Jon Venable (James Bulger killer)

[commandlinegamer]

I thought perhaps this needed a new thread.

With the news that he has been recalled to prison because of serious allegations [1], things start to make more sense. If he is to be tried with a new offence, then there is little hope for a fair trial if his identity is disclosed. In the UK, crimes a suspect has previously committed are not usually told to the jury until after the verdict. But given the notoriety of this case, it's hard to imagine people being completely objective if they knew who he was.

[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8553056.stm

[Darat]

I thought perhaps this needed a new thread.

With the news that he has been recalled to prison because of serious allegations [1], things start to make more sense. If he is to be tried with a new offence, then there is little hope for a fair trial if his identity is disclosed. In the UK, crimes a suspect has previously committed are not usually told to the jury until after the verdict. But given the notoriety of this case, it's hard to imagine people being completely objective if they knew who he was.

[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8553056.stm

The key thing in your statement is the "usually"; if he was to go on trial for any offence that included violence I think the prosecution would push hard for his previous crime to be mentioned since that was also a violent crime.

[Arisia]

One thing I'm surprised that some newspaper hasn't done already is do an 'age progression' on that photo of a young Jon Venable (if UK law allows, of course). Unless, of course, a new life also meant a new face through cosmetic surgery.

[lionking]

This whole matter fills me with dispair. I don't know what to think.

[Fiona]

The key thing in your statement is the "usually"; if he was to go on trial for any offence that included violence I think the prosecution would push hard for his previous crime to be mentioned since that was also a violent crime.

Are you sure? I think that normally such facts can only be adduced after the verdict because it is relevant to sentencing: but it is not admissable for the trial because it is seen to be prejudicial.

[Darat]

I thought the law had been changed to allow it in certain circumstances?

ETA: Yep thought I wasn't going mad, but it isn't (yet) allowed in Scottish trials: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8438391.stm

[Alt+F4]

Why does it seem like, even with these new "serious" allegations, the focus still seems to be on protecting the criminal rather than the public and the victim's family?

[Darat]

Why does it seem like, even with these new "serious" allegations, the focus still seems to be on protecting the criminal rather than the public and the victim's family?


How do you get that impression? What I see is strong attempts to protect due process.

[Professor Yaffle]

I thought the law had been changed to allow it in certain circumstances?



Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judges will have discretion to allow bad character evidence - previous convictions - to be revealed from mid-December.
In most cases, details of convictions must be "strikingly similar" to the new allegations.
But Monday's order means that in child sex abuse and theft trials, the level of similarity between past offences and current charges can be lower. The Home Office says the onus will be on making the information known.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3951295.stm

Until the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_1), evidence of a person’s previous “bad character” (including previous convictions) was generally inadmissible at trial. There were some exceptions, most notably “similar fact” evidence, which allows courts to admit relevant past misconduct. The rationale was that previous misconduct was likely to be highly prejudicial evidence and in most cases the prejudice was likely to outweigh the probative value. The 2003 Act reversed the general exclusion to create a general “inclusionary” rule. It removed common law rules in relation to admissibility of evidence so that both previous convictions and acquittals could be used as evidence of a person’s “bad character”. Indeed, it even allows for offences committed under the age of 14 to be used as evidence of bad character.

http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/14-bad-character/

[Fiona]

I thought the law had been changed to allow it in certain circumstances?

ETA: Yep thought I wasn't going mad, but it isn't (yet) allowed in Scottish trials: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8438391.stm

Hmm. I vaguely remember some confusion about this Tobin's case and I do not remember learning why that could be done. I have to say that it disturbs me. I have no doubt that it will be introduced her given it is already in place in England but I am not a happy bunny. Thanks for the information, though

[geni]

Why does it seem like, even with these new "serious" allegations, the focus still seems to be on protecting the criminal rather than the public and the victim's family?

Well the guy is in prision. Under those conditions it seems unlikely that he presents either a threat to the family or to members of the public.

[Alt+F4]

How do you get that impression? What I see is strong attempts to protect due process.

From the article linked in the OP:

On Wednesday, the Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he believed the public "had a right to know".

But Justice Secretary Jack Straw, appearing to overrule the minister, insisted that secrecy was in the public interest - and he was later backed by the prime minister.

In a statement issued by the Ministry of Justice, Mr Straw said: "I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.

