[size=10pt][size=10pt][/size][/size]
'I'm NOT Jon Venables': Terror of young father, 27, accused on Facebook of being Bulger killer
By Stephen Wright
Last updated at 2:45 PM on 09th March 2010
More than 2,000 join Facebook site 'exposing' innocent man
Judge who granted Venables his anonymity warns he may be murdered by vigilantes
Priest under fire for saying he 'feels sorry' for Bulger's killer
Straw signals probe into how Venables had been supervised
Bulger's mother calls for those overseeing killer to be sacked
A young father was in fear for his life today after he was falsely accused of being Jon Venables on Facebook.
A social networking group was set up asking whether Venables is a man called David Calvert, aged 27, from Fleetwood, near Blackpool.
By 8am this morning, more than 2,370 people had joined the Facebook group to discuss the new name given to Venables when he was released from custody nine years ago.
What few of the contributors realised was that Mr Calvert, originally from Liverpool, was the subject of similarly false rumours five years ago.
Then he went public to describe how he had endured a torrent of abuse following sick claims that he was really Venables.
He even produced a family photo album to prove his credentials.
The mistaken naming of Mr Calvert comes as Justice Secretary Jack Straw yesterday signalled a major probe into how Venables was supervised in the community before he was recalled to prison over alleged child porn offences.
Speaking in 2005, Mr Calvert said his family had been under threat after rumours began to spread.
Police took the threats so seriously they even installed a panic button in Mr Calvert's home.
The father of two claimed people were turning up on his neighbours' doorsteps with pictures of young James Bulger's killers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and asking: 'Do you know who you live next to?'
Mr Calvert, then 23, said he was terrified for himself, his girlfriend and his two young sons who shared his terraced home.
He said: 'People have been turning up at my neighbours' houses with pictures of the killers printed off the internet and saying one of them is me.
'Now I hear that threats are being made and I'm worried that someone will come for me or my girlfriend or hurt my kids.
'I'm too scared to go out of the house now. I have these people saying they will get me out 'no matter what' and I'm terrified at what they might do.'
Denise Fergus and husband Stuart speak to Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby on ITV's This Morning programme yesterday
The trouble started six months earlier when Mr Calvert mentioned to a neighbour that he had served time in a Liverpool prison when he was younger.
He said he had spent four months in prison for fraud.
After that, he claimed, rumours suddenly began to spread and soon the situation turned nasty.
One contributor to the 'David Calvert' Facebook page said yesterday: 'This group should be closed asap in my view , can you imagine being accused of this if its not him, him and his family are as good as dead allready (sic)...
'We can not and will not ever forget what happend to the beautiful little boy but until we have the facts that are known to be true groups like this should not be allowed ..'
Another contributor was more cutting in her remarks: 'What a pointless group. You're all mental....what if David Calvert is just David Calvert?' she said.
The row about what to do with Venables deepened today after a Catholic priest wrote on his blog that he felt 'immensely sorry' for 'innocent' Jon Venables.
Under an entry in his online parish magazine entitled, 'Feeling sorry for Jon Venables', Father Ray Blake, of St Mary Magdalen Church, Brighton, wrote: 'I feel immensely sorry for Venables - as well as Jamie Bulger and his poor mother.
Father Ray Blake has come under fire for saying he feel sorry for Venables
'We are what we are, it must be horrendous for Venables to wake up every morning and see facing him in the mirror a hated child killer, carrying all the baggage of a corrupted childhood which lead up to murder, and the baggage which followed his conviction.
'We are what we are, what our parents, our childhood, our experiences have made us, they are inescapable, we can run away from them into drink, drugs or hedonism of one sort or another.'
Responding to a furious online backlash from some of his readers, the priest added: 'I think Venables is "innocent" in so far as he is and was incapable of choosing that which is right. He is the victim of his upbringing, the product of abuse.
'Prison is not the right place for him but neither is ordinary society. What do we do with people like him?
One parishioner angry with his remarks wrote: 'Forgiveness of God is one thing, but justice demands he pay the price he owes to society at large.'
Last night the judge who granted his anonymity warned that Venables could be murdered by vigilantes if his new identity is revealed.
Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the High Court's family division who granted Venables anonymity on his release from prison, stressed 'the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now'.
Baroness Butler-Sloss has defended Jon Venables' anonymity order, while Jack Straw has hinted at an inquiry into how he was supervised after his release
She said: 'This young man may or may not be tried. He may or may not have committed offences. There is, of course, at least the possibility that he has committed no offence.
'And consequently, he may therefore be allowed again to be out (of jail) on licence.'
Yesterday Mr Straw defied calls from the murdered toddler's mother, Denise Fergus, to reveal full details about why Jon Venables, now 27, is back in prison.
The stand-off came on another highly-charged day in the wake of Venables' return to jail for breaching the terms of his parole.
As revealed in yesterday's Mail, Venables is expected to be charged in the next few days with possessing child porn on his computer.
