The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case (44 page)

The judge said that in the exceptional circumstances of the case he was varying the identification orders he had made. As he spoke, a clerk rushed up the aisle to the press seats, handing out copies of a single A4 sheet containing the changed orders. It looked as though the orders had been prepared hurriedly. Bobby’s surname was misspelt at the top of the sheet, and some of the wording seemed ambiguous.

There was considerable confusion among the media. Can we name them? No, said the police press officer. Yes, said the reporter from Granada Television. It was not immediately clear, though the man from Granada was right.

But the judge was moving on. He was going to speak to the boys for the second time in the trial. First he invited comments from the defence counsel. David Turner had nothing to say, but Brian Walsh stood to remind the court of Jon’s confessional words. What about his mum? Will you tell her I’m sorry.

‘While to someone older these may seem pathetically inadequate words, for a child of his years they meant a great deal, and he wanted me to repeat them when I saw him a few minutes ago.’

The judge:

‘Robert Thompson and Jon Venables,

‘The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity. This child of two was taken from his mother on a journey of over two miles and then, on the railway line, was battered to death without mercy. Then his body was placed across the railway line so it would be run over by a train in an attempt to conceal his murder. In my judgement your conduct was both cunning and very wicked.

‘The sentence that I pass upon you both is that you should be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, in such a place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may now decide. You will be securely detained for very, very many years, until the Home Secretary is satisfied that you have matured and are fully rehabilitated and until you are no longer a danger.

‘Let them be taken down.’

Bobby and Jon left the dock and, as they turned onto the stairs, facing the gallery, there was a shout from the front row. How do you feel now, you little bastards?

The judge then addressed the court. ‘How it came about that two mentally normal boys, aged ten, and of average intelligence, committed this crime is hard to comprehend.

‘It is not for me to pass judgement on their upbringing, but I suspect that exposure to violent video films may in part be an explanation.

‘In fairness to Mrs Thompson and to Mr and Mrs Venables, it is very much to their credit they used every effort to get their sons to tell the truth.

‘The people of Bootle and Walton and all involved in this tragic case will never forget the tragic circumstances of James Bulger’s murder. Everyone in court will especially wish Mrs Bulger well in the months ahead and hope that her new baby will bring her peace and happiness. I hope that all involved in this case, whether witness or otherwise, will find peace at Christmas time.’

It was unclear why the judge had made reference to violent videos. There had been no mention in evidence of any videos. Had he too heard the rumours about
Child’s
Play
3
? Perhaps he was thinking of Dr Susan Bailey’s report, which he said he had read, with its account of Jon watching Kung Fu films.

If he had wanted to provoke a public debate it was, perhaps, surprising that he had singled out violent videos as a possible explanation for the killing, with no mention of any other issues that might be a factor in young people committing serious crime.

The ensuing week’s papers were full of Chucky doll.

Why had the judge identified the boys? This too was unclear and, as a judge, as he had said in court earlier, he was not accountable.

They could change their names, of course, in years to come. As could their families. But how would Ryan, baby Ben, Mark, Michelle and the other members of the two families who had not been convicted of murdering James Bulger be affected by the revelation of their identities, and their innocent association with the notoriety which had been thrust on Bobby and Jon?

Mary Bell had tried to live with her name when she was released but had, finally, sought the protection of the court in changing her identity and keeping it out of the tabloids.

*

The court emptied quickly after the judge’s closing remarks. The media had copy to file, names to give, and the Merseyside Police were holding a press conference over the road.

Bobby and Jon had already gone, out in their separate vans, past a large, baying crowd, and back to indeterminate detention. The lawyers gathered up their boxes and papers and folders of files.

Dominic Lloyd and Lawrence Lee met in the otherwise deserted corridor of the court.

‘Well, no surprises there, eh?’ Lawrence said.

26

When
this
book
was
first
published,
in
British
hardback,
the
text
ended
at
the
close
of
the
previous
chapter.
I
had
considered
and
dismissed
the
idea
of
adding
what
I
am
now
about
to
write:
an
attempt
to
explain
how
and
why
Bobby
and
Jon
came
to
kill
James
Bulger.

