Irish directed film on James Bulger comes under criticism for humanising the killers

Grandeeod

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Not very pleasant for the murdered childs parents to hear a film made by a film maker about their murdered child is up for an oscar. Its actually sickening. !

Why is it sickening???

donkeykong5

bubblypop wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Not very pleasant for the murdered childs parents to hear a film made by a film maker about their murdered child is up for an oscar. Its actually sickening. !

No, it's not nice for them at all.
But it's probably the same for lots of victims families.
It's very very hard for them, but films or documentaries should be made.

Agree 100% . Courtesy call to inform the parents was all that was required from filmmaker. !

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Jack, do you have an issue with this film being made?
I get you don't agree with the director trying to show the human side of the two ten year old child offenders, but do you have an issue with him actually making the film?

No problem with the film being made, I just don’t agree that it’s a film that needed to be made in the first place, and I don’t agree with the director implying that the media dehumanised the two boys. I can understand that he has a different perspective, and that’s the perspective he wanted to portray in making the film, but I’m not his target audience as a director.

He’s made a film that appeals to people who share his opinion, there’s nothing new or innovative about the format or the subject matter that hasn’t been done thousands of times in arts and culture already. I’d be of the same opinion of most of those films which try to portray monsters as anything other than monsters. There’s good reason for why they are generally regarded as monsters and why they have films made about them - because what they’ve done is generally well outside the norms of human behaviour.

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to invent (lie about) his intentions though. i.e. he wanted to show them as 'benevolent and innocent' or that he holds the opinion that the act on that day was not monstrous.

Francie not only am I entitled to my opinion, I’m absolutely entitled to give my opinion on the directors intentions based upon what he has said.

Would you care to offer your own opinion on how you interpret what the director was aiming to do when he said he wanted to ‘humanise’ the two boys, seeing as that’s where we appear to disagree on what he means? What would you see as humanising them, when you’ve already said that what they did was monstrous?

I would see it as trying to portray them as having some redeeming qualities, and given what I know of the case already, and given that the director was already of the opinion that they wanted to see something nobody else cared to see, you’re more likely to be the target audience for this film than I am, so I’m asking you what seems to be the point of making the film that you get, that I’m missing?

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s an opinion Francie, one that differs from your own, I don’t see what there is to get so animated about? What does the directors explanation mean to you when he says he wanted to ‘humanise’ the two boys? His motivation for making the film appears to be that he disagrees with how they were portrayed in the media at the time as monsters and so on, and you said yourself earlier that you’re not saying they weren’t monsters on that day, which is directly contrary to the directors attempting to portray them as something other than monsters.

We’re aware that they’re human of course, nobody has contested the fact that they are biologically human, so when the director says he wanted to ‘humanise’ them, as opposed to portraying them as monsters - what does the term ‘humanising’ mean to you?

But they are human. Monstrous, sick humans but still human.

You and I argued long and hard Jack during the Abortion Referendum, and one of your recurring themes was that feotus' (or the Unborn as you prefer to call them) should be protected and their rights respected because they are human. I disagreed not because they aren't of the human species but because they are not sentient, fully formed humans. They are still in the proto- human stage.

What these boys did does not strip them of their humanity - much as we would like to cull them from our species. Humans can and do terrible, monstrous, things. Parents killing their children, parents enabling the abuse of their children, adults raping babies... as a species we are capable of much that is monstrous.

They are not monsters - they are humans who did monstrous things.

To try and deny the humanity of these boys is to try and deny the capacity within the human race to inflict horror - deliberate, repulsive, horror on others.
It's to blinker our understanding of what can go wrong, how to recognise what goes wrong and when it has, and lastly how to deal with that wrongness.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No problem with the film being made, I just don’t agree that it’s a film that needed to be made in the first place, and I don’t agree with the director implying that the media dehumanised the two boys. I can understand that he has a different perspective, and that’s the perspective he wanted to portray in making the film, but I’m not his target audience as a director.

