Jon Venables: Albert Kirby And Denise Fergus Are Bled By A Rapacious Media
JON Venables, one of James Bulger’s killers, is causing a “storm”, says the Daily Star. Only, he isn’t. It’s just the media that wants him to. Before we hear from former Det Supt Albert Kirby, who led the investigation and who features on the BBC TV show Jon Venables: What Went Wrong?, here’s a quick look at the story so far:
On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was abducted and murdered by ten-year-old boys Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. In November 1993, Venables and Thompson were jailed. Venables went to Red Bank unit in Newton-le-Willows. Thompson went to Barton Moss secure children’s unit in Eccles, Greater Manchester.
In 2001, they were released on lifelong licence. Venables broke his licence and in 2010 was recalled to jail. He was then found guilty of downloading and distributing child porn.
Before the details of Venables’ crimes were knows, Kirby speculated.
“Was it a social offence, drink or drug related, was it dishonesty or was it violence, heaven forbid?”
The man who led the case to catch Bulger’s killers was speculating.
Today, the Star says:
THE policeman who arrested one of James Bulger’s killers has called for him to be sent to a mental hospital.
Has he?
Former Det Supt Albert Kirby tells a TV programme tonight that Jon Venables, now 28, “was not fit for release in 2001 and is again not fit for release now…
He added: “He is a very disturbed young man and it would a recipe for disaster if they were to put him back on the outside without specialist treatment.”
What he actually said was recorded by the Liverpool Echo:
“When you look now at what we found out in nine months making this programme I seriously question the professional credibility of those who were involved in the care of Venables – and certainly those involved in the decision-making to say he was suitable for release.
“There was no doubt that lad was having tremendous problems coming to terms with what he had done.”
Rather than being the tale of a monocular man who demands Venables be locked away, as the Star suggests, Kirby is voice of reason who possesses compassion and understanding.
“As one of the commentators who had a lot of dealings with him over all the time he was in Red Bank said, the problem with Jon Venables was he was just thick. Despite what they said, he didn’t have the mental capacity to handle everything. As well as that he had this added burden of false identity and that, really, was just too much . . . You can see, years before he got rearrested, he couldn’t handle it – his life was falling apart.”
What about Venables being a “recipe for disaster”?
He adds:
“There was far too much emphasis on him presenting no harm to the public – one thing they didn’t take into account was the harm he could do to himself.”
So. He needs locking up not for our good but for his own good.
“There were other ways they could have dealt with him (apart from prison). Certainly when he started to go off the rails with drink and drugs, they could have brought him in under the Mental Health Act – they could have put him into Ashworth hospital as a voluntary patient and carried on the work there with him, rather than let him just continue – I think that is a big, big issue.”
Still, never mind what the genuine expert says – the one who knows the rule of law and Venables. The media wants blood and vengeance. Here’s the transcript from the show 60 Minutes, in which Liam Bartlett, Peter Prince and Denise Fergus (Bulger’s mum) chew the fact. The segment is called Beyond Redemption – a title that gives you some expectations as to the show’s content:
LIAM BARTLETT: The dark cloud of one of the worst crimes in British history still hangs over Liverpool like a shroud, only now the anger is back as well.
Is it?
PETER PRINCE: Welcome to the program. It’s the evening show, and tonight we are talking about Venables.
LISTENER 1 ON RADIO: The amount of money that’s been spent protecting, this scumbag, who’s done what he’s done.
LISTENER 2 ON RADIO: I think they should have been named and told where they are.
So that they can be hurt?
LISTENER 1: They’re like the devil’s child, the both of them.
So. It’s not their fault. They are possessed?
LIAM BARTLETT: The collective memory of a nation has gone back to that February day 17 years ago, the horrifying freeze frame when 2-year-old James Bulger was lured to his death – a murder made so sickening because the killers were children themselves. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just 10 and, much to the nation’s outrage, they were free again by the age of 18.
PETER PRINCE: It’s an awful thing to say, and it’s an awful thing to say on television – they’ve had a taste of blood and I believe they will never change.
