The sleazy secret life of Jon Venables was laid bare for the first time yesterday.
In two hours at the Old Bailey, we learned more about what happened to the young man paroled from a life sentence for killing little James Bulger than anyone had ever disclosed before.
It finally laid to rest all the myth and speculation surrounding one of the perpetrators of a crime which horrified the nation when he and fellow ten-year-old murderer Robert Thompson were locked away in 1993.
What was revealed was not some exciting new life abroad for Jon Venables, nor a fresh start made possible by all the official help and taxpayers' money lavished on him to protect his human rights under an assumed name and a barricade of legal restrictions. (That was a privilege, incidentally, never afforded to James Bulger).
Instead, the boy - whose public image will always be a wide-eyed ten-year-old - is now a man who has descended into a dismal spiral of drink, drugs and child pornography just nine years after being placed on trust to ease himself back into an ordinary existence.
It was in June 2001 that the gates slammed shut behind Thompson and Venables as they were paroled under licence after serving just eight years of a sentence at Her Majesty's Pleasure - effectively the juvenile equivalent of life.
Both were given new identities and made the subject of some of the most sophisticated protection measures and legal restrictions ever thrown around a murderer.
The 27-year-old's full address was given to the judge in open court, and even though it cannot be reported, it confirmed that Venables lived in Cheshire for the last year or so at least.
So what did happen to Venables after 2001? He began what his solicitor described as 'an independent life' in March 2002, at the age of 19.
Independent, that is, apart from the legions of people assigned to nurture, protect and monitor him after eight years in the comparative wilderness of undisclosed detention centres.
He had spent most of his life in custody and now, as an adult, had to blend into everyday life by living a lie.
If anyone asked him about his childhood he would have to fabricate a story. If anyone seemed to express more than normal curiosity about his background, it would be time to run.
Venables was fixed up with a modest flat and got work in a job that paid only just above the minimum wage and forced him to work unsocial hours.
Perhaps that suited him - socialising would clearly be difficult for him because it always brought the risk of discovery.
But it appears to have driven him even further into the isolation that all those experts on his case now would be desperately trying to avoid.
Venables already knew that there were death threats against him. Any casual trawl through internet sites would reveal that people had offered to abuse, mutilate, torture and murder him in the same way that he ended an angelic two-year-old's life.
Remarkably, part of his new life involved being trained by the police in counter-surveillance techniques to spot if anyone was watching him. According to his barrister yesterday, he lived constantly under the threat of reprisals.
Edward Fitzgerald QC added that the 'terrible crime' of what he did to James Bulger 'inevitably cast a long shadow over his life'.
The QC said that the strain of that, coupled with having to live under an assumed name and disguise his background, 'undoubtedly took its toll'. He had no idea what the future might bring. What direction would his life take now?
Unfortunately, all the resources and expertise of the people supposed to be looking after Venables could not prevent what was described yesterday as a 'spiral of decline' - brought on by an increasing reliance on drink and drugs.
Venables was drinking to excess and - possibly - putting into practice the stories he would undoubtedly have heard behind bars about the use of drugs such as cocaine and mephedrone.
In September 2008 he went out on the town.
Those legal restrictions even prevent the press from disclosing precisely which town it was - but at 1am he was walking around its centre when he came across another young man and his girlfriend.
Venables appears to have said something that sparked a fight - and both men were arrested for affray and charged with a public order offence.
Because it was impossible to prove that Venables did not act in self-defence, the charges were dropped.
But the army of officials looking after him failed to heed the warning signs of his descent, giving him just a formal warning.
Three months later, he was in trouble with the law again. He was arrested for possession of a small quantity of cocaine, to which, we learned yesterday, he had become 'addicted' as well as mephedrone.
He received a police caution. Any reasonable observer might have imagined that this would have been the moment when Jon Venables would be sent back to jail.
There was, after all, a 'good behaviour' clause in his parole licence and it gave the authorities power to revoke the licence and put him behind bars.
Probation officers did little to address his decline.
Instead, Venables received the equivalent of a few stern notes on his report, some extra restrictions - and, crucially the go-ahead to continue the liberty he had been granted.
By his own account, he was already scouring the internet for images of child pornography and was able to continue his paedophile activities for more than a year without hindrance.
But from what we learned yesterday, it was a miserable existence. If he found a regular girlfriend, for example, he was obliged to tell her his real name and the truth about his background.
There would also have been countless 'cover stories' spinning around in his head to extract himself from difficult questions about his past.
Little wonder, perhaps, that much of his spare time appears to have been spent in front of a computer he fashioned from spare parts at the address which must not be disclosed.
