Jon Venables is no longer the guilty boy who killed James Bulger

The child 'Jon Venables' has become someone else now but public indignation demands that he remain the bewildered boy who could barely see out of the dock at his trial. Have we really so little belief in redemption, asks Brian Masters.

 

By Brian Masters
Published: 6:45AM GMT 04 Mar 2010

Jon Venables, 10 years of age in 1993 Photo: GETTY IMAGES

A 27-year-old man who used to be known as Jon Venables has been taken into custody for an undisclosed reason at an unknown location. That is all there is to say, or it should be. But this simple news item has been wilfully exploded into a stream of righteous wrath owing to what this man did 17 years ago. It is as well we should remind ourselves what that was, and examine why we should delight in recalling the horror all over again. For that is what is happening.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both then 10 years old, abducted a little boy, James Bulger, from a shopping mall when his mother's attention was diverted, then took him by the hand on a long walk which ended some two hours later on waste land by a railway track. They then subjected the frightened infant to the most unspeakable indignities and cruelties, almost mindlessly, as if he were a toy that could be dismantled, and left his racked body on the line to be cut in half by a train.

They were arrested, tried and convicted in an adult court, Mr Justice Morland declaring solemnly that they had been found guilty of an act "of unparalleled evil and barbarity", words that were not in their vocabulary and could not be understood by them.

Of course, he was not talking to them at all, but to us, the world. Adult ritual was much more satisfying than the difficult, messy business of understanding aberrant child psychology. Nobody suggested the boys made a decision after breakfast to kill somebody; they did not harbour hatred for the toddler, nor for toddlers in general. The catastrophe fell unheralded, for motives that remained mysterious.

The crime was very nasty indeed, and the boys were justly punished for it. But the crowd wanted something more. They beat their fists upon the van that carried the boys to and from court, baying for vengeance. It seems the fists are still clenched, even today, and the desire for blood unquenched.

We cannot feel anger at this man who was detained yesterday, for we no longer know who he is. He may be married. He may be a father. He may have a job. He may be kind and considerate. He may be rotten and deceitful. He may have shoplifted. He may have sold drugs. It does not matter, for we are not interested in him; we are interested in the little boy who terrified us with his malice all those years ago, and we do not want to let that shudder evaporate and lose its power.

In some very unpleasant way, we cherish it still. We must never be suspected of any maturity that would allow us to spot the possibility of redemption. That, at least, is the feeling some newspapers appear to foster; I can think of a couple which, if their editors knew where this man was, would pursue him to the death if necessary.

I attended the trial of Thompson and Venables throughout, and heard all the evidence. Yet I did not feel the presence of wickedness. I felt the unfathomable mystery of human behaviour, the awe of ignorance, the chilling impossibility of knowing what this was really all about. The trial, which ought to have been a lesson in philosophy, was instead a performance, a parade of adult indignation hurled at two frightened little boys who knew they had done something terrible, and did not know why. They could barely see over the bar of the dock in which they sat; it came up to their chins. And so I also felt some shame at being witness to this show.

We heard the tapes of the police interrogation of Jon Venables in the presence of his parents, which were deeply disturbing.

When the officers took a break from their questions, wisely to enable his mother and father to coax him, they hugged and protected him, assuring him of their love whatever he had done and begging him to tell the truth. With this support he mustered the courage to embark on an account both harrowing and heart-rending, wailing loudly and inconsolably for 33 minutes, which the court listened to in shocked silence. His counsel called him "a sad, diffident, unhappy boy" who had been inhibited from honesty by the rejection he feared he would suffer from his mother.

When the interview continued, the boy's mother was in no condition to be present. Mr Venables returned alone, sitting with his eyes and ears closed to the horror. When Jon, howling, turned to him for reassurance, there was none; he sought comfort instead from a police officer. As the climax of his story approached, he was audibly racked with anguish. "I can't," he sobbed, "I can't tell you anything else, 'cos that's the worst bit." Robert (his accomplice) had been "laughing his head off" as he threw bricks at James.

