Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock: Statement Analysis

This blog analyses an interview with Michael Barrymore, conducted by Stephen Nolan on Irish TV in 2013. It’s available on YouTube and worth watching for the in-house audience reaction. Although the ticker tape is running messages of support from Barrymore fans, the people in the audience look deeply uncomfortable.

Asked about his personality, who he was on stage, he contradicts himself so many times that it’s easy to lose track. I have transcribed and analysed the whole thing but here I concentrate on the parts that pertain to Stuart Lubbock’s death.

Michael Barrymore's words are in purple; Stephen Nolan's in red; Gerry McCann's in blue; John Ramsey's in brown.

Stephen Nolan

First, when asked about the fateful night, he tries to diminish his culpability by suggesting that the only thing he was guilty of was hospitality. He starts by saying:

I thought I was ok.

This is a strange thing to say as it implies that for some reason with this particular group of people he wasn’t ok.  He’s sort of shifted the onus onto them. As a group, or as individuals, they somehow rendered him ‘not ok’. But Nolan didn't ask if he was ok; this is just how he has chosen to start his account. With himself.

Lots of people have people back.

He remains adamant that nothing happened to Stuart Lubbock at his house, that his injuries were sustained elsewhere. He hopes that by taking the blame for this one thing (inviting people, some of whom he didn’t know, home), he can somehow dodge all the other accusations. And in a way he's right – if he hadn't asked these people back to his house, Stuart Lubbock would still be alive.

But who decided to ask Stuart Lubbock back and why? Why was a woman deputised to do this? Did she intend to come too? Why do you ask strangers back, what’s the purpose? I’ll leave you to figure this out. It’s not a completely random or the more the merrier type of thing as then Kevin Lubbock would have been asked as well. But anyway, the point is, no one is saying he’s not allowed to have people back – it’s him who’s decided that this is the crux of the matter in order to evade the real issue.

Serious Barrymore

Can I swear?

Asking about this he thinks gives him an air of responsibility – he doesn’t want to commit a minor infraction without the permission of the presenter.

I was pissed.

This gets a nervous giggle from the crowd. This is not good enough for Barrymore. He wants to make them laugh. He hopes that if he can connect with them, make them like him, he can get them back on-side.

That’s not swearing.

This signals his attempt to outdo himself.

I was off my tits.

More nervous laughter. He appreciates this and congratulates himself.

It’s getting better.

He means that he is finally swearing and it’s true that the audience seems to warm to him but only momentarily. He laughs and the people watching do too but they, unlike him, haven't forgotten that Stuart Lubbock died. He’s merely seeking to distract attention from this fact. This isn’t a laughing matter and coming on TV and making lame jokes cannot alter that. In fact, it's simply disrespectful when talking about that night. What these attempts at humour reveal is that he feels nothing for the victim or his family.

Nolan points out that he isn’t a normal person because of his fame and therefore should be more careful about who he takes home. In a sense, he’s accepted Barrymore’s deflection, that this was merely a case of unwise hospitality.

I was gone and one guy said I’ll be your security and went Yeah. Ok.

Omitting the personal pronoun as he does before 'went' is a marker of someone who doesn't want to admit agency and is trying to fudge the issue. And then it's very vague – 'one guy' is who? Why not give the man's name and why doesn't Nolan ask it? And is he suggesting he needed protection from his own guests and that this 'one guy' didn't give it?

And come back and do you know what I think deep down if I was being really honest here.

And why is he saying 'if I was being really honest here'? This suggests that he isn't being honest, just that it's possible that he might be at some stage..

Happy Barrymore

Then he adds:

And I’m comfortable enough here to be honest. 

Then hastily, when he realises this implies he hasn’t been comfortable enough to answer truthfully at other times, maybe any other time (let’s not forget he refused to answer some questions at the inquest), that this could be construed as an admission of mendacity, he follows it quickly with:

Not that I haven't been honest elsewhere.

