UK - James Bulger, 2, abducted & murdered, Merseyside, 12 Feb 1993

[pedinurse]

But I feel you fail to grasp the point of my post.

Why disclose a 14 year old crime, why risk the life you have now, the friends you have now, the women who loves you.

The point is that convicts try to attempt to integrate into a `"normal life" because that benefits them to be a normal person.

There are many, many women who marry men who have UNDISCLOSED criminal records and they do that because they know that the women will have nothing to do with them or anyone else.

These men are the child abusers, the wife beaters, the druggie, the man who killed another man with his buddy on a night out, drunk driving.

These people have been released from prison and go out and meet a women with a child specifically to abuse that child and or mother.

Or what about the rapist, or the guy charged with manslaughter.

These people with intent do this to deceive others to victimize others. They have been in and out of prison all their life.

BUT, again these men did not commit these crimes as 10 year old children, they committed them as adults.

I do not see anything benefit to anyone to disclose the past of the killers.

Again a person grows, changes and knows what they did was wrong from a child of 10 to 14. This man has a caseworker, you can bet your bottom dollar that the caseworker will keep tabs if a child is involved.

But again, he did not harm his own child, as he was merely a child himself, albeit a disturbed child.

So please, speculation aside. I do not see the evidence to compel disclosure.

I can see what you're saying - I am sure that both these men are being watch closely by authorities in their paroled positions! I think that the question here is an ethical one. And I think that ethically - that bride deserves to know. If you were her, wouldn't you want to know? I would. But law wise... no, I do not know that THAT can be mandated.

 

[CyberLaw]

You know ethics can be subjective.

How many "unknown" people are teachers, day care workers, camp supervisors, babysitters, cops who view, produce, and engage in harming children. Would it not be ethical for them to tell people that they "love" children.

I guess they deceive everyone to gain an advantage.

But again, unless it serves a purpose to tell the future wife of a crime against a child 14 years ago, when the child was neither a sibling or relative, then I really do not see the point of ethics.

Do you think a person changes in 14 years. I do. So you think this person, grown up adult is the same person he was at 10. Because by being ethical and telling someone what you have done, is telling them that you have not grown and grown up and received counselling.

Gee if I had to come clean about my college days, my hubby would never have married me. But my College days were years before I married him, I grew up, changed and became a responsible member of society. Do you really think what I did many years before I meet him, has a bearing on my good character now. No. There is no point in disclosure it does not serve a purpose

So therefore unless there is compelling "purpose" for disclosure this man has a right to an "adult" life that is not haunted by a crime 14 years ago that has no bearing on his character now. Why is it that people want to "speculate" about how this man look now. Again what is the purpose. He is not a wanted criminal, he is not charged with any crime, he is not being hunted by the Police, so why do you want to know.

He was a child, now he is an adult who is trying to have a normal life. If his identity was known, that again would prevent him from a normal life.

Oh I know, some of you will say: Well if he was my neighbor I would want to know, to protect my kids from him. But again I can see your point if he was still 10. But many people who harm children, are the "unknown" neighbor who has never been caught, never on a registry, and is the "nice guy next" door who preys on kids currently and in the recent past, or your relative, or the babysitters BF, or the relative thereof.

That is current, this crime was isolated and in the past.

 

[Dena]

Cyber,
I understand 100% of what you're saying.

IMO, However, I do not believe these children served their time. Yes, they were tried, convicted, and served the time handed down to them - but as we know from this site alone, not everyone is given the sentences they deserve, and that's how I feel in this case.
They were released at 18 with new identities and lots of money. Can they really grasp what they did if they get to start over and pretend it never happened? They get a new life? Where is Jamie's new life?

I have a hard time with this one, like I said, because Jamie's parents have not forgiven these 2. That's a big one for me. If they have not, then I can not. Maybe I am too emotionally invested in this case, but I don't like any of it.
They have benefited and have a life they could never even dream of if they had not killed James.

Wonder where he will say he is when meeting with his caseworker?
It's going to come out sooner or later, I think sooner is better than later.

 

[Nocgirl]

The time these boys served was hardly a prison like environment. It was a juvenile facility, the boys got an education and had protective security around them 24/7. I believe towards the end of their sentence did they actually get interaction with other inmates.

Everyone has secrets. I made out with my sisters then boyfriend when I was 25. I lied to my parents once. Me and my friend got this woman fired from a job we were at by lying when we were teenagers (trust me, she had it coming though). The secret these boys have is a hell of a secret. They PLANNED this little boys demise. They had a plan to kidnap a baby at that mall.

I remember where I was that day when I heard about little James's murder. I was working at Southwest Airlines sitting in the break room when NBC news did a story and I remember the words "Even more shocking-the suspects ages-2 10 year old boys".