Yesterday, in a statement Venables released through his solicitor, it was maintained that he had thought 'every day' since the murder in 1993 of 'what might have been' for all those affected, and how different life might have turned out.
But life for Jon Venables seems to have descended into a lonely world of caution and solitude, lifted largely by an increasing obsession with child porn.
Venables appears to have begun his foray into the world of internet sex by downloading low-grade adult pornography.
Soon, it seems, the child murderer who had spent nearly all his teenage years in custody craved more.
He began to trawl for child porn. Shocking details of the kind of images he downloaded were given to the court yesterday as James Bulger's mother Denise listened from a seat near the door.
Eight were classified as grade four abuse images - which portray children being raped by adults.
Venables freely admitted that they excited him but insisted he didn't pass them on. Videos found also featured eight-year-old girls being forced to endure oral sex.
The court heard: 'The defendant had an extensive history of searching for and downloading indecent images of children using the internet'.
But the wider significance was that all this was happening at a time when one of the country's most notorious killers - released because he convinced authorities he understood and accepted what he had done - should have been under the wing of the machinery designed to keep an eye on him.
Venables had always been told that if he suspected someone was about to discover his true identity, he should immediately alert police or probation services.
That was precisely what happened in February this year when he called the probation service to say he thought his anonymity had been compromised.
He had received a worrying text message from a friend on February 22 which troubled him and felt he was on the verge of being exposed.
The probation officer who had been supervising him for the previous 15 months alerted police, told him to stay where he was, and arrived 30 minutes later.
Venables was sitting at his computer in the bedroom, the court heard. He was using a knife and tinopener to hack out the hard drive, which, he said, contained personal information he didn't want to leave in the flat in case it identified him.
The probation officer did not believe him and handed over the computer to police.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0uYIUSguX
Justice?
Justice?
Did anyone get justice here?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Justice?
Jarl? Jarl?
Oh, I'll say it; just pop a cap in his brain already!
Oh, I'll say it; just pop a cap in his brain already!
Re: Justice?
I don't think they should incarcerate this troubled young man....
Just remove all this protection regarding protecting his identity, his whereabouts, etc, that he's been receiving at tax payer expense....
I suspect that would bring about a more just resolution than anything else....
Just remove all this protection regarding protecting his identity, his whereabouts, etc, that he's been receiving at tax payer expense....
I suspect that would bring about a more just resolution than anything else....
Re: Justice?
The unfortunate downside to this solution is that someone else would likely go to jail for offing the sick son of a bitch and that wouldn't be worth it.Lord Jim wrote:I don't think they should incarcerate this troubled young man....
Just remove all this protection regarding protecting his identity, his whereabouts, etc, that he's been receiving at tax payer expense....
I suspect that would bring about a more just resolution than anything else....
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.
Re: Justice?
Perhaps...The unfortunate downside to this solution is that someone else would likely go to jail for offing the sick son of a bitch and that wouldn't be worth it.
But I have to wonder how much cooperation and assistance law enforcement would get from the public to help them identify a suspect...
I imagine finding folks who saw or heard anything would be pretty difficult...
Re: Justice?
When he turns 18, execute the little bastard. 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Justice?
Look at a ll the money that could've been saved over the last 9 years, Jim. 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Justice?
He was ten years old when he killed a two-year-old child.
But to the mouth-frothers here, he should have been executed. And had he been five years old when he killed a two-year-old child, he should still have been executed. And had he been three years old when he killed a two-year-old child, he should still have been executed.
That is a fundamental problem with trying juveniles as "adults": There is no stopping it. If we can do it to a sixteen-year-old kid, then why not to a fourteen-year-old kid? And then why not to a twelve-year-old kid? And a ten-year-old kid? And an eight-year-old kid? And a six-year-old kid? And a four-year-old kid? And a two-year-old kid?
There is one, and only one, morally developed response to this sort of thing: The only people who should ever be tried as adults are people who committed their crimes when they were people whom society is prepared to recognize generally as adults. Carving out exceptions whereby a juvenile is treated as a juvenile when we are considering what that juvenile is permitted to do, but treated as an adult when we are considering what that juvenile is prohibited from doing, is simply barbarism.
But to the mouth-frothers here, he should have been executed. And had he been five years old when he killed a two-year-old child, he should still have been executed. And had he been three years old when he killed a two-year-old child, he should still have been executed.
That is a fundamental problem with trying juveniles as "adults": There is no stopping it. If we can do it to a sixteen-year-old kid, then why not to a fourteen-year-old kid? And then why not to a twelve-year-old kid? And a ten-year-old kid? And an eight-year-old kid? And a six-year-old kid? And a four-year-old kid? And a two-year-old kid?
