|
Kill Total: |
1 |
Kill place: |
Liverpool |
|
Kill date: |
12th February 1993 |
Victim(s): |
James Bulger |
|
Date of Birth: |
Venables 6 August 1982
Thompson 27 August 1982 |
Marital Status: |
|
|
AKA: |
|
Occupation: |
|
Friday 12th February 1993. Denise, James Bugler's
mother, accompanied her brother’s girlfriend Nicola to the
Bootle Strand Shopping Centre and, of course, she brought
James. At 2:30 they entered the modern, two-story shopping
centre. Nicola had to exchange some underwear at TJ
Hughes, and Denise waited nearby, watching the children.
For a moment James disappeared from sight. He was getting
agitated, and made a fuss if he had to get in the
pushchair. James wandered off, but soon cried out,
frightened to suddenly find himself alone. Denise picked
him up and they left TJ Hughes. She bought the children a
snack, hoping to quiet James down. But the two-year-old
was full of energy. At a clothing shop he threw around
clothes and in another shop grabbed some sweets and juice
before Denise could stop him. At the butcher’s shop,
Denise went in, leaving James by the door. Since there
wasn’t a queue, she thought James would be okay for a
minute on his own. The butcher messed up her order,
keeping Denise a little longer than she expected. Nicola,
her companion, had just seen James playing with a
cigarette butt by the door. When the young mother left the
shop to scoop up her child, he was gone. She ran back
inside, flustered. “I was only in the shop a few seconds.
I turned round and he’d gone,” she cried.
That same morning, Jon Venables left his Liverpool home
for school. He had a note from his mother, requesting that
he be allowed to take the class gerbils home, where he
could care for them over the upcoming school holidays. But
down the road, Jon dumped his school bag in his favourite
hiding place. He saw Robert Thompson, who was hanging out
with his little brother. Both were "Bunking", playing
Truant. Jon and Robert hated school. Both had been kept
back a year, a common denominator of shame. They became
expert truants. That Friday, they walked to the Bootle
Strand. As they strolled through the centre, looking in
the shops, sales people watched them closely. Their school
uniforms signalling their truancy.
Jon and Robert came to the shopping centre to steal. It
didn’t matter what.. They stole batteries, enamel paint, pens and
pencils, a troll doll (Robert collected trolls), some
fruit and sweets, makeup, and other bits and pieces. They
stole a wind-up toy soldier, played with it on the
escalator, then threw it down the moving steps. They
discarded much of what they took. Stealing was the fun
part. Everywhere they went Jon and Robert were told to
leave. They kicked a can of enamel paint until it started
to leak. They teased an elderly woman, poking her in the
back, then running off. They climbed all over the chairs
at a McDonald’s until they were chased out. Shop
assistants asked them, why aren’t you in school? They lied
and said it was a holiday.
TOP
Whose idea was it to lure a child? In custody, Robert
claimed Jon said, “Let’s get a kid, I haven’t hit one for
ages.” But Jon blamed Robert. “Let’s get this kid lost,”
he quoted Robert as saying, “let’s get him lost outside so
when he goes into the road he’ll get knocked over.”
Perhaps both are telling the truth. Neither would chicken out or back down
once the challenge “let’s get a kid” was made. By stealing
a baby, it seems, they were proving to each other that
they were not babies themselves.
In the department store TJ Hughes, a woman noticed her
three-year-old daughter and two-year-old son were playing
with a couple of older boys. The boys, Jon and Robert,
were kneeling down, opening purses and snapping them shut,
attracting the kids’ attention. She called them back, but
they strayed off again. After she paid for her item, she
found her daughter and asked her where her baby brother
was. “Gone outside with the boys,” she said. The mother
raced outside and yelled her child’s name. She saw Jon and
Robert, motioning to her son to come along. He had already
followed them this far. But when Jon saw her, they froze.
“Go back to your mum,” they said, and the two boys quickly
disappeared.
TOP
Later, Jon and Robert went to a sweet shop near the
butcher’s shop, hoping to steal some sweets, but the shop
was closed. As they stood there for a moment, wondering
what to do next, Jon spotted a little boy in a blue anorak
by the butcher’s door. He was eating Smarties. “Come on,
baby,” said Jon. James followed and Jon took him by the
hand. As they walked through the Strand, a few women
noticed the threesome. Sometimes James ran ahead. The
older boys were calling to him: “Come on, baby.” Together,
they left the shopping centre. The video camera captured
them as they left at 3:42pm.
