The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 13 Jul 2016, 8:11 pm

Huge case back in the 90s....Still is.........Very emotive and controversial.......Rightly so..

* Beautiful little three year old Jamie Bulger was taken from a shopping center by two "Ten year old boys" (Thompson and Venables) and left on a railway track after being violently killed.......

* The boys served 8 years in a youth offender's home and were controversially let out on licence and under supervision....

* The justice for Jamie group were understandably aggrieved at the sentence....As were the cops involved....

* Those defending the boys interests point to them being tried in an adult court at the age of ten as a violation of human rights....(It's 12-14 in a lot of other Countries)...Then again it wasn't your usual crime..

* Social workers in the offenders institute state the boys showed improvement and showed remorse for their crime..

* Jamie's mother and the campaign say they have never shown any remorse or said sorry for the murder....

* Venables has re-offended and has been found guilty of having and distributing "Child porn"...Sent to prison for 3 years..

* Thompson apparently passed his exams...Is in a decent job and is in a long term relationship.......

* Jamie's mother has stated if they had served some time in a grown up jail she would have attempted to move on...(seems a reasonable stance)

* Those defending the boys say if they had gone to a grown up jail they may have been corrupted and all the work put in to them been wasted....

Very difficult case........and a very tragic one.......

by Stella Wed 13 Jul 2016, 10:27 pm

Didn't the father commit suicide?

A horrible incident that makes me angry thinking about it.

Cancer for those two would be a suitable punishment.

by SecretFly Wed 13 Jul 2016, 10:53 pm

How many of us have any memories of genuine A-Grade school yard bullies? Not the usual kind that are sometimes portrayed in comedies (those eejits that go round pulling hair or slapping guys who are seated in front of them with rulers) And neither do I mean aggressive kids that would all too easily get angry and violent.

- I mean real dark, vicious, sly stand-out creeps that are just programmed to be basterdes and nothing else?

I knew two. Both have grown up of course and I still would have some knowledge of how they are getting along in life. No neither of them are in prison! Neither of them to my knowledge have carried out any serious crime in their lives. They're both married and they both have jobs.

The much lesser of the two basterdes has probably mellowed into mellow adulthood - though I can't be sure because I don't know so much about his day to day personality. The other guy, the worst, the very worst - well he matured but he's had a litany of run-ins with people he shouldn't have fooled with because he is basically still 100% that absolute schidt he was when only a young boy.

My point is probably that I don't believe youth is an excuse for the programming you take into your life and through your life. One of those two boys might have been goaded on by the other but both of them knew the seriousness of their act. They did, and I simply won't believe the professional psychological evaluations that now might seek to excuse their adult selves for the sins of their youth.

It's not normal to want to stone a young child to death at any age, even at an 'youthful experimental' age. It's abnormal; and both these guys are wired in a different way. So I wouldn't believe that Thompson is now a model citizen who should be absolved of his past.
I don't think people genuinely change that much through life. Thompson, the supposed most normal of the two now but at the time he was actually spoken about in terms of being the instigator; he still knows the thoughts in his head when he committed the act all those years ago.
I know the thoughts in my head from momentous events from decades ago - and I can't disown even now any of them. I'm pretty much the same person today that I was as a 10 year old. Thompson still knows that person and he still lives with him.

I believe he should be let live his life now in relative peace but I wouldn't be remotely ready for a revision of either of them or their personalities.

by westisbest Wed 13 Jul 2016, 10:56 pm

Shocking to say the least.

Given hidden identities to.

I did read a while back that someone had cottend on that they had a gut feeling that he knew it was Venables, but not sure if this person went to the police.

Very sad indeed.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 13 Jul 2016, 11:12 pm

Interesting thoughts and contributions..........

I think the Father is still alive...I know Mum and Dad split soon after the tragedy primarily because of the tremendous stress on the family..The mother seems to have found happiness in a new relationship which is good....

Think the fact the boys were just Ten is the driver in this case.....

Had it been my boy stoned I'd want the death penalty brought back or throw away the key.......if my kid had been one of the ten year old boys...I'd want him to get another chance at life......

