Murder of James Bulger

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  A grainy frame from a security camera in the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, shows a two-year-old boy being led away by the hand. The child is James Patrick Bulger. The two boys leading him are ten years old. Later, enhanced versions of this footage would be shown on national television. By the end of that day, the 12th of February 1993, James would be dead. The murder of James Bulger left questions that Britain argued over for decades. How does a toddler cross a city in daylight with two boys and reach a railway line? What does a court owe to defendants who are barely older than primary school pupils? And what becomes of such children when the public wants them punished and also wants them hidden?

  12133310

• 2. A Day Of Truancy

  ›

  Robert Thompson and Jon Venables spent the 12th of February 1993 playing truant from their primary school, which they did regularly. Cameras in the New Strand Shopping Centre recorded them casually watching children, apparently choosing a target. They also shoplifted sweets, batteries, a troll doll and a can of blue Humbrol modelling paint. One of the boys later said they had planned to lead a child to the busy road beside the centre and push him into oncoming traffic. They had already tried and failed to lead away another two-year-old, whose mother stopped them.

  James had come to the centre from Kirkby with his mother, Denise. At about 15:40, in A.R. Tym's butcher's shop on the lower floor, she let go of his hand for a moment to pay. When she turned around, he was gone. The boys had taken him by the hand and walked him out of the building, and the cameras caught them at 15:42.

  The Leeds and Liverpool Canal was the first stop on a long walk across Liverpool. There the boys dropped James on his head, injuring his face, and joked about pushing him into the water. An eyewitness later described him as "crying his eyes out". Around 38 people saw the three of them on the journey, yet most did not intervene.

  When anyone asked, Thompson and Venables said James was either their brother or a lost child they were taking to a police station. At one point they took him into a pet shop and were ejected. The walk ended in Walton, beneath a steep bank.

  1012151630

• 3. Railway Line And Arrest

  ›

  Walton Lane Police Station stood across the road when the boys reached Walton, and they hesitated. Then they led James up the bank to a railway line near the former Walton and Anfield railway station. Blue paint from the shoplifted can was thrown into his left eye. The boys kicked and stamped on him and threw bricks and stones. A railway fishplate weighing 10 kg was dropped on him, causing ten skull fractures. Pathologist Alan Williams counted 42 injuries in all and could not identify any one of them as the fatal blow.

  The boys laid James across the tracks and weighted his head down with rubble. They wanted a passing train to strike him so that his death would look accidental. A train did sever his body after they had gone. Forensic examination later showed that he had already died from his injuries.

  Four boys looking for footballs found his remains two days later. His shoes, socks, trousers and underpants had been removed, so police suspected a sexual assault. Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details when asked about this. Years afterwards, Venables's psychiatrist Susan Bailey reported that he still denied any sexual element to the crime.

  The investigation quickly produced low-resolution video images of two unidentified boys leaving the centre with James. One boy was detained for questioning and later released, but he and his family had to flee Liverpool after threats from vigilantes. The breakthrough came when a woman saw the enhanced images on national television and recognised Venables. She remembered seeing him that day with Thompson in the Bootle area, and her call to the police led directly to the arrests.

  Forensic tests found the same blue paint on both boys' clothing as on James's body. Both had blood on their shoes, and DNA profiling matched the blood on Thompson's shoe to James. A pattern of bruising on James's right cheek matched the upper part of a shoe worn by Thompson. A paint mark in the toecap of one of Venables's shoes indicated that he had used "some force" when he kicked James. Thompson is said to have asked police whether they had taken James to a hospital to "get him alive again".

  The boys were charged on the 20th of February 1993 and appeared at South Sefton Youth Court two days later, where they were remanded in custody. Press accounts, including coverage of the trial, called them "Child A" for Thompson and "Child B" for Venables. Up to 500 protesters gathered outside the Magistrates' Court in Sefton during those first appearances.