But they have never killed again, nor come close to doing so.
LIAM BARTLETT: In practical terms, Thompson and Venables don’t exist any more. After eight years of therapy and rehabilitation the authorities gave them new identities. The boys were set free with different names, different cover stories, to allow them to lead normal lives, but they’re not boys any longer and, at 27, Jon Venables is charged with a new and grotesque crime – downloading and distributing photographs of child pornography. It means that the controversy of how two child murderers got off so lightly is exploding all over again.
Normal lives? Never talking about your past life, not even to a lover, is normal? Never revealing your true identity is normal? Reporting to the police regularly and having your life monitored is normal?
DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT ALBERT KIRBY: Despite all the work that was done to rehabilitate them back into society, it’s obviously failed and it looks as though there have been some serious failings.
Thompson has committed no crime since the murder of James Bulger.
LIAM BARTLETT: Detective Superintendent Albert Kirby headed the Bulger murder investigation. Tonight he’ll reveal an aspect of the case that was suppressed at the time, that shows what a truly evil act it was and will make you wonder if what’s happening now was inevitable.
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: Why didn’t they identify the behavioural problems before it came to this?
LIAM BARTLETT: Are you surprised that he’s offended again?
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: If I was to be asked prior to all this which boy was going to reoffend, it would not have been Venables. I was bitterly disappointed when I found out it was him.
The conversation turns to Fergus, Bulger’s mother who is understanbly emotive, but continues to be presented by a rapine media as the voice of reason. Her views are presented as the voice of common sense. But how can she be? Her child was murdered. The media is not listening to her. The media is using her to stir emotions in the audience and create a debate.
LIAM BARTLETT: When you go out in public any time like this, do you ever look at people and think, “It could be him, or it could be him”?
DENISE FERGUS: In the beginning I did, yeah, but not any more.
LIAM BARTLETT: Denise Fergus, James Bulger’s mum, and her husband, Stuart, believe this wouldn’t be happening if the child killers were punished properly, rather than getting just eight years in detention.
DENISE FERGUS: They got no punishment whatsoever. They got rewarded for murdering James – that’s why I’ve never let it go and I won’t let it go.
LIAM BARTLETT: You think the way they were treated was a reward?
DENISE FERGUS: Of course it was a reward because they never spent no time in a prison. They got put into a children’s home and from there released. In the children’s home, they get looked after, they get to play snooker tables, decent meals in front of them. Yeah, they were getting day trips out, taken to football matches, you know? That is not punishment.
LISTENER: I think some very, very serious questions need to be asked, Pete.
PETER PRINCE: Yeah, I agree with you.
LIAM BARTLETT: And many people, including Liverpool talk show host Peter Price, believe THAT special treatment is continuing now…
LISTENER: It’s just unbelievable to me.
PETER PRINCE: Yeah.
LIAM BARTLETT: ..even with Venables facing child pornography charges.
LISTENER: This has been an absolute disaster.
PETER PRINCE: They’ve never been punished, in my humble opinion. for what they’ve done. They shouldn’t have been mollycoddled and protected the way they were protected. Remember – a baby was tortured and slaughtered.
LIAM BARTLETT: The anger still runs deep because everyone here remembers what a calculated and brutal murder it was. Instead of going to school, Venables and Thompson came here to the Strand Shopping Centre actually looking for a child to kill. At around midday they tried to lure another toddler outside into the traffic, but that failed. Then they spotted James Bulger. As his mum stood at the butcher shop counter, they enticed little Jamie at just the right moment.
Do you sense a hint of pornographic delight in reliving the horror of the crime?
DENISE FERGUS: It was just so, so quick. As I say, I just reached out for my purse to pay money over the counter. I mean, he was there and when I turned back he’d gone – that’s how quick it happened.
LIAM BARTLETT: So in the time it took for you to take the money out of your purse…
DENISE FERGUS: He’d gone.
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: All the shopping precinct is covered by CCTV. I think some of the iconic pictures were of Thompson and Venables holding James’s hand, walking away.
