***
One thing that kept me going in the early months after Thompson and Venables were freed was the public support. It very quickly became clear that the general public were as angry about the release of them as we were. The letters came in their sack loads and the outrage was clear. It was so bad at one point that David Blunkett had to step in, before they were actually released, and issue a call for calm. He said, ‘I think we all need to take a deep breath and to view what is said and done as we would view it if it were taking place in any other country. We’re not in the Midwest in the mid-19th century; we’re in Britain in the 21st century and we will deal with things effectively and we’ll deal with things in a civilised manner . . . If people continue to provide the emotional adrenaline for others who are sick of mind to go and [attack the boys] then there will be a great danger. The greatest safeguard we can offer to people in the community is to rehabilitate Thompson and Venables effectively.’
There were numerous threats made by those who were against the release, including vows from some to hunt down Thompson and Venables and kill them. As much as I understood the mood, we haven’t ever wanted violence in James’ name – then or now. Emotions were swirling round unchecked and I think the public could see what the government couldn’t – that by giving criminals like Thompson and Venables new identities and back stories, we were letting evil slip through our fingers to assimilate back into society. After all, you can’t protect yourself against what you can’t see.
Despite the fact that the blanket media ban was in full force, it didn’t stop the stories coming thick and fast and there were all sorts of theories emerging. We were treated to in-depth accounts of how the parole board decided Thompson and Venables were ready for release, which included sending a team of people to interview them both for two days. This team had access to all the reports from inside the facilities where they had been kept. Yet again time was spent trying to determine if they felt guilty about what they had done to James. While Venables apparently fared better than Thompson, they both passed with flying colours.
There were two problems with this as far as I am concerned – the first is that they had both been prepared carefully ahead of their release to become consummate liars, but they had to be, of course, in order to gain their freedom. Their new identities and back stories had been painstakingly crafted by the authorities, and it was their job to stick to the new narratives they’d been given. That meant the very people judging their levels of cunning were the ones coaching them to be deceitful. It seemed utter madness to me. The second issue was that apparently all the psychological tests being done on them, the Hurst Test in particular, were being incorrectly administered. The problem was that they were using the adult version of the test on them, rather than the one geared towards children, which would have been more representative of their state of mind at the time of the killing.
The report also glossed over the fact that there was strong evidence Venables was having an affair with his housemother and she was never disciplined for crossing such a fundamental line with someone so clearly in need of rehabilitation. There were no repercussions and the case was a ticking time bomb. That meant it all got put into a box labelled ‘too difficult’, because one thing couldn’t explode without the whole thing going up.
This was hard for the whole family and, as the months turned into a couple of years, I tried to keep focused on the happy times. It became more and more important to make sure that James remained a positive part of our lives, particularly as the tenth anniversary loomed over us. Thomas starting school was a milestone and almost even more traumatic than Michael going – mainly because I knew those two were out and roaming the streets. I understood it was unlikely that they knew where my family were but I had no way of knowing for sure and I felt sick at the thought of it. Thomas also had the opposite reaction to Michael when it came to his first day at primary school, which was really hard.
On Thomas’ first day I stayed at home with Leon, and, although I was worried about him being out of my sight, I didn’t think he would get too upset because Michael had been fine. Stuart took Thomas and, like before, he saw him in, settled him and went to leave. As he was getting to the door, he heard someone shout, ‘Don’t leave me, Dad!’ and realised it was Thomas. The teacher was holding him back and he was screaming, ‘I want my dad!’
Stuart left and came home and made the big mistake of telling me. Well, that was it, I was screaming at Stuart, ‘Go and get him! If you don’t go and fetch him I will.’ It was like a comedy sketch – there I was putting on my coat and shoes, and Stuart was standing by the door with his arms out saying, ‘You’ve got to let them go to school, Denise!’
I knew I had to let the fear pass and be as normal a family as possible – we had to stick together. This became even more concrete once Michael officially changed his name to Fergus. It all came about out of the blue as we sat down to a Sunday roast. We were chatting away and talk turned to our upcoming family holiday to Spain – we never usually went abroad so everyone was really excited. Suddenly Michael turned around and said, ‘But it’s not a family holiday is it because you have all got the name Fergus and I am a Bulger?’ Stuart reassured him that it didn’t matter and we were all one big happy family, but he was adamant it was an issue and he asked if he could officially change his surname so he could have the same name as his brothers, especially as he doesn’t have a relationship with Ralph.
This conversation was typical of the open chats I have always tried to have with my boys – they know they can ask me anything at all – and it was no different when it came to discussing the brother they never knew. People often ask how I told Michael in particular about James, but it wasn’t really a matter of sitting him down and saying ‘You had a brother and this is what happened to him’. James is just part of the family. I didn’t ever turn off the TV when anything came on the news about the case, there are pictures of James in the house and I answer any questions that are asked with complete honesty. Right from when the boys were young I would include James in the conversation. Often when we were sitting round the dinner table and one of the boys would do or say something, I would say, ‘James used to do that,’ and then tell them a little story about him to cement the point. It helped to introduce James to them at a young age and in a natural way. Often when he was quite young Michael would wander in and say, ‘You and James are on TV again.’
