View Full Version : Bulger killer back in jail
ONE of the killers of toddler James Bulger was tonight back behind bars after breaching the conditions of his release from prison.
Jon Venables, 27, who with Robert Thompson abducted and murdered James in February 1993, was released from custody in 2001, but he has been recalled following the breach, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said.
She added: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions.
"Offenders on licence are subject to strict conditions; if they breach those conditions they are subject to immediate recall.
"There is a worldwide injunction in place that prohibits any reporting including reporting on the internet, that could identify him or his location."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2875371/Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-back-to-jail.html#ixzz0h3Z5ATkZ
The two scumbags who murdered Jamie Bulger should NEVER have got out of prison. They should never have been given new identities. Its a bloody disgrace. The same goes fo Maxine Carr
Chloe O'brien
02-03-2010, 23:48
It was on the news that his new idenity will still remain a secret, which is all wrong he is now 27 and an adult. If he broke the bail conditions then all bets should be off his anominity should be withdrawn. As Alan said those scumbags should have been locked up for life.
DaVeyWaVey
03-03-2010, 01:42
He must still be a threat to the public or something, or committed another crime or why else would he be back in prison? Will the justice system ever learn??
I think out of the two of them, he showed least remorse thoughout the entire process.. he deserves to rot in jail for what he did regardless of how much of a "child" he was at the time.. Monster is the word I would use.. None of this bring Jamie back and it clearly shows that the punishment didn't work on this guy. :mad:
I hope people remember this when it comes to deciding on the two brothers in Yorkshire who nearly killed two other boys, I believe those kind of offenders must never be released, let alone get a new identity and life.
tammyy2j
03-03-2010, 11:58
they should rot in jail for life
The detective who led the Jamie Bulger case has said it was unlikely he was recalled for a minor infringement of his licence conditions and that there must have been a build-up of incidents for the action to have been taken. Why was he released in the first place when he's obviously still a danger to the public? The worldwide injunction that prevents any reporting that could identify him should now be dropped.
I also think the public is entitled to know why he is back in jail
people should know if there is child killers or abusers living near them
they should be keep in prison
I don't understand why the CPS took the step of telling the public that he is back inside. Is it to make us feel safer, to give us confidence in the justice system or for some sort of self-preservation? Yes, Jamie's family should know that he is back inside but is it really in the public's interest to know this? All it will serve to do is what it has done here and across the internet: people saying they should never be released and given new identities. And that's where I hit a wall. The debate just goes round in circle.
I don't disagree that both boys (adults) should never have been released; what they did was appalling.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, would people be so up in arms about this if the boys had killed an adult? I honestly don't think they would. Which brings me to wonder why people get so emotionally involved when a child is killed yet when an adult is killed, it's just a sad occurance.
Abigail, I would feel the same if the victim had been an adult, if somebody as young as that can commit such horrific crimes, they need to stay out of public life for good, imo
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, would people be so up in arms about this if the boys had killed an adult? I honestly don't think they would. Which brings me to wonder why people get so emotionally involved when a child is killed yet when an adult is killed, it's just a sad occurance.
I would be the same Abigail.. I remember a report a few years back where a group of teenagers terrorised a grown man and he died, in front of his son, at the hands of these thugs.. they should never be allowed out of jail either. But also when a child is killed, it pulls different heart strings.. most kids sre murdered at the hands of a adult.. normally someone they trust, and majority of these kids are innocent victims of a cruel parent... that is the difference I suppose, children you expect to be innocent and not fully understand what is going on or how to defend themselves.
tammyy2j
04-03-2010, 11:12
James Bulger killer Jon Venables was taken back into custody after a bust-up at work, it has been reported.
The 27 year old grappled with a colleague and had to be pulled away - eventually being suspended from his workplace after an official complaint was made and then recalled to prison, the Daily Mirror reported.
He is also alleged to have a history of drug abuse since being released in 2001 on licence after serving eight years for the infamous murder.
The revelations, which the Ministry of Justice refused to comment on, came as calls intensified for the Government to make public details about his recall to custody last week for breaching the terms of his release.
James' mother Denise Fergus - who has not been told why the killer was back behind bars - told the Mirror: "We have a right to know," a call echoed by the murdered toddler's father.
