James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

sparkydee

What I find scary about this is that if either of them meet someone and get into a relationship they can't disclose who they really are. Imagine being in a relationship and not knowing that your partner was a child killer...
I just find it difficult to believe that either have truly changed. Whatever jon venables did I reckon he'll be in prison for a long time. I don't think they would risk such a media storm for a minor breach. Robert thompson must be nervous now as well considering the case is back in the spotlight once again.

the keen edge

sparkydee wrote: »

What I find scary about this is that if either of them meet someone and get into a relationship they can't disclose who they really are. Imagine being in a relationship and not knowing that your partner was a child killer...
I just find it difficult to believe that either have truly changed. Whatever jon venables did I reckon he'll be in prison for a long time. I don't think they would risk such a media storm for a minor breach. Robert thompson must be nervous now as well considering the case is back in the spotlight once again.

Finding out would certainly kill the romance in bedroom, and that's for sure.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Just reading between the lines on the news tonight and I get the feeling that there are impending criminal charges to be brought against Venables, in which case I'd say the cloak of secrecy surrounding the whole affair is totally justified.

The_Kew_Tour

i be surprised if they were to get away without any hassle for rest there lives people will find out someway who they are

arybvtcw0eolkf

There's suppose to be some kind of statement in the houses of commons at 15:30 today.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

adrian280582 wrote: »

i be surprised if they were to get away without any hassle for rest there lives people will find out someway who they are

I'll wager the first have-a-go hero ends in a case of mistaken identity.

OutlawPete

James's mam was on This Morning:

The mother of James Bulger has said she has a right to know why his killer is back in prison, but is getting "no answers" from the government.

Jon Venables, 27, who murdered two-year-old James in 1993, was recalled for breaching the terms of his licence.

James's mother, Denise Fergus told ITV's This Morning: "I am sick of them closing doors in my face."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has confirmed he will answer "urgent questions" in parliament at 1530 GMT.

Earlier he said he is on the "horns of a dilemma" over whether to divulge the allegations.

A number of media outlets have alleged Venables was recalled to prison on suspicion of offences related to images of child abuse.

Mr Straw admitted the details behind Venables being returned to prison were in the public interest, but said there was a risk of prejudicing any further criminal proceedings.

Mrs Fergus said she was "prepared to wait" for details of how Venables breached his licence.

"I do not want to prejudice a trial but I have the right to know," she said.
Mrs Fergus is to meet Mr Straw in the next couple of days and has prepared a list of questions.

The justice secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What I want to do is to look at what has already been made public... to look at that and then to make a judgment about whether there is information that given it is now out in any event we could now confirm."

Mr Straw stressed Venables was still not facing any charges and that a criminal investigation was still under way.
Shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve, had earlier said there should be a statement to Parliament.

'Not eating'
He said Mr Straw had tried to respond to the story and "tried to honour his commitment to the rule of law and not to allow things to be said, or openly stated, which he thinks would interfere with the legal process."

Mr Grieve said: "He faces a difficulty there, but at the same time it does seem to me now that enough has been said for him to come to Parliament and explain what's going on."

Source

Jesus Wept

Darlughda wrote: »

Did anybody see the film Boy A that was on Channel 4 a while back?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_A

Watched it last night due to your recommendation, interesting movie.

OutlawPete

Small clip of Denise on This Morning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zIBVGJkwgs

iguana

OutlawPete wrote: »

James's mam was on This Morning

I can't imagine what that poor woman is going through, but I really dislike how she is being paraded about by the media. I doubt it does her own mental state much good. If the media truly gave a fuçk about how she feels they wouldn't have created such a bloody three ringed circus around the recall of Venables.

aidan24326

Darksaga87 wrote: »

I presume this would comprimise the ID of his fellow scumbag partner?

Not necessarily, though I'm sure the renewed media focus on the case must be making Thompson pretty nervous.

Keano

The media really know how to spin stuff.

The mother of James Bulger has said she has a right to know why his killer is back in prison, but is getting "no answers" from the government.