 

[sherri79]

But again, unless it serves a purpose to tell the future wife of a crime against a child 14 years ago, when the child was neither a sibling or relative, then I really do not see the point of ethics.

to be honest with a future spouse would be ethical imo. to start a marriage with your whole life based on a lie and never warn your wife is wrong. if a woman wants to ignorant and not check out the past of the man she plans to marry that is her problem. for the government and the groom to actively hide his past and take the choice from her is another. just because some women will marry a murder does not mean that other women don't have the right to know before hand.

 

[CyberLaw]

I looked into the background of the home life of these two boys, to say that neglect, abuse, instability, and alcoholism was the norm is an understatement.

Little supervision, brutality, violent movies shown to one boy by his Dad that mirrored the murder of James.

One of the boys were bullied from school to school, moved many times.

So people may think at 10 these boys were evil, but it was the home life that lead them and encouraged them to harm James. Even though they are responsible for their actions and were held responsible. One tends to wonder if their home life was much, much better if this may have never happened.

That is why after 8 years in Prison, psych. help they are not the boys that they were. So again, if anyone knew where these boys where, people are hunting them to this day, with the intention of killing them.

The mother of one boy has moved many, many times. Been harassed, beaten, attacked and her two youngest children have suffered greatly.

So lets just say: The wife wants to break up leave husband, seek revenge, or what ever. She goes to the papers and tells them what she knows. The papers are legally forbidden to publish anything about the private lives about the two boys. But you have a rogue. Well his life as he knows it is over, he has to change names, get new ID. and god forbid there is a picture published of him.

Again, these men were not the boys they were. They do not live in the same home environment that they did. They are supervised. They are living a normal life, with normal interests. A special platform had to be built in the courtroom when they were 10 so they could see. They played with dolls, wanted the whole world to be made of chocolate. One was pictured sucking on a lolly on the way to court.

Now they have "grown" up interests, even though the crime was terrible, they do now have a chance of being a productive member of society.

If remember correctly, I don't think they made loads of money, not that I am aware of. But I could be wrong.

 

[sherri79]

with the way you speak of their upbringing i worry even more for any kids they have.

 

[southcitymom]

with the way you speak of their upbringing i worry even more for any kids they have.

Their institutionalized upbringing was probably better than what they experienced until the age of 10. And they received a lot of counseling during those years.

I'm actually glad that they are getting a shot at a "normal" adult life. That fills me with a lot of hope.

 

[sherri79]

Their institutionalized upbringing was probably better than what they experienced until the age of 10. And they received a lot of counseling during those years.

I'm actually glad that they are getting a shot at a "normal" adult life. That fills me with a lot of hope.

would it still fill you with hope if it was your daughter he planed to marry? this some1 daughter. he will be the father of some1s grand kids. we all hope he wont kill again. i hope every murder that walks the streets today wont kill again. i just don't see how hope outweighs the brides right to know who she is about to marry.

 

[southcitymom]

would it still fill you with hope if it was your daughter he planed to marry? this some1 daughter. he will be the father of some1s grand kids. we all hope he wont kill again. i hope every murder that walks the streets today wont kill again. i just don't see how hope outweighs the brides right to know who she is about to marry.

Him not telling his wife-to-be doesn't bother me on the level it bothers a lot of people here. I understand the ethical questions at play, but think he has a right to privacy on this issue, should he choose to keep it private (and it sounds like he is being counseled to do just that).

But I'm not a "you gotta tell your beloved every single thing in lurid detail" kinda gal, either. I think there is a place for secrets and I think everyone's got them.

I don't see how his "secret" harms her, so yes, I would be filled with hope if he were marrying my daughter...except I wouldn't know and that's kind of the point! To me, anyway.

 

[SewingDeb]

What if he reverts to his childhood ways and kills a child they have together. Would you wish you had known then?

 

[sherri79]

Him not telling his wife-to-be doesn't bother me on the level it bothers a lot of people here. I understand the ethical questions at play, but think he has a right to privacy on this issue, should he choose to keep it private (and it sounds like he is being counseled to do just that).

But I'm not a "you gotta tell your beloved every single thing in lurid detail" kinda gal, either. I think there is a place for secrets and I think everyone's got them.

I don't see how his "secret" harms her, so yes, I would be filled with hope if he were marrying my daughter...except I wouldn't know and that's kind of the point! To me, anyway.

i agree a spouse wont need every lurid detail of your past. my husband has no right to the details of my sex life with my ex. he has a right to know if i have in the past tortured and killed. the whole reason he must keep his past secret is people want to harm him and his family. she is about to become part of his family. the truth has a way of leaking out sooner or later. when it becomes public she will have to face people who know she married him. that would affect her and is something she has a right to know before she marries or reproduces with the poor little reformed murder.

 

[southcitymom]

What if he reverts to his childhood ways and kills a child they have together. Would you wish you had known then?

