The Bulger Killers; James Bulger; Children Who Kill + Update

Jamie Bulger

Under consideration here: The Bulger Killers: Was Justice Done? (Channel 4); James Bulger: The New Revelations (Channel 5); Children Who Kill with Susanna Reid (ITV).

I’m not including James Bulger: A Mother's Story (ITV) because it is a much more sensitive piece, balanced and compassionate, as you might expect with Sir Trevor McDonald at the helm. I cannot fault it nor the assertion of Denise Fergus (formerly Denise Bulger) that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson have never really been punished properly for their crime.

This article investigates murder, justice, law and the language used by reporters, presenters, officers of law, and the accused. The guilty tend to give themselves away. For more on high-profile murder cases, see my blogs on JonBenet Ramsey and Oscar Pistorius. Always #rememberthevictims.

Thompson/Venables

The Bulger Killers: Was Justice Done?

Fact: On 12 February 1993, James Bulger (2) was abducted, tortured and killed by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (both 10).

Originally I assumed that the title was asking us to consider whether the sentence given was adequate to the suffering Thompson and Venables had inflicted on James Bulger and his parents. But the programme's remit seemed to be the very opposite, to convince us that it was wrong to imprison the ten-year-olds convicted of this horrific crime. The programme seems to expect the system to show the killers the mercy they never afforded their victim.

Matt Smith, the narrator: ‘In England, you’re responsible for a crime you commit when you reach your tenth birthday.’

This is ambiguous as it suggests that when you reach 10, you’re tried for crimes you committed when younger or that you would only be responsible on your actual tenth birthday. What he meant: ‘In England, you’re considered criminally responsible from the age of 10.

Blake Morrison

Blake Morrison: ‘I think the nation was eager to understand what had brought it about.’

I think the nation wanted the killers brought to justice. Yes, possibly we hoped that their might be some obvious scapegoat but nothing in the boys' backgrounds could explain or excuse what they did. I really wonder what Morrison would say if these ten-year-olds had killed his two-year-old.

This programme and its interviewees continually employ certain language techniques to distance the boys from the murder. It’s very similar to the way Oscar Pistorius talks about his killing of Reeva Steenkamp, refusing to own his actions by saying ‘the gun went off’, ‘the night of the incident’ (rather than ‘the night I murdered Reeva’) or ‘I’m sorry for what happened’ rather than ‘I’m sorry for what I did.’

Dominick Lloyd

Robert Thompson's solicitor Dominic Lloyd said, in an absurdly convoluted sentence: 'Both of those two children can't have been anything other than severely traumatised by what they were part of on February 12.' On a lighter note, I'm a little traumatised by his mutilation of the English language. Perhaps 'Both boys must have been severely traumatised … ' would have been clearer.

I question the use of the minimising 'what they were part of', implying that a number of others were involved, or that they were somehow coerced into it or had no (or very little) agency in it. As above, it's a tactic used to dissociate the boys from the crime. But they weren't 'part of' something. They performed this egregious act alone.

Venables/Thompson

Can the very trauma they initiated and perpetrated be used in their defence? When they essentially traumatised themselves through their own incredible cruelty? James Bulger was more than merely traumatised, he was abducted, terrorised, tortured and killed for their entertainment. I'm in tears whenever I think about what they put him through, how they planned to do it and worked out how they might get away with it.

This tactic is used more than once hence: ‘Yes they should have been tried because of their part in that murder.’

They didn’t have a part in that murder; they committed the murder.

Even this inadvertently depersonalises the action: ‘It was intended that a child should be killed.’

It reminds me of Patsy Ramsey saying ‘I’m the mother’ or ‘I loved that child’. See earlier link to the JonBenet case.

‘Real prison – it'll expose them to real psychological fear.’

Surely all fear is psychological? And what do they think Jamie Bulger felt? God forgive that his murderers should have to suffer any fear.

The court is described as ‘An environment that would have been intimidating to an adult let alone children.’

But their own actions placed them in this environment.