Halfway down the article

Mrs Fergus said she was "prepared to wait" for details of how Venables breached his licence.

Biggins

According to reports, in order to pacify people somewhat, Jack Straw has indicated he is to release more details about why Jon Venables has been returned to prison.

wobblyknees

He's not relaeasing any new details.

OutlawPete

wobblyknees wrote: »

He's not relaeasing any new details.

Just watched that, what a farce.

Biggins

wobblyknees wrote: »

He's not releasing any new details.

More games then from the shower of wasters.
He's just put Jamies family thru the wringer then for nothing.

Amalgam

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but a new offence has nothing to do with the Bulger family Biggins, you'd be raging if it was obvious politicians were 'fiddling' with the judicial process to suit the tabloids, madness.

Worth highlighting.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/bulger-killer-in-jail-over-child-porn-concerns-2091626.html

Writing in the 'News of the World', he said: "The separation between judges and politicians is critical. The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James's immediate family.

"Even with a general election pending, the government cannot and must not bend on this -- not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court."

BroomBurner

Biggins wrote: »

More games then from the shower of wasters.
He's just but Jamies family thru the wringer then for nothing.

The media claimed the government were going to release more details. However, all the government said was that they were going to review the case to see if it was, in any way possible, to release any more details. It wasn't, so they couldn't.

In the words of one solicitor on Sky, the government are having weigh up what is in the public interest, and what the public are interested in.

wobblyknees

Amalgam wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but a new offence has nothing to do with the Bulger family Biggins, you'd be raging if it was obvious politicians were 'fiddling' with the judicial process to suit the tabloids, madness.

Worth highlighting.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/bulger-killer-in-jail-over-child-porn-concerns-2091626.html

I think I agree with this point in general. The fact of the mattrer is, it's very likely now that he is facing new charges. If this is the case he will be punished and will also have his licence revoked. Either way, he'll be back in jail for a long time.

dolliemix

Amalgam wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but a new offence has nothing to do with the Bulger family Biggins, you'd be raging if it was obvious politicians were 'fiddling' with the judicial process to suit the tabloids, madness.

Worth highlighting.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/bulger-killer-in-jail-over-child-porn-concerns-2091626.html

I also agree with this statement to a certain extent but I do believe the Bulger family have a some rights here. They campaigned that Venebles and Thompson should go to jail when they finished their custodial sentences at 18. They had psychologists representing them, who claimed that the boys were very likely to offend again. I guess they lost their baby and they feel the only good that could come out of it, would be that Venebles and Thompson would never be in a position to harm anyone again so no other family would have to go through what they have had to go through.

However, I do think it's wrong that the media are using Denise Fergus as a front woman to sell newspapers. It could mess up the trial entirely. And Denise and her family will feel let down by the justice system again.

themont85

If they release what he was re-jailed for now there is no way he will get a fair trial and no way the adminstration of justice will be properly executed. Appeasing the masses and the tabloids won't do any good for James Bolger I'm sorry. The tabloids don't give a **** about the murdered child, they are spinning yarns to sell papers and are doing a disservice to the mother and father (who it seems barely exists according to the media).

Sarah**

I feel physically sick everytime i hear about this case! How could two boys take a two year old and execute a sick attack on him?

I dont think he deserves a fair trial. Just my opinion. I dont care if he has served his time for the crime.... i think it takes a serious physcological problem to have the ability to carry this out and whatever he has done to break his licence it should be taken into account his previous convictions.

Spore

Sarah** wrote: »

I dont think he deserves a fair trial.

Way to undermine the entire Western judicial system

themont85

Sarah** wrote: »

I feel physically sick everytime i hear about this case! How could two boys take a two year old and execute a sick attack on him?

I dont think he deserves a fair trial. Just my opinion. I dont care if he has served his time for the crime.... i think it takes a serious physcological problem to have the ability to carry this out and whatever he has done to break his licence it should be taken into account his previous convictions.