Me personally? I don't know. This man's history is not the type of information that would stop me from marrying someone I thought I loved, so it probably wouldn't matter much if I had it or not. I certainly understand and concede that there are woman that would want to have this information before getting married! I do get that and I understand that.

I don't think this man's past indicates a higher likelihood of killing again. I'd say he probably has a lower likelihood of killing as an adult than men with other childhood issues, which might be well-hidden from a potential spouse.

 

[southcitymom]

i agree a spouse wont need every lurid detail of your past. my husband has no right to the details of my sex life with my ex. he has a right to know if i have in the past tortured and killed. the whole reason he must keep his past secret is people want to harm him and his family. she is about to become part of his family. the truth has a way of leaking out sooner or later. when it becomes public she will have to face people who know she married him. that would affect her and is something she has a right to know before she marries or reproduces with the poor little reformed murder.

It really is a hazy line between his rights and her rights and what's right! I just don't find it black and white.

I can understand why he wouldn't want to tell and I can understand why she might want to know. I can understand the counselors telling him he must keep his anonymity this way. I mean at least part of his "going underground" and being given a new identity was to protect his family - so other people's lives (lies!) are at stake too.

It's truly an interesting ethical dilemma. And you are right about the truth leaking out and causing damage in the future. I'm sure he's thought about all of these things.

You talk about him flippantly - "poor little reformed murderer" - do you believe there's ever a situation when someone who has killed can change?

 

[sherri79]

It really is a hazy line between his rights and her rights and what's right! I just don't find it black and white.

I can understand why he wouldn't want to tell and I can understand why she might want to know. I can understand the counselors telling him he must keep his anonymity this way. I mean at least part of his "going underground" and being given a new identity was to protect his family - so other people's lives (lies!) are at stake too.

It's truly an interesting ethical dilemma. And you are right about the truth leaking out and causing damage in the future. I'm sure he's thought about all of these things.

You talk about him flippantly - "poor little reformed murderer" - do you believe there's ever a situation when someone who has killed can change?

yes i think people who killed a spouse that beat them or a child that killed a abusive parent or some1 who is mentally ill can change. i dont think some1 that killed for the hell of it for pleasure or to see how some1 reacted to pain can change.

 

[southcitymom]

yes i think people who killed a spouse that beat them or a child that killed a abusive parent or some1 who is mentally ill can change. i dont think some1 that killed for the hell of it for pleasure or to see how some1 reacted to pain can change.

I tend to have more hope for young kids who kill which is perhaps why I feel hope for the boys who killed James Bulger.

I agree than people who get pleasure out of killing are least likely to reform.

 

[Laneymae]

I think our society has a right to know who these men are. If it were your daughter marrying this man, wouldn't you want to know? I know I would!

These were vicious kids who took a huge risk. I believe they still have that in them and could harm another child at any time.

With all of the messages on this forum about child abusers, who on earth would support this?

See what they did to James Bulger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF_lHwJW6z4

 

[CyberLaw]

But I have a opposite opinion then some.....

If you look into the background of these two boys at the time of the killing of James, you will find: That there was suspected sexual abuse, extreme neglect, beatings and violence by other family members, abuse of booze, unstable home life. That is just skimming the surface.

How many men abuse children, in their adult lives and then marry without telling their future spouse that they were just realized from Prison oh lets just say 2 months ago for extreme child abuse and neglect and for beating their wife also. They just happen to forget to tell their future spouse about it. On purpose of course. She then goes into the marriage blind, as to the "MOST" recent criminal convictions.

These two boys had to have a special platform building in court, because they were too small and short for the adult environment. They drew pictures during the court process, they did not understand what was going on in the courtroom.

One wanted the whole world to be made of chocolate. Sucked a lolly on the way to court, played with troll dolls.

The two had to given new ID, because oh they may last a week or so when they got out of prison after 8 years, to this day, people are still trying to find out where they live and intend to kill them.

So lets just say: Hubby and wife break up. Then she decides to inform the public about who her husband really is. This is say after 10 years. So now it is 24 years after the murder and now the man is 34. His life is now over as he knows it. Now he knows that he should never had told his wife about the crime well over a decade ago. It can easily be used for leverage and blackmail, extortion.

The Mother of one of the boys was harassed and beaten. When the boys were arrested, gangs and mobs gathered outside the home of the parents. They had to move across the country.

Even now the Mother and two children at home, have to move often, disrupt school, social networking, friends, if someone find out she is the mother of one of the boys. Her innocent two children at home suffer terribly from this.

Now this boy could tell his future wife about his past, if he feels that somehow it is of a benefit. But again, the murder happened 14 years ago, 6 years have passed since their release.

One thing I did find interesting: The case of these boys is akin to a movie called Child's play 3. This was not a movie one of the children picked out, it was an adult parent. There are some aspect that mirror the crime. Batteries were insert into James backside, in an attempt some say to "revive" and energize him like a doll.

