James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

walshb · 03-03-2010 01:46PM

Makikiomi, as much as I try to factor in the age of the kids involved, it cannot take away from the depravity of their actions. Young children will be cruel, mischievous, daring, risky and thoughtless; but what these kids did was simply warped and depraved. It was not the actions of your normal ten year old child.

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 01:47PM

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

I've no idea what that mean's, but read this from the link posted by WalshB above..

You get a large bucket and fill a quarter of it up with sugar. The rest with scalding hot water and then throw it on the victim(usually a rapist). The boiling hot water scalds him and then melts the sugar into his skin. Hence the term "sugar coated".

Beforehand, the victim usually gets the back of his ankles sliced. Just to give it that bit of extra va va voom and stop him running away.

Dohnny Jepp · 03-03-2010 01:50PM

I hope he's left to rot in jail this time.

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 01:52PM

walshb wrote: »

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html

Jamie Bolger is a name I will never forget, I was six at the time, but remember my old wan glued to the telly when he was abducted.

Harrowing tale.

Ginger Nut · 03-03-2010 01:55PM

If I am to live to be 1000 I'll never forget this murder. I have an 11 year old girl and if something like this ever happened I would have to take the law into my own hands- I would end up in the Docas Centre in Mountjoy. The justice system is only interested in the criminals not the victims.
On the other hand if she was to do something like this to another I think I would be found hanging from the nearest rafter - to think I could raise a baby to do such a thing and at such a young age.

You would wonder what was going on in their heads - how did they even think up such actions.

I'm sure the family of Jamie are sickened to think the savages who stole their little boy were freed and one of them did not even appreciate it.

The bas*ards should be burned at the stake

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 01:55PM

Nodin wrote: »

He was 10.

So what? Normal ten year olds dont abduct, torture and murder people. They may squash the odd bee, hit their mate a clatter, but normal ten year olds dont kill people.

The amount of apologists on this site is baffling. They would excuse anything.:rolleyes:

Darksaga87 · 03-03-2010 01:57PM

I try not to belive that children are born evil, but them 2, I belive they were born to kill, born of evil, and will remain evil.

Ginger Nut · 03-03-2010 01:59PM

Darksaga87 wrote: »

I try not to belive that children are born evil, but them 2, I belive they were born to kill, born of evil, and will remain evil.

They didnt get the idea for the film "the omen!" out of nowwhere. I'm sure their families are in bits over this but it changes nothingAgain as John Wayne would say - "HANG 'EM HIGH"

aDeener · 03-03-2010 02:01PM

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

I've no idea what that mean's, but read this from the link posted by WalshB above..

Sweet mother, and some people here can find it within themselve to excuse this because the two murder's were only ten!.

Im surprised that you are surprised, this is boards, where there are always those to defend the indefensible

aDeener · 03-03-2010 02:02PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Fine then, pretend you can't read if you must.

It appears you are doing likewise

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 02:07PM

aDeener wrote: »

Im surprised that you are surprised, this is boards, where there are always those to defend the indefensible

Its unbelievable isnt it? Then they scratch their heads and wonder why our crime rate is rising.

IvyTheTerrible · 03-03-2010 02:11PM

God, I knew the murder of Jamie Bolger was shocking but that link with all the details, how on earth children could do such things to other children is beyond. How could those two ever be considered normal and fit for release (and yes I'm all for serving your time etc, but to do something so horrific at that age, well, you don't just "turn normal" after that).

Another thing that shocked me is how so many people actually saw the little boy injured and did nothing...I don't know.

PeakOutput · 03-03-2010 02:27PM

so has why he is back in prison been released?

xzanti · 03-03-2010 02:32PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

so has why he is back in prison been released?

To quote another poster...

I don't think it is sensasionalist at all. Venables is/was apparantly a born again christian and may have wanted to do the right thing and make contact with Thompson to 'help' him. He may also as you say have travelled to Bootle/Liverpool, for in his mind genuine reasons/closure, but given the publicity and anger surrounding the case, this was deemed unacceptable and so he's been thrown back in jail.

BaZmO* · 03-03-2010 02:33PM

walshb wrote: »

I read extensive coverage about this and both boys had issues, family issues and all that.
Pretty rough really. Thompson's upbringing was worse from what I read.

Very good read

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html

I actually read that complete article (or something very similar) a few years back, around the time they were being released for prison. I'm no bleedin heart but the two kids had a less than ideal upbringing. No excuse for what they did, but it goes some way to explain how kids can act in such an evil and horrific manner.

The article I read was very long and very concise, and more importantly it just presented the known facts rather than the usual hysterical articles you read about such emotive cases.

I'd love to know how many times the editors of the main tabloids have come close to revealing their new identities. I'm sure their lawyers have weighed up the costs of papers sold against the ensuing lawsuit many many times. It's not as if they wouldn't be backed by the public if they went ahead and named them.

It's impossible to tell what terms of his parole he breached, and it can be something very minor. I would imagine that he was to tell anybody his true identity it would put him at such risk that it may be in violation of his parole and may result in him being brought back into custody for his own protection. I wonder if this had anything to do with it.

Lone Stone · 03-03-2010 02:36PM

God i remember when that happened, The jamie kid was a guy in my class's cousin.

But he was 10 at the time ok not that being 10 is an excuse to murder someone im the same age as that guy now i cant imagine what it would be like to have something i done when i was a 10 year old keeping me in prison but we dont know what he done to be recalled so it must have been something and i dout it was something small tho.

aDeener · 03-03-2010 02:36PM

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

Its unbelievable isnt it? Then they scratch their heads and wonder why our crime rate is rising.