He’s made a film that appeals to people who share his opinion, there’s nothing new or innovative about the format or the subject matter that hasn’t been done thousands of times in arts and culture already. I’d be of the same opinion of most of those films which try to portray monsters as anything other than monsters. There’s good reason for why they are generally regarded as monsters and why they have films made about them - because what they’ve done is generally well outside the norms of human behaviour.

Well, I don't think any film actually needs to be made.
There are thousands of films & documentaries made about killers & serial killers. Everything that is made is made from one perspective.
Also, I don't believe we can just decide offenders are 'monsters' it seems to me just to be a way to write the whole crime off, without any understanding at all.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

- because what they’ve done is generally well outside the norms of human behaviour.

Well, I'm not sure about that.
There are thousands of murders, bad murders, murders committed by usually non murderous people every year.
So, I'm not sure it actually is outside the norms of human behavior

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Francie not only am I entitled to my opinion, I’m absolutely entitled to give my opinion on the directors intentions based upon what he has said.

Would you care to offer your own opinion on how you interpret what the director was aiming to do when he said he wanted to ‘humanise’ the two boys, seeing as that’s where we appear to disagree on what he means? What would you see as humanising them, when you’ve already said that what they did was monstrous?

I would see it as trying to portray them as having some redeeming qualities, and given what I know of the case already, and given that the director was already of the opinion that they wanted to see something nobody else cared to see, you’re more likely to be the target audience for this film than I am, so I’m asking you what seems to be the point of making the film that you get, that I’m missing?

Art is not intended for closed minds I suppose.

You have your mind made up with an opinion you have based on your imagined intent of the director here.
No rational person could justify your leaps of logic.

Owlencounter

Were Venables and Thompson dehumanised?

They didn't serve time in an adult prison for their crime. They were given a good edjucation and rehabilitation by the government, pocket money, computer games, trips to the theater etc. Read one of them had a girlfriend during his time in custody, that they were tiptoed around and given extra privileges because the institution received greater funding during their stay.

As soon as they were released, they were given a new identity to protect them and a chance for a new life.

Doesn't sound like they have been treated inhumanely to me so I am confused towards the motivation of the director and noticed during the interview he doesn't say much about what we are learning but all he does is repetitively state that he thought he needed to humanise them.

ibFoxer

brendanwalsh wrote: »

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

Your understanding is, unfortunately, falling short on two counts- incorrect name and (partially) incorrect information.

Bulger was/is the name of the poor child who suffered unspeakable evil at the hands of Venables and Thompson. Venables has, since his initial release, reverted back to incarceration twice, both times for possession of child pornography, and i understand has never shown an ounce of remorse.

Robert Thompson has not reoffended under this, or any capacity and in fact showed a high degree of remorse for his involvement and actions.


There is little by way of argument for either of them being given a second chance at life, and given what they have to carry I can't imagine it is in any way enjoyable, but at the very least one of the two seems to, in public record, be incredibly ashamed of their part and utterly remorseful.

The other appears to be beyond help and should never taste the sweet air of freedom again, not just for his part in the murder but for his subsequent offences.

donkeykong5

Owlencounter wrote: »

Were Venables and Thompson dehumanised?

They didn't serve time in an adult prison for their crime. They were given a good edjucation and rehabilitation by the government, pocket money, computer games, trips to the theater etc. Read one of them had a girlfriend during his time in custody, that they were tiptoed around and given extra privileges because the institution received greater funding during their stay.

As soon as they were released, they were given a new identity to protect them and a chance for a new life.

Doesn't sound like they have been treated inhumanely to me so I am confused towards the motivation of the director and noticed during the interview he doesn't say much about what we are learning but all he does is repetitively state that he thought he needed to humanise them.

The two murdering bastards were actually pampered in the place they were kept in. Complete disgrace!