The police officer then asked Jon what he now thought of all that he and his friend had done to the baby. His reply was given in a broken, piping voice. "Terrible," he said. "I was thinking about it all the time." When confronted with the word "distress", he asked what it meant. Still worse was the pathetic and awful plea: "What about his Mum? Will you tell her I'm sorry."

This is the man who has now made bold front-page news for an undisclosed offence, which we are all invited to imagine must be heinous. At least we hope it is, or we shall be short-changed. I have never met the man, and never shall. I have no idea what he is like, though I did know somebody, now deceased, who spoke to him while he was still in custody as a teenager and was impressed by his progress.

But I do know that he cannot be the warped and skewed child who shared in that dreadful crime all those years ago. It is just not possible. He is somebody else now. We all of us change and develop as we pass into adulthood and beyond, and there is no reason to suppose that a child who murders should be exempt from this inevitability.

So why all the interest? We only know that Venables has breached the conditions imposed upon him at the time of his release from custody. That is the news, and that is therefore what the newspapers should announce; that is what they are for. They are not designed for retribution or diffuse disgust in search of an object.

Besides which, most of the religions that are professed in this country, and to which angry avengers pretend to adhere, give space to that precious possibility of redemption. Surely our society is mature enough to permit religious wisdom to prevail rather than let intelligent thought be swamped by quivering fascination with wickedness.

As for the public "right to know", that was effectively recognised by the trial. People had the right to know what had happened and, if possible, why; to hear the evidence for and against the defenders; to see the verdict returned and punishment enacted. They do not have the right to know everything that happens to the killers for the rest of their lives; public interest is served and exhausted in trial by jury.

Nobody would wish to belittle the ghastly fate that befell James Bulger. Letting his killers attempt to redeem themselves in peace does not do that. But we should be mindful of the fact that indignation is relatively easy to satisfy, and demands no sacrifice, no exposure to horrid experience, no damage to the soul. To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness.

Brian Masters is the author of, among other books, 'Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen' and 'The Evil That Men Do'

Peter Sutcliffe, convicted in 1981 of murder of 13 women, asks high court to set tariff which could lead to parole

• Matthew Taylor
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 March 2010 14.10 GMT
• Article history

Portrait of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, on his wedding day, 11 months before his campaign of terror. Photograph: Express Newspapers/Getty Images

 

The serial killer Peter Sutcliffe is seeking a high court ruling to determine how much longer he must serve in jail. Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper, got 20 life terms in 1981 for murdering 13 women and attacking seven others.

The 63-year-old is now asking the court to grant him a finite sentence.

Sutcliffe, who is held in Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital, will have to persuade the mental health review tribunal that he no longer poises a risk before he can be eligible to apply for parole.

He first lodged his request in 2008 and reporting restrictions on the case ensured he was only referred to as P. However Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in the high court in London, ruled that Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, could be identified. "It is now common ground this is part of the criminal process and must therefore proceed in the defendant's own name. The press are at liberty to report the fact that these proceedings concern Peter Sutcliffe/Peter Coonan."

A judge recommended, at the time of the 1981 trial, that Sutcliffe serve a minimum of 30 years behind bars, which expires next year. However Sutcliffe's name was not on a Home Office list, published in 2006, of 35 murderers serving "whole life" sentences, and he was given no formal minimum sentence. Today's preliminary hearing at the high court in London set out what form the tariff-setting hearing should take, and what evidence should be admitted.

Mitting was told there was new expert evidence on Sutcliffe's state of mind, which could help his case for release on licence. However the judge refused an application on Sutcliffe's behalf for fresh psychiatric evidence to be admitted as part of the tariff-setting exercise, although, he said, it would be considered in relation to his conduct post-sentence.

When Sutcliffe is reviewed later this year, the gravity of his crimes, whether or not he has made "exceptional" progress in custody, the state of his mental health and any representations from him, his victims or their families, will be taken into account.