However 8 years playing pool and being privately educated does seem a small price to pay for such a barbaric act.....Personally I side with the Mother in thinking a few years in adult jail may have been more adequate.

Really all depends on "10" doesn't it.....and how it is perceived..

Know from experience how easy it is to lose sight of your child whilst shopping....So no blame should be directed at Mrs Bulger whatsoever.....

Always find it distasteful when a girl gets assaulted in a park at night and people say "Well she shouldn't be in a park at night on her own!!"......

She has every right to be in the park....

Human nature I suppose..

by SecretFly Wed 13 Jul 2016, 11:15 pm

She still shouldn't be in that park at night on her own, Truss. That's not a Rights issue, it's simply good advice to keep girls (and men) safe.

by westisbest Thu 14 Jul 2016, 12:36 am

Agree that they should have gone to adult jail.

Its a huge insult to the Bulger family, the way Thompson and Venebles have been treated.

There was a 13 year old in the states who strangled a 4 year old to death.
When he became an adult he was transferd to prison.
Still there i think, as it should be imo.

by **Galted** Fri 15 Jul 2016, 5:00 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36794888

class

by Stella Fri 15 Jul 2016, 5:17 am

Vile behaviour. Obviously mentally unstable.

by kingraf Fri 15 Jul 2016, 6:48 am

Well that's as easy a way to los three years of your life as it gets

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 15 Jul 2016, 7:14 pm

Stella wrote:Didn't the father commit suicide?

A horrible incident that makes me angry thinking about it.

Cancer for those two would be a suitable punishment.

by MIG Fri 15 Jul 2016, 7:27 pm

This is definitely the case that sticks with me the most that's happened in my life time.

I remember it so clearly. I was 10 at the time this happened and I remember thinking back then that I was old enough to know exactly what I'm doing and how disgusting and wrong the things they did were.

They were let out too early. Far too early. They got off lightly and its just not fair. The fact that one of them has re-offended as well. My words just cannot describe my anger.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 15 Jul 2016, 7:35 pm

MIG wrote:....They were let out too early. Far too early. They got off lightly and its just not fair. The fact that one of them has re-offended as well. My words just cannot describe my anger.

As good an example as any of why the implementation of the legal system should stay as far away as possible from the feelings of the public.

by BamBam Fri 15 Jul 2016, 7:53 pm

I'm 6 months older than Jamie Bulger, and its weird that even as a young child its a case that I seem to remember the TV reports of

Went back and read more about the case on one of the anniversaries, and what struck me was the apparent lack of remorse from both

I'd never be in favour of the death penalty for kids, and do believe in rehabilitation, but these two really stretch that belief.

by Stella Fri 15 Jul 2016, 7:59 pm

BamBam wrote:I'm 6 months older than Jamie Bulger, and its weird that even as a young child its a case that I seem to remember the TV reports of

Went back and read more about the case on one of the anniversaries, and what struck me was the apparent lack of remorse from both

I'd never be in favour of the death penalty for kids, and do believe in rehabilitation, but these two really stretch that belief.

Indeed. That's why I say f..k em!

by Derbymanc Fri 15 Jul 2016, 8:08 pm

What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 15 Jul 2016, 8:18 pm

Stella wrote:
BamBam wrote:I'm 6 months older than Jamie Bulger, and its weird that even as a young child its a case that I seem to remember the TV reports of

Went back and read more about the case on one of the anniversaries, and what struck me was the apparent lack of remorse from both

I'd never be in favour of the death penalty for kids, and do believe in rehabilitation, but these two really stretch that belief.

Indeed. That's why I say f..k em!

Christ. Who are YOU to know what remorse they feel? It's not incumbent on them to display any public remorse just so you can get some sort of vicarious thrill/justification and public remorse (or lack thereof) should have nothing to do with sentence.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 15 Jul 2016, 8:22 pm

Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 15 Jul 2016, 8:42 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

10 years old is not 'nothing'. They were more than old enough to be acutely aware of what they were doing. If they were 5 you could maybe argue that but even then you'd be stretching it. I have kids from early teens to 2.5 years old and a set of five year old twins. They are absolutely aware enough of their actions at 5 to know the difference between what kids do everyday and the level of thought and violence that occurred in the Bulger case.