How is it not in the public interest to do so? He isn't saying anything about protecting due process.

Doesn't the victim's own mother have the right to know?

Mrs Fergus, 42, accused the government of leading a "massive cover-up" because they did not want to admit that money spent on concealing Venables' and Thompson's identities had been "a complete waste".

[Alt+F4]

Well the guy is in prision. Under those conditions it seems unlikely that he presents either a threat to the family or to members of the public.

Well since the allegations are "serious" it's not out of line to assume that he has victimized someone else already.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, and that was why he was immediately recalled to prison under the terms of his life licence.

[geni]

Well since the allegations are "serious" it's not out of line to assume that he has victimized someone else already.

Under the generaly accepted rules of temporal causality revealing his indentity at this point would not be expected to impact that.

[Alt+F4]

Yes, and that was why he was immediately recalled to prison under the terms of his life licence.

Which I think kind of shows that the life license under close supervision was a failure.

[geni]

How is it not in the public interest to do so? He isn't saying anything about protecting due process.

If he's done something serious enough to require a trial then if his identity is revealed his defence will argue that he can't get a fair trial and will probably win.


Doesn't the victim's own mother have the right to know?

Absolutely not. She didn't bring the case against him.

[geni]

Which I think kind of shows that the life license under close supervision was a failure.

In this case perhaps in most others less so.

[andyandy]

This is an interesting case. Whilst the murder they comitted was dreadful, was it more dreadful than dozens of other serious rapes/murders comitted in the last decade? Especially given the fact that they were children when they killed him. I'd say probably not - off the top off my head, how about the gang rape of the disabled woman last year, who then had acid poured on her face leading to a lifetime of disfigurement? That was comitted by adults, and yet does anyone know their names? So there is something of the cause celbre about the Bulger case, where the perpetrators have received much more media coverage than other horrible crimes.

That Venables has been re-arrested (for apparently an alleged serious sexual assualt) therefore is also getting a disproportionate amount of media coverage.....

[Checkmite]

Doesn't the victim's own mother have the right to know?

Unless the new crime somehow involved her dead son, I really don't see why she would.

[Checkmite]

That Venables has been re-arrested (for apparently an alleged serious sexual assualt) therefore is also getting a disproportionate amount of media coverage.....

Is that the new allegation? I was under the impression that the details were being withheld.

[Alt+F4]

Unless the new crime somehow involved her dead son, I really don't see why she would.

Maybe it has something to do with her or her family, it wouldn't be the first time a released killer went after the victim's family. Then of course, maybe not.

Why so little fate in the British public? All this talk of tainted juries and vigilante justice. Even in gun crazy America child killers are released with their identies splashed across the media without them ending up being lynched the next day.

If the details of Venables new crime were released I can't believe that would mean a fair trial would be impossible.

[Darat]

From the article linked in the OP:



How is it not in the public interest to do so? He isn't saying anything about protecting due process.

Doesn't the victim's own mother have the right to know?

I really don't see how that support your option that "....the focus still seems to be on protecting the criminal rather than the public and the victim's family?"

Those actions and comments seem to be all about ensuring that the due process of the law can be followed.

[Alt+F4]

I really don't see how that support your option that "....the focus still seems to be on protecting the criminal rather than the public and the victim's family?"

Those actions and comments seem to be all about ensuring that the due process of the law can be followed.

I'm just repeating what Secretary Straw said in the OP story, that "secrecy was in the public interest". How would keeping this information secret interfer with the due process of the law?

[valis]

The 'due process of law' decided that someone who killed for nothing other than the pleasure of it was safe to not only be released into society, but that society should not know his identity. (Would the victim in the latest incident have avoided being in a position to be victimized had he or she known of this gentleman's past 'transgressions').

I think the mother of the first victim was a little closer to the truth: Mrs Fergus, 42, accused the government of leading a "massive cover-up" because they did not want to admit that money spent on concealing Venables' and Thompson's identities had been "a complete waste".

[Darat]

I'm just repeating what Secretary Straw said in the OP story, that "secrecy was in the public interest". How would keeping this information secret interfer with the due process of the law?

At the moment all there are is allegations, and they have been taken seriously. I think if he is arrested & charged with committing a crime then there is a much stronger case for more details being released.

