The Sleep of Reason: The James Bulger Case
Page 31
In deciding whether or not each boy knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong, the jury would take into account the total number of blows inflicted on the deceased, the number of blows to the head, the number of injuries to the head, the weapons used — the bricks, an iron bar or fishplate — what was done to the body after the fatal injuries had been inflicted, the moving of the body from one line to another, the removal of socks, shoes, trousers and underpants, and the placing of his body across the railway line. ‘You will take into account kicking, if you find it took place, the kicking by a ten-year-old child, of a child, not yet three, lying injured on the railway line.’
The jury were reminded that neither boy suffered an abnormality of mind; they were both of average intelligence; and both attended a Church of England school where they were taught the difference between right and wrong.
There was then a meticulous resume of the evidence of the witnesses and the boys’ interviews, during which the judge highlighted various statements which the jury should consider.
Bobby’s interviews: . is this [a retort by Bobby] an indicator that
Robert Thompson had his wits about him all the time during the interviews… is that a deliberate lie — maybe because Robert Thompson knew it was seriously wrong to take James Bulger away… is that again because he knew how seriously… is that the answer of a boy who had his wits about him and was trying to wriggle out of the truth… were they two more deliberate lies… it is for you to decide whether that was a deliberate lie, and the reason for making that lie… a crucial answer, if it be true: ‘I never touched him except for picking him up.’
Jon’s interviews: ‘… it is a matter for you whether you think that was a deliberate lie… “So that’s two lies you’ve told?” Answer, “Yeah” … is this the position, that Jon Venables makes admissions when faced with the inevitable, but persists with lies… he is still persisting with the untruth, “I never touched the baby” … ’I did kill him’, not, as Mr Turner pointed out to you, ‘We’, but, ‘I did kill him’… is that Jon Venables admitting he was in it together with Robert Thompson to take James Bulger out of the Strand… is he saying there he wanted to hurt him a bit, but not seriously… there’s that pattern Mr Turner was talking about of making an admission and then referring to Robert.’
As is becoming increasingly common in complicated trials, the judge had drawn up a list of 20 questions, to guide the jury to their verdicts. He had submitted the questions to counsel beforehand, so that all were agreed, and, at the end of his summary, he presented them to the jury.
For each question the jury would have to ask, is each and every one of us sure…
On Count One, the attempted abduction:
1. That Robert Thompson intended to cause or induce the child to accompany him so as to remove him from the lawful control of his mother.
2. That Robert Thompson played a part in doing something that was more than mere preparation.
3. That Robert Thompson had no lawful authority or excuse for attempting to take the child.
4. That at the time Robert Thompson was attempting to abduct the child he knew it was seriously wrong to do so.
If the answer to each of these questions was yes’, then Robert Thompson would be guilty of attempted abduction. If the answer to any of the questions was ‘no’, then the verdict would be not guilty.
5. That Jon Venables intended to cause or induce the child to accompany him so as to remove him from the lawful control of his mother.
6. That Jon Venables played a part in doing something that was more than mere preparation.
7. That Jon Venables had no lawful authority or excuse for attempting to take the child.
8. That at the time Jon Venables was attempting to abduct the child he knew it was seriously wrong to do so.
If the answer to each of these questions was yes’, then Jon Venables would be guilty of attempted abduction. If the answer to any of the questions was ‘no’, then the verdict would be not guilty.
On Count Two, the abduction of James Bulger:
9. That Robert Thompson played a part in causing or inducing James Bulger to accompany him so as to remove him from the lawful control of his mother.
10. That Robert Thompson had no lawful authority or excuse for taking James Bulger.
11. That at the time Robert Thompson abducted James Bulger he knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong.
If the answer to each of these questions was yes’, then Robert Thompson would be guilty of abduction.
12. That Jon Venables played a part in causing or inducing James Bulger to accompany him so as to remove him from the lawful control of his mother.
13. That Jon Venables had no lawful authority or excuse for taking James Bulger.
14. That at the time Jon Venables abducted James Bulger he knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong.
If the answer to each of these questions was ‘yes’, then Jon Venables would be guilty of abduction.
On Count Three, the murder of James Bulger:
15. That Robert Thompson played a part in the death of James Bulger.
16. That at the time of the killing, Robert Thompson knew it was seriously wrong to act as he did.
17. That when James Bulger was being attacked on the railway line Robert Thompson intended that he should be caused serious injury or death.
If the answers to either 15 or 16 were ‘no’, then Robert Thompson would be not guilty of murder. If the answers to both were yes’, then question 17 should be considered. If the answer to 17 was no’, then the verdict would be manslaughter. If the answer to 17 was yes’, then Robert Thompson would be guilty of murder.
