Jon Venables (and Robert Thompson) Jamie Bulger

Update 15th Feb 2013

1) I have removed the pics of the possible Jon Venables. There is supposedly a world wide injunction against it (see green note below) and the words of an anonymous commentator the other day which on did have a point – if the pic was that of an innocent person (entirely possible) then it’s wrong to suggest an association with Venables

2) Ralph Bulger, James’ father, does not appear in the media very much. The BBC has an article of him here: I suggest a read.


UPDATE: 12 February 2013.

In memory of little James Bulger, the little boy who was savagely murdered and mutilated 20 years ago, on 12th Feb 1993, I no longer intend to remove comments from this thread, so, should you wish, you can comment freely.

Here’s what a regard as a pro-killer (Venables and Thompson) report by the Guardian:

But here’s a better article – of all places on the BBC! if you can believe that!:

End of 12 Feb 2013 update.


The issue was being discussed here: as COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE ON lwtc247 ARE NOW CLOSED (20th June 2012). Thanks.

Update 11 Jan 2012: Found this link which mentions the original Warrington Gazette article.

Update 8 May 2011:

Note: The following come from the pretty awful gutter “newspapers” but seem somewhat in-line with this horrific Jon Venables, and Id just like to say one of the officers involved in the killing and torture of James Bulger said they thought that Jon Venables was the one most likely to be successfully rehabilitated. How wrong they were and the (in)justice system continues to get it wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME with this piece of trash.

1) Revealed: The horror image drawn by Jon Venables just weeks before he killed James Bulger
Read more:

2) Bulger killer Jon Venables set to get fourth new identity – at cost of £1m to taxpayer
Read more:–cost-1m-taxpayer.html#ixzz1LkxLZCij

3) Killer Jon Venables gloats at sentence: “I’ll be out by the time I’m 30”
Read more:

Note: I do not know if these are really him or not. There have been a number of false identifications.

[ Friday 15th Feb IMAGE REMOVED: Reason: There is supposedly a worldwide injunction against the image. I don’t for a second understand how such an injunction could possibly exist in the legal sense internationally, e.g. how the UK could possibly have any right over the First Amendment in the US  relating to freedom of the press , or even have automacitity over the UK’s practice (or laws?) that allows information in the public interest to be published! ,  but on the off chance that it does exist, then well, I guess it is a law that should be adhered to. If it was a political law, e.g. regarding the non-publication of crimes, lies and deceptions of governments and corporations, then such a law would fully deserved to be breached!  But until I’ve got more time to check this thing out, I feel, with reservations, it should be removed. If anyone would like to leave a comment as to this so called world wide injunction, I’d be grateful  if you could elaborate upon it . Thanks]

Venables is the person on the LEFT with the cap. CLICK to enlarge.

Even if they are, measly irrelevant little I, doesn’t advocate any violence against this person. I think it VERY important however that his (real) face (if this is he) is widely known as I believe he should ALWAYS be considered a risk to young children.


(Published on: May 4, 2011 @ 9:26) One of the most ‘popular’ things searched for on this blog is that of Jon Venables (and Robert Thompson). Recently there was stories in the tabloid press (Daily Mail and Sun) that pics of Jon Venables (as he looks now) have been published on the web.

Here are two pics from a site,, which claims to show what they look like now. The site has some alleged history about him.

Update 2: This website seems a mirror of what Chris has on his site:

Copy the pics and history quickly as these sites are probably going to be taken down.


Jon Venables was just 10 years old when he and friend Robert Thompson murdered toddler James Bulger.

Venables served seven years of a life sentence for the 1993 murder before he was freed in June 2001, aged 18. He was given a new name, (John Paul Williams) a job and a flat on his release to try to ensure his security and give him an “ordinary” life.

Had he gone on to lead such a life, that might have been the last the British public ever heard about Jon Venables. But at the age of 27, Venables finds himself back in the headlines and back behind bars having been jailed for two years after pleading guilty to charges of downloading and distributing indecent images of children.

A lifetime ban was placed on reporting anything about either his or Thompson’s whereabouts or their new identities after their release.

The ban relating to Venables was partially lifted on Friday at the Old Bailey after he was jailed for the offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act. The judge revealed that Venables had been living in Cheshire at the time of the offences, and that the case was dealt with by Cheshire police and Cheshire probation service.

It was also revealed that Cheshire police had produced a “threat assessment” to try to establish what could happen to Venables were his new identity revealed. That assessment concluded that Venables would face the highest possible risk of being attacked if his name was either published in the media or known elsewhere in society.

Police had even trained him in counter-surveillance after he was told he would have to “live and hold a lie” for the rest of his life. Venables worked full-time in a job with anti-social hours, earning close to the minimum wage, the court heard.

Then in 2007, he started drinking heavily and taking drugs, including cocaine and the recently-banned substance mephedrone.

On 20 September 2008, he was held on suspicion of affray over a street fight with a man who claimed Venables had attacked his girlfriend. Both men were charged with a public order offence, but this was later dropped.

Venables was formally warned by the Probation Service for breaking a “good behaviour” clause in his licence. Three months later, police cautioned him for possessing cocaine, and a requirement was added to his licence ordering him to address his alcohol and drug problems, the court was told.

It was not until February that it emerged Venables had been recalled to prison for breaching the conditions of his release. The Ministry of Justice refused to reveal any details, but the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw did say the recall was prompted by “extremely serious allegations

In the Pircture Is Paul Jon Williams whilst working in  Warrington Pizza hut (Riverside Retail Park) just before he was arrested for child abuse images

[ Friday 15th Feb IMAGE REMOVED: Reason: There is supposedly a worldwide injunction against the image. I don’t for a second understand how such an injunction could possibly exist in the legal sense internationally, e.g. how the UK could possibly have any right over the First Amendment in the US  relating to freedom of the press , or even have automacitity over the UK’s practice (or laws?) that allows information in the public interest to be published! ,  but on the off chance that it does exist, then well, I guess it is a law that should be adhered to. If it was a political law, e.g. regarding the non-publication of crimes, lies and deceptions of governments and corporations, then such a law would fully deserved to be breached!  But until I’ve got more time to check this thing out, I feel, with reservations, it should be removed. If anyone would like to leave a comment as to this so called world wide injunction, I’d be grateful  if you could elaborate upon it . Thanks]

I still believe they should ‘out’ themselves as a sign of true remorse. Being able to live a secret life has proved to allow them to slip into what I can only describe as a ‘criminal lifestyle’.

1595 Responses to “Jon Venables (and Robert Thompson) Jamie Bulger”

  1. 1 lwtc247 May 4, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Apparently, there are photo’s of these two child killers on the web. I’ve had a look too. Can’t find anything other than the old alledged pics, that is, apart from this… But I don’t know if these are the ones {but a quick ‘page info’ reveals page last modified: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011 4:53:12 PM}.

    Apparently the new photos in the news lately hail from Ireland.

    I’d be interested if anyone knows where these pics can be found.

    • 2 Anonymous May 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

      the photo’s have now been forbidden, we were last to find out…someone will always remove photo’s even the person who first showed their photo’s his I.D has been protected!

  2. 3 chris wittwer May 4, 2011 at 11:54 am

    thats my website mate, that the sun daily mail and others are quoting from, they are the pics of venables on that link and his history

    • 4 stac May 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm

      its been deleted? is there another site

    • 6 lwtc247 May 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Hi Chris. I can’t access your site now. Could you post a link to the pics here? I too believe people should know what they look like. Well done for putting the pics up.

      I need to ask you how sure you are that they are the REAL T&V? There have been a number of false identification in the past.

    • 7 Sarah Harris May 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm

      Hi Chris, I am a journalist with Nine News Australia – would love to talk to you. How can I get in touch?

  3. 9 chris wittwer May 4, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    @ sarah –
    my website will be down for tonight as the goverment have tried hacking it but it will be back up tomorrow once my web team have increase the security and server

  4. 10 lwtc247 May 4, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    Sarah / Chris. If you could drop a line here as to where any possible interview can be read, I’d appreciate it.

    Chris. I don’t recall any other websites with the apparent identification of T/V on them being shut down. It strongly suggests your pics are indeed accurate.

  5. 12 May 12, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    well done chris,i look at your site daly,you are doing a good job keep it up mate, i live in denton,manchester i just hope t or v are not living near my area. any recent photo of thompson put them on,iv looked at the venables one hope it is a true photo of him. regards.

  6. 13 Anonymous May 17, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    well done chris
    the pizza hut pic is defo him if u enlarge it have a look at his teeth!!!! kkep up the good work chris

  7. 15 John Deegan May 24, 2011 at 8:45 am

    Chris Wittwer is a CONVICTED violent criminal..
    Need I say more.

  8. 16 John Deegan May 24, 2011 at 8:48 am

    CHILDRENS RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER….??????…who does he think he is kidding

    He is a VIOLENT THUG.

  9. 17 lwtc247 May 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Can’t he be both?
    Does one negate the other?
    Did he assault a child?

  10. 18 lwtc247 May 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    And what’s your motive for saying this?

  11. 19 Lee Williams May 28, 2011 at 1:39 am

    This was interesting.

    [lwtc247: Links to a forum about this from 5th May 2011 to 22nd May 2011]

    • 20 Interested party November 4, 2018 at 1:04 am

      RT AKA Jordan Scott Michael used to live in St Helens which is in Lancashire but before living there he used to live in Wales where he was found out and the Welsh Police force had him moved again that’s where and when he lived in St Helens. There is an issue at present regarding him living and working in Cheshire. He was working at a hotel in Cheshire @ darsebury park hotel when an incident not involving him happened. It was at this point local police force Cheshire discovered him working there under his new identity. Information about his previous life was passed on to hotel management and it was at that point the management terminated his employment. There is photos of him as he is now living as an adult going round Facebook and the Internet. I have called this hotel and asked if there is a jordon Scott Michael working there and the reply I got was “there is no body by that name working there” After it was reported on many web sites that he was involved in an incident at this hotel.

  12. 21 blondee June 2, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    i just wanted to say are these pictures deffinate for real? any body could put pictures of any body on the internet! i wanted to ask as well how come youve got an intrest in this case? ive wanted pictures of them 2 bastards venables and that thompson published for years! to be honest i want them fookin ….! thats when little james will get justice!
    also i just wanted to say theres 2 pictures on this web site are they suppose to both be of thompson? because the picture of a guy with a grey hoody on sittin on a shitty brown couch dosent look like the guy that obviously worked at pizza hut! there not the same person! so whos that guy with the grey hoody on? and why arnt there any pictures of that fookin robert thompson on the internet?

    • 22 Anonymous March 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Because the can’t be there not allowed but you can or there is people in st helens in the lancs area with details about him on facebook

  13. 23 blondee June 2, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    hello chris,
    since my last posting i have been searching for photos etc about this venables twat! and there all the same as the pizza hut one. this morning i was reading a paper and the paper says theres pictures of venables all over the internet from when venables was partying with his friends for one of there birthdays and hes seen smiling and laughing right in to the camera!
    ive serached for hours now and i cant seem to fin them have you seen the photos of venables when he was on a night out? if you find them will you send me the link please? my e-mail is thanks!

  14. 24 Jay June 2, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    There is another picture of jon venables here on this link which looks different than this one, also he has a scar above his left eye which is true as he was glassed in the face here is the link chris

  15. 25 Katherine June 3, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Wittwer has been jailed for 10 months for a serious violent offence. Ironically, given his claim to be a protector of children, one of the aggravating factors of the offence was that there were vulnerable children present who had to be sheilded from his fists and kicks.

    The man is a criminal piece of trash.

  16. 26 June 6, 2011 at 11:26 am

    So can anyone shed any light on whether for example, did Paul Jon Williams just suddenly disappear from the area? Or whether he was charged child images? I remember about a year ago there was a guy that people were hounding as they thought it was him, only it wasnt but he came forward to fight his corner and prove he wasnt JV. However, this has happened this time. Also, the fact that the papers are commenting that ‘pictures of of JV are circulating the net’ speaks volumes. Its their way pointing people towards the images and pretty much saying ‘this is him but we cant publish it’

    The reason there there isnt anything on Robert Thompson is because he hasnt exposed himself, rather he is leading a quiet life on the low-down.

    • 27 Anonymous June 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      robert thompsons new identity is sean walsh!! and has been sentenced for 15 yrs for sick crimes against his missis an supposed kid apparently! and he also revealled tht his true identity was robert thompson!!

      • 28 Anonymous December 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm

        it is not sean walsh is name is scott michael but goes under a name first name as being jordan it has been proven the press have been seen waiting outside his home address in lancs

      • 29 Anonymous March 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm

        IT is not sean walsh his name is or was if not changed again uses the name or goes under scott michael.

  17. 30 lwtc247 June 7, 2011 at 5:34 am

    From my reading of the Sean Walsh case it is not Thompson. Where’s your proof?

    • 31 Anonymous June 7, 2011 at 9:27 am

      so if its not him!! then why on earth wudd he claim to be robert thompson!! you wudnt claim to be someone unless u are them!! expecially a fuckin child killer!! no1 wudd claim to be some1 there not expecially some1 like him!! why wudd you do that? u just wudnt!! theres the fuckin proof!!

      • 32 lwtc247 June 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm

        Keep your hair on!
        Are you sure he said he was Robert Thompson?

        You say “no1 wudd claim to be some1 there not especially some1 like him”

        but looking it from this point of view, why on earth would openly claim such a thing? doubtless you got this ‘confession’ from a newzpaper. Do you trust it so much? Do you really think Ireland would take in such a person? So you’ve got no proof.

        Denise (Jamies mum) is reported as saying “Walsh looks so much like Thompson it is uncanny…So many crazy things have happened in this case…that it would not surprise me if Walsh did turn out to be Thompson.”

        Personally I doubt RT and JV are somewhere in British territories, unless there’s an agreement between countries to exchange individuals, which given that the state hardly ever really works for the people it claims to serve, is possible I suppose.

        Maybe Sean Walsh is him, maybe he isn’t.

      • 33 Anonymous June 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm

        nice reply lol.. i like the keep ur hair on bit! :) an yh im sure he sed it! i found out an a article on the internet that he claimed to be robert thompson! wen he was convicted of this offence in ireland! my arguement simply was how any1 wudd claim to be tht person if they wernt! i dont understand why sum1 wudd do tht if they wernt tht person! as for if there in the uk or not? obvs tht j.v is cuz of his recent sentance the sikk fukk!! and tht he was workin in pizza hut!! an as for r.t! i dont really no much on him but from wat ive seen i personally believe that he is sean walsh!!

  18. 34 lwtc247 June 7, 2011 at 5:37 am

    I suspect RT / JV will be spreading disinfo about themselves, trying to cover their tracks. Silly claims should be put at the back of the mind until appropriate otherwise.

  19. 35 lwtc247 June 7, 2011 at 5:41 am

    @ Katherine June 3, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    You said: “Wittwer has been jailed for 10 months for a serious violent offence.”

    What was the crime?
    How does it relate to children?
    How do you know of this?
    Why are you publicising it?

  20. 36 lwtc247 June 7, 2011 at 5:49 am

    @ blondee
    I agree with you. A picture, nothing more nothing less.
    There are probably a lot of people out there that would be prepared to eliminate RT and JV from the face of the earth, which I don’t agree with (although I can understand those feelings) but if just a picture of them and someone claiming it IS them was used to kill those evil toads, then the chance of a ‘killing from mistaken identity’ seem pretty high to me.

    I think it’s best jut to have his picture circulated so everyone knows who he is and can shun him from their lives and keeps their kids away from them.

    I will also say reportd that JV was busy deleting child porn images from his hard drive when his ‘probation’ officer came around seem fishy to me. Think about it. What would you do if you had those images on your computer and you heard a knock on the door…. Think.

  21. 37 Katherine June 7, 2011 at 8:48 am


    He was jailed last week.

    The offence involved him leading 25 men in an horrific unprovoked attack upon four rival football fans. There were children present during this rampage – one woman had to sheild her toddler (in a pushchair) from the violence.

    He has previous also – another football hooligan incident and another incident where one man’s jaw was broken. He is a violent criminal menace. He has also breached past orders.

    And this last offence DID involve children. Indeed, the fact that children were present was one of the aggravating factors which led to the sentence being at Crown Court rather than Magistrates (the severity of the offence meant that Magistrates did not have the power themselves to give a high enough sentence). Given this information, Chris Wittwer would not pass a CRB check to work with children or vulnerable people. He is quite possible the worst advocate one could find.

    And shame on his so called ‘supporters’ for excusing this behaviour.

  22. 38 June 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    lwtc247 – the crime was football hooliganism. Aggravated affray where children were present (one poor woman had to sheild her toddler from Wittwer’s fists and kicks).

    I know of this because he was up in court on 31st May for a crime he PLEAD GUILTY to and was sentenced.

    Link below:

    It wasn’t the first time he has been convicted of a serious violent offence either. He was convicted of affray a couple of years ago and received a suspended sentence along with a ban on attending matches. He also has a conviction for assault where one poor guy’s jaw was broken. All these offences were unprovoked.

    Wittwer is such a nasty piece of work that his ex-wife moved herself and her child abroad to get away from the pondscum. So if he is so concerned about his children – why doesn’t he start taking care of his own?

  23. 39 lwtc247 June 10, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    In accepting what you say about him, then I think it would be clear the dude’s got a pretty nasty streak about him, sure, but I don’t see how that takes away from his reporting of RT and JV.

    It seems a few people may welcome his penchant for violence with regards to breaking the jaws of RT and JV.

  24. 40 MerseyJim June 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    He hasn’t reported about Robert Thompson. I firmly believe he was lying when he said he had the information. He posts stuff claiming to have found things out but almost everything is either already in the public domain or poached from other sites (as the info regarding Jon Venables was).

    I have VERY good reasons to be suspicious of his claims about Thompson because Wittwer claimed Thompson was living in the North-East of England. This is almost certainly untrue. Given what we know about Venables and where he was placed AND what little we know of Thompson’s lifestyle, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where he is.

    He is a fraudulent thug and a criminal.

  25. 41 lwtc247 June 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Well, I’ve reposted stuff from the public domain in the hope that the small number of people that come here will see it, whereas otherwise they might not have seen it.
    His placing of a “Copyright” notice on one picture was rather strange however.

    So the media flurry a few weeks back saying the pics were on the internet were not in fact referring to Chris’s site?

    I’d feel happier if you gave a little bit more on why you are so sure you feel the N.E. claims are not true.

    I’m afraid I’m quite slow then then ‘cos try as I might, I’m left clueless as to where these killers are.

    Mr Wittwer, what say you?

  26. 42 MerseyJim June 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    They WERE referring to Chris’ site but I’d seen those pictures a year ago. They were all over the internet long before he got hold of them – and easily found if you knew where to look.

    As for Robert Thompson, I have no intention of telling you anything of significance. Given what we know about where Jon Venables was placed, it should be bloody obvious where the authorities would have most likely put Thompson. It is NOT the North-East of England. Indeed, I have it on VERY good authority that, like Venables, Thompson was placed in the North-West (not Cheshire though). However, I am not going to tell you where.

    (By the way, I also have a damn good idea what prison Venables is in and I’m not going to reveal that either – simply because revealing it would be breaking the law).

    • 43 alan carter November 3, 2011 at 1:18 am

      merseyjim you are full of fucking shit you do not no anything about where r.t or j.v is ya pedo anyone in this sick country new anything would publish it shut the fuk up the bnp no where he is going to be this friday 4/11/11

  27. 46 lwtc247 June 11, 2011 at 4:36 am

    @ MerseyJim.
    Cheers for the follow-up. Many people would like to know where these two are for a number for reasons. One reason I favour is so that parents feel empowered to do something to try and protect their kids – which relates to the reason why so many people want to see what they look like.

    I number of people would be happy to break the law here – sometimes asinine laws need to be broken by defiance. This case of protecting JT and RV is certainly one of them. Curious however that you thought it OK to someone breaking the law by telling you which prison RV is in.

    There is definitely two people who should always be told where these two are and that’s Jamies parents. I suspect they have supporters who do try and keep them informed as to where T&V are – which is good. f you are not part of that proposed ‘circle’ I hope you will be < No need to comment on that.

  28. 47 MerseyJim June 11, 2011 at 5:40 am

    ‘Curious however that you thought it OK to someone breaking the law by telling you which prison RV is in’

    I didn’t say that.

    ‘There is definitely two people who should always be told where these two are and that’s Jamies parents. ‘

    Both parents have made threats to hunt down the boys and do them harm. They should most DEFINATELY not be told. Indeed, Denise Fergus has shown herself repeatedly to be a person who can’t be trusted with the most basic of information as she has a tendency to run to the tabloids with everything – for cash.

    I am NOT part of ‘that circle’ and have absolutely no intention of being. I loathe vigilantism.

  29. 49 lwtc247 June 11, 2011 at 9:04 am

    @ MerseyJim.
    When your authoritative source started telling you where those boys were you ran away and closed your ears?

    I don’t side with you when you say “Denise Fergus…run to the tabloids with everything – for cash.” You have no idea as to her liaisons & financial arrangements with the press or what her motivations are. Given what has happened to her, I would be loathe to even try to look for anything negative about her, let alone say it, and publicly, without proof.

    And Denise has gone to see at least one of those boys acting on information given to her. although understandably she had intense feelings rage inside her, she did nothing, and I presume that state would persist.

    I never said that circle would/should involve vigilantism. But I support such a circle that feeds her information as to their whereabouts and situation as I believe she has a lifelong right to know if she so deems.

    I’d like to know you interest in all this if
    a) You don’t believe Jamies parents should be told
    b) You won’t tell anyone about it
    c) You somehow found about it – presumably while trying not to have someone tell you information about them
    d) You are attacking Chris Wittwer.

    • 50 Anonymous October 24, 2018 at 9:45 pm

      RT AKA Jordan Scott Michael reportedly was working at the Daresbury park hotel Warrington Cheshire where hotel management discovered who his pervious identity was as this was confirmed by Cheshire police. We believe that this was the reason behind his dismissal this year. None of the hotel staff would either confirm nor Deny this rumor. Please press with this.

    • 51 Emma balls October 24, 2018 at 9:59 pm

      RT AKA Jordan Scott Michael reportedly was working at the Daresbury park hotel Warrington Cheshire where hotel management discovered who his pervious identity was as this was confirmed by Cheshire police. We believe that this was the reason behind his dismissal this year. None of the hotel staff would either confirm nor Deny this rumor. Please press with this.

  30. 52 MerseyJim June 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    a) – Because they have both made threats against the two perpetrators in the past. Like it or not, both Thompson and Venables have protection under the law (as all citizens do). Also, Denise Fergus has a habit of blabbing everything to the tabloids. There are very good reasons why the MoJ won’t tell her things (Ken Clarke even told her to never contact him again).

    b) – I know nothing for sure. Besides, publishing the details would be an offence (contempt of court). It would also encourage stupid vigilantes to take the law into their own hands. I would point out that Robert Thompson has NOT reoffended.

    c) – It doesn’t take a genius to guess where Thompson is living. It is an educated guess, that is all. As to the prison where Venables is being held, that was a process of elimination (I work within the criminal justice sector). I

    d) – Chris Wittwer is a violent criminal. He has a history of violent behaviour and is a known thug. If you don’t think there is anything wrong with his behaviour or even placing him as some kind of saint in the world of child protection (even though he would never be allowed to work with children as he would fail any criminal record check); then fine. You and I clearly hold people to different standards of behaviour.

    • 53 Anonymous December 26, 2011 at 12:36 am

      GEt the details of thompson printed is he evil scum and doesnt deserve happy life I no both of them were placed in scottish highlands on 2 separate occasions in safe houses in Inverness . I have children I want to no if this monster thompson is in my street

  31. 54 lwtc247 June 11, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    If RT has not re-offended (which nobody really knows from where I’m sitting) then good, however, I don’t believe the law should be followed in this case; I think he should be ‘outed’. Plotting to go out and kill a child is innate evil and has broken a high taboo.

    If what you say about Ken Clarke is true (and you seem an honest and frank person) KC has done something really quite disgraceful. Actually as a politician / public-servant I don’t think he has a right to say that to her, but these politicians these days are dire.

    I find it very strange that you come down hard on Chris Wittwer (whose paid his dues – non?) yet you seem a bit defensive of RT and JV – who are violent killers. Indeed we do seem to hold people to different standards of behaviour in certain cases.

    Personally, I don’t encourage vigilantism in this, RT/JV, case so our perceptions of standards aren’t always so different

  32. 55 lwtc247 June 11, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Something happened Re: RT and JV on 2 June. Anyone know what it is?

  33. 61 MerseyJim June 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    ‘however, I don’t believe the law should be followed in this case; I think he should be ‘outed’. Plotting to go out and kill a child is innate evil and has broken a high taboo.’

    What about Mary Bell? She killed two children – arguably with more intent. Do you also think she should be ‘outed’?

    And I’m not defensive about the two murderers – I just happen to believe in respecting the law. I also believe that children should be treated differently from adults in criminal justice – I think that is civilised and right. Clearly you don’t. Clearly you think Thompson and Venables should have been subjected to the full Brady and Hindley treatment. I believe this is wholly disordered.

    And the fact remains that if they were ‘outed’, their lives would almost certainly be in mortal danger. You may not have a problem with this, I do. I happen to think that encouraging people in their torture revenge fantasies is sick.

    As for Wittwer, I come down hard on him because he is a hypocrite. And he hasn’t ‘paid his dues’ yet – he is still in prison. When he leaves prison, I believe he will have paid his dues then and I sincerely he hopes he rethinks his behaviour and doesn’t get into trouble again.

    • 62 Carl Harris October 31, 2018 at 11:22 am

      Hi merseyjim I see you have a genuine interest in this case have you heard that RT/JSM was dismissed from employment @darsebury park hotel Warrington Cheshire when the hotel management was informed by police after an incident @ hotel thi as year they won’t confirm this they could just say this is in true but they wont.

  34. 63 lwtc247 June 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Mary Bell:I don’t know much about her.

    “Clearly you don’t.” – You haven’t a clue what my opinions are w.r.t. child/adult justice. And JT / RV are not children. They should have been outed when they were released from detention as adults.

    “Clearly you think Thompson and Venables should have been subjected to the full Brady and Hindley treatment. I believe this is wholly disordered.” No I don’t.

    “And the fact remains that if they were ‘outed’, their lives would almost certainly be in mortal danger.” – As I indicate in my posts on these two, my appeal to them is that if they are sincere, they ‘out’ themselves to show that sincerity and enter the public eye to try and help people understand why such things happened. Perhaps they could have become non fee-paying consultants. The argument is that their privacy may well put the lives of others in danger. There’s also a strong argument thet says their crime means they have fore fitted the right of any other normal person to privacy. You are putting the so called ‘rights’ of a criminal above the rights of the public.

    I don’t see why they should be allowed to live at the end of my street living in privacy when they could (as JV) slim into serious crime and possibly endanger life.

    “encouraging people in their torture revenge fantasies is sick.” You must have a reading fantasy then and were living it while on this blog.

  35. 64 MerseyJim June 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Mary Bell killed two toddlers in the space of four months. She strangled them. She served 12 years before being released on life license. She was ten years old when she killed the boys and since release, has never reoffended. In fact, she has her own child and grandchild and, by all accounts, was a good mother.

    You talk about the public being protected but there is little precedent for children who kill children. What we do know is that a child who kills as a child rarely kills as an adult (after treatment) – in fact, I can’t think of a time it has happened – ever.

    ‘There’s also a strong argument thet says their crime means they have fore fitted the right of any other normal person to privacy.’

    Their right to privacy comes from having been only ten years old when they committed the dreadful crime. You could argue that Venables should have his anonymity lifted as he has commited another crime as an adult but if we had a more responsible media and a less bloodthirsty public, perhaps this could happen. It should be noted, however, that Mary Bell, her daughter and her grand daughter all have lifelong anonymity.

    ‘they could (as JV) slim into serious crime and possibly endanger life.’

    Except this hasn’t happened. JV’s offence was serious but not remotely life-threatening. Indeed, there has been absolutely no real violence at all detected in Venables since he was released apart from one pub fight which (according to the police) he was the initial victim.

    And as long as Robert Thompson keeps to the conditions of his license and does not reoffend, he should be left to live his life without fearing moronic revenge-seekers. Because that is what a decent, liberal and civilised society dictates SHOULD happen.

    • 65 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm

      Mersey Jim.
      I was generally aware of Mary Bell in the context of killing a child, but that’s all. I’ll accept what you say that she’s a good mother. But who really knows what goes through these peoples minds. It seems to me they have some kind of psychosis, like bipolar depressive/manic people do. What triggers these off who can tell. That this (possible) psychosis can be ‘taught’ out of them doesn’t seem proved to me. Bell should be treated with caution (I bet she’s monitored – yes? and for good reason).

      You said “a child who kills as a child rarely kills as an adult (after treatment)” – Well I wonder if ALL children who killed other kids have NEVER joined the army and killed there. Or gone abroad and killed. Fact is we just don’t know for sure and hence measures should be put in place to protect the public. One way to do that is to ‘out’ them. It’s in the public interest, i would argue.

      “Their right to privacy comes from having been only ten years old when they committed the dreadful crime. ” – I’m sorry but that doesn’t yield a right at all. There is a point to what you say however. Children are the ones that don’t fully comprehend societies norms, hence if they break those norms why should they bear that forever after they do get to know societies norms. You do have a point. It’s pretty tricky coming to an absolute position on the matter, but considering the point I just made before, the public still has a right to know.

      ‘‘they could (as JV) slim into serious crime and possibly endanger life.’ – I meant ‘slip’ not slim (which you seem to realised). Well I think child porn / child sex abuse imagery and drugs are pretty seruous and the connectivity to the James Bulger case is deeply worrying, suggesting the ‘treatment’ may not have worked.

      I would contend a ‘decent, and civilised society’ (I leave out liberal for many reasons) would have these people outed and the population not harm them but always be wary of them. I wonder is there are precedents for this in other countries (which my the way are far more decent than the UK – I mean in terms of international politics – perhaps the pinnacle of measurement of any society).

  36. 66 Julia June 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    ‘I don’t see why they should be allowed to live at the end of my street living in privacy when they could (as JV) slim into serious crime and possibly endanger life.’

    Frankly, I’d rather they lived in my street in privacy under probation supervision rather than in my street and ‘known’ and out. I don’t want houses in my street firebombed by twattish vigilante nutjobs thanks.

    • 67 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Fair enough. That’s your stance. It’d be interesting to see the %’s as to who would like to see them ‘outed’ or kept in anonymity. Your belief that you street would be firebombed is rather invites those words you said against those possible vigilantes.

  37. 68 Johnny June 14, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Chris Wittwer is scum. There is a growing campaign against him now – he is a bully, a liar, a racist a fraud, a thug and a criminal. Just because he breaks the law and puts Venables on his site (claiming ownership despite the fact that the picture had been circulating for a year), it does not make him God Almighty. He is still a bully, a liar, a racist, a fraud, a thug and a criminal.

    And thankfully banged up at the moment in prison. We are relieved of his driveling bile-filled nonsense for a few months.

    • 69 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm

      I cant help seeing a double standard here (despite ‘help’ to dissipate it) that how people here are gunning for Chris yet turn a blind eye to John Venables’ child porn / child sex abuse imagery and use of hard drugs – someone that deliberately killed a young almost 3 year old boy. If Chris is guilty of the things people say he is (and why people take it upon they spend so much energy going after him is another puzzle) then ok, done and dusted, now lets talk about the Colin Blanchardish John Venables’ filthy crimes.

  38. 70 aberdeen June 14, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    This man has broken his contract with the Crown, the contract was for them to partake in no more criminal activities. He has done so. This contract is forfeit.
    He is an Adult now, any risks he takes from now on are his own. He is responsible for himself despite his circumstances. He has shown a desire to risk himself and he must find out the penalties of that risk
    No man buys the eternal protection of the state for the committal of a crime.

    • 71 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:22 pm

      Please don’t say that horrible ‘c’ word here. I reject the monarchy’s claimed authority over anything other than title of ‘leaders in oppression’. Digression over. Yes, JV has re-offended and should be put on a sex offenders register (or what ever kiddie porn people should be put on – e.g. burning coals) and be exposed to the public for AT LEAST that crime alone.

  39. 72 MerseyJim June 15, 2011 at 4:46 am

    I tend to agree with you aberdeen. However, our rapacious media and the less restrained members of our society have left it impossible for this to happen. The police are, apparently, still of the opinion that Venables’ life would be at serious risk if his identity was common knowledge so throwing his identity round the internet has only merely insured that he will get a new one – that we will end up paying for.

    • 73 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      The polices opinion is virtually meaningless IMHO. Institutionalised bunch of thugs and criminals. Funny how any of them ‘outed’ for serious crimes seem to end up dead. Keeping the lid on things. F* the police. I don’t want to pay for a new one (that is if I decided to pay tax to fund the British slaughter across the world that is). Out him and bye-bye goes the ridiculous amount of money needed to keep him in the shadows.

  40. 74 aberdeen June 15, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I would agree give him a new identity then withdraw. He is man now. He has broken the original contract and has shown himself to be of poor moral character as an adult. What he does beyond this is his responsibility not the State’s.

    • 75 lwtc247 June 22, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      How many more ‘fresh starts’ should he be given? What about everyone else, say in cases of wrongful conviction of rape. murder/manslaughter / terrorism etc?

  41. 76 Jane June 23, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Venables and Thompson are men and should face the world like men. It is wrong for the UK government to expose innocent members of the public to these criminals and to use their taxes to cover up their identities. The same goes for Mary Bell and Maxine Carr. Children of ten know right from wrong and anyone who has heard the interviews of Thompson and Venables has heard them denying that they murdered James and trying to point fingers at each other. That’s because they knew that their actions were wrong. Venables’ friends had their lives turned upside down after he was recalled because of this secrecy. They never had a chance to choose to be friends with him on fair and truthful grounds. How is that right? I’ve seen people posting online about having had contact with him and some of that contact was quite negative. Furthermore he worked in Pizza Hut, where families with young children would come in all the time. Isn’t he banned from working around children?
    As for the comments I’ve read about Chris Wittwer, yes he’s clearly had a somewhat shady and violent past. That does not mean that he isn’t committed to fighting against pedophiles. I have had many direct contacts with Chris via Facebook and email before he was jailed in June and on his blog, he talks about the fact that he was abused as a child by a pedophile. Can anyone on here honestly say that they don’t understand why someone who has been sexually exploited in childhood will go after pedophiles? Regardless of that person’s general lifestyle? As for some of the other comments I’ve read about him being a racist, etc. well I don’t look anything like him. He knows that and he has never acted in any racist way towards me and he certainly could have done so. Chris has literally thousands of supporters and few of them look like me. However he was always polite and friendly towards me. So if he is racist, he has hidden it quite well on occasion.
    Some other facts: the photos of Venables are real and were floating around for quite some time before people became aware of them. The identity Paul Jon Williams is also real. He was living in Cheshire almost as soon as he left the secure home. Thompson has indeed reoffended. Like Venables, it was swept under the rug. Venables had many offences that were overlooked in an effort to protect his identity. He is a bonafide, hard core criminal. Thompson did not go to the extremes that Venables did and that’s why some believe that he has not reoffended. Both have been recognized on occasion but not accosted. There are a few names floating around re: Thompson and also a few locations. He’s not located where Venables was for obvious reasons but I do believe that it is a matter of time before he is exposed. He is not Sean Walsh. I can promise that if I ever get confirmation I will direct people on this site to where the information can be found. However, like a previous poster, there is a pattern to the naming and placing of both of these men. Certain things are not difficult to learn or guess about them. And as someone previously said, the prison where Venables is located is not that hard to figure out either. It is one of the most secure and largest prisons in England.

  42. 77 lwtc247 June 23, 2011 at 2:35 am

    Thanks Jane. I agree with much of what you say. Fair do’s to Chris for exposing people that abuse kids, and his bad for his failings (which I’m sure we all have). I’ve had some really ugly instances recently where I’ve seen one part of a persons character being used to try and destroy another as well as baseless toxic false accusations. It stinks and it’s close enough to the kind of crap school bullies used to throw around.

    I will say though that I don’ agree with all that Chris does. One case on his site involved a man about 20 or something, kissing a 14 girl. Chris thought that was enough abuse to try and expose this man. That ‘outing’ to me was ridiculous even though the man had been prosecuted for what he did.

    I never knew Thompson had fallen foul of the law. Do you know what he did?

    • 78 Jane August 25, 2011 at 5:46 am

      Sorry for the late reply. I didn’t return to the site after my last comment. Thompson is known to have used heroin and also shoplifted after his release.

      • 79 lwtc247 August 25, 2011 at 2:53 pm

        No probs Jane.
        So Thompson is a “smack heed” – as we used to say in NE England. I can just imagine what that would do to his kill bloodied mind. Lovely.
        Throw the guy in the smaller for life or that little Island off Edinburgh.

  43. 80 Sally June 28, 2011 at 11:44 pm


    I am a final year medical student hoping to specialize in cosmetic surgery, in particular burns victims. I am no expert, nor am I yet a doctor.

    For what it is worth, I believe the man in the Pizza Hut cap to be the same person as the child in the photograph shown. There are a number of facial features that remain from childhood to adulthood, including earlobe shape. Whilst of less than ideal quality, I see there to be many consistencies between the two photographs.

  44. 81 lwtc247 June 29, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Hi Sally. I’m of the same opinion that the pizza pic is likely to be him. Not so confident about using such a small zoned ear lobe shape as an argument buster though, but thanks for you more cosmetic medical input.

  45. 82 Claire August 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Every websites with the pics have been closed .. Are there any others sites ? Or all the people that have downloaded the pics before it was too late … Btw I’m glad to have found a brit media that sounds smarter …

  46. 83 lwtc247 August 31, 2011 at 7:23 am

    I don’t know Claire. I’ve not had the time to check

    If you do come across one, save the pics as soon as you see them. Bear in mind there seems to be some disinformation out there about these two – possibly coming from themselves!

    If you find another site, please post it here.

  47. 84 wasa September 22, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    No sense in letting this thing get to you people. To much time has past and innocent people could be hurt.Having said that, I think that after the boys were convicted, they should have been taken out stripped of there pants and tortured for an hour before being slowly strangled until their tongues were sticking out and they were quite dead.

    Then they should have been wheeled around in a wheelbarrow with signs around their necks saying ‘this is what happens to little monsters who torture little baby’s to death’ Then the little pant less monsters should have been put on display for an hour or so before being dumped at the local dump to be burned like the garbage that they were.

  48. 85 lwtc247 September 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm


    You really think that’s suitable for a crime boys committed?

    I don’t find myself able to agree with that. Lifelong imprisonment with them doing something to earn their keep is what I think is appropriate.

  49. 86 wasa September 26, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Yes I do, what an evil crime it it was! A 10 year old girl in America deserves the same thing.

    What I don’t agree with is putting a photo on a website of an innocent person and after it is established that it is not the same person. leaving it there for anybody to see.

  50. 88 lwtc247 September 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    You think I have such a photo, and you know it’s not Venables?
    How would you know it’s not him?
    I disagree with your rather extreme punishment for children and I don’t think there is a sound precedent for it.

    Your death logic punishment doesn’t seem to consider miscarriages of justice yet you bemoan photo’s of Venables.

  51. 89 wasa September 26, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    You should know by now the photos above are NOT Venables.Whether you put them there is another thing as I only discovered this site by accident and don’t know who owns it.. As for the punishment I suggested ,a lot of people agree with me. I remember my elderly mother screaming for such a punishment as she wept after it happened all those years ago!

    Don’t get me wrong ,as you come across as a decent person in your own right, I just don’t happen to agree with you on some of this.

  52. 90 lwtc247 September 26, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    But how do you know this is NOT Venables?

  53. 91 lwtc247 September 26, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    If it’s not him, then of course I should take the pic down.
    Give me a good reason.

  54. 92 wasa September 27, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Those pictures have captions saying ‘I don’t know if it is them or not. One of them could be David Calvert, ever heard of him? He has been having a hard time of it lately.

  55. 93 lwtc247 September 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    “One of them could be David Calvert.” – Either the photo is David Calvert or not.

    Not sure if you read through this thread, but the photo’s I stuck here are what Chris Wittwer had on his site and that’s the site the media were gagged about. I doubt the media would have been gagged if it was not Venables, as a number of other alleged ‘outings’ were not gagged. So I’ll believe it’s him until some better info comes along.

    If it’s Calvet, then I’ll either remove the pic or edit it to say it’s not him.

  56. 94 twisted October 10, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    football hooligan vs a child killer? Hell I’ll choose the hooligan (that’s minor compared to killing a child besides I have been known to indulge in some minor FUN involving fists – no deadly weapons though)… lucky the child killer doesn’t live in my country (he never would have made it out of jail alive)…

  57. 95 lwtc247 October 11, 2011 at 8:36 am

    What if they were truly remorseful though? Can an act of a child – even one of such terrible evil – never be forgiven?

    • 96 KW September 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      Are you kidding. They could have stopped what they were doing, but no. they tortured that Baby for hours. They could have quit after they rubbed paint in his eyes, or after they shoved batteries up his butt, or even after they cut off his fingers wtih plyers. BUT THEY DIDNT, they murdered him. they arent remorseful, they are evil and should have never been let free. Lady Justice doesnt know what JUSTICE is! They derserve to die a very long paingul death, and rest assured if i was the mothe of that baby boy- there wouldnt be a forum about these sick animals.

      lwtc247 note: I understand the abuse, sadistic torture and murder of JAmes is horrific and the passions it rouses are justified. However this thread is closed. Kindly use the links (provided) that are continuing the discussion. Tq.