But the cat is out of the bag. It’s been recorded, broadcast and can't be unsaid or unheard. What we take from this is he hasn't been honest elsewhere.

But sometimes you know with interviewers you close up because you get the thing oh where’s this going and I’m not … I do and I’ll be honest and say that to you now.

Hmm. Never trust anyone who has to continually assert they're honest (that's four times in quick succession). I'm still not sure what he actually means although Nolan says thank you. But, although he's volunteered honesty, he then starts to ramble about inconsequential stuff and you'd have to deduce that this is what he feels he can tell the truth about so is happy to hold forth about it.

But I think that sometimes you know it’s a bit of the London boy’s done well you know come from nothing no, you know, from family and showing off and a bit you know it’s a big house, it’s a nice sound system …

Nolan thinks this digression has gone on long enough as Barrymore has already spoken at length on the subject in the earlier part of the interview (not included here) and breaks in to ask:

What happened?

Barrymore repeats the question as if he has no idea what the man’s talking about, because the death of Stuart Lubbock is of so little consequence to him that he’s simply forgotten about it.

What happened?

Nolan has to remind him:
Stuart Lubbock was found dead in your swimming pool.

Oh yeah yeah yeah.

This is said very casually, in a rather offhand manner. He sounds like he's a little annoyed that he's been forced to return to the point. It’s almost disparaging and is possibly the most telling part of the whole interview, his attitude in these few words. It reminds me of John Ramsey's line about his daughter, JonBenet's murder: The real story here is not that a child was murdered; the real story here is the unjust way we were treated. Seriously? This man has no sense of perspective. And notice that Barrymore doesn't correct or quibble with Nolan's words 'found dead in your swimming pool', which suggests that this was the case although later he says something that contradicts this.

I was in the house and the others were in the pool.

Straight away he’s introduced the ‘others’. As in the Martin Bashir interview, no one asks who he means by this. Here he distances himself from them by failing to name them and claiming he was also physically distant – he was inside, the others were outside. It’s no coincidence that Stuart was found outside, where Barrymore wasn’t. He’s established that immediately.

They said Can they go in the pool? Can they swim in the pool?

Again ‘he’ is not part of them. And they are not named.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

But it’s halfway through being built. Drew the top back. You’ve got a picture of it there. Drew the top back. The switch is over there on the left and that goes back to show the light underneath.

So here’s a lot of extraneous detail about where the switches are for the pool lights, etc. Why does he feel the need to include all this as it affects nothing? It’s done to delay him having to explain what happened or embark on an untruth. He hopes that the fact that he’s telling the truth about these patently insignificant things proves that he’s a fundamentally reliable witness. He’s saying Look – all these things are true. You can see them in the photograph (i.e. the photograph corroborates my version of events). These are things he can declare with certainty, that can be verified easily, so the public/police can therefore trust his words/him. But are we really that stupid?

It also has the effect of showing him to be a concerned host, an all-round good guy, putting the lights on so that all his guests can see what they’re doing. But which host would refuse to put the lights on? – it’s hardly an effort. I’m calling this whole charade a smokescreen of truth.

Some of them went out to there.

Them again, the mysterious them and they are there, i.e. not with Barrymore. In some versions, the timeline is different as guests go to the jacuzzi before going for a swim. Again though, this is something quite crucial that Barrymore is pretty sketchy on.

There were four girls there as well which the press very conveniently leave out.

He pauses here for emphasis, believing the presence of girls proves it wasn’t the much-touted gay orgy. But the girls might have been invited as 'beards' in order to reassure Stuart that he would be safe, might even hook up with one of the girls. If it had been Barrymore and eight men, he might not have been that keen. The girls don't get named because Barrymore was not interested in them at all.

Interior of house

And I went and had a joint with James and I can’t remember his name now. It doesn’t matter.