I was determined to always be the person they could ask, especially once they went to school and I knew they would have to contend with other kids talking in the playground and repeating what they had heard at home. I know everyone handles these things differently, but I wanted it all out in the open for us. I am friendly with one other mum whose young son was murdered – she went on to have two more children, but she didn’t ever tell them about their older brother. The murderer was eventually released and one day, on the way back from the school run, the mother came home to hordes of press outside her house. It turned out that the murderer had moved nearby and the press wanted a reaction. She was with her two other children, but they had no idea what was going on, so she had to sit them down and tell them about their murdered brother. I didn’t want that kind of conversation with my lads.
There aren’t pictures of James everywhere as I didn’t want the house to be a shrine – but there’s a lovely one over the fireplace that has been there from when I first moved into the house with Ralph. Michael also has a picture of James in his bedroom as you walk in. I was going to put one in Leon and Thomas’ room and Stuart said, ‘Don’t just assume, ask them first,’ so I did and they weren’t sure. But I feel very lucky that we can all have those open discussions and that James is easily mentioned every day in our house. He’s part of the family he didn’t live to meet.
Chapter 24
Caught
During the years that Venables and Thompson have been free, lots has changed in the way things are reported, and the traditional media has had to make way for the lig
htning speed of the Internet. The world of instant news also means there have been issues with upholding that original ban on the publication of any information regarding Thompson or Venables. The rise in social media meant that the floodgates opened, sometimes dangerously, with young men wrongly being identified as either one of the killers. This has meant innocent men having to go into hiding and fearing for their lives.
Over the years I have been inundated with tip-offs and tweeted pictures of random men by people who believe them to be my son’s killers. People have claimed to have up-to-date photos of them and there were various sites opened and dedicated to tracking them down. Sometimes it is more random and I get sent pictures of trainers or hands and told that it is either Thompson or Venables in the photo. Although the police always move swiftly to act and shut everything down, the thirst for information has remained high over the years.
There were more reports of luxurious lifestyles: expensive holidays in the sun, security guards and all sorts of privilege. It has been hard to sort fact from fiction and, in a way, the worst has happened – they were out – what could be more devastating than that? Anniversaries came and went and life carried on because I had no choice. The anxiety I felt about the fact that my son’s killers were loose never really went away. Obviously they weren’t meant to enter Merseyside but we know one of them came to the city to watch an Everton game; we also know that Venables has been out drinking in Liverpool, which is terrifying. My nieces are at the age where they are going to bars – what if one of them is unwittingly chatted up by him?
Initially, I was fixated on knowing as much as I could about them and I make no apologies for that – sometimes it feels like I did the crime and they are the wronged party. But I have to remember that their whole lives, and those of the people they encounter, will be built on lies. Unfortunately, someone innocent will be sucked into the deception and get hurt, and that is so upsetting, but it’s not how I live and I am grateful for that.
When they were first released I drove around and sat outside buildings I’d been tipped off about, waiting to see if I recognised them. That didn’t last long though, as I realised it was now my job to protect what I had. I’ve been asked time and time again if I would want to come face to face with them and ask why they killed my son – my answer is always, ‘No, it won’t bring James back.’ It wouldn’t matter what they said as far as I am concerned because they are professional liars – I couldn’t ever believe a word they said. There is also no way that I could be in a room with them long enough to ask the question.
There was a lot of nonsense written about me masterminding vigilante groups to go smashing around Liverpool, trying to find out where they were and to do them harm. But I have always said the same thing: I would never tarnish my son’s memory like that. More importantly, why would I risk serving time for those two animals when I have three lads who need me?
I have always said I don’t want them hanged, killed or harmed in any way – all I ever wanted was for them to serve time in an adult prison and for them to understand that my baby’s life mattered. I wanted them to have a proper punishment, instead they were being handed Mars Bars in court. When James didn’t get justice the only thing I could do was to let them know that I wasn’t going away. I wanted them to know that I was watching, waiting for them slip up. In the end it didn’t take very long.
In March 2010, nine years after his release, Jon Venables reoffended and was recalled back to jail for breaching the terms of his release in what Jack Straw called ‘extremely serious allegations’. It was reported that he was accused of child pornography offences – which followed earlier reports linking him to a sex offence. He was given a two-year jail sentence and would be eligible for parole within a year.
