The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case (33 page)

The route from the court was lined by a thicket of television crews and a small crowd of local people, some of whom ran forward offering physical
and verbal abuse. There were six arrests in the mêlée, but the tightly framed images of hatred on the television news seemed to exaggerate the scale of the incident.

The boys’ parents, Ann Thompson and Neil and Susan Venables, never returned to their homes. Removal teams went in to take their possessions into storage, and the families were rehoused by social services. There was much secrecy and paranoia: fear of being found by the media, the greater fear of some faceless mob, or a vengeful maniac with a petrol bomb.

Ann spent several weeks with Ryan and Ben in a flat attached to a residential home for the elderly, before being moved into a small house on a large estate, not far from Bobby’s secure unit. She kept Ryan with her at home, unwilling to let him go to school because he might accidentally disclose their secret.

Neil and Susan Venables were reunited in their efforts to deal with what had happened, and moved together to a house in a quiet street near Jon’s secure unit. Susan sent a thank-you note to the police at Lower Lane, a Hallmark card with a front picture of flowers and the printed words,

A message can’t really convey

The gratitude that’s sent your way…

But may these words somehow express

Warm thanks for all your thoughtfulness.

Alongside the message, Susan wrote, ‘We would like to thank all the staff at Lower Lane Station for the kind thoughts and respect we received from you. Without your help I know we would not have coped, we will never forget you. God bless you all. Thanks so very much once again, Sue Neil Jon.’

On the first Saturday in March the boys were collected from their units by police officers from Merseyside and taken to an identification suite at Longsight Police Station in Manchester, to stand on identification parades. Bobby went first, in a line with eight other boys, and was pointed out by two women who had seen him in the Strand, an assistant from Animate, the pet shop on County Road, and the two boys who had been playing with handcuffs on Church Road West.

Jon waited in the detention room with his father and a couple of police officers. He asked his dad if Pauline was going to be there. ‘Pauline saw us, I think.’ His dad didn’t know. ‘Pauline, a friend of my mum’s,’ Jon explained to the officers. He asked one of them if they had seen
Crimewatch.
They asked what about. ‘The James Bulger thing.’ Yes. ‘What did it say?’ Then Jon wanted to know if the woman with the black dog was there for the parade.

When he was taken out to begin the parade, Jon began crying and became very distressed. He was taken back to the detention room, but could not stop crying. He wanted the door opened, to let in some fresh air. Why
do I have to do it, he said to his dad, I’ve told them it was me. His parade was abandoned.

On the way back to his unit, travelling in an unmarked car, Jon asked why they couldn’t have a police car. I know, he said, ’cos people might look and say there’s that murder boy. Then he said, ‘Me and Robert might get set free ’cos only two identified Robert and that was out of 20.’

They tried again the following Saturday, and again Jon became upset and worried, waiting at Longsight for the parade to begin. An officer walked him round the station, trying to calm him down, but it was no good. Jon could not go through with the parade. The police decided instead to conduct the identification parade by video. They would film Jon, and eight other boys, and show the sequence to witnesses. Jon was told he would have to be recorded, walking up and down the corridor. ‘Is that because they saw me walking in The Strand?’

The video recordings were made that day, and shown to witnesses a week later. Jon did not have to attend this time, but his solicitor was there to monitor fair play. Jon was picked out by one of the two women who had also recognised Bobby at The Strand, by the owner of the DIY shop on County Road, and by the man who had seen two boys tapping on the window of TJ Hughes in late January, apparently trying to attract the attention of a child.

Towards the end of March case conferences were convened at the Merseyside offices of the NSPCC – the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Bobby was discussed at nine thirty in the morning and Jon at eleven o’clock. No members of the boys’ families were present, but the head teacher of the school was there, along with numerous social services’ representatives, an education welfare officer, and a detective from the Merseyside Police child protection unit.

The conferences were intended to examine the boys’ backgrounds and look for any possible connection between abuse they might have suffered and the offences with which they had been charged. Bobby’s conference was told of the violence and neglect in his mother’s childhood, and his father’s strict upbringing in a fatherless household. All the known indications of physical abuse in Bobby’s family were considered. The police questioning of Philip over the allegation of inciting a gross indecency was mentioned.

There was no direct evidence that Bobby had been abused by his mother or his elder brothers, and he had seemed happy enough three months ago when seen at a local social services’ Christmas party. A social worker said that the recent period, before the killing of James Bulger, had been more stabilising for Ann and her family. She had been gaining insight into the needs of herself and her children, acknowledging difficulties and showing the motivation to address them; and she had begun to involve herself in areas such as schooling, in which previously she had felt uncomfortable and
intimidated. Despite the absence of social work involvement in the months preceding the autumn of 1992, because of staff sickness, Ann had since been receiving support in coming to terms with her own childhood, her husband’s departure, parenting skills, budgeting, together with the day-today dysfunctional aspects of a family.

The conference concluded that, despite features of neglect and emotional abuse, the physical abuse of Bobby could not be substantiated and no link could be established between his background and the alleged offences. He would not be placed on the Child Protection Register.

Jon’s conference heard that both his parents had been involved in raising the children, despite their divorce, and was told of the feeling that Jon’s behaviour was affected by his jealousy of the attention given to his elder brother, Mark. There had been no child protection concerns involving either Jon or his siblings, and there was no indication that Jon had been abused. There was one reference, in Mark’s medical history, to his being violent towards Jon, and there was the suspicion that physical chastisement was used on Jon as a form of punishment for his misbehaviour, though there was no evidence that this went beyond what could be called reasonable.