Ralph Bulger, 43, said: "We are still in the dark about why he has been sent back - it's a disgrace. It is one more kick in the teeth for James and his family."
I agree that they should have been kept in prison for life whether they'd done that to a child or an adult. It's more upsetting when these things happen to children because they are so helpless. We adults are programmed to feel protective over them, especially those of us who have children. The Jamie Bulger killing was very traumatic for those of us who were adults at the time, especially for me as I had a child the same age as him.
I'm glad Jon Venables is back in jail - it sounds like he belongs there. If I remember correctly, he was the ringleader.
AMES Bulger's killer Jon Venables was thrown back in jail over an allegation that he committed a sickening sex crime, The Sun can reveal.
The 27-year-old is expected to be brought before a court in the near future to face charges over it.
The Sun has discovered exact details of the offence, that will horrify the nation.
But government lawyers last night threatened to gag us with an injunction if we revealed it in full.
Add your postcode so we can tell your local MP how strongly you feel about getting Justice for James.
If Venables is found guilty of the offence, it will represent a staggering failure in his close supervision by the Justice Ministry's Probation Service.
Aged ten, Venables and pal Robert Thompson were caged for torturing and battering two-year-old James on Merseyside in 1993. They were released on special licence amid huge controversy in 2001 with new identities and lives.
They had to abide by a series of strict conditions, which would be monitored very closely by probation officers.
Since Venables was picked up by cops last week, the Government has covered up why.
Despite a huge public outcry - including 23,245 Sun readers signing a petition - they have refused to reveal what he has done.
Late last night, Treasury solicitors acting on behalf of the Government's top legal adviser, the Attorney General, demanded we withhold any information about Venables' alleged offence.
They argued that publishing full details of it would lead to his identification and potentially prejudice any criminal trial.
Three out of four people want the reason for Venables' return to be confirmed, even if it puts him "at risk," a YouGov poll for The Sun found.
PM Gordon Brown rejected pleas from James' parents Ralph Bulger and Denise Fergus to reveal why the killer is behind bars.
Last night Justice Secretary Jack Straw agreed to meet Denise.
We told yesterday how Venables' cover has been blown in jail.
Earlier inaccurate reports suggested Venables had been recalled to prison over a punch-up with a workmate and taking drugs.
But The Sun understood that only an allegation of an extremely serious crime could have resulted in his being banged up again.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2881233/Jon-Venables-faces-a-sex-charge.html#ixzz0hNKJcmXI
Chloe O'brien
07-03-2010, 00:55
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, would people be so up in arms about this if the boys had killed an adult? I honestly don't think they would. Which brings me to wonder why people get so emotionally involved when a child is killed yet when an adult is killed, it's just a sad occurance.
My feelings are and I am trying to take a logic view as I have personal feeings why the country is up in arms about Venebals being back in jail. My feelings on why there is such an outcry for his blood and the blood of Thompson is that when they were charged and sentences they lived out their punishment in a childrens home with kids who were in care because of daft things like playing truant. I know this as a fact. As I have told members on here before. My nephew was in care at the time little Jamie was murdered. My nephew was friendly with an older boy who was in care because of joyriding offences. This lad was placed in the same secure unti up in Aberdeen where Thompson and Venebals were placed for their sentence. Basically they got off scotch free. And that is why there is such an outcry, that mixed with the horror of having to deal with the thought of a child taking another child's life. Maybe the law is to blame I can understand that it's difficult to sentence a child to life in prison for murder. But murder is murder. Maybe the way to deal with it was to jail one parent of Thompson and Venebals for 15 or 20 years and hold them accountable for their childrens crime.
James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables was sent back to jail on suspicion of child porn offences, the Sunday *Mirror can reveal.
The reason for Venables’ recall was kept secret by the Government but we can exclusively reveal that probation chiefs revoked his licence once the allegations had been made.
Venables, 27, has been in constant rehab*ili*tation for torturing James to death.
But if he has *committed offences involving child porn while being *supervised by probation officers the revelation will send shockwaves through the criminal justice *system and will also raise questions about the virtually unprecedented rights and privileges he has enjoyed since he has been released.