Denise was in a panic. She was directed to the security
office, where she described her son. He was wearing a blue
anorak and grey sweat suit. His tee-shirt had the word
“Noddy” printed on it, and his blue wool scarf had a white
cat face. Security wasn’t alarmed -- it was routine to
announce the names and descriptions of lost children over
the loudspeakers. But no one responded. Denise and Nicola
searched the shops and again called the security officers
-- still no James. At 4:15pm. they called the local
Police Station to report a missing child.
TOP
Jon and Robert left the Liverpool shopping centre and
walked up Stanley Road. They carried the toddler, who was
crying. They set him down near the post office and said
loudly, “Are you all right? You were told not to run.”
James cried for his mother, but the boys continued on,
ignoring him. Jon held the boy’s hand as they walked.
Sometimes he ran ahead, other times he fell behind. They
walked down to the canal and under a bridge to an isolated
area. Jon and Robert joked about pushing James into the
water. It was at the canal that they first hurt James. One
of them (each blamed the other) picked James up and
dropped him on his head. If they were serious about
wanting to murder a baby, why not here and now? They had
their opportunity and had made their first assault on the
toddler. Yet Jon and Robert ran away, afraid. They weren’t
prepared to kill, so they left James alone by the canal,
crying loudly.
A woman saw James and assumed he was with some other
children nearby. Jon and Robert turned around and walked
back toward James. “Come on, baby.” In his utter
innocence, little James with a big bruise and cut on his
forehead, once again followed his tormentors. They covered
the child’s head with the hood of his anorak so that his
wound would be less visible. Holding James’s hand, they
walked back toward Stanley Road and crossed at a busy
intersection. After returning from the canal, the boys
seemed to have lost their purpose and their direction.
They meandered, strolling past shops, halls, offices, and
car parks. A witness on a bus saw the two boys, swinging
the toddler’s hands, as he walked between them. A motorist
later saw the boys pulling the baby, against his will. He
was crying and did not want to go further. He saw Robert
kick the baby in the ribs. “A persuading kick,” the
witness later described it. Jon, Robert, and James had
walked over a mile by now, along a busy road in Liverpool.
It was late afternoon. At another crossing James began to
cry for his mother again. He ran off and almost ran into
traffic, but Robert caught him and pulled him back.
Motorists watched the boys as they crossed the street and
could see that James was crying, dragging his heels. Some
thought James was crying because he was not allowed to run
free.
Jon carried James by the legs, while Robert held him by
the chest. They awkwardly carried the boy to a grassy
plateau by a reservoir where they sat on a step and
rested, placing James between them. A woman walking her
dog passed them by and noticed that little James was
laughing. But moments later, another person saw Jon punch
James, grabbing him and violently shaking him. For some
inexplicable reason, this witness pulled her curtains,
shutting out the scene. It was growing dark. At the grassy
knoll by the reservoir, an elderly woman noticed the baby,
who was obviously hurt. She approached them and asked what
the problem was. James was in tears, his face bruised and
red. “We just found him at the bottom of the hill,” Jon
and Robert claimed as if they didn’t know him. She told
the boys to take him to the Walton Lane Police Station
just down the road and gave them directions there. The
little boy’s injuries worried her. She pointed them in the
direction of the police, but watched incredulously as they
walked off in the opposite direction. She shouted after
them, but they didn’t turn back. As she stood there,
unsure what to do, another woman who had seen the boys
earlier said that James had been laughing. She believed
the baby was okay; they were probably inexperienced
brothers watching over their younger sibling. Later that
night, the woman saw the news of the missing toddler on
television. She immediately called the police and told
them about her encounter. “I wish now I had done
something,” she said.
TOP
The boys walked down the hill, eventually ending up at
County Road. It had been nearly a two-mile hike by now.
They stopped inside some of the shops. A woman walking a
dog eyed the boys with the toddler and asked what was
going on. They told her that they found the lost boy at
the Strand and were on their way to the police station.
Another concerned woman, who had a little girl with her,
overheard the conversation and joined in. “Well,” she
said, “you’ve walked a long way from the Strand to Walton
Lane Police Station.” Jon said, “That’s where the man
directed us.” When she asked where they lived, Robert was
about to answer, but Jon cut him off. “The police station
is on our way home.” Robert let go of James’ hand, as if
willing to relinquish him. The women watched Robert as he
looked away. He seemed nervous. But then Jon took control.