Why does he get to decide whether it matters or not? I would say it’s pretty important as this guy could be his alibi. There must be a reason for the failure to name him here as by the time of this interview he must know the man’s name. Why doesn’t Nolan query this?

And then we went back out.

To go back out, he would have needed to be out at some stage. And by 'we', who does he mean? Himself and James Futers? The man he can't remember the name of? All three of them? How much time has elapsed? In all the interviews, there seems to be a leap, from getting shorts for his guests to wear to finding Stuart in the pool.

He said Do you wanna go to the jacuzzi? I said Yeah ok.

Again, Nolan doesn’t ask who the ‘he’ is in this instance. Barrymore makes it seem like he’s just going along with what someone else suggests. More avoidance of agency.

Went out. The other lot had been out earlier.

‘Other lot’ is a weird choice of words; it's slightly derogatory. It would be these 'others' who had been with Stuart. Still no names. Anybody reminded of the 'Others' from Lost yet?

When we went outside, looked down and I didn’t even know Stuart’s name at the time. It was just another member of the party, right?

He thinks he can prove he wasn’t involved in anything if he claims not to know Stuart yet. But in fact, he's only admitted to not knowing his name, which is probably true. 

Look down and he’s there floating in the pool. Whether he’s down or at the top or whatever.

He’s casual, uninterested, vague but these details are crucial, as they would tell us whether Stuart was dead when he entered the pool or whether he drowned in the pool. And surely 'floating' means he was at the top? Why is Barrymore so unsure about this? We need to establish whether he was face down as the newspapers say or face up as Barrymore has said elsewhere. If he was face down, would Barrymore have recognised him? And what happened to 'we'? Now it seems like he was alone at this point. Notice he's missed out the personal pronoun again to fudge the issue. 

Jonathan Kenney

What did you do?

I run [sic]. What, me? The first thing I do is run back into the house and get the … Jonathan who I knew had [a] life-saving experience.

The change of tenses and an increase in ums, ers and pauses show that these are things Barrymore is less certain of or knows are untrue. But why does he say 'get the'? This would seem to relate to an object rather than a person. And if Jonathan Kenney was the life-saver, why didn't he come out and jump in?

And the other guy Merritt came with him.
So now Justin Merritt has become 'the other guy', with the implication that Barrymore did not know him well. And who is meant by 'him'? Kenney?

And James and er, Futers jumped in cause I can’t swim, jumped in and pulled him up and the other guy jumped in as well.

Which other guy? Merritt? Jonathan? Or the guy he can’t remember the name of? Other reports have named Simon Shaw. And whether he can or can't swim is also disputed.

I didn’t see that but they jumped in to get him and I went to get (pauses). The other two, they came out. They started working on him.

Who are the other two? Why can’t he use people’s names? Again, what did he go to get? Why does he always stop short of saying it?

The other ones going round. I was starting to freak out. The girls started screaming when they saw he was just laying there. He wasn’t moving much.

I have no clue what 'The other ones going round' means. Justin Merritt has been labelled one of the others by Barrymore here and elsewhere. Has this been done deliberately to implicate him? Then if Stuart was moving a little, he could still have been alive at this point although (see below), it is more likely he was dead when Barrymore saw him.

Justin Merritt

And James said to me Come away. There’s nothing, no more you can do as the ambulance has been called, they’re working on him there. There’s no more we can do.

As we know now it was Justin Merritt who called the ambulance (see previous blog for analysis of the 999 call transcript). But when? Why is this missing from this account? And as I said in my previous blog, he was probably already dead because Merritt says ‘A geezer’s drowned in the pool’. You wouldn’t say ‘drowned’ of someone who was still alive.

[I’ve only recently read an interview with James Futers, one of the guests who jumped in to pull Stuart out, and he claims Stuart was lying at the bottom of the pool. This would explain why Barrymore says here and has said elsewhere ‘I looked down’. You would have to look down in order to see him if he was at the bottom of the pool.] We know now that, contrary to press reports, Stuart was face up not face down.

