I have to question the motivation of those demanding the right to know the identities and location of the James Bulger killers. What do they intend to use this information for if they have it?

If people wish to say that the two should not have been released then that is one argument. However, almost all of the people persuing this argument are not in possession of the full facts. People who are in possession of the full facts have considered them carefully and come to the conclusion that the best course of action is for them to be released.

---

by Avenger
I have to question the motivation of those demanding the right to know the identities and location of the James Bulger killers. What do they intend to use this information for if they have it?

---

Personally, if I had children, I would use this information to my advantage and in short, move away or put as much distance as possible between those involved . I would not want any of my children (let alone family) living near these kind of people.

Fair enough, some people will use it for malice, but I have no say what others do. I can only control my own actions.

I think the reason most people are upset about this are 2 fold.

1) they crime was heinous. I can baerly bare to think about what they did. the fact they were children doesnt make Jamie's pain any less.

and

2) Most law abiding people cant get the police to come out for a burgulary yet these convicted boys get set up in a new house (along with their families), get funding for their new lives, new identies and police protection. They rightly want to know why a criminal is getting better treatment than they are.

I can see both sides of the argument. Vigilantie murderers are just as bad these boys and i dont wish death on them (the killers that is). But do they deserve more protection than those of us who havent infuriated the public in this way?

It's a tough subject and 1 i havent reached any firm convictions on. (except life in prison. that would solve it all)

A few doors down from my house there is a home where Young Offenders come. They don't go to school or anything like that. Instead they Swear to their neighbours day or night, break neighbour's stained glass windows, break neighbour's lights, stamp on people's fairy lights and take them out of trees, threaten the grandma who lives at their neighbours house, and build treehouses on OUR land and dump their waste in our garden - and we can't do anything about it.

Personally, i wouldn't care what crimes they did (i don't know, for all i know they could be murderers), they have as much right to be here than i do i suppose, but what is not alright is when they go around abusing other people's property. We can't even turf them out of the house for them doing this!!

I don't know them - and i don't want to know them, not because of what they've done previously, but because of what they're doing now.

Ok, so what am i saying? Well, yeah, they have the right to be re-habilitated and have new identities. Because as long as they weren't causing harm to someone else's property or other people, then that's ok. They don't deserve to have that right or prilivlage if they can't control themselves .

---

by Ethan
(quotes)
Personally, if I had children, I would use this information to my advantage and in short, move away or put as much distance as possible between those involved . I would not want any of my children (let alone family) living near these kind of people.

---

And I for one thank the loving God who made the Earth and Heavens according to His (or Her) divine plan that Venables and Thompson are literally the only bad people living on His (or Her) clean Earth.

What interests me primarily about what we all know from experience is going to turn into a car crash of a thread is whether anyone has changed their mind since this was first discussed on Buffyuk.org about a year ago...

---

by Tannhauser
And I for one thank the loving God who made the Earth and Heavens according to His (or Her) divine plan that Venables and Thompson are literally the only bad people living on His (or Her) clean Earth.

---

Then by all means, carry on living on that earth

---

by Tannhauser
What interests me primarily about what we all know from experience is going to turn into a car crash of a thread is whether anyone has changed their mind since this was first discussed on Buffyuk.org about a year ago...

---

Well, for one I didn't start this thread. Secondly, as far as I know this site has no affiliation to BuffyUK and lastly, I wasn't there to see such a thread.

There are two sides to this argument. I can see both, always have done.

What I am concerned about is the welfare of my daughter, and to that end, if I had any idea that either or both of these young men had been moved to my area, I would like to know about it. Not to seek vengeance. But to enable me to protect my own child.

They have remained locked up, and it has been reported that they have been fully rehabilitated and have shown deep remorse for their crime.

I read a report very recently (in a broadsheet too!) that has prompted me to do some research over the last couple of days. It differs from the whole 'fully capable of becoming model citizens again' theory, although admittedly it does concentrate on Robert Thompson, who was always seen as the main instigator of the attack.

It is also worth noting that Thompson showed no guilt, no remorse, took no responsibility for his crime until 1999, when it became apparent that release would be partly based upon the understanding and acceptance of what he did, and full grief and remorse shown.

This information has been exceptionally difficult to find. Very little has been reported since June last year, due to the media injunctions, I guess. But I found the relevant articles. They are very long so I shall copy/paste some of them here, for those that are interested ...

