unthreatening, average physicality may be exactly what allowed him to build trust and evade suspicion over many years of abuse.

C - Clothing

• In Baby Reindeer, the fictional abuser “Darrien” is portrayed as well-dressed, wearing fitted coats, collared shirts, and smart-casual attire that communicates refinement, wealth, and discretion. However, Richard Gadd has clarified that the real person does not look like the actor, which includes clothing style and outward polish.

• That said, the abuser is described as powerful, influential, and socially mobile, traits which often correlate with image management. Individuals in the literary, talent, or production sectors frequently dress in a smart-but-not-flashy fashion: tailored jackets, scarves, well-worn brogues or Chelsea boots, subtle designer items, trend down jeans and white shirts, the sort of wardrobe that blends in at festivals, publishers’ parties, or private bars.

• This kind of predator avoids attention through clothing. He likely wears neutral tones, avoids logos, and opts for comfortable but intentional choices, a quiet sophistication that signals status without arrogance. He wants to appear approachable, wise, and cultured. He will dress like the kind of guy who you could sit next to on a train, accept he wouldn’t sit in economy class.

• There may be slight dissonance in his presentation: a jacket that’s a few years out of date, or shoes that once had style but are now worn in. This suggests someone who once cared deeply about appearance, and still does, but who may be past his peak in terms of effort and knows that he doesn’t have to dress up because he can talk up with his status and power and connections.

• At industry events, he may dress up, blazer, shirt open at the collar, even a subtle aftershave. At more private encounters (mentoring sessions, quiet bar drinks), his look may soften into knitwear, dark jeans, or slacks. He never lets himself appear careless, but he rarely appears fashion-forward.

Clothing Outcome

Safe Estimate: The abuser likely presents in smart-casual or arts-professional attire, favouring muted colours, tailored layers, and age-appropriate style. His clothing is designed to signal intellect and trust, not flamboyance. He blends seamlessly at book festivals, green rooms, and networking events.

Possible Outlier: He may occasionally display eccentric or dated elements, a scarf worn indoors, a tweed cap, a tint of paisley or shoes out of step with current fashion, but not enough to make him stand out. This subtle deviation may help disarm suspicion, reinforcing an image of harmless academic eccentricity.

Writer’s Guesstimate: He dresses for his audience, youthful enough to seem approachable, old enough to imply authority. His style is calculated: just polished enough to be taken seriously, just relaxed enough to build trust. He likely favours layers (cardigans, scarves, coats) and can switch between professional and paternal with ease. His clothing is part of the grooming strategy. When prowling he wears aged shoes, dark jeans, shirt partly untucked into a floppy aged belt.  

D - Distinguishing Features

• It is likely that he has no obvious distinguishing features. His whole façade is to be indistinguishable. He doesn’t want to be easily identified as a predator. He wants to be camouflaged. He is fake humble in mask but speaks as if he is a God or mega super star behind the scenes in the industry.

• Clark Kent is probably the opposite of this man. Kent camouflages himself with glasses to be humble and hidden so he can protect. This man camouflages himself with a meek and humble disguise to prey.

• It is possible that he wears glasses. Perhaps for concealment, or perhaps because in the UK, a significant proportion of men aged 50–60 wear glasses, largely due to the natural onset of age-related vision decline (presbyopia). 70–75% of adults aged 45–64 use corrective eyewear (glasses or contact lenses). It is statistically likely the abuser wears reading or full-time prescription glasses, particularly for professional tasks like screen work, reading scripts, or editing.

• Given his background and personality type, as an upper middle classed, semi-reclusive young man or adolescent boy, it is unlikely that he was reckless and sporty. In the 90s when he was in his youthful prime, it is unlikely that he went on many “Lad’s Holidays” or was involved with “lad culture”, jumping off cliffs and getting into bar fights. Thus he probably bears little in scars. He probably wasn’t involved in high-risk physical activity or violence. This suggests a body free of tattoos, injuries, or standout physical features.