[Checkmite]

The 'due process of law' decided that someone who killed for nothing other than the pleasure of it was safe to not only be released into society, but that society should not know his identity. (Would the victim in the latest incident have avoided being in a position to be victimized had he or she known of this gentleman's past 'transgressions').

I think the mother of the first victim was a little closer to the truth:

I disagree. She invokes Thompson's name, and he hasn't done anything. If her assumption of his complicity reflects the sentiment of the general British public, then an unfair trial isn't such an outlandish suggestion after all.

Those here from the UK: what would be the common public attitude if the police came out tomorrow and said 'unfounded, unsubstantiated, subject has been released'? Would it be one of acceptance or one of incredulity?

[Moss]

Part of the secrecy thing may be that people might be able to infer his current identity from the allegations. And as long as they are only allegations, that knowledge does not necessarily belong in the hands of the public.

[andyandy]

Maybe it has something to do with her or her family, it wouldn't be the first time a released killer went after the victim's family. Then of course, maybe not.

Why so little fate in the British public? All this talk of tainted juries and vigilante justice. Even in gun crazy America child killers are released with their identies splashed across the media without them ending up being lynched the next day.

If the details of Venables new crime were released I can't believe that would mean a fair trial would be impossible.

This is a very good point. I think we should end the practice of building new identities for people. There was a psychologist on the radio making the same point - basically that you're (in most cases) taking pretty messed up individuals, then changing their names, relocating them to somewhere miles away from where they live, erasing their previous histories, severely limiting any contact with anyone they previously knew. Basically you're taking messed up individuals and messing them up even more. We should trust the public more not to become vigilante hate mobs.....and a good start would be the tabloids stopping trying to create them...

[andyandy]

Is that the new allegation? I was under the impression that the details were being withheld.

all that's been released officially is that it is "very serious". Unofficially it's being reported that it's a serious sexual crime....

[Fiona]

This is a very good point. I think we should end the practice of building new identities for people. There was a psychologist on the radio making the same point - basically that you're (in most cases) taking pretty messed up individuals, then changing their names, relocating them to somewhere miles away from where they live, erasing their previous histories, severely limiting any contact with anyone they previously knew. Basically you're taking messed up individuals and messing them up even more. We should trust the public more not to become vigilante hate mobs.....and a good start would be the tabloids stopping trying to create them...

A little difficult to trust the public in view of the behaviour when Venables and Thompson were still children and were being transported to court (IIRC it was court: you khow what I mean anyway)

The public mood is uglier and more self righteous than it was when Mary Bell was tried. Or at least that is my impression. If the climate changed again for the better I might be more impressed with this argument: but there is too much of the pack around at present

[Alt+F4]

She invokes Thompson's name, and he hasn't done anything.

What the heck does this mean?

[Checkmite]

Maybe it has something to do with her or her family, it wouldn't be the first time a released killer went after the victim's family. Then of course, maybe not.

In that case, if something had happened to her family, I'm pretty sure the family member would've told her. As it stands, she's complaining that she was never informed - so I don't believe that's it.

[Checkmite]

What the heck does this mean?

The article says,

Mrs Fergus, 42, accused the government of leading a "massive cover-up" because they did not want to admit that money spent on concealing Venables' and Thompson's identities had been "a complete waste".

Thompson hasn't been accused of violating any parole conditions; yet somehow Mrs Fergus believes that if Venable did do something, that would prove that the money spent on Thompson was just as wasted as that spent on Venable.

[Travis]

Wait a second. Why was this guy released in the first place?

[Darat]

Wait a second. Why was this guy released in the first place?

Because he had served his sentence. (ETA: And more accurately he will never be set "free" he would always be on "licence".)

[Rolfe]

Because he was a child of ten when he committed the murder. He was kept in youth custody for eight years. The decision was taken that exposure to the adult prison system (as would have happened when he reached 18) would definitely destroy the progress that had been made in trying to mend this extremely broken boy (both extremely broken boys actually).

In some countries it isn't possible even to punish a child as young as ten, because they're below the age of criminal responsibility.

I don't think there's an easy, obvious answer either way in this one, but I don't think it's self-evidently wrong that he should have been released.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hmm. I vaguely remember some confusion about this Tobin's case and I do not remember learning why that could be done. I have to say that it disturbs me. I have no doubt that it will be introduced her given it is already in place in England but I am not a happy bunny. Thanks for the information, though


Mmm, I know what you mean, but it's not that clear-cut.