“Get hold of his hand,” he said. Robert once again took
James by the hand. The younger woman with the child looked
down at James, who was hurt, and appeared upset. “Are you
all right, son?” she asked. James didn’t answer. Jon
insisted they would find the station; they would take care
of it. But the woman felt something wasn’t right. It was
getting dark and the boys weren’t honest. She asked that
the other woman with the dog to watch her little girl, who
was tired, while she escorted James to the station. But
the woman with the dog refused -- her pet did not like
children. As the boys took off, the younger woman called
out, “Are you sure you know the way?” Jon pointed in the
direction. “I’ll go that way, missus.”
They walked into a shop. Robert asked the assistant where
they could buy some sweets for their kid brother. The
shopkeeper noticed James’s bruises and scrapes. Then they
stopped at a pet shop, where Robert noticed a fish at the
bottom of the tank. “It’s dead,” he said to the
shopkeeper. The shop assistant thought it was a little
strange how Jon gripped James’s hand, refusing to let him
go. Outside, a fire broke out down the street. They
watched for a bit, then crossed heavy traffic to Church
Road West. They encountered two older boys who knew Robert
and had a pair of trick handcuffs. They planned to use
them on Robert and Jon, until they noticed the hurt
toddler. “Who is he?” they asked. Robert said it was Jon’s
brother, and they were taking him home. The older boy was
worried by the toddler’s red-streaked face and injuries.
“If you don’t take him home, I’ll batter you,” he later
claimed to have said. Jon and Robert continued on. They
came to the entrance of the railway and stopped. It was
not too late to abandon the crying baby. The police
station was not far off. Some people passed by and one of
the boys said loudly, “I’m fed up having my little
brother. I have him from school all the time. I’m going to
tell my mum I’m not going to mind him no more.” They
walked back out toward Walton Lane, and stood close to the
heavy traffic. The walked into an alley and as they
emerged, someone later remembered seeing James laughing.
Jon and Robert were amusing James, playing a game. It was
now approximately 5:30 p.m. and night had fallen. The
police station was to their right; Robert’s home was to
their left. But the boys decided to go back to the
railway, avoiding the police station.
TOP
With the decision to go to the rail tracks, Jon and
Robert’s uncertain and meandering intent now turned
deadly. On the way, Jon ripped off the hood of James’s
anorak and threw it into the trees. It was this very hood
that they had used to conceal his facial wounds.
Apparently they decided it was no longer necessary.
The journey had been long, over two and a half miles. They
had spent hours together. They had protected James,
holding him back from traffic. They picked him up after
ditching him by the canal. Only Jon and Robert know why
they took James up the dirt embankment and to the railway.
They found a hole in the fence, passed James through, and
crossed the grass, kicking up dust as they walked through
slabs of white shale to the rail tracks. The police
station was just down the hill.
The attack and murder of James Bulger occurred between
5:45 and 6:30 p.m. It began with one of the boys flinging
paint on James’s face into his left eye. He screamed. The
boys threw stones at James, kicked him, and beat him with
bricks. They pulled off his shoes and pants, perhaps
sexually assaulting him. They hit him with an iron bar.
When they thought James was dead, they laid his body on
the railway track, covering his bleeding head with bricks.
They left before the train came.
After the assault, Jon and Robert walked back to town.
They went to visit a friend who wasn’t home, but hung out
in front of his house anyway. Bored, they went to the
video shop, one of Robert’s favourite places. Sometimes he
ran errands for one of the women behind the counter,
including picking up overdue rentals. She offered them a
reward if they could collect on a particular past-due
rental. Back at the video shop, the boys were about to
receive their reward when Susan Venables, Jon’s mother,
swung through the door, furious. She had been searching
for Jon everywhere, including the railway.
Susan pulled both Jon and Robert out of the shop,
screaming and beating them both. Robert ran away. She
hauled Jon to the police station and asked the officer on
duty to lecture Jon. At home, Jon was in tears. Susan told
him that a little boy had been kidnapped from the shopping
centre - and whoever the maniac was, he could have taken
Jon. In the meantime, Robert had run home in tears and
told his mother how “Jon Venables’ mum ragged me out of
the video shop.” Robert’s mother, Ann Thompson, was
furious and immediately reported the beating to the
police. (As David James Smith, author of Beyond All Reason
said, “both boys were immediately back in their more
familiar role as victims rather than victimizers.”) At the
station, the officer noticed a small scratch under
Robert’s left eye. They assumed it was from Susan
Venables.