LIAM BARTLETT: That was Venables holding his hand?
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: Yeah. They were outside the shopping centre in probably just under two minutes. It was that that quick. They knew exactly where they were going to.
LIAM BARTLETT: They were going to commit murder. They walked James along a canal and through the back alleys of Liverpool to avoid being spotted. In two hours, they covered 4km – a huge journey for a terrified and exhausted 2-year-old. Finally to a railway line, and there they threw rocks and bricks at James, beat him with an iron bar, interfered with him in a sexual way and left him on the tracks, where he was later run over by a train.
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: If you could see the severity of what they did to James on the railway line, it was grotesque to the extreme. They knew what they were doing to that little boy.
LIAM BARTLETT: The sexual nature of James’ killing was never publicly revealed, but Superintendent Kirby believes it should have been given greater consideration in sentencing and rehabilitating Thompson and Venables.
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: There was always a very serious concern in my mind over the sexual element over James’s murder. I feel that, that may have not been treated with the severity as it should have been. I think that the bigger impact was to ensure that they were released within the time frame that had been set by the courts and that has detracted from the real treatment that they should have gone through.
LIAM BARTLETT: Even now, after all this time, 17 years, there’s no doubt in your mind that it wasn’t just a prank gone wrong, it was evil?
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: Yes, there’s no doubt in my mind – it was complete evil intent.
Evil. Does casting the murder as evil offer Venables and Thompson an excuse?
LAURENCE LEE: I think they got a hot potato and just didn’t know what to do after a while, and they had to get rid of him and tragically, um, the rest is history. They took him up to the railway.
LIAM BARTLETT: Given the level of anger, Laurence Lee is a brave man – one of the few in Britain who, to this day, dares defend the boys. He was Jon Venables’ lawyer. Are you telling me you don’t think it was premeditated? They didn’t intend to kill James Bulger?
LAURENCE LEE: I think that they wanted to take this little boy for a laugh, as it were, and having taken him, they couldn’t give him back, and they just didn’t know what to do. And the logic of 10-year-olds, unfortunately – evil 10-year-olds, as it turns out – dictated that they dealt with it in a way totally different than should have been.
LIAM BARTLETT: You sound as though you still have some sympathy for Venables?
LAURENCE LEE: I don’t have any sympathy whatsoever as a result of what they did. I am putting forward purely and simply legal argument, talking like a lawyer.
LIAM BARTLETT: The 10-year-olds faced furious crowds at the Liverpool court and behind the scenes, their lawyer worried they’d never get a fair trial.
LAURENCE LEE: I looked out the window and I saw this baying mob and I could see the bricks being thrown. It was just unbelievable.
LIAM BARTLETT: The rallying cry was “Lock them up and throw away the key!” But the judge ruled that rehabilitation while in detention was the sensible sentence. Both were found equally culpable, though police and lawyers agreed Thompson was the ringleader and Venables the nicer of the two.
Venables was led?
LAURENCE LEE: Throughout the trial he was respectful, polite, remorseful and he had a bad time in court. He really did suffer – unlike Thompson, who didn’t seem to show any remorse. He is one of the few kids of that age who, for example, bought me a birthday present. You know, I mean, that’s only a little thing but, you know, it shows that he cared.
LIAM BARTLETT: Because they were babies themselves, these callous killers received special privileges. There are stories of seaside visits and trips to football matches to prepare them for their release. Safeguarding and rehabilitating them cost British taxpayers millions of pounds and it’s likely Venables will need another new identity after he faces these new charges.
PETER PRINCE: People are shaking their heads in disbelief because he’s had the best of the best to help him. If he hasn’t learnt from all the mollycoddling and help he’s had and the professionals that have been looking after him, then we have created a monster.
Monster. An evil monster? Is this sensible talk?
LIAM BARTLETT: James’s mum, on the other hand, has received no help, apart from an outpouring of public sympathy.
DENISE FERGUS: This case has always been one-sided. It’s always been “What about Venables? What about Thompson?” What about me and what about my family? What about my kids?