  58. 97 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Wittwer has come in for a fair bit of abuse lately and accusations of fraud amongst other things. He has repeatedly lied about things (for example, he claimed a female police officer from Exeter’s public protection unit had met him three times and vetted his site – she claims she never met him). He has also put innocent people on his site (including victims and survivors of abuse merely because he fell out with them).

    Check out Calder’s Confessions (Show 22) where he takes issue with Wittwer (who calls in). It’s a little way into the show so you have to be patient:

    [ lwtc247: Exact link = ]

    The chickens are coming home to roost for this guy (Wittwer). He’s a violent, criminal, fraudulent conman. His site no longer has Jon Venables on it by the way and this very page is likely breaking the law (the law on contempt applies to individuals as well as media outlets – this means prosecution can happen even if the site is hosted outside the UK). The maximum a person could receive for publishing Jon Venables’ identity and picture is 18 months in prison and an unlimited fine.

  59. 98 lwtc247 November 1, 2011 at 9:59 am

    If it’s a competition to believe a police woman or Wittwer, I’m afraid the police woman doesn’t shine favourably at all. And the post is about toddler killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, not a character assassination of Wittwer. Although I have a kind of sliver of understanding why some are discussing him.

    Re: contempt of law. If there is a law that says pictures of him are not allowed and consequently they tell me to remove it, then that’s something to consider. Far more importantly however is this:
    When they start implementing the law where it really matters – in cases of actual wide scale importance e.g. bringing Tony ‘shitty’ bLiar to court for blowing his death kiss to the million+ people in Iraq, {and his cabal) or executed via universal jurisdiction in a country that have the death penalty, then, afterwards, perhaps, they have validity to push this kind of trivial law.

    Having said that, if it’s in the public’s interest to see pics of Venables and Thompson then there is no enforceable law here, yes?.

    If you are genuinely concerned for me, then I thank you sincerely. If on the other hand you are trying to threaten me then, well, I won’t say, but I’m sure you can guess what I would say.

    What’s your involvement in this case?

    I will NOT pay a fine to the murderous UK crown.

  60. 99 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 10:31 am

    I’m actually genuinely concerned. For the original Butler-Sloss injunction please see here:

    Please note this injunction specifically forbids:

    ‘Any information leading to the identity, or future whereabouts, of each claimant, which includes photographs, description of present appearance and so on.’

    You are BREAKING THE LAW with this page. And the ‘public interest’ defence is discussed in the injunction and it was decided that an injunction protecting the identities of Thompson and Venables was in the GREATER public interest. Moreover, ‘public interest’ does not trump right to life or the right to freedom from torture.

    I would urge you to take down the pictures at the top of the page.

    I have no involvement in this case but I am a legal practitioner.

    You will also note that the injunction is contra mundum. This means it is a WORLDWIDE injunction.

    I’m sure you have good intentions but in this instance, they are wrong and may have serious consequences (not least for yourself).

  61. 100 lwtc247 November 1, 2011 at 11:51 am

    OK. I appreciate your genuine concern. Thank you, and thank you for the brief aspects of the law that you mention for me and other readers who do not share the same views as myself.


    “‘public interest’ does not trump right to life or the right to freedom from torture.” – I never said it did. Neither did I say that I give the UK legal “authority” permission to impose it’s rules upon me and I don’t agree with the old old hag kween (or those she works for) thinking she(/they) has global authority irrespective of any phoney belief she may have to the contrary. Lizzy can shove it.

    I say quite clearly “Note: I do not know if these are really him or not.“. If it’s not him, then of course only then does the pretendy ruling just begin to hold any credence.

    Anyway, I take a personal stance that people should know. If that puts me against the law – which I do not grant permission to have authority over me (and in this case I consider it an even asinine law than usual) then I feel I must take a stand.

    If it really is him, then perhaps I can decide for myself whether or not it’s for the greater good to protect the identity of these convicted killers – at least one of whom is living a life on repeated serious crime.

    If you think I’m breaking the law you must believe 100% it is Venables. That means you must know what he really looks like or have been told by a person in a position to know if it really is him. So my question to you is, is it really him then?

    If someone sticks up a picture of the Joe Bloggs and says it’s Venables, or believes it’s Venables, then it’s absolutely absurd to accuse anyone of breaking the law.

  62. 101 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    If I confirmed it was Venables, I too could be breaking the law. The injunction is draconian and far-reaching.

    You need to be careful. You may decide the law does not apply to you and think that there are some laws which you can autonomously choose not to follow but the law DOES apply to you and breaking the law has consequences whether you agree with the law or not. Chris Wittwer no longer has those pictures on his site and he was passed a copy of the injunction as a warning. Disagreeing with the law is NO DEFENCE if you break it.

    And it was not the queen who granted the injunction. It was a high court judge. Indeed, at the time, the highest judge in the land with the support of the Attorney General and the Home Office – both elected politicians.

    • 102 Jane September 7, 2012 at 5:08 am

      With all due respect, what on earth are you talking about, sjamieson? Here’s a link to Chris’ site.
      He certainly never at any point in time removed the photos of Jon Venables aka Paul Jon Williams. Furthermore, I know the exact moment that he received the injunction and he LAUGHED at it before posting it on Facebook for all to see. You are misinformed in more ways than one. A worldwide injunction??? I’d love to see the UK government go after someone in America or the Caribbean, or the Middle East. They can claim “worldwide injunction” all they want to. They cannot bully or control people outside of the UK, and there are many, both in and out of the UK, who are more than willing to do their part to expose information on both Thompson and Venables.

  63. 103 lwtc247 November 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Again I appreciate your concern for me.

    “Disagreeing with the law is NO DEFENCE if you break it.” – That’s a rigged game and is actually tyrannical and oppressive, worthy of rejection.

    If I agreed to follow a law that others decided amongst themselves without my input, then that would be a different matter.

    I do subscribe to Divine laws, which others, including the state reject. Why is the state allowed to reject Divine laws yet I am supposedly disallowed from rejecting man-made state laws. That’s flabbergasting. It’s perfectly clear to me which set of laws are legitimate and are illegitimate.

    Wittwer’s site was taken down very early on. Then I believe he went to jail. That now his website is now back up – bar the pics, while he is apparently still in jail smells fishy to me. It’s seems like a third party was involved and made a decision – possibly a decision that had no basis.

    If a person who KNOWS these pics are indeed of Jon Venables then I believe I should be informed of that fact whereupon I could properly decide what course of action to take. Taking down pics on the word of someone who doesn’t know if it’s them or not has no validity.

    I believe the kween claims to be the head of state (and constitutionally so) therefore she is responsible for the acts of state and the institutions within it. She also gives something like ‘royal ascension’ (laughably yet nauseously like trying to appear ‘god’ like). As such the kween is guilty of numerous cases of mass murder and genocide. Very worthy of strong resistance.

    To be honest – if I was told they were actually those two, then despite me believing their pic should be published for valiant reasons of protecting other young kids from these two psycho killers, another side of me believes they should publicly ‘out’ themselves as a sign of remorse. Although it’s doubtful they would. That would require they are the masters of their own concealment. All this is stated on my postings of these two mentally perverse people.

  64. 104 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    What is ‘divine law’? You are talking to an atheist here. Our elected officials make the law and the judiciary interpret it. I don’t know what you are advocating – a free for all where everyone could just decide to obey the laws which suit them? How about making a suggestion that people only pay tax if their ‘believe’ in it? What do you think would happen to the state then?

    Wittwer is not still in jail – he has been released on license.

    And I’m sure you are aware that the queen’s role is procedural. She may rubber stamp the bills but she does not make law.

  65. 105 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Oh and by the way – you mention T&V ‘outing’ themselves. Not sure if you know but they are barred from doing this in their license conditions – they are barred from telling anyone their identities apart from family members and those with whom they form close relationships with (they MUST tell the latter). I think this was a subtle way of the Home Office ensuring they could never make money by telling their story.

  66. 106 lwtc247 November 1, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Divine law is the law (and system) as prescribed by God. I disagree that elected officials (who I don’t vote for) should have the power to make law and I disagree even more that I should be bound by them. I am not advocating a free for all. People who subscribe to a certain set of ethics should be bound by them. And indeed people are already in a free for all – they engage in illegal practices to the extent that they think they can get away with (e.g drug taking, fiddling expenses claims, setting up ghost companies, ‘treating’ constituents while electioneering etc.etc.)

    Tax wise, in the US at least, on the people (as opposed to the corporations) are illegal. Just because there is a mob (the IRS) enforcing an illegal practice and the illegality is air-brushed by the stare doesn’t make it legal. But really, why should anyone pay tax who doesn’t agree to? Granted if they decide not to, then they shouldn’t be entitled to the things that the tax funds. But as tax goes to fund the military who get off on massacring and raping some poor persons somewhere on the planet then it’s time to STOP paying tax. I believe in a good system, the people would agree to pay tax as responsible citizens wishing for

    What do you think would happen to the state then? – If it crumbled, no doubt hundreds of millions of Africans, Asians, South Americans, and other indigenous people would breathe a sigh of relief. I know I would.

    Law cannot prevail if it does not have royal approval and the (fake)queen IS the head of state. That’s what the constitution says. And all politicians can only sit if the swear allegiance to the kween. It’s perfectly clear she’s the official boss.

  67. 107 lwtc247 November 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Barred from outing themselves or not, I still call for them to do it. To me, that is the single most powerful way we can believe that they are remorseful for their beyond wicked murder and torture of James Bulger.

  68. 108 sjamieson1972 November 1, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    So you are suggesting the break license conditions with the risk of getting themselves recalled to prison just to satisfy your own demand that the publically show remorse? This (and your weird views on law) make me think you are a bit strange.

  69. 111 MerseyJim November 1, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Robert Thompson is NOT Jordan Scott Michael. That is an old rumour. Get a life. If it has been ‘leaked to papers’, then show us the reports.

    And I’ve just had a look at St Helens Magistrates Court listings. Funnily enough, no ‘Jordan Scott Michael’. In any case, Thompson wouldn’t appear there – on account of not being allowed into Merseyside.

    People really will believe any old crap.

    A defendant appeared by that name in St Helens several years ago on sex charges. He lived in Merseyside (so couldn’t have been Thompson) and was NOT the correct age. He was 27 in 2003 (when Thompson would only have been 20).

    • 112 neil potter November 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      so why would jordan scott be appering at saint helens court under a name of billy or william under escort by secutity when its the press that will be stopped from entering i have spoken to the press today who inform me they are attending but are forbidden exclosing the case

    • 114 N/A November 3, 2011 at 5:39 pm

      I am an escort officer from stafford a coumpany have asked our company for escort security of 3 officers 4/11/2011 at st helens court. We have been told the reaaon why but not of who we will be escorting on that day. We have been told who it will be but NOT this persons name. This person is giving an evidence statement and is not the accused. There will be 5 police officers attending this case also.

    • 115 nick November 3, 2011 at 5:52 pm

      there was a case in st helens a few years ago yes like this but ppl need to no thompsons name was scott michael not jordan his name like j.v was changed also it was mentioned yesterdays news about thompson being in court but not being charged i do not no the location maybe some ppl do but it was said if he would ever be in court there would be a police attendence.

    • 116 Mark pope April 25, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      There was a case a long time ago about a male with the name Scott-michael..R/T was given the new identity N.I number and false details’ the name he was given was that of Scott-Michael. Same name within the same location because of this he has now yet again been re-located. This is and was the very same person.

    • 118 clive July 22, 2012 at 1:59 am

      Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.

  70. 119 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 2:50 am

    @ sjamieson1972 2:48 pm

    I don’t think they should be out in the first place. They were released far too young. Immature. People don’t believe they have changed, and from Venables’ activities, I’m not surprised. He’s a child killer released while still a very young man and (amongst other things) built a child porn collection – for heavens sake, doesn’t that imply he’s got an inbuilt fixation of child abuse? Isn’t it a clear sign that left to his own devises, he’ll probably complete this journey he’s edging down towards abusing and possible killing another kid?? Why the hell are the self promoted authorities not seeing the very obvious danger here?

    I just remembered child services have an appalling reputation for gross negligence and in a number of ways actually facilitate child abuse including infanticide.

    P.S. You said “If I confirmed it was Venables, I too could be breaking the law.” You could deny it’s him if it isn’t. I feel though you are an honest person and wouldn’t knowing lie saying it isn’t him when in fact it is.

    “…you are a bit strange.” – just trying to liberate myself from the perversities done by man.

    @ neil potter.
    If you are going to post stuff about V or T, please try and do a basic check first as Mersey Jim did.

    I have reason to believe Thompson and/or Venables visit this site and may be spreading disinformation. Please do not do anything that would harm the peoples right to know information about these two who pre-planed a murder and brutally tortured a little boy.

  71. 120 MerseyJim November 2, 2011 at 6:15 am

    Venables is in prison – he has no access to the internet so will have no means to access this site. I think you are being somewhat arrogant there!

    ‘Isn’t it a clear sign that left to his own devises, he’ll probably complete this journey he’s edging down towards abusing and possible killing another kid??’

    This is not clearat all. In all the various cases where children have killed as children, I can’t think of one where they have gone on to kill as an adult – and believe me I’ve done research (I did my Master’s dissertation on children who kill). Some go on to have problems, but none (that I know of) have killed again.

  72. 121 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Mersey Jim. You perhaps you read too quickly. I said “Thompson and/or Venables. NOT exclusively ‘Thompson and Venables’. Not only do you not know my reasons for thinking that, you also make it appear as if I’m talking about the period that Venables is in jail. You have conjured up a dead parrot!

    Besides, “…Prisoners are only meant to have access to the internet for educational purposes and under close monitoring…” Prisoners are also not supposed to rape people or have drugs in prison also.

    So this monster of a boy, Venables – a toddler killer and torturer who carried out a pre-meditated murder and has been in “rehabilitation” for years, yet when released from custody STILL looks at child porn etc, and that isn’t a clear sign? Please Jim! That apologetic is shocking. One wonders what in your book would be a clear sign?

    That your research didn’t turn up any evidence (your dissertation would make interesting read under scrutiny) you cannot say No child killer will kill again. What was your sample size by the way and what social class did you examine. Has no child killer ever joined the armed forces then or a mercenary force? (or become an aspproved i.e. criminal underworld assassin?).

  73. 122 sjamieson1972 November 2, 2011 at 9:00 am

    I didn’t think MerseyJim was ‘apologetic’ for anything. I think he was merely stating the facts (although perhaps he should have said no offender who killed as a child went on to MURDER/UNLAWFULLY KILL as an adult).

    I certainly think that the fact that Jon Venables was looking at child pornography indicates a disturbed mind. I don’t remotely think this indicates a desire to kill. Now before you jump down my throat, neither am I suggesting the reverse. Fact is you are not a criminologist, psychologist, psychiatrist or anything else which may give you credibility in this matter. You, are merely ranting on your own blog.

    BTW, in the nineteenth century there was a killing which was a virtual carbon copy of the Bulger murder. Two kids took a two year old they didn’t know, walked him for hours, came across adults who did not intervene, took him to a quiet place, stripped him and battered him to death.

    The sentence then? Five years in a reformatory. Apparently neither offender came to the attention of the authorities again and both appear to have lived productive lives.

    Google ‘killing of George Burgess 1861’.

  74. 126 sjamieson1972 November 2, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Oh and as for Chris Wittwer – the links here show what kind of a guy he is:!/chrisukorg799

    He has allegedly been using money donated for his site to pay for gambling debts. One of the email conversations displayed indicates a complete contempt for James Bulger’s memory by slagging off those involved with the charity set up in his name.

    I can’t believe people have been taken in by him – any idiot could see he was a fraud from the outset.

  75. 127 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 11:01 am

    “Fact is you are not a criminologist, psychologist, psychiatrist or anything else which may give you credibility in this matter. You, are merely ranting on your own blog.” – That’s a lame thing to say. I’m no a chef, but I can cook some great meals. I am not a historian yet I (believe) I have a very good understanding of history. I am not an electronic engineer yet I build electronic devices. I am not a mechanic yet I can fix my car (just). To you I am “not” many things because I don’t carry a piece of paper that you seem to think is necessary for me to have a valid point about something. In your eyes I’m not a computer programmer even though I can program in a few different languages.

    So your opinion on everything that you don’t hold a piece of paper on is irrelevant too? You are a criminologist, psychologist, and psychiatrist then i presume.

    Sorry, but your attempt to try an invalidate anything that I’ve said of late on this subject carries no weight. Non-psychologist, non-psychiatrist, non-criminologist me believe people that adults do not go out and commit random acts of torture and killing without a ‘path’ to that end-point. You are free to believe that people do just one day decide to go out and commit random acts of violence depending on what soup du jour they happened to consume.

    But yeas, you are correct In saying I am ranting. I am very angry at this whole Thompson and Venables thing. I am angry that Jamie’s Mum has been treated so dreadfully. I am angry the state is protecting these people despite one of them clearly showing he deserves nothing less than another 30 years in an adult prison.

    Mersey Jim could have been more accurate “None of the people in my study of sample size….has to my knowledge is thought to to have re offended. The statistical analysis into the validity of these results with sample size… is ….” But that merely suggests a high percentage of people will no re-offend. It is just plain wrong to take such information and say it will never happen. How many of those in Mersey Jim’s study were found stashing child porn? How many took narcotics? How many bragged they’ll be out before there 30 etc. etc.

    In addition to the above, as for the killing of Burgess, although the parallels are amazing, the variables between the two cases are just too many and unquantifiable to allow one to say “…Burgess… therefore Thompson and Venables will not re-offend”

    Wittwers failings have nothing to do with the point of this post. Kindly keep your sinless ultra-pure self refrained from demonising him. I’ve allowed enough anti-Wittwer stuff on here and I really don’t want to see any more.

    It doesn’t escape my attention that there could be a concerted effort to distraction from the ongoing crimes of that piece of filth Venables and make Wittwer the focus. To see people prioritise Wittwer’s crimes over that of the trash known as Venables and Thompson is frankly a disgrace and is very questionable about honouring the memory of little James Bulger.

    P.s. Mercs have no right to conduct ‘lawful killing’.

  76. 128 sjamieson1972 November 2, 2011 at 11:57 am

    I’m actually a lawyer since you ask. And one who has represented juveniles (although no juvenile killers). Anyway, I’m done here – when people are insistent that two people should be continually punished as adults for a crime they committed at age 10, their claim to be civilised is questionable.

    Robert Thompson has NOT reoffended (the reports about heroin use/shoplifting are apparently false btw). I believe on release he attended art school and is in a stable relationship with another man. Thing about this case is that the tabloids have had free rein to print all manner of nonsense, knowing full well the two people in question cannot sue (it was alleged for example that Jon Venables was married with children a few years ago – we now know for a fact that this is a lie. Another report claimed his mother worked as a childminder and he was regularly at her house – the report into his offending makes clear that his actual contact with children under 12 was severely restricted – so this is another lie).

    And I wasn’t saying T&V would not reoffend because of the example of the Burgess case – I was giving the case AS an example, indicating that there ARE precedents.

    BTW, you claim you respect ‘divine law’ (whatever that is). I’m guessing you are religious person. Where does forgiveness or redemption feature? From your posts, I’m guessing not very highly which knid of paints you as a bit of a hypocrite (certainly if you are a Christian).

  77. 129 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “when people are insistent that two people should be continually punished as adults for a crime they committed at age 10, their claim to be civilised is questionable.” – You are a lawyer and you misrepresent my position.

    “the reports about heroin use/shoplifting are apparently false btw” – I doubt you would know that unless you have personal involvement in his legal affairs. What makes you so certain that it’s false? or all the other stories about him are false? I’m not saying they are true, they may well be false, but to me it signals yet another failure of the state that it doesn’t keep the public informed, even anonymously about the status of these two. e.g.

    But even if it is false. Venables had a stash of child porn and lord knows what else, a wee but of child torture stuff perhaps? incest stuff maybe? child snuff movies? We just don’t know but given his child porn and child torture and child killing history, I wouldn’t put anything past him.

    “in a stable relationship with another man.” – another marginal trait. And how do you know it’s stable? You are opinionating. Unless you are in contact with them and have analysed their relationship, you cannot cay it’s stable,

    Tabloids are in the main vile things. But I can’t believe they are having a field day just because Venables and Thompson can’t sure. Somewhere, deep, deep, deeeep, down there’s going to be some journo hack with an anger at the leniency these two killers got and a sympathy towards what James’ parents have gone through. Their treatment by the state is disgraceful.

    By saying the Burgess case gives a precedents, you ARE in fact trying to lead people into thinking that Barratt and Bradley case AFTER they did their muder, that their post-killing history is in some way applicable to Venables and Thompson. otherwise it’s the similarities before and up to the killing, however curious, are actually utterly meaningless.

    Where does forgiveness or redemption feature?” – I don’t subscribe to the view that no matter what is done to you you just brush it off and say ‘oh well’. After an appropriate punishment then OK, I believe the person can be re-admitted into society. BUT, I hold that Venables and Thompson were not adequately punished and I believe the way/details they have been reintroduced into society is very wrong indeed. If they were in jail until they were 50 (a figure I’m just casually throwing out for sake of argument) then I think that would be adequate. If they were placed in society under near constant supervision and in a controlled environment then I’d feel a lot happier with that – so too I guess would James’ parents, Denise and Ralph {although I’m just guessing they’d feel this way}.

    You atheist perspective makes you a poor judge of evaluating someone’s belief in God. Like I said I’m not of the “turn the other cheek” camp. Neither I suspect are you.

  78. 130 sjamieson1972 November 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    The quote is actually not ‘turn the other cheek’ but ‘if a man strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the left also’. It has a VERY different meaning in the context of the time.

    I am of the opinion that a ten year old cannot be held as accountable for their actions as an adult. I believe they should be treated differently in the criminal justice system. Certainly both boys (before their crime) were victims of crimes (Thompson in particular who was sexually abused, experienced horrific violence in the home, was neglected and witnessed scenes of domestic violence and suicide attempts in in the home). There is evidence that Venables had mental health problems before the crime (extreme self-harming). No compassion for crimes against them though – just a level of disordered vengeance.

    And you are extremely naive if you think the tabloids have ‘justice’ in their minds with the crap they produce. They have only the bottom line in mind. They know murder sells and child murder sells the most.

    I’m driven to wondering what you would have done with those two ten year olds had you got hold of them after the crime (or conviction) – AS children. I’m not wholly conviced you wouldn’t have indulged in a bit of child torture yourself.

    BTW, negative stories about Thompson stopped around the time his phone started to be allegedly hacked by the NOTW. Apparently the life he was living was relatively normal and uneventful.

    My general view of religious people is that they are often not the good, decent people they claim to be.

  79. 131 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    I wasn’t attempting to give a quote, merely its popularised contemporary interpretation.

    I’ve written about these two scumbags in other posts.

    1) On Jon Venables and Child Porn (24th July 2010)

    2) James (Jamie) Bulger
    (6th March 2010, last updated 26 Aug 2010)

    I do wrestle with some of the moral dilemma’s. You say “I am of the opinion that a ten year old cannot be held as accountable for their actions as an adult” – I did say “Actually, becasue they were boys when they acted like little satans and now they (may) have a developed conscience and awareness of the meaning if life, I lean towards thinking they should be allowed to go free.”. I no longer hold that position.

    In the James (Jamie) Bulger post, I quote this: “One officer commented that Bulger’s killing was not simply an opportunist crime: it had been systematically planned. “They knew exactly what they were doing. They had planned… from the outset… to go and kill a young boy.”. How can anyone ‘weed out’ or ‘cure’ psychotic thoughts like that? My contention is Venables has shown a sign that he still has them via his extraordinary child porn offence. Its potty to have a firm belief they will never re-offend. Even good people who have reached adulthood sometimes turn to the ‘dark side’ and do unspeakable things. Everyone is a potential killer, but T&V have already tasted blood and Venables’s child porn is deeply disturbing.

    “And you are extremely naive if you think the tabloids have ‘justice’ in their minds with the crap they produce” – You certainly appear to be a lawyer! – yet again you (deliberately?)attribute things to me that I didn’t say. I was referring to ONE specific issue, this issue – the issue of James Bulger, whereas you are being general. I think it is entirely possible in this extraordinary case that many journalists do indeed sympathise with James’ parents, indeed it is you who are being naive if you think they will not have justice in their hearts about this case. I still remember the raw feeling that deep despair on this case and I saw it in others. Even now people are extraordinarily passionate about it.

    “They know murder sells and child murder sells the most.” – Yip they know that and yip it sells “well” & a number of them may possibly see the story for £££ it may generate, but people also have compassion.

    “I’m driven to wondering what you would have done with those two ten year olds had you got hold of them after the crime (or conviction) – AS children.” I guess I’d have stuck them in a juvenile offenders centre and then they reached 18, then, put them in an adult prison. I’d have kept them there for a long long time. Some people are kept in prison for their rest of their natural days. As T&V did their gross crimes at such a young age, Perhaps at the age of 45, Denise and Ralf should be asked each year if they feel it’s ok to have them released. When released, they should be tagged and kept in a controlled environment and be placed under near constant supervision. Their whereabouts should be made known to the public at all times.

    Yeah I wonder who had their phone numbers and I wonder who sold the info TNOTW jounro hacks and I wonder how the legal system you subscribe to will carry out justice on that front. But what you say about TNOTW doesn’t mean Thompson is a good citizen (as defined by prevailing British ethics). But it could also mean the criminals in the police force that sold the info to the journo put pressure on TNOTW not to report it as it would be pretty clear what the source of Thompsons contact information was going to be.

    “Apparently the life he was living was relatively normal and uneventful.” – says who? What proof is there?

    “My general view of religious people is that they are often not the good, decent people they claim to be.” In some cases you are certainly right. I’m sure Stalin would agree.

    Just like you are ambiguously casting aspersions on me that because I belie in God – and consequently from your experience of religious people – I may not being good (that’s just a whisker away from what I’ve heard other people say about those with black skin) You attempt to label me with smears of possibly wanting to indulge in a bit of child torture are quite perverse and say more about you than the phoney image you try to conjure upon me. You have spent an extraordinary amount of time flinging muck against Wittwer and now you try and do it to me. Yet I don’t think I’ve heard you say one thing even mildly critical of T&V. I’m quite sure people who read this will notice the same thing. If you’re going to embark upon stooping to the level of your midget heros, then please, don’t come here again. If however you have a genuine interest in discussing T&V then I’ll gladly engage.

    • 132 Kim Glynn March 28, 2012 at 1:08 am

      I have been reading this blog from the beginning, and have to say sjamieson1972 has made some very salient points.

      It seems to me that instead of listening to points you oppose, IWTC247, you respond by arguing semantics.

      Since you spokeon behalf of ”people who read this”, I decided to give my point of view as a person who is reading this.

      • 133 lwtc247 March 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm

        If nothing at all I have said made any difference to you and you see fit not to discuss/debate one single thing out of the huge amount I’ve written here, but simply dismiss with such simplicity accusing me of “arguing semantics”, well, it’s quite disappointing, but it’s your call. Sorry I didn’t argue my point better.

  80. 134 sjamieson1972 November 2, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Have no idea what you mean by ‘midget heros’.

    The police officer you mention who made those comments about the case (Albert Kirby) has since revised his position. He feels now that there may have been an injustice towards Robert Thompson. He was the one who was tough in the interviews – that is why they assumed he was the ringleader. However, he had no history of violence but Jon Venables did have (he attempted to throttle another pupil with a ruler at a previous school). It should also be noted that some of the reports of their time in custody were also made public before their release. While there were concerns about Venables’ tendency to lose his temper (swearing and throwing things), Thompson showed absolutely no violent/deviant behaviour the whole time (reports from a former inmate that he tried to strangle him was nonsense and in any case that former inmate (Scott Walker) is now serving life for the murder of an 18 year old kid in Liverpool I believe).

    Also, Venables admitted that taking James Bulger was HIS idea. Moreover, in the police interviews when he confessed, his words were ‘I killed James’. He DID NOT say ‘we’. Now Thompson was present and likely engaged in violence also but I believe that it was Jon Venables who carried out most of the violence (although Thompson would not have been a merely innocent bystander and in any case, he would have been found guilty of murder by joint enterprise even if he had not laid a finger on him).

    Problem is, they were interviewed by police officers – not child psychologists so the suppositions of those police officers are just that – suppositions. And I realise my opinions are largely speculative but I’m coming at it from a more considered position.

    Contrary to popular thinking, I believe VENABLES, not Thompson was/is the dangerous one.

    And if Thompson is not dangerous, has not reoffended and is living a quiet, productive life, he should be allowed to continue to do so without the pathetic threats of vigilantes. And they ARE being watched – they are on a life license which includes lifetime supervision.

    And by the way, murder, of all crimes has the lowest recidivism rate. We are talking something like 1%.

  81. 135 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    “And by the way, murder, of all crimes has the lowest recidivism rate. We are talking something like 1%.” – Could that be because people are stuck in jail for a lengthy time having committed it? Supports the theory that T&V should be back there.

    Why watch them if they are such great citizens? Doesn’t the fact that there being watched not indicate something to you?

    How do you know that Thompson has not re-offended? How would you know?

    “(Albert Kirby) has since revised his position” – Any proof of that?

    Lifetime supervision? So Venables was being watched when he downloaded kiddie porn then was he?

    I wonder if those NOTW questions will ever be answers? I don’t necessarily mean you, but by anyone. Will any justice come from it? extremely doubtful.

    Mr Justice Morland declaring solemnly that they had been found guilty of an act “of unparalleled evil and barbarity” Note the THEY. Are you saying the judge was wrong?

    {Note the paper is wrong when it says “Nobody suggested the boys made a decision after breakfast to kill somebody”}

    “Contrary to popular thinking” – I’m not so sure you have your finger on the nations pulse there mate.

    Susan Venables (Jon’s mum):
    @ “blamed her son’s ‘weakness’ for the murder of James Bulger”
    @ he has got involved with the wrong person.
    @ I would say he was provoked. He is one of those children that if you told him to put his hand in the fire, he would.
    @ ‘He is easily led. He didn’t want to hurt James. He was fearful of the other boy. He was fearful, he was weak and he was provoked.
    @ ‘All he said when we’ve said ‘Why didn’t you run away?’ and things like that is that he was frightened. He said he was frightened of Robert’s older brother. Robert said ‘If you tell anybody I’ll get my big brother to batter you up’.’
    @ ‘Contrary to what the papers will tell you, he is not a little urchin boy.
    @ The couple [JV’s partents)… denied that Jon was bullied by his brother or that he watched violent horror films at home.

    I think Kirby said of the two they thought it was Venables that they thought could be rehabilitated.

  82. 136 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    “Only 24-hour surveillance would have stopped James Bulger’s killer amassing an extensive collection of child pornography, according to a Ministry of Justice case review published today.” –

  83. 137 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    “Evidence later emerged that he had an “extensive history of searching for and downloading indecent images of children using the internet”ibid

  84. 138 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    He also had trips to Liverpool. He’s broken the terms of his licence. Throw the piece of trash in jail.

  85. 139 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    “but after several years Venables became addicted to cocaine and mephedrone.” ibid

  86. 140 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    “Venables told officers he had enjoyed the images of abuse and said he was “breaking the last taboo”.” ibid

  87. 141 lwtc247 November 2, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Later the same year he was cautioned for possession of cocaine after he was found with a small amount of the class A drugibid

    • 142 neil potter November 2, 2011 at 8:34 pm

      robert thompson is appering at saint helens mags court friday 4/11 under escort but not arrest under a name of billy or william the press have been informed will not be able to enter the BNP will be there we will see who he really is BNP will point him out

      • 143 dan and sarah jane November 2, 2011 at 9:06 pm

        yes bnp website confirms this it doesn’t say what for tho anyone know what for will anyone be attending also

  88. 144 MerseyJim November 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    You can’t supervise ANYONE 24 hours a day – even a prisoner. Hence the reason there are so many suicides in prison. Venables and Thompson ARE being supervised under the terms of their license. Venables’ offence was committed alone in his room and it wasn’t a violent one. Morever, in custody, he had shown nothing to indicate a sexual interest in children (in fact the reverse – he had a relationship with an older prison guard).

    I agree with the other poster about Thompson. And you asked for proof of Kirby’s reasessment of the situation:

    ‘This brings to mind people’s previously-held views on the killers – that Thompson led, while a vulnerable Venables followed.

    Mr Kirby says: “The general perception (from his background and the police interviews) was that Thompson was the major aggressor. But I think now, when you look at the work done with Venables over the years, that was an injustice to Thompson.”

    Read More

    Elsewhere he says:

    ‘we are led to believe Thompson has settled, so you’ve got to say, on that side of it, it’s worked

    I think you bizzarely want Thompson to reoffend – for there to be more victims. I find that sick.

  89. 145 MerseyJim November 2, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Oh, and by the way with regards to your comment on James Bulger’s parents being able to have a say in punishment. English Common Law does not allow it (thank god). The state, not victims takes charge (as independent body) of prosecution and sentencing. In fact, there is only one legal system in the world with the type of sentencing you describe – Sharia Law. So if you take issue with the way things are done here – move to Saudi Arabia where you’ll find a judicial system more to your liking.

    When I was burgled a couple of years ago, I would have been quite happy to see the perps hung upside down from a 50 storey building and publically disembowelled. It would have been wrong for the state to acceed to my wish. That is why emotion is taken out of sentencing – victims are not best placed to decide the fate of an offender.

    I don’t think you have any right to speak of yourself as a person of faith. You are an extremely disturbed individual – one that would see two ten year olds locked up for 50 years no matter what changes they might go through. That is cruel, uncivilised and frankly, belongs in the dark ages. Even the Victorians didn’t treat juvenile killers this way (as has been shown here). You speak not of justice but pure revenge. The most basic of human instincts. Indeed worse because you would seek to dole out that revenge to children – damaged ones at that.

    And on the trial btw, that trial was ruled unfair which it clearly was. Two traumatised children (at least one – Thompson – diagnosed with severe post traumatic stress disorder) in an adult court packed with press. They could not instruct their counsel or take part in any defence. In fact, imo, the British government were very lucky that conviction was allowed to stand at all. Are you aware Thompson and Venables were awarded damages? That alone was abhorrent cruelty towards a child.

    As for the judge’s comments – a couple of the jurors certainly disagreed with them – in fact a couple have said they regretted finding the boys guilty of murder at all.

    • 146 alan carter November 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      if jordan scott robert thompson or billy go prison from st helens mags crt anybody know what prison if any will he be going i have read the offical BNP web sit confirming this also

    • 148 alan carter November 2, 2011 at 10:59 pm

      you say to some one grow up its you who is sick people no about him and you aint bothered you tell people to grow up ur probably a pedo yourself bnp are attending they say if thats true what more proof do you need

      • 149 sjamieson1972 November 3, 2011 at 8:55 am

        God some people are nuts. MerseyJim seems like a rational person who knows what he is talking about (even if some disagree with him). He’s pointed out that Robert Thompson CAN’T be attending court in Merseyside because he IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE THERE.

        Even the trial couldn’t be held in Merseyside back in 1993 – it had to be held in Preston.

        As for the BNP – if that is your touchstone of truth then you are lost love.

    • 150 Anonymous November 4, 2011 at 2:33 pm

      He wasnt appering in court as a crime he was a witness you fool he was gaurded by police and security and reporting condisions in place you call yourself mr merseyjim no all it was a court official who’s passed this on thought you no everything about him

  90. 154 sjamieson1972 November 3, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Bulger juror says murder verdict was ‘forced’:

    ‘The juror, who is unnamed, writes that demands by the press for the two to remain in prison constitute “vengeance of the most primitive kind”. The two boys “were children”, the letter continues, “young, ill-educated, of a social background which, I suspect, had included little direction or support; caught up in circumstances which they only partly comprehended and within which they made appalling choices.

    “The trial was about retribution. They were denied psychiatric help until after the ending of the trial (and when the psychiatrist who gave evidence told the judge that this needless, court-imposed, delay in helping them was damaging to their chances of coping with their trauma and eventual hope for reformation, she was sharply put down and told that it was none of her or the court’s concern).”

    and further down:

    ‘It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand (as, for example, the replaying of tapes of the police interviews when they cried and cried and called for their mothers); subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as ‘evil’ by the judge.”

    “I felt that we, the jury, were forced into a verdict of ‘guilty of murder’. A more appropriate verdict would have been ‘guilty as frightened and largely unaware children who made a terrible mistake and who are now in urgent need of psychiatric and social help’.

    And previous to this another juror complained:

    Earlier, juror Vincent Moss said in a radio interview that he had been horrified by the judge’s description of the two boys as “vicious and hardened criminals”. On reflection, he continued, “We should have gone back into the court and we should have said, ‘Yes, we do have a verdict: these young boys are in urgent need of social and psychiatric help…. The jury had no genuine freedom to decide on the boy’s guilt or innocence, he continued, “we were there simply to rubber stamp a verdict.”

    The trial was a disgrace to every civilised ideal of justice.

    THAT is why the British government was only to happy to accept the verdict of the European court that the trial had been unfair. It was probably the best option for them as they may well have had to quash the guilty verdict completely because there was a clear case for it given the manifest unfairness of proceedings. It was, simply state-sponsored child abuse.

    It should also be noted that if Thompson and Venables were just six months younger at the time of the offence, they would never have even been charged with anything.

    • 155 hannah November 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      you an the person who calls themselfs merseyjim 1 ov you probably are thompson you can tell by the way you are defendin someone who as evidence or proof saying that thompson under a new name not his own will be giving evidence in court an you say hes not ur defending someone is it reali you or cud it be ur son

      • 156 MerseyJim November 4, 2011 at 6:09 am

        Do you really think one of them would post here? That would be spectacularly foolish given IP addresses can be traced. And I have not ‘defended’ them. I have attacked the trial and I have already said I’m a criminologist (well I think I’ve said it in any case). As far as I know, neither Thompson or Venables have this career path. As for being one of their parents’, I hope I appear somewhat more educated – Thompson mother left school at 15 I believe while his father was a drunkent, violent ne’er do well.

        I have also said that Thompson cannot be appearing in a court in Merseyside because being in Merseyside is contrary to the terms of his license. You don’t have to be Thompson to know this.

        Stop being childish.

  91. 157 lwtc247 November 3, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Mersey Jim.

    First off, What sample size did you use in your dissertation and which case studies did you use? What tests did you do to ensure the validity of your results. I’m curious. Indulge me.

    “Venables and Thompson ARE being supervised under the terms of their license.” – the licence that at least one of them broke in many more ways than one as reported in the guardian. You try to minimise his loathsome multiple crimes Jim. Venables was at least on the fringes of child porn ring and communicated with other child pornsters. He distributed the filthy depraved stuff.

    “he had shown nothing to indicate a sexual interest in children” – that’s just bullshit Jim. Venables was dabbling in child porn.

    I’m quite tired of being on the receiving end of your false accusations. You have no right to peddle your incorrect perceptions of my faith due to your adversarial position to mine with regards to the killers of James Bulger. Behave.

    Let me clear up one of the things you are wrong about. If Venables and Thompson didn’t offend again, that is only to be welcomed. They’ve cause enough misery pain and heartache. But they were released far too early. If they changed then there is an argument for their release. Signs with Venables are that he hasn’t changed and the public deserve not be have him roam anonymously amongst them. The cretin seems to be taking advantage of his position and doesn’t care much for his licence – demonstrably so.

    “You speak not of justice but pure revenge.” – That’s a crock of crap too. My stance is they should be thrown in jail, probably until they are middle aged, not until they are 60 as you dreamt up.

    There are issues about the trial granted, but in my eyes they are minor issues in respect to the crimes they committed.

    “Are you aware Thompson and Venables were awarded damages?” – No I wasn’t and I find it perverse that they were. That alone was abhorrent cruelty towards James’ parents.

    Those boys carried out a premeditated murder and tortured a wholly innocent boy. The Judge summed it up quite well. Well done for him.

    And in that Liverpool echo report you cite, , while Kirby strikes a conciliatory tone towards the rehabilitation of young offenders, something I don’t oppose (but I’m not in favour of failing to punish them adequately either!) he says: “I fail to see . . . how it can be said Venables is suitable to come out. I think with Jon Venables you’ve got one very disturbed young man. And, in my opinion, to allow him to walk back into what he was into before would be absolutely suicidal.” You seemed to have accidentally left that out.

    he also identifies Venables as a risk to

    You may like to click on one of the related links that describe how Robert Thompson was allowed to travel on a “lads’ trip” to Europe while on parole… Unsupervised!

    Doesn’t square well with your false claims that “”Venables and Thompson ARE being supervised under the terms of their license.”

    “When I was burgled a couple of years ago, I would have been quite happy to see the perps hung upside down from a 50 storey building and publically disembowelled.” – I think what you wanted is way out of proportion, and you chide me for wanting torturers and killers to be put in jail for about 35 years. I think you’ve got your knickers in a twist.

    While victims may not be the people to decide the fate of a criminal, I believe they should have a certain say.

  92. 158 lwtc247 November 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    I wouldn’t believe anything the BNP says. And I find it hard to believe what the “anonymous juror” said also.

