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: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21337506. 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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/11/james-bulger-20-years-on
But here’s a better article – of all places on the BBC! if you can believe that!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21426195
End of 12 Feb 2013 update.
——-
The issue was being discussed here: http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/paul-jon-williams-aka-child-killer-pornography-viewer-jon-venables/ as COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE ON lwtc247 ARE NOW CLOSED (20th June 2012). Thanks.
Update 11 Jan 2012:
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/paul-jon-williams-aka-child-killer-pornography-viewer-jon-venables/ 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: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256190/Revealed-The-horror-drawing-Jon-Venables-weeks-killed-James-Bulger.html#ixzz1LkxIA8UX
2) Bulger killer Jon Venables set to get fourth new identity – at cost of £1m to taxpayer
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384126/Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-set-fourth-new-identity–cost-1m-taxpayer.html#ixzz1LkxLZCij
3) Killer Jon Venables gloats at sentence: “I’ll be out by the time I’m 30”
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/25/killer-jon-venables-gloats-at-sentence-i-ll-be-out-by-the-time-i-m-30-115875-22437653/#ixzz1LkxSt7yg
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, http://www.chris-uk.org/jon-venables-aka-paul-jon-williams/34600, 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: http://danmeah.co.uk/2011/05/04/jon-venables-aka-paul-jon-williams/
Copy the pics and history quickly as these sites are probably going to be taken down.
History:
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’.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
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… http://www.chris-uk.org/jon-venables-aka-paul-jon-williams/34600 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.
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!
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
its been deleted? is there another site
whats the name of you r website, I think what you are doing is brilliant.
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.
Hi Chris, I am a journalist with Nine News Australia – would love to talk to you. How can I get in touch?
Comment deleted as comments are closed.
@ sarah – chriswittwer818@gmail.com
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
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.
you can see his real picture here http://www.jonvenables.com
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.
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
Chris Wittwer is a CONVICTED violent criminal..
Need I say more.
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Website-vigilante-football-hooligan/article-3074470-detail/article.html
Chris Wittwer is a CONVICTED violent criminal..
Need I say more.
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Website-vigilante-football-hooligan/article-3074470-detail/article.html
CHILDRENS RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER….??????…who does he think he is kidding
He is a VIOLENT THUG.
Can’t he be both?
Does one negate the other?
Did he assault a child?
And what’s your motive for saying this?
http://www.wikiwirral.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/516748/1.html
This was interesting.
[lwtc247: Links to a forum about this from 5th May 2011 to 22nd May 2011]
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.
chris,
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?
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
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 lynncroden@ymail.com thanks!
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
http://rapidsavr.com/jon-venables-identity-revealed/
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.
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.
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!!
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
IT is not sean walsh his name is or was if not changed again uses the name or goes under scott michael.
From my reading of the Sean Walsh case it is not Thompson. Where’s your proof?
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!!
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.
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!!
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.
@ 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?
@ 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.
lwtc247
He was jailed last week.
http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/06/05/paedo-campaigner-s-despicable-double-life-revealed-102039-23180021/
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.
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:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Hooligans-sentenced-football-rivals-clash-city/story-12676589-detail/story.html
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?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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
this person is not R/T or that of JSM just someone with the same or simular name as R/T now does not live in st helens.
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
@ 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.
‘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.
come and get me then’ yes i’m here….
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Something happened Re: RT and JV on 2 June. Anyone know what it is?
RT was giving the new name of Scott-Michael when hi was living in Wigan Lancs. Moved to north wales found out who he was moved again to St Helens Lancs. Locacion unknown.
do you know when he left wigan ?
He left Wigan 2000 some time Graham
This was a meeting by chance by the two R/T and J/V in a area of nottingham.
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hello,
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
@wasa
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.
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.
I agree. A killer is a Killer I lived 6 miles from this kid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_(murderer) Now tell me someone like this eblongs on the streets. A lot of people can’t be rehabilitated just medicated.
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.
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.
But how do you know this is NOT Venables?
If it’s not him, then of course I should take the pic down.
Give me a good reason.
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.
“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.
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)…
What if they were truly remorseful though? Can an act of a child – even one of such terrible evil – never be forgiven?
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.
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:
http://calderjon.podomatic.com/
[ lwtc247: Exact link = http://calderjon.podomatic.com/entry/2011-09-27T08_36_05-07_00 ]
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.
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.
I’m actually genuinely concerned. For the original Butler-Sloss injunction please see here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2001/32.html
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).
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.
However,
“‘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.
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.
With all due respect, what on earth are you talking about, sjamieson? Here’s a link to Chris’ site.
http://chris-ukorg.org/2012/04/01/jon-venablespaul-jon-williams-warrington/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert thompson aka jordan Scott Michael is appering at saint helens court 4/11/2011 it has been leaked to papers
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
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).
http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/local/sex_attacker_tries_to_kiss_woman_s_feet_1_730788
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
You are talking nonsense. Get a life you little fantasist.
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.
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.
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.
Do you know when he was relocated ?
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
@ 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.
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.
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?).
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’.
<>
So much for free speech. I assume one of the above. Doubt you are a medic though.
@ the insider….Huh?
I think this needs the “identify as spam” treatment
Didn’t know about the George Burgess case. Very interesting!
Oh and as for Chris Wittwer – the links here show what kind of a guy he is:
http://twitter.com/#!/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.
“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’.
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).
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
“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.
“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.” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/23/probation-officers-cleared-jon-venables-supervision
“Evidence later emerged that he had an “extensive history of searching for and downloading indecent images of children using the internet”ibid
He also had trips to Liverpool. He’s broken the terms of his licence. Throw the piece of trash in jail.
“but after several years Venables became addicted to cocaine and mephedrone.” ibid
“Venables told officers he had enjoyed the images of abuse and said he was “breaking the last taboo”.” ibid
Later the same year he was cautioned for possession of cocaine after he was found with a small amount of the class A drugibid
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
yes bnp website confirms this it doesn’t say what for tho anyone know what for will anyone be attending also
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 http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/04/20/retired-detective-albert-kirby-on-the-life-of-james-bulger-killer-jon-venables-100252-28549945/2/#ixzz1ca9K13iD
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.
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.
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
Oh grow up.
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
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.
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
So what was the case? The court always produces details of all its cases – where was this one?
Sorry, it is nonsense.
If he was giving evidence to St Helens Magistrates court as a witness he would have to appear by videolink. He CANNOT be in Merseyside.
I personally think Mersey Jim IS Thompson
Bulger juror says murder verdict was ‘forced’:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bulg-n11.shtml
‘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.
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
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
Because lawyers always serve a perfectly useful purpose don’t they? No waste there….
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
‘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).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/27/bulger
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!
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!
‘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.
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.
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.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/little/readings/crucifixion.html
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apology-over-double-murder-6260790.html
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.
“Are Thompson and Venables worse than this guy” – I don’t think it’s possible to apportion a % ranking of barbarity.
‘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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
People should get a sense of proportion.
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1106784.stm
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.
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:
Source: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/219852/Bulger-killer-to-stay-in-jail-for-his-own-safety/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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!!!
“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.
…that if HE was to out himself…
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).
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.
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:
http://www.cyc-net.org/features/ft-withoutatrace.html
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.
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.
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?
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.
Incidently, very good article a couple of days ago by Mary Riddell in the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8888907/Young-offenders-cant-we-see-that-the-evil-child-is-a-monster-of-our-own-making.html
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Me either. Same for Ronnie Biggs.
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.
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.
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
na. You include me?
Going back to Kirby:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75078128/PDF-File—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.
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.
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.
By the time they left the young offenders institution they had lost all trace of there Liverpool accents according to one of the officials from the home.
Makes sense. It’s almost unthinkable that they wouldn’t have had lessons to get rid of their accent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did think that, but you never know the truth in reports!
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.
Muppet
At least it’s succinct!
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
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.
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.
That’s just supposition sjamieson1972.
Surely the authorities would avoid ‘patterns’, yes?
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.
Kristy, do you find sjamieson1972’s reply consoling?
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.
@ sjamieson1972
“batteries were never placed in James Bulger’s private parts, his fingers were never cut off” – You’ve read the coroners report???
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.
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).
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).
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?
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.
“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?
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).
“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.
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.
“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.
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!
“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.
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…..so 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!!!
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’.
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.
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.
e.g. http://www.davidosler.com/2010/03/jon-venables-a-second-chance-and-even-a-third/
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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]
[1] http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html
[2] http://www.nwemail.co.uk/young_know_what_is_wrong_1_517280?referrerPath=write_stuff_2_1793
[3] http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/5.html
[4] http://www.nwemail.co.uk/young_know_what_is_wrong_1_517280?referrerPath=write_stuff_2_1793
[5] http://www.bebo.com/c/profile?MemberId=4830405456&ShowSims=Y
[6] http://bryonyvictoriaking.co.uk/2010/03/08/jon-venables-why-we-shouldnt-know-the-details/
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
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.
http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/local/sex_attacker_tries_to_kiss_woman_s_feet_1_730788
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
That is extremely bogus connection you are trying to draw there, on MANY, MANY fronts.
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]
[1] http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html
[2] http://www.nwemail.co.uk/young_know_what_is_wrong_1_517280?referrerPath=write_stuff_2_1793
[3] http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/5.html
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/8957837/Sweden-strangling-10-year-old-boy-confesses-to-killing-four-year-old.html
I would ask you to look carefully at the words of the child psychologist at the end of the article.
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”.
“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.”
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/kids2/index_1.html
“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. ”
ibid
“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.”
ibid.
Ther are 16 more chapters
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’).
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 :)
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.
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?
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.
(Sorry, that should have been before their 22nd birthday).
Here is an interview with Josh Phillips.
Does this young man seem ‘evil’ to you?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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).
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.
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).
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Symptoms of PTSD in children:
http://www.forests.com/ptsdchil1.html
Note:
* 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.
http://krillco.hubpages.com/hub/Encopresis-and-Enuresis-in-Stress-Disordered-Children
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?
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.
‘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.)
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?
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.
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.
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!)
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???
@ 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.
Here here!!! Totally agree with EVERYTHING you have said!!! Those two obviously don’t have children or are in fact mentally disturbed themselves!!!
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.
“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.
‘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.
“That much is clear.” – A cheap, unworthy and nonsensical jibe.
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.
OK then. Try them in child courts. Simple solution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
@ 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)
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.
@ 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: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8509774.stm and here also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/27/prisoners-internet-drugs-mobile-phones 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.
The BBC link doesn’t work but here is info from the government’s own site:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Sentencingprisonandprobation/Familyandfriendsofprisoners/DG_196213
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.
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.
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….
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?
MerseyJim
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:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1146323/Jail-just-like-holiday-Killer-boasts-Facebook-prison-cell.html
sjamieson1972
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”
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.
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.
http://www.friendsjournal.org/forgiveness-amish-lesson-rest-us
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.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boy-killed-20120120,0,955323.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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jim.
“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.
“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.
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.
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).
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?
Certainly Venables seems to prefer prison to freedom. Didn’t his solicitor say he was relieved to be back inside?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
Forgot to put my name in the above post, sorry mate
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.
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.
http://www.secureaccommodation.org.uk/unitdirectory.htm
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….
“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
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.
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.
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.
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! .
‘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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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 :)
‘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.
Timely report about the reality of young offender units for juveniles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/14/youth-custody-failing-young-people-want-change
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’.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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…
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.
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
No search results for Jordan Scott Michael
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
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?
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.
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.
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.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/42689/Bulger-killers-gay-lover.html
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.
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.
“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.
P.S. Something signifnacnt must have happened involving these two killers on 14th ot 15 April. Anyone know what it is?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jim
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,
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_(murderer)
http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/smith-eric-m.htm
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Psychobabble!
‘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.
15th / 16 April… Something involing Thompson or Venables has happened.
Wonder what?
Where have you heard that? would certainly be worth finding more out
Comment deleted. Reason: comments are closed.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Cheers Anon. What you say makes perfect sense.
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.
This person R/T is scott-michael BUT NOT the person you mention in above artials just the same name location St Helens.
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.
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.
Here’s the report about Kirby/Jordan Scott Michael (assuming they are, indeed the same person).
http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/local/underwater-camera-traps-pervert-in-swimming-pool-1-3953148
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.
http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/local/sex-attacker-tries-to-kiss-woman-s-feet-1-730788
I do hope this Jordan Scott-Michael is securely detained as it would appear he is certainly a risk.
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 !
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Is that the worldwide super-injunction
‘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.
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.
p.s Proving he wasn’t Thompson was our starting point.
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.
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 ?
Yea that web site ran by a convicted thug, racist football holigan… we all know about chris
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
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” http://www.pienmashfilms.com
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
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. !!
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?
Pathetic
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.
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.
@ 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apologies, that should be the Jan. 6, 2012 entry, beginning “This is what I find tiresome…”
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
@ 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.”
“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’.”
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
“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.
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.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
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
Don’t worry MerseyJim or CB or whatever you are calling yourself lol, we will take care of RT
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Spread the word, some people really are interested in knowing who he is
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.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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
I am NOT MersyJim.
Can you grasp that more than one person might disagree with you?
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
Still not answering the question. Again, I repeat – a silly little man.
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
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
Dave above comment….do you no the whereabouts of thompson aka scott michael
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.
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.
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
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.
Right so…
“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.
“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.
There can be no rest until RT is taken care of
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
I’m thinking of calling time on new comments here.
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.
hiphip…hiphip…hiphip…for jordan scott-michael aka robert thompson and paul jon williams aka jon venables.
So n/a, what’s the URL of your website to host a discussion of these two?
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
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…
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!
Anonymous, we should have a little chat
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.
Ok., but comments are closed on this page.
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
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.
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
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.
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
“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…)
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.
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?
@ 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]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/17/child-offenders-need-help-not-hatred
“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.”
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.
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
BS!
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
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).
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:
http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/957/463.full
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?
“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.
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.
“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.”)
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”
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).
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?]
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.
“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.
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!
“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)
Selectively quoting from the bible is yawnsome anyway. People pick and choose according to which bits fit their own views and conveniently ignore the bits which are ‘problematic’ for them. Those who hate gays will quote Leviticus 18 quite happily but completely ignore the bit where it says that eating shellfish is as bad as men having sex with eachother. Those who think we should execute murderers will quote ‘an eye for an eye’ yet apparently don’t even understand the passage properly (in its entirety, the passage is about RESTRAINT in punishment). Most christians I meet feel comfortable ignoring 90% of Jesus’s teachings (bits like ‘do not judge’ , forgive, love thy enemies, take the speck out thine own eye before offering to do so for your brother, etc).
Where I stand by the way (on both alzeimer’s patients and young kids who offend) is that I think that a bit of compassion – on both counts – doesn’t do any harm and usually does a great deal of good.
Fair point re: ‘pick ‘n’ mix of religion. Some may say (??) they were given compassion in that they weren’t excited (Note to C.B. I am not saying they should be executed. OK?)
With regards to religious people being more ‘moral’. I simply do not accept this. One of the oldest moral codes in the world (Confucianism) did not need a god. Indeed, Buddhism does not require a deity in order to practice it properly (although Buddha didn’t deny existence of gods, he did not believe they were relevant to human behaviour). Confucius said ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you) around 500 years before Christ said it – and he didn’t need to believe in god to say it.
I accept that some people are driven to do good because of their religious beliefs. I also accept that some people are driven to the opposite because of them.
And I have great suspicion when anyone starts regarding themselves as morally superior because they subscribe to some kind of supernatural code. It immediately rings alarm bells as they can start justifying almost anything if they feel it is divinely ordained.
Regarding the claims of someone upthread that Thompson was living in Scotland and was terrorising the neighbourhood and the ‘village’ had started action against him.
Wonder if the poster was alluding to this guy:
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4372054/Dad-suffers-hate-campaign-over-new-play.html
To put it simply, he is not Robert Thompson (and the most cursory look at his eye colour would have revealed that). Still doesn’t stop some inadequates from harassing him and his family though.
An older documentary about Thompson/Venables has been uploaded to youtube which directly refutes the opinions of LWTC and Dave expressed on this thread, and confirms the perspectives of MersyJim and SJamieson.
The very elements of the crime that most outrage and infuriate the British public – the gruesome torture and the sexual mutilation of James – NEVER EVEN HAPPENED. The pathologist didn’t tell these journalists it might not have happened, he said emphatically that IT DID NOT OCCUR.
When you add to that fact the likelihood that the killing was NOT planned out in advance, was NOT premeditated, and the certitude that both Thompson and Venables experienced and expressed remorse, there doesn’t seem to be very much left to justify the vengefulness of the vigilantes out there.
Skip to 5:40 and listen to the end, pay particular attention to the part running from 6:45 to 7:10: “There’s always been talk that they mutilated James and sexually abused him. After eight years those rumours have suddenly been spelled out in the press. The injuries described were absolutely horrific. We checked every detail with the pathologist who did the post-mortem and none of this is true.”
So much for the value of tabloid coverage. But why bother with expert testimony when there’s so much money and interest to be generated from torture porn, lurid and sadistic fiction being passed off as fact?
I think the pathologists report has already been alluded to. It is just plain nuts to me that people seem to have a sick desire that this crime be worse than it was. The pathologist was absolutely adamant from the beginning that while he couldn’t rule out sexual assault, it almost certainly did not happen.
The only hint of anything sexual was the undressing and the position of the foreskin. Both boys gave a perfectly valid account of the removal of the undergarmants (one of the few areas where their testimony coincided). Venables says Thompson put them over James’s face. Thompson said he put them over his face because he couldn’t stand to see the amount of blood which was pouring from it. This is backed up by forensics – the underclothes were found close to the child’s head, full of blood and saliva. All the injuries to James were to his head and upper torso (bar some bruising to the leg which were probably kicks). The foreskin could have been put into that position when the body was dragged onto the tracks (it was moved face down I think but l can’t be sure about that).
What the hell are you going on about merseyjim!!! Regardless of how the injuries to poor little James’s foreskin came about this crime was still DISPICABLE!!! I am really worried that you are evil yourself if you actually believe your own utter drivel that this crime was not as bad as we all think!! It was an EVIL, DISGRACEFUL act of violence against a young innocent little boy and quite frankly I am finding your words very unsettling to the point where I am almost in tears at the fact that you still insist on fighting the corner of these two animals!!! I am worried that there are people like you on the streets!!
“Regardless of how the injuries to poor little James’s foreskin came about this crime was still DISPICABLE!!!”
The reason the injuries to the foreskin matter, anonymous, is that there are, as MerseyJim alluded to, various ways the injuries could have come about, and sexual abuse is only one of them (and not the most likely cause). Therefore, the widespread claim that we “know” James was sexually abused is invalid. We know no such thing.
And if James was not sexually abused, and James was not tortured, and the murder was not premeditated – which may well be the case – then much of what the pitchfork-wavers (like you) are claiming about JV and RT is invalid.
And much of the hysterical rhetoric about their abominable, evil, wicked nature also goes out the window then.
It’s bogus. It’s hysteria. It’s nonsense.
We, as yet, only know they battered James to death. We don’t know anything more than that, not even whether they had any intention to kill him at all.
People like torture porn (why would we get movies like Saw?) Gives them an excuse to indulge in their own twisted fantasties of revenge torture. Like advocating the hanging of ten year olds.
they should have longer sentence ,for a child that got no life
10th Aug saw a big spike in visitors, meaning something significant has happened involving RT and JV.
Go to http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/paul-jon-williams-aka-child-killer-pornography-viewer-jon-venables/ if you want to follow this issue as COMMENTS HERE ON THIS POST ARE CLOSED.
Further comments will be deleted.
Comment deleted. Comments are closed.
Comment deleted. Comments are closed.
Please, comments are closed.
Merseyjim- are you one of those evil bastards?
Anonymous February 14, 2013 at 2:13 pm said: (comment shifted onto the correct thread)
You’re not sure if those pictures are of the Bulger killer or of an innocent man, yet you publish them anyway?
What a lazy, immoral, sleazy little thug you are.
Total disgrace. A move worth of Tony Blair in fact.
Who is the scumbag in the world?
Pull up a mirror and see.
To which I replied:
Interesting that you try and use the character traits of Venables and Thompson when they kidnapped, mutilated and murdered James.
and
One defence of putting them there is for the sake of child safety.
If parents sees this person, be it him or not, then those parents will hopefully be more watchful.
I don’t want another victim like James, but I guess you couldn’t care less.
The pictures of Paul John Williams have been out for a few years now, if you dig deep enough you will find them.
I personally think that the photos are Jon, if you look at the photo you can see for yourself..
Sure there is a possibility of it being the wrong person, but would he not have come forward by now? Since we know the area he lived? Where he worked? Do you not think that some people would have tried ringing the branch and asking the staff etc?
It’s not like the person in the photo would not know that these images and this information are being circulated after all this time given what I said above.
In the next few weeks I think that the government will announce that the pictures are not Jon, and make up some bullshit lie to cover everything up, hence why nothing has been said since the leak.
– Ben.
Hi Ben. Actually this whole case has me pivoting of a fulcrum, swaying occasionally to either side.
I do strongly believe the public has a right to know the whereabouts of these two, because these kids did not just make some ‘mistake’, no! They decided to murder him. It is irrelevant how many people fantasise excuses for them. It is utterly stupid to imagine that they could never repeat such an extraordinary evil act.
As we can see from JV’s kiddie porn pics – which is disgracefully being called ‘indecent images’ by the mainstream media the people assessing JV were simply wrong. They failed period! To believe JV is analysable and thinks in accordance to some patchy behaviour of a textbook of the criminal mind – like robots – is in itself appalling.
I think evil people have a high potential to be wildly unpredictable – nobody really knows what they can/will do, other than the fact they have a tendency to do evil acts. Nobody can really assess what level of trickery they employing to cast themselves in a good light, getting sympathy while simultaneously plotting to stab you in the back (so to speak). No course or amount of training could ever really get into the minds of anyone – let alone less stable savages who decided to kill a toddler when they were just 10
People should be warned of the presence of JV. I believe it’s possible RT may have gained mastery of his previous evil mindset – if one is to accept the contributions of Mersey Jim and sJamesson.
They should out themselves as I believe JV wanted to, to create an important sign of sincere remorse and ask publicly for forgiveness.
James’ Mum calls JV an undiagnosed Psychopath.
“I’m not saying he should never be released, I don’t believe that. But now is not the right time because he is a danger.” – Denise Fergus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/11/james-bulgers-mother-denise-fergus-parole-psychopath-killer-jon-venables_n_2660369.html
“They decided to murder him. It is irrelevant how many people fantasise excuses for them. It is utterly stupid to imagine that they could never repeat such an extraordinary evil act.”
There’s no proof – it was not proven in a court of law – that they “decided” to murder him. No proof of premeditation at all. What is “utterly stupid” is to imagine that you know more than the jury and the people who’ve researched the case.
You’re just stating something as fact you have know way of knowing is true.
You can choose to believe they didn’t kill him, didn’t want to kill him (yet strangely did) of that they ‘accidentally’ killed him. I think it’s crystal clear they decided to kill him, and demonstrably they did. Just how much time is needed before killing someone does in your opinion it take before premeditation can be applicable?
My utterly stupid comment was to believe they could not repeat such an act having opened Pandora’s box. It’s not so clever on your part to take my words and wrongly re-contextualise them!
It’s extraordinarily arrogant and hubristic for you to believe you have the requisite intellect and knowledge base to make these judgment calls, that you know better than the law what should be done with Thompson and Venables. You’re not a psychologist, a scientist, a great artist, or a serious thinker of any sort. Not just anyone is qualified to make these judgments. We understand that with other fields: with physics, calculus, chemistry, history…. you actually have to do years of training and study before you can speak authoritatively in these fields. But when it comes to psychology, especially criminal psychology, suddenly everyone’s an armchair expert.
I find your understanding of the human mind to be borderline retarded: like something out of the imagination of a twelve year old. You seem to me to have the intellectual capacities of a very young child. How old are you? Do you have learning disabilities? I find it astonishing that anyone over the age of twenty could think in the tremendously crude, reductive, unsophisticated terms you apparently do.
I expressed my belief – a belief which I am entitled to have and share, and which I think does have supporting evidence, irrespective of whether you accept it’s supporting evidence or not.
That JV is still sick in the mind for downloading child porn and was astonishingly considered for parole shortly afterwards is f’ing disgusting.
And I gave a reported quote of Denise Fergus who is likely to be a far greater expert in on the entirety of James’ murder than anyone. Are you going to throw your nasty words at her?
Nobody who states E=mc2 is wrong simply because they have less experience of saying it, formulating it, teaching it, studying its consequences or applying it. If I state a fact of the case, like Thompson and Venables were charged with James murder and were convicted of that murder (which shows your ‘premeditation’ line as a deviating irrelevance) then they are still found guilty of murder.
If you think my mind is retarded, childlike, beyond higher level mature and reasoned discussion or that I’m incapable of information absorption and reflection, then don’t bother to comment. Go elsewhere where you believe you can find what you deem worthy of your words.
“Go elsewhere where you believe you can find what you deem worthy of your words.”
I will be going elsewhere, LWTC. Do you know where?
I will be writing to and e-mailing members of the British gov’t informing them of this website and your arrogant assumption that you’re above the law. I will make damn sure they see every word you’ve written, and every law you’ve broken in regards to the publication of photos.
Make no mistake, you are not above the law. And I will make damn sure everything you’ve done and said is known to those with the power to prosecute you.
If you dare to repost those photos, make no mistake: the law will come down on you. And I will be petitioning, and gathering public support for such a petition, to have you prosecuted.
You have been warned: so proceed at your own risk.
“I will be writing to and e-mailing members of the British gov’t informing them of this website” – Good for you. The world needs more activists. I hope your activism continues long afterwards and embraces (if it already doesn’t) some of the real crimes going on in this world like the UK funding terrorism, shielding war criminals, blocking criminal enquiries into arms shipments, lack of action against the LIBOR fraudsters, etc etc.
Maybe one day I can be holier as thou.
I get the impression your extreme passion to for all this is that you are Defend(ing the Modern World.
“I get the impression your extreme passion to for all this is that you are Defending the Modern World.”
You’re a fucking moron if you think that.
Google the Gemma Hayter killing for an example of a murder that genuinely was committed by cold blooded psychopathic perpetrators.
One of her killers, Joe Boyer, is barely sentenced to more time than JV and RT (even though he was at least 17 when he killed her), he’ll barely do any more time inside than James Bulger’s killers. Nor is Boyer at risk from vigilantes since hardly anyone’s ever heard of him. This is entirely down to how little coverage the media lavished on Gemma’s killing in comparison with James’, not how awful it was. It wasn’t as bad as James’s killing, it was worse!
And whereas JV and RT both expressed remorse and both had terrible nightmares over what they’d done, Joe Boyer contemptuously referred to the retarded Gemma Hayter as “that thing” (as in, why are you questioning me about “that thing”?) to the police and is has no remorse whatsoever. He also delusionally expects to be treated like a king in jail.
Not only do I not think his sentence of around 13 years was unjust, I would happily see him do double or triple that and wouldn’t shed a tear for him for any reason. So kindly get the fuck off your high horse about “bleeding heart liberals.”
There are LOTS of murders that are manifestly perpetrated by psychopathic individuals. The James Bulger killing was not one of them.
There is no real evidence of premeditation, and indeed there is no proof that RT and JT ever “decided” to kill James at all. Nor does there have to be: PTSD-induced rage reactions can result in this kind of violence even if the perpetrator does not calculatedly “decide” to kill. This is exactly why quite a high number of war veterans end up killing or committing terrible violence after they return to civilian life. They are still traumatized from their war experiences.
No point in taking down the pics; in theory it’s contempt to publish ANYTHING about this scrote or his identity, and you still have the URL up which contains… paul-jon-williams-aka-child-killer-pornography-viewer-jon-venables – in other words you’re still publishing his (alleged) new ID.
Now given that WordPress is an American company, I don’t think you have much to worry about; the so-called worldwide injunction is of course completely unenforceable outside the UK; I would put the pics back up.
(legally it’s actually called a ‘contra mundum’ injunction which literally means ‘against the world’ (which is why the confusion has arisen) but it doesn’t actually MEAN that – a UK injunction is worth sweet bugger all in the USA or anywhere else!)
As far as I know, that doesn’t matter Michael. If LWTC is a British citizen, he can still be prosecuted even if his server is hosted in America. I could be wrong about that, but that’s what I’ve read. I won’t do any good to hide behind that excuse if the police come calling.
LWTC: I’ve read that someone has been beaten up already who is NOT Venables but who was featured in a couple of those photos. So you’re quite right to remove all photos from your site unless you want the blood of innocents on your hands. This individual (he is the other guy, not Venables, but one of his friends who posed with him in the Pizza Hutt pic and in another pic as well) is alleged to have been badly beaten and taken to hospital because some idiots thought he was Venables. Or maybe they knew he wasn’t Venables but just thought: “guilt by association.”
Who knows? You yourself may well already be to blame for that man’s beating, if in fact the rumour of his beating is genuine. It’s quite possible that his beating is your fault.
Regardless, I commend you for removing the photos as innocent people can get hurt, or worse.
@Virgil. Nobody want the horrible police and legal system to come down on them of course, but sometimes people have to take a stand. The way the ‘establishment’ has bent over double backwards for these killers while stamping on the Face of James’ mum and dad makes me sick the core.
I too heard of some guy that had experienced trouble from being wrongly identified. I personally don’t advocate or condone any violence against JT or RV. I’d like to see them spend a number of years in jail as I believe there were not given the appropriate punishment for the despicable crime. I suspect however that there may be a a handful of people out there who might like to harm them, but I’m not responsible for that and much more than advertising a cola drink makes me responsible for the death of Natasha Harris.
” It’s quite possible that his beating is your fault.” – Absolutely not. It’s the fault of the people who beat him.
I may put them back up again… I dunno.
You have repeatedly been told by other posters upthread that England has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. You have been informed that nowhere else in Europe other than England and I believe Wales can ten-year-olds be prosecuted.
If it were really true that the “establishment” had bent over backwards to protect these two, they wouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place, just as they wouldn’t have been anywhere else in Europe, and indeed in most countries of the world. Even on a webpage listing age of criminal responsibility in Africa, two-thirds of African countries would’ve protected these two under the law! And they certainly wouldn’t have been named publicly.
The very fact that these two things happened already totally undermines your claim that they have been coddled and victims have been ignored. Not in this case. And Denise Fergus has not been ignored, she’s been indulged – by the media – as no other parent of a murder victim has ever been, in any country.
Are you British, LWTC? If you are, you can be prosecuted, regardless of where you server is hosted.
Since Michael Howard’s 15 year tariff (far more appropriate) was overturned, the establishment has IMHO gone to extraordinary lengths to protect those boys who undisputedly committed a severe act of immense evil. It is quite easy to see this, all one has to do is look at the repeated pain James’ mum and dad have been subjected to over the last 20 years. It’s abhorrent.
“If it were really true that the “establishment” had bent over backwards to protect these two, they wouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place” – Well, I agree the establishment could have quadruply bent over backwards and not prosecuted them at all, but I didn’t go to that level of absolutism.
“Absolutely not. It’s the fault of the people who beat him.”
No, it is your fault if it was your doing that led them to see the picture in the first place.
There is a reason it’s against the law to publish these pictures: they threaten public safety: not just Venables and Thompson’s lives but the lives of innocent people who can be misidentified.
This law and this rationale is perfectly clear and known.
You have CHOSEN to disregard it.
You, therefore, are directly responsible for any misfortune – including violence against innocents – that results.
You are a blatant hypocrite if you refuse to admit this – and you most definitely should be – and probably will be – prosecuted for a crime if you persist in your despicable arrogance and hubris.
There is 0% evidence I had anything to do with it. To assert otherwise is simply incorrect. Why is it me that’s responsible and not some other person that published possible photo’s of JV? And how do you know those pictures are actually of JV?
“it’s against the law to publish these pictures” – It’s against British law which is enforceable on British territory. There is absolutely no compulsion for ANY person to be bound by British law when not in British territory. And even when in British territory there are times when people SHOULD break the law e.g. when the law’s an ass. There is nothing sacrosanct about secular law. In such cases, people should be encouraged to break the law – when the law is wrong. There are many instances e.g. Katharine Gun who broke the law (official secrets act) because she believed she was acting against something wrong. Good for her. I applaud her. David Shayler too. I happen to believe the secrecy given to JV and RT is dangerous and wrong.
Michael, you have a point. UK law isn’t universal – it only applies in British controlled territories and even then it can be challenged and defied when a greater good forms the basis for that defiance. What you It’s one of the things I’m grappling with, but on the off chance it’s not him, I don’t want an innocent person to experience anything untoward as a result.
” ”It’s quite possible that his beating is your fault.” – Absolutely not. It’s the fault of the people who beat him.”
“but on the off chance it’s not him, I don’t want an innocent person to experience anything untoward as a result.”
These two statements are contradictory. On the one hand, you deny any responsibility for untoward results, then on the other hand you admit that an innocent person could suffer as a consequence of your decision to publish.
So are ARE tacitly admitting that you are responsible for anything untoward that happens if you post the pics.
Contradictory? No actually – irrespective of you liking it to be. The first statement involved a possibility and as I protest, a wrong supposition and there is absolutely no evidence that anything I had any influence whatsoever. The second one refers to a future case where it could be proven I had an influence. There is a difference, subtle perhaps, and actually, I don’t think the second case is likely at all – I was simply erring on the side of caution. Having an influence is very much different from having responsibility. A shopkeeper selling cigarettes is not legally held responsible for a smokers lung cancer a much more serious case then someone advertising a cola drink has no legal responsibility for the death of Natasha Harris. I am not tacitly admitting anything – I reject your attempted connection. I reject it because it’s false.
The law differentiates between these two scenarios because they are very different.
A shopkeeper selling cigarettes is not held legally responsible for a smoker’s lung cancer because a person buying a single pack doesn’t suddenly develop cancer and die. Lung cancer is something that develops over a lifetime of bad decisions. There is no one-to-one causation.
On the other hand, there are laws restricting the sale of fire-arms or other deadly substances, like poisons, and if a gunshop owner or a chemist disregards all these regulations and instead gives access to absolutely anyone at random off the street to the most deadly weaponry or the most lethal poisons, even to one who has not gone through the proper procedures or presented the necessary documentation – and if that individual turns out to be a deranged lunatic who then immediately uses those weapons or toxins to murder a bunch of innocent people, the merchant can and probably will be prosecuted for his negligence.
That is more analogous to what you are doing than your strained lung cancer analogy.
The law is very clear, and you are violating. That puts you in the position of the irresponsible and illegal firearms merchant, not the cigarette-selling shopkeeper who’s just going about his day-to-day business.
But there is no 1:1 causation with what I did. That was exactly my point. You or anyone esle cannot possibly say only my pics caused anyone to do anything. Any offender could have seen pics elsewhere – like the place I saw them. The offender could have been watching them over the years then attacked. The offender could have read an article and become enraged. And even if I did have something to do with it it would be the offender him/herself who shoulders most of the blame. Each person is responsible for their own actions. I never verbally encouraged anyone to do anything.
You may not have “verbally encouraged” anybody to do anything, but by posting those pictures you put the men in those pictures in danger, irregardless of whether or not those were the killers.
You have a point. And it’s pretty much the reason why I took them down. I think I defended Sean Walsh against false association previously.
“you put the men in those pictures in danger, irregardless of whether or not those were the killers”
This. But it’s actually even worse than that, Hawkes!
Even if it was confirmed 100% that that is Venables, there are a couple pics where there is another man present the same age as him. And I’ve actually seen some yahoos post online their rage targeted at the OTHER GUY – the one who ISN’T Venables but they think it’s Venables.
In some of these pics that are alleged to be Venables, there is another young male who is in the pic ANYWAY – and every now and then you see people making the mistake of thinking that HE is Venables – they’re staring at the wrong face!! – and now that guy who can say DEFINITELY, with 100 per cent certainty – IS NOT VENABLES – is wrongly believed to be Venables by the stupid people out there who can’t read and who just see the pic and get the wrong face imprinted on their memory!
It’s disastrous, it’s disgraceful – and it’s demagoguery, not democracy, in action.
The whole point of the prison system in the UK is rehabilitation, not punishment. What these two men did to James Bulger was terrible, but they were children themselves at the time and don’t forget the fact that the mother was neglectful and thoughtless enough to leave James Bulger, a three year old in the middle of a shopping center while she went shopping. They’ve served their sentence and deserve the chance to start over, the same as anybody else put into prison. People become so blinded by hate that they completely lose the ability to think rationally.
“the mother was neglectful and thoughtless enough to leave James Bulger, a three year old in the middle of a shopping center while she went shopping. ” – You are trolling right? Nobody could be so innocently wrong.
Would you leave a toddler alone in a shopping center in the middle of a city?
It’s just common sense.
She didn’t leave him alone. By all accounts it was a momentary thing. You make it sound like she deliberately left or abandoned him, which she didn’t. You can’t put a single bit of blame on her. Come on man, that’s a terrible thing to do.
If she hadn’t left him alone he wouldn’t be dead.
Isn’t the prison service to punish? And as that punishment is being served to also rehabilitate?
Nowhere in UK law is prison referred too as a punishment, look it up. Prison in the UK is about protecting the public and it’s about rehabilitating prisoners.
It may be impossible to watch a child 100% of the time, but leaving a child in another room while you go take a shower is completely different to leaving a child alone in a shopping center while you go browsing; especially in a place like Liverpool.
She may not have struck the final blow, but the mother does have some responsibility for what happened. If she hadn’t left James Bulger outside of that shop he wouldn’t be dead right now.
Had this crime taken place anywhere else in Europe Jon Venables and Robert Thompson would have been considered too young to be tried as adults and would not have been given prison sentences; but this was England and so they were. They were children themselves when they committed this crime; they’ve spent most of their lives in some form of detention and they now deserve the chance to be left alone while they try to rebuild their lives. Denise Fergus has been indulged by the media more than any relation of a murder victim in the world and the killers of her son received a fair punishment considering their age.
If John Venables and Robert Thompson hadn’t been given new identities following prison, they would be as good as dead. Sending them out into the population without anonymity would be a death sentence; it would be wrong and it would be a huge hypocrisy.
I’m not defending what they did Bulger, it was a horrific crime to say the least, but the world isn’t always black and white. Take Venables for example, he had countless problems growing up, he came from an abusive background and he was failed time and time again by authority figures. When people couldn’t handle him they sent him elsewhere. no-one took the time to help him when he could not himself. Was it right to kill Bulger? No, of course it wasn’t, it was despicable. Was it a surprise that Venables ended up doing something awful? No, given his background, it wasn’t.
Hawkes. A custodial sentence is of course punishment. Sentencing to prison is a part of the penal code. And it wasn’t Denise’s fault at all.
It’s Denise and Ralph that should be allowed to rebuilt their lives and not have people like you accusing her of the being responsible of the murder of James. That’s simply appalling. Why don’t you get her address, go around and kick her in the face aswell?
I get the impression that if Denise had a chain around James to keep him right beside her, but somehow T&V cut it, then you’d blame Denise for not having a chain to thwart T&V’s cutting attempt. She momentarily turned her back on him, It WASN’T her fault at all.
I’m sure if JV and RT made public confessions and were truly remorseful and allowed people to know exactly where they were, then society would be much more at ease with them, and anyone wishing to do them harm would not do anything.
JV himself wanted to do something like this – yes?
“I’m sure if JV and RT made public confessions and were truly remorseful and allowed people to know exactly where they were, then society would be much more at ease with them, and anyone wishing to do them harm would not do anything.”
That’s an incredibly naive thing to say.
And like I said, look it up. Nowhere in UK law is the prison service referred to as a punishment. It may be seen as such, but it is not enforced as such.
You may believe the Denise Fergus is blameless, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It wasn’t as simple as “momentarily turning her back on him” at all. She was away from Bulger long enough for Venables and Thompson to lure him away from his pushchair and to take him out of the building.
Denise and Ralph have had nearly twenty years to rebuild their lives. Venables and Thompson have spent nearly twenty years paying for their crime and being rehabilitated. They deserve the chance to try and start over.
If they made themselves known, if they apologized publicly, they would receive much more press attention than they would were they to remain anonymous, and they would not be safe at all. They would be dead. You may be of the opinion that if they were to say sorry it would make everything better; that those emotionally invested in the case would be happy with that; that they would be forgiven by the public and allowed to get on with their lives in the shadow of what they had done; but the world does not work that way and neither do people. If they were to do what you suggest they would be in great physical danger. There are no two about it, they would be dead men.
“I get the impression that if Denise had a chain around James to keep him right beside her, but somehow T&V cut it, then you’d blame Denise for not having a chain to thwart T&V’s cutting attempt.”
But she didn’t have a chain around James, did she? You’re describing something that doesn’t pertain to what happened.
“She momentarily turned her back on him, It WASN’T her fault at all.”
It wasn’t her fault, but neither did she turn her back for just a moment. The lengthy duration of the CCTV footage, as well as the gestures T and V make, make clear that James was out of her sight for longer than she’s claiming. It wasn’t just a few seconds, otherwise they’d never have made it out of the shopping centre.
There is no point it blaming her for what happened – I’m sure she regrets every day her lapse of attention – but neither is there any reason to just accept her numerous false statements delivered to the press over the years. She’s told so many untruths about this case it’s hard to know where to start. From her claims (unsubstantiated) that she knows Thompson has had “wobbles,” to her false claim that Venables was married, to her lie that neither boy has ever expressed a shred of remorse for their crime, to her lie (and Ralph’s) that they were both constantly laughing and sniggering over James’ death through the trial (she even claimed, when their back was turned to her and every reporter who could see their face reported an incident when they were crying, that she “knew they were really laughing”), to her claim she knew Venables (or was it Thompson?) was living in Australia, to her phony psychiatric report declaring Thompson a dangerous sociopath (drawn up by someone who had never met him)… on and on it goes.
She should be encouraged to get therapy and counselling and give the neverending tabloid interviews a rest.
And the media should also quit their Three Big Lies, repeated ad nauseam: that the killing was premeditated, that James was tortured, that James was sexually abused. Claims #1 and #3 remain wholly unproven speculation – these were not proven by the prosecution during the trial – and Claim #2 is wildly misleading, since absolutely any time a person is killed by being bludgeoned, beaten, and battered to death it automatically qualifies as “torture.” If they’re going to call it torture, they should be consistent and ALWAYS call it torture whenever ANYONE suffers a fatal beating. But they don’t. Sometimes they call it torture, other times they don’t, according to their own whim. So journalists are guilty of sensationalizing some murders but not others that are basically the same crime. Why don’t they call it “torture” every time domestic violence results in a homicide or hospitalization – a violently abusive husband or boyfriend beating his wife or girlfriend to a bloody pulp? It’s essentially the same act of violence as what V and T perpetrated.
Omg!! Your ramblings are quite frankly boring and totally off point!!! You make me sick going on and on about the true definition of torture!!! What the hell difference does it make what they call it!!??!!! Do you not think that Denise and Ralph have every reason to think and act the way they do!!?? Her statements aren’t false they are born out of heartbreak!!! is she not entitled to hate the two people that have ruined her life!!?? God….I literally cry every time I am reminded of what happened that day and I have no connection with the family what-so-ever. it still haunts me to think of what they did to that poor little boy!! Can you imagine how bad it must be for his parents or could you not care less!!? You have to accept that this terrible act will never be forgotten and if the boot was on the other for would you still have the same view point? Doubt it!!!
That’s simply a terrible thing to say. It places the blame on her and not on the killers. And she didn’t leave hi alone. It is IMPOSSIBLE to watch a child 100% of the time. Absolutely impossible!
Ah, Virgil again. Your righteous ramblings on Mccann exposure disgusted me enough on there, do you need to come here to do the same? Dave, Anonymous, Lwtc, I’m totally with you guys as are the majority of right thinking people in this society. The two murderers will be tracked down and redemption sought in James’ memory, for that is sure and only a matter of time. Too many out hunting for them for it not to happen. And thank God for that thought. Tick tock mother fuckers…..
Hawkes, you are a prick. Never will their crime be forgotten, and such nor the need of their disposal be eased with statements of remorse.
Idiot.
I’m a prick, and you’re a self righteous hypocrite.
Nobody’s perfect.
Lwtc, reading my post through, it appears I show you as supporting violence against V and T. However, I am aware you are just advocating that their identities be revealed – to which I agree this is necessary. After that, what happens to them will be what it will be……
Where am I the hypocrite Hawkes?
“The two murderers will be tracked down and redemption sought in James’ memory, for that is sure and only a matter of time. Too many out hunting for them for it not to happen. And thank God for that thought. Tick tock mother fuckers.”
You believe the killing of James Bulger was wrong, yet you’re advocating the murder of Venables and Thompson because in your mind they deserve to die; both directly in the statement above and indirectly through your statement about exposing their identities, (if they were to expose themselves they would be likely be killed).
Either murder is wrong or it isn’t. If it is wrong, then neither the killing of Bulger, nor the killing of Venables or Thompson would be acceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
If alternatively you believe that it would be right to have Venables and Thompson killed, then you would also have to validate Bulgers murder, say that that was acceptable behavior.
You can’t say that in some circumstances murder is the right thing to do, and then get so worked up over the murder of somebody else. I mean, if society worked that way; where would we draw the line? What would denote an acceptable murder? Who would get to decide?
You’re basically saying that you believe it should be one rule for some and then another rule for others; advocating a society of extreme inequality and valuing the lives of citizens objectively according to your own morality.
That is what makes you a hypocrite. You’re condemning two men because they have committed a murder, and then going on to justify the murder of these two men. Murder then, can’t be that bad a crime really, if you think it would be an acceptable form of punishment or repercussion.
I’m no hypocrite. Normally, I wouldn’t agree with murder, but for V and T, for what they did to that little boy, for the way in which they tried to cover their act as though it were an accident, and therefore making it even worse if possible through lack of respect for his little body even, I will make an exception in my own mind.
It’s not hypocritical, it is justice in James’ memory.
You look about 15 in your profile pic- therefore, I suggest you grow up a bit, get married, have some children, then come back on here saying their murder would be the wrong thing to do if their IDs were leaked.
Having children and hearing about what James, someone’s baby, had done to him and what Ralph and Denise must have gone through, it is so tragic. There is no other outcome that can possibly be justice for what they all went through, and that is why I and so many others are keen on their location / ID being exposed so they can be dealt with properly, and not cushioned in this pathetic system of ‘Justice’ we have here, where they serve 8 years and all that time get mollycoddled and protected.
It is pathetic and it’s about time they faced the consequences of the decision and actions they took 20 years ago.
If you still think I am a hypocrite, fine, that’s your opinion.
They will be dealt with regardless, of that you can be assured.
You didn’t pick apart my response at all, you just said again that you think they deserve to die, which does make you a hypocrite. You then went on to use my age as a criticism because clearly you don’t have anything more intelligent to say.
Grow up.
“You look about 15 in your profile pic- therefore, I suggest you grow up a bit, get married, have some children, then come back on here saying their murder would be the wrong thing to do if their IDs were leaked.”
And yet, young as he is, he still manages to be more rational and lucid than you. You, as old as you are, still sound like you haven’t graduated from kindergarten. The belief that everyone with children would agree with you is nothing but delusional solipsism on your part. Have you taken a poll? Have you paid any attention to the fact that David James Smith had kids between the first and second printing of his book, and it didn’t change his mind one bit?
I already presented you with the reality in the other thread that three things constantly repeated with zombie-like, brain-dead regularity by the moronic pitchfork-wavers remain wholly unproven: that the murder was premeditated, that James was tortured, that James was sexually abused.
No amount of ranting and raving that this was some exceptionally horrible crime makes it so. It was no more or less appalling than any other violent murder. There’s absolutely nothing that separates this from any other time somebody is battered to death. Spousal murders like this occur all the time. Hundreds of children are killed every year (often by their own parents). What makes this any more horrible than any of those tragic deaths? Nothing.
“It is pathetic and it’s about time they faced the consequences of the decision and actions they took 20 years ago.”
Translation: it doesn’t matter that almost all the rest of the civilized world would not have given the pitchfork wavers the punishment they think was appropriate either, all that matters it that I’m indignant and outraged!
“Justice” for you is nothing but a corollary of indignation. If something makes you outraged – never mind that you’ve amply proven your complete and utter ignorance of basic facts surrounding the justice system – it is supposed to be important. Of course, what indignation-addled half-wits like you deem worthy of being outraged about is strictly down to whatever the media decides is “important” and worthy of coverage. If there was no CCTV footage of James being led out of the mall this case would’ve been forgotten years ago.
The tabloids are the puppetmasters and they pull your strings and like the brainless puppet you are, you respond on cue. You are Pavlov’s dog salivating at the bell rung by The Sun and the Daily Mail. Whatever the DM says is true, you accept as true, because you lack any capacity to think for yourself.
Omg!! I can’t believe what I am reading!! Why do you two (Virgil and hawkes) insist on banging on about how some of the details of the murder that emerged weren’t true!!!!?? Are you that insensitive a moron to not understand where we are coming from….you sound RIDICULOUS trying to make out that this crime wasn’t as horrific as we all think!!! How can you say that when we know the hideous outcome!?! Regardless on of whether those three things happened this act of violence was appalling at best ; utterly evil is how I would describe it!!! If you think that killing a little boy in this manner is acceptable ( as you seem to keep eluding to) then I am seriously worried!! This WAS ‘an exceptionally horrible crime’ and I really can’t believe that any normal human being wouldn’t see as such! The fact that other crimes like this have been committed and gone unpunished doesn’t mean that they all should…you try to make out you are so clever…you ever heard the phrase…’ two wrongs don’t make a right’…stop rabbiting on about other crimes..this forum is about ONE crime only and we are intelligent enough to make up our own minds on what we think of the perpetrators!!! You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that V has recently been found with child pornography on his computer!!! Not really sure what that says about you but i know that I wouldn’t want to be seen fighting the corner of a murderous pedo!!!
Totally agree with you ssmith…..hawkes needs to grow up and stop talking about things that happened before he was even born…he can’t possible understand until maybe he has, as you suggested, grown up and had kids himself!!!
By the way Virgil…you make me laugh with your self righteousness….do you not think that you are complying to what ‘the media’ want ….purely by opposing it?!? Ha!!! So many people like you think you are beating the system but all you are doin is keeping the argument alive…double bluff I think they call it….well done!!! Pmsl!!!
You don’t know when I was born and I don’t know how you can expect any of us to take what you’re saying seriously when you can’t even string a sentence together properly.
Hawkes – I didn’t need to pick apart your reply – it is obvious you cannot carry a rational thought process when I explain why I am not a hypocrite. Special cases, such as regarding V and T’s torture of this little boy and their on going piss taking of the system, needed to be treated as such and therefore and apology as an act of remorse just doesn’t cut it. Despite which, you think this is enough to rid them of the crime and to let them move on. You are having a fucking laugh son.
Virgil – same old ramblings of a PC lefty softy that this country has too many of. However, not enough to save V and T of their fate. You talk as though I have based my decision on the fact I am a half wit, riddled with vengeance and not capable of clear thought. Not true.
I have 3 Degrees, a Masters, run multi million pound projects with a team of 20 to manage. I am capable therefore of rational thought and decision making away from obvious tabloid puppetry, and also the political nonsense (which I come across on a daily basis in my own field) you stand by with the PC bollocks you spout. After much careful rationalisation in my own mind of this crime and the way the murderers continue on, my decision is this – they deserve to be buried. Anyone who comes across them should not hesitate to do so. As stated above in a previous post, the core of a civilised society is to protect the weak and vulnerable – these animals lured a helpless little boy away from his mother and killed him in cold blood.
Therefore, they deserve not to function within the bounds of society, and thus, deserve the fate that is soon to catch up with them.
If you do not agree with me, well, I will not waste my time in debating this with you further. Your opinion is a waste of my time frankly, and we all know eventually when their identities are leaked, yours and of those similar will fall on deaf ears to those in a position to make a difference with the riddance of both V and T.
You didn’t “explain” why you aren’t a hypocrite at all, you’re “argument” was essentially that what they did was wrong and that they deserve to die. Although I’m sure that in your mind that made a compelling argument, the reality is that it just serves to make you look like even more of a fool. Because in repeating your views you were just validating everything I’d said in my previous post.
And I did not state that an apology or an of remorse would make things better, but then if you’d actually read my post properly you would have understood that.
They weren’t men when they committed this crime, they were children themselves. Do you think if a ten year old child was caught selling tens of thousands of pounds worth of heroine or some other kind of drug they would get the same sentence as an adult found guilty of the same crime? No, because it isn’t an adult committing the crime. They weren’t taking the piss out of the legal system, the legal system just works different for children.
It is enough for them to pay for the crime and move on in my opinion. Whether a person is sent to prison for a menial crime like theft or something more serious such as rape or murder, when they have served their time they return to live with the population and that’s the way it should be.
You may have three degrees and something to do with a bit of money, but you perfectly illustrate in your “arguments” that academic achievement isn’t the same thing as intelligence. You’re an unbelievably obnoxious individual and your need to rub your degrees and your money in our faces is laughable and pathetic.
Worst come back I ever ever heard hawkes…again showing how immature u really are! for the record I couldn’t care less whether you or any of you little side kicks take me seriously or not!!! Your opinion is not king and the sooner you realise this the better!!!
Again, Hawkes – you show little real understanding and relevant thought process regards this case. They are children no longer, and the fact they were children doing this to a child makes it even more sickening, if possible. Your words mean fuck all in the real world.
I didn’t rub my qualifications in anyone’s face – I was labelled a half wit and as such have proven I am anything but. That was only necessary to show credence to my justification of V and T’s ultimate fate.
Leave this to the adults and those with an ounce of morality, and stop trying to give V and T an out for what they did and for the fear they should now suffer.
My opinions are shared widely between those who are willing and able to somewhat right the wrongs these two have done, and continued to do with so with V in particular regards the child porn issue – it has been shown that release should never have been an option for either, regardless how ‘successful’ the rehabilitation of the system was deemed to be. Soon to come back and smack the lefties in the face wasn’t it? Only a matter of time before T reverts back to old ways, and someone else, likely a child, is injured or killed again.
That my friend, is the piss taking of the system – read up on their behaviour in the secure units whilst they were still children – normal kids they were not and they played up to their position as being untouchable, and as such we cannot expect them to be normal adults.
And so, as a conclusion to my posts above, this is why they need to be taken care of. Believe me, those of similar thinking to me do not fuck about – this country is in too much of a state regards criminals such as these walking still, and a number of other issues, to continue to let it happen. The internet is alive with the tracking down of this pair, so I suggest you halt your limp wristed defence, and watch for the inevitable.
I do not give a fuck for yours, nor Virgil’s, opinion.
I thought you weren’t going to waste any of your time debating this with me further?
“They are children no longer, and the fact they were children doing this to a child makes it even more sickening, if possible.”
You don’t even know what the “this” that they did is.
None of us do.
I have pointed out repeatedly that it was probably not even premeditated in any way. Furthermore, they probably did not intend for him to die.
And when we consider what may well be behind all this – post-traumatic stress disorder – then we need to ask what could have contributed to this in Venables and Thompson’s lives.
In the case of Venables in particular, he was reported to have been badly bullied around the neighbourhood and at school, in addition to abuse and neglect in his family of origin.
And when we consider that bullying is probably a factor here, we next have to question, who is responsible for that kind of bullying? Who among the general population are likely to be bullies as children? For make no mistake, bullying is not a universal human attribute. Not everybody, by any means, probably not most people, are bullies, either as children or as adults.
But many a vicious, sadistic, bullying, bellicose, hypocritical adult – the sort of person who expresses a ghoulish fascination with murders like the Bulger murder and focuses all his hatred and lust for violence at an acceptable scapegoat – already developed this sort of behaviour as a young child.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that a great many of the baying hounds baying for Venables’ blood today were the same TYPE of people who viciously bullied him as a child – in other words, the same TYPE of people who contributed to the death of James Bulger.
For Venables would surely never have killed James if he himself had not suffered so badly as a child.
And a major contributing factor to his suffering was the bullying of his peers.
And the sort of child who is heartless, vicious, and reprehensible enough in his behaviour at that young and tender age is very likely to grow up to become a vicious scapegoater and ranting bellicose bully as as an adult!
And we surely have seen many such a thoroughly revolting and hypocritical-to-his-very-core individual contributing to this very thread.
And one such depraved and loathsome bully, surely, is the one who goes by the last name Smith.
So we can safely conclude that many of the vengeance-seekers obsessed with Venables and Thompson are themselves monumental hypocrites, given that they belong to the same human “type” as the bullies who humiliated and harmed JV and RT so badly when they were children – badly enough to cause them to do what they did to James (irrespective of whether or not James’ killing was premeditated).
That’s correct chap, I was, and am, done with the debate of morality and you having no fucking clue. Mature reply there by the way, well done. I wasn’t further debating this with you however you may read it – I was responding to your additional comment. There is nothing to debate with you – you are a kid, what do you know, apart from right and wrong I hope? Which the fuckers V and T didn’t.
And they should thus, rightly, be sent on their way to their graves as consequence.
People know people who know people – these two should run scared for the limited time they have left……..
Hawkes, Mummy told you to go to to bed? Awwww bless. Shame James didn’t have the same opportunity…….
Believe me, despite your naivety, many many people are gunning for their blood. And it will be forthcoming – as I say, people know people who know people – don’t pretend to preach to those who morally know right from wrong…….enough said…….there are justifiable bounties on their heads, from the underground and above, to warrant their demise. Just a matter of time.
Cant wait for his parole hearing, Its nion impossible to live now, Give him ten years, he’ll either kill himself or be killed by another inmate, Only takes a guard to unlock a lock and walk away. I put flowers on James grave last week, I am no relation but the whole thing being brought back up recently has haunted me for the first time. I had to visit his grave. I long for the day to read the headline “Venables beaten to death in Prison”
As for Thompson, We can wait as long as we have to. We will never forget or let it lie, NEVER.
Venables, its took 20 years, but we have got you.
“I long for the day to read the headline “Venables beaten to death in Prison””
Which merely reveals what a vile, odious, and despicable human being you are, Tyson.
Here, in a nutshell, is the point of view of the pitchfork wavers. By their words we shall know them.
“Which merely reveals what a vile, odious, and despicable human being you are, Tyson.”
I know what i am, and its not that, Take your do’good attitude and just f*ck off back to your armchair, leave the justice doing to us, the real people, the ones who live in the “real world” not under the false blanket of justice which you reside.
Venables will die for what he did, by the hands of many. Accept it and f*ck off you pathetic, self righteous tw*t.
You’re not the “real people,” you’re not the “salt of the earth,” that’s just what you deceive yourself into thinking.
You’re a pitchfork-waving, vicious, sadistic, half-educated moron.
Reality check, Tyson: most people don’t feel that strongly about the Bulger case. Most people don’t even read or buy copies of tabloids in their day-to-day lives. And outside of rigged, biased, fake tabloid polls, yours are not the mainstream view.
Half educated eh, define “fully educated” there is no boundary to knowledge you fool.
I am “Real people” I am one of those who want to see true justice, I dont want my taxes to pay for Jon Venables rent for his flat, his water bill, his council tax, I work myself into the ground so that murderous little **** can play playstation all day whilst swigging cans of Stella and masturbating to child porn.
The man deserves nothing. He deserves no sympathy, no help, no special treatment, no ID change, when these “special privelidges” are removed once and for all and he is sentenced yet again, to general population inside anyone of the prisons here in the UK, I will bet my life on it he will be killed.
There are people outside who want to kill him, who WILL kill him if they ever found him. I know this for a fact.
As for people not feeling strongly about the Bulger case, that doesnt matter Virgil, they dont matter, they are of no relevance, the only ones who matter are the ones who are interested, the ones who want true justice for James, the ones who stand united, together in the fight for true justice. Justice doesnt exist within the courts anymore, How many high profile judges are peadophiles themselves? How many governing bodies have we seen disgraced lately over sex abuse, money laundering etc..
Play a Playstation for 8 years, get fed properly and clothed proper too, thats a better life than most kids get. Justice? Never been served in this case. Not yet.
No body can be trusted in this day and age, Its all a big stage show, 8 years for murder, 8 years is nothing. I have been with my partner for 8 years and it feels like yesterday we first met.
When the law fails to hand out justice, or what can seen to be as “Justice” – You have a GOD-Given right to seek vengeance –
As the Lord said “Let Vengeance be mine” & if one is to believe that everything that occurs in the universe is an act of God, then whatever happens, happens. If Venables lives to die of old age, so be it. If somebody gets to him first, so be it. Its Fate.
Your pathetic laws are nothing but word of man, not word of GOD. They can make any old law up. I live by Gods law, not the law of Government, who are failing in every way possible.
So come back at me with some pitchfork wavinf nonsence, or some half educated comment.
“I am “Real people” I am one of those who want to see true justice, I dont want my taxes to pay for Jon Venables rent for his flat, his water bill, his council tax, I work myself into the ground so that murderous little **** can play playstation all day whilst swigging cans of Stella and masturbating to child porn.”
The only reason you had to pay a penny towards JV’s upkeep, Tyson, is because of The Sun’s amazingly idiotic campaign to have his anonymity stripped and real identity disclosed. And because hundreds of thousands of “real people” (i.e. pitchfork-waving, shrieking, indignant half-wits) signed The Sun’s petition, the judge, Michael Morland, agreed to allow JV’s and RT’s faces and names to be published.
But keep in mind that hundreds of thousands, though a very large number, still tells us nothing about what most people in the entire UK think should happen. The signatures were not from “The people,” but merely from the stupidest, least educated, and most vengeful and bilious segment of “the people.”
Now, here is a near identical crime committed in America: the San Francisco Crucifixion Murder of 1971:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/little/readings/crucifixion.html
Two boys lured a toddler away from his mother and battered him to death. The result? No trial, no incarceration, no disclosure of their identity, and no tabloid-driven media circus – therefore, no tax money spent having to relocate them and their famlies or give them new identities.
You, Tyson, and people like you, are the last people who should be whining and snivelling about your tax money being spent, since it was entirely the fault of the tabloid-reading, pitchfork-waving mob that a single pound had to be spent protecting JV and RT.
Whereas hundreds of thousands if not millions of pounds have now been spent protecting these two – in America, where an identical crime occurred, not one dollar, not one penny had to be spent protecting them, precisely because there was no media circus and no concession to the hysterical baying mob to begin with! In those days, American justice rightly understood that the most vicious and most witless members of society – the mindless mob – deserved no respect and should have no say whatsoever in such cases.
“Justice doesnt exist within the courts anymore, How many high profile judges are peadophiles themselves? How many governing bodies have we seen disgraced lately over sex abuse, money laundering etc.”
How many of the hysterics in the child abuse industry have paedophilic inclinations (or sadistic impulses in general) themselves? I’m guessing a lot. And unquestionably, many of the most vitriolic ranters among the general public have sadistic sexual impulses themselves (probably worse than anything inside the mind of Jon Venables). I would definitely say that about the hypocritical, violently thuggish defender of children Chris Wittwer.
And by the way, did you know that the man who was head writer at the Sun for most of their anti-Venables articles is a murderer himself? His name is John Kay, and after he served a miniscule sentence for killing his wife – he evaded proper punishment – the Sun welcomed him back with open arms, while quietly burying his sordid, murderous past.
Meanwhile, this loathsome fraud writes sadistic articles designed to foment public hatred of JV and other sad losers, while erecting a wall of silence around his own murderous history. Yet John Kay actually did less time, and endured significantly less punishment, than JV – even though JV was a child at the time and Kay was an adult when he killed his wife!
Undeniable proof positive of Kay’s own gigantic hypocrisy and the Sun’s as well, since they have no problem protecting this scoundrel and enforcing a wall of silence about his appalling past.
The tabloids are written and published by lying (and sometimes homicidal) scoundrels. And you, sucker that you are, Tyson, fall for their bullshit hook, line, and sinker.
They don’t give a damn about James Bulger. If they could get away with it, they’d happily pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds in exchange for exclusives with JV and RT. And they don’t care about evasions of justice, either, since one of their own, John Kay, literally got away with murder far more than JV or RT could be said to have done.
The other main reason, of course, sizable amounts of money have to spent protecting and sheltering Venables is that Denise Fergus constantly foments hatred towards him via the tabloids. Since every few months she pops up again to bay for his and Thompson’s blood, that only encourages the government to protect them even more. They have no choice in the matter.
The irony is Fergus never stops whining and complaining about how “the government is always protecting THEM,” while evidently lacking the sense to realize her own actions are one of the main reasons the government is always protecting THEM.
But, of course, given that she’s a full-time professional victim now – one who gets paid huge amounts of money each time she grants another tabloid interview – she’s the one who would lose out the most if JV and RT were to die. There goes her gravy train and cash cow.
“I live by Gods law, not the law of Government, who are failing in every way possible.”
Oh really? Do you have a direct pipeline to God’s thoughts? How can you hook me up to the God Channel, I’d like to have that channel for my television set.
I wish I knew, like you, exactly what God thought about things.
And you have the nerve to call other people arrogant.
Tyson, totally with you on everything you have said. In a nutshell, in my mind and many others seeking vengeance, you have spoken how we feel.
Virgil, you call us of this thinking odious, half educated etc. Read all of the above and get your facts straight pal. The collective is forming at a rapid rate to deal with these two, made up of many different backgrounds and education. This doesn’t matter. What matters is we feel the leftist twats like you are in fact the odious ruination of our society and we will not let it lie. Enough is enough and it is now time to act.
As soon as their IDs are inevitably distributed, the pair of them better be watching every step they take, although that will not be enough to save them.
They chose to murder this poor child, and attempt in a heinous manner to make it look like an accident. That is pure evil, and that was their choice.
It is now down to the real people, as Tyson says, with a backbone to put their actions into consequence.
Again, as Tyson states, the justice system and law makers are made up of those whose morality we question also in a number of areas, making laws to allow those who are caught to continue on after a slap on the wrist. Fuck that, and it’s now time to make a stand up to the bollocks that are injunctions for these reprobates at our expense. I don’t pay my taxes to protect these cunts.
Yes, there are other child murderers out there, and they need to be dealt with also. However, this topic is about little James, and your sickening attempt at reason to let them move on, when us, who are not even related to the child cannot rest until we know they are no longer breathing, should demonstrate to you what a vile creature we consider your type to be. You have no morality, you haven’t the spine to stand up and be counted when it is absolutely necessary to do so.
You and your ilk are filth.
“the justice system and law makers are made up of those whose morality we question also in a number of areas, making laws to allow those who are caught to continue on after a slap on the wrist”
The laws concerning juvenile murderers are actually HARSHER in England than anywhere else in Europe. Everywhere else the law either was in 1993, or has since been raised, to 12 or 14 minimum. Which means if a crime like this occurs on those country’s soils, the killers if only 10 literally cannot be prosecuted!
The same holds true for a sizable majority of the civilized world.
“what a vile creature we consider your type to be”
I couldn’t care less what a hysterical and thoroughly hypocritical imbecile like you thinks of me. As you can already see from this thread, plenty of others think along the same lines as me. Look around the internet and you can find plenty of people who think as I do, and not as you do.
On DigitalSpy boards, for example, most threads related to James Bulger start off with lots of pitchfork-wavers, but they get culled as the threads develop and I have seen quite a few in which what you would describe as “bleeding heart liberal” types end up carrying the day. I even saw a few pitchfork-wavers significantly soften their stances or even do a complete reversal by the end. And these are threads where I’ve simply read and lurked, not contributed anything myself.
So you can stamp your foot and tell me I’m vile all you want. I can safely inform you that lots and lots of people have explicitly stated they agree with a lot of my views. Those who scream the loudest and longest are not necessarily the majority.
But go on deluding yourself about this all you want. You can pretend everyone sees eye to eye with you all you want: they don’t.
I feel sorry for Thompson’s child if I am honest. However, after learning what his father did, I am sure an understanding will emerge, and the child will know what inevitably will be done was for the greater good, and for their protection also.
Virgil – ‘And one such depraved and loathsome bully, surely, is the one who goes by the last name Smith’ – you really haven’t a clue. You actually made me laugh out loud.
I am anything but. I was bullied when i moved back to this country due to the accent i once had, but i learned to stand up for myself and for what i believed in. The bullying soon stopped, believe me.
However, I am one with morality, logic and reasoning. I am quite capable of it despite your thinking.
I don’t believe you, Smith.
You ARE a bully, as well as an enormous coward.
And I would bet any amount of money you were one as a youth as well.
(Of course, like most hypocrites and self-deceiving, self-aggrandizing intellectual frauds, I also expect your memory to be at fault on this matter.)
No, ha ha, you make me laugh, I sorted out the bullies at school after seeing the helpless being bullied, after watching soft twats like you walk on by. I broke someone’s arm once after he had a ‘nerd’ in a headlock.
An ex girlfriend was raped, I happened to go to a birthday party of hers at a local nightclub, years after the attack. He laughed in her face in the club about it, myself and friends watched him do this. We dealt with him immediately afterwards, so even years after, my ex, who I am still friends with, tells me that he walks with his head bowed and scared to lock eyes with those who have a sense of moral.
And that’s how issues like these need to be dealt with if those in authority do not stand up to the plate. Venables and Thompson will suffer, just to a greater degree than those issues I have mentioned.
You are a soft lefty sack of shit. And why call me a coward, you know not what I am. I stand up for those victimised as I was once done so, albeit briefly. Therefore, you are a joke in what you hypothesise.
Get a grip, and realise that outside of your bubble of pc bollocks, there are manypeople out there willing to get justice for little James. What’s a jail sentence in return for doing so, a few of years with good behaviour. The system, and people like you, are laughable.
Yeah, right, Smith.
You are a tough-talking little fraud.
You are not the noble defender of victims and the innocent you think you are. Your little potted history reads like bad fanfiction – dedicated to the memory of yourself.
I’m willing to bet that the testimony of others would not correspond to your self-description as this brave and noble hero.
And by the way, Venables and Thompson WERE “nerds” and outcasts themselves. They were not the cool kids, the in crowd. They WERE the losers of their class. Miserable, rejected outcasts.
If you were an ACTUAL defender of the “nerds” like you claim you are, you would be capable of discerning this reality.
You are a complete fraud. You cite one single instance of helping a “nerd in a headlock.” There probably isn’t a single individual who ever graduated from school who hasn’t done that. And I can’t imagine anyone who isn’t completely thin-skinned and self-pitying citing being made fun of because of their accent as significant bullying. If that’s the worst you ever suffered, count yourself lucky.
‘intellectual fraud’ – how so? Explain.
“intellectual fraud’ – how so? Explain.”
Three so-called “facts” remain entirely within the realm of speculation – that the murder of James was premeditated, that there was torture, that there was sexual abuse. The prosecution proved none of these three.
The jury foreman, Vincent Moss, rejects the claims of “evil” and says if he had to do it all again, he would not have returned the same verdict.
What IS a reality, however, that Denise Fergus is one of the most pandered to, if not THE most pandered to, parents of a murder victim of the past quarter century at least – in any country where a mass media exists.
In fact, I can only think of one other set of parents who comes anywhere close – and that is the family of Ron Goldman, the man killed by O.J. Simpsons in the “trial of the century.” But the Goldmans had a way more valid complaint than Denise Fergus (O.J. was an adult not a child, and he really did get away scott free with unquestionably premeditated murder, unlike JV and RT), and they were only in the spotlight quite briefly, and even they were asked tougher questions by journalists than Fergus has ever been.
You’re an intellectual fraud because you refuse to honestly address any of these points but simply use rage and temper-tantrum-taking as an excuse and a camouflage to avoid having to point a legitimate rebuttal.
Just as you refuse to honestly face the actual facts concerning the treatment of killers as young as JV and RT were in the international arena. You refuse to concede that the judiciary could not possibly have punished them much more severely than they did punish them without becoming completely out of step with almost the entire civilized world. You act like they were treated with kid gloves even though a mere perusal of the data would clue you in to the fact that they’ve been among the most harshly punished of juvenile killers in modern times.
Keep in mind that given the higher age of criminal responsiblity in most other countries, and given that there’s no such thing as a “life license” in most countries, there are all sorts of severe restrictions in place with JV and RT that simply wouldn’t apply in other nations. You can’t “punish” a 10-year-old killer in the ways you seem to want if it’s illegal to prosecute them in the first place! And it IS illegal in most countries!
Are you aware that the European Court of Appeals ruled that the trial of JV and RT was unfair and they were awarded significant monetary damages? They actually won monetary damages! And that was a totally just and apt verdict – even a couple of the jury thought so!
Even some of the members of the jury that found them guilty disagree with your opinion, Smith! How do you respond to that?
‘There probably isn’t a single individual who ever graduated from school who hasn’t done that’. Really? Really, you honestly believe that? Most walked on by, as I’m sure you were one of the type. From my experience of being bullied I didn’t let that lie. I’m no bully, I just have a sense of right from wrong and action leading to consequence. You, by what you write, are a quivering pathetic excuse for a man. You have no morality nor sense of justice.
Your words are rhetoric for the way this country is the way it is, and for that, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are the joke. You are the coward. Only you have yourself to justify to, and if you are one of the pathetic, then the joke is on you.
Regardless of what you think of me, read the above, read the Internet, listen to the real man, as Tyson put it, and await the fate that Venables and Thompson have awaiting.
Your words mean nothing to those who can act upon the right information. Realise this, and head off, knowing your supposed excuses and rehab tripe in defence of these animals mean nothing to those with a heart.
Virgil, fucking Poof. I bet you are one of V or T’s family, it’s the only answer to explain your straight up defence of two child murderers. Think it will help? Take the heat from them. Nope, it won’t.
Believe me you cunt. Their day in God’s court will soon be upon them. Justice for James, it WILL be taking place soon enough, the problem is its 20 years too late. But they are now adults at least, which surrenders their innocence, and they can now be dealt with in the correct fashion without ourselves becoming child murderers.
V and T, walk in fear.
You have our word.
It’s funny how the religious and god-fearing are usually the most vile, intolerant, hateful and unimaginative creatures there are. Your only argument is your morality, but what is morality anyway if not subjective? Clearly you’re homophobic, you think it’s acceptable to speak to other people like shit and you support murder as punishment, which is fine. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. But personally, I believe that the bigots like yourself who use words like “poof” are pathetic. As with your beliefs on Bulger, I imagine you believe that the whole world should be heterosexual too. You seem like the kind of person who would believe that their way is always the right way. I’m not homosexual, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay; but you are most definitely a fool if ever there was one.
Virgil, you’re very intelligent and have remained dignified despite this cretins jibes. “Smith” is on an intellectual level about a hundred years behind you, don’t waste anymore of your time on him he’s not worth it. He’s beneath you.
Virgil, your recent comments are disgusting, Why feel the need? Are you a paedophile yourself? That is a serious question… No matter what you think or what vitriol you spew on James Bulger message boards, your opinion can not and will not protect Jon Venables for he is a dead man walking. Your words are nothing, absoloutely nothing. Our actions are louder, much, much louder. Good day Sir & enjoy your life.
Tyson – “I put flowers on James grave last week, I am no relation but the whole thing being brought back up recently has haunted me for the first time. I had to visit his grave.”
Utmost respect to you.
The thought someone had the decency to make the effort to do so, I am humbled. I hope James, if there is a heaven, was looking down and knew in his little mind that the many real people still care and WILL get vengeance for the pain he suffered at the hands of these fuckers.
It is actions like Tyson’s that demonstrate the good in folk, and the knowledge that this crime still holds a society in limbo until justice is dealt.
I bet idiots like Virgil and Hawkes didn’t even give the 20th anniversary of James’ death the merest second thought – they just comment as they have to give them entertainment, whilst winding the wrong type of people up over this.
I am not religious, Hawkes, nor a bully Virgil, regardless how you both wish to try and analyse my character. The pair of you are so far from the mark. Neither of you are even close.
“Our actions are louder, much, much louder.” Indeed they will be. And not before time.
I’m done with this exposure of Hawkes and Virgil for the insignificant, immoral, questionable and pathetic people they really are. It is a waste of my time. I have my little boy to play with, to make laugh, which James was so cruelly robbed of the opportunity from his parents.
As soon as credible IDs are leaked, justice will be dealt. There is no question of this, there is no need for further discussion. It will be a consequence of V and T’s action that cannot be stopped, despite the bleating of the lefty idiots you represent.
Hawkes and Virgil, you are no more than a pair of cretinous morons who I am ashamed to share the same air with.
You actually “respect” Tyson for laying flowers on the grave?
Tyson’s action is nothing but distasteful and mawkish sentimentalism, part of the “sickening mourning marathon” for James Bulger as Charlotte Raven described it. It doesn’t show respect for James, it shows a profound disrespect.
You mistake mawkishness for humanity. Tyson doesn’t know James from a hole in the ground. Why doesn’t he weep bitter tears for the thousands of UK kids killed in the 20 years since James’ death? What makes James’ death so special?
Children die horribliy and unnecessarily every day: from poverty, hunger, famine, the violence of war. Do you mourn and cry and sob your eyes out for all of them? Of course not. Your “compassion” for James is nothing but empty and worthless crocodile tears.
If you are so shaken by his death – a total stranger to you – but not by the millions and millions of innocent children throughout history who have suffered and died, you stand exposed as a sentimental fool. Do you weep for all the children destroyed by the exploitations and atrocities committed by the British Empire? Do you cry for all the dead Iraqi children killed in an illegal and unjust war? Do you cry for all the children of neglect in your own country whose neglect and suffering is partly brought about by the reactionary politics espoused by the very same tabloids that exploited James Bulger’s death for profit?
Of course not. Because you don’t think at all. You just wallow in unhealthy, stupid, bankrupt, and reactive emotions.
Virgil, you couldnt be more wrong. The fact i have been to James’ grave suggests i live in the vicinity, I live round the corner from Ralph Bulger and see him in the street almost daily. I have on one occasion said hello inside a mutual friends house but nothing more. I pass under the bridge a few times weekly, where they walked him along the tracks. You dont understand Virgil, its as simple as that. We look after our own here in Liverpool, we are one big family in this city and nobody gets away with a crime like that, not here, that is a fact, so try and get your brain around that. You can cluck your tongue day and night and spout your bile but you wont change my stance. Venables will DIE. Justice will be served for little James, not long now…
Good Day Virgil.
Tyson, did it somehow elude your memory that Venables and Thompson are also two “of your own”? And that each and every one of the various adults who failed them in their young lives – parents, teachers, social works – are also Scousers?
You are a sentimentalist. You wallow in sickly outpourings of grief decade after decade after decade and pretend there’s something admirable about it. But it’s just mawkish sentimentalism: mawkish LIVERPUDLIAN sentimentalism.
Any people worth their salt would not “band together” to declare themselves “survivors” of some “unprecedented tragedy” but, if they had any sense, would instead take a good hard look at what went wrong in their community and why warning sign after warning sign went unheeded and nothing was done when any people with sense would have done something about it.
It’s not like this tragedy was unpreventable or unforseeable. Anyone capable of recognizing symptoms of severe trauma could’ve seen that Venables had something seriously wrong with him that needed immediate intervention and help.
There is nothing “evil” about this crime, except stupidity and shallow, sickly Scouse sentimentalism. Now THAT qualifies as true “evil”: the evil of wilful ignorance and perpetual, self-pitying mawkishness.
Virgil, you live by the law, you live your own life, so do we, only difference is we share different views, stop trying to force your perception of it onto me my friend. I wont accept it. Also i assume you dont believe in God so it changes the whole look on it entirely, from your point of view,
No need for debate here, we all have our thoughts and mine are set in stone as are yours, but the majority is with me Virgil. The vast majority.
I wont address your jibes at us either, your nothing to us, your nothing to James, your about a level above V&T for your mind is sick too. I know it is. You know it is. Have a wonderfull life Virgil.
Good day!
“Virgil, you live by the law, you live your own life, so do we, only difference is we share different views”
You don’t “live by the law” – the whole crux of this disagreement is that you, and LWTC, and Smith, are advocating breaking the law!
You advocate taking the law into your own hands because you feel JV and RT weren’t “properly” punished. You promote vigilante violence.
So, no, you don’t “live by the law” at all.
Virgil and Hawkes… So busy attempting to sound like intellectuals and put others down they have failed to hide the fact they are both complete spineless whimps, who i expect show as much cowardice in real life as they do arrogance hiding behind a p.c!
Thousands of people will share your views, but you should realise that millions don’t. I was 12 when those horrors occured…I still remember shaking with hatred for JV and RT (Maybe because i had a 2yo brother), but also because it was such an evil act that shoched the country. I only stumbled on this site as i was searching for grown up images of the sick fucks, but after reading all the posts i’m shocked at how people can defend them.
I have 4 kids, and feel an obligation to protect them from harm. And if I recognised RT of JV in the street I’d do exactly the same as the majority of people would.
Ssmith and Tyson, spot on. I’d be very surprised if Virgil had kids… or Hawkes had pubes!
“Thousands of people will share your views, but you should realise that millions don’t.”
Go to Youtube and watch Will Self vs. Carol Vorderman debate this. The audience was split. Self got just as much applause from the crowd as Vorderman. The whole audience was not on Vorderman’s side. It was a very divided reaction.
The “split” is not between “fans” of JV and RT and “haters,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, and as ssmith and his ilk misrepresent it. The split is between those who think the justice system handled the case correctly and that Denise Fergus did receive justice, and those who don’t.
First of all the killing of James Bulger was evil and there is no way of defending it, But I’d like you to consider the following:
1 Nothing anybody does or can do will bring him back.
2. 2 10 year olds were prosecuted under the English judicial system and given the maximum sentence available. In the eyes of the law they have done their time for the crime. Whether people agree or not is irrelevent and for people who don’t agree, the only way to change the law is to study and find a role within the judicary whereby they are in a position to change it.
3 Anybody who takes the law into their own hands will end up in jail and will be no better than the boys (at the time) who did this. In fact as adults they will be considered worse as they are adults and are supposed to have more mature minds than 10 year olds.
But on a slightly different angle I would like if people might consider the following:
1. In my opinion children need parents to guide them, make rules, set boundaries and give the love, among other things. They need to have values which are good. Children after all are the future. With that in mind what sort of parent knowingly allows their child out alone in the evening until all hours? What parent knows a child shoplifts yet does nothing? What sort of school does nothing about truants? If a parent blantantly breaks basic rules where are the social workers? In the case of the 2 boys there are questions. Now I know that other kids are in the same boat and wouldnt do what they did. Nevertheless the system failed them as it is failing several other kids who will never have a chance.
They and many others should have been taken into care long before this happened. And it is a poor reflection on the parents if children are out of control and the parents, school or somebody doesnt seek help.
2. The judge at the trial made monumental errors in naming the boys. People were and are very angry anyway and this just gave them more ammuninion. He is supposed to be educated. This decision was disgraceful and he should be removed. He is an embarrassment to the entire legal profession and not just has he caused more anger and pain to the ordinary person but it is he who has cost the tax payer money by ensuring that the 2 people in question require protection and new identities on a constant basis. Regardless of what they did they were boys. I am in no way defending their actions but the judge failed to uphold the ethics of the judiciary.
3.The tabloids and in particular “The Sun” are papers and papers are designed to sell. By even mentioning the killers anger in reignited and more papers sell. It is therefore in their interest to keep the killers alive as without them they have lost a big money earner. As a matter of fact I would even go so far as to say that they know the whereabouts and identity of Robert Thompson. Everyone knows about the other guy. So in summary, the papers are “playing” the people. There is absolutely nothing human, sincere or compassionate in what they say or do. It is all about money and everytime there is a public reaction, they get publicity, their papers sell and those who react sell the papers for them and create more stories. There have been some innocent casulties already. That is not right!
4 For those of you who still express hatred towards the killers – try to let it go. Once you allow bitterness and hatred into your lives it will make a home there. Your children if you have any will be influenced by how you think and act so please consider them too. Even though his crime will never be forgotten, Robert Thompson appears to have been rehabilitated. He is monitored and if he does anything wrong he will be back inside. He should be left alone to get on with his life. If he is reformed he will carry this crime on his conscience forever? Again you cant bring James Bulger back. Being some kind of vigilate hero and spending the rest of your life in jail shouldn’t be seen as the answer. Surely your lives are worth more to you that that?
Again this is just my opinion and you can agree or disagree as you wish.
And I point out that I’m do gooder nor am I on anybody’s side. But I do not agree with murder and especially the murder of a 2 year old boy. Thinking about it, will always upset me!
Excellent post, anonymous, and as to this point here,
“In my opinion children need parents to guide them, make rules, set boundaries and give the love, among other things… With that in mind what sort of parent knowingly allows their child out alone in the evening until all hours? What parent knows a child shoplifts yet does nothing? What sort of school does nothing about truants?”
have you read about the San Francisco Crucifixion Murder of 1971? The two boys who did the same thing as here – lured a toddler away and then beat him to death – had eerily similar family backgrounds to JV and RT. Especially RT. They were basically street urchins who roamed free with no parental supervision. They were the product of extreme neglect.
Coincidence? I think not. These sorts of crimes are not the product of evil devil children – “born bad” – but of a certain kind of formative environment, one where neglect and abuse are the norm.
Also am in complete agreement about your point #2. The judge, Moreland, was a total disaster who made ridiculous decisions. Apart from the tabloids, he is the main villain of this whole affair. Not only did he make a truly terrible decision in allowing them to be named and faces unmasked, but he also made a profoundly stupid closing remark, blaming it all on “video nasties” (Child’s Play 3 and others) that JV and RT probably never even saw!
It’s very likely violent horror movies had little or nothing to do with why they killed James, but this idiot of a judge insisted that there was probably a strong causal link. Meanwhile, he of course barred any real testimony as to the very poor quality of JV’s, and horrendous quality of RT’s home lives. He is a clear example of an unfit judge.
It is not really a “worldwide injunction.” There is an injunction issued by a Court in “England and Wales” which does not specify any geographic limit and applies to anyone who has “notice” of it. Some people have claimed that because it does not specify a limit that makes it worldwide. It does not even apply in Scotland, although a Scottish court may have granted a separate injunction there. (There was a proposal last year to extent England and Wales injunctions to Scotland automatically, but this was vigorously opposed in Scotland.)
I am not sure what is the position regarding a person who is normally resident in England and Wales and who goes abroad temporarily and publishes such information, but it certainly does not apply to some one who is neither resident in the UK nor physically present in the UK at the time they publish the information.
Therefore, feel free to restore the information. Just be mindful that if it is wrong, you may be harming an innocent person.
BTW there are age-progression pictures of Venables and Thompson as they would have looked at the age of about 19.
David Kessler, stick to your day job of churning out trashy, fifth-rate pulp novels and stop giving LWTC the kind of bad advice that could land him in jail.
If you had any care for his well-being (not just RT’s or JV’s), you wouldn’t encourage him to do the sort of thing that could potentially entangle him in a legal quagmire.
Virgil, firstly please note that my original message did not take sides in this dispute and was couched in scrupulously polite terms – the hallmark of some one who is in the right, in contradistinction to you and your rudeness, which is a tacit confession of the falsity of your position.
Secondly everyone is entitled to their own opinion of my excellent, well-written thrillers, including you. However, I suspect that you have not actually read them, but merely did a quick internet check on me. I could be as good as Dostoyevsky or as bad as James Patterson, but you wouldn’t know because you have almost certainly not read any of my books.
Thirdly regarding my advice, it is strictly correct. There is no such thing as a worldwide injunction. You’ll note I did add “Just be mindful that if it is wrong, you may be harming an innocent person.” (Translation: It is not a breach of a binding injunction if you are in the USA, but it may be libelous.) But as to the so-called “worldwide” injunction, it simply does not exist. If you wish to contend otherwise, please state your reasoning – and try to stay polite.
Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post.
jobs in life Sciences
Virgil you think you know it all…You know fuck all.
We dont care about your views, we dont care about your PC law abiding bollocks. Mind your own fucking business and let us hunt down and butcher Jon Venables in fucking peace you arrogant cunt.
I posted the other evening….
It is a pity that there is so much bickering. It is really not conducive to a successful debate. People will hold different views and everyone should have the right to reply.
Tyson, you said you have 4 children. If you kill or are involved in the killing of Jon Venables you will be inside. Children need a father. If they fall off the wagon if you.re not around, then what? Would you risk sacrifying the welfare of your own?
Obviously if a person makes up his mind to do something there is little anyone can do to stop them except to point out the potential consequences. More killings wont bring back James Bulger. It would be great if there were lessons learned by James’s death. Unfortunately the government and social services need to play a pro-active role in identifying the signs of neglect, abuse in the home and truancy, not to mention violence and petty crime and because they are not there are more horrible tragedies waiting to happen.
I would like to point out though that people do have a right to be angry and the Sun and the tabloidsis are certainly quite willing to help fuel people’s anger.
Incidently, I read a report commissioned to the Home Office recently, relating to Jon Venebles since he left the young offenders home,outlining addresses, places of work, a girlfriend, the names of doctors and social workers, reports on him and his state of mind.
I dont know how this material found its way into the public domain – that wasn’t right but having read it I dont feel that he would cope too well on the outside again and don’t think he will live very long and that would be without the intervention of the vigilantes.
He will find it hard to earn a proper living or have a long term relationship. That is sad for anybody in that situation and I think eventually he will call time on it himself. Just a feeling I have. Hope I’m wrong!
I dont wish bad on anybody but murder is still wrong except in self defence…
I havent said i have 4 children. I have two, one is a boy approaching his 3rd birthday, he is almost the same age as James was when he died, to even try and contemplate two people, regardless of age or gender doing such things to my boy, i would walk this earth until the day i die, looking for them, out with a vengeance, a vengeance to kill. No law in the land would stop me. Its human instinct, its there, no law can eradicate it from the mind, the body or the soul.
Virgil, firstly please note that my original message did not take sides in this dispute and was couched in scrupulously polite terms – the hallmark of some one who is in the right, in contradistinction to you and your rudeness, which is a tacit confession of the falsity of your position.
Secondly everyone is entitled to their own opinion of my excellent, well-written thrillers, including you. However, I suspect that you have not actually read them, but merely did a quick internet check on me. I could be as good as Dostoyevsky or as bad as James Patterson, but you wouldn’t know because you have almost certainly not read any of my books.
Thirdly regarding my advice, it is strictly correct. There is no such thing as a worldwide injunction. You’ll note I did add “Just be mindful that if it is wrong, you may be harming an innocent person.” (Translation: It is not a breach of a binding injunction if you are in the USA, but it may be libelous.) But as to the so-called “worldwide” injunction, it simply does not exist. If you wish to contend otherwise, please state your reasoning – and try to stay polite.
“I could be as good as Dostoyevsky or as bad as James Patterson, but you wouldn’t know because you have almost certainly not read any of my books.”
Except you’re not as good as Dostoyevsky, or even one one-hundredth as good.
And you could not be as good as Dostoyevsky, because Dostoyevsky (though a conservative thinker in many aspects) would not espouse the simplistic, smug, entitled middle-class morality that you espouse on your website. Your views – on pretty much everything – are the embodiment of Mrs. Grundy-esque conventionality.
A precondition of great art is the ability to think outside of smug, self-satisfied conventionalisms. You obviously possess none of that.
And I do know your work, because I read your skirmishes with a couple of posters related to the Venables case on your own website a couple months ago. (I read that whole thread, I contributed nothing myself.) I recognized your name when you popped up on this thread, and I was already aware of you and your novels because I’d already read and remembered the other thread (in which you, likewise, boasted about what a wonderful novelist you are to a poster who, like me, dismissed you as a purveyor of low-grade pulp. But she’s correct: that’s what you are.)
So unless all your other published volumes are significantly better than the piece of run-of-the-mill pulp I read (confession: I sped-read my way through it, mercifully to make an end as quickly as possible), my judgment of your work stands.
As you have not read any of my work, your opinion is of course invalid. Even if you had read it, your view would be tainted by your anger at uncompromising view on those who violate the human rights of others, so even if you had read one of my books (and I am being generous regarding your reading skills), your opinion would be little more than an expression of your anger towards me for my commitment to human rights.
As for your objection to middle-class morality, I presume that your own position is something on the lines of “I don’t need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don’t eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more.”
Finally, I doubt very much whether you are capable of reading Dostoyevsky or me. By your own admission you speed read – which suggests you have a limited attention span.
“But as to the so-called “worldwide” injunction, it simply does not exist. If you wish to contend otherwise, please state your reasoning – and try to stay polite.”
Under the law, if you are British, you can be prosecuted, regardless of where the service provided is located. In other words, if your host site is American, German, or Japanese, unless you yourself are American, German, or Japanese, you are still subject to British law and can still be prosecuted.
That’s why I asked LWTC if he is British or not. If he is, he can be prosecuted regardless of whether the service provider is American.
It is the nationality of the alleged lawbreaker, not the nationality of the host server, that is at issue. An American doing what LWTC isn’t at any legal risk, but a British person is.
There has already been an official announcement that some of the individuals who shared these photos on Twitter and Facebook are going to be prosecuted.
“Under the law, if you are British, you can be prosecuted, regardless of where the service provided is located. In other words, if your host site is American, German, or Japanese, unless you yourself are American, German, or Japanese, you are still subject to British law and can still be prosecuted.”
Firstly you are wrong and secondly I never said it was where the host site was located. It is where the PERSON is located at the time he publishes the material. If a British citizen publishes the material outside of England and Wales (and possibly Scotland and NI if there are separate injunctions) then he cannot be prosecuted. British law (other than for homicide) does not follow him outside the jurisdiction of the court. This is true even if he is normally resident in the UK.
If a person who is physically within the jurisdiction of the court (even an American) publishes the proscribed material, he can be prosecuted for contempt of court. His nationality offers no shield.
I am open to correction by one who knows the law, but you are clearly not such a person.
“Virgil, firstly please note that my original message did not take sides in this dispute and was couched in scrupulously polite terms”
Except that I’m already well aware of what your position and what side of this issue you take, having perused your own website a few months ago. You didn’t have to announce what your stance is here, because I already know what it is. I really don’t care if you find me rude, because I’ve found that playing nice and being courteous against a crowd of ranting pitchfork-wavers does no good at all. It doesn’t work.
