C4 now - the James Bulger case **Trigger Warning - Contains Info about the case** (Title edited by MNHQ)

[Hairgician]

Sat watching this now.

I do not accept the view that those 2 boys were treated unfairly. They murdered that poor little boy and they knew what they were doing and that it was wrong.

They should be rotting in jail. Aibu to say justice not served??

Strange how some posters get their enjoyment out of declaring how nasty they find other posters and showing how far beneath them judgement of others is

Indeed, sanctimony is practically an Olympic event these days, the internet especially is awash with it. You just have to laugh and occasionally roll your eyes.

Of course the media know who and where they are. It is extremely naive to assume otherwise. How else do you think that they tracked down Mary Bel in order to out her in the News of the World all those years ago?

Also, if it was in the public interest for it to be revealed that JV had re-offended his identity would have been made public and it wasn’t.

And in the electronic age we now live in we are dealing with not only the UK press but also the world’s press. If RT had reoffended we would know about it.

In other cases where two children together have committed very serious crimes, it often ends up being that one was a follower and would never have done this without the other child. I suspect that is what happened in this case. And note it is the child with the worst background who has not reoffended.

"If RT had reoffended we would know about it."

Only if he'd been caught.

This was a programme that tackled what the legal system should do with children who kill other children. The murder of James Bulger was particularly distressful because it was premeditated and carried out in such a way that you would have thought an adult had committed it.

I was pregnant with my first child when this happened. It shocked me to the core. However, I had returned back to work after maternity leave by the time the trial was finished. I remember bringing in the Mirror that had the pictures of the two boys who had killed James. We all sat in shock and disbelief that those so young could do such a brutal and premeditated killing.

There are no easy answers to this. Venables clearly still has serious issues and probably is beyond rehabilitation now. He probably needs to stay in custody for the rest of his life.

For a start, you're assuming that RT would have been caught if he committed an offence.

And then you go on and you use that same assumption that we can all rely on the absence of media stories as absolute proof that RT hasn't reoffended.

The next step is for this to become justification for future releases (indeed see the PP about RT above). Like a negative can 100% prove a positive.

No thanks - I think assumptions are a slippery slope, however secure you feel the ground is. I'd rather trust the experts to assess each case that place all my faith in what the press does/not report.

Only if he'd been caught. of course but that goes for any criminal really who is out on licence or indeed any criminal before they are caught.

So that’s a bit of a non argument really but if one is being pedantic about it, then - if RT had knowingly offended again we would know about it.

Worth remembering imo that what they did was apparently premeditated. The CCTV from the shopping centre apparently shows them shoplifting some of the items they later used to assault him with (the blue paint and the batteries for e.g.)

In terms of their accountability, that is relevant to my mind. This wasn't some "caught up in the heat of the moment" incident. They had time to think it through....and they went ahead and did it anyway.

They were both analysed by leading child psychiatrists at the time - Dr Vizard (Thompson) and Dr Bailey (Venables) - who both said with high degrees of confidence that the child they were tasked with assessingknew right from wrong and knew it was wrong to take a child away from their parents and seriously hurt them. Quite why a bunch of armchair psychiatrists on mumsnet who have never even met the subjects in question feel they are better placed than well respected experts to determine that V&T wouldn't have known what they did was wrong "because they were abused themselves" is beyond me. I find it staggeringly arrogant tbh that anyone would think they knew better than the experts who actually assessed the defendants in person!

Both apparently suffered from PTSD incidentally as a result of what they did that day. I say this not to encourage sympathy for V&T (certainly I don't feel any sympathy for either of the. myself) but in terms of the issue of remorse, I would suggest that they have in their own ways been deeply affected by it and that this would indicate remorse/horror at what they did. Based on what I've read, I think Venables self-disclosure of his true identity is NOT to do with some sick sense of pride in his own notoriety. I think it's more that he is (justifiably) so fucked up by the horror of what he's done that the burden of living with the consequences of it, including the burden of constantly living a lie and hiding his true identity, is a burden he is simply incapable of carrying. I still don't feel any sympathy towards him though.

At ten the child knows what they are doing is wrong, but they do not have the adult thinking to know what the life-long consequences of that could be if they end up spending the rest of their lives, how long would that be? 70? 80 years? In jail.

I don't feel that should be the consequence they are thinking about. Rather that a small boy will never see their mum again.

That, they knew.