• His body composition is likely unremarkable. No extreme muscle tone or visible frailty. His entire exterior is carefully curated to blend in, not to impress, or alarm. He is a man who wants to be remembered for his status, not his appearance.

Distinguishing Features Outcome

Safe Estimate: The abuser likely wears glasses, has no visible scars, tattoos, or body modifications, and presents as clean, understated, and non-threatening. His physicality is camouflaged by intention, and that’s part of his predatory success.

Possible Outlier: He could exhibit mild eccentricities, such as an unusual accessory, posture, or speaking habit, but nothing that overrides his broader strategy of blending in.

Writer’s Guesstimate: He wears glasses, he hides in plain sight. His features are ordinary. His manner is calm. If people remember anything about him, it is not his face, it is how he made them feel important, seen, or controlled. He has an aura of silent confidence around him, built through decades of successful business and victim predatory abuse, manipulation and accumulation.

E - Elevation (height)

• There is no confirmed detail about the abuser’s height in Baby Reindeer or in Richard Gadd’s public interviews. However, we can infer certain things based on his ability to blend in, project authority, and avoid suspicion.

• Statistically, the most common height for adult males in the UK is between 5'8" and 5'10" (173–178 cm), with around 50% of men falling in that range. Based on his generation, background, and likely general demographic (white British male, born between 1966–1970), it's likely he falls within this average bracket.

• Height may play a symbolic role in his predatory approach. He is not described as towering or physically dominant. His power stems from status and psychological leverage, not intimidation. Someone tall and physically imposing may have raised social alarm. By contrast, a man of average or slightly below-average height can disarm through seeming non-threatening, a trait often weaponized by intelligent predators.

• His build, likely soft or slightly overweight, paired with an unremarkable height, would allow him to vanish into rooms, appearing like a producer, an agent, or a behind-the-scenes facilitator. People might forget what he looked like but remember what he offered or implied he could do for them.

Elevation (Height) Outcome

Safe Estimate: The abuser is likely between 5'7" and 5'10", falling within the common height range for UK men of his age. His height neither adds to nor detracts from his presence. He doesn’t need height to exert influence.

Possible Outlier: There is a chance he is slightly shorter or slightly taller, but if so, he would compensate or mute it through posture, speech, or clothing. A very tall predator may be more memorable; this man relies on forgettability.

Writer’s Guesstimate: His height is not part of his threat model. He is not memorable for physicality. He is the man at the back of the party with a drink and a smile, not the one towering over the crowd. In his world, height is irrelevant, access is everything. He has access to people, talent, work of others, money, power, influence, and misusing all of this is his game. He used drugs to compensate for his lack of strength, thus he is unlikely to be significantly oppressing in hight. He is in the average range of hight for his age.

F - Face

• Richard Gadd has explicitly stated that the man who abused him does not resemble the actor cast in Baby Reindeer. This means the face shown on screen, clean-shaven, square-jawed, stylish, is likely a dramatic device, not a representation of the real person. The real abuser is not recognisable, not traditionally attractive, and perhaps even physically forgettable, which is part of the camouflage.

• It is likely that his face reflects a man who has aged out of vanity but still retains some self-regard. He likely manages his appearance just enough to maintain his professional image, regular grooming, perhaps some skincare, but nothing overt or flashy. He may wear a closely trimmed beard or stubble to mask signs of aging (like a weak jawline or sagging skin), or he may be clean-shaven to appear "tidy" and reliable.

• His facial expression may be more telling than his features. Predators like this often maintain a calm, unreadable mask, polite in public, mildly aloof, always slightly detached. He knows how to smile without warmth, how to make eye contact that flatters but never connects. Behind closed doors, that mask may drop but only for those he believes he controls.

• He likely presents with symmetry, not strikingly handsome, but not jarring or unattractive. A face that fits a boardroom, a press line, or a networking event. Possibly a faded handsomeness, the kind that was once mildly noted in his 30s or 40s but now depends on lighting and memory.

• Because his weapon is trust, his face is part of the act. It is deliberately forgettable, subtly cultivated, and emotionally managed.

