Advanced search

James Bulger's mother demands right to find freed killers

(1028 Posts)
suzywong Sun 28-Nov-04 08:01:47

as reported in the \link{\news of the world.

Should she have the right?


suzywong Sun 28-Nov-04 08:03:34

Bother, I knew that link wouldn't work, in fact a lost tribe in the Amazon could have seen that one coming it was so predictable.


Gobbledigook Sun 28-Nov-04 08:47:01

I think she does. I'm amazed she stayed calm but it was probably for the best.

It would make me feel sick to think they were living a nice happy life after they'd murdered my two year old. Personally I think I'd like to make him suffer for what he did.

I just know people will come on here and say the opposite but I know, looking at my 2 yr old now, that I could never forgive someone who might murder him.

bunny2 Sun 28-Nov-04 09:28:32

She should have the right to track them down but as often happens, our justice system lets the victims down by putting the criminal's needs before those of the victim. They have served their time and are now free to live their lives - morally wrong but legally right.I think I'd kill the bastards with my own hands.

wobblyknicks Sun 28-Nov-04 09:38:33

She shouldn't have the right because society has seen fit to release them so they should be free to stay anonymous if they want. However I don't think they should have ever been let out of prison anyway, so if justice was really done this issue wouldn't ever arise because they'd never be let out in public again.

Twiglett Sun 28-Nov-04 10:13:00

haven't read the story at all but I would think what good will come out of her being able to track them down? I cannot see any benefit in it on either side

maybe a court appointed counselling and mediated meeting so that in some way she might acheive closure .. I cannot imagine the pain and horror this poor woman has gone through and maybe knowing they're out there but not knowing where equates to taunting in her mind

Gobbledigook Sun 28-Nov-04 10:19:34

You are all far more eloquent than me! I agree with you all!

When it comes down to it and if it was my son, I'd be with bunny2 wanting to strangle them myself!

WigWamBam Sun 28-Nov-04 10:32:37

Had it have been my child, I would have already have tracked them down and strangled them, and I think most women would feel the same. Which is one reason why she shouldn't be allowed to trace them herself. They have done their time (although not nearly enough, in my opinion) and really should be left alone to rebuild their lives - as bunny says, it might be morally wrong, but it is legally right. They were only children themselves, when all said and done, heaven forbid that we should all be judged for the rest of our lives on the way we were when we were 10 years old.

I do think that if she should be allowed to arrange a meeting with them, as Twiglett says, but I don't think it would offer her much in the way of comfort or closure. She is always going to be tortured by what happened to that poor little boy, and I can't see that meeting the people responsible is going to do anything to ease that.

Gobbledigook Sun 28-Nov-04 10:34:12

WWB - agree, except that most of us don't murder toddlers at 10 yrs old!

WigWamBam Sun 28-Nov-04 10:39:27

Yes, I know that - I'm not defending them at all. The fact that they were children at the time makes them far more notorious in the minds of the public; rightly or wrongly, murderers are released from prison all the time without anyone being aware of who or where they are, and if Thompson and Venebles hadn't been 10 years old, their release wouldn't have caused such a stir. They have a long while left to live, and although it may be morally reprehensible to most of us, morally they are entitled to that just the same as any other criminal.

I'm not supporting them at all.

WideWebWitch Sun 28-Nov-04 10:44:09

No, she doesn't have the right to track them down and do anything, any more than anyone else does. I doubt very much they're living a 'nice, happy life' now - they were damaged children to start with and very likely still are.

jampot Sun 28-Nov-04 10:51:45

I can't get through on the link for some reason but I do seem to rememeber this was about 10 years ago as my dd was I think slightly younger than Jamie Bulger at the time it happened. In which case 10 years for an "adult" crime of this magnitude is an absolute disgrace, but then when 30 years is a guide for a life sentence reduced down by 30% for "good behaviour" and parole it says it all. The man who murdered my friend is most probably walking free now as a 68 year old man could be living next to any one of us.

emmatmg Sun 28-Nov-04 11:05:17

TBH I'm surprised she hasn't done it already. I know I would have.

Right or wrong I would have found them.

Angeliz Sun 28-Nov-04 11:10:42

I'm afraid if it was my toddler, i'd make it my lifes mission to make them suffer forever.

She has alot more restraint than me, poor woman

emmatmg Sun 28-Nov-04 11:10:48

makes me sound like abit of a nutter but I'd just have to know where they were. I doubt Iwould have the courage to meet them face to face for fear of what I would do.

aloha Sun 28-Nov-04 11:11:05

No, she shouldn't have the right. What kind of society would it be if she did.

hercules Sun 28-Nov-04 11:11:59

What they did was truly awful but they were children at the time and clearly emotionally troubled ones. I dont buy it that they are evil or beasts as the news of the world says.
They needed help and lots of it which I hope they got. Is it really useful to punish for over 10 years something a child did? Let's face it they will never be free of it. I cant remember hardly anything of what I did when I was 10 never mind spend the rest of my life paying for it.

lots of murderers get released but dont get the same publicity as they were adults when they committed the crimes. Surely these should be the ones people are outraged at rather than two children who knew no better.

Of course I would think differently had it been my child but that is why we have a legal system so that the victims family dont get to decide.

Yes, I think she should have been entitled to a meeting of somesort under the right circumstances with the two men but I dont know why this wasnt done.

lynch me now.

hercules Sun 28-Nov-04 11:13:01

I dont think it should have been a right to meet them but if they had been willing to meet her perhaps under arranged circumstances with experts it could have been done.

ScummyMummy Sun 28-Nov-04 11:13:12

Totally agree, hercules and aloha.

Caligula Sun 28-Nov-04 11:17:33

I think it depends on whether you believe in a justice system which rehabilitates, or one which pursues revenge forever.

I believe you cannot be a civilised society without the former.

So no, the poor woman shouldn't have the right to keep rubbing salt into her wound. But if knowing where they were would help her to somehow cope with the horror she has had to bear, and she gave an undertaking not to pass the information on to others, then yes she should have the right.

I can't see her doing that though.

jampot Sun 28-Nov-04 11:18:34

how would you feel if they were living next door to any of us though?

Angeliz Sun 28-Nov-04 11:19:07

Everyone puts it so much better than me!
(Sorry if i sounded so harsh, i just spoke from my heart)

hercules Sun 28-Nov-04 11:20:09

How do you know you dont already have a murderer living next door to you anyway? They dont have two horns on their head.

jampot Sun 28-Nov-04 11:21:00

Well obviously I don't know - but if you knew it to be the case how would you feel?

hercules Sun 28-Nov-04 11:21:39

I wouldnt like it because of the fear of vigilantes rather than a fear of them.

This thread is not accepting new messages.