by Ralph Bulger
Dr Berry’s analysis formed the basis for Robin’s detailed report, which said that I also suffered from chronic depression, powerful intrusive thoughts, nightmares, sleep problems, guilt and anger, and that I was overprotective with my other children. He added that I suffered from social isolation and social avoidance of situations that provoke memories and public attention, resulting in low self-esteem and no confidence to deal with life. This was an official report, but it totally fitted with my more simplistic way of describing my life. I didn’t like going out or being around people and that had not changed in all the years since James’s death. It made sense when I thought back to the panicky feelings I experienced if people recognized me and why I chose to go and visit James’s grave at night when I was alone. Dr Berry also diagnosed Jimmy as having post-traumatic stress disorder and other associated symptoms following his identification of James’s body.
In particular, the report stressed that both Jimmy and I remained acutely disturbed by the evidence of sexual abuse on James. If Thompson and Venables were wired to be paedophiles, then surely that was going to manifest itself later in life, especially now that they were young men and no longer children themselves. We genuinely believed that this was not being taken seriously enough by the authorities and that they posed a real danger to the safety of other children. We confided the fears we had for the safety of our own children. We felt that if these two were released, the ultimate thrill’ for them would be to return to Liverpool and snatch another one of our own children to sexually defile and murder all over again. Right from the beginning it was almost as if the sexual element to James’s murder had been brushed under the carpet because no one wanted to consider the concept of two ten-year-olds being capable of committing a blatantly sexual murder.
As the day approached when the Parole Board was due to meet, I went to see Jimmy to talk things through. We had done all we could and now it was out of our hands.
‘You know they’re gonna let these little fuckers out, don’t you, Ralph?’ Jimmy stated matter-of-factly.
‘Yep, I do. But if there is even just the slimmest hope left, we have to go for it. We have to try it for James’
‘Yes, I agree. I just didn’t want you to clutch at straws when we both know what is coming. Before long they are going to be free and wandering the streets again.’ Jimmy laid a hand on my shoulder. ‘Ralph, we need to prepare ourselves for what is going to happen.’
15
Killers Free Once Again
‘I’ve got bad news, Ralph,’ Robin said. As soon as I’d heard his voice on the other end of the phone my heart had started thumping. I knew what he was going to say, but I listened quietly as he told me that the killers were being released on licence. As much as I had tried to prepare myself, it still hurt deep inside my soul and, once again, I felt that I had failed my son. I was floored by the decision, just as if I had been run over and crushed by a juggernaut. It was the final insult to my son’s memory.
The next day, Friday, 24 June 2001, Home Secretary David Blunkett, who had by now replaced Jack Straw, made the news public. Ironically, it was also my birthday.
I had met David Blunkett when he was named as Home Secretary and I genuinely liked him. Of all the politicians I have come across, he was one of the few who seemed genuinely to care. I remember him grabbing my hand and saying to me, ‘I am so sorry about what happened to your son, Ralph.’ And I believed that he really meant it.
Here is how he broke the news to the world.
‘The Parole Board has informed me today of their decision, subject to conditions, to direct the release on life licence of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables . . . I would wish to make it clear at the outset that this means that Thompson and Venables will be on licence for the rest of their lives. They will be subject to strict licence conditions and liable to immediate recall if there is any concern at any time about their risk.’
After expressing his sympathy to James’s family, he stressed that the Parole Board would have been satisfied there was no unacceptable risk’ to the public, and that they heard evidence from expert witnesses. And he went on:
‘I can say that the call on public funds will be the minimum necessary to ensure their self-reliance, further education and training, and the safety of themselves and the public . . . The life licences include conditions which prohibit Thompson or Venables, whether directly or indirectly, from contacting or attempting to contact the family of James Bulger, or each other.
‘They will also be prohibited from entering the Metropolitan County of Merseyside without the prior written consent of their supervising officers. The National Probation Service now has the duty to supervise them and to review routinely the risk of reoffending.
‘There are grave doubts about whether this duty could be carried out effectively without some degree of anonymity. I am assured that Thompson and Venables will be kept under very close supervision and scrutiny by the Probation Service, whose principal aim is to ensure the protection of the public.’
And so there it was. The little bastards were set free, with immediate effect. It has always been recognized that both Thompson and Venables were cunning and manipulative, and now they had managed to con the Parole Board that they were safe to be released.
I was told in confidence that David Blunkett had fought tooth and nail against the decision of the Parole Board, but in the end the twisted logic of our legal system got its own way. This was one of my darkest hours since James had died.
These were difficult days, once again. I was by now living back at my mum’s house after Eileen and I had agreed to split up several months earlier. It wasn’t like we’d had some huge row or bust-up, but I had spent so much time and focus on the legal fight that I felt we had drifted apart. Yet again, I was so consumed with the need to find justice for James there was nothing left to give to a relationship in my own life. Although I still cared for her, I knew it was unfair to stay with Eileen when I was wrapped up in my own troubles and I think she understood.