James’s mother Denise publicly warned that Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10 when they murdered two-year-old James on Mersey*side in 1993, would go on to commit other offences if released.
The boys were never properly questioned about whether there was a sexual motive in the killing as they became hysterical when the subject was brought up, but police were concerned that *sexual abuse may have been committed.
The pair were found guilty of murder in *Nov*ember 1993 with a recommendation they serve at least eight years, which was later increased on appeal to 17 years.
It was reduced to eight by the European Court, which ruled that the two boys had suffered *“inhuman and degrading treatment in an adult court”.
They were released under new identities in 2001. Justice Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday that the claims against *Venables were *“extremely serious” but refused to say what they were.
Venables is understood to have been *masking severe psychological *problems by *abusing drugs and alcohol on a daily basis.
Probation officers became particularly concerned when they discovered that he was publicly *revealing his identity.
But it was only when he was *suspected of child porn offences that the decision was taken to jail him again.
All prisoners on licence can be recalled to prison if suspected of breaching a “good behaviour” rule.
The Sunday Mirror knows which prison Venables is being held in but cannot report it.
Mr Straw said yesterday: “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
“That view was shared by the police and the DPP. We all feared a premature disclosure of *information would under*mine the integrity of the criminal justice process.
“Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No one in this country would want anything other. That is what the *authorities remain *determined to do.”
Venables will appear before a parole board hearing within 28 days. He could also be charged with the alleged offence and face a criminal *trial.
DaVeyWaVey
09-03-2010, 00:12
I believe we have a right to know why Venables was recalled as we need to know if this so called 'rehabiliation system' works or if it's a load of bull. Both Venables and Thompson should have forfeited their lives and spent the rest of their days in prison, the day they took away James Bulger's life.
I've read a bit on how this has effected James's father who we never really hear about. Him and Denise are haunted for the rest of their lives. They didn't take away James's life - they took away his whole family's life as a result and what do they get a new identity, after being educated and well looked after - don't you just love British 'Justice'.
If they stayed in prison, we wouldn't be in this predicament now over the whole identity thing, with the Sun and other rags printing a load of crap that probably isn't true to encourage a gullible baying mob who think they can take the law into their own hands and deal out their own brand of justice - that's not a Britain I'd like to see. All this reporting brings back the painful memories for Denise and her family as well. They will never forget what happened... but how can they ever try to move on with their lives?
I can understand why Denise willl want to know everything about what has happened - she's probably going to obsess over these two for the rest of her days and what they are up to with their new lives and who can blame her? but she should only know as much as us. She can't make the decision as to what rights she should have - she just thinks she can, but justice should be objective and rational, and not emotionally driven.
And I think it would be objective if we all knew what he's done once his trial is over, so we can see if rehabiliation works.
tammyy2j
10-03-2010, 17:34
A man has pleaded for the Justice Secretary to reveal Jon Venables' identity after he was wrongly accused of being the James Bulger killer.
David Calvert, 27, has told Sky News he is living in "terror" after a Facebook and text message campaign claimed he was Venables living under a new identity.
Speaking about the Government's refusal to reveal who the toddler's killers are he said: "They say it's for their human rights and it shouldn't be. They've got to think of other people's human rights.
Mr Calvert said the Justice Secretary must publically state he is not Jon Venables, adding "because until something like that happens I'm going to keep getting this.
"Until their names are mentioned and its proven who they are ... I'm going to get shunted and shouted at and everything for the rest of my life until this is sorted.
"I was proud of my name but now because of people who've destroyed it, it's not even worth the paper it's written on."
The father of four said the false accusations are affecting his children, with one of his sons asking "why are all these bad people saying bad things Dad?"
The Facebook page was set up shortly after it was revealed Venables has been recalled to prison. By the time it was taken down it had attracted thousands of users.
Mr Calvert had to cope with similar allegations in 2005 when he lived in Fleetwood, Lancashire.
After telling a neighbour that he had served a sentence in a Liverpool prison, rumours began to circulate about his identity.
Speaking at the time, Mr Calvert said: "People have been turning up at my neighbours' houses with pictures of the killers printed off the internet and saying one of them is me.