Lloyd also said: "Many years after the trial a juror said 'we found them guilty of murder but we didn't have the option to find them guilty of being two very bewildered and frightened little boys who made an awful mistake and need a lot of help'."

Pistorius

This is simply more bleeding-heart liberalism. Again ‘an awful mistake’ is language that might better describe a spot of truancy not a savage killing. Oscar Pistorius also calls his crime a ‘mistake’. This was not an awful mistake but an act of unparalleled, cold-blooded evil. It wasn't a spontaneous action, a bit of bullying that went too far. It was premeditated murder. And let's face it, they were bewildered and frightened by a situation they created themselves.

Think about it – even today the general public is not allowed to hear the extent of James Bulger's injuries; they are still too disturbing to be revealed. We know that he was kicked in the head with considerable force because there was a shoeprint on his face. This is what we're allowed to know so how bad must his other injuries be if we still have to be shielded from them? Here are some details - if we fail to consider them, we cannot come to a reasoned judgement. After reading them of course, it's very difficult to reason, to feel anything but rage.

Ralph and Denise Bulger

‘To lose a child in those circumstances is appalling.’

This again diminishes the true horror of what they did. The Bulgers didn’t lose a child in certain circumstances. It wasn’t an unpreventable, unfortunate tragedy, like an earthquake. It wasn’t an act of God. It was orchestrated. We learn that the two boys had already tried to capture one child and failed. The Bulgers' child was frogmarched to torture and death by two other children; he wasn't lost.

Narrator: 'Whilst in custody, witnesses who had seen the boys with James, started to come forward.'

Why were the witnesses in custody? He means that the perpetrators were in custody.

Morrison: ‘Justice could never have been served.’

Yes – it could have, if they’d received appropriate sentences. Morrison evidently believes that Venables and Thompson’s childhoods ended on that day (he neglects to add ‘through their own unimaginable malice’). But so did Jamie Bulger’s, through no fault of his own. Where's the perspective?

Morrison even manages to suggest that Jamie’s mother must feel guilty though he doesn’t explain why. Because she let James out of her sight? How could she possibly have foreseen what would happen? It’s an attempt to attribute blame to anyone other than the guilty parties. Let’s blame Jamie’s parents, Venables’s parents, Thompson’s parents, society, the system.

James Bulger: The New Revelations.
First of all, let me say there are no new revelations about James Bulger as the title suggests. How can there be? He’s the same guiltless two-year-old boy he always will be thanks to his murderers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Burke and JonBenet Ramsey

Most of this concerns tapes of the killers talking and in particular, Thompson’s plea for parole. Remember that these quotes are from the eighteen-year-old rather than the ten-year-old and tell me if you think remorse, guilt or empathy are at all in evidence. Instead you'll find the same distancing techniques that Pistorius and the Ramseys use.

His reasons for lying he explains as: 'I wanted to tell what happened but I was too frightened to accept any blame' I'm not surprised. This gives the lie to the people who claim children of that age can tell right from wrong but not understand the possible consequences (see below). He's frightened because he knows he did something terrible and will be punished accordingly if he admits it.

'I would be under risk if convicted.'

This shows fear and a wish for self-preservation rather than any regret for his actions.

Of the public reaction: 'It frightened me … the people who were accused of that crime.'

But he wasn't just accused of it, he did it, was convicted of it and sent down for it.

Then there's a truly unforgivable bit of poor me-ism: 'The van stopped and I hit my head.'

Why mention this now? Has he still no idea that him hitting his head is not going to garner much sympathy after he’s tortured and beaten a toddler to death? That an ‘ouch’ does not compare to the terrible ordeal they put James Bulger through?

'I’m ashamed of playing a part in this murder.'

At least he’s used the word murder instead of ‘what happened that day’ but he did a bit more than play a part. That suggests a minor role in a conspiracy rather than someone who chucked bricks at a toddler until he stopped crying or moving.

Then there’s the usual partial amnesia. See my Pistorius blog: I Don't Remember What I've Forgotten.

'I’m not completely sure of everything that happened' and 'I’ve not got it sorted out in my head.'

Read as: I can't think of anything that would absolve or excuse me so I’m going to fake confusion.