    I don’t go along with the parroting of a line that tried to make these two appear like two normal boys. These boys were extraordinary. I myself have seen sum like that on the streets and there is woeful takes of what happens to trash like that later in life. Rhys Jones provides a good example that these young terrors don’t need a ‘do as thou wilt’ approach. If on their rightful conviction (no matter what gripes some may have about it) the detention centre was successful in stopping them from getting that bad then that can only be seen as good.

    I have some memories of being 10 and to think that they didn’t understand what was happening is utterly ridiculous.

    “the judge’s description of the two boys as “vicious and hardened criminals” – not too sure how long (it at all they were in engaged in criminal activities) but they were certainly are “vicious criminals”. But I do think saying that while detained, they should have been given assistance to come to terms with what they did. But I’m not sure that has transpired.

    “The jury had no genuine freedom to decide on the boy’s guilt or innocence, he continued, “we were there simply to rubber stamp a verdict.” – What say the other members of the jury?

    “It should also be noted that if Thompson and Venables were just six months younger at the time of the offence, they would never have even been charged with anything.” – That shouldn’t be the case. 9 1/2 year olds plotting to kidnap and kill with torture along the way know what they are dong and should also face legal consequence. Maybe people on hearing this will start writing to the MP’s to widen the ‘arm of the law’ over any potential cases.

  93. 159 lwtc247 November 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    ‘guilty as frightened and largely unaware children who made a terrible mistake and who are now in urgent need of psychiatric and social help’.

    A mistake?
    Oh, I mistakenly planed to kill someone.
    Oh, I mistakenly tortured him (I advise people read what they did to him to show these sick fkrs for what they were – and at least one – the child porn one still is)
    Oh, I mistakenly tried to cover my crime up.
    Oh I mistakenly tried to get away with it.
    Oh I mistakenly tried to blame my friend for it – the mistake I wasn’t aware of.
    Oh what a mistake to befall me.
    Oh woe is me.

    Mistake my ass. What a disgraceful thing to say.

    They boys clearly were (one certainly still is) in need of psychiatric help.

    Maybe when they next break the terms of their licence and take their next holiday in Europe, again UNSUPERVISED, they can seek that help.

  94. 160 sjamieson1972 November 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I think what we’d all like to see when we are victims of crime is ‘out of proportion’ – not just MersyJim. That is why we don’t get to decide! I remember some scroats nicking my baby’s pushchair from outside a shop (thankfully he was in my arms inside the shop at the time) when he was 2 months old. Right at that moment, my liberal instincts with regards crime and justice left me and I hoped they’d be run over trying to escape with it.

    As a lawyer I can tell you that ALL those on a life license can travel abroad IF they get permission from their probation officer. No rule change in Robert Thompson’s case and indeed, since it appeared he travelled with no incident and did not abscond, the faith was well placed (I think after five years a life licensee can ask to travel abroad).

    Supervision under license by the way merely means that you must check in with a probation officer and the probation officer must be made aware of any movements in jobs, any relationships, any change of address, any travel plans, any courses you attend, etc. It is the same for all those released on license. The supervision element actually usually ends for most life licensees after about 10 years. However, with regards these two, it was decided that the supervision element would be for life – mainly because of the risks to their safety.

    You don’t want to believe that Thompson isn’t a risk despite evidence to the contrary. You want to go on punishing him for a crime committed when he was ten – that is sadism. It is also I might add extremely un-Christian (again, I have no idea of your faith but if you are a Christian, perhaps you should read the sayings of Jesus a bit more). Mary Bell killed two children when she was 11 (and she definitely planned those killings) yet went onto have a perfectly normal life on release. (She btw was inside for 12 years – not that much longer than Thompson and Venables and as I said – she killed TWO toddlers). She was released at tariff end despite the fact that she was a much more troublesome inmate than either Thompson or Venables (she even escaped from open prison at one point). For much of her sentence she was at the same institution as Venables – Red Bank.

    No-one (well I’m not) is arguing that Venables should not be in prison for his current crime. And his release will not be an automatic thing. He will have to go through the parole process all over again – from the beginning. But he WILL be released eventually – that is a fact.

    I think what Jim meant was that he had shown no sexual interest in children while he was in custody which would indicate a requirement to monitor him in that regard. He now of course, is the subject of a sexual offences prevention order which means his internet use in the future will be monitored, he is not allowed onto networking sites and he must sign the sex offender’s register for 10 years.

    Years ago someone once said that you should not forgive a person seven times, but seventy times seven. He even forgave the people who murdered him.

    Shame those who claim to follow him find it so hard to follow his example.

  95. 161 sjamieson1972 November 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    ‘Maybe when they next break the terms of their licence and take their next holiday in Europe, again UNSUPERVISED, they can seek that help.’

    You see this indicates what someone said previously. A DESIRE that they will reoffend. That is really quite disturbing. Perhaps YOU should get psychiatric help.

  96. 162 MerseyJim November 3, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Yes, I worded that wrong. I meant while he was in secure care he didn’t display any sexual desires towards children.

    I find the blog owner creepy. He seems to think these two should have been treated WORSE by the criminal justice system because they were children (the fact that youth is a MITIGATING factor in crime seems to have passed him by – he seems to think it should be an AGGRAVATING factor).

    As for my dissertation, I have looked at children who have killed from as far back as the eighteenth century. I have studied cases from England, Norway, USA, France amongst others. There was one case in the US, for example where two brothers killed a younger boy and fixed his body onto a crucifix. The sentence there? Five years in specialised foster case (they weren’t even locked up or put through the courts at all – that was in the 1970s). It’s a myth that the USA is always harsher on juvenile crime than we are. In many ways they are far more progressive (for example, even murder can be tried in youth courts – in the UK you can only try murder in an adult court even if the child is 10 years old). If tried in a youth court, in most states, they have to release the offender by the time they are 21 if offence committed before 15, 25 if committed between 15-17. No matter what the offence and education while incarcerated is a priority.

    In that case by the way (where the two brothers were mormons who had grown up in a violent household), neither brother killed again. One has had problems with alcohol and once got arrested for hitting his own child. The other has had a completely successful/productive life – working, having a family. Neither has come remotely close to killing again.

    And I don’t need to go into the Norway case a couple of years after the Bulger murder (where two boys sexually assaulted and killed an 8 year old girl) – that is well known. But Norway also did not put the two boys through the criminal justice system – they got psychiatric care and were back in their preschool a week after the killing. Again, one has problems (with addictions but no criminal offences), the other is fine.

    Research suggests that is how it generally is – 50% do well, 50% go on to have further problems. I think this is down to how resilient a person is.

  97. 163 lwtc247 November 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Mersey Jim. I don’t really want to delete your posts. The next personal attack you let fly will put that position to the test.

  98. 164 sjamieson1972 November 4, 2011 at 9:44 am

    I see MerseyJim is a criminologist. Guess that explains the dissertation. If that is the case, perhaps he could enlighten me as to what a criminologist does and to the point of them. Because I’m baffled as to what purpose they serve. Seem like a bunch of chattering theorisers to me who develop more and more ideas just to justify their own existence.

    Sorry, that sounds harsh and I don’t mean to be insulting but I genuinely am confused as to why they exist.

  99. 166 lesley November 4, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Whether you were brought up or dragged up you know the difference between right and wrong.
    The fact that those two evil monsters are still out there with little or no remorse disgusts every decent person.
    I wish they were dead, or at least suffering!

    God Bless you Little James Bulger xx

  100. 167 sjamieson1972 November 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    ‘The fact that those two evil monsters are still out there with little or no remorse disgusts every decent person.’

    One is in prison so not ‘out there’ at all.

    How do you know they have ‘little or no remorse’? The reports from psychiatrists before release said they were full of remorse. And your desire that they be dead or suffering says more about you than them. And those desires are far from ‘decent’ (your word).

    • 168 lesley November 4, 2011 at 2:46 pm

      Sorry if I offended you with my post, I can honestly say I had no intention !I’m just not a big fan of child killers thats all.

      They should never have been released, they knew what they were doing was wrong !
      According to reports on the net, they showed no remorse..I mean, 8 years, for Gods sake!

  101. 169 lesley November 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I’m not posting on here again as Im not going to defend James Bulger and his family. I shouldnt have too.
    They are the victims, remember!

  102. 170 sjamieson1972 November 4, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    ‘According to reports on the net,’

    And there is your problem right there.

    ‘They should never have been released, they knew what they were doing was wrong !’

    So you think they should be treated worse than an adult who kills a child? You think the fact that they are children means they should be punished more? Do you realise what that makes you? Basically an advocate of child abuse.

  103. 171 sjamieson1972 November 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    As for ‘8 years’. By the time they were released, they had spent half their natural lives locked up. We sentence more leniantly for children because (and this may shock you) they are CHILDREN.

  104. 172 sjamieson1972 November 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I was intrigued by the report about the 2 mormon boys that Jim mentioned. I researched and at first could find nothing. I thought he might be talking rubbish but then lo and behold came across this (is this the one?) It doesn’t mention they are mormons so I could be wrong. The sentence wasn’t as Jim said also, in fact they weren’t sentenced at all because they weren’t found guilty of anything – they were just put in speicialist rehabilititaive care for two years (in a home much like the Bulger killers I suspect).

    One ten year old, one seven year old. But the killing was truly horrendous. Like Bulger, involving beating a toddler (just 20 months old) to death, stripping him and then doing something horrible with the body (Bulger was laid on a train track, this one tied to a crucifix).

    I’m thinking it may be the same one because the report stipulates what Jim stipulated. That generally in these cases half of kids who kill do well, half of kids who kill have further problems (it also mentions the younger one has been in trouble for violence towards children including his own but of a much lesser kind and also other petty offending). The other has led a normal, trouble-free life.

    There are other similarities – they were basically allowed to run riot with no boundaries. They were both subjected to violence and had witnessed criminal behaviour. Their father (who had custody) apparently had little care where they were – and they were allowed (even at that young age) to wander the streets sometimes miles from home.

    And the most astonishing thing of all – the mother of the dead child had COMPASSION for the killers and didn’t object to them not being put through the criminal justice system but rather diverted to the welfare system.

    It is quite interesting how similar these cases of children killing children are (this one, Barrett and Bradley, Mary Bell, the Norway case, Bulger). One thing people should understand – empathy is not something that truly develops in a human until the teens (just look at how violent a toddler can be – if they were any bigger they could do some serious damage!)

    I may disagree with the blog-owner on how children like this should be treated but one thing I hope we can agree on. If these children had been loved and nurtured, perhaps they would not have turned out so damaged.

    • 173 MerseyJim November 8, 2011 at 10:11 pm

      Yes – that’s the one. I must have got the ‘sentence’ mixed up with another case. Unlike Thompson or Venables, they weren’t named (I believe ‘Bobby’ and ‘Billy’ were fake names) but like Venables and Thompson, they have court protected anonymity for the whole of their lives.

      You are right though – there are similarities in all these cases – children can be far more brutal than adults because they lack the restraint. And one thing common in all the backgrounds of these kids is sheer bloody neglect. Many of these children were literally left to fend for themselves – modern day Victorian street urchins (apart from Barret & Bradley of course – who were literal Victorian street urchins).

      And of the 50% who have problems, all of them ended up with drink/drug issues and acute problems in forming relationships.

      • 174 sjamieson1972 November 9, 2011 at 10:08 am

        Well I was actually thinking also about the specific way the crimes were carried out. If we look at the Bulger case, and the Bradley/Bennett case and this one; all three involved two perpetrators taking a toddler away from his carer; being seen by multiple adults (none of whom bothered to get involved), walking the toddler for a long time before taking him to a quiet spot and beating him to death. All involved stripping the toddler of clothes.

        Interestingly in the crucifix case and the Norway case where a female victim was battered to death, the factor which seemed to have initiated the violence was the constant crying of the child. In Norway, one of the boys said they kept hitting her until she stopped crying. In this crucifix case,one of the offenders more or less said the same thing. We know that James Bulger was crying when he was being beaten because the boys mentioned it in the police interviews. In all cases, were they trying to silence the child and went too far? Were the main motiviating factors simply fear and panic? Sometimes we want to look for answers when in fact those answers may be quite simple.

        We must admit that sometimes crying babies are too much for adults. Many an adult (mainly parents) has been driven to despair (and often violence) because of it. Think how that must be magnified in young children and the capacity for restraint significantly reduced.

        The parallels are chilling and indicate that while crimes like the James Bulger murder are extremely unusual, they are by no means unique.

  105. 175 lwtc247 November 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

    I’ve been away.

    @ sjamieson1972 3/11/2011 at 1:58 pm & 2:04 pm

    What MerseyJims felt like doing to his burglars is not something most ordinary people would do. His feelings were extremist to say the least. With most people, The instantaneous feeling (which I speculate is a natural motivating mechanism at the time to stop or quickly reverse the crime in progress) gives way to rational thought and it’s those rational ‘cool down’ reflective thoughts which are the ones that are ‘used’ to entertain the victims say in the punishment of a crime. Many victims of crimes are forgiving and proportionate. It’s incredibly smug and pretentious (as well as a number of other things) to dismiss it because “Saudi Arabia” has some system whereby victims have a say.

    As for trips abroad, the crucial point isn’t that he went overseas, the point is he was (reported to have been) unsupervised. Supervision should mean he’s physically checked on and should be prepared to be inspected randomly.

    If, as you say, I want people to think Thompson (who I’ve not put much focus on in these exchanges) is still a risk when he does indeed have a history of entering an extremely rare and evil mental state (premeditated murder and torture demonstrating he knew it was wrong by the fact he tried to cover it up) and despite that you peddling the idea he is in no way a risk…. well, I’m sure readers will see which is more sustainable and which is contrary to reality.

    Once again I’m going to tell you to put your lawyers trick of “character assassination of the prosecutions witness” back in it’s box; To baselessly accusing me of being a sadist when in fact that’s EXACTLY what your client is very poor form. Don’t attempt to smear me again. I am not the focus of this post. I don’t want to start deleting your posts either. Much discussion of this has taken place and you and Jim have proven you can discuss in an intelligent way, so no more.

    Re: Mary Bell. It’s good that she appears to have progressed. Just like of Thompson and Venables ‘progresses’ then that should be welcome – although Venables has proven NOT to have progressed. But to imagine because Mary Bell seems to have been rehabilitated that therefore Thompson and Venables will is ludicrous. The difference between the mind of a woman and that of a man alone is likely to nullify any ignorant ‘one size fits all’ rule to child killers.

    MerseyJim didn’t address how many children he studied or how he analysed the validity of his results. I wonder what effort he put into finding repeat killers?

    As for the religious element of this, it would be too much of a diversion to discuss it fully here, save to say I don’t subscribe to your vision of Jesus.

    And what you claim about me desiring them to reoffend is plain wrong. I need no psychiatric help. I’ve not planned to murder and torture a little innocent boy. Neither do I go the extra mile to defend those who have.


    @ lesley

    Whether you were brought up or dragged up you know the difference between right and wrong.” – Indeed!
    Thompson and Venables knew the wrongness of their crimes. They tried to cover it up. And yes. lesley you spotlight something crucial. How those expending a large amount of time and energy with regards to Thompson and Venables have little or no time for recognising the continued pain of James’ parents.


    @ sjamieson1972 4/112011 at 3:19 pm

    You said” So you think they should be treated worse than an adult who kills a child? You think the fact that they are children means they should be punished more?” – you are wrongfully putting words into lesley’s mouth.

    Re the remorse link you gave (on the November 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm_ post; Allow me to quote:
    “trial judge, Morland J. in the following terms when sentencing Jon Venables and Robert Thompson: “The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity.” – I think that merits at the very least much greater levels of supervision of these dirty murderers.

    And also this very important part:

    “Mr Bulger. I have been provided with a clinical psychological report relating to Mr Bulger. The psychologist was of the opinion that Mr Bulger was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the murder of his son for which he requires treatment. This has adversely affected his ability to obtain employment. Members of his family, his brother and mother, are seriously traumatised.”

    @ MerseyJim 8/11/11 (10:11 pm)

    You said: “children can be far more brutal than adults because they lack the restraint.” That’s counter-intuitive and I’d guess false. Adults can have much more developed emotions and also sexual & sadistic factors as well as greater rage, strength and purpose.

    @ sjamieson1972 9/11/11
    You said “the violence was the constant crying of the child.” While I have no proof to say this isn’t the case I seriously doubt you have any proof to say that it is. Not all children brought up in terrible conditions pre-plans a murder and carries it out using torture and tries to get away with it after by attempting to cover it up. You consistent fail to acknowledge that children who kill may simply have evil thoughts and be evil.

    Then you have the nerve to say “were they trying to silence the child and went too far?” That’s an outright perversion of the truth. They PLANNED it. What you wrote is utterly shameless.

    You know what, in all what you and MerseyJim have said, I don’t think you’ve ever once condemned Thompson and Venables’s gross evil acts. I find that astonishing, and frankly deeply disgraceful.

  106. 176 sjamieson1972 November 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    ‘EXACTLY what your client is’ – My client is NOT Robert Thompson. I have never had any personal involvement with the case at all. And I am not making any assumptions. I AM going by precedent in that those who kill as kids almost NEVER kill again after release. You are assuming the worst – despite evidential information to the contrary. This is not to say they won’t offend in some way again of course (as Jon Venables has done).

    ‘I don’t think you’ve ever once condemned Thompson and Venables’s gross evil acts.’

    Well I can’t speak for Jim but I can say that I absolutely think it was an evil act. And I have no problem in condemning that act. This is very different from saying they are evil people though. You see I make the distinction. I DO NOT feel that a 10 year old is unredeemably evil and I think people who do are centuries old in their thinking.

    ‘That’s an outright perversion of the truth. They PLANNED it’

    Actually there is nothing to suggest they did this. I believe their actions run contrary to this idea. They walked around for hours encountering adults, going with the child into a shop, talking to various people. If they planned it, I say it would have been better had they planned it a bit better! The initial idea was to ‘get a kid lost’. The tale told by a kid in their class that they talked about killing was shown to be false (he was paid money by a tabloid to say it) and it wasn’t evidence in the trial (funnily enough, it’s not just murderous kids who lie!)

    And you can quote the trial judge as much as you want. I think calling it ‘unparalleled evil and barbarity’ was over egging the pudding. Worse than Brady and Hindley? Worse than Pol Pot? Worse than Fred West?

    As for the crying, I think it clear I was thinking aloud – NOT claiming it as truth. There are only two people alive who know the truth about that day and your reaction shows why they cannot ever speak about it.

    You have been shown evidence of other cases of children who have committed similar acts and have gone on to live perfectly productive lives. I think Jim has given ample examples (including the crucifixion one above) of his research. I challenge you to find examples of children who have killed as children who have gone onto kill as adults if you are so sure of their absolute unquenchable lust for blood.

    I think it is rather YOU who is choosing to ignore things, not me.

    So your view of Jesus differs to mine does it? I’m guessing you follow a different Jesus to the one in the New Testement then. Not the one who preached forgiveness and redemption but one who thinks human beings can be written off at age 10. I’m not familiar with that Jesus.

  107. 177 sjamieson1972 November 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Are Thompson and Venables worse than this guy (someone who tortured and murdered a woman and her child and who had previous convictions for sex offences)? I think we’ll probably hear no more of him after today (it is a recent case) but the hatred and bile will continue to be fuelled in the Bulger case until both perpetrators die. My main problem with this is that this vile hatred isn’t actually aimed at Thompson and Venables as adults. It is aimed at their ten year old selves.

  108. 178 lwtc247 November 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    rendered voluntarily is irrelevant.

    “They walked around for hours encountering adults, going with the child into a shop, talking to various people.” You make it sound like they approached adults for a social natter. I believe a number of the adults who say them did so simply because they just happened to be in the same location and seeing them was unavoidable.

    (and info from related parts)

    Thompson kicked James face with some force.

    Albert Kirby: “I think they premeditated – they knew what they were going to do and without any excuse at all, their actually showing just how evil they were on that day and how that they’d intended one way or another to kill a child”

    “…he [Venables] was very aggressive… he tried to strangle another boy with a ruler which is well documented”

    I had heard previously that Thompson and Venables were overheard by an adult saying that they wanted to get a boy.

    David Canter, Professor of Psychology, University of Liverpool says in the same video “indications are that on that day they thought it would be interesting to pick on a toddler and involve that toddler in something that might have been close to some sort of game that would hurt and abuse a todder because they had attempted to take a child earlier on the the day. involve ere that they

    Kirby, a Christian says: “I don’t think it’s my role to forgive either of those boys what they did.” – I don’t see you trying to question Kirby’s understanding of faith.

  109. 179 lwtc247 November 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    “Are Thompson and Venables worse than this guy” – I don’t think it’s possible to apportion a % ranking of barbarity.

  110. 180 sjamieson1972 November 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    ‘I don’t think it’s possible to apportion a % ranking of barbarity’

    But the judge in the Thompson and Venables did and you are quoting him freely. He said the level of barbarity was ‘unparallelled’. I’m saying that that’s rot.

    ‘I had heard previously that Thompson and Venables were overheard by an adult saying that they wanted to get a boy.’

    This was untrue (and actually it was a child in their class who took money from a tabloid – seems he couldn’t even get that right). You cannot quote rumour as fact. When tabloids wave cash at people, it is amazing what they will claim (just look at Chris Jefferies). And Kirby has been shown to be wrong before (this is the guy who went to Portugal the week Madeleine McCann went missing and said the Portuguese Police were doing a sterling job and he predicted they would have a result by the end of the week – he’s actually a bit dim).

    As for Kirby’s faith – it’s a matter for him. I don’t like him – I think he’s acted in a wholly unprofessional manner (making money from the horrible murder of a child – he’s built a nice career on the back of James Bulger’s death – going round the world giving talks on it and making documentaries and hyping himself up as a crime correspondant to ITV). I think he’s just another out and out hypocrite when it comes to religion. I wouldn’t trust him further than I could spit – but I see you are prepared to despite your claim to not trust the police upthread.

  111. 181 sjamieson1972 November 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    And I watched a documentary on the Shankhill Butchers last week.

    They killed at least 30 people (mostly Catholics) during The Troubles (hacked them to death and slit their throats).

    And Thompson and Venables’ crime was ‘unparralled evil’ compared to this?

    By the way, they have all been released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement (they only served around 15 years – yes 15 years for the brutal torture and murder of 30 people.

    People should get a sense of proportion.

  112. 182 sjamieson1972 November 11, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    And I should say (sorry for the three posts), that Albert Kirby has long moderated his position on the crime. When they were released, he agreed with the anonymity order and hoped that they would be left alone to rebuild their lives.

    And as has been shown upthread, he has now revised his opinion of Robert Thompson – admitting that they were likely wrong in their judgment of him.

    But notwithstanding this, Kirby has had nothing to do with either of these boys since they were taken down from Preston crown court to start their sentences at age 11. He is not privvy to any information on them and his opinion is of no more worth than any of ours. It is speculation and supposition.

  113. 183 lwtc247 November 11, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    No, the judge did not reference a % barbarity.

    You are not contextualising Kirby. He said viewing Thompson as the ring leader was unfair to Thompson. That’s quite sound if we are to believe as you have said that Thompson is avoiding trouble.

    In the last part of the video I linked to above, Kirby said “the tariff that was set is inadequate and it should have been far greater than it was.” – I wholly concur. I hold a number of similar views to Kirby.

    As far as I am aware, Kirby’s expressions in the video above are his current views. surely you can have no idea if he made money from this. It seems very much at odds with how he comes across. How do you know he’s profited from this?

    Jon Venables quoted Thompson as saying “let’s get him lost outside so when he goes into the road he’ll get knocked over.” That’s premeditation.

    There was a woman who almost suffered the same fate as Jamies mum.

    Without doubt these boys were out to “get a kid”. The murder was not random/sporadic. It was planned.

    And given it appears that James was sexually assaulted and Venables was hooked into a child porn ring, I seems like Venables still has a sickness inside him.

    Hopefully the parole board will keep him away for a long long time. They failed the first time. Perhaps they won’t make the same mistake twice. They report he’s to be kept in prison as the authorities believe he’d expose his own identity or make a TV documentary. How come his penchant for child porn and inability to keep his id secret spotted when he was in custody or by his monitor.

    Re: ‘I had heard previously that Thompson and Venables were overheard by an adult saying that they wanted to get a boy.’

    you repliedThis was untrue (and actually it was a child in their class who took money from a tabloid – seems he couldn’t even get that right). You cannot quote rumour as fact. I’m still sure it was an adult. I’ve no recognition of a classmate and a tabloid on this matter. I thought it was a mature female, but I can’t source it so fair enough, I’ll not advance that again (unless I can trace it’s origin and it’s credible).

    You said “he’s [Kirby] built a nice career on the back of James Bulger’s death” – that’s a terrible thing to say, and you are wrong I said SOME/MANY British police are scum. It’s a commentator that says they are ALL scum. Not I.

    As for the NI thing. The number of other factors make the NI murderers a whole different kettle of fish e.g. the supposed peace process is political, involving 100’s of thousands of people.

    Kirby again: “He is not privvy to any information on them and his opinion is of no more worth than any of ours.” – I’m sure he has numerous contacts within the police. He’s also maintained contact with Denise, but I am sure he’s more informed than either of us.

    Lets end with James’ mum:

    James’s mum Denise said: “In his twisted mind he believes the name Jon Venables makes him some kind of celebrity and he cannot resist telling people who he really is.

    “It seems he gets some kind of perverse thrill from it and it’s clear therefore that he has no remorse about murdering my son.

    “It shows that he cannot be trusted outside prison and he shouldn’t be paroled in that condition.

    “I do not want his blood on the hands of some individual, so the parole board and probation officers shouldn’t take any more chances.

    “He has been given enough chances and he has blown them all. “It’s time for a complete re-think of the way they handle this case because it is clear he cannot live a lie.

    If Thompson keeps his mouth shut and stays on the straight and narrow then good.

  114. 184 MerseyJim November 12, 2011 at 9:45 am

    I also hold a very low opinion of Kirby. He HAS profited from this. He has advertised himself as a crime speaker on the back of this and because of his involvement in the case got hired by ITV. He is another media whore. And wholly unreliable. Interesting about the Madeleiene Mccann thing (I didn’t know this but am not surprised he used it as another means to make a bit of cash) but it goes to show his astonishing lack of judgment.

    And your position is that Thompson and Venables should have spent 50 years in prison. As far as I know, Kirby originally said 15 years would have been sufficient. He later revised this down to ten if I recall correctly. His only problem with the eventual tariff was that neither boy spent any time in adult prison. I recall him saying that he felt a couple of years in an adult prison would have been sufficient.

    But in any case a police officer involved on a case SHOULD NOT comment on sentencing. It is not his concern. His involvement should have ended the day the boys were convicted – he has no business in anything else. I’m afraid he has used the case to make a career for himself in the media which is despicable.

    • 185 lwtc247 November 13, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Well given Kirby seems to have amicable relations with James’ mum, I don’t think any money he might have made could be considered unethical or even morally questionable.

      Fact remains he has prime knowledge a gross and shocking crimes in recent British internal history. That people want to hear and learn from that – especially dare I say criminologists, isn’t so wrong. He probably didn’t do it while employed by the police.

      I didn’t share ALL of Kirby’s views. If I did I would be Kirby. I agree with him when he says “the tariff that was set is inadequate and it should have been far greater than it was. The exact length of that is something which I would probably disagree with him on.

      “But in any case a police officer involved on a case SHOULD NOT comment on sentencing.” – I see nothing wrong with that given
      a) It was after sentencing
      b) The sentencing was an affront to the victims of Venables and Thompson as to James.
      c) He has knowledge of the case and experience of the boys that the sentencing judge does not have
      d) I’d argue he has a greater right to debate sentencing more than what we interested yet unconnected persons do.
      e) Many others involved in the case have commented on elements of the case and rightfully so.

      As public employees the public has a right to hear what they have to say. They are answerable to the public.

      I think it’s very poor of you to say he’s made a career out of it as a result. I fell like writing to him and making aware that you have made this dreadful allegations.

      Plus, personal attacks on him don’t really have much validity of the crime done by Thompson and Venables.

      • 186 MerseyJim November 14, 2011 at 6:37 am

        The allegation that he has made money from this case is nothing of the kind because it is true. He HAS made money off the back of this case. Write to him if you must, he can’t deny it.

        As for having ‘experience of the boys that the sentencing judge does not’; actually I believe he only very briefly met Venables and has never met Robert Thompson. He presided over the case, he never once interviewed either boy. Moreover, he has had nothing to do with them since 1993. He could be talking about complete strangers.

  115. 187 Maggie November 13, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I’ve been following this debate without saying anything but my god. I can’t believe that lwtc247 is criticising others for apparently ‘supporting’ Thompson/Venables (although I have seen them do no such thing – just bring some temperance to the debate) while he/she claims that the Shankill murders can be explained away as ‘political’. These people were NOT killing for any cause (I am an NI protestant and they certainly didn’t kill in my name). They didn’t just kill They slowly tortured them and hacked them to death. One guy had every single tooth extracted before being beaten around the head and finally sliced open. This was barbarism in the extreme – for nothing more than the fun of it. It didn’t even matter if they really were Catholics – just walking in the ‘wrong’ direction was enough to get a person killed. And they killed dozens of people.

    I cannot believe you are implying that somehow the political state of Northern Ireland can in some way explain these killings. These kilings were motivated by pure hatred and until Shipman, they were the most prolific serial killers the UK had ever seen.

    You prefer to unleash your hatred on two damaged children while putting forward mitigating circumstances for the actions of the Shankhill Butchers.

    Shame on you.

  116. 188 Maggie November 13, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Oh, and by the way, NI is having a debate on raising the age of criminal responsibility. Looks like we may go the civilised way of Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and raise it to 12.

    England and Wales will then have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe and one of the lowest in the world (lower even than places like Uganda, Iran and China I think).

  117. 189 lwtc247 November 13, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Maggie. I criticise people who gloss over the magnitude of Thompson and Venables’ crime, as well as those who believe both have been rehabilitated and those who believe their sentence was adequate and those who believe they were treated so badly they should have been let off.

    Re: Shankill murders. I’m not dismissing them. I’m saying there were political factors involved in NI of which the Shankill murders are wrapped up in.

    This topic is not about The British theft of Ireland and its historical consequences. Keep on topic please.

    And Maggie. If you are going to misrepresent my position, at least try and do it with a touch more class.

  118. 190 Maggie November 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    I think the Shankhill murders had nothing to do with politics. And I think the subject IS on topic. We are talking about horrific murders and I think it was you who first quoted the judge who said that the Bulger killing was evil which had no parallel (I think those were the words).

    I’m saying that the Shankhill butchers were much worse than these two kids (neither of whom has killed since by the way). They all served less than 20 years in jail for their crimes – horrific crimes where they killed scores of people in the most brutal way possible – with prolonged torture. This was not about politics. This was killing for fun and enjoying watching people suffer. It was sadism – pure and simple. It can’t have been about politics because do you know who gave the IRA a heads up when they killed the ringleader (Lenny Murphy?) Who let the IRA into the Shankhill? It was the UDA – the loyalist paramilitary group.

    You either think the killing of James Bulger was the worst crime ever (‘without parallel’) and Thompson/Venables are the most evil duo to ever walk the earth in history or you don’t.

    That you can even talk about the Shankhill butcher murders as being entwined with the political situation of Northern Ireland is giving them some kind of sick legitimacy whether you think you are doing this or not.

    As for ‘British theft of Ireland’. I obviously don’t want to get into that – but it should be clear I am a unionist.

    For my part, I think the Bulger killers could have done with a couple of more years inside and experienced a more harsher prison environemtn, but a couple of more years would be all. I think they should have absolutely been given the chance to rebuild their lives – that was the only civilised thing that could be done. I find the idea that we could punish two ten year olds for the whole of their natural lives deeply despressing and I would not want to live ina country which did that. And I loathe the word ‘rehabilitation’. Giving these kids a second chance was the right thing to do from a moral point of view (and, as a Christian, from a godly point of view).

    • 191 Anonymous February 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      How dare you say that one murder is worse than the other!!! Was not James Bulger tortured and butchered to death ‘for fun’?!? Who cares that they haven’t killed since..for god sake…they have done it once and to his mother and to millions more that is one too many!!! You can’t just dismiss what these two did because they were kids and only killed one person!!! Yes it was on a smaller scale than the horrific Shankill murders but the events and outcome were just as evil!!! I hope Denise Fergus never reads your comments!!!

  119. 192 lwtc247 November 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “the Shankhill murders had nothing to do with politics” – I’ll tell you now, I’ll never agree with you on that, especially when you include the IRA and UDA, and I’m not shirking away from condemning those involved with the occupation of Ireland or any of the barbarity inflicted on any side. Although we have different view on NI, I bet we are both glad some normalisation of life and relations there has occurred which has involved a political process. But this is not in fact the occasion to discuss the NI issue.

    The context of me quoting the judge was as a general measure of the crime Venables and Thompson did. I do not think that the enormity of their crimes can be put in absolute terms, hence/and I don’t think the ‘without parallel’ is particularly sustainable – as others here have pointed out. Their plan to kill a kid was however extremely extraordinary.

    “I think the Bulger killers could have done with a couple of more years inside and experienced a more harsher prison environemtn, but a couple of more years would be all. I think they should have absolutely been given the chance to rebuild their lives ” – we can agree on some of that i.e serving some time in an adult prison should have been part of their punishment, and I can live with them being offered the chance to rebuild their lives – but only on completion of due punishment and on clear evidence they have reformed.

    I have said that I as a boy (who incidentally knew what was right and wrong) am quite different in many ways from myself now as a man. Thompson seems to have been able to come to terms with it and walk away from that dark side. Venables however seems just as evil, sick and perverted as ever.

    I did have the opinion that if h was to out himself (and he does seem to be moving in that direction) and makes a public request for forgiveness, then perhaps he deserves one more chance. I’m mixed moods about that now that he’s continued his fixation with child sexual abuse.

  120. 193 lwtc247 November 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    …that if HE was to out himself…

  121. 194 MerseyJim November 13, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Thank you for explaining (or modifying) your position regarding the ‘unparallelled’ nature of the crime. I think that was fair and just of you.

    As for the Shankhill butchers, I believe two of the gang were actually sentenced to whole life tariffs but these were abolished after the Good Friday agreement. I am in agreement with Maggie. I think associating these criminals with the political conflict in Northern Ireland misses the point. I certainly think the leader (Murphy) was a category A psychopath and would have continued to kill whatever the political situation simply because he took pleasure in it (remember he killed protestants as well as catholics). Another loyalist killer (Johnny ‘Mad Dog’ Adair) was known to take sexual pleasure in his killings. Political tensions was just a cover for these people – they were simply violent sociopaths. Many of them graduated from lesser crimes to murder in any case (Adair was into mugging old ladies as a teenager for example).

    With regards to Venables – it could well be that he is too damaged to ever really be in society without serious supervision. I believe that he was mentally unwell before the original crime (a child who mutilates himself with scissors and bangs his head on walls is not a child who is perfectly OK with the world).

    • 195 sjamieson1972 November 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm

      Johnny Adair had his own son kneecapped. He’s just a dangerous thug, addicted to the thrill of sadistic violence. He also has strong links to Combat 18. Vile piece of work.

  122. 196 MerseyJim November 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    By the way, one journalist who has had access to – if not Thompson – then certainly those close to him is David James Smith who wrote a book on the case and got to know Robert Thompson’s mother very well.

    Here is an article by him:

    He even makes direct reference to Thompson’s words at the Parole Board hearing (apparently he was given a harder ride because when he was a child he was the victim of sustained sexual abuse over a long period of time)

    “Thompson was questioned closely about the offence and the disclosure at the parole hearing. He insisted he was “dealing with” the abuse on his own and it had not affected his sexual development and normal interest in girls, but he was prepared to have more therapy to discuss it. He was even prepared to meet the mother of James Bulger, if that would help her, but he could not imagine how this would ever happen and had no desire to initiate the contact himself. Among the conditions of his release would be a prohibition on entering Merseyside, contacting Venables or contacting his victim’s family.

    He told the parole board James Bulger had died, finally, because he didn’t know any other way out. He said that seeing photos of the shopping centre filled him with shame and revulsion. He told them: “You wake up every day, you think, ‘What have I done? You’ve wrecked lives. His life. His family’s life.’ ” He had been told he must learn to forgive himself, but he didn’t think he ever would. The shame was ever present. He thought it would be wrong to forgive himself, so he blocked it out when he could, but, somewhere inside him, the shame and feeling of blame always remain.”

    Genuine remorse and offering to meet James Bulger’s mother. Personally, I feel unless he offends, he should be allowed to live his life free from the threat of attack.

    • 197 Annie November 20, 2011 at 12:19 am

      A pure psychopath who lies and may seem honest to morons, since he lacks any empathy and emotions – and a crowd of la-dee-dah idiots who swallow his lies easily and believe them.

      I hope Thompson will get exposed very soon.

      Compared to the evil monster Thompson, Venables looks like Cinderella.

      • 198 lwtc247 November 20, 2011 at 6:51 am

        Annie. other than Thompson’s original crime, it seems he may have kept his nose clean. It’s my guess that it was Venables that had something to prove to Thompson (Venables has been bullied by Thompson earlier) It’s Venables that’s into child porn and distributes it, not Thompson. Other than the serious sin of indulging in homosexuality, Thompson doesn’t seem as bad as Venables.

        What in your eyes makes Thompson more evil than Venables?

  123. 199 sjamieson1972 November 15, 2011 at 10:03 am

    On Kirby. Do you think he made no money from the ITV documentary he did on the Bulger case (Eye of the Detective)? Do you think he wasn’t paid for the recent documentary he did on Jon Venables? Do you think when ITV picked him up as a crime ‘expert’ (on the back of his experience on the Bulger case) they did so without paying him? Do you think when he travels all over giving ‘lectures’ he doesn’t get paid for them? He’s as mercenary as the grotesque Chris Johnson (Denise Fergus’ PR guy who continues to make money not only by exploiting the grief of his client but by continuing to rake in royalties from the copyright of the 4 pictures we have of Thompson and Venables – his company own the rights to both the school pictures and the custody pictures).

    In fact one of the sickening aspects of this case is that an innocent child, brutally murdered continues to be a source of revenue for these people and the tabloids. It is ironic that often many of those raking in money are the ones criticising money spent on Thompson and Venables.

  124. 200 sjamieson1972 November 15, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Incidently, very good article a couple of days ago by Mary Riddell in the Telegraph.

    We want to see ‘evil’ children as monsters because is abrogates us of any responsibility. This is not to say child perpetrators have no responsibility whatsoever but responsibility is not their’s alone.

    Where were the teachers who couldn’t be bothered to do anything about Robert Thompson’s persistent truanting? Where were the social workers who; knowing several children from his household had been taken into care left him at the mercy of a mentally ill, alcoholic mother and violent (often suicidal) sibilings (including one they suspected of sexually assaulting young boys)? Where was consistent parenting when he preferred to roam Liverpool’s streets until 1 am because the streets were safer than his own house? Where was his drunken, violent, criminal thug of a father who abandonned his family?

    But no, he is ‘evil’. Even if he had terrible crimes served upon him (including being horribly sexually abused, beaten and neglected); he can never be a crime ‘victim’. An ‘evil’ child is easy for us to understand – it means we don’t need to think about things or move into territory which may be uncomfortable.

  125. 201 lwtc247 November 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    @ MerseyJim.
    I’m not sure why you think I’m modifying my position. Perhaps I should point out that when I replied “I see nothing wrong with that given…”
    after quoting you saying ““But in any case a police officer involved on a case SHOULD NOT comment on sentencing.” I meant I saw nothing wrong with him commenting.

    Please no more comments on NI. I want this thread to stick to the title. Thanks.

    Intersting words by David James Smith. Thanks for the link and quote.

    “James Bulger was killed, because he didn’t know any other way out.” That’s an adult reinterpretation via rehabilitation ‘education’ if ever I’ve heard one. If it read “he had to prove himself to Venables (and Venables in return to Thompson) then I think, it would have closer to the raw truth. I remember naughty elements of my childhood. I’m glad to read Thompsons (alleged) words he does seem to have come to terms with the enormity of his crime – and improving himself.

    “Genuine remorse and offering to meet James Bulger’s mother. Personally, I feel unless he offends, he should be allowed to live his life free from the threat of attack.” – I don’t feel so distant from that as I once was. I don’t think Denise would want such a meeting though – but who’s to say what happens in the future. When her kids are grown up and capable of supporting themselves, perhaps one day she will request such a meeting.

    This whole thing is utterly tragic. So many lives ruined. I think society should look at itself with an eye of suspicion too.

    @ sjamieson1972
    Crime is Kirby’s profession, lust like you make money out of conflict as a lawyer. I don’t think anyone can begrudge Kirby for his profession and if he has made money (you don’t know of his financial arrangements – if any) from that I don’t think is a stain on his character. He not driving a Rolls is he? Hardly Max Clifford is he? Tabloids… well they are in the garbage bin of society.

    I see you touch on the pitiful role of society in your 15-Nov 3:31 pm post. I agree with much of that questioning, but it leaves questions to the young prison / detention / rehabilitation / review board people who decided Venables should be free.

  126. 202 sjamieson1972 November 15, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Denise did ask to meet them at one point (just before they were released) but because she had made not-so-veiled threats, I believe the Home Office decided that it was too much of a risk.

    I actually hope there may come a time when some restorative process can take place. As as been mentioned – only Thompson and Venables have answers to some questions I’m sure the parents of James Bulger have.