"Now I hear that threats are being made and I'm worried that someone will come for me or my girlfriend or hurt my kids.
"I'm too scared to go out of the house now. I have these people saying they will get me out 'no matter what' and I'm terrified at what they might do."
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said that Justice Secretary Jack Straw would not be responding specifically to Mr Calvert's request, but said: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody."
Jon Venables, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger who was released from a life jail term with a new identity, has been charged with downloading and distributing 57 images of child pornography.
A High Court injunction imposed last month that banned the reporting of the charges was lifted yesterday at the Old Bailey after representations from The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers.
Venables, 27, is accused of downloading the indecent photographs between February last year and February this year, while he was on licence.
He is also charged with distributing seven indecent images of children between Feb 1 and 23 this year. He was returned to prison in February for allegedly breaching the conditions of his release.
Venables is due to face a plea and case management hearing on July 23, when he is expected to appear by prison videolink. An order bans the identification of his assumed name, his address at the time, where he is held, or what he now looks like.
Venables and Robert Thompson were found guilty of the abduction and murder of two-year-old James in February 1993. A CCTV camera captured the toddler being led away by the 10-year-old boys from a shopping centre in Merseyside. Later he was bludgeoned to death on a railway line. The pair were jailed for life, but released eight years later on licence in 2001, and given new identities, which cannot be revealed.
Last night Denise Fergus, James Bulger's mother, welcomed the decision to lift some of secrecy surrounding the fresh charges against her son's killer and said she "simply wants to see justice done".
"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," she said. "We are still awaiting a reply to that formal approach.
"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."
Speaking outside court, Robin Makin, a lawyer representing James's father, Ralph Bulger, said that the charges would "inevitably raise further speculation about the murder of James" and added that there would be "incredibly distressing" times ahead for the family.
In March Jack Straw, then the justice secretary, promised a full investigation into Venables's supervision after his release but refused to divulge further details about the case.
Mr Makin said James's father had been frustrated by the failure to receive "any effective and useful support from the public authorities since it was revealed that Jon Venables had been recalled to custody."
He said issues had been raised with the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, Cabinet Secretary and the Information Commissioner. He added: "We now hope steps will be taken to readdress the enormous deficiencies of the public authorities that have occurred to date."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Bulger+killer+charged+with+child+porn+crimes/3185511/story.html#ixzz0raeXCDWQ
Another crime against children...he's not safe to let out.
I honestly don't know what the solution is to this situation. In an ideal world, young children would never be tortured and killed by two ten year olds. I wonder what America would do with them now they are of age :hmm:
He is back in jail for two years, but is it enough?? He posed as a mother of 2 online and had disgusting stuff on his pc, children being raped :angry:
He is back in jail for two years, but is it enough?? He posed as a mother of 2 online and had disgusting stuff on his pc, children being raped :angry:
And will he even serve 2 years?
I like to think so, he violated his parole conditions and the nature of the crime, but I share your thoughts
If he violated his parole conditions, one usually will serve the full term (2yrs) plus any term left over from the previous sentence on which they were paroled. I believe he got life first time around so I'm not sure how long he will serve in total. Depends what the judge who sentenced him this time advised and what the parole board think. Life in this country is usually 25 years with a minimum term set before parole will be considered. I think this is probably a unique case to consider for parole so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
that is what I thought Abigail, thanks for that :)
I've just had a quick look on a law database and the Bulger trial judge recommended eight years for killing James. The Home Secretary thought it should be a minimum of 15 years. Reports on them both indicated they showed remorse and the risk of re-offending was low. The house of Lords set a minimum tarrif before parole of eight years, which expired Feb 2001 and they were released later that year. I would assume that there will be no time left to be served on this sentence, but I may be wrong.
The most recent case involving Venables isn't coming up in the search which leads me to conclude that there is a media and legal news black out on his name. BBC news reported this:
It has also been revealed that Cheshire police had produced a "threat assessment" to try to establish what could happen to Venables were his assumed identity revealed.
That assessment concluded that Venables would face the highest possible risk of being attacked if his new name was either published in the media or known elsewhere in society.
so I think it will be very difficult to find anything out about the case, the minimum sentence and the law reports beyond what has been reported in the news. "Elsewhere in society" sounds like the legal profession to me.