But 10 years old! Nonsense. In my best Andrea Leadsom impression, I can only assume you don't know many, or spend much time around 10 years old if think they wouldn't 'really know' what they were doing at that age.

Your first paragraph I'd agree with, your second paragraph is way off.

by MIG Fri 15 Jul 2016, 9:00 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

I'd already said in my post, the part you didn't bother to quote, that I was ten years old (the same as them) at the time and I was fully aware of how wrong and bad it was at the time.
You don't know whether they served enough time or not yet have a go at me for having the opinion that they should have had a harsher sentence.
The only evidence we have to debate this is that one of them has re-offended. Twice!

by Derbymanc Fri 15 Jul 2016, 9:07 pm

Morning Navy,

Gotta disagree with the 10 years is nothing though. my kids are 9 and both know enough to say well that's wrong, never mind to say wtf is wrong with someone to do that.

Definitely don't think they served enough time though. And from communication with someone that served time in Barton Moss with one of them, they didn't seem to care a jot

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 15 Jul 2016, 9:11 pm

I'd be surprised, in fact, astonished if any parent of a 10 year old could come on here and claim their kid wasn't acutely aware of their actions at that age. If there are, then the kids are either mentally impaired or there are some serious parental shortcomings.

My 2.5 year old is aware that if she stamps on a snail, it's dead. It's not coming back. Then she'll cry and show remorse. The elder ones fight and bicker all the time, and when one steps over the line, they show remorse and apologise for their actions.

To suggest 10 year old kids are not really aware of the concept of death and mortality is fantasy stuff.

by lostinwales Fri 15 Jul 2016, 9:51 pm

You have to consider what the aims of the treatment of these two kids were. Punishment as far as the parents of Jamie Bulger is concerned could be unlimited, but otherwise it doesn't actually do society any good to keep them locked up forever. It's not going to prevent such a tragic event happening again. All it actually achieves is keeping them out of society for a longer time.

So what do you do instead? I guess the point being that regardless of what the kids thought about what they were doing at the time you do have to take the view that at 10 they are more malleable than they would be if they were older. So you go the route of rehabilitation. In this case it seems as if in the case of one of the kids the rehabilitation was successful, in the other not. So the system was partially successful but could have done a better job of determining if the other kid was a permanent threat to society or not.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 2:29 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:

Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

10 years old is not 'nothing'. They were more than old enough to be acutely aware of what they were doing. If they were 5 you could maybe argue that but even then you'd be stretching it. I have kids from early teens to 2.5 years old and a set of five year old twins. They are absolutely aware enough of their actions at 5 to know the difference between what kids do everyday and the level of thought and violence that occurred in the Bulger case.

But 10 years old! Nonsense. In my best Andrea Leadsom impression, I can only assume you don't know many, or spend much time around 10 years old if think they wouldn't 'really know' what they were doing at that age.

Your first paragraph I'd agree with, your second paragraph is way off.

Not everyone is the same though, Tino. My 7-yo daughter appears to be bright, but we're having great fun and games re. her social behaviour. What they did is evil, by any modern social definition, but ten is very young and who knows what their upbringing was really like? Who were their role models? One thing's for sure, none of us commenting here have a scooby about that or whether they're remorseful etc.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 2:34 am

MIG wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

I'd already said in my post, the part you didn't bother to quote, that I was ten years old (the same as them) at the time and I was fully aware of how wrong and bad it was at the time.
You don't know whether they served enough time or not yet have a go at me for having the opinion that they should have had a harsher sentence.
The only evidence we have to debate this is that one of them has re-offended. Twice!

With respect, so what if you know that what they did was a big no-no at 10? We aren't talking about what you knew at 10.
Yep, I don't know but I'm not proclaiming they didn't serve enough time or should be executed etc am I?
As for the re-offending thing, that's clearly not a great advert, but if you're FUBAR enough to murder at 10 years of age, clearly your sense of what's OK socially is likely a bit awry don't you think?

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 2:36 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I'd be surprised, in fact, astonished if any parent of a 10 year old could come on here and claim their kid wasn't acutely aware of their actions at that age. If there are, then the kids are either mentally impaired or there are some serious parental shortcomings.