The judge will have the power to impose a definite number of years that Sutcliffe must serve, and could rule that he spends the rest of his life in jail. Sutcliffe was convicted at the Old Bailey in London for the murder of 13 women, and on seven counts of attempted murder, in Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. The former lorry driver said he was on a "mission from God" to kill prostitutes – although not all of his victims were sex workers – and was dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper because he mutilated their bodies using a hammer, a sharpened screw driver and a knife. In 1984 he was transferred to Broadmoor from prison.

His life sentence means that, whatever the outcome of the tariff decision, he will only be freed if the authorities consider he no longer poses a serious danger to the public.

Schneier: CCTVs don't make us safer

By Cory Doctorow at 5:12 AM February 26, 2010

Bruce Schneier has written an outstanding essay for CNN on why sticking CCTV cameras on every corner doesn't make us safer, and can make us less safe by opening us up to abuse, and by causing police resources to be misallocated. This is required reading for the twenty-first century. Bruce points out that where there's a specific threat in a specific place -- casinos worried about cheats, shops worried about shoplifters, parking garages worried about skulking muggers -- CCTVs have some use. But as a catch-all solution to crime, they just don't work well enough to justify their expense in resources and liberty.

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Although it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV footage until well after a crime is committed. And when the police do look at the recordings, it's very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don't often stare helpfully at the lens and -- unlike the Dubai assassins -- tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often.

Spy cameras won't make us safer

Regime of education, pyschotherapy and discipline could help brothers in Edlington case turn their lives around

• Peter Walker and Alan Travis
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 January 2010 15.05 GMT
• Article history

A vehicle carrying one of the boys charged with the murder of James Bulger is stoned as it leaves court in Liverpool in 1993. Photograph: John GilesPA

If there is a precedent for the reform and rehabilitation of child criminals publicly assumed to be intrinsically evil and beyond help, then it comes in the form of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

In 1993, after their abduction and murder of James Bulger, the 10-year-olds were not just deprived of their liberty but put through a comprehensive programme of psychotherapy, education and consistent, strict discipline.

By 2001 the then-teenagers – equipped with A-levels and an ability to speak fluently about emotions and remorse – convinced parole boards that they were ready to be freed.

The brothers behind the Edlington torture case are the most notorious British child criminals since Venables and Thompson. Hard as it might be for their victims' families to accept, it is possible that they, too, could turn their lives around.

Five years after the Bulger killers were jailed, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) was set up to supervise the placement of young criminals into children's homes, training centres and young offender institutions.

Peter Minchin, head of placements at the YJB, cannot discuss individual cases but is clear about the wider issues.

"We recognise that the issue of protecting the public from young people that commit horrific crimes is equally as important as trying to address the behaviour of the young people that have committed them," he said.

"It has to be done in parallel, but you can't wash your hands of people who are still so young. You can't throw away the key. They deserve another opportunity."

The brothers in the Edlington case, aged 11 and 12, will be kept in a secure children's home. The usual progression would be to a secure training centre at about 15, and then to a young offender institution, but their many personal problems and notoriety could see them stay in a home.

Such a regime, Minchin says, typically involves six hours of formal education a day, along with activities such as psychotherapy and art therapy.

"Each young child that comes into a secure children's home has a detailed plan put together specially designed to meet their individual needs," he said.

"Obviously, there is the punishment of taking away their liberty. But once this has been done you've then got an opportunity to do complex work and make a lot of progress."

While Venables and Thompson had their anonymity removed, the brothers' names remain unknown outside a few streets in Doncaster.

However, Minchin notes, it is hard for things to stay secret in a children's home.

"Children being children, they will talk. You often can't avoid them finding out what other people have done. We try and minimise the problem by keeping similar offenders in the same place."

Sentencing outcry

When Jon Thompson and Robert Venables, two 10-year-old boys, were sentenced to be detained for the murder of two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, they were the youngest people convicted of murder in English criminal history.

The trial judge recommended a minimum tariff or term of eight years, saying the two should be kept in custody for "very, very many years to come".