DaVeyWaVey
24-07-2010, 01:08
From the Telegraph:
Speaking after the hearing, solicitor John Gibson said Venables is "extremely remorseful" and knows he has "badly let down" everyone who has tried to help him.
He said: "He puts forward no excuse for his conduct. He is genuinely ashamed, but he has and continues to express his remorse, and has come to an understanding of how children are harmed by those who have even a passing interest in such material, let alone by those who pass it on."
Speaking about the death of James, Mr Gibson said Venables has accepted responsibility and the consequences will be with him for life.
The solicitor added: "He has said that every day since what took place in 1993 he has thought about how different life might have been for all those affected, who he appreciates have also had their own reasons for reflection."
Mr Gibson said Venables realised that those with whom he has made friends over the eight years under his new identity will be "hurt and angry".
The solicitor said Venables felt like a "canary down a mine" after being released and returning to prison was "something of a relief".
Mr Gibson said the offences were committed at a time when Venables was drinking heavily and suffering from the pressure of his unusual situation.
He said it is to Venables's credit that he has worked since his release, working anti-social hours and earning around the minimum wage.
The solicitor said the killer also apologised to his family who, "despite their obvious and justified disappointment in him", continue to support him.
He said Venables found the passage of time after he was released from prison did not blunt his "frustrations and unhappiness".
Mr Gibson said: "He says that he appreciates there was no blueprint available to him, or those offering him support - he felt like a canary down a mine.
"The return to prison was something of a relief when it came. He intends to learn lessons to help him face this challenge again.
"Jon Venables knows that there are real victims to these crimes. Insofar as he can, he extends his sincere apologies to those children who have been exploited and abused.
"He accepts that a prison sentence is justified, and that once his time is served, his release is not, and cannot be, a formality or matter of routine.
"He is determined now, once and for all, to become the person he wishes to be so that when he is eventually released from prison, he will never go back."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7906661/Jon-Venables-says-he-thinks-of-James-Bulger-murder-every-day.html
DaVeyWaVey
24-07-2010, 01:19
This case has always interested me. I find it very complex.
First of all, I believe that the original sentence was not enough for the murder of James and it wasn't justice for the victim or the poor boy's family. I think it's a positive thing though if as a country, we are able to successfully rehabilitate two children and make them see their evil ways, in order to feel remorse.
What makes two children want to torture and kill another child? We know nothing of their backgrounds, but I wouldn't be too surprised if we uncovered something extremely disturbing about them. I think it's clear that Venables has some serious mental health issues and I think he should now be punished for his latest actions, but also be given mental help for a longer period than two years.
Chloe O'brien
24-07-2010, 02:08
But Davie we are not able to successfully rehabilitate otherwise we would not have criminals reaffending. It's all fine and dandy the PC brigade with their numerace degrees in everything apart from life, but what they forget is that Venables and Thomson committed murder and they should have been locked up for life. He should never have been given the privlage of using the Internet or owning a computer. He gave up his human rights the day he took Jamie Bulger's life... What happens in two years when he again is free to walk the streets is he going to have free access to the Internet and money to buy drugs then destroy another family.
Child killer Jon Venables will be given a new identity at a cost to the taxpayer of £250,000.
He was jailed for two years on Friday after admitting downloading pornographic images of toddlers. The killer will be issued with a new birth certificate, national insurance number and other identity documents at a cost of £250,000 when he is released.
But a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said it did not accept it was "inevitable" he would be given a new identity. She said: "Such a change of identity is extremely rare and granted only when the police assess that there is clear and credible evidence of a sustained threat to the offender's life on release into the community."
Venables and Robert Thompson were jailed for life in 1993 after they battered and murdered two-year-old James Bulger. They were released on licence in 2001 and both issued with new identities to protect them from vigilantes.
Extensive measures were taken to protect the pair from vigilantes and help them lead a normal life but after several years Venables descended into a spiral of cocaine and mephedrone addiction and drunken violence.
The 27-year-old appeared via videolink at the Old Bailey under unprecedented secrecy, with only the judge able to see him. After 16 years living in the shadows, just four disembodied words were heard from the killer - answering "yes" to his name and pleading "guilty" to three charges concerning child pornography.