Face Outcome

Safe Estimate: The abuser likely has a mild, symmetrical face, common among middle-class British men in professional roles. Not traditionally handsome, not unattractive, just enough charm to build rapport, just enough neutrality to blend in.

Possible Outlier: There is a chance he wears an accessory that adds to his persona, horn-rimmed glasses, an intellectual beard, or a particular expression of “earnestness.” These may not be distinctive on their own, but they contribute to the trust illusion.

Writer’s Guesstimate: His face is blandly likable, calculatedly average, and emotionally cool. It’s not a face you’d stop on the street; it’s one you’d half-recognise, one that would say, “You can trust me, I know how this industry works.” Or “I’m like a father figure.” And that’s precisely what makes him dangerous. He employs a pressed lipped smile with a hint of dupers delight at his fake humbleness and his thrill of hiding his true shadow self. The truth is in his hidden, smug smile and there is a threat or challenge behind his eyes that one may expect to encounter when facing off against an opponent, like he’s sizing you up… because he is.  

G - Gait

• His walk is likely controlled. Measured. Not slow, not fast. He’s not rushing to impress or dragging like a man who’s given up. He moves like someone who’s used to being listened to.

• He probably doesn’t swagger. That would attract attention. He’s more about moving through spaces quietly. Office halls, green rooms, industry bars, dressing rooms. He slides in, makes connections, slides out.

• No limp. No exaggerated posture. Likely no athleticism either. His job doesn’t need that. He sits. He reads. He networks. He advises. His gait reflects a sedentary man who still wants to look capable.

• In Baby Reindeer, Darrien walks tall, with control. But Gadd has said the real man is different. Less polished. More average. The real one likely holds himself just upright enough to avoid looking defeated. Just relaxed enough to seem trustworthy.

• If he wears hard shoes, they’ll be quiet. If he wears boots, they’ll be broken in. He knows not to stomp or shuffle. He likes to enter unnoticed.

Gait Outcome

Safe Estimate: Walks with calm purpose. Neutral posture. Comfortable in his frame. No signs of illness or frailty. Doesn’t invite eyes.

Possible Outlier: May carry some stiffness. Possibly from age or habit. Could favour one leg subtly. Might lean forward slightly, like he’s always in mid-conversation.

Writer’s Guesstimate: His gait matches his game, controlled, soft, and undramatic. The walk of a man who watches every room without being watched. In pauses or seated he leans his torso or elbows, or crosses his arms to seem relaxed, cool and in control. Standing, he probably touches his face a lot or hides behind his hands to protect his mask and to self-evaluate his façade.

To the abuser, his own flesh and the flesh of his victims, do not matter so much, they are merely vessels to be abused but covertly. It’s his soul, his predatory wickedness, his intellect and his ego which makes him “king of the hill.” Not his walk.

H - Hair

• He’s likely experiencing hair loss. Most men his age are. Receding hairline. Thinning crown. Standard male pattern baldness.

• He might manage it. Shorter cut. Brushed forward. Or he just lets it go and keeps it neat. He doesn’t want attention drawn to it either way.

• Hair dye is possible. If he works with younger people, he might want to look fresher. Subtle touch-ups. Nothing flashy.

• Beard? Maybe. A trimmed beard or stubble can help shape a face, cover aging. But he’s not wild. No big beard. If he has facial hair, it’s tidy. Controlled, greying, it’s unlikely he dyes his beard hair.

• If bald or balding, he blends it in. He doesn’t want to be remembered for his hair, or lack of it. That’s the point.

Hair Outcome

Safe Estimate: Thinning dark hair. Receding hairline. Maybe a bit of grey. Nothing dramatic. No style that stands out.

Possible Outlier: Could dye it. Could go fully bald and own it. But he won’t be making a statement. Style is always second to subtlety.

Writer’s Guesstimate: Hair is just another part of the mask. Neat. Bland. Low effort. Low risk. He wants you to trust his words, not his looks. He has dark, perhaps some level of balding hair, and stubble or controlled beard with grey in it.

I - Identity Class (ethnicity); white, black etc or police IC1, IC2 SYSTEM

• He is almost certainly white British. That fits the profile, industry background, age, and cultural references all line up. Yeah he might have religious links.