Thankfully, Eileen was happy for me to call up to the house to visit the girls and so we were able to share the responsibilities for our kids. In her own way, she continued to be there for me by caring for the children when I was battling for James. It was sad, but I count myself lucky that we were able to stay civil and friendly to each other, and we remain so proud of and committed to our daughters. Naigs was only young and so really knew little difference, and as I had only moved around the corner to my mum’s, Ree and Bobbi still saw me all the time and they adapted very quickly, as young kids do. And I wasn’t constantly rowing with Eileen so they didn’t appear to suffer any trauma as a result of the break-up.
The day Mr Blunkett made his announcement, my phone never stopped ringing. Family and friends kept a close eye on me to make sure that I was OK. My first call of the day was from Jimmy.
‘Bastards,’ he barked down the phone. That’s all he needed to say.
Later that day I took an unexpected phone call that left me reeling. It was from an anonymous man who said, ‘Ralph, you don’t know who I am, but I have information that I think you should know. I have access to information relating to the release of your son’s killers. As part of the preparation for their return to society, care workers took them to visit your son’s grave to complete their rehabilitation and to help them deal with the crime they committed. It’s despicable and I just thought you should know.’
The line went dead but I stayed rooted to the spot. For the love of God, how much more was I supposed to take? This was the very same as my recurring nightmare — the image of James’s killers standing at his graveside. I didn’t want to believe it to be true, but the caller had sounded genuine and concerned, not like a crank. Why would he make something like that up? Given all the other attempts to rehabilitate these boys, it made perfect sense they’d be taken to where James was resting.
I phoned Jimmy back and told him. ‘They took the bastards to James’s grave. That is the one sacred plac
e where I wanted my son to be safe from his killers and they took those evil rats to gloat over him. I hate them so much.’
‘What’s happened?’ Jimmy quizzed.
‘I had a call from a well-wisher who says they went there. How could they do that to us, Jim? Are they trying to finish us off?’
‘Just try and stay calm, Ralph. This is a shite day and I’m with you every step of the way. We will keep a close eye on everything that happens and we will carry on fighting for James, don’t you worry about that.’
We have had no confirmation from the authorities either way, but if they did visit the grave then my chats with Dr Berry also suggest it was likely that, for the same reasons, and in a bid to get them to face up to their crime and avoid curiosity at a later date, Thompson and Venables would have been taken back to the scene of the murder at the railway track.
The decision to release Thompson and Venables sparked real fury across the country. The Internet almost went into meltdown as people threatened to kill the pair and placed bounties on their heads. In a press interview two days later, Jon Venables’ mum, Susan, said she feared her son would be tracked down and killed within a month of being freed and that the pair would forever be looking over their shoulders as revenge-seeking vigilantes vowed to hunt them down. They were predictable responses because public feeling had never really faded over James’s death, but, while I recognized their notoriety, I didn’t feel Thompson and Venables were any more at risk than other violent killers. The decision to grant them anonymity set the precedent to allow any other killer to justify the same treatment, creating a society where violent offenders can move around in freedom and secrecy.
The mood in the country was so ugly that David Blunkett was forced to call for restraint and calm. Several days later the Mail on Sunday reported in detail that the killers didn’t even want to be freed because they were so terrified of revenge attacks and wanted to remain in the security of their detention homes. Both the teenagers were apparently sobbing with fear when they had to leave the comfort and security of the units that had become their homes for the last eight years.
It was a terrible and bitter irony. The public wanted them to remain locked up, James’s family wanted them behind bars, our Home Secretary agreed and if the Mail on Sunday report was accurate then even Venables and Thompson wanted to stay incarcerated. And therefore it seemed to me their release was down to the liberal agenda of a few who wanted to prove that young killers could be rehabilitated and that they were not intrinsically evil. If that’s right, it was a deeply flawed and dangerous experiment, if you ask me.
Upon their release, Thompson and Venables were given new names, birth certificates and National Insurance numbers, and all traces of their old lives were destroyed. They had disappeared back into society and the rest of us did not know where they were or what they looked like.
Several days after they were freed, tensions were still running high across the UK and I was continually being asked by the press about my response to people threatening to kill Thompson and Venables. I made a statement, which was published on the front page of the Daily Mirror under the headline ‘Leave Them Alone’. I thanked the public for the support they had given us over the years and for caring so deeply about the terrible crime committed against James, but I also urged people to refrain from seeking revenge on the two boys. My biggest fear was that an innocent teenager might be mistaken for Thompson or Venables and bear the brunt of a nasty attack, or worse. I could never allow that to be a part of James’s legacy because no other innocent family should have to suffer the way we had over the years. As I said, ‘Thompson and Venables have not paid for their crime, but I cannot live with the thought that the wrong person may ultimately pay the price for their evil. I think the time has come for there to be some restraint and for matters to fade away to allow everyone some time to reflect and allow what has been set up to take effect.’