If he doesn't get a fair trial, then there is no trial in the eyes of the law. If there is a victim of a new crime then they don't get justice. How is that fair?

iguana

dolliemix wrote: »

I guess they lost their baby and they feel the only good that could come out of it, would be that Venebles and Thompson would never be in a position to harm anyone again so no other family would have to go through what they have had to go through.

But the reason these things are being kept secret is because if Venables has committed a crime and word gets out he can not be tried and will be released. All this demanding that we have a right to know means is that he will never be able to be prosecuted for whatever he has done now, if he has done something.

Sarah**

Well i just think he should be named and shamed. If someone has the ability to do what he did to a child at TEN then surely at 27 he is capable of much more. Unless he went to prison and reformed and is now leading a normal life under his new identity.... this is not the case as we can clearly see.

So.... this brings me to my next point... Surely the weight of his sentence will depend on previous convictions ( Am i correct)? So tell me who decides then? Is it that the judge only will know and the sentencing is down to the specific crime and doesnt take into account what he did when he was 10? I mean if the Judge is informed surely it shows that he has committed a crime again and the purpose of prison didnt actually have any affect! I mean he hasnt learnt his lesson and if anything has just committed another crime or so we are led to believe.

iguana

Sarah** wrote: »

this is not the case as we can clearly see.

We don't clearly see anything. He has been recalled to custody and the police are conducting an investigation. He may have committed a crime or he may have done something as simple as told someone who he really is.

Sarah** wrote: »

Surely the weight of his sentence will depend on previous convictions ( Am i correct)? So tell me who decides then? Is it that the judge only will know and the sentencing is down to the specific crime and doesnt take into account what he did when he was 10? I mean if the Judge is informed surely it shows that he has committed a crime again and the purpose of prison didnt actually have any affect! I mean he hasnt learnt his lesson and if anything has just committed another crime or so we are led to believe.

A jury decides on his guilt, the judge decides on sentencing. The jury can not know who he is during the trial as this will prejudice them against him and the case will be thrown out of court. The judge can know and possible take that into account depending on what the crime would be. But he doesn't decide the guilt so that won't prevent the trial from being fair.

Sarah**

Jack Straw said today in the House of Commons for Trial purposes no more information would be disclosed so if something has to be led to trail surely that is a crime?

"Reports have claimed that the 27-year-old, who with Robert Thompson killed James Bulger in 1993, was taken back to prison after he was found with images of child abuse.

Images rated at level 4 - the second most serious - were allegedly found on his home computer, The Sun has reported.

But ministers have so far resisted calls to reveal what prompted the recall, saying only that Venables faced "extremely serious allegations"."


Also he broke conditions of his licence of a new Identity - which ranges from telling someone all the way to making contact with Robert or the Bulger family.

So say for example and this is pure example, the jury find this Mr X guilty. The judge then is told his previous convictions and sentences him to 15 years. The jury immediatly is questioning the sentencing as the weight of the crime was 6 years max.... Then what?

Who finds out then? Who is told?

iguana

Sarah** wrote: »

So say for example and this is pure example, the jury find this Mr X guilty. The judge then is told his previous convictions and sentences him to 15 years. The jury immediatly is questioning the sentencing as the weight of the crime was 6 years max.... Then what?

Who finds out then? Who is told?

If he committed, and is convicted of, a crime with a maximum sentence then that is all he can serve. It doesn't matter who knows what about who he is and what he has done before.

Ann22

My son was Jamie's age when he was murdered. I was traumatised when this happened and I think of the poor little soul often.

I too think of the unfortunate witnessess who didn't know what was going on, had their chance to intervene and missed it through indecision and an unwillingness to get involved..especially a taxi man I saw interviewed. He stopped and asked if the wee lad was ok and the two little b*stards said they were taking him home. He said he goes to bed hearing the childs' screams in his sleep.

I know something badly went wrong in the two boys emotional development. The conscience developes before the age of five so after that if it doesn't develop by then- either through cruelty or neglect (being ignored and not taught right from wrong even) then the person will grow up to be a sociopath. Loads of them about but not all aspire to murder.