    I’ll accept that as an ex-copper, Kirby can make money from the media (hell if Andy Hayman can, why the hell can’t others?) But I don’t accept that his opinion bears as much weight as you think it does. He does not know these two boys (now men) – he only knows the crime and even then, he is not qualified to really talk in terms of psychology. The police are there to investigate fact, not reason. Reason only comes into play when looking at sentencing and treatment. Indeed, he never knew them – certainly he never met Thompson at all (although I believe he had some connection with the family before the crime as he had previously investigated Thompson’s father for quite a serious offence some years previous – for which Thompson Senior ended up spending quite a long time in prison I believe).

    I think there are issues with Venables’ release. It always seemed weird to me that both were released at exactly the same hour on exactly the same day. Surely they can’t both have been at the exact same point in their rehabiltiation? I think we’re looking at things from the benefit of hindsight of course but it looks increasingly likely that at the time, one of them was ready, one of them was not.

    • 203 lwtc247 November 16, 2011 at 5:43 am

      Did she? I know she tried to covertly see them but you say she requested it? I’ve never heard that before. And to think she’d be a threat to them is just lunacy, like as if they are going to put her in a room alone with them with no barrier and loaded pistols, swotds, spears, tridents etc on the wall with ‘use me’ scrawled on them.

      “some restorative process can take place” I think we all would want something like that. The question is how.

      Kirby is qualified to talk about the psychology as doubtless he has familiarised himself with virtually all details of this case e.g. Reading, analysing, understanding and relaying the psychologists report etc. The torture and murder of James has changed his life by his own admission. Again one doesn’t always have to have certification to know what one is talking about – it merely provides a reasonable level of assurance that they do.

      If Thompson and Venables were indeed released at the same hour of the same day then that (as you allude) is an almost certain sign their rehabilitation was fudged. Something with hindsight we know is for a face through Venables.

      • 204 MerseyJim November 16, 2011 at 6:25 am

        Actually he hasn’t been privvy to ANY real psychological reports on Jon Venables. Apart from what is in the public domain, he has not seen any information relating to his treatment while in custody. He also would not be allowed to given his relationship with the victim’s mother. And medical information (particularly mental health information) is confidential.

        His opinion carries no more weight than any of our opinions. He has no personal knowledge of Jon Venables whatsoever beyond meeting the 10 year old boy briefly during the investigation. He didn’t even question him – that was left up to two more junior officers. As has been said, he hasn’t met Thompson at all and despite this, years ago, he said quite confidently that he was certain that Thompson was the ‘evil’ one (Venables just easily led) and the real ringleader. He has since changed his mind on that.

        And the Madeleine Mccann thing just shows him up to be a bit of a clown with very little to say that is actually intelligent in any case.

        It should be stated that in the early days of the inquiry, it was widely thought that Kirby completely botched the case. He didn’t even both looking for the child properly until the second day.

  127. 205 Steven November 16, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Has anyone on here visited Venable’s supposed old MySpace profile. There has been a link to it on a Facebook page for a while now. If you have, a quick search on Google from some information available on it will bring up some interesting links; including an old dating site profile (with a thumbnail pic of the same guy in the Pizza Hut pic along with personal profile information) as well as an eBay account and Twitter account, by the same user of the aforementioned MySpace account. Another search on one of his old friend’s’ Facebook page also shows 3 new pictures of him circa 2007/08 I believe…

  128. 206 lwtc247 November 16, 2011 at 5:30 am

    Thanks Steven. Venables is in my eyes a clear and present danger to children. His picture should be widely shown for that reason.

    I think a few posters here have put forth a very strong argument that Thompson may deserve anonymity and could well have been rehabilitated. Actually I hope so, although I feel very guilty for thinking that when I remember the horrific crimes inflicted upon James and the savage way he was slaughtered and the ongoing pain of his family.

    • 207 sjamieson1972 November 16, 2011 at 10:31 am

      Why should you feel guilty for having a bit of compassion? Thompson has had a shitty life. By the time he committed the crime, he had suffered more than any child should have to suffer. I can’t know the reason why he did what he did. Perhaps psychologically, there was a desire to punish someone – anyone; even a complete innocent – for the hurt inflicted on him. At ten he was then put into custody and kept there until he was an adult. By the time he was released he had been locked up for half his life. I realise 8 years doesn’t seem long to us as adults but it is an awfully long time to a 10 year old child and most of us would change beyond recognition in that time.

      But the absolute innocence of James Bulger should be one of the reasons why his name should not be associated with hatred and blind vengeance.

  129. 208 sjamieson1972 November 16, 2011 at 8:43 am

    I can’t change my opinion on Kirby I’m afraid. I believe he is a disingenuous, man who claims to know more than he does. I also think he is a hypocrite. I don’t like him and I don’t trust him.

    I value his opinion as much as I’d value the advice of Reggie Kray.

    • 209 uruk November 20, 2011 at 12:21 am

      Reggie Kray’s advice would probably be to execute T&V for what they’d done – if so, it would be a good and admirable piece of advice.

  130. 210 lwtc247 November 20, 2011 at 6:53 am

    I knew someone who idolised the Krays. Thank god I don’t know them anymore. And I’m not talking about “Wonnie and Wejjie” Barbara Windsor.

    • 211 sjamieson1972 November 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      The Krays were psychopaths. Pure and simple. It is unlikely Reggie would have given the slightest thought to Thompson and Venables given they were pretty fond of dishing out horrific torture themselves.

      For practically the entirety of his sentence, Reggie Kray was a Cat A prisoner. This meant that he was considered a serious risk virtually until the end.

      And they certainly win over T&V on body count (although they only got convicted for one killing each, they were likely guilty of many more).

      Ronnie had the excuse of mental illness. Reggie didn’t even have that. They couldn’t even stop committing crimes while in prison. Ronnie was guilty of several serious sexual assaults on fellow inmates.

      I never understood the romantic attachment people have to them.

  131. 213 na November 22, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Anybody wanting to know how Robert Thompson was appering at St Helens Mags court Nov 4/4/11 he was he will be appering now at Liverpool Crown court via video link in Dec. People that dont believe this contact St Helens police and watch the reply you get lwts247 sjamieson1972 and the 1 who calls himself merseyjim.

    • 214 MerseyJim November 23, 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Tell you what. Why don’t you contact St Helen’s police (there’s no such force by they way – they come under Merseyside Constabulary) and give us their reply. You are talking bull and you know it.

      • 215 jon December 2, 2011 at 10:12 am

        No such force as St Helens police oh please come on i have family and frends living there a family memember rang St Helens police 2 weeks ago and asked about information what is on this site and they was told the police can not give any information out about this but the person who signs on at the police station every tue and fri this days have been changed some ppl on here think and believe thay no everything like the person who calls himself merseyjim lwtc247 and others no nothing call and find out

  132. 217 sjamieson1972 November 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Going back to Kirby:—For-further-details-and-availability-please-contact-

    He has used the James Bulger murder as a way of carving out a media career for himself after leaving the police. Now, there is no law against this but it’s rather tasteless and flies in the face of his own image of himself as some kind of morally upright, unimpeachable Christian type.

    He is no different to the tabloids. He has taken the horrible death of an innocent child and used it for money.

  133. 218 lwtc247 November 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    I think there can be only one judge of that – and that’s James’ family, and they don’t seem to share your negative opinion.

  134. 219 jb November 27, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    I live 4 hours away from Liverpool but one of my new workmen has a Liverpudlian accent, says he came here to find work, is around 30 years old, has sticky out ears and is a ringer for the 10 year old Thompson. Are there any artists impressions or photos going around? I cant rest until I find one.

  135. 222 lwtc247 November 28, 2011 at 5:29 am

    Sorry jb. I’ve no info on that one. People here have spent much time defending Thompson, saying he’s reformed. If they are right(?), should you not give him a chance?
    If you find out he is Thompson are you going to reject him? You could perhaps probe into his past and look for inconsistencies or ask him a ‘weird’ question about his past that he’d have to improvise an answer to, or drop hints you think he’s Thompson and see his reaction.

    • 223 jb November 28, 2011 at 10:22 am

      It is just a curiosity I have. There is no way I would ask him anything about his past and chances are it is not him at all. This particular guy is lovely and very normal. I dont know what Thompson has been through over the last 20 years but can only hope he has turned into a good citizen for everyone’s sake because he is in the community somewhere.

  136. 224 lwtc247 November 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Yes, we do hope that, but our fears of at least one of these killers (i.e. Venables) have been shown to have foundation.

    If Thompson’s modern pic was shown, and it was him, would you still give him that chance?

    “This particular guy is lovely and very normal.” – Then he, whoever he is, on the interaction & history with you and your company, deserves a fair chance free of such thoughts – perhaps. Best wishes.

    • 225 jb November 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      There is no doubt that each of these men are a different kettle of fish and I know I would have a different view if it were Venables in my area. I think you are right to say that he deserves a fair chance, as long as he truly is a changed man. Thanks for answering my messages.

      • 226 sjamieson1972 November 28, 2011 at 1:07 pm

        For what its worth, I think it highly unlikely that your new workman is Thompson (if it is a labourer of some description). From what we know of Thompson (gay, into dressmaking, artistic), he’s unlikely to be much cop at that sort of work. Apparently he used to get picked on in his secure unit because others would be doing bricklaying courses and he would be stitching wedding dresses!

        Perhaps check out that guy who does the sewing alternations at your local dry cleaners ;-)

        Also, if you are in Merseyside, Thompson would not be allowed to live/work there.

      • 227 jb November 28, 2011 at 1:17 pm

        I did think that, but you never know the truth in reports!

      • 228 lwtc247 November 30, 2011 at 6:24 am

        Yeah, the state of accuracy and cleanliness from lies/spin isn’t something we should have much confidence in.
        e.g. if the govt says he’s not allowed on Merseyside, when where do you think the govt will believe nobody will actively look for him?
        Besides, they say murderers always return to the scene of the crime. And these two can do virtually what the hell they like – as in Venables child porn example. The only issue about that is whether they would get caught.

  137. 231 Kristy Lee December 26, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    I live in Queensland Australia and have read many an article claiming that Thompson is residing here, in my same state. Does anyone know if there is any truth to these rumours? 200 odd years ago the English sent their theives, rapists, murderers etc to this country. Who’s to say they’re not still disposing of their trash in this manner??

    Regardless of whether people believe he would reoffend one day, I personally would like to know if I ever end up living next door to him. For my own piece of mind.

    Kristy lee

    • 232 sjamieson1972 January 3, 2012 at 10:50 am

      Robert Thompson is NOT in Australia. It is dumb to think he would be. Venables was placed less than ten miles from where he was incarcerated – I’m guessing something similar was done with Thompson. It doesn’t take a genius to work out where he is probably residing.

  138. 233 lwtc247 December 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Kirsty. I too have seen on-line protests by Australian citizens worried that th British are still dumping their trash. Th best thing to do is ask your political representative to get the PM’s assurance those two (or one) are not in Oz.

    Of course the politicians could (‘could’…LOL) lie but it might lead somewhere. If they refuse to answer then he’s probably there.

    The Oz and UK govt could have an agreement whereby they swap undesirable citizens between themselves.

    Although I think they are still in the UK. It would be dreadful to dump them in Australia without the knowledge of the respective citizens.

  139. 234 lwtc247 January 3, 2012 at 11:00 am

    That’s just supposition sjamieson1972.
    Surely the authorities would avoid ‘patterns’, yes?

    • 235 sjamieson1972 January 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      Actually no lwtc. There are strict procedures when releasing someone who has been brought up in secure care and that involves close liaison with the local community where they were being held and supervised day releases; etc. Trust my word as a professional – there is ABSOLUTELY no way Robert Thompson would have been moved to Australia. Apart from anything else, it creates problems with supervision and, moreover, the injunction (despite being contra mundum) would not be enforceable there.

      The Australia rumour merely indicates ignorance of the law.

      In any case, we know that he has been living in the UK because the News of the World managed to hack his phone! The tabloids have known his whereabouts for years.

  140. 236 lwtc247 January 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Kristy, do you find sjamieson1972’s reply consoling?

  141. 237 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Thing is, in cases like these, people seem to choose to believe the fantastical untruths more than the more prosaic reality. Like the details of the crime – I’ve never understood why people felt they had to add bits to make it worse (batteries were never placed in James Bulger’s private parts, his fingers were never cut off but these details became accepted ‘truths’). It’s almost as if people secretly enjoy a bit of torture porn.

    Wasn’t the crime bad enough?

    The injunction which protects Thompson and Venables is the same type which exists to protect Mary Bell and Maxine Carr. It is only enforceable under UK law so moving them outside of the UK would negate its power and give the tabloids free reign to out them. People need to get a grip.

  142. 238 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 11:18 am

    @ sjamieson1972
    “batteries were never placed in James Bulger’s private parts, his fingers were never cut off” – You’ve read the coroners report???

  143. 239 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Yes, I have. These things NEVER happened – these stories have been fabricated by sick individuals. James Bulger suffered injuries mostly to his head and face where he was hit with various hard objects (stones and bricks). The blow which killed him was a single, violent blow to the skull with a large metal fishplate.

    There were no other serious injuries to his body apart from small bruises on his leg (probably from being kicked along the way). There were no sexual injuries to his body although his under clothes had been removed (Thompson said later these were used to staunch the immense flow of blood coming from James’ face). There was some suggestion the foreskin was tampered with but actually this could have happened simply by the body being dragged (he was dragged face down onto the track). Thompson’s claim about the clothes has some merit – they were found next to the head covered with blood and saliva.

    So yes. I have seen the full coroner’s report. Unlike those making up stuff.

    • 240 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Actually, thinking about it, I believe some of the bruises to his leg could have happened when after the clothes had been removed. But the vast majority of injuries were to his head – it was a fenzied, brutal, violent attack that was actually over relatively quickly. The final attack by the way was probably only 15-20 minutes long (a witness mentioned seeing James with the boys near the railway track and half an hour later Thompson and Venables were seen without James in a video store).

  144. 241 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    The coroner by the way did not believe James had been sexually assaulted – this was an obsession by the policeman in charge – Albert Kirby. He later conceded (to Gitta Sereny) that the batteries were placed in James Bulger’s mouth, not his anus (only saliva was found on the batteries).

  145. 242 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    As I’ve not read the Coroners report, yet you claim that you have, and you seem a respectable, intelligent, and reasonable kind of chap, I will adopt the view that batteries were not placed in James Bulger’s private parts, nor were his fingers cut off.

    …until further notice.

    Out of interest, where can one get to read the coroners report?

    • 243 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm

      I read it as part of my legal studies. I’m not sure it is available freely online – you would have to get it from the national archives/court records. You will be able to get it though.

  146. 244 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    “it was a fenzied, brutal, violent attack that was actually over relatively quickly.” – Well, that may be slightly misleading, as wasn’t James seen bleeding and crying by witnesses before he was killed on the tracks? i.e. he was assaulted over a longer period of time than your statement may cause people to believe?

    • 245 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      The abuse of James certainly happened from the moment he was taken! I’m not suggesting otherwise. However, things only got murderous right at the very end – for reasons only they could tell us. (I believe Robert Thompson when he was older said in the end, it was because they saw no other way out. It seems simplistic but then simple explanations are often the correct ones).

  147. 246 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    “There was some suggestion the foreskin was tampered with but actually this could have happened simply by the body being dragged (he was dragged face down onto the track).” – By the same token, “the suggestion” could have been because Thompson/Venables actually played with his foreskin.

    • 247 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      True but neither boy ever said this happened (neither did they implicate the other one despite being perfectly happy in police interviews to place all the blame on the other for everything else).

      After years of coaxing, both boys (Thompson in particular I believe who was very quick to pen everything on Venables initially) were pretty honest about their part in the crime.

      Had James Bulger been sexually abused, it would have formed part of the trial (the claim that it didn’t to soften the blow for the parents is nonsense – this never happens – all evidence would be put before the court). It didn’t form part of the trial.

      You must also remember, these were ten year old children. I think the sexual angle is often an addition by adults who want to find a ‘reason’. The mind of a ten year old is not the mind of an adult – even minds like Thompson and Venables. Certainly the view of the pathologist was that although sexual assault couldn’t be ruled out, in his opinion it was unlikely.

  148. 248 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    “things only got murderous right at the very end” – Well I’d say that’s a rather subjective call. I won’t rule out psychological implants into the minds of these boys over the years.

    • 249 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm

      I don’ think that at all. Given these boys walked two miles, encountering various people (including people they knew) along the way and being perfectly happy to be seen with the toddler, the idea that they planned a murder right from the beginning is farcical. They would have taken much better care to keep hidden from view!

      • 250 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

        “They would have taken much better care to keep hidden from view!” – Two little boys would/could hide a toddler??? I can’t buy that. One can easily speculate they had not choice but to be seen when moving to a quiet area to kill him. And wasn’t there a plan to push a kid under a car?

        I’d still like to know how to get a read of the coroners report.

      • 251 Anonymous February 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm

        You are talking utter nonsense now!!! What point are you trying to make?? They obviously didnt have the intent to murder him until they were out of view which is precisely why they walked him for 2 miles onto a railway track!!! ‘Things only got murderous right at the end’….so what!?! Things got murderous nevertheless!!!! Are you trying to say that their crime isn’t as bad because they didn’t actually shove batteries up inside him… brutally kicking and smashing his poor little face is is acceptable when you are a premeditated murderer!?! For god sake…think what you are saying!!!

  149. 252 sjamieson1972 January 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    By the way, I think it was said upthread how irrational the hatred is for these two given similar crimes against children happen by adults all the time with little notice.

    Just noticed this current court case – a 15 year old boy was viciously tortured over days ‘with metal bars, wooden sticks, a hammer and a pair of pliers in a prolonged attack of unspeakable savagery and brutality’.

    He eventually died from a combination of drowning and his injuries.

    How long do you think this will stay in the news?

    People are more drawn to stupid, ignorant rants about ‘devil children’.

  150. 253 lwtc247 January 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    The christmas witchcraft case?
    Given the kind of people said to be into Satanism, it’s a pretty safe bt it won’t be in the public eye for too long. Satanism/Occultism/child sacrifice rarely is.

  151. 254 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 2:58 am

    Who is Jordan Scott Michael? Is he Robert Thompson?
    There are various Google hits that suggest exactly this, yet I have never heard this name before although I have spent a significant amount of time reading about this case.

    • 255 Anonymous April 19, 2012 at 9:24 am

      This is true. R/T was Scott-Michael not sure if he has had his name changed now. Maybe this is why no one has any new info on him. St Helens police new he was living in the town of St Helens.

  152. 256 MerseyJim January 6, 2012 at 6:23 am

    I think if he WAS Jordon Scott Michael, he’s not now!

    lwtc247 mentions an intention to push him under a car. This was more projection. Neither kid ever said they planned to do such a thing – the initial intention (according to both) was to ‘get a kid lost’. If they wanted to push him under a car, they had ample opportunity to do so. Particularly as for much of the journey, they were walking along a very busy road. James actually ran out into the road at one point but was rescued from oncoming cars by Thompson who ran out after him and was heard telling him not to run into the road again.

    • 257 sjamieson1972 January 6, 2012 at 9:42 am

      This is what I find tiresome. The idea that this was a premediated, planned, organised murder of an infant is a joke. As a lawyer, it seems the most pointless, amateurish and frankly stupid way to kill someone – making sure you are seen by around 50 people; some of whom you stop and talk to. Wandering into shops with the victim and making yourself known with him. It’s ridiculous. More likely is they planned the initial abduction and then had no clue what to do with him once they had him (hence meandering around for hours) and then becoming increasingly agitated by what would have been a child in increasing distress. Perhaps a child who had started to wet himself; etc.

      There were few areas where the police interviews of Thompson and Venables coincided. But one area where they agreed was when they said the idea was to get a child lost (apparently both kids had already done this previously with Thompson’s younger brother in the same shopping centre).

      • 258 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 5:14 pm

        You are wrong. There is no ‘joke’ factor at all. To suggest so isn’t to your credit. Killing anyone is stupid. They didn’t deliberately get seen with James. That’s plain bonkers. “Getting the child lost” or “Getting the child lost… to then harm/kill him”. Reading some of the interview material it is clear at all times they sought to underplay their actions. The “child lost” seems exactly the same – a half-truth. I told a fair few whoppers in my youth. Didn’t you? It’s also likely in my eyes any ‘repeat’ of getting a kid lost would see the ‘game’ get even more serious/involved. Given their lawless gall, I’d say that’s probably a certainty.

      • 259 Anonymous March 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        Funny you say thompsons brothers because scott-michael has the same amount of brothers yet his farther has not spoke to him since the crime. How much more proof do you people really need.RT’s phone number was at one time 07551563834 it was printed in a news paper 2 years ago. Does he still go under the name scott michael with that number i have rang the number but he does not answer witheld numbers.

    • 260 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      Projection?? I suggsest the only projection was the missiles, fists, paint, feet and metal bars that Thompson and Venables savagely attacked little James with.

      “Let’s get a kid, I haven’t hit one for ages.”[1] – Shows an intent to harm. and “According to the police reports they had deliberately gone looking for a child to kill.”[2]

      “let’s get him lost outside so when he goes into the road he’ll get knocked over.”[5]

      “They {had earlier} tried to take another toddler earlier(Diane Power’s son) but were unsucessful.”[5]

      “Before they took James they had considered taking another child with the plan of leading them out on the road and pushing them in front of a bus or taxi, to make it appear a “tragic accident”. After they had killed James they placed his body on the railway line to make his death look like a “tragic accident”. Not only had they planned to kill they had planned how to cover their actions, albeit in an unsophisticated 10 year old way.”[6]

      Plans can and do change. Murder may well have been the initial ‘game’.

      “Robert suggested that they throw him in the water at the canal. Robert tried to get the toddler to lean toward the water, hoping he would lose his balance and fall, but James wouldn’t go to the water’s edge. Jon then said that Robert picked up James and threw him down.”[3]

      “But Thompson and Venables knew exactly what they were doing – and must have known it was wrong. According to the police reports they had deliberately gone looking for a child to kill. Police said they had been planning to push one in front of a car on a busy road before abducting James.”[4]

      “But when the subject of batteries came up, Jon became hysterical once again and started to cry. “I didn’t know anything about what Robert did with the batteries.” Jon was afraid that “you’ll blame it on me that I had them.” Asked if Robert did anything else to James’s genitals, Jon grew very upset, began to punch his father, Neil, who sat beside him.” [3]


    • 261 Anonymous March 2, 2012 at 7:44 pm

      robert thompson aka scott michael does have a new identity but still known to people as scott michael his solicitor known as k.w.p soliciters scott michael’s details was leaked by the sun news paper a very old phone number was 07551563834

  153. 262 sjamieson1972 January 6, 2012 at 9:29 am

    MerseyJim fully refuted the Jordan Scott Michael thing upthread. He posted a link showing that a person of that name appeared in court in Merseyside on sex charges a while back. Much older than Robert Thompson.

    And obviously, apart from the age, this offender couldn’t be Thompson because he resides in Merseyside – an area where Thompson cannot enter.

    Robert Thompson is not Jordan Scott Michael.

    • 263 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      I didn’t have the time to follow this one up. On reflection, it would have been better to do so first before posting the comment.

    • 264 Anonymous March 8, 2012 at 11:16 am

      This is a person with same name or part of but this person on charges in merseyside is not RT or Jordan Scott Michael. He is also the same age and lookes Jordan or Scott Michael what ever name it is is the same age as RT just with different D.O.B but is the same year. The last time i looked St Helens was in lacs not merseyside. RT is banned from entering merseyside without permission but can do so. His solicitors is K.W.P solisitors.

      • 265 lwtc247 March 9, 2012 at 9:39 am

        Perhaps the best place to put the little killers is as close to Mersyside as they can get away with, because ‘nobody would dare put them there’ But they are likely to have to be kept near Merseyside to accommodate their likely un-removeable accent.

  154. 266 sjamieson1972 January 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    A few statistics on child murder. 10% of the annual 600 or so murders in the UK are those of children being killed by their own parents. 80% of child murders are caused by the parents. A child under 1 is at more risk of being murdered than a person of any other age group – and the perpetrator is likely to be one (or both) of the parents.

    Despite the vast majority of child murders being allegedly caused by the parents, only around 30% result in convictions. Of those that are convicted, most are convicted of lesser offences (such as exposing a child to risk, negligence causing the death of a child or manslaughter).

    Yet the entire nation appears to revel in the hatred of two traumatised children who committed a heinous act when they were 10 years old. And they want to inflict that hatred not on Thompson and Venables the adults, but the only images we have of them – at age 10. It is revolting I guess but it stops us having to confront the reality of who children are REALLY at risk from.

    • 267 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm

      “Yet the entire nation appears to revel in the hatred of two traumatised children who committed a heinous act when they were 10 years old.” The passion this arouses relative to the state you have given before is very strange. I suggest the media has a major part to play in it, which doesn’t seem to give anywhere near the intensity to other child killers as what happened to James. I also think the ‘James is missing’ period is also a string factor here – whit with people hoping for days that the little beautiful boy would be OK only to have him NOT die by ‘natural’ causes, but to be horribly murdered, and then to find out it was two 10 year old boys that did it. It just steps up a gear all the time.

  155. 268 sjamieson1972 January 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Another thing. When Sweden outlawed smacking of children, the number of murders committed by parents on their children dropped to zero. Here in the UK (where smacking is still considered perfectly reasonable chastisement), one child a week is still being killed.

    An exceptionally rare crime committed by pre-pubescents tells us NOTHING about what is needed to keep children safe.

  156. 270 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Projection?? I suggsest the only projection was the missiles, fists, paint, feet and metal bars that Thompson and Venables savagely attacked little James with.

    “Let’s get a kid, I haven’t hit one for ages.”[1] – Shows an intent to harm. and “According to the police reports they had deliberately gone looking for a child to kill.”[2]

    Plans can and do change. Murder may well have been the initial ‘game’.

    “Robert suggested that they throw him in the water at the canal. Robert tried to get the toddler to lean toward the water, hoping he would lose his balance and fall, but James wouldn’t go to the water’s edge. Jon then said that Robert picked up James and threw him down.”[3]

    “Don’t you think we’ve done enough now?”[ibid]

    “But when the subject of batteries came up, Jon became hysterical once again and started to cry. “I didn’t know anything about what Robert did with the batteries.” Jon was afraid that “you’ll blame it on me that I had them.” Asked if Robert did anything else to James’s genitals, Jon grew very upset, began to punch his father, Neil, who sat beside him.” [ibid]


  157. 271 MerseyJim January 6, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    lwtc247 – none of those links are particularly worthy. The police claim that Venables and Thompson talked about murdering a child came from only one source – a kid at the school and it was so unsubstantiated (a probably lie for a bit of tabloid cash) that it did not form part of the trial. There is nothing to suggest they had this in mind at all. They went to shoplift and it appears got bored and boredom ended up with something a whole lot more sinister.

    Most of those claims in your links are dubious and some untrue. The thing about the batteries is completely false.

    It’s also supposition. Only Thompson and Venables know what happened at the canal and they certainly didn’t claim they tried to push him in (the ‘speech’ you mentioned is fabricated – who knows what was said?) What is known is that they left him by the side of the canal and were planning to just walk away but returned to fetch him for some reason.

    One of the problems of the injunction is that it allows all sorts of nonsense to get thrown about – very little of it accurate. And people believe it.

    I think it is a fair point about the smacking. There is all this stuff about how much of a risk Thompson and Venables supposedly are yet children are most at risk from their parents. There is a sick fascination with this case that goes beyond horror – it is virtually pornographic. It also detracts attention away from greater risks to children – from the state and their own parents.

    • 272 lwtc247 January 6, 2012 at 7:50 pm

      You said “Only Thompson and Venables know what happened at the canal” but then go on to say “What is known is that they left him by the side of the canal and were planning to just walk away”. To negate only T&V only knowing and to adopt a contrary belief, you must be taking as Gospel the word of two highly unusual violent murderers who repeatedly lied, consistently tried to play down their gross crime and also blame each other. Such a position isn’t sustainable. I wouldn’t put it past the nasty little schemers to have cobbled some communal lies together after the murder – just in case they got caught, especially as they knew they had been spotted, and the fact they were spotted, yet STILL they went on to murder James – that in my view very telling of the character of these two horrors and shows evil rather than spontaneous and incredibly misdoings.

      And you cannot just dismiss those multiple sources so easily.

      I can well believe there will be some made-up stories in this case (deliberately or accidentally), but yes, only T&V know what really happened hence it is hard to know the exact circumstances. But I don’t recall seeing ANY proof in support of people who pump the ‘killing due to panic’ line (as opposed premeditation line)’. Loads of conjecture, but zero proof.

      To draw any steadfast conclusions from what was offered about the ‘smacking’ comparison is simply ludicrous and would shame even the most staunch crack-pot pretendy analyst. There are shed loads of things that can be said in challenged the implies connection.

      • 273 MerseyJim January 6, 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Your ‘I wouldn’t put it past…’ is equally unsustainable. You don’t know what was going on in their heads. We can only go by precedent (and I’ve given plenty of other examples of similar crimes).

        And our views of their actions that day are going to differ. I see the definition of ‘evil children’ as ridiculously simplistic – totally unworthy of comment to be honest. If they really were inherently evil, in one sense, they are blameless – as they are only acting out their nature – would you not say? It’s not only simplistic, it’s a cop out.

        You clearly don’t want to see Thompson and Venables as human beings. Human beings who were also damaged children. Evil to you is a catch-all reason which to me is merely a comfort blanket. Let’s not force ourselves to really think about those children and their actions. Let’s just call it ‘evil’.

  158. 274 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Jim, you fall on your own sword. By the same token. your dismissal of ‘evil children’ (kidnapping, sustained beatings and homicide – the latter two being clearly evil) is also something you should find ridiculously simplistic. Additionally, your dismissal is simply and plainly wrong..

    “And our views of their actions that day are going to differ.” – It seems so. Any possible opportunism element that you are sticking onto this case doesn’t negate the malicious tenancy these two had, and never will.

    They acted in an evil way on their own behalf, encouragement to behave that way by their mate is no defence. It is daft to say if one is evil one is blameless, one raises ones own evilness (unless one is insane and T&V were certainly NOT insane)

    I feel the case for Thompson to be treated fairly now, HAS been made and I have been persuaded that indeed that should be the case. Venables is a very different kettle of fish – all the signs showing he has either not changed, not changed as much as he should have done or that has he has possibly worsened.

    My comments of late have been related to THE TIME OF JAMES’S MURDER, which are very different to what should happen now.

  159. 275 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    The fact is, in law extreme youth is seen as a mitigating factor in offending. For some reason you appear to this it is an aggravating one. Indeed, the youth here was such that had they just been six months younger, neither would have been charged with anything and the sole response of the state would have likely been to take them into foster care (they wouldn’t have even been allowed to put them in a secure unit).

    I’ve given examples upthread of similar crimes where the response has been more measured and less based on ridiculous notions of ‘evil’. Not a single child has ever come close to killing again (indeed, nor has Robert Thompson or even Jon Venables).

    I don’t understand what you think should have been the ‘punishment’ – you seem to want two ten year old children to have suffered more. I’m struggling with matching this with an assumed concern for children. But that is the crux I think – you don’t see them as children (of course they are not children now), you see them as monsters and this, as I’ve said, is a lazy cop out.

  160. 276 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    By the way, did you see this case in Sweden recently? A ten year old child killed a four year old by strangling him. The response of the Swedish authorities was to put the child into secure treatment and social care. He won’t be charged with any crime because they have an age of criminal responsibility of 15.

    No howls from Swedish media declaring him to be ‘evil’, no demands that he face a lifetime in prison. Just sadness at the loss of life and a determination that a broken child should be fixed.

    I would ask you to look carefully at the words of the child psychologist at the end of the article.

    • 277 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 6:56 pm

      If you’re suggesting I believe ‘T&V’s youth’ means they deserves some multiplicative punishment compared to some other child killer, you are very wrong indeed. But it seemed to me they had virtually no punishment at all! That’s what gets me. Given one (Venables) seems to still be a threat to society, it exacerbates my feeling he should have served tim in an adult jail. They faced what I would describe as a pampered existence upon conviction. and I’m damn sure James mum feels the above too. I must say the near zero time you have spent considering her and James Dad isn’t to your credit.

      Let me quote reportage of Jamies mum “Denise, of Kirkby, Merseyside, added: “What about James? Dr Atkinson’s first duty should be to stand up for innocent little children who are murdered by evil monsters – whatever their age – who set out to commit premeditated murder. [my emphasis]”

      Evil isn’t a “notion” as you so flippantly put it. I’m guessing you don’t believe in it because of its ‘religious’ dimension. I suspect if I used a different term you wouldn’t have mounted this rather strange horse of yours. Disbelieving ‘evil’, I find it very hard to believe you are actually doing that.

      Mr Justice Morland said of T&V’s murder that it was ‘an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity’. That’s the ‘ridiculously simplistic’ and ‘lazy cop out’ Mr Justice Morland, and every victim of murder and every judge that has ever used the term and just about every other citizen on the planet that knows evil exists and has called various people as being evil. Unless of course you believe ‘evil’ begins at a certain age, in which case, let me know what age that is.

      Let me correct your statement: No child that you know of has killed again. Mary Bell killed twice didn’t she? If you mean after being rehabilitated then you cannot say this given the anonymity given to them in adulthood. Some may have joined the army and broken into a school late at night, handcuffing schoolboys and then shooting them. You just don’t know. I doubt you know all cases abroad either.

      Have you read “Cidade de Deus” by Paulo Lins or watched the movie “City of God” based on it? Kids can’t be evil? Jim please. Just wonder around a few inner city estate, then preach that to the parents of Paul Erhahon.

      Re: Swedish case. I was not familiar with it, although I have seen a report many years ago about how Sweeden (or perhaps it was Norway, possibly about Silje Raedergard) dealt with children who kill other children. It seemed an interesting policy. (note: the BBC says apparently Silje Raedergard’s murder wasn’t gorged over in the press.) I don’t have data to say whether it’s the best policy or not, neither I suspect do you.

      Re: the Bulger case, I actually think one significant reason in the case as to why people are so passionate about it is
      1) Jamie looked so sweet. The epitome of the cuteness every parent and person sees in an innocent child. It is easy to have a liking of him just looking at his photo.
      2) because Thompson ‘looked’ like a rogue.
      3) Many people have bad experiences of these horrible out of control violent urban kids which has been conflated with T&V.
      4) People do feel (accurately or not) that it was premeditated
      5) The murder occurred at a depressing time of the year.

      Whatever the merits of those points, I do feel they play a significant part in explaining the public reaction. I think I already mentioned the media dimension of it.

      “Children can be cruel to each other, but not evil,” Margit Ekenberg, a child psychologist, said. – I disagree, as I’ve disagreed with the statement of a number of psychologists/psychiatrists. They are not and there are many areas that are unproven/unprovable in the filed of mind “science”.

  161. 278 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    “Jesse Pomeroy was fourteen when he was arrested in 1874 for the sadistic murder of a four-year-old boy. He was quickly dubbed “The Boston Boy Fiend.” His rampage had begun three years earlier with the sexual torture of seven other boys. For those crimes Pomeroy was sentenced to reform school, but then he was released early. Not long afterward he mutilated and killed a 10-year-old girl who came into his mother’s store. A month later, he snatched four-year-old Horace Mullen. He took Horace to a swamp outside town and slashed him so savagely with a knife that he nearly decapitated the child. Because of his strange appearance—he had a milky white eye—and his previous behavior, suspicion turned to him. When he was shown the body and asked if he’d done it, he responded with a nonchalant, “I suppose I did.” Then the girl was found buried in his mother’s cellar and he confessed to that murder, too. He was convicted and sentenced to death, although a public outcry against condemning a child to hang commuted the sentence to four decades of solitary confinement.”

  162. 279 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    “Willie Bosket had committed over two thousand crimes in New York by the time he was fifteen, including stabbing several people. The son of a convicted murderer, he never knew his father but revered him for his “manly” crime. Just before he was sixteen, his crimes became more serious. Killing another boy in a fight, he then embarked upon a series of subway crimes, which ended up in the deaths of two men. He shot them, he later said, just to see what it was like. It didn’t affect him. He knew the juvenile laws well enough to realize that he could continue to do what he was doing and yet still get released when he was twenty-one. He had no reason to stop.

    Yet it was his spree and his arrogance that brought about a dramatic change in the juvenile justice system, starting there in New York. The “Willie Bosket law,” which allowed dangerous juveniles as young as thirteen to be tried in adult courts, was passed and signed in six days. Willie went on to commit more crimes, although none as serious as murder, and ended up with prison terms that ensured that he would spend the rest of his life there. ”


  163. 280 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    “In 1998, 14-year-old Joshua Phillips bludgeoned his 8-year-old neighbor, and then hid her body beneath his waterbed. Seven days later his mother noticed something leaking from beneath the bed. Joshua claimed that’s he’d accidentally hit Maddie in the eye with a baseball. She screamed and he panicked. He then dragged her to his home where he hit her with a bat and then stabbed her eleven times. His story failed to convince a Florida jury, who convicted him of first-degree murder.”


    Ther are 16 more chapters

  164. 281 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    First of all, he was not called ‘Jamie’. You yourself are showing disregard for his mother there as she has said in the past that she got angry every time he was called ‘Jamie’ as that was not his name. It was the name the tabloids gave to him.

    I have enormous sympathy for her loss. However, I don’t agree with many of her views – I am entitled to that. I think the way she conducts herself compared to the dignity of the parents of Stephen Lawrence or the mother of Anthony Walker is not particularly positive. The fact that she has a PR agent who also owns the rights to the photos of Thompson and Venables also grates on me. She is paid for her media interviews and I’m not sure she is aware that they are not always on her side – they are on the side of the bottom line and her son’s death sells copy.

    I can’t see how you can say that locking a ten year old up and keeping him locked up throughout the latter part of his childhood and the whole of his adolescence is not ‘punishment’. How do you think they should have been treated? Simply saying some ‘time in an adult prison’ isn’t enough. Unless they were still in prison at 21, they would not have spent time in an adult prison as you don’t get moved to adult prison until 21 (they would have been moved to a YOI). In fact, even if there were kept in until 21, the likelihood is, they would have served the rest in an open YOI – working/studying outside and spending weekends at home sometimes. They would have had MORE not less freedom than in the high security environment of a child secure unit.

    What punishment would be sufficient for you? Solitary confinement? Living on dry bread and water? What punishment would be enough for a ten year old?

    The case you mention was Norway by the way which is similar to Sweden. The children there weren’t even held securely – they were back in their preschool a week after the killing. And their crime was just as awful (they stripped the child in freezing temperatures, beat her to death and sexually assaulted her (with Silje Redergard, there really were sexual injuries)). There were no knuckledraggers wanting to inflict god knows punishment on young children (like the crown banging on the vans taking Venables and Thompson to court).

    One of the perpetrators is doing well. One went on to have severe mental health problems but has not reoffended.

    Even adult murderers in Norway rarely serve more than 14 years. Reoffending rate in the UK: 75%. Reoffending rate in Norway: 16%. (This is for all crimes by the way, murder has a low reoffending rate in any case – for both countries).

    You are very quick to dismiss science but very eager to cling to unprovable fantasy (like some mythical ‘evil’).

    • 282 Yasmin December 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      I am doing some research for a criminology essay. I am comparing the treatment between the Jamie Bulger killers and the Swedish young people which I’ve been told was around the same time? As I am under the impression that the Swedish children were treated completely differently.
      Could anybody clarify a name of the Swedish children?
      Thanks :)

      • 283 lwtc247 December 25, 2012 at 5:04 am

        And in your essay, are you going to state that you got the names from a blog and ignored repeated requests not to post comments here? A great essay looms.

  165. 284 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    The Bulger killers were 10. 10. Show me a case where a ten year old killer has killed again after treatment.

    Jesse Pomeroy was a psychopath – there is absolutely no evidence that Thompson and Venables are.

    Joshua Philips has only killed once (and once again he was 14, not 10) – and Joshua Phillips has since expressed extreme remorse for his crime (he was yet another abused, neglected and disturbed child). There was no history of violence before the crime or since.

    You criticise me for not showing compassion for Denise Fergus – where is your compassion for these children who have had such horrible crimes committed against them? Or do they cease to be victims once they commit a crime? Is not this the most obscene kind of moral hypocrisy?

  166. 285 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    And another thing about Joshua Phillips. It is very likely that life without parole will not stick. There is a growing campaign to release him and I personally believe he will be out within five years. Particularly as it looks likely the Supreme Court will rule the life without parole for juveniles to be unconstitutional and outlaw it completely. It is going through the committee stage now. Most states in the US release juvenile offenders (no matter what their crime) before their 21st birthday.

    At first they incarcerated him with adult males with almost resulted in his death. Perhaps this is the punishment you think should have been inflicted on Thompson and Venables.

  167. 286 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    (Sorry, that should have been before their 22nd birthday).

  168. 287 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Here is an interview with Josh Phillips.

    Does this young man seem ‘evil’ to you?

  169. 288 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Jim you focus too much on the trivial.

    e.g. complaining that the cases I mentioned were not 10 yrs old vs. but (say) 14. {plus I’m didn’t say anything other than quoting a site that reports Philips as being 14)

    When do you stop drawing your arbitrary distinctions?
    10 years vs 10 years and 1 week?
    10 yrs vs 10 and a half?
    10 vs 11?
    10 vs 11 and a half?
    Indulge me, what is the ‘magic’ age for you?