And now for the apologists, one says: 'There was something at home that Robert was avoiding.'

My sister suggests: 'Consequences.'

'Crimes like this come from very bad experiences' and 'Experiencing such violent acts … can lead to trauma.'

But let’s get this straight, he didn’t experience it, he caused it so just like Oscar Pistorius, he can't call himself a victim of the trauma he initiated.We're asked to blame the parents not the children.

Reid with Phillips

Children Who Kill with Susanna Reid

The title is a bit poorly phrased as it suggests that Susanna Reid was alongside them when they killed. The programme considers two cases.

Fact: In 1998, Joshua Phillips (14) killed Maddie Clifton (8) in Jacksonville, Florida.

Josh Phillips's appeal is all about him. He bleats on about how he never knew what real suffering was until he went to prison: 'I was just a kid. I’d done some really dumb stuff.’

Witness the same strategy in his choice of words. 'Dumb stuff' would be knocking over mailboxes, not beating a little girl to death, then hiding her body under your bed for six days while the whole neighbourhood searched for her.

He says ‘I’m so sorry for what happened’ rather than ‘I’m so sorry for murdering your daughter’. Again, it’s a blatant refusal to accept responsibility.

Leppert and Lowry

Fact: In 2008, Morgan Leppert (15) and her boyfriend Toby Lee Lowry (22) beat, stabbed and suffocated the disabled James Stewart (62) to death in his own home in Melrose, Florida.

Reid: ‘What would you say to your fifteen-year-old self?'

Leppert: ‘I wish I wasn’t so naïve and gullible.’

Once more, focused on herself, how she's been affected rather than ‘I wish I hadn’t beaten, stabbed and suffocated a man to death.’

Leppert giggling about the murder

Reid: 'Will the most brutal of crimes still condemn children to die in prison?'

This is such an emotive sentence. No one wants to think of children dying in prison. But the facts are that these two were teenagers, close to adulthood, and if they remain in prison long enough to die, they won't be children when they do. Sadly I couldn't even find a photo of the victim, James Stewart.

Some new science featured on these programmes, a theory that the area of the brain that controls behaviour, empathy, and the ability to predict consequences, does not fully develop till after puberty although some newspapers have misinterpreted this as meaning that preteens cannot yet tell right from wrong. What the 'experts' seem to say though is not that the killers could not predict that beating, strangling someone, etc. would result in pain and death as they could clearly see the effects of what they were doing but that as a result of this death, they might have to face the consequences of ending up in prison for life. Too bad. Meanwhile, see this article on potential psychopaths.

Until these ‘children’ admit their own culpability, and understand the consequences of what they have done, they should not be released. This programme proves they haven't and the American courts were astute and brave enough to recognise this fact and recondemn both to life without the possibility of parole. Hurray for America. Meanwhile the European Court of Human Rights ensured that Jamie Bulger's killers were released. 

#rememberthevictims James StewartRIP

James Bulger RIP

Maddie Clifton RIP

Judge Judy: Lost in Translation?

Starts off smiling

This is a humorous look at the way the plaintiffs and defendants on Judge Judy (Judge Judy Sheindlin) continually rewrite the English language. I sometimes wonder how she keeps a straight face. I know the English education system is in freefall but this is proof that the American one is just as bad.

Transportation

But I have to give them some kudos for the initiative they show when they don't know a word, creating their own vocabulary on the fly, something that Americans have always excelled at hence burglarise instead of burgle, transportation for transport. Transportation is when we sent convicts to Australia. The words existed but someone didn’t know them so instead of investing in a dictionary, they made up their own which tended to mean making the word longer so I imagine that the next generation might come up with 'transportationalization'. Another good one is we have Worcester sauce but the Americans have Worcestershire sauce.

This strange hybrid tongue often emerges when people try to sound more intelligent than they are in an effort to plead their case articulately and often involves them introducing phrases such as 'At that point', 'I proceeded to', 'basically', etc, sure signs that they're hiding something. I think I've said this before but the opposite of the desired effect almost always results. Judy unlike the judge in the Pistorius trial, Judge Thokozile Masipa, sees through lies, prevarications and exaggerated attention to unnecessary details immediately, catching the defendants/plaintiffs in a lie as soon as they open their mouths.

