http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html
This one always makes me cry.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html
This one always makes me cry.
This is incredible.
The younger woman with the child looked down at James, who was hurt, and appeared upset. "Are you all right, son?" she asked. James didn't answer. Jon insisted they would find the station; they would take care of it. But the woman felt something wasn't right. It was getting dark and the boys weren't honest. She asked that the other woman with the dog to watch her little girl, who was tired, while she escorted James to the station. But the woman with the dog refused — her pet did not like children. As the boys took off, the younger woman called out, "Are you sure you know the way?" Jon pointed in the direction. "I'll go that way, missus."
This woman asked a complete stranger to take care of her little girl so she could escort this other child to the police station? Unbelievable.
I remember when this happened. It was headline news here for a long time. It's incredible how many people saw James after he'd been abducted but nobody realised anything was wrong. I think it was 38 people who reported seeing James with Jon and Robert and not one of them called the police.
They were released a few years ago and have their identities protected for the rest of their lives.
I can't believe these little fuckholes are out of prison, living their lives freely with new identities and shit.
[quote author=Olivia link=topic=21574.msg1377077#msg1377077 date=1251870961]<br />You are every kind of fail<br />[/quote]
[quote author=MeMeMeMe link=topic=23429.msg1466700#msg1466700 date=1260070163]
I can't believe these little fuckholes are out of prison, living their lives freely with new identities and shit.
[/quote]
I want to know how this works. Didn't these kids have any friends? Don't they have any family they still see? How can they just have a new identity and nobody ever figures it out? Don't they see their mothers? Don't people know what their families look like from the trial? Don't they ever go home? Did their families have to move? I really don't see how this works.
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=23429.msg1466741#msg1466741 date=1260073372]
I want to know how this works. Didn't these kids have any friends? Don't they have any family they still see? How can they just have a new identity and nobody ever figures it out? Don't they see their mothers? Don't people know what their families look like from the trial? Don't they ever go home? Did their families have to move? I really don't see how this works.
[/quote]
I'm sure I remember hearing they were moved. One of their mothers was spotted once and assaulted and that family was moved again because they have other, younger children.
I'm sure I heard a while ago in the news that one of their girlfriends was pregnant because there was this huge debate over her being entitled to know who the father of her child was. I can't find an article on it anywhere though.
ETA: I found this one someone's blog. Apparently he was getting married.
James Bulger's boy killer Jon Venables 'to get married.
July 23, 2007 10:53am
ONE of the pair who killed English toddler James Bulger 14 years ago is reportedly set to marry a woman who has no idea about his past.
Jon Venables was just 10 years old when he and schoolmate Robert Thompson lured James from a shopping mall and brutally murdered him in 1993.
The pair took James more than 3km away to a railway line where they kicked him in the head and beat him with an iron bar. A CCTV image caught the chilling moment when they boys took James from the mall.
The pair walked free from prison in 2001 and were given new identities in a bid to protect them from revenge attacks. A High Court order prevents their whereabouts from being revealed.
Venables is now about to marry an office worker who has no idea of his true identity. He has also been advised never to tell her what he did as a boy, Britain's Daily Mail newspaper has reported.
The paper has cited a report in The People which claims Venables has been dating an office worker for two years.
The bride-to-be is reportedly "blissfully happy" ahead of the wedding, which is planned to take place in a couple of months.
But she is also blissfully ignorant. The paper quoted a source who told The People that Venables had been urged to keep his shocking crime a secret.
"Case workers have discussed it over and over but say he can't come clean with his wife-to-be," the source was quoted as saying.
"If they split acrimoniously or she confides in a friend or relative who doesn't share her love for him, the whole thing could come tumbling down."
Thompson is living with a partner who also does not know the truth, the paper reported.
http://kimskorneradventures.blogspot...s-bulgers.html
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=23429.msg1466741#msg1466741 date=1260073372]
I want to know how this works. Didn't these kids have any friends? Don't they have any family they still see? How can they just have a new identity and nobody ever figures it out? Don't they see their mothers? Don't people know what their families look like from the trial? Don't they ever go home? Did their families have to move? I really don't see how this works.
[/quote]
I think most of the big newspapers and media know who they are but are not allowed to print or even hint at it, like Maxine Carr and her new ID.
Interview with his mother from 2007
In February 1993, 2-year-old James Bulger was murdered by 10 year old Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. James' mum Denise Fergus tells Pick Me Up she knows where her son's killers live...