____________________________________________________________

"Cognitive behavioural psychotherapist and lawyer, Stevanne Hill submitted a unique report to the parole panel. This report on the question of "risk assessment" was accepted by the Home Secretary to present to the parole panel - a first in British legal history.

However, both the Home Office and the parole panel chose to ignore the scientific doubts about the quality of the Home Office risk assessment revealed by Miss Hill's report, although these are supported by national and international scientific experts far more eminent than the psychologists employed by the Home Office.

The report's warnings continue to go unchallenged by the Home Office or any independent expert, and could make the Home Office and the Parole Board legally liable for the breach of statutory duties relating to the provision and consideration of competent risk assessments, if either Thompson or Venables were to violently re-offend.

After exhaustive research, Miss Hill's report explained to the Home Office why their adaptation of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist for adult offenders simply could not be scientifically valid. Psychopathy is a life-long and potentially extremely dangerous personality disorder for which there is currently no effective treatment.

The Hare is the most reliable predictor of violent recidivism when correctly conducted, in every type of offender in every forensic setting.

The danger is even greater where psychopathy is found combined with sexual sadism and previous murder - as in the case of US serial killer, Ted Bundy, a debonair psychology graduate, who escaped from prison to restart his life under an alias but proved unable to resist repeating his crimes.

Miss Hill's report warned the Home Office that not only was it beyond the competence of the Home Office psychologists to substantially and independently adapt the Hare, but it was beyond the competence of those who cared for Thompson and Venables to assess them for psychopathy.

These difficulties arose primarily because only the adult, rather than the adolescent, Hare Psychopathy Checklist was available to be applied to the duo. This is because the adolescent version is still in the process of being statistically validated as predictive of violent re-offence in the UK, although both versions are fully validated in Canada and the USA.

At their trial, Thompson's and Venables' defence lawyers declined to enter a plea of manslaughter of the grounds of diminished responsibility due to mental disorder.

However, Miss Hill explains that the facts of the crime - deliberate selection of a random victim; his abduction and torture; considerable damage inflicted to his private parts; culminating in murder - points to psychopathy and developing sexual sadism in at least one of his killers, all the more dangerous in degree because these disorders manifested as early as 10.

Lastly and most disturbingly of all, fears about sexual sadism are being confirmed by information that Robert Thompson is developing into a very unusual young man. It was widely reported that while in custody he created a wedding dress, doing all the cutting and sewing himself, and after his release a Panorama TV programme revealed that he collected and mutilated dolls.

No-one can exactly determine his emergent sexuality, but at the time of the police investigation Venables claimed that it was Thompson who carried out the genital mutilation of James. Homosexuality, bi-sexuality and crossing dressing are not dangerous, but when combined with psychopathy and sexual sadism, forensic psychologists have found these factors over-represented in serial killers.

Given the small stature of James Bulger when he was murdered, and that the collection of dolls, victimized in a carefully hidden fantasy life, is known to sometimes characterize the development of sexual sadists - we cannot conceal from the public that we find the post-release disclosure of Thompson's doll collecting truly frightening. We do not know whether the parole panel were informed of Thompson's doll collecting and its possible significance, but given the questionable quality of the psychopathy tests, the competence of the risk assessment as a whole is increasingly in doubt. And when possible sexual sadism in an offender who has already killed a child taken at random, is combined with the knowledge that the crucial co-factor of psychopathy cannot have been competently tested, it becomes no less than a public duty to warn the public about the uncertainty of the degree of risk posed by the release of RobertThompson."

____________________________________________________________

I also read somewhere that in the future any friends or girlfriends these two have may be subject to a prison sentence if they ever reveal who the young men are.

The pressure that these two are facing is immense. Watching over their shoulders every day of their lives, being careful of every word they say to anyone in case it reveals their identities, knowing that there are hundreds of people who would like to 'spend five minutes in a room with them'.

As I understand it one has already been attacked recently and the police report indicates he was 'truly terrified' and 'in fear of his life'.

I don't really care whether these two live happy lives. I do care if they attempt to live their lives near my daughter, and because of those feelings I can understand what Ethan has said.






(Edited by Red 05/04/2002 19:23)

Seems to me there are three issues here.

Should either Thompson and/or Venables be released?
Are they receiving disproportionate protection?
Should their identities and location be revealed?