  2324273128

• 4. Trial At Preston

  ›

  The full trial opened at Sessions House, Preston, on the 1st of November 1993, and it followed the form of an adult trial. The judge and court officials wore legal regalia, and the boys sat in a dock built for adults, away from their parents. Each sat on a raised chair so that he could see out, with two social workers and guards beside him. Their families, though separated from them, were within touching distance when they attended. The boys denied murder, abduction and attempted abduction. The last charge concerned the earlier attempt at the shopping centre.

  Prosecution counsel Richard Henriques had to overcome the principle of doli incapax, which presumes that young children cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. He succeeded. The court considered the boys capable of "mischievous discretion", meaning they were mature enough to understand that they were doing something seriously wrong.

  Child psychiatrist Eileen Vizard, who had interviewed Thompson before the trial, was asked whether he knew that taking a young child from his mother was wrong. She replied: "If the issue is on the balance of probabilities, I think I can answer with certainty." She added that Thompson was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after the attack. Susan Bailey, the Home Office's forensic psychiatrist, said unequivocally that Venables knew the difference between right and wrong.

  Neither boy spoke during the trial. More than 20 hours of tape-recorded police interviews carried the case against them, and the tapes were played back in court. Thompson was considered to have taken the leading role in the abduction. Venables, however, had apparently proposed taking James to the railway line.

  Venables later described how James seemed to like him, holding his hand and letting himself be picked up along the way. Laurence Lee, who acted as his solicitor, called Thompson one of the most frightening children he had seen and compared him to the Pied Piper. After his court appearances, Venables would strip off his clothes and say: "I can smell James like a baby smell."

  A box of 27 bricks, a blood-stained stone and James's underpants were among the exhibits shown to the court. The pathologist spent 33 minutes outlining the injuries, many of which to the legs were inflicted after James had been stripped from the waist down.

  On the 24th of November 1993, the boys, by then aged 11, were found guilty of murder. They became the youngest convicted murderers of the 20th century. Mr Justice Morland told them their crime showed "unparalleled evil and barbarity... In my judgment, your conduct was both cunning and very wicked." He sentenced them to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, said they should stay in custody for "very, very many years to come", and recommended a minimum term of eight years.

  At the close of the trial the judge lifted reporting restrictions so that the boys' names could be published. He explained: "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children." David Omand later criticised this decision in a 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case. The judge's figure of eight years would soon be overtaken by decisions made far from the courtroom.

  1418353738

• 5. Tariff And Tabloids

  ›

  Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, soon recommended that the boys serve at least ten years rather than eight. That would have made them eligible for release in February 2003, when they would be 20. The editors of The Sun then handed Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, a petition with nearly 280,000 signatures, hoping to lengthen the time in custody. The campaign worked. In July 1994 Howard announced a minimum of fifteen years, which meant no release consideration until February 2008, when the boys would be 25.

  Lord Donaldson called the longer term "institutionalised vengeance... by a politician playing to the gallery". In 1997 the House of Lords ruled it unlawful for the Home Secretary to set minimum sentences for young offenders. The High Court and the European Court of Human Rights have since held that Parliament may set minimum and maximum terms for categories of crime. They also held that the trial judge, hearing all the evidence and argument, must fix the minimum term in each case.

  Tony Blair, then Shadow Home Secretary, spoke in Wellingborough of "crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportions". He called them "the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name." Prime Minister John Major said that "society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less."

  Mr Justice Morland suggested that violent videos might have encouraged the boys. David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office, disputed this and said police had found no evidence linking the case to "video nasties". Some British tabloids nonetheless claimed that the attack was inspired by the film Child's Play 3. They pointed to a scene in which the doll Chucky is splattered with blue paint during a paintball game.

  Police found that Child's Play 3 was among the films Venables's father had rented in the months before the killing, but nothing showed that Venables himself had watched it. Investigators reviewed some 200 titles rented by the family. They concluded that no scene, plot or dialogue could be identified as having influenced a boy to commit murder. Inspector Ray Simpson of Merseyside Police remarked: "If you are going to link this murder to a film, you might as well link it to The Railway Children." Even so, the public debate helped shape the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which clarified the rules on making certain video material available to children.