Why don't you look up the case of Mary Bell, you can see how she was in the past, and how her life is now.

I would rather know the most recent past and conduct of a future husband if his crimes were not historical.

No one has proven that the boys "enjoyed" what they did to James, they actually walked with him most of the afternoon. They were looking from the crime and murder from the mind of a 10 year old child.

It is not like they did not mature and grow up and receive psych. help in the prison.

The reason they only served 8 years is because that was the sentence imposed by the Judge. A House of Lords Member decided to increase the term to 15 years when he was not legally allowed. That is why the original sentence stands.

The murder was horrible, I mean horrible. Beyond the scope of my understanding, how this could have happened. But it did and James suffered and was terribly victimized, horribly brutalized, but again the boys served their time and are trying to be productive members and contribute to society. Again, they are on life parole, so of course tabs are kept on them to ensure they do not harm anyone else.

 

[MagicRose99]

i agree a spouse wont need every lurid detail of your past. my husband has no right to the details of my sex life with my ex. he has a right to know if i have in the past tortured and killed. the whole reason he must keep his past secret is people want to harm him and his family. she is about to become part of his family. the truth has a way of leaking out sooner or later. when it becomes public she will have to face people who know she married him. that would affect her and is something she has a right to know before she marries or reproduces with the poor little reformed murder.

Very good point in favor of her knowing the truth, Sherri... in light of the fact that his family has been threatened too, it would best serve her to know the truth so she is not caught unaware in a dangerous situtation should the vigilantes and/or newshounds find him.

 

[southcitymom]

But I have a opposite opinion then some.....

If you look into the background of these two boys at the time of the killing of James, you will find: That there was suspected sexual abuse, extreme neglect, beatings and violence by other family members, abuse of booze, unstable home life. That is just skimming the surface.

How many men abuse children, in their adult lives and then marry without telling their future spouse that they were just realized from Prison oh lets just say 2 months ago for extreme child abuse and neglect and for beating their wife also. They just happen to forget to tell their future spouse about it. On purpose of course. She then goes into the marriage blind, as to the "MOST" recent criminal convictions.

These two boys had to have a special platform building in court, because they were too small and short for the adult environment. They drew pictures during the court process, they did not understand what was going on in the courtroom.

One wanted the whole world to be made of chocolate. Sucked a lolly on the way to court, played with troll dolls.

The two had to given new ID, because oh they may last a week or so when they got out of prison after 8 years, to this day, people are still trying to find out where they live and intend to kill them.

So lets just say: Hubby and wife break up. Then she decides to inform the public about who her husband really is. This is say after 10 years. So now it is 24 years after the murder and now the man is 34. His life is now over as he knows it. Now he knows that he should never had told his wife about the crime well over a decade ago. It can easily be used for leverage and blackmail, extortion.

The Mother of one of the boys was harassed and beaten. When the boys were arrested, gangs and mobs gathered outside the home of the parents. They had to move across the country.

Even now the Mother and two children at home, have to move often, disrupt school, social networking, friends, if someone find out she is the mother of one of the boys. Her innocent two children at home suffer terribly from this.

Now this boy could tell his future wife about his past, if he feels that somehow it is of a benefit. But again, the murder happened 14 years ago, 6 years have passed since their release.

One thing I did find interesting: The case of these boys is akin to a movie called Child's play 3. This was not a movie one of the children picked out, it was an adult parent. There are some aspect that mirror the crime. Batteries were insert into James backside, in an attempt some say to "revive" and energize him like a doll.

Why don't you look up the case of Mary Bell, you can see how she was in the past, and how her life is now.

I would rather know the most recent past and conduct of a future husband if his crimes were not historical.

No one has proven that the boys "enjoyed" what they did to James, they actually walked with him most of the afternoon. They were looking from the crime and murder from the mind of a 10 year old child.

It is not like they did not mature and grow up and receive psych. help in the prison.

The reason they only served 8 years is because that was the sentence imposed by the Judge. A House of Lords Member decided to increase the term to 15 years when he was not legally allowed. That is why the original sentence stands.

The murder was horrible, I mean horrible. Beyond the scope of my understanding, how this could have happened. But it did and James suffered and was terribly victimized, horribly brutalized, but again the boys served their time and are trying to be productive members and contribute to society. Again, they are on life parole, so of course tabs are kept on them to ensure they do not harm anyone else.

This case also reminds me of that other British case - it was the basis of the movie Heavenly Creatures with Kate Winslet - about two young girls who had a crush on each other. They killed one of their mothers when she tried to break them up. They went to prison for a long time and were released as adults. I don't know if they were given new identities. In any event, they did not murder again.

I do not believe the two young boys who killed James Bulger were psychopaths or evil.