I have sympathy with any parent who fears for the safety of their child, in that these two could be living nearby. That's only human. As a parent that is always going to be your over-riding concern - the welfare of your children.

However, and forgive this non-parent if this sounds arrogant, to then request that the identities and location of Venables and Thompson be revealed to the general public is misguided. Such fears are only valid if these two are not rehabilitated. If they are not rehabilitated then they should not be released. The issue of where they are is irrelevant. I'm more than interested in hearing evidence contrary to the findings of the parole board. In fact, I'm going to see if there is a copy of Miss Hill's report in the public domain, as I for one would like to read it. But if the issue is public safety then people should be arguing against parole, not for the revelation of their current appearance and where they can be found. That way lies lynch mob 'justice'.

I don't accept that, if they are rehabilitated, that the police protection is disproportionate. The time, money and effort being expended isn't to protect these men from robbery but from the countless death threats that have been issued against them. Anyone under that much threat to their life should receive the amount of protection these two are. I know of no evidence to the contrary.

Should their identity be revealed? No. Might as well bring back public hangings if you're going to do that. As I said, if they are rehabilitated then we should do what we can to allow them to live their life. What's done is done, and no amount of retribution will bring back James Bulger. Nor will that crime justify another in revenge. These are not the two boys who killed James Bulger; they are two young adults who have been removed from society to make sure they do not commit such an act again. If the finding of the parole board is sound, then they should be given the chance to live their lives without abnormal threat of injury, harm or premature death.

---

by Jayjay
I'm more than interested in hearing evidence contrary to the findings of the parole board. In fact, I'm going to see if there is a copy of Miss Hill's report in the public domain, as I for one would like to read it.

---

Finding the (publicly acceptable ?) parts of the report I did took *so* long, they were buried so deep. If you ever manage to find the full report (and not just what they allow on the net) can you let me know? I would love to read the whole thing

No luck so far, but I'll let y'all know if I find anything.

---

by Red
This information has been exceptionally difficult to find. Very little has been reported since June last year, due to the media injunctions, I guess. But I found the relevant articles. They are very long so I shall copy/paste some of them here, for those that are interested ...

---

That's very interesting. Do you have a link for those articles?

---

by Joe

That's very interesting. Do you have a link for those articles?

---

try www.jamiebulger.co.uk

(Justice for James - The official Website)

---

by Incandenza
try www.jamiebulger.co.uk

(Justice for James - The official Website)

---

But that can't be right because, originally, the first paragraph reads, "Cognitive behavioural psychotherapist and lawyer, Stevanne Hill submitted a unique report to the parole panel on behalf of Denise", whereas in Red's copied text, the last four words are missing.

Likewise, the copied version misses out this paragraph:

"In a separate submission to the parole panel, Denise, unsurprisingly horrified to be advised of the scientific uncertainty over whether another victim might suffer in the same way as her child and his family, pleaded that the panel keep the killers in custody for long enough to allow the psychopathy observations to be carried out correctly. Denise and Justice for James were therefore appalled when the parole panel proceeded to release the killers, despite being advised of the absolute need for competent psychopathy tests in the case of such a 'uniquely notorious' crime, and despite being advised, through the medium of the Home Office, that the tests applied to Thompson and Venables had been comprehensively 'bodged'"

which would have made it plain that the article's source was considerably less than impartial.

I can only conclude, therefore, that Red copied the article from another site, after it had been edited by some rabid propagandist who doesn't trust the general public with all the facts that are available.

Even I didn't bet on it being this quick! Wow!

---

by Red
This information has been exceptionally difficult to find. Very little has been reported since June last year, due to the media injunctions, I guess. But I found the relevant articles. They are very long so I shall copy/paste some of them here, for those that are interested ...

---

Okay, note the statement copy/paste some of the articles - and the word relevant (and the plural of articles - several were used, although much of them has been copied onto several different websites. And for the record I did check out the official Bulger website and found it to be quite disturbing in its agressiveness).

Lengthy things. Not something everyone would want to read (unless there was something to *use* of course) and many, many paragraphs and pages were not copy/pasted on to this thread, due to their irrelevance, yet have not been mentioned here either (nothing to *use* one assumes)

---

by Joe
the article's source was considerably less than impartial.

---

You consider a widely recognised Cognitive behavioural psychotherapist and lawyer to be impartial and unreliable? I wonder who you *would* find acceptable (even though, of course, the Home Office did) and just what kind of degree they'd have to go through for you, to give you incentive to worry about your own child/ren.