“the hallmark of some one who is in the right, in contradistinction to you and your rudeness, which is a tacit confession of the falsity of your position”
Of course, only somebody being wifully dishonest could fail to note the enormous amount of rudeness and belligerence among supporters of Denise Fergus all over the net, who think “justice has not been done for James.” If that’s the case, then your tacit confession is as to the total falsity of YOUR position, regardless of how “unfailingly courteous” you personally have or haven’t been. You can afford to be “polite,” because there are legions of shrill screamers on your side of this intellectual divide anyway.
That you personally may have been polite matters little when you gutlessly refuse to acknowledge the sheer, unmitigated rudeness and rancour coming from thousands of others who support the exposure of JV’s and RT’s identities, and support Denise Fergus’ intellectually incoherent “justice for James” campaign.
There is no parallel here. Your allies have been infinitely more rude, shrill, and obnoxious that my allies.
“Except that I’m already well aware of what your position and what side of this issue you take, having perused your own website a few months ago. You didn’t have to announce what your stance is here, because I already know what it is.”
If you knew what my position was, then you would know that I do not endorse vigilante justice except when the system has failed most egregiously and that I distinguish between Venables and Thompson.
It is interesting that people sharing your mawkish, sentimental position on the issue (such as Gitta Sereny) were sure that because of relative differences in their level of familial dysfunctionality it would be Jon Venables who turned out all right and Robert Thompson who had a bleak future. Now we see the folly of those who affected to take this pseudo-humane view, shedding crocodile tears over these alleged victims of broken homes.
“I really don’t care if you find me rude, because I’ve found that playing nice and being courteous against a crowd of ranting pitchfork-wavers does no good at all. It doesn’t work.”
Yet you think your rudeness DOES work? If so then you are even more seriously deluded than I thought. Your rudeness means nothing to me: it merely diminishes you still further. If you want to abandon the pretense of being the serious intellectual who demonstrates the subtle nuanced approach and come out instead as the ill-mannered lout, it only serves to destroy the fragile facade of faux high-brow liberalism behind which you were trying to hide.
I will not comment on your feeble excuse that you have the right to be rude to me because others have been rude to you. It is an excursion into the realms of irrelevance and evasiveness. You have opened up a dialogue between us after I commented on a technical matter of law (an area in which your ignorance shows most profoundly) and you have been chosen to be rude because you’ve been getting a lot of stick from others. Frankly it reminds me of a badly behaved child screaming “but he did it too, daddy!”
It doesn’t bother me, but it destroys your masquerade of the high-minded intellectual. When the camouflage falls away, you are simply a chav standing up for your brethren like the proverbial birds of a feather.
“It is interesting that people sharing your mawkish, sentimental position on the issue (such as Gitta Sereny) were sure that because of relative differences in their level of familial dysfunctionality it would be Jon Venables who turned out all right and Robert Thompson who had a bleak future.”
Quote one “mawkish,” “sentimental” person who stated this. David James Smith, for example, whose book is the most detailed in outlining the facts of the case, ALWAYS insisted that Venable, not Thompson, was the more damaged and disturbed of the two children and the one who was likely to have inflicted most of the violence on James.
Smith stated his conjecture long before Venables was returned to prison. So anyone (like me) who had already read his book could not possibly have been surprised by that turn of events, provided we were persuaded by Smith’s theorizing (and I was).
You know nothing about what I believe: I NEVER EVER believed what you attribute to me, precisely because the first in-depth treatment I ever read about this case was Smith’s book.
Furthermore, though Thompson’s family background certainly APPEARS to have been worse than Venables’, another of Smith’s assertions is that Venables’ family was not nearly as “normal” and “stable” as it has generally been made out to be in the press. In fact, Smith mentions that Venables’ family was capable of “hair-raising” violence, though he doesn’t go into precise detail of what that means. But he certainly does not believe the Venables household was half as normal as most seem to think.
And once again, given that he always believed Venables was the more damaged child, we shouldn’t be surprised that Smith presented dimensions to this story that other journalists didn’t.
The “people sharing my mawkish position” don’t exist. They are figments of your lazy imagination. This is precisely why you don’t refer to any actual individual’s positions (whereas I always refer to precise things that Denise Fergus or Albert Kirby or whomever have stated when I argue my points), but merely make straw man positions up out of whole cloth, falsely attribute them to me, and then knock them down.
Furthermore, though Smith doesn’t appear to know the significance of this, both he and Gitta Sereny mention in passing that Jon Venables underwent an operation to correct his squint a few months before he killed James.
What neither Smith nor Sereny seem to be aware of, however, is that that particular operation has come under scrutiny – indeed surgery in general performed on children has come under fire – because it frequently causes PTSD in children. And when the child comes from a dysfunctional family like Venables’, one study found that a negative outcome is “positively indicated.”
What this means is that the surgery performed on Venables could have been a significant contributing factor to his behaviour. For one of the consequences of severe PTSD is the rage reaction, which can often entail lethal violence. Like the war veteran who suddenly snaps and kills someone in civilian life, it’s possible that Venables simply went into full-blown panic mode, then rage, then lethal frenzy, resulting in James’ death.
But the ultimate cause of James’ death, then, would be untreated and unresolved PTSD, not some calculated sadistic plan to torture and mutilate. But it doesn’t surprise me that a trash author of tawdry, threadbare melodramas would fail to perceive this possibility.
“It doesn’t bother me, but it destroys your masquerade of the high-minded intellectual. When the camouflage falls away, you are simply a chav standing up for your brethren like the proverbial birds of a feather.”
Yes, but of course you retain your highbrow integrity and unfailing air of gentlemanly courtesy, don’t you, with your snotty remark about me having no attention span because I speed-read? (Even though you mangled the meaning of my quote, suggesting that you yourself have reading comprehension problems).
And I never called myself an intellectual, others like Tyson or ssmith threw that word around as an insult. I could’t care less whether I qualify as an “intellectual” or not – it’s a meaningless term to me.
You, on the other hand, evidently have no problem invoking Dostoyevsky in a discussion of your novels’ quality, which is a bit like Thomas Kinkade invoking Rembrandt.
“If you knew what my position was, then you would know that I do not endorse vigilante justice except when the system has failed most egregiously and that I distinguish between Venables and Thompson.”
In other words, you DO endorse vigilante violence. LOL!
I have not misread your position. You do endorse vigilantism. Your very wording here gives you away. You believe the “system has failed most egregiously.” You provide absolutely no evidence that it has, of course, you just trust your “feeling” that it has.
Furthermore, it makes absolutely no difference if you “distinguished between Venables and Thompson.” The two famous pictures floating around the internet that are alleged to show Venables contain TWO males in them. And I have seen with my own eyes more than a few numbskulls express outrage and vitriol towards the OTHER male – the one that is NOT the male alleged to be Venables, but is simply a workmate and friend!
So no matter what you think about this case, if you “endorse vigilante justice…. when the system has failed most egregiously,” you are no different from any garden-variety hoodlum and yahoo, despite your literary pretensions. It is inevitable – INEVITABLE – that innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. It’s already happened: David Calvert!
“Finally, I doubt very much whether you are capable of reading Dostoyevsky or me.”
I’m willing to bet I could out-flank you any day of the week when it comes to analyzing and discussing great literature, whether written by Dostoyevsky or anyone else.
Your “doubts” about my reading skills are laughable and arrogant, much like your “doubts” that I’ve read a novel of yours. I’ve read every single Dostoyevsky novel except Poor Folk and The Village of Stepanchikovo. And some day I’ll get to them as well.
And I didn’t say I sped read literature. i said I sped read YOU. Bad writing has no viscosity and no richness to compel one to slow down and savour the prose.
“But as to the so-called “worldwide” injunction, it simply does not exist.”
I already know that. My point was: you were giving LWTC bad legal advice, irrespective of whether the injunction is worldwide or not, because (I’ll put this in caps so you finally grasp the point) AS LONG AS HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN, EXPATRIATE OR OTHERWISE, HE STILL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH BRITISH AUTHORITIES.
It is NOT the location of the server that is the crucial factor. It is the citizenship of the individual doing the injunction-breaching. Of course, if LWTC is not currently residing in the UK (I don’t know if he is or not), he’s probably safe for the time being, but it’s not at all beyond possibility that he could create legal problems for himself down the road.
You gave bad legal advice by suggesting he should have no worries if he put the pics back up again. I gave him good advice by warning him that, yes indeed, AS LONG AS HE IS BRITISH, he could potentially run afoul of British authorities if he reposted the pics, despite his internet host being (apparently) American.
Yes, of course it’s true that the contra mundum injunction is not legally binding. How could it be, since laws are national, regional, and local? But it’s not legally binding only in the sense that non-British individuals are safe from prosecution. A person living, working, and residing in the UK but merely hosting his website on a US server might very well lose his case in a court of law.
“I’m willing to bet I could out-flank you any day of the week when it comes to analyzing and discussing great literature, whether written by Dostoyevsky or anyone else.”
Your willingness to bet means nothing. First you say “Your ‘doubts’ about my reading skills are laughable and arrogant, much like your ‘doubts”’that I’ve read a novel of yours.” But then you go on to say: ” I’ve read every single Dostoyevsky novel except Poor Folk and The Village of Stepanchikovo.”
So you do not deny my claim that you haven’t read any of my novels, you merely hide behind ambiguity. But you tacitly acknowledge it in other postings. So why try and pretend now?
By your own admission, your reading of me was confined to my website and was speed-reading. Trying to blame me for your decision to speed-read is fully consistent with your underlying philosophy in which some people are held responsible for the actions of others. On this point at least you are consistent.
Do you really think that “stick to your day job of churning out trashy, fifth-rate pulp novels” displays richness of language?
Now, regarding the injunction. You write: “(I’ll put this in caps so you finally grasp the point) AS LONG AS HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN, EXPATRIATE OR OTHERWISE, HE STILL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH BRITISH AUTHORITIES.”
And I’ll say it in capitals too: YOU ARE WRONG. See below for details.
You write: “It is NOT the location of the server that is the crucial factor. It is the citizenship of the individual doing the injunction-breaching. ”
If ever there was a sign that you should give up speed-reading it is embodied in that sentence, because (I will put this too in capitals) I NEVER SAID IT WAS THE LOCATION OF THE SERVER THAT IS THE CRUCIAL FACTOR! But neither is it the citizenship of the person as you erroneously claim. It is the location of the person AT THE TIME WHEN THEY PUBLISH THE MATERIAL. Granted if he posts it on his own website and then returns to the UK, then leaving it on the site MIGHT be construed as an ongoing act. But that is still not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of the location of the person.
Also please note there is no such thing as a British injunction. The courts of England and Wales are separate from the Courts of Scotland and both are separate from the courts of Northern Ireland.
Are you as arrogant and solipsistic as you seem?
I read an excerpt on Amazon, then downloaded it for my Kindle.
And I didn’t read it NOW – as I already explained to you, I RECOGNIZED YOUR NAME FROM THE OTHER THREAD WHICH I HAD ALREADY READ A LONG TIME AGO.
Since the exact same discussion came up THERE – when another poster (female) called you a hack and you threw out the same challenge – “I rather suspect you’ve never read a word of mine….” pretty much verbatim what you posted to me here, I went on Amazon and looked you up THEN, NOT NOW.
As I suspected, your writing proved to be garbage, but I wanted to know if you really were correct that you were the marvelous writer you claimed to be.
I then discovered that you were, indeed, the hack that particular poster claimed you were.
“By your own admission, your reading of me was confined to my website and was speed-reading. Trying to blame me for your decision to speed-read is fully consistent with your underlying philosophy in which some people are held responsible for the actions of others. On this point at least you are consistent.”
Try slowing down your own reading speed, my friend. Your comprehension skills are lacking. Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. I specifically stated I speed-read my way through YOUR NOVEL.
I did not actually want to read it (it’s not the kind of genre trash I spend much time reading: life is short). But I read it… simply to see if you were, indeed, the marvelous writer you claimed to be, and because, as I mentioned, you already pulled the “I’m such a great writer and you haven’t ever read me anyway” line on that OTHER poster who called you a hack on that OTHER thread that I read.
Furthermore, I’m a fast reader anyway. Speed-reading isn’t that much of an acceleration from my normal reading rate, so it’s perfectly possible for me to speed read a novel and understand what I read.
Why the hell should I read your work slowly? I’m not a fan: I simply wanted to see if you were telling the truth about the quality of your work to that other, female, poster who accused you of being a pulpy hack. After reading your book, I concluded that, yes, her evaluation was correct: you are a hack.
I don’t need to spend a week on a piece of ill-written trash when I can be mercifully done with it in a couple hours.
“Trying to blame me for your decision to speed-read is fully consistent with your underlying philosophy in which some people are held responsible for the actions of others. On this point at least you are consistent.”
I don’t blame you for my decision to speed-read. I’m glad I chose to speed-read. I would have been kicking myself if I’d wasted a long interval of free time on your poorly written hackwork.
And on “this point,” at least, you are remarkably INconsistent. Funny how you previously invoked Dostoyevsky in relation to your own work. Yet one of the crucial questions running through his corpus, in particular in The Brothers Karamazov, is the degree to which responsibility for a crime is simply down to the physical perpetrator, and how much it’s down to other powerful influences. In other words, even though one particular Karamazov brother, Smerdyakov, commits the physical act of murder, Dostoyevsky spends hundreds of pages probing the degree of culpability of the other brothers who wanted their father dead – may have even laid the groundwork for the murderer’s violent act – yet did not physically commit bloodshed themselves.
You sneer at the “underlying philosophy” in which “some people are held responsible for the actions of others,” yet you – the smug invoker of Dostoyevsky in relation to your own novels – don’t even realize that he himself was keenly fascinated by this very same “underlying philosophy” – and in fact never came to any final answer over its ultimate validity!
LOL! Why thank you for your sermons, David Kessler-Dostoyevsky! I’ll be sure to look for your next intellectual masterwork shelved right next to Notes from the Underground, The Stranger, and Fear and Trembling.
For some reason, I cannot post this as a reply to the specific posting of yours that it is intended for. You write: ‘Quote one “mawkish,” “sentimental” person who stated this.’ (i.e. that Venables had a brighter future than Thompson).
Gitta Sereny wrote: “There were extraordinary parallels between that case in Newcastle (Mary Bell), and this one in Preston, and I will be writing about them later at greater length. Here too, the 11-year-old children in the dock looked very child-like. Here too, one child appeared to be greatly supported, the other giving the impression of a terrifying isolation…He [Venables] is a good-looking boy and because human beings, however professionally trained, cannot help but react to appearances, his life in these next years may be easier than that of Boy A, Robert Thompson.
In Robert Thompson I saw reactions almost frighteningly similar to Mary Bell’s so long ago: he too ‘laughed’ when it all happened; he too, joined the mourners who left flowers for Jamie; for him too, his nerves are in his hands – his fingers; and he too, except in those terrible last minutes of the trial, had only a blank face to present to all those who watched him. He looked to me like a child who cannot love – who no longer dares to love.”
See the full article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/james-bulger-two-hearts-in-darkness-the-mystery-is-why-the-easy-answer-is-evil-gitta-sereny-has-the-unique-experience-of-covering-britains-two-most-sensational-cases-of-children-killing-children–trials-separated-by-25-years-but-with-much-in-common-their-similarities-may-yield-important-clues-1507262.html
I’d be interested to know your source for the claim that the operation to cure the squint could cause PTSD. You write “Like the war veteran who suddenly snaps and kills someone in civilian life, it’s possible that Venables simply went into full-blown panic mode, then rage, then lethal frenzy, resulting in James’ death.”
This is an extraordinary analogy. You are treating PTSD as a one-dimensional variable. Are you seriously saying that surgery to cure a squint could have a comparable effect to serving in a theatre of war for a year? And can you really compare TWO boys luring/dragging a kid away, lying when challenged by an adult, taking him to a remote location and throwing stones at him until he dies with ONE person, snapping with rage and killing all and sundry around him?
I think your analogy does not hold water.
“I’d be interested to know your source for the claim that the operation to cure the squint could cause PTSD.”
American trauma expert Peter A. Levine, in Waking the Tiger, writes, “Many events can cause traumatic reactions later in life, depending on how the person experienced them at the time. Some examples of common traumatic antecedents are,” he then lists numerous causes, such as “witnessing violence” (Thompson certainly, and Venables probably, witnessed violence), “sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, including severe abandonment or beatings” (both RT and JV experienced this: the Thompson family was very well-known to child services and Susan Venables was investigated by the police for neglect at least once), and also…
“Surgery, particularly tonsillectomies with ether; operations for ear problems and for so-called “lazy eye”” (another term for “squint”)
Levine goes on to say,
“The fact that hospitalizations and medical procedures routinely produce traumatic results comes as as surprise to many people. The traumatic aftereffects from prolonged immobilization, hospitalizations, and especially surgeries are often long-lasting and severe. Even though a person may recognize that an operation is necessary, and despite the fact that they are unconscious as the surgeon cuts through flesh, muscle, and bone, it still registers in the body as a life-threatening event. On the “cellular level” the body perceives that it has sustained a wound serious enough to place it in mortal danger. Intellectually, we may believe in an operation, but on a primal level, our bodies do not. Where trauma is concerned, the perception of the instinctual nervous system carries more weight, much more. This biological fact is a primary reason why surgery will often produce a post-traumatic reaction.
“In an “ordinary” story from the July, 1993 edition of Reader’s Digest entitled “Everything is not Okay,” a father describes his son Robbie’s “minor” knee surgery:
“The doctor tells me that everything is okay. The knee is fine, but everything is not okay for the boy waking up in a drug-induced nightmare, thrashing around on his hospital bed–a sweet boy who never hurt anybody, staring out from his anesthetic haze with the eyes of a wild animal, striking the nurse, screaming “Am I alive?” and forcing me to grab his arms… staring right into my eyes and not knowing who I am.”
Levine recounts that the child is taken home but his fear and panic continues and he starts vomiting. Keep in mind that this boy Ryan was from a very normal, healthy household, not a broken home.
When the child is from a broken home, as Venables’ definitely was, Levine writes in his book Trauma Proofing your Child, “studies have shown that where there is child abuse and family dysfunction, future psychological and medical problems are predictable” in the aftermath of invasive surgery.
David James Smith paints a disturbing picture of Venables’ childhood, in which despite clear signs of something seriously wrong with him emotionally and psychologically, his parents largely resorted to denial in the face of it. They would pretend everything was fine when it wasn’t. So I would guess that they would likewise resort to denial and avoidance in the wake of any complications from surgery that might have developed, given that’s exactly how they handled – or didn’t – everything else.
“Are you seriously saying that surgery to cure a squint could have a comparable effect to serving in a theatre of war for a year?”
From Peter Levine’s Trauma Through a Child’s Eyes:
“Dr. David Levy, a psychiatrist and medical researcher, noted in his observational studies (1944) that the symptoms displayed by children hospitalized for “routine” medical procedures were little different than those displayed by “shell-shocked” (traumatized) World War II soldiers returning from the battlefields of Europe and North Africa. Modern invasive medical procedures are still one of the more commonly overlooked sources of trauma.”
“I think your analogy does not hold water.”
There’s a solid body of scientific data that demonstrates that the symptoms resulting from children traumatized by such procedures are virtually identical to the symptoms displayed by soldiers returning from a theatre of war. It’s not even an analogy per se: it’s the same symptoms.
Furthermore, JV would not have been solely traumatized by such a medical procedure, if in fact he was. There was already his terror caused by his mother’s wild mood swings and “hair-raising” violence, the humiliation of being kept down a grade at school, the serious behavioural disorders and learning disabilities manifested by both his siblings, his parents’ neglect, and the severe bullying he experienced at school and around the neighbourhood. David James Smith believes JV was also sexually abused but I’m not sure if he’s just speculating there or if he has solid grounds for that supposition.
But if the surgery did have a negative outcome, as it frequently does with children from broken homes, it might have been the last straw that pushed him over the edge and made him capable of committing lethal violence. Because remember, a rage reaction – which is basically the impulse to kill in self-defense Levine’s words – is an ordinary, normal, biological consequence of severe PTSD.
“And can you really compare TWO boys luring/dragging a kid away, lying when challenged by an adult, taking him to a remote location and throwing stones at him until he dies with ONE person, snapping with rage and killing all and sundry around him?”
Of course. Upthread, a poster makes the sensible point that, “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!”
Of course that’s right – it’s just common sense! Nothing they did that day is reconcilable with pre-meditated murder – it doesn’t add up. They made no real effort to avoid being seen, and they just walked on and on and one with him. That they lied to adults proves nothing: obviously they must have intended to “get a kid lost,” as they admitted to police rather early on, but the murder? – no way that was planned.
My guess is that what happened is they were exhausted, weary, increasingly frustrated and angry and maybe Thompson, maybe Venables took it out on James by throwing something at him. Maybe they picked up stones, maybe bricks. But not with the intention to kill him.
Or maybe it wasn’t that. Thompson repeatedly stated that it started with a flick of paint that Venables flicked at James and the paint landed in James’ eye and Venables went berserk. What if Thompson was telling the truth?
He flicks the paint – he was being a nasty and abusive shit, there’s no doubt, but that does not prove any homicidal intent any more than any other kind of childhood bullying does. He flicks the paint, it lands in James’ eye, James starts screaming and wailing hysterically at this point, not just sobbing quietly like throughout the day, but a full-blown scream of terror and pain.
And with James’ full-blown panic attack at this moment comes Venables’ own corresponding panic attack – and then comes the domino effect, panic, rage, terror, and the typical consequence – massive explosions of extreme violence.
That is exactly what happened when Private Needham, an American Iraq War vet, battered and beat his own girlfriend to death in a PTSD-induced rage reaction:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-57460995/war-damaged-vet-kills-girlfriend-is-ptsd-to-blame-/
Note the key point here is that Needham was committing an aggressive action – restraining his girlfriend – using physical force – when something “snapped” and he went absolutely berserk and in a frenzy of extreme violence, delivered a fatal beating to his girlfriend, to whom there is no evidence he ever felt any animosity or hatred towards.
Now, these two boys I think were taking out their frustrations on James – oh God, we pulled this stupid prank! now we’re in deep shit! what do we do? – and I suspect they took out their frustration on James by being aggressive towards him, throwing a rock at him, then another…..
….. but then all of a sudden, without warning, something “snapped” inside Venables, exactly as it “snapped” inside the terribly traumatized Private Needham (who says that he suddenly out of the blue “became an animal”), and he just went berserk at that moment and in a frenzy of panic and rage destroyed the child’s body.
So why didn’t Thompson help? Why did Thompson rush to assist Venables administer a lethal dose of violence instead of dragging him off the helpless toddler?
Well, read Thompson’s psychological profile. The psychologists who examined him describe a childhood spent “tuning out” emotionally, blocking out any normal emotion as a coping measure in the face of the incredible violence in his own home. Thompson even witnessed his own father beat his own mother senseless and leaving her lying in a pool of her own blood on the kitchen floor. These were typical scenes from the life of the Thompson household.
In the face of extreme violence in his normal life, Thompson learned to simply block out all normal feeling and normal emotional responses in the face of violence and horror. I also think his presence as the “bad boy” of the two probably encouraged Venables to act impulsively and dare himself to go further than he’d ever dare on his own.
So probably Venables wouldn’t dare smack a toddler if he wasn’t trying to impress the real bad boy Thompson. But Thompson being there to egg him on may have led him to just go a little further, and a little further, and a little further in his aggressiveness…. and then the “snap” occurs, and he suddenly goes ballistic exactly like Needham.
And that’s why, I believe, James died. Because of untreated and largely ignored (by responsible adults) PTSD that had built up inside Venables’ body, but not given any kind of outlet till now…. the worst possible moment for a PTSD-induced rage reaction to occur.
We can note that Private Needham was never able to explain his motive for killing his girlfriend. And the reason is that there was no motive. It was a motiveless killing, a switch being tripped, an outburst of incredible lethal violence directed at the wrong target.
In the secure unit he was incarcerated in, a member of the staff teased Venables that he was so weak and scrawny he “couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding.” Yet he displayed tremendous physical force and devastating power in killing James. How does such a proverbial skinny weakling do that?
That is exactly what happens when a trauma reaction is triggered. Millions of years of evolution have equipped us with the capacity to fight our way out of a life-or-death emergency with extraordinary violence and power. And it’s likely that without this emergency mechanism in place, our distant ancestors could not have survived in the wild. This emergency reserve of frenzied strength enables us to administer lethal doses of violence to seemingly invincible enemies in the wild – like saber-toothed tigers for example!
The danger lies, however, in that if we’re forced to repress it instead of releasing this energy at the correct time, the explosion of violence can erupt at the wrong time and a totally irrelevant and innocent target, like Needham killing a girlfriend he was actually in love with.
Tyson, I understand your point of view as a parent. I think all of us share those views. I have given my views though and I stick by them for a reason. I believe that the wrong doings of people will come back to haunt them without any intervention from anybody..
Regarding this case though – just think of the consequences before you act.
Prison and confinement is for people who cannot live in the community and to try to rehabilitate them. I hope it happens here but it doesnt a lot of the time. In this case I don’t agree with the identities being made public and would like to think that the system has worked for one of them.
And don’t worry, I’m not so naive as to think that life is all lollipops and puppy farts.
A lot of juvenile crimes are as a result of poor parenting and neglect. In certain cases parents have a lot to answer for and if social services did their job, many of these instances would not arise. And unfortunately for those kids, their crimes continue into adulthood.
The efforts to rehabilitate the killers is well documented. I just wonder how much professional support was made available to the Bulgers?
I was brought up on handouts in Liverpool myself, so were all the people i know. We havent committed such a crime.. Its nothing to do with the upbringing at all. Thats an easy excuse. The real excuse is they were/are pure evil, Abducting James was one thing, but to do what they did that can only be evil. Kids know right from wrong at an early age. They knew it was very wrong but took pleasure in doing it. Bad upbringing is no excuse.
There is no such thing as good or evil, grow up.
Oh fuck off you proud dickhead.
I hope I can be as intelligent as you someday.
Your more intelligent than me, yes. Do you want a medal you pompous dickhead? Do you?
Get a fucking life you pathetic cunt.
A life like yours you mean? LOL
You troll a James Bulger thread to get your kicks, I bet you have no kids, no partner, and a probably a paedophile like Virgil, defending beasts.
I have two kids playing free in this house right now, 100% safe and out of harms way, away from murderous beasts, one’s who prey on them from behind a screen, just like Venables. what more do i need from life ?
Adios Hawkes you poor soul.
“The real excuse is they were/are pure evil”
This is just stupid. There is nothing to suggest that they were “evil” at all.
“Abducting James was one thing, but to do what they did that can only be evil.”
No, that is not the “only” thing it can be.
There’s not one shred of proof that they planned to kill him. And there’s nothing they did that cannot be reconciled and sufficiently explained by a straightforward PTSD-induced rage reaction – which, if it occurred, would almost certainly have been on JV’s part.
War veterans have done this – again due to PTSD – but that doesn’t make them evil, it makes them sick and damaged.
The same goes for JV in his childhood.
And I will reiterate, since you and millions of other people seem not to grasp this point – there’s no proof whatsoever that James was either tortured (except in the sense that all deaths-by-battering could constitute torture) or sexually abused.
And if – IF – those things did not occur, then there’s literally nothing about the violence of this crime that is inexplicable by Venables’ likely internalized trauma.
To insist that it MUST be “evil” is simply wilful ignorance.
Virgil, thats your opinion, doesnt mean its true, does it?
Proof isnt the be all and end all you know, man thinks he knows everything, we know nothing. Take your “proof” and dissapear, forget the proof, im only replying to this to let you know your a fucking dickhead and your an outsider, looking in on us, me, Ralph, Denise, SSmith, all of us looking for justice, your on the outside with your face pressed against the glass. Well ive just shut the fucking curtains you lonely arrogant little shitbag of a man.
Of course, the illustrious heir apparent to Dostoyevsky, David Kessler, has no evident problem with the vitriolic tone you’ve taken with me, repeatedly, but my “rudeness” puts my stance beyond the pale, according to him.
But Tyson,
What is justice?
Death? Banged up for life?
The court passed the maximum sentence it could. They were kids.
I do take your point that most kids would never do what they did.
But please realise that they should have been in school when it happened. This constituted neglect on the part of the parents and the authorities.
And if you lack money it doesnt make you any less a person than someone who has it. As a matter of fact very often the working class are far more down to earth anyway. Sometimes there might be a lack of education and the only way to address this is to read, ask and live.
I cannot change how you feel on this but I certainly wouldn’t put you down for it because I believe you are bitter and hurt about it even still.
But killing them wont bring James back and will only put the person or people in prison and what good is that? I believe a person’s life is worth more than rotting away behind bars.
Do you not think it is possible to rehabilitate people?
If so, why arent people executed instead of being sent to prison?
All I’ll say is – dont allow yourself be used as a pawn. I have said what I have said regarding the media and wont say it again as I dont want to repeat myself. I dont agree with your vigilate attitude but I do respect your right to be angry.
And to virgil, no I am not familiar with that case in San Francisco but in my opinion, environment contributes to a lot of things as do good and bad life experiences especially as children. I dont want to repeat….
Also I would like to point out that debates/discussions are never one sided. I am not on anybody’s side and think that Virgil and Hawkes have also made some valid points but please show some respect to Tyson. We all have to do what we think is right and you cant force somebody to share your views and you will only alienate them the moment you start criticising them. Be reasonable with people and the chances are they will be reasonable with you. There is a right way to be persuasive and a wrong way!
I take everybody’s view on board and then decide whether I agree or disagree.
Virgil, there seems to be some limit on the depth of replies, so I’ll reply here and try to cover everything as briefly as possible.
Firstly I am glad that you have now tacitly conceded on the point of the injunction, which was actually the only point I came here to make. You decided to draw me into a broader fight by making unprovoked comments on my writing. This leads me to:
“I went on Amazon and looked you up THEN, NOT NOW.”
So you say. However, I note that you don’t mention the title.
“As I suspected, your writing proved to be garbage, but I wanted to know if you really were correct that you were the marvelous writer you claimed to be.”
As you what? Suspected? And tow hat extent were you able to free-yourself of your preconceptions. Dostoyevsky would have something to say about that (I SUSPECT).
” Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. I specifically stated I speed-read my way through YOUR NOVEL.”
You didn’t actually write that. Look back carefully over what you did write. Again you mentioned no title.
“Why the hell should I read your work slowly? I’m not a fan: I simply wanted to see if you were telling the truth about the quality of your work to that other, female, poster who accused you of being a pulpy hack. After reading your book, I concluded that, yes, her evaluation was correct: you are a hack.”
Anyone can say this of any book. It’s a meaningless comment unless you can prove it. By your own admission you started with negative preconceptions.
“Funny how you previously invoked Dostoyevsky in relation to your own work.”
Only in the context of your passing judgement from a position of limited (or even non-existent) knowledge.
I note that you also wrote ” I speed-read my way through YOUR NOVEL.”
Now imagine if I had said that I read (speedily or otherwise) Dostoyevsky’s novel. What sarcastic comment would you have come back with?
Regarding secondary responsibility (at least of a contributory nature) I concede the point.
You sound very upset, don’t you Dave, that I don’t think you’re a good writer. Pretty thin-skinned, I must say.
It’s obvious my remarks really stuck in your craw. Oh well. Do you think book reviewers and film critics should only give good reviews?
Your argument is becoming ridiculous. You say my speed-reading your work invalidates my opinion.
But that’s absurd. I didn’t do this do write a book review for newspaper publication. I did it out of my own curiosity and for my own satisfaction.
I read all the time and there are hundreds of classic titles I’ve never read that I would very much like to get to, the sooner the better. The notion that I should devote some lengthy investment of time to your novel is silly. If I really don’t like what I’m reading, I always either speed right up or put the book down for good.
“You sound very upset, don’t you Dave, that I don’t think you’re a good writer. Pretty thin-skinned, I must say.”
I have no problem with criticism in context. However you were using your (possible) opinion of my novels to score points in a discussion about an entirely different subject. Imagine if we were discussing environmental policy and I blurted out: “You’re fat and ugly – stick to losing weight instead of offering us your opinion on atmospheric pollution!” Would that be within the bounds of legitimate debate and discourse?
My anger is that you used literary criticism in an effort to gain the upper hand in the face of my clarification of the law regarding injunctions granted by courts in England and Wales. This is like using a rugby tackle in a cricket match.
“However you were using your (possible) opinion of my novels to score points in a discussion about an entirely different subject.”
Your novels – at least the one I purchased – are crime novels, legal thrillers, and the like. It’s not an entirely different subject. You have a specific vision of and attitude towards crime, criminals, and the justice system that are evident in your book.
If I think your crime novel is simplistic and crudely conceived – with Gary Stu and Mary Sue protagonists and cardboard cutout antagonists – then that’s relevant to how I believe you to understand crime and punishment in general. Your fiction isn’t some separate realm wholly apart from what you blog and post about. The one realm intertwines with the other.
Your fiction is crime fiction, not Virginia Woolf-ian literary fiction. You frequently blog about crime and the justice system. The two areas of your writing form a continuum.
“I have not misread your position. You do endorse vigilantism. Your very wording here gives you away. You believe the ‘system has failed most egregiously.'”
Where did I say that the system HAS failed egregiously. I said that instances where it has are the exceptional case as far as vigilantism is concerned. I did not say this was such a case. The circumstances would have to be a lot more extreme for me to endorse vigilante justice.
So no matter what you think about this case, if you “endorse vigilante justice…. when the system has failed most egregiously,” you are no different from any garden-variety hoodlum and yahoo, despite your literary pretensions.”
How do you think the justice system started? It started with vigilantes. It then became refined into law and order. if law and order broke down, would you sit and wait until some one else restored it?
“It is inevitable – INEVITABLE – that innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. It’s already happened: David Calvert”
Also Scott Bradley. And while we’re on the subject of responsibility for the actions of others, I would call him Robert Thompson’s latest victim.
“There’s a solid body of scientific data that demonstrates that the symptoms resulting from children traumatized by such procedures are virtually identical to the symptoms displayed by soldiers returning from a theatre of war. ”
If that is so then one would expect a statistically significant number of other cases of violence by children who had undergone such procedures comparable to the percentage of cases of soldiers with PTSD going on to commit extreme violence. Is that in fact the case?
‘Upthread, a poster makes the sensible point that, “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!”’
Nevertheless they did display guile along the way. That is consistent with being in control, not losing control. Of course the murder was spontaneous and unplanned, but it too was a drawn out act. I believe that the pathologist said that the final acts that killed James probably took place over twenty minutes. I accept that there was an element of mutual reinforcement. But that too sounds less like an uncontrolled rage than competitive violence for thrills.
I suppose that ultimately it comes down to whether one believes in free will at all. But the position that free will exists on the one hand, but that Venables and Thompson did not act on it, is untenable.
“If that is so then one would expect a statistically significant number of other cases of violence by children who had undergone such procedures comparable to the percentage of cases of soldiers with PTSD going on to commit extreme violence. Is that in fact the case?”
What precisely do you mean here by “violence”? Do you mean violence that culminates in a homicide, or simply violent outbursts of any sort? Because the latter are well documented: I just gave you a typical example of one in the Reader’s Digest anecdote.
But a small child is not an adult soldier, and therefore is not going to simply kill just anyone because of an outburst of violence. Are you forgetting this victim was a toddler? If James hadn’t been a toddler, but a 200-pound muscular man, do you think he would be dead today, as a result of Venables’ violence?
You seem unwilling to acknowledge the role of chance – the degree to which this tragedy was the consequence of a whole series of unfortunate events: missed warning signs, missed signals, bad luck, the denial and indifference of parents and teachers, the fact that nobody else was present to prevent the violence from escalating. And that if a single link in the chain of causation had been absent, this tragedy would not have occurred, irregardless of what PTSD Venables was suffering from.
For example, if Venables had exploded in school, in the middle of the classroom, there would have been no death at the end of it, since there would have been teachers and other students there to prevent that from happening, and also the victim would not have been a toddler.
And therefore, none of us would ever have heard about it.
But with just Venables, Thompson, and two-year-old James Bulger alone, there was no third party to intervene.
But whatever violent trauma reactions result from small children are not very often going to result in a homicide. Unless, of course, the victim is an even smaller child and the violence occurs where and when there’s nobody else to prevent it from happening.
Whereas violent trauma reactions from extremely strong, muscular adult male soldiers could very easily culminate in a homicide.
Consequently, you will very often read news items about tragedies concerning soldiers suffering from PTSD. But you will not often read news items about homicidal children in the wake of surgery. Indeed, since so few people know about this consequence of childhood surgery, it’s highly likely that people generally wouldn’t make the connection, wouldn’t put two and two together in the first place.
For example, Peter Levine mentions the operations performed on two famous multiple murderers, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Kazcinski, when they were small children – as well as the testimony of the parents that something in the child seemed to “snap” in the wake of this surgery. They became increasingly withdrawn and disconnected in the wake of the surgery.
But few people have ever heard about this phenomenon. Consequently, it’s rare to read anything written about Dahmer or Kazcinski that even mentions this item in their biographies:
Click to access TraumaLevine.pdf
Obviously, a small child is not capable of “going on to commit extreme violence” in the same sense that a soldier is. A soldier is pretty much by definition a physically powerful man or woman – as well as one who has been trained in killing techniques – so of course, statistically speaking, a soldier with PTSD is far more likely to cause death than a small child with PTSD.
Furthermore, surgery does not as frequently trigger PTSD in the first place as long-term immersion in combat situations does.
Though Levine says it occurs quite frequently (even sometimes in adults as well as children), he certainly is not suggesting that most operations result in trauma. We’d all know about this phenomenon – it would be common knowledge – if it was THAT frequent.
And he’s not suggesting that as high a percentage of children undergoing surgery as soldiers returning from battle experience trauma. He is simply pointing out that trauma resulting from surgery occurs much more frequently than people think, sometimes even when the recipient of the surgery is an adult, not a child.
David Kessler,
Your latest post suggests you don’t quite understand what a PTSD-induced rage response is.
When you write, “one would expect a statistically significant number of other cases of violence by children who had undergone such procedures comparable to the percentage of cases of soldiers with PTSD going on to commit extreme violence,” you seem to be implying that the PTSD induced by surgery cannot be comparable to that induced by military combat.
But in fact it can and sometimes is – sometimes even when the patient is an adult, not a child. Levine writes in a recently published book, In An Unspoken Voice,
“Although hospitals have become more humane (particularly for children —though from the above study not nearly enough), there is still inadequate attention to preventing undue fear in people who must undergo painful procedures or general anesthesia. Indeed, some of those ill-fated individuals partially “awaken” during anesthesia and many develop some of the most horrific and complex PTSD symptoms. In the words of one survivor (a surgical nurse herself), “I feel a cosmic hollowness, as if my soul has left my body and can’t return … horrifying nightmares are my companion … often shocking me wide awake. When my eyes pop open, there is still no respite because the walls and ceiling turn blood red.’ This riveting description illustrates the horror of enduring the combination of terror, extreme pain, and being unable to move or to communicate one’s situation.”
Does that sound like a walk in the park to you?
We still don’t know why this sort of terrifying trauma is experienced by some who undergo invasive surgery but not others, all we know is that it sometimes does occur.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what causes the PTSD, because the PTSD, if severe, triggers the same sorts of biological responses in the body of the sufferer irrespective of what caused it.
So, if one PTSD-sufferer was traumatized by being gang-raped, and another by his military experiences, a third by invasive surgery, a fourth by domestic violence, and fifth by all of the above, the actual experience of trauma will usually feel the same to each victim.
It doesn’t matter if one person was raped and a second was “raped” by surgery, the PTSD that results will feel the same and affect the body and soul in similar ways.
Furthermore, Levine asserts, in relation to the fight or flight response:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=23581.0
“Biologically, the orthopedic patients, soldiers, rape victims and hospitalized children are reacting like wild animals fighting for their life after being frightened and captured. Their impulse to attack in an “aggravated rage” or to flee in frantic desperation is not only biologically appropriate; in fact, it is a frequent biological outcome. As a captured and terrified animal comes out of immobility, its survival may depend on its violent aggression toward the still-present predator. In humans, such violence, however, has produced tragic consequences to the individual and society.”
You have not offered anything in the way of proof that what I have suggested could not have occurred. For instance, you say you think the attack lasted 20 minutes, but that is not beyond the bounds of a possible PTSD response, and also, nobody actually knows how long the attack lasted. It could have lasted 20 minutes but it could also have been significantly shorter. We don’t know, we weren’t there.
Furthermore, there’s no real contradiction between what most people think occurred and what I think occurred. Everyone agrees they must have started behaving aggressively towards James, throwing things at him: bricks, stones.
But it is precisely because they were doing that that it was quite possible for an explosive outburst to occur at this moment in time: that’s precisely what happened with Private Needham when he beat his girlfriend. He was restraining her – i.e. using physical force on her – and then suddenly snapped and went ballistic, beating her to death in a frenzy.
So there was some kind of aggressive impulse of some sort towards her that preceded – triggered – the outburst of extreme violence that killed her.
You – much like the prosecution during the trial – have offered nothing in the way of substantial proof that something similar could not have occurred here. My conjecture remains a distinct possibility.
Nor was anything in the way of motive or premeditation – nothing in the way of demonstrating what exactly occurred – ever demonstrated by the prosecution in court. The prosecution failed to prove the sort of hypothesis you sketch. And so it remains nothing but conjecture.
If you reply that, well, my hypothesis is just conjecture too, I’ll happily cede that point. But it seems to me if JV and RT are going to be vilified and hounded and ostracized to the extent that they have been, for the rest of their lives, we better make damn sure that they actually DID what they’ve been accused of doing.
Most people who vilify them online write stupid stuff about batteries being inserted in James’ rectum (which never happened), and go on and on about supposed sexual abuse of James which probably didn’t even occur.
And so far, absolutely nobody has managed to prove that they did, in fact, do what they are generally believed to have done: murdered him for kicks and thrills.
It might have happened like that. But it might well not have. And the prosecution certainly didn’t prove that in court.
Nobody really knows quite what happened that day, what prompted that final frenzy of violence inflicted on James.
You can dismiss my conjectures about PTSD all you want, but it remains as valid a possibility as any other theory that’s on the table.
“But the position that free will exists on the one hand, but that Venables and Thompson did not act on it, is untenable.”
It would be closer to the truth to say that your own understanding of the free will problem is too limited and lacking in nuance to be of much value in addressing legal or moral questions.
You write: “Though Levine says it occurs quite frequently (even sometimes in adults as well as children), he certainly is not suggesting that most operations result in trauma.”
I never said he did. But you did write that “it FREQUENTLY causes PTSD in children.” And Levine wrote that ““The fact that hospitalizations and medical procedures ROUTINELY produce traumatic results comes as as surprise to many people. The traumatic aftereffects from prolonged immobilization, hospitalizations, and especially surgeries are often long-lasting and severe.”
My question was whether there was statistical evidence to back up the anecdotal evidence.
You also write “Furthermore, surgery does not as frequently trigger PTSD in the first place as long-term immersion in combat situations does.”
Again I agree. That is precisely why I regard the analogy between Venables and “the war veteran who suddenly snaps and kills someone in civilian life” too simplistic. The differences are many. I am not convinced that the trauma of a medical operation on a child has the same psychology as PTSD in a combat soldier. The fact that both can be subsumed under a single medical term, does not mean that they are the same on the inside, as it were. (I am open to correction on this, if there are brain-scan studies to support the analogy.)
The analogy with Ted Kazcinski is even less credible. He may well have been affected by childhood surgery, but the nature of his crimes was very far removed from the Bulger murder. Kazcinski committed his crimes over a 20 year period, he had a quasi-political motive and he committed his murders remotely, rather than getting up close and personal with his carefully-selected (adult) victims.
“a small child is not an adult soldier, and therefore is not going to simply kill just anyone because of an outburst of violence.”
I was asking about the degree of violence attempted, not the consequences of said violence.
“if Venables had exploded in school, in the middle of the classroom, there would have been no death at the end of it, since there would have been teachers and other students there to prevent that from happening, and also the victim would not have been a toddler… And therefore, none of us would ever have heard about it.”
Nevertheless a conclusion can only be founded on evidence, not on speculation as to the POSSIBILITY that the supporting evidence MIGHT exist. You may be right that such incidents of non-lethal PTSD-driven violence occur with sufficient frequency to support your hypothesis, but that we seldom get to hear about them. Or on the other hand you might equally be wrong. In the absence of statistical evidence, you (or rather Levine) have raised a possibility to be considered and studied. Unless and until there are some statistical studies of the phenomenon you describe, all we have is Levine’s anecdotal evidence.
And remember these instances of PTSD-driven violence must be counterbalanced against instances of violence that are not PTSD-driven. Any such study would have to control for these cases to be scientifically rigorous.
PS I hope this isn’t too intellectual for “Anonymous” ;-)
“Nevertheless a conclusion can only be founded on evidence, not on speculation as to the POSSIBILITY that the supporting evidence MIGHT exist.”
This is all wrong. You have not understood my point at all.
I am not claiming that Venables simply killed James because he was traumatized by surgery. In other words, I am not claiming that a single causal factor traumatized Venables and turned him into a murderer. I am not claiming that surgery for squint is the smoking gun that firmly solves the mystery of James’ death.
What I actually asserted is that it is well-known that surgeries like the one Venables underwent frequently do initiate very severe trauma in some children (and even some adults). And that for whatever reason, there are studies that suggest that if the child is from a broken home, the likelihood of traumatization resulting from such surgeries increases.
I then said this might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were. That this might have been one more burden of severe trauma on the back of all the others that enabled Venables to become so violent. A seriously disturbed child (for reasons we’re not altogether sure of, but the symptoms were there) now has a whole new avalanche of traumatic feelings to struggle with, on top of all his already unresolved psychological and emotional problems.
Venables already manifested emotional disturbances and dysfunctional behaviour for several years before the operation (which apparently only was performed a few months before James’ death). So obviously the squint operation can’t explain or have caused all that. But given the brief interval of time between the operation and James’ death, it might have been the variable that caused him to ratchet up from an 8 out of 10 to a 10 out of 10 on the trauma scale, as it were.
I am not saying he killed James because of “X” (“X” being the surgery). I’m saying he might have killed James because of X, Y, and Z, but that few people even realize that Venables’ childhood experiences were not as normal and everyday as is generally claimed. There is this belief afoot that Thompson’s background was severely messed up but that Venables came from a completely normal family (his former solicitor, Laurence Lee, bizarrely claimed this in a recent interview, and went on to lionize his “lovely” parents). But that is a very misleading picture. Even apart from what David James Smith labels “hair-raising” violence being a part of the family dynamic, there were other trauma-triggers that should raise a red flag – and one such trauma-trigger is invasive surgery of the sort JV experienced. Of course his parents can’t be blamed for putting him under the knife at such a vulnerable time, since they wouldn’t have known about the potential consequences. But nevertheless, this is one of those things that can push a person over the edge who is already in a very fragile state, as Venables we know was.
“You may be right that such incidents of non-lethal PTSD-driven violence occur with sufficient frequency to support your hypothesis, but that we seldom get to hear about them.”
You are still not getting the point. PTSD-driven violence emerges in a similar fashion regardless of cause. So if one person is traumatized by surgery and another by something else, and a third by a whole panoply of causal factors (perhaps including surgery as one of several variables), our sympathetic nervous system is poised and primed to respond in a similar fashion regardless of the trauma’s origin(s).
Ok. Everyone who contributed has expressed his opinion in English except one poster..
I am quite surprised that Dave Kessler describes himself as middle class. I can see that you are well able to climb up on your high horse. But you are not middle class as you blatantly have no class.
Being well read does not excuse your poor behaviour in fact for someone who who may think he is educated, you certainly let yourself down badly…
You have lied and tried to incite unnecessary hatred and have taken the post off track and turned it into something about you..Any point you do make is not backed up by any plausable argument whatsoever.
I am suprised that you are an author. I thought you might perhaps have shoveled shit – you certainly love stirring it that’s for sure!
I won’t spell it out for you – you think yourself to be intelligent so go figure if you can climb down off that high horse or yours?
Nobody here actually cares who or what or are.
I am sure most people would appreciate if you consented to actually contribute and air your views in plain English provided they relate to the post.
We are not all as intellectual as you and dont understand the language you write which is the language of BOLLOX!
Can we get back to hunting Venables and inflicting misery and torment on the deranged evil cunt and have less of this too’ing and fro’ing of meaningless drivell. Thankyou.
It’s hard to know where to BEGIN responding to such obnoxious, moronic drivel as Anonymous spews out, but here goes:
“Everyone who contributed has expressed his opinion in English except one poster.”
Wot? Me speaky too high-bwow for you. Little boy anonymous no understandee biggy wordies? Little boy want simple English that not tax tinsy-winsy little brainy-wainy?
“I am quite surprised that Dave Kessler describes himself as middle class.”
HE didn’t. Virgil said that I “espouse the simplistic, smug, entitled middle-class morality.” I responded by questioning whether his rejection of middle-class morality offered a superior alternative.
“Being well read does not excuse your poor behaviour in fact for someone who who may think he is educated, you certainly let yourself down badly…”
How so?
“You have lied”
How so?
” and tried to incite unnecessary hatred”
How so?
” and have taken the post off track and turned it into something about you.”
No I didn’t. If you look back, you will see that I merely wrote in to clarify the issue regarding the injunction. Virgil took exception to my legally correct posting and responded with the vituperative:
“David Kessler, stick to your day job of churning out trashy, fifth-rate pulp novels and stop giving LWTC the kind of bad advice that could land him in jail.”
As he was attempting to use the alleged quality of my writing as a substitute for engaging my technical comments about the law, I then responded to what he wrote. Instead of leaving it at that, Virgil then responded with further invective about my writing, to which I continued to respond. Perhaps I should have simply responded by saying “Your personal opinion about my writing has nothing to do with the issues” but I allowed myself to be provoked by Virgil’s below-the-belt tactics.
“Any point you do make is not backed up by any plausable argument whatsoever.”
How would you know? You lack the equipment needed to make such a judgement.
“I am suprised that you are an author. I thought you might perhaps have shoveled shit”
Now you’re just being a silly little boy.
“– you certainly love stirring it that’s for sure!”
As opposed to your postings, which show a desire to reach a broad, rational consensus?
“I won’t spell it out for you”
Just as well, considering how you spelled “surprised” and “plausible!”
“you think yourself to be intelligent so go figure if you can climb down off that high horse or yours?”
I’m actually wondering what I’ve done to provoke your ire. Get a life!
“Nobody here actually cares who or what or are.”
And you have been their spokesman since…?
“I am sure most people would appreciate if you consented to actually contribute and air your views in plain English”
I think you mean simple English.
“We are not all as intellectual as you”
Virgil is.
“… and dont understand the language you write which is the language of BOLLOX!”
Your eloquence demolishes me! I concede I am well and truly bested by your well-phrased, cogent arguments.
“I know from my own work for a company that made biofeedback products for stress management that the sympathetic nervous system can become stimulated by stress other than genuine life or death situations…”
Yes, and it is more likely to become so stimulated when the trauma from such past situations that perhaps were life-and-death remain unresolved.
It is precisely the lack of timely resolution that enables such an extreme response to sometimes occur over a “minor” or “trivial” situation instead of when and where it truly would have been appropriate.
“But it is hard to see the attack on James Bulger as a fight-or-flight response.”
Fight-or-flight doesn’t adequately describe the full range of responses the sympathetic-adrenal nervous system is capable of. We always use the phrase “fight or flight” because it’s been around so long it’s just entered public consciousness as a fact. But it’s a somewhat misleading phrase.
As Levine puts it,
“In addition to the well-known fight and flight reactions, there is a third, lesser-known reaction to threat: immobilization. Ethologists call this “default” state of paralysis tonic immobility. It’s one of the three primary instinctual responses available to reptiles and mammals when faced with threat from predation. It occurs when active responses are not likely to be effective in escaping or removing the threat (as by fighting). The familiarity of the other two, fight or flight, is due largely to the overarching and extended influence of Walter B. Cannon’s eminent work carried out in the 1920s on the sympathetic-adrenal nervous system. Far less appreciated, though, are the profound implications of the human immobility response in the formation and treatment of trauma. Taking into account the more than seventy-five years of ethological and physiological research since Cannon’s discovery, fight-or-flight could be updated with the acronym “the A, and four Fs”: Arrest (increased vigilance, scanning), Flight (try first to escape), Fight (if the animal or person is prevented from escaping), Freeze (fright –scared stiff) and Fold (collapse into helplessness). In two sentences: Trauma occurs when we are intensely frightened and are either physically restrained or perceive that we are trapped. We freeze in paralysis and/or collapse in overwhelming helplessness.”
These same biological mechanisms (fight/flight/freeze/fold) exist throughout the animal kingdom, but,
“Generally, an animal in the wild, if not killed, recovers from its immobility and lives to see another day. It is wiser but none the worse for wear. For example, a deer learns to avoid a certain rock outcropping where it was ambushed by a mountain lion. While my observational hypothesis is based on field observations and not empirically proven, my interviews with wildlife managers throughout the world have supported it. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how individual wild animals (or their entire species for that matter) would have ever survived if they routinely developed the sorts of debilitating symptoms that many humans do. This natural “immunity” is clearly not the case for us modern humans – but why and what can we do about it?”
With human beings suffering from long-term PTSD, they haven’t come out of the immobility or freeze response in a timely fashion (as an animal almost invariably will, should the freeze have enabled it to fool and elude a predator for instance). The problem is that when they do come out of it, they can sometimes explode into violence. That isn’t going to happen if someone has a mild case of PTSD, of course, but if it is very severe PTSD then there can be outbursts – and it’s not only soldiers who experience that. It’s the same for anyone who has experienced extreme threat and exposure to extreme violence.
It’s not the specific cause of the PTSD that is crucial, but the severity of it as experienced in the body irrespective of what the cause was.
“The analogy with Ted Kazcinski is even less credible. He may well have been affected by childhood surgery, but the nature of his crimes was very far removed from the Bulger murder.”
I was not suggesting that Kazcinski’s crime was very similar to the Bulger murder. I was drawing attention to a notorious criminal whose personality underwent a dramatic and alarming shift in the immediate aftermath of a childhood surgical procedure. You expressed skepticism that surgery could ever have that kind of impact on an individual. I was not implying the Unabomber and JV were two peas in a pod.
“Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what causes the PTSD, because the PTSD, if severe, triggers the same sorts of biological responses in the body of the sufferer irrespective of what caused it.”
Prove.
“So, if one PTSD-sufferer was traumatized by being gang-raped, and another by his military experiences, a third by invasive surgery, a fourth by domestic violence, and fifth by all of the above, the actual experience of trauma will usually feel the same to each victim.”
Prove
“It doesn’t matter if one person was raped and a second was “raped” by surgery, the PTSD that results will feel the same and affect the body and soul in similar ways.”
Prove.
You write: “Levine asserts, in relation to the fight or flight response: ‘Biologically, the orthopedic patients, soldiers, rape victims and hospitalized children are reacting like wild animals fighting for their life after being frightened and captured. Their impulse to attack in an “aggravated rage” or to flee in frantic desperation is not only biologically appropriate; in fact, it is a frequent biological outcome. As a captured and terrified animal comes out of immobility, its survival may depend on its violent aggression toward the still-present predator. In humans, such violence, however, has produced tragic consequences to the individual and society.’ ”
I know from my own work for a company that made biofeedback products for stress management that the sympathetic nervous system can become stimulated by stress other than genuine life or death situations (e.g. a trader in an investment bank when the markets are in free-fall, a tourist who gets delayed on the way to the airport, etc). But it is hard to see the attack on James Bulger as a fight-or-flight response. Your earlier speculation about him screaming when Thompson threw paint in his eyes is plausible, but barely so.
“You have not offered anything in the way of proof that what I have suggested could not have occurred.”
The burden of proof as to willful causation of death rests with the prosecution – and they have discharged it. That matter is now res judicata. The onus probandi for what amounts to a temporary insanity or automatism defence rests with the defence.
“Nor was anything in the way of motive or premeditation – nothing in the way of demonstrating what exactly occurred – ever demonstrated by the prosecution in court. The prosecution failed to prove the sort of hypothesis you sketch. And so it remains nothing but conjecture.”
I don’t know what hypothesis you think I “sketched” but I certainly did not say that the crime was premeditated. That has never been my opinion. But it was drawn-out in the sense that they had ample opportunity to think “my God, what are we doing?” before it got to the stage that James Bulger was dead.
“The burden of proof as to willful causation of death rests with the prosecution – and they have discharged it. That matter is now res judicata.”
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that JV and RT had not received a fair trial. JV and RT have even been awarded monetary damages. Furthermore, jury foreman Vincent Moss had this to say about the trial,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime1
“Looking back, I am ashamed that I allowed myself to be coerced by the judge and prosecution to agree to a verdict of guilty of murder,” Moss says. “A proper judgment would have been that they had behaved like confused, frightened and stupid children caught up in a situation they had created but could not deal with. The judge’s pronouncement that they were ‘evil’ was just wrong – they didn’t have the moral and intellectual capacity for this to be an accurate description.”
Moss, a book dealer, believes the trial should never have taken place. “They were children: not very intelligent, hardly educated – because they were persistent truants, and from a poor social background. For them, the trial was traumatic and largely incomprehensible. They knew that they had done something terribly wrong and were to be punished for it but could not understand why they were in court for day after day with adults who were using language and concepts which had no reality for them.”
In terms of the information that was available to the jury, this was limited by the fact that the trial system deals with closed questions. “The issue of moral awareness is a very complex one, but the psychiatrists were only able to answer yes or no. Consequently, their depth of understanding wasn’t made available to the jury. The boys’ home environment wasn’t touched on either. The circumstances which might have given some context to their actions weren’t brought out.
“As a parent, I can in small part imagine the grief, anger and misery the killing of a child must cause,” adds Moss. “But the way in which so much of the press has worked to inflame and continue the parents’ and the public’s hatred is quite the most cynical and irresponsible aspect of the whole affair.”
A second juror, under condition of anonymity, wrote this letter to the Guardian:
“I was a juror at the Bulger trial and it is with dismay that I see in the press continuing demands for retribution, for vengeance of the most primitive kind (Prisons chief apologises for calling for the release of Bulger’s killers, November 3). The defendants were children – 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).
That this dreadful killing had taken place was hardly disputed but what should have been of central concern – the defendants’ understanding of what they had done, their moral awareness – were given only the most cursory examination.
The jury heard from their teacher that he included moral dimensions in his lessons – but not that they were persistent truants. Nor was he questioned about their ability to profit from those few lessons they attended. The psychiatrist was relentlessly bullied to give a yes/no answer to a question (“Were they morally aware of the nature of what was done?”) which demanded a more complex and, perhaps, equivocal answer. Her final, and reluctant, “on balance, yes” was taken as definite proof of the defendant’s adult moral sense.
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 have no doubt that they did commit a dreadful act and I have the most profound sympathy for the parents of James Bulger. But was justice really served? 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”.
Can any of us say that at the age of nine we did not do things which were incomprehensively stupid and unaware? Is retribution against children really what we should wish for? May there not be circumstances where perpetrators of crimes should be offered help rather than vilification?
The press should help the public to understand ethical complexities rather than promoting simple-minded vengeance.”
So it simply won’t do to claim the prosecution discharged their burden of proof. They did not. The whole trial has already been ruled unjust and in any case where the prosecution truly and authentically discharged their burden, you don’t have the jury coming back after the fact to criticize the whole proceedings and level such harsh complaints. The anonymous juror’s comment about the psychiatrists being “bullied” into delivering “simplistic,” “yes/no” answers doesn’t suggest faith or satisfaction in the prosecution. He accuses the prosecution of a kind of swindle or con job, essentially.
So no, the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. In cases where the burden of proof was met, the jury doesn’t then turn around and declare: we were con-jobbed, we were railroaded. Members of juries should be able to say, with confidence, they made the right decision, not immediately turn around and say: we made the WRONG decision and the reason why is the prosecution’s “bullying” tactics and the judge being “wrong” in many of his decisions and assumptions!
“The European Court of Human Rights ruled that JV and RT had not received a fair trial. JV and RT have even been awarded monetary damages.”
They did not however set aside the verdict. Their opinion is consistent with criminal-friendly approach of the ECHR. The fact that they avail themselves of every opportunity to flex their muscles over democratically elected politicians by their perverse rulings does not mean that I am not duty-bound to defer to their opinions.
“So it simply won’t do to claim the prosecution discharged their burden of proof. They did not.”
and “in any case where the prosecution truly and authentically discharged their burden, you don’t have the jury coming back after the fact to criticize the whole proceedings and level such harsh complaints.”
After a criminal trial (where the standard of proof is guilt beyond reasonable doubt) it takes more to negate a verdict than the belated second thoughts of two of the twelve jurors. The prosecution fully discharged their burden of proof and accordingly the two murderers were found guilty.
The issue of moral awareness is indeed a complex one but in law the jury had to decide on guilt or innocence and a prosecutor attempting to extract a straight answer from a psychiatrist is not unreasonable.
Nor do I agree that the murder of James Bulger can be categorized as “a terrible mistake.” Dropping a concrete block off a bridge as a prank and killing some one is a “terrible mistake.” Kidnapping a child, leading away to an isolated location and throwing stones at him until he dies is not.
There was nothing “perverse” or “criminal friendly” about the ruling, David.
As Tom Loflin pointed out, a child lacking the mental capacity to properly instruct counsel is too young to stand trial in an adult court.
The kind of defense I suggest should have been mounted was impossible for JV or RT or their counsel to mount, given the boys’ incomprehension of what was even happening in court.
A client’s blank incomprehension of the proceedings makes the ability to mount an effective defense well-nigh impossible.
So the European Court’s ruling makes sense, given the evidence presented to them. You call their ruling “perverse” but you don’t point to anything specifically “perverse” or illegitimate in the train of thought they presented for why they reached the conclusion they did.
It is you, not the European Court, who are being perverse.
“The issue of moral awareness is indeed a complex one but in law the jury had to decide on guilt or innocence and a prosecutor attempting to extract a straight answer from a psychiatrist is not unreasonable.”
When the defendants lack the mental faculties to even comprehend what is happening, or instruct counsel in any meaningful way, that makes it virtually impossible for any kind of defense to be mounted at all! This is not the fault of the defense lawyers – it’s just a system rigged overwhelmingly in favour of the prosecution.
And the prosecutor was definitely not trying to “extract a straight answer.” He was aiming for the OPPOSITE of a truthful, meaningful answer. Not just the jury members by the child psychiatrist herself complained about how her testimony was coerced and misused.
This nothing to do with coddling the criminal or being “criminal friendly” or some such rot. The prosecutor was there to get a particular verdict. But the deck was stacked – since a vigorous defense was well-nigh impossible under the circumstances – and the trial was rightly ruled unfair.
“I don’t know what hypothesis you think I “sketched” but I certainly did not say that the crime was premeditated. That has never been my opinion.”
But if you read comments online from those who feel “justice has not been done to James,” the vast majority freely state that the crime WAS premeditated. One television host (Denise Welch) even went on air to say she didn’t want them to be rehabilitated, she didn’t care that they were only 10-years-old, because it was a premeditated crime and therefore beyond the pale.
That may not be your opinion, but that IS the opinion of most who want them dead or feel they should have been given a life sentence. If they thought the crime was not premeditated in any way – and knew that there was no real evidence of premeditation – they might well have a different view of the matter.
“But it was drawn-out in the sense that they had ample opportunity to think “my God, what are we doing?” before it got to the stage that James Bulger was dead.”
But you don’t actually know for sure how drawn-out it was. Certainly it’s true that their behaviour all that day was quite awful, from pulling the initial stunt of getting a child lost in the first place, to the physical abuse (punches, slaps) they inflicted throughout the day. But, for instance, if I’m correct that the outburst of truly lethal violence was very sudden and spontaneous, they could have been flicking paint and tossing stones and batteries at him on and off for 5 or 10 minutes, for example, and the actual outburst of frenzied violence for only 5 or 10 minutes, as opposed to 15 or 20 minutes straight of remorseless torture and drawn-out violence. In other words, the violence could have been moderate for half or two-thirds of the duration, and only extremely brutal and lethal towards the end, for all we know what went down.
It MIGHT be true that they had ample opportunity to think and reconsider. That MIGHT be how it went down. But if, for example, something very similar to the sudden, lightning-fast eruption of brutal violence in Private Needham occurred with Venables, then no, they would not have the same opportunity to think. It would’ve happened too fast, the flooding of his circuits too extreme, sudden, and spontaneous for reflection.
It’s worth remembering something David James Smith writes in the second paragraph of The Sleep of Reason: “God knows, indeed, why James Bulger died. It is as true now as it was then that the murder has never really been explained and the motive from the crime remains a mystery.”
What exactly happened in that final half-hour or twenty minutes, and why, remains shrouded in mystery, so we should all accept that we don’t know what happened, that all of us are speculating, none of us can speak with total confidence, and most importantly: nothing very definite was ever established during the trial either, other than the mere fact of a guilty verdict.
The one thing that has never been in any doubt – that JV and RT killed James – was formally established with a guilty verdict – though, alas, in a trial that was subsequently ruled to be unfair and bitterly complained about some members of the jury! But what exactly JV and RT did – what prompted the violence, and how exactly the violence was committed, and with what degree of foresight or intention or mens rea – was never adequately established during the trial.
In won’t respond to your several new postings point by point as this is all becoming very time-consuming. I concede that your hypothesis is plausible (within the scope of my knowledge) but no more than that. It is essentially a speculation, just like my belief (based on the pathologist’s opinion) that the critical stage of the violence lasted 15-20 minutes. You might argue that a plausible hypothesis adds up to reasonable doubt. However, in law there is a presumption of sanity and the trial has taken place. A belated hypothesis by a member of the public is not a reason to reopen it or revisit it.
Virgil I have asked this up thread but had no response…can you please tell me what point you are trying to make about how long the frenzied attack actually was? I honestly can not comprehend what the hell you are talking about!?! Are you seriously trying to say that you think that a 10-15 minute violent attack on an innocent child by two much older and stronger children is ok??? you are talkin utter nonsense!!! I DO NOT care how long the attack was…the fact remains that the end result was still the same; a poor innocent little boy was brutally murdered by two kids that should have known that this was WRONG regardless of their upbringing! This little boy suffered at the hands of those two and would have been scared and in pain throughout his ordeal….the amount of time it took to kill him is irrelevant!! i am shocked to the core that you cant actually see what you are writing!!! Please stop being so blatantly unsympathetic to James’s memory as it is literally making me feel physically sick to hear you trying to justify their actions and make out that this crime wasn’t as hideous as we all think!! You have your sources of information, just as I have mine! I chose to believe what I have heard about this case…whether they intended to do it or not, they DID do it and that is that!!! This wrong can NEVER be corrected no matter how much you try to play down what happened on that hideous day!!!
With all due respect, David (and I am being respectful to you now, see?) – I disagree with you when you say that a “plausible hypothesis” should not lead to re-opening of the case because it is “belated.”
That doesn’t hold water in this particular instance, given that the trial itself has been ruled to be unfair and JV and RT awarded monetary damages.
And the jury foreman also believed it to be unfair and declared the guilty verdict the product of prosecutorial bullying and judicial errors of judgment. If the jury foreman feels strongly enough to side with the European Court in stating the trial to be unfair and mishandled, then the case does deserve to be re-opened and re-examined with a cold, keen eye (this time without tabloid hysteria hanging like a cloud over everything).
The American lawyer Tom Loflin got to the crux of the matter when he pointed out that if children are too young to be able to instruct counsel, they’re too young to stand trial in an adult court.
“Virgil I have asked this up thread but had no response…can you please tell me what point you are trying to make about how long the frenzied attack actually was?”
I can’t keep re-posting the same stories if you don’t read them, anonymous. I made a comparison with an American Iraq war veteran, John Needham, who was suffering from severe trauma and ended up beating his girlfriend to death in a 10 or 15 minute brutal assault.
Google “Private Needham” if you want to read about it.
I am saying if the frenzied attack was 10 minutes long (or even if it was longer), it might have been a PTSD-induced rage reaction, much like Needham’s, and not any kind of act of sadistic torture.
Needham committed a horrific act but he was no monster and no sadist and no psychopath of any kind.
I have pointed out that JV showed exhibited multiple signs of suffering from some kind of serious trauma long before he killed James. We don’t know precisely what the cause or cause of this trauma was, but there must have been something.
And on top of that, he underwent a surgical procedure that is known to sometimes cause serious trauma itself! So it’s possible that the explosive violence he targeted at James was simply consequence of all this dammed up, stored up, unresolved, unprocessed trauma.
“I honestly can not comprehend what the hell you are talking about!?! Are you seriously trying to say that you think that a 10-15 minute violent attack on an innocent child by two much older and stronger children is ok???”
No, of course it’s not “OK.”
But there are three possibilities that present themselves:
1) The murder of James was premeditated. (There is almost no evidence to support this theory yet millions seem to think this is what happened.)
2) The murder of James was not premeditated but it was a fairly lengthy process of intended torture and sadistic cruelty, even if unplanned.
3) The murder was the consequence of dammed up PTSD or trauma which exploded outward at this moment, much as Needham exploded and killed his girlfriend in a 10 minute frenzied assault.
If #3 is correct, it still started with deliberate violence on JV and RT’s part. That is, they were throwing batteries and rocks at him, they were definitely behaving like nasty little swots, being bullies, they definitely did a very bad thing.
But it’s quite possible that it only turned lethal and brutal and horrific after something “snapped” and Venables suddenly went ballistic.
Private Needham was restraining his girlfriend – holding her back – when he suddenly “snapped” and went ballistic on her and beat her to death.
Maybe, just maybe, JV was throwing rocks, stones, and batteries at James when he suddenly “snapped,” likewise, and went ballistic on James and beat him to death.
Nobody knows what happened, we weren’t there. But it’s a possibility.
Wouldn’t you agree that a sudden frenzy of spontaneous violence (caused by dammed up trauma bursting its bounds) is not as reprehensible as cold-bloodedly plotting a diabolical scheme to abduct, torture, and murder a toddler (which is what millions of people seem to think happened, but is a perspective with almost no evidence to support it?).
I understand what you are saying Virgil but just as your theory could be correct, so could the counter theory that this was a premeditated, callous, disgraceful attack??? As like you said yourself we don’t know what actually happened. What if it was a “cold blooded, diabolical scheme” ?? Your supposition is ok as a theory but still does not erradicate the end result and the FACT remains that James was subjected to an horrific attack and killed…why it happened does not change this, which is why so many feel hatred for JV and RT.
I do read your posts Virgil and I know the stories you are referring to but I just can not see your point no matter how many comparisons you make! There could have been many reasons why JV snapped or not, but no matter what there is no excusing it!!
“its quite possible that it only turned lethal and brutal and horrific after something “snapped” and Venables suddenly went ballistic.”
If your theory is correct then do you not think that more incidents like this in the UK would have happened? My point is that regardless of the reason they still MURDERED James and therefore have to be accountable. im not saying that i think that they should be killed themselves if they ever get caught, i dont believe that, but I am saying that it their actions cant be excused. if the state thinks that they have paid for their crime adequately who am i to argue, however, on the same token i dont think they should have people fighting their corner either as they are adults now and one hopes that they can see the hideousness of their crime! I will go back to my first point that no matter why they did it they still did it and that was their choice…lots of of kids grow up under the same circumstances as JV and RT but don’t go on to commit such horrific crimes.
Also you are obviously a great believer in PTSD, do you not think that Denise Fergus could be suffering from that herself? Given the circumstances it is highly likely which is why you should consider this when hypothesising her.
Ps…this is a different anonymous to the one in the other threads…
The actual crime itself was barbaric and there is really no denying that.
It caused a lot of anger and upset at the time and still does now.
While some people see it in black and white as 2 monsters who escaped lenienty through the justice system I take a different view.
The system is there for a reason and through it the maximum sentence was imposed.
Whether or not rehabilitation has taken place is an open question but in this case I believe that both boys were plucked from a disadvantaged unstructured environment and placed into a structured more advantaged one, albeit in confinement.
Both killers are and will continue to be monitored by the authorities and as there is much hate directed towards them, new identites is the only course of action. I don’t agree with disclosure and I dont agree with taking the law into one’s own hands.It is up to the police and judiciary. Let them manage that and try to live and let live.
I do not agree with the newspapers stirring it up to rile the crowd and in doing so selling more papers.They know exactly how to work those of a challenged intellect :-)
None of us can change the British justice system (unless we are part of it) and in fact it is somewhat controlled by Europe.
I do respect people’s anger and hatred but at this stage do not see what good it does to the people who hold those views although I may be open to holding a similar opinion were the murdered child my own. However, that is supposition.I would not be human if I didnt feel some kind of emotion in that case! I don’t know how I would react. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be it?
While people may argue mitigating circumstances for the boys at the time, I believe that that takes away from the actual crime which in a word was just bad. But punishing people for acts they commited in their childhood is also bad.
And finally…
If one or both of the killers died or were killed, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. But if they were killed I would expect the killer or people involved to be severly punished and would feel absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.
And in that case how many people who say they want the killers dead would support that person or people? Very few I would say…
Kessler, I wont waste my time on drawing more attention to you as would like. This post isnt about you.
The vast assumptions you have made about me are false and your remarks do not justify any kind of response..
Your posts say everything about you – you are indeed a VIP and for someone like you who seems to need things explained it means:
Very Ignorant Person.
I will ignore your posts as they are only attention seeking and I hope others do the same!
Anonymous, no one said it was about me. I entered the debate on a point of law pertaining to injunction and have commented also on the issue of responsibility and the hypothesis that RT and JV were not responsible for their actions.
“The vast assumptions you have made about me are false ”
What assumptions?
That you are a silly little boy? That you are an ill-mannered lout looking for a fight – and then run off crying when you lose the fight you’ve started?
Hawkes, reading a week’s prior discussion to catch up as I have been away – I notice you chip in with a few useless comments as usual. Grow up and clear off, your views mean nothing here.
Virgil, give up with your bleating, David Kessler trounces you in all literary respects. His views, despite which angle they come from, I have respect for. Your replies are the same repeated cringeworthy nonsense seen as seen on Mccann exposure etc. I assume that you think if it gets repeated enough, we will give up and bow down to your soft left way of thinking. We won’t, and like Hawkes, your comments are meaningless in the real world I’m afraid. You are out of touch.
Tyson et al the majority, yes, we need to pin these fuckers down………
More and more people/groups are looking as the net spreads wider……..it’s just a matter of time before their past caches up with them.
If Thompson’s identity had been more readily available, and not ‘protected’, an innocent person such as Scott Bradley would be alive today. So again, another case of the system failing in the most unforgivable way. Enough is enough, and the sooner their IDs become public knowledge, the better for society and the sooner justice will be dealt.
Good point! That is what I meant when I called him “Robert Thompson’s latest victim.” The price that we pay for RT’s and JV’s safety is that a lot of other people are put in danger.
Exactly, I was concurring with your observation. The more people that realise this the better, although it is too late for that one chap already. The system fails the innocents in protecting the guilty. It is wrong, as was their ‘punishment’, which is why I and many others like me are on the path to help destroy these two bastards. That, but more so the actual deed they committed against a helpless little boy, regardless of their ‘incarceration’ period. A full life sentence wouldn’t have been enough, the taking of their last breath is the only justice.
The discursive is on going, they are to
be tracked down.
Walk in fear fuckers.
Walk in fear.
“a child lacking the mental capacity to properly instruct counsel is too young to stand trial in an adult court… The kind of defense I suggest should have been mounted was impossible for JV or RT or their counsel to mount, given the boys’ incomprehension of what was even happening in court.”
The notion of the client “instructing” counsel is a fictio juris. The reality is that with the exception on career criminals, who know the system inside out (and how to play it), it is the lawyer awho dvises the client on the situation and then either leads the client through the choices of defense or simply advises the client what the defense should be and waits for a formal yes/no answer to enable counsel to proceed on that basis.
There was nothing to stop defense counsel from explaining to JV and RT that it would be very hard to challenge the evidence that they had killed James Bulger but that their best defense was that they didn’t really understand what they were doing and didn’t realize that it was wrong. Then it would have been up to the defense to produce psychiatric or other evidence to support that claim. Are you saying that it was impossible for the boys’ solicitors to gather information by other means? To talk to the parents? The boys’ teachers? To demand an independent psychiatric examination? To obtain exactly the same information that you obtained and then present it in court? I presume that YOU have not been instructed by JV or RT. Yet you managed to obtain the information that you have aduced in support of your arguments.
My use of the phrase “criminal friendly” in the case of the ECHR is in relation to a whole string of their rulings, such as the obiter dictum and the end of the Learco Chindamo ruling, the interpretation of the right to a family life as a right of foreign criminals to live in Britain if they have family relationships here, the ruling that the so-called “blanket ban” on incarcerated persons from voting is a violation of the right to free elections (even though the ban is not in fact a blanket ban at all). The ruling awarding compenation to the Bulger killers (in the absence of a parellel ruling that the money must then be transferred as compensation to James Bulger’s next of kin) is simply another example of their criminal friendliness.
“A client’s blank incomprehension of the proceedings makes the ability to mount an effective defense well-nigh impossible… When the defendants lack the mental faculties to even comprehend what is happening, or instruct counsel in any meaningful way, that makes it virtually impossible for any kind of defense to be mounted at all! This is not the fault of the defense lawyers – it’s just a system rigged overwhelmingly in favour of the prosecution.”
I doubt that “blank incomprehension” is an accurate description. And I don’t see why you would say they lacked the mental facilities to understand. You sit down with them and explain it to them: “They say you killed a little boy by throwing stones at his head and that you knew what you were doing is wrong. They call some people called ‘witnesses’ to prove this, that means either people who saw something or experts – clever people – who know about science and stuff and how little boys think. We have to show the jury (that’s the people who sit in the box at the side who decide at the end) either than you didn’t do it or that you may have done it but you didn’t know it was wrong because you’re little and didn’t understand that killing a little boy is a bad thing, or maybe you didn’t know that throwing bricks at his head would kill him or you didn’t think so at the time when you did it – if you did it.”
Okay that’s a rather rushed condensed version, but I don’t think it’s all that hard to explain it to a ten-year-old. I understood that sort of thing when I was seven – and no, there were no lawyers in my family, although my older sister went on to become a lawyer and my younger sister married one. Even if they were not particularly bright ten-year-olds, what I understood at seven I don’t see how they could have failed to understand at eleven (when they were tried).
“That doesn’t hold water in this particular instance, given that the trial itself has been ruled to be unfair and JV and RT awarded monetary damages. ”
Reasons given above for rejecting the ruling as perverse and criminal friendly.
“If the jury foreman feels strongly enough to side with the European Court in stating the trial to be unfair and mishandled, then the case does deserve to be re-opened and re-examined with a cold, keen eye (this time without tabloid hysteria hanging like a cloud over everything).”
The jury foreman has no greater status than any of the other jurors. He is simply one of the twelve. I myself was a jury foreman on the sole occasion I sat on a jury (chosen against my will, I should add – I did not volunteer for the role). I was first among equals, not the leader. My view carried no more weight than any of the other jurors; nor should it be otherwise.
Regarding your PTSD hypothesis, I am not disputing the multiplicity of antecedent causes of their states of mind, but this does not in and of itself negate responsibility. Many wrongdoers have suffered trauma. This explains but does not absolve. And many have suffered trauma without becoming violent criminals.
BTW, one issue that has been underplayed in this discussion so far is Venables adult criminality. Is this two the result of trauma? Is his responsbility for his adult criminality negated (or mitigated) by his childhood suffering? Or by the alleged “injustice” of the fact that he was tried and punished for his earlier crime?
Sorry, I meant “too” not “two” and “the obiter dictum AT the end of the Learco Chindamo ruling” not “the obiter dictum AND the end of the Learco Chindamo ruling”
And with that, Virgil and Hawkes fall silent. That speaks volumes. I note in posts previous you state, Virgil, that those of similar thinking to mine online are literally beaten into submission through reason.
Touche I think.
Oh, and in case you have forgotten, the hunt is on. Both RT and JB will be dealt with.
On that you have our word.
No, it does not speak volumes, SSmith.
It is not touche at all except in your shallow, vapid, delusional mind.
But be my guest and go on kidding yourself about that.
At least Kessler can articulate a coherent thought, unlike you. But I still think he is wrong, and very badly wrong about this. Still, at least he presents his thoughts in a cogent fashion.
You, on the other hand, don’t present “thinking” at all.
The reason I have “fallen silent” is that I can’t afford to spend every free moment discussing this. It is obvious that Kessler and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. I have said what I meant to say: I will not expend energy responding to his discussions of various other rulings by the European Court that have no direct connection to JV and RT.
I intend to set up my own blog to discuss this case and I will be presenting my thoughts there. I have a great deal to say about the child porn charge: I read Kessler’s remark but chose not to post again here.
In order to do justice to the issue of child pornography, and Venables involvement – or his other adult offences – I will need my own blog and my own much more in-depth, detailed posts.
I will not be able to do justice to my thoughts in a couple paragraphs. Besides, another blog I posted at has since been deleted, and all of my posts on that sight with it. Whose to say the same won’t happen again? I’d prefer to have my own website and my own permanent record of my thoughts on this case.
THAT is why I have not responded – not your puerile and pathetic fantasy that any sort of “touche” moment has just occurred. But, as I say, fantasize all you want, Smith. You are quite the keen fantasist, aren’t you?
That was not my last word on this subject. It’s simply my last word outside the context of my own personal blog. And I certainly was not at all persuaded or trumped by Kessler’s or your last handful of posts. But from now on, I will be detailing my thoughts on my own blog, not this one.
By the way, David, you do realize, don’t you, that you contradict some of the things you say about the relevance of being able to instruct counsel here? In your own novels, I mean (at least, one of them).
There are passages in your legal thriller I read that are at variance in their assumptions with some of what you’ve written in your posts to me.
RT and JV continute to fascinate the public…..if they are identified they will be torn to pieces on the streets …there are price tags on their heads in the North West= we know where JV lived, worked, his social media sites, his ebay site…who he dealt with on ebay and now his contacts have begun to sell stories of his media sites- his friends too are coming forward with their tales….heaven forbid that he can claim compensation for loss of privacy as he is trying to …but I fear the net is closing on Mr. Frog………………
Funny how the only friends (and a cyber-sextext-lover) who’ve come forward have said things along the lines of, “He was a nice lad,” “We got on straight away,” “I didn’t believe him when he said he was James Bulger’s killer because there’s no way he could’ve done such a thing,” or how he was “kind,” “nice,” and “charming.”
Contrast that to the psychopathic killer Graham Young (who committed his first murder at a very young age), whose friends and acquaintances in childhood and adulthood alike describe him as being “creepy” and “scary,” someone who made their skin crawl.
Virgil, have you considered the possibility that the perception of him as a “nice lad” was due to his cunning, rather than any genuine nice qualities about him. Is it not somewhat superficial to judge people by their facade? Not all killers wear a sign round their necks.
David, your problem is you have no feel for and no talent for psychology. You lack both true empathy and deep intuition. This is probably why your novels feature a Gary Stu protagonist whose cardboard nature is an insult to cardboard.
You are a writer of low-grade pulp. Jane Austen, a writer of genius, understood the danger of allowing trash fiction to shape our conception of human character and motivation when she wrote Northanger Abbey, which is among other things a sly spoof of Gothic fiction, the pulp fiction of Austen’s day.
There is no tremendous cunning in Venables. You are like the naive and foolish heroine of Northanger Abbey, drawing lurid and outlandish conclusions from the available evidence. Of course millions of other people are similarly governed in their imaginations by a soap opera mentality, which is why they too walk through life expecting a pedophile rapist around every corner.
Venables was about the most studied and examined child in the world, and psychologists found no evidence of psychopathy or an “evil” nature in him.
Unless we are incredibly obtuse, it can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Venables is probably an example of “the pale criminal,” a term the literary critic Harold Goddard took from Nietzschean philosophy and applied to Macbeth in his study The Meaning of Shakespeare. The pale criminal is the opposite of the easeful, carefree career criminal.
Like Macbeth, Venables was haunted by extremely vivid and graphic nightmares and hallucinations in the wake of James’ murder. He felt haunted by James’ ghost and felt his presence in the courtroom, and he tore off his clothes every evening and wanted them destroyed because he could “smell the baby smell off them.” This is no cunning psychopath or natural born criminal. This is someone who, like Macbeth, keeps spiraling downward because he can’t escape his past or his guilty conscience – or the hypocritical, pernicious, and cruel and inhumane social order he had the misfortune to be born into.
Anyone with a pair of eyes in their head, by the way, must realize that Shakespeare wrote a sympathy-for-the-devil type play when he wrote Macbeth.
Ssmith – a typical example of a cowardly online vigilante. Making threats, allegations, even predicting the future. Sadly for Smith, they know the sweet FA of what is really is going on in this case. But Ssmith wanks off a night dreaming of a lynching.
All those calling for the heads of Thompson and Venables on this site are just talkers and lacking in backbone.
However if that is how they really think, it shows how warped they actual are. Some professional treatment may enable them to see right from wrong because they do not seem to be able to grasp the basic concept of what it actually means?
Worryingly though, for those bringing up children, it is likely that they will impart these dreadful and unhealthy ideals to their children.
These simplistic attitudes re-enforce the need for proper law and order and fully justify the need for new ids for certain people.
Ssmith may well be the single most pathetic and embarrassing of all the tough-talking would-be justice dispensers who’ve made their presence known online. A coward in person, no doubt, a spineless keyboard warrior: all hot air and no substance.
Matilde, Steve – clueless. Congratulations for showing you know nothing. Join Virgil and Hawkes with fucking off.
Nebuke – you are not wrong……. The information is actively being distributed, it’s a matter of time before this becomes clarified, confirmed, and enacted upon.
James Bulger, the people’s vengeance for your treatment, and the shameful disgraceful protection of your attackers will be reaped.
RIP little lad.
It makes me so sad for the child that i end my words like this, i wish i could have been there to protect him as no one else who witnessed him walking wounded had the sense to do so, but now nothing more will be achieved until action is ultimately taken. The entire scenario, the crime of leading him from his Mum and his torture, the pair’s actions to hide the act, and then the ‘sentence’ his murderers received, has led to this point. Online, this is nothing more than tit for tat between those with a heart and sense of justice, and those who should hang their heads in shame who wish to protect those two animals.
Watch what happens to both JB and VT, they haven’t long left.
I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Your words of “compassion” and “sadness” for James Bulger, Ssmith, are nothing but a mawkish embarrassment. It’s not a coincidence that your words of “sadness” invariably are lifeless and lacklustre, and that your language only gains energy and vividness when you discuss vengeance and hate. Your hate and bile is sincere, your “love” and “compassion” for James is disgustingly phony to its very core.
Virgil, now your clutching at straws in your desperation to find fault with those who believe in retributive justice. Obviously the tone of an expression of sympathy towards a murdered three year old is going to sound different to the tone of an expression of anger towards the person who murdered him. What you call “lifeless and lacklustre” I call mellow and gentle.
To disagree is one thing. To question the sincerity of those whose sympathy is directed towards the victim rather than the victimizer, is quite another.
Virgil you have something very wrong inside your mind. Now because you have left this blog and i assume you wont be returning i would just like to say “bye bye, you wont be missed you pathetic paedophile lover” God will judge you as you like to judge others.
David, I do not question the sincerity of James’ parents or family or friends of the family.
But I do not find anything “gentle” or “mellow” about SSmith’s posts, and it amazes me – perhaps but this point it shouldn’t – that you don’t find anything objectionable about his tone – after berating me for my tone!
His expression of sympathy is utterly phony and fraudulent. James Bulger has become nothing but an empty signifier for millions of hollow men to indulge themselves with.
Perhaps it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t recognize emotional fraudulence and ersatz humanity when it’s right in front of your eyes: a similar failing is present in your fiction as well.
Virgil: “By the way, David, you do realize, don’t you, that you contradict some of the things you say about the relevance of being able to instruct counsel here? In your own novels, I mean (at least, one of them).”
It would help if you stated WHICH of my legal thrillers you are referring to. I am not looking for publicity, just clarity.
Virgil: “Your novels – at least the one I purchased – are crime novels, legal thrillers, and the like. It’s not an entirely different subject. You have a specific vision of and attitude towards crime, criminals, and the justice system that are evident in your book.”
Again, I don’t know what you mean my “your book” – I have written several. (The only one that I would now concede is bad is Reckless Justice”)
But more importantly, your argument falls apart because at the time when you raised the issue of my writing, my only contribution to this thread was about the injunction and whether or not it really was a “worldwide” injunction. I had said nothing on this thread about the rights and wrongs of vigilante action – and even now have not endorsed it.
Regarding the point I did make at the time, I note that after my detailed clarification on the subject, you have ceased maintaining that the injunction applies to British citizens worldwide. If I were to have adopted your tone, I would have said: “Stick to reading Russian literature and leave law to the experts.” But that sort of cheap point scoring is not my style. (I mention it here for completeness.)
BTW, I wrote to the Attorney General’s office seeking clarification and they referred me to the Ministry of Justice. I wrote to the Ministry of Justice and … yes, you’ve guessed – they referred me to the Attorney General’s office!
Finally, I would note that elsewhere in this thread you have claimed that my arguments presented herein are INconsistent with the views that I express in the book of mine that you have read. So what then do you mean by “You have a specific vision of and attitude towards crime, criminals, and the justice system that are evident in your book?”
“Again, I don’t know what you mean my “your book” – I have written several.”
A Marked Man.
Virgil, a thousand apologies: I said “your” when I meant “you’re” – make the most of this small victory!
Why would I make the most of such a small victory, when I’ve scored much larger ones? – like forcing you to concede that you don’t actually know what occurred in that final half-hour interval of James’ death – and that my hypothesis as to what occurred is plausible.
You dont know what went on in that last half hour either but the injuries paint a dark picture. It doesnt matter who done what either, they are both living on borrowed time.Perhaps you would provide a safe haven for venables if you were able to do so seeing as you defend him so much. You are either a complete cunt looking for attention (off the back of a childs murder) or you and venables share a common interest which allows you to relate to him in some way. Either way you are pathetic.
Virgil, I know that JV and RT killed James Bulger by throwing stones at him over a period of either 15-20 minutes (the pathologists opinion) or 5-10 minutes (your opinion).
Okay, I’ve conceded that JV when may snapped when James Bulger cried when one of them threw paint in his eyes (your speculation) but then again maybe James didn’t just cry but also said “I’ll tell my mummy” and the this focused JV’s mind on the prospect of getting caught – something he hadn’t previously considered. And THAT made him snap!
That is – I freely admit – a speculation, but it is far more likely than yours. There’s no logical connection between a kid crying and one of his assailants snapping. After all if you are bullying a kid, you would EXPECT him to cry. In fact you’d be disappointed if he didn’t But if he says something that draws your attention to the fact that your actions will have consequences – something that every bully fears – now THAT would make a bully snap!
So no Virgil, although I conceded that your version – which BTW is in no way exculpatory – is plausible, it is somewhat LESS plausible than mine. So I wouldn’t think of it as a victory.
Please quote me directly from the pathologist’s report, David, where he says it MUST have been X number of minutes. I expect to see some verbatim quotes from the report, mind you.
The fact is neither you nor anyone else knows what happened. And precisely because you don’t know, any further inference is nothing but pure speculation. Your hypothesis is just as anecdotal as mine. It, also, is essentially a pure speculation.
“I know that JV and RT killed James Bulger by throwing stones at him over a period of either 15-20 minutes (the pathologists opinion) or 5-10 minutes (your opinion).”
That they threw stones and batteries at him for 15 to 20 minutes is plausible enough. But how do you know it became frenzied and brutal the moment they arrived at this isolated locale, and from the moment they threw their first tone or battery? There was only about a 20 minute interval, maximum, that they could have done all this, and still have had time to strip the clothes, put them on his face, drag the body onto the tracks and be seen in the video store about half an hour from the last time they were seen walking with James.
Given the time interval, your hypothesis depends on the idea that they arrived at the spot and immediately, instantly set to work killing him. And carried this out for 20 minutes straight without respite. It demands that we simply ACCEPT your vision without proof simply because the pathologist (apparently) thought the total time span for violence was 15 to 20 min.
But that doesn’t mean the total time span for EXTREME violence was that entire interval. And we can also, BTW, compare this case with other similar cases, like the near identical San Francisco Crucifixion Murder of 1971. The picture that emerges from that certainly isn’t of any kind of calculation or plan or ruthless intention. What there is, alas, is yet again a couple of kids born of massive neglect. Neglect and abuse definitely seems to be the trigger for this sort of shocking behaviour – which in that case certainly appears to have erupted out of the blue, as it were, without any malice aforethought.
Why is your hypothesis plausible? Who cares? It’s all based on your supposition!! You said yourself no-one knows the truth…it is all guess work apart from the fact that we know that JV and RT murdered an innocent little boy!! Your hypothesis could easily be just as far off the mark as it could be correct so Im afraid it holds no water. Sorry but you are basing your whole argument on ‘what if’s and maybe’s’. Unless you have first hand knowledge about what happened how can you possibly know???
“that doesn’t mean the total time span for EXTREME violence was that entire interval.”
So your theory is that part of their violence was “moderate” violence?
You are growing tiresome with your desperate attempts to propagate crackpot theories. Of course I can’t prove that James Bulger threatened to “tell” on JV any more than you prove that JV snapped when Bulger cried. But as I pointed out logically a person bullying a child would EXPECT the child to cry and be disappointed if he didn’t. So YOUR theory makes no sense. Mine on the other hand does make sense. Ergo yours is on the periphery of plausibility whereas mine is very much at the heart of plausibility.
But let’s go back and review what we DO know:
JV and RT kidnapped James Bulger
They took him to an isolated spot
They killed him by throwing stones at him
They stripped his clothes
They put his body on railway tracks.
Conclusion: they are evil.
Unwarranted conclusion? Lurid conclusion?