James’s disappearance made the evening news and
immediately calls poured in. Many believed they had seen
the toddler in Walton. After one report that James was
spotted by the canal, investigators planned to drag the
water in the morning. The police interviewed Ralph and
Denise Bulger, retracing her steps at the Bootle Strand.
As with most child abductions, the parents are routinely
considered suspects. But police had too many leads, which
took the focus away from the Bulgers. After midnight on
the day James disappeared, authorities watched the
security videos taken at the shopping centre, hoping to
catch a glimpse of his abductor. They were especially
interested in reports of an older man with a ponytail who
was at the Strand, who witnesses say approached other
children that day.
TOP
James’s video image eventually scattered across the
television screen. There he was, with two boys, not the
ponytail man. Blurry, jumpy images, almost ghostlike. As
they watched in disbelief, they realised they were not
dealing with an older paedophile, but two young boys,
children themselves. There was no way to identify the two
older boys, but the baby’s clothing matched Denise’s
description. They played the tape over and over, watching
in horror as James was led toward the exit. Why would two
children take another child? Police could understand the
motives of a paedophile, but this was incomprehensible.
The next morning underwater searchers grimly searched the
canal. Other searches organised to find James on land.
Police released the video stills of the boys to the media,
which appeared on television and in the papers. They hoped
someone would recognise the boys, but unfortunately, the
boys were so fuzzy that it could have been just about any
neighbourhood kid. Mothers suspected their sons. Ann
Thompson asked Robert outright if that was him on the
video. He denied it. Ann worried and confided her fears to
a friend and even threatened to take him to the police. On
Sunday morning, a train engineer noticed something on the
tracks that looked like a doll. At first it didn’t strike
him as unusual neighbourhood kids routinely laid things out
on the tracks. But after he thought about the missing
child, he called the police that evening.
Four boys found James’s body on the tracks on Sunday
afternoon, when they went up to the train tracks to look
for footballs. At first they thought he was cat, then a
doll, torn into two. Jon and Robert had laid out James
directly on the track, aware that a train would come by
soon. Perhaps they believed that the community would think
it was an accident that James had wandered up to the
tracks on his own and was run over. Or that if the train
hit James, it would destroy all clues. His upper body was
hidden within the coat. His lower body was further down
the tracks, completely undressed. He had suffered 42
injuries, most to his face and head and had not died
during the attack, but some time before the train hit him.
Jon and Robert had left him while he was still alive.
Investigators stopped all approaching trains. Led by
Detective Albert Kirby, police roped off the tracks and
shielded the scene from bystanders and reporters. James’s
body had been severed with some distance in between. It
was as if there were two crime scenes, two bodies to
examine. The upper part of his body, at first, appeared to
be nothing more than a bundle of clothing. His lower half,
however, was starkly naked. Police determined that James
had been laid by the waist onto the rail, with his upper
body on the inside of the tracks. It looked as if his head
had been covered with bricks, but the force of the train
disturbed the arrangement. The lower half of his body had
been carried further down the track.
His clothing, which had been removed from the waist down,
was laid near his head. His underwear was heavily soaked
with blood. Nearby police found a heavy iron bar, two feet
long, with bloodstains, and many bricks and stones with
blood. They also found 3 AA batteries near the body. These
batteries intrigued the investigators, who had suspicions
about their placement before James was hit by the train. A
tin of blue paint was also found nearby. James had been
severely beaten around the head and neck. There had been
fractures, cuts, bruises caused by blows from heavy blunt
objects and there had been severe bleeding. On one cheek,
a patterned bruise appeared, which indicated the imprint
from a shoe. Although there was no conclusive evidence
indicating a sexual assault, forensic specialists believed
that some of the injuries below the waist were suspicious
and sexual in nature.
Denise Bulger, who had been at the police station since
her son’s disappearance, sensed something was going on.
When she heard that a body had been discovered, she became
horribly distressed. There was nothing she could do but
wait, hysterical but contained in the station,
anticipating the terrible confirmation that they had found
James. Robert later brought a single rose to the crime
scene. Other Local mourners had created a makeshift
memorial for James near the railway. Robert noticed that
television crews were filming the mourners and later
argued that if he had killed James, why would he bring a
flower for the baby?