Many feel pity for these boys, i'm probably pollitically incorrect for saying this, I know they weren't reared properly but many children in this country alone were reared in cruel orphanages and industrial schools, were beaten and tortured and they didn't all head out to torture and murder a sweet innocent little child. Even if you have no conscience or feeling for others, some things you fcuking well know not to do. Jes*s Chr*st even Jeffrey Dahmer and Ian Brady at that age were still at the killing animals stage.

I don't know how long the sentence should've been but 8yrs in the cushy places they were kept in doesn't seem justice to me. Their sentence should've been long enough to be a proper punishment as well as for 'rehabillitation'.

dolliemix

iguana wrote: »

But the reason these things are being kept secret is because if Venables has committed a crime and word gets out he can not be tried and will be released. All this demanding that we have a right to know means is that he will never be able to be prosecuted for whatever he has done now, if he has done something.

I agree with you absolutely.

I think the media are using Denise Fergus at the moment and sensationalising this awful story. James Bulger's mother is obviously extremely vulnerable. I just wish a solicitor or somebody would step in on her behalf and just say 'they have no comment to make at present'. But I suppose the Bulgers have no credibility in the justice system, since the two boys got off without spending time in a proper jail for the murder of their child.

sparkydee

I wonder what happened to compromise his identity? There have been numerous reports that he told people who he was. But you'd have to wonder why he would willingly tell people who he was? It will be interesting to see how this all develops..

Collie D

sparkydee wrote: »

But you'd have to wonder why he would willingly tell people who he was? It will be interesting to see how this all develops..

According to his psychological reports he was a serial attention seeker at school. Maybe he still is. Still, I would have imagined that would be something you would seriously want to keep quiet about.

walshb

sparkydee wrote: »

I wonder what happened to compromise his identity? There have been numerous reports that he told people who he was. But you'd have to wonder why he would willingly tell people who he was? It will be interesting to see how this all develops..

Similar to how many murderers confess to someone what they did. Some just cannot contain themselves, need to get it out. Some even get a kick out of what they may have done and have to share it with somebody

There was a detailed article posted on this thread a few pages back that touched on
why he may have revealed his true identity

sparkydee

walshb wrote: »

Similar to how many murderers confess to someone what they did. Some just cannot contain themselves, need to get it out. Some even get a kick out of what they may have done and have to share it with somebody

There was a detailed article posted on this thread a few pages back that touched on
why he may have revealed his true identity

Yes perhaps you're right but it just shows he can't be in a good state of mind to be telling people his true identity. Something obviously has gone very badly wrong. It's a wonder the probation officers didn't pick up on anything.

walshb

sparkydee wrote: »

Yes perhaps you're right but it just shows he can't be in a good state of mind to be telling people his true identity. Something obviously has gone very badly wrong. It's a wonder the probation officers didn't pick up on anything.

But bear in mind, that all it takes is for ONE other person to know, and it is no longer
a secret.

I could well understand the likes of Venables or Thompson cracking up. They are after all not your average joe soap.

Collie D

walshb wrote: »

But bear in mind, that all it takes is for ONE other person to know, and it is no longer
a secret.

I could well understand the likes of Venables or Thompson cracking up. They are after all not your average joe soap.

It must be pretty hard to keep your past hidden so well. I mean one or bth of them must have had some kind of relationship by now. How do you lie away the first 18 years of your life to a girlfriend. It was probably inevitable that one of them would crack

Shanotheslayer

Collie D wrote: »

It must be pretty hard to keep your past hidden so well. I mean one or bth of them must have had some kind of relationship by now. How do you lie away the first 18 years of your life to a girlfriend. It was probably inevitable that one of them would crack

Psychological torture?

Deserved.

kev9100

Ann22 wrote: »

My son was Jamie's age when he was murdered. I was traumatised when this happened and I think of the poor little soul often.

I too think of the unfortunate witnessess who didn't know what was going on, had their chance to intervene and missed it through indecision and an unwillingness to get involved..especially a taxi man I saw interviewed. He stopped and asked if the wee lad was ok and the two little b*stards said they were taking him home. He said he goes to bed hearing the childs' screams in his sleep.