It was claimed that the depraved images hoarded by Venables were rated category four, the second most severe category on an official scale of one to five.
The revelation prompted Mrs Fergus to question whether Venables had been properly supervised by probation officers after he was released from custody with a new identity in 2001.
Speaking on ITV1's This Morning programme, she said: 'I do believe that whoever has been protecting and looking after Venables over the nine years of his release should be sacked.'
She also lashed out at ministers' handling of the scandal since news of Venables's return to prison broke last Tuesday.
'I can't believe that they are putting me through this,' she said.
'Any question I have asked them, I have had no answers and it's about time now I got some answers. I am sick of them closing doors in my face.'
A HINT THAT THE STORIES ARE TRUE
Jack Straw all but admitted yesterday that claims made about the reason for Venables's arrest were true.
Speaking to John Humphrys on the Radio 4 Today programme, the Justice Secretary said: 'What I want to do is to look at what has already been made public, be it through agencies or newspapers, not officially, and then to make a judgment about whether this information, given that it's now out of our hands, we can confirm.'
Humphrys responded: 'I may sound like a third-rate lawyer here but we've kind of already confirmed that what's in the papers is accurate because, as you said, it's out anyway.'
Mr Straw said that Venables 'may have committed further serious offences', adding: 'It's precisely because a criminal investigation is under way that I, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police were extremely anxious that there should not be such publicity as possibly to prejudice a future criminal investigation, charges or trial.
'In my view, it was better to be cautious about what was disclosed. I fully understand that now there's a barrage of criticism we should've said more.
'But I can tell you that if I had spelled out in public the details that became available during the course of the last few days and the consequence of that was a successful application for an abuse of process stopping any possibility of trial then quite rightly the criticism would have been much more profound.'
Mrs Fergus, 42, added: 'The Government just don't know how to handle this now. Because this is so big again, the Government are just treating it like a football, kicking it to one another.'
But Mr Straw defended the need for secrecy. In an emergency Commons statement he said that releasing further information was 'not in the interests of justice' because it could threaten the fairness of any future trial.
He also revealed that details of the alleged breach of licence conditions came to light after officials were told that Venables' new identity had been compromised.
Last night the judge who granted anonymity to the killers warned that Venables would be at risk of being killed by vigilantes if his new identity is revealed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss, former president of the family division of the High Court, stressed 'the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now'.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Straw hinted on Radio 4's Today programme that he could release more information, but addressing MPs he said that although he understood 'the concern of James Bulger's parents and the wider public about this case', he had concluded that releasing more details 'would not presently be in the interests of justice'.
Hinting that a prosecution could be imminent, he added: 'It is critical that if charges do follow, it is possible to hold a fair trial - fair for the defence and fair for the prosecution.'
Signalling an inquiry into how Venables had been handled since his release from prison, he added that if any offender on a life licence was charged with a further serious offence, there would be a 'thorough review' into his supervision.
Victim: Two-year-old James Bulger was abducted and killed in 1993
Giving limited background about the chain of events leading up to his prison recall, Mr Straw told MPs: 'During the week beginning February 22 this year, officials in my department learnt of a compromise of Venables' new identity.
'Subsequently, information came to light that Venables may have committed a serious breach of his licence conditions.
'He was recalled to custody the same day and has since remained in prison. A parole board hearing will be held as soon as practicable.'
At one stage in his address to MPs, Mr Straw referred to Mrs Fergus as 'Mrs Ferguson'.
On the radio, he wrongly called her 'Mrs Bulger'. An aide later said his reference to 'Mrs Ferguson' was inadvertent and the Justice Secretary apologised.
Venables and Robert Thompson, both ten, snatched two-year-old James in Bootle, Liverpool, in 1993.
They walked him more than two miles to a railway line, where they beat him to death and left his body on the tracks to be hit by a train. Both were released on licence in 2001 with new identities.
Will his trial have to be held in secret?
Venables could stand trial amidst unprecedented secrecy.
Some lawyers believe that to protect his anonymity, and ensure he gets a fair trial, the case could be heard in 'camera', without the press or public present.
The case is particularly complex because of the draconian injunction which protects Venables's new identity.
Even before he is formally charged, legal opinion is divided on how the case will be managed.
An Old Bailey barrister said: 'It is quite possible that the case will be held in camera and that Venables will appear under a false name. Any prosecution will be hugely problematic, but extremely fascinating from a practical and historical point of view.'
However a former Crown Prosecution Service lawyer said that Venables's notoriety should not prevent his real identity being disclosed to a jury, so long the media were barred from printing any new pictures or sketches of the killer.
'Over the years, a number of notorious criminals have gone on trial and their identities have been revealed to juries,' the lawyer said.
'What is important is that the judge tells the jury to assess his guilt or innocence on the evidence in the present case, not on what he has done in the past.'
The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, and Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, are consulting their most senior advisers as they plot the legal minefield that lies ahead.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256533/Jon-Venables-Terror-young-father-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html#ixzz0hhCqoGAi