It is irrelevant to me who they prepared a report on behalf of. The fact remains the same, which is the point I was making. "The Hare" Psycopathy Checklist has been accepted for use with adults, but has so far been unmodified to be able to fully assess children who show these tendencies, which is why Thompson and Venables could not be thoroughly assessed. The Parole Board unwisely chose to look at the results of the test based on an adult assessment, something which in the future could come back and basically bite them on the butt when one of these (probably Thompson) reoffends, possibly to a worse degree.

I don't wish to paste the whole test/checklist here. That itself can be found easily enough.

Many of the statements I mentioned came from the actual report written by Miss Hill and that isn't a simple search and click away.

---

by Joe
edited by some rabid propagandist who doesn't trust the general public with all the facts that are available.

---

---

by Red
Finding the (publicly acceptable ?) parts of the report ... (and not just what they allow on the net)

---

As shown I did question this myself. You appear to have ignored that fact. I am not surprised.

I have read everything that is available to read. If you can show me another report that states implicity that children will be 150% safe from these two young men, guaranteed, I would love to read it, as there was *nothing* whatsoever stating this anywhere.

I have no problems with who wrote these reports (incidentally some of which were *for* the release of the young men). The problem I have is the content, and as a parent I am justified in having worries.

In fact, oh yes, look, back to my whole point! Why I would wish to know if they were living in my area. I wouldn't want an address. I am not into playing vigilante. They did what they did and have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives, a tough enough way to live without the need for other people to give them grief. But the knowledge of where they are (if they lived locally) would afford me the ability to avoid, move if necessary, whatever it took to guarantee my daughter would never have any contact with them. That is my priority. And if I read a report that tells me there is doubt on the rehabilitation of these two, then that is what I would base any opinions and decisions I make on.

I'm not sure that attempting to dissect every post on this thread actually furthers the argument for knowing the whereabouts of Thompson and Venables, (and if you must use your ickle sources I would suggest you find some that aren't quite as bitter and with issues, making it impossible for them to remain impartial) but if anyone else has an opinion on this, we are more than happy to hear it

I've tried so hard to keep away from this topic because it actually repulses me to think about what those two children did to another child.

The main issues here are wether the public have a right to know where these two (men) are living. If they are totaly rehabilitated and will not "ever" re-offend then No we don't have a right to know as there is no question of safety to our children.

The main problem is that because of the stories of people re-offending the majority of parents/people feel that there could be a slight risk, is that risk one that anyone here would want to take?

Whilst working for the DFEE I had the responsibilty for being the local office contact for all recently released pedophiles/rapists/serious sexual offenders, so yes I know that there are people living in my area that have offended in this way and yes it certainly does make me take a lot more care as to where my children are allowed to go, but I can't let this rule my childrens lives I have to have faith in the system that releases these people back into society, if I did then I would be subjecting my children to a far from normal childhood, having to tell me children that there are "monsters" is a hard thing to do but it's the only way I can try and protect them.

If you want an impartial view of this test go here www.criminology.unimelb.edu.au/victims/resources/assessment/personality/psychopathy_checklist.html

It deals with all aspects of the Hare test and examins it's use (albeit briefly) on young offenders, women, other races and in general.

It's a bit dry but not too hard to grasp

(cat is now desperatly trying to remember what an alpha coefficient was in maths )

(Edited by Cat 08/04/2002 14:12)

Thanks for that, Cat

Managed to crash my PC, but eventually I got to read it. Dry stuff indeed, but the stats are certainly interesting.

---

by Cat
It's a bit dry but not too hard to grasp

(cat is now desperatly trying to remember what an alpha coefficient was in maths )

---

Well I had to read it twice slowly before I got close to grasping the meaning. It's about football?

The alpha coefficient measures reliability of the test in examining what it says it is measuring (psychopathy in this instance).

A score of 1.0 would be a perfect correlation but 0.9 (when applied to young offenders) is a high and statistically acceptable level of reliability.

However, as I understood it, Stevanne Hill's objection was to do with an alleged adaptation of the test? Without an awareness of the people involved or the methodology underlying their adaptation of the test (assuming that in fact they did adapt it) we can only speculate as to the validity of the judiciary's decision.

See my post below - Whistler

(Edited by Whistler 09/04/2002 13:44)