LIAM BARTLETT: To add insult to injury, it was reported that after his release Venables made return visits to Liverpool to walk the streets of the town he so horrified. Denise has been told he was a heavy drinker, prone to violence, and was seen boozing and chatting up young girls in local pubs.
Young girls in the pub. Or young women? Are the facts not grim enough that we need to manipulate language to make things seem worse?
DENISE FERGUS: Oh God, it just doesn’t even bear to think about.
But let’s think about it.
LIAM BARTLETT: Isn’t it one of the parole conditions, that he’s not allowed to come to Liverpool?
DENISE FERGUS: Well, that was the agreement, but as I say the allegations are that he has been coming to Liverpool. And he is certainly not allowed to come near me or my family. How do I know he hasn’t been to my sister’s house with her daughter or, you know, my brother’s house with his daughter? I just don’t know.
LIAM BARTLETT: Venables’ re-arrest has British authorities questioning the entire handling of the Bulger case.
DET. SUPT. ALBERT KIRBY: I think the sentence was far too low. I think it was too low, not only from punishment purposes, but also to ensure that they could make that integration back into society.
PETER PRINCE: They should be incarcerated without any shadow of a doubt. They never have been.
LIAM BARTLETT: What just throw Thompson back in jail too?
PETER PRINCE: If it is proved that Venables has in fact, um, been found guilty of these hideous crimes, it’s just touching on something that could be even more sinister and I think they should go back and revisit the case and maybe see if there’s any evidence to prove that both of them were involved in something far more sinister.
LIAM BARTLETT: James’s mum says she tries not to think about his murder, for her family’s sake. After the tragedy, Denise’s marriage failed and she remarried, to Stuart Fergus. They have three young boys. But their lives will be forever haunted by two names – Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, one now awaiting trial and back behind bars, the other free to roam the world with a new identity. Do you know where Thompson is?
DENISE FERGUS: Speculation is that he’s in Australia, but I’m not sure if that’s 100% true.
Why speculate?
LIAM BARTLETT: Australia! But no-one’s told you for sure?
DENISE FERGUS: No.
LIAM BARTLETT: You’ve done very well to bounce back, haven’t you?
DENISE FERGUS: I always bounce back. I mean, I am like a spring.
LIAM BARTLETT: She’s amazing Stuart, isn’t she?
STUART FERGUS: Yeah. Mean, I look at her sometimes because, like, she’s so petite, but the fighting spirit she’s got in her even amazes me. I wouldn’t be able to cope with what she’s gone through, certainly not.
Is she coping?
DENISE FERGUS: I always say to Stuart, “I might be small, but I’m still all there.”
LIAM BARTLETT: You pack a punch?
STUART FERGUS: Yeah.
You want sensible debate? Forget it.
September 9th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
“What is so wrong with Denise Fergus wanting people to consider her or her family?”
Absolutely nothing. There IS something wrong, however, with her constantly spreading lies and half-truths about the perpetrators. She is entitled to hate them and feel bitterness towards them – I don’t blame her for that – but she is NOT entitled to simply make imaginary “facts” up out of whole cloth without being challenged. Victimhood is not sainthood, and being the victim of a terrible tragedy does not give her the right to blithely rewrite the factual record to suit her purposes. There was no sniggering and heartless laughing over their crime during the trial, yet both of James’ parents have insisted that this happened. WHAT THEY ADAMANTLY AND VOCALLY DECLARE HAPPENED SIMPLY DID NOT HAPPEN. THEY ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG ABOUT THAT, AND ABOUT MANY OTHER THINGS. If you’re going to go around making up a whole series of pseudo-facts, you have to accept criticism over your views (especially since many of the pitchfork-wavers out there who want Venables and Thompson dead specifically cite these Denise-Fergus-originating pseudo-facts as a justification for their vengefulness). Even convicted killers have a right not to be slandered, libelled, and lied about. Lies have consequences, and Denise Fergus has become a serial liar.
And that’s just one particularly egregious example. There are dozens more. Her opinion simply must be discounted, because she’s constantly stating falsehoods every time she grants an interview.