As i recall, the case that prompted the re-think in England was a yuppie sort of guy who was into date rape in a big way. Every time he went out with a girl the first time, he came on to her and if she said no, he just went on anyway. A number of the victims cried rape, but he always pleaded consensual sex, and claimed the girls simply regretted it the morning after.

Of course, such a thing might well happen once. It's unlikely the same guy will be unlucky enough to be the recipient of entirely false allegations of rape by multiple women who don't even know each other though. But every time, he was acquitted, because he was convincing and the judge and jury didn't know about the earlier cases.

Finally a barrister managed to make a successful appeal to show a significant pattern of behaviour. He got the court records of the earlier acquittals admitted, and the bastard went down.

And that wasn't even previous convictions, come to think of it.

Rolfe.

[Travis]

Because he was a child of ten when he committed the murder. He was kept in youth custody for eight years. The decision was taken that exposure to the adult prison system (as would have happened when he reached 18) would definitely destroy the progress that had been made in trying to mend this extremely broken boy (both extremely broken boys actually).

In some countries it isn't possible even to punish a child as young as ten, because they're below the age of criminal responsibility.

I don't think there's an easy, obvious answer either way in this one, but I don't think it's self-evidently wrong that he should have been released.

Rolfe.

As I recall we have someone serving a life sentence in Virginia for a murder they committed when they were 11. Things are done differently in different places I guess.

[lionking]

As I recall we have someone serving a life sentence in Virginia for a murder they committed when they were 11. Things are done differently in different places I guess.
Absolutely. A child under 10 can never be charged in Australia, and even those over 10, but younger than, say 13 or so, would usually not be incarcerated.

[Fiona]

Mmm, I know what you mean, but it's not that clear-cut.

As i recall, the case that prompted the re-think in England was a yuppie sort of guy who was into date rape in a big way. Every time he went out with a girl the first time, he came on to her and if she said no, he just went on anyway. A number of the victims cried rape, but he always pleaded consensual sex, and claimed the girls simply regretted it the morning after.

Of course, such a thing might well happen once. It's unlikely the same guy will be unlucky enough to be the recipient of entirely false allegations of rape by multiple women who don't even know each other though. But every time, he was acquitted, because he was convincing and the judge and jury didn't know about the earlier cases.

Finally a barrister managed to make a successful appeal to show a significant pattern of behaviour. He got the court records of the earlier acquittals admitted, and the bastard went down.

And that wasn't even previous convictions, come to think of it.

Rolfe.

That is a different thing, IIRC, Rolfe. I am afraid I cannot remember what it is called and so I can't search for it: but I know what you are talking about and, as you say, it is not about previous convictions. You are right it is not simple. The "soft" information of that sort is known to the police, and it was a cause of controversy with Ian Huntley, if you remember. It is used in enhanced disclosures for positions in social work and child care too: but only at police discretion, and it is entirely their decision whether or not to release it, I believe.

[andyandy]

From the Guardian, re problems of new identities:

Jon Venables, one of the killers of the Liverpool toddler James Bulger, had descended into a "persistent state of self-disclosure" in which he felt compelled to tell others his real identity in the months before his return to prison, the Observer has been told.

The 27-year-old's mental state had become so fragile that he would regularly reveal his identity to strangers – something that had put him at risk of attack.

Sources said Venables had become a heavy drinker and there have also been claims that he used drugs. As Venables entered into an increasingly disturbed psychological state, he had become embroiled in a series of confrontations and fights, the sources said.

The Ministry of Justice has been criticised for refusing to disclose why Venables was recalled. In statement issued yesterday, the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, said: "It was not in the public interest to do so. Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done."

An injunction was issued against the Sun newspaper on Friday night to prevent it from printing a story detailing Venables's alleged offences.

His deteriorating mental condition has seen him transferred into the hospital wing of the prison where he is being held in an isolation room. He is understood to have told fellow prisoners and staff who he is, making it more likely that his new identity will leak out.

"It's an extremely difficult position for the authorities to be in," said Harry Fletcher, assistant secretary general of the probation union, Napo. "If they go ahead with court proceedings, this could undermine his anonymity but the fact he is self-disclosing his identity means giving him another new identity becomes almost inevitable. This situation is fraught with difficulties."