Shortly after their trial, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, raised the minimum tariff to 10 years, but this did little to assuage a populist tabloid campaign – including a 300,000-signature Sun newspaper petition – claiming the case highlighted moral decay in Britain.

In 1994 John Major, as prime minister, declared it was time for "society to condemn a little more and understand a little less". His home secretary, Michael Howard, raised the minimum tariff to 15 years.

In 1997 this was overturned by the House of Lords. Peers condemned the higher tariff as "institutionalised vengeance ... by a politician playing to the gallery". In the process, the law lords ruled that it was unlawful for home secretaries to decide on the minimum tariffs to be served by offenders under 18.

In 2000 the lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, restored the original trial judge's recommendation of eight years in recognition of the good behaviour of Thompson and Venables.

"We ought not to forget that, although they committed those very serious crimes, they were first of all human beings and secondly they were children," he said.

"Children can do things when they are children that they would never do in their later life when they had matured and appreciated."

The fact that Thompson and Venables had served all their sentence outside the prison system in local authority secure homes was also a key factor for Woolf, who described the prison service's young offenders' institutions as "a corrosive atmosphere" for juveniles.

In 2001, after a six-month review, the parole board ruled that Venables and Thompson were no longer a threat to public safety and could be released on a life licence as their minimum tariff of eight years had expired that February.

The decision was approved by David Blunkett, as the home secretary, and the two were given new identities and moved to secret locations under a witness protection-style programme.

Their rehabilitation was regarded as a success for the criminal justice system.

01.13.2010

05:23 pm

South African crime lord “Fat Murphy” is not only feared on the streets of Cape Town, he’s also a congenital hermaphrodite. Police were pleasantly surprised recently when, during a chase, Murphy’s plastic dong fell out of his pants.

SOUTH African police caught more than they expected in a Cape Town drug raid when a strap-on dildo fell off a suspected crime lord during a search, the Sunday Times reported.

Fat Murphy, feared on the streets of Cape Town’s notorious Cape Flats suburb, told a court that he is a hermaphrodite who holds male and female identity documents - one under the name Fadwaan, the other under Hilary.

Police and a tearful Murphy recounted the saga during a bail hearing for Murphy’s charges of possession of stolen property, which come on top of earlier charges of kidnapping and intimidation, the paper said.

“I had a vagina that could not be penetrated. But I also had male organs, testes. But I always knew I was really a man and that was what I wanted to be,” he told the court, according to the newspaper.

“God created me with both sexual organs. It was God’s decision, not mine.”

• Kate and Gerry McCann in court for second day of hearing

• Portuguese police claim parents faked child's abduction

• John Stevens
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 18.14 GMT
• Article history

Gerry McCann has dismissed Portuguese detectives' claims that his daughter Madeleine is dead. Photograph: PA

Gerry McCann lashed out at Portuguese police today, as a former senior detective dismissed the McCanns' challenge to claims that Madeleine was dead as "pathetic".

In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was "absolutely no evidence" to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.

As Madeleine's parents returned for a second day of the libel trial over claims about their daughter's disappearance, Gerry McCann appeared rattled as he argued with Portuguese journalists about the claims of officials involved in the investigation. "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance," he said.

This morning the court heard fresh evidence questioning the disappearance of Madeleine. Former senior police officer and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores told the hearing that the McCanns' legal challenge to permanently ban a book by Gonçalo Amaral, the officer who initially led the Madeleine inquiry for Portugal's CID, the polícia judiciária (PJ), was "pathetic".

He dismissed the couple's claim that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment they were staying in at the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz, telling the court it would be impossible to pass a child through the flat's window. Giving evidence via videolink, Flores defended the Portuguese investigation into the case, praising Amaral as a "good professional".

The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued the police files reached no conclusion about the window and said there were other ways Madeleine could have been taken from the apartment.

Flores' evidence followed that of a series of senior officers who told the hearing yesterday that Madeleine had died in her family's holiday flat in May 2007 and that her parents faked her abduction.