So how it was reported is that you ran away.

Not straight ...

He’s about to say ‘Not straight away’ i.e. he did.

… One, I didn’t run away. And first thing, they never report that I actually, the first thing that I did was go and get help.

Ok, confronted with this situation, who wouldn’t go for help? No one. Is he expecting us to believe that in some version of these events, he would have left Stuart floating in the pool? Does he expect kudos for calling for help? And the unsaid part is 'Then I ran away'. I think it could be more accurately described as 'fleeing the scene'.

But they choose not to report those things.

Different they here: the media. A quick whinge from Barrymore, rather similar to the John Ramsey quote.

They were working on him. I was standing there. And instead of going No. I should stay here, I went with the lads down the bottom of the drive to their flat.

You would expect him to be able to name the people living at the bottom of the drive. One was James Futers; the other Simon Shaw. But he calls them 'the lads' which is a friendlier term than 'the others'.

Mike Browne

As I went out, I didn’t ring my PR agent and say. I don’t have, I never had a PR agent. I don’t employ the likes of Max Clifford. Never have done.

Why is this so important to him? He’s trying to say he didn’t attempt to spin the story but whether he called a PR/PA makes no real difference.

I had a PA who was my personal assistant. I rang Mike. I said the guy’s in the pool. He’s on the side of the pool. The ambulance has been rang [sic]. If the police need me I’m in James’s place at the bottom of the drive.

Back to 'the guy'. Back to imprecise language. Is Stuart, sorry, 'the guy', in the pool when Barrymore makes the call or on the side of the pool? This is another point that needs clarification. If he was still in the pool, it would mean he called his PA before anyone called the emergency services.

It didn’t look good you leaving the scene.

Absolutely not. No no. It’s one of the worst things I could have done. And when it gets reported and the way it’s been reported over the years as it has been done (he’s flustered here and losing his way), it can’t look right, can it? It can’t look right at all.

So he’s happy to admit that this was the wrong thing to do and that it made him look guilty but hastens to add:

But that doesn’t make me guilty of something that never happened in the first place.

He gets a bit tripped up here – he wants to assert the fact that he’s not guilty (of something/anything) then remembers his story is that Stuart was not injured at his house so has to add that the ‘something’ didn’t happen at all. And if nothing ‘happened in the first place’, why would he feel the need to run away? But Stuart is dead, something did happen. The post-mortems tell us what. More on the post-mortems here.

They wanted it to fit the way they wanted it to fit. Instead of what the facts were.

This is the press you’re talking about.

Yes, Barrymore has gone back to his bugbear, the press and got away from talking about Stuart.

You know the audience are going to be asking: Did he do it?

Absolutely not. No way. No way did I do it.

Well, this is a very assertive denial but it also admits that someone, if not Barrymore himself, did do it. I think it would be more normal to say I didn’t do anything to him.

Then there’s an immediate turnaround, very similar to Gerry McCann’s (in blue), when asked if he killed Madeleine:

No. And that’s an emphatic no and if I did …

See Peter Hyatt on this.

Here’s Barrymore:

And if I did I, you know, I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago …

Let’s break it down.

And if I did …

So what we have here is him immediately qualifying his denial: ‘No way did I do it … and if I did’, in fact actually positing that he did do it. Why would he even say this, why speculate about what he would have done if he’d killed Stuart? If you were totally innocent, you would simply say ‘No’. So, is this an acknowledgement, if not of his own guilt, of the guilt of someone at the house? Then again break it down further and we have:

I did …

Embedded confession?

I you know …

A little bit of a delay while he thinks how to respond, possibly realising he shouldn’t have started a sentence with ‘And if I did’ …

… I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago

He’s implying that he’s an honest Joe (when he feels comfortable enough, remember) so would have owned up at the time. Then he blusters, in a similar way to Gerry McCann’s:
Find the body.