My 2.5 year old is aware that if she stamps on a snail, it's dead. It's not coming back. Then she'll cry and show remorse. The elder ones fight and bicker all the time, and when one steps over the line, they show remorse and apologise for their actions.

To suggest 10 year old kids are not really aware of the concept of death and mortality is fantasy stuff.

Bully for you Tino and your 2.5-yo. My 7-yo daughter is not remotely clear on exactly that sort of thing but, hey, I'm a sh!t parent. Must be. Oh and thanks for the alternative conclusion, as if being mentally impaired is something to beat someone with...

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 2:43 am

lostinwales wrote:You have to consider what the aims of the treatment of these two kids were. Punishment as far as the parents of Jamie Bulger is concerned could be unlimited, but otherwise it doesn't actually do society any good to keep them locked up forever. It's not going to prevent such a tragic event happening again. All it actually achieves is keeping them out of society for a longer time.

So what do you do instead? I guess the point being that regardless of what the kids thought about what they were doing at the time you do have to take the view that at 10 they are more malleable than they would be if they were older. So you go the route of rehabilitation. In this case it seems as if in the case of one of the kids the rehabilitation was successful, in the other not. So the system was partially successful but could have done a better job of determining if the other kid was a permanent threat to society or not.

Some sense. Fortunately, the legal system seems to agree with you, instead of the Mail-reading "hang 'em high", vengeance brigade.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 4:01 am

Bit OTT in the defence their Navy, but I do think they have done their time. There's a reason we have juvenile prisons and equally they are allowed to be rehabilitated if they are deemed so. Obviously one has proven himself a wrongun again but however much you think a 10 year old knows, they do not have the emotional depth. You can understand something is dead, but at the same time grief in a child is generally a lot different to that in adult.

by Mind the windows Tino. Sat 16 Jul 2016, 4:40 am

Get a bloody grip of yourself, navy. I've just got a different opinion to you, flower. That's all.

That's one of the most ridiculous overreactions I've ever seen on v2 and there have been a lot. No ones calling you a sh*t parent, we just obviously have vastly different experiences of what kids are like and capable of emotionally.

So pull your knickers up and stop flouncing, princess.

by **Galted** Sat 16 Jul 2016, 4:57 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Get a bloody grip of yourself, navy. I've just got a different opinion to you, flower. That's all.

That's one of the most ridiculous overreactions I've ever seen on v2 and there have been a lot. No ones calling you a sh*t parent, we just obviously have vastly different experiences of what kids are like and capable of emotionally.

So pull your knickers up and stop flouncing, princess.

by kingraf Sat 16 Jul 2016, 5:35 am

Tiña posting after hours is one of the more shocking aspects of this thread

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 20 Jul 2016, 12:22 am

Think it's worth remembering that kids develop at different speeds than others....No one size fits all..

These kids may have been young ten year olds....We don't know..

Think the remorse argument is a hollow one too...Who knows what they are thinking...

However it really was an appalling crime and it robbed an innocent boy of a fulfilling life and burdened close family with years of grief....

Think a custodial sentence would have been more appropriate.....

Certainly in Venables case....Thompson seems to be a reformed character...

Tough one and I certainly understand Tino's and others passionate posting..

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed 20 Jul 2016, 8:47 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 20 Jul 2016, 9:10 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three..

I see where you're coming from mate.....

Perhaps why it is best strangers decide these things....

I said earlier if Jamie was mine I'd want the death penalty..............If Thompson was mine I'd want to see him get a second chance...

But I do agree their sentences were light...

by Stella Wed 20 Jul 2016, 9:32 pm

Strangers (who may have small kids/grandkids) do make the decisions. I didn't have kids when it happened and it still made me feel sick, such was the vile act.

by lostinwales Wed 20 Jul 2016, 9:32 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

Taking one step away from what was a despicable and deeply horrible crime. What does locking them up forever actually achieve?

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed 20 Jul 2016, 10:53 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

Taking one step away from what was a despicable and deeply horrible crime. What does locking them up forever actually achieve?

Apart from taking away their quality of living, keeping them seperate from society and completely eradicating any risk of them doing it again, pretty much feic all.

by SecretFly Wed 20 Jul 2016, 11:44 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

Taking one step away from what was a despicable and deeply horrible crime. What does locking them up forever actually achieve?