September 4th, 2012 at 5:40 am
One aspect of the Bulger murder that hasn’t received sufficient attention is the fact, reported by both Gitta Sereny and David James Smith, that Jon Venables underwent surgery to correct his squint (“lazy eye”) a few weeks or months before he killed James.
According to American trauma expert Peter Levine, invasive surgeries can be one of the most substantial causes of severe PTSD (and accompanying “rage” reaction) in young children. Not only that, but Levine specifically singles out operations to correct “lazy eye” as being among the potentially most traumatizing types of surgery!
Now, obviously Venables was already troubled long before he had the surgery. However, it’s quite possible that the surgery exacerbated his emotional problems and was a more significant causal factor in Venables’ murderous behaviour than has yet been appreciated. This possibility should have been investigated and explored at the time – were there any observable changes in Venables behaviour at school and at home after he underwent the surgery?
See Levine’s paper “Trauma: The Vortex of Violence” for further specifics as to the potentially catastrophic consequences of surgery performed on children, ESPECIALLY children from unsupportive, non-nurturing families, where the parents lack the emotional resources to console and comfort their children:
http://www.open-source-cranio.com/resources/articles/TraumaLevine.pdf
December 18th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I didn’t watch this programme, but did see it online.
There are times when I think that if Venables was mine, I would do anything to show him the way (not in a religious sense). “James’ blood will forever stain you. There are people who want to kill you. I can’t bear to think about what you’ve done, and I know nothing, unlike others. You may be alive, but you can’t escape what you did. You can’t erase what you did. I’ve read how your eyes are black and dead, that you are the Devil. I can’t let you live up to these words anymore”.
What is so wrong with Denise Fergus wanting people to consider her or her family? What about Ralph Bulger, and everyone affected? I’d strongly encourage people to visit the ForJames website (www.forjames.org) and donate to a positive legacy for James. Denise is taking power back by doing this.
Love to all.
June 30th, 2011 at 5:59 am
And that makes it right then does it? Pushing them off a cliff?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Venables and Thompson should have “accidents”. You have sea-side cliffs over there, so think about it. Your government will not provide any justice, they don’t care. Get it sorted.
April 25th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
What is pretty clear to me is that there is a growing backlash against, if not Denise herself then certainly her position. We might ask why this story has stopped being followed by the broadsheets largely. Why Ken Clarke has openly told Denise to stop trying to contact him and why David Cameron has so far refused to respond to her demands for a meeting. I’m sure there are even some in Liverpool who have felt somewhat queasy about her taking money for an interview in The Sun so close to the Hillsborough anniversary. I can’t imagine her loss but that should not mean I should be shouted down for believing that not only is she wrong, but very, very wrong.
Like Emma, I also think that it is simplistic to wave off these two as ‘evil’. We are not living in the dark ages where we have to dream up supernatural reasons for things. It would be far easier if they were simply evil but the truth is scarier in my opinion. To a degree, the ‘evil’ nature of the kids in question is contrasted with the victim – a mere baby – utterly innocent, unsullied by any bad intent or deed. But that was once the nature of Venables and Thompson and only people who have seen The Omen too many times and still believe in the devil could think that the ‘badness’ was in them from the start. The view of childhood as always innocent comes from Romanticism actually – before then there was a real view of every child as inherently bad – stained with original sin. So it is quite a new idea of childhood – from around the late 18th/early 19th century. But then of course for every assumption, there is an opposite. So throughout the nineteenth century, there was this idea that the biggest threat to the innocent nature of childhood – was the opposite. The feral child, the deviant child, the criminal child, the EVIL child. The pickpocketing thief in rags was not a victim – could never be. He was simply naturally bad. In fact, children behave badly all the time – even in my childhood I can think of some events which may have led to serious injury (or even death) so pointing a finger and saying ‘evil’ is not only simplistic, it’s rather unintelligent. Even Charles Dickens knew that this was not the case – even Bill Sikes in Oliver Twist became what he was, he was not born that way.