James' mother, Denise Fergus, sat impassively in court wearing a "Justice for James" badge as details of the crimes, and Venables' life since release from jail, were read out. She later condemned his sentence as "simply not enough".
That is just so wrong!!
No-one downloads and distributes child porn unless they're a paedophile. Quite apart from his murder of James Bulger, he is obviously now a danger to children. He should be monitored as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Should be kept locked up for the rest of his life
This case has always interested me. I find it very complex.
First of all, I believe that the original sentence was not enough for the murder of James and it wasn't justice for the victim or the poor boy's family. I think it's a positive thing though if as a country, we are able to successfully rehabilitate two children and make them see their evil ways, in order to feel remorse.
What makes two children want to torture and kill another child? We know nothing of their backgrounds, but I wouldn't be too surprised if we uncovered something extremely disturbing about them. I think it's clear that Venables has some serious mental health issues and I think he should now be punished for his latest actions, but also be given mental help for a longer period than two years.
I have to agree with 99.9% of the comments on here, but the answer to Davey's question is because Jon Venables is evil, in the truest sense of the word. He was most definitely not remorseful at the trial, nor methinks after it either. Thompson, on the other hand was remorseful, and there are many instances in history of one strong mind leading a weaker person into bad things. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are but one example.
Torture and brutality do not come naturally to people who have a normal mental state. This person is the sort who would nail a kitten to a door and enjoy watching it suffer. The child who plucks the wings from a butterfly and delights watching them die slowing, and enjoying every moment until it dies painfully. Then there's the child who would put a hamster or other small creature in a microwave and wait with excitement until it explodes.
All of these are instances of abnormality and such children should be sent for immediate psychiatric assessment once found to be carrying out cruelty to animals as it is my belief that if they can enjoy watching animals suffer, they'll get bored eventually and go onto something a bit bigger - in this case another child, or adult.
Were Jon Venables and Robert Thompson mentally assessed by psychiatrists following this vicious and evil crime? Do we know what lies in the darkest recesses of their minds. They came from bad homes - so what? I'm going to go out on a limb here and state my belief that some people are born evil. :hmm:
A psychiatrist friend of mine thinks he can't be healed and will continue to be evil and she thinks he should never be allowed into society.
There's an interesting piece of equipment called an MRI, which shows imaging of the brain. To the trained eye it can be easily seen that there are distinct differences between the brains of those who would, and who would not, kill. The brain of a killer differs to others and they are born like this.
I agree with your friend. I have seen interviews of many people who have murdered, including serial killers. Some of them actually don't understand what they've done wrong. As your friend says, they can't be healed because there's a malfunction of the brain and there can therefore be no remorse.
I've recently been reading about serial killers (Ted Bundy, Gacy, Sells, etc) and they are so laid back it beggars belief that they're classed as human beings. Charles Manson, Jeff Lundgren, Jim Jones (cult leaders) never killed anybody themselves, but practised a sort of Svengali influence over their followers to make them kill.
Slightly off topic. Sorry about that, but psychology is my pet subject. :)
Interesting reading, Mollie.
I've recently been reading about serial killers (Ted Bundy, Gacy, Sells, etc) and they are so laid back it beggars belief that they're classed as human beings.
All of those are actually psychopaths. I mean that in the psychiatric sense of the word and not the term that is usually thrown about. They lack the ability to feel normal emotions and empathy towards others. Psychopathology is not something that can be treated or cured, it is a biochemical and physiological state. In other words, psychopaths are born that way and they can't help it. Does that mean we throw them to the wolves because of something that is beyond their control?
Venables and Thompson received extensive psychiatric help during their time in prison and after their release.
The scan you mentioned is an FMRI - functional MRI. The patient is asked questions during the procedure and parts of their brain appear in different colours depending on their answer. Its one of the diagnostic tests for psychopathology.
I have a friend who is a forensic psychiatrist. He specialises in criminal cases and learning disabilities which cause people to commit crimes. He says that more often than not, the offender is also a victim of domestic violence, abuse etc.
Its a legal and ethical minefield.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.