If there was any vulnerability to physical abuse, this could have been in the evenings, when Susan Venables had difficulty settling the children down, and stress might have led to abuse, though, again, there was no evidence of this. It was felt that Jon’s parents had struggled to maintain a consistent method of parental control, trying different means in response to his difficult behaviour, and sometimes allowing him to get away with things that would otherwise have been punished, while the attention was focused on Mark.

There was concern that Neil Venables had allowed Susan to take the major role in disciplining and caring for the children. Jon had lived with his father, but Neil had found it hard to cope and sent Jon back to his mother. The head teacher was asked if Jon had ever behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner in school, but said there was no suggestion of this, or any indication of physical abuse.

Despite the concerns, and in the absence of any firm evidence, the conference decided it would not place Jon on the Child Protection Register.

Though it was not articulated at the case conferences, there was some worry over the conflict of interest between the judicial process in which the boys were now involved, and their needs as disturbed or damaged children. Any programme of psychotherapy or counselling could not begin in advance of the trial, because it might produce information which could prejudice or influence the case. The delay would only make the task of helping the boys that much harder. Like many defendants, young or old, in cases of serious crime, they would suppress and deny what had actually happened. The longer this went on, the deeper the truth would be buried, and the more
difficult it would be to make progress with rehabilitation, which would involve acknowledging what had really taken place, and coming to an understanding of why it had happened.

Bobby had sat through seven hours and six minutes of taped police interviews without making any admission of his participation in the abduction and killing of James Bulger. He had said nothing since to suggest otherwise, and, irrespective of the truth, his lawyers had no option but to act on their client’s instructions. He was saying he was not guilty, and this position could not be tested, by anyone around him, until the evidence was put before a jury at the trial. Bobby would not be unique if, despite his guilt, he convinced himself of his own innocence.

While Jon had made admissions to the police, and had said, ‘I did kill him,’ he was now blaming Bobby for the offences, as were his parents, who would say that Jon had been led on by Bobby. Jon could not bring himself to talk about events on the railway line. It was an understandable way of trying to manage the unmanageable, but it was also a form of denial.

When he had arrived at his secure unit, Jon had been given a cover story, ostensibly to protect his interests with the other residents. He was told to say he was twelve, not ten, and that he had been caught ‘twoccing’, which was car-stealing: taking without the owner’s consent. It was a further encouragement to deny, and a reminder, as if any was needed, that the actual offences with which he was charged were too awful to be confronted.

Jon’s solicitor, Lawrence Lee, visiting his client for the first time, told Jon, it’s all right, son, we’re going to tell the judge you were mad when you did it. This attempt to speak in the language of children reflected the belief that Jon might be able to run a defence of diminished responsibility, in which psychiatric evidence could play a crucial role.

The Crown – in the guise of the Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service – was also interested in expert evidence. In making its case against the boys it needed to counter the presumption in law that, at the age of ten, the boys did not know that what they were doing was seriously wrong. It also needed to counter any suggestion that the boys were unfit to stand trial, or that they were ‘mad’: suffering from diminished responsibility.

John Brighouse, the CPS’s special casework lawyer, contacted the defence and requested that their clients be seen by Dr Susan Bailey, a consultant adolescent forensic psychiatrist from Prestwich Hospital in Manchester Bobby’s lawyers refused and Jon’s agreed. Dr Bailey first saw Jon’s parents in May and went on to interview them over two sessions. She conducted seven clinical interviews with Jon over the next four months.

On 14 May, the boys stood side by side in the dock at Liverpool Crown Court, formally entering ‘not guilty’ pleas to the charges and hearing that the trial was fixed for 1 November, at Preston Crown Court. Jon was hyperventilating for most of the brief hearing, and a social worker clutched at his
leg for support. The public gallery was empty except for Sean Sexton, the local solicitor representing the Bulger family. Neil was the only parent in court, sitting surrounded by bulky plain-clothed policemen.

There had been some debate about a possible venue for the trial, which could not be held in Liverpool because ‘feelings were running high’ and because of the difficulty of finding a jury that had not already made up its mind about the boys’ guilt. It had been suggested that the trial might be held at the Old Bailey in London, but The Honourable Mr Justice Morland, who was the presiding judge of the Northern Circuit, decided he would hear the case in Preston, which was a more practical alternative to Liverpool, and would enable the boys to return to their units every evening.

In her twelve-page psychiatric report on Jon Venables, which was delivered shortly before the start of the trial, Dr Bailey recorded Neil and Susan’s view of their family background and Jon’s childhood development. She said that there was no history of epilepsy, alcohol abuse or mental health problems. Susan told Dr Bailey of the stress and anxiety of caring for Mark when he was an infant, and how this had contributed to the separation from Neil. They had told Jon that they could not get on together but were still friends. Neil continued to see all the children.

Jon had been overactive at school and at home he would run around and play in the garden, but he was not aggressive. He had been bullied at school by boys who lived nearby and who bullied Jon and his brother Mark at home. Jon showed no anger or antagonism towards Mark, and never expressed any unhappiness about the time and attention Mark had required because of his learning difficulties. Jon was protective towards Mark and Michelle and understanding of their special needs.

Susan had been very worried about the bullying and had told Jon to stand up for himself, but he worried about his eye and his squint. She had complained to the school, and was told Jon was throwing things in class. He was suspended for two days because he had been throwing things and lying on the floor, refusing to get up.

Eventually, Susan decided to keep Jon out of school until they got rid of the bullies, so that Jon would no longer be a victim. It was then that he changed schools. Jon had been brilliant at first, in his new school, with the discipline and structure provided by a male teacher. In his current year, with a female teacher, he had begun associating with Robert and truanting. Jon had felt sorry for Robert because he had no friends at school. The police and other local families had warned them to keep Jon away from Robert, who was trouble and renowned for thieving. Jon had been bullied by Robert.