• Gadd never references race. No mention. No suggestion the man was from a minority background. In the UK, that silence usually means white.

• The man likely grew up in England. Maybe Scotland. But the voice and career path point to southern or London-based white male.

• In UK police terms, he’d fall under IC1 – White European. This is the most common class in media and publishing sectors among men his age.

• Nothing in Baby Reindeer or Gadd’s interviews suggests otherwise. He was a man who “fit in.” Culturally, socially. He blended in with the older gatekeepers of the industry.

Identity Class Outcome

Safe Estimate: White British male. English-speaking. IC1. Born and raised in the UK. Moved through elite or semi-elite circles with ease.

Possible Outlier: Could be Irish or European-born but long established in UK industry. Accent likely mild with upper-class tendences forged through networking. Well-assimilated.

Writer’s Guesstimate: He looks like the men who’ve run publishing houses and broadcasters for decades. A face the industry trusts. A face that’s always been in the room. He is white, and most likely has an “In” or “Group” identity which affords him an elevated level of protections; thus he has been able to operate for years without conviction or exposure.

Other evidence and other victim accounts suggest that there are reasons he is not exposed and reasons he can not be his true self, which is to say bisexual or gay. This might be marriage, children, shame, or religious beliefs. It is highly likely he has excuses of this nature, and he might have been abused as a minor himself, perhaps by an authority figure such as father, priest or rabbi or scout leader and this is why he is damaged and sinful. There is reason to believe that this man might be involved in secret societies which protect him.

J - Jewellery and J – Job

• He wears very little. Maybe nothing at all. He doesn’t show off. Doesn’t do bling.

• If he’s married, he likely wears a wedding ring, but he may remove it when “on tour,” at festivals, or when networking in private. These events are likely his “Lad’s on Tour” vibe which he missed in his youth.

• He may wear a watch, but nothing flashy. Probably analogue. Classic. Maybe vintage. Not smart tech.

• No earrings. No piercings. No chains. He doesn’t want attention. He wants trust.

Jewellery Outcome

Safe Estimate: Wedding band (when it suits him). Possibly a plain watch. Nothing more.

Possible Outlier: Might remove his ring when grooming a target. May claim to be separated or single when he’s not.

Writer’s Guesstimate: His jewellery says “respectable.” His behaviour says otherwise. He has a wedding ring on, sometimes. He might use the pity of closeted and can’t come out to gain trust and sympathy from his victims.

J - Job

• Works in the entertainment or literary industry. Possibly a script editor, producer, agent, or mentor.

• High-up enough to offer opportunities. Not famous outside of the industry, but respected. A name known behind the scenes.

• Involved in TV, publishing, theatre, or comedy. Maybe all. Moves across sectors. Has influence.

• Not a performer. Not a frontman. He builds careers, doesn’t chase the spotlight. That’s how he stays protected.

• He uses his job to access young creatives. Offers help. Gives notes. Makes introductions. Then crosses the line.

Job Outcome

Safe Estimate: Senior figure, upper level. Works in writing, talent, or production, or all. Known, not seen.

Possible Outlier: Could be a ghostwriter or editor. Someone close to power, not officially holding it.

Writer’s Guesstimate: He doesn’t need fame. He needs access. His job gives him that. He has access to people, work, manuscripts, roles, talent, and many industries and he exploits them all for profit and gain and further access and power, he’s thrilled by it all, his high on theft and deception and exploitation, and drugs behind closed curtains.

And nobody questions him, because he’s “helping” and because he’s “Influential” and “Connected” and not threatening. He works behind the scenes, he pulls strings, he’s good at his job, partly because he has no real morals but also because he is intelligent and knows how to play people. He can’t keep his hands to himself, he grooms over months or years, conspiring to drug and rape vulnerable young men, thus he is a master at planning and manipulating in business and in all things.