There
had
been
a
deluge
of
spurious,
worthless
theorising
about
their
motives
in
the
media
and
I
did
not
feel
inclined
to
add
my
own
twopennyworth;
I
felt
that
all
the
clues,
as
many
as
were
known,
were
already
in
the
text.
It
only
required
a
little
intellectual
effort
on
the
part
of
the
reader
to
piece
them
all
together.
Then
I
wondered
if
it
was
my
own
intellectual
rigour
that
was
lacking
here.
I
had
spent
an
unhealthily
large
proportion
of
the
last
18
months
turning
the
facts
of
the
killing
over
and
over
in
my
head,
trying
to
analyse
and
clarify
what
had
happened.
I
had
been
increasingly
infuriated
by
public
and
governmental
response
to
the
case.
I
had
also
had
a
baby,
which
would
be
irrelevant,
except
that
it
had
been
the
constant
refrain
of
parents
while
I
was
writing
the
book
that
I
would
‘feel
differently’
when
I
became
a
parent
myself
They
meant
that
I
would
identify
my
own
baby
with
James
Bulger
and
myself
with
Ralph
and
Denise
and
be
unable
to
sympathise
or
even
empathise
with
Bobby
and
Jon
and
their
parents.
Well,
now I’d
had
a
baby
and
did
not
‘feel
differently’
at
all.
Perhaps
it
was
time
to
commit
those
thought-findings
to
paper…

David
James
Smith

*

We do not know if Bobby and Jon had planned to abduct and kill a baby but it seems to have become fixed in popular opinion, conveniently suiting the theory of the boys’ innate evil, that they had hatched a diabolical plot together and always knew exactly what their mutual intentions were.

‘Do you want to be in our gang – we’re going to kill someone’, they told a schoolmate. Jon, in his police interviews, said it was Bobby who had proposed getting Mrs Power’s son lost so that he would walk into the road and get knocked over and, again said, it was Bobby who proposed pushing James into the water at the canal.

Irrespective of whether Jon is attributing his own words to Bobby, these sound to be condemning remarks. Perhaps, however, they are more hyperbolical than diabolical; the boastful, let’s-talk-tough exaggerations of children rather than an expressed intention.

It’s common enough, among adults, to talk big and threatening, without anyone seriously expecting the threat to be carried out. How often are children warned by their parents, in moments of impatience, ‘you do that again and I’ll kill you’?

Jon’s mother, Susan Venables, tells Jon in the middle of his interviews, in front of two police officers, that she would have ‘strangled’ him if she had known he was in The Strand. Of course, no-one imagines she would have throttled Jon; it’s just a figure of speech. Perhaps a common one for Mrs Venables and almost certainly a common one for Bobby’s mother, Ann Thompson and Bobby’s older brothers.

Still, there was a degree of intent. Jon was identified as one of two boys tapping on a shop window to attract a child at the end of January. Their school attendance records showed that Bobby and Jon truanted together at this time. Then, in the hours before they took James they attempted to lure another child, Mrs Power’s son.

The boys roamed around The Strand for most of the morning and half the afternoon making mischief. They stole from shops, begged for 20 pence, cheeked assistants and taunted an elderly woman. They did not act with the singular purpose of abducting a child. Perhaps they had an eye to the opportunity that finally presented itself with James, wandering momentarily from his mother’s care.

It does not, then, seem to have been much of a plan and, in this context, it is hard to accept that they knew they were going to go on and kill a child. One of the two boys must have first introduced the idea that led to taking James and he would certainly not have used the word ‘abduct’. ‘Let’s get a kid … let’s get a kid lost…’ It probably did not go much further than that to begin with.

On the face of it, Bobby, with a point of reference in his own brother, baby Ben, is more likely to have initiated the plan and it would be neat and tidy to conclude that, say, for reasons of jealousy, Bobby did to James what he really wanted to do to Ben. But a vulnerable child – James – can, of course, represent much more than a stand-in sibling. Above all, to two ten year olds, a child is a person over whom they can have power. I believe that the need to exert that power lies at the heart of the case.

Whether it was Bobby or Jon who proposed taking a child, it was Jon who apparently took the lead, tapping on the window in late January, beckoning Mrs Power’s son, approaching James and taking him by the hand as the trio left The Strand.

Merseyside Police believed that Bobby cunningly stood back and
encouraged Jon to take the principal role. It was Bobby, by general consensus, who was the manipulative and sadistic ringleader in the whole affair. But how much deviousness can you attribute to a ten year old, even one with Bobby’s native acuity? There seems to be a disturbing readiness to ascribe adult guile and malice to Bobby. It may well be that Jon repeatedly took control because he wanted to.