People often say I've got a lovely home. They comment on the cream swag curtains, or the thick carpet. It should be, given the time I spend in it. These days I'm virtually a prisoner here. The only time I venture out is on our weekly trip to Asda, and even then, my husband, Stuart, 31, has to come with me.
Our sons, Michael, 13, Thomas, 8, and Leon, 7, have learnt not to ask to play out the front any more because the answer's always no. You're probably thinking that I'm over-protective.
But when you read what I've been through, you'll understand.
Back in February 1993, my son, James Bulger, was just 2 when he was brutally murdered by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They became the youngest people in Britain to be convicted of murder in 250 years. The worldwide headlines were endless: Boys aged 11 stoned toddler to death. Police released CCTV footage of James being led away by his killers.
I'd nipped to The Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle with James to pick up some pork chops.
One minute he was next to me in the butcher's, the next, he'd vanished. The police launched a massive hunt. Cameras flashed as I sobbed through a press conference. But never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined what would come next.
Did I cry or vomit on the spot when police broke the news? I honestly couldn't tell you. My body just shut down. Unable to face going back to the house I shared with James's dad, I stayed with my mum, Eileen.
The details that emerged were beyond belief. At 3.40pm, the boys marched James to an isolated spot by the railway line. There, they used a rusty iron bar to beat him, and sexually assaulted him by inserting objects into his body. They stripped him and splattered him with blue paint. When he was dead, they lay his body across a railway line. Can you imagine how it feels, even now, 14 years on, to hear that?
I want to moan, to scream, to thrash about. I can't bear to think of my precious son in one second of pain, much less being tortured. Back then though, I was just a zombie.
Weeks after the funeral, I found out I was pregnant. Knowing I had a new life in me, helped shake me out of the coma of grief. By the time Thompson and Venables appeared at Preston Crown Court, I was heavily pregnant and full of hatred.
In the courtroom, I could only see their backs. Dressed in suits and ties, and flanked by social workers, I watched in disgust as their shoulders shuddered. The press reported that they were crying, but I swear their shudders were down to arrogant giggles. Were they sorry? Were they hell.
As the judge summed up, I closed my eyes.
'It was such a cruel act these boys carried out. They are going away for many years,' he said.
Justice was served. Or so I thought.
Two months later, the same judge recommended they serve a minimum of eight years in
a young offenders' institute. There was outrage, but it quickly became old news. For me, it was just the start. My marriage to James's dad collapsed, and on 8 December 1994, I was rushed into hospital for an emergency Caesarean.
As I held the 4lb 14oz baby boy in my arms, I blinked back the tears.
'He looks just like James,' I whispered.
Same big blue eyes, same chubby cheeks. I named him Michael.
'I can't do anything for James, now, but this baby needs me,' I decided.
It helped to ease the pain, and when we left hospital, I moved into a new house in Kirkby, Liverpool. I couldn't bear to leave the memories of James behind. So I insisted on packing all his Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle toys, and ripping out the fire surround with his little fingerprints on, and bringing them all with me.
The press hounded me, and I couldn't even nip to the shops without people pointing. It was a full three years before my friend, Lesley, persuaded me to leave Michael at home with my niece, and go for a night out at the Cavern Club, Liverpool. I was standing at the bar when
a good-looking man sidled up next to me.
'I'm Stuart,' he smiled. 'So are you married? Kids?'
Unlike most people, he obviously didn't recognise me. And I certainly wasn't going to tell him.
A few minutes later, his mate whispered something in his ear.
'I'm so sorry if I've offended you,' Stuart said. 'I didn't realise who you were.'
We spent the whole night talking, and I actually enjoyed myself for the first time in years. We started to see more of each other, but although he was really good with Michael,
there was no way I'd trust him with my son. Not without a police check. And even when that came back clean, I still wouldn't leave them alone together.
But thankfully, it didn't put Stuart off, and gradually, with his love, I started to feel alive again. God only knows what he saw in me, but when I fell pregnant in October 1997, we were both over the moon.
We married in September 1998, and I refused to talk about James, but the next day, I laid my bouquet on his grave.
'You're always in my heart,' I whispered.
The following year, our son, Leon, came along. But my happiness was short-lived. By the time Leon turned 3, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson had finished their eight-year sentence. Stuart and I went to the High Court in London. The Lord Chief Justice said there was 'no constructive purpose' in keeping them locked up.
'Is this all James's life is worth?' I sobbed.
While I couldn't leave the house without being hounded, my son's murderers were given new identities so that they'd be free to live their lives in peace.