Gratuitous image of Louis

Like the writers of Versailles (beautifully made but the would-be portentous dialogue lets it down) and Jessie Burton's various felonies in The Miniaturist, they are guilty of common assault on the English language.

Here are some examples that made me chuckle. 

Someone is in trouble … 'due to failure not to pay'. If you failed not to pay, you paid. It's a bit like when a friend of mine apologised for her daughter by saying 'she's very bad at being late', which she failed to see meant that she was usually on time.

'Careful now'

'He said he was commandating my vehicle. 'Commandeering is the word they're searching for.

'He sent messages sexually expliciting me.' Not sure here. I’ve never been sexually explicited in a message or anywhere else.

'The dog was malnutritioned.' Ok I can see how they got to this but the word is malnourished.

Officer Byrd
keeps his own counsel

'My probation was revocated.' Or even revoked.

'She used a bunch of profound words.' Going by his speech, I doubt it but there’s no crime in that, however unusual it might be in his milieu. He meant profane.

'My dog needed to be feeded.' It rhymes at least but in English we say fed.

'Because I’d been in a domestic situation myself.' We’ve all been in domestic situations. Having a cup of tea in the kitchen is a domestic situation. It’s evident that some people think ‘domestic’ means violent. Hence: 'He domestically assaulted me.'

What? Hit you with an oven glove? 

Judy asks one woman why she moved out and is told: 'Several abusive mentally domestic disputes.' Huh? 

A man says 'She implicated every inch of my life.' What?

'He’s a compulsory liar.' That means he's forced to lie. They mean compulsive, he can't help lying.

'I was the benefactor of the annuity'. Beneficiary is what they meant but well done for getting annuity right!

Horrified

'He works with his father, carpenting.' That's 'in carpentry' to the rest of us.

I'm amused that when asked who they live with, they often reply: 'With myself.'

'She read my text messages and found them appropriate'.So what's the problem? He meant inappropriate.

Often they've said something that makes sense but is evidently not what they meant: 'I asked her to use her car', which implies he told her to use her car not what he meant, which was: 'I asked her if I could use her car'.

A girl, asked why she was in trouble with the police: 'I got an under the influence … pretty much that I was in public'.

Now a few translations of the 'new' words that'll help you to decode the language and enjoy Judge Judy.

An agreeance is an agreement. They've broughten (brought) their paperwork or boughten (bought) a ring. People frequently conversate with others. We would say converse but to them, this is a brand of sneakers ('trainers' to you and I, a word that cracks Americans up). Occasionally someone suffers from hystericalness. That's hysteria to you and me. Reminds me of Peter Andre's version of insanity, insania. Sentences often start Otherly. Your guess is as good as mine. Some people use their physicalness rather than their physicality. And something might have been tooken (taken).

Curious odds and ends:

'She's become not the person I brought up.'

'I believe in hair extensions.' Well it's nice to believe in something I suppose. 

And how’s this for an understatement? 'He bit my roommate’s ear off. It just didn’t work out.'

Pretty angry

Anyway, this type of assault on English is not restricted to Judge Judy but occurs in many other contexts. Here are a few of my favourites.

'We did not say them anything.' Huh? 

As evidence that the world is now full of snowflakes these days. One man whines:  'They were yelling obscene things like "Stop crying, you crybaby"'. I'm not sure in what universe, crybaby would be considered an obscenity.

A shopworker had to leave his retail job because of abuse. Asked what kind of things people said to him, he replies: 'Why is it taking so long?' 'Why's it so slow?' That's not abuse, mate! That's a reasonable question.

Late contender: priorly. Judy picks up on this: 'Priorly is not a word, sir'.

For more on language in different contexts, see my blog on the words the Ramseys use when talking about the murder of their daughter, JonBenet. Or those used by Oscar Pistorius in his trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. But always #rememberthevictims.