Thus there is no way he is honest in business. Perhaps he sells this deception and sells other peoples work and bodies and access. He not only builds and plans to obtain access, but he accumulates and sells access. It’s all about “Access”. He wants access to young men, young unpolished but fractured talent who he can groom. He wants their bodies, their careers and their work, he builds workshops and submission portals and courses and meet and greets and festivals and all sorts of ways to give him access and it’s never enough, its his vice, his drug, his obsession.

It might not even stop at men and boys; females are victims too. The likelihood is that it started with girls and women, but it wasn’t enough, so he progressed to men and boys to keep his thrill alive. He may even be involved in darker crimes.

Yet with females, he is more calculated and crueller, but softer and safer. Drugging and raping young women brings too much attention these days. This may have been in his past and he might have a whole bunch of silent or paid off or threatened female victims. But these days, with all the social movement around the exploitation of women in these industries, it’s likely he switched to bisexual and gay men as females now take longer to groom and less people are listening to the cries of bisexual and gay men. Many still see their sexual orientations as an invitation. And the police are less likely to feel the pressure to investigate.

Let’s say it how it is, this is wrong, but it still exists in the eyes of so many. In the perception of many, if an older, mature, powerful and influential man, groomed a girl with a promise of stardom, invited her back to his hotel room or swanky London apartment, persuaded her to drink, then gave her drugs, willingly or unwillingly, and then had sex with her with or without consent, he is most definitely a grooming, exploitative rapist. Because consent is not consent under those circumstances.

The same happens with a young Bisexual or gay man or boy… well that’s just a party he regrets after the fact. Obviously this is so wrong, but as sexual orientation has become so synonym with the activity of actual sex, the person has been wrongly fused with the act, thus many do not believe the victims and see them as exploiting the abuser for money or fame or whatever.

Thus the abuser has switched things up, and now he can once more, eat his cake, then have it again, and again and again, then he can keep that cake around, he can keep nibbling at it, and keep working his filthy fingers and tongue to get what he wants, when he wants it, from man or woman, boy or girl.

He can keep young beautiful, ambitious and impressionable women around his desk and office space slowly gaging them and grooming them, whilst he keeps his young male victims around but at a distance, say in a sister company, represented obliquely and fed roles and work so they don’t grass him up. At the same time, he has his long standing “Pets” closer as they are trained and loyal. The well trained and trusted pets are on the glossy covers of every magazine, and they are in everything on TV with representation from many of the expanding and amalgamating monster cult companies. The “Writers” release the same chewed up formulaic “Thriller” story in a different setting with the same cardboard characters with different names over and over, picking form the “Slush Pile” and swiping and griping from aspiring writers so no untrained, unbranded or unbroken talent slips through the claws of the Devil’s gatekeepers, because honest and loose lips sink filthy rotten ships. The talent needs to be “Broken-In” first. Then they can be exploited and controlled by the cult.

Then they become “Pets”. The pets, well they too love a good old tour, a good old knees up away from home, where the rings come off and the drugs flow and the condoms are left dripping over the carpet of the hotel room, whilst wifey and hubby are back at home in London running around after the children, attending their plays and watching their after school events.

But in the back of the Abuser’s wife’s mind she knows, deep, deep down inside her she knows that something isn’t right, but the money is good, the house is lovely, the kids have a safe, solid and stable home, their college and university fees are paid for, and wine helps them bear the burden of deep shame and regret and repulsion. Besides, it will all fizzle out in a few years and retirement will be different.

So yeah, that’s the Writer’s Guesstimate. In short, the real Job, the real pay, the real reward is “Access.” But the formal Job title might be Talent Manager, Talent Agent, Senior Literary Agent, or CEO of a TV, Film, Animation, Literary, Voiceover, Gaming, Company, Comic, performance Artist, Musical, Theatrical and every other type of Talent Agency.

But Trump is bad, we have a rainbow in the window, so we are good, I have a pet so I’m definitely a trustable person, and your manuscript is good so what do you weigh because I am 100% not measuring out a Rohypnol dosage per body weight. Did you want that show on Netflix or not? Oh and I spoke to Forbes, that’s going to be a tricky one. You may have to meet my friends in an LA hotel Room, or a prison visit. Welcome to the wonderful world of show business, I’ll show you my business, if you show me your bees nest. Got any honey, honey?