Ah it takes all sorts i suppose......

walshb · 03-03-2010 02:36PM

BaZmO* wrote: »

I actually read that complete article (or something very similar) a few years back, around the time they were being released for prison. I'm no bleedin heart but the two kids had a less than ideal upbringing. No excuse for what they did, but it goes some way to explain how kids can act in such an evil and horrific manner.

The article I read was very long and very concise, and more importantly it just presented the known facts rather than the usual hysterical articles you read about such emotive cases.

I'd love to know how many times the editors of the main tabloids have come close to revealing their new identities. I'm sure their lawyers have weighed up the costs of papers sold against the ensuing lawsuit many many times. It's not as if they wouldn't be backed by the public if they went ahead and named them.

It's impossible to tell what terms of his parole he breached, and it can be something very minor. I would imagine that he was to tell anybody his true identity it would put him at such risk that it may be in violation of his parole and may result in him being brought back into custody for his own protection. I wonder if this had anything to do with it.

I also read a different article to this one which went into even more detail about the boys; it could have been an Inquiry I read. It was a while back and it was very detailed. Demented, these two.

Nodin · 03-03-2010 02:37PM

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

So what? Normal ten year olds dont abduct, torture and murder people. They may squash the odd bee, hit their mate a clatter, but normal ten year olds dont kill people.

The amount of apologists on this site is baffling. They would excuse anything.:rolleyes:

So you don't believe in the age of majority etc?

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

Its unbelievable isnt it? Then they scratch their heads and wonder why our crime rate is rising.

"our"? This took place in Britain.

The violent crime rate, when looked at over the last 150 years, shows a steady decline, even allowing for emigration.

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 02:38PM

Nodin wrote: »

"our"? This took place in Britain.

Context, dear Nodin. Context.:rolleyes:

aDeener · 03-03-2010 02:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

So you don't believe in the age of majority etc?

"our"? This took place in Britain.

The violent crime rate, when looked at over the last 150 years, shows a steady decline, even allowing for emigration.

genuine question here, does that take into account political killings? i would imagine it does, and would help explain why there has been a decline

walshb · 03-03-2010 02:41PM

The Age Of Majority is a guideline/legality, not an exact science. Either way, it doesn't explain/condone the actions of these two children. Anyway, isn't it 18 in the EU?

If so, then one could apply this to any child/teen up to that age....That's mad!

Nodin · 03-03-2010 02:52PM

aDeener wrote: »

genuine question here, does that take into account political killings? i would imagine it does, and would help explain why there has been a decline

Actually it doesn't distingiush- it includes all killings. Theres been a steady decline since the early 1800's, with a rise and spike during the land war of the 1880's, followed by more decline.

Its actually hard to conceive now just how violent society used to be.

IrishManSaipan · 03-03-2010 02:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it doesn't - it includes all killings. Theres been a steady decline since the early 1800's, with a rise and spike during the land war of the 1880's, followed by more decline.

Its actually hard to conceive now just how violent society used to be.

Point taken. I remember reading about Wolfe Tones days in Trinity. Himself and his mates were congregated outside the deans quarters and making a bit of a racket. The dean fired a pot shot over their heads to get them to keep the noise down. One of the students went home, got his gun and started taking pot shots at the dean!:D

aDeener · 03-03-2010 03:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

Actually it doesn't distingiush- it includes all killings. Theres been a steady decline since the early 1800's, with a rise and spike during the land war of the 1880's, followed by more decline.

Its actually hard to conceive now just how violent society used to be.

Very true.
i just assumed that the vast majority of killings back in the day were politically motivated

BaZmO* · 03-03-2010 03:02PM

Watched a documentary a few years back and it concluded that we are living in safer times relative to days gone by, and it is actually backed up statistically. It's just that all the horror stories are covered much more in our ever expanding amount of media outlets giving the impression that the world is a much more dangerous place than it actually is.

Truley · 03-03-2010 03:04PM

BaZmO* wrote: »

Watched a documentary a few years back and it concluded that we are living in safer times relative to days gone by, and it is actually backed up statistically. It's just that all the horror stories are covered much more in our ever expanding amount of media outlets giving the impression that the world is a much more dangerous place that it actually is.

shhhhhhh! never let the facts get in the way of a good lynch mob

Nodin · 03-03-2010 03:48PM

aDeener wrote: »

Very true.
i just assumed that the vast majority of killings back in the day were politically motivated

No. It's the same situation all over Western Europe - steady decline. What remains may take new forms (killing over drugs and the like) but overall, we actually have it easy, compartively speaking.

97i9y3941 · 03-03-2010 03:57PM

there was other stories about them emergeing through the years,one of them was getting married and had a kid?,they where supposed to had moved to austrailia?,their trial was critised by e.u due to they had a very public trial which of course could not excuse their very heinous crime they committed,i assume its only the horrendous nature of the crime that as adults they are still given protection,i remember when they where first released the media ban covered england only so the papers here in a loophole could had published anything..

Nodin · 03-03-2010 04:05PM

Fred83 wrote: »

there was other stories about them emergeing through the years,one of them was getting married and had a kid?,they where supposed to had moved to austrailia?,their trial was critised by e.u due to they had a very public trial which of course could not excuse their very heinous crime they committed,i assume its only the horrendous nature of the crime that as adults they are still given protection,i remember when they where first released the media ban covered england only so the papers here in a loophole could had published anything..

Well, it was the atmosphere and the fact that they were tried as adults.

James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Comments