Bulger's Killer Charged Over Child Porn

:57pm UK, Monday June 21, 2010 Adam Arnold, Sky News Online
James Bulger's killer Jon Venables has been charged with downloading and distributing child pornography, it has been revealed.


He is accused of downloading onto his computer 57 indecent photographs of youngsters between February 2009 and February this year.
Venables, who now has a new identity, is also charged with distributing seven indecent images of children between February 1 and 23 this year.
The charges can be reported after a judge at the Old Bailey lifted some reporting restrictions.
The 27-year-old suspect is due to face a plea and case management hearing on July 23, when he is expected to appear by prison videolink.
James' mother, Denise Fergus, welcomed the decision to lift some of the secrecy surrounding the new charges against her son's killer.
She told the Mercury Press Agency: "It is right that the charges he faces should be made public.
"My solicitor has been in touch with the Ministry of Justice, to make representations on my behalf, and to raise a number of concerns that I have about the way the case is going to be handled.
"We are still awaiting a reply to that formal approach.

She added: "I simply want to see justice done in this case and I don't want to say anything that could affect the proceedings. I'm prepared to wait and see what happens."
Lawyer Robin Makin, solicitor for James Bulger's father Ralph and uncle Jimmy, read out a statement to Sky News.
He said: "It is an enormous relief that today the paternal family of James Bulger have finally been told for the first time that Jon Venables, who murdered James in 1993, has been charged with extremely serious sexual offences.
"Great anguish and distress has been suffered by Ralph and his brother Jimmy. Jimmy had the responsibility of identifying James' mutilated and tortured remains."
Sky News' Martin Brunt said: "You could argue that today has been a victory for James Bulger's parents and the media, who wanted to report these charges."
Venables was found guilty along with Robert Thompson of murdering the two-year-old boy in 1993.
James has been led away from a shopping centre in Liverpool by the pair, who were both 10 years old at the time.
They were jailed for life but released on licence in 2001 when they were given new identities.
Venables was recalled to prison in February this year following the new allegations.

Little bastard grows up to be big bastard.
I'm almost shocked.

^Thats putting it politely

Not wishing to take away from the obvious monster that he his, but what kind of fucked up childhood he must have had? What kind of parents must he have had to make him a killer and a paedo? I put a lot (but not all) blame on the parents.

I posted this on another thread

Did bad parenting turn Thompson and Venables into killers? | UK news | The Guardian

And now, with his background, what future does he have.

Let's see:
- a flawed gene pool as the starting point;
- parents unable to provide, let alone cope with a child in need of special care;
- social services inability and/or failure to intervene;
- a mentally ill child that is incarcerated in a facility where there was most likely limited specialized care available and where the pecking order is established by older inmates by means of physical and sexual abuse;
- taxpayers who do not wish to deal with a problem by paying for the assistance, but who shy away from the moral dilemma of allowing genetic misfits to procreate.

Gee, and folks wonder how this could have happened. Go figger.

would not neccessarily say bad parenting was the cause of their deviant behaviour, look at the area they came from,childrens gang culture, 12 and 13 year old armed boys pimping out young girls,at that time it was anogo area for the police, delivery drivers in the area always had a partner with them as protection against attacks and robbery, at the time of the jamie bulger incidentI was working in the area, my company refused to let a vehicle into the area without a 3 man team and the goods in transit insurance fror that area was 4 times the normal premium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dug

And now, with his background, what future does he have.

---

Hopefully one where he is living in fear and constantly looking over his shoulder for the rest of his miserable existence.

Fuck his bad childhood, fuck the rough area he lived in, the little bastard is pure evil and I for one cannot wait until the day he gets the retribution he deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goostewart

Not wishing to take away from the obvious monster that he his, but what kind of fucked up childhood he must have had? What kind of parents must he have had to make him a killer and a paedo? I put a lot (but not all) blame on the parents.

---

No necessarily the parents fault,
some brains are born with the moral switch set firmly to OFF.
Or even a head injury can make the connections between normal,
and utterly abnormal seem of no consequence to a disordered mind.

Makes him no less of a monster to those still making rational decisions in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zygote1

Let's see:

- taxpayers who do not wish to deal with a problem by paying for the assistance, but who shy away from the moral dilemma of allowing genetic misfits to procreate.

---

What are you talking about? Since when would the taxpayers have any influence in the decision making?

A friend of mine used to be a psychiatric nurse. He has a few stories to tell.

One story he told of was a woman that he had to look after once. He said that she was bright, intelligent, attractive and a good conversationalist. Most of then time she seemed just like a normal person but in reality, she was an utter fucking loon.

One day he and a couple of colleagues took her our for the day, they took the bus. Whilst on the bus a baby started to scream and he tells me that if they didn't stop her then she would have killed the baby right there and then.