[snip]

Experts said they were not surprised Venables had suffered acute psychological pressures in the months before his recall to prison. Fletcher said Mary Bell, the 11-year-old jailed in 1968 for the manslaughter of two young boys, eventually disclosed her identity to others, including a journalist with whom she worked on a book about her case, years after she had been released.

Ian Cumming, a consultant forensic psychiatrist who has worked with serious offenders in the prison system, said "the national demonisation of an individual was a heavy burden" that could explain why someone would find it difficult to keep their past hidden forever.

"Double lives are a burden for people," Cumming said. "Just juggling two relationships is stressful and the secrecy takes its toll. People are not necessarily well equipped to do this sort of thing; it's not their natural state."http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity

[Moss]

The more I think about this case and the case of Peter Sutcliffe the more I get the feeling that the issue at hand is not only the specific cases.
I think a serious question that is touched upon is if violent criminals can be reformed and reintroduced into society. Are those people able to mend their ways or doesn't it work? And if it works, what helped in changing their lifes?
Me being a bit of idealist in that I'm always pretty keen on giving people a second chance but I have seen a lot of cases in Germany where it just didn't work and people offended again and again. I'm a bit conflicted on the issue.

Form that Guardian article Venables seems to be deeply conflicted about himself and maybe even looking for someone to punish him again. It certainly does not sound like he should be given yet another new identity and be released for his own sake.

[Alt+F4]

Form that Guardian article Venables seems to be deeply conflicted about himself and maybe even looking for someone to punish him again. It certainly does not sound like he should be given yet another new identity and be released for his own sake.

If he doesn't want to keep the new identity the government should leave it alone. How and why should they enforce the new identity?

[richardm]

How is it not in the public interest to do so?

It may be interesting to the public, but it is not in the public interest. They're not the same thing.

Doesn't the victim's own mother have the right to know?

Not really, no. Why should she?

[Alt+F4]

Not really, no. Why should she?

According to her, she was promised by the Home Secretary(?) that she would be informed of any changes to their status. She was not.

[geni]

According to her, she was promised by the Home Secretary(?) that she would be informed of any changes to their status. She was not.

Guess what happened to that home secretary? Anyway per a couple of court rulings the powers of the home secretary have been somewhat reduced.

[Fiona]

According to her, she was promised by the Home Secretary(?) that she would be informed of any changes to their status. She was not.

If that is true then I think the Home Secretary bowed to pressure: he should not have made that promise.

[Elaedith]

The more I think about this case and the case of Peter Sutcliffe the more I get the feeling that the issue at hand is not only the specific cases.
I think a serious question that is touched upon is if violent criminals can be reformed and reintroduced into society. Are those people able to mend their ways or doesn't it work? And if it works, what helped in changing their lifes?
Me being a bit of idealist in that I'm always pretty keen on giving people a second chance but I have seen a lot of cases in Germany where it just didn't work and people offended again and again. I'm a bit conflicted on the issue.

Form that Guardian article Venables seems to be deeply conflicted about himself and maybe even looking for someone to punish him again. It certainly does not sound like he should be given yet another new identity and be released for his own sake.

There is an argument and evidence that psychopathy is the most significant factor related to risk of reoffending and ineffective rehabilitation.
In this case, it was Thompson who was suspected of having psychopathic tendencies (due to lack of remorse). But somebody who is not psychopathic could be at a greater risk of emotional disturbance through unable to let go of the past.

[richardm]

According to her, she was promised by the Home Secretary(?) that she would be informed of any changes to their status. She was not.

Was she not? She was certainly on the news rapidly enough making a statement about how glad she was that he was back in jail.

[Alt+F4]

If that is true then I think the Home Secretary bowed to pressure: he should not have made that promise.

Then they are bowing again. Denise Fergus is going to meet with the Home Secretary sometime this week.

On a separate note, he's an editorial from the Guardian, again speaking about the possibility of vigilante justice in regard to Venables and Sutcliffe

The worst possible outcome of the present revival of these two criminals would be that people might seek vengeance, even perhaps targeting the wrong victim. But, even if they got the right target, it would be a huge blow to society. Long ago in Athens, the court of the Areopagus was set up, and celebrated in Aeschylus's great play, The Eumenides, so that criminals could be tried by public justice, with no one any longer the subject of private vendetta. Private vengeance has been replaced by media-fuelled hysteria, but we must be mindful of the lessons of past civilisation. We live, and must continue to live, by the rule of law. Otherwise we perish.