  4441495051

• 6. Release And Anonymity

  ›

  Barton Moss Secure Children's Home in Salford held Thompson, while Venables was placed in Vardy House, an eight-bed unit at Red Bank Secure Unit in Newton-le-Willows. Neither location was public knowledge until after the boys were released. Staff recorded the boys' lives twice daily on running sheets, which were signed and copied to officials in Whitehall. The boys were taught to conceal their real names and the reason they were there. Venables's parents visited regularly, and Thompson's mother came every three days.

  Both boys received education and rehabilitation, and both were reported to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. Venables told of nightmares and flashbacks of the murder. Despite early problems he made good progress, and he stayed at Red Bank for the full eight years even though it was only a short-stay remand unit. The Observer reported that both boys passed their GCSEs and A-Levels. Thompson's lack of remorse, in stark contrast to Venables, drew close scrutiny from the parole panel. The Bulger family's lawyers consulted psychiatric experts for a report suggesting Thompson was an undiagnosed psychopath, but it was dismissed.

  On the 15th of March 1999, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that the boys' right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. It dismissed their claim that the trial amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The court said: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure." It also held that the Home Secretary's intervention had created a "highly charged atmosphere".

  In September 1999, James's parents appealed to the same court but failed to persuade it that a victim has the right to help determine the perpetrator's sentence. The case prompted the new Lord Chief Justice, Harry Woolf, to review the minimum term. In October 2000 he recommended cutting it from ten years to eight, calling the young offender institution a "corrosive atmosphere" for juveniles.

  In June 2001, after a six-month review, the parole board ruled that Thompson and Venables were no longer a threat to public safety. Their minimum term had expired that February. Home Secretary David Blunkett approved the decision, and the pair were released a few weeks later on life licence after eight years. They were given new identities and moved to secret locations, supported by fabricated passports, national insurance numbers, qualification certificates and medical records. Blunkett added his own conditions and asked for daily updates on their actions.

  The release terms barred the two from contacting each other or the Bulger family and from visiting the Merseyside region. They faced curfews and had to report to probation officers. A worldwide court injunction forbade publishing their new identities and locations. Blunkett explained in 2001 that there was a "real and strong possibility that their lives would be at risk" if their identities became known.

  The Manchester Evening News published details suggesting the names of the secure institutions. In December 2001 it was fined £30,000 for contempt of court and ordered to pay costs of £120,000. In April 2007, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act confirmed that the Home Office had spent £13,000 on an injunction to stop a foreign magazine revealing the new identities.

  On the 25th of February 2013, the Attorney General's Office announced contempt proceedings against people who had published photographs claiming to show Thompson or Venables as adults. Its spokesman noted that innocent people could be wrongly identified and endangered. On the 26th of April 2013, two men received nine-month suspended sentences for posting such photographs on Facebook and Twitter, where 24,000 people saw them. BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the prosecution aimed to make internet users aware that they were subject to the law of contempt.

  On the 4th of March 2019, James's father, Ralph, lost a legal challenge to lift the lifelong order protecting Venables's anonymity. Judge Andrew McFarlane called the case "uniquely notorious" and saw "a strong possibility, if not a probability" that Venables would be pursued with "grave and possibly fatal consequences". That June, reports said British officials had considered resettling Venables in Canada, Australia or New Zealand because protecting him cost so much, with £65,000 spent on legal fees. New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern replied that he would need an exemption under the Immigration Act 2009 and should "not bother" applying.

  5355596081

• 7. Venables Returns To Prison

  ›

  Venables began living independently in March 2002, and his supervision later appeared to ease. He started drinking heavily, taking drugs, downloading child abuse images and visiting Merseyside, which breached his licence. In September 2008 he was arrested on suspicion of affray after a fight outside a nightclub, and the charges were dropped once he agreed to an alcohol-awareness course. Three months later he was found with cocaine and placed under curfew. A probation officer in 2008 noted that he spent a great deal of leisure time playing video games and on the internet.