For failed attempts to be clever, please see Do You Speak Olde Worlde? Versailles, and The Miniaturist by Jessie Burton.

Do You Speak 'Olde Worlde'? BBC's 'Versailles'

Even his nightclothes look fabulous: Louis and Philippe

BBC’s Versailles, fun but quite often unintentionally funny.

My original review of Versailles is here. This is a humorous look at the worst of its dialogue, more proof I’m afraid that the writing in Versailles is genuinely ‘olde worlde’ by which I mean completely inauthentic, someone’s strange idea of how people used to speak in the past, evidently in the belief that back then, no one made much sense and no one much cared. It’s starting to remind me very much of Jessie Burton’s The Miniaturist, which is not a good thing. See my review here. ITV’s Victoria accomplishes this far better and with more credibility and with an equally attractive cast - I'm not sure why The Crown wins awards but not Victoria.

The cast struggle manfully to deliver lines, which surely by the law of averages, some at least must realise are pure nonsense.

The second series didn’t have to do much to send the press apoplectic, with newspapers disgusted by a so-called five-in-a-bed orgy scene. Hmm. I say that if there are several people in one bed but they’re not doing anything, that’s a sleepover not an orgy. Am I the only one who was disappointed? Then, as a woman, I’m a bit annoyed by the excessive female nudity with poor Madame Montespan (Anna Brewster) hardly ever permitted to put a stitch on while the men are usually fully dressed, with their dignity intact or if naked, are shot from artful angles from the rear.

Semi-gratuitous Shemar Moore

But back to my point. I don’t want to cast aspersions but I think the same writers, Simon Mirren (Helen's nephew) and David Wolstencroft, are possibly responsible for some equally daft and meaningless lines in Criminal Minds, where we’re expected to believe that the supposedly super-intelligent (Dr Spencer) Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) doesn’t realise what he’s actually said, eg of Halloween:

It rivals only Christmas in terms of popularity

which means it doesn't rival anything else but Christmas when what he means is that Christmas is its only rival. And don't get me started on 'in terms of' – that's a whole other blog.

Then we have Rossi (Joe Mantegna) saying of an ‘unsub’ (anyone else hate that? why not just say perpetrator or suspect – we have the words, we just need to use them), who bludgeons his victims to death, gouges their eyes out and keeps them as souvenirs:

I got a bad feeling about this guy.

Me: No kidding.
 What an amazing insight. I don't think you need any special skills to be sure that this ‘unsub’ is bad news.

Rossi: He no doubt has issues.

Me, in imitation of Leroy Gibbs (Mark Harmon) in NCIS: Ya think?

The only excuse for Criminal Minds is the presence of the talented and easy on the eye Shemar Moore as Morgan. 

But back to Versailles, which despite all its flaws, is still immensely enjoyable. The locations and costumes are gorgeous. I just wish that they would get some help on the script.

Errors often arise out of a desire to sound deep, mysterious, wise, authentic and almost always, no, always, have the exact opposite effect.

The writers are inordinately fond of the word ‘emanate’, hence:

Why are the utterances that emanate from your mouth so critical of the king?

Ouch, listen to that again: ‘the utterances that emanate’. And

How many words are emanating from your mouth?

A fan painting*

Particularly adept at managing this dreadful twaddle is the talented George Blagden (Louis XIV). He delivers it with such conviction, it almost makes sense:

Why are you casting all this rage at me?

Honestly, it’s enough to make you want to cast some rage at someone.

Do you have my back, brother?

We’re not in some modern action flick, guys.

I don’t mind the writers updating the dialogue to the modern vernacular but, if they’re going to use the language properly, it should at least make sense. 

Blind to his failings, dumb to his faults.

The first part makes sense but not the second.

We are all of us in sickness here – we’re just waiting for it to take root.

Why would we be waiting for sickness to take root? How is someone ‘in sickness’? How does sickness take root?

Fabien: Given no reason to smile

Another to suffer is poor Fabien (Tygh Runyan), who gets to say:

Better to lie fallow and collect information.