I don't get this. Do the British public generally go around killing released murderers? Where does this idea come from? In the case of Venables it seemed he was telling people who he really was and no one tried to harm him.

[Alt+F4]

Was she not? She was certainly on the news rapidly enough making a statement about how glad she was that he was back in jail.

I think she was upset that she had to hear about his return to prison by the media and not the government. I'm sure she is very glad that he is back in prison.

From what I read not only were officials not going to tell Denise Fergus about this they weren't going to tell anyone. The only reason why they made a statement at all was because his return to jail was leaked to the media.

[geni]

I don't get this. Do the British public generally go around killing released murderers? Where does this idea come from?

Paulsgrove riot.

[geni]

From what I read not only were officials not going to tell Denise Fergus about this they weren't going to tell anyone. The only reason why they made a statement at all was because his return to jail was leaked to the media.

Doesn't wash. Given the standing court orders any newspaper publishing that would have found it's editor in prison rather rapaidly.

[Professor Yaffle]

The media usually prefer to whip up hysteria about paedophiles because there are more of them released than there are serial killers:


*In February 2000, a convicted paedophile, William Malcolm, 44, was shot dead at his flat in east London.
*In July 2000, Iain Armstrong, an innocent man, was targeted by a mob in Manchester. It followed the News of the World "shaming" of 49 suspected sex offenders. Mr Armstrong had been wearing a neck brace, because of a spinal disorder, similar to one worn by a pictured paedophile.
*In August 2000, a paediatrician named Yvette Cloete was labelled a "paedo". "I'm really a victim of ignorance," said Dr Cloete, who moved house.
*In the same month, a mob targeted a man in his forties in an attack on a Portsmouth estate. He left under police protection.
*In October this year, a convicted paedophile, Gordon Boon, 73, was murdered in Norfolk.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-investigate-vigilante-attack-claim-after-murder-of-sex-offender-1064477.html

[Alt+F4]

Doesn't wash. Given the standing court orders any newspaper publishing that would have found it's editor in prison rather rapaidly.

According to Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers a national newpaper got a leak, ran the story and the government was forced to make a statement.

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF8b9coQqko

[Moss]

While lynchmobs have become somewhat unfashionable I can understand the fear of riots and public hysteria. It's not an everyday occurrence but in cases with high media attention there is a possibility.
And I'm actually not sad to say: No, the mother of a former victim has no right to get informed about an unrelated crime done by the same perpetrator. Why would she? She is is neither in danger nor does it relate to her life.
If you make exceptions about it you set precedents that will be exploited.

[Fiona]

We seem to be muddled about what the criminal justice system is for at the moment. I think it would be helpful to rethink what we are trying to do, because my impression is that it is currently reactive to the public mood rather than founding on anything thought through. I think that is potentially quite a dangerous thing: but it is part of a wider picture and it is not easy to see what is driving it.

[Alt+F4]

While lynchmobs have become somewhat unfashionable I can understand the fear of riots and public hysteria. It's not an everyday occurrence but in cases with high media attention there is a possibility.
And I'm actually not sad to say: No, the mother of a former victim has no right to get informed about an unrelated crime done by the same perpetrator. Why would she? She is is neither in danger nor does it relate to her life.
If you make exceptions about it you set precedents that will be exploited.

How does she know she's not in danger? How does she know that he's not targeting her or her other sons? Thompson and Venables were given new identities because there was a possibility they might be targeted. Since there is also a possibility Denise Fergus might be targeted shouldn't some consideration be given to her?

[Fiona]

Not unless there is some evidence in support of the view she is at risk. Since he was monitored and has been returned to jail exactly as he should be if he breaks the terms of his license it would appear the arrangements worked as expected. What is the problem here?

[Moss]

How does she know she's not in danger? How does she know that he's not targeting her or her other sons? Thompson and Venables were given new identities because there was a possibility they might be targeted. Since there is also a possibility Denise Fergus might be targeted shouldn't some consideration be given to her?

If she or any relatives of her indeed would have been targeted by Venables, wouldn't the police have contacted her or them instead of any government official?
In that case I would also suspect police protection were in order. And I don't think you'll get that through without informing the protected person.