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure about that.
There are thousands of murders, bad murders, murders committed by usually non murderous people every year.
So, I'm not sure it actually is outside the norms of human behavior

Yes, I think this is one of the cases popular with outrage junkies to be perfectly honest.
Thousands of kids killed horrendously around the world but somehow one or two will be picked up by dogmatic 'hang em high' proclaimers.
How dare anyone try to understand, investigate/question or inquire even 25 years after the sad event itself unless it chimes with their opinion or beliefs.

Thankfully Lambe had the courage to ignore them as did those judging the film on it's own merits.

donkeykong5

FrancieBrady wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure about that.
There are thousands of murders, bad murders, murders committed by usually non murderous people every year.
So, I'm not sure it actually is outside the norms of human behavior

Yes, I think this is one of the cases popular with outrage junkies to be perfectly honest.
Thousands of kids killed horrendously around the world but somehow one or two will be picked up by dogmatic 'hang em high' proclaimers.
How dare anyone try to understand, investigate/question or inquire even 25 years after the sad event itself unless it chimes with their opinion or beliefs.

Thankfully Lambe had the courage to ignore them and those judging the film on it's own merits.

Lambe also comes from the great country that allowed a murderer of a 14 year old girl out for Christmas to spend with his grandad. Say no more !

donkeykong5

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Lambe also comes from the great country that allowed a murderer of a 14 year old girl out for Christmas to spend with his grandad. Say no more !

As are we all.
Lots of murderers get temporary release, the young lad you can talking about hasn't actually been convicted yet, so you can't call him a murderer of a 14 year old girl.

FrancieBrady

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Lambe also comes from the great country that allowed a murderer of a 14 year old girl out for Christmas to spend with his grandad. Say no more !

Brilliant deduction there, just brilliant. Did somebody mention 'outrage junkies'? :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But they are human. Monstrous, sick humans but still human.

You and I argued long and hard Jack during the Abortion Referendum, and one of your recurring themes was that feotus' (or the Unborn as you prefer to call them) should be protected and their rights respected because they are human. I disagreed not because they aren't of the human species but because they are not sentient, fully formed humans. They are still in the proto- human stage.

What these boys did does not strip them of their humanity - much as we would like to cull them from our species. Humans can and do terrible, monstrous, things. Parents killing their children, parents enabling the abuse of their children, adults raping babies... as a species we are capable of much that is monstrous.

They are not monsters - they are humans who did monstrous things.

To try and deny the humanity of these boys is to try and deny the capacity within the human race to inflict horror - deliberate, repulsive, horror on others.
It's to blinker our understanding of what can go wrong, how to recognise what goes wrong and when it has, and lastly how to deal with that wrongness.

Nobody has denied they are human though? Of course they are, and, they’re also monsters. It’s not an either/or thing. I don’t want to cull them from the species, I just don’t see why they need to be given any recognition or acknowledgment whatsoever. I could easily ignore them as they have absolutely zero bearing on my life. I don’t imagine that they actually are representative of humans generally speaking. Children who commit torture and murder of other children are rare in Western society at least in the 21st century, and I don’t imagine there’s a whole lot we can actually learn from the transcripts of cases even similar to this case when the perpetrators were children themselves.

I don’t think at all a film like this either helps or hinders our understanding some people’s capacity or capabilities to inhuman cruelty upon humans. It’s not as though we have a significant enough sample size to account for the almost infinite amount of individual variations and circumstances which can give people of a particular mindset the opportunities to carry out the actions they do, and I don’t think the film offers anything new with regards to human behaviour or psychology. I think such a lofty goal is well beyond the limited scope in which this film in particular is presented. It would only allow us an insight into the directors interpretation of how they have chosen to portray the two boys. It simply won’t be able to tell us any more than that.

People have since civilisation began, attempted to understand and predict human behaviour, and the only thing they have been able to conclusively determine is that we simply don’t have enough data, let alone where to begin even quantifying what we regard as ethically or morally right or wrong - the idea of torturing or murdering other human beings, let alone children, is morally abhorrent in most cultures and societies, and the idea of children torturing and murdering other children is such an alien concept in civilised society that to imagine everyone needs to be aware of how to prevent it, is the definition of creating a moral panic.