I hoped this would go some way towards redressing the balance and show that James’s family were not looking for vigilantes to track these young men down. My plea to the public was mirrored by David Blunkett. He addressed the nation, saying, ‘I understand that people have strong feelings about the release of the boys after eight years. But there is nothing that can bring James back and we have to address ourselves to the future. 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-nineteenth century; we’re in Britain in the twenty-first century and we’ll deal with things effectively and we’ll deal with things in a civilized 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.’
I didn’t agree with Mr Blunkett that the killers were capable of being rehabilitated; however, I still didn’t want vigilante attacks being carried out in my son’s name. I think the power of public opinion had caught the Government and the legal system napping, because now they could see how the people of this country really felt. It looked like they hadn’t just let James and his family down; they had let the whole country down.
Details of how the Parole Board had come to their decision to free the boys began to emerge in the days after. On the Monday before they were released, a panel of three people had sat in the visitors’ room in a former borstal in an unknown area in the north of England. The team was made up of a judge, a psychiatrist and a lay member. Also present were the lawyers for each boy, probation officers and security men. Jon Venables was the first to be interviewed by the panel and his grilling lasted for two days. Thompson was called to the panel afterwards and also faced two days of questioning.
Press articles reported that Venables fared far better than Thompson during the assessments, dealing confidently with all manner of questions, while Thompson appeared more awkward and quiet. The panel also studied the pair’s psychological dossiers, which showed that Thompson was apparently a quiet but caring young man who had come to terms with his awful crime. Robin had put forward a report to the board showing how expert psychiatrists suspected that Thompson could be an undiagnosed psychopath, which was also considered. (I believe that Thompson and Venables knew exactly what they were doing the day they abducted James and enjoyed the pain they inflicted on my son. If that’s not psychopathic, then I don’t know what is.)
The first key issue the panel had to consider was whether the boys felt remorse for their crime. Venables, by all accounts, was able to convince the panel easily of his remorse, but it was said to be trickier for Thompson. For several hours he was questioned about the crime and how he had responded to the intense therapy programmes he had undergone while in detention. At the end he was able to convince the panel and answered all their questions unflinchingly. The pair of them had ticked all the boxes and passed the test to be released. They were home and dry.
The parole panel was made up of professional, intelligent people, but in my mind they had simply been tricked. The teenagers were by now adept at therapy, having encountered many counselling and psychology sessions. What’s more, they had been taught to lie by the state in order to safeguard their new identities. Fakery and deceit is how they had been prepared to live their new lives, and so it wouldn’t have been hard for them to weave past the Parole Board. I believe they would have known how to answer the questions put before them, how to tell the panel what they wanted to hear. I felt pretty sick when I thought about how these two had managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the parole team.
Even though the boys were now eighteen, I think people still didn’t want to accept that ten-year-old boys could have been so evil. It was like the authorities were saying, ‘Look at us, aren’t we noble, we have saved these boys from the depths of hell and put them back on track.’
It was reported that Thompson and Venables w
ere likely to be initially moved to safe houses in a large town or city to ease them back into the outside world and set them on the path to enjoying independent living as young men.
Harry Fletcher of the probation union NAPO said at the time, ‘If they feel genuine remorse, then how will they live with what they have done? People working with them will know that there is a high risk they will try and block out the guilt with alcohol and drugs and that there is a real possibility of mental illness further down the line.’
But the boys had been given a thorough grounding to start their new lives. Both reportedly came out of detention with A-levels and a wealth of hobbies and interests. Thompson was said to be a talented young fashion designer, while Venables was a keen Manchester United fan, who idolized David Beckham, loved reading and writing and wanted to go to university. This was all well and good, but it didn’t remove the fact that it was James who lost his life, and as a result his killers went on to be given a great start in life instead of a punishment. My son didn’t even get a chance to start school, let alone get his A-levels and go to university.
Everyone in my family was furious they had been released. And unfortunately the very real fear we felt for the safety of our children only grew. When Jimmy and I had filled out our victim impact statements, we had expressed our concerns that Thompson and Venables would deliberately target other children in our family. The details of our children’s names, ages and schools were all included in our report, which was supposed to be a confidential dossier for the eyes of the Parole Board only. But to our shock, Robin had to tell us that the document was then shared with lawyers for Thompson and Venables, who in turn could have asked to see them. If they had, they would have read our family details. James’s killers could now know exactly how many children Jimmy and I had, their ages and the schools they attended. It couldn’t have been a more horrifying situation and it was made worse by the fact we couldn’t even show our kids photos of the boys so they could be on their guard should anyone try to approach them. Our children could be walking along the street and not realize they were passing these murderers.