Suddenly I felt so vulnerable. They'd killed a child once, so what was there to stop them doing it again? I felt a desperate urge to protect my three boys.
When they were released, I was so terrified, the police fitted a panic alarm at my house.
I couldn't stop thinking about the pair of them. What did they look like? Did they have girlfriends? Friends? Jobs?
And it wasn't long before strangers started contacting me to tell me where they were living. God knows how they knew. Three years after their release, an anonymous letter arrived.
'I know where Robert Thompson is,' it said.
A cold shiver shot up my spine. For over 10 years I'd wanted to confront him. Would I be able to contain myself if I saw him?
I got in my car and drove to the address. Then I sat and waited until he emerged. I would love to blow his cover, to tell you exactly where he was, but because he's been granted anonymity, I can't. But I can say, I will never forget those dark, evil eyes as long as I live.
I'd always said if I ever saw him I'd kill him with my bare hands. Instead, I froze. It sounds strange, but just knowing where he was made me feel like I had power over him. Knowing that my son's killers are out there, going to university, having girlfriends and children, seems so unfair. James will never experience those things.
On 16 March 2008 he would have turned 18. I imagine him being tall with mousey brown hair and freckles. For some reason I think he'd be a mechanic, and I'm sure the girls would love him.
It goes without saying, the press will go crazy. Part of me understands their fascination. After all, Venables and Thompson are still out there. When I look at my three brilliant sons, I still can't believe I've managed to find happiness.
But part of me will always be missing. I've never taken anti-depressants or had counselling, because I want to come to terms with the grief myself. I never ever want to stop feeling sheer raw pain, because if I do, it will be like accepting that James is gone. And that's not right. I'm his mother, and I will carry him in my heart always. And as long as he's there, the pain, hatred and anger for his killers will be there too.
http://www.pickmeupmagazine.co.uk/real_lives/Whatever_happened_to_James_Bulgers_mum_article_123 823.html
I found this article, i'm not sure when it was published but it says Jon Venables is 18 (i think he would be 26 or something now)
I think there would have been quite a debate about this...on one hand Jon is being trained in fighting and shooting etc but then again it might help him be disaplined (sp?) and loyal to the army..interesting to find out what others think...I haven't found out if he did actually join the army yet as it took quite a while to find this article, but i will continue looking.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-96896/Bulger-killer-join-Army.html
One of the killers of James Bulger is joining the Army - and the Ministry of Defence has secretly waived the rules to let him apply.
The Mail on Sunday has learned that, using his new identity, Jon Venables, 18, has applied to join a fighting regiment and is expected to complete his formal entrance exams.
Ministry of Defence sources confirmed last night that officials have been persuaded by the Home Office to ignore regulations which prevent convicted killers from joining the Armed Forces.
The secret high-level move has infuriated James's family. Venables and Robert Thompson abducted their two-year-old son from a shopping precinct in February 1993, tortured him, then battered him to death on a railway line.
The two ten-year-olds were ordered to be detained indefinitely but were controversially released on parole six months ago. Now senior military sources have told The Mail on Sunday that Venables's application to join the Army is 'three-quarters of the way through' and he will almost certainly be accepted.
Like all soldiers, he will be taught how to use an SA80 rifle as part of his 12-week basic training.
'Only a handful of very senior military people know he is applying,' explained a source. 'Those processing the paperwork are unaware of his true identity.'
Last night James's father Ralph Bulger described the decision to bend the rules for Venables as a terrible insult to his son's memory.
'The Army should remember that he is an evil and murderous young man who showed no mercy to a two-year-old baby as he tortured and killed him,' he said.
And, speaking at her home in Kirkby, Merseyside, James's mother Denise Fergus, 33, said: 'I'm furious they should even think about letting Venables into the Army. They should not be giving him or Thompson any privileges.
'When they were put on parole - which was a big mistake - we were told there was nothing to worry about. But if Venables gets into the Army they will be playing with fire. It's just plain crazy.'
The Mail on Sunday knows which regiment Venables wants to join but is prevented from disclosing any details because of the strict terms of the injunction protecting the Bulger killers.
Last night both the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence cited the injunction as the reason why they declined to comment.
At the time of their release, both Venables and Thompson were given new names, birth certificates and National Insurance numbers and were told to destroy all evidence of their past lives.
It is understood that Venables's solicitor, a social worker and a representative from the residential unit where he is staying approached the Army several months ago about Venables wanting to be a soldier.