At home, Jon showed an intense interest in the story of
James’s disappearance. He asked his mother if they caught
the boys. “If I seen them lads, I’d kick their heads in,”
he said. On Sunday, when his mother told Jon that the
little boy had been found dead by the tracks, Jon
expressed concern for “his poor mum.” Neil, Jon’s father,
asked him about the blue paint on his coat sleeve and Jon
said Robert threw it at him. When the news reported that
blue paint had been found on the boy’s body, the Venables
did not openly suspect their son, even though he had
missed school the day James was murdered and wore a
“mustard” colour jacket, the same as the boy in the
video.
TOP
Later a woman called the police station, reporting that
her friend Susan Venables had a son named Jon, who had
skipped school on that Friday and had blue paint on his
jacket sleeve. He resembled the boy in the video. She said
he had a friend named Robert Thompson, with whom he
skipped school that day. With no other solid leads,
investigators decided that Jon and Robert should be
brought in for questioning. At 7:30 in the morning on
Thursday, February 18, four police officers appeared on
Ann Thompson’s doorstep with a search warrant. When Robert
realized that he was a suspect, he began to cry. They
rounded up his clothes and immediately noticed that there
was blood on his shoes. When they came for Jon Venables,
his mother Susan answered the door and said, “I knew you’d
be here. I told him you’d want to see him for bunking
school on Friday.” Susan mentioned that Jon “came home on
Friday, with his coat covered in paint.” The police
promptly asked for Jon’s mustard-yellow coat, which had
indeed been splattered with blue paint. It even appeared
that there was a small handprint on the sleeve. Jon
grabbed hold of his mother and sobbed. “I don’t want to go
to prison, mum. I didn’t kill the baby.” He cried
hysterically. “It’s that Robert Thompson. He always gets
me into trouble.” Through tears, Jon told police they
should speak to Robert. As they drove him to the police
station, Jon continued to ask about Robert. Had they
arrested him yet, and where were they taking him? Despite
Robert and Jon’s distressed reactions to being arrested,
the police did not immediately suspect that they were the
killers. They were simply following up on a tip. There
were other boys with violent records out there and,
besides, the boys in the Strand video looked to be 13 or
14 years old. Jon and Robert were small, still little kids
themselves. But, following procedure, investigators
interviewed Jon at the Lower Lane police station and
Robert at the Walton Lane police station, which was just
down the slope from where James had been killed. The boys,
especially Jon, were both terrified and fascinated by the
police procedure. As they took Jon’s fingerprints, he
nervously asked how fingerprints worked. They seemed like
invisible ink, magical to him. “Do you leave these on
whatever you touch?” he asked. “If you touch someone’s
skin does it leave a fingerprint? If you drag someone
really hard, do you leave your nails in his skin?” He
wanted to know if they were taking Robert Thompson’s
prints too. Police took blood, hair, and fingernail
samples from both boys. In the meantime, a shopkeeper from
the Strand called the police. The boys from the video
might have been in their store on the day James
disappeared, so police came down and took fingerprints.
Jon’s were matched.
During the interviews that followed, both boys denied
everything, but, as the week went on , and as they became
more distraught, they started to admit bits, but claim the
other was the instigator.
By the end of the week police
had enough information to go for a conviction of the boys,
jointly.
22 February 1993,
The two boys were charged with Bulger's murder, and were
the youngest people to be charged with murder in England
and Wales during the 20th century.
Both boys were detained until their trial, set for
November of 1993. They would undergo psychiatric
evaluations and further interviews. In the meantime, the
British court system had to prepare accommodations for the
two young defendants.
TOP
14th May 1993, both Jon and Robert appeared at the
Liverpool Crown Court to enter their pleas of “not
guilty.” The case would be tried in Preston, which was
closer to the boys’ secure units. Jon hyperventilated
during the court hearing and could not participate in the
police line-ups because he was too distraught. Both the
prosecution and defence worried about his ability to
participate in his own defence.
1st
November 1993: Trial begins;
In order to allow the defendants to see above the
railings, the Preston Crown Court built a special raised
platform on which the two boys would sit during the trial.