  In February 2010, Venables told his probation officer he feared his new identity had been compromised at work. When the officer reached his flat, Venables was trying to destroy his computer's hard drive with a knife and a tin opener. Examination of the computer revealed child sexual abuse material. On the 2nd of March 2010, the Ministry of Justice announced that he had been returned to prison for an unspecified breach of his licence. Justice Secretary Jack Straw cited "extremely serious allegations" but said it was not in the public interest to give details.

  Venables was charged on the 21st of June 2010 over 57 indecent images downloaded across 12 months, some of which he had made available through a peer-to-peer network. On the 23rd of July 2010 he appeared at the Old Bailey by video link, visible only to the judge, and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two years in prison. Mr Justice David Bean ruled that his new identity could not be revealed, though the media could report that he had been living in Cheshire.

  In November 2010, David Omand's review of the National Probation Service found that officers could not have prevented the offending. Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers said only 24-hour surveillance would have stopped Venables. In May 2011, Venables was given another new identity after a serious security breach exposed the one he had used before his imprisonment. A man from Exeter had posted photographs on a website, allegedly of the adult Venables, along with his name.

  On the 3rd of September 2013, Venables was released from prison after the Parole Board for England and Wales approved his release. On the 23rd of November 2017, he was recalled to prison. On the 7th of February 2018, he pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children and to possessing a manual that advised would-be child molesters on grooming and evading detection. He was sentenced to three years and four months in prison.

  Parole was denied in September 2020. On the 13th of December 2023, the Parole Board again refused, saying it was not satisfied that release would be safe for the protection of the public. In January 2026, reports said Venables would have a new parole hearing, and Denise Fergus was granted permission to attend.

  9697985477

• 8. Family And Memory

  ›

  Ralph and Denise Bulger's marriage broke down in the months after the trial, following the birth of their second son, and they divorced in 1995. Denise later married Stuart Fergus, and the couple had two sons. Ralph remarried and had three daughters with his second wife. Denise Fergus has described a moment in 2004 when an anonymous tip-off helped her locate Thompson. Seeing him, she said, she was "paralysed with hatred" and could not confront him.

  On the 14th of March 2008, Denise and broadcaster Esther Rantzen launched an appeal for a Red Balloon Learner Centre in Merseyside in James's memory. A memorial garden was created at Sacred Heart Primary School in Kirkby, the school he would have been expected to attend. In March 2010, England's Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson called for the age of criminal responsibility to rise from ten to twelve. She said the killers should have undergone programmes to turn their lives around instead of being prosecuted. The Ministry of Justice rejected the call.

  Strangers have harassed Denise Fergus. On the 14th of July 2016, a woman from Margate in Kent was jailed for three years for sending her Twitter messages in which she posed as one of the killers and as James's ghost. The sentence was later reduced on appeal. On the 25th of October 2016, a man was jailed for 26 weeks for stalking her.

  The Age of Consent, a play by Peter Morris, was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in August 2001. It featured a character due for release from a secure unit after killing a toddler. Denise Fergus, though she had not seen it, condemned it, and Morris insisted it was a serious moral examination of what society does to children. In 2008 Swedish playwright Niklas Rådström used interview transcripts from the interrogations to write Monsters, which opened at the Arcola Theatre in London in May 2009.

  In June 2007, the computer game Law & Order: Double or Nothing was withdrawn from UK stores after a CCTV image of James appeared in it. Its developer, Legacy Interactive, apologised and called the use inadvertent. In August 2009, Australia's Seven Network used real footage of the abduction to promote the drama City Homicide, and later apologised after criticism from Denise Fergus. A Hollyoaks storyline planned for December 2009 was cancelled after the makers gave her a private screening.

  In 2010, the critical theorist Terry Eagleton opened his book On Evil with the story of the murder. In January 2019, the short film Detainment, based on transcripts of the police interviews with Thompson and Venables, was nominated at the 91st Academy Awards. Denise Fergus was not consulted. She circulated a petition to have it removed from the nominations, but director Vincent Lambe refused to withdraw it.

  On the 26th of February 2026, a woman walking her dog near Kirkdale Cemetery reported two smashed cherub statues beside James's headstone. Merseyside Police are investigating, and Denise Fergus launched a GoFundMe page to pay for repairs.

  6883919374