The matter was immediately referred to the Home Office - ultimately responsible for Venables's safety.
In the meetings that followed, the rule against convicted killers joining up was waived. Venables, as well as taking his exams, now faces a medical examination and will have to meet the required physical standards.
The source said: 'To all intents and purposes he is in - it is pretty certain he will be accepted.'
It is understood only the most senior officer in Venables's regiment will know who he really is.
Venables was upset when he was recognised on a pre-release shopping expedition, and a family source said: 'Despite being taught to assume his new identity, he is afraid of what could happen if his cover is blown.'
Because of a recruitment crisis in recent years, the Army has ended bans on recruits with records for minor crimes in a 'second-chance' policy.
But serious crimes are still a bar. 'Murder would automatically preclude someone from joining,' said a Ministry of Defence spokesman.
Last night a source close to the Venables family said: 'The Army makes perfect sense for the boy. You have to remember he has been institutionalised and isn't used to making a lot of his own decisions.
'And being in the Army will go a long way towards protecting him from any kind of vigilante attack.
'He will be part of a team, a family if you like. The anonymity offered by the Army must be very attractive.' But Mr Bulger said: 'If Venables is so unable to deal with life on civvy street and wants to be institutionalised again, then he should stay behind bars.
'He is taking the coward's way out because he doesn't even have the courage to join the Army for the right reason. He only wants to be there to hide away.
'The Ministry of Defence must have gone totally bonkers to sanction this and it will be on their heads if it all goes wrong.'
The Mail on Sunday understands that Robert Thompson, also 18, who has been kept separate from Venables since the murder, has started an art course.
Under the strict conditions of their release, he and Venables are banned from Merseyside for life and can be locked up again at any time if their behaviour warrants it.
Last June The Mail on Sunday highlighted serious concerns about the validity of scientific tests to assess the danger posed by James's killers.
Behavioural psychotherapist and solicitor Stevanne Hill warned the Parole Board panel which freed them that it was impossible for the Parole Board to conclude that they were no longer a danger to the public.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-96896/Bulger-killer-join-Army.html#ixzz0Yv0RQ4Nu
beli : Cunt fingers. Just like butterfingers, only cuntier.
Ugh i hope thats daily mail bullshit, he shouldn't be in the army, he should be IN JAIL.
This is very close to home for me as it happened not far from where I live. I remember it vividly and the still camera picture of them leading him away will always haunt me.
RIP James.
Anyone who says onions make you cry has clearly never been hit in the face with a turnip.
A transcript from the Panorama programme "Prisoners of their past" from 2001
Panorama asks why was it right to release Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_01_07_01.txt
ETA- forgot to mention- you can watch the prog if you click on the link on the right side of the above page
beli : Cunt fingers. Just like butterfingers, only cuntier.
[quote author=leapfreak link=topic=23429.msg1466316#msg1466316 date=1260009740]
I remember when this happened. It was headline news here for a long time. It's incredible how many people saw James after he'd been abducted but nobody realised anything was wrong. I think it was 38 people who reported seeing James with Jon and Robert and not one of them called the police.
They were released a few years ago and have their identities protected for the rest of their lives.
[/quote]
Yeah, they were known as the Liverpool 38. If I remember rightly, they got quite a hard time in the media for not reporting them. But, taking on the role of devils advocate here, I have heard what some of them (the 38) said and what the boys said to them, was in a way plausible and bless him, poor little James was too young and probably far too scared to say otherwise.
Paul Britton, a criminal profiler and the author of 'The Jigsaw Man', includes a chapter on the murder of Jamie Bulger. Its definitely worth a read as it offers insights in to Venables and Thompson, how children can kill and how the Liverpool 38 situation arose. It also features his work on some of the most well known and lesser known cases in the UK in the 1990's.
I know his reputation took a bit of a hit for the work he did with the Rachel Nickell murder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Nickell_murder_case
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2377235.stm
But I really think he got hung out to dry a bit by the Police Force, after all they were the ones who had the idea of and went ahead with the honey trap.
His second book, Picking Up The Pieces is also worth a read too.
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=23429.msg1467933#msg1467933 date=1260219762]
I don't really think most of those people can be blamed. Who would ever think it was two young boys going off to kill a younger boy?
[/quote]
Exactly. I remember the surprise and horror everyone had when the CCTV was first released of the two boys leading him away when it happened. No one could believe that two children would have taken him or harmed him.
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=23429.msg1467933#msg1467933 date=1260219762]
I don't really think most of those people can be blamed. Who would ever think it was two young boys going off to kill a younger boy?