I think not. Sometimes the plain conclusion is also the correct one.
There is a point at which sophistication degenerates into self-deceptive absurdity. And you, Virgil, crossed that threshold a long time ago.
“JV and RT kidnapped James Bulger”
David James Smith: “The boys roamed around The Strand for most of the morning and half the afternoon making mischief. They stole from shops, begged for 20 pence, cheeked assistants and taunted an elderly woman. They did NOT act with the singular purpose of abducting a child.”
Their behaviour throughout the day clearly suggests a lack of clear purpose, a lack of any kind of forethought or planning.
So the mere fact that they abducted him – “got a kid lost” – doesn’t in and of itself tell us anything about what went down during the killing.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe there was any planning of his murder either, given that there was none for the abduction.
“They took him to an isolated spot”
They took him to an isolated spot only after wandering around for hours in full view of many people – including people they knew – and in an area that was not distant from where they lived. They chatted with passersby and didn’t make an effort to avoid being seen all afternoon.
David James Smith: “It does not, then, seem to have been much of a plan and, in this context, it is hard to accept that they knew they were going to go on and kill a child….. A proper, artfully conceived plan would not have involved so much casual idling, messing around and wandering in and out of shops, nor offered so many opportunities to be caught in their encounters with adults. It might be stretching credulity to suggest that the boys wanted to be stopped and discovered but they certainly did not go to enormous lengths to avoid it.”
Furthermore, Smith notes: “James’s fate may still not have been decided when the boys stood at the end of the entry on Walton Lane — and James was seen alive for the last time. The police station is directly opposite, across the road, and the boys were observed apparently trying to push James into the road. Just possibly, they were trying to send him off to the police station. Equally, on this busy dual-carriageway, they may have been trying to get him run over. Either way, their lingering presence here and the act of pushing James off the pavement do not suggest they had already decided to drag the child on to the railway line and attack him.”
Another point worth noting is that while James was killed in an isolated spot, Jon had previously gone haywire in class and attacked a classmate with a ruler. Of course, his parents reacted the same way as always: with denial and avoidance. Obviously the fact that James was killed in an isolated spot tells us why he died. But Venables was equally capable of violence in full view of everyone – including the teacher – without any kind of cunning or secrecy involved, or without waiting till he was in any sort of “isolated spot.” Of course, after the ruler incident, responsible adults – teachers, parents – took no truly significant action to help a seriously disturbed child – which is why James is not alive today.
“They killed him by throwing stones at him”
Which doesn’t prove they intended him to die. Most children who bully other children and the bullied child commits suicide had no idea the victim was going to kill herself. Do you think that makes them irredeemably evil? You can claim they should have realized the victim was going to die, but clearly many, even most, of them didn’t. They may feel terrible afterwards but the child is still dead.
And when we consider that a great many members of the lynch mob indubitably are – and were as children and teens – vicious and abusive bullies themselves, their own moral standing can’t hold up to any serious scrutiny despite their lifelong self-deceptions on this matter. It isn’t going too far to say that in degree of viciousness and cruelty many of the most indignant “defenders of justice for James” are, in reality, on about the same moral plane as JV and RT.
“They stripped his clothes”
A very common feature in child-on-child killings. There’s nothing particularly odd about that. And JV and RT offered the police the same explanation: the pants and underwear were removed and placed over James’ face to staunch the blood pouring out. (The clothes had blood on them and were lying near James’ head, lending credence to their assertion.)
That suggests that they were in shock when they realized he was dead and may well have been futilely trying to do something about it by trying to staunch the blood.
“They put his body on railway tracks.”
Another very common feature of child-on-child killings. Almost all the other case studies I’ve read about also have the child trying to hide the killing – whether or not their was any premeditation or malice aforethought.
“Conclusion: they are evil. Unwarranted conclusion? Lurid conclusion? I think not. Sometimes the plain conclusion is also the correct one.”
And yet, you – the self-professed novelist of Dostoyevskian grandeur – apparently don’t realize that Dostoyevsky did not think of his various anti-heroes as “evil.” If JV and RT are plain “evil,” where does that leave Raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT? He, after all, really does premeditate his murder over the course of weeks and months, and he’s not a child at the time either, and he uses an ax to do it.
Yet Dostoyevsky does not portray him as being simply “evil,” even after deliberately choosing a horrific crime for his culpable act.
And you have the nerve to speak of your schlock in the same breath as Dostoyevsky – who we KNOW would not simply and blithely dismiss JV and RT to the realm of mere “evil” – because he did not so dismiss individuals (both fictional characters and real prisoners he met in Siberia) who had done FAR WORSE in life than these two.
And only a dimwit would think that the series of bullet points you’ve just listed leads inescapably to the conclusion that these two are “evil.”
But like I said, this is a common fault of novelists whose protagonists are ludicrous and laughable Gary Stu’s. The flip side of having an exaggerated sense of one’s own moral purity and pristineness is an exaggerated sense of other people’s faults and sins.
I see the keyboard hate monger SSmith hasn’t learnt anything, still wanking off on the thought that T&V will be lynched. Hey SSmith with your predicitions for the near future. Why has nothing happened to T&V in the last 11 years since their release hey? Exactly.
Things may have happened to them in the last 11 or so years… You just dont hear about it, we have heard about Venables arrests and drug/alcohol abuse. We are hearing about his crimes now, his sick crimes, we are hearing about it NOW, Now is the time. FOOL.
Virgil,
” I do not find anything “gentle” or “mellow” about SSmith’s posts, and it amazes me – perhaps but this point it shouldn’t – that you don’t find anything objectionable about his tone – after berating me for my tone!”
I don’t condone rudeness towards you, but I consider our posts to each to be a dialogue and I commented on the manner in which you had COMMENCED that dialogue in response to a perfectly polite posting from me, which did not aim to offend anyone but simply to clarify a technical issue. You then maintained that tone for a while thereafter.
I think that lots of the language here has been unrestrained and I have tried to avoid it myself (although I occasionally succumbed).
“His expression of sympathy is utterly phony and fraudulent.”
I do not agree. I did not get that impression from his postings. Rather I got the impression that he feels the same anger that most normal people feel about the brutal murder of a child.
“James Bulger has become nothing but an empty signifier for millions of hollow men to indulge themselves with.”
Again, I do not agree. I think that both the anger and the sympathy are sincere. But what they reflect is a kind of helplessness, a kind of “I wish I could do more.” That is not insincerity. On the contrary, that is sincerity combined with a recognition of ones own limitations and a sense of frustration in the face of injustice.
“Perhaps it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t recognize emotional fraudulence and ersatz humanity when it’s right in front of your eyes: a similar failing is present in your fiction as well.”
Here we go again. Back to the pseudo-literary criticism so lacking in specificity as to be meaningless and refusing to name the book – much less citing the passages – that you claim demonstrate this alleged failing.
Do you think for one minute, David, that Smith cares a fig about “injustice”?
Do you think he cries himself to sleep every night over all the innocent children in this world who have died needless deaths? What about all the other cases of children killing children? Why aren’t they as famous as this one? Because there was no CCTV footage and no tabloid coverage. It’s certainly not the newsworthy significance of the case itself.
Obsession over James Bulger’s death – but not over all the other murdered kids out there – IS sentimentality. It IS emotional bankruptcy.
I will go further and point out the obvious: if there had been no CCTV footage of JV and RT leading James out of the mall, there would be scarcely a memory of this crime.
“Back to the pseudo-literary criticism so lacking in specificity as to be meaningless and refusing to name the book – much less citing the passages – that you claim demonstrate this alleged failing.”
To cite the “failing” of your book, Marked Man, would be to cite the entire book. I’m sorry you can’t recognize the awfulness of your own writing, but it should be self-evident. I do not exaggerate when I say it’s one of the three or four worst novels I’ve ever read in my entire life. And it all starts with the preposterous Gary Stu and Mary Sue protagonists that you insist on foisting on the reader. Read George Eliot’s hilarious essay “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists.” Apart from not being a “lady” novelist, all her criticisms are applicable to your writing.
The book was awful from start to finish. I literally can’t find one redeeming quality. You make Robert Ludlum look like Tolstoy.
I agree with this review you posted on your site of Reckless Justice. Even though it wasnt the book I read, I agree with this review by Gerald Houghton (plus ca change….):
“Here’s a curio: a book so appallingly written, shoddily plotted and shockingly reactionary that it urges you to run a mile in the other direction. And yet at the same time, a book with all the internal momentum of a particularly grisly motorway pile-up: you know you shouldn’t look but you just can’t help yourself…
“In amidst Kessler’s technical regurgitations it doesn’t take a genius to spot that Reckless Justice is not only ridiculous, inept and psychologically shallow, but morally moribund into the bargain.”
Apart from him calling it a guilty pleasure, I feel the same way about A Marked Man.
The “technical regurgitations” are terrible. They are info-dumps which are poorly integrated into the narrative and which read like you just cut and paste some article you nabbed off google. And there was one to do with higher mathematics and higher physics that convinced me, at least, that you didn’t have a clue what you were talking about (Richard Feynman you ain’t.)
“What about all the other cases of children killing children? Why aren’t they as famous as this one? Because there was no CCTV footage and no tabloid coverage. It’s certainly not the newsworthy significance of the case itself.”
Most people get their information from the news. It is natural that people would feel more sympathy about a case that has been brought to their attention. That does not make them insincere. Your logic here is as flawed as your ethics.
“Obsession over James Bulger’s death – but not over all the other murdered kids out there – IS sentimentality. It IS emotional bankruptcy.”
Sentimentality is not incompatible with ethics, as Adam Smith noted. And it is certainly not equivalent to emotional bankruptcy.
“I will go further and point out the obvious: if there had been no CCTV footage of JV and RT leading James out of the mall, there would be scarcely a memory of this crime.”
Like there is no memory of Holly and Jessica? No memory of Steven Lawrence? No memory of Philip Lawrence? No memory of April Jones? I think you are mistaken.
You accuse me of “technical regurgitations” and yet your approach to literary criticism seems to be to troll the internet for quotations from others and then say “I agree.” Quoting the late Gerald Houghton or – even more absurdly – citing George Elliot, doesn’t exactly suggest that you are capable of holding an original thought in your head. Even your simulated empathy with child-killers comes over as a cross between a poor-man’s Dickens and F. Lee Bailey addressing a cherrypicked panel of gullible jurors in a desperate attempt to help his guilty client weasel off the hook.
“Quoting the late Gerald Houghton or – even more absurdly – citing George Elliot, doesn’t exactly suggest that you are capable of holding an original thought in your head.”
The two quotes I cited are pertinent. Houghton describes your writing to a tee, which is why I cited him.
The Eliot essay is even more relevant: you should read it, it might teach you how to write a good novel someday. She describes with devastating accuracy what today would be known as Mary Sue-ism.
She also regarded the publication of such high-flown trash as a great obscenity and even a kind of crime. She would have regarded your novels as beneath contempt had she lived to read them, as the passages she quotes from the pulp novels of her era make crystal clear. The faults she singles out for scorn and derision are omnipresent in your fiction.
“Even your simulated empathy with child-killers….”
There is nothing “simulated” about my empathy for JV and RT, as should be clear by now.
Naive, tabloid-narrative-swallowing fools like you think JV and RT are monsters. They are not.
All one has to do is look at the factual record with clear eyes.
Their reactions in the wake of the crime – especially their recurring nightmares that are reflections of deep guilt feelings – bear no resemblance to the icy responses of such stone-cold, remorseless killers as the murderers of Gemma Hayter (Chantelle Booth and Joe Boyer in particular), as Elijah Page in America, as Graham Young, as Robert Stroud (the Birdman of Alcatraz sentimentalized by a phony Hollywood movie that made him out as a kind-hearted soul, but who was a lifelong vicious psychopath in real life, who started his crime wave at a young age).
Jon Venables is the anti-Robert Stroud, Stroud’s flip side. Venables is an ordinary person demonized by the Official Narrative into a cold-blooded monster. Robert Stroud was a ruthless monster who, thanks to the Official Narrative (constructed by a nonsensical biography adapted into a glossy Hollywood movie) has been eulogized in perpetuity as a kindly, good-hearted soul.
As that old movie The Legend of Liberty Valance has it, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Virgil,
“David, your problem is you have no feel for and no talent for psychology.”
Prove.
“You lack both true empathy…”
For criminals you mean.
” and deep intuition… This is probably why your novels feature a Gary Stu protagonist whose cardboard nature is an insult to cardboard.”
Prove. Try making an attempt at specificity if is within the scope of your attempts at literary criticism. Explain how you can comment on my novels when by your own admission you claim to have read one and you do not identify which one or refer to anything concrete or specific about it to confirm that you have actually read even one of my novels.
“You are a writer of low-grade pulp.”
Prove.
“Jane Austen, a writer of genius, understood the danger of allowing trash fiction to shape our conception of human character and motivation when she wrote Northanger Abbey,”
I don’t doubt that for a minute. But it has no relevance to the present discussion or to me unless you can prove that I write trash fiction, which you have thus far claimed but not supported with evidence.
“There is no tremendous cunning in Venables.”
So the person who said he was a nice guy was RIGHT? Venables really IS a nice guy? And may we take it that this implicit conclusion of yours is a reflection of the same sound judgement that you display in your evaluation of my writing? So that when you say that my protagonist is cardboard you are displaying the same level of judgement as when you say – implicitly – that Jon Venables really was a nice guy?
“You are like the naive and foolish heroine of Northanger Abbey, drawing lurid and outlandish conclusions from the available evidence.”
Lurid and outlandish conclusions? Such as my belief that a person who kidnaps a three year old and murders him by throwing stones at him is not a nice person? Such as my belief that a bad person might not seem obviously bad to those who meet him? THIS you regard as unsophisticated?
As opposed to your more sophisticated belief that a person who is PERCEIVED by one who meets him as “a nice lad” must really BE a nice lad – notwithstanding the fact that he has murdered a three year old? Or your implicit belief, that if he really were bad then no one who meets him could possibly think otherwise? (Have you never heard of cases where a criminal, after being caught, has been described by those who knew him as a “charmer”). Do you really think that all criminals wear a sign saying “villain”? And you accuse ME of naivety?
“Venables was about the most studied and examined child in the world, and psychologists found no evidence of psychopathy or an “evil” nature in him.”
Okay so the kidnapper and killer of a three year old was neither a psychopath, nor evil. Thank you for clearing that up.
“Unless we are incredibly obtuse, it can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Venables is probably an example of “the pale criminal,” a term the literary critic Harold Goddard took from Nietzschean philosophy and applied to Macbeth in his study The Meaning of Shakespeare. The pale criminal is the opposite of the easeful, carefree career criminal.”
Ah, so only obtuseness stands in the way of recognizing this diagnosis. But since you set so much store by the fact that Venables was “studied” may I ask if this is a psychiatrist’s diagnosis? Goddard’s diagnosis? Nietzsche’s? Shakespeare’s? Or yours – via Goddard, Nietzsche and Shakespeare? Why should I – or anyone else for that matter – defer to an amateur psychiatrist and part-time literary critic?
“Like Macbeth, Venables was haunted by extremely vivid and graphic nightmares and hallucinations in the wake of James’ murder. He felt haunted by James’ ghost and felt his presence in the courtroom, and he tore off his clothes every evening and wanted them destroyed because he could “smell the baby smell off them.” ”
And we know this because…
“This is no cunning psychopath or natural born criminal. This is someone who, like Macbeth, keeps spiraling downward because he can’t escape his past or his guilty conscience – or the hypocritical, pernicious, and cruel and inhumane social order he had the misfortune to be born into.”
At times like this I almost wish i had kept up with the violin lessons. This sort of bleeding heart pop-psychology might have worked eighty years ago, when it was being spewed out by Clarence Darrow and Sam Leibowitz, but it doesn’t wash with me. So far you have tried the trauma argument (citing anecdotal evidence) ignoring the fact that most traumatized people do not commit murders or even violent crimes. You have compared hospital surgery to military service in a theatre of battle (and then backtracked when challenged on that score) and now you are conjuring up out of whole cloth a spurious analogy between Jon Venables and Macbeth. What next Virgil? Jon Venables as Captain Ahab and James Bulger as Moby Dick?
Haha your response is very good David and well written may I add :-) …Virgil… U do realise Macbeth isn’t real dont you? Again I am failing to see where you are coming from!!! Your arguments, Virgil, make no sense to me?!? Think you have been reading too many books!!!
Thank you. Virgil seems determined to provoke me but then he doesn’t like it when he succeeds.
I haven’t spun anything out of whole cloth. You have proven you lack the intellect and imagination to even comprehend what I am saying, but that is a reflection of the painful limitations of your own mind, not mine.
These are part of the record about Venables, which you could know if you’d bothered to read a single book about the case. The various nightmares and hallucinations he suffered have been written about at length. Do a google search or pick up a book.
If you had any actual talent for literature, like you claim, you would quickly realize how similar Venables’ reported hallucinations are to the hallucinations Shakespeare created for his characters in Macbeth. But then, it doesn’t surprise me you can’t see it – since if you could, that itself would make you a markedly better writer than the embarrassingly inept, small-souled, narrow-minded reactionary hack you in fact are.
All you have to do is be able to read the descriptions of Venables’ hallucinations – and have any kind of literary sensibility or feel for language whatsoever – to detect the similarity to what Shakespeare described.
You obviously have no such sensibility. Your loss.
Furthermore, the psychologists who examined Venables were unanimous in declaring him not a psychopath or abnormal, deviant, and disordered mind. You, of course, immediately declare any professional, expert opinion anathema if it doesn’t square with your shallow reactionary politics.
The same cannot be said of some other cold-blooded and remorseless killers who experienced no such hallucinations, no such nightmares whatsoever. They simply were not haunted in any way by what they had done.
And it is in that SIMILARITY of what Venables experienced to what Shakesepeare describes Macbeth experiencing that demonstrates that he is no psychopath. No such resemblance can be found between psychopathic or conscience-less killers and Macbeth.
That you cannot perceive this – that you lack the ability to even apprehend this – speaks volumes as to the poverty and emptiness of your pulpy, Z-grade imagination.
This is why you write genre fiction: you have a generic imagination.
Your fallback technique in any argument is simply to accuse any expert, any judge’s decision, any psychologist’s report, that doesn’t say what you want to hear as an instance of “bleeding heart liberalism.” This spares you the effort of having to show why it’s any such thing.
I don’t need to “prove” anything about your novelistic skills, or lack thereof. They are self-evident to anyone with a modicum of taste. As William Blake, a writer about a hundred orders of magnitude more gifted than you, wrote, “He who pretends to be a modest enquirer into the truth of a self-evident thing is a Knave.”
I did not backtrack on the military service question: I pointed out to you exactly how you had weakly misread my original post.
You – not I – are the perpetrator of pop psychology. My worldview has nothing to do with Clarence Darrow, whose arguments I have never read.
But funny how you think this constitutes “violin-playing” – which suggests you need a little more work on your reading skills.
“I haven’t spun anything out of whole cloth. You have proven you lack the intellect and imagination to even comprehend what I am saying, but that is a reflection of the painful limitations of your own mind, not mine.”
You haven’t proven anything. You’ve offered conjecture and a string of increasingly absurd analogies, from traumatized war veterans to Macbeth. I won’t accuse YOU of lacking imagination. Anyone who can compare Venables to both a war veteran AND Macbeth possesses imagination in abundance. Only one thing I have learned is to distinguish between fact and fiction. You alas have not.
“If you had any actual talent for literature, like you claim, you would quickly realize how similar Venables’ reported hallucinations are to the hallucinations Shakespeare created for his characters in Macbeth.”
That’s not a talent for literature. That’s a talent for self-delusion.
“All you have to do is be able to read the descriptions of Venables’ hallucinations – and have any kind of literary sensibility or feel for language whatsoever – to detect the similarity to what Shakespeare described.”
Vernatim descriptions by Venables? Or descriptions by others putting Shakespearean spin on them.
“Furthermore, the psychologists who examined Venables were unanimous in declaring him not a psychopath or abnormal, deviant, and disordered mind. You, of course, immediately declare any professional, expert opinion anathema if it doesn’t square with your shallow reactionary politics.”
Okay, he is sane. And he was Sane when he and Thompson killed James Bulger.
“That you cannot perceive this – that you lack the ability to even apprehend this – speaks volumes as to the poverty and emptiness of your pulpy, Z-grade imagination.”
Again the desperation to win the debate by claiming that my writing is bad, based on a single quote and the claim that certain dead writers would agree with you – as if you were their spokesman too!
“This is why you write genre fiction: you have a generic imagination.”
Genre fiction is a publishers term. Fiction is fiction. I have plenty of imagination. That is what enables me to write. The only imagination you have displayed is in contsructing ever more absurd defences for Venables and ever more outlandish literary analogies to turn him from a murderer into a tragic Shakespearean hero.
“Your fallback technique in any argument is simply to accuse any expert, any judge’s decision, any psychologist’s report, that doesn’t say what you want to hear as an instance of “bleeding heart liberalism.” This spares you the effort of having to show why it’s any such thing.”
I’ve actually explained why numerous times. But with you it goes in one ear and out the other.
“I don’t need to “prove” anything about your novelistic skills, or lack thereof. They are self-evident to anyone with a modicum of taste.”
More unporvable nonsense.
” As William Blake, a writer about a hundred orders of magnitude more gifted than you, wrote, “He who pretends to be a modest enquirer into the truth of a self-evident thing is a Knave.””
Your attempts to mitigate Venables’ guilt are not an obvious thing but an elaborately constructed falsehood built on the quicksand of speculation and spurious analogy.
“I did not backtrack on the military service question: I pointed out to you exactly how you had weakly misread my original post.”
You tried to gild the lily and I shot you down in flames. Get over it.
“You – not I – are the perpetrator of pop psychology. My worldview has nothing to do with Clarence Darrow, whose arguments I have never read.”
Your arguments sound like their desperate efforts to get their guilty clients off the hook.
“But funny how you think this constitutes “violin-playing” – which suggests you need a little more work on your reading skills.”
I mean I could hear the violin as I read your arguments. Your attempts to mitigate Venables guilt could be a voice over in a Hollywood movie accompanies by a violin soundtrack.
I will repeat something I wrote previously:
“Like Macbeth, Venables was haunted by extremely vivid and graphic nightmares and hallucinations in the wake of James’ murder. He felt haunted by James’ ghost and felt his presence in the courtroom, and he tore off his clothes every evening and wanted them destroyed because he could “smell the baby smell off them.” ”
In addition, I might have also mentioned his recurring dream of having another “baby James” growing inside his body like a fetus, as if he could take back what he’d done by giving birth to another James: a male pregnancy. Then he’d wake up to the despair of the cold hard reality that “what is done cannot be undone.”
These are KNOWN, ESTABLISHED FACTS about Venables. Now compare with some of the disturbing visions and hallucinations experienced by Macbeth. Then try and find similar haunting hallucinations in the experiences of Joe Boyer or Chantelle Booth, who murdered Gemma Hayter and just laughed it off afterwards, without a care in the world. Or Graham Young, the psychopathic serial poisoner who got an early start: in his early teens. Or Elijah Page in America.
Such visions and hallucinations are nowhere to be found in their recollections. They didn’t have them, they couldn’t fake them, there were none. Because these really were remorseless and cold-blooded killers. Venables was not.
You prefer to snear and mock my comparison even as you fail utterly to rebut or refute it in any way.
Virgil, Macbeth was a character in a time when belief in God and an afterlife were normal and par for the course. Venables (and modern war veterans) live din a time when such beliefs are no longer taken for granted. Macbeth is not like a modern war veteran and Job Venables is not like Macbeth. Other characters in Macbeth, like Banquo and Macduff, also engaged in combat. They did not turn out like Macbeth.
Macbeth killed an adult. Venables killed a child.
Macbeth killed some one powerful (a king). Venables killed some one vulnerable (a very young child).
Macbeth had killed before and was inured to bloodshed. Venables killed James Bulger without having previously killed.
Macbeth killed for power and agrandisement. Venables killed for whatever sick reasons motivated his “non-psychopathic” “non evil” personality.
Virgil: “You have failed to demonstrate why my analogies are spurious.”
Have they been supported by any of your beloved psychiatrists? Psychologists? Judges (even European ones)? or just one sicko who has a “there but for the grace God go I” attitude towards a child killer?
Virgil: “You – not me – are the one who has to blithely dismiss the testimony of his friends and cyberspace sextext lover, who describe him as a nice, kind, likeable person.”
I ask you again: are you saying that the person who killed a three-year-old really WAS a “nice kind likeable person”?
Virgil: “So if the “fact” of the matter is that the examining psychologists all agreed that Venables was no psychopath, and had nothing “evil” about his essential nature, then you just blithely disregard that “fact.” ”
So the psychologists concluded that it is possible to kill a three year old without being EITHER psychopath OR evil? Let me see if I can put these arguments of yours together. There are THREE types of people who might kill a three-year-old by volitional acts: (a) psychopaths, (b) evil people, and (c) nice, kind, likeable people? And you think that I am wrong in refusing to accept this theory?
Virgil: “You, on the other hand, apparently don’t comprehend that a person like Alex Sedaka never did exist or could exist: he’s a silly, cardboard cutout, laughably trite Gary Stu.”
I think you’re trying to wind me up with these cheap jibes because you can’t win the debate with your spurious analogies (e.g. comparing ancient to modern war veterans and JV to either). You know that although most of those who have read my books disagree with you, but you can get away with your lie amongst those who haven’t read them. Alex Sedaka is a complex three-dimensional character. You can’t admit that because your pretense that I am a bad writer and your Madison Avenue mantra are your secret weapon. I would urge other readers of this column to find out for themselves and read the entire series – available in America as the Alex Sedaka Collection $4.99.
No doubt you will tell people not to bother. But then again you are also telling people that Venables can’t be all that bad because he is like Macbeth.
“Anyone who can compare Venables to both a war veteran AND Macbeth possesses imagination in abundance.”
Try reading the first scene of Macbeth, Kessler. (Can you remember or is it so long ago since high school?)
Macbeth IS a war veteran! The first thing Shakespeare establishes is his violent battlefield experiences. So comparing Venables to both a war veteran and Macbeth is simply saying “comparing Venables to both a war veteran and a war veteran.”
You’d know that if you had any recollection of Shakespeare’s play.
“You haven’t proven anything. You’ve offered conjecture and a string of increasingly absurd analogies, from traumatized war veterans to Macbeth.”
Of course, you fail to explain with any clarity why my comparison with Macbeth is absurd.
Because it isn’t actually absurd.
You need to call it absurd because I’ve torn away some of the planks on which you are standing – and tottering.
“Only one thing I have learned is to distinguish between fact and fiction. You alas have not.”
Actually, “fact” seems to correspond to whatever you already agree with. So if the “fact” of the matter is that the examining psychologists all agreed that Venables was no psychopath, and had nothing “evil” about his essential nature, then you just blithely disregard that “fact.”
Funny how “fact” has a way of being elided or excised when it doesn’t prop up your worldview.
And fiction – REAL fiction, as opposed to the shite you excrete – is of immeasurable value in making sense of and interpreting the realm of fact and reality. We need great fiction to make sense of fact. I’m perfectly capable of telling the difference between fact and fiction, thank you very much. (You, on the other hand, apparently don’t comprehend that a person like Alex Sedaka never did exist or could exist: he’s a silly, cardboard cutout, laughably trite Gary Stu.)
The whole reason that we continue to read and ponder the great literary classics is that they have something to tell us about the realm of “fact.” There are no “facts” until we find a way to decipher and interpret them. The facts are not naked and plain, they have to be interpreted – and great literature is an immeasurable aid in such interpretation.
““You haven’t proven anything. You’ve offered conjecture and a string of increasingly absurd analogies, from traumatized war veterans to Macbeth.”
Of course, you fail to explain with any clarity why my comparison with Macbeth is absurd.
Because it isn’t actually absurd”
Sorry Virgil but I also think that your Macbeth comparison is completely absurd, even laughable!!!
As is the fact that you believe that JV’s so called friends etc describe him as ‘nice and likeable’ some how negates his past: ludicrous!!!
Do you not agree that something is unhinged in this person that you are relentlessly trying to defend, I mean, child porn charges as an adult?!? Surely alarm bells should be ringing? Sorry if I am coming across as flippant but I am genuinely perplexed at your angle of defence????
Virgil: “Neglect and abuse definitely seems to be the trigger for this sort of shocking behaviour – which in that case certainly appears to have erupted out of the blue, as it were, without any malice aforethought.”
Firstly, you’re confusing malice aforethought with premeditation. If you get angry with some one and throw a punch at them, there is no premeditation, but there IS malice aforethought – unless you “accidentally” threw the punch.
Secondly most abuse and neglect does NOT result in such homicidal violence and OTOH homicidal violence can also be displayed by those who have not suffered neglect or abuse. There is therefore no co-relation between the the two – just a bit of anecdotal evidence that you have chosen upon which to build sandcastle of bleeding-heart pseudo-liberalism.
“Firstly, you’re confusing malice aforethought with premeditation.”
I used the term correctly.
“Malice aforethought” definition:
“Malice aforethought is the “premeditation” or “predetermination” that was required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions, and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few.”
That definition is incorrect. I too have seen it in several places, but I have also read other sources that correctly distinguish between the two.
No it is not incorrect. You are incorrect.
Of course killers can spring from different backgrounds. Those who come from under priveleged backgrounds tend to have a more simplistic outlook in general and in fact many on this site cannot seem to distinguish right from wrong.
I agree with Virgil about the constant media coverage and add to that, the comments of Denise Fergus.
The crime was commited and the boys were taken out of circulation for a while and I don’t want to do post mortems on the whys or hows.
I do not believe the whys to be as simplistic as some maintain.
He is 20 years dead now and people should let him rest in peace and move on and if they cannot, they should seek professional help.
Some people seem to think that wiping out T & V is the answer. I’ll just get out my gun and the world will live happly ever after.
How can people be so stupid?
I think the point Mathilde.blue was making was that T & V have been free for 11 years and nobody has done anything – in other words these so called “hard men” are all mouth and no action. I agree but these people need to realise that 2 wrongs never make a right.
And no, I do not condone what was done,, nor am I pro T & V but I see sSmith as a modern day Alf Garnett,- narrow, simplistic and full of hot air.
The thing is Alf Garnett is a fictional character and sSmith should try living on this planet or book himself into some “happy farm” where they may with the aid of medication and counselling be able to teach him right from wrong?
“He who sits on the fence gets splinters in his …..”
“I don’t know what you mean by “got a kid lost” – is that another bleeding heart sound byte to gloss over the act of kidnapping?”
It’s the phrase JV and RT used to describe their own actions to the police. You’d know that if you’d done any significant reading about the case.
“When it came to the killing, they took him to an isolated spot and killed him.”
So what? Your entire argument boils down to this: They killed him. Killing is evil. Therefore they are evil.
That doesn’t even begin to scrape the surface of the issue. Behind all your overblown rhetoric, your moral worldview is of a crudity and lack of sophistication not to be believed.
There’s not one thing you’ve asserted about the nature of crime and evil that would be accepted or endorsed by Shakespeare, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Byron, Dostoyevsky, or just about any other great writer about crime and violence.
“Your attempts to mitigate Venables’ guilt are not an obvious thing but an elaborately constructed falsehood built on the quicksand of speculation and spurious analogy.”
You have failed to demonstrate why my analogies are spurious. Furthermore, if mine are spurious, yours cannot be truthfully be considered one iota less so.
I have speculated about what happened. You also have speculated. Yours remains every bit as much as speculation as mine despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.
After all, you, not me, are the one dismissing every last one of the psychologists’ reports written about JV. You – not me – are the one who needs to eliminate THEIR elimination of any psychopathic dimension whatsoever to Venables’ nature.
You – not me – are the one who has to blithely dismiss the testimony of his friends and cyberspace sextext lover, who describe him as a nice, kind, likeable person.
You – not me – are the one who has to blithely dismiss the very different and disturbing testimony of psychologists, criminologists, and colleagues and acquaintances of people who knew various genuinely remorseless and conscience-less psychopathic killers and torturers.
You – not me – have to dismiss the very close resemblance between Venables’ dreams and hallucinations and the ones Shakespeare devises for Macbeth – as well as the absence of any such dreams and hallucinations in the experiences of authentic psychopaths and violent career criminals.
Looks to me like you just don’t realize how much quicksand is shifting underneath your own feet. But don’t let me disturb that glass house of yours.
Virgil:
“Your entire argument boils down to this: They killed him. Killing is evil. Therefore they are evil.”
They killed him by volitional acts in which the likely consequences were obvious. Yes that is evil.
“That doesn’t even begin to scrape the surface of the issue. Behind all your overblown rhetoric, your moral worldview is of a crudity and lack of sophistication not to be believed.”
No yours is a self delusional view, not to be accepted by right-thinking people. “One who is merciful to those who are heartless will end up being heartless to those who are merciful.”(Midrash Zuta, Midrash Tanchuma, Yalkut Shimoni)
“There’s not one thing you’ve asserted about the nature of crime and evil that would be accepted or endorsed by Shakespeare, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Byron, Dostoyevsky, or just about any other great writer about crime and violence.”
When did any one of those great authors suggest that a person who kills a three-year-old was not evil?
“I have speculated about what happened. You also have speculated. Yours remains every bit as much as speculation as mine despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.”
I have already explained why your speculation makes no sense. Why would a bully get angry when his victim cries? That would surely be what a bully wants.
“After all, you, not me, are the one dismissing every last one of the psychologists’ reports written about JV. You – not me – are the one who needs to eliminate THEIR elimination of any psychopathic dimension whatsoever to Venables’ nature.”
Now THIS, I admit, I do not understand. I have accepted your second-hand assertion that Venables was not a psychopath. I have simply not accepted that was a “nice, kind, likeable” person.”
“You – not me – are the one who has to blithely dismiss the testimony of his friends and cyberspace sextext lover, who describe him as a nice, kind, likeable person.”
Presumably when not killing three-year-olds or beating up his classmates.
“They killed him by volitional acts in which the likely consequences were obvious. Yes that is evil.”
Not obvious to everyone, which is why the age of criminal responsibility is higher in most other countries. If it’s so “obvious,” why isn’t the whole world in agreement that 10-year-olds can be tried? The majority of defence of infancy laws have a higher age.
Furthermore, Robert Thompson even made statements that indicate a lack of comprehension, asking if they were taking James to the hospital to make him better. He still didn’t seem to grasp the finality of James’ death. And in a near identical slaying committed by a 10-year-old American boy in 1971, he seriously thought he could revive the dead victim by tying him to a cross like Jesus and he might come back to life as Jesus did after dying on the cross! He really thought that might work!
The likely consequences are not necessariy obvious to perpetrators at that age. Young children do not fully understand the finality of death.
“No yours is a self delusional view, not to be accepted by right-thinking people.”
If it’s not to be accepted by right-thinking people, then why is it that the majority of nations on the planet would not even have tried RT and JV at all for this crime? Are they all wrong and only “right-thinking people” like you right? Are you basically saying that the most countries on earth are “wrong” in their laws and their sense of justice, that they are populated by “wrong-thinking people”?
Why is it that when I look at a discussion thread on DigitalSpy about this very topic, the majority of posters are expressing views closer to mine than yours (i.e. while they all express sympathy for Mrs. Fergus for her terrible loss, they still disagree with almost all her demands and disagree with the sharing of pictures on Twitter etc.)?
” “One who is merciful to those who are heartless will end up being heartless to those who are merciful.”(Midrash Zuta, Midrash Tanchuma, Yalkut Shimoni) ”
Of course, as I already pointed out a million times, you don’t actually know that JV or RT are “heartless.” You have zero proof of this – all the expert testimony, all that is known of their abuse and neglect-ridden childhoods, and all the available testimony of JV’s adult friends and acquaintances suggests nothing of the sort.
You choose to believe the worst about them, and then smugly wrap the Midrash around you as if it supports your views. It doesn’t. That passage is not applicable to this situation: it was not meant to refer to a situation like this. (As should be obvious to you if you’ve read the Bible at all carefully: the story of Cain and Abel ring a bell?)
“When did any one of those great authors suggest that a person who kills a three-year-old was not evil?”
A 10-year-old child killed James. Not a grown man! Are you so fucking obtuse you can’t tell the difference?
And since none of them wrote a work that revolved around child murder as its axis, your point is irrelevant. Every single one of these authors wrote about the issue of MURDER and KILLING – they did not take specifically CHILD MURDER – either perpetrator or victim – as their central focus. They did, however, depict the moral and spiritual questions surrounding the issue of murder with a complexity and fullness of humanity that is alien to the Z-grade dreck you publish.
Dear fucking God: just open your eyes when you read The Oresteia or The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. For God’s sake, Hamlet stabs Polonius to death part way through the play! He kills the wrong man! His action is totally irresponsible! But Shakespeare doesn’t simply conclude that Hamlet is now beyond the pale.
“Presumably when not killing three-year-olds or beating up his classmates.”
Oh for fuck’s sake – grow the fuck up! He was not “beating up” his classmates. If anything, his classmates were bullying and humiliating him. If you read what happened with this incident IN CONTEXT – from the testimony of the people who were there – this was not a case of “beating up,” it was a desperate cry for help. This kid was falling apart psychologically – stabbing himself, self-harming – and nobody was helping him.
Someone is desperately trying to prove a useless point and seriously sounds like a broken record.
ME: “JV and RT kidnapped James Bulger”
You quoting David James Smith: “They did NOT act with the singular purpose of abducting a child.”
I never said they did and the argument you quote (more of other people’s thoughts) is irrelevant. They kidnapped a child.
So the mere fact that they abducted him – “got a kid lost” – doesn’t in and of itself tell us anything about what went down during the killing.
Again, I never said it did. It was one of the things they did. I don’t know what you mean by “got a kid lost” – is that another bleeding heart sound byte to gloss over the act of kidnapping?
“Similarly, there is no reason to believe there was any planning of his murder either, given that there was none for the abduction.”
I never said there was. Murder does not require planning.
“They took him to an isolated spot only after wandering around for hours in full view of many people – including people they knew – and in an area that was not distant from where they lived. They chatted with passersby and didn’t make an effort to avoid being seen all afternoon.”
Again irrelevant. When it came to the killing, they took him to an isolated spot and killed him.
I will go into minutiae of your argument (and citation of some one else’s opinion) as to their lack of intention in the buildup to their killing.
ME: “They killed him by throwing stones at him”
VIRGIL: “Which doesn’t prove they intended him to die.”
They intended either to kill or cause Grievous Bodily Harm. The presence of one of these intentions – coupled with the act that causes the death – forms the legal requirement for a finding of guilty to murder in English Law.
“They may feel terrible afterwards but the child is still dead.”
More speculative excuses. They felt so terrible that instead of running away, they stripped him and left him on railway lines.
“It isn’t going too far to say that in degree of viciousness and cruelty many of the most indignant “defenders of justice for James” are, in reality, on about the same moral plane as JV and RT.”
It is going too far to make such a preposterous comparison – as anyone who possesses a sense of ethics and honesty would realize.
ME “They stripped his clothes”
YOU: “A very common feature in child-on-child killings.”
“very common” is not a mitigating factor.
“And JV and RT offered the police the same explanation: the pants and underwear were removed and placed over James’ face to staunch the blood pouring out. (The clothes had blood on them and were lying near James’ head, lending credence to their assertion.)”
Wouldn’t calling for medical assistance have been more helpful? And why not use their own clothes?
ME: “They put his body on railway tracks.”
YOU: Another very common feature of child-on-child killings. Almost all the other case studies I’ve read about also have the child trying to hide the killing – whether or not their was any premeditation or malice aforethought.
It’s part of the evidence as a whole: abduction, removal to an isolated area, killing, removing clothes and leaving him on railway tracks. You are trying to water down the evidence by looking at each element separately. This is a common F. Lee Bailey tactic. It is the combination of actions that makes the case.
“And yet, you – the self-professed novelist of Dostoyevskian grandeur – apparently don’t realize that Dostoyevsky did not think of his various anti-heroes as “evil.”
You’re attempt to construct a defense of Dostoyevsky – whom I cited in the context of your unsubstantiated efforts to drag literary criticism into the issue of my legally sound point about the injunction – is doomed to fail for one very simple reason. We do not judge real cases by makinjg bogus comparisons with literary works. Dostoyevsky may have shown an undestanding of some real prisoners as well as his fictional characters. I have done so too. (I wrote in defense of Colin Stagg when he was a public pariah widely believed to have been the man who murdered Rachel Nickell.) But that does not mean that I owe it to every prisoner to make excuses for them or to fall for the pseudo-intellectual legerdemain worked by the likes of you in their defence. Dostoyevsky was a Christian; I am not. I’m not bound by his view of criminals. Nor can it be extrapolated to cover the killers of James Bulger.
“But like I said, this is a common fault of novelists whose protagonists are ludicrous and laughable Gary Stu’s.”
You keep up with this dishonest Gary Stu analogy like a Madison Avenue man who thinks that if he keeps repeating his own slogans other people will start believing them. While I can understand your increasing desperation to win the debate at any costs, you must understand that claiming that my writing is bad, whilst hiding below the parapet, proves nothing.
“The flip side of having an exaggerated sense of one’s own moral purity and pristineness is an exaggerated sense of other people’s faults and sins.”
I don’t have an exaggerated sense of my own moral purity, so your implicit premises is false. But accepting your explicit premise, I suppose that the flip side of the that premise is that your attempt to mitigate the crime of killing a three-year-old is a reflection of a “there but for grace of God go I” attitude. Could it be that this is the key to understanding Virgil’s attitude? And his passion?
“And fiction – REAL fiction, as opposed to the shite you excrete – is of immeasurable value in making sense of and interpreting the realm of fact and reality.”
It can also be a shelter in which people hide, like Dorothy Olsen – a character in my first book MERCY (published in the USA as YOU THINK YOU KNOW ME PRETTY WELL).
Nice plug for your book (your actual sentence lacks lucidity or sense, however). I’ll be taking a pass, however: A Marked Man was too atrocious for words, so I can’t imagine your first book would be any better.
(And all the “characters” in Marked Man were cardboard cutouts anyway, with no credibility to them – therefore it doesn’t matter what “Dorothy” does, since she’s just a piece of cardboard with nothing of importance to say about real life.)
Someones really jealous of someone elses books. I bet hes been out and bought them all though. Haha. Pathetic.. . Deranged even?
No Tyson, they really are (or at least Marked Man is) abominably written.
Much of the anonymous fanfiction published online is considerably better written. I do not exaggerate: Kessler is as untalented a novelist as I’ve ever encountered. It was torture to force myself to finish his ludicrous piece of hackwork.
“your actual sentence lacks lucidity or sense, however. ”
I forgot that your comprehension was so limited. Let me see if I can spell out.
You wrote: “And fiction – REAL fiction, as opposed to the shite you excrete – is of immeasurable value in making sense of and interpreting the realm of fact and reality.”
Ignoring your use of the word “shite” (which of course is inacurate in relation to my writing and indicative of your low intellect camouflaged within a high-brow camouflage), I responded that:
“It (i.e. fiction) can also be a shelter in which people hide, like Dorothy Olsen – a character in my first book MERCY (published in the USA as YOU THINK YOU KNOW ME PRETTY WELL).”
The character of Dorothy – like you – hid away from real life within a world of literature and fiction, using the literary world in which she immersed herself as an escape against the bullying that she endured at the hands of her peers.
“all the “characters” in Marked Man were cardboard cutouts anyway, with no credibility to them.”
On the contrary, they were deeply drawn, subtle, nuanced three dimensional characters, as I’m sure you know – or at least would have known if you hadn’t speed-read it.
Virgil: “In addition, I might have also mentioned his recurring dream of having another “baby James” growing inside his body like a fetus, as if he could take back what he’d done by giving birth to another James: a male pregnancy. Then he’d wake up to the despair of the cold hard reality that “what is done cannot be undone.” ”
I am not disputing that a wrongdoer can feel genuine remorse. But this does not exempt him from responsibility or adequate punishment. I explores this theme in my second Alex Sedaka novel “No Way Out” (published in the USA for the Kindle under the title “It started out quite simply” – $2.99)
In this book the character is a rapist Elias Claymore, who in his youth raped women for what he calls “political reasons” and who has now reinvented himself as a born-again Christian and neocon. In the story he is again accused of rape and forced to confront the issue of how genuine was his own “repentance” and to what extent it was a self-delusion. The book also explores the theme of victim as victimizer.
Steve – “He who sits on the fence gets splinters in his …..” – who says I am sitting on he fence? Certainly my posts would suggest to you I am far more capable than just whitterings on the Net?
Retribution is currently underway – you just don’t need to know the depths of how this will be achieved. There are those who can, there are those who will bleat, like you, Virgil, Hawkes, Matilde to an unhearing mass.
You say I am a keyboard warrior. Believe me, If I wasn’t able to make a difference, I wouldn’t spend my time on this.
I know what I know, and I know who I know and whom I converse with – slate me as much as you wish, but to us, you are whistling in the wind,
Watch for justice.
By the way, child murderer sympathisers – IPs, IDs, etc are easy to trace when you know what you are looking for………
Heads up, shut the fuck up and just listen out for future JV and RT reports.
You don’t know the extent of what is stirring
Ssmith – I agree IPs, IDs, etc are easy to trace so with that in mind, why has it taken forever? Answer – either because you are incredibly stupid or full of idle talk.
To my knowledge nobody on this site is a child murder sympathiser and in my case I am not any kind of a murderer sympathiser. The difference between those you dont agree with and you is that we know the difference between right and wrong – you don’t seem to.
I should let them speak for themselves.
To me, they mock you and others because they see your behaviour as ridiculous and they know that you cannot reason with people who are unreasonable and unwilling to listen. They disagree with your attitude.
So supposing for the sake of argument you killed T or V? Now what does that make you?
A killer. And in fact your crime would be seen as worse than theirs because they were children and I assume you are an adult? And so in the eyes of the law you would be considered fully responsible for your actions as your brain (God help us) would be seen to be fully functional and mature.
Now I reckon I am wasting my time trying to reason with you in trying to explain right from wrong. You are clearly mentally challenged, unreasonable and in need of help but here goes.
When you choose to live in a country, you are bound by its laws. If you do not agree with those laws, you move to a country whose laws you do agree with. You can complain but little will come of it.
But nobody has any right to take the law into their own hands just because they do not agree with it and if they do they will face the consequences.
And there are rules and regulations which I consider stupid and unfair but there is nothing I can do about them other than to accept them and get on with it.
Nobody has said they want to kill venables, but i would severely bludgeon him and deliver him to Ralph & Denise Bulger to face them and whatever they have in store for him. We all feel angry for the unthinkable things they did to James. Reasoning, debating and trying to sound clever wont get anyone anywhere. Trying to force your blinkered views on others does not work (virgil)
In the end, actions speak louder than words and these two have yet to be punished. Virgil. I dont give a fuck about any other murders or beatings throughout the world. I care about this one and this one only. Now either accept that or piss off. Its really that simple.
So Tyson, you would take the law into your own hands and suffer the consequences?
So what would you get out of it, only a jail sentence and a label of ‘Thug’.
Have you spoken to the child’s parents and if so, what do they want?
You say these two have yet to be punished but they were institurionalised for 8 years – the maximum sentence.
Britain is supposed to be civilised which is why when somebody steals something, his hand isn’t cut off and when two ten year old kids commit a horrific crime they are not put away for life because they are kids and when someone drives at 40 in a 30 mile zone that they don’t go to prison for 6 years.
There has to be consistancy and guidelines regarding the law and punishment and the penalty has to fit the crime on that basis.
What these penalties are are not decided by the public but by the Ministry of Justice and others some of whom are guided by Europe to an extent.
I think there are some really stupid laws as I have said before but I accept them. I have to even though I may not agree with them. If I started transgressing those laws I would be punished and before you know it I would risk my career and risk being hassled by the police.
From a personal point of view it is not an option.
From a moral point of view it is not an option as it would be wrong and I’m lucky to know the difference between right and wrong.
I also know that two wrongs never make a right!
If you cannot see that two wrongs don’t make a right I think that your state of mind is suspect and that you need some sort of counselling.
You might think violence is the answer but it will cause far more problems than it will solve.
I am aware that there is a bounty on the heads of the killers.
There have also been various media reports and it is not easy to spot the truth from fiction. However most people realise that the parents suffered and to this day are still very bitter and angry. Nevertheless they along with many others have profited financially through their son’s death. Denise Fergus apparently came face to face with Robert Thompson but didn’t approach him. The papers say that she knows where he lives and his identity. Now I know that paper never refuses ink but given that this might be true, her ex would also be aware of his whereabouts.
He shouldn’t be too hard to track down given where he was institutionalised and that he has family etc, etc…
My belief is that the now defunkt News of The World commissioned to have his and the mobiles of others tapped and they conceded that he was no longer a threat to society on the basis of what they heard and their investigations. While most won’t agree, I believe he has been rehabilitated and should be left alone. I do concede that there may be a doubt regarding that though.
Dishing out your own form of punishment is not the answer. Two wrongs will never make a right and whether they live or die, the parents of their victim will continue to grieve for their son.
“However most people realise that the parents suffered and to this day are still very bitter and angry. Nevertheless they along with many others have profited financially through their son’s death. ”
This is a vicious distortion of the reality. Any money they were paid would almost certainly have been used to further promote their campaign for justice. To imply that they money has in some way improved their lifestyle of amounted to personal gain is defamatory and misleading.
“He shouldn’t be too hard to track down given where he was institutionalised and that he has family etc, etc…”
In fact it is not so easy.
“My belief is that the now defunkt News of The World commissioned to have his and the mobiles of others tapped and they conceded that he was no longer a threat to society on the basis of what they heard and their investigations.”
To “tap” his mobile, they would have had to know what his number was. Again, there is no basis for presuming that they knew it. The press does not know everything. If a person has a known contact number where they can be reached, it is easy to tap if they leave the pin number on the default. But if they change the pin it is much more difficult and if one does not know their number to begin then one has no starting point to tap their phone.
“This is a vicious distortion of the reality. Any money they were paid would almost certainly have been used to further promote their campaign for justice. To imply that they money has in some way improved their lifestyle of amounted to personal gain is defamatory and misleading.”
No, it is not a “vicious distortion.” Granting interviews to tabloids is now a full-time occupation for Denise Fergus. She, her husband, and her son don’t do anything else: they have no other job between them. And haven’t had one for some years. (This fact comes to light in a recent interview she conducted together with her son in one of the tabloids.)
So yes, the money most certainly does go towards “personal gain.”
In fact, the money did “improve their lifestyle” – the money Denise made from her first round of interviews immediately in the wake of James’ death allowed her to move into a new and nicer home.
Furthermore, Denise Fergus’ press agent, Chris Johnson, owns Mercury Press. Mercury Press owns the copyright on the childhood photos of JV and RT that are endlessly reprinted alongside every new story written about this case. This means he makes money whenever there’s another story.
Johnson has a vested financial interest in keeping the story going in perpetuity. And that interest has nothing to do with giving a fuck about “justice for James,” any more than the tabloids genuinely give a fuck. And he, likewise, has a vested and deeply cynical and deplorable interest in keeping Denise’s bitterness and rage alive forever, since if she ever managed to move on, she’d stop making her living by being a professional victim, and that’d be pretty much the end of Johnson’s own financial windfall. Apart from the photos, he also takes a cut of the payment Mrs. Fergus receives for every tabloid interview she grants. The moment she stops giving those interviews, Johnson’s own cash cow’s udders run dry.
Chris Johnson is a leech, a parasite, a hypocrite, a scoundrel, and far more of a true enemy to Mrs. Fergus’ emotional well-being than Steve or any poster who points out the harsh truth that “they along with many others have profited financially through their son’s death.”
Furthermore, the chief contributor for The Sun who headed up their anti-Venables hate campaign for years is none other than John Kay, a tabloid reporter who murdered his own wife back in the 1970s and got away with it (he got out of jail time by, dubiously, pleading insanity). Of course, it’s highly likely he never bothered to inform poor old Denise of any of this when she was busy pouring her heart out and complaining that JV and RT never served a proper sentence. Kay was never punished nearly as severely as those two for a killing he committed as an adult! He just did a couple years in a mental hospital then was welcomed back by The Sun with open arms. I’m sure Kay listened to Mrs. Fergus’ outpourings without a hint of shame.
Because this case has always been primarily about money and profits, not genuine concerns about “justice for James.”
“Granting interviews to tabloids is now a full-time occupation for Denise Fergus. She, her husband, and her son don’t do anything else”
She needs to free herself from other commitments in order to devote herself to her campaign. Your argument is like saying that full-time employees of Oxfam do the job for financial gain.
“the money Denise made from her first round of interviews immediately in the wake of James’ death allowed her to move into a new and nicer home.”
Moving to a new home after a bereavement? Getting away from painful memories? The phrase “new and nicer” is spin.
As to the others (as opposed to James’s family) it is a non-sequitur to my point – fascinating in itself, and a subject for a discussion in its own right, but outside the scope of my comment.
You’re simply doing a PR snowjob on behalf of Denise Fergus and expecting us to swallow it. Nice try, David.
Who is guilty of baseless speculating now? You are.
Scrape away your self-serving (or Fergus-serving) empty rhetoric and the naked facts are these: Denise Fergus is a professional victim. She makes lots of money off the tabloids and that’s where all her money comes from. And it’s been that way for years and years.
You have no proof whatsoever that she is doing this because she must. The goals of her “justice for James” campaign are vague and amorphous, and don’t seem to have anything behind them but a vague desire for vengeance.
What has she done since becoming a full-time victim who gets paid for being a victim? Demanded Maggie Atkinson be fired for holding an opinion different from hers, railed at government officials, ranted about some sort of injustice being done to her even though none was, tried to incite vigilante attacks against JV and RT, and equally unworthy goals.
No injustice ever was done to her despite her nonsensical complaints. The rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world does not prosecute 10-year-olds, and even those nations with an age of responsibility as young as 10 usually put the accused through the juvenile system instead of the adult system.
Her complaints of “injustice” are baseless and always have been – and this becomes very clear once you put it in a global context and compare how JV and RT were treated with the more lenient treatment they’d have received almost anywhere else in the civilized world.
Say it to her face she will tear your fucking eyes out your skull you coward nonce bastard.
“Moving to a new home after a bereavement? Getting away from painful memories? The phrase “new and nicer” is spin.”
She bought a new home with the proceedings from her interviews! That’s not spin, it’s a plain fact. The only one “spinning” here – feebly and weakly – is you.
You claimed the money she makes from her tabloid rants all goes to the “justice for James” campaign. It demonstrably does not: right from the very beginning, she spent the money on herself. Beginning with the new residence she purchased with the money she made from the media.
Whats it got to do with you, what she does with her money you nosey, jealous, pathetic bastard.
I would happily say it to her face, Tyson, though I wouldn’t say it quite like that!
If given the opportunity to interview her, though, I’d ask her some tough questions (politely) and not the soft, easy questions she only ever gets asked. And I’d certainly start by drawing her attention to the reality that JV and RT were punished more harshly than the rest of Europe would’ve punished them, given their ages at the time.
You have no right to interogate her at all. That would give you a kick though wouldnt it. I know what you are. You are on the outside, you can do nothing but spew empty rhetoric.Its meaningless. Its boundary is your thick skull. Someone will get JV. Someone who has no fear of the law or the consequences. Its just a matter of time. Good progress has been made. Very good progress.
Steve, I am neither mentally challenged or in need of help. Thanks for the wayward analysis however. I do know what justice is however, and I and many others know it hasn’t been issued as yet.
This is going to be rectified. As Tyson says, this is the one crime that is so horrendous and both murderers have been let off more than lightly, that something needs to be done.
This will happen.
Mark my words.
Replying to David Kessler….
Several people made money out of the murder of James Bulger. How they chose to spend the money was their business. I did not speculate on how they spent it but merely made a statement of fact.
That is the reality, not a vicious distortion of it as you put it.
I did not imply anything. You made an assumption based on what I wrote.
Maybe I should have phrased it differently?
What would you suggest?
I’m not interested in how they or anyone else spent their money. You have speculated on how they might have spent it and maybe you are right?
You say it is not so easy to track them down and you are entitled to that belief. It is a fair argument but I disagree.
In relation to tapping the phone of Robert Thompson, your explaination is fair and logical but the press did actually tap it along with the phones of others which resulted in Robert Thompson seeking compensation. Perhaps this was another story fabricated by the press? Why don’t you google it and make up your own mind on it?
I agree with you that the press do not know everything.
Replying to Ssmith…..
I agree with you that the crime was horrendous. No arguments from me there!
I don’t agree with vigilate justice as it is wrong and I do not see what good might come of it? Maybe you could enlighten me as to what good it would do in this case?
So tell me this?
What punishment would you regard as suitable and why?
Why do you think the law was put in place which determined the sentence handed out?
Regarding compensation, a lot of people claimed (and in some cases got) compensation simply because there names were on lists of people to be monitored. My own name was on such a list, because of the book I wrote with Colin Stagg. However in the absence of specific evidence that my phone had been hacked I decided not to submit a compensation claim.
“You’re simply doing a PR snowjob on behalf of Denise Fergus and expecting us to swallow it. Nice try, David.
It’s interesting that the same people who are expressing their warped kind of “there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I” empathy for the murderers of James Bulger are also trying desperately to demonize his bereaved mother. Sound-bytes like “professional victim” are redneck phrases. She is a victim. That is fact. That she she has not taken it with the same stoicism as other bereaved people does not justify the attempts of those who sympathize with her son’s murderers to demonize her.
“She makes lots of money off the tabloids and that’s where all her money comes from. And it’s been that way for years and years.”
As I stated: this frees her from other commitments to campaign for justice for her murdered son. Managers and directors of charities also get paid.
“The goals of her “justice for James” campaign are vague and amorphous, and don’t seem to have anything behind them but a vague desire for vengeance.”
Perhaps if you had less empathy for murderers, you might have a greater understanding of their victims – including bereaved relatives.
“Demanded Maggie Atkinson be fired for holding an opinion different from hers, railed at government officials, ranted about some sort of injustice being done to her even though none was, tried to incite vigilante attacks against JV and RT, and equally unworthy goals.”
Maggie Atkinson didn’t just call for an increase in the age of criminal responsibility – effectively incentivizing 10 and 11 year-olds to commit crimes – she used the Bulger murder as an example to illustrate her point.
As for the other items you listed, it is called campaigning.
“No injustice ever was done to her despite her nonsensical complaints.”
Seeing her son’s murderers inadequately punished was a grave injustice. Ditto for seeing one of them re-offend – something you would realize if you could identify a bit more with a bereaved mother and a bit less with yobs who murdered her three-year-old son.
“The rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world does not prosecute 10-year-olds,”
We don’t need any lessons from Europe. We are the most stable democracy in Europe apart from Iceland and Switzerland (and unlike them we are able to sustain our democracy without hiding behind neutrality).
“and even those nations with an age of responsibility as young as 10 usually put the accused through the juvenile system instead of the adult system.”
Normally we do too. But in this case the charge was murder.
“Her complaints of “injustice” are baseless and always have been – and this becomes very clear once you put it in a global context and compare how JV and RT were treated with the more lenient treatment they’d have received almost anywhere else in the civilized world.”
There is nothing civilized in the lenient sentences they got.
“You claimed the money she makes from her tabloid rants all goes to the “justice for James” campaign. It demonstrably does not: right from the very beginning, she spent the money on herself. Beginning with the new residence she purchased with the money she made from the media.”
As I explained already and you chose to ignore, buying a new residence is an escape from pain. She also “still cannot bring herself to walk near the Walton railway line” according to the Guardian. Is that too an affectation? Or is it simply an effect? I suggest the latter. Once again, I note how you have no sympathy for the bereaved, whilst bending over backwards to find favourable excuses for the murderers – like Shakespearean nightmares.
BTW, on the issue of Venables’ nightmares, I note that you are remarkably ready to accept that they really occurred. As there is no means of probing his mind, we cannot know whether they occurred or not. Any claims he made are not to be trusted. And the public opinions of psychiatrists who examined him are even less trustworthy, as an ethical and honest psychiatrist would not disclose information about a patient, except as an anonymous case study.
Maybe you should go back to writing your own tenth-rate blog, instead of fouling up this one with your there-but-for-the grace-God sympathy with those who have the blood of a three-year-old on their hands.
Well said David!! Virgil – It is utterly ridiculous to vilify Denis Fergus for her conduct following her little boys brutal death!!! It absolutely baffles me that you see fit to bad mouth this poor woman yet chose to fight the corner of the perpetrators of this crime!! Denise Fergus is the victim here!!! For someone who bangs on about PTSD you somehow overlook the fact that DF is most likely to be suffering from this herself yet you still have no acknowledgment of the trauma caused by what JV and RT did!!! (She is entitled to behave any way she sees fit!!!). It is one thing to have your own opinion about the phycological state and upbringing etc of JV and RT that COULD have played a part in what they did but it is quite another to continually come up with ridiculous comparisons (to Macbeth.. WTF??), justifications (eye surgery..WTF??) and mitigating factors (they didn’t set out to kidnap and murder him- so what- they DID!!!), which some how results in you attacking Denis Fergus, the victim, and backing two murderers!! I repeat WTF?????? Do you really think that JV and RT will be grateful for your unusual (at best) viewpoints?? Highly unlikely!!!
I think Virgil’s username is the clue he. He calls himself by the name of an ancient Greek poet, and he sees Greek (and Shakespearean) tragedies everywhere.
I’m still waiting for him to compare Robert Thompson to Captain Ahab and James Bulger as Moby Dick.
I know!! It wouldn’t surprise me one bit!!! Unbelievable!!!!!!
“ridiculous comparisons (to Macbeth.. WTF??)”
Let me try again for the slow kids in class.
I specifically compared Venables’ reaction in the aftermath of his killing to Macbeth’s. reaction. Yes, I’m aware that Venables is not an 11th century Scottish monarch, thanks for pointing that out.
1) Both were haunted by very frightening and vivid dreams and hallucinations.
2) The specific content of Venables’ hallucinations were remarkably similar and analagous to the hallucinations Shakespeare describes Macbeth as suffering. Feeling the presence of James Bulger’s ghost in the courtroom with him, tearing off his clothes every night and wanting them destroyed because he could “smell the baby smell on them,” horrific visions of spraying blood, a gnawing dream about having a male pregnancy of another baby James growing inside him, like he could give birth to James. This is a remarkably Macbeth-like reaction, and the visions are the same kind of extreme and surreal visions Shakespeare writes into his play.
3) Remorseless sadists and cold-natured psychopaths do not suffer from or feel haunted by such experiences. It’s largely a matter of indifference to them what they did. They may feel regret they got caught and have now fucked up their lives – they may feel self-pity – but their sleep is not haunted by these sorts of visions.
4) And this last point Shakespeare also understood: hence the strikingly different temperament and disposition he creates for the murderous Iago as opposed to the murderous Macbeth. And if Venables resembles Macbeth in this aspect of his nature, Graham Young the notorious poisoner resembles Iago.
5) Therefore, the dogmatic assertions about Venables’ evil nature are without foundation. The psychologists who examined him simply reconfirm what anyone could infer about him simply by examining the known facts about him and his response to his crime. (He also offered an apology for what he’d done almost immediately after confessing, which of course has not prevented Denise Fergus from lying about this all the time, claiming he’d never offered a hint of remorse. Apparently, being a victim of a terrible tragedy gives you carte blanche to freely lie in the media with impunity.)
“however once again (I will repeat it so YOU fully understand) you are talking like Macbeth is a real person who had literally been through the events portrayed in the play! Are you that blinkered that you actually think that the points you are trying to make are valid?? You are comparing real life tragedies to those that didn’t and have never existed apart from in the mind of the playwright himself!”
Why is it that you can’t grasp that there is a REASON why Shakespeare is the most studied writer of all time, and that some writers are remembered while others are not? It has to do with Shakespeare’s unparalleled ability to reveal and dramatize truths about human beings that other writers – including the most expert psychologists – cannot.
Of course Macbeth is not a “real person.” But he is one of the most famous literary characters of all time FOR A REASON. And that reason is that he and his play can and do reveal truths pertaining to the world outside the world of the theater.
“The mind of the playwright” in question just happens to be the greatest thinker on human psychology OF ALL TIME! You getting the point yet?
Your last post, David, totally gives your game away. Behind your patina of culture and sophistication is nothing but hollow, empty reactionary bluster.
This is how you frame every argument: those damn Europeans have nothing to teach us! Those leftie psychologists have nothing to say as they are gullible fools, unlike us real folks down here livin’ in the real world!
First of all, I never claimed the “Europeans have [something] to teach us.” I just drew attention to the reality that Denise Fergus has never been short-changed, as soon as you put the verdict in a European and international context.
I never said the rest of Europe was righter and smarter. I just said – truthfully – that there was nothing especially lenient about JV’s and RT’s punishment. It may not be the case that Britain is “wrong” or the rest of Europe is “right,” but it IS a fact that Denise Fergus received more – much more – “justice” than she’d have gotten anywhere else in Europe.
And your little reactionary rants about Europeans and shrinks don’t change that reality one bit.
Virgil, “Yes, I’m aware that Venables is not an 11th century Scottish monarch, thanks for pointing that out.”
Are you also aware that he killed a child and that he was not a war veteran (ancient OR modern)?
“Both were haunted by very frightening and vivid dreams and hallucinations.”
How do we know he had them?
“Remorseless sadists and cold-natured psychopaths do not suffer from or feel haunted by such experiences.”
And I believe you have also claimed that it is precisely his feelings of guilt that have led to his criminal behaviour in adulthood. Presumably then, you think that RT’s lack of (apparent) adult criminal behaviour is due to a lack of similar guilt feelings. So when crime is not a cry for help by those traumatized by eye surgery, it’s a symptom of guilt for previous criminality. I guess it’s back to the violin again.
“This is how you frame every argument: those damn Europeans have nothing to teach us!”
You made a comparison with the sentencing policy in other European countries to prove that we are not lenient – as if a comparison with Europe could prove that. But leniency isn’t about national comparisons. We are lenient as compared to what we should be in dealing with violent criminals. Note how people guilty of assault routinely get non-custodial sentences. We will see later today if those who commit perjury in a traffic violation case also get non-custodial sentences.
Your implicit premise was that the Europeans must be right, therefore we must be wrong. My response simply meant that it is not axiomatic that the Europeans are right or that we are wrong because they are more lenient than we.
“Those leftie psychologists have nothing to say as they are gullible fools, unlike us real folks down here livin’ in the real world!”
Psychologists who reveal confidential patient information are already breaching professional ethics, therefore what they say cannot be trusted.
Virgil…once again you are missing my point (seems I am not the only slow kid in the class). I am perfectly aware of, and fully understand what you mean when you make comparisons between JV and Macbeth, (believe it or not people other than yourself do read you know and can actually fathom what you are talking about) however once again (I will repeat it so YOU fully understand) you are talking like Macbeth is a real person who had literally been through the events portrayed in the play! Are you that blinkered that you actually think that the points you are trying to make are valid?? You are comparing real life tragedies to those that didn’t and have never existed apart from in the mind of the playwright himself! I could understand if you were trying to make the same point by using similar situations/murders/REAL LIFE tragedies, but this just does not make sense to me one bit!!! I honestly think it is a completely ludicrous point!! If you could stop talking down to me and understand what I am saying I would appreciate it!
“There is nothing civilized in the lenient sentences they got.”
They did not receive lenient sentences compared to what they’d have received in Spain, China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, most parts of the Unites States etc.
Lenient in comparison to what? In comparison to some hypothetical justice in your mind, as opposed to what most of the rest of the world would give them?
“BTW, on the issue of Venables’ nightmares, I note that you are remarkably ready to accept that they really occurred.”
Venables must have been a little juvenile genius comparable to the fictional psychopath Hannibal Lector then, if he managed to dream up all these elaborate, graphic nightmares at age ten and eleven he never actually experienced, but simply invented out of whole cloth! And successfully feigned (together with Thompson) all the signs and symptoms of PTSD to pull the wool over the experts’ eyes.
Dr. Hannibal Venables walks the streets…. spooky!!
“As there is no means of probing his mind, we cannot know whether they occurred or not. Any claims he made are not to be trusted.”
These are not the retrospective claims of the now adult Venables, they are what he reported in the wake of the offence, as a child.
“As I explained already and you chose to ignore, buying a new residence is an escape from pain.”
Irrelevant. I was rebutting a specific FALSE claim you made, I was not judging her for spending money on herself. It’s her money, she can do whatever she wants with it, including buying a new house or ten new houses. That’s not the point. The point is: you specifically and falsely claimed that any money she makes goes towards the charity. That’s untrue. Now, I have no problem with her spending the money how she sees fit, but you attacked another poster for their CORRECT statement of the facts. Now you can’t admit that it was YOU, not HIM, that got the facts wrong.
“She also “still cannot bring herself to walk near the Walton railway line” according to the Guardian. Is that too an affectation? Or is it simply an effect? I suggest the latter.”
Point out to me where I accused her of putting on an “affectation.” I pointed out that she has become a professional victim: that is, her profession now is victim: she makes money from being James Bulger’s mother and ONLY from that. (Same goes for her husband Stuart.) That’s her prerogative, but at least have the decency to admit that this being the case does indeed confirm the assertion of the poster upthread you attacked.
“Once again, I note how you have no sympathy for the bereaved, whilst bending over backwards to find favourable excuses for the murderers – like Shakespearean nightmares.”
Pointing out the fact that JV bears none of the classic hallmarks of a psychopath or remorseless career criminal is hardly bending over backwards to make excuses. It’s a simple statement of an obvious fact – one that SHOULD be obvious to everyone and WOULD be obvious to everyone were it not for the abhorrent, irresponsible tabloid coverage surrounding the case.
And I have sympathy for Mrs. Fergus for her loss, but that doesn’t mean I agree with much of what she has to say. These are two completely separate issues. Victims deserve support but the support should not come in the form of giving them control over the sentencing (which she seems to want) or making unreasonable demands.
I have studied very similar cases to this. You evidently have not. I would not be arrogant enough to say that the parents all “got over it,” I don’t think any of them ever got over what happened: their child killed by another child. But what is clear is that none of them were as damaged and disturbed as Denise Fergus is – and the one key difference I notice is that none of these other cases turned into a neverending media circus in which the murder was dredged up again and again, year after year, made permanent tabloid fodder. There is a definite connection between the appallingly irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of this story and the parents’ inability to heal or move on in any way.
Part of “sympathy” is knowing where the real blame lies for Mrs. Fergus’ anguish, and the media, in this particular instance, are far more to blame than the government, psychologists and psychiatrists, “bleeding heart” liberals (are all those other countries with higher ages of criminal responsibility under the thumb of bleeding hearts?), or the European Court.
“They did not receive lenient sentences compared to what they’d have received in Spain, China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, most parts of the Unites States etc.”
Not sure about the US, but in any case, leniency is not determined by comparison to other systems of justice. but with reference to proper considerations of what is in fact just and fair in relation to the magnitude of the crime. They murdered a three-year-old and served eight years in a strict boarding school. That is not justice.
“Lenient in comparison to what? In comparison to some hypothetical justice in your mind, as opposed to what most of the rest of the world would give them?”
Yes.
“Venables must have been a little juvenile genius comparable to the fictional psychopath Hannibal Lector then, if he managed to dream up all these elaborate, graphic nightmares at age ten and eleven he never actually experienced, but simply invented out of whole cloth! ”
You heard them direct from Venables? You heard them from journalists who interviewed Venables? You heard them direct from psychiatrists who interviewed Venables (and chose to reveal confidential patient information?) Or you heard them from journalists, who heard them from psychiatrists who heard them from Venables? Even assuming assuming a ten-year-old could not invent nightmares (or be prompted to claim them), your information was mediated by several layers in a game of Chinese whispers – unless you heard them from Venables himself.
“These are not the retrospective claims of the now adult Venables, they are what he reported in the wake of the offence, as a child.”
Reported to whom? After speaking to whom?
“I was rebutting a specific FALSE claim you made, I was not judging her for spending money on herself. It’s her money, she can do whatever she wants with it, including buying a new house or ten new houses.”
You imply that the money was sufficient to retain the old house and buy a new one outright. Is that in fact what you are saying? Or did it merely cover the difference in cost or pay off the mortgage? Moving was part of the recovery process. Now she can concentrate on her campaign. They are all intertwined. Your argument is an evasion of the very subtle nuanced approach that you claim is necessary to an understanding of your beloved child-murderers.
” Victims deserve support but the support should not come in the form of giving them control over the sentencing (which she seems to want) or making unreasonable demands.”
Justice demands that the victims have a say in sentencing.
“Pointing out the fact that JV bears none of the classic hallmarks of a psychopath or remorseless career criminal is hardly bending over backwards to make excuses.”
But you have also argued that his adult criminality is a response to his feelings of guilt. In other words you are saying: don’t judge him harshly for his adult criminality because that is just the proof that he has a conscience. So his adult criminality then becomes – in your eyes – a point in his favour.
“Part of “sympathy” is knowing where the real blame lies for Mrs. Fergus’ anguish, and the media, in this particular instance, are far more to blame than the government, psychologists and psychiatrists, “bleeding heart” liberals (are all those other countries with higher ages of criminal responsibility under the thumb of bleeding hearts?), or the European Court.”
The tabloids didn’t release the murderers after eight years in a boarding school. The tabloids didn’t falsely and dishonestly rule that a ten-year-old cannot get a fair trial because he cannot “instruct” council (a point I have addressed elsewhere). It was the courts that betrayed Denise Fergus and justice.
“Point out to me where I accused her of putting on an “affectation.” ”
You implied that her decision to move was in search of greater personal affluence. I was pointing out that it fulfilled an important psychological need. She cannot move on by getting over the pain of her loss, but she can numb the pain by moving into a new home.
“I pointed out that she has become a professional victim: that is, her profession now is victim: she makes money from being James Bulger’s mother and ONLY from that. (Same goes for her husband Stuart.) ”
You have personally audited their accounts? Their tax assessment? You associate every paid interview she gives to her being a victim? On that basis one could say he JV and RT are professional victimizers as their training for any jobs they do came from the taxpayer and it is the taxpayer who pays for their special security arrangements, the falsification of their identities and the myriad special provisions that have to be made for people in their rare positions.
“leniency is not determined by comparison to other systems of justice. but with reference to proper considerations of what is in fact just and fair in relation to the magnitude of the crime. They murdered a three-year-old and served eight years in a strict boarding school. That is not justice.”
It is according to the laws of the rest of the civilized, democratic world. Are you demanding that the UK become completely out of step wiith most of the rest of the planet, just to satisfy your and Denise Fergus’ need for greater vengeance?
“Proper considerations….” “magnitude of the crime….” yet you don’t even know precisely what the crime was, above and beyond simple murder. As I already pointed out, what precisely occurred – and with what degree of premeditation – remains to this day a complete question mark.
The stuff about a “boarding school” is complete nonsense.
“The tabloids didn’t release the murderers after eight years in a boarding school.”
It’s not a boarding school, it does not resemble a boarding school. This is just more of your reactionary rhetoric. And if you don’t like that punishment, then move to Saudi Arabia or Iran, which are the kinds of societies that may give you the kind of punishment you demand.
“The tabloids didn’t falsely and dishonestly rule that a ten-year-old cannot get a fair trial because he cannot “instruct” council (a point I have addressed elsewhere).”
You addressed it with an extremely weak and feeble set of arguments. You blithely ignore that most countries DO take the ability to instruct counsel into account: even if you personally dismiss this consideration, the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the world does not dismiss it. It is a real issue however you try to wave it aside.
“It was the courts that betrayed Denise Fergus and justice.”
Neither Denise Fergus nor “justice” were betrayed – unless you think the entirety of Europe and most of the world are also “betraying” justice by either a) refusing to prosecute 10 year olds, or b) putting them through the juvenile courts (non-adversarial) instead of the adult courts, and c) giving the perpetrators sentences proportionate to what JV and RT got.
You can blather on all you want about how Mrs. Fergus has been betrayed, the fact remains that she received far more justice than she’d have gotten in any other European country. She has also been largely indulged by the UK media as other figures in high-profile murder cases the world over have not been. Nowhere else could she get paid the kind of money she gets paid by tabloids to give rage-filled interviews for 20 years.
“You heard them direct from Venables? You heard them from journalists who interviewed Venables? You heard them direct from psychiatrists who interviewed Venables (and chose to reveal confidential patient information?) Or you heard them from journalists, who heard them from psychiatrists who heard them from Venables? Even assuming assuming a ten-year-old could not invent nightmares (or be prompted to claim them), your information was mediated by several layers in a game of Chinese whispers – unless you heard them from Venables himself.”
Nonsense. This is all clearly reported by David James Smith in his book. It is also reported in some detail by several other journalists. It is as solidly established as anything in the factual record in this case – and far more on a solid factual basis, by the way, than any of your assumptions about Denise Fergus’ Justice for James campaign.
You seem to be quite addicted to double standards, dismissing whatever I say as not sufficiently grounded in fact – and automatically dismissing expert opinions, legal rulings, and journalistic reportage of anything at all that doesn’t square with how you see things. And yet, at the very same time, you feel no need to place your own assumptions on any kind of factual grounding at all. I’m apparently expected to do all the heavy lifting in providing quotes and links and references, I’m apparently obliged to footnote everything – while you, all this time, do precisely none of that. One law for me, and an entirely different, and far lower standard of proof, applies to you.
“your information was mediated by several layers in a game of Chinese whispers – unless you heard them from Venables himself”
No more so than anything else you typically read in journalistic coverage of any news story at all. Your rubbish about JV and RT going to boarding schools isn’t grounded in anything factual. Your groundless speculation about what Denise and Stuart Fergus are doing with the money they receive from tabloids – and why they have this relationship with the tabs – is essentially rooted in nothing factual.
But there is nothing particularly “mediated” about JV’s nightmares over and above anything else reported about this story or indeed any news story. All you’re doing is feebly grasping at straws, demanding 100 percent certainty in some areas but willing to leap to conclusions in others. You’re a double standard mongerer, here as elsewhere.
I am not familiar with PTSD and so cannot comment on Virgil’s hypothesis.
As I stated before, the crime was horrendous whatever way one looks at it but I feel it would not have happened at that time had the boys been in school as they should have been. The parents, teachers and authorities failed in their duties in that regard.
That said, nobody forced them to do what they did.
I think Virgil speaks straight from the shoulder and makes some valid points regarding Denise Fergus, albeit a little insensitive.
I feel sorry for her that she cannot move on with her life and carries around so much hatred. This is bad for her health and her personal well being as well as the well being of those around her. I think she needs some counselling – it may not even work but maybe it might help? It would appear that she is not coping very well as things stand?
And the press are no help whatsoever. The money she receives cannot offer her the peace of mind she needs and in fact the very mention of her son and those connected with his death regurgitates the hurt all over again.
Now I know she has been through a lot of heartache but maybe, just maybe she has never been allowed grieve in private?
Once the murder was commited it was in the hands of the police. Once the boys were charged it was in the hands of the Ministry and once they had been found guilty it was up to the judge to impose a sentence. During those sequence of events Denise Fergus’s influence on the outcome was minimal to none because it was the law of the land that ruled. Was the only way she could have received justice acceptable to her to take the law into her own hands?
That is why laws exist. They have to be seen to be fair and decisive to everybody and not influenced by emotions. While I do not agree with every law in the land, until someone comes up with an improvement and writes it into the constitution, they are all we have. I will respect them but if other people don’t that is their own business.
If people believe she has been in any way victimised I’d love to hear people’s take on why they believe this is so?
You are quite right Tyson – it is nobody’s business how she spends the money she receives.
Anonymous (Mar 10th @7:54) also sums up the situation by saying that this case is about money. It would certainly appear that way unfortunately.
David makes reference to the lenient sentences the boys received. Perhaps you might suggest what punishment you consider would have been fair and why, bearing in mind that they received the maximum sentences possible under the law?
As this is a public forum, those who submit posts are liable to scutiny. Everybody is entitled to his opinion and it is inevitable that some people will not agree with certain postings or points. Fair enough – it goes with the territory.!
Exactly Steve, I agree with the points you make! Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is bound to be conflict! However when I see Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger on TV I can honestly still see the pain in their eyes! The horror of what happened that day still makes me so upset when I think about it, so god only knows how they must feel! They are living life with a heavy heart and that is a terrible way to exist!! How could anyone move on from that? Surely you must understand? PSTD- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is probably what DF and RB are experiencing which would explain their behaviour! (although I don’t believe it requires justification) God, if Virgil can negate JV’s actions because of this surely he can forgive/understand DF for the same reason!?? If not then his whole debate is hypocritical! Ps I don’t condone anything to do with the hunting down of JV and RT I just think that it is very unfair to portray James Bulger’s parents in a negative manner after what they have been through…some people need to have a little compassion and empathy for the victims.
Why would scum like virgil have sympathyfpor james’ parents. The man is a sick cunt with an education. He is one of many.
“God, if Virgil can negate JV’s actions because of this surely he can forgive/understand DF for the same reason!??”
Yes, of course, but first there has to be some public acknowledgement and recognition that what she’s doing constitutes lying and harrassment, that her constant media lies, fibs, and falsehoods are not “courageous” or the reflection of a “strong,” “brave” mother fighting the good fight, but are the outpourings of a damaged, disturbed soul who’s a lot more similar to Venables than most people want to admit.
And it isn’t my place to “forgive” her or not anyway. I’m simply interested in pointing out the harsh truth: she’s a professional victim who makes her living entirely from tabloids, and also, she tells lies in almost every interview she gives. For instance, she claimed she knew RT or JV was living in Australia, she claimed she knew that RT has had “wobbles,” she claims the murder was a coldly planned, premeditated murder, and she flies into rages if anyone dares suggest otherwise – even though there exists no proof whatsoever that it was premeditated. Who is she to decide that’s what happened? It’s still an open question and most of the evidence points quite the other way: that the boys had no plan to kill James when they abducted him. She has no right to silence debate and discussion about what happened, and to demand public officials be sacked because they don’t go along with her lurid, exaggerated, distorted version of what happened. It’s absolutely ridiculous that Maggie Atkinson was forced to apologize to Mrs. Fergus. She said nothing wrong, nothing unfactual, and had nothing to apologize for. It was just a PR move.
This is, after all, a woman who has openly tried to incite vigilantes to track down and kill JV and RT on her behalf. So she is soliciting murder. She could in theory have been charged with a crime for some of the things she’s said in interviews – she’s protected by the fact that no one wants to prosecute a grieving mother and it would be an unparalleled public relations disaster if that were to happen.
Charlotte Raven may have been too harsh when she wrote a scathing piece about the “sickening” Bulger “mourning marathon,” as she called it a decade ago, but I find her piece closer to the truth than anything else written about the Bulger case.
Poor virgil. He try so hard to force HIS views upon others. FOOL.
“I don’t believe it is about money (different anonymous) but so what if it is…??? Do they not deserve some compensation after losing their precious little boy?!?!”
They can do whatever they want. It’s their decision, not my decision. However, David claimed falsely that all the money goes to the Justice for James campaign. It doesn’t.
Why do you insist on diverting attention from the real issue? David specifically claimed that any money they make is put towards Justice for James. I am refuting his erroneous assertion.
I called her a professional victim because that’s what she is. It’s a simple statement of fact: she and her long-term unemployed husband make money from James’ death and from nothing else. It’s not an insult, it’s a factual statement.
And if you’ll look around the internet, you’ll see that what I say isn’t even particularly controversial. Lots of people are aware of this and I haven’t said anything that isn’t widely known. There is lots of criticism of the Justice for James campaign from many different quarters. That doesn’t preclude sympathy or recognition of the tragedy of James’ death. But a bit of perspective is needed. James’ death was an awful tragedy, but so are all the other deaths of children who are killed by adults whose sad stories don’t garner a tiny fraction of the media attention this case generated.
I don’t believe it is about money (different anonymous) but so what if it is…??? Do they not deserve some compensation after losing their precious little boy?!?! xxx
“what she’s doing constitutes lying and harrassment, ”
Harassment of whom?
“a damaged, disturbed soul who’s a lot more similar to Venables than most people want to admit.”
Has she murdered a child? Has she murdered anyone for that matter? Did she beat her classmates? Did she kidnap a child? She may be suffering from trauma, and the murderers of her son may also have suffered trauma. But there the resemblance ends.
“she’s a professional victim who makes her living entirely from tabloids,”
She is a VICTIM, the qualifying adjective is more of your pro-criminal spin. As I have pointed out, getting money from the tabloids enables her to devote herself to her campaign. Calling her a professional victim is like describing the paid employees of a registered charity as professional do-gooders.
” For instance, she claimed she knew RT or JV was living in Australia, ”
She was told this by others and she believed them.This proves nothing except her fragility in the face of purported information from others.
“Maggie Atkinson was forced to apologize to Mrs. Fergus. She said nothing wrong, nothing unfactual,”
Atkinson used the Bulger case as an EXAMPLE to embellish her argument that ten-year-olds should be immune from criminal prosecution. Denise Fergus exercised her own freedom of speech to criticize the statement.
“This is, after all, a woman who has openly tried to incite vigilantes to track down and kill JV and RT on her behalf. So she is soliciting murder. She could in theory have been charged with a crime for some of the things she’s said in interviews – she’s protected by the fact that no one wants to prosecute a grieving mother and it would be an unparalleled public relations disaster if that were to happen.”
So have many people on this site. However, in the absence of a verdict agreeing with you, these are just allegations. It would have to be proven that she said these things and then a jury would have to decide if she was responsible for what she said.
Virgil: “David claimed falsely that all the money goes to the Justice for James campaign. It doesn’t.”
Virgil likes to cite Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky, but at times like this, I wish he was van Gogh, then perhaps it wouldn’t go in one ear and out the other.
For the umpteenth time let me explain again for the benefit of the slow-witted: the money she makes enables her to free her time from having to work in some other capacity (i.e. wage-earning) and this enables her to devote the time saved to her campaign. It is analogous to a salaried head of a charity who is able to devote himself to the charity full-time because he is paid for doing so.
“she and her long-term unemployed husband make money from James’ death and from nothing else.”
How do you know this? Did you read it in a tabloid?
To anonymus @ 8.15. I do not object to them making money at all,
I know she has suffered and it is sad to see how negative she is, how bitter she is and how tormented she is almost everytime she appears in the papers or on TV. Nobody would ever expect her to forget her son but for her own sake and the sake of her family she needs to let go of her hate for as long as she retains it, she can never live a happy life and that is even more sad.
Now maybe she is content to follow the media but it is they who are making the real money and I do object to that because everytime she comments she is one step further from moving on and they are simply using her to add weight to their stories to ensure more papers sell. It is nasty!
And without playing down what happened, a great many people suffer grief and tragedy in their lifetimes but in the end many of them try to get on with it so I can understand people being tired of her. I think it would be better for her if she could try to move on.
To anonymus @ 7.31. I agree that there should be empathy. Has she received any counselling on this or has it even been offered?
Regarding PTSD – I just meant I’m not a doctor and therefore unable to give strong opinions on it one way or the other. I should not have said that I didnt know what it was.
I cannot accept it as an excuse for the murder but am open to it on both sides as a result of the murder.
But I think Virgil makes some good points. I never got the impression that he was pro T & V. I felt he offered some very valid arguments regarding the trial and other matters. If someone is negative all the time a lot of people will be negative about that person. Denise Fergus is negative and is not happy. She may be happy one day if she can walk away and release all the hate inside her. But if she is not able or not allowed to do that I don’t think she will ever be happy. We all have one life and although some of us are dealt bad hands it is still up to each of us to live it as best we can!
And in relation to Denise Fergus, others may advise, support and counsel her but ultimately the only person who can really help her is herself.
Denise will rest when venables and thompson are no more. Only then can she trully rest. Virgil has no kids so its a side of the coin he has never seen. Ignorance.
Hi Steve…I understand what you are saying regarding Denise Fergus but I just think it is much easier said than done ( to move on)…I think she has done remarkably well considering the circumstances as friends of mine who are parents have said they just wouldn’t have been able to carry on if it had happened to them! It’s just so sad all round :-(
I agree. It is much easier said than done.
My God, has anyone else reached the conclusion that Virgil is a complete and utter psychopath?!!! What a thoroughly nasty and twisted individual this person is! Just one more thing – David Kessler for Prime Minister!!! :-)
I believe the man is deranged with a sick mind. He cant help but expose himself to others, another thing he has in common with Venables…..
Hmmm.
Thanks.
I find it interesting, and deeply amusing, that the illustrious heir to Dostoyevsky, David Kessler, takes such comfort from the support and enthusiasm of a bunch of subliterates. But then, that also typifies the readership for his half-baked novels.
Virgil do you have some sort of devine right that we lesser mortals do not. I bet you have familiarised you face with many a clenched fist in the past eh. What a jumped up little shit you are. You are also a peadophile. Correct?
Do you have some divine right, Tyson, to decide what “justice” is for JV and RT? What gives you the right to play judge, jury, and executioner here?
It’s you that seems to think you’re entitled to rights you don’t possess.
I have free will virgil. Does Denise Fergus or Ralph Bulger not have a devine, god given right/freedom to avenge their sons death? These laws are detterants. They can not stop free will. If she killed JV she would serve 6-10 years and it would be worth it. These laws are only words. Word of man and man is a thief, a liar, a rapist murderer.
My sexuality is just fine virgil. It functions as god intended. Yes i do have the devil on the other shoulder but neer does he succeed. We all have temptations in our minds, that is normal. Its wether or not you can resist them. As im sure you know.
“You are also a peadophile. Correct?”
It’s usually the ones with paedophilic inclinations themselves that are paranoid ranters about child porn. As I don’t have those inclinations, the issue doesn’t worry me much: I know that paedophiles are not as numerous in society as the scaremongers would have you believe.
With your obsession with these matters, Tyson, you might well have something wrong with your sexuality, however.
To the other anonymous…I do think that Virgils opinions and statements are questionable/ridiculous and totally agree with the arguments David Kessler puts forward as he talks a lot of sense and also backs up his opinion with facts/reality…unlike Virgil! Sorry Virgil I must maintain my stance on this….it does not make any difference whether or not James Bulger’s murder was premeditated…the fact is this murder happened…full stop!!! There does not have to be any public acknowledgement about the way Denise Fergus chooses to conduct herself as most normal people will empathise with her situation!
Tyson I honestly don’t think that Denise will be able to rest even if JV and RT are no more cos at the end of the day they can never bring James back! It physically pains me to say that as I so wish this whole thing wasn’t true…I was James Bulger was never abducted that day and I wish he was still here living his life! God bless the little one :-(
To Anonymous (8: 01 pm) : My friend, I too can’t begin to tell you how much I wish the whole thing hadn’t happened…so, so heartbroken :-( James’s parents will never get over the pain of losing their beloved child – no parent could…and under such horrific circumstances… However, I believe they could have at least had (in time) some peace of mind if they hadn’t been dealt so many injustices by the so-called law after their son’s death. Certainly, T&V’s lifelong anonymity (cruel injustice to James’s family) can’t help their peace of mind.
To Virgil , March 11 11.16.
Yes Denise Fergus is damaged and still upset to this day.
As you know when people are upset the can be influenced in what they say by their emotions.
She needs proper support and counselling and space to grieve surely?
The press contact her whenever they want to keep the story going and she responds. Would you not regard this as manipulation by the press? What level of intelligence do you think she has?
And for God sake, you cannot compare her to Jon Venables.
He is carrying guilt and she bitterness both as a result of his actions.
Can’t you see that her statements are irrational because of this?
We would all love to see her withdraw and find inner happiness one day.
Then maybe a lot of other people might move on too?
Yes some people don’t like seeing her giving out after all this time but as you know, that is the media at work manipulating her to sell their papers and without them she would get little or no airplay.
If you want to have a swipe at anyone then take a swipe at them.
And as for Jon Venables? He fell apart on the outside. He couldn’t hack it and that as result of what he did. The conditions were always going to be tight for him. Yes, I dont believe he should have been named, but still…
While I have agreed with many points you have made I have to take issue with you here and say that what you wrote in that post was insensitive and in places unreasonable.
I welcome your opinions as I do most but fair is fair man.
“She needs proper support and counselling and space to grieve surely?”
Yes, she needs it, but the problem is when support and counselling were offered, she turned it down since she wanted her feelings about James to remain “real” and “raw.”
I can understand the motivation behind that. But unfortunately, it has left her unchanged from that day and susceptible to manipulation. While it is obvious why she would want to make that choice, the consequence of that is the always bitter and furious Denise you see today.
I agree she needs help and support, but you can’t force someone to accept counselling and therapy if they don’t want it.
Perhaps she also should have been given financial support.
But again, only she can give herself space to grieve. Only she can make the decision to hang up the phone the next time the Daily Mail comes calling. Only she can make the call to sever ties with the parasitic Chris Johnson.
I am sorry for her loss, but I refuse to mince words, because there’s nothing anyone can do to change the situation except Mrs. Fergus herself.
People act like she’s been let down by the government. But you can’t force someone to accept therapy and support if they don’t want it. And she didn’t want it. And I guess she still doesn’t.
I agree, you cannot force counselling or support on anyone.
It is very true that in the final analysis people have to want help to get it in the first place subject to it being available of course.
Yes I agree she could put down the phone when the press call but I would question her intelligence versus the powers of manipulation of the press and also the promise of a financial reward in that regard. I am assuming she would receive some kind of present from them rightly or wrongly.
I was not aware that she turned down support and counselling. If this is true and she refused help and chose to remain bitter and I mean only IF – then regretably it is a very sad waste of a life.
Do you know for a fact that she refused help?
Its impossible for Virgil to know for a fact the she refused counselling or help. Its another laughable claim from Virgil. Its impossible for him to know this.
She said so herself in one of her interviews (from years past, it’s not a recent one), she talked about how she wanted her emotions to remain “raw.”
I will try to find it for you but I can’t promise. But yes, she did state this herself, something about the importance of keeping her feelings about what had happened to James raw and real, and not let them diminish with time.
She was offered assistance, however she probably should have been offered financial assistance as well and I’m sure she probably wasn’t offered the latter.
