He is probably very nice and harmless one-on-one, but can be easily instigated in a group, and in this lies his main danger.
RSBM
"Very nice and harmless" ... sorry but I nearly choked reading that.
Anyone, of any age, who can take part in and watch a girl being raped and murdered and then do nothing to help, even from the safety of a police interview room is anything but "very nice and harmless".
If this boy was alone on a deserted island ... he still wouldn't be "very nice and harmless".
He'd be a disturbed deviant sitting on an island, looking on the outside like an angel but that mask is only hiding what's going on inside his head which is far from angelic.
Jamie Bulger killers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables for example.
Of the 2, it was considered, at the time that Venables, the more 'cute' looking child, the one from the better family, the one who cried the most after arrest, was the lesser evil of the two boys.
It was Thompson, the feral child who MUST be the ringleader. He was tested for Psychpathy before being allowed parole because in part, of his transformation during his detention.
And yet, it's Venables who has gone on to display extreme interest in violence & child abuse images and Thompson is living a quiet life.
Boy B was absolutely in on A plan ... he may well have not fully appreciated what might happen and just how far boy A would go but, he knew his friend and would know better than anyone else what 'might' happen.
However, his actions once it did happen say very loud and clear for me that he is far from nice or harmless.
He took her from her house to her fate.
He stayed.
He watched
He did nothing to help.
He lied to his parents.
He lied to police during 8? Separate interviews.
In my opinion, he is just as dangerous as boy A ... if not more so.