It’s certainly creating a consciousness and awareness of what can go wrong, by feeding some people’s paranoia, but the reality is that most people simply aren’t trained to see what can go wrong, and they aren’t equipped to deal with something of this nature when things do go wrong - precisely because it is such a rarity in society that they make films and tv series about it which appeal to a certain mindset, but generally aren’t even close to being an accurate reflection or representation of reality.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and I don’t imagine there’s a whole lot we can actually learn from the transcripts of cases even similar to this case when the perpetrators were children themselves.
.

You don't imagine anyone can learn anything from what these boys said during their interviews.
Other people think we can.
At the end if the day, it's a film. We all know films & documentaries are made from the makers view.
I don't see what is wrong with this film maker making a film from whatever side he sees fit.

donkeykong5

Up for an oscar. Really hope after the way the bulger family found out about it . That it does not win. I repeat sickening!

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has denied they are human though? Of course they are, and, they’re also monsters. It’s not an either/or thing. I don’t want to cull them from the species, I just don’t see why they need to be given any recognition or acknowledgment whatsoever. I could easily ignore them as they have absolutely zero bearing on my life. I don’t imagine that they actually are representative of humans generally speaking. Children who commit torture and murder of other children are rare in Western society at least in the 21st century, and I don’t imagine there’s a whole lot we can actually learn from the transcripts of cases even similar to this case when the perpetrators were children themselves.

I don’t think at all a film like this either helps or hinders our understanding some people’s capacity or capabilities to inhuman cruelty upon humans. It’s not as though we have a significant enough sample size to account for the almost infinite amount of individual variations and circumstances which can give people of a particular mindset the opportunities to carry out the actions they do, and I don’t think the film offers anything new with regards to human behaviour or psychology. I think such a lofty goal is well beyond the limited scope in which this film in particular is presented. It would only allow us an insight into the directors interpretation of how they have chosen to portray the two boys. It simply won’t be able to tell us any more than that.

People have since civilisation began, attempted to understand and predict human behaviour, and the only thing they have been able to conclusively determine is that we simply don’t have enough data, let alone where to begin even quantifying what we regard as ethically or morally right or wrong - the idea of torturing or murdering other human beings, let alone children, is morally abhorrent in most cultures and societies, and the idea of children torturing and murdering other children is such an alien concept in civilised society that to imagine everyone needs to be aware of how to prevent it, is the definition of creating a moral panic.

It’s certainly creating a consciousness and awareness of what can go wrong, by feeding some people’s paranoia, but the reality is that most people simply aren’t trained to see what can go wrong, and they aren’t equipped to deal with something of this nature when things do go wrong - precisely because it is such a rarity in society that they make films and tv series about it which appeal to a certain mindset, but generally aren’t even close to being an accurate reflection or representation of reality.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but it seemed to me that one of the things you objected to was the director saying he wanted to 'humanise' the boys. Which suggests they have been de-humanised.
Which, in the tabloids etc (and some posts in this thread) they have been. I remember at the time how they were spoken of as 'animals' (animals on the whole don't tend to behave as appallingly as humans so that's quite insulting to animals) - indeed at least one poster here called them that - they were 'pure evil'. Fit only for extermination as some aberrant monsters.
Rarely were they two boys with families who went to school, climbed trees, kicked a ball around etc - but that's what they were... and remained so right on that fateful awful day.
Just like all the other humans who have done the most atrocious things were just being human beings and one day they were human beings who unleashed the dark side of humanity.
How can we understand that dark side if we don't acknowledge it exists?
No- we don't have all the answers, we probably never will. Does that mean we stop trying?

It just reads to me that when you complain about the director seeking to 'humanise' them that you want them to remain de-humanised.

Edit to add: Another viewpoint is always helpful.

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I think this is one of the cases popular with outrage junkies to be perfectly honest.
Thousands of kids killed horrendously around the world but somehow one or two will be picked up by dogmatic 'hang em high' proclaimers.
How dare anyone try to understand, investigate/question or inquire even 25 years after the sad event itself unless it chimes with their opinion or beliefs.