18. That Jon Venables played a part in the death of James Bulger.
19. That at the time of the killing, Jon Venables knew it was seriously wrong to act as he did.
20. That when James Bulger was being attacked on the railway line Jon Venables intended that he should be caused serious injury or death.
If the answers to either 18 or 19 were ‘no’, then Jon Venables would be not guilty of murder. If the answers to both were ‘yes’, then question 20 should be considered. If the answer to 20 was ‘no’, then the verdict would be manslaughter. If the answer to 20 was yes’, then Jon Venables would be guilty of murder.
The judge told the jury that the verdicts must be unanimous — ‘that is, the verdict of each and all of you’ — and he would give further instructions about a majority verdict at the appropriate time. If there was anything they wanted, exhibits, tea, coffee, whatever, they should give a message to a jury bailiff. Court ushers were sworn in as jury bailiffs, and led the jury out to begin their deliberation. It was 11.43 a.m., Wednesday, 24 November.
Downstairs, in his room beyond the cells, Bobby said he knew what the verdict would be. He knew he would be found guilty of murder. He was sitting there, trying to knit a pair of gloves for baby Ben. The lawyers were in the room, discussing the price of wigs. Bobby began playing with David Turner’s wig. Someone joked that he could get his own for four hundred quid. Ann began knitting too and, after lunch, when the lawyers went back to see him, Bobby was sitting in his own newly completed white wool barrister’s wig.
Back in court the judge was hearing applications from barristers in real wigs representing Associated Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers. Associated, owners of the Daily Mail, wanted the judge to lift his orders preventing identification of the boys in the event of guilty verdicts.
The Mirror wanted to identify the victim of the attempted abduction, and the victim’s mother. The judge asked whether there was any contractual relationship between the Mirror and the child’s family. Counsel faltered … er, in all likelihood, yes. There were smiles in the press seats, where everyone knew the Mirror had bought up the mother.
Associated Newspapers’ application did not sound overly convincing. There was talk of the need for openness and of the fact that the boys had brought the proceedings on their own heads.
<
br /> The judge said there was a rule that the interests of the child are paramount. The Crown had to bear in mind the child’s rehabilitation — a task which would be made more difficult if the boys were named and identified, notoriously, worldwide.
‘On the other hand this is not merely a case of ghoulish interest in the macabre. This was a ghastly crime, and unbelievable that it could be perpetrated by one or two ten-year-old boys.’ It could be argued that it was in the public interest that the circumstances, the exposure of children today to films, radio, television and newspapers, video and so on may have played their part. There could be a role for legitimate investigation, which would be of interest to serious sections of the public.
The judge said he would give his decision on identification immediately after the verdict. He said he would not give any reasons for his decision.
There was a note for the court from a juror. Could a message be relayed about the collection of the juror’s child from school? This seemed to be a sign that the verdicts were a long way off. At some point, towards the end of the afternoon, the judge could be expected to call the jury back and, if they had not reached a decision, they would be despatched to a hotel for the night.
It was not long after five o’clock, when the jury came back in. The judge, the lawyers and the court staff were all apparently under the impression that the jury were still talking. After the formality of asking for verdicts, they would be off to a hotel.
The rest of the court was unaware of this, and there was anticipation of a verdict. The public gallery was full. Ralph and Denise Bulger were both there, for the first time, in the front row.
Albert Kirby directed some uniformed officers to stand by the gallery railing. There was a crowd there by the doors, of barristers and others, come to see the kill.
The boys filed up the steps, followed by Neil and Susan Venables. Ann Thompson got to the foot of the steps and seized up, overcome by asthma. It didn’t seem to matter too much. There wasn’t going to be a verdict. She went back through the cells to one of the small rooms in the secure area.
The jury came in and the court clerk stood to face them. The foreman, who was the man with the silver hair, stood to face the clerk.
‘On the first count of attempted abduction, have you reached a verdict on which you are all agreed?’
No. The foreman’s voice was brusque Lancastrian. He was very self-concious.
‘On count 2, have you reached a verdict on which you are all agreed?’
Yes.
‘Do you find the defendant, Robert Thompson, guilty or not guilty of the abduction of James Bulger?’
Guilty.
‘And is that the verdict of you all?’
It is.
‘Do you find the defendant, Jon Venables, guilty or not guilty of the abduction of James Bulger?’
Guilty.
‘And is that the verdict of you all?’
It is.
‘On count 3, have you reached a verdict on which you are all agreed?’
Yes.
‘Do you find the defendant, Robert Thompson, guilty or not guilty of the murder of James Bulger?’.
Guilty.
And is that the verdict of you all?”
It is.
‘Do you find the defendant Jon Venables guilty or not guilty of the murder of James Bulger?’
Guilty.
And is that the verdict of you all?’.
It was. The foreman sat down.