    I remember being 10. If I killed someone then, I would have understood exactly what I was doing. I wouldn’t have killed someone because I was looking for a way out as apologists for child murder drivel.

    “The Bulger killers were 10. 10. Show me a case where a ten year old killer has killed again after treatment.” – and If I can’t you will take that to mean it doesn’t happen? Come on Jim, that slight of hand.

    Any offence I may have made to Denise and her family, I totally apologise.

    “where is your compassion for these children who have had such horrible crimes committed against them?” – I have compassion for them, I don’t believe however it washes away any crime they themselves do, although quite obviously, there are some that do.

    “…do they cease to be victims once they commit a crime?” – No. If they were abused they are victims of abuse. If the commit crimes they are perpetrators of crime. Quite simple really, some may call it common sense.

    ” Is not this the most obscene kind of moral hypocrisy?” as your Aunt Sally has been exposed, the answer is No.

    So you believe evil is mythical. OK. I’ll concede there;s no point in flogging a dead horse here. Remember to cross the word evil out of you dictionary tonight.

    “they were back in their preschool a week after the killing. And their crime was just as awful (they stripped the child in freezing temperatures, beat her to death and sexually assaulted her (with Silje Redergard, there really were sexual injuries)).” – 1 week and back in school as normal? That’s utterly insane.

  170. 289 lwtc247 January 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    How can I decide if a man, post-crime in an interview is evil. What a silly thing to ask. One things for sure though, when he (assuming he wasn’t insane – which he wasn’t) killed Maddie Clifton, he committed an evil act and was evil. Like Thompson and Venables were evil when they murdered James.

  171. 290 MerseyJim January 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    He committed an evil act – yes. I have no problem in saying what they DID was evil. I take issue with people claiming (with little authority) that the person is evil.

    You dismiss psychiatry and psychology yet these are areas which can tell us far more about children’s mental development than religion. For example, are you aware that empathy doesn’t start to really develop until the teens? Are you aware that the prefrontal cortex of the brain (the area which controls empathetic resposes, rational thinking and self-control) is not fully developed until a person is in their mid-20s?

    If they are evil, there is some determinism there which implies that there is something innate and incurable. History has shown this simply isn’t the case with such children.

    I don’t get it. You seem to be saying that someone can be evil just for one second and then never again in their lives. In that case, is evil akin to ‘temporary insanity’? Is evil innate in some people or not?

    • 291 lwtc247 January 8, 2012 at 4:50 am

      I don’t dismiss psychiatry and psychology. I dismiss some things that some psychiatrists and psychologists say, just like I dismiss some BS that scientists, philosophers, economists, journalists etc… Religion tells us how to behave in the best manner possible and it is wholly applicable in the Thompson and Venables case. I don’t believe there are “no go” areas for religion.

      “empathy doesn’t start to really develop until the teens?” There are no hard and fast boundaries in human development, and it’s obvious Thompson and Venables knew what they were doing is wrong. I stole some penny sweets when I was about 8 and I knew it was wrong, and I did a number of other things that I knew were wrong. To take what you said about the prefrontal cortex of the brain (no I wasn’t aware of it’s development time) that is not very meaningful because rational thinking, empathy can be exhibited by teens. I know from my own personal experiences, as I am sure you know from yours. It is also not very meaningful because to are attributing wuch things purely to the biochemistry to the total exclusion of spiritualism . metaphysics.

      You still haven’t explained how/why you treat a 10 year old different from a 14 year old and when can you draw th distinction. Of course you didn’t bcaus you can’t. Nobody can. It has no turn-on/cut-off point.

      I think you are mixing up being evil (you are evil if you do evil acts) with the tendency (the innate aspect) to be evil, which is probably why you deny its existence. Being evil isn’t a permanent incurable state. Insanity is different from evil in that insanity is (regarded as) beying beyond the realm of individual control whereas evil comes from conscious free-will based conscious decisions. Anyway, enough of this, Thompson and Venables were evil.

    • 292 lwtc247 January 8, 2012 at 5:06 am

      Perhaps a state of being evil is maintained when, after the evil act has been done, no remorse is shown? That makes sense to me both in a sociological context and a religious context. There is a related issue here and that is the difference between sin and mistake, but it is a diversion from the topic and It’s not something I’m going to discuss here.

  172. 293 MerseyJim January 8, 2012 at 7:56 am

    I think there is a huge difference between a ten year old and a fourteen year old in most instances – in terms of development, self control, reasoning, maturity.

    As for knowing ‘right from wrong’ I think children know this at age 5 but this is different from consequential thinking, understanding the point of view of the victim; etc. Yes, teens can show some empathetic response (which is why a 14 year old is different from a 10 year old) but it is pretty rudimentary. 10 year olds know right from wrong but generally are pretty egocentric (not in the common understanding of the word but in terms of psychological awareness). This is why sentencing is different for juveniles because, as I said, young age is a MITIGATING factor in crime, not an aggravating one.

    • 294 lwtc247 January 8, 2012 at 9:11 am

      “I think there is a huge difference between a ten year old and a fourteen year old in most instances – in terms of development, self control, reasoning, maturity. ” – Well that may be, but it cannot be defined, nor reliably quantified . The point I’m trying to get across is that some 14 year olds are less mentally able than some 10 year olds. I don’t think anyone can deny this. Hence some 10 year olds can be very clever, cunning and yes… evil! It’s possible T&V do not deserve the ‘but they are only kids’ defence as it depends on their mental state and sense of right and wrong. I’m pretty sure everyone will understand what really goes on in their own head is near impossible for anyone to test and quantify. To quazi-qualify.identify some of it, yes, but that’s hardly satisfactory. That I myself may find it extremely difficult to say how different ages should be treated in the criminal sense, does not mean arbitrary age boundaries should be steadfast. (Actually Divine revelation is going to be where one finds the perfect guideline for dealing with this kind of issue).

      “but it is pretty rudimentary.” – Quite. This highlights the ‘fuzziness’ of it all, showing perfectly that hard and fast rules cannot be applied satisfactorily in all cases. So goes it for the legal age of criminal responsibility, something often mentioned in the T&V case.

      Agreed younger age should incline one to treat the offence in a more gentle way but each specific case should be considered on it’s merits THEN mitigation applied. But it seems the other way around whereby the young offenders offence is first cocooned inside a narrow scope of minor-crime and then the “punishment” is applied within that parameter, irrespective of the metal capacity and Malthusian attendances of the offender. That just isn’t right in all cases, and I don’t think it was right in T&V’s.

      P,S, Although we may have very different and very strong views on matters relating to this case, I do appreciate the large amount of time you have taken to engage in discussion (same for sjamieson1972). So thanks.

  173. 295 MerseyJim January 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    It’s cool. To be honest, it’s nice to debate such things with someone holding a different opinion who doesn’t resort to ‘they should have been skinned alive at 10’ or ‘they should have been thrown into a pit of paedophiles and raped’ – things I have read on the internet.

    What we know about children who kill is that they have almost always suffered extreme trauma. This isn’t always necessarily abuse. Going back to Josh Phillips, his prefontal cortex was shown to be actually damaged – possibly through injury as a young child. In the crucifixion murder I mentioned, one of the youngsters had also suffered a head injury as a child. Abuse, neglect and psychological trauma can impede brain development further. Thompson was abused both sexually and physically. He witnessed extreme domestic violence in the home (his mother was almost killed by their father on more than one occasion), one of his older brothers attacked another brother with a knife. His way of interacting with the world as a child was always going to be defensive as opposed to engaging. This doesn’t excuse the crime of course but it stands to reason that his potential for self control and thinking through consequences was likely to have been limited to say the least. Venables’ mother had been investigated by the police for child neglect in the past and she was known to be violent with a drink problem. I sometimes wonder if the crime would have happened at all if they had not been thrown together by chance – two damaged children linked by mutual misery.

  174. 296 lwtc247 January 8, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    “What we know about children who kill is that they have almost always suffered extreme trauma.” Agreed. Sadly, I don’t think the society we have allowed to come into existence does anything but increase instances where kids go on the rampage and are abused/traumatised. The inner-cities being a good example (are they still called ‘inner-cities’?). It has been said that pedo’s were often abused as a child (apart from Colin Blancharrd (a professional gobsh*te) but the still have free will capacity NOT to follow in the footsteps of their abuser. Even if kids don’t have the same developed conscious mind thy don’t have to follow in those footsteps either. Afterall aren’t there thousands of kids MORE abused and more traumatised than T&V but who don’t kill? So T&V are verry much the exception rather than the rule. That implies (but isn’t certain of course) that it is something in them and other child killers thats at play (or partly/cumulatively at play). Children who kill other children are also of much lower frequency than adults who kill (other adults or children) so again, kids that points to something very very exceptional in T&V – and seem still resident in Venables. All this indicates to me that the psychology of what’s going on in there cases is very far from being understood.

    “I sometimes wonder if the crime would have happened at all if they had not been thrown together by chance – two damaged children linked by mutual misery.” – My guess is that it wouldn’t have happened. I guess also that T&V would have probably ended up criminals or societal drop-outs like the many other inner city kids, whose graduation is into more violent gang and not through a university.

    The combination of T&V was also a factor I feel which actually gives additional support to the problem being with them (as their history of suffering abuse didn’t multiply on taming up)

  175. 297 MerseyJim January 8, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    You wanted the post-mortem. It is reproduced in David Smith’s book of the case (The Sleep of Reason). I’ll reprint here:

    ‘There were multiple fractions of the skull, caused by a series of blows with heavy blunt objects. Death occurred some time after the injuries were inflicted but before the train had severed the body…. There were wounds all over the face and head; more than 20 separate bruises, scratches, abrasions and lacerations. A patterned bruise on the right cheek suggested a blow from a shoe. The lower lip had been partly pulled away from the jaw, perhaps by a blow or kick.

    There were bruises and some cuts around the body – on the shoulders, arms and legs. There was no conclusive evidence of any sexual assault but the foreskin appeared ‘abnormal’; it seemed to have been pulled back. There were linear abrasions across the buttocks – possibly caused by the body being dragged.

    Brick dust and fragments were found on the body and in the clothing. There were no other injuries.”

    There you have it – the words of the pathologist.

  176. 298 MerseyJim January 9, 2012 at 6:04 am

    Another thing Smith does is give a list of lots of killings by children in the UK from the seventeenth century. Even shortly before the Bulger trial there were a couple of killings. A 12 year old boy abducted a two year old in Borehamwood, walked her over a mile to a railway embankment (sound familiar?) and suffocated her by repeatedly pushing her face into the ground. I have know idea how much time he spent in custody because it has been forgotten about (he was convicted of manslaughter – diminished responsibilty because of his age). He had been brought up in care.

    1990 – Glasgow. 12 year old boy drowns a 3 year old after beating him extensively around the head. Apparently came from a very ‘sad’ family background. Cleared of murder . Found guilty of ‘culpable homicide’. Again – unsure how much time was actually spent in custody.

    1992 – Northumberland. 11 year old girl kills a baby in her care to stop her crying. She beat her against the bars of her cot and then cuffocated her. Convicted of manslaughter because of her age.

  177. 299 sjamieson1972 January 9, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Yes, the Bulger killers were not treated leniantly by comparison. They were treated very harshly (convicted of murder – a conviction since regretted by several of the jurors at the trial) and given a life sentence with 8 years detention.

    Those kids you mention mersey, would have received determinate sentences and no life license.

    I think much of the problems of this case was that it was a perfect crime for tabloid media – the CCTV of the abduction, for example. Had those images not existed, I doubt there would have been as extensive coverage. Also politicians siezed on the crime for their own ends (namely, Tony Blair, John Major and Michael Howard).

    Well done for finding the pathologist report btw.

    • 300 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

      “it was a perfect crime for tabloid media” – I agree. This probably contributed to the passion that many people felt. A passion so strong they may well have torn Thompson and Venables to pieces.

  178. 301 sjamieson1972 January 9, 2012 at 8:49 am

    The blow from the shoe by the way was definitely from Robert Thompson (the show pattern matched his and he had blood on his shoe).

  179. 302 MerseyJim January 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Reading Smith’s book, it appears you were right about the underclothes sjamieson. Both boys (in separate interviews) said the underclothes were placed over the mouth. Both seemed to suffer flashbacks of a bloody face. Jon particularly had flashbacks of ‘an image of blood coming out of James Bulger’s mouth’. It seems a reasonable suggestion that putting the clothes over the face was an childish attempt to make what they were doing go away somehow. Jon even mentioned to the psychiatrist that if he could go back in time, ‘he would return to the offence so it didn’t happen’. These are quotes from the pre-trial psychiatric reports on both boys. Putting a sexual connotation onto this offence is making it an ‘adult’ crime which would likely be far from accurate.

    • 303 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      While this cannot be totally discounted, it cannot be pushed to a strong likelyhood. It is sheer specualtion. It seems like analysis lies in the eyes of the beholder. If one wants to diminish their crime one can dream up ‘excuses’ in their behalf and promote than.

      “Jon particularly had flashbacks of ‘an image of blood coming out of James Bulger’s mouth’.” – Perhaps he got erections when this happened oe when he entered sexually heightened states these flashbacks happened. One could just as easily say these flashbacks were erotic.

      “t seems a reasonable suggestion that putting the clothes over the face was an childish attempt to make what they were doing go away somehow.” – huh? How would it make it go away exactly? How reasonable it it to think underpants could do such a thing and not a jumper/shorts/trousers or sock.

      “Jon even mentioned to the psychiatrist that if he could go back in time, ‘he would return to the offence so it didn’t happen’.” – of course he would. That’s a no-brainer. The little git didn’t want to face the punishment and stress as a consequence of his action. In all that, he probably was beginning to regret killing James. One can even say that as Thompson is supposedly gay, that suggests he may have fondled (or something else) James’s foreskin. You will probably disagree, but nobody can say for sure.

      Putting a sexual connotation onto this offence is making it an ‘adult’ crime which would likely be far from accurate.” – Sorry Jim, but that’s just not on. Young people are sexually aware and do sexually assault. You are trying to polarise things again. There isn’t any magic age where adulthood arrives (in the criminally responsible sense).

      • 304 sjamieson1972 January 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

        ‘How would it make it go away exactly? How reasonable it it to think underpants could do such a thing and not a jumper/shorts/trousers or sock.’

        Are you forgetting they were CHILDREN? What seems perfectly reasonable to them can seem bonkers to us. Remember the crucifix case mersey linked to? What on earth would those kids stick the body on a crucifix? When they were asked, they said that they thought it might resurrect him. Total lunacy – but they did not have adult minds.

        Speculation aside, criminal cases deal in facts. The fact is there is absolutely no evidence that there was a sexual motive to this crime or that James Bulger was sexually assaulted. That is why it never formed part of the trial.

      • 305 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 7:53 pm

        Cone on. They are not aliens. I remember some of th things I did when I was 10, and some of the things I did when younger than 10. I didn’t act randomly, there were reasons I did the things that I did. I wouldn’t have chosen to use a someones underpants for anything. And you don’t answer the question: Why wasn’t a t-shirt used, or a sock etc… – if indeed there was any will at all on their half to use any garment for any purpose in the very speculative way stated.

        Also when I was ten, I was aware of right and wrong. And when caught doing something wrong it simply intensified my feeling/understanding that what I did was wrong, then I would sometimes try and make excuses to lessen my punishment. Occasionally I lied. Given T&V’s background and that they were familiar with wrongdoing, I’m more than sure thy would be versed excuse making.

        It is simply too much to ask they did not understand what their bating were doing to James and that they weren’t ware that they were killing him. It is also beyond belief that once they killed him and tried to disguise the fact they had killed him, that on the way home they didn’t mention a single thing about him or started to compose excuses to a) Not be linked to the murder b) If they were linkd then to try and ‘alabi’ themselves out of it.

        I am sure after killing the boy they didn’t suddenly start talking about the weather until such time they were arrested.

        Plus the fact thy remained silent about it when it was all over the news is quite telling.

        Re: “What on earth would those kids stick the body on a crucifix? When they were asked, they said that they thought it might resurrect him.” – Why are you taking the word of a caught killer as being the cast iron truth?

        “Your honour I didn’t do the crime I am accused of”
        “Oh, OK” said the Judge, “Case dismissed!”

        The kids were probably lying, trying to put themselves in a good light i.e. they didn’t want him dead, but alive. It’s what kids do. To believe what they say when it may make them look bettr – isn’t very sensible.

  180. 306 sjamieson1972 January 11, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Yes, and it should be noted that psychopaths do not suffer from things like nightmares, flashbacks or post traumatic stress disorder. Both Thompson and Venables suffered from all of these and Thompson suffered physical symptoms of stress (stomach complaints and rashes all over his body as well as recurrent asthma attacks). Venables started soiling himself after the event, despite not having done so before. I’d bring up Mary Bell here who didn’t really stop bedwetting until early adulthood.

    The fact that they were so traumatised by the events and required years of psychotherapy just to deal with the trauma shows that these two were most definitely NOT ‘evil’ but damaged.

    • 307 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      I disagree. They were evil at the time, no inverted comma’s needed. Given that they were caught and “punished” inverted commas definitely required, I’m not surprised they were stressed and Venables crapped his pants. I put it their own heinous crime was the source of their own stress, not some ‘accidental’ misfortune that fell upon them. Thompson reaction to the killing at the trial – whatever it’s bad points – indicated he wasn’t in a state of remorse at that time. Once the psychologists got stuck in however, then anything can happen. I’d agree they were damaged due to their background, but it’s not an either or. They were damaged and they were evil.

      • 308 sjamieson1972 January 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm

        Actually, making an assumption from someone’s behaviour at a trial (an 11 year old at that who was used to putting on a hard front for survival purposes – that is also detailed in psychiatric reports) is ridiculous.

        The pre-trial psychiatric reports showed that he was in an extreme state of trauma (which itself can cause people to ‘shut off’ emotionally – in fact one of the main symptoms of PTSD is emotional detatchment). When asked by the psychiatrist about James, he frequently cried. There is absolutely no ‘indication’ that he was not in a ‘state of remorse’. You cannot give a proper assessment of an adult’s mental state in the dock – much less an 11 year old child who had been DIAGNOSED with post traumatic stress disorder.

        And then we have the issue of brain development – at 11, the capacity of empathy in ANYONE is extremely limited at best. By the time he committed the crime, Robert Thompson had been beaten, raped, watched his mother practically killed, witnessed several suicide attempts in the family, had his house burn down, seen one brother try to kill another with a knife, had seen several siblings taken into care, witnessed his mother’s dependence on tranquilisers and alcohol. All that by the age of ten. How ‘normal’ a response to anything do you expect?

      • 309 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm

        So assumptions of behaviour at the trial is ridiculous, despite his manner on said occasion being clearly identified, but assumptions of what they did when thy murdered James, and why they did it isn’t. I see.

        Of course he was in an extreme state of trauma. He killed a kid and was caught doing it. Between the time he killed James and the time he was interview in the police station, did he show this trauma? I see no record or indication that he did. After he was caught and faced the great shame of what he did then that trauma began. Loads of people – once caught – show extreme actions based on stress. e.g. Bernie and Ruth Madoff who tried to kill themselves AFTER they got caught.

        It it totally natural to be highly stressed AFTER being caught.

        “You cannot give a proper assessment of an adult’s mental state in the dock” – then either can you, i.e. you can’t say he WAS showing remorse. Besides, it’s not me that’s saying it, and if a bunch of psychologists who of course will have to be seen earning thier crust will later need T&V to show to improved, then that factor will steer them to declare that they have improved. In Venables case they were clearly wrong.

        On the subject of child psychologists and the overlying claim one cannot interpret their mental state as an adult, then how can an adult child psychologist whose cannot escape the ‘filter’ of operating through the perspective of an adult mind? I put it to you that kids minds (especially those of 10 year olds) CAN indeed be ascertained and that they can indeed be cunning enought to ‘give them what they want to see” including weeping. This can take place in addition to them indeed having PSTD, and it’s my belief there were playing the game as well as suffering, but that they were the architects of their own pstd.

  181. 310 sjamieson1972 January 11, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Symptoms of PTSD in children:


    * Disturbing memories or flashbacks (true for both Thompson and Venables)

    * Repeated nightmares and dreams of death (experienced by both Thompson and Venables)

    * Belief in omens and prediction of disastrous future events (Thompson had a recurring dream of being run over by a car)

    * Pessimism about the future and expectation of early death (True for Thompson at least).

    * Avoiding reminders of traumatic experiences. (True for both. It took ages for them to talk about the crime – much longer for Thompson to talk about traumatic experiences BEFORE the crime).

    * Fear of re-experiencing traumatic anxiety (Can’t say on this one).

    * Behavioral re-enactment (expressed as repetitive play) (again – unsure here)

    * Emotional numbness (seeming to have no feelings, except perhaps anger) (Definitely true for Thompson).

    * Diminished interest in significant activities (apparently at the Unit, it took months before Thompson would voluntarily leave his room).

    * Physical symptoms, such as stomachaches and headaches (True at least for Thompson).

    * Feeling constantly on guard, or nervous and jumpy (True for both – Thompson even insisted his psychiatric assessment was conducted with no window open because he was paranoid about people hearing).

    So Thompson’s apparently emotional indifference at trial CANNOT be waved away as lack of remorse. Not by a long shot.

    This article clearly states that bedwetting and soiling are also symptoms of severe PTSD.

    • 311 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 8:17 pm

      A number of those things can occur in people not experiencing pstd. And a number of those are not exclusive of having pstd. A guilty conscience will doubtless manifest some if not all of those things. But yes, they probably did have pstd as well as a very very guilty conscience having had their greatest crime discovered! If I had murdered someone and I got caught I’d probably wet the bed too and have nightmares. Wouldn’t you?

      • 312 MerseyJim January 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm

        Not if I was evil or a psychopath. Nightmares indicates profound trauma at the act – something which wouldn’t be seen in an ‘evil’ person. They surely wouldn’t have any negative emotional response whatsoever. And they certainly wouldn’t have a ‘guilty conscience’. And there is no ‘probably’ about it. Both children were diagnosed with PTSD. Thompson’s was apparently extreme.

  182. 313 MerseyJim January 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    ‘I am sure after killing the boy they didn’t suddenly start talking about the weather until such time they were arrested.’

    Well they certainly didn’t get their stories straight if they did discuss alibis. They more or less contradicted everything the other said in the police interviews. (Thompson admitted being in the Strand almost immediately for example, Venables denied it for ages until confronted with the fact that Thompson had said both were there. Thompson admitted seeing James, Venables said he had never seen him. Venables claimed they were with Thompson’s younger brother Ryan. This wasn’t mentioned by Thompson – Ryan had been in school anyway.)

    • 314 lwtc247 January 11, 2012 at 11:05 pm

      It’s very generous of you to expect two 10 year olds to get their fictional story straight. And it’s not hard to expect the best laid plans of mice go awry under the professional interview techniques used by the police – which would quite naturally involve things the boys hadn’t thought about.

      “Venables denied it for ages until confronted with the fact that Thompson had said both were there” – Isn’t “your partner in crime said XYZ happened, yet you said ABC, so we know you are lying…” a commonly employed tactic in order to make the other person squeal? Play one ‘baddie’ off against the other?

      • 315 MerseyJim January 12, 2012 at 6:23 am

        Yeah. But Thompson admitted his presence at the strand from the off. The police didn’t bring up this admission to Venables for a few hours. And at first he said Thompson was lying – they weren’t there at all.

        The fact is, if you listen to the police interviews, there are no ‘best laid plans’. The pair’s testimony didn’t once coincide. They lied but they told completely different lies. Thompson was clearly intelligent (and often came across as cocky actually); Venables was obviously of intelligence and maturity way below that of a ten year old and was over-emotional. Venables eventually admitting killing James (interestingly saying ‘I killed him’, not ‘we killed him’) but then, after suggestions from his solicitor, blamed everything on Thompson. Venables was clearly making things up as he went along from the off. Thompson’s lies were more intelligent as they were interlaced with bits of truth.

        Thompson, was actually a hard nut for the police to crack, intelligently deflecting questions at times. We know now, of course that Thompson, despite underachieving at school actually has a relatively high IQ (his academic achievement at the secure unit was way beyond what would normally be expected in such places) while Venables had learning difficulties.

        The two interviews are so radically different from eachother, you do wonder what it is these two lads ever had in common. And it is clear that no serious discussions on what would be said to the police in the event of arrest was ever discussed. Moreover, if you look at the timeline, they probably wouldn’t have had the chance. They were in a video store around 20 minutes after the killing of James Bulger – virtually immediately, Susan Venables came in and beat them both (leaving a gash on Thompson’s forehead) for truancy and being late home – she dragged Jon back to their house.

  183. 316 sjamieson1972 January 12, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Yes, one of the reasons the police decided that Thompson led, Venables followed was from their reactions in the police interviews. Venables was extremely susceptible to leading – from police, his mother and his solicitor. Thompson was considerably more resilient. (Kirby now admits this judgment was probably unfair and untrue). The other reason was past involvement with the Thompson family – both in domestic abuse issues (spousal and child abuse) and the criminal activities of Robert’s sibilings (including arson, knife crime, burglary and alleged abuse of young boys by one brother).

    Also, they had considerable time for Susan Venables (attractive and outwardly caring) but loathed Anne Thompson – fat, unkempt. The fact that Anne ended up having a breakdown and had to be carted off for medical treatment – leaving her son to face police questionning alone didn’t help. The judgment continued throughout the trial when both Venables’ parents were there every day and the media had some sympathy with them. Anne Thompson didn’t turn up until the second week and that was only at the behest of Robert’s lawyers who could see how bad her absence was making things for Robert in the eyes of the jury. But her presence was actually worse – heavily medicated and accompanied by a psychiatric nurse.

  184. 317 sjamieson1972 January 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Re the bit about what they had in common. I think it fair to suggest the only thing they had in common was being bullied, outcast, miserable kids (both had been bullied at school). Both were kept down a year. Certainly Venables seemed to hold certain characteristics of Thompson in contempt (in the police interviews he showed perhaps early signs of homophobia, calling Thompson ‘a girl’, ridiculing his effeminacy and the fact that he liked dolls). This could, of course be a reaction to other pupils’ namecalling towards Thompson. He was apparently always getting baited for being gay (yes – even at 10!)

  185. 318 blahblahblah January 13, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    I have read this thread today and am amazed at some of the rubbish spouted by sjamieson1972 and MerseyJim. lwtc247 do not be duped by these cretins with their sanctimonious attitudes of this case. I know I speak for the vast majority of normal people when I say that I hope T&V get what’s coming to them. A couple of points I would like to address – firstly you keep rattling on about it couldn’t be him because he’s not allowed on Merseyside – oh please!!! do you seriously think that they have been watched 24/7 by the plod, you both purport to know about law and legal positions as a lawyer and a criminologist (blah blah blah!!) but you obviously know nothing of human nature!!! – of course they,ve been back – do you think they have a bar code scanner that goes off when they approach the area. Secondly you say it couldn’t have been him in court because the age of the person was different to that of Thompson, so then!! some genius protecting them couldnt have thought of a cunning ploy to throw everybody off the scent by changing his personal details for the day – you are seriously having a laugh arent you?? Especially given that they have had every other aspect of their lives changed to avoid detection (at tax payers cost I might add). They were 10 not 4 years old – every child knows right or wrong by 10 regardless of the upbringing they have had. All these other countries and cases are irrelevant, This case happened here and 8 years is not enough – OK they could have done 8 years and then been placed somewhere else to aid their rehabilitation into society, we could learn from that perhaps for future reference. I have a son the same age as poor little James and couldn’t even read about the crimes at the time. I know for sure that all my friends and almost everybody I know would love to see these scumbags get what they deserve – recent events have shown that they are never going to be out of the spotlight and I would wager as much money as you like that in years to come they will be outed, and I for one will be absolutely delighted – as will 95% of the rest of the country – not including the lawyer and the criminologist (blah blah blah) of course. This is the first time in 42 years that I have ever commented on a public forum in any capacity. you two really have moved me into action as I believe that you two could well be connected to T&V whether as family or confidants and your continued waffle is some sort of smoke screen – or perhaps you could even be the scumbags yourself and somebody else is checking your spelling and providing the odd long word here and there. I noted above that the only time you seem to have any compassion for the poor parents is when you have been prompted into doing so – well, I feel so incredibly gutted for them and hope the perpetrators get what they deserve (and so do 95% of the people) so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    And before you both dismiss me as a ranting idiot, I would like to point out that I represent the normal people here and you two are in the minority both as a lawyer and a criminologist (blah blah blah) and as people that clearly think they are right about everything!! Well your not.
    And finally – what sort of person does a dissertation on children killing???

    • 319 lwtc247 January 23, 2012 at 7:00 am

      @ blahblahblah

      Indeed. That we are told he’s not allowed on Merseyside rings completely hollow to me. The authorities are as trustworthy as an Israyhelli peace offer. I’m more than suspicious that these criminals returned the the scene of their crime.

      “some genius protecting them couldnt have thought of a cunning ploy to throw everybody off the scent by changing his personal details for the day” – Exactly. The authorities are not going to enter the exact identifying details of T&V in such circumstances.

      “every child knows right or wrong by 10 regardless of the upbringing they have had.” – Spot on!

      “in years to come they will be outed” – I think that’s a real possibility and I think it will be they themselves that will do it.

      “you two could well be connected to T&V whether as family or confidants” – That’s the impression I also got.

      “perhaps you could even be the scumbags yourself” – I thought that, but too only as far as an initial thought.

      “I noted above that the only time you seem to have any compassion for the poor parents is when you have been prompted into doing so” – I have to agree with that too.
      “I feel so incredibly gutted for them”

      “I feel so incredibly gutted for them [James’s parents]” Me too. I simply cannot imagine being able to cope if something as devistating as that happened to me. Ralph and Denise’s feelings and opinion on the matter must be given great significance.

      “And finally – what sort of person does a dissertation on children killing???” – A bit weird yes, but I’ve seen many weird things take peoples interest.

    • 320 Anonymous February 15, 2013 at 12:48 am

      Here here!!! Totally agree with EVERYTHING you have said!!! Those two obviously don’t have children or are in fact mentally disturbed themselves!!!

  186. 321 sjamieson1972 January 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Blah blah blah is exactly right.

    Punctuation is your friend. That read like an out of control train.

    ‘I would wager as much money as you like that in years to come they will be outed and I for one will be absolutely delighted ‘

    Why? So they can ‘get what they deserve’? What would that be? What would you like to see done to them? What would you have done to them at age 10?

    As for ‘at taxpayers cost’ – this always makes me laugh. They wouldn’t have needed it had their identities not been released at trial as is usual with convicted people so young. Moreover, the taxpayer would be paying an awful lot more to keep them in a high security prison. In addition, your (somewhat worryingly violent) response, indicates why the injunction exists. People cannot be trusted with the information.

    • 322 lwtc247 January 23, 2012 at 7:12 am

      “What would you like to see done to them?” – Spending time in an adult prison would be a start. Not being allowed out due to incorrect psychological assessment (QED) would be a second.

  187. 323 MerseyJim January 13, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    ‘what sort of person does a dissertation on children killing???’

    Er, a criminologist specialising in youth justice and youth offending. What a strange question.

    ‘This is the first time in 42 years that I have ever commented on a public forum in any capacity.’

    That much is clear.

    As for being ‘outed’, Mary Bell is still managing to live anonymously. No reason why Thompson at least, can’t continue to do so.

    In actual fact, to be honest, I thought Jon Venables should have stopped having the protection of the injunction after being convicted again (particularly given the nature of the offence for which he is currently in prison). It strikes me as unfair why he, as a now adult offender should be afforded the protection those convicted of similar crimes as adults are not. However, comments like yours (and others I have seen) make me realise why the judge made clear it stays in place.

    What gets me is that people don’t want revenge on Thompson and Venables the 30 year old men. They want to be able to inflict that vengeance on Thompson and Venables the ten year old children.

  188. 325 sjamieson1972 January 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Interestingly today, more calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility. I can’t think of a single expert (legal, medical, welfare) who actually thinks ten is a reasonable age to try children in adult crown courts for serious crimes.

  189. 327 Dan Fisherd January 20, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    I was looking into this trial to further understand ‘doli incapax’. Its clear the whole issue is one of complexity and opinions will differ.

    However when a contributor to the thread, is attacked by someone regards the grammar.

    RE sjamieson1972
    <> Then one could argue that this person is not able to contribute affectively.

    I manage a few forums and under house rules RE sjamieson1972, would be removed.

    • 328 lwtc247 January 23, 2012 at 6:21 am

      Attacks on someone because of grammar/spelling and/or occasional mistakes/wrong use thereof, indicates to me that the attacker is appealing to trivia and has nothing to counter the argument the person being attacked actually has.

      I’m very reluctant to deleting comments or ‘ban’ people however.

  190. 329 lwtc247 January 23, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Re: doli incapax

    When i was ten (and earlier) I knew what was right or wrong. Here’s a brief list of what I thought and would have thought at the time.

    Playing truant = wrong (although in my history I had the occasional day off school/college)

    Shoplifiting = wrong (although I swiped some sweets and stuff from a shop on occasions) – to my shame.

    Kidnapping someone = wrong

    repeated attempts at kidnapping = wrong

    Repeatedly beating up a little boy = wrong (although I was involved in fights)

    Lying to people asking about the boy I kidnapped = wrong

    Murdering him = wrong

    Sexual assault = wrong

    Trying to cover up the wrong = wrong and of course shows knowledge that the crime in itself was wrong.

    Lying to my family = wrong

    Lying to the police wrong

    Assault = wrong

    Drugs use = wrong

    Child porn = wrong

    We know what is right and wrong from an early age, however we don’t understand exactly ‘how’ wrong something may be (and as adult, exactly quantifying the seriousness of a crime is also problematic). Sometimes we do crime ‘cos we think we can get away with it. Sometimes we do it if we don’t consider the consequences or if we believe the consequences will come back and haunt us.

    I have never heard anything remotely credible that to persuade me that Thompson and Venables did anything other than deliberately kill James. Even if T&V’s upbringing contained instances where they saw wrongdoing it is ridiculous to believe they didn’t know these things were wrong. I’m sure T&V if witness to domestic abuse knew it was wrong when they saw it. It does not matter if there may have been some effect on them whereby they themselves were more inclined to follow in those footseteps. Like adult child abusers cannot be absolved from their crime if they themselves were unfortunately abused when young.

    • 330 sjamieson1972 January 23, 2012 at 10:08 am

      Doli incapax is very different from ‘knowing right from wrong’. Doli incapax is an assumption that there is a lack of knowledge of criminal consequences and a lack of full awareness between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing. It DOES NOT assume there is no awareness.

      Of course no-one can be ‘absolved’ from their crime. Youth and background are put forward for mitigation not absolution.

      I would agree about child courts by the way. But not for 10 years olds. I fully support an increase in then minimum age of criminal responsibility to twelve; moving those below the age through the welfare system rather than the criminal justice system. Between 12-14, I would try ALL crimes (including grave ones such as murder) in juvenile courts.

      I think it very funny people think I’m either Venables or Thompson. Has it occured to those people that it would be possible to track an IP address? They’d be bloody stupid posting on forums like this and I hope that whatever people think of my opinion, they would not call me stupid!

      In any case, I believe the age of criminal responsibility will be raised – it is just a matter of time.

  191. 331 sjamieson1972 January 23, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Interestingly of course, ‘doli incapax’ could also be down to being mentally unable to understand criminal intent/wrongdoing. There is always a wry smile that crosses my lips when people talk of inherent evil. If that were the case, in a sense – such people are blameless. They are only acting out their natures – they are; in the true sense of the word – ‘doli incapax’.

  192. 332 lwtc247 January 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    @ sjamieson1972

    Actually, as a believer in God, I have no choice but to favor religious law – the one He prescribed to us revealed via revelation and prophets. To my shame however, I’m ignorant of what that law is. As this discussion is from a secular point of view, I am therefore saying things as I personally see it. If my opinion is wrong from a religious law then I’d abandon my personal opinionating.

    But within the secular domain: The thing about age limits is that they are actually meaningless. There is no logical or sound sound basis for saying the current law for 10 year olds should be moved up for 12 year olds. That’s smoke and mirrors albeit with some justification. It’s not actually addressing the important issue which is how to punish an offender no matter what the age. Age limits and their ‘shifting sands’ simply allow others to start harping on that the new limit should apply to say, 13 year olds, or 14 year olds etc.

    Actually the very fact they use a ’round number age’ and not 12 1/2 of 13 3/4 shows perfectly how arbitrary these boundaries are and just how silly they are.

    The boundaries are simply imposed to create a system which allows a self proclaimed governing body maximum control with the minimalisation of cost. The ultimate system of adjudicating awareness/responsibility and punishment should really be conducted by an independent panel with experience of crime. ‘British secular justice'(???) will never do that, straight away making a mockery of the concept of Justice for the sake of £££.

    I have a feeling Thompson and/or Venables WILL have been reading about themselves online (in between likely masturbatory sessions of downloading and distributing child porn) and I an very certain they will be spreading as much disinfo about themselves as possible.

    “mentally unable to understand criminal intent/wrongdoing.” – despite your attempt at obfuscation, nobody here is discussing the mentally ill. Thompson and Venables knew what they were doing was wrong. They committed an evil act.

    “There is always a wry smile that crosses my lips when people talk of inherent evil.” – Well that’s kinda weird, but actually I’d assess your stance on the matter and an indication that you do not actually understand or are incapable of understanding that term really means. Evil is an inherent self-mustered phenomenon and intent to do harm, injustice, cause pain etc. It can come and go. You seem to believe it’s a permanent affair. I’d advise you not to watch too much television.

    (typos corrected)

  193. 333 MerseyJim January 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Right, first of all, Jon Venables is in prison. He can’t access the internet in prison – much less post on blogs. So let’s stop that bit of silliness right now. As for Robert Thompson – dunno, but from what we know, he’s not stupid – and posting online incognito on blogs about himself would be staggeringly stupid.

    If we talk about evil in a religious sense (since you are religious), isn’t it a permanent state – an absolute separation from God?

    It is a movable concept – I agree but it is wholly unsatisfactory to explain the horrific actions of 10 year olds with a four letter word. Was it an evil act? Yes. Was it committed by evil people? Hmmmm. Of course they knew what they were doing was wrong.

    If it can ‘come and go’, then what motivates it to do so?

    As for not being mentally ill, certainly Venables showed signs of mental illness before the crime (extreme self harm, head banging, hiding under desks, strange noises). He had been seen by several child psychologists before the killing. A psychiatrist who analysed Thompson later on said that he was a child who had developed a coping mechanism after multiple trauma (again before the crime). Again, no excuse but things are much much more complex than two evil kids.

  194. 334 lwtc247 January 24, 2012 at 3:36 am

    @ MerseyJim
    “Right, first of all, Jon Venables is in prison. He can’t access the internet in prison – much less post on blogs. So let’s stop that bit of silliness right now.” – Jim, on my November 2, 2011 at 7:31 am comment, I corrected your previously erroneous statement claiming prisoners cannot use the internet. See: and here also: and given the prison guards help prisoners get drugs into jail, one suspects they are involved in helping prisoners get access virtually ALL areas of the internet.

    “posting online incognito on blogs about himself would be staggeringly stupid.” – One suspects the temptation to spread disinformation about himself in order to try and protect his identity would prove too strong as would him reading about his crime etc.

    This isn’t a religious discussion, but I suspect you are conflating concepts of Satan with that of humans. Human Evil is not a permanent condition, well exemplified when one asks sincerely for forgiveness and one repents.

    “if it can ‘come and go’, then what motivates it to do so?” This can be asked about any human emotion process and I don’t think it’s answerable, but the it probably comes after listening to the whispers of the devil, after which we decide to act on those very whispers and when it goes then our inner conscience/sense of right and wrong probably kick in or/and we are in the post-evil-act “recovery/rest” phase. Something like that.

    I’m not saying they didn’t have mental problems but thy certainly didn’t kill James because of those problems. Kids can commit evil acts with mental issues or not.

  195. 335 MerseyJim January 24, 2012 at 7:05 am

    The BBC link doesn’t work but here is info from the government’s own site:

    Please note:

    ‘Prisoners are allowed to contact people outside prison using letters and phone calls – but using mobile phones and the internet is banned.’

    There is some talk of allowing limited access (and I think in some open prisons some sites such as work searching sites are allowed) but basically, there is a prison wide ban.

    Corrupt prison officers, however, are a different kettle of fish.

  196. 336 sjamieson1972 January 24, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Prisoners cannot use the internet – that doesn’t mean they don’t! However, we keep hearing from the tabloids that Venables is stuck in a high security close supervision centre because of threats against him – which means there would be absolutely no means of getting hold of a mobile (of course that could be rubbish also – he could be serving his sentence in a Cat D open prison for all we know).

    As for religious law, isn’t there somewhere in the bible which says that if you neglect to care for the least of humanity; you have effectively neglected your responsibilities to god? Again, I get weary of hearing those who claim to be people of faith conveniently ignore a good proportion of the religious rules they are supposed to follow.

    In the words of Ghandi – if I ever met a true Christian, I’m sure I would become one.

  197. 337 MerseyJim January 25, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    In my experience Christians always forget the bits about compassion completely. They seem to think it is an optional extra. Either that or they maintain that their compassion must be completely conditional – on the clear proof of remorse of offender. In fact, Jesus never said remorse was a necessity. He forgave the woman with the alabaster jar (not Mary Magdalene except in people’s heads) because of her great love, not her remorse. He chose not to condemn the woman being stoned without any ‘good deed’ from her. He never put a condition of remorse onto the murderer he was crucified with before offering him salvation.