There is one, and only one, morally developed response to this sort of thing: The only people who should ever be tried as adults are people who committed their crimes when they were people whom society is prepared to recognize generally as adults. Carving out exceptions whereby a juvenile is treated as a juvenile when we are considering what that juvenile is permitted to do, but treated as an adult when we are considering what that juvenile is prohibited from doing, is simply barbarism.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Justice?
Hogwash.
Does a 12 year old, 14 year old 16 year old know right from wrong?
There is a law of accountability, I'm not sure what it is in GB.
A 10 year old in his right mind knows right from wrong.
Was the kid crazy?
Sure, something is not connected somewhere.
Assessment and incarceration until he is found to be "sane".
This might be never of it might be upon its 18th b'day.
Does a 12 year old, 14 year old 16 year old know right from wrong?
There is a law of accountability, I'm not sure what it is in GB.
A 10 year old in his right mind knows right from wrong.
Was the kid crazy?
Sure, something is not connected somewhere.
Assessment and incarceration until he is found to be "sane".
This might be never of it might be upon its 18th b'day.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Justice?
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Justice?
If a prepubescent child (in her or his right mind) is mature enough to be tried as an adult for murder, isn't he or she also mature enough to be allowed to vote on matters which will affect her or his future? Or to decide whom to marry?
If a prepubescent child is sufficiently mature to make decisions about criminal activity that will reverberate through her or his whole life, then why is he or she not sufficiently mature to make decisions about marriage that will also reverberate through his or her whole life? The decision whether or not to murder someone is freighted with consequences. The decision whether or not to marry someone is also freighted with consequences. Why should someone who will be burdened as an adult by the murder which he or she undertakes to accomplish not also be treated as an adult with respect to the marriage which he or she undertakes to enter into?
Why is it that we are willing to treat a child as an adult when it comes to punishing that child for wrongdoing, but we are unwilling to treat a child as an adult when it comes to deciding which of the privileges which we reserve to adults? Why is it that treating a child as an adult is OK when such treatment inures to the child's detriment, but treating a child as an adult is not OK when such treatment inures to the child's benefit?
The morally sound approach to this is, as moral approaches go, quite simple: A person either is or is not an adult. If he or she is an adult for purposes of criminal liability, then he or she is also an adult for purposes of adult privileges (voting, marrying (without parental consent), etc.).
As long as we insist upon treating children as adults when that suits our preferences (as in trying them as adults) but insist on not treating them as adults when that does not suit our preferences (as in not allowing them to vote, marry, etc.), we are engaging in simple and irrational barbarism. Grab a theory and run with it: A ten-year-old either is or is not an adult; treating a ten-year-old as an adult today but as a child tomorrow (or vice-versa) is nothing but elevating irrational preference over rational thought.
If a prepubescent child is sufficiently mature to make decisions about criminal activity that will reverberate through her or his whole life, then why is he or she not sufficiently mature to make decisions about marriage that will also reverberate through his or her whole life? The decision whether or not to murder someone is freighted with consequences. The decision whether or not to marry someone is also freighted with consequences. Why should someone who will be burdened as an adult by the murder which he or she undertakes to accomplish not also be treated as an adult with respect to the marriage which he or she undertakes to enter into?
Why is it that we are willing to treat a child as an adult when it comes to punishing that child for wrongdoing, but we are unwilling to treat a child as an adult when it comes to deciding which of the privileges which we reserve to adults? Why is it that treating a child as an adult is OK when such treatment inures to the child's detriment, but treating a child as an adult is not OK when such treatment inures to the child's benefit?
The morally sound approach to this is, as moral approaches go, quite simple: A person either is or is not an adult. If he or she is an adult for purposes of criminal liability, then he or she is also an adult for purposes of adult privileges (voting, marrying (without parental consent), etc.).
As long as we insist upon treating children as adults when that suits our preferences (as in trying them as adults) but insist on not treating them as adults when that does not suit our preferences (as in not allowing them to vote, marry, etc.), we are engaging in simple and irrational barbarism. Grab a theory and run with it: A ten-year-old either is or is not an adult; treating a ten-year-old as an adult today but as a child tomorrow (or vice-versa) is nothing but elevating irrational preference over rational thought.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Justice?
Many cultures have an 'age of accountability' after which a person becomes morally accountable to the community for his/her actions and might be given adult punishments. Somewhere around 14 is common but some are higher and some are lower.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: Justice?
If an individual hasn't achieved maturity and social responsibility by age 27, then they should be removed from said society, for reasons of safety for themselves and/or others.
What happened to this kid's upbringing!?
What happened to this kid's upbringing!?