Virgil: “She said so herself in one of her interviews”
You were present at the interviews? Or your read the reports in tabloids that you profess to distrust?
” (from years past, it’s not a recent one), she talked about how she wanted her emotions to remain ‘raw.’ ”
So it may no longer be current. Things may have changed – like they have with Venables ;-)
“She was offered assistance, however she probably should have been offered financial assistance as well and I’m sure she probably wasn’t offered the latter.”
So in one breath you berate her for taking money from the tabloids and in the next you say she should have been given money by the government.
“she did state this herself, something about the importance of keeping her feelings about what had happened to James raw and real, and not let them diminish with time.”
I, for one, admire her for this thought. And I suspect many others do too.
“You were present at the interviews? Or your read the reports in tabloids that you profess to distrust?”
You do realize this is covered in the mainstream press as well, don’t you? Just recently she used similar language about how 20 years later her grief is still so “raw.” (That wasn’t the interview I’m thinking of though.) That was not a tabloid piece. Even if it were, do you think that’s a misquotation or a correct quotation?
“So it may no longer be current.”
It may no longer be current, true. I was simply reporting what she said. She was not denied assistance, she HERSELF made the denial. Having said that, I’m sure that victims in general could do with more assistance and help than they currently receive.
“So in one breath you berate her for taking money from the tabloids and in the next you say she should have been given money by the government.”
Government money comes with no strings attached. Tabloid money comes with the prerequisite that she provide sensational and inflammatory quotes (including telling numerous lies and falsehoods about this case over the years). They basically feed her lines. So the two are not the same at all.
Furthermore, I said the government should have OFFERED her some financial assistance. She would of course be at liberty to refuse, just as she refused therapy, should that be her preference.
“I, for one, admire her for this thought. And I suspect many others do too.”
As I already stated, I can understand the sentiment. However, in lieu of how she’s conducted herself since then, it may not have been the best idea to refuse all therapy.
Please, no one on here be baited into arguments with Virgil. He was on another site which was recently deleted and he was very successful in aggravating nearly everyone on there on a daily basis. He has a serious vendetta against Denise Fergus, which he couches in pseudo-intellectual terms and false arguments. He claims to not side with the killers and to view James’ death as a terrible thing but it is clear that he cares little for what actually happened to James and that he has absolutely no compassion for Mrs. Fergus. His compassion and “understanding” are all for the killers. The poor things suffer from PTSD. He knows all about it because he is a psychiatrist, or whatever he wishes to be.
He will spend all of his time on here “proving” that he knows more, reads more and argues better than everyone else. He will write the longest possible posts and when backed into a corner about his hollow, wordy arguments, he will defend himself by claiming that many others agree with him-which of course somehow makes his vitriol okay. In the last site, even his defenders were disgusted with him when, according to them, he posted a link which showed people wishing that Denise Fergus had been run over by a train. He felt that this link would somehow support his argument that he is not a lone ranger in his battle against a traumatized woman whom he cavalierly dismisses as a “professional victim”. If you dare to stand up to him, he will write in all caps and use bright red letters. This is just in case you don’t see very well. Virgil is either a prolific troll or someone who is mentally ill. He also has a lot of time on his hands and spends very little time away from the computer. Judging from his past comments, I wouldn’t trust his shadow. And I certainly wouldn’t give him the attention that he craves by arguing with him.
And this is for you Virgil because I know that your fingers will be itching and flying over the keyboard as you type up a ten thousand word response to me. I won’t read any response that you write to me. I know that you will write one anyway because if you don’t, you will spontaneously combust or jump off a bridge. Have a good one. and don’t forget to take your Prozac.
I think virgil would shit his pants if we all turned up at his front door with pitchforks. Personally. I’d don a hammer. Hes probably shacked up with robert thompson. Virgil must be the anonymous gay lover.
You like to imagine you are this terrifying force, Tyson. In reality you’re just a coward.
And it is illegal to issue threats against someone’s life, whether online or in person.
So report me virgil. Im waiting for the queens men to come and get me. Only one coward in this thread.
“He has a serious vendetta against Denise Fergus, which he couches in pseudo-intellectual terms and false arguments.”
Of course, for you, anything “intellectual” automatically gets categorized as “pseudo,” since you simply assume your emotional hysterics are synonymous with truth. Such attitudes are always to be found among the least intelligent, least functionally human members of society.
This may come as a surprise to you, Jane, but what I have said is not an especially rare belief. Plenty of people dislike what Denise Fergus is doing and think her demands are unjust and wrong.
You seem to assume if you only associate with like-minded people, that means that everyone agrees with you. You arrive at this conclusion simply by avoiding contact with anyone who doesn’t share your views – or you try to shout them down or accuse them of promoting child murder or some such rot.
If you’d bothered to study murder cases similar to this one – a child kiilled by another child or children – you’d soon see that the parents tended to cope a lot better than Denise Fergus. The difference? No scummy media calling her up all the time for a soundbite, and no tabloids dragging the story the spotlight over and over for 20 years.
So insofar as Mrs. Fergus is still trapped in the same rut she was 20 years, it is fair to put a lot of the blame for that on the repulsively stupid media coverage, esp tabloid coverage. They make it impossible for her to get past what happened and heal in any way. And why do they do that? Becuase it is so profitable to rake up the same old coals.
And why is it so profitable? Because of the public – or rather, a certain segment of the public.
And what segment is that? The segment YOU, Jane, and “Dave,” and SSmith, and Tyson and to some extent the other Dave (Kessler) belong to.
Therefore, it is YOU – not me – who should feel guilty for the perennial suffering and bitterness and misery of Denise Fergus. She’s still suffering so horribly in large part because of the scummy tabloids. And the tabloids only behave as they do because there’s a market for it. And the market, Jane, is people JUST LIKE YOU!
Just because you get your kicks from the gritty detail of child murder cases and trolling public forums relating to them. Trying to antagonise people who actually care. Doesnt mean we have to study any other case than the bulger murder. If the people on this forum, me, you, denise fergus and ralph bulger were locked in a room with robert thompson and john venables. Do you think your bullshit will save them? You would say nothing. You are words. Empty words. Nothing more.
Hahaha…Jane you were bang on there with your hypothesis of Virgil!! He just couldn’t resist could he!!!??!! Virgil…you Sir are a hypocrit!!! You see, those of us that feel sympathy for Denise Fergus have genuine feelings on the subject and therefore it doesn’t make a difference if any one else agrees with us or not!! The same definitely can not be said for you!!!
You, of course, Tyson, don’t address the point I make about the media’s role in all this, including the great culpability of the tabloid media for Denise Fergus’ neverending anguish and suffering.
“Please, no one on here be baited into arguments with Virgil. He was on another site which was recently deleted and he was very successful in aggravating nearly everyone on there on a daily basis. He has a serious vendetta against Denise Fergus, which he couches in pseudo-intellectual terms and false arguments.”
This doesn’t surprise me. When I first entered this discussion, he responded to a somewhat innocuous comment of mine, with rudeness and an attempt to goad me into a broader argument. When I systematically demolished him, he tried to change the subject. That’s why he dropped the original issue between us (the extent of the injunction) and hasn’t acknowledged or attempted to refute my point about the money from the press interviews freeing Denise Fergus from other commitments. He has also not stated his source of information for his claim that she has no other source of income – presumably it is the same tabloids that he professes to distrust.
Indeed, if one looks back at this thread, one sees that a lot of the sub-topics he argues about are those that he has introduced into the argument himself.
As I have stated above, I think his attitude towards Venables and Thomson is “there but for the grace of God go I.”
Your fantasy that you demolished me in any way is laughable nonsense, David, and is nothing but your attempt to salve your wounded ego after I pointed out what an incredibly bad novelist you are (and how precisely your awful book resembles the junk George Eliot ridiculed in her hilarious and devastatingly incisive essay Silly Novels by Lady Novelists – except if anything, your book contains passages even worse than the stuff Eliot excerpts).
And Jane might like to pretend that I “trolled” that other site, but in fact it was somone on Jane’s side of the debate, a screechy shrill hysteric named Dave who ended up attacking the actual WEBMASTER – the very person who ran the site ended up being accused of being an apologist for child murder by the sort of hysterical freak Jane herself happens to be. Even though he ran the damn site and had posted pics of JV, thereby attracting the likes of Jane and hysterical ranters like Dave and Ssmith in the first place!
Because his views weren’t extreme enough for the very individuals who visited his site in search of JV pics, they ended up turning on him and lobbing baseless accusations at him (even though his attitude, as is obvious from the fact he published those pics, was not mine, and could not possibly be seen as the same as mine, he ended up being accused of being my good buddy and fellow “snobby intellectual,” two peas in a pod).
Jane, of course, conveniently forgets that whole mess, and the fact that it was individuals professing beliefs similar to hers who derailed the whole thread. And she also conveniently forgets that several posters spoke up in my defense and explicitly stated they agreed with much or at least some of what I said.
But for a ranting fool like Jane, of course, my supporters’ opinions don’t exist. In her revisionist history, everyone who posted on the thread sided with her and my supporters magically vanish into the oblivion of Jane’s faulty memory!
Virgil:
“Your fantasy that you demolished me in any way is laughable nonsense,”
I exposed the falsity of your analogy between JV and Macbeth.
I exposed the falsity of your analogy between Macbeth and a modern war veteran.
I exposed the speculative and dubious nature of your belief that eye surgery turned JV into the murderer that he became.
I exposed the falsity of your presumption that JV cannot be evil (child abduction and murder notwithstanding) on the spurious grounds that psychologists said he wasn’t.
I pointed out that if psychologists revealed confidential patient information then they cannot be trusted (you had no answer so you ignored this)
I exposed the falsity of your belief that JV’s “nice lad” facade could not be due to cunning (again, you presumed that a cunning person cannot fool psychologists).
I pointed out that few traumatized people go on to commit crimes, much less murder (you had no answer, so you ignored it).
I explained in logical terms why money paid by newspapers was/is effectively financing her Justice for James campaign.
I challenged you to prove that Denise Fergus is not receiving income from any other source and asked if that belief itself came from the tabloids (you had no answer to you ignored it)
I challenged you to go beyond anecdotal evidence that eye surgery causes the kind of trauma that leads to homicide. You couldn’t.
I pointed out that your sympathy for Jon Venables was based on a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I identification with a sick child-murderer – a truth that was too painful for you to admit, but too obvious for you to be able to deny!
I could go in but it would tiresome to belabour the point.
“nothing but your attempt to salve your wounded ego after I pointed out what an incredibly bad novelist you are”
Except that (apart from Reckless Justice which I had already conceded was bad) you were unable to prove it – or even to prove that you sincerely believe it. I suspect that you actually know how good a novelist I am but are unable to admit it because you would then lose your only weapon in a debate which you cannot win, not because you lack intellectual capacity, but because the facts themselves are not with you.
“(and how precisely your awful book resembles the junk George Eliot ridiculed in her hilarious and devastatingly incisive essay Silly Novels by Lady Novelists – except if anything, your book contains passages even worse than the stuff Eliot excerpts).”
George Eliot didn’t say anything remotely applicable to my books. The fact that you keep saying “book” instead of “books” shows how you are not writing about reality, but trying desperately to grab anything you can. Most of those who have read my books (as distinct from speed-reading one) know that they are good.
For example:
YOU THINK YOU KNOW ME PRETTY WELL (published in the UK under the title MERCY) is a masterpiece of a psychological thriller about a man on Death Row and an idealistic lawyer (Alex Sedaka – a brilliant three-dimensional protagonist) who has 15 hours to save him.
IT STARTED OUT QUITE SIMPLY (published in the UK as NO WAY OUT) is a brilliant legal thriller about a black neocon TV presenter (and former Black Power activist) accused of inter-racial rape in a cause celebre (defended by Alex Sedaka) that threatens to split America down the middle.
MARKED MAN tells of Alex Sedaka defending a homeless man in San Francisco for the murder of a John Doe in a case that has aroused the interest of MI6 and the British Prime Minister, for reasons that become fully clear as the story progresses.
A FOOL FOR A CLIENT one of my early efforts, is about a female medical student on trial in New York city for the murder of an IRA terrorist.
TARNISHED HEROES (a psychological thriller worthy of Dostoyevsky)
Under my pen-name of Adam Palmer I have written THE MOSES LEGACY about Daniel Klein an expert on semitic languages who is called in to translate proto-Sinaitic text on ancient stones found in Egypt, but who is up against powerful forces opposed to this.
In THE BOUDICCA PARCHMENT, the sequel to the above, Daniel Klein gets a text from an old adversary that leads him on a quest that finds a link between Boudicca rebellion against Rome in Britain (61 AD), the Great Fire of Rome (64 AD) and the Judean rebellion against Rome (66-72 AD). All set against a background of extremist Jews and equally fanatical antisemites.
All of these excellent thrillers are available for the Kindle.
I would strongly recommend that anyone who wants to see if your claims about my writing are true, buy these books and read them and see for themselves what a brilliant writer I am.
NB Tarnished Heroes is not yet available for the Kindle. It will be shortly. It is a psychological thriller worthy of Dostoyevsky for its incisive probing of a tormented soul.
It will be available in a few months.
“a psychological thriller worthy of Dostoyevsky”
Yeah, right. Now you’re just winding me up.
And BTW David, you didn’t “expose” any false analogies whatsoever.
You merely asserted that they were false, you didn’t demonstrate this in any way.
And they’re not false. My analogy with Macbeth holds true.
ME: “a psychological thriller worthy of Dostoyevsky”
VIRGIL: Yeah, right. Now you’re just winding me up.”
No seriously. Read it. It is brilliant. Dostoyevsky would have been proud to have written it.
“My analogy with Macbeth holds true.”
So you are asking us to believe that a ten-year-old who jointly kidnapped and murdered a three-year-old (i.e. a vulnerable child) is analogous to an 11th century Scottish Thane who (in an age when belief in God and an afterlife was almost universal), motivated by ambition, goaded by his wife and bedazzled by three witches, murdered a king (i.e. a powerful adult) to claim the throne?
And this analogy is founded upon the fact that JV reported dreams to psychologists who reported them to the press who reported them to you – and these dreams reported along this chain of Chinese whispers appear similar to those described in Macbeth?
Well thank you for clarifying that O illustrious literary critic!
Now then, perhaps you’ll answer me this. Was RT Lady Macbeth? Or should we go back to RT as Captain Ahab and James Bulger as Moby Dick.
“MARKED MAN tells of Alex Sedaka defending a homeless man in San Francisco for the murder of a John Doe in a case that has aroused the interest of MI6 and the British Prime Minister, for reasons that become fully clear as the story progresses.”
MARKED MAN – the only book of yours I’ve read or ever will read – is an ill-written, poorly paced piece of shit.
Eliot describes the phenomenon of Mary Sue-ism with pinpoint precision, more than a century before the phenomenon was even named.
Alex Sedaka is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Your other “good” characters are as well, like your tedious quasi-lesbian heroine.
If you’d written NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND, it would’ve started like this: “I am a healthy man, I am a moral man, I believe in taking good care of myself, exercising regularly, taking my vitamin supplements, and eating nutritious meals at the advice of my trustworthy doctor…”
In other words, it’s junk, and junk in exactly the way Eliot describes. Your protagonists are depicted in the same silly, too good to be true fashion Eliot derides. You are too pig-headed to admit your book matches her disdainful description to a T.
Virgil’s back in town!
“MARKED MAN – the only book of yours I’ve read or ever will read – is an ill-written, poorly paced piece of shit.”
You return to this thread to grace us with your light-shining-out-of-the posterior presence, after a long and painful absence, not to discuss the subject matter of the thread, but to resume your diatribe against my writing, based on the single one of my novels that you have read (or rather speed-read).
As others are perfectly capable of reading my thrillers (and already have, in large numbers) I do not need to sing my praises any more. It might be misconstrued as insecurity – although I suspect most of the readers and contributors here have long figured out that it is the person who seeks a target for criticism (based on self-confessed limited knowledge) who is the insecure one.
Certainly within this thread, readers have had a chance to compare my writing to yours. (I wonder what George Elliot would have made of “piece of shit” – not to mention your lack of specificity and your boorish manners in general.)
BTW, when you say “poorly-paced” do you mean too fast or too slow? Or too fast in parts and to slow in others? If so, in which parts is it too fast and in which parts is it too slow? Don’t worry about a spoilers, in my Papal capacity I grant you an indulgence. (In nomine Shakespeare, et Elliot, et Dostoyevsky, ego te absolvo!)
“Eliot describes the phenomenon of Mary Sue-ism with pinpoint precision, more than a century before the phenomenon was even named.”
Not true. The Mary Sue/Gary Stu phenomenon is the idealized autobiographical character in general. This criticism has itself been rightly criticized (by Ayn Rand and others) on the grounds that the portrayal of an ideal character is indeed a legitimate goal of fiction. In contrast, Elliot criticized, more specifically, the creation of characters that were implausible all-rounders without having any basis or background for their renaissance-polymath nature. She also criticized the implausible reforming influence they appeared to have on other less noble characters. Finally she criticized dialogue that did not suit the characters – such as tradesman (giving no examples) and a four-year-old child (giving an very good example).
But Alex Sedaka is not an all-rounder. He is dependent on his son for knowledge of computers and has to consult others on matters of DNA and variations in jury socio-ethinic demographics. Nor does he reform people by his presence or example.
“Alex Sedaka is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Your other “good” characters are as well, like your tedious quasi-lesbian heroine.”
Are you suggesting that I wish I was a lesbian? You insult me sir! If this were an eighteenth or nineteenth century novel, I would challenge you to “name your friends!’ But… well.. you can probably figure it out :-)
“If you’d written NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND, it would’ve started like this: “I am a healthy man, I am a moral man, I believe in taking good care of myself, exercising regularly, taking my vitamin supplements, and eating nutritious meals at the advice of my trustworthy doctor…”
From boorishness to mendacity: how quickly you graduate. In the first place, I would not start a book with a first-person self-description by the protagonist. I regard that technique as literarily clumsy and inept, no matter who does it. Secondly, a novel does not have to be about an embittered loser to be a literary novel. (Having said that, I am now warming to the idea of giving it a shot – maybe a confessional from the pen of a quasi-Venables type character?)
I did not, of course, introduce Alex Sedaka outside the context in which he found himself. To the extent that there was introspection, it blended with the immediacy of the problem that he faced. Secondly he is aware of his health precisely BECAUSE of the encroachment of middle-age and the desire to stave off its effects. He is not unique, rare or improbable in that regard. He is a Californian in a well-paid profession in a city that has many gyms and fitness centers. In that respect he is one of the many, not the few.
I don’t recall the vitamin substitutes, and I wouldn’t call the fried food he eats (that I describe) necessarily all that healthy. However, perhaps in your speed-reading you read something that I wrote without realizing.
In any case, that is not how I introduce the character, as you well know. In the first book, I introduce him awaiting a meeting with the state governor, in a desperate attempt to win clemency for his death row client. In the second book, he doesn’t even appear until several other key events have occurred and characters appear. When I DO introduce him, it is at a meeting with a former client, who becomes his client once again. In the third book, I introduce him defending a regular client when he is called upon to defend a homeless, one-legged man in a case that has attracted the attention of the British intelligence services.
“In other words, it’s junk, and junk in exactly the way Eliot describes. Your protagonists are depicted in the same silly, too good to be true fashion Eliot derides.”
False – as I have proven with specific arguments.
“You are too pig-headed to admit your book matches her disdainful description to a T.”
Too perspicacious you mean.
“the creation of characters that were implausible all-rounders without having any basis or background for their renaissance-polymath nature”
Well, that’s exactly what your characters are: implausible all-rounders. You shoehorn awkward references into your writing about everything from Krav Maga to higher mathematics, but without demonstrating any real grasp of any of these subjects (your digressions have much less depth than a wikipedia article), and without rendering the characters persuasive in any way.
Your characters are “smart” and “virtuous” and “admirable” and “well-balanced” in the same way the protagonists of bad fanfiction writers are, in the same way the fictional characters Eliot derides are. They’re not human beings, they’re cardboard cutouts, projections of your need to impress.
And I’m glad you brought up Ayn Rand, because there is something Randian in the way you delineate character (and in your social attitudes), though your cardboard entities are even more tiresome than Rand’s pontificating windbags.
“But Alex Sedaka is not an all-rounder. He is dependent on his son for knowledge of computers and has to consult others on matters of DNA and variations in jury socio-ethinic demographics. Nor does he reform people by his presence or example.”
A dependence for others on some things does not liberate a character from being an all-rounder. The characters Eliot derides are not all-rounders in that sense either. While Eliot mocks the way these “lady novelists” give their characters special skills or inflated virtues, they are not each, individually, in possession of all the special skills they manifest collectively. That would’ve rendered them even more absurd, but that hypothetical super-woman or super-man is not what Eliot criticizes. What she criticizes is something near identical to what you depict.
That Sedaka is dependent on his son for his knowledge of computers matters little. You’ll note that Eliot scorns one writer for making the heroine the mother of some ostensibly brilliant little child,
““‘Oh, I am so happy, dear grand mamma;—I have seen—I have seen such a delightful person; he is like everything beautiful—like the smell of sweet flowers, and the view from Ben Lemond;—or no, better than that—he is like what I think of and see when I am very, very happy; and he is really like mamma, too, when she sings; and his forehead is like that distant sea,’ she continued, pointing to the blue Mediterranean; ‘there seems no end—no end; or like the clusters of stars I like best to look at on a warm fine night. . . . Don’t look so . . . your forehead is like Loch Lomond, when the wind is blowing and the sun is gone in; I like the sunshine best when the lake is smooth. . . . So now—I like it better than ever . . . It is more beautiful still from the dark cloud that has gone over it, when the sun suddenly lights up all the colors of the forests and shining purple rocks, and it is all reflected in the waters below.’”
This is analogous to making Sedaka the father of some brilliant computer whiz son who also knows all about Lorenz transformations and other aspects of higher mathematics and physics. In the 19th century, a facility with languages, including foreign languages, was highly prized, while our time tends to suffer from physics envy. Sedaka’s whip-smart son is flattering Sedaka by proxy, just as the heroine of that 19th century novel is flattered by proxy by having her little linguistic wunderkind at her side. In both instances, the child is not really a child, just a tedious plot device.
“As others are perfectly capable of reading my thrillers (and already have, in large numbers) I do not need to sing my praises any more.”
Ah, the sales figures defence. John Grisham is about 10,000 times more famous than you and, by your own admission, you think he’s a terrible writer. Barbara Cartland is one of the best-selling writers of all time. But I don’t believe you, anyway. I’ve never heard of you (for good reason) and your name is not on the tip of anyone’s tongue when people discuss popular and significant genre novelists. There are only a handful of reviews for each of your books on Amazon. MARKED MAN only has five reviews on its page and they’re as in-depth as this:
” This is the second Alex Sedans novel by David Kessler I have read . It was a gripping read and a surprising ending. Will look forward to other novels . Have read all the John grisham novels and this is nearly there”
or this
“Highly recommend this book, lots of action, but also very clever. Well written, easy to read, well rounded characters this is an author I will most certainly look out for”
This is who reads your books, people who just want to turn the pages, park their brains at the door, and kill a few hours with literary candy floss. Nobody’s talking about your literary richness and complexity of vision, they grade you on your ability to keep them entertained. I will grant that five whole readers saw fit to praise you for MARKED MAN.
“BTW, when you say “poorly-paced” do you mean too fast or too slow? Or too fast in parts and to slow in others? If so, in which parts is it too fast and in which parts is it too slow?”
Both. Too fast in the sense that you skip around from location to location without creating any sense of atmosphere or texture specificity of milieu. I can’t even fathom why you insist on setting the novel in the U.S. given you fail to establish any sense of place. The novel could’ve been set in France, Japan, Spain, China, and it would’ve made no difference, because the characters are all ciphers anyway and you don’t leave the reader with any memory of a specific environmental context.
Too slow in the sense that nothing exciting happened. In an Ingmar Bergman movie that’s fine (the excitement is in the characters’ relationships and emotional exchanges), but not in an ostensible thriller. There were no exciting set pieces whatsoever. I mentioned Stephen King and Thomas Harris, not that I want to overrate them or ignore their shortcomings but at least they know how to build suspense and tension, and violence in their books has a kick. Not the case with MARKED MAN. I remember clearly how THE SHINING or RED DRAGON ended, but I’ve already forgotten the ending (along with almost all else) about MARKED MAN and I only read it quite recently.
“False – as I have proven with specific arguments.”
You have proven precisely nothing, you have merely stated over and over what a marvelous writer you are. It would be impossible to produce any worthwhile secondary literature connected to your novel because there’s nothing of substance to discuss.
“From boorishness to mendacity: how quickly you graduate.”
It was a joke, obviously (duh!) – and a pretty good one, if I say so myself. Now you accuse me of mendacty simply for telling a joke, and a very pertinent one.
“In the first place, I would not start a book with a first-person self-description by the protagonist. I regard that technique as literarily clumsy and inept, no matter who does it.”
There is nothing clumsy or inept about it when Dostoyevsky does it. If you seriously think NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND is ineptly written, God help you. I can, however, think of a certain novel that was indeed clumsily and ineptly written.
“Secondly, a novel does not have to be about an embittered loser to be a literary novel.”
Well, yeah. I used that opener to poke fun of your pompous protagonist since you were the one that brought Dostoyevsky up in relation to your work.
Of course he doesn’t have to be an embittered loser, but he does have to be something other than cardboard. Sedaka is not.
“(Having said that, I am now warming to the idea of giving it a shot – maybe a confessional from the pen of a quasi-Venables type character?)”
Ah, so I’m a fool, a boor, and a liar, but you’re still affected and influenced by what I’m saying. I see. Seems to me you’re tacitly and grudgingly admitting that I’m not those things, whether you see eye to eye with me or not.
“Are you suggesting that I wish I was a lesbian?”
No, I’m suggesting you wrote a cheesy sex scene that was straight out of some bad soft porn movie. At least Paul Verhoeven had the good sense to put it in a movie, not a book, and cast Sharon Stone.
“Secondly he is aware of his health precisely BECAUSE of the encroachment of middle-age and the desire to stave off its effects. He is not unique, rare or improbable in that regard. He is a Californian in a well-paid profession in a city that has many gyms and fitness centers. In that respect he is one of the many, not the few.”
You introduce every bit of information about your characters in a smug, lofty, preening, holier-than-thou way. We’re told how well Sedaka takes care of himself, how healthily he eats and how conscientiously he works out. No skipping the gym for him. He’s Perry Mason with bigger biceps. He’s attractive and seductive to women, of course. He practices Krav Maga. He raised this brilliant, gifted son, who just HAPPENS to be brilliant in precisely the ways and areas of expertise OUR ERA, OUR MOMENT IN HISTORY most values and treasures (just as the polyglot’s gift for fluency in various languages was treasured during the era those silly lady novelists were wrirting). Sedaka’s partner surmounted all the difficulties of her background through her own grit and gumption and without a trace of self-pity because she’s just so salt of the earth, unlike the ones who devolve to crime entirely through their own failings. Everything is so fucking black and white. The good guys and gals are such nauseating, sickening goody two-shoes and the criminals are simply plot devices without any reality to them whatsoever.
I did a search and found references in forums but not the actual newspaper article and in the forums it doesnt actually say when she refused it. I can imagine her refusing at the time as she might not have been ready but would be interested to know if it had been offered to her more recently?
Ultimately though it is her decision and very often others can see things from the outside which we cannot see ourselves.
It would be a real shame if she was unable to develop properly though the unhappiness, inner hate and bitterness which she sees to hold on it.
And yeah we all know what happened and it is very difficult.
I am not sure how financial assistance would have helped her?
I would have thought that someone to listen face to face and empathise and encourage her positively might have been better?
Thanks Jane.
I don’t make any excuses for what those boys (at the time did). I feel the way they we going if they didnt do that it would have been something else. My only analysis would be that if they had been in school where they should have been, this wouldnt have happened. No parental control, and poor control on behalf of the school meant they were out of control! Again no excuses for what they did.
Replying to Anonymous March 15 at 9.13.
We all know that she still bears the scars today and most probably will forever but I would prefer if she could be happy and live her life instead of holding herself back and at this stage I’m not sure that defending all of her actions is the right thing?
What good does it do her?
Sometimes I think it fuels her anger even more and prevents her stepping forward and of course being in the public eye doesn’t really help at all. The powers that be will never listen to her. They have to abide by the law.
My sympathies at this point lie with her being unhappy and bitter if that makes sense as I see her own personal life being determined by the actions of others rather than being properly controled by herself.
I have suggested counselling on this forum but only she can decide that and I don’t have any other suggestions for her.
Being objective though, I didn’t go through what she went through and hope nobody else did/does and therefore cannot fully relate to her and her state of mind. So while it might be easy to suggest things it is up to her to see the light for herself.
I just think that given a choice most people would choose to be happy and to do all they could to achieve this goal.
I welcome your comments on this, positive, negative or otherwise :)
I totally agree Steve…I’m not saying Denise Fergus should chose to remain unhappy and heartbroken for the rest of her life…I’m sure it would be much easier for her if she could forgive and forget because then she might not face as much pain every single day of her life….I’m also sure given the choice she would prefer not to have the awful memories of that hideous day and yes, if one can somehow muster the strength to try and move on then I’m positive (theoretically) that it would be a better type of existence for her. However, as I said before…that is so much easier said than done…I mean, deliberately trying to keep the pain of James’ murder ‘raw’ is just nonsense! No one in their right mind would want to remember a horrific crime like that day in day out! Which again, brings me back to my earlier point that she could be suffering from PTSD or something similar. I really don’t think she has ‘chosen’ to be the way she is…this has be forced upon by the actions of two people over which she had no control…causation if you will???
The fact remains, despite the rhetoric above, the hunt for James’s killers is live and it’s on. It’s as simple as that. They will pay for what they did, and they will suffer. I’m not just a one man strong crazed vigilante seeking justice……. I just know who i know, and how wide the web spans, and when the information is credible, actions will be taken.
I don’t care for the discussion above, the simple fact is, that when the information comes out, they will be dealt with. I only hope their demise isn’t a quick out, they will suffer as they need to.
There are many among us who will act to ensure they will suffer. With a growing nationwide network, we will ensure this is done wherever they are found.
JV, RT, watch your backs you cunts, we are onto you. Just a matter of time to pin you down.
James, RIP little chap, your killers will reap what they sowed.
Virgil: “I find it interesting, and deeply amusing, that the illustrious heir to Dostoyevsky, David Kessler, takes such comfort from the support and enthusiasm of a bunch of subliterates. But then, that also typifies the readership for his half-baked novels.”
And I find it interesting that Virgil, the great admirer of Dostoyevsky, should speak with such contempt and derision for the ordinary man, but at the same time engages in ethical gymnastics bordering on contortionism when he rushes to the defence of vicious criminals.
But then again, Virgil’s intellectual pretentiousness in the realm of literary criticism is marred by his unguarded admissions of speed-reading and his inability to prove his criticism of my excellent thrillers – many of which are available from Amazon.
Oh David, Im sure virgin, sorry, virgil, has bought all your available novels and is speed reading them right now. I might even buy one myself just to piss the miserable bastard off that little bit more. Virgil you may have paid extra attention in literacy class but you are an absoloute disgrace to the rest of us.
I suspect that you’re right. But he has probably already decided what his reaction is going to be and he will probably criticize them (in vague terms) and they claim that they are all bad.
“And I find it interesting that Virgil, the great admirer of Dostoyevsky, should speak with such contempt and derision for the ordinary man, but at the same time engages in ethical gymnastics bordering on contortionism when he rushes to the defence of vicious criminals.”
I don’t speak in contempt of the “ordinary man” – since as I pointed out to you already, the “ordinary man” is NOT adequantely represented by the likes of Tyson, or yourself. On most discussion boards devoted to this case, there are just as many participants whose views are closer to mine as there are ones who think as Tyson thinks. I’ve even read the odd board where ALL participants thought along the same lines as me.
You erroneously assume the “common man” necessarily sees eye-to-eye with Tyson or Jane. Not so.
“But then again, Virgil’s intellectual pretentiousness in the realm of literary criticism is marred by his unguarded admissions of speed-reading and his inability to prove his criticism of my excellent thrillers – many of which are available from Amazon.”
Robert Ludlum and John Grisham are literary geniuses compared to you.
I already pointed you repeatedly to an excellent essay that says all that needs to be said about your godawful thrill-less thrillers: George Eliot’s “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists.” I’ve pointed it to you time and again, yet you refuse to read it. All the faults she finds in the trash fiction of her day are even more apropos in regards to your fiction. Nothing more needs to be said apart from what Eliot says.
And I’m not ashamed of speed reading your book. Prose as bad as yours deserves no better.
“I don’t speak in contempt of the “ordinary man” – since as I pointed out to you already, the “ordinary man” is NOT adequantely represented by the likes of Tyson, or yourself. ”
The fact that you refer to those who disagree with you as “subliterates” says it all. That was contempt for the ordinary man.
“Robert Ludlum and John Grisham are literary geniuses compared to you.”
Ludlum is quite good. Grisham is extremely erratic. But neither are literary geniuses compared to me. I suspect you have only speed-read them too – and then probably only one book each, to validate your preconceptions in your own mind.
“I already pointed you repeatedly to an excellent essay that says all that needs to be said about your godawful thrill-less thrillers: George Eliot’s “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists.” I’ve pointed it to you time and again, yet you refuse to read it. ”
I’ve just speed-read it! It sound like a critique of Barbara Cartland. It sure as hell says nothing of any relevance to my novels. I suspected all along that your ad hominem criticism was not merely ill-informed, but also insincere. But now, having read the essay that you cite as “proof,” I realize that you couldn’t possibly have believed what you were saying and it appears that you have compounded your stupidity with dishonesty.
“The fact that you refer to those who disagree with you as “subliterates” says it all. That was contempt for the ordinary man.”
No it was not. It was contempt for Tyson and Jane. If you really can’t see the difference, that’s your problem, not mine.
“Ludlum is quite good. Grisham is extremely erratic. But neither are literary geniuses compared to me.”
Oh yes they damn well are! I don’t think Grisham is a good writer by any means, but The Firm is still a far better book than A Marked Man. Ludlum’s Bourne Identity is way, way, way better than A Marked Man.
“It sound like a critique of Barbara Cartland. It sure as hell says nothing of any relevance to my novels.”
It has EVERYTHING to do with your novels! She is scathing on the matter of these “lady” novelists’ Mary Sue-ish characterization. Your protagonists are, likewise, Gary Stu’s and Mary Sue’s. The exact same dynamic is at work in your book, the self-flattery, the smugness, the ridiculous way you present your characters as oh-so-perfect, oh-so-intelligent, in such tippy-top physical shape as well as being models of integrity and smarts, healthy eaters, practitioners of Krav Maga, another character is some brilliant theoretical physicist…. it’s ludicrous in EXACTLY the same way Eliot describes in her essay.
The precise CONTENT of the Mary-Sue-ism, of course, is different, you being neither a “lady” nor a person living in the 19th century. But in all other respects, your novel is tripe in EXACTLY the fashion Eliot describes.
“But now, having read the essay that you cite as “proof,” I realize that you couldn’t possibly have believed what you were saying and it appears that you have compounded your stupidity with dishonesty.”
If you speed-read it, I suggest you slow down and read it again. The ridiculous nature of your protagonists is TREMENDOUSLY SIMILAR to what Eliot describes in her essay. There is nothing “stupid” about my charge, you are simply to “stupid” (or egotistical) to admit the stark naked truth about your atrocious pulp fiction.
“Kessler is as untalented a novelist as I’ve ever encountered. It was torture to force myself to finish his ludicrous piece of hackwork.”
I don’t believe you really think that. I think you know what a brilliant novelist i am, but you’re just too dishonest to say so. And also you’re angry with me for mocking your pathetic efforts to defend the murderers with whom you have such a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I affinity.
Oh my God, David!
You’re delusional. Delusional!
You cannot POSSIBLY believe what you are stating. Your writing is not “brilliant.” By no yardstick can you be considered a good, let alone great, novelist. Forget the classics. Forget Jane Austen, forget George Eliot. Just comparing your work with other writers of genre fiction – Scott Turow, Stephen King, Thomas Harris, even John Grisham or Robert Ludlum – your writing is STILL completely terrible.
Even as a page-turner, A Marked Man was incredibly dull. It was a thriller with no thrills. The main character is a tedious Gary Stu and the plot was without excitement or suspense or real invention. The various info-dumps were poorly integrated into the narrative. The prose was lackluster – and this is nothing to do with snobbery, Stephen King writes what could be considered pulp fiction but he knows how to turn a decent phrase and how to build suspense. You don’t.
“Just comparing your work with other writers of genre fiction – Scott Turow, Stephen King, Thomas Harris, even John Grisham or Robert Ludlum – your writing is STILL completely terrible.”
Grisham’s scenario in the Firm was preposterously ill-defined, setting up the hero’s moral dilemma by being purposefully vague. His recent “The Confession” was a sermonic diatribe lacking any subtlety, nuance or balance. Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lector was an example of a writer sacrificing realism to high drama. An intellectual serial murderer with insight into himself is a fine character of fiction – but totally unrepresentative of real serial killers. Scott Turow is quite good, in a mainstream sort of way.
I on the other hand, build up tension, probe the soul’s of my characters like Dostoyevsky, peeling of the layers like an onion. I surprise the reader with twists and turns from left of field that in retrospect are perfectly logical.
The term Gary Stu is I believe a term for characters who represent the author. But precisely for that reason the concept has itself been attacked by authors and critics. After all, characters are always extensions of their authors, as Flaubert pointed out.
Oh brother,
Your characters are not realistic: they are paper-thin non-entities.
I’m aware Hannibal Lector is not a realistic serial killer, but as far thriller writers go, Harris is infinitely more talented than you. Your character Sedaka is hardly “realistic,” he’s an idealized fantasy figure.
You don’t probe the soul’s depths. Your characters have no depths to plumb. What crack are you high on?
Your book was just as silly as The Firm, but more poorly written (not that I rate Grisham highly). You’re delusional if you think your book is anything other than pulp.
“Not obvious to everyone,”
Not to a psychopath perhaps. But most ten-year-olds would know that throwing bricks and stones at a three-year-old is likely to kill him. What do you think they thought the outcome would be?
” which is why the age of criminal responsibility is higher in most other countries.”
We aren’t other countries. We are our country. Why should we follow other countries? Why shouldn’t they follow us?
“If it’s so “obvious,” why isn’t the whole world in agreement that 10-year-olds can be tried? The majority of defence of infancy laws have a higher age.”
Every country has to set the limit SOMEWHERE. Not actions that cause death are as clear-cut as throwing bricks and stones at a three-year-old. Countries don’t set the age of criminal responsibility with specific reference to killing a three-year-old by throwing stones at him. They take into account other types of crime and set the age accordingly. Even in countries where the age of criminal responsibility is higher, right-thinking people would accept that when the causative act is as brazen and vicious as throwing stones (not one but several) at a three-year-old the probability of causation of death is obvious.
“Furthermore, Robert Thompson even made statements that indicate a lack of comprehension, asking if they were taking James to the hospital to make him better.”
Even an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for a murder conviction.
“He still didn’t seem to grasp the finality of James’ death. And in a near identical slaying committed by a 10-year-old American boy in 1971, he seriously thought he could revive the dead victim by tying him to a cross like Jesus and he might come back to life as Jesus did after dying on the cross! He really thought that might work!”
In America there have been cases of 15 and 16-year olds who didn’t understand the finality of death. This is because of the strength of religious belief in America. I accept that belief in the finality of death is relevant to the occurrence of this sort of crime, but for legal purposes an intention to cause GBH is sufficient for murder – as mentioned earlier.
“The likely consequences are not necessarily obvious to perpetrators at that age. Young children do not fully understand the finality of death.”
Again, even an intention to cause GBH would qualify it as murder. Also I do not believe that they didn’t understand.
“If it’s not to be accepted by right-thinking people, then why is it that the majority of nations on the planet would not even have tried RT and JV at all for this crime?”
Because they are not right-thinking.
“Are they all wrong and only “right-thinking people” like you right?”
Yes.
“Are you basically saying that the most countries on earth are “wrong” in their laws and their sense of justice, that they are populated by “wrong-thinking people”?”
Yes.
“Why is it that when I look at a discussion thread on DigitalSpy about this very topic, the majority of posters are expressing views closer to mine than yours”
They are wrong-thinking.
” (i.e. while they all express sympathy for Mrs. Fergus for her terrible loss, they still disagree with almost all her demands and disagree with the sharing of pictures on Twitter etc.)?”
They are hypocrites.
“Of course, as I already pointed out a million times, you don’t actually know that JV or RT are “heartless.” You have zero proof of this – all the expert testimony, all that is known of their abuse and neglect-ridden childhoods, and all the available testimony of JV’s adult friends and acquaintances suggests nothing of the sort.”
I judge people by their actions – not their excuses or their apologists.”
You choose to believe the worst about them, and then smugly wrap the Midrash around you as if it supports your views. It doesn’t. That passage is not applicable to this situation: it was not meant to refer to a situation like this. (As should be obvious to you if you’ve read the Bible t all carefully: the story of Cain and Abel ring a bell?)”
Cain and Abel was an allegory about the displacement of the hunter-gatherer by the farmer.
“A 10-year-old child killed James. Not a grown man! Are you so fucking obtuse you can’t tell the difference?”
Let me make a suggestion. As some ten-year-old what THEY think about the murder of a three-year-old. Ask them what they think should be done to such a person. Ask them what they would do (or want to do) if they had a three-year-old brother who was killed by another ten-year-old.
“And since none of them [Dostoyevsky et al] wrote a work that revolved around child murder as its axis, your point is irrelevant.”
Now you’ve really blown it. You’ve just admitted that it is YOUR point that was irrelevant. And THAT was the point that I was trying to make. Thank you for finally acknowledging the fact!
” Every single one of these authors wrote about the issue of MURDER and KILLING – they did not take specifically CHILD MURDER – either perpetrator or victim – as their central focus. They did, however, depict the moral and spiritual questions surrounding the issue of murder with a complexity and fullness of humanity that is alien to the Z-grade dreck you publish.”
In fact, if you had actually read my books, you would know that I too write about “the moral and spiritual questions surrounding the issue of murder with a complexity and fullness of humanity.” Whether it be the death of Murphy’s wife as the trigger for his IRA activities, Justine’s bitterness at her mother’s death of cancer, Burrow’s regret for his adolescent rape of Dorothy, Dorothy’s killing of her abusive father (who himself was motivated partly by his infertility and his wife’s infidelity), Claymore’s trauma at the sight of his mother being raped when he was ten, Gene Vance’s pregnancy, Manning’s troubled childhood and his mother’s abandonment of him, Bethel’s maleability at the hands of Gene Vance, Andi’s trauma at being raped and lack of closure, George Stone’s sense of indebtedness to Corny for saving his life, the expediency of politicians in the killing of Hashem, Juanita’s guilt at her cousin’s involvement in the killing of Alex’s wife, Corny’s torment at what he did to his daughter (PTSD writ large!). All of these things and more are present in my novels. I do not take a simplistic view towards murder. But some murders are plain evil. And the murder of James Bulger is one such example.
“Hamlet stabs Polonius to death part way through the play! He kills the wrong man! His action is totally irresponsible! But Shakespeare doesn’t simply conclude that Hamlet is now beyond the pale.”
Neither did I suggest that Neil Douglas was beyond the pale when he whacked Martin Roebuck on the head with his baton leaving in a coma (thinking that Roebuck was the one who attacked Rose Crowne, when in fact he was the good Samaritan who had gone to her aid).
“Oh for fuck’s sake – grow the fuck up! He was not “beating up” his classmates. If anything, his classmates were bullying and humiliating him. If you read what happened with this incident IN CONTEXT – from the testimony of the people who were there – this was not a case of “beating up,” it was a desperate cry for help. This kid was falling apart psychologically – stabbing himself, self-harming – and nobody was helping him.”
From your own description, it sounded like he was beating up his classmates. You tried to suggest it was in some analogous and a precursor to the Bulger murder. If he was in fact acting in self-defense, then your original analogy was false.
“But most ten-year-olds would know that throwing bricks and stones at a three-year-old is likely to kill him. What do you think they thought the outcome would be?”
JV was found to have the maturity and intellectual level of a typical eight-year-old, not his chronological age of ten. Many schoolteachers have gotten in hot water for spoiling Christmas by telling 8 and 9 year old kids that Santa isn’t real. If there are even a fair number of 8 and 9 year olds who still haven’t cottoned on to the fact that Santa doesn’t exist, it’s obvious those same kids can’t have a full comprehension of how the world works, including a full understanding of death. They still believe in a magical universe where jolly old Santa can fly down the chimney and grant their wishes.
“Even an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for a murder conviction.”
Maybe for an adult, but not for a child of 10. The trial was ruled unfair and legitimately so. Doli incapax here was not demonstrated: which is why the child psychiatrists who testified later complained about being bullied and browbeaten into overly simplistic answers that didn’t permit them to say what they truly wanted to say.
So no, there was not sufficient mens rea: the trial was ruled unfair and that ruling was correct, and there’s a bloody good reason the very experts called on to testify as to their mens rea were not satisfied with how their testimony was used.
“We aren’t other countries. We are our country. Why should we follow other countries? Why shouldn’t they follow us?”
That wasn’t my point. My point is the very fact that there are significantly differing ages of criminal responsibility shows that the issue isn’t at all as clear-cut and morally unambiguous as you want to maintain.
You’re suggesting that all “right-thinking” people would and should side with you on this matter. So if you’re going to claim that, it’s very pertinent that almost the whole civilized world doesn’t have laws in place that support your views. Nowhere else in Europe can 10-year-olds even be prosecuted at all.
You are, essentially, accusing almost the whole world of being “wrong-thinking.” Most countries have higher ages of criminal responsibility, are in no hurry to lower those ages, and even the ones that have ages as low or lower than England and Wales frequently put the perps through the juvenile system instead of the adult one. So you’re talking bosh if you think all “right-thinking” people think as you do.
“In America there have been cases of 15 and 16-year olds who didn’t understand the finality of death. This is because of the strength of religious belief in America. I accept that belief in the finality of death is relevant to the occurrence of this sort of crime, but for legal purposes an intention to cause GBH is sufficient for murder – as mentioned earlier.”
This is completely bogus pseudo-knowledge, it has no relevance whatsoever to the issue. Religious belief? The kid wasn’t raised religious (he wasn’t “raised” at all – hence his behaviour, he was a child of neglect) – he was familiar with images or stories of Jesus rising from the dead. It had nothing to do with the religion he was raised in, it was just simple cultural osmosis.
You are grasping at straws. There is nothing to suggest his understanding of death was any different from JV’s and RT’s. All three of them had an immature, childish grasp of the issue. Your hackneyed, cliche-ridden comments about America are inane and irrelevant.
Your point about GBH is also bogus and irrelevant: the trial itself was unfair, it was correctly ruled to be unfair, and the mens rea was not properly established, which is why the very expert called on expressed her displeasure publicly with how her testimony was used.
“Because they are not right-thinking… They are wrong-thinking…. They are hypocrites.”
I see…. so anyone who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you on this matter is “wrong-thinking” and a “hypocrite.”
You prove my point: you are a small, petty, mean-souled, self-righteous embodiment of Grundyism.
“Cain and Abel was an allegory about the displacement of the hunter-gatherer by the farmer.”
Only in part. if it were only that, you could substitute a hundred other ancient tales for it with no difference of meaning. It is also about exactly what it appears to be: murder and the weight of this on Cain’s conscience (it is Cain, moreso than Abel, who’s the object of fascination and pity for the author of the tale).
“Let me make a suggestion. As some ten-year-old what THEY think about the murder of a three-year-old. Ask them what they think should be done to such a person. Ask them what they would do (or want to do) if they had a three-year-old brother who was killed by another ten-year-old.”
These were not normal 10-year-olds. Just as the ten-year-old American child who committed this near identical crime in 1971 was likewise not a normal 10-year-old, but the product of abuse and extreme neglect. Both JV’s and RT’s parents were investigated for neglect and RT at least we know for certain had a horrendous upbringing. So asking “some” random 10-year-old what they think is a red herring.
“In fact, if you had actually read my books, you would know that I too write about “the moral and spiritual questions surrounding the issue of murder with a complexity and fullness of humanity.” Whether it be the death of Murphy’s wife as the trigger for his IRA activities, Justine’s bitterness at her mother’s death of cancer, Burrow’s regret for his adolescent rape of Dorothy, Dorothy’s killing of her abusive father….” etc.
Look, I have read your book A Marked Man. There was no complexity or richness or psychological depth whatsoever to the pasteboard characters and inane, cliched plot. So unless all your other books are totally different from this one, I don’t believe you when you say you write about moral and spiritual questions with complexity and humanity. None of that was evident in A Marked Man: are you other books completely different from and vastly superior to A Marked Man?
“If he was in fact acting in self-defense, then your original analogy was false.”
He was not acting in self-defense, he was literally having a meltdown in class, and being ignored. Do you lack any ability to interpret anything with any nuance at all? Is everything in black-and-white to you?
He was not “bullying” a classmate. He attacked a classmate with a ruler, but not in a confident, swaggering, alpha male, “bullying” way, more in a desperate, lunging, having-a-complete-mental-breakdown sort of way (much like his numerous incidents of banging and smashing his own head violently into brick walls, or stabbing himself with scissors, without receiving much of anything in the way of help or sympathy from responsible adults, least of all his own irresponsible parents).
“He was not “bullying” a classmate. He attacked a classmate with a ruler, but not in a confident, swaggering, alpha male, “bullying” way, more in a desperate, lunging, having-a-complete-mental-breakdown sort of way”
This is what is called: trying to square the circle. For the purpose of showing that adults could have intervened before it got to the killing of James, you cite this incident of JV’s violence. But for the purpose of ex-culpating him from the ethical indictment of the incident itself, you prattle about him “having-a-complete-mental-breakdown.”
I would agree about one thing: his parents (and RTs) should have been prosecuted too.
“JV was found to have the maturity and intellectual level of a typical eight-year-old, not his chronological age of ten. ”
Was evidence to this effect known to the defence? Was it excluded by judicial ruling from the trial?
” Many schoolteachers have gotten in hot water for spoiling Christmas by telling 8 and 9 year old kids that Santa isn’t real. If there are even a fair number of 8 and 9 year olds who still haven’t cottoned on to the fact that Santa doesn’t exist, it’s obvious those same kids can’t have a full comprehension of how the world works, including a full understanding of death.”
A generalization. It is probably truer in the US than the UK.
ME: “Even an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for a murder conviction.”
VIRGIL: “Maybe for an adult, but not for a child of 10. The trial was ruled unfair and legitimately so. Doli incapax here was not demonstrated: which is why the child psychiatrists who testified later complained about being bullied and browbeaten into overly simplistic answers that didn’t permit them to say what they truly wanted to say.”
The law on murder is that causing death while attempting to kill or cause GBH is murder. But the intent to cause GBH still has to be proven by the prosecution. The jury concluded that it was. Lawyer’s for both sides had the power to question the witnesses. Defence lawyers had the power to ask any questions that they felt would be beneficial to their case.
The European ruling was wrong for the reasons stated earlier. The lawyers could have explained the options as they do for adults who are not conversant with the law. Client instructing lawyer is a fictio juris nine times out of ten.
“You’re suggesting that all “right-thinking” people would and should side with you on this matter. So if you’re going to claim that, it’s very pertinent that almost the whole civilized world doesn’t have laws in place that support your views. Nowhere else in Europe can 10-year-olds even be prosecuted at all.”
As I said: they are wrong. Being right is not a matter of arithmetic. In such loathsome practices as gang-rape, Paki-bashing, queer-bashing and (yes) lynch-mobs, the number of wrongdoers exceeds the number of victims. Would you use arithmetic to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of such actions?
“”JV was found to have the maturity and intellectual level of a typical eight-year-old, not his chronological age of ten. ”
Was evidence to this effect known to the defence? Was it excluded by judicial ruling from the trial?
” Many schoolteachers have gotten in hot water for spoiling Christmas by telling 8 and 9 year old kids that Santa isn’t real. If there are even a fair number of 8 and 9 year olds who still haven’t cottoned on to the fact that Santa doesn’t exist, it’s obvious those same kids can’t have a full comprehension of how the world works, including a full understanding of death.”
A generalization. It is probably truer in the US than the UK.
ME: “Even an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for a murder conviction.”
VIRGIL: “Maybe for an adult, but not for a child of 10. The trial was ruled unfair and legitimately so. Doli incapax here was not demonstrated: which is why the child psychiatrists who testified later complained about being bullied and browbeaten into overly simplistic answers that didn’t permit them to say what they truly wanted to say.”
The law on murder is that causing death while attempting to kill or cause GBH is murder. But the intent to cause GBH still has to be proven by the prosecution. The jury concluded that it was. Lawyer’s for both sides had the power to question the witnesses. Defence lawyers had the power to ask any questions that they felt would be beneficial to their case.
The European ruling was wrong for the reasons stated. The lawyers could have explained the options as they do for adults who are not conversant with the law. Client instructing lawyer is a fictio juris nine times out of ten.
“You’re suggesting that all “right-thinking” people would and should side with you on this matter. So if you’re going to claim that, it’s very pertinent that almost the whole civilized world doesn’t have laws in place that support your views. Nowhere else in Europe can 10-year-olds even be prosecuted at all.”
As I said: they are wrong. Being right is not a matter of arithmetic. In such loathsome practices as gang-rape, Paki-bashing, queer-bashing and (yes) lynch-mobs, the number of wrongdoers exceeds the number of victims. Would you use arithmetic to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of such actions?
“You are, essentially, accusing almost the whole world of being “wrong-thinking.”
You’re assuming that the people of the countries agree with public policy on that issue. But essentially yes. I do not bow to other countries in what I think is right. I am a member of the sovereign electorate in Britain. I do not follow other countries like a sheep.
“There is nothing to suggest his understanding of death was any different from JV’s and RT’s. All three of them had an immature, childish grasp of the issue. Your hackneyed, cliche-ridden comments about America are inane and irrelevant. ”
There is no evidence that it was the SAME. They were born and raised in different cultures. Facts pertaining to the American case tell us nothing about the UK case. Even if they turn out to be the same, the US case doesn’t PROVE anything. Only after you have proven that the cases are substantially the same would the comparison be meaningful – and in such a case it would be redundant. No evidence was presented in court sufficient to persuade the jury that JV and RT didn’t know what they were doing. If some one had been throwing stones at THEM they’d sure as hell have known that it was wrong – and dangerous!
“It is also about exactly what it appears to be: murder and the weight of this on Cain’s conscience (it is Cain, moreso than Abel, who’s the object of fascination and pity for the author of the tale).”
Cain and Abel does not form the basis for a defense of JV and RT. Remember that the mark of Cain (the Hebrew letter Hay, for Hashem – yes shades of Marked Man) was to protect Cain from the retribution of others, as murderers were fair game for anyone to kill. Cain’s divine protection was the exception, not the rule.
“These were not normal 10-year-olds… So asking “some” random 10-year-old what they think is a red herring.”
You argued that the age of 10 was too low to be the age of criminal responsibility IN GENERAL, so my response was relevant to your argument and not a red herring.
“Look, I have read your book A Marked Man. There was no complexity or richness or psychological depth whatsoever to the pasteboard characters and inane, cliched plot. ”
There was, but you missed it in the speed-reading. Try reading it again and then try the other brilliant Alex Sedaka books and also the Daniel Klein thrillers (MOSES LEGACY and BOUDICCA PARCHMENTS). Also try reading my early books like A FOOL FOR A CLIENT and TARNISHED HEROES – excellent thrillers, and perfect for fans of Dostoyevsky, George Elliot and Shakespeare!
“But for the purpose of ex-culpating him from the ethical indictment of the incident itself, you prattle about him “having-a-complete-mental-breakdown.””
He was like eight or nine years old! What the hell is wrong with you? Yes, I am “exculpating” him, damn right I am. There is nothing “prattling” about it, it’s a description of what happened!
You seem to be coming perilously close to denying that children have any biological drives or biochemistry or survival instincts at all, but are merely some kind of disembodied, decorporealized spirit.
In reality, human beings reach breaking points, and his was reached. And it wouldn’t have been difficult at all to nip his problems in the bud. This is a very clear case of ADULTS failing in their responsibility to handle the situation intelligently and compassionately. Too bad for Venables – and James, and Denise.
You are locked into your incredibly simple-minded, vacuous, insipid Grundyesque morality, and you can’t budge from it. In short, you’re a self-righteous philistine and dyed in the wool reactionary, an intellectually lazy “secular Christian” who clings to outmoded, outdated moral frameworks (from a pre-scientific age) while conveniently freeing yourself from any of the hard demands that traditional Christianity used to impose on its flock. Any kind of sympathy or understanding for his anguish at the time is considered beyond the pale for you, because in your simple-minded view, everything can be neatly compartmentalized into “good” vs. “evil.”
No wonder you demonstrated no real comprehension of the relevant issues raised in your laughably bad novel A MARKED MAN either.
“The European ruling was wrong for the reasons stated earlier. The lawyers could have explained the options as they do for adults who are not conversant with the law. Client instructing lawyer is a fictio juris nine times out of ten.”
Well, this is that tenth time where it isn’t a fiction.
An adult not being fully conversant with the law would never be sufficient grounds. Provided he was of normal intelligence, he could be brought to understand the salient points whether he knew them beforehand or not. This is a completely different situation, more akin to having a severely retarded and deeply uncomprehending adult client.
The European ruling was not wrong, and your reasons for why it was wrong are unconvincing. You are comparing apples with oranges. The European court got it right.
The one time out of ten is where the criminal is acareer criminal who knows the law inside out and how to play the system. In all other cases the client’s role is limited to telling his lawyer the facts – or an invented alternative to the facts after the lawyer has explained that he cannot set out to prove one set of facts if his client tells him another.
“You are locked into your incredibly simple-minded, vacuous, insipid Grundyesque morality, and you can’t budge from it. In short, you’re a self-righteous philistine and dyed in the wool reactionary, an intellectually lazy “secular Christian” who clings to outmoded, outdated moral frameworks (from a pre-scientific age) while conveniently freeing yourself from any of the hard demands that traditional Christianity used to impose on its flock.”
You mean because I expect people to respect the rights of their fellow man, but don’t latch on to the superstitious elements involving a supernatural sentient deity? Guilty as charged. I could say that you are morally-grey, criminal friendly lefty, prostituting what intellect you have in defense of child-killers.
“Any kind of sympathy or understanding for his anguish at the time is considered beyond the pale for you, because in your simple-minded view, everything can be neatly compartmentalized into “good” vs. “evil.””
I have a great deal of sympathy: for James Bulger, his parents and the victims of crime in general. You pay lip-service to this, but it rings hollow.
“No wonder you demonstrated no real comprehension of the relevant issues raised in your laughably bad novel A MARKED MAN either.”
I’m not quite sure how you think these issues played out in MARKED MAN. i demonstrated sympathy with George Stone, even though he was a murderer.
“It was contempt for Tyson and Jane. If you really can’t see the difference, that’s your problem, not mine.”
It was contempt for the vast majority of people who believe that vicious violent criminals should be properly and adequately punished. Calling people “subliterates” because they disagree with your views is just another example of your arrogance.
“Oh yes they damn well are! I don’t think Grisham is a good writer by any means, but The Firm is still a far better book than A Marked Man.”
No it isn’t. Grisham sets up a situation in which a lawyer is supposedly powerless to avoid breaking the law – even though he doesn’t want to – because of the corrupt nature of the law firm that he is working for. But he does not provide any specifics to render this scenario real. He simply asks the reader to take it on trust. That is a serious constructional flaw that was obvious to me when I read it.
In contrast, in Marked Man, I explain the why and wherefore – although I save some of it for the end, so that impatient speed-readers who can’t wait to rush off and criticize (to further their nefarious pro-child-killer agenda) might miss those revelations.
“Ludlum’s Bourne Identity is way, way, way better than A Marked Man.”
I haven’t read that one, so I can’t comment on it. But I have read a number of his other books and would rate him as good, but not as good as I.
“It has EVERYTHING to do with your novels! She is scathing on the matter of these “lady” novelists’ Mary Sue-ish characterization.”
She writes about how the heroine is always a rich heiress or alternatively a woman who marries her way into the upper classes. Definitely not my scene.
“Your protagonists are, likewise, Gary Stu’s and Mary Sue’s. The exact same dynamic is at work in your book, the self-flattery, the smugness, the ridiculous way you present your characters as oh-so-perfect, oh-so-intelligent, in such tippy-top physical shape as well as being models of integrity and smarts, healthy eaters, practitioners of Krav Maga,”
He isn’t in “tippy-toppy physical shape.” He uses Krav Maga to combat the encroachment of time upon his physical condition. And he lives in an age when fitness are pushed and promoted by commercial interests. You think that because there is obesity in America that this means there are no healthy eaters? No joggers? Nobody goes to fitness classes? You think the gyms are empty?
You think that lawyers don’t know the law? That like the jokes imply not one of them has integrity?
You’ll note that he never actually gets into physical scraps and fights. Even Leary, the PI and former US Navy Seal gets clobbered in his one fight.
As for the intelligence. Where do I say that he is intelligent?
” another character is some brilliant theoretical physicist…”
His son is an ambitious young physicist in his late twenties – the age at which theoretical physicists do their most innovative work.
“. it’s ludicrous in EXACTLY the same way Eliot describes in her essay.”
She describes renaissance people who are skilled across a range of fields without having had the BACKGROUND to be such polymaths. My characters are not jacks-of-all-trades, though obviously a lawyer is trained in law, a modern urban Californian (with money) may well keep fit and a physicist may be able to advise his father on computers, etc. Having said that, I have to admit that I was persuaded by my publishers to take out some of Alex’s flaws to make it more commercial.
“The precise CONTENT of the Mary-Sue-ism, of course, is different, you being neither a “lady” nor a person living in the 19th century. But in all other respects, your novel is tripe in EXACTLY the fashion Eliot describes.”
No it isn’t. As I have pointed out, George Elliot was not criticizing writers for creating characters with impressive skills, it was the multiplicity of their skills and the lack of any basis or background for the acquisition of said skill-set that she was criticizing.
“If you speed-read it, I suggest you slow down and read it again. The ridiculous nature of your protagonists is TREMENDOUSLY SIMILAR to what Eliot describes in her essay.”
I just read it again and there are no similarities. BTW, the use of fiction to postulate an ideal man or woman is not necessarily a bad thing either. Ayn Rand (yes, I know you’ll have a few choice words for her) stated explicitly that the goal of her writing was a portrayal of an ideal man. She believed that the writer of fiction should be like the Aristotelian poet, writing about life as it ought to be.
“There is nothing “stupid” about my charge, you are simply to “stupid” (or egotistical) to admit the stark naked truth about your atrocious pulp fiction.”
Your accusation is tremendously stupid. You have read a critique of a certain type of novel and tried to extrapolate it to something completely different. The house of cards collapsed as soon as read the essay and saw how brazenly you had misinterpreted it.
“George Elliot was not criticizing writers for creating characters with impressive skills, it was the multiplicity of their skills and the lack of any basis or background for the acquisition of said skill-set that she was criticizing.”
Your characters also have a “multiplicity” of skills and qualities that are not plausibly rendered. Your characters have all these noble qualities without you doing a damn thing to convincingly ground and establish them. They are fantasy projections of your ego. Of course, it is “natural” that a lawyer is familiar with the law, but that’s not what’s wrong with Sedaka. It’s the way he just HAPPENS to be this brilliant lawyer who can trump all challengers, who just HAPPENS to know Krav Maga, who just HAPPENS to have no health problems or real personal shortcomings, who just HAPPENS have a son who is a brilliant theoretical physicist (no black sheep in this family), who just HAPPENS to have a partner who is too good to be true, who just HAPPENS to have no discernible character flaws or blind spots or limitations or failings of any sort. Would that you gave him a smattering of your own glaringly obvious intellectual limitations and defects of character!
The fact that Sedaka is versed in the law is not what makes him a Mary Sue, it’s all of his other traits, relationships, hobbies, and talents that are the problem.
“BTW, the use of fiction to postulate an ideal man or woman is not necessarily a bad thing either. Ayn Rand (yes, I know you’ll have a few choice words for her) stated explicitly that the goal of her writing was a portrayal of an ideal man.”
I think you’ve just revealed your prime literary influence: Ayn Rand. Yes, that explains a lot. Postulating an “ideal man or woman” is exactly what Eliot was criticitizing; or rather, she was criticizing those writers for depicting “ideal” women in a wholly unpersuasive way. Which is exactly what you do with your similarly “ideal” men and women. Postulating an ideal hero only works if you have the great skill and precision and intelligence it takes to pull it off. You don’t have that skill, hence whenever you portray this ideality it quickly devolves into run-of-the-mill Mary Sue-ism, which is all that CAN happen when the writer isn’t talented enough to manage this feat successfully.
“Your accusation is tremendously stupid. You have read a critique of a certain type of novel and tried to extrapolate it to something completely different.”
It’s not completely different at all. You simply can’t admit to yourself how similar it in fact is. You resort to silly red herrings – “of course a lawyer knows about the law!” – while ignoring the more serious problems – this particular lawyer seems to walk around with a halo around his head at all times. You keep insisting that he’s this tremendously intelligent and noble paragon of virtue, yet we have to take it on faith, as you don’t actually dramatize it with any conviction. You just play around with your cardboard cutouts and insist that you’re dramatizing something.
“But for what PURPOSE were you reporting it? The effect (we are back to foreseeable causation again) was to obfuscate the distinction between then and now.”
I was not obfuscating anything. You are obfuscating, desperately trying to cover up the truth that Denise Fergus has become a professional victim who literally does nothing else but take money from tabloids for interviews (same goes for Stuart Fergus).
Obviously I don’t know if she thinks EXACTLY the same way now since she hasn’t granted another interview in the year 2013 using the exact same verbatim language, has she? She said it at the time. What, do you think she gives weekly and monthly updates where she rifles through her past interviews and provides a commentary? “Oh yes, I said I wanted my grief to remain raw ten years ago, but I’ve changed my mind about that…”
Unless some journalist confronts her with the quote and specifically asks her to address this precise point, we’re not going to know, are we? Certainly her subsequent statements to journalists would seem to indicate that she has no intention of moving past it.
”They basically feed her lines.”
Prove.”
Use some common sense for once. She makes statements that are obviously fed and rehearsed lines. Use your eyes and ears. Why is it that I must “prove” everything while you, evidently, have to “prove” nothing? What a blatant double standard you have.
If I wrote “prove,” “prove,” “prove” underneath every assertion of fact you made, there would be literally nothing left of your arguments, like your wholly unproven statements about Denise and Stuart Fergus’ noble motives for taking money from the tabloids and from making the tabloids their entire bread and butter.
“I would argue that whilst bereavement can be treated, human-made bereavement will lack closure unless the persons who caused it are adequately punished”
Then she’s going to lack closure for the rest of her life, in all likelihood, considering the judiciary has no intention of giving her what she wants, and the courts in every single other European country would never give her what she wants either, and almost all the rest of the civilized, democratic world would never accede to her kinds of demands either.
“Your characters also have a “multiplicity” of skills and qualities that are not plausibly rendered. Your characters have all these noble qualities without you doing a damn thing to convincingly ground and establish them.”
They don’t have a multiplicity of skills. Alex is a lawyer: he knows the law. He also keeps fit – like millions of other Californians.
“Of course, it is “natural” that a lawyer is familiar with the law, but that’s not what’s wrong with Sedaka. It’s the way he just HAPPENS to be this brilliant lawyer who can trump all challengers,”
From where do you get the idea that he can trump all challengers? He fails to win a stay of execution from a district court in the first book, he fails to get charges thrown out in the second book despite establishing an error at the DNA lab, DNA tampering and even jury tampering. In the book that you read (or rather speed-read) he fails to win bail for George Stone and fails to get the charges thrown out. Yes he ultimately does a deal with the DA after the full-facts have emerged. But that hardly makes him capable of trumping all challengers. 90% of criminal cases in the USA where charges are brought are settled by some kind of a plea bargain.
” who just HAPPENS to know Krav Maga,”
I don’t know what you mean “know Krav Maga.” He practices Krav Maga like thousands or tens of thousands of others. I never said he was “expert” or “master” On the one occasion when he comes close to getting into a fight with a drunk, I state that he reckons his chances at fifty-fifty.
” who just HAPPENS to have no health problems”
Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that to make the novel more literary I should keep banging on about his prostate?
” or real personal shortcomings,”
Again, what are you suggesting? That I should make him an alcoholic after his wife’s death or give him a gambling addiction to make him a bit rough around the edges. Not all people are basket cases.
” who just HAPPENS have a son who is a brilliant theoretical physicist”
So a California Jew has a son who is good at physics. And you find this unrealistic? Would it be more likely if his son was a moron? Of if a brilliant physicist was the son of a refuse collector?
” (no black sheep in this family),”
Unless you count his daughter with whom his relationship is somewhat strained.
” who just HAPPENS to have a partner who is too good to be true,”
Do you mean Martine? The ambitious TV reporter who hounded him when he was trying to save Burrow and generally made a pain in the ass of herself? Whose pushiness (which presumably you call a virtue) eventually broke through his reserve and grief over his wife?
Or do you mean his potential law partner Juanita, whose cousin was involved in the murder of Alex’s wife and who is determined to better herself and not be dragged down into the gang culture that she has seen wreak so much havoc in her community?
” who just HAPPENS to have no discernible character flaws or blind spots or limitations or failings of any sort.”
What is your problem with decent people? Do you want to find fault with every decent person? Is that so that you can justify your sympathy with the wicked. (He who shows Mercy to the heartless…)
“Would that you gave him a smattering of your own glaringly obvious intellectual limitations and defects of character!”
But where did I say that he was intelligent? Or ethical? Presumably you mean that I had him acting in an ethical and intelligent way. But if I am so intellectually limited, then how would I be capable of delineating him in such grandiose terms as you suggest?
“The fact that Sedaka is versed in the law is not what makes him a Mary Sue, it’s all of his other traits, relationships, hobbies, and talents that are the problem.”
Traits as in ethical? You say that this makes him unrealistic? How cynical you are. Relationships? That his son is good at physics? That his girlfriend is ambitious and good at snooker (by the standards of the women’s game)? That his paralegal and potential law partner has worked hard and is now about to take the bar exams? The fact that he does Krav Maga? Should I instead say that he sits at home and drinks Bud while watching soap operas? Or is in debt to a bookie? Would this make you happy? Would this make it more literary? Or is it just that you regard anyone who isn’t a basket case as a reproach to you and the low-lifes with whom you sympathize?
“Postulating an “ideal man or woman” is exactly what Eliot was criticitizing; or rather, she was criticizing those writers for depicting “ideal” women in a wholly unpersuasive way.”
Exactly (to the latter), which is why she was not criticizing all Mary Sue’s but only a sub-set of them, as I pointed out. If she had criticized the depiction of ALL ideal men and women, then she would have been wrong.
“Which is exactly what you do with your similarly “ideal” men and women.”
Except that you have resorted to exaggeration and misreading to reach this conclusion. George Elliot mocked those female protagonists who could read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, she didn’t criticize everyone who so much as opened and perused the Bible. She criticized portrayals of those who could reform a wicked man by their mere presence, not a lawyer who merely defends them, using the skills he has acquired over more than two decades. She might have found fault with a lawyer who was a master of the martial arts.But not with one who merely practiced them at some unspecified level.
” Postulating an ideal hero only works if you have the great skill and precision and intelligence it takes to pull it off. You don’t have that skill”
And yet you credit me with having created a character more intelligent than myself,despite the fact that nowhere in the book do I say that he is intelligent.
“this particular lawyer seems to walk around with a halo around his head at all times.”
Defending a serial rapist? A career burglar? A murderer? (I guess in your eyes that sort of a man really IS a hero!)
“You keep insisting that he’s this tremendously intelligent and noble paragon of virtue, yet we have to take it on faith, as you don’t actually dramatize it with any conviction.”
Where do I say that he is a noble paragon of virtue? Or tremendously intelligent?
“You just play around with your cardboard cutouts and insist that you’re dramatizing something.”
Ah, so you mean I AM dramatizing it, but you feel that the character I have dramatized is a reproach to you!
“You do realize this is covered in the mainstream press as well, don’t you?”
Give the specific quote and the source. Then we can discuss it.
“Just recently she used similar language about how 20 years later her grief is still so “raw.” (That wasn’t the interview I’m thinking of though.) That was not a tabloid piece. Even if it were, do you think that’s a misquotation or a correct quotation?”
You claimed that she said she wanted her grief to REMAIN raw. I was asking if that was then or now.
“It may no longer be current, true. I was simply reporting what she said.”
But for what PURPOSE were you reporting it? The effect (we are back to foreseeable causation again) was to obfuscate the distinction between then and now.
“Government money comes with no strings attached. Tabloid money comes with the prerequisite that she provide sensational and inflammatory quotes (including telling numerous lies and falsehoods about this case over the years).”
The tabloids know her views in general and know that she will be expressing her outrage.
” They basically feed her lines.”
Prove.
“As I already stated, I can understand the sentiment. However, in lieu of how she’s conducted herself since then, it may not have been the best idea to refuse all therapy.”
I assume you mean “in view” – “in lieu” (i.e. place) makes no sense. I would argue that whilst bereavement can be treated, human-made bereavement will lack closure unless the persons who caused it are adequately punished.
Replying to David – I dont agree human-made bereavement will lack closure unless the persons who caused it are adequately punished.
Nothing will bring back her son no matter what happens or happened to the killers. Only she herself can decide whether or not to move on or seek help to assist her to more on however difficult it is. Right now it seems she is controlled by the actions of others?
Also in this case could you clearly define what you mean by “adequate punishment”?
In relation to the killers:
The trial was unfair and was ruled unfair by Europe irrespective of what people think.
They were tried in an adult court as children when they didnt even understand how to instruct their solicitors. What was fair about that?
They were named by the judge despite being children. That wasn’t right either.
They received the maximum possible sentence for their crime that the law allowed.
While I do not condone in anyway shape or form what they did or the horrific nature of the crime I would simply like to draw your attention to the harsh way in which they were treated by the court given the special laws that exist for a reason which are supposed to protect children. And that means every child irrespective of the crime!
So because of the laws which exist to protect children and in relation to the original forum question as to whether the identity of the killers should be revealed – it is a no from me.
There is no death penalty. There is no life imprisonment term and the only way possible to hold children indefinately would be if their assessors would deem them mentally unfit to rejoin society after their period of detention. Whether people like it or not that is the way it is.
Now maybe some of you will not like what I have written but like it or not, they are the facts. If there were more severe laws in place I would accept them too but as it is, none of us have either control or influence over them
While many laws can test most of us taking the law into one’s own hands is not for me. What others may choose to do is their business.
I agree when you make reference to the parents. Little or no parental control existed and it is not right when parents fail in their duty to control their children and get away with it. They should have faced some sort of penalties, not after the crime but well before, as soon as the boys started truanting or shoplifting. Also the school should have a resposibiliy to monitor and record all absenties and notify first the parents and if no action is taken, then the authorities should a child miss more than 3 weeks in a school year.
In relation to the forum I don’t feel it appropriate for you to plug your books. While you may argue that Virgil has made reference to you as an author and your novels, it is quite obvious to me really what you are doing. No, I am not the moderator, just someone expressing his opinion and of course if your opinion differs from mine then you are entitled to that too. I am always open to the fact that sometimes I may be wrong.
Taking the last point first, I am “plugging” my books to wind Virgil up, just as he was criticizing my writing to wind me up. If you look to how it all started between Virgil and me, he attacked my writing from the beginning after I pointed out that the injunction was not worldwide. He tried to argue that point with me and then dropped in when he realized that he was wrong, but was too proud to admit that he was wrong.
Regarding instructing solicitors, in the real world the lawyer advises the client on the range of options (sometimes only one option) and explains the reasons and then invites the client to respond to what is either a limited choice or no choice at all. With the exception of career criminals it is a lawyer-led process. The concept of the client “instructing” the lawyer is a fictio juris.
Regarding the penalty, detained at her majesty’s pleasure is the norm for murder by children, just as “life” is the sentence for my adults. But my criticism is of the tariff. The severity of the crime merited at least 15 years or possibly 20.
With regard to their assessors deeming them fit to rejoin society, it would appear that in at least one case, they got it wrong.
“With the exception of career criminals it is a lawyer-led process. The concept of the client “instructing” the lawyer is a fictio juris.”
No it is not. The client “instructs” the lawyer insofar as the lawyer does not simply do everything while the bump-on-a-log client participates not at all.
You are being subtly misleading here. A process can be (and is) “led” by the lawyer without the process being entirely the work of the lawyer with no input whatsoever from the client. You are conveniently running roughshod over that crucial point. Everyone already knows the lawyer “leads,” but it does not follow that the client does NOT “instruct,” unless you are being wilfully obtuse as to the specific meaning of these words.
Everybody knows that O.J. Simpson did not “devise” his own legal defence, but neither was he an uncomprehending spectator who did not comprehend anything about his own team’s defence strategy. He was capable of participating, HOWEVER LIMITED THE PARTICIPATION MUST NECESSARILY BE in a lawyer led process. RT and JV could do none of that.
And other countries DO grasp this point, they DO consider it relevant and DO take it into consideration (no matter how much you try to sweep it under the carpet or pretend it was just some left-wing idiosyncrasy of the European Court of Appeal), as is reflected in the fact that either they have a higher age of criminal responsibility or they can handle such cases through the juvenile system.
“But my criticism is of the tariff. The severity of the crime merited at least 15 years or possibly 20.”
No it did not – not if you consider what the rest of the civilized world would’ve given them for the same crime. You are essentially demanding a punishment out of sync with the rest of the democratic world (with the exception of a few states in the United States). It is ludicrous for you to demand 20 years when if it had happened in any other country you’d care to live in they most likely wouldn’t have been prosecuted at all, and even if they had been (if the age of responsibiility was low ehough), they still would’ve received a sentence proportionate to the one they did receive!
You are asking for the UK to become totally out of sync, legally and morally, with the majority of US states, with Canada, with Japan, China, Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries etc. You’re asking for the UK to join the ranks of Saudi Arabia instead of the ranks of France or Germany or Canada.
And all you have to offer in justification for your notion of what is just and proper punishment is your own private “feeling” of what is just. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the tariff you wanted – 20 years – was never going to be given. It should be obvious that a judge is not going to hand down a sentence that is wholly out of sync with sentences handed down for comparable crimes committed by children either within or without UK borders. Nor should he.
JV and RT could have gotten as much as 10 years, I imagine. But no way were they ever going to get 15 or 20 (and Denise Fergus wanted even longer than that, she was asking for the impossible, like life without parole or even the death penalty). All you have to offer in justification is the supposed magnitude of the crime (even though you’ve already admitted you don’t even know exactly what happened).
Parents have been guilty of comparable acts of lethal violence committed against their own infant children without doing much longer behind bars than JV and RT. And (except for famous cases like Baby P) they aren’t at risk of vigilante retaliation after they get out, either.
“The client “instructs” the lawyer insofar as the lawyer does not simply do everything while the bump-on-a-log client participates not at all.”
If by “instruct” you mean the client tells the lawyer what happened, I see no basis for concluding that JV and RT were incapable of telling their lawyers that. From that information the lawyer could form a strategy and defend them. They were not mute. They were not found to be suffering from amnesia and they were capable of describing what happened. According to your own argument they were capable of describing their dreams, capable of describing the events, including “getting a kid lost” and using his short to clean up the blood. If they were capable of imparting such information, then they were capable of instructing their lawyers. Obviously they couldn’t devise a legal strategy. But they could impart the basic information that the lawyers could then use to devise a strategy. So to the extent that “instructing counsel” is meaningful, they were clearly capable.
“Everybody knows that O.J. Simpson did not “devise” his own legal defence, but neither was he an uncomprehending spectator who did not comprehend anything about his own team’s defence strategy. He was capable of participating, HOWEVER LIMITED THE PARTICIPATION MUST NECESSARILY BE in a lawyer led process. RT and JV could do none of that.”
And yet they could describe their dreams, explain that they were trying to “get a kid lost” and blame each other? That doesn’t sound like inability to communicate or lack of understanding.
“And other countries DO grasp this point, they DO consider it relevant and DO take it into consideration (no matter how much you try to sweep it under the carpet or pretend it was just some left-wing idiosyncrasy of the European Court of Appeal), as is reflected in the fact that either they have a higher age of criminal responsibility or they can handle such cases through the juvenile system.”
You are flogging a dead horse here. I have never disputed that other countries do such things. I have simply said that they are wrong and the British courts are right on this point. Where is it written that I am obliged to defer to other people’s opinions?
“No it did not – not if you consider what the rest of the civilized world would’ve given them for the same crime. You are essentially demanding a punishment out of sync with the rest of the democratic world (with the exception of a few states in the United States). It is ludicrous for you to demand 20 years when if it had happened in any other country you’d care to live in they most likely wouldn’t have been prosecuted at all, and even if they had been (if the age of responsibiility was low ehough), they still would’ve received a sentence proportionate to the one they did receive!”
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.
“You are asking for the UK to become totally out of sync, legally and morally, with the majority of US states, with Canada, with Japan, China, Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries etc. You’re asking for the UK to join the ranks of Saudi Arabia instead of the ranks of France or Germany or Canada.”
According to you it is already out of sync. Where we differ is that you believe we should adapt to other countries and I say we should follow the will of the British electorate. I never was much of a fan of goose-stepping. We’ll have to agree to difer on this point.
“And all you have to offer in justification for your notion of what is just and proper punishment is your own private “feeling” of what is just. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the tariff you wanted – 20 years – was never going to be given. It should be obvious that a judge is not going to hand down a sentence that is wholly out of sync with sentences handed down for comparable crimes committed by children either within or without UK borders. Nor should he.”
Again we’ll have to differ. Your message appears to be: you’d better not murder an innocent three-year-old or you’ll be sent to a psychiatrist and given counselling.” Some deterrent!
“All you have to offer in justification is the supposed magnitude of the crime (even though you’ve already admitted you don’t even know exactly what happened).”
“SUPPOSE magnitude.” Duh? They kidnapped and murdered a three-year-old.
“Parents have been guilty of comparable acts of lethal violence committed against their own infant children without doing much longer behind bars than JV and RT. And (except for famous cases like Baby P) they aren’t at risk of vigilante retaliation after they get out, either.”
I condemn the leniency towards them too. But I am also wary of “experts” like Meadow and Southall.
“You are flogging a dead horse here. I have never disputed that other countries do such things. I have simply said that they are wrong and the British courts are right on this point. Where is it written that I am obliged to defer to other people’s opinions?”
And yet, it is obvious that the age of responsibility is going to be raised, to become consistent with other countries. All you have to do is read newspapers and the words coming out of politicians’ mouths.
You are not obliged to defer to other people’s opinions (although you do an about-face on this point elsewhere, when you insist other people must defer to Denise Fergus or they are “hypocrites” who lack sympathy with her loss if they express disagreement with her – see your earlier remarks about DigitalSpy). But you haven’t provided any real reason for why British courts are right and the other countries’ courts are wrong on this matter. All you’re resting on is your own personal feelings of disgruntlement.
The trial was ruled unfair. The European Court provided sound and sensible reasons for ruling the trial unfair. You, on the other hand, offer unsound and senseless reasons for deeming it fair.
Thanks David.
It is good to get your feedback.
I do not completely disagree regarding the sentence you suggested but unfortunately the judge was limited by his own as to the sentence he could impose.
I suppose all of these laws are there for a reason. Some seem robotic which means that children are protected and on their crimes their sentences are neither governed by emotions nor on a case tto case basis to an extent.
You are the first person who has answered the “adequate justice” proposal for me!
I would love to hear other people’s points of view.
I feel that Jon Venables when he was released was optimistic but then was unable to deal with anonymity and the knock backs of life. From there began a downward spiral. Nobody’s fault only his own! From what I have read, his behaviour disgusts me and it would be extremely difficult for him after blowing his chance to get back on the right path. Hard though it is, I have no sympathy for someone who created this situation himself.
The other guy appears to have behaved.
Once again – thank you
Hi Steve…just letting you know I have responded to your response further up thread…let me know what you think as I welcome your opinion! I also like reading David’s posts as they are very entertaining/amusing/informative!!
You did Anonymous.
I should have acknowledged you.
My apologies for not doing so earlier :-)
Replying to Anonymous March 15 10:46.
I agree that how she feels is because of the actions of those 2.
She may have PTSD or something else I dont know?
One thing for sure is that she is not happy given her appearances and comments to the press et al.
The answers? I dont have them. Therapy and maybe withdrawing from the public eye might help – I don’t know.
Just to repeat. It is so sad to see her unhappy manipulated by the press and by her determination never to let go or so it seems.
Yeah it isn’t easy and she she didn’t ask for this. She needs to find happiness for herself though. Someone once said that out of absolute disasters comes beautiful new beginnings. In her case though, it hasnt happened yet.
Dying is easy but living is hard!
@Steve(11:16) Forgive me if I haven’t understood you correctly but how can you think James’s mother will ever be properly happy again? You don’t get over something like this, you just learn to live with it. That said, I do believe she has found happiness in her other children and family life – at least those bastards couldn’t take that away from her – but her happiness will never be complete.
I don’t believe she should withdraw from the public eye – true she knows she will never get justice for her son from the authorities but her public campaign highlights this, the injustice of it all. I’m sure she is a thorn-in-the-side to many in authority and I say good on her for that. She is a remarkably strong woman in my opinion and I believe her love for her son enables her to continue the fight for justice.
You are quite right Anonymous – she will never get over this fully but I feel that the authorities ignore her except where threats may arise.
As far as the authorities are concerned the case is closed and they will not change their stance on it for anyone. So you are correct in what you say. But is being a nuisance to them worthwhile?
What exactly will it achieve?
I feel that if she did or could withdraw and concentrate on her family it might help her in the long run. Yes, she seems strong and determined but maybe she could channel that energy elsewhere to better effect?
And yes, the love for her son coupled with her bitterness and hatred towards the killers drives her on.
May I ask you, what justice do you think she would like and if she received that, would it change anything for her in your opinion?
As I see it, Jon Venables when released will be under so much supervision (or should be) that he will not be able to handle it. To me he wants to live as Jon Venables and nobody else. He likes attention. Eventually he will either reoffend or end it all. I do feel also that he carries the guilt with him. No sympathy. I think he is a danger to himself and others though. Since being released he has shown that he has very little good to contribute to society. Child porn et al. Killing him will make him even more infamous than he is now. And I reckon he is so twisted that he would be happy to pay the price for more infamy. I believe he is in a living hell – I say let him live in it. He has made his bed – let him lie in it! The vigilantes don’t seem so see it this way. Pity :(
But my point is that as long as she holds this hatred and as long as the media continue to manipulate her, the further away she is from finding real happiness. The way she is now cannot be good for her or her family. I know she had all this thrust upon her and she should and never will forget her son but she has three other living sons who need her.
I do not know what kind of relashionship they have in fairness but instilling her hatred into them should not be the answer either as it means damaging them to an extent.
I am not forgetting the horrific crime but living is now and it is in the here and now that I hope everyone including her can live their lives. But I do appreciate the difficulties she would face in doing that because of everything that has happened.
Harsh as it is, the “what ifs” are not part of reality and living in the past is not good either.
That would be the way I see it.
Replying to Steve March 18 4.03pm ….hi Steve…although the anonymous above is a different anonymous to me (from further unthread – sorry for confusion) I do have to agree with his/ her comments above.
I believe Denise Fergus has moved on and has put a lot of time, energy and commitment to raising her 3 other boys and I think she deserves some credit for that! Just because she is still fighting for justice for James doesn’t mean that she has neglected her duty as a mother to her other children!?!
I’m sorry to repeat this but she is bound to still have extremely strong feelings towards the murderers of her gorgeous little boy…honestly I am filling up just typing this..it doesn’t seem like five minutes ago that it happened so I can understand why her feelings are still so raw !!
Again we don’t know how she has chosen to bring up her children but I do know that she has tried to protect them for any type of danger what-so-ever so I can’t see her ‘instilling hatred’ in her boys, it is more likely that she has dedicated her life to protecting them for the pain and anguish she has suffered at the hands of JV and RT.
If you have ever experienced the tragic loss of somebody then you know how horrific and upsetting it is (even when their passing is an accident or from natural causes) so it must be a million times worse to know that someone, not only, deliberately caused the death of a loved one, but did it by inflicting pain and anguish and fear!!!
And I also think that she probably feels like she owes it to James to continue with her plyte and it may give her a little bit of comfort to know that she is doing everything she can for him in death as she couldn’t in life!
As I said to Tyson up thread I honestly don’t think that causing harm to JV or RT will help her at all as that not bring her precious little boy back and that, ultimately, would be what we all would wish for if given the choice. Unfortunately that will never be so I really don’t know the answer to your question… I don’t think anything will help…I think we just have to let her deal with it as she sees fit.
@Steve Well the case isn’t closed for James’s mother, nor for countless other people – myself included – who are outraged by the continuing injustices dealt by authorities, not only to James, his mother and other family members but also to the public. You ask what justice James’s mother would like – I would have thought that was obvious. For one to keep at least one of her son’s killers behind bars. I agree he is a danger to others. Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t he be eligible for parole again in the not so distant future? Her son’s killers secret identities and the compensation bid by one of them are also injustices she is fighting against. I think she should continue her fight for as long as she feels she needs to. She has the support of very many people. Also, as a member of the public I believe it’s my right to know how the ruling establishment makes a mockery of justice – it’s a good thing to expose them for what they really are.
I also don’t believe by continuing with the campaign that she is somehow not fulfilling her duties as a mother to her other children. James’s brother actually said in an interview that he wasn’t consumed with hatred or bitterness so I doubt his mother instilled this into him. From everything I’ve seen, she is a loving mum.
I would also like to say that it is my belief that you never stop fighting for justice, no matter how long it takes. James’s mother is a truly courageous and admirable human being.
To the other Anonymous (9:43pm) I just saw your comment after I posted mine. I think we are in agreement about a lot of things :-)
I agree anonymous….when I read your earlier post I actually thought that I had written it myself at first!! :-)
To both Anonymous posters.
You have given a slightly different angle to me but good points nevertheless.
I do not know Denise Fergus and write as I see things but that does not mean the assumptions I have made are correct either. She is probably over protective of her children as a result of what happened?
And yeah, she probably will never forgive them for what they did. It’s understandable.
All any of us can do is to try our best – do the right thing and try to be happy and get as much out of life as we can. I feel sorry for her that she is the way she is, that’s all.
I am of the opinion that if you feel you are right you stick with it but again what do you reckon she will achieve in all this?
I have done so but have also walked away from one or two winning the battle but ultimately losing the war and in my case being consumed by it to the exclusion of most other things. Looking back, it was the right thing to do for me but very hard to move on. Admittedly it was nothing compared to what she went through.
Sure she has many supporters but unfortunately those who have the power to change the law do not listen.
But there will always be empathy for her given what happened. Nobody should have to go through that. It is heartbreaking and very very difficult to move away from.
One of speaks of the injustice of new identities for the killers and the compensation claim by one of them.
First of all the compensation claim is really none of her business if you are referring to the Robert Thompson phone hacking incident. There were several people who had their phones hacked. It is illegal and all are entitled to compensation regardless of who they are should the courts find in their favour.
It certainly wasn’t his fault that his phone was hacked.
The new identities were necessary due the the threats of violence against the killers. What if Robert Thompson has been rehabilitated? He was ten when he commited the crime. Maybe he is different now? He doesnt seem to have caused any trouble since his release. In the eyes of the law he has served his sentence and deserves a second chance.
Or do you feel it is immaterial whether or not he has been?
I have given my opinion on Jon Venables and yes he is due for release shortly. I can’t see him doing much good on the outside. Nevertheless if he is released ….. no I don’t think he is ready. He might never be. Child porn is the lowest of the low. I think it is an addiction and wonder whether there is help for it? He is an adult now and has re-offended – a different scenario.
But I must disagree on both points regarding injustice I’m afraid.
But I do think that the public should know about how these punishments were arrived at and why. Sometimes it is the not knowing that causes the most frustrations for many.
But what one of you says is true. She will ultimately decide what to do and how she will live her life. Nobody but her can decide that and that is the bottom line.
@Steve I understand what you are saying in regards to Robert Thompson’s compensation claim (yes the phone hacking incident) but doesn’t James’s mother have a democratic right to challenge this law where her son’s killer is concerned? I believe she’s made a case as to why she believes Thompson shouldn’t be compensated and isn’t she just putting her case forward? Btw, would you or anyone else here happen to know if it’s legally possible for James’s parents to sue their son’s killers at all?
You keep saying “in the eyes of the law this, that and the other” but I’m simply saying many people, myself included, don’t agree with these laws and we have the right to say so. Would you accept anything because it was law? Legalised apartheid or pedophilia for example?
I believe when laws are made to prioritise the welfare of violent criminals – often killers and abusers of young children – above the welfare and rights of the public then it’s both dangerous and wrong. Laws like that need challenging (and hopefully changing).
I personally don’t believe Robert Thompson is a changed person – even if he appears to be law-abiding now. He was never declared insane so I have to conclude he was simply wicked – and yes – I have heard all the arguments about terrible upbringing (which I don’t doubt he had) and brain developmental stages (I believe he knew right from wrong). But as I all ready said, he wasn’t insane. Therefore I don’t see how it was or is possible for authorities to cure a wicked nature. If he hasn’t reoffended then thank God for that. Of course I agree with many other people here that he wasn’t adequately punished in the first place for his crime. A sentence to me implies some sort of punishment and I don’t see any evidence of this at all.
@ Anonymous :-)
Yes, I believe she does have a democratic legal right to challenge these laws.
Well put by the way!
I am not sure if she could sue the killers but I would think she could and that would be a good idea. I have an idea that their ages would come into it in which case she should try the same case with their parents? They might not have the means to pay though.