Is that Ok? Hello, hey… is anybody home? No, oh goody, she’s ready, or is she a he? It doesn’t matter, It’s ready for entry.

We have ACCESS!

Complete Suspect Profiles.

We could keep going with much more, whittling it down and down until we know what his front door looks like, but I’ll be sued for liable and might face criminal charges, as he is so well connected. Let’s see what we can safely reveal about the abuser’s full, likely, suspect profile.

Safe Estimate:

Age: 50–60 years old, likely born between 1964–1974. Still active and influential in the literary and entertainment industries.

Build: Average, non-athletic. Not physically dominant. Slight signs of aging or sedentary lifestyle.

Clothing: Smart-casual. Neutral colours. Tailored layers. Nothing flashy. Presentable in professional environments.

Distinguishing Features: Likely wears glasses. No obvious or unique physical marks. Presentation is calculatedly bland to avoid suspicion.

Height: 5'7" to 5'10". Average UK male range. Not physically intimidating.

Face: Symmetrical, inexpressive, professionally maintained. Forgettable but trustworthy in appearance.

Gait: Calm, measured. No limp, no exaggeration. Walks with quiet purpose.

Hair: Likely thinning or balding. Possibly dyed or groomed subtly. Tidy but unremarkable.

Identity Class: White British male. IC1 classification. Likely English-speaking and from a culturally “insider” background.

Jewellery: May wear a wedding ring and simple watch. No flashy accessories.

Job: Senior role in literary, television, or talent representation industries. Offers opportunity, mentorship, and “access.” Uses position to groom and exploit.

Writer’s Guesstimate:

Age: Between 54–58 years old. Born around 1966–1970. The same age as actor Tom Goodman-Hill (give or take), who portrays the abuser in Baby Reindeer. Age has been intentionally blurred in public portrayals.

Build: “Dad bod” with soft authority. Slightly dishevelled or semi-sedentary look. Uses posture and tone to project control.

Clothing: Disarming, old-fashioned but intentional. Shirts half tucked in to aged belt look, suede jacket, blazer, aged jeans or chinos. Shabby-scholarly look, calculated to foster trust.

Distinguishing Features: Hides in plain sight. His most identifiable traits are behavioural, not physical. Slight eccentricities like horn-rimmed glasses or dated fashion.

Height: Average. Height neither aids nor harms his influence. Uses forgettability as a cloak.

Face: Forgettable, polite, but subtly manipulative. Hidden smugness. Carries a “father figure” or “mentor” air. Smile often used as a tool; dupers delight. His eyes hold a challenge, a competitive and predatory sizing up look about them.

Gait: Quiet, controlled, fluid. He moves unnoticed. Slips through spaces. At rest, leans back or crosses arms to exude relaxed authority.

Hair: Short, greying or dyed. Possibly balding or receding. Maintains a neat, respectable appearance. Perhaps aged stubble on face.

Identity Class: White British male. Blends in with the older establishment. May have secret affiliations or personal histories (e.g. religious guilt, suppressed sexuality) that feed his duality.

Jewellery: Sometimes wears a wedding band. Might remove it when “on tour.” Uses absence of accessories to seem trustworthy.

Job: Powerful fixer behind the scenes. Gatekeeper of opportunity. May present as talent agent, literary agent, producer, or executive. Builds systems of access to manipulate and exploit vulnerable talent. Likely involved in darker networks. Abuses trust, work, people, opportunity, power, and drugs to subdue victims. Sees talent as product.

His real job, and motivation? Access and Power. That’s what fuels him. That’s what he sells. That’s what he lives for. It’s all about Access!

He is a Jungle Gun personified. His Name is…

Ai Generate Suspect Sketchs

Thes sketches are based on the two above outcomes.

Legal Disclaimer- These are fictional or illustrative character sketches, for creative devotement, as they are for M.W. Wolf’s Three part conspiracy-mapping narrative and a documentary treatment draft.