[Alt+F4]

Not unless there is some evidence in support of the view she is at risk. Since he was monitored and has been returned to jail exactly as he should be if he breaks the terms of his license it would appear the arrangements worked as expected. What is the problem here?

The problem here is that someone else was victimized, and according to what we do know, it was serious.

I don't think his latest victim would agree that the arrangements worked as expected.

[Alt+F4]

If she or any relatives of her indeed would have been targeted by Venables, wouldn't the police have contacted her or them instead of any government official?

How would the police know it was Venables?

[Moss]

How would the police know it was Venables?

In the same way they identified him as Venables after the alleged serious crime?
Also note that she is not complaining about not knowing whoever did something to her or a relative was Venables, she complained about not being informed that Venables possibly committed another crime. That doesn't imply a connection to her.
I'm all for informing her if she or her relatives were endangered by Venables. And for protecting her then. But not for informing her of a crime that has nothing to do with her except that the perpetrator was Venables.

[Rolfe]

I think it's worth reading this article by Muriel Gray (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/muriel-gray/we-all-played-a-part-in-james-bulger-s-killing-so-who-are-you-calling-evil-1.1011538), in today's paper.

Thompson and Venables came from violent, dysfunctional families, Thompson himself having been a victim of appalling torture and Venables suffering from unchecked behavioural problems from a very early age. Although the children were known to be suffering at home, by school and neighbours alike, no-one came to their aid. Equally, on the day of James’s murder, his last walk to the lonely railway track where he died was witnessed by more than 30 members of the public. Only two challenged the boys, because of James’s distress, but not one single person intervened or even thought to report it later.

The murder was a wake-up call to a non-interventionist society, faces turned the other way both by the agencies tasked with problem families like the Thompsons and Venables, but also by us, the public who stood by and did nothing. It was not just raw, atavistic horror that threw our hands over our mouths during the case. It was also partially guilt.

Even when at the time, the tabloids were screaming headlines about “faces of pure evil”, and “children from hell”, a great many dissenting voices dared to express dismay and even sympathy for the two 10-year-old boys who had themselves been brutalised into this state of sub-human abnormality.


We have to deal with the situation as it is, but Thomson and Venables were themselves grossly abused and illtreated children.

And by the way, I agree with Fiona. The system seems to have worked well. Venables is back in jail, and Tracey Fergus was informed of what she had a right to be informed of. None of us has any right to be told the new identities? What purpose would it serve? To prevent the course of justice, or sign up for the lynch mob?

Do we have anyone from Norway here? I saw an interesting piece at the time of the original trial, showing how such children are dealt with in Norway. I believe the success rate is rather good.

Rolfe.

[Matthew Best]

The problem here is that someone else was victimized, and according to what we do know, it was serious.

I think you must know more than I do.

Who was victimized, how were they victimized, how serious was it?

[zooterkin]

The reports on the news today are that he was in possession of child pornography. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences)
Ministers faced increasing pressure today to release details about offences allegedly committed by one of James Bulger's killers, following a report that he was returned to prison in connection with child pornography offences.

The claim, in the Sunday Mirror, follows separate allegations that Jon Venables, now 27, who was released on licence in 2001 and given a new name, had become mentally fragile. According to other reports, he has been known to drink heavily and use drugs, and has revealed his true identity to others.

[kerikiwi]

Things are done differently in different places I guess.

Clearly. Some places do some appalling things, don't they?

[Alt+F4]

The reports on the news today are that he was in possession of child pornography. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences)

How is this information getting out? I thought there was a iron-clad, worldwide ban on reporting on them with the automatic penalty for breaking it being jail.

[Darat]

There is an injunction which means it's illegal to publish anything that would reveal their identity.

[Alt+F4]

There is an injunction which means it's illegal to publish anything that would reveal their identity.

Ah, ok, thanks. I would think the more information published about new alleged crime(s), the more likely a member of the public will make the connection.

[Checkmite]

How is this information getting out? I thought there was a iron-clad, worldwide ban on reporting on them with the automatic penalty for breaking it being jail.


They're not reporting any information. Like the Sun's suggestion that he sexually assaulted someone, all the Guardian is doing is simply reporting a rumor and the fact that the government will not confirm its accuracy.

So far there's three theories - sexual assault, child porn, and drugs. Which one? A combination? All three? I wonder if these are the only rumors that will be published before the government actually does explain what the charge is.