We had asked that, if there was any kind of news like this, I be let known by the Home Office or the Parole Board before the press. This was so I could prepare the boys for the increased press attention and process it myself before answering any questions the media might have. It was always hard being put on the spot and discussing something so sensitive – I don’t think that ever got any easier. Unfortunately, I heard the news after it was leaked to a national newspaper and eventually discussed by Phillip Schofield, live on This Morning. In what turned out to be a really embarrassing situation, I became adamant it wasn’t true, arguing I would have been told in advance about something as serious as Venables reoffending and I contacted the show to tell them the information was incorrect. Poor Phillip was mortified to have caused upset with a rumour and apologised profusely. I told him not to worry, obviously it wasn’t his fault and I knew he’d never do anything to upset me, and after I’d finished watching the show, Stuart and I went off to see Stuart’s dad.
On the way, Stuart decided to pull over and call the parole office, just to let them know about the rumour and double check something else wasn’t going on – we were reassured it was all gossip. A little while later they called back and told Stuart word for word what Phillip had said on the show – it was true. Not only had my son’s killer reoffended, as I had been certain he would, but nobody had the decency to tell me, demonstrating that I was the last to know anything when it came to my son. We were in the car and the phone was on loud speaker and all the anger and frustration boiled over. ‘Why the hell didn’t you tell me that when we called and asked?’ I screamed. The woman on the end of the phone answered in a very matter of fact way, ‘Ralph knew, we thought you did too.’
I called Sean immediately. He says now, ‘When Venables was recalled it was obviously under his new identity, meaning all that hard work to give him a new life was immediately compromised. We found out that the recall was for child pornography offences and he was subsequently given a custodial sentence because of the gravity of the images found in his possession. When he became eligible for release on parole again, we were allowed to make representations to the Parole Board as they considered his possible release – we were effectively the beneficiaries of our own law change and were allowed to read those submissions to the Parole Board via video link.
‘We always felt, however, that we were fighting with both hands tied behind our backs when dealing with the Parole hearings, as we weren’t allowed to see any of the psychiatric reports or the documentation upon which the Parole Board relied. This meant that we couldn’t challenge any of that evidence. As a lawyer I understand why confidential medical reports are not disclosed to third parties but it does make me wonder whether the invitation from the Parole Board to make those representations isn’t just politically correct window dressing.
‘On one occasion I was told that Thompson was in prison in Kilkenny, Ireland for a serious violent offence under his new identity. Apparently the Irish police didn’t know who he really was, even though he was being held on remand for such a serious offence. This information came to me via a Sunday tabloid late on a Friday afternoon, so I phoned the Home Office (we have no hotline number by the way, so I had to go through the same channels as everyone else, which can take forever). I got the Home Office to confirm late that night that Thompson was still in the UK and not in Ireland, meaning the story was false, so I was able to tell the journalist and they didn’t run the story. This saved you a bit of heartache but, in the end, it all comes down to trust and believing in the system. You don’t trust it and I understand why – it doesn’t seem to trust you.’
I spent a lot of time on the impact statement for Venables’ Parole Board. It was the first time that I felt someone was listening to me, and I poured my heart and soul into it. I wanted to make the point that his original license back in 2001 was based on a false premise and deception. I outlined the questions I had been asking in the years following his release:
1.
Has he entered Merseyside or Liverpool?
2.
Has he been in trouble with the law since his release?
3.
Has he visited James’ grave as part of his rehabilitation?
4.
&
nbsp; Does he live anywhere near where I live?
I went on to add, ‘The answers I have received over the years were simply “No” or “You cannot be told”. Knowing Venables’ recall under the terms of his parole in 2010, I learned that the true answer to these questions should have been “Yes” or, more worryingly, “We don’t check”. I urge you to recognise he remains a danger to society in general and to my family in particular, since he breached the terms of his original license which was designed for our protection. I have appeared in the media and he will know what I look like and, whilst I have always done my best to keep my children out of the spotlight, there is every chance he will know what they look like too.
‘I have learnt that Venables has been going to Everton games, some of my family support this team and could have, unwittingly, been sitting next to him. The risk that my family are exposed to all stems from the protection of anonymity afforded to Venables, the criminal, which is not extended to me and my family as relatives of the murder victim. Unlike other prisoners on license only a few people know his true identity. Even ordinary police officers could encounter him committing an offence and let him off with a warning, not knowing his true identity.’
The fact that he had been caught with child pornography seemed the most obvious sign in the world that he hadn’t been ‘fixed’ by the system – possessing indecent images of children isn’t a mark of successful reassimilation into civilised society as far as I am concerned. What worried me most was the timing. Our lads were on the cusp of wanting to start venturing out and I was terrified. It was one thing that they didn’t serve their time and had been released, but now Venables was reoffending and we had no idea how long he would be behind bars for this time. He could have been out any minute. All the ‘what ifs’ started flooding my thoughts. For example, what if he goes to a night club and starts talking to Michael – that means that Michael would unwittingly be talking to the lad who murdered his brother. All this was going through my head and I wrote it all down. It was probably the first time I had been strong enough to put my case across.
I Let Him Go: The heartbreaking book from the mother of James Bulger Page 21