This is all suposition by me.
What surprises me is that the parents got away with it for not exercising any control whotsoever over their sons. Bizarre! You cant on one had say they were too young and on the other hand take no action on their guardians surely?
I know I sound like a broken record about the law the reason being that I don’t have the power to change it. Even though as I said before, I do not agree with some of these laws, for me it is very often a case of accepting it knowing I can do nothing about it and until something better comes along what can I do or anyone for that matter? Grin and bear it. There are maybe at most 20 people who write the laws of the country and they are supposed to be led by guidelines and judgement. They would usually be part of the police force and qualified barristers. Office police I think. And as we all know – not all human decisions are without fault. You probably won’t like this but I believe that anyone outside the circle can influence anyone in it if that makes sense?
For many years there were no apatheid or paedophilia laws but from my own personal point of view I have always tried to do what I feel is the right thing. A bit of respect and humanity can go a long way. But sometimes it is necessary to put these to one side – I know that.
While many people believe laws should be challenged, many of those people I think, just talk and do nothing and others may think that to do so will fall on deaf ears with a computer generated standard response.
If people do feel strongly about something, they should follow it through even if in this case ministry of justice were just to explain the reason for the punishment in terms of the crime and period of detention and why or why not there could be changes to it. If they overstep the mark, there is always the option for the criminal of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. They believe that their laws are fair both to the criminal and the victim and because Britain is a member of Europe, she must play ball.
In relation to Robert Thompson, you may well be right but I hope not. I think several people who go through the prison system/yong offenders end up back inside. Not all do though. Some are rehabilitated.
This is not factual as I like but I don’t believe either boy would have taken and killed James alone but together they were lethal. The fact remains they did kill him.
Now I am not a supporter of either killer and am extremely unlikely to cross swords with either but I know of people who have transformed their lives. If you believe Robert Thompson is still the same urchin as he was when he was 10 then fair enough but I know some people grow up, see the light and try to contribute to society in positive ways. Just as I am open to the opinions of others, I am also open to this possibility until something adverse comes to light.
Incidently why do think they were not punished? What do you think happened when they were locked up? And what punishment would you have proposed?
I look foward to your reply :)
In addition to what anonymous has just said I also find it disgraceful that JV was reportedly working in Pizza Hut in Warrington. If this claim is true (I don’t know if it is but it has been widely publicised on here) then I think that is an absolute outrage!! My reasons are as follows:
1) that particular Pizza Hut is a stones throw away from where Denise Fergus lives…who is to say she wouldn’t accidentally (or otherwise) bump into him going about her daily life?!? Loads of people go to Warrington to shop from the surrounding areas!!!
2) this actually shows no respect for Denise Fergus or any of her family because of the proximity of the located..which again I feel is disgusting!!! It simply is too close to where the heinous crime took place!!! WHAT ABOUT THINKING ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE VICTIMS FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PERPETRATORS!?!
3) lots of unknowing parents would have taken their children into that Pizza Hut every hour of every day!!! Why get him a job Woking in the public forum?? This is even more worrying given his more recent pass time!!!
Why put him in a job like that?? I just don’t get it? Surely he would be less likely to be tracked down if he was working somewhere that didn’t involve his path being crossed by hundreds of people everyday!!! I find this a total and utter injustice!!! It seems no thought whatsoever has gone into the this and definitely no consideration has been made for James’ poor family!!! Why would you put a known child murderer in job that would involve working with families and children??? How dare they do that!?! I understand he has to be given a new name and a new job (just) but to place him in an establishment where it is known that children and Denise Fergus could easily go is mind boggling?!?
(Just so you know..it was said at the very start of this conversation (dating back a couple of years) that JV was working in Pizza Hut Warrington).
Hi Anonymous,
In relation to all 3 points I have to agree.
You are quite right!
I wouldn’t call in at injustice but would call it very disrespectful and irresponsible on behalf of the authorities.
Part of his conditions for release was that he was not allowed work with children. This is indirect work with children but still breaks that rule.
I think though that no matter where he was he himself would have divulged his identity. I think he likes to be the centre of attention. What better way to be than telling people who you really are? Just a thought.
I think the claims that he worked in Warrington are true. I can’t mention Pizza Hut or the pictures but I am sure you know the answers to that.
It makes sense to install someone close to the area in which they were institutionalised as they are familiar with the area and can blending in would be easier. This is all supposition on my part though.
Thanks Steve :-)
It is really weird to think that any of us could have come across JV and RT and not even realised!!! It seems obvious to me that people would want to know who and where they are and I feel that the not knowing sometimes fuels people’s desire to track them down…?? It’s a viscous circle really.
I suppose so….
There are other people I am sure, guilty of god only knows what and sometimes we are better off not knowing the details of their personal lives. That way they get a proper chance based on each person’s assessment of them. The thing is, you never know what history the person next door has. Should you know or not? I feel I might be opening a can of worms here. There are vaild reasons for knowing and not knowing. Usually knowing causes panic. I really don’t have an answer for it.
I read that Jon Venables had a few friends until the day he spilled the beans about himself.
I honestly think people’s perception of them is that they are exactly the same people who carried out the crime all those years ago.
The authorities were convinced they were ok at the time of their release and felt the new names would enable them to integrate.
But they should have, by their own rulings, have taken greater care regarding acceptable employment for them and should not have potentially allowed them to cross swords with Denise Fergus either face to face or otherwise by placing JV in an area fairly close to her residence..
Not fair to either party.
What was their game?
@Steve Thanks for replying.
If Thompson is awarded blood-money…oops… I mean compensation, then he’ll definitely have the means to pay. James’s mother should sue him for murdering her son…for the lifetime of anguish she must suffer as a result of his murderous actions.
I also believe a fair share of blame should have been apportioned to both the killer’s parents (for obvious reasons) And to authorities for failing to do anything about Venables’s obvious abnormal state of mind. Alarm bells should have rang when he tried to throttle a fellow pupil at his school.
I don’t really want to get into a long debate about those powers which dictate the laws of the land, it’s suffice to say I don’t believe they are incompetent but rather malevolent and motivated by a very anti-human agenda (I guess you’ll have plenty to say in response though :-)).
I also wouldn’t call Robert Thompson an urchin – the implication of that word being some kind of mischievous impish character. His behaviour went WAY beyond mischievous. I believe Sociopath is far more befitting and I don’t think sociopaths can change.
Last but not least, what punishment for them? My opinion is they should have been locked away for a very, Very long time.
Hi Anonymous.
I do not know what the authorities do in schools nor do I know what the schools do regarding truancy and abnormal behavior but the system is falling down somewhere.
People seem to lack proper values or brush them off as unimportant.
It is a real shame that some people cannot leave their homes without fear of being attacked.
Anyway, yes she should sue.
Robert Thompson may well be a sociopath. Was this condition ever diagnosed?
However many young tearaways mature so I would be open to the possibility of that in his case provided he doesn’t have a serious problem which I may be overlooking?
Thanks for your opinion on the sentence and I accept your point of view and your thinking behind it.
They were sentenced as children though and not as adults.
But I do think whatever the length of the sentence that when they were released afterwards there would have been unhappy people don’t you think? I guess what I am saying is that most decisions are not popular with everybody.
But I do feel that in certain cases that others should be held to account. Parents/Guardians/Teachers/Social Workers/Probation Officers.
Children should be controlled and should never be out of control and if the people in charge cannot or will not there are always others in the chain who can.
I feel that certain people should lose their jobs when they make the wrong decisions regarding truancy, a tendency towards violence, job placements etc. Only then might all those professionals take their roles seriously.
If a doctor amputates the wrong leg or a dentist extracts the wrong tooth, they are held to account. So why not these people and their judgement or lack of it?
Sometimes I wonder exactly how much a human life is worth?
Drunk drivers who kill sometimes get off with a fine and a ban.
But in every case where the killer is released, after whatever period of detention that person gets a second chance while the victim does not.
I can actually see valid arguments for both sides here regarding sentencing and while some of the laws in the country seem stupid and ridiculous to me at least, ultimately it is the bewigged people in those gowns who have the final say.
Sorry :-)
@Steve Thanks once again for your response.
I’ve haven’t heard that he was diagnosed as a sociopath, but in my humble opinion I believe he is one.
I’m sure I read in an earlier post someone mentioned they could have been detained indefinitely even as children? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Still regardless of what the law actually permits, I believe they should have been locked away for a long time – regardless whether they were 10 years old or not.
I know we have very different views about many things but I do appreciate hearing your point of view. Thanks.
But it would be boring if everyone agreed on everything and we don’t disagree on everything :-).
Maybe he is but I have no basis for such an opinion?
Regarding being detained indefinately, I think this may refer to mental unsuitability for society though I stand corrected on it if I am wrong.
I think the term “detention at her majesty’s pleasure” refers to this though when the killers were 18 they were judged by the authorities to no longer pose a threat to society.
The judge imposed sentence and Howard raised it to 10 years and was then informed by the European Court that this was unlawful.
Then look at Jon Venables. Given what came to light, either the people assigned to him did not see the signs and exercised poor judgement, did not give him enough support on the outside or turned a blind eye to his activities. Whatever the reason, (and maybe I am being harsh) their judgement inspired no public confidence whatsoever. Why are they still in their jobs?
The welfare of all citizens should be of equal importance.
I know how you feel and understand but the only possible mitigating circumstances I could offer against that is that they were children. That said, if they were locked up indefinately I would not be campaigning for their release.
Prison and detention centres are supposed to be places of rehabilitation as well as punishment and while many are not rehabilitated, some are. And of course it is easier to teach a child than an adult I think? So the people who recommended these sentences did so I would suggest with that in mind?
But what lessons have the authorities learned from this and what possible measures have they taken to try to prevent it? S(weet) F(rozen) A(pples) I think? Tackling crime is one thing but children with a history of truancy and abuse should be monitored closely by the authorities and if necessary removed from that environment and it would be great too if they were brought up with decent values. Otherwise many will end up neglected and in trouble and may deal out much of the same to their own offspring.
Lots of people do excellent jobs but are let down by some collegues who don’t seem to pull their weight. Maybe my vision of how to build a better country is fantasy?
Steve, I believe there had to be something fundamentally wrong with their minds in order to commit such an atrocity. It goes WAY, WAY beyond “simple” (for want of a better word) troublemaking. I know I’m straying into the whole “planned or unplanned” territory now, but knowing how the whole abduction and subsequent murder of James was carried out convinces me these boys were dangerous psychopaths. First they lured James away from his mother – they must have seemed nice and friendly boys to James or else he wouldn’t have gone to them. They then took him on a long and grim journey, lying to and tricking concerned passers-by. I actually believe a big part of why they had James in their clutches for so long was to psyche themselves up before actually killing him. It must take some nerve after all to make a decision to take someone’s life – And I absolutely do believe they had made that decision. Also, this again shows me they were not insane (as such). Then there are the taped police recordings of the boys in custody following their arrest. Thompson (despite his young voice) shows how cunning, devious and manipulative he is with his denials and attempts to outwit the police officer interviewing him. The only time either boy sounds distressed to me is when they are caught out in their lies – particularly Venables. Even if you don’t accept they are psychopaths, surely you can’t deny they had very damaged minds? I would like to know, how then, are children like this rehabilitated? Do you know what the actual rehabilitation process is in cases like this? It seems to me they were rewarded (more than anything else) for their crime, under the guise of rehabilitation – if you are to believe the reports of how much they were pampered and all the privileges given to them. I also read an article that claimed Venables had sex with a staff member of his secure home. In light of all the recent children’s homes abuse scandals, it wouldn’t surprise me this was true. In all honesty, the whole thing paints a very depressing picture and confirms to me my belief that those in top positions of power don’t have the British publics best interests at heart.
I cannot dispute much of what you say. It is bang on really. I am not sure about the decision to kill, however the fact is – they did kill.
Damaged minds – most definitely.
And the two together – a lethal cocktail.
How could they be rehabilitated?
Well, first they were taken out of a disadvantaged environment without control and full of neglect and put into a confined area where control was exercised. That of course guarantees nothing but gives only a hope.
The punishment was the loss of liberty. Nobody would choose being locked up given a choice, right?
But they were given access to the best of food, tuition and accessories within the young offenders institution. There were also specialists assigned to them. In other words, they were given every opportunity. This was still not a reward as they were confined and locked up every night and during the day. But if you were to overlook the confinement factor then yes, they had better opportunities than most.
The outings came new the end I would say to get them used to the real world.
I would imagine this cost a lot of money?
I read that too about Jon Venables and if true it constituted abuse on the part of the staff member. But in all fairness I cannot and will not defend him after turning his back on a second chance with his child pornography.
We would all love nice food, private tuition, specialists etc but I personally would not be able to handle being locked up.
I think you need to control young people and get them to respect authority without resorting to violence. You also need to give them values and teach them that ertain things offer rewards and independence while others offer punishment and dependency. Even with all this, of course it does not guarantee the “hoped for” results.
In truth I do not know how exactly they operate? Usually encouraging people and being nice to them brings out the very best in them. It looks as though all they knew were the wrong things while they lived at home.
Now I agree with you about not having the public’s best interests at heart but maybe not for the reason you think? If they are willing to invest so much money on young offenders, why can’t they be pro-active and do something to help before these kids are too far gone? They have teachers and to a greater extent social workers. They I think, should play a more hands on role. But I do think so many disadvantaged kids slip though the net because the authorities couldn’t care less!
And unless someone in authority actually spends some time in these places as part of their reseach, they will never fully appreciate what goes on there.
Now I am not against what you say at all but am just open to the fact that ground rules, control and occupation for the children in these peoples give them a better chance of rehabilitation but certainly as you know, does not guarantee it.
Who gives a shit, he’s been dead nearly twenty years. James Bulger doesn’t give a shit what happens to his killers, he’s in the ground.
Maybe instead of theorizing, postulating and having “heated debates” over the internet from the comfort of your couches (the television no doubt switched on in the background) about something that happened decades ago, you could get involved in an issue that’s actually important and relevant; actually try to make a difference in the world. Hundreds of thousands of children die every year all over the world due to things like poverty, war, environmental crisis and yes- at the hands of twisted people. But people kill other people, that’s nature and it has been the way of the human race since our beginning. It doesn’t matter whether it’s right or wrong, it’s something that has been with us since before we even came up with the ideas of right, wrong and morality; it’s something that will be with us until the end of humankind.
Move on. People get so pre-occupied with thinking about the dead; why not think about the living? The people here, now? Maybe if teachers, social workers, authority figures had done so and paid more attention to Venables and Thompson, this never would have happened in the first place.
So Anonymous,
It’s ok to kill and easier to accept because it’s been happening since time began?
But the things we should involve ourselves in would be poverty, war etc… because they are more relevent?
Let’s be honest here. Nobody will ever rid the world of crime and poverty but if people wish to discuss these matters or any other matters in a forum then that is their business and entitlement.
But your suggestion to move on is right in my opinion and yes, those that are living are more relevent than the dead though it is important for many to remember the dead too. And I agree what you say about the people in authority.
The tone of your posting seems full of anger and disgust so I have a suggestion or two for you:
Chill out with a few marshmallows or maybe emigrate to one of these poverty or war stricken countries and give yourself to one of the causes you believe in. You’ll probably die and be eaten, but hey, at least you’ll provide some food for the hungry.
@Steve
I’m not opposed to rehabilitating young offenders where it’s appropriate to do so. I accept many youngsters from troubled backgrounds can be helped in turning their lives around given the opportunities. However, if I am right in thinking Thompson and Venables are sociopaths, then even with all the best intentions – such as those you listed – wouldn’t be enough to cure them of that disorder. I’ve heard that even psychopaths who undergo some form of therapy are just as likely to reoffend as those who don’t. It seems nothing, other than incarceration, works for these people. I do concede I could be wrong, at least about Robert Thompson, but I’m rather convinced I’m not. This then brings me onto another issue I have. Since I have to accept the reality that (at least) one of these child killers is now free, I strongly believe James’s parents (if not the public) should be kept updated at all times as to the whereabouts of their son’s killer/s. I know there is the argument this would put their lives at risk but I believe the risk to James’s family from the killers should be prioritised first and foremost. Since both killers are monitored closely (supposedly) I would have thought the risk to them would be minimal anyway.
@Anonymous(1:35 am)
I think what you actually mean when you say “move on” is – forget about injustice and forget about James Bulger. I think that’s what nazis say to holocaust victims who are still fighting for justice more than 60 years later!
I can tell you I will never forget the sweet little angel James or other victims of injustice because to do so would take away my humanity. I guess though, that’s what people like you actually want to see happen. However, thank you for commenting, it’s good to see the true ugly face of atheism :-)
Replying to Anonymous at 4.10
You could be correct in saying they are sociopaths but I wasn’t aware they had been diagnosed with this condition and until they have I have an open mind.
I respect your opinion though.
As I mentioned in an earlier post I believe Jon Venables to be a danger both to himself and others. To me child porn = abnormal.
But you know it is not possible to divulge their whereabouts for fear of reprisals.Robert Thompson is free on life licence but that doesn’t mean he is on a lead.
To Anonymous at 4.24.
I will always remember James because of the horrific murder not because of what happened subsequent to that. I think moving on is good for mind and body but it is easier said than done in certain cases and that does not mean we should ever forget.
But the main thing is that he is remembered….
It doesn’t matter how long he has been dead Anonymous!!! He shouldn’t be ‘in the ground’ as you so eloquently put it!!! There are plenty of people out there that will never forget that little boy and you should be ashamed of yourself for talking about his passing with such disrespect!!! In case you haven’t notice this whole forum was started by people who actually care about this particular crime so if you are one of the haters then stay the hell of the thread!!!
“In case you haven’t notice this whole forum was started by people who actually care about this particular crime so if you are one of the haters then stay the hell of the thread!!!”
No, this thread was started by a self righteous half-wit condemning two murderers whilst giving his readers information which could result in murder.
Steve, no I’m not saying it’s okay to kill and easy to accept because things have been this way since the beginning. I’m saying it doesn’t matter at all; killing is a part of nature; it’s not right or wrong it’s just the way the world works.
I never said that I believed in the causes that I mentioned or that I cared about them, I said that they were more relevant than James Bulgers murder.
To the individual referring to the ugly face of atheism and the holocaust; I’m not an atheist, I just don’t ascribe to the beliefs of Islam, Judaism or Christianity. I don’t believe in the concepts of morality; right, wrong; sin; because those concepts make absolutely no sense unless you believe in the Christian/ Islamic concept or ideal of god.
To Anonymous March 24 at 1.24.
You are entitled to hold any beliefs you wish but if you do not believe in the concepts of right and wrong what values do you hold?
And if you do not believe in the concepts of right and wrong why then even bother to critisise the owner of the thread? And according to your writing if T & V die at the hands of someone, what does it matter? Surely what is the goose is good for the gander?
Now, I do not believe they should be killed. I think they should be left to the authorities to manage.
My reasons for this are that two wrongs do not make a write and secondly when I think of how I was when I was younger. I came from a good home but always looked for adventure, a laugh and did many things without thinking of the consequences. For me it was the adrenoline, the excitement rather than thinking about any wrong doing. I regret what I did and the trouble I caused to people. I still feel guilty now. I could quite easily have ended up in one of those secure places.
Over time though I grew up, matured and tried to do the right thing. I’d like to think despite my past that I am a decent human being and that is why I am able to give others the benefit of the doubt. It is very hard to convince people you have changed but if people hadn’t given me a second chance, I doubt know how my life might have turned out.
Jon Venables has blown his chance. Robert Thompson has not. Nobody will ever forget what they did and if he has changed I am sure that not a day goes by that Robert Thompson doesn’t regret what he did. However there is nothing he can say or do to change things. He can only try to move forward like the rest of us. Now I know many others have their own opinions and probably won’t agree but that is my stance on it as an ex-towrag!
@Steve
Are you saying that when you were a tow rag (your words not mine), that you could have abducted and tortured a toddler to death?
@Anonymous(1:24am)
Well if you don’t ascribe to any of those beliefs and you are not an atheist, what are you then? A satanist?
So because I’m not a Jew, Christian or Muslim and don’t ascribe to their ethics your first assumption is that I’m a Satanist?
I’m not a Satanist, I just don’t blindly follow this Manichean world view that so many people buy into without a second thought.
He asked the question, albeit in a kind of leading way. Despite T&V obviously breaking some objective moral values, this thread isn’t about the origin of those said values. I would ask people don’t insult each other.
There is no such thing as an objective moral value, if there were, we would all agree on them and know them– they would be universal. If there is such a thing, where do they exist? What makes them objective? What are they?
It’s not like morality is some tangible force working through the world or that these are laws of nature, these are ideas that differ from person to person.
For instance, in certain parts of the world homosexual behavior is an offence punishable by death, whereas in the west it’s seen (for the most part) as love. In certain parts of the world, women are property with no identity or power of their own, in the west women are equal to men. In some parts of the world (particularly Muslim countries), children as young as nine years old are married off to old men (like the prophet Mohammed– one of his wives was eight); in the west this would be seen as pedophilia. You believe the murder of a human being is intrinsically evil, I don’t even believe in the concept of good or evil.
Reply to Anonymous at 6.11.
I never physically hurt or abused anyone
@Anonymous (8:42pm)
Unlike you, who assumes all of us here must be TV addicted couch potatoes, I don’t assume anything until I know the facts. I’m afraid you haven’t made yourself very clear.
Btw, I never said morality depended on following any organised religion.
@Anonymous
I agree with you to a certain extent in that not all values are universal, or applicable to every society. However, practically every culture has developed a set of rules which guide its existence. In fact the history of civilization is a history of taboos. One would be tempted to say that taboos are what distinguishes humans from animals, but even animals have taboos, which are at times more strict than those of the humans. A civilization in which there is no distinction between right and wrong is a short-lived one, and perhaps isn’t a civilization at all. This axiom has been proven many a times throughout history, the latest example regrettably being the moral decay of the European civilization. There is indeed a set of core values with which most cultures can and do identify, probably because those are rooted in human nature. Surely, there is no empirical or quantitative tool for measuring good or evil, right or wrong, ugly or pretty. If you wish to maintain that Michelangelo’s David is ugly whereas some work of “modern art” is beautiful, no one can prove you wrong, just as no one could ever prove to you that murder is wrong. However, any society concerned with its own survival in the future will simply have to go on even without your approval.
Replying to Anonymous at 12.00
I believe everyone should have their own morals and live by those within the law.
The guidelines for the wrongs are set in law by the countries in which we live.
While you might claim self defence in relation to murder or having no food in relation to stealing, the wrongs are quite clear cut. Public opinion does not enter into the equation as there is a law involved.
Comparining works of art, television programmes, the weather etc.. is an opinion only and opinions differ.
Areas for debate would be the killing of animals for example. Some people think it is wrong, others think it is right. The guideline if legal is to carry out a humane killing of an animal. However it is much more clearcut with humans.
What a person considers right it is connected to their own beliefs and morals. Sometimes and a bit of kindness and empathy towards other human beings can go a long way.
Now I believe what makes a person who they are depends on a number of different factors and while it might have taken some of us a while to respect other human beings at least I feel I have achieved that.
The law has nothing to do with morality and it never has. Law is about social order and popular opinion.
Human beings are animals. The “humane killing” of a pig, a horse, a cat, is no different to the “humane killing” of a human being.
It never ceases to amaze me how low people are.
Thompson has paid his debt to society and is now a protected citizen.
There is no doubt in my mind as to who the dangerous ones are!
The supporters of Denise Fergus and the Wailers especially the ones on this site.
You have no respect for any citizen and are prepared to carry out your own punishment just because you don’t like someone.
And you are so stupid that you cannot see that Fergus makes he living from this.
The only injustice in all of this is that you were not all sterilized at birth thereby sparing the rest of us from creating similarly simplistic and irrational individuals in your images.
James Bulger is dead so I suggest you all move on from this so called drama and stop trying to play God!
To Anonymous March 30th @ 10.49.
I never said that the law had anything to do with morality.
What I said was people should have their own morals and stick by them provided they do not involve breaking the law.
The law has very little to do with popular opinion – another sweeping statement!
It is supposedly written without predudice to provide rules for people in order to achieve some kind of social order. Although some laws are not popular, they are designed to try to be fair to all and not influenced by emotions, public or otherwise.
And no, people are humans, animals are animals. There is a vast difference.
Now you are being ridiculous and simplistic!
They humane killing of a human opens up an a different sort of debate and in my opinion is outside the scope of and irrelevant to this one.
Actually, you used the word “wrongs” a couple of times when talking about law and in saying that people should have their own morals, stick by them, so long as the person lives within the law; you are in effect saying “believe what you want, so long as what you believe is not contrary to that which the majority believes. In that instance, forget about your own ethics and do what everybody else does, irregardless of how you feel about it.”
The law is influenced by popular opinion. A few centuries ago, blacks couldn’t marry whites; women couldn’t vote; homosexuals couldn’t be together; paganism and witchcraft were punishable by death. It was the popular opinion at that time that black people were subservient, that women weren’t intellectually capable of having a say in politics, that homosexuals were disgusting and evil, that anybody that didn’t ascribe to the religious beliefs of the time were monsters- and the law reflected this.
Today Britain is much more liberal. Times have changed, opinions have changed and evolved- the law reflects this. If the law was not influenced by popular opinion, we would still be allowed to keep black slaves, gay people would be rounded up and put in prison, women wouldn’t be able to vote, anybody with an alternative spiritual view would be burned at the stake.
“And no, people are humans, animals are animals. There is a vast difference.
Now you are being ridiculous and simplistic!”
We are all animals, fact. Mammals actually- that’s basic biology. Cats, dogs, pigs experience fear, pain, anger, pleasure, lust. You think a pig or a cow doesn’t experience outright terror just because it’s being “humanely killed”, by being electrically stunned before it has its throat cut open?
I’m not saying it’s wrong to kill animals for food or clothing because I don’t believe that, it’s natural order that animals higher up on the food chain prey on animals beneath it but I’m just saying that the killing of a human is no different to the killing of an animal. Not to the earth or the stars or to this universe that has endured for billions of years and will endure for billions more— accept for the people too involved in mundane circumstance to be able to think logically, objectively. The death of a cow is no different, no more or less important than the death of an old woman or a young child, it makes no different to the planet. It’s natural order that creatures die one way or another.
Now, your pre-occupation with “morality” and with this egotistical, arrogant Manichean thoughtless view– that is truly ridiculous and simplistic.
You think that because we can divide numbers by pi, draw pictures and light candles that we are automatically the most important creatures in existence- that we matter more than anything else.
That’s just bullshit.
Reply to Anonymous 9.13.
Regarding my words on laws and morals. I have explained them once for you and will not do so again!
I am talking about the laws of today. Laws have developed over time as have some humans. You can disagree with this if you wish, I don’t care.
Correct!!! Humans and animals are mammals. Now you have it right.
But not all mammals are animals.
Now, as I said before, this is a public forum and people are entitled to have different views. I am quite willing to defend my opinions on the killers but refuse to get side tracked on issues that do not concern me. By all means, misquote me, make assumptions and even insult me if that is what you choose to do but if you do, could you at least try to connect it to something relevant to the original posting?
As for the rest of your argument, you are entitled to your beliefs but again I never said humans were the most important creatures in existence. You wrongly assumed it.
This forum is about whether the identities of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables should be revealed to the public as you know.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just telling you that you’re wrong. It isn’t that you don’t make sense or that I don’t like your opinion, you’re just full of bullshit and clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Laws of today have developed over time to become what they are, yes. But so is the case for the laws of yesterday and so will be the case for the law tomorrow and the law two hundred years from now. Law changes as people change and if what I’m saying is absolutely preposterous to you then sit down and read a history book.
Incorrect, all mammals are animals. Open a dictionary or google it.
The definition of animal:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=animal+definition&aq=f&oq=animal+definition&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j0l2j61j0.2667&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The definition of mammal:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=animal+definition&aq=f&oq=animal+definition&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j0l2j61j0.2667&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=mammal+definition&oq=mammal+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0i20j0i7l2j0l2j0i7l5.450495.451031.1.451258.6.6.0.0.0.2.224.741.3j2j1.6.0…0.0…1c.1.7.serp.HXAeDIXO5YM&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.d2k&fp=7dac3329f46c1ced&biw=1366&bih=677
I like how you were prepared to go off topic and argue with me until this clearly got over your head intellectually.
Joe – you are a cretin. They haven’t paid any debt. James is dead at their hands. Should we forget therefore? Should we let them move on?
No.
Fucking idiot. They will pay their debt and that is a definate.
People like you make me sick to the core.
Ssmith, do the world a favour and get yourself neutered!
Then cut down on the booze. You won’t feel so sick then!
Replying to Anonymous April 1 @ 1.10.
My apologies your definition of mammals/animals is correct. My mistake. Quite an embarrassment!
But you also made incorrect statements regarding some of my postings as you know!
As I said you are entitled to your opinion as I am. Regarding laws, what you say in your latest post is acceptable to me but I repeat – the law pertaining to this case is not influenced by popular opinion at all as mentioned by you in an earlier post. The laws are written by a select few who are not influenced by the emotions of others. If that were the case the Bulger killers would have been locked away for life as the law would have been changed due to popular opinion, don’t you agree?
I do agree that certain laws have come about as a social necessity over time and that some are influenced by popular opinion but sentencing is not so simple. Yes they will change over time but not as a result of popular opinion, rather as a result of agreement between a select few who are in a position to do so.
Again my disagreement with what you said concern the words “popular opinion”. In this case it does not apply. Again other laws are of no interest or relevance in this case. This is the case about which we are writing and the laws relevant to it are the only ones that matter in this case.
So why refer to other laws which have absolutely nothing to do with this case?
Also Anonymous, respect other people’s rights to have a point of view. There is a right and wrong way of doing things. I do not mind debating or having people disagree with me but will not entertain personal insults from anyone dispite what I said earlier. There is no need for it and it shows poor character.
Joe,
reply to your own posts!
“Are you demanding that the UK become completely out of step with most of the rest of the planet, just to satisfy your and Denise Fergus’ need for greater vengeance?”
No I am demanding that the democracy known as the United Kingdom have laws that reflect the will of the people of the United Kingdom and not simply goose-step to the marching band of other countries.
“you don’t even know precisely what the crime was, above and beyond simple murder. As I already pointed out, what precisely occurred – and with what degree of premeditation – remains to this day a complete question mark.”
There was abduction and murder. There could not have been provocation and the mitigating factor of not knowing what they were doing, is offset by the fact that they had time to think about what they were doing before the final act and also the fact that when caught they blamed each other.
“The stuff about a “boarding school” is complete nonsense… It’s not a boarding school, it does not resemble a boarding school.”
Did they not reside there? Did they not get an education there? It was a boarding school.
“And if you don’t like that punishment, then move to Saudi Arabia or Iran, which are the kinds of societies that may give you the kind of punishment you demand.”
I could just as easily tell you that if you don’t like the fact that they were tried and convicted, move to Scandinavia.
“Neither Denise Fergus nor “justice” were betrayed – unless you think the entirety of Europe and most of the world are also “betraying” justice by either a) refusing to prosecute 10 year olds, or b) putting them through the juvenile courts (non-adversarial) instead of the adult courts, and c) giving the perpetrators sentences proportionate to what JV and RT got.”
As I have said British law is made by the British parliament, elected by the British people. We do not have to follow others like bleating sheep.
“Nonsense. This is all clearly reported by David James Smith in his book. It is also reported in some detail by several other journalists. It is as solidly established as anything in the factual record in this case – and far more on a solid factual basis, by the way, than any of your assumptions about Denise Fergus’ Justice for James campaign.”
You have blithely ignored the fact that psychiatrists and psychologists are not supposed to talk about their patients to the press. If they have done so, then they have already breached the ethics of their profession and so anything they have said is suspect.
“You seem to be quite addicted to double standards, dismissing whatever I say as not sufficiently grounded in fact – and automatically dismissing expert opinions, legal rulings, and journalistic reportage of anything at all that doesn’t square with how you see things. And yet, at the very same time, you feel no need to place your own assumptions on any kind of factual grounding at all.”
I distinguish between facts and opinions. I disagree with the European Court on the grounds that the ability to tell a lawyer what happened, to say what they did and to blame the other party is sufficient capacity to be able to “instruct” counsel. Anything beyond that is the lawyers job. I question reports that p[urportedly emanate from psychiatrist6s for the reasons stated above.
“Your rubbish about JV and RT going to boarding schools isn’t grounded in anything factual.”
The institutions they were sent to were residential and they were educated there. Ergo they are boarding schools.
“ Your groundless speculation about what Denise and Stuart Fergus are doing with the money they receive from tabloids – and why they have this relationship with the tabs – is essentially rooted in nothing factual.”
You have misunderstood me completely – of effected to. I have not disputed that she is living off the money (just as a full-time charity worker lives off their wages). I have simply noted that in sdo doing she is enabled to campaign full-time, just as full-time charity worker is able to work full-time for charity because they are paid wages.
“But there is nothing particularly “mediated” about JV’s nightmares over and above anything else reported about this story or indeed any news story.”
He told them to you? You have yourself pointed out that many of the stories that have appeared in the press about JV and RT are false. What makes these stories that you believe any more reliable.
“No I am demanding that the democracy known as the United Kingdom have laws that reflect the will of the people of the United Kingdom and not simply goose-step to the marching band of other countries.”
I already pointed out to you that on forum after forum, website after website, opinions are divided as to whether or not justice was done. It is by no means the case that everyone agrees that Denise Fergus was denied justice. Many, many people believe she did receive justice at the time. Those who squawk the loudest about injustice or a slap on the wrist do not necessarily represent the majority.
It is by no means the case that your opinion that justice was not done represents the will of the people. It merely represents the perspective of some people.
A more accurate view of the matter that the one you present is this one on another discussion board:
“To be honest, most rational/intelligent people don’t get excited about the Bulger case, it’s usually the less rational/less intelligent – and they just happen to have the loudest voices.”
You are continuing to pretend that a consensus public view exists (that some terrible injustice was done to Denise Fergus) that does not in fact exist. The Daily Mail even had to admit (if you read between the lines) that one of their typically hysterical campaigns in 2010, after the reimprisonment of Venables, had met with relatively little public support.
As for “goose-stepping” to the laws of other countries, you seem to forget that the onus is on you to provide a valid argument for changing British law. So far you have failed to provide any such argument. Under the law as it currently stands, and as it stood 20 years ago when this crime was committed, the eight year sentence in a secure unit that JV and RT were sentenced to is a valid, viable, proportionate sentence, a sentence that was in keeping with other sentences for comparable cases both within and without British borders.
Therefore, by accepting that sentence as valid, nobody is “goose-stepping” to the laws of a different country. That is UK law. You have failed to provide a shred of proof that this law is contrary to the will of the people. So your argument is fundamentally flawed. You have, as of today, still mounted no case to speak of for having the law changed.
UK law, as of today and as of 20 years ago, supports the particular sentencing JV and RT got. UK law, as of today and as of 20 years ago, does not support the sentencing you demand.
That is UK law, not goose-stepping to foreign law.
“There was abduction and murder.”
There is no evidence of any real premeditation. The abduction, initially, appears to be nothing more than a stupid prank, not a methodical plan to kill. There was murder, but premeditated murder is wholly unproven. On the basis of the established facts, there is nothing to justify a longer and harsher sentence that they received.
“There could not have been provocation and the mitigating factor of not knowing what they were doing, is offset by the fact that they had time to think about what they were doing before the final act and also the fact that when caught they blamed each other.”
They were apparently advised by their lawyers to blame the other boy. So the fact they blamed each other proves nothing: it was lawyerly advice and says nothing about what their mindset or their behaviour would’ve been without having been given that advice.
The mitigating factor of not knowing what they were doing is NOT offset by the fact that they had time to think about what they were doing before the final act, since there is no proof whatsoever that the “final act” was planned or intended beforehand.
“Did they not reside there? Did they not get an education there? It was a boarding school.”
No, it was not. In boarding schools, people’s every movement and behaviour is not controlled as it is in these units. There have been articles and documentaries on what these places are like and they are not boarding schools or holiday camps. The rooms look like jail cells in many respects.
In adult jails, prisoners often receive some education and skills training as well, in preparation for their release. That hardly makes them boarding schools. They are still jails. Why would you expect juvenile prisoners not to receive an education when adult prisoners do (in all democratic nations, not just the UK)?
“I could just as easily tell you that if you don’t like the fact that they were tried and convicted, move to Scandinavia.”
I’m fine with the eight year sentences they received. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the hysterical and mendacious tabloid coverage, as well as with people who claim that some kind of injustice was done to Denise Fergus simply because they didn’t get 20 or 25 years behind bars. That – and that alone – is the reason I raised the issue of how much “justice” she would have received from all the rest of Europe: considerably less than she did receive.
The onus is on you, not me, to demonstrate that an injustice was done to her. You have completely failed to do that.
“You have blithely ignored the fact that psychiatrists and psychologists are not supposed to talk about their patients to the press. If they have done so, then they have already breached the ethics of their profession and so anything they have said is suspect.”
The testimony of the experts who examined JV and RT was used in court, so whatever they revealed about the mentality and emotional reactions of JV and RT is a matter of public knowledge. They were not disclosing the contents of private therapy sessions, they were sessions with experts who were trying to determine the maturity levels, emotional responses, and psychological health of these two boys in the aftermath of their crime, as well as their fitness to stand trial. That JV and RT experienced multiple symptoms of PTSD, nightmares, and flashbacks is not some private or secret knowledge.
“I distinguish between facts and opinions. I disagree with the European Court on the grounds that the ability to tell a lawyer what happened, to say what they did and to blame the other party is sufficient capacity to be able to “instruct” counsel.”
You do not distinguish between facts and opinions. Your posts are rife with unsubstantiated suppositions. For instance, you refuse to admit that you don’t actually know what happened in that final 20 minutes of James’ life, and that, in reality, EVERY imaginative recreation of those final moments is just as purely speculative as MY recreation. You accuse me of speculation yet don’t actually acknowledge that every single theory of James’ death is just as much of a speculation. So obviously you DON’T distinguish between facts and opinions, since if you were honest with yourself on this point, you’d see that your beliefs about the nature of the crime are not one iota less rooted in “opinion,” and not one iota more rooted in positive concrete “fact,” than mine are.
You accuse me of not distinguishing between facts and opinions, yet every single statement I’ve ever read from members of Denise Fergus’ fan base is rife with supposition and speculation that doesn’t admit to itself that’s what it is.
You earlier accused the European Court of bleeding heart liberalism, claiming its reason for ruling the trial unfair was mere left-wing prejudice and not a reasoned examination of the factual record. You didn’t prove this to be a fact, you merely stated yet another an unsubstantiated opinion.
“The institutions they were sent to were residential and they were educated there. Ergo they are boarding schools.”
Their movements, activities, and behaviour are rigidly regulated and controlled. They have very little freedom while they are there. Their rooms look very much like jail cells, the only difference being they aren’t’ quite as Spartan (though they are still Spartan). In adult prisons, there is education and job training as well. But they are still jails nevertheless.
“You have misunderstood me completely – of effected to. I have not disputed that she is living off the money (just as a full-time charity worker lives off their wages). I have simply noted that in sdo doing she is enabled to campaign full-time, just as full-time charity worker is able to work full-time for charity because they are paid wages.”
First of all, she has never publicly declared a single intellectual coherent or sensible goal, apart from her attempts to have JV and RT kept locked up for the rest of their lives (or given the death penalty). So it is not a very valid comparison to compare what she’s doing to charity work.
Secondly, it’s irrelevant to the larger point that you are trying to evade. A previous poster claimed that she makes substantial amounts of money from her tabloid interviews. You then leaped down his throat and accused him of lying. But he was not lying and everything he stated was factually true. Regardless of why she is taking the money (and you have no proof whatsoever that she is taking the money so she can work full-time towards acquiring “justice” for James), the initial poster’s claims were factually correct. Everything else you have said about this matter is simply an attempt to deny the factual truth of the intial claim about Denise financially profiting from her tabloid interviews.
Are you going to claim that her son and her husband Stuart are also going down the tabloid route because they just absolutely have to devote their lives to working for “justice” for James?
“He told them to you? You have yourself pointed out that many of the stories that have appeared in the press about JV and RT are false. What makes these stories that you believe any more reliable.”
Well, they were reported by more responsible journalists like David James Smith. They were not reported by John Kay, the homicidal Sun reporter who murdered his wife and went on to head up the Sun’s hate campaign against JV and RT. The byline of the person doing the reporting has much to do with how much credibility they should be granted.
“I already pointed out to you that on forum after forum, website after website, opinions are divided as to whether or not justice was done. It is by no means the case that everyone agrees that Denise Fergus was denied justice. Many, many people believe she did receive justice at the time. Those who squawk the loudest about injustice or a slap on the wrist do not necessarily represent the majority.”
Forum’s are not the best place to test public opinion. We need a people’s parliament chosen like a jury (sortition) to have a truly representative parliament.
“It is by no means the case that your opinion that justice was not done represents the will of the people. It merely represents the perspective of some people.”
By the same token, YOUR opinion that justice was not done because they were tried at all! Your opinion appears to be that justice would have been served by sending them to a few sessions with a psychiatrist to help them come to terms with killing a toddler!
“To be honest, most rational/intelligent people don’t get excited about the Bulger case, it’s usually the less rational/less intelligent – and they just happen to have the loudest voices.”
The fact that you can accept the murder of a toddler with equanimity is testament not to your rationality but to your perverse ethics.
“As for “goose-stepping” to the laws of other countries, you seem to forget that the onus is on you to provide a valid argument for changing British law. So far you have failed to provide any such argument. Under the law as it currently stands, and as it stood 20 years ago when this crime was committed, the eight year sentence in a secure unit that JV and RT were sentenced to is a valid, viable, proportionate sentence, a sentence that was in keeping with other sentences for comparable cases both within and without British borders.”
You call eight years for murder “proportionate”? This a week we saw a man get a 20 year tariff for the murder of a paedophile while another got 15 years for the “manslaughter” of six children – go figure! You might say that manslaughter is less serious. But he did it in an effort to frame his ex-girlfriend for arson because she left him.
“Therefore, by accepting that sentence as valid, nobody is “goose-stepping” to the laws of a different country.”
But YOU have suggested that we SHOULD fall into line with Europe! That IS goose-stepping!
“You have, as of today, still mounted no case to speak of for having the law changed.”
I have. The law today is too soft on murderers. Maybe you think eight years is enough for murdering a toddler, but I don’t.
“There is no evidence of any real premeditation.”
That is irrelevant. At the time when they abducted him, they were were already doing something wrong. At the time they killed him (by throwing bricks at him) they were attempting to cause either death or grievous bodily harm. That is the requisite mal;ice aforethought to constitute murder in English law.
“They were apparently advised by their lawyers to blame the other boy. So the fact they blamed each other proves nothing: it was lawyerly advice and says nothing about what their mindset or their behaviour would’ve been without having been given that advice.”
So now you are privy to their privileged conversations with their lawyers?
“The mitigating factor of not knowing what they were doing is NOT offset by the fact that they had time to think about what they were doing before the final act, since there is no proof whatsoever that the “final act” was planned or intended beforehand.”
The fact that it was not planned does not mean that they did not know that it was wrong to throw bricks at a toddler.
“No, it was not. In boarding schools, people’s every movement and behaviour is not controlled as it is in these units. There have been articles and documentaries on what these places are like and they are not boarding schools or holiday camps. The rooms look like jail cells in many respects.”
A strict boarding school.
“I’m fine with the eight year sentences they received. I have no problem with that.”:
Yet you prattle that it was unfair that they were tried for murder at all.
“The testimony of the experts who examined JV and RT was used in court, so whatever they revealed about the mentality and emotional reactions of JV and RT is a matter of public knowledge. They were not disclosing the contents of private therapy sessions, they were sessions with experts who were trying to determine the maturity levels, emotional responses, and psychological health of these two boys in the aftermath of their crime, as well as their fitness to stand trial. That JV and RT experienced multiple symptoms of PTSD, nightmares, and flashbacks is not some private or secret knowledge.”
Yet it failed to convince the jury.
“You earlier accused the European Court of bleeding heart liberalism, claiming its reason for ruling the trial unfair was mere left-wing prejudice and not a reasoned examination of the factual record. You didn’t prove this to be a fact, you merely stated yet another an unsubstantiated opinion.”
Just as it was merely the court’s opinion that they lacked the capacity to instruct counsel.
“First of all, she has never publicly declared a single intellectual coherent or sensible goal, apart from her attempts to have JV and RT kept locked up for the rest of their lives (or given the death penalty). So it is not a very valid comparison to compare what she’s doing to charity work.”
You just misunderstood her goals. They are clear and legitimate – even if you disagree with them.
“Regardless of why she is taking the money (and you have no proof whatsoever that she is taking the money so she can work full-time towards acquiring “justice” for James), the initial poster’s claims were factually correct. Everything else you have said about this matter is simply an attempt to deny the factual truth of the intial claim about Denise financially profiting from her tabloid interviews.”
Do you have any evidence that she is spending her time on leisure activitities?
“Are you going to claim that her son and her husband Stuart are also going down the tabloid route because they just absolutely have to devote their lives to working for “justice” for James?”
Are you going to claim that you have audited his accounts or know that he does not work? Working does not necessarily mean being employed by others.
“Well, they were reported by more responsible journalists like David James Smith.”
But who reported them to him?
“The mitigating factor of not knowing what they were doing is NOT offset by the fact that they had time to think about what they were doing before the final act, since there is no proof whatsoever that the “final act” was planned or intended beforehand.”
If they had time to think that the abduction was wrong (as they did) then they should also have realized that it would be wrong to do anything worse than abduction.
What they were doing was already clearly wrong BEFORE it got to the murder stage. So they DID have time to realize that what they were doing was wrong and that it would be wrong to do anything further along the limes of harming the boy.
“Forum’s are not the best place to test public opinion. We need a people’s parliament chosen like a jury (sortition) to have a truly representative parliament.”
You have not based your opinion that your position represents the will of the people on anything other than hearsay and internet message boards. I would guess that IF the full extent of what is known about how such cases are handled internationally, IF the whole public became educated on just what the age of responsibility is in other countries and what the typical punishments are and aren’t, you would see similar reactions to what I saw on Digital Spy (a widespread awareness that JV and RT were not leniently treated by international standards).
“The fact that you can accept the murder of a toddler with equanimity is testament not to your rationality but to your perverse ethics.”
No, the fact that you continue to harp on and obsess over the murder of THIS PARTICULAR TODDLER, to the exclusion of due consideration of all the other innocent babies and children killed before and since (the vast majority of whom were killed by adult perpetrators or killed by simple neglect or famine or war), speaks to the perverseness of your own voyeuristic ghoulishness, shallow sympathy, and hypocritical vengefulness.
There is nothing admirable about the voyeurism and ghoulish fascination surrounding this particular crime. And there is absolutely nothing that makes the death of James Bulger any more tragic than the needless death of any other murdered child.
“By the same token, YOUR opinion that justice was not done because they were tried at all! Your opinion appears to be that justice would have been served by sending them to a few sessions with a psychiatrist to help them come to terms with killing a toddler!”
First, I have never expressed the view you attribute to me here. This is yet another false statement of yours. Where did I claim that a couple therapy sessions would constitute ample treatment? This is a crude caricature of my position and the position of most everyone who deems the trial unfair.
Secondly, I’ve never claimed the eight year sentence was too long, whereas you HAVE claimed the eight year sentence was far too short. Therefore, once again, the onus is on you, not me, to make some sort of cogent case. So far, you, like Denise Fergus and all her public supporters, have not done so.
“You call eight years for murder “proportionate”?”
Yes: proportionate to the sentences handed down, both inside and outside of the UK, to other 10, 11, or 12-year-old killers. The rest of your comments here are irrelevant.
“But YOU have suggested that we SHOULD fall into line with Europe! That IS goose-stepping!”
No it’s not. It’s pointing out that you’ve made no cogent case for your position, as Mrs. Fergus also has not.
You, on the other hand, obviously are an advocate of goose-stepping, given that you previously accuse anyone who doesn’t defer to Mrs. Fergus on the issue of appropriate punishment as being “wrong-thinking” and heartless “hypocrites.” That is a demand for goose-stepping all right.
“That is irrelevant. At the time when they abducted him, they were were already doing something wrong. At the time they killed him (by throwing bricks at him) they were attempting to cause either death or grievous bodily harm.
The “doing something wrong” was just a stupid childish prank, not a methodically planned kidnapping scheme. It makes all the difference in the world between these two hypothetical situations. At the time they killed him, it DOES make a huge difference if they intended to kill him or not (and that the intent to commit homicide was there remains unproven speculation).
“That is the requisite malice aforethought to constitute murder in English law.”
Obviously, they have to understand the full ramifications of what they are doing first. As I already pointed out, the very expert whose testimony was used to establish mens rea later offered public criticisms of the trial, as some members of the jury also did (including stating if they had to do it all again, they wouldn’t have returned the same verdict!).
“The fact that it was not planned does not mean that they did not know that it was wrong to throw bricks at a toddler.”
Yes, but there’s an enormous difference between throwing bricks and consciously, deliberately planning to throw bricks and rocks with the express purpose of ending his life. I have already sketched a plausible alternate explanation (the PTSD-induced rage hypothesis) which would explain how unpleasant bad behaviour degenerated into a total horror show.
This explanation is not proven but neither has it been disproven. And since it is not disproven, it has to remain on the table as a viable explanation.
“I have. The law today is too soft on murderers. Maybe you think eight years is enough for murdering a toddler, but I don’t.”
No you haven’t. I will repost here a pertinent post from The Guardian’s website by dottie30:
“Not sure if people know that in the nineteenth century there was a virtual identical case to the Bulger killing (although the killers were slightly younger). Two kids took a two year old from its carer, walked him miles (where they were seen by multiple adults) and eventually took him to a secluded spot where they stripped him, and battered him to death.
The boys names were Barrett and Bradley and they were dealt with completely differently. Firstly, there was a sense that murder was a specific adult crime which required a specific adult mens rea so they were convicted of manslaughter. They were sent to progressive reformatory institutions (where, like Thompson and Venables they were taken outside regularly and in fact were not even incarcerated as such). They were sentenced to five years and one actually served less than that because he made such good progress. When the sentence was handed down, the public gallery applauded as it seemed right to try to reclaim such young children. The word ‘evil’ was never used (although the judge did say they had been ‘wicked’ boys and he desired to send them somewhere where they would learn to be ‘good boys and good men’). They never came into contact with the criminal justice system again.
Roll on 150 years and we descend to neanderthals hammering on vans with two young children inside and issuing frothing threats on their life. We’ve gone backwards.”
Victorian England was actually far “softer” on the JV and RT of its day.
“Yet you prattle that it was unfair that they were tried for murder at all.”
I’m taking the attitude that what’s done is done. I am not battling and waging a campaign to have their criminal records overturned or their life licenses abolished or further financial compensation granted to them.
Denise Fergus and her supporters (like you), on the other hand, have demanded and continue to demand all sorts of further punishments, so it necessarily follows they have to make a cogent case. She hasn’t done so, and neither have you. She and you are making serious demands, I and those who think like me are not making any demands. Big difference.
“Yet it failed to convince the jury.”
That they had nightmares and flashbacks and severe trauma as a consequence of what they did has no relevance to the verdict of guilty or not guilty. It doesn’t dispute that they did it. What it does suggest is that they’re not any kind of psychopath (google the Gemma Hayter murder story for a strikingly different and genuinely remorseless and cold-blooded reaction on the part of the killers).
“Just as it was merely the court’s opinion that they lacked the capacity to instruct counsel.”
They examined all the relevant data before coming to their decision. You didn’t. And there was more to their reasoning than only that. That wasn’t the sole reason they offered.
“Are you going to claim that you have audited his accounts or know that he does not work? Working does not necessarily mean being employed by others.”
Denise Fergus herself revealed this picture of her family in her most recent round of interviews. It’s a legitimate inference from the picture she herself has drawn.
You have no factual basis for your attribution of such honourable and admirable motives to the family. Being the victim of a terrible tragedy does not automatically make one a saint or hero. And being the spouse of a victim certainly doesn’t.
“You just misunderstood her goals. They are clear and legitimate – even if you disagree with them.”
If they’re so clear and legitimate, then what exactly are they? You can read half a dozen interviews with her and find her articulating half a dozen different and mutually exclusive demands. Many of her positions make no sense at all and aren’t even based on reality. She’s gone off the deep end, it seems like.
“Do you have any evidence that she is spending her time on leisure activitities?”
Irrelevant. She could be spending all her time on leisure or she could be spending all her time on James-related activity, but it’s still the case that Justice for James is not a charity, and she has never articulated a set of cogent, coherent goals and aims. She has merely expressed a set of vengeful sentiments over and over again. All we know is she is always in the press and she is always paid for these appearances. She’s not the Salvation Army. She’s a disturbed, damaged person whose activity on behalf of James largely consists of delivering furious rants and complaints via the media, and not much more.
“that’s exactly what your characters are: implausible all-rounders. You shoehorn awkward references into your writing about everything from Krav Maga to higher mathematics,”
They are not all-rounders. There are a number of DIFFERENT characters in the books. Alex is skilled at law. His son is a physicist who has a competent science graduate’s knowledge of computers. Andi Phoenix studied computer programming before she went into law (driven out of computers by illness that left her lagging behind and the laddish culture of computer geeks). Alex does Krav Maga to stave off the decline that comes with middle-age.
“Your characters are “smart” and “virtuous” and “admirable” and “well-balanced” in the same way the protagonists of bad fanfiction writers are, in the same way the fictional characters Eliot derides are.”
You’re becoming tiresome with this false claim. Elliot did not criticize virtuous characters per se and the characters are not quite so virtuous as you claim. Alex knowingly defends the guilty. Martine is ready to ride rough-shod over others to get a story, Andi was ready to frame an innocent man to avenge a past grievance, ditto for Gene. You are simply spouting lies that would not fool anyone who has actually read my books.
“your cardboard entities are even more tiresome than Rand’s pontificating windbags.”
When do my characters pontificate (except briefly)? That is a flaw in Ayn Rand’s writing that I have excluded from mine.
“A dependence for others on some things does not liberate a character from being an all-rounder.”
Actually it does.
“The characters Eliot derides are not all-rounders in that sense either. While Eliot mocks the way these “lady novelists” give their characters special skills or inflated virtues, they are not each, individually, in possession of all the special skills they manifest collectively. That would’ve rendered them even more absurd, but that hypothetical super-woman or super-man is not what Eliot criticizes. What she criticizes is something near identical to what you depict.”
No it isn’t. Elliot would not confuse a character who merely practices Krav Maga with an expert in the subject. She would not confuse a lawyer who fights hard for his clients but sometimes loses, with a lawyer who can trump all opponents. Nor would she be so mendacious as to characterize as the latter one who is plainly the former. For someone who effects to be so well-read and literarily adept, your reading of Elliot’s essay is remarkably superficial and inept.
“That Sedaka is dependent on his son for his knowledge of computers matters little. You’ll note that Eliot scorns one writer for making the heroine the mother of some ostensibly brilliant little child,”
It wasn’t that the child was brilliant. It was that a four and a half year old spoke like an intelligent ADULT. In contrast, a male in his mid to late twenties who is good as physics is well within the bounds of plausible. That is the age at which most physicists do their most important work.
“This is analogous to making Sedaka the father of some brilliant computer whiz son who also knows all about Lorenz transformations and other aspects of higher mathematics and physics. In the 19th century, a facility with languages, including foreign languages, was highly prized, while our time tends to suffer from physics envy.”
“Ah, the sales figures defence.”
“ MARKED MAN only has five reviews on its page and they’re as in-depth as this:”
“ Too fast in the sense that you skip around from location to location without creating any sense of atmosphere or texture specificity of milieu.”
Obviously in the third book I am not going to write as much about the setting as I did in the first. But it’s not as if San Francisco is an unfamiliar setting, in this age of television and movies.
“Too slow in the sense that nothing exciting happened.”
The death of a VIP on a ski slope captured by a photographer in the distance. A stabbing outside a bar by a one-legged man. A British Prime Minister who is called out of a parliamentary debate to be briefed on the situation. A lawyer’s office broken into and bugged. The client stabbed in jail. A prison officer killed in his home. No of course nothing exciting happened!
“I remember clearly how THE SHINING or RED DRAGON ended, but I’ve already forgotten the ending (along with almost all else) about MARKED MAN and I only read it quite recently.”
Perhaps because by your own admission you speed-read it. It seems that your faults (thinking you can speed-read a thriller and probable ADD) are now blamed on me, because I couldn’t hold your attention when you chose to speed-read a book with a prior agenda.
“Now you accuse me of mendacity simply for telling a joke, and a very pertinent one.”
Except that it was founded on false premises regarding the character’s intellect, health and ethics.
“There is nothing clumsy or inept about it when Dostoyevsky does it.”
A clumsy literary technique (beginning a book with a first person declaration) is not rendered non-clumsy by the status of the writer who does it. It’s like saying that Rembrandt couldn’t paint a bad painting.
ME “Secondly, a novel does not have to be about an embittered loser to be a literary novel.”
VIRGIL: “Well, yeah. I used that opener to poke fun of your pompous protagonist since you were the one that brought Dostoyevsky up in relation to your work.”
You used it to score points, but in so doing you revealed a part of your own miserable soul that you relish squalor over virtue. You regard virtue as a reproach to yourself. That is why you identify with those who murder young children.
ME: “(Having said that, I am now warming to the idea of giving it a shot – maybe a confessional from the pen of a quasi-Venables type character?)”
VIRGIL: “Ah, so I’m a fool, a boor, and a liar, but you’re still affected and influenced by what I’m saying. I see. Seems to me you’re tacitly and grudgingly admitting that I’m not those things, whether you see eye to eye with me or not.”
No, it’s just that I love a challenge. That’s why I got sucked into this debate with you when my original purpose here was only to clarify a point about the scope of a court injunction.
“I’m suggesting you wrote a cheesy sex scene that was straight out of some bad soft porn movie.”
How can tell if a scene is cheesy when you’re speed-reading? Or did you slow down when you realized it was a lesbian scene?
“At least Paul Verhoeven had the good sense to put it in a movie, not a book, and cast Sharon Stone.”
I hope he shows similar good judgment when he casts the movie of Marked Man. By the way, books don’t have to limit themselves to enlightening and educating. Giving the reader a boner is legitimate – even in literature.
“We’re told how well Sedaka takes care of himself,”
Why shouldn’t he?
“how healthily he eats”
Actually he doesn’t. As you’d know if you read the other books. Or rather, he eats healthily some of the time, but then indulges in gluttony at others. A bit like me (yes) and a lot of other people.
“ and how conscientiously he works out.”
He plays tennis. He does Krav Maga. Again, so what. This is not rare or exceptional.
“ He’s Perry Mason with bigger biceps.”
I hope not. Perry Mason was played by the Raymond Burr. I see Alex Sedaka as Tom Hanks.”
“He’s attractive and seductive to women,”
After a long period of celibacy after his wife’s death, he ends up in a relationship with ONE woman. The rest is your mendacious invention.
“He raised this brilliant, gifted son, who just HAPPENS to be brilliant in precisely the ways and areas of expertise OUR ERA, OUR MOMENT IN HISTORY most values and treasures”
His son is a physicist who also has computer skills (like many physicists, chemists, mathematicians, hobbyists, etc.) He helps his father with computers, not physics.
“Sedaka’s partner surmounted all the difficulties of her background through her own grit and gumption and without a trace of self-pity because she’s just so salt of the earth, unlike the ones who devolve to crime entirely through their own failings.”
It was the effect of crime in her community that MOTIVATED her. If she hadn’t done so, she wouldn’t be his legal secretary.
“Everything is so fucking black and white.”
The issues are. The characters are not. Alex defends criminals – including murderers and rapists.
“The good guys and gals are such nauseating, sickening goody two-shoes”
To you they are. Because you regard virtue as a personal reproach and your attitude to evil is “there but for the grace of God go I.” (Which in your case is probably true!”
@Ssmith
I agree with you and I look forward to the day this evil pair finally get what they truly deserve!
@ Virgil.
Everyone knows the crime was premeditated.
Everyone knows T & V are evil.
Everyone knows there was no justice.
Everyone knows that they were sent to a holiday camp.
So Virgil, why waste your time reasoning with those who are unreasonable?
We both know that you are correct and that nothing that happened both before and as a result of the trial would be acceptable to everyone.
The judge who identified them and the paper that kept stirring it up are to blame for the aftermath.
I do not deny that the crime was terrible but enough is enough.
I could care less about T & V or what happens to them but am just surprised by the amount of brain dead people who exist.
Fergus and her supporters on this are easily led and incapable of logical thought. They see things as they are shown and not as is. I am sure they make magnificent football hooligans and are only good for letting down our country.
At any rate what I say to them is to continue embarrassing yourselves. A good laugh is great for the mind!
“The judge who identified them and the paper that kept stirring it up are to blame for the aftermath.”
I totally agree. If the judge hadn’t made such bad calls, everyone would be far better off, and that includes Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger.
The paper – The Sun – waged a campaign to convince the judge to allow JV’s and RT’s real names to be disclosed. The judge agreed. That agreement was the worst decision he could have made.
“Fergus and her supporters on this are easily led and incapable of logical thought.”
This I blame on the sensationalistic media coverage of the story. I feel sorry for Fergus, but it’s the tabloids, not the justice system, that is to blame for prolonging her misery.
Is it frigginhell!!!!!! JV and RT are the only ones to blame for Denise Fergus’s misery!!! For god sake DO YOU STILL NOT GET IT!!!
Oh yeah Anonymous? And what about the individuals who made RT’s and JV’s young lives hell? What about their contribution? The story doesn’t simply begin and end with James’ slaying.
What about the various individuals who – through their failures and shortcomings (teachers, parents) or through their active viciousness and malice (the other children who bullied them) – helped drive JV and RT to the point where they were even capable of killing?
Of course, to open that can of worms would mean YOU having to think about what individuals JUST LIKE YOU have contributed (a hell of a lot!) to the suffering and misery of the world – including to this tragedy.
In reality, no matter how much you try to over-simplify the issues, responsibility cannot be so neatly portioned out in the reductive, stupidly simplistic way you want. Without the enormous contribution of the parents, the incompetent schoolteachers, and last but not least the classroom bullies (many of whom undoubtedly were the exact same type of individual as the vast majority of Denise Fergus’ hang ’em high supporters are: vicious, spiteful, vindictive bullies), James Bulger would be alive today.
But then, I suspect that many of the indignant posters who want to neatly apportion blame were and are despicable and sadistic bullies themselves, so of course they wouldn’t want to go down that route and open that can of worms, would they? That would mean acknowledging just how much they themselves are to blame for the bad things that happen in life. Their (i.e. YOUR) hypocrisy knows no limits.
Actually Virgil I am not disagreeing with you when you say that there were a lot of contributing factors that led to this tragedy….but Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger would not have been better off ‘if the judge hadn’t made such bad calls’ as there son was dead!!! You just don’t seem to grasp that!! Her misery is going to continue until the end of her life regardless of what the tabloids write!!
I’m not trying to over simplify the issue…in that moment those two boys were to blame for their actions and therefore the pain and suffering of James and his family! I’m not saying that they weren’t themselves victims prior to this but two wrongs don’t make a right!!
Don’t you dare say that I have contributed to the suffering and misery of the world, you have absolutely no idea about my life!!! You need to stop being so black and white about this and consider other people’s points of view because you are coming across as heartless and disrespectful to that little boy!!
Ps why am I a hypocrite??? Because I don’t share your views? I don’t base my opinions on what the tabloids write, I based my opinions on fact so would appreciate it if you would stop casting aspersions!!!
*their
“You have not based your opinion that your position represents the will of the people on anything other than hearsay and internet message boards.”
Prove! In fact I have spoken to many people in person and am well aware of the broard concensus that the murderers of JB were inasequately punished. That is why one re-offended and that is why there have been several other severe incidents of extreme violence by children towards younger children since then.
“I would guess that IF the full extent of what is known about how such cases are handled internationally, IF the whole public became educated on just what the age of responsibility is in other countries and what the typical punishments are and aren’t, you would see similar reactions to what I saw on Digital Spy (a widespread awareness that JV and RT were not leniently treated by international standards).”
No one said they were treated leniently by international standards: only that they were treated leniently by PROPER standards.
“No, the fact that you continue to harp on and obsess over the murder of THIS PARTICULAR TODDLER, to the exclusion of due consideration of all the other innocent babies and children killed before and since”
I don’t. But this is a discussion about a partcular topic.
“(the vast majority of whom were killed by adult perpetrators”
I condemn that too. I think that scum-bag Philppot got off lightly.
” or killed by simple neglect or famine or war), speaks to the perverseness of your own voyeuristic ghoulishness, shallow sympathy, and hypocritical vengefulness.”
Your attempts to characterize concern for the victims of injustice in those terms is just another sign of your owm moral depravity. You offer no more proof of these empty phrases than of your absurd spectulatioins on the murders mental state based on the writings of your pet journalist.
“And there is absolutely nothing that makes the death of James Bulger any more tragic than the needless death of any other murdered child.”
No one said it is. Those who sympathize with JB also condemn other murders: Baby P, Philpott’s children, etc.
“First, I have never expressed the view you attribute to me here. This is yet another false statement of yours. Where did I claim that a couple therapy sessions would constitute ample treatment? This is a crude caricature of my position and the position of most everyone who deems the trial unfair.”
So you’re saying that the trial was unfair but the conviction wasn’t?????????
“Secondly, I’ve never claimed the eight year sentence was too long, whereas you HAVE claimed the eight year sentence was far too short. Therefore, once again, the onus is on you, not me, to make some sort of cogent case. So far, you, like Denise Fergus and all her public supporters, have not done so.”
So you’re the trial was unfair but the SENTENCE wasn’t?
“Yes: proportionate to the sentences handed down, both inside and outside of the UK, to other 10, 11, or 12-year-old killers. The rest of your comments here are irrelevant.”
No it is YOUR comments that are irrelevant because you are still willfully misinterpreting my original statement about leniency and disproportionality. I meant lenient in proportion to the act of child murder, not to the sentences in other cases. If some one stole $100 from you and was ordered to repay $50 would you say that was proportionate provided that it was consistent with other similar cases? or would you say that a $50 repayment of a $100 debt is inherrently unfair?
ME: “But YOU have suggested that we SHOULD fall into line with Europe! That IS goose-stepping!”
YOU: No it’s not. It’s pointing out that you’ve made no cogent case for your position, as Mrs. Fergus also has not.
Nor you for yours. Why should we follow Europe on the age of criminal responsibility? Why should our sovereign electorate not decide?
“You, on the other hand, obviously are an advocate of goose-stepping, given that you previously accuse anyone who doesn’t defer to Mrs. Fergus on the issue of appropriate punishment as being “wrong-thinking” and heartless “hypocrites.” That is a demand for goose-stepping all right.”
No it isn’t. You are welcome to think that eight years for murder is reasonable, but I do not have to agree with such a savage disregard for the sanctity of innocent life.
“The “doing something wrong” was just a stupid childish prank,”
Kidnapping a toddler is not a childish prank. What kind of morals do you have.
“At the time they killed him, it DOES make a huge difference if they intended to kill him or not (and that the intent to commit homicide was there remains unproven speculation).”
Killing with Intent to EITHER kill ORr cause GBH is murder in English law.
“Obviously, they have to understand the full ramifications of what they are doing first.
When you say “at first” do you mean when they kidnapped him? Or when they first started throwing bricks at him? And what about when they continued to throw bricks at him? How do you throw bricks at a toddler without being aware of the “full ramifications?” They were 10. not five!
“Yes, but there’s an enormous difference between throwing bricks and consciously, deliberately planning to throw bricks and rocks with the express purpose of ending his life.”
What matters isa whether there was malice at the time they threw the bricks, not at the time they grabbed him.
“I have already sketched a plausible alternate explanation (the PTSD-induced rage hypothesis) which would explain how unpleasant bad behaviour degenerated into a total horror show.”
You came up with an implausible speculation that JV got angry because his victim cried. That makes no sense. Neither is there any credible evidence that they did not know right from wrong.
“No you haven’t. I will repost here a pertinent post from The Guardian’s website by dottie30:”
“I’m taking the attitude that what’s done is done. I am not battling and waging a campaign to have their criminal records overturned or their life licenses abolished or further financial compensation granted to them.”
Yet you claim the trial was unfair and cite your European friends in support of that position.
“Denise Fergus and her supporters (like you), on the other hand, have demanded and continue to demand all sorts of further punishments, so it necessarily follows they have to make a cogent case. She hasn’t done so, and neither have you. She and you are making serious demands, I and those who think like me are not making any demands. Big difference.”
We have, but you have chosen to ignore it.
“That they had nightmares and flashbacks and severe trauma as a consequence of what they did has no relevance to the verdict of guilty or not guilty. It doesn’t dispute that they did it. What it does suggest is that they’re not any kind of psychopath”
I never said they were. I said they were evil.
“They examined all the relevant data before coming to their decision. ”
Then they failed to offer a plausible reason for their decision. There was basis for saying that they lacked the capacity to instruct counsel. They were not mute. They were not severely retarded.
“Denise Fergus herself revealed this picture of her family in her most recent round of interviews. It’s a legitimate inference from the picture she herself has drawn.”
Only if you link every interview she gives with victimhood. You might just as easily call Lord Rix a professional victim.
“You have no factual basis for your attribution of such honourable and admirable motives to the family. Being the victim of a terrible tragedy does not automatically make one a saint or hero. And being the spouse of a victim certainly doesn’t.”
They are campaigning vigorously. That obviously takes time. My conclusions are common sense to al but the wilfully blind.
“If they’re so clear and legitimate, then what exactly are they?”
Stiffer penalties for violent criminals.
ME: “Do you have any evidence that she is spending her time on leisure activitities?”
YOU: “Irrelevant.
The relevance is obvious to anyone but a half-wit.
“She could be spending all her time on leisure or she could be spending all her time on James-related activity, but it’s still the case that Justice for James is not a charity, ”
It is a campaign – and as such it is time-consuming, especially as she is trying to sway politicians who feel the need to cowtow to the jackbooted Eurocrats.
“In fact I have spoken to many people in person and am well aware of the broard concensus that the murderers of JB were inasequately punished.”
There exists no such consensus. If there is, YOU start to “prove” it for once. You have “proven” nothing in this regard, you’ve just made a series of unsubstantiated claims about what the general public thinks.
Right back’ atcha Dave: Prove. Prove. Prove.
“That is why one re-offended and that is why there have been several other severe incidents of extreme violence by children towards younger children since then.”
Once again: “prove” that that is the reason why he re-offended. That isn’t the only possible explanation, or even the most likely one in my opinion. In my view, his subsequent reoffenses have nothing whatsoever with him not having done enough time locked up and everything to do with the irresponsible media coverage of the case, which is the whole reason he needed a fake identity in the first place.
If the case had been handled as responsibly as the very similar cases I mentioned, Barrett/Bradley and the San Francisco killing, I suspect JV’s meltdown would not have occurred.
Another very obvious reason why he might well have re-offended (if you know anything about human psychology, which you evidently, on the basis of your terrible novel, don’t) s the very campaign of hatred waged against him by the tabloids for his entire life. GIven that no such tabloid circus existed in other similar cases, what makes you so sure that a lack of sufficient punishment was the cause of his looking at indecent images, rather than the tabloids themselves?
For it doesn’t take a genius to hear in the statements he made to police that he may simply have been cracking up under the strain, and as a consequence, living down to the tabloids’ image of him as the ultimate depraved monster (“breaking the last taboo”). That also, by the way, is a facet of human psychology (living up or down to our self-image) understood, dramatized, and explored by Shakespeare.
If that IS the real cause, then the tabloids’ assumptions have not been vindicated or confirmed in the slightest. If that is the real cause- and it’s perfectly possible that it is – then the tabloids have no justification whatsoever for congratulating themselves or feeling vindicated for anything they have said or done in their coverage.
“No one said they were treated leniently by international standards: only that they were treated leniently by PROPER standards.”
You have built no case that what you want constitutes proper standards. Your entire argument simply amounts to a bunch of disgruntled feelings, but nothing in the way of logic or coherent argument.
“Your attempts to characterize concern for the victims of injustice in those terms is just another sign of your owm moral depravity. You offer no more proof of these empty phrases than of your absurd spectulatioins on the murders mental state based on the writings of your pet journalist.”
You have completely and utterly failed – despite numerous attempts – to demonstrate that my speculations are in any way absurd or implausible.
You also conveniently ignore that, as I pointed out, there was nothing unique about this crime and in other cases similar to this one, the parents of the victim tended to cope better than Denise Fergus. What could account for that? Certainly not that the killers were more harshly punished, because usually they weren’t. So what could account for it? Well, the only difference I can see is that in this case, the media circus lasted for two decades, with no end in sight, whereas in these other cases there wasn’t a circus, which allowed the parents to attain a measure of peace and transformation.
Denise Fergus’ “friends” have done her far more harm than her detractors ever have. Without her “supporters” (tabloid readers) there would’ve been no incentive for the tabloids to keep pursuing the story forever and ever. Without her tabloid reading mob of idiotic supporters, she would’ve had a chance to truly heal and recover. Thanks to them, she never will recover, most likely.
The fact that you can’t see this speaks to your own moral depravity and all-around cretinism.
“Nor you for yours. Why should we follow Europe on the age of criminal responsibility? Why should our sovereign electorate not decide?”
The electorate almost never decides these things, in any nation. Why should they, unless they are qualified to? But whether Britain follows Europe or not (public statements by government officials would seem to suggest that the age of responsibility is going to be raised eventually) is irrelevant: it’s still the case that another trial like the trial of JV and RT is not going to happen again.
“No it isn’t. You are welcome to think that eight years for murder is reasonable, but I do not have to agree with such a savage disregard for the sanctity of innocent life.”
I specifically mentioned to you the statements of people who disagreed with Denise Fergus’ demands, and you labelled them hypocrites and scoundrels. In other words, even if they expressed sympathy for her loss, unless they were willing to support her in all her demands, tney are hypocrites. That is a goose-stepping mentality.
And the mere fact that many people do not have a problem with the sentence that was handed down does not mean we have a “savage disregard for human life,” nor does your demand for a 20 year sentence mean you have a high regard for human life. I agree with that reviewer you called your novel “shockingly reactionary.” That is exactly what you are.
“Kidnapping a toddler is not a childish prank. What kind of morals do you have.”
The word “kidnapping” has multiple variant meanings. There is kidnapping as in a calculated plot to extract a ransom and there is kidnapping as in what they did: “got a child lost.”
Simply tossing around the word kidnapping freely and imprecisely is being dishonest, stupid, and muddying the waters. When you use the word “kidnap” you immediately summon up the image of a fiendish criminal plot. Those associations have no relevance here.
They pulled a prank, and there’s absolutely no evidence they ever thought he wasn’t going to be coming home at the end of it.
“Killing with Intent to EITHER kill ORr cause GBH is murder in English law.”
The law distinguishes between intent to harm (non-fatal) and intent to kill.
Furthermore, you don’t actually know that they intended to cause GBH.
After all, Private Needham didn’t intend to cause GBH to his girlfriend, but he did anyway, due to his PTSD, and she didn’t survive the violence.
“When you say “at first” do you mean when they kidnapped him? Or when they first started throwing bricks at him? And what about when they continued to throw bricks at him? How do you throw bricks at a toddler without being aware of the “full ramifications?” They were 10. not five!”
I said “first” not “at first.” How do you throw bricks without being aware of the full ramifications? Well, for starters, not being able to correctly assess the impact of a blow or series of blows. RT, after all, came from a family where extreme violence was the norm. It’s perfectly possible to know that an act of violence will HURT someone without knowing that it will KILL him.
For example, I remember reading one time some news item about some boy being kicked in the groin in school and losing a testicle. The
perpetrator had seen too many dumb movies using the old kick in the balls scene for laughs or for dramatic impact and didn’t distinguish between the movies where people seem to recover from a serious groin injury after 10 seconds and reality where they can end up in the hospital requiring surgery. This is exactly how young kids can fail to correctly gauge or understand what a violent act can result in. This individual likely thought it would be like the movies – a funny gag – and they ended up mutilating the person, essentially castrating him.
It is imitative behaviour. Kids today hit each other in the groin all the time and think it’s a big joke. They don’t even seem to realize that this can have serious consequences, that they can actually cause their mates to not be able to have kids, they think it’s just a laugh and a lark. This is precisely how 10 year olds, younger teens, and even older teens can grasp that an act can cause serious pain and STILL NOT UNDERSTAND how the act can cause more than just pain, but actual permanent mutilation and lasting injury or even a fatality.
“We have, but you have chosen to ignore it.”
No you have not. You’ve offered nothing but bluster.
“The relevance is obvious to anyone but a half-wit.”
No it is not.
You have no evidence that she is spending all her waking hours working towards some clearly defined goal. What is likeliest is that she is doing it for more than one reason: to make money for herself and also because it gives her the chance to vent more venom at RT and JV. Best of both worlds for her, really.
“They are campaigning vigorously. That obviously takes time. My conclusions are common sense to al but the wilfully blind.”
The only clear goal she’s ever expressed is to try and prevent convicted criminals from being able to sue the press for invasion of privacy – like the alleged phone-hacking of RT’s phone – which is an utterly foolhardy objective that will (and absolutely deserves to) fall on deaf ears.
“Stiffer penalties for violent criminals.”
No she’s not. She’s waging a campaign for preposterously stiff penalties for RT and JV, but not for the general good. Her campaign has always been focused on RT and JV. She thinks she’s entitled to have the law bend to her will, never mind that the demands she’s making have not been granted to other parents in the same circumstances, nor would her demands be acknowledged in any other European country.
Therefore, she has articulated no meaningful or sensible goal.
“It is a campaign – and as such it is time-consuming, especially as she is trying to sway politicians who feel the need to cowtow to the jackbooted Eurocrats.”
Yeah, right.
If anything, I’ve underestimated your proneness to hysteria and cheap populist nonsense.
Fact is, there is no campaign beyond mere naked vengeance. She is not working towards any worthwhile or reasonable objective.
When I asked you to clearly describe for me what her goals and objectives are, what exactly she’s trying to achieve other than having JV and RT locked up for the rest of their lives – an unattainable goal – you were unable to do so.
“Then they failed to offer a plausible reason for their decision. There was basis for saying that they lacked the capacity to instruct counsel. They were not mute. They were not severely retarded.”
An adult with the mental capacities of a 10-year-old could and often would have his fitness to stand trial called into question. Therefore, your argument here fails and the European Court is confirmed.
“why there have been several other severe incidents of extreme violence by children towards younger children since then”
This is nonsense: prove. Prove that any of these other acts of juvenile violence are directly traceable to and explainable by the verdict and sentence in the Bulger trial.
In Smith’s book on the case, he mentions over 30 known cases of murder committed by children, reaching back in time through history, and he could have mentioned hundreds of cases more if he’d expanded his search beyond England to the whole globe.
This was neither the first nor the last instance of children committing violence towards other children, and there’s not a shred of evidence that any of the instances of this violence that have occurred since 1993 are connected in any way with the sentences JV and RT received.
Replying to Anonymous April 9th and Virgil April 10th.
I agree with Anonymous that the killers are to blame for Denise Fegus’s unhappiness and there is no doubt in my mind that the press have pressed all the buttons to ensure that she can never move on.
But Virgil makes very valid points in my opinion. I cannot prove that the boys were bullied in school but they were certainly not parented properly nor were they controlled by the school authorities. This in itself contributed to the crime.
The parents – as they neglected them and seemed to teach them little or no values.
The school authorities – as they failed to do their jobs in relation to truanting.
There was no guidance because nobody took on that responsibility.
Had they been where they should have been, the crime would never have happened. But it did!
I do not agree with the vigilantes and am open to Virgil’s point of view there.
It is too simplistic in my opinion to lay the blame 100% at the hands of two ten year olds. Guilty of the actual crime – yes but others should not have escaped who were indirectly involved..
To hold the trial in an adult court was wrong and to make their names public, irresponsible given that they were children at the time.
They have now served their sentences for this crime according to the court and the reason for the new identities were due to the fact that there are many who would take the law into their own hands. Those people are worse that those boys were at 10 as they are adults. They have no respect for the law and are as you say ‘bullies’.
Getting rid of them won’t help society but getting to the bottom of all this and taking measures may go a long way towards keeping these horredous crimes at a minimum.
And in my opinion…
If you wanted a solution at the time?
Remove the teachers and board of management who failed to manage and should not have been in charge. Jail the parents and remove that clown of a judge and retire him to a lighthouse where he could never be in a serious position of influence.
And just to clarify….
I empathise with Denise Fergus. I acknowledge that the crime was shocking and upsetting but am on nobody’s side here. I suppose I am of the opinion that one should accept the laws of a country in which one chooses to live and can understand the anger against them but not actual vigilate justice.
Again these are just my opinions and people have the right to agree or disagree as they wish. I always look forward to the views of others even if my view differs from theirs.
Replying to Steve 10 April……hi Steve..if you could please read my above post in response to Virgil. I agree with a lot of the points you have just made and I dont deny that other people apart from JV and RT have some sort of responsibility for what happened, however, I don’t believe (like Virgil) that the two boys shouldn’t be held responsible at all. Ultimately they were the ones that dealt the final blow. My point earlier was that it is not the tabloids who are responsible for James’ parents misery, ultimately it is JV and RT bacause in that final moment they were the ones that took his life! that is why DF and RB will have enternal misery, not because of crap that is wiritten by the tabloids! I have said earlier that I don’t believe they should be hunted down and if the law of the land says they have paid their dues then who am I to argue? BUT they are not the innocent party here..yes, if Virgils claims are correct, which we don’t actually know as there are lots of conflicting accounts, then the system did not serve these two boys well, however neither did it serve a lot of others with similar backgrounds well, but they didn’t go on to commit such atrocities,
“I don’t believe (like Virgil) that the two boys shouldn’t be held responsible at all”
Point to me where I said they shouldn’t be held responsible at all. There are degrees of responsibility and, ultimately, there should have been a lot of soul-searching on the part of Liverpudlians instead of the self-pitying public displays of mawkishness they indulged in. There should have been a lot more attention paid to the failings of the school system to address JV’s and RT’s behavioural problems as well as the bullying of their peers.
There’s simply no reason for not nipping those problems in the bud.
Even in countries where 10-year-olds cannot be prosecuted they can still be taken into care and the problems addressed. However, regardless of where this crime occurs, 8 to 10 years would still normally be the upper limit to how long a 10-year-old is going to be incarcerated for. To lead Denise Fergus on about this and feed her a pack of lies about a non-existent “injustice” that was allegedly done to her is cruel and irresponsible.
JV and RT struck the fatal blow, but other parents put in the exact same situation (their child was killed by another child) have not become the deranged, disturbed individual Fergus has. Since all the circumstances are the same in these other cases except the media coverage, it’s fair to describe the media coverage as the key difference here, and the crucial factor in wrecking her life.
Stop making excuses for the tabloids. There is no excuse. They are vile, dishonest, and duplicitous (The Sun, after all, welcomed their favorite little pet wife-murderer John Kay with open arms, even though he was locked up for a measly two years compared to JV and RT’s eight!).
Replying to Virgil 11 April
I am honestly not making excuses for the tabloids..I have never said that they are correct…I am saying that that they are NOT the crucial factor in wrecking her life!! That was already done by the perpetrators of the crime!! I’m trying to make my point that Denise Fergus’s life was ruined, smashed apart, wrecked forever by what the boys did and that is the bottom line!
I totally disagree with you when you describe Denise Fergus as a ‘ deranged and disturbed individual’ …every time I have seen her on TV she has been exactly how one would expect a grief stricken mother to be..some people expect her to have moved on because it has been 20 years but that is just unrealistic and insensitive!
I think you are being very naive if you believe that the types of problems in society ‘can be nipped in the bud’. The root of the problem goes much deeper and cannot be fixed by a slap on the wrist and a night of being grounded! I hazard a guess that this wouldn’t have worked on RT and JV hence why they werent in school when they should have been. As you have already stated their issues were much deeper rooted; something like this happening was probably inevitable! (And not just because of their upbringing!)
“I totally disagree with you when you describe Denise Fergus as a ‘ deranged and disturbed individual’ …every time I have seen her on TV she has been exactly how one would expect a grief stricken mother to be..some people expect her to have moved on because it has been 20 years but that is just unrealistic and insensitive!”
How many other parents of murder victims appear on television or are interviewed in tabloids and newspapers as frequently as she has? The answer is zero.
How many other parents of murder victims have ever been granted the platform she’s been granted to vent her fury over and over again? The answer is zero.
If you think otherwise, name one single counter-example. And I mean from any country, any nation on earth, from any decade as long as the mass media have existed. Name one who has made more regular and frequent media appearances for a longer period of time (over 20 years and counting).
Anonymous on April 1st – be assured they will be dealt with……. Joe, I don’t drink, so assumption sees you as the fool.
They will be found in good time, and they now need to be watching their backs intently and with fear, justice will be served.
Of that be certain.
Replying to Anonymous April 11th.
I cannot disagree with what you have written.
No matter what way you look at it, they did it and as a result the child’s parents suffered.
The rest of what I wrote refers to events after the murder.
Unfortunately though, I believe that no lessons have been learned. I haven’t seen any progress regarding reporting truancy or parental control in general. People who do not or will not carry out their duties should be removed and the jobs given to people who will and parents who cannot or will not control their children or at least seek help should have their children removed.
Some of the crimes committed by juveniles/children are really vicious. How can the authorities sit on their laurels and do nothing to try to prevent this?
And then how can you expect those children when the time comes to become responsible parents when all they know is being out of control?
I get what you say that not all kids do what they did, however they and others are a poor reflection of the system and standards that exist today I think.
If you tell a child to be home at 6 and he comes in at 7 and you do nothing about it he will just ignore you. That is the time to address the issue, not when things are out of control.
Replying to Virgil 12th April.
Your points are very valid in your latest post, however what Anonymous is saying I think is that the crime caused the grief in the first place.
As a result of the crime though she does come across somewhat irrational and I suppose the media are helping in that regard. What a way to sell papers!
Well considering most Liverpudlians have boycotted The Sun one would think that what the papers say have no bearing on their perspective of Denise Fergus, hence people form their own opinions and don’t all share the views put across by Virgil???
How do you know that? Have you taken a survey?
Has it not occurred to you that because most Liverpudlians vowed to boycott the publication is precisely why they grabbed onto the Bulger case and never let go? To win back the very readership they’d lost, and not because they actually give a shit about James Bulger or Denise in any way?
And they probably did win a lot of readers back. Their plan worked.
No it did not occur to me cos that is utter crap!! Grasping at straws me thinks!!!!
No I haven’t taken a survey, have you? How do you know they probably did win a lot of readers back? Highly doubtful given their passion on the subject of the Hillsborough disaster!! These people don’t believe a word The Sun writes so that completely contradicts you point..their plan didn’t work at all!!
Very disappointing comeback Virgil!!
Virgil wrote: ‘They pulled a prank, and there’s absolutely no evidence they ever thought he wasn’t going to be coming home at the end of it.’
Seriously? Seriously, a prank? Give me strength. Any 10 yr old knows the difference between a prank and all out murder. Which is what they committed. They could have stopped. They didn’t. Despite your paragraph after paragraph of warbling, you cannot reason their actions.
They are pure evil. There is no dispute. Hence, they will be traced and suffer for their actions. They had the choice to continue or stop. They chose the former route.
For making this decision on a helpless 2 yr old’s life, they will suffer.
Despite your feelings towards Denise Fergus and the following media circus, you cannot detract from their actions.
And that is what this is about ultimately.
Replying to ssmith April 13
I have a 10 year old nephew and it is quite clear that he knows the difference between right and wrong! He would certainly know that kidnapping a two year old, torturing him and ending his life was wrong!
The fact that there was no evidence to suggest James ‘wasn’t going to be going home at the end of it’ is totally irrelevant!! The fact is he DIDN’T go home because they murdered him! Virgil has absolutely no way of backing up any of his points about the actual crime as he wasn’t there!
Replying to Virgil April 12
So what???? Maybe other parents feel they have had justice served? I don’t know but regardless, I still feel Denise Fergus is entitled to behave however she sees fit!
Look at the McCann’s, they are in the press a lot and that is because their plyte is still ongoing. Parents feel it is their duty to fight for justice for their children even if others think they are ‘deranged’. So rude!
@Steve
In what way do you believe her behaviour is irrational? I have never seen any evidence of it. To me she comes across as a remarkably strong and brave person. Her pain is of course very obvious but I would hardly call that being irrational.
Replying to Anonymous April 13th
It’s probably more bitterness that irrationality.
She wants to know everything about the other two and wants to have a say in what should and shouldn’t be done to them. Then she expresses annoyance when the authorities do not consult her without making some of their decisions instead of leaving them to it.
Now I know her behaviour is led by what happened and it would be very hard for others in her position and I’m glad I’m not.
Do you think her behaviour is balanced? Just wondering?
@Steve
Absolutely! It’s only natural and totally right that she would want to keep track of the murderers’ potentially criminal activities so that no other child would ever come in harms way.
@Steve
As for her bitterness, I would never reproach the mother of a murdered child for how she feels.
Nobody is reproaching her for bitterness, anonymous.
But lots of people are reproaching the media for indulging her bitterness and reporting whatever she says as factual even when she says things they know quite well are false.
And lots of people know that she does not actually have the legal rights she thinks she’s entitled to. And the same law would apply in most every country you would want to live in.
The issue here is not HER behaviour, the issue is THE MEDIA’s behaviour.
Stop acting like a demand for responsible media coverage equals an attack on Denise Fergus.
She should not be attacked. She should simply stop having a platform to spout her ill-informed and unfactual views.
People should also have the right to disagree with her and call her out on behaviour that is, frankly awful (such as the nasty way she treated Maggie Atkinson). Fact is her demands will never be met. She will never be satisfied which is why no-one with any authority pays her the blindest bit of attention anymore. This may shock some people but you can have suffered a terrible, awful event and still be unpleasant.
Well that’s where we disagree Anonymous!
Knowing that her son can never be returned to life I would have thought she might have distanced herself from them to surpress some of the pain that returns everytime their names are mentioned. I doubt she cares about other children (not really) she doesn’t know but cares about her own 3, which is as it should be.
I know this isn’t easy for her or anyone who has lost someone tragically.
Different people deal with grief in different ways.
Her bitterness though understandable is what makes her somewhat irrational.
Tracking other people’s activities is the job of the police and authorities, not hers.
Stalking people is wrong you know.
That is what I mean about her irrational behaviour.
Hard though it is, she must concentrate on her 3 living kids and their needs rather than jumping to attention everytime the media mentions the other two. Do you not agree that their welfare and happiness is the most important thing at this stage?
Also,you say you would never reproach the mother of a murdered child for how she feels. Fair enough.
But if you are unhappy and bitter all the time, don’t you think it is very unpleasant for those around you? There is only so much time and sympathy they will give you before they move away.
Life is cruel sometimes but is it not human nature to distance oneself from those who are unhappy and surround ourselves by those that are happy?
So what I say, I say with the best of intentions because getting yourself on track is so important for the person and those around them in my opinion, if that makes sense? Life should be for living surely?
I do empathise with her greatly and know that she had no say in the killing of her son but that is as I see it.
How do you know she is unhappy and bitter all the time? That is just the persona you see on TV…she could be completely different at home. And probably is…..her husband and boys haven’t chosen to leave her have they??? For all we know they could be surrounding themselves with happiness!!!
She is concentrating on her 3 surviving boys!!!!!
Do you not think she is on track…it has been 20 years and she has survived this far!! Which is a massive achievement given her inner pain and torture!!!
Do you not think she has tried to distance herself from the memory of what JV and RT did and tried to suppress some of the pain??? It is obviously easier said than done!!!
“Do you not think she has tried to distance herself from the memory of what JV and RT did and tried to suppress some of the pain???”
No, definitely not. If she has tried to distance herself, then why has she done more interviews and participated in more news features than any other parent of a murder victim in human history? How is that making an effort to put it behind her? On the contrary, no other parent in her position has ever made less of an effort in that direction!
“It is obviously easier said than done!!!”
Yes it is, especially when have a press agent doing the rounds trying to get you the best deals on tabloid interviews all the time. Obviously it can never be done unless you sever ties with tabloids and stop making your entire life revolve around them.
No other parent of a murder victim in any country has been granted the platform she’s been granted. She shouldn’t have that platform. It has nothing to do with the severity of the crime, which was no better or worse than thousands of other murders that didn’t get a fraction of the news coverage.
@Steve
As I’ve already said, I totally agree with Denise’s actions regarding her son’s murderers. I couldn’t disagree with you more when you say she doesn’t care about other children. Why wouldn’t she? She is a mother and a humane person. In my opinion, people who have suffered tragedy like she has are far more likely to care that it shouldn’t happen to anyone else. Of course it’s only natural that her own children are most important to her and that is why it IS of the utmost importance to her to do what she does. There is no telling what these evil and remorseless murderers may seek to do in the future.
You keep insisting she is irrational and bitter but I believe I’ve clarified my thoughts on this matter. I also believe she is a good mother and does not neglect her other children – once again I’d like to point out that I did make my position on this particular matter quite clear in previous posts to you.
As for driving others away, I don’t know that she has done that. I do know she has a loving and supportive husband and family and I think that’s all that matters.
I accept you may have some empathy for her and no offence intended but in all honesty you are not in a position to advise her on how you think she should behave after suffering such a tremendous and tragic loss. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I think – considering all she has been through – that she managed to survive at all and then pursue justice for her son AND manage to be a loving caring mother to her other children at the same time is nothing short of remarkable. She is truly admirable.
Last but not least, I have to say I believe your faith in authorities is somewhat naive. I, like many other people, don’t believe they always do their job properly and (to put it bluntly) are – unfortunately -not trustworthy. If they were then there would be no need for Denise to pursue them – if that’s what you mean by stalking??? But then, if there were any true justice in this country, her son’s murderers would never be released from detention in the first place. Since they have been released, I can only say I hope justice catches up with them one of these days.
