The Bulger killers: was justice done?

[WannaBeWonderWoman]

Following on from previous thread which was filled.

What would have been the correct way to deal with these little boys who subjected a tiny two year old to protracted agony and unimaginable suffering then?

Interested to know what all the bleeding hearts on here believe should have happened? Whether they attended an adult court and were convicted of murder which they confessed to anyway, was this crueller to them than what they put that child through? They were well treated and even when they were serving their 'sentence' they were protected and given all they wanted (more than they would have got if they'd been in their own homes probably) and had all the help and therapy it was possible to give them. Did they suffer? You could actually argue that they benefitted from killing. They have to live with what they've done, yes, but if they did I find it hard to comprehend that Thompson especially (who came across as the leader in the interviews) can.

The Norwegian case which is often compared to this is nowhere similar IMO. The perpetrators were a similar age to their victim. They were 6 which is almost half the age V&T were and they wouldn't have been tried here anyway. Most importantly that crime was not premeditated or drawn out for hours like the many horrors inflicted on James.

He was the only victim here.

Just how far under someone's spell/influence do you have to be to go along with a suggestion like, "let's kill someone"?

And how does that even come up in conversation?

There are so many things that are difficult to bring up in a relationship sometimes (wanting more/less sex, any kinks, 'actually I really don't like your speciality dish that you cook', the first 'i love you' etc) how on earth does "Shall we kill this person" or even "should we abduct this child" come up?

Just how far under someone's spell/influence do you have to be to go along with a suggestion like, "let's kill someone"?

And how does that even come up in conversation?

There are so many things that are difficult to bring up in a relationship sometimes (wanting more/less sex, any kinks, 'actually I really don't like your speciality dish that you cook', the first 'i love you' etc) how on earth does "Shall we kill this person" or even "should we abduct this child" come up?

eggz, one of the fundamentals of the justice system is that the accused must be capable of understanding the process. Courts are complicated places so youth courts are simplified to make it easier for the child to understand. Putting a person through a trial when they have no hope of understanding what is going on is just wrong, imo.

For me it isn't so much about the upbringing of the children (though obviously that may have been a significant factor) as it is whether 10 year olds should be held as accountable as adult criminals when so much of their brains are yet to develop. Very few countries in the world have such a young age for criminal responsibility. 8 years and a focus of rehabilitation above punishment seems like a reasonable compromise to me given the horrific nature of the crime. For low level, non violent crime (shoplifting for example) it doesn't help anyone to give a pre-teen a criminal record.

If my 10yr old had done that I would say I’d be happy with him being tried as an adult.

I don’t care about anyone else but if my 2yr old child had been taken was raped abused stripped paint thrown over him all the while he was crying for me I would wont the book thrown at the 10 yr old perpetrators especially them being tried as adults,

a physiologist at the time said Robert Thomson was the more evil of the two and that Jon venebles was/ is scared of him,

Just think he could have Children at any primary school up or down this country, he could be abusing his wife or children Would the police actually know!!’

Thinking about it I think my issue with the youth court vs adult court is that they weren't guilty yet in the eyes of the law when they walked into that court.

It seems ok to try Venables and Thomson in an adult court because we know they were guilty of a heinous crime.

However, when BoyA and BoyB (or however they were initially described) walked into that adult court they were two 10-year-old children accused of something. Not two convicted killers. And that distinction must remain - we can't change the rules on how we try because of the crime or because we think we know what the outcome will be.

Sorry “want” and for anymore bad spelling or punctuation

Erm, I didn't carry it on. My post pointing out it wasn't beans was before you apologised/explained.

Whatever. This is how threads get derailed. I really wish MN had a better quote function. Would make life much easier.

Shit I did it again. I'm so sorry lala AND beans. Beans- I thought that quote was from lala. I agree lala, about the quote function. And my embarrassment wishes for a delete one too!!

I hope you'll both forgive me. I'm poorly so eye infection and throat infection. Means I can't see properly and that i'm too tired t concentrate well at all.

Genuine apologies and and to both.

I'm off for medicine and bed, i'll leave you to it

I think you mean a Psychologist and not a physiologist. And no decent Psychologist would ever use the word 'evil' to describe a person, never mind a child. It's really, really not the kind of vocabulary used by Psychologists.

It's forgotten Lady - a lot of people would have just never posted on the thread again so kudos for apologising. Hope you feels better soon.

a physiologist at the time said Robert Thomson was the more evil of the two and that Jon venebles was/ is scared of him

A physiologist? I doubt any mental health professional would have used the term evil.

Just think he could have Children at any primary school up or down this country, he could be abusing his wife or children Would the police actually know!!

I believe he is gay and is a long term relationship with a man who knows his true identity. You would also have found out in the press if he had reoffended, as we did with Venables.