    He does have stuff to say about those who repent. But compassion and forgiveness is NOT dependent upon it. Those should be given freely and unconditionally – of that he is clear.

    He does have quite a bit to say about people who make a show of piety yet stand in wilful judgment of others though….

  198. 338 MerseyJim January 26, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    So, two deaths in the overstretched juvenile prison system in one week. (Those are juvenile prisons, not institutions such as Venables and Thompson served their sentences in).

    Do people still think that these places are suitable for vulnerable young people?

  199. 339 lwtc247 January 27, 2012 at 2:49 am

    You are imposing your incorrect understanding of my faith to show what I believe is wrong. Don’t you see the problem with that?

    “He does have quite a bit to say about people who make a show of piety yet stand in wilful judgment of others though” that’s a spin on your behalf. One can be a believer and yet subscribe to a penal code. A believer has no choice as we are given a code of ethics and punishment in religion itself. God Himself warns of great punishment. So you’d do much better avoiding stuff you don’t believe in, spinning it out of context and using it to put words incorrectly in the mouths of others.

    Yes there are times for compassion, forgiveness, love and many other admirable human traits. I never said anything to the contrary.

    And you are still wrong “Prisoners are only meant to have access to the internet for educational purposes and under close monitoring.” – In a prison that’s a recipe for guards to allow prisoners to do what the hell they like. The prison guard profession is almost as bad as the police, if not just as bad.

    Everyone is vulnerable, but some people deserve punishment. Just because the bounds of their treatment while in detention have lead to the deaths of some, doesn’t mean anything other than whoever was responsible for these people dying, shouldn’t happen. Again, it’s common sense.

    Young people need to be taught a lesson. It looks like Thompson may have learned that, and it certainly looks like Venables didn’t. Keep the scumbag in jail until he does learn.

    Here have a gnader at this:

  200. 340 lwtc247 January 27, 2012 at 2:57 am

    If Ghandi said those words (and I must say, it seems v. strange) then he’s got the totally wrong understanding of what God is and what God means. Worship of God doesn’t rely on the nature of a man wuch a thing would be blasphous, or to give it it’s proper (Arabic) word, “shirk”

  201. 341 sjamieson1972 January 27, 2012 at 9:20 am

    He (Ghandi) did say those words. I’m an agnostic but was raised a Catholic (strictly actually and had a religious education). I know the bible well. At one point in this debate, you claimed to only see divine law as the law you need to follow – yet now you admit you accept there needs to be a ‘penal code’ (ie temporal law).

    I don’t believe you CAN pick and choose the bits of the New Testement in some kind of Woolworths fashion. The lessons are difficult – actually impossible in some ways. The commands are to love not only your neighbour but your enemy – to do good to ‘those that hurt you – pray for those that persecute you’. You are told to be careful how you judge people because the manner in which you do so will be the manner in which you are judged in the end. As the man said, ‘what profits a man if he loves only his friends – even the prostitutes and the tax collectors can do that’.

    Mersy mentioned the woman who came into the Pharisee’s house with the jar of ointment. It is a salutary story. What he forgot to say was that on seeing the Pharisee judging the woman, Jesus told a parable – of two men who were indebted to another. One owed more but the creditor took pity on both and cancelled both debts. When asked which debtor would love the creditor more, the Pharisee admitted that it would be the one who was forgiven more. Jesus responded: ‘he was has been forgiven little loves little’.

    It is easy to have sympathy and compassion for people who are obvious victims. The difficulty is to widen that to all. It is very clear to me that you can’t do that. You are NOT a Christian. The rules are clear – you HAVE to do this to be one.

    Ghandi knew that and so did Martin Luther King. That is why they didn’t use arms against their foes – they used love. And it proved to be a much bigger weapon in the end.

    And I refuse to comment on Daily Mail articles.

  202. 342 sjamieson1972 January 27, 2012 at 9:57 am

    And another thing. If I were to be ‘turned back’ again to Christianity, it certainly wouldn’t be because of those who delight in the idea of punishing ten year olds kids who have done grave wrong.

    It would likely be because of reactions such as the Amish to the horrific school shooting.

    If humans can touch the divine, these people did that – both in the reactions during the incident (where they prayed for the man who was about to kill them) and in their actions after it.

    ‘Roberts asked the girls to pray for him, which they did. One of the girls asked if he would pray for them as well. The girls granted their aggressor his wish for mercy and provided it graciously, as lovers of human life and forgivers of sin. Additionally, they reminded him that they shared his fear, subtly pleading that he reciprocate the favor and believing in his power to communicate with God, despite the horrendous act he was committing.’

    That is touching god.

  203. 343 sjamieson1972 January 27, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    And one more thing….

    It has been mentioned before that the US isn’t as harsh on juveniles as we think. A 10 year old has allegedly just stabbed his best friend to death in California. Under state law, he cannot be tried as an adult until he is 14 (in the UK he could ONLY be tried as an adult). They are even talking about not putting him on trial at all. If they do put him on trial and he is convicted, he cannot be incarcerated for more than 15 years and given his age, it will likely be considerably less.,0,955323.story

    You see this is the thing. Most people who understand the law and children understand that there is a huge gap in accountability between an adult and a 10 year old. And that criminal justice should be shaped by those who understand that, not the opinions of people who read the Daily Mail.

  204. 344 lwtc247 January 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “you claimed to only see divine law as the law you need to follow – yet now you admit you accept there needs to be a ‘penal code’ (ie temporal law). ” I don’t see any problem here, as the penal code is contained within Divine revelation and deliberated upon by the prophets & there are still judges. However I’m pretty sure religious courts can entertain mitigation. This is quite different from judges just making law up on the spot.

    I don’t think the NT is Divine revelation and the books of the NT were not the words of Jesus. Their origins are I think unknown (unless I’ve accidentally picked up some anti-Christian untruths) despite all of that (and ‘revisions’ over time) they do contain an remarkable “working” message, it’s true. On persons non-pic-‘n-mix will be different from anthers for reasons of interpretation.

    Yes it is difficult to find sympathy for T&V. But as has been said before any ‘love’ etc shown to them can go in parallel with a punishment. Like a child gets punished by a loving parent.

    Ghandi and MLK were undoubtedly great men, but I think any success attributed to them is massively over inflated.

    “And I refuse to comment on Daily Mail articles.” – LOL. Understood. I should have given a better source.

    “If I were to be ‘turned back’ again to Christianity, it certainly wouldn’t be because of those who delight in the idea of punishing ten year olds kids who have done grave wrong.” – It’s hard to believe such a thing would make anyone turn to (or back to) Christianity.

    “Most people who understand the law and children understand that there is a huge gap in accountability between an adult and a 10 year old.” – You have incorrectly taken it upon yourself to assume I don’t.

    Criminal justice should be shaped on how to deliver justice to victims of criminals and not how to increase the pain of the victim and society. Punishment is a part of that. Ce n’est pas un notion difficile. Where there’s ley way for better non-conventional punishment/reform then fine. The debate is whether the T&V case merits that and if so to what degree. Most people believe it was too soft. I am one. Looking at Venables it was demonstrably so. Keep the dirty sod in jail.

  205. 345 sjamieson1972 January 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Venables is in prison for a crime he committed as an adult. He is rightly being punished AS an adult for that crime. But he will be released and it would be folly indeed to not plan for that eventuality for it IS an inevitability.

    However, as a child, he was punished as a child. I can’t see the problem with this. Anyone who has been in a secure unit would KNOW that the kids there certainly feel punished. They are locked into rooms that look more like cells every night (steel toilets and everything); are locked into every room they go in (walked to education every day and locked in etc). They are away from families, have to subject themselves to treatment programmes with psychiatrists, psychologists. They have no freedom. Thompson and Venables spent eight years locked up in an institution where as teenagers they had to have someone switch their light out at 10 pm (earlier as younger kids) every single day of their lives. They had regimented regimes every single day and were subjected to a 50 week school year (no half terms or holidays in secure units). Minor infractions of the rules end up with ‘priviliges’ (which can be as basic as having photos of your family in your room) taken away.

    It is totally bewildering to me that people say they weren’t ‘punished’. How is having your childhood and adolescence completely taken from you not punishment?

    ‘Criminal justice should be shaped on how to deliver justice to victims of criminals and not how to increase the pain of the victim and society.’

    Care for victims yes. But we do not have to be cruel to do this.

  206. 346 sjamieson1972 January 27, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    And by the way, the unit where Venables was kept (Red Bank) was the focus of sexual abuse allegations going back years. Apparently Mary Bell was molested there. While Venables was there, inspectors was very unhappy with the level of care children were getting and the safety of the establishment and it was given strict improvement measures. Center Parcs it was not.

    People think the fact that Jon Venables (an institutionalised teenager) managed to have a sexual relationship with an older female prison guard to be more indication of his bad behaviour or the ‘cushy’ life he had inside. They can’t even see him as the vulnerable victim in that situation – of an adult who exploited his vulnerability (and probably desperate desire for affection) to turn a carer-offender relationship sexual.

  207. 347 MerseyJim January 27, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    I also don’t get why people think that they had no punishment simply because they didn’t spent half their sentence down the block at Wormwood Scrubs.

    They were children and the law is very clear – in any child sentenced to secure detention, the state is, first and foremost, obliged to be mindful of their welfare. I don’t get why people find this objectionable.

    And then there is the argument people use that they should have spent time in an adult prison. They committed the crime as pre-pubescent kids and to place them in a therapeutic setting for 8 years only to then dump them (by that time institutionalised and vulnerable) in a horrendous adult prison (where most likely they would have to be housed with rapists because of their notoriety) seems not only perverse but without any common sense because on release, it is likely they would have been rendered more of a risk, not less.

  208. 348 lwtc247 January 28, 2012 at 5:39 am

    I want to clarify. “NT were not the words of Jesus.” – I meant the direct, pure and unadulterated words, The general theme of what he said and did is probably there.

    I think the consensus amongst the people is that they weren’t punished enough rather than “they weren’t punished” And dispensation of the FULL and proper punishment, required time to be spent in jail as an adult.

    “But we do not have to be cruel to do this.” – Indeed, but I don’t think putting them in an adult jail for 10 years can be regarded as cruel.

    As for Venables having sex in the institution – that immediately proves that the strict regime you say they were subjectd to wasn’t in fact as you are portraying it. There were periods of strictness – almost certainly, but it’s a partial view of what happend in there. Very much agreed with you however about the imbalance of “blame focus” as to he sexual relationsip. The way all eyes are on Venavles and not the guard is injust. BUT by the same token I simply cannot belive Venables – a teenager was partuvulary innocent too. Don’t you remember being a teen?

    Jim, your constructing Aunt Sally’s again. Nobody as far as I’ve seen finds their punishment as kids objectionable. What they do find objectionable was they weren’t punished as adults.

    You called them pre-pubescent at 10. How do you know? I don’t think you can. You are once again shining the best possible light on them with no evience.

    Re: Prison as sdults. OK there is an arguement to say that if as kids undr treatment they had improved then perhaps sending them to an adult prison would be detrimental. That is understood and reasonable point, I guess people who call for time in an adult jail either don’t know their progress as kids under treatment or believe the kids hadn’t improved. From what you and sjamieson1972 say – I’ll take it on trust – That Thompson is now ‘ok’ then perhpas that he didn’t spend time in an adult jail is (to me) tolerable, but Venables has proved that the “assessment” was wrong.
    Thre is also a valid point that just because improvement HAS ben shown that the punishment should be negated. A murderer who claims to have learnt the errors of his ways 20 minutes aftr being sentenced to jail, should still serve out his time. People feel T&V didn’t get a long enough tarrif.
    If they were

    The argument that they would have done worse in prison can be applied to any person convicted of a crime involving incarceration. Extrapolating what you say, nobody should go to jail.

  209. 349 MerseyJim January 28, 2012 at 7:42 am

    I think the thing about the female guard isn’t relevant to the strictness of the regime. From what I gather, she took him to a disused building in the complex on a walk when she was supposed to be counselling him. Yes, teenagers are sexually – um – ‘up for it’ but this was a kid who hadn’t experienced a normal adolescence – was never around girls for example. If this had happened in a normal care home – male carer and young institutionalised girl, we’d rightly be on the girl’s side.

    So you’d have given then 10 years in an adult prison as well as 8 years in institutional secure care? That is 18 years – longer than most adults spend for murder (the average life sentence is 15 years). So you are demanding not that Venables and Thompson are treated proportionally, but they are treated more harsly.

    Incidentally, the killer of Baby P got 12 years (out in six). However, he received a life sentence for raping a child and received a concurrent life sentence for that. But his final tariff is 10 years. Not much more than Thompson and Venables.

  210. 350 lwtc247 January 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “I think the thing about the female guard isn’t relevant to the strictness of the regime” – I disagree.

    You are portraying the sex as a spontaneous opportunist ‘quickie’. How can you possibly know? It could be (I don’t know either) but it may not have been. Doubtful however that there wasn’t any build-up (e.g. flirtation, obvious signs of attraction etc).

    “this was a kid who hadn’t experienced a normal adolescence” – Is that going to be said very time Venables does wrong, or of any kid that had a hard upbringing. I’ve seen commentators elsewhere claim they had a hellish upbringing but didn’t go out and murder a 2 year old boy. And why stop at Venables? No crime/sex-crime can be done if they kid hasn’t experienced a normal adolescence. Is that how it is? And just what a normal adolescence is, is a pretty sticky subject (no double entendre intended) like ‘legal ages’ discussion of which have been thoroughly avoided.

    “was never around girls for example” – Errrrm… he was before he killed James. And in ‘remand’ he was – one one them burst his cherry!

    Re: Adult Jail. To be honest I’ve not sat down seriously to think exactly how long he should have had. Sentencing is a bit of a ‘dark art’ anyway. I think it’s unreasonable of you to question the exact length of the time I think he should serve in prison. A few years certainly seems right. I’d probably be happy with 10. Impossible perhaps for my to quantify/rationalise however – sorry.

    “So you’d have given then 10 years in an adult prison as well as 8 years in institutional secure care? That is 18 years” No it’s not. You have taken it upon yourself to equate youth detention with adult jail. 8 years in secure care and 10 years in adult jail is exactly what it says on the tin…. 10 years in adult jail.

    sjamieson1972 said about secure care “Center Parcs it was not.” but nobody is saying that it is. However it’s certainly not the “I will never do that again because being here is so horrible I don’t want to return. It’s taught me a lesson”

    Re: 15 years and T&V being treated more harshly. Granted they are kids, but any criminal could say “It’s not fair gov, why am I not getting the average sentence” The sentence/punishment should reflect the nature of the crime. Thompson and Venables’ crime was so bad it deserved time in an adult jail. You mentioned the ‘average’ so give them the average adult jail sentence then.

  211. 351 MerseyJim January 28, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    “However it’s certainly not the “I will never do that again because being here is so horrible I don’t want to return. It’s taught me a lesson”

    The recidivism rate in secure children’s homes is drastically lower than YOIs (which are run along adult prison lines). Some YOIs have recidivism rates of around 70%. Personally, I’d rather stick with what works better, rather than what hurts more. I haven’t got the exact figures but I’ll look for them and maybe post them later.

    It doesn’t matter what type of institution a person is locked up in. The punishment is removal of freedom – you seem to think it should be more. You seem to think that Thompson and Venables should have been made to feel fear, pain as well as being locked up. Secure care home counts as punishment because liberty is completely removed. In fact, I know of kids who actually prefer YOIs (they don’t have to go to education and can sit on their arses all day watching TV – even at age 15) to secure children’s homes where every single hour of the day is planned for you and you are locked into the schoolroom.

    Governments prefer YOIs because they are cheaper. They are also less effective, more dangerous (no child has ever died in a secure children’s home), full of gang problems, less organised and in the long run – more expensive because they don’t work. I find the idea of locking someone up for 8 years and not calling it punishment and then waiting until they are adults to start their ‘real’ punishment (I’m afraid) utterly stupid and goes against every ideal of justice.

    It is clear to me that despite your protestations to the reverse, you DO feel that Thompson and Venables shouldn’t have been treated any different to an adult prisoner. In fact, it is clear to me that you think they should have been treated worse.

    I doubt you’ll ponder much about what kind of person this makes you because you seem to have a rather elevated opinion of yourself as inspired with divine knowledge.

  212. 352 lwtc247 January 29, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Equating Youth incarceration with an adult prison is laughable Jim. There are various degrees of removal of freedom. The restriction on freedom in a youth centre is absolutely not the same as that of an adult prison. By your standards school, the house at night time, summer camp… all prison.

    “what hurts more.” Who’s calling for something that hurts more? Your trying to insinuate people want T&V to feel pain. Some may, but I never called for that. I want them to feel genuine remorse and acceptance that their crime demands suspension of their civil liberties for a given period. That includes time in an adult jail. It’s not complicated.

    “It doesn’t matter what type of institution a person is locked up in. ” – Yes it does, of course it does. What an extraordinary thing to say. If it doesn’t then it wouldn’t have mattered if they were sent to an adult jail.

    “You seem to think that Thompson and Venables should have been made to feel fear, pain as well as being locked up.” – That’s what your idea of that you would like me to want.

    “they don’t have to go to education and can sit on their arses all day watching TV – even at age 15” – Obviously there is a grand system failure there.

    “Governments prefer YOIs because they are cheaper. They are also less effective, more dangerous (no child has ever died in a secure children’s home), full of gang problems, less organised and in the long run – more expensive because they don’t work. ” – remember you just said “It doesn’t matter what type of institution a person is locked up in. ” Hummmm. You’ve got your knickers in a twist Jim.

    “I find the idea of locking someone up for 8 years and not calling it punishment and then waiting until they are adults to start their ‘real’ punishment” – Your words and ideas Jim, not mine. Both punishments were necessary in my view and in the view of a great many people. All perfectly justified given the gravity of their crime.

    “you DO feel that Thompson and Venables shouldn’t have been treated any different to an adult prisoner. In fact, it is clear to me that you think they should have been treated worse.” As children no, as adults, yes.

    “I doubt you’ll ponder much about what kind of person this makes you” – someone not willing to see a great crime go unpunished perhaps? Especially when one (Venables) seems the sly bastard that he probably was as a kid – difficult childhood or not. You can shower them with candy and scoff at the pain of their victims. Ponder that.

  213. 353 MerseyJim January 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    I haven’t scoffed a the pain of their victims at all. I think that is very flippant.

    And my comment about punishment was one which indicates what imprisonment is in this country. A removal of liberty – however that liberty is removed is irrelevant – it constitutes punishment – whether that is in a secure care centre, adult prison or secure mental health facility. Where an offender is placed is determined by their circumstances (age, mental health issues; etc).

    As a matter of interest, what is it about adult prison that you feel so necessary for them to experience? If it isn’t fear and pain, what is it? Conditions themselves aren’t actually much harsher (and in many ways easier); it is just the risk of them being harmed would be much greater along with other risks (such as coming into contact with hardened recidivists and drugs).

  214. 354 sjamieson1972 January 30, 2012 at 9:12 am

    First, it must be said that Thompson and Venables would never have entered the adult prison system until they were 21. Adult prisons only take people from 21 onwards. If they carried on being kept in custody, they would have been moved to a YOI until then.

    Had they been moved to an adult prison, they would have been moved to a long-term training prison with a large lifer contingent. These prisons are not actually that problematic – the regimes would have been far easier than the life they had got used to in secure units. Lifers tend to not to be that much of a problem for staff as parole is contingent upon behaviour and most of them are not actually long-term hardened criminals – believe it or not (although most have killed). The worst prisons in the country are prisons Thompson and Venables would never have set foot in – the local holding prisons such as Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs, Strangeways, Exeter, etc. These are prisons which hold inmates on remand or on short sentences or until they can be moved elsewhere after sentencing. It is these prisons which remain depressing Victorian warehouses of human waste.

    And actually, had the 15 year tariff originally set by Michael Howard actually stood, chances are, they may never have set foot in a closed adult prison anyway because of the amount of time spent in closed YOIs. At 21, they would only have 4 years left to serve and could have quite easily served it in an open prison. They could even have attended university/jobs outside the prison walls. Mary Bell actually spent a large amount of her sentence in open prison (and actually escaped from one of them).

    The only problems Thompson and Venables would face in adult prison is the risk from other prisoners (ie violent attacks) and, as Mesey says, drugs. Is this ‘punishment’ you think appropriate?

  215. 355 MerseyJim January 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Certainly Venables seems to prefer prison to freedom. Didn’t his solicitor say he was relieved to be back inside?

  216. 356 sjamieson1972 January 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    He would say that wouldn’t he? If true, then I would say Venables needs some serious work. To view prison as a sanctuary indicates a serious inability to live in normal society. I guess there is some comfort in a locked door but mostly I’d say it is immaturity – unable to function without people telling you when you get up, eat, make a phone call, etc. The Omand report gives an impression of someone without even the bare minimum of life skills.

  217. 357 Frank8 February 9, 2012 at 5:10 am

    Okay, i have finally finshed reading this after a couple of day’s. So, first of all sjamieson1972 – wake up to yourself! And second of all merceyjim – wake up to yourself!

    The absolute rubbish you two have come up with is ridiculous! I concede that both have you have bought up a FEW good points. But over-all if this was a competition both have you would have lost by miles. And sjamieson as a “lawler” you should be ashamed of yourself. As for IWTC, I personally think you have bought forward some very valid points, ofcoarse I do not agree with them all but is that not the whole point? NO TWO PEOPLE ARE THE SAME! And for that reason what give you the right sjamieson and mercey to believe that just because no other 10 year old’s have murdered as adult’s (in which let’s be honest, you don’t know that 100% for sure) that NO 10 year old’s will ever.

    The two should have spent time in an adult gaol (australia spelling not sure how it is spelled in england but i’ll spell it this way) there is no doubt about that. I haven’t come across anyone who hasn’t said that at one time or another apart from the both of you. But in saying all this i do believe in redemption and i have my opinion on what age (around-abouts) they should have been released.

    Taking one’s life in the worst most horrific thing one can do. And for you to carry on as though they have been over punished, well……LOL you need to have a look in the mirror mate, the both of you do.

    I look forward to hearing both of your reply’s having a crack at how terrible my typing is, how uneducated my knowledge of the case is, how monsterous i am for wanting justice etc etc ( you know, all the things you accused people further up the page of) and for what its worth blahblahblah if your still reading thing, i really liked your post and and mostly agree with it.

  218. 358 sjamieson1972 February 10, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Why? What is it about adult prison that you feel they should have experienced? As I said, it is conceivable that any adult prison they would have been sent to would have been an open one where they would have had keys to their own cells.

    Alternatively, they could have been sent to a closed prison with lifers – mostly composed of people just wanting to get on with their sentence and be done with it. Most lifers are not that troublesome – largely because they have to continue to live in the prison and take the consequences of pissing people off. It is very likely their life at one of these closed prisons would have been quite easy (assuming they were not attacked) – they could have just sat in their cell watching TV all day if they wished.

    So what is it about adult prison that you think they should have experienced?

  219. 359 sjamieson1972 February 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    And I never said they were ‘over-punished’ by the way.

    I said they had been punished – a loss of liberty; spending you whole adolescence in an institution; being studied by psychiatrists; being watched every second of your life is being punished.

    But the 1933 Children and Young People’s Act stipulates that when people that young are sentenced; their welfare should be the primary concern. This is why Michael Howard’s extension to the their tariff was considered unlawful. Indeed, his actiond ended up taking the power to set tariffs away from politicians completely.

    The actual wording for your information is contained in Section 44:

    “Every court in dealing with a child or young person who is brought before it, either as an offender or otherwise, shall have regard to the welfare of the child or young person and shall in a proper case take steps for removing him from undesirable surroundings, and for securing that proper provision is made for his education and training.”

    You may not like that but I personally think it is a noble requirement – and one that is also mentioned in the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

  220. 360 Anonymous February 10, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Well first of all, it wouldn’t be as luxurious as the institution that they were in. There would be knowing staying up later then the other’s and talking and laughing with the manager which is what Thompson did. There would no having sex with the guards – Venables. There would be no going to Shopping Centers, Parks, etc. To me (and this is my opinion) they had a ball where they were. And if nothing else they would get intimidated in adult prison, They were the king’s where they were and everyone knows it. For example, Once Thompson had a pretty red head gf, and a new guy come in and made a pass at her, everyone else said you cannot do that, that is Roberts girl.

    So i ask you sjamieson, do you truely believe there is no difference between where they were and where they should have gone after there. Because if so, i think you are being very naive.

    “I said they had been punished – a loss of liberty; spending you whole adolescence in an institution; being studied by psychiatrists; being watched every second of your life is being punished” – You say that as if you don’t think it should have happened.

    T&V were very smart boys mate, and there are plenty of other smart kids in the world. If they know they can get away with things like this untill the age of 12 or 14 ( i know its not that in England but i think that’s what you proposed) then they are gonna think everytime something goes wrong or upsets them they have the right to kill. Thats just not on mate. If they are aware of reality, then it might not happen, Thompson and Venables should have been made an example of. As should have all the other child killers.

    Now as for you post on Josh Phillips, No ofcoarse he does not look like an evil person, but who’s to say he wasn’t. MOST people don’t go as far to taking another human’s life, and he did. But full credit to him, he’s in an adult prison and he understands what he has done (unlike T&V) he has said, “I would like to be free and get out of this place, but whether or not i derseve too? – I don’t know” (courtesy of the video you kindly posted)

  221. 361 Frank8 February 10, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Forgot to put my name in the above post, sorry mate

  222. 362 MerseyJim February 11, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Ah, you see you’re getting your information from a Daily Mail article. Not really terrible impressed by that I’m afraid. I, on the other hand have personal knowledge of child secure units as a professional. I can tell you much of that article is nonsense. Moreover, if the Daily Mail paid a worker for that story, they broke the law.

    As for Thompson and Venables being smart boys, I think we can safely say that isn’t true for Venables. From what I can gather, he’s certifiably stupid.

    So basically, you are saying that one of the reasons they should have faced time in an adult prison was so they could be ‘intimidated’? I think now we are getting to the truth of the matter.

    Fact is, you go to prison AS a punishment; not for additional punishment that people think you deserve and which should be dished out on top of the the fact of being incarcerated.

    And I notice you link Thompson and Venables as one person. Thompson as NOT reoffended.

  223. 363 MerseyJim February 12, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    And incidentally, I’d like to see how Thompson managed to get a girlfriend at his unit if 1) he is gay and 2) Barton Moss is an ALL MALE unit.

    I think you need to improve the level of journalism you read. The Daily Mail is putrid.

    On the below directory, if you click on Barton Moss, you’ll see it is all male.

  224. 364 Anonymous February 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    It is true… People are laughing at others who say jordan scott-michael is not robert thompson… He is… He Lived in wigan and moved to rhyl. He is a fantasist who tried to sign for a local football team as a goalkeeper. The address is put was his “dads address” in st helens. He had signed for a team in wales before signing for st helens town and then ashton town. He left both of them after claiming he “played for liverpool as a kid” someone googled him to see if his story was true and got the real truth about him… He then dissappeared and didnt turn uo again. Hes got facial hair and he talks with a strange accent… Its half scouse, half lancs/wigan. Hes a strange person who when questionned about his footballing past made up lies. Apparantly he moved to wales because he signed for a welsh premiership side… Anyone who knows football will know that many people live in the northwest and pmay in wales driving over every week. He moved to wales because he was found out. He told the local club that his “home address is wales but…will put his dads address on the signing on form to avoid international clearance” the adress he gave was near the centre of st helens he has been on merseyside as he signed for st helens town and his year of birth ready made answers and reluctance to talk about his past (footballing things from anything over 2 years ago) all made people smell a rat. It was him….

  225. 365 frank8 February 13, 2012 at 1:58 am

    “Ah, you see you’re getting your information from a Daily Mail article. Not really terrible impressed by that I’m afraid” – Very quick to judge there mate, i’m not from England so obviously i don’t know much about them but i have read things in the past from them which has proved to be very accurate. It seems you think you are always right and everyone else is wrong. You should see someone about that ;)

    “As for Thompson and Venables being smart boys, I think we can safely say that isn’t true for Venables. From what I can gather, he’s certifiably stupid” – Once again as you have before you imply that everything revolves around certification. I should probably inform you that there is a BIG difference between being “book-smart” and “life-smart” and both T&V were the latter

    As for your next statement let’s just forget you even said that aye, because you’re obviously trying to put words in my mouth.

    “And I notice you link Thompson and Venables as one person. Thompson as NOT reoffended.” – LOL oh is that what you noticed? what a load of rubbsh. I see T&V as 2 invidual’s that committed the SAME crime (in which you clearly don’t). You portray Thompson as some kind of born again Christian. I question your judgement mate.

    As for you believing Thompson is gay. Well how do you know that for sure? and if he is attracted to boys, how do you know he is not bi-sexual?

    You claim to know everything about these two now-men. I would not normally say this but i have huge questions revolving around you ( as would many readers i’m guessing ). You appear to be very naive and think you are always right. My advice to you, listen to other people as you are NOT always right, no one gives a f**k what you do as a profession, all you have is opinion’s like everyone else.

    Look forward to hearing from you again

  226. 366 MerseyJim February 13, 2012 at 6:17 am

    I don’t know everything. What I know is actually read from books about those who have inside knowledge (I’ve read David James Smith book and the one written by Blake Morrison). David James Smith had all the transcripts of the police interviews, the pathology report; etc. I also have my personal experience of the criminal justice system – which to be fair, you don’t have.

    I realise I don’t know any more about their life in custody and after apart from what has been released in tabloids. I would take this information with a great pinch of salt because of the nature of these publications – particularly the Daily Mail which is probably the nastiest tabloid in the UK. However, there are some stories which have surfaced that I think bear some credibility. I would concede (reluctantly) that some of the stories about Robert Thompson that have appeared in News International titles (The Sun and NOTW) are likely to be true because they apparently managed to track him down and hack his phone.

  227. 367 Frank8 February 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Your not helping yourself any here mate. All your doing is repeating yourself over and over and over and frankly, i’m sick of it. Up page you question James Bulgers mother and anyone else who has made money off this (which ofcoarse is what you think not know). Yet you have no problem’s believing every word the two gentleman you just mentioned say. When sounds like they have done the same thing? one word for you big fella – hypocrite.

    Ohhhh and back to the old “i’m a Crimonolgist i have experience” line hey? GET OVER IT.

    I feel sorry for you. Well as said previously i’m not sure about the Daily Mail although I do know they have presented some truthful stories (not reguarding these two boys) just in general.

    Now I ask you with your “vast experience and in your criminal justice system expert opinion” (LOL) what do you think would have been the right punishment for these two child killers?

    Oh and by the way “I also have my personal experience of the criminal justice system – which to be fair, you don’t have.” – You have no idea what i do or don’t have so think things through before claiming things. People like myself will take your word as even more worthless if you claim things without even knowing.

  228. 368 sjamieson1972 February 13, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Frank, you mentioned you have an opinion on what would be the right age for them to be allowed a second chance? What is this? (Bearing in mind they were incarcerated at age 10?)

    Once again, I would point out the fact that they would only have been sent to an adult prison at age 21 – by which time they would have already been locked up for 11 years. How much time do you think should have been spent in an adult prison (bearing in mind the average time spent in prison for an adult who murders is 15 years)?

    (And yes, Barton Moss is boys only – it is also one of the few secure units which contracts all its beds to the Youth Justice Board – criminal cases only and the vast majority of kids locked up there are in for very serious crimes. Do you honestly think child rapists would be locked up with females?)

    I can’t speak for Mesey but for my part, I think the right sentence was exactly what they got. According to the law (which stipulates that welfare should be the prime concern of children who offend), it was exactly right. When a politician tried to make it more punitive (Michael Howard), it was declared unlawful (not by a wishy washy European court but by British Law Lords).

    As for the Daily Mail – one day it was self-combust with its own sick, hateful agenda.

  229. 369 wasa February 13, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    My believe is that they should have been hung after the conviction. 10 or 80, male or female ,if you commit a murder as brutal as that you should go., it is the only form of justice for the damaged people left behind! .

  230. 370 sjamieson1972 February 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    ‘My believe is that they should have been hung after the conviction.’

    Lovely. Executing ten year olds. Something that was last done in England in the seventeenth century. How progressive you are.

    And you do not speak of justice – only revenge.

  231. 371 MerseyJim February 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    I think, given precedent in these kind of cases; 8 years was about right. In fact, I’d probably have even said 10 years would have been OK. These kinds of crimes are rare but in the few examples we have; 8 years is about proportionate to other examples (Mary Bell got 12 years) or actually longer – the case I mentioned in San Francisco didn’t even result in criminal convictions – the kids were put through the foster care system. In Norway, the same – the children were kept with their families and given intense psychiatric care.

    The current case in Sweden (where a 10 year old strangled a four year old child) is also put through the welfare route as their age of criminal responsibility is 15.

    Even back in the Victorian age, a virtual carbon copy of the Bulger murder resulted in the two boys being given 5 year sentences in therapeutic juvenile reformatories.

  232. 372 Frank8 February 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    sjamieson – I would probably say 5 years or around-abouts would be appropriate and beneficial to both parties. You talk about it as a punishment this “institution” they went to. But from my understanding there seems to be no difference between what they went to and a private boarding school.

    Wozza- I think that is maybe a little too far, It would never happen anymore but if it did happen, I myself, would not really care. Just as they didn’t when they took a life

    Okay mercey and sjamieson – STOP referring to average sentences and what other kid’s did and didn’t do and telling me to bear stuff in mind. I don’t give a f**k tbh. My arguement is that this so called “Justice System” is wrong! And also stop pointing out kid’s did as adults after a certain sentence. It makes no difference what-so-ever as everyone is DIFFERENT (as ive explained before). If your going to punish kid’s appropriately why don’t we just fix a kid with a knife at age 5 and tell them to go their hardest if someone pisses you off at school because you wont be punished.

    The two of you are seriously mentally ill i think. You both have no common sense at all and rely on everything but it. You probably both have T&V posters above your bed and pray to them everynight like they’re some kind of god (ridiculous thing to say i know) but seriously, you guys have spent soooo much time defending these little monsters.

  233. 373 MerseyJim February 14, 2012 at 6:18 am

    ‘But from my understanding there seems to be no difference between what they went to and a private boarding school’

    There is a whole world of difference. Most boarding schools do not have kids who self-harm, are withdrawing from drugs and throw chairs at other inmates.

    Most boarding schools do not have cell-like rooms where you are locked in at night with a steel toilet.

    There are no holidays at child secure units – there is no respite from education – the school year is 50 weeks.

    Most boarding schools do not have security so tight that you are escorted from each room, door unlocked and then locked again after you.

    Most boarding schools do not have high walls and razor wire.

    Most boarding schools do not monitor your every single move with 6 cameras in each room (one in every corner, + 2 others).

    Most boarding schools do not have the power to violently restrain troublesome children – up to and including near-suffocation and using handcuffs.

    ‘The two of you are seriously mentally ill i think’.

    What an absolutely pathetic response..

    ‘If your going to punish kid’s appropriately why don’t we just fix a kid with a knife at age 5 and tell them to go their hardest if someone pisses you off at school because you wont be punished.’

    Way to miss the point completely.

  234. 374 sjamieson1972 February 14, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Frank – I would be wary of brandishing the ‘mad card’ at people. It often gets reflected back on yourself.

    As to what your opinion of secure units for children are like; given you seem to think Robert Thompson had a girlfriend (despite being in an all male unit), I’m not convinced you are coming from a position of authority.

    Inside a child’s ‘room’ (inverted commas because they are more like prison cells); you’ll find a steel toilet and a steel sink. They are steel so that the young person cannot smash them and self harm. Everything is protected from ligature points and the furniture is fixed to the wall so it can’t be smashed. There are bars on the windows and reinforced glass over those bars (the bars have to be covered because they can be used a ligature points). All furniture has rounded edges (not right angles) so the threat of self-harm is minimised.

    Minor rule-breaking is punished harshly. Swearing for example, could result in photos of your family being taken from your room and locked away. There is a behaviour sanctions model similar to an adult prison (i.e. basic, standard and enhanced; although in secure units they are called bronze, silver and gold).

    I went to a private boarding school and let me tell you – there is NOTHING similar about them whatsoever.

    Five years in an adult prison would mean they would be incarcerated for 16 years – longer than most adult murderers. Moreover, you seem to think they’d have had a hard life – I can tell you their life would have been EASIER than in a secure unit. They wouldn’t have been forced into education/work; they would have been with other lifers and if they behaved, they would have had considerable privilages (most lifers coming to the end of their sentences actually have it relatively easy).

    After a year or two, they would have been moved to an open prison where they would have keys to their rooms and could leave the prison for work/education.

    All it would have done would have cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money to keep them inside.

  235. 375 Frank8 February 14, 2012 at 10:52 am

    Lol okay before you two blab on a bit more i’m aware it is not exactly the same. I was in comparison to an adult prison so don’t give me that shit about it been so much tougher than prison. Ofcoarse they had to be educated. They are kid’s it’s called growing up!

    I do not retract my statement about you two being mentally ill and won’t until you prove otherwise and both show some common sense. I bet your both the type of people who think the world is against you and other people like you and have no friends but to get online and TRY and prove how smart you are.

    You are both bypassing the point completely and keep referencing to “aw yeah but the average adult time this and this guy only done that and this is the way it is”. I know it is like that. I’m aware of all this, ya’s only bring it up everytime you post! Say something new and interesting to what i’m trying to say for once. But just incase you still need to get it through your thick heads, i’ll tell you both again. I don’t agree with that f**king system! It’s wrong! The both of you are basically saying people can kill and not got fully punished for it.

    Oh and sjamieson, me not coming from a position of authority? LOL!!!!! i’m sorry and you are. I’m entitled to my opinion and so are you reguardless if everyone thinks you are absolutely bonkers!

    So once again in your next posts can the both of you please reframe from telling me what’s happened in the past and what the law is i’m aware of it all and not interested. Oh and also don’t try telling me the institution they were in would be much worse then an adult prison. That’s pathetic.

    As always look forward to hearing from you two :)

  236. 376 sjamieson1972 February 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    ‘I bet your both the type of people who think the world is against you’

    I think someone who rages against the justice system as if it designed to protect criminals can be accused of that more! I think it laughable that you can make that accusation and then hysterically rail against the ‘f**king system” in some kind of advance stage of paranoia.

    I have nothing against the world – I get on with it just fine. You, however, clearly do.

    Puerile insults do more against your argument than for it.

    It is my simple belief that what is acceptable punishment for a child is not the same as exists for an adult. They were not adults when they committed the crime (in fact they weren’t even adolescents). To punish them as children and then to punish them again as adults is punishing them twice. And it is treating them worse than an adult criminal.

    That remains my position. It remains my position that given their ages and their backgrounds, the punishment they received was adequate.

  237. 377 sjamieson1972 February 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Timely report about the reality of young offender units for juveniles:

    The report (published today) highlights:

    1,500 incidents of self-harming
    3,500 incidents of violence.

    While these are experienced less in local authority secure units (such as Thompson and Venables were locked up in), they would have – over 8 years – become accustomed to seeing their fellow inmates cut down from ligatures; covered in blood because of wrist injuries; experienced young people with severe mental health problems; witnessed violence (there is more violence in juvenile institutions than adult ones simply because juveniles have less self control).

    Yet apparently it is rather like a ‘private boarding school’.

  238. 378 MerseyJim February 15, 2012 at 6:10 am

    Frank – you should calm down. (Given you have accused others of mental illness, you are not coming over as completely sane yourself).

    I’ve explained my opinion clearly.

  239. 379 sjamieson1972 February 15, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Frank, what do you think prison (any time of prison – including youth custody) should be for?

    I certainly think that punishment is part of the point of prison (although I prefer to use the word ‘retribution’) but think that it has other purposes (at least in principle) such as public protection and rehabilitation.

    Not only do you seem to think that punishment should be the sole point of prison, but you seem to think that ‘punishment’ is the same as brutalisation and dehuminisation. I think this says more about your state of mind than mine.

  240. 380 lwtc247 March 9, 2012 at 9:44 am

    sjamieson1972. You have consistently asked questions like “What would YOU have done to them” but I am quite sure what you yourself would do to them would not be what the general public would want, which I dare say involves time spent in an Adult prison.

    Out of curiosity, what’s your view on the child captives kidnapped and imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo or any other Guantanamo prisoner and Lee Boyd Malvo for example?

    When would YOU subject a person to Adult punishment and what is your justification for choosing that point?

  241. 381 sjamieson1972 March 9, 2012 at 11:53 am

    My view on that is that they shouldn’t be there – under any circumstances! My view on Guantanamo in general is that it should not exist.

    As for ‘adult punishment’ – in that I assume you mean the adult prison system in the UK? Adult prisons are for those prisoners who are over 21 years of age. Before that, young offenders (18-21) are placed in YOIs. Before that, young people who offend are placed either in junvenile prisons, Secure Training Centres or Local Authority Secure Homes. My view is that if a person commits a serious offence from the age of 14+ with a long tariff going beyond age 21, they should spend time in an adult prison.