Thankfully Lambe had the courage to ignore them as did those judging the film on it's own merits.

If Lambe actually had, as you put it, ‘the courage’ to ignore anyone, then it would be reasonable to assume he wouldn’t care enough about other people’s opinions that he would be doing the media circuit giving interviews and promoting the film, and yet - he appears to be courting a fair amount of notoriety for himself. I can accept of course that he is awarded for his efforts by his peers, such as having been longlisted for an academy award and so on, but the media and television appearances? What’s that about, if not caring for the opinions of his critics? I wouldn’t see his actions in making the film as courageous at all.

It’s not that one has to be an ‘outrage junkie’ to be perplexed as to why Lambe actually thought his perspective of the case was a film that needed making, but as a director it’s easy to understand his motivation is very simple- to make as much money as possible. He too is human after all, and so he chose to make a film about a subject which he was interested in, as opposed to your ‘thousands of kids killed around the world’. The fact is that only Lambe thought his perspective was interesting enough that he needed a bigger audience for it.

Plenty of people have questioned, inquired and tried to understand the motivations and psychology of people who commit these types of behaviours, and they didn’t need Lambe to ‘courageously’ feed them a particular narrative from his own perspective to do it, they have plenty of sources besides just one person’s curated perspective.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If Lambe actually had, as you put it, ‘the courage’ to ignore anyone, then it would be reasonable to assume he wouldn’t care enough about other people’s opinions that he would be doing the media circuit giving interviews and promoting the film, and yet - he appears to be courting a fair amount of notoriety for himself. I can accept of course that he is awarded for his efforts by his peers, such as having been longlisted for an academy award and so on, but the media and television appearances? What’s that about, if not caring for the opinions of his critics? I wouldn’t see his actions in making the film as courageous at all.

It’s not that one has to be an ‘outrage junkie’ to be perplexed as to why Lambe actually thought his perspective of the case was a film that needed making, but as a director it’s easy to understand his motivation is very simple- to make as much money as possible. He too is human after all, and so he chose to make a film about a subject which he was interested in, as opposed to your ‘thousands of kids killed around the world’. The fact is that only Lambe thought his perspective was interesting enough that he needed a bigger audience for it.

Plenty of people have questioned, inquired and tried to understand the motivations and psychology of people who commit these types of behaviours, and they didn’t need Lambe to ‘courageously’ feed them a particular narrative from his own perspective to do it, they have plenty of sources besides just one person’s curated perspective.

:D You don't know much about film do you. He won't make very much money from this and would never have expected to. Not the motivation in making a short film.

He wants his film to be seen, as any self respecting artist would, because he believes in it. It isn't his fault that there are presenters playing to the easily outraged.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but it seemed to me that one of the things you objected to was the director saying he wanted to 'humanise' the boys. Which suggests they have been de-humanised.
Which, in the tabloids etc (and some posts in this thread) they have been. I remember at the time how they were spoken of as 'animals' (animals on the whole don't tend to behave as appallingly as humans so that's quite insulting to animals) - indeed at least one poster here called them that - they were 'pure evil'. Fit only for extermination as some aberrant monsters.
Rarely were they two boys with families who went to school, climbed trees, kicked a ball around etc - but that's what they were... and remained so right on that fateful awful day.
Just like all the other humans who have done the most atrocious things were just being human beings and one day they were human beings who unleashed the dark side of humanity.
How can we understand that dark side if we don't acknowledge it exists?
No- we don't have all the answers, we probably never will. Does that mean we stop trying?

It just reads to me that when you complain about the director seeking to 'humanise' them that you want them to remain de-humanised.

Edit to add: Another viewpoint is always helpful.

I don’t agree with the directors perspective that they were ever dehumanised in the first place tbh. It’s like I said - they can be humans, monsters, and even they are animals- all at the same time. The director is lending credibility to tabloid media portrayals of the two boys in order to present a portrayal of his own that he considers ‘humanises’ then. He knows well that his portrayal will generate interest from the same media types which he claims dehumanised the boys in the first place.