[/quote]
That was it exactly.
No one imagined that children that young could kill another child.
I can remember just how shocked the media, the general public and even the police were that two boys so young could commit such a vile murder.
The Police originally thought that older teenagers had taken James away and it wasn't until the police saw the two boys with James on CCTV, leaving The Strand shopping centre, that they actually realised the boys were so young.
Of the 38 people, a lot of them just thought that James was the younger brother of the boys, that is what the boys told them. No one realised what was going on, I just think that people at that point would not have imagined such a scenario as being possible.
Up until then, the only child killer was Mary Bell. But she comitted her crimes in the late 1960's, so a generation had passed and she was pretty much forgotten about by most of the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell
This is without doubt one of the most shocking crimes to have happened in our generation.
When the murderers were let out of jail and given new identities an email petition was circulated, whether it was legit or not I don't know, but the purpose of the petition if I remember correctly was to keep them in jail. It confronted me with a decision, as if I were the one deciding, let them out or lock away the key? As a mother I tried to imagine how I would feel to know that the child I had given birth to, raised and loved, could commit such a horrific and heartless act. You dont want to believe it is possible. They say children who mutilate and kill animals grow up to be seriel killers, so how much worse could the future be for a child who mutilated and killed another child? Was it possible that these two kids could be torn apart within themselves over what they had done, which would be a life sentence, or was it more upsetting to them that having committed this crime meant they could never ever be free again even if not in a prison cell but a prison of secrecy and hiding their past?
What would you do? What would have been the solution to the dilemma of their release had you been a judge?
The thing that bothers me most about their release is that I have read one of the boys has a child of his own now. The woman that he's with supposedly has no idea who he really is.
It's fine and dandy to say that they needed protection on their release, but what about protection for that child and mother? If the situation arose where an adult murdered a child and went on to be released and have a kid, social services would be ALL OVER them. If this woman is unaware of her partner/husbands identity, how on earth would social services be able to be involved? I mean, there's no feasible way they could explain what their interest in the child is, surely?
And what an awesome basis for a relationship that produced another human being..."I murdered a child, you don't know who I am, I'm not going to enlighten you and will just spend the rest of my life lying to you. Let's have kids now." :x
They do not deserve to breath, yet they are free and protected now? I felt my heart sink while reading this, that poor baby and his poor mother. I think that it is really fucked up that these little abortion advertisements are free and able to have a normal life. I do not care that they were only 10, I was 10 once and I would have never hurt a 2 year old. Reading the stuff that they did to this poor baby makes me so sick and full of fear of what could happen to my children. Does the judge think that these boys just grew out of being murderers? I really wish that someone would discover who they are and take care of them before they hurt anyone else, if they haven't already.
I do hope that his mother has found some peace and is doing well. I will never understand how she could have fought the urge to kill that horrible bastard. I do not think that anyone could ever get over this kind of pain.
RIP Baby James
[quote author=MsWeatherwax link=topic=23429.msg1483501#msg1483501 date=1261403284]
The thing that bothers me most about their release is that I have read one of the boys has a child of his own now. The woman that he's with supposedly has no idea who he really is.
It's fine and dandy to say that they needed protection on their release, but what about protection for that child and mother? If the situation arose where an adult murdered a child and went on to be released and have a kid, social services would be ALL OVER them. If this woman is unaware of her partner/husbands identity, how on earth would social services be able to be involved? I mean, there's no feasible way they could explain what their interest in the child is, surely?
And what an awesome basis for a relationship that produced another human being..."I murdered a child, you don't know who I am, I'm not going to enlighten you and will just spend the rest of my life lying to you. Let's have kids now." :x
[/quote]
I completely agree. They were young when it happened and I wonder if they're still identifiable now as the kids on the pictures? I would think they've probably changed a lot, but those eyes of Venables chill me even now.
Anyone who says onions make you cry has clearly never been hit in the face with a turnip.
I wonder what he did
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/8546528.stmJames Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison
One of the killers of two-year-old James Bulger is back in prison after breaching the terms of his release.
Jon Venables, 27, was released on life licence in 2001.
He was detained with his friend Robert Thompson in 1993 - when both boys were aged 10 - for the horrific murder of the toddler in Bootle, Liverpool.
The Ministry of Justice said: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions."
Details of the nature of the breach were not released.
Venables' solicitor, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family.
"There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things."
Venables was released from custody in 2001 and given a new identity
Retired Det Supt Albert Kirby, who led the murder inquiry, said he was surprised Venables was back behind bars.