You don’t lie fallow, you lie doggo. Fallow means unplanted.

We might fend off all who would take us ill.

All who might mean us ill could work at a pinch, take us ill they’ve confused with being taken ill.

Another who has lain hidden before us.

I think this is an attempt to convey hiding in plain sight in olde worlde.

You once cured me of certain ill effects.

Ill effects? Ills perhaps.

You have been dabbling in some nefarious doings.

They just wanted to use ‘nefarious’ here but could not be arsed to construct a proper sentence.

The Chevalier is beyond reproach.

Usually you would say ‘above reproach’ and it would mean something very positive, someone who cannot be criticised, a paragon. Ok, so you might say, well, what’s wrong with that? But this isn’t what the writers mean here. They’re saying he’s incredibly wicked. They mean something like ‘beyond the pale’, the very opposite of ‘beyond reproach’.

MonChevy: Chevalier and Philippe

I’m sure that the series lost a segment of fans when Philippe (Alexander Vlahos) and the Chevalier (Evan Williams), known as #MonChevy in the Twitterverse split up.

My favourite:
The clock is ticking … fast.

It should always tick at the same speed, guys – better get it mended.

Offer you respite from your sleepless nightmares.

If you’re sleepless, you don’t have nightmares, you’re not asleep. Either say respite from sleeplessness or nightmares. It can't be both.

Then, Louis misses his mistress so much he declares, with some conviction:

It is all empty ashes.

Empty ashes? What are empty ashes? Are they worse than full ashes? We can have ‘It is all empty’ or even ‘It is all ashes’ but not ‘It is all empty ashes’.

Louis' advice:
Trust only in yourself, above all others.
If you trust only in yourself that negates the second part of the sentence.

A visitor to Versailles declares:
Versailles is more beautiful than I can imagine.
Once he sees it, he doesn't need to imagine it. This is just a tense problem. They must mean 'than I could have imagined'.

Her pallor is looking a little wan.

If your pallor is wan, perhaps you’re on the mend.

Nothing can be atoned for what you've done to me.

No – they mean ‘You cannot atone for what you've done to me’ or ‘Nothing you do can atone for what you've done to me’.

Rome has only one aim: to protect the Catholic Church and dispose of its enemies.

Ok, I don’t want to quibble but that’s two aims.

This is not a battle.

No, but it is a war.

This isn’t a contradiction. Same difference.

You’re not who you think you are but who you’ve been told you are.

I don't know if I can even parse this out to fathom the meaning.

At one point, a trespasser pronounces the gardener’s name, Jacques, as Jock, perhaps an unwitting response to his strong Scottish accent.

The absurd thing is that no expense has been spared in the making of this programme. The costumes are exquisite; they film in the actual Palace of Versailles; the actors are all good, some much better than good. They have to convey the desired effect in the way they speak the words, in their tone, movement and expression simply because the dialogue is so awful. And despite all this, it’s great fun to watch and the credit sequence, with M83’s ‘Outro’ deservedly won an award. It’s very classy.**

More on George Blagden here: Vikings: Ragnar and Athelstan, Travis Fimmel and George Blagden.

For more on Travis Fimmel: Travis Fimmel Is Ragnar Lothbrok.

Other TV reviews are here:
Cold Case: Honor.

Law and Order: Skate or Die.

For more on language, see Judge Judy: Lost in Translation.

* I've lost the credit for this so please supply if this is your artwork. Hope you don't mind me using it.

**Versailles Title Sequence credits: Executive Producers : Ian Whitehead, Incendo, Claude Chelli, Capa Drama Post production Supervisor : Gary Evans, Incendo Post production assistant : Josianne Bottari, Incendo Creative Director : Christian Langlois, Mémoire Liquide Film Director: Christian Langlois, Mémoire Liquide Art director and motion design lead: Charles Bertrand, Fly studio Production: Mémoire Liquide Line Producer: Marie Josée Bourassa Director of Photography: Étienne Proulx Vfx, liquid specialist and props: Etienne Proulx Production Designer : Jean Bécotte Post production, color grading, motion design: Fly studio Music: M83