I’ve worked with a lot of young offenders. Some of whom are so damaged and disturbed through various life experiences that I believe there is a chance they may always be dangerous. But inherently evil? I have never seen that (and believe me, I’ve seem some kids who have done some awful things).
April 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Cheshire, I’m 35, my son is 8 and my daughter is 5. I have no idea what relevance this has.
And we have freedom of speech in this country so Denise Fergus can say what she likes. Where have I said she should be ‘stopped’?
However, likewise, if she is going to make public statements (some of which I – and others – find unpaleteable) and go to the tabloids with them (and get paid for them), then I think she should expect to have some of those views questionned and challenged. The idea that you can’t challenge anything she says because she suffered a devastating loss, I find utterly dumb – particularly as some of things she has said have been untrue (she once claimed Venables was married with two kids for example).
April 24th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Emma – how old are you/your children?
I ask only because you seem to have a very black and white atttitude to how a mother (Denise, in this case) should and shouldnt behave after her tiny child was taken away, brutalised and tortured to death by no good scum! It was a pre-meditated act committed by boys who WERE old enough to know it was ‘evil’…..If Mrs Fergus wants to shout her torment from the rooftops on a daily basis, I for one will not be stopping her!!
April 24th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Monica: ‘Most European Countries still try children for murder but the difference being that they do so in a closed court and not in an open court which happened in this case’
No they do not. You can only try a child if he/she is above the age of criminal responsibility. In the UK, this is 10 – this is why the two children in question were tried, convicted and sentenced. It is the lowest in Europe.
This article is two years old – both Ireland and Scotland have raised their age of criminal responsibility since to 12 I believe, leaving England/Wales the lowest in Europe:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5233971.ece
You cannot hold a child criminally responsible below the age of responsibility. So for Netherlands and Canada 12, 13 in France, 14 in Russia, Japan, Germany and Italy, 15 in Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 16 in Spain and Portugal and 18 in Belgium, Brazil and Peru. None of these countries would have put those two boys before a court. ANY court. So are ARE wrong there.
‘both were granted imunity after being sentenced – the difference being Thompson did not hide behind it all.’
I don’t know what you mean by this. What is ‘immunity’? The press couldn’t report where they were or any details of their life in secure units but Venables was allowed by his unit to change his name immediately on being placed there (something which may well have been a mistake as it could have prevented him fully facing up to the reality of what he had done). Thompson, on the other hand had his own name throughout.
And I do think those around Denise Fergus have more of a responsibilty. Particularly her PR agent (Chris Johnson) who is largely responsible for the repellent media response. But Denise could refuse to talk to the tabloids couldn’t she? She could refuse money from The Sun and The News of the World when they ask for interviews. She doesn’t.
As for being ‘evil’, I will always maintain this is a lazy argument. No-one is disputing that what they did was evil (ie the act was evil) but to label two ten year old kids as ‘evil’ is medieval thinking.
So yes, we will disagree here.
April 24th, 2011 at 12:53 am
Emma, it wasnt just about the identity of 2 people here, it was the identity of both famlies too. This was before the trial even began of where both families had to be moved out of merseyside due to death threats and the anger of local people which costs money so its ok to qoute that it costs 60K per year for a prisoner and less than 10k per person for probation but we are not talking about just one person here – we are talking about several people who would also be heavily monitered to ensure that the whereabouts of 2 people did not become public knowledge so costs mount up. Thompson did enter his secure unit the same way Venables did as both were granted imunity after being sentenced – the difference being Thompson did not hide behind it all. Most European Countries still try children for murder but the difference being that they do so in a closed court and not in an open court which happened in this case. As for Denise getting money out of the press, she has gone to the press in order to keep the story alive of 2 evil kids and the mother who lost her little one. The press in the UK will always feed on this so when anything does get fed to the press about Thompson/Venables, they will automatically go to Denise for a reaction. It is also worth bearing in mind that the susequent children she has had have been so wrapped up in cotton wool, that they have been unable to lead normal lives due to her own paranonia which is constantly been fed by the media. I am with Stuart when he remarked that those around Denise should help her accept that justice has been served – end of. In reality here Emma we are not going to agree on this at all so perhaps it would be better to accept we both have valid arguments and leave it at that.