‘Yes!’ That was a punching-the-air-with-your-fist yes. It came from the front row of the gallery.
Bobby looked blank. Perhaps a trace of shock. There was a second or two before Jon reacted, pulling at his eyes with his fingers, tears falling. His parents began sobbing.
Albert Kirby walked up to the gallery, leant over, and kissed the cheek of Denise Bulger. His eyes were wet.
The jury went out to try and reach a decision on the attempt, and the boys were led down to the cells, followed by lawyers and social workers. There was a jam at the door to the secure area. Prisoners were being moved from the cells to the van, and the door had to be kept locked.
Bobby and Jon were no more than a couple of feet apart, hemmed in by adults. Jon was crying terribly and a police woman hugged him to her. Bobby was stiff, staring ahead, not looking at Jon.
Can’t we get this bloody door open, somebody shouted. And then they were through, Jon straight into the room he used, and Bobby across the courtyard to his. His mother should have been there, but wasn’t. Bobby’s solicitor, Dominic Lloyd found her back in the room by the cells. She had just been told the verdict by a social worker, and was slumped over a table, distraught.
Eventually, Ann moved, and was led to Bobby. She grabbed him in a big embrace and they both began crying. The others went out of the room and left them alone. After a minute or two Ann appeared at the door. Can you get him a doctor or something, he can’t breathe. So they all went back in, and Bobby was gasping for air. His collar was loosened, his tie removed. He was told to breathe deep and slow.
Dominic Lloyd took Bobby’s hand and held it. There was no response from Bobby, his hand lying limp in Dominic’s. Then Dominic went to move, and Bobby squeezed tightly. Dominic sat down again. All right lad, another ten minutes and it’ll all be over. Bobby said nothing.
Then a warder was at the door saying the court was ready for them. Bobby began crying again and, as they walked out, someone said, come on, here’s your tie. There’s no point putting that on now, said Bobby.
When they were all back in the court the foreman said the jury still had not reached a verdict on the attempted abduction. The judge said he would release them from further deliberation, and let the charges lie on file.
The judge said that in the exceptional circumstances of the case he was varying the identification orders he had made. As he spoke, a clerk rushed up the aisle to the press seats, handing out copies of a single A4 sheet containing the changed orders. It looked as though the orders had been prepared hurriedly. Bobby’s surname was misspelt at the top of the sheet, and some of the wording seemed ambiguous.
There was considerable confusion among the media. Can we name them? No, said the police press officer. Yes, said the reporter from Granada Television. It was not immediately clear, though the man from Granada was right.
But the judge was moving on. He was going to speak to the boys for the second time in the trial. First he invited comments from the defence counsel. David Turner had nothing to say, but Brian Walsh stood to remind the court of Jon’s confessional words. What about his mum? Will you tell her I’m sorry.
“While to someone older these may seem pathetically inadequate words, for a child of his years they meant a great deal, and he wanted me to repeat them when I saw him a few minutes ago.’
The judge:
‘Robert Thompson and Jon Venables,
‘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 judgement your conduct was both cunning and very wicked.
‘The 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.
‘Let them be taken down.’
Bobby and Jon left the dock and, as they turned onto the stairs, facing the gallery, there was a shout from the front row. How do you feel now, you little bastards?
The judge then addressed the court. ‘How it came about that two mentally normal boys, aged ten, and of average intelligence, committed this crime is hard to comprehend.
‘It is not for
me to pass judgement on their upbringing, but I suspect that exposure to violent video films may in part be an explanation.
‘In fairness to Mrs Thompson and to Mr and Mrs Venables, it is very much to their credit they used every effort to get their sons to tell the truth.
‘The people of Bootle and Walton and all involved in this tragic case will never forget the tragic circumstances of James Bulgers murder. Everyone in court will especially wish Mrs Bulger well in the months ahead and hope that her new baby will bring her peace and happiness. I hope that all involved in this case, whether witness or otherwise, will find peace at Christmas time.’
It was unclear why the judge had made reference to violent videos. There had been no mention in evidence of any videos. Had he too heard the rumours about Child’s Play 3? Perhaps he was thinking of Dr Susan Baileys report, which he said he had read, with its account of Jon watching Kung Fu films.
If he had wanted to provoke a public debate it was, perhaps, surprising that he had singled out violent videos as a possible explanation for the killing, with no mention of any other issues that might be a factor in young people committing serious crime.
The ensuing week’s papers were full of Chucky doll.
Why had the judge identified the boys? This too was unclear and, as a judge, as he had said in court earlier, he was not accountable.
They could change their names, of course, in years to come. As could their families. But how would Ryan, baby Ben, Mark, Michelle and the other members of the two families who had not been convicted of murdering James Bulger be affected by the revelation of their identities, and their innocent association with the notoriety which had been thrust on Bobby and Jon?