    The situation with those who are younger should be more flexible and the plan should be to keep them OUT of the adult prison system if possible and if meaningful change is made, they should be able to be released from the juvenile/YOI system. Those young people serving sentences at Her Majesty’s Pleasure (the juvenile equivalent of a life sentence) can only be released at Parole board say-so anyway.

    It is called understanding the difference between an adult and a child and realising that punishing someone AS a child does not mean they have to be punished AGAIN as an adult.

    If a child of 10 smashes a car window, they will not face the same sanction as an adult – it is called basic decency.

    The ‘general public’ also have a more nuanced view of criminal justice that people think they do (the failure of the death penalty petition by Guido Fawkes shows this – apparently the British public aren’t as keen on hanging as the tabloids keep telling us they are). But if history shows us anything (and I’m thinking back to why we have human rights – from the dark days of Nazi Germany) is that the tyrrany of the majority isn’t always right.

  242. 382 sjamieson1972 March 9, 2012 at 11:54 am

    By the way, the majority of the American public, are perfectly OK with Guantanamo Bay and think it should remain. Does that make it right?

  243. 383 Frank8 March 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Sorry for late replying, have been busy lately. Okay well first of all i am sane lol. And if you are saying i’m not you are practically saying 99% of people are not, because i’m sure most people feel the same as i do about this situation.

    As for you continually bringing up child to adult circumstances, (which is fine) but you tend to refer to children as being completely different people to their adulthood, well i’ve got news for you. It may shock you. THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON! I think you are just looking for points to argue about now.

    If we lived in a world ruled by you, there would be far more murders then there is now as you seem to like the fact that if you murder you would spend a lengthy time behind bars.

    Shame on you tut tut

    • 384 wasa April 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm

      Hi Frank , I real’y do think the two boys should have been hung after the verdict. This was truly a frightening and brutal murder. I also believe in evil, and 10 year old’s can be evil. I even believe that execution is what a civilised country would do , considering the horrid damage done to the souls of so many innocent people…

  244. 385 MerseyJim March 10, 2012 at 6:59 am

    It is funny that those countries with a higher age of criminal responsibility don’t seem to have hoards of psycho kids going on murdering rampages. Many US states have an age of criminal responsibility of 7 – doesn’t seem to stop high school shootings.

  245. 386 Neil Rudd March 12, 2012 at 11:33 am

    People seem to be forgetting about Robert Thompson lately its all about J/V for the imformation about R/T AKA jordan scott michael bout R/T and J/V bout giving doubble barrell names for the latest information about R/T AKA scott-michael check sprinko news

  246. 389 lwtc247 March 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    I know when RT and JV have been up to something as there is usually a massive jump in my stats. They must have done something on 12th Feb. Anyone know what?

  247. 390 sjamieson1972 March 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Might have been the revelation that Robert Thompson was stalked and had his phone hacked for five years by News International (although that was revealed back last August). There was speculation that he might sue for compensation but his lawyer says he isn’t planning on doing that – despite the determination from some quarters to spur the media into OUTRAGE!!!

    I think many people are probably disappointed that in all the time of hacking and following him, nothing remotely sinister (or even interesting) could be found by the criminals at NI apart from the fact he was gay and attended art school.

    • 391 lwtc247 March 13, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      Not many criminals would send their evil plans over a mobile phone, and that little rag TNoTW would of course had to be cautious about what it released, how much it released and when it released it.

      • 392 sjamieson1972 March 14, 2012 at 9:50 am

        Actually NOTW weren’t cautious at all about what it released. It printed details of telephone calls, time spent on the phone, where the calls were made and to whom (not just Thompson but other victims also like Charlotte Church, Milly Dowler and Sienna Miller). They thought themselves above the law.

        Moreover, with Thompson, it also meant they would have had to ‘acquired’ (for that read ‘purchased’) his new identity (which would have included address, probation officer, any job, educational establishment, etc) which obviously means the criminality is greater. They weren’t just hacking him, they were stalking him.

        The idea that they wouldn’t have published stuff if they discovered he was being a bad boy is naive in the extreme.

        Even when the Sun revealed his sexuality, they had to concede (reluctantly reading through the lines) that he wasn’t a risk.

        See: ‘It is believed that Thompson, who lives at a secret location in North West England, has settled back well into the community and is not considered a risk to the public.’

        But your post once again reveals what I’ve always suspected. That people almost WANT him to commit more heinous crimes (or at least don’t want to believe that he isn’t commiting awful crimes). I just don’t understand this.

      • 393 Anonymous April 15, 2012 at 10:42 pm

        thompson has been terrorrising the community he lives In for five years and the police and other agencies have been covering it up whilst arresting members of the community of they accuse him of threats, blackmail or violence.

  248. 394 lwtc247 April 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    “The 33-year-old Norwegian [Anders Behring Breivik] was found insane in one examination, while a second assessment made public last week found him mentally competent.” – BBC today
    Kinda reinforces my opinion about criminlal psychologists.

    But how could this be? They aren’t going to get some fresh psychology grad to assess this slimeball, so how can they have drawn such oppositi conclusions? Much of psychology is a fraud IMHO and this simply proves it. And I see no reason to warm to any child psychologist in the Bulger case.

  249. 395 lwtc247 April 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    P.S. Something signifnacnt must have happened involving these two killers on 14th ot 15 April. Anyone know what it is?

    • 396 Anonymous April 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      I know that someone suspected of being RT is at court next week, (he tried to stab someone, but his charge was reduced to a breach of the peace.

  250. 397 lwtc247 April 16, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Thanks anon.
    These guys seem to have have a licenece to do whatever the hell they want. They (or at least one of them) may be murdering little boys next and getting away with it to boot.

    • 398 Anonymous April 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm

      This guy has been getting away with all sorts of crimes and nothing gets done about it, we even got together at a village meeting with the chief inspector (who admitted that he was a protected offender, but not who) and handed in a petition to get him evicted, but they only moved him to another house in the same village. It beggars belief.
      The elderly residents are all terrified of him, and most believe him to be RT, there are a lot of similarities. There’s been a lot of activity around him lately, strange cars ect.

  251. 399 lwtc247 April 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Well if it’s him, I’m sure glad the local people are aware of it. That’s my stance, that the people should know where he is. Good luck in getting rid of him.

    • 400 Anonymous April 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm

      Thanks, but it doesn’t seem to be easy, if we had a photo of his mother we might be able to prove who he is once and for all, the fact that he and his son both look like RT (and the numerous other similarities) aren’t enough we need hard proof.

      • 401 April 17, 2012 at 5:19 am

        Robert Thompson is gay. All this sounds like utter nonsense. Fantasy armchair vigilantes. If you are so certain, tell me which court he was attending.

      • 402 Anonymous April 17, 2012 at 9:28 am

        there are a number of stories about Thompson, the guardian ran a story in 2006 to say that he had become a father.
        This guy fits in to both categories, as he was blackmailing a local man he was having sex with. And there is a police report to confirm that confirms this.
        I wish it was just fantasy, living next to a monster RT or not isn’t much fun.
        Also the court is in a coastal area of Scotland, I don’t want to say any more in case it is him,

  252. 403 Dobson April 17, 2012 at 3:33 am

    I would like to know if I lived next to a killer. No you shoould have the right to know if you live next to a killer. One thing USA does right is capital punishment (might be the only thing). and yes I am an American citizen. I just saw the story on TV about these killer kids. I think it is complete bullshit that you do not have the right to protect yourself. Because that is what it comes down to you do not know who these people are in your community and they have already proven taht they can kill. Not out of self defense, not in fight, not in a war. They lured a 2 year old child to his unforunate death. This hit me very close to home because the same thing happened in my town to a 4 year old by a 12 year old that I went to school with and if that person were to get out which he won’t because USA is tough on criminals sometimes too tough but nothing short of a axe and a block to rest his head upon would be justice. And I would be in the front row watching if not holding the axe.
    Here is the story of the child killer from NY where I live

    • 404 MerseyJim April 17, 2012 at 5:22 am

      The US does not execute ten year olds (or even execute them when they reach 18), What is more, they do not (generally) give ten year olds life without parole. The general issue of juveniles and life without parole is going through the supreme court now and it is likely (in my opinion) it will deemed unconstitutional.

    • 405 sjamieson April 17, 2012 at 8:02 am

      The case of Eric Smith has been mentioned before here I think. He WILL be released eventually (he has a parole hearing today but not sure he will be successful).

      Whatever our justice system has to learn – it has NOTHING to learn from the United States. If your system is so ‘tough on crime’ – then tell us why you only have a 35% conviction rate for murder – why so many murders go unpunished. (The UK’s conviction rate is around 75% by the way). The US ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric is just that – pure hot air which actually achieves nothing (murder rates are just as high, if not higher in states with the death penalty as states without the death penalty). Moreover, the murder rate in the United States is SIX TIMES that of the United Kingdom. ‘Tough on crime’? Get real. It is a criminal’s paradise. (In fact there is evidence to suggest the low conviction rate for murders which come to trial could actually have something to do with the death penalty itself – juries become jittery when they know someone might face the needle).

      And the fact that you would punish child killers by killing children (not only killing, but actually saying how you would do it in some kind of sick violent fantasy) says a great deal about you – you are, indeed, a would-be child killer.

      Then of course we have the racial element in the US criminal justice system – just look at the current furore over Zimmermann which has been totally polarised alone race lines. In the US, the prison system seems to accept that sexual abuse in prisons on weaker inmates is part of the punishment (we don’t tolerate it here – rape in prison is treated as it should be – as a crime).

  253. 406 sjamieson April 17, 2012 at 10:20 am

    I should also say that I share the same cynicism about forensic psychology as the site owner. However, I also have serious reservations about taking seriously the internet rants of people who don’t have any real knowledge of the case in question beyond what they read in the media. Crime is complex and finer minds than mine have never yet come to the bottom of what actually causes it. Much less in cases such as this. I also think that those who have studied empirically are far more likely to have some saner answers than those who simply decide to believe in some supernatural ‘evil’. The latter kind of people can only deal in simplistic language which belongs in a kindergarten. Like I said, crime is complex.

    By the way, in Breivik’s case, the issue isn’t really whether he is mentally disordered (the psychiatrists agree on that – he is) – it is whether that disorder corrupted his mind to such a degree that responsibility for criminal actions is impaired (in other words – was he suffering from psychosis). In the same way, it was never in question that Sutcliffe was a paranoid schizophrenic – what was ascertained in court was that his mental impairment did not mean his capability for murder (with the accompanying mens rea) was compromised.

  254. 407 Anonymous April 17, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Anders is an ideologist, I don’t think that you can just stick him in a mad or not mad box. In his mind he was right to do what he did, and I don’t think any amount of empirical education will ever be able to change the fact that not all people think alike, crime is complex,as is the human mind, but it is still crime and should be punished as such, not just for the sake of punishment, but to keep the rest of us safe.

  255. 408 lwtc247 April 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Personally, I don’t see any value in comparing the US injustice system with the UK injustice system.

    @ sjamieson, I’m glad you “share the same cynicism about forensic psychology”. I am not portraying it as simple. I would wax lyrical about it being an intricate “science”, but that the subtle differences that the evaluation doctor/teams team would have seen (I think we can probably agree the major traits of his personality would have been see-able by both teams) has lead FINAL conclusions that was 100% apart is frankly comical – it it weren’t so tragic. I have little reason to have confidence in T&V’s child psychologists either. I suspect that these adults do a fair bit of ‘projection’ onto these kids so that the adult mind can try to come to a comprehension of what the child killer has done. i.e. an adult concept/category is applied to the kid and then lo and behold, the kid shows up that adult identifiable behavior.

    I know too little about the Eric Smith case to comment, but it eerily sounds just as horrific – especially with the sexual element of it. I wouldn’t say killing the kid is the answer though.

    I really doubt Breivik is insane at all. He’s following up on his convictions. He did an evil act because he thought it was necessary and would strengthen his political ideology. P.S. there is no need to fruitlessly search as to why criminal acts ar done. I agree with very strongly with Anonymous April 17, 2012 at 11:47 am

    It would be interesting to hear “rational” why BuSh, bLiar and little jonnie howard wer NOT mentally disordered having killd hundreds of thousands of innocents, but that Breivik was.


  256. 409 sjamieson April 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    ‘I suspect that these adults do a fair bit of ‘projection’ onto these kids so that the adult mind can try to come to a comprehension of what the child killer has done. i.e. an adult concept/category is applied to the kid and then lo and behold, the kid shows up that adult identifiable behavior.’

    I think this is bang on right. Such as immediately giving an ‘adult’ reason for certain aspects of the act (they threw paint into the eyes because it happened on the Child Play film – despite the fact that there is no evidence either kid saw the movie). Again, putting sexual connotations onto aspects of the crime despite the pathologist being quite clear there was no evidence of sexual abuse (simply removing the undergarments is not proof of anything other than they were removed).

    As for Bush/Blair – I have no response to that. Do they feel remorse? One would hope so but there is a difference in the ability to dole out death by proxy as they did and a person who decides themselves – as a lone wolf – to commit mass murder. Bush and Blair would have found it easy to disassociate themselves – particularly as there were parties who were convincing them they were morally right.

  257. 410 lwtc247 April 20, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    15th / 16 April… Something involing Thompson or Venables has happened.
    Wonder what?

  258. 413 Anonymous April 21, 2012 at 10:30 am

    I know that a trial the local RT suspect is involved in was supposed to go ahead on Monday but was adjourned, that happened about 15th, as far as I know the trial in which he is the defendant is still scheduled for the following Monday. Don’t know if that could be what your looking for?

  259. 414 lwtc247 April 21, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Thanks anon – that’s probably it.
    I feel the desire to want to know about what these two are up but I’m outside the cirlce of people who keep tabs on them. It would be nice to have (or know of) a channel dedicated to informing the public about the two of them.

    @ Mandy. My blog indicates when something’s going down.

  260. 415 Anonymous April 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    The problem is being 100% sure, the guy we have here has always been suspected of being him, and the name he uses can’t be traced, except for birth record and even that doesn’t make sense as he has 2 birth dates it seems that he was born and then born again 2 years later !!! Also his mothers wedding certificate makes her 8 years younger than the age she uses. So as you can see we have had traces done on them but need more. He’s not who he says he is but we still can’t prove absolutely that he’s RT.
    He also admits to having spent 8 years in prison for a violent crime but no record of it can be found under his assumed name.

    • 416 lwtc247 April 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      It’s unusual that he has said such things. If it was him, you’d expect him to be never say the things you say he has, esp. about the violence related prison term. So I guess someome’s been asking him such Q’s and surely he would suspect people know who he is, making me think he’s tell his handlers.

      So, peculiar. Anyway, if it was him, may I ask what you would then do?

      • 417 Anonymous April 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm

        If it is him, we’d find a way of outing him, some of the reports I’ve read have said that he would have been told to say he had been in prison for something, to try and keep his story as close to reality as possible to make it easier for them to stick with their new id’s (don’t know how true this is) also reports say Venables was telling people who he was for a long time before they moved him (again this might not be true). This guy used to drink in the local pub, that’s when he let the prison story out, he later told the same people that if they knew what he’d really done they’d never speak to him again, he stopped drinking after that, but has moved onto drugs. As I’ve said, it might not be RT but there are more things pointing to it being him than not. If he had been living a quiet life no-one here would have bothered to try and find out about him, but he’s a scourge to an otherwise peaceful village.

      • 418 lwtc247 April 22, 2012 at 4:57 am

        Cheers Anon. What you say makes perfect sense.

  261. 419 Anonymous April 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    It seems that Jordan Scott Michael of St Helens, as mentioned in this blog before, is now going by the name of William Kirby and has recently committed another sexual assault, he was jailed in 2003 for 3 and a half years, under name of JSM for same kind of offence, it seems unlikely that he is RT as surely they would have revoked his licence for sex crimes as they did Venables.

    • 420 Mark pope April 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      This person R/T is scott-michael BUT NOT the person you mention in above artials just the same name location St Helens.

  262. 421 Jane April 23, 2012 at 4:49 am

    I just want to confirm that what the Anonymous person said on April 21 at 3.27 about Venables telling people who he really was for a long time is true. I saw a documentary last summer where one of his friends ( who was interviewed but his identity was hidden and his voice disguised) stated that Venables told him not once, but twice, out of the blue, that he was the person who had murdered James Bulger. The friend said that he refused to believe him and told him that he must be joking, and after a long while, Venables said ” Right, okay then,” or something very similar to that, and changed the subject. That was several months before everything came out and he was recalled.

  263. 422 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Again, all this stuff about Thompson by some armchair rumour mongerer. We KNOW he hasn’t reoffended because News International were tailing him for years. Even THEY admit he is not considered a risk yet people prefer to believe someone who has taken it upon themselves to decide with no proof whatsoever. As if people are desperate for there to be more victims. I find this absolutely bewildering. (Not to mention more than a little disordered). Anyone who knows anything about people on license and the parole system knows the situation described (where a person on life license commits a variety of offences without being recalled to prison) is total rubbish.

    If Thompson was accused of another crime, like Venables, he would be IMMEDIATELY recalled to prison (even before trial). I point to Learco Chindamo who was recalled to prison on suspicion of robbery (and even though he was acquitted, he remains in prison because the parole process has to start all over again). Ricky Preddie was recalled to prison merely for being in the wrong place (ie breaching an exclusion zone). He didn’t even commit another crime!

    Anon – thanks for clearing that up. It has been obvious to most people with half a brain cell that Jordon Scott Michael is not Robert Thompson.

    Jane – I have no doubt that Venables would have found it impossible not to tell someone of his identity at some stage. From what we know about Thompson, he has a partner who knows his real identity which would ease the pressure significantly. The same is true of Mary Bell and Maxine Carr apparently. And, (this is complete supposition), it seems to me Venables is a bit thick.

  264. 423 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Here’s the report about Kirby/Jordan Scott Michael (assuming they are, indeed the same person).

    He’s five years older than Thompson and lives in Merseyside (where Robert Thompson cannot enter).

    Also, from the previous offence, (and looking at the specifics of this offence), it seems we are dealing with an offender with learning difficulties/psychiatric problems (I don’t believe Thompson was ever diagnosed with learning difficulties).

    The details of the other offence are here.

    I do hope this Jordan Scott-Michael is securely detained as it would appear he is certainly a risk.

    • 424 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 10:41 am

      In reply to the licence recall, it was reported that Venables had committed a number of petty crimes, and may even have had a short prison sentence before they finally recalled him, also they would have had their dates of birth changed, so to say that someone is older therefore cannot be him seems strange, it was widely reported that RT looked older and that would probably be reflected in the new dates of birth. Obviously I’m not saying that I think he’s JSM, I think it’s obvious that he’s not. But of course if news international say he’s been good then it must be true !

      • 425 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 10:52 am

        Oh for goodness sake! Read the Omand report. Venables hadn’t served any prison time before being recalled. The Omand reports details everything. He was only caught for a crime once – for a tiny bit of cocaine for personal use (for which I believe he received a caution and had to be subject to a temporary curfew). This kind of crime would never propel a recall for a lifer. They are interested in crimes which are a significant risk to the community (they don’t care about risks to the offender) and breaches of license conditions (if they knew he had entered Merseyside for example, this would have immediately triggered recall).

        The only other thing he was ever arrested for was for a fight and there were no charges for that as it appears he may have been the initial victim.

        News International haven’t said Thompson has been ‘good’. They hacked his phone and stalked him and reluctantly conceded in one article (where they revealed his sexuality) that he wasn’t considered a risk to the public.

        Like I said, the fact that people seem to want them to cause harm to another victim is seriously weird.

      • 426 terry dyson May 28, 2012 at 11:18 pm

        This person named in above logs Jordan scott-michael is not linked in anyway to the name Billy or William kirby as stated in other logs on this site. Robert thompson AKA Jordan scott-michael is the same person but NOT that of William or Billy kirby. After living in north wales thompson now JSM was moved to lancs a place called st helens not getting mixed up with that of saint helens staffordshire. After deatils of Billy kirby just living in the same area once the name was found out Thompson now scott-michael was moved by police to yet another location which now because of shit people was putting about this will we ever find out where JSM has moved to..

  265. 427 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Do we know the terms of their licence ? it maybe that they would only be recalled for serious offences as it seems with Venables. In some cases it only kicks in when violence is mentioned in the charge.

  266. 428 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 11:08 am

    It seems you contradict yourself, you say Thompson would have been IMMEDIATELY recalled if accused of a crime but then go on to say that Venables was arrested for fighting, and arrested again for a little bit of cocaine. Why would Thompson not get away with these sort of things as well.
    I don’t want Thompson outed because he is Thompson but because there is a high chance that he is causing misery to vulnerable people. But as I have said before, we need 100% proof before accusing someone.

  267. 429 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    I’ll answer both questions…

    Firstly, the terms of a life license are broadly the same for everyone. However, there may be additional terms put in for individual cases. There were in this case. It seems there were terms forbidding them to enter Merseyside, forbidding them to contact any member of James Bulger’s family and forbidding them to contact each other. Although breaches of these terms would not be considered crimes, they would immediately mean a return to prison.

    Then we have ‘crimes’ in general (and sorry, I should have been more specific). In the US, they still have a distinction between ‘felony’ and ‘misdemeanour’. We don’t have the official distinction but it exists in reality when considering varying offences. Possession of a small amount of drugs (with no intent to supply) is considered a summary offence, rarely even prosecuted and virtually never an imprisonable offence (although technically you can be imprisoned for it – people rarely are). Because of the nature of the offence, recalling someone to prison for something that doesn’t 1) breach specific terms of license individual to Venables; and 2) isn’t a public protection issue; is not considered appropriate. However, given his situation (as a paroled prisoner), it did warrant penalties which would not have ordinarily been given to others (attending counselling and a curfew).

    As for the fighting, there were no charges – no crime occurred. So there couldn’t have been a recall.

    What I should have said was that ALL indictable offences would mean recall (even suspected ones). On summary offences (particularly if there is no public protection issue), it is at the discretion of police and probation. This is the same for all offenders on life license.

    Thompson may well get away with having a bit of charlie but he would NOT get away with the things you are accusing him of.

    I’ll ask again, where is this person supposed to be appearing in court (which court?) And on what charges?

  268. 430 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Firstly, if you’ll read what has been written above, the only charge I’ve mentioned is a breach of the peace, I haven’t gone in to great detail about exactly what he’s done, the blackmailing he didn’t get charged with as he made a counter claim of rape and walked away, so did the other man after spending hours in the police station.
    He has been accused of numerous offences, but gets away with a warning on most occasions, he has also been on a curfew, and had community service for another, his charges are always reduced. This is fact whether he’s Thompson or not.
    The only way me telling you where he’s appearing in court would make a difference to you is if you know where he is. I’ve said above where, and it’s all I’ll say for now as I know the terms of the super-injunction.
    It also seems strange that you vociferously stick by notw claims that he is gay but choose to ignore the guardian report on him having a child, surely one newspaper is as likely to mis-inform as another. It would be interesting to know what facts you have on him.

  269. 431 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    The reason we can (unfortuantely) be a bit more confident about News International is that we KNOW they had his identity (his details were found in the notes of Glenn Mulcaire); were hacking his phone and tailing him and using what they knew to write stories. It was a News International publication (The Sun) which revealed he was gay.

    (The Guardian never published a story about him having a child by the way – doing a quick search, looks like it was another tabloid – not a NI one – ).

    Also, Robert Thompson’s sexuality was questionned even before his release from custody. Not saying that all guys who are into making wedding dresses and collecting dolls are gay but you do kind of wonder….

    The reason I asked which court is not because I have some idea where Thompson is (although I could hazard a guess given what we know about where they placed Venables); but because I could look up the cases on court listings and see if you are talking rubbish or not (which I think you are).

    And you should be careful about spreading rumours. There have been a couple of people who have accused innocent people of being Robert Thompson if I recall correctly. And they were convicted of criminal offences.

  270. 432 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    (There is no such crime as ‘breach of the peace’ by the way – you can be arrested if the police think a ‘breach of the peace’ might occur but there is no crime you can be charged with. There ARE public order offences but the fact that you have apparently made up a non-existent crime which this (in my opinion non-existent) person is likely to have committed makes me think you are full of the proverbial brown stuff).

  271. 433 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    I’ve called it a breach of the peace as that’s what the procurator called it in the papers sent out regarding it, the citation called it a criminal offence, if you have issue with the procurator using the term I suggest you take it up with them. How can looking up the court listings prove if the guy is RT, I hate to break this to you but I think they changed his name.

  272. 434 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    As I haven’t given his name I am in no danger of being taken to court about spreading rumours, and the guy I’m talking about isn’t innocent RT or not.
    I’m also not pointing anyone towards him I’m trying to find out if it’s him, something you seem hell bent on stopping, reverting to name calling seems a bit childish under the circumstances.

  273. 435 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    I could have got the paper wrong r.e RT becoming a father, I think it was written by Andrew Gardner, possibly for the Sunday Mirror. Should be findable if you have the time to scroll through all the stuff that comes up.

  274. 436 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    No, looking for his NAME is not what I was thinking. I was going to look for the alleged OFFENCE.

    You mention ‘procurator’. Now I know you are talking bull. No such position exists under English Common Law. (I am a lawyer by the way).

    You mentioned a non existent criminal offence; now you are claiming he was charged by a non-existent official.

    You get ‘procurator fiscals’ in Scotland (essentially the public prosecutor) but I can tell you now, it is extremely unlikely Robert Thompson is in Scotland (for one, the injunction wouldn’t be enforceable). (And no procurator fiscal would have prosecuted a charge of ‘breach of the peace’ as no such offence exists under law – English or Scottish law).

    So bad luck – Again.

  275. 437 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    It was indeed the Sunday Mirror anon. Yet they apparently didn’t have Thompson’s details – The Sun/News of the World did. MGM weren’t the ones following him for years. It seems likely the Mirror’s article was fabricated.

  276. 438 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    As I said before if you look above you would have seen where the court was, and yes well done it’s not England, you should maybe look into it a bit further, the procurators papers clearly state, “You have been reported to me for the following offence “breach of the peace” then goes on to describe the events, as before take up the legalities with them.
    How do we know the Mirror didn’t have Thompsons details, they can’t print anything leading to his discovery.
    I can only say that I’m glad that you will never be representing me IF you are a lawyer, as you not only didn’t read all the facts before accusing me of talking bull, but obviously don’t know that the Scottish Legal system is different and it appears we do have a breach offence!

  277. 439 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    And I repeat – Thompson would not be in Scotland as the injunction is not enforceable there.

    ‘they can’t print anything leading to his discovery.’

    News International apparently did. And if that were the case, claiming he was a new father COULD be construed as making public information that could identify him.

    Sorry, the whole thing sounds like bull.

    There may, indeed, be a person in your area who is a tosser as you have described. It is almost certainly not Thompson – as I said, he would not be in Scotland as he loses the protection afforded to him by the injunction.

    • 440 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 5:54 pm

      Is that the worldwide super-injunction

      • 441 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 9:08 pm

        ‘Contra Mundum’ means ‘against the world’ but it is merely a Latin term which means ‘against everyone’. It is only enforceable in England and Wales as the last poster said. Scotland is perfectly free to publish details. However, they usually won’t do this.

        Thompson wouldn’t be in Scotland – he’d stick out like a sore thumb! Have you read about his interests? Dressmaking and cooking? Some camp 30 year old in a Scottish estate with a Liverpool accent? I don’t think so. It would be like trying to hide Goliath in a dwarf colony.

  278. 442 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    we could be barking up the wrong tree as I’ve said numerous times we don’t know for sure but we do strongly suspect, our own lawyers have told us the injunction is enforceable in Scotland, so I’d rather not take the risk of saying where and who, and as you don’t seem to have any idea where he is how can you be so sure where he’s not. Whoever this guy is we as a community need to find out who he is to help get rid of him. I can’t understand why you would be so against this. I’m looking for any info on Thompson that would help to confirm or deny that we have him, this isn’t something we woke up last week and decided to do, it has been ongoing for some time, and still we find it immpossible to prove he’s not Thompson.

  279. 443 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    p.s Proving he wasn’t Thompson was our starting point.

  280. 444 sjamieson April 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Being ‘against it’ isn’t the issue. You sound like you have decided something (with close to no proof) and it has developed into an obsession. We know snippets about Thompson – he is (most likely) gay. He apparently attended art school in the North of England somewhere. In all probability, he has either a Scouse or a Mancs accent. He is around 30 years of age. There is no evidence (apart from one tabloid report) that he is a father. And remember plenty of tabloid reports about both of them have been shown to be utter rubbish (for example there were reports that Venables was married; that he joined the army; that his mother was a childminder – all were 100% false – we know that from the Omand report).

    I am telling you, injunctions from an English court are NOT enforceable in Scotland. This isn’t new knowledge and any lawyer will be able to tell you that. An injunction such as this one is likely to be respected, however but Thompson himself has no right to protection under the terms of the injunction under Scottish law. As such, there is no way he would be placed in Scotland.

    It sounds like this guy is subject to legal proceedings in any case – why is it necessary for you to know if he is Thompson or not? (And I can assure you, it is wholly unlikely to be Thompson). If he has been doing all this (terrorising the community, blackmail, criminal damage, etc), he would have been recalled to prison.

    For what it is worth, it is my (professional) opinion that Thompson would have been placed in the North West of England – fairly close to where he was held (in the same way as Venables who was placed just five miles from where he was incarcerated for 8 years). This is actually (believe it or not) the best way to ensure they could blend in.

    I’m not suprised to have found it ‘impossible to prove he’d not Thompson’. I’d say most authorities you speak to will have you down as a bit of a nut.

  281. 445 Anonymous April 23, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Obviously that’s your opinion, I’m not alone in thinking that he’s Thompson, the reason we started from the point of proving that he’s not Thompson is because we didn’t really believe the rumours about him either. But quite frankly now we do, The reason we want to find out who he is, is to try and get rid of him from our community. Again you revert to name calling,
    I don’t remember mentioning anything about criminal damage. And Scotland if you look at a map is pretty close to north England.
    You don’t really seem to know anything about the matter other than what’s out on the net for all to find, although you like to give the impression of insider knowledge.
    I haven’t spoken to authorities about this so if they think I’m a nut it’s for some other reason.
    It’s hardly likely that any-one in authority is going to say “yes, you’re right, you’ve found him” so why would we go to them ?

  282. 446 vulgar-word May 9, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Yea that web site ran by a convicted thug, racist football holigan… we all know about chris

  283. 447 Dave May 22, 2012 at 2:32 am

    This case is appalling and shocking. Remember the state said JV was rehabilitated only to re-offend with child porn no less, proves that the state can get it absolutely wrong.

    Those two boys sat in their juvenile country club for eight years and then were released at age 18, with new identities, when if fact they needed to go to an adult prison, ideally to be terminated by the general population.

    There is no forgiveness for what they have done, none, and there will be no rest, a monster is amongst us and he needs to be slain

    • 448 lwtc247 May 22, 2012 at 5:56 pm

      Indeed Dave. The Authorities are grossly incompetent. Have you seen any Bill Maloney documentaries? I think Bill’s line is there is that it goes beyond “innocent incompetency”

      • 449 Dave May 23, 2012 at 2:58 am

        It is absolutely disgusting that one women witness gave them directions to the police station only to watch them walk in the other direction and yet she did nothing, even after being concerned about little James facial wounds.

        These two monsters premeditated the act, kidnapped him, forced him to walk 4 km, assaulted him along the way, then beat him to death and more than likely sexually assaulted him.

        To give them only 10 years is an absolute outrage and a disgrace.

        Your day of reckoning is coming Robert

  284. 450 Anonymous May 23, 2012 at 9:27 am

    The RT suspect has once more had his charges dropped and officials have said they know about the rumours, their response was “we don’t know if it’s him, we’re too far down the food chain to have that information”. Since then we have been sitting back watching the fireworks, he continually shouts that he’s untouchable and has since intimidated a number of pensioners, assaulting one of them. Just yesterday he threatened to shoot someone in front of a number of witnesses, still he walks around unchallenged.
    The police have told a number of people off record that they do all they can but his charges are always dropped. If he’s not RT he’s someone’s secret love child, and definitely as he says, untouchable. They tried to relocate him recently but he refused to go. !!

    • 451 Anonymous May 24, 2012 at 2:46 am

      If it is RT then it should be fairly straight forward to figure that out. You guys going to do something about it or just wait for the cops to do nothing?


      • 452 Anonymous May 24, 2012 at 9:33 am

        It’s mainly retired folk in this village, most of who admit to being terrified of him (he’s quite a big lad). A couple of the younger guys have retaliated, but he runs and phones the cops and of course they come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who says or does anything to him, also the guys who could do something have lives, and some of them businesses so have a lot more to lose than the scumbag. It is fairly straightforward working out who he is, it’s the proving of it that’s a problem. Any old photo’s of his mum would help no end.

      • 453 C.B. May 25, 2012 at 11:42 pm

        I find some of the comments on this blog truly perverse, including those of the blog owner. I appreciate the thoughtful responses of MersyJim and SJamieson, but so many other posters seem motivated by pornographic self-righteousness and an obscene wallowing in kitschy, fake compassion for the Bulgers.

        The real facts of the slaying are horrible enough, so why this depraved need to depict the crime as worse than it was? Why do so many people feel the need to embellish the already grisly truth? There’s no evidence whatever that the killing was premeditated, and considerable evidence to the contrary. They committed manslaughter, not first degree murder. They also expressed remorse and experienced PTSD. Yet the claim is endlessly repeated that they coldly, methodically planned out this murder and that they never expressed any remorse.

        People act like, because of the horrific nature of the tragedy, they’re entitled to lie about the facts, or not bother to learn them.

  285. 454 Dave May 26, 2012 at 4:00 am

    @ CB

    You naive fool, they had planned to abduct a child and push him/her onto oncoming traffic, that very day they made several attempts to abduct a child, I guess that was nothing more that spontaneity.

    My opinion is that these two monsters received nothing more than a slap on the wrist while staying in their country club juvenile surroundings.

    The state said they were no threat to society then John V gets mixed up in child porn (big surprise there) so the state was wrong about John V and absolutely wrong in their sentence.

    It doesn’t matter if RT expressed remorse or not, it doesn’t matter if you think he served his time or not, RT is going to get what he has coming to him

    • 455 C.B. May 26, 2012 at 5:07 am

      Dave, it’s obvious you didn’t bother reading any of MersyJim’s or SJamieson’s posts since they already addressed, and debunked, most of what you claim here. You obviously haven’t read the more serious journalistic treatments of the case either, like Blake Morrison’s or David James Smith’s. The allegation they planned to push a kid into traffic is false and debunked. They planned to abduct a child, yes, but there’s no evidence they planned to kill him. Their plan, they said, was to “get a child lost.” They never confessed to premeditated murder, and nothing about their behaviour in the hours before James’ death supports the idea they pre-planned it.

      They committed a terrible action, but that doesn’t make it premeditated. There’s nothing to suggest that it was.

      • 456 Dave May 26, 2012 at 5:29 am

        Hmmm, so let’s see, the boys take the child on a 4 km hike to get him lost. Along the way they lied about who he was, who they were, passed by police stations, They were given instructions on where the police station was and walked in the opposite direction, they went to the canal managed to drop him on his head, and considered pushing him in the river to drown but then returned and led him up to the railroad .

        Just before they got there, they discarded his hood, which concealed his face and wounds.

        Where do you think they were going C.B? So according to you they just were out to get a toddler lost, a defenseless baby.

        So you are telling me them pushing a child into moving traffic is a stretch !!!

        I would slap your face for the injustice to little James, you defend these pigs as if they were your own.

        The lead detective thought as first glance that this was the work of pedophile. Some years later it is no stretch to see that John V and more than likely RT are just that.

        RT kicked little James so hard his face had the imprint of his shoe laces, that is some walk.

  286. 457 C.B. May 26, 2012 at 7:05 am

    Your replies are meaningless non-sequiturs, Dave. Every single statement you make has already been properly answered and refuted by either SJamieson or MersyJim upthread. You’re asking me to repeat what has already been answered at length upthread by the only two posters on this site who speak from a place of real knowledge about the case.

    I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Try reading the thread from the start, and reading what Jim and Jamieson have to say.

  287. 458 C.B. May 26, 2012 at 7:22 am

    In particular, read the Jan. 26, 2012 at 9:42 a.m. reply of SJamieson1972, pertaining to this issue of premeditated murder. You are simply fantasizing a preposterous scenario because your vengefulness demands it. You have a perverse psychological need for these to be devil children instead of damaged children. And when the facts simply don’t support your reading of premeditation, you ignore them.

    • 459 C.B. May 26, 2012 at 7:29 am

      Apologies, that should be the Jan. 6, 2012 entry, beginning “This is what I find tiresome…”

      • 460 Dave May 27, 2012 at 1:25 am

        So let’s say they for argument they didn’t have plans to abduct a child and push them into oncoming traffic
        Let’s say a women didn’t hear them in the next aisle discussing their plans to chose one of two children
        Let’s say another mother didn’t see the boys trying to coax her son to follow them
        Let’s say there was no plan to murder a child

        The facts are, soon after they abducted James the plan was to kill him and who thought of that…RT
        Who dropped little James on his head at the canal…RT
        Who put paint in his eye…RT
        Who kicked him so hard the imprint of his shoe laces were found on his face…RT

        21 wounds to the little boys head so violent and serious the medical examiner couldn’t say which wound caused the fatal blow.

        For you to call this manslaughter is an insult to little James and his family. They meant to kill him, they planned to killed him , whether or not they planned to do it before they abducted James or soon after is irrelevant. This was no act of manslaughter.

        RT and JV sat in a juvenile detention center able to watch TV and they boasted how they even had sex with a girl, not the kind of things they would get in a Federal prison

        Little James is gone forever and RT is out with a new identity

        Your agenda is to minimize their deeds, to even trivialize it. Meanwhile a little boy is dead and this monster is out.

        RT is going to get what he has coming to him

  288. 461 lwtc247 May 27, 2012 at 5:23 am

    @ C.B. and Dave.
    IMHO although I appreciate sjameson or MersyJim’s contributions, thy are far from the holy tablets you portray them to be.

    For example, in defending the lack of adult jail as a tranche of their sentence, the supposed non-suitability of ‘child crime’ with adult punishment is raised yet they fail to define the demarcation. It is convenient to them because otherwise it opens the door to an adult punishment being legitimate on them given should their kidnap/abuse/ABH/murder/molestation romp be premeditated (which I know C.B. disputes).

    A number of other points are also not address and there is quit a fair bit of ‘possibility’ suddenly taking on the form of ‘fact’ as well dismissal of the implication from facts as to when it suits them. E.g. the implication was that some degree of sexual abuse was done on James.

    Also sjamieson had ascribe psychological motive to posters here without basis, he also dismisses the concept of evil and gives no weightage to the Judge h presided over the trial in Preston.

    And how on was put in a situation whereby he could have sex with a female attendant – which of course was the woman’s fault taking advantage of the poor sweet little innocent boy.

    I’m pretty much in agreement with Dave when he says of C.B. “Your agenda is to minimize their deeds, to even trivialize it. Meanwhile a little boy is dead and this monster is out.”

  289. 462 C.B. May 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    “A number of other points are also not address and there is quit a fair bit of ‘possibility’ suddenly taking on the form of ‘fact’ as well dismissal of the implication from facts as to when it suits them. E.g. the implication was that some degree of sexual abuse was done on James.”

    Yeah, except that the coroner’s report ruled that sexual abuse was unlikely. I have no problem with people saying sexual abuse MIGHT have occurred. I have a problem with people stating it definitely DID occur. Treating this scenario as an established fact when the coroner said it probably did NOT occur. Obviously nobody can say for sure that it didn’t happen, but the coroner’s opinion lends more weight to Jamieson’s and MersyJim’s interpretation than yours or Dave’s.

    “I’m pretty much in agreement with Dave when he says of C.B. “Your agenda is to minimize their deeds, to even trivialize it. Meanwhile a little boy is dead and this monster is out.” ”

    This “monster” served out the complete terms of his sentence. If he fucks up again, he’ll be back behind bars alongside Venables. As of now, he hasn’t done so, therefore should be left in peace.

    As for your accusation that I seek to “minimize” and “trivialize” their deeds, I could just as easily accuse you of seeking to maximalize and exaggerate their guilt, by painting a non-premeditated crime as a premeditated one, and furthermore, falsifying the record when you depict them as not expressing any remorse. For a REAL example of a remorseless, conscience-less psychopath, look at Shane Jenkin, the Cornwall thug who gouged out his girlfriend’s eyes and then tried to blame it on her. His reaction to his crime was nothing like Venables’ and Thompson’s, who exhibited multiple signs of PTSD and extreme guilt.

    The problem with you and Dave is not that you have a harsher view of the perpetrators than I do, it’s that you feel at liberty to blithely ignore whatever elements of the factual record render your views untenable. You would make an absolutely terrible jury member (and would almost certainly be dismissed from any jury pool in a murder trial) because you obviously lack the ability to logically process facts or set aside personal grievances and bias. It’s a virtual certainty that you would never be allowed to serve on any jury in a criminal trial; the jury selection process would weed you both out.

    From a 1999 article on the case:

    “The European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday that the 1993 trial of two 11-year-old boys for the killing of a toddler was unfair. The Court further ruled that the fixing of their sentences by the Home Secretary was a breach of their human rights.”

    Also, two of the jury members have come forward and said they regretted the verdict:

    Jury Member #1: “We were there simply to rubber stamp a verdict.”

    Jury Member #2: “I felt that we, the jury, were forced into a verdict of ‘guilty of murder’.”