I think if you're talking about two 10 year olds who push a child in the river, and the child drowns. You could potentially see that as a 'mistake'. Maybe they didn't intend to kill, maybe they didn't realise etc. Just maybe.

But this, was entirely different.

Completely pre-meditated.

Why walk 3 miles to a secluded place? Because they knew it was wrong.

Why lie to the passers by that he was their brother? Because they knew it was wrong, what they were about to do.

Why tell James they were trying to find his mum? To keep him quiet, so they could do what they had planned to do.

Why lie about killing him? Because they knew they were in trouble, because what they did was wrong.

Maybe the frontal lobes don't help to see the consequence of jail, but I don't think what they did could ever be described as a childhood mistake.

I don't think the media handle anything well to be honest, they shouldn't have put their pictures everywhere, and they shouldn't have created that mob reaction.

However, I think once anyone reads the exact details, it's a normal reaction.

I was 11 at the time when it broke. So only a year older, and I was horrified that someone my age could do that to a child.

Trevor McDonald is doing a programme on Thursday at 9pm.

Why do some people think it's "worse" if it was premeditated? It makes no difference.

The fact of the matter is, no matter what the circumstances, these two were young children. This does not mean they should be excused from responsibility but as a society we already acknowledge that 10 is not old enough to exercise adult-type judgement. That's why 10 year olds can't drink alcohol, consent to sex, drive a car, have a job or get married.

I don't give a crap what happens to Thompson & Venables...live, die, it's all the same to me. But it's imperative for all of us that we have a judicial system which strives for objectivity, is not powered by emotion or notions of revenge and take into account all mitigating factors....and that these were children is one.

'Unparalleled evil' were the words used to describe this.

At around this time adults put incendiary devices in bins outside a McDonalds in Warrington and two children were killed. To me this is an act of pure evil. Always will be; and I was born a Catholic in Northern Ireland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks

Oh jeez

Why do some people think it's "worse" if it was premeditated? It makes no difference.

Of course it does when it comes to sentencing.

What I found telling about the programme was the question, 'Would you like to be judged by a jury of 10 year olds?' The answer is obviously no.

I agreed with the journalist from the New Yorker.

The boys had tried to take a child the day before.

You have to wonder was there someone else involved? I've never read the full details of James Bulger's murder. I never will.

Surely it doesn't matter why they did what they did - they did it and it makes them a danger. If they were not of sound mind at the time due to abuse that is even more a reason to not let them out. It's what secure psychiatric hospitals are for. What they did to that poor, defenceless, beautiful boy is unspeakable. If they thought they were doing no wrong why did they drag him 2 miles and isolate him? They should have been detained indefinitely.

I totally think the of course they should have been punished.

But trying 10 year old children as adults, when most women on MN won't even let their 10 year old stay at home for 30 mins on their own, is not appropriate in any situation.

I don't give a crap what happens to Thompson & Venables...live, die, it's all the same to me. But it's imperative for all of us that we have a judicial system which strives for objectivity, is not powered by emotion or notions of revenge and take into account all mitigating factors....and that these were children is one.

^100% agree

You know adults who kill a child are rarely detained indefinitely?

Well they didn't drag him two miles. They walked around, even going into a pet shop from which they were chased. They passed many people at that time. No one intervened.

that I struggle with is that the parents of those 2 boys didn't seem to get any punishment (i'm not sure thats the right word, maybe I mean consequences) for allowing those 2 children to grow up in such a way that they were capable of such a heinous act.

Not sure how much of a new identity they were given but if a family of 6 children with scouse accents turned up on your estate with a mother with a drink problem it wouldn't take long for you to work it out.

I believe both families have had to move a number of times.

Link to a newspaper that gives some background

www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships

I can't actually find anything that states Venables suffered the hugely abusive childhood as stated by numerous posters? From what I've read his parents split and he had 2 siblings both with mild learning difficulties and a mother who was possibly overly strict- she took him to the police station for truanting. Am I missing something?

That is what I remember being posted in the press at the time. Unless my memory is wrong?

I hate threads like these because I just can't fathom for a second how anyone can be sympathetic to those boys. It's very frustrating to read. They need to be away from society. They don't deserve to be alive...

That poor lad Think of him as your own toddler and imagine that pain.

Shockingly they actually murdered James after taking him because they were worried about getting into trouble for abducting him. So went to the next level of murder. It kills me a little inside this whole case to be honest.