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Monica, Thompson kept his own name throughout his time at Barton Moss – everyone knew who he was – apparently they insisted on honesty there. It was only on release that he got a new identity. And the media found it very easy to report on Thompson’s life there – plenty of fellow inmates took money from tabloids in order to tell tales (most of which weren’t even very interesting).
And, no the cost in releasing them was not more than sticking them in an adult prison. Even if they were put into prison, they would STILL have needed new identities so that cost would be the same. Supervision on parole (of even the most intense kind) would cost around 10k maximum versus the 60-70k per year that it would cost to keep them in prison.
As for Denise Fergus – she too has accepted money from tabloids. She isn’t just a victim of them – she is also part of the issue.
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Sorry but to give both of them and their families new identities did cost alot more than putting them into prision due to their names being released after their trials. Security has been the obvious thing here especially with Venables being such a loose cannon. The cost of new papers, the psycologists involved as well as the probation services and the overall cost of the police having to monitor their curfuws all builds up – and this does not include the overall relocation of the families etc.
Considering that both of them went into the secure units under different names, it would have been very difficult for the media to pick up anything about them and how they were treated within the secure units. Innocent comments will always be picked up on and asumptions made on the lives that Venables/Thompson will have lead whilst locked up.
Denis Fergus would not have ranted in public half as much if the papers had left well alone in the first place and if they had stopped feeding her so much rubbish – regardless of whether their names had been released or not.
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Actually no, Monica. England/Wales is now the only country in Europe with an age of criminal responsibility as low as 10. Even Scotland raised it recently to 12. Thompson and Venables would never have been brought to a criminal trial in any other country in Europe as they would not be deemed to be able to be criminally responsible. Far less would they have been subjected to full-on adult proceedings in a crown court.
Indeed, had they been six months younger, they would never have been brought to trial or convicted of anything in this country. One of the sickest things about this case and the way it has been reported is that the age of the boys should be a mitigating factor. It is a disgrace that so many think they should be treated worse because they were children, despite the law clearly saying they should be treated more leniantly.
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:19 am
Thing is though Emma, whilst I totally agree with you that Denise has recieved justice according to the law, in her own mind she hasnt. When Venables was recalled, she even saw Jack Straw in order to find out why he had been recalled as she felt it was in her interest as well as the public’s interest. Fair enough, I accept that there a no end of people out there in the same boat as Denise who have seen people released for serious crimes against a member of their family, that shouldnt have been and are still upset and angry at it but they have chosen to keep it out of the paper or have turned that anger into something constructive, like having the law changed. (Sorry ranted there lol).
I think regarding other countries, the media restrictions placed on any child on trial is so strict, any child convicted of the same type of crime will undergo a trail and the trial not be under the media gaze, leaving justice to be served and the child to serve the sentence.
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:38 am
But I would also like to point out that the cost of giving Thompson and Venables new identities was far less than the cost of keeping them in prison would have been. Had they been moved to a prison when they were 18, it is likely they would have had to have been kept in virtual isolation. It is likely to have cost upwards of around 60k per year to the taxpayer.
In terms of Daily Mail hysteria, the authorities would never have been able to do right by this case. Locked up, they would be accused of giving them an easy life inside with ‘luxuries’ at the taxpayers cost; outside the authorities would be accused of protecting them at the taxpayers expense.
Fact is, had we remained unaware of their identities in the first place, neither would have been necessary. And Denise Fergus would have had little to vent her hatred and rage on but the anonymous ‘Child A’ and ‘Child B’. And the nation would have been much better off.
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:36 am
Thing is Monica, she received justice. No other European country would have convicted two ten year olds for murder. Indeed, none would have had them appear in a court. By the time they were released, they had spent half their lives locked up – 8 years is a very long sentence for a ten year old. Justice for her is a lifetime in prison – something which is not going to happen. She had justice according to the law of the land.