I think you’re lending the film far more credit than it’s due in expecting it to be able to offer answers it simply isn’t capable of, due to the directors curating a narrative which is anything but objective. It’s literally through his own lens. I have no doubt there are likely thousands of people who will want to see the film (Netflix wouldn’t touch it with a 40ft barge pole now I think about it).

Plenty of people acknowledge that dark side of humanity exists, they just don’t want to think about it, because they generally don’t have to deal with it. They have more immediate priorities on their minds than as Francie points out for example- “the thousands of kids around the world”. I don’t even have time to imagine what my next door neighbours get up to behind closed doors, and I’d likely drive myself nuts having to be always on the lookout for any signs of suspicious behaviour. I’m not suggesting at all that people stop trying to prevent people from being harmed, I’m suggesting that some people miss out on the obvious things because they are too taken up with looking out for what to them are signs that someone may be in need of their help. In particular when it comes to children, people are generally shìte at being aware of signs of distress- just look at for example how many adults observed what looked like three children out walking on the day James was led from the shopping centre by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (I confess I had to look it up to be certain just how many had seen them together) -

During the walk across Liverpool, the boys were seen by 38 people

Why would it cross anyone’s mind that they could have prevented what they now know had taken place later that day? It would require a degree of foresight of which humans are generally incapable. They didn’t see it, and they couldn’t have predicted it, because to those witnesses, those children’s welfare was not a priority they imagined required their attention. I don’t think a film about the directors perspective of the two boys who committed the acts they did, would lend itself in any way to any greater understanding of why some other child or children would commit such acts against another child. The motivation behind the film simply strikes me as equally sensationalist as the tabloid media it attempts to distance itself from. I don’t think even suggesting that it offers an insight into the mind of a child who tortured and murdered another child is enough to justify the making of this film as though it actually could offer any new perspective that people who didn’t already agree with the director would appreciate.

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D You don't know much about film do you. He won't make very much money from this and would never have expected to. Not the motivation in making a short film.

He wants his film to be seen, as any self respecting artist would, because he believes in it. It isn't his fault that there are presenters playing to the easily outraged.

No Francie, I don’t know much about film, and unlike yourself I’m not pretending I know much about film either as it’s a fairly large industry with numerous different roles and aspects to it, from Bollywood to Nollywood to Hollywood, etc. I don’t have to know much about film though to know that controversial content generates controversy. I’m quite aware that he wants his film to be seen, as any starving artist would either, and that still doesn’t take from my point that the reason a starving artist would want to generate controversial art is for their art to be seen by patrons, or an audience who will pay them to see more of their work, if you prefer those terms.

I never suggested he was responsible for presenters playing to the easily outraged, I suggested that it is entirely his responsibility for appearing on these shows and doing these interviews, knowing full well what he’s getting himself into, as opposed to your earlier assertion that he was in any way courageous for doing so. He’s doing it because it pays the bills Francie - film-making if you know anything about it at all, isn’t exactly cheap, and there are very few directors among thousands of directors who will ever enjoy any measure of media exposure.

going on 8 billion people on the planet and people are spending energy discussing the rights of these two bucks.

humanised, dehumanised, whatever. they should have been shut down in a humanised and efficient manner the day they were found guilty and their parts donated.

the idea that anything can be gained by agonising as a species over aberrations like these is a particularly morbid pearl-clutching exercise.

Hannibal_Smith

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I think this is one of the cases popular with outrage junkies to be perfectly honest.
Thousands of kids killed horrendously around the world but somehow one or two will be picked up by dogmatic 'hang em high' proclaimers.
How dare anyone try to understand, investigate/question or inquire even 25 years after the sad event itself unless it chimes with their opinion or beliefs.

Thankfully Lambe had the courage to ignore them as did those judging the film on it's own merits.