I know something badly went wrong in the two boys emotional development. The conscience developes before the age of five so after that if it doesn't develop by then- either through cruelty or neglect (being ignored and not taught right from wrong even) then the person will grow up to be a sociopath. Loads of them about but not all aspire to murder.

Many feel pity for these boys, i'm probably pollitically incorrect for saying this, I know they weren't reared properly but many children in this country alone were reared in cruel orphanages and industrial schools, were beaten and tortured and they didn't all head out to torture and murder a sweet innocent little child. Even if you have no conscience or feeling for others, some things you fcuking well know not to do. Jes*s Chr*st even Jeffrey Dahmer and Ian Brady at that age were still at the killing animals stage.

I don't know how long the sentence should've been but 8yrs in the cushy places they were kept in doesn't seem justice to me. Their sentence should've been long enough to be a proper punishment as well as for 'rehabillitation'.

I completely agree with this. I'm not a father, but if I was and someone even thought about hurting my child, I'd kill the bastards.

dolliemix

kev9100 wrote: »

I completely agree with this. I'm not a father, but if I was and someone even thought about hurting my child, I'd kill the bastards.

....and what if you were the father of either Venebles or Thompson?

It's just so hard to comprehend how a) anyone would do this in the first place
b) how 10 year old children could do this
c) how your own children could do this

It appears the parents of Venebles and Thompson were abusive/ had psychological issues themselves - but for your child to murder another human being! I wonder do Venebles/ Thompsons parents not wonder maybe whether they would have been better off dying that day? Venebles was and obviously always will be a tormented soul. I reckon if was telling people his real identity - it could mean that he cannot accept what happened in the past....that he doesn't comprehend the gravity of his crime...He's completely mentally unstable..whereas Thompson knows to keep his mouth shut and is very aware of what he did and just how awful it was.

As a result of that Thompson, is the more chilling of the two, in my opinion. Yet he's still at large!

Pretty_Pistol

I'm wondering why the public were told about this new allegation. Did Jack Straw release a statement or was it some sort of tip off to the media that he had to admit to? I don't see how it was in the publics interest to know he may have done something before he's convicted of it.

There was a documentary about James Bulger by ITV that is on youtube and the officers/detectives dealing with the case are interviewed. They were actually involved with the crime scene and interviewing the boys. It's hard to listen to and watch. What happened was disturbing.

The thing which bothers me about their release is that they could be having relationships and I just think how wrong it is for the person they get in a relationship with to be oblivious about their past.

orourkeda

Pretty_Pistol wrote: »

I'm wondering why the public were told about this new allegation. Did Jack Straw release a statement or was it some sort of tip off to the media that he had to admit to? I don't see how it was in the publics interest to know he may have done something before he's convicted of it.

There was a documentary about James Bulger by ITV that is on youtube and the officers/detectives dealing with the case are interviewed. They were actually involved with the crime scene and interviewing the boys. It's hard to listen to and watch. What happened was disturbing.

The thing which bothers me about their release is that they could be having relationships and I just think how wrong it is for the person they get in a relationship with to be oblivious about their past.

I doubt it was leaked by Jack Straw.

It seems to have created more problems for him than this would have solved

Pretty_Pistol

orourkeda wrote: »

I doubt it was leaked by Jack Straw.

I didn't mean he leaked it. I meant did he make the decision to let the public know in a formal statement. If so why? Or if someone else leaked it and he was forced to confirm it. Does anyone know who first reported this story?

Wolflikeme

Child porn, alledgedly (it is the Sun). :mad:

CHILD killer Jon Venables came under suspicion of having child porn only after a member of the public realised who he was, The Sun can reveal.

The person became angry and blew the 27-year-old's cover - forcing cops to pluck Venables to safety.
Only then did officers seize a laptop at Venables' home on which sickening Category Four obscene images are alleged to have been found.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html#ixzz0hepq3G6X

Hagar

There's billions of people on the planet, nobody will miss those two abherrations.