(It would later be argued that this extraordinary
“displaying” of the defendants constituted an unfair
trial.) Carpenters bolted down the chairs in public
gallery so that no one could throw them. The hours of the
trial approximated school day hours, from 10:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. The boys would be tried together. Presiding
Judge Sir Michael Morland ruled that the boys be known as
Child A and Child B (Robert Thompson and Jon Venables,
respectively.) Although the defendants were supposedly
anonymous by name, everyone got a good look at them, and
watched their behaviour closely. On the raised platform sat
Robert, heavier than before, and looking older than his
now 11 years. He stared ahead, or up at the ceiling,
kicked off his shoes, and yawned. He showed little
emotion. Onlookers assumed Robert was the “guilty one.” He
had no family present and sat glumly next to his social
worker, who showed little affection toward him. Jon seemed
more contrite, anxious, constantly looking back at his
mother for her support.
The prosecution, led by Richard Henriques, presented their
case, contending that both boys took part in James
Bulger’s death. Because both defendants were under the age
of 14, the prosecution had to prove they knew that their
actions were severely wrong. “You can properly be
satisfied that each of them knew it was seriously wrong to
take a young child from his mother, to try to do so, and
to use such extreme violence on a child of such tender
years.” As the jury received files, which included photos
of the crime, they were visibly moved. J
TOP
Jon and Robert did not participate in the trial -- they did
not take the stand and the court rarely addressed them.
They were incapable of understanding the procedures.
Denise Bulger, who didn’t appear, had her statement read
to the jury. They watched as the evidence clearly
indicated their guilt: the Strand security videos,
blood-splattered bricks, stones, clothing, a tin of blue
paint, and a heavy bar. Forensic scientists gave
assessments of James’s injuries, which were so numerous,
that they couldn’t determine which one caused his death.
One particular imprint on James’s cheek was conclusively
linked to Robert’s bloody shoe, indicating that he was an
indisputable participant.
Did the boys know the difference between right and wrong?
This was an important issue for the prosecution. The
Victorian concept of “doli incapax” was established to
protect innocent (and ignorant) children from corporal
punishment. In an earlier era, wild street children were
executed for their crimes. “Doli incapax” meant that
children were incapable of wrongdoing because they cannot
grasp the consequences of their actions. To this point,
Jon and Robert’s teachers testified. Psychiatrists took
the stand, believing both defendants knew the severity of
their crime. The court then played the recorded police
interviews, which also revealed their understanding of the
charges.
Jon’s hysterical, high-pitched crying affected
many who heard it. It was at this point in the trial that
the boys paid close attention. Each was interested in what
the other had said and indignantly listened as they
accused each other of the murder. Robert, who tried to
appear cool and tough throughout the trial, was upset when
he heard Jon claim that Robert was like a girl because he
played with dolls. Jon sheepishly watched Robert’s
reactions when he accused him of beating James. As he
waited, Robert knit gloves for his baby brother and said
he knew that they would find him guilty.
TOP
The verdict came
in that afternoon. For the first time, Denise set foot in
the courtroom with her husband Roger by her side. As
expected, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were found
guilty. Jon sobbed while Robert sat motionless.
The Judge, Mr Justice Morland, addressed the boys: “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 judgment your conduct was both
cunning and very wicked.”
“This 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.” The
judge also allowed that the media be allowed to publish
the boys’ names. From the gallery, someone shouted, “How
do you feel now, you little bastards?”
The judge, set their
minimum period of imprisonment to eight years. This was
increased to 10 years on appeal by the Lord Chief
Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
Later it was increased to
15 years by the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, on the
grounds that he was "acting in the public interest". This
decision was then overturned in 1997 by the Law Lords.
October 2000, Lord
Chief Justice Harry Woolf reduced their minimum sentence
by two years in recognition of their good behaviour and
remorse shown while in detention, effectively restoring
the original trial judge's eight-year recommended minimum.
June 2001, the
parole board ruled the boys were no longer a threat to
public safety and could now be released as their minimum
tariff had expired. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett,
approved the decision, and they were released within
weeks.
They were given new
identities and moved to secret residence locations under a
"witness protection" action. They will live out their
lives on a 'life licence', which allows for their
immediate re-incarceration if they break the terms of
their release.
Various press and TV
reports have suggested the whereabouts and identities of
the boys, now grown men, but all have proved to be
incorrect.
no one knows where they
are, perhaps that's best??
Have your say about this case in our
USER FORUM...
TOP