I agree their names should never have been released to the media and I am glad lessons have been learned and the boys convicted in the Edlington case remain anonymous. Had the judge not been so stupidly reckless back in 1993, these debates wouldn’t be happening.
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I’m still trying to work out why the judge felt the need to release their names after the trial anyway as I dont think it was in the public interest to do so. The actual cost of giving them new identies as well as their families has been horrendus and at the tax payer’s expense as well.
As usual, there has been nothing new that has come out of this documentry except to show that the justice system has failed yet another offender.
With Denise Fergus, whilst I can understand her need for justice, I agree she will never see it. She has openly admitted in an interview that she has never let her subequent kids out of her sight and kept them wrapped in cotton wool. Anyone else may have had their kids removed or been refered for psychological help, which obviously hasnt happend in Denise’s case.
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I also watched the documentary and was unsure of the point. Kirby appeared to be muddled in his thinking. He seemed to be saying it was wrong to put Venables back into the community at 18 because he hadn’t experienced the outside world – so society had to institutionalise him a bit more first. He came across as rather dim.
And yes, if the treatment of Venables has been shown to be a failure – what about Thompson? He seems to be being treated as a bit of an inconvenience by all concerned. Why couldn’t the selfish git keep Denise Fergus, the hysterical mob and the tabloids happy by going on a mad crime spree – perhaps getting a bit killy in the process? Keeping a low profile and not getting into trouble and by all accounts living a stable life is just so inconsiderate of him.
Don’t really have much time for Kirby. In a documentary about the case years ago, he talked as if he knew exactly what was in the heads of Thompson and Venables (Thompson being the evil psychopath btw – like I said, damn Thompson for being inconsiderate enough to show him up for a fool). The man was a police officer with no formal higher education – he rose through the ranks – yes – but he is no intellectual. Certainly unqualified to give any sort of psychological profile, particularly as he has had nothing to do with them for the best part of 20 years. The fact that he is a bit of a religious fundamentalist also goes against him in my opinion.
And yes, he, like many has made a tidy income from the dreadful murder of an innocent child. Which kind of questions his moral judgment on anything really.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:59 pm
And the other thing I would like to point out is that Albert Kirby has no business suggesting what the sentence of any offender should be. That is way beyond his remit. His involvement with this case should have ended with the boys’ conviction in 1993 – he has no business determining their fate therein and given he has no training in psychology or psychiatry (or probably even criminology), and has not spoken to Venables since the police interviews in February 2003, his opinion on Venables’ state of mind bears no more weight than any of the rest of our opinions.
It is as full of supposition and speculation as anything we might post on here.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:48 pm
This is the same Albert Kirby who was brought over by ITV (as a PAID special correspondent) to Portugal to comment on the early days of the Missing Madeleine investigation. His assessment of the case then? That the Portuguese police would solve the case in a week:
“He said: “I am impressed by the investigation. I have a feeling we will have a result by the end of the next week.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454466/Madeleines-parents-left-patio-doors-unlocked.html
This is the same Albert Kirby who has made money off the back of the Bulger case by advertising himself as an ‘expert’ who gives lectures:
http://www.crimespeakers.com/pdfs/akirby.pdf
This is the same Albert Kirby who (along with his colleage Phil Roberts) always assured us that Venables was the ‘good’ bad kid; the vulnerable follower to the ‘evil’ leader Thompson. Now he’s backtracked on that:
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/
‘“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.”
So what else was he wrong about? Why is he ‘right’ now?
Why is he constantly talking about ‘them’ when only one has reoffended? I watched the programme and there was nothing new. Those of us who work within the juvenile justice sphere KNOW that secure units are not luxurious havens of pleasure. We know they can be pretty miserable and places where young people are often seriously bullied by other young people (although the staff at these places tend to be amazing).
As for Denise Fergus, she will never get the ‘justice’ she wants. If Thompson continues to behave, he will never see the inside of a locked facility again while Venables is likely to be released within the next 18 months (indeed, probably sooner rather than later as the later they leave it, the more difficult it will become). It would be kinder if those around her would gently get her to accept this.