In fact can you report your own posts t delete? Don't wnt them on there its a sensitie subject. Or do you have to reprt to delete? If so could you please?

Thnk you lala, means a lot. My eyes have gne worse need thr drpps sorry for spelling. Bed time. Thanks beans and lala for your loveliness

I believe he is gay and is a long term relationship with a man who knows his true identity. You would also have found out in the press if he had reoffended, as we did with Venables.

I wondered if the whole 'he could have kids or be in a relationship with someone with kids' is why this leaked out? To stop more speculation about him when there's so much about Venables as he must worry that someone somewhere will just out them both.

You can report your own posts

You only have to listen to the interviews to see that Thompson was the lead and much more streetwise than Venables. That was confirmed with the interview with the social worker.

Wouldn't surprise me if Venables had some sort of learning difficulty and was easily led by him but surely that would have come up as a defence?

I have a DS with LDs and he has made friendships like this.

I agree with you on that aspect too, lala. When they walked in to that courtroom they were entitled to presumption of innocence. In order to defend oneself against accusations which have not been proven you have to understand what is happening. It is why some adult criminals are even given an appropriate adult who is responsible for making sure they understand what is going on.

The UNICEF report mentioned earlier in the thread is worth a read. According to that report, even a jury member involved in the trial said they felt under pressure due to media frenzy in the case. The whole thing was handled badly by the courts and media. The media didn't even get his name right - James' mother shouldn't have had to correct them on their mistaken use of 'Jamie'.

I wondered if the whole 'he could have kids or be in a relationship with someone with kids' is why this leaked out? To stop more speculation about him when there's so much about Venables as he must worry that someone somewhere will just out them both

Maybe, but couldn't he just be gay? I think quite a few journalists know the new identities of both V and T but there is a lifelong injunction so reporting would be illegal. There are probably other people who know too- I think it was said at one point that Denise Fergus knows their new identities, but nothing will get leaked in the media due to the reporting ban.

Thanks ladyinparis hope you feel better soon and sorry for my own “fucking idiotic” comment. I shouldn’t have said it even though I disagreed with the post I was quoting.

Yes the social worker did say Thompson had a girlfriend while in the home. I thought it convenient he had 'turned' gay. No worries he could start a relationship with a mother of a toddler or have kids himself.

If he has relocated abroad as was hinted, how would they monitor him?

I doubt foreign police would invest that much in keeping tabs on him.

Maybe, but couldn't he just be gay? I think quite a few journalists know the new identities of both V and T but there is a lifelong injunction so reporting would be illegal. There are probably other people who know too- I think it was said at one point that Denise Fergus knows their new identities, but nothing will get leaked in the media due to the reporting ban.

I wasn't suggesting that's why he lives with a man. I meant I wonder if it was leaked out that he's in a gay relationship and lives with a man who knows - so no children mentioned, like when Venables relationship with someone with a child came out. The child aspect is always going to be the main focus with these two.

It's illegal to leak anything about them, but things so leak out. They must worry every day with things like Twitter that someone who knows their identities could out them. There would be repercussions for the person that did, but we've seen it in high profile rape cases so it's a new worry for them with social media.

Jemima they had already confessed and related to the police the horrific things they'd done to James before the trial. There wouldn't have been a presumption of innocence except in the fact that they were children but they weren't innocent either way.

I really wonder if T has done better as he actually is the one who is a sociopath or psychopath and isn't plagued by what he did, it's just something that happened

T was the one who went and laid a flower to "prove it wasn't him" didn't he? Showing signs of copying the way people are expected to behave but without really having empathy etc

Yes the social worker did say Thompson had a girlfriend while in the home. I thought it convenient he had 'turned' gay. No worries he could start a relationship with a mother of a toddler or have kids himself.

Having a heterosexual teenage relationship doesn't mean that you can't come out as gay later in life. I doubt the media is in cahoots with the probation service or something. And surely they would have lied and said that Venables was gay too- instead they reported that he HAD started a relationship with a woman with a child. From what I read, Thompson is not resident abroad and I am pretty sure the terms of his licence would stop him from moving abroad.

WannaBe I wonder what countries would take them. Presumably none with strict entry criteria like Australia.

Any request to live abroad would have to be signed off by a chief executive of a Probation Trust and then be confirmed by the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State has given this authority to governors (for determinate sentenced prisoners) and the Public Protection Casework Section in HMPPS (for indeterminately sentenced prisoners).

I think a process like that would have leaked out. Can you imagine if he was going somewhere like Australia or the USA with the hoops for visas? Someone would leak that I think.

they had already confessed and related to the police the horrific things they'd done to James before the trial. There wouldn't have been a presumption of innocence except in the fact that they were children but they weren't innocent either way.

There was no guilty plea though. The jury heard all the details and facts and then found them guilty. So, there must still have been a presumption of innocence when they walked into that court because the court hadn't heard the confession tapes.