Relationship Rescue and Child/ Teen Behaviour Mangement Services
available from 'The Child Listener™'


'The Child Listener™is also founder of 'Read Australia'
'Parents Aboard' - Be a Part of Raising
Standards of Literacy Across Australia!

Are you a counsellor, life coach, psychotherapist? Join the team and see your
own clients within the Footprint Solutions office and work with us to deliver inspirational
behaviour change workshops

I was sent this email recently, for my signature.

At the bottom of the email were hundreds of signatures.
Mine will not be one of them- although I did forward to back
to someone on the list as I believe people should be able to
voice their opinion.

I would like to explain why I didnt add my name in protest even
though my heart goes out to everyone in Jamie's family
- and everyone affected by this tragedy.

Hi Emma- I found this which was interesting as it shows that we should take emails like this with a pinch of salt anyway.

It started by citing the exact email you received, and went on to say....

Sadly, the events described are fundamentally true. Ten-year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson did, indeed, kidnap James Bulger and are responsible for his brutal torture and death (just weeks shy of James' third birthday). The murder sent a wave of shock and disgust throughout the UK. Despite authorities' attempts to keep publicity on the case to a minimum, the media fed an already hyperactive public rumor mill. While the basic story told above is true, it is peppered with rumors and exaggerations not supported by official accounts.

On February 12, 1993, Venables and Thompson skipped school and went to the Bootle Strand Shopping Centre in Merseyside, U.K. That morning, they attempted to kidnap a two-year-old boy while his mother shopped, only to fail when the mother missed the child and called him back. Undeterred, Venables and and Thompson tried again that afternoon, this time successfully leading James Bulger away from his mother and the shopping centre. They embarked on a two-and-a-half mile trek during which they dropped, kicked and beat the toddler. No fewer than 38 witnesses saw the boys and noticed James' injuries. While some approached the boys to see what was going on, none interceded on James' behalf, being placated by the older boys' assertions that the younger was their brother and they were seeing to his well-being. This lack of action by more than three dozen people would later spark its own media-fueled outrage.

When the three arrived at isolated railway tracks near Walton, Merseyside, Thompson and Venables threw blue modeling paint in Bulger's face and beat him with bricks, stones and a 22 lb iron bar. He was sexually assaulted, but not anally penetrated (official reports claim that batteries were inserted in the boy's mouth, not anus, as the chain letter claims). Venables and Thompson then laid the boy's body across the tracks and weighed his head down with stones in hopes that a train strike would hide the evidence of their actions. James' body was found two days later, having been run over by a train, though pathologists report that the boy was dead long before.

Public outrage at the murder was instant and severe, fed by tabloid media that pushed - and often broke - the law to report details on the case. After the boys' names and mugshots were made public, their families had to be moved to different parts of the country and have their identities changed to protect them from death threats.

During the trial, the boys offered no defense and were subsequently found guilty and sentenced to a young offenders institution. Their sentence was at "Her Majesty's Pleasure" - a British legal term for an indefinite sentence often used as a substitute to life sentencing for minors. The sentence is reviewed by the Government from time-to-time, and the trial judge set the minimum sentence at eight years. It was later increased to ten years on appeal. Then, Home Secretary Michael Howard increased the sentence to 15 years. However, Howard's move was harshly criticized as being politically motivated and was overturned in 1997. In 2000, citing good behavior during their detention, Thompson's and Venables' sentences were reduced by two years, effectively restoring the original eight-year term.

Two possible motivators of the boys' actions were heatedly discussed, both in the courtroom as well as in public discourse and the media: video violence and domestic violence. Venables and Thompson had access to a collection of violent films, though no testimony that the boys had been watching them was presented at their trial. The media, however, printed a list of such films (including Child's Play 3, in which a possessed doll kills children), which they alleged may have motivated the boys and which were subsequently banned and voluntarily removed by several video rental chains.

Both of the killers came from difficult family backgrounds and grew up in a community hard-hit by a floundering economy and sky-high unemployment. Thompson was one of seven children being raised by an alcoholic single mother. The children were brutal to each other, with a history of violence, assault and attempted suicide. Venables' background was less tragic. The boy lived in shared custody of his mother and father, who lived near each other. His two siblings had significant learning disabilities and his mother was severely depressed and suicidal. Jon was hyperactive and was prone to violence.

In June, 2001, after a six-month review of their case, the parole board determined the boys were no longer a public threat and made them eligible for release since their minimum sentence of eight years had expired (the chain letter above appears to be referencing the artificially inflated 15-year term imposed by Howard when it claims that only half of the boys' sentence was served). The boys were released that summer on a life license, which means that, at any point in their lives, if they are determined to be a danger to public safety, they will be returned to incarceration. They were given new identities and relocated to different parts of the country. It was feared at the time that the boys' new identities and locations would soon be become public.

Versions of this e-mail "petition" have been circulating since early 2000, but gained widespread popularity only after the boys' release in 2001, rendering the petition's primary purpose - the prevention of Venables' and Thompson's release - a moot point. In the spring 2005, versions of the chain began alleging that the killers were being relocated Australia (a totally unsubstantiated claim). Another version surfacing in 2005 "Americanized" the tale, incorrectly placing the horrendous events in Liverpool, NY.

Many folks have told me that they don't care that the petition is outdated - they were going to forward it, anyway, in hopes that knowledge of the case may prevent a future tragedy. However, BreakTheChain.org recommends against participating in or propagating any e-mail petition because they are relatively ineffective and rife with problems, as illustrated by the Seven Tests of Armchair Activism:

In October, 2005, Jamie's mother and killers were once again in the headlines as Denise Fergus publicly objected to reports that both of her son's killers may have broken the terms of their release. In June, 2005, a national (UK) newspaper reported that Jon Venables had been treated in a Merseyside hospital for injuries stemming from assault. A term of his probation is that he is not permitted to enter the county of Merseyside without official permission or an escort. A September article in the same paper reported that Robert Thompson, now 24, had been prescribed methadone, presumably to treat a heroine addiction. Use of an illegal (or Class A drug) is illegal and, thus, a violation of his probation. Fergus is publicly calling for an investigation of what she feels is a blatant mishandling of the killers' probation. Break this Chain.

References: Wikipedia, Snopes.com, About.com, TruthOrFiction.com, Liverpool Daily Post

Source-http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/bulger.html

Jenny

---