DULLAHAN2

Good enough for the scumbag

BaZmO*

Pretty_Pistol wrote: »

There was a documentary about James Bulger by ITV that is on youtube and the officers/detectives dealing with the case are interviewed. They were actually involved with the crime scene and interviewing the boys. It's hard to listen to and watch. What happened was disturbing.

Watched that (or something similar) last night. It was really disturbing listening to the kids talking. I think the real damning thing for Thompson and Venables is that they took James on a 3 mile walk before they killed him, which gave them numerous chances to hand him over to someone, they even passed a Police Station. The fact they didn't hand him over just shows that it was premeditated. Apparently they had planned to take another toddler that morning.

Also, while Thompson's family upbringing was less than perfect (an alcoholic mother and abandoned by a father who was a convicted criminal), Venables came from a decent enough family. It was just that the two brought out the worst in each other.

Even hearing Venables confess to the murder on tape I still find it impossible to comprehend that children so young could carry out such a heinous act. I have nieces and nephews and kids of friends the same age as the murderers and I just can't imagine a kid acting in that way.

There was another important lesson learned from the case which was highlighted in the documentary and that was that of mob rule. During the investigation the police messed up and initially allowed the press to find out the addresses of potential suspects (they questioned around 30 boys of the same age who were suspected/confirmed truants). As a result a family had to be relocated for their own safety just because their son was questioned by the detectives.

iguana

BaZmO* wrote: »

Also, while Thompson's family upbringing was less than perfect (an alcoholic mother and abandoned by a father who was a convicted criminal), Venables came from a decent enough family. It was just that the two brought out the worst in each other.

I think Thompson's upbringing was even worse than it sounds. He was the 5th of seven children and the year before James' murder the 4th kid in the family committed suicide when social services released him back into his mother's care after spending a year in a boys home. Their lives were so bad that a young child genuinely wanted to die rather than live in that house. If social services had intervened at that point and taken all of the children into care things could have turned out very differently.

Venables didn't have a great life either. He was bullied badly, self-harmed repeatedly as a small child and was often in foster care as his two siblings had learning difficulties and his parents couldn't cope with him. He had very little and his parent's didn't have much time for him.

(Edited because I wrote that Robert Thompson's brother tried to commit suicide. When he actually succeeded in killing himself.)

BaZmO*

iguana wrote: »

I think Thompson's upbringing was even worse than it sounds. He was the 5th of seven children and the year before James' murder the 4th kid in the family tried to commit suicide when social services released him back into his mother's care after spending a year in a boys home. Their lives were so bad that a young child genuinely wanted to die rather than live in that house. If social services had intervened at that point and taken all of the children into care things could have turned out very differently.

There were also suspicions that he may have been abused by one of his siblings.

iguana wrote: »

Venables didn't have a great life either. He was bullied badly, self-harmed repeatedly as a small child and was often in foster care as his two siblings had learning difficulties and his parents couldn't cope with him. He had very little and his parent's didn't have much time for him.

I was under the impression that Venables didn’t exactly have it good either but the detective in that documentary said that he came from a good family. Maybe he just meant it was good in comparison to Thompsons. He did mention that his two siblings had learning difficulties but Venables was thought to be quite bright.
Apparently one of the people he was bullied by was Thompson.

iguana

BaZmO* wrote: »

There were also suspicions that he may have been abused by one of his siblings.

I think there was regular abuse from the older siblings (physical certainly I don't know about sexual). One of the older brothers had attempted to stab the brother who killed himself.

BaZmO* wrote: »

I was under the impression that Venables didn’t exactly have it good either but the detective in that documentary said that he came from a good family.

His parents were seperated but had joint custody of the children and maintained contact with each other. I don't think they ever really intended to neglect Jon, but he was the "easy" child who didn't demand a lot of attention and as such got ignored a lot. He was also regularly in care in order to give his parents respite and he was hyperactive. At school he was badly bullied and self-harmed by smashing his head off a wall and cutting himself with scissors.

There's a decent background article here.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1993/nov/25/bulger