I’ve gone through the myriad of responses to this thread. Firstly, I note the site owner took the pictures down after the Attorney General started to initiate proceedings against several members of the public. However, I also note the owners was WARNED early on in the thread about this. Why on earth did he not listen. Why did he insist on continuing to break the law?
Someone mentioned that Thompson and Venables would not have been treated as harshly in most other countries. This is true. Just look at the latest horrific case in the United States (Cristian Fernandez). Initially, he was put through proceedings as an adult but then sentenced as a minor for manslaughter (not murder). He was 12 years old when he brutally killed his own two year old brother. The killing was horrific – every bit as horrific as the actual killing of James Bulger (although admittedly it did not involve abduction). However, Fernandez was also convicted of extreme violence towards another child. He will be released from juvenile custody (the same type of welfare-based provision as Thompson and Venables) when he is nineteen years old. Moreover, he will not be subject to any of the conditions Thompson and Venables will be subject to (life license for example). He did not receive a life sentence although he will be on probation for a few years. That is a seven year sentence for smashing his two year old brother’s skull to pieces (and just a few months early breaking his leg as well as abusing another child),
We treat children differently in the legal system because they ARE different. What repulses me about the whole reaction to this case is that people’s vengeful impulses are directed to the only images we have of Thompson and Venables – as ten year old children. People’s revenge fantasies are actually fantasies of child abuse.
“However, I also note the owners was WARNED early on in the thread about this. Why on earth did he not listen. Why did he insist on continuing to break the law?”
It is only breakling the law if he is in England and Wales (there may possibly be a separate injunction in Svotland and/or NI). I asked both the AG’s office and the Supreme Court about the scope of the injunction and each referred me to the other. However the salient point of law is that British courts do not have extra-terratorial jurisdiction, except in cases of homicide committed overseas by British citizens.
Stop banging on about the salient points of law. You are absolutely clueless – as you have shown on your own blog. You are a silly crime writer – that is all. The fact is the law is so grey in this area that where the site is listed is irrelevant. If the poster/owner is in the UK and breaching injunctions he or she is committing a crime – as you have just done posting Thompson’s alleged address (almost certainly wrong by the way) – but being wrong doesn’t matter as even if incorrect, the injunction is breached.
As for Denise Fergus. Totally empathise with her but I do not like her. I think she is wrong on so many levels (for example this disgusting idea that crimes such as phone hacking are basically OK if the person being hacked is unpopular and such a person should not expect the protection of the law).
For too long she has felt the law should merely be a vehicle to suit her vengeful desires. The law will never be that and until she accepts it, she will always be disappointed. She is badly advised and that Chris Johnson is pure poison.
I’ve just gone back and noticed David Kessler on this thread. He has been called a ‘reactionary’ which is bang on the mark. This thread of his from his own blog shows how legally illiterate he is.
He claims on this thread to know about Thompson’s whereabouts. He’s clearly telling whopping porkies.
http://davidkesslerauthor.com/?p=1191
Kerry (or whoever you are)
1) Define “reactionary” (without resorting to demagoguery),
2) “Has been called…”? I believe Wikipedia describes that as “weasel words.”
3) “Thompson’s whereabouts” – Tewksbury Road, Carshalton.
David, if you’re implying that Kerry is me or has any relationship with me, let me state clearly that I don’t know her.
Replying to Anonymous April 13th 10.26.
If you look at her face in the photos and the tone of her interviews I see she is unhappy, maybe you see it differently?
No she is not on track. as I have said before but I agree it is easier said than done.
Replying to Anonymous April 13th 12.18
Humane? You obviously choose to ignore her desire for vengence.
That does not seem humane to me.
If you want to believe that she cares for all the children in the country then go ahead and believe it. But nobody in their right mind would wish harm on anyone including children.
Who knows what T & V might do? Who knows what anyone might do for that matter so is that a reason to base your life around theirs and their actions?
I don’t know them, maybe they are evil, maybe not? You obviously do know them personally as you label them as evil and remorseless.
If parents instill bitterness into their children the likelihood is that some of that will rub off on them. Conversely if you are happy and positive that should also rub off a little on them.
Although I empathise with her, I will not condone all of her actions. I do not find her admirable at all as you say you do and as I have mentioned before, she seems in serious need of good counselling.
She is irrational for reasons I explained earlier. Actually Kerry makes some good points which highlight this.
Again though as I said before people deal with tragic events differently.
But I must say Anonymous, no matter what punishment was handed out to the killers, it would never have pleased everybody. They were prosecuted and from once they were arrested it was no longer Denise Fergus’s business. It was out of her hands. That’s life and people can like it or lump it! And I do not have maximum confidence in the authorities but until someone can come up with something better that’s the way it is.
At this stage she is making a fool of herself. The authorities don’t and won’t listen and rightly so. She somehow thinks she should have some influence over them which is ridiculous. Some people believe the law should be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and others that we can lock up children for life. There are very civilised countries where they do this. And for people who believe in these punishments, I suggest you move to one of those such places.
You, Anonymous have said they should never have been released, for that many would label you as a child abuser. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I think you are thinking through your emotions.
“You, Anonymous have said they should never have been released, for that many would label you as a child abuser. ”
More weasel words. If you wish to label some one a “child abuser” at least have the courage of your convictions.
To call advocacy of life imprisonment for murder “child abuse” is the kind of demagoguery I’d expect only of those who identify more readily with criminals than with law-abiding citizens.
They were detained as children and released as adults. You are saying that anyone who opposes their release when they were ADULTS is guilty of “CHILD abuse.” That obviously makes no sense. How can it be “child abuse” to oppose the release of an adult?
The act of detention in prison for life for a juvenile is a form of abuse. As the US Supreme Court has more or less said. Name one country which would have treated Thompson and Venables in a more harsh way. (By the way, the US would not have done – would likely have given them lower sentences so before you scream ‘United States’, I’ll call you on it’.
Name a country in the world which put a ten year old child thorough an adult court, tried them as an adult, convicted them of murder and given them a life sentence (and yes, they were given a life sentence – hence a life license).
Name one – if you think we are so soft.
As far as I know, there isn’t even such a thing as a life license in any other European country. They’d just be paroled and that’s it, on their merry way.
I’m not even aware of any countries that have life licenses, for juveniles or adults. There must be others, presumably, but I’m not aware of what they might be.
@Ssmith “they should be watching their backs with fear”.
Unlike you who spends his time watching ‘Deal or no deal’ and I am sure it offers you a sufficient mental challenge!
@Steve. Finally a post with some venom. Thought you were a lightweight.
@Anonymous. Fergus is unbalanced. That you praise and condone her actions tells us all about you. A half-wit!!
“Fergus is unbalanced. That you praise and condone her actions tells us all about you.”
Do you have any evidence that she unbalanced BEFORE Venables and Thompson murdered her grandson? Or do you mean that the murder of her toddler – BY VENABLES AND THOMPSON – was what CAUSED her alleged “unbalanced” state?
Sorry, I mean her son. Freudian slip. I was talking with my father recently about his grandchildren.
David, do you have any evidence that RT was “unbalanced” BEFORE being subjected to years of horrific physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by his own parents and siblings, BEFORE watching his father beat his mother to a pulp in front of him, BEFORE being sexually abused by his own siblings over a long period, BEFORE being relentlessly bullied by his classmates and children around the neighbourhood, BEFORE being humiliated by being held down a grade, BEFORE finding himself utterly trapped in life (tormented at home, tormented at school, tormented around the neighboorhood, tormented every which way he turned for relief and escape)?
What you say about Denise Fergus applies just as well to RT and probably to JV as well, as a matter of fact. Yet more evidence of your simplistic and reductive and lop-sided sense of humanity.
Replying to David Kessler April 14th 4.14
You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
I stick by what I said in my post.
As you know a child conviction is different to an adult one. But then again, you don’t seem to recognise that distinction.
It is one thing opposing someone’s point of view – that is acceptable.
It is even par for the course to receive some personal insults.
Posting an address for Robert Thompson on this site shows me that you little or no respect for anyone or anything, including the owner of this site. You have put people in unnecessary danger which I regard as irresponsible and quite frankly unforgivable. There are a lot of unstable people around and you are simply encouraging them by what you have done.
You may try to justify what you have done but you might find that you have dug a hole too big to climb out of this time!
“You have put people in unnecessary danger which I regard as irresponsible and quite frankly unforgivable.”
Yes, Kessler shows his true colours with that stunt.
He proves himself to be a truly odious character by posting what he thinks is RT’s home address. This is the sort of thing that gives the violent, unstable kooks out there the wrong idea.
And he really could care less!
I wonder if someone suggested that he was one of them and gave his address how he would feel?
This creature is a nasty piece of work, almost, dare I say, evil?
@David Kessler
Asshole
Spoken with your customary eloquence.
The address is almost certainly bull in any case. Kessler is claiming knowledge he simply does not have. Thompson is almost certainly in the North West – NOT bloody Surrey.
But the fact that it is nonsense is irrelevant. It is still criminal to post such information – whether it is true or not.
The man is an idiot. And not nearly as intelligent as he is making out.
I agree Kerry.
He is entitled to disagree with my points of view if he so wishes. That is ok.
His intelligence or lack of was never a concern for me, nor was it ever questioned but he made an very bad error of judgement.
“The fact is the law is so grey in this area that where the site is listed is irrelevant.
Are you JV/RT supporters congenitally incapable of understanding the English language? I did not say that it is the location of the SITE that matters, but rather the location of the PERSON? Perhaps if you people would learn to READ it might help!
“If the poster/owner is in the UK and breaching injunctions he or she is committing a crime”
Precisely!!!! – hence my statement that “It is only breakling the law if he is in England and Wales (there may possibly be a separate injunction in Scotland and/or NI).”
“as you have just done posting Thompson’s alleged address (almost certainly wrong by the way) – but being wrong doesn’t matter as even if incorrect, the injunction is breached.”
As I am currently not in the UK, you are wrong on this a point too – as you would realize if you did not have such an antipathy to the “salient points of law” (and the truth).
Replying to David Kessler 5.45.
I am not a supporter of anyone referred to on this site.
If you are a British citizen you are breaking the law. It is not only about where the poster is or where the site is. Again, you are displaying ignorance. Now you may claim not be a British citizen but clearly that is not the case (remember I have read the other thread on your own blog where you have shown yourself up to be absolutely clueless).
“If you are a British citizen you are breaking the law. It is not only about where the poster is or where the site is.”
Incorrect, British courts do not have extraterritorial jurisdiction.
“Now you may claim not be a British citizen.”
I am a British citizen and proud of it.
Kerry: “Thompson is almost certainly in the North West – NOT bloody Surrey…
But the fact that it is nonsense is irrelevant. It is still criminal to post such information – whether it is true or not.”
Then you have broken the law!
No I haven’t because I haven’t given any real area (even the media can point to where he is living – and the North West is always mentioned). And by the way, once you start claiming that any oppositional point of view = ‘supporting’ murderers, you indicate the complete intellectual vacuity of your position.
Kerry posited a general location, David, a general vicinity. You on the other handed posted a specific address you alleged to be RT’s. Big difference there.
@Joe
My half should more than suffice for your kind.
@Anonymous.
Good that you are able to joke about yourself but you’d be better off in the kitchen washing the dishes love!
STEVE: “Replying to David Kessler 5.45… I am not a supporter of anyone referred to on this site.”
I was replying to Kerry.
And the comment was trite and, as I said, intellectually barren.
@Steve
Of course I can see the pain in her face. The mothers of the Moors murder victims also had the same pained facial expressions. I’m afraid it’s an inevitable effect of having your child murdered. You make it sound as though you think it is an anomaly that pain and grief should be reflected in this way. However, I do think Denise is so very noble in the way she carries herself. She is truly an inspirational person.
What you and others here refer to as “her desire for vengeance” should be more aptly termed as her desire for justice.
I don’t know the killers personally – luckily for them – but my belief they are evil is based on the heinous crime they committed and their obvious lack of remorse for their horrific deed.
I can only repeat what I said to you in previous posts which is that I don’t believe she has instilled bitterness into her children. One of her sons stated as much in an interview. Do you think he is lying?
Perhaps she does require counselling but not from a COMMON PURPOSE trainee who would tell her that her natural desire for justice is abnormal.
Regarding your advise for us to emigrate, I don’t believe it would be either just or practical for the majority of the population to flee those deranged few who believe the murder of a child should be glossed over. Furthermore, I will be gladly considered a “child abuser” as long as the “abused” never get another opportunity to commit murder.
Concerning my emotions and thinking, as the great French children’s writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery said, it is only with the heart that we can see clearly.
Replying to Anonymous 6.41
First of all, even though I don’t agree with everything you write, it is gentle and well written. So, respect to you for that!
If she is an inspiration to you then that’s good.
I suppose at the back of it all I’d love her to be happy and show it publicly. Being bitter all the time isn’t good I think.
Again, justice is decided by the courts and vengence by individuals as I see it but I hear what you say too.
The crime was certainly cruel and unnecessary and I wouldn’t have done it. Regarding remorse, their doctors/professionals assigned to them did say they expressed remorse. Maybe they were lying? I certainly feel JV is a danger in light of what he has done since.
I am not sure about instilling bitterness in her children so I am open to what you say.
In relation to counselling, he/she should listen and let her talk and find herself. No trainees! And noone telling her what she should and shouldn’t do. She needs to first recognise that she needs it though and then ask if it comes to it?
In relation to the child abuse, I didn’t call you an abuser but do see it from your point of view. However, I would rather society did something constructive in an attempt to prevent child crimes. It is way out of control now. I believe in rehabilitation but wouldn’t want my kids lives at risk either. They were kids though. Were they adults at the time, my view may be similar to yours now.
I apolgise regarding the emotions bit. You seem to have your head well screwed on and are just very strong about this. When you explain yourself you do so logically and not agressively, which is good. Although we disagree on some points I believe there is room for negotiation on others.
Replying to David Kessler 6.38
Thank you for clarifying. I apologise
@Joe
It wasn’t about myself and I wasn’t joking.
I will ask Mr Kessler again. Name a country in the world that would have sentenced Thompson and Venables more harshly. By that I mean two ten year old children, put through adult proceedings, convicted as adults of murder, given life sentences and detained for 8 years being subject to life license on release.
Go one. There are a couple of countries who would do this. But I’m not sure it would be company you would be comfortable in. Go on, If you think they were treated unduly leniently – I challenge you to find examples in the world where they would have faced a stiffer sentence. And there have been brutal killings from children that age.
Answer the question given you are presenting yourself as such as expert (although you clearly are nothing of the kind).
As I never said other countries would, the question is irrelevant. I have stated numerous times that the leniency was in relation to the magnitude of the crime. I wasn’t adopting a follow-my-leader style when it came to sentencing policy in other countries.
The law states very clearly that in any case (no matter how serious) involving juveniles, the primary consideration is their welfare – NOT punishment. You really don’t see how your desire to inflict punishment on children is in any way disordered do you? The Children and Young People’s Act is very clear where the focus on the justice system should lie in such cases.
And it is a grotesque perversion of any civilised justice system to punish someone twice (and forcing them to be punished as children and punished again as adults for a crime committed when they were barely at the age of criminal responsibility, is, quite frankly, utterly repulsive).
And shame on you for providing a street address in the manner in which you have done so. This indicates that you have absolutely no respect for the rule of law whatsoever. I will also complain.
@David Kessler
Thank you for your comment Mr. Kessler.
British courts do not have jurisdiction over other nations’ courts. They do over British individuals. FFS – this is not that hard to grasp.
Well I’ve taken a screenshot and if Kessler’s post giving a street address is not removed by tomorrow morning, i will report both the site and Kessler to the Attorney General’s office. We know damn well how quick Grieve is to act in such circumstances. Let’s see if Kessler is as far removed from the law’s reach as he claims. To the site owner – remove that post – for your own good. By keeping it up there, you are liable to legal action yourself.
@Kerry
Quite right.
I won’t stand by and have innocent people harmed through the bad-mindedness of others and do absolutely nothing, which is why I have already emailed the ministry of justice and referred them to the site and poster.
I hope that knocks this arrogant asshole off his high horse.
OK – I see the post giving a street address is still up there.
I’m contacting the Attorney General’s office.
“David, if you’re implying that Kerry is me or has any relationship with me, let me state clearly that I don’t know her.”
Interestingly we both assumed that Kerry was female (although the name can be given to either gender).
“David, do you have any evidence that RT was “unbalanced” BEFORE being subjected to years of horrific physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by his own parents and siblings”
No. And the evidence for all these alleged crimes should be presented in a court of law.
Why should they be presented in a court of law? To satisfy the torture/abuse porn for third rate writers like you?
I do not know why you equate the prosecution of violent criminals with abuse, torture or porn, but if RT was the victim of these crimes, then those who committed the crimes against him should be proesecuted in a court of law.
I concur with whoever it was who said you are legally ignorant. Are you aware that any prosecution must fulfil two criteria – in the public interest and realistic prospect of conviction. Let’s look at the first one – how is it in the ‘public interest’ to have an entire family effectively living under the WPP forced to go through a public trial which may be deleterious to public order? That is assuming they will cooperate in the prosecution. As to the second, historical sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult and assault has a short state of limitations. Neither criteria is met.
What you are implying is that it is impossible for Thompson to be regarded as a victim in any way. That makes you remarkably stupid as you can’t even be bothered to do the must cursory research into the kind of people who end up in the criminal justice system (particularly juveniles).
So let me get this straight. For the purpose of concluding that RT was a victim, we “know” that he was subjected to all manner of abuse – and by whom. But for the purpose of holding those who did what we “know” accountable in law, we can’t actually prove it. But not to worry, at least we “know” it.
Neat logic!
This is a puerile and crass response. There was a social services report into the Thompson family conducted by the NSPCC after the murder. But the fact that you can’t even be bothered to look that up speaks volumes and the inadequacy of your position. The family was well known to social services for years (with a couple of the sibilings already being taken into care for abuse).
Your position appears to be that Thompson is simply ‘evil’ and underlines a basic stupidity and lack of knowledge about such crimes.
In short, you need to grow up.
Once again, you seem to be talking around the subject Mark, . You seem to be saying that accusations don’t have to be proven, just made. Can I join this free-for-all too and say that Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes were the victims of manslaughter?
(Meant statute of limitations btw)
@David Kessler
I have just purchased your novel “Mercy” as a birthday present for my step-father and he cannot stop raving about it.
Thanks.
Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. The inquest verdict remains despite the outcome of the criminal trial. I’m not talking around the subject. The report into the Thompson family indicates just what Thompson (and his sibilings) were subject to. Your insistence that only a criminal trial would satisfy you once again shows how pathetically ill-informed you are. Only the minority of child abuse/neglect cases reach a criminal trial. This is largely for the protection of children and their anonymity. Most children are simply removed from their parents.
You are choosing to believe (it appears to me) that Thompson’s behaviour appeared in a vaccum. Even those involved in the case (who knew the family well) know this to be untrue.
And your superior tone isn’t remotely giving your position any more weight. You are still looking like a fool.
“Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.”
At least we can agree on something.
So was Jean Charles de Menezes – notwithstanding the coroner’s erroneous decision to disallow the verdict.
He didn’t disallow the verdict. He didn’t put that before a jury – there was never a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’. They weren’t allowed to consider that verdict. All I’ll say to that is I believe not giving the jury that option was a mistake. I value the law – despite its inconsistencies sometimes.
Sorry, I meant disallowing the jury to consider that verdict. (His reasoning – that dishonesty by the shooters did not prove murder – missed the point that they could still be guilty of manslaughter.. Also unlawful killing could apply to the commander, even if the shooters were deemed innocent.)
“All I’ll say to that is I believe not giving the jury that option was a mistake.”
I agree. Notwithstanding your combative nature, we actually agree on some things.
Moving back to the point in question. There are supposedly 3 purposes to sentencing. Retribution, Deterrence and Rehabilitiation. The law is very clear on juveniles. The first is that the first purpose (retribution) must be secondary to welfare – welfare must be the priority. The second point is that it is actually unlawful to sentence for deterrence in the cases of very young children (this is not only underlined in the CYPA but also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the UK is a signatory). So we are left with rehabilitation as the primary purpose of sentencing. There can be a retributive element but not one that is deleterious to the welfare of the young person in question.
All this is right in my opinion.
Denise Fergus is wrong. Very wrong. She is irrelevant to the debate anyway and despite losing every battle she has fought since the conviction of T&V, she hasn’t taken the hint.
The policy of placing the welfare of juvenile offenders over deterrence has the inevitable effect of vitiating deterrence. (Do not ask me to prove it empirically; it follows logically:. If you place anything above deterrence, it follows that deterrence will be attenuated.
A number of years ago I saw a docuemntary about teenage girl gangs in which they bragged:”even if they catch us, they can’t do anything because we’re children. (Technically they were Young Persons, but the statement reflected their way of thought.
In other words, do not think that young people are unaware of the opportunities for crime afforded by the “welfare first;deterrence, second” policy. They are aware of it and if they are part of the small minority who are minded to commit crimes, they trade on it shamelesly
.
You don’t sentence for deterrence for juveniles. In any case, deterrent sentencing doesn’t work. Any criminologist will tell you that it is not the length or severity of the sentence that deters – it is the liklihood of getting caught. It works even less for juveniles. It doesn’t matter that deterrence will not be present if welfare is placed above it – deterrence shouldn’t be present AT ALL in juvenile sentencing.
That you think people’s actions are controlled by what ‘might’ happen to them ‘if’ they are caught merely indicates to me that you need to read more rather than base your assumptions on popular TV shows (in any case, the moral panic about ‘girl gangs’ as been more or less shown to be just that – there is no evidence girls are any more or less violent than they have ever been in the past).
And by the way, youth crime has been falling pretty sharply for years (particularly violent crime), despite the youth custody rate being slashed in the past five years (when it was finally agknowledged after years of high incarceration rates for juveniles that it simply did not work – severe sentences did not deter, did not reform and did nothing to protect the public). You see I have facts, all you have is ‘wot I rekon’ and a pathetically immature desire to punish – even if that sadistic streak is enacted on ten year old children. The right wing in the US have clocked this too and many Republican states have started slashing their youth custody rates – closing facilities in the process. They’ve seen corresponding drops in youth crime along with reducing harsh sentences.
But let’s go back to the case in hand and look at the sentence handed to two ten year olds. Juvenile equivalent of life (with a life license) and a detention period of 8 years.
Now let’s look at a sentence handed down today to three other Liverpudlian juveniles – older than T&V who brutally attacked a vulnerable homeless person while he was sleeping and were convicted of murder:
http://news.sky.com/story/1078432/teens-sentenced-for-murdering-homeless-man
Minimum terms – 12 years, 8 years, 6 years.
Juveniles are treated differently and there are sound social, medical and damn well moral reasons for this.
Deterrent sentencing is worthless for a ten year old. It would probably also be unlawful. Indeed, the Law Lords suggested as much when they shot down Michael Howard’s extension to the tariff.
“Do not ask me to prove it empirically; it follows logically:. If you place anything above deterrence, it follows that deterrence will be attenuated.”
No it doesn’t. This doesn’t follow logically, though I’m glad you admit you can’t remotely prove it empirically. There’s a damn good reason you can’t prove it empirically: it’s false.
I notice David, that Dostoyevsky was mentioned earlier. I take it you are a fan? You slated the literary opinions of another poster because they didn’t appear to fit your view. Yet the view of the poster is the correct one (imo – and I have a masters degree in nineteenth century literature). Dostoyevsky would have found your ideas of ‘evil’ childish, simplistic and worthless – and rightly so. (Have you not read House of the Dead?)
Mark,
I agree with you and your explanation on certain points of law should not leave anybody in any doubt regarding the correct course of action.
Unfortunately, some people have their own agenda and will not listen.
I also believe in the legal system and even though I am not entirely happy with some laws, until the guidelines are changed, I am happy to abide by them.
How long has Dostoyevsky employed you as his spokesman?
This Kessler bloke is a real piece of work. He dismisses the view of Thompson as a victim (doesn’t fit his mindset of him as some kind of deep evil) despite the fact that it his family history is widely known about, yet then comes out with ‘I watched a documentary once’ to explain his (completely shallow) view of juvenile justice.
Yet he makes his own crass assumptions. For example, his claim that the money Denise Fergus receives (from the scummiest tabloids in Britain) is only put to worthy use. That she’s not in the least bit grasping and only concerned with justice. This despite the fact that the woman did a huge Hello spread mere months after the murder of her son and before the trial. You can’t say that was about ‘justice’. She did another Hello spread just after the trial and soon after that (in 1994) happily engaged the services of Chris Johnson (a truly despicable individual – if anything worse than bottom feeders like Kelvin MacKenzie) to sniff around the gutter press for the best deals.
So Thompson was a victim but you despise Denise Fergus. Interesting where you posit yourself in relation to murderers and their victims.
Interesting that you’re too reductive and simple-minded to realize that’s not what she said.
Don’t blame me for your poor comprehension.
Kessler is an agitator who uses weak arguments to rile people and get the attention he craves.
He then slags off anyone who disagrees with him. Those who take the bait give him even more attention.
But the real reason he is on this forum is to promote himself and his books.
Read some of his posts. A vile individual!
Well I’ve never read his books. Call me an intellectual snob but I’ll happily assume that they are beneath me.
Trust me: they are.
I read one of his books: A Marked Man. It was easily one of the two or three worst novels I’ve ever read.
Nonsense – I am a very nice individual. Ask anyone who knows me.
@Joe
“Kessler is an agitator who uses weak arguments to rile people and get the attention he craves.
He then slags off anyone who disagrees with him. Those who take the bait give him even more attention.
Read some of his posts. A vile individual!”
That sounds more like Virgil! (though I would have omitted “some of”).
Actually, Kessler’s argument are fallacious. He can’t deny that internationally speaking, Thompson and Venables were treated harshly by comparison so he has to move the goalposts. They were treated leniently by his rudimentary grasp of the criminal justice system.
If you place anything above deterrence, it means that you are not doing what you would if deterrence were your principal objective. Therefore you are weakening deterence. To use an analogy,if you run in a race and fo nmot try to win then you are less likely to win than if you were running to win. I can’t prove that empirically. But like what I said about deterrence, the proof is analytical rather than empirical.
But deterrence is NOT the first principle when sentencing juveniles. This is clear from law!!!! You’ve already been told this.
“But deterrence is NOT the first principle when sentencing juveniles. ”
I never said it was. I said that the consequence of deterrence not being the first priority is that deterrence is weaker than it would be if it WERE the first principle. This is obvious from common sense. If you make an objective your second or third priority, you are less likely to succeed than if you make it your first priority.
@Kerry – What sort of person prints an address, any old address without thought to potential consequences in a public forum? Someone looking for attention maybe? So don’t try to work him out logically – it’s a waste of time.
@Anonymous. No it’s Kessler!
Virgil, despite having abuse hurled at him, has retained a somewhat more dignified approach at times. Some of his arguments are a bit crazy but others are right on the money. Of the two, Virgil would be more open and reasonable. He hasn’t offended me yet but I can see how he could offend others as I do.
Actually it was Virgil who hurled abuse. He was in fact rude to me from the beginning and then didn’t like it when he got a taste of his own medicine -once again his opposition to the idea of the victimizer getting back what he dishes out!
Yeah right, David.
Face it, you are a goal-post moving crybaby.
I have addressed every one of your arguments directly and without circumlocution or obfuscation. But you’ve mounted a series of straw man arguments, like your favorite bullshit tactic of accusing anyone who takes issue with Denise Fergus’ public stances of sympathizing with criminals INSTEAD OF victims.
That one can have a measure of sympathy for BOTH Thompson AND Fergus seems to have escaped you.
Admittedly, not every one of your posts consists of straw-manning, but most of them do. Like this one directed at Kerry:
“So Thompson was a victim but you despise Denise Fergus. Interesting where you posit yourself in relation to murderers and their victims.”
It is perfectly possible to be both a victim and unlikeable. It’s not either/or. After all, Thompson himself was a victim and also plenty dislikeable in his police interviews (one reason he was falsely labelled the ringleader and puppet-master: he came off as more unlikeable than JV in the interviews).
In your silly mind, one is either one or the other, but not both (but then we could gather that from the cardboard characters in your atrocious fiction).
Disliking someone is not the same thing as despising them, as you know full well.
And pointing out your various erroneous assumptions in relation to her Justice for James is not an assault on her either. It’s simply correcting the factual record.
“I have addressed every one of your arguments directly and without circumlocution or obfuscation.”
Let’s take an example: I said the sentences were lenient relative to the crime;(abduction and murder) you said No they can’t be, because they’re consistent with sentencing policy and less than other countries would impose. That’s obfuscation.
You said it can’t be murder because there was no premeditation at the time of the abduction. That’s obfuscation.
You called the abduction a “prank” – that’s obfuscation.
You said they may not have known that throwing bricks at a toddler would kill him. That’s obfuscation.
I don’t mind your rudeness – it is a confession of your intellectual vacuity. Just don’t get huffy when you get a taste of your own medicine.
Kerry joined in with expressions like “reactionary” – the old Maoist slogan.
“He was in fact rude to me from the beginning and then didn’t like it when he got a taste of his own medicine -once again his opposition to the idea of the victimizer getting back what he dishes out!”
Wah! Wah! Wah! Wah! Mummy, he started it!
It’s not my fault I’ve been acting like a goal-post moving, straw-man building asshole in post after post after post. He started it!
Robert Thompson deserves not a speck of sympathy for anything he’s endured in life – terrible beatings, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, the omnipresent threat of vigilante violence – but I, David Kessler, am THE MOST TERRIBLE VICTIM, don’t you see?, of Virgil’s abuse because Virgil once stated my novel was pulp and trash and my comparison of myself with Dostoyevsky delusional nonsense!
Have you ever heard of Lionel Alexander Tate?? ….just wondering???
Yes – I have heard of him. And what that case shows is that even in prison loving America, Thompson and Venables would have been treated much less harshly. For that horrible killing, Tate was eventually sentenced to one year’s house arrest (what we would call ‘tag’) and several years probation! Indeed, he was given several more chances after breaking his probation conditions until eventually being reincarcerated (for a weapons offence I believe). While initially tried as an adult and put through adult proceedings and then given a whole life tariff, the outcry was so huge that the prosecution even helped the defence in getting the sentence struck out. (Although to judge rightly condemned the prosecution for putting him through the adult process in the first place as having been convicted, there was only one sentencing option open to him). The prosecution of course wanted a plea bargain but Tate’s mother refused.
Interesting how Virgil chooses to ignore this question as it contradicts his (repeated) theory that no child murdereres have gone on to commit crimes as adults…..????
“Don’t blame me for your poor comprehension.”
I don’t. I blame you for your shabby morals.
“Face it, you are a goal-post moving crybaby.”
The topic of this discussion was the Bulger murder and a sub-topic was the scope of the injunction. My writing was not the issue. By introducing your ill-informed, opinions of it (from one book that you speedread), you were changing the subject and thus moving the goalposts.
You tried to justify it by saying that my opinion of the Bulger murder reflected the same attitude as my writing. But elsewhere you said that I CONTRADICTED the opinions expressed in the one book of mine that you (speed) read. You couldn’t win the debate so you resorted to “You’re a crap writer.” But you couldn’t prove it.
I don’t know your writing. However, I can say that having read your opinions, they aren’t very well informed. You accuse others of the same kind of conjecture that you yourself are guilty of. This crime was extremely unusual (hence the relevance for deterrence in sentencing extremely suspect – what you are deterring?!) However, it is not a one-off – there are other examples of equal horror and these were dealt with differently. You have implied that the unique level of violence marks this out as deserving of a particular punishment. I, however, would say the extreme violence marks this out as a crime committed by children – who have limits to both self-control and resilance. As for commenting on someone’s morality, I’m afraid a person who who demands adult-type punishment for ten year old children is seriously lacking in morality.
You assume only good motives in the victim’s mother despite plenty of evidence to the reverse – including the presence of a PR agent who makes his money by flogging tales to the vilest examples of British journalism. That someone might be able to have sympathy for Denise Fergus as a bereaved mother who suffered dreadfully yet admonish her for behaviour that at times is, frankly, repellent; merely shows you up as someone who can only deal with the most simplistic absolutes. The problem Denise Fergus has is that for every person who thinks she can do not wrong, there is another who recoils from her.
Your knowledge of the law is extremely limited. You seem to think that it would be lawful to punish them as children then punish them again as adults (it’s not). You still don’t seem to have grasped the relevence deterrence has in sentencing juveniles (it has none) and have merely repeated something that has already been shown to be flawed.
“You tried to justify it by saying that my opinion of the Bulger murder reflected the same attitude as my writing. But elsewhere you said that I CONTRADICTED the opinions expressed in the one book of mine that you (speed) read.”
Once again, this is a manifestation of your crudeness and banality of thought and your inability to appreciate any sort of nuance and texture of meaning.
I said there were a few SPECIFIC PASSAGES in your book that contradicted SOME of what you were posting here about the law.
The OVERALL IMAGINATIVE AND MORAL VISION, however, is consonant and consistent between David Kessler the blogger, David Kessler the messageboard lurker, and David Kessler the crime novelist.
YOU YOURSELF excerpted on your website a review of one of your books that labelled the book “shockingly reactionary.” I then said that I concurred with that label. It’s hardly my personal, bizarre idiosyncrasy to find your views “shockingly reactionary” when other readers have come to the exact same conclusion!
And your stance here is bogus, anyway. You’ve slung just as much mud my way as I have yours. Indeed, you have flung insults and abuse at every single poster on this site who has disagreed with your views: Kerry, Mark, Steve.
If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Stop whining and snivelling about the aggressiveness of my posts when your own posts are no less aggressive.
“Once again, this is a manifestation of your crudeness and banality of thought and your inability to appreciate any sort of nuance and texture of meaning.”
More of Virgil’s gobbledygook.
Whereas I use my own name, you hide behind the screen name of an ancient writer, You praise the famous, great writers, knowing that this takes no intelligence, you just look them up on Wikipedia or skim through Cliffs Notes. You claim that a clumsy literary technique is not clumsy when used by Dostoyevsky. You criticize a writer who disagrees with you, but your criticism would come off better if you actually demonstrated the capacity to write a book yourself – or at least read one rather than speed-read. As you have demonstrated no such capacity, it is hard to see what trust can be placed in your.
Of course my views are consistent just as your sympathies with murderers, your hostility towards the Denise Fergus and your belief that kidnapping a toddler is a a “prank” reflects the consistency of your beliefs.
I exerted a criticism of my book because I like to show both sides and also because to some extent I accept the criticism of that particular book. However on the point of me being “reactionary” that is simply a communist term for a conservative.
I have not abused those who merely disagreed with me. When you disagree with me politely I am polite to you. When you resort to rudeness, I respond in your language. I suppose in that sense I am “reactionary” inasmuch as I react to the precedent set by my opponents.
Omg!! You can’t talk Virgil…you have done the exact same thing!!! If I remember correctly it was you that fired the first insult at David just because he put his own views forward and disagreed with yours. (in an equally intelligent manner btw) Rather than having a reasonable debate, where both parties could have a discussion, you Virgil, made reference to David’s books and questioned his writing ability in a very (in my opinion) insulting manner! Why would you do that!? You were and still are, putting down someone’s life, passion, job, ability etc. That is not a very nice thing to do, regardless of your difference of opinion…you are getting too personal Virgil!! We are all entitled to our own opinion…have you even considered Denis Fergus’s psyche in all of this…maybe she too has underlying issues from her background!!! Maybe she isn’t as intelligent as you lot think you are and maybe she is blinded by grief!?!!! In any case she doesn’t deserve the abuse she has been given on here because she is a heartbroken victim of a horrendous crime!!!! I really feel for her…does that mean I am a ‘half wit’ then???? Probably!?!
“Of course my views are consistent just as your sympathies with murderers, your hostility towards the Denise Fergus and” reflects the consistency of your beliefs.”
Every single one of these is a straw man statement.
“Sympathies with murderers” – I have specifically mentioned, time and again, numerous killers who manifested clear signs of psychopathy, sadism, and lack of remorse that JV and RT did not manifest.
Furthermore, I specifically mentioned several individuals – such as
Graham Young the Iago-like serial poisoner who began his infamous career while still in his early teens – who I did NOT feel any sympathy for and felt ought NOT to be put in the same category as JV or RT: i.e. some killers really ARE psychopaths and really do live to kill (serial killers) and thus too dangerous to be let out. (Graham Young WAS released from a mental hospital and shouldn’t have been.)
You conveniently glossed over those statements because that wouldn’t suit your purposes of erecting straw men it’s easy for you to knock down.
For making this distinction, for insisting on bringing these distinctions and understandings into the light of day (for the specific purpose of replying to the legions of “THOSE BOYS WERE PURE EVIL” charges levelled by all and sundry),you accuse me of “sympathizing with murderers rather than victims,” as if all “murderers” are one monolithic group and all “victims” one monolithic group!
But I think it’s becoming obvious to honest readers of this thread which of us is more concerned with getting at the factual truth and which of us is the wilful obfuscator and pathological liar.
“your hostility towards the Denise Fergus” – another red herring.
Do or do not people have the right to question and criticize the views expressed by a woman who has been in the public eye for 20 years and who makes frequently false statements in the press? do or do not people have a right to express disapproval of a woman who has on more than one occasion attempted to stir up vigilantes to track down and kill RT and JV?
Yes or no. Answer the question. Yes or no.
Is absolutely everything Denise Fergus has done – including her public incitements to vigilante murder – acceptable and honourable to you? Do you applaud her for inciting vigilante murder?
Because I don’t. And saying so does not make me a monster or a “lover of criminals,” as you so dishonestly frame the issue.
“your belief that kidnapping a toddler is a “prank”
Here, in a nutshell, is precisely how you obfuscate and mislead. Here, in a nutshell, is a clear example of your dishonest, fraudulent method of arguing points.
You know damn well what I’m saying here, but you are being deceptive. By a “prank” I mean it was not what people normally conjure up in their minds when they hear the word “kidnapping” or “abduction.”
Words are more than their dictionary meanings. They have a series of connotations and associations. “Kidnapping” and ‘abduction” imply planning, cunning, and strategy – a nefarious plot – as you know damn well, which is why you keep using these (to borrow your own phrase) “weasel words.”
When I say “stunt” and “prank” I am pointing out the obvious: all of the evidence points to this being a spur of the moment stunt, and not some clever premeditated plot. As the jury foreman himself said (I’m paraphrasing): The Judge was just wrong, these kids weren’t evil, they didn’t have the presence of mind for that, they were a pair of stupid kids.
You are trying to squirm out of the truth: the evidence points to a lack of planning and foresight, and a lack of intention to kill UNLESS (and we don’t even know this for sure either) the intention to kill was formulated very late in the day, shortly before he WAS killed.
You yourself are deceptive on this point, not me. You are trying to obfuscate the key issue, which is that there’s no good evidence of premeditation or planning or any sign that this was anything other than a spur-of-the-moment prank, a stupid childish prank that went catastrophically wrong in the worst way.
Prank is indeed the correct word to use here: the clearest non-emotive description of what they actually did.
““Sympathies with murderers” – I have specifically mentioned, time and again, numerous killers who manifested clear signs of psychopathy, sadism, and lack of remorse that JV and RT did not manifest.”
Obfuscation! You EXPLICITLY stated that you empathize with JV and RT
“you accuse me of “sympathizing with murderers rather than victims,” as if all “murderers” are one monolithic group and all “victims” one monolithic group!”
It is your attempt to blur the distinction that characterizes your “morals.”
” “your hostility towards the Denise Fergus” – another red herring.
“Do or do not people have the right to question and criticize the views expressed by a woman who has been in the public eye for 20 years and who makes frequently false statements in the press? do or do not people have a right to express disapproval of a woman who has on more than one occasion attempted to stir up vigilantes to track down and kill RT and JV?”
Let’s recall that you specifically accused her of profiting from her son’s death because she gets paid for interviews. That is a lie – or at best spin. It is like accusing anyone who writes a book about the case of profiting from her son’s death. (No doubt you would accuse me of profiting from the death of Rachel Nickel.)
““your belief that kidnapping a toddler is a “prank”
Here, in a nutshell, is precisely how you obfuscate and mislead. Here, in a nutshell, is a clear example of your dishonest, fraudulent method of arguing points.
You know damn well what I’m saying here, but you are being deceptive. “By a “prank” I mean it was not what people normally conjure up in their minds when they hear the word “kidnapping” or “abduction.”
Words are more than their dictionary meanings. They have a series of connotations and associations. “Kidnapping” and ‘abduction” imply planning, cunning, and strategy – a nefarious plot ”
That is not true. A spontaneous abduction is still an abduction. And it was pre-meditated inasmuch as they decided to do before actually doing it. Stealing a kid’s toy is a prank. Kidnapping a kid is a crime.
“The Judge was just wrong, these kids weren’t evil, they didn’t have the presence of mind for that, they were a pair of stupid kids.”
No Virgil YOU are WRONG! Kidnapping the kid was not stupid. It WAS evil. Even if I accept that JV and RT were psychologically damaged by their own experience, it was still evil. If you cannot see this you are morally blind.
“You are trying to squirm out of the truth: the evidence points to a lack of planning and foresight”
Lack of planning may be true, but while the act was in progress they would certainly have realized that what they were doing was wrong. The crimes (abduction and murder) were not over in an instant. They had time to consider and recoil. They didn’t. THESE are the facts that you are trying to water down.
” and a lack of intention to kill UNLESS (and we don’t even know this for sure either) the intention to kill was formulated very late in the day, shortly before he WAS killed”
If they had thrown just one brick, this might be plausible. But that is not the case..
“You yourself are deceptive on this point, not me. You are trying to obfuscate the key issue, which is that there’s no good evidence of premeditation or planning”
I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but pre-meditation (in the sense of planning) is not required for murder. Only an intention to cause either death or GBH. And the act of throwing several bricks clearly shows that desire.
“or any sign that this was anything other than a spur-of-the-moment prank, a stupid childish prank that went catastrophically wrong in the worst way.”
If he had fallen to his death while in their charge, I would accept that sort of argument. But they killed him by throwing bricks at him.
“Prank is indeed the correct word to use here: the clearest non-emotive description of what they actually did.”
To one who empathizes with them perhaps. But not to one who is simply looking at the facts.
“Obfuscation! You EXPLICITLY stated that you empathize with JV and RT”
I do! But there is a world of difference between that statement and the wildly misleading attitude you attribute to me: that I sympathize with killers at the expense of victims.
That is NOT obfuscation. YOU are engaged in obfuscation.
When you attribute to someone the belief AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE that killers IN GENERAL are more sympathetic and more worthy of compassion than victims IN GENERAL you are intent on deceiving. You have no other purpose but to deceive the impartial reader.
Another way to put it is: you are quite deliberately and consciously LYING about what my beliefs are. You knew damn well you were misstating my position. You don’t care about factual truth: you are a liar, a straw man-builder, and a goal-post mover.
Once again:
1) I specifically stated a particular fact: that JV and RT did not manifest the trademarks of authentic psychopaths and remorseless criminals. They manifested numerous signs of PTSD, recurring nightmares, even hallucinations in JV’s case.
2) I then provided several names of young or young-ish killers who did manifest these trademarks in abundance and I made clear that many of these individuals are dangerous, without conscience, and a menace to society: Graham Young, Joe Boyer, Chantelle Booth, Elijah Page (American: he got the death penalty, but he was an adult when he committed his murder).
3) I pointed out the fact that they JV and RT were not leniently treated by international standards or even by British standards. When confronted with this information, you immediately moved the goalposts by claiming you were talking about your own ideal and accused me of “goose-stepping”
and made a silly, puerile comparison of the European Court to Nazi era Germany.
4) I have taken issue with Denise Fergus’ tendency to tell lies in interviews as well as her willingness to encourage violent vigilantism. This gets translated by you into a hatred of victims and a love and sympathy for criminals! You then psycho-analyzed me by claiming that I identify with JV because I have a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I attitude, rather revoltingly suggesting that I have murderous urges myself.
For fuck’s sake, it surely should be obvious to any reader of integrity and good will that you – who consider yourself a “sedate” reasoner and model of sober “intelligence” – are willing to stoop to any falsification to score your points.
It’s called straw-manning, and you seem to have built an entire life around it.
VIRGIL
” I specifically stated a particular fact: that JV and RT did not manifest the trademarks of authentic psychopaths and remorseless criminals.”
And I never said they were psychopaths so you are straw-manning here. I said they were evil and questioned whether JV (but not RT) was truly remorseful. Remorse is not presumed over lack thereof – at least not in my eyes.
“They manifested numerous signs of PTSD, recurring nightmares, even hallucinations in JV’s case.”
As told by… JV?
“”I pointed out the fact that they JV and RT were not leniently treated by international standards or even by British standards. When confronted with this information, you immediately moved the goalposts by claiming you were talking about your own ideal”
Er, excuse me but I never said my use of the word leniently was in relation to other jurisdictions. You misinterpreted what I said and I corrected you as to what I meant. That is hardly moving the goal posts.
“I have taken issue with Denise Fergus’ tendency to tell lies in interviews as well as her willingness to encourage violent vigilantism.”
You have also attempted to portray her act of giving interviews for money as cashing in on her son’s death. I have explained time and time again, why this is malicious spin.
” This gets translated by you into a hatred of victims and a love and sympathy for criminals!”
It is the COMBINATION of your comments about Denise Fergus on the one hand and JV/RT on the other than points to that conclusion. You were not averse to characterizing a competent, experienced lawyer as a “Gary Stu” (apparently one of your favourite expressions in your limited second-hand repertoire of literary criticism). You suggested that because a female character from the ghetto went to night school to study law and didn’t feel any self-pity that she was analogous to the heroines that George Elliot mocked in her essay that you cited.
So don’t get on your high horse about being misinterpreted or misrepresented.
“You then psycho-analyzed me by claiming that I identify with JV because I have a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I attitude, rather revoltingly suggesting that I have murderous urges myself.”
Look back at what you said BEFORE I made those comments.
“Let’s recall that you specifically accused her of profiting from her son’s death because she gets paid for interviews. That is a lie – or at best spin.”
That is not a lie. It’s a fact.
How is it “spinning” to state that a woman who gets paid for her various interviews gets paid for her various interviews?
She gets paid for interviews. She does interviews regularly and has done for 20 years, including prior to the trial (so long before a Justice for James campaign even existed).
The only one “spinning” here is you.
Dictionary definition of “profit: “to earn money from something.”
How the hell is that a “lie”?
Yes, I plead guilty to making the factually correct statement that Denise Fergus “earns money from something” – the “something” being talking about James’ death.
“It is like accusing anyone who writes a book about the case of profiting from her son’s death. (No doubt you would accuse me of profiting from the death of Rachel Nickel.)”
Poor analogy. In some sense, yes, the entire media has made an enormous profit off her son’s death: they wouldn’t keep on with the story if it weren’t profitable.
But there is a qualitative difference between a writer who writes a book about the Bulger murder who relentlessly strives to report only the factual truth, to the best of his or her ability, and a woman (however understandable her grief and fury) who makes money telling lies, fibs, and falsehoods on a regular basis.
One individual is being paid to tell the truth. The other is being paid to tell lies a good portion of the time. Big difference.
Dictionary definition of “kidnap” : “to carry off (a person) by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom”
“… especially for use as a hostage or to extract ransom….”
Therefore, I am correct in stating that the ordinary, everyday meaning of “kidnap” tends to carry associative meanings, whereas “profit” does not carry the negative meanings you attribute to it.
Once again, you were using words sloppily and without care as to meaning, and without any real desire to arrive at the truth.
I want to know what really happened. You obviously don’t.
Once again, you are locked into either/or thinking. Either they “kidnapped” James or it was a stupid “prank,” but not both. But I was quite correct in stating that kidnap has all sorts of associative meanings (related to hostage taking and ransom) that were inapplicable here. I pointed that out and you pounced on me for it. But I was (according to the dictionary) correct.
“No Virgil YOU are WRONG! Kidnapping the kid was not stupid. It WAS evil. Even if I accept that JV and RT were psychologically damaged by their own experience, it was still evil. If you cannot see this you are morally blind.”
Did you overlook that I was giving a direct paraphrase of the opinion of the jury foreman? So you’re accusing some members of the jury of being “morally blind.” He wasn’t the only juror who thought that either.
How was “kidnapping” (that inapt word again) the kid “evil”? How exactly does that constitute “evil,” given that the evidence is overwhelming that they almost certainly did NOT kidnap him with the express purpose of killing him?
After all, if they had no initial intention (or any intention till literally the eleventh hour) to do GBH to him or kill him, how the hell is their initial decision in any way “evil”? Stupid, yes, and foolish, reckless behaviour. But not evil.
After all, if things had all gone the way they initially thought they would, he would never have died. Only if the intention had been all along to kill him rather than eventually return him could their initial abduction of him be legitimately described as evil.
On the other hand, for a man in his fifties to recklessly post a false address on a public board claiming it to be the address of Robert Thompson, now that is truly reprehensible, the act of a moral cretin.
@Virgil
Freedom of speech should apply to everyone whether you agree with their views or not. It is obvious you do not share that belief, as your demand for “responsible media coverage” – doublespeak for press censorship – clearly shows.
Can’t speak for Virgil but I certainly have no desire to muzzle the press. However, I can say that the involvement of the tabloid media in this case as been little short of despicable. It isn’t about ‘free speech’ – they simply see the corpse of an horrifically murdered toddler as a cash cow. Sorry but it is that low I’m afraid. (Paul Dacre even called the Bulger killing a ‘profitable story’).
There is, of course a more nuanced and responsible reporting in all the broadsheet newspapers. Certainly one newspaper (NOTW) committed criminal acts in the name of the story – hacking phones – specifically Robert Thompson’s phone as well as (allegedly) those close to him; another (The Sun) paid a public official for information clearly not in the public interest. I have a very strong belief (note belief, so I’m saying nothing libellous) that The Daily Mail also broke the law when it published the views of a social worker who worked in the unit as Thompson (certainly if they paid that social worker, they broke the law).
Another newspaper (The People) published falsified documents on the case (documents which they paid for and which were forged).
So much of the press reponse hasn’t just been ‘irresponsible’, it has been criminal.
Correct Mark.
Can’t people see that papers are in existance for one reason? TO SELL.
Fergus has been and continues to be manipulated by the press and seems to be quite happy to be one their whores. They fund her lifestyle.
I agree David!! When I dared to disagree with Virgil, he called me ‘uneducated’ and other such insulting names which basically equates to bullying/name calling/verbal abuse!!! All the things he is so called dead against especially when defending JV and RT!! No need!!!
You show you have no clue what freedom of speech even means. You are expressing an empty platitude, a vapid banality.
Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to lie, slander, and defame.
Much of what has been reported (for 20 years) in the gutter press is hogwash. It isn’t slightly wrong, it’s just made-up trash fiction masquerading as fact. This is now known from the Omand report: most of what the tabloids ever reported was flat-out nonsense.
In other words: the “freedom of the press” you so cherish was simply the freedom to disseminate a pack of lies.
Consider what happens when gutter journalism becomes a dominant force in any country. Responsible and nuanced reporting then becomes pushed to the margins and only exaggerated, lurid, and distorted coverage takes the spotlight.
In other words, the Murdoch empire, while hiding behind the “freedom of speech” excuse, has actually, in the long run, contributed to the muzzling and marginalizing of authentically free speech, since authentic free speech necessarily involves nuance and texture, which gets thrown out the window by the gutter press in favour of spectacle and sensationalism.
Virgil may call other people “uneducated” but we don’t know how educated he is (if at all). Just because he has speed-read cliff’s Notes, doesn’t make him an intellectual.
Virgil’s style is to be rude, provoke a reaction and then accuse the other party of rudeness. He openly admits sympathizing with murderers of children, but when it comes to the mother of their victim his style is “I sympathize with her, BUT…”
And then come the insults, libels and his implied belief that it’s all right for people to make money writing books about the case )especially if they agree with his viewpoint) but that when Denise Fergus receives money for an interview this makes her a “professional victim” who is “profiting from her son’s death.”
“He who is merciful to the cruel is destined to be cruel to the merciful.”
Unfortunately for you, David, both your posts and mine are available for all to see, and I’m confident that honest and sober-minded readers will be able to see for themselves just how much of a straw-man builder and goal-post move are.
Even those predisposed to agree more with your views than mine must be able to see that I’ve always attempted to address actual assertions that you have made, whereas you, more often than not, have been content to build castles in the sky and straw men on the ground.
This latest post of yours is nothing else but a series of bogus statements from start to finish. (For example, to pick at random, what did I say here that constitutes “libel,” as you accuse me of?)
“I said that the consequence of deterrence not being the first priority is that deterrence is weaker than it would be if it WERE the first principle.”
Lord above. IT IS NOT A PRINCIPLE AT ALL! There is a general consensus that sentencing for deterrence is not justified or useful when it comes to juveniles. There is even less point in having a deterrent part of the sentence for murder. Are you suggesting that deterrence should be placed above welfare for two ten year old boys?
MARK: “There is a general consensus that sentencing for deterrence is not justified or useful when it comes to juveniles.”
I do not know on what basis you can claim a general consensus. Are you saying that everyone agrees that juveniles (which means up to and including seventeen BTW) never consider consequences?
BTW, I am not disputing your earlier argument that it is the probability of getting caught that is most important, but I would qualify that by saying that this probability is only relevant if there is the perception of sufficient punishment resulting from it. Probability is the major variable, but it is the product of the two – probability of apprehension and magnitude of punishment- that determines deterrence
Re deterrence versus welfare, I am suggesting that deterrence and welfare are inter-related, because the actions of one can have a devastating effect on others. Deterrence of wrongdoing thus protects the welfare of potential victims. Sentencing SHOULD certainly consider welfare, but not only – or even mainly – the welfare of the offender.
I think he means amongst people familiar with what works. The vast majority of criminologists dispute the efficacy of deterrence at all. And by the way, you only have to look in the most shallow way at the majority of academic writing to show that what you have assumed about deterrence has been disproved empirically – time and time again.
Sentencing only considers welfare as a priority in juveniles. The fact that you indicate that this could be wrong (‘or even mainly’) is putrid. We are talking ten year old children (eleven when they were sentenced). OF COURSE their welfare must be the primary concern. It is repellent that anyone can think different.
“The vast majority of criminologists dispute the efficacy of deterrence at all.”
If “dispute efficacy of deterrence” refers to whether or not deterrence IS being achieved, I would agree. If it refers to whether or not it CAN be achieved, I would have to disagree, based on my own everyday experiences in real life situations.
Calling something “putrid” because you disagree with it, is the emotional style of debate that is far removed from the sedate style that I associate with intelligence. I know that even academics can get bitchy, but only when they do it with style, can they carry it off.
“It is repellent that anyone can think different.”
Now if I had said something like that, Virgil would have called me arrogant.
“Calling something “putrid” because you disagree with it, is the emotional style of debate that is far removed from the sedate style that I associate with intelligence.”
You mean, along the lines of this “sedate style,” this sober, thoughtful, and rational approach right here?
“Wot? Me speaky too high-bwow for you. Little boy anonymous no understandee biggy wordies? Little boy want simple English that not tax tinsy-winsy little brainy-wainy?”
“You are growing tiresome with your desperate attempts to propagate crackpot theories.”
“The character of Dorothy – like you – hid away from real life within a world of literature and fiction, using the literary world in which she immersed herself as an escape against the bullying that she endured at the hands of her peers.”
“you are morally-grey, criminal friendly lefty, prostituting what intellect you have in defense of child-killers”
“More weasel words. If you wish to label some one a “child abuser” at least have the courage of your convictions. To call advocacy of life imprisonment for murder “child abuse” is the kind of demagoguery I’d expect only of those who identify more readily with criminals than with law-abiding citizens.”
“they are not right-thinking… They are wrong-thinking…. They are hypocrites.”
This last phrase, by the way, Kerry and Mark, was applied by David to absolutely anyone who disagrees with Denise Fergus’ demands for a life sentence in adult prison (or worse) for JV and RT.
I specifically pressed this point – are you really saying, David, that all individuals who, even if they express every sympathy with Denise Fergus for her loss but have openly disagreed with her opinions of what constitutes appropriate punishment, are, without exception, “wrong-thinking hypocrites”?
Apparently, the answer is yes. He stands by this opinion.
And then there’s this charming bit,
“This is a vicious distortion of the reality. Any money they [Denise and Stuart Fergus] were paid would almost certainly have been used to further promote their campaign for justice. To imply that they money has in some way improved their lifestyle of amounted to personal gain is defamatory and misleading.”
written in response to a poster who claimed, correctly, that although they’ve suffered a terrible loss the Ferguses have been among those who have profited financially from James’ death. This very mild (and proveable, and factually accurate) statement, buried within a much longer post, aroused the wrath of the “sedate” and fiercely “intelligent” Mr. Kessler, who accused that poster of a “vicious distortion of reality” when his post was demonstrably no such thing.
And he has the nerve to accuse anyone else of being overly “emotional,” while in his mind he has been, all along, the embodiment of unfailing courtesy and sober intelligence.
What a sadly delusional, self-deceiving soul this pathetic and wretched man is. A genius in his own mind.
“You mean, along the lines of this “sedate style,” this sober, thoughtful, and rational approach right here?
“Wot? Me speaky too high-bwow for you. Little boy anonymous no understandee biggy wordies? Little boy want simple English that not tax tinsy-winsy little brainy-wainy?””
If you had bothered to read the post to which I was replying, you would realize how asinine your argument is. Then again, what can one expect of a speed-reader who thinks he knows everything.
The rest of those quotes (mostly about you) were all spot on and in response to your obnoxious postings.
“written in response to a poster who claimed, correctly, that although they’ve suffered a terrible loss the Ferguses have been among those who have profited financially from James’ death.”
They have not profited financially from their son’s death any more than anyone who has written a book about the case has profited from his murder. You might just as easily say that the lawyers who defended RT and JV profited from the murder. Your view here is both loathsome and stupid.
But then again what can one expect from some one who has a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I attitude to murderers of children.
David: THEY HAVE PROFITED.
“Profit” means they have made money from his death. It’s an indisputable fact. Stop employing your weasel words and favorite weasel tactics and admit the truth: the other poster was factually correct in his statement.
“They have not profited financially from their son’s death any more than anyone who has written a book about the case has profited from his murder. You might just as easily say that the lawyers who defended RT and JV profited from the murder.”
That’s exactly what that poster said! He stated that despite their terrible loss, they have also been,nevertheless, AMONG those who have made money off of James’ death. He did NOT claim they profited MORE than anyone else, he simply made note that they were AMONG the various moneymakers, they were part of the ranks of the moneymakers. And it was a very mildly, moderately expressed criticism too, simply making note of some of the less flattering realities of Denise Fergus’ conduct.
“But then again what can one expect from some one who has a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I attitude to murderers of children.”
Au contraire, I don’t take that attitude at all. I didn’t come from a violently abusive family like RT and JV. I know what kind of background tends to produce this kind of crime. I don’t congratulate myself over it – it’s nothing I did either right or wrong – but I also know (given my good fortune not to be born in a family like RT’s) that I was never going to end up doing what he ended up doing.
You, on the other hand, naively and stupidly (in Ayn Rand fashion) attribute everything to “inner strength” not outer circumstances. Would that you yourself actually lived up to the braininess and toughness of
your Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters.
I can’t say I’m surprised, however, that in real life you turn out to be almost the antithesis of your idealized protagonist Sedaka. Whereas he’s so strong and tough, you turn out to be a self-pitying crybaby who feels ever the eternal victim when people don’t knuckle under to your bullying tactics or accede to your perpetual goal post moving.
“The rest of those quotes (mostly about you) were all spot on and in response to your obnoxious postings.”
Well I would say Kerry’s and Mark’s more caustic remarks directed at you were all justified and all “spot on and in response to your obnoxious postings.”
But in your little fantasy world, you are always the poor put-upon victim of others’ obnoxiousness. If people treat you with hostility, it always must be their fault, never yours.
Joe, make your points by all means but please refrain from insulting Denise Fergus. Let us not forget that she has suffered through no fault of her own.
Virgil, Kerry and Mark have all debated different things with David Kessler but I ask David Kessler – why did you print an address for Robert Thompson?
Do you think it was a resposible thing to do?
Is Joe correct – are you an attention seeker?
Could you please respond?
I am still in shock that someone could do something so dreadful.
It’s actually my address!!!!!!
You posted it as Robert Thompson’s address. Not yours. Stop trying to dig yourself out of a festering hole.
“You posted it as Robert Thompson’s address. Not yours. Stop trying to dig yourself out of a festering hole.”
I know what I posted it “as”. Are you completely thick?
If it’s really your address, David, it lends more support to the charge various posters have levelled at you that you are a self-promoting narcissist (I realize those aren’t their exact words, but that’s the gist).
So Kerry was right all along: you were talking out of your ass and didn’t really know a damn thing about RT’s identity or location.
Yet more bluff. Seems your knowledge of this case and the law in general is almost all bluff.
It would be dreadful whether true or false. Fact is, it is almost certainly false – in that he has almost certainly put innocent people at risk.
By the way, despite his patronising claim that my ‘style of debate [is] far removed from the sedate style that [he associates] with intelligence, he might like to know that I am, in fact, an academic. Not a criminologist but an historian.
His style of claiming a knowledge he doesn’t have is a far removed from what I associate with intelligence.
Perhaps you’d like to tell us your full name and not hide behind “Kerry?”
Why on earth would I do that? Are you calling me a liar now?
You claim to be an historian. It would be interesting to know what you have achieved in that regard.
Why should she?
David, you have shown yourself to be a very dangerous individual.
How dare you ask for anyone’s details?
This is a forum.
If she wishes to be known as Kerry, respect that if you can manage it?
She claims credentials. Let her back them up.
It doesn’t matter what her credentials are or aren’t. She has shown herself knowledgeable about the law.
If she has made factual mistakes then point them out.
If you actually know what you’re talking about, you back it up with something other than straw man arguments and the moving of goal posts.
“I can’t say I’m surprised, however, that in real life you turn out to be almost the antithesis of your idealized protagonist Sedaka. Whereas he’s so strong and tough, you turn out to be a self-pitying crybaby who feels ever the eternal victim when people don’t knuckle under to your bullying tactics or accede to your perpetual goal post moving.”
I’ve already cited countless examples to show the falsity of your description of Alex Sedaka and of my characters in general (the result of your intellectually lazy speed-reading). I’m not going to repeat them. When you can write a book, people might respect your opinions. Until then, you’re just a miserable failure criticizing his betters.
They have NOT profited from their son’s death. As you yourself pointed out, language has connotation as well as denotation. To say that they profited from their son’s death is like saying that a wage-earning policeman or fee-earning lawyer profits from crime.
What planet are you on Kessler???
Of course she profited from her son’s death through the media and yes a criminal lawyer does profit from the crime of others.
If you don’t understand the word profit – use your dic!
Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? Even Virgil does!
“use your dic!”
I don’t think David has one.
(maybe that’s why he likes writing cheesy, cringe-inducing soft porn sex scenes featuring lesbians.)
VIRGIL: “(maybe that’s why he likes writing cheesy, cringe-inducing soft porn sex scenes featuring lesbians.)”
I repeat the question I asked earlier: how do you know if the lesbian scene was cheesy from merely speed-reading it? Or did you slow down when you got to the lesbian scene?
“I’ve already cited countless examples to show the falsity of your description of Alex Sedaka and of my characters in general (the result of your intellectually lazy speed-reading). I’m not going to repeat them.|
Oh yeah? Why don’t you try posting some excerpts from A MARKED MAN so we can all see for ourselves. Let’s see who else agrees with you that you are such a brilliant writer. Maybe I’ll do that myself sometime. Post some excerpts from your awful book so people can see for themselves what a hack you are.
Virgil, that was below the belt!
He just has no balls.
Don’t answer a question with a question!
A poster asked you 3 simple questions which you ran a mile from.
Be a man! Answer those if you can and cut out the trivialities
Which poster? What questions? I will be back online tomorrow (it is late here and I am going to bed).
I did actually
“I ask David Kessler – why did you print an address for Robert Thompson?”
To challenge the notion that British courts have extra-territorial jurisdiction. This is a dangerous threat to freedom of expression. Before I left the UK, I asked the AGs office explicitly to clarify their position on this point and they declined to do so, referring me instead to the Ministry of Justice. I then asked the Ministry of Justice and they referred me back to the AG’s office!
“Do you think it was a responsible thing to do?”
Yes.
“Is Joe correct – are you an attention seeker?”
I suppose – given that I am one of the few people on this site to post under his own full name – that I am.
Thank you for answering.
In relation to answer 2, do you recognise that there are many people in the country who are unstable and that by printing the address, people could be hurt and abused as a result?
If you really believe it was responsible, I suggest you think it over in your own time and examine your conscience if you have one?
There are a couple of sayings:
“If you can’t quote, then you don’t know it” and “think before you ink”.
Maybe they might be of use to somebody some day as they have been to me.
“Why don’t you try posting some excerpts from A MARKED MAN so we can all see for ourselves. Let’s see who else agrees with you that you are such a brilliant writer.”
I’ll probably be accused of being an attention-seeker, but they can download an extract here:
Or this one: http://www.amazon.com/Mercy-ebook/dp/B002VL1CJO/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1366150297&sr=1-1&keywords=You+think+you+know+me+pretty+well
Or: http://www.amazon.com/The-Moses-Legacy-ebook/dp/B004XOZ9JG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1366150336&sr=1-1&keywords=Moses+Legacy
Joe on April 14 – good one. A cheap blow from the mentally lacking individuals as expected. Read my previous posts, I am not one of the moronic idle majority of this country, despite your assumption.
I am sick of the discussion as above, it means nothing. Talk talk talk, no action. Typical of the left of this country. These killers need to be brought to justice in a suitable fashion.
We are working on it, rest assured.
You can all bleat on regardless, it means fuck all. Watch for retribution and justice – it will be dealt.
My final words in this rhetorical bullshit ;
James, RIP, we haven’t forgotten you nor the torture you suffered.
Enough said.
Goodbye, Smith, and I’m just about done with this thread too.
Besides, I wouldn’t want to distract Kessler so much that I end up depriving the world of his next Dostoyevskyan masterpiece.
I shall try not to disappoint you.
Let me know were n when al be there
Mr Kessler, you have absolutely no right to demand that I reveal my identity. You really are quite a bully are you now?
As for Denise Fergus, she can earn her money however she likes. Personally, I find it distasteful and unedifying but then I find the way many people earn their money distasteful and unedifying – including writers of trashy crime fiction.
I do think some of the criticism she gets is not without a bit of snobbery. She’s uneducated, not very bright and often comes across badly. She may have a group of people who think she shouldn’t ever face sanction of any kind but there is a pretty large group of people who really dislike her.
And I find it distasteful that people hide their own identities whilst criticizing others. You know who Denise Fergus is. You know who I am. You choose not to reveal who you are.
So what can we conclude? That some one who doesn’t want to reveal her (or his) identity holds a negative opinion of those who are open about theirs.
@ Kerry
“There is a pretty large group of people who dislike her”
So what?!? Who are they (or you) to judge!?!?!?)
No-one is above judgement. The idea that someone is untouchable because of a single life experience is dumb.
Personally, I am neutral on Denise Fergus. She can say what she likes as far as I’m concerned – it’s a free country after all (well at least it still is officially). But if she chooses to become a public figure (which by the way Kerry has not), and use the worst examples of journalism to do it and employ the services of a PR advisor, then she (and her followers) should have absolutely no cause to whinge when she is called on some of the things she says. Her reaction to Maggie Atkinson was nothing short of disgraceful. But as I said, she can say those things if she likes, but I should also be able to say it was disgraceful. It is as if people think she should have complete freedom of expression but anyone taking issue with her should keep their gobs shut.
I don’t have feelings as strongly against her as some here seem to have. But her advisors should know that neither do I think of her in the same way I think of Sara Payne or Doreen Lawrence. For example, this campaign to ensure Robert Thompson is never compensated for Mulcaire hacking his phone is all manner of wrong.
JOE:
“Virgil, that was below the belt!
He just has no balls.”
I have the “balls” to reveal my full name – and have done from the beginning. Would you care to step out of the shadows Joe Somebody? Virgil Anybody? Kerry Nobody?
Grow up. You are beginning to sound like a silly tabloid ranter. This is not a court of law. It is evident that the only reason you are posting with your own name is to advertise your books. People should have reasonable expectations of privacy.
On that note, I notice one poster (Virgil) has made comments about the past of Sun journalist John Kay. I would ask the site owner to remove these if possible as they may possibly leave him open to contempt of court proceedings. John Kay is currently charged with further serious criminal offences and such comments could be seriously prejudicial.
“. It is evident that the only reason you are posting with your own name is to advertise your books.”
If that were true then I would have mentioned my books BEFORE anyone else brought up the subject. In fact, if you look back, you would see that it was Virgil who brought up the subject of my books. So to say that I used my name to promote my books is cheap mendacious demagoguery. I used my name because I believe in standing up and being counted.
“People should have reasonable expectations of privacy.”
But not UNreasonable expectations of privacy. Virgil wishes to attack the writings of David Kessler whilst hiding behind the name of an ancient writer (and then he accuses ME of literary pretensions).
Kerry declares herself (himself?) to be an historian, but hides behind anonymity, whilst sniping from below the parapet.
Ditto for Joe Blow.
And you Mark fall into that same category.
My first post was in February and I just yesterday announced I wasn’t going to contribute anymore, yet here you are, David, immediately after I mentioned I’m quitting the thread, demanding full disclosure of identity.
Forget it. Given the amount of harassment and vitriol anyone who criticizes Denise Fergus receives online, I wouldn’t put it past the likes of “ssmith” or “Tyson” to carry that harassment over into the real world.
As for Mark’s mention of John Kay, feel free to delete my posts, webmaster. I doubt there’s any great concern about that, given that Wikipedia’s entry on Kay casually mentions his recent charges and immediately follows that up with a sentence about his homicide conviction, one sentence right after the other. (Surely if there’s danger of contempt, that entry should be the first thing that needs editing!)
But whatever. I’m not here to get this blogger in trouble. Delete away!
“I used my name because I believe in standing up and being counted.”
You mean: standing up and being counted among the ranks of those expressing demagogic views it takes no courage or bravery whatsoever to express in public. If it actually took the slightest bit of integrity or courage to espouse the views you have, tabloids would turn no profit.
“Virgil wishes to attack the writings of David Kessler whilst hiding behind the name of an ancient writer (and then he accuses ME of literary pretensions).”
I accused you of being a terrible novelist, which you are. The majority of Amazon readers’ reviews use either a first name or a pseudonym. It’s the substance of the review that counts, not who writes it.
Given you have shown yourself to be willing to post fake addresses online and declare them to be Robert Thompson’s address, one would have to be a fool to reveal all to you, after you’ve already proven yourself untrustworthy.
Goodbye. And get cracking on that next book, so I can read it and tear it to shreds on Amazon.
There are no UNreasonable expectations of privacy – particularly when it comes to dealing with someone prepared to stick and address on a blog and claim it is Robert Thompson’s.
The fact that you are demanding personal details about people is really quite creepy.
Correct again Mark.
@Ssmith. You are leaving? How long are you going down for this time?
Replying to Virgil
There are some unhinged people about hence my anger at the address going up.
There are also many people who talk and threaten but do nothing.
Personally speaking, if I were going to do something, the last thing I would do is announce it to the world and leave myself wide open to all sorts of things.
Then again some people have no logic….
I think most people who make idle threats have no intention of carrying them out. They revel in murderous fantasies. Tabloid bogeymen, like Thompson and Venables are objects on which they can project these sadistic impulses ‘safely’ if you like.
However, there will always be those who would carry out such a threat. And even if they don’t resort to violence, they can make a person’s life intolerable. Look at that poor guy in Scotland who ended up killing himself because of the abuse he got from villagers who thought he was Thompson. Incidentally, I notice earlier in the thread, there was a poster who was claiming to live in a Scottish village and suspected someone living there was Thompson – I’m almost sure he came from this area (Garlieston) and was probably part of the mob that hounded that poor man to his death.
It should be clear that these are the kind of people we are dealing with and this is why it would be folly of epidemic proportions to release any personal information. Kessler has already shown himself to be very dangerous – prepared to post addresses online and claim it to be Thompson’s. (Incidentally, he really does believe he knows where Thompson lives – he claimed it on his own blog – he was clearly talking rubbish there also).
I agree Kerry.
Using logical thinking I reckon people could make a pretty good guess of his whereabouts based on certain factors.
But I have no interest in providing any information whatsoever.
He is under life-licence and as such is under the supervision of the authorities and even if that were not the case I really wouldn’t want to know.
He was tried and convicted, served his time and satisfied the experts as to his suitability to re-enter society.
I believe that the reasons people provide information, whether false or otherwise is purely to cause trouble – rentamob so to speak.
And the tabloids who are well in touch with the requirements of their readerships press the right buttons to sell and to instigate unnecessary anger and hatred.
It would be wrong of me to generalise too much but I do believe that a certain number who read the tabloids are very one dimensional and as such are incapable of thinking outside the box or seeing the big picture and of course the tabloids play on this completely. To me, Denise Fergus comes across as being poorly educated and of limited intelligence and perhaps the media coverage gives her a feeling of self-importance? Then of course, there is the money aspect.
Don’t get me wrong. She is and always will be heartbroken by her son’s death.
But the media use and manipulate her and I don’t think she sees it.
Both she and her follows do not seem to understand the word “justice”. This is the sole responsibility of the representatives of the ministry of justice and I wish they could see this, let them get on with it and get on with the rest of their lives!
‘Justice’ as we understand the word in English common law is impartial. She doesn’t seem to get that the justice system is not about satisfying her. Ralph Bulger seems to get this more but that is likely because he is advised by a solicitor rather than a not very educated bottom-feeding, money grabbing PR vulture who has been making money from James Bulger’s corpse from the off.
Joe; ‘@Ssmith. You are leaving? How long are you going down for this time?’
Never been incarcerated and never intend to.
Steve; ‘Personally speaking, if I were going to do something, the last thing I would do is announce it to the world and leave myself wide open to all sorts of things.’
Exactly, which is why I give no details and will give no insight any further.
Keep an eye out on this issue in the future. I am vague for a reason. Lets just say a storm is brewing.
You sound as deluded as the person kerry mentioned who decided Robert Thompson was living in his (her) Scottish hideaway and that they were going to smoke him out. We know the result of that – the poor (innocent) guy hanged himself.
Ever seen Fritz Lang’s film ‘Fury’? It shows the horror of mob justice.
@Ssmith
The storm is in the teacup.
Eat plenty of green vegetables and call the Samaritans and you’ll be fine.
@ Mark
I don’t care about the motives of the press, I was referring to the mother’s freedom of speech. What is troubling though is that the focus of the discourse has been deliberately shifted for the sake of suppressing the remnants of genuine free speech, thus curbing the ability of the responsible citizens to alert society to cases of criminal behaviour by both the psychopathic ruling class and their protegees from the lower social strata.
@ Joe
Only a seriously deranged person could refer to the grieving mother of murdered child as a happily manipulated whore. You are a disgrace to humanity, Joe.
Frailty, thy name is woman!
Do the ironing Anonymous.
@Virgil
Have you already thrown in all of the talking points the degenerate ruling class uses to justify their consistent siding with the criminal and not the victim, while shamelessly using the natural public outrage against such behaviour to squash any vestiges of free press in Britain? Or shall I not dispose of the vomit bag just yet in case there is more double talk coming? Your use of the term “gutter journalism” is symptomatic. When it was alleged by some in the media a few years ago that there was sexual abuse of children going on in Britain’s care homes, the then leader of Islington Council, Margaret Hodge, also denounced the allegations as “gutter journalism”. Unfortunately for the proponents of “responsible press” those allegations proved to be true. Indeed, how irresponsible to “slander” or “defame” those loving paedophile rings that want the best for our children! Why not just wait until an autopsy could be performed on these blessed recipients of parental love from beneficiaries and advocates of “fair journalism”, before disturbing the peace of our virtuous public servants? But then, even after post-mortem examinations have been conducted, some irresponsible individuals will undoubtedly make inflammatory remarks about those whose only fault was giving a little too much of their unreciprocated and unconditional love to children. But that is simply the nature of the backwards populace: no matter how much you advocate “progressive values” to them, they will harbour the same unnuanced feelings toward these guardians as they do toward The Guardian.
Alas, no peace for Jimmy Savile in this primitive world!
You have twisted this to suit yourself Anonymous.
You are one of these couch vigilantes who have no respect for the country you live in or the people in it. I suggest you read Mark’s posts which explain the system somewhat and realise that justice has been served in the Bulger case and that you can’t prosecute someone again for the same crime.
If you can’t handle that – TOUGH!
If those sections of the media that you seem to prize so highly really did care about exposing all this, then they would have done so with Saville – having had all the information about him for years and ensured he faced justice when alive.
If the Sun hated paedos so much, it would never have put naked sixteen year old girls in the pages of its newspaper in the 1980s (something that now woudl be classified as a criminal office and be included in the offence of making and distributing indecent images of children).
If they really were concerned about child abuse, they would emphasise the fact that children are far more at risk from their parents/other family members and associates than any sinister stranger.
And if they really were concerned about victims, they wouldn’t hack the phone of murder victims, rape victims and victims of terrorist attacks.
@anonymous
What do you think the statement “I’m done with this thread” means?
Why are you lobbing a set of fresh questions my way, which demand all sorts of detailed in-depth posts to adequately respond to, right after I’ve clearly stated twice I don’t intend to participate in the discussion anymore? It couldn’t be that you’re intent on having the last word at all costs, is it?
Go ahead and have the last word. It doesn’t make you intelligent or penetrating. It just makes you belligerent and egotistical.
@Joe
I realise you cannot find a woman and I can see why.
I do respect my country, just not the rotten establishment that rule it.
Wrong there Anonymous!
You don’t respect your country.
You’re poor qualities and low moral fibre are quite in evidence when you defend the tabloid press, advocate child abuse, make wild assumptions on people you don’t know just because you don’t agree with them and defend a person who has turned the murder of her child into a profit making venture.
No Anonymous, it is you who ought to be ashamed of herself.
Do some reading and learn to listen before you jump in all guns blazing and you may one day find someone who takes you seriously!
Denise doesnt gain any cash for her actions you pethetic dikk joe wish a knew wer u lived coz ad smakk ya fooking head in lad
@Mark
The fate of whistleblowers in Britain is generally unpleasant. If you don’t believe me just ask Dr. David Kelly.
The tabloids are NOT whistleblowers. Stop being childish. You can see how unpleasant the ‘justice for james’ crowd are on twitter – reporting someone to the police for a comment (admittedly deeply unpleasant) today despite the fact that arguably it was this very crowd which committed the offences by openly threatening him online.
I’m afraid time and time again, this lot has shown that the criminal justice system is totally right to ignore them.
Excellent post Kerry!
Those creatures are troublemakers whose train of thoughts lie in the stone age.
I must say your posts are right on the money and it is refreshing to read some common sense on here.
As for many of the other posters… They write nonsense and then wonder why I reply as I do. Simple. I don’t suffer fools.
The witch-hunt on Twitter was a sight to behold and goes to show what repulsively nasty people we are dealing with. They think no-one should have freedom of speech but them and that they should be allowed to issue the vilest threats and be allowed to get away with horrendous (probably criminal) harassment.
Look Joe, there is no need to be so harsh.
That is not the right way.
I am moving on now and wish to thank you all for sharing your opinions.
There is nothing further I can add and would only be repeating myself.
So for now, I well let the rest of you battle it out without me.
There are no winners here but if anybody has learned anything, then it has been a good exercise.
@Virgil
Your rather poor attempt at comedy is somewhat disappointing, try harder next time. Perhaps you can get a few pointers from Joe.
Unlike your best efforts not to write excrement Anonymous but at least you are consistent.
How can anybody be anything other than cynical about this so called “Justice for James” group. They are a total waste of time and space. Nobody listens to them, nor will they!
@Kerry
Don’t be so cynical.
How is she being cynical? It is totally true this ‘justice for james’ lot are irrelevant. They have lost EVERY single battle they fought for – because – and here is the reason – they are WRONG.
They fought to have them incarcerated for life – FAILED.
They fought against the House of Lords abolishing the 15 year term – FAILED
They fought against the EcHR declaring the trial unfair – FAILED
They fought to stop them being released at 19 – FAILED
They fought to send them to an adult prison – FAILED
They fought to stop them getting lifetime anonymity – FAILED
They fought to have Venables’s anonymity removed when convicted of the latest offence – FAILED
They fought to have Venables’s 2 year sentence increased – FAILED
They are fighting to stop Thompson getting a payout for hacking – THIS WILL FAIL
Excactly what have they achieved? The grand total of ‘eff’ all.
In fact probably the only thing they have achieved is to increase the ring of protection around Thompson and Venables.
Agreed Mark but my meaning of cynical is doubting something will happen or is worthwhile and as you rightly say, this campaign clearly isn’t unless the reasons for it are that it is something for these people to do and somewhere for them to go?
Maybe someday they will stage a production of “Denise Fergus – The Musical” with Anonymous in the lead role provided she loses the weight?
@Joe
That description is more befitting of you considering the plethora of diarrhoea spewed from your foul cavities.
No one in their right mind would care whether you take someone seriously. All you are good for is some second-rate amusement at your expense, sloppy Joe.
You is only pickin on me cos I is block.
not block, rather blockhead.
@Mark
I wasn’t actually referring to the Justice for James campaign. My comment was made in regards to whistleblowers. However, all that you have listed in your ever-desperate smear campaign against those who continue to fight for James Bulger, exposes evermore how the rotten establishment continuously sides with the criminal against the victim. And it says heaps about you and your creepy cronies here too.
Actually, sentences are harsher these days than they ever were. Thompson and Venables were treated more harshly than any other similar child before them (arguably including Mary Bell who killed twice and only served four more years in prison – despite escaping from one of them).
The ‘establishment’ theoretically shouldn’t side with ANYONE – including the victim (who in this case was James Bulger – NOT his mother).
Well thanks for pointing that out Kerry (James being the victim) was beginning to worry that that port little boy was being forgotten in all of this….anyone with a heart must feel for his innocent little soul :-(
@Joe
I’m happy with my waistline. I can categorically state it’s nowhere near as thick as your head is.
Considering how way off you are on everything else I very much doubt it.
What smear campaign? Mark stated the facts. That you are unable to move from your fantasy world into reality and deal with the truth is your problem.
How is Fergus a victim? She is still alive and lives under by the rule of:
‘The press is my shepherd I shall not work’.
You could play her in that musical. You have no talent and never stop moaning – a perfect match!
Actually, giving interviews to the press IS kind of work. So is public speaking. People make a living that way, don’t forget.
As for what I read above, calling James Bulger’s mother a whore – well you won’t read that in any broadsheet, even a liberal one. I guess it reflects a certain way of thinking, not specifically about the woman herself but about women in general.
Really mature Joe, male chauvinist …………
You finally agree that James Bulger is the victim Anonymous. Brilliant! That is the first sensible post you have written!
Then of course you get upset when I point out a few more home truths,
Different anonymous Joe!!!! I don’t get upset by your comments at all and I was hasten to say that I doubt the other anonymous does either considering you spout nothing but rude, chauvinistic drivel!!! :-)
Clearly you are upset as shown by your over-emotional reply.
Anyone who posts about this justice rubbish and Fergus the victim deserves it.
These people are aggressive and intent on causing trouble.
They have no respect for our country or the people in it and are far worse than Thompson and Venables were at 10.
They should leave the patroling and monitoring to those designated to do so.
It is because of their threats that people need protection in the first place. They make a show of themselves and the country. A total disgrace
They are quite willing to dole it out but not so willing to take it so if they, you or anyone else cannot see the right way forward, I will happily point it out!
Over emotional???? Ha!!! Whatever!!! Again you just prove my point..are all woman who dare to put their opinions ‘over emotional’??! You carry on Joe, absolutely fine by me!!! I’m not doling anything out I am merely saying that your comments are chauvinistic (do the washing up etc etc..yawn!!) and unnecessary!!! There are ways of making your point without resorting to derogatory name calling!!
I haven’t disagreed with any of your above points (if you care to bothers reading my posts) so stop harping on at me like some beef eating bully!!
“They have no respect for our country or the people in it and are far worse than Thompson and Venables were at 10.”
I hope you were saying that only about some of the supporters of Denise Fergus and not Denise Fegus herself.
Bianca,
I said she was happy to be a whore of the press meaning that she lived on the money she earned and that is her own business. I didn’t criticise her for that nor would I.
I am simply against people who condone any kind of child abuse which is what this is about and I have no time for men or women who write rubbish. It is odd that people choose to single out one particular person and then label me as a chauvinist.
In fact that poster has attacked and insulted everybody who disagrees with it. On top of the inaccurate and silly rubbish it posts, how can anyone take it seriously?
If people recognise the fact that Denise Fergus suffered a tragic loss and empathise with her for that, then that is fine.
However, I do not agree with the manner in which she conducts herself in public. She has no business interferring in the lives of T & V. You cannot convict a person for the same crime twice and any one of her supporters who agrees with her public behaviour regarding this is wrong and has no respect for the country.
It is that sort of behaviour that outlines the need for protected identities and in terms of money, she and her supporters and many others are costing the tax payer a lot of money. There is no room for lynch mob vigilantes.
I would treat T & V as any other criminal and would not be influenced by mass hysteria like so many seem to be.
They have served their time now and the establishment should be allowed manage them and that goes for every criminal.
I wouldn’t have much time for either of them but this is not just about them. It is about the rights of all citizens including you and I and those rights ought to be protected.
For those who do not agree with our lawmakers, they have the democratic right to vote for any candidate they wish in a general election. Those people if elected could carry more weight in changing some laws.
Most of her supporters attack everyone on this forum who disagree with them.
The actual campaign itself is weak and built only on emotion.
As your tone and questions have been reasonable, you get what I hope is a reasonable response. That is human nature.
I hope you see it that way too?
@Anonymous Today.
Mistaken identity, sorry!
The comments were directed at another poster who attacked everyone who disagreed with her and the remarks directed at her were in jest at her pure stupidity and level of intelligence. They were not directed at everyone as you know.
So if you took them seriously, you shouldn’t have. I am sure you realise that mistaken identity is easy in this context. You both use Anonymous. I am big enough to apologise when I have made an error. Sorry.
Thanks :-)
“I said she was happy to be a whore of the press meaning that she lived on the money she earned and that is her own business. I didn’t criticise her for that nor would I. ”
Joe, don’t take this as a personal attack, but this is somewhat disingenuous. There is no constructive difference between calling some one a whore directly and saying she is “happy TO BE a whore.” moreover calling some one a whore is inherently critical. Even if you do not think ill of whores (or are sympathetic to their plight), the word has highly negative and derogatory connotations. So to say “I didn’t criticise her for that nor would I” is self-contradictory.
Denise Fergus’s position may be wrong, impractical, possibly even hysterical, but using the emotive word “whore” is at least one step in the same direction.
I think there is one valid point that can be made on her behalf and that is that there ought to be some provision for lifting the statute of limitations on bringing a lawsuit for compensation in cases of serious violence. In most cases such lawsuits are impractical because the criminal has no money. This in turn means that lawyer would not take the case on a no-win-no-fee basis. And if the case were financed out of their own pocket, the plaintiff would be unlikely to collect any sum awarded, let alone costs.
Also, the defendant could declare bankruptcy and I believe (though I am not a legal expert) that upon discharge from bankruptcy, they would be exempt from paying compensation, regardless of whether they subsequently come into money. Conversely, if the potential plaintiff waits then at a certain point compensation litigation will become statute-barred. This presents a catch-22 for a potential (Legitimate) litigant.
I agree when you say “She has no business interferring in the lives of T & V,” if by interfering you mean illegal interference. She does however have the right to speak about them and about the case. Serving the tariff (or even serving a full sentence in a fixed-term sentence) does not exempt a criminal from criticism. A criminal who has served their time (be it Thompson, Venables or anyone else) is not in the same position as some one who never committed the crime in the first place. Certainly in the case of unspent convictions this is so. And it applies in such areas as employment and most importantly reputation. Completing a sentence restores a criminal’s freedom, not his reputation.
Para1 & 2: Noted.
I agree 100% with para 3 & 4.
No. The victim in this case was James Bulger – NOT her. The reason the criminal compensation scheme pays out less for a child is down to brutal hard economics. The death of a child does not financially affect a person in the way that, say, the death of a spouse does. Hence the payout by the Criminal Compensation board is for emotional distress and bereavement only.
I believe in better care for those who have been harmed by having a loved one murdered/killed in violent circumstances but this should be totally apart from the criminal justice system. Denise Fergus has absolutely no right to demand it acceeds to her every whim. It would be far kinder to say ‘we understand your loss and know what you suffered was unimaginable but you have no further part to play in this process’. She cannot go on thinking she has some power over the lives of Venables and Thompson – she never did, she never will.
Moreover, it is utterly ridiculous to think that a crime committed by two ten year olds should be subject to monetary damages. The law deals with the crime as and when it was committed – it doesn’t return 20 years later and demand MORE punishment. The very idea is against every sane and civilised idea of justice.
@Kerry
Firstly, a crime can have more than one victim. Obviously James Bulger was the principal victim. But I cannot agree with you that his mother was NOT a victim. The mother of a murdered toddler is certainly a victim. The very fact that you refer to “emotional distress and bereavement” (without disputing the validity of these words or the policy of giving said compensation) tacitly acknowledges this.
I never mentioned the Criminal Compensation board or questioned the amount that they paid out under the terms of their remit.
I accept that under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, it is perfectly correct (and reasonable) to say “we understand your loss and know what you suffered was unimaginable but you have no further part to play in this process.” I am certainly not suggesting that we should introduce Sharia law in this country!
However, aside from the obvious point that she does have the right to advocate changes in legislation – a right that we all have – the issue of civil compensation is not as clear-cut as you imply. Any serious crime should be subject to monetary damages. That is inherent in the separation between the civil and criminal processes. The other side of the coin to saying to James Bulger’s mother that she can have NO say in the CRIMINAL process, is to acknowledge her rights to redress through the CIVIL process.
Where you have have a valid point is in the fact that the perpetrators of the crime were ten at the time. Though this argument is by no means conclusive, it does give rise to the thought that perhaps their parents (or those who had custody at least) should be the first port of call in claiming said compensation.
However, regarding the passage of time, I have given specific reasons, why I believe there is a case for a change in the law. You have not addressed these specific reasons directly but have relied upon the argument that: “The law deals with the crime as and when it was committed – it doesn’t return 20 years later and demand MORE punishment.”
First of all, I think you mean when it is PROVEN, not when it was committed. Secondly I am not referring to punishment but compensatory damages. There is currently a statute of limitations on civil action for compensation, but I believe it to be wrong for the reasons already stated. Whilst I can understand the emotional appeal of the argument that 20 years is too long, I am not swayed by emotion.
@Kerry
What you say is reasonable but if I may ask a question?
Are you saying that it is not legally posible for Denise Fergus to persue a civil suit for emotional distress for example?
As you know I am against her other ridiculous demands as she is not part of the judiciary and as such has absolutely no input, something she fails to understand.
@Bianca.
If the option to sue after receipt of compensation presents itself I would consider that far more practical than anything else she is doing. If her lawyers advise and think it would be prudent I would support that. People tend to be hurt through their pockets. This is a good point and would be a positive step for a change on her part.
Nobody should be above criticism.
I would never defend what Thompson and Venables did. For me, trusting them does not enter the equation and the decision to release them was taken by the authorities. I respect and uphold that decision.
@ Sloppy Joe
It’s true that the disconnect between the government and the populace is becoming ever wider. Public opinion has been ignored on nearly every crucial issue in the past several years, ranging from the illegal invasions of foreign countries to the promised referendum on the EU membership. Everything that Mark listed simply falls into that category. Yet, these victories may prove Pyrrhic for the criminal establishment and their stooges. For there may come a day when all these deeds will have to be answered for. So, don’t overlook the writing on the wall.
The fact that you cannot understand how Fergus is a victim only serves as a testament to the state of your mental disarray, which renders your opinions unworthy of consideration by any decent individual. Furthermore, you are not likely to describe my appearance more accurately than anything you have stated so far by looking in the mirror.
‘Public opinion’ is a very grey area. It is very clear to me that public opinion on this issue is not nearly as clear cut as people claim. The fact that Denise Fergus cannot get 100k signatures on a petition to stop Robert Thompson getting compensation (despite the fact that he hasn’t even put in a claim) shows that there is NOT universal support for her position. Indeed, I would argue, as many people find her unpaletable and wrong as support her.
Moreover, true, civilised justice should be separate and apart from public opinion. The reason Michael Howard’s extension to the tariff was declared unlawful was because he paid too much attention to The Sun (the Law Lords even said so) and so-called ‘public opinion’. What you seem to want to is acquiescence to the mob.
And those ‘victories’ you mention (referring to Mark’s list), weren’t ‘victories’, they were the right decisions. Denise Fergus wants an influence she can’t ever have (and should never be allowed to have).
Ideally, civilised justice should be separate not only from the public opinion, but also from the opinion of the deranged paedophillic ruling class. Moreover, the term “civilised justice” has regrettably become a euphemism for the protection of criminals’ rights at the expense of victims’ rights . As to the petition, it is actually a logistical issue. There is no secret that decent citizenry is not nearly as well-organised as the vicious minority that is responsible for the current state of affairs in this country.
What Kerry says is without prejudice and also correct Anonymous.
The people who sign the petition are advocating child abuse.
The tone of your post is aggressive and angry and is full of inaccuracies and general false assumptions.
You could try to back them up if you are able?
The ministry of justice makes decisions as does finance, health, education, transport ect.. Some of their decisions can be poor at times but in general they tend to get it right. They don’t make decisions to be popular but rather to be fair to everyone. Sometimes they listen to public opinion and sometimes not.