Well, potentially, it would stop either one re-offending in a big way. Now some might say the risks of that happening are minute and the professionals know what they're doing in saying they were ready to re-enter society, but would the parents or wives or husbands of any future victim give a damn about such assessments if either one committed a major crime again?

I think both of them are psychopaths. That's 'ARE' not 'were'. Maybe they are on medication but there is not much medication that changes a psychopath from being one to not being one. They are born with the wiring and then their upbringing/influences/experiences then determine how they act on it. Some psychopaths are decent, if overly ambitious people; some are business plotters, dealers and wheelers, others are soulless killers. That's not me trying to throw the usual 'insult' the way of these two, it's me saying I believe they are both clinically psychopaths - a lack of empathy (that can often be acted out as a pretence to fit in), a lack of genuine remorse or even a notion of the need for remorse.

Let's hope they get on with their lives in a peaceful way but the point is here that we shouldn't make excuses for them. They are what they are not what they 'were'. I don't want any witch hunts but neither am I moved to laud the idea that either of them have a second chance at having a happy life. Maybe I'm actually a psychopath in that I have scant empathy for either of them - let them get on with it, peacefully.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 20 Jul 2016, 11:54 pm

Not sure who has made excuses for the act...Shocking and despicable..

However 10 is the driver here....and what punishment is appropriate..

by SecretFly Thu 21 Jul 2016, 12:17 am

You'll find that many serial killers (considered mentally deranged or otherwise - as in 'professional' career assassins etc) began their decent into the ability to have those lives at these ages described - young - 7, 8, 9, 10.

I don't buy it as an excuse - incidently not claiming that you Truss are excusing them at all but merely responding to what society often uses as excuses for these kinds of people)

I believe these guys knew what was societally right and what was wrong - the wrongness of what they engaged in was what goaded them to 'experiment' down that route. They made a child suffer and had no normal response to that child suffering pain, fear and terror. They were curious to see someone go through just such emotions, but they themselves were incapable of feeling the emotions that could have stopped them so many times between the kidnapping and the murder.

Being 10 doesn't do it for me. It doesn't remotely absolve them or suggest to me that they are or could potentially be different now. I'd never trust them. I'd never let my guard down - if I knew either of them in the present. They are what they are not what they were.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 21 Jul 2016, 12:43 am

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

You miss the point entirely. Too much emotion and not enough thought.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 21 Jul 2016, 12:54 am

SecretFly wrote:You'll find that many serial killers (considered mentally deranged or otherwise - as in 'professional' career assassins etc) began their decent into the ability to have those lives at these ages described - young - 7, 8, 9, 10.

I don't buy it as an excuse - incidently not claiming that you Truss are excusing them at all but merely responding to what society often uses as excuses for these kinds of people)

I believe these guys knew what was societally right and what was wrong - the wrongness of what they engaged in was what goaded them to 'experiment' down that route. They made a child suffer and had no normal response to that child suffering pain, fear and terror. They were curious to see someone go through just such emotions, but they themselves were incapable of feeling the emotions that could have stopped them so many times between the kidnapping and the murder.

Being 10 doesn't do it for me. It doesn't remotely absolve them or suggest to me that they are or could potentially be different now. I'd never trust them. I'd never let my guard down - if I knew either of them in the present. They are what they are not what they were.

Good post. Not sure I'm convinced that they could never change their behaviour/emotions/empathy/whatever, but good points.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu 21 Jul 2016, 1:06 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.
You miss the point entirely. Too much emotion and not enough thought.

Emotion? Absolutely.

Missing the point? I think your statement in bold was perfectly clear, which I understood 100%.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 21 Jul 2016, 1:53 am

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.
You miss the point entirely. Too much emotion and not enough thought.

Emotion? Absolutely.

Missing the point? I think your statement in bold was perfectly clear, which I understood 100%.