That's not it at all. Were you around during the whole story? I remember when the boy was reported missing. Everyone assumed it was an adult, then when they showed footage of him leaving the shopping centre I remember people talking about how they must have been bringing him to an adult. And then it turned out no, they brought him to torture him off their own bats. Then when the trial was going on, the reports on what they did. Jaysi s. Outrage junkies indeed.

I've never heard of another story like that. Granted I don't go looking for them. But I dont remember hearing about any other case similar to this. And I'm not an outrage junkie. There was nothing more I would have loved than for this story to have ended safe and well. It's nothing to do with finding one or two to hang em high.

I don't see the point in making the movie. It doesn't mean it can't be discussed. This thread has been going for how many pages now? It's not that discussion has been stifled, you're discussing it right now.

begbysback

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That's not it at all. Were you around during the whole story? I remember when the boy was reported missing. Everyone assumed it was an adult, then when they showed footage of him leaving the shopping centre I remember people talking about how they must have been bringing him to an adult. And then it turned out no, they brought him to torture him off their own bats.

You remember 25 years ago, can you tell if they took James with the intention of torturing and killing, or if the were just messing and were then left in a situation which they tried resolve with a 10 year olds logic and reasoning?

namloc1980

Deleted User wrote: »

going on 8 billion people on the planet and people are spending energy discussing the rights of these two bucks.

humanised, dehumanised, whatever. they should have been shut down in a humanised and efficient manner the day they were found guilty and their parts donated.

the idea that anything can be gained by agonising as a species over aberrations like these is a particularly morbid pearl-clutching exercise.

Execute children and harvest them for bodily organs....good to see the rational side of the argument anyway :rolleyes:

Hannibal_Smith

begbysback wrote: »

You remember 25 years ago, can you tell if they took James with the intention of torturing and killing, or if the were just messing and were then left in a situation which they tried resolve with a 10 year olds logic and reasoning?

Just messing?

From the first page of the thread:-

One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.
They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him.
Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth
Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.
He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the 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.

We were all 10 once. Has anyone ever inflicted any similiar injuries on a toddler in an episode of just messing?

One eyed Jack

begbysback wrote: »

You remember 25 years ago, can you tell if they took James with the intention of torturing and killing, or if the were just messing and were then left in a situation which they tried resolve with a 10 year olds logic and reasoning?

They took James with the intention of torturing and killing him -

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle taken on Friday 12 February 1993 showed Thompson and Venables casually observing children, apparently selecting a target. The boys were playing truant from school, which they did regularly. Throughout the day, Thompson and Venables were seen stealing various items including sweets, a troll doll, some batteries and a can of blue paint, some of which were later found at the murder scene. One of the boys later revealed that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the shopping centre, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic.

...

Thompson and Venables 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.

...

The boys denied the charges of murder, abduction and attempted abduction. The attempted abduction charge related to an incident at the New Strand Shopping Centre earlier on 12 February 1993, the day of Bulger's death. Thompson and Venables had attempted to lead away another two-year-old boy, but had been prevented by the boy's mother.

I don’t think I need reproduce the more gruesome details to make the point that the two boys were wholly aware of their actions, and the consequences of their actions. They weren’t just messing because they had already attempted to abduct a child earlier and failed in the attempt. They also had 4km of a walk and met numerous people along the route, and could at any time just not have done what they did. I don’t think you could reasonably argue that what we know of their logic and reason was typical of a child of that age, which is what makes this case so exceptional as it is - it has been determined by psychologists who examined the boys that they were fully aware that their actions were wrong. It’s quite obvious even without the opinion of a psychologist that they knew their actions were wrong, as they tried to cover it up and make the murder look like the child had been run over by a train.

eviltimeban

But they are human. Literally, they are human beings. What they did was inhuman, unspeakable, shocking, cruel, and unparalleled. As the parent of an 11 year old boy, full of pure innocence and love, I can't for a second begin to think what motivated them to act as they did.

But they are human. And something which delves into the psychology around their actions is always going to be interesting and compelling.

Will be a tough watch though.