Denise Fergus lost her son and suffered emotionally as a result. That was unfair and unjust and wrong. The boys were tried and named in an adult court. That was also unfair and unjust and wrong. Life is like that sometimes unfortunately.
Anybody you do not agree with, you attack and any decision with which you do not agree prompts emotional unreasonable outbursts.
This is not an attack on you, merely an opinion based on your postings.
@Anonymous.
You are being ridiculous again.
With the right kind of help you may be able to lead a normal life one day. Right now you are completely unhinged.
I have no interest in your appearance. You need to grow up and ditch your hor air fantasies.
@ Sloppy Joe
The fact that you have alluded to both my appearance and gender in nearly all of your worthless posts to me clearly show you are incapable of telling the truth. Btw, was that a typo or a Freudian slip on your part? Judging from your past use of that word I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter.
You have a chip on your shoulder. Grow up Anonymous!
Bianca – actually, the law deals with the crime when it was COMMITTED, not when proven. Hence why the murderers of Stephen Lawrence appeared to get relatively short minimum terms. At the time they committed the offence, they were juveniles, and had to be sentenced as such. Moreover, at that time, the fact that a murder was a racially aggravated hate crime would not have been considered in the sentencing. Now, of course, even as juveniles, they would likely be facing 20 years. However, they had to be sentenced according to the guidelines at the time the crime was committed (14 and 15 years).
The problem with monetary damages is it will inevitably mean that some people who are harmed by violent crime end up with nothing because the criminal has no means, and others will get compensated. It has all the ingredients for a horribly uneven justice system.
One of the recent activities of the Justice for James lot is the attempt to stop Robert Thompson claiming civil damages for having his phone hacked – an act that could potentially have put his life in serious danger. This is basically saying that criminal acts against Thompson are OK because he’s a very much disliked offender and he should have no protection of the law himself. This is why I lose patience. It often seems to me that their aims are are utterly abhorrent.
As for the term ‘victim’ – in strict legal terms, only James Bulger was the victim. There were others who were harmed – but the victim in the case was the innocent two year old child. In any case, I believe it to be a problematic term and I despise the way it has almost become a status to be aspired to among certain people.
“the law deals with the crime when it was COMMITTED, not when proven. Hence why the murderers of Stephen Lawrence appeared to get relatively short minimum terms. ”
The manner in which the law deals with crimes is, as you say, based on when the crime was committed. The legal process obviously only kicks in when they are caught and enough evidence available. Hence the delay in bringing the Lawrence killers to justice. Hence also my suggestion that the civil claim MIGHT be against the parents if the statute of limitations were found to be unfair in human rights terms, as I believe it is.
“The problem with monetary damages is it will inevitably mean that some people who are harmed by violent crime end up with nothing because the criminal has no means, and others will get compensated. It has all the ingredients for a horribly uneven justice system. ”
The criminal justice system IS horribly uneven and harsh though this may sound, this is unavoidable. Some criminals are caught and some are not. Some will inevitably be convicted of lesser offences than they committed. And it must be acknowledged also that some innocent people will be convicted too, if we are realistic. But denial of the civil remedy to any because it is not available to all would surely be a poor solution.
Regarding “victim” you are right. In terms of strict legal definition, James Bulger was the victim and Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were the perpetrators of the crime. But just as one can say in everyday speech, that a number of other people are guilty (parents, social services, etc) so one can use the looser non-legal vocabulary to characterize the victim’s close family as victims too.
I think we need to leave damages out of the criminal process as much as possible beyond what exists now. We start getting into various scenarios of how much an individual life is worth.
As I said, I believe in greater care for those harmed by violent crime but when we start putting values on human life, all manner of problems can ensue.
And this particular crime was committed by two ten year old children.
Denise Fergus has been more than compensated financially with endless media appearances/tabloid interviews.
I was actually thinking about this issue overnight and I realized that strictly speaking neither James nor his mother was the “victim” in the LEGAL sense. Crimes are committed against society as a whole and it is therefore society that prosecutes. Thus in Britain, this is done through the “Crown” who “personifies” her “subjects”. In the US it is done by the “People of the State of…” or “The Commonwealth of…” etc.
As far as CIVIL compensation goes, we put a value on human life when it comes to causing death through negligence. We put values on injury caused by negligence. We put values on human life and injury for the purpose of compensation when, say, a hospital makes a serious avoidable error, or when a multi-national corporation emits toxins into the water supply or air that causes death or illness. It would be absurd to say to person: “if you had been harmed by the NEGLIGENCE of another party you could have obtained compensation but because they harmed you DELIBERATELY you are denied such redress.”
We rightly say to a person harmed by a criminal (even a living one, such as a rape victim) that he or she has no say in the criminal prosecution process, other than to commence the process by making a complaint and not to have their complaint rejected on a mere whim of an investigating officer. By the same token it follows that just as they cannot interfere in the criminal process, the fact that their IS a criminal process (on behalf of society) does not negate their personal right to civil redress. The two must be viewed as separate. The individual cannot interfere in the former, and the former and the fact that the former process is taking place, cannot negate the right of the individual to the latter.
As to the causation of death, compensation is, as you say, limited to “emotional distress and bereavement.” However, it could be argued that the deceased individual is entitled to compensation (from the perpetrators or their legal guardians at the time) for loss of life and that as the deceased cannot receive said compensation, it should then pass to his or her estate.
As to the fact that the boys were ten, again let me reiterate that in cases where the civil defendants have not attained their majority, the action should be brought against their parents or legal guardians. I also contend that a delayed action (normally statute-barred) should only be allowed if it can be proven that there were legitimate grounds for not bringing said action sooner.
Finally I can not agree with your observation that “Denise Fergus has been more than compensated financially with endless media appearances/tabloid interviews.” Just as you rightly distinguish between Robert Thompson’s civil compensation claim for the hacking of his phone and any issues that Ms Fergus may think she has with him, so it is important to distinguish between compensation from the wrongdoers (or those who were their legal guardians at the time of the wrongdoing), and the income she receives from giving interviews. Her income from press interviews (regardless of the subject matter) is not civil compensation: it is work income.
Good point about going after the parents and guardians Bianca.
@Kerry
‘ Denise Fergus wants an influence she can’t ever have (and should never be allowed to have)’.
This is key. If people could understand and accept this, they could focus on getting on with their lives.
“It would be absurd to say to person: “if you had been harmed by the NEGLIGENCE of another party you could have obtained compensation but because they harmed you DELIBERATELY you are denied such redress.” ”
It would be absurd to say that, but society doesn’t say that. It imposes a statute of limitations, which I believe is legitimate.
“I also contend that a delayed action (normally statute-barred) should only be allowed if it can be proven that there were legitimate grounds for not bringing said action sooner.”
What would constitute legitimate grounds in the Bulger case for bringing a civil suit now? In what way can a delayed action be justified with regards to Denise Fergus?
I agree with Anonymous but as both Kerry and Bianca say they were 10 and you cannot sue 10 year olds. The idea of suing the parents seems legitimate but they have little or no money anyway. Therefore in monetary terms any compensation awarded wouldn’t be worth the time and effort.
In this case, civil compensation would have been impossible. Thompson and Venables’s families were completely skint.
Also, I would worry that we would be veering way too much into the area of sharia law and ‘blood money’. Moreover, those with the means to sue would get compensated, others would not.
Not right, not fair.
Anonymous:
“It would be absurd to say that, but society doesn’t say that. It imposes a statute of limitations, which I believe is legitimate.”
It is indeed legitimate, but there are also legitimate grounds for creating a specified class of exceptions.
Anonymous and Kerry:
It is the fact that they were “completely skint” that made such redress impossible. But if they come into money after the statute of limitations has run its course then they are effectively protected not because those with a claim CHOSE not to timely bring suit but because there was no practical possibility of doing so. This too is unfair.
Whilst I too find the Sharia concept of “blood money” distasteful, I see no difference between compensatory damages for negligence and compensatory damages for crime. Even in cases of negligence, where lawyers are ready to work on a no-win-no-fee basis, there are some cases when a lawsuit is practical (e.g. a large multinational corporation) and occasions when it isn’t (e.g. negligence by an uninsured individual who is “completely skint”). But we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater by disallowing civil lawsuits for negligence.
“I’m not sure why you use the word “wait”. Are you saying they should pursue an action that has merit knowing that they will not be able to collect and will be left out of pocket?”
No, I’m suggesting they shouldn’t then and shouldn’t now, because then they’d be suing a penniless ten-year-old, and now they’d be suing a defendant who the courts would have to treat as if he was still a penniless ten-year-old.
“No I would retain the statute of limitations, except when it can be shown that the defendant lacked the means to pay compensation commensurate with the damages claimed.”
I don’t understand this part.
“A genuinely remorseful criminal would be happy to compensate his victims if he had the means. He wouldn’t even wait to be sued, he’d volunteer the payment or would settle out of court.”
This is naïve. From what Denise Fergus has said over the years about Thompson I should think she’d experience it as blood money. It’s hypothetical anyway as there’s no indication Thompson has sued for compensation, which means he doesn’t have the hypothetical money. But if he had the money it doesn’t mean Denise would be thrilled to get a call from him or gladly accept his offer.
What you consider something a genuinely remorseful criminal would do automatically, without thinking, I consider the kind of well-intentioned blundering that could make things worse not better. He’s also not allowed to try to contact her anyway. I’d hope he’d give the compensation money to charity, but it’s all a moot point since we have no evidence of any sort he’s even going to file a claim.
“It is indeed legitimate, but there are also legitimate grounds for creating a specified class of exceptions.”
Then what are they?
I thought I had already stated in earlier comments, but I will repeat, in brief: cases wherein there ere financial impediments to bringing the action within the statute of limitations.
“Even in cases of negligence, where lawyers are ready to work on a no-win-no-fee basis, there are some cases when a lawsuit is practical (e.g. a large multinational corporation) and occasions when it isn’t (e.g. negligence by an uninsured individual who is “completely skint”).”
I don’t understand your point. The parents of Venables and Thompson were skint, so what could the Bulger family hope to win from a civil suit? On top of that James being a toddler would mean they can’t recoup for lost income as with a spouse.
What are you saying, that Denise should be able to sue Thompson not for what money he had at the time – none – but for what money he eventually manages to earn 20 or 30 years later?
Anonymous:
” I don’t understand your point. The parents of Venables and Thompson were skint, so what could the Bulger family hope to win from a civil suit?”
Nothing. That was the first part of my point. There was no practical possibility of being able even to recover their costs, much less collect any compensation. Therefore, in practice they could not bring a civil action within the statute of limitations.
“On top of that James being a toddler would mean they can’t recoup for lost income as with a spouse.”
Again, I thought I’d answered this: their principal claim was for bereavement and loss of company. Also James Bulger was himself entitled to compensation for deprivation of his life, which compensation should pass to his estate.
“What are you saying, that Denise should be able to sue Thompson not for what money he had at the time – none – but for what money he eventually manages to earn 20 or 30 years later?”
If the sum that he acquires (not necessarily earns) is significant, then yes.
“cases wherein there ere financial impediments to bringing the action within the statute of limitations”
Well, okay, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the Bulger trial. The Bulgers weren’t blocked from suing by financial impediments, they were blocked by the defendants and their skint, unemployed parents having nothing with which to pay up.
Anonymous: “Well, okay, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the Bulger trial. The Bulgers weren’t blocked from suing by financial impediments, they were blocked by the defendants and their skint, unemployed parents having nothing with which to pay up.”
That IS a financial impediment! The prospect of an inevitable inability to collect, makes the cost of bringing an action in the first place prohibitively high.
Well, then you’re just saying people should wait and wait and wait till the individuals they want to sue have some dough, then go at it. The wheels of justice would grind to a halt, since you’re deleting all statutes of limitation from the lawbooks.
That would be disastrous for the legal system and disastrous for society as a whole, since nobody could ever be safe from egregious or frivolous lawsuits. It would also discourage convicted criminals from rising above their past and sincerely trying to pay back their debt to society since if they make good they immediately become a target. The successful criminal, the “turned-over-a-new-leaf” criminal becomes penalized, while the lifelong screw-up remains too low and insignificant to bother pestering.
A recipe for disaster, for sure.
Anonymous:
“Well, then you’re just saying people should wait and wait and wait till the individuals they want to sue have some dough, then go at it.”
I’m not sure why you use the word “wait”. Are you saying they should pursue an action that has merit knowing that they will not be able to collect and will be left out of pocket?
“The wheels of justice would grind to a halt, since you’re deleting all statutes of limitation from the lawbooks.”
No I would retain the statute of limitations, except when it can be shown that the defendant lacked the means to pay compensation commensurate with the damages claimed. There could be a mini-trial before the main proceedings to determine whether any particular case qualifies.
“That would be disastrous for the legal system and disastrous for society as a whole, since nobody could ever be safe from egregious or frivolous lawsuits.”
A belated lawsuit still costs money. And a lawsuit found to lack merit could lead the plaintiff to be struck with an order for costs.
“It would also discourage convicted criminals from rising above their past and sincerely trying to pay back their debt to society since if they make good they immediately become a target. The successful criminal, the “turned-over-a-new-leaf” criminal becomes penalized, while the lifelong screw-up remains too low and insignificant to bother pestering.”
A genuinely remorseful criminal would be happy to compensate his victims if he had the means. He wouldn’t even wait to be sued, he’d volunteer the payment or would settle out of court.
“I’m not sure why you use the word “wait”. Are you saying they should pursue an action that has merit knowing that they will not be able to collect and will be left out of pocket?”
No, I’m suggesting they shouldn’t then and shouldn’t now, because then they’d be suing a penniless ten-year-old, and now they’d be suing a defendant who the courts would have to treat as if he was still a penniless ten-year-old.
“No I would retain the statute of limitations, except when it can be shown that the defendant lacked the means to pay compensation commensurate with the damages claimed.”
I don’t understand this part.
“A genuinely remorseful criminal would be happy to compensate his victims if he had the means. He wouldn’t even wait to be sued, he’d volunteer the payment or would settle out of court.”
This is naïve. From what Denise Fergus has said over the years about Thompson I should think she’d experience it as blood money. It’s hypothetical anyway as there’s no indication Thompson has sued for compensation, which means he doesn’t have the hypothetical money. But if he had the money it doesn’t mean Denise would be thrilled to get a call from him or gladly accept his offer.
What you consider something a genuinely remorseful criminal would do automatically, without thinking, I consider the kind of well-intentioned blundering that could make things worse not better. He’s also not allowed to try to contact her anyway. I’d hope he’d give the compensation money to charity, but it’s all a moot point since we have no evidence of any sort he’s even going to file a claim.
By the way, the last few “anonymous” replies were me.
I was toying with “Bianca” because so many of her replies sound suspiciously like one David Kessler, including her use of one of his favorite phrases, “the magnitude of the crime.”
I’m not convinced “Bianca” and “Kessler” aren’t the same person. I apologize if my suspicions are wrong, Bianca, but much of what you have written echoes what Kessler has written, right down to some of the same phrases.
True, but the parents should have been called to account in some way.
That they were not was also wrong.
You don’t think being hounded out of their home town, being terrified for the welfare of their surviving children, having to live under assumed identities and enduring a life of abject terror and misery was sufficient?
It is ironic that the parents who treated Venables and Thompson so badly should have been concerned about the welfare of their other children. Frankly I am amazed that parents like that were able to retain custody of their other children. Certainly in the case of Robert Thompson, who was subjected to vicious beatings, it is hard to see how those responsible could be considered fit parents of other children.
Also it is important to distinguish between relevant events and facts that are mere adjuncts to the issues. Being hounded by the public was wrong. But as Joe points out, this should not confer upon them any immunity from civil action.
No. That should not have happened and was very wrong. I don’t agree with vigilantes as you know but the parents should have been prosecuted for not controlling their children which led to truancy, thieving, etc.
The simple fact is the parents neglected them.
If two 10 year olds are not responsible for their actions, someone is and it is up to the parents to parent their children properly and if they don’t the authorities should do something about it. It is wrong to have children running riot and parents need to do their duty.
Had the parents controlled them properly and had the school followed up on earlier absences, they would never have been where they were that day. Post mortems I know.
Another poster alluded to this earlier.
“What would constitute legitimate grounds in the Bulger case for bringing a civil suit now?”
The fact that Thompson has come into money by way of his successful claim against NOTW for hacking his phone.
“In what way can a delayed action be justified with regards to Denise Fergus?”
Bereavement causing pain and suffering, inflicted upon her by the defendant,
“The fact that Thompson has come into money by way of his successful claim against NOTW for hacking his phone.”
Has he? Has that been confirmed?
“Bereavement causing pain and suffering, inflicted upon her by the defendant”
That’s not a justification for a DELAYED action. It’s the delay you have to justify.
“Has he? Has that been confirmed?”
Some earlier postings seem to imply this. They may be premature and I may have been wrong to rely on them.
“That’s not a justification for a DELAYED action. It’s the delay you have to justify.”
During the time that was within the statute of limitations, James’s parents did not have the kind of money necessary to pay the huge lawyer’s fees that such an action entails. And no lawyer would have taken the case on a contingency basis, as the parents of the killers also had no money and would therefore have been unable to pay.
If Thompson has (or does) come into a significant sum of money such as to make a civil suit viable, this would mean that there is a significant change in material circumstances.
“During the time that was within the statute of limitations, James’s parents did not have the kind of money necessary to pay the huge lawyer’s fees that such an action entails.”
Really? What are these fees? Denise Fergus, Kerry says, started making big money from the tabs almost straight after the crime. Do you know they didn’t have the money or just assuming?
What if someone doesn’t have enough money to file the suit and doesn’t acquire the needed funds till fifty or sixty years later? Should they then be allowed to bring a suit half a century after the crime?
“If Thompson has (or does) come into a significant sum of money such as to make a civil suit viable, this would mean that there is a significant change in material circumstances.”
At the time he committed the murder he was skint. Let’s say Denise all along had the money necessary to pay the lawyer’s fees such an action entails. She had the money from the start. She filed suit at the time and she won at the time but her win was mainly symbolic since the defendants couldn’t actually pay her.
Then if she filed suit in a timely way, she’d have gotten nothing. But if she files an untimely, endlessly delayed suit in 2013, she’s poised to win the money Thompson has that he didn’t have then. That doesn’t sound fair.
By eliminating all legitimate statutes of limitation, you’re giving people incentive to wait and wait till the accused has money and then pounce. That would be pretty disastrous and dysfunctional, I think, for society as a whole. I certainly don’t think you’ve made a strong case for why Denise Fergus should be allowed to file a civil suit so belatedly.
I think the fact that he was a child at the time prevents this but I don’t know in truth.
Could she sue the school or indeed the ministry of education? The boys should have been in school at the time. At least their policies on absenteeism would become clearer if there was a public investigation.
Going back to the parents (all parents) what I would like to know is this:
1. At what point do social services intervene and say – “we are placing your children in foster care”.
2. Are there sufficient foster homes?
3. Is a child not required by law to attend so many days a year in school? That being the case, when a child exceeds the number of absent days allowed, what action does the school take? What action do the authorities take?
A little off topic maybe but ordering the lives of children as opposed to leaving them to their own devices would help both society and the children themselves.
It sickens me to see people working in a job and having no interest. You can help the don’t knows but not the don’t cares. There are many people holding positions of responsibility who have no interest, therefore there is no follow through and people further down the chain suffer as a result.
In this case, two boys commited the crime but a certain amount of blame should be levelled on the parents, the school and the authorities for not performing their duties or being negligent. The result as we know was the death of an innocent child and the resultant heartbreak suffered by his family. While I do not agree with the way in which the victim’s mother conducts herself in public, one cannot dismiss what happened.
So for her and her supporters with whom I disagree, focusing on the authorities (the people at the top) rather than the now grown up boys (at the bottom) might actually yield some positive results for a change.
“Could she sue the school or indeed the ministry of education? The boys should have been in school at the time.”
You have a point Joe. Although I believe that it is the parents responsibility to CAUSE their children to BE in school. So then the blame would revert to the parents.
No, blame would also lie on the school, hence the term in loco parenthesis
On Thompson and phone hacking. There is absolutely NO evidence he has made a claim at all. Denise Fergus was told he was a victim and assumed he would make a claim. His lawyer has said he is not planning on suing and News International has said no claim has been lodged with their own victim fund.
And Thompson was TEN YEARS OLD. If he was taken to court for damages, the law would still see this as taking a ten year old to court (despite the fact he is now an adult). It should never be allowed to happen – under ANY circumstances. This really amounts to the possibility of a lifetime of punishment/harassment.
Moreover, IF Thompson receives money for having his phone hacked, that is because he was a victim of crime. It seems utterly repulsive for someone else to benefit from that crime against him – even if it is the mother of his victim.
Thompson is entitled to claim for compensation for having his phone hacked and that compensation should never be subject to a claim by anyone else. It would be a horrendous precedent. Everyone could start suing everyone the minute anyone received any money at all.
Bottom line: Bianca hasn’t made a case for why a statute of limitation should be overlooked or ignored for Denise Fergus. Just claiming Denise didn’t have the money for the lawyers’ fees isn’t much of an argument – if that’s even true, which it probably isn’t.
That’s like saying if Thompson came from a rich family instead of an impoverished one, he could have afforded much better lawyers and they could probably have gotten him off completely. Look at some of the charges wealthy defendants have managed to beat, against apparently impossible odds, thanks to their ability to afford the best legal defense teams money can buy.
If Thompson wins a couple million quid in a lottery, should he then be permitted to go back and demand a retrial on the grounds that as a child, he was skint and couldn’t pay for a world-class defense, but now he’s rich and wants to have a second shot? That’s about as logical as saying Denise should be able to file a civil suit in 2013 or 2014 over a crime that was committed twenty years prior.
That makes sense Anonymous
“Really? What are these fees? Denise Fergus, Kerry says, started making big money from the tabs almost straight after the crime. Do you know they didn’t have the money or just assuming?”
Yes I am assuming. The fees would have been of the order of thousands if not tens of thousands. But more significantly, if they had won, thy would not be able to collect or even recoup the fees.
“What if someone doesn’t have enough money to file the suit and doesn’t acquire the needed funds till fifty or sixty years later? Should they then be allowed to bring a suit half a century after the crime?”
That depends on the magnitude of the crime.
“At the time he committed the murder he was skint. Let’s say Denise all along had the money necessary to pay the lawyer’s fees such an action entails. She had the money from the start. She filed suit at the time and she won at the time but her win was mainly symbolic since the defendants couldn’t actually pay her.
“Then if she filed suit in a timely way, she’d have gotten nothing. But if she files an untimely, endlessly delayed suit in 2013, she’s poised to win the money Thompson has that he didn’t have then. That doesn’t sound fair.”
The unfairness is the other way round. You seem to imply that if she had won a meritorious action but been unable to collect, and been left out-of-pocket from legal fees, that such an outcome WOULD have been fair. I take issue with you on that.
“By eliminating all legitimate statutes of limitation, you’re giving people incentive to wait and wait till the accused has money and then pounce. ”
It’s not a case of pouncing. Legitimate plaintiffs have no incentive to bring even the most meritorious suit if there is no prospect of collecting. The issue only arises if there is a legitimate cause of action. Ultimately any case, whether brought early or late, will stand or fall on its merits. The statute of limitations is designed to stop people from bringing an action after an UNreasonable delay. But what is unreasonable about not bringing an action on the grounds that one will be left out of pocket and unable to collect? That is eminently reasonable.
” Bianca hasn’t made a case for why a statute of limitation should be overlooked or ignored for Denise Fergus.”
I didn’t say it should. I was making a more general point and using this case as an example.
“If Thompson wins a couple million quid in a lottery, should he then be permitted to go back and demand a retrial on the grounds that as a child, he was skint and couldn’t pay for a world-class defense, but now he’s rich and wants to have a second shot?”
Whilst I accept that not all lawyers are equal, I don’t accept that success or failure in a criminal case is due to the the wealth of a client – especially bearing in mind the amounts that are spent on legal aid. BTW if at any stage it CAN be shown that Thompson (or anyone else) was represented by incompetent counsel, then they certainly CAN be granted a retrial.
“It’s not a case of pouncing. Legitimate plaintiffs have no incentive to bring even the most meritorious suit if there is no prospect of collecting.”
There would’ve been no prospect of collecting then from the members of two broke families. And since even if the statute of limitations hadn’t passed, more than twenty years later, the court would still be addressing the suit as if directed at the 10-year-old Thompson, not the adult man he is now, she’d still not get anything but a symbolic victory. So it would all be a major waste of time and effort for all parties.
“Ultimately any case, whether brought early or late, will stand or fall on its merits.”
Then this one would fall since it has no merits.
I think so too, because of his age at the time.
I would be pretty sure that her lawyer would have briefed her regarding her options. I am not sure about the time limit regarding lawsuits so will step back from this.
Absolutely, he is entitled to compensation.
Repulsive is a word that could also be used to describe other aspects of this case too but I think his age plus the time taken will ensure that if and when he chases it, it will be his and his only. Good point.
@Bianca. If the parents send the children to school and during the school day they bunk off, surely the school is responsible then as the parents have entrusted the children to the school’s care? This is a point about all children.
You’re right. I agree. There is a case for contributary liability by the school.
“And Thompson was TEN YEARS OLD. If he was taken to court for damages, the law would still see this as taking a ten year old to court (despite the fact he is now an adult). It should never be allowed to happen – under ANY circumstances.”
A ten year old can in fact be sued THROUGH his parents. Indeed conversely a child of deceased parents who have liability can be sued too. There was a recent case in which lawyers for a man injured in a road accident sued the infant child of the dead parents who were killed in the accident.
“This really amounts to the possibility of a lifetime of punishment/harassment.”
Not if one maintains the proper distinction between punitive action and compensatory action.
My argument was predicated on the condition that Thompson comes into a significant sum of money. If he does not, then there has been no change in material circumstances and no practical possibility of suing even now.
“Thompson is entitled to claim for compensation for having his phone hacked”
As are Bulger’s parents for their son having been murdered.
” and that compensation should never be subject to a claim by anyone else.”
It isn’t. The two claims are separate. The only relationship is that if he receives money, then the practical impediment to a timely civil suit for compensation would then disappear.
” It would be a horrendous precedent.”
Actually it would set a very good precedent.
“Everyone could start suing everyone the minute anyone received any money at all.”
They could only do this successfully if they have a valid case that can be supported by evidence, whether it be phone hacking, murder or anything else.
Yes but the whole point of a statute of limitations is that an individual cannot be pursued indefinitely. The law recognises that after a certain amount of time has passed, an individual should not be subject to continual harassment (either by another individual or the state).
And once again, Thompson was ten years old. The law would see taking any money from his as taking it from a ten year old child. There is no way Denise Fergus should be able to stake a claim on any money Thompson comes into – whether through earnings or any other means (she couldn’t stake a claim when he was awarded damages by the European Court of Human Rights).
It is a recipe for old criminal adversaries (such as rival gangs) to hound eachother until death. Utterly moronic idea.
“The only relationship is that if he receives money, then the practical impediment to a timely civil suit for compensation would then disappear.”
No – the timeliness of the civil suit has already passed, legally speaking. Even if it hadn’t passed, the court would look at it as a suit filed against Thompson the child he was, not Thompson the adult he is.
“They could only do this successfully if they have a valid case that can be supported by evidence, whether it be phone hacking, murder or anything else.”
Then obviously that wouldn’t include this case, would it? The court would be looking at it as a case against Thompson’s penniless 10-year-old self, not his moneyed adult self.
“Yes but the whole point of a statute of limitations is that an individual cannot be pursued indefinitely. The law recognises that after a certain amount of time has passed, an individual should not be subject to continual harassment (either by another individual or the state).”
That is why I have not advocated a total abolition of the statute of limitations, only that exceptions be made in cases where the action was not brought because the defendant was unable to pay. If the plaintiff merely waited when the defendant DId have the means to pay compensation, then the statute should still apply.
“she couldn’t stake a claim when he was awarded damages by the European Court of Human Rights.”
That is one of the injustices that I think should be corrected.
“It is a recipe for old criminal adversaries (such as rival gangs) to hound each other until death.”
A frivolous and fanciful objection that bears no relation to what I have advocated.
“Utterly moronic idea.”
Let’s be polite and say we strongly disagree with one another.
But Bianca,
If there is no avenue or practical avenue available to seek compensation, would you be able to accept that?
There is no harm being against something.
Persuing those responsible for Thompson and Venables within reasonable time seems the most logical rule to me however logic doesn’t always prevail and I would love to know the answer from a legal perspective if anyone could enlighten me?
The more I think of it, the fact that they were children at the time tells me that they themselves cannot be persued for compensation.
“The more I think of it, the fact that they were children at the time tells me that they themselves cannot be persued for compensation.”
Of course they can’t. Bianca’s idea would be a non-starter in the courts.
“If there is no avenue or practical avenue available to seek compensation, would you be able to accept that?”
Of course I would accept it. My contention is that the statute of limitations be modified so that it doesn’t apply in cases of reasonable delay and that reasonable delay include the unlikelihood of the defendant’s being able to pay.
“That is why I have not advocated a total abolition of the statute of limitations, only that exceptions be made in cases where the action was not brought because the defendant was unable to pay. If the plaintiff merely waited when the defendant DId have the means to pay compensation, then the statute should still apply.”
Then what relevance does that have to Denise Fergus? She started making a great deal of money from the tabs within months of James’ murder. Her relationship with the tabloids would have ensured her ability to pay the lawyer’s fee. So the statute should still apply to her.
I said “cases where the action was not brought because the DEFENDANT was unable to pay.” In other words , cases where there would be no prospect of collecting any sum awarded – or even costs. I thought I had made this clear.
“That is why I have not advocated a total abolition of the statute of limitations, only that exceptions be made in cases where the action was not brought because the defendant was unable to pay. If the plaintiff merely waited when the defendant DId have the means to pay compensation, then the statute should still apply.”
Denise Fergus started making a great deal of money from the tabs from almost the moment James was found dead. Her relationship with the tabloids would’ve ensured her ability to pay the lawyer’s fee. Therefore the statute should still apply to her.
“A frivolous and fanciful objection that bears no relation to what I have advocated.”
How so? Your explanation of how this would work doesn’t prevent Kerry’s scenario from possibly occurring.
I don’t see how Kerry’s suggestion would occur. Even if criminals tried to settle old scores through the courts and the legal process (would that it were so!) cases would still be treated on merits and an unsuccessful case would incur an award for costs. Vexatious litigants would be subject to other sanctions, as indeed they are at present.
sorry – double post
Your argument fits better with how I would be thinking Anonymous and in any case, I would be flabbergasted if Fergus’s lawyer had not told her about it long before now, if there was money in it (for him mainly).
Those last few posts were me, Joe.
Every time I say I’m going to leave, I get sucked back in!
I am suspicious of this “Bianca.” She sounds eerily like Kessler. Now, if you aren’t Kessler, I apologize, Bianca, but you sound so much like him, discussing the “magnitude of the crime” and the calling the European Court of Appeals ruling an “injustice” that needs to be “corrected.”
If you’re not Kessler, he must have a female twin in this world. :-0
I don’t know whether she is Kessler or not. What is a fact is that the idea of Denise Fergus trying to extract money from Thompson is a total non-starter. He committed a crime at ten years old and any sane and civilised society would feel that given he has not committed a crime since (we assume), he should be left alone to live as normal a life as possible (which probably isn’t very normal).
Even if there could be exceptions to any statute of limitations, this is clearly one case where it could not apply. You don’t take legal action against minors. The suggestion is preposterous.
I see that there have been several comments overnight. I have answered one or two, but I get the feeling I am repeating myself so I will try to cover them as briefly as possible as it is no longer the weekend and I have to work.
Civil actions can be and are brought THROUGH the parents, but are actions against the parents or guardians. Similarly if a minor has grounds to sue, their parents or guardians sue on their behalf.
However, historic actions can also be brought by an adult for something done TO them when they were minors. Thompson and Venables did so with regard to the European Court of Human Rights. So by analogy I see no reason in principle why he – as a adult – should not be subject to a legal action done BY him when he was ten.
Regarding the European court, my position was that Kerry’s “she couldn’t STAKE A CLAIM when he was awarded damages by the European Court of Human Rights” was an injustice. That is, that if Thompson RECEIVES A SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY by way of damages (as distinct from an award on paper) then that SHOULD open the door on the right of James Bulger’s parents to bring a civil suit for compensation.
As another poster said, James’s mother might well not WANT to sue either of the killers as she might well view it as blood money. But I believe that the RIGHT to sue belatedly should be there in this and other cases, in the circumstances that I have described. I cannot make my position any clearer.
Sorry, when I wrote ” but are actions against the parents or guardians” I meant “but are actions against the minors.” (i.e. brought THROUGH the parents against the children.)
BTW the reverse can also take place: a minor child of dead parents can be sued for the parents’ liabilities.
So let Denise Fergus stake her claim through Thompson’s parents then. She should not be able to go after Thompson himself at all (and will never be able to – suggesting the law should be changed to pursue someone for damages as an adult for a crime they committed at age ten is a truly horrible idea).
Of course she’ll have no luck in any case. Because the law would immediately strike such an action out at first hearing. And rightly so.
Further correction, I meant
So by analogy I see no reason in principle why he – as a adult – should not be subject to a legal action based on something done BY him when he was ten.
Monday mornings are not my best :-)
“No, I’m suggesting they shouldn’t then and shouldn’t now, because then they’d be suing a penniless ten-year-old, and now they’d be suing a defendant who the courts would have to treat as if he was still a penniless ten-year-old.”
I can understand the reference to age (and have addressed the issue above) but are you saying that the court would consider the defendant’s wealth at the time (or now) in deciding culpability? Or for that matter in setting the amount of the award, if damages are awarded?
A defendant’s wealth affects the actual amount that a successful defendant can obtain in practice. It has no bearing on the issue of liability or the size of the damages awarded.
The court can only consider the facts of the offence and rule according to the offence and the defendant’s means at the time. That is all (it can’t even do that now because the time limit has been exceeded).
The only case where a court can extend the time limit is in the case of an actual victim of violence or sex crimes ( A v Hoare [2008]). Mrs Fergus was not an actual victim of violence so this is irrelevant to her. In this, A managed to sucessfully sue for a proportion of Hoare’s lottery win but this is a wholly different situation and legalistically not comparable (it only applies to victims of intentional torts – this means that Mrs Fergus would have to prove that the damage done to her personally – not her son – was inflicted with intent – totally impossible to prove in this case).
“The court can only consider the facts of the offence and rule according to the offence and the defendant’s means at the time. ”
As far a I know, they don’t consider the defendant’s means at all when considering how much to award (if and when liability is found.) They only consider means when it comes to methods enforcement of the judgement (e.g. payment in installments, etc).
“It can’t even do that now because the time limit has been exceeded.”
As I noted. I advocated a change in the law which apparently triggered his exchange.
“it only applies to victims of intentional torts – this means that Mrs Fergus would have to prove that the damage done to her personally – not her son – was inflicted with intent – totally impossible to prove in this case”
James was the victim of intentional violence and is certainly entitled to compensation for being murdered. Subject to the qualification that this may be statute barred (unless the law is changed) his ESTATEhas standing to sue for compensation not only for funeral expenses but also for pain and suffering and the violation of his right to life.
Alththough I am not a fan of how she conducts herself, subject of course to her being within the allowed time frame, I think she ought to have the RIGHT to sue irrespective of a payout amount. Given the boys were 10, whoever was responsible for them at the time should be the target for this, be it parents, the school or the authorities.
I do however feel that her lawyer would have advised her on this and as such that it boiled down to the potential final award. As such I would imagine that she stopped persuing that idea.
In the context of a general discussion however, this is of interest to me. Knowledge is always good.
Given how she conducts herself in public, I think it is obvious that she still suffers distress.
Now while I do empathise with her for that, there is nothing dignified about her approach to public figures such as Atkinson et al and as such I see her and her group as simply wasting their time unfortunately as many of their demands are unlawful anyway.
This is what she doesn’t seem to get. Her original petition to keep Thompson and Venables in for the whole of their natural lives would have been; 1) against British law and 2) against international law as it contravenes the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the Uk is a signatory.
Article 37 states:
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age
So Denise Fergus was asking the UK government to break the law to please her. And her alone.
When she demanded that the 2 year sentence for Jon Venables’s latest offence be extended, she was asking the judge to dispense with sentencing guidelines (thus breaking the law) – to please her.
It is time that someone told her outright – the ‘justice’ she seeks is not justice at all. Not in any civilised nation anyway.
Thanks Mark,
Laws are there to protect and should be impartial and definite.. Public pressure, emotions etc should never influence sentencing under those laws.
Is this group – “Justice for James” comprised of people who cannot accept this law? Don’t they realise they are wasting their time?
The other side are those who resort to so called ‘vigilante justice’. I don’t agree with this either.
I empathise with Fergus for her loss. Life isn’t fair sometimes
@Mark April 22
It is easy for you to state the above facts/laws in a calm and coherent manner as you are an independent onlooker, capable of being objective as you simply haven’t been directly affected by this tragedy!
You are clearly of rational mind and are completely removed from the situation so can make sane and reasonable, law abiding judgements!! Unfortunately Denise Fergus doesn’t have that luxury and is clearly guided by her emotions! Who wouldn’t be in that situation!?! No-one can honestly say how they would react if something dreadful (god forbid) happened to them!!
Obviously everyone knows the law of the land but maybe it’s something Denise Fergus feels she needs to peruse, in a a way, to try and fight and protect her son, in death as she couldn’t in life!!
Fair enough, others in the group are backing her up (rightly or wrongly) but you can not blame a mother for behaving in this manner given the horrific circumstances around her sons death!! She is clearly emotional disturbed and does deserve compensation for that!!! FGS, if RT is getting compensation for his phone being hacked…..????
I am a little confused Anonymous as to how you propose she can protect her son in death? Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
Other posters have bandied about the idea of compensation. Given his RTs age at the time and having listened to both sides, I took the view that this was not possible. She should have the right to sue the people responsible for him at the time in my opinion, should she still be within the time frame allowed.
The other points you make are fair ones and quite likely true.
Hi Joe, I just meant that she probably feels she needs to continue to fight for him and do all she can for him even though he is heartbreakingly no longer here. Deep down she probably feels a sense of guilt that she couldn’t protect him on that day: I feel that she continues to fight for justice for him as she somehow feels she let him down in life? I know she can’t physically protect him in death but I think she probably feels she owes it to him to carry on in her plyte for justice otherwise what does she do? Just sit back and accept it? I know some people think ‘yes’ she should but that is the view of someone outside looking in??? Easier said than done.
Guilt. Yes, probably.
My feelings on “justice” are well known at this stage.
As you rightly said earlier she appears emotionally disturbed all of which means that even if someone sat her down and went through the points with her which Mark laid out in an earlier post that she probably wouldn’t listen.
Suppose for the sake of argument one made excuses for her – what about her supporters? They too speak of “justice”. What drives them would you say?
Is it sympathy? Bitterness? Hate? I really don’t understand it.
Say also for the sake of argument, one of the vigilantes killed one of the killers. How would that really help her or them for that matter?
Yes, I agree it is difficult for her.
For some people, forgiving is a way of freeing themselves, and it acts as a catalyst for healing. They are able to honestly say and mean the words, and for them, this made their lives better. However, others can’t bring themselves to forgive as they don’t feel that it brings them any relief. Such people are being honest about their true feelings, and honesty in feeling is the best policy.
And I will sum up by saying that I dont agree because I dont understand and hope I never have to.
I give out about her bitterness and negativity believing the opposite is the way forward. Emotionally disturbed, yes but empathy or lack of it will not help her. Only she can do that and I therefore believe that her supporters are allowing themselves to be led down blind alleys. It is for that reason I have got annoyed in the past when those supporters have submitted what I thought was a weak and ridiculous argument.
In truth I think people want her to move on and lack patience with her (including me) because they don’t really understand or maybe even want to understand her.
I honestly think that some things can never heal! It must be like torture for her to wake up everyday and realise all over again the awful truth! I have literally been in tears reading some of the posts on this thread; the shear volume of emotion it conjures up is limitless – extremely upsetting and heartbreaking! I can not even begin to imagine the absolute anguish Denise Fergus/Ralph Bulger must have suffered over the years!
I think he supporters feel the same as Denise, obviously to a lesser extent, but I think they see pictures of that innocent little boy and just want to feel like they are doing something for him?? They are probably driven by emotion and as Liverpudlians (I presume most supporters are from Liverpool) feel a sense of togetherness when fighting for ‘justice’. I truly believe they don’t want to let little James down and in a way I am glad he has not been forgotten about over the years as that would be an even greater tragedy.
Some people just see things in black and white and want to do all they can for the innocent victims, you can’t really blame them for that??
Thanks again for answering.
As I said before I don’t understand because I never went through that.
I get what you are saying about the supporters and I’m not one of them as I don’t feel it would do any good.
I can understand people being emotional but if that turns to bitterness or violence then it is not good for the individual.
I know some people see things in black and white. I sometimes do. In this case I have listed the other parties I believe to have some culpability.
In the Boston bombings I believe the two guilty but the people who brainwashed the older guy are more guilty and should also be sought out and punished. How many others will they brainwash? Does this make sense? I look at the big picture from all angles to get answers.
Going back to this case, the boys commited the crime but if those responsible had been doing their duty/jobs….?
Blame you? No. Just feel you are leaving yourselves wide open to being used and also that nothing will come of it.
In the final analysis, if you feel good about it and feel you are doing some good that is what counts.
No, of course murder victims should not be forgotten but it would also be a tragedy if what James Bulger became more known for was not being an innocent victim but synonymous with hatred, vengeance and vigilante horror.
Because if Denise Fergus keeps going like this, that WILL be his legacy and I’m afraid that will be her fault.
@Kerry
Sorry totally disagree !
@Anonymous 9:58 pm
“No, blame would also lie on the school, hence the term in loco parenthesis”.
I wish this case could be taken. There are too many idiots holding positions of responsiblility and abusing that responsibility by doing nothing. If people were held accountable and fired/admonished for not acting, society might be a little better off.
I usually lay the blame at the supervisor’s or manager’s door if the team member is not performing as if a manager fails to manage, they themselves shouldn’t be doing the job in the first place. Up to the manager to handle it and take action in the first place. It would appear that this did not happen it the T & V case.
@Joe 10.40
I totally agree!! It absolutely infuriates me to think that some incompetent set of ‘idiots’ have failed in their responsibilities which then lead to this tragedy!! Total disgrace and I hope they are disgusted with themselves!!!! Makes me so mad to think that this could have been avoided if those people had been doing their job properly!!!
No, I don’t believe they even care!
Who resigned, lost a job over this?
If the Denise Fergus group targed them they might just get some answers. As it is the boat ain’t rockin’ so the managers won’t rock it either by asking questions.
As for the authorities, how easy it is to blame and throw the book at two 10 year olds and nobody else and then walk away themselves.
If parents were jailed if their children didnt attend school that would be one improvement and if the school simply persued truanting that would be another.
@Joe
If they tend to get it right in general, then why are we in a downward spiral?
How exactly do you mean? With the economy or with crime?
There is merit in what you say Anonymous.
I should have been specific when I made that statement. I was really referring to sentencing. They are fair at being reactive but not so good at being pro-active.
In the case of crime, their crime prevention measures seem to involve more police officers (reactive) without tackling the problems on the ground (pro-active).
In relation to our finances, the country is in a very poor state. Although it is fair to say that this problem has been passed on by successive governments, no government has tackled it properly and now it is out of control. When interests rates rise there will be severe cutbacks. Some posters made reference to Europe and why we appease them. First of all Britain is in the EU as well as other groups and as such is bound by their laws and second, Britain owes approximately 90 billion to Europe.
So you are right, in many respects it is on a downward spiral.
So I hope for everybody’s sake that they do get it right this time.
There are some people in positions of authority that shouldnt be there.
@ Kerry
Quite right
Can anyone answer a few questions regarding Robert Thompson’s family?
A Thompson family near me are supposedly something to do with the Robert Thompson family. One of the kids,around 12-15yrs ago,was heard saying that they had a brother called Bobby who was in care.
The current family are Denise Thompson (mother) Ryan Thompson (Son 20yrs old) and Kyle Thompson (son around 23-24yrs old)
There is also a father figure called Terry but unsure of surname.
Any help?
Why is it important? Do you want to hound the family? Perhaps gather a mob to torch the house?
Thompson’s mother and sibilings all changed their surnames (and the two youngest have a different father anyway so wouldn’t even be ‘Thompson’). All those children sound too young to be Robert Thompson’s sibilings. There was a Ryan but he was only a year or two younger than Robert so would be closer to 30 now.
So no, I’d say on a balance of probabilities, that family has nothing to do with Robert Thompson. It sounds like people with some basic knowledge of Robert Thompson’s family background has put two and two together and come up with a million.
Let it go and for gods sake leave the family alone.
Why on earth would you want to know this?
Thompson is a very common name and it is unlikely to be them. As Mark has pointed out, they changed their surname. And Robert Thompson’s mother was called Anne. It would be absurd for her to have changed her first name and left her surname unchanged.
@Kerry
Right minded people will only ever view Denise Fergus as the bereaved yet brave mother who fought hard to obtain justice for her son. James Bulger will always be regarded as an innocent victim, unlike Thompson and Venables who will forever be remembered as the wicked child killers they are – despite the best efforts of their sick apologists to whitewash their hideous crime and images.
Who the hell are you to decide who is ‘right minded’? Denise Fergus has suffered dreadfully – no one is denying that. But her behaviour should not be just accepted without question. There is much in what she has done that is morally questionable (not to mention bullying). How she publically berated Maggie Atkinson and David Ramsbothom was nothing short of disgraceful. And anyone making a career from taking money from tabloids doesn’t rank highly in my estimation I’m afraid.
And if anyone was under any illusion that revealing the identity of Thompson and Venables online woudl not be treated seriously, they should look to the High Court today where the first of the ‘twitterers’ who posted images are being prosecuted for contempt of court. There is a very good chance (if found guilty) that they will end up in prison.
@Anonymous.
You were challenged to back up some of your statements which you chose to ignore (most likely because you couldn’t) and judged on the tone of your posts, referring to other people as sick just because their opinion may differ from yours is like the pot calling the kettle black!
So two idiots have received a suspended sentence and the judge has said that any other person posting images which they claim are Thompson and/or Venables WILL go to prison. Good.
About time. I have also informed the attorney general’s office about David Kessler giving address details (whether false or not) and claiming Robert Thompson lives there (the injunction explicitly states that it doesn’t matter whether the information is true or not).
Good for you Kerry.
Incidently, did you read the report in the Mirror online?
Again, Fergus had to get in on the act and basically blamed Venables for it???
She is seriously deranged.
I do not understand how anyone can follow her lead and condone her actions.
If she gave the wrong direction to people it could turn out nasty.
I think she’s more or less done it now. She’s basically telling lies now (such as claiming Jon Venables violated parole conditions by having a Facebook account – utter rubbish).
You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers, thought everyone knew that!!?
In response to boy from Kent:
I don’t have to be anyone in particular to decide that someone who treats the supposed rights of psychopathic child-murderers as a sacred cow, while taking every chance to berate the mother of their victim, is not in the right state of mind. Indeed, how dare Fergus demand that criminals should be held accountable for their actions? Why not just raise the age of criminal responsibility so that those harmless 10-year olds could beat a 2-year old baby to death and leave it on the railroad tracks with impunity? After all, that’s what the “experts” such as Maggie Atkinson and David Ramsbothom want, right?
Her comments about the two men who were sentenced yesterday for posting pictures online just says everything that needs to be said about Denise Fergus. Ignorant of the law, extremely unintelligent yet never passes up the chance to blather a load of uninformed rubbish to the media for a quick buck. She blamed Venables for the actions of those two apparently thinking that he was committing an offence by having a Facebook/My Space account under his new ID (he wasn’t) and that he should be prosecuted. She’s making up offences he hasn’t even done.
This is why she isn’t listened to by anyone with any authority. Those with any influenced washed their hands of her years ago. She chooses the vilest tabloids (ones which have been engaged themselves in serious criminal acts) and the mouthpiece of a disgusting muckracking PR agent (Chris Johnson).
Sloppy Joe,
What exactly did you want me to back up? Do you want me to prove that, for example, the educational system is in shambles, or does your very presence on this forum render such an effort on my part unnecessary?
I asked you questions Anonymous which you refused to answer but you know what? You are just a very sad, twisted, ignorant and bitter person and not worthy of anyone’s time.
You are operating under the false assumption that your redundant opinion matters, sloppy Joe.
@Anonymous.
Well you are certainly proof that evolution can go in reverse!
Excellent article
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/16089/jamie-bulger%E2%80%99s-mother-%E2%80%98wrong-kind-victim%E2%80%99
Regarding the extra-territorial jurisdiction issue – we’ll see.
‘We’ll see’? The two in court yesterday were pretty sure of themselves – daring the Attorney General to take them to court while they were tweeting. They were snivelling, cowardly wrecks in the dock. As I’m pretty sure you would be.
Be as sure as you like. This is a matter of principle. British courts do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction. For them to claim it would be an outrage.
@David Kessler
Great article exposing the double standards of the so-called liberal press.
Thank you for posting it.
That is an old article actually and I don’t think the liberal press has shown any ‘double standard’. I would reiterate. Denise Fergus is not above judgement. In the Mirror article (for which she was again no doubt paid), she has even told blatant untruths.
She should be called out on these. And I don’t dislike Denise Fergus because of her class or because she is from Liverpool. I dislike her because of her relationship with the lowest pondlife of the British media – including her PR agent. She is also dishonest and a bully.
Nor are those who judge her above judgement Kerry my dear – hence the article.
And there are lots of comments underneath the article (which originally appeared in the Guardian by the way – you appear to have taken a second hand version) which dispute its contents – as I do. I don’t consider myself above judgement. Denise Fergus does. And that is the mentality of a bully.
That supposedly brilliant article is rubbish. And its old news.
If Denise Fergus is “the wrong kind of victim,” then why she been indulged in the media more than any other victim in her position? Name one parent of a murder victim, in any country, in any decade of the 20th or 21st century, who became more of a permanent media fixture, who’s made more media appearances for a longer period of time, without being asked any tough questions. Name one who has been able to make a better living out of her victim status alone.
The very fact that she is able to be a full-time and permanent professional victim – that she is able to make “victim” her profession – should clue you in to the utter falseness of the article’s thesis. Even if they’d wanted to, 99 % of people in her situation would not be able to turn their victimhood into a job. The opportunity to do so wouldn’t even be presented to them in the first place.
Believe it or not, even the Goldman family in America (parents of O.J. Simpson’s victim Ron Goldman) were not – and they had far more legitimacy to their grievances than Denise Fergus ever has. They were not in the spotlight for as long, they didn’t get paid or shop around their grief to the highest bidder, their complaints and their courses of action made sense, and they were not simply pandered to by journalists.
The article gets it backwards. If she were truly the wrong kind of victim, if there were truly any liberal conspiracy against her, we should be able to name plenty of people in her situation more indulged than her. But we can’t because they don’t exist – in any country.
The article exposes nothing but the author’s own self-pitying and self-serving fantasies as to how the world operates. But then, that is typical of a certain sort of lazy and solipsistic reactionary, of which Mr. Kessler happens to be a good example.
The point is, you can suffer a horrible event and be a horrible person. The two are not mutually exclusive.
“If Denise Fergus is “the wrong kind of victim,” then why she been indulged in the media more than any other victim in her position?”
What a moronic comment. The issue is not how much she is quoted or interviewed, but the TYPE of snide comments that are made about her – and specifically by the left-wing broadsheets.
“Believe it or not, even the Goldman family in America (parents of O.J. Simpson’s victim Ron Goldman) were not – and they had far more legitimacy to their grievances than Denise Fergus ever has.”
They had legitimate grievances too – but to say “far more” is another example of your asininity.
“99 % of people in her situation would not be able to turn their victimhood into a job.”
She didn’t turn her victimhood into a job. She turned her raw outspokenness into a job. That’s no worse than the bleeding heart liberal who wrote that apologia for the murderers getting royalties.
“solipsistic reactionary,”
A typical Stalinist slogan. You mean a conservative.
“What a moronic comment. The issue is not how much she is quoted or interviewed, but the TYPE of snide comments that are made about her – and specifically by the left-wing broadsheets.”
Whenever anyone wants to point out the “snide” comments she receives from left-wing broadsheets, they always zero in on the same solitary article, by Charlotte Raven. Thank God for Charlotte Raven! Without her you’d have nothing to complain about.
Broadsheets have not been hard on Denise Fergus. One or two columnists have, that’s it. Only Raven’s single inflammatory piece, out of all that’s been written about the Bulger case, could be said to cross the line – but even Raven’s piece made some very sharp points amidst the anti-Scouse rhetoric.
Is that the best you can come up with? Out of thousands of news items published or broadcast about the Bulger murder, all you have is Charlotte Raven? The other comments quoted were not remotely snide, and really very incisive, unless you think Denise Fergus is automatically entitled to absolute approval by all and sundry even when she openly, repeatedly, explicitly advocates vigilante slaying and brutal bloodshed (for a crime committed by abused, neglected, damaged 10-year-olds!) as a legitimate solution! Apparently you think incitement to murder (on multiple occasions) should be observed with approval and unfailing support from the entire media complex – which says everything we need to know about you.
“They had legitimate grievances too – but to say “far more” is another example of your asininity.”
O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial despite a mountain of evidence against him, more evidence than what usually results in a conviction. His celebrity and wealth protected him.
JV and RT were found GUILTY and SENTENCED, and they are still serving LIFE SENTENCES, which is why JV could be and was recalled to jail. Fergus has nothing to be bitter about as far as the punishment of JV and RT is concerned, whereas the Goldmans (till Simpson’s later conviction for armed robbery) had everything to be bitter about, especially considering he openly baited and taunted them via the media from his position of ease and privilege.
“She didn’t turn her victimhood into a job. She turned her raw outspokenness into a job. That’s no worse than the bleeding heart liberal who wrote that apologia for the murderers getting royalties.”
The “bleeding heart liberal” you claim wrote an “apologia” didn’t write an apologia for murderers: that you would claim he did (without having read it of course) speaks volumes about your simplistic little mind.
And eagerly soliciting vigilante murder is not “raw outspokenness.” It’s a criminal act, and something that puts Denise Fergus pretty much on the same plane, morally speaking, as JV and RT themselves.
Also, you seem to have trouble grasping the elementary distinction between being paid to tell lies and half-truths (Denise Fergus’ line of work) and being paid to report the factual truth to the best of your ability (Smith’s line of work). You seem to think this is about “raw outspokenness” – since when is incessant lying and fibbing a form of admirable outspokenness? It’s not courage or honesty or integrity: it’s lying – for money. It’s not bravery, it’s cowardice.
“A typical Stalinist slogan. You mean a conservative.”
No, I mean reactionary. There have always been plenty of conservatives with enormous integrity and intelligence – again, think of Dostoyevsky! Even George Eliot was conservative in many respects. And Frank Furedi is not exactly what I’d call a typical liberal, and he wrote one of the best and most incisive pieces on the whole Bulger affair. Furedi strikes me as very conservative thinking in many of his views, and he had this to say:
“For me the most disquieting moment is this shameful episode was when I read the summing up of the case against the two children by the trial judge Mr Justice Morland. The killing of James Bulger was ‘an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity’ concluded the judge. These carefully crafted words not only communicated the idea that the killing committed by these two children was an act of evil but also suggested that it was also ‘unparalleled’ and therefore worse than the terrible deeds perpetrated by adults. The conviction and sentencing of the two children provoked a reaction that a civilised society usually reserves for hardened war criminals. ‘How do you feel now, you little bastards?’ asked the Daily Star while the headline of the Daily Mirror stated ‘Freaks of Nature’.
“One regrettable and long term consequence of the transformation of the trial into a medieval passion play was that it fostered a climate of opinion where the age of criminal responsibility could be steadily lowered to the point where the distinction between act of a child and adult lost much of its meaning. Since this trial, the age of criminal responsibility has been steadily lowered. British courts now regard children as young as 10 as bearing moral responsibility for the most serious of crimes. In contrast most European systems of justice set the age of criminal responsibility at 14, 16 – even 18.”
Furedi is no typical liberal in general, though. And was the Victorian era dominated, through and through, with “bleeding heart liberals”? Look at how the courts and the general public alike dealt with Barrett and Bradley, the Venables and Thompson of their day. They extended tremendous mercy and forgiveness to them – and this was the NORM.
Honourable and brilliant conservatives of yesteryear – including Dostoyevsky – would regard you with contempt, and probably pity.
“that you would claim he did (without having read it of course) speaks volumes about your simplistic little mind. ”
You have quoted it enough to make it clear. And YOU criticizing me for not reading when you speed-read one book (or claim you did) and then start parroting second-hand literary criticism like that character in Good Will Hunting who regurgitated what her had memorized and was incapable of holding an original thought. That fits you perfectly.
“Apparently you think incitement to murder (on multiple occasions) should be observed with approval and unfailing support from the entire media complex.”
She has never been convicted of incitement to murder or even charged. You should be careful of reckless accusations.
“No, I mean reactionary.”
Give us YOUR definition of reactionary and then tell us how it applies to me. “Reactionary” is the battle-cry of Stalinists.
“being paid to report the factual truth to the best of your ability (Smith’s line of work).”
An apologia by any other name…
“the transformation of the trial into a medieval passion play ”
So now Venables is no longer Macbeth – now he’s Jesus?
“In contrast most European systems of justice set the age of criminal responsibility at 14, 16 – even 18.”
How nice for those under 14 to be given an assurance that they can get away with crimes.
“They extended tremendous mercy and forgiveness to them – and this was the NORM.”
He who has mercy on the cruel…
“You have quoted it enough to make it clear.”
What did the author say that I quoted that was factually false? Nothing. What has Denise Fergus said that is factually false? Lots.
“And YOU criticizing me for not reading when you speed-read one book (or claim you did) and then start parroting second-hand literary criticism like that character in Good Will Hunting who regurgitated what her had memorized and was incapable of holding an original thought. That fits you perfectly.”
I cited plenty of details from your lousy book to show I’d read it with full comprehension. Whether I read it slowly or quickly doesn’t make a difference. I pointed out major flaws in the construction, like the awkwardly shoehorned info-dumps, including a reference to Lorenz transformations that show you didn’t even understand the physics you were referencing.
“She has never been convicted of incitement to murder or even charged. You should be careful of reckless accusations.”
Yes, because she quickly retracted her most blunt, direct statement along those lines, probably because someone in her circle had a word with her and warned her she’d crossed a line. She still said it, though. And if she’d been sincere about her retraction, she wouldn’t come back time and again making similar statements every few years.
I accepted her retraction and didn’t hold the initial statement against her. But when she reverts to her old ways time and time again, it suggests she isn’t sincere in her retractions or equivocations and is simply guarding herself against potential prosecution.
And I won’t be careful, because my accusation is not reckless, it’s an accurate description of what she’s done. I stand by the charge.
“Give us YOUR definition of reactionary and then tell us how it applies to me. “Reactionary” is the battle-cry of Stalinists.”
And “bleeding heart liberal” is the battle-cry of Daily Mail readers and “shockingly reactionary” (Gerald Houghton’s description of you) writers.
“An apologia by any other name…”
You of course don’t have any evidence that it’s an apologia, because it isn’t one. Nor is it unsympathetic to the Bulgers. You seem to think having any sympathy for OTHER PEOPLE THAN JUST THE BULGERS, to have any sympathy for any members of the Thompson or Venables families, makes it an apologia.
A simple-minded fool by any other name…
“So now Venables is no longer Macbeth – now he’s Jesus?”
Grow up – or learn to read. The “medieval passion play” reference is Frank Furedi’s, not mine.
And if you were capable of following a train of thought beyond the most simple-minded, inane rhetoric of the Daily Mail, you’d realize that the Christ figure in this particular “play” could not be Venables (he would be the “Satan” figure), it could only be James Bulger himself.
Stick to John Grisham and similar fluff, Frank Furedi is way too hard for you (much like the Lorenz transformation obviously is).
“How nice for those under 14 to be given an assurance that they can get away with crimes.”
How nice for you to evade Furedi’s whole argument In favour of crass and puerile replies.
“He who has mercy on the cruel…”
So now you’re writing the whole Victorian era – Victorian mores and values – as being “merciful to the cruel”? Keep digging that hole, David. With each passing statement, you demonstrate more and more clearly that you’re not fit to tie Dostoyevsky’s shoelaces, despite your delusional beliefs about your trash fiction, and that you are a fool.
I won’t waste time on your rambling response. I’ll just address this one point.
“I cited plenty of details from your lousy book to show I’d read it with full comprehension. Whether I read it slowly or quickly doesn’t make a difference.”
Was this your honest, fair criticism that you reached after reading the book with an open mind ? Or did you decide you were going to have a go at me by pretending that you had read it and claiming that it was badly written, using all the cliches that you could borrow from other people’s literary criticism?
Well lets’ see now shall we? On the 16th of March at 9:13 you wrote
“(And all the “characters” in Marked Man were cardboard cutouts anyway, with no credibility to them – therefore it doesn’t matter what “Dorothy” does, since she’s just a piece of cardboard with nothing of importance to say about real life.)”
If you had actually read MARKED MAN, you would have known that “Dorothy” doesn’t appear in it. She appears in MERCY (AKA YOU THINK YOU KNOW ME PRETTY WELL) which you claim NOT to have read.
So on a basis of what knowledge could you have spoken of her characterizarion? The answer is that you could not. Why then did you write that sentence above.
Simple! You had an agenda and to that end you either speed-read or skimmed through MARKED MAN and then “announced” your alleged findings, using standard critic’s cliches. Whatever you actually thought of the book, it was inevitable that you would CLAIM that it was badly written and that characters (who in this case didn’t even appear in the book) were “just a piece of cardboard” – because that claim would suit your agenda.
But in this case you overplayed your hand and made the same mistake as the critic who wrote a savage review of a ballet that he couldn’t be bothered to attend, only to be professionally embarrassed when it was revealed that the performance had been cancelled. You are as honest and as ethical as that ballet critic.
Now I know already what excuse you are going to use to cover ass at this exposure of your willful dishonesty. You are going to say that you know that Dorothy MUST be a cardboard cut-out because all the actual characters in MARKED MAN were (they weren’t, but that won’t stop you saying so) and therefore you can only assume that Dorothy was too.
I mention this, because you are thoroughly predictable both in your bogus literary criticism and in your excuses when caught out. Please spare yourself any further embarrassment by not trying to weasel off he hook on this one. You did not state an honest opinion that you held based on knowledge. You decided what you were going to say in your feeble attempts to attack me and in your artless clumsiness you tripped over your own feet and made a complete fool of yourself and exposed your dishonesty.
“If you had actually read MARKED MAN, you would have known that “Dorothy” doesn’t appear in it. She appears in MERCY (AKA YOU THINK YOU KNOW ME PRETTY WELL) which you claim NOT to have read. So on a basis of what knowledge could you have spoken of her characterizarion? The answer is that you could not. Why then did you write that sentence above. Simple! You had an agenda and to that end you either speed-read or skimmed through MARKED MAN and then “announced” your alleged findings, using standard critic’s cliches.”
Why don’t you quote me in context instead of ripping me out of context?
I was always aware that “Dorothy” wasn’t in A Marked Man. This is what I said regarding Dorothy:
“Look, I have read your book A Marked Man. There was no complexity or richness or psychological depth whatsoever to the pasteboard characters and inane, cliched plot. So unless all your other books are totally different from this one, I don’t believe you when you say you write about moral and spiritual questions with complexity and humanity. None of that was evident in A Marked Man: are you other books completely different from and vastly superior to A Marked Man?”
I clearly stated I only read the one book. I also stated that that one book was so unbelievably awful I had a hard time believing “Dorothy” could be this complex, rich character like you were claiming, given that everyone, including Sedaka, in A Marked Man was a piece of cardboard.
But I suspect you know I didn’t contradict myself and are just desperately grasping at straws now.
If a person has only read one or two John Grisham novels, they don’t have to read his entire oeuvre to suspect that the rest of didn’t suddenly turn into the work of some literary genius in the league of Tolstoy, George Eliot, or Virginia Woolf.
“Whatever you actually thought of the book, it was inevitable that you would CLAIM that it was badly written and that characters (who in this case didn’t even appear in the book) were “just a piece of cardboard” – because that claim would suit your agenda.”
I could have all the “agenda” in the world and it wouldn’t make a difference. You have a marked agenda too, as does everyone who’s contributed to this thread.
A reader could go in with an agenda and still be proven wrong. Tolstoy wrote reams against Shakespeare trying to prove he sucked and his reputation was all the result of some conspiracy – and he failed. If the talent is truly there, it can’t be destroyed by a mere agenda.
I AM biased against most genre fiction as I find little to like about most of it, but I’ve also had to admit, sometimes grudgingly, that some of it is very well-written. Stephen King isn’t to my taste but he has genuine craftsmanship and some of his books really are well-written. The Running Man for example is extremely well-written on a sentence by sentence level and the story has propulsive force. Georges Simenon and Patricia Highsmith had real ability and will probably outlast many a “literary” writer from their time (in fact they already have).
I make no such concessions about you, however. I didn’t like one thing about your book and I seriously thought about not finishing it, I only finished it because I try to finish everything I start.
Being outspoken is one thing. Telling outright lies is quite another. Which Denise Fergus has done on more than one occasion. (Remember she claimed she was ‘100% sure’ that Venables was married with two children and that Thompson had committed offences).
She now claims that the act of having a Facebook account is an offence where Venables is concerned (another untruth).
She keeps on about the fact that she isn’t listened to. There are very good reasons for this. Most of what she says isn’t worthy of being listened to.
@ Virgil & David Kessler
She IS a professional victim who lies and tries to interfere.
(The article in the Daily Mirror yesterday confirms this).
Fortunately the people who count don’t listen to her.
Yes she did turn the aftermath of her son’s death into a job.
As a public figure people are entitled to criticise her.
It is very wrong that people condone what she does. She is certainly well able to pass snide remarks when the actions of someone do not suit her and no doubt she gets well paid for the garbage she comes out with in the papers.
How can people be so brainwashed by her?
I have never even seen one post by any of her supporters that criticises anything she says.
It is very worrying that none of you seem to be able to tell right from wrong.
What she says has lacks credibility now as do the ramblings of Kessler who decided to print in this forum an address for Robert Thompson thereby putting people at risk.
This woman is not suffering, she is revelling in every minute of the attention she gets and let us not forget – her pay.
‘The press is my shepherd I shall not work’ is her down to a tee.
If people think she is suffering, why don’t they do the humane thing and put her down like you would with any animal who is in constant pain?
Joe your moronic ramplings are becoming a bit of a one-note bore.
“She IS a professional victim ”
You liars keep using this bromide as if repeating makes it true. You evidently belong to the Goebbels school of propaganda,.
“It is very worrying that none of you seem to be able to tell right from wrong.”
You seem to have confused us with Venables and Thompson. Murdering toddlers is wrong. Locking up murderers is right.
“‘The press is my shepherd I shall not work’ is her down to a tee.”
You can’t even be original with your half-witted remarks. She is not on benefits, ergo she is working.
“why don’t they do the humane thing and put her down like you would with any animal who is in constant pain?”
THIS is how your mind works? (If one can call it a mind!)
@Kessler.
All this coming from the Asshole who put up an address for Robert Thompson on a public forum and put people’s lives at risk and you call people half wits?
Who the hell are you to preach right and wrong to anybody after what you’ve done?
How do you know she isn’t in receipt of benefits? She certainly was until the murder of her son.
And I’m not happy with some of the comments coming from others (like ‘put her down’) which I think are out of order.
Not really sure I like ‘professional victim’ either – she got that tag from the infamous Charlotte Raven article who seemed to hate Liverpool more than anything else.
But the criticism she is getting from various quarters (such as questionning her constant tabloid presence and her apparent reliance of them for cash), her blatant untruths (including by the way saying Robert Thompson is claiming compensation for phone hacking – when there is no evidence of it) is perfectly fair.
As I said, just because she suffered horribly, it does not mean she cannot also be an unpleasant person.
On this:
“She has never been convicted of incitement to murder or even charged. You should be careful of reckless accusations”
When they were released, she said if they were murdered, she’d stand next to their murderers in court.
Sorry, but this is vile. Absolutely vile. And should not be condoned in any way.
@Kerry. He is vile.
One of the comments I made was not to be taken literally but rather expressed my feelings that I was utterly sick of her ridiculous lies and silly comments and those who defend her without question.
I wrongly thought you would read between the lines.
You mean you let your guard down – and your hair!
@Kessler.
Humour – I didn’t think you had it in you.
It just goes to prove you learn something new every day?
As for hair, mine is short and parted unlike yours which is pretty much departed
“It just goes to prove you learn something new every day?”
Given enough days you graduate to three-quarter wit.
“As for hair, mine is short and parted unlike yours which is pretty much departed”
Hair loss is a sign of high testosterone!
“As for hair, mine is short and parted unlike yours which is pretty much departed”
His expanding waistline more than makes up for the loss.
FGS Kerry…have you got kids??? If you didn’t feel the same way about the murderers of your precious little ones as DF then I’m sorry but I think you are vile!!!! she is bound to say that isn’t she??? Anyone suffering a loss like hers would…it’s human nature!! You can preach all you like but until you have walked a mile in her shoes STOP judging her!!!! And before you start banging on about my morals and calling me an ‘unpleasant’ person, I’m not saying I agree with it but I am saying I totally understand where she is coming from!! You on the other hand would obviously take the moral high ground I presume if god forbid anything like this happened to you???? (I seriously think not!!!!)
Joe, you’re the one who’s preaching – and not very convincingly I might add. especially as you have effectively advocated murder: “put her down like you would with any animal who is in constant pain?” Indeed! What’s your surname Joe? Schickelgruber?
Kerry: “How do you know she isn’t in receipt of benefits? She certainly was until the murder of her son.”
If she was on benefits, you or your sidekick Virgil would have revealed it by now. Both you and he (and a few other murderer-sypathizers around here) keep banging on about her making money from interviews. As I see that’s no different from politicos or TV personalities going on the lecture circuit.
“When they were released, she said if they were murdered, she’d stand next to their murderers in court… Sorry, but this is vile. Absolutely vile. And should not be condoned in any way.”
That is NOT incitement to murder. And it isn’t vile: it’s positively Churchillian.
To me it comes across as incitement to murder. It is vile. And I’ll call it as I see it.
As for calling a ‘murderer sympathiser’, that is so unbelievably trite that I can’t be bothered to retort.
It is intellectually lazy to construct such a blatant straw man – as ‘you have this opinion, therefore you must think this’.
You adopt a superior tone with everyone yet you can’t see beyond absurd simplifications.
And Denise Fergus making money from tabloids is not the same as a politician on a lecture circuit (for one the latter has another profession). Particularly when she is so blatantly untruthful.
“for one the latter has another profession”
Completely irrelevant. Former politicians also make money on the lecture circuit. Being interviewed is as much honest labour as making after dinner speeches. At least she’s not costing the taxpayer tens of thousands in the way that the scum who murdered her son are.
“Being interviewed is as much honest labour as making after dinner speeches.”
Not if your interviews are full of lies and half-truths. Constantly lying can’t constitute “honest” labour.
“At least she’s not costing the taxpayer tens of thousands in the way that the scum who murdered her son are.”
Whose fault is that? The very tabloids you defend as well as their readers: people with your beliefs and your outlook.
Again, look at the carbon copy San Francisco case from the seventies. There was no media outcry to have the perpetrators’ names released, their identities have never been released to this day. There was no media circus, no vilification in the press, there was even forgiveness on the part of the mother. What was the result? Tens of thousands weren’t spent to protect them, no money at all was spent.
You see, that’s what a sane and sober handling of such cases results in, a lack of expense, a lack of constant hassle and headaches stretching out for decades.
One of the main causes of so much tax money being spent to protect JV and RT is Denise Fergus herself. If she’d stop stirring up vigilantes and learn to keep quiet, they wouldn’t need so much expensive protection in the first place.
@ Kessler.
My surname? What? So you can then give my address as Venables or Thompson?
If you want to reveal your personal details that’s your business.
I could agree with what you’ve written but then we’d both be wrong.
“My surname? What? So you can then give my address as Venables or Thompson?”
No I was just wondering if it was Goebbels or Schickelgruber.
Anyway I know your address – Broadmoor!
How did you guess?
Is the reason you’re so black and white because you’re old?
And wise.
You really are puerile aren’t you? You can’t win with your argument so you resort to childish, playground insults.
As for Denise Fergus, it is not an ‘honest living’ if she is telling great bit porkie pies – is it?
@Kerry and Virgil.
I’m not sure that he is serious?
I feel he throws in ridiculous statements designed for reactions of any kind.
In my opinion Fergus is the way she is as she is uneducated and not very smart either. Once she got the taste for money from the press it was very hard to give up. The statements could be stage managed to add some more drama although this is unlikely. To the press she is their golden goose who sells their papers.
I am sick of her attempts to interfere, her lies and so called “justice campaign”. I hoped she would deal with her grief in a dignified and private way like most people. That she doesn’t negates much of the sympathy I had for her in the past. Some of her supporters justify the need for protection of the two. On a serious note, there are some very unbalanced people who are incapable of listening to reason. If any of those people get their hands on information whether true or false on either of the two, I really would fear for their safety! That’s why a strong stance was needed regarding the posting of Thompson’s so-called address on this forum.
Wise? Good. So you are only an idiot on this forum?
Das kann ich nicht glauben!
As a successful published author, I suppose I’m a bit of an idiot wasting time debating with an anonymous nobody who has no provable achievements to his name.
Seriously, grow up.
You don’t have any provable achievements either, David. I’ve read your stuff. It sucks. It’s about as distinguished as your typical online fanfic.
Not many of us have an A in arrogance nor do we think arrogance a virtue.
@Kessler
‘Given enough days you graduate to three-quarter wit’.
Ah yes, I live and learn but you just live.
‘Hair loss is a sign of high testosterone’
Well, in your case it was because you deserved it!
Is porcine flab and alcoholic’s bloat also a sign of high testosterone, I wonder?
You’re relying on an old picture. Since being diagnosed with diabetes in February I have in fact started a diet and dropped from 87 kilo to just under 79. A bit further to go, but nothing like a health scare for motivation.
In spite of my considerable distaste for your views, I’m nonetheless sorry to hear that you have diabetes, David.
No matter how much I disagree with you, I don’t wish serious health problems on anyone (not even a certain reporter-who-shall-not-again-be-named from The Sun, or Rupert Murdoch).
Are you aware that a great amount of scientific evidence has been amassed that suggests that diabetes has a strongly “logical” component to it, that it in fact is yet another biological program – like the PTSD response – designed by millions of years of evolution to save our lives in a perceived emergency?
Doubtless you’ll dismiss all this as tripe like you dismissed my earlier references to the science behind PTSD, but I can absolutely assure you that (though the medical establishment rejects these ideas outright) there’s a very solid body of evidence now that diabetes is in fact not some random tragedy, nor caused solely by a bad diet, but something that emerges out of a shock conflict.
You should read this and think very carefully and open-mindedly about its contents. It could very well save your life:
http://spiritofmaat.com/sep07/german_new_medicine.html
Think carefully and identify the specific “shock” or series of recent shocks, and you can in fact reverse the symptoms (but you must do it with the help and supervision of a genuine practitioner of this specific type of medicine).
I’m also going to stop arguing with you, David, as it’s bad for diabetics to get into serious arguments and conflicts all the time – seriously!
I’d advise you, for the sake of your health, to avoid coming back to this thread and similar threads for the time being. Though mainstream medicine denies it, there IS an emotional “shock” component to diabetes. Resolve that and you can resolve the entire condition.
@Virgil.
Type II is usually weight related but can be cured without having to take insulin eventually. A healthy diet and exercise will help with the weight loss which then needs to be maintained and eventually the pancreas should start producing more insulin. Cut out sugar, junk food and alcohol. Eat plenty of fruit and fresh vegetables. 3 meals a day every day with 2 or 3 snacks eg a piece of fruit between meals, preferably porridge for breakfast as it is slow releasing. Cut out white bread and go for proper brown bread.
Type I requires a transplant – not so simple.
The side effects when you have it can be dreadful. Lethargy is the most noticable episode and grumpiness is another. But you have to be careful to cut out sugar as ultimately it will effect your eyesight if not contained. Many eventually lose their sight. Also your immune system becomes much weaker and leaves you susceptable to infection, colds and flus etc. Lastly, many have developed gangrene and have lost limbs.
Obviously a good doctor will advise.
Even if you return to ‘normality’, whereby you can eat and drink anything and without taking insulin (Type II only) the doctor will not refer to you condition as cured but rather contained.
So it’s not a laughing matter at all.
@ Kessler.
Good for you.
Seriously!
Virgil is right about the amount of money spent. None of it would have been required had their names never been released in the first place. Thankfully it looks like lessons have been learned and no child that young has been named in such a case since. Even the furore around the Edlington case (just as horrific and only luck really that two children were not killed) has subsided and those children will be released in a couple of years with relatively little outrage.
Dominic Grieve, when interviewed after the contempt of court case the other day said that every single citizen – even those who have committed horrible crimes – is entitled to the protection of the law. That has always been the case. In this case, the protection of the law means new identities and constant protection because of the intervention of tabloids and the victim’s mother. They make it necessary. And that is the ironic thing. The more this case is used to stoke vigilantes and vengeful outrage, the more money is spent on protecting them.
And so speaks that voice of someone who has obviously been lucky enough to have lived an untainted life! Ever heard of the work EMPATHY Kerry/Virgil ( not sure if you are not one and the same just to make it look like you have more people in agreement with you on here!…and before you say you are not that sad/pathetic…Virgil has already admitted to commenting on here under another identity!)
Kerry the fact that the judge gave out the names of R and T was not Denise Fergus’s fault…and so what if she is a ‘horrible person’….is it not what R and T have made her become!?!
Btw Kerry you are not coming across as overly nice yourself!!!
We are not the same person. I think it should be obvious by the style of our posting. I realise Denise wasn’t the reason their names were given out – she did not have that power. Neither does she have the power to dictate what happens to them now. Never has, never will.
And she may have been dislikable whether something awful happened to her or not. There is no way of knowing.
But certainly, she is part of the reason they are so well protected now. Indeed, when the original injunction was created by Butler-Sloss, she was named as one of the reasons the injunction was necessary.
@Anonymous.
Both have expressed empathy.
They have difficulty accepting the way in which Denise Fergus conducts herself in public as I have.
Nobody denies that she is emotionally scared however she has no say in either Thompson or Venables but believes she should have.
If you visit her twitter page she is looking for signatures opposing compensation being given to Thompson over the phone hacking.
First of all this has nothing to do with the murder of her son and secondly, to my knowledge, he hasn’t yet sought compensation.
Do you see anything wrong with this?
‘But certainly, she is part of the reason they are so well protected now. Indeed, when the original injunction was created by Butler-Sloss, she was named as one of the reasons the injunction was necessary.’
Yes but at that time she was absolutely heartbroken and would have had no way of knowing the backgrounds of RT and JV so you can’t blame her for hate being her first response. I remember watching the whole horror unravelling on the news and it did say that the boys had planned to kill a toddler (I actually remember that being in the news) . Moreover if the judge hadn’t given out their names then the injunction wouldn’t have been necessary, so again, I’m sorry but I disagree! And…why shouldn’t the mother of a murdered toddler know who the culprits were!!! It’s utterly ludicrous that she shouldn’t know (not saying the public should know but I definitely think the mother should!)
@ Joe
Again you have no way of knowing how you would respond unless it happened to you ( and not to be sexist but a mother to lose her son like that must be absolutely horrific).
Yes she is displaying poor judgement calls but she is clearly still immensely bitter and obviously still heartbroken.
In answer to your question though, no I’m sorry I understand why she feels she needs to do this. If RT was remorseful he should just stop any further torment by saying he will give any compensation money to charity. Do you not think that would be morally correct???
Sloppy Joe,
That’s laughable coming from a mutated life form like you whose transparent, maniacal support for child murderers and pedophiles is second to none. Crawl back into your cesspit sloppy Joe.
@Anonymous.
Stop blaming others for your own unhappiness.
Accept that brains aren’t everything, although in your case they are nothing!
Peal a few potatoes love. They will help you lose some of the weight that makes you so unhappy. Now I’m sure that will put a smile on your face and it will give you something worthwhile to say when you are on here again :)
Sloppy Joe,
The fact that you are on here 24/7 reveals far more about your own undoubtedly vast reserves of blubber, accumulated by way of your sedentary lifestyle. Little wonder you can’t get a real life partner, Joe slob. No worries, you’re my virtual bitch now (I’m sure Kerry/Virgil won’t mind) :-)
@Anonymous. You’re referring to your life love especially the use of the word “bitch”. We all know what you need to calm you down. You obviously aren’t getting it though!
If and when you do get it though and that creature would want to be desperate to take you on make sure you don’t make the same mistake as your parents? You birth certificate is clearly an apology from the condom factory :(
@David Kessler
Only a word from you on this forum is sufficient to set off an eruption of fecal matter by the slimy trio. I must say your idea of entertainment is not the most sanitary one ;)
Neither you or Kessler are coming out well right now. Once again, resorting to juvenile playground imbecility in the absence of any real comeback.
Kerry,
Not only are you repetitive, your comment is ridiculous in view of your fellow stooges degenerate postings. Lunatic ramblings from the psychopathic shemale “Virgil” and dullard “Joe” require nothing more than derision.
@Anonymous.
I don’t know what makes you stupid but it really works!
Sloppy Joe,
I see it’s hard for a dimwit like you to say anything original. Keep trying knucklehead (you’ve got all day and night to think of something).
So you still have nothing of note to add – merely more insults. Again, it is not doing you any favours.
@ Anonymous. Hating the world is hating yourself love.
An excellent example of Freudian projection, sloppy Joe.
@Anonymous.
This post is supposed to be about Thompson and Venables.
If you have a point to make about them, then make it.
So far all you have done is piss and moan about the people on this forum.
You really are embarrassing yourself love and you need a little holiday in a young offenders institute where they try to reform children like you who cannot fit into society.
So this forum is not about three insignificant trolls making incognito remarks regarding David Kessler’s appearance but rather about Thompson’s and Venables’ heinous crime? Nice of you to finally remember. How appropriate that you would want those murderers free, while expressing your desire to put me into a young offenders’ institute for the crime of exposing your weak-mindedness and hypocrisy. After all, wouldn’t those two fit into society much better than I, as one of them has already proved by reoffending? But what if there is still some health left in our society and they end up where they always belonged? How do you feel about the prospective of cooking Sloppy Joe for inmates?
Viel Erfolg, Schlabberpullover!
@Anonymous.
And your point is?
You are the reason men beat up their wives!
“And so speaks that voice of someone who has obviously been lucky enough to have lived an untainted life! Ever heard of the work EMPATHY Kerry/Virgil”
Empathy is good if it’s honestly and fairly applied. But if “empathy” is simply used as a rationale to excuse and justify every last thing Denise Fergus does while demonizing and rationalizing away all violations of JV and RT’s right, it’s meaningless. The very same people who consider themselves so empathetic towards Mrs. Fergus like to whitewash the awfulness of JV’s and RT’s background: RT’s formative environment is especially frustrating for them and they like to gloss over it altogether, or deny those horrors ever happened to him.
They’ll insist that the horror of James’ death totally, completely excuses Denise’s encouragement of murderous vigilantism towards RT, but in the same breath they’ll insist that the horror of RT’s life doesn’t excuse or mitigate in the slightest degree his participation in James’ murder. Pretty enormous double standard there.
“( not sure if you are not one and the same just to make it look like you have more people in agreement with you on here!…and before you say you are not that sad/pathetic…Virgil has already admitted to commenting on here under another identity!)”
I admitted to posting a few posts under the “anonymous” identity for a specific reason which I divulged. My posts related to this subject even on other websites are signed “Virgil.” I’ve been influenced by much of what I’ve read other commentators express about the case and have frequently paraphrased and restated other people’s views; likewise, I’ve often read posts written by others I recognize as restatements of my own opinions.
You’re going to hear echoes and resemblances, of course, but we’re not all the same person. Believe it or not, there are lots and lots of people out there who don’t share your views, Anon.
“Kerry the fact that the judge gave out the names of R and T was not Denise Fergus’s fault…and so what if she is a ‘horrible person’….is it not what R and T have made her become!?!”
RT and JV didn’t become what they became in a vacuum, either. If you’re going to explain away Denise’s frequently appalling behaviour by the terrible trauma she suffered, then you have to extend the same courtesy to them, otherwise your position reeks of hypocrisy and complete double standards.
“Btw Kerry you are not coming across as overly nice yourself!!!”
Denise’s niceness is not the issue. Her tendency to make demands she’s never been entitled to under the law IS – and by the law I mean not just UK law, I mean the law in nearly EVERY part of the civilized world.
Thanks for your response Virgil!
I do extend the same courtesy to them and I have agreed with some of the things that you have said about the reasons why they turned out the way they did! I’m not denying that R and T had a terrible upbringing (just going off what you have said) and I understand that other people other than R and T should be held responsible for what happened. I’m not totally ignorant and really do get what you are saying but it really infuriates me to hear people like Kerry throwing stones all the time when she can’t have any idea of the torment that that poor woman went through, ultimately at the hands of R and T. Denise Fergus is bound to be blinkered and I feel that just like I should empathise with R and T, so should Kerry with Denise Fergus!! Do you not agree?? She could have had a similar upbringing to R and T, she could have PTSD, she could depressed not to mention the fact that her gorgeous little boy was brutally murdered…..I just think that Kerry is not taking all these things into consideration. It’s easy to cast apsersions from the outside looking in???
Thing is, I CAN empathise with her. You can do that without agreeing with her and it is possible to empathise with her loss but criticise her also. That is my position. I empathise with her loss but I cannot sympathise with her position. To me, her demands are not only wrong but very very wrong. I also think she needs to stop having a damaging co-dependent relationship with the gutter press and get rid of that sleazy PR agent. They are not her friends, no matter how much she thinks they are.
And by the way, while I concede the Thompson and Venables’s upbringings are relevant, I don’t subscribe to the position that those upbringings alone are responsible for their actions that day. Whatever propelled them to that awful act, they have to take responsibility.
@Anonymous. She could have had a similar unbringing which is a fair point and I believe there is something that isn’t right about her.
It was terrible what happened and only natural that she should retain some hatred and bitterness towards T & V.
Are you saying that that the lies she spreads, the comments she makes trying to influence the authorities etc, are down to PTSD?
If this were the case, why doesn’t she have treatment or is the lure of money too much?
Correct, it is easy to form opinions from the outside about everyone :-).
But like it or not she gets her spoke in everytime it suits her and you cannot ultimately make excuses for that just the same as T & V commited the crime, irrespective of what was happening at home and noone forced them to do that either. What I am saying is, you can excuse her for certain things but ultimately, as with everyone, you must draw the line. Do you agree?
@ Anonymous.
Thank you for your reply and well thought out response to me
You understand what she does but do you agree with it?
I cannot even question the rest of the post.
As a parent, our children are our world.
I understand that Robert Thompson has not yet applied for compensation.
Were he to receive compensation, it would be a good jesture on his part to donate it to a charity but it would be his to do with what he wished. The phone hacking was a separate event and unfortunately while he may or may not want to show remorse, nothing he does or could do will ever be enough for some people. It is a no win situation for him.
*Sorry I meant T and V in my posts not R and T
@ Joe
‘There is something that isn’t right about her’
Could this not be the fact that her son was abducted and brutally murdered when he was in her care? That must have an effect on her mental state?
You know as well as I do no amount of money can compensate for the loss of her son: I really don’t think that is the driving force behind her actions.
I don’t know why she doesn’t have treatment, maybe she has? All I know is that she suffered a cruel and horrific crime…..that’s all :-(
Suffering in that way does not make her an expert on the criminal justice system. It does not give her carte blanche to make dishonest statements to the media (and get paid for them no doubt) or treat two professional people with the contempt she treated Maggie Atkinson and David Ramsbotham.
For years, she was given too big a platform without any question. This has probably proved to be her undoing as she now has put herself into a position from which she can’t retreat. This is why people have lost patience. It is not all her fault, to some degree she has been exploited and smarter people would see people like Chris Johnson and tabloid editors for what they are.
@Anonymous.
Yes, without doubt that is the reason.
Correct, you cannot put a price on a life. I have no objection to her earning money but I cannot condone her lies, her hunger for control and her public general outbursts. On that, nobody should be above criticism.
She did suffer a cruel and horrible crime and one which wasn’t her fault – agreed but I just feel that as long as she carries on as she does, she will always be troubled so she isn’t helping herself. Distancing herself from the press to which some posters have alluded would be a step in the right direction.
While I understand fully your empathy, I cannot understand why you cannot say – this or that might be wrong?
For example – Robert Thompson – physchotic – the doctors say otherwise.
They should be locked up for life – the ministry of Justice and Europe say no.
I want to know their names – again the ministry says no for obvious reasons.
Getting people to sign a petition to prevent T from gaining compensation for phone hacking. etc.. Do you think this is right?
She seems to have dedicated her life towards trying to ruin theirs, instead of which she is ruining her own.
There is nothing more legally she can do but she refuses to or cannot see it.
There is no doubt that she received a bad deal in life but there comes a point where one must say “that is wrong” and realise she is not some kind of martyr.
Hi Joe
I get what you are saying, of course I do, but I am in a better position to see it than DF?
I believe her life was ruined the second her son was abducted: they ruined her life why not she ruin theirs? (This is not my thoughts Im just putting it out there)…
In everyday life , if I feel I have been unjustly served, even in minor discrepancies or quibbles, if I feel I am right then I will continue to fight my corner until I have received compensation/satisfactory outcome. Until the situation is resolved I feel the need to peruse it and will often lay awake in bed to think of a way to resolve it. (Now I’m just talking about ridiculous, minor things like a refund not being given when it should or a parcel not being delivered on time etc). I know it may sound stupid to some but I personally can not rest until these things have been sorted in my life (let’s face it there are lots of things in our lives today that can cause us stress and it is very annoying). Now, obviously what DF went through isn’t even comparable but if she feels she has been unjustly served then I can totally understand why she is continuing to ‘fight for justice’, especially as it isn’t for herself but for her little boy. She will probably be doing it out of guilt/love/hate/sadness etc etc ….she cannot see there is nothing more she can do as she is blinded by bitterness and sadness. What difference does it make If people sign a petition, if like you say there is nothing legally she can do, what difference does it make, apart form maybe a little release in knowing that she is still trying/fighting for her son?
@Anonymous. Excellent post and very likely true.
The only person who can help Denise Fergus is Denise Fergus. She has to want to help herself first. Maybe she feels she is or maybe she doesn’t care for it, I don’t know?
Please don’t take this the wrong way but it takes a woman to understand a woman so thank you for explaining it to me as I didn’t consider it properly :-).
I suppose I just wanted her to stop and get on with her life as I know she is bashing her head against a brick wall.
The press don’t help her in this regard though and maybe her supporters (her unknown ones) don’t either? They merely encourage her to go on and shy away the real healing and grieving process
So then, why can’t her supporters criticise her for some of her actions?
Surely, they are not effected in the same way as she is?
Some of her actions are wrong and can you also see why many people are fed up with her at this stage? You know how she portrays herself publicly.
It just seems that they would defend her to hell and back without a problem.
I cannot I’m afraid, no more than I can defend T & V for their actions even allowing for mitigating circumstances on both sides.
I know you understand the circumstances of T & V also.
Even allowing for their crime, the ministry made a mess of their trial and are also responsible for this vendetta. Noone can argue mitigating circumstances for their part in the trial and because they named them at the trial, new identities became a necessity afterwards.
What a mess!!
Her supporters are anything but. Anyone who really cared about her would take her aside, and tell her to stop. No-one actually seems to care enough about her to do this. So she carries on making demands that are wholly unreasonable – demands that will never be met. And in doing so, loses sympathy and support and those with authority and influence stop listening to her (the last Justice Secretary – Ken Clarke actually wrote to her and told her never to contact him again).
What ‘justice’ is she seeking now? Venables will be released at some point (there is a chance he may be released this year). Thompson will never be put back in prison again so long as he keeps his nose clean. She has no power to force the justice system to put them in prison (or keep Venables in prison).
She can’t stop Thompson getting compensation that may be due to him by law (even if the law changed, it can’t be changed retrospectively in any case). Moreover, there isn’t even any evidence he is claiming – so what is the petition about?
She will never get the injunction lifted. No matter what they may have done, their right to life and freedom from harassment/injury comes before her (or anyone’s) right to know who they are.
So what is the ‘justice’ she seeks?
The ‘justice’ she seeks she will never get. (Moreover, she keeps moving the goalposts). She should not go on thinking that she has some power of the lives of Thompson and Venables. But go on thinking it she will because the story sells and tabloid editors and her vomitous press agent are still intent on feeding off the rotting corpse of a horribly murdered toddler like a flock of vultures.
That is the reality. She has chosen to stand alongside pretty repulsive people to campaign for this so called ‘justice’ that she will never get. These people don’t care about the ‘justice’ of course. They just know that dead two year olds sell newspapers.
I just read an interesting article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316261/Neil-IQ-125-runs-business-So-wont-secret-court-let-spend-money.html?ICO=most_read_module) and wondered how this case would play out if it went to the ECHR where our (or at least some people’s) human rights are protected.
@ Kerry and Mark.
I did say that her supporters were holding her back from the healing process.
Anonymous was explaining it as she saw it from Denise Fergus’s point of view.
I cannot understand the motivation behind her supporters other than sympathy but of course you will always find others with their own agendas.
I see it the way both of you do.
The media are there to sell and she sells for them.
Denise Fergus does need help but the way Anonymous described her I feel it will never happen as she will never listen to anybody.
For me her post was an insight into the mind of Denise Fergus and it made sense to me as to how she might think. I don’t agree with that way of thinking as, as you rightly say, nothing positive will ever come of it. But I understand better now how her mind might work.