[zooterkin]

They're not reporting any information. Like the Sun's suggestion that he sexually assaulted someone, all the Guardian is doing is simply reporting a rumor and the fact that the government will not confirm its accuracy.

So far there's three theories - sexual assault, child porn, and drugs. Which one? A combination? All three? I wonder if these are the only rumors that will be published before the government actually does explain what the charge is.

It could be all three; what I thought I heard on the radio was possession of child pornography, but what the BBC website says (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8554370.stm) is the same as the Guardian, which is The Sunday Mirror alleged his recall to prison was linked to images of child abuse.

[Alt+F4]

So far there's three theories - sexual assault, child porn, and drugs. Which one? A combination? All three? I wonder if these are the only rumors that will be published before the government actually does explain what the charge is.

I also read it might be drunken bar brawls or fights at work.

On a separate note, am I the only one that thinks that forced new identities would have the opposite effect of the goal of rehabilitation?

[geni]

They're not reporting any information. Like the Sun's suggestion that he sexually assaulted someone, all the Guardian is doing is simply reporting a rumor and the fact that the government will not confirm its accuracy.

So far there's three theories - sexual assault, child porn, and drugs. Which one? A combination? All three? I wonder if these are the only rumors that will be published before the government actually does explain what the charge is.

Well most of the guesses so far have been standard cold reading.
For example the story that claimed he had worked as a bouncer. Thats a pretty typical line of work for someone in the their mid twenties with limited qualifications. Drugs again mid 20s one of the standard ways to get into trouble. Child porn and sexual assult appear to be guesses based on the statement that there are serious acusations. Murder is uncommon enough that it's pretty much posible for crime correspondent to keep track of them all and thus posible for a paper to rule that out. Sexual assault and child porn less so and child porn is a great story to sell newspapers with.

[geni]

I also read it might be drunken bar brawls or fights at work.

Yeah I think at this point we have established that he is mid 20s and likely in low skilled work.

[zooterkin]

You may be right, but there clearly is a leak of some information, since it appears the papers are right about the fact that Venables is in prison.

[Rrose Selavy]

One thing I'm surprised that some newspaper hasn't done already is do an 'age progression' on that photo of a young Jon Venable (if UK law allows, of course)

I am sure that would be prohibited by the terms of any long term injunction against newsmedia making it possible or more likely to identify Venables .
At least in the UK, foreign media might be more difficult if not impossible to control which is where the more blatant cracks and leaks may first appear specially in this internet age.

[valis]

I think it's worth reading this article by Muriel Gray (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/muriel-gray/we-all-played-a-part-in-james-bulger-s-killing-so-who-are-you-calling-evil-1.1011538), in today's paper.




We have to deal with the situation as it is, but Thomson and Venables were themselves grossly abused and illtreated children.

So what? The question is not were they mistreated (or illtreated if you prefer) the question is whether they can safely be released into society. Let's presume that they were never mistreated, but instead had some sort of organic or traumatic damage, not in any way a result of their own actions, that caused them to be compelled to kill. Would it then be unfair to separate them from society, since they had been 'illtreated by fate'? Or would it be the states duty to separate them for the good of society as a whole?

And by the way, I agree with Fiona. The system seems to have worked well.

Perhaps we should ask the latest victim for his/her opinion on how well the system worked...

[Checkmite]

Perhaps we should ask the latest victim for his/her opinion on how well the system worked...

Assuming there is a victim, of course.

[kerikiwi]

So what? The question is not were they mistreated (or illtreated if you prefer) the question is whether they can safely be released into society. Let's presume that they were never mistreated, but instead had some sort of organic or traumatic damage, not in any way a result of their own actions, that caused them to be compelled to kill. Would it then be unfair to separate them from society, since they had been 'illtreated by fate'? Or would it be the states duty to separate them for the good of society as a whole?

Perhaps we should ask the latest victim for his/her opinion on how well the system worked...

I don't think anyone is saying that it would be unfair to separate them from society, simply that there is a reason for their actions. Knowing the reasons for things gives us a much better chance of preventing the same things happening in the future.
(if we are willing to learn. If we are only interested in blame, and punishment after the fact, we will continue to see people do various horrible things)
The system referred to is that which recalls released prisoners to prison should they reoffend.
That is the system which has worked.