  290. 463 C.B. May 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    By the way, aren’t you worried about encouraging vigilantism? Let’s just say someone does eventually kill Venables or Thompson. He will then stand trial for first-degree murder. His life will be ruined and probably his family’s as well. And you, to some degree, will be to blame for that.

    Forget about the issue of sympathy for the killers for a minute. What if, say, someone were to track down Thompson or Venables? What if someone else, a close friend who doesn’t know Venables’ true identity, happens to be in the house at the time and in a panic our avenging angel ends up killing the friend as well as Venables? Or a girlfriend? Then our “noble” and “righteous” vigilante will have the blood of innocents on his hands. And so will you, if it ends up being your circulation of photos that ultimately leads to this bloody denouement.

    Or what if your photos aren’t accurate? I’m not entirely convinced that the chubby guy with the pizza in the top photo is the same fellow as the thin guy in the bottom photo. If both ARE Venables, his appearance has changed. Aren’t you worried that you might be encouraging vigilantes to attack an innocent man? After all, if Venables looks like the pizza guy (overweight and pudgy), then by implication he MUST no longer look like the thin, boyish looking guy in the bottom photo – and I think his looks are not distinctive or idiosyncratic enough to avoid the possibility of an innocent man being mistaken for Venables someday, with potentially horrific consequences.

    Shame on you for not considering the dangers of what you’re doing – dangers to people who are not Venables or Thompson but who could get caught in the crossfire.

  291. 464 Dave May 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    Exaggerate their guilt? Sounds a lot like the manslaughter crap you spewed. There is no problem with me having a much harsher view than you and you have a much softer view for some apparent reason?

    Perhaps you are RT or related somehow. I won’t be to blame for any kind of vigilantism, RT has himself to blame for that

    There can be forgiveness for what he has done, none. I already have served on a jury so shut up with your BS.

    The two animals acted like animals and will be treated accordingly

    And I agree with CB about the child molestation, tough you don’t agree CB

    You are a complete naive fool but of course you have an agenda, remember when you called it manslaughter, who are y ou kidding

    Nothing but a child killing , child molester sympathizer

  292. 465 Dave May 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    As far as the two jury members saying they felt guilty about the verdict , some of the police involved in the case have a contrary opinion, one more closer to my own
    the fact is James is dead, at 2 because of two animals, they planned it, they did it and RT has not paid for it, he mocks the system and his day of reckoning is coming

    • 466 C.B. May 27, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Are you talking about Kirby? Kirby has had no direct involvement from the case since the beginning. His opinion carries no more weight than someone picked at random off the street. But since we need unanimous agreement for a guilty or not guilty verdict, the fact that two (that we know of) out of 12 jury members have come to regret the verdict they delivered is significant, as is the European Court of Human Rights declaring that the offenders’ rights were violated.

      You might note, also, that one of those jury members who came forth has also openly lambasted the conduct of the presiding judge. But even setting aside all that, it’s a plain fact that Thompson and Venables served their time. Nor were they given “a slap on the wrist,” in fact under the law of almost any industrialized nation other than England, they would not have been prosecutable to the full extent of the law, since the age of criminal responsibility is higher than 10 almost everywhere else, including all the rest of Western Europe. The fact is, the only reason these two spent eight years incarcerated is that England had lowered its doli incapax law from 14 to 10.

      “And I agree with CB about the child molestation, tough you don’t agree CB”

      You can believe what you like about that, the fact remains that the examining pathologist decided the evidence was not there to support such a conclusion.

      “I won’t be to blame for any kind of vigilantism, RT has himself to blame for that.”

      Fomenting a lynch mob atmosphere against Venables has already led to at least one innocent party (David Calvert) fleeing his home and being in fear for his life and his family. Why should it be any different with regards to RT? It doesn’t matter if you blame RT for the consequences of vigilantism, innocent third parties still get caught in the crossfire once lynch mobs form.

  293. 467 Dave May 27, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    2 of 12 is not significant, and what punishment what you have handed down. Sounds to me like you would have let them return home to their mommies and daddies that very same day and put them only in counselling and called that proper punishment.

    There are a lot of people who think otherwise myself included

    You seem to think murdering a innocent child, beating him to death, kidnapping him warrants no punishment

    You have an agenda

    RT is going to pay regardless

    • 468 C.B. May 28, 2012 at 12:12 am

      A guilty verdict requires the jury to be unanimous. At least two are on the record as thinking the trial was a farce and they regret the decision they made. Even only one regretting would be significant.

      But that’s neither here nor there as THOMPSON SERVED OUT HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE and, since then, has evidently kept his nose clean.

      If he screws up like Venables, he will be behind bars again like Venables.

      The punishment IS the incarceration. It’s not supposed to be some special extra violence dished out on top of the incarceration.

      • 469 C.B. May 28, 2012 at 12:45 am

        “what punishment what you have handed down. Sounds to me like you would have let them return home to their mommies and daddies that very same day and put them only in counselling and called that proper punishment”

        I think the punishment they got was fair (8 years locked up), but I’m pointing out to you that, like it or not, 10 years is below the age of criminal responsibility in almost all other Western industrialized nations. You can take issue with that fact all you like, but it is a fact. So you can’t call it a slap on the wrist: I mean look at those kids in Norway who killed their five-year-old neighbour. All they got was some therapy and sent back to school, and their names were not released to the press.

        Personally, I think money should have been set aside for counselling and treatment for Denise and Ralph Bulger. The child’s parents also needed “rehabilitation” just as much as the killers, but it wasn’t forthcoming. (And the parents of the murdered girl in Norway said the same thing: they feel they were ignored and all the attention was given to the killers and their rehabilitation, while they were abandoned to suffer in silence. The mother agreed with the mercy shown the killers but became embittered over the years by the indifference of the authorities to her own need for psychological help – all the “help” was focused on the killers).

        I also think the rehabilitation of juvenile killers often fails because it’s completely unrealistic. For instance, why on earth was Venables given computer games to play with, Nintendo and X-Box and all that? If it were up to me, I would ban all that from his cell and make him read good books instead. No previous generation of child needed video games for amusement – they didn’t exist – yet kids got along fine without them! Venables should have been given books, not movies or computers, so he could learn some critical thinking skills and hopefully become a more thoughtful, intelligent, pensive person.

        He also should have been much more closely monitored as an adult and met with a therapist on a weekly basis. David James Smith in-depth article about what went wrong is eye-opening in its revelations of bureaucratic mismanagement and incompetence. Thompson apparently has a long-term partner (gay) who knows his true identity and accepts it. Venables had no one. How could anyone be surprised he cracked? They just expected him to be cool with having no friends he could tell the truth to.

        They should also have tried to find him some kind of charity work to do, to repay his debt to society. Working in a soup kitchen maybe. As much for his sake as anyone else’s. Since all he did was apparently get drunk and high on his off hours, or surf the net for porn, it would’ve been better to connect him with some sort of charity or volunteer organization. Then he could have gained some self-respect and hopefully have a solid reason to avoid his downward spiral into self-destruction.

        I would argue that if properly rehabilitated, offenders against the law like Venables and Thompson have much more of an incentive to do good works and courageous actions than normal citizens, since they have more to prove to justify their continued existence. But as one writer wrote, “Venables was never rehabilitated; he was merely INSTITUTIONALIZED.” Giving him brainless movies to watch and Nintendo games to play is just stupid. No wonder he turned out the way he did. He should’ve been forced to read philosophy, study religion, novels, poetry, ethics, and made to work in a soup kitchen or run errands for the Salvation Army and stuff like that. Then he would finally gain some self-respect and actually have a valid reason not to totally hate himself and feel worthless. So far, his life has been worthless. Stupidly, his social workers and bureaucratic managers seem not to think that he has to prove his worth. But he does – to himself, to the tabloids, to everyone who wants him dead.

    • 470 n/a July 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      It was announced that comments for this thread are closed. Kindly refrain from commenting. Thanks. lwtc247

      Anyone wanting to know whereabouts of Robert Thompson (AKA) Jordan Scott Michael is now been leaked by some press he is registerd as being allocated runcorn probation office under his new address.

  294. 471 Dave May 27, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    And RT has never showed any remorse of any kind and he was the ring leader. Both boys should have been hung when they turned 18, JV is where he belongs, where he should have always been

    • 472 C.B. May 28, 2012 at 12:15 am

      RT did express remorse. Again, you’re making stuff up. Read Blake Morrison and David James Smith, and re-read MersyJim’s and SJamieson’s informative posts.

      And it’s not clear he was the ringleader either. Both boys seem to have been responsible for the killing. In fact I believe it was Venables who suggested the prank that day and picked James out of the crowd. Which of them initiated the violence I have no idea.

  295. 473 Dave May 28, 2012 at 12:39 am

    You are right the trial was a farce, both of them should be dead already, in prison for their crimes.

    You lost me CB when you said this was a case of manslaughter, we know you are full of it

    There can be no forgiveness for what they have done, none, RT has a day of reckoning coming

    Hard to believe you are here defending their actions, like almost as if they shouldn’t have been anything done to them.

    You have an agenda no doubt to defend these animals

    I am done with you CB, nothing has changed RT is going to get it

    • 474 C.B. May 28, 2012 at 12:47 am

      I did not once defend their actions and you know it. But there is no good evidence that those actions were premeditated and there is considerable evidence they both felt guilt-ridden afterwards (all the PTSD symptoms they exhibited as well as their own admissions of guilt).

    • 475 MerseyJim May 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      Dead? Jeez – they probably wouldn’t have even been executed in medieval england. As for CB’s statement that they wouldn’t have faced trial in any other industrialised nation – it actually goes beyond that. They wouldn’t have faced trial in ALMOST EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH. Including Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Egypt and the Congo. They would not have faced criminal saction in any one of those countries. Are they bastions of namby pamby liberal do-gooding? England is in the enlightened company of Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan and the good old U S of A.

      I’m sorry, but I feel completely comfortable in saying that the opinion of anyone who suggests that a ten year old should have received capital punishment can be, frankly, totally disregarded.

      And I agree with CB – those who seem to want the crime to be worse than it was – making up stuff or embellishing stuff – while dreaming up repulsive and violent punishments for children; are seriously disturbed – indeed, they are would-be child abusers and child killers. Absolutely abhorrent.

      There is also a real disappointment that Robert Thompson hasn’t reoffended – they really want him to do something atrocious – which means more victims. Again – absolutely vile. These people belong in an institution far more than Robert Thompson does!

      And I still feel utter amazement than the actions of children are regarded as worse than the actions of an adult. I mean the country has almost forgotten the arson attack on the Philpotts a couple of weeks ago – surely one of the worst acts of mass murder in recent times. What about the kid who was tortured to death (trial earlier this year I seem to recall) by his sister and her boyfriend in the witchcraft case. Bet people struggle to remember their names now. I bet even people would struggle to remember the killers of Victoria Climbie even if they remember the victim’s name.

      To go back to what CB mentioned. Dave has said he wants to see Thompson get what is coming to him (or words to that effect). What if he does? What if an attack happens like happened to the Philpotts? What if aside from Thompson, several other people died (including children)? Would it be less of a crime because Thompson was an intended victim? Would the children who died be less innocent victims than James Bulger? And if it is a crime – just how many people like Dave would be complicit in it?

      I am not against punishment. But with children , I favour mercy (that is not to say there should be NO punishment). And on hearing responses like Dave’s, I’m mightily glad I hold that position.

  296. 476 MerseyJim May 28, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    And as for this:

    ‘Hard to believe you are here defending their actions,’

    I suggest you read through what has been written again. Don’t blame CB (or anyone else) for your comprehension problems.

    • 477 Dave May 30, 2012 at 2:09 am

      Don’t worry MerseyJim or CB or whatever you are calling yourself lol, we will take care of RT

      • 478 MerseyJim May 30, 2012 at 5:01 am

        And the response of a psycho. Everyone in the world thinks like me and thinks children should be executed. So every single differing voice is the same person.

        Seriously, get help.

  297. 479 Dave May 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    I never advocated for their execution when they were 10, I certainly felt when they were adults at 18 they should be incarcerated, which they weren’t.

    You on the other hand seem to advocate no punishment for the brutal death of a defenseless toddler, who was abducted and beaten to death. Safe to safe I think much different, RT is now an adult and i advocate his execution, gladly

    • 480 MerseyJim May 31, 2012 at 5:15 am

      Firstly, they were released when they were nearly nineteen. So they WERE incarcerated at eighteen.

      Secondly, if you are going to execute them, why not at 10? Why wait? Why give them a sentence of death and then let them live for 8 years?
      What kind of institution would you have incarcerated them in if they awaited death (because one which gave them an education would be pointless). I say this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and makes you a would-be child abuser.

      Thirdly, Robert Thompson has not reoffended as an adult. His crime was as a child – you would be executing him for something he did before adolescence.

      Your silly little violent fantasies mark you out as in need of a bit of secure treatment yourself.

      • 481 Dave June 1, 2012 at 1:43 am

        Oh don’t be silly CB or MerseyJim or whomever you are, in a perfect world they would have been in their country club environment until 18 which is a far cry from prison (sex with a women, TV) yeah real punishment for their heinous act.

        When they became adults then you hand them, simple. I am not a child abuser

        But I can tell you who is a child abuser, a child molester and a child killer, keep defending these scumbags

        To the gallows with both of them

        either way the days is coming , whether you like it or not, James is dead forever

  298. 482 annonymous1 May 31, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    I saw Robert Thompson a few weeks ago. I know who he is..(a friend was in the same secure unit at barton Moss) he recognises my friend but says nothing, just looks unsettled.. he is overweight now and drives a car that is old, suggesting that he is not very succesful or financially “well off”. I know nothing of his lifestyle or whether he has been a law abiding citizen since his release. He is unrecognisable as the boy from 1993 pictures.

    • 483 Dave June 1, 2012 at 1:47 am

      Spread the word, some people really are interested in knowing who he is

      • 484 n/a July 19, 2012 at 12:12 pm

        It was announced that comments for this thread are closed. Kindly refrain from commenting. Thanks. lwtc247

        people no who he is scott michael but this would have been changed more likely but his probation office is that of runcorn supervising officer is unknown at this point.

  299. 485 annonymous2 May 31, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    I think it is discusting that these two where released from secure accomodation. Why should they be given freedom to live amongst us. If there is a chance of them reoffending (which there always was) social workers/probation officers irritate me to the core. they know nothing of the lives of socially deprived children, they are easily manipulated by these animals because their own educated upbringing does not give them the mental capacity to accept the way these people think, breath, sleep,eat. it is so far away from most of their own lifestyles.The interview with baby P`s mother shows how easily these tree hugging fools can be wrapped around the finger of a sly murdering scumbag, these people are masters in the art of Scumbag.and social do gooders are trying to force us all to believe that they are reabilitated and honest because they spoke to them and made it all better.. aarggghh. ok i`m not an advocate of the death penalty but I see no reason why these two rotters should not have been jailed for life. the fact that they have life is enough, there is nothing in the free world that they cannot have in jail.. only liberty. we are not depriving them of a normal life. they did that to themselves. their lives will never be normal anyway. it seems that it is harder for them on the “out” Venebles could never have had acccess to child internet porn had the rat been locked up in an adult jail for the rest of his life they will always cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, inside or out, so I say in, they are no good, never will be and until they cease to breath will have to be accomodated at our expense. send them to a maximum security prison, let them function there. but lock the doors and lets forget about them . . .rant over

    • 486 Dave June 1, 2012 at 1:45 am

      I agree with you. No matter how many times my dad beat my mom or was drunk and beat me or how many times my brothers beat on me, I never would have ever considered doing what these two perverted evil boys did.

      That is why they are going to get it

      • 487 MerseyJim June 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm

        I love the fact that you would never have ‘considered doing what these two…’ did yet you are openly admitting that you are considering murder if you encountered one of them.

        You are a joke. A silly little man with silly little violent fantasies who is probably too much of an inadequate to even carry them out – just froth from your keyboard.

  300. 488 Dave June 1, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Oh MJ or CB oh whomever, I would gladly welcome their execution, I never said I would do it but I would welcome it, gladly.

    I have no violent fantasies, just good ol’ justice served. Don’t worry yourself about it MJ or CB, RT is on the list

    • 489 Dave June 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm

      Oh ya

      I would never consider doing what they did, kidnapping a defenseless toddler, brutally making him walk 4 Km, assaulting him, putting paint in his eye and beating him so badly that the medical examiner couldn’t say which of the 21 wounds was the fatal one

      But yes I would gladly welcome this happening to both of them, gladly , not that I would ever do it, but certainly it needs to happen.

      And I am not considering murdering them, maybe just putting some blue paint in their eyes

      That would be a good start

    • 490 MerseyJim June 2, 2012 at 7:33 am

      So who else is on the ‘list’ then you tedious little bore? Is it just those who commit heinous crimes as children who are the focus of your obsessional hatred?

      I repeat, you are a silly little man and, likely a coward to boot.

      • 491 Dave June 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm

        MJ or CB you need to get over it, these aren’t children anymore. The point is, these two are evil, plain and simple, I know many who have had less than stellar upbringings, but to do what they did to that innocent child is way beyond the norm.

        If i am so boring why are you replying ? You are defending two child killers and molesters, gee I wonder why?

        Either way, a lot of people would sleep better at night knowing RT is gone forever, and JV is locked up forever.

        This isn’t hatred , this is justice MJ

        Deal with it

  301. 492 MerseyJim June 2, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    It is not only hatred, it is stupidity and ignorance. And I notice you didn’t answer my question. Perhaps it was simply too complex a question for you.

    Unsurprising, as you don’t even seem to understand what the word ‘defend’ means (I haven’t ‘defended’ the perpetrators in any way – not in any known sense of the word).

    You are a silly little man with silly little keyboard fantasies of aggression and bloodlust (though I see you have reneged on ‘they should have been hanged’ and resorted to ‘they should be locked up forever’). You can’t even defend your own position.

  302. 493 Dave June 2, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Call what you want MJ or CB , I call it justice. Oh they should be hanged, or locked up forever, either way, the end result is justified and the same and that is what matters.

    You are 100% defending the assailants, if not, why are you on here , talking complete garbage, getting all defensive

    Hmmm seems like some agenda,

    deal with it CB or MJ, RT is going to get it

    • 494 C.B. June 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm

      I am NOT MersyJim.

      Can you grasp that more than one person might disagree with you?

      • 495 paul mellor June 3, 2012 at 1:07 am

        Has anybody heard any news on JSM the police and the home office have moved him out of his address in lancs not merseyside anyone found out where he has gone

    • 496 MerseyJim June 3, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Still not answering the question. Again, I repeat – a silly little man.

  303. 497 Paul Barrett June 3, 2012 at 1:10 am

    I heard he was working in a hotel (Oriel House Hotel) in north wales when he was living in wales but that was about 5 yrs ago chances are he wont be now

    • 498 Dave June 4, 2012 at 5:54 am

      He will be exposed, people do know who he is and what he has done which can never be forgiven, nor forgotten.

      The streets would be much safer

    • 500 Clive b November 6, 2018 at 3:05 am

      Isn’t it strange that here in this comment JSM previously that of Robert Thompson working at this hotel now has been dismissed from working in another hotel @ darsebury park hotel in Cheshire dismissed from his emp!oyment after police informing management there of his previous identity. What is it with him and hotels.

  304. 501 YasD June 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Wow. I find it unbelievable how the tides have turned. Before Venables was recalled to prison, it was always said that Thompson was the leader and the more evil of the two. Now he should be left to live his life?! The ‘do-gooders’ should think of James Bulger being their child and then see how forgiving they are. I am pretty sure I came into contact with RT a couple of years ago. He was well mannered and very polite, nothing like the ‘slob’ that is reported. Yes, it sounds as if he is trying to get on with his life but my opinion is that if you can do that as a 10 year old then you will always have to fight the evil that is within you and it may only be a matter of time before RT shows his true colours once more. Am I allowed to say more about him? Im not sure about the legalities? As for the Pizza Hut pic above. That is 100% Venables.

    • 502 Dave June 5, 2012 at 1:47 am

      Precisely. I know of many people who have had difficult upbringings, less than ideal, and no one committed the evil deeds these two did. If they could do this at 10, then they are surely evil and no amount of therapy is going to reform them. They are wicked and received nothing more than a slap on the wrist for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

      I agree with you , RT is not some fat slob

      • 503 YasD June 5, 2012 at 9:06 am

        I was told he has always been in Manchester and still called Robert. Only a matter of time before someone realises! What will be will be.

      • 504 Dave June 7, 2012 at 1:37 am

        Right so…

      • 505 C.B. June 10, 2012 at 2:18 am

        “I know of many people who have had difficult upbringings, less than ideal, and no one committed the evil deeds these two did.”

        That they didn’t commit this particular evil deed doesn’t mean that they, in their entire lives, refrained from committing ANY evil deeds. Kids killing other kids is, thank God, an extremely rare occurrence, but not so rare is abused, traumatized kids growing up to perpetrate the same abuse on their own children, or beating their wives, or, perhaps worst of all, acting out their violence by proxy, by finding some surrogate to take revenge on life on their behalf.

        Instead of telling us how you’d never do such a thing, maybe you should be grateful that you’ve never been put to the test. Look at Nazi Germany for an example of how a populace full of people with “difficult upbringings” only APPEARED to be functional and law-abiding. As long as life proceeded along smooth, ordinary, everyday lines, all these German citizens who had been traumatized by their own abusive upbringings seemed to have risen above that trauma. But as soon as a vicious demagogue came to power, as soon as ordinary life went topsy-turvy under the Nazi regime, their supposed normalcy became exposed as a sham, since they supported (or did not protest) scape-goating, mass murder, genocide. The Jew became the scapegoat for an entire people who had NOT surmounted their painful upbringings, but only appeared to. The capacity for violence and murder was still inside them, just waiting for the right catalyst in order to erupt.

        Moreover, you don’t consider the possibility that these “many people” may have had people in their lives to counteract the bad parts, which Thompson and Venables might not have had. The psychiatrist Alice Miller spoke of the importance of having an “enlightened witness,” a person to help us and take our side in terrible circumstances, and how this can make all the difference between rising above a terrible childhood and sinking like a stone. Two people could have superficially similar life circumstances, but if one has even just one guardian angel, and the other doesn’t, then their circumstances aren’t actually identical at all. Thompson and Venables seem to have had no one – except each other.

        Finally, you don’t consider that the doer and the deed are not one and the same. Good people are capable of doing terrible things, making terrible, irrevocable mistakes. In literature, when this happens, we call that tragedy. That’s what Shakespearian tragedy IS, for heaven’s sake. When Hamlet stabs Polonius or Othello strangles Desdemona, what makes this tragic is that Hamlet and Othello are “good”/”great”/”noble” spirits – yet they do something horribly immoral, obscene, and wrong. They commit murder, but they themselves (Shakespeare intends us to see) are not “evil,” not “monsters” but rather noble souls. (The same goes for Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, who experience in the wake of their terrible crime symptoms of what would today be called PTSD.)

        Hamlet is widely considered the richest, finest, most wonderful character in the entire history of literature – the finest representative of the human spirit. Yet what does he actually achieve in his play? Nothing very positive. He kills the wrong man, Polonius, which causes Ophelia to go crazy and drown herself, from that point forth, there’s a chain reaction leading to a pile of corpses at the end. Hamlet fucks up, BADLY. That’s what makes the play a tragedy: the gap between his human POTENTIAL and his actual, rather dismal ACHIEVEMENT (potential energy vs. kinetic energy).

        But Shakespeare doesn’t moralize. He simply shows the human truth: that people who are the furthest things from “devils” or “monsters” are nonetheless capable of making the most catastrophic mistakes in life. If that were not so, the literary genre we call “tragedy” wouldn’t even exist.

        It’s not Shakespeare, but his inferior peers, who nobody reads anymore, who portray innately, purely “good” characters, pure as the driven snow, always behaving in “good” ways and diabolically “evil” characters always behaving in “evil” ways. It’s his ability to rise above this sort of crude, cartoonish didacticism (which most of his peers could not do) that makes Shakespeare Shakespeare.

    • 506 C.B. June 10, 2012 at 2:43 am

      “As for the Pizza Hut pic above. That is 100% Venables.”

      That might be Venables, but the other one definitely isn’t, then (is it actually Thompson?). Those are obviously photos of two different men.

      • 507 Dave June 10, 2012 at 5:16 am

        There can be no rest until RT is taken care of

      • 508 Dave June 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm

        CB don’t waste your time posting long post, I stop really reading your post a long time ago. I did see you referenced my quote.

        Safe to say, nothing you can say or write will change my mind. RT is evil plain and simply and the streets would be much safer if he were locked up or simply gone.

        There can be no forgiveness for what he has done, he is a baby killer and a baby molester, it doesn’t really get any worse than that.

        RT your day is a coming you animal

  305. 509 lwtc247 June 4, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I’m thinking of calling time on new comments here.

    • 510 lwtc247 June 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Yes, I think on 20th June I will close comments as the post.
      It has had a good airing. and would probably be better if others took up the discussion.
      Feel free to leave a link or two for a good site that can do or is doing so.

  306. 513 robert June 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I am scott-michael aka r/t my day will never come no one will get me im on here every week or day just laughing at you all just leave us alone we served our time

    • 514 anonymous June 12, 2012 at 6:01 am

      Either way, there is a dedicated group, motivated in finding you, because we believe the time you served was not worth the crime you committed.

      We believe the justice system failed little James Bulger.

      Furthermore, you had many, many opportunities on your long journey to release the baby, but you did not.

      After the murder and sexual misconduct, you proceeded to enter a video store, ready to collect outstanding debts, as if nothing had just happened

      We don’t believe you are reformed, we don’t believe you are different.

      Therefore, you are a danger and danger becomes you

      Tick tock…

      • 515 Anon2 June 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm

        I think you need to lighten up. The poster ‘Robert’ is clearly taking the piss! The fact that you believed it was ‘HIM’ says a good deal about your gullibility! Has it occurred to you that IP addresses can be traced? Has it occured to you that the real Thompson will have been told under NO circumstances should he reveal his true identity online because of this?

        And FFS a ‘dedicated group’. Probably a load of misfits like David Icke’s followers who rather than looking for little green men everywhere, look for little Thompsons and Venables everywhere.

        Look – it’s him – just around the corner!!!! Look! He looks a bit shifty, might be him!

      • 516 Dave June 16, 2012 at 2:07 am

        Anonymous, we should have a little chat

    • 517 biffo-g July 28, 2012 at 12:32 am

      Hello just so people know the guy posing above as Robert is not that of RT or Scott Michael just sum sad t**t causing shit for people real people looking for RT AKA Scott Michael.

  307. 519 Anonymous June 13, 2012 at 2:24 am

    Lighten up? There is a two year old boy savagely beaten, molested and this thing is out on the streets.

    Did it ever occur to you that Venables was told the same thing. I have no doubt RT visits this site.

    It also doesn’t mean the post doesn’t have a ring of truth to it. RT is out there, for now.

    Band of misfits, well at least you are right about something

    • 520 MerseyJim June 13, 2012 at 5:02 am

      As far as I am aware, Venables never revealed his real identity online – he used the identity he was given on release. If he did, he was unbelievably stupid. (I know that he allegedly revealed his identity to a mate on a couple of occasions while pissed though).

      I agree that this ‘club’ of Thompson and Venables hunters has the feel of a weird bunch of tin-foil hatters with mental health issues.

      • 521 Anonymous June 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm

        Stupid and a danger to society, he did admit who he was several times and lo and behold he is into child porn.

        Wow what a huge shocker, I mean who could have seen that one coming, JV into child porn afterall, all he did was brutally murder a baby and sexually assault him, no reason why he would be into child porn

        That is okay MolesterJim, keep defending known baby killers and baby sexual abusers.

        Maybe the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree MolesterJim

    • 522 Anon2 June 13, 2012 at 10:08 am

      RT is ‘out there’ hey? Yeah – along with hundreds of other relased lifers – why aren’t you conspiring with your gaggle of loons to smoke them out also? Jeez talk about unhinged. Get help.

      • 523 Anonymous June 15, 2012 at 9:48 pm

        Show me a lifer who brutally murdered a toddler and molested a toddler who has been released.

        For that very reason and because punishment doesn’t fit the crime, RT got a slap on the wrist.

        Look all we want to do is throw some paint in his eye, then maybe drop him on his head. That is all.

        Give RT all the compassion you think he needs

      • 524 lwtc247 June 16, 2012 at 9:12 pm

        “Look all we want to do is throw some paint in his eye, then maybe drop him on his head.” – Very clever. Some RT & JV apologists diminish the evil acts to the point of dismissal. So what’s the harm in dishing out on RT and JV what they did to little James. (watch for yet more apologetics…)

      • 525 me June 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm

        Because of people knowing my identity it gets changed again and again keep looking for me for us you may know who paul jon is you may know me being scott michael but as soon as it is made public our names get changed good luck where am i now people all over the world have been looking for us only for paul jon being back in the news people know his identity but he and i will receive new ones yes i was living in saint helens but i aint anymore thanks for my flat at the tax payers expence that will be people like you.

      • 526 lwtc247 June 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm

        I’m pretty certain going through yet another name/identity/life change will come with a pretty large amount of personal frustration and disruption.

        “people all over the world have been looking for us” – Your ‘seekers’ know, and I’m sure it doesn’t play on your minds – right?

      • 527 Dave June 16, 2012 at 2:06 am

        @ me

        Sounds a lot like MJ or is he now known as MolesterJim, either way the shoe fits

        Anonymous, I couldn’t agree with you more

        [lwtc247: Glad you agree with yourself :D]

  308. 528 C.B. June 14, 2012 at 1:18 am

    “In a paper on developmental traumatology, charity Kids Company examined research into the effects on children of an abusive, neglectful upbringing. The report explains that the brain must develop, based on experience, to adapt us to our environment. When a caregiver cannot comfort a child or teach it to deal with stress, then the child is unlikely to learn to control emotions.

    I have an understanding of this science because I was a child from an abusive, stress-filled environment. I remember, with shame, committing acts of violence that could have resulted in a death. I was punished, but it didn’t stop me.

    My personal boundaries had been so continuously invaded at home that there was no way I could respect my own or others’. I believe, with Atkinson, that I should not have been held to account like an adult. Instead, someone should have considered holding the adults in my life to account while I received the help I needed.

    Graham Towl is a forensic psychologist who is principal of St Cuthbert’s college, Durham University, and was, until recently, chief psychologist to the MoJ. He says: “We need to realign services so that we work with offenders or potential offenders earlier in the offending cycle. Earlier interventions are likely to cost far less and be far more effective.”

    Calm, scientific voices are telling us that when children commit crime they have not made a moral choice. They have gone too far because the mechanism that holds back their healthier peers doesn’t work for them for psychological and physiological reasons.”

  309. 529 MerseyJim June 14, 2012 at 5:42 am

    There is clear scientific evidence now that abuse and neglect in childhood has a detrimental effect on the prefrontal cortex (leading to clear abnormalities). Such abnormalities can also result from severe head trauma (which is why people with brain injuries can also show personality changes such as violent tendencies which were not there before). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for empathy and self control. Both these things are limited in children in any case (empathy doesn’t really start to develop properly until the teens). The prefrontal cortex is essential for suppressing both violent and sexual urges. There is also some evidence that a low performing prefrontal cortex has some influence on whether a person is susceptible to addiction.

    However, this has been known for some time. More recent evidence suggests that the numbers of areas of the brain affected by childhood abuse are much greater than thought (including depletion of grey matter).

    In other words, the mental effects of abuse are not merely psychological – they are physiological – the brain actually changes.

    That abuse leads to delinquency is not a new idea (Dickens and Shakespeare knew this) – what should be discussed is how much leeway such people should be given in the criminal justice system.

    • 530 Dave June 16, 2012 at 2:04 am

      Funny, all the people I know who were abused, neglected, beaten, never went out and abducted a baby, forced them to walk, beat them to death and then sexually assaulted them.

      This was no average beating, 21 wounds so serious they couldn’t even determine which one killed the baby.

      And I am to believe these kids are nothing more than the product of their surroundings


      These two are evil, there is evil out there MJ, there are evil people and people who are sick

      MJ more than likely you are one of them

  310. 531 Anon2 June 14, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Don’t people with Alzeimer’s disease get this also? It’s something that people rarely allude to because they don’t want to criminalise people with the disease but often people with Alzeimer’s ‘offend’ with violence and sexual assaults. They also show abnormalities in the same part of the brain (prefrontal cortex).

  311. 532 Anon2 June 14, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Here is a link. As you can see, some people with the disease exhibit behaviour which would certainly be regarded as criminal in other people:

    So at what point do we have compassion and at what point do we sanction? Both abused children and people with Alzeimer’s have frontal lobe abnormalities. What makes people think it is right to care for one group while locking up (or even executing as someone wants on here!) another group?

    Why should we tolerate sexual and violent offending in elderly patients while being harshly punitive on 10 year olds?

    • 533 June 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      “Why should we tolerate sexual and violent offending in elderly patients while being harshly punitive on 10 year olds?”

      I think because two universally known maxims are burned into people’s heads: “Spare the rod and spoil the child” and “Honour thy mother and father.” In other words, these ideas are so ingrained in people that they don’t dare question them. They feel that children warrant harsh punishment for infractions, whereas parents must never be punished for anything, but must always be treated with dignity. Whether they DO treat their parents with honour, they at least feel they OUGHT to. No such feeling of reverence is accorded children.

      For so many people, they seem to think that if you just apply more and more punishment, especially brutal corporal punishment, towards young offenders, that’ll somehow solve everything (“Spare the rod…”). They disregard they science concerning developing young brains, whereas they easily accept and swallow the science concerning elderly brains, because the latter accords with their moral training anyway, but the former doesn’t.

      People don’t pay attention to science except when it coincides with their already existing moral, ethical, and religious beliefs.

      • 534 lwtc247 June 14, 2012 at 8:04 pm

        Ah, the “religion gambit”. Funny that – given how little importance British people place on (real) religion, yet it’s to blame here.

        I rather think some people don’t pay attention to theism except when it be demonized to coincide with their faith of atheism.

      • 535 C.B. June 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm

        “I rather think some people don’t pay attention to theism except when it be demonized to coincide with their faith of atheism.”

        Funny how you automatically assume I’m an atheist: I’m not. Plenty of atheists take the “spare the rod, spoil the child” tack too, you know. I’m talking about the enduring centrality of certain cultural beliefs, not religion per se. (c.f. Nietzsche: “They have got rid of the Christian God, and now think that they have to hold on to Christian morality more than ever: that is an English form of consistency.”)

      • 536 lwtc247 June 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm

        You were pushing atheist guff whether you’re an atheist or not, and drawing upon ‘Nietzsche is dead’ – God, doesn’t really do well for your protestations.

        “People don’t pay attention to science except when it coincides with their already existing moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. – ” You were drawing upon religion pretty heavily in fact. And nobody, other than yourself of course, said you were talking about quote: ‘religion per se”

  312. 537 MerseyJim June 15, 2012 at 5:34 am

    Interesting about dementia. I knew patients could be violent (including sexually violent) but I did not know they exhibit physiological similarities as abused children in the frontal lobes.

    And I don’t necessarily think the former poster was ‘blaming’ religion – more cultural conditioning (religion over the years has merely been a part). In any case, some religions (the quakers for example) have been responsible for some of the most progressive reforms in society (ending slavery, prison reform, quakers were always against capital punishment, etc). There IS a disconnect between what we are prepared to accept from the elderly (even socially – many are racist and rude for example) and what we are prepared to accept from children. Why should a man with dementia who has sexually abused and beaten a staff member or fellow patient, for example; not be held criminally responsible but treated sympathetically while you would be happy with serious punishment for a ten year old who likely has brain damage from past abuse and neglect (albeit damage that can be mitigated if treated in the ‘right’ way)?

    I think the point about science could equally apply to non-religious people as well as religious people (just read the pages of the Daily Mail where science is constantly either misrepresented or denigrated).

    • 538 C.B. June 15, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      That’s right: I wasn’t making an attack on religion. (And what makes LWTC assume I must be hostile to religion or am an atheist? Could it be that he’s paranoid, or so used to rigid black-and-white thinking he sees everyone as either friend or foe?) [lwtc247: or could it be your rather barking up your own garden path?!]

      I was making the point that people tend to accept or reject new information based on how closely it dovetails with what they already believe. [lwtc247: and you did that outside of a religious context?? not so!, but your stand alone point just now does has obvious merit]

      That treating one’s elders with gentleness is considered more important, culturally, than treating one’s children with gentleness can easily be confirmed by a simple thought experiment. Consider that very, very few people would feel comfortable with themselves or free of guilt feelings if they habitually slapped and smacked their own elderly parents around, whereas quite a few people in this world believe that harsh corporal punishment, the occasional good thrashing, is not only NOT cruel to inflict on their children, but even does their children a lot of good – because it builds “character” or knocks the badness out of their souls or some such. [lwtc247: ‘souls’ eh, still not drawing upon religion I see! But you don’t fathom what you’ve just mentioned. Children are in a LEARNING phase. Punishment by whatever means is a part of that learning by mans of a negative consequence, hence something to be avoided. One doesn’t smack ones parents around because they have already learned and is reflected in their behaviour. Those adults that go against social norms/learning/civics or ‘haven’t learned’ or ‘choose to defy their learning’ do face violence from many other quarters. And I’m sure you are 100% wrong in that I simply can’t believe a parent who smacks a child doesn’t hurt much more than the child does]

      To be sure, many people (myself included) are dead-set against violence against children, but it’s not some universal taboo the way it is with violence against parents or the elderly.

      [lwtc247: good! I applaud you. My parents took the same line with regards to me. I went over the line a few times and to my fathers credit, he only physically chastised me once that I can remember, and I agree that he did the right thing. Yet I can see the reasoning for ‘trivial’ levels of physical punishment to kids. What would you do with a renegade kid? Give him a dose of psychologically violence? Or just talk to him and watch him ignore you, and harm other kids?]

      But Anon2 makes a very good point about the similarity of the two situations: “So at what point do we have compassion and at what point do we sanction? Both abused children and people with Alzeimer’s have frontal lobe abnormalities. What makes people think it is right to care for one group while locking up (or even executing as someone wants on here!) another group?” [lwtc247: what a ridiculous exact equivalent you have made.] This is the sort of thing the “hang-the-bastards” brigade doesn’t want to contemplate. [lwtc247: because they know it’s a ridiculous proposition?]

      • 539 MerseyJim June 15, 2012 at 9:41 pm

        I’m at the atheist end of agnostic. But I don’t have a problem with people of faith – like I said, people such as Elizabeth Fry, William Wilberforce were motivated primarily by their faith. I guess, it just happens to be a ‘gift’ I don’t posess.

        However, I don’t believe those who have faith are necessarily better people. In fact, I’m afraid I don’t believe it is much of a guardian of morality at all in the grand scheme of things. Religion may guide human behaviour but that isn’t the same thing as morality.

      • 540 lwtc247 June 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        “I don’t believe those who have faith are necessarily better people” – I’d say they are – on the whole, certainly they have the potential to b better people as their ethical code is unsurpassable (naturally – if it comes from God). I’ve heard Dawkins trot out this line. But it’s flawed because he negates God from it so looks at both ‘sides’ from an atheistic point of view. Plus morals COME from religion. If you follow most of the kind of morals many of us here would have, then like it or not, you are implementing religious taking in your lives. It’s not surprising that many athiests respect the reaching of Jesus, because they already follow some of those teachings.

      • 541 KentGirl June 17, 2012 at 9:55 am

        Why is it ridiculous? You have chosen to dismiss it without answering the question. It is well known that people with dementia (particularly males) can be violent and sexually assault other patients (and staff) when they exhibited no such behaviour before their illness.

        You’ve said below that a man who sexually attacked someone while in the grip of dementia should be held criminally accountable. What would you do? Put him on trial – despite the fact that he wouldn’t be able to take part in proceedings (in exactly the same way Thompson and Venables were not be able to take part in proceedings and take the stand in their own defence)? Or perhaps you think he should be punished without a trial – assumed guilty?

        Are you aware you need TWO things to be criminally responsible under law? Actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind).

        Think about how far we can assume a man with severe dementia can be held to account for the latter (mens rea).

        I believe some children need to be securely detained (including the two being discussed here) – for their safety and the safety of the public. However, that should be it as far as punishment is concerned – total removal of liberty. The idea that we should make ten year olds suffer is really quite nasty. The aim should be treatment with a view to their eventual release. No wonder the Scandinavians think we are totally disordered when it comes to children – I’ve been reading stuff on here in absolute horror. I mean, some people actually advocated capital punishment for kids before adolescence FFS!

    • 542 lwtc247 June 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm

      “There IS a disconnect between what we are prepared to accept from the elderly (even socially – many are racist and rude for example) and what we are prepared to accept from children” – Indeed because that is what we are, it’s how we operate. It has a function – part of a complex human society. It has benefit whether one can contemplate its entirety or not.

      “Why should a man with dementia who has sexually abused and beaten a staff member or fellow patient, for example; not be held criminally responsible but treated sympathetically” – Come on MJ, what a weak construct, as if his dimentia was the reason for his sexual abuse. Really, that’s just silly. He should be “held criminally responsible” He should be punished for his conscious acts (and his medical condition be treated) which is pretty much exactly what those who want to see RT and JV get – i.e. to be punished accordingly. The problem is they weren’t. (I know you dispute that)

  313. 543 Anon2