As for her supporters, you are right: if they really cared they would try to tell her instead of encouraging her to proceed as she has done.
Showing empathy is one thing but following her down blind alleys doesn’t make sense at all.
@David Kessler.
I would have thought that it a person was considered incapable that he would have been made a Ward of Court and a solicitor appointed by the Ministry to manage the money. The family would then contact the solicitor regarding the discharging of funds, proving to the solicitor how these funds would benefit the person. When the person dies the Ward of Court situation would usually no longer apply and the assets distributed to the family or spouse.
It doesn’t seem right that the court of protection or any other court should have access to those funds. On that basis I would say that the European Court of Human Rights would have rule in the person’s favour and/or explain to them the steps required to access his just entitlement.
I wonder is this the full story?
It could be that the case is pending before the ECHR. But the article doesn’t say one way or the other. In this case we’re talking about a living man who is not in a coma and who appears at minimum to be capable of giving a coherent interview. It seems that the lawyers in charge of the funds are making a pretty penny and don’t want to give it up. I don’t mean to sound like a Communist, but this sounds like an an example of the corrupting influence of money (a bit like private prisons in America, in which the sentencing judges are SHAREHOLDERS).
Thanks Joe :-)
It’s definitely a terrible mess!!!
I must admit, I bet some of her supporters won’t know the back story of T and V and to be honest I didn’t either. If they did maybe they would think differently, or maybe it’s just too late??
@ Kerry…if her demands will never be met and the people who have the power to meet these demands know this, then why does if bother you so much? If nothing can ever come of what she is asking for, is it not ok to just leave her to it? I’m sure over the years people have told her this, but she is obviously a very strong willed woman (she could even be stubborn) who feels like she must continue to fight for her son.
‘What justice is she seeking now’….well none in the eyes of the law but in her head she has a massive injustice to resolve….
I mean to say, what would she actually do (after dedicating 20 whole years to fighting for James) if she she just stopped and gave up now? I think she would be like a deflated balloon, her purpose in life (well for the last 20 years at least) deminished…..her ‘fight for justice’ is what has probably kept her alive, I can’t imagine how she would feel if she suddenly gave up?? That would be just so sad. Twenty years of heartache down the pan…it’s impossible for her to stop, otherwise all that time, effort, energy would all have been in vain. She will never give up on her son, never! Even if she knows deep down nothing will ever come of it, I believe she would still continue because she wouldn’t want to let James down. That is so sad :-(
If all you say is correct then T and V have nothing to worry about do they? I’m sure after everything that’s happened they wouldn’t begrudge her actions???
@Anonymous.
Regarding Thompson and Venables I couldn’t believe it when they did what they did. Children of 10! In order to try to understand I did a little digging into their lives and the conclusions I came to were: neglected, no values, no control, no direction. There were other issues.
I have written my feelings on the trial already.
My impressions of Denise Fergus was someone who was bitter and vindictive – not great qualities and for that I didn’t like her. I did feel sympathy, who wouldn’t?
It was only when you pointed out to me how she probably thinks that I understood her a little more.
She is stubborn and will not listen and is wasting her time regarding achieving an outcome which is acceptable to her. Maybe in her mind she is fighting and that satisfies her.
But Anonymous, I do not like people doing the wrong things or wasting their time. I should not judge but I do. Her whole public demeanour is awful.
Many people suffer in life and some suffer terrible tragedies. How people deal with those events depends on the person. It is unusual for people to get up and just walk away and feel nothing. Many people become bitter, some shut themselves away, others may turn to drink, etc. My point is that many people do destructive things in reaction. It is their way of dealing with it. If and when they recover and are back on track they may see the time spent as wasted or just necessary. If they do recover, they usually learn from the experience, become stronger mentally and see things differently.
I hope she does see the light. If she has learned something positive from the last 20 years it is a good thing. If not, then the time will have been wasted.
This is a short essay, moving for some, rubbish for others with the message of hope I think?
World War XII, as everyone knows, brought about the collapse of civilization. Towns cities, and villages disappeared. All the groves and forests were destroyed, and all the gardens, and all the works of art. Men, women, and children became lower than the animals. Discouraged and disillusioned, dogs deserted their fallen masters. Books Paintings, and music disappeared from the earth, and human beings just sat around doing nothing. Years and years went by. Even the few generals who were left forgot what the last war had decided. Boys and girls grew up to stare at each other blankly. Love had passed from earth.
One day, a young girl who had never seen a flower chanced to come upon the last one in the world. She told the other human beings that the last flower was dying. The only one who paid attention to her was a young man. Together, the young man and the girl nurtured the flower and it began to live again. One day, a bee visited the flower, and a humming bird. Before long, there were two flowers, and then a great many. Groves and forests flourished again. The young girl began to take interest in how she looked. The young man discovered that touching the girl was pleasurable. Love was reborn into the world.
The children of the young man and the girl grew up strong and healthy. They learned to run and laugh. Dogs came out of their exile. The young man discovered how to build a shelter. Pretty soon everybody was building shelters. Towns, cities, and villages sprung up. Song came back into the world, and troubadours and jugglers, tailors and cobblers, painters and poets, and sculptors, and soldiers and Lieutenants and Captains, and Generals and Major-Generals, and liberators. Some people went to one place to live, and some to another. Before long, those who went to live in the valleys wished they had gone to live in the hills. And those who had to live in the hills wished they had gone down to live in valleys. The liberators, under the guidance of God, set fire to the discontented. So presently, the world was at war again. This time, the destruction was so complete that nothing at all was left in the world, except one man, one woman, and a flower.
So the choice is ours :-)
What on earth has that Daily Mail article got to do with this case?
We have been told about the good work done by the ECHR and how they are there to protect everyone’s rights (criminals and law-abiding citizens alike). In other cases they have held that people can prosecuted not only for giving S&M (consent being deemed irrelevant) but for consenting to being on the receiving end (consent being deemed – yes, you’ve guessed – relevant).
So I was wondering if they are thee for those who do not violate the rights of others, in the way that they are for the criminals.
Still struggling to see what this has to do with this case. The ECHR judgement in the case of Thompson and Venables was only concerned with a fair trial (the trial was patently not fair if you accept that it is a given that defendants should be able to be active within proceedings and take part in their own defence and instruct counsel – none of which happened in this case). The government accepted the judgement.
The real legal aspects which ‘benefited’ Thompson and Venables concerned English law – before the ECHR was dreamed up. Mostly the Children and Young People’s Act of 1933. Basically, they gained more from English Common Law than they ever did from the European Convention on Human Rights. The final 8 year tariff was a decision of our courts and our judges.
@ Mark 7.40am
I would appreciate it if you didn’t speak so bluntly about the passing of a two year old; it is very upsetting. You shouldn’t speak that way about the poor little boy, there are more sensitive ways to say what you have to say?
I think Mark was rather putting across how tabloids and other interested parties view a murdered child. And at the end of the day, I’m afraid he’s right. They ARE vultures – feeding off the body of a murdered child.
Sloppy Joe
I actually made several of them, and you would have recognised them had you had any intelligence at your disposal. So the Beacon of Humanitarianism is now condoning wife-beating? I cannot help but take comfort in the fact that you never had or will have anyone to beat, certainly not a female above the age of consent.
@Anonymous.
You have major issues with yourself.
Being aggressive all the time, being ignorant of the difference between right and wrong and making false assumptions isn’t indicitive of a balanced person.
If you were in a muslim country you would respect the laws.
Time in a young offenders institute may help teach you the difference between right and wrong, some respect and how to calm down instead of being constantly aggressive all the time.
After all, if it worked for Thompson and Venables, it might work for you too.
“Still struggling to see what this has to do with this case. The ECHR judgement in the case of Thompson and Venables was only concerned with a fair trial ”
The ECHR isn’t only there to ensure fair trials, but also fair laws. If they can do this in the case of those who murder toddlers, they ought to be able to do it for others as well, whether it be people whose financial affairs are put in the hands of well-heeled lawyers who have a vested interest in claiming that the person is incompetent or people who enter into consenting (adult) sexual relationships or people who wish to demonstrate (not assemble, but demonstrate as individuals) within five furlongs of parliament, or people with locked in syndrome who wish to have their lives ended – or at least have their relatives arrange for them to go
So I was wondering if the court should perhaps be renamed the European Court of Some People’s Human Rights.
“After all, if it worked for Thompson and Venables, it might work for you too.”
Worked for Venables?
@Anonymous. Yeah Venables blew it
Sloppy Joe
-You are just the right person to know the difference between right and wrong, as you proved by desperately defending Thompson and Venables.
-I have no desire to go to a Muslim country because I wouldn’t want to live in the 7th century.
-Any respect for you on my part would constitute offence to decency and common sense.
-Your unhealthy interest in young offenders institutes seems to tie in with the dislike of women you exude in nearly every comment.
@ Joe 8.49 pm
Brilliant short essay!! Love how it is written and the message it conveys! Very thought provoking!
Indeed the choice is ours, I can’t help but thinking though, what hope does Denise Fergus have when her son has been murdered? He will never be reincarnated; it pains me to say he will never ‘live again’. There is just no hope there is there?
@ Kerry, I know what he was getting at but there is no need to be so flippant and brutal with his (or your) terminology!
Glad you enjoyed it Anonymous :-).
James Thurber wrote it.
I took two things from it:
1. No matter how things are, some people will find fault and never be satisfied.
2. Even though you might think there is no hope, there alway is.
It is true that James Bulger will never come back but there is always peace and happiness to be found if you look for it. I hope Denise Fergus finds it – bitterness is not good for anyone!
Awwww I hope she does too :-)
Well, this all seems a bit of a joke to some people. To us, it isn’t.
We will track down V and T, and the subsequent motions will be dealt with accordingly. Regardless of your views on James’ Mother, we will not rest until both V and T do, in the ground.
That is where they belong.
Bring on the bullshit above and the nonsense leading away from the crime, we will not rest until they do, 6 feet under. The above sickens me, it’s a laugh to the imbeciles above to rile those whom should not be provoked.
The hunt is on.
Grow up you silly little keyboard weirdo. You are just someone who uses the unpopularity of Thompson and Venables as an outlet to express your sick and deranged violent fantasies.
You have as much hope of tracking down Thompson and Venables as I have of meeting Elvis.
@Ssmith.
If you’re going to do it, get it right.
It should be ‘to rile those who should not be provoked’ and not ‘whom’ as you have written.
I thought motions went down the toilet?
They will rest in the ground but unfortunately for you, that will be long, long after you’re gone.
No Ssmith, its not a joke but you and your lame cohorts are.
If you formulate a plan, will you use your right hand or left hand for that?
Joe @8.49
‘This is a short essay, moving for some, rubbish for others.’
Get over yourself.
Your words mean nothing, despite what you proclaim.
Yes, the bees were buzzing, the flowers sprouting, and the wooly woofters looking for each other’s anuses. This Joe sounds positively queer!
@Ssmith sometimes the right words can provide comfort for people but to others nothing. That’s ok. What does proclaim mean?
@Anonymous. That’s an new angle to it and one I never even considered. Thank you for broadening my mind and providing some humour to boot! I wonder if you could explain what a wooly woofter is as I never learned that phrase in school?
It is interesting though that Ssmith who says he supports Denise Fergus, criticises parts of my post but says nothing about her finding peace and happiness. If you really supported her, you would wish her well. I don’t support her, in fact her public outbursts annoy me but I still wish her well.
My conclusions would be therefore that you don’t actually support her but love to hear yourself speaking.
The poster to whom I sent that reply supports Denise Fergus but does so with class and without shoving it down your throat a trait that many of her supporters sadly will never have.
The term refers to those who are hostile to women while being impartial to boys (even if the latter happen to be criminals).
@Anonymous.
The essay isn’t mine and there was nothing in it that showed hostility to anyone!
I myself am hostile to those who are hostile with me – simple! I do not play favourites be they man or woman.
This just further illustrates your silliness and immaturity.
To spell it out for you…. In this case I do not support Thompson and Venables but I do support their rights which is a different thing entirely.
Denise Fergus has no rights regarding them – simple!
If people were trying to deprive you of your rights in similar circumstances – I would actually support your rights in that case.
You don’t support Denise Fergus – there is no evidence of that, you are just bitter and when I point this out to you, your reaction is to hurl insults all over the place.
You are very similar to Thompson and Venables in their childhood in that their parents failed them and so did yours. Look at you now: bitter, aggressive, poor values, always looking for an argument and unable/unwilling to communicate and someone who feeds off attention.
I have let myself down in giving you any time at all but that time is up now!
Joe at 3.32 – ‘Proclaim’, – to announce publicly; to declare. ‘This is a short essay, moving for some………’ No, don’t give yourself the slap on the back, it is not moving in any way.
Anonymous at 3.43 – ‘It should be ‘to rile those who should not be provoked’ and not ‘whom’ as you have written’.
My grammar is correct, ‘whom’ in this sense is appropriate. Aside, as much of the above, I don’t wish to be led down the path of the pathetic details picked up by the obviously pathetic, and incorrect.
Kerry – you have no idea.
Obviously.
‘Ssmith who says he supports Denise Fergus, criticises parts of my post but says nothing about her finding peace and happiness’
I have never stated I support Denise Fergus………prove me wrong. However, I do feel for her and also Ralph, and the injustice they have suffered.
Also, oddly enough, after trawling through the above, disregarding the crap that has evolved, James was dealt a cruel untimely and inexplicable death. By two who can almost walk freely now.
‘Almost’ being the operative word, they should forever watch over their shoulders.
They will walk in fear until their actions catch up with them, regardless how of long this takes. Could be a few months, could be a few years, but we will trace them and deal with them accordingly if others have not before us.
And they will walk no longer.
@Ssmith. Correct. You never said you supported Denise Fergus, anywhere.
I was just wondering who or what exactly you do support in this case?
He’s supporting his fundamental right to get a sexual thrill from violent fantasies. He can’t project those depraved thoughts onto most people so he is forced to project them onto persons hated by society.
The really sick thing is he’s not thinking of unleashing this violence on adults but on the two images we have of his intended victims. Two ten year old children.
What a big man you are ssmith.
You really should get out more. Who is the ‘we’ you are talking about? You and a bunch of fellow internet wrongmos who talk loudly but probably couldn’t find a turd in a toilet, much less two people living under assumed identities who are protected by the authorities?
You are just very childish.
@Mark
‘Should get out more’.
On the contrary, it would be safer for the public should he be indoors, preferably in a straight jacket!
@Kerry I would not jump to those conclusions. You may be right. To me he is only a half-wit yob.
@Joe
He supports Liverpool or Everton and does not have anything to support his man boobs!
Sloppy Joe
Yes, my parents clearly failed me by teaching me to admire virtue and despise vice. Indeed, my set of values are not those which focus on finding excuses for murderers, rapists, paedophiles and their ilk. Whether they or their apologists were failed as children doesn’t give them the right to inflict their sick depravity on those who still have their heart and mind in the right place. The only right I recognize for that kind of degenerate filth is to be cleansed from our world in an expedite fashion.
Alles klar?
It’s no surprise that you ended your post with German because ‘cleansing’ the world from ‘undesirables’ is exactly what the Nazis desired (sorry for invoking Godwin). Those ‘undesirables’ of course could be Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, criminals, homosexuals, etc.
I wonder which party the world considers ‘degenerate’ now?
It takes a lot of disingenuousness to compare persecution on ethnic basis with the administration of richly deserved punishment for hardened criminals. As to the use of the German language, in case you haven’t noticed, it was your associate “Joe” who was the first to attempt it on this forum. Finally, regarding your last question, I thought I answered it very clearly in my previous post.
I AGREE!
There are no excuses for murderers, rapists, paedophiles and their ilk and I would never make excuses for them except maybe a murderer in self defence.
I also agree that nobody has any right to commit those crimes.
Are you with me so far?
In order to create a better society the government needs to invest. Poor education doesn’t help and in many but not all cases poor education goes hand in hand with poor values. To me it is the parents that promote education to a greater extent and if they are devoid of it and values themselves it is very difficult to pass it on to their children.
We cannot rid the world of these people you speak of but the compromise is that we need not associate with them. You and I don’t make the rules so we can either accept them or not. There have been people convicted of crimes which were later overturned. If you start ‘cleansing’, innocent people would be wrongly cleansed and what would that make one of the so called cleansers? If your parents thought you to admire virtue and despise vice, surely they thought you to be fair also?
In this case the reason they were not imprisoned for life was the fact that they were children and there are laws. It was a horrible crime, yes irrespective of their backgrounds and social problems. They are on life-license. Do you know what this means?
Stop being bitter!
State your points, ask questions and I will happily answer your points/questions openly and honestly, provided you are reasonable (ie no insults) and maybe we both might learn something?
Nobody said that life was easy or fair sometimes but we all have to make the most of it.
Do you really think you can help Denise in any way, honestly and if so, how?
Anonymous yet still sloppy.
Ah – you’re a Nazi then. That explains everything.
Oh yeah Kerry, you are right, cos evil child murderers and paedophiles aren’t degenerates are they? Ps..that was sarcasm….not the same thing at all, and well you know it! Shame on you!!!
Where did I say they weren’t? Stop making rubbish up.
@Anonymous.
Should we euthanize all people over 75 just before they go off as well?
You sound like Adolfs grandchild.
Will you kill yourself when you receive the gas bill too?
Yet another disingenuous comparison between capital punishment for murderers and euthanasia for the elderly and disabled. Your spin is becoming tedious. And no, I am not going to kill myself even though there is no deficit of people more intelligent than you.
Kerry – again, you haven’t a clue.
Naïve in the extreme.
Mark – yeah, I’m going to announce on a public forum……….
Good one
Seriously, you are just a silly little coward who can post violent fantasies from the safety of his keyboard. I have no doubt you wouldn’t dare carry them through.
I support James, Joe. And the justice that follows.
Kerry – ‘He’s supporting his fundamental right to get a sexual thrill from violent fantasies’.
How wrong you are, and how eager to pin a label. Sexual fantasy is the furthest from my mind.
However, as the system failed to do so, justice is at my foremost. And so be it true of every right thinking person with a soul.
You shame yourself.
No – you are revelling in the idea of committing violent acts – and using the fact that you fantasising about doing these things to people who themselves are guilty of violent acts – as justification.
And I repeat – you are fantasising about enacting serious violence onto the images we have of these two – as ten year old children.
You are, deeply disturbed.
@Ssmith.
Are you the bloke from Walton who was up his mother and his legless sister?
@Anonymous
I agree with the second amonymous and the apply the same rules they did to the other Anonymous
@Ssmith.
James is dead. How can you support him when he is dead?
Usually one would offer support and condolences to one of the relatives of a dead person
“I clearly stated I only read the one book. I also stated that that one book was so unbelievably awful I had a hard time believing “Dorothy” could be this complex, rich character like you were claiming, given that everyone, including Sedaka, in A Marked Man was a piece of cardboard.”
Notwithstanding your sympathy over my diebetes (for which I am grateful and appreciative) I cannot allow such a false statement to go unchallenged. You stated that:
” it doesn’t matter what “Dorothy” does, since she’s just a piece of cardboard with nothing of importance to say about real life.)”
This goes beyond having “a hard time believing.” You stated of a character in a book you had not read that she “she’s just a piece of cardboard with nothing of importance to say about real life.” Saying this about a character in a book you have not read is dishonest and an attempt to win by foul means a debate you cannot win by honest means. At least have the courtesy to read the book first and then say what you decided you would think before you read it. (Remember this “get cracking on that NEXT book, so I can read it and tear it to shreds on Amazon.”)
And to Kerry’s “You really are puerile aren’t you? You can’t win with your argument so you resort to childish, playground insults.” This from the woman who initiated an argument with me by calling me “reactionary” – a term that I remember hearing ad nauseum from communists in the seventies as if merely throwing it out there were proof of something other than their own fanaticism.
BTW I’m still waiting for the AG to come calling. He seems to be taking his time – just like he did a few months ago when I asked him to clarify this alleged claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction. So far, he hasn’t answered my questions.
What is so wrong with calling you ‘reactionary’? Can’t be bothered to look at why she called you that to be honest but I doubt she’s a communist. Reactionary merely indicates a person wishes to return something to how it existed before. This certainly makes most people who are keen on a more punitive criminal justice policy ‘reactionary’. I would also argue that anyone who believes there is some kind of ‘evil’ born inside a person is reactionary because their understanding of crime comes from a rather outdated (and wholly discredited) idea of the human condition. Anyone who thinks that of 10 year old children is not only reactionary but utterly ill informed about brain development.
Certainly I think that anyone who thinks 10 year olds should be dealt with extremely punitively as opposed to treated with due care to their welfare is not only reactionary but morally dubious.
I certainly don’t consider ‘reactionary’ a playground insult.
“Reactionary merely indicates a person wishes to return something to how it existed before.”
So use of the word is based on the premise that anything new is better than the status quo ante? That all change is progress? (Except apparently any change advocated by anyone who is branded “reactionary”?) According to Virgil (and possibly Kerry) young criminals were NOT treated more harshly in the past, so say that those who think they were inadequately punished is harking back to the past,is also wrong.
The word reactionary is the buzzword of Communists and is used as a mean of by-passing substantive debate with sloganeering. “Reactionary” may not be a playground insult, but it is a Marxist insult, like “bourgeois.”
I never said JV and RT were born evil. I said they DID something evil (as the judge noted) and that they knew it was evil as the psychologist in the trial conceded and as the jury at the time recognized, even if two of the twelve subsequently changed their minds.
I am not a believer in harsh punishment of children for petty misconduct. If anything I am more liberal in that department than most. But when we are talking about murder – and of a toddler – that is something quite extreme, rare and severe in itself.
Actually, I would say ‘reactionary’ is a very good way to describe communist Russia.
As for children being treated more harshly in the past – how far back are you going? In terms of the recent past, Thompson and Venables were treated harshly. However, in the eighteenth century, children were hanged for pickpocketing.
@David Kessler
Regardless of this crime, what punishment would you suggest for shoplifting in the case of a child, not attending school, vandalism?
I believe some sort of punishment is necessary as a deterant and as a first offence I would look at something like picking up papers in the park or cleaning walls under supervision. Nothing too strenuous though. Anything that would remind the child that he did something wrong while keeping him occupied and out of harms way.
It would depend on the case. I don’t want to get too prescriptive. I used to play truant myself!
What evidence is there that ‘deterrence’ in punishment works in juveniles – either for the individual him/herself or to deter others.
I’ll tell you shall I? There is none.
It may be a very good way to describe the USSR. It is not however a valid way to describe me. I am a liberal.
No you are not. In what ways would you describe yourself as a ‘liberal’? You seem to be the reverse to me – quite authoritarian actually.
@Kerry.
If you believe there is no deterent, are you saying that children should not be punished for what they do or what exactly are you inferring?
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that there’s a whole truckload of research that shows that putting a ‘deterrent’ factor into sentencing is virtually worthless when it comes to juveniles (in terms of murder in any case it is worthless in adults and children because murder is almost never a rational act).
The problem with deterrence is it assumes crime is a rational choice. It almost never is – particularly with young children.
There can be a punitive element – yes but suggesting that a sentence deters (either the child or other children) is wilfully ignoring facts.
“No you are not. In what ways would you describe yourself as a ‘liberal’? You seem to be the reverse to me – quite authoritarian actually.”
I believe in freedom of speech – including information about the whereabouts of criminals.
I believe in the right of people to sell goods by whatever system of weights and measures they choose (e.g. imperial rather than metric).
I believe in the right of farmers to sell their produce to whoever wishes to buy it – even if bureaucrats try to ban the exports.
I believe in the right of fishermen not to have to throw dead fish back into the sea in order to avoid being fined.
I believe in the right of people to keep the bulk of the fruits of their labour and not be compelled on pain of imprisonment to hand it over to others to pay for the mistakes of yet others.
I believe in the right of people to go about their business and not to have public areas turned into no-go areas (whether by tyrannical government of criminals).
I believe that senior decision makers in an enterprise(even a limited liability company) should be jointly and severally liable for debts incurred as a result of their decisions (whether contractual or tortious).
All good liberal policies.
Regarding the claim that juveniles are impervious to deterrence, can you state your “truckload of evidence” that deterrence doesn’t work for juveniles. I have specifically heard young criminals say “What can they do us?” It’s not that deterrence cannot exist? It’s that it DOESN’T. There’s a difference.
“I believe in freedom of speech – including information about the whereabouts of criminals.”
Then, in the interests of mere consistency, you should also believe in JV’s freedom to view and download indecent images with impunity. After all, thoughts are not acts, and looking at a picture of abuse is not the same as committing the violence depicted therein. It makes little sense to support the one restriction on circulation of images but denouncing the other restriction. Otherwise, you’re just cherry-picking the law and supporting “freedom of speech” only insofar as the “speech” in question happens to please you personally.
Furthermore, if you believe in absolute freedom of speech, then you should also have no problem if a journalist publishes a newspaper article libelling you egregiously without the possibility of you suing them. If you don’t think it’s fair that that could be done to you with impunity, then you must believe in certain restrictions on free speech after all, regardless of what you declare on a messageboard.
@Kerry.
Thank you for replying and giving me something to consider.
My thinking would be from a rational point of view and you are right, many children dont think things through.
However it may work for some and if they thought they might be cleaning dogs mess and other rubbish off the street for a week they might think before acting.
Where possible I would prefer a punishment whereby they could give something back to the community and be occupied rather than a custodial sentence.
They don’t though. That kind of consequential thinking develops in the mid to late teens (and doesn’t really stop developing until the mid 20s actually which is why there is a sharp drop of criminal behaviour from the mid 20s onwards).
And Mr Kessler. Try looking up some academic criminological research on the issue – or psychological research. It isn’t that difficult. You may even understand some of it. The vast majority of research shows that the more punitive the ‘deterrent’ aspect, the more likely the juvenile is to INCREASE his/her criminal behaviour.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/11/26/scared-straight-not-really/
http://jjie.org/whats-wrong-beyond-scared-straight/
Studies have shown repeatedly that only one aspect of ‘deterrence’ theory works for juveniles – the risk of getting caught. They virtually NEVER consider punishment – even if that punishment is likely to be extremely severe.
By the way, what you’ve written isn’t ‘liberalism’. It is libertarianism. Look up the difference.
@Kerry
As a general rule, probably, yes but as you know some children mature quicker than others. The excitement of trying to avoid getting caught is a fair point.
Nevertheless I would still be in favour of little penances in the way of “community work” in the hope that some might think twice before acting in the future.
@David Kessler.
Regarding this case, I don’t agree with your stance but having read your points of view I must say that on the majority of points listed I would tend to agree.
Some of our laws are far from perfect and certainly need to be rounded sensibly.
Your points would appear to have little to do with liberalism, mind you
I would say both you and Kerry are opinionated along with many others. A good trait I would say despite our holding differing views on this case.
DETERRENCE:
The studies you cited are both about one particular extreme program, not about the concept of deterrence in general.
It is important to understand the definition of deterrence: the modification of behaviour by the creation of a perception of a risk (in either degree or probability) of adverse consequence contingent upon an action. Now you are citing studies that say that the degree of adverse consequence can be small as long as the probability of its occurrence is high. Conversely, if the degree of adverse consequence is high but the probability of getting caught low then there is no deterrence.
I accept this, up to a point. But being caught followed by a trivial punishment relative to the severity crime is NOT going to be a deterrent. Indeed it may actually function as an incentive. It is not the probability of getting caught, but the probability of getting punished that counts. Probability may be the major variable but it is not the SOLE variable.
LIBERALISM:
“By the way, what you’ve written isn’t ‘liberalism’. It is libertarianism. Look
up the difference.”
It is liberalism. The very fact that you regard “authoritarian” as the antonym of “liberal” proves this. The word liberalism, as used in the 19th and early 20th century, was hijacked my socialists in the mid to late 20th century. Consequently, some liberals adopted the word libertarianism to distinguish themselves from the bogus liberals who had hijacked the word. (As an “historian”, you ought to know this Kerry.)
I choose not to abandon the word liberalism to the socialists who tried to hijack it and to reclaim possession of it. I have no objection to the word libertarianism. But I am not going to abandon the word liberalism to socialist hijackers and thieves. Ergo I am a liberal.
“(As an “historian”, you ought to know this Kerry.)”
Why should she know this? It may be the world according to Ayn Rand, but outside of the simplistic, reductive views of Objectivists, the history you have outlined has little credence or validity as a description of changing definitions of words. It may qualify as “history” but it’s not history. There was no such “hijacking” – that is not how language evolves – and blaming Communists for everything is simply the silliness of a man who can’t make sense of world events, and so clings to a reductive schematic for understanding why the world is in the shape it is. It’s really just the mirror image of Communist thinking at its most crudely reductive, the only difference is the Bad Guy Badge gets pinned on a different donkey.
And in addition to being libertarianism, It is also woolly-minded and naïve thinking, with real-world application bordering on nil.
Hi Virgil. Welcome back. Whatever our differences, our motto seems to be like that of Al Pacino in Godfather III (“just when I finally get out, they reach out and pull me back!”)
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point, as usual. Just to get you up to speed. I disputed Kerry’s false accusation that I was a “reactionary” and “authoritarian” and stated truthfully that I am a liberal. Kerry challenged me to say what was liberal about my views. I gave a few examples, by no means exhaustive, to show that I am indeed a liberal. Kerry then claimed that those views were “libertarian” which she claimed was different from “liberal” and suggested that I “look it up” as if there is a definitive book and that some one else’s usage may be imposed upon me. She appeared to be saying that whilst others have the right to shape language by actual usage, I do not.
Whilst I accept fully your position that language may evolve and that meanings are shaped by usage, the same freedom to change meanings of old words to new ones, also permits others (including myself) to retain old meanings. (No doubt Kerry will now call me a linguistic reactionary, because I do not consent to treating linguistic evolution as a one-way ratchet mechanism.)
What both you and Kerry must understand is that the fact that people of socialistic disposition have chosen to call themselves liberals, does not mean that others who already used the word were or are in any way duty-bound to relinquish the word and adopt another to differentiate themselves. If the socialists, who choose to call themselves liberals, wish to go back to calling themselves socialists or social democrats, I have no problem with that. Alternatively, we can amicably agree to share the word “liberal”.
Of course confusion may reign in consequence. But I have no more intention of abandoning the word liberal to the democratic socialists than I would abandon my wallet to a mugger without a fight.
Regarding blaming Communists, I did not do this regarding the hijacking of the word “liberal” – for that I blame democratic socialists. I blamed Communists earlier for the use of the word “reactionary” as a bludgeon with which to dispatch anyone who didn’t share their revolutionary zeal. I suspect that you missed the ironic element in my use of that argument. Kerry was using a one-word bludgeon in the form of the word “reactionary” as a means of circumventing the need for specificity in debate and I responded with the one word bludgeon “Communist” as a reductio ad absurdum on her flawed casuistic methodology.
Good to see you back Virgil. And thank you (and I mean it) for your kind comments regarding my ailment. You’re right that it is probably bad for me to argue too much, as it in addition to diabetes I also have high blood pressure. But the other side of the coin is that a good old debate can be like a healthy work-out, as long as I don’t take it too personally. So if you feel like you want to do a “Kerry”and claim that I am both a “reactionary” AND a “libertarian” feel free to go ahead and do so. I won’t take it personally – and as a liberal, I can hardly invoke a heckler’s veto over your freedom of speech.
“And in addition to being libertarianism, It is also woolly-minded and naïve thinking, with real-world application bordering on nil.”
Do you mean the liberal views on my list? Which of them do you regard as woolly-minded and naive – and why?
“Regarding blaming Communists, I did not do this regarding the hijacking of the word “liberal” – for that I blame democratic socialists.”
Okay, I’ll retract my statement about Communists. However, I disagree that what you call “democratic socialists” have “hijacked” the word “liberal.” I would use the word “social liberal” here rather than “democratic socialist.”
“Social liberals” and “libertarians,” broadly speaking, both considered themselves 20th century offshoots of “classical liberalism.” Probably both groups are correct insofar as both can legitimately draw ideas from the same well of earlier philosophers and thinkers. That means that BOTH social liberals and libertarians have legitimate reasons to consider themselves successors to classical liberals. Neither group “hijacked” the word “liberal” because “liberal” thought in the 18th and 19th centuries was a vast enough pool to find your own reflection in it no matter what you thought, unless you believe in something as extreme as the totalitarian Leviathan state of Thomas Hobbes or pure anarchism or rule by monarchy etc. etc. etc.
However, I concede that, on reflection, Kerry was incorrect to say you were “libertarian” NOT “liberal,” as if it can only be one or the other. I agree that “libertarian” can, legitimately, be used as a synonym for “liberal.” (Oh my God, we agree on something!)
But likewise, your claim of a “hijacking” is also overstated. What actually happened, I believe, is classical liberal philosophy was a tree with various branches that sprouted off in different directions over time: exactly what happened with, say, Christianity (originally fairly homogeneous, but then split off into Catholicism, multiple varieties of Protestantism, Orthodox, and so on).
The one thing NOBODY today would ever admit is that they agree with the vision of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan rather than John Locke – though I suspect a lot of people in positions of power secretly do agree with Hobbes and think a Leviathan social order is best.
“I won’t take it personally – and as a liberal, I can hardly invoke a heckler’s veto over your freedom of speech.”
Ha ha – especially since I might have some good medical advice up my sleeve, eh? ;-)
“Then, in the interests of mere consistency, you should also believe in JV’s freedom to view and download indecent images with impunity. After all, thoughts are not acts, and looking at a picture of abuse is not the same as committing the violence depicted therein. It makes little sense to support the one restriction on circulation of images but denouncing the other restriction. Otherwise, you’re just cherry-picking the law and supporting “freedom of speech” only insofar as the “speech” in question happens to please you personally.”
Firstly, let me inquire what is YOUR position. Do YOU believe in Freedom of speech? Do YOU believe that JV has the right to download indecent images? If YOUR answer to the former is Yes and the latter is No, then we are both in the same position. Does that mean that YOU are cherry-picking? Or would you say that you believe in freedom of speech but that certain acts are beyond the pale? Then the only that separates us is WHAT we regard as beyond the pale.
Looking at indecent images involving abuse incentivizes the crime involved in their creation. Just like a person who buys stolen goods is incentivizing theft.
You may say you believe in freedom of speech except when it is proscribed by law. But that would be a cop- out. After all you must presumably have an opinion as to what the law ought to be. My position is that the law should proscribe the incentivization of abuse. But the whereabouts of a criminal is matter of legitimate public interest. A criminal does not have the right to demand that it not be known by his neighbours that he is a criminal. A crime committed is not a private matter. And the identity of the perpetrator is not a private matter.
“Furthermore, if you believe in absolute freedom of speech, then you should also have no problem if a journalist publishes a newspaper article libelling you egregiously without the possibility of you suing them.”
Again you misunderstand an important concept. A person has the right not to be falsely accused. He does not have the right not to be truthfully accused. A non-murderer has the right not to be wrongly identified as a murderer. But a murderer does not have the right not to be identified as that which he is.
“If you don’t think it’s fair that that could be done to you with impunity, then you must believe in certain restrictions on free speech after all, regardless of what you declare on a messageboard.”
I never said that freedom of speech means no restrictions, any more than freedom of travel means the right to drive ones car over some one else’s toes. But the restrictions on telling the truth about a criminal’s identity are an unjust intrusion into personal liberty and as a liberal I oppose such an intrusion.
“Firstly, let me inquire what is YOUR position. Do YOU believe in Freedom of speech? Do YOU believe that JV has the right to download indecent images? If YOUR answer to the former is Yes and the latter is No, then we are both in the same position.”
I believe there either has to be a major reduction of legal restrictions ACROSS THE BOARD, or the law has to be as it stands, but NO cherry-picking. So if people decide it’s unjust and a violation of liberty to prosecute the public for sharing JV’s alleged pic on Twitter, they must push this direction to its logical conclusion and eliminate the laws governing the viewing/downloading of child porn/indecent images as well.
If you state that “Looking at indecent images involving abuse incentivizes the crime involved in their creation. Just like a person who buys stolen goods is incentivizing theft,” yes, that is the logic behind the law. But the logic behind the law governing the publication of JV’s/RT’s photos is that incentivizes dangerous and criminal behaviour as well – which it clearly does, as we know from the misery inflicted on David Calvert.
“A non-murderer has the right not to be wrongly identified as a murderer. But a murderer does not have the right not to be identified as that which he is.”
I’m quite confident that a picture I have seen identified as Venables really IS Venables. However, I’ve also seen at least two pictures identified as Thompson that I have no idea if they really are Thompson are not – I think probably not. There’s more to the issue than just the identity of a murderer.
Since people feel free to share all pics they THINK are JV or RT, they are threatening the rights not just of JV or RT, but of potentially ANYONE. After all, David Calvert’s pic was circulated as being JV and other people I believe were circulated as being of RT, but weren’t.
Heavy Virgil but quite right!
Now for those who think Thompson and Venables got off lightly, I refer you to a recent case in China where a 12 year old girl killed and then dismembered another 12 year old girl because she was jealous. Also an horrific crime.
The sentence was 3 months rehabilitation and she was not named.
Why?
Because she was a CHILD and not considered responsible.
That was not in Europe but in China.
T & V were 9 years old, received an 8 year custodial sentence and were named.
They were released on life license only.
In comparison, their sentences were extremely harsh.
Now I am not condoning their crime at all, nor the hurt it caused to the victim’s family but maybe this case in China where the laws are far harsher than ours might challenge the cynics to think (if they are capable of it?) and realise that children are different to adults and as such should be treated differently with no exceptions!!!!!
They were ten actually, Had they been 9, they would not have been charged at all.
What about this father who beat his baby son to death out of frustration at his crying (a disabled son who was particularly vulnerable)? Crown accepted a plea of manslaughter and he got 7 years. He’ll be out in 3.5.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/10/derbyshire-father-nathan-pick-jailed
I have always believed that it was James’s crying that initiated the attack (as it did in almost every other crime of this kind). So this is not so different.
And Kessler seems obsessed with socialism. He seems to imply that I think there is an association between liberalism and socialism (I don’t). The latter is extremely dependent upon the state and I generally don’t really trust the state and feel the less it interferes in individual liberties the better. I set myself apart from libertarians, however, in that I believe the state need to take care of the vulnerable and I believe in a progressive system of taxation to do this.
“I have always believed that it was James’s crying that initiated the attack” – Quite an absurd and obscene view!
lwtc247, I have to disagree. It’s not an obscene view, it’s probably correct.
It’s known that crying precipitated the attack in other murder cases like this one, so why couldn’t it have precipitated this one?
Nobody knows for sure what happened, maybe JV and RT don’t even know as I can imagine they’ve probably tried to block the memory out.
But though we can’t know we can compare with similar cases.
It’s not an absurd and obscene view because we KNOW that crying WAS the trigger for other child murders. And don’t forget that RT and JV came from very abusive families. How do parents and sibs “solve the problem” of a crying, sobbing child in that kind of family? By hitting and hitting the child till he shuts up, of course!
Don’t forget as young kids we normally just emulate our parents’ example in how to solve problems. If the parents “solved” the problem of a sobbing child by simply beating the child into terrified silence, why would it be “absurd and obscene” to think JV and RT “solved” their problem the same way?
@ Kerry and lwtc247.
They were 10, my mistake.
I cannot dismiss Kerry’s belief that the attack was prompted by James;s crying although there are other possible explanations also.
However lwtc247 thinks Kerry’s view to be “absurd and obscene” without actually stating any other kind of explanation for it. I take it that you were present at the scene lwtc247 and saw what happened? Maybe you might share definitively with us what exactly did initiate the attack?
As for David, our views would differ in many but not all respects but I give him some credit for his ability to argue his way out of a paper bag if you get my drift?
I too believe the state needs to take care of the vulnerable but won’t comment further.
Joe. To find Kerry’s sly assertion that somehow T & V were ‘provoked’, certainly is absurd and obscene. Finding something absurd and obscene is not dependent on a physical presence, as of course you know. Kerry’s the one making a claim and with ZERO evidence. Ask Kerry or even yourself what initiated the attack.
“And Kessler seems obsessed with socialism.”
Only insofar as the word “reactionary” is used by socialists as a kind of rhetorical bludgeon. Just as you equate advocacy of tough punishment for violent crime with being “reactionary”, I associate the use of the word “reactionary” as a kind of shorthand by socialists in lieu of a more coherent,specific and detailed argument.
“He seems to imply that I think there is an association between liberalism and socialism (I don’t).”
I don’t think there is an association between liberalism and socialism. As I said, I am a liberal (although I must admit that in the post-banking crisis era, even I am now drifting back to SOME of my old socialist ideas). I do however think that some people of socialistic disposition prefer to call themselves liberals AND to somewhat cheekily demand, that liberals, in the 19th century sense of the word, re-brand themselves “libertarians” – as if these neo-liberals have a possessory claim to a word that they have adopted somewhat late in the day.
“What about this father who beat his baby son to death out of frustration at his crying (a disabled son who was particularly vulnerable)? Crown accepted a plea of manslaughter and he got 7 years. He’ll be out in 3.5.”
What about indeed/ What is the import of this argument? Are you saying “if he got off so lightly then so should JV and RT?” What then would your message be to those who say that this man SHOULD NOT have got off so lightly?
“I have always believed that it was James’s crying that initiated the attack ”
Firstly I’m not sure what you mean by “initiated”. I suspect that you mean “provoked” or “triggered.” But even that would only be in the sense that an Asian man might be said to have “provoked” a skinhead by wearing a turban on public. In fact even that is stretching it, because any crying James did was almost certainly in response to the treatment ALREADY being meted out to him by JV and RT.
But aside from that, I ask again what is import of your argument? That the crying of the victim that you say “initiated” the attack is a mitigating circumstance?
No. I don’t see it as mitigation. I’m going by other cases where a crying child has provoked acts of extreme violence. I most certainly do not see it is as mitigation. The only mitigating factor here was their age and that is a very big one in my view.
I don’t get why so many people are naive enough to find this shocking, horrifying, evil.
Murder is more natural to the human race than law, government or morality is. Murder has been with us since the beginning of time and it will be with us until the end of time.
I would point out to the case in Norway. The two children there said they hit the victim ‘until she stopped crying’ (of course the poor girl stopped crying when they killed her).
In the San Francisco crucifixion murder, the children involved said it was the two year old’s continuous crying which pushed the abduction into something more sinister and led to violence.
“According to Bobby, little Noah Alba began crying in the dark, decrepit space. The boys tried to get him to stop. Growing increasingly agitated, Bobby said he thinks he slapped the baby and his brother joined in. The crying grew louder and the violence became worse until the child lay still.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/little/readings/crucifixion.html
In the recent case in the US where a boy battered his baby brother to death, the child’s crying appears to have been the trigger for extreme violence.
Both Thompson and Venables mentioned the fact that James was crying on the railway bank. They had been walking for hours. They were tired (James most likely extremely tired to the point of exhaustive collapse). Neither child was equipped to deal with a scared, distressed, child crying loudly. They knew they were in deep trouble already and we know that a crying child can test many adults to breaking point.
So lwtc247, I’d say your immediate dismissal shows a startling ignorance of the facts in other cases.
I think lwtc247 took a mistaken view that I was somehow blaming James for the attack! Which is clearly rubbish. I was commenting on what might have pushed the incident from something deeply unpleasant into murderous rage.
““I have always believed that it was James’s crying that initiated the attack” – Your foul testimony cannot be unspun.
@lwtc.
First of all, what is absurd or obscene about Kerry’s belief?
Her opinion is based on knowledge of other similar cases and given that you don’t know why yourself, it should be a open possibility for you.
I hope you see it that way too.
@Antonio
True, but this isn’t only about murder. It’s also about the punishment handed down as a result of the murder.
Is your point that the posters on this forum are making mountains out of molehills or what exactly is your point?
It is shocking because the crime is so rare. It is not, however, unprecedented. Past examples have been alluded to (as well as subsequent examples) to show this was not a unique crime – despite its extremely unusual nature.
Partly, I think this is because we continue to view childhood in the way the Romantics did – as ‘innocent’ – anything which diverges from this must be ‘evil’ or beyond comprehension. Yet this view of childhood is actually quite new – really only from the late eighteenth century. Before that a Calvinist idea prevailed – that all children were ‘born evil’ and in need of correction.
So Thompson and Venables didn’t just kill James Bulger, some of the more hysterical commentators believe they effectively ‘killed childhood’ as they deviated so much from what a child should be.
Anonymous @ 6.47 – Exactly.
Their ‘punishment’ did not fit the crime.
This will be corrected, and justifiably so.
Seriously, you are cowardly silly man with – as someone else claimed, violent fantasies that you wouldn’t dare follow through.
@ssmith.
You are right, it didn’t fit the crime, it was far too harsh.
So how will you correct that – make a collection for them?
That would be a nice gesture.
@Joe
“You are right, it didn’t fit the crime, it was far too harsh.”
Would it have been less harsh if they had been left with their families who treated them so well?
I agree your the only one thinking bout the goal here ssmith eye for a eye
@David Kessler.
No it wouldn’t
@ David Kessler
They shouldn’t have been left with their families as they couldn’t/wouldn’t control them.
More than just couldn’t control them. Others have pointed out that their families were abusive towards them. So it could be said that taking them away from their abusive families was an act of kindness.
Taking them away gave them a better chance than leaving them where they were, thats for sure but, as a child and even with the abuse at home it is still trramatic to be removed from one’s family I would think.
Given the choice I think most children would prefer to stay with their families as opposed to being locked up and deprived of their liberty.
The whole thing was awful: the murder, the trial and the aftermath both for the family of the victim and the familes of T and V.
I think the way they were treated was perfectly fair actually. Secure detention in a mostly therapeutic environment for 8 years with significant offending behaviour work. I believe the treatment after trial was a tacit admission by the authorities that the trial itself (two traumatised eleven year olds who were unable to instruct counsel, unable to take the stand in their own defence and had no real understanding of proceedings) was unfair. When the EcHR declared the trial unfair, the British government did not disagree – they accepted the judgement in full.
“two traumatised eleven year olds who were unable to instruct counsel, unable to take the stand in their own defence and had no real understanding of proceedings”
Why were they unable to instruct counsel? Were they unable to speak? Could they not say what happened? Could their counsel not explain that a trial is a way of deciding what happened, who did what and why it happened? Why could they not take the stand in their own defense?
If the “British government” accepted the judgement in full, then they colluded in a myth.
@ Kerry.
As it turned out, they certainly seemed to have a better chance in the detention centre than where they were.
@David Kessler.
“Why were they unable to instruct counsel?”
All because the lady loves milktray – I couldn’t resist!
Seriously, they should never have been tried in the first place in an adult court as they weren’t adults. A child is not considered mature enough to instruct counsel.
They could have explained it to them but I don’t believe the boys would have taken it in.
If we start treating children as adults, would we then allow them legally to drink, smoke, watch 18 certificate films, pay adult fares, drive etc? Don’t you see the flaws in this? I know some of this happens anyway but it doesn’t make it right.
By the way, plenty of exercise and fresh fruit and veg will help you lose the weight and beat type 2 diabetes. It can be done and I hope you do it! Your health is your wealth. Some people can turn their lives around including ex criminals. You must believe it even if others don’t.
In relation to the British government accepting the judgement, I believe that there were those who opposed this stance and rather than speaking up they protected their positions and said nothing as many do.
What treatment after the trial exactly Kerry?
The sentence as it was served – in secure units with a therapeutic as opposed to a punitive ethos.
As for why they could not ‘instruct counsel’ – clearly the question is ridiculous. A ten year old cannot be expected to instruct their lawyers as to their pleas. Certainly one (Venables) was unable to even describe what happened while the other one (Thompson) was diagnosed with extreme post traumatic stress disorder. The ironic thing is, had they been adults in that frame of mind, they would almost certainly have been declared unfit to plead (as was Margaret Moran).
The whole point of a civilised judicial system is that when a defendant stands in the dock, he or she stands equal before the law – not utterly bewildered, traumatised, mentally unit and baffled before it.
And expecting two eleven year olds to take a stand in their defence in that courtroom in their state of mind (a courtroom packed with media and hostile onlookers) is, frankly barbaric.
The EcHR judgement was right. The government accepted it as right because it was.
“A ten year old cannot be expected to instruct their lawyers as to their pleas.”
In that case ALL ten-year-old would be excluded from criminal responsibility – something that even ECHR hasn’t ruled.
Can the lawyer not ask them if they did it? Can he not ask them if they knew that it was wrong? Can he not ask them who did what? Can the lawyers not tell them about defences such as diminished responsibility in simple everyday terms? As I stated before a client “instructing” a lawyer is a myth. Except in cases of career criminals, the lawyer spells out the options in simple terms and the client takes a de facto Hobson’s choice.
“Certainly one (Venables) was unable to even describe what happened”
Unable or unwilling?
” while the other one (Thompson) was diagnosed with extreme post traumatic stress disorder.”
This does render him ipso facto incapable of instructing counsel.
“The ironic thing is, had they been adults in that frame of mind, they would almost certainly have been declared unfit to plead (as was Margaret Moran).”
You cannot impose the outcome of one case upon a completely different case. Personally I think Moran got off lightly (though a jury did determine that she committed the culpable acts). But in any case, you cannot possibly KNOW whether or not they would have been found unfit to plead. That is just your opinion.
“The whole point of a civilised judicial system is that when a defendant stands in the dock, he or she stands equal before the law – not utterly bewildered, traumatised, mentally unit and baffled before it.”
The whole point of a civilised legal system is that no one is above the law. If victimizers can hide behind a dubious facade of bewilderment then what sort of equality before the law is granted to victims?
“expecting two eleven year olds to take a stand in their defence in that courtroom in their state of mind (a courtroom packed with media and hostile onlookers) is, frankly barbaric.”
No one says they were “expected” to take the stand – that was their choice.
On fitness to plead, here are the conditions which must be met to prove that a defendant has that capacity to partake in legal proceedings against him/her:
S/he must:
comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence
to know that he might challenge any jurors to whom he may object
to comprehend the evidence; or
to give proper instructions to his legal representatives.
It is very clear from reporters in the courtroom (who expressed the utter bewilderment of the two boys) and the fact that they couldn’t partake in their defence by taking the stand that none of these conditions was met. The legal teams for both boys also said that neither boy was able to give any instructions.
One reason why the government accepted the judgement of the EcHR in my opinion, was because they were worried that not accepting it might actually make things worse for them. Because there was a case for declaring the whole trial an abuse of process.
You’ve done your homework Kerry!
While your points are well outlined the simple fact is that children are children, not adults and cannot be expected to behave as such.
Therefore the whole trial process was wrong and should have been declaired a mis-trial.
Their sentence gave them some hope for the future but it is such a shame that children who suffer from similar backgrounds are not assisted. While taking children away from their parents is drastic, many might argue that it would give them a better chance in life should the parents be considered “unfit”. Why the authorities have to wait for some catasrophic event like this to happen before acting is beyond me? The warning signs were there well before the crime took place. Those signs clearly showed that the parents failed to parent and that those children and no doubt many others were or are out of control which is a recipe for potential disaster.
The actual crime itself was another matter.
“comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence”
So the lawyer must explain it to him,in terms suitable for a ten-year-old. Not an impossible task.
“to know that he might challenge any jurors to whom he may object”
Explain it to him. It’s not rocket science.
“to comprehend the evidence”
What’s not to understand. Eye witnesses? DNA (my nephews understood that when they were seven)
“to give proper instructions to his legal representatives.”
See previous reply.
“It is very clear from reporters in the courtroom (who expressed the utter bewilderment of the two boys) and the fact that they couldn’t partake in their defence”
In many cases, the defendant takes a backseat role. That doesn’t mean they can’t have things explained to them and make a decision on a basis of what has been explained to them.
“The legal teams for both boys also said that neither boy was able to give any instructions.”
I’m tempted to say that was a self-serving statement. But on reflection it isn’t. It’s a confession of professional incompetence on the part of the lawyers.
@David Kessler
“A ten year old cannot be expected to instruct their lawyers as to their pleas.”
Correct because they are children.
As regards lawyers asking, explaining or otherwise it is also irrelevant because they were children and should never have been in an adult court in the first place.
You seem to be missing or ignoring that fact.
That they were was a monumental error on the part of the ministry of justice and the irresponsible descision on behalf of Morlock to make their names public turned the whole thing into a shambles which was recognised as such later on both by Europe and Britain.
Now I believe that nobody should be above the law and that children should be punished for criminal actions but not through a trial in an adult court.
However, given that they cannot be prosecuted “in full” in the same way an adult can, I believe that those who are supposed to be responsible for them at the time should feel the force of the law in some way.
Although many people have names for them the fact is that they were children and as such should not be subject to adult procedures. People seem to be far too influenced by the macabre nature of the crime rather than the ages of the killers at the time. If you look on them as two faceless children with no names would that alter your view ?
“As regards lawyers asking, explaining or otherwise it is also irrelevant because they were children and should never have been in an adult court in the first place.”
That is precisely the bone of contention here. The argument against trying them in an adult court appears to be that it was unfair because they did not understand the proceedings. My point is that understanding can be facilitated by proper explanation, so that the GENERALIZATION that children can NEVER understand such proceedings, should be rejected. This does not mean that they DID understand, but only that the sweeping generalization that 10-year-olds can NEVER understand, is an assumption not a self-evident fact.
That was not the only reason the court process was declared unfair. The situation whereby two very young children were seated in the dock, apart from their carers on a raised platform which put them in full view of a hostile courtroom and a salivating media was considered detrimental to both their welfare and their ability to partake in proceedings.
And it is not just understanding proceedings. It is understanding the consequences of a plea – what that might mean and being able to fully participate in a defence.
David Kessler is also completely ignoring the reality of the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system. Firstly, there was no real process for explaining things to children – that only came AFTER the EcHR judgement (when trials involving child defendants dispensed with formal clothing, patterns of speech and allowed the children to sit with their parents/carers rather than in the dock).
Secondly, the process up to trial is designed for adults. This includes the level of psychiatric/social help being minimised to avoid the defendant saying something which might incriminate him/herself. Clearly in this case this approach (which is supposed to HELP an adult defendant), was not only inadequate but counter-productive. There was only so much the two could be helped to explain what had happened because by law, they couldn’t get any therapy before trial in case it affected the plea. That only came after.
This is where ignorance of how the criminal justice system works leaves people blind to the reality.
” Firstly, there was no real process for explaining things to children ”
There own lawyers could – and SHOULD – have explained it. Part of a lawyer’s job is to explain things to his client. Even most ADULTS don’t understand the law. (According to you, even I don’t!) That’s why lawyer’s are supposed to explain it to their clients, amongst their other duties. Most laymen are only able to “instruct” their lawyers after the lawyer has EXPLAINED the law, the legal procedures and the options to them.
How on earth would ‘legal procedures and options’ have meant anything to a ten year old child? My ten year old can barely see past the next week let alone the next 10 years. And he’s far more ‘sorted’ and educated than these two were.
Then we have the trauma. Certainly one was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The other was suffering nightmares, flashbacks and apparently in an almost constant state of catatonic fear. They had experienced the vans which took them from court being pelted by rocks and hearing threats from the crowds that they would be pulled apart and strung up.
Exactly how much understanding are you expecting them to be able to muster?
Rather than explaining complex legal procedure to them, their lawyers should have made an application of unfitness to plead.
Better still, let’s have proper juvenile courts with separate procedures – such as exist in Scotland and the United States.
“This is where ignorance of how the criminal justice system works leaves people blind to the reality”. Agreed. In fairness Kerry where you have one side saying that the trial was ok and the sentence far too lenient, you have the other side saying the trial was wrong. Again, the fool in charge of the trial disgraced himself and the ministry of justice also by allowing the trial to take place in an adult court. It is they and the judge who are responsible for the taxpayer having to pay for the identities and protection of the two and if people wish to direct anger regarding this I wish they would direct it towards these parties.
David, as you know people are different and some children mature at an earlier age than others, so I agree with your point that some children may have understood had it been explained to them, however certain generalisations have had to be made to protect those who couldn’t comprehend, for example: at 18 you are an adult. Of course some behave as adults sooner, many later. In the case of criminal responsibility there is also a generalisation made regarding age. In this case I think that they knew what they did was very wrong. I don’t think it was planned to end that way. It was two boys, out of control, who should have been in school, trying to impress each other and both of them devoid of values due to poor parenting. But children are children, even the ones with no values and whether they understood or not, they are neither developed nor mature enough to be tried as adults according to the experts. I know what you are saying but as children their attention spans would not be on a par with most adults. You could try drilling it into them but I don’t think that would work either. I think you are trying to offer a rational solution but in doing so you are comparing the mind of a child to that of an adult. That just won’t work.
I am ready to concede that certain aspects of the procedure (such as separating JV and RT from their lawyers (and parents) were wrong. But this does not render the entire trial unfair.
Mark – ‘Seriously, you are cowardly silly man with – as someone else claimed, violent fantasies that you wouldn’t dare follow through’.
Pathetic naïve fool.
Little do you know.
@David Kessler
Even if their lawyers cound and should have explained things to them the attention span and ability of a child to comprehend compared to an adult would in most cases be vast. The trial was unfair for one main reason – children were tried in an adult court.
One of the many fallouts from the aftermath of the trial is that you have the likes of the deranged ssmith and others threatening to take the law into their own hands.
If you are looking for honey from bees you take every possible precaution so as not to get stung. You do not put your hand in and hope everything will be ok.
As Kerry suggested – a juvenile court would have been the correct way to go.
It is also the nature of the adult criminal justice process. Counselling cannot be given before a conviction in case it jeopardises a plea. The two children were so traumatised that they couldn’t talk about the event. Now they may have been able to do this had they had psychiatric help during the remand period but this is not allowed. The bar on this is designed to help the adult defendant (so that s/he does not say anything which may self-incriminate). But in this situation, if they could not talk about what happened – even to their lawyers, how on earth could they be expected to mount a defence?
I’m a fan of our adversarial justice system. It guarantees an adult defendant a fair and just hearing. But it is wholly unsuitable for a child that young. A more inquisitorial process, less intimidating and with psychiatric help would have been preferable.
Instead we got a process that helped no-one. No real answers were given to the victim’s family and given the nature of the continued threat against the two defendants, there is likely to be no answers for them – ever.
And with all due respect Mr Kessler, It does not matter whether you think it fair or not. The trial was not fair – that is now written in law and a legal fact.
Kerry – ‘The two children were so traumatised that they couldn’t talk about the event.’
Seriously. Fuck off. They were wise to the system, even at 10 years old, as is common to scrotes like them – say as little as possible and get excuses like the above made for them.
Get a grip. They laughed at the system then, as they do now with their protection at the taxpayers cost. Carry on preaching the lefty bollocks, carry on being an idiot.
We do not laugh at them, nor the crime they committed, which, despite the talk people like you defending their actions and ‘punishment’ give, they will not get away with.
“And with all due respect Mr Kessler, It does not matter whether you think it fair or not. The trial was not fair – that is now written in law and a legal fact.”
It is not a fact. It is a ruling by criminal-friendly judiciary. The verdict stands and reflects the underlying fact that Robert Thompson and John Venables murdered James Bulger. The fact that a court has ruled in a certain manner does not make it true. Reality is not shaped by the judiciary and more than the laws of cosmology are shaped by the Pope.
Your comments are why I used the term ‘legal fact’. The government has accepted the ruling and the ruling stands. The trial was unfair – that is now a ‘legal fact’.
It matters not what you think.
@Kerry
There is no such thing as a “legal” fact – only a legal ruling. Fairness is a matter of reality. A legal ruling is a pronouncement. Saying that the ruling is a legal fact is like saying that the view that the sun orbits the earth is an Theological fact.
The trial was not unfair, except in the most trivial of ways. The dishonest judiciary chose to mendaciously rule that it was unfair. The facts are that JV and RT murdered James Bulger. They were duly convicted of the crime. The verdict stands. They spent eight years in what was effectively a strict boarding school. They were released. One of them committed further crimes and is now back behind bars. The other is living a quiet life.
@ssmith
You keep writing but say nothing. If you had a brain it would confuse you so climb back onto that cactus tree you live on and lament the fact that your parents should have used birth control!
Joe……such resounding words……
You humble me in your intelligence. Ok, because of your insight, we will stop in our pursuit of justice.
Or maybe, not. Fighting against people like you makes us stronger. V and T will be traced, and dealt with. Of that, there is no question.
@ssmith
You could persue professional help and they may help you in protecting the environment because the shit you write is polluting it!
I’d say a great many people on this site care little what happens to T & V. Why should they? But it is their rights that people defend. If you cause them or anyone else harm, you will pay for it. You will rot in prison for the rest of your life and you will be labelled a fool not a hero. Now if the only price you put on your life is one behind bars then to call you stupid would be insulting to stupid people.
For your information Thompson has been “free” for 13 years and if you and your cohorts havent traced him by now you never will.
Any good plan or solution usually requires some logic. Unfortunately for you that requires a brain.
You like to talk the talk but it’s just that. If you’re looking to frighten people try the ghost train in Blackpool!
Joe, you are laughable. We know where V is, however, our taxes keep him ‘protected’. Disgusting, but it’s the way it is. As soon as there is a chink, that’s the end of him.
Fact.
You talk of requiring brains, I suggest you read my comments from the start, and reconsider your opinion. We are way ahead of the PC crowd. Biding our time, it’s the intelligent stance.
And by the way, it’s ‘pursue’, not persue. And you talk of intelligence. Idiot.
@ssmith. “persue” was a typo.
Answer me this – what would you personally get out of killing either of them?
Are you willing to go to prison for it?
You are so fukking stupid joe dya think for one minute hed reply to tha question idiot , thers ways of killing cunts dya think police will b bothered that these two cunts are dead or the world f that matter I dnt think so dikkhead
I’m pretty sure they would care. May I ask you to not use vulgarities here. Thanks.
A fair trial should be one where the accused gets not only a fair hearing but is fully able to partake in proceedings. The idea that two children this young could have the faintest idea what was going on is , frankly, preposterous. The trial was NOT fair. Not in any civilised meaning of the word. Even a couple of jurors later took issue and complained that they were only present to rubber stamp a verdict which had already been decided. It wasn’t just that two clearly disordered children couldn’t take part in proceedings; no defence was offered by either part despite two Not Guilty pleas which clearly indicates the boys didn’t even understand the ramifications of their pleas.
The only reason the UK government accepted the verdict of the ECHR was because the verdict was bang on right.
The reason that they pleaded Not Guilty yet offered no defence speaks volumes for the competence of their lawyers. If they had argued that the trial was unfair because they were not represented by competent counsel, I would hold my tongue.
@David Kessler
You have a point regarding counsel but children should never be tried in adult courts in the first place for reasons stated earlier.
What is is needed for a fair trial is several factors – one of which is fitness to plead.
In order to be fit to plead, a defendant has to be aware of certain things – including what the plea (as mark suggests) could mean for him/her. But there are other things such as knowing that a defendant can object to the selection of a particular juror, being able to fully follow proceedings and above all be able to instruct his/her counsel.
The last point was totally absent. The two boys were so traumatised, they were not able to give their lawyers any instructions at all – hence why there was no defence. Because of the rules governing pre-trial counselling of defendants (ie none allowed in case it affects the integrity of the plea), they were unable to really talk about the event at all. You talk of incompetent counsel – what else were they do given the circumstances?
And that is before we get to the fact that no effort was made to change the language in court or dispense with the anachronistic garb. No attempt was made by the judge to stop proceedings to explain what was going on. None.
English law provides that if the accused is unfit to plead then they cannot be tried at that time. But this can only apply if the unfitness to plead is drawn to the court’s attention. If it was the case that these particular defendans were unfit to plead then it was the duty of their lawyers to so argue.
Also, even if the defendants couldn’t receive counselling, they could be subject to a psychiatric and psychological examination. Colin Stagg (about whom I wrote several years ago) was subjected to psychological tests by the defence and even a sub-rosa attempt by the prosecution to test him (in a nerfarious attempt to get him to incriminate himself).
I do not know what JV and RT talked about to their lawyers because I was not privvy to their discussions. I suspect that you were also not. Anything they did say would be protected by privilege and so could not be lawfully disclosed by anyone except the defendants themselves. And any subsequent disclosures by them would have to be treated with healthy scepticism, because they could be self-serving.
So I’m not sure how you can know what they did or didn’t talk to their lawyers about but if they really were unfit to plead, then their lawyers failed them.
The only psychological examination they can be subject to is one which gives an indication of whether or not they are clinically insane. It is a test for an adult – not children.
The issue about the trial being fair was not dreamed up after the fact. There were SERIOUS misgivings at the time.
This report was written just a week after the verdict:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/right-and-wrong-paths-to-justice-a-week-after-the-bulger-verdict-jonathan-foster-reflects-on-the-fairness-of-the-trial-1464834.html
And it was the boys’ lawyers who said they couldn’t get instructions:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bulger-case-lawyer-my-client-the-eight-year-old-killer-who-looked-angelic.1360046720
And the fact that one (Thompson) was diagnosed with severe mental health problems even before the trial (for which he could get no treatment owing to the fact that since he was being tried as an adult, the integrity of the plea could be compromised) was a factor in the decision by the EcHR – it came to a perfectly rational conclusion that his state of mind made giving any sort of communication to his counsel impossible.
Colin Stagg was subjected to a whole battery of psychological tests by his own defense not only to deteone sanity, but also to establish that he did not have the personality traits attributed to him by the prosecution. The law had no veto on the scope of these tests.
Lawyers are not supposed to disclose the contents of prvileged conversations with their clients, unless given leave to do so by said clients.
The defence subjecting someone to those tests is wholly different from counselling. It is COUNSELLING that is barred in case a defendant reveals something which may jeopordise their plea.
Virginia Wheeler (suspect in Operation Elveden) is now ‘unfit to plead’ and owing to her mental health the CPS has dropped the case against her. Despite having enough evidence to secure the conviction of her co-defendent – a bent cop who she was allegedly bribing. The bent cop got 2 years (and lost his job, pension and will be lucky to secure another). She gets no conviction and is still on The Sun’s payroll.
SHE, like Margaret Moran was unfit to plead. Yet two traumatised ten year olds – one with a diagnosed mental health condition were considered perfectly capable of partaking in an adult trial at a crown court. It is clearly a nonsense.
These comparative arguments are no more valid when used in favour of the murderers of James Bulger than when used the other way round (e.g. Harry Roberts got 40 years for killing two coppers yet JV and RT got only eight years for killing a toddler.
The comparative standard is not what I would have expected of you. But if you are going to use it, then at least consider the possibility that maybe those women were playing the system and getting away with it.
Whether they were playing the system or not, the state took their medical reports seriously enough to admit that their state of mind made it impossible to: 1 – instruct lawyers; 2 – partake in proceedings; 3 – understand they could object to jurors; etc.
As for Harry Roberts – he killed TWICE and was an ADULT. There is no comparison.
The fact that the state accepted their arguments doesn’t mean that the state is obliged to accept the argument in every case it is put forward. And in the case if JV and RT it does not seem to have been timely proferred.
Anyway, the government has given its response to the ridiculous petition to stop Robert Thompson claiming compensation. It more or less said what most of us were saying – that it can’t do that and it would be utterly unacceptable in any case (as it would effectively mean crimes can be committed against an individual with no fear of civil redress).
It also reiterated that victims themselves can claim compensation should the person who harmed them come into money after the usual limitation period. However, in this case (although the response does not say this), it would almost certainly fail because of the age of the perpetrators at the time of the offence. It makes clear that such things are for courts – not governments to decide and in my opinion, any such attempt to make such a claim (ie claiming money from Robert Thompson should he be awarded compensation) would be struck out at the first hearing.
But of course it is all academic anyway – because Robert Thompson is not planning to make a claim at all.
Jon Venables has, as was widely expected, been granted parole.
No specific release date has been disclosed, but Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger have, predictably, reacted with outrage.
Ralph Bulger also said this, “”Six weeks is a long time for the parole board to deliver their decision. He may already have been released from jail and we just don’t know it yet.”
Is it possible that JV’s already out and about, or would they be legally bound to disclose the release decision first, before releasing him?
I think it is likely he is already out and has been for some time. His release of course, was an inevitability – there would have had to be real issues of public protection to keep him inside (that means an immediate risk to the public which can’t be controlled through supervision). They are not legally required to announce his release before it happens. And from The Sun report, they only planned on telling James Bulger’s parents an hour before the general public. Largely, I’m sure because they simply can’t be trusted to be discreet – too keen on running to the gutter press.
Of course he is out but the judiciary need to keep him under close scrutiny after what he did this time.
Why announce his release publicly? It serves no positive purpose at all. It just gives the Bulgers another chance to bark. If nothing was said they would not have said anything. This is irresponsible!
Because The Sun had an inteview with James Bulger’s father (they clearly got wind of the release) and so the Parole Board had no choice but to publicly announce the decision.
As for supervision – that is not the judiciary’s job. That is the job of probation.
Thanks, I have another question Kerry.
Given the risk to his life if his identity is revealed (and the risk to others Ralph and Denise seem to think he poses), do you think he is going to go back to the same kind of life he had before or do you think the government will now give him some kind of private work and pay him a small living wage, so he wouldn’t have to struggle to find some kind of job (and maybe spiral down all over again) now that a background check is going to block him from almost all avenues of work? And also, working in McDonald’s or Pizza Hutt, you’re interacting with the general public all the time.
Do you think, in other words, that the tabloid campaign against him is going to make his life EASIER than before? Because I could see that. Easier in the sense they might just give him something to do out of his home so he doesn’t have to risk much exposure? I mean, if he goes back to working in a fast food place, as he allegedly had been doing before his recall, he would be seen by various people all the time, every day of his life. That doesn’t seem like something he can do anymore. Not with Denise Fergus and tabloid hacks bleating about him constantly.
Because if that’s what they’re doing, Denise Fergus’ campaign has completely backfired on her.
Well his life will be more protected. There’s no doubt that the constant media outrage and Denise Fergus herself have ensured that the ring of protection around Jon Venables will be tighter than ever. Denise Fergus’s campaign was always going to be self-defeating. She wanted to be able to dictate the sentence (something abhorrent to any civilised idea of justice). She’ll never get what she wants (and rightly so). And one of the things affecting a release decision is whether Jon Venables has job prospects. 3.5 years in prison is a long time to be able to get training and qualifications (he may even have a degree by now) and it is very probable the MoJ has already ensconced him in a job.
And the more Denise Fergus and the tabloids go overboard on outrage and publicity, the more he will be protected.,
I agree with you Kerry (thanks for your info) and security and supervision would have to be closer than ever if they don’t want someone to chop down his trees or let the air out of his bicycle tyres.
I don’t see what good it does either for the public or the media to have too much information on this. In the case of the Bulgers, it only upsets them and in the case of the media it is used to sell papers. In the case of unhinged people it causes hate and resentment and whatever else and sells more papers.
There is no positive aspect to this type of disclosure.
Have people never heard of the phrase ‘no news is good news’?
They will find something for him but it will be difficult for him as people have pictures and he has a big mouth.
What a mess!
“In the case of unhinged people it causes hate and resentment and whatever else and sells more papers.”
Hate and hysteria are not only caused by tabloids. They are also caused by Denise Fergus herself, independently of them:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/x-factor-winners-calls-bulger-4871869
“A huge row erupted on Twitter after a former X Factor winner called for Jon Venables to be “left alone”.
Singer Steve Brookstein tweeted: “Jon Venables should be left alone. Tabloid reporting was and continues to be awful.”
There was an almost immediate backlash – led by James’ mum Denise who tweeted back “an so was my sons murder #james”.
She continued: “How dare u defend my sons murders uve no idea wat we ave 2 live through every single day without james an still no justice.”
Denise’s husband Stuart Fergus also condemned Brookstein’s comments.
He tweeted: “Know wonder your career went down the pan defending a child murderer/paedo your a disgrace you idiot!” ”
If you follow the Twitter feed, Brookstein didn’t tweet his message as a reply to HER. He simply tweeted in response to the news of JV’s parole. What happened is Denise Fergus came across his Tweet and started attacking him, Stuart joined in, and then, on cue, a chorus of her enraged followers on twitter started hurling abuse at Brookstein, apparently with the Ferguses’ approval.
This is shameful behaviour. Regardless of her tragic loss, she is a bully. And her husband Stuart is even more of an obnoxious boor than she is. They feel free to label someone a “disgrace,” an “idiot,” and say “How dare u” simply for holding a different opinion. How dare ANYONE disagree with me! How DARE you not see eye-to-eye with me!
How DARE the judiciary not do exactly what I want at all times! How DARE Maggie Atkinson advocate raising the age of responsibility! How DARE anyone associated with the Bulger case say or do anything contrary to my expectations!
She’s always been an unpleasant bully. Look at how she treated Maggie Atkinson. She did the same years before to David Ramsbotham. If someone doesn’t acquiese to her every stupid and abhorrent demand, then she insists they are disgusting, owe her an apology and should be sacked.
But of course she has got what she deserves from the criminal justice system after years of unpleasantness and media hogging. Total contempt.
Kerry, you just don’t know how you would would react if one of your precious children ever came to harm at the hands of someone else! God forbid!
And you are clearly a snob, given the way you choose to put down people that are not on the same intellectual level as you! Not every one has had an upbringing where punctuality and grammar is the order of the day!! You clearly judge people by how they articulate themselves, maybe with the same privileges and educational background as you have obviously had other people could also sound like they have swallowed a thesaurus! Would that perhaps suit you better?
Btw….were not T and V uneducated, poor school attenders etc?
I agree with both of you. She is a bully. My point regarding the press was it seemed to cause her to be more publicly vocal and the use of the word “upset” referred to her public reaction whenever a story concerning T or V appeared.
Today in The Sun for example it states that Venables is on “his 4th new identity at a coast of £5M to you”. I think we know what they are at and trying to achieve. Unfortunately The Sun is read by more people than she has followers and as such anytime it prints anything controversial up seems to pop many of its readers in the form of “rentamob” who in turn fuel her desire for even more self publicity.
@Virgil.
Unfortunately the attitudes of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger in relation to anyone who dares to disagree with them is one in keeping with uneducated people ie who know no better.
Nobody in authority will pander to their demands because justice and sentencing does not concern them. They have no say and never will have as they are neither employed by the department nor have any qualifications in that area of expertise.
And you are quite right Kerry, contempt is exactly what the authorities have for her and rightly so!
John Thompson living in gamely.
Gamesley even
Are you sure its him ? If so how sure and whats his address ????
All very well but who is ‘John Thompson’? Certainly not one of the Bulger killers. Neither of them had that name.
“They will find something for him but it will be difficult for him as people have pictures and he has a big mouth.”
On the bright side – if those pictures are JV – given his size, he now has the best incentive anyone has ever had to lose that extra weight and keep it off!
I don’t think he’d be recognizable as the same person if he went to the gym and worked out, slimmed right down, got healthy, got a nose job, dyed his hair, wore colour contacts.
Never has anybody had such a strong reason to not let themselves go, physically.
If he was ever the type to eat those extra slices of cheesecake or polish off that whole plate of cookies, he now has the strongest reason imaginable to resist that temptation. He used to be fat (allegedly!) so now he better stay fit.
I think the chances he looks anything like the pictures that were flying around Twitter are remote. Those pictures first surfaced pretty shortly after his recall to prison and his appearance has almost certainly been altered since then.
I would hope so…. but unless plastic surgery was used the face would still be very similar even without the weight.
Ralph Bulger now wants to know where he will live so that his children don’t run into him.
He must think people came down in the last shower?
As I mentioned before, what people don’t know won’t hurt them and it is the job of the authorities to look after and supervise Jon Venables after that and as long as they do their jobs properly, the less information given to the public, the better.
Joe virgil kelly fukking idiots oviously dont have kids how would you feel if they had tortured and murdered youre 2Year old in that horrific way both of them shud be in jail or murdered themselves if you think ther both ok now get them round your house to babysit or move them next door to yous ya fukking retards all them posts and your all forgetting bwt wat they did to james and defending them so fukking dumb jon was released now a pedo they both evil and know very well how to play the system the only was for proper justice is for this country to come together keep naming and shaming them till they hunted down like the two fukn scruffy horrible evil CHIlD KILLERS they are!!!!!
I do have children actually – Two boys and a girl.
I also have a good grasp of the English language. Something you appear not to be in possession of. Isn’t it funny how all those salivating at the mouth at the thought of Thompson and Venables being murdered seem to have such poor literacy skills.
Punctuation and a dictionary could be very good friends to you Mac.
This isnt a fukkin exam hahahaha ,Who gives a fukk bowt my punctuality get the dictionary out your arse you fukking sad pathetic individual ….. go and bore sum 1 else with your shit patter
I’m not even going to try to figure out what that means.
To all:
Do not come here threatening people. This post was to warn parents of these dreadful killers (at least one of which seems still to be criminally minded) in the hope that it might stop some kids from being at risk. It was also to appeal to these two to ‘out’ themselves as an act of remorse, and to publicise their horrific crime.
Threatening people like this is simply NOT on. I don’t have much time to post here these days, but that doesn’t mean anyone can say what they like.
Please, no foul language, no threats and no personal attacks.
Thank you.
To Anonymous (July 18th)
I think you mean PUNCTUATION and grammar (you said punctuality for some reason and I don’t think I took issue with anyone’s timekeeping).
And I’m afraid it IS very easy to dismiss arguments that appear borne from ignorance and stupidity.
As for Thompson and Venables – you are right. They were uneducated. I think Venables has shown himself to be a bona fide idiot to be honest. Clearly someone without any real level of intelligence at all.
However, with regards Thompson – it appears he performed very well academically in custody – better than most kids in secure units and may even have progressed to higher education.
Intelligence isn’t just about formal education.
Then why is he working in the building trades?
I doubt he is. I also doubt you know anything more than anyone else.
‘if they don’t want someone to chop down his trees or let the air out of his bicycle tyres.’
Uh huh, because that’s all we are capable of…….
James’ murder warrants far more than that, and as such, justice will show it’s face.
Yes. Despite the fact that no-one has managed to get close to Thompson or Venables for 20 years? Hey? People like you merely make sure they are more heavily protected.
@Mac – you make several false assumptions on people you do not know.
Your attitude seems to be that anyone who has an opinion different from yours should be subjected to your verbal insults.
I’m afraid your judgement is poor and your argument weak.
Go back to school and learn some English. It might help your communication skills. If you go to prison they might even run a course there and take a leaf from Kerry’s book if you want to learn how to conduct yourself. You might find people may take you more seriously
To me this has never been about the 2 child killers but rather their rights as directed by the Ministry of Justice POST SENTENCE. They were sentenced for their crime and whether people agree or disagree are entitled to some sort of restricted liberty. I will not detail this as most neither respect nor understand this.
We can all play judge and jury but it counts for nothing. You can either accept things as they are or move out of the country – it’s as simple as that!
It is generally accepted that the child killers were uneducated as I dare say are some of the posters on this site.
If people have nothing better to do than make threats and/or attempt to hunt them down – that demonstrates their lack of education. I point out that education involves more than GCSEs, A-Levels and degrees. It also involves knowing right from wrong and how to behave and many of these characteristics are passed from parents to children.
I cannot take these “pro justice” people seriously. Two wrongs never make a right – a very simple concept but one which many people seem to have difficulty grasping!
@Ssmith – And the “we” refers to?
The voices in your head maybe?
No Ssmith you just talk and Kerry is right. The ring of protection surrounding them is due to people like you who do not know the difference between right and wrong or refuse to accept it.
Joe, you appear to have contradicted yourself in saying that intelligence involves knowing right from wrong! In that case should not T and V have known right from wrong when they abducted and murdered James Bulger?
And…..if not then they clearly didn’t have the intellect to know the difference between not murdering someone and murdering someone; in which case you are backing the very type of people you are also slating: uneducated children, with lack of parental control or help from people in authority, who clearly should have gone to school to ‘learn some English’.
Make your mind up! You and Kerry seem to only care for the opinions of those that can articulate themselves coherently! And whilst I agree that Kerry does do that well, her dismissal of those that can’t, is all very confusing.
YOU need to understand and accept that this type of ostrosizing is the fundamental problem here and is probably one of the root causes of T and Vs behavioural issues!
I know and understand what you are getting at as I do not condone the threatening/abusive comments on here either but can’t you see that employing bullying tactics in order to get one over someone who you deem to be intellectually inept is just not the answer!
And so continues the cycle…………
I think they DID know right from wrong. But that is a crude definer for judgment. What children that young can’t grasp is a full understanding of consequences. You mention not knowing the difference between ‘murdering someone and not murdering someone’. Murder is a clearly defined crime in law. Requiring intent to cause serious harm with malice aforethought. Do you really think two ten year olds understood this (as opposed to merely killing someone?)
Well said.
@anonymous well said.
Answer to kerrys so called question is yes they knew it was wrong as did you and I when we were that age , would you have done that at age of ten I certainly wouldnt have. Totally agree with anonymous your both sad.
@Kerry so they DID know the difference between right and wrong???
I am definitely perplexed now!!! So in that case, what does that make them…evil??
Ps I don’t get your point: do you really think that any murderer considers the consequences of their actions? Surely if they did they wouldn’t do it in the first place or they simply dont care as the desire to murder is greater than the fear of being caught?
Pps ‘merely killing someone’ what the hell?? So if someone you knew was ‘merely’ killed as opposed to being murdered you wouldn’t mind so much!!! Ok!!!!!!! So flippant!!
I agree with Mac’s earlier point…how would you feel if they were re-housed next door to you?
@Joe…I take your points…thank you!!! However, Kerry seems to contradict herself time after time!
@Anonymous
I am not a supporter of Thompson and/or Venables but am a supporter of a person’s rights. I also believe that the killers knew what they were doing was wrong in this case. However they should have been in school at the time and poor parenting usually gives rise to poor values which is what they had and maybe still have, who knows?
Because they were children they were not fully responsible so say the experts. They were of low intellect though.
My reference to education and knowing right from wrong was in relation to people hurling insults at people who disagreed with their points of view. Now that is bullying and shows a lack of education.
To my knowledge neither Kerry, Virgil or myself have ever denied that the crime was anything other than horrific. In my own case anyone taking the law into his own hands is wrong and will always be wrong. The legal system is in place to protect people and to ensure that those deemed dangerous are removed from society until deemed fit to return to it.
Those who feel the killers received too lenient a sentence are entitled to that opinion. I don’t hold that view myself. But dishing out or threatening to dish out their own brand of justice is wrong.
For example, the drunk driver who runs over a 4 year old child or 50 year old and who receives a ban, a fine and suspended sentence is also a killer. But should he be subject to execution also? If so it may get to the stage whereby a speeding motorist or a litter lout receives a punishment by a member of the public or members simply because they do not agree with the sentence or punishment. If that were the case chaos would reign. Then you have people being supported by the tax payer because they cannot work or will not work.. If some people had their way they would have no financial support. That is why we must allow those in charge take charge and why we should just get on with it if that makes sense?
I point out that I know neither the Bulgers nor the killers personally, nor will I. I have no interest in doing so and am not on any side. People have a right to express emotions should they so wish and that would be normal. There are times when I feel the system fails and I get angry. In this case after the killing I believe the judge was a disgrace as if he had behaved responsibly the identities of the child killers would not have been made public. I also believe that the Bulgers should have received counselling so the system failed them in that respect also.
In relation to education, a person can improve should they wish. It is important to listen and learn should a person wish to improve himself. That would enable him to read though and understand quite a lot, distinguish the good from the garbage, ascertain whether one is serious or joking etc…
I have read all the posts here and do not agree with many. Some posters have zero to say and have limited their posts to poor abuse and insults. Those posters do not deserve any respect and have been treated accordingly. Those who disagree with my points of view and who are civil have received a civil response.
Going back to the vigilante approach…. the reason it is wrong is because people have been empowered to administer the law and justice. To maintain an ordered and workable society they should be allowed to do so.
If exceptions are made the whole thing collapses.
In this case I believe that the media has very cleverly manipulated the minds of some of the public on this leading to outrage and while I could never condone the actions of the 2 boys,the aftermath of all of this is thanks to the idiot of a judge who presided over the case..
I hope this explains my stance on this Anonymous?
You are entitled to your opinion that the eminent, distinguished and learned judge who presided over the trial was an “idiot”. But it is worthy of note that after the majority European Court of Justice ruling, the tariff imposed on the boys was restored by Lord Woolf to eight years – the original tariff imposed by Justice Morland in the first place.
The EcHR ruling had NOTHING to do with the tariff which was something they were not concerned with. The European judges were concerned with the issue of a fair trial. The 15 year tariff had already been declared unlawful years before by the Law Lords (under an English law which had existed before anyone had even thought up a European Union). The 15 year tariff did not exist (and in law never existed because Howard broke the law in giving it).
You could argue that the tariff reverted to the ten years that the Lord Chief Justice recommended after the original trial judge but in reality, there was no set tariff.
Lord Woolf said that had he been sentencing at trial, he would have gone for the ten year tariff as suggested by the LCJ but he was required by law to take into account progress of the pair under the Children and Young People’s Act of 1922. European law did not have anything to do with the reinstatement of the 8 year tariff (which was not a reinstatement but actually a re-sentencing). English law did.
Not correct Kerry, the EcHW ruled on a number of issues. They ruled inter alia that while there had been no violation of Section 3 in repect of sentencing, there had been a violation of 6i in respect of the setting of the tariff. In consequence, Lord Woolf reduced the 10 year tariff set by Lord Taylor to the eight year “recomendation” (if you want to quibble) set by Morland
@ Anonymous
I’d just like to comment if I may…
One of the reasons their identities are kept secret is that knowing who they are would instill panic into some and hate into others. That is why it is better for people not to know and allows everyone live as normal without looking over their shoulders all the time.
Regarding the killing, I am not a psychologist and therefore am only open to possible theories. I would say most people would not kill (or at least intentionally as it takes a different kind of mind to plan and carry it out. I don’t believe this was planned). I accept diminished responsibility by virtue of the fact that they were children. However that means that the rest of the responsibility lies with those who were responsible for them at the time. No prosecutions were sought to my knowledge leaving the door wide open for this to happen again. What kind of message is that to send to people?
You are correct, David but my issue with him was in naming the boys and in allowing their childhood photographs being released to the public and media. That moment of stupidity only added unnecessary fuel to the fire etc., etc. and created bigger problems both for the Ministry of Justice and the police and through it gave the media a licence to sell more papers by stirring up a hate campaign amoung certain members of the public through the use of those names, photographs and carefully selected stories designed to outrage.
Re the tariff. All the EcHR stated was that there should be one (something which, by the way the Law Lords also stated years before but nothing was done about it). It didn’t really care what it was (it wouldn’t have quibbled if it was 20 years).
They currently had no tariff after the 15 year one was shot down by the HoL. The ten year tariff could have been assumed but theoretically, the boys had no idea of when they could expect to be released. It was this the EcHR took issue with. The number of years was not their concern.
When setting the new tariff, Woolf took the 1922 Act as the precedent. He said had he been sentencing at trial he would have chosen 10 years from both statute and precedent. However, the 1922 Act meant he had to consider their welfare (which also meant their progress while in custody). So he set the tariff at 8 years which happened to be the same as the original trial judge.
You seem to be missing the subject matter of the exchange, Kerry. The final tariff was the same as the original tariff – so when all is said and done, the “idiot” judge was not such an idiot. Joe argues that his decision to release the names marks him put as an idiot. But it is hard to see how public speculation on their new identities would have been any different from speculation on their old ones.
I think it very likely the judge himself thought he was an idiot the second he saw the tabloids the following morning. I’m sure he thought ‘Oh Shit’.
As for identities, the two involved in the Edlington case were not names. We have no idea who they are. They remain anonymous and will be released next year most likely – probably with very little fanfare.
It’s funny you should mention what the judge thought (or rather what you think he thouught), because I’ve just been watching Derren Brown on Youtube. It’s a great form of entertainment, but I would be wary of speculting on what another man is thinking.
There is no difference between an anonymus first identity and an anonymous new identity. It wasn’t the publication of the names that created the interest.
It was the nature of the case. You might wonder why some cases capture more public attention than others. There are many reasons, but one of the key differences is pubicity before the body/victim is found. All the big cases that have shocked the nation (James Bulger, Holly and Jessica, Tia Sharpe, April Jones) started off as a disappearence in which the public became involved and concerned abut wheter or not the missing person would be found alive. It is these cases that make the biggest mark on people’s minds. Naming the killers has nothing to do with it.
@ David.
By making their names available :
1. New identities had to be created to give them a chance after release.
2. Family members were subject to abuse.
3. The tabloids were able to launch a hate campaign against them and keep it alive etc.
What he did was extremely irresponsible and cost the taxpayers a lot more money than should have been the case through new ids and extra protection. Had he kept quiet about this as should have been the case, the tabloids without names or pictures would have found it difficult and the public would have moved on with the exception of the victim’s and killer’s families.
It was a poor call by him and a stupid one and that action does in fact mark him down as a fool!
@ Joe
Were any of the SIBLINGS of JV or RT subject to abuse? Or only the parents? Historically, the anonymity of underage criminals was all about protecting the underage criminals, not their parents, In this case in particular, if one accepts the arguments of those who have arged in favour of mitigation, it appears that there was a high degree of culpability on the part of the parents – whether it be through neglect or actual violent abuse.
While vigilante action is wrong, even in such cases, there is no PRESUMPTION in favour of protecting the identities of the parents of criminals, who are, after all, adults. And when those parents share a degree of culpability, the case for protecting their identities becomes even weaker.
The anger campaign – or hate campaign as you call it – would have been possible even if the murderers had been called Child A and Child B.
Finally, regarding the pictures, they were soon out of date, so of limited relevance.
@ I know the parents were subject to abuse but do not have any information as to whether their siblings were.
I agree that the parents were somewhat responsible, however the ministry of justice to my knowledge did not persue them. Why? The abuse was inflicted on them by vigilantes and I think a lot of that was due to the killers being named. Without names and photos the media/tabloids would have had a weaker case.
I agree, it was the nature of the crime which created the interest. Posting the names and the pictures added more fuel to the fire and the media used this and statements by the child’s parents and other information to manipulate the minds of the public (not all). If certain buttons are pressed some people will tip over the edge. Without names and faces it is a little more difficult as the public do not have a face or name to which they may direct their anger.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
What’s with the multiple postings David?
Yes – the siblings WERE subjected to abuse. From what I gather Robert Thompson’s younger brother suffered immeasurably. Indeed, one might even say HE got the sentence, not Robert as Robert was safely ensconced in a secure unit. His brother had to move schools numerous times, unable to forge friendships and generally had a terrible life. For something his brother did.
By the way, the Omand report itself suggests that naming them was a mistake and recommends that it never happens again.
If so then it was indeed a terrible injustice. I hope that the police took a rbust line in dealing with anyone who harrassed and threatened the siblings.
From what I gather they did the only thing they could. Move the family on and keep things as quiet as possible. Taking a ‘robust line’ would only make them more of a target.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
Kerry, Virgil, Joe and Mark – I shall not be visiting this site again. This is NOT because I don’t wish to discuss and debate JV, RT or many other issues with you, but because some of the other (primary) postings have made me realize that I am endanger of getting lost in la-la land, or at least giving it the oxygen of publicity – something I am loathe to do.
Hi All
I have looked at your comments what i would like from you is the identity of T and V their are names that have been mentioned Paul Jon Williams,Jordon Scott Michael, a Walsh was mentioned. The reason i am asking is that i believe that the identities of killers come from deceased children after all they have to stand up to scrutiny. The metropolitan police used the birth record’s of deceased children for undercover operations.I have been campaigning for over 6 years to have deceased children’s birth certificates marked so that they cannot be used in an act of fraud.The government are very reluctant to close this loophole which has been going on for over 40 years any help to match the identities of T and V, Maxine Carr, Mary Bell to birth and death record’s would give me the answers i am looking for.They were all given total anonymity to protect who the killers or the government.
Thank You Alfie.
I have heard that Jordan Scott Michael AKA RT Robert Thompson has surfaced again and has been charged with an offence and will be appearing at Cheshire magistrates court either Runcorn or Warrington date reported as 8/11/2018. Reason unknown as yet. Cheshire police case.
Emma for justice says this case above is something to do with an incident @ darsebury park hotel in Warrington Cheshire where an incident happened not involving Robert Thompson AKA Jordan Scott Michael BT an incident involving a male customer and drugs. Only at this time police found out the true identity of RT AKA JSM who was working @ darsebury park under a knew name and identity. This was reported to management of this hotel who with immediate effect terminated his employment. Emma for justice has tried to confirm this but each time I call this hotel I am told “please contact our head office I’m sorry I cannot discuss this matter” read between the lines r please try and contact this hotel see what response you get. Good luck.
Hi all I called runcorn and Warrington courts to day to ask about a case which involving a Jordon scott michael no such case at runcorn which leaves Warrington. I called late morning a case was heard there this morning 8-11-2018. This case was heard without anybody knowing any information. WHAT does this mean ? Was it a secret case Was anybody interested in this case in attendance. Can anybody share any light on this as recently i have been following this case of little Jamie. I live in the North West myself and have two children theses people should be hung in public or killed for what they done to that baby. Please shed some light on this case @ darsebury park hotel.
As long as people keep saying they want to see them dead the authorities will always understand the importance of protecting their identities. And the killers themselves will never get careless. So please everybody, keep it to yourselves.
Venables known as Jon Paul Williams Thompson known as Jordan Scott Michael both pictures have been leaked on the net also Thompson’s photo now leaked on the net on twitter and English defence league website check it out.
This guy? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drg6r9OXQAIsUJg.jpg Could be anybody.
Sorry, wanted to use this link, somehow messed it up. https://twitter.com/Alanund06949112/status/1060662245217177606
Hello to people using this site does anybody have living details of Jon Paul Williams or Jordon Scott Michael. Town, area or city.
Hi Mathew the last time I heard or read was of thompson aka scott michael living or used to or lived at one point in Holton Cheshire or Holton runcorn. I cannot say regarding venables aka williams.
There was supposed to be a court hearing for the bid to lift Venables’ anonymity. See here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-45111564
Did anybody hear something about it? Was it postponed?