The McCanns are challenging claims made in Amaral's book, Maddie: The Truth of the Lie that Madeleine was dead.

Amaral, who was taken off the case in October 2007 after criticising British police, is trying to overturn an injunction granted to the McCanns in September last year banning further sale or publication of the book.

At the end of the second day of the trial Gerry McCann defended taking legal action, saying the book had "damaged" the search for Madeleine.

"I'd like to remind everyone that it's the book that's on trial and not Kate and I," he said. "Over the last two days you've heard a lot about Mr Amaral's thesis that Madeleine is dead. There is absolutely no evidence to support that thesis. A thesis without evidence is meaningless."

He added: "There is a little girl missing who still needs to be found and we will keep going until Madeleine is found."

The McCanns, both 41, from Rothley, Leicestershire, say their main motive for fighting the appeal against the book ban is the fear that people will stop looking for Madeleine if they think she is dead. Gerry McCann said: "This is a legal process that we're going through to protect our daughter and our family." When asked whether it was worth the emotional cost for the couple to attend the court case, he added: "Do you have children? Anyone who has children would go through the same process."

Gerry McCann returned to Britain this afternoon because of work commitments, but Kate McCann will stay in Portugal for the rest of the hearing.

The trial is expected to last three days, but the judge could order further hearings before making her ruling.

The trial continues.

Father Jones said some people had little option but to turn to crime

A priest from North Yorkshire has advised his congregation to shoplift if they find themselves in hard times.

The Reverend Tim Jones, the parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, said people should steal from big chains rather than small businesses.

He said society's attitude to those in need "leaves some people little option but crime".

However the Archdeacon of York said: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift".

North Yorkshire Police described the sermon as "highly irresponsible".

'Catastrophic folly'

A force spokesman said despite people getting in difficult situations "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution".

"To do this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole," he said.

I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices Father Tim Jones

Speaking to his congregation on Sunday, Father Jones said: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

"When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly.

"We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."

'Important issues'

Speaking later on BBC Radio York, Father Jones said his intention had not been to rally people to shoplifting, but to encourage people to give more to charity to avoid those in need from becoming so desperate.

"If one has exhausted every legal opportunity to get money and you're still in a desperate situation it is a better moral thing to do to take absolutely no more than you need for no longer than you need," he said.

However the Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed, said: "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."

Father Jones made the news in May 2008 when he made a protest about Playboy branded stationery being aimed at children. He went into a local stationers and threw the Playboy merchandise on the floor.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. —  Tennessee investigators say a 4-year-old boy was found roaming his neighborhood in the night, drinking beer and wearing a little girl's dress taken from under a neighbor's Christmas tree.

The child's mother, 21-year-old April Wright, tells WTVC-TV the boy "wants to go to jail because that's where his daddy is." Wright says she and the boy's father are going though a divorce.

The boy, found outside his house in Chatanooga on Tuesday, was taken to a hospital and treated for alcohol consumption.

Hamilton County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Janice Atkinson says the incident is being investigated but the department declined to release the report.

The boy's mother says she met with child protective services and was told she will get to keep custody of her son.

Tahaya Buchanan, an American fugitive who'd been on the run for more than two years, dodging a national arrest warrant for insurance fraud, has spent her years underground gainfully employed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Buchanan had been indicted in New Jersey for insurance fraud in 2007, and a warrant for her arrest was issued that December and was posted to the National Crime Information Center in January 2008. New Jersey prosecutor Michael Morris said they believed Buchanan had been working for Homeland Security in New Jersey in 2007, and might have been transferred to the department's immigration office in Georgia at some point during the investigation.

That's where authorities lost track of her.

"We found it surprising [and] alarming," Morris said, "that an employee of the Department of Homeland Security is a fraudster, and we do not understand how she could have remained employed there with an open criminal warrant for her arrest remaining on the interstate system without being discovered."

Fugitive Located Inside Homeland Security Department Office