While I’m here, who is heartless enough to call their own child ‘the body’? And why challenge the police to find the body?

There’s no evidence there. Find the evidence.

See how similar this is. Barrymore knows that his friends, his PA, have all been involved in damage control, removing anything suspicious. But why make this challenge at all? There’s a bit of 'duper’s delight' going on here, very similar to that evinced by Gerry McCann. I’m cleverer than the police – they won't find anything on me. Once more, if he were innocent, he wouldn’t feel the need to mention evidence. He would simply be horrified to be accused. He would want to answer questions at the inquest as, if he didn’t do anything, his cooperation would help clear his name.

Reeva Steenkamp  and Oscar Pistorius

The police did fail to secure the scene, which happens with many of these cases when they’ve believed what they’ve been told by those on site, e.g. JonBenet Ramsey and Reeva Steenkamp, covered in my other blogs.

Nothing happened to the guy there.

Barrymore goes back to ‘the guy’. He’s no longer worthy of a name. Now he’s suggesting that something could have happened to him elsewhere and we know he’s trying to implicate emergency responders or hospital staff.

He mentions the headline: You are a murderer. And asks:

How do you get round that?

He wants to ‘get round’ this but can't think of a way because there is no way round it if you did it.

And then:

How do you show remorse?

You wouldn’t use the word remorse if you weren’t guilty in some way. You would probably say ‘regret’. And ‘show remorse’ suggests an element of acting or demonstrating. It’s important to him that the public recognise he’s showing remorse.

How do you apologise for things you haven't done?

He seems to believe there is a need to apologise but also reiterates that he hasn’t done anything. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is possibly an attempt to evince compassion for Stuart’s family.

Terry Lubbock

Then he descends into a bit of a whinge fest, bemoaning his lot.

All the crap that I’ve had to deal with.

This again is disrespectful to Stuart Lubbock and his family. He’s saying that Stuart’s death and the resulting suspicion are just some more crap that he, Barrymore, has had to deal with, as if he shouldn’t have to answer for that. It shows that disturbing lack of perspective I’ve talked about elsewhere. His troubles cannot really compete with what Stuart Lubbock suffered or what his family is suffering.

All the things that happened.

Again this suggests he had no agency, no responsibility – things just happened. See Oscar Pistorius: ‘the night the incident happened’; ‘the gun went off’.

Then finally:

All the mistakes that I made.

This is a partial acceptance of blame but it would be fascinating to find out what he considers ‘mistakes’ in this situation. Is he still only acknowledging he was perhaps too generous a host? The other thing is that it could be seen as diminishing Stuart Lubbock’s death to nothing but a mistake.

I’ve got to look at my part in it as well.

What part is he going to own up to? He doesn’t say. So we’re left with his belief that the only thing he did wrong was invite people back and of course we’d have to be crazy to think this inviting people back was anything he should feel guilty about, that it really was wrong. But exactly how has he looked at his part in it?*

So, although none of this is proof that Michael Barrymore had any part in causing the injuries that Stuart Lubbock suffered (defined by the judge who dismissed Barrymore's damages claim against the police as 'a violent assault, anal rape of a straight man'), it certainly raises questions about whether he is telling the truth as his statements reveal several markers of deceit, narcissism, reluctance, evasion, a refusal to be exact and a lack of empathy for everyone but himself, similar to traits shown by Oscar Pistorius. The problem is that he has never been properly called to account, never been required to fill in any of the gaps or explain any of the inconsistencies in his story, never really been properly interrogated. The police need to look at these interviews and ask the right questions. This has to happen (and if Barrymore is innocent he should willingly comply) if we are ever to learn the truth and Stuart Lubbock ever to find justice. My heart bleeds for Terry and Kevin Lubbock.

Always remember the victims

Justice4Stuart

RIP Stuart Lubbock

*For a case that seems similar, see Joey Comunale.

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