That's fine, but then you jump in, completely OTT having described my post as the most ridiculous you've ever seen here. Ironic eh?
I suggested a 10-yo is perhaps not old enough to be damning them for all Eternity and to send them there in agony. I suggested that not all 10-yos are so wonderfully, emotionally mature as Tino's 2.5-yo and that just maybe, not everyone at 10 would be fully aware of exactly what the meaning of Venables' and Thompson's crime was. I also suggested that just maybe, their upbringing might have played into this and that maybe, none of us (or the wider public) are in any position to judge their state of mind, remorse etc.
In other words, it's a good idea to keep the wider public and their emotional reactions to things like this well away from the professionals charged with sorting it all out.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu 21 Jul 2016, 2:16 am

Navy

Your statement was ludicrous in the fact you state that not all 10 years olds would know exactly what they were doing.

Firstly, if these two 10 year olds were mentally ill or under the influence of some drug, then yeah. There is a slim case for your statement.

But they weren't.

They knew exactly what they were doing. Here is some info on the case, just to make it a bit clearer for you:

- One of the boys later revealed that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the mall, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic.

-The boys took Bulger on a meandering 2.5-mile (4 km) walk across Liverpool to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal where he was dropped on his head and suffered injuries to his face. The boys joked about pushing Bulger into the canal.

-Two people challenged the older boys, but they claimed that Bulger was a younger brother or that he was lost and they were taking him to the local police station.

-At the trial it was established that at this location, one of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had shoplifted earlier, into Bulger's left eye.

-They kicked and stomped on him, and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth.

-Finally, a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, was dropped on him.

-Bulger suffered ten skull fractures as a result of the iron bar striking his head. Dr. Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries—42 in total—that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.

-Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.

So....do you still think it's a 'little dodgy' to assume that these two little 10 year old boys knew what they were doing?

They knew feicing exactly what they were doing.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 21 Jul 2016, 2:33 am

For the record, again, I find what they did horrendous but by your own post, above, do you think that behaviour is in any way normal for a 10-yo? If not, why not? Just out of interest, what were your sources for the above 'quotes' ?
Simply stating that "They knew feicing exactly what they were doing", doesn't make it so. Are you suggesting they knew exactly how heinous a crime it was, but that they did it anyway? If so, how do you know that?
Maybe they should both still be in a secure psychiatric unit? Who knows? You can bet that neither you nor I are in any position to judge though.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu 21 Jul 2016, 2:57 am

You didn't question their behaviour being normal......and I think it's pretty much obvious that it isn't normal behaviour for any age, nevermind a 10 year old. You questioned everyone who assumed they knew what they were doing.

They planned it. They skipped school with the sole purpose of taking a kid.

That's how I know they knew what they were doing. And as they were sentenced for murder, the jury knew also that the two little barstewards knew what they were doing. That's why they went to a YOI rather than some psychiatric unit.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 21 Jul 2016, 3:14 am

You lost me when you got to the jury bit...

A jury let OJ off...

by SecretFly Thu 21 Jul 2016, 3:28 am

Coz OJ never did none of most of it never anyway!!!! He was set up! The glove was too small! The glove - it was too small!!!

The illuminati got to him, or tried to coz he was about to expose them for making a mockery of his acting career.

by westisbest Fri 22 Jul 2016, 12:09 am

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean Navy?

Are you of the opinion they served enough time and punishment was enough (and if so, how come?) or was it just the anger thing you was on about.

I don't know if they've served enough time or if they should have served some time in an adult jail. I don't know if they're remorseful or not and I wouldn't presume to judge how they feel. They're the ones who'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

To be clear, I think the crime was abhorrent and I wouldn't want to be Bulger's parents for a second. Ten years of age though is nothing and I think it's a little dodgy to be assuming the pair of them really knew what they were doing and what the actual meaning of it was.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever had the misfortune of reading on v2.

They horrifically killed a toddler. A tiny child who must have gone through the most horrendous, painful and frightening experience imaginable and there was nobody there to help him. Even trying to imagine what he went through makes me quite emotional, especially when I think of my youngest lad who is approaching three.

People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights???? What about the human right of the little boy who was brutally murdered.

Their sentence was a joke and they should still be inside, without all the youth club perks and kept there for the rest of the miserable disgusting lives.

Think thats a great post tattie. Well said. clap

minus the first line i should add.

by Sponsored content