The thing is, that she didn't see the wrong in this and if anything, she thought that she would be doing a good thing by sparing everybody else on the bus the noise of the screaming kid. What's more, is that she was well aware that she was sectioned and she knew what it meant. She wanted to be normal and live a normal life, she used to talk about how she wanted a boyfriend/husband and even have kids of her own one day.

Her heart was in the right place but she just could not see the wrong in killing a baby.

The mind is a very sophisticated and complicated piece of kit and if it isn't fine tuned precisely as it should be, then all sorts of things can go wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zygote1

Let's see:

- taxpayers who do not wish to deal with a problem by paying for the assistance, but who shy away from the moral dilemma of allowing genetic misfits to procreate.

---

What are you talking about? Since when would the taxpayers have any influence in the decision making?

---

If the government offered to subsidize genetic testing and to abort a defective fetus, what do you think the public's reaction would be?

If the government wished to implement a program of sterilization of those females and males that have demonstrated anti social behaviour by reason of an organic mental illness, what do you think the public reaction would be?

What happens when governments wish to increase social service funding to pay for services such as early childhood intervention programs, or if the government wishes to reintroduce specialized childrens' homes with qualified staff, what would taxpayers say?

^ Touché.

^^ indeed very good....You got mail....

Bulger killer Jon Venables facing ten years in jail over child porn charge



By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:53 AM on 22nd June 2010
One of the killers of James Bulger has been charged with downloading child porn, it was revealed yesterday.
Jon Venables, now 27, now faces up to ten years back in prison.
He is accused of downloading 57 indecent images of children from the internet and distributing seven images by allowing others to access files on his computer through a 'peer-to-peer network'.
The charges can be disclosed after a ban on reporting the case was partially lifted by a High Court judge, following a challenge by a number of media organisations.
On May 21 this year, a court order was made at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, preventing any publication of the charges to ensure Venables could receive a fair trial.
But Mr Justice Bean lifted the restrictions yesterday in the interests of open justice.
Next month Venables will make his first appearance in a public arena since his conviction in November 1993 for murdering two-year-old James.
Venables, who has been living under a different identity following his release from custody nine years ago, was recalled to prison in February for allegedly breaching his parole.
The charges read to the Old Bailey yesterday revealed that he is accused of amassing indecent pictures between February 2009 and February 2010 and distributing them last February.
The hearing was held in private, but Mr Justice Bean allowed the charges to be reported.
Gavin Millar, QC, prosecuting said: 'The first count, the making of indecent photographs, covers downloading on to his own computer. Count two covers the distribution through the internet of indecent images.
'The Crown's case is that seven images were downloaded by Venables between February 1and 27, 2010, but he used and had available peer-to-peer software on his computer.
'This made it possible for other internet users who searched for photos to download them. It's not been established whether any actually did for that finite period.'
Venables is due to appear via videolink at the Old Bailey on July 23 to enter a plea.



After the hearing, the family of James Bulger blasted justice officials for keeping the family and the public in the dark over the prosecution.
James's father Ralph Bulger, 43, said the family were relieved that the charges had finally been made public. But he also told of the family's frustration that the authorities had snubbed their requests for
Solicitor Robin Makin, representing Mr Bulger and his brother James Patrick Bulger, who is known as Jimmy, said the case would reignite speculation about the motivation for James's murder.
He said: 'It is an enormous relief that today the family of James Bulger have finally been told for the first time that the man who murdered James Bulger has been charged.
'Great anguish and distress has been suffered by Ralph and his brother Jimmy.
'Jimmy had the responsibility of identifying James's mutilated and tortured remains.'
He added: 'The paternal family has been frustrated about not receiving any effective and useful support from the public authorities since Venables was recalled to custody.
'Issues have been raised with the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, the cabinet secretary. It's now hoped that steps will be taken to readdress the enormous deficiencies of the public authority to date.'
James's mother, Denise Fergus said: 'It is right that the charges should be made public. I simply want to see justice done in this case.
'I have been kept informed, to an extent, about the legal proceedings. My solicitor has made representations on my behalf about the way the case is going to be handled. I'm awaiting a reply to that formal approach.' Venables and Robert Thompson, both ten, snatched James in Bootle, Merseyside, in 1993. They walked him to a railway line, beat him to death and left his body to be hit by a train.
They were jailed for life but released on licence in 2001 and given new identities at huge cost to the taxpayer.
The aim was to give them the best possible chance of rehabilitation without fear of vigilante attacks or harassment.
The terms of Venables' parole imposed strict conditions on his contact with youngsters.
An order still bans the public from knowing Venables' new identity, his address, where he is held and what he looks like.

• The case against Venables has been shrouded in secrecy. The Mail revealed last March that he would face child porn charges. A High Court injunction then prevented all media from revealing his new name, any information about his whereabouts and any picture or description of him. It also banned any information about criminal proceedings or the nature of the Crown's case. Yesterday after the order was challenged by the Daily Mail, along with a number of other media, many of the restrictions were lifted.