He added: "I've always thought, with regards to that particular boy, that from what we've heard over the years there was every possibility he would have avoided going back into prison."
A relative of Denise Fergus, James's mother, said the family had no plans to comment on Venables' return to prison at this time.
But Mr Kirby told BBC News he had spoken to James's mother and the news had brought "a whole load of anxiety" back to her.
He said: "There's always been a lot of anxiety as to where both boys are.
"To hear something like that this evening; it brings back to her a lot of the concerns, quite understandably, that she and any other parents in these sorts of circumstances would have."
'Unparalleled barbarity'
On 13 February, 1993, Venables and Thompson abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle and killed him on a railway line.
A week-long appeal followed, with CCTV footage being released of the little boy holding the hand of one of his killers as he was led out of the Strand shopping centre.
The toddler had been approached and befriended by the two boys while his mother, Denise, was in a shop.
James's body was found by children playing on a freight railway line near Walton Lane police station.
Thompson and Venables are not free - they will remain on life licence for the rest of their lives
The Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2001
What the Home Secretary said
He had been beaten to death with bricks and an iron bar.
The 10-year-old killers were arrested days later and became the youngest to be charged with murder in the 20th Century.
Eight months later they were convicted following a 17-day trial at Preston Crown Court and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Trial judge Mr Justice Morland told the pair they had committed a crime of "unparalleled evil and barbarity".
In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights decided they should not have been tried in an adult court.
Despite public outcry, two years later the parole board recommended their release as they "were no longer a danger to society".
More than 300,000 people signed a petition saying the sentence of eight years was too short.
Both Thompson and Venables were given new identities when they were released after serving eight years in custody
An order prohibiting the publication of details which could reveal their whereabouts has remained in place since their release.
So now his cover must be blown. Is he the one that we heard about getting married? Everyone who is currently in his life must know now since he's been arrested. I suppose they'll give him a new identity and turn him loose again.
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=23429.msg1552207#msg1552207 date=1267569611]
So now his cover must be blown. Is he the one that we heard about getting married? Everyone who is currently in his life must know now since he's been arrested. I suppose they'll give him a new identity and turn him loose again.
[/quote]
The is from Leapy's post on the previous page:
Venables is now about to marry an office worker who has no idea of his true identity. He has also been advised never to tell her what he did as a boy, Britain's Daily Mail newspaper has reported.
I remember this story well. I don't think they should have been released, either.
James' poor mother will live in more of a prison for the rest of her life than either of these two little waste of skin bastards. :-(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254956/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-returned-prison.html
Snippets
Government officials last night threw a blanket of secrecy around the killer - refusing to say whether he had committed a new crime, or to which jail he had been sent.
The Ministry of Justice would not even reveal the reason for the recall, believed to have happened last week, to James's distraught mother, Denise Fergus.'The Probation Service has promised to keep Denise informed about progress in the case and has assured her that she was not in danger at any time.
'But she believes that she and the public have a right to know what Venables has done.'
Venables sees a small band of very senior probation officers who are sworn to secrecy about his conduct.
If at any stage they believe his behaviour is deteriorating, or he is taking drugs, they have the power to request his recall to jail.
This took place last week but was kept secret until last night.
LICENCE CONDITIONS OF BULGER KILLERS
When Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released in 2001, their parole was subject to strict conditions:
They were ordered to end contact with each other
They could not contact or attempt to contact any member of the Bulger family
The killers were not allowed to enter the metropolitan County of Merseyside without the prior written consent of their probation officers
If their behaviour deteriorated or they started using drugs they could be sent back to prison
If they are jailed again, they could face a life sentence
Venables will now be able to appeal against his recall within 28 days. If successful, he can once again be released.
If not, he could face a life sentence under the licence conditions.
Harry Fletcher, of the probation union Napo, said there was extraordinary secrecy surrounding Venables. He said: 'The recall is being confirmed now because somebody has found out.'
Barrister Michael Wolkind QC said he thought there was a 'significant chance' the breach had been serious.
'Licence is a means of controlling people once they are released,' he said.
'Now this has been publicised, I think there must be a possibility of his new identity being exposed in prison and the inference must be it was a serious breach.
'To go to all the trouble of building him a new identity and a new life, there must be a significant chance it was serious.'
beli : Cunt fingers. Just like butterfingers, only cuntier.
This is one of those cases I